I found this at the Telegraph. It is a quote from Roman Polanski back in 1979, shortly after he had fled the U.S. to keep from serving his jail sentence.
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But… f—ing, you see, and the young girls. Judges want to f— young girls. Juries want to f— young girls. Everyone wants to f— young girls!”
Reprehensible? Yes. Truthful? In my opinion, yes. As long as you think of “everyone” as “people in power,” aka, men (it was 1979, when women still were rarely on juries, were rarely judges, etc). U.S. culture as a whole has a fascination with young girls–think of how many songs in the 50’s-60’s have “she’s only 16, my teenage queen” as the theme. Think of all the “barely legal” porn out there. Think of how the anti-aging plastic surgery industry is a multi-billion dollar thriving industry.
But even more than that…this quote reminded me of Mai’a’s post where she wonders why people never side with the survivor of violence. Roman Polanski has power. Abusers have power. I don’t think that in an “average community” people are thinking to themselves, “Hey, maybe he can get me a good acting deal! And my life will be set!” as I am sure many actors defending and working with Polanski surely are.
But I do wonder how culturally trained we are to challenge/question people with power rather than respect and admire them (think: He’s a police officer, what were you thinking?? Or, he’s your *teacher*, you respect him! Or; Don’t you talk to your mother like that! etc). It’s not just that a person *gets* something from defending and supporting a person in power (i.e. a job, money, prestige, etc), but that going *against* a person in power is not just “supporting the survivor” but directly challenging the entire power structure U.S. culture is based on.
In my opinion, there’s no such thing as “internalized racism, sexism, etc”–in my opinion there is a deep psychological dread of undoing or challenging a power structure that *makes sense*. We like to have our feet under us. We like to feel stable. We like to feel like the world is right. We do anything we can (including everything from eating a full pint of ice cream in one sitting to supporting a rapist) to not experience that feeling that the ground has been pulled out from underneath us. Is it internalized racism or self hate to want stability? To be living a life of turmoil and anxiety (by definition) and want or even need the stability of a stable structure of violence?
We regularly do things like try to “reform” slavery, capitalism, Jim Crow laws, and genocide. Why? Do we *like* slavery? Oh, nononono. We’re good people, right? It’s just…if we stick with it, there may be something for *us* in there. Capitalism is the best opportunity women have for getting ahead, right?
We’ve been trained since we were small children, small babies, really, to not question or challenge authority (aka power) in any way. What is the thought process behind “cry it out” for small babies? That baby is going to mold itself to the lives of *grown up*! Not the other way around! No baby will control *grown ups*!
So it really sorta makes sense, really, that Polanski (and other abusers throughout the U.S./world) is finding so much support. And that a grown up woman has to be reminded of what surely must’ve been stomped in her brain as a thirteen year old–her body is not worth protecting. Her body, her sanity and safety is worth less than a few films. That she physically and vocally has to *agree* that her body is not important just so people will leave her the hell alone.
What would happen to our comfortable power structure–what rug would be pulled out from under us all, if it wasn’t this way?
- Share
September 29th, 2009 at 12:39 pm #
“a deep psychological dread of undoing or challenging a power structure that *makes sense*”. I’m thinking, half the story, for sure. Not that I understand it all, let alone have space to explore it, but since Pynchon’s Inherent Vice appeared this summer, I have been rereading all his novels. And this theme figures largely in all of them. In an explicitly sexual expression. That sense, we want it, desire it. To submit to it. And the theme can drive drama, because he tells this desire in the lives of those who aspire to overthrow and replace. Who abhor and know they abhor that power, and still desire its attentions. Scary. And all I can do is echo you, yes we need to consider our contradictory constitution through it if we’re going to come out in another way.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:41 pm #
I’ll be linking to this because I don’t get it either. Is stability worth devaluing many lives? Institutions might argue Yes, but people should be yelling NO.
Of course, I benefit from change.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm #
I’ve been thinking a lot about this and comparing my feelings toward Polanski and my feelings toward the boys that beat Derrion Albert to death. I think it makes sense to say that structures make people feel safe. I agree that people cling to that familiarity even if change would improve their situation. But then…I think self-hate is a huge part of it too. Is internalized oppression just the natural extension of maintaining social structures? I don’t think i agree that it doesn’t exist. But maybe it’s just the only way I can make sense of what happened to Derrion Albert ie. those boys were able to stomp on his skull saying “put that n***** to sleep” because they internalized the message that black people aren’t worth anything. They didn’t see themselves, Derrion, their community as being worth anything.
If the rug was pulled out from under us, people like me (Black middle class) would lose self-worth because our worth comes from not being like *those* Black people. The ones with less money, less education, etc. Getting rid of a capitalist, eurocentric, value-system would mean I was just like *those* Black people. So I’d have to find a way to love them in order to love me too.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:17 pm #
If you buy Alice Miller, it’s -all- about parental abuse/domination of the child, who then grows up to perpetuate the system. I think she’s reductionist, but it’s definitely a very important piece that rarely gets addressed enough.
http://www.alice-miller.com/index_en.php
September 29th, 2009 at 8:21 pm #
..so, to answer the question wrt stability, she’d probably answer something like: It’s not a question of what the rational adult mind perceives as “stability,” it’s the existential dread and the pre-verbal-ability lessons learned that, as you note, starts with not being picked up when you cry (or earlier). You can’t reason or argue it away on an intellectual/pragmatic level, this: it needs to be dealt with starting at the level it’s at, unconscious, in the body.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:58 pm #
ooooh this is a post i’ll be coming back to, thinking about, for sure.
We’ve been trained since we were small children, small babies, really, to not question or challenge authority (aka power) in any way. What is the thought process behind “cry it out” for small babies? That baby is going to mold itself to the lives of *grown up*! Not the other way around! No baby will control *grown ups*!
& this process is replicated in the schooling system – god forbid we make an exception because we understand that children are individuals and we take the purpose of education to be helping each child become the best version of herself or himself – god forbid we take “treating all children equally” to mean “giving them all the same opportunity” – they have to learn how to obey authority, they have to prove themselves.
& then they grow up to be adults who think that this is necessary… who think it’s wrong to approach people with an air of let’s look out for each other. it’s so alienating and fucked up and that’s before you get to situations like this where it’s also incredibly damaging. ugh.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:56 am #
“But I do wonder how culturally trained we are to challenge/question people with power rather than respect and admire them (think: He’s a police officer, what were you thinking?? Or, he’s your *teacher*, you respect him! Or; Don’t you talk to your mother like that! etc). It’s not just that a person *gets* something from defending and supporting a person in power (i.e. a job, money, prestige, etc), but that going *against* a person in power is not just “supporting the survivor” but directly challenging the entire power structure U.S. culture is based on.”
I agree with this.
However I look at the first paragraph and it seems to be completely disconnected from the following excerpt:
“Is it internalized racism or self-hate to want stability? To be living a life of turmoil and anxiety (by definition) and want or even need the stability of a stable structure of violence?”
I feel confused because I’m wondering what you arguing against the existence of internalised racism or sexism has to do with the opening of this post, Polanski’s quote about the powerful/we within American culture. Yep, there are lots of women supporting Polanski – but yeah can it be both internalised sexism and wanting the safety of the power structure which is steeped in violence?
And I think the overarching idea that we all want stable structures is just far too reductionist for me. I don’t think it’s always about internalised racism or sexism, and we are so embedded in power structures – including our psychologies and our actions – but I don’t know, the structural is important but this post just seems to leave no room to move. Even with your last question.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:00 am #
Oh yes and I don’t want bloody reform!
September 30th, 2009 at 6:54 am #
I just lost a HUGE freaking comment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK! I have to take just a moment to acknowledge the loss of that comment. Because if I don’t I will stab my eyeballs out. ARGGGGGH.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:03 am #
the thing that i keep thinking about in terms of roman polanski is that he was a holocaust survivor. yes? and that alot of our sympathy comes from the fact that he is a survivor. and his wife was murdered.
and then i think about the state of israel. and how so much of our sympathy for the state of israel comes from our mourning the jewish genocide of the holocaust. and so now we let them get away with well, murder, and genocide and excuse it away with oh! but they have suffered so much.
and yeah i had a few seconds while i was reading the short version of his life story — of just heartbreak. heartbreak for a man who suffered through so much.
but by the time i had read through his rape and his escape…that heartbreak turned to anger that my lil bro served two years in jail for a couple of bags of mary jane. which was a felony. which means that he cannot leave the states and escape to another country,nor can her visit me for the next 5 years. nor can he vote.
and frankly i didnt even finish the article on polanski’s life cause i was so disgusted. & furious. that there is energy given to protecting this man because he has made beautiful films.
think about the number of artistic geniuses locked up right now. who have never had the oppty or time or resources to find out what they could create. i think about what the pic has stolen from us, in terms of creativity and artists and leaders and poets and film makers. and i weigh all that against what polanski may produce in this final years. and i srsly stop giving a fuck about him.
and i dont think that this one documented rape was the last time he raped a girl. sorry. everything i have read (and like i said i had to stop when i got disgusted) tells me that he has raped after this trial. in the ensuing years.
i dont really have a point in all this. just sitting here amazed at white male rich privilege.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:07 am #
oh and my point about israel was to say that folks who are powerful, part of their power, is that their earlier narrative of suffering pain becomes evidence of how powerful they are. the powerless’s narratives of suffering and pain are evidence of how powerless they are.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:26 am #
@guerilla mama–YES, about the narrative of suffering pain becomes evidence of how powerful they are–I’ve been thinking about this part in particular since I read your post–about how we are trained to have so much sympathy and to really *nurture* the powerful and elite–the ones who commit such heinous crimes against humanity–like–with the Kennedy’s–we have so much sympathy and respect for the family and what it has suffered–we feel deep compassion for Edward Kennedy–to the point on numerous feminist sites–even feminists are saying “he killed a woman, but spent the rest of his life making up for it/paying for it/etc!!!”
But would we say that about a working class joe who killed his wife? That he sat and cried in prison and spent years and years doing charitable work? And let’s hold a massive funeral for him and respect him and love him? The only reason he had the opportunity to do all that great work (edward kennedy) is because he had untold amounts of power and money backing him! Oh, I’m sure *every* man would spend the rest of his life “making up for” the death of his wife/girlfriend by being the most powerful man in the U.S. congress! you know?
September 30th, 2009 at 7:30 am #
I mean, the classism in all of this…but it gets hidden behind discourses of humanity. He paid for it his whole life, he regreted every minute of it, he worked for change after that! in short, please please see that he is a human being!
But what helps us to see his humanity? And not see the humanity of your brother???
September 30th, 2009 at 7:45 am #
ok–the original comment I wrote: was re: the “there is no such thing as internalized racism” comment.
I have very complicated feelings regarding this–and so I didn’t want to go into it on my post, because that wasn’t really the point–but explaining it here in comments is ok!
I think it does exist and it doesn’t.
On the one hand, practically, it doesn’t exist. When you are organizing on the streets–when you are talking with your grandma or your best friend or your co-worker–with working class people and/or people who’ve not been to college. If you say to them, you’re internalizing racism! you have a lot of self hate! they are going to tell you to go shove it up your ass. for example: when I was younger, I called myself white instead of chicana. If a friend who had been to college had come to me and said, baby, I think that is a sign of your self-hate or of internalized racism–i would’ve said, you don’t know me! who in the hell do you think you are? I had my own reasons for calling myself white, and if that person had asked, I would’ve told her. She doesn’t get to tell ME why I call myself white. you know? And this is going to happen over and over again–if you sat down and talked to those kids that shelby talks about–the ones that killed a fellow student–they would say the same thing, I guarantee it. WHo. Is. You. with your big bad ass words and your arrogance sitting here telling me i hate myself. fuck you.
So, on the streets, in practical terms–”self hate” and “internalized racism”–it doesn’t work as a tool to organize, to think through things, to mobilize–nothing. it has been universally rejected by almost everybody I’ve ever worked with who wasn’t an organizer or an activist.
Ok, so you move to the educated conservative. And the same thing happens. How many times have people said Michelle Malkin is self hating? And how many times has she said, fuck you in response? Same with clarence thomas. And Condi rice? Only they have the words to respond further and say, you, who say you are trying to emopwer and liberate, are really stealing my self agency. I make my own choices, I operate for my own reasons, I don’t have to explain shit to you. You are turning me into a mindless drone–like I’m controlled by whiteness (or maleness or whatever). Like I didn’t work hard and fight hard and shed blood and tears getting myself to where I got–like I just sucked a little dick or played uncle tom and whom, here i am!
Way to be a powerful feminist (anti-racist, etc)! Assuming that a black man or an asian woman or a white woman etc, isn’t smart enough to get to positions of power just because!
Right?
ANd really, that person who argues this is right. because the assumption in the argument of self hate or internalized racism is–if the person *didn’t* hate themselves, if the person *didn’t* have internalized racism–the person would *naturally* (or biologically?) be liberal/prgressive/radical. because what other choice would there be?
(gonna click send on this comment, i’m not finished yet, but my computer is acting up, and I don’t want to lose this one–will finish it in the next comment)
September 30th, 2009 at 7:57 am #
Yeah I absolutely agree. And I think with the judgement of self-hating and internalised racism/sexism etc. SOMETIMES it can be about – hey you mother fucker, you don’t agree with ME, with MY moral world view that means you must hate our people and yourself.
Fuck that shit.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:59 am #
ok, i’m back.
As I was saying up above–the assumed naturalness of “liberal/progressive/radical” politics in the “internalized racism” argument–it is imposing a really rather harsh understanding of what marginalized communities can look like. that there is no such thing as a ‘naturally occuring’ conservative person of color, in other words. it is imposing an ideology (or: using power to control) people within marginalized communities.
But–having said all this–I *do* actually believe that internalized racism/self hate exists. An example: I remember sitting on my bed as a small kid, looking at a book that had pictures of mexican art in it. And i was crying and crying and crying–physically *crying*–because that was not the kind of art I wanted to be from. I wanted to be an artist–with every breath in my body I wanted to be an artist–and I thought that if I was mexican, i had to make “mexican art.” And I didnt’ want to. because I thought it was ugly. Compared to that wonderful amazing FINE art (i.e. western art) I’d seen in museums. It was so primative. And unnuanced. And ugly. And….UGLY.
There’s not many other ways for me to explain that feeling I had except by saying it was internalized racism. I had learned what was beautiful at institutions like school, museums, books–and what was beautiful was certainly not where I came from.
BUT….at the same time…I have to *also* say that the power behind the “art”–the “good” art–was not lost on me. Not only did I think that MExican art was ugly–but I ALSO was attracted to the power the institutions offered “good” art. As a kid–I formed the dream in my head–I wanted to write a story that was so good it became a part of the stories that kids had to read in school. Like catcher in the rye. Or Wuthering heights. I knew. I knew without being told–*that* was when you made it as an author. When you’d been brought into the cannon. I was attracted to the idea of kids being required to read my work. I’ve always focused on “because then I could help them” part of that equation (because I was a young naive kid, and thought that if kids were forced to read me, I would change their worlds.)–I wanted to help other sad lonlely kids. I wanted to let them know they weren’t alone. I had such good intentions. But I wanted to use the *power of the institution* to play out my good intentions. And I only recognized the *first* half of the equation–the *power* part of the equation–after I’d been to university.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:01 am #
And I don’t care about the feelings of conservative people of colour – but you know, sometimes people do what they have to do. And I don’t want to hold up other people of colour to higher standards that white people for example, just because I may think that I’m hawt because I think like this. I’m so damn radical…
If I start with that YOU SELL OUT, YOU THIS, YOU THAT, YOU RACE TRAITOR that’s not really community with other people of colour, that’s just being a straight up asshole.
October 1st, 2009 at 3:01 am #
oh and h/t to alas a blog…
polanski later while in exile for raping a 13 year old girl also had a relationship with a 15 year old girl.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nastassja_Kinski
October 1st, 2009 at 8:02 am #
Does any of this unctious moralizing extend to Bill Clinton? Does no one recognize the Clinton Defense when it is arrayed in favor of this slug, Polanski? I didn’t think memories were so short as this but let us recap. Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaderick in a Little Rock hotel room, biting her lip to the point of bleeding to keep her from wiggling over much. And what was her reception? Um, the internets can tell you but suffice it to say, “a little nutty and a little slutty” was the least of it. Polanski is a pretty okay director but he can not match the devotion of the groupies for a “Great PresidentTM” and that was his real mistake.
October 1st, 2009 at 8:03 am #
This travesty gives “flip-flopping” a fresh, bitter taste.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:31 am #
what are you talking about megapotamus? I’ve never supported bill clinton, ever. And have spoken out against him on a regular basis, along with his wife. Get your facts straight before you come here lecturing. Thanks.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:38 am #
Wow. Thank you for writing this.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:48 am #
Excellent post, BFP. I wrote about Polanski’s movie REPULSION, which I believe was made by a rapist. (to put it another way, I think the movie reeks with rapist-sensibility.)
I have a few Polanski-apologists showing up in the thread. I see you do, too. (sigh) No end to it, I fear.
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 pm #
Good heavens, thank you for this. It’s been a while since I came through (hope you’re well! I’ll be playing catch-up!), and it’s so good to read your writing and hear your thoughts and receive your gracious sharing again.
I love this angle on the Polanski case — it’s the best I’ve heard yet. In part because it reminds me that when each one of us takes the time to really reflect on our own reactions to instability, noticing the helpful and unhelpful ways we respond to it, we are actually doing a tremendous service to our family, friends, and communities — not just to ourselves. Because in striving to remain conscious of our reactions to instability, in creating spaciousness around uncertainty, fostering openness to alternative possibilities, we help lessen the odds that the next time the rug gets pulled out from under us, we’ll cling to the same old harmful habits — the ones that reinforce patriarchy, racism, classism, instilled in us since childhood and always luring us with empty promises of self-protection.
I think each one of us has the power, even if it seems tiny, to examine and mend our own relationships with stability and instability. We can strive to change and train our own minds to respond to uncertainty or “threats” not with too much fear, but with clarity, compassion, and responsibility for the consequences of our actions in those groundless moments.
Maybe I’m off-base somehow, but that’s what I’m getting as the positive side to what you’re saying. Unless you mean that our desire for stability is fixed and can’t be changed? I can certainly see how in some situations with PTSD and survivors’ radical loss of control, re-establishing some sort of groundedness and control is essential. But again, that’s why someone might practice training the mind on a regular basis to accept instability: so that if and when a crisis arises, we’ll be better equipped to cope and respond. Does that make sense? Hopefully. In any case, I’m sending you abrazos from California and feeling blessed anew to be sharing your online company. Cuidate!