Sample of Richard Dyer's writing on representation

1. 5.1
5.2
viii lllustrations
4.26 Lesbianfeministtypification:JEB, 'Mara. BroomesIsland,
Maryland.1976'
VeronicaLake:startlinglyunrealsensuality
Hard-boiledlooks:Dick Powellin MarderMy Sweet
(usA 1945)
Butchdyke(Ruth Gillette)confrontshard-boiledhero
(HumphreyBogart)in In a LonelyP/ace(USA 1950)
SmartbutchJo(BarbaraStanwyck)in A Wctlkon the Wild
,Slde(USA 1962)
5.5 Viciousdyke(Kate Murtagh) puts hypodermicinto hero
(RobertMitchum) in FarewellMy Lolely (USA 1976) 62
5.6 Fastidiousqueen(PeterLorre) andimmaculatefemme
fatale(Mary Astor) in TheMalteseFalcon(USA l94l) 63
5.7 Fastidiousand immaculateyoungmen(FarleyGranger
(right) and JohnDall) with mentor (JamesStewart)in
Rope(USA 1948) 64
5.8 Elegantqueen(Clifton Webb)and luxury milieu in Zaara
(usA 1944) 65
6.1 Victim'.PH and Mickie, queerfalseleads 73
(t.2 Victim:Fullbrook, Callowayand Farr,all queer 14
13.I Orderlyrows,full light, debate thewhite meetingin Simba 132
I3.2 Looseformation,darkness,yelling- the blackuprisingin
Simba 134
13.3 A marginalbut foregroundedblack figtre in Jezebel 137
13.4Jazebel:the red (dark)dressat thewhite ball 139
14.I Li ianGish 150
f4.2 LarsHansonand Lillian Gish in TheScarletLetter
(usA1926) 153
|5.I fllsic(Lillian Gish)and the Klan in TheBirth oJa Nation
(lers) 160
f5.2 15,7'l'hcBirthd a Nallorz:Silas(GeorgeSiegmann)and
lilsic(li amccnlalgements) 168-69
I shoLrkllikc to thlnk lnd ackttowlcdgethe followingfor stillsor other
ilfrrsllrrtitrrrsrltlrl Slills,I)ostcrsittrclDcsign(ligures4.1,4.'7.4.8,4.9,4.14,
4,|5.4,|7.4,Itt,4.20,4.2l,4.22,5,l.5.2,5.3,5.4,5.5.5.6,5.7.5,11.61.(,'?,
ll,l, L1,.1,1.1.,1.1.1,4),,llilt tutl (illd llitg litoks (ligttltx'1,.rl. 'l 'J'1,4 .15,
'1,lo),
41
56
57
59
6l
Chapter1
lntroduction
The essayscollectedhere all deal, through particular instances,with the
cultural representationof socialgroupings.This is 'imagesof analysisof
the kind thit hasburgeonedin the pasttwentyyears,startingwith work on
women and black people,spreadingto other marginalizedor oppressed
groups,suchas ethnicminorities,lesbiansand gay men, the disabledand
ihe aged,and now beginning,with studieson men,to encompassdominant
or majority groups.Theseessayswerepart of that traJectory.
The impulsebehind the writing of them was political. It sprangfrom
lhc lcelingthat how socialgroupsaretreatedin cultural representationis
part and parcelof how they are treatedin life, that poverty,harassment,
icll'-hatc ind discrimination (in housing,jobs, educationalopportunity
i[rd soon) areshoredup and institutedby representation.The resonances
ol' thc tcrnr 'representation'suggestasmuch. How a group is represented,
prriscntodover again in cultural forms, how an imageof a memberof a
grrrLrpis takcn as representativeof that group, how that group is repre-
nutttodin thc scnseof spokenlor and on behalf of (whetherthey repre-
r10l. sltcirklirr themselvesor not), theseall haveto do with how members
ol'gloups scc thcmselvesand others like themselves,how they seetheir
plrreciri socicty.thcir right to the rights a societyclaimsto ensureits
cllizurn,lklrrrlly rc+rcsentation,representativeness,representinghaveto
do rtlsowilh how othcrssccntembersof a group and their placeand
t'lgltll, olltots wlto hitvc thc power to affect that place and those
llghll, llow wc ttltj sccnclctcrminesin part how we aretreated;how we
ltull ()lltct$is lrttscdon ltttw wc scc them; such seeingcomesfrom
t'gt'Fr(t||llrli(|r1,
il'ho
ts;tt'elcttltrliottol wolllcllttndothot opprcsscdgloupswas,and by
Itt(l l tlu rillllin,rt rolcrrllcssptlttldottl'insttllsAngcr.clcspaitor contempt
I lltpieltolN'ltttttguol' wrilillg hlll cttttttlsolrlocklcitl invcstigation'
Mttghlnrrrgt'tttlulyriilttuutttttottly lo tlctltrrltllnllelhlll cvclylhillSis thc
tttnrs nrl lt'riirll rrWl!1,'l'lttt't ll t{ttltclltltrgtlirrtllyttbttttlrttr,:ltlc(lllcliv0
Wtll: il lFlhlrra lilllelrrrlthrrrrkrr,rnttlrr,rlill[, [olllh,ully,ll ir itttprtt'lttttl
5.3
5.4
I tltl lrt hrrclltg lll'Frll 'ltllll$elul'wltL lrttl ll ttr't'rlrlrt ll'tt'ttrlllti'rlhy

2. 2 ThoMflltorof lmltgos lntroductlon3
co'si(lcr.illio'slllittgct
')ol.c
ncitrlyitl lllc e()'ll)lrxilvl't(l flltNivf'c$s,rnu
rcitlPolitiiritldillicully,ol't.cpt.cscntittio s.
'l'hisntcans,lirst ol'illl, stressingthat rcprcscntitlionsiuc l]|.esolitlions,
alwuysand ncccssarilyentailingthi useof tLecodesandcorvcntronsoI the
availablecultural formsofpresentation.Suchlormsrestrictandshnpewhat
can besaidby and/or aboutany aspectof realityin a givenplacein a given
societyat a giventimq but if that seemslike a limitatio*non ,uyirrg,,t n ulro
what makessayingpossibleat all. Cultural forms set the wider terms ol.
limitation and possibilityfor the (re)presentationof particularitiesand we
haveto understandhow the latter are caught in thi former in order to
understandwhy such-and-suchgets(re)presentedin the wayit does.With_
out understandingthewayimagesfunction in termsof, say,narrativggenre
orspectacle,wedon't reallyunderstandwhy theyturn oui thewaytheydo.
Secondly,cultural forms do nol have singli determinatemeanings_
peoplemake senseof them in different ways,accordingto the cultural
(including sub-cultural)codesavailableto them. For insiance,peopledo
not necessarilyreadnegativeimagesof themselvesasnegative.One of the
firsf_publicationsto point this out wasAnn Kaplan'scoliectionon women
in fiIn noir_(1978).whichsuggestedthat it waspossibleto beinspiredrather
tnan ofiendedby lmagesthat had beenassumedto be,and probablywere
culturallyencodedas,negative,that therewassomethingexhiiaratingabout
thewayfemmesfatalesin film noir givementherun_aro"undandexudesuch
incandescentpower.Much work sincethenhasstressedthemultiplewaysin
whichaudiencesmakesenseof images.In stressingcomplexitya'ndcontra-
dictorinessat the point of reception,however,iam not sulgestrngttrat
p_eoplecan makerepresentationsmeananythingthey want th!"mto mean.
Weareall restrictedby both theviewingandthJreadingcodesto whichwe
haveaccess(by virtue of wherewe aresituatedin the world and the social
order) and by what representationstherearefor us to view and read.The
prestigeofhigh culture,the centralizationof masscultural productlon,the
literal poverty of marginal cultural production: theseare aspectsof the
powerrelationsof representationthat put theweightofcontrj overrepre_
scntation on the side of the rich, the white, the male, the heterosexual.
Acknowledgingthe complexityof viewing/readingpracticesin relatronto
ropresentationdoesnot entail the claim that thereis equalityand freedom
in thc regimeof representation.
Thirclly,what is re-presentedin representationis not directlyrealityitself
but other representations.The analysisof imagesalwaysneeis to seehow
nlly giveninstanceis embeddedin a network of other instances.Agarn,as
with.thcpoint aboutreceptionabovgI needto drawbackfrom someofthe
oonclusionsthat might appearto follow from sayingthis,evenwhileinsist_
ing th t it is so. By emphasizingthe textuality of representationI am not
rlguingthattcxtsareall xhereisin theworld,ihat thereisnothingofwhich
foproscntattons:lrcrcprescntations.This is dilicult territory.I acceptthat
ottcrrltprr:ltctttlsrcrrlilyottlyllrlouglrlcl.rtcscttlir(iortsol'r'cality,thlough
lcxls,discoulsc,irnagcs;thclc is no suchthing as unnrcdiatcdaccessto
lcrrlily.llul bccaLrsoorrccausccrcalityonlythroughrepresentation,it does
nol Iollowthatoncdocsnotscercalityat all.Partial selective,incomplete,
lirrrrirpoin(ol vicw visionof somethingisnot no visionof it whatsoever.
'l'lrcconrplcx,shilling businessol re-presenting,reworking,recombining
r'(.!l)rcsontatiors is in tensionwith the reality to which representationsrefer
irtrd which thcy allect. This is evident in three ways.Firstly, reality sets
lirnits to what, barring idiosyncraticexamples,humanscan makeit mean.
( li) nlistilkca cow for a hat isnotjust an error in logic.)Secondly,realityis
rrlwrrysrllorc cxtensiveand complicatedthan any systemof representation
crrr ;.rossiblycon.rprehendand we alwayssensethat this is so representa-
liorr rrevcr'gets'reality,whichis why humanhistory hasproducedsomany
tlillcrcnt andchangingwaysoftrying to getit. Thirdly,representationshere
rrrrdrrowhaverealconsequencesfor realpeople,notjust in thewaytheyare
llcirlcd elsindicatedabovebut in terms of the way representationsdelimit
rrnrlcnablewhatpeoplecanbein anygivensociety.
'l'his lastpoi11tis most sharplysuggestedby the caseof lesbiansand gay
nrcn,Many would agreethat the categoriesof'lesbians' and 'gaymen' are
tto( givcn by reality. Most societiesrecognizesexual relations between
ntcnrbclsol'the samesex,whetheror not theyproscribe,institutionalizeor
olcvirtcthem, but only a minority havean idea of personswho habitually,
cxclLrsivelyand'by nature'havesuchrelations.Thisis an importantpoint,
ht:cluscit indicatesthemalleabilityof humansexactivity,thepossibilityof
ohirrgc.llut welive in this societyat this time,wheresomepeopledo feel
lhrt( lhoy 'are' lesbianor gay,and often enoughto wish to makecommon
cnuscwilh otherswho feelthe same.It is true that suchidentitiesarcnevcr
lcllly 0scomprehensiveastheyclaim that rnanylesbiansandgaymen,for
inst ncc,do not recognizethemselvesin theidentitiesclaimedeitherwithin
losbian/gayoulturesor by thelesbian/gaymovements but it isalsothecase
lllnt onc czmnotlive outsidethe society,the network of representations,in
which onc finds oneself.Negativedesignationsof a group havenegative
sors0cluclrccsfor the lives of membersof that grouping, and identifying
wilh thatgrouping,howevermuchit doesn't'get'allof whatoneisperson-
rlly o[ oll ol'what everyonein that groupingis,nonethe lessenablesoneto
lry to clralrg0thecircumstancesof that sociallyconstructedgrouping.
'l'hcr.rasco1'lcsbiansandgaymenpresentsin sharpform whatisnonethe
lessirnothcrgeneralcharacteristicol representation,namelythat it consti-
tutcs tlrc vcry socialgroupingthat it alsore-presents.(This is why I prefer
'llrouping'to'gror.rp',sincethelatterseemsmorefixedand given,thefor-
m0t sIrlsscsthc busincssof construction.)Ethnic representationfor
instrrrrecis luscd not on incvitablecatcgoriespre-existinghuman con-
ncioLrsrrr:sslrrrton llrcolganizationol'perccption.To taketwoexamples:to
!'olbrlo soulconcrrs'ncro'(hlack)in northcrnItalyisliablc[o betakenas

3. 4 ThoMallorol lmogog
lntroductlon5
lllc lting lhitt tlrc ;rcl.sonis ltunr soulhcrn ltrrlyl ir liglrt_skiIlt(f(1,l)lltck_
idcnriliccllii,rd o| nrincrbuntltrrar.hcwastr.catctraswiritcwrr,r rrcvisitoti
Al)'ica.tlthnicityis in thc eyeof thecult[r.e.Eventhc catcgodcalscxdis_
t|trctionmale:I'emale(and not just the genderdistinctionm-ascuhne:f-emi_
nrnc)may not be the bottom line of how we must representhumans,as
JudithButler (1990)amongothersargues.In sayingthis,howevelI giveno
groundto thosewho saythat thereis no realityexceptrepresentationitself.
Therearevariationsin skin colouq therearegenit;l diFerences,thereare
differentsexualpractices reprcsentationis theorganizationofthe percep_
tion of theseinto comprehensibility,a comprehinsibility that is
-always
fiail, coded,in otherwords,human.
The complexityof representationlies then in its embeddednessin cul-
tural forms, its unequal but not monolithic relationsof production and
reception,its tenseand unfinished,unfinishablerelation to the reallty to
whichit refersandwhichit affects.It alsolies,finally,in its comprehensive-
ness.Women,ethnicminorities,gaypeopleandsoon arenot the only ones
to,besocialgroupings;everyonebelongi to socialgroupings;indeedwe all
belongin manygroupings,often antagonisticto oni anoth'erorat ttreleast
implying very differentaccessesto power.The groupingsthat havetended
not to get addressedin ,images
of work, however,aie thosewith most
accessto power:men,whites,heterosexuals,the able_bodied.The problem
with not addressingthem as suchis that they then function as simply the
human_norm,without specificityand thuswithout a specifiableielation to
power.Latterly the studyof the representationof menind masculinityhas
becomea growth industry, but there is still next to no work on whites,
heterosexualsor the able-bodied.Suchwork, adumbratedin a coupleof
pleceshere,seeksto make normality strangg that is, visibleand spiciflc.
This must not imply, howevel an equivalencebetweensuch imagesand
thoseof women and other oppressedgroupings.The project of taking
normality strangeand thus ultimately decentringit muit not seemto say
that this hasalreadytakenplace,that now
-u."-ulioity,
whiteness,hetero_
sexualityand able-bodiednessare just imagesof identity alongsideall
othem.That rnaybethepoint wewishto reachbut we arenot thereyet.As
in all othersissuesof representation,wemustnot leavethematterofpower
oul ol'accountanymorethan thematterof representationitself
'1'hccssaysthat follow havenot beenalteredfrom their originalpublication
cxccptlbr minor errors.This secondeditionaltersfrom thJfirst only in that
lhr:chaptclon thesadyoungmanhasbeenremoved(andcannowbefound
nltrry.I'ltc ('ulturaol Quaers(Routledge2001))and that threenewchapters
l]l'",i ll""i
atklctl (Scrial.Kitling. Lillian Gish,TheBirth of a Nation);sug_
gcslio|lsli)r lirlthcr rcadinghavebeenupdated.With a collectionlike thls
rf,.r1inn,]."itt1oto cknowledgcall thosewho contributedto the writing
ol llrcrn,but I shoLrkllikctr)thankthoscwho comntissioncd,cdilcdrrni
cncotrtirgcdlhcnl:Slrirhllcnlon,.linr(bok, l>hilipl)otlcl.CluisCranlund,
l,irlly (iloss.'lirny I lruloltl,.lim tlillicr, Martin l-lumphries,RichardKing
irntlf lclcn'l'aylor'.ClhLrckKlcinharrsandJumpCal, KobenaMercer,Andy
Mctcrrllb.SallyTownsenci,ard ArmondWhite.
Itl,)trDRItNCES
lfLrllcr',.fuditlr(I990)Gender TroubIe,London/NewYork:Routledge.
Krrplirn,E.Ann(ed.)(1978)WoueninFilmNoir,London:BritishFilmInstitute.
ir

4. Chapter2
lna word
Many peopleput a great deal ol energyinto cleansinglanguage.A col-
leagueof mine is tirelessin her useof 'chairperson'in the faceof almost
everyoneelse'simplacableuseof 'chairman'. JesseJacksonhas headeda
campaign to make everyoneuse 'African-American', a campaign that
seemsto be working, at least as far as the liberal pressin the Statesis
concerned.It is oneofthe moreastonishingachievementsof 1970spolitics
that queersnow find themselvescalledby a term they themselvesnomin-
ated,gay.
Strugglingoverwords is one of the most immediate,practical,day-to-
day forms of what may be broadly characterized as left cultural politics.
They areat oneendof a continuumthat includesattentionto presentation
acrosstheboard,thenowwidelygrantedcentralityofidentity asa basisfor
activity,ideologicallyinflectedreviewingofthe artsandthe increasedstress
on the role of consciousnessand culturein our generalunderstandingof
why and how things are as they are and how to changethem. The term
'cultural politics' to coverall that is itself inadequate.In someways,the
venerablesocialistreferenceto'the strugglefor heartsand minds'is better,
becausemoreconcreteandinclusive,but it hadits own drawback.It tended
to imply that thereis 'realpolitics'and a correctway,to whichsocialistshad
to persuadepeople(their heartsand their minds) to assent,whereas'cul-
tural politics' seesall aspectsofthe life of theheartandmind asthemselves
political and all politics asemotionaland ideological.'Culture'is not just
the vehiclewherebyyou win people over to somethingelsethat rs not
culture cultureis politics,politicsis culture.
Thereis no doubt in my mind abouttheimporlanceofthis development.
It is not excessivelysweepingto observethat the overwhelmingreasonfor
the failure of socialismso far, from what we now observein Eastern
Europe,is not a failure ol presentationbut the desperateinadequacyof a
politicsthat wasnot aboutwherepeoplewereat in their heartsand minds,
what they wanted,what fulfilled them. Yet for all that, thereis ir plohltrtn
aboutcLrlturalpoliticsanclit iswellillustratcclby thc problcrrts()lNlrll!8lol
ovct'wot(ls.
ln a word 7
Insistingon chairperson,African-American,gay,is a drip-drip-drip that
we haveto keepup, yet there'ssomethingunsatisfactoryabout it too. It's
not so much its slownessand the seeminginertia of languagebut the way
there nearly alwaysturns out to be somethingoff about the words and
terms we want to get established.We rnay succeedin somemeasurein
bringing aboutthe changein vocabulary,but how aboutthe rneaningsand
feelings,themindsandhearts?
The feministprojectis in somewaysdifferentfrom that ofethnic minor-
ity or lesbian/gayinterventions.Changing'man' to 'person'and so on is
about renderinglanguagegender-neutralso that we come to seemost
humanfunctionsasjust that, human,not male.For ethnicminorities,les-
biansand gaymen and other groups(theelderly/seniorcitizens/peopleof
the third age,for instance,or the disabled/physicallychallenged/differently
abled),on the otherhand,it is morea questionofgetting newtermsestab-
lishedto describewho we are.It is this word projectthat I want to focuson
here.
I hadbettercomestraightout with oneofthe thingsthat setmethinking
about this: I haveneverliked the word'gay'. It's still the word I would usc
antl wish to haveusedto describemyselfand thoselike myself,but all the
sanrcit cmbarrassesme I'm not giving ground to thosewho alwayssaid
thll thc gay movementhad 'spoilt' the word 'gay', had 'deprivedthe lan-
guugcol'a veryusefulword' by associatingit with sexualpeculiarity- thosc
pooplcan:vcrywelcometo haveback'queer','bent','pervert'andall thc
olhcl vcry usefulwordsthat werein dangerof going out of all but homo-
phobic conrmission.Nor am I going along with the likes of Richald
Ingrttnts,who opincdin a recentSundaynewspaperthatmostol the gays
Itc knr,:wwclc not gay but miserable(as well any gay man knowing hinr
nllgh( b0). lt's just that to me 'gay' is a rathertrivial word, too muclr
tuggo$tingonly lirn-l'un-lirn,not adequaleto thecomplexitiesand varicd-
nou ol boing, . . gay.No wordcouldcverdo erllthat,but'gay' f'eelslikca
rlclintitution,un insistcnccon oncaspcct.
'l'holllclnu(ivcsulc no bct[cr,ol'coursc.The 'homo'words,cluitoapart
li'om tho lorrnodlccl whct! one wantsa oolloquialtefm to tlip oll'thc
m(tuth,olrchhttvc(hcirproblcms,'llornoscxual'istoocmphaticallyscxual.
wlth no rllbulivcor sociulling;'honro-erolic'iskxr broatl,trxrwitloly(and
urollllly)rpplls(l(o trry libidinrlly0h0r'gcdconlrctlrctwccn;rcoplcol'thc
IttRl€tgr (rttchtN litlholsttnd rttns,c()rr([ctspol'ts,nrr.:nin linc pocing);
'homophllo'h lrxr rrlrnby-prrnrIty,not $cxurlcnough,rrndlrrywlryn0v0r'
oes5hto[, 1'halltutogy ol'r'ocluirninghonrophobicworth, turningthcnr
dhoottoottlnglylt 0k oll iocloty,[s In lhs(lullnntuncol"lirggo('urrtl'rlrocr"
bymrnynetivhtl,(losrnolrl(lruehwor(llol'rllorriltionrol'oddnorrrruntl
mtfglnsllty,$ndonlytounrlrFfiru(llogHynr6|lwho(lon'll'ooluxhunrorlol'
helttgqrteer,
'(Jty'hArdnlrlh€rprlrhlernl{xr,B0nl€lr€0plefltcil lo u|l|!lylr)h0lll

5. 8 TheMattorof lmag€s
won.lcllrtndmcr (and I havea sensethat in North Americathis is rncrcas-
ingly soamonglesbians/gaywomenthemselves),but feministlesbianshave
generallyresistedthis.However,'lesbian'insteadis not a straightforward
issue.I remembera meetingat the BirminghamGayCentreaboutchanging
its name(aswasagreed)to the Lesbianand Gay Centre.Most of the men
present,well trainedor genuinelycommittedto lesbiansdecidingfor them-
selveswhat they shouldbecalled,werehappyenoughto go alongwith the
change.The strongestvoicesraisedagainstit camefrom women,generally
older,generallymore identifiedwith the bar scene,for whom 'lesbian'was
the term 'they', the doctors and psychologists,had alwaysused against
womensuchasthemselves.One saidthat she'dratherbecalled'bent' than
'lesbian'.A word with sucha positivering lor onegroupofwomen sounded
verynegativeto another.
This examplesuggeststhat thereis only a limited extentto whichwecan
make words feel to everyonehow we want them to feel. Words come
trailing clouds of connotation that are very hard to shakeoll Take the
history of progressivetermsto describeUS Americansof African descent.
Eachnewterm introducedseemedto breakthrough the hatredand preju-
dice enshrined in the prevalent vocabulary,yet each term itself was
revealedto be oppressive,requiring a new term to supersedeit. 'Negro',
ficr instance,drew from an aspirantlyobjectivedescriptionof differences
betweenpeoplesand wasadopted,notablyby the Harlem Renaissance,in
a spirit of'taking pride in one'srace'.It wasthe way in which one (who-
everone was) was positiveabout African-Americansat that time, yet it
wasfoundedon biologicalnotions of racethat seemthe epitomeof reac-
tion now, especiallyin the light of whereracial pride can lead in Aryan
hands.'Coloured' at first sight seemedto avoid this, no longer conjuring
up notionsof blood ancestry yetnot only did it still focuson a biological
diflerence(skin), it also had the effectof suggestingthat therewerenor-
mal peopleand 'coloured'ones,asif all peopledo not sharethe quality of
beingsomecolour or other.'Black', by ineluctablysuggestingthe counter
term 'white', avoidedthis by insistingthat black peopleare l/zlscolour; it
stood againstthe associationsof blacknesswith evil, insistingthat black
peopletake pride in their colour. Yet it seemsthat 'black' too may have
run its course,perhapsbecause'black' is still sowidely usedin connection
with the bad,perhapsbecauseit too still focuseson skin. The sameis true
of the socially generous 'people of color' (including all non-WASP
groups), which still implies a norm of uncoloured whiteness.'African-
American'is the first genuinelycultural label,but, apart from beingsucha
nrouthlul, may run aground on old problems about the 'Africanness'
ol' Af ican-Anrcricans,an Africannessin which many Africansdo not
rccognizcthcmsclvesand whichnranyAfrican-Americansdo nol in litct
rclllc(().
'l'ltcltislot'icrol poli(icrrlwolrlchrrnllcscclnltlwltvslo In,llrirllrr!ltl, ln
ln a word I
llirll tlrishts (o do with having(o havca wottl at all. Whitc peoplc,
lrclcloscxLrals,thc ablc-botliccl,tio uot gcncrallygo aroundworryingover
wlrirt(o call thcursclvesand havcthemselvescalled.Havinga word for
orrcscllandonc'sgroup,makinga politicsout ofwhat thatwordshouldbe,
(lrirwsirttcntior'rto and also reproducesone'smarginality,confirmsone's
plirccor,rtsitlcol'power and thus outsideof the mechanismsof change.
llirvirrg a word also containsand fixesidentity. It is significantto most
nspcctsol'who I am thatI am gaybut all thesameit is onlypart ofwho I
r nriyct tholabel,andthe veryrealneedto makea songand danceaboutit,
ir lirrblckr suggestthat it is all that I am, that it explainseverythingabout
rrrc.ll lrls thc ellectof suggestingthat sexualityis fixed,that it consistsof
t'lcirl rrnchangingcategories,which is untrue both lor individualsand for
lhe historicalconstructionsofsexuality.Similarly'disabled'lumpstogether
rtll lirrns ol'dcpzrrturefrom a physicalnorm, asif theseall lorm onecom-
nor cxpcticncewhich determineswhat needsto be known by and about
tlisublcdpcople.We will alwaysfeel frustratedby havingto havewordsto
oxprussoul socialidentity,evenwhile that socialidentity meansthat wedo
lltrlocrlhavcto havewordsfor it.
'l'hc liustlation meansthat we will almost certainlyget fed up with the
wor'dslhirt wc u$eand seethe negativeassociationscreepback in. This has
lllo lo (lo. howcver,with the fact that words do not necessarilychange
t'(.llily.77x,,!t,?nowusestheword'gay',but withjust thesamehatredasit
woltl(l lllrvcuscd'queer'or 'pervert'.No amount of changingthe termsto
rlorclibc Ali icln-Americanswill changeattitudes,aslong asmaterialcon-
tllllorrs kccp Alj ican-Americansoverwhelminglyin the jobs, housingand
eon(lili()nslit litr 'niggels'.As longasthematerialrealityofa socialgroup
t'Flllrinsoncol'oppression,thewordusedto describeit will sooneror later
Itocorrrcr.:ontirnrinr(edby thehatredand self-hatredthat arean inescapable
ipoul()l opplcssiorl.
'l'ltolinritationsol'word politicsare of a piecewith thoseof the intel-
loelt|lllirHhionstt thootherendofthe continuumof culturalpolitics.Just
ttr lcll plrrctieulpoliticshastakenon theimportanceofwords,ofpresenta-
l[rn ttnrl r'hololic, so much radical intellectualwork in recentyearshas
lirettroditnultcntionon discourse,on thewayrealityis perceivedthrough
ltl(l Nltnpo(lby sor,illly oonstructedwaysof making senseof reality.This
lnt6llo{lurlwotk wasmuohnccdcd:it hasbrokenwith tendenciesto think
ol'tsltllty ri out tltotc.scparatcliom consciousnessand culture;though
ollett lhrrttghlol' n$ unti-humanistin its rejectionof moralizingabout
httntttttdonliny,il i$itl litct pnrlirundlyhumanistin its stresson thehuman
lh('lol'lheeullunrl(:r)0$(fucliorlol our livcs.It isa politicalandintellectual
tlnlte€lhrl
'{ltottl(l
illttt(l tt$it)goodstcrdag instany revivalof'scientific'
Folltleiwith lhcirwall(lr)ctttllcnlc(lirtltLtntitnconscqucnccs.Yetwordpolit-
[,r ttttrlrlin'otltr*e(litlc(]lttNcttttttltc tisk ol thinkingthatwoldsand dis-
u{I ie tI tll llti,tclr,ol'I'rrlgt'llirrglltttlwrtttlsttnddisctttttscsilr0iltlcnlPts

6. 10 Tho Mattorol lmages Chapter3
to makesenseof what are not themselveswordsand disr.:otttscs:botlies,
l'eelings,things.
What we arecalledand what we call ourselvesmatter,havematerialand
emotionalconsequences,but we can expecttoo much ofwords. Changing
them is a necessarybut not a sufficientpart of politics. We changethe
world throughwords,but not throughwordsandculture- or,cometo that,
bread alone.It hasto beboth.
Marxism Todny(Iune 1991)
Theroleofstereotypes
'l'lta wold 'slcrcotype'is today almost alwaysa term of abuse.This stems
l't'onrllrc wholly .justifiedobjectionsol various groups- in recentyears,
hlttekr,womcn and gays,in particular - to the waysin which they find
lhotlt clvc$stcrcotypedin themassmediaandin everydayspeech.Yetwhen
Wtltol l,ippnrunncoinedtheterm,hedid not intendit to havea whollyand
Iteuortttt'ilypo.jorativeconnotation.Taking a certainironic distanceon his
Ittb,ioet,l,ipltl1]an none the lesslays out very clearly both the absolute
nl($rully lbl urrdthe usefulnessof, stereotypes,aswell astheir limitations
tttttlkloologicllimplications:
A pttlloln ol' stereotypesis not neutral. It is not merely a way of
tIbrtituting ordcr for thegreatblooming,buzzingconfusionof reality.It
It not nrclclya slrortcut. It is all thesethingsand somethingmore.It is
lho gttrttrtntocof our self-respect;it is the projection upon the world
ol'oul own senseof our own value, our own position and our own
tlght*'l'hc $tcreotypesare,therefore,highly chargedwith the feelings
thnt ttt'ortttuchcdto them. They are the fortressof our tradition, and
bphlntlitr dulbnscswecancontinueto feelourselvessafein the position
.w0ocoupy.
(1956:96)
lAboetthoglnlo un(lclstandsomethingof howstereotypesworkbyfollow-
In5uplhoidottsntiscdbyLippmann- inparticularhisstressonstereotypes
Er(ll unoxlctingproocss,(ii)a 'sholt cttt',(iii)referringto 'theworld',and
(lvl erpte*lng'our'vrlucslnd bclicl'.s.Thercstof thisessayisstructured
lmund thototoplon,concludingwithsomctorrtativcremerrkson therele-
VERE€ol' whlrth[$ gonc bolirt'cto thc rcpresentationof alcoholism.
Thnru5horrt,I r ovcltolwounlhcnrorosociologicllconcernof Lippmann
(ltowrl€I€otype(l!nclionin nor,rillthought)undlhcspccilicacsthoticcorl-
E€fllr(ltowrlFrdolypotltnollottin ll(rliotls)lhnl ntttttlttlsolrcintrotlucccl
Inloltty eonrlrlelnllonol'nrctllurcprcrenluliotlH,'l'hcpruitiottltr.:ltindrtll

7. 12 The Matterof lmages
theseconsiderationsis that it is not stereotypes,as an aspectol human
thought and representation,that arewrong, but who controlsand defines
them,what intereststheyserve.
AN ORDERING PROCESS
Stereotypesasa form of 'ordering' the massof complexand inchoatedata
that we receivefrom the world areonly a particular form to do with the
representationand categorizationof personsr of the wider processby
which any human society,and individuals within it, make senseof that
society through generalities,patterningsand 'typifications'. Unless one
believesthat there is somedefinitively'true' order in the world which is
transparentlyrevealedto humanbeingsandunproblematicallyexpressedin
their culture a belief that the variety ol orders proposedby different
societies,asanalysedby anthropologyand history,makesdificult to sus-
tain this activity of ordering,includingthe useof stereotypes,has to be
acknowledgedasa necessary,indeedinescapable,part of the way societies
make senseof themselves,and henceactuallymake and reproducethem-
selves.(The lact that all such orderings are, by definition, partial and
limited doesnot meanthat theyareuntrue partial knowledgeis not false
knowledge,it is simplynot absoluteknowledge.)
Thereare,howeve!two problemsabout stereotypeswithin this perspec-
tive.Firstly, the needto order 'the greatblooming, buzzingconfusionof
reality' is liable to be accompaniedby a belief in the absolutenessand
certaintyof any particular order,a refusalto recognizeits limitations and
partiality,its relativityandchangeability,anda correspondingincapacityto
dealwith thefact and experienceof bloomingand buzzing.
Secondly,asthework of PeterBergerand ThomasLuckmann,amongst
others,on the 'socialconstructionof reality' stresses,not only is any given
society'sorderingof reality an historicalproduct but it is alsonecessarily
implicatedin the powerrelationsin that society asBergerandLuckmann
put it, 'he who has the biggerstick has the betterchanceof imposinghis
definitionsof reality' (1967:127).I shall return below to thesetwo prob-
lemsof Lippmann'slormulation - order(stereotypes)perceivedasabsolute
andrigid, order(stereotypes)asgroundedin socialpower.
A SHORT CUT
Lippmann's notion of stereotypesas a short cut points to the manner in
which stereotypesarea very simplg striking,easily-graspedform of repre-
sentationbut arenonethe lesscapableof condensinga greatdcal ol com-
plexinl'ormationanda hostof connolations.As T. E. Pcrltirlsltolr'sitt hor
kcy alticlc 'ltcthinkingSlctcolypcs'.thr:olicrrohsctvcrl'rlltpllclty'ol'
slcrc{)lylxsisrlcce;tliv0:
The roleof stereotypes 13
to refer 'correctly' to someoneas a'dumb blonde', and to understand
what is meantby that, impliesa greatdeal more than hair colour and
intelligence.It refersimmediatelyto /zersex,whichrefersto herstatusin
society,her relationshipto men, her inability to behaveor think ration-
ally, and so on. In short, it implies knowledgeof a complex social
s ucrure.
(1919:139)
'flre samepoint emergesfrom Arnold S.Linsky'sanalysis(1970 1) of the
rcpresentationof the alcoholic in popular magazinesbetween1900and
|966,wherechangingdepictionsof alcoholicsare shownto expresscom-
plcxand contradictorysocialtheoriesnot merelyof alcoholismbut of free
will anddeterminism.
RItTNRENCE
l,ippnrannrefersto stereotypesasa projectionon to the'world'. Although
Itc is not concernedprimarily to distinguishstereotypesfrom modesof
I'cpttscntationwhoseprincipalconcernis not theworld, it is important lor
tlfl lo do so, especiallyas our focus is representationsin mediafictions,
wltich nre aestheticas well as social constructs.In this perspective,
Hlr,,rcotypcsarea particular sub-categoryof a broadercategoryof flctional
clnfflctcrs, the type. Whereasstereotypesare essentiallydefined, as in
l,ippnrunn, by their socialfunction, types,at this level of generality,are
pr'lnrllily clclinedby their aestheticfunction, namely,asa modeof charac-
lalinrtion in fiction.The type is any characterconstructedthrough the use
ol'l lbw inrnrodiatelyrecognizableand definingtraits,whichdo not change
ot'tlcvclop' throughthecourseofthe narrativeandwhichpoint to general,
l'srullcnt I'caturcsof the human world (whetherthesefeaturesare con-
ueDtttrtlizcdas universaland eternal,the'archetype',or historicallyand
gttllunrllyspcoilio,'socialtypes'and 'stereotypes'a distinctiondiscussed
helow),r'l'ho oppositeof the type is the novelisticcharacte! definedby a
multlplicityol'ttaits that are only graduallyrevealedto us throughthe
t.loltt'ricol'thc nflrr tivo,a narrartivewhichis hingedon thegrowthor devel-
opnont ol'thc uhi[actct'andis thuscentredupon the latterin her or his
unlqttsIndivitlurrlily,ltthol thanpointingoutwardsto a world.
In ttttt'r*ocicly,il isthcnovclisticcharacterthatisprivilegedoverthetype,
Ittl'lhe0bvi0LrsI0l$onth t oUlsocictyplivileges atanyrate,atthelevelof
loghl fhulot'ir: lhu intlivitltrLrlovcl thc collectiveor the mass.For this
fgstoll, lhc tlut,i()tity()l'lietionNlhltt itdtlrcssthcnrselvesto generalsocial
l uel lerrdlrev$t'lh{luNllo r:ntlttp lclling lho stot'yol't particularindi-
vklttttl,herrstt'r,lttt'nlttgrlrcittlirrttel lo pur'0ly|rotsonttlttndpsychological
Oll€t,(ltlle wg ltrlrlt.|.rrrttttt*r'lvr'ttl lllc r'flllcielllllliorlttttrltlclilli(iollol'

8. 14 The Matterof lmages
socialcategories- e.g.alcoholics we haveto considerwhat is at stakein
onemode of characterizationrather than another.Wheredo we want the
emphasisof the representationto lie on the psychological(alcoholismas
a personalproblem),on thesocial(alcoholismasanaspectof society)or in
somearticulationof the two?The choiceor advocacyof a more novelistic
or a more typical representationimplicitly expressesoneor other of these
emphases.
THE EXPRESSION OF VALUES
It is Lippmann'sreferenceto oar tradition, and indeedhis useof'our' and
'we' throughoutthepassagequoted,that takesusinto the mostimportant,
and most problematic,issuein stereotyping.For we have to ask, who
exactlyare the 'we' and 'us' invokedby Lippmann?- is it necessarilyyou
andme?
The effectivenessof stereotypesresidesin ihe way they invoke a
consensus.Stereotypesproclaim,'This iswhat everyone- you,me and us,
thinks members of such-and-sucha social group are like', as if these
conceptsof these social groups were spontaneouslyarrived at by all
membersof societyindependentlyand in isolation.The stereotypeis taken
to expressa generalagreementabout a socialgroup, as if that agreernent
arosebefore,andindependentlyof, thestereotype.Yetfor themostpart it is
from slereotypesthat we get our ideasabout socialgroups.The consensus
invoked by stereotypesis more apparent than real; rather, stereotypes
expressparticular definitions of reality, with concomitant evaluations,
which in turn relateto the dispositionof power within society.Who pro-
posesthe stereotype,who has the power to enforceit, is the crux of the
matter- whoseIradition is Lippmann's'our tradition'?
HereOffin E. Klapp's distinctionbetweenstereotypesandsocialtypesis
helpful. ln his book Ileroes, VillainsandFools(1962)Klapp definessocial
typesasrepresentationsofthose who'belong'to society.Theyarethekinds
of peoplethat one expects,and is led to expect,to find in one's society,
whereasstereotypesarethosewho do not belong,who areoutsideof one's
society.In Klapp, this distinctionisprincipallygeographic i.e.socialtypes
of Americans,stereotypesof non-Americans.Wecan,however,rework his
distinctionin termsofthe typesproducedby differentsocialgroupsaccord-
ing to their senseof who belongsand who doesn't,who is 'in' and who is
not. Who doesor doesnot belongto a givensocietyasa whole is then a
function of therelativepowerof groupsin that societyto definethemselves
ascentraland the restas'other', peripheralor outcast.
In fictions,socialtypesand stereotypescan berecognizedasdistinct by
thedifferentwaysin whichtheycanbeused.AlthoLrghconslru(l(,(licorlo-
graphicallysimilarlyLothc waystcrcotypcsillc eonslrr(lo(l(ir', n ldw vgt'-
balantlvistrrll[irilsiuc usctllo sigrrrrlllrccllrfl('lr,rl. not'trtllVltcltl lt hr,
The roleof stereotypes 15
usedin a much more open and flexibleway than can stereotypes.This is
nrostclearlyseenin relationio plot. Socialtypescan figurein almost any
kind of plot and canhavea widerangeof rolesin that plot (e.g.ashero,as
villain, as helpeq as light relief, etc.), whereasstereotypesalwayscarry
within their very representationan implicit narrative.Jo Spencehasargued
in the contextof the representationof womenthat, despitethe superficial
varietyof images,theyall carry within them animplicit narrativepattern:
visualrepresentationswhich may appearto dealwith diverseideasbut
whichareall aimedat womentendto actaspart ofan implicit narrative.
'fhis hasa'beginning'and a 'middle' (birth, childhood,marriage,family
lilb) but thereis only minimal representationofits'end', of growingold
itntltlying.
(1980:2e 45)
In anarticledealingwith thestereotypingof gaysin films,I tried to show
Itow tlrc useof imagesof lesbiansin a group of Frenchfilms, no matter
whrrlkind of film or ofwhat'artistic quality', alwaysinvolvedan identical
Ffol firnction(1977:33 5).Similarly,we surelyonly haveto betold that we
flfc goingto seea film aboutanalcoholicto know that it will bea taleeither
ol' nortliddcclineor of inspiring redemption.(This suggestsa particularly
inlorosling potential use of stereotlpes,in which the characteris con-
llt'ttulg(|. lrt the level of dress,performance,etc., as a stereotypebut is
tlollbcnrlclygivena narrativefunction that is not implicit in the stereotype,
thttnthlowing into questionthe assumptionssignalledby the stereotypical
luonogluphy,)
'l'ltolocirrltypc/stcreotypedistinctionis essentiallyone of degree.It is
nllot ttll vcty hrlrd to draw a line betweenthosewho arejust within and
lhoro rlolirtitclytrcyondthe pale.This is partly becausedifferentsocialcat-
€gorio[ovcrhrp o.g.men'belong',blacksdonot,but whatofblackmen?It
h ulro bccfluscsonlcol'tlrc categoriesthat the socialtype/stereotypedis-
tlnutlnnkcopsuprrtt oannotlogicallybekeptapartin thisway.Theobvious
gtsl ploihclcurcnrcnandwomen,andit isthisthatcausesT.E. Perkinsto
Efc0t tho rllxtinctiou(lt)7t):140 l). As appliedto men and women,the
mtllsltypc/rlctcolypo(lislinctionirnplicsthaturenhaveno directexperience
€fwonlenltr(l lhnl th0r0ooul(lbca socictyconrposedentirelyofmen:both
Ef tltererls virluullyinrponsiblc.Yr.:til scomsto me that whatthedistinc-
tlcn Folntl to, ttr*rtppliodl() w()nlcnitnd nrcn.is a tendencyof patriarchal
lhFught'toHtlclnpllo nlrln(uit)lhc intpossiblo.by insistingon tlre'olher-
nilt'of wont€tltttd tllctl(t)tt'ltlhct'lhl"olltct'ncss'ol'womcn.nrcnbeingin
lftfldtuhyllteltttttttttt||ot'|lllo whlehwont(tlttrc'{)lhut')in tholirccol'thcir
nC{!9llhl'yr,,0llllh0fllh}lrIn lthloty Ill(l H(xJlrly,('l'ltt'tlintincliolrtlttcstrlso
ftftf ltl pdt'lltr I rettlreptttttllottltt ilrclttltttlttttlt'ttlt'ttl|i,i'u'llrulirclol'tnIlu

9. 16 The Matterof lmages
and female'preserves':the pub, the beauty salon,the study,the kitchen,
etc.)What the distinctionalsomaintainsis the rzbsolr.iledifferencebetween
menand women,in the faceoftheir actualrelativesimilarity.
This is themost important function of the stereotype:to maintainsharp
boundarydefinitions,to defineclearlywherethe paleendsand thuswho is
clearlywithin andwho clearlybeyondit. Stereotypesdo not only,in concert
with social types,map out the boundariesof acceptableand legitimate
behaviour,they alsoinsiston boundariesexactlyat thosepoints wherein
reality there are none.Nowhereis this more clear than with stereotypes
dealingwith socialcategoriesthat areinvisibleand/orfluid. Suchcategories
areinvisible,becauseyou cannottelljust from looking at a personthat she
or he belongsto the categoryin question.Unlessthe personchoosesto
dressor act in a clearlyand culturally definedmanner (e.g.the working-
classman'scloth cap,themalehomosexual'slimp wrist) or unlessonehasa
trainedeye(asthosedealingwith alcoholicshave?),it isimpossibleto place
the person beforeone, whereasmany socialgroups- women and men,
differentraces,youngand old arevisiblydifferent,andthis differencecan
be eradicatedonly by disguise.Socialcategoriescanbefluid, in the sense
that it is not possiblein reality to draw a line betweenthem and adjacent
categories.We make a fuss about and producestereotypesabout - the
differencebetweenwomenand men,yet biologicallythis is negligiblecom-
pared to their similarity. Again, we are led to treat heterosexualityand
homosexualityas sharply opposedcategoriesof personswhen in reality
both heterosexualand homosexualresponsesand behaviourare to some
extentexperiencedby everybodyin their life. Alcohol useis clearlyin this
category it isnotoriouslydifncult to drawthe line betweenharm-freeand
harmful drinking. But stereotypescan.
The role of stereotypesis to makevisiblethe invisible,so that thereis no
dangerof it creepingup on usunawares;and to makefast,firm and separ-
atewhat is in realityfluid and muchcloserto the norm than the domrnant
valuesystemcaresto admit.
In the widestsense,thesefunctionsof renderingvisibleand firm can be
connectedto Lippmann's insistenceon stereotypesas ordering concepts,
and to the tendencytowardsrigidity that may be implied by this.All soci-
etiesneedto haverelativelystableboundariesandcategories,but thisstabil-
ity can be achievedwithin a context that recognizesthe relativity and
uncertainty of concepts.Such a stability is, however,achievedonly in a
situationof real,asopposedto imposed,consensus.The degreeof rigidity
and shrillnessof a stereotypeindicatesthe degreeto whichit isan enforced
representationthat points to a reality whoseinvisibility and/ol lluidity
threatensthe receiveddefinitionsof societypromotcdby tlrosrrwilh lhc
biggeststicks.(E.g.il womcnitrcnot so vcty dillclclrtlirrrrrrrrt', whyttr.c
lhr:ysrrboltlinirlerl'/;il rrlcoholisnrisrrolsor,rrrilyrlintilgrrlrlrerllllm togiltl
Theroleol stereotypes17
drinking, can we be so comlortablein our acceptanceof the latter and
condemnationof the former?)
In this perspective,and speakingvery tentatively,what is striking about
the current mediarepresentationof alcoholismis its absence.It seemsno
longer to be identified as a key social personalproblem, to be marked
stereotypicallyasbeyondthe pale of 'normal' behaviour.Ratherit hardly
seemsto be thereat all. This may be relatedto the developmentof mari-
iuanauseasa focusof media/'public'concern dopeaddictsareamongthe
most shrill of today's stereotypes.In this context, all alcohol use seems
redolentof old-fashionedvalues,and especiallyof 'masculine'valuesset
againstthe 'effeminacy'of'hippie' culture. To this one would add the
cnormous financial involvement of the alcohol industry in the leisure
industries,of which themedia area key part,and in particular the reliance
of televisionand cinemaon advertisingrevenue(which,in thecurrentlegal
situ:rtion,cannotcomefrom marijuanapromotion but can,anddoes,from
tulcoholpromotion).
If welook backat thecinema,however,it isfairly clearthat thealcoholic
tficl serveto distinguish clearly alcohol usefrom abusg as if a definite line
could be drawn, in order to legitimatethe 'social' use of alcohol. This
inclutlesthe legitimationof excessiveconsumption,drunkennessand other
ttlcohol-inducedanti-socialbehaviour,sinceit is possible,by the use of
rtcruolypes,to seethis asdistinct from 'real' alcholism.The questionthat
tltt{.:lrananalysisposesis,in whoseinterestwasthisdistinctionmaintained?a
It'ttttt .firnCook and Mike Lewington(eds)Imagesof Alcoholism,London:
llt'itishl,'ilmlnstitute(1979)
NO'l'l,ls
| | conllncnysollhcreto thediscussionof stereotypesasa formof represenling
ll6t'Nonr,Ilthoughthcworditsell(especiallyin adjectivalform)isalsousedtor.efer
tttldotts.bchuviour'.scttinlls.ctc,
I ll lt irttporllurtkrslr'osstlicrolcol'conceptualizationinthedistinctionberween,on
lll0Intchur(1,lr'chcly;lcs,and,onthcotlrc4socialandstereotypes,sincewhatmay
holr(lllbulc(llo 1yDoits univcrsalandctcrrr{ltrait,hcnccmakingit archetypai.
mttyonlybcrrhislolicrrllyrndculturitllyspccilictr.ritmisundcrstoodasaunivcrsal
0lltl!tcfnlllI[it itiN,ull0[rrll.lhctcudcncyol don]initntvalucsystcmsinsocictic$
k)pu$lhuirvlrllcHo{l'flrInivor'$ully|d ctclnallyvirlid.
I lly pflltllt(hyI nrull lhutltou8hllyntonrthutlogitiurltcsthcpoworol'n1cnandthc
tllhtt(llltltllortl'wrttttsnittNociclyl (lonotnroflDllnl(i1isncccssarilyandsinrply
howIll t$ lltlrrkol'wolrcrr,rrlllrorrghil irIn ovo|wholn]ing(lct0rnlinitntonth t.
il ll h lttlerentlltttlo olslhlrlllrr,lltltrollntlrBl|ylrrHhc0rrunxioUsto t,0inli)rcalhc
VlFwlh l nlroholhulr trrltllrrl rlhcnmurllcrcrlhyrrrrrinolityol'thcpopulrrtiorr.
IHlhdftlttttvnrl$llsrul'lltflt, whlelrlrryolr,lrrrlghlr.xpur'lrrrrr,,r,in vrrryirrgrlngrucn,
rllllplt ltt tl lr'rttllrtl rlrllllr! loo nll('ltloo ollln A plr,vcrrllvcpolhrybrrlr,rl
ttFttnlltFl llFrvl6wlrlghlwt,llhe,ttItturlltl tr,rlr,htglIvelxol t'rrrHrrrrrItirr(rrrrrl