蜜糖直播

From Henrietta to HeLa: A History of Racism and a Reality of Distrust in the American Medical System, Meg Summerside听听

Modern Racism in Suffragette, Yvonne Krumrey

Having It All: Discrimination in the Reproductive Care of Trans-Men, Ellery Cohn

The Representation of Culture, Place, and Subjectivity in Training Day, Mason Eastwood

听

From Henrietta to HeLa: A History of Racism and a Reality of Distrust in the American Medical System, Meg Summerside

(Back to Top)

Modern Racism in Suffragette, Yvonne Krumrey

(Back to Top)

In the wake of Saudi Arabia granting women the right to vote in October 2015, a film about the women鈥檚 suffrage movement comes out in theaters. Presenting feminism with a film set in a prominently racist era of history with an all-white cast, which was marketed with insensitive language, is all too reminiscent of an era of exclusion we thought was long over. Despite critics congratulating its progressiveness, the film Suffragette actually ignores the racist nature of the movement of the first wave feminists and justifies the film鈥檚 whitewashing of history through its white feminist ideology. Setting the film in the UK, overlooking the historical women of color involved in the movement, and feeding into the white feminist hypocrisy of present day, the film fulfills a niche that allows it to still be considered 鈥減rogressive.鈥� Whitewashing a progressive era allows the film to be celebrated by its millennial target audience yet still accepted by the more conservative older generation. To critically examine this historical film, we must be aware of the history it is attempting to portray and start with the discourse surrounding the suffragette movement of the 1920s. Second, we must look at the film itself and analyze the choices and statements it makes regarding race. Finally, questions and theories of racism analyzing the film and the decisions it made in celebrating women鈥檚 suffrage will shed light on the film鈥檚 modern implications and its historical inaccuracies.

The film revolves around a fictional textile factory worker, Maud Watts, who acts, firstly, as a witness to the suffragette movement, secondly, as a hesitant activist, and finally, as a suffragette with nothing to lose and a willingness to take radical measures to advance the women鈥檚 vote. Watts becomes involved with the movement after witnessing a coworker, Violet Miller, participate in a violent demonstration. Another suffragette, Alice Haughton, encourages the women of the factory to join the movement by demonstrating in the street. When Miller cannot testify to government officials at a hearing for suffrage due to injuries caused by her abusive husband, Watts takes her place. This solidifies a personal stake in the movement for Watts, so she attends the government announcement on the decision to grant women鈥檚 suffrage. After the suffragettes learn that they鈥檙e not granted the right to vote, riots break out. Watts is jailed for a week. During her incarceration, she meets Emily Davidson, who is connected to the suffragette leader Emmeline Pankhurst. Pankhurst was a middle-class career activist who advocated for socioeconomic rights as well as women鈥檚 suffrage. After being released from prison, Watts attends an underground rally led by Pankhurst. She is arrested again. After the police drop her off at her home, her husband throws her out. Later, the public discovers she鈥檚 a suffragette. Her boss fires her and her husband forbids her from visiting their son based on legal, and sexist grounds. He then gives her son up for adoption as he cannot take care of the child himself and he has the legal right to forbid Maud from taking him. With nothing left to lose, Watts gets more and more involved in the movement and more and more violent as well. She鈥檚 imprisoned again and force-fed during her hunger strike. After her release, she and Davidson attempt to gain national attention at the Epsom Derby, and while their original plan is disrupted, Davidson becomes a martyr by stepping into the race and getting trampled. The film concludes with Watts attending Davidson鈥檚 funeral followed by real footage of the funeral in 1913. Before the credits roll, the screen displays the year British women achieved suffrage: 1928, and follows with each nation up until 鈥淪audi Arabia 2015鈥� (Owen & Gavron, 2015). The film made twenty-nine million dollars at the box office, it cost fifteen million to produce, and it had an all-white cast. The film was received well overall, with a 73% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (Suffragette, 2016).

The history of women鈥檚 suffrage movements clue us into how Suffragette chose to portray history and why its portrayal is not only exclusionary, but inaccurate. While the early 1900s suffrage movement in the UK was less racially controversial than the movement in the US, it still reflected similar white supremacist attitudes. Suffragettes of this era from the US, like Susan B. Anthony, Anna Howard Shaw, and Rebecca Ann Latimer Felton, would often compare women鈥檚 suffrage to black suffrage, but not in a positive way. They argued that white women were more entitled to the vote than racial minorities (Ortberg, 2014). Many were openly racist, often proclaiming that women鈥檚 suffrage would strengthen white exceptionalism. For example, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a suffragette who also protested slavery, and yet, when discussing women鈥檚 suffrage and the black vote, she said, 鈥淲hat will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?鈥� (Ortberg, 2014, n.p.). Susan B. Anthony once claimed that the middle-class white woman鈥檚 struggle was more desperate than the black American man鈥檚 struggle: 鈥淢r. [Frederick] Douglass talks about the wrongs of the Negro; but with all the outrages that he to-day suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton鈥� (Ortberg, 2014, n.p.). Not only is this sentiment ironic, considering the disparity between the civil rights of Stanton and Douglass, but alarmingly, the rights of black women or Native American women did not come up, revealing how big name suffragettes had extremely limited intersectionality. According to sociologist A. Javier Trevino (2015), intersectionality is 鈥渢he ways in which several demographic factors鈥攅specially social class, race, ethnicity, and gender鈥攃ombine to affect people鈥檚 experiences鈥� (p. 5). This means that people who are in multiple minority groups have different struggles than the groups they fit into do. Therefore, when Anthony and Stanton compared the black man鈥檚 struggle to the white woman鈥檚 struggle, they ignored the intersectionality black women in America face. The film touches on intersectionality by framing the issue from the perspective of working class women, but other representation stops there. This exclusion and lack of consideration was common across the Global North, but in the UK, the Caucasian population allowed for the issue of race to be swept under the rug. According to Anita Anand, author of Sophia: Princess, Suffragette, Revolutionary, 鈥淭here were some [British suffragettes] who were outright fascists: Norah Elam, who earlier in her life happily worked alongside鈥� women of color in the movement and then 鈥渢urned into a Blackshirt later,鈥� Blackshirts being members of the Italian fascist party (Flint, 2015, n.p.). Women of the early suffragette movement worked with women of color in the movement when convenient, but true feelings about race emerged later when the same women of color fought battles revolving around racial discrimination and the white suffragettes were not on their side. This is a reality the film鈥檚 writers and directors chose to ignore.

Using the social situation in the US as context for the entire western world at the time, we can see the inaccuracy between the film鈥檚 representation of the movement and the reality of the movement itself. Despite what the end of the film states and what is often celebrated as the year women achieved the vote in the US, 1920 was the year white women could partake in civil liberty. Minority women, due to property laws, the grandfather clause, and other unfair and racist voting limitations, could not vote. All women were able to legally vote in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act began removing barriers that prevented people of color from participating in the elections. There is a 45-year gap between the 19^th Amendment and the VRA. This distinction is not a matter of semantics but an illustration of the exclusionary nature of the white women鈥檚 suffrage movement.

In the US, women of color played a large role in women鈥檚 suffrage despite the active exclusion they faced from the white supremacists within the movement. These women were not made into historical figures and are often forgotten, especially in whitewashed historical reflections, such as this film. In the UK, Indian women had a part in women鈥檚 suffrage, led by the princess Sophia Duleep Singh, an anti-imperialist feminist advocate (Leszkiewicz, 2013). Mrs. Pankhurst, who we see as the film鈥檚 powerful suffragette leader, and Duleep Singh led a riot on November 18, 1910, which was violently intercepted by the police. However, 鈥淪ophia was not the only Indian suffragette. An Indian women鈥檚 group took part in the 1911 coronation procession of 60,000 suffragettes鈥� (Suffragette, 2016, n.p.). These women were a real part of the movement and represented a significant group of women in the UK.

The 1920s women鈥檚 rights movement featured in the film paints a very different picture of feminism than the modern movement of today. Now the third wave focuses on securing rights for LGBT women and men, getting rid of gender roles and rape culture, and closing the gender wage gap. Many in the third wave also focus on issues specific to women of color, like the Black Lives Matter movement, and supporting women who wear hijabs who are often victims of Islamophobia. The second wave, which occurred from 1960-1990, is still dominant in the mainstream circles of feminist discourse and representation. Much in the same way, in the context of modern race discourse, the current mainstream form of racism is colorblindness. Colorblindness is the belief that we are in a post-racial society of equality. Ignoring the reality of racism as a present condition and claiming equality allows us to blame inequalities that still remain on their victims (Smith, 2013). Modern mainstream society is still catching up to the third wave feminism and its inclusion and often uses colorblindness to disregard race. It appears that popular media representations of feminism, like Suffragette, are behind the progressive times. This is disappointing for a film that celebrates the progressive and ever-changing movement of feminism, especially when focusing on a time of great social change. In fact, the film takes the role of historical correctionist or revisionist, as it whitewashes history to fit the colorblindness that is plaguing the current movements.

The casting choice lends insight into how the writers chose to ignore, misrepresent, or even completely erase the racism in the women鈥檚 suffrage movement in the 1910s. Many supporters argue that since the film鈥檚 director is from the UK, she simply wanted to reflect her own nation鈥檚 history. However, the setting hides this problematic era of history, as the UK had seemingly less racial tension and oppression inside its borders. This choice would justify an all-white cast and the ignorance of the controversies of the US. Despite the very white population of the UK at the time, the film erases the contributions women of color made. Duleep Singh and the Indian suffragettes were recognized by and worked alongside Pankhurst (Suffragette, 2016). There was no space for Duleep Singh even though Ms. Pankhurst was featured heavily in the film (Suffragette, 2016). The director, Sarah Gavron, gave her reason for whitewashing the historic movement:

We interrogated the writ and photographic evidence, and the truth is, it鈥檚 a very, very different picture from the U.S. The U.S. had a lot of women of color involved in the movement, some who were excluded, some who weren鈥檛 excluded. But in the UK, it wasn鈥檛 like that, because we had pockets of immigration...it was later, around the war, around the fifties, that really the UK shifted and changed in a really wonderful way to produce what we have today. (Erbland, 2015, n.p.)

Despite being set in a predominantly white nation, the film still whitewashes the events. In response to a casting director refusing him for a film set in 1800s UK, Gus, a character in the detective sitcom Psych, said, 鈥淪o what are you saying? Black people hadn鈥檛 been invented yet?鈥� Gavron's excuse has been addressed and questioned many times. Suffragette isn鈥檛 the first film to whitewash history. Hannah Flint (2015), writer for Metro.co.uk noticed the imbalanced representation of the film, saying, 鈥淚f I鈥檓 to go by the historical accuracy of the film, then we鈥檙e meant to believe that there were no women, nay people of colour, living in Britain during the early 20th century鈥� (n.p.). This isn鈥檛 true. There were many Indian and black people in the UK at the time as a result of Britain鈥檚 colonial history. In fact, 鈥渙ne-hundred years earlier the British slave trade had been abolished, with slavery following suit in 1833, and though the black immigrant population had declined due to continued scientific racism and discrimination from white society towards the end of the 19^th century, there was still between 20,000 and 25,000 [black individuals] living in the capital in the early 1900s鈥� (Flint, 2015, n.p.). This number only represents the people of African descent, not other minorities that lived in the UK, yet there isn鈥檛 a single person of color in the film.

Gavron claims she and her team chose the time frame of the movement when women of color were less involved because she wanted to show 鈥渢he period of these sixteen months where militancy was at its height and the state was more brutal to these women鈥� [she] hoped to remind people of the battle that paved the way for the world that we live in now and how hard fought for it was鈥� (Tangcay, 2015, n.p.). Sensationalizing an important movement and its violence instead of representing its diversity is not only harmful but disrespectful to the women who faced the brutality, especially to the women not represented in the film who, historically, were active members. Gavron claims that her team 鈥渨ent through [written] and photographic evidence鈥� in order to decide who to represent in the film. However, it鈥檚 important to question why the photographs and papers were mainly white, and if they truly represented the movement (Tangcay, 2015, n.p.). The early suffragettes wanted media attention to promote their cause. The white suffragette agenda probably had a say in the framing of the camera to align more favorably with common white supremacist mainstream society. Gavron also admits Duleep Singh鈥檚 role in the movement but seems to have written her off in the film because she was an aristocrat. She must have forgotten that being an aristocrat was one of the only ways women of color had influence at this time. It鈥檚 also important to note that Pankhurst herself was much better off socioeconomically than the women Gavron wanted in the spotlight, undermining her excuse to exclude Duleep Singh. To many modern feminists, choosing to focus on working-class women with upper-class Pankhurst as a leader justifies the film鈥檚 pale demographic. The spotlight is essential and powerful, representing a group of suffragettes that have been previously excluded, but it鈥檚 a pretty thin substitution for the representation the film truly needs. Suffragette only excludes another group of women who have yet to be accurately represented in the mainstream media.

The 鈥渉istorical鈥� film also overlooks the UK鈥檚 intense colonial involvement. The setting is in a British bubble, ignoring international movements and politics that extended beyond London. The women in the film are outraged, and rightfully so, about the treatment they receive in the workplace, in government, and in their homes. However, they never comment on the similar disrespect and dehumanization the British imperialists enacted on the people, especially women, of the nations they colonized. The characters in the film also fail to acknowledge that these suffragettes more than likely would have had imperialistic and supremacist attitudes. Instead the director鈥檚 modern day colorblindness swept these issues under the rug.

Suffragette created further controversy in its promotion, as the actresses Meryl Streep, Carey Mulligan, Anne-Marie Duff, and Romola Garai donned t-shirts that read 鈥淚鈥檇 rather be a rebel than a slave.鈥� In doing so, the actresses solidified the exclusion and insensitivity of the film, as well as bringing back the attitude the original movement had towards people of color (Abad-Santos, 2015). Pankhurst herself said this in a speech, which is also featured in the film, comparing white women鈥檚 situation and actual slavery (, 2015). As we noted with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, this was a common pattern in the early suffragette movements. While many women did and do struggle to assert their personhood, it is not the same as slavery. Legally enforced slavery was not the women鈥檚 situation in the most powerful nation in the world at the time, and comparing the two was another way white suffragettes erased the struggles of women of color. Many black women in the US and the UK had ties to slavery, whether their parents and grandparents were subjected to it or they were themselves. As it had only been 30 years since slavery was abolished, these black women were (and are) still living in the shadow of slavery. Pankhurst reduced their experience in order to compare it to the situation of white women at the time: 鈥淚鈥檇 rather be a rebel than a slave.鈥� She also implied that slavery was a choice. This ignores the intersectional experience of women of color by claiming that all women are 鈥渆nslaved鈥� by patriarchy, and racial oppression is erased. 鈥淚鈥檇 rather be a rebel than a slave鈥� was used to promote a film with the purpose of representing feminine inclusion. Meryl Streep and many others that approved of the film are indicative of the limited perspective, white privilege, and insensitivity second wave white feminists often retain from the 1960s movements.

Every historical film tries to represent a specific time period, but it鈥檚 impossible to not be influenced by the current setting. As many human rights movements suffer a 鈥渓ag鈥� in their transition into recognition and acceptance in mainstream culture, it appears as though second wave feminism, the movement of the 1960-1990s, is finally emerging in the mainstream. The focuses of the second wave are family dynamics, sexual freedom, reproductive rights, and equal treatment in the workplace. These issues were most pertinent to upper middle-class white women. The problem is that the second wave鈥檚 exclusionary nature, which earned the nickname 鈥渨hite feminism,鈥� focuses only on white, middle- to upper-class, straight, cisgender, non-sex worker women. This movie, released in 2015, reflects the movement as it was in 1925. The film鈥檚 timing and reception are also indicative of the current mindset of the mainstream feminist movement. The film avoids the problem of racism by plainly ignoring the role of women of color and eliminating their presence in feminist history. The film takes a colorblind stance by leaving out the presence of women of color so it doesn鈥檛 have to address the racism of the early suffragettes. The director's whitewashing of the cast is a literal representation of eliminating the historical women of color. This glorifies the imperialistic, racist women of the early 1900s suffragette movement. White women claim all ownership of the suffrage movement, ignoring the fight and struggles women of color suffered when walking alongside them. The film鈥檚 setting, 1900s Britain, was not a time of colorblindness but was still infected with imperialistic racism. Colorblindness is an updated kind of racism. The colorblindness the film describes is indicative of our time, not the past. As colorblindness is widespread now, the film鈥檚 colorblindness is accepted and celebrated, despite its damage.

With all films that take a political or philosophical stance, we must ask, 鈥淲hat message is being sent?鈥� With historical films, we also can ask 鈥淗ow is glamorization keeping old ideas alive?鈥� Second wave feminism has been 鈥渙ut鈥� of progressive feminist discourse since the 1990s and was replaced by the third wave, but in the mainstream it is being kept alive. In the film, Gavron shows us the first wave movement through a second wave perspective. As the second wave is exclusive, this perspective suggests who deserved progress in the 1900s and who deserves it now. White women are shown having fought the hard fight for women everywhere, and therefore are deserving of the vote earlier than women of color as well as credit for liberation. This illusion is only encouraged by the colorblind stance of the film, censoring the racism of the movement. As Stuart Hall (1997) claims in his chapter 鈥淭he Spectacle of the Other,鈥� 鈥渘aturalizations鈥� are formed through representation in media (p. 245). Naturalization is the idea that differences of the 鈥渙ther鈥� are made naturally, as opposed to situational or cultural (Hall, 1997, p. 245). In Suffragette, we see the naturalized idea that white women were the women strong enough to fight for suffrage, while absent women of color are naturalized as if they did not have a part in the movement. The film chose to highlight a part of history that was very hostile towards non-whites, and in a new era of racial tension and awareness, its colorblindness takes the side of exclusive white exceptionalism. This representation allows women of color to be simplified as helpless victims of the patriarchy, freed by the progressive white women. This is a primary concept of the second wave.

The film鈥檚 efforts to keep white feminism alive and whitewashing history is also very indicative of the white privilege of white women then and today. In a time when the UK was colonizing and exploiting thousands of people of color, though still at risk, white women were able to vocalize the inequalities they faced. Also, the fact that white women are the women represented and not women of color is a huge indicator of their current privilege. However, it could be hard to watch the violence and inequality affecting the women in the film and cry 鈥淧rivilege!鈥� especially in the face of the poverty of some of the women featured. The question of poverty and discrimination on one hand and privilege on the other is an important part of the discourse of intersectionality (Crosley-Corcoran, 2014). While being poor and working-class made the suffragettes secondary citizens, being white probably kept them from being killed in custody or deported. While the struggles of the women in the film were real and the movement important, the directors chose to take the path of simplification and ignore the reality that for suffragettes of color, the violence would have been more and the reward less.

The film uses white privilege as a means to ignore the racial situation of the setting. This is reminiscent of one of the points of Peggy McIntosh鈥檚 (1990) essay 鈥淲hite privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack,鈥� 鈥淚 do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection鈥� (p. 1). The film, choosing a predominantly white group of women to focus on, does not have to contextualize its setting in the racist and imperialist society of the time. Being able to choose colorblindness is a white privilege that also perpetuates racism, as ignoring systematic racism is a first step of naturalizing racist ideas. At the conclusion of the film, there is a list of different countries and the year women in those countries earned suffrage. For the US, it says 1920 is the year women earned suffrage, which is only true for white women. Many American and British women of color cannot say that the white suffragettes of the early 1900s gave them the right to vote. The film鈥檚 intended audiences are white women, who will be able to celebrate a century of voting rights in 2020. The intended audience of the film was never meant to include women of color or queer women. This film reverts back to the age when white cis-gender women were the only women mainstream feminism represented, leaving no room for women of color and trans* women today in its feminist celebration. This exclusion continues the whitewashed representation of the women鈥檚 history movement and reflects the old ideology of white people being the heroes of women鈥檚 liberation history.

The film Suffragette and its director, Sarah Gavron, choose to represent a narrow aspect of the women鈥檚 suffrage movement that whitewashes the history of women鈥檚 rights and excludes women of color. Not only is the film historically inaccurate but it takes a backward stance on issues relevant to women today. The film uses colorblindness, white privilege, and naturalization of white people as the saviors of the movement to present a subplot of white exceptionalism in a film that is supposed to fall under the genre of civil rights historical fiction. Could Gavron have portrayed a more inclusive era of feminism and still made a statement? It would have been historically accurate to do so. In light of the progressive and inclusive feminist movement of today and the historical inaccuracies of the film, the film attempts to present a different reality than our reality and the reality of the early 1900s. The implications of this disconnect are exclusive to women of color and self-congratulatory for white women.

Having It All: Discrimination in the Reproductive Care of Trans-Men, Ellery Cohn

(Back to Top)

A variety of media outlets,听including听Time Magazine,听The Wall Street Journal, and听Vogue,听have听discussed听reproductive options for modern, working cis-women, specifically citing听egg freezing听as the solution for the听鈥渉aving it all鈥澨齞ilemma. This dilemma is one that is often sensationalized as the struggle that these women听face to pursue a career听and听have听a family.听Elective egg freezing,听in which the procedure is done听in preparation for infertility due to age, is听not听available听for听most听women. Egg freezing is, however, available and covered for a听larger听portion of women who are facing imminent infertility due to an illness or听associated听treatment听(鈥淚nfertility鈥�). Despite this coverage and the relative visibility of fertility preservation as a听鈥渨omen鈥檚 health鈥澨齣ssue, a subset of those with female reproductive organs are being left out of the conversation and excluded from treatment options鈥攑re-surgical trans-men.听听

Reproductive services, like egg freezing, are an area of healthcare in which bias and discrimination of trans people is evident.听The exclusionary nature of insurance coverage and healthcare services regarding trans patients鈥� access to and experiences with reproductive services reflects听and perpetuates听transphobia in the United States healthcare system.听This exclusion has given rise to a听鈥渉aving it all鈥澨齞ilemma that is different from the one cis-gendered, career-focused women face鈥攖hat is, trans-men face the struggle to both have a body that matches their gender identity and have children.听This essay will analyze the policies of Aetna, a Fortune 100 company,听as a case study whose policies are representative听of most American听insurance providers (Lorenzetti).听听

Explicit insurance policies听that prohibit听the coverage of egg freezing for trans-men due to听鈥渆lective sterilization鈥澨齣n the form of sex reassignment surgery听are听a form of gender discrimination听(鈥淚nfertility鈥�).听In order to understand the discriminatory element of such insurance听coverage, it is first important to understand that sex听reassignment surgery听is considered a medically necessary form of treatment for Gender Dysphoria. The American Medical Association has evaluated trans-health research and concluded that there is sufficient evidence to听鈥淸demonstrate] the effectiveness and medical necessity of mental health care, hormone therapy, and sex reassignment surgery as forms听of therapeutic treatment for many patients diagnosed with [Gender Dysphoria]鈥澨�(鈥淎ccess鈥�). Aetna considers听sex reassignment surgery听to be medically necessary听as well, defining medical necessity to be听鈥渉ealth services and supplies that under the applicable standard of care are appropriate: to improve or preserve health, life, or function; or to slow the deterioration of health, life, or function; or for the early screening, prevention, evaluation, diagnosis or treatment of a disease, condition, illness or injury鈥澨�(Landau).听Under this definition, sex听reassignment surgery qualifies as medically necessary as a treatment for the condition of Gender Dysphoria听per the American Medical Association鈥檚 statement. Moreover, it improves the health and life of trans individuals because听studies have found it听to reduce rates of depression, HIV/AIDS, and substance abuse in trans patients (Padula听394).听Aetna covers the surgery听under a number of听conditions,听which include听a referral letter confirming a history of Gender Dysphoria and the capacity to give informed consent (鈥淕ender听Reassignment鈥�).听These conditions听present a more mild barrier听barrier听for trans individuals to overcome听than that of paying for an uncovered surgery out of pocket.听听

Sex reassignment surgery for those transitioning from female to male听usually includes a hysterectomy and an oophorectomy,听meaning the removal of the uterus and ovaries, in addition to genital reconstruction. The hysterectomy and oophorectomy are specifically听considered medically necessary听for trans-men听because these procedures听reduce the stress听they听experience in association with their听female听sex organs and menstruation,听reduce the discomfort and expense associated with continued gynecological care,听reduce the risk of cancer of the uterus, ovaries, or cervix听after the start of testosterone therapy,听and听reduce the doses of testosterone听necessary to be听administered and associated risks听(鈥淭ransgender, Transsexual鈥�).听These reasons likely contributed to Aetna鈥檚 conclusion that听the surgery听is听a medical necessity for听people with female sex organs听suffering from Gender听Dyspohoria.听

Female to male reassignment surgery, as stated above, involves removal of the uterus and ovaries and thus renders听a听patient infertile.听However, a trans-man鈥檚 ability to have biological children does not need to be impaired by the surgery; his eggs may be harvested prior to the surgery for future implantation in a surrogate or female partner.听However,听Aetna considers听sex reassignment surgery听to be听鈥渆lective sterilization,鈥澨齞espite designating is medically necessary as a treatment for Gender Dysphoria听(鈥淚nfertility鈥�).听Aetna defines elective services to be all those that it does not听specifically听characterize as medically necessary听(鈥淐osmetic Surgery鈥�). The dual characterization of the surgery听represents a听contradiction in Aetna鈥檚 policy鈥攁 procedure听cannot听be both medically necessary and elective. Consider the case of a woman who undergoes chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer, which will likely cause premature ovarian failure (Welt). Her treatment is necessary听for her continued health and survival, and her resulting infertility听is听an unfavorable, unavoidable outcome. It would be unreasonable for anyone to conclude that her sterilization was elective. This, in fact, seems to be Aetna鈥檚 logic. The insurance provider鈥檚 website states,听鈥渃ryopreservation of mature oocytes or embryos is considered medically necessary for use in鈥痺omen facing infertility due to chemotherapy, pelvic radiotherapy, or other gonadotoxic therapies鈥澨�(鈥淚nfertility鈥�). Chemotherapy and the other therapies named in the policy are necessary treatments that confer similar medical necessity听on other treatments, namely egg freezing, intended to mediate their detrimental effects on fertility. Sex reassignment surgery carries the same designation of necessity, and yet its unavoidable sterilizing effects are considered elective. As a result, egg freezing in pre-surgical trans-men is considered elective as well, despite the potential for the procedure to allow these patients to retain the ability to produce genetically related children.听With egg freezing considered an elective procedure, trans patients听who choose to undergo it are听subject to the burden of paying for the expensive procedure out of pocket.听The contradiction in Aetna鈥檚 policies denies opportunities to trans-men that are offered to cis-women, a discrepancy that indicates听discrimination听based on gender identity.听

Aetna does facilitate its trans patients鈥� access to any reproductive services, essentially barring trans-men from undergoing egg freezing due to the prohibitively high cost. Egg freezing carries a significant financial burden for those who cannot access insurance coverage of it, namely trans-men. The process of retrieving and freezing eggs generally costs around $10,000, and egg thaw, fertilization, and transfer costs another $5,000 (鈥淐ost鈥�). With the cost of the procedures being this high, it is unlikely that trans-men, who suffer disproportionately from higher unemployment rates, will be able to pay for it out of pocket, meaning they will听be unable听to have biological children听after sex reassignment surgery听(Guequierre).听Consider this financial burden in comparison with sperm freezing, which could be done by trans-women to preserve their ability to fertilize an egg and is not covered by Aetna either. The company claims that, like egg freezing, sperm freezing听鈥渋s not considered treatment of disease鈥澨�(鈥淚nfertility鈥�). However, sperm freezing is significantly less expensive than egg freezing and does not pose an insurmountable financial barrier to those seeking to access it鈥攖he procedure costs between $300 and $500 dollars (鈥淪perm Storage鈥�). Aetna鈥檚 exclusionary policies reveal a bias against trans-women in addition to trans-men, but the issue is less visible and less critical because sperm freezing services are easier to fund personally.听

Insurance coverage would make egg freezing accessible to more trans-men, and this access would likely increase their mental wellbeing. A study done by researchers at the听Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research听found that听鈥渉aving鈥痷p to听two听children鈥痠ncreases鈥痟appiness鈥澨�(Myrskyla). This听finding suggests that trans-men who seek to have children听will have a greater level of cognitive wellbeing听as well as听a reduced risk of depression associated with the effects of their transgender status if they are able to reproduce. However, all trans-men cannot be expected to have children before their sex reassignment surgeries; they cannot be expected to have children if they believe themselves to be听prohibitively听young, partner-less,听financially unstable,听or focused on their careers, and they cannot be expected to postpone treating their Gender Dysphoria. Egg freezing gives them the freedom generally held by straight, cis-gendered people to choose to reproduce at another time. Therefore, denial of egg freezing coverage further denies trans-men the opportunities for wellbeing that are available to their cis-gendered counterparts.听

Aetna鈥檚 logic听for covering听fertility procedures for cis-women with illnesses does not extend to that of trans-men,听suggesting not听an oversight听but听rather听a bias against trans-men.听Evidence exists to suggest that coverage of听鈥渕edically necessary and preventative services鈥澨齠or transgender people would be affordable and efficient within the population of the United States (Padula听394). An analysis done by the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health even states that such coverage would be听鈥渆conomically attractive鈥澨齮o insurance providers, indicating that it would be cost-effective over 5 and 10-year scenarios (399).听Coverage of the services is cost-effective in comparison to the cost of treatment for depression, substance abuse, and HIV/AIDS in transgender populations excluded from听these听necessary and preventative services (394). The study does not explicitly name听egg freezing as one of听the services听accounted for in the cost analysis, but it can be extrapolated that trans-men who cannot receive the procedure and are denied the chance to have children would experience anxiety and/or听depression听similar to those denied access to听hormonal and surgical therapy and have similar detrimental health effects. In fact, a study done by the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men in Brussels found that an average of 42.4% of transgender respondents wanted to have children (Motmans听92).听Another study done on trans-men in Belgium found that听54% of participants desired to have children, and 37.5% of the participants reported considering freezing eggs (Wierckx听483).听These听results听can be read to suggest听that other Western populations of transgender individuals would have similar rates听of a desire to have children, including those in the United States.听Moreover,听these results听confirm that a听significant portion of听trans-men听desire to have children, supporting the idea that some trans-men would react negatively to being denied the chance and possibly become depressed, engage in risky sex and contract HIV, and abuse substances,听which would result听in higher costs from covered treatments for these afflictions.听Based on the available data,听it seems that Aetna鈥檚 exclusion of egg freezing coverage for trans-men is not a financial consideration.听The fact that the companies do not provide coverage does not indicate a financially responsible or frugal policy decision but听rather transphobia and favoring of听the cis-gendered community.听

The lack of coverage of egg freezing for trans-men in favor of cis-women facing similarly imminent sterilization points to the institutional minimization of the importance听of听the health and quality of life for trans people. Aetna鈥檚 policies are discriminatory, and yet they remain in effect because of the marginalization of the trans community and the malleable, cis-focused definition of听鈥渕edically necessary.鈥澨齌he state of 蜜糖直播 prohibits insurance providers from discriminating against transgender clients, specifically prohibiting the providers from听鈥渄eny[ing], exclude[ing], or otherwise limit[ing] coverage for medically necessary services, as determined by an individual鈥檚 medical provider, if the item or service would be provided based on current standards of care to another individual without regard to their sexual orientation鈥澨�(蜜糖直播). 蜜糖直播鈥檚 definition of听鈥渟exual orientation鈥澨齣ncludes a person鈥檚 transgender status, meaning that companies like Aetna, which operates in 蜜糖直播, should not be able to legally provide听鈥渕edically necessary鈥澨齠ertility preservation services to cis-women facing infertility without also providing them to trans-men听(蜜糖直播). Their exclusion of oocyte cryopreservation coverage for trans-men only narrowly avoids illegality with their technical, self-determination of the sterilizing effects of sex reassignment surgery as somehow separate from the surgery itself. Aetna鈥檚 consideration of trans-men鈥檚 sterilization as elective suggests that the company maintains a lesser value on trans individuals鈥� ability听to have children.听听

It听is clear that Aetna听isn鈥檛 relying on an economic听or legal听rationale to exclude coverage of egg freezing for trans-men, and it is probable that听this exclusion听is due to latent institutional transphobia at the provider level.听Despite a recent movement to include trans health in medical education, such education has traditionally excluded trans health issues and continues to perpetuate cis-normativity. Trans health is subordinated or excluded in a number of听medical curricula and texts,听鈥渃ontribut[ing] to the impression of research scarcity and, by extension,听minimiz[ing] the importance of trans-related research鈥澨�(Bauer 356). Moreover, the lesser visibility of the trans community in the medical education system contributes to the establishing and upholding of protocols and policies that focus on and favor cis-gendered patients听(356). Trans erasure specifically impacts trans-men鈥檚 access to fertility preservation techniques because many providers believe they are ill prepared to treat trans patients and therefore do not present reproductive options prior to sex reassignment surgery or referral.听In evidence of this, 50% of transgender respondents to a nationwide survey reported needing to educate their healthcare providers about appropriate transgender care听(Grant).听This statistic further suggests that medical education does not effectively educate professionals on trans health issues.听The听institutional undervaluing of trans health听in education听reflected here听further听limits trans patients鈥� abilities听to access reproductive services like egg freezing by diminishing providers鈥櫶齣mpressions of the importance of trans patients.听Consider a case reported in a recent study on trans people鈥檚 experience with reproductive services: a trans-man was repeatedly denied information and services concerning egg freezing听(James-Abra听1367). He听was dismissed by clinic staff until he decided to forgo disclosure of his transgender status, and clinic staff members were more receptive when they perceived him to be a cis-women (1367). This case suggests听that听鈥渟ome [assisted reproduction] clinics provide differential access to services on the basis of gender identity鈥澨�(1367).听Research听findings have听supported听this deduction:听19% of the same sample of transgender people听previously mentioned听reported being refused care due to听their听gender identity听(Grant).听Available evidence points to a persistent disregard for trans health,听specifically trans reproductive health, that makes it more difficult for trans-men to retain their preferred gender identity and receive care to facilitate their reproduction.听

Institutional transphobia perpetuates the dilemma trans-men face between reaching their gender goals and reaching their reproductive goals, and personal transphobia on the part of providers further intensifies the problem. There is evidence to听suggest that trans patients have negative experiences when seeking reproductive services听like egg freezing. A听study published in the journal听Human Reproduction听indicates that trans patients experience difficulty receiving assisted reproductive services as a result of听鈥減roblems with clinical documentation,鈥澨�鈥渋mpact of providers鈥� cis-normative and heteronormative assumptions,鈥澨齛nd听鈥渞efusal of services for prospective trans clients鈥澨�(James-Abra听1365). Each of these difficulties seems preventable with education and effort on the part of the healthcare providers.听An听example noted in the study further illustrates the role of preventable micro-aggressions: participants noted听consistent听鈥渦nwillingness or lack of understanding on the part of some providers about how to acknowledge trans identities by using correct pronouns鈥澨�(1367). It seems reasonable to conclude that providers would make notable attempts to use correct pronouns in reference to their patients in order to make them more comfortable and establish a stronger physician-patient relationship. The absence of such attempts suggests a bias on the part of the practitioners鈥攁 hint of transphobia in their lack of simple accommodations.听This transphobia makes it more听challenging听for trans-men to disclose their transgender status to their providers and also receive care to facilitate听their reproduction.听

Trans individuals are听routinely听excluded from resources and opportunities favorably allocated to cis-gendered individuals.听Insurance providers could combat gender identity discrimination by covering the same procedures for cis-gendered and transgendered patients. Equal coverage, without the loopholes provided by self-determined designations of elective or medically necessary, would听simply and genuinely be in line with anti-discrimination laws. Moreover, equal coverage would oppose transphobia and the minimization of the importance of trans health, perhaps paving the way for equal and respectful treatment in all healthcare settings.听Non-discriminatory coverage and treatment could dramatically increase trans people鈥檚 access to reproductive care,听making it possible听for those who want to 鈥渉ave it all鈥澨齮o do so.听That is, they would no longer have to choose between being retaining the ability to have children and being comfortable with their anatomy and gender presentation.听听

Page Break听

Works Cited听

鈥淎ccess to Transition-Related Care.鈥濃�疞ambda Legal: Making the Case for Equality. Lambda听听

Legal.听Web. 23 Apr. 2016.听

Bauer, Greta R., Rebecca Hammond, Robb Travers, Matthias听Kaay, Karin M.听Hohenadel, and听听

Michelle Boyce.听鈥溾�淚 Don't Think This Is Theoretical; This Is Our Lives鈥�: How Erasure Impacts Health Care for Transgender People.鈥濃�疛ournal of the Association of Nurses in AIDS Care鈥�20.5 (2009): 348-61.鈥疪esearch Gate. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.听

蜜糖直播, United States of America. Department of Regulatory Agencies. Division of听听

Insurance.鈥疘nsurance Unfair Practices Act Prohibitions on Discrimination Based Upon Sexual Orientation. One 蜜糖直播, 18 Mar. 2013. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.听

鈥淐osmetic Surgery.鈥濃�疌osmetic Surgery. Aetna, Inc.听Web. 23 Apr. 2016.听

鈥淐ost of Egg Freezing.鈥濃�疷SC Fertility. Keck听School of Medicine of USC,听Web. 23 Apr. 2016.听

Grant, Jaime M., Lisa A.听Mottet, Justin Tanis, Jody L. Herman, Jack Harrison, and Mara听听

Keisling.听鈥淣ational Transgender Discrimination Survey Report on Health and Health Care.鈥�:听National LGBTQ Task Force. National Center for Transgender Equality, Oct. 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.听

Guequierre,听Paul. 鈥淭ransgender Workers at Greater Risk For Unemployment and听听

Poverty.鈥濃�疕uman Rights Campaign. Human Rights Campaign Foundation6, 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.听

鈥淕ender Reassignment Surgery.鈥濃�疉etna. Aetna, Inc., 23 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.听

鈥淚nfertility.鈥濃�疉etna. Aetna, Inc., 22 Dec. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.听

James-Abra, S., L. A.听Tarasoff, D. Green, R. Epstein, S. Anderson, S. Marvel, L. S. Steele, and听听

L. E. Ross.听鈥淭rans People's Experiences with Assisted Reproduction Services: A Qualitative Study.鈥濃�疕uman Reproduction鈥�30.6 (2015): 1365-374.鈥疧xford Journals. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.听

Landau, Morris A.听鈥淒ifficulties of Defining Medical Necessity, Health Law & Policy听听

Institute.鈥濃�疷niversity of Houston Law Center. University of Houston Law Center, 29 Nov. 2000. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.听

Lorenzetti, Laura.听鈥淭he 10 Biggest Health-care Companies in the Fortune 500.鈥濃�疐ortune The 10听听

Biggest Healthcare Companies in the Fortune 500 Comments. Time, Inc. Network, 19 June 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.听

Motmans,听Joz,听In猫s听De听Biolley, and Sandrine听Debunne.听鈥淏eing Transgender in Belgium:听听

Mapping the Social and Legal Situation of Transgender People.鈥濃�疎uropean Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association. Rights Equality and Citizenship听Programme听of the European Union, 2010. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.听

Myrskyla,听Mikko, and Rachel Margolis. 鈥淗appiness: Before and After the听听

Kids.鈥濃�疍emography鈥�51.5 (2014): 1843-866.鈥疢ax Planck Institute for Demographic Research. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Nov. 2012. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.听

Padula, William V.,听Shiona听Heru, and Jonathan D. Campbell.听鈥淪ocietal Implications of Health听听

Insurance Coverage for Medically Necessary Services in the U.S. Transgender Population: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.鈥濃�疛 GEN INTERN MED Journal of General Internal Medicine鈥�31.4 (2015): 394-401. Print.听

鈥淪perm Storage.鈥澨鼺airfax听Cryobank. Fairfax听Cryobank,听Inc.,Web. 23 Apr. 2016.听听

鈥淭ransgender, Transsexual, Gender Identity, and Gender Diversity.鈥濃�疓ender Centre: Services for听听

the Transgender and Gender Diverse Community. Vancouver Coastal Health, Transgender Health Program, Sept. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.听

鈥淭ransgender Sexual and Reproductive Health: Unmet Needs and Barriers to Care.鈥濃�疦ational听听

Center for Transgender Equality. National Center for Transgender Equality, 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 23 Apr. 2016.听

Welt, Corrine K., and Charles Shapiro.听鈥淥varian Failure Due to Anticancer Drugs and听听

Radiation.鈥濃�疷p To Date. Wolters Kluwer, 25 Aug. 2015. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.听

Wierckx, K., E. Van听Caenegem, G.听Pennings, E.听Elaut, D.听Dedecker, F. Van De Peer, S. Weyers,听听

P. De Sutter, and G.听T'sjoen.听鈥淩eproductive Wish in Transsexual Men.鈥濃�疕uman Reproduction鈥�27.2 (2011): 483-87.鈥疧xford Journals. Web. 20 Apr. 2016.听

听

The Representation of Culture, Place, and Subjectivity in Training Day, Mason Eastwood

(Back to Top)

The film Training Day, directed by Antoine Fuqua, starring Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke, is widely popular, and has appeared on television consistently since its debut in 2001 (Newmyer, Silver, & Fuqua, 2001). Washington鈥檚 performance in the film as a corrupt narcotics agent for LAPD earned him an Oscar for best actor, an accomplishment especially noteworthy for a black man considering recent controversy over the historic, dominant whiteness of the Oscars. Race plays a large role in Training Day given that much of the film is set in low income, predominantly black neighborhoods and housing projects. Without a thorough analysis of the film鈥檚 representation of the people in these places, their culture, and the forces that operate on them, Training Day, with all of its success, could be powerfully misleading. I will critically examine a specific representation of culture and place in the film and discuss the role of subjectivities that lie beneath these geographical aspects, bringing to light some of the realities the average viewer of Training Day might not pick up on. 听

First, I will define representation and emphasize why its manifestation as an entertaining film is an important thing to examine. Next, I will establish the relationship between culture, place, and subjectivity that is evident in the film, acknowledging systemic forces that have historically oppressed people of color in the United States. Finally, I will determine whether or not Training Day represents the aforementioned relationship well or if it poses a problem to society.

Representation is simply the way that some aspect of the world is portrayed, whether it be through art or through scholarly analysis. The purpose of representation can vary widely. For example, an anthropological ethnography might intend to inform an academic audience about the practices of people from a lesser-known part of the world. Alternatively, a film might intend to entertain a wider audience by representing some fictional group of people in a manner that drives a compelling storyline. Regardless of the purpose and intentions of any given pursuit, there are things one must acknowledge in order to absorb representation responsibly, and these notions certainly apply to the representation of impoverished communities of color in Training Day. 听听听听 There is some aspect of truth to every representation, but it may not be about the subjects being represented. Instead, the truth could reflect something about the person, or collective entity, doing the representing. Abu-Lughod (2008) states that 鈥渞epresentations are鈥�positioned truths鈥� (p. 53). The gang members, drug dealers, families, and neighborhoods depicted in Training Day probably reflect some truth about the real lives of people resembling those characters, and about the reality of actual places resembling those neighborhoods, but they also hold truth about the perceptions and motives of the people responsible for the creation of the film. The different positionalities 鈥� experiences, lack of experiences, opinions, desires, and influences鈥攐f the filmmakers converge to create the representation that the audience takes in.

Similarly, it is important to recognize that 鈥渆very view is a view from somewhere and every act of speaking a speaking from somewhere鈥� (Abu-Lughod, 2008, p. 53). Training Day can be understood as both a view and an act of speaking. It reflects the views of the people who made it and 鈥渟peaks鈥� these views by playing on countless screens to countless audiences over time. The views, the voices, and the truths of Training Day come from many sources including the writer, the director, the actors, and the individuals or corporations that provided funds for the film. Since this paper is most concerned with the representation of racial truths, it is noteworthy that the writer, David Ayer, is a white man, and the director, Antoine Fuqua, is a black man. The race of these two men is certainly not a primary indication of the accuracy of the racial aspects of the film, but it can provide insight into the 鈥渟omewhere鈥� that the representation in Training Day comes from.

If these factors go unrecognized, it is easier to accept Training Day as presenting reality, rather than representing it. A great fictional film has the ability to lead the audience into believing it is real鈥攁 trick that can be particularly powerful if the film is about events that could occur in real life. Training Day is no exception. The story of two undercover policemen, one corrupt and the other forced to choose between two morally opposite paths, is not an entirely fictional concept. Considering the recent public awareness of racially motivated police misconduct, the premise of Training Day is especially salient even fifteen years after the film was released.

Relevant to this paper are the parts of the film in which Denzel Washington鈥檚 character Alonzo, along with Ethan Hawke鈥檚 character Jake, interacts with members of black communities in Los Angeles. In order to effectively examine the film鈥檚 representation of the relationship between culture, place, and subjectivity, I will refer in detail to one scene that occurs in a neighborhood characterized by crime and violence.

After using questionable tactics to force information out of a low-level crack dealer (played by Snoop Dogg), Jake and Alonzo drive to the house of the 鈥淪andman,鈥� an alleged high rolling drug kingpin. As the two officers enter the neighborhood, there is a close-up shot of several black men, some shirtless, some with chains on their necks and tattoos on their bodies, listening to rap music, smoking, leaning on the hoods of old cars, and talking with each other.

Without this quick shot, the audience would not know how to feel about the events that follow. The shot provides a sense of place and a sense of culture, both of which are represented as tightly bound. Culture is notoriously hard to define. It has been called 鈥渙ne of the most difficult concepts to interpret in all of the social sciences鈥� (Norton & Walton-Roberts, 2014, p. 12). For this reason, I will begin with a simple definition of place that will aid in defining culture.

Place can be conceived as 鈥渟pace infused with meaning鈥� (Oakes and Price, 2008, p. 254). Part of the anxiety the viewer of Training Day feels as Jake and Alonzo approach the house of the 鈥淪andman鈥� comes from the imagery described above, which is a large part of what makes the house, parking lot, and apartment building visible in the shot a distinct place. Imagining the same neighborhood inhabited by a different group of people, listening to a different type of music, being visited by people other than law officers elicits a different response. All of the aspects of that initial camera shot convey meaning about the unique environment Jake and Alonzo are entering and about the type of place it is.

The meaning conveyed about the 鈥淪andman鈥檚鈥� neighborhood can be called culture. Oakes and Price (2008) write that the cultural geographer 鈥渞aises questions about how we live in, experience, and shape a particular environment, about what living in and reshaping that environment means to us鈥� (p. 1). It follows that the shirtless, necklaced, hip hop listening men are enacting culture by shaping the parking lot they inhabit, giving it meaning, and simultaneously making it a place among infinite spaces. Perhaps an appropriate definition of place is space infused with culture.

Another exercise helpful in highlighting the relationship between place and culture is to think of culture as 鈥渨hat makes one group different from another鈥� (Norton & Walton-Roberts, 2014, p. 17). Had Jake and Alonzo crept up on a different neighborhood occupied by middle-class white men in golf shirts, sitting in lawn chairs, listening to country music, the scene would not mean the same thing. The two officers would be in a different place confronting a staggeringly different set of issues.

Establishing the relationship between culture and place and the film鈥檚 representation of it in this instance is not enough to determine whether or not Training Day poses a problem. Crang (2005), in his discussion of the interplay between material objects (such as the chain around the shirtless man鈥檚 neck) and culture, writes that 鈥渢here is a danger of assuming 鈥榗ultures鈥� as entities that act in and on the world, and paying too little attention to just how these 鈥榗ultures鈥� come to be鈥� (p. 171). The danger that Crang (2005) points to is the same danger the viewers of Training Day face, especially those who are not familiar with the intricacies of race relations in the United States. Consuming the images and scenes of mostly black, gang-ridden places without any historical context could lead to perpetuation of harmful race-based stereotypes that remove themselves from any of their sobering origins. To avoid this danger, I will bring the concept of subjectivity to the forefront while working through the scene in Training Day that immediately follows the place-establishing camera shot described above. 听

With a fake search warrant in hand, Jake (the only white person in the scene) and Alonzo prepare to enter the house of the 鈥淪andman,鈥� who the viewer quickly realizes does not actually reside there. At the front door, which is covered not by a screen, but by a grated metal second door, a woman with a cigarette hanging from her mouth (played by Macy Gray) reluctantly lets the two men in. After forcing the woman to the ground with his gun drawn, Alonzo demands to know if anyone else is in the house, only to learn that the woman鈥檚 nephew is playing in his room. When he finds the young boy, Alonzo, gun pointing directly at the child鈥檚 face, tells him to put his hands up. After patting the boy down, Alonzo seats him on the couch in the living room by his aunt, and proceeds to search the house, not for drugs, but for money he plans to steal.

While Alonzo searches the house and Jake attempts to keep the woman calm, it becomes apparent that the woman has dealt with the police before. She quickly grows suspicious that the search warrant is fake (it turns out to be a menu from a Chinese restaurant), and she also deduces that Jake is a rookie (the film is called Training Day because it is Jake鈥檚 first day on the job). When the woman realizes that Alonzo is stealing from her, she stands up and dares Jake to shoot her in front of the child. Jake, a young white man torn between getting the job he wants and doing the right thing, is clearly not prepared for that reaction.

Before Jake has to make the decision to assert force, Alonzo guiltily says that there was nothing found in the search, and that they are leaving. The woman, who at this point knows that Alonzo stole from her, follows the officers out of the house and calls on the hardened-looking, armed, shirtless men shown in the opening part of the scene to 鈥渂last鈥� the officers. A full-blown shootout between Alonzo and the gang occurs but the two officers escape with only a couple of bullet holes in their car.

The viewer of this scene sympathizes with the woman who was robbed by Alonzo, as well as with the young child caught up in the literal and metaphorical crossfire between the community he is growing up in and the police. Some viewers might recognize that the scene depicts a place in which the people inhabiting it must protect themselves from the corrupt legal system as much as they must protect themselves from rival gangs. Other viewers might pick up on the fact that the young boy does not live with his parents, who could be dead, in jail, or simply absent. The feeling of conflict associated with viewing the potentially stereotypical gang shootout, and the relatively underrepresented act of police misconduct is all that the film directly evokes. However, as Crang (2005) suggests, a deeper look needs to be taken at what makes a scene like that an accurate, or inaccurate, representation of culture and place.

Rather than accepting the relationship between culture and place represented in the above scene from Training Day at face value, recognition of the role of subjectivity here is imperative. Nealon and Giroux (2012) write that 鈥渢he 鈥榮ubject,鈥� unlike the self, is always understood in reference to preexisting social conditions and categories鈥� (p. 37). Seeing the gang members, the aunt, and the child as subjected to certain forces, namely racial inequality and the complex set of circumstances that follows it, is important if the viewer of Training Day is to grasp the full gravity of what is being represented. Examining the things people are subjected to helps avoid dangerous viewpoint predicated solely upon the logically invalid conception of the 鈥渟elf.鈥澨� Nealon and Giroux (2012) explain that 鈥渢he self鈥�is and always will be a subject鈥� (p. 39). Any aspect of a person, a place, or a culture can be shown to have arisen from some combination of forces not explicitly controlled by that person, place, or culture, so the concept of the 鈥渟elf鈥� is inherently flawed.

In the context of the scene being examined from Training Day, this entails viewing the low-income, gang-associated, violent neighborhood visited by Jake and Alonzo as having arisen due to forces beyond the control of the individuals residing in it. This method of consuming the representation is the only responsible one, although it is an endeavor that requires much more effort than simply, but erroneously, conceding the predicament of poverty, crime, and undue police presence to inherent cultural values borne out of the desires of a multitude of black 鈥渟elves.鈥�

A full-fledged undertaking of the past and current state of race relations in the United States is not the primary purpose of this paper, but some basic facts and ideas will help to illuminate some of the forces at play in neighborhoods like the one represented in Training Day. According to historian Howard Zinn (2012), the existence of such places began with slavery, which established 鈥渢he inferior position of blacks in America for the next 350 years鈥攖hat combination of inferior status and derogatory thought we call racism鈥� (p. 9). This might seem an extreme explanation, but 鈥渢he point is that the elements of this web are historical, not 鈥榥atural鈥欌�� (Zinn, 2012, p. 17).听 Zinn鈥檚 (2012) use of the word 鈥渘atural鈥� evokes a similar and equally problematic meaning as Nealon and Giroux鈥檚 (2012) use of the word 鈥渟elf.鈥� Slavery, and its ensuing, ever-present consequences is but one of many forces that have historically contributed to the oppression of black lives in the United States. Discussing its role, however, points the viewer of representations of the oppressed black community towards an understanding of how culture and place are not spontaneously erected, as the terms 鈥渟elf鈥� and 鈥渘atural鈥� imply. Poverty is not the 鈥渘atural鈥� status of black people in the United States. Neither is criminality, violence, nor familiarity with questionable police tactics. Anyone mildly intelligent could deduce that given some knowledge of history and biology (skin color is the only biological difference between members of different 鈥渞aces鈥�), but it seems that many people do not.

As Alexander (2012) cynically puts it, placing the blame of crime, gang activity, and poverty on 鈥渘atural鈥� black culture, or black 鈥渟elves,鈥� 鈥渉as tremendous appeal鈥攂efore you know the facts鈥攆or it is consistent with, and reinforces, dominant racial narratives about crime and criminality dating back to slavery鈥� (p. 219). By showing that the black neighborhood is actually victimized by law enforcement, Training Day gives its viewers the opportunity to acknowledge some of the facts that Alexander refers to and to reflect on the role of subjectivity in shaping culture and place. The problem is that the viewer may not be aware of the facts, so the positionality, the 鈥渟omewhere鈥�, the motives, of the creators of the representation could be lost on the audience. Instead of recognizing that culture and place exist as a result of a complicated combination of social and historic forces, which in this case have effectively narrowed the scope of freedom and choice for black subjects, viewers might choose to view the scene in Training Day as representing black people in their 鈥渘atural鈥� state.听 For example, viewers might not know that even though blacks and whites use and sell drugs at similar rates, 鈥渋n at least fifteen states, blacks are admitted to prison on drug charges at a rate from twenty to fifty-seven times greater than that of white men鈥� (Alexander, 2012, p. 218). The deeply troubling structural inequality lying beneath Jake and Alonzo鈥檚 visit to the house of the drug-dealing, black, gang-associated 鈥淪andman鈥� could fly above viewers鈥� heads, which could ultimately worsen the problem. However, because acts of racially motivated police brutality remain at the forefront of the social consciousness in this current era, it may be that facts like that are not as hidden from public view anymore.

As a final exercise in applying subjectivity to and denouncing the concepts of 鈥渟elf鈥� and 鈥渘atural鈥� as they relate to the relationship between culture and place in the scene from Training Day, I will employ Nealon and Giroux鈥檚 (2012) argument that 鈥渢he things that make us who we are are found in the context of where we live, where we鈥檝e come from, and where we鈥檙e headed鈥� (p. 40).听 Imagining the young boy from the scene as a real life character will be most useful. Children are a clear example of how subjectivity works because they are not yet fully autonomous beings in this world; they do not choose where they live, what school they go to, who their parents are, how much money they have, and many other things people might otherwise attribute to choices of the 鈥渟elf鈥� instead of forces one is subjected to. The young boy lives with his aunt in a seemingly low -ncome neighborhood controlled by gang activity. At a young age, he had a gun pointed at him by a police officer. If that does not shape how he views law enforcement going forward, nothing will. He did not choose this place, or this culture that he lives within, but it will certainly affect him in some way. The poverty that the boy faces is not something that can be easily overcome in this country. Like his parents before him, he might not escape the place he currently resides. The boy came from a lineage of people who have been oppressed in this country for hundreds of years. He did not choose that, for 鈥渨e don鈥檛 get to choose social attributes like our gender, race, class, and ethnicity, nor do we get to vote on what those attributes mean in a given social situation鈥� (Nealon & Giroux, pp. 37-38).听 With these things in mind, it is not easy to say that the boy is headed in a great direction. If he lives to see adulthood, there is a good chance he will be the next to engage in a shootout with the police in his own front yard.

The boy is not to blame for his fate. The gang members are not entirely at fault for shooting at the police officers. The community as a whole cannot be solely charged with the creation of a culture and a place that in part exudes danger, violence, and conflict with law enforcement. It is likely that a scene resembling the one described above could occur in the real world. It is certain that places and cultures, albeit with more complexity and nuance, resembling the one represented in Training Day exist in the United States; one prerequisite for representation is that there be something to represent, and with the exception of some theatrics, the film appears to reflect a real part of society. However, there is no pause in Training Day filled with a historical bibliography about racial prejudice, oppression, slavery, and police misconduct to educate the viewer about the role subjectivity plays in creating the culture and place represented in the film.

I will not condemn Training Day because I believe it 鈥渟peaks鈥� from a position of knowledge and understanding about the forces operating on impoverished communities of color rather than from a stereotype-perpetuating view situated in a privileged, condescending realm far away from the reality of what is being represented. However, I will also not overtly praise the film for educating people about the relationship between culture, place, and subjectivity because it leaves a lot of responsibility with the audience to educate themselves prior to sitting in front of the screen. Instead, I point to a larger issue.

The fact that systemic racism, though often insidiously subtle and hidden behind false claims of equality, still exists, on scales ranging from the individual, to the neighborhood, to the nation, is appalling. Even more appalling is the fact that many Americans who consider themselves non-racists obliviously consume representations such as that of Training Day and blindly accept that racially segregated, low income, gang-driven neighborhoods filled exclusively with black people are normal, 鈥渘atural鈥� things. Despite the hints given in Training Day鈥攖he black communities are victimized by the police, and end up being protagonists in the story, the little boy is a symbol for subjectivity, the members of these communities are humans with depth of character instead of animated stereotypes鈥攕ome viewers remain unaware of the tragedy that continues to unfold amidst the maintenance of cultures and places subjected to the very real oppression that exists at the heart of constructed racial differences in this country.

The act of watching Training Day without acknowledgement of structural inequality and racism is synonymous with the act of altogether ignoring those pervasive societal problems. To brush off the scene analyzed in this paper as representing a 鈥渘atural鈥� occurrence is to perpetuate dangerous myths of the black 鈥渟elf鈥� that effectively allow racial stereotypes to continue to harm countless citizens of this imperfect nation. Training Day provides a much needed entry point into a larger discussion of the forces operating on communities of color in the United States, but the discussion is not an easy one to have. However, one cannot enter the movie theater with the sole intention of being entertained if any progress is to be made.

听

References

Abu-Lughod, L. (2008). Writing against culture. In T.S. Oakes & P.L. Price (Eds.),听The cultural geography reader (1 edition, pp. 50鈥�59). London and New York: Routledge.

Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow. In Charles A. Gallagher (Ed.), Rethinking the color line: readings in race and ethnicity (pp. 217-225). New York: McGraw Hill.听

Crang, P. (2005). The geographies of material culture. In P. Cloke, P. Crang, & M. Goodwin (Eds.),听Introducing Human Geographies听(2 edition, pp. 168鈥�180). London: Routledge.

Nealon, J., & Giroux, S. S. (2011).听The Theory Toolbox: Critical Concepts for the Humanities, Arts, & Social Sciences听(2 edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Newmyer, B. (Producer), Silver, J. (Producer), & Fuqua, A. (Director). (2001). Training Day [Motion Picture]. United States: Warner Brothers.

Norton, W., & Walton-Roberts, M. (2014).听Cultural geography: environments, landscapes, identities, inequalities听(Third ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Oakes, T. S., & Price, P. L. (2008). Introduction to part five. In T.S. Oakes & P. L. Price (Eds.), The cultural geography reader (pp. 255-256). London and New York: Routledge.

Zinn, H. (2012). Drawing the color line. In Charles A. Gallagher (Ed.), Rethinking the color line: Readings in race and ethnicity (pp. 9-17). New York: McGraw Hill.听