Butt of a Racist Joke

            Recently, a provocative magazine cover photo of Kim Kardashian was published and it sparked a conversation about the exploitation of the African-American woman's body. In this photo, Kardashian is opening a bottle of champagne and it pops and pours into a champagne glass that is balancing on her backside. This photo taken by photographer Jean-Paul Goude, instead of being an original piece of art, is actually a re-creation of the photographers most well-known pieces of art, “Champagne Incident”, featured in his 1982 art book called Jungle Fever. 

Upon seeing this image of Kim Kardashian I immediately reflected to the novel Jungle Fever which in turn caused me to reflect upon previous images I have seen of Saartjie "Sarah" Baartman, a black South African woman that was brought to England in the early 1800s and displayed in freak shows for her large buttocks and elongated genitalia. I had written a paper on her in a Women and Gender Studies class and remember being quite shocked by the Baartman's story and experience. Baartman's body was even on display after her death when her body was dissected and parts of her body were displayed in a museum until the 1970s, she did not receive a proper burial until many years later when she was returned to South Africa. 

Now I'm sure you're wondering what does Kim Kardashian have to do with Saartjie Baartman and why should we care? The answer is simple. the objectification of women's bodies, particularly black women's bodies, has become so pervasive in our culture that we cannot see it for what it is: racism and fetishism. Saartjie Baartman, and the awfully offensive caricatures of her from the time period before her death, is a reminder of the centuries of racism, oppression and misogyny that women and people of color experience. 

Photographer Jean-Paul Goude is known for his fascination with African-American women. Photographing women and then cutting apart their features to create the ideal woman, he is quoted as having said, "I've always admired black women's backsides, the ones who look like race horses. Toukie's [my girlfriend’s] backside was voluptuous enough, but nowhere near a race horses ass, so I gave her one. There she was, my dream come true, in living color." In some of his previous work we can see his fetishism of black women when we look at his photographs featuring one woman, his girlfriend at the time, trapped inside a cage with raw meat as if she were an animal. 

Black women are cut and slashed into pieces to create Goude’s version of the perfect woman and the complete objectification of black women’s bodies is unacceptable. 

Not only are their bodies objectified and are they portrayed as less than human in advertising campaigns, but their bodies are hyper sexualized leading to the loss of any other form of identity. Not only does it lead to the loss of an identity, but it leads to it being appropriated by another race.

“Generation Ass” as Bill Maher likes to call it, is the newest generation in the white community within the last 20 years that seems to be obsessed with women and large backsides as a form of feminine sex appeal. This recent fascination with large asses is an interesting phenomenon as 1) homosapiens have had asses since the beginning of time and 2) African American women, who statistically speaking have larger backsides, aren’t the ones that are currently representing this new big booty craze. 

Black women are not the ones representing their own bodies anymore. Instead women of different races, predominately white, are now making having a large ass fashionable because apparently having a large ass only looks good if it is on a white woman’s body. Recent artists such as Jennifer Lopez and Iggy Azalea sing a song called “Booty”, with lyrics like

“I'm queen big booty Iggy, now find me a bone to sit on

Girls with the cheeks, put 'em hands in the air

Then pop that, pop that, let 'em know that you there”

Accepting the photograph at face value, it is clear to see the parallels between Kardashians photo shoot and the photo taken over 35 years ago by Jean-Paul Goude. If we accept them at face value then we cannot deny the racism and objectification in them and how our culture allows people to be exploited.

Working with Stakeholders

Frannie Peabody, founder of FPC

While reading The chapter about the role of human service nonprofits and promoting community building, I was thinking mostly about the organization where I am currently doing my internship: Frannie Peabody center. 

Currently the organization has approximately 400 clients and the organization specializes in case management for individuals that are living with HIV or AIDS in the state of Maine. Being an NHSO does mean that Frannie Peabody center has stakeholders as well as influential members in the community. I must say that I was a little upset at the accusation that NHSOs care more about pleasing their stakeholders than they do about their clients (p 685). I know that they have more obligations towards their stakeholders, however I disagree that they care more about them than they do their clients. 

At Franny Peabody center there is an agency director who does a lot of the legislative work and advocacy for the HIV and AIDS community. She is like the "bulldog" of the agency and she goes after what our clients need so they can get it. The board members discuss policies and fiduciary responsibilities and they do range from a variety of stakeholders such as other organizations in Portland that are affected by the work that Frannie Peabody Center does. 

The Service users and their supporters are the clients that access the services that are offered. Without our services, these people would have difficulty finding healthcare, housing, food security, access to transportation, access to proper medical care, access to mental health services and employment services, access to a number of different services due to the fact that many of our clients are below the federal poverty level. A number of our clients are also refugees or Asylees that come here seeking safety. Without Franny Peabody center these clients would be forced to navigate the system on their own which is incredibly difficult. I am a college educated woman and the excessive amount of paperwork required for each application for every single service is overwhelming and incredibly intimidating. With the case managers at Frannie Peabody center, clients are better able to have access to the resources they need.

The direct service staff are the case managers that work with clients day to day. We are a referral service and we assist clients in finding the different resources that they can use to help improve their lives. We have three or four different program managers that are charged with management responsibilities in support of direct services. These people help with financing the organization, case management supervision, director of operations, individuals that do grant writing etc. Without these individuals, the organization would have an incredibly difficult time doing day to day business. Due to confidentiality concerns there are not many volunteers at the agency. If they are volunteers they are usually the clients that are very open about their positive status and do a lot of fund-raising in the form of creating various events throughout southern Maine.

As far as the secondary stakeholders in the organization we do have individual donors that do contribute a great deal to the agency. There are a number of government contractors and foundation representatives. One of the more difficult aspects of obtaining money at Frannie Peabody center is that many foundations or organizations that do donate money have specific requirements for how the money is spent. For example, some organizations only want their funds to be used for MSM or men that have sex with men. Other funders may only want their money to go towards the elderly. These are just some examples. Many foundations have strict restrictions set upon the money that they wish to donate and this makes it very difficult for our agency because money is needed to run every aspect of the organization. Providing referral services to clients is only one part of the business. 

We also help with prevention and if restrictions are set on where the money goes it could mean that an entire part of the organization could be severely underfunded. For example a grant recently ran out that helps us provide a space for the prevention center in Portland. Without further grant money the prevention Center will close and prevention is one of the mission statements and goals of Franny Peabody center. Without the center we will only be fulfilling a certain part of our mission. 

It is true that organizations do you have obligations and responsibilities to the stakeholders that help keep their organization afloat, however I do not believe that this means we care more about stakeholders than we do about clients. In life there needs to be compromises and sometimes that compromise may be having to deal with other organizations, foundations, large pharmaceutical companies, the government, etc. It may appear to make our work more difficult. However if we look back to the idea of "social labs" we'll see that we do need various stakeholders in order to make effective change. If Frannie Peabody only had case managers then we would get nothing done for our clients and we would not be helping them. In order to assist them to the best of our ability we need to be able to work with stakeholders in order to get the resources we need. It's a tricky situation but in order to function and have a successful NHSO it is extremely necessary 

Consumers vs. Citizens

I am currently out of Maine and am traveling for family reasons, however I had down time and wanted to contribute a bit to the discussion about the recent chapters.

After finishing chapters 24 and 25 about "comprehensive community building at a crossroads and civil society", I take away the lesson that society, culture, and communities are not in a vacuum. There are always events that bring context to a community such as economic, political, and social trends that affect the environment that our work as social workers will be completed in. 

The suggestions in the chapter by author Tracy Soska and Robert Feikema are: integrating community development and human service strategies, forging partnerships through collaboration, building on community strengths, starting from local conditions and recognizing that community building is not cookie-cutter approach and that our efforts must be fluid and willing to adapt to whatever community were working in.

I also understand that it's important that the community has the most say in any new programs and policies that will shape and affect their community the most. It is also crucial to understand racial inequality in a community and have a civic dialogue about the way race affects the distribution of resources and opportunities in the community. Having these difficult conversations allows us to value cultural strengths and traditions between varying groups of people and also allows us to support families which encourages them to help themselves. 

Because society isn't in a vacuum and it is impacted by economic, political, and social trends it is important to consider how society has changed over the last few decades. Community life has changed significantly even within the last 10 years and we have gone from being citizens to being primarily consumers  in this commoditized society. In order to obtain all of the goods and material items that we seek to have in order to feel fulfilled leaves Americans being overworked, and having extreme amounts of debt. It also leaves great economic inequalities. Our communities have gotten smaller because of how we choose to focus our time consuming and the way that we use our time through the material goods we have such as video games or computers.

When you think about it, consumerism is an excellent form of social control. The quote in the book from Thomas Homer – Dixon says that "consumerism helps anesthetize us against the dread produced by empty lives… We substitute the trends the transitory pleasures provided by newly bought things." Because we have lost our sense of community we seek to find it in other ways leaving us almost "community illiterate". Our isolation leaves us weak and easily manipulated by higher powers and the shift that has come in this change from citizen to consumer has led to an increase in mental health problems, addictions, child-abuse, hunger, obesity, incarceration, homelessness, poverty,  and equality. 

Our isolation as consumers rather then citizens means that we will continue to support the current system as long as we believe it to be beneficial to us and our best interests. In, chapter 25 author Margaret Brodkin makes a point to mention that even child advocates come across opponents. Now one would think that "why would anyone oppose a better environment for children?" The truth is is that there are many people that could oppose it. Brodkin states that it is "A mistake to think that everybody loves kids and will ultimately prioritize their needs. Opposition is inevitable when trying to change the system." 

To me, that quotes, ties into being consumers rather than citizens because as consumers we are looking for the best deal… As citizens may be looking for the greater good for everyone. "The weak ties of social media do not furnish the strong fiber required to weave a community of memory and commitment where people are fully present to one another and engaged in a consensual common enterprise." 

I'm not quite sure how we can make the cultural shift from being consumers to being citizens again. I believe that social workers are often quick to jump to "education, education, education!" However, education can only do so much. People will not change if they do not wish too or do not the incentive to change.  Perhaps having more community-based organizations that focus on "citizzen literacy" would lead to a more open community.

Charity vs. Justice

While reading through Part III "Issues, Areas, and Fields of Community Practice", I stumbled across a small paragraph that discusses the difference between charity and justice.

Charity 

"suggests that one group of people has skills and resources while another group has needs. In the context of charity ... people who need resources are expected to articulate why they need them and to be grateful when they get them." (St. Onge, 2013). 

Justice

"Says that the system is broken" (St. Onge, 2013).

If something is broken, you fix it and you demand that it needs to be changed. David Wagner (from USM!) argues in his book What's Love Got to Do With it?, that United States displays a level of hubris when it comes to considering itself one of the most generous countries in the world. 

Despite being so “charitable”, the United States actually provides its citizens with some of the smallest public benefits in the industrialized world, has a large poverty rate for a Western country and has some of the biggest inequality gaps, and one of the largest prison populations in the world (Wagner, 2001).

 Philanthropy, charity and even nonprofit organizations, Wagner argues, contribute to a growing political apathy in our culture, continued social injustice for basic human needs, and only seeks to support America’s capitalistic society. Charity becomes more about presenting a good public image than about caring for people’s basic needs. 

Citizens focused on charity work, come to conclude that social problems can be solved not through public officials implementing social policies that benefit the society at large, but by simply donating food to a pantry or soup kitchen or donating money. This encourages people to ignore social policies by thinking that they have already made their donation or done their charity, so why care about dirty politics? This leaves social services to be ignored and in the last 40 years to be severely cut and reduced (Wagner, 2001). 

People choose to provide charity over fighting for justice. 

Reading about Appalachian poverty, poverty on reservations, and poverty found in the immigrant population all remind me that the system is broken. Carlton-Laney, Burwell, and White, mention that as social workers working with these marginalized populations in rural communities we will have to focus on the fact that what we have learned in other "traditional" community practices may not work in rural communities. Many in rural communities hold the tradition of self efficacy and "horizontal giving" - the giving and giving back between friends or family members that live in a community, among individuals that know and trust each other (Carlton-Laney et. al, 2013).


The authors suggest using local resources to may access readily available, whether that is through local churches and developing community coaches, or those that can work with citizens in the community to learn together how to effectively bring long lasting change to their community. 

Whether we are working in urban communities or rural populations, we need to decide if we as social workers are providing merely charity or justice. "When people are committed and passionate and willing to work hard for their communities, positive change and growth can result" (Carlton-Laney et al, 2013).

References

St. Onge, P. (2013). Cultural competency: Organizations and diverse populations. In Weil, M., Reisch, M., & Ohmer, M. L. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of community practice (2nd ed., pp. 425-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wagner, D. (2000). What's love got to do with it?: a critical look at American charity. New York: New Press.