Representation, Tokenism, The Importance of Intention etc.

 

Please Note: Under Construction

Notes on essay about representation, tokenism, grey zones, the importance of prime intention, "culture wars", censorship, etc.

“Hello mr. Tree, meet mrs. Forest”

A certain critique is based on the idea that if a negative character is a member of a certain group (such as women, black people, homosexuals, muslims and so on), it follows that the artist's intention is racist.

As if one character has to stand as a representative of an entire group.

In the other direction, it is customary to hear anti-racists denounce the claim by someone accused of being a racist that “some of his/her best friends are (black, homosexual, etc.)” as tokenistic.

As if one person could not stand as a representative of an entire group.

I would suggest a twofold look at the issue of representation onscreen.

First, we could start by examining whether all members of a certain group are portrayed negatively. If that is the case then, yes, this would seem to prove the racist intentions of the film-maker.

But what about nice members of the group under scrutiny? What happens when we can find one member disproving the aspersion cast at that group? Doesn't it invalidate the accusation of racism? ...Or is he/she a token?

This is where I would suggest we remember this ingenious look at the representation of women onscreen: the Bechdel Test. / Bechdel test - Wikipedia /

To pass the Bechdel Test, a movie has to feature 1) at least two women, 2) who talk to each other, and 3) about something else than a man.

This could be adapted for the issue of tokenism.

The Allix Test could state that a novel/movie should feature

 1) at least two members of at least one different group,

 2) who act independently of each other (ie they are not generically the same), 

3) who act to serve the unfolding plot and not to represent their community, 

and -we could even add- 4) whose only function is not to be there 'to do the right thing': ie they have not been planted to paper over the otherwise possible systematic negative portrayal of their group.

Before we go any further, we probably ought to offer a definition of the term 'racism'. The way I see it, it comprises two distinct significations:

1. Some groups are inferior to others.

2. All members of a group are identical: they think the same, they act the same. To know one is to know them all; they have no identity.

Another case: “exoticising” and “cultural appropriation”.

A Guardian writer once argued that white men dating black or Oriental women are “exoticising” (sic) them, the underlying idea being that such men are not interested in these women's individuality but are only getting their sexual kicks from their physical or cultural differences. And this, for the columnist, was tantamount to racism.

Let us try to break down this reasoning.

In effect, the writer was saying that members of a certain group ought not date members of another group because the seducers (for lack of a better word) are not engaged in recognising the individuality of their conquests (for lack of a better word, part two). And this is so because the seducers cannot possibly recognise the individuality of their conquests.

This brings us back to a familiar trope: one cannot possibly know how it feels to be a member of a different group. This theme has been explored many times by rappers and is known in French as “communautarisme”. It is certainly problematic. If one were to follow this logic, one would have to advocate separatism. Since the travails of different groups can not be grasped, let alone shared, then... there is no chance of sympathy (feeling sorrow for someone else) or fundamental empathy (the ability to understand someone else).

The accusation of “cultural appropriation” runs along pretty parallel tracks.

It states that groups ought not borrow, exhibit, or adopt cultural signifiers from other groups – for instance haircuts (there was controversy around David Beckham's braids when meeting Nelson Mandela). The USA being what they are, the issue runs wayyy deeper and is at times highly more spectacular: Enter the American Football team called The Redskins. American natives -whose people has been demonised, slaughtered, starved, infected with disease, chased out of its territories and continually downgraded by white invaders/conquerors- have long protested about the appropriation of their appellation and the featuring of a generic American native figure by this sportsteam.

Well, this question can be referred to a few points made above.

It could be argued that we ought to distinguish between paying homage, showing cultural openness, demonstrating curiosity - and exploiting another group for one's own ends.

In the first camp, I personally believe that no matter what your ethnic group is, there is nothing wrong with watching Ozu / Takeshi Kitano / Takashi Miike films; enjoying Thai or Mexican food; listening to rap music; wearing Maori tattoos, etc. This can be done in a respectful or knowing way. ...In fact, I dare say that most white people who sport tattoos of Chinese characters are probably aware of the fact that they are not Chinese themselves.

A commercial venture pretending to be something else clearly belongs to the second camp. As far as I know, that Redskins team has not been created by / is not owned by / does not only features American natives. ((possible reference to the Celtic Football Club at this point)) Question: does it represent the interests of American natives? Does it redistribute its profits to that group? If this is not the case, then there is a clear problem of deliberate confusion, not to say hipocrisy.

To be developed (I won't pretend to have thought it all out yet) .

Question of intention – the difference between a documentary and an opinion piece – rich identity vs. one-dimentional characters - is "Cruising" homophobic? - is "The Deer Hunter" racist? - should we censor the n-word in Mark Twain? - who decides? the danger of misconstruing - the difference between feeling offended and being factually, demonstrably persecuted