Obama's Victory and the Rhetoric of the American Journey

When you look at the results of the elections, you might conclude that the nation is still highly divided and the new Congress is looking very much like the old, which may not bode well for future (necessary) compromises. And it is. (WP here)

The electorate reflects the national divide: rural vs. urban, white vs. minorities, old(er) vs. young(er), male vs. female, protestant vs. other religions (such as Catholicism but also increasingly atheism and agnosticism).

It's the Demography, Stupid! 
These elections have confirmed a historic trend: demography is changing this nation. The United States of America is becoming more diverse and this is happening more quickly than many strategists had anticipated. 

The rhetorical and political polarization that we have been witnessing simply reflects the fight of a dying WASP majority who has become more extreme as they have felt dis-empowered  This is, in my opinion, the very essence of the Tea Party movement.  Unfortunately for the Republican Party, this is bad strategy as these elections have shown. (here, here, here, here or here)

Despite much disappointment, and arguably poor economic records, President Obama has one major advantage: not only is he the very embodiment of diversity, but he is also a great master at embracing diversity in his discourse. Inclusiveness has been his trademark since he worked as a community organizer.

His victory speech is the perfect illustration of his rhetorical mastery. (see video of the speech below)

Of course, victory speeches are expected to be unifying and reach out to the adversary and reflect a gracious tone, especially when you know you'll need partisanship to govern.

But it was more a classic Obama speech than a classic victory speech precisely inclusiveness has been one of his most consistent themes:

black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight. 
It was also a classic Obama speech because in order to re-enforce his message of unity, he used one of his favorite rhetorical device: the extended journey metaphor.  

The Journey Metaphor

Journey and movement metaphors are commonplace in both English and politics, but they have a particular resonance in American culture for historical reasons. Journeys and movement are at the heart of the American experience.

The very first sentence of Obama's speech is precisely about movement and it nicely links the future to the past "more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward", thus combining the idea of movement with the idea of continuity. "Forward" was incidentally (or not!) the slogan used for his campaign (for which he was accused of being a communist by some right-wingers who saw in it a reference to Mao's Lead Forward, see here).

The journey metaphor is a powerful tool because it allows for the recognition of obstacles and difficulties...

our road has been hard,

while our journey has been long

It’s not always a straight line. It’s not always a smooth path

the roadblocks that stand in our path.

despite all the hardship we’ve been through,

..., but puts them into perspective. For, unlike simple movement, a journey implies a destination and so it is purposeful and directional, even if you might not know exactly what lies at the end of the journey. It gives you something positive to focus on, and so, it brings hope by being forward-looking: "the best is yet to come", says Obama.

The journey metaphor is also a great way to unify the American people around a common familiar theme as it taps into the common myth of origin: the voyage across the Atlantic or the historical frontier motif of settlers who traveled westward.

E Pluribus Unum: 

It even goes beyond racial divisions: the Exodus story of the Old Testament has permeated black narrative in America since the day of slavery, as best exemplified by Martin Luther King's discourse.  

So when President Obama says "through every hill, through every valley.", what comes to mind is not only the bible (Luke 3:5 or Isaiah 40:4) but also MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. The form of the speech itself with its cadences and repetitions (I've seen it... I've seen it...) is similar at times to the sermon of a preacher in a black church.
Through the journey metaphor, Obama reconstitutes the American people who become one family: "we are an American family " (The Nation as a Family is also a common political metaphor) but it strikes a good balance between individuality ("pursue our own individual dreams") and community("we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people").

Moving On:
A journey also implies action, and not "to just sit on the sidelines". It fits the American view that action is better than passivity (and sometimes diplomacy): we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back", and the Judeo-Christian view that history is progressive..  

As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts. 
It may "not always (be) a straight line" but it is a line nonetheless.

The New Joshua and American Leadership. 
Finally, the journey metaphor entails the need for a leader who is implicitly the president and explicitly God: with your help and God’s grace we will continue our journey forwardThe need for leadership is twofold as it works not only for the nation but also for the world. Therefore, it is very coherent with the classic presidential discourse on American exceptionalism: the United States is to be "admired around the world," not for its might, even if it has "the strongest military on earth and the best troops this — this world has ever known" but for its unity in diversity through a shared vision:

"What makes America exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on earth"

(.../...)

That’s the vision we share. That’s where we need to go — forward. That’s where we need to go.

"The belief that our destiny is shared" is not unlike a sort of new Manifest Destiny, which also implies a journey ('destiny' has the same root as 'destin-nation' after all). Just like Moses or Joshua, America is a leader who is aware of her responsibility and obligations:

...this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. The freedom which so many Americans have fought for and died for come with responsibilities as well as rights. And among those are love and charity and duty and patriotism. That’s what makes America great.

This is the essence of American heroism: the hero is not heroic because of his deeds, or his power (supernatural or not), but because of his character and values.

In this speech as in many others, Barack Obama is able to reassure Americans about their future and their identity. He uses a unifying metaphor to turn what can be seen as source of division into a strength and an asset, and the very essence of the American identity. This, in my opinion, is what makes Barack Obama a post-modern president in tune with his time as well as an exceptional speaker.

What remains to be seen is whether enough people are willing to take on the journey and build bridges to avoid the pending "fiscal cliff": another very appropriate metaphor.

The Paradox of Today's Christianity.

One of the greatest paradoxes of today's Christianity is that of two topics that get Christians all worked up in America and increasingly in France (here) these days, namely abortion and same-sex marriage/homosexuality, neither is mentioned by Jesus Christ himself.
He said plenty, however, about love, helping the poor, or against wealthy possessions; his compassion extending to those excluded by society, not just the poor, but also women, children, lepers, prostitutes or tax collectors.
This paradox is all the greater that it is not as if our society had stopped excluding people and manufacturing poverty, and if nothing else, the current economic crisis is a good reminder that there is plenty to feel indignant about in our world other than homosexuality or abortion.
Condemnation of homosexuality, which is seen as a sin by most Christians, and abortion do not come out of thin air of course. On this day of worship, this seems like a good topic to discuss.

Homosexuality and Same-sex Marriage :
There are very few references to homosexuality in the bible, but those that exist have been understood as strongly condemning it. But it is in fact slightly more complicated.

The Old Testament laws clearly condemn homosexuality (Levetivus 18:22) but they also condemn adultery, or brides that are not virgin (Deut. 22:13-21) or sexual intercourse for married couple during a woman's period (Lev. 18:19) to death (by stoning). Clearly, we do not live under the same laws.
As for the passage in Sodom and Gomorrah, from which sodomy comes, it is not about homosexuality, but against sexual immorality and perversion, and against gang rape (i.e. the rape of the angels sent to retrieve Lot).

As for the New Testament, there are very few references and those condemn not homosexual relationships but "lust" and "unnatural relations" (which some scholars understand as homosexual acts committed by heterosexuals, such as temple prostitution or pederasty, which were commonly practiced back then). Roman 1:26-27 for instance is consistent with Paul's condemnation of the worship of Pagan gods from earlier in the chapter.

Then there is the highly controversial question of variation in translation - anyone who has studied tow languages knows how difficult it is to translate a concept from one culture to another.
There are not words in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek for "homosexual" or "homosexuality". There is debate among Greek scholars as to the meaning of arsenokoitai, which has been often translated as 'homosexuals' but is unusual. a word like malaokois which is often translated by "effeminate boy" becomes "male prostitute" in the New Revised Standard version (1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10). (see here or here). This is all up to scholars, of course, but we should remember that there is controversy there at least.

Even if we don't want to bother getting into complicated theological and linguistic debates, what is clear is that what the bible condemns consistently is not sexual relationships but sexual behaviors that desecrate the body (the Temple of the Holy Spirit) such as prostitution, or religious and orgiastic sex. In other words, it condemns acts that objectify people and turn them into mere tools of pleasure, and thus deny their humanity. It is consistent with its general condemnation of "godless, wicked, idol worshippers." This is no more the case of homosexuals than it is the case of heterosexuals. Behavior and not sexual orientation is what the bible is about. Of course, 2000 years ago, there was no concept of 'sexual orientation', (Some even argue that David and Jonathan's friendship could have been more than just platonic). In any case, people dealt with what they knew then, just as we deal with what we know now.)

Finally, it seems enough to me that Jesus himself, who was constantly with 12 other men, never once mentioned homosexuality. Had it been a major issue, you'd think he would have made it pretty clear.

By opposing same-sex marriage, evangelical and catholic leaders have inverted christian values - if anything, they should support it fully as it provide more stability to homosexuals who are seeking to have a family.
As to the question of children, not only is there no evidence that being raised by homosexual couples has an impact at all, but it is a moot question since it is already the case of thousands of them. Should we not give them the legal safety net that other children have?

Abortion :
The Bible never mentions abortion even though there were common even then (herbal abortifacients such as pennyroyal and silphium were used among other 'methods' in Ancient Times, see here).  Interestingly, Exodus 21 distinguishes the killing of a "person" (punished by death) and the killing of a fetus (punished by fine). On the other hand, there are references that suggest that human life begins before birth (even if as to when is not specified) in Gen. 25:22, Luke 1:41 and Psalm 139:13.
If you start looking at pictures of fetus formation and read about it, you can easily see that of course it is a human being before birth. It is hard to tell when this begins, but let's say, for the the sake of argument, that it starts at conception. Believing that life is most important is something I subscribe to as a Christian and as such I should be against abortion. In theory I am, but in practice I am not.
I think this is an issue that needs a bit of reality check and a pragmatic approach, especially if we take life as utterly important. Because a fetus is in a woman's womb, there will always be a way for women who really want an abortion (and in certain cases, such as rape or incest, you can easily see why) to have one. It would be helpful to look at the consequences of making abortion illegal: it would a return to back alley abortions. Then the risk would be to lose not only the fetus, but the mother as well, especially because it would be an opportunity for unlicensed hacks to make a profit. It would also widen the gap between the poor and those who can afford to pay for medical assistance.
It seems to me that the consequences on life loss would be worse, if one is only to take life as a criteria. It seems like more logical to wish abortions be performed in safe environments where those women, often in desperate situations, can also be given alternatives (such as adoption) as well as counseling. In addition, it might be also as important to support sex education, including contraceptive methods, instead of "abstinence only" (see here).  Teaching kids about sex does not mean one encourages them to have sex, but as a teacher myself, I know that kids are greatly misinformed and knowledge never hurts.

These two issues have become the obsession of many Christian activists and church leaders. In France, one can deplore the lack of biblical culture, including among Catholics, and the highly hierarchical workings of the church. In the United States, the church is too often a social place where initial bias is re-enforced by people with similar culture, race and social backgrounds, where verses are learned like mantras and where bible study groups serve to re-inforce the dominant view. With a few notable exceptions, questioning the  consensus can be really hard and it is unfortunate that so often feel-goodism and self-righteousness prevail over genuine theological debates. There's hope, however, and I find comfort in reading Brian D. McLaren or Gregory Boyd, or this young gutsy minister, Ryan Bauers.

Elections 2012: the Minnesota Referendum.

As the day of the presidential elections is nearing, the media in France have had all sorts of programs and special reports on american politics. What is often forgotten, however, is that besides the fight for the presidency, these are also major congressional  and local elections. In fact, there are myriads of other local issues that Americans will have to vote for or against. A lot of these issues are important because they both reflect and foretell what is at work in American society as a whole. 

This is the case of Minnesota where two important referendums are taking place this year. To understand what is at stake, we're going to give voice to a native of the North Star State who has been a contributor in the past and is well aware of what is at stake politically both nationally and locally :

Why I will vote NO in November

There are two important referendums on the ballot in Minnesota this November. The first is asking us whether we would like to see a law requiring Voter ID to prevent voter fraud. The second is asking us to vote on an amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman alone. I will be voting no on both these amendments.

The first referendum is actually quite simple for me. The voter fraud issue that the new law is supposed to address simply doesn’t exist. The only kind of voter fraud that Voter ID would address is impersonation fraud (someone trying to vote under a false name) and this type of fraud is virtually non-existent. Very few individuals are going to risk a felony for the sake of one vote. The burden of proof for this fraud is on the group proposing the change. I am unconvinced. On a general level, I am against writing new laws to address problems that don’t exist.

The second referendum deals with the definition of marriage, limiting its status to the union of a heterosexual couple. I have spoken with some very intelligent people who have a variety of opinions on this, from legal scholars to business owners, teachers, and stay-at-home parents. The bulk of arguments in favor of the amendment stem from three lines of reasoning: 1) let voters decide how to define marriage rather than activist judges, 2) marriage has always been a unique institution defined as a union between a man and a woman for the propagation of humanity and upbringing of children, and 3) we have to protect family values since the family unit is the core of a healthy society. Arguments against the amendment generally rest on appeals to civil rights.

On principle, I am reluctant to change the state constitution as a preventative measure. The state currently recognizes only heterosexual marriage in its statutes. The amendment will not change that. It is designed to prevent some future panel of judges from changing that. But again the law as it stands already recognizes marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. An amendment would effectively freeze this definition for a much longer period. I think it imprudent to prevent my children from making their own decision on this issue. I recognize that opinion on this issue has evolved over time. I believe that they should have the opportunity, like we have, to make up their own minds on this issue. The first ten amendments to the federal constitution, the Bill of Rights, protect individual and group rights. This amendment seems to me starkly at odds with the spirit of those amendments.

Furthermore, my position stems from my experience as a teacher and a traveler. As a traveler I have lived in other countries that allow gays to marry and I see little difference between their values and ours. The gays I know in the US, France, Belgium and Canada bear little resemblance to the caricatures I see in the press or in breathless stories of gay activism. They are, to a person, normal people living out their daily existence at work and at home. My gay colleagues at school, from my time as a student and as a professor, have been lovely people with a great capacity for kindness and friendship. I have never felt offended or threatened by their sexual orientation. On the contrary, I have found them to be professional, discreet, and exceedingly normal.

I grew up in a conservative community. My brother was one of four black children in a Midwestern town of 5,000. I have witnessed what happens to the outlier in a small community. Subcultures are a way for mainstream culture to categorize deviant behaviors (punk, gay, black, stoner, etc.). I am a professor whose work deals with personal and collective identity. I ask my students to recount an important experience in their life. Invariably a few students write about the moment they realized they were gay or, just as often, the day they came out. Each story is fraught with angst and full of inspiration as the individuals come to accept/embrace this part of their identity and, more often than not, discover a true friend who listens and loves them just as they are. Our society has gone to great lengths to demonize gays. I still remember in high school hearing about gay bashing from Christians. I regret not standing up for the victims in the face of such obvious stupidity.

And finally, I have no patience for the politics of stereotypes. Generalizations are the bane of our society. People that have never met a gay person generalize from the five percent of gays they see in the press, movies and TV shows. From this limited encounter we get: “Gays are flamboyant activists with an agenda that will ruin our country.” But one could also generalize about conservative Christians in our country and frequently we do. Some people look at the Westboro Church picketing the funerals of soldiers and draw the conclusion that all conservative Christians are ignorant, judgmental and offensive. Having made friends in both communities, I have found the reality to be quite the opposite. Most Christians and gays that I know are kind, hard-working people with no agenda beyond their basic survival in this world, an existence so ordinary as to be almost banal. They find meaning in their existence through their work, families, friends, spirituality and hobbies. The hate-filled Christian and the activist gay are far from the norm in my experience, despite what we hear from the press. These two groups are simply full of people trying to find their way in this world, a experience I can appreciate. As for gays ruining the fabric of our society, I think we Christians have managed to do that on our own just fine.

So I will be voting no on the marriage amendment because a) it changes nothing, b) I think it leaves a poor legacy for our children, and c) it is based on a series of generalized stereotypes that are foreign to my own experience. I respect the right of others to disagree. I rarely voice my politic opinion so publicly, but I very much disagree not only with these two amendments but the politics behind them. And in the case of the marriage amendment, I felt it my responsibility to do what I failed to do so many years ago, to speak up.

                                                                                                                                           D.L.
NOTE from editor: Just a few words on the same-sex marriage referendum. . The idea that "voters decide how to define marriage rather than activist judges" is a very popular argument that speaks to most people because it sounds very democratic.
This may be misleading though :  if you consider same-sex marriage is a 'civil right' issue, then it's like putting a fundamental right to vote with the risk of the majority tyrannizing the minority (Imaging asking the South whether they should allow blacks to vote in the 60s). As Barbara Gamble says in her article, Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote, in the American Journal of Political Science o
"Without the filtering mechanisms of the representative system, direct democracy promotes majority tyranny as the scope of civil rights conflicts expands and citizens vote on civil rights laws."
Barbara Gamble, Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote, in the American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 1, Jan., 1997  (here)
Now I know this may seem a bit far fetched to a lot of heterosexuals that gay marriage should be a civil right issue in the first place, but it depends how you look at homosexuality. And this is where words and definitions are crucial on our understanding of the issue :
Terms like"lifestyle", or "sexual preference" which are often used imply a choice and frame the issue in a way that is different from the reality of most homosexuals - most gays do not feel they have a choice (and given the crap they're given by society, one can assume that if they had a choice, they would make a different one). Whether it is genetics or psychological (or both) does not really matter if they feel they can't change their sexual orientation anyway. Therefore, it is like skin color. It is part of who they are.
Now the question of whether marriage is a right has long been established in the American legal system - it was made very clear during the civil rights movement of the 60s with regard to interracial marriage. (which really re-enforces my point)
See the 14th Amendment to the Constitution
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage.
This seems to me a very logical argument to make against asking voters about same-sex marriage, but it is not something I often read. It seems like the populist argument that the majority is always right has prevailed, but the framers made it very clear in the Constitution that certain rights are inalienable, even by the majority. It all comes down of course to how you see homosexuality: is it a choice or not? The best way to find the answer is to ask the homosexuals you may know.

UPDATE from editor: It turns out that both initiatives in Minnesota were defeated :

Minnesota voters turned back two constitutional amendments Tuesday, defeating proposals to ban gay marriage and require a photo ID for voting that had once been seen as likely winners. (here) 

U.S. Campaign in the "Perfect Storm" : What About Climate Change?

As hurricane 'Sandy' is headed towards the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast the United States, it is supposed to be a 'historic killer storm,' a hybrid system - a super storm even - hence the nickname 'Frenkenstorm' (an allusion to Mary Shelley's gothic creature of synthesized elements.). A perfect name for the Halloween season!In case major weather phenomenon might not be dramatic enough, the U.S. media love to hype it up by giving it a scarier-than-though name to get people's attention,. In the end, this could really be counterproductive. Think of last year's Snowmaggedon (Snow+Armaggedon) or Snowpocalypse which turned out to fail catastrophic expectations.

Let's use this event as a good opportunity to pause and talk about one topic that has been completely left of the presidential campaign: climate change. 
Of course, not one single event can be directly linked to climate change but factual trends show higher water temperature in the Mid-Atlantic which can cause more intense storms. This should be a concern at least (here), and yet, the possible link is left silent in US politics and in the American press.Does this mean that Americans do not believe in climate change? Surprisingly, no. In fact, on this question, they don't seem so far apart from the French.According to this latest poll of worldwide opinion on climate change: 

• Most French (82%) and Americans (72%) feel that climate has changed in the last 20 years.
• Most French (69%) and Americans (65%) believe that climate change has been proven by science.
• Most French (77%) and Americans (67%) are either very or somewhat worried of the possible consequences.

And even more interesting:

• A majority of people in either country (58% in the U.S. and 81% in France) think climate change is mostly the result of human activity, and that their government/country is mostly responsible (78% and 82%).

Other polls have shown similar results (here, here, or here), including the support of clean energy policy (here).

So how come this issue is not even mentioned once in the presidential campaign? Worse - how come no policy, not even the cap-and-trade bill has been passed to cut CO2 emission in the U.S.? After all, this was one of President Obama's promises which is supported by a majority of Americans.
 A simple answer: the failure of the current American democratic system where lobbies and money trump over the will of the people.
This may sound harsh and rather extreme, but this is also the conclusion you will draw from watching PBS Frontline 'Climate of Doubt' last week.

Their  show was not actually on the topic of climate change but more interestingly on the the chilling power of climate change deniers through ideological pressure groups (The American Tradition Institute) funded by private interests such as oil companies (Exxon) and industrialists (The Koch Brothers).This may sound harsh and rather extreme, but this is also the conclusion you will draw from watching PBS Frontline 'Climate of Doubt' last week. Their  show was not actually on the topic of climate change but more interestingly on the the chilling power of climate change deniers through ideological pressure groups (The American Tradition Institute) funded by private interests such as oil companies (Exxon) and industrialists (The Koch Brothers).


The way these global warming deniers operate is simply  fascinating and uniquely American. It is very much like what religious groups have done with the theory of evolution or the tobacco industry with cigarettes:

1. First they attack the scientific community:
- Science become a matter of opinion, and as such they claim that the views of climate change skeptics should be taught in school (as it happened in Tennessee) as any other 'opinion'. When confronted to scientific data, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R) of Wisconsin, who is also vice Chair. in the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, says "they are entitled to their opinion".
- They use the scandal of a few scientists' hacked emails taken out of contexts to undermine the entire field (forgetting to mention that 9 subsequent investigations showed no tempering with data). They use the "freedom of information act to pressure scientists in making their emails available.  
- They also say that scientists have a political agenda 'green is the new red' says one of them. 


2. Then, they create their own science:
- they make scientific data match their agenda, by using partial findings. They call it "the science that makes good sense" (i.e. that fits their political agenda)
- They come up with phony but authentic looking documents (such as the Oregon Petition), using anyone with a bachelors degree as a "scientist".
- They use organization that sounds serious )such as the Science and Public Policy Institute) which are in fact political pressure groups. 
At the same time, they reframe the issue: CO2 becomes a "gas used by beautiful trees" or "plant food". It is "what we breathe out and plants breathe in" (Exxon), thus using the same tactics as the tobacco industry. 


3. Finally, they pressure the legislative body. Ideological groups such as the Tea Party, use the tactics they have used on other issues by pressuring the more moderate Republicans who might be inclined to believe in climate change, thus instilling fear in the party. (Such as former South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis, who was defeated in a Republican primary in 2010.). 

Of course, this is not necessarily going to work with a majority of Americans, but it seems to work with the Republicans. The issue of climate change, which should be primarily a scientific issue has been successfully framed into a political issue of government expansion, the hot button issue for conservatives that blinds them from any reasonable discussion.: only 44% of Republicans believe the U.S. should work to combat global warming. 



















There is hope - swing voters go green: 

The immediate consequence of this strategy of doubt was that even though the cap-and-trade bill passed in the House, it was blocked by the Senate, and there is nothing that the president can do about it. not sure there is much he will be able to do in the future, because as John Kerry says in the documentary, the impact of money is too strong. Unfortunately, once the will of people on this issue becomes stronger than money, it might be too late. Of course, the current economic context is also an opportunity to push back on climate change, instead of being an opportunity for transformation. 


NOTE: meanwhile, France, who signed the Kyoto Protocol, has reduced its CO2 emission by 11% in 20 years. (source here)

The Walking Dead, a post-Modern Western Tale.

 Except for 28 Days which was a happy surprise, let's face it: most shows with zombies tend to be utterly ridiculous or gross. 
Why do people find zombies so scary anyway? 
Sure, they can bite you, but really, they can't run, they can hardly move (although Michael Jackson remarkably challenged them into dancing), they can't think, they give themselves away by growling, they're constantly spilling blood, and easily break into pieces and, finally, they are the butts of a number of parodies and comedies to the point that you almost feel sorry for them.

So it was no surprise that I missed the first season of The Walking Dead, despite hearing good things about it. After all, I also heard good things about shows like Buffy and never liked it either.
Finally, last summer, a French radio program on the comics Walking Dead turned my attention to the series once again, and I thought I'd give a chance to the TV show and so of course, what was bound to happen, happened: I was literally mesmerized, and ended up watching season 1 and 2 in a compulsive marathon over the end of the summer. Then I tried to make sense of this new craze.

But what makes The Walking Dead so interesting is precisely that it is not really about zombies (who are a mere excuse to get a bunch of people in a post-apocalyptic world). It is in fact more a post-modern Western than a horror show. 

It is not the basic story. The pitch is rather simple - a sheriff's deputy, Rick Grimes, who awakens from a coma to find the world dominated by flesh-eating zombies (just like in 28 Days), called "walkers", decides to try to find his family and meets other survivors along the way. So it is essentially about a small group of survivors living in the aftermath of a (zombie) apocalypse. Been done before. 


A WESTERN NARRATIVE
As Erin Obervey writes in The New Yorker, it has all the elements of the Western: the "reluctant sheriff, a wilderness to be explored, and “savages” to be fought". It does consciously play with the western motif: the hero is riding a horse, and his cowboy hat becomes the obvious symbol of manhood and authority for his son. There is even a shootout in a saloon and gun duel at dawn between tow major characters.

 The camp at the beginning of season one looks like a wagon train circling as a defensive maneuver against Indian/Zombie attacks, and the heroes out to the city arrive right on time to save the party, just like the cavalry did in westerns.  
In the second season, a farm becomes the last outpost of civilization and the group takes a heroic last stand in fighting off the attackers who are taking over thanks to their numerous superiority. (whose motif dates back to at least D. W. Griffith’s The Battle of Elderbush Gulch, 1913) Then, the wandering group, like the knights errant of old European medieval tales, becomes the pioneers looking for a promised land in a hostile wilderness invested with savages.
In season three, which just started, they find a prison where they hope to find peace and safety (the irony!). It has the shape and function of the defensive fort against the zombies/savages so common in the old western narrative.

If westerns find their roots in old European medieval tales and 17th century rescue narratives, they primarily offer the great advantage of taking the heroes back to a state of nature (the wilderness) before the dawn of civilization embodied by law. As such, it gives a chance for the audience to consider what makes us humans outside our modern world.

In The Walking Dead, not only are the characters confronted with the wilderness and the constant dangers of the zombies (or for that matter of other dangerous human beings), but they also have to deal with finding motivations for staying alive in the face of adversity ('suicide' is an option clearly laid out by a number of characters) and what it means to be and remain a human being. The good thing about this show is that, contrary to most American shows, it does not give you an easy answer and the characters are all struggling to find a reason to move forward.
As in classic mythical tales, The Walking Dead also relies on a series of simple opposites you can easily identify:  humans/non-humans, country (which may offer some peace) vs. cities (which are treacherous), civilization vs. savagery, living vs. dead. Because they have a common enemy (the Walkers), not only are humans forced to see what's essential about their human identity, they also have to put aside their old bias.

"There are no niggers, no inbred, dumb-as-shit-white trash fools, neither," Rick tells the others. "Just white meat and dark meat." 

Incidentally, it is quite fitting then that this story should take place in the south, and in Atlanta, which made some critiques see it as a fusion of Clint Eastwood and Gone With the Wind.

THE EVIL INSIDE
But the narrative of The Walking Dead goes beyond the classical morality tales of old Westerns or medieval tales because the threat comes essentially from within the community and the self. This is true at so many levels: members within the group, like trigger-happy Shane, can be a threat to the ethics of the community, but they are all potential threats because, as it turns out, everyone is infected by the virus and could turn into a zombie at some point. Death itself is a threat and only total annihilation of the enemy (the destruction of the body) can bring safety. But the most important and undermining threat is that of inner violence.
No one is immune to the consequence of their actions: at the end of season two, even Rick, our hero, turns into a small dictator by declaring to the group that there is no longer a "democracy" (within the community). It seems that in the process of becoming the unchallenged leader of the group, rick may have lost some of his soul.
The beginning of season three is in this way very meaningful: the first five minutes show the group seven months later killing walkers in a house to try to find shelter in total silence. No word is uttered as if they had become hunted animals themselves. The first episode is one of the most violent ones and some scenes are disturbing.

VIOLENCE
Violence is probably the most important theme in the story. Little by little, all the characters learn how to kill and they do it brutally as they ought to make sure of the total destruction of the walkers (I forgot to mention that if you bitten, they will turn into zombies themselves), which means destroying their brains by knife, sword, gun, arrow, metal rod or baseball bat. As the stories move forward, you see the characters' desensitizing to brutal killing.

But at the same time, no one is immune, and you also experience your own desensitization, and this may be more problematic. Of course, it is a bit like watching a Tarantino movie - the violence is so crude and the walkers are so monstrous that it may be hard to relate. In this respect, it is easier to see zombies killed than native Americans. However, there are scenes where the walkers are simply executed and even though you know they're not human beings, they do look human enough and their massacre is somewhat disturbing (and the characters themselves are disturbed).
This use of violence is also what makes The Walking Dead quintessentially American:

What is distinctly “American” is not necessarily the amount or kind of violence that characterizes our history but the mythic significance we have assigned to the kinds of violence we have actually experienced, the forms of symbolic violence we imagine or invent and the political use to which we put that symbolism. Gunfighter Nation, Richard Slotkin 

As much as I love The Walking Dead, I'd give it a word of caution before I'd let my teenage son or daughter watch it. When I asked my high school students (age 15 or so) the other day if they ever watched it, a majority of them had seen it online and were familiar with it. When I told them it was too violent to show in class, they laughed it off of course. 

If nothing else, it seems the violence in The Walking Dead (or in other shows for that matter) should be discussed with the family. I may be a bit too French about this, but I fear that exposition to violence is potentially worse than to frontal nudity, which so many Americans seem to fuss about. 
That being said, and this warning in mind, I would highly recommend  The Walking Dead for its cinematic quality, its character development and also for providing an opportunity to reflect on our notions of savagery, justice and civilization. 

Homeland's Ambiguities.

Here's how Brian Williams introduced the topic of the car bomb inn Beirut in the NBC Evening news, last night: 
"As recently as yesterday the head of tourism in Lebanon was angry at this past sundae night's episode of the popular TV show 'Homeland' on the showtime network for portraying Beirut as a violent place. Then today, an extraordinary explosion of violence after what was a long peaceful run there - a massive car bomb that some fear the war in Syria is now spreading beyond its borders" (MSNBC Evening News)
Introducing real news by mentioning a fiction proves once again how fiction has become part of our everyday life in our world and the complaining of a foreign ministry about the depiction of its country also shows the globalization of television (American) series in today's world. 

Now of course, the recent turn of events in Beirut may make it more difficult for the Lebanon's tourism minister to sue the makers of 'Homeland' over the way Beirut is portrayed.

Residents expressed bafflement at the episode's description of modern day "Hamra Street". What in the programme is a shoddy quarter where gunmen leap from cars and harass terrified women is actually a busy commercial centre of top-brand Western clothing chains and boutiques.In the show, Carrie Mathison, played by Claire Danes, continuously dons the hair-covering hijab, but women in the part of Beirut where the scene is reportedly set are more often seen patrolling the street in skin-tight jeans, bouffant hair and Jimmy Choos. "The Lebanese are intelligent enough to use such a thing to our advantage," said Mr Abboud. "I am calling on youths to splice images of the war-torn Hamra of Homelandwith the real street. To add insult to injury for the Lebanese tourism ministry, Beirut is back is filmed in neighbouring Israel, a country with which Lebanon technically is still at war. (Telegraph)

It is true that one of the scenes in particular will probably not help tourism:

Militants carrying assault weapons clear the area around a street, shouting in Arabic for people to get out of the way. A jeep pulls up: The world's No. 1 jihadi has arrived for a meeting with top Hezbollah commanders. On rooftops, U.S. snipers crouch unseen, the kingpin in their crosshairs at last.  (USA Today)

The fact that the scene was shot in Jaffa, Israel (a popular mixed Jewish and Arab neighborhood of Tel Aviv, 250 kilometers/150 miles south of Beirut - DallasNews) is likely to anger even more the Lebanese who have a list of contentions with neighboring Isreal. And it is not like the Isreali are any happier. 

"This sort of diminishes Tel Aviv and Jaffa, which are more modern than Beirut," said Rubinstein, speaking for a generation of Tel Aviv residents who are aggressively proud of their city — a densely populated urban area of some 2.5 million people with a standard of living that rivals most places in Europe, a world-class tech industry and a raucous nightlife. (DallasNews)

Can we suspect the show of being biased against Arabs? 'Homeland', is after all based on an Israeli series ('Prisoners Of War'). The foreign affairs editor of the Observer, Peter Beaumont, blames the show for its "its ridiculous view of Arabs and Islam is a distortion of Middle Eastern realities":

As someone who has spent much time in the Middle East, I find the depictions not only crude and childish but offensive. There is more to it than the portrayal of individuals. For Homeland presents an odd and unbelievable image of relationships between countries and identities in the region, where Palestinians, Iraqis, Saudis all share an agenda regardless of background, culture and history.(The Guardian) 

But to be fair, most of us, who have not spent time in the Middle East cannot tell the difference. Only viewers who are familiar with the region may see some hints of Israel like "cars with blurred yellow Israeli license plates, red-and-white curbs that designate no-parking zones, an Israeli-style traffic circle, and a well-known minaret and clock tower in Jaffa."  (USA Today)

Indeed, as you can see on this picture:  the supposedly Beirut open market shows a stall selling two Israeli T-shirts: one red with the white Coca-Cola logo in large Hebrew letters, the other a yellow jersey of a Jerusalem soccer team with the name in Hebrew, Beitar Yerushalayim, and a menorah. 

Besides, American shows have always been known for using stereotypes but it's easier to accept those when they are rather positive and when they encourage tourism, as it is usually the case with the rosy romantic view usually given of France and Paris. 
So does this all thing really matter? Fiction is supposed to be a bout "suspension of disbelief" after all, and not a faithful reflection of reality. Well, the impact of fiction on reality should not be dismissed so easily. Beaumont makes fair point about the influence of television fiction in shaping stereotypes of foreign places and people that we have never been exposed to : 

....television drama such as Homeland not only reflects cultural and social anxieties at any given time, it reflects back those anxieties, reinforcing and shaping them. Crucially there is strong evidence that counter-stereotypical fictional depictions in popular culture may have a positive impact, with some arguing that it can help turn around prejudicial attitudes. (The Guardian) 

That being said, the show is not mostly about Arabs or Muslims. It is not even about a credible story line. It is rather about paranoia, politics, treason and the fears of homegrown terrorism. At the same time, it gives a surprisingly nuanced view of terrorists. Unlike 24 and the likes, the show tries to get into the motivations for terrorism and it is not just religious fanaticism or brainwashing but also the injustices and the consequences of foreign affairs. The subtext may be a criticism of American foreign politics, such as the use of drones that kill innocent victims. (A similar idea was put forward in Law and Order SVU 'Acceptable Loss' two weeks ago). The intended target of the terrorist attack (the Vice-President) does not seem to be a particularly good innocent victim either.

What was neat in the first season was to make the audience doubt everything, along with the main characters (It was great idea to make the main character a bipolar CIA agent). What starts well with season 2 is that the audience grows ambiguous feelings for someone ready to commit a terrible act. The two main characters are well developed and extremely well written. They reflect the ambiguities and paranoia of the audience and society at large. This is the secret of all good TV series: the excellent writing of the characters and of their response to what happens, however improbable the situations may be. 

Despite its well-deserved criticism, it is one of the best shows on American television these days. 

School Books and National Ideologies.

Anyone who has been exposed to another culture long enough will probably conclude that, to a certain extent, we are all the product of our environment, our culture, our language and our history. This is definitely something we have been trying to investigate on this blog. A good approach for this is to look at how countries see and interpret history in their schoolbooks.

This week's Economist argues that that along with religious texts, school books and material used in class are the most powerful instruments that shape national culture. As we have discussed before, schools can be a real battlefield of cultural and ideological warfare in any country, and France or the United States are no exception : think of the topic of creation vs. evolution in Texas (here) or colonialism in France (here).
Even though, this is not necessarily a hot topic in the media, much is at stake, and the Economist is right to remind us George Orwell's 1984 great saying that “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past”.

In the United States, Liberals worry that their children are being taught a nationalistic version of history that emphasises the wonders of industrialization and plays down slavery and the slaughter of Indian tribes. By contrast, conservatives complain about insufficient patriotism and too much secularism. (The Economist)

The two main topics of controversy are sex and evolution.

In France, it is the economy and businesses which tend to be portrayed in a biased manner (see here in French):

For years the French seemed quite blasé about economics textbooks that were filled with unreconstructed Marxism. Peter Gumbel, a British journalist and academic who has studied the French educational system, says such books sat happily with the idea that rampant economic liberalism was responsible for France’s weakness in the run-up to the second world war. French textbooks today are rather subtler, but still not much in favour of the capitalist way of doing things.
(.../...)
A new study of 400 pages of high-school economics textbooks, by the Institute of Economic and Fiscal Research, reveals that only a dozen are devoted to companies, and none to entrepreneurs. (albeit a French word) (The Economist)

Then if you add the prejudices of many French teachers of economics, and the current devastating crisis, it is no surprise that the French should be so negative about business and capitalism (even if they keep buying Iphones and eating at McDonald's) .

So I suppose, every people has its own cultural and ideological prejudices but it might be worth paying a bit more attention to the process through which the text books are chose for our children:


The United States is different than almost every country in that it has no identifiable national history standards. Almost every other country does. What ends up in the classroom often depends on where your classroom is located. The content of a history course in Tennessee might sound considerably different than a course in Massachusett.
But two states are most influential because of their population: Texas and California which are respectively the first and second largest textbook markets. The former tends to be very conservative when the second is more liberal. (read here for instance)

France has what's called a "programme national" which means that the Ministry of Education decides on what topics should be taught and then leaves it up to the independent textbook publishers to print the books, which must, of course, follow the programme. It doesn't tell them how to cover the events, only which events or issues to cover and during which years. While this is more centralized than the US, it is not the state-sponsored history (identity) indoctrination of non-democratic societies like Saudi Arabia, Syria and North Korea where the Ministry of Education decides on a curriculum, prints the textbooks themselves, and distributes them to the schools for use, an approach reminiscent of the former Soviet Union.
Besides, any attempt by politicians to meddle with the affairs of the National Education causes uproar and controversy: Sarkozy's attempt to impose a "positive view of colonialism" (here) was met with such opposition that it was actually never implemented.

In case you had any doubt about the differences in the storytelling of historical events in different countries, I would suggest this great book: History Lessons: How Textbooks from Around the World Portray U.S. History, by Dana Lindaman & Kyle Ward. It presents excerpts about the same events from different textbooks around the world, and thus shows the contrasting perspectives on history and national identity, and should be a requirement in school.