Melani McAlister’s discussion of how the popular picture of the three fireman at ground zero lent new significance to the American flag particularly interested me because it touches on George Lipstiz’s notion that even the most ordinary representations contain important meanings or promote particular ideologies. She explains that immediately after the towers were attacked, American flags were hung to express sympathy or morn the lives lost in the attack, yet the meaning subtly changed so that the flag came to represent a culture of “masculinized heroism that was equated with nationalism and ultimately with jingoism.” (274) I see the July 2005 cover of GQ magazine as an example of the new meaning the flag acquired and how pop culture mediums convey seriously political messages via lighthearted articles about "loving this great country", good cheeseburgers and pictures of beautiful media personalities. The articles about being the best dressed man in America, hamburgers, 75 reasons to love the nation, and the sexy photo of singer Jessica Simpson in a flag bikini make it obvious that the issue is devoted to national pride in the anniversary month of our independence. Jessica Simpson seems to represent the beautiful American nation that promotes peace, liberty (hair freely blowing in the wind) and all things wonderful(open fields, etc) … yet could be in danger if not appropriately defended (read: justification of aggressive militarism). Her flag bathing suit, the tags, and the army pants seem to hang carelessly on her body, yet subtly frame all things associated with masculinity and force as attractive.
What stands out to me is the article “Saddam Without Underpants: The Soldiers who guarded Hussein Reveal his Secrets”. The caption suggests to me that the article uses the words of American soldiers to humiliate Hussein, and the greater middle-east, portraying them as vulnerable, exposed and non-threatening. I presume that this article was included in the July issue to reassure readers of the strength and masculinity of America is ways that the other articles, or even the picture of Jessica, could not. How does this cover support McAlister’s point that culture not only reflects history, but also is history in-the-making? And once we acknowledge how pop culture representations reflect and promote militarism, nationalism or in this case, anti-Middle Eastern sentiment, how are we to change that? Why should we see it as important to try and change that? Would our energies be better spent preparing ourselves to live in an age where not even fashion magazine covers, bathing suits or food recipes are apolitical?
1 comment:
This magazine cover is very interesting when considering McAlister's discussion of the feminist justification for going to war (i.e. to secure personal and sexual freedom for women under oppressive rule). The image of Jessica Simpson symbolizes this justification – in America she is allowed to show her body in public spaces (and what could be more public than a magazine cover?), and it was the military (symbolized by her wearing of fatigues and the dogtags around her neck) that secured this freedom for her. It is exactly this personal and sexual freedom that the cover story alludes to as to why we should love America (“God, this is a great country”).
Because of the date of this cover, I’m thinking that this image not only represents the justification for war, but also the victory over the Taliban (her right hand is either referencing a peace sign or V for Victory – either is significant). She, representing America, is triumphant, so thus the nation is as well. In response to your question, this shows some history in-the-making, as the myth of our victory (both cultural and militarily) in the Middle East was created by such pop cultural images.
Post a Comment