Love and Sex in the State
Just lots of questions and ideas.
As a Black woman in America, I have said at least a dozen thousand times during these past four years that I want a man like Obama. I know that I am not the only one. There have been many articles published about women and the Obama/Michelle paradigm/effect. There is even a web series called Finding my Obama. As much as or even more than his political views, policies, and decisions, the endearing nature of Obama's relationship with Michele and his children has captivated the world, especially the world of women. This post is about my honest curiosity about how the Obamas' relationship and the narrative about this relationship that was sold to us played a role in Obama's election and reelection and how this relationship speaks to a generation, specifically my generation, about sex, love, specifically intimate love, and politics.
A conversation with my male cousin this past Saturday is especially pertinent to this post. Him and I had a very honest conversation about growing up, settling down, relationships, men, and women. The most striking part of the conversation for me was his argument that men just don't know how to do the sensitive, emotional work women require of them and that while men attempt to do so when women tell or try to teach them how, it is just not inherent to them. I rebutted that Obama seems to have this intrinsic sensibility to appreciate and be enamored by Michelle. If Obama can do it, all men can, I reasoned. He responded that it is a game of politics, that we do not really know what goes on in their relationship. He continued that they [the proverbial they] know that relationships and love affect voters and that is why the Obama/Michele love package was created for the public.
Maybe my cousin is right but I am not interested in debating whether or not Obama/Michele's relationship is in reality what we are told/shown that it is. Perhaps I don't want the facade, if that's what it is, to be shattered. I think the larger idea my cousin's arguments hinges on which is of interest to me is the narrative of love and sex that we create in politics. Moreover, how does this narrative influence what we want in our own relationships.
Economics of politics. The definition of a rational human being often employed by economists implies that an individual acts in accordance with his/her/etc optimal benefit or self interest - often economic or social interest. While economists at times account for the emotional benefits of transactions and how it plays into decision making, I have never read any article specifically accounting for the weight or gravity of the dimension of love and sex in our decision making in politics. But when I think about it, love and sex has a huge impact in elections and politics as a whole - probably bigger than anything else for a significant amount of us.
Let's take one medium through which the Obamas have created their narrative of love and politics: MUSIC. It has been strikingly clear to me that the music used during the campaigns in '08 and '12 spoke of the intersection of intimate love and politics. I think of the songs I often heard before Obama spoke at any campaign event: Al Green's Let's Stay Together, all the Motown Music the president loves, his campaign playlist.
Aside from that, there are also a ton of articles about how the Obamas' love narrative plays directly into their politics. The most recent one I read is this: Love and Presidents: The Difference Between Michelle and Ann.
[And then there is how this is all interpreted by our generation]
So let me use the reelection as a case in point: On election night, I saw two types of posts from two types of people when the President won and we were all waiting for Romney to accept defeat and for the President to make his speech. On the one hand, there were some very explicit statuses/memes on my facebook about Obama "getting some" from Michelle from a set group of my friends. On the other hand, there were posts about Michele having Obama's back and black love from another set group of friends. *I can unpack a lot here but I will leave it at that*.
There is also the fact that despite my ambivalence about the President's record, on election day, I was really excited to vote for him because he is for me a model of the kind of man I want one day as a husband and father. Some economists may not consider this decision making rationale. My point is that we don't make rationale decisions in politics. We are not rationale people in general -- unless we really broaden the definition of rational.
War, Sex, and Politics
I think another dimension of this conversation is sex, love, and politics in times of war or violent conflict. Sometime in August, I read about a sex strike in Togo to unseat the president and address political and social grievances. When I first read the story, I was simply fascinated. My curiosity was not necessarily about the fact that sex or particularly its absence was being used as a form of political protest and activism. I was more fascinated by how bold the activity was because of who the women were. As an African woman, I have intrinsically assumed that traditionally and culturally, women do not talk about sex publicly - not in politics. So while the protest was genius, it never crossed my mind that denying the incumbent and his staff and just men in general sex would have great meaning in the political arena, especially as a peace protest against war as it occurred in Liberia.
Which brings me to a play I read this summer called Lysistrata by Aristophanes. As they say "nothing is new but the history that you do not know". The similarities between the impetus in Liberia and the play set in 411BCE Athens is striking. The play made me think about the millions of private (or less known public) sex protests in politics which we do not talk about.
The State, Terrorism, Politics, Sex and Love
Then there is terrorism. My fascination with the politics of sex and love is now going haywire because of television. My two favorites shows at the moment, Homeland and Scandal, push the boundaries of this intersection in such interesting ways that I finish watching each episode thinking, there must be a real life basis for this story the writers have here. Even fiction is real in someone's world.
Take Homeland. The intersection of sex, the state, and terror or conflict is fascinating. This statement by the CIA agent, Saul, to a female terror suspect whose name I cannot remember illustrates my point:
"I don't know how you went from one more angry teenager to joining the fucking jihadist. So if your issues are truly geopolitical, then I can't help you with that. I think you wound up here because you fell in love with a boy and he's gone now. Now that's a heartbreaker...I want to get you through this as best as I can."
You became a terrorist because you fell in love with a boy. And he is gone. Similar revelations about love or sex being the Achilles heel for these agents and alleged terrorists throughout the entire show challenges, for me, how we talk about terrorism. Not to sympathize or condone violence or terrorism or to romanticize the issue, I am curious about how much of the discourse on terrorism is about loving someone or loosing a loved one, and the atonement for that love lost. What would the world be like if we actually talked about terrorism in this respect - used a language about love and loss - rather than abstract and incomplete discourses about differences in ideology ?
Petraeus/"Betray Us"
I think the only time we really talk about the intersection of sex, love, and politics is when there is a blatant revelation about this intersection and this blatant revelation reveals how "not rational" we are collectively (or just men are?). The individual to me is a scapegoat for a larger discourse. The interesting question to me here is how sex and love plays into appointments and assignments, consciously and otherwise, when there are no elections. The whole thing is just interesting to me.
I am just going to indulge in research about this for awhile.
As a Black woman in America, I have said at least a dozen thousand times during these past four years that I want a man like Obama. I know that I am not the only one. There have been many articles published about women and the Obama/Michelle paradigm/effect. There is even a web series called Finding my Obama. As much as or even more than his political views, policies, and decisions, the endearing nature of Obama's relationship with Michele and his children has captivated the world, especially the world of women. This post is about my honest curiosity about how the Obamas' relationship and the narrative about this relationship that was sold to us played a role in Obama's election and reelection and how this relationship speaks to a generation, specifically my generation, about sex, love, specifically intimate love, and politics.
A conversation with my male cousin this past Saturday is especially pertinent to this post. Him and I had a very honest conversation about growing up, settling down, relationships, men, and women. The most striking part of the conversation for me was his argument that men just don't know how to do the sensitive, emotional work women require of them and that while men attempt to do so when women tell or try to teach them how, it is just not inherent to them. I rebutted that Obama seems to have this intrinsic sensibility to appreciate and be enamored by Michelle. If Obama can do it, all men can, I reasoned. He responded that it is a game of politics, that we do not really know what goes on in their relationship. He continued that they [the proverbial they] know that relationships and love affect voters and that is why the Obama/Michele love package was created for the public.
Maybe my cousin is right but I am not interested in debating whether or not Obama/Michele's relationship is in reality what we are told/shown that it is. Perhaps I don't want the facade, if that's what it is, to be shattered. I think the larger idea my cousin's arguments hinges on which is of interest to me is the narrative of love and sex that we create in politics. Moreover, how does this narrative influence what we want in our own relationships.
Economics of politics. The definition of a rational human being often employed by economists implies that an individual acts in accordance with his/her/etc optimal benefit or self interest - often economic or social interest. While economists at times account for the emotional benefits of transactions and how it plays into decision making, I have never read any article specifically accounting for the weight or gravity of the dimension of love and sex in our decision making in politics. But when I think about it, love and sex has a huge impact in elections and politics as a whole - probably bigger than anything else for a significant amount of us.
Let's take one medium through which the Obamas have created their narrative of love and politics: MUSIC. It has been strikingly clear to me that the music used during the campaigns in '08 and '12 spoke of the intersection of intimate love and politics. I think of the songs I often heard before Obama spoke at any campaign event: Al Green's Let's Stay Together, all the Motown Music the president loves, his campaign playlist.
Aside from that, there are also a ton of articles about how the Obamas' love narrative plays directly into their politics. The most recent one I read is this: Love and Presidents: The Difference Between Michelle and Ann.
[And then there is how this is all interpreted by our generation]
So let me use the reelection as a case in point: On election night, I saw two types of posts from two types of people when the President won and we were all waiting for Romney to accept defeat and for the President to make his speech. On the one hand, there were some very explicit statuses/memes on my facebook about Obama "getting some" from Michelle from a set group of my friends. On the other hand, there were posts about Michele having Obama's back and black love from another set group of friends. *I can unpack a lot here but I will leave it at that*.
There is also the fact that despite my ambivalence about the President's record, on election day, I was really excited to vote for him because he is for me a model of the kind of man I want one day as a husband and father. Some economists may not consider this decision making rationale. My point is that we don't make rationale decisions in politics. We are not rationale people in general -- unless we really broaden the definition of rational.
War, Sex, and Politics
I think another dimension of this conversation is sex, love, and politics in times of war or violent conflict. Sometime in August, I read about a sex strike in Togo to unseat the president and address political and social grievances. When I first read the story, I was simply fascinated. My curiosity was not necessarily about the fact that sex or particularly its absence was being used as a form of political protest and activism. I was more fascinated by how bold the activity was because of who the women were. As an African woman, I have intrinsically assumed that traditionally and culturally, women do not talk about sex publicly - not in politics. So while the protest was genius, it never crossed my mind that denying the incumbent and his staff and just men in general sex would have great meaning in the political arena, especially as a peace protest against war as it occurred in Liberia.
Which brings me to a play I read this summer called Lysistrata by Aristophanes. As they say "nothing is new but the history that you do not know". The similarities between the impetus in Liberia and the play set in 411BCE Athens is striking. The play made me think about the millions of private (or less known public) sex protests in politics which we do not talk about.
The State, Terrorism, Politics, Sex and Love
Then there is terrorism. My fascination with the politics of sex and love is now going haywire because of television. My two favorites shows at the moment, Homeland and Scandal, push the boundaries of this intersection in such interesting ways that I finish watching each episode thinking, there must be a real life basis for this story the writers have here. Even fiction is real in someone's world.
Take Homeland. The intersection of sex, the state, and terror or conflict is fascinating. This statement by the CIA agent, Saul, to a female terror suspect whose name I cannot remember illustrates my point:
"I don't know how you went from one more angry teenager to joining the fucking jihadist. So if your issues are truly geopolitical, then I can't help you with that. I think you wound up here because you fell in love with a boy and he's gone now. Now that's a heartbreaker...I want to get you through this as best as I can."
You became a terrorist because you fell in love with a boy. And he is gone. Similar revelations about love or sex being the Achilles heel for these agents and alleged terrorists throughout the entire show challenges, for me, how we talk about terrorism. Not to sympathize or condone violence or terrorism or to romanticize the issue, I am curious about how much of the discourse on terrorism is about loving someone or loosing a loved one, and the atonement for that love lost. What would the world be like if we actually talked about terrorism in this respect - used a language about love and loss - rather than abstract and incomplete discourses about differences in ideology ?
Petraeus/"Betray Us"
I think the only time we really talk about the intersection of sex, love, and politics is when there is a blatant revelation about this intersection and this blatant revelation reveals how "not rational" we are collectively (or just men are?). The individual to me is a scapegoat for a larger discourse. The interesting question to me here is how sex and love plays into appointments and assignments, consciously and otherwise, when there are no elections. The whole thing is just interesting to me.
I am just going to indulge in research about this for awhile.
Comments
Post a Comment