Supersoak that ho: A reconsideration
James Duesterberg
Issue date: 10/1/07 Section: Forum
In his editorial "Superman that ho," Nandan Prasad, while acknowledging the aesthetic genius of the recent work "Crank That" by Chicago-based new-media artist Soulja Boy Tell 'Em (indeed, Prasad writes, "[e]ven I can't resist trying to learn the dance so I can join my friends in 'crankin' that'"-a desire which, to be sure, we all share), critiques the work as politically conservative and as emblematic of hegemonic male discourse.
Prasad writes, "every time I dance to the song or snap my fingers to the beat, I feel a huge pang of guilt for what I feel is my tacit approval of the song's offensive lyrics, more specifically, the continued use of the word 'ho' to refer to a woman." This embodies, for Prasad, the "degradation and objectification of women in the mainstream hip-hop industry."
This is a commonly heard complaint against the recent crop of young artists from urban areas working in the hip-hop genre and it appears on the surface to have merit.
Doesn't referring to women as "hos" and "bitches" constitute a reification of the status quo, a reaffirmation of institutionalized violence against women? Before we make this easy critique, however, we would do well to look more closely at texts such as "Crank That" to see ways in which they might actually subvert patriarchal discourse. Indeed, I believe that "Crank That" constitutes a profound challenge to male chauvinism and indeed to capitalism in general. By revealing the performative element of masculinity and the essentially "simulated" nature of late-capitalist consumerism, "Crank That" situates itself squarely in the tradition of such great works as Homer's "Odyssey," Jean-Michel Basquiat's graffiti art and Deleuze and Guattari's "A Thousand Plateaus."
While initially, lyrics such as "haterz get mad cuz, I got me some bathin apes" (a reference to the exclusive line of urban clothing known as "A Bathing Ape") seem to unquestioningly affirm consumerism, their context in fact implies the opposite reading. Soulja Boy asserts that he is "all too clean up in this ho" (clean being a reference to an expensive style of dress); that is to say, his very consumerism reveals itself as excessive, as too clean. Thus, his reference to the frustration of the "haterz" in fact implies the general social inequality created by a hierarchy of consumption; the haterz (proletariat) will be the bearers of revolutionary consciousness, and it is they who are able to notice that he is "all too clean" (i.e., a bourgeois reactionary).
Prasad writes, "every time I dance to the song or snap my fingers to the beat, I feel a huge pang of guilt for what I feel is my tacit approval of the song's offensive lyrics, more specifically, the continued use of the word 'ho' to refer to a woman." This embodies, for Prasad, the "degradation and objectification of women in the mainstream hip-hop industry."
This is a commonly heard complaint against the recent crop of young artists from urban areas working in the hip-hop genre and it appears on the surface to have merit.
Doesn't referring to women as "hos" and "bitches" constitute a reification of the status quo, a reaffirmation of institutionalized violence against women? Before we make this easy critique, however, we would do well to look more closely at texts such as "Crank That" to see ways in which they might actually subvert patriarchal discourse. Indeed, I believe that "Crank That" constitutes a profound challenge to male chauvinism and indeed to capitalism in general. By revealing the performative element of masculinity and the essentially "simulated" nature of late-capitalist consumerism, "Crank That" situates itself squarely in the tradition of such great works as Homer's "Odyssey," Jean-Michel Basquiat's graffiti art and Deleuze and Guattari's "A Thousand Plateaus."
While initially, lyrics such as "haterz get mad cuz, I got me some bathin apes" (a reference to the exclusive line of urban clothing known as "A Bathing Ape") seem to unquestioningly affirm consumerism, their context in fact implies the opposite reading. Soulja Boy asserts that he is "all too clean up in this ho" (clean being a reference to an expensive style of dress); that is to say, his very consumerism reveals itself as excessive, as too clean. Thus, his reference to the frustration of the "haterz" in fact implies the general social inequality created by a hierarchy of consumption; the haterz (proletariat) will be the bearers of revolutionary consciousness, and it is they who are able to notice that he is "all too clean" (i.e., a bourgeois reactionary).
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 28
David
posted 10/01/07 @ 1:31 PM CST
Soulja Boy and Judith Butler. Wow.
JCD
posted 10/01/07 @ 2:50 PM CST
I can't believe StudLife cut out the epigraph for this profound analysis.
It should have begun with the following quotes:
"The greatness of works of art. (Continued…)
Nikhil
posted 10/02/07 @ 3:15 AM CST
James you goober! Is this what it means to be a social critic in the 21st century? (Although, you must know I love this)
lts
posted 10/04/07 @ 11:13 AM CST
This is, quite possibly, the greatest thing Student Life has ever printed. I don't know you, James Duesterberg, but you are now my personal hero.
"There is no reason why Soulja Boy crank, or even why he roll. (Continued…)
Bunny
posted 10/06/07 @ 6:36 AM CST
So, if the lyrics imply all you say, why didn't they just write it that way instead of using veiled language? Language that just happens to sound like direct references to women as "ho's" and "bitches", and that also seems to glorify the singer's sexual acts and prowess?
I believe it's always right to take things at face value where children are involved, and a lot of kids are listening this song. (Continued…)
fishstix
posted 10/09/07 @ 4:51 PM CST
great job james..and i had written both you and studlife off. your articles continue to renew my faith in both.
C Ollie
posted 10/10/07 @ 12:20 PM CST
james,
my concern with your article has less to do with the ability of children to see the underlying message that your argument proposes than with your sarcastic identification of established theory as a source of unquestionable truth. (Continued…)
kc
posted 10/10/07 @ 2:04 PM CST
Wow. This is awesome...and the most (intentionally) hilarious thing I've read in Forum in a while.
LS
posted 10/10/07 @ 8:13 PM CST
Dear James,
Please marry me tomorrow. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Your secret admirer.
Bridgette
posted 10/25/07 @ 5:20 PM CST
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=super+soak+that+ho
I wrote that definition, the first one, and the fine followers of Urban Dictionary have given it 34 thumbs up. (Continued…)
Post a Comment