Heteronormativity and Overcompensation


In Schlit and Westbrook’s article, “Doing Gender, Doing Heteronormativity”, the authors examine the inter-workings of heteronormativity by challenging the heteronormative system of binary gender, sex and sexuality and bringing awareness to the institution of gender inequality within that system.  The study considers how cisgender men and women, or “gender normals”, respond or react to transgender people.    Ultimately the process reveals that “doing gender”, or “the interactional process of crafting gender identities that are then presumed to reflect and naturally derive from biology”, can be perceived as a threat to “heteronormativity”, and when challenged with the presence of someone who identifies outside of the binary gender construct, cisgender people tend to engage in behavior meant to reinforce a normative system while simultaneously diminishing the authenticity of persons who identify outside the binary construct.     

                Normative expectations for men and women play a large role in sustaining a specific social hierarchy and gender inequality, and structures of masculinity are designed to “do dominance” while the femininity framework is meant for forcing submission.  While we (women, gender non-conforming, LGBTQ, etc.) continue to challenge the status quo, we still languish beneath a patriarchal construct which continues to influence everything from our personal choices to our paychecks.   For some, the need to identify others as either male or female seems to come from an almost innate place as it is so deeply ingrained in our social, economic, and political structures.  These people seem to have no idea how such individuals fit into society if they can’t place them in some sort of normative category.  Under patriarchal rule, everyone is expected to “know their place”.  If we can’t establish a place for them, we can’t keep them there, etc.  This pattern is challenged in “Doing Gender…” with the presence of transgendered people, thus creating various levels of chaos in the heteronormative, concrete sequential sex/gender/sexuality system. Depending on the sort of interaction between parties, whether sexualized or non-sexualized, chaos varies accordingly.  The more sexualized an interaction, the more emotional and physical chaos typically ensue. 

“Doing Gender…” addresses how heteronormative responses to non-conforming gender identities can escalate to violence, wherein cisgender males are predominately the perpetrators, and Robb Willer’s “Overcompensation Thesis” elaborates on the process by which factors such as hypermasculinity, overcompensation, and testosterone contribute.  The violent reactions from men illustrate the real-life outcomes of gender socialization that requires men to demonstrate their own masculinity and heterosexuality through the devaluation and ridicule of male homosexuality and any presentations, by men or by women, of femininity.  Men are far more likely to murder transgendered individuals with whom them have been intimately involved upon discovering they present a gender opposite of biological sex at birth.  There is no record of women ever having committed murder under these circumstances.  Further, men who reported feeling that social changes threatened the status of men also reported more homophobic attitudes, support for war, belief in male superiority, and greater dominance attitudes. Other research on identity maintenance finds that individuals are more motivated to maintain identities that are highly socially valued and discusses how men are threatened by social change. Even touching on the notion that based upon various levels of testosterone and correlating behavior, overcompensation can be partly biological but warns against leaning too hard on this theory because social and biological processes are deeply intertwined.


Big Chiefs, Big Shots, and Big White Lies


Roberto Barrio’s article, “You Found Us Doing This, This Is Our Way:  Criminalizing Second Lines, Super Sunday, and Habitus in Post-Katrina New Orleans”, addresses racial inequity in New Orleans and how socio-politically marginalized working-class African Americans within New Orleans have historically responded.  These traditions, specifically the rituals of the Mardi Gras Indians, Super Sunday, and second line parades, are meant to transform parts of the city where racial oppression is the norm into meaningful spaces.  

Within these organizations is a hierarchy wherein certain members have responsibilities according to rank.  For instance, Big Chiefs in the Mardi Gras Indian tradition are the high-ranking members and are expected to provide council and provide financial assistance for tribe members in times of hardship.  Similarly, Second Line groups have Big Shots, who are marked by the possession of a big cigar and who aspire to social prominence/success in business.  These rituals are not just meant for show but to act as modalities of habitus in their communities and for teaching younger members the value of such cultural traditions.          


           Such customs along with growing frustration about gentrification have been a point of contention between law enforcement and members for a long while.  The article makes the case that “criminalization, surveillance, and police harassment of Second Lines and Mardi Gras Indians can only be understood in light of the role played by socially structured space in the production of racialized class differences in New Orleans.”, and discusses race, space, and governmentality from the colonial era to the post-Katrina era.  Due to the mandatory evacuation of New Orleans after Katrina, it became a prime location for neoliberal capitalist utility, and there has been significant resistance to this by organizations such as Second Line groups and Mardi Gras Indian tribes. 


           The Treme neighborhood is addressed in the article is another example of post-Katrina urban recovery wherein it was generally not a concern as to whether pre-Katrina residents would be able to return with their uniqueness/modalities of habitus. The priority was to bring more capital to neighborhoods in the heart of the city.  City planners denied many requests to keep public housing in the neighborhood, failing to recognize residents living there as “uniquely constituted products of their life experiences in the neighborhood”, and that if the city were to be “reconstructed”, it would be futile without creating an socioeconomic space for them.


           Despite the NOPD’s sometimes violent attempts to uphold a hegemonic order and excessive fees applied to parades and Mardi Gras Indians events, these important and impactful cultural communities are not deterred and are committed to saving a place for these customs within the urban landscape of the city no matter the obstacles.   Upon their return to the city after Katrina, New Orleans residents at large have also become more committed to the preservation of these traditions and upholding them against hegemonies, gentrification, and attack.

On Happiness.....



In the Vital Topics Forum, “On Happiness”, anthropologists contrast happiness as either “a sensory force that colors and shapes human evolution and experience” or “a faceted reflection of the arrangements in society.”  For most people, it is likely both.  The notion that “happiness” is a state of being in “the absence of trouble” is an interesting concept yet not entirely accurate in my own personal experience.  We are conditioned, specifically in the Western world, to identify our happiness with varying “successes” in life.  These include but are not limited to career advancement, social status, and romantic relationships.  This sort of “happiness” is based on external factors rather than internal evolution and is ultimately fleeting.  In this reflection, I will share some personal experiences that have contributed to my view of “happiness” and how I, and many others, may have discovered a way to sustain it. 

Though we live a world wrought with abject poverty, horrific violence, and oligarchic rule, I, for one, plan to remain as happy as possible.  I believe it is often our only defense against the injustices of the world.  This is not to say we should “bury our heads in the sand” or adopt a “Polly Anna” response for every terrible event in our lives but, in fact, the opposite.  In the article, a conversation occurs between two Mozambican women who have tragically lost a loved one to war.  The insight shared by these two women is precisely how I have come to understand happiness in my own life.  They begin the conversation lamenting the deceased and effortlessly transition to laughing about something completely unrelated.  When questioned about how they could be happy amid their grief, one woman replied, “How could you not?”  It seems a foreign concept to Westerners, but that’s probably because it is.  In the American social construct, there are commonly many conditions applied to emotions.  This causes us to incessantly question our own state of being which perpetuates a culture of inauthenticity and ultimately the potential for mental health issues such as depression and anxiety.  These “rules” of emotion are especially prevalent regarding gender roles, and the implications of this are extremely far-reaching.  From the reference point of Western society and my own experience with these emotional restrictions, I marvel at the freedom of the Mozambican women to feel the breadth of their respective emotions without pause and to ultimately exist entirely in the present moment.

The quest to stay present has become somewhat cliché in contemporary society, but in my experience, it is paramount to sustaining my own happiness.  I am a recovering addict.  When I was in active addiction and attempting to get clean, my every action and reaction was governed by my past regrets and future anxieties.  In retrospect, this was the spiritual malady that perpetuates such cyclical self-destruction.  The article discusses how “a human mind is a wandering mind, and a wandering mind is an unhappy mind.”  Eckart Tolle, a contemporary spiritual teacher, imparts that we either use our minds or our minds use us.  He says that we are capable of “watching” our own thoughts as if they are the antics of a child rather than identifying ourselves by the endless chatter in our brains.  His study reveals that when we can gain mastery over this, we can remain present.  Remaining present effectively silences past and future fears, and allows for more feelings of contentedness in the “now”.  This may not be a viable path to “happiness” for some, but for me, it spans the gap.  There are many ways to bring oneself back to the present moment, but in some cultures like the Mozambicans in the article, it seems to exist more intrinsically.

With a few years of soul searching, constant support, and intensive cognitive therapy, I finally realized that everything I ever needed, I’d possessed all along.  This changed everything.  I begun to understand that if it was forgiveness I sought, I was able to conjure the empathy to forgive myself.  If it was love I sought, I had the capacity to learn to love myself.  If it was comfort I sought, I could find it in discovering my own authenticity.  I haven’t used drugs or alcohol in 8 yrs., but with every sunrise, this same journey commences.  It is, quite literally, a practice in enjoying the journey rather than anticipating the destination.   I have learned to welcome the difficult parts of life as an opportunity to evolve and decide how I wish to be shaped by them.  This is happiness to me.  Happiness is lowering my expectations and raising my own questions.  Happiness is letting go.  Happiness is understanding that the only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing.  Happiness is recognizing that fear and love cannot exist in the same space.  In my world, happiness is a choice.   I think this is possibly one of the only ways people can go on manifesting happiness in a world so full of despair.  We choose it because the alternative is likely death.

From an anthropological viewpoint, these ideas are probably more spiritual than emotional, however, if we were given the freedom in our culture to feel our feelings, we may see more of this type of spiritual evolution in the western world.  The article also touches on creativity and the liberation from thought that occurs during the creative process.  It seems that primitive cultures may have more access to this resource as they are artisans by necessity.  Because they often construct their own tools, homes, dishes, clothing, idols, etc., they benefit from the relief of such productivity.  In more industrialized parts of the world, this process has all but been eradicated and replaced with assembly lines and overworked employees who’d rather have a drink after work than do something creative.  For me, creativity is a spiritual endeavor that brings me completely into the present moment.  I suppose this akin the concept of meditation.  Rainn Wilson once said, “The making of art is no different than prayer.”  If the idea is to quiet the mind, the creative process certainly has that affect on those who engage in it. 

In conclusion, I’m not convinced we can measure happiness by scientific standards because it is so relative to a person’s specific journey.   We are not often in control of our circumstances (rarely, in fact), but we always possess command of our responses.  It is in this space between that I believe “happiness” is either chosen or forsaken.  This is not to say that it is an easy process, but it informs our emotional and spiritual conditions in the most direct way.  Likely rooted in gratitude, it is “wanting what we have, instead of having what we want”.    Acceptance is also imperative to the capacity to live in the present moment.  If we can accept our current situation for exactly what it is, we effectively free ourselves from the burden of it.  The Mozambican women in the article exhibit this practice exquisitely.  Ultimately, I have deduced that “happiness” is the freedom to decide who we want to be amid our difficult circumstances and not necessarily in the absence of them.

“I believe that we are here with deep purpose to be all that we can be.  I believe that we are headed ultimately in the right direction.  I believe that we have been given sufficient stress, crisis, complexity and consciousness to do things that are beyond our imagination, larger than our aspiration, more complex than all our dreams.  I believe in love.  I believe in you.  I believe in me.  I believe in this…. The most potent moment in human history.”

                                                                                                                                -Jean Houston-

Southern Politics: The Arkansas Electorate, Civil Rights, and Disenfranchisement


“It would seem that in Arkansas, more than in almost any other southern state, social and economic issues of significance to the people have lain ignored in the confusion and paralysis of disorganized factional politics.”

-V.O. Key, “Southern Politics in State and Nation”-

The Arkansas electorate has a history of multi-factionalism more frequently composed of personal proclivity than political penchant.  When V.O. Key wrote his dissection of the southern electorate, “Southern Politics in State and Nation” in 1949, he recognized how these ideological factions almost always led to the inertia of government where important social, economic, and political issues were concerned.   From the Civil War Era to present-day, the electorate and state politics of Arkansas share similarities and long-term effects of this type of one-party system wherein the debate lies not in which policies to adopt, but the means by which to carry out policies never debated for lack of opposition.   Unlike many southern states, Arkansas politics rarely manifested a political candidate with vastly different ideas about policy except for Jeff Davis, who was described by a conservative publication, The Helena Journal, as “a carrot-headed, red-faced, loud mouthed, strong-limbed, ox-driving mountaineer lawyer, and a friend to the fellow who brews forty-rod bug-juice back in the mountains.”  (Key, 183) A polarizing character and self-describes segregationist, Davis kicked up a fair amount of dust, but settled as quickly as it rose and lay untouched for decades. Arkansas’s long history of homogeneity ultimately produced a myriad of social and economic problems for its citizens, including educational disparities, mass incarceration of minorities, and questionable voting practices still plaguing the Arkansas electorate in the modern era.  Relative to other southern states, Arkansas is often overlooked for its seeming lack of racial issues, but this certainly does not mean it is exempt.  In fact, the relationship between Arkansas’s electoral history and the state’s history of racial inequality is quite contiguous when examined empirically.

Arkansas was the 25th state to join the Union and one of the last to secede from it during the Civil War.  When the war ended, and the Union emerged victorious, President Andrew Johnson set into motion a plan for Reconstruction.  The Reconstruction era in Arkansas was tumultuous as Arkansans revolted against the new order.  Prior to Reconstruction, the South, and in this case specifically, Arkansas, was staunchly Democrat.   Southerners saw the party of Lincoln and/or Unionist Republicans as a threat to their right to own slaves.  Arkansas’s third constitution, drawn up under President Abraham Lincoln’s wartime reconstruction plan, was ratified in 1864. In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified which abolished slavery, and in 1866, Arkansas’s black codes were enacted preventing blacks from voting, integrating into educational institutions, serving on juries, owning land, testifying against or suing their white counterparts, and many more brazenly discriminatory stipulations.  In August of that same year, after much resistance to the Union’s presence, ex-Confederates regained control of the state, including the legislature, and refused to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which ensured blacks equal protection under the law. (Butler Center) As Radical Republicans began to challenge President Johnson’s unapologetically racist policies, he becomes sideline while Radicals overrode every veto he makes against legislation such as the Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

 Radicals brought moral sensibility to reconstruction.  Though the vision was considered utopian, it was quite simply a bid for equality, and Radicals felt that granting Black Suffrage was critical.  They embraced war-time expansion of the federal government, and the core of ideology was a powerful national state guaranteeing blacks equal standing and opportunity in a free labor economy.   With the South’s collective rejection of the 14th amendment, Radicals seized legislative initiative, commandeering Reconstruction policy once and for all.  They set out to remove Johnson from office, and after the President violated the Tenure of Office Act, Radicals succeeded in his impeachment.  Republican Ulysses S. Grant filled the office of the President, and shortly thereafter, corruption within his administration caused banks to fail and unemployment to rise.  Voters turned against Republicans, and Democrats regained control of the South. 

In October 1874, Arkansas voters approved a new constitution which catered to the redemption of southern Democrats, and subsequently elected officials to serve under it.  The Democratic party won both houses of legislature, and Augustus Garland, an elite of the planter class, was elected governor.  As farmers had seen a decline in revenue during the war, Garland and those who supported him were intent on holding their position at all cost.  These “redeemers” instigated the lethargy of internal evolution, educational degeneracy, and an overall feeble government.  These leaders, such as Garland, former Confederate ranking officers Thomas Churchill and James Eagle, sought to preserve the status quo by keeping property taxes low.  The government of Arkansas often outright resisted progress in order to ensure blacks did not gain political power, and “Redemption” set the stage for Arkansas’s lack of economic advancement for many years after. (Harris, “Redeemers Post-Reconstruction”)

Post-Reconstruction, Arkansas’s political system was one V.O. Key described as “one-party politics in its most undefiled and undiluted form” (Key, 183), and it remained solidly Democratic until 1966. The state retained the highest rural farm population in the South, and one of lowest in voter participation.  The electorate consisted largely of like-minded individuals creating a political climate wherein negligence of important issues was the norm.  Arkansas politicians preferred to label counties either “machine” or crooked.  A machine county was not necessarily crooked nor was a crooked county necessarily a machine county.  In a nutshell, a machine county was one in which local leaders could not be bought.   The leaders of a crooked county, on the other hand, manipulated counts and returns at any price.  Most machine counties were delta counties along the Mississippi where the highest population of black citizens resided.  The machines of the delta largely depended on the relationship between landlord and tenant.  Plantation owners and the ruling class usually controlled the votes of their many tenants.  Outside the delta, a few additional “machine” counties were scattered about the state.  (Key, 196)

In 1966, Winthrop Rockefeller, grandson of John D. Rockefeller, moved to Arkansas on the suggestion of a friend to escape the rat race.  He brought substantial industry and funding to the state, and in the wake of the 1957 Little Rock school desegregation crisis and subsequent economic spiral, he decidedly ran officeIn 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, and Winthrop Rockefeller’s 1966 gubernatorial victory over “Justice” Jim Johnson was a defining moment in Arkansas politics. The black vote was paramount to Rockefeller’s success.  Rockefeller, a progressive Republican, ran against "Justice" Jim Johnson who campaigned on a pro-segregation platform, but Johnson would pay a price for his stance on civil rights.  Rockefeller defeated Johnson by approximately 49,000 votes but received 67,000 more black votes than his opponent.  To this end, Rockefeller’s victory was solely constructed of the black vote.  He was the first Republican elected to public office in Arkansas in 94 years.  (Kirk, “The Election That Changed Arkansas Politics”)

In the early 20th century, black Arkansans were fighting for their freedoms along side most African Americans in the South.  In the Mississippi Delta region of the state, blacks were customarily confined to the land by underhanded peonage contracts with white landowners and were increasingly segregated and disenfranchised.   In response to the Streetcar Segregation Act of 1903, black citizens in Pine Bluff, Hot Springs, and Little Rock launched a boycott which was at long last futile. In 1906, black voters were completely ousted from participating in the political process when all-white primaries were established by Arkansas’s Democratic party.  This meant black voters were no longer free to choose a candidate even if they could afford the poll tax.   (Kirk, “Civil Rights and Social Change”)

In 1957, the desegregation of Little Rock Central High School ignited crisis when then governor, Orval Faubus called in the Arkansas National Guard to prevent nine black students from entering the school.  President Dwight D. Eisenhower responded by sending the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to escort the Nine to class.  When busing was implemented in the 1970’s, whites began leaving the county or establish suburban private schools so as not to have to integrate.  (Kirk, Beyond Little Rock, 13)

Arkansas upheld the poll tax until 1954 along with only 4 other U.S. States, and finally abolished it when the federal government amended the U.S. Constitution forbidding it.  In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was set into place, and literacy tests were also halted.  The VRA also caused an uptick in progressive policy, candidates, and elected officials, and in the late 1970’s, Arkansas had elected 99 black officials and 94% of black Arkansans of voting age were registered.  Though Arkansas is often thought to have a milder racial climate than its Deep South counterparts, this is clearly not the case.  Arkansas is rather litigious regarding voting rights violations and vote dilution.  For instance, in 1989 black voters filed suit against the state for passing an apportionment plan under the VRA (1981) that they alleged violated the act, denoting an absolute lack of black legislators from a non-majority black district despite an African American state population of 16%.  Also in 1989, a federal court in Jeffers v. Clinton ordered several racial “majority-minority” congressional districts so minorities would have a fairer chance to elect the candidate of their choice.  Consequently, more black candidates have been elected to the Senate and House in Arkansas.  In a Voting Rights Act case in 2012, there was evidence of voting discrimination in jurisdictions to include Arkansas.  The Jeffers v. Beebe case challenged reapportionment of Senate lines because of alleged Voting Rights Act violations, and gerrymandering on the basis of race. (Kladky, “Voting and Voting Rights”

Despite Arkansas’s enactment of its first modern Civil Rights Act in 1993, it is still one of the few states in the U.S. that has not implemented a commission on civil rights for the purpose of safeguarding the voting process.  As recently as 2013, the General Assembly mandated that prospective voters provide picture identification to poll workers before they can gain access to the ballot.  The bill was vetoed by then Governor Mike Beebe, the veto was overridden by a legislative Republican majority, and ultimately struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Arkansas in 2014 citing Rison et al v. Farr.  (Kladky, “Voting and Voting Rights”)

Voting issues continue to plague Arkansas’s electorate in the modern era.  Mass incarceration of minorities becomes a subtle but effective way to disenfranchise black voters. Arkansas is ranked fourth highest in the nation for incarceration rates at 599 per 100,000 people.  It wasn’t until January 2018 that Arkansas passed legislation allowing convicted felons a reinstated right to vote after completion of their sentence. (Prison Policy Initiative)

Some would argue that the “War on Drugs” was just that, a war against illegal substances.  The data shows the implications to be much more far reaching.  Since 1978 when Richard Nixon announced the commencement of the “War on Drugs” and Ronald Reagan pushed for its proliferation, incarceration rates have skyrocketed, racial disparities of the imprisoned are glaring, and prisons have become a profitable industry for state governments, primarily in the south.  Based on these outcomes, a more accurate assessment is that the “War on Drugs” may well be one of the most elaborate and effective tools to date for disenfranchising minorities and maintaining the status quo.   

While increasing efforts to derail minority voting and progressive policy, the state hung on to its democratic loyalties where gubernatorial elections were concerned.  Arkansas’s political culture where disputes are settled factionally rather than institutionally, along with the state’s populist leaning, helped maintain its Democratic tendencies approaching the 21st century.  While voters saw the national party developing a more liberal stance in the 1970’s-80’s, the state’s “Big Three”, Dale Bumpers, David Pryor, and Bill Clinton, helped keep the state in the democratic camp. Bumpers and Pryor consecutively occupied the Governor’s Mansion from 1971-1981Clinton served as Governor from 1983-1992. Clinton again served as Governor from 1983-1992

 and subsequently served two terms as POTUS beginning in 1992

            Arkansas Democrats now, however, are experiencing minority status due to an impasse between the national party’s more liberal leaning and the state’s mostly conservative electorate.  Since the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Arkansas has not cast its electoral votes for a Democratic candidate in a Presidential election.

            The 2016 Presidential election was on par with this record.  In the primaries, Democratic candidate and former first lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton, was selected in an overwhelming margin of 36% over Bernie Sanders, and in the Republican primaries, reality TV personality Donald Trump was selected in an underwhelming margin of 2% over Ted Cruz.  In the general election, Trump emerged victorious with 69% of the vote despite Arkansas’s status as Clinton’s home state.  Turnout for the Republican primary was the highest ever for the party.  And though the Democratic party was out in force for Clinton, requests for Democratic ballots were far exceeded by requests for Repub. Ballots.  This is also the first election that the state has simultaneously voted for a Republican presidential candidate and an incumbent Republican senate candidate.  Trump's 60.57% of the vote is tied with Mitt Romney's 60.57% in the 2012 election, making both candidate's performances the best result for the Republican Party in Arkansas since Richard Nixon in 1972, although Trump bested Romney in terms of margin, winning by 26.92% versus Romney's 23.69%.  These numbers are none too surprising given the success of the Republican party in Arkansas and the fact that no non-southern democrat has won Arkansas in a presidential election.  (Cohen, “Arkansas Elections”)  All of the counties in favor of Clinton were in or on the periphery of the delta where, as aforementioned, the largest population of black citizens reside.

To break the Republican supermajority in 2018, Democrats would need to gain two seats. Republicans are strongly favored to hold all four congressional seats in Arkansas, but Little Rock-based Rep. French Hill faces a solid Democratic challenger in state Rep. Clarke Tucker. CNN rates it as likely Republican. Gov. Asa Hutchinson is up for re-election as well and is widely seen as a safe bet for Republicans too.  (Cohen, “Arkansas Elections”) Arkansas also now has an official third-party as Liberterians have a consistently strengthen the presence of their party throughout the state.   In recent years, conservatives have dominated Dems when filing for candidacies which translates to Democrats having almost no chance at all to regain a majority in the state legislature.  This was certainly the case in the 2016 presidential election.  

In conclusion, any demographics point to Republican dominance for the foreseeable future, but because Arkansas is a state with a weak tea party presence and some progressive policy such as the legalization of marijuana, there may still be a sliver of hope for Democrats.  Still inequality is the great equalizer among states in the south and none are exempt, certainly not Arkansas.  Ongoing civil rights issues include the marginalization of a growing Latino population, human rights issues plaguing the LGBTQ community, police brutality, pay inequality, women’s reproductive rights, mass incarceration of minorities, languishing public education, and so on.  These are just a few ways Arkansas’s history of negligence on important issues has caused systemic problems for its citizens.  Black political power in Arkansas is evolving ever slowly if at all some days, and African American Arkansans remain at a deficit to their white counterparts in almost every aspect of life. 

 Works Cited

Key, V.O.  Southern Politics in State and Nation.  Knoxville:  The University of Tennessee Press. 

1984.

Harris, Rodney.  “Redeemers (Post-Reconstruction)”.  The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and

Culture.  January 2017.

Kirk, John.  “The Election That Changed Arkansas Politics”.  The Arkansas Times.  March

2012.

Kladky, William P.  “Voting and Voting Rights”.  The Encyclopedia of Arkansas History and

            Culture.  December 2017.

Kirk, John A.  Beyond Little Rock.  Fayetteville:  The University of Arkansas Press.  2007.

Brown, D. and Webb, C.  Race in the American South.  Gainesville:  University Press of Florida.

2007.

U.S. Census Bureau.  “Demographics and Economic Profiles of the Arkansas Electorate”.  U.S. Census Bureau.  February 2018.

Weiland M. and Wilsey, S.  State by State:  A Panoramic Portrait of America.  New York, NY: 

            Harper Collins Publishers.  2008.

Cohen, Jeff.  “Arkansas Elections”.  U.S. Elections.  May 2018.

Couloute, Lucius.  “Arkansas Profile”.  Prison Policy Initiative.  March 2018



Bullock, C. and Rozell, M.  The New Politics of the Old South.  London:  Rowman And Littlefield.

2018.



           








Female Solidarity Analysis for "Petrified Man", "Recitatif", and "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof"


In the literary microcosms of Eudora Welty’s “Petrified Man”, Toni Morrison’s “Recitatif”, and Tennessee William’s “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”, the relationships between female characters are dynamic and complex.  As each narrative develops, similarities and differences regarding female solidarity or lack thereof are discernable.  In “Petrified Man”, Leota, Mrs. Fletcher and Mrs. Pike each form one side of a triangle wherein distrust, insecurity, and envy perpetually collide.   In comparison, the relationships between Maggie, Big Mama, and Mae in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” are rife with condescension and pretention.  In “Recitatif”, Morrison presents a more emotional account of the relationship between her main characters, Twyla and Roberta, as they navigate the encumbrances of systemic racism and the complicated nature of their respective maternal misgivings.  Each of the female characters in “Petrified…”, “Recitatif”, and “Cat…” share the common struggle to find empowerment beyond the constructs of the society in which they live while often refusing, whether deliberately or ignorantly, the sanctuary of solidarity.

First, the relationships between Leota, Mrs. Pike, and Mrs. Fletcher in “Petrified Man” exhibit the exigency for females to maintain appearances for the sake of bolstering a perceived value. The women are benignly engaging with their familiar Southern dialect, but as we investigate further the social norm of that era, we find a much more malignant pathology.  Though the story is set in a charming Southern beauty shop, the undertones of the grotesque suggest not that we should deny ourselves a decent outward appearance, but that we shouldn’t wear beauty as a mask to hide our insecurities or satisfy a patriarchal whim while attempting to convince ourselves it is somehow glamorous.

Oppression, by definition, is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome or unjust manner, but sustaining it requires convincing the oppressed to believe punishment is deserved for committing no crimes.  Leota, Mrs. Pike, and Mrs. Fletcher are all trapped beneath the superficiality of a similar construct.  Sadly, back-biting, gossip and jealousy ensue.  This behavior is central to the dynamic which ultimately prevents the women from feeling safe with one another.  There are conversations and lamentations of husbands, children, and the petrified man, but because Leota, Mrs. Fletcher, and Mrs. Pike exist primarily on the surface of themselves, they become stuck in a cyclical conundrum of missed opportunities for real kinship.  Though they are blind to it, the solidarity they so desperately need is woven into the tapestry of an equalizing subjection.  Such a commonality has been the birth of many a revolution.  Decades later this very concept would fuel a feminist movement throughout the nation wherein women vehemently sought to shed the idea that pretty faces, beehive hairdos and child bearing hips are the breadth of our worth.    

I am not a pretty girl. 

That is not what I do. 

I ain’t no damsel in distress,

and I don’t need to be rescued. 

So put me down…

cuz I am not a maiden fair. 

Isn’t there a kitten stuck up a tree somewhere? 

I am not an angry girl,

but it seems like I’ve got everyone fooled. 

Every time I say something they find hard to hear,

they chalk it up to my anger

and never to their own fear. 


just tryin’ to finally come clean,

knowing full well they’d prefer you were dirty….

And smiling…. 

And what if there are no damsels in distress? 

What if I knew that, and I called your bluff? 

Don’t you think every kitten figures out how to get down,

whether or not you ever show up?

(Difranco, Ani.  “Not A Pretty Girl”.  1995))

Accordingly, the women in “Petrified Man” seem intent on convincing each other that they are adept at exercising strength and independence in their marriages, but scarce are facts to support these claims.  For example, Mrs. Fletcher asserts that Mr. Fletcher is the type of man who respects his wife, but she is reluctant to discuss her pregnancy by him.  She is incensed that Mrs. Pike has disclosed this information to everyone at the beauty shop.  Similarly, Leota describes her husband with great pride, but he isn’t necessarily capable of holding down a job.  Leota and Mrs. Fletcher seek to create masks to hide their “ugly” parts; however, those same masks become blindfolds preventing insight into the probability that their perceived ugly parts are more rooted in the shortcomings of the men in their lives.  Leota and Mrs. Fletcher are also very enamored with Mrs. Pike’s outward appearance, and naturally, Leota feels slighted when her infatuation with Mrs. Pike is not reciprocated.   Though the female characters in Welty’s “Petrified Man” possess many endearing qualities, they have unfortunately become more accustomed to castigating one another than complimenting one another which is effectively the antithesis of solidarity. 

In comparison, Tennessee William’s “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” portrays a detailed image of Maggie, a woman with a seeming desire to challenge the status quo but who remains shackled to the notion that her ultimate worth lies in whether her husband, Brick, desires her.  She resigns herself again and again to staying on the proverbial tin roof which is, in her case, a loveless marriage.   As aforementioned, in “Petrified Man”, Leota and Mrs. Fletcher also occupy their own versions of a “tin roof” regarding their relationships with their husbands, but they seem not to know they deserve better.  Maggie; however, is deliberate in her resolve to remain there despite a lack of reciprocity.  This fierceness sets her apart but also ultimately traps her in the role of the damsel.  Maggie the Cat truly wavers between her plight as a “kitten stuck up a tree” and appointing herself “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”.    The difference between the two is simply the illusion of control, and this is how Maggie has come to reconcile empowerment beneath the constructs of a patriarchal society in the 1950’s.  Her dichotomous state represents the birth of awareness, the development of liberated thought, and the progression of full-scale resistance accompanied by the internal torment of fear and doubt.

Contrary to the women in “Petrified…”, Maggie’s scant moments of liberation are the cause of strife in her relationships with Big Mama and Mae.  In this case, it is their differences rather than their similarities which make solidarity difficult to attain.  Mae has placed the burden of her self-worth entirely upon her children while her husband, Gooper, doesn’t seem to have any interest in her whatsoever.  Maggie views Mae and her children as equally nonsensical as she is torn between feelings of inadequacy over her own childlessness and the more rational realization of the absurdity surrounding the idea that because she does not have children, she is somehow incomplete.  Both Gooper and Brick treat their wives the way Big Daddy treats Big Mama which is, in effect, no treatment if not patronizing, careless, and rude.  Thus, Big Mama exhibits behavior indicative of her own suffocation beneath a steaming pile of patriarchy when she blames Maggie’s lack of sexual prowess for Brick’s drinking problem and general discontent.   Maggie is terribly insulted by this which denotes her awakening to the outrageousness of gender inequality.  If Maggie were a bit further along in her evolution as a liberated woman, she might have put aside her fears and tried to help Big Mama discover why her thoughts are so skewed on such matters.   Therein lies a foundation for true solidarity.

In contrast, Toni Morrison presents a more in depth emotional account of psychological hardship in her portrayal of the relationship between Twyla and Roberta in “Recitatif”.    Unlike the female characters in “Petrified Man” and “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”, Twyla and Robert grapple more with the impacts of racism and abandonment than gender inequity.   Though these are not exclusively female afflictions, they prove to greatly affect the characters’ potential for unification.  Twyla and Roberta’s suffering is ultimately what binds them paralleling the plight of the women in “Petrified…”, but dissimilarly, they allow the suffering to unite them rather than divide them.   Early in life, they seem to find solace in one another when they are both orphaned by their mothers, and as serendipitous encounters bring the two women together over the course of their lives, they tend to revert to such affinity.  For example, in “Recitatif”, Roberta and Twyla unexpectedly reunite at the local market, and their propensity for fondness indicates that the circumstances that bring them together may be much more powerful than the circumstances that tear them apart.  Unfortunately, the two women continue to allow their resentments, fears, and social hardships to commandeer the inherent love they share for one another.  In the end, no matter how many times they waver, the desire to return to love is stronger than the desire to be right.  This is arguably the most powerful catalyst for a solid relationship.  Furthermore, both women struggle to negotiate respective maternal relationships.  Though their mothers are very different women, Twyla and Roberta both seem to share the need to liberate themselves from the associated burdens of grief.  This is another significant factor affording them the kinship that renders them common ground throughout their journey together.   

Also in contrast to the female characters in “Petrified Man” and “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”, Twyla and Roberta seem rather secure in their respective relationships with men.  This may be attributed to either the absence of fathers or the presence of more prevailing issues.   In contrast, the women in “Petrified Man” are unable to discard their masks and put away their airs.  They perpetually dangle between cattiness and caring.  This “fair weather” dynamic makes real solidarity nearly impossible to achieve. 

In conclusion, female solidarity can be elusive but highly effective and profoundly beneficial if cultivated genuinely.   Sadly, women in American culture are conditioned to believe that we must look a certain way if we desire to be credible to our counterparts.  This is a fundamental patriarchal tactic designed to prevent female unity for the sake of protecting the status quo.  Ironically, the purchase of this idea renders us much uglier than if we’d relied simply on our brains rather than our beauty.   Every woman, fictional or not, who has endured and exceeded the constructs of male domination are equally responsible for the dialogue and action continuing today.  As the battle for gender equality rages on, I am humbly grateful for lessons in solidarity and even the lack thereof as these have afforded me the knowledge, freedom, and courage to say something they find hard to hear and perhaps paramount is the capacity to grow in my resolve each time they chalk it up to my anger and never to their own fear.

So….Imagine you’re a girl

just tryin’ to finally come clean,

knowing full well they’d prefer you were dirty….

And smiling…. 

And what if there are no damsels in distress? 

What if I knew that, and I called your bluff? 

Don’t you think every kitten figures out how to get down,

whether or not you ever show up?

(Difranco, Ani.  “Not A Pretty Girl”.  1995))

           

 Works Cited



Baym, Nina.  Levine, Robert S. “Norton Anthology of American Literature:  Shorter Eighth

 Edition.” W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London.  (2013)

Difranco, Ani.  “Not A Pretty Girl”.  Not A Pretty Girl Album.  Righteous Babe Records. 1995. CD.

Williams, Tennessee.  “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”.  New Directions Publishing, New York, NY.  1954.

Modern Applications for Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government"


In the essay entitled, “Resistance to Civil Government”, Henry David Thoreau raises a profusion of valid arguments for civil disobedience.  He begins with the maxim “That government is best which governs least.” (Norton Anthology, Pg. 843)  He then builds upon the notion that government, though intended for expedience, can often render itself completely impotent.  To this end, Thoreau states that citizens ought not to stand idly by but instead demand accountability when the system of checks and balances becomes corrupt.  His work is passionate yet composed regarding his commitment to progress and therefore not surprisingly deemed radical by local conservatives of his day.  Thoreau’s overall approach and writings in “Resistance to Civil Government” applies to twenty first century American government, specifically the current social and political climate, in a myriad of ways.

Initially, Thoreau denotes the Mexican War as an abuse of power by those in high ranking positions.  He asserts that the American people would likely never have agreed to such a conflict if they had been given due representation.  Because President Polk launched the strike against Mexico without congressional declaration, many perceived this as a strong-armed, white collar power play endeavoring to extend territory for slavery.  Consequently, Thoreau refused to pay taxes to the state of Massachusetts which resulted in his imprisonment.  This is comparable to numerous examples of modern non-violent protest such as the imprisonment of various figures throughout the Civil Rights movement of the middle twenty first century.  In 1955, Claudette Colvin was an African American teenager who, in deliberate disobedience of the law, refused to relinquish her seat to a white passenger on a Montgomery, Alabama bus.  She was subsequently arrested and jailed.   To protect Colvin’s innocence and provide a sturdier case for the movement, the NAACP staged another incident later that year, wherein Rosa Parks also refused to concede her seat and was also subsequently arrested.   Thoreau makes mention of this very concept when he discusses the idea that if even just one man was to arise in revolt against slavery and be locked up in jail, this would be a means to complete abolition “for it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be; what is once well done is done forever.” (Norton Anthology, pg. 850)  Thoreau solidifies his argument by his insistence that if a government imprisons a person without just cause, the place for a just person is then certainly in prison.  This aspect of Thoreau’s work largely informed Mahatma Ghandi’s revolution of non-violence in India, who then bestowed the same virtues upon Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who then effectively inspired black women during the civil rights movement to gaze in to the eyes of those who demanded they cower and say, “I will not move”.   As we’ve seen here, this type of civil disobedience develops as a rather organic solution to a man-made problem constructed to effect change and actualize a common vision or as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Almost always the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.” (A Knock at Midnight, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)

            Thoreau did not necessarily advocate for the eradication of government altogether but simply for a better government.  He encouraged citizens to demand more respectable governing, claiming this would be the first means of attaining it.   This concept is relatable to almost every aspect of our nation’s democracy from infancy to the modern political climate.   In fact, social protest now occurs daily worldwide due to the wildly controversial American presidential election of 2016.  As we are bombarded incessantly with news and red-eye Twitter ramblings of Russian meddling, potential collusion, and the unbridled sexist, racist, and xenophobic rhetoric perpetrated upon the American people by the president elect, we resolve nearly every half hour to ask for a better government if not an altogether new one.  This has been a daunting era thus far, brief as it may be, but we continue to organize in non-violent revolution against inequality and incompetence in leadership.  Within our rights, we have marched for many causes since the election, but most notable was the Women’s March in November 2016.  It began organically as one woman’s brainchild and subsequently evolved from a gathering on the nation’s capital into a global phenomenon of protest for gender equality, women’s rights, wage gap awareness, and every other sort of injustice leveled against people who happen not to be classified as Caucasian, male, 63 years of age, and embarrassingly wealthy.  Millions of women, men and children marched around the world in celebration of diversity and in protest of the governments propensity for marginalizing it.  Undoubtedly, Thoreau would have given the Women’s March of 2016 his stamp of approval.

Furthermore, at the core of Thoreau’s resistance was his belief that one single individual has the capacity to effect change.  He discussed the idea that there could be no real resistance without action and that no man or woman is obligated to do everything but to do something.  In other words, to simply verbalize one’s opposition to unjust laws only serves to recount the problem, but to exercise the right to stand within our own truth by acting against injustice is paramount to achieving a solution.  This concept is quite personal to me as I have experienced it in various forms throughout my life.  In respect to the quest for equality in the LGBTQ community, there have been great strides since the riots at Stonewall Inn.  Though much work remains, we have been fortunate to witness brave leaders facilitate peaceable protest, civil disobedience, and non-violent revolution far and wide.  This movement is somewhat unique in that prior to activism, a person who identifies as LGBTQ must often first “come out” or stand in his or her own truth for better or worse.  Though an individual must come to some type of reckoning within themselves whether for the sake of protest or not, the coming out process is often a more poignant, defined, and punctuated moment in the life of an LGBTQ person.   It is a deliberate and calculated process, and can often culminate in a scene resembling a criminal trial when families and friends are unsupportive.   It is a process which is often painful, sometimes dangerous, and always life-altering.  In my case, I arrived at a point in my life when I realized that I could never fully become an ally to my own community if I did not first resolve to take action on behalf of myself.  In this regard, coming out was, among other things, a moment of protest for me.  It was a gateway to future activism and a master key to my divine truths.  It was, at once, a moment of surrender and a moment of victory.  It was a journey generous in liberation and betrayal, but I believe Thoreau spoke precisely about this process when he discussed that action changes things and relationships.  He elaborates by deeming the essence of action fundamentally revolutionary and denoting its acute departure from the status quo thus challenging those who wish to remain within it.   “It not only divides states and churches, it divides families: aye, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.” (Norton Anthology, pg. 848)  In summary, the process of coming out embodies Thoreau’s idea that we must become an army of one before we can become an army of many.  We cannot participate in the manifestation of our own destiny if we are not visible.  I now know that my spiritual evolution is strictly dependent upon my willingness to risk existence as I know it which I believe will always be the crux of an effective sociopolitical movement.  Never will we experience more freedom and strength than in letting our own lives be “a counter friction to stop the machine.” (Norton Anthology, pg. 849)   

            Another valid assertion for resistance to civil government in Thoreau’s essay highlights the idea of class inequality and its impact on the balance of power.  Thoreau argues that money can diminish the virtue of a man, and that no matter how wealthy he may become, he would better serve society by holding fast to the plans he made when he was poor.  We can make many comparisons to this in modern society.  First, it is widely known that the current American president and his cabinet retain more assets than most of rural America combined, and they don’t mind saying so.  According to Thoreau, this would indicate a shortage of virtue among the leaders of our country which unfortunately appears to be an accurate appraisal.   I do not believe Thoreau’s intention is to say that all wealthy people are inhumane and terrible but simply that if they are detached from reality by way of their wealth, a trail of wreckage is imminent.  This is his reason for suggesting that though we may have plenty, we should remain humble.  Thus far, we have witnessed no evidence of humility within a hundred miles, roughly estimated, of the White House.  The leader of the free world has never once possessed a bank account with less than a cool million in it so it would seem his chances of making plans while he was poor are less than zero.  He is quite obviously existing in an entirely different reality than a large percentage of citizens he claims to be working for.  This is painfully apparent in the recent drafting and proposal of his party’s healthcare reform.  Because most people who currently comprise the executive and legislative branches of our government possess a limited capacity for empathy, it is near impossible for them to have any regard for people who struggle to pay healthcare premiums.  While many communities in America rival third-world countries when comparing poverty lines, we are proposing to loot healthcare coverage from millions of lower and middle class working Americans to give tax breaks to the rich.  There is indeed no virtue in this. 

Lastly, Thoreau’s discussion of prison is compelling as he raises the possibility that government may utilize incarceration to protect its interests, its money and ultimately its power.  Though the context of his discussion is mostly centered upon the increased ability of the imprisoned to better combat injustice once he or she has endured it, I believe we can draw a more complex comparison in the modern social construct by examining the mass incarceration of minorities.  To understand the pathology of such injustice, it is important to go back to the beginning or for the sake of brevity, the day black people won the right to vote without the threat of discriminatory restrictions in 1965.  Subsequently, a struggle ensued among white supremacists in power to maintain the status quo.  Because they were no longer legally able to restrict voting based on skin color, they sought a more duplicitous effort to disenfranchise an entire culture of people.  Exacerbated by the War on Drugs in the late twentieth century, the incarceration of minorities, specifically black males, increased exponentially during that time and throughout the beginning of the twenty first century.  According to data collected by the United States Census Bureau and the Bureau of Prisons, black males are five times more likely to go to prison than white males and twelve times more likely to be convicted of drug related offenses than white offenders tried for the same crime.   After all, when a man is trapped in a cement box, he will surely have a difficult time making it to the voting booth.   Thoreau mentions that prison is the place the State sends those who are against her or in terms of civil disobedience, those who are well within their rights to protest her.  Therefore, when the African American community joined in successful peaceable protest to acquire first- class citizenship during the civil rights movement, the government essentially began devising more creative ways to marginalize them.  Adding salt to a centuries old wound is the agonizing fact that many young black men detained by law enforcement don’t ever even make it to the back seat of a police car but instead fall victim to excessive force and perish at the hands of those who swore an oath to protect and serve them.  In this portion of his essay, Thoreau intends to raise awareness of government overreach and imprisonment as a form of silencing the resistance.  As aforementioned, we see many examples of these transgressions in modern American society.

In conclusion, throughout his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government”, Henry David Thoreau draws upon his profound knowledge that peace and happiness cannot be obtained externally.  At the core of his writing is the idea that if we all keep our own side of the street clean, the street will indeed be clean, thus diminishing government strongholds.  He sought to keep government out of moral affairs, and proposes that we, as citizens, are equipped to arrive at most of our own social and political solutions through simply maintaining a mutual respect.  His ability to transcend the physical realm undoubtedly furnished his courage to negotiate the social and political quagmire of his time.  Though there remain many comparisons to such gloomy circumstances in this modern time, it seems a rather cyclical process.  The more we demand progress, the more resistance there may be, and the pendulum swings.   Yet slowly we advance.  Rooted deeply in his adherence to transcendentalist philosophy, Thoreau understood that everything we truly need, we already inherently possess; however, he recognized that if we refuse to embrace our own truth and scale the summit of our own self-awareness, we can never be of service to our fellow man and certainly, we can never have any success resisting injustice in government. 



 Works Cited



Baym, Nina.  Levine, Robert S. “Norton Anthology of American Literature:  Shorter Eighth

 Edition.” W.W. Norton & Company, New York, London.  (2013)

Adler, Margot.  “Before There Was Rosa Parks, There Was Claudette Colvin”.  NPR,   


King, Dr. Martin Luther/ Carson, Clayborne/ Holloran, Peter.  “A Knock at Midnight:  Inspiration

 from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.”    Grand Central

 Publishing.  January 1, 2000.

“United States Census Bureau”.   https://www.census.gov/topics/population.html.  (2017)

“United States Bureau of Prisons”.  https://www.bop.gov/ (2017)