Why I Don’t Like Rolemodels and “Crazy Rich Asians”
I recently posted a story about positive news-stories. But it didn’t talk about how these oppressive patterns in positive stories are internalized and reproduced, or how they occur beyond news-media and across multiple axes of oppression. So in this one we go one step deeper: What are the problems with rolemodels, strong female leads and films like “Crazy Rich Asians”?
Noble savages, strong female leads and disability as inspiration-porn
Examples of positive angles inadvertently working against the agenda of diversification stretch way further than the visible minority-Danes in the news, that I talked about in my last post. Think of the benevolence and kindness with which Queequeg is described in Moby Dick. At first glance this might look like a loving celebration of him, but if we look closer, this Noble Savage trope reproduces a dynamic of power through definition and mainly works to position the white narrator as kind, benevolent and generously nuanced.
Think of all the times women in leadership positions are used as examples of the success women could achieve through hard work. The underlying premise: that structural discrimination and glass-ceilings are not the problem, women are. Others have pointed to strong female leads (a category of stories which have garnered their own Netflix recommendation-page) often relying on stereotypically male forms of “strength”. I would add to that critique by asking: in celebrating a certain type of woman, are we implying that others aren’t worth celebrating (or mentioning)?
We have seen similar critiques of the representations of disabled folks as entirely innocent, helpless, victims, or strong, selfless, wise and almost magical (think of Deadpool, the Matrix, Whats up Gilbert Grape, or the Shape of Water). Much like is the case with our above described successful women or educated ethnic minorities — the positive stereotypes about people with disabilities serve to further a premise that they are different than the norm or at least that they can be evaluated by the majority for their merits — and perhaps to serve as inspiration porn. They are there to make the majority feel better about themselves, or to reinstitute normative frameworks for what constitutes a good minority or a model minority. By celebrating certain ways of “doing minority” the majority subversively institutes and reproduces norms of good and bad behavior.
Self-exposing panels and pretty black babies
“If there is an inferiority complex, it is the outcome of a double process:
— primarily, economic
— secondarily, the internalization — or better, the epidermalization — of this inferiority” — Fanon, White Skin, Black Masks quoted from Bulhan, p.196*
Whether a case of Fanons above described internalization or epidermalization or an example of performing as a “model minority”, positive stories of minority-success are frequently carried forth in Denmark by minoritized and othered groups.
Sometimes this occurs through highlighting of “role-models” or “good examples”, as has been the case with a series of panels by Danish minority-organization MinoDanmark.
Panels made up exclusively of minorities can be hugely empowering in contexts where most panels feature few or no minorities. However, when the premise, as has sometimes been the case with these talks, is that some panels feature normatively successful role-models (celebrities and public figures) while others give voice to the young minorities, the premise of normative hierarchization is reproduced yet again. Famous minorities are portrayed as worthy of admiration, while “regular” younger minorities are repositioned as subalterns who may only discuss their subalternity from a particular angle. We are reminded that there are particular ways we should be doing minority to be considered stage-worthy.
This premise becomes increasingly challenging when the topics of conversation typically vary to a degree where “successful” minorities talk about how they achieved success (subliminal message: you can do it if you work hard enough/ privilege is not an issue) or where “normal” minorities are tasked with discussing stereotypical topics like “homophobia in Islam”, sexism or “social control” in minority communities — often in spaces that cater to majority audiences (subliminal message; we agree with the majority that the key tasks we minorities should take up and discuss are those where we are viewed to be failing or standing in our own way).
At other times well-intended celebrations can have unplanned subliminal messages that task minority-content-producers with what might feel like a bigger burden of representation (for an excellent and short blogpost about the burden of representation check this one out).
For instance the Danish Podcast A Seat At The Table (ASATT) recently planned to air an episode on a white Danish celebrity couple and their adopted baby. What was initially framed as a celebration of a black baby garnering instant social media followings and an outpouring of love, quickly turned out to further the agenda of the white parents pro-adoption media-campaign, which had long served to undermine the adoption-critical activists of colour in Denmark. The podcast-producers faced tough critiques from activists working on racialization and adoption, for their seemingly uncritical reproduction of interracial fetishization, white saviors, and erasures of agency (by voicing adopters over activists and featuring a baby who didn’t have choice in the matter of its own exotification). The critique ended up leading to a cancellation of the episode, but it illustrates how important it is to be critical of premises behind our positive stories, even when we think we haven’t internalized oppressive structures and patterns.
Crazy rich Asians
Ending on a broader note (International Cinema) and closer to my research (representation in film), this pattern is mirrored in so many ways in films (from fiction to documentary — from hollywood and beyond).
Take for instance Crazy Rich Asians:
At first I was excited about this film. From the trailer it looks to be flipping stereotypes and reversing expectations — like a refreshing break from the poverty-porn so frequently associated with cinematic representations of Asia for Western consumption (think Slumdog Millionaire, Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Lion etc.). I remember feeling a sense of deja-vu when the trailer jokes about the assumption that if you have family in Asia, you are probably supporting them financially — a stereotype I have been confronted with myself.
It seemed a welcome and refreshing perspective, that a film could center on Americans not being wealthy/classy/cultured enough for Asians, when so many films center on American identity/nationality/belonging as a goal in itself.
But what are the premises for this “stereotype reversal”? Firstly it is premised on the assumption that wealth, “class” and financial success is the value by which we can hierarchize people — in other words, while it challenges racial stereotypes, it does so through reproducing classed ones. Secondly — the underlying narrative of a classist and seemingly nationalist/anti-american Mother-in-law/monster-in-law reproduces gendered, ageist and perhaps even racist assumptions — by villainizing the mother as an old-fashioned classist cultural elitist.
Whats more, the backdrop of the film is premised on erasure and oppression of Singapore minorities. To read more on this I recommend this excellent piece:
Takeaway
Positive stories can be great, and with a heavy backdrop of negative stereotypes it can seem like the lesser of two evils. However, whether you identify as a minority- or majority content producer it might be an important first step to check the underlying premise of your positive framing. A good place to start is to read up on exotification, sexualization and normativity. It might also be worth remembering that you can reproduce racism regardless of who you are, and even with the best intentions.
(If you speak Danish, this opinion piece in Information might help as well.)
Notes
*I have not read the entire book by Bulhan, but consider Bulhans clarification on the duality of Fanons argument (as a simultaneous outside-in framing of inferiority simultaneous to inside-out self-performance/reproduction of it) to be relevant to this argument in particular. It also very much mirrors my understanding of Fanons argument as balancing between the agency-acknowledging self-performative aspects of internalization meanwhile acknowledging the relative fixicity of the system of oppression within which subalterns navigate.
Bibliography
Bulhan, Hussein Abdilahi. Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression. Springer Science & Business Media, 2004.
Norden, Martin F. The cinema of isolation: A history of physical disability in the movies. Rutgers University Press, 1994.
