Representations of Diversity in Canadian Television Entertainment

, Representations of Diversity in Canadian Television Entertainment Programming: Case Studies Media Action Media Representations of Diversity in Canadian Television Entertainment
Programming
Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................4 Overview ..............................................................................................................................................4 Methodological Approach....................................................................................................................5 Key Findings .........................................................................................................................................5 Canadian Television Policy Challenges and Relevance.............................................................................9 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................9 Legislative Framework .......................................................................................................................11 Broadcasting Act ............................................................................................................................13 Employment Equity ........................................................................................................................14 Canadian Multiculturalism Act .......................................................................................................15 Key Actors and Regulators .................................................................................................................16 Canadian Heritage..........................................................................................................................16 Telefilm Canada..............................................................................................................................16 CBC/Radio-­‐Canada .........................................................................................................................17 CRTC ...............................................................................................................................................17 Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) .................................................................................19 Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) ..............................................................................21 Specialty-­‐Licensed Television Broadcasters: APTN and VisionTV...................................................22 Theoretical and Discursive Framework for the Case Studies .................................................................23 Television as Mirror and Shaper of Canadian Identity .......................................................................23 Political Economy of Employment Equity, Television Production, and Diversity ...............................26 Cultural Industries and Arts Labour Force......................................................................................26 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................31 Case Studies Overview ...........................................................................................................................34 Methodology......................................................................................................................................34 Case Studies Summaries ....................................................................................................................35 1
Case Study #1: The Border .................................................................................................................37 Characters ......................................................................................................................................37 Plot Narrative .................................................................................................................................40 Gender ...........................................................................................................................................41 Race and Ethnicity ..........................................................................................................................46 Class ...............................................................................................................................................50 Sexual Orientation..........................................................................................................................51 Disability.........................................................................................................................................51 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................52 Case Study #2: Little Mosque on the Prairie ......................................................................................52 Characters ......................................................................................................................................53 Plot Narrative .................................................................................................................................56 Gender ...........................................................................................................................................58 Race, Ethnicity, Religion .................................................................................................................61 Class ...............................................................................................................................................65 Sexual Orientation..........................................................................................................................66 Disability.........................................................................................................................................68 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................68 Case Study #3: Da Kink in My Hair .....................................................................................................69 Characters ......................................................................................................................................70 Plot Narrative .................................................................................................................................71 Gender ...........................................................................................................................................71 Race and Ethnicity ..........................................................................................................................73 Class ...............................................................................................................................................74 Sexual Orientation..........................................................................................................................75 Disability.........................................................................................................................................75 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................75 Case Study #4: Being Erica .................................................................................................................76 Characters ......................................................................................................................................77 Plot Narrative .................................................................................................................................80 Gender ...........................................................................................................................................83 Race and Ethnicity ..........................................................................................................................92 2
Class ...............................................................................................................................................94 Sexual Orientation..........................................................................................................................95 Disability.........................................................................................................................................98 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................98 Case Study #5: Degrassi: The Next Generation ..................................................................................99 Characters and Plot Narrative ........................................................................................................99 Gender .........................................................................................................................................104 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................107 Class .............................................................................................................................................109 Sexual Orientation........................................................................................................................110 Disability.......................................................................................................................................111 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................111 Case Study #6: Flashpoint ...............................................................................................................112 Characters ....................................................................................................................................112 Plot Narrative ...............................................................................................................................114 Gender .........................................................................................................................................117 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................121 Class .............................................................................................................................................125 Sexual Orientation........................................................................................................................127 Disability.......................................................................................................................................129 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................129 References .......................................................................................................................................131 Appendix One: Diversity Related Policy Initiatives...........................................................................141 Appendix Two: Biographies of Contributors ....................................................................................158 3
Executive Summary
-­Hanna Cho Overview In Canada, the reflection of diverse groups in society in our media is understood to be necessary for the existence of a healthy civil society. Canada has led the way in institutionalizing definitions of multiculturalism and cultural diversity through its Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) and The Canadian Multiculturalism Act passed by Parliament in 1988. Canada has an immensely multicultural population. Approximately one in five citizens is classified as first generation Canadians – i.e., foreign born – as of the 2006 census. Between 2001 and 2006, Canada’s visible minority population increased by 27 per cent, five times faster than the growth rate of the overall population (Statistics Canada, 2009). The relationship between cultural diversity and the media in a changing Canadian society continues to be key to the development of Canadian identity and presence in a larger global context. Important issues to consider include how different communities engage with media, as well as how media reflect and define the nature of Canadian society in terms of race, ethnicity, and citizenship. Mass media talk, images and written text are recognized as having a fundamental role in defining how we frame issues as well as how we perceive ourselves and the world around us. When social change happens quickly, people often look to the media to help make sense of their evolving socio-­‐cultural context. Media produce and present information, analyses and social values that influence the formation of attitudes about racial, cultural, sexual, class-­‐based, and religious diversity. Power relations structure the process of how people frame the world, differentiate themselves, and define social categories. Popular representations of the world are instrumental in the reproduction of sociopolitical dominance. This is exemplified in contemporary Canadian non-­‐news television programming. In a programming landscape as diverse as the populations it aims to represent, media play a significant role in challenging or reproducing the dynamics between dominant norms, subjugated differences and counter-­‐normative approaches. Given the model of multicultural harmony and socio-­‐cultural diversity for which Canadians are renowned, how deeply do Canadians actually embrace diversity? What is the level of acceptance and inclusion among various groups? How is this exemplified in, reflected and supported by representations of diversity in Canadian entertainment (i.e. non-­‐news) television programming?
Complex, realistic, and intersecting narratives, characters, and characterizations on television shows can highlight and affirm a shared vision for social equity and intercultural balance. Equally, one-­‐
dimensional, tokenistic, and stereotypical representations of visible minorities, persons with physical disabilities, or non-­‐heterosexual orientations can reinforce outmoded and unrealistic depictions of a changing Canadian socialscape. At its best, Canadian dramatic programming engenders a sense of normalcy around an increasingly diverse population, and moves fluidly and naturally beyond racialized stereotypes. At their worst, programs deploy narratives and characters whose stereotypical portrayals, muted token appearances, and outright omissions ignore the diversity that is part of the 4
new Canadian reality, instead reinforcing a heteronormative, white, middle-­‐class fantasy that may serve to alienate groups within Canadian society. This report aims to address and ameliorate concerns that centre around what media researcher Philip Savage has identified as: 1. the small amount of existing empirical work on the diversity of content in the media, especially in broadcasting and on new digital platforms[, and 2.] the inconsistent application of empirically based research to current media and cultural policy debates (Savage, 2008, 297). Methodological Approach To create this report, Media Action engaged in an in-­‐depth analysis of several popular Canadian primetime television dramas as well as a policy review of related broadcasting, equity in employment, and multiculturalism policy initiatives. Six primetime television shows were examined as case studies: The Border, Little Mosque on the Prairie, Da Kink in My Hair, Being Erica, Degrassi: The Next Generation, and Flashpoint. A set of research questions was posed to each in order to uncover and examine contemporary representations of diversity in Canadian television. The methodology used in these case studies was a combination of content analysis and informal Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Specifically, representations of diversity considered the following categories: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Gender
Race, Ethnicity and Religion
Class
Sexual Orientation
Physical Ability
In each case study, content analysis was used to reveal the quantitative frequencies of representation. These findings configured the framework for qualitative insights through CDA regarding how these categories are constructed. As a methodological tool, CDA is especially useful for investigating how power is diffused through a series of discursive, semantic and linguistic moves in media representations. CDA theorists show how “media use can tell us a great deal about social meanings and stereotypes projected through language and communication” (Bell and Garrett, 1998, 3). This analysis uses the lens provided by Teun A. Van Dijk’s (1988) description of the “ideological square” of “us” and “them” in which in-­‐groups are represented in positive terms and out-­‐groups in negative terms. A series of criteria are employed to elucidate and make explicit the relationship between media texts, ideology, and power. In this study, CDA is used as a mode of analysis to qualitatively and quantitatively decode how groups are included, foregrounded, occluded and excluded to create a particular ideological construction that privileges particular perspectives. Key Findings The report presents key results and central themes addressing how primary and secondary characters, narratives, and representations of gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and disability create categorical constructions of ‘us’ and ‘them’ or provide a more complex, nuanced 5
construction of Canadian identity. It is important to note that identity is fluid and multi-­‐dimensional, incorporating numerous categories. For example, one could concurrently identify as Aboriginal, female and Canadian. The subdivisions act as general guidelines rather than as separate and unrelated categories. Consequently, in some instances, a multi-­‐layered, intertwined analysis occurred in the case studies.
Representations that follow and reinforce traditional gender roles are the norm: Female characters are occasionally constructed to challenge traditional gender roles in minor ways. However, male characters are typically constructed to reinforce traditional stereotypes. Where gender roles were found to extend beyond the traditional, there were limits that disallowed the subversion of stereotypes in most shows. For example, an emphasis on physical feminine beauty and desirability remain important plot development points. Even when scenarios around parenting and motherhood are constructed to suggest that an alternate configuration of roles and duties is possible (i.e. one that is not contingent on traditional gender-­‐assigned expectations), ultimately, storylines are resolved through characters who settle into a familiar confirmation of traditional divisions.
Nuanced feminist portrayals of male and female characters are uneven: Women are well-­‐
represented in Canadian television programming, although increased representation of women is not necessary indicative of a feminist or equity agenda. In other words, flipping the point of view from male to female does not guarantee a fundamental shift in the representation of women within television media. Certain shows (e.g. Flashpoint) reinforce a patriarchal framework through a series of stereotypical representations and narrative reproductions of male/female power dynamics. Other shows (e.g. Little Mosque on the Prairie, The Border) present a more complex configuration of male/female characters, particularly in relation to religion or identity. In the case studies, there is a significant gender imbalance in favour of men when it comes to portrayals of characters holding positions of influence and power, though it is also evident that there is no easy answer to the question of whether and how stereotypes are being reinforced. Troubling persistence of sexist gender constructions: A close examination of dialogue in individual episodes of most of the case studies in this report demonstrate the persistence of a problematic, and unexamined discursive sexism. In many cases, the main and secondary characters—as well as guest and recurring characters—exemplify and rely on gender stereotypes in a variety of ways. Superficially or initially “modern” representations of men and women are contrasted on-­‐screen with traditional representations as evidence of the program’s progressive view. Being Erica is an excellent example. This seems to suggest that the goals of liberal feminism have been met. However, these representations obscure some of the more subtle and complex ways in which women are subjugated within the Canadian context. Characters are infrequently constructed in a way that represents intersecting inequalities: For example, few representations address complex or multiple identity issues dealing with race and gender or religion and feminism, or sexual orientation and class. More typically, characters whose lives involve a visible difference from the mainstream—such as a gay character on Degrassi—will 6
likely not be constructed as also being poor, non-­‐White or even unpopular. In Little Mosque on the Prairie, there are no non-­‐heterosexual Muslim characters. And in Flashpoint, the non-­‐able-­‐bodied are typically elderly and almost always White.
Depictions of characters with differing levels of physical ability, and their social realities, are absent: Canadian television dramas contain few depictions of persons with disabilities. There are occasional secondary characters on shows like Degrassi, where students with learning and behavioural disorders, such as Asperger Syndrome and Attention-­‐Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), are talked about as plot points. However, the emphasis in these depictions typically point to the potential for “fixing the problem” in order to generate a productive, “normal” life, rather than normalizing the experience of those who suffer from psychological and neurobehavioural disorders. Otherwise, temporary physical injuries constitute the only representations of disability on most shows. Both types of experiences of disability are overwhelmingly framed as inconveniences—which must be eliminated—in characters' otherwise normal lifestyles.
There is growing visibility for a broader range of sexual orientations: Non-­‐stereotypical portrayals and constructions of gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender characters are beginning to emerge in Canadian dramatic television programs, with a notable rise in the appearance of well-­‐adjusted and popular gay characters over the last decade. Portrayals of “double bound” characters (i.e. race/sexuality) were found to be almost non-­‐existent, with the exception of a singular inclusion of a rarely-­‐invoked Black lesbian character on an episode of Da Kink in My Hair. The majority of shows analyzed for this report were found to assume a heteronormative representation of gender with the majority of leading characters constructed as heterosexual. When alternative sexual identities are introduced, these representations fall back on oversimplified and stereotypical constructions of queer identity.
In Canada, almost everyone is middle-­‐class: Differences in class are not overlooked, and class representation is critically treated in Canadian television programs. Nonetheless, middle-­‐class norms are generally reproduced. In most programs studied for this report, main characters all appear to lie somewhere in the middle class. Especially in shows like Being Erica, The Border, Little Mosque on the Prairie, and Da Kink in My Hair, there is a marked focus on establishing economic and professional capital as central concerns for Canadians, pointing to a presupposition of—or orientation towards—
upper middle-­‐class values. When a show does portray a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, it often does so through its guest characters who change from episode to episode rather than through its main or secondary characters. Often, variations between main and secondary characters’ economic, social and cultural capital are relatively minor. Analysis reveals that there is a consistent erasure of class distinction.
Except where the show’s central premise focuses explicitly on a specific ethnocultural group, main characters are rarely non-­‐White: With few exceptions, a dominant framework of Canadian identity as whiteness remains a programming benchmark. Even when there is significant diversity in the ethnic makeup of a show’s characters, such as that represented on Degrassi: The Next Generation or Little Mosque on the Prairie, it is clear that shows conceive of and reproduce a framework of 7
whiteness as the benchmark for Canadian identity. Indeed, the dominant dynamic in Canadian television shows is that White people make up the majority of the main characters while racialized characters play secondary roles, despite the incongruity of this representation with census statistics and the experience of the majority of Canadians in the world outside television.
Multiculturalism is celebrated yet still reinforces the “Other”: Programs analysed for this report were found to simultaneously construct Canada as a multiethnic and multiracial nation, and continue to reinforce certain traditional binaries of “us” and “them”. This reflects an inherent ambiguity in broader Canadian society where constructions of nationhood continue to be defined in contrast to the “Other”. The presentation of Canada as a heterogeneous nation on several shows is demonstrated by the inclusion of different racialized and ethnicized groups such as African-­‐
Canadians, Russians, Chinese, Latin Americans, Quebecois and Aboriginal peoples. Many programs portray Canada as a robustly multi-­‐ethnic and multi-­‐religious nation. In some cases, such as Degrassi: The Next Generation, shows employ diversity in the cast to demonstrate assimilation of religious and racial groups in the mainstream. Despite these diverse representations, shows such as The Border and Flashpoint maintain a framework in which “whiteness” is the normative yardstick.
Canadian television programs are likely to reinforce religious stereotypes in nuanced ways rather than challenge or subvert them: In some of the case studies undertaken for this report, there were some interesting representations of Muslim-­‐Canadian communities, and explicit challenges to mainstream notions of Islam. However, even in these cases, the association between Canada, Western culture, modernity and tolerance is presented as a contrast to a negative conflation of non-­‐
Western countries and cultures with backwardness and intolerance. In other words, even when religious diversity is raised and normalized to some degree, the end result is still that a White, Judeo-­‐
Christian Canadian experience is the desired and superior norm.
Conclusion
The overwhelming majority of shows analysed for this report were found to reaffirm the myth of Canada as a robust democracy in which there is a comfortable plurality of cultures, religions, and ethnicities. This situation frequently generates conflict in dramatic or comedic narratives. However, the conflict is always successfully resolved on the program. Where a diversity of characters, religious groups, sexual identities, and gender dynamics are represented, the overwhelming conclusion—
episode after episode—is that Canadian (predominantly White, liberal, and middle-­‐class) society blends myriad differences into a moderate and assimilated nation. That is, shows studied in this report were found to reproduce what Himani Bannerji (2000) critiques as the Canadian model of multiculturalism: racially and ethnically other members are welcomed insofar as they organize themselves around a White center of power. 8
Canadian Television Policy Challenges and Relevance
-­Hanna Cho and Mary Elizabeth Luka Introduction In Canada, a comprehensive legislative and policy framework exists to address the production and distribution of television programming. Particular regulation and funding structures exist to support the development, recording and editing of entertainment programming with a specifically Canadian view, approach, or subject matter. This complex series of mechanisms has evolved over time, partly in response to cultural identity issues and socio-­‐economic pressures. This section of the report offers the context for analyzing the case studies selected. This includes a significant number of the policy challenges and key actors within the theoretical, discursive and political economy frameworks. Catherine Murray is a leading scholar in the field of broadcasting policy in Canada. Based at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Murray has published widely on matters related to this subject, including a comprehensive analysis of diversity in media programming and production. Her most recent research clearly demonstrates that in the last two decades, the policy treatment of matters of integration, inclusion, and racial representation in mainstream conventional television has evolved in tandem with a contemporaneous shift in perspectives connected to multiculturalism. The shift from treatment based on recognition of difference, to treatment based on citizenship and rights, includes: integration, inclusion, and racial representation in mainstream, conventional television…This political and policy shift was evident in the 1999 CRTC [Canadian Radio-­‐Television Telecommunications Commission] review of its TV policy, [where the] two [overarching] objectives were set for conventional broadcasters [in Canada, that: 1)] The broadcasting system should be a mirror in which all Canadians see themselves fairly portrayed, accurately, and without stereotypes.
[2)] The broadcasting system should allow the participation of producers, writers, technicians, and artists from different cultural and ethnic perspectives (Murray, C., 2009a, 680). According to Murray, the emphasis has been on achieving the latter goal, including through employment equity programs. Agreeing with Marc Raboy (2010), Murray observes that media consolidation in the 1990s onwards has had a significant impact on the industry and its employment opportunities for creative personnel from underrepresented perspectives (Murray, C., 2009a).
Murray critiques the paucity and inconsistency of accountability measures by the Canadian Radio-­‐
Television Telecommunications Commission: Indeed, the Commission's only requirement of private broadcasters is to submit diversity compliance audits in the context of the licence renewals. Private broadcasters in Canada have sought to self-­‐regulate in order to fulfil the CRTC's expectations of representing diversity and equitable portrayals of diverse groups, through associations and industry groups such as the CAB (Canadian Association of Broadcasters) and the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) (Murray, C., 2009a, 681). 9
Murray’s findings are consistent with complementary research concerning access to digital technology and analyses of who has the “right to communicate” in Canada. In essays collected for Media Divides (2010), several of the authors explore the implications of the regulatory and legislative context in Canadian broadcasting for multiculturalism and diversity. Marc Raboy focuses on the tensions between commercial media ownership and broadcasting as a regulated form of public discourse, as well as the (many missed) opportunities available and (often mis-­‐) representations produced for broadcast in Canada for ethnic and racial minorities (Raboy, 2010, especially 109-­‐117). In the same collection, Leslie Regan Shade elucidates key limiting divides or “imbalances” for underrepresented communities and groups to participate in the digital communications era (including digital broadcasting), drawing on the research categories proposed by Pippa Norris, including “social,… global… and democratic divides”(Shade, 2010, 127-­‐129). Shade also traces the recent history of certain kinds of technological communication as a social utility and public good in Canada, including its legal history and the degree to which the internet has or has not been accessible in Canada, particularly in the last decade. On the verge of the changeover to digital-­‐only broadcasting services in Canada scheduled for the fall of 2011, understanding the relationship between internet access and broadcasting access—and its potential in Canada for diverse communities—becomes urgent. The “Access Rainbow” model first developed by Andrew Clement and Leslie Regan Shade and updated in the above essay, elucidates the several criteria required to ensure broad and deep access in Canada for broadcast and related services (Clement and Shade, 2000; Shade, 2010). Drawing from a similar—though more narrowly-­‐focused—use of the term “access,” Murray (2009) discusses the way in which linguistic concerns and language are prioritized in the regulatory context in Canada. These priorities limited production and broadcast opportunities for diverse groups who sought to broadcast in their own voices. In the 1990s, the priority for most Canadian racial equity-­‐seeking groups seemed to be to play the regulatory game of obtaining ownerships of third-­‐language undertakings under the so-­‐
called access policy. Few direct calls emerged for a code of racial portrayal to hold mainstream (English language) broadcasters to account….Indeed, there remains a strong preference for strengthening public broadcasting in Canada, in the public interest regulations, rather than creating a system of enforced standards for the private sector. The CRTC [had not] established regulatory quotas for multicultural programming similar to [public broadcaster Nederlandse Programma Stichting] NPS in Holland or those called for by the NAACP [(National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)] in the U.S. (Murray, C., 2009a, 682). As Murray (2009) argues, little pressure has arisen politically in favour of a race portrayal code in Canada since the prohibitions in place as part of the CABs general code of ethics are generally accepted to be effective enough by the CRTC and the industry. Murray suggests, however, that equity-­‐seeking groups follow the reasoning that voluntary standards are inadequate “in the face of structural or systemic racism, since they are typically based on ‘soft power’ or lack of explicit sanction” (Murray, C., 2009a, 683).
10
These findings confirm Paul de Silva’s analysis of proceedings from A National Forum on Canadian Media, Race, And Cultural Diversity in the 21st Century, organized by CRARR (Centre for Research Action On Race Relations) and FAVEM (Filmmakers Association of Visible and Ethnic Minorities). De Silva (2009) points out that the two particularly fraught areas of exclusion of diversity in Canadian media production are in the wealthiest genres of production (i.e. drama including films and television series), and in the lack of diversity among lead producers, directors and writers. Legislative Framework It is crucial to study the impact of legislation and regulation in the Canadian broadcast environment in order to address diversity in programming. More broadly, in Canadian legislation, the recognition and inclusion of diversity is presented as a necessary precondition for democracy. This commitment to diversity is formally entrenched at the constitutional level. International analyses of the Canadian commitment is often couched in highly positive and almost-­‐boastful ways. For example, Department of Canadian Heritage Senior Policy Analyst John Foote describes the term this way: The government of Canada employs the term "diversity" in positive, nation-­‐reaffirming terms in its public declarations. Canada believes that countries must have the capacity to promote cultural diversity by: • acknowledging and treating cultural diversity as a public good and ensuring that citizens have the opportunity to make their voices and opinions heard in a changing world; • striking a balance between remaining open to other world cultures and promoting local, regional and national cultural expressions; and • sharing cultural perspectives so that each country's stories and experiences contribute to enriching world culture. Diversity, including cultural diversity, is viewed as a social strength in Canada. [This is manifested by most politicians and policymakers through support of a particular line of reasoning:] diversity of cultural expression promotes creativity and new ways of understanding complex issues; global connections with countries or heritage of origin and the building of new social and cultural capital in support of economic values such as skill development and enhanced productivity (Foote, 2010). This approach is consistent with the emphasis on social justice and liberal democratic principles offered in the analysis of broadcast communications and related technology policy in Media Divides (Raboy, Shtern et al, 2010), as well as in discussions about the relationship between citizenship and broadcasting in Canada. For example, Raboy, Serge Proulx, and Peter Dahlgren (2003) describe the development of democracy in part through the concept of “social demand”. This could be a normative concept—indicating a desire to have people engage in democratic participation through cultural production, expression and reception—and as Raboy, Proulx and Dahlgren hope, could be measurable via “policy discourse analysis [coupled with] audience/user enquiry…to incorporate an understanding of how individuals negotiate their own positioning [in culture, democracy, society]” (2003, 324-­‐325). 11
In either case, the highly regulated environment of broadcasting provides plenty of documentation as evidence of societal beliefs concerning identity and cultural expression in Canada. Without a doubt, one of the key players in this field is the regulatory body: the Canadian Radio-­‐
television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Television has been a regulated medium since its inception in Canada early in the 20th century (Raboy, 1990, 2010). The CRTC addresses the issue of diversity in direct reference to its mandate. In particular, the CRTC’s 1999 Television Policy Review was a key milestone in the development of cultural diversity initiatives. In its revision of the policy framework for private television, the Commission outlined its objectives respecting diversity in the broadcasting system. In particular, the CRTC stated: “The Commission will expect all conventional television licensees to make specific commitments to initiatives designed to ensure that they contribute to a system that more accurately reflects the presence of cultural and racial minorities and Aboriginal peoples in the communities they serve” (1999, n.p.). The Media Awareness Network discusses the CRTC and its relationship to representation of diversity in the following manner: These guidelines are only voluntary but they do have some teeth. Since the CRTC grants licenses to networks and stations, it has the authority to take action against broadcasters that don’t comply. Actions include calling a broadcaster to appear at a special public hearing, imposing special conditions of license or granting only a short-­‐term renewal [rather than a five-­‐ or ten-­‐year license] (Media Awareness Network, 2010). However, the preferred mechanism to ensure compliance has typically featured bilateral private consultations between the CRTC and the broadcaster only. This elicits criticism from citizen groups since there is no mechanism between licence renewal periods for citizen groups to intervene or comment about license conditions or programming that has veered away from licensing commitments (Murray, 2009). This is significant because of the sometimes lengthy time periods between license renewal hearings. In the case of Canadian public broadcaster, CBC, for example, the last full round of license renewal was in 1999, and has most recently been delayed until June 2012. The 1999/1985 Ethnic Broadcasting Policy is multi-­‐tiered and complex, particularly in terms of its language-­‐of-­‐origin formula for broadcast services. It neither requires nor addresses the possibility of conventional networks presenting programming in languages other than French or English. Rather, it addresses the licensing of ethnic broadcasters. The CRTC requires the calculation of a complicated series of percentages of Canadian content and ethnic programming in the various languages on offer at the channel. Each ethnic broadcaster must provide programming to at least one linguistic group other than its core audience, but not to many linguistic groups. Neither may these compete with the main French and English channels. Communications scholar Lorna Roth has analysed the relationship between the CRTC and some specific racialized and ethnicized groups. In her insightful discussion of the 1988 Multiculturalism Act, the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, both versions of the Ethnic Broadcasting Policy, and attempts by a Toronto businessman to launch a multi-­‐cultural channel in Canada, Lorna Roth suggests the Ethnic Broadcasting Policy seems to have resulted in impressive inter-­‐cultural relations between 12
specific linguistic and multicultural groups in Canada. However, this has not resulted in a unified, multi-­‐cultural broadcast service that can address itself to the nation as a whole (Roth, 2008). In the latter discussion of broadcasting in Canada, Roth also points to the founding of the (multi-­‐lingual, multi-­‐cultural, multi-­‐community) Aboriginal People’s Television Network (APTN)’s in 1999. This is an important and useful counterpoint to the lack of a cohesive multicultural broadcasting model to date, other than that of First Peoples. Though founding peoples are not immigrant groups or multicultural constituencies, they are grouped together in some CRTC regulations, and so there may be common ground to be observed in noting achievements and challenges having to do with licensing and program production. The CRTC's mandate is elucidated in a key clause relating to diversity in the 1991 Broadcasting Act which says “the broadcasting system should, through its programming and employment opportunities serve the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspiration, of ...the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society” (Broadcasting Act, 1991, 3 (1) d (iii)). Other relevant legislation discussed below includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Official Languages Act and the Employment Equity Act. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is also relevant to this topic, but in an indirect manner. Broadcasting Act The Media Awareness Network provides a comprehensive and useful description of the Canadian Broadcasting Act on its website. It states: The federal Broadcasting Act was originally established in 1968, and amended in 1991. The goal [of…] this Act is to [reflect and influence] Canada’s cultural fabric and thereby strengthen its economic, political and social structures. The Broadcasting Act includes three main sections: a broadcasting policy for Canada; the regulatory powers of the Canadian Radio-­‐television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC); and operating procedures and policies for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). The Act imposes a Canadian-­‐owned and controlled system of broadcasting, and includes provisions regarding Canadian content in programming and production. It encourages the development of Canadian expression, and the use of Canadian talent and creative resources. [The Act contains a specific requirement to reflect] Canada’s cultural diversity: section 3 states that programming and employment opportunities should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, and reflect their various backgrounds and circumstances (Media Awareness Network Website: Canadian Broadcasting Act Overview, 2010). The Broadcasting Act sets out the CRTC’s responsibility to evaluate applications and deliverables for broadcasting licenses. The language suggests that broadcasters must produce and present to a high “standard of programming.” The Media Awareness Network also emphasizes the lack of explicit regulatory direction relating to violence and hate in combination with cultural diversity, devolving the responsibility to the CRTC. In turn, “if a broadcaster fails to follow the Broadcasting Act policies or regulations, the CRTC may invoke a [limited] number [and type] of penalties – such as imposed fines, 13
or limiting or denying a station’s application for license renewal” (Media Awareness Network Website: Canadian Broadcasting Act Overview, 2010). Employment Equity In Canada in the 1980s, the development of employment equity legislation, practices and approaches clearly deeply inflected the history of minority rights in Canada. For example, the relatively late arrival of the 1982 Canadian Constitution Act including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which came into effect in 1985) during the maturing of second-­‐wave feminism, gave rise to organizations such as the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF: www.leaf.ca). In turn, this allowed for the development of deliberate strategies by non-­‐profit social justice organizations like LEAF to set Charter of Rights precedents in the justice system using the pro bono work of committed volunteer lawyers that could then influence the crafting of legislation. Further, a John Samuel & Associates Report updated in 2008, notes the impact of the Abella Royal Commission in this area. The report suggests that parliamentary response to relatively high levels of [visible minority] immigration [in Canada combined with a uniquely Canadian definition of equality based on the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as a resistance to the nature of] affirmative action program in the U.S. [gave rise] to "employment equity" programs in Canada. [In particular,] two significant reports in 1984 shaped the future of employment equity initiatives in Canada. In that year, the Parliamentary Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society produced [the] Equality Now! [Report]. The report pointed out that Canadian society constitutes a "vertical mosaic" in which some ethnic groups were, economically and socially, more privileged than others. Eighty recommendations were put forward, of which several were aimed at employment. The second [key report emerged from] a Royal Commission [headed] by Judge Rosalie Abella. Equality in Employment pointed out that the American term, "affirmative action", often spark[ed] a negative emotional reaction as it is equated with reverse discrimination or hiring and promotion based on target group membership, rather than merit. The term "employment equity" was coined to refer to measures to eliminate [systemic] discriminatory employment barriers and procedures. The report proposed employment equity as a "…strategy to obliterate the present and the residual effects of discrimination and to open equitably the competition for employment opportunities to those arbitrarily excluded. It requires a special blend of what is necessary, what is fair, and what is workable” (Abella, 1984, 254 qtd in John Samuel & Associates). These two reports prepared the ground for the Employment Equity Act of 1986. [This Act] applied to federally-­‐regulated employers with 100 or more employees (representing about one-­‐tenth of the Canadian labour force) [though it] excluded the federal public service, the [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] (RCMP) and the military. A new Employment Equity Act came into force on October 24, 1996, bringing almost all of the public service under its purview [including the CBC] (John Samuel & Associates, Canadian Human Rights Commission, 1997, qtd in Visible Minorities Report, Section 2.2, CHRC website, 2008) 14
The Employment Equity Act (1995) codes and principles form the foundation for much of the private broadcasting industry's employment equity and diversity-­‐oriented staffing initiatives. Section 2 addresses the issue of equitable representation of minorities in Film and Television in Canada. It states in part, “[Institutions] must achieve equality in the workplace so that no person shall be denied employment opportunities or benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, in fulfillment of that goal, to correct the conditions of disadvantage in employment experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities” (Employment Equity Act, 1995). Canadian Multiculturalism Act Canada has led the way in institutionalizing notions of multiculturalism and cultural diversity through its Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) and The Canadian Multiculturalism Act passed by Parliament in 1988. The groundwork for the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was laid in 1971, when then-­‐Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau announced a federal multiculturalism policy. This policy was an expansion of the idea that Canada was a plural nation, which was a result of intense lobbying by ethno-­‐cultural groups during the public hearings of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. The Multiculturalism policy first announced in 1971 established the framework for all future Government policies relating to ethno-­‐cultural communities, particularly those dealing with the arts and cultural activities. It was enshrined in law in 1988, when Parliament passed the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. The Act stipulates that government policy must, amongst other things: (a) Recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage; (b) Recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future; (c) Promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation; (d) Recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development; (e) Ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity; (g) Promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins; (h) Foster the recognition of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act has directly influenced the development of an inclusive cultural policy in Canadian media production. Paragraphs (g) and (h) offer explicit direction to the Broadcasting Act. The Multiculturalism Act also outlines a specific mandate and accountability measures to Parliament, federal government institutions and broader Canadian society on how this 15
can be done. These regulatory and legislative developments reflected passionate and complex debates in the cultural production and communications domains in Canada, which took place throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and resulted in transformations to several significant Canadian cultural institutions. These included arms-­‐length government agencies such as the Canada Council for the Arts, the broadcasting system, and growing collaborative movements such as the artist-­‐run movement. See, for example, Clive Robertson (2006) and Monika Kin Gagnon (2000), as well as the annual reports from the Canada Council for the Arts from that time period. Key Actors and Regulators Several significant players contribute to the pressures and opportunities available for addressing issues entangled in diversity on entertainment programming. This section provides a brief introduction to key actors and regulators. Canadian Heritage Paul de Silva notes: “The Department of Canadian Heritage is primarily responsible for developing and implementing policies for the Canadian Film and Television sector. Through its Film and Video Directorate, it develops, implements and monitors policies, which are mostly delivered through agencies such as Telefilm Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts (CCA) the National Film Board (NFB) and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)” (2009, 12). Telefilm Canada De Silva also describes Telefilm Canada: It is a crown corporation financed by the Department of Canadian Heritage and returns from equity investments in films and Television programs. Its primary purpose is to support the Canadian Film and Television industry through a variety of programs including equity investments, development grants, distribution support etc. Films that qualify as Canadian content are also eligible for both Federal and Provincial Tax Credits, which assist Producers in financing their productions. Telefilm’s policy is to support projects that involve Canadians and subjects from all ethno-­‐cultural origins. It also provides grants to film [f]estivals, symposia and workshops that showcase culturally diverse productions or that provide professional development from ethno-­‐cultural communities. Telefilm is also mandated to ensure that those official language minority communities have access to support, by organizing workshops and meetings with broadcasters and other partners. In June 2003 Telefilm announced an Action Plan for minority filmmakers, which include initiatives for training and assistance in accessing decision makers in the Film and Television industry (de Silva, 2009, 15). As of March 2010, Telefilm Canada is also the program administrator for the most recent version of the arms-­‐length government financing body for media production: the Canada Media Fund (CMF), whose “…mandate is to champion the creation of successful, innovative, Canadian content and software applications for current and emerging digital platforms through financial support and industry research. The Canada Media Fund is a not-­‐for-­‐profit corporation that supports content 16
creation for television and other digital platforms” (Canada Media Fund, 2011). This includes a number of CMF program initiatives that address the need for targeted regional and minority diversity content and production. CBC/Radio-­Canada Canadian public broadcaster CBC/Radio-­‐Canada reflects the most evolved set of policies that aim to ensure diversity in representation, notably through its Employment Equity programs, as well as its programming goals and mandate. As a government-­‐funded organization whose mandate is to serve the public interest through broadcasting, the CBC is faced with the highest of public expectations. The CBC's approach to diversity emphasizes the important and interlocking nature of how ensuring diversity "behind the scenes" leads to more effective on-­‐screen representations of diverse communities. The CBC's “Employment Equity Plan, based principally on the findings of the employment systems review in 2004, [is an] implementation of the Corporation’s corporate employment equity plan [which] has been ongoing since mid-­‐2005. Areas where progress was achieved include the implementation of a national recruitment strategy ensuring consistent staffing practices, hiring goals targeting the four designated groups, diversity training, performance management and an exit interview process” (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Equity 2008, 3). Exemplifying this emphasis on improving diversity in representation through strategic employment are the claims found in the CBC’s corporate website, under the “Our People and Culture” banner, including a related mandate and accountability document regularly updated, called “People & Culture.” See, for example, the 2011 mandate update: http://cbc.radio-­‐
canada.ca/docs/policies/hr/HR_Management_Accountability.pdf. Created in 2008, its purpose is to oversee the human resources function for the Corporation, and future strategies include fostering leadership development and talent management, and ensuring a diverse talent pool. This structure emerged as a result of CBC’s first joint diversity action plan, [which was] completed [in March 2007]. The plan, called ‘The Diversity Advantage: CBC’s Commitment to Reflecting Today’s Canada’ brought together the diversity plans and initiatives of CBC Radio, Television and Human Resources for 2007/08 including programming, recruitment, training and development, and outreach. …[S]ince implementation of the plan, …all diversity initiatives and related activity must coincide with strategic objectives overall. Diversity has been added to the corporate performance management and the measurement of programming diversity has become a larger part of the diversity file (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Equity Plan, 2008, 4). Another key change is that diversity hiring goals are now part of the English Network’s Television and Radio managers' strategies. This is intended to improve the representation of diverse employees in the Corporation’s workforce (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Equity Plan, 2008). CRTC The CRTC's mandate is elucidated in a key clause relating to diversity in the Broadcasting Act which says “the broadcasting system should, through its programming and employment opportunities serve 17
the needs and interests, and reflect the circumstances and aspiration, of ..... the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canadian society and the special place of aboriginal peoples within that society” (Broadcasting Act, 1991, 3 (1) d (iii)). Regarding diversity, the CRTC now requires most television broadcasters to table multi-­‐year diversity plans when applying for a new licence or a licence renewal. These plans have to be approved by the Commission, and broadcasters then have to file annual reports on the progress of their implementation. The CRTC’s position on diversity is presented in plain language on its public website: “The CRTC [uses] two main approaches to ensure that Canada’s diverse nature is reflected in [the Canadian] broadcasting system. These are: programming by and for specific groups; and, reflecting diversity in all broadcast services” (CRTC: Cultural diversity on Television and Radio, 2008-­‐12-­‐16, http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/b308.htm). Furthermore, the CRTC periodically reviews reports about diversity goals and activities at all private broadcasters. Paul de Silva provides an example of how strategically the requirements for diversity can be articulated by the CRTC. In 2003, the CRTC required CTV, Global and TVA (Quebec) networks to submit in their upcoming license renewal applications, detailed plans that include specific commitments relating to reflection of diversity …[Program d]evelopment officers responsible for casting must make a concerted effort to hire visible minority actors in leading and recurring roles, and scripts should avoid stereotypical representation. Programming from independent producers should reflect the presence and accurate portrayal of visible minorities (CRTC 2001c and CRTC 2001d). These requirements also apply to all new applications for Television licenses and renewals” (de Silva, 2009, 19). De Silva notes, however, the difficulty of enforcing or tracking specific requirements under the conditions of license. This is in part due to efforts of private broadcasters in seeking ways to self-­‐
regulate and manage the CRTC's expectations of representing diversity and equitable portrayals of diverse groups. The requirements are nonetheless clearly explained on the CRTC website. A key mechanism for achieving [the CRTC's diversity] objectives [within the private broadcasting industry] is through self-­‐regulation. The industry must abide by the following industry codes, some of which apply as a result of the Commission's regulations, some by condition of licence, and some as a result of membership in the CBSC or the Advertising Standards Canada (ASC): • ASC Canadian Code of Advertising Standards • Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children • Cable Television Community Channel Standards • Cable Television Customer Service Standards • CAB Code of Ethics • CAB Equitable Portrayal Code 18
• CAB Violence Code • CBC Guidelines on Sex-­‐Role Portrayal • Code for Broadcast Advertising of Alcoholic Beverages • Industry Code of Programming Standards and Practices Governing • Pay Television and PPV Programming Code Regarding Violence • Radio-­‐Television News Directors Association of Canada (RTNDA Canada) Code of (Journalistic) Ethics • Journalistic Independence Code (CRTC, 2009, Diversity and Social Issues) Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Private broadcasters such as CTV, Canwest, and others have historically been represented by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB), an umbrella group. Over the years, the CAB has adopted a series of codes and principles of conduct that strive to improve the representation of diversity in media programming, and foster diversity in employment in the industry. Replacing a number of previous industry codes, the CAB's Equitable Portrayal Code—approved by the CRTC in March 2008—expands the Code’s provisions to include all Canadians, well beyond ethnocultural, Aboriginal and disability communities. To this end, the new Code is intended to assist in overcoming “unduly negative portrayals [in broadcast programming] with respect to race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, gender, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or physical or mental disability” (CAB, 2007). The new Code also includes provisions not found in any other code according to the CAB, explicitly establishing the principles that negative portrayal may take the form of “stereotyping, stigmatization and victimization, derision of myths, traditions and practices, degrading material, and exploitation” (CAB, 2007). Each of these is prohibited by the new Code. In its 2007-­‐08 Report, for example, the CAB specified several research initiatives with which it has been involved, as a mean of illustrating its leadership in diversity employment and programming. The CAB has also been active in the area of diversity research over the past several years, as a means of creating a foundation for the development and implementation of a wide range of diversity initiatives. Among these research initiatives, the CAB: Served as both secretariat and project manager for the 2002 – 2004 Task Force for Cultural Diversity on Television and the Task Force Report (Reflecting Canadians: Best Practices for Cultural Diversity in Private Television). Developed and directed a major, ground-­‐breaking research initiative on The Presence, Portrayal and Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Canadian Television in 2005 (CAB, 2008), [and] Commissioned the first-­‐ever research undertaken on Described Video in Canadian Private Television which was filed with the Commission as part of our submission for Broadcasting Notice of Public Hearing/Telecom PN CRTC 2008-­‐8: Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services to persons with disabilities (CAB, 2009). 19
Catherine Murray has analysed the relationship between the Canadian Radio-­‐television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) (2009). She notes that the CRTC applied pressure on the CAB to actually conduct research on cultural diversity in Canada, and repeatedly [called for consultation] in the development of its guidelines. The CRTC encouraged the CAB to set up a community advisory task force,… [and in the early 2000s,] the CAB made it appear that a public-­‐private partnership might emerge—involving public agencies (universities), public institutes (Pearson-­‐Shoyama), a number of Canadian Social Organizations (CS0s), and private broadcasters….[Instead, the] CAB opted for a one-­‐
time task force, which …was then subcontracted to a commercial private partnership between a marketing research firm (Solutions Research Group) and a leading legal company with a history of representing Rogers Multicultural Channel (Johnston & Buchanan). [Ultimately,] the CAB's Cultural Diversity Task Force produced a surprisingly tough report that argued decisively that private broadcasters were not sufficiently reflecting visible minorities in Canada or taking advantage of the talent "out there" (Murray, C., 2009a, 683-­‐684, her emphasis). According to Murray, the resulting report, Reflecting Canadians (2004), “…argue[d] that broadcasters should update their lists of visible minority experts monthly; co-­‐ordinate with other key stakeholder groups to create a database of visible minority producers, actors, and directors; and compel independent producers working with them to keep a ‘character count’. It recommend[ed] community connections, strategic alliances, and traditional industry stopgaps such as mentoring, editorial forums, job fairs, and so on. It also call[ed] upon the Commission to relieve its current reporting requirements in favour of a best-­‐practices approach -­‐-­‐ effectively a call for longer reporting cycles” (Murray, C., 2009a, 685). Ultimately, these task force recommendations were not extended beyond the report, nor did it generate a policy hearing or any post-­‐report consultations by either the CAB or CRTC. However, echoes of these suggested requirements can be found in the lists of achievements presented in diversity reports filed by the CBC and other broadcasters at the CRTC throughout the 2000s. This one-­‐time Task Force appears to be the CAB's most notable policy contribution to the area of diversity in broadcasting. According to the CAB “Diversity in Broadcasting” website, the research guidelines and opportunities enumerated there since 2005 have acted as “…a key resource for CAB members, industry stakeholders, and the ethnocultural, Aboriginal and disability communities” (CAB, 2008). So, for example, the CAB website claims that: Broadcasters and industry stakeholders [actively reporting in the area of diversity] include: 



Aboriginal Peoples Television Network Astral Media Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Canadian Television Fund (CTF) 20














Canadian Film and Television Production Association (CFTPA) Canwest Citytv CTVglobemedia National Campus and Community Radio Association (NCRA) OMNI TV Radio-­‐Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) ReelWorld Télédiversité Telefilm Canada VisionTV / S-­‐VOX Vista Radio Women in Film Television -­‐ Toronto (WIFT-­‐T) Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) (CAB, 2008). Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) Catherine Murray explains the genesis and structure of the self-­‐regulating media industry ombudsman system: In 1990, the…CRTC compelled the…CAB to establish the quasi-­‐public, not-­‐for-­‐profit Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). The CBSC is an arm's-­‐length body now representing some 75% of the private industry. It involves selected citizens drawn from the community or public interest groups, with broadcasters in the majority on any panel that adjudicates complaints. The …CBC, by contrast, has its own internal ombudsman system. In theory, the outcomes of both procedures are to be reported to the CRTC, which may rule on any dispute not settled at the lower level, but in practice, complaints are rarely reported on in its annual reviews (Murray, C. 2009a, 679) . At present, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) administers seven codes, each of them listed on the CBSC.ca website: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
CAB Code of Ethics (Revised in 2002) o 1988 version of Code CAB Violence Code CAB Equitable Portrayal Code o Sex Role Portrayal Code for Television and Radio Programming (1990) RTNDA Code of (Journalistic) Ethics (Revised in 2000) o 1986 version of Code Journalistic Independence Code Industry Code of Programming Standards and Practices Governing Pay, Pay-­‐Per-­‐View and Video-­‐On-­‐Demand Services The Pay Television and Pay-­‐Per-­‐View Programming Code Regarding Violence (CBSC, www.CBSC.ca, n.d.). 21
The CBSC has no additional code addressing race or ethnicity; the Equitable Portrayal Code is explicitly intended to serve as an overall guideline for including “all identifiable groups” in media production (CAB Equitable Portrayal Code, 2008, IV b.). In general, the CRTC and CAB have cooperated in order to achieve industry-­‐led diversity goals. For example, in Broadcasting Public Notice 2005-­‐24, the Commission directed the CAB to review its broadcasting industry codes and practices to determine whether they addressed concerns identified in then-­‐current research findings regarding a lack of reflection and portrayal of Canadian diversity. The CAB did so in 2005 and concluded that a new code should be developed to establish industry standards for the portrayal of ethnocultural groups, Aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities. The CAB submitted its revised Equitable Portrayal Code on 12 March 2007. This code incorporates though does not entirely replace the CAB Sex-­‐Role Portrayal Code for Radio and Television Programming. The Commission approved the CAB's Equitable Portrayal Code in Broadcasting Public Notice 2008-­‐23. It is a condition of licence for all broadcasters (CRTC, 2009). Specialty-­Licensed Television Broadcasters: APTN and VisionTV One of the most significant specialty-­‐licensed television broadcasters in Canada is the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN). “In February 1998, the CRTC released Public Notice 1998-­‐8 [stating] that… a national Aboriginal channel should be ‘widely available throughout Canada in order to serve the diverse needs of the various Aboriginal communities, as well as other Canadians’" (APTN, 2011). In her landmark book, Something New in the Air, Lorna Roth (2005) analyzes the lengthy negotiations and many steps taken by the Aboriginal people of Canada and their supporters to realize the 1999 licensing of the Aboriginal Peoples’ Television Network. The technological challenges were outweighed only by the political ones, as well as the policy shifts required to enable the federal government to make such a significant commitment to the voices of First Peoples. Uniquely, all cable companies are required to carry APTN as part of the basic subscriber package in Canada. By 2004, Doris Baltruschat could note that the unique and successful configuration of the funding
model: “APTN's operation is funded by a combination of subscriber fees, government contributions (Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage), advertising, Canadian Satellite Communications Corporation contributions, and special benefits contributions” (Baltruschat, 2004). De Silva notes the impact of consistent, even if modest funding and distribution opportunities: “APTN has proven to be an important outlet for Aboriginal [f]ilmmakers and [t]elevision [p]roducers for telling their stories to a national audience. This has resulted in the building of infrastructure in the [f]ilm and [t]elevision industry for Aboriginal people and training and development opportunities for emerging Aboriginal [f]ilm and [t]elevision artists” (de Silva, 2008, 15). De Silva also analyzes a number of additional Canadian specialty channels with diversity and intercultural programming. For example, “Vision TV, licensed by the CRTC to provide Religious programming to Canada’s Faith communities, was launched in 1989. Over the years it has broadcast a variety of programs with multi-­‐cultural themes, and has attempted to reflect the changing cultural makeup of Canada” (de Silva, 2008, 15-­‐16). The recently updated website confirms this claim: 22
“VisionTV is owned and operated by ZoomerMedia Limited…a diversified media company uniquely devoted to the needs and interests of Canada’s multi-­‐faith and multi-­‐ethnic communities, as well as our country’s 14.5 million 45plus” (VisionTV.ca, 2011). With over 10 million subscribers, the channel “…produc[es] approximately 1,800 hours of original Canadian content annually, often in languages other than [English or] French, including Punjabi, Hindi, Urdu and Arabic. In this respect, VisionTV plays an important public and community role unmatched by any other service in Canada” (Vision TV, 2011). This articulation reinforces the message that since 1988, Vision TV’s mandate has attempted to incorporate cultural diversity in its programming, both in front of and behind the camera. Theoretical and Discursive Framework for the Case Studies
-­Hanna Cho and Mary Elizabeth Luka Three key themes reverberate consistently throughout analyses of the legislative and policy discourse framework affecting Canadian broadcast programming, providing important ways to organize and understand how these connect to issues of the representation of diversity in Canadian television programming. These are:  Television as mirror and shaper of Canadian identity  The transition from multiculturalism to definitions of diversity  Political economy of employment equity on diversity in television production Television as Mirror and Shaper of Canadian Identity The notion that television is a key instrument for shaping a national Canadian identity and culture is a fundamental element of any discussion addressing broadcast policy. Paul Attallah (2007) has shown that it is evident in the earliest policies configuring Canadian broadcasting (including television broadcasting), which from its very inception, was conceived to counter the broadcasting system in the United States. This was later reinforced by the seminal Massey Commission of 1951, which staked out the cultural identity role of several Canadian arts institutions. Furthermore, Canadian broadcasting was intended to be didactic and enlightening in its key approach, rather than popular and entertaining (Attallah, 2007). Attallah suggests there are two important major time periods to consider in television content production: a) 1952 to 1982 and b) 1982 to present. In the period up to 1982, CBC was the dominant producer. “After 1982, there important events occurred. First, Telefilm Canada was created to fund both film and television production. Second, part of the CBCs budget was transferred to Telefilm Canada for disbursal to independent production companies.Third, the CBC was instructed to acquire 50 percent of its entertainment content from independent producers. This last changed transformed the CBC after 1982, from a major inhouse producer to a major purchaser of externally produced Canadian content” (Attallah, 2007, 334). 23
This has been carried to its logical conclusion in today’s CBC. Almost no non-­‐news programming is produced in-­‐house at CBC. This is reflected in the decreasing number of staff positions available at CBC in 2011 versus thirty years ago. It is within this period that several employment equity initiatives have been undertaken in attempts to improve inter-­‐cultural representation within CBC and the broadcasting system as a whole. Several rounds of significant cuts to the base budget of the CBC, and corollary demands on the for-­‐profit bottom line for private broadcasters, as well as at least two major technological changeovers requiring massive capital investments (analog to digital tape to non-­‐tape digital formats, plus analog transmission to digital transmission requirements, not to mention the internet) have mitigated against growing opportunities for in-­‐house production talent. Television and other media provide an important source of information through which citizens gain knowledge about their nation, and our attitudes and beliefs are shaped by what the media discerns as public knowledge. Scholars such as Minelle Mahtani (2005) argue that the media is directly responsible for how Canadian diversity is interpreted among its citizens. In addition to understanding what kind of media content is produced, it is important to consider who creates and produces it. For example, Mahtani observes that: in the 1980s and 1990s, the under-­‐representation of ethnic minorities was thought [to be] at least partly traceable to the cultural make-­‐up of media workers. It was argued that most news journalists were white, middle-­‐class and, until fairly recently, male (Dunn and Mahtani, 2001; Miller 1998; Carter, Branston and Allan, 1998). [Given that] journalists [and other media producers] are largely bound by the dominant cultures within which they operate, including embedded societal prejudices, stereotypes, and populist frames of thinking (Chideya 1999). [The relationship between media representations of diversity reinforces the hegemony of the dominant culture], confirming who has the right to speak about a community or society. (Mahtani, 2001). Catherine Murray draws attention to two additional seminal analyses signalling the specific impact of on-­‐screen presence. “How ethnic minorities are actually depicted by the mass media (and especially television) is best characterized by media scholar Augie Fleras as falling under the following four treatments: 



Invisible and irrelevant Models for race-­‐role stereotyping Social problems Tokens for entertainment and decoration” (Fleras, 1995, 410, qtd in Murray, C., 2002, 17) Furthermore, Murray quotes Carol Tator who observes that—systemic bias aside—“lack of representation has always been one of the main points of contention. By not seeing themselves shown in the media, visible minorities feel they are being told that they are not full members of Canadian society” (Tator, 1995, 3, qtd in Murray, C., 2002, 17).
24
Still, there is a fundamental obstacle to ameliorating systemic inequalities of representation, given the dichotomy between trying to achieve social policy goals and the profit motive in television. Yet in Canada, questions surrounding the relationship between identity formation among minorities and media persist as a matter of public policy discussion in large part because of the ongoing commitment to a multicultural policy. Understanding the evolution of multiculturalism is especially important to understanding Canadian television policy, since it has direct influence on its regulations and framing. Transition from Multiculturalism to Definitions of Diversity The idea that no one in Canada is to be discriminated against and is therefore equal before the law, regardless of race or ethnicity, is clearly stated in Section 15(1) of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). Canada’s commitment to affirming the democratic values of multiculturalism and ethnic diversity “is recognized in Section 27 [of the Charter], which states that the Charter shall be used to reflect, conserve and promote our nation’s multicultural status” (Murray, C., 2009a, 678). Similarly, the concept of cultural diversity has been in debate at the international level for many years. See, for example, the discussion of cultural diversity embedded in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005). However, though cultural diversity is often used interchangeably with multiculturalism, the concepts are not the same. Whereas multiculturalism centres on a notion of “a national culture composed of ‘different cultures existing side by side’, cultural diversity responds to ‘the intersections and intermixings, and crossovers between different cultural perspectives and traditions’” (Bennett, 2001, 22 qtd in Murray, 2009, 678). In Canada, the regulation of the cultural industries in Canada, and television in particular, has been undergoing a rapid paradigm shift in both ideas and instruments. Specifically, in terms of cultural policy, including television broadcasting, since 1996 there has been a marked “trend towards cultural diversity as a conceptual policy frame” (Murray, 2009, 678)1. Among the first regulatory frames the CRTC established regarding the policy to diversify the reflection of Canada's multiracial heritage was a linguistic one. The uneven development of licensing and application of the Ethnic Broadcasting Policy within major metropolitan centres is briefly discussed above2. As mentioned earlier, in the last two decades the focus has been on the policy treatment of matters of integration, inclusion, and racial representation in mainstream, conventional television. This 1
Murray goes on to note: “In the late 1990s, Canada took the initiative in development of a draft convention ‘on the protection of the diversity of cultural contents and artistic expressions’, which was finally passed by UNESCO in 2005. Among its main objectives are "to facilitate the development and adoption of cultural policies and appropriate measures for the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions." Canada also participated in an international working group that considered issues of cultural diversity, TV, and globalization. [This demonstrates] that "diversity" became a fashionable Canadian policy term—with notoriously ambiguous meaning—in the period leading up to 2004 [when] a minority Conservative [federal] government [was] elected)”. (Murray, C., 2009a, 678). 2
See Lorna Roth, 1998A, 1998B and 2008 for greater detail and important research in this area. 25
coheres with the contemporaneous evolution of multiculturalism from difference-­‐based recognition, to integrative, inclusive citizenship and rights, as shown in the table reproduced below. *Source: Fleras, Augie and Jean L. Kunz. 2001. Media and Minorities: Representing Diversity in a Multicultural Canada. Thompson Education Publishing. This is also evidenced by the growing prevalence of diversity-­‐oriented policy and research in Canada. Indeed, as the Arts Promotion section of the Canada Council for the Arts notes: “the first-­‐ever Canadian Multiculturalism Day was on June 27, 2003 as part of the Celebrate Canada! program of activities. [Coinciding with this was the announcement of] a new strategic plan [for the Department of Canadian Heritage] on diversity and culture, its first objective being to ‘ensure that the composition of the Canadian Heritage Portfolio, including commissions, boards, juries, and workforce, is representative of the diversity of Canada’” (Canada Council for the Arts, http://www.canadacouncil.ca/aboutus/Promotion/dk127306715935781250.htm). Along this same line, the Department of Canadian Heritage organized a forum in 2005 to assess the future demographic landscape of Canada and released a detailed report, Canada 2017: Serving Canada's Multicultural Population for the Future. Papers were produced at the forum on labour market barriers, access to health and social services, the social geography of cities, the representation of visible minorities in public institutions, and generational challenges facing diverse families. Media diversity was discussed as an important site to promote the development of synergies between a multicultural society and cultural creativity that can be fostered and celebrated. In this way, how the media play a prominent role in each of these diversity areas was clearly articulated and illustrated. Political Economy of Employment Equity, Television Production, and Diversity Cultural Industries and Arts Labour Force John Foote, at the Department of Canadian Heritage, makes another crucial comparison to the government’s commitment to the diversity and related multiculturalism policies, in relation to the increasing importance of the cultural industries. “The …importance of diversity in Canada's broadcast 26
policy can [also] be assessed according to trends in the changing composition of the arts labour force. There are 131,000 artists in Canada (Statistics Canada Census of Population 2001). Recent findings show a rapid increase of visible minority artists who are growing in number at a rate more than twice as fast as all artists, although the visible minority artists make up a smaller per cent of all artists (8.9%) than do visible minorities in the total population (over 14%).” Furthermore, Foote notes: “Visible minority and Aboriginal artists earn substantially less than other labour force workers while immigrant artists earn less than other immigrants and all Canadian workers although the difference in earnings is on a par with other artists” (Hill Strategies Research: Diversity in Canada's Arts Labour Force 2005, qtd in Foote 4.2.6, 2008). Given that the media industry is arguably the richest and most powerful of the cultural industries, it is critical to understand how, where and to what degree typically underrepresented groups are and are not included. Finally, evidence of the discursive and economic significance of diversity and inclusion is found in the way in which public spending on diversity is described. In 2008-­‐2009 figures, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat indicated that $6.4 billion was spent on activities that contributed to the outcome area of a diverse society that promotes linguistic duality and social inclusion, while in 2009-­‐2010, the Treasury Board of Canada suggested that $12.2 billion was spent on the same area. See the tables reproduced from the Treasury Board websites below for visual illustrations of these figures. One very interesting point to note here is the difference between the two years shown on the government’s website. There is a rather big jump (almost a doubling from $6.4 billion to $12.2 billion) of funds invested or included in the accounting of diversity, between 2008-­‐09 and 2009-­‐10. It seems that there may have been a critical redefinition of what is included under the term “a diverse society.” Public Spending on Diversity and Cultural Inclusion (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat,2009) 27
Public Spending on Diversity and Cultural Inclusion 2009-­‐10 (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2010) http://www.tbs-­‐sct.gc.ca/reports-­‐rapports/cp-­‐rc/2009-­‐2010/cp-­‐rc04-­‐eng.asp#fig3-­‐2 According to the 2008-­‐09 Treasury Board of Canada Report, [t]he 12 federal organizations listed below spent $6.4 billion in 2008–09 on activities that contributed to the outcome area of a diverse society that promotes linguistic duality and social inclusion. •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Canadian Heritage Canadian Human Rights Commission Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Citizenship and Immigration Canada Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Canadian Polar Commission Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission Indian Specific Claims Commission Office of the Chief Electoral Officer Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada Public Prosecution Service of Canada Status of Women Canada …In addition, the Department of Canadian Heritage (DCH) and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) are Canada's foremost cultural institutions and the largest contributors to this outcome area. The CBC's expenditure of $1.2 billion in 2008–09 was directed to providing 28
Canadians with a national public broadcasting service. Canadian Heritage spent $748 million on creating and facilitating access to Canadian content, fostering cultural participation, and strengthening ties among Canadians (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2009, their emphasis, http://www.tbs-­‐sct.gc.ca/reports-­‐rapports/cp-­‐rc/2008-­‐2009/cp-­‐rc04-­‐eng.asp). Multiculturalism and Diversity: Policy Evolution Since the late 1990s, a period when Canada briefly took the international lead to protect cultural diversity and expression, ideas regarding regulation and policy in media production and distribution have moved towards less regulation. Murray (2009) suggests that constitutional and legal rights and definitions have shifted to industry self-­‐regulation, including meeting diversity goals and representations. In other words, “…despite [a] backdrop of escalating affirmative social policy, in the 1990s Canada, like many other nations, began to devolve the actual responsibility for developing and monitoring standards of content in general -­‐ and racial content in particular -­‐ to the private or public sector separately, under a model of industry self-­‐regulation that stepped back from the myth of a "single broadcast system" for Canada” (Murray, C., 2009a, 679). According to former CRTC Commissioner Andrew Cardozo (2004), this involved three major paradigm shifts regarding diversity policy in Canadian television, arguably still underway (i.e. not fully realized): First, the approach of the Commission needed to be re-­‐directed to focus on all broadcasters, not only the “ethnic” or third-­‐language broadcasters, which had been their approach to diversity for several years. It meant a new issue for the Commission and a new way of looking at its responsibilities. The insight and experience of the staff that deal with social issues was essential to find ways to fit this new issue into the agenda of the Commission. It also meant convincing some who were not sure what all this would mean. Second, the public who were interested in diversity, namely minorities in the television production community, community representatives and academics needed to be informed about why and how to participate in CRTC proceedings. In other words, concerned citizens needed to be informed about proceedings, the methods of input into the system and the effects it could have. Third, the approach of the broadcasters needed to be changed so that they would recognize their role and re-­‐examine how they could better respond. At first several suggested that diversity was not an issue for them since they broadcast in English or French only and did not carry other languages. While some broadcasters understood the issue well, others took much longer to see the business sense as well as the social, cultural and nation-­‐building role that was inherent in a better inclusion and reflection of Canadian diversity (Cardoza, 2004, n.p.). Significantly, Cardoza’s analysis touches on the importance of the business case for diversity as a key lever for shifting broadcasters. This is the argument made to attract new and changing audiences and therefore to keep and grow advertising dollars. At the same time, Cardoza’s emphasis remains on 29
promoting neo-­‐liberal values, with a particular focus on requirements for broadcasting in a democratic society. This evolution toward self-­‐regulation and private sector monitoring in Canadian broadcasting policy has led researchers such as Murray (2009) and de Silva (2009) to argue that while there are complex reasons for the lack of diversity-­‐based Canadian dramatic programming on mainstream networks, it is at least in part due to a conspicuous absence of measurable government incentives and regulations. Yet however toothless some may regard the CRTC's regulations regarding representing diversity, the broader Canadian legislative, discursive and industrial framework of official multiculturalism and employment equity is an important way of ensuring that Canadians of diverse backgrounds and origins have the potential to receive employment in all aspects and positions of broadcasting whether on screen, behind the camera, or on the air in Canada’s conventional networks. Private broadcasters in Canada have sought to self-­‐regulate and manage to fulfil the CRTC's expectations of representing diversity and equitable portrayals of diverse groups, through associations and industry groups such as the Canadian Association of Broadcasters and Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. As a result, “…the constitutional and legal scaffolding for diversity [in Canada] is stronger than that of many other countries” (Banting, Courchene, and Seidel, 2007 qtd in Murray, C., 2009a, 681). Murray suggests that “as a consequence, Canadian media theory about racial representation is based on a tacit liberal-­‐democratic principle of proportionality, which can be loosely defined to cover access, participation, and representation. Such representative expectations are inherently quantitative, rooted in liberal-­‐democratic theory but occasionally diluted by market realism, with demands for representation to reflect the supply of qualified minorities in the labour force. Nonetheless, a widespread resistance to such "representative" approaches to diversity in the media persists among industry professionals around the world” (Murray, C., 2009a, 681). Given the inherent challenges of enforcing content quotas from a regulatory “policing” perspective, significant efforts have been invested in devising strategies around employment equity within the television broadcast industry. That is, considerable effort has been made through programs such as “Reel Diversity” (a National Film Board/Canadian Broadcasting Corporation initiative from 2002 to 2008) to create opportunities and encourage more producers and media-­‐makers from minority communities to participate in the challenge of financing, directing and producing broadcast programming content in Canada. It is widely understood in the broadcast industry that the high cost of production for television and film in particular—in the relatively small Canadian market—mitigates against the production of a large number of entertainment productions, particularly drama. This appears to be especially true for traditionally under-­‐represented groups. Broadcast license fees cannot cover the cost of production resulting in the need for a high proportion of domestic investment from provincial and federal funding agencies and a complex system of tax credits and support from private funding agencies and distributors. In her early study of Canadian diversity programming, C. Leigh Anderson (1992) proposed that regulations addressing diversity increase program diversity. Moreover, she found that “…diversity 30
stemmed from broadcasters satisfying the Canadian content requirements with information rather than entertainment programming. [Her study notes:] …there is no strong support, however, for the argument that these regulations result in a broad shift from entertainment into information…[B]roadcasters substitute variety for drama[to save money;] both [are] in the entertainment category [and therefore count towards Canadian content regulations, though variety generally costs much less than drama]” (Anderson, 1992, 168-­‐169). In all, Anderson confirms that broadcast programming diversity has increased, even though the reasons behind programming changes (which may be motivated more by costs and revenue, than policy), may not have been well understood at the time. Following this early study, it is evident that the policy focus has since shifted to marketing and promotion of creative opportunities for visible minority actors, writers, and producers. Furthermore, though creative opportunities for the inclusion of minority actors, writers, and producers have increased, there is still the crucial issue of lack of representation of members from diverse communities and visible minority communities in executive management positions. These are the key “gatekeeper” positions—those who can “green light” a project—
which determine the commissioning of programs in broadcasting organizations. These positions are filled almost exclusively from mainstream communities (de Silva, 2009). De Silva asserts that “at the moment there is no quantitative research data [publicly] available on the numbers of racialized people working at senior management levels in the industry. However, observational research (including de Silva’s, for example) indicates that there [are virtually] no visible minority individuals in executive management positions responsible for making decisions on the production of [d]ramatic or factual programming …at any [b]roadcasting entity in Canada” (2009). Nonetheless, as Murray’s research might suggest, diversity reports filed with the CRTC at the time of license renewals may provide some of this information in raw form. These are key considerations to investigate in future research, and are critical for understanding why and where emergent diversity policy initiatives are significant. Conclusion The research done to date suggests that there is a need to do more—both in terms of increasing access and conducting research—particularly with underrepresented groups. Catherine Murray (2009) enumerates the paucity of research on systematic measurements and analyses of diversity in broadcasting in Canada. In the last decade, only two groundbreaking initiatives to develop systems of monitoring race and representation on Canadian TV have been undertaken. In 2001, the then[-­‐named Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate of the Department of Canadian Heritage commissioned a survey of drama on Canadian conventional television, to join the Eurofiction 2000 project of the European Commission, under the auspices of its audio-­‐visual observatory. A pilot study to develop cultural indicators to monitor race was included, which was published in 2002 in a report called "Silent on the Set" (Murray, 2002). Also in 2001, the CRTC called on private broadcasters to create a task force, consult widely on the design of a study to 31
monitor racial diversity in TV, develop appropriate standards for race portrayal, and report on their compliance. The Canadian Association of Broadcasters process, by contrast, took longer than three years (Murray, C., 2009a, 694). Murray also draws attention to the potential contributions of the limited but important research parallels with gender portrayal in the global environment. The women’s movement has co-­‐ordinated volunteers to monitor portrayal in two global projects (1995, 2000), with assistance from the World Association for Christian Communication, UNESCO, the Canadian government, and more than 70 other countries. The Global Media Monitoring Project consistently has found significant gender differences in the portrayal of women and men, and disturbing treatment in news commentary of women of colour as victims. Women's groups continue to use the study to lobby their local regulators for change, as Margaret Gallagher (2001) outlines in “Gendersetting,” the best review of these efforts available. “Tuning into Diversity” (European Commission, 2002) argues for a global project of a similar sort (Murray, C., 2009a, 694). Significant gaps related to cultural diversity are also identified in Philip Savage's (2008) research, as commissioned by the Canadian Media Research Consortium (CMRC) in 2007. Several interviews were conducted with influential leaders in Canadian media broadcasters and production companies for this study. These clearly illustrated a high degree of awareness and engagement with home-­‐grown research in Canada, as well as the lack of information and resources dedicated to furthering goals related to diversity and representation in Canadian media production and presentation environments. Perhaps most significantly, he notes, “[t]here are foreign sources [of research and information] but almost no Canadian contemporary sources for ongoing research in the following five broad areas: 1) Media usage; 2) Media ownership; 3) New media forms; 4) Media diversity; and 5) Media policy. Savage takes especial note of concerns and questions about diversity in the media production environment: Among interviewees, the issue of cultural diversity and the media in a changing Canadian society was raised repeatedly. [That is,] how different communities engage with media was a crucial concern, as well as the media role in reflecting and defining the nature of a changing Canadian society in terms of race, ethnicity, and citizenship… [Concerns centred around 1)] the small amount of existing empirical work on the diversity of content in the media, especially in broadcasting and on new digital platforms[, and 2)] mapping how different subgroups use the changing media… [Most telling were clearly articulated concerns about,] the inconsistent application of empirically based research to current media and cultural policy debates. [There is a] paucity of evidence about regulation in a new media context, [as well as] what [many] saw as the failure of imagination to apply new models of public control over consolidated and global new media (Savage, 2008, 296). Recent publications and research are beginning to address some of these concerns. Fundamentally, this includes the importance of access to the internet for underserved communities such as that studied in the collection of essays found in Raboy, Shtern et al, Media Divides (2010), and industry or scholarly articles about Indigeneous Peoples’ use and development of the broadband infrastructure (see, for 32
example, McMahon, 2011). This is especially telling and urgent in an environment where one of the highest-­‐profile and long-­‐standing production and broadcasting companies in northern Canada—Isuma Productions Inc.—recently entered into receivership, laying off its entire (mostly Indigenous) staff. The growth in digital broadcasting on the internet points to an increasingly complex media production and presentation environment. Almost unregulated, yet often closely tied to the existing media production structure, there are many questions about present-­‐day and future policy and industrial development needs and implications in Canadian broadband, internet and mobile media use. See, for example, scholar Catherine Middleton’s research in this area, in scholarly publications and on www.broadbandresearch.ca, as well as grassroots initiatives such as OpenMedia.ca and MediaActionMédia (www.media-­‐action-­‐media.com). Concerns about what this will mean in the long run regarding the reflection of Canada to itself in the media industry are further complicated by the overall precarious status of employment in the cultural industries, including the media industry.3 Finally, international and national debates about the status of copyright, net neutrality, and “fair dealing” are dealt with in very recent research such as the essays published in From "Radical Extremism" to "Balanced Copyright": Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda (2010), edited by Michael Geist. It is within this context that the case studies which follow are offered as up-­‐to-­‐date research and examples of the visibility and nature of diversity as it appears on Canadian television today. 3
See, for example, statistical reports on the cultural economy in Canada published by Hill Strategies Research (www.hillstrategies.com) and more deeply qualitative research currently underway with Toronto screenwriters and the Writers’ Guild of Canada and others by Jeremy Shtern, Charles Davis, Elizabeth Godo and Michael Coutanche in their research project Networks of Exclusion, “an original look at the issue of cultural diversity in the Canadian media by focusing on the creative and economic challenges that are uniquely experienced by media professionals who are visible minorities and/or members of various cultural communities” (jeremyshtern.org, 2011). 33
Case Studies Overview
-­Hanna Cho Six popular primetime television shows were examined as case studies, including: Being Erica, The Border, Da Kink in My Hair, Degrassi, Flashpoint and Little Mosque on the Prairie. Each case study discusses how the show constructs gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and disability to determine its diversity of representation. The different types and frequencies of representations within these categories are divided into the following sections in each case study: characters; plot narrative; gender representation; race and ethnicity representation; class representation; representations of sexual orientation; representations of disability; conclusion. Methodology The same methodology was employed for each case study. Content and critical discourse analyses are used to examine the degree of diversity as well as how gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and disability are represented in terms of what is privileged, marginalized and occluded. The content analysis reveals the frequencies of different types of representations and serves to frame the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In turn, CDA provides a more in-­‐depth analysis in terms of how these categories are constructed. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a theoretical and methodological tool for revealing how power and ideology function within language and language use (Fairclough, 1995; Bell and Garrett,1998; Van Dijk, 1988). The primary aim of CDA is to produce explicit and systematic tools for investigating how power is diffused through a series of semantic and linguistic moves and positioning within media. Bell and Garrett explain that “the media are a particular subject of CDA analysis because of their manifestly pivotal role as discourse bearing institutions” (Bell and Garrett, 1998, p.6). CDA theorists assume that “media use can tell us a great deal about social meanings and stereotypes projected through language and communication” (Bell and Garrett, 1998, p.3). More specifically, CDA has an explicit socio-­‐political agenda: a concern to discover and bear witness to unequal relations of power which underlie ways of communicating in society. This approach reveals the role of discourse in reproducing or challenging socio-­‐political dominance (Bell and Garrett, 1998). Similarly, Henry and Tator express the function of CDA as providing a tool for deconstructing the ideologies of mass media and elite groups. CDA helps to identify and define social, economic, and historical power relations between dominant and subordinate groups (Henry and Tator, 2002, p.72). In the context of this report, for example, the employment of a critical discourse analysis of the case studies provides a detailed examination of how representations of diversity reinforce and subvert dominant stereotypes and ideologies. Van Dijk (1988) provides a series of criteria for making the relationship between media texts, ideology and power more explicit. Based on an “ideological square” of “us” and “them” in which in-­‐groups are represented in positive terms and out-­‐groups in negative terms, van Dijk shows how groups are included, foregrounded, occluded and excluded to create a particular ideological construction that privileges particular perspectives. Specifically, he states that the strategy of most ideological 34
discourse is to emphasize positive things about “us”, emphasize negative things about “them”, de-­‐
emphasize negative things about “us” and de-­‐emphasize positive things about “them”. “The use of the opposing pairs ‘emphasize’ and ‘de-­‐emphasize’ allows for many forms of structural variation: we may talk at length or briefly about our good or bad things, prominently or not, explicitly, or implicitly...” (van Dijk, 2002 p.28). In each case study, several episodes were analysed and coded to elucidate the representations of characters, narrative, and dialogue. Each section discusses the results and the central themes of how primary and secondary characters, narrative, and representations of gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation and disability, create categorical constructions of “us” and “them”. In some cases, it is evident that a more complex, nuanced construction of Canadian identity emerges, often reflected in the analyses below by simultaneously considering the impact of combined representations (e.g. race + class + sexual orientation). Identity is fluid insofar as it traverses these categories. Therefore, the subdivisions act as general guidelines rather than clear distinctions. Case Studies Summaries -­Mary Elizabeth Luka The case studies are presented in the following order: The Border. In this chapter, Reisa Klein outlines the scholarly theoretical framework within which this program and the subsequent five case studies are analysed. Its comprehensive discussion of the sophisticated way in which the complex relationship between gender, religion, race and ethnicity are played out in media programming—especially through an assertion of Canadian identity—makes it an exemplar case study. Little Mosque on the Prairie. Ainsley Jenicek’s discussion of a ‘model minority’ assimilated in small-­‐
town Canada challenges what could be simplistic comedy tropes presented in a formulaic manner. Instead, Jenicek demonstrates how these tropes are wielded with skill and some considerable—if flawed—sensitivity to questions of diversity in Canada. Jenicek also introduces and explores the concepts of reproduction and reversal of stereotypes with a wealth of examples. Da Kink in her Hair. In this case study, Farzana Bhatty raises a number of observations about attempts to portray race and ethnicity in the context of a very specific urban—and class-­‐-­‐setting in Canada. Explicit in her analysis is her recognition of the discourse already in play in and about this particular community in Canada during the 2000s. The program’s distinctive approach of providing a representation of a specific racialized and ethnicized community challenges the media adage that programs on conventional television must be broad-­‐based. It also raises the spectre of ghettoizing a single community. Being Erica. Reisa Klein’s deep exploration of liberal feminism and gender for the digital generation shows how intricate current understandings of—and challenges to—feminism, race, sexual orientation, and class can be. Episodes are grouped into overarching themes, defined and divided by work and personal relationships, allowing the program’s representations of layered power relations to be exposed. 35
Degrassi: The Next Generation. Elizabeth Godo acknowledges the long history of previous series called Degrassi, including their powerful reputation as the paradigm of a daring and risk-­‐taking show about teenagers, and its presentation of diverse, urban communities. The analysis Godo offers cuts to the chase – the heteronormativity of stereotypically young, aggressive males within a dominant White society are, in the end, reinforced by assuming the assimilation of visible minority characters, and the emotional dependence of the young women who seek acceptance through relationships. Flashpoint. The absence and downplaying of race, religion and class in this program—rather than negative portrayals—are significant and complementary components to the analysis of this “male-­‐
dominated space” offered by Ainsley Jenicek. Jenicek’s examination of a sophisticated and multi-­‐
layered Canadian program that has done well in the United States incorporates a nuanced reading of its profoundly-­‐skewed gender emphasis, providing a rich field for discussions of masculinity, the middle class, and Whiteness. The deeply-­‐embedded and singularly Canadian “ripped from the headlines” cases and circumstances upon which the program is based (for example, the questionable business practices associated with Canadian mining in South American and Africa, and the not-­‐so-­‐
assimilated rift illustrated by girl gang bullying—and murder—such as that of Reena Verk in British Columbia) provide a rich backdrop to this concluding case study. 36
Case Study #1: The Border -­Reisa Klein The Border is one of CBC’s most popular television series, since it first aired on January 7, 2008 4
(Calgary Herald website, May 19, 2009). The program therefore becomes a crucial corpus of research for determining the diversity of representation within contemporary Canadian television. Specifically, both social learning theorists as well as communication scholars suggest that television is a critical source for contributing to individuals’ conceptions of gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and disability (Gerbner et al., 2002). Thus, the ways in which The Border constructs and represents these categorical constructions impacts upon Canadians’ conceptions of social reality, national identity, and Canadian diversity. Set in Toronto post 9/11, The Border tackles Canadian border and security issues across Canada, as it traces a variety of Immigration and Customs Security (ICS) cases. Through a portrayal of these border cases, The Border ventures to simultaneously reinforce Canada as a crucial player in the international political and social arena and consequently, define, circumscribe, and reaffirm Canada’s unique national identity vis-­‐à-­‐vis other nations. By inference, The Border becomes a critical site of analysis in terms of how it constructs Canada and its diversity of representation. At first blush, the show reflects Canada as a diverse nation covering a spectrum of perspectives from varied groups including Muslims, Native Canadians, and Quebecois—to name a few. Consequently, The Border reaffirms the national myth of Canada as a robust democracy in which there is a plurality of different groups, perspectives, opinions, and debate. Through both a content analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of season one of The Border (which aired between January 7 and March 31, 2008), this study more closely examines how the show constructs gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and disability to determine its diversity of representation. Characters Primary Characters Major Mike Kessler is the head of the ICS squad and the lead character in The Border. He is a White male in his early to mid-­‐40s, who previously served as a major in the JTF2 (Canada’s elite secret army) in Bosnia in 1994. Kessler is depicted as a benevolent boss to whom all ICS personnel must report. As will be demonstrated in more detail below, Kessler personifies the Canadian voice of moral integrity and decency, and thus as the central character, reinforces the Canadian national myths of “Canada the good,” “Canada the mediator” and “Canada the peacekeeper.” He often disagrees with the US homeland border security Special Agent Bianca Lagarda, which serves to juxtapose and carve out a Canadian identity and sensibility distinct from the US. Similarly, Kessler is further contrasted with Agent Mannering, the head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), to signify a plurality of perspectives within Canadian (governmental) institutions, thereby promoting the myth of Canada as a 4
The popularity of The Border has been determined in correspondence with CBC’s decision to renew the series for a third season in 2009–2010, thereby indicating that it has developed a considerable Canadian audience. Moreover, in 2009, The Border was nominated for nine Geminis, placing it in a third place tie with Less than Kind (CityTV), Being Erica (CBC) and the mini-­‐series Diamonds (CBC). 37
robust democracy. Simultaneously, Kessler is depicted as a divorced workaholic, parent of a teenage daughter with whom he struggles to connect. Special Agent Bianca Lagarda is a US homeland security agent who works closely with ICS on cases involving US border and security threats from within Canada as part of the “Integrative Cross Border Initiative.” Bianca Lagarda was born in Cuba to a Cuban father and Italian mother who fled to America after her “anti-­‐Castro” father was assassinated. Despite her mixed racial background, Special Agent Lagarda identifies as an American, repeating often that her allegiances are to “the safety and security of the American people.” The Border is thereby challenging stereotypical assumptions about America as a homogeneous society. Lagarda’s perspective often presents a more hawkish approach to Kessler and his “Canadian” way of dealing with international relations. Thus, Lagarda personifies American foreign policy and is constructed as such to differentiate Canada as an international player distinct from the US. As will be further highlighted below, Lagarda is portrayed as being strong and tough in her position as well as being a sexy “femme fatale;” she therefore both challenges and promotes traditional female gender roles. Superintendant Maggie Norton is a White Newfoundland woman who is Kessler’s second-­‐in-­‐
command. She is a chubby, supportive yet tough character whom the CBC website describes as “the unofficial mother of the ICS team” (CBC website, September 19, 2009). As both a woman in a position of authority and through the stereotype of mother, she both reinforces as well as challenges traditional female roles. Sergeant Layla Hourani is a Canadian Muslim female who is the newest member of the ICS team. As a young, strong Muslim woman in a position of authority, Hourani counteracts the hegemonic Western constructions of Muslims as “terrorists” or “oppressed women.” Hourani represents a tolerant, secular, and assimilated Canadian Muslim voice and therefore presents a more complex, nuanced representation of Muslim female Canadians. She is often paired for detective work with Detective Sergeant Gray Jackson. Detective Sergeant Gray Jackson is a White single male in his early 30s who is portrayed as a handsome womanizer, gambler, and risk-­‐taker with a sensitive side. Gray uses his charm with women to help him solve cases, but also tends to leave baggage behind. Thus, Gray is constructed as a traditional heterosexual male. Furthermore, Gray grew up in foster care and has been on his own since he was sixteen years old, pointing to a stray from The Border’s typical erasure of class distinction and the normalization of Canadians as upper-­‐ and middle-­‐class. Detective Sergeant Al “Moose” Lepinsky is a White, middle-­‐aged male, an “old-­‐style” cop who serves as ICS’s liaison with local police. He is depicted as an overweight, gruff, insensitive character who “mostly wishes that foreigners would just stay home” (CBC website, September 19, 2009). Moose therefore embodies a more traditionally conservative and hegemonic Canadian perspective in that he adheres to marked distinctions between our nation (“us”) versus their nation (“them”). Inspector Darnell Williams is a Black male of African descent who identifies as a Canadian. He is an ex-­‐CSIS agent stationed in Africa, which raises suspicions within Kessler and the ICS team in terms of where his allegiances lie. 38
Agent Heironymous Slade is a young, White male who is head of information technology (IT) on the ICS team. He is depicted as a stereotypical “computer geek” who is a genius at cracking computer codes and talking in technical terms, and is socially awkward. The CBC sums up his character as living on “nerves and non-­‐stop junk food” and in fact his mother still cooks, packages, and freezes individual dinners for him. Throughout the series, the audience watches him struggle with dating (and breaking up) with a Mohawk woman named Sally. Slade confirms a vision of the “computer geek” as a young, White, heterosexual male, who cannot take care of himself and who does not have much luck with women. Secondary Characters CSIS Agent Mannering is a White male in his late 40s–early 50s who is the head of CSIS. Mannering’s more hardline and hawkish approach to immigration, border, and Canadian security issue presents an oppositional perspective to Kessler and ICS’s moral framework. In fact, Mannering is one of Kessler’s adversaries, dating back to Bosnia in which CSIS utilized the JTF2 forces to cover up the fact that the Canadian government had provided arms to a Croatian warlord responsible for murdering innocent Bosnians. The Border employs the character of Mannering to demonstrate that Canada is made up of divergent individuals and institutions, thereby perpetuating that Canada is a diverse, heterogeneous, democratic nation with a plurality of perspectives. Yvonne Castle is a young, female defence attorney dedicated to helping and protecting those who are not in positions of power, such as immigrants, refugees, and wrongly accused suspects; she is also Kessler’s lover. On the one hand, Yvonne is a lawyer and therefore is represented as a strong and independent woman in a profession with cultural capital. On the other hand, Yvonne is represented as an honourable, incorruptible, and sympathetic woman in her professional sphere and a woman striving for a committed relationship in her personal sphere, thereby pointing to a reification of traditional, stereotypical female roles. Cabinet Minister Suzanne Fleischer is the Minister of Labour for the Canadian government. She is Kessler’s and Mannering’s direct superior. She has both authority and political clout and thereby represents a woman in a marked position of authority. Previously she worked with Kessler and Mannering in Bosnia where she did media relations for the military. She is also Kessler’s ex-­‐lover. The Deputy Minister is a young White male who has the highest position of power on The Border with the Minister of Labour, ICS, and CSIS all reporting to him. He is portrayed as a sleazy man, often seen in clandestine hotel rooms and limousines with different young Oriental women. Zoe Kessler is Major Kessler’s teenage daughter. She is portrayed as rebellious and free spirited, trying to find her own moral code. In searching for her own identity, she tries on different personas, from smoking and drinking to activism as well as navigating her relationship with her father. Sally is an Aboriginal woman who lives on a Mohawk reserve and who is also a computer genius who graduated at the top of her class. She helps the Mohawk police and was hired as Mannering’s spy to break into the ICS computer system. To gain access, she dates Slade and moves into his home, then abandons him once her task is complete. As will be discussed below, Sally is represented as a strong female, but also untrustworthy. 39
Plot Narrative The Border plots the trajectory of the Immigration and Customs Security Unit (ICS) as it addresses a series of border and security cases that mirror contemporary Canadian and international political and social events. The series explores a vast array of complex topics ranging from Muslim terrorist plots, to illegal immigrants, to the trafficking of refugees and weapons. The subject matter of the program works as a milieu to primarily explore constructions of gender, race, and ethnicity. On the one hand, The Border offers a heterogeneous, complex, and nuanced representation of Canada and Canadian identity. On the other hand, in the reaffirmation of a Canadian national identity, The Border necessarily creates a binary of our nation (“us”) in contrast to their nation (“them”) (Anderson, 1983). More specifically, set in a post 9/11 Canadian context, The Border explores, complicates, and expands a Canadian discourse on Muslims with three of the thirteen episodes addressing Muslim issues. For example, the pilot (January 7, 2008) examines whether a Canadian man of Syrian descent, who was spotted speaking to a Muslim terrorist and was consequently deported to Syria, was wrongfully convicted, based on his race and ethnicity. The episode therefore simultaneously reinforces a framework in which Muslims are represented as terrorists, all the while subverting a hegemonic discourse in which all Muslims are terrorists. The pilot sets the stage for the series, which continuously focuses on Muslim issues. For instance, in episode 103 (January 21, 2008), a US rendition flight crash-­‐lands in St. Calais, rural Quebec, and ICS must capture the three imprisoned Muslim terrorists who hijacked the plane and escaped. Again, in episode 108 (February 25, 2008), ICS must prevent a deadly Muslim terrorist attack by known Afghani terrorists who have entered Canada. Simultaneously, throughout the series, the character of Layla Hourani counteracts the prevailing discourse of “Muslims as terrorists” insofar as she represents the voice of a tolerant, secular, and peaceful Muslim. The Border further examines other terrorist groups who pose a safety breach to Canadian citizens. For example, in episode 102 (January 14, 2008), ICS investigates members of an Albanian mob responsible for cocaine smuggling, who have infiltrated a native casino on a Mohawk reserve. Moreover, in episode 104 (January 28, 2008), ICS attempts to track down a Belgian terrorist who blackmails a Latino-­‐Canadian to illegally transport weapons from Canada to the US. Again the focus on representations of different groups from other nations works to establish a Canadian national identity in contrast to others, as well as comment on different national, ethnic, and racial constructions. The Border also addresses (illegal) immigration issues, which further serve to create and blur categorical constructions of race, ethnicity, gender, and class. For example, in episode 105 (February 4, 2008), ICS arrests three Russian strippers due to possession of non-­‐valid visas that the Minister of Labour, Suzanne Fleischer, mysteriously asks Kessler to release. The trail leads back to a Russian businessman (the strippers’ boss) with whom she had an affair, and a White male cabinet minister. The two men are blackmailing Fleischer to step down from office. In episode 106 (February 11, 2008), ICS discovers a group of illegal immigrants, smuggled into Vancouver’s port, who are linked to a Chinese mob called Dragon Circle and to CSIS. The ICS team learns that Dragon Circle sells Chinese 40
women’s bodies and body parts to Canadians, including Mannering whose daughter needs a kidney transplant. The series also covers incidents in which individuals from other nations enter Canada legally or illegally for visitation purposes, but require additional attention involving the ICS unit. In episode 110 (March 10, 2009), when a Cuban minister arrives on Canadian soil, ICS gets mobilized to track down a hardline Cuban American radical who has plans to assassinate the minister. ICS pressures a Cuban boxer, the son of the Cuban radical, to help them stop the assassination. In episode 107 (February 8, 2008), a famous Black female pop star from the UK, and her son (whom she adopted from a Sudanese refugee camp) enter Canada for a UN conference to discuss the rights of women and children in war-­‐
ravaged nations. ICS gets involved because the Sudanese boy requires a special visa to enter Canada. The plot is complicated by a Sudanese man who claims to be the boy’s father but is in fact a warlord who coerced the boy to become a deadly child soldier. The episode therefore explores a series of issues, including the role of class and fame in the adoption of children from Third World nations, and Canada’s involvement in foreign affairs that cross over international laws, both of which serve as a backdrop to discuss racial, gender, and class representations. The Border further addresses border issues between the US and Canada to establish Canada as a distinct nation. For example, in episode 109 (March 3, 2008), ICS intercepts a US container ship in Halifax after an Indonesian crew member accuses the captain of kidnapping and murdering a Nigerian stowaway, who is later revealed to be the leader of a Nigerian military group that has been attacking US oil installations in the Niger Delta. This episode explores whether the crewmember or the captain (whom Lagarda is called in to defend) is telling the truth, and therefore addresses issues of racial and national bias. Furthermore, episode 111 (March 17, 2008) explores an anti-­‐nuclear protest near the Canada US border in which Zoe, Kessler’s daughter, is implicated and arrested. Similarly, in episode 112 (March 24, 2008), ICS investigates a pedophile who captured an underaged girl near the Canada US border. The first season culminates with episode 113 (March 31, 2008), which offers some insight into the characters’ past in Bosnia. As a major of the JTF2 forces in Bosnia, Kessler was forced to cover up an illegal operation carried out by the Canadian government, which provided arms to a Croatian warlord who subsequently murdered innocent victims. Kessler is convinced that the warlord has reappeared in Canada but is ordered to end his manhunt or be arrested for breaching the Official Secrets Act. The episode breaks from traditional myths of Canada as an honest, trustworthy, and transparent nation to present one filled with secrets that are kept from the public at large. Gender On the surface, there appears to be equal representation of male and female characters on The Border. Out of the fourteen primary and secondary characters there are seven men and seven women. However, of the eight primary characters, five are men (Kessler, Gray, Moose, Darnell, Slade) and three are women (Lagarda, Hourani, and Maggie), pointing to a slight imbalance of female representation within the more prominent roles. Moreover, more men than women occupy positions of power. For instance, Kessler, a White male, is not only the lead of the show, but also the voice of authority for the entire ICS unit. Furthermore, Kessler’s ICS unit rivals with CSIS, headed by another 41
White male; those two both ultimately report to the Deputy Minister, a third White male. Thus, The Border operates from a dominant perspective in which White, middle-­‐aged men are afforded the positions of authority. At the same time, the series does include and construct women in positions of authority such as US homeland security Special Agent Lagarda—one of Major Kessler’s antagonists—
who poses a distinct bifurcation between Canada and the United States, and Minister of Labour, Suzanne Fleischer, Kessler’s superior. It is simply important to note that, while seemingly progressive, the representation of women on The Border is still couched within a hegemonic framework of male dominance. The male characters tend to reinforce traditional stereotypes more than they challenge gender roles. Kessler is presented as a workaholic, Gray as a womanizer, Slade as a computer nerd, Moose as a gruff old-­‐style cop,and Darnell as aloof—all of which are identified as typical male constructions. Even the secondary characters, such as Mannering and the Deputy Minister, although less developed, are represented in top positions of power and authority. When the men are portrayed in their personal lives, they tend to appear inept or incapable of emotional commitment—also traditional male attributes. For example, Kessler cannot commit to Yvonne Castle and forgets to meet her for dinner because he is enwrapped in a case. Similarly, he struggles to make a meaningful connection with his daughter. Slade has to ask Kessler for advice on a first date, insinuating that while he may be a genius with machines, he has few people skills. Gray is presented as a ladies’ man who is more interested in sexual encounters than committed relationships. For instance, in episode 106 (February 11, 2008), he makes an advance at Hourani and when she rejects him, he chooses the next single young woman, whom Hourani finds in his hotel room the next morning. There are, however, fissures to the dominant representation, which are evidenced when Kessler quits his job in episode 111 (March 17, 2008) in order to protect his daughter after she has been arrested. By contrast,The Border both reinforces and subverts female stereotypes. On one hand, the female characters tend to subvert traditional gender roles insofar as they are all represented as tough, strong, professional, and ethnically diverse women with political, economic, and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1990). On the other hand, The Border reifies a mother/femme fatale binary in which the characters belong to these fixed categories. Thus, The Border consciously problematizes and deflects prevailing stereotypes as well as unconsciously reproduces and reinforces a more discrete discursive sexism. The Border’s construction of Special Agent Bianca Lagarda is an illustrative example of the conscious subversion and unconscious reinforcement of gender roles. The show consciously brings attention to Kessler’s (and the audience’s) assumption that the person in charge of US Canada border relations for US homeland security is a man, referring to that individual as a “cowboy” (episode 102). The series further breaks down stereotypes in that Lagarda—a Cuban female—is in an equivalent position of authority to that of Major Kessler and is portrayed as a tough woman who is successful at solving cases. In episode 102 she states that she “prefers to work alone” and catches the Albanian mobsters on her own when Gray’s cover is blown. In fact, Lagarda landed her position by “pissing off her superiors” in the US government, evidencing her ballsy and unyielding ethos. 42
Nonetheless, clad in high heels and designer sunglasses, Lagarda is also depicted as a sexy vixen who uses her sexuality to entrap suspects; witness that same episode, where she uses her sexuality to make an alliance with the Albanian mob. Slade sums up the manner in which Lagarda is represented when he calls her “hot” and “tough” (episode 102). Thus, through the character of Lagarda, The Border correlates a woman’s professional strength to her sexuality. Lagarda does, however, challenge pre-­‐existing, traditional gender relations. In episode 104 Kessler asks Lagarda if he can buy her a drink, to which she responds, “Yes, and then I’ll buy you one.” This example illustrates that The Border brings consciousness to and challenges unexamined gender roles in which the male is the breadwinner who chivalrously buys women drinks. Rather, Lagarda is constructed as financially independent, thereby subverting existing stereotypes. Superintendant Maggie Norton similarly both challenges and reasserts traditional gender stereotypes. As second-­‐in-­‐command to Kessler, Maggie Norton is another woman in a position of power, to whom all other members of ICS must report. In episode 103, Maggie asserts her authority over Moose: “Let’s try to avoid the Canadian commando strong-­‐arming the Quebec cops, shall we?” Later in the same episode Maggie further imparts orders to the Canadian troops: Maggie: We’ve been ordered out. Male commanding officer: By whose authority? Maggie: Mine. Male commanding officer: But you’ve got men in there. Maggie: I know. This dialogue further demonstrates that Maggie upholds a position of authority. At the same time, it is important to note that the use of the term “men” rather than “people” (insofar as both Gray—a man, and Hourani—a woman were still “in there”) reproduces an unexamined discursive sexism within The Border. Despite her professional capital, Maggie is represented as the primordial mother of the ICS team, thereby reinforcing the mother/femme fatale dichotomy. For example, in episode 105, Kessler asks Maggie to let the Russian stripper stay at her home overnight, to which she concedes. Again in episode 109, Kessler tells Maggie that he leans on her both professionally and personally, to which she responds that she can handle it. Furthermore, Maggie also plays innocent as a strategy to capture suspects. In the pilot episode, she pretends to bump into the known terrorist from Syria, and in episode 104, she pretends to smash into the car of the two suspects who are staking out the Latino-­‐
Canadian’s family whom they are blackmailing. However, The Border does try to complicate and challenge Maggie’s two-­‐dimensional role as innocent mother. In episode 113, during an ICS stakeout in front of a bar for a cocaine drug bust, Maggie states, “I can go for bourbon myself. What?! I am freezing my tits off.” The reference to drinking bourbon and the use of the term “tits” are a deliberate attempt to embody masculine gender roles. Nonetheless, these representations still operate within a traditional male/female dichotomy. 43
Likewise, the last main female character, Sergeant Detective Layla Hourani, both challenges and reinforces traditional gender stereotypes. On the one hand, she is an intelligent Muslim woman who speaks seven languages and is strong enough to physically detain a male suspect (episode 101). The newest member of the ICS team, she is presented as dedicated to her career and a real asset. Nonetheless, Hourani is equally portrayed as a sensitive and emotional woman. For instance, in the pilot episode she loses her temper with Kessler, to which Slade remarks, “You are hyper-­‐emotional. Are you on the post-­‐luteal phase of your cycle?” There is an assumption that Hourani does not have a legitimate, rational reason for being upset, but rather is emotional as a result of PMS. Throughout the series, Hourani deals with her troubled emotional state after killing a teenage Muslim boy in episode 102. She is forced to see a therapist and is assigned to desk duty. Hourani’s emotional state brings into question whether she is essentially capable of performing her duties at ICS. Hourani is also infused with other stereotypically female characteristics such as being conscious of her body image; in episode 101 she refuses a brownie and says that she does not eat carbohydrates. There are two instances when she is doing detective work on the ground with Detective Sergeant Gray where the tough, independent woman is suddenly depicted as less capable and more dependent on Gray in order to do her job: first when she is portrayed as being scared of bears (episode 102) and later when she is shown to be afraid of rats (episode 109). In episode 109, Hourani reveals that her dreams for the future are to settle down, get married, and have children and a cocker spaniel. Thus, The Border perpetuates an unexamined stereotype of woman as mother. The secondary female characters on the series further deflect and reinforce women in traditional gender roles. For example, Yvonne Castle is a defence lawyer and is therefore a woman in a respected profession with cultural capital. Furthermore, she is depicted as operating according to her own convictions, representing those with less cultural capital, such as illegal immigrants and refugees, as well as standing up to large bureaucracies such as CSIS and ICS. Nonetheless, Yvonne Castle embodies traditional female stereotypes within her personal life, insofar as she presses Kessler for a commitment to their relationship when she buys a shaving kit for him to keep at her house (episode 105). Similarly, in episode 113, Yvonne Castle concedes and sleeps with Kessler, even after they have broken up and she is dating someone else. Likewise, as a cabinet minister and an ex-­‐media relations agent in Bosnia, Suzanne Fleischer is represented in a strong professional position of authority with political clout. However, in episode 105, she is also represented as a woman who had a clandestine affair with a Russian businessman who is blackmailing her. Thus, while The Border deflects the stereotype of women in less powerful professional positions, it still couches its narrative within stereotypical gender roles at the social and personal level. The content of The Border itself further tackles feminist issues, indicating a conscious awareness and discussion around gender roles. For example, episode 105 focuses and broadens the debate on the role of strippers through a discussion between Maggie and the three Russian strippers who work at the Pink Russian strip club. Maggie personifies the Western, liberal, second wave feminist perspective in which strippers are regarded as repressed and a systemic product of patriarchal power, while the strippers represent a third wave feminist perspective in which they are empowered and have agency, and stripping has legitimacy. The episode includes a conversation in which Maggie tries to convince 44
the Russian women that they can now stop working as strippers because they have been granted residency in Canada: Maggie: You can retrain. Maybe take a bookkeeping course. Stripper: We already are trained. Maggie: Look, if your boss makes you do something that you don’t want to be doing... Stripper: Ah, she thinks we are sex slaves. We are not whores, we are dancers. Here The Border pushes the traditional Western liberal feminist boundaries and exposes the audience to feminist debates. In other instances, Sergeant Hourani and Detective Sergeant Gray also discuss feminist issues within a Muslim context. For example, in the pilot episode, when Hourani and Gray see Muslim girls wearing a hijab at a school, they debate whether Muslim women should wear a veil. Gray takes a Western, liberal, second wave feminist perspective in which he asserts “no girl should have to hide her head under a scarf,” while Hourani embodies the third wave feminist framework, stating that “some girls prefer the hijab; it makes them feel protected.” Thus, Hourani’s voice provides a less prevalent and hegemonic perspective. It is, however, important to note that Hourani does not wear a hijab herself; in fact, when Gray asks, “Oh yeah? Would you wear one?” Hourani responds, “Please.” Despite the fact that Hourani represents a third wave feminist voice, she remains a “modern,” “Westernized” woman. Similarly, in episode 108, The Border further explores the oppression of Muslim women as well as the role of the veil. Moose’s voice works as the hegemonic Western perspective in which Afghan women are inherently oppressed because they are coerced to wear the burqa. His dominant Western position is established when he states: “You from Afghanistan, eh? The thing you are wearing on your head? The burqa? That’s what it’s called right? That’s Afghan? It must be hot as hell under there. No Vitamin D. You have a whole country; all the women have their bones crumbling. You might want to talk to a prisoner doctor, do a bone scan, and ask them about calcium supplements” (episode 108). The Border then challenges a Western, liberal, feminist perspective when it reveals that the Afghan woman bedecked in a burqa is in reality a well-­‐educated, White Western woman from New England who converted to Islam. The character interrupts a hegemonic Western perspective that views Muslims as the enemy or all Muslim women as exempt from agency. Nonetheless, in the end, the woman is found guilty of manufacturing anthrax for a terrorist plot, thereby giving less credibility to her perspective. Furthermore, the Muslim woman is never considered a suspect; with her newborn son, she is assumed to be innocent. The clustering of “women and children” works rhetorically to detach a woman from a position of agency. For instance, Kessler states, “Mannering doesn’t think that a nursing burqa-­‐clad mother is likely to know much of value.” Maggie responds, “Well she’s got ears under there like the rest of us. Maybe she could have heard something.” None of them suspect that a Muslim woman could be involved. By making her the guilty party, The Border is alerting the 45
audience to its own preconceptions, but also reifying a stereotype in which women are innocent and oppressed. Race and Ethnicity In focusing on Canadian border issues as well as in constructing a Canadian national identity—which necessarily defines “our” nation in contrast to “theirs”—The Border directly addresses questions concerning race and ethnicity. The program simultaneously constructs Canada as a multi-­‐ethnic and multiracial nation, and reinforces binaries of “us” and “them” insofar as constructions of nationhood necessarily define one nation in contrast to another. The construction of Canada as a heterogeneous nation can be attributed to the show’s inclusion of different groups such as African-­‐Canadian, Muslim, Russian, Chinese, Latin American, Quebecois, and First Nations. Moreover, The Border does not lump members of these ethnic groups into one category but rather shows how they are diverse with a multiplicity of personalities and perspectives. Thus, the program portrays Canada as a robust and multifarious population with a plurality of points of view. Despite these diverse representations, The Border maintains a framework in which “Whiteness” is the normative yardstick, insofar as the majority of main characters are White. Out of the eight primary characters, five are White while one is Cuban, one is Muslim, and one is African-­‐Canadian. Out of the six secondary characters, five are White, for a total of ten White characters out of fourteen. Moreover, all of the characters in the highest positions of authority are White (Kessler, Mannering, Suzanne Fleischer, and the Deputy Minister) with the exception of Special Agent Lagarda. While The Border is still couched within a framework of Whiteness, it is simultaneously engaged in a critical discourse about race representation. For example, in episode 108 when Darnell interrogates the detained Muslim woman, she makes manifest the naturalization of Whiteness and points to unequal power relations between “dominant White men” and “subordinate visible minorities”: Muslim woman: Don’t you find it ironic that you, an African American man, are interrogating me, a Muslim woman, while white men are watching us through a one way mirror? Darnell: Actually, I’m Canadian. Muslim woman: Your ancestors are African. Darnell: Everyone’s ancestors are something. Muslim woman: They were dragged here in chains. Darnell: To America. They came to Canada to be free. Muslim woman: They were treated like shit here. Darnell: Everyone was treated like shit. Read your Canadian history. The Natives, the Chinese, hell, even the Irish. That’s what history is: treating people like shit. This passage is a critical representation of a colonialist Canadian history, further complicating the concept of one homogenous Canadian discourse and culture. The Border therefore tends to 46
simultaneously challenge hegemonic racial constructions, while unwittingly reproducing discursive racism. This section first explores how the program reinforces categorical constructions of “us” and “them” and then examines how it constructs Canada as an ethnically and racially diverse nation. In constructing Canada as a nation in contrast to others, The Border reifies an Orientalist framework of “us” versus “them.” According to Said, contemporary Orientalism is informed by the construction of “absolute and systematic difference between the West, which is rational, developed, humane, superior, and the Orient, which is aberrant, undeveloped, inferior” (Said, 1978, p.300). Thus, he defines Orientalism as “a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient” (Said, 1978, p. 3). Despite the racial diversity included on The Border the majority of enemies are brown-­‐skinned; only five out of the thirteen episodes portray White characters as enemies/suspects. The Border re-­‐invokes Orientalism by depicting most of the immigrants and suspects with accents, which serves to circumscribe “otherness.” Thus, The Border subscribes to categorical binaries of us versus them and good versus evil. It is important to note that the two female lead characters of visible minority (Hourani and Lagarda) are stripped of their accents and ethnic or cultural markers, demarcating them unequivocally into the category of us/good. In other words, the show presupposes that racial diversity is encouraged so long as “you” are like “us” (i.e. the West), pointing to a reproduction of systemic Orientalist underpinnings. Although The Border attempts to complicate and widen the traditional hegemonic post-­‐9/11 discourse on Muslims, it is still couched within a construction of “Muslim as terrorist.” In fact, three out of the thirteen episodes reproduce a discourse in which Muslims are regarded as terrorists and reduced to terrorism. Although episode 101 critiques a discourse in which Canadian Muslims are wrongly accused of being linked to terrorism based on their race, the discourse of “Muslim as terrorist” acts as a backdrop for the episode. For instance, the Canadian Muslim is linked to a well-­‐
known Syrian terrorist who is responsible for the manufacturing of gel explosives. The show also includes a Muslim Canadian who makes fake passports, and is partially set at a Wahabi Mosque that has been “known to produce several terrorists.” In one scene, a television news station in the background states that “twelve people were killed yesterday in Taliban related violence.” Again in episode 103, Muslims are represented as terrorists insofar as the prisoners on the airplane are all terrorists affiliated with Al Qaida and the Taliban. For instance, Hazal Riyad is described as a Saudi Arabian bomb maker linked to 23 attacks in Al Kabar that killed 16 troops and over 100 civilians. Similarly, Hazid Malaeki worked as a stockbroker on Wall Street, worshipped at the same mosque as the 07/07 bombers, and could finance two major attacks within 30 days. In episode 108, Muslim terrorists in Kandahar have captured Canadian troops as hostages and Canadian Muslims are planning a terrorist plot in Toronto. Thus, a representation of Muslims as terrorists persistently acts as a backdrop against which other perspectives concerning Muslims are advanced. Nonetheless it is important to note that The Border’s narrative challenges the hegemonic, post-­‐9/11, Orientalist discourse. For example, episode 101 discusses the danger in wrongfully accusing innocent Muslims based on their race and religion. The Canadian Muslim who was convicted as a terrorist was deported back to Syria, imprisoned, and beaten. Thus the show brings forth the consequences of a discourse that views all Muslims as Canada’s enemies. In episode 102, Maggie scorns Moose for using the derogatory term “camel jockeys” to describe Muslims. Sergeant Hourani further counteracts the 47
“Muslim as terrorist” discourse by representing a sensible, rational, loving, and “Westernized” Muslim. In episode 108, in a conversation with her therapist concerning the Muslim teenager Hourani killed in a previous episode (102), Hourani shares the perspective of Islam as a religion of love and tolerance: Hourani: Good Muslims don’t kill anybody, let alone a 15-­‐year-­‐old boy. What if my family knew or the people at my mosque? Therapist: You feel like you betrayed them? Hourani: I’m locking up Muslims. This is a religion of love. What am I doing here? The woman today? It was my job to violate her religious beliefs. My job. Here, the show offers a conscious and counter-­‐hegemonic frame to reductionist, Orientalist representations of Muslims, thereby broadening a discourse on Canadian Muslims. However, the show further reifies an Orientalist discourse by repeatedly displaying the deputy minister with different “Oriental” women. First, in episode 102, he is seen in a hotel room with an Asian woman; later, in episode 110, he is seen inside a limo with a different Asian woman. In the latter instance, the woman is clad in an Indian sari. Such details serve to romanticise the Orient as exotic, which works as a two-­‐sided stereotype (Hall, 1990). While at first glance it seems as though exotic and sexualized Eastern women are at least more positive representations of the East, as Hall (1990) has noted, stereotypes tend to be double-­‐sided (i.e., violent Muslim man versus sexy Muslim woman). The argument suggests that such stereotypical portrayals do not foster a representation of Muslims as infinitely diverse and multifarious, and only serve to further construct the view of Muslims as “others.” Furthermore, in The Border, no explanation or context is provided as to why the deputy minister is with these women. Their inclusion is therefore suggestive of serving an Orientalist discourse. The Border further reproduces Orientalist categorical constructions of us and them through its affirmation that some bodies count more than others (Butler, 1993). According to Judith Butler (1993), certain bodies carry more discursive weight and are privileged over others, indicating relations of domination and subordination. For instance, in episode 106, a Chinese mob situated in Canada deals in “selling [Chinese] bodies whole, selling bodies in parts” for prostitution and on the black market for sick Canadians. Within the episode an illicit doctor performs an illegal surgery to remove a kidney of a young Fallun Gong Chinese illegal immigrant for Mannering’s daughter who needs a kidney transplant. When Kessler finds Mannering during the illegal operation, Mannering justifies his position to Kessler, stating, “She wasn’t coerced. She was given a trust fund, a fast track to residency, and she escaped a life of repression.... You have a daughter, what would you do?” Despite, the existing legislations in place, Kessler allows the surgery to continue. The suggestion here is that White Canadian bodies count more than brown Chinese bodies insofar as the Chinese woman’s body parts are literally sold as a commodity. The Border does portray Canada as a heterogeneous nation through its inclusion of characters and issues pertaining to different races and ethnicities. The Mohawk band is featured prominently on the 48
program and is sewn into the fabric of Canadian nationhood. Moreover, one of the thirteen episodes is set within a Mohawk reserve and addresses First Nations relations to Canada. The show complicates dominant stereotypes by broadening a discourse on issues such as the role of the casino for the Native Canadian economy. For example, in episode 102, the Mohawk cop states, “Casinos are good for our people. Profits have raised our people’s quality of life beyond two centuries of government promises.” Furthermore, the show provides a position which is critical of the Canadian government’s policies for Native Canadians. Through this example, the show privileges a First Nations perspective rather than a dominant state one. Nonetheless, The Border erases the Canadian historical context of the European colonization of Native land. For example, in episode 102 Lagarda states, “Today, the Mohawks are sending us drugs, tomorrow, terrorists and plutonium.”The Border does not provide a context in which Europeans (Canadians) have colonized and stripped First Nations people of their land and traditional modes of being, and have facilitated a power dynamic in which Native Canadians are pushed into illegal operations. There is no discussion concerning the economic hardships brought on by colonialism. There are three positive representations of Mohawks on The Border, including a police officer, a woman who works as manager of a hotel, and Sally, the aforementioned female computer genius who graduated at the top of her class and hacked into the ICS high security computer system. Thus, Mohawks are represented in positions of professional clout and economic and social capital, which undercuts dominant stereotypes of Native Canadians as uneducated and lazy. Nonetheless, The Border undermines the positive representations of the two female Mohawk characters. For example, episode 106 evinces that Sally worked as Mannering’s mole and faked an intimate relationship with Slade in order to hack into ICS’s computer system. Thus, while on the one hand Sally is represented as an intelligent Mohawk woman (therefore deflecting traditional stereotypes), on the other hand she becomes less credible insofar as she is simultaneously depicted as sneaky, disloyal, dishonest, and untrustworthy. Similarly, although Jo, the Mohawk hotel manager, at first appears to be in a position of power, her character is killed off in the same episode; pertinent issues to her character cannot be further developed. Moreover, within the single episode in which she does appear, her character is refigured from strong to weak throughout her encounter with Gray, an ex-­‐lover. Particularly, when Jo first re-­‐encounters Gray, she adamantly refuses to have any contact with him and in fact kicks him out of her hotel, thereby depicting her as a woman that does not depend on men for her sense of self-­‐worth. However, later in the same episode, when Gray seduces her (to gain leverage in his investigation of the Albanian mob members staying at the hotel/casino), Jo easily submits to his advances, undermining her previous convictions. Thus again The Border undermines its representation of Mohawk women in positions of power. It is interesting to note that these representations are in line with the show’s representations of gender, in which women appear strong in professional roles but weak in personal and social ones. Moreover, these representations have a double impact at the level of both race and gender, insofar as it is the First Nations women, not the First Nations man, who lose their credibility. The Border further constructs diversity of representation through the inclusion of the Quebecois in its constitution of Canadian identity. Specifically, episode 103 is set in St. Calais, rural Quebec, thereby including the Quebecois within the Canadian cultural landscape. Furthermore, the show includes 49
Quebecois in a plurality of positions and groups: police officers, a female mechanic, and a teenage boy who is a computer video blogger, thereby representing Quebecois as heterogeneous. The Border, however, establishes ICS as the first-­‐in-­‐command over the Quebec police as when Maggie asserts “I have control now, do you understand?” English Canada is further established as the normative standard insofar as members of ICS start by speaking French then quickly switch to English. The show also pokes fun at the Quebecois for having French accents and improper grammar when they speak English, as well as for not understanding English slang such as “cop shop.” Implicit then is the assumption that Quebecois from rural Quebec are uneducated. The Border also brings a consciousness to race representation by flipping racial stereotypes. For example, in episode 104, a White Belgian man is the “enemy” that ICS tries to capture, while Ravello, a Latin-­‐American, is the victim who is being blackmailed. Ravello is portrayed as a hard-­‐working truck driver who is dedicated to protecting his family. The episode therefore plays with constructions of us versus them, and falsifies these stereotypical binaries. In fact, Moose describes Ravello as “mid-­‐40s, brown hair, brown eyes, medium height,” to which Maggie replies, “Your average Canadian.” The dialogue omits race as a descriptive determinant, thereby attempting to erase it as a category. In episode 109, The Border again makes explicit its representation of race, class, and nationhood. The episode creates tension about which character murdered Nigerian stowaways on a boat: an Indonesian worker or the White captain from San Diego. The White captain says to Major Kessler, “I know it’s hard to believe that it’s the poor Asian that’s the bad guy and not the privileged White guy. It has to be pretty hard in that big heart of yours, Major Kessler.” This statement evinces the show’s self-­‐reflexivity in terms of race construction. Further nuanced representations of race can be gleaned in that same episode through positive representations of a Nigerian politician who was running for president and lobbying against US oil companies, and his family as innocent children whose parents were murdered by the White US captain. Similarly, in episode 110, race and nationality are made into more complex categories through the positive construction of a Cuban landed immigrant as a Canadian Olympic hopeful juxtaposed with his father, a Cuban fugitive who assassinates a Cuban minister. Thus, The Border subverts and challenges simplistic stereotypes of race, all the while reinforcing an underlying Orientalist framework and discursive racism. Class While The Border tends to engage directly with categorical constructions of gender and race, it remains silent on and tends to erase class distinctions. Specifically, The Border naturalizes and normalizes upper middle class, in that the primary and secondary characters all inhabit upper middle-­‐
class positions. The deputy minister frequents upscale hotels, drinks champagne, and is escorted around in a limousine; Bianca Lagarda is dressed in designer clothes; Major Kessler lives in a fancy home and drives an SUV; and Kessler’s 17-­‐year-­‐old daughter has her own car. Thus, the upper middle class is presented as the standardized benchmark. The only exception and subtle hinting at class distinction comes through the show’s construction of Detective Sergeant Gray, who left home at a young age and grew up in various foster homes. In general, however, the characters with the most visibility and authority are portrayed as upper middle class. 50
Similarly, The Border portrays members of the working class within its supporting characters; yet their representations are largely unexamined and non-­‐critical and tend, rather, to correlate the working class with visible minorities. Bobby Ravello, a Latin American man, is presented as a truck driver (episode 104); prison guards are exclusively Black (113); and Latin Americans work as kitchen and janitorial staff in an upscale hotel (110). Thus, The Border tends to reify a discourse in which visible minorities and immigrants are represented as working class. There are, however, fissures in representation in which The Border problematizes stereotypic correlations between class and race. The Nigerian stowaways in episode 109 were from a wealthy class with political clout, and the wealthy British pop star, Amira, is a Black woman who uses her celebrity status to adopt a Sudanese boy. Amira is meant to parallel contemporary newsworthy stories in which prominent celebrities from Western nations, such as Madonna and Angelina Jolie, adopt children from Third World countries. The inclusion of this topic within the series raises a debate concerning wealthy nations saving children from poorer nations while erasing how political and economic globalization have contributed to these inequalities amongst nations in the first place. Amira states that she has come to Canada to participate in a conference to “take direct action against those who bring war to non-­‐combatants: monsters who use women and children as pawns, targets, and human shields.” Implicit here is the assumption in the West that “we” are saving the women and children of Third World nations from barbaric men; however, “we” do so without asking these nations whether they need saving in the first place. The Border’s decision to use a Black woman as the pop star further complicates the discourse on relations of domination and subordination between nations, gender, classes, and races. Sexual Orientation The Border tends to occlude queer discourse and representation from its program, pointing to an unexamined reproduction of heteronormativity. Within all of season one, there are only two passing references to homosexuality, with no focus on concrete or complex issues. In episode 104, when Moose and Darnell are staking out together in the car, Moose declares, “Next time I am on top,” to which Darnell responds, “You wish.” Their dialogue points to a double entendre that pokes fun at homosexuality, or may suggest that one or both of the characters are mildly homophobic. The other instance occurs in episode 105, in which one of the Russian strippers mentions that her alibi was a “lesbian minister who is in the closet.” None of the characters are in fact queer and both of these examples may demonstrate a lack of commitment to nuanced or prevalent representation of queers characters, discourses, and issues. Disability Likewise, representations of disability are virtually absent within The Border. There is only one character who is portrayed as having a physical disability: a Black male professor of nuclear physics, who makes a brief appearance in episode 111. While on the one hand the representation of a person with a physical disability in a position of professional clout and cultural capital points to a positive construction, its inclusion seems more like a token representation than a fully nuanced treatment of disability. 51
Conclusion According to a pure content analysis, CBC’s The Border includes a diversity of representation at the levels of gender and race, and—to a lesser extent—class, sexual orientation, and disability. More specifically, the series constructs Canada as a diverse and complex society filled with different individuals, groups, and perspectives. Through a detailed informal Critical Discourse Analysis, the frequencies and types of representations can become further unpacked, amplified, and scrutinized. Specifically, these divergent representations bolster a vision of Canada as a democracy as well as an international political player with a unique identity. The series continually constructs Canada as distinct from other nations—which becomes evident in the constant back and forth between Kessler and Lagarda’s quips on foreign policy from “mine is bigger than yours” (Lagarda) to “you guys are not good with quiet” (Kessler). The show further defines Canada as distinct vis-­‐à-­‐vis other nations. In episode 105, Canada’s democracy is constructed as a safe haven for (Russian) immigrants. For example, in a conversation in which one of the strippers wants to strike a deal with Kessler in order to bring her sister to Canada, she states: “In Moscow, they kill you for a pack of cigarettes. If you don’t get my baby sister out she’ll be dead on the streets.” Thus, Canada is represented as a more tolerant and democratic option. Nonetheless, the series does not merely extol Canada’s virtues; it also presents positions and perspectives that are critical of Canada. In episode 109, Sergeant Detective Gray tries to strike a deal with a Cuban boxer: landed immigration papers in return for information on his father. The boxer, however, is critical of Gray’s backdoor deal stating, “You are just like everywhere else. I thought Canada was different.” His White Canadian girlfriend further supports his perspective by adding, “We [Canada] might as well be Russia or Nazi Germany or something.” The constant inclusion of divergent perspective and groups—even those that are critical of Canada—further buttresses a construction of Canada as a democratic nation insofar as disagreement, critiques of the state, and debates are essential ingredients for a robust democracy. The challenging of traditional, stereotypic, and hegemonic representations that can be gleaned from CBC’s The Border is certainly a step in the right direction. However, it remains critical to examine how these representations are constructed, whom they serve, and what discursive strategies are at play. In the case of The Border, the reliance on Western liberalist feminism as a marker of equality amongst women, the discursive binaries of “us versus them” pointing to subtle Orientalist underpinnings, as well as its marginalization of class, sexual orientation, and disability indicates that Canadian drama series have a long way to go before representations of a diverse and democratic nation are not merely a rhetorical ploy. Case Study #2: Little Mosque on the Prairie -­Ainsley Jenicek Little Mosque on the Prairie has captured an international following with its humorous parallels between Muslims and non-­‐Muslims who live in a small Canadian town. This Canadian-­‐made show presents a Muslim-­‐centred view of daily life in the predominantly White and non-­‐Muslim town of 52
Mercy, Saskatchewan. It frames Islamophobic assumptions, reactions, and stereotypes as absurdly comical while normalizing Mercy’s Muslim community through parallels with the predominantly White, non-­‐Muslim community. Islam is shown to be much more similar to Christianity—the dominant faith amongst Canadians—than viewers may previously have known. Little Mosque on the Prairie simultaneously presents a “model minority” community that largely conforms to Canadian norms, and challenges prevailing racist stereotypes about Muslims. Little Mosque on the Prairie first aired in 2007 and was quickly exported to multiple countries. Already in 2007, the show was broadcast in France, Switzerland, some French-­‐speaking African countries, Finland, Turkey, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza (Murray, The Ottawa Citizen, November 24, 2007). The widespread appeal of this show makes it a worthy text to analyze since its popularity suggests that it is satisfying some desire amongst a broad audience segment. Something about the subject matter it tackles and the way it portrays the world appeals to a large number of people. This analysis therefore examines how this show portrays social dynamics in order to flush out which intersections of identity are privileged and marginalized within its appealing view of the world. More specifically, this analysis studies how the first season of Little Mosque on the Prairie represents diversity through gender dynamics, race/ethnicity/religion, socioeconomic class, sexuality, and disability. Characters Primary Characters Yasir Hamoudi is a Lebanese-­‐Canadian man who acts as the patriarchal head of the central family in Little Mosque. Yasir often inserts business interests into religious matters, a characteristic that demonstrates his practical approach toward Islam. For Yasir, there are two main interests that can sway his decision-­‐making: making his business lucrative and keeping his wife (and his mother) happy. Such practical and normative hetero-­‐masculine interests enable Yasir to represent a moderate, assimilated Muslim Canadian. He further symbolizes a safely integrated Muslim because of his Western clothing, his White (originally non-­‐Muslim) wife, his British accent, and his membership in the Conservative Party of Canada, which is not known for its defense of minority rights. His racial and ethnic difference is mitigated by his reticence to ruffle feathers with public displays of Islam (e.g., he refuses to break Ramadan in front of the church, to put up a large sign at the entrance to the mosque/church, etc.). Besides representing the non-­‐threatening Muslim, Yasir reproduces stereotypes of the workaholic husband, the overly protective father, and the cowardly husband and son. That last stereotype, the cowardly husband and son, is what attenuates the power of Yasir’s leadership in the Muslim community. Although he is often sought out when something is going wrong in the mosque, he is also depicted as fumbling and easily swayed, preventing him from appearing very powerful. Amaar Rashid is the new imam that Yasir found for the Mercy (Saskatchewan) Mosque. A Toronto-­‐
born former lawyer, Amaar is racialized with darker skin, but as with Yasir, his racial and religious differences are contained by markers of Western belonging. For instance, members of the Muslim community repeatedly point out that Amaar does not “look like an imam” because he is quite young and does not have a beard. Amaar’s lack of a beard symbolizes his refusal to be orthodox in his practice and preaching of Islam. He also sports Western clothing and the audience learns early on 53
that he obtained a law degree before studying to become an imam. His appearance and prior schooling both classify him as a well-­‐educated Canadian and mark him as sufficiently Westernized. Amaar furthermore acts as a bridge between Islam and Anglican Christianity because he continually seeks guidance from the older and more experienced Reverend Magee. As a bridge character, Amaar can show the overlap between the two faiths and thereby render Islam more familiar and less threatening to Canadian viewers. Apart from Amaar’s role as another non-­‐threatening male Muslim, he also exercises patriarchal leadership. Because he is the imam, Amaar often gets the final word in disputes and problems within the mosque. Yet like Yasir, Amaar’s power appears to be limited both by his slight incompetency as well as by pressure from community members. Rayyan Hamoudi is a witty, mixed race Muslim woman, half White Canadian from her mother Sarah’s side and half Lebanese from her father Yasir’s side. Rayyan embodies what is popularly portrayed as an oxymoron: she is simultaneously a devout Muslim and a feminist. Rayyan expresses this mix in a number of ways. For instance, she wears a hijab and conservative clothing that hides her figure, yet she frequently challenges the masculine authority figures in her life. She refuses to go on an un-­‐
chaperoned date, but she will treat and touch male patients while she is at work as a doctor. Like Yasir and Amaar, Rayyan represents an integrated, properly assimilated Muslim. She continues to be identifiable as a racial and cultural Other while being sufficiently Westernized to be unthreatening. Rayyan presents an Islamic version of feminism through her concerns that women not be forced to sit behind a barrier at the mosque, through her desire to challenge White people’s stereotypes about oppressed Muslim women, and through her continual critiques of anything she identifies as regressive male dominance within Mercy’s Muslim community. In the third episode, Amaar even comments that people will be shocked to meet her since she’s a Muslim feminist. For viewers who are unaware of or disbelieve the existence of Muslim feminism, Rayyan’s feminist opinions may signify her assimilation. Baber Siddiqui stands in contrast to Yasir, Amaar, and Rayyan. A divorced father of one, Baber is portrayed as an orthodox Muslim who wears “traditional” dress, including a taqiyah, and wants the entire Muslim community to be more orthodox as well. Because he is pitted as the most devout Muslim in Mercy’s community, he is often framed as a killjoy. In episode 107, Rayyan states that, “Baber is what Muslims would call ‘an extremist’.” In a number of other episodes, Baber provides comic relief by naively saying things in front of White people that could be considered threatening or fanatical. The rest of the Muslim community tends to hush, scold, and oppose him as a result, thus demonstrating that the Muslim community does not pose a threat to White Canadians. His character serves to prove that, in Mercy, Saskathewan, moderate, assimilated Muslims are the norm. Baber is at times paralleled with Joe, an ignorant White working class man who represents White fear and suspicion of the Muslim community. This parallel, which will be discussed in the section on sexual diversity, communicates that every community has its discriminatory cranks. At the same time, Baber’s character functions to invert White ignorance in order to reveal its absurdity. His character thus plays two main roles: firstly, highlighting the extent to which most Muslims are assimilated and moderate; and secondly, subverting common fears about the Muslim community. Fatima Dinssa is a Nigerian Muslim Canadian woman who plays Baber’s slightly more progressive counterpart. She wears a hijab and “traditional” African print clothing and runs one of the main 54
restaurants in Mercy. Fatima is very conservative like Baber and expresses a desire to preserve Muslim tradition in a variety of ways, such as through food and traditional medicine. However, Fatima also shows that she is able to bend her religious beliefs at times. For instance, in episode 106, she agrees to cater a gay wedding because she cannot tolerate the idea of a rival restaurant taking that job. She and Baber clash over this decision, but she defends it because she believes it is more important to have good food at a wedding than to refuse to be involved with a homosexual union. While she is positioned as more progressive than Baber, she is also contrasted with Rayyan and Sarah Hamoudi. In one episode, Rayyan and Fatima argue over medicine since the former supports Western medicine and the latter promotes traditional African medicine. Fatima is also contrasted with Sarah through their cooking abilities and differing levels of religious obedience. Fatima’s character enables Little Mosque to explore a conservative Muslim woman’s point of view while positioning other Muslim women as comparatively more progressive. Sarah Hamoudi is a White woman who converted to Islam for her husband, Yasir. She does not wear a hijab except to the mosque and generally sports Western clothing. She also has a penchant for shopping, thereby demonstrating some religiously inappropriate vanity and reproducing that feminine stereotype. Sarah represents the “bad convert” as well as an inadequate Muslim wife since she does not pray five times a day or cook traditional Lebanese or Islamic dishes. These shortcomings set her up for a fraught relationship with Yasir’s mother, who in turn represents the stereotypically domineering and critical mother-­‐in-­‐law. Sarah’s inadequacy functions as a source of comedy as well as a site for expressing White views of Islam. She often jokes or expresses frustration at the inconvenience of Islam because of frequent prayers and limitations placed on behaviour that is allowed in the secular world. At the same time, Sarah’s inability to cook signifies her being a modern woman in contrast to Fatima’s traditional cooking skills. Through Sarah, Little Mosque reproduces the association of White women with modernity while also exploring the difficulties of cultural integration. Secondary Characters Mayor Popowicz represents the stereotypical politician who is more interested in using multicultural diversity for self-­‐publicity than anything. She is a White middle-­‐aged woman whose last name suggests she belongs to an ethnic minority, though this goes unexplored. Sarah works as Mayor Popowicz’s public relations agent, so we most often see Mayor Popowicz when the two are together. Mayor Popowicz is portrayed as someone who participates in politically correct culture, but who harbours contrary feelings. For instance, in episode 101, Mayor Popowicz suggests that Yasir is a terrorist and quickly retracts this suggestion when Sarah contradicts her. Also, when Sarah and Yasir are having marital troubles in episode 106, Mayor Popowicz confides that she never believed that “Muslim thing” was working out for Sarah. Reverend Duncan Magee of Mercy’s Anglican church is portrayed as a progressive White man who is open to interfaith dialogue and to religious coexistence. He rents space in the church to the Muslim community so that they can establish a mosque, and defends their right to the space when challenged. He often acts as a mentor to Amaar, though their relationship shifts over the course of the season. Reverend Magee’s progressiveness is further reinforced by his intense dislike of “shock jock” Fred Turner and his weariness of Joe, the ignorant and fearful working-­‐class man. 55
Fred Turner is the local radio’s “shock jock,” meaning he takes an outspoken and controversial approach to subject matter. This White man is a parody of the typical “shock jock,” simultaneously voicing what prejudiced White Canadians think of Muslims while framing that logic as flawed and ridiculous. Fred continually insinuates that Mercy’s Muslim community is full of terrorists; he proclaims that Muslims hate freedom; he rails against Muslims getting any special treatment; and he even extends his prejudiced commentary to queers in episode 106 when Reverend Magee agrees to marry a gay couple. Plot Narrative Little Mosque on the Prairie actively challenges and subverts dominant stereotypes about Muslims by centering the experiences of a small Muslim community in small-­‐town Canada—Mercy, Saskatchewan. By centring the experiences of what would dominantly be characterized as an example of a racially and religiously “diverse” community, Little Mosque is able to critically engage with some of the ways that racism, ignorance, and fear structure the experiences of Muslims in Canada. At the same time, this close view of a small Muslim community enables Little Mosque to show that there exists diversity within Muslim communities. In other words, Little Mosque explores the differences and complex relationships that exist between Muslims. This enables the show to explore differing opinions about gendered practices, sexuality, and cultural assimilation versus distinctiveness. The show therefore relies on the strategies of inversion and heterogeneity in challenging the homogenizing stereotypes that constrain how Muslims are imagined in the dominant media. The ways that racism, ignorance, and fear structure the lives of Mercy’s Muslim community are woven into every episode as either a major or a minor theme. Episode 101 (January 9, 2007) is full of parodies on this subject: Immigration officials interrogate Amaar at the airport and clearly fear that he is a terrorist; Fred lists all the “suspicious” Muslim behaviour that Joe observed (and misinterpreted) at the Mercy mosque; and a reporter is quick to ask Amaar and the Hamoudi family if they are part of a sleeper cell. Episode 103 (January 31, 2007) also features many parodies of Islamophobia. Fred again suspects terrorist activities when the lights malfunction at the rundown Mercy mosque and argues with Sarah on air about whether or not Yasir is a terrorist. This episode also focuses on an open house held in the mosque in an attempt to educate Mercy’s White population and render them less fearful, an effort that is comically shown to fail. Furthermore, Fred and Joe’s ongoing presence over the course of the season weaves ignorant and fearful commentary throughout. What these misunderstandings often suggest is that Islamophobic people can read sinister, terrorist-­‐related threats into almost anything Muslim people do. The show also deals with some material limitations that constrain Muslim lives. For instance, episode 104 (February 6, 2007) features Rayyan’s campaign for the Mayor’s office to hire a female instructor at Mercy’s swimming pool since men outside the family are not allowed to see Muslim women in swimsuits. Episode 105 (February 14, 2007) features Sarah’s quest to become a better Muslim convert by praying five times per day; she quickly finds it too exhausting and inconvenient for her lifestyle. One of the problems she encounters is not having space to pray at the Mayor’s office. These two episodes comically explore the inconveniences that arise from being Muslim in small-­‐town Canada, though it is left ambiguous as to whether the inconveniences arise from Muslim people’s differences or from their unaccommodating contexts. 56
At other times, the show’s critical engagement with racist, ignorant, and fearful stereotypes about Muslims occurs through reproduction and reversal. In other words, the show reproduces certain key stereotypes in order to disprove them. For instance, in episode 106 (February 21, 2007), Yasir’s mother pushes him to become polygamous and take his cousin as a second wife. Amaar, Rayyan, and Fatima all explain to Mother Hamoudi that polygamy is not only illegal in Canada, but very few Muslims actually practice it anymore, even if it is allowed under Islam. Also, episode 105 (February 14, 2007) follows a new White male convert to the Mercy mosque who is soon branded as the most fanatical Muslim of all. His fanaticism mainstreams the rest of the community and shows that everyone else’s practice of Islam, including Baber’s, is relatively flexible and assimilable to Canadian society. These episodes are but two examples of all the stereotype reversals that occur throughout the first season. This oppositional strategy will be further examined in the section on race and ethnicity. As for showing some of the differences between Muslims, debates about gendered practices expose some internal divisions. In episode 102 (January 17, 2007), Baber erects a physical barrier in the mosque to not only make the women pray behind the men but also to block them from view. This erupts into a debate wherein the audience learns that the Muslim men and women of Mercy have been praying together for years and that even the Grand Mosque in Mecca does not have a barrier. The audience is also exposed to various opinions on the matter: Baber believes that women distract men from prayer; Sarah and Rayyan think if the men have the problem, they should be inconvenienced with the solution; Fatima wants a barrier to protect her from male gazes; Fred advocates no barrier, but not from a religiously sensitive point of view; the White feminist movement protests the barrier, but is quick to leave when Sarah suggests their presence might be racist; and Yasir only cares about the solution insofar as it does not hinder his business or his marital sex life. Early in the season, then, it becomes clear that homogenizing this Muslim community will not be possible because of the wide array of sometimes conflicting viewpoints. This theme strikes against the impulse of Orientalist thinking that has a tendency to homogenize Muslims into the easily digestible and knowable Other. Sexuality is another subject that often provokes debate in the series. For instance, in episode 106 (February 21, 2007), Reverend Magee decides to perform the marriage ceremony for two men and this causes conflict between Baber and Amaar as well as Baber and Fatima. These conflicts are further paralleled with conflicts between White non-­‐Muslim community members (Reverend Magee and Joe, Reverend Magee and Fred), thereby communicating that the Muslim community has its internal debates just as the White Anglican community does. Episode 107 (February 28, 2007) shows Rayyan being pursued by and finally going on a date with a White non-­‐Muslim fireman. This situation exposes another range of opinions: Rayyan dates him as a way to defy Amaar’s sexist protectiveness of her sexuality; Amaar adamantly disagrees with Rayyan’s connection to a White non-­‐Muslim man; Baber also opposes Rayyan spending time with a White non-­‐Muslim man because of the influence it will have on his daughter; Yasir adamantly disagrees with Rayyan dating, period; and Sarah is thrilled her daughter is dating an attractive fireman. Rayyan’s response to this mix of White permissiveness and Muslim male protectiveness is that she finally agrees that she should not date a non-­‐Muslim, but still 57
needed to assert herself in the face of sexist treatment. These episodes will be analyzed more in depth in the section on sexuality. A final way that the show demonstrates the complexity of Mercy’s Muslim community is by exploring the tension between cultural assimilation and retention of distinctiveness. This occurs throughout the whole season, through character development as well as the debates on gender and sexuality. For instance, in episode 101 (January 9, 2007), Fatima and Sarah argue about whether to break the community’s Ramadan fast with roasted goat or cucumber sandwiches. The former represents traditional cooking while the latter represents White non-­‐Muslim influence in the Muslim community; the former ends up being more popular with everyone except Reverend Magee, who drops by. In episode 108 (March 7, 2007), Fatima promotes traditional African medicine while Rayyan promotes Western medicine. The final episode in the season (108) focuses on the complexities of interfaith community building. Amaar and Yasir have the Muslim community dress up as Christians to help Reverend Magee convince the visiting archdeacon not to revoke the church’s (and mosque’s) space. To do this effectively, Mercy’s Muslim community learns a bit about Christianity, practices singing hymns, and dresses in Western clothing to aid the charade. The women even wear hats to hide their hijabs. What this comedic display shows is the intricate possibilities of working together, of inter-­‐religious alliances. It is not assimilation since the Muslim community is not actually giving up its identity or beliefs to help Reverend Magee. Instead, this episode concretizes one of the main morals of the first season: inter-­‐faith partnerships and co-­‐existence are entirely possible. Gender The main cast of Little Mosque is evenly split between men and women, with a total of three men (Yasir, Amaar, Baber) and three women (Sarah, Rayyan, Fatima). Interestingly, each woman is either paired with or paralleled with a different man. Sarah and Yasir are paired as husband and wife and both are portrayed as comically incompetent. Amaar and Rayyan are linked through some restrained flirtation as well as through their intellectual engagement with Islam. Baber and Fatima are paralleled as the two most conservative and traditional members of the Muslim community, though Baber is more conservative than Fatima in some situations. Meanwhile, the three secondary characters include two men (Reverend Magee and Fred) and one woman (Mayor Popowicz). While Little Mosque’s breakdown of primary and secondary characters demonstrates a relative evenness in representation of men and women, questions of community authority complicate this picture. There is a significant gender imbalance when it comes to positions of influence and power. The majority of the characters on the show who are in authoritative positions are men. For Yasir, this leadership is informal. For instance, he took the lead in finding an imam as well as a permanent space for the mosque. He is also often a battleground between Baber, Sarah, and Rayyan since he is the person they all seek to convince when they disagree. Amaar’s form of leadership is more formal because of institutionalized male leadership within the mosque. Amaar leads the sermons, doles out advice, and repeatedly asserts his decision-­‐making power as the imam. He often says “I’m the imam” as a way to assert his power. 58
Amaar’s and Yasir’s leadership power, however, is far from absolute. Both men are portrayed as slightly ineffective and their opinions are not entirely respected by the other main characters. Amaar senses the importance of being fair in his decisions by listening to the opinions of everyone in Mercy’s Muslim community as well as Reverend Magee. Moreover, Yasir’s stereotypical masculine priorities—
sex (with his wife) first, and material security second—mean that Sarah has a certain amount of influence over him. Yet it is still primarily these two men that make decisions for Mercy’s Muslim community and structure it with patriarchal leadership. Rayyan’s feminist interjections fall short of dismantling the community’s masculine leadership. This patriarchal dynamic may reinforce the stereotype that though leadership is publicly men’s affairs, women are often pulling strings behind the scenes. One of the dangers of reproducing such a myth is that it legitimizes continued male dominance in positions of power. Of the main characters, Rayyan is the only woman who at times steps into a leadership role. For instance, in episode 102 (January 17, 2007), Rayyan advises Fatima to take swimming lessons to ease her back injury, which then leads to Rayyan campaigning for Mercy’s community pool to hire a female instructor. Rayyan and Fatima are not allowed to be in bathing suits in front of men who are not family members. Rayyan’s capacity as a doctor and then as a feminist are what place her in a leadership role, though significantly this occurs in relation to an older Black Muslim woman. While Rayyan does not have an official leadership role within the Muslim community, she makes her opinions heard and works hard to influence the two more recognized leaders, Yasir and Amaar. Her leadership, in other words, is constrained by a patriarchal logic. Because Rayyan’s informal leadership is propelled by her feminist beliefs, it is important to note that she does not fit the dominant image of a White Western feminist. She breaks from the White feminist stereotype since she appears to be its stereotypical opposite: a veiled Muslim woman. Like the White feminist figure, Rayyan’s comments and opinions are often received as killjoys or as simply exhausting. Yet the kinds of feminist opinions Rayyan expresses are grounded in Muslim concerns and belief structures rather than White Western issues. Rayyan does not argue for full gender integration when it comes to swimming lessons or for unchaperoned dating; instead she argues for full gender integration when it comes to praying and for equal religious treatment regarding romantic matters. Her character demonstrates that one’s fight for gender equality can occur within Islam without leading to full assimilation into Canadian norms. When the White Canadian feminist movement is shown, as in episode 102 when they protest the mosque’s gender barrier, it is clear that Rayyan does not associate with them even if their opinions in this one instance align. Sarah in fact steps in and, pointing to Fatima, says, “She wants the barrier. Is it our place as privileged White women to tell her how to pray?” Sarah then asks them to come back later in case she needs their help in protesting the barrier. This interaction instructs non-­‐Muslim viewers to perhaps offer their support as allies, but leave the definition of and struggle for gender equality within Muslim communities to Muslim women. Still, women’s leadership is most represented in relation to gendered subjects, not in relation to the Muslim community’s concerns as a whole. The other three main characters—Baber, Fatima, and Sarah—do not tend to be placed in positions of respect and leadership. Baber is framed as an orthodox man who stands in contrast to Yasir and Amaar’s progressiveness. For instance, when Baber acts as imam prior to Amaar’s arrival, his 59
orthodox sermons are parodies of paranoid Islamic fanaticism and make Baber the subject of derision and teasing from Rayyan, Sarah, and Yasir. This othering also occurs to Fatima at times, though to a much lesser extent. This gendered difference speaks volumes about who is most feared from the Muslim community: Muslim men. They are the principal bearers of foreign, patriarchal conservatism from which Muslim women must be saved. Yet Baber’s threatening potential is mitigated by his lack of leadership in Mercy’s Muslim community as well as by more extreme Muslims who are introduced in episode 105. This will be explored further in the following section; for now it suffices to note that the two most conservative Muslims often act as regressive contrasts to the progressive majority. Baber and Fatima are at times negatively framed as the overly conservative, discriminatory “them” in contrast to the positive, progressive, tolerant “us.” Both Fatima and Sarah have moments of influence and power, but these moments are highly gendered. Fatima is recognized as the best cook for Muslim events and her “traditional” cuisine is highly respected in Mercy. Yet Fatima’s leadership rarely extends beyond her cuisine. Her influence is therefore limited to her gendered production of racialized food. Sarah, on the other hand, is a notoriously bad cook, which marks her as a modern woman in contrast to Fatima, the traditional woman. Like Fatima, Sarah’s influence on the Muslim community is also quite limited. She is at times consulted because of her role in the Mayor’s office, but she most often exercises her influence in relation to Yasir. She pushes Yasir to do what she wants him to do by withholding sex and by threatening to leave him; she manipulates him through his desire for her. This kind of power is clearly limited to those who are sexually desirable to the person who otherwise holds power. Even then, Sarah is never immediately successful in influencing Yasir and Yasir’s opinion is still the hub of power. Sarah can only hope to change Yasir’s opinion so that he in turn will influence the other Muslim men. She only exercises power in the second degree. As for the secondary characters, all three occupy positions of power and influence. Reverend Magee is Amaar’s religious counterpart. Similar to Amaar, Reverend Magee benefits from the tradition of male leadership in his religion. He also acts as a mentor to Amaar, thereby enjoying a position of informal leadership over the leader of the Muslim community. Meanwhile, Fred Turner is also a kind of leader because of his popular local radio show. Fred represents the stereotypically male “shock jock” whose political incorrectness is tied to his gendered sense of entitlement to take up a lot of space. His voice and opinions can be heard more widely than anyone else in the main and secondary cast. Reverend Magee and Fred bookend the spectrum of progressive/informed to conservative/ignorant White people in Mercy, while Mayor Popowicz lies somewhere in between. Because of the Muslim-­‐centred perspective of the show, Reverend Magee seems most trustworthy of the three and is therefore most positively represented and included in the “us.” Mayor Popowicz is the only official female leader represented in Little Mosque. As mayor, she is shown to control the town budget and policies, putting her in a position of official and institutional power. Yet she is most often seen strategically courting Muslim votes and supporting Sarah as a friend, not as a respected and sought after leader. She is furthermore excluded from the most progressive “us” in the show because of her occasional racially and ethnically ignorant statements. Mayor Popowicz is not, therefore, a significant leader in the show nor is she a significant enemy of 60
the progressives. She is represented as merely tangential and often inconsequential, which dampens any institutional power she holds. Beyond questions of leadership, the show reproduces two key gendered stereotypes that reinforce dominant ideologies about men and women. The first of these stereotypes is the territorial nature of men. Yasir, Amaar, and Baber confirm their (heteronormative) masculinity in episode 107 by displaying territorial and over-­‐protective behaviour. All three main male characters react negatively to Rayyan spending time with and going on a date with a White, non-­‐Muslim man: Baber objects to the influence this will have on his own daughter; Amaar expresses some jealousy and instructs Rayyan to “submit” to Islam; and Yasir throws a tantrum. Both Amaar and Yasir call the White, non-­‐
Muslim man into the mosque under false pretenses so that they can evaluate his suitability for Rayyan. The reproduction of overly protective fathers (Yasir, Baber) and jealous potential love interest (Amaar) makes this stereotype appear to be a universal truth about men’s reactions to other men who threaten to take away their women. Rayyan challenges this “women-­‐as-­‐property” attitude somewhat indirectly when she calls Baber an “extremist” and accuses Amaar of applying a sexist double standard when he warns her against dating a non-­‐Muslim. As comical conflicts, however, the heteropatriarchal presupposition underlying these three men’s reactions pass as moments of hilarity rather than as moments that reproduce dominance. Since Rayyan decides in the end that she cannot date a non-­‐Muslim man, the conflict quickly diffuses and this hetero-­‐sexist presupposition goes largely unchallenged. The other significant gendered stereotype reproduced in Little Mosque is the flakey superficiality of White women. Sarah is shown to be a slightly vain “shopaholic” and a permissive mother, both of which appear related to her non-­‐Muslim upbringing and mark her as a “bad convert.” Both of these behaviours are portrayed in a negative light. Sarah shows that she is a permissive mother by encouraging Rayyan to go on an unchaperoned date with the White non-­‐Muslim fireman in episode 107. Sarah and Mayor Popowicz even admire photos of Rayyan’s date in the fireman calendar wherein he is scantily clad. While these stereotypical behaviours reproduce sexist ideas about feminine behaviour, they also function as a critique of White non-­‐Muslim womanhood in contrast to racialized Muslim womanhood. Rayyan stands as the most progressive woman in the show with Sarah held back by her White feminine preoccupations and Fatima held back by her traditional conservatism. Race, Ethnicity, Religion Little Mosque is most consistently and forcefully subversive in its critiques of racist stereotypes and ignorance. The majority of the main characters are racialized, including Yasir, Rayyan, Amaar, Baber, and Fatima. Not all of these characters’ specific racial backgrounds are known, but each of them is visibly identifiable as racialized or non-­‐White. The only White main character is Sarah. All of the secondary characters, on the other hand, are White. Little Mosque therefore reverses the dominant dynamic in Canadian television shows wherein White people make up the majority of the main characters while racialized characters are rendered secondary to the plot. This reversal enables a rare foregrounding of the Muslim perspective on life in Canada and, more specifically, on White Canadian culture. Because Mercy, Saskatchewan, is depicted as predominantly 61
White with the exception of its small Muslim community, White culture and Muslim culture are very clearly contrasted. White Canadian culture is de-­‐centred while Muslim culture is centred. In other words, Muslim Canadians are framed as the “us” while White Canadians are framed as “them.” The boundary between Muslim Canadian “us” and White Canadian “them,” however, is quite flexible, complex, and nuanced because of the differing degrees of assimilation to Canadian norms exhibited by the main characters. As noted in the previous section, progressive Muslims and White Canadians are the most positively represented group in Little Mosque. Because they are also the central characters, they are the group that audience members are meant to identify with; they constitute the show’s “us.” Shared progressiveness unites certain group members across race and again helps to normalize Muslim Canadians. Such overlaps and parallels defy the Orientalist homogenizing logic usually applied to representations of Muslims. Still, Little Mosque does not entirely defy Orientalist logic; it frames foreign Muslims as the more absolute or unrecognizable “them.” Little Mosque’s role reversal between Muslim and White Canadian culture permits the show to parody stereotypes and to subtly critique the racism that Muslim people face in Canada. White culture is de-­‐centred, for instance, through a comical perspective on Christian practices. In the last episode of the season, episode 108, Sarah and Reverend Magee teach Mercy’s Muslim community about Christianity so that they can effectively pretend to be Christians for the archdeacon’s visit. When Sarah introduces communion, Fatima declares that she will not participate in cannibalism. When the Muslim community practices hymns, Reverend Magee scolds them for being too uncharacteristically enthusiastic to pass as Anglicans. Meanwhile, in episode 102, Baber’s daughter shows her father potential outfits for a public run for charity. Scandalized by her outfits, Baber accuses her of looking like a Protestant. Although dressing in tight sweatpants has little to do with Protestantism, Baber links girls who dress a particular way and a broad religious group. In other words, he universalizes Protestant girls and conflates their religion with their dress just as non-­‐
Muslim people do to Muslims. These small comical moments rupture the normality of predominantly White, Western Christian people by gazing at their practices through non-­‐Christian eyes. The comical approach to religion, however, is not entirely limited to Christianity. Sarah provides a comical White view of Muslim ritual. For instance, in episode 105, she comes to terms with being a bad Muslim convert because she becomes exhausted when praying five times per day. None of the more devoted Muslims appear to have a problem with the frequent prayers, rendering Sarah a misfit. Her experience jokingly critiques both the inconvenience of Muslim prayer in present-­‐day Canadian life as well as the difficulties of assimilating to a foreign culture. Baber, as mentioned earlier, is a key conduit for these parodies and reversals because he is the conservative, fearful Muslim who parallels conservative, fearful non-­‐Muslim people. In episode 103, Sarah and Fatima explain to Baber that it is important for the mosque to host an open house because people fear that which they do not understand. Sarah says the open house is part of a fight against “ignorance and hatred.” Baber replies that with so many White strangers entering the mosque, they must hire security guards and use metal detectors and bomb-­‐sniffing dogs. The discussion of fighting (White, non-­‐Muslim) ignorance and hate that precedes Baber’s expression of fear serves to highlight his parody of White fear. In episode 105, a White man interested in converting to Islam comes to the 62
mosque and Baber asks Sarah if she knows him, thereby reversing the stereotype that all Muslims (or people from the same racial or ethnic minority) know each other. Baber’s suspicion of and ignorance about White people is expressed numerous times throughout the season and functions to underscore Little Mosque’s critique of racist discrimination against Muslims. Moreover, it functions as an ongoing parallel between the Muslim and White community with Baber and (White, Anglican) Joe representing ignorant discrimination for their respective racial and religious groups. Baber’s conservative practice of Islam, however, is also mainstreamed in episode 105, which focuses on Marlon, a White man looking to convert to Islam. Marlon quickly proves himself to be more extremely orthodox than anyone else in Mercy’s Muslim community, including Baber. Marlon parodies stereotypes associated with the Taliban. He, for instance, praises Rayyan as someone who would make an “obedient wife” and he accuses Baber’s daughter of being a “devil child” because she listens to hip hop music. Marlon even suggests that Baber beat his daughter into submission because “it worked for the Taliban.” Horrified, Baber advises Marlon to find role models “closer to home.” As a parody of an extremist Muslim terrorist, Marlon terrorizes Mercy’s Muslim community and they reject him. This performance transposes the extremist terrorist stereotype to a White body, simultaneously rendering the performance absurd and suggesting that people of any race can take religion to extremes. Marlon also frames Baber as a moderate Muslim, despite how conservative and ignorant he appears in other episodes. Rather than Baber serving as the fanatical Muslim, a White character serves to normalize this racialized Muslim character. Mercy’s Muslim community therefore spans the spectrum from well-­‐assimilated and compromising (Yasir and Sarah, the “bad convert”), to slightly more devout (Rayyan), to conservative and traditional (Fatima, Baber), to fanatical (Marlon). Marlon serves to include Baber in Little Mosque’s “us.” This range from well-­‐assimilated to conservative racialized Muslims flies contrary to Orientalist stereotypes about the uniformly unassimilable Muslim Other. Rayyan is a particularly important figure for complicating presuppositions about who can be assimilated and what assimilation looks like. As noted before, her version of feminism is distinctly Islamic. Yet Rayyan also defends Western science in an argument with Fatima, thereby defending the hegemonic Western discourse most closely associated with “truth.” This conflict occurs in episode 108 when Fatima promotes African medicine and Rayyan insists on surgery as the best way to heal Fred’s back. At one point, Rayyan scolds Fatima by saying, “It’s not nice to give people false hope with your little folk remedies,” to which Fatima responds, “It’s not nice to give people hope with your little medical diploma.” Rayyan warns against using medicine that has not been through clinical trials, while Fatima proclaims that African medicine has been passed the test of time since it has been in use for thousands of years. This debate reinforces the opposition between clinical, invasive Western science and traditional folk remedies from the non-­‐Western world. In the end, however, Fatima is the one who heals Fred’s back by cracking it, thereby subverting the dominant logic that Western science is superior. This incident both exposes internal Muslim debates between Western and traditional solutions while also highlighting differences between two devout Muslim women. This disproves the homogeneity and simplicity often assumed of marginalized groups. Beyond the ways in which various main characters express their diverse degrees of assimilation into Canadian culture—discussed in the character breakdown—the entire practice of Islam at the Mercy 63
mosque is very clearly integrated with Anglicanism due to the relationship between Amaar and Reverend Magee. Reverend Magee acts as a mentor toward Amaar for the majority of the season, with Amaar seeking Magee’s advice in episodes 102, 103, 104, and 105. Magee’s Anglicanism is key to this relationship, since the non-­‐evangelical Anglican Church is known for its openness to inter-­‐faith exchanges. The relationship between Magee and Amaar enables the audience to see overlaps between the two faiths, though from the safety of an older White man giving Christian advice to a young racialized imam. For instance, in episode 103, Amaar asks the reverend how to stop some of his community members from boycotting the open house. Magee suggests that Amaar use a “time-­‐
honoured Christian tradition,” groveling like a man. Magee’s suggestion comically posits male submission to women (as with Amaar seeking Fatima and Rayyan’s forgivenss, aside from Baber’s) as a Christian tradition, playing with the stereotype of White men having to submit to the women in their lives. In episode 104, Reverend Magee tells Amaar that they all have their “cross to bear, or the Muslim equivalent,” thereby clearly creating an equation between faiths. In episode 101, Amaar even describes an imam as follows: “It’s like a priest or a rabbi, only browner.” Christianity and Islam, in other words, are repeatedly made to seem more similar than different. The mentor-­‐mentee dynamic shifts over the course of the season toward a more equal friendship. In episode 106, Amaar and Magee exchange their religious and personal views on gay marriage and by episode 108, Amaar is helping Magee impress the archdeacon. The diminishing power imbalance between the two men may have to do with Amaar becoming better acquainted with Mercy over the course of the season, yet it renders the new imam less threatening for the first part of the season. As long as Amaar seeks Magee’s advice, Magee and the White Anglicans he represents remain in a position of power. As the first season progresses and Mercy’s Muslim community is positioned as moderate and rather assimilated, it becomes less threatening for the reverend and the imam to act as equals. As often as Little Mosque subverts and challenges prevailing stereotypes, it does once reinforce the association between Islam and backwardness. Toward the end of the first episode, Amaar tries to leave Mercy and Rayyan talks him into staying. She tells him that he’s the imam she’s been dreaming about, “You know, a progressive imam, born here in Canada. I thought you’d drag us into the modern world, or at least the eleventh century.” This statement associates being progressive with being Canadian, an association that is later reinforced by associating fanatical Marlon of episode 105 with the Taliban of Central and South Asia. The backwardness of Muslims abroad is again reinforced by Mother Hamoudi, who appears to be visiting from Lebanon. Mother Hamoudi encourages Yasir to take one of his cousins in Lebanon as his second wife, a situation that enables Rayyan and Fatima to show their progressiveness by dismissing polygamy as a rare and pre-­‐modern practice. Rayyan’s statement in the first episode therefore sets up an often silent but enduring boundary between moderate and relatively well assimilated Canadian Muslims and less progressive Muslims abroad. This boundary reinforces the prevailing association between Canada, Western culture, modernity, and tolerance in contrast to non-­‐Western countries and cultures, backwardness, and intolerance. Little Mosque, in other words, reinforces Canadian superiority through Canadian Muslims. Little Mosque communicates a multicultural harmonious view of Mercy through the Muslim and non-­‐
Muslims’ shared (Canadian) norms, the parallels between Islam and Anglican Christianity, and their 64
comparison opposite foreign Muslims. Underpinning this view of the world is a utopic humanism that does not deny racial and ethnic differences, but that emphasizes their superficiality in comparison to the similarities between human struggles. Class While Little Mosque does discuss class differences to an extent, the main characters all appear to lie somewhere in the middle class. Yasir is a struggling contractor while Sarah is the mayor’s public relations representative, and together they own a modest sized house. Both Rayyan who works as a physician, and Fatima, who runs a popular local restaurant, seem financially comfortable, though not wealthy. Rayyan’s profession, however, clearly signals a high level of education, which indicates a certain level of cultural capital, regardless of income. Baber also seems to be middle class since he owns a house and supports himself and his daughter, but the audience does not see him work during the first season. These main characters contribute financially to the Mercy mosque; since the mosque does not have a lot of money, we may assume that the Muslim community is likely not wealthy enough to give more substantial donations. Amaar presumably lives off a small salary as a result, though he comes from a relatively well-­‐off Toronto-­‐based family that has its own law firm. Amaar has the luxury of choosing his economic class, in other words. Regardless of his current pay, he still holds considerable cultural capital from his education and being raised by a wealthy family in Toronto. He signifies this cultural class by ordering a low fat cappuccino in the first episode, a drink associated with living in a big city and having the money to buy fancy coffees. Since these apparently middle-­‐class characters are accorded the most visibility, they reinforce a middle-­‐class norm. The consequences of this relate to the hyper-­‐visibility of those who fall outside this class norm. For instance, Joe appears to be a working-­‐class man due to his shabby appearance. With his prejudiced fear, he also reproduces the stereotype of the uneducated working-­‐class White man. This is not to say that Joe is the only representative of ignorant White prejudice, but that he resonates with the existing association between the uneducated working class and racist fear. Another instance of hyper-­‐visibility of class difference occurs in episode 103 when Yasir works for a wealthy client. This client is clearly rich since he belongs to the local country club, yet he squeezes the cheapest and quickest deal possible out of Yasir. The client agrees to give Yasir’s business cards out at the country club to everyone but the caddies, to whom the rich client never actually speaks. This humourous interaction reinforces the critical stereotype that those who are rich become and stay that way because of stinginess. Like the primary characters, the secondary characters—Reverend Magee, Fred, and Mayor Popwicz—
fall somewhere within the middle class. The Anglican church is struggling financially to the point of having to rent out space to the mosque; in episode 103, the lights flicker at the church/mosque, indicating that the building has not had proper upkeep in quite some time. After the archdeacon visits in episode 108 and declares that he wants to collect more money from Reverend Magee because the mosque is renting space, Magee and Amaar lament the fact that there is no more money to give him. The poor, run-­‐down state of the church/mosque suggests that Reverend Magee himself lives a frugal life. Like Amaar, however, Reverend Magee’s way of thinking and speaking suggests a certain level of education, while being a minister permits him a certain social status. His economic state is therefore 65
tempered with cultural and social forms of capital that allow him latitude. Fred the “shock jock,” on the other hand, does not show as many indicators of his economic class, though his show’s popularity demonstrates some social capital. Because of his popular radio show, it may be safe to assume that he is middle class. Mayor Popowicz’s economic class is equally difficult to decipher, though she is certainly at least of middle class. Because of her role as town mayor, she has a high level of social capital that may be translatable into other forms of capital if need be. The variations between main and secondary characters’ economic, social, and cultural capital are relatively minor, especially when contrasted with Joe or Yasir’s rich client. The reproduction of middle class normativity in Little Mosque further reinforces the similarity between the main and secondary characters and in turn reinforces the prevailing message about the universality of human experience. Sexual Orientation Little Mosque on the Prairie is heteronormative, with all of the main and secondary characters being either heterosexual or asexual. Yasir and Sarah are married and continue to be sexually active with one another. Rayyan marks herself as heterosexual by going on one date with a fireman. Also, she and Amaar have a flirty dynamic, suggesting that each is interested in the other. Baber is divorced from his wife while Fatima is a widow, and though both are single, their conservatism suggests that they still identify as heterosexual. Of the secondary characters, Mayor Popowicz’s conversations with Sarah reveal only heterosexual desires while Fred’s homophobia suggests that he at least identifies as heterosexual. Reverend Magee is the only one out of the main and secondary characters whose sexual identity and preferences are entirely unknown. Because most of the main and secondary characters are explicitly or implicitly constructed as heterosexual, Little Mosque foregrounds a heteronormative vision of the world wherein heterosexuals dominate positions of power and numerically dominate the landscape. Although Little Mosque’s main and secondary characters present a heteronormative view of the world, heterosexuality intersects with Muslim identity to shift these portrayals out of the realm of White heteronormativity. This intersection fundamentally alters the way that heterosexuality is expressed. For instance, Rayyan’s character is a conduit for representations of Muslim women’s heterosexuality. During the mosque’s open house in episode 103, she tries to explain the hijab to a White non-­‐Muslim woman. Rayyan explains that hair is considered part of a Muslim woman’s sexuality, so she covers it and only shows it to other women, her husband, and the men in her family. The White guest presumes that because Rayyan can show her hair to other women, that means Rayyan is “gay.” This cultural misunderstanding both demonstrates the profound heteronormativity in certain Muslim practices as well as the effect of reading a marginalized religious practice through a dominant frame. While trying to understand Muslim practices and definitions of sexuality, this non-­‐
Muslim White woman is quick to impose a definition that makes sense to the dominant non-­‐Muslim frame. She performs the dominant reflex to make the marginal conform to the dominant. At the same time, the use of the word “gay” is significant since it is unclear why this White non-­‐Muslim woman did not use the word “lesbian” or the umbrella term “queer.” Because the word “gay” is most strongly associated with men-­‐men relationships, the choice of this term participates in the visibility of gayness with the related invisibility of all other queer identities. 66
Muslim heterosexual practices are further explored in episode 107, when Rayyan is pursued by a White non-­‐Muslim fireman. She keeps a physical distance from this man and keeps brushing off his advances because he is a non-­‐Muslim, even saying, “Look Jeff. It’s not you, it’s Islam. Don’t take it personally.” Amaar and Rayyan argue about double standards within Muslim culture about who can date non-­‐Muslims, suggesting that Muslim men can more easily get away with it than Muslim women. Finally, out of defiance, Rayyan decides to have Jeff over for dinner but asks her mother to chaperone. Sarah does not take this role seriously, showing a stereotypically permissive White non-­‐
Muslim approach to dating. In the end, Rayyan realizes she cannot date a non-­‐Muslim man and asks Jeff to leave. Yet their short-­‐lived romance exposes Islamic rules about dating outside of the religion, the Islamic rule about not touching members of the opposite sex, as well as the lived patriarchal double standard that permits Muslim men more freedom in their dating. Rayyan’s dating experience exposes a convergence of heterosexuality, patriarchy, and religious and cultural differences. The main exception to the heterosexual norm is the gay swimming instructor who appears in episodes 104 and 106. This caricature of a gay man introduces himself to Rayyan and Fatima as “a friend of Dorothy,” which Rayyan later explains to Fatima: “You know, the gays, they love Judy Garland!” The swim instructor also has floppy wrists, to demonstrate physical weakness as well as his flamboyance, and assures them that they can be in their swimsuits in front of him because he is gay. The repetition of these dominant gay stereotypes—flamboyance, floppy wrists, love of Judy Garland—is all the more powerful because of the lack of alternative images of queerness. The multiple representations of heterosexuals enables the presentation of a diverse way to live one’s heterosexuality. As the token gay, the swim instructor is the only representation of anyone non-­‐
heterosexual. Tokenization simplifies and homogenizes the under-­‐represented group in order to render a satisfactory depiction of one group member. Interestingly, this gay swim instructor is also White, male, able-­‐bodied and -­‐minded, and presumably middle class. He is, in other words, normative and privileged by all other accounts and therefore is still normative enough to make his difference easily legible and understandable. This gay swim instructor reappears briefly in episode 106 when he wants to marry his boyfriend in the Anglican Church. His appearance is again tokenistic for it serves a greater purpose in the plot: to raise the issue of “gay marriage” and, in contrast, heterosexual marriage. For instance, Joe asks Reverend Magee, “Whatever happened to the sanctity of marriage?” to which the Reverend replies that Joe has been married three times! Baber also protests these two men marrying in the same building as the mosque while Fatima reluctantly agrees to cater the wedding. Baber and Joe’s vehement opposition and protest organizing around the gay wedding create a parallel between the two. This parallel suggests that every community, regardless of religion or race, has its bigots. In contrast to these bigots, Reverend Magee again proves his progressiveness because he is willing to marry two gay men even though he admits he is not happy to do it. Magee’s admission is an instructive moment in the show; he acts as a model of professionalism and self-­‐restraint in doing what he ought to do rather than what he wants to do. The gay wedding also enables Amaar to present the fact that gay marriage is not allowed in Islam, exposing a difference between Anglicanism and Islam. No value judgment is attached to this admission of difference, however, since Magee admits to being unhappy about the situation. Throughout the episode, gay marriage functions as at least a slight thorn in heterosexual 67
people’s sides. All of the perspectives on gay marriage presented throughout the episode come from non-­‐queer people. The two gay men do not express their views on it beyond wanting to marry. This episode instead portrays two major sides on gay marriage from heteronormative points of view: the bigoted side (Baber, Joe) and the side of unhappy tolerance (Reverend Magee, Fatima, Amaar). No alternative is offered. The “progressive” option of the two is, therefore, unhappy tolerance. It is a model of integration based on the condescension of the dominant group, who exercises its power in tolerating the presence of marginalized groups. Queers are not afforded normalcy and full integration within this model, but continue to be tokenized and disempowered figures. Their ongoing inclusion depends directly on the ongoing tolerance of the more powerful group. Disability There is an absolute lack of positive representations of disability on Little Mosque. All of the main and secondary characters are able-­‐bodied and able-­‐minded, with the short-­‐lived exceptions of Fred and Fatima who have back injuries in one episode each. These two temporary physical injuries constitute the only representations of disability on the show, and both experiences of disability are framed as inconveniences to their normal lifestyles. Because both injuries are presented as temporary rather than chronic, both instances of disability soon disappear and it is assumed that both will return to a state of normative physical ability. As such, the temporary physical non-­‐normativity is the focus of criticism and complaint rather than the environments that are not conducive to differing forms of physical ability. Conclusion Little Mosque on the Prairie presents a Muslim-­‐centred view of small-­‐town Canadian life, one that reinforces a middle-­‐class, heteropatriarchal, and ablist view of the world. Heterosexual, middle-­‐class, able-­‐bodied, and able-­‐minded men dominate positions of leadership within and outside of Mercy’s Muslim community. The main difference in Little Mosque’s portrayal of authority figures is that it centres racialized Muslim men. While Rayyan presents a rarely seen Islamic version of feminism and speaks her mind freely, her agency and influence are constrained by the patriarchal logic of the Muslim community. In the end, Amaar and at times Yasir are the ones who make the important decisions for the community. All Muslims, men and women, are depicted as heterosexual while the only depiction of queerness occurs through a stereotypically flamboyant White gay male couple. These caricatured gays function as a plot strategy that enables the show to distinguish between more tolerant and discriminatory community members, instead of representing a humanized gay couple. It is also yet another instance in which White, middle-­‐class, able-­‐bodied and -­‐minded gay men stand in for all other queer identities. Meanwhile, the main and secondary characters present a middle-­‐class norm, with middle-­‐class people being most consistently represented. While not all middle-­‐class characters are positively represented on the show, all those who are positively represented are middle-­‐class. Finally, disability is entirely excluded from the show except for two negatively portrayed temporary injuries. These limited inclusions and broad exclusions present a relatively normative view of the world in which heterosexual, middle-­‐class, able-­‐bodied and -­‐minded men rule a world that revolves around mostly heterosexual, middle-­‐class, able-­‐bodied and -­‐minded people. As a Muslim-­‐centred show, its most creative critiques of dominance and discrimination relate to race and culture. Little Mosque reveals the absurdities of White (non-­‐Muslim) ignorance and fear of 68
Muslims while disproving the Orientalist assumption of Muslim homogeneity. Mercy’s small Muslim community is repeatedly shown to not be that different from this town’s White non-­‐Muslim community since each has its progressive, tolerant members and its bigots. These parallels universalize community dynamics, making the differences between communities appear rather superficial. At the same time, the intricate disagreements between members of the Muslim community expose viewers to perhaps unknown differences between Muslims. The ongoing tension between human universalism and diversity within diversity suggests that viewers can find similarities and differences wherever they look. No one is identical nor entirely different. This is a deeply humanistic and individualistic view of a multicultural society. Such a view of human similarity and diversity does not extend, however, beyond Canadian borders. Foreign Muslims, as signified by the Taliban and Mother Hamoudi, are the absolute others who are not part of the progressive and tolerant “us.” Marlon stands in for the Taliban while Mother Hamoudi advocates a traditional and sexist version of polygamy. Both are associated with taking Islam to extremes and not understanding how to integrate into Canadian society, as the rest of Mercy’s Muslim community has. In the absence of these foreign Muslims, the conservative and discriminatory elements of Mercy’s Muslim and White non-­‐Muslim communities are negatively framed as “them.” Yet these conservative elements shift into the “us” or at least advance toward the “us” when foreign Muslim practices are introduced and othered. This dynamic clearly differentiates between superior Canadian progressiveness (modernity) and inferior foreign regression (backwardness). While all Canadians, from most to least tolerant, appear to be privileged by this dynamic, this distinction leaves those who are least securely Canadian at risk. In other words, if inferiority and backwardness are associated with foreign Muslims, this logic forces foreign-­‐born Muslims in Canada to continually prove their belonging. It also reinforces the Orientalist assumed inferiority of Muslims abroad. The benefits of including Muslim Canadians in the progressive “us” is therefore counter-­‐balanced by the drawbacks of framing foreign Muslims as the regressive “them.” Case Study #3: Da Kink in My Hair -­Farzana Bhatty Da Kink in My Hair is a Jamaican-­‐Canadian television series set in Toronto. This prime time drama series was created by Trey Anthony in collaboration with Ngozi Paul. Da Kink in My Hair was originally a theatrical production produced by Anthony, and debuted at the Toronto Fringe Festival in 2001. The play subsequently expanded to Theatre Passe-­‐Muraille in 2003; Mirvish Productions then created a larger production at the Princess of Wales Theatre in 2005. Due to the success of the play, season one of a television series by the same name was produced; it first aired on Global TV on October 14, 2007. Season two debuted on February 12, 2009; as of writing, season three is under discussion. Da Kink in My Hair is fully Canadian, produced by Canadian talent and broadcast on a major Canadian television network. The series is unique in that it provides a representation of the Jamaican-­‐Canadian 69
community, thus contributing to the discourse surrounding the community, and impacting Canadians’ conceptions of Jamaicans and Jamaican-­‐Canadians. This content and discourse analysis examines representations of diversity in season one of the show, specifically in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, class, and physical ability. Qualitative and quantitative data from the series demonstrate how diversity plays a role in this series, and by extension, in Canadian television programming.
Characters Primary Characters Novelette (Letty) Campbell is a Jamaican woman who owns and runs Letty’s Hair Salon. She is in her mid to late thirties, unmarried, and has one teenage son. Letty is physically fit and attractive, and runs the salon independently. Thus, she is financially independent and makes her own decisions regarding her business and career, amongst other things. She is an understanding, patient, macro-­‐manager at the salon, and is social and friendly with her employees and clients. Novelette not only runs the salon as a business; she is also involved in actively servicing clients by cutting, dying, treating, and styling their hair. While she is fairly easygoing and hardworking, Letty is also a good parent; she closely watches over her son and is involved in his life as a caring mother. Joy Campbell is Novelette’s younger sister, who has recently immigrated to Canada from Jamaica. Joy is in her early to mid-­‐thirties, unmarried, and has no children. She has spent the past seven years raising Novelette’s son, Dre, while Novelette was in Canada. Since arriving in Canada, Joy has been working at Letty’s Hair Salon as a receptionist. Joy is a colourful character, quite literally. Almost every episode she sports a new, creative hairstyle, and equally interesting outfits to match. Her many hairstyles are provocative, creative, colourful, and reflect various parts of her personality. Joy does not take herself too seriously and enjoys having fun and speaking her mind. She also does not take life or her job very seriously, and sometimes acts irresponsibly and unprofessionally, yet in a comical and unintruding manner. Joy speaks with a distinct Jamaican accent, and is traditional in terms being loyal to Jamaican food, attitudes, and mannerisms. Starr’s real name is Alison Priscilla McMasterson. Starr is a young, Black hairstylist who is still learning the tricks of the trade in the hairstyling industry. She is an intelligent, educated, well-­‐spoken, and opinionated young woman in her mid to late-­‐twenties, who is struggling with her identity. She has been raised in a White, upper-­‐class family and decided to study hairstyling on a whim. So although she is physically a Black person, she does not feel that she fits in with other Black people. Throughout the season, Starr is constantly attempting to fit in with the Black community, familiarize herself with them, and belong amongst them. She makes attempts such as changing her name, chemically straightening Black people’s hair, learning to dance to reggae, cooking Jamaican food, and making rum punch in order to look and feel like the other, more traditional, and stereotypical Black characters. The character of Starr demonstrates that not all Black people are the same, and that skin colour does not necessarily determine membership in an ethnic or racial group. Nigel is the only male hairstylist at Letty’s salon. He is a physically fit, handsome young Black man who knows how to charm the ladies. Nigel is flirtatious and enjoys using his looks and charms to 70
attract women; he is known as a “ladies man” at the salon. He is often trying to flirt with Starr and makes suggestive comments to her as they work alongside each other, although he has a girlfriend at the same time. Secondary Characters Dre Campbell is Novelette’s teenage son, who recently immigrated to Canada with his Aunt Joy. He is thirteen years old and a fairly quiet, obedient young man. He is a student and helps around the salon occasionally. Dre enjoys playing basketball. Dwayne is a middle-­‐aged delivery man who services Letty’s Hair Salon. He is a clean cut, middle-­‐aged Black man who is attracted to Novelette and wants to date her. In episode 7, Letty chooses Dwayne as a mentor and role model for Dre, as Dwayne is responsible and hardworking. Gary is Joy’s boyfriend over the course of several episodes. Physically, he appears to be a traditional Jamaican man, as he has long dreadlocks and a Jamaican accent. He is a professional who works in information technology. At first, he is a positive character in the show, but in later episodes, Gary becomes controlling and demanding of Joy and eventually acts physically abusive toward her. Nicole is Nigel’s girlfriend over the course of several episodes. She is a beautiful, first-­‐generation Greek-­‐Canadian woman. She is a source of controversy on the show because she is White and dating Nigel, and some characters feel that Nigel should be dating a Black girl. Plot Narrative Season one of Da Kink in My Hair consists of thirteen half-­‐hour episodes. The show revolves around Letty’s Hair Salon, which is owned by a Jamaican-­‐Canadian hairdresser named Novelette (Letty) Campbell. The salon is located at the intersection of Oakwood and Eglinton, in an area of Toronto known as “Eglinton West,” home to a large Black-­‐Canadian community. The salon serves as more than Letty’s place of employment; it is also her home, as she lives upstairs with her sister, Joy, and son, Dre. Although Letty has been in Canada for seven years, Joy and Dre have recently arrived from Jamaica. Joy works as the receptionist in the salon, alongside the other employees: Nigel, a handsome young man who charms the ladies, and Starr, a budding hairstylist who is struggling to connect with her Black “roots.” Letty is a talented hairstylist, who also has the ability to “read” people when she touches their hair. In other words, touching people’s hair allows Letty to know their story and understand their struggles. In fact, Letty says in episode 12, “If you want to know about a woman, touch her hair.” By telling these stories, the series showcases a wide range of Black women and highlights a variety of issues in its portrayal of Jamaican-­‐Canadians. Gender A significant number of the characters on the show are female, allowing for women to take the spotlight in Da Kink in My Hair. It should be noted that the women’s lives revolve around traditional conceptions of physical beauty, which includes styling hair, wearing dresses and jewelry, and applying makeup. In fact, women on the show suffer to look beautiful, as they painfully comb out their hair, 71
apply dangerous chemicals to their heads, and spend copious amounts of time, money, and effort on altering appearances for the sake of stereotypical physical beauty. For example, in episode 6, a salon client has a balding problem and is embarrassed to show her head to anyone, due to rigid expectations of female beauty. She wears wigs and is very insecure about her appearance, to the point where she is afraid to tell her boyfriend about her thinning hair. In fact, she is afraid to be sexually intimate with him, fearing that he may reject her because of her hair loss. In this episode, Letty encourages the woman to stop wearing wigs and gives her a hair treatment with the condition that she must not cover her scalp. However, Joy supports the woman’s decision to cover up the problem with wigs, rather than care for the health of her hair and scalp, showing how some women care more about appearances than their health. Although the balding woman feels restricted by stereotypical expectations of female beauty, the viewer who witnesses her struggles is able to understand that the quality of her character is more important than her physical appearance. Thus, the episode becomes a subversive one where women are encouraged to be comfortable with who they are, regardless of societal expectations regarding female appearances. However, it should be noted that the women’s conceptions of beauty range from Western/White ideals to Black ideals. For example, in episode 2, one young lady wishes to straighten her hair, dye it blond, and remove the traditional Black “kink” from her hair to convey a racially White image. She is struggling with her racial identity and chooses to change physical features to conform to a White ideal of beauty. By contrast, in episode 11, a woman cuts her hair very short in hopes of invoking a traditional African appearance. She is barefoot and dressed in traditional African clothes, as this signals beauty, culture, and heritage to her. Even Joy refuses to conform with traditional White ideals of female beauty, as she wears colourful weaves and costume jewelry that are not accepted as Western beauty ideals. Da Kink also showcases women striving to break down barriers outside of physical beauty. In terms of personality and character, some women on the show are strong and independent. In episode 4, Letty is interviewed as a “woman of distinction,” a businesswoman, a single mother, and a strong, independent, intelligent Black woman. She manages to survive emotionally and financially despite the fact that she is a single mother, demonstrating that women do not need men in their lives in order to be successful. In episode 9, there are models and dancers who perform half-­‐naked in a provocative music video. This is arguably sexist, as the women rely on male capitalist conceptions of their femininity, beauty, and sexuality to earn a living. One model who dances in the music video explains that the “White feminist movement hasn’t moved a single Black woman,” thus showing the barriers that remain for Black women. However, it should be noted that the dancers have financial independence and feel empowered by using their looks to get work. In the same episode, Joy wishes to participate in a beauty pageant so that she can earn some prize money, but a client at the salon says that it is sexist to be paraded on stage and Starr agrees. Joy participates in the pageant nevertheless for her own pleasure and enjoyment. These examples show 72
how women can utilize traditionally sexist venues to their own advantage, thus reclaiming the space as a feminist move. Although Da Kink revolves around women, there are some notable male characters who contribute to the show’s discourse on gender. In addition to Nigel, whom Starr judges to be a womanizer, the show also questions whether men are responsible parents. In episode 10, a single father visits the salon with his young daughter, and his wife is called “wicked” because she is not there for her child, thus making the assumption that the female has the responsibility for parenting while it is optional and/or commendable for a father to parent a child. Women are assumed to be natural parents, while men’s roles are questioned. Thus, the concept of parenting is gendered on the show. Race and Ethnicity Da Kink essentially paints a polarized picture of Black women: those who are “genuinely” Black, who speak with an accent, and have colourful, “island” demeanor (such as Joy) versus the Westernized Black women who are anglicized and “proper” (such as Starr). It should be noted that some of the characters speak with distinct Jamaican accents, automatically signaling their ancestry, while others have no distinct accent, suggesting what type of women they are. Although there are many women on the show, the juxtaposition of Joy’s and Starr’s characters is a good representation of the stereotypes of Black women that are contrived by the show. Joy represents the classic Jamaican woman. Her priorities are shopping for clothes, dressing wildly, acting unprofessional, and relaxing. She has a bad work ethic and is silly. She is fresh from Jamaica and these qualities are reflective of stereotypes of Black people who are accustomed to the “island” lifestyle, which is laid-­‐back and less rigid than Canadian society. However, Starr does not like the way Joy dresses, and thinks that she dresses “tacky” and like a “stripper,” thus showing her rigid expectations of how “proper” women should appear. In episode 2, men are staring at Joy and she enjoys the attention, as she is “loose” and enjoys “bootyshakin’,” while Starr is rigid, sophisticated, and proper. In fact, Starr cannot understand Joy when she speaks with a Jamaican accent and Nigel has to “translate,” indicating that Starr is not genuinely Black/Jamaican. In episode 8, viewers meet her brother and mother who are both White and middle-­‐class. Starr is forced to attend a high-­‐society brunch with her mother, but believes that she is perceived as exotic by the women attending the brunch. Starr tells her mother, “I am not one of you and I never will be” and her mother asks, “What do you have against us?” thus creating a racial dichotomy of us and them, with an assumed identity for each race. As a result of her upbringing, Starr acts as a White girl and stands in stark opposition to traditionally Black characters such as Joy. For example, in episode 4, Starr practices yoga, which does not sit well with traditionally Black characters such as Nigel and Joy. In episode 3, when the Black cultural event Caribana takes place, Starr reveals that she cannot dance like the other West Indians, demonstrating her lack of Black identity. In fact, Starr has no knowledge of the Caribana festival—the location, directions, parties, etc.—and thus has no “flavour,” according to Nigel. At one point, Starr says, “I’m a Black woman, whatever that means,” suggesting that all Black women have inherent knowledge and 73
qualities that Starr doesn’t have. These examples demonstrate that being Black does not inherently connote certain qualities, interests, knowledge, or behaviors, but rather, these are learned through socialization. The juxtaposition between Joy and Starr is apparent also in the types of foods they are each accustomed to, which reflect their respective levels of “Blackness.” In episode 9, Joy says that Canadians eat macaroni and cheese, hot dogs and ketchup, and states that she does not want Dre to eat those things out of necessity. Meanwhile, we learn in episode 5, that Starr has never been to a Jamaican grocery store and does not know how to cut a coconut, a traditional “island” food. In episode 10, Starr finally learns to make rum punch—thus learning to get in touch with her Black roots—but jokes that she doesn’t know how to “reggae.” Thus, the distinct differences between the women on the show demonstrate that there is diversity amongst Black people. In fact, Da Kink provides subversive examples of Black people, such as Kyro, the new male receptionist who wears glasses and is an intellectual, poetic Black man who has punk friends and a White girlfriend. In episode 12, Starr attends his poetry night where intellectual Black punk-­‐types congregate to share poetry and literature regarding deep issues such as identity. They are self-­‐
described as “young, Black, and brilliant,” and Starr joins them and reads a poem describing her identity crisis. Thus, Da Kink works to break down stereotypes and allow the viewer to experience a broader understanding of Black people in Canada. Class Representations of class on Da Kink show that characters who are “most” Black lack class, whereas those characters that are most westernized or Canadian are higher class. Joy and Dre, the characters who are new from Jamaica, are depicted as lower-­‐class. In episode 1, Dre is sent out for snacks and goes to the low-­‐budget supermarket No Frills, where he buys crackers, sardines, and 99 cent coconut juice, which are all inexpensive items associated with lower class. This represents his upbringing and the fact that people from Jamaica are accustomed to cheaper, lower-­‐
quality items as opposed to brand name, good quality items. Joy appears to be aware of class when she begins dating Gary, a Black IT professional. In episode 11, Gary invites her to a workplace function but is afraid that she doesn’t have class and manners, and will embarrass him in front of his Canadian co-­‐workers. As a result, Starr (who is one of the most Westernized characters on the show) has to teach Joy how to use her place setting properly. Joy remarks, “I’m moving in different circles now,” showing that she is aware of her class and is proud to be moving in higher circles. Other examples from the show demonstrate how higher class is associated with being Canadian, not Jamaican. In episode 1, a wedding party comes to the salon. The mother of the bride has fair skin, despite the fact that she is racially Black, and speaks with a British accent, signalling high-­‐class stature. The mother tries to conceal her Jamaican accent, but it comes out when she is scolding her daughter, who speaks without an accent and uses the traditionally Canadian expression “eh,” indicating that she is a native Canadian and therefore of higher stature. 74
In episode 4, the “modern have-­‐it-­‐all woman” is an older corporate woman who visits Letty’s Salon. She has very short hair, speaks with no accent, and is wearing a “power suit.” This woman has a tight schedule and is constantly being interrupted by her cell phone, indicating her importance. She is clearly a well-­‐educated, highly-­‐paid corporate woman who represents Western capitalism and a higher class. Sexual Orientation The issue of sexual orientation is explored only once, in episode 8, where a young Black woman visits Letty’s Salon to prepare for her graduation from law school. She is beautiful, intelligent, and a lesbian. Her sexual orientation is a contentious issue in her life, as she has not yet come out to her family. As a result, she is unable to invite her girlfriend to her bar ceremony, causing grief and arguments in their relationship. Upon learning this, Joy says that there is a “men crisis” and says to “warn our people,” possibly expressing a lack of understanding or compassion for the lesbian woman due to her sexual orientation. It appears that Joy’s view is that heterosexuality is the norm and all other types of sexuality are negative deviances. While this episode provides no further comment or discussion, it does at least raise the issue of sexual orientation, presenting a rarely-­‐invoked Black lesbian character to further showcase diversity within the Black community. Disability Representations of disability are absent within Da Kink. Conclusion Da Kink in My Hair offers a specific, fictionalized image of a particular Canadian community at the turn of the 21st century, arguably through the voices of individuals deeply immersed in that community. Though sometimes uneven in its nuancing of relationships within the community, it consistently raises questions about what it means to be Canadian, and to observe how the discourse within and about this community is developing in the mainstream media. The emphasis on gender as a key marker of difference as well as skin colour, citizenship status (immigrant or born in Canada), suggests Da Kink in My Hair has a complex grounding in and potential impact on the relationship between media production and diversity. 75
Case Study #4: Being Erica -­Reisa Klein Since its inception in 2009, Being Erica—a Canadian television drama series that explores the trials and tribulations of a 30-­‐something contemporary Canadian woman—is one of the CBC’s recently successful shows. Since it is one of the most popular Canadian television dramas, Media Action has selected the series as a site of analysis in this larger analysis of representation of diversity within prime time Canadian television. The popularity of the series is evident through its national and international viewership levels as well as through various nominations and awards.5 The critically acclaimed series becomes a crucial site of analysis in terms of how Canadian-­‐ness is represented and exported abroad, particularly in terms of its construction of diversity at the level of gender, race, class, and sexual orientation. Being Erica portrays the life of Erica Strange as she struggles with a variety of challenges ranging from her professional career, her romantic relationships, friendships, and family matters. In the pilot episode, Erica meets Dr. Tom—a therapist who can send Erica to incidents in her past, in which she can change her past mistakes in order to improve her present. Set in the Canadian city of Toronto, the challenges Erica confronts are meant to represent issues and concerns facing young, cosmopolitan Canadian women. An analysis of Being Erica is therefore particularly worthwhile to understand current media representations of women. The program appears to have a feminist mandate insofar as Being Erica primarily focuses on female characters and subject matter relevant to women. Nonetheless, as is shown below, the series adopts a post-­‐feminist sensibility in its reification of a largely patriarchal, White, upper-­‐middle-­‐class, hetero-­‐normative framework, thereby undercutting the construction of Canada as a diverse nation. 5
According to BBM Nielsen Media research, the pilot—which aired on January 5, 2009—secured overnight success with 615,000 Canadian viewers. Furthermore, the Canadian success of the series can be measured through its nomination for nine Gemini awards—tied for third place with Less than Kind (CityTV), The Border (CBC), and the mini-­‐series Diamonds (CBC). As well, Being Erica has been exported to international markets with syndications in 16 nations worldwide—including countries such as the US (Soapnet), the UK (E4), Australia (ABC2), Japan (LaLaTv) and Holland (SBS/Net5) where the show has garnered 20 per cent of the market share. In addition, Being Erica has been awarded with best scripted format at the Frapa Format Awards held at Cannes in 2009, and was short-­‐listed for a Rose D'Or Award for international television in the category of Best Drama. “In the fall of 2009, Erin [Karpluk] won the Gemini Award for Best Lead Actress in a dramatic series, and following that in the spring of 2010, the Leo Award for Best Lead Actress in a dramatic series for her portrayal of 'Erica' in Being Erica” (CBC.ca/beingerica/cast/erica-­‐strange.html). 76
Characters Primary Characters Erica Strange is the protagonist of Being Erica and therefore the series coalesces around her challenges and concerns. The Being Erica CBC website describes Erica as “an over-­‐educated, underachieving single gal who struggles to understand why her life is heading nowhere” (CBC.ca/beingerica website). As a consequence of her “therapy sessions,” which range from travelling back to her Bat Mitzvah to standing up to her university poetry teacher, she gains confidence and life skills. Moreover, in each episode, Erica provides a voice-­‐over narration through which the audience gains insight into her internal monologue and private thoughts and emotional space. As will be explicated in detail below, the show’s concentration on a female character suggests feminist underpinnings and the potentiality of exploring a diverse construction of women. Nonetheless, Erica is White and comes from an upper-­‐middle-­‐class family, which acts as a normative yardstick for all Canadian women. Dr. Tom Wexler is Erica Strange’s therapist—a 40-­‐something White male. He is an esoteric, magical, and mysterious character; he is capable of sending Erica back to revisit her past, and is elusive with regards to his own personal life. By inference, Dr. Tom is constructed as omniscient insofar as he has insight into Erica’s past and inner private world—without revealing his own. Dr. Tom is characterized as compassionate and wise, guiding Erica by using tidbits of Freudian psychoanalysis (his office is bedecked with a painting of Sigmund Freud), Eastern mysticism, and spiritual wisdom from Eastern religions, parables, or famous quotations. In some instances, however, Dr. Tom turns authoritative or quick tempered as in episode 113, in which Dr. Tom abandons Erica’s therapy for breaking the rules and is replaced with a new White female therapist, Nadia. Secondary Characters Judith Winters has been Erica’s best friend since they were teenagers; they met working together at Casa Loma in high school (episode 110). As a Black woman, she is the only prominent secondary character on the show that is a visible minority, suggesting tokenism rather than a complex nuanced representation of diversity. Throughout season one, Judith focuses on issues pertinent to motherhood: her pregnancy and her fears about becoming a mother. The CBC website explains, “The life of Erica’s best friend, Judith, can be divided into two different phases: pre-­‐baby and post-­‐baby. Pre-­‐baby Judith was at the peak of her professional career. Having sailed through high school, university, and law school, Judith found her passion and translated it into an incredible career in law.” The depiction of Judith as being in a position of professional power as well as being a mother is crucial to Being Erica’s construction 30-­‐something Canadian women. Katie Atkins has been Erica’s close friend since childhood. She is portrayed as a successful and happily married newspaper columnist, who presently lives in Vancouver. In the first season, she returns to Toronto to publish her first book, The None, at River Rock Publishing for which Erica is the editor. Despite being attached at the hip since childhood, Katie and Erica’s friendship took a downhill turn in high school. Throughout the first season the two women are portrayed as jealous and catty towards each other, which reinforces a stereotypical representation of women, as will be discussed below. 77
Nonetheless, Katie and Erica finally make amends in the present day in episode 110, demonstrating the importance of female friendship—another theme to be explicated further below. Jenny Zalen is another of Erica's close friends; they have known each other since elementary school. Jenny is depicted in contrast to Erica’s other “more successful” friends. She is portrayed as the quintessential party girl: outgoing, disinterested in a career, and perpetually single. Jenny is therefore utilized to represent a different type of woman than the mother or the professional—one that is carefree and sexually liberated. As will be discussed in further detail below, Jenny’s character is indicative of the show’s tendency to conflate sexual liberty with women’s liberty, which acts as a justification for a post-­‐feminist sensibility. Ethan Wakefield is a 30-­‐something high school teacher who, through the trajectory of the season, transforms from being Erica’s best friend to being her boyfriend. Early on in the story arc, Ethan moves into the apartment next door to Erica after separating from his wife, Claire, whom he learns cheated on him. The CBC website describes Ethan as “the consummate gentleman: mild-­‐tempered, humble, and sensitive. He also just happens to be a heartthrob, with a boyish smile that can make you weak at the knees.” Claire Leduc is Ethan’s ex-­‐wife. Claire has a minor role in the series, mostly present during Erica’s flashbacks. In university, Claire was an outspoken activist who protested for students’ rights and the lowering of tuition. In episode 104, Erica exposes that Claire is in fact the daughter of a wealthy Quebecois family, who is described as “owning half of Montreal.” Claire is strong, determined, and thinks for herself, which can be gleaned through her overt activism, her bossiness toward Ethan, and by asserting Ethan as her man rather than Erica’s. Claire’s character embodies the representation of upper class values characteristic of the series and, through her relationship with Erica, demonstrates the reification of stereotypical constructions of women as catty and jealous. Julianne Giacomelli is the head of River Rock Publishing’s non-­‐fiction department and Erica’s boss. She is a young, White, driven, cut-­‐throat, and competitive business executive who is exclusively concerned with professional power. Julianne tends to pick on Erica and, in certain instances, is downright cruel, further reconstructing the “catty female” stereotype, evidenced when she purposefully reads aloud and insults Erica’s short stories to all her co-­‐workers. Julianne’s softer side is represented when Erica proves herself to Julianne through the quality of her work; Julianne promotes her from being her personal assistant to being junior editor. Brent Kennedy is Erica’s co-­‐worker and Julianne’s former assistant. He is an ally for Erica, aiding her with certain tasks such as making the perfect latte for Julianne or helping Erica put together a book launch, while simultaneously siding with Julianne for professional gain. Brent is portrayed as well-­‐
dressed and well-­‐kept, and the show constructs some ambiguity around his sexual orientation, but in the end he is established as a metro-­‐sexual. Brent therefore suggests the show’s posturing of diversity at the level of sexual orientation whilst falling back on a hetero-­‐normative framework. Gary Strange is Erica’s father, who is divorced from his (ex-­‐)wife, Barbara. Gary is portrayed as a rebellious, free spirited, pot-­‐smoking hippie throughout his youth who eventually settled down in the suburbs with Barbara. After becoming dissatisfied with his career as a salesman, he turned to his 78
Jewish roots and became a reform rabbi at a synagogue where he cheated on his wife with the cantor. Despite these foibles, Gary works to make amends with his family. Barbara Strange is Erica’s mother. The CBC website writes: “Barb has always put the needs of her family before her own, wanting the best—or at least what she considers the best—for her children. Part of this was protecting her children from knowing the truth about their father’s affair. Now that Erica has uncovered it, she’s working to mend the gap that 13 years of wrongful accusations has created in her relationship with her mother.” Thus, as will be further explored below, Barbara is represented as a quintessential mother who sacrificed her own life for her children and her ex-­‐
husband and thus reconstructs traditional and stereotypical gender roles. Leo Strange is Erica’s older brother. He was killed in a fire in his grandparents’ barn when he was 21 years old and therefore is only included in incidents from Erica’s past. Leo is portrayed as “forever young.” He is more concerned with travelling, smoking pot, and skateboarding than going to university and settling down with a career. Simultaneously, he is depicted as kind and protective toward his sister; he and (the young) Erica are very close. Leo’s death represents a gulf within the family; the final episode of season one (episode113) concentrates on Erica and her family finding closure with his death. Samantha Strange is Erica’s younger sister. She is an accomplished young surgeon who gets married to her high school sweetheart, Josh McIntosh, in episode 106. The CBC website states: “Growing up, Sam’s parents praised her for being the sweet one, the smart one, the easy quiet one they never had to worry about.” As will be explicated further below, Sam is depicted as professionally competent but quite weak and co-­‐dependent in terms of her relationship; she remains with a husband who does not love or respect her. Josh McIntosh is Samantha’s high school boyfriend and now husband. He is represented as aggressive, crass, and rude: he expresses disinterest in getting married the day before the wedding, flirts with his wedding photographer, and asks Erica to pose with him on a motorcycle on his wedding day. Ruby Strange is Erica’s gay uncle who owns a wedding dress business. Ruby is the only gay male character on the show and represents an attempt to include diversity of sexual orientation. Nonetheless, his character is relegated to a small role and also reproduces existing gay stereotypes. Ryan is Josh’s best man and Erica’s boyfriend during part of season one of the show. Ryan represents a sensitive and kind man, and inverses traditional stereotypes through his ability to cook as well as his willingness to commit to Erica. Ryan appears over the course of four episodes in which Erica explores her commitment issues and the realization that she is in love with Ethan. Mary Kang is Erica’s assistant. As an Asian woman, she represents the second and only other inclusion of a visible minority as a secondary character. It is important to underscore that she only appears in two episodes in the first season, which works to de-­‐emphasize her prominence and establish Whiteness as the normative yardstick. 79
Plot Narrative In the pilot episode, Erica Strange, is introduced as a 32-­‐year-­‐old single, White, Jewish woman with a Master’s degree in English literature, who is working at a dead-­‐end job in customer service. In contrast, her friends are depicted as highly successful both professionally and personally—
approaching marriage and pregnancy, enjoying career promotions, and buying first homes. Over the course of this episode, Erica is fired from her dead-­‐end job and is stood-­‐up on a date. The tipping point occurs when Erica takes a free sample of a coffee that contains hazelnuts, to which she is allergic. As a result, Erica lands herself in the hospital where she meets Dr. Tom, a White male therapist who has the capacity to send Erica back to her past where she can encounter and change past “mistakes” in order to procure a positive result in her present. Within her first therapy session Dr. Tom asks Erica to compile a list of her past regrets. This list provides plot foundations for the proceeding episodes, from losing her virginity to Zack to her brother Leo’s death. Within each episode, Erica revisits one of these regrets from her list, gaining insights and correcting long-­‐term patterns. The formula of the episodes oscillates between the present and the past; Dr. Tom’s office, bedecked with a large framed image of Sigmund Freud, is a gateway between the two temporal spaces. Thus, the premise of Being Erica is based on psychoanalysis by which Erica gains insight and makes positive choices in her present, defining circumstances based on an investigation into her past. There are 13 episodes of Being Erica in season one, which originally aired between January 5 and April 1, 2009. The episodes can be clustered into several categories that represent the subject matter of the show as well as indicate the demarcation of themes central to Erica’s life: career, relationships, family concerns, and friendships. In total, there are four episodes that deal with career related issues; three that concentrate on relationships; four that highlight family matters; and two that focus on friendships—with the introductory episode overlapping all categories. The narrative will be outlined below in terms of these central categories. The measuring of Erica’s success via her professional career is a key theme of the show and is crucial to plot advancement. In the first episode, Erica is fired from her job in customer service at an insurance company—a position that is unrelated to her educational qualifications. From the outset, Erica is positioned as “unsuccessful,” which is underscored by her uncle Ruby when he says, “Erica, when are you going to get a real job?” (episode 102). Throughout the narrative, Erica confronts the past experiences that hold her back from achieving her career goals. For example, in episode 102 Erica must choose between following her dreams to work in the publishing industry or opting for the secure yet unstimulating path at her uncle’s bridal company. Through her therapy session with Dr. Tom, Erica is transported back to university when she was approached by the elite Literati society; she wants to change the course of her history and join Literati because “membership has its privileges.” Consequently, in the present, Erica decides to pursue her career in publishing whilst remaining true to her core values. In episode 104, when Erica starts her new job at River Rock Publishing, in order to conquer her fear of confrontation with her new boss Julianne, she is sent back to her first semester of university to finally stand up for herself against her creative writing teacher, Professor Lozar, who made fun of her poem. 80
By reading her own poem aloud despite his criticisms, Erica discovers a newfound confidence to demand respect from Julianne. In episode 111, Erica is in charge of supervising the launch of Katie’s new book, The None. Erica turns into a “control freak,” rejecting help from Brent and constantly critiquing her assistant Mary’s choices. Erica is transported back to when she met Ethan in drama class and dissuades Claire from dating Ethan in order to have him for herself. In the end, she learns that she cannot have complete control or dictate how other people behave. In episode 112, Erica is incapable of firing an author at work because she does not see herself as assertive or ruthless. Julianne therefore sends Erica to a leadership program where she describes her leadership skills as “fun, friendly, easy-­‐going, supportive, and nurturing.” These stereotypically feminine adjectives are seen as a hindrance to effective leadership. Erica is sent back to a time after college when she has to step out of her box and “larp”: dress up as a vampire and participate in a mock fantasy ceremony in the woods. As a consequence, Erica learns to be more confident and self-­‐
asserting and is promoted to Junior Editor. The concentration on Erica’s professional advancement marks how Being Erica defines the success of Canadian women—a theme that will be further explored in terms of the series discursively calling on a liberal feminist framework. On the one hand, Erica is constructed as overtly insecure and lacking confidence, and on the other is represented as too self-­‐assured. Implicit here is the assumption that women must strike the perfect balance between taking up space but not too much. The series thereby delineates the parameters of how women should behave. A second major theme within the plot narrative is Erica’s focus on romantic relationships, with three episodes devoted to this subject matter. In episode 101, Erica is established as a perpetually single woman constantly rejected by men. As the series progresses, Erica learns about the ways in which past relationships prevented her from committing to a serious relationship; she consequently begins dating Ryan and eventually Ethan, her “true love.” Thus, the program measures Erica’s success through her capacity to be in a committed relationship; being single is connoted as a failure. This suggests a strong patriarchal underpinning insofar as women are measured vis-­‐à-­‐vis their relationships with men. For example, in episode 103, when Erica has anxiety about attending her high school reunion because she has neither a career nor a relationship, she lies and brings Ethan as her fake boyfriend. Here, we see that relationship status is a clear definer of success—it even trumps professional status. Erica has the opportunity to return to the past to alter her first sexual experience with Zack, who videotaped their sexual encounter and humiliated Erica, tainting her capacity to trust men. Being Erica thereby complicates the traditional narrative that losing one’s virginity is a woman’s special rite of passage. In episode 109, Erica further explores her commitment issues with Ryan. She is sent back to 1999, during her Master’s degree, to explore her sexual orientation in relation to her lesbian friend Cassidy. In this episode, Erica learns that “with love, it’s all or nothing” and as a consequence breaks up with Ryan because she realizes she is in love with Ethan. The rest of the episodes are peppered with Erica and Ethan’s relationship as it transitions from friendship to lovers. Finally, in episode 112, Erica and 81
Ethan commit to each other in a fairy-­‐tale ending that demonstrates the privileging of relationship status. A third major theme tackled by Being Erica is that of female friendships, with two episodes that focus exclusively on this subject matter. The show includes the depiction of long-­‐term girlfriends whose friendships stand the travails of time, pointing to a more positive construction of women. For example, in episode 105, as a result of Judith’s pregnancy, there is a gulf between her and Erica as their lives head in two different directions. The climax occurs at Judith’s baby shower that Erica organizes under the assumption that she is going to be the child’s godmother. However, Erica is “rejected” for this honour; she is not seen as responsible enough. Adulthood here is measured through responsibility and child rearing. As a consequence, Erica goes back to her bat mitzvah when she was 12 years old—the Jewish ceremony of becoming an adult—to learn to believe in herself. There she encounters and stands up to Cody, who in her memory acted as a bully and ruined her bat mitzvah. Erica learns that adulthood is not necessarily a stage of life but an attitude. Erica is therefore able to re-­‐establish her bond with Judith, indicating the strength of their friendship. In episode 110, Being Erica further explores the challenges of female friendship when Erica and Katie go head to head professionally and personally. The audience first catches a glimpse of the competitive nature of the two women’s relationship in episode 102, in which Erica feels she has to aggrandize herself by adopting a fake boyfriend (Ethan) in order to show up Katie. In episode 110, Erica and Katie’s rivalry is evident through Erica’s jealousy regarding Katie’s professional success and her opportunity to write the book The None. The audience gains insight into the friendship when Erica returns to high school when the girls worked together at Casa Loma. Here, Erica learns that Katie was originally jealous of Erica and that she felt as though she was always in Erica’s shadow. Through this insight, Katie and Erica patch up their friendship. Thus, despite the arduous nature of these friendships, the bonds between the women remain long lasting and intact. The last thematic category of the series concerns Erica overcoming difficult family matters—such as her parents’ divorce, her sister’s marriage to a man Erica does not like, and her brother, Leo’s death—
with four episodes devoted to these topics. In episode 106, which centres on Samantha and Josh’s wedding, Erica is confronted with the decision of whether to tell her sister that she believes the marriage to be a mistake. Erica goes back in time to the couple’s initial break-­‐up five years ago when Erica originally helped them get back together; this time, she sets out to change the past and separate them for good. Despite her attempts, she is transported back to Samantha and Josh’s wedding and Erica chooses to advise her sister against the marriage. Erica’s interjection causes a rift between Erica and Sam who stops speaking with her right after the wedding. The sisters make amends in episode 108 during Yom Kippur—a Jewish holiday that focuses on forgiveness. In the same episode (108), Erica also explores forgiving her parents for their divorce. Specifically, Erica, who always sided with her father, is sent back in time where she gains a more complete picture of her family’s dynamic. First, she is transported back to the time of her parents’ divorce where she learns about her father’s infidelity with the cantor at his synagogue. Second, she is transported further back in time to the year before she was born to learn about the kinds of people Gary and Barbara were preceding parenthood. She visits a hippie commune where she discovers that while her 82
father believed in peace and free love, he was simultaneously dominating and flaky while her mother tried to please Gary by pretending she was enjoying herself when she was in fact more reserved and interested in settling down. Erica thereby develops an awareness of her parents’ foibles; in particular, she develops increased compassion for her mother. Despite the difficulties of Erica’s family life, her happiest memories are with her brother and sister. In episode 107, Dr. Tom allows Erica to return to her perfect day in order to give her a break from her grievances at work. Erica chooses to relive the day that she, Sam, and Leo spent at a carnival on Toronto Island. The series also tackles the death of a family member in the season finale. In episode 113, Erica and her family attempt to learn better coping mechanisms on the anniversary of Leo’s death. Before sending Erica back in time to allow her to say a proper goodbye to her brother, Dr. Tom stresses that her therapy does not allow her to “play god” and warn Leo about his impending death. Once back in time, Erica’s emotional connection with her brother gets the better of her and she tries to save him. As a result, Erica is transported to an alternate future in which Leo is alive, about to be married and become an architect, while Erica is head of the fiction department at River Rock Publishing. Despite these dream-­‐come-­‐true albeit strange circumstances, Leo still dies, this time in a car crash, demonstrating that Erica cannot change the fate of others. Erica goes back to the night of Leo’s death again, but this time does not warn Leo. Rather, she encourages him to write a letter, explaining to his family how he feels. In the present, his letter acts as an avenue for opening up dialogue and healing for Erica’s family surrounding Leo’s death. Despite these advances, Dr. Tom is furious at Erica for having broken the rules and ceases to be her therapist. Season one ends with Erica being introduced to her new therapist, Nadia, a young White woman who will take over Erica’s case. Gender Being Erica is a series largely centralized on the representation of women’s concerns and the 6
demarcation of issues relevant to women. As a series that targets an adult female audience and focuses on a female character in the lead role, Being Erica provides a platform for addressing the challenges facing cotemporary young women in Canada. Furthermore, with a majority of the primary and secondary characters being female (nine of the 17), there is an increased representation of 7
women. Prima Facie, Being Erica provides a corrective lens to the predominantly patriarchal framework that has dominated mainstream television media insofar as it provides an increased and more positive representation of women. The series thus appears to operate from a feminist mandate and suggests a more nuanced, complex construction of gender diversity. As feminist scholar L.H. Steeves (1987) defines it, the term “feminist” implies a “theoretical acknowledgement of women’s 6
Ivan Scheenberg of Temple Street Productions (which produces Being Erica) stated that the primary demographic is women aged 20 to 40. Likewise, co-­‐president David Fortier stated: “We got the sense [the CBC] was looking for something less male-­‐skewed, and without too much edge—more family viewing, prime time, network family viewing” (http://www.playbackonline.ca/articles/daily/20080930/erica.html). 7
It is important to note that scholarship regarding the representation of women in television maintains that women are systematically under-­‐represented, placed in traditionally feminine roles, and exhibit traditionally feminine appearances (Atkin, 1991; Elasmar, Hasegawa, & Brain, 1999; Glascock, 2001). 83
traditional devaluation in relation to men with the assumption that the relationship needs to change” (Steeves, 1987, p.96). Nonetheless, as feminist scholars have noted, increased representation of women within television media is not necessarily indicative of a feminist agenda and feminism is not a monolithic category. In other words, flipping the gaze from male to female does not guarantee a fundamental shift in the representation of women within television media. In fact, as will be demonstrated below, Being Erica reproduces a patriarchal framework through a series of stereotypic representations and reproduction of power dynamics between men and women. When Being Erica does assume a feminist agenda, it operates out of a liberal feminist sensibility insofar as professional equality and sexual liberation—key tenets of the liberal feminist paradigm—
are invoked. Nonetheless, as will be argued below, the appropriation of professional and sexual equality is discursively deployed to stand in for equality on all fronts and the illegitimacy of feminism in the contemporary context. Consequently, despite its seemingly feminist mandate, Being Erica reifies a post-­‐feminist sensibility, thereby undercutting a more diverse and complex representation of women. While post-­‐feminism is a fluctuating and rather loaded concept, the term is often used to refer to the depoliticization of second-­‐wave, liberal feminism, which in turn produces an accessible and empowering version of feminism, most often consumed by young women, whereby femininity and “girliness” are equated with feminism. Mary D. Vavrus (1998) elaborates: “A post-­‐feminist perspective is based on an assumption that women’s material needs have, for the most part, been met and that a politics of feminism is no longer necessary for women’s advancement” (p. 218).These patterns of gender representation will be explicated below to demonstrate the ways in which liberal feminism is rhetorically utilized and postured to reinforce post-­‐feminist and patriarchal frameworks. When Being Erica does draw on feminist concerns it constructs women in such a way that demonstrates that Canadian society has achieved women’s equality by using the tenets of liberal feminism as its yardstick. A.M. Jaggar (1983) describes liberal feminism as an application of the principles of liberal political philosophy to political and economic inequities experienced by women (p. 100). Liberal feminists work on promoting women’s opportunities for intellectual growth and professional success; they maintain that equal opportunity is possible within capitalist socioeconomic systems. Being Erica’s patterns of female representation include the depiction of women in high professional positions with economic and cultural capital to suggest that Canadian women have been granted equality, thereby repudiating imbalances of power that persist nationally. Specifically, in Being Erica, the majority of female characters are represented in positions of professional power. For example, Erica’s boss Julianne is a young White female in a position of authority. Erica’s friend Katie works as a jet-­‐setting journalist in Vancouver who is invited to write her first novel. Similarly, Erica’s sister, Samantha works as a neurosurgeon, and although on maternity leave, Judith works as a high profile lawyer. Marjorie Ferguson (1990) terms the representation of women in professional positions of power the “feminist fallacy” wherein the visibility of women of status lends itself to the acceptance of feminism’s success. In other words, the reification of a liberal feminist framework stands in for equality of women across all fronts and works to obscure the continued reproduction of patriarchal 84
relations. It is, however, also important to mention that although these women are in positions of power, at River Rock Publishing—Erica’s workplace—a White older man is in the highest position of authority, thereby couching a liberal feminist narrative within a patriarchal structure. Being Erica’s liberal feminist framework can be further ascertained through the show’s focus on Erica’s professional pursuit. Throughout the narrative, as Erica’s life becomes more “successful,” Erica advances from call centre, to her uncle’s wedding dress business, to an assistant in a publishing company, and finally to junior editor. Through her therapy sessions with Dr. Tom, Erica highlights that she measures her success vis-­‐à-­‐vis her professional advancement and even conflates success in other areas of her life with her profession. In episode 105, when learning that she thinks Judith is going to chose her as godmother for her child, she states: “Historically, I haven’t really been godmother material, because the godmother is someone who takes care of the child if something goes wrong. It is a lot of responsibility. You need a secure, calm, stable person for the job. I always thought of myself as wacky Aunt Erica. But I have a job now, something that might actually lead to a career. I mean, everything in my life is falling into place. Judith sees it; I guess I should too.” It can be inferred that Being Erica measures a woman’s success or worth via her professional status, whereby women are accorded equal opportunities as men. This representation thereby suggests that the goals of liberal feminism have been met and obscures the diversity of ways in which women are subjugated within the Canadian context. Being Erica’s construction of women as sexually liberated is another marker of the show’s appropriation of liberal feminism. Sexual liberation is viewed as one of the many fruits of second wave liberal feminism. The depiction of women as sexually liberated suggests that the goals of feminism have been met and works to justify its post-­‐feminist framework. There are many examples of how the show constructs the female characters as sexually liberated. First is in episode 101, when Erica explicitly shaves her bikini line in front of the mirror while Josh assumes she is masturbating with a vibrator. Through this example, the series disrupts traditional or “prudish” standards of femininity and normalizes discourse on female masturbation, traditionally a taboo topic, thereby corroborating a feminist agenda. Furthermore, in the same episode, Erica attempts to pressure her high school boyfriend, Noah, to be sexually intimate with her. The inclusion of a young woman exerting pressure over a high school boy signifies a reversal from traditional gender roles. And in episode 103, when Erica transitions from the past to the present, she does so when she is right in the middle of having an orgasm. The decision to highlight this sexual peak is demonstrative of the show’s attempt to convey sexual explicitness, ownership, and by inference, liberation. Another example of sexual liberation is in episode 110, with Judith’s frank and explicit description of childbirth. When Judith and Erica are waiting in line for popcorn at a movie theatre, Judith says to Erica, “You know, my back is killing me. And, you know, in three weeks I am going to suffer through the worst pain of my life, just so I can push something the size of a football out of my vagina.” Although Judith, as a pregnant woman, represents a typical hegemonic construction of femininity, her use of the term “vagina” at the movie theatre upsets traditional conceptions of femininity and appropriate topics for women in public spaces. Furthermore, the use of the term vagina indicates that Judith is comfortable with discussing her sexuality and female sexual identity. 85
In the same episode (110), when they are in high school, Erica and her girlfriends dress in a sexual way for Halloween: Erica as Madonna from her “Like a Virgin” music video; Katie as a playboy bunny; Judith as a bar wench; and Jenny as a corseted Victorian woman. Katie even states to her male boss at Casa Loma, “I am dressing up as a sexy bunny rabbit,” and then proceeds to turn around and wiggle her buttocks in a sexually explicit manner. While the inclusion of these costumes suggests that the girls are comfortable with their sexuality, it also suggests a conflation between sexual liberation and sexual objectification. Thus in this instance, we see an explicit reaffirmation of post-­‐feminism. At first glance, the abundance of examples suggests a feminist agenda insofar as these strategies violate the norms of decorum and standards of femininity, and the appeal to liberal feminist criteria insinuates that these women are liberated and have achieved equality with men. Nonetheless, L. S. Kim (2001) argues that programs focusing on the single, working woman “seem to proffer a feminist tone or object” but actually depict a “false feminism” (p. 203). Most significantly, scholars express concern that the assumption of equality between the sexes will encourage political apathy among young women (Arneil, 1999; Coppock et al., 1995; Vavrus, 2000). Thus, the inclusion of the achievement of liberal feminism’s goals works to pave the way for a reinforcement of a post-­‐feminist sensibility in which traditional gender roles and stereotypes of femininity and gendered power relations are re-­‐inscribed. In other words, Being Erica’s post-­‐feminist sensibility works to reproduce a patriarchal framework. Being Erica’s overall representation of women is encapsulated in the following exemplary dialogue between Erica and her mother Barbara, which takes place when Erica is transported back to her bat mitzvah in order to ascertain what is entailed in becoming an adult woman. In this conversation, a liberal feminist sensibility is utilized to promote traditional female roles and expectations such as marriage and children. Barbara: Before you know it, I’ll be walking you down the aisle, meeting my grandchildren, and meeting you at the firm. Erica: The firm? Barbara: The law firm. Don’t you still want to be a lawyer? Erica: That could happen, but it might not work out that way. I may be 30 and still single. Barbara: Don’t worry, darling. That’s never going to happen. By 30 you will have two kids and a husband. Erica: But what if I don’t? What if I am still single and living in a one bedroom apartment and working as someone’s assistant? Barbara: Erica, that’s not going to happen—living like that. Like some bum at 30. That’s not you. Now stop thinking such terrible thoughts. Although the conversation is supposed to poke fun at Barbara’s outdated views on women’s expectations, the series still includes her perspective as the parameters of the discourse and thereby 86
reinforces the values that it pretends to circumvent. Despite apparent attempts to do otherwise, Being Erica situates Erica within a patriarchal framework in which women reinforce existing stereotypes. The show’s post-­‐feminist leanings are further revealed by the parameters it sets around issues facing contemporary Canadian women. Being Erica explores a variety of topics and themes that have traditionally been demarcated as stereotypically feminine: relationships, weddings, marriage, pregnancy, and child rearing. The spotlight on these topics suggests that, despite the overt liberal feminist focus on equality in the professional realm, the show is simultaneously representing women as relegated to the private sphere—traditionally deemed a woman’s space. The overt focus on marriage and children demonstrates that the show holds these attributes as clear markers of success for 30-­‐year-­‐old Canadian women. For example, episode 105 is dedicated to Judith’s baby shower, thereby bringing pregnancy under the rubric of issues facing young Canadian women. Erica feels like a failure because she believes she can’t measure up as a caregiver compared to those who are aware of the latest baby gadgets—a hint at the valorization of the commodification of motherhood. She compensates by throwing Judith a baby shower but becomes disappointed when she learns Judith did not select her as the godparent. By inference then, Erica feels like a failure because she is not versed in motherhood even though she is in her early thirties. She says, “What do you do when you think that you are the only kid in a room full of adults?” She lacks self-­‐worth because she is not at the motherhood stage of her life. Jenny is the only character who explicitly challenges the motherhood framework when, in the same episode (105), she states, “You know, a baby shower is basically just rewarding someone for having sex. I have sex all the time. Where is my reward?” Thus, Jenny represents the oppositional perspective, suggesting the opening up of alternate perspectives. Simultaneously, however, rather than being depicted as a complex, robust character, Jenny’s depiction reinforces the liberal feminist centralization on the sexual liberation framework, which as discussed above serves to further buttress the show’s post-­‐feminist context. Moreover, Jenny’s representation as sexually liberated does not necessarily provide a more diverse representation of women insofar as it perpetuates the “mother-­‐
whore” dichotomy. Being Erica also delineates relationships—including weddings and marriage—as another central concern of contemporary Canadian women, thereby invoking post-­‐feminist and patriarchal sensibilities. The focus on relationships and marriage is witnessed in Erica’s and her family’s concern about her single status, and in episode 106, which is devoted entirely to Samantha and Josh’s wedding. Being Erica clearly values relationships as a measuring rod of a woman’s success and thereby succumbs to a patriarchal structure. In episode 103, Erica does not want to attend her high school reunion because she is presently unemployed and single. In lieu of believing that she has merit and self-­‐worth as a single person, Erica decides to lie and bring Ethan as her fake boyfriend, indicating she has to be with a man to give her cultural capital. It should also be noted that being in a relationship takes precedence over faking a career. 87
Likewise, the series constructs women as defining their sense of self through men. For example, in episode 104, when Erica was in college, she measured her worth according to the opinion of her White male poetry teacher. She seeks his approval in her poetry and ends up pretending that a Britney Spears song is hers rather than reading her own poem, “Snowflakes.” The plot is complicated when Erica finally does read ”Snowflakes” and stands up to Professor Lozar, stating, “I don’t have to impress you or anyone else.” Nonetheless, Erica does not do so of her own volition; rather, she is persuaded by Ethan—another man. Katie’s book, The None is a metaphor for the series’ representation of women vis-­‐à-­‐vis their relationship with men. The message of the book is “Forget Mr. Right; give Mr. Right Now a chance.” Although the book—and by inference the show—debunks the Prince Charming myth, it simultaneously re-­‐invokes that it is better to be with “Mr. Right Now” than to be single. The series’ post-­‐feminist leanings are further evidenced in its stereotypical representation women as weak in relation to their strong male counterparts. For example, Erica’s sister Samantha decides to marry Josh even though he is verbally aggressive toward her. In episode 106, Josh is aggressive, bossy, and rude to Sam when she is conversing with her sister at their parents’ house the evening before the wedding. Josh: Come on Sam, let’s go. You can yak to your sister tomorrow. Sam: Okay, just give me a second. Josh: No! I am tired. I want to leave. Just grab your purse so we can go home, go to bed, get up, and get married...and get this whole thing over with. I’m just kidding. Here Josh suggests that it is a burden to marry Samantha and does not treat her with love and respect, particularly the day before their marriage. Despite these remarks and her reservations, Sam decides to marry Josh. Likewise, in episode 108, Josh insults Judaism to his wife’s family when he sarcastically states, “I love a religion where you can screw up all year and clean the slate with one little phone call [in which] you ask forgiveness.” Sam remains silent despite the blatent disrespect her husband shows for her family’s religion. Thus, although Sam is constructed in a position of professional power as a neurosurgeon, she is depicted as weak and submissive in her personal relationship with Josh. Similarly, Erica’s mother, Barbara, is also represented as submissive and non-­‐assertive in relation to her (ex-­‐)husband Gary. In episode 108, when Erica is transported to the time before she was born, when her parents were at the hippie commune, Barbara is shown to be willing to sacrifice her sense of self in order to be with Gary. Despite the fact that she despises camping and “free love,” she feigns interest, even though she would rather stay at a hotel. Moreover, Barbara is blamed for breaking her family apart when she left after Leo’s death. Through this episode, Erica discovers that, in fact, Gary cheated on Barbara and she refused to tell her children. Erica asks, “Why would you protect him?” To which Barbara responds, “Gary wasn’t a great husband, but he was a great father. You lost your brother and I didn’t want you to lose your father as well.” By extension, Barbara protects her husband in lieu of standing up for her own reputation. She retains her quintessential position as mother and 88
wife insofar as she chooses to never speak poorly of Gary, despite his affair, because she does not want to tarnish his reputation in the eyes of their children. Thus, Erica’s parents reify traditionally stereotypical gender roles in which the mother is eager to please and complies with her husband’s goals and vision. It is important to note that although Barbara is from the generation previous to Erica’s, the choice to include these details about Barbara’s relationship with Gary frames a representation of women in submissive positions. The constructions of Samantha and Barbara suggest a repeated pattern of representation in which women are willing to sacrifice themselves for a man, thereby detracting from female empowerment and reinforcing patriarchal relations of power. Being Erica further eschews a feminist mandate through the reproduction of stereotypes of women as catty, jealous, and competitive with each other. The construction of women as competitive diverges from a feminist agenda by breaking away from the ideals of female solidarity and respect. Furthermore, the “catty woman” stereotype often comes from competition over a man, which works to reinforce a patriarchal frame. For instance, in episode 104, Claire asserts that Ethan is her man when she says to Erica, “When I saw Ethan, I just knew. And you see? Now he’s mine. And as for you, some things are not meant to be. You’ll find your Ethan one day.” Claire’s use of the term “mine” suggests that Ethan is an object that can be possessed—one that Erica cannot have. As a result, Erica defames Claire’s reputation in the Literati newspaper. Likewise, in episode 111, Erica tries to convince Claire that Ethan is gay so she can have him all for herself: Erica: I don’t think [Ethan] is your type. Claire: Oh yeah? What makes you think I am not his type? Well, maybe I should go and find out for myself. Erica: I don’t think you should do that. Claire: Why not? Erica: Because Ethan is gay. I don’t want to be the one to gossip, but the way that he is in all of our scenes, you know, the kissing stuff…. You know, the fact that he’s in drama class.... I mean, kind of gay. Claire: Wow. I never would have suspected. Erica: Yeah. I feel your pain. You know what? Forget about him. Go out and find a nice straight guy. This dialogue illustrates that women are willing to lie and stab each other in the back for a man, thereby demonstrating that the stereotype of the catty female exists within a larger framework in which women define themselves vis-­‐à-­‐vis men. 89
Similarly, Erica and Julianne are represented as catty toward each other in their attempts to upstage one another for professional gain. In episode 104 Erica calls Julianne “bitch face,” and in the same episode, Julianne walks into the bathroom at work and threatens Erica: Julianne: What’s your problem?!! What’s your problem? Erica: I’m sorry, did I do something wrong? Julianne: You just made me look like an idiot in front of the whole team. Erica: I was just trying to help. Julianne: I was trying to bury a book I didn’t want. Erica: I...I... Julianne: You are stuttering idiot, apparently. If you don’t get it together today, it is going to be your first and your last day. Julianne is further willing to use her professional status to assert her power over Erica in unprofessional ways. Later in the episode, Erica walks into a room where Julianne is making fun of Erica’s work by reading it aloud to the entire office, calling it the “worst submission of the week.” These examples undermine a representation of women as confident and secure, and imply that women have to humiliate one another in order to aggrandize themselves. In episode 107 the aggressiveness between Erica and Julianne continues when Julianne tells Erica, “If I don’t have chapters by the end of the day, then [my boss] is going to push me out of the window. And I’ll push you first to cushion my fall.” Katie and Erica also display a competitive nature, and thereby increase the frequency of the catty female stereotype. In episode 111, Erica is jealous of Katie for getting the opportunity to write a book. Katie backstabs Erica by using her pitch as well as Erica’s life story as a template for the book. As a result, Erica is angry that Katie is going to write the book and confronts Julianne, to which Julianne responds, “You are an assistant. She [Katie] is a star columnist. You’re single, she’s married. You’re jealous and guess what? She’s not.” This exemplary quote reveals that Being Erica normalizes female jealousy, particularly in terms of relationships and professional status, undermining feminist concepts of female solidarity and friendship. It also reiterates Being Erica’s construct of women measuring their worth through male relationships and professional status. It is important to note that oppositional perspectives that contradict Being Erica’s dominant representation are also included within the series but do not have the same weight, couched as they are in a patriarchal framework. Specifically, the show’s emphasis on strong, long-­‐lasting, stable female friendships suggests a more positive and empowering depiction of women. The show underscores that Erica has maintained her friendship with Katie since elementary school; despite their petty fights along the way, their friendship solidifies. Moreover, Erica has simultaneously retained her friendships with Judith and Jenny since high school, demonstrating close female bonds or the potential formation of a female collective outside of patriarchal structures. Discussing the integral role friendship has played in the development of the women’s rights movement, B. Schneider (1988) writes, ‘‘While historical conditions have altered the meanings of female friendship over time, the development of friendship networks, particularly in later generations 90
within a movement, may still be a necessary ingredient for women’s movement strategy’’ (p. 17). Schneider specifically discusses ‘‘intimacy’’ and ‘‘sense of family’’ as both necessary for sustaining the women’s movement and as missing elements in the post-­‐feminist generation (p. 17). Thus, Being Erica’s focus on female friendships suggests delineation from its overall post-­‐feminist pattern of representation. Nonetheless, these oppositional perspectives do not have the same representational weight insofar as they are couched within a dominant post-­‐feminist, patriarchal framework. Of the 17 primary and secondary characters, eight are male, so Being Erica has slightly more female representation than male. Nonetheless, as indicated above, the show is situated within a patriarchal framework, with White male characters holding the principle positions of authority. The patriarchal underpinnings of the show are most explicit in its re-­‐appropriation of the Freudian psychoanalytic trope of the damsel in distress who is saved by a man—in this case, a young woman seeking therapy from an older White man. Erica is often represented as an insecure woman, lacking confidence, who needs a male therapist—
Dr. Tom—to save her. Being Erica thereby reproduces gendered power relations and reifies patriarchal relations of power. Moreover, Dr. Tom is constructed as an advocate of the Freudian psychoanalytic approach. His office is a stereotypic therapist’s office, bedecked with books, diplomas, and most significantly, a large image of Sigmund Freud behind the desk, explicitly signifying Dr. Tom’s reverence for Freud and his brand of psychotherapy. Freud has been largely critiqued by feminist scholars as “misogynist” in his characterization of women 8
as “hysterics” and in his treatment of the Oedipal Complex. As Juliet Mitchell (1972) noted, feminist movements have tended to equate what Freud said about the hysterics and his other female patients as prescriptions for patriarchal domination of women rather than understanding his writings as an analysis of women's position in patriarchal societies. Being Erica’s Freudian psychoanalytic format thereby asserts an underlying patriarchal framework undercutting its seemingly feminist mandate. The series’ Freudian tribute is apparent in episode 110 in which Dr. Tom is dressed up as Freud for Halloween when he encounters Erica in the past at her Halloween party at Casa Loma. Dr. Tom uses Freud and his psychoanalytic framework as a departure point of wisdom and advice for Erica. Dr. Tom states, “You see, Freud was all about uncovering feelings that people had but they couldn’t talk about. So in his day, it was sex. But in this day, it’s envy that we’ve renounced. No one talk about it and no one admits it to themselves.” By inference, the series uses Freud as a cornerstone for insight into repression and the unconscious, while obfuscating the misogynist elements of Freudian theory. 8
Feminist movements, especially in the 1960s and ’70s, were hostile to psychoanalysis, as they viewed it as a major factor in the oppression of women (de Beauvoir 1949; Friedan, 1963). The issues that feminists challenged in psychoanalysis centred on Freud's formulations of the differentiation between the sexes in terms of the association of masculinity with activity and femininity with passivity, as well as Freud's emphasis on the existence of penis envy in women, female masochism, and the role of the father as opposed to feminists' reassessment of the mother-­‐daughter relationship.
91
Another indication of an underlying patriarchal framework is Dr. Tom’s use of historical quotes, peppered throughout the series, which are meant as sage words of wisdom for Erica. There are, in fact, only two incidents of quotes by women (Helen Keller and Britney Spears) while all the rest are from men. Furthermore, Dr. Tom repeats a Chinese proverb when he provides Erica with the tidbit of wisdom in regards to her relationship with Ethan: “Men in the game are blind to what men looking on see clearly.” The use of the term “men” is illustrative of the male-­‐centred wisdom and advice for women. In general the male characters tend to be clustered into two types—one that reinforces traditional male stereotypes and gender roles, and one that engenders more stereotypically female roles. For example, Josh is presented as aggressive and brutish, Gary as dominant (over Barbara), and Dr. Tom as bad-­‐tempered—all of which are identified as typical male constructions. Illustratively, in episode 107, Dr. Tom screams loudly and firmly, “Erica, stop it. Sit down. I SAID STOP...SIT...please.” Erica stops in her tracks; thereby, Tom’s authority is asserted. On the other hand, Ethan and Ryan are both depicted as embodying traditional female stereotypes indicative of Being Erica’s challenge to clear demarcations of gender roles. For instance, Ryan is a cook who is sensitive and ready for a committed relationship. (This is in contrast to Erica, who is not.) Ethan is an elementary school teacher—not a “high” professional position—and is also presented as a push-­‐over with Claire (episode112). Moreover, Being Erica includes characters such as Brent, a “metro-­‐sexual,” and Ruby, Erica’s queer uncle, indicating a move to diversify male representation. Thus, Being Erica both reinforces and challenges traditional male roles. Nonetheless, setting up a dichotomy between “macho” and “effeminate” does not provide a nuanced representation of male characters and gender roles but rather reifies existing stereotypes. Race and Ethnicity The series Being Erica tends to erase the categories of race and ethnicity from its representation; Whiteness acts as a normative yardstick and visible minorities are largely excluded. The main character is a White woman; thus the show presupposes Whiteness as the “non-­‐race” and the stand-­‐
in for “every” Canadian woman. Furthermore, out of the 17 primary and secondary characters, only two are visible minorities: Judith and Mary, who are relegated to secondary roles. Consequently, Being Erica omits a construction of Canada as multicultural, and reifies White people in positions of power. In total there are 13 instances of visible minorities within the entire season, demonstrating the marginal role accorded to diverse groups and underscoring Whiteness as the normalizing marker. Being Erica demonstrates its construction of race with Whiteness as the normative yardstick in episode 111 in which Erica interviews women auditioning to be the front woman for the launch of the book, The None. At the auditions, women from different races, ethnicities, and classes are interviewed regarding their past relationships. Erica and her assistant interview four women for the position—a brown skinned woman, a Black woman, an older White woman, and a White woman in her 30s. The first woman is represented as weak and lacking confidence when she states, “I have a lot to offer a guy—at least I think I do. Maybe I don’t.” The second woman is constructed as the stereotypical “angry Black woman,” as can be gleaned through her assertion, “The last guy I dated dumped me for some skinny chick from his rock climbing club. If there’s a god, that dick and his 92
anorexic bitch will both plummet to their deaths.” Through vulgar language, the Black woman is constructed as vengeful and irrational. The older White woman is presented as desperate and perverted when she states, “Give me a tight body, a heartbeat, and nipple clamps and I’m happy.” Although she is a White woman, she is depicted as “abnormal” as a result of her age. Finally, Erica and Mary encounter an apparently normal White woman in her 30s; Erica considers her to be the most obvious choice. The applicant says, “When you are in your 20s and you break up with a guy...whatever, no biggie, I’ll just move on. And then you hit 30 and you’re lucky if ‘the one’ is a one night stand.” The 30-­‐something White woman is thereby established as the most reasonable voice, the one with which the audience is meant to relate. In other words, the White woman is presented as the norm, and the women of other races are constructed as deviant. This reading is solidified when, after interviewing the 30-­‐something White woman, Erica states, “Well, I think we found our girl.” This scene further demonstrates the standardization of Whiteness through the exchange between Erica (the White boss) and Mary (her Asian assistant) insofar as Erica’s voice is considered more rational and authoritative. For instance, Mary disagrees with Erica and asserts that her choice would not be the White, 30-­‐something woman: “I loved the girl with the rock climbing boyfriend. She was righteous.” Here a woman of visible minority is selecting a woman of visible minority to represent the The None. Erica undercuts Mary’s position when she says, “[That woman] was terrifying.” In this instance, Erica (the White woman) asserts her position of power to secure the position of another White woman without reflecting on how the categories of race are being utilized to bolster the standardization of Whiteness. Ironically, Erica’s selection eventually proves to be a mistake; her chosen candidate proceeds to explicitly discuss her sexual encounters, which works to undermine Erica’s authority. By then, however, all other possible selections (and visible minorities besides Mary) have been removed, erased. In the end, Erica does apologize to Mary. It is important to note that while the show includes a visible minority in the character of Mary, she only appears in two episodes (107 &111), both towards the end of season one. Thus, her character does not provide a balanced alternative to the overt and dominant representation of Whiteness. Erica’s best friend Judith is the exception to the primarily White cast. As a lawyer and a pregnant mother-­‐to-­‐be Judith, a primary character, is constructed as a successful Black woman, with both economic and social capital, in a position of power and authority. As mentioned above, the characters on the show are meant to suggest Erica’s shortcomings; unlike Erica, Judith is a woman who has achieved both professional and personal success. That she is a Black woman who is considered more successful than a White one makes her yet a further exception. It is important to note, however, that as the sole primary character who is a racial minority, Judith serves to posture a diversity of representation but does not in fact counterbalance the dominant construction of Whiteness as the norm. In general when there is an inclusion of visible minorities in the series, they appear as extras in scenes with large groups of people. For example, in episode 106, at a rooftop party, most of the guests are White with the exception of two Black men. Likewise, at an office party in episode 109, all the characters are White except for a Black bartender, a Black employee, and Mary, Erica’s Asian assistant. Thus, the show appears to correlate race with class; visible minorities are most often seen in working class positions. In episode 110, at the Halloween party at Casa Loma, again most of the 93
guests are White except for one Black man, who is dressed stereotypically as a 1970s pimp. Thus, the inclusion of race representation is reduced to stereotypes. Moreover, in general, by lumping visible minorities into larger groups, it seems the show is fulfilling a quota of representation rather than providing them a voice. Class Being Erica constructs the upper middle class as its normative yardstick. Erica, who has a post-­‐
secondary degree, values academic education, grew up in a large house in the suburbs of Toronto, and is interested in professional status and climbing the corporate ladder. Likewise, the other primary and secondary characters—who are often established as contributing to Erica’s lack of success—are all in positions of authority, with diverse white-­‐collar professional positions: Katie is a well-­‐established writer, columnist and journalist; Judith is a lawyer; Samantha is a neurosurgeon; Josh is an investment banker; and Erica’s young cut-­‐throat boss, Julianne. is an editorial director. The show goes so far as to devalue working class positions. After she is fired from her position in customer service, Erica’s Uncle Ruby asks her,“Erica, when are you going to get a real job?” By establishing economic and professional capital as central concerns for young Canadian women, the series presupposes upper-­‐
middle-­‐class values. Episode 102 overtly discusses the advantages of education, class, and status for professional advancement. During her job search, Erica encounters Antigone, a woman with whom she was academically competitive at university. Antigone succeeded professionally because she was a member of the elite Literati society. Antigone tells Erica, “It doesn’t hurt to have friends in high places.” The episode explores whether Erica would have been more successful, with access to higher positions, had she compromised her morals and become a member of Literati. The normalization of the upper middle class can be further gleaned through an exchange between Erica and Antigone as they go head to head in order to achieve a position in Literati—the elite literary group that once included a former Prime Minister and other notable “high society” members. In the exchange, class is used as a source of insults: Antigone: I am Erica Strange, the daughter of an insurance salesman, granddaughter of a brick layer. Sorry, what’s your family crest, a 20 per cent coupon? Erica: You are so obscenely wealthy, I am surprised you even know about coupons. Oh yeah, shouldn’t you have a silver spoon in your mouth instead of your ass? Through the episode, Erica learns that she is unwilling to compromise her core values in order to get ahead. Consequently, she decides to quit Literati after they ask her to expose Claire—Ethan’s girlfriend and a student activist—as the daughter of one of the wealthiest families in Montreal. While her decision represents a repudiation of the upper class, the series still privileges the upper middle class as the normative lens. There are many examples that establish the upper middle class as the norm. In episode 103, Ethan poses as a doctor at Erica’s high school reunion in order to elevate his status and impress Katie. In the same episode, Erica rejects her date because he has inauthentic African tribal masks (made in Taiwan) 94
and an Idiot’s Guide to Dostoyevsky. In episode 105, when Erica meets her boyfriend Ryan, he mentions that he has a jetsetter’s lifestyle with houses in four different cities worldwide. In fact, Ryan makes a joke about his four homes. He says, “The one in London is a flat. Who can afford a house in London, right?” He thereby distinguishes himself as distict from the upper class—those who can afford a house in London—but establishes himself firmly in the upper middle class. When the show does lean in another direction it represents the wealthy upper class, not the lower class. For example, Claire’s father is an exceptionally wealthy businessman, who is described as “owning half of the city of Montreal.” He buys Claire and Ethan a house in Outremont, an affluent upper class neighbourhood in Montreal. For the most part, the working class is represented only through the posturing of upper-­‐ or upper-­‐
middle-­‐class characters. Claire lies about her upper class background and poses as a poor student activist in order to gain credibility. Similarly, when Erica encounters Dr. Tom in the past, he is always depicted in working class positions: in episode 101 he’s working at a hot dog stand; in episode 104 he’s depicted as a dog walker; in 105, he’s a bartender at a Bar Mitzvah; and in 106, he’s a painter. While these incidents prima facie suggest the inclusion of working class constructions, Dr. Tom is, in fact, a therapist; he is only posturing in these working class positions. So while Being Erica does occasionally represent the wealthy, it never really represents the poor. The series thereby sets the limits of issues relevant to women based on upper middle class values. In episode 105, Erica questions whether working at her uncle’s wedding dress business is the right job for her or whether she should pursue her own dreams and goals. This framework of choice is middle class; not all classes have the luxury of deliberating over the type of work they will do. Simply put, not everyone can afford to quit a job that is not right for them. The series sets the parameters of the issues that are relevant to young Canadian women without any indication of working class concerns. Sexual Orientation Being Erica assumes a hetero-­‐normative representation of gender with the majority of leading characters constructed as heterosexual; however, the series includes two queer characters—Erica’s Uncle Ruby and Cassidy, Erica’s college friend—thereby providing instances of queer discourse in its frame. Nonetheless, the show tends to fall back on oversimplified and stereotypical constructions of queer identity. For example, Uncle Ruby runs a wedding dress business and in episode 102 states, “I used to dress your mom up in your bubby’s lace curtains when I was six.” Further, the show utilizes gay stereotypes to suggest that Brent, Erica’s River Rock Publishing colleague, is gay, even though he does not identify as such. By doing so, Being Erica gives the audience more insight into Brent’s character than he has himself. For one thing, Brent makes comments on fashion; when Erica commits the fashion faux-­‐pas of wearing flip flops on her first day of work after breaking her heels, Brent sarcastically quips, “Lovin’ the footwear.” Coupled with his lisp, which is often conceived as a gay male stereotype, the audience is lead to believe that Brent is gay. However, later in the episode, Brent identifies as heterosexual when he states, “When [Julianne] gets angry, she gets a lip curl that makes me hot.” Moreover, towards the end of the episode, Brent asks Erica out for a drink to which Erica responds, “A drink? Like a date?” Erica appears surprised because, like the audience, she assumes Brent is gay. Brent responds, “Oh do you have a boyfriend?” To which Erica replies, “It’s 95
funny because I thought you were...” The audience here is supposed to fill the gap and complete the assumption that he is gay. Brent finishes Erica’s sentence, “…in a relationship? No, I like to play the field.” Here the series is playing on cultural stereotypes to comic effect. Nonetheless, the inclusion of these stereotypes—whilst Brent remains trapped within a hetero-­‐normative frame—suggests a devaluation of queer identity. In episode 109, in which Erica explores her sexual identity, the show explicitly introduces a queer frame. Cassidy Holland, an attractive woman who is finishing her PhD in urban planning, is a lesbian who wants to be in a relationship with Erica, back when they are both in college. Erica has to confront her sexual identity and the sexual tension between herself and Cassidy, which augments throughout the episode: from drinking wine and finger painting each other’s bodies, to dancing sexily together in order to thwart two male suitors, to finally undressing and kissing each other. In the end, Erica realizes that she is unable to commit to Cassidy because she is decidedly not queer. In this episode, Being Erica does provide a more complex representation of sexual identity insofar as fixed categories of gender and sexual orientation are questioned and represented as fluid. For example, in the proceeding dialogue, Dr. Tom problematizes demarcated categorical constructions of sexual orientation as reductive and over simplified. Dr. Tom: Are those butterflies in your stomach? Stars in your eyes? Erica: I’m straight. Dr. Tom: That’s what you keep saying. Erica: No. Uh uh. I’m not interested in girls. I’ve never been interested in girls but I am bonkers about Cassidy. I mean the way that I feel when I’m with her and the things we do together. Dr. Tom: That sounds wonderful, yet you are straight? So those are friendly butterflies, friendly stars? Erica: I can’t be into Cassidy. I am not a lesbian. Dr. Tom: Labels are for cans—not people. Through the voice of Dr. Tom, the series problematizes labels—the categories of “straight” and “gay”—which suggests that gender and sexual orientation are fluid, part of a spectrum. Erica’s foray into the past is meant to shed light on her relationship with Ryan. By constructing a correlation between Erica’s relationship with Cassidy and her relationship with Ryan, the show may move towards the eradication of gender and sexual orientation markers of difference. Nonetheless, Being Erica simultaneously reproduces stereotypes and an oversimplified queer representation. Both Erica and Cassidy are constructed as traditionally feminine; the series omits more “butch” representations of lesbians. Rather, Erica and Cassidy’s sexual encounters can be viewed as lesbian erotica for the male viewer as they feature traditional hetero-­‐normative notions of femininity and beauty. Moreover, when Erica’s friends confront Erica about being a lesbian, they 96
invoke reductive and simplified stereotypes of the kinds of cultural products and behaviours that are associated with lesbianism. Jenny: What the hell? Erica: Oh my god, did Ethan tell you? Judith: Yeah. Jenny: But why didn’t you? Judith: Were you worried that we wouldn’t accept your lifestyle? Erica: No—what lifestyle? Judith: And to be perfectly honest, this isn’t a big surprise. Jenny: Your unholy love of camping. Judith: That Ani Difranco box set. Jenny: That Melissa Ethridge collection and the women’s softball league you joined in grade nine. Erica: I’m not gay. Through Erica’s best friends, the show suggests that certain cultural tastes, practices, and affiliations such as camping, softball, and queer musicians are indicative of sexual orientation. These reductive constructions suggest clearly demarcated notions of femininity linked with heterosexuality and construct the aforementioned practices as unfeminine and queer. In an exchange between Erica’s sister Samantha, her mother Barbara, Cassidy, and Erica at the dinner table, Barbara raises the question of whether homosexuality is in fact genetic, introducing a homophobic voice into the discourse under the guise of tolerance. Barbara (to Cassidy): Do you think Rachel [from the television show Friends] is attractive, sexy? Cassidy: Rachel is the hottest friend, everybody knows that. Barbara: I tell you, if I were a lesbian, she would be the woman I would most want to be with. Erica: Mom!? Barbara: What? Your Uncle Ruby, my brother, is a homosexual and I am open-­‐minded about it. I like to talk about these things. Cassidy: You have a gay uncle? Samantha: Yes, he owns a wedding dress company. Barbara: Makes you wonder if it runs in the family. 97
Erica: Well, clearly it makes you wonder. Barbara: Well, sweetheart, you won’t bring home a nice boy, so what am I supposed to think? All I want is for you to be happy. Erica: Who says I am not happy, huh? Cassidy: You know, my mom used to say exactly the same thing, but what she really meant was happily married to a man. Either live in hell on earth or spend eternity in Hell with a capital H. Samantha: She actually said that you were damned? Cassidy: Yeah. Said it, meant it, and still means it. I haven’t spoken to her in years. I wish that I had half of the relationship you have with Erica...and she’s 100% straight. Barbara: Straight, lesbian, I don’t care. I really don’t, Erica. How could any parent care? At first glance, it seems as though Barbara is open-­‐minded and tolerant regarding homosexuality. Nonetheless, Barbara reproduces a series of stereotypes. She explicitly discusses Cassidy’s sexual orientation at the dinner table in an attempt to suggest she is comfortable. The overt discussion about sexual orientation suggests that these categories are not normalized. Likewise, Erica’s mother questions whether homosexuality “runs in the family,” thereby reproducing the fallacy that homosexuality is genetic. Erica is further deemed a lesbian because she does not “bring home boys” and therefore her mother reinforces the myth that if a woman is not in a relationship with a man then she must be a lesbian. Although Barbara’s perspective is meant to act as a barometer for her generation, the inclusion of this perspective sets the show’s parameters for queer discourse. Disability Disability is not explicitly treated in Season One of Being Erica. Conclusion The bulk of the representation of diversity in Being Erica is concentrated on gender. From a pure content analysis, Being Erica appears to provide a diverse representation of women; however, through a detailed informal Critical Discourse Analysis the patterns of representation reveal that the show’s concentration on female characters and women’s issues is couched within post-­‐feminist and patriarchal power relations. The series sets the parameters of issues relevant to Canadian women and tends to omit or marginalize issues that do not privilege White, upper middle class, and heterosexual as the norm. Even in instances when Being Erica includes constructions of race, class, and sexual orientation, it tends to reduce them to two-­‐dimensional stereotypes and thus does not point to an actual diversity of representation. There are instances in which the series puts forth feminist concerns; nonetheless, these seem to suggest that the goals of feminism have been met and thereby justify a hegemonic patriarchal framework that is most overtly naturalized through the selection of a male therapist. The closing instances of the season one finale open up the possibility of an alternative framework with the introduction of Erica’s new female therapist, Nadia, who is meant to take Dr. Tom’s place. Nonetheless, this token move seems too little too late to counterbalance Being Erica’s dominant representation. 98
Case Study #5: Degrassi: The Next Generation -­Elizabeth Godo Since its first incarnation in 1979, the Degrassi franchise has developed into a Canadian institution, featuring four separate television series and a sizeable viewership both at home and abroad. Often lauded for its realistic portrayals of youths and the issues they face, particularly in contrast to American-­‐made programming in the same genre, the world of Degrassi can be considered a key locus of information about diversity in Canadian television and Canadian values overall. Despite a seeming shift toward new media, traditional broadcast television continues to influence both our sense of national identity and our perceptions of the world. For this reason, representations of diversity in a program of such longevity and international appeal are crucial areas for study and critique. Degrassi: The Next Generation is the fourth series in the franchise, beginning in 2001 on CTV. Set in an inner-­‐city high school in Toronto, the series follows an outwardly diverse group of students as they face the challenges typically met by contemporary teens, including addictions, abuse, love and sexuality, etc. Claiming Gemini, Writer’s Guild of Canada, and Teen Choice Awards, along with nearly one million viewers for one episode alone in 2004, the series has often been the most frequently watched domestic drama in Canada (Williamson, 2001). Consistently praised by reviewers as “unvarnished” in its portrayal of reality (Atherton, 2001), and one of “the most important television shows of the 2000s” (Liss, 2009), Degrassi supports the narrative of Canadian society as a multicultural haven for diversity, and its popularity in the United States reaffirms this conception on an international basis. Because of—or despite—this national myth, the Degrassi franchise acclaim demands a closer examination of the way in which its constructions of gender, race and ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, and disability truly play out. This case study focuses on the most recent season, season nine of Degrassi: The Next Generation. Characters and Plot Narrative Degrassi: The Next Generation features an ensemble cast, with each episode or story arc (generally two or three per episode) focusing on a different student. Peter Stone is in grade 12, and begins the season as lead singer in his increasingly successful band, dating an attractive, up-­‐and-­‐coming model. Peter is depicted as troubled, jealous, and impressionable, but with generally good intentions. Though his past includes moderate drug use and criminal activity, the influence of his girlfriend(s) has kept him on the right track, beginning in season five with Emma Nelson, whom he supported through her recovery from anorexia. Now dating model Mia, his dependency on her becomes clear early in the season as he develops an addiction to meth in response to the strains of her modeling career on their relationship, and she ultimately leaves him. Peter’s band replaces him as lead singer and he spends much of the season attempting to rebuild what he had, eventually re-­‐joining his band as a roadie, and later as a backup musician. The dynamic 99
between Peter and his girlfriends can be seen to reinforce the “love of a good woman” stereotype, which is ostensibly capable of changing a troubled man. Manuela “Manny” Santos has played a role in the series since the first season, returning occasionally in season nine to offer advice and keep in touch with the primary characters currently attending Degrassi. Manny is Filipino and remembered by many for the abortion she chose in season three, against the will of her boyfriend and in the face of a family member who had been sent to a convent in the Phillipines under the same conditions. After a tumultuous adolescence and a strained relationship with her father on account of his conservative ideals, she is now pursuing an acting career in Hollywood with his blessing. Emma Nelson began The Next Generation as the series’ primary protagonist, depicted as the daughter of two characters from Degrassi High in 1989. While her mother and grandmother both experienced unplanned teenage pregnancies, Emma breaks this cycle by completing high school and going on to study political science at the post-­‐secondary level. Portrayed as the series’ activist, she makes her mark in season one by petitioning for the installation of a tampon dispenser after having her first period during class. She goes on to be suspended from school in season two for protesting genetically modified foods in the cafeteria. Throughout the series she meets the challenges of relationships, anorexia, and the like. Emma frequently encounters boyfriends who take on the social issues that matter to her as a way to earn her favour, and this comes to a head in season nine as she and her partner, Kelly, cycle across Canada for an environmental awareness campaign—Re-­‐Cycle—
only to learn that Kelly is no longer interested in being an activist with her. Their breakup, combined with her loneliness as the rest of her cohort moves on and away, leaves her lost and uncertain at the season’s end. Fiona Coyne is new to Degrassi in season nine, arriving via limo with her twin brother, Declan. Portrayed initally as aloof and sophisticated, she comes from a great deal of wealth and has traveled the world with her diplomat father. Her loyalty to her brother is unwavering and her primary story arc focuses on a brief relationship with Riley Stavros, a ruse to avoid unwanted advances from other men, as well as to contradict any rumours of Riley’s homosexuality. Her single attempt to connect with the student body at Degrassi comes in the form of an audition for the school musical, which she is ultimately rejected from in what amounts to the first indication of the vulnerability beneath her cool exterior. Declan Coyne is Fiona’s twin brother and a self-­‐described child nomad. Having attended private schools in Hong Kong, Vienna, and New York, to name a few, his confidence and charm have served him well as the type of guy who does not commit to one girl. While he builds this reputation early on, playing “the other man” to Jane Vaughn despite her long term relationship with Spinner, he ultimately falls in love with Holly J. As will be discussed further below, their relationship sets the most positive example of an equal partnership with strong gender roles in the entire season nine. Much of Declan’s previous behaviour is accounted for by a past heartbreak, reinforcing the Disney-­‐esque falacy that men who behave inappropriately are simply “tortured,” needing only the right woman to rehabilitate them. 100
Chantay Black is the self-­‐proclaimed gossip of Degrassi, founding her blog, the “Anti-­‐Grape Vine” and beginning the season with camera in hand. She is the most prominent African-­‐American female character and played a minor supporting role throughout seasons four through seven. Her position as a cheerleader and aspirations toward entertainment journalism reflect the value she places on social hierarchy and her desire to be known, if not always liked. While at one point she uses her influence to end the relationship between her friend Leia and Danny before dating him herself, she is not portrayed as an antagonist on the series, a fact that reflects the realistically flawed nature of Degrassi’s characters. Anya Macpherson spent much of her time previous to season nine attempting to find her place at Degrassi, while never fitting in to a single clique. This theme is replayed throughout her relationship with Sav, as she focuses all of her time and energy on him, in spite of his desire to spend time apart and with his band. Fortunately, Anya’s meek, co-­‐dependent character develops positively for a time, as she finds a sense of belonging in live-­‐action role-­‐playing (LARP) and their relationship takes a more balanced turn, allowing each to pursue their own interests. However, as will be described below, the appearance of a girl who Sav’s strict, Indian parents hope to betrothe him to leads Anya to have unprotected sex with Sav in an effort to “keep” him, resulting in a pregnancy scare and the end of their relationship. Leia Chang is Degrassi’s Asian character. She is extremely insecure and is known for fabricating stories in an effort to seem confident and appealing, but seems to turn to her relationship with Danny as the only measure of her self-­‐worth. When she suspects that his feelings for her have diminished, she follows Chantay’s advice by breaking up with him in the hopes that he will “come crawling back.” Instead, he is relieved and expresses his feelings for Chantay, leaving Leia crushed, but ultimately experiencing the effects of her own dishonesty. Holly J. Sinclair’s character develops significantly from that of mean-­‐spirited antagonist in her early seasons (faced with an “I hate Holly J” online forum as a result, amongst other consequences), to the relatively well-­‐adjusted student council president and all around over-­‐achiever she is in season nine. Though many of the female characters’ storylines focus on their romantic relationships, Holly J.’s portrays her love life as in a constant state of negotiation with her extra-­‐curricular activities, personality, and aspirations. Her redemption arc and confidence make her a positive female role model, as will be described in more detail below. Connor DeLaurier is one of the younger students at Degrassi and suffers from Asperger Syndrome. His noticeable symptoms include seemingly compulsive behaviour and difficulty with social skills. While the details of his condition were dealt with primarily in season eight, including the establishment of his close friends, KC and Clare, he continues to face bullying from Bruce and struggles to fit in on the basketball team. He ultimately finds his place as manager of the team’s statistics, using his disorder—namely, his tendency toward focused interest in a single subject—to the benefit of the team and his reputation. KC Guthrie’s high intelligence is often masked by his troubled upbringing, including an absent father, an incarcerated mother, and his residence in a group home. Though he initially tried to hide these 101
facts from his peers, particularly friends Connor and Clare, they discovered and ultimately accepted the truth in season eight. Still, KC is quick to anger and is impressionable to a fault, falling victim to his basketball coach who encourages him to break up with Clare in favour of the prettier Jenna, before giving him alcohol and hiring him a prostitute. Though KC reports the coach to his teachers, his desire and need for a strong role model is evident. Clare Edwards is in her first year at Degrassi and prides herself on not caring what anyone thinks. While her best friend Alli often finds her judgmental, she gradually comes into her own, overcoming the pain of her boyfriend KC leaving her for Jenna, and the confusion she experiences when she develops a purely physical attraction to Declan. Her conservative bent and strict moral code make it difficult to fit in, but her good intentions are often apparent. Alli Bhandari is in Grade 9 and is Sav’s younger sister. Despite being best friends with Clare, she subscribes to none of Clare’s values, actively rebelling against her own strict Muslim upbringing and dating one of Degrassi’s bullies, Johnny. She is preoccupied with sex and eager to grow up, even after nude photos of her begin to circulate through Degrassi, and Johnny endangers her with an STD after lying about his sexual history. Jenna Middleton enrols at Degrassi partway through Grade 9, hailing from Newfoundland. While she is initially portrayed as friendly and cheerful, she loses the friendship of Clare and Alli when she begins flirting with and eventually dating Clare’s boyfriend, KC. Her storyline is defined by her relationship with KC after that, as she supports him in his ordeal with the coach, and convinces him to cheat off of Clare on an exam. Dave Turner is African American and in Grade 11. He is Chantay’s cousin, but does not enjoy any of her social standing. Rather, he is rarely taken seriously despite repeated attempts to gain notoriety, including picking on the school bully and pursuing popular girls. Aside from occasional moments of sensitivity and kindness, his character is generally portrayed as comic. Danny van Zandt is in his final year at Degrassi and is in a popular band with Peter, Sav, Spinner, and Jane. He is dedicated to his studies and is rarely the instigator in any of his dramatic story arcs. Though he is increasingly unhappy in his relationship with Leia, he simply neglects her until she breaks up with him. When he is jealous that Chantay must kiss Peter as part of the school play, he appeals to Peter rather than speaking openly with Chantay. Despite these passive aggressive behaviours and the disrespect they indicate, he is portrayed as one of the more upstanding male characters. Sav Bhandari is Alli’s older brother and comes from the same strict Muslim family. He is portrayed as constantly at odds with his upbringing, playing in his band when his parents are unwilling to compromise on their goals for his future, namely, a career in engineering and marriage to an Indian woman of their choosing. While many subplots address this discord, particularly with respect to Sav’s decision to keep his relationship with Anya a secret, the situation is felt more acutely in season nine when his parents instruct him to take the girl they’ve chosen as his future bride to a school dance. Issues of both gender and race play out here, as the girl is herself intent on taking Sav from Anya—
depicting women as marriage-­‐centric and duplicitous—and their families’ Muslim faith is portrayed as incompatible with Canadian culture. 102
Gavin “Spinner” Mason is a graduate of Degrassi and one of only four characters to have been on the show from seasons one through nine. His journey and character development have been significant, as he suffers from Attention-­‐Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)—hence his nickname, Spinner—
and began as a violent bully and homophobe. By season nine, he has dabbled in Christianity, overcome testicular cancer, been suspended from school, and shot during a burglary, before finally settling into a committed relationship with Jane and a steady job at a popular Degrassi hangout, The Dot. Though his temperament is still considered fragile by some—evidenced by Jane’s decision not to tell him of her infidelity—his character is a positive example of growth and maturity. Bruce “The Moose” is quite simply the school bully. Though appearing in the opening credits, he is never given a primary storyline or a last name. In season eight, he participates in the physical assault of Jane for being the only woman on the football team, and regularly harasses anyone female or smaller than him. Though he is occasionally seen with an expression that could be interpreted as remorse, he is primarily portrayed as irreparably damaged and cruel. A glimmer of character development is seen toward the end of season nine, when he opts to swallow his pride after an argument with Johnny for the sake of their friendship. A brief reference is made to his being two credits short of graduation, but this is not developed. Unlike Spinner’s bullying which is portrayed as a result of his ADHD and is overcome as he grows, “The Moose” is given no such opportunity. Johnny DiMarco is in Grade 12 and began attending Degrassi when his previous high school burned down, carrying his bully image with him to his new school. Rarely the leader of his social circle, he is best friends with Bruce, and despite his reputation as a thug—including his role as an accessory in the stabbing murder of another student—he is the object of ninth grade Alli’s affections. Though Alli’s behaviour is likely a result of her rebellion against her strict Muslim parents, Johnny nonetheless takes her virginity, lying about his own and endangering her with a sexually transmitted disease. He also takes advantage of her poor judgment and naiveté by sharing her nude photos with Bruce when she displays images of him holding a teddy bear, images which he feels puts his hyper-­‐masculine status at risk. Though he is ultimately remorseful, his chauvinistic behaviour does not go unpunished, and he graduates from Degrassi with Bruce as his only friend. Archie Simpson is a teacher at Degrassi who began as a Grade 8 student, nicknamed “Snake,” in the original series. He is married to Emma’s mother, who is also from the original series, though he is not Emma’s biological father. Throughout The Next Generation, he struggles to negotiate his dual role as teacher and husband/father. Though he cheats on his wife early in the series, he is, for the most part, a positive role model and advocate for the students of Degrassi, allowing Manny to live with his family when hers will not, supporting Connor through his Asperger’s Syndrome, taking action against KC’s coach, and offering advice on various occasions. Blue Chessex is in Grade 11 at Degrassi and plays a relatively minor role in season nine. He is a visual artist and though his reputation is that of a player, he does not share the details of his relationships or brag to other male characters. His primary relationship is with Holly J.; however, it comes to an end early in the season when she interprets his desire for her to be happy and popular with his trying to change and control her. Neither are portrayed as heartbroken. 103
Riley Stavros is a prominent player on the football team and an attractive 17-­‐year-­‐old male. He is also a homosexual whose story arc follows his attempts to deny, change, and, eventually, learn to accept his sexuality. In season eight, he takes steroids in an effort to become attracted to women, and gets suspended when the drugs result in violent behaviour. His anger management problems continue into season nine, when he punches his gay swimming coach in the presence of Degrassi’s LGBT club president. He attempts to date Fiona, excited about a therapist he found online who promises to cure him of his “disease,” but the treatment is expensive and time consuming and the relationship inevitably fails. Though Riley is faced with contempt from some, his biggest obstacle is himself as most of his friends and peers are supportive. In any case, his character dispels the myth that being gay is a choice. His journey will be addressed in more detail in the following sections. Jane Vaughn is in her final year at Degrassi after switching from another school in Grade 11. She stood out initially as the only female player on the football team, and faced violence and persecution as a result. Her family life is troubled as a result of her repressed memories of being sexually assaulted by her father at a young age; however, in her studies and extracurricular activities, she is talented and successful. In season nine, she befriends Holly J. when they start up a babysitting business for a class project. Her relationship with Spinner is steady, despite her short-­‐term infidelity with Declan, which she opts not to tell him about. Gender At first glance, Degrassi: The Next Generation’s season nine has a relatively equal representation of males and females, with 12 males students in the opening credits and 11 females. Though the primary characters change each season as students graduate and others begin at Degrassi, the representation is generally consistent. However, though the females are occasionally constructed to challenge gender roles, the males are more likely to reinforce traditional male stereotypes. For example, a staggering six males—50 per cent of the male students—and none of the females are prone to outbursts of aggression, evidenced by violent acts and the physical and emotional abuse of others. Each character has his own explanation—valid or otherwise—for these behaviours: Peter’s father is not affectionate and Peter himself is predisposed to drug addiction; KC lives in a group home; Spinner suffers from ADHD; and Riley is gay. Only Bruce and Johnny seem to be bullies simply for the prestige. Many of the remaining male characters exhibit equally stereotypical gender roles, as Danny and Sav are rock musicians, and Dave and Connor hope to make their names as athletes. Indeed, only two of the males are not either dedicated to sports teams, their band, or bullying: Declan and Blue, both of whom are characterized as “womanizers,” another typical male construction and an indicator of disrespect toward women. Additionally, those violent or abusive males who do maintain relationships with women for any period of time, serve to reinforce the “love of a good woman” stereotype, in which a particular female can—and indeed, ought to—influence a male to change or simply behave in a kinder, more “civilized” manner. These will be addressed below. The female’s roles, though equally represented, are also equally problematic, with nearly all depicted as preoccupied with their romantic relationships, reinforcing traditional female stereotypes of women as marriage-­‐centric. To the greatest extent, Alli, Anya, and Leia are portrayed as “boy crazy” and dependent. Though only fourteen years old, Alli Bhandari finds herself drawn to the Grade 12 104
bully Johnny, and willingly puts her health and safety at risk when she loses her virginity to him. When he refuses to kiss her in public, she sends him nude photos of herself in an effort to earn his affection, which he proceeds to share with his friend Bruce (episode 903). Beyond the charges of child pornography that this could result in, Alli believes herself to be strong and independent, convinced that any kindness he shows toward her is an indicator of her power as a woman to “change” him. She is eager to become and be treated as an adult, mistakenly equating adulthood with sexual experience, willingly objectifying herself and downplaying her own intelligence to earn male approval. Anya’s dependence on her boyfriend, Sav, takes a different form. In episode 906, she tells her friends: “Sav ditched me to watch a soccer game. Do you want to hang out while I wait for him to call?” Holly J. responds by asking if Anya has any “non-­‐Sav interests” of her own, serving to contrast Anya’s character with a more balanced female role. Eventually, Anya’s character develops as she finds a passion in live-­‐action role-­‐playing, which Sav disapproves of, but ultimately comes to accept. However, her low self-­‐esteem is evidenced again when Sav’s parents make him take Farrah, their choice for his future wife, to the spring formal (episode 915). Though Anya is confident in his feelings for her initially, a stereotypical encounter in the ladies’ restroom changes her mind: Farrah: Let me paint you a picture. I like Sav. Our families want us to be together. Right now, he’s just being a good guy keeping you happy, but someday soon, you’ll be history. Anya: But Sav wants to be with me. Farrah: He has plenty of time to change his mind. Overcome with panic and self-­‐doubt, Anya leads Sav outside to their rented limousine where they have sex for the first time. When he protests that they are unprotected, she lies by saying “I took care of it,” leading him to believe—falsely—that she is on a contraceptive. The resulting pregnancy scare leads him to break up with her, citing a lack of trust. Leia loses her boyfriend, Danny, in a similar fashion. She depends on him for her self-­‐esteem, and when she feels his affection for her diminishing, turns to Chantay for advice. Chantay’s own interest in Danny prompts her to suggest that Leia break up with him as a “pre-­‐emptive strike” (episode 909), promising that Danny will beg her to take him back. Instead, Danny is relieved to be free of the relationship with Leia, and he and Chantay begin to date. The relationships in each of these three cases end as a result of the women’s dependence and poor decisions, serving to depict the negative consequences of these gender roles to viewers, while simultaneously placing the responsibility for the relationships’ failure almost entirely on the females. In the one case, Johnny is portrayed as an outwardly antagonistic figure, reinforcing a discreet sexism which blames Alli’s character for choosing to be with him in the first place. Despite the negative gender roles she represents, the discursive assumption that she “should have known” or even “deserves” his behaviour toward her is evidenced by her friends’ consistent disapproval and her own self-­‐doubt. Similarly, both Sav and Danny are depicted as “good guys”—dedicated to their rock band, relatively successful in school, and weighed down by the “neediness” of their girlfriends. The idea that either one of them was emotionally neglectful in the relationship or in any way responsible for Anya 105
or Leia’s drastic actions is not addressed, as Sav is simply disappointed in Anya and Danny moves from Leia to Chantay with ease. The story arc involving Grade 9 students Clare, KC, and Jenna is another illustration of the reification of gender-­‐based stereotypes. Clare struggles with her sense of identity, defined by her intelligence and Christianity, and is constantly at odds with her best friend, Alli. This is a result of her age and not her gender, and her relationship with KC is initially based upon his acceptance of her as she is. However, Jenna’s arrival at Degrassi changes the dynamic, as she promptly informs Clare that she was known as a “boyfriend stealer” at her previous high school, setting the stage for an inevitable and stereotypical competition between shy, bookish, Christian Clare, and the blonde cheerleader Jenna. This is a construction which positions female characters as supportive of each other only until a male becomes involved, at which time friendship and solidarity come second to competition for male attention. Ultimately, at the urging of his chauvinistic basketball coach, KC does break up with Clare in favour of Jenna, confirming her worst fears and cementing KC’s construction as immature and superficial. Though KC is also depicted as troubled and confused, his relationship with Jenna is maintained throughout season nine, with no lasting negative consequences for his misguided choice. As Clare continues to struggle with her identity, describing herself as boring and at times making ultimately failed attempts to reunite with KC (episode 914), the roles of all three characters are further evidenced by Clare’s risky decision to let KC cheat off of her during a math exam (episode 918). Clare is depicted here as a weak female who is willing to jeopardize her own success for the sake of a male. The revelation that Jenna was responsible for convincing KC to cheat—asking him coyly “you said you [and Clare] were friends again; what are friends for?”—reinforces her own construction as manipulative and male-­‐oriented, misinterpreting power and independence for her ability to control a man. Exhibiting some character development, however, Clare is unimpressed enough with KC’s behaviour—depicted as impressionable and unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions—that she breaks contact with both of them. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Degrassi’s constructions of Jane and Holly J. serve to challenge some traditional gender stereotypes, while subtly reinforcing others. Their friendship begins in business class when, as the only two females in the class, they team up for a project (episode 906). They start a babysitting business, hiring younger, predominantly female students to provide daycare services to the community, and keeping a percentage of the wages. While entrepreneurial, their business plan also reflects the traditional role of women as childcare providers. Individually, Holly J. is depicted as powerful and independent, serving as president of the student council and chairing countless committees, while maintaining her academic standing and working part-­‐time at the local café. Her authority and confidence subvert the stereotypes that are reinforced by other female roles. However, by virtue of her behaviour in previous seasons and her current position of power, she is disliked by many, illustrating the adage that qualities considered favourable in males are disagreeable in females. This accounts for her breakup from Blue (episode 902), in front of whom she felt that she could not say no to anyone’s requests or defend herself; he expected her to be “nice.” Holly J.’s relationship with Declan, however, is based upon mutual respect and acceptance. Despite his reputation as a womanizer, his repeatedly failed attempts to woo her culminate in an 106
unannounced visit to one of her group babysitting engagements, during which he earns her affection by playing with the children. Though this, too, is a reification of the traditional characteristics that marriage-­‐centric women look for in their partners, the subsequent story arc follows their struggle to balance a healthy relationship with the many demands on her time. She declares that “behind every powerful woman is a man who better be cool with it,” and when Declan’s parents require that he move to New York for the summer, he submits an application on Holly J.’s behalf for a prestigious internship, knowing that she values her work too much to follow him to New York unconditionally. If Holly J. can be said to problematize prevailing stereotypes implicitly, maintaining positions of power and commanding respect in her relationships, Jane is constructed as an explicit challenge to traditional gender roles. Without being portrayed as a tomboy, she is the only female member of the football team, and maintains her commitment despite physical and emotional abuse from the other players. When Peter is kicked out of his all-­‐male rock band on account of his meth addiction, Jane steps in as the lead singer, playing a prominent role in the activity that the other members’ girlfriends most often cite as a source of contention. On a more discreet level, though her relationship with Spinner is steady and his identity as a drummer and former bully is evidence of his masculine construction, she often plays the stereotypically male role in their conflicts. When Spinner proposes, she is not ready to commit (episode 808). When he asks her to move in with him, she begins to cheat on him with Declan, jeopardizing a long-­‐term relationship in favour of an immediate, physical one. These stereotypical male attributes—opposition to commitment, infidelity—are balanced, however, by her complaint that Spinner treats her like “one of the guys” (episode 904), expressing her desire to feel feminine within her relationship. Likewise, she maintains close friendships with other female characters, such as Holly J. and Manny, and earns the respect and admiration of other female students (episode 803). This represents a sharp contrast to characters like Jenna who willingly sacrifice friendships for the sake of male attention. Indeed, Jane is not constructed as simply a token or tomboy female in a male role, but rather a strong female who is comfortable in traditionally male roles, effectively challenging the boundaries of artificially gendered activities and traits. Race and Ethnicity Since its inception, the Degrassi franchise has prided itself on its realistic portrayals of diversity in Canadian society, and racial and ethnic depictions are no exception. Canada is immensely multicultural, with approximately one in five citizens classified as first generation Canadians—i.e., foreign born—as of the 2006 census (Statistics Canada, 2009). Toronto in particular is regarded as a cosmopolitan city, and an important gateway for Canada’s immigration system (Goodrum, et al.). For these reasons, as well as Degrassi’s role on the international stage as an ambassador of the Canadian cultural landscape, a close look at the way in which issues of race and ethnicity play out on the program is crucial to an understanding of Canadian identity both at home and abroad. One of Degrassi’s greatest strengths is also one of its limitations: its large cast and stand-­‐alone episodes or groups of episodes that follow a particular character’s story arc through to a resolution. While this lends itself well to diversity and an opportunity to depict a variety of different characters in an inclusive way, restricting many to a single primary storyline per season can also serve to produce only a cursory representation, resulting in the reproduction of stereotypes and reinforcing an “us versus them” binary. 107
Sixteen of the twenty-­‐four characters in the opening credits—two thirds—are Caucasian. Of the remaining eight, Danny, Connor, Dave, and Chantay are Black; Sav and Alli are Indian; Leia is Chinese; and Manny is Filipino. It is clear from this brief content analysis that Degrassi is couched in a framework of Whiteness as the benchmark for Canadian identity. This normative framework is further evidenced by the fact that two of the four Black characters are cousins and the Indian characters are siblings. Beyond this inaccurate representation of Canada’s ethnocultural mosaic, it is perhaps to Degrassi’s credit that few of these characters’ ethnic backgrounds are ever referenced through dialogue or storylines in season nine. Most are, by definition, Canadians, and do not face adversity for the colour of their skin, nor are they depicted as experiencing any negative consequences as a result of their heritage with respect to relationships with peers, academics, employment, etc. The sheer irrelevance of each character’s respective race is a testament to the heterogeneity of Canadian society and Degrassi’s depiction of it, however insufficient in quantity. The one exception to this is the conflict between Sav and Alli Bhandari and their parents, and indeed, their story arc is the only one which deals explicitly with race or ethnicity. Sav and Anya’s relationship is strained from its beginnings in season seven, as a result of Sav’s parents’ desire for him to focus on his studies until he is old enough to marry a Muslim girl of their choosing. This comes to a head in season nine when Mr. and Mrs. Bhandari expect Sav to take his betrothed to Degrassi’s spring formal, under the impression that he is no longer dating Anya. Sav explains the situation to Peter and Danny in the following way: Sav: My parents want me to marry within the culture, right? So like, someone Muslim. Peter: Like arranged marriage-­‐styles? Sav: More like introductory-­‐styles. I don’t have to marry her, but they’d like it better if I did. Peter: Ok, I’m going to ask the question that we’re both thinking right now: Is she hot? This interchange serves both to emphasize the unfamiliarity of Sav’s cultural norms amongst his Canadian friends, as well as privilege the perspective of a Canadian youth culture in which the objectification of women is of more interest than different social practices. While the Bhandari parents are depicted as perpetually foreign and out of touch with their children’s lives—evidenced by Alli’s promiscuity and Sav’s ongoing relationship with Anya and participation in his band—no other recurring adult Muslim characters are included to normalize, contextualize, or provide an alternative portrayal of their traditions. Even Sav’s potential future wife, Farrah, is in support of the betrothal, despite telling him the opposite in an effort to put him at ease and set the stage for their relationship. When Sav first meets her, she is dressed in traditional Indian garb, but quietly reassures Sav that she, too, has a secret relationship with a young man at home. However, on the night of the formal, her short, red dress belies her duplicity, as she is no more committed to Muslim culture than Sav or Alli are, and intends to use Western tactics—including her sexuality—to secure Sav’s affections. 108
In essence, Indian Muslim traditions are positioned as constantly at odds with Western norms. It is under the guise of inclusive heterogeneity that Sav, Alli, and Farrah conform to White Canadian culture, stripped of Indian accents and other cultural markers. Their conventional parents are the “other” in this hegemonic narrative, couched in a framework in which participation in Canadian culture is only possible through the rejection of Muslim tradition. This is further evidenced by Sav and Anya’s roles in the stereotypical Western rite of passage contained in the spring formal, or “prom” event, at which they are crowned King and Queen. Their decision to have sex for the first time on “prom night” is another Western stereotype, which they conform to. However, the sequence of events that follows as a result of this night, including Farrah’s behaviour and the anxiety Anya experiences at Sav’s keeping her a secret from his parents, ultimately ends their relationship. From the perspective of the Westernized Degrassi students, constructed as “us” within this framework, the foreign traditions of the Muslim “other” are responsible for the demise of a would-­‐be stereotypical fairy-­‐tale ending for Sav and Anya. Class Just as Degrassi engages with constructions of gender and to a lesser extent, race and ethnicity, the program also includes varying depictions of class in its narrative. The most explicit of these in season nine are the arrival of twins Declan and Fiona by limousine. This brother and sister pair has attended private schools worldwide with their diplomat father; they consider themselves to be at home in Hong Kong, Vienna, and especially New York City. The construction of their status as “wealthy” relies on stereotypes such as attendance at lavish parties with high-­‐powered executives, cocaine and methamphetamine use, and a cool intolerance toward Degrassi and the other students. Though Declan attempts to find a niche, directing the school musical and dating Holly J., Fiona remains solitary throughout much of the season, partaking of “lonely lunches in the garden” and watching her brother interact from a distance (episode 912). In sharp contrast to Declan and Fiona’s world, most of the students at Degrassi range from lower to upper middle class, with the latter construction naturalized by virtue of the specific storylines created around the lower class students. For instance, Holly J.’s economic status is not mentioned until season eight, when her family’s financial woes—a result of her father’s “risky investments” (episode 807)—require her to obtain her first part-­‐time job. Her situation is a source of embarrassment and she lies to get out of a $350 cheerleading trip and a $125 date with Blue, constructing financial restrictions as incompatible with “normal” high school life. Peter also searches for a part-­‐time job when he is accepted into Toronto University, commenting that everyone’s parents were hit by the recession (episode 914). This reference to reality outside of the Degrassi world could be reflective of a trend toward the normalization of a lower class level. KC’s parents are incarcerated, his mother on drug-­‐related charges, leaving him to live in a group home on account of his own criminal record. Though the implications of his situation are not necessarily class-­‐based, part of his coach’s role as a father figure includes purchasing KC’s basketball team jacket for him, something KC would not have been able to own otherwise. This points again to the necessity of a certain level of disposable income in order to enjoy a robust secondary school experience. Though the exclusion of explicitly lower-­‐income characters—other than those associated 109
with drug use and criminal activity—points to an unexamined reproduction of middle-­‐ to upper-­‐class normativity, not all of the students’ home lives are constructed in season nine, suggesting that some may simply exist in a lower class unnoticed. Spinner, for instance, though no longer a student, works at a café while his widowed mother makes her living at Zellers, a discount department store, most likely on little over minimum wage. This variety is reflective of a distinctly Canadian set of values, as the public school system in Canada reaches the vast majority of students, obtaining a standardized level of education irrespective of the economic status of a given family. This is perhaps in opposition to educational systems in other nations, such as the United States, where the very term “public school” carries a connotation of diminished economic status and poorer quality than its private counterparts, particularly with respect to inner-­‐city schools like Degrassi. Fiona’s reference to her time at Degrassi Community School as a “social experiment” upon her return to New York can be seen as a comment on this distinction (episode 919). Sexual Orientation Over the course of the Degrassi franchise, there have been a number of homosexual students and other characters. At the time of writing this analysis, the addition of Degrassi’s first transgendered character has been announced for season ten (Reighley, 2010). Degrassi has been lauded for containing the most “well-­‐adjusted and popular” gay characters anywhere on television over the past decade (Thomas, 2005), and although the Riley of season nine cannot be classified as well-­‐adjusted at this stage, the program’s depiction of his struggle to come to terms with his homosexuality engages with queer discourse and challenges assumptions of gay male stereotypes. Unlike previous gay characters on Degrassi, such as Marco Del Rossi in seasons two through seven, Riley has not only kept his homosexuality a secret from his family and friends, but also denies it to himself. Subverting stereotypes of gay men as effeminate, Riley’s prominent position on the football team and stream of awkward decoy relationships—such as with Anya and Fiona—keep most people from suspecting his feelings while he searches for a “cure” (episode 908). Overcome with aggression and self-­‐loathing, he has a tendency to take his frustrations out on other gay men, both physically and verbally, developing a reputation as intolerant himself. The most striking aspect to his plight is the significant fact that no one within his immediate social circle or the wider Degrassi community appears to have a problem with homosexuality, particularly compared to the abuse that Marco suffered in season three. Rather, Riley himself is ostracized as homophobic, jeopardizing his good name and his football career. Nonetheless, when Fiona asks him if “it’s better to be known as a gay basher than a gay person,” he responds that “maybe it is” (episode 908), maintaining his façade and booking an appointment with an ostensibly converted gay therapist. Engaging with and dispelling the myth that homosexuality is a choice, Riley is constructed as a whole and nuanced character whose struggle against himself subverts the stereotypes of promiscuous and flamboyant gay males. Gradually, he shares his secret with Peter, Anya, and—toward the end of season nine—an openly gay student named Zane. Each responds with support and his story arc culminates in his attendance at an LGBT mixer where Zane reassures him that being openly gay “is new for all of us. You think I came out in preschool?” (episode 918). They share a kiss at the end of 110
the night, representing the large strides Riley’s character has made and setting the stage for the further development of their relationship. Disability Unlike constructions of gender, race, class, and sexual orientation, there are no representations of physical disability in season nine of Degrassi. Over the course of the series, the most infamous case of a wheelchair-­‐bound student is Jimmy Brooks, whose gunshot injuries in season four leave him paralyzed. However, season nine does contain depictions of learning and behavioural disorders, such as Asperger Syndrome and Attention-­‐Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) afflicting Connor and Spinner, respectively. In both cases, the students overcome their conditions by participating in tasks that play to their strengths, emphasizing the potential for a productive, “normal” life for those who suffer from psychological and neurobehavioural disorders. Connor’s autism takes the form of compulsive behaviour and difficulty learning the rules of social situations. When the bullying he endures on the basketball team leads him to quit, Dave brings forward the team statistics that Connor has kept throughout the season, allowing him to use his tendency toward focused interest in a single subject to the benefit of the team and his own status. Similarly, he is entrusted with the stopwatch during a game of Seven Minutes in Heaven, timing other couples while they make out at a party. Though both of these examples position him on the periphery of social activities his peers are engaged in, completing a prescribed task in a controlled environment is ideal for Connor. His construction as a valued member of both a sports team and a peer group reflect a positive representation of a condition that is misunderstood by many. Spinner’s ADHD is treated with Ritalin and though he was initially portrayed as violent and unstable, by season nine he is a manager at The Dot, a job that allows him to stay busy yet focused and save money for his future with Jane. His character development is marked by periods of immense adversity, including testicular cancer, expulsion from school, the death of his father, and a robbery shooting. His temperament is still considered fragile by some, but providing he takes his medication, his band, job, and girlfriend bring him happiness and fulfillment. Conclusion Since its inception three decades ago, the Degrassi franchise has taken ground-­‐breaking strides in the realistic portrayal of teen issues and diversity. A brief content analysis reveals noteworthy representations of gender, race, class, sexual orientation, and to a lesser extent, disability in its most recent season (nine). While much has been written about the role that this series, in all of its incarnations, has played in fostering notions of Canadian identity both at home and abroad (Byers, 2005; Rintoul & Hewlett, 2009; Simonetti, 2004), a combination of content and critical discourse analysis is key to understanding exactly how those notions play out. The series contains many positive constructions, subverting and challenging prevailing stereotypes; however, it also serves to reinforce traditional roles, particularly with respect to gender, while grossly misrepresenting the ethnocultural mosaic of Canadian society through its normative framework of Western experience and Whiteness. While quantitative measures of diversity in a larger sample of episodes or seasons may yield more positive results, the discursive constructs within these representations are critical to examine, and paint a picture of ethnic homogeneity underpinned by a binary of “us versus them.” 111
Alternatively, where constructions serve to reinforce traditional gender roles, an analysis of the narrative arc and outcome for each character reminds the viewer that these are, in fact, teenagers, and as a result, what may appear to be a negative depiction of gender-­‐based stereotypes may also be read as a crucial part of the journey to adulthood and a lesson for younger audience members. Portraying any level of diversity beyond tokenism, be it based on gender, race, class, sexual orientation, or disability, is a positive step toward a Canadian media landscape that reflects the true diversity of Canadian society. The characters in Degrassi: The Next Generation, though often flawed and in many cases under-­‐represented, are generally whole and nuanced, allowing for growth and further development. Case Study #6: Flashpoint -­Ainsley Jenicek Flashpoint is one of those rare Canadian-­‐made television shows that became popular south of the border and yet retained some sense of Canadian identity. It focuses on the ever-­‐changing, dramatic work of an elite tactical unit within the Canadian police force. The Canadian features of this drama remain more implicit than explicit during the show’s first season, only to become a more notable feature as the series progresses. Aside from one identifiably Canadian set during the first season and Canadian flags on the tactical unit’s uniforms, the main marker of Canadian identity during the first season is the profound empathy that the officers experience toward the very people they are called in to subdue. The show presents a domestic form of peacekeeping mixed with the mythologized Canadian capacity to feel for others. Flashpoint has been a major ratings success since its debut in 2008. This police drama’s first episode aired simultaneously on CTV and its American partner CBS, and took in record ratings in both countries—a rare feat for a Canadian-­‐made show (MacDonald, The Globe and Mail, July 15, 2008). Its popularity alone marks it as an interesting site of analysis; it seems to present a world view that has broad appeal. This analysis focuses specifically on how diverse this image of the world is in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, class, sexuality, and disability. It interrogates the intersections of identity of characters who are glorified and vilified in order to reveal a moral and social image of what “good guys” and “bad guys” look like. Characters Primary Characters Ed Lane is the lead character of Flashpoint. He is a White, heterosexual, able-­‐bodied, middle-­‐class male who appears to be in his 40s. As the team leader of the Strategic Response Unit (SRU) and the lead sniper, he is one of two characters who plan the strategic responses and give orders to the team. He is depicted as a traditionally masculine leader who takes a firm and stern approach balanced with a Canadian brand of empathy, which will be discussed in the following section. He is invariably calm under pressure and tends to hold in his emotions rather than lean on others for support. Ed’s 112
strength—being the traditionally masculine, “strong, silent type”—is also framed as his weakness and he comes to realize the importance of getting (at least minimal) emotional support. Ed’s character development therefore reproduces the romanticized strong, silent type while also humanizing this archetype with imperfection. Gregory “Greg” Parker is SRU team sergeant and the main crisis negotiator. He is a White, heterosexual, able-­‐bodied, implicitly middle-­‐class male who is older than Ed and balding. He is divorced and his ex-­‐wife does not allow him to see his son very often. Aside from Ed, Greg is the only other character who gives orders and organizes the team’s strategy. Greg is slightly more open with his emotions than Ed, a trait that helps him to connect to the people with whom he negotiates. His use of emotions is still portrayed as masculine since he uses them for strategic reasons. Both Greg and Ed embody moral integrity and a humanitarian approach to policing since both are shown to be reluctant to use force in dealing with armed threats. They set the tone for the rest of the team so that the SRU as a whole approaches armed threats with a drive to understand where subjects’ aggression is coming from, to connect with these subjects, and to diffuse the situation without physical harm. Greg underlines this approach by repeating the following line in almost every episode: “Let’s keep the peace.” Julianna “Jules” Callaghan is a member of the SRU. She is a relatively young, White woman who is able-­‐bodied, heterosexual, and middle-­‐class. The only woman on the team, a sniper like Ed, Jules is portrayed as a tough girl who works hard to conform to the masculine culture and male-­‐centered standards of the SRU team. In terms of shooting ability, physical strength, enjoyment of doing dangerous, physically challenging work, and negotiating skills, Jules is framed as equally capable to the men on her team. She therefore represents an exceptional woman, a woman who proves that if one works hard enough, one can enter the boys’ club. Sam Braddock pursues Jules and wins her over, making the two of them the romantic storyline at the heart of the show. In relation to this romance, Jules repeatedly talks about the vulnerability of her position on the team. She is the only one who expresses such vulnerability. Her insecurity provides subtle criticism of the effects of conforming to a male-­‐dominated workplace. Sam Braddock is the most recent member of the SRU, the rookie of sorts. He is a relatively young man, White, heterosexual, able-­‐bodied, and presumably middle-­‐class. Sam joins the SRU after a four-­‐
year stint in Afghanistan, which ended when he shot a fellow soldier who was in the enemy area when Sam was cleared to fire. In the first half of the season, Sam is more inclined to use lethal solutions than to use empathy in dealing with threatening subjects. This changes halfway through the season as Sam learns to negotiate, to listen, and to make connections with threatening subjects. He therefore transforms into a properly empathetic SRU member. Sam also actively pursues Jules throughout the first season, meaning that he plays the traditionally persistent male romantic lead. Secondary Characters Michaelangelo “Spike” Scarlatti is a less visible member of the SRU. He is an able-­‐bodied, White man whose Italian background is used as comic relief in a couple of episodes. 113
Kevin “Wordy” Wordsworth is another White, able-­‐bodied, heterosexual male member of the SRU. He is portrayed as unabashedly more in touch with his emotions and with feminine culture than the rest of the SRU guys because of his female-­‐dominated household. This trait makes him particularly useful in one episode because it allows him to connect with a woman being abused by her husband. Lewis “Lou” Young is a Black, heterosexual, able-­‐bodied man and the sole racialized member of the SRU. He is often in the security room with Sergeant Greg, collecting intelligence to pass to those in the line of danger. Doctor Amanda Luria is a supporting member of the SRU. She is an able-­‐bodied woman with an unknown racial or ethnic background, so she could be characterized as either White or racialized depending on context. She works as the team’s forensic psychologist, always called in to give behavioural and psychological insight into threatening subjects. Plot Narrative Flashpoint follows an elite police unit, the Strategic Response Unit (SRU), as it responds to a series of dangerous hostage situations and armed threats. Each episode draws moral boundaries between good and bad, excusable and inexcusable actions. The season presents a gradation of sympathetic to unsympathetic guest characters who play the threats and hostages in different episodes. Interestingly, the common thread between sympathetic guest characters is that their motivation for wrongdoing is their attempt to save, protect, or reconnect with family members. Slightly less sympathetic are those who are trying to avenge their family members, while the unsympathetic characters’ motivations for wrongdoing tend to go unexplored. This constantly changing cast of sympathetic, less sympathetic, and unsympathetic characters enables the main SRU members to position themselves as not only the good guys who uphold the law, but as properly empathetic Canadians who are able to understand what drives some good people to do bad. The array of guest characters and dangerous situations from episode to episode enable Flashpoint to draw moral boundaries within Canadian borders, to reinforce the myths about Canadian empathy and peacekeeping, as well as to explore various gender, race, class, and sexual dynamics. Of the sympathetic guest characters, six are driven by the desire to save the lives of or to protect their loved ones. Episodes 102 (July 18, 2008) and 105 (August 7, 2008) portray a father and a husband, respectively, who hold others hostage in order to get their loved ones necessary medical attention. Episodes 104 (July 31, 2008) and 107 (August 21, 2008) focus on individuals who want to save their siblings from abusive domestic situations and end up in criminal situations involving firearms. In episode 110 (January 9, 2009), to save his wife from a necklace bomb, a billionaire admits his partial responsibility for the deaths of three men who were organizing protests against his mining operation. Also, episode 112 (January 16, 2009) depicts a wife, Sarah, who forces another woman to admit that she slept with and has been impregnated by Sarah’s husband. All of these threatening subjects are White Canadians whose temporary insanity is made understandable and even excusable because of their family-­‐related motivations. Episode 9 (January 18, 2009) is another that might be grouped with those about subjects trying to protect their family. It depicts a sympathetic White 17-­‐year-­‐old girl named Penny who experiences 114
severe Stockholm syndrome after having been kept for years in the house of her kidnapper, a man previously convicted of being a sexual predator. Her kidnapper has therefore become a kind of pseudo-­‐family. Because Penny has been convinced that her kidnapper is protecting her from the evil police, she willingly shoots at the SRU in an attempt to defend the “family” she knows. Two other sympathetic characters are driven by a desire to reconnect with their family members. Episode 103 (July 24, 2008) follows a young man named Jackson who wants to reconnect with his older sister and niece who have distanced themselves from him because he stole their money to support his past drug addiction. In an attempt to get enough money to repay his sister, Jackson enters his old drug dealer’s den on the day that the SRU bust the operation and Jackson is accidentally killed by the crossfire. Episode 108 (September 11, 2008) features a young Black man, Michael, who wants to redeem himself in the eyes of his family and his best friend’s family who believe that he is guilty of his best friend’s rape and murder. Because the documents necessary for an appeal are missing from the prosecutor’s files, Michael holds Ed and a security woman hostage at the courthouse in an attempt to get close to his prosecutor. These diverse criminal acts and family-­‐related motivations communicate the idea that otherwise good, law-­‐abiding Canadian citizens can snap for familial love. Family is continually reified as the most important thing in life for good, decent people. However, defending and wanting to reconnect with family is held as more morally upstanding than wanting to avenge the deaths of loved ones. Episodes 110 (January 9, 2009) and 113 (February 13, 2009) use revenge motives, and in both cases, these characters are less sympathetic than those listed above. Two Chilean men in episode 110 orchestrate a plan to avenge the deaths of family members who were murdered for protesting and delaying billionaire David Graham’s mine development in Chile. Although their anger is explained, their stories are given less attention in the episode than that of David Graham’s love for his wife. When the Chilean men implant a necklace bomb on Graham’s wife, their actions become less excusable because they threaten the life of a woman who is framed as innocent and “good” throughout the episode. Episode 113, in contrast, features the son of the Croatian man who was shot dead by Ed Lane in the pilot episode. It turns out that father and son were heroes in their Croatian village because they used their sniper skills to protect everyone from invaders. The son, Petar Tomasic, however, uses his sniper skills to fatally shoot a number of police authorities around Toronto’s city hall in an attempt to draw out and kill Ed Lane. Petar captures Ed who tries to talk him down, but Sam Braddock shoots Petar dead for threatening Ed’s life. These two incidents are different from the more excusable situations because of the subjects’ desire to kill. The sympathetic characters are driven to threaten to kill or injure other parties because of their love for a family member, but killing is not their primary motive. The only two sympathetic characters who are not motivated by familial love appear in episodes 106 (August 14, 2008) and 111 (January 22, 2009). In 106, four girls from a local gang threaten the life of a working-­‐class teenage girl, Tasha, for reporting that a male gang member tried to rape her. Tasha’s motive for shooting one of the gang girls is self-­‐preservation, a motive framed as admirable in face of her poverty, her alcoholic mother, and her being bullied by a gang. Tasha represents the heroic example that no one should give up hope and hard work, regardless of circumstance. This episode also enables a subversion of the overrepresentation of Black gangs since the majority of the gang members are White. The other episode, 111, focuses on Danny, former SRU member and Ed Lane’s 115
mentor. Because Danny didn’t lean on his wife or anyone else for emotional support during his decades on the SRU, he now suffers badly from post-­‐traumatic stress disorder. Danny wants to commit suicide in the SRU headquarters for a mistake he made on a case back in the 1980s, but Ed manages to talk him down. The audience becomes privy to all of these rationales because of the quick but thorough research done by the SRU team. For instance, Greg or another SRU member tends to ask threatening subjects questions about their motives and needs; SRU members and Dr. Luria track down and speak to people who know the threatening subjects; and Dr. Luria gives general psychological insights. The tremendous emphasis placed on understanding where the subject is coming from frames the SRU team as taking a humanitarian approach. In other words, although the SRU is called in to assure the welfare of hostages and other innocent bystanders, they keep the welfare of the threatening subject in mind as well. Another way that the series humanizes many of these subjects is by connecting the subject’s motive to an SRU member’s life experience. For instance, in episode 102, Greg tries to connect to the subject through the fact that they are both fathers. Also, in episode 107, Sam tries to give the subject’s little brother hope by telling him about a friend who pulled himself through his problems and got his life together. Once SRU members uncover the understandable or excusable motivations of sympathetic subjects, the SRU members become emotionally invested in saving the subject as well. The efforts invested by the SRU to uncover forgivable motivations reinforce “myths” about Canadian empathy and Canadian peacekeeping, stories we tell about ourselves in order to ritually confirm our goodness and our shared Canadian identity. These stories are supported by selective evidence that highlight examples of our empathy and our peacekeeping role rather than by taking on the impossible task of evaluating all actions made by Canadian citizens and the Canadian state. The myth of Canadian empathy is underscored by the SRU’s emphasis on finding out all they can about a subject’s motives in order to resolve the situation. Some SRU members’ empathy goes so far as to risk their own lives in order to avoid another team member using a lethal solution to the conflict. For instance, in episode 108, Ed persuades Greg and the others not to use a lethal situation on Michael who is holding Ed at gunpoint. Jules also convinces the team to avoid a lethal solution in episode 109 when Penny points the gun at Jules. This dynamic occurs in a number of episodes and works to both emphasize these SRU characters’ heroism as well as their ability to connect with and understand another person. The main characters appear to be so deeply empathetic toward the threatening subjects that they would risk their own lives to save them. The myth of Canadian peacekeeping—which generally refers to the role of Canadian soldiers abroad—is also expressed in Flashpoint insofar as our armed state authorities, the SRU, are continually framed as keeping the peace. This trait—being peaceful and non-­‐threatening—is considered to be deeply Canadian. Greg’s most repeated phrase throughout the first season is “Let’s keep the peace,” an instruction he repeats every time the SRU enters a hostile situation. Significantly, the SRU are framed as being very effective at keeping the peace, since only three episodes end with them being forced to fatally shoot someone and in each case, this seems like the only possible 116
response. The SRU is therefore a force for good, reinforcing the myths of Canada the good, trustworthy, and peace-­‐inclined. The SRU’s relationship with subjects does not, however, render all of them sympathetic. Certain bad, criminal practices are placed outside of the realm of empathetic identification. For instance, the SRU does not investigate or show the audience the motives of Sean, the drug ring leader from episode 103, or the father in episode 107 who physically and verbally abuses his sons, or Gerald from episode 109, the sex offender/kidnapper who is “not like everyone else,” as Ed says. In episode 104, Wordy goes as far as to say that he can understand the desire to kill Pete, the man who is violently abusing his wife. The audience is not given the opportunity to identify with the rationales behind these guest characters’ actions. One unsympathetic character whose motivations are a bit more evident is prosecutor Dan Chesnick who tampers with evidence to help him put more people behind bars in order to advance his career. Still, Chesnick’s rationale is only briefly investigated and he is quickly characterized as greedy and unscrupulously ambitious. In episode 106, four teenage girls in a gang (three White, one racialized) are also represented as rather unsympathetic characters, though their motivations are explored somewhat. Ed explains that it becomes more desirable to be in the gang than to be beat up by the gang, though this does not entirely mitigate the girls’ evident toughness and apparent heartlessness. These characters enable Flashpoint to draw a moral boundary across which even good, empathetic people cannot be empathetic. Interestingly, five of these unsympathetic characters are White, wealthy men, enabling Flashpoint to subtly critique people in these positions of social and economic power. Only one episode features mostly White, lower-­‐class teenage girls as unsympathetic characters, which communicates a critical view of gang violence rather than this identity group. These dynamics will be examined in the sections on gender, race/ethnicity, and class. Gender The SRU is a male-­‐dominated space with very few women in it. Out of the eight primary and secondary characters, only two are women and one of them, Dr. Luria, supports the SRU team but does not put herself in the line of danger. Jules is the only female primary character and the only woman to participate fully in the dangerous work of the SRU. The SRU team’s receptionist or call-­‐
centre coordinator is another woman on the team, but she is rarely directly involved in resolving cases with the SRU team and is not part of the main secondary cast members. Flashpoint thereby reinforces the message that intensely physical, dangerous police work is male-­‐dominated rather than challenging it by showing a more balanced workforce. On top of the lack of representation of women on the SRU team, the two leadership positions are filled by men: Ed Lane is team leader of the SRU and lead sniper while Greg Parker is SRU team sergeant and the main crisis negotiator. These men devise the team’s strategy every episode, delegate responsibilities, and make the difficult calls on site. Their sniper and negotiating skills, respectively, are recognized as superior to all others on the team. They are continually depicted as level-­‐headed, thorough, reasonable, and empathetic, which, added to their superior skills, reinforces the legitimacy of their leadership. Yet Flashpoint could have easily chosen actors of different identity groups to be the SRU leaders. Instead, Flashpoint reproduces the dominant expectation that authority 117
figures in physically demanding and high pressure situations are White, middle-­‐aged men. The show does not challenge this norm except by showing one racialized lieutenant, as will be discussed in the following section. The norm of male leadership is therefore reinforced and legitimized through this show. The kind of masculinity expressed by male leadership is, however, complicated through Ed Lane’s personal and professional evolution. Ed represents the traditionally masculine tough guy or strong, silent type. His leadership, his success in de-­‐escalating tense situations, and the fact that he gets more air time than all the other characters make him Flashpoint’s main hero. The first episode of the season features him lethally shooting a threatening subject and, for a moment, being unsure as to whether or not he shot the subject’s son. The audience sees that he is shaken by the experience, but he refuses to let any of his teammates support him. Toward the end of the first episode, Dr. Luria offers confidential support if he needs it and he brushes her off with a joke. She teases him right back by sarcastically agreeing that he doesn’t need support, that he won’t experience any of the post-­‐
traumatic stress symptoms that other people experience, and ends by confirming that he knows where to find her if he needs to. This exchange is quickly followed by Greg following Ed into the washroom and asking if he needs to talk, which Ed brushes off by saying that he’s fine. Greg also challenges the fact that Ed bottles everything up inside. From the beginning of the season then, Ed is set up as a traditionally male hero whose central fault is that he is too rigidly masculine. During episode 111, Ed finally realizes that he does indeed need emotional support. Early in the episode, the audience yet again sees Ed’s toughness when Greg encourages him to take a vacation and Ed sarcastically calls Greg “Oprah” while dismissing the suggestion. Greg is silenced by the sarcastic suggestion that he has stepped out of his proper gendered and racialized role into the role of a “mammy” figure, a racialized woman whose duty is to care for others. Ed suggests that caring for another’s well-­‐being is beyond the role of another White male leader. Ed’s dismissal also suggests that to be anything less than a workaholic is not something that he, a stereotypically masculine leader, is willing to consider. Later in the episode, Ed gets a wake-­‐up call when his retired SRU mentor tries to commit suicide in the SRU headquarters as a result of not having dealt with his post-­‐traumatic stress. After talking his mentor out of killing himself, Ed realizes that he needs to lean on others and, at the end of the episode, he goes home and opens up to his wife, whose role will be examined later in the section on sexuality. A number of important points emerge from the portrayal of Ed Lane. His “strong, silent type” leadership is romanticized throughout the majority of episodes because it helps him stay calm in hostage and armed situations, talk down emotional people who are posing a threat, and strategize under pressure. In other words, during most episodes, Ed’s strong, silent personality is seen as not only a plus, but as the trait that enables him to be such a strong leader. In some episodes, however, the audience sees the downside to his form of masculinity, which is that he doesn’t reach out for or receive the emotional support that such stressful work requires. Flashpoint therefore shows the cracks in Ed’s gender portrayal, but romanticizes it through rose-­‐coloured glasses most of the time. Greg’s leadership style is different from Ed’s in that he offers a degree of care and emotional support to others. It is perhaps because of his being older, wiser, and largely desexualized that he is able to 118
see the folly in Ed’s strong, silent ways and advise him to open up. He gives similar advice to Jules. This advice appears to spring out of years of work in the SRU, and is therefore indicative of the lessons he has learned from this masculine space. In contrast to these male leaders, the only woman shown in a position of leadership appears as a guest character in episode 105. She is a White bank manager who is taken hostage by a disgruntled man whom she laid off. While hostage, she breaks down and tells him how much it has hurt her feelings to know that everyone calls her a demanding, unfeeling “boss bitch.” While her breakdown fails to critically illuminate the societal lack of acceptance of strong women leaders, it does nuance the “boss bitch” stereotype by showing that, underneath, she is stereotypically soft and emotional. Not only does the representation of this bank manager reinforce the “bitch” in charge and the sensitive woman stereotypes, it also fails to show a woman in a powerful position. As a hostage, this woman is in a weak position throughout the episode and must wait for male heroes (mostly Greg in this episode) to save her. This exceptional representation of a woman boss, therefore, does not put forward a positive, powerful depiction of female leadership. Returning to Flashpoint’s male dominance, it should be noted that masculine culture also prevails at the SRU. In other words, the expectations and norms of behaviour are distinctly masculine since they are defined against devalued feminine opposites. This can already be observed in Ed’s dismissal of Greg’s “Oprah-­‐like” statement for it suggests that such advice has no place in Ed’s tough, masculine way of doing things. Because Oprah is a central icon in popular middle-­‐class feminine culture, Ed’s comment can be understood as not only dismissing Oprah, but all the women who follow Oprah. The SRU is more obviously asserted as a masculine space in episode 104, when Wordy is caught in the SRU gym watching a movie called Lady in Waiting. Spike, Greg, and Ed enter and immediately begin teasing Wordy: Greg: Wordy, this is the SRU. You can’t be watching Lady in Waiting. Wordy: It’s a good movie. It’s historical. Ed: Wow. Wordy: I got four women in my house. Anything that helps me get closer to Shelley and my girls, I’m there. If this is what they’re watching, I wanna know about it. I’ve got no secrets. Greg: I think you need to shoot something. (Laughter) Later in the scene, Wordy repeats that he is watching the film to help him bond with his girls. This exchange creates a clear division between the norms of the SRU, which includes shooting, and the stereotypically feminine film that is enjoyed by the women in Wordy’s life. Wordy’s watching the film becomes intelligible as a strategic effort to better understand the women he loves—a justification that reinforces the stereotypical notion that a properly masculine man cannot simply enjoy parts of feminine culture. Instead, a properly masculine man shoots things. Shooting practice, it should be 119
noted, is recurrently shown in the first season, meaning that shooting is closely associated with SRU work. Overall, the SRU headquarters and profession are marked as non-­‐feminine spaces. Jules, the only woman in the SRU to do “men’s work,” represents the exception to the rule; further, her character is meant to prove that the rule is not sexist. In other words, Jules is proof that women can work in the SRU if they just work hard enough and conform to the prevailing culture. Jules behaves very similarly to Ed overall. She often refuses emotional support from her teammates, is reticent to speak about her personal life, and is demonstrably both physically and emotionally strong. Jules might be characterized as the female version of the strong, silent type. Both Jules and Ed therefore reproduce the notion that to open up about one’s emotions is a sign of weakness. The character Jules also speaks to the “model minority” stereotype by refusing any special treatment within the SRU. The model minority stereotype can be applied to any disadvantaged group; its function is to instruct all minority group members how they should act. For instance, in episode 106, Sam Braddock loudly claps and congratulates Jules for being able to pull the same weight as the rest of the male team. In response, Jules shoots him a silencing look, unimpressed with the special attention. This is precisely why Jules fits in. She reinforces the idea that no special treatment should be given to minority groups. Instead, minority groups should work to better conform to the standards in place. Jules challenges stereotypes about women being emotional and weak while also reinforcing the dominant message that minorities need to accommodate themselves. Although Jules is very much accepted as part of the team, she is also more self-­‐conscious than her male counterparts about the need to obey the rules. In episode 103, she refuses to go to dinner with Sam, saying: “I’ve just worked way too hard to be here to screw it up by getting personal. It’s not worth it. There’s like 500 cops waiting to get in the SRU. Five hundred guys waiting for me to do something that I shouldn’t. So, I’m sorry, but the team comes first.” Here we see that Jules is aware of her minority status within the team and is sensitive to the vulnerability of her position. Because no other SRU member expresses a similar concern in the first season, this incident stands alone as evidence of the insecurity felt by a minority group member. As her relationship with Sam evolves, Jules is the one who is careful not to arouse suspicion, especially in Sergeant Greg. Sam, on the other hand, admits that he doesn’t care as much as she does about it and seems to feel safer in bending the rules. Jules’s desire to hide her disobedience also resonates with the gendered expectation that girls will be better behaved than boys who “will be boys.” Jules’s fear of losing her status on the SRU team thereby functions as a subtle critique of the gendered inequality on the team. Sam, on the other hand, is depicted as the young, slightly disobedient male officer who recently cut his teeth in Afghanistan. He enters the SRU at the beginning of the season as an impatient, non-­‐
empathetic, trigger-­‐happy officer who, over the course of the season, learns from Greg—and to a lesser extent, Ed—how to control these aspects of his personality. Sam embodies the youthful, virile, disobedient masculine figure that matures slowly into a more level-­‐headed, though still virile officer. Sam’s youthfulness and newness on the SRU team also suggest a slight naiveté, which is primarily expressed through his inability to hide romantic feelings for Jules. As will be explored later, their relationship simultaneously reverses and reinforces traditional heterosexual gender dynamics. 120
Spike, Lou, Wordy, and Dr. Luria are nowhere near as thoroughly developed as the main characters; their primary purposes are to create a team image. Spike embodies the “joker” masculine figure who provides comic relief for the team, but whose inner life goes unexplored. Lou is a quiet, reliable team member who, for the most part, fades into the background and simply provides evidence of racial diversity. Wordy represents the “modern man” who is in touch with his feminine side, but only for the benefit of the women he loves. The main function of these characters is as team members for Greg and Ed to organize. Dr. Luria is also organized by Greg’s orders, but because she contributes psychological intelligence and expertise to the team, she is presented in a more equal relationship with Greg. She is depicted as a self-­‐confident, intellectual type who defies feminine stereotypes perhaps in part because she is a largely undeveloped character. Aside from the main and secondary characters, guest and recurring characters play on gender stereotypes in a variety of ways. One of the recurring roles of women in the first season is as wife and emotional support. This dynamic will be more fully explored in the section on sexuality, but in relation to gender stereotypes, it is important to note that Flashpoint reproduces the stereotypical expectation that women are caring (toward their men), emotionally in tune, and supportive. There are exceptions to this rule, however, such as Greg’s wife, who is never actually shown. The only thing the audience knows about her is that Greg was a bad husband and she does not let him see their son. She might be said to fit the cruel ex-­‐wife stereotype. It is also interesting to note that all the unsympathetic guest characters listed in the Plot Narrative section are men except for the teenage girl gang members. All of the men are also caught perpetrating crimes primarily associated with men: leading a drug ring, domestic violence against women and children, kidnapping and (implicit) sexual abuse, and cheating to get ahead at work. The girl gang members, on the other hand, challenge the gender most often associated with gang violence. Yet their methods and their motivations for attacking Tasha—another poor White girl—are feminized. The gang girls attack Tasha because she reported the boyfriend of the girl leader (Brianna) to the police for attempted sexual assault. Brianna is retaliating not only out of vengeance, but also out of jealousy. This scenario both represents the dominant “blame the victim” attitude as well as the prevailing conflation of sexual desire with sexual assault, rather than highlighting the perpetrator’s exercise of power. As punishment, Brianna and the others corner Tasha in the girl’s bathroom and cut her hair off to make her ugly. Since long hair is dominantly associated with feminine beauty, this is a powerful assault. Despite this exceptional instance of feminized gang violence, most unsympathetic guest characters are men. This gender breakdown exposes Flashpoint’s focus on good men (SRU) fighting bad men in order to save women, children, and even young men. This dynamic exposes a dominant mindset in which men are believed both more likely to pose violent physical threats and necessary to counter these threats. Flashpoint, in other words, presents a male-­‐centered social drama of good versus evil. Race and Ethnicity Flashpoint also presents a White-­‐dominated vision of authority and heroism, with racially and ethnically diverse team members included only in the background of the action. All four main characters are White without a specified affiliation to an ethnic group. They can therefore embody a kind of universal relevance not possible for other characters who are physically racialized or, through 121
behaviour, marked as ethnically other. These four unmarked White heroes are foregrounded throughout the first season, each proving her or himself to be a trustworthy, all-­‐knowing, and deeply empathetic keeper of the peace. They are portrayed in an overwhelmingly positive light; they are unquestionably the good guys. Two major effects result from the use of four White main characters in Flashpoint. Firstly, the show reproduces Whiteness as the norm in positive positions of authority and heroism. Secondly, it erases the possibility of seeing how one’s racial and ethnic identity play into how one interprets the world and decides to take action. The secondary characters introduce some diversity to the team. As stated earlier, the secondary characters are nowhere nearly as developed as the main characters, making it a safe place to include racial and ethnic diversity without exploring the consequences of these differences. Lou is the sole physically racialized character, meaning that his racial difference is readable from his face alone. Spike is Italian, which he makes clear in two episodes when he provides comic relief related to his ethnic background. Wordy, in contrast, is portrayed as White without a specific ethnic background, while Dr. Amanda Luria’s racial and ethnic backgrounds go unexplored, though she appears to be White as well. There is a Black male corporal who appears in a couple of episodes, but his presence is insignificant and he is not involved in the episode-­‐to-­‐episode SRU work. Significantly, the two secondary characters who represent racial and ethnic diversity on the team are rather undeveloped compared to the main characters. Both are portrayed in a positive manner and are on the team of heroic good guys; however, their contribution to the team is consistently portrayed as more peripheral to the action. They are not the main heroes who drive each episode toward a successful resolution, but accessories that aid the main heroes along the way. The racial and ethnic organization of the main SRU team reproduces what Himani Bannerji critiques as the Canadian model of multiculturalism: racially and ethnically “other” members are welcomed insofar as they organize themselves around a White centre of power. In the case of Flashpoint, the White centre of power is either the four main characters or the two male team leaders. The majority of the guest characters playing primary dangerous subjects—the people who cause the SRU to be called to the scene—are also White. Eleven of the thirteen episodes focus on a White primary dangerous subject, though two of these White males are coded as culturally other. Both of these men are immigrants from Croatia, and one of them speaks only Croatian. Flashpoint prevents the audience from understanding this man by not providing subtitles for the majority of what he says; because of his linguistic foreignness, it is impossible to identify with or empathize with what he is saying to the SRU. The fact that White primary dangerous subjects outnumber racialized ones means that Flashpoint avoids reproducing the stereotype that most dangerous criminals are racialized; however, because most of these guest characters are rendered empathetic, Flashpoint reinforces a “misguided good guy” image of threatening White characters. This image is made available to racialized dangerous subjects to a much lesser extent. In other words, Flashpoint offers a more complex view of White criminals more often than for racialized criminals. The majority of the unsympathetic subjects are, again, White. Of the six episodes with unsympathetic characters listed in the Plot Narrative section, everyone is White and not clearly affiliated with an ethnic group. Whiteness therefore contains both good guys and bad guys within it, thereby reinforcing the centrality and universal relevance of Whiteness. 122
Interestingly, the characters that stand somewhere between unsympathetic/relatable and sympathetic/salvageable are marked as foreigners. The Croatian man from the first episode whose dialogue is not entirely subtitled and the three Chileans from episode 110 are all relatively un-­‐
relatable. In the first episode, a language barrier prevents the audience and SRU from empathizing with the Croatian man who just shot his wife and has taken another woman hostage. His difference is further emphasized by the fact that his hostage is a White, blond woman wearing a pink shirt—a stereotypical image of an innocent White woman. Against her, his olive skin, dark hair, and foreign language stand out; he is marked as culturally different and this way is racialized to a degree. This man is not rendered empathetic until we see his English-­‐speaking son’s grief at the end of the first episode and until we learn more about these two men in the final episode of the season. Shared language, therefore, is a key trait that either enables or prevents identification and empathy. In the second case, three Chileans take a wealthy White woman hostage in episode 110 as a way of punishing her billionaire husband, David Graham. These three Chileans want to punish Graham for giving the orders that led to the murders of their family members. They speak in Spanish amongst themselves, all of which is subtitled, and they are rendered sympathetic to the extent that they are grieving the loss of loved ones. Their tactic of vengeance—planting a necklace bomb on Graham’s wife—is portrayed as extreme and their desire for vengeance is not validated by the SRU members. Graham, on the other hand, is the main guest character of the show, meaning that the episode explores various dimensions of his character, including his generosity and love for his wife. He appears to be Canadian or at least North American, and speaks English with a Canadian accent. The greater complexity of his character can be contrasted against the Chilean men and woman whose characters are portrayed with much less complexity. Toward the end of the episode, Graham admits that when faced with Chilean protest organizers delaying the development of his mine in Chile, he accepted someone else’s suggestion to get rid of the head organizers—the relatives of the three Chilean guest characters. While Graham admits partial guilt, he was only guilty of accepting a suggestion made by another while the three Chileans are responsible for planting a necklace bomb. Their respective proximity to violence, in other words, is very different and is highly differentiated in terms of class. The white-­‐collar crime of accepting an order to execute protest leaders to protect business interest is contrasted with the violent vengeance of the protest leaders’ clearly less economically privileged family members. In the end, Graham’s guilt is absolved by his wife’s forgiveness while the two Chilean men are taken to jail. The Chilean woman is also set free by Graham’s wife’s magnanimous forgiveness. The varying degrees of empathy and punishments given to the Chilean men and Graham legitimize different forms of justice for a North American billionaire versus unknown, poorer foreign men and demonstrate different valuations of human life. The only entirely unsympathetic foreigners are the members of Al Qaeda that Sam Braddock was fighting in Afghanistan. His time in Afghanistan is not discussed in detail, but it is broadly portrayed as the “good fight.” This experience, however, has not prepared him for the SRU’s approach to domestic “bad guys.” In Afghanistan, Sam just shot at the bad guys; there was no room for negotiation. In Canada, Sam is expected to be less trigger-­‐happy and to negotiate with and connect with domestic bad guys. Through Sam’s struggle to integrate into the SRU, the audience is shown that armed representatives of the Canadian state take very different approaches to foreign and domestic threats. 123
The difference, however, is not critically examined. It is simply stated as a fact. Flashpoint therefore reproduces the idea that there is more room for empathy when connecting with other domestics, but beyond the Canadian border, some bad guys are beyond negotiation. Although this is not a dominant theme in Flashpoint’s first season, the unexamined motivations of foreign Afghani bad guys in contrast to the thoroughly examined motivations of most domestic Canadian bad guys—or misled good guys—reproduce an Orientalist dynamic that reinforces the otherness of implicitly Muslim Afgani bad guys. It is particularly important to note the othering of Afghani Muslim bad guys because there are no counter-­‐representations—no one in the SRU and none of the guest characters are Muslim or Afghani, so this group is firmly located as enemy outsiders. At the same time, Flashpoint challenges common associations between certain racial groups and certain types of crime. For instance, episode 108 directly challenges the stereotypical portrayal of Black men as rapists and murderers. The episode centres on a 26-­‐year-­‐old Black male named Michael Jameson who has spent the past 11 years in jail for the rape and murder of his best friend, Katie Bakerton, a blond, White girl. Over the course of the episode, it becomes clear that Jameson is innocent of that crime and that prosecutor Dan Chesnick bribed someone to lie on the stand in order to put Jameson away. This scenario pits the prosecutor—a greedy lawyer who built his career on putting innocent people away—against Jameson, one of the victims of this greed. Jameson’s victimization is not related to his racial difference, however; it seems to be an unrelated part of his identity. The episode does not, therefore, explore the disproportionate criminalization of Black men and instead more subtly tries to subvert this dominant association. The downside of not making a critique of the systemic criminalization of Black men is that Jameson can easily stand as an exception to the rule, rather than as a figure who challenges the association in a fundamental way. This episode on Jameson also reinforces the association of Whiteness to heroism since the way we come to know of Jameson’s innocence is again through the eyes of and in conversation with Ed Lane, the central White male hero. Ed comes to the rescue again by uncovering Jameson’s innocence, by ensuring that his SRU team does not harm Jameson, and by craftily getting Chesnick to say something incriminating on tape. Therefore while Flashpoint challenges the stereotypical equation of Black male with rapist and murderer, it reinforces the racialized dynamic of a White hero saving a racialized victim. Another stereotypical crime/race equation that Flashpoint challenges is the image of a typical gang, which tends to be coded as Black or at least as non-­‐White. Episode 106 focuses on the violence perpetrated by four girls who are part of a mostly White gang. While the gang is not predominantly racialized, it is depicted as springing from an impoverished neighbourhood, thereby maintaining the dominant association between poverty and gang or street violence. The leader of the four girl pack is blond and only one of the four is visibly racialized, though we never learn her racial identity. The four girls target Tasha, another blond White teenage girl, and Tasha shoots the racialized gang girl in self-­‐
defense. This reproduces the dynamic where the token racialized person dies first because they are of less consequence to the plot than the White characters. At the same time, however, it enables Flashpoint to paint a dynamic in which White teenage girls are both the main bad guys and the main victims. This resonates with the majority of Flashpoint’s first season in that the sympathetic victims, the main heroes, and the primary bad guys are White. 124
By keeping so much of its focus on White characters, Flashpoint reproduces a White-­‐centric vision of the world. The entire moral battle between good guys, misled good guys, and bad guys can almost entirely be told through the stories of White characters. It therefore becomes unnecessary to portray many non-­‐Whites within this moral battle. It also enables Flashpoint to avoid reproducing racialized stereotypes about criminality while legitimizing the association between White authority figures and heroism. The fact that the SRU treats racialized Canadian-­‐born citizens no differently from White ones makes it seem as though they are not racist. There is therefore no need for greater racial or ethnic inclusiveness within the main team of heroes. One racial stereotypical equation that Flashpoint uncritically reinforces is that between Hispanic women and professional housekeeping. In both episodes 107 and 110, racialized women with Spanish accents are represented as maids, one as a housemaid and the other two as maids in a hotel. The systemic reasons for this equation are unexplored. As such, it simply appears as though this is the role these women happen to take on rather than appearing as the result of intersecting of forces of class, race and gender. The broad racial and ethnic diversity of Canada is not represented in these episodes, and where it is represented, it remains peripheral to the White majority. Furthermore, race and ethnicity are not portrayed as identity features that systemically lead to different experiences or that influence a person’s perception of the world; they are rendered inconsequential. As such, Whiteness remains the unquestioned norm. Class Flashpoint does portray a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, but it does so through its guest characters who change from episode to episode rather than through its main or secondary characters. It is nearly impossible to determine the socioeconomic backgrounds of the eight main and secondary characters because, for the most part, the audience is kept unaware of their property, their income levels, and their educational backgrounds. Ed and Jules are the only two main characters whose houses we see; they may be characterized as middle-­‐class dwellings. Wordy’s house is also shown, and it is also a modest sized house that appears middle-­‐class. These three representations make it seem as though everyone in the SRU is implicitly middle-­‐class—economically comfortable and situated within Canada’s class norm. The guest characters’ socioeconomic backgrounds vary greatly, but the ends of the spectrum (rich or poor) tend to be portrayed more obviously than the middle class. In other words, the rich and the poor are given more easily identifiable characteristics than those in the class norm. For instance, Jackson from episode 103, Tasha from episode 106, and Michael Jameson from episode 108 appear to be of lower socioeconomic status. Jackson cannot afford to pay back (or find anyone to help him pay back) the several hundred dollars he stole from his older sister when he was addicted to cocaine. Tasha lives in a run-­‐down row house and works at a jewellery booth at the mall. Meanwhile, Jameson appears to share a semi-­‐detached house with two other ex-­‐convicts and has not completed his high school education. Upper-­‐class guest characters include RJ from episode 107, David Graham from episode 110, and Sarah from episode 112. RJ is from a prominent, wealthy family with heirlooms, a Latina maid, a large house, and a name worth protecting. Graham is introduced as a billionaire and 125
his wealth is flaunted throughout the episode, while Sarah seems to be upper-­‐ or upper-­‐middle-­‐class because of the grandeur of her house and her (and her husband’s) ability to afford eight years of in vitro fertilization treatments (which, in the end, drained them of their wealth). Other sympathetic guest characters’ socioeconomic backgrounds are harder to determine because they are less prominent aspects of their episodes. Still, what Flashpoint communicates through the spectrum of socioeconomic backgrounds it portrays is that good guys from any socioeconomic background can feel forced to commit criminal acts. Further, because Flashpoint focuses on violent or armed situations, it also challenges the common association between violent crime and lower-­‐class groups. Interestingly, five of the entirely unsympathetic “bad guys” are from the upper middle to upper classes. Sean, the heartless drug dealer from episode 103, is portrayed as quite wealthy due to his successful drug trade. Pete, the abusive husband from episode 104, lives in a large house, owns a boat, and has a position of considerable influence in law enforcement. Roland Straughn, the abusive father from episode 107, is part of one of Canada’s most prominent historical families and is keen to protect the family name. He owns a mansion and heirlooms and works as a “big shot” lawyer. Dan Chesnick from episode 108 is, as stated earlier, a prominent prosecutor who is clearly quite wealthy, and Gerald from episode 109 is a real estate developer who appears to be upper-­‐middle-­‐class. What is interesting about the common socioeconomic class of these unsympathetic bad guys is that it presents a more unforgivingly critical view of rich White males. These men are either characterized as having gained their wealth by unscrupulous means or as being unforgivingly abusive toward the women or children in their lives. All of these unsympathetic bad guys are made to submit to the SRU’s exercise of justice. Flashpoint reproduces a middle-­‐class fantasy that rich (White) men are not above the law. This suggests something about the presumed class of Flashpoint’s target audience. The notable exception to the recurring demonization of rich White men is the portrayal of David Graham. One of the first things we learn about Graham is that he is a billionaire tycoon turned human rights activist. His human rights work marks him as a proven “good guy.” He also proves his generosity by offering Ed his corporate discount at the Royal York hotel in Toronto, enabling Ed to invite his wife for a night in a hotel they could not otherwise afford. However, despite Graham’s redeeming points, he admits to the necessity of ruthlessness in building his fortune. After his wife is kidnapped, he confides, “Well, Ed, when I was still in mining, I took over a company in Venezuela. Hostile, got very ugly. But, Ed, you don’t become what I am by being nice to everyone. But I mean this was all years ago” (emphasis added). This admission again associates wealth with unscrupulousness and taints people of this socioeconomic class. We learn that Graham committed what might be considered white-­‐collar crime when he okayed the execution of Chilean protest leaders. Because he did not kill these protest leaders himself, his wrongdoing appears less immediate than the Chilean family members who planted a necklace bomb around his wife’s neck. Graham’s current status as a human rights worker also distances him from this crime, serving to redeem him from his ruthless past without confiscation of the money he accumulated. His white-­‐collar crime is presumably not punished with jail time since the SRU cart the Chilean men off to jail, but not Graham. This double standard is not framed as unjust, for Graham appears to be the current victim and he is already a reformed man. 126
The only unsympathetic guest characters that are not wealthy are the girl gang members in episode 106. Through this representation of gang culture, Flashpoint detaches gang behaviour from race while leaving it attached to class. The episode does not explore the reasons behind the dominant association between class and gangs, which could include developing alternative sources of income through various illegal means. Interestingly, these poor, mostly White gang girls perform their criminal activity in a group in contrast to the wealthy White unsympathetic bad guys with questionable morals. This difference also avoids drawing parallels between lower-­‐class gang violence and middle-­‐ to upper-­‐class group forms of violence. For the girls who commit gang violence, their violence appears linked to a class condition. In other words, gangs simply appear to be a lower-­‐class reality. For the two men who commit crimes of greed (Sean from 103, Chesnick from 108), their types of criminality appears to spring from an overly ruthless desire to rise in socioeconomic status. Theirs are capitalist crimes. For the men who commit domestic violence (Pete from 104, Roland from 107, Gerald from 109), theirs are crimes of heartlessness, which presumably helped them gain or maintain wealthy status. Sexual Orientation Flashpoint is entirely heteronormative, without even the suggestion of alternative sexual identities. Heterosexual couples with stereotypical feminine and masculine roles are continually shown throughout the season; they are consequently reinforced as the sexual norm. All of the main and secondary characters whose love lives are discussed are in heterosexual couplings. More notably, two of the main characters, Sam and Jules, develop a romantic relationship over the course of the first season and provide the show’s romantic interest. Although it may appear that there is a reversal of traditional gender roles between them since Jules is the strong and silent type and Sam holds his emotions less, he distinctly pursues her. From the first episode, it is clear that Sam is interested in Jules. While she keeps shooting down his flirtatious advances, they grow closer as friends throughout the season and he continues to show that he cares for her. This culminates in a stereotypical heterosexual encounter in episode 110: Jules: “I’m really close to my house, I just wanna walk.” Sam: “It’s fine, I’ll drive you home.” Jules: “Sam!” Sam: “What?” Jules: “Okay stop! Alright, I don’t need you to be nice to me right now. I don’t need you to rescue me or be the big hero. I just…I need a minute alone.” Sam: “You think I feel sorry for you?” Jules gives him a look Sam: “That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Let’s go.” Jules begins to walk away 127
Sam: “Jules, I’m driving you home! I promise, you don’t even need to talk.” Jules: “Well I just…” She pulls away and then he pulls her in and kisses her on the lips. Their dynamic in this scene reproduces the stereotypical dynamic of the male lead relentlessly pursuing the reluctant female lead. This basic script in heterosexual romance means that the man does not take no for an answer and pushes on until he gets what he wants while the woman secretly wants him to push for them to be together. Flashpoint thereby reproduces the stereotypical “storm-­‐trooper/gatekeeper” heterosexual dynamic. It also adds the heterosexual and gendered dynamic of a man protecting his woman in the last episode when Jules is shot and Sam cries that he should have protected her. The subtext is that he should have proven himself a proper boyfriend by defending his woman from danger. Ed’s relationship with his wife reproduces a different heteronormative script, the “ball-­‐and-­‐chain.” In the first episode, Ed and Sophia are introduced with Ed weaseling his way out of going to Sophia’s parents’ 40th anniversary. Ed motions to Wordy who is waiting outside that his wife will not stop chattering. This scene reproduces the stereotype of a husband trying to get away from his wife and the emotionally-­‐related commitments she imposes on him. In this sexist dynamic, wife is imagined as a drag to the husband, despite all the emotional and material support she provides. Beyond that first scene, Sophia is depicted as an idealized wife who is unfailingly understanding of his job’s inconveniences and constraints. She also provides him with emotional support in the moments he decides to open up. Sophia is therefore portrayed as the good wife, a wife who understands that “boys will be boys” and does not bother to challenge her husband’s unreliable behaviour. This dynamic privileges the man because Ed has more space in the relationship to do as he pleases while the woman, Sophia, is an accommodating accessory who does not appear to have needs of her own. Sophia’s selflessness may be contrasted with Greg’s ex-­‐wife’s selfishness, as demonstrated by her refusal to let Greg see their son. Another aspect of this stereotypical heterosexual dynamic is that women are assigned the responsibility of caring for their husbands’ well-­‐being. For Sophia, this is demonstrated throughout the season with her expressions of concern for Ed’s safety and her availability when he needs emotional support. Episode 110, however, reproduces this dynamic most obviously through the parallels drawn between Ed and billionaire David Graham, and Graham’s wife Katherine and Sophia. Both of these wives care for their husbands by forcing them to include Omega 3 in their diets and to relax for the sake of longevity. They are “good wives” because they are properly attentive to their husbands’ needs while the husbands exhibit their rugged masculinity by refusing to be preoccupied with their own self-­‐preservation. Husbands are meant to protect their wives while wives care for their husbands. This stereotypical dynamic enables the reproduction of not only heteronormativity, but also of traditional gender roles. Heterosexual couplings are reproduced in virtually every episode whether through the main characters, the secondary characters, or guest characters. The heterosexual family unit is a recurring theme throughout, and the threatening guest characters whose wrongdoings are motivated by the 128
desire to protect or reunite their families are shown empathy from the SRU. Anything outside of this normative heterosexual and often family-­‐oriented framework goes unexplored, thus occluding the existence of queer identities and practices. Disability Differently abled people are almost entirely excluded from Flashpoint. Because the SRU work is so physically demanding, able-­‐bodiedness is continually reproduced as not only the norm, but a necessity. The SRU’s routine is depicted as very physically demanding, requiring members to be able to pull heavy loads and run. The ability to orally communicate with others in high pressure situations also appears to be of the utmost importance. It would certainly be possible to include SRU members with different abilities and disabilities, so the choice not to reinforces a prohibitive ablist norm. It is prohibitive because on top of the invisibility of different abilities, there is the glorification of able-­‐
bodied-­‐ and -­‐mindedness. Flashpoint suggests that differently abled people would likely not be able to perform adequately. The only portrayal of a person living with physical and mental disabilities is Mary Orston, the wife of former security guard George, who holds up a bank in episode 105. Mary is a White, older woman who is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and is seated in a wheelchair. She lives in a special home and her disabilities are framed as the result of degradation in older age. The only image of disability is therefore not a positive or empowering one, and the absence of any alternative images makes Flashpoint very normative in relation to disability. Conclusion Flashpoint presents a social drama wherein good and evil exist amongst White men. The majority of the show’s heroes and the majority of the unsympathetic bad guys are White men, which centres Whiteness and masculinity as the universal categories that contain goodness and evil within it. While the idealization and demonization of White men might appear to avoid the pitfalls of the racialization of unforgivable criminals, it simultaneously reinforces the central and ubiquitous importance of Whiteness. Other groups can therefore be justifiably framed out. This battle also appears to largely occur between good middle-­‐class men and bad upper-­‐class men, thereby attempting to satisfy the classed desires of the target audience who wish to see the upper class justly punished. The victims of these bad guys are often more difficult to identify since Flashpoint tends not to focus on them as much as the sympathetic and unsympathetic subjects. The sympathetic subjects’ criminal behaviour is often the SRU’s reason for appearing on the scene; however, through Greg’s, Ed’s, Jules’s, and Sam’s abilities to communicate with these threatening subjects, an empathetic bond is created between the SRU (and the audience) and the subject. The SRU and audience come to recognize the threatening subject as a person who feels backed into a corner and somewhat a victim of their circumstances. The majority of these sympathetic subjects are White, which simultaneously contradicts the prevailing equation of criminality with racialized people and denies racialized subjects the same number of opportunities for sympathy. The heroes who guide the audience through these varying hour-­‐long dramas are all heterosexual, conventionally able, and mostly White men. Ed Lane, the show’s central hero, is romanticized 129
throughout the season as the strong, silent, White, masculine leader. On the rare occasions he does decide to open up, he can count on his undemanding wife for emotional support. He and Greg Parker lead the SRU formally, though all the members enforce the SRU’s distinctly masculine culture. Jules is the exception to the male norm. Her character can be paralleled with Ed’s in that she also appears to be the strong, silent type, particularly in contrast to her heterosexual love interest, Sam, who is more emotionally forthcoming than her. Jules represents a “model minority” who demonstrates the proper way for a minority group to integrate itself into the dominant group: conformity without complaint. Meanwhile, the only traces of racial and ethnic difference on the team are Lou and Spike, who are Black and Italian respectively. These two characters are far less developed than the main characters and serve more to prove the existence of diversity on the SRU than to explore how ethnicity and race structure one’s experiences differently. The marginalization and obfuscation of difference within the team of heroes reinforces the representation of heterosexual, conventionally able, White masculine heros as trustworthy, just, and empathetic authority figures. If these figures can transcendentally empathize with all kinds of dangerous subjects and effectively diffuse the majority of high stress situations, then they appear justified in remaining in positions of power. There is no need to diversify the team if those in charge can relate to and do right by all of humanity equally. On the level of the nation-­‐state, Flashpoint reinforces the dominant association of Canada with peacekeeping and empathy. Through identifying with Flashpoint’s main characters, we may come to know ourselves as good, empathetic Canadians who are reluctant to resort to violence in resolving any case. This peace-­‐loving attitude extends only to the edge of our borders. Certain foreign groups may be somewhat sympathetic, though less sympathetic than Canadian-­‐born subjects, while Afghani combatants are not groups with whom we engage in dialogue or negotiations. Like the entirely unsympathetic Canadian bad guys, Afghani combatants are outside of the realm of empathy and peacekeeping. Yet unlike the unsympathetic subjects, Afghani faces remain unseen and their voices remain unheard within Flashpoint. The foreign and domestic unsympathetic figures reveal that although these Canadian heroes are profoundly compassionate, there are limits to their empathy, limits that are both moral and national. 130
References Abella, Rosalie Silberman. (1984). Equality in Employment: The Report of the Commission on Equality in Employment. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada. Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN). (2011). “About.” Web. APTN.ca. http://www.aptn.ca/corporate/about.php. June 30, 2011. Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA). (2010). National Diversity Initiative. Web. 2010. http://www.actra.com/actra/control/diversitycommittee. 2010. Advertising Standards Canada. (2010). “Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.” Web. http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.pdf. 2010. Anderson, C. Leigh. (1992). "Canadian Content Laws and Programming Diversity." Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques, Vol 18. No. 2 (Jun, 1992) 166 -­‐ 175. Arneil, Barbara. (1999). Politics and feminism. Oxford, England: Blackwell Press. Astral Media. (2006/2010). Télédiversité 2006; Médiasdiversité 2010. Web. http://www.astral.com/en/social-­‐responsibility/community/cultural-­‐diversity and www.mediasdiversite.ca. 2010, 2011. Atherton, Tony (14 October 2001). "Degrassi Returns With New, Old Faces: Unfortunately, the Stories Are Stuck In the Same Old Ruts". The Ottawa Citizen (Canwest), p. A12. Atkin, David. (1991). “The evolution of television series addressing single women, 1966–1990.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 35, 517–523. Attallah, Paul. (2007). “A Usable History for the Study of Television.” Canadian Review of American Studies. Volume 37, Number 3 /2007: 325-­‐349. Baltruschat, Doris. “Television and Canada's Aboriginal Communities”. Canadian Journal of Communication 29.1, Jan. 2004. Web. Available at: http://www.cjc-­‐
online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1403. 14 May 2010. Bannerji, Himani. (2000). Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism and Racism. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press. Bateman, Katherine., and Karim, Karim. (2009). “Canadian Legislation, Regulations, and Guidelines on the Representation of Diversity”. Canadian Journal of Communication, North America, 34, Dec. 2009. Web. Available at: http://www.cjc-­‐online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2294/2124. 13 May. 2010. Bawden, Jim. (5 April 2007). "CBC cancels long-­‐running shows." The Toronto Star. http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/199793. 2010. 131
Bell, Allan. and Garrett Peter. (eds.) (1998). Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Biles, John and Humera Ibrahim. (2005). “Religion and Public Policy: Immigration, Citizenship and Multiculturalism – Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?” in Paul Bramadat and David Seljak (eds), Religion and Ethnicity in Canada. Pearson-­‐Longman: Toronto, pp 154-­‐77. Bourdieu, Pieree. (1990). “Social Space and Symbolic Power”. In In Other Worlds. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bremner, Scott. (2008). "Changing Channels: Improving Media Portrayals of Disability" Abilities Magazine. Web. http://www.abilities.ca/arts/2008/03/01/acting_with_disabilities. 2010. Butler, Judith. (1993). Bodies that Matter: on the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York: Routledge. Byers, Michele. (2005). Growing up Degrassi: Television, Identity and Youth Cultures. Toronto: Sumach Press. Canada. (2011). “Aboriginal Canada Portal: Media and Multimedia (Television, Films, Videos).” Web. http://www.aboriginalcanada.gc.ca/acp/site.nsf/eng/ao26714.html#television. June 2011. Canada. Canadian Multiculturalism Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. 24 (4th Supp.)). Ottawa: Government of Canada. Web. http://laws-­‐lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-­‐18.7/ Canada. The Employment Equity Act. (S.C. 1995, c. 44) (1995). Ottawa: Government of Canada. Web. http://laws-­‐lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-­‐5.401/index.html Canada. (2009). Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). “Annual Report on the Operation of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act 2008-­‐2009”. Web. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/multi-­‐report2009/intro.asp. 2010. Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2008). “Government of Canada announces new funding for research on immigration and diversity." Ottawa, January 7, 2008. Web. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2008/2008-­‐01-­‐07.asp. 2010. Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2008). “Backgrounder: New funding for research on immigration and diversity.” Ottawa, January 7, 2008. Web. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2008/2008-­‐01-­‐07.asp. 2010. Canada. Dept. of Canadian Heritage. (2009). “Northern Aboriginal Broadcasting – Aboriginal Peoples’ Programs”. Web. http://www.pch.gc.ca/eng/1267292195109. 2010. Canada. Dept. of Justice. (1991/2010). Broadcasting Act S.C. 1991, c. 11. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 1991 (current to January 12, 2010). Web. 1 Feb. 2010 Canada. Dept. of Justice. (1990/2009). “Regulations Respecting Pay Television Networks”. Web. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-­‐90-­‐105/page-­‐2.html#anchorbo-­‐ga:s_3. 2010. 132
Canada. House of Commons 1984. Equality Now!, Report of the Special Committee on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society. Ottawa. Canada. Human Resources Skills Development Canada. (N.d.) “Government of Canada Disability Agenda.” Web. http://www.rhdcc-­‐hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/disability_issues/goc_agenda/index.shtml. 2010. Canada. Human Resources Skills Development Canada. (2008). “Employment Equity Act: Annual Report 2008”. Web. http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/labour/publications/equality/annual_reports/2008/page00.shtml. 2010. Canada. Human Resources Skills Development Canada. (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009) “Advancing the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities.” Web. http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/disability_issues/reports/index.shtml. 2010. Canada. Multiculturalism Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2009). “A Survey of Recent Research on Religious Diversity and Implications for Multiculturalism Policy”. Web. Ottawa: Policy Horizons Canada. http://www.horizons.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=2009-­‐0008_15. 2010. Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2010). “Performance Report 2009-­‐10: The Government of Canada's Contribution, Social Affairs”. Web. http://www.tbs-­‐sct.gc.ca/reports-­‐
rapports/cp-­‐rc/2009-­‐2010/cp-­‐rc04-­‐eng.asp#social. 2011. Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2010) “Public Spending on Diversity and Cultural Inclusion 2009-­‐10 Figure 3.2” Government of Canada. 26 June 2011. http://www.tbs-­‐
sct.gc.ca/reports-­‐rapports/cp-­‐rc/2009-­‐2010/cp-­‐rc04-­‐eng.asp#fig3-­‐2. 2011. Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2009). “Performance Report 2008-­‐09: The Government of Canada's Contribution, Social Affairs”. Web. http://www.tbs-­‐sct.gc.ca/reports-­‐rapports/cp-­‐rc/2008-­‐2009/cp-­‐rc04-­‐eng.asp. 2010. Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. (2009). “Public Spending on Diversity and Cultural Inclusion 2008-­‐09. Figure 3.2”. Web. Government of Canada. 2010 Canada Council for the Arts. (2011). Arts Promotion. Web. www.canadacouncil.ca/aboutus/Promotion/dk127306715935781250.htm. 26 June 2011. Canada Media Fund. (2010). “Backgrounder”. Web. http://www.cmf-­‐
fmc.ca/backgrounder/Backgrounder.pdf. 2011. Canada Media Fund. 2011. “CMF Champions Creation of Innovative Canadian Digital Content.” Web. http://www.cmf-­‐fmc.ca/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 55&page_mode=innovate&Itemid=184. 2011. Canadian Association of Broadcasters. (2010). Diversity in Broadcasting. Web. http://www.cab-­‐acr.ca/english/social/diversity/default.shtm. 2010. 133
Canadian Association of Broadcasters. (January 30, 2009). 2008-­‐09 Report on Diversity in Broadcasting. Web. 2011. Canadian Association of Broadcasters. (April 30, 2008). 2007-­‐08 Report on Diversity in Broadcasting. Web. 2011. Canadian Association of Broadcasters (2008). “CAB Diversity Awards.” Web. http://www.cab-­‐acr.ca/english/social/diversity/awards.shtm. 2010. Canadian Association of Broadcasters. (2007). Equitable Portrayal Code. Web. http://www.cbsc.ca/english/codes/epc.php. For CRTC ruling on the Code, also see: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2008/pb2008-­‐23.htm. 2010. Canadian Association of Broadcasters. (September 16, 2005). The Presence, Portrayal and Participation of Persons with Disabilities in Television Programming: Final Report Web. http://www.cab-­‐acr.ca/english/research/05/sub_sep1605.htm. 2010. Canadian Association of Broadcasters. (July 2004). Reflecting Canadians: Best Practices for Cultural Diversity in Private Television. A Report by the Task Force on Cultural Diversity on Television. Web. http://www.cab-­‐acr.ca/english/social/diversity/taskforce/report/cdtf_report_jul04.pdf. 2010. Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. (N.d.) “Codes Administered by the CBSC.” Web. CBSC.ca http://www.cbsc.ca/english/codes/index.php. 2011. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2011). “People and Culture: Accountability for the Mangement of Human Resources”. Web. http://cbc.radio-­‐
canada.ca/docs/policies/hr/HR_Management_Accountability.PDF, 2011. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2009). “Great Successes, Greater Challenges: CBC Annual Report”. Web. www.cbc.radio-­‐canada.ca/annualreports/2008-­‐2009/pdf/AR0809_e.pdf. 2011. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2008). “CBC/Radio-­‐Canada 2008 Annual Employment Equity Report to Human Resources Skills Development Canada (Labour): Executive Summary.” Web. http://www.cbc.radio-­‐canada.ca/docs/equity/pdf/ee-­‐exec2008e.pdf. 2011. Canadian Radio-­‐television and Telecommunications Commission. (2009). “Communications Monitoring Report 2009. Section 2.0.: The CRTC, policies and regulations.” Web. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/policymonitoring/2009/cmr23.htm. 2010. Canadian Radio-­‐television and Telecommunications Commission. (2009) “Diversity and Social Issues.” Web. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/publications/reports/policymonitoring/2009/cmr23.htm. 2010. Canadian Radio-­‐television and Telecommunications Commission. (2008). “Cultural Diversity on Television and Radio.” Web. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/b308.htm. 2010. 134
Canadian Radio-­‐television and Telecommunications Commission. (1999). "Building on Success: A Policy Framework for Canadian Television". CRTC Public Notice 1999-­‐97. Web. http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/1999/PB99-­‐97.htm. 2010. Canadian Radio-­‐television and Telecommunications Commission. (1999). “Ethnic Broadcasting Policy.” Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 1999-­‐117. Ottawa: Government of Canada, 16 July 1999. Print. Cardozo, Andrew (2004). “Media, Immigration and Diversity.” Panel presentation at the Metropolis Seminar. National Library of Canada, Ottawa. March 30, 2004. http://canada.metropolis.net/events/metropolis_presents/media_diversity/Cardozo_eng.pdf Centre for Faith and the Media. (2010). Web. http://www.faithandmedia.org/. 2010. Chideya, Farai. (1999). The Color of Our Future: Our Multiracial Future. Toronto: Harper Collins Canada. Clement, Andrew and Shade, Leslie Regan. (2000). “The Access Rainbow: Conceptualizing Universal Access to the Information/Communication Infrstructure.” Community Informatics: Enabling Communities with Information and Communication Technologies. Ed, M.Gurstein. 32-­‐51. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Coppock, V., Haydon, D., & Richter, I. (1995). The illusions of ‘postfeminism’: New women, old myths. London: Taylor and Francis. De Beauvoir, Simone. (1949/1972). The Second Sex. Translated by H. M. Parshley, 1972. United States: Penguin. De Silva, Paul. (2009). “Television, the Public Sphere and the Miscasting of Minorities in a Multicultural Society.” Second Annual Graduate Student Conference in Ethnicity, University of Toronto. Presented January 2009. Web. www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/pauldesilva.pdf. 2010. Elasmar, M., Hasegawa, K., & Brain, M. (1999). “The portrayal of women in U.S. prime time television.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 20–34. European Commission. Directorate of General Employment and Social Affairs. (2002, April). Tuning into Diversity: Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities in Mass Media: Representation and Policies. Rome, Italy: Censis. Fairclough, Norman. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: Papers in the Critical Study of Language. New York, London: Longman. Fleras, Augie and Kuntz, Jean. (2001). Media and minorities: Representing Diversity in a Multicultural Canada. Toronto, ON: Thompson Educational Publishing. Fleras, Augie and Elliot, Jean Leonard. (2002). Engaging Diversity Multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto, ON: Nelson Thompson Learning. 135
Foote, John A. (2008). "Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe: Country Profile – Canada." Council of Europe/ERICarts, 12th edition, 2011. Web. http:// www.culturalpolicies.net. 2011. Friedan, Betty. (1963). The Feminine Mystique. New York: W.W. Norton and Co. Gagnon, Monika Kin. (2000). Other Conundrums: Race, culture and Canadian art. Vancouver and Kamloops: Arsenal Pulp Press, Artspeak Gallery, Kamloops Art Gallery. Gallagher, Margaret. (2001). Gendersetting: New agendas for media monitoring and advocacy. London, UK: Zed Books. Glascock, J. (2001). Gender roles on prime-­‐time network television: Demographics and Behaviors. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 45, 656–670. Goodrum, Abby, Godo, Elizabeth, & Hayter, Alex. “Canadian Media Coverage of Chinese News: A Cross-­‐Platform Comparison at the National, Local and Hyper-­‐Local Levels.” Chinese Journal of Communication. (Forthcoming). Hall, Stuart. 1980. "Encoding/Decoding." In Paul Morris and Sue Thornton (eds.), Media Studies: A Reader. 2nd edn. Washington Square, NK: University Press, 2000, pp. 51-­‐61. Henry, Frances and Carol Tator. (2002). Discourses of Domination: Racial Bias in the Canadian English-­‐
Language Press. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Henry, Frances. (2002). "Canada's Contribution to the "Management" of Ethno-­‐Cultural Diversity" Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 27.2. Web. http://www.cjc-­‐online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1297/1325. 2010. Hill Strategies. (2005).“Diversity in Canada's Arts Labour Force.” Web. http://www.hillstrategies.com/resources_details.php?resUID=1000081. 2010. Jafri G.J.. (1998). “The Portrayal of Muslim Women in Canadian Mainstream Media: A Community-­‐
Based Analysis”. Report of the Afghan Women's Organization, Toronto. Canada. Jaggar, Aison M. (1983). Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Sussex, England: The Harvester Press. Karim, Karim. (1993). "Constructions, Deconstructions, and Reconstructions: Competing Canadian Discourses on Ethnocultural Terminology." Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 18.2. Kim, L. S. (2001). ‘‘Sex and the single girl’’ in Postfeminism, Television & New Media, 2: 319–334. Lincoln, Clifford. (June 2003) "Our Cultural Sovereignty: The Second Century of Canadian Broadcasting.” Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Government of Canada. Web. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=1032284&Language=E&Mode=1&
Parl=37&Ses=2. 2011. 136
Liss, Sarah (4 November 2009). "Essential Viewing: The 10 Most Important Television Shows of the 2000s". CBC News. http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2009/11/04/f-­‐2000s-­‐best-­‐tv-­‐shows.html. 3 May 2010. MacDonald, Gayle. “CTV scores in ratings with new Flashpoint series.” The Globe and Mail. 15 July 2008: R.3. Mahtani, Minelle. (2005a). “Mixed Metaphors: Situating Mixed Race Identity.” In Situating “Race” and Racisms in Space, Time and Theory, eds. Jo-­‐Ann Lee and John Lutz, 77-­‐93. Montreal: McGill-­‐Queen’s University Press. Mahtani, Minelle. (2005b). “Gendered News Practices: The Experiences of Women Journalists in Different National Contexts.” In Journalism: Critical Issues, ed. Stuart Allan, 299-­‐310. London: Open University Press/McGraw-­‐Hill. Mahtani, Minelle. (2001). “Representing Minorities: Canadian Media and Minority Identitities”. Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal. Fall, 2001. Web. 2010. McMahon, Rob. (2011) “The Institutional Development of Indigenous Broadband Infrastructure in Canada and the U.S.: Two Paths to ‘Digital Self-­‐Determination’”. Canadian Journal of Communication, North America, 36.1, Apr. 2011. http://www.cjc-­‐online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2372.11 Jul. 2011. Media Awareness Network. (2010) "Ethnic and Visible Minorities in Entertainment Media". Web. http://www.media-­‐
awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/ethnics_and_minorities/minorities_entertainment.cfm. 2010. Media Awareness Network. (2010). “Media Stereotyping -­‐ Introduction”. Web. http://www.media-­‐
awareness.ca/english/issues/stereotyping/index.cfm. 2010. Miller, John. (2006). “Legislating diversity: Canada’s experience with broadcast regulation." Paper presented to Rethinking the Discourse on Race: A Symposium on How the Lack of Racial Diversity in the Media Affects Social Justice and Policy. St. John’s University School of Law. April 27-­‐29, 2006. Murray, Catherine. (2009a). “Designing Monitoring to Promote Cultural Diversity in TV.” Canadian Journal of Communications. 34. 2009: 675-­‐699. Canadian Journal of Communication. Web. 2010. Murray, Catherine. (2009b). "Not Another Solitude: Third-­‐Language Media Matter: Notes for an Address to Language Matters: Policy Research Seminar on Language Acquisition and Newcomer Integration for Metropolis." Panel on Heritage Languages, Integration and Globalization. October 22, 2009. Murray, Catherine, Sherry Yu and Daniel Ahadi. (2007). “Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Media in BC: A Report to Department of Canadian Heritage, Western Region”. SFU: Center for Policy Studies on Culture and Communities. Web. http://www.bcethnicmedia.ca/research.html. 2010. 137
Murray, Catherine (2002). “Silent on the Set: Cultural Diversity and Race in English Canadian TV Drama”. Web. http://www.sfu.ca/media-­‐lab/research/culturaldiversity/sra-­‐587.pdf_1.pdf. 2010. Murray, Catherine. (2001). “Wellsprings of knowledge: beyond the CBC policy trap.” Canadian Journal of Communication. Web. Toronto: Winter 2001. Vol. 26.1. 2010. Murray, Michael. “For Mercy's sake; International interest in Canadian comedy just a Little perplexing.” The Ottawa Citizen. 24 Nov. 2007: K1. Napoli, Phillip. (1999). “Deconstructing the diversity principle”. Journal of Communication. 49.4: 7-­‐34. Raboy, Marc (2010). “Media.” Media Divides. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press. 91-­‐119. Raboy, Marc (1990). Missed Opportunities. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-­‐Queen’s University Press. Raboy, Marc, Serge Proulx and Peter Dahlgren. (2003). “The Dilemma of Social Demand: Shaping Media Policy in New Civic Contexts”. Gazette. Vol. 65. 323. SAGE Online. Web. March 22, 2010. Raboy, Marc; Shtern, Jeremy, with William J. McIver, Laura J. Murray, Seán Ó Siochrú and Leslie Regan Shade. (2010). Media Divides. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press. Reighley, Kurt B. (21 July 2010). “90210 Goes Gay? Whatevs. Degrassi Goes Trans!” Queer Sighted. Web. http://www.queersighted.com/2010/07/21/90210-­‐goes-­‐gay-­‐whatevs-­‐degrassi-­‐goes-­‐trans/. 25 July 2010. Rintoul, Suzanne, & Hewlett, Quintin Zachary. (2009). “Negotiating Canadian Culture Through Youth Television: Discourse on Degrassi.” Jeunesse: Young People, Texts, Cultures 1(1), 125-­‐147. Robertson, Clive. (2006). Policy Matters: Administrations of Art and Culture. Toronto: YYZ Books. Robertson, Grant, and Matt Hartley. (February 18, 2009). “CRTC aims to carve out national identity online". The Globe and Mail. Web. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-­‐on-­‐
business/article972769.ece. 2010. Roth, Lorna. (2008). “Snapshots and Dialogues: Canadian Ethnic Television Broadcasting and Social Cohesion.” New Citizens. New Policies? Developments in Diversity Policy in Canada and Flanders. Eds Leen d’Haenens et al. Gent: Academia Press. 171-­‐199. Roth, Lorna. (2005). Something New in the Air. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-­‐Queen’s University Press. Roth, Lorna. (1998a). "The Delicate Acts of ‘Colour Balancing’: Multiculturalism and Canadian Television Broadcasting Policies and Practices". Canadian Journal of Communication. Vol 23.4. Web. 2010. Roth, Lorna. (1998b). "Television Broadcasting North of 60," in Images of Canadianness. Visions on Canada's Politics, Culture, Economics. Leen d'Haenens, ed. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press – International Canadian Studies Series, p. 147 – 166. 138
Said, Edward. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Samuel, John and Associates Inc.. (February 1997). “Visible Minorities and the Public Service of Canada: A report submitted to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.” Ottawa. Web. http://www.chrc-­‐ccdp.ca/publications/visibleminorities_minoritesvisibles/toc_tdm-­‐en.asp. 2010. Savage, Philip. (2008). “Gaps in Canadian Media Research: CMRC Findings.” Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 33: 291-­‐301. Schneider, B. (1988). “Political generations in the contemporary women’s movement.” Sociological Inquiry, 58, 4–21. Shade, Leslie Regan. (2010). “Access.” Media Divides. Vancouver/Toronto: UBC Press. 120-­‐144. Steeves, L. H. (1987). “Feminist theories and media studies.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication,4, 95–135. Statistics Canada. (2009). “Top 10 ethnic origins by generational status for people aged 15 years and over, Canada, 2006.” Canada’s Ethnocultural Mosaic, 2006 Census. Web. http://www12.statcan.ca/census-­‐recensement/2006/as-­‐sa/97-­‐562/table/t1-­‐eng.cfm. 21 June 2010. Statistics Canada. “Women in Canada, Fifth Edition: A Gender-­‐based Statistical Report.” Ottawa: Minister of Industry, 2005. Statistics Canada. Web. 10 April 2010. -­‐-­‐-­‐. “Visible Minorities in Canada.” Ottawa: Minister of Industry, 2001. Statistics Canada. Web. 10 April 2010. Tator, Carol. (1995a). "Racism Revisited in 'Toronto the Good." Currents: Readings in Race Relations. 8.3. Tator, Carol. (1995b). "Taking a Stand Against Racism in Broadcasting." Presented at Racism in the Media, a conference sponsored by the Toronto Community Reference Group on Ethno-­‐Racial and Aboriginal Access to Metropolitan Services. Republished with permission. Web. http://www.media-­‐awareness.ca/english/resources/articles/diversity/stand_racism_media.cfm. 2010. Télé-­‐Québec. N.d. “Mission”. Web. http://www.telequebec.tv/corporatif/. 2010. Thomas, Eric. (1992). "Canadian broadcasting and multiculturalism: attempts to accomodate ethnic minorities." Canadian Journal of Communication. Vol. 17 Thomas, June. (9 December 2005). “High-­‐School Homos And the TV Viewers Who Love Them.” Slate. Web. http://www.slate.com/id/2131950/. 15 June 2010. TV Ontario. (2006). “Reaching Beyond: Strategic Agenda 2006”. Web. www.tvo.org/about/StrategicAgenda/Reaching_Beyond_Booklet.pdf. 2010. 139
UNESCO. “Convention of the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.” New York: United Nations, 2005. UNESCO.org. Web. Nov. 12, 2009. UNESCO. “Ten Keys to the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.” New York: United Nations, 2005. UNESCO.org. Web. Nov. 12, 2009. Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. (2008). Discourse and Power. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. (2006). “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse & Society 17.2: 359-­‐79. Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. (2002). Ideology and Discourse: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. (2001). “Critical Discourse Analysis.” Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Eds. D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin and H. Hamilton. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001: 352-­‐71. Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. (1988). News as Discourse. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates Vavrus, M. D. (1998). “Working the Senate from the outside in: The mediated construction of a feminist political campaign.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 15(3), 213–235. Vision TV. (2011). “About Vision.” Web. Visiontv.ca. 30 June 2011. Web. http://www.visiontv.ca/about-­‐vision. 2010. Williamson, Kevin (7 December 2001). "Degrassi Keeps On Growing". Calgary Sun. Women in Film and Television. (2004). Framework: Employment in Canadian Screen-­‐Based Media -­‐ a National Profile. Toronto: Women in Film and Television. Web. www.wift.com. 2010. 140
Appendix One: Diversity Related Policy Initiatives -­Hanna Cho Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Broadcasting Act Government of Canada. The Broadcasting Act regulates all broadcasting in Canada at the federal level. It is this document that informs other regulatory policies and codes created and distributed by private media regulatory groups. The act includes a section that outlines the imperative of broadcasters to include programming, which reflects the needs and interests of all Canadians, accounting for the multicultural and multiracial character of the country. The Broadcasting Act emphasizes that each broadcaster is responsible for its own programs, and that a high standard of programming is expected. Origins Federal Legislation/ Regulations 1 (Department of Justice) (1991, c. 11) The Broadcasting Act covers three main sections: a broadcasting policy for Canada; the regulatory powers of the Canadian Radio-­‐television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC); and the operating procedures and policies for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). The federal Broadcasting Act was originally established in 1968, and amended in 1991. The goal at the heart of this Act is to maintain Canada’s cultural fabric — thereby strengthening its economic, political and social structures. There is a specific emphasis on reflecting Canada’s cultural diversity: section 3 states that programming and employment opportunities should serve the needs and interests of all Canadians, and reflect their various circumstances. 141
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins 2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Government of Canada April 17, 1982 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one part of the Canadian Constitution. The Constitution is a set of laws containing the basic rules about how our country operates. For example, it contains the powers of the federal government and those of the provincial governments in Canada. The Charter sets out those rights and freedoms that Canadians believe are necessary in a free and democratic society. One of the nine rights and freedoms contained in the Charter is the protection of Canada’s multicultural heritage. 3 Canadian Human Rights Act Government of Canada January 1989 Among the “discriminatory practices” that can be the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, section 13 of this legislative act lists hate messages. 4 Multiculturalis
m Act Government of Canada. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour, and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. The (An Act for the Preservation and recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and the Enhancement of Multiculturalism in promotion of the reflection of those cultures are stated as part of the Canada) 142
According to the act, the minister responsible for multiculturalism will take measures to encourage and assist individuals, organizations, and institutions to project the multicultural Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes government’s policy. July 12, 1988 reality of Canada in their activities in Canada and abroad. Origins 5 Employment Equity Act Government of Canada 6 Native Broadcasting Policy CRTC (Public Notice 1990-­‐89) The purpose of this Act is to achieve equality Four equity groups: in the workplace so that no person shall be women, aboriginal denied employment opportunities or peoples, persons with benefits for reasons unrelated to ability and, disabilities and Human Resources in the fulfillment of that goal, to correct the members of visible and Development conditions of disadvantage in employment minorities. experienced by women, aboriginal peoples, Canada (HRSDC) persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities by giving effect to the 1996 principle that employment equity means more than treating persons in the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences Outlines the criteria for a radio or TV service to broadcast as a Native station. It encourages Aboriginal broadcasting by emphasizing the importance of Aboriginal ownership and the preservation of Aboriginal languages and culture. Lead to The Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN), the first national indigenous TV network in the world. It’s run by Aboriginal people and reflects the communities and the diversity within Canada’s many Aboriginal cultures, in many languages. APTN must be carried by all TV service providers, making it a service for all Canadians. 143
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Outlines the criteria for an over-­‐the-­‐air radio or TV service to broadcast as an ethnic station. For example, ethnic television and radio stations must devote a minimum amount of time to ethnic and third-­‐language programming. Local ethnic broadcasters must also reflect local issues and concerns. It is an update of the CRTC Policy Notice 1985-­‐139. Origins 7 Ethnic Broadcasting Policy CRTC (Public Notice 1999-­‐117) This updated document follows a similar structure to the 1985 ethnic It was designed to respond to the broadcasting policy Broadcasting Act, which mandates that but includes some Canadian broadcasters reflect the diversity changes in of Canadians in their radio and television programming policies content. It discusses the CRTC’s licensing of to allow more ethnic programming, how much of ethnic flexibility to stations’ schedules must be devoted to broadcasters and ethnic content, and how much non-­‐ethnic streamline stations may air third-­‐language ethnic Commission programming. regulations. 8 Television Broadcasting Regulations 1987 Stipulates: 5. (1) A licensee shall not broadcast (a) anything in contravention of the law; (b) any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability; (c) any obscene or profane language or pictorial representation; or (d) any false or misleading news. 144
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins 9 Pay Television Regulations 1990 PROGRAMMING CONTENT 3. (1) Paragraphs (2)(e) and (f) do not apply in respect of a licensee of an ethnic pay television network. (2) No licensee shall distribute programming (a) that contains anything in contravention of the law; (b) that contains any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability; (c) that contains any false or misleading news; (d) that contains any commercial message; (e) other than filler programming, except as otherwise provided in a condition of its licence, that is produced by the licensee after the date of publication in the Canada Gazette of the initial decision of the Commission granting a licence to the licensee; or (f) other than filler programming, except as otherwise provided in a condition of its licence, that is produced by a person related to the licensee after the later of (i) the date of publication in the Canada Gazette of the initial decision of the 145
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins Commission granting a licence to the licensee, and (ii) the day on which the person became related to the licensee. (3) For the purpose of paragraph (2)(b), sexual orientation does not include the orientation towards any sexual act or activity that would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code. 10 Specialty Services Regulations CRTC 1990 Stipulates: 3. No licensee shall distribute programming that contains (a) anything in contravention of the law; (b) any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends to or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability; (c) any obscene or profane language or obscene or profane pictorial representation; or (d) any false or misleading news. 11 Closed Captioning Policy Public Notice CRTC 2007-­‐54, A new policy with respect to closed In Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 2007-­‐54, A new policy with respect to closed captioning (May 17, 2007), the Commission stated that all English-­‐ and French-­‐language 146
Broadcasters have been asked to report on progress made in moving toward the Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes May 17, 2007 broadcasters would be required to caption 100 percent of their programs over the broadcast day, with the exception of advertising and promos. 100 percent captioning target prior to licence renewals scheduled for 2008-­‐
09. 12 Equitable Canadian Portrayal Code Association of Broadcasters (CAB). May 17, 2008 Code designed to instruct and commit television and radio broadcasters to equitable portrayals of diverse Canadian subjects in conjunction with the Broadcasting Act. Replaced the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Sex-­‐ Role Portrayal Code and was designed in consultation with 36 public stakeholders from different ethnocultural backgrounds and various disability groups. 13 Code of Ethics Under clause 2, “Human Rights,” the code outlines every person’s right to full and fair representation, and underlines broadcasters’ responsibility not to portray any persons in a discriminatory way based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, or physical or mental disability. Clause 8, “Religious Programming,” mandates broadcasters to disallow religious programming from being used to attack other religious or racial groups. Origins captioning CAB/CBSC CAB June 2002 14 Industry Code Canadian Broadcast Document outlines the responsibilities of pay television providers and states that 147
Now covered by the 2008 Equitable Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins of Standards Council these broadcasters must comply with the (CBSC) Sex Role Portrayal Code for Television and Programming May 2002 Radio Programming, which stipulates that Standards and men and women from different ethnic Practices groups and of different visible minorities Governing Pay, must be represented in a diversity of roles Pay-­‐per-­‐View with a diversity of responsibilities. and Video-­‐on-­‐ Demand Services. 15 Sex Role Public Notice CRTC Portrayal Code 1990-­‐99 for Television and October 26 ,1990 Radio Programming Portrayal Code (CAB) This code mandated the portrayal of men Now covered by the and women in equal fashion onscreen and 2008 Equitable in credits. The code stipulates that men and Portrayal Code (CAB) women from different ethnic groups and of different visible minorities must be represented in a diversity of roles with a diversity of responsibilities. 16 Canadian Association of Broadcasters Public Notice CRTC Section 8.0, “Violence Against Specific Now covered by the 1996-­‐36 Groups,” stipulates that broadcasters will 2008 Equitable not allow programming that “sanctions, Portrayal Code (CAB) promotes or glamorizes violence based on Violence Code. race, national or ethnic origin, colour, March 14, 1996 religion, gender, sexual orientation, age, or mental or physical disability.” 17 Diverse Languages Program Canada Media Fund, April 2010 Objective: Ensure that Canadians have $1 Million envelope access to content that reflects the variety of languages they speak. 18 Aboriginal Program Canada Media Fund, Objective: Support the growth of Aboriginal $6 Million envelope production. 148
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins April 2010 Key Details: Per-­‐project cap is $400,000. As a pilot initiative, digital distributors of audio-­‐
visual content will be eligible licensors of projects from the territories. CBC 19 Employment Equity – Corporate Policy Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) January 1, 2003 Requires the public corporation to hire Under jurisdiction of people from four distinct, disadvantaged federal Employment groups: women, Aboriginal peoples, people Equity Act. with disabilities, and members of visible minority groups. Corporate Human Resources Policy 2.2.2 20 Multicultural CBC Programming -­‐ July 14, 1994 Corporate Policy Corporate Programming Policy 1.1.4 Standards; provide guidelines for the CBC’s programming. Addresses the Corporation’s commitment to reflect in its programming the multicultural and multiracial nature of Canada. This section argues that reflecting the diversity of Canadians in its programming is part of the CBC’s commitment to building and fostering national unity. Diversity Advantage CBC 2007 Called The Diversity Advantage: CBC’s Commitment to Reflecting Today’s Canada, this joint diversity action plan, brings together the diversity plans and initiatives of 149
A website was created to showcase all of CBC’s diversity programs, Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes CBC Radio, CBC Television and Human Resources, and encompasses programming, recruitment, training and development, and outreach. programming and related resources, such as internships and work placement opportunities. Origins 21 New Faces/New CBC Voices A diversity-­‐oriented contacts database. It lists specialists in a variety of fields that reflect Canada’s cultural and ethnic makeup, some of whom have never been on CBC programs. It also includes people with disabilities often not seen or heard in mainstream media. It is primarily a journalistic tool intended for CBC researchers, producers and reporters to develop stories. 22 HELP (Help Energise Local Projects) Fund Provides financial assistance for internships and on-­‐the-­‐job developmental opportunities for diverse candidates. In 2006, 23 internships were CBC supported by the HELP Fund, including those in on-­‐air, technical and support roles in both English and French, Television and Radio departments. Since 1999, almost 50 per cent of the interns have been retained in continuing roles. CRTC 23 Regulatory Canadian Radio-­‐
Policy: Diversity television of Voices Telecommunicatio
n Commission. Addresses cross-­‐media ownership and discusses the framework established by the Commission to ensure a greater diversity of voices in Canada. 150
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins January 15, 2008 Included in this document are discussions of minority media ownership and the representation of diversity in voices within Public Notice CRTC Aboriginal and ethnic broadcasting. 2008-­‐4: 24 Representation of Cultural Diversity on Television—
Creation CRTC (2001, August 2). Outlines the commitments made by CTV and CanWest Global to ensure greater diversity and representation of visible minorities and Public Notice CRTC Aboriginal peoples in their broadcasting. It 2001-­‐88: calls on the Canadian Association of Broadcasters to create a community task of an force to ensure cultural diversity in Industry/Comm
broadcasting no later than December 31, unity Task 2001. Force. 25 CAB Task Force
Report to CRTC
"Reflecting Canadians"
2004
26 Building on Success—A Policy Framework for Canadian Television. Opened the door on several Canadian
firms with best practices, and made a
range of practical managerial
recommendations to "walk the talk" of
cultural diversity for Canadian media
companies, contributing to the CRTC's
audit process of diversity plans.
CRTC June 11, 1999 According to this public notice, all conventional television licensees are henceforth expected to make explicit commitments to ensure that their programming reflects the diversity of Public Canadians. They are required to ensure that Notice CRTC 1999-­‐ portrayals of different cultural groups are 97 portrayed in a fashion that is fair and non-­‐
stereotypical. Under the heading “Building on success—Reaching a wider audience,” the framework discusses the need for both 151
It further stipulates that the portrayals of minorities and Aboriginal peoples must happen in mainstream Canadian television and should not solely be the provenance of ethnic and Aboriginal Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes staff and cultural products to reflect the diversity of Canadians. broadcasters. Origins 27 Consultations Regarding On-­‐
air Job Categories to be Included in the Employment Equity Plans of Broadcasters. CRTC June 10, 1994 Outlines the requirement for all broadcasters to report on their employment equity policies and initiatives and on employees who currently fall into one of the Public Notice CRTC four designated categories targeted by employment equity policies. 1994-­‐69 These four designated groups are women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities. 28 Pay Television Regulations, 1990 CRTC February 1990 “No licensee shall distribute programming that contains any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of Canada Gazette Part II 124:4, 623-­‐ individuals to hatred or contempt on the 632. Section 3(b). basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” 29 Specialty Services Regulations, 1990 CRTC February 1990 “No licensee shall distribute programming that contains any abusive comment or abusive pictorial representation that, when taken in context, tends or is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of Canada Gazette Part II124:4, 633-­‐ individuals to hatred or contempt on the 644. Section 3(b). basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or 152
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins physical disability.” Provincial/ Canada Media Fund, April 2010 Canada Media Fund, April 2010 $500,000 envelope 31 Regional French Canada Media Incentive (sub-­‐ Fund, April 2010 program, Performance Envelope Program ) Objective: Support the growth of French production by Quebec producers who are located outside the $1 Million envelope 32 Francophone Minority Program Objective: Ensure that Canadians have access to French production reflecting francophone cultures outside the province of Quebec. Regional 30 Northern Incentive (sub-­‐
program, Performance Envelope Program ) Canada Media Fund, April 2010 33 Loi sur la Gouvernment du Société de Québec. (2009, télédiffusion du September 1 Québec. 34 Mission statement, Télé-­‐Québec Télé-­‐Québec Montreal production centre. $10.1 Million envelope Legislation sets the parameters for television broadcasting in Québec. Although ethnic or visible minorities are not specifically mentioned, the legislation does stipulate that broadcasting must reflect the regional and cultural diversity of Québec. In its mission statement, Télé-­‐Québec refers to article 16 of the Loi sur la Société de télédiffusion du Québec and states its commitment to representing the cultural 153
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins diversity in Québec. 35 Reaching Beyond: Strategic Agenda 2006 TV Ontario (tvo) 36 Chapter H175: The Human Rights Code. Winnipeg, Government of Manitoba. (1987, July). In this document, TVO makes a commitment to reflecting the diversity of Ontarians. Section 18: “No person shall publish broadcast, circulate or publicly display any sign, symbol, notice or statement that (a) discriminates or indicates intention to discriminate in respect of an activity or undertaking to which this Code applies; or (b) incites, advocates or counsels discrimination in respect of an activity or undertaking to which this Code applies; unless bona fide and reasonable cause exists for the discrimination.” 37 ACTRA National's Diversity initiative ACTRA ACTRA National's Diversity initiative is designed to promote and realize the principles concerning the casting of People of Colour, Aboriginal Peoples and Actors with Disabilities. 38 “No News is Bad News” Report by the Listed 27 recommendations to improve the Standing representation of people with disabilities in Parliamentary the media. Committee on the Status of Disabled Persons 154
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins 1998 39 “The Presence, CAB report to CRTC Concerns were the “overall lack of coverage Participation of disability issues by television news and Portrayal of outlets” and the “stigmatization and Persons with stereotyping of persons with disabilities, 2005 Disabilities in where individuals are viewed as the objects Television of pity and depicted as having the same Programming” attributes and characteristics no matter what the disability may be...” Over the next two years, the CAB drafted guidelines for portrayal that would eventually be extended to all identifiable groups and become the Equitable Portrayal Code. 40 Broadcaster of Global Ontario the Future (CanWest) (Scholarship/M
entorship/Inter
nship Program) CBSC has received a funding commitment from CTVglobemedia that will enable it to publicize the Code, translate it into dozens of languages and provide it in audio formats. Awards/internship programs specifically aimed at members of the four designated groups. The Global Television “Broadcaster of the Future” awards are a series of scholarship, internship, and mentorship programs designed to encourage and aid talented and enthusiastic Canadians toward establishing or furthering a career in the Canadian broadcast industry were reviewed quarterly, in part to ensure that no systemic issues were present that would affect members of any designated group. Advocacy, Non-­‐ Governmental, Association, Other 41 Lights, Camera, 2007 Access! Registered non-­‐profit charity, LCA is an Key sponsorship emergent provider of a network of services comes from 155
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes to advance the presence and participation of persons with disabilities in the entertainment and media industries. CTVglobemedia, as well as Heritage Canada Origins LCA is also a resource centre for people with disabilities in the industry. 42 the Centre for 1983 Research on Race Relations (CRARR) National Advocacy group to lobby for cultural diversity in all aspects of Media. Founded in 1983 with the mandate to promote racial harmony and equality in Canada, it is considered as one of the leading non-­‐profit race relations organizations in Canada. 43 Canadian 1978 Diversity Media Association (CDMA) Membership-­‐driven organization that aims to uphold the principles of Canadian citizenship and multiculturalism and maintain the right of freedom of expression without ethnocentric bias. The emphasis of CEMA is on the exchange of ideas rather than lobbying. Formerly the Canadian Ethnic Journalists and Writers Club (founded 1978), is an organization for professionals engaged in the field of print and electronic journalism and creative writing. 44 Silent on the Set: Cultural Diversity and Race in English Canadian TV Drama A pilot study to develop cultural indicators to monitor race was included, which was published in August 2002 in a report called "Silent on the Set" Commissioned a survey of drama on Canadian conventional television, to join the Eurofiction 2000 project of the European Commission, under the auspices of its audio-­‐visual Strategic Research and Analysis Directorate of the Department of Canadian Heritage 2001/2002 156
Policy Creator/ Description Other Notes Origins observatory. 45 Strategic Alliance of Broadcasters for Aboriginal Reflection (SABAR) 2003 Organization working to increase the contribution and representation of Aboriginal people in all aspects of the Canadian broadcast industry. Jointly initiated by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and a diverse group of broadcasters and industry-­‐related organizations. A vehicle for promoting and increasing the contribution and reflection of Aboriginal Peoples within the Canadian broadcast industry. 46 Ethnocultural Outreach Program Statistics Canada Developed at Statistics Canada with the ongoing diversity of the Canadian population in mind. The purpose of the program is to develop and maintain relationships with third-­‐language media in an effort to raise awareness of Statistics Canada within ethnic communities. Effort is focused on educating the new ethnic media each year. 157
Initiative entails working closely with the ethnic media to disseminate results of the census and other important surveys to members of ethnocultural communities. Appendix Two: Biographies of Contributors Farzana Bhatty (author: case studies) has a Bachelor of Journalism (with Honours) from Ryerson University and a Masters of Arts in Communication and Culture from York University and Ryerson University. Farzana is the recipient of the Ryerson Gold Medal, the University’s highest award, and earned an Ontario Graduate Scholarship during her graduate studies. Her research interest is the perpetuation of Orientalism in mainstream media, with a focus on American broadcast news reports post-­‐September 11, 2011. Farzana currently works in corporate communications for an institutional investment firm in Toronto. Hanna Cho (author: executive summary; co-­‐author: policy and theoretical framework) is a social researcher and practitioner whose interests include community networks, diversity, technology studies, media policy and public engagement. She holds degrees in History and Communications from the University of Ottawa, and obtained her M.A. from the Joint Graduate Programme in Communication and Culture at York University. She currently lives in Vancouver, and is Curator of Engagement & Dialogue at the Museum of Vancouver. Elizabeth Godo (author: case studies) holds a Master’s Degree in Communication & Culture from Ryerson and York Universities and an Honours Bachelor of Arts in Communication Studies and Dramatic Art. She earned the Board of Governor’s Gold Medal in Communication Studies for her work at the University of Windsor, as well as a Certificate in Arts Management from the Odette School of Business. A recipient of research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Elizabeth has presented her work at over a dozen academic and industry conferences worldwide. She is Co-­‐Founder of Zeto Communications, a Toronto-­‐based research company which helps innovative start-­‐ups position their new technologies. Ainsley Jenicek (author: case studies) is a researcher and community organizer based in Montreal. She holds a SSHRC-­‐funded Master's degree in Media Studies from Concordia University where she studied cultural phenomena from the Bouchard-­‐Taylor commission to Oprah's packaging of new age texts. Reisa Klein (author: case studies) is a PhD student at Carleton University in the School of Journalism and Communication. Her research examines the construction of race and gender within the Canadian news mediascape and in particular the ways in which representations of Muslim women bodies intersect with discourses of democracy. Her scholastic interests grew out of her training and freelance work as a journalist as well as her MA project which focused on news representations of the disengagement of the Israeli settlements from Gaza. Additional research interests include the relationship between power, gender and beauty. Mary Elizabeth Luka (editor: executive summary, policy and theoretical framework; co-­‐author, policy and theoretical framework) is a PhD student and a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholar with research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and a Fellowship at Concordia University in the Joint Doctoral Program in Communication. M.E.’s research interests are 158
at the intersection of arts and culture, broadcast and digital media, building on her experiences as an award-­‐winning television and online content producer, director and broadcaster and as a visual artist, teacher, writer and management consultant. She currently consults with the Canadian Dance Assembly and Canada Dance Festival, courtesy of funding by Canada Council for the Arts Flying Squad. M.E. spent twelve years with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the founder and executive producer of CBC Artspots, subsequently in independent production. Prior to that, M.E. worked in national not-­‐for-­‐profit management and consulting for organizations as varied as the Canadian Opera Company, Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, School Boards and Universities, Symphony Nova Scotia, and several others. M.E. splits her time between Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. Marianne Ward (editor: case studies) is a lifelong lover of language who is passionate about its proper usage and its astounding capacity for nuance and subtlety. With a Masters degree in Canadian Literature, she has applied her editing skills to a varied, sixteen-­‐year career doing communications work in the cultural sector (music, dance, theatre, film, television). As a freelance editor over the last three years, she has done proofreading, copy editing and substantive editing for Canadian publishing companies Nimbus and Formac-­‐-­‐primarily of non-­‐fiction books. Marianne has also been the primary editor on a full-­‐length novel for adults, and is editing her second Young Adult novel for Acorn Press. She is also working directly with the author of a non-­‐fiction book, and two playwrights on full-­‐length plays. 159