You, the people.
It is Tuesday, September 3rd—the day after Labor Day—in the United States. It is 5:00 in the morning. As I read the Internet news headlines, I am relieved that there have been no humanitarian disasters, while I was sleeping. Monday was a slow news day. The worst event that happened, as told by the headline of one news publication, was posturing by the candidate of the incumbent party for President of National office.
Verdict: Fake Southern accent. Before recorded media, the nuances of spoken delivery were hard to relay, and extremely subjective. With the media, it's a matter of “listen for yourself,” and, “you be the judge.” They also say, “judge not,” -but democracy isn't Justice. Of course, quibbling with anything as personal as speech is unfair, and, yet, everything may—and will be—be taken into account by the voter. Nothing is excluded, as "inadmissible evidence" would be, in a court of law.
Voters are like the jury in court. Since I'm eligible for both, I thought I'd give the soundbite a listen, myself. I didn't get past the first few moments of watching the video. I was shocked. I strongly suspect the effect it had on me was also the effect on all viewers. I mean, it wasn't about the soundbite (the fake accent), it was the visuals that shocked. The visual evidence. Specifically, my perception of the visual evidence was, that the candidate needs to wash her hair.
Is that "just" my perception? Maybe; but the proof can be viewed all over the Internet, now. Anybody can see what I saw. Anyway, my perception is not the issue. What the issue is, is slovenly appearance by a candidate for major political office. When I was an adolescent we had a word for it: “gross.” Dirty hair, specifically, was (and still is) gross. As youngsters, we were always being admonished to wash hands, face (or whatever), and—most important—cut your hair.
Do something with your hair. It looks awful. Hair is as much a political statement today, as ever. I suspect a negligent personal appearance was the intention of the candidate—on Labor Day—addressing a crowd of Organized Labor. A holiday is a day-off work, a day to be lazy. Nonetheless, why does a certain candidate feel she must patronize her supporters? She is pandering to class identity, while the real issue is political representation. In a word: it is about trust.
Instead, it's about dirty hair, which is about being lazy. Coincidentally, last week, an old photograph was leaked of the candidate as a 20-something with short hair. It was popular, back then, as the "bobbed" look. It was feminist, because it was androgynous, which should be a clue to where this is going. Try, if you will, to imagine the hours and hours the candidate will waste—as the President of the United States—washing her hair, drying her hair, curling her hair, tinting her hair, looking at herself in the mirror, and so on, until it's just right.
It's too much power concentrated in the hands of one, finicky, individual. This concerns me, less for political reasons, than because the subjects of my paintings are dirty. The subject of my work is homelessness—including the unavoidable dirtiness—of the homeless. Granted, the unstated premise upon viewing my paintings is how bad the subject homeless must smell. That sense is generally absent with documentary media. It's sanitized.
Political candidates must be relieved that there's no way of recording how they smell, except personal testimony, which is a matter of opinion. A great Roman admonished his son, “profits do not smell,” when the lad balked at income derived from Rome's Magna Cloaca. Likewise, media never smells bad. By media, I mean print photographs, newspapers, broadcast video, and audio recordings. Art—because it is physical—does smell. Paint smells squeezed from the tube and it smells for years as the resins cure. It is realistic to look at, and it is real, in itself.
A painted likeness of a flower arrangement—or a rotting slab of meat—is intended to evoke the sense of smell. My art of the homeless smells like that. It expresses what can't be mentioned politely. Kill me if I don't care! I dare say the working man—the laborer—the one, that is, who works up a sweat in the course of his day's labor (and probably is badly in need of a shower at the end of the day) would understand. By this I refer to the Organized Labor gathering of the above-mentioned news report. They are my audience, too.
Can the implied object of the candidate's speech have been personal hygiene? Who was it who spoke of the "unwashed masses”? My understanding was that it had been originally said by Karl Marx. It always seemed plausible to me. Marx could be downright insulting by his ad hominem remarks. Still, I thought I'd better check my sources. No, it was not first said by Marx, but by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, in his novel Paul Clifford. The epithet was (afterwards) noted and repeated by others. It's possible Marx (b. 1818) was aware of the remark (pub. 1830.)
It may have (without attribution) influenced Marx's Theory of Capital! Is that a scandal I smell? Let's get down to brass tacks. Search of the expression returns the following opinions:
Assistant
Bot Jul 12
The term "the great unwashed" is a derogatory phrase that refers to the common, lower classes of society. It suggests that these people are uncultured, dirty, and inferior to the upper classes. The term implies a sense of elitism and disdain for the working class or poor.
4 Upvote
Carolyn McMaster
Former Adjunct Professor of Women's Stud. Updated 4y Originally Answered: What do people mean when they use the phrase "the great unwashed"?
The phrase "the great unwashed" was coined in 1830 by Edward Bulwer-Lytton in his novel, Paul. Originally, it meant people who were poor and/or uneducated, because middle and upper class people assumed all such people had poor personal hygiene. It was, and still is, derogatory and is becoming old-fashioned and obsolete. In the U.S. at least it has taken on the broader meaning of the general populace.
The above quotes—and more of the same—are polite opinions, hygienic handling of an (ahem) unseemly subject. The use, misuse, and abuse of the term didn't begin and end with the 19th Century. The phrase caught on. It has a highbrow ring of truth to it. At the end of the day it is not a nice thing to say. It is another instance of euphemism, of bad faith in speaking. As with any cover-up, it doesn't remove the subject matter, as if it were a smudge of dirt. It rubs it in.