================================================================== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LIMINAL 1.1 "liminal explorations"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ================================================================== EXPLORATIONS? cover/essay ================================================================== "The Liminal Group is dedicated to exploring the terra incognita of the cultural map." In our recent collection of manifestos, we used these words to describe, at least in part, the purpose of LIMINAL. We stand by our words. However, the reputation of explorers isn't what it used to be--with good reason--and, in the aftermath of the Columbus Day Anniversary and the controversy that surrounded it, some careful examination of "cultural exploration" seems to be in order. Exploration, as a prelude to commercial exploitation or military conquest, has been the cutting edge of Western History. And it has been one of the dominant metaphors of progress-obsessed modernity--a metaphor powerful enough to unite pioneers, Indian fighters, conquistadors and LRRPs with scientists, entrepreneurs and philosophers in a grand movement toward "truth." That modernist narrative has taken a beating lately, but consider the current vogue of "mapping" in postmodern discourse. Consider the independent use of the exploring metaphor by several members of this group. One of the keys elements in postmodern experience is the "melting" of that comfortably mapped, well-explored and -exploited modernist terrain, and the result in a profound disorientation. And this comes at a time when the repercussions of modernity run amok demand that we develop some way of orienting ourselves to the world around us, so that we can intervene. Can we live without exploration? Can we function as intellectually and politically active scholar/citizens without at least attempting to survey the land around us? I suspect that we cannot not map. But must our explorations be intrusive, disruptive, possessive, colonizing? Are there some "lands" that should simply remain unknown, or unthought, for the good of all? We can only wait and see. In the meantime, we must realize that if we are to carry on with a project of cultural exploration then we must take responsibility for our actions, intrusion, colonizations. And we must come to terms with mapping a landscape that is constantly changing, contingent, shifting beneath our feet. Difficult, exciting work. May we engage in it with more wisdom and humanity than we have shown thus far. Shawn P. Wilbur ================================================================== LIMINAL Statement of Purpose ================================================================== LIMINAL seeks to apply new inter and transdisciplinary methods, theories, ideas, concepts, and approaches to the study of cultural phenomena as well as the inventive application of existing approaches. Submissions should be exploratory and questioning in attitude and may take the form of verse, cartoon, photography, collage, etc. in addition to research monographs and essays. The term "cultural phenomena" is taken to mean, but not limited to meaning: 1) an activity engaged in by humans as members of a social network, 2) the product(s) of such engagement(s), 3) the motivators of such activities or engagements, 4) the functioning of such social networks themselves. Editorializing is encouraged, pontification is not. ================================================================== PERFORMANCE/THEORY ================================================================== In "Re/Search #13: Angry Women," Andrea Juno and V. Vale write of gender bending by gays and lesbians: "The very act of subverting something so primal and fixed in society as one's gender role can unleash a creativity that is truly needed by society--like a shamanistic act" (4) [my emphasis]. Interviews with the women performance artists in the book refer to the ritualistic power of performance as transformation. The performer becomes someone or something else through her performance, like the participants in a voodoo ritual trance. But performance can also change more than the performer. Like a type of social alchemy, a performance or a series of performances can transform audiences as well as media and representational conventions and formulas. Performances of any type can become group rituals which transcend the immediate environment of the venue. The power of these performances can reach beyond the time and space of the performance itself. And if utilized properly, this power of transformation can change societies, cultures, the world. Think of the power of Hitler's Nazi rallies and his own performances at those rallies and elsewhere. Think of the power of performance (as one part of the total presentation) in presidential campaigns in the United States. Think of potential that power possesses to enact positive social change rather than to manipulate the masses. Performance as transformation and as an agent of social change warrants suitable theories with which to be explore it academically. I suggest that theory itself become a process, a series of actions--theorizing--rather than an object--theory. Theory as process can illuminate subjects such as live performance in a new and perhaps more appropriate light. The potential for change inherent within a performance becomes clearer if the theory used to analyze it is capable of revealing that potential. Also, theory as process is more appropriate to a perspective which seeks social change, such as feminism. The characteristics which make theory a process are those valued by feminism. Theory as process--feminist theorizing--is much more inclusive than traditional theory. Not only can feminist theorizing analyze a performance by Karen Finley in a more dynamic manner, a performance by Karen Finley can potentially be feminist theorizing. Theory and its subjects become united in the goal of social change, activism and theory are melded through public performance. In defining feminist theory or feminist theorizing, the humanist standards of consistency and comprehensiveness often used to judge theory should be discarded. I propose that feminist theory should be a process which eschews rather than values mastery, closure, and totality. By disregarding humanist standards of what theory should be, feminist theory can avoid the sometimes static, monolithic, restrictive nature of traditional theory by becoming a process. Each instance of feminist theorizing, each action, is one in a series over time which accumulates power--power to change institutions, practices, and perceptions. Feminist theorizing is in part a process of meaning production in which women are constituted with their own subjectivity recognized and represented. As a process, feminist theorizing, theory as process, reconciles and/or negates the usual dichotomies of thought/action and theory/practice. Also, feminist theorizing strives to simultaneously illuminate the past, evaluate the present, and expand the options for and point the way into the future. To paraphrase Juno and Vale, to subvert something so fundamental to academia as theory is to unleash a creativity that is truly needed by academics who are working for social change. Perhaps it is one step in descending from the isolation of the ivory tower and toward making our work useful in the struggles of everyday life. Torey L. King ================================================================== THE AFFECTATIONS OF ENTROPY ================================================================== I: IN WHICH DARWIN IS WRONG AGAIN. Recently television's THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL (a dangerous misnomer in this case) presented a limited series titled BRAIN SEX, based on a popular book of the same name. (Please note: the following is all in reference to the show and not the book.) Before you leap to wild thoughts about LBJ and JFK be forewarned: the topic here is the inherent sexual dimorphism of the human brain and not political cogito interruptus. Quite simply the series is an excuse to pass off long discarded views of biological determinism as cutting edge science. Recent revelations about human brain physiognomy are incorrigably declared "proofs" for all manner of social behaviors. There's no denying that human brains are sexually distinct and that certain behavioral differences between males and females of a given population may have their root in those differences. But BRAIN SEX exceeds the grounds of reasonable scientific inquiry as matter of course. Particular examples are virtually endless, but major concerns should suffice here. Viewers are frequently exposed to people having the amount of blood in certain areas of their brains measured as they solve problems. Since men and women differ in this, it is "proved" that the behaviors measured are functions of biology, not sociocultural indoctrination. It actually proves nothing of the kind. The things tested (face recognition, determining emotional states, etc.) are clearly all culturally induced gender differences, not biological imperatives. We are then subjected to declarations that sexuality is also completely induced through brain morphology. We are told this determination is good, since "moralists" will now have to reevaluate their positions. What!?! Without going into the tentative nature of the studies quoted, there is no reason to believe that "moralists" will have to do any reevaluating about their positions at all except to now declare that homosexual activity is a function of genetic failure. In short, gays/lesbians are freaks with messed up brains. Hardly a step toward tolerance, I would think. And I can't help but think of the morphological determinism of centuries past which had societies locking people up because of eyebrow hair and crooked noses, the obvious biological manifestations of twisted criminal brains. Our science is perhaps more sophisticated (perhaps) but it seems that, sadly, we are not. Another disagreeable aspect of the series is the cloying narration, written and delivered in a puerile sickeningly-sweet style that had me reaching for insulin. Picture a series of happy-faces saying "Vive le Differance " and you get the general idea of the omnipresent, overly smug voice. Boys are seen playing sports and girls enact a domestic crises, all because of our sexed brains, no process of enculturation at work here. Passing reference is made to the few who don't fit the paradigm---they had some pre-natal hormone problem which accounts for their aberrant socializing. Again, this reeks of the old "His mother was scared by an elephant while she (the mother) was pregnant" explanation. What's really obnoxious about all this is that the whole show mixes legitimate scientific discoveries with wild extremist sociobiology towards an end which reifies the dominant paradigms involving masculinity and femininity in Western culture. Women want and need to be "domestic" (culturally defined, but the makers of BRAIN SEX will never tell you that) because their brain morphology makes them be that way, and men--well, just fill in the dictatorial, dogmatic sociocultural stereotype of your choice. It is very telling that BRAIN SEX never deals with peoples of other cultures. Speculation: if they had, they would have had to explain the differences they found by declaring then to be racial variations, since to admit the importance of cultural determinants (in all but the most shallow way they do) would cast doubt on the broader interpretations made throughout the series. Regrettably, the series will be endlessly repeated and can be purchased on video. So students and the interested public at large will be subjected to this series of reprehensibly simplistic explanations. The misinformation age continues to swamp us, and it appears that Franz Boas was guilty of severe optimism when he declared that this century would see the end of the nature versus nurture debate. BRAIN SEX is brain dead, and watching it will give you a headache. II: IN WHICH WE ENCOUNTER A DIFFERENT STAMP ACT. One interesting thing about the brouhaha over which Elvis stamp our nation would spit on has been that it got some people to thinking about what Elvis, or more properly his image/icon, means to this cultural system. After all these years it still never fails to jolt me when I happen to see footage of Mr. Presley from his final few concerts. Here, quite obviously, is a very sick and a most assuredly dying man. I want to scream (and often have) "Stop it! Don't do it for me! Stay home eating fried banana sandwiches if you like, but don't kill yourself for my enjoyment!" But he still sweats and strains his way through the songs, turning a little paler each second until the wall of flesh he built to protect himself collapses on him and he's gone, smothered and crushed by his image. Too much for anyone to survive. The "Vegas Elvis" stamp was labeled the "Fat Elvis" stamp, but it wasn't. He got a lot worse after 1973, the last four years of his life were Mr. Presley's treadmill to oblivion, a nightmarish hell by all accounts. Why did it happen? One explanation is that the simple country boy just got too big for his "britches" and drowned in his own bumpkin excesses. But it doesn't ring true. The Elvis story may be a cultural cautionary tale, but not in that way. When told "Elvis died," John Lennon supposedly remarked "Yeah, when he joined the Army," a cold and inaccurate witticism--Mr. Presley didn't join, he was, after all, conscripted against his will. But it does mark an important event. With Mr. Presley himself unavailable to make new recordings, films, and appearances, a system was set up to sell Elvis without Mr. Presley needing to participate. The genius (evil, but genius nonetheless) of Tom Parker (the real-life blueprint for GREEN ACRES' Mr. Haney) was his early ability to totally commodify his product. Corporate America used the two years Mr. Presley was in the Army to domesticate the Elvis as rebel image ( Clift-Brando-Dean format, with music added) in full. Gone is the troubled, disenfranchised youth of LOVING YOU (a great and eerily prescient film which, in his later years, Elvis could not bear to watch--its about a trusting rural singer who is manipulated by his managers and the music industry until it almost kills him) and in his place is the fun-loving maladroit of DOUBLE TROUBLE. No threat there, and easy to mass market. The process once begun would intensify, despite Mr. Presley's valiant (near heroic) attempts to counter it (the 1968 "Comeback" televised special being the most obvious). By the way, it seems more than mere coincidence that 1958-1961 was also a bad time for Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Gene Vincent, and Eddie Cochran. What was going on? Probably not conspiracy, but clearly no advantage was left unused or unmanipulated. Mr. Presley found himself surrounded by sycophants masked as confidants and criminal opportunists disguised as close friends. He lost his personhood in the avalanching spew of publicity which fueled and fuels the corporate machine. From the perspective of Mr. Presley's life, shooting televisions was a rational and restrained act. Though it hardly pays to kill the messenger, he'd probably tried about everything else. Clearly Mr. Presley had a range of personal troubles and made some poor judgments--like any human. His biggest guilt was his innocence. Mr. Presley died as mortals must, but Elvis lives on as a corporate commodity, a consumer good, a product. Mr. Presley was killed by the consumer culture of greed, he was mythically iconized out of existence. Even his final resting place has become a shrine to the manufactured image, a paeon to consumptive excess and not to the real man. Mr. Presley died from excessive and prolonged exposure to the sins of corporate capitalism. Participants in that culture suffer a guilt by association. Elvis Presley, the young, vibrant, cheerful Rockabilly who was bludgeoned to death from 1958 to 1977 calls out to us. Our culture has spit on him enough. I, for one, choose to honor the man by boycotting the image, coming soon to a government sanctioned United States Post Office near you. Ben Urish ================================================================== Married ... With S/Laughter ================================================================== "So you think I'm a loser. Just because I have a stinking job that I hate, a family that doesn't respect me, a whole city that curses the day I was born? Well, that may mean loser to you but let me tell you something. Every morning when I wake up I know it's not going to get any better until I go back to sleep again. So I get up, have my watered-down Tang and still-frozen Pop Tart, get in my car--with no upholstery, no gas, and six more payments--to fight traffic just for the privilege of putting cheap shoes on the cloven hooves of people like you. I'll never play football like I thought I would. I'll never know the touch of a beautiful woman. And I'll never again know the joy of driving without a bag on my head. But I'm not a loser. 'Cause despite it all, me and every other guy who'll never be what he wanted to be are still out there being what we don't want to be, forty hours a week for life. And the fact that I haven't put a gun in my mouth, you pudding of a woman, makes me a winner." --Al Bundy (Ed O'Neill) Married ... With Children After thirty years, disgruntled shoe seller Al Bundy returns "The Little Engine That Could" and pays a $2190.20 late fine to an evil, abusive librarian. He does this after having radio editorialists--including Paul Harvey ("I used to like him," says Al) --condemn him and hateful television newscasters show a hidden-camera videotape of his attempt to surreptitiously return the book without paying the fine. "Does this mean you'll be on America's Most Wanted, Al?" asks wife Peggy Wanker Bundy.[2] Al tells the child-hating hegemon(ster)y/librarian--and thus us--in the above speech that choosing not to commit suicide and ending his--and thus our--years of suffering and disappointment on earth is an act of courage. The studio audience cheers wildly, applauding his intrepidity, laughing, sharing his mockery and contempt for a nearly universal symbol of childhood terror, the wicked librarian. And we do it even if we're not wholly convinced he's right; indeed, perhaps even because we know he may not be right.[3] On one hand, Al Bundy maintains the working class sitcom husband's tradition of trying to "tough out the hard times" and "better his lot," even though he knows he is as forever doomed to failure as were Jackie Gleason's Honeymooners of the mid-1950s. On the other hand, quite unlike Ralph Kramden, this is a postmodern Sisyphus who fully recognizes he is locked into the TV hell of the dominant American metanarratives centering around his despised service-oriented, postindustrial, postNuclear Family and marriage-- and thus so do we.[4] Al, like Sisyphus, is the absurd hero who refuses to suicide.[5] Once again we see that if, indeed, you cannot know happiness without knowing pain, most certainly the powerful reverse is equally true. I would submit that this is perhaps the primary reason Married ... With Children was once the most popular sitcom in syndicated television history.[6] This includes the syndication of M*A*S*H, which was nominated for ninety- nine Emmies. Such a phenomenon would seem to suggest not just a fondness for, say, sordid laughs at "dumb blonde" jokes--the somber failure of, for example, Bosom Buddies tells us that--or even a semi-cerebral celebration of cultural burnout. Instead, Al, his family, and their neighbors recognize, indeed revel in, the meaningless absurdity of their very lives in this existential situation comedy of t/errors. We, the audience, love them, since, as we recognize ourselves in them, we fear (for) them for the ultimate truths they convey through their electronic whimpering. As they try to cope with current problems ranging from the mundane (concerning holiday traffic jams of no interest to the transportation department, the fetishization of women, the traditional work ethic, PMS, Oprah Winfrey's alleged mesmerizing effect upon bored viewers, inadequate secondary education, postcapitalist class awareness, and the intense drudgery of "housekeeping") to the extraordinary (space alien invaders, local celebrities who double as ax murderers, and ancient Celtic curses on the family name), the pathetic Bundys and their yuppie-bourgeois neighbors[7] are laugh-tracked stand-up tragedians for the fin-de-millennium. These characters are enacting a spectacle of playful sign- slide between aestheticized, nihilistic kitsch and the pure horror of the dominant signs concerning the (half-life) "decay" of "traditional (nuclear) family values" at a time when they are being (spuriously) (re)defined by a poorly spelling Vice-President who condemns a fictional character for having a child after its father-to-be runs out on its mother-to-be; as has been feared, some people clearly do have trouble distinguishing between television f(r)iction and reality.[8] Nevertheless, as a result of the Bundy's astonishing popularity we may see that the characters of Married ... With Children--and thus we--can be Very Funny in a Very Sick Way.[9] In January of 1991, America's President George Bush, lagging in the polls likely for desperate want of a domestic policy, embarked upon what could easily be thought of as the first postmodern war, the "war against Iraq," perhaps best known as its "code name," Operation Desert Storm. Desert Storm was the first war of pure images, of ardent appearances and twenty-four hour coverage, of CNN and Smart Bombs; the first war of all light and no heat, for the television audience, at least. Indeed, it had all the appearances of a hot video game being played by somebody else's kid. With characterizations of operatives either so broadly drawn they were either somehow almost less real than even the cartoonish Bundy family [10] or so inconsequential and insignificant as to be capable of producing no more human empathy/sympathy/ pathos than a pixel-sized blip on a VDT. Other wars had media coverage, to be sure; that is, after all, how the West learned of Homer and his accounts of the Trojan Wars. And certainly no one may forget the images of Vietnamese children running naked from a napalmed sanctuary or of a bound Viet Cong prisoner grimacing as his brains are blown from his head. Nor, most certainly, may we forget the images of the horrors of the Nazi death camps.[11] But not until this decade's instant global communications through a virtual spider web matrix of post-New Frontier satellites above the earth could we watch the live progress of the horrors of killing from start to finish.[12] By the end of the war, with his approval rating at around ninety- one percent, it seemed--at that time--George Bush could replace Vice-President J. Danforth Quayle with Willie Horton as his running mate in 1992.[13] I mention the war for this reason: the postmodern nature of that event- -its being so Elegant, so Efficient, so deadly-Mechanical, so Progressive, so Technical, so Very Very Expensive; that is, so "dry" both as a series of images and as a cause for emotion--is antithetical to the nature of (what I call) s/laughter--which is so very "wet" in practically every sense. Though both are ostensibly about suffering, about the taking of human life, about ritualized primordial vision quests, about testings-in-fire,[14] we recall that while war is hell, TV is fun.[15] Like the Bundys, we recognize that we revel in the meaningless absurdity of our lives in our own existential sitcoms of t/errors. But it is first essential to cut far more deeply into the matter of violent humor in the context of the family. It is, as we "winners" shall see, a most viscous psychic fluid matter indeed. ------- NOTES: 1 "Anything in Latin Appears More Important." 2 That the Fox Network broadcasts original episodes of both Married ... With Children and America's Most Wanted should surprise no one. 3 However, even that may not truly matter as the series is what may be termed a Virtual Cartoon with humans taking the place of anthropomorphic animal characters. Indeed, in an attempt to kill a bunny rabbit which had been plucking carrots from his garden one by one (making the appropriate cork-popping sound as each entered the earth), Al inadvertently dynamited a city gas main; Chicago was next seen as ground zero for a mushroom cloud. The characters were, of course, a moment later seen as okay, save for their exaggerated, cartoon-style splints and bandages. 4 See Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" from the book of the same title. 5 Ed O'Neill said this on Into the Night the second week of Married ... With Children's run in syndication (clearly, the operational word here is syndication). 6 The latter so "normal-foil" and all-American they were divorced at the end of the third season. 7 On 3 June 1992, Vice-President J. Danforth Quayle criticized the previous night's episode of Murphy Brown, claiming that the title character's choice to have a child "out of wedlock" contributed to the "decline" of "the values of the traditional family. "Criticisms of the Vice-President were swift David Letterman, for example, simply said the following during his opening monologue that very evening: "Mister Vice-President, I don't know how to tell you this, but Murphy Brown is a fictional character." Newsweek writer Joe Klein said this, however: "... Dan Quayle--flawed, callow vehicle that he may be--seems to have nudged presidential politics perilously close to something that really matters...," the question of what or whom is to serve as national arbiter/manipulator for Official American Values (Joe Klein, "Whose Values? Whose Families? Whose Standards?" Newsweek 8 June 1992: 19). Less than two weeks later, Mr. Quayle misspelled the word "potato." Letterman had this question for Trenton, NJ, sixth-grader William Figueroa, the child who corrected the Vice-President: "Do you think he knows how to spell the word re-elected'?" All this calls to mind a quote from a speech Quayle made to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in April of 1991: "The American people would not want to know of any misquotes that Dan Quayle may or may not make" (Mother Jones 17.4 [July/August 1992] 15). 8 It was, according to Tony Hendra, cartoonist Jules Feiffer who coined the term "sick" in its current, ironic, sense. See Hendra's Going Too Far: The Rise and Demise of Sick, Gross, Black, Sophomoric, Weirdo, Pinko, Anarchist, Underground, Anti-Establishment Humor (New York: Doubleday, 1987) 92. 9 One need only think back to the jingoistic media presentations during the operation of Brigadier General "Stormin'" Norman Schwartzkopf, Dick "Ice-Man" Cheney, "All-American Negro" Colin Powell, et al. 10 Though there is clearly a movement to try to make us forget just those images. For a detailed discussion, see Jean-Franois Lyotard, The Differend: Phrases in Dispute. 11 I am not really so nave as to suggest the war in the Middle East is actually over; the current lull, however, signals the end of that operation. 12 Willie Horton was a parolee in Massachusetts while 1988 Democratic Presidential challenger Michael Dukakis was governor of the state. Horton, a black man with a singularly uncomplimentary arrest photo (very frequently shown by Bush's re-election committee during the campaign), was on work furlough release when he raped a white woman. 13 One need only think of how applicable the "men's movement" mytho-poetics of Joseph Campbell is to this argument, especially The Hero With A Thousand Faces (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1949). Additionally, "men's movement" author Robert Bly has made some marks of this in his writings about militaristic "male-bonding" events. See, for example, his Iron John (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990). 14 I am not nave about TV just being for fun either, dammit. John A. Dowell ================================================================== Making a Mythic Mountaineer: The Creation of Junior Johnson ================================================================== When Tom Wolfe went to North Carolina in 1964, he was prepared to write about Junior Johnson, the area's most popular stock car driver. What he discovered was an individual undergoing a period of folkloristic transition. Junior Johnson was more than a "good ol' boy" who could muscle a 1963 Chevy around a banked clay oval. He was becoming the Junior Johnson, an icon of the rural South, the American Dream incarnate. Wolfe knew Johnson was raised amongst the harshness of poverty- stricken Wilkes County, an area where making and bootlegging moonshine was an occupation of choice during the Great Depression. Those days have become a part of history deeply rooted in our national mythology. For the origins of this cottage industry, one must look to the eighteenth century, when Scotch-Irish settlers populated the Appalachian range and made corn whisky out of necessity. Crop yields were low, transportation was difficult, and whisky more profitable. Junior Johnson was born into this tradition, and carried his cultural inheritance to new levels of national recognition. This national recognition came through Detroit automakers, who were utilizing Johnson's abilities to win on the NASCAR Grand National circuit during the early 1960s. Junior Johnson's driving career spanned 13 years from 1953 through 1966. He won 50 Grand National races as well as numerous local events. If Johnson's bootlegging career was known throughout Wilkes County folklore, his driving career elevated him to a national folk legend. His Driving career reads like a collection of North Carolina folk tales. These tales would have been long forgotten had it not been for the Detroit automobile companies, who recognized the sales power of a winning stock car team. These manufacturers were selling two distinct products. As certain makes of cars would win Grand National events, their sales would increase sharply. As the teams traveled the circuit and won races, the reputations of the drivers and mechanics would be used as a means of adding human interest to news reports. These "good ol' boys" were of interest to people outside the Southeast. It was entertaining to see bootleggers battle on a dirt oval at the fairgrounds. The sport's "hillbilly" image was its drawing power, thanks to the stories spread by the media as the circuit wound its way across the country. This made drivers like Junior Johnson more than just wild men on wheels; it made them national personalities. Johnson's racing career is the stuff of folklore. Legend has it that Junior's brother, L.P., approached him in the fields where Junior was working with a mule-drawn plow. L.P. had a pretty fast whisky car, and he asked Junior to run it at the North Wilkesboro track. Junior was plowing barefooted, with no shirt and a pair of dirty overalls, and L.P.'s offer sounded like more fun than plowing behind a mule. Junior drive his brother's car and finished in second place behind Gwyn Staley, a neighbor of the Johnson family who farmed nearby. Ironically enough, when Tom Wolfe visits North Wilkesboro to see Junior race in 1964, the race he sees is the "Gwyn Staley Memorial." Junior Johnson's driving career, which began around 1947 with his second- place finish to Staley, went "national" on September 7, 1953, when he managed to finish in 38th place in the Southern 500 at Darlington, South Carolina. From that moment, his legend grew. People heard about the young driver. They knew he was in jail (eleven months in Chillicothe) for his involvement as a moonshiner--although some people said he was standing by the family still when the federal agents finally caught him. People talked about his famous "bootleg turn," which Johnson executed when he found himself facing an Alcohol Tax agent roadblock. Fans shook with delight as they gossiped about Junior throwing his supercharged Oldsmobile into second gear, locking the steering wheel at its maximum point of movement, then mashing the gas pedal to the floor, at which point the Feds would get sprayed with gravel as Johnson's Olds spun 180 degrees and roared off in the opposite direction. This was great history, the stuff they never read in school. What fun the Depression must have been in North Carolina, the racing fans exclaimed. It was Wolfe's 1965 article in Esquire magazine about Junior Johnson that really shifted the folklore mill into high gear. All throughout his story, Tom Wolfe inserted tale after tale about the driver as told to him by rabid fans. "I wasn't in the South five minutes," Wolfe wrote, "before people started making oaths, having visions, telling these hulking great stories, all on the subject of Junior Johnson." Junior Johnson, to people of the rural South, was their redeemer--a savior who drove the paint off a 1964 Dodge to save his followers' souls. Here he was--the man who beat a federal roadblock by installing a siren and flashing red light in the grill of his Oldsmobile to resemble a lawman--out on Sundays giving 175 MPH novenas to the devout who gathered at Our Lady of the High-Banked One-and-a-Half Mile Paved oval. Wherever two or more have gathered in Junior's name, mouths will open and a Rebel Yell will be heard, singing the praises of the New South. It will rise again because of the powerful car makers in Michigan who worship rural heroes. The Ford Motor Company, who Junior Johnson drove for in 1965, admitted years ago it spent almost five million dollars trying to beat Johnson and his Chevrolet in 1963. That year Junior put his car on the front row in 17 of 33 races (10 were pole positions). That year Johnson won seven races and took home over $65,000. The bootlegger could beat Detroit at its own game, the Southern fans shouted; this man from the mountains didn't need big dollar sponsorship from General Motors. He was a legend, a man greater than mere corporations, a man who was the South. As Tom Wolfe wrote in 1965, "Junior Johnson has followers who need to keep him, symbolically, riding through the nighttime like a demon.... [He is] a hero a whole people or class of people can identify with." Mark Howell ================================================================== COOL IS UNCOOL: THE "IN GROUP" ATTEMPTS OF THE 1992 MTV MUSIC AWARDS ================================================================== MTV attempts to posit itself as a "non-corporation," a group of media pirates who happened to get control of a network and turn it into garage TV," when in fact MTV is a multi-national corporation whose conglomerates form a billion-dollar industry, the Home Shopping Network for disaffected youth. The current MTV corporate image mumbles, "Hey, man, I don't know how I got invited to this party, but look, I'm having fun." This, of course, is just so much electronic bullshit. The station spends millions of dollars to affect a self-mocking moniker wherein the (male) veejays are sloppy (Ricky I have enough tattoos on my right arm alone to be a metal dude"), the commercial spokesmen are self-mocking (Denis Leary), and the best music is seemingly raw (MTV Unplugged). MTV tries desperately hard to forget its commercial history (and current purpose for being) by creating other programming, and legitimizing its own art (while actually selling to the industry again) by developing and airing its own awards show. In response to industry criticism that past awards shows have been too serious (imagine the Sony boardroom: "Son - we ain't makin' art here; we're selling CD's. Cut the shit or we'll cut your funding"), came the 1992 MTV Music Awards. Matter of fact, it's still coming: MTV sells so much ad revenue for this program that you will probably still be able to watch it when Anthony's "I'm a a Pepper" tits ('scuse me, pecs) hang past his balls. So, what did they do to "lite-en" the show? Let's start with the host, Dana Carvey. Carvey was chosen primarily for his role of Garth in "Wayne's World." So we begin with a host chosen for fictional capabilities. Carvey further pulls away from reality by not appearing as his self (if indeed there does exist a self within this actor), but as different characters from another network's program, "Saturday Night Live." The beginning of the awards show is even more unreal, with Carvey as Bush as Jack Palance doing MTV Awards as Academys. Confused? No problem. Remember, the goal here is being cool, appealing to the youth market (as seen not through this target market's gaze but through the ideals of corporate owners from the US and Japan). So we have Garth playing drums for U2 via video - and threatening to "hurl" because he's so excited, you have Kurt Loder claiming to do a first in interactive interviewing by interviewing U2 via Zoo TV video (come on, MTV boys, you don't do interactive video conferences?) That's not cool enough for you? Well, the boys at MTV really know how to appeal to the youthful masses - through bodily function humor. Presenting for the metal category (because those corporate whizzes certainly understand that all metal listeners are dudes who enjoy lying around in their fecal matter) was FARTMAN, a stunning "humorous" creation by Howard Stern. The writers let no gaseous joke slip by, from exploding podiums and stereo sound effects to Carvey's follow-up with "silent-but-deadlies" and "pull my finger" as his Carson/McMahan incarnation. In the most significant display of corporate humor, Stern was paired with Luke Perry, for the rock-n-roll Beauty and the Beast innuendo. (Get it, dude?) In effect, by attempting to appropriate standards and attitudes of a subgroup the corporate leaders have never been part of, MTV undermines its attempts at in-group humor and identification, mocks corporate standards rather than succeeding in self-parody, and becomes in fact duller than all it attempts to ascend from. Another example of this is the wearing by hosts and presenters of leather and sequined red ribbons. By taking what is a cool symbol of protest- simple red ribbon and safety pins (via ACT-UP) - and garnishing it with gaudy expense, MTV "kitches" what once was a true "in" symbol, rather like when older men drive sports cars or wear cowboy boots, or your home-ec teacher wears a "clip-on" nose ring. The power, the in-group identification is lost, usually not even known, so what finally exists is a non-realized self-parody, done not through being cool, but woefully stupid. In the end, what matters in the MTV Awards is not who won, but who bought these nominations and awards. Certainly you'll find this is not the "in-group" nor anyone affiliated with the group. Molly Merryman ================================================================== Bilateral/Tripartite ================================================================== I propose the investigation of the performance of folk music in bars, clubs, and recording studios to determine the impact of technology and the mass media on the performance of traditional materials and to establish a link (and separation) between popular music and folk music. Moses Asch, who founded and ran Folkways Records, admits to shortening songs and texts to accommodate the necessary limitations inherent in the recording process. My speculation is that the theories of oral-formulaic composition, developed by Milman Parry and Albert Lord, provide a useful methodology for examining the separation between the popular arts/media and the folk performance. That is, the music performed in small group settings, generally consider "Popular Music" can be profitably understood as extensions of the traditional processes of lengthening and shortening of musical texts that occur organically in the traditional "Folk" performance. The line between classic folk culture and modern popular culture is one of the tremendous gray areas for the popular culture scholar. It is my contention that a simple model might be constructed which would enable the scholar to examine the artifacts and texts collected to understand the interrelationship between these forms of folk music and popular music. The model also would be helpful to distinguish between genres and formulas present in these artifacts. I would suggest the following Bilateral-Tripartite system of observation; a Contextual approach: Context Tradition Business Audience Aesthetics context = synchronic tradition = diachronic (specific place) (place over time) Here I would study the context of a performance by examining the business, audience, and aesthetics and the tradition of a performance by examining the business, audience, and aesthetics. This would enable me to explore the entire sphere of the artifact. By changing any one of these factors, the artifact would either change genres or cross over the line from folk music to popular music. My speculation is that the theories of oral-formulaic composition, developed by Milman Parry and Albert Lord, provide a useful methodology for examining the recorded traditional materials. That is, the changes required during the recording process can be profitably understood as extensions of the traditional processes of lengthening and shortening of musical texts that occur organically in a performance. Moses Asch was a leader in keeping oral formulaic songs intact while working with artists to "...edit and think about time and everything else." He said that while recording Woody Guthrie, he was "...interested in the content, not in the engineering."[1] Asch's passion was for folk music. Folkways boasts of ethnic, country and bluegrass, spoken word, classical, children's, and sea chantey recordings. His theory of recording was preserving "... what intellectual knowledge...we get from a record, rather than...super high fidelity..." [2] At first he recorded directly on wax, then acetate, and, finally, after World War II, tape. His practice was to record texts as they organically existed to document culture. Starting with Asch Records, evolving into Disc Records, and finally into Folkways, Moses Asch made an important contribution to the recording industry, while preserving cultural texts. Nevertheless, he did require folk artists to adapt their material so that he could include much of it on commercially available recordings. The Parry-Lord thesis has been presented in Albert Lord's The Singer of Tales According to it, oral-formulaic composition identifies a folk performance as an interactive process in which the audience and performer influence and alter the performer's text according to various aspects of the social context. The performance of folk music to small group audiences involves the use of formula: i.e. groups of words used to express concepts under specific conditions. The audience will respond to the performer and the performer will change lengthen and shorten the song to meet the desires of the audience.[3] In performances which involve instrumental music along with vocals, the theory can be applied to the music as well. I have come to use the phrase aural-formulaic composition in place of oral-formulaic to assist in the distinction made with the different spelling and implied meaning. Aural is used to describe the musical notes and chords found in a folk music performance rather than the words and linguistics of speech. The emergence of the technology to permanently record a musical performance permitted the collection of sung words and performed music rather than purely verbatim transcriptions. When this technology began, the length of a recording was limited to two-and-half minutes. This, as Moses Asch has stated, lead the artist and producer to sometimes lengthen, but most often shorten, the performance. The intersection of the traditional act of folk performance with the act of recorded documentation changed the method by which oral forms were transmitted and received by an audience. This intersection of traditional performance with technology requires different approaches to its understanding. Recording is, in itself, not a traditional act and requires additional perspectives, including the awareness of the impact of technology upon culture. This dissertation, then, will involve both the use of folklore methodology for the purpose of understanding the impact of technology on folk culture and the impact of folk culture on technology and a new definition of folk music in an era of mass media distribution of traditional folk texts. The recording process involves the act of shortening and lengthening the text to fit the technological time span on a ten-inch, 78 r.p.m. or 75 minute Compact Disc record is a reaction to context. Unlike the natural context in the field, however, the context of the performance is a technological content. The technology is an element which must be studied to understand the culture which produced the artifact. The technology and the text combine to make a statement about the culture that produced it. The folk songs changed to meet the requirements of a changing technological world. Asch managed to shorten traditional material for publication on ten-inch records while at the same time remaining true to those materials. The Folkways records appear to be faithful representations of the traditions they document. It was through an instinctive understanding of what can be deleted and how that Asch was able to do this. The exploration of the musical notes and chords will be used as data to support the project's basic assumptionthat the performance of folk music in clubs can best be understood as extensions of the traditional processes of lengthening and shortening of musical texts that occur organically in traditional folk tale performances. Oral formulaic composition. defines formula as groups of words used to express a concept under specific conditions. This results in a performer knowing the story, but not the exact words. The words change during each performance to meet the needs, expectations, and reactions of the audience. In this way, a folk performance is an interactive process in which the audience and performer influence and change the performance to fit the social context. Lord anticipates Dan Ben-Amos[4] who presents the idea of folklore as any event, or thing, which holds as its root audience and performer interaction. The same can be said of rock and popular music. ------- NOTES: 1 Scherman, Tony. This Man Captured the True Sounds of a Whole World." Smithsonian. 2 Dunson, Josh. Anthology of American Folk Music. New York: Oak Publications, 1973. Interviews with Moses Asch. 3 Ben-Amos, Dan. Sweet Words: Storytelling Events in Benin. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1975. 4 Ben-Amos, Dan . Sweet Words: Storytelling Events in Benin. Michael Leo McHugh American Culture Studies, Bowling Green State University Associate Editor, Rock & Rap Confidential/ ================================================================== CHARTING THE RHETORICAL TOPOGRAPHY OF MICHAEL JACKSON'S FACE AND NOTES ON THE COLUMBIAN EXCHANGE ================================================================== "take a look at yourself, and then make a change" - "Man in the Mirror" Bad "I'm not going to spend my life being a color" - "Black or White" Dangerous "The map is not the terrain" - Alfred Korzybski In the supermarket, the tabloids scream: MICHAEL JACKSON SLEEPS IN HYPERBARIC CHAMBER! MICHAEL JACKSON TO BUY ELEPHANT MAN'S BONES! MICHAEL ATTENDS LIZ'S WEDDING WITH (Choose one or more: BUBBLES THE CHIMP, BROOKE SHIELDS, EMMANUELLE LEWIS, MARIO CUOMO)! JACKSON TO WED SPACE ALIEN! MICHAEL HAS (Choose one or more: NOSE, CHIN, CHEEKS, EYES, MOUTH, TOES) SURGICALLY ALTERED! Michael Jackson's eccentric behavior and numerous plastic surgeries have been not only fuel for tabloid stories, but also for standup comedy routines and endless popular and academic discussion. Much of the discussion attempts to explain Jackson's actions; to map the terrain of a seemingly inconsistent and erratic personality. In spite of all the speculation, Michael Jackson remains an enigma, a land largely unknown and uncharted. As a member of American popular culture I have been appalled and fascinated by Jackson's behavior and joined in the popular speculation by offering explanations of stunted childhood in pop psychobabble. As a scholar of rhetoric and an academic explorer I have become interested increasingly in the suasory aspects Jackson's behavior, and especially his plastic surgery. Michael is manipulating his image to such an extent that it alters our perceptions of him; he is trying to persuade us to view his facial landscape in certain manner. To explore this landscape and critique Michael Jackson's effectiveness as a rhetor (in a neo-Aristotlean sense) we need to chart the intent behind his actions and the goals he hopes to achieve. What is Michael Jackson trying to persuade us about himself and the world? What does he want from us? What lands does he want us to discover? Jackson's songs, especially on Bad and Dangerous reflect, on a global scale, concern with a variety of social issues including justice, racial equality, and the environment. One of Jackson's goals seems to be to save us and our planet. "Man in the Mirror" asks us to "make the world a better place" (Bad) and "Planet Earth" shows the inseparable relationship between human beings and their world (Dangerous). Given a messianic goal, Jackson's plastic surgery can be seen as an attempt to influence his source credibility, or in Aristotlean terms, his ethos. Part of the reason for the surgery seems consonant with Jackson's pan-humanistic empathetic message. Jackson is attempting to be aracial and nongendered or, at the least, be racially indeterminate and gender nonspecific. To become aracial Jackson has had his nose altered and his skin lightened, which gives him a Caucasian appearance. This appearance, however, must be constantly realigned with our past perceptions of a blacker Jackson and his image as an African American entertainer. Jackson's thin physique, high cheekbones, mascaraed eyes, and high-pitched voice contrast with the perception of Michael Jackson the male and the patriarchal/ heterosexual content of many of his songs and videos. Thus by creating dissonance between appearance and "reality" Jackson creates an image that lacks racial or gender specificity to create an archetypal "everyperson." Jackson's intent as a pan-humanistic spokesman may be reinforced by the psychobiological concept of neoteny. As Elizabeth A. Lawrence points out, neoteny is a condition in which there is retention of youthful attributes into adulthood. Human beings represent a neotenous species because they retain into maturity certain characteristics that were originally juvenile traits of other primates. Physical attributes of neoteny include a high and slightly bulging forehead, large eyes, and rounded cheeks. According to Lorenz, human infants and other creatures with these traits may initiate a parenting or nurturing response in human adults. Lawrence points out that Mickey and Minnie Mouse, many dolls, and most domesticated animals have neotenous features . Neoteny may explain partly Michael Jackson's intent as a public pan- humanistic spokesman. Jackson is creating a face that stirs primal instincts in humans. In addition, neoteny may explain some of Jackson's personal reasons for surgery. Since neoteny is so tied to our perceptions of youth and aging, Jackson's plastic surgery may represent an attempt to remain eternally youthful. Although cosmetic surgery has been used for years to provide a more youthful appearance by removing wrinkles or lifting sagging jowls, Jackson is actively working to reconform his face to neotenous proportions. Jackson's surgery goes beyond surgery that removes wrinkles and allows an adult to look more youthful. Jackson's surgery allows him to look like a juvenile or infant. This use of plastic surgery may help stave off the reality of mortality for Jackson that is evidenced in his often morbid fascination with death (e.g., purchasing John Merrick's bones, sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber, paying for several people's funerals). While one of Jackson's intents seems to be to recontour his facial topography to a universally acceptable appearance residing in some liminal landscape between male/female, and black/white, he is creating a face that is danger of becoming unrecognizable as human. Jackson may have a face soon that is alien and otherworldly terrain to all. Jackson's face is becoming similar to E.T., the space child in 2001, the aliens of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and the "real" aliens of Whitley Streiber's Communion. Perhaps this is Michael Jackson's main intent: to become the universal other. With appearance and behavior strange to all Jackson would continue to be infinitely readable, open to conjecture and the objectifying gaze of all, the ultimate open text. This goal is also consonant with Jackson's messianic intent. Instead of becoming the pan-humanistic savior, however, Jackson becomes the alien savior from science fiction novels, films, and UFO encounter stories. Jackson nikt barata Gort. Jackson's creation of himself as ultimate other may have another intent: the numerous plastic surgeries and bizarre behavior may be nothing more than clever ploys to keep Jackson in the limelight so that he may sell more albums and videos and increase his stock as a celebrity spokesperson. Indeed it is said that Jackson created the hyperbaric chamber rumor and allowed it to be spread. If Jackson's only motivations are recognition and monetary gain, his pan-humanistic messages may be nothing but cynical devices to increase the bottom line. Jackson's effectiveness as a rhetor rests on his ability to remain in the public eye. Up to this point his transforming facial landscape and eccentric lifestyle have kept his pan-humanistic message before the public and assured commercial success for his various creative projects. Several critics have observed, however, a tenuous note to Dangerous that indicates that Jackson may becoming uncertain of the direction to proceed with his music. If Michael Jackson becomes less adept at manipulating the public discussion of his persona, or if the public loses interest in constantly remapping the terrain of Jackson's intent and meaning, he may be forced to abdicate the title of "King of Pop." Notes on the Columbian Exchange How valuable is an exploration of the rhetorical topography of Michael Jackson's face, or for that matter, any cultural exploration? Explorers after Columbus brought disease and pestilence and destroyed civilizations. In attempting to map meaning and explore culture, do I impoverish the culture I explore? Do explorations of intent and meaning denigrate or reduce a culture? Even explorations that posit positive aspects of culture, such as ethnographies of dominant ideology resistant readers may have negative consequences. Some critics have argued that reader response theory may reinforce passivity in social action. Do I give anything to the culture I explore? I may be able to say that Jackson's potentially manipulative use of the media would have caused Aristotle to call into question Jackson's good will, or his ethical motivational relationship with his audience, and thus the ethics of his persuasion. Observations of ethical intent, however, seem naive or simplistic to critics of late capitalism and may not be useful or utilized by members of the popular audience. I might argue that good will provides a means for evaluating action in a postmodern society, but who do those empty words benefit? Explorations into culture and meaning must not impoverish or destroy the worlds they explore. They must be pragmatically applicable and beneficial, in some way, to the larger culture beyond the explorer's club of the academy. James T. Coon ================================================================== FUTURE LIMINAL ================================================================== SPECIAL ISSUES/PROJECTS The Liminal Group is seeking submissions for special issues on the following subjects: THE HUMAN-MACHINE INTERFACE: Cyberpunk SF, Netculture, virtual reality, teledildonics, technoculture, artificial intelligence, computer culture, cyborg politics, information anxiety, (post-)industrial culture, xerography, etc. . . Editor: Shawn P. Wilbur AUTO-MANIA: Automobile culture, roadside culture and/or architecture, social implications of the automobile, fast food and other drive-thru business, cars in music and film, etc. . . Editor: Mark D. Howell Send submissions to THE LIMINAL GROUP, BOX 154, BGSU, BOWLING GREEN, OH 43403. Submissions for special issues should be directed to the project editor, in care of The Liminal Group. ================================================================== LIMINAL 1.1 is dedicated to: Franklin Rosemont, Sinead O'Conner, Jerry Mander, Richard Kadrey, Matt & Andrew & Jay & Christian (& Gordon), Mason Williams, Neal Stephenson, Neue Slowenische Kunst, F.T. Marinetti, & Eddie Vedder. ================================================================== The LIMINAL GROUP is: Christine J. Catanzarite, James T. Coon, Philip Dickinson, John A. Dowell, Mark D. Howell, Matthew Johnson, Crystal Kile, Torey King, Molly Merryman, Michael Leo McHugh, Ginny Schwartz, Ben Urish & Shawn P. Wilbur. ================================================================== 1992 The Liminal Group ================================================================== ONLINE: swilbur@andy.bgsu.edu ==================================================================