Building a Culture of Resistance

October, 1999 issue of Off Our Backs, a nationally-distributed, feminist magazine based in Washington, D.C.

Stephanie McMillan interviewed by Val Codd, on August 31, 1999.

oob: You critique U.S. government, corporate policies, and pop culture from a feminist/social justice perspective. What have your influences been in terms of your unique critique?

sm: I was an activist for a long time, which helped create my awareness. I started being an antiwar activist in the early 80s, and also participated in immigrant rights demonstrations, worked against police brutality and helped protect women's health clinics from anti-abortionists. That's given me a picture of how the world works.

oob: It seems like this is yet another form of activism for you.

sm: Yes. It's cultural rather than primarily political. It's political too, but it's more a complement to direct political activity. It's another way to influence consciousness. It's important to develop a culture of resistance to supplement political resistance. I'm not really seeing enough of that. I mean, there is a lot of it, but never enough. I've been interested in drawing and cartoons ever since I was a little kid. So I'm taking some time to pursue it. I don't see it as opposed to or instead of direct activism, but I'm focusing on it right now.

oob: In one cartoon, you depict a woman from the developing world, and a woman from the developed world, and depict how the patriarchy has played them against each other in terms of their feminism. Can you say a little more about that, and the ways for us to move beyond that?

sm: I didn't mean to make them seem opposed to each other, but more to show how the two women are oppressed in different ways, and each assumes the other one is worse or more degraded. Many women in the U.S. assume that because they can wear what they want, they're not being manipulated and that women in our society are liberated. Whereas, women from somewhere else might look at us and notice things we're not even thinking about because it's the milieu in which we live, it's considered normal. We find it very easy to say, "oh, someone from an oppressed nation or a feudal country is a slave, and we would never put up with wearing a chador or hiding our face or something," whereas when we wear short dresses and lipstick, it's to sell ourselves on the market, based on oppressive standards of physical attractivness.

oob: Or even a corporate logo, when we do their advertising for them.

sm: That's true too. The ways women are oppressed are fundamentally the same: most property is owned by men, women get lower wages, are stuck in worse jobs, are subject to harassment, rape, domination within the family. But there are differences too. Where feudalism is the dominant, or a significant form of production, it seems women are more directly considered property. And here, women are mostly considered commodities. I think in oppressed countries, the oppression of women is more sharp. At least here we can go outside and work. Although if you're working, you're a wage slave so you're still oppressed. But it's a different form of oppression; not only as a woman but as a worker. I think the commonalities are much greater than the differences. We need to recognize how our oppression is similar and also used by the same forces and created by the same system, and that we have the same enemy. Which is not men, the majority of whom also don't own any property or get decent wages, but the enemy is the global economic system. We have to overcome any kind of divisions we have in order to fight it.

oob: The patriarchy might be a stumbling block in doing that.

sm: Definitely. Patriarchy, the oppression of women and male privilege, also the oppression of whole nations, the oppression of nationalities within nations and its expression of racism. I think all of those methods of dividing people are used to perpetuate the current economic order.

oob: One of the cartoons that struck me the most was the two women are talking about different world problems and one of the women wonders if she can sue the entire world for sexual harassment. (Laughter). And to me that was so poignant, and incisive. Can you maybe elaborate a little bit more on that?

sm: That one was inspired by when the City of Miami declared the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to be the Sanctity of Human Life Day. It seems like a joke I made up, but it was real. I couldn't believe they did that. That was such a slap in the face, against women's struggles, you know?

oob:: Right.

sm: It was just appalling. Then that was at the same time when everyone was telling all these jokes about Clinton and Monica, and the atmosphere was really revolting and made me mad every day. I just put in a couple other examples of things that were in the news at that time. But the things that are fundamental never make the papers. The women in the cartoon are reading the newspaper, and it says: "Newsflash: women still get lower wages and own less property." That's just normality, perpetual, so it's not news. These outrageous things happen over and over again all the time, and the right is trying to take back any kind of gains that we've made over the decades. We got Roe v. Wade, but now they're going to call it Sanctity of Human Life Day, and they've created a Florida license plate that says "Choose Life."

oob: It seems like you're talking a lot about the backlash that's going on, and maybe it's just always been there, but some people I've talked to seem to think it's a little more pronounced right now.

sm: I think that as long as the dominant system is in effect, that whatever gains have been made in the direction of the people's interests, not to say that anyone has achieved liberation, but even in that direction, as soon as gains are made they want to take it back and reverse it. And as soon as they get a chance, like during calm periods, they're going to create an onslaught against any kind of gains people have made through their struggles. Like now they're trying to get rid of affirmative action everywhere. Welfare has been dismantled, every gain that's been made is under attack, or has already been destroyed.

oob: Another theme in your work is the media and your critique of the media. Can you say a little bit more about that as it relates to the status of women?

sm: The corporate media is dominating the country's culture and information base. It has certain interests it wants to advance. The media promote ideas that divide and isolate people, and keep people in their place. One way is to promote an image of women as being nice, accommodating, and valued for their physical attractiveness to men. They push a certain standard of attractiveness. Their goal is to perpetuate a division between men and women, a relationship of consumer to product rather than human being to human being, so that's the image they're going to promote. In order to stay profitable and keep the whole system of profit running smoothly, they need to keep pushing whatever ideas correspond to those interests.

oob:: Unfortunately. The cartoon you're drawing now is called "Minimum Security." And the one that you were drawing earlier was called "Alien Road Map." You called it "a cartoon for those who feel alienated from the mainstream." What is your vision for the future, or for a different world?

sm:: For the future we have basically two possibilities. One is that the current system will continue to ravage and destroy the earth and humanity. The other is that the people will have to radically transform the system to one that serves humanity as a whole. Not modify the system, but change it into something else.

oob: So, reform versus revolution.

sm: Yeah, it has to be a revolution.

oob: Reform is what feminist theorist Kay Hagan has called "crisis management."

sm: That's a good way to put it. Those are the only two choices, and I think the majority of people in the world recognize it. Most people would love to change things, but the question is how to unite enough to do it, and exactly what would be put in its place? I think the majority of people of the world do not like how things are now.

oob: When I think of alternative cartoons, nationally distributed cartoons like "Dykes to Watch Out For" by Alison Bechdel come to mind. Where do you see yourself in the cartoon world and what has it been like for you in that world?

sm: For a few years my cartoon was published every week in one paper where I worked. It's been just recently that I've attempted to broaden that audience. It's been just a month or two since I've sent some cartoons out to other publications. So far I've gotten a couple of positive responses, but not really any promises to run them regularly. But I think it takes a while. They have to sit around with them for a while. So I don't really know yet how it will be. Of course I would like a bunch of papers to carry them.

oob: Anything you want to say in closing?

sm: You mentioned you were going to ask something about pop culture, and I was wondering how you view that. Do you see pop culture as opposed to classical culture, or as opposed to a culture of resistance?

oob: It seems pretty clear that you are opposing pop culture to a culture of resistance and critiquing pop culture from a position of resistance.

sm: I think culture can be defined as either for the interests of the people or against them. The concepts of "high" or "low" culture are not significant so much as figuring out who it serves. That's the question we have to ask about a song or painting or a film: who does it serve? There really needs to be a widespread culture of resistance for anything to change. Even if political change is successful initially, it won't stick unless the culture has been transformed. Building a counterculture along with developing political movements will enhance both.

oob: That makes sense. Pop culture is so pervasive, so we have to be more vigilant about rejecting those invasions and attending to the project of resistance.

sm: Right.

home