Free the Nipple: a Reflection on Fall 2013

One of those strange instances of irony leads me to conclude this semester’s blog in the same manner it began: Miley Cyrus (sorry, Mitch, but Ke$ha will not be making an appearance in my blog).

Our class this week was an open dialogue with President Erickson, in which we discussed the pros and cons of HONOR 297H. Skimming through my peers’ blogs before writing this, I am happy to see that many of them feel they have had a positive experience with the course. But it was also refreshing to have an open forum in our class to discuss improvements we think might benefit future students – more effective use of blogs, better class discussion format, some brief assigned readings, etc. What made our discussion even more rewarding was President Erickson’s response to the last suggestion: something to the effect, I think a few short assigned readings from which the class can build may benefit the course.

A few short assigned readings from which the class can build may benefit the course. It was that easy. The president was neither dismissive nor defensive, but he recognized my classmates’ suggestion and indicated that, in the future, the course instructors may consider it. It was as simple as that.

So where does Miley Cyrus tie into this? Today, I was browsing through Huffington Post articles and came across this: “Miley Cyrus Supports Free The Nipple Campaign.” Oh no, I thought to myself, what is she getting herself into this time? However, as I read the short accompanying article, I was shocked. Miley was able to articulate what I have been unable to convey effectively to friends, professors, and classmates all semester.

“America is just so weird in what they think is right and wrong. Like, I was watching ‘Breaking Bad’ the other day, and they were cooking meth. I could literally cook meth because of that show… And then they bleeped out the word ‘f–k.’… It’s like when they bleeped ‘molly’ at the VMAs. Look what I’m doing up here right now, and you’re going to bleep out ‘molly’?”

In a rather riveting blog post a few weeks ago, my friend and fellow PLA student Coral Flanagan wrote, “I think that we draw an arbitrary distinction between different types of aesthetic appeals… On some level, violence is always violence, nudity is always nudity, sex is always sex, and I don’t agree that high-brow culture changes that; the context matters, but so does the actual material being presented.”

The distinctions we make, the values we assign, what we find shocking, what we censor, in short – these are all arbitrary. That is what I have learned this semester. Furthermore, because these are arbitrary, we should always be questioning them—questioning our authorities, our values, and even ourselves. That is not to say I do not believe in right and wrong, because I do. But I also believe that social change is accelerating in modern society faster than ever, and I do not want to look over my shoulder and see myself on the wrong side of history. It is the people who see wrongs—Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi—and who are not afraid to reject these wrongs, who change the world.

After I searched for history on the Free the Nipple Campaign, I scrolled down to see what I at first thought was a rather shocking freeze. A woman stands, breasts bared, nipples piercing, raising her hands to the sky. After watching the video, I thought about it again. Why was this shocking to me? I have seen nipples before; I have them.

Arbitrary shock value deceptively permeates the depths of American culture. We watch criminals get their brains blown out on Law and Order, but it is “fake,” so we do not think twice. But like Coral wrote, on some level, violence is always violence. These television shows and movies inure us to murder, to violence, to human life. But we are shocked when Miley Cyrus walks onstage in a skin-colored bra and panties, or when women walk topless around New York City?

Why are we ashamed of our nudity? Why can’t nudity be equally empowering for women and men?

I want to close with a statement from Sky Ferreira, a singer-songwriter who was the subject of media controversy after appearing topless on the cover of her 2013 album, Night Time, My Time:

“Everyone’s trying to say that we’re trying to make ourselves objects. But really, everyone else is making it more like that — sensationalizing sex and reading into things… There’s nothing about that photo that’s pornographic. We came on this earth nude.”

Are these women objectifying themselves, or are we objectifying them? Does nudity automatically equate to sex?

We are shocked when we see a nipple, but rape is rampant in the Congo. We bleep out assh***, but Pakistani women are prohibited from reading books at all. We worry more about football games than the starving Filipino men, women, and children displaced by natural disaster.

To borrow another phrase from Coral, what is more utterly puritanical, more numbingly aesthetic: what we censor, or the censorship itself, and to what it numbs us?

Whatever it is—absurd social standards, international inequality, or even simple faulty class procedures—change comes from voices, and authorities will listen, if for no other reason than they eventually will have no choice (though President Erickson was more than open-minded).

And so I conclude 2013 shouting with my arms held high: FREE THE NIPPLE

Chocolate or Inspiration: Society’s Greatest Sweet Tooth

At its surface, Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a far-fetched fable of a boy’s impossible journey through a factory that manufactures dreams sweeter than its chocolate. However, when I attended the 2013 musical stage adaptation, it became the tale of a poor young man who ascends the social ladder through hope and hard work. According to London’s Economist, this shift from fantasy is no coincidence. In a recent review of the production, a columnist writes that many British workers fear that recent widening wealth gaps and decreasing job opportunities are permanent. He continues, “A possible reason for the sympathetic tone [of the show] is that… intergenerational social mobility… has stalled.” In this social context, Charlie Bucket’s journey is not only children’s fantasy. Charlie Bucket is a leader who inspires struggling families to believe that the era of the self-made  has not ended. The musical demonstrates that realistic working-class struggles teach more lessons than any wealthy child can inherit.

The musical’s first act develops the Bucket family’s plight. Four grandparents, two parents, and one child live in the same dilapidated house. Each day, all seven split one large bowl of cabbage soup while Charlie’s unemployed father searches in vain for work. At night, Charlie and his father rotate between sleeping on the floor and easy chair as Mrs. Bucket works the graveyard shift. However, daily economic struggles are not confined the adults. In addition to attending school, Charlie works as a paperboy to supply the family with the funds his father cannot provide. With his busy schedule, Charlie is unable even to dream. His parents light-heartedly chastise him for daydreaming instead of completing his schoolwork, which they believe will create more opportunities for him. On his birthday, the family can afford to buy Charlie one present, a chocolate bar, only after Grandpa Joe sacrifices his funeral savings. While the Bucket family’s condition is extreme, their struggles are realistic to modern England.

Unemployment, hunger, and the struggle to balance finances continue to plague the average working class family. In May, Cable News Network (CNN) reporter Mark Thompson wrote that new austerity measures have caused the number of British people depending on food banks to balloon to 500,000. Additionally, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported that April unemployment levels had risen to 7.9%, affecting 2.56 million citizens. With such bleak conditions, it seems right to assume that Charlie would spend his life struggling for day-to-day survival. However, the musical’s heroes are not the rich, spoiled children.

The musical inverts the expectations an audience might have based on the characters’ social positions. Charlie utilizes the lessons he learned during his struggles in lower-class society to win Willy Wonka’s factory. As the golden ticket winners traverse the factory’s obstacles, all but Charlie learn the gruesome lessons of gluttony, disobedience, idleness, and greed. Their family’s money was able to purchase their children everything but manners, and the children were spoiled into their demise. In contrast, Charlie has learned honesty from work, temperance from a restricted diet, and prudence from poverty. Furthermore, he realized that his dreams would not be handed to him, but achieved through hard work. Consequently, he transcends social boundaries and acquires greater wealth and fame than any of the other children possess. At the musical’s end, viewers sympathize more with poor Charlie Bucket than his wealthy counterparts do.

Charlie Bucket’s leadership and success in Wonka’s challenge is refreshing for empathetic viewers. Although Charlie’s parents cannot afford a television or peanut factory, they can offer him an education and a strong work ethic. Similarly, while the average income might not afford every lavish refinement of modern society, it can provide overlooked life lessons and manners. While these lessons will not make each child the owner of an industrial giant, they will provide the tools necessary to obtain work and perhaps a comfortable style of living. Perhaps with some luck, hope will stay alive; some children may transcend the social boundaries and join the upper class.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s success lies not only in its imaginative allure, but also in the hope it gives to the average middle class family. Charlie and his parents grapple with the struggles of impending destitution. Despite this, the Economist columnist writes that Charlie and the “Aspiration” Factory is “fantastic fun to watch.” It severs the boundaries restricting the poor from ascending the British social ladder and proves it is honesty, temperance, and dignity, which will eventually be our greatest assets. As the curtains close, the audience is left with advice: one must be always prepared, because a savior, a Wonka, may be right at one’s side.  This hopeful message is two-fold. First, it proves that money is a surmountable obstacle, and the self-made man may still be achieved. Second, it proves that the art of leadership is not dead, especially for those our age: stay humble, stick to your principles, be willing to learn, and success can be achieved. The results may be sweeter than expected.