Equality Without Philosophy? The Case for a More Existential Look at Equality
[Written by Connor for the University of Gloucestershire Journal, Being Human]
Equal rights and equal representation aren’t necessarily the cornerstones of liberation and emancipation that they are made out to be. I mean, they’re a great start (usually), but are, in truth, far from the more holistic picture of what equality could be. That is, we must examine our understanding of exactly what we mean when we talk about equality. The key issue here is that equality is a much more subjective discourse than we might care to admit – and that’s a good thing! There are usually two responses to this claim and both are equally problematic. On one hand we have an equation that subjective must mean meaningless and so descends a strange intellectual and ethical nihilism. On the other hand, we have an obsessive focus on those measurable and tangible areas of inequality and a strangely authoritarian rhetoric comes to the defence of “liberalism”. The answer, it can be argued, lies somewhere in between; in the realm of open conversation.
Now, to be clear, I don’t mean that the very principle of equality is a matter of opinion in much the same way as art or food for instance. Evidently of course, some people do think that this principle is this contentious and if 2017 taught us nothing it is that ignoring or shouting at bigots usually doesn’t yield results… at least not the ones you’d like. But for the rest of us, who believe in that very basic idea that everyone is essentially “equal” in an ethical sense, there are still many more questions to be discussed.
This is where philosophy; that is, reflective and considered conversations about ideas and values that matter to us, can come of some much-needed use. Rather than bark on with a kind of authoritative and barbed discourse or rhetoric about legislation of diversity quotas and offensive language, we should imagine a renewed look at equality. That is, rather than tackling symptoms of oppression, ignorance or stereotyping we can start to talk about an endgame – framing the conversation. This equality beyond equal rights can then consider not only of what bigotry looks like and how we can defeat it with laws but what emancipation entails too. It is this holistic emancipation that reflects the more personal and societal areas of conversations, philosophy and spirituality.
The problem is that in our rightly-placed love of equality we have forgotten that not only do people not always agree with us but that they have to be spoken to and convinced. This has left equality confined to narrow and rigid interpretations, aimed at forcing dissenters to comply rather than the actual transformation of society and its ideas. Legal and numerical equality of minorities are a good start and usually a healthy step toward a more holistic concept of equality. However, in many cases obsession over these types of discourses can leave the conversation dried of a more contextual and personal kind of equality. And in some serious (arguably overblown) cases can paradoxically threaten equality itself. Indeed, legislative morality can sterilise our understanding of equality to a vacuum of a more abstract notion of the idea, rather than grounding it in ethical lived experience. This very brief overview will explore some of the ways, particularly in the media, in which a complacent, and unexamined notion of equality can do just this.
Firstly, let’s take a look at the minefield of gender equality. If we take the Feminist plight as our example we can easily argue that gender equality requires not just a change in law, but a transformation in society and the way we talk and think about things collectively. Surely, we can concede that instead of forcing agendas, the ideal situation should be whereby agendas no longer have to be forced. Though certain legal steps go some way to achieving a society in which women are respected on equal footing, the issue is much broader than law.
Related to this transformation of society is another view with the narrow view of equality. Rather than assimilating into the heteronomy of society there are conversations to be had about either defining gender identity or reforming homogeneity. So, whether sitting outside the patriarchy or institutional racism, from their unique “outsider” perspective, these groups have more to offer the narrative of the consensus than simply falling in line with them. Rather than asking, “can I be part of the patriarchy?” a feminist preferably takes a more critical approach. Outright policing of such thoughts and ideas is obviously a non-sequitur since there is always room for more discussion. Yet it is something we can all talk about as a society. Let’s take the struggle of women in serving in the military, clergy or to dominate areas of business. Perhaps the more prudent questions are whether women (and men for that matter) should aspire to these kinds of roles in the first place. Rather than catching up with the rest of us, maybe the finish line is the wrong place for both sexes. Conventionally, we can argue for instance that the business world requires traditionally masculine personality traits like aggression, utilitarian thinking and uncompromising ambition. Many have argued its more elite levels to be intrinsically patriarchal, not to mention damaging to mental health, environmental concerns and the heart of ethical thinking. Rather than looking for a slice of the action, the more philosophical side of feminism examines society more broadly and critically, asking these uncomfortable questions.
Indeed, it can be argued that even if all statistical problems for both sexes could be eliminated (voting rights, the gender pay-gap, parent’s access to legal right of children, incidents of sexual assault, suicide and crime rates, workplace segregation) we would still have so much more to talk about. For instance, how we define masculinity, femininity and even gender, what we should think about role models in the media and the workplace, how far society (if at all) should reflect natural trends, sexism in dating culture, everyday language, terminology and pronouns, alpha-male culture, etc. These kinds of cultural discussions are important and by categorising them in a more subjective dimension than law or policy it does not render them meaningless, they just require us to talk a little bit more.
So, what does subjective mean in this sense? It means that meaningful conversations can still be had outside of what people “can” or “are allowed” to do. For instance, whether it be religious veiling or sex-work, many insist that such choices have no right to be discussed so long as they are decided by women and not enforced by men. This line of thinking insists that life-choices can only be defined by those that choose them, and to suggest otherwise is judgmental and insensitive. But choice needs to be framed in its proper contexts whereby we can openly talk about whether choices are informed, influenced and by what factors. After all, several governments and institutions influence female and male decisions, be it media, education, religion or work environments while not officially prescribing any behaviours. Such pressure, while not outright demanding, can be strong even if we hold fast in our view of immaculate human agency. Somewhere along the line we should probably admit that freedom is also an issue of pressures and not outright banning rather than bracket the conversation to include just the strongest examples of authoritarianism. And very often, such pressures are subliminal and subconscious, existing on the fringes of thoughts and attitudes and absorbed by the oppressed themselves, rather than the work of some nefariously informed yet unseen button-pushers. Try having, if it weren’t impossible, a conversation with women concerning empowerment just 100 years ago; societal norms ensured that would-be advocates of egalitarianism of both sexes supported derogatory views. Yet even if we reject this line of thinking and concede that all choices made by women in modernity are fully informed and never influenced by pressures, when do we get talk about these choices? With no room to openly discuss lifestyles or beliefs, even while avoiding judgemental and confrontational rhetoric, this seems an odd place to leave conversation.
Having recently seen the Wonder Woman film, I, alongside other feminists, had some small concerns about the presentation of female empowerment in mainstream entertainment, particularly in the action genre. And I’m not just talking about the all-too-common Mary Sue archetype of a “perfect” woman – I can’t decide which gender this insults more and is probably one of the worst representations of women in entertainment since the femme-fatale. All too often I find that female characters appear as “strong” characters and even intended role models when they, in a certain sense, transcend their gender. Typified by language like “badass” these women are often found filling the traditional role of a man.[1] That is, Hollywood seems to equate a strong woman with one that displays typically male traits, which in reality isn’t quite true. Contrast this to James Cameron’s film, Aliens (which coincidentally Cameron himself did during a heated Twitter exchange).[2] In Aliens, Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley takes on a horde of hostile aliens but does so with a sense of visible and grounded fear, while exploring a thought-through character. It should be noted that any sexualisation is downplayed. Here we see a protagonist characterised by true bravery, depth and reality, a sense of motherhood and far less finesse and glamour than Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman, winner of Miss Israel. This isn’t at all surprising when one considers that the latter is a creation from a male mind of the 50s created for a comic book read almost entirely by a male audience. My point being that the current flawless archetype of heroine, who vanquishes foes, whilst sporting busty form-fitting attire and keeping an immaculate face of make-up is arguably an extension of some patriarchal fantasy rather than an inspiring role model for a new age. Both handling action and fantastical settings, one seems to celebrate womanhood in a grounded, respectful and insightful way, the other simply seems to celebrate manhood (superpowers aside). Now this is just an opinion (and probably not a very good one) – but these are exactly the kinds of views we need to exchange and debate. Well this, and why a schlock- type action-heroine should ever be considered a ‘role model’ for any gender, rather than a bit of light entertainment.[3]
But of course, opinions are either meaningless or every single person’s view is correct (“how can an opinion be wrong?” after all). If opinions are meaningless then so too is visual art, literature and religion – so put down your crucifixes and copies of Catcher in the Rye and cancel all book clubs and film appreciation societies. And of course, if we conversely agree with this radical equality of opinion, whereby everyone’s opinion is automatically correct, we get much the same result. Why then do people even bother opening their mouths or tweeting? Subjective opinions are so called because they have an ability to persuade and resonate with people. Of course, in one sense they are all correct, but without passion or reason a view usually doesn’t get very far. A few months back I had the rotten luck of hearing some homophobic views spouted from several representatives of an allegedly liberal branch of Christianity. Onlookers reminded me and anyone else who dared be offended and riposte that "people can believe what they want so long as they don’t harm anyone"… as if I or anyone else present had some manner of legal, physical or even telepathic means by which to actively stop them. In retrospect, what confused me most was the sheer vibe of moral and intellectual apathy present – apparently this Millsian-esque harm principle means we can only disapprove of things when they become actively illegal. Just because, behaviour is permitted doesn't prevent groups of people passionately debating ideas and values; an art that is seemingly not only lost but alien to the offline world.
Here’s another opinion on equality and its narrowed consideration using our example of broad media. Representation of the disabled is something that grows increasingly talked about. However, all too often the conversation is framed in the sense of simply obligating the need for numerical representation rather than discussing how the disabled are represented. If we take the example of dwarfism we can see various historical examples whereby smaller people are used primarily as comic-relief, with little depth of character beyond quirky comedic value and a sense of personhood defined entirely in relation to flaws and “abnormality”. This negatively-defined sense of being is communicated primarily by the tone of such art. Contrast this to the film X-Men: Apocalypse, an otherwise atrocious film in which Peter Dinklage, who has achondroplasia, a common form of dwarfism, plays the film’s primary antagonist. In the film, there is no mention of his stature. Any depth of character, plot progression or addition to overall themes are based solely on the aspirations of his character within the story, not informed by a disability. Of course, neither should the issue be swept under the rug however. There may be instances where attention to a disability, if well-handled can be beneficial or even central to a story. Taking yet another example from mainstream entertainment we have Game of Thrones where Dinklage, yet again, is cast. This time Dinklage’s character constantly suffers derogatory comments, and this in turn informs his character’s outlook. The difference with this example is tone. That is, this is framed with thematic relevance in a gritty fantasy setting where disability and strife are both wider themes in George RR Martin’s world and devices to establish empathy in an otherwise unfamiliar setting. Ultimately, I would argue, alongside many others, that being disabled is not a character in and of itself. Unless, through art, there is a well-intended point to be made about being disabled, it should probably avoid unnecessary mention. There are also important conversations to be had about whether some or all disabilities should be treated as such; that the defining of “disability” is entirely relational to a woolly or non-existent archetype of “normality” and/or is intrinsically unethical and objectifying. When diversity quotas and representation are so heavily focused on, these kinds of conversations about personhood can go neglected, and this conversation is an ongoing process.
This leads to another similar example from mainstream media. That is, the character of Bill Potts, the “companion” character in the most recent series of Doctor Who. During the course of the show we are informed frequently that Bill is openly lesbian and several references to her gender and race are mentioned, often several times per episode. Not only does this feel awkwardly forced into the narrative almost to a point of a fourth-wall meta-narrative but also serves to render Bill as nothing more than a sum of her minority status(es). In drawing so much emphasis to the general existence of minorities, Bill is almost reduced to the classic “token minority” character generally used in more dated entertainment. As with our example of dwarfism, we are occasionally left with characters who through ironic tragedy, like some strange parody of racist television are defined solely by their minority status. A more revised version of equality seems to suggest that being black, gay, mute or male should not typically be a story’s idea of a character in its own right and only in the experience of reacting to persecution or external narratives of identity should this inform personalities.
Now, one may argue that minority identity or culture can be expressed and even emphasised in a way that is not objectifying or stereotyping but in fact, liberating. A more sensitive and intelligent handling of minority status, woven into the narrative of a story would be a given in any at attempt this. (Perhaps the character of Bill Potts was such an attempt, rendered so shallow simply from bad screenwriting?). Whilst reactive positive discrimination and the more deplorable examples of actually reversing racism and sexism are not the ideal endgames of an equal society, perhaps certain distinctions and counter-culture are healthy, so long as they are self-expressed and not projected?
This is an interesting point and particularly compelling when presented by gay-rights activist Peter Tatchell who advocates the values of ‘gay liberation’ and ‘sexual freedom’ as a distinct part of a subculture rather than assimilating into a hegemony.[4] Tatchell argues that a narrowed obsession with “gay rights” represents ‘dumbed down aspirations’ and poor consequences of an equality without caveats or existential consideration is the push for sexual and gender equality.[5] For Tatchell, this ignores a broader, more subjective conversation about values. The question of equality sits within a wider conversation that is “what should society look like?”. He feels that rather than fall into heterosexual consensus after achieving certain legal rights, much like Feminists, gay-rights activists should attempt to transform society through conversation. This societal shift in behaviour and discourse is not necessarily achieved through policy and laws and is largely an open dialogue, subject to revision and discussion. This is a conversation about culture and individuals as it has always been, as much as it is about legislation.
For instance, we have the issue of gay marriage. Here we have the opportunity for a wider conversation about the relation between religion and sexuality. Whilst there are theological arguments and interpretational approaches to religion that ensure homosexuality can be congruent with Christian religiosity, Christianity has arguably never been one to celebrate any sexuality, yet alone same-sex relations. As Nietzsche reminds us, Christianity is the religion of “self-mutilation” – ‘life's nausea and disgust with life’.[6] Nietzsche for example argues, ‘faith has meant a sacrifice: the sacrifice of freedom, pride, spiritual self-confidence; it has meant subjugation and self-derision, self-mutilation’. Nietzsche talks also of ‘self-denial’ and ‘sacrifizio dell’intelletto’ (denial of the intellect). What he means by this is that, by virtue its very premise and in contrast to older religions, religion denies the notion of the natural self, to the point of self-loathing; urging us to transcend our very being. This negation of being, beginning in Genesis itself is prevalent in many Christian beliefs and practices – our very sense of self-worth is predicated on a relational idea of meaning. That is, we are inherently sinful, our desires are demonised and have no intrinsic worth; even our morality must be dictated. This is arguably a thematic motif common to almost every religion that seems to escape the comprehension of the secularised lay-person by and large.
So, while it’s a no-brainer that gay men and women should have equal rights, including the right to marry, it seems a strange state of affairs that we should collectively (forcefully) have to update a religion’s values in order to do so, rather than simply find another faith (or better still none). This is bizarre not least of all because the idea of “updating a church’s views” is theologically clumsy to say the least, projecting a weird notion of some inherent progressive linearity to a religion, that simply couldn’t exist, even if it wanted to.[7] The bottom line is that we need to open up a broader, more existential range of questions about equality; in this specific case, about why people feel the need for religious ceremony rather than a more inclusive (and still potentially spiritual) alternative, or indeed to identify as Christian at all.
And then we have the delightfully angry side of equality. The ineffectively shouty self-righteousness that storms lecture halls, bans contrary opinions and, going with our vague theme of entertainment, censors reviews of films like Ghostbusters and Black Panther.[8] Though partially overblown as an alt-right moral panic littered with fabrications, its something to keep an eye on… not to mention totally paradoxical to the classical ideals of liberty when all-black or all-female screenings of a film start to look like a good exercise of equality.[9] Or indeed, people are publicly shamed as misogynists and ‘man-babies’ for disliking cringe-worthy and shamelessly-consumerist comedies that happen to star a female cast.[10]
So ultimately, it can be argued that we should broaden our understanding of equality and think more carefully about exactly what we mean when we use the word. Not only must we think about what steps we can take, but also what the ultimate goal will look like, so we aren’t stuck in a twilight zone of endless reactionary positive discrimination that screams “we aren’t there yet”. I’m reminded of Morgan Freeman’s comments declaring that the only way to stop racism is to ‘stop talking about it’, that black history month draws unwanted attention to a divisionary concept of race.[11]
The true finality of egalitarianism is not reversing its dynamics but balancing them. Equality is not equivocal to numerical representation, neither is ethics fully captured in law. Without philosophical consideration, equality can be left to dry in a legislative vacuum rather than soaked into the rich fabric of cultural conversation. Oversimplification of the issue and a rejection of any parlance between subjectivity and meaning is one of many growing problems at the root of all these issues. Now sure, abandoning surety and self-righteousness while arguing confidently and persuasively is a difficult juggling act and something of a big ask.
In a world that offers up only soft-nihilism and iPhones when we ask for meaning it can be very tempting to adopt authoritarian language. The well-meant push for equality is no exception to this pitfall of dogma. Žižek even goes so far as to label radical forms of political correctness as ‘totalitarianism’.[12] Like all facets of life, equality should never fall victim to binary polemics and complacency - Not only because 2017 has proved that liberal equality can never be taken for granted, but because personal and collective freedoms are the cornerstones of liberalism.[13] Real equality needs us to be more questioning, of ourselves as well as others. This kind of explorative introspection is a much-needed virtue in modern debate. Indeed, with moral and intellectual courage rather than shouting louder online is only the way to solve such questions. Victories for liberties can never be won, practically or in principle, if the tactics used are unquestioned ideologies. Equality needs attention, it even needs laws, but most of all it needs conversation.
[1] Laura J. Mixon, Glass Houses (digitalNoir Publishing, 2010) p. 17
[2] Jake Nvins, The Guardian, James Cameron repeats Wonder Woman criticism: 'That’s not breaking ground', 27 September 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/sep/27/james-cameron-defends-wonder-woman-criticism [Accessed 10 April 2018]
[3] Jaelithe Leigh-Brown, Huffington Post, Why Wonder Woman Is A Great Role Model, 7 July 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jaelithe-leighbrown/wonder-woman-role-model_b_17412812.html [Accessed 10 April 2018]
[4] Peter Tatchell, Beyond Equality, New Humanist, 14 June 2007, https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/1263/beyond-equality [Accessed 02 March 2018]
[5] Ibid.
[6] Friedrich Nietzsche, transl. by Walter Kaufmann, The Birth of Tragedy (New Tork: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2010) p.23
[7] Andrew B. R. Elliott, Medievalism, Politics and Mass Media: Appropriating the Middle Ages in the Twenty-First Century (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2017) p. 100
[8] Red Letter Media, YouTube, Scientist Man Analyzes Ghostbusters (2016), 2 August 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWROBiX1eSc [Accessed 01 April 2018]
[9] Associated Press in New York, The Guardian,
Women-only Wonder Woman showings sell out despite outcry, 27 May 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/27/women-only-screenings-wonder-woman [Accessed 04 March 2018]
[10] Splinter, Angry Baby-Men hate the new Ghostbusters trailer, https://splinternews.com/angry-baby-men-hate-the-new-ghostbusters-trailer-1793855178 [Accessed 2 April 2018]
Among countless examples.
[11] Morgan Freeman, YouTube, Morgan Freeman on Black History Month, 29 April 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s [Accessed 02 March 2018]
[12] Slavoj Žižek, Slavoj Žižek Calls Political Correctness a Form of “Modern Totalitarianism”, OpenCulture, 22 April 2015, http://www.openculture.com/2015/04/slavoj-zizek-calls-political-correctness-a-form-of-modern-totalitarianism.html [Accessed 01 March 2018]
[13] Recent examples include California and Bermuda’s repeal of gay marriage, Turkey’s reversion to an autocratic state, France’s bhurka ban and far right extremism on the rise in America and across Europe, all despite an increased pushes for equality.
Now, to be clear, I don’t mean that the very principle of equality is a matter of opinion in much the same way as art or food for instance. Evidently of course, some people do think that this principle is this contentious and if 2017 taught us nothing it is that ignoring or shouting at bigots usually doesn’t yield results… at least not the ones you’d like. But for the rest of us, who believe in that very basic idea that everyone is essentially “equal” in an ethical sense, there are still many more questions to be discussed.
This is where philosophy; that is, reflective and considered conversations about ideas and values that matter to us, can come of some much-needed use. Rather than bark on with a kind of authoritative and barbed discourse or rhetoric about legislation of diversity quotas and offensive language, we should imagine a renewed look at equality. That is, rather than tackling symptoms of oppression, ignorance or stereotyping we can start to talk about an endgame – framing the conversation. This equality beyond equal rights can then consider not only of what bigotry looks like and how we can defeat it with laws but what emancipation entails too. It is this holistic emancipation that reflects the more personal and societal areas of conversations, philosophy and spirituality.
The problem is that in our rightly-placed love of equality we have forgotten that not only do people not always agree with us but that they have to be spoken to and convinced. This has left equality confined to narrow and rigid interpretations, aimed at forcing dissenters to comply rather than the actual transformation of society and its ideas. Legal and numerical equality of minorities are a good start and usually a healthy step toward a more holistic concept of equality. However, in many cases obsession over these types of discourses can leave the conversation dried of a more contextual and personal kind of equality. And in some serious (arguably overblown) cases can paradoxically threaten equality itself. Indeed, legislative morality can sterilise our understanding of equality to a vacuum of a more abstract notion of the idea, rather than grounding it in ethical lived experience. This very brief overview will explore some of the ways, particularly in the media, in which a complacent, and unexamined notion of equality can do just this.
Firstly, let’s take a look at the minefield of gender equality. If we take the Feminist plight as our example we can easily argue that gender equality requires not just a change in law, but a transformation in society and the way we talk and think about things collectively. Surely, we can concede that instead of forcing agendas, the ideal situation should be whereby agendas no longer have to be forced. Though certain legal steps go some way to achieving a society in which women are respected on equal footing, the issue is much broader than law.
Related to this transformation of society is another view with the narrow view of equality. Rather than assimilating into the heteronomy of society there are conversations to be had about either defining gender identity or reforming homogeneity. So, whether sitting outside the patriarchy or institutional racism, from their unique “outsider” perspective, these groups have more to offer the narrative of the consensus than simply falling in line with them. Rather than asking, “can I be part of the patriarchy?” a feminist preferably takes a more critical approach. Outright policing of such thoughts and ideas is obviously a non-sequitur since there is always room for more discussion. Yet it is something we can all talk about as a society. Let’s take the struggle of women in serving in the military, clergy or to dominate areas of business. Perhaps the more prudent questions are whether women (and men for that matter) should aspire to these kinds of roles in the first place. Rather than catching up with the rest of us, maybe the finish line is the wrong place for both sexes. Conventionally, we can argue for instance that the business world requires traditionally masculine personality traits like aggression, utilitarian thinking and uncompromising ambition. Many have argued its more elite levels to be intrinsically patriarchal, not to mention damaging to mental health, environmental concerns and the heart of ethical thinking. Rather than looking for a slice of the action, the more philosophical side of feminism examines society more broadly and critically, asking these uncomfortable questions.
Indeed, it can be argued that even if all statistical problems for both sexes could be eliminated (voting rights, the gender pay-gap, parent’s access to legal right of children, incidents of sexual assault, suicide and crime rates, workplace segregation) we would still have so much more to talk about. For instance, how we define masculinity, femininity and even gender, what we should think about role models in the media and the workplace, how far society (if at all) should reflect natural trends, sexism in dating culture, everyday language, terminology and pronouns, alpha-male culture, etc. These kinds of cultural discussions are important and by categorising them in a more subjective dimension than law or policy it does not render them meaningless, they just require us to talk a little bit more.
So, what does subjective mean in this sense? It means that meaningful conversations can still be had outside of what people “can” or “are allowed” to do. For instance, whether it be religious veiling or sex-work, many insist that such choices have no right to be discussed so long as they are decided by women and not enforced by men. This line of thinking insists that life-choices can only be defined by those that choose them, and to suggest otherwise is judgmental and insensitive. But choice needs to be framed in its proper contexts whereby we can openly talk about whether choices are informed, influenced and by what factors. After all, several governments and institutions influence female and male decisions, be it media, education, religion or work environments while not officially prescribing any behaviours. Such pressure, while not outright demanding, can be strong even if we hold fast in our view of immaculate human agency. Somewhere along the line we should probably admit that freedom is also an issue of pressures and not outright banning rather than bracket the conversation to include just the strongest examples of authoritarianism. And very often, such pressures are subliminal and subconscious, existing on the fringes of thoughts and attitudes and absorbed by the oppressed themselves, rather than the work of some nefariously informed yet unseen button-pushers. Try having, if it weren’t impossible, a conversation with women concerning empowerment just 100 years ago; societal norms ensured that would-be advocates of egalitarianism of both sexes supported derogatory views. Yet even if we reject this line of thinking and concede that all choices made by women in modernity are fully informed and never influenced by pressures, when do we get talk about these choices? With no room to openly discuss lifestyles or beliefs, even while avoiding judgemental and confrontational rhetoric, this seems an odd place to leave conversation.
Having recently seen the Wonder Woman film, I, alongside other feminists, had some small concerns about the presentation of female empowerment in mainstream entertainment, particularly in the action genre. And I’m not just talking about the all-too-common Mary Sue archetype of a “perfect” woman – I can’t decide which gender this insults more and is probably one of the worst representations of women in entertainment since the femme-fatale. All too often I find that female characters appear as “strong” characters and even intended role models when they, in a certain sense, transcend their gender. Typified by language like “badass” these women are often found filling the traditional role of a man.[1] That is, Hollywood seems to equate a strong woman with one that displays typically male traits, which in reality isn’t quite true. Contrast this to James Cameron’s film, Aliens (which coincidentally Cameron himself did during a heated Twitter exchange).[2] In Aliens, Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley takes on a horde of hostile aliens but does so with a sense of visible and grounded fear, while exploring a thought-through character. It should be noted that any sexualisation is downplayed. Here we see a protagonist characterised by true bravery, depth and reality, a sense of motherhood and far less finesse and glamour than Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman, winner of Miss Israel. This isn’t at all surprising when one considers that the latter is a creation from a male mind of the 50s created for a comic book read almost entirely by a male audience. My point being that the current flawless archetype of heroine, who vanquishes foes, whilst sporting busty form-fitting attire and keeping an immaculate face of make-up is arguably an extension of some patriarchal fantasy rather than an inspiring role model for a new age. Both handling action and fantastical settings, one seems to celebrate womanhood in a grounded, respectful and insightful way, the other simply seems to celebrate manhood (superpowers aside). Now this is just an opinion (and probably not a very good one) – but these are exactly the kinds of views we need to exchange and debate. Well this, and why a schlock- type action-heroine should ever be considered a ‘role model’ for any gender, rather than a bit of light entertainment.[3]
But of course, opinions are either meaningless or every single person’s view is correct (“how can an opinion be wrong?” after all). If opinions are meaningless then so too is visual art, literature and religion – so put down your crucifixes and copies of Catcher in the Rye and cancel all book clubs and film appreciation societies. And of course, if we conversely agree with this radical equality of opinion, whereby everyone’s opinion is automatically correct, we get much the same result. Why then do people even bother opening their mouths or tweeting? Subjective opinions are so called because they have an ability to persuade and resonate with people. Of course, in one sense they are all correct, but without passion or reason a view usually doesn’t get very far. A few months back I had the rotten luck of hearing some homophobic views spouted from several representatives of an allegedly liberal branch of Christianity. Onlookers reminded me and anyone else who dared be offended and riposte that "people can believe what they want so long as they don’t harm anyone"… as if I or anyone else present had some manner of legal, physical or even telepathic means by which to actively stop them. In retrospect, what confused me most was the sheer vibe of moral and intellectual apathy present – apparently this Millsian-esque harm principle means we can only disapprove of things when they become actively illegal. Just because, behaviour is permitted doesn't prevent groups of people passionately debating ideas and values; an art that is seemingly not only lost but alien to the offline world.
Here’s another opinion on equality and its narrowed consideration using our example of broad media. Representation of the disabled is something that grows increasingly talked about. However, all too often the conversation is framed in the sense of simply obligating the need for numerical representation rather than discussing how the disabled are represented. If we take the example of dwarfism we can see various historical examples whereby smaller people are used primarily as comic-relief, with little depth of character beyond quirky comedic value and a sense of personhood defined entirely in relation to flaws and “abnormality”. This negatively-defined sense of being is communicated primarily by the tone of such art. Contrast this to the film X-Men: Apocalypse, an otherwise atrocious film in which Peter Dinklage, who has achondroplasia, a common form of dwarfism, plays the film’s primary antagonist. In the film, there is no mention of his stature. Any depth of character, plot progression or addition to overall themes are based solely on the aspirations of his character within the story, not informed by a disability. Of course, neither should the issue be swept under the rug however. There may be instances where attention to a disability, if well-handled can be beneficial or even central to a story. Taking yet another example from mainstream entertainment we have Game of Thrones where Dinklage, yet again, is cast. This time Dinklage’s character constantly suffers derogatory comments, and this in turn informs his character’s outlook. The difference with this example is tone. That is, this is framed with thematic relevance in a gritty fantasy setting where disability and strife are both wider themes in George RR Martin’s world and devices to establish empathy in an otherwise unfamiliar setting. Ultimately, I would argue, alongside many others, that being disabled is not a character in and of itself. Unless, through art, there is a well-intended point to be made about being disabled, it should probably avoid unnecessary mention. There are also important conversations to be had about whether some or all disabilities should be treated as such; that the defining of “disability” is entirely relational to a woolly or non-existent archetype of “normality” and/or is intrinsically unethical and objectifying. When diversity quotas and representation are so heavily focused on, these kinds of conversations about personhood can go neglected, and this conversation is an ongoing process.
This leads to another similar example from mainstream media. That is, the character of Bill Potts, the “companion” character in the most recent series of Doctor Who. During the course of the show we are informed frequently that Bill is openly lesbian and several references to her gender and race are mentioned, often several times per episode. Not only does this feel awkwardly forced into the narrative almost to a point of a fourth-wall meta-narrative but also serves to render Bill as nothing more than a sum of her minority status(es). In drawing so much emphasis to the general existence of minorities, Bill is almost reduced to the classic “token minority” character generally used in more dated entertainment. As with our example of dwarfism, we are occasionally left with characters who through ironic tragedy, like some strange parody of racist television are defined solely by their minority status. A more revised version of equality seems to suggest that being black, gay, mute or male should not typically be a story’s idea of a character in its own right and only in the experience of reacting to persecution or external narratives of identity should this inform personalities.
Now, one may argue that minority identity or culture can be expressed and even emphasised in a way that is not objectifying or stereotyping but in fact, liberating. A more sensitive and intelligent handling of minority status, woven into the narrative of a story would be a given in any at attempt this. (Perhaps the character of Bill Potts was such an attempt, rendered so shallow simply from bad screenwriting?). Whilst reactive positive discrimination and the more deplorable examples of actually reversing racism and sexism are not the ideal endgames of an equal society, perhaps certain distinctions and counter-culture are healthy, so long as they are self-expressed and not projected?
This is an interesting point and particularly compelling when presented by gay-rights activist Peter Tatchell who advocates the values of ‘gay liberation’ and ‘sexual freedom’ as a distinct part of a subculture rather than assimilating into a hegemony.[4] Tatchell argues that a narrowed obsession with “gay rights” represents ‘dumbed down aspirations’ and poor consequences of an equality without caveats or existential consideration is the push for sexual and gender equality.[5] For Tatchell, this ignores a broader, more subjective conversation about values. The question of equality sits within a wider conversation that is “what should society look like?”. He feels that rather than fall into heterosexual consensus after achieving certain legal rights, much like Feminists, gay-rights activists should attempt to transform society through conversation. This societal shift in behaviour and discourse is not necessarily achieved through policy and laws and is largely an open dialogue, subject to revision and discussion. This is a conversation about culture and individuals as it has always been, as much as it is about legislation.
For instance, we have the issue of gay marriage. Here we have the opportunity for a wider conversation about the relation between religion and sexuality. Whilst there are theological arguments and interpretational approaches to religion that ensure homosexuality can be congruent with Christian religiosity, Christianity has arguably never been one to celebrate any sexuality, yet alone same-sex relations. As Nietzsche reminds us, Christianity is the religion of “self-mutilation” – ‘life's nausea and disgust with life’.[6] Nietzsche for example argues, ‘faith has meant a sacrifice: the sacrifice of freedom, pride, spiritual self-confidence; it has meant subjugation and self-derision, self-mutilation’. Nietzsche talks also of ‘self-denial’ and ‘sacrifizio dell’intelletto’ (denial of the intellect). What he means by this is that, by virtue its very premise and in contrast to older religions, religion denies the notion of the natural self, to the point of self-loathing; urging us to transcend our very being. This negation of being, beginning in Genesis itself is prevalent in many Christian beliefs and practices – our very sense of self-worth is predicated on a relational idea of meaning. That is, we are inherently sinful, our desires are demonised and have no intrinsic worth; even our morality must be dictated. This is arguably a thematic motif common to almost every religion that seems to escape the comprehension of the secularised lay-person by and large.
So, while it’s a no-brainer that gay men and women should have equal rights, including the right to marry, it seems a strange state of affairs that we should collectively (forcefully) have to update a religion’s values in order to do so, rather than simply find another faith (or better still none). This is bizarre not least of all because the idea of “updating a church’s views” is theologically clumsy to say the least, projecting a weird notion of some inherent progressive linearity to a religion, that simply couldn’t exist, even if it wanted to.[7] The bottom line is that we need to open up a broader, more existential range of questions about equality; in this specific case, about why people feel the need for religious ceremony rather than a more inclusive (and still potentially spiritual) alternative, or indeed to identify as Christian at all.
And then we have the delightfully angry side of equality. The ineffectively shouty self-righteousness that storms lecture halls, bans contrary opinions and, going with our vague theme of entertainment, censors reviews of films like Ghostbusters and Black Panther.[8] Though partially overblown as an alt-right moral panic littered with fabrications, its something to keep an eye on… not to mention totally paradoxical to the classical ideals of liberty when all-black or all-female screenings of a film start to look like a good exercise of equality.[9] Or indeed, people are publicly shamed as misogynists and ‘man-babies’ for disliking cringe-worthy and shamelessly-consumerist comedies that happen to star a female cast.[10]
So ultimately, it can be argued that we should broaden our understanding of equality and think more carefully about exactly what we mean when we use the word. Not only must we think about what steps we can take, but also what the ultimate goal will look like, so we aren’t stuck in a twilight zone of endless reactionary positive discrimination that screams “we aren’t there yet”. I’m reminded of Morgan Freeman’s comments declaring that the only way to stop racism is to ‘stop talking about it’, that black history month draws unwanted attention to a divisionary concept of race.[11]
The true finality of egalitarianism is not reversing its dynamics but balancing them. Equality is not equivocal to numerical representation, neither is ethics fully captured in law. Without philosophical consideration, equality can be left to dry in a legislative vacuum rather than soaked into the rich fabric of cultural conversation. Oversimplification of the issue and a rejection of any parlance between subjectivity and meaning is one of many growing problems at the root of all these issues. Now sure, abandoning surety and self-righteousness while arguing confidently and persuasively is a difficult juggling act and something of a big ask.
In a world that offers up only soft-nihilism and iPhones when we ask for meaning it can be very tempting to adopt authoritarian language. The well-meant push for equality is no exception to this pitfall of dogma. Žižek even goes so far as to label radical forms of political correctness as ‘totalitarianism’.[12] Like all facets of life, equality should never fall victim to binary polemics and complacency - Not only because 2017 has proved that liberal equality can never be taken for granted, but because personal and collective freedoms are the cornerstones of liberalism.[13] Real equality needs us to be more questioning, of ourselves as well as others. This kind of explorative introspection is a much-needed virtue in modern debate. Indeed, with moral and intellectual courage rather than shouting louder online is only the way to solve such questions. Victories for liberties can never be won, practically or in principle, if the tactics used are unquestioned ideologies. Equality needs attention, it even needs laws, but most of all it needs conversation.
[1] Laura J. Mixon, Glass Houses (digitalNoir Publishing, 2010) p. 17
[2] Jake Nvins, The Guardian, James Cameron repeats Wonder Woman criticism: 'That’s not breaking ground', 27 September 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/sep/27/james-cameron-defends-wonder-woman-criticism [Accessed 10 April 2018]
[3] Jaelithe Leigh-Brown, Huffington Post, Why Wonder Woman Is A Great Role Model, 7 July 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jaelithe-leighbrown/wonder-woman-role-model_b_17412812.html [Accessed 10 April 2018]
[4] Peter Tatchell, Beyond Equality, New Humanist, 14 June 2007, https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/1263/beyond-equality [Accessed 02 March 2018]
[5] Ibid.
[6] Friedrich Nietzsche, transl. by Walter Kaufmann, The Birth of Tragedy (New Tork: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 2010) p.23
[7] Andrew B. R. Elliott, Medievalism, Politics and Mass Media: Appropriating the Middle Ages in the Twenty-First Century (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2017) p. 100
[8] Red Letter Media, YouTube, Scientist Man Analyzes Ghostbusters (2016), 2 August 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWROBiX1eSc [Accessed 01 April 2018]
[9] Associated Press in New York, The Guardian,
Women-only Wonder Woman showings sell out despite outcry, 27 May 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/may/27/women-only-screenings-wonder-woman [Accessed 04 March 2018]
[10] Splinter, Angry Baby-Men hate the new Ghostbusters trailer, https://splinternews.com/angry-baby-men-hate-the-new-ghostbusters-trailer-1793855178 [Accessed 2 April 2018]
Among countless examples.
[11] Morgan Freeman, YouTube, Morgan Freeman on Black History Month, 29 April 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeixtYS-P3s [Accessed 02 March 2018]
[12] Slavoj Žižek, Slavoj Žižek Calls Political Correctness a Form of “Modern Totalitarianism”, OpenCulture, 22 April 2015, http://www.openculture.com/2015/04/slavoj-zizek-calls-political-correctness-a-form-of-modern-totalitarianism.html [Accessed 01 March 2018]
[13] Recent examples include California and Bermuda’s repeal of gay marriage, Turkey’s reversion to an autocratic state, France’s bhurka ban and far right extremism on the rise in America and across Europe, all despite an increased pushes for equality.