By Roland Betancourt, Eddie McCaffray, and Meghan Vicks
Meghan Vicks: Let’s begin with our thoughts about the song “Born This Way.” How does the song’s form work with, or against, the song’s message? In what ways does the song follow in the tradition of “celebrate yourself” anthems past, and in what ways does it break from that tradition? How does the song compare to Lady Gaga’s music from The Fame and The Fame Monster, and what does it indicate about the direction of Gaga’s project? I’m sure we’ll come up with more points and questions to analyze regarding the song, but for now let’s start here.
Eddie McCaffray: What I noticed immediately about the song were the lyrics - they make a point of saying exactly what it is people are accepting about themselves and others. There’s a long tradition of anthemic love-yourself songs that, for better or for worse, don’t make any explicit reference to anything of which someone might be intolerant. That’s fine, but for me it comes off as an attempt to cash in on all the good press and good vibes of such a song without risking the alienation of any potential part of a fan base. But this song isn’t like that - it makes references to God’s acceptance, to a “different lover,” and turns the LGBT(A) roll-call into a real litany. In a similar manner, when Gaga says “black, white, or beige” she’s departing from the cliche (which is to sing something like “black, white, or blue”) and taking the issue of race seriously. There’s room for joy and power and celebration, but there isn’t room for levity. It’s stunning that she could fit “. . . gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered . . .” into an up-tempo club-banger, and it’s wonderful that she wrote a song about tolerance that intolerant people can’t sing.
Besides that, I think the pretty-simple nature of the song sort of goes along with the simplicity of the message. It has a pounding beat and some very fun synth stylings flowered around it, but musically as well as lyrically the song is about just one thing. I also like the implications of “there ain’t no other way”; there’s a somewhat-understated note of militancy in the song. The song isn’t afraid of making very clear just what it expects people to accept, and it isn’t afraid of saying that intolerance is not an option.
And, finally, the intro seems like she is extending a hand to the religious community. “It doesn’t matter if you love him or capital H-i-m,” as some have suggested, is a nod to Christians. The song isn’t about attacking anything besides intolerance, and if your religion can pass that very basic litmus test, then this is an anthem for you to celebrate your identity with as well - there are people out there who have their sights set on organized religion, people who aren’t treating it fairly just like some members of some organized religions aren’t treating others fairly. That’s not ok with this song either.
Meghan Vicks: Immediately upon the song’s release, Twitter exploded with people drawing comparisons between Madonna’s “Express Yourself”/“Vogue” and “Born This Way,” and many criticized Gaga for copying Madonna. While I don’t think that the song is an exact copy or blend of “Express Yourself” and “Vogue,” I do think that Gaga is purposely taking cues from Madonna (as she is always taking cues from those that came before her), and placing vocal and lyrical nods to her throughout “Born This Way.” That Gaga adopts and adapts what her predecessors have done is no secret; in a recent interview with Vogue she said,
It’s not a secret that I have been inspired by tons of people. David Bowie and Prince being the most paramount in terms of live performance. I could go on and on about all of the people I have been compared to - from Madonna to Grace Jones to Debbie Harry to Elton John to Marilyn Manson to Yoko Ono - but at a certain point you have to realize that what they are saying is that I am cut from the cloth of performer, that I am like all of those people in spirit. I was born this way.
She was born this way - from a genealogy of musicians, artists, and performers; significantly, she was cut - organically fashioned - from the cloth of the performer. “Born This Way” is no different; it’s also a product, or the offspring, of a long genealogy of anthemic, empowering songs that call on people to express themselves, love themselves, be themselves. So with “Born This Way,” Gaga’s rewriting Madonna’s message for a more radical agenda. As Gaga sings in the song’s opening lines, “My momma told me when I was young that we’re all superstars,” so Madonna sang nearly two decades earlier, “You’re a superstar, yes that’s what you are!” Madonna, of course, is a type of mother figure for all pop-starlets; when Gaga sings “we’re all superstars,” she’s singing as one of a generation who grew up listening to Madonna’s message from “Vogue” and “Express Yourself.” In a way, given the song’s message, it absolutely needed to sound a bit like Madonna’s; but, given the 21st century context, it needed to be more straightforward (as Eddie talks about above) and also way more radical.
Musically, the song combines disco with a solid rock beat, which I read as a merging of the gay culture with the mainstream. If we think about “Born This Way” as a gay anthem, then the musical composition of the song is pretty brilliant: Gaga has taken heavily from the arsenal of gay club music and created a rock song. Or, she’s turned a rock song into a disco ball fixture. It’s a very glittery rock song! Or tough-as-nails disco. In either case, musically “Born This Way” is a type of oxymoron that makes hetero-rock just as queer as disco, and homo-disco just as mainstream as rock. It’s an incredibly interesting musical vehicle in which to house the message of her song: that we’re all equally beautiful - black, white, beige, gay, straight, transgender …
Roland Betancourt: Well, I think that in this song we are seeing a definite shift in the trajectory of Gaga’s work. I do not want to sound like there is some strict evolutionary model or a chronology that I wish to impose on Gaga, but there have been definite patterns in her work. I believe many of us can recall the early Gaga period, where she relied heavily on her collaborations with Space Cowboy. This was the period that was inaugurated by “Just Dance” and witnessed songs/videos such as “Poker Face” and “Love Game.” We then had a change with “Paparazzi” that has lasted much into the present, however, I would say that after the “Alejandro” music video things began to shift - mainly aesthetically and visually. “Born This Way” places this shift into the musical realm and ties in directly to the thematic issues that have been developing in her work about homosexuality and gay rights.
What is of first note is what Meghan is referring to as the Twitter-comparisons to Madonna, which I would also refer to as a more widespread outcry to the song. Looking at Gaga’s history though, we find “Just Dance” to have many similar parallels to “Born This Way.” In many ways, “Just Dance” serves as the jumping dance song that everyone wants to sing along and dance to, but not the song that you particularly see as revolutionary. Nevertheless, in “Born This Way” we encounter lyrics that are antithetical to the inconsiderate hedonism of “Just Dance.” I think the brilliant part of “Born This Way” is that she’s produced a song that we are already tired of hearing. The comparisons being made to Madonna, for example, may seem valid at first, but every time I have compared the songs they don’t really seem to be there. Sure there are some similarities that seem to be riffs on one another, as Meghan suggests above, but the song actually has less similarities than it would seem. Gaga has produced an uncanny song in the Freudian notion of the term, where it seems all too familiar yet also wholly foreign.
Eddie McCaffray: And what’s so great about the foreign-lodged-within-the-familiar is that it provokes rediscovery of the world - if not in Freud, in Heidegger and Shklovsky. To keep this concept in line with the aesthetic of “Born This Way,” only a continual process of self-(re)creation will keep one meaningful to oneself. Accepting the categories and patterns offered by the world in a simple rote mimesis - the primary risk of conformism - renders one a simple colony of that world. But Gaga’s play with and reappropriation of all manner of cultural symbols, combined with this message of radical (self-)acceptance, calls Little Monsters to keep themselves uncanny, to maintain the tight-rope walk of foreign and familiar within their own plastic souls.
Musically, the song combines disco with a solid rock beat, which I read as a merging of the gay culture with the mainstream. If we think about “Born This Way” as a gay anthem, then the musical composition of the song is pretty brilliant: Gaga has taken heavily from the arsenal of gay club music and created a rock song. Or, she’s turned a rock song into a disco ball fixture. It’s a very glittery rock song! Or tough-as-nails disco. In either case, musically “Born This Way” is a type of oxymoron that makes hetero-rock just as queer as disco, and homo-disco just as mainstream as rock. It’s an incredibly interesting musical vehicle in which to house the message of her song: that we’re all equally beautiful - black, white, beige, gay, straight, transgender …
Roland Betancourt: Well, I think that in this song we are seeing a definite shift in the trajectory of Gaga’s work. I do not want to sound like there is some strict evolutionary model or a chronology that I wish to impose on Gaga, but there have been definite patterns in her work. I believe many of us can recall the early Gaga period, where she relied heavily on her collaborations with Space Cowboy. This was the period that was inaugurated by “Just Dance” and witnessed songs/videos such as “Poker Face” and “Love Game.” We then had a change with “Paparazzi” that has lasted much into the present, however, I would say that after the “Alejandro” music video things began to shift - mainly aesthetically and visually. “Born This Way” places this shift into the musical realm and ties in directly to the thematic issues that have been developing in her work about homosexuality and gay rights.
What is of first note is what Meghan is referring to as the Twitter-comparisons to Madonna, which I would also refer to as a more widespread outcry to the song. Looking at Gaga’s history though, we find “Just Dance” to have many similar parallels to “Born This Way.” In many ways, “Just Dance” serves as the jumping dance song that everyone wants to sing along and dance to, but not the song that you particularly see as revolutionary. Nevertheless, in “Born This Way” we encounter lyrics that are antithetical to the inconsiderate hedonism of “Just Dance.” I think the brilliant part of “Born This Way” is that she’s produced a song that we are already tired of hearing. The comparisons being made to Madonna, for example, may seem valid at first, but every time I have compared the songs they don’t really seem to be there. Sure there are some similarities that seem to be riffs on one another, as Meghan suggests above, but the song actually has less similarities than it would seem. Gaga has produced an uncanny song in the Freudian notion of the term, where it seems all too familiar yet also wholly foreign.
Eddie McCaffray: And what’s so great about the foreign-lodged-within-the-familiar is that it provokes rediscovery of the world - if not in Freud, in Heidegger and Shklovsky. To keep this concept in line with the aesthetic of “Born This Way,” only a continual process of self-(re)creation will keep one meaningful to oneself. Accepting the categories and patterns offered by the world in a simple rote mimesis - the primary risk of conformism - renders one a simple colony of that world. But Gaga’s play with and reappropriation of all manner of cultural symbols, combined with this message of radical (self-)acceptance, calls Little Monsters to keep themselves uncanny, to maintain the tight-rope walk of foreign and familiar within their own plastic souls.
Meghan Vicks: How did the first performance of “Born This Way” affect and/or reflect the song’s message?
Eddie McCaffray: Let’s take it at face value: she was born this way, on stage, in front of fans and in the middle of pop-culture pomp-and-circumstance, surrounded by elite dancers, in a crazy costume, singing a huge pop song, out of a giant plastic glowing egg/womb. As has been dealt with at length before, Gaga is created by fame, born in the spectacle that she does not assume but which she becomes - the spectacle isn’t something of which she is a prerequisite, it’s what makes her possible. She can only hide in plain view.
This is an idea that she discussed in her Sixty Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper just before the Grammys. Honesty is important to her personally and as a part of her relationship to the people who look up to her, enjoy her music, and so on. At the same time, who can live on camera all the time? As Cooper says, her costumes are “not only attention-getting, but attention-directing.” Gaga tells him that she “art-directs” every moment of her life in order to combine honesty, privacy, and constant total exposure. This is a central part of her project in general and the message of this song in particular: in the modern world, it is impossible to hide. We are all constantly skewered by a myriad of controlling gazes. Resistance is futile. Rather, self-expression - the active, conscious, joyful engagement with these gazes - is the escape from the downsides of such a life. In creating ourselves, especially in creating ourselves in the ambitious, powerful, faux-self-confident way that a rock star might, we create breathing room, cracks and crannies in our personas in which to live. This is beyond “fake it till you make it”; faking it is making it. As in her Grammy appearance, performance is present at the birth of Lady Gaga and all her Little Monsters. It is the egg, Lady Gaga the product.
Roland Betancourt: I have often been attracted to Gaga’s work in the manner that it reflects on the medium, which is a self-reflexivity that has been very important to contemporary art historians in the past 30 years - perhaps less so today. My article on Jo Calderone for the upcoming Gaga Stigmata book reflects on these issues. In particular, I have been fascinated by the place of the viral in Gaga’s work, but a notion of virality that exceeds its traditional discussion and looks more to the body of the artist. “Born This Way” ends with an interesting line, “Same DNA, but I was born this way.” This presents a complex issue. Same DNA as whom? Contemporary society sees DNA as a very essential building block and we constantly attempt to construct identities by virtue of it. Often we have stories in the news regarding the emergence of DNA evidence that absolves prisoners of crimes or identifies lost relatives. We like to constitute our fundamental identities on this biological code, and our daily identities on viral, binary-coded images - via Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. This co-mingling of essences suggest that Gaga shares a certain coded identity with someone, but differs in nurture - she was birthed in a different manner.
The fact that her performance included a birthing from an egg before an audience, as Eddie has just pointed out, plays with the very notion that I addressed when discussing Jo Calderone and which Meghan discussed in her “Anatomy of Change” essay. Gaga’s birth is a performative visual act - I mean that in both senses of the word “performative.” Yet at the same time she partakes an essence with someone, perhaps her fans, perhaps other misfits, other outcast monsters, or perhaps even humanity?
Her “organ” - perhaps one big visual pun! - was surrounded by faces on globes and haloed by glassy test-tube-like lancets. It reminds me of the instruments used to replace a cell nucleus in the cloning process - an image that for a period of time was prolific in the news following the cloning fears of the late 1990s.
There was a sense of some sort of laboratory-musical setting, a place where, through the dispersal of song, a viral reproduction could occur. Where others, through sound, could be infected or cloned as Lady Gaga - same DNA, different births.
To play with the Madonna references (both the singer and the Virgin Mary), Gaga said in a recent interview for the upcoming Vogue, “I wrote [‘Born This Way’] in 10 fucking minutes … And it is a completely magical message song. And after I wrote it, the gates just opened, and the songs kept coming. It was like an immaculate conception.” Her use of the term “immaculate conception” is quite loaded. On the one hand it points to Madonna’s own work and supports the notions of a Mother-Daughter/Madonna-Gaga relationship that Meghan has set forth. On the other hand, it cites the miraculous conception of Jesus Christ through the grace of the Holy Spirit in the flesh of the Virgin through the performative speech act of the Annunciation by the Angel Gabriel. Recalling Gaga’s Alexander McQueen 2010 VMA dress, one sees an image of an annunciation on it.
Specifically, it is the image of the Angel Gabriel holding the Latin text of the Annunciation on a sheet of parchment that visually manifests the oral pronouncement of Gabriel that enacts the incarnation. The image being used is the Renaissance Annunciation by Stephan Lochner for the Altar of the Three Magi in Cologne.
But in Gaga’s dress, as far as I can tell, the Virgin is absent. The direct object of the annunciation is missing, placing Gaga in the role of the receptacle for the body of Christ. It is her flesh from which shall be molded the salvation of humanity, and most importantly, this process occurs through sound, through proclamation. It was later that night, while wearing the meat dress, that Gaga sang a portion of “Born This Way” for the first time and thanked God and the gays. When asked who she thanked more, God or the gays, she replied, “I thank them both equally, because they made one another.” Certainly, what we find here is this notion of co-creation and co-constitution that Gaga has defined as so crucial to the fame. Nevertheless, as a good Catholic school girl, Gaga surely knows the opening of the Gospel of John that posits the relationship between God and the Logos (the Utterance/Word/Verb: aka Christ) as co-existing and co-eternal with God. Therefore, she posits the gays as a communal force, one that is bound by a suffering on behalf of mankind, as if bearing the brunt of their sins and treacheries. Is this not the type of idea that the song advocates? A notion of community, unity, and power that comes through the fire of abuse? “Don’t be a drag - just be a queen.”
All these trends, notions of DNA, and Immaculate Conception, however, focus on the central notion of conception and birth, the idea of self-production and performance, which is seen as the crucial and fundamental postulate of 1990s self-esteem/identity-politics rhetoric. The idea of “being yourself” and, as some may want to compare, “Expressing Yourself.” Nevertheless, I would argue that Gaga’s focus goes directly to the issue of the performance itself. Just as the Virgin served as a model for Christian artists in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance because she presented the body from which the image of God was formed, the material substance, so Gaga plays a similar ontological role. It is in the closing lines of the song, regarding DNA, that the stripped dancers unite and dance entwined and form the “monster paw” that Gaga proclaims at the beginning of the song.
The idea of self-creation is seen here within a rhetoric of the self and community that is radically different from the “individual” of the 1990s, which was structured on this unique, quasi-isolated “I.” Many of us were fed the myth that you could exist as a quasi-island of self-defined identity. In Gaga, however, the message seems to be the same, but the rhetoric presents the notion of a dividual - a person that exists within a community, linked through networks and self-images. What this song and the Grammy performance re-iterate within Gaga’s corpus is that the identity politics of the past have been radically shifted, and that the self is constituted within a network of images, just as Gaga defines herself within the networked images of pop-culture. What we wish to attack in Gaga through comparison merely stresses the radical shift in how the eye/I is constituted via one another in contemporary society.
Eddie McCaffray: Right! Maybe you could argue that the kind of identity Lady Gaga invokes is a kind that is inextricably tied to the hyper-media post-pop world in which we live. She’s a twisted reflection, an unsanctioned amalgamation, a satirical-partisan-celebrant; she doesn’t articulate a unique inner code, but bends the world back on itself in a distortion that remains essentially her own because of the act of its creation. Not expression but refraction.
Meghan Vicks: You guys are absolutely brilliant, but I need to talk about Gaga’s shoes and shoulders (this is so fucking typical: the men talk about science and religion, the women talk about clothes!). Did you see her shoes!? I haven’t yet been able to find a picture that shows a closeup, but her shoes were amazing. They were nude, and they looked like they were an organic part of her body - as if her legs had flippin’ sprouted stilettos! And her ankle bones protruded just as her shoulder bones did. It looked like she had reshaped, or regrown, her body in such a way that she now rocks shoulder pads that actually are her shoulders. As I wrote about earlier, the line between fashion and the body has blurred to such an extent that the distinctions between the two no longer exist: her shoulders have become her shoulder pads, and her feet have become her heels.
As Eddie talks about above, she’s corporeally born this [visual, performative] way: in fashion, on the stage, through a performance. The shoulder pads, in particular, are incredibly important in the scope of Gaga’s oeuvre. When she designed the blue outfit that she wore for “Poker Face,” she explained, “I knew I wanted it to be futuristic, so I thought shoulder pads cause that’s my thing. But I wanted it to be a new shoulder pad.” Hyperbolic shoulder pads have been a staple of Gaga’s work, so much so that they’ve evolved to become a part of Gaga’s body. They also, as Gaga indicates, signify something futuristic; in the case of the “Born This Way” performance, Gaga is reborn among a new race of humans (see the horns protruding from the cheekbones, the forehead, and the shoulders) who are are organically made from flesh and fashion, and reality and spectacle.
But for a song and a message that is so futuristic, the performance and the costuming feels very primordial and organic - not as space-age or typically futuristic as Gaga singing “Poker Face” with her video glasses, for instance, or as Gaga’s fire-shooting bra. And the performance is not nearly as hyper-consciously aware of its own performativity as much of Gaga’s earlier work is. So it is futuristic in a paradoxical way that calls to mind origins, beginnings, and birth.
We’re still dealing with monsters, though. Absolutely beautiful from one angle, and grotesque from another. As Roland and I were discussing on the phone earlier today, the bone structure that Gaga is playing with is aesthetically gorgeous from the frontal perspective, and monstrous from the profile. Look at Gaga’s face in these posters for Born This Way that have been plastered all over NYC:
From the front, Gaga has the desired bone structure of a model: incredibly high cheek bones, cat-eyes, arched brows, very thin. But from the side, the aesthetically beautiful becomes grotesque:
But the grotesque is always figured positively in Gaga’s aesthetic that embraces freaks, monsters, and queers. So again, as “Born This Way” is both disco and rock (sparkly rock, hard-core disco), so the costuming is beautifully monstrous. She’s turned the monster into a model, and vice versa.
Other points to consider and analyze:
- The gospel-esque outro of “Born This Way”
- “Born This Way” choreography
- Gaga’s hair during the performance
- Gaga, the Mother Monster, who hatches from an egg
- Gaga’s entrance on the Red Carpet in an egg, incubating
- Other topics of the Sixty Minutes interview: quotes, clothes, coffee-slurping, fake diamond
- Toccata and Fugue in D Minor quote during the performance (Gaga’s organ solo)
- Gaga's shout-out to Whitney Houston as inspiration for Born This Way
- Gaga's hat!
Dear Readers!
Please add your thoughts, analyses, and questions to the comments below. Let’s make (another) discussion, little monsters!









I love the discussion, guys. The image of her by the mirror struck a strong resemblance to 'Phantom of the Opera'.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to her hatching, I think it's interesting that at first she seems very conscious and aware, laying down comfortably, almost with a regal quality, symbolic of what you guys were mentioning before about creating one's identity in the digital age. Constant rebirth and so on. But then, she stumbles awkwardly out of the egg. With that in mind, it seems like the egg was deliberately crafted so that her emergence would appear clumsy, and awkward, to signify the inevitable strain which comes with the interaction of the world that's birthed her.
In terms of choreography and aesthetic, at the beginning, when she poses, standing above all the dancers, she seems to be the mother she is referring to - "Mother Monster". The dancer's clothing, reminiscent of pajamas in their minimalistic design, seems to reinforce that. Then she removes her hat and item of clothing to reveal her hair pulled back, emphasizing her height. I've never seen her use her hair as a prop before. The high slit of her skirt combined with her hair seems to exude femininity and the notion that her appearance and clothes has become part of the identity she has fashioned for herself.
I hope that helped.
I really love love Gaga Stigmata, thank you all.
Night, guys
The hat was the egg yolk!
ReplyDeletehttp://the-fame.org/displayimage.php?album=1118&pid=55247#top_display_media
As always, thank's for the speedy posts!!!!
ReplyDeleteAs I've mentioned before on some of these posts, the mass-public-at-large seems to have forgotten any distinction between the notion of imitation and emulation. GaGa places herself among the great artists in history, taking the forms and themes established by those prior to her, and building upon them without losing her /invenztiona./
I often think this is one of the largest hurdles GaGa's work encounters within the public sphere. Emulation is seen as imitation. We've all seen stories of GaGa being a "copy-cat."
Another interesting notion that is brought up by Born This Way is the notion of Biological Determinism. It is a notion which, for better-or-worse, has been strongly taken up by GLBT(ect al) groups. But it is a notion which I, personally, am rather uneasy with. I find, however, that the tension is greatly resolved when GaGa states at the end of the piece "Same DNA...But Born This Way."
It seems to speak towards the notion that the overwhelming majority of our DNA is the exact same as any other persons DNA. Or any other animals DNA, for that matter. Something like 98% of all DNA seems to be the same across all fronts. And yet we are each "Born This Way."
I'm surprised this continued evolution of GaGa's "organic" fashion wasn't discussed more though!!! I thought this would be a main focal point!! It is no longer just her hair that transcendes distinctions between fashion and body, her body itself now transcendes these distinctions.
Before, a main ideology behind much of GaGa's fashion performance seems to have been based on the notion that "my cloths are alive too." A dress that bleeds independently of the wearer. The "living" dress which moves independently.
It would seem that a new ideology, or more radical version of the previous, is emerging. No longer are the cloths merely just "alive," independent of GaGa's own anatomy, but now the two are synthesis through the metamorphosis of rebirth. Could GaGa's egg not also be seen as a cocoon or chrysalis?
We also see previous thematic elements which GaGa has worked within before arising in new forms. If we remember back to the first incarnation of the Monster Ball, GaGa explained that it would be characterized by the idea of evolution. Being born as an embryo / ameba, evolving through the vertebra stage, and culminating in the post-apocalyptic shower-stopper of Bad Romance, where GaGa is dressed as a White Hunchback. Deformed, and yet iconically represented as pure.
This idea of birth is obviously being revisited, but being explored in a new facet.
Great work you guys! Can't wait to read more ^_^
Curse you, Meghan, I've been staring at that damned video for hours, frame by frame, trying to look at just what she's got on her feet (as if I haven't *already* lost enough butch points, thanks to Gaga). I've noticed, or otherwise imagined several things.
ReplyDeleteWith the first shot into the open incubator, when Gaga's legs are still outstretched, there appears to be some kind of translucent/ transparent binding or fastening several inches above the ankle. In some shots, you can almost see something above her ankle that's part of the dance shoe/boot.
In profile, there are spurs coming off the backs of her heels, part of what I call the lower shoe.
In other profile, frontal shots, the visible part of the boot/shoe looks almost like a pump, cut below the ankle.
But I'm beginning to think this is a shoe within a translucent boot that goes about as high as the dance boots she wears on stage for Paparazzi in the Monster Ball.
The heel reminds me of the one on the McQueen boots she wore in the 60 minutes interview when she didn't feel like putting on clothes or foundation.
Actually, I have no idea what they are but my experience living with and working with dancers tells me it is probably a reinforced dance boot of some kind with support above the ankle and the bottom of the heels are broadened to support the kind of dance she's doing. I'd like to think this is something they created with Capezio but it might very well be something invented by the Haus.
We need to discuss Gaga's hat + the jacket she wears at the end of the performance!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if i'm on the money here, but it reminded me of an outfit a traditional gospel-singin' church-going older woman would wear on a Sunday morning.
On the surface, Gaga's costuming in this performance was quite low-key (compared to many of her other performances). But really, the way she has blended "monster" alien-like and religious imagery with Madonna references is amazing for such a short and [relatively] simplistic performance.
LOVE this discussion guys!
ReplyDeleteI just got out of a class where we discussed a bit of Judith Butler's Bodies that Matter; and I can see so much of Born This Way animating what I think Butler was writing about:)
Just wanted to add that, along with a lot of the media response to the song in channels like Twitter that expressed dismay with Born This Way as a "copy" of Express Yourself (I've also seen it compared musically to the TLC song Waterfalls, which is really interesting because that is another song which could belong to this genre of generalized didactic "accept who you are" anthems, but it emphasizes staying within one's paradigm and not "rocking the boat," so to speak. Born This Way is fascinating because it seems to inhabit some space between accepting circumstance, essentialism, and radical, confrontational challenge to norms), is concern with the lyrical phrasing "orient made"
"Orient made" is such an interesting choice of term- it's risky because if Gaga's use of it is read as a terming of people as "oriental," it is then taken as a cringe-inducing, offensive slur. But to orient oneself is merely to locate oneself in space. When middle age maps were being developed orient was not only east, it was anywhere other than where one was- the outside, unknown world. Orient then took on the connotation of "east," and now it has accreted with Edward Said's writings on Orientalism and western tendencies to make colonializing gestures that alternately exoticize, claim and dehumanize "the other."
To be "orient made" could potentially mean to be determined by structures in place that have all of these associations clinging to them- we are born with our orientations already in place, we are born with the world having defined our orientation in so many ways, with so many demarcations- our gender, our ethnicity, our class, our sexual "orientation" (!)- the world has already determined the language for these things, before our bodies materialize in the world. But Born This Way may be saying- let's make our own gestures, knowing how everything is relentlessly categorized, and how our ways of orienting ourselves in the world may be bound, defined and narrowed for us by virtue of being born into them. Are there ways to acknowledge this and allow for it and draw new maps in the world all at once?
Hope a little of this ramble made a little bit of sense...
Cheers, Willow
a tiny note to add: isn't gaga's current hair/make-up look a total nina hagen/traci lords-in-john waters'-'crybaby' hybrid? love it & hope they are pointed references, as both of those women have contributed so much to the world of performance & changeability as well. photos:
ReplyDeletehttp://cdn.imnotobsessed.com/wp-content/uploads/FNP_EW_0160973.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l9wadzBcMC1qdlzhgo1_400.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_AdrLMahEASc/Sa1gpKFuW6I/AAAAAAAAAg0/9E1xF1wQ4GI/s320/Nina-Hagen-In-Ekstasy-288226.jpg
also, I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice this but the acronym LGBT is both Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered and Lady Gaga Born This (Way)... gaga loves doubling like no other! -W
ReplyDeleteI pretty much LIVE for your rousing, eye-opening, and so well-written critiques. I heard about this video today on another blog and I thought others on this blog would be interested to hear the many, many other songs that use the same chord progressions or vocal styles as "Born This Way." Fascinating, eh?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD93yzTU_SQ
That the paws at end resemble the piano from last year's Grammys.
ReplyDelete2010 -
http://twitpic.com/10vwa1
2011 -
http://gagadaily.com/2011/02/lady-gaga-performs-at-53rd-grammy-awards/photo-14-32/
Thanks to everyone for leaving such thoughtful comments. I've been incredibly busy, but will make time to respond to your ideas later this evening.
ReplyDeleteMeghan Vicks
Thank you Gagastigmata for such a rivoting discussion. It's so amazing to see a collective of individuals who are interested in this superstar academically and providing a space to express thoughts and beliefs. I want to begin this comment by saying I'm a HUGE Gaga fan. I've written many papers for feminist and queer classes on her, analyzing different music videos, and I've attended the monster ball. I've thrown Gaga parties to raise money for global queer efforts; she's a huge idol of mine. Born this Way has now been played on my iTunes 131 times -- and that is only counting playing on my computer through the entire song, and doesn't count listening to part of it or the amount of plays on my iPhone. Yet with a highly political song such as this one, one must engage in critical reflexivity. I fully believe Gaga was doing something good with this song, and I think in many ways it's a great message. But I do have a few problems with it:
ReplyDeleteFirst, the discursive usage of the words "chola" and "orient." Chola is obviously Gaga's shoutout to the Latina/o community as Orient is obviously a shoutout to the Asian community; you cannot simply remove them from the fact that it's part of a laundry list of racial identities (which is a reason why "Orient" can't be reread as a phenomenological relation to the object.) Chola is not a good universal word for Latina; it has strong connotations with being a Mexican gangster. Saying one was born this way is a glorification of that particular subculture and the practices they use. My argument is not simply that all Latina/os arn't gangsters -- although that universalization is very obviously dangerous -- but this particular community is deeply effected by the violence and prejudices of gang culture. Latina/os, especially those who live in lower economic stratas, suffer horrible forms of structural violence from the existence of these gangs, which is why they should not be romanticized. While I am white and privileged because of my race and class, many of my Latina/o friends who I have talked to about this have indicated that they felt offended by this because they have directly experienced chola/o culture and the damage it does to their community. Now, obviously these narratives should not be tokens or the view of all Latina/os, but rather they are stories from individuals reflecting their particular social location. It's all I have since because of my race and class I have been distanced from this subculture. However, some have also said there are aspects of Chola culture that are good and should be affirmed. I could not get a straight forward answer as to what this is, but perhaps it is possible to reclaim Born This Way by affirming that aspect of Chola culture in the context of BTW's larger political message -- a race of humans that is not violent or built in prejudice, thus eliminating the bad aspects of Chola culture?
Likewise, if you look at the context of the phrase "orient-made," it is clearly talking about the race and not one's orientation towards things. Willow above defined orient as "not only east, it was anywhere other than where one was- the outside, unknown world." Even if this is true, it doesn't rid the offensive nature of the word; orient is always already in relationship to the occident. It is outside, not here. This itself is a colonizing, racist, and offensive gesture, as it posits a people on the outside in relation to what is considered the "here" (Europe, America, the West.) It's great to say that these people should embrace self-affirmation, but why must they do that according to an identity that is inherently Eurocentric?
[continued from above]
ReplyDeleteSome might say that it is possible to reclaim language (Butler's Injurious Speech, anyone?) but I don't know if Gaga can do this in the context of racial politics. Just as a straight person probably isn't in a position to reclaim the word faggot and strip it of its meaning, or a white person can reclaim the word nigger, I find it difficult for Gaga to transcend the reality of her white privilege and speak for these identities.
SECOND, Gaga's conception of a new race within humanity that bears no prejudice. This seems to be the explanation for the horns on her face and shoulders, as it is an aesthetic demonstration of being a new race; a material manifestation of the idea she is promoting in the song. I find this concept intriguing, and I think it is a useful model in terms of race, sex, gender, and sexuality. However, I feel as if this may overlook class analysis, which is central to any discussion of identity politics, even if it is not affirmed as the universal upon which a revolution is built upon. While saying "I was born this way and I am part of this new breed of humans" may be useful in terms of race, sex, and gender for say the welfare queen, it does nothing to counter the structural aspects of class in perpetuating her oppression. Her material conditions preclude her from being able to entirely affirm her life within this socio-economic context; the biological essentialist message probably should not be adopted to glorify her poverty and oppression. I understand that saying you were born this way does not preclude movements for social change, but the reason why it's true in the context of queerness and other modes of identity is because it is a way of affirming that queerness and saying it's a good thing. This doens't seem like a productive strategy for those "queered" or, for a more accurate term, oppressed by capitalism and neoliberalism.
Again, I'm a huge Gaga fan, and I love the song, but I don't want to write off these aspects of the song. For the most part, the song has a great and revolutionary concept, but I simply can't put away my concerns about these aspects. So, Gagastigmata, tell me what you think! Is the song preclusive of class-based change while simultaneously committing acts of discursive violence, or is something much more profound happening (that I am simply not seeing) and the word choice more than excusable?
Sydnor Monster –
ReplyDeleteThanks for your really thoughtful comments and warm compliments. I really appreciate the time and effort you took to share your thoughts, and your concerns, with us.
In regards to Gaga’s use of the word “chola,” you assume that she’s using this word as shorthand for the entire Latino community. I don’t necessarily think this is the case: Gaga uses both broad and narrow brushstrokes for painting the scope of humanity that is “Born This Way”. She goes from incredibly broad generalizations such as “black, white, and beige” to more focused shout-outs, like “Lebanese” and “transgendered.” Given Gaga’s background, and especially the “Chola” styling that is used in a lot of pop music to represent a tough, stylish woman (think Gwen Stefani and Fergi), I think the “chola” in BTW refers to a specific fashion or lifestyle, and owning it. In the “Telephone” video, Lady Gaga’s sister makes a cameo appearance, dressed and makeup-ed in chola style, and figures as an earlier version of Gaga. Of course, the terms “chola” and “cholo” have been and are still used pejoratively, but this is not a universally and at all times the case. Its use has varied widely at different times and in different places; sometimes it’s used as a slur, and sometimes it’s used to neutrally describe a specific ethnic heritage, and sometimes it’s used to designate a certain lifestyle and fashion. And for Gaga, I think it’s the latter. In any case, I really don’t think she’s using it as a broad brushstoke to label the entirety of Latinos. Of course, I could be wrong.
As for “Orient made” – as far as I understand it, “the orient” is still used as a neutral term to designate “the east.” Even so, I can totally understand why her use of the term makes people cringe, and why it comes across as insensitive – at least to Americans. I think we should keep in mind, however, that Gaga’s music isn’t limited to an American perspective, and that globally, the word “orient” isn’t as fraught with political incorrectness and offensiveness as it is in America. I understand that in Britain, the word “oriental” doesn’t typically carry pejorative connotations. I guess, if we consider “Born This Way” in a global context, the words Gaga uses to identify certain groups of people will take on different meaning (of course this is always the case, as words are inherently unstable signifiers; only fleeting footholds, if you will).
You’re asking me whether or not I’m troubled by Gaga’s use of “chola” and “orient.” To be honest, before this debate arose, I only thought “chola” as a term that signified a certain style typically adopted by Latina women; as for “the orient,” I generally stay away from it because it’s too close to “oriental,” which is undoubtedly offensive to many people. Would I prefer that Gaga said “Asian” or the “east”? I honestly don’t know.
What I do know, however, is that Gaga didn’t write a song that completely sidestepped these problems by using a bunch of euphemistic bullshit signifiers of race and identity: as Eddie points out, most anthemic accept-yourself songs do not specifically list what they are accepting. Gaga does. She does so explicitly, and at risk of alienating any listener who has a problem with those who are transgender, Lebanese, chola, white, gay, lesbian, etc. (There’s a big group of people on the Internet who are furious with Gaga for using “Lebanese.”) Language is always slippery, but when we get into terms that attempt to describe and define identities, well, these are some of the most highly-charged and ever-changing words. Words matter, but the problem is their meanings are not stable. What I love about Gaga’s accept-yourself anthem is that it does not avoid this problem.
I guess I’m not answering your question one way or another. I’m not going to argue away the fact that many people find the terms “chola” and “orient” offensive; if they are offended by those terms, I believe they have good reason to be. But I am personally not offended.
Sydnor Monster,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, “Even if this is true, it doesn't rid the offensive nature of the word; orient is always already in relationship to the occident. It is outside, not here. This itself is a colonizing, racist, and offensive gesture, as it posits a people on the outside in relation to what is considered the "here" (Europe, America, the West.) It's great to say that these people should embrace self-affirmation, but why must they do that according to an identity that is inherently Eurocentric?”
I think you are right, and my reading was not well thought through. My first reaction to hearing the song was pausing over the lyric, thinking, as a lot of people did, that it came across as insensitive. That initial, visceral reaction lead me to think the use of it must’ve been deliberate, and wonder why would she use *those* terms? She would have to know that the words chola and oriental are charged terms that have loaded histories and implications where they have been used offensively and inconsiderately. And then I started to think about the etymology of the word orient, and thought maybe the phrase “orient made” fit in with this idea that “born this way” is about advocating for self-acceptance that defies categorizations that reify arbitrary boundaries drawn in the interest of a colonizing force and limit the experience of any individual who would fall outside of terms created, traditionally by whoever holds power, that designate what is “normal.” Just as the word “orient” has been used as a colonizing gesture that makes a claim that puts the claimer in a position of power in opposition to it, so does any language that designates one’s “orientation.” One has been constituted by language as having an orientation, “orient made,” and this is arbitrary and can be defied and one can self-identify differently, and be emancipated by defiant self identification. I can see could be a kind of myopic and idealistic reading. As you point out, it comes in a context that makes it definitely about race, and it’s a critical mistake to ignore that and the potential implications of that. I think it can have more than one meaning, but to not take it as related to race is off, and honestly, I’m still not sure how to take her use of “chola” and “orient.”
I agree with Meghan and Eddie that what makes it so appealing and interesting is “that Gaga didn’t write a song that completely sidestepped these problems by using a bunch of euphemistic bullshit signifiers of race and identity.”
It sort of directs us to look at our responses to the potential meanings of these words, for better or worse.
I think Gaga stuffed up this time... both 'chola' and 'Orient' are offensive to me in this context, and it's quite horrible to think of the rise in usage those terms will receive because of this song. :o(
ReplyDeleteI guess nobody's perfect.
The one thing I can say about Gaga with absolute certainty is that the woman is NEVER unconscious of what she says and does. Never. I have no doubt that she put a great deal of thought and contemplation into whether to keep chola and orient in the song. Or perhaps very little because she's clear in her own mind how and why she's using them and it's not just for rhythm and rhyme.
ReplyDeleteChola isn't merely a derogatory term, oddly enough invented in the very same Latina/Latino communities that are screaming about its use in BTW. But chola is also a culture, it is also an identity, it is also a disenfranchised community and this song is a shout-out to all the disenfranchised.
"orient is always already in relationship to the occident". North is always already in relationship to South. Does that make North pejorative? The Orient describes a very broad swath of geography and humanity, and is multi-continental. It is a very racially diverse region, never mind the fact that we lump them in altogether as 'Asian'. It is an appropriate term in this song for an international star to give shout-outs to people throughout the Orient
It's also an acknowledgment, in the context of the anthem, that the orient has, until recently, been a disenfranchised region of the world, compared to western nations. While some nations in the Orient are rising to technological and economic dominance, others are still left behind.
I do believe she intends the term 'orient-made' to be referential to sexual orientation, in addition to the meanings above. Gaga is notorious for layering multiple messages and references into a single piece. think this term is one of those instances.
"While saying "I was born this way and I am part of this new breed of humans" may be useful in terms of race, sex, and gender for say the welfare queen, it does nothing to counter the structural aspects of class in perpetuating her oppression. "
Class is rooted in identity. Who you are, or who you are perceived to be, has a great deal to do with where you fall within the structure of class. It's not coincidence that the disenfranchised are also the most marginalized politically and economically. Class is the economic product of bigotry toward people of certain identities, whatever the basis of that identity is.
Gaga doesn't address the symptoms, she goes right to the core of oppression, which is shame. People who feel ashamed of who they are become perfect foils for oppression, whether it's bullying, verbal or physical abuse, social, political and/or economic exploitation. The entire basis, the power of scapegoating certain groups is shame.
Born This way cuts that weapon right off at the knees, as it is intended to do.
If you can no longer be told that you are less-than, unworthy, unacceptable, unlovable, you can no longer by oppressed by those who use your own sense of shame and worthlessness to manipulate you.
Liberation from any form of oppression begins with accepting yourself for who and what you are, loving and respecting yourself for who and what you are and who you may become. It begins with pride.
This is how liberation movements begin, by reclaiming heritage, by embracing identity, by refusing to be told that you are worthy only of oppression. And liberation is ultimately, and inherently, subversive.
Going off some of the comments that have continued to be made, could it be supposed that this song is a direct critic against the hegemonic forces that provide the "Normal" upon which the "Other" is forced to judge them self?
ReplyDeleteThe song is basically saying "I'm completely 'normal' as I was born, and I'm just fine that way."
It's interesting, I read a critic of Born This Way the day it came out that said Born This Way seemed like a force of hegemony, opening the doors of "white normal"-life to the disenfranchised....but this struck me as so...wrong. The song specifically notes on accepting another who walks a different lifestyle track than you. "I'm on the right track, baby, I was born this way."
As for GaGa's use of 'orient,' I do not find it offensive at all. In fact, it is the word I prefer to use when referring to a person from the geographic region of Asia. I cannot tell the difference between someone of Japanese decent, Chinese decent, or Koren decent. I think it would be MUCH more offensive to mistaken refer to someone of the improper heritage. I'm ignorant in that area, far be it from me to play at knowing what I don't.
But secondly, I am very glad that GaGa went into specifics of race, and chose such words that are charged just enough with positive, neutral, and negative connotations. I'm glad she didn't just glose over the issue of race, and that she didn't play into this "color-blind" farce which we like to play at in the United States.
I remember something one of my classmates said in a race and ethnic stratification class I'm in...they were in a German club and a hip-hop song came on, and one of the people they were with said, in German, 'oh, isn't this black music'?" Something like that. But my classmate was originally shocked, oh! you can't say that! that's offensive...but the Germans were completely complexed. They saw that the people who produced, sung, and primarily listened to, hip-hop, were black. But 'black' also isn't so strongly charged with negative meanings and emotions in Germany, as it is in America.
So my final comment, off all that, is that race is still a salient issue in the United States, and the world, and it needs to be addressed head on. Secondly, I think we need to remember that the 'history' of a word in one country is not that same history of a word in another country. Specifically, lets look at the british "fag."
It's Madonna's "Express Yourself" with an industrial drum beat
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't think Gaga is referring to Asians when she says "You're Orient" and "You're Orient-made" is deluding themselves. She's using the term to round out a racial and ethnic laundry-list, just as Sydnor Monster said. She also addresses the question of sexual identities in a later line, canceling out the need for her to reference it twice. Not to mention the fact that with any other meaning applied, it would be a really bizarre thing to say, especially considering the easy-to-understand nature of the rest of the lyrics in the song.
ReplyDeleteGaga is a very sharp woman, but the lyrics of BTW aren't as multi-layered and complicated as some of you are trying (desperately) to make them out to be. I don't want to be disappointed in her for such horrible choices in vocabulary any more than the rest of you do, but we have to face the fact that she chose these words with some amount of ignorance, as I personally recognized them both right away as words that individuals outside of those ethnic and racial communities do not have the privilege to use so lightly.
It's true that "chola" can refer to a certain style of dress and makeup, but Gaga says "Chola descent." She's obviously not referencing fashion statements with this term.
As for the meanings of certain words not being as charged in some countries as they are in others, to side-step a much longer conversation, suffice to say that Lady Gaga is American, born and bred, her target audience at the end of the day is Americans, and the words she uses have to be evaluated with an American sensibility. If these words are offensive in America, then Gaga should know better.
Aside from those two terms, I think the song is great. It just makes me sad to have to overlook something like that.
Part I!
ReplyDeleteThe project of “Born This Way” requires controversial, even offensive terms. This is because of the fairly radical (and, in my estimation, unavoidable) tack it takes on (self-)identity. Simply abandoning old, offensive terms in favor of new, accepted ones is not going to win the culture wars. At worst it will create new terms to be converted into slurs (as when negro was the polite thing to call black people), and at best it will create an empty skeleton of language, with words rendered inoffensive only by becoming inert – and therefor meaningless. Words have to sting or they don’t mean anything. If they don’t provoke a flutter, a response in the hearer, then are they even language?
That’s why it’s born this way, not “that” way. The goal, the victory isn’t to explain to someone that they’ve defined you incorrectly, thus side-stepping the issue of discrimination, but to force acceptance of everything that the prejudiced hate, fear, and reject. If the response to racist/culturalist uses of ‘chola’ is to abandon and outlaw the term in favor of other, more-precise terms, the end result is not that it isn’t ok to discriminate; it’s just that the kind of person you thought you were discriminating against is actually something else, regarding which you haven’t developed any racism (yet). It’s not an escape or evasion behind semantics or neologisms – as Gaga said in her Sixty Minutes interview, it simply isn’t possible to hide – it’s a taking-ownership of the gaze, a refraction and restatement on your own terms. By becoming a speaker instead of a hearer, people are freed. Not by becoming a hearer of different, not-yet-offensive words.
Part II!
ReplyDeleteDan Savage, a genius and a wonderful person, gets this (and I think he got it before I was in high school): and he’s performed a successful project along these lines by calling on gay people to take (back?) the word “fag”.
I also don’t mean to imply that political and social action isn’t necessary. It’s wonderful, heroic, and absolutely vital. But action of this strength and cohesion isn’t possible until people have become speakers instead of hearers. The belief in agency is the only reality of agency, and the most fundamental indicator and creator of that belief is in celebratory, militant self-expression.
I’m not telling anyone not to be offended – that would be dumb and insensitive and also, of course, pointless. I’m trying to argue that being offended is the point, and that it is in some sense necessary.
Thanks (yet again) for slogging through all the jargon and pseudo-German philosophy. And thanks so much for all your thoughtful, concerned comments. The point of these posts is the discussions which follow.
@harq-al-ada: What Dan Savage is talking about is the power of word reclamation, which it seems as though you've partially misunderstood. It's a very valid practice and one which I, as a Jewish lesbian woman, engage in all the time.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, however, that Gaga, being white, cannot reclaim words like "Oriental" and "chola" for minority groups of which she is not a part (and furthermore, over which she holds power). Gaga can freely reclaim derogatory terms directed at women, bisexuals/lesbians, and people of Italian descent, but just as she has absolutely no claim on the terms "negro" or "nigga," she has no claim to "Oriental" or "chola." Look at it this way: the LGBTQ community has indeed been working for years to reclaim slurs directed at us, but if a straight artist ever released a song with the lyric "dyke" or "fag," even in an attempt to send a positive message, I would be seriously pissed. I let a few of my straight friends use those words around me because I know they live largely immersed in LGBTQ culture, but it's always something that is allowed by me on a case-by-case (even utterance-by-utterance) basis.
I, for one, do NOT believe this song required offensive terms on any level; nothing about this song is meant to be offensive or harsh. Yes, it's meant to be a song that intolerant people cannot sing, which is its biggest strength, but its biggest weakness is that Gaga has shot herself in the foot by using terms that have burned the bridges she has tried to build to reach out to the very people the song was written for.
Side note: Yes, "negro" used to be the (slightly more) 'polite' term for black people, but it was a term that was given power by hegemony and which was used during times of slavery and Jim Crow laws. I hardly think it's a good example for why it might be okay to fall back on outdated (and, in the case of "Oriental," particularly ignorant) terms for ethnic or racial groups.
Fascinating discussion! Some thoughts on "chola," "Orient," "queen," and beyond:
ReplyDelete***Before hearing Born This Way, I was most familiar with the term "chola" as a signifier of a particular fashion sense, whose genesis is commonly attributed to (Latina) chola culture. I had also seen the term used in a celebratory sense, as in, "She's dressed like a chola!" Given this celebratory usage of "chola"--and the fact that I have never personally heard it used negatively--I had no problem w/ the lyric. But it is interesting that others--particularly some in the Latino community--had problems with it. And I did not know about the history of cholos' destructive power within certain communities so that certainly adds some complexity to my prior interpretation. I should also add the caveat that I'm a black gay man in his 20s who grew up in the suburbs and never had any personal experiences with cholas :)...so there's my positionality and some of my limitations as a commentator.
***As for "Orient," I honestly just thought she was using it as a synonym for "Asian." Also, we can note that, in terms of lyrical line structure, "Orient" is in the same location as "transgendered" --> "transgendered life"/"Orient made." She needed a word that was three syllables long to mirror "transgendered" and if she was going for racial identities of pan-Asian flavor, I can only think of limited and rarely used options such as Orient & Asiatic (technically four syllables, but it's possible to combine the 2nd & 3rd in one elision). The trouble with using "rarely used" racial signifiers is that you will almost undoubtedly run into backlash from a segment of society who feels that the lyric is antiquated or just plain offensive. (While writing this, I also realized she could've gone the nation-specific route as she did with "Lebanese" and pick a three-syllable Asian identity such as Korea or Malaysia....)
***I find it fascinating that, as harq-al-ada pointed out: Gaga uses language to goad, to push boundaries--to anger, even. It is so interesting that she is able to use the term "queen" in this song, which I (and likely many others) take as a nod to gay camp subculture, especially given the pro-gay stance of the song and Gaga's billing the song as a "gay anthem" before it was even released. I believe that not too long ago (and even today), "queen" is a word that only queers and queer allies can use without reproach. In the wrong hands (or mouths), "queen" quickly becomes a nasty epithet meant to hurt and humiliate. But Gaga claimed the word for her song and uses it several times--and with no significant backlash from the LGBT community, that I can tell, at least. It seems that she is similarly pushing the envelope w/ other signifiers such as Orient and chola in order to say: "I am using these terms to celebrate these communities and bring out the beauty of different cultures. And also because, well, 'Asian' and 'Latina' would make the song a bit too stock and conventional--we need to put some spice up in these lyrics!"
***Literalness: Speaking of "spice in these lyrics," I am struck by how literal this song is. I would rank it right alongside Just Dance and Telephone in terms of how readily comprehensible the lyrics are upon first listen. It is a very different style from Bad Romance, Paparazzi, and Poker Face, which trade in poetic phrasing and force the listener to dig deeper (and even then, the listener may not get very far unless he or she gets additional help from GagaStigmata or Gaga's interviews in which she offers a glimpse into the thought process motivating any one of her songs and videos!)
I agree with redball on the lyrical puzzle she needed to solve. No individual country shout-out would work because the Orient encompasses many countries, including India in British usage of the word. It means East or Eastern and the dividing line geographically and racially isn't at all clear.
ReplyDeleteI think she chose Orient rather than As-i-an (she's good at creating an extra syllable where there isn't one) precisely because of its double meaning in referring to sexual orientation...namely because Gaga never just goes with one meaning if she can cram in another two or three.
"Queen" as a word only queers can use without reproach touches on something I've been blogging about for some time. That by appropriating queer as a uniquely gay identity, we've effectively disenfranchised a vast swath of freaks, misfits, and rejects who were once also called queer before someone decided it meant homosexual and nothing else.
Maybe it's time that we queers give up our exclusive possession of the word, because we're not the only queers in society...every battered, bullied, criticized, humiliated, tormented, ostracized, rejected, abandoned kid out there is queer and hir suffering is no less than our own...it's just been silent and unacknowledged.
redball wonders how Gaga can use "queen" without reproach from the queer community. It's because Gaga is just as queer as we are, and we've always known it. She's one of us and it has nothing to do with who she sleeps with.
Without saying so directly, Gaga is re-queering queerdom; the race she speaks of, the race within the race of humanity is queer in every possible sense of the world. She invites us to broaden our horizons and recognize that there are SO many more queers in the world than we realized.
khamsin64 makes a good point that I can't believe I overlooked. Gaga's identification as bi certainly qualifies her as part of the queer community who can use reclaimed formerly negative terms without reproach.
ReplyDeleteI also realized that I didn't complete the last point on my last post, which was to simply to say that, as someone who follows Gaga's growth & evolution as a artist, I find myself never knowing what to expect in her next single! Am I going to get a cryptic brain-teaser of a song in her next release or a simpler, lyrically stripped-down tune. Gaga covers both bases frequently and that is part of the dynamism and excitement that she offers her listeners. And then you couple that with the fact that her videos always add new unexpected layers of meaning (Who knew that a song about being up in a club sipping that bub would have a music video that features not even one scene in a club?!), self-reference (the jailhouse crotch shot as a shout-out to the penis rumors), and intertextuality (Paparazzi as the 1st act to Telephone's 2nd act). Her opus is a delightful smorgasbord.
Laurelized & Sydnor Monster reiterate the excellent point that by using pejorative terms such as "Chola" and "Orient" in a song about equality and the annihilation of prejudice, that Gaga shoots herself in the foot, so to speak. In other words, use of these offensive terms undermines/problematizes the anti-racism/sexism/gender-discrimination/sex-orientation-discrimination message of BTW.
ReplyDeleteBut I think other commenters are making equally excellent points that is the converse of Laurelize and Sydnor Monster. That is, by sticking these potentially pejorative terms (or even, just plain pejorative) in BTW, the discriminatory power of those terms are undermined.
It seems that the problematization could go either way - the terms undermine the message of the song; or the song delegitimates the pejorative-ness of the terms by bringing them into a song whose message is anti discrimination.
Thoughts?
Like I said, the issue with a possible attempt by Gaga to undermine these pejorative terms is the fact that she's white. She cannot make that kind of decision for racial and ethnic minorities; it's an abuse of her privilege. Although Gaga may come delightfully close to transcending gender, she cannot, despite our wishes, transcend race.
ReplyDeleteThe other issue I find with the argument that the usage of pejorative terms in the song is to undermine them is that those two terms are the only pejorative terms in the entire song (unless you count "queen," which, when used in the context of "drag queen," as Gaga is using it, is actually not pejorative) (and even if it was, Gaga does, as Redball states, have free reign with LGBTQ-related slang). If the song was full of pejorative descriptors, I would be more convinced; as it is, Gaga doesn't even use slang terms to refer to those within the community closest to her—"No matter gay, straight, or bi, lesbian, transgendered life..." All the standard, most acceptable and (perhaps minus the shortened, more conversational version of "bisexual") respectful terms for said groups of people.
Why on earth would Gaga use pejorative terms for two communities of which she is not a part, but use politically correct, completely non-challenging terms for a community she actually lives in? She doesn't even throw a "queer" in there anywhere. Sorry, but I'm not convinced.
I'm Australian so the first time I've heard of 'chola' was in this song, but as someone who grew up surrounded by (East) Asian immigrants to Sydney, and has travelled a lot around East Asia, I can tell you that I have never met a single person who refers to themselves as "being from the Orient" or uses that term in relation to themselves in any way.
ReplyDelete"The Orient" is a Western construction, one, as Edward Said and many other writers have noted, is associated with exoticising, romanticising, idealising, sexualising and otherwise stereotyping anyone who doesn't subscribe to Western intellectual practice, because we all know that's the only valid way of looking at the world.
Hm...this is developing interestingly...
ReplyDeleteOrient, chola, these words have provoked an array of reactions that have ranged the spectrum of electing thoughts of a ethnic-fashion movement, others being deeply offended, and some have no real opinion at all. It would seem that, of all the racial pejorative terms she could use, these two seem to be more ambiguous in their offensive nature than most others. Within the context of a pop-song that's going to get played on the radio, that makes these terms appealing, instead of some of the more charged racial epithets...
But let us ask ourselves though, these are still racially charged words which some WILL find offensive, and the very mentioning of race in an american pop-song goes against the 'color-blind' mantra chanted all over the mass-media.
But it also highlights that, just like those of the LGBT, many people of color are discriminated against and charged with being "different." Yes, in a sense, these terms do problematize the message of GaGa's song. But is this not part of GaGa's art? To shock? To offend? She has described herself as a pop-shock artists. She draws similarities between herself and Marilyn Manson. By offending, by shocking, by spectecalizing, she draws attention to such an issue.
However, on a different note, I'd like to talk about the increasing ties GaGa has with corporate and consumer consumer capitalism and the implications this places on her music and artistry. Like, all these #1's around the world? Well it just so happened that Apple sent a reminder to everyone's e-mail who'd ever purchased a GaGa song/video before. This is the first time they've ever done that...but this was just a test run...
I've heard a lot of queers around me complaining that they don't WANT GaGa representing them in such a way...they don't relate to this "Queen" business GaGa's referencing, and they feel like she's "cashing in," so-to-say, on the community.
But I've also noticed a lot of these people usually have this perspective of GaGa as some money grubbing, fame-whoring, pop-diva queen. But this point aside, they raise valid points. Because even if GaGa isn't a money grubbing fame-whore, the system she works within and who enables her production IS.
Chiming in quickly here--I don't know that I'd lump chola and orient together. Orient(al) is certainly an offensive term, but chola, were it the only term in the song, wouldn't really be seen as offensive, just kind of retro.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Guardian:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/14/lady-gaga-monster-born-this-way
I honestly didn't even know that chola and oriental were offensive words, so maybe she didn't either. And at the end of the day, words are like alcohol, they only affect you if you take them in. They only become offensive if you allow them to be. I couldn't care less if someone called me a fag or a nigger 24/7 because I know that words can only harm me if I let them.
ReplyDelete