The importance of wider racial representation in entertainment is nothing new. In 1997 Stuart Hall explained how the practices of representation of identities in the media is often impactful in promoting stereotypes about marginalized communities (Hall, 1997). In his work, Hall argues that stereotypes are a result of differentializing groups from one and the “Other” (Hall, 1997, p. 225). Hamilton’s original appeal was based on this concept—flipping the narrative of US history to be represented by People of Color who are often seen as the “Other” in Western history. Miranda’s goal in choosing a cast of mostly People of Color was to finally give other People of Color a chance to see themselves as the main characters, the complex characters, the revolutionaries. In this way, Hamilton utilizes Hall’s idea of racializing difference in a new way. In Hall’s Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices he describes the idea behind how difference serves as a deeper, symbolic meaning as to how we see other groups in society. He states, “Symbolic boundaries are central to all culture. Marking ‘difference’ leads us, symbolically, to close ranks, shore up culture and to stigmatize and expel anything which is defined as impure, abnormal. However, paradoxically, it also makes ‘difference’ powerful, strangely attractive precisely because it is forbidden, taboo, threatening to cultural order” (Hall, 1997, p. 13). Hamilton functions as a good example of this idea. The show uses “difference” in race as a marking symbol to contrast the typical “whiteness” shown in representations of US history (Mead, 2015). Reporter Rebecca Mead describes how the show’s use of actors of color gives a unique perspective in the Broadway community as she writes, “[Actor] Christopher Jackson...says that the show offers an implicit commentary on the institution of slavery and its repercussions. ‘The Broadway audience doesn’t like to be preached to,’ he says. ‘By having a multicultural cast, it gives us, as actors of color, the chance to provide an additional context just by our presence onstage, filling these characters up’” (Mead, 2015). In using such a diverse cast, Miranda forces the audience to question the default of whiteness in historical contexts.
While Hamilton’s cast of color grew to be widely popular, the show did not always carry the clout that it has today. Hamilton’s interesting use of race as a defining feature as well as its unique subject matter attracted prominent political figures into its crowd while it ran as an off-Broadway show (Mead, 2015). This quickly drew in the attention of the media and the public audience. As a result, the ticket demand for Hamilton soared (Mead, 2015). This relates to the ideas of Adorno and Horkheimer and their seemingly cynical view of popular culture in modern society. These thinkers of the Frankfurt School argue that all popular culture is fed to the masses from the top of the economic pyramid of capitalism, or the elites and the culture industry. In their Dialectic of Enlightenment they convey, “Whereas today in material production the mechanism of supply and demand is disintegrating, in the superstructure it still operates as a check in the rulers’ favour. The consumers are the workers and employees, the farmers and lower middle class. Capitalist production so confines them, body and soul, that they fall helpless victims to what is offered them” (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1944, p. 6). This idea is evident as we analyze Hamilton’s growth. Without support from the show’s start from prominent political figures such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, it is hard to imagine Hamilton having the same success that it enjoys today (Deczynski, 2015). The show would even go on to become available to virtually anyone who wanted to experience the musical, with the Hamilton movie premiering just last year. To Adorno and Horkheimer, this is only further reflective of the power structures of the culture industry, as everything that begins as revolutionary soon gets co-opted back into the capitalist system to further be sold for profit. They state, “Anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in. Once his particular brand of deviation from the norm has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism. Realistic dissidence is the trademark of anyone who has a new idea in business” (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1944, p. 5). Essentially, as Hamilton grew in popularity, it lost some of its power of giving a voice to the marginalized.
As unbelievable as it may sound, Hamilton began as a musical with a small name. It worked to capture a radical statement of racial representation on a level of historical representation that is not often seen. As the show caught the eye of prominent individuals, it picked up media and audience attention, pushing the musical to the masses. In an attempt to further expand Hamilton’s reach, the musical was made into a movie last year. This begs the question: can anything truly revolutionary still be effective with popularity?
References:
Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (1944). Dialectic of Enlightenment. pp. 1-12
Deczynski, R. (2015). 5 Reasons Hip-Hop Musical Hamoltion is the Hottest Broadway Ticket in Town. https://www.instyle.com/news/hamilton-hottest-broadway-ticket-town
Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. Newbery Park, CA: Sage, pp. 225-249
Mead, R. (2015). All about the Hamiltons. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/09/hamiltons
I loved this blog post, I am also a huge fan of Hamilton. The racial stereotypes you mentioned are a very important factor in the play, one additional feature is the gender stereotypes, specifically of the female actresses. The use of Stuart Hall’s theory of racial representation is very present in the show Hamilton. I agree when you talk about Hall’s explanation about practices of representation in the media are impactful in promoting stereotypes about marginalized communities (Hall, 1997). Hall also rejects gender stereotypes by depicting strong female characters. For example, one of the leads, Angelica Schulyer shows what a woman can do and the goals she hopes to accomplish. During the time period this play is set, in the 1700s, stereotypes of women were based on the idea that women are weak and made to be housewives. Angelica is an educated woman which is uncommon, in one of her songs she even states “when I meet Thomas Jefferson, I’ma compel him to include women in the sequel!” Angelica is promoting female rights and asking for women to be included in historical records. Connecting to Hall’s use of how difference is used as a symbolic meaning as to how we see other groups in society. The female characters in this play are showing a difference in gender roles contrasting to the female stereotypes for women during this time in US History. Building off your idea of the use of racial representation in Hamilton, Hall’s theory on gender stereotypes is another reason this show has become so increasingly popular.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post, but I wanted to challenge your notion of Lin Manuel Miranda’s decision to have a diverse, POC cast because I believe the intention was not as superficial as just for the sake of representation. Although the lack of diversity on Broadway is real and combating this was a large motivation for Miranda, I understand that his decision to incorporate people of color in the cast was to accentuate the underlying immigrant story of “Hamilton '' and how it reflects our nation’s reality today. With the subtitle “An American Story”, Miranda is intentional in highlighting Hamilton’s story as a Caribbean immigrant rising in status and making a name for himself, because this is something immigrants of color do everyday. Millions of people across the nation celebrate Hamilton and put respect on his name for his success and contribution to this country, while dehumanizing and neglecting the immigrant population of today that are on the same journey. By casting Hamilton and other characters as people of color, Miranda puts the context of the immigrant story as we know it in relation to this popular figure/history. Beyond that, there is a lot to say in Miranda’s choice of rap and hip hop in communicating this story, and it is not isolated from his choice of casting. Rap & HipHop arose as an artform from marginalized communities, particularly of the Black community, as a counterculture and art movement. I agree that the use of rap/hip hop in this commercialized musical reflects how subcultures are co-opted by the mainstream popular culture (as what happened with rap/hiphop overall), but regardless, I think it is important to reflect on how the use of this music as the basis of the show puts the story into the context within which we know rap/hiphop music. As performed by a cast largely of people of color and marginalized communities, the musical’s theme of rebellion and revolution is hyper-emphasized with the use of rap/hip hop, whose history and origins are based in these concepts.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I think the reflection of the incorporation of “Hamilton” into popular culture is poignant, but dismissive of what “accessibility” actually is. Regardless of how you consider it, Broadway is very exclusive, and DisneyPlus, although more financially accessible, is not much better (requiring one to have a subscription and a device for viewing). Having this in mind, one can reframe the consideration of representation in “Hamilton” not so much as with the intent of having people of color see themselves represented, but rather of trying to have White audiences of wealth to respect people of color and their right to exist.
Lastly, I find it essential to invoke Walter Benjamin’s idea of aura in this conversation. Benjamin contends that aura (the uniqueness of an object or experience in a particular place and time) “...withers in the age of mechanical reproduction…”, wherein recordings of live events diminish the aura of the experience (Benjamin, 1935). You see, watching “Hamilton” live and watching “Hamilton” the stage recording are two completely separate things. The live recording inherently diminishes the aura of the experience, and I believe it cannot be equated to the real thing, especially since Hamilton is famous for its music, choreography and staging that amazes when seen live. In fact, Lin Manuel Miranda has said that the DisneyPlus release has actually amplified the demand to see the show in person; in other words, although the recording widens
- Paola Camacho
Hi Gabrielle! I have been a fan of Hamilton since 2015, and have watched thousands of interviews and read articles and analyzed the film myself, and I think you did a really nice job connecting to the readings. I liked how you discussed the representation aspect of the production, and I would like to add that I remember a quote by Lin-Manuel Miranda who wanted the show to be “a story about America then, told by America now”, representing the people of color that have played a huge role in building and creating the United States as we know it today.
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned, the idea of incorporation introduced by Adorno and Horkheimer is very applicable here, as it can be argued that Hamilton has completely been swept up by capitalism, and there is definitely no turning back. For Lin-Manuel Miranda’s last show, the average ticket price was around $4,000 (The Wrap). Even when they premiered the show in Puerto Rico, some tickets were selling for upwards of $15,000 (to the target audience of wealthy, white Americans who have the means to fly to come see the show), when Lin-Manuel was also in the cast. Not only has Hamilton become widely popular, so has its creator and thus his persona and celebrity status has changed dramatically since the musical gained popularity. I would argue this also has to do with Adorno and Horkheimer’s concept of “cult of personality”, as the example of charging thousands of dollars to see someone perform in a musical is explicitly the commodification of a celebrity and their persona. You also mentioned the filmed version of Hamilton which was released to Disney+ in 2020, which the creation of has a connection to another one of Adorno and Horkheimer’s theories: the aura. The authors argue that any film is a reduction or even destruction of aura, and would most likely say that the Hamilton film is a drastic reduction of aura as it was not the original purpose of the art. I also recall watching interviews with Lin-Manuel when he was reluctant to do a movie version of Hamilton as he wanted as many people to experience the stage version as possible because that was how it was originally created. It is not possible to speak about the aura without speaking about accessibility in my opinion, and although the accessibility greatly increased when Hamilton was released on Disney+, the service is still a paid subscription with a digital device needed, and a filtered version of the art. Overall, I believe Hamilton had incredible intentions and it is still one of my favorite musicals, but I think the lesson here is the increased popularity of a work of art will just result in capitalism consolidating its parts and leaving little room for actual systemic change.
Hi Gabi,
ReplyDeleteI loved reading your blog post on Hamilton, and although I’ve never seen the musical myself, I am definitely intrigued by its significance and reshaping of American history. I do find it interesting that Lin Manuel Miranda chose to primarily showcase people of color, which is historically inaccurate, to portray minority communities breaking through past racist constructions in the founding of America. Even though I think Hamilton was able to make this extremely difficult feat work, I still feel somewhat distanced from the idea that people of color had an active role in declaring America’s founding. Even though I agree Hall’s regime of representation absolutely applies here, I still feel like it’s not an accurate representation of the turmoil and ostracization of people of color at this time. White men were the constructors of American society during this period, most of whom were slave owners themselves. However, I still find Miranda’s goal in this play to be quite illuminating and unconventional. Regardless of whether or not it’s historically accurate, Miranda’s representation of poc communities in this setting in a much more joyful and empowering light as opposed to a traumatic one, definitely brings a lighter and more enjoyable experience for any viewer. Nonetheless, I think we should all keep in mind what the situation actually was at this time for the early people of color in the US. Still, I feel like I would benefit greatly from actually seeing the musical itself and judging based on that merit, so I appreciate your blog post for finally convincing me to do so; I really enjoyed reading it.
-Oscar Vasquez