Thursday, February 24, 2005
The Television Stages of Minority Group Acceptance
I've often contended that television (and media in general, but let's stick to TV for the time being) is a mirror of society. Sometimes it can distort things, but mostly it reflects back our values. That becomes problematic when it reflects back our warts, and we'd really prefer it just skipped those parts. But, I've already written at length (in high school!) about the idiocy of getting bent out of shape and blaming TV for our problems. However, we can use it as a good means of analyzing some of our more hidden societal beliefs.
Bigotry is still alive in this country and will be for a long time. For sure, there are plenty of people who hate blacks, but these people are slowly becoming more and more marginalized: That's a good thing. The more insidious type of prejudice is the sneaky kind; the institutionalized kind; the kind that many Americans prefer to pretend isn't there. If you don't believe that this racism exists, well, you're wrong, and naive, and probably part of the problem.
In the real world, groups of people go through certain stages of acceptance. I'll elaborate: At one time, not only were blacks treated unfairly, but it was commonly accepted that it was ok to do so. (We'll ignore slavery for now, because while it's important in black history, it's not common enough in minority group history.) Slowly, it became not ok to do so, but not really ok to get upset at people who did. Then, it wasn't ok to be publicly racist, but we still had plenty of policies that were discriminatory. Now, overt racism is quite frowned upon, and we're generally pretty cautious of blatantly discriminatory policies. I don't think that we've eliminated racism against blacks, especially among our educational and commercial institutions, but I do think we're making progress. At any rate, my point is that it's not (pardon the pun) black and white - there's a continuum from outright inequality to complete absence of prejudice. If I could think of one group that was completely and utter integrated into American society with virtually no prejudice, I would - I would argue the closest such minority groups are Jews, but even they're not completely treated as equals all the time.
So, that said, where do many of these groups lie on the bias continuum? Well, like I mentioned, honest self-reflection can be very hard. But one of the most obvious ways that we can track our subtle levels of prejudice in society is through the prominence of certain minority groups in our entertainment, and on television in particular. But if there's a continuum in reality, then shouldn't there be a continuum in television as well? Absolutely! Here goes:
First stage: Not appearing at all. On many shows, there are no blacks. Even in places where they clearly exist, like in New York! Friends is a perfect example of this. But for the most part, you do see blacks on TV. Nevertheless, at one time, you didn't. And until recently, there certainly were no gays. I think significant numbers of minorities are still just exiting from this stage: How many Asians do you see on TV? (And, by the way, for purposes of this argument we're talking about popular, fictional shows. Reality shows explicitly make an effort to seem diverse.) Latinos are gaining ground, I believe. What about Indians? (Not Native Americans, but people from India.) Clearly, there's a lot of people still in the first stage, or just barely into the second. You know who's still in the first stage? Handicapped people.
Second stage: Token appearances. At some point, even television executives start to acknowledge that the world is not monochromatic. (Although, usually they only do this when their audiences force them to by not watching shows they consider to be "unrealistic".) So, instead of actually writing well rounded minority characters, they initially just throw them in minor supporting roles to fend off potential criticism as often as possible. You'll see the "Chinese neighbor" or "black co-worker", but they won't have names, or if they do have names, they'll be the most bland character on the show. Why? Because giving them a realistic personality would actually involve knowing and understanding such people. I'd argue that Latinos are pretty much still in this stage, and Asians are just getting there.
Third stage: Appearing as poorly-drawn stereotypes. Americans really don't like having their world view challenged. So once there becomes a demand (or even an outcry - but mostly it manifests as a market demand), show creators finally cave and put in someone that's more than just a token, but a legitimate character. However, often this character will be a foil - someone to play off the main character, or someone that subtle exhibits stereotypical traits. I'm thinking of the "Latino gardener", or the "black athlete", or the "flaming gay friend". I think I'd place Latinos still in this stage, while gays are actually moving out of into the fourth stage...
Fourth stage: Appearing as villains. When you're depicted as a legitimate villain (not a caricature), then you know you're making progress! Why? Because that means people are comfortable enough about your status as a minority that they no longer fear backlash resulting from depicting you negatively. It's a good thing that being labeled "racist" is still crippling to one's public image, although it does mean that it's thrown around a little too casually. But it's still easier to depict a minority as the villain instead of the hero, as creating an empathetic, well-rounded character is quite a challenge. Plus, when a minority is a villain, it's pretty easy to exploit (and validate) your audience's latent hostilities towards such people, instead of challenging their views.
Side note: This whole post was inspired by Dan, my, and Stephen King's observations about all of the black women on "24" being villains. I think it's pretty obvious that they fall explicitly into this stage. There's Sherri Palmer from Seasons 1-3, who was clearly a huge villain. There's Wayne Palmer's former love interest from Season 3. There's Aisha Tyler's character on Season 4. There are no other black women on the show, except for the black cop who died in about 15 minutes way back in Season 1. (That would have qualified her for the second stage.) What's interesting about "24", though, is that they're both amazingly progressive and hopefully regressive at the same time. They have a host of Latino characters in stage five (which I will explain shortly), as well as having featured Asians, many blacks, and Arabs in important, well-rounded roles. At the same time, their main conflict this year is surrounding a (well-written and somewhat conflicted) family of Arab terrorists. Is it a reasonable, real-life concern that one can plausibly use to create a show out of? Absolutely. Do you ever see Arabs on TV when terrorism isn't involved? Rarely. I think Arabs are, for the most part, still in stage three, which happens to nicely masquerade as stage four, because the stereotype is that they are villains.
Fifth stage: Appearing as normal. Stage five is pretty simple - when you have a character that exists as a real person, whose identity is not centered around their race, but around being an actual human being. It's still pretty rare to see many of these - I'd say that the only group firmly in this stage is black men - black women are still lagging behind. By the way, "Will" from "Will and Grace" is an exception - for the most part, gays are in stages three and four.
Sixth stage: Appearing as a main character. You'd think that stages five and six are pretty close together, but there's actually a vast chasm there. If you're going to build a show around a minority as the main character, a lot has to happen. You have to have confidence that enough people in the world aren't going to get turned off by watching the exploits of someone that doesn't look quite like them. You have to understand how that person's minority status might realistically affect their actions and personality without making it dominate your show. And then, people have to actually watch the thing for it to stay on the air - shows reaching this status probably say as much about society as they do about the particular show itself. I still don't think any minority group has made it this far.
So, those are the stages. A few caveats here: One is that I don't consider these rules hard and fast. Furthermore, I don't necessarily think you can say that a group's rank on the TV continuum explicitly corresponds with its rank on the reality continuum. In particular, in real life, I still think gays are probably the most discriminated against, but they seem to work pretty well for dramatic purposes. (One of the reasons they might be discriminated against is because some people feel they're being pushed upon them by television.)
Another important point - one or two shows do not qualify a group for a particular stage. There are outliers all over the place. And some networks or creators are a lot more color-blind than others, choosing to push shows without significant public support. And no, in general, the WB doesn't count. But my assessments are just my overall thoughts - feel free to take a shot at your own estimates, and feel free to disagree. Also, my rankings are a bit skewed by what I watch, although I do read Entertainment Weekly pretty regularly, so I know what's out there. I can't quite think of a popular, black main character (not just one in an ensemble) since the Fresh Prince - that's not a good thing. I guess Bernie Mac counts.
Finally, a comment about racism. The ultimate achievement for America will be when this post no longer applies, for at least a couple reasons. One would be that every person has attained equal opportunities, regardless of race or sexuality, or what have you. And another would be that race or other superficial differences do not even become an important part of the debate. People just don't notice it any more. Does that mean that I'm a bit hung up on race because I notice these things? You betcha, although I'd like to believe that I'm more of an observer than an active creator of these types of divisions. Yet I'd be delusional to tell myself that I don't notice these differences, and have some prejudgments in my head. I'd also like to think that acknowledging this means I can do something about it, and maybe that's the point of this post.
Bigotry is still alive in this country and will be for a long time. For sure, there are plenty of people who hate blacks, but these people are slowly becoming more and more marginalized: That's a good thing. The more insidious type of prejudice is the sneaky kind; the institutionalized kind; the kind that many Americans prefer to pretend isn't there. If you don't believe that this racism exists, well, you're wrong, and naive, and probably part of the problem.
In the real world, groups of people go through certain stages of acceptance. I'll elaborate: At one time, not only were blacks treated unfairly, but it was commonly accepted that it was ok to do so. (We'll ignore slavery for now, because while it's important in black history, it's not common enough in minority group history.) Slowly, it became not ok to do so, but not really ok to get upset at people who did. Then, it wasn't ok to be publicly racist, but we still had plenty of policies that were discriminatory. Now, overt racism is quite frowned upon, and we're generally pretty cautious of blatantly discriminatory policies. I don't think that we've eliminated racism against blacks, especially among our educational and commercial institutions, but I do think we're making progress. At any rate, my point is that it's not (pardon the pun) black and white - there's a continuum from outright inequality to complete absence of prejudice. If I could think of one group that was completely and utter integrated into American society with virtually no prejudice, I would - I would argue the closest such minority groups are Jews, but even they're not completely treated as equals all the time.
So, that said, where do many of these groups lie on the bias continuum? Well, like I mentioned, honest self-reflection can be very hard. But one of the most obvious ways that we can track our subtle levels of prejudice in society is through the prominence of certain minority groups in our entertainment, and on television in particular. But if there's a continuum in reality, then shouldn't there be a continuum in television as well? Absolutely! Here goes:
First stage: Not appearing at all. On many shows, there are no blacks. Even in places where they clearly exist, like in New York! Friends is a perfect example of this. But for the most part, you do see blacks on TV. Nevertheless, at one time, you didn't. And until recently, there certainly were no gays. I think significant numbers of minorities are still just exiting from this stage: How many Asians do you see on TV? (And, by the way, for purposes of this argument we're talking about popular, fictional shows. Reality shows explicitly make an effort to seem diverse.) Latinos are gaining ground, I believe. What about Indians? (Not Native Americans, but people from India.) Clearly, there's a lot of people still in the first stage, or just barely into the second. You know who's still in the first stage? Handicapped people.
Second stage: Token appearances. At some point, even television executives start to acknowledge that the world is not monochromatic. (Although, usually they only do this when their audiences force them to by not watching shows they consider to be "unrealistic".) So, instead of actually writing well rounded minority characters, they initially just throw them in minor supporting roles to fend off potential criticism as often as possible. You'll see the "Chinese neighbor" or "black co-worker", but they won't have names, or if they do have names, they'll be the most bland character on the show. Why? Because giving them a realistic personality would actually involve knowing and understanding such people. I'd argue that Latinos are pretty much still in this stage, and Asians are just getting there.
Third stage: Appearing as poorly-drawn stereotypes. Americans really don't like having their world view challenged. So once there becomes a demand (or even an outcry - but mostly it manifests as a market demand), show creators finally cave and put in someone that's more than just a token, but a legitimate character. However, often this character will be a foil - someone to play off the main character, or someone that subtle exhibits stereotypical traits. I'm thinking of the "Latino gardener", or the "black athlete", or the "flaming gay friend". I think I'd place Latinos still in this stage, while gays are actually moving out of into the fourth stage...
Fourth stage: Appearing as villains. When you're depicted as a legitimate villain (not a caricature), then you know you're making progress! Why? Because that means people are comfortable enough about your status as a minority that they no longer fear backlash resulting from depicting you negatively. It's a good thing that being labeled "racist" is still crippling to one's public image, although it does mean that it's thrown around a little too casually. But it's still easier to depict a minority as the villain instead of the hero, as creating an empathetic, well-rounded character is quite a challenge. Plus, when a minority is a villain, it's pretty easy to exploit (and validate) your audience's latent hostilities towards such people, instead of challenging their views.
Side note: This whole post was inspired by Dan, my, and Stephen King's observations about all of the black women on "24" being villains. I think it's pretty obvious that they fall explicitly into this stage. There's Sherri Palmer from Seasons 1-3, who was clearly a huge villain. There's Wayne Palmer's former love interest from Season 3. There's Aisha Tyler's character on Season 4. There are no other black women on the show, except for the black cop who died in about 15 minutes way back in Season 1. (That would have qualified her for the second stage.) What's interesting about "24", though, is that they're both amazingly progressive and hopefully regressive at the same time. They have a host of Latino characters in stage five (which I will explain shortly), as well as having featured Asians, many blacks, and Arabs in important, well-rounded roles. At the same time, their main conflict this year is surrounding a (well-written and somewhat conflicted) family of Arab terrorists. Is it a reasonable, real-life concern that one can plausibly use to create a show out of? Absolutely. Do you ever see Arabs on TV when terrorism isn't involved? Rarely. I think Arabs are, for the most part, still in stage three, which happens to nicely masquerade as stage four, because the stereotype is that they are villains.
Fifth stage: Appearing as normal. Stage five is pretty simple - when you have a character that exists as a real person, whose identity is not centered around their race, but around being an actual human being. It's still pretty rare to see many of these - I'd say that the only group firmly in this stage is black men - black women are still lagging behind. By the way, "Will" from "Will and Grace" is an exception - for the most part, gays are in stages three and four.
Sixth stage: Appearing as a main character. You'd think that stages five and six are pretty close together, but there's actually a vast chasm there. If you're going to build a show around a minority as the main character, a lot has to happen. You have to have confidence that enough people in the world aren't going to get turned off by watching the exploits of someone that doesn't look quite like them. You have to understand how that person's minority status might realistically affect their actions and personality without making it dominate your show. And then, people have to actually watch the thing for it to stay on the air - shows reaching this status probably say as much about society as they do about the particular show itself. I still don't think any minority group has made it this far.
So, those are the stages. A few caveats here: One is that I don't consider these rules hard and fast. Furthermore, I don't necessarily think you can say that a group's rank on the TV continuum explicitly corresponds with its rank on the reality continuum. In particular, in real life, I still think gays are probably the most discriminated against, but they seem to work pretty well for dramatic purposes. (One of the reasons they might be discriminated against is because some people feel they're being pushed upon them by television.)
Another important point - one or two shows do not qualify a group for a particular stage. There are outliers all over the place. And some networks or creators are a lot more color-blind than others, choosing to push shows without significant public support. And no, in general, the WB doesn't count. But my assessments are just my overall thoughts - feel free to take a shot at your own estimates, and feel free to disagree. Also, my rankings are a bit skewed by what I watch, although I do read Entertainment Weekly pretty regularly, so I know what's out there. I can't quite think of a popular, black main character (not just one in an ensemble) since the Fresh Prince - that's not a good thing. I guess Bernie Mac counts.
Finally, a comment about racism. The ultimate achievement for America will be when this post no longer applies, for at least a couple reasons. One would be that every person has attained equal opportunities, regardless of race or sexuality, or what have you. And another would be that race or other superficial differences do not even become an important part of the debate. People just don't notice it any more. Does that mean that I'm a bit hung up on race because I notice these things? You betcha, although I'd like to believe that I'm more of an observer than an active creator of these types of divisions. Yet I'd be delusional to tell myself that I don't notice these differences, and have some prejudgments in my head. I'd also like to think that acknowledging this means I can do something about it, and maybe that's the point of this post.
Comments:
Post a Comment
