“Adaptation as Occupation: Tim Burtons’s Adaption of Washington Irving’s Tale, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” by Clarissa Dayton.

-Washington Irving’s 300 year old Horse Chestnut.
Among the more popular American ghost tales is The Legend of Sleepy Hollow — the story of Ichabod Crane and the town people of Sleepy Hollow, a small, sleepy Dutch colonial village nestled on the banks of the Hudson River. The village still exists today and neighbors the town of Tarrytown, NY – the hometown of the story’s author, Washington Irving. His home, Sunnyside, still stands on Irving’s originally purchased land. The great American author designed Sunnyside himself and lived there from the 1830’s until his death in 1859. It is now a historic home and museum site where docents, dressed in period costumes of the 1850’s, offer tours to pubic groups and school children.
Sunnyside had also served as a research site for Tim Burton’s 1999 movie entitled, Sleepy Hollow, starring Johnny Depp. The titles may be quite similar; however, Burton’s interpretation of the ghost story differ considerably from that of Irving’s in terms of character depth and story line — which leads us to wonder whether or not the docents would validate Tim Burton’s production by incorporating into their tours as a useful learning tool. Would trained experts on Washington Irving be willing to give their historical presentation an update by incorporating modern film adaptation based on classic and/or historic literature? Does a historic living museum, need to live only in its designated historic period in order to help school children better understand the accomplishments of those who lived there centuries ago or can it step into the 21st century to enhance a child’s learning?
To find out, the author talked with the docents – asking them what they thought of Burton’s modern day interpretation. Docent training at Sunnyside has traditionally been paper-based in its entirety. All research is conducted using an onsite library, which did not have a computer until approximately 2009. With no exposure or consciousness toward cinematic or computerized imagery, how can an educational institution educate children who use media inside and outside the classroom on a daily basis?
Working with a group of historical interpreters, I feared most of them would not be open to Burton’s modern narrative. Wearing period costumes of the 1850’s, the docents are steeped in tradition. As traditionalists, would they insist on a more orthodox delivery of the tale? I discovered my fears were wrong. The docents accepted the modern interpretation and embraced the contrasts offered by Burton’s dark cinematic narrative. As one docent said, “Both Irving and Burton are interpreting the same story within their own contemporary social narratives. Burton is the modern day Irving!”

Katherine, a college student from New York stated,
Tim Burton’s story line was not very similar to Irving’s classic tale. I think Burton’s purpose was different than Irving’s. Burton’s interpretation was trying to tell a scary tale, I don’t think that was Irving’s intention.” When asked if she thought the movie could be used as an educational tool at Sunnyside, Katherine responded, “I think it could be.”

Other staff members had similar and interesting responses to the questions. Sunnyside Site Manager, Anne, noted its potential educational significance:
The storyline was very dissimilar to Irving’s tale. Burton did not capture Irving’s intended interpretation of the tale due to the extreme variation of the storyline. That being said, Irving’s classic tale was in itself an interpretation of local folklore he heard as a boy spending time in the Tarrytown area. In a sense, Tim Burton was following Irving’s example by giving the story his own spin.
She added,
“I think it could be used if only to spark an interest in Irving and the 19th century. Tim Burton’s version of the story does pose an interesting contrast to Irving’s story, which can be a useful lesson in writing.”

Robert, from Yonkers had much to say. He saw the film, enjoyed it and also had a keen interpretation of the image narratives, as he explained,
In a way, it was similar because there was a closed off and isolated sense of community that was shown by Burton and reflective in Irving’s original tale. Irving wrote that the town’s people were closed off. They didn’t want Ichabod around. Burton gave a menacing look to the town. The movie is very ‘Irvinian.’
There were differences, but Burton celebrated those differences. Burton captured the darkness of the tale that Irving had devised and did away with overly descriptive narrative that is typical of 19th century depictions of various things such as a dinner table laden with food. However, there’s one major inaccuracy in Burton’s setting – the Hudson is on the wrong side!”
Robert also added,
I think the film could be utilized as a learning tool here at Sunnyside because if students see the movie and they find out more about Irving and who he is, we will be able to introduce more information to the children.
We should ask ourselves this — would Irving be upset with this movie? I don’t think so. I think Burton was doing the same thing as Irving. He [Irving] used a certain social context to made a comfortable life for himself and his family. Irving would most likely approve of Burton’s interpretation because it’s Burton’s own utilization of the modern social context of his day. Simply stating, Burton uses a modern interpretation. Today in the Sleepy Hollow area, people regard Irving as a deity. However, both Irving and Burton are using the social contexts of their day to tell the same story.

Bethany, from Cortland Manor, also saw the movie and like the others, noted its distinct contrasts. When discussing the educational aspects of the film at Sunnyside, she reflected on the following:
Overall I think it is a great tool for children. It is always good for them to get a reference to the present. The movie can be used that way. Some references are correct from book to film. I already discuss the film in my tours. Children light up when they hear me talk about Burton’s Sleepy Hollow. They can relate to it and it excites them. Nineteenth century Romanticism may not be the most exciting topic for a 10 year old, but when you mention Burton’s film, they get hungry for more information.
The docents were open to Burton’s modern interpretation of the story’s main characters. They felt Johnny Depp’s portrayal of Ichabod Crane, although distinctly different from that of Irving’s, showed an interesting contrast, while Christina Ricci’s depiction of Katrina had a feminist quality they found intriguing. Yet the docents felt that Christopher Walken’s portrayal of the Headless Horseman failed to have the mystique of Irving’s original apparition, due to the frightening facial images depicted in the movie.
Their perception of the film’s feasibility of incorporation into their school tour shows that they recognize the educational value of Burton’s contrasts. Interpretations of history at historic sites may not only be restricted to antiquated methodologies. Modern interpretations, with their contrasting images and concepts can be just as effective. The docents understand that the 1999 horror film can serve as a modern media gateway to children’s curiosity.
Burton’s ‘otherness” of modern darkness and the macabre makes the story stand out for children and adolescents, allowing them to become a receptive community to further explore Irving and his time. Moreover, a good number of docents believed Burton’s personal process using his own social context to tell the tale gives a sense of authenticity to the story. Despite considerable contrasts, many docents saw an acceptable balance of Irving’s story dynamics kept intact within Burton’s adaptation, which makes for successful adaptation of popular literature.
If we ask whether or not a 20th/ 21st century film interpretation, with its modified storyline, can deliver the same thematic messages found in a highly regarded piece of classic literature, the answer appears to be “mostly yes.” Various facets of modern cinematic interpretation with its “otherness” may be utilized as an educational tool in a historic setting to help define a classic literary work as long as the central interrelationships and dynamics of the original story are balanced.
The docents did not agree on everything. One docent (a senior), showed a resistance toward Burton’s modern interpretation and dismissed the film, yet the other seven docents were open to it. With this, it may be argued that a modern film adaptation does not need to follow traditional storyline orthodoxy in order to effectively represent the text found in any literary classic – and in doing so, such media may be utilized as an effective educational tool, and allow history to embrace the future.











![“Let Them Eat Kupcakes: Capitalism and Feminism through the Lens of Kim Kardashian.” by Alice Yang.
If anybody in the world has been keeping up with pop culture news in the past four years, or fashion, or T.V., or books, or perfume lines, or sex tapes and Playboy for that matter, (s)he would have heard the name Kim Kardashian. Designer, actress, model, writer (supposedly), and one-time song singer, Kim, above all roles, is an opportunistic businesswoman. No matter how people may judge her (sex tape rise to fame, friend of stupid socialite Paris Hilton…), they can’t deny the fact that she is projected to be worth $35 million dollars and that she makes $40 thousand per episode (and there’s 6 seasons, each with about 12 episodes) on her reality T.V. show Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
Her strategic media life and business moves provide perfect and fascinating lenses to analyze celebritism, especially the breed of celebritism that rises, not out of talent, but by basically being famous by being famous. This notion of fame divorced from talent comes originally from social theorist Daniel Boorstin; he links the separation of the two to journalism’s graphic revolution, the media’s staging for ‘pseudo events’ to generate publicity. It is exactly this separation that gave space for Kim to rise. Kim the consumer and commodity sheds light on capitalism and its cultural influences. Kim the media darling and brand strategist opens up a window on the world of fan following and connection in a global digitally-wired age. And finally, Kim, the woman, exemplifies the confusion and chaos that is 3rd wave feminism: sexed-up and powerful or sexed-up and victimized? As a micro-study of the greater cultural phenomenon of celebrity idolatry, this essay will explore Kim through the lenses of ideology, spectacle, commodity fetishism, and feminism to try to unpack the rich and complex dimensions of influence she has had on culture and vice versa. An essential theme throughout will bethe idea of agency; to what extent has Kim/celebrities deliberately influenced culture, and to what extent does established culture drive her/celebrities to behave/be/choose certain routes? And as a corollary, the confusing ambiguity of 3rd wave feminism: Do Kim’s actions make her a feminist (sex-positive feminism) or a victim of the implicit forces of gender inequality? To what extent is she adapting and navigating the fields of capitalism and gender norms to her advantage and to what extent is she the victim?
For one to really understand how Kim came to fame, one has to know a little bit more about her background. Daughter of Robert Kardashian, defense lawyer for OJ Simpson, Kim grew up in Beverley Hills amidst the rich and famous. In an interview with Harper’s Bazaar she admits that she grew up in a mansion and lived lavishly. However, her parents told all the kids that after 18, they’d be cut off; “if we wanted this lifestyle, we had to work extra hard to get it. All of our friends had credit cards and cell phones, but that wasn’t even a possibility” (Kardashian). Whether that was actually the case or not, Kim definitely didn’t just feed off her parents’ money and slice of OJ fame. She became famous through her friendship with socialite Paris Hilton and the leakage of the infamous sex tape with Ray-J.
What her upbringing and environment did bring her was an acute awareness of paparazzi, media, and how celebritism and fame work. She grew up with famous people around her as well as the L.A. cultural and entertainment industry milieu. She pitched the idea of a reality T.V. show of her family to Ryan Seacrest all by herself, an action that shows her awareness of pop culture trends and what sells in entertainment. In other words, she knew the power and lucrativeness of a certain type of reality T.V—-her successful show, most viewed in all of E! history, has been called a modern day Brady Brunch (replete with diva drama, materialism, and plenty of lavish lifestyle showcasing.)
I will argue that Kim knew what Guy Debord knew all along (she has never read him, of course)—-that authentic social life has been replaced by its representation, that social life today is the “decline of being into having… [and the] sliding of having into appearing” (Thesis 17). Just the idea of ‘reality’ television says it all. Kim, and other reality T.V. stars, all admit that there is more or less a script for how events are to unfold in reality T.V. Knowledge of this inauthenticity, if we define ‘reality’ in this case to be the genuine lived everyday lives of people in actual time, is then spectacular performance in which what appears on T.V. isn’t 100% real to their lives. Reality T.V. time is sped up so that one drama follows another, everything has a cause and effect, and a show comes out 3 months after its production.
Debord went as far as to assert that “the concrete life of everyone has been degraded into a spectacular universe” (thesis 19). This “passive identity with a spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Although this might seem like an absolutist model with too little room for subversion, Debord’s idea can be greatly illustrated by the relationship Kim has with her fans and vice versa. Kim and her family actively choose to be the spectacle, in which reality for them is denatured because of performance under the camera; Kim’s fans don’t know her in real life at all, but as all celebrity idolatry goes, they feel aligned, loyal, and even emotionally close to her due to her spectacular performance in virtual reality. The medium of T.V. provides the “passive identity” that supplants “genuine activity,” like actually spending real time with someone.
But this kind of “social relationship among people mediated by images” is nothing new (Debord, Thesis 4). It is part of a greater system of media and digital networking in the global informational technological age. Kim is a keen manipulator of, and contributor to, her own image-reproduction, as is evident in the way that she has jumped on possibly every media outlet network for information distribution. Starting with her fame from T.V. she began a blog that culls photos of herself from other forms of media (magazines, paparazzi shots). She jumped on Twitter, created a YouTube channel for herself and her sisters to share makeup tips, opened up a Facebook page, graced the covers of countless national (and international) fashion magazines, appeared on talk show interviews and even co-wrote a book about her family and fashion life that hit #5 on the New York Times Bestsellers list for Hardcover Advice and Misc. In short, again, Kim actively knew how to fan her own f(l)ame, and in an Althussian sense, accurately recognized the nuances of the media ISA.
ISAs are the ideological state apparatuses that Louis Althusser argued have “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions” (154). Such institutions may include the religious, educational, political, cultural, and communicative. What Kim has been working with consciously, subconsciously and unconsciously, are the communicative and cultural aspects of our contemporary ISAs. ISAs are pluralistic, in that they further “a certain number of realities” [ibid] all within the greater meshwork of dominant ideology, which for the purposes of this essay, are the cultural effects of contemporary Capitalism. Kim’s shows, endorsements and publicized lifestyle furthers consumerism, monogamous family values, certain ideas of leisure and play, social-ladder climbing, not to mention the prevalent image of what women should be like or strive for today. Kim’s limited agency operates within ideology; her lifestyle exemplifies Althusser’s idea that “ideology is a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (157). She subscribes to certain ideologies promulgated by existing cultural ISAs, and she actively promulgates these ideologies through other cultural and communicative ISAs, thus completing the cycle.
Another insightful lens to analyze Kim through is Feminist theory. Nina Power notes that 3rd wave Feminism subsumes historical dimensions of feminism under “the imperative to feel better about oneself, to become a more robust individual…everything turns out to be ‘feminist’ – shopping, pole-dancing, even eating chocolate (27). This is exactly the brand of womanhood Kim embodies and sells. When positive, it’s linked to ‘sex-positive feminism’ and when negative, it’s associated with ‘bimbo feminism,’ Kim’s brand of womanhood focuses on body perfection, beauty, and power through career and self-earned money. She has her name in the market for basically everything Nina Power lists: Kim has created her own workout DVDs: “Fit into your Jeans by Friday,” has learned to dance hip-hop burlesque sexy from The Pussycat Dolls creator Robin Antin, has started fashion lines with Bebe and Sears as well as make-up, perfume, and jewelry collaborations. She even has a cupcake named after her from The Famous Cupcakes.
This combination of successful businesswoman and the brand of womanhood she endorses are at odds with each other just like the essential questions plaguing 3rd wave feminism today. Is posing naked for Playboy sexual liberation? It’s useless to try to actually answer this question. What may be more concrete is an exploration of the direct link between her brand of ‘feminism’ and girl power with capitalism. As Nina Power notes, there is a similarity between ‘liberating feminism’ and ‘liberating capitalism.’ They are interchangeable because so much of what is considered a ‘liberated’ woman today goes hand in hand with consumerism. To be the independent gal, women should buy certain fashion brands, have her own apartment, treat herself to certain types of food, have a gym membership…etc. This is what Nina Power calls Feminism ™. Magazines sell fashion as a woman’s choice, as empowerment, as self-improvement. Cupcake and chocolate companies sell food as ‘c’mon-you-deserve-it-treats to yourself.” Cosmetic and cleansing/grooming companies use this ‘treat yourself,’ ‘be the best that you can be’ motto. Power critiques this aspect of about Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism: “if feminism is something you define for yourself, then what’s to stop it being pure egotism, pure naked greed?” (35)
And egotism is indeed the essence of Brand Kim. Capitalism in our Neoliberal society requires us to be “[our] own entrepreneurial capital”; it’s a system that is “desirable for marketing self-interest” (Shaviro 7). In other words, it is lucrative to be an egomaniac. Likewise, celebrity idolatry requires both the celebrity herself as well as her fans to believe that she is more ________ than she is in reality. Beautiful, talented, etc.; idolatry requires egotism as an essential celebrity trait—she herself has to believe that she is worthy of the fame, the cameras, the hype. Fans, on the other hand, are comfortable in their “unfreedom,” a term Herbert Marcuse uses to define the seamless and smooth way ideology shapes our lives. In the advanced capitalist society in which people identify with commodity, Marcuse argues that people “find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment. The very mechanism which ties the individual to his society has changed, and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced” (Power). I argue that this anchoring of self to commodity can be extended to celebritism. The celebrity is a commodity; much more complicated and influential than any material object. Fans are anchored to these celebrities because they identify with the plethora of behaviors, ideas, images, lifestyles and materials they embody and endorse. Celebritism furthers ideology because it creates the Marcusean sense of “unfreedom” for both the fans and the celebrity herself. She has to actively objectify and spectacularize herself while fans are exposed to yet another dominant ideology-bolstering apparatus.
Finally, despite all the criticism of ideology by feminists, the question of agency remains. To what extent is Kim deliberately choosing her moves and being herself? And is celebrity idolatry a free choice by the fans? Nina Power insightfully and forgivingly says that we need to “avoid straightforward assertiosn of blame” (2). Shaviro points out that although contemporary capitalism has “no state apparatus…it has been able to contrain human freedom … comprehensively …[and] invisibly [through]… the Neoliberal market” (6). If this ideology is as invisibly insidious as Shaviro, Debord, Power, and Althusser illustrate, then how is Kim (or anyone else for that matter) to gain (or at least feel like they gain) agency in society?
As Harper’s Bazaar reporter Laura Brown writes, “Kim is an avatar of American consumerism.” Kim, of course, knows this role too well: “Once I tweeted, ‘Oh my God, I just tried a Golden Oreo. I’ve never in my life had something so amazing….Then the Oreo set me crates of them. To my door…Hmm, I like Bentleys, flat-screen TVs, diamonds too…” (Kardashian).
“We have the glitz and the glam, and people want to live vicariously through it.”-Kim Kardashian in Harper’s Bazaar.
Kim definitely knows what she is doing and has maximized her limited agency and opportunities given an ideologically-set society. I’d even argue that she knows some ideologies are monolithic and almost impossible change, so as an opportunist, she works within. The more intriguing question is why so many people seem to want to live vicariously through her and whether we, as a society, can conceive of alternative lifestyles worthy of such a fanatical following.
Works Cited:
Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971.
Brown, Laura. “The Kim Kardashian Interview: Cleopatra with a K.” Feb 9. 2011. Harper’s Bazaar. Nov.13 2011. <http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/cover/kim-kardashian-interview-0311>
Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Red & Black, 1967. Marxists.org, Nov.13 2011.
Shaviro, Steven. “The ‘Bitter Necessity’ of Debt.” <http://www.shaviro.com/>
Power, Nina. One Dimensional Woman. UK: O Books, 2009.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzx88vArG81qdfta1o1_500.jpg)
![“Let Them Eat Kupcakes: Capitalism and Feminism through the Lens of Kim Kardashian.” by Alice Yang.
If anybody in the world has been keeping up with pop culture news in the past four years, or fashion, or T.V., or books, or perfume lines, or sex tapes and Playboy for that matter, (s)he would have heard the name Kim Kardashian. Designer, actress, model, writer (supposedly), and one-time song singer, Kim, above all roles, is an opportunistic businesswoman. No matter how people may judge her (sex tape rise to fame, friend of stupid socialite Paris Hilton…), they can’t deny the fact that she is projected to be worth $35 million dollars and that she makes $40 thousand per episode (and there’s 6 seasons, each with about 12 episodes) on her reality T.V. show Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
Her strategic media life and business moves provide perfect and fascinating lenses to analyze celebritism, especially the breed of celebritism that rises, not out of talent, but by basically being famous by being famous. This notion of fame divorced from talent comes originally from social theorist Daniel Boorstin; he links the separation of the two to journalism’s graphic revolution, the media’s staging for ‘pseudo events’ to generate publicity. It is exactly this separation that gave space for Kim to rise. Kim the consumer and commodity sheds light on capitalism and its cultural influences. Kim the media darling and brand strategist opens up a window on the world of fan following and connection in a global digitally-wired age. And finally, Kim, the woman, exemplifies the confusion and chaos that is 3rd wave feminism: sexed-up and powerful or sexed-up and victimized? As a micro-study of the greater cultural phenomenon of celebrity idolatry, this essay will explore Kim through the lenses of ideology, spectacle, commodity fetishism, and feminism to try to unpack the rich and complex dimensions of influence she has had on culture and vice versa. An essential theme throughout will bethe idea of agency; to what extent has Kim/celebrities deliberately influenced culture, and to what extent does established culture drive her/celebrities to behave/be/choose certain routes? And as a corollary, the confusing ambiguity of 3rd wave feminism: Do Kim’s actions make her a feminist (sex-positive feminism) or a victim of the implicit forces of gender inequality? To what extent is she adapting and navigating the fields of capitalism and gender norms to her advantage and to what extent is she the victim?
For one to really understand how Kim came to fame, one has to know a little bit more about her background. Daughter of Robert Kardashian, defense lawyer for OJ Simpson, Kim grew up in Beverley Hills amidst the rich and famous. In an interview with Harper’s Bazaar she admits that she grew up in a mansion and lived lavishly. However, her parents told all the kids that after 18, they’d be cut off; “if we wanted this lifestyle, we had to work extra hard to get it. All of our friends had credit cards and cell phones, but that wasn’t even a possibility” (Kardashian). Whether that was actually the case or not, Kim definitely didn’t just feed off her parents’ money and slice of OJ fame. She became famous through her friendship with socialite Paris Hilton and the leakage of the infamous sex tape with Ray-J.
What her upbringing and environment did bring her was an acute awareness of paparazzi, media, and how celebritism and fame work. She grew up with famous people around her as well as the L.A. cultural and entertainment industry milieu. She pitched the idea of a reality T.V. show of her family to Ryan Seacrest all by herself, an action that shows her awareness of pop culture trends and what sells in entertainment. In other words, she knew the power and lucrativeness of a certain type of reality T.V—-her successful show, most viewed in all of E! history, has been called a modern day Brady Brunch (replete with diva drama, materialism, and plenty of lavish lifestyle showcasing.)
I will argue that Kim knew what Guy Debord knew all along (she has never read him, of course)—-that authentic social life has been replaced by its representation, that social life today is the “decline of being into having… [and the] sliding of having into appearing” (Thesis 17). Just the idea of ‘reality’ television says it all. Kim, and other reality T.V. stars, all admit that there is more or less a script for how events are to unfold in reality T.V. Knowledge of this inauthenticity, if we define ‘reality’ in this case to be the genuine lived everyday lives of people in actual time, is then spectacular performance in which what appears on T.V. isn’t 100% real to their lives. Reality T.V. time is sped up so that one drama follows another, everything has a cause and effect, and a show comes out 3 months after its production.
Debord went as far as to assert that “the concrete life of everyone has been degraded into a spectacular universe” (thesis 19). This “passive identity with a spectacle supplants genuine activity.” Although this might seem like an absolutist model with too little room for subversion, Debord’s idea can be greatly illustrated by the relationship Kim has with her fans and vice versa. Kim and her family actively choose to be the spectacle, in which reality for them is denatured because of performance under the camera; Kim’s fans don’t know her in real life at all, but as all celebrity idolatry goes, they feel aligned, loyal, and even emotionally close to her due to her spectacular performance in virtual reality. The medium of T.V. provides the “passive identity” that supplants “genuine activity,” like actually spending real time with someone.
But this kind of “social relationship among people mediated by images” is nothing new (Debord, Thesis 4). It is part of a greater system of media and digital networking in the global informational technological age. Kim is a keen manipulator of, and contributor to, her own image-reproduction, as is evident in the way that she has jumped on possibly every media outlet network for information distribution. Starting with her fame from T.V. she began a blog that culls photos of herself from other forms of media (magazines, paparazzi shots). She jumped on Twitter, created a YouTube channel for herself and her sisters to share makeup tips, opened up a Facebook page, graced the covers of countless national (and international) fashion magazines, appeared on talk show interviews and even co-wrote a book about her family and fashion life that hit #5 on the New York Times Bestsellers list for Hardcover Advice and Misc. In short, again, Kim actively knew how to fan her own f(l)ame, and in an Althussian sense, accurately recognized the nuances of the media ISA.
ISAs are the ideological state apparatuses that Louis Althusser argued have “a certain number of realities which present themselves to the immediate observer in the form of distinct and specialized institutions” (154). Such institutions may include the religious, educational, political, cultural, and communicative. What Kim has been working with consciously, subconsciously and unconsciously, are the communicative and cultural aspects of our contemporary ISAs. ISAs are pluralistic, in that they further “a certain number of realities” [ibid] all within the greater meshwork of dominant ideology, which for the purposes of this essay, are the cultural effects of contemporary Capitalism. Kim’s shows, endorsements and publicized lifestyle furthers consumerism, monogamous family values, certain ideas of leisure and play, social-ladder climbing, not to mention the prevalent image of what women should be like or strive for today. Kim’s limited agency operates within ideology; her lifestyle exemplifies Althusser’s idea that “ideology is a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (157). She subscribes to certain ideologies promulgated by existing cultural ISAs, and she actively promulgates these ideologies through other cultural and communicative ISAs, thus completing the cycle.
Another insightful lens to analyze Kim through is Feminist theory. Nina Power notes that 3rd wave Feminism subsumes historical dimensions of feminism under “the imperative to feel better about oneself, to become a more robust individual…everything turns out to be ‘feminist’ – shopping, pole-dancing, even eating chocolate (27). This is exactly the brand of womanhood Kim embodies and sells. When positive, it’s linked to ‘sex-positive feminism’ and when negative, it’s associated with ‘bimbo feminism,’ Kim’s brand of womanhood focuses on body perfection, beauty, and power through career and self-earned money. She has her name in the market for basically everything Nina Power lists: Kim has created her own workout DVDs: “Fit into your Jeans by Friday,” has learned to dance hip-hop burlesque sexy from The Pussycat Dolls creator Robin Antin, has started fashion lines with Bebe and Sears as well as make-up, perfume, and jewelry collaborations. She even has a cupcake named after her from The Famous Cupcakes.
This combination of successful businesswoman and the brand of womanhood she endorses are at odds with each other just like the essential questions plaguing 3rd wave feminism today. Is posing naked for Playboy sexual liberation? It’s useless to try to actually answer this question. What may be more concrete is an exploration of the direct link between her brand of ‘feminism’ and girl power with capitalism. As Nina Power notes, there is a similarity between ‘liberating feminism’ and ‘liberating capitalism.’ They are interchangeable because so much of what is considered a ‘liberated’ woman today goes hand in hand with consumerism. To be the independent gal, women should buy certain fashion brands, have her own apartment, treat herself to certain types of food, have a gym membership…etc. This is what Nina Power calls Feminism ™. Magazines sell fashion as a woman’s choice, as empowerment, as self-improvement. Cupcake and chocolate companies sell food as ‘c’mon-you-deserve-it-treats to yourself.” Cosmetic and cleansing/grooming companies use this ‘treat yourself,’ ‘be the best that you can be’ motto. Power critiques this aspect of about Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism: “if feminism is something you define for yourself, then what’s to stop it being pure egotism, pure naked greed?” (35)
And egotism is indeed the essence of Brand Kim. Capitalism in our Neoliberal society requires us to be “[our] own entrepreneurial capital”; it’s a system that is “desirable for marketing self-interest” (Shaviro 7). In other words, it is lucrative to be an egomaniac. Likewise, celebrity idolatry requires both the celebrity herself as well as her fans to believe that she is more ________ than she is in reality. Beautiful, talented, etc.; idolatry requires egotism as an essential celebrity trait—she herself has to believe that she is worthy of the fame, the cameras, the hype. Fans, on the other hand, are comfortable in their “unfreedom,” a term Herbert Marcuse uses to define the seamless and smooth way ideology shapes our lives. In the advanced capitalist society in which people identify with commodity, Marcuse argues that people “find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment. The very mechanism which ties the individual to his society has changed, and social control is anchored in the new needs which it has produced” (Power). I argue that this anchoring of self to commodity can be extended to celebritism. The celebrity is a commodity; much more complicated and influential than any material object. Fans are anchored to these celebrities because they identify with the plethora of behaviors, ideas, images, lifestyles and materials they embody and endorse. Celebritism furthers ideology because it creates the Marcusean sense of “unfreedom” for both the fans and the celebrity herself. She has to actively objectify and spectacularize herself while fans are exposed to yet another dominant ideology-bolstering apparatus.
Finally, despite all the criticism of ideology by feminists, the question of agency remains. To what extent is Kim deliberately choosing her moves and being herself? And is celebrity idolatry a free choice by the fans? Nina Power insightfully and forgivingly says that we need to “avoid straightforward assertiosn of blame” (2). Shaviro points out that although contemporary capitalism has “no state apparatus…it has been able to contrain human freedom … comprehensively …[and] invisibly [through]… the Neoliberal market” (6). If this ideology is as invisibly insidious as Shaviro, Debord, Power, and Althusser illustrate, then how is Kim (or anyone else for that matter) to gain (or at least feel like they gain) agency in society?
As Harper’s Bazaar reporter Laura Brown writes, “Kim is an avatar of American consumerism.” Kim, of course, knows this role too well: “Once I tweeted, ‘Oh my God, I just tried a Golden Oreo. I’ve never in my life had something so amazing….Then the Oreo set me crates of them. To my door…Hmm, I like Bentleys, flat-screen TVs, diamonds too…” (Kardashian).
“We have the glitz and the glam, and people want to live vicariously through it.”-Kim Kardashian in Harper’s Bazaar.
Kim definitely knows what she is doing and has maximized her limited agency and opportunities given an ideologically-set society. I’d even argue that she knows some ideologies are monolithic and almost impossible change, so as an opportunist, she works within. The more intriguing question is why so many people seem to want to live vicariously through her and whether we, as a society, can conceive of alternative lifestyles worthy of such a fanatical following.
Works Cited:
Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971.
Brown, Laura. “The Kim Kardashian Interview: Cleopatra with a K.” Feb 9. 2011. Harper’s Bazaar. Nov.13 2011. <http://www.harpersbazaar.com/magazine/cover/kim-kardashian-interview-0311>
Debord, Guy. Society of the Spectacle. Red & Black, 1967. Marxists.org, Nov.13 2011.
Shaviro, Steven. “The ‘Bitter Necessity’ of Debt.” <http://www.shaviro.com/>
Power, Nina. One Dimensional Woman. UK: O Books, 2009.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzx88vArG81qdfta1o1_1280.jpg)
![Chris Moffett, “Occupying Academe” and “Lecture Hall” (pinhole photograph, 2008).
-The Grove of Academus, Site of Plato’s Academy.
Sitting here, late at night, in a tower of Academe, I am writing about the occupation of Wall Street, thinking about how the trope of “occupation” has found such a strong resonance. I imagine it is in no small part because we have been raised on the images of education. Not the images within education, but the images of some hypothetical education, images that allow us to know where we fit and how we are to navigate the “real world.” Among other things, we Race to the Top, Leaving No Child Left Behind, and so it should be no surprise that when these tropes fall flat, we are left to wonder what it means to occupy something that doesn’t exist, or to occupy the pathways themselves. Enacting stories of being on the move, we find ourselves in the midst of things.
What is it that we are occupying ourselves with while we are there? And if this is bound up with the story of education, what is it that we are learning?
Interestingly enough, the story of Academus is a story of a person inextricably in relationship to a place. And this connection, over time, comes to stand for an odd bargain sparing things from occupation. As Plutarch would have it, Helen of Troy has been abducted, and her brothers are on the move, looking for where she might be concealed:
At first, then, they did no harm, but simply demanded back their sister. When, however, the people of the city replied that they neither had the girl nor knew where she had been left, they resorted to war. But Academus, who had learned in some way or other of her concealment at Aphidnae, told them where she was hidden. For this reason he was honored during his life by the Tyndaridae, and often afterwards when the Lacedaemonians invaded Attica and laid waste all the country round about, they spared the Academy, for the sake of Academus. —Plutarch, Theseus, 32.
What is the pact that the Academy must make to have it’s space spared, what secrets must it reveal of another place? And since we find ourselves there, what does it mean to occupy a space that is protected from occupation?
As the imagery of occupation shows its wild unwillingness to stay still, searching perhaps as it is for Helen, it finds itself everywhere or anywhere. But before we too quickly set out to Occupy Education, we should be careful to reflect on it as a question. What are we doing when we occupy the groves of the Academy? We should also be careful, however, to not treat it as a question for mere reflection, as only academics can do. A subject for suitable inquiry. Instead we have to realize the place that is this question is busy being occupied. We have been busy occupying ourselves in it. We are Lacedaemonians and Greeks alike. And the challenge we face is to see whether we can not just inhabit the difficult place we are in, but to do so as an active question, a question of activity.
[also cf. the comments on the original post -ed.]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzx5z7YSSs1qdfta1o1_r1_400.jpg)
