Over the last year a mini-controversy has swirled around the American television show, Girls, which chronicles the lives of a group of angsty young women in Brooklyn. I haven’t watched the show because I used to live in Brooklyn and a show about the type of young women I used to hang with on the weekends sounds about as fun as a swift kick to the testicles. But I’ve read that some critics complain that Girls’ creator and head writer Lena Dunham has not put any black women into the show.
Unfortunately, the arguments and counterarguments that have kicked off in various left-leaning web sites and publications on both sides of the Atlantic fundamentally miss the point. In writing a show with an all-white, and let’s not forget well-to-do cast Dunham is not excluding anyone, she is faithfully reproducing the society that she and all these supposedly outraged journalists actually come from. What she has created is not incredibly risky, but it’s not disingenuous either. If you hail from the Land of White Privilege, it would be pandering of the worst sort to write it as anything but stocked to the gills with well to do white people (No one, by the way, has commended Dunham for including Jewish women, which, even fifty years ago would have been considered diverse. But alas, times change). So even if Dunham only writes about a small and somewhat repugnant part of western culture, at least she does so in a way that, within the boundaries of HBO comedies, is pretty honest.
My beef, instead, is with the writers and media types who are doing a big song and dance of ‘caring’ about race while studiously avoiding the questions they should actually be asking if they were to care about the topic without the quotation marks. If racial representation is important to them, why not ask…oh, I don’t know, why Dunham lives in a society in which the only non-whites are cleaning the floors or minding the babies? Or how about why are there are no shows about young, black women written directed and starred in by a young black woman? No easy answers here, just a lot more troubling questions.
This pretend discussion of race, this pantomime of controversy is indicative of a much larger trend: the present generation of western-centric mass media writers will only discuss divisive issues in the vaguest and most abstract terms – like when they appear in TV shows and/or sports. It’s the journalistic equivalent of ‘liking’ a cause on Facebook. Maybe journalists have always been this way but I suspect it has gotten worse since journalism went from being a somewhat disreputable vocation to a training ground for aspiring novelists. We are not people with nothing to lose. We are upper-middle-class strivers who are paid with advertising revenues from big business. This is not a solid base from which to start priming your intellectual Molotov cocktails.
For writers in particular, there is so much fear that comes with writing about race and class, or god help us, gender, because in doing so, we are not writing only of others, but of ourselves in relation to those others. So we are wracked by the fear of mis-stepping, fear of stigmatising or being stigmatised, fear of confronting our own prejudices while digging into subjects in which we may find that we are not the protagonists of the story, but the villains. There is no ‘safe’ way to approach such a task, no way to ensure that you don’t offend or set yourself up for ridicule. The world is bigger, more diverse, and messier than any of our forebears could have imagined, so to write about it honestly now is more complicated than ever. Unfortunately, we are not throwing ourselves into the task. Instead, many walk right up the edge of these gaping, black chasms that contain some of the most important questions of our time, peer over the precipice into darkness, then shrink back and pat themselves on the back, wonderfully please that they have dared to peek down there at all. This is ‘public discourse in the modern digital age.
We, the media, can be more, can do better. Indeed, it’s in our own self interest, as our paycheques get smaller and our jobs disappear, to start bringing up the issues that no one else wants to touch. Then, and only then, does the real discussion start, and our voices become more than empty shouts into an echo chamber.
You might like
The last days of St Agnes Place, London’s longest ever running squat
Off the grid — Photographer Janine Wiedel spent four years documenting the people of the Kennington squat, who for decades made a forgotten row of terraced houses a home.
Written by: Isaac Muk
As salmon farming booms, Icelanders size up an existential threat
Seyðisfjörður — The industry has seen huge growth in recent years, with millions of fish being farmed in the Atlantic Ocean. But who benefits from its commercial success, and what does it mean for the ocean? Phil Young ventures to the remote country to find out.
Written by: Phil Young
Activists hack London billboards to call out big tech harm
Tax Big Tech: With UK youth mental health services under strain, guerrilla billboards across the capital accuse social media companies of profiting from a growing crisis.
Written by: Ella Glossop
In photos: The boys of the Bibby Stockholm
Bibby Boys — A new exhibition by Theo McInnes and Thomas Ralph documents the men who lived on the three-story barge in Dorset, giving them the chance to control their own narrative.
Written by: Thomas Ralph
‘We’re going to stop you’: House Against Hate tap Ben UFO, Greentea Peng and Shygirl for anti-far right protest
R3 Soundsystem — It takes place on March 28 in London’s Trafalgar Square, with a huge line-up of DJs, artists and crews named on the line-up.
Written by: Ella Glossop
In photos: Lebanon’s women against a backdrop of war
Where Do I Go? لوين روح — As war breaks out in the Middle East once again, we spotlight Rania Matar’s powerful new photobook, which empowers women of her home country through portraiture.
Written by: Miss Rosen
