What is required of serious religious believers in a pluralistic society is the ability to code-switch: never to forget or neglect their own native religious tongue, but also never to forget that they live in a society of people for whom that language is gibberish. To speak only in the language of pragmatism is to bring nothing distinctive to the table; to speak only a private language of revelation and self-proclaimed authority is to leave the table altogether. For their own good, but also for the common good, religious believers need to be always bilingually present.
In 1955 Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. The incident mobilized the civil rights movement and the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a defining event both for the movement and the profile of a young leader named Martin Luther King Jr.
Today nearly everyone will recognize the names of Rosa Parks and MLK Jr. Nearly everyone has imprinted on their minds black and white images of marches in the civil rights movement. These images have become holy icons for many in America. Iconography, however, has a habit of slipping into mere iconography.
Today if you sneeze someone may say “God bless you”. We don’t know why it started or where it started although there are some theories. In any case it is not uncommon for practices to take on cultural resonance even after they are disconnected from their origins.
I believe that protest iconography has slipped into sentimentality and nostalgia for many who know almost nothing about the actual history behind the icons. While protest marches didn’t start with the civil rights movement many present day manifestations lack the clarity and focus of those marches. The marches in Montgomery, and other marches that followed were often targeted at specific laws and practices whose repeal or suspense could be seen or verified.
Some of the popular marches today are not merely iconic, but also less specific. You can have your protest mean whatever it is you want it to mean. Just come and try not to offend anyone else in the march if it can be avoided.
This week Pepsi retracted an ad for its signature cola over illegitimate appropriation of the iconography.
Pepsi’s decision to apologize to Jenner didn’t sit well with activists either.
“It’s incredible that @pepsi apologized to Kendall,” Mckesson wrote on Twitter. “She chose to be a part of that ad. Pepsi needs to apologize to the protesters.”
Brooke Duffy, a Cornell professor who focuses on media and gender, said Pepsi’s “putting Kendall Jenner in this situation” line relies on an old sexist notion that young women don’t actually know what they’re doing.
“She has an incredible amount of clout and brand power,” Duffy said in an interview to The Washington Post. “They’re giving her no agency when she clearly willingly participated.”
Robert Livingston, a public policy lecturer at Harvard University who studies race and gender, said in an interview that it’s hard to know how people will react to content — through a diverse staff is typically better equipped to catch blind spots. But ultimately, he said, public figures consent to the projects they take on.
“The apology to Jenner was misplaced, not just because it infantilizes her,” Kennedy said, “but because it doesn’t address the real source of the offense. The apology should have been directed toward the protesters and the movement itself, which their ad appears to trivialize.”
