When going over this week’s readings, a voice in the back of my mind began pondering the neo-Marxist theory, as one asks, what came first, the chicken or the egg? In this context, what came first hegemony or the oppressor? Or to put it even more simply, what came first the ‘haves’ or the ‘have-nots’? First let’s get the definitions for “hegemony” out of the way…
“Hegemony…The everyday practices, events, and texts that are interpreted subtly as natural (by both those in power and those oppressed.) to promote the interests of the empowered group.)” (The Rhetorical Power of Popular Culture, 117)
A pop culture reference that makes me question which comes first is the NBC comedy series “Good Girls.”
The characters in this show are three very different women who have fallen on hard times. One is a single mom at risk of losing custody for her only child, another has a child sick with cancer and cannot afford her daughters very expensive medication, another's husband cheated on her and ran the family business into the ground.
These “good girls” are fed up with the world (aka hegemony) keeping them down and decide to take matters into their own hands by robbing a local grocery store. This actually solves their problems but also lands them in the crosshairs of a local gang that, long-story-short they eventually begin working with to launder counterfeit money. The women create a pyramid scheme that recruits other “desperate-housewives” to be “secret-shoppers” while un-wittingly laundering fake cash. Season 1-2 goes on to show these women evolving from the oppressed to oppressors themselves. I love how complex these characters are and find it funny that by analyzing this show with a neo-Marxist lens I have come to see the perspective of the “oppressor” more interesting and even justified This is especially ironic to me, because at face-value I would tell you I prefer to champion the working class or oppressed.
Question: What do you think came first? Karl Marx’s oppressors who work to keep the working class down, or the oppressed who failed to think outside of the box and create opportunity for themselves?
Shannon, this show looks very interesting. I love stories that entertain the what if we throw off the restraints of the expectations that society has placed on the everyday Joe or Linda. Throwing off the chains of the unexpected and going against the grain that society or perhaps the elite members place in the system is tantalizing. In your example of Good Girls, the women break free and like you said eventually become the oppressors after they revolt from their everyday roles.
ReplyDelete‘which came first, the oppressors or the oppressed’
Your question, which I paraphrased above, and your example make me wonder about another element. In simple terms, I think the oppressor preceded the oppressed, but the additional element that I wonder about is power.
Perhaps the oppressor/oppressed class divide is a symptom of the concept of power and society’s handling of it.
These women in Good Girls start out as oppressed members of society with limited power inherent in their roles. Finally, they have enough and decided to throw off their current roles and jump into a new role that comes with more power and the opportunity to gain even more as they continue to climb upward into a new kind of elite role.
This kind of storyline is exhilarating, with the audience becoming invested in the underdogs’ rise to domination. It’s not a dissipation of the entire system, but a transcendence from one level of power to a higher level within the system.
This leaves me to wonder, were it not for the lust of power, would there ever have been a class divide in the first place. Once power is known, is there a chance of dissipating the systems that work to concentrate it?