Best regards, Andrew Stewart - - - Subscribe to the Washington Babylon newsletter via https://washingtonbabylon.com/newsletter/
Begin forwarded message: > From: H-Net Staff via H-REVIEW <[email protected]> > Date: August 15, 2020 at 11:35:22 AM EDT > To: [email protected] > Cc: H-Net Staff <[email protected]> > Subject: H-Net Review [H-Diplo]: Hooper on Rowley, 'Putin Kitsch in America' > Reply-To: [email protected] > > Alison Rowley. Putin Kitsch in America. Montreal McGill-Queen's > University Press, 2019. 208 pp. $27.95 (cloth), ISBN > 978-0-7735-5901-1. > > Reviewed by Cynthia Hooper (College of the Holy Cross) > Published on H-Diplo (August, 2020) > Commissioned by Seth Offenbach > > The Uncertain Purpose of Putin Kitsch > > _Putin Kitsch in America_ is a lively and entertaining book > dedicated, as its title suggests, to chronicling the rather > astonishing array of English-language kitsch available online that > centers on the figure of Russian leader Vladimir Putin. The abundance > of Putin-related products that author Alison Rowley has unearthed > range from refrigerator magnets to hand puppets to video games to > porn. Her account of them all is motivated, she says, by her interest > in the ways that Putin's image "functions as a political talisman far > outside the borders of Russia" (p. 3). > > Ultimately, however, this sentence is a bit of a misnomer. The word > "talisman" is generally used to refer to a revered object thought to > bestow protection, bring good fortune, and carry magical powers. And > while some of the artifacts Rowley describes do truly appear to > celebrate aspects of the Russian leader (whether real or imagined), > many others carry an element of mockery, whimsy, or disgust. Some > seem to be crafted toward consumer tastes and made to sell, others to > entertain or appall by breaking conventional taboos. > > What, exactly, these different forms of kitsch signify--both > individually and as a whole--is a question Rowley struggles to > answer. As a result, the strength of her book lies in its thick > description, peppered with amusing asides. Any number of deft, > eclectic, and engaging analytical tidbits are interwoven throughout > Rowley's chapters, as the author dips into scholarship on > commodification, protest, satire, masculinity, homoerotic fantasy, > internet economics, and social media. The history of the T-shirt is > discussed on one page, that of the French Revolution on another. This > is not exactly cotton candy for the masses. Nevertheless, it does > still feel like a bit of a guilty pleasure for readers who may > ultimately be left to wonder what exactly it all means. > > Warning: This sense of guilt could intensify once the reader hits the > middle chapters, which concentrate on sexualized kitsch--such as a > BDSM-filled _Putin F*cks Trump_ adult coloring book--and pornographic > fiction, often involving imaginary encounters between Putin and his > US counterpart, Donald Trump (p. 64). In one chapter, Rowley analyzes > eleven online slash stories, and while she fully acknowledges the > bathroom humor that informs much of her material, she takes her > examination of that humor seriously. This leads to such things as a > scholarly assessment of what Rowley calls the omnipresent trope of > "Putin's magic penis" (p. 118). Extensive coverage is given to works > that Rowley admits are neither well written nor widely read. These > include "Mission F@ck Putin"--a piece Rowley notes is "full of > grammatical errors"--that depicts former senator Hillary Clinton > urinating into Putin's mouth before sodomizing him with a dildo, and > "Back-Door Politics," which features carnivalesque acts of debauchery > throughout the White House (pp. 102 and 105). At a state dinner for > Putin, just to take one example, Trump's son Eric urinates in another > guest's water glass, and Trump loses control of his bowels while > dancing a tango with the Russian leader (p. 129). > > Sex scenes can, without doubt, serve as vehicles for grassroots > commentary on relations of power and control, and it is certainly > interesting to encounter some of the ways that modern political > disaffection has been expressed through porn. But even so, readers > may at times question the intellectual merits of so much elaborate > detail. > > Throughout, Rowley argues that "Putin kitsch is a form of > contemporary political discourse" (p. 21). She sees the production > and consumption of the items she describes as part of a democratic, > mass participatory, and nontraditional process, as well as one that > represents a "loss of control on the part of political elites," who > likely would prefer to be represented in very different, far more > respectful fashion (p. 52). This may all be true, although Rowley's > insistence that these small-scale acts of creation and > commodification collectively function as a "positive force for > change" is more open to debate (p. 30). > > The further Rowley goes in her argument, the shakier her claims > become. First of all, Rowley assumes that any item that pokes fun of > Putin (or of his bromance buddy, Trump) is, in some way, a critique > that signifies "deep and sustained engagement with the political > realm" (p. 62). While she repeats the word "engagement" multiple > times, she never clarifies exactly how this abstract condition > concretely relates to the established order of things, although she > asserts that she is tracking "something new" that is "changing the > nature of politics" (p. 63). The phenomenon of people "actively and > creatively responding to the world of 'fake news'" in the Putin/Trump > era by making and selling kitsch online is the equivalent, she says, > of "traditional behaviours like volunteering to canvas door to door > for candidates [or] attending a political rally" in earlier decades > (pp. 62, 63). The objects of material culture she catalogues are, she > contends, shifting political discourse, and she footnotes, in support > of this argument, a 2019 volume edited by Hinda Mandell entitled > _Crafting Dissent: Handicraft as Protest from the American Revolution > to the Pussyhats_. > > Maybe some people agree. But all I know is that I have a funny Putin > magnet on my fridge, and it serves neither as a "talisman" nor as a > handcrafted signifier of dissent. I also have a postcard of Bill and > Hillary Clinton, both with shaved heads, that reads "Budget Cut," and > a container of breath-freshening candies with a picture of George W. > Bush on the top labeled "National Embarrassmints." I personally > deeply admire Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and yet I treasure a > doctored image of him with a tear running down his face, reading: > "It's my Party, and I'll cry if I want to." > > History is littered with similar examples testifying to the fact that > humor, even satire, does not necessarily correlate with opposition. > Citizens can support a leader, yet still laugh at his or her foibles, > or at aspects of his or her public persona. (Many supporters of > Senator Bernie Sanders's 2020 campaign for the Democratic > presidential nomination, for example, found comedian Larry Davis's > imitations of their candidate on _Saturday Night Live_ uproariously > funny, even when Davis mocked such things as Sanders's purported > disdain for modern forms of technology or his alleged fondness for > Fidel Castro.) > > Furthermore, studies of humor during the era of Soviet leader Josef > Stalin such as Jonathan Waterlow's _It's Only a Joke, Comrade!_ > (2018) suggest that humor often plays a complex role inside even > dictatorships governed by strict censorship laws. No one disputes > that political jokes illustrate an awareness of imperfection, either > in the figure of the leader or in his or her policies--or in the > system that those policies have created, or in the character of > various ordinary people that participate within it. But even the most > cutting jokes often convey more of a sense of acceptance than of > rebellion. They may make their listeners more aware of hypocrisy and > human failings and, in so doing, create at least a fleeting sense of > solidarity among those who laugh at such things together. However, > they do not typically rally citizens for regime change. > > Often, as the abundance of state-sanctioned late Soviet satire > suggests, political humor can serve as a tool of pacification, an > outlet that allows citizens to let off steam by critiquing something > small in exchange for accepting something big. Mocking the widespread > conformity that accompanied the equally widespread corruption of late > 1970s Soviet society, Moldavian author Ion Drutse wrote, "we lived > well, quietly drinking, quietly stealing."[1] I am reminded of that > quote when Rowley, in the space of a sentence, calls Putin kitsch > both subversive and secure, noting that it "offers a kind of safe > space for people to express their displeasure with the political > status quo" (p. 61). Is "subversion" that is confined to "safe > spaces" truly an indication of the active "engagement" that Rowley so > valorizes, or, alternatively, does it reflect disengagement, a degree > of ironic apathy, and a willingness to retreat from public into > private life? > > It is also possible to argue that sometimes the most seemingly > subversive political humor can work to reinforce official propaganda > by underscoring certain crucial aspects of a leader's public persona, > albeit in grotesque or garish ways. For example, Kremlin-funded media > outlet RT routinely makes fun of what it characterizes as a US > "Russophobia" so extreme that Americans are prone to automatically > blame Russia for any signs of US social dysfunction. But the > network's vehement denials of Russian involvement in US domestic > affairs nevertheless reinforce a sense of Russian power, particularly > by highlighting the extent of US fears. Similarly, a Russian-language > television program, _Comedy Club,_ often shows skits featuring > conversations between mock Trump and Putin figures, in which Putin is > portrayed as a devilish, mysterious archvillain. Yet like much of the > Trump/Putin paraphernalia that Rowley describes, such malevolent > depictions emphasize, in whatever crude or amusing way, the greater > strength of the Russian leader and his ability to stoke fear and > confusion in his US rival. > > Rowley's book also requires a deeper analysis of the role of the > market in the world of Putin kitsch. People who want to sell things, > online or otherwise, can be absolutely indifferent to politics, yet > see an opportunity to make money by tapping into various forms of > countercultural discourse--offering a palette of options to appeal to > different constituencies, rather than shaping a "line" of products > that all reflect a seller's own views. Conversely, it is important to > know if people are creating objects and posting them online without > the expectation of profit (or, in the case of porn, possibly without > even the expectation that their stories will be read by anyone other > than a small "inside circle"). We do not know much about who these > sellers are, what they are trying to achieve, and how they approach > internet commerce. Rowley says she limited her investigation into > these entrepreneurs, in part to protect their privacy. But leaving > both sellers and consumers largely out of the story means that Rowley > is left with little way to develop many of her claims. > > To whom are these English-language products directed? Is there a > profusion of Putin kitsch in other languages? Are there Putin dolls > for sale, say, on the German-language Amazon, or self-published > German-language fan fiction focused on the imaginary sexual > encounters of the Russian leader with long-suffering chancellor > Angela Merkel? What about Russian-language kitsch? What does it > signify if far more Americans have Putin magnets on their > refrigerators than do Russians (besides, perhaps, the lower > popularity of refrigerator magnets generally)? And how do these > objects of material culture compare to other types of political humor > found online but not for sale, in the form of, say, tweets or Youtube > videos? > > At the end of the day, this book offers a fun, quick read, in which > one senses that Rowley is definitely on to something. But what that > something is may be different from what the author argues. In > particular, this book seems to be, really, as much if not more about > Trump than Putin. Early on, Rowley calls her kitsch "a kind of direct > attack on the perceived political status quo in America," and it may, > indeed, testify to the different approaches people are taking to > living under a leader who is changing global perceptions of US power > (p. 34). Rowley should develop that point. Then again, maybe even > such a claim, however heartfelt, is overstated, as the Clinton, Bush, > and Barack Obama presidencies have all, in turn, served up masses of > fodder for the comedic world. What, exactly, is special about the > satire of this time or about the contemporary intersection of > top-down propaganda with unscripted grassroots humor and > internet-based microeconomic actions still remains to be explored. > > _Cynthia Hooper is an associate professor of history at the College > of the Holy Cross in Worcester, MA, where she also directs the > Russian and Eastern European Studies Program. She is currently > completing a book about Russian and Chinese media strategies and > information politics._ > > Note > > [1]. Ion Drutse, "Ideological Problems of Perestroika: Roundtable > Meeting," _Kommunist_ 7 (May 1988): 11 > > Citation: Cynthia Hooper. Review of Rowley, Alison, _Putin Kitsch in > America_. H-Diplo, H-Net Reviews. August, 2020. > URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=54878 > > This work is licensed under a Creative Commons > Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States > License. > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#406): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/406 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76211198/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES<br />#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.<br />#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.<br />#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
