Monsoon Resistance

Depictions of resistance to oppression in popular culture aren't reserved for just the grand revolutionary moments - e.g. wars of national liberation from a colonial power or a homegrown dictator. Resistance also takes place in the micro moments of everyday life. Films and television, amongst other mediums, are excellent tools to highlight such moments. They can happen in the most unlikely circumstances and can be interspersed with other narrative themes. Meera Nair's film Monsoon Wedding (MW) illustrates such moments.

MW tells the story of a Punjabi Hindu family in the days leading up to the wedding of Aditi Verma, the family's eldest daughter. One of the film's story arcs focuses on the issue of sexual and physical abuse perpetrated by a family elder, Tej. As the story unfolds, we learn that Tej had sexually abused one of his nieces, Ria, when she was growing up. Ria, who is now in her twenties is confronted by Tej's presence when he returns to New Delhi for Aditi's wedding. Ria and Tej are the only ones aware of what transpired years prior. Further complicating Ria's ability to confront Tej is his revered stature in the family. Ria's paternal uncle Lalit Verma (and Aditi's father) openly expresses his love and affection toward his brother-in-law Tej throughout the film. His gratitude stems from the fact that following the family's migration to Delhi following the partition of India, Tej helped to take care of the family following the trauma of the migration.

Against this backdrop, Ria suspects that Tej is possibly once again sexually abusing another child, Aliya, who is the prepubescent daughter of Lalit's close friend. Aliya is staying at the Verma house in the days leading to the wedding. During one of the pre-marriage celebrations (the Sangeet) Aliya makes statements to her and her friends suggesting that she has some knowledge of how adults kiss. This heightens Ria's suspicions as she sees Tej walking with Aliya toward his vehicle. She makes the decision to stop Tej from driving away with her. She frantically runs to where the vehicles are parked. As Tej is about to drive away with Aliya (all with the blessing of Aliya's parents who have no knowledge of what has been happening and what is about to happen), Ria stands in the way of Tej's vehicle. After Tej stops the SUV, Ria takes Aliya out of the car. Ria confronts Tej about his previous sexual abuse of her and now Aliya. She does so loudly and publicly in front of Aliya's father and Lalit, as well as Tej's wife (Lalit's sister and Ria's paternal aunt) who comes on to the scene. After Ria is slapped by her aunt, she leaves with her friends in their car.

The next morning, Lalit finds Ria and begs her to return home with him. He tells Ria that he believes her. However Lalit expresses that his "hands are tied" given what Tej has done for the family and the close bonds that existed over numerous decades. Ultimately, Lalit is able to persuade Ria to return home, as the wedding cannot proceed without her. In the remaining scenes leading to the wedding ceremony, there is a great deal of obvious tension as others in the house evince disgust with Tej through their facial expressions and body language. Finally, as the family is in a room seeking the blessings from deceased family elders, namely Ria's father (and Lalit's elder brother), Lalit stops Tej as he is about to go and receive guests. Lalit declares to Tej that he cannot have Tej remain at the house given what Tej has done to Ria. Tej and his wife (Lalit's sister) are asked to leave and never come back. 

Both Ria and Lalit's actions represent forms of resistance that have a normative quality to them. For Ria, it is the act of outing and confronting her abuser's oppression, not only against herself in the past, but with respect to what he was about to do to Aliya. It is an act of protection. It is also to break an implied code of silence. The difficulty of her task is even more accentuated by the fact that Tej was a highly respected member of the family and deference is normally given to such individuals. Lalit's confrontation with Tej also serves as an act of resistance in refusing to conform to the perceived custom of revering and respecting one's elders. An elder deserves no respect when they violate the physical and emotional integrity of another. However, his resistance is also more personal given that he must confront his memories and affection toward Tej and set those aside.

MW's resistance is therefore about impugning the implied codes of silence that work to the benefit of elders and persons in authority in a given social field. The themes raised in MW are not confined to family contexts in the Global South. In an interesting, although tragic way, the theme of abuse raised in MW harkens to other instances of abuse (sexual or otherwise) that we see today in the Global North as well. Abuses which take place in families here, but also those that take place institutionally. In particular, it raises issues about the duty to speak up and protect others who are being subjected to abuse. In recent days, the revelations surrounding the sexual abuse committed by an assistant football coach at Penn State and the failure of others to respond to this has unleashed an understandable sense of public outrage against those who knew. MW, amongst others illustrate the difficulties in confronting and calling attention to such oppression while presenting the "right" path.

Planned and Deliberate - Comedic Violence in the First Degree

Comedy wouldn't be what it is if those who engaged in it weren't a little outrageous. But are there no limits to how far one can go? Who decides what those limits are and when they apply? In some or perhaps many jurisdictions, the laws of the state may overtly prohibit the type of speech that comedians can engage in, especially when the comedic speech concerns those with power. In other ("relatively freer") jurisdictions, the restrictions may be those imposed by members of civil society and people within the entertainment industry, rather than by politicians. Norms are temporally and culturally contingent. Jokes that target individuals from a particular community may be acceptable at one point in time, but moving forward in time may be rejected and excoriated.

The recent heterosexist and homophobic comments made by comedian Tracy Morgan in Tennessee are examples of jokes that are viewed as unacceptable in many contemporary North American cultures (amongst others). At a show earlier this week, Morgan made jokes stating that homosexuality was a choice and if his son chose to be gay, he would take out his knife and stab him. Kids who were being bullied for acting gay, he admonished, should stop whining and essentially "man up". The outpouring of condemnation has come from a variety of sources, including the Human Rights Campaign and Morgan's own 30 Rock co-star Tina Fey.

All of this criticism and denunciation is well-founded. Morgan, like other comedians do not operate in a social and cultural vacuum. They are aware of the mistreatment that many LGBTQ youth face, even if he chooses to minimize it. Furthermore, we have to recall that this likely wasn't a spontaneous discriminatory utterance - he wasn't for example responding to a heckler (although it would hardly be justified even if that was the case and it wasn't justified when Michael Richards resorted to racial epithets). If it was part of a stand-up routine, it might be fair to say that this was planned and deliberate "discrimination in the first degree." While portions of a comedian's act may be improvised (e.g. when a comedian engages in some impromptu colloquy with an audience member and usually at the latter's expense), there are many other portions that are clearly worked out in advance and form part of the overall sketch. It is considered and deliberated upon - in other words some time is spent contemplating what goes into the sketch and what stays out - pros and cons are weighed as to what will have the greatest impact.

Without a doubt, had Tracy Morgan made these jokes as late as the early 1990s, he might not have faced much hostility of any sort. Back in those days, a number of comedians made jokes about gay people, including Eddie Murphy in his film "Delirious" from the early 1980s. You could hardly imagine Mr. Murphy doing that kind of sketch today. Times have changed, norms have changed - for the better. When comedians like Tracy Morgan violate these norms, the result may be scorn and denunciation with a potential for loss of job opportunities. Although, there may be limits to that too - after all, Mel Gibson is still acting in or directing films.

Sources:

http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2011/06/16926/

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/06/morgan.html?imw=Y&f=most-viewed-24h5

Sexual Assault and the City

Sexual assault is one of the most serious crimes known to civil societies. It impacts upon those subjected to sexual assault in a most intimate fashion. It isn't limited to instances of rape. It can involve the unwanted and offensive touching by one person or more of another without consent. In most cases, these assaults are perpetrated by men against women. Yet, one can easily imagine circumstances where the opposite may also be the case. This is eminently possible when we consider that under a broad understanding of sexual assault, men can also be the object of sexual gratification of another. Given the predominant paradigm of male on female sexual assault, forms of popular culture do not treat the converse as worthy of serious discussion.

Where it is covered it may be constructed as legitimate conduct. During an episode of the once popular television series Sex and the City, the character Samantha Jones learns of a masseur who provides more than skilled massages but cunnilingus to select female patrons. Expected to be treated to such extra services, she schedules an appointment with this masseur. As the allotted hour winds its way closer and closer to its end, Samantha seeks to accelerate the process of her obtaining sexual gratification by grabbing the masseur's genitals. This is naturally intended to signal the masseur as to her sexual intentions. The scene transitions to the manager or owner of the spa berating Samantha for sexually touching one of her male employees. Clearly, the masseur takes exception to what Samantha does. Samantha responds by informing the manager/owner that the masseur has a history of satisfying female customers in a manner that exceeds the scope of his duties as a masseur. We learn further that the masseur's employment is terminated. Samantha's action goes unpunished, save for being banished from the spa and being dressed down by other women who were serviced by the terminated masseur.

What lesson(s) is to be learned from this? Clearly, where a man has a sexual history, this means that he must be expected to comply when advanced upon by another a woman to whom he has not yet given consent. Let us imagine Samantha is Samuel and the masseur is a masseuse who is known to provide fellatio to select clients. Would there be any doubt that if Samuel touched the genital area of the masseuse, this would be construed not only as a sexual assault on her person, and interference with her bodily integrity, but also an act worthy of arrest and prosecution? We would have little doubt that Samuel would deserve such treatment. Surely the masseuse would have been acting inappropriately by going beyond the scope of her employment with other clients, but it wouldn't justify her being sexually molested by Samuel. Sex and the City's treatment does just this when the male is the "victim" and one of its lead characters is a "sex offender". However, the victim's status as a victim is impugned and tainted because of his sexual history with other clients, the very type of attack that feminist scholars and activists rightfully criticized the legal system for allowing to be done to women.

Hegemonic Deterrence

People in various workplaces are confronted with a number of challenges related to discrimination and harassment. In many ways, they are sent signals to just keep quiet and "put up with it." When they don't, they face retaliatory measures - including lateral transfers; loss of responsibilities; being sent signals that their future at the workplace is in doubt even if their work is nevertheless more than satisfactory; and, of course, termination.

These signals can be overwhelming and may stop someone from pursuing a legitimate grievance. Even when they do, there is sometimes a tendency to feel (or at least leave an impression that they feel) guilty for saying something, "for causing trouble."

A recent lawsuit was filed in the United States Federal Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff, Jaime Laskis, is a lawyer who formerly worked at the New York City office of a Canadian law firm, Osler, Harkin, and Harcourt, LLP. Her claim alleges sex discrimination and retaliation for drawing attention to the alleged discrimination. You can read more about the action here (the Toronto Star article online previously contained a link to access a copy of the original complaint filed with the district court but seems to no longer be available).

Something that Ms. Laskis said to the Toronto Star illustrates the hegemonic deterrence against speaking out (as well as to the demeaning experience of being discriminated against). She says:

“It's a horrible situation. It has been a really difficult process. I'm not this kind of person. I'm not a troublemaker. I'm not even a loud voice. I just keep my head down and do my job.”

Her words are instructive and speak to the larger narrative and construction in our culture(s) of those who supposedly complain about wrongful treatment. One can see this illustrated in a number of films. They are (made to feel like) "troublemakers" and/or "whiners". Such troublemakers are people with loud voices - read: "loud mouths". They are people more interested in poking their head up merely to get attention simply for the sake of fulfilling some need to self-aggrandize. They are not people who are interested in doing their job.

The reality is of course, someone who has a bona fide claim of discrimination is not a troublemaker for raising the issue through a legal claim or through internal channels at the workplace. They are merely drawing legitimate attention to unlawful and discriminatory conduct. They are, in a sense, whistleblowers, for they call attention and raise issues about wrongdoing that may not be known and need to be addressed. By this, I don't mean that it is not known more generally that discrimination could or does happen in various workplaces, including law firms, but that it is, if proven, happening in a specific firm during a specific period and perpetrated by specific person(s). It moves from the general and abstract (discrimination happens) to the tangible and specific which may be subject to redress. Blowing the whistle (which, yes, also serves a personal and legitimate interest), has a larger utilitarian purpose. It serves notice to some that similar conduct may be subject to court action - not to mention the (potentially) ensuing damage to the reputation of the individual and/or the firm. It also sends a signal to those inside the firm or other workplace who are being subjected to this treatment that they have options.

Using a metaphorical "loud voice", one shatters the expected silence that the discriminated and harassed are expected to endure through hushed tones and a supplicating demeanor. In other words, loud voices aren't necessarily the ones that are discordant. What is discordant are statements made to or about women (or other marginalized groups) that sound like the following. A senior partner at the firm (allegedly) states to an employee who is going to attend graduate studies in law: "that's great you are going to Harvard - you might meet some pretty women pretending to get a legal education." Or, even more priceless (and again allegedly) said by the same partner with respect to female employees taking maternity leave:

[T]hat's why I hate working with women, because they just get pregnant and leave. Out of every three years you only get one good year out of them [emphasis added].

As told to Ms. Laskis specifically, the partner advised her that she had to demonstrate that she was more than "just a pretty face." Furthermore she was purportedly advised that she was "not helping herself coming to work looking well put together." This was despite the fact that she was recognized for doing consistently good work reflected in performance reviews.

Clearly, sometimes keeping one's head down and doing their work allows further discrimination and abuse to happen.

If all that Ms. Laskis claims is true, she, is not the troublemaker. The errant partner is and so is the firm for allowing it to occur (on a vicarious liability theory). Furthermore, in pursuing this case and hopefully being vindicated along the way if she can prove her case, she helps to challenge the hegemonies of deterrence that expect the discriminated to not only accept the wrongdoing but are made to feel like they have something to be ashamed of when speaking out.

Sources:

James Hathaway, The Law of Refugee Status (Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada, 1991) at 219 (speaking about the enforcement of international human rights law being dependent on publicity and moral probation. While the context in which Professor Hathaway speaks about it is different from what is addressed here, I think the concept nevertheless has resonance).

Michele Henry, "Woman Alleges Sexual Discrimination in Lawsuit Against Toronto-based Firm" The Toronto Star (15 February 2011), online: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/938888--woman-alleges-sexual-discrimination-in-lawsuit-against-toronto-based-firm?bn=1

Laskis v. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, 11-Civ-0585 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Communities of Hope

In a previous posting on this blog, I discussed the idea of creating communities – and perhaps alternate realities – through the internet, using the film Julie and Julia as a frame. This posting will continue to discuss the idea of creating community through media, albeit in quite a different form and purpose.

On August 5, 2010, a goldmine collapsed in Copiapo, Chile. Those miners who were close to the entrance of the mine escaped, however, when the dust settled, 33 miners were missing inside the bowels of the mine. Over the next 17 days, rescuers worked to find any signs of life from these trapped miners, and the world began to pay attention to what might easily have been expected to result in a massive tragedy. Indeed, as time passed doubtless many domestic and international viewers of television and readers of the news prepared themselves for the worst. When resolve began to break down a bit, President Sebastian Piñera of Chile insisted that the rescue efforts continue – at the end of the 17 days, his resolve was rewarded with a note sent to the surface from the miners stating that all 33 were alive. Ultimately, all 33 miners had been eating lunch in a protected capsule – designed to function as a place of safe haven during mine collapses or disasters – during the collapse, and had survived. Indeed, news from below the ground indicated that the miners were, overall, in better health than expected, although they were starting to run low on food and water after 17 days without outside supplies.

With this news, the international media and the international community were captivated by the tale of these miners and their fates. Updates on the conditions of the miners and the projected time frame for their rescue were nearly daily features in the international news, and certainly the story gripped Chile domestically. Over the next 52 days, the world watched in awe as small holes were drilled deep in the ground to provide the trapped miners with food, water, medical supplies, and other materials, as well as to provide the miners and their families/loved ones access to each other via video camera. Several countries sent experts to Chile in order to assist the miners with maintaining the mental fortitude needed to survive the ordeal – including those from NASA who train astronauts. At the same time, experts from a variety of countries ranging from Austria to the US went to Chile to advise on and oversee the planning and implementation of the daring rescue plan which would be necessary to free the miners.

While these practical – albeit truly amazing – elements were being tended to, the media, particularly television and internet news media outlets, were busy with a very different type of construction. As viewers from around the world began to learn of the situation at the mine they also began to engage with the miners and their plight on a more personal level. It was possible for one to encounter daily updates on the miners regardless of the language one spoke or where one was located. As an entity, the international viewing public saw the grainy images of the miners from deep below the ground and began to view the miners as more than abstract parts of the news. Viewers heard of the incredible plans to rescue the miners, that is true, but they also heard about the medical needs of the miners, what foods they were being sent, how they kept themselves active, and the details of their families. By the time the miners were freed from their underground captivity, viewers around the world knew the names of the miners’ family members, and the touching stories associated with them, from children born while their fathers were trapped in the mine to the more scandalous story of Yonni Barrios, who, it was discovered, had a long time mistress as well as a long-time wife. Within the community forged by the miners, each person had a task or function, and through the media the international community began to see the miners in this same light, as the leader or the doctor or the engineer.

More than an abstract story of a group rescued from peril after a few days at the most, the story of the Chilean miners began to resonate more deeply with viewers around the world, who developed an affinity for these men, their families, the rescue workers who were seeking to save them, and even the president who refused to give up on them when it seemed likely that they were dead.

Especially after the announcement that their rescue would come over two months ahead of schedule, the miners became an extended part of communities around the world about whom the community worried and yet for whom the community was extremely hopefully. This was to become especially true during the 24-hour period between late night on October 12, 2010 and late night on October 13, 2010, when the rescue of the mine workers began and ended. The press, television leading the way, built up to this event for several days, dissecting the science of the rescue attempt, the persons involved, and the families waiting so anxiously above ground. In the hours immediately before the rescue attempt started it seemed that even seasoned news reporters were drawn into the story, expressing both explicit and implicit concern for the miners and rescuers. Once the rescue began, it drew television viewers ranging from average citizens across the world to political leaders to Pope Benedict XVI. Coverage ranged from live television coverage to internet feed to personal postings on social media sites.

When the miners began to emerge from the ground it was to more than their eagerly waiting families – it was to the citizens of the world. In this sense, the ongoing story of the Chilean miners, from what was expected to be heartbreak at the beginning of the story to amazement and elation at the end, created a community. Although the story culminated in the rescue of the last miner and the pulling to safety of the last rescue worker, this community was created in more than a moment. Rather, it was created within the span of months, when the humanity of the miners and their situation became clear to those with access to media the world over. The customs of this community were relatively simple – hoping for the best for the miners and feeling for the miners, their families, community, and country. In essence, the law of this community was simple as well: do not give up hope. At the very moment when the rescue was to begin, for instance, some discussion was had as to the risks of the rescue effort to the miners but there was no negativity per se even on the part of the media.

From the Chilean miner example we see how modern forms of media, particularly television, can move the viewing public beyond its role as a passive recipient of the media’s message and craft a large, heterogeneous community of perhaps even unlikely members who are strangers to each other. It would be impossible for every member of this community to meet and celebrate the freedom of the miners, and it would be equally impossible for the miners to meet and thank every member of this community, yet this reality does not take away from the community itself. Instead, it reinforces the ability of media to craft a community that might ultimately be short lived but still forms a bond that would not be possible without the existence of media to act as the formative venue for the community.

Cultures of Impunity

Photo supplied to the Toronto Star

In most of our postings, we delve into representations and constructions of law through popular cultural mediums and the connections that might be drawn between the two. Every now and again however, it helps to consider the practices and norms of state actors in their enforcement of the law and what it tells us about certain facets of legal culture.

Based on several legal errors that transpired at trial, a panel of the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently acquitted Ivan Henry of having raped or sexually assaulted eight women in the early 1980s. Henry has served 26 years in jail. One of these errors involved the admission of a photograph where Henry resisted participation in a police line up and was seen restrained by the guards. The trial judge instructed the jury that this could be taken as "consciousness of guilt."

The image (provided above although a larger image can be seen by clicking on it) itself is striking in the way that at least two of the cops appear to be smiling as they are forcibly restraining Henry and in the way that several individuals in the line up appear to be smiling along with what is transpiring (perhaps plain-clothed policemen). Given all the smiling faces, one might mistake the scene for something out of a comedy sketch or film, rather than a true moment that transpired amidst a criminal investigation.

The image itself presents a snapshot in time of the permissive culture of police aggression that existed (at the very least) at that time and in that place where it was taken. It was one where police officers could be so brazen as to laugh so mockingly - as though the exercise were one big joke. This impunity was indeed legitimized by the trial court by allowing it into evidence and indicating that it was evidence of a consciousness of guilt. The purpose of a line up is to allow witnesses to properly identify a suspect amidst a number of individuals who may have some resemblance to the suspect. As one can imagine, much of that is lost when uniformed police officers, as part of this line up, restrain an individual and thus clearly signal who the main suspect is.

The Norms of Restaurant Success

Who might have thought a television channel exclusively dedicated to "food" could have become such a hit. Yet, for the past ten years, the Food Network (FN) has done just that. It features a number of shows highlighting three themes. The first theme is what one would naturally expect from such a network, cooking shows. A second and also popular group of shows could be classified as competition-oriented programming, pitting (up and coming and/or established) chefs against one another for a designated prize - money (Chopped), a position at a prominent restaurant (Hell's Kitchen), or some other coveted prize - prestige (Iron Chef America), or a combination of all three and/or other rewards (Top Chef).

Then comes a third category (which is the subject of this blog posting) - programs aimed at advising restaurant owners and their staffs in how to become successful and sustainable businesses. Three key exemplars of this repertoire, Chef Gordon Ramsay's long-running Kitchen Nightmares, Restaurant Makeover, and the more recent FN show, The Opener with Chef David Adjey. The temporal context of Kitchen Nightmares and Restaurant Makeover is one where an existing restaurant is failing to produce profits for a whole host of reasons. The Opener, as the title suggests, takes place as the restaurant is about to open and a number of critical problems are identified and addressed.

Notwithstanding the different restaurants, styles of the particular hosts or the general tone of the shows, there are some common, if not fundamental lessons they seem eager to teach owners of new restaurants or failing ones. The lessons might be framed essentially as rules for success and the proper management of restaurants. Here are some of them in no particular order of importance.

#1 - Maximize seating capacity. In almost every episode of The Opener, Chef Adjey calculates how much income each seat might generate, ranging from one day to a full year. When owners are confronted with the potential revenue they could be earning by adding another table that seats for example four individuals - owners suddenly become more motivated to make better use of their space. This is particularly so, when the restaurants in question need to generate income and break out of the red - restaurants that are about to open spend a lot of money before and around the time of opening while hoping to generate business and income to balance or preferably to exceed their expenses.

# 2 - Less is more - institute a focused and concise menu. A consistent theme amongst the shows mentioned above is the need to focus the menu to fewer items which can be mastered and be delivered consistently by the chefs and kitchen staff. Bigger menus with a greater diversity of options require restaurants to keep many ingredients stocked and available when necessary. As a consequence, many purchase frozen and canned items rather than using freshly purchased produce. This leads us to two other interrelated rules (see # 3).

# 3 - Buy and cook with fresh ingredients. The reason for this is obvious - it results ostensibly in better tasting and better quality food. Furthermore, owners are suggested to buy local and establish a rapport with local growers and sellers. The idea that one is selling preparations made with ingredients from local producers tends to sell well amongst patrons who are only too happy to support the local economy beyond just the restaurant.

# 4 - Establish a chain of command in the kitchen and accountability. In some restaurants, there is sometimes a desire to have two chefs running the kitchen simultaneously. The message of these shows is that without a clear chain of command, orders prepared and sent from the kitchen can be sketchy with limited quality control exercised by a single, head chef. Furthermore, without necessary controls and authority, chaos and consequently delays ensue along with customer dissatisfaction. By the end of each episode, owners are strongly veered toward identifying one individual as the head chef and the other having to step in line.

There are of course a whole host of other rules, both explicit and implied that form part of the rules of success that I need not go into here. The point of course is that, like with anything else, rules form an integral part of many endeavors and the instructive chefs on these shows (like Ramsay and Adjey) play a significant role in projecting these out into the stream of consciousness and set a normative standard.