On Kanye West's Ego

Drawing from ideas presented in Carl Wilson's book about taste called Let's Talk About Love I aim to analyze my dislike of Kanye West, with an interest in what my tastes say about me. Lets begin by discussing a song I particularly loath. Kanye West's song Ego was released one month after an episode of South Park aired that made fun of Kanye West's inability to deal with people making fun of him. This, of course, is related to his egotistical attitude. The writers of South Park had good reason to make fun of Kanye and his ego. Kanye has a history of egotistical outbursts. At numerous award shows Kanye has expressed anger when he did not get his way. At this point he reminds of the child crying so loud in a toy store because his parents won't buy him his favorite toy. In November 2004 Kanye lost the award for Best New Artist at the AMAs and said this: "I felt like I was definitely robbed, and I refused to give any politically correct bullsh--ass comment ... I was the best new artist this year.". The next year at the Grammies Kanye was upset with the excessive coverage and speculation on his outburst the year before. He performs a musical piece obviously laden with the overtones of persecution and resurrection. Also, in 2006 Kanye was featured on the cover of Rolling Stone adorned with a crown of thorns. The article on Kanye in that issue was called The Passion of Kanye West. There are several more incidents like this, if you're interested simply google "Kanye West" and "ridiculous".

Now that we have a little background let's go back to Kanye's song Ego. As I mentioned the song came out a month after the South Park episode making fun of Kanye. The song is obviously a response to the criticism Kanye was receiving at that time for his award show outbursts and for saying things like "[I'm] the voice of this generation" (cite). In the song Kanye raves about his "big ego" with some not so subtle sexual innuendo. Two birds, one stone; Kanye recognizes that he has a huge ego and tells the world that he has a huge dick. This, of course, is ironic because he seems to be recognizing his ego in an extremely egotistical way. This, no doubt, is the point. The problem I have with the song is that he seems to be not only recognizing his egotistical ways, but celebrating them.

The problem with having a huge ego and outright celebrating it is that this individualistic attitude has detrimental effects on others. In the first place, egotistical attitudes deny the self-criticism necessary to analyze one's own actions and their effect on oneself and others. This lack of insight will come at the detriment of others, and likely oneself. The second part of my critique is more complex. If, popular culture is a is a struggle for control of the masses and resistance from that control, Kanye West's message of egotistical individualism aids those people who attempt to control. Such a toxically individualistic mentality is, and has been, used to deny the communal nature of society. This mentality encourages people not to care too much about others. Ignoring our communal nature and neglecting the concerns of others creates a politically passive subject, one who is unable or unwilling to look at or address social concerns. This is the kind of subject that is easily manipulated politically, because his/her knowledge of the political world is narrowed. Furthermore, individualizing people keeps them from creating the type solidarity that social movements require. So, the problem is twofold. An egotistical person is generally unwilling to put energy into social change and an individualistic society is unable to form adequate solidarity necessary to change society. I am aware that this critique rests on the assumption that social change is necessary. But, suffice it to say that a democratic society requires politically active subjects.

So, Kanye West's attitude is antithetical with democratic values, what about his music? My critique of Kanye and his music stops where his egotistical message does. By this I mean that I have no animosity toward his musical style. In fact, I think some of Kanye's music sounds good. But, I challenge his fans to look more critically at the values laden in his music and what the effects of this attitude may mean. This, of course, assumes that some of his fans subscribe to his egotistical attitude; which I think is a safe assumption.

Paradoxically, Wilson writes that grappling with people not like oneself is what democracy is about. Reconciling this perspective with my own seems to lead to cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, I agree that we should embrace and celebrate our differences, like our tastes in music. On the other I contend that the spread of individualism, explicit in Kanye West's attitude and music helps create an essentially undemocratic society. I deeply respect and defend each person's right to express themselves and consume whatever media they desire. But, if popular culture is the battleground for the minds of the masses, we should examine more closely the effects that popular views have in the construction of attitudes and how they affect the political and social world.

After reviewing my analysis of Kanye West and his song Ego Pierre Bourdieu would categorize me as having a middle class or elite taste. Rather than simply liking music for being entertaining or accessible, I place a much greater emphasis on the values the music espouses. Knowing my background, Bourdieu would credit this proclivity to my field rather than my habitus because I come from a poor family. He would theorize that I am attempting to separate myself from people who like this music to gain cultural capital and symbolic power.
I used to cringe at popular music for simply for being popular because I assumed it was vain. That attitude most surely was highbrow. My critique and dislike of Kanye West is altogether different. My attitude probably has a lot to do with what I have learned about society, culture, and politics while at the university. For this reason, my distaste for Kanye West's music is determined by my field.

Bourdieu's theory is altogether too constraining because I separate myself from his Kanye's music out of protest, rather than cultural capital. Of course, one asset of a non-falsifiable theory like Bourdieu's is that he could contend that I am blind to my own motivations for taste. However, my critique of the values laden in Kanye's music does not depend on my motivation.

So, what does my animosity toward Kanye West's song Ego say about me? It says that I care more about a songs message than whether or not I can dance to it (therefore, I'm a more thoughtful and reflective person than Kanye West fans). If only Bourdieu had it so easy. Like Kanye West fans, my tastes are more than the interaction between my habitus and field. I suppose my dislike of Kanye shows that I have become more critical of the media I consume. Far from wanting to separate or distinguish myself, I aim to motivate others to examine what they consume and the messages therein. This process is everyday praxis for the type of social change I aim to help foster. Yes, that was a shameless celebration of my efforts, but in my defense it was a long overdue break from my routine self-deprivation. Oh my! Did Kanye just bolster my ego?


References

Wilson, Carl. Let's Talk about Love: a Journey to the End of Taste. New York: Continuum, 2007. Print.

Homefront under the microscope

Currently I've been playing this XBOX 360 game called Homefront. The basic premise is that Kim Jong-Il dies and his son Kim Jon-Un takes control of North Korea then Northern and Southern Korea unite and subsequently invade the United States. You play as a former pilot who gets rescued from the Koreans by a resistance group that is but a shell of the former US military. You fight to sabotage the Koreans and reclaim the United States.

Overall the game humanizes the war experience much more than your typical war game (like Call of Duty). But, it also severely dehumanizes Koreans and portrays them as brutal and savage. There is a constant contrast between the war torn community that America has become and the merciless Koreans. While it is refreshing for a game to finally show a more humanized account of war, it is interesting that this level humanization seems to only appear when the US is attacked.

The fire fights take place in suburbia and in the labor camps that the Koreans set up. This setting is very atypical in war games. Usually they take place in fields and other landscape free of people or civilization. This setting seems more realistic and along with the helpless civilians and babies crying in the background which the player must protect makes the war seem more humanistic and less of a simple killing spree.

The Koreans are depicted basically as Nazis are. There are concentration camps and mass graves. They are bent on world domination. The player witnesses the Koreans kill the two parents of a young boy while he watches and screams. The only thing that seems missing is grotesque experiments on the Americans.

Here is a clip of the beginning of the game, players see the Koreans brutally kill and round up Americans:

Their are two characters who rescue the player from a labor camp and they fight with the player throughout the rest of the game. One of these characters is a female who looks like a Chicana and the other is a white male who appears to be in his fifties. The female's character does not get developed very well. The male seems like the stereotypical uber-macho drill Sargent, his name is Conner. Conner constantly makes references to male genitalia throughout the game. He also has an unwavering hatred for the Koreans.

Homefront capitalizes on American nationalism through depictions of American innocence anOd Korean maleficence. What is most interesting about this game is that it both challenges and reinforces American idealism. On the one hand America has been invaded and that flies in the face of what many Americans believe about their country's power. On the other hand the game reinforces the idea that Americans are the good guys and our enemies are purely evil. This simplistic model is the very foundation of nationalism and outgroup hostility.

This hyper-nationalism is particularly present in post 9/11 America. Positioning the US as victims of the purely evil Koreans is not only harmful to Koreans, it blinds us to our own faults as a nation. While I'd rather not go into the many criticisms our foreign policy welcomes, I'd like to suggest that we should be more introspective about our place as a nation among many others. Games such as Homefront help stimulate an unreflexive mentality, teaching us to simply react to our own interpretation of events without thinking about the effects of our actions and attitudes on others. In short, this game has profound power to teach people to simply emote during conflict, rather than to engage in dialog.

Another profound problem of the game is its caricaturization of Koreans. Stereotypes about North Koreans is bad enough, considering most Americans have never even met someone from North Korea. But, to group in South Koreans, as if they have any affinity to Kim Jun-Il or his son demonstrates profound ignorance and insensitivity. The caricatures of Koreans in the game are akin to Nazis, arguably the most hated group of people today.

This portrayal of Koreans is certainly racist. But, what is more important is the work that this caricature does. Video games are a favorite pastime today with a market that reaches kids and adults. The tones of xenophobia and hyper-nationalism are intensely salient in America today. This game capitalizes on those trends, but it also reinforces them encouraging people to kill virtual Koreans. I'm not arguing against violence in video games, that is a topic for another day. I am saying that perpetuating xenophobia, racism, and hyper-nationalism is harmful, both to our own development and to especially those we cast as outsiders.

The mass graves:

Pop Culture and Social Change

Under Construction...

I'm thinking Video Games...