I know it is probably a passing trend, but I find our concern, even obsession with exposed celebrity crotches both puzzling and fascinating. It is puzzling for obvious reasons. We have a fairly pornographic culture. What’s so shocking about a peek under a skirt? Shocking. For real. That’s what we’re supposedly thinking. Titillating? I can deal with that. But shocking is just odd – and I don’t buy that we’re a puritanical culture. Fascinating? Well, I think the fact that pantyless girl-junk has had “the best week ever” at some point signifies that such exposure is caught up in a wider national anxiety.
Now, I usually resist such totalizing notions as “signs of the times” and “zeitgeist”; I find the words plainly annoying. Yet in this case they are relevant, so I’ll say it: anxiety about crotch shots is a sign of the times. There, I said it. We’ve even
gotten to the point of listing “best of 2006” for vaginal exposure (though asses are passing for crotches, in some cases…not to get too technical). What better clue that you’ve arrived than a blog’s best-of list, right?
Let’s be clear about the anxiety. On the one hand, sure, it’s just voyeurism and understandable at that. On the other hand, Britney Spears’ exposed crotch – which actually has its own website – was regularly listed alongside other problems she’d had: excessive drinking, smoking while pregnant, driving with her baby in her lap. I always found that strange. How could it be that a peek under her skirt (only there, really, because a photographer pointed a camera) ends up on a list of genuinely troubling behavior…if she were your friend…but she’s not. (Is it just that she wasn’t wearing underwear? C’mon, ya’ll!)
This whole crotch-peek anxiety is clearly a symptom of a wider something. I think it is part of a wider concern about borders – most prominent, of course, is the U.S. border with Mexico. There is this really important border, apparently, between the hot hemline and pornographic shots. It’s easy to say that we like all of those gradations as a culture, but we don’t. There are two countries here, the short skirt and Penthouse. The car-exiting crotch shot is like the illegal immigrant. We’re fine with two countries. We might even like both countries. In fact, some, if not many, might have significant nostalgic attachments to the other side. But that border-thing is very important. Unplanned and unauthorized border crossings? Very bad.
I wouldn’t call this attachment to the border – which in turn enables all sorts of other attachments to country, mini-skirt, porno, beach tourism – an ambivalence. It is actually quite sure of itself. It may in fact be the case that we love the border in order to not hate the Other, something Derrida has pointed out is the paradox of cosmopolitanism and welcoming. We have to police the border, exclude everyone on that other side over there, and criminalize its crossing in order to say yes to the very Other we police, exclude, and criminalize. A paradox, yes, but also a sad commentary on our inability to say yes without violence.
Anxiety about the border with Mexico often turns on this strange, almost unimaginable phenomenon of a xenophobia without racism. Now, let me be clear: I’m not saying there aren’t racist kooks all over the anti-immigrant (or anti-illegal-immigrant, as they would have it, though I have my doubts) movement. There are a ton. But I am saying that so much of the anxiety these days about immigration is also and independently an anxiety about borders, not firstly or maybe at all about race. These are two very different anxieties. Racism means, minimally, that one sees another person as inherently inferior because of racial make-up. Xenophobia means fear of those “over there,” on the other side. Xenophobia is about borders, which can also be about race, but not necessarily – obviously the case when Latinos in the U.S. take on the xenophobic rhetoric and persona. Rarely, if ever, do I think xenophobia and racism have been kept separate. And yet I think there is a lot of it these days. I think it’s our post millennial tension.
(Note: xenophobia is bad, in case you think I’m glossing over ugly stuff.)
So there are these crotches. Remarkably plain crotches, actually. It turns out that the celebrity culture hasn’t been able to do much with the vagina; they all kinda look the same. So it can’t be the case that we’re upset or scandalized at the plainness of it all – because, well, imagine if “she” had really fancy stuff. Celeb stuff. (I’m waiting for crotch shots to show up in US Weekly’s “Stars: They’re Just Like Us!”) The scandal of girl-junk on display is just that of the border. What’s on the other side is ugly. Can’t have it from her. Sure, we have plenty of it here, in our bedrooms or under our pants or in our pornography collections, but it just can’t be there, on display, across either the Rio Grande of the hemline or – that very last border – underwear.
And so we find our cultural world increasingly negotiated as a maze of borders. Some make sense, or at least a little sense, as when we draw lines between those who can and cannot use “the n-word.” Illegal immigrants in this case need to feel the repressive state apparatus. I’ve got no problem with that. Some are fuzzier (no pun intended) borders, as
with these crotches. Some are really bad, of course. One need only think about how borders are prima facie oppressive for mixed-race, transsexual, or, frankly, immigrants seeking a different life – which may or may not mean assimilation.
After all, borders sustain the language of authenticity. Authentically sexy celebrities don’t flash their junk while exiting a car. But they ought to tease us with the borderline. Who doesn’t love the tease? Just don’t pose for Playboy, which would kind of be like immigrating, no? You lose your citizenship in the normal celebrity world – or at least you have to do a lot to get back home. Real epic shit. Again, it’s not that we hate the girl stuff. I really don’t think we do. We just compulsively need this border-thing to keep an increasingly de-bordered world stable. It’s no longer keep your pants on, girly; it’s suddenly keep underwear over that good stuff, please! Honestly, I think that shift is nothing but the shift from blunt racism to xenophobia, for better or worse. I’m betting it isn’t for the better, though not necessarily worse…
This border stuff is tricky. And not good for us, really. The anxieties throughout reveal, in the end, how we are all border crossers in the new millennium. Thus, our post-millennial tension.
-
Looking at that list of tags (“Derrida, crotch shot, U.S. Mexico border”) I can’t help but laugh. Honestly, this was completely fascinating and the connection made a weird sort of sense. I especially liked your point about authority and how borders effect people who want to cross/traverse/transcend borders.
-
Yeah, the tag list totally makes it worth composing, then posting.
Glad you found it an interesting read. I find the whole borders-issue fascinating, as a general social economy. Does more harm than good … yet, as Derrida makes clear in Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas, borders also make all sorts of just acts possible.
-
One border that I find interesting that is implicit in your post is that between “illegal” and “legal.” Illegal immigrants. Hmm. This is drawing a border that is not nearly as secure as it claims to be. What does it mean to call a person illegal? What does it say about the rest of us? And what does it say about the law? It seems to say that the law is, well, just the law, rather than an elastic, moving, dare I say, ambivalent border. And when it comes to immigration, this border moves. A lot.
Calling it illegal immigration does more than just dehumanize the folks that move across borders. It obscures the ways in which undocumented immigration is a result of some very un-ambivalent social and economic policies that desire immigration without reproduction. I’m going to think about this a bit more; this analytic of reproduction–what should and should not come from which crotches–might be another way to think these two border issues together.
-
A great read, though I don’t think girl-junk all looks the same.
-
In particular state borders, the legal-illegal distinction seems pretty plain (for my analytical purposes): those who cross, then stay under sanctioned conditions (legal) and those who cross, then stay without seeking sanction. Though rarely friendly or transparent to those crossing, then staying, the boundaries are there.
In terms of a generalized border, in particular the crotch-shot economy, the legal is the one who is authorized – Anna Nicole Smith, for example, who is authorized to cross from the red carpet (no pun intended) to Playboy. Legal immigrant. Then there is the illegal immigrant, say, Lindsey Lohan. Short skirt? Fab. Penthouse? Illegal immigration. We didn’t authorize that. The crotch-shot, and we always have to pretend that it is her initiation, crosses the border without authorization as well, I think.
Thus, the “outrage.”
Borders within borders. Yes, the deeper sense of our obsession with borders.
And I know it looks different! I just meant, you know, that Britney doesn’t have lacquered, pinstriped with flames kinda junk. I shoulda said “pretty much the same.”
-
But we *do* “authorize” “illegal immigration.” The border’s only plain when the state decides to bring down the repressive apparatus.
It seems plain because we like to think the law’s just the law. But it’s not. Illegal immigration is encouraged so that we can have a low wage labor force without having to pay for the reproduction of that labor force. Sure, our stated laws at the border are clear, but what they mean to folks who are sanctioned or unsanctioned shifts in relation to state (business) priorities. And I would argue that these effects really do change the nature of the border itself in a way that means these distinctions are not nearly so plain as we imagine.
-
I know that Perdue, for example, routinely sends buses to areas in Central America to locate and bring to the south “illegal immigrants” to work in their factories, but there’s no crackdown because it’s so necessary to the local economy and to my low-cost teriyaki-ready stir fry strips. Is that what you mean, Kate?
-
Quickly: I perhaps should have caveated that more strongly than the parenthetical “for my analytical purposes here.” Which means there is a formal structure invoked in moments of emergency, as when Pat Buchanan writes a book or Paris Hilton is photographed under her skirt. Yes, the law and practice is structured by super impasses…yet, as you note, it is clear enough when repressive measures – of which shame is one – come to bear.
The ambiguity or ambivalence about borders is, I think, giving way. Anxiety about either “enforcing the laws” or crafting punitive new laws seems to me to be just that obsession with borders.
Amnesty, which would de-border the discussion, is really pretty unthinkable because of our post-millennial obsession.
Theorizing or thinking through the impasses is also part of that obsession. It is our post-millennial tension. It determines the whole discourse, on both sides. That would be my point. I think.
-
I was waiting to see how long before Anna Nicole’s name came up! Surprised, in fact, that it took this long…she has become, I think, the sublime icon of bodily/national border-li-ness and the compulsion to cross borders; she not only managed the crossing-over from glamour model to porn mag model, from tabloid darling to reality tv supernova, and then she crossed from life to death (in a Seminole hotel, so on the property of a “sovereign” nation within the nation) and her body–penetrated and “crossed over” by the autopsy–refused to yield a media-satisfying narrative of cause….and then, (the audacity!) she was buried in the Bahamas…John, I think your insights into border-crossings across hemlines cum frontier-lines could be mounted entirely on Anna Nicole’s capacious figure. Would that be too obvious?
-
Re: “as Derrida makes clear in Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas, borders also make all sorts of just acts possible.”
Vivek said something similar about Gandhi. Apparently, Gandhi addressed all his letters with “Dear Friend,”. This was contrasted to liberalism where the core relationship is “brotherhood” (whether it be the brotherhood of right-wing nationalism or the Paris Commune). So he contrasted brotherhood to Gandhi’s idea of friendship by saying that in family people are expected to agree – disagreements don’t go over well; whereas the framework of friendship allows you to agree to disagree. Sort of the same idea: having the border (friendship, not family) makes some acts possible that otherwise would not be.
I think (and I’m just sophist-izing here) that the goal, nevertheless, should be to get rid of the borders so that these actions (agreeing to disagree, having immigrants) are non-issues: the creation of a world without disagreement (ew?), without immigration across national boundaries. Analyzing what acts “the borders” allow us to commit might be a good way of seeing what the major flaws are in our society.
-
Pingback from Making Up Tammy Faye « Theory my culture on July 21, 2007 at 10:05 pm
-
One of the dumbest things I have ever read, what a waste of time.

12 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/trackback/