The Serious Side of Sarcasm

Is sarcastic, rather than bitch, the new black? To build on our discussions of the image of women in politics (see John's post about Michelle Obama's halo and Tim's recent post about Hillary and/as the Devil), I find the discussion of the two women's "edgy" humor to be quite interesting and I think it affects the way that their images are produced and read.

Katie Couric, The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and now Newsweek have all noted how Obama's rhetoric contrasts with the optimism and hopefulness of her husband's campaign. But while most of these sources will present the trait as positive (albeit dangerous), the Times for instance called Obama "Outspoken, strong-willed, funny, gutsy", Clinton is considered dour or angry.

The funny thing is, the visual argument seems to be presented in the opposite manner. Newsweek's profile of Michelle Obama featured a good deal of "stern" pictures, despite the frequent mention of her humor in the text (she pokes fun of her husband, makes frequent jokes that not everybody gets). Despite a few nostalgic young Obama shots (and the cover which features a controlled smile on a woman who seems almost to be physically restraining herself), most of them looked like this:

Michelle Obama speaking to advisers she leans back against the wall with her hands tucked behind her back she does not smile as does her addressee her face has a serious expression or perhaps one of concern

Michelle Obama speaking to unknown addressee at a table she looks stern and serious

both images property of Newsweek

Hillary, on the other hand, as Tim's devil picture indicates and as Jon Stewart has pointed out, seems discomforting in her happiness, the "hard-nosed realist" who enjoys lambasting hope and faith. When she makes these sarcastic comments in speeches and during debates, she smiles, even laughs. While I think we would agree that this normally says, "hey, joke here!" it is read by these critics as over-rehearsed or abusively cynical.

Perhaps what I am most intrigued by in this debacle is the disjunct of rhetorical strategy and analysis. While Obama's serious posture is productively rebellious, making her a thoughtful as well as humorous (Newsweek says that she's not the expected "Stepford booster, smiling vacantly at her husband and sticking to a script of carefully vetted blandishments"), I think Clinton joyfully produces her barbs so that the listener is encouraged to hear her and laugh along, a sort of benevolence. The effect, though, is suspicion and distance; these critics argue that her smiles actually isolate the audience and I wonder what context creates this reading.

Comments

Gender Bias?

I'm kind of responding to this post in my other response to your comment on the devil-picture post. Is it fair to say, as I suggest there, that the "context that creates this reading" is gender bias? Michelle Obama isn't running for office--her spouse is. Her speech is certainly policed (witness the patriotism flap), but not quite in the same way as Hillary's. Michelle's sarcasm is still portrayed as a function of her wifely duties. Isn't it rendered "safe" for this reason? It is seen as strategically deployed to "humanize" her husband, to "bring him down to earth" by talking about his ordinary life. In the narrative of their campaign, it too (like Hillary's) is neutralized in its way, because it is seen as serving his aims.

Recent comments