By Marc Jampole
When Sean Hannity, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin and other
right-wingers come out in favor of freedom of the speech, you know that someone
has just said something false, stupid and insulting about a group routinely
demonized by ultra-conservatives.
In this case, these Christian right illuminati are standing
up for a bearded and backward backwoodsman’s right to slur gays.
The latest right-wing freedom fighter to speak his mind and
stand up for religious values is Phil Robertson, one of the stars of “Duck Dynasty,”
a reality show about a family business that sells duck calls and other duck
hunting paraphernalia in the swampy backwoods of Louisiana. The Robertson family thrives by displaying
rural values and wearing their fundamental Christianity on both their overalls
and their long, untamed beards.
Robertson’s outrageous views emerged in answer to this
question by a GQ interviewer, “What,
in your mind, is sinful?” Robertson’s response was not that growing inequality
was sinful, not that chemical warfare was sinful, not that cutting food stamp
benefits for children was sinful, not that herding people into camps was
sinful, not that torture or bombing civilians were sinful, not that paying
immigrants less than minimum wage was sinful, not that polluting our atmosphere
and waterways was sinful.
No, in answering this softball of a question, none of these
horrible sins came top of mind to Robertson. What did was male homosexuality: “Start with homosexual behavior and just
morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that
woman and that woman and those men…It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a
man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just
thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes!
You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not
logical.” Note that women never
enter the picture except as preferred receptacle—it’s all about his antipathy
to male homosexuality.
There can be no doubt that Robertson has the right to speak
these ugly opinions. But shame on the public figures who have decided to select
this particular instance to defend the right to free speech. I suppose it’s easier for them to defend his
right to speak than to defend his views, which they may or may not believe but
certainly want certain voters to think they believe.
And there can be no doubt that A&E had the right to
suspend Robertson. I’m delighted they did, but whether they should have or not
is not that interesting a question, certainly not as interesting as considering
whether A&E ever should have run the series in the first place. “Duck
Dynasty” is the most popular reality TV show ever on cable TV. Like all reality TV, storylines are scripted,
so what we’re seeing is not reality, but a kind of cheaply-produced
semi-fiction produced in a quasi-documentary style that lends a mantle of
credibility to its insinuation that we are viewing reality. The great invention
of reality TV is the divorcing of fame from any kind of standard: these people
are not actors, sports stars, born wealthy or royalty. They haven’t even slept
with the famous, as the Kardashians have.
Like the Jersey wives, the Robertsons
represent the purest form of celebrity—famous for nothing more than being
famous.
A&E and the show’s producers have always sanitized and
romanticized the harsh aspects of the Robertsons’ lives even to the point of
beeping our “Jesus” from the speech of the bearded boys. Suspending Robertson is part of the
continuing strategy to hone down the rough spots of rural American life.
Besides, the network had no choice but to act quickly or risk a boycott of the
entire network by sponsors and gay rights groups.
Moreover, A&E had everything to gain and nothing to lose
by suspending Robertson. Those offended by Robertson’s views will never tune in
or ceased watching a long time ago, but perhaps there are still those out there
who haven’t watched yet and share Phil Robertson’s views. After all, even the
premiere of the fourth season—the most watched nonfiction program in cable
history—only drew 11.8 million. That’s a drop in the bucket of the 45% of the
population who believe homosexuality is a sin (or so reports a recent Pew study).
(Having lived only within the borders of large cities for
more than 40 years I find these numbers shocking, but in many ways, we have two
societies now: blue and red, urban and suburban, multicultural and religious
fundamentalist. I’m a resident of the
blue, urban, multicultural world and tend to interact only with others who
share my views on social and political issues.)
The gay-bashing controversy also serves as this week’s “Duck
Dynasty” media story. Only the Kardashians seem to get more stories about them
than the Robertsons.
I won’t blame A&E for developing shows for the rural
market, but I do blame it for developing these particular shows. Reality TV is
the end game of the Warhol aesthetic—the apotheosis of branding elements into
human deities called celebrities through a medium that has ostensibly avoided
the distortions created by the artist’s mediation. But it’s only apparent,
since it is not reality we see but an imitation of reality made to seem real by
the suppression of most artistic craft.
Suburbanites, denizens of new cities, rural hunters—every
major demographic group gets its own lineup of reality TV in post-modern
America. In all cases, the producers varnish reality and give it a dramatic
shape that at the end of the day feeds on commercial activity and conspicuous
consumption. You wouldn’t catch Snooki squatting in a duck blind, nor Phil
Robertson clubbing in South Beach. But
they represent the same value of undeserved celebrity selling mindless
consumption.
No comments:
Post a Comment