Visions of Spring

What do a pair of Manolo Blahnik sandals, one too many rounds of cosmopolitans, chic urban spaces, and sex (lots of it!) have to do with desire and power?’

Sex and the City: Legitimate Item of Popular Culture

Through the saturation of images and its mass circulation within the media, Sex and the City is and has been widely consumed within the United States. The national popularity of Sex and the City, the market and culture that it has produced, and the “new language” which it has created for women to talk about sex, demonstrate the absolute urgency to critically engage with Sex and the City as a legitimate item of popular culture and for participants within popular culture to recognize its strong ideological impact.  SATC is a reflection of social values and a new reconfiguration of power and social relationships. In other words, the ideology of Sex and the City was not constructed in social isolation, but is rather the cultural manifestation of a new social order.

National popularity:

Screening June 6^th of 1998 till 2004, Sex and the City has been the winner of eight Golden Globes, thirty-six awards and 125 nominations. Based on the book by Candace Bushnell, Sex and the City has been quoted as a “classic of our times”, “controversial”, an example of “post-feminist empowerment of women, up to a point” (emphasis is mine). While some critics have identified the four leading characters of the show as “sexy” and “independent” other critics have described them as “sluts”, “female impersonators in drag” (Debbie Schussel of The Village Voice)  and “hormonal hobbits…all obsessed with a ring” (Anthony Lane of The New Yorker). Despite the postive and negative reviews, the show is so popular and influential that Natasha Walter, author of The New Feminism stated, “I don’t think anyone in the future will be able to write about the status of women in the US at the turn of the century without running through some old Sex and the City videos, and appreciating how single women bestrode Manhattan.” Which single women, of what race, class and sexual orientation, and on what specific streets of manhattan is another question. So what makes this item of popular culture so appealing for its primarily mass female audience, so… desirable shall we say?

Kiss and Do Tell: Creating the Discourse of Intercourse

The show portrays the lives of four single (elite, white, wealthy, hetereosexual, thin) women living fabulously in New York City during the late 90’s to the early 2000’s.  The main character Carrie Bradshaw (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) writes a witty sex column for the fictional newspaper the New York Star. Carries uses her personal love life, the experiences and perspective of her friends Samantha Jones, Charlotte York and Miranda Hobbes, and the social dating scene of Manhattan as both her inspiration and writing material. The sex column serves as a space in which the narrator (Carrie) raises questions, concerns, and outright doubts about the search for “Mr. Right” , in addition to all the personal and societal expectations demanded from single women in their thirties (i.e. marriage, and children). It is through Carrie’s confession style discussion of sex and relationships, that the audience is invited to relate to the gendered experiences of the four characters.

One of the most appealing and controversial aspects of the show is it’s blatant discussion of sex. As promoted in the show, women have the right to great sex, and also the right to discuss it…everywhere. No social space in New York City is off limits. In Sex and the City, everything is discussed over expensive cocktails, from friendships, careers, relationships, marriage (or rather the fear of) and of course sex… all kinds of sex; good sex, bad sex, hit your-head-against-the-bedpost-sex, mindblowing (I actually orgasmed) sex, etc. The straight-forward and witty discussion of hetereosexual female sexuality, dramtically changed the ways in which nudity and sex was portrayed and discussed on television. You Almost Had Sex This was the very appeal of the show; its allegedly open dialogue about the many forms of intimacy and desire which women sought, or allegedly seek. According to Kim Akass of London Metropolitan University, the show has provided women with a “language with which to talk about their experiences and their friendships”, while Pepper Schwartz, a University of Washington sociology professor stated that Sex and the City “was a sea change in how women talked about sexuality.” Many women have felt empowered in being able to openly discuss a topic deemed rather taboo for the lips of women. Sex, which was viewed as “just gossip-something less than conversation”, has now the value of a legitimate experience worth a thorough examination with your friends.

The power of the show is demonstrated by the way it situates itself within the imagination of its female fans; “…everyone connects to the characters in Sex and the City – they represent extremes, and a lot of women relate to different elements in all four of them.” Which fan hasn’t heard the question ‘what character are you’…a sweetly conservative Charlotte, a femme Samantha? Samantha Jones (Kim Catrall) is the owner of a public relations firm and is characterized by her blunt discussion and her quest for pleasure for solely pleasures sake. Thus, while Samantha absolutely rejects monogamy, marriage and children, Charlotte York (Kirsten Davis), an Upper East Side Wasp and a cuarator at an art gallery, absolutely longs for it. On the other hand, Miranda Hobbes (played by Cynthia Nixon) is an independent, corporate lawyer known for her cruel cynicism towards romance and her sarcastic evaluation of gender roles. The individual women of Sex and the City and their particular qualities resonates with the ways in which “ordinary” women deal with their own relationship drama. Many women can identify with the various romantic fantasies which Carrie projects onto her relationships and onto men.  Thus, we find fans often comparing the men in their real lives with the fictional male love interests of the female characters; is your boyfriend an Aidan, the male archetype of the loyal rescuer, or a Mr. Big, a very handsome, wealthy man with a very “big” commitment phobia? And while the show entertains its audience with the glorious and not so glorious moments of heterosexual women dealing with the “opposite sex”, it is the relationship between the four female characters, which fans find particurally comforting. Despite life’s troubles, these four single women provide a system of support and a philosophy that although the men may come and go, (pun intended), their friendship will always be there. Such representations of female friendship highly contrast the competative and back-stabbing nature of female friendships as portrayed on television.

Thus while critics and fans alike, (myself included), can appreciate the show’s empowerment of female sexuality, the strong bonds between women, and the questioning of traditional gender roles, we must nonetheless be critical as to how the show is creating a new form of sexual politics and a political culture which gives it a very desirable and sensational appeal. This is particurally urgent, given the show’s national popularity, and the way in which the show is creating particular discourses of sexuality and desire. How is this “new langauge” for talking about sex, “mixing up old ideas and coming up with something new and differrent”, as Carrie once stated? What are the assumptions, the ideologies, the imbedded racial, class, gender and sexual hierarchies of this new sexual framework?

We’ve heard of Gucci, but what about Gramsci:

Desire is popularly understood as “private” and the result of personal preferences. According to such logic, desire operates isolated and separated from society. I however argue that desire itself is constructed and defined by society’s institutions, values and ideologies. By developing a framework of sexual hegemony, we can understand how oppressive sexual relations are systematically enforced and naturalized through the organization of social institutions that appear “normal” and “necessary.

Developed by Antonio Gramsci, the concept of hegemony (domination through consent) has historically been used within the Marxist tradition.  I on the other hand, use the concept of hegemony to explain the ways in which society is educated in consenting towards oppression through the means of their own “personal” and sexual desires. I define sexual hegemony as the process by which conformity towards sexual and gender relations is created and enforced. Sexual hegemony imposes a definition of sexuality; sets the terms in which sexual identities, experiences and ideas of sexuality are discussed and understood. Sexual hegemony is ideology that is made to appear normal, natural and necessary. Sexual hegemony serves the purpose of creating beliefs, behaviors, roles, and forms of consciousness that result in conformity towards oppressive social, political and economic institutions within society.  Hegemony must be understood as a continuous process of definition and negotiation, one in which oppressed groups both internalize and question the very values which oppress them, resulting in a mixed consciousness towards their social position. Sex and the City reflects theses processes, for the sensational series simultaneously challenges, reinforces and creates a new sexual hegemonic order.

Through fabulous humor Sex and the City challenges traditional gender roles and attitudes towards sexuality, and points to new social relationships based on the values of female friendships, financial independence, female sexual empowerment, individuality and “personal choice.” Since hegemony is a process of domination through consent, there is space for limited resistance and human agency to reject or question social expectations and roles. Social institutions shape resistance and its manifested forms; resistance is allowed to the extent that it does not disrupt the hegemonic order. This is especially the case in Sex and the City, in which the four female characters ridicule, question, and doubt the expectations projected onto single women in their thirties— “Mr. Right”, marriage, and children. Romantic fantasies and notions about love are in a constant process of evaluation. Samantha rejects monogamy, embraces “tri-sexuality” (try anything once), and passionately defends a woman’s right to an orgasm during sex…always! Samantha proudly states, “I’ll admit I have had to polish myself off once or twice, but yes, when I RSVP to a party, I make it my business to come.” Samantha values her relationships with men and women very differently; women are for friendships, men are for fucking. Such behavior challenges the mainstream notion that due to some innate quality, women “naturally” desire relationships, while men desire sex.  Another leading critic is Miranda, one who sarcastically questions the double standard for men and women within society, such as in the areas of power, financial independence, ageing, promiscuity, and beauty, to name a few. Miranda is especially critical of romantic fantasies, stating, “Soul mates only exist in the Hallmark aisle of Duane Reade Drugs.” Miranda even criticizes her friends for their often-obsessive discussion of men and relationships, a subject matter that is critical in the women’s conversations. Miranda states,

All we talk about anymore is Big (Carrie’s love interest), or balls, or small dicks. How does it happen that four such smart women have nothing to talk about but boyfriends? It’s like seventh grade with bank accounts. What about us? What we think, we feel, we know. Christ. Does it all have to be about them?

Miranda demonstrates her frustration of having to measure her happiness to the extent, which her personal relationships with men are successful, despite her accomplishments as a corporate lawyer that grants her a sense of worth and financial independence (signified by the bank account). The constant discussion of men is equated with the obsession that inexperienced young girls have with boys.  The four characters, to some extent or another, are quite aware of the narrowing demands expected of single women and through their strong friendship, they challenge the notion of women’s absolute dependence on men for their emotional needs, or the notion that you’re a “nobody till you’ve found somebody.” As Michael Patrick King, an executive producer stated, “We get to say what no one would ever say to single people in their thirties, which is ‘Maybe your life is better than the married people’s.’

While Sex and the City breaks taboos through its portrayal of women’s critique of gender roles and their active engagement in the discussion of sex, we must critique the ways in which sexuality is discussed and understood and the show’s forms of limited resistance, examining the ways in which the show upholds an oppressive sexual order.

The Politics of (Limited) Resistance : I chose my choice?

‘Personal choice’ is the vehicle in which the four characters challenge gender roles. Thus the celebration of ‘personal choice’ and its exemplification as a feminist value needs to be critically examined. Samantha resists monogamy, marriage and children by choosing to speak openly about sex, having a promiscuous sexual life-style and throwing hip “I-don’t-have-a-baby” parties in order to celebrate herself as “fabulous and single.” Charlotte in attempting to rationalize her decision to quit her job and become a housewife states, “The women’s movement is supposed to be about choice. And if I chose to quit my job, that is my choice…It’s my life and my choice!…I chose my choice! I chose my choice!” (‘Time and Punishment’). Choosing one’s lover, boyfriend, apartment, whether to marry or have children, to buy $495.00 shoes in order to celebrate oneself as a single women, are all presented as “private” choices within the show. These choices are celebrated as proof of the freedom of women in an allegedly “post-feminist area.” According to Sex and the City, individual choice itself is a form of resistance. However, these forms of resistance are extremely limited and have to be understood in the context of race, class gender and sex. How does the sexual orientation, racial, economic and privilege of these women construct the limited forms of resistance within the show? If ‘social independence’ and ‘liberation’ is framed around the celebration of white female beauty & femininity, fabulous lifestyles and wealth, how does it deny forms of resistance for working class women and women of color? How do the presented forms of ‘resistance’ by privileged wealthy white heterosexual women, actually reinforce the oppression of working class people, women of color and non-heterosexuals? For example, the sexual and gender categories provided within the show do not account for the wide range of gender and sexual identities and experiences, due to the gender and sexual binary under which the show operates. Denying the existence of sexual and gender identities/experiences outside the binary of male/female/gay/straight, denies the potentiality of erotic and intimate possibilities. These dichotomies are unquestioned, and are upheld as the sole appropriate avenue to express sexual and intimate closeness with other human beings. As Charlotte stated in regards to sexual identities that do not fit neatly into the category of straight and gay, “I’m all into labels, pick a side and stay there” (‘Boy, Girl, Boy, Girl’).  Sex and the City needs to be analyzed for the ways in which it rationalizes heteronormativity, the sexual and gender binary, and how it actually makes such ideologies the roles that they create desirable.

Whether it’s parading through a chic bar in downtown Manhattan with your sexy Manolo Blahnicks, projecting your romantic fantasies on Mr.Right (or Mr. Right-now), or declaring to the world your financial independence and sexcess in bed, all these forms of sociality require a consensus to certain social interactions. Through the realization of hegemonic desires we consent to ideologies and behaviors that accommodate themselves to society’s existing institutions. In doing so it naturalizes the systems and institutions, which create such relationships to begin with. The relationship of unquestioned desire to race and class oppression must also be articulated, for if sexual hegemony permeates in all social relations, then it also upholds class, heterosexual and white privilege.

Towards a Holistic Analysis:

Since hegemony acts on the totality of social relations, we must develop counter-hegemonic strategies that are systemic and holistic. In other words, structures of oppression and privilege within the economic sphere are produced and operate within the political sphere and the so-called “private” sphere of sexuality. Thus a political strategy that focuses only on one sphere, or prioritizes one analytical category over another fails in breadth. The forms of resistance offered by Sex and the City is an example of liberal feminist politics, politics that cannot successfully address the systemic nature of oppression and privilege. Such politics reduce political strategy and vision to individual and life-style choices. These politics deny the ways in which individual choice is confined by larger ideologies and institutions. Thus “life-style” politics, liberal and reductionist politics are inadequate in addressing the scale of hegemony.

The current systems and their institutions of constraints do not leave individuals with the capacity to change or modify the system, which impacts them. We must develop counter-hegemonic strategies in order to systematically combat the ways in which social relations and their possibilities are limited by sexual hegemony. Counter-hegemony is a systemic ideological and institutional battle, which requires the unlearning of oppressive roles, behaviors and forms of consciousness, and the learning of new forms of socialization and modes of culture. Counter-hegemony has the potential of creating new social meaning, new social relationships.Doing so allows us to question, and envision the sort of society we wish to build, and the role of sexuality within it. Counter-hegemony allows to “imagine and create a new relational right that permits all possible types of relations to exist and not be prevented, blocked, or annulated by impoverished relational institutions” (The Social Triumph of Will, 158). The institutions, values, and modes of culture we develop should allow us to construct and define our own desires. Sexuality must be a liberatory process of creation, not of entrapment or enslavement. Through the creation of new desires, new forms of pleasure (sexual and nonsexual) we can create new ways of relating to fellow human beings. There is such great potential, for “through our desires, go new forms of relationships, new forms of love, new forms of creation. Sex is not a fatality; it’s a possibility for creative life” (Foucault).