Identity and Perception in Media
Perception defines the way in which identity is understood and exhibited in our culture. With media’s role overtaking society as social networks expand, differing stereotypes and ideologies are exhibited on a public platform. News sources that are meant to be trusted and entertainment media that construct our interests prevail over the way in which people see both themselves and others.
The PBS video “Why Greater Diversity is Good for Hollywood’s Bottom Line” interviews Dr. Hunt whose research discusses the importance of on-screen diversity in terms of the way viewers perceive their own opportunities as well as how they frame other races and argues that diversity’s positive impact on the bottom line will lead executives to make a change. When Viola Davis was the first African American woman to win the Emmy for Best Actress she said, “you cannot win an Emmy for roles that are simply not there.” Dr. Hunt, chair of the Department of Sociology at UCLA and head of its center for African American studies, remarks that greater diversity in roles is not just important on an equality status but that that the on-screen notion that white males are in charge reinforces these ideals in the minds of the consumers and particularly effects minority youths, who may be discouraged from aspiring to certain careers and opportunities due to the lack of role models.
Dr. Hunt also argues, “people learn a lot about what they think they know about other people from what they see in the media. If they see certain types of images reproduced over and over again from other groups that limit them to narrow types of roles and portrayals, they start to take those prejudices into their interactions with those people in real society.” This leads to issues such as racial profiling based on the fear of black youth, which links back to images in the media. When understanding media as a keyword, we see how it “creates a sense of identity” for its users and many focus on this before looking into its role as a “purveyor of harmful stereotypes and violent images.” This dichotomy translates into how executives only consider the white sense of identity. However, Dr. Hunt found that “TV shows that roughly reflect the diversity of American society—that is, between 30 and 40% diverse on the screen—on average had the highest ratings.” Dr. Hunt included the white, male executive boards in his research so that they were forced to read his findings and argues that by connecting diversity to “dollars, to shareholder values, suddenly it becomes more of an imperative.”
While I find it problematic that executives will not have the incentive for more diversity on screen unless it is linked to revenue, I think this is a really realistic plan. It exemplifies the way in which the majority white, male executives who are privileged—and in this case extremely wealthy and highly powerful—on all aspects of their identity have never had to contemplate issues of diversity, as it does not affect them firsthand. Linking their own life in terms of the bottom line to the issue of inequality allows for those of the agent group to see the way in which equality actually benefits both sides. Dr. Hunt successfully exemplifies the importance of diversity as the viewer’s perceptions leak into their own life effecting their personal choices and the way in which they view racial hierarchy.
Like Viola Davis, Serena Williams faced many obstacles based on the stereotypes of African American women in her fame as not only a tennis player, but as an athletic media icon. In the New York Times article “The Meaning of Serena Williams” Claudia Rankine notes that Williams has earned 21 Grand Slam single titles and only lost 4 times in the 25 times she played in the finals. She has been called “a phenomenon that once every hundred years comes around” by the former top female tennis player. And yet, Williams has been critiqued about her body and given too many bad calls. While Williams is much more successful than Maria Sharapova on the court, the blonde, white player is seen as more marketable, as she is a visual representation of white ideals.
In regards to the keyword, Empire, we understand the United States as an as the language of control was changed to that of a “manifest destiny” where colonizers were just “chosen people in promise land.” This rhetoric is similar to Frederick Douglas’s references to “American Exceptionalism” in The Myth of Yellow Peril in which he holds African and Asian Americans to white colonial ideals, seeking integration in exchange for the group’s cultural identity. The idea of the U.S. as an Empire, in which the settlers changed the language of their colonization to manifest destiny as the “chosen people in promise land,” is similar to Frederick Douglas’s American Exceptionalism rhetoric in “The Myth of Yellow Peril”. Douglas exemplifies the way in which African and Asian Americans are held to white colonial ideals and seek integration in exchange for the group’s cultural identity. Thus our empire, ruled by white, colonial ideals shapes the way in which extremely successful black athletes and celebrities must go above and beyond.
As Rankine writes, “Only after they give 150 percent will white Americans recognize black excellence for what it is.” Or in other words, working harder to get past the “veil” and win in a white world. But Serena Williams “won’t go gently into the white light of victory” she speaks back against racism, deciding not to follow the script of silence and within that, rejecting the ideals of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny. Williams openly yells at the crowds and curses out the lineswoman, exposing her true emotions of joy, humor and rage, without fear of how she will be regarded. Serana Williams exemplifies the way in which media’s allotted roles for racial diversity dictate perceptions and thus figureheads who challenge these steryotypes must work all the harder to attain the reception of their white peers. As Dr. Hunt argues, while media stifles William’s visibility, she reaches fewer viewers as a role model or a positive personification of her race.
Media’s multitude of roles—on screen and in the news—collide in the depiction of the Stonewall Inn riots. The Stonewall Inn riots have become known as the beginning of the gay pride movement and recently were depicted in the film, Stonewall. Stonewall triggered conversation on how rioters were portrayed—or not shown at all—and linking back to the event’s history of divergent reportage. In 1969 the Stonewall riots were mainly treated as a local news item, and a day later, on June 29, the New York Times wrote an article titled ‘4 Policemen Hurt in “Village” Raid: Melee Near Sheridan Square Follows Action at Bar.’ The article continues on to say, “Hundreds of young men went on a rampage in Greenwich Village shortly after 3 A.M. yesterday after a force of plainclothes men raided a bar that the police said was well known for its homosexual clientele. Thirteen persons were arrested and four policemen injured.” The article mentions the name of the bar and says that the police had a search warrant to investigate reports that liquor was being sold illegally, remarking all the ways in which the “the young men” were violent towards the cops.
TIMEs looks at how the riots were covered over the years and notes that the words Stonewall Inn began to appear more frequently in the press as the movement became more mainstream as well and it was not until the 1980s that the phrase was more commonly used. In the New York Times article the protesters were all noted to be “young men” while much of the anger over the recent movie formulates around the fact that the transgender minority protesters were some of the main contenders yet were not depicted. As discussed in Cohen’s article on queer theory, this language depicts the way in which historically, the sexuality or race of the protesters was not seen as important to note or there wasn’t common understanding of queer terminology. Reflecting on the movie, it shows how a historical depiction is thwarted by discomfort that still holds true today in mainstream media. Cohen’s argument proves necessary, as it was a protest going against the power, and the people who, in their identities are going against heteronormativity, that had the strength to spark a movement.
These three narratives of identity touch on the complexities of perception and media’s role in our lives. Looking back on the Google auto-fill discussion, we see the way in which people rely on technology and social media to teach them about different identities. Whether intentionally searching for answers on Google or just digesting shows, movies and articles, people are learning about other races as well as their own race’s role in society. With more actresses like Viola Davis and athletes like Serena Williams defying the odds, faulty media perceptions like that of Stonewall will be of less and less significance. As Dr. Hunt makes clear, not only are these changes necessary for equality, but they benefit money-making industries as people actually enjoy viewing diversity at play.
Society and media go hand in hand and while issues persist in one forum, they will continue to flourish in the other. They play as building blocks off of each other, where perceptions come to light in society and are reflected in media, which tends to pick on stereotypes or depict extreme circumstances that are then played out and feared in society. This continues along in a circle that only changes when, as Dr. Hunt exposes, the institutional and structural levels of oppression, held by the executive board of white males, makes changes. The result of this cycle can be captured in Claire Kim’s “Racial Triangulation of Asians” graph that exposes the way in which society has come to understand different racial groups. Asian Americans are seen as “inferior” to Whites but “superior” to blacks and sit much closer on the spectrum to that of a “foreigner” than Whites and Blacks who are considered “insiders.” This simplification of a complicated process of immigration, slavery, oppression, education, economy and countless other factors depicts what has become the structural classification of race in America. Every identity group could be graphed on a similar chart, showing the way in which society and media collide to divide people.
In connecting and interpreting such different stories I see how this course allowed me to see the connections between identity groups. I loved the way in which, beginning with the very first class, we were very upfront about the topic of race and didn’t tip toe around things that are often seen as too “politically incorrect” to discuss. In particular I remember a discussion of the N-word and everyone being so open to voice their opinions on the matter. Our class was made up of a diverse group of people which really allowed for everyone to contribute their own experiences and the discuss things that they connected to. I learned that issues of race are articulated in so many formats as a means of expressing the complexities of these topics.
In analyzing all forms of sources from online articles, to video games to scholarly readings, I saw the way in which these issues span across so many mediums and topics. I remember being shocked to learn that photo film was not made to capture an array of skin tones and that developed images incredibly darkened the color of black people’s skin. The color correcting of the film had to be changed to articulate different tones. This struck a cord as pictures are such a personal and positive thing and yet, those with darker skin were excluded from even this. This brings me to the thought that nestled in the back of mind throughout this class: as a white woman privilege was given to me and even though I care about issues of race, there have definitely been many times when I have been able to overlook the pains and problems that others face. Throughout the course I tried to approach this thought by being open to learning as much as I can about the complexities of race rather than feeling guilty.
