Sunday, November 16, 2014

White Gloves, Feminist Fists: Race, Nation and the Feeling of ‘Vintage’ in Femme Movements

In this piece, Dahl explores the way the 1950's "vintage" aesthetic has been taken up by (white) queer femmes and how it "can be linked to 'the performativity of whiteness.'" (3) She begins by defining the contemporary femme movement as consisting of "lesbians and other queer sexual subjects, most but not all of who identify as women and above all, to whom feminine gender expressions and the politics of visibility and femininity are central to their body politic." (4) Dahl posits that the lack of research done on femmes and the femme community is a result of a contempt for femininity where it aligns with strict, more outdated gender roles. Because femme is said to be more than just determined by clothing, she questions what the clothing choices of "vintage" mean outside of simply the aesthetic pleasure, and what it means for someone to be "nostalgic" for an era. She writes that she is working towards answering the following questions: If vintage... ‘connects us to women before us’, whom does it connect (us) to? What, to be a little provocative, are the consequences of (trans)national femme organizing and aesthetic practices invoking 1950s legacies of high femininity that also have ties to white supremacy, US (cultural) imperialism and nationalism?" 
 
 Dahl then begins talking about the femme movement in Australia, charting how Sydney's Femme Guild incorporated and referenced Euro-American politics in their activism, as well as how the Guild's manifesto notes their appreciation for diversity ("femme is a radical queer embodiment of femininity 'camping' out in bodies regardless of sex or race or class", "an aspiration towards ‘global collaborations with other femme networks'", etc [7].) Interestingly, the Guild's float for the Mardi Gras parade (with "‘big flowing skirts’ and ‘big hair’" and a banner that referenced Rosie the Riveter) was put into the "America section", which Dahl asserts is an indication of the ability of "vintage" to unite the femme experience. Dahl also remarks that in using the image of Rosie the Riveter, participants of the parade were able to heighten their activism and queer the image of Rosie (which she remarks specifically in reference to a sign reading "see how straight do I look with my fist up your cunt!") She also notes, however, that "As Osuri and Banerjee (2004, 160) have argued, ‘the ownership of Australia as a white, Western country is articulated through its political, cultural and military alliances with the UK and the USA’," and that the using Rosie in a queer, non-American context, furthers that (9).

She follows these observances of The Femme Guild's use of vintage in the parade with remarks made by the two women at the beginning of the piece who have found their place in the vintage femme movement. Both women see vintage aesthetics in part as a way of accessing family members - for one, her grandmother, for the other, her mother. One woman admires the way things in the 50's were built to last - quality over quantity - and the other praises the time's expectation of "domesticity and nurturance". Dahl summarizes that "vintage is thus a term variously used to describe a style of dress, a home decorating style, an ‘old- style’ aesthetic or a fetish, each of which has an attachment to a set of values, memories or identifications that exceed beyond a visual representation or costume" and that in this way, it is a form of "femmebodiment." (10) Because these are aspects of white femininity during the 50's, utilizing vintage in the femme movement has the potential to exclude femme people of color.
 
The final part of Dahl's piece focuses on Bird la Bird, a white femme performer who arrived in Australia from Britain in 2009. At a small local bar, Bird's debut performance, which relied on "a white-dominated history of feminism and queer critiques of normativity," was met with praise and laughter, while "‘Rank’, a commentary on imperialism and racism," was not so positively received (12). After an extraordinarily vulgar depiction of colonialism and racism in her performance, a riot broke out in the crowd, "and while her whiteness facilitated her arrival on that stage, she was not protected by her British or her royal queer status as an international performer." (13) Dahl continues on to claim that "By calling the seemingly ‘banale’ choices of aesthetic cues and themes for public displays of femme visibility into question and pointing to their entanglements with histories of racism and imperialism, Bird ran the risk of becoming a ‘sore point’ or a feminist kill-joy (Ahmed 2010); a characteristic far more often attributed to non-white bodies," and observes that through her article, she can be accused of doing the same (14). 

Dahl concludes that "although the raised fist, dressed in a white glove, can point to the strength of femininity, it also serves as a reminder of a second skin, the preciousness of whiteness and a colonialist and racialized order that unfolds from and is oriented towards some femmes and not others," closing with the fact that the Femme Guild removed the white fist as their logo for this exact reason.

I've noticed the trend of "nostalgia" for 50's and 60's culture from people who weren't alive at the time (which calls into question whether or not this is a good use of the term nostalgia) and have found the celebration of the look without any consideration for the political climate surrounding those times particularly disconcerting. The anecdotes in the beginning, at first, placated me, as the women acknowledged these things ("'I know not everything was rosy back then (genocide, prejudice and so on)'"/"she saw [the 50's] as also marked by ‘McCarthyism and racial apartheid’"), but Dahl's questioning of how dress ties to culture made me believe that there is no way to access a culture without also accessing the general attitudes of the time surrounding it - in this case, racism, sexism, xenophobia - a whole slew of fears and aggressions acted out towards marginalized peoples. I can understand an appreciation for the look but to have strong positive feelings (or even a "fetish," as one woman described it) about the culture and perspectives of the time (especially on morality) I feel is concerning. In other words, I definitely agree with Dahl's remark that "The privilege of whiteness here enables gesturing towards an acknowledgement of ‘prejudice’, ‘genocide’ or ‘racial apartheid’ and yet, a simultaneous emphasis on ‘some lovely attitudes’ that can be recuperated or kinkily reworked," and can see where issues from that may arise (10).

(There are lots of run-on sentences in here, let me know if you'd like any further clarification on anything.)
 
Discussion questions:

  1. Do you find that the celebration of the vintage aesthetic and the implications of the culture surrounding it results in its participants aligning themselves with an imperialistic and ultimately harmful nature?
  2. Does linking Western countries in their queer pride erase queerness in non-Western countries?
  3. Is it possible to remove the aesthetic from the culture it resided in? That is to say, is there a way to appreciate the look without associating the sexist/racist (etc.) attitudes of the time?

8 comments:

  1. Before reading this article I never thought of an interest in "vintage" to be nothing more than a celebration or showing reverence to a simpler, innocent time in history. I don't know much about Australia but in this country I can see participants aligning themselves with an imperialistic and, ultimately, harmful nature. Dahl points out the icons of vintage femme, i.e. Rosie the Riveter and the white glove, produce feelings of unity and collective organizing and women took great care about their personal appearances, (9-10) while they still struggled. Although for some people it is a fetish for domesticity and nurturance, others can take it to an extreme. In this article "vintage" can come to symbolize a desire for imperialist nostalgia when white people had dominion over the world. White people today don't have that power and for some many can feel powerless, hopeless, and, in some ways, defeated. It can be harmful when "imperialist nostalgia uses a pose of innocent yearning to capture people's imaginations and to conceal its complicity with often brutal domination" (15). For some femmes the vintage icons (see above) represent a colonialist and racialized order where white female beauty was above all other female beauty (women of color) and not oriented towards all femmes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 3. This article made me question just that--can femmes maintain a vintage aesthetic without perpetuating damaging power dynamics and concepts from that era? I'm still not sure. What would that look like?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think Question 3 (Is it possible to remove the aesthetic from the culture it resided in?) is fascinating. Clearly the femmes who were employing the 1950's aesthetic were not able to fully do so-- the Femme Guild removed the white fist as their logo because it could not be removed from it's original context.

    But my question is do we apply this same interrogation to aesthetics from other times that were similarly oppressive? fashions from the 80's and 90's are back in vogue now. Some would argue (like the writer of this autostraddle article http://www.autostraddle.com/5-fashionable-ways-to-signal-your-queer-girl-status-234021/) that the flannel that was once a hallmark of 90's grunge culture is now, in some communities, associated with queer women and used as a signifier. But the 90's was not a particularly liberating time for queer persons in the conservative black lash and the reign of the "moral majority." Additionally grunge culture and music was not diverse, and was heavily privileged. Obviously the two times were different. But the 50's were not the only rough patch in our past. I think in all instances we must be careful what we are nostalgic for, and be clear which parts of a culture we are trying to emulate or subvert.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reading this article I found myself asking, "Can only white girls dress in a "vintage" way?". What are the implications of a person of color dressing in this manner? I also thought about what Ray brought up in class" cross-dressing or drag in 50s style. Do either of these things subvert the context in which 50's-wear promotes, hyper-nationalism and imperialism?

    Also (maybe because I am unaware) but I feel like the author overstates the popularity of vintage. Did anybody else think this? While I was aware of a specific "pin-up" or burlesque subculture (which is still problematic), I was not aware that it was as common as the author presents. Maybe I am disconnected, or maybe it is the Australian context.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In response to question 3, while I don't believe you can truly separate an aesthetic from the culture is resides in, I believe if you are a within a group that benefited from that culture, it is easy to be unaware of the problematic times and instead idealize the aesthetic. As I freely admitted in class, as a white person I would have been in a much better position during the 50s than any person of color, which is why initially when I looked at vintage aesthetic I saw nothing wrong, since that time did not immediately make me think of oppression (although as a queer woman I did think about the heteronormative housewife role). So because of my privilege I was able to forget, if not separate, the cultural context from the aesthetic (and as someone who knows nothing about fashion or even what counts as vintage, I have no idea what time periods are evoked by certain articles of clothing). The class discussion made me reflect on how people belonging to majority/oppressive groups can idealize the past by looking at what was good for them (e.g. as a white women I might look at the 50s as a progressive time for women in the workplace) rather than what was bad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to agree with you here, Eliza. When I first read this article, I had a hard time wrapping my mind around the point – why should the way you choose to dress signify anything more? However, after our discussion in class, I do think it's an important question to ask. As a style, vintage DOES emphasize certain qualities and evoke certain times, and while to some that may just be a fashion statement, it can be damaging to others in perpetuating larger systems of power. If anything, that was an eye-opener for me as someone whose privilege masked the bigger picture.

      Delete
  6. There is some truth to the accusation that women and men who celebrates the style of "vintage" are aligning themselves to with imperialism, racism and other forms of oppression. If these people are actively trying to emulate this style in order to portray and evoke a desire for imperialistic nostalgia of white culture, then it can be agreed that they are perpetuating the imperialistic attitudes of the 50's. However, "vintage" today has become a style and genre within fashion, especially within youth fashion. It has become 'reappropriated" into a different context. I find wearing "vintage" clothing today evokes "hip", a little "Urban street style" "queer" and "hipster-esque." I had a discussion with a friend the other day about words that have a negative connotations and we talked about how these words do actually have any the power. The negative connotations of the words are a result of how the word is being said, and what the person who uses the word wants the it to mean. His point was: words are just words, and they hold no power if the person who uses it doesn't give it power. This point could be extended towards the style of "vintage". This could be debatable, but I feel that for a large extent, the style of "vintage" has already been re-appropriated into society as just another style of clothing. Because of this new context, I don't believe that many young people will think of the nostalgia for white imperialism that Dahl speaks about. And so, to answer your third question, yes it is possible to remove the culture from aesthetics based on the motives of a person.

    Having said, I have never been subjected under white privilege so I am unable to fully understand the conflicting issues regarding "vintage". Hence, I can see why there are some who would argue that wearing "vintage" perpetuates oppression and other issues during the 50's and 60's. Still, this is a debatable argument and the answer will be relative to different people.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In response to question three, I think not. I associate "vintage" mainly with clothing worn from a different era or style inspired by it. By this definition, vintage '50s style is expressed mainly in clothing. That style, however, is inherently misogynistic. The dresses worn by many women in the '50s embody the misogynistic role women played as the classic "50s housewife." The clothes, though loved by some, are modest and controlling. The images associated with '50s-style dresses make me think of sexist magazine ads depicting a "happy" white housewife cooking dinner for her family. The style reinforces ideas that women belong in the home and are subordinate to their husbands. This idea is out of touch with my feminist beliefs and the norms of our current society.

    ReplyDelete