Views expressed in opinion columns are the author’s own.
This is part three of my series discussing the consumption of problematic media. In part one, I wrote about the circumstances under which it’s always acceptable to consume morally suspect media, and last week I took a closer look at media from problematic creators. This week, I’ll be concluding with a discussion of consuming media that’s problematic in and of itself.
In case you’re just now tuning in, I established in part one that it’s always OK to consume objectionable media if you obtain it in a way that doesn’t benefit anyone awful, consume it in private so you’re not broadcasting immoral messages to receptive audiences and regard it skeptically so you don’t inadvertently internalize the message. Accordingly, this discussion will focus on cases not covered by those caveats.
I’ll distinguish three kinds of media problematic in and of itself: media that simply depicts morally suspect behavior; that glorifies, condones, or valorizes that behavior; and that conspicuously marginalizes populations.
Consider the works such as books, movies and songs that contain problematic passages, scenes or lyrics, but that present them in a neutral or negative light. Examples might include the description of child abuse in Aerosmith’s “Janie’s Got a Gun” and the virulent racism depicted in Django Unchained. This sort of media can be freely broadcast without caveat.
The claim of these works is either “this is the way the (potentially imaginary) world is/was,” in the case of neutral depiction, or “this is a behavior that is morally wrong,” in the case of negative depiction. There’s nothing morally wrong with these sorts of claims, so there’s nothing wrong with broadcasting them.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t feel uncomfortable listening to DiCaprio scream “n—–” in Django. In fact, that’s just the point; neutral or negative depictions of problematic behavior help us confront our history and the ills that continue to exist in society without validating the sources of those ills. Pretending that things like child abuse or racism don’t or didn’t exist only helps to perpetuate them, so keeping morally safe depictions of them in the public sphere is not only acceptable, but necessary.
On the other hand, consider media that depicts morally wrong behavior in a positive light or fetishizes it. This might include sexist or anti-Semitic works like Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew or Merchant of Venice, respectively, or movies that include gratuitous depictions of sexual violence directed at women, such as Red Sparrow. Even when such depictions are ostensibly negative, they inherently make the case that problematic behavior is valuable when it is titillating, exciting, etc.
When possible, these works should be broadcasted in a way that subverts the original message: Taming can be reinterpreted as a feminist work, and problematic passages in books can be used as springboards for constructive discussion in classes. When not possible, they should be broadcasted only with caveats explicitly disavowing the immoral material. Failing to do so risks validating the prejudices or encouraging the dangerous predilections the consumers.
Finally, consider media problematic not because of what it depicts, but because of what it fails to depict: movies with all-white casts, books with no female characters, etc. Of course, not all media that lacks diversity is inherently problematic; if your novel follows the life of a hermit in the Rocky Mountains, you can be forgiven for failing to include characters of color. On the other hand, if your Hollywood blockbuster set in a major city doesn’t even pass the Bechdel test, you’ve perhaps made an oversight.
So can you broadcast media that should be diverse, but isn’t? This is a bit tricky in that such works don’t have an explicitly problematic message, but implicitly send a problematic message nonetheless. Virtually no one will watch one episode of Game of Thrones and conclude that black people don’t matter, but someone who listens to nothing but all-white, all-male bands will develop a troubling lack of perspective. It is thus incumbent on those who wish to broadcast non-diverse media to intersperse it with appropriately diverse media, and in doing so to correct for the sins of the creators.
Hopefully this series has helped refine your thinking concerning consumption of problematic media. There’s a whole lot of art out there that is simultaneously beautiful enough to be worth consuming and morally worrisome enough to give you pause before you consume it. That’s why it’s vital to have a good sense of how you can enjoy the best of what humanity has to offer without doing anything wrong.
Joey Marcellino is a junior jazz saxophone, physics and philosophy major. He can be reached at fmarcel1@terpmail.umd.edu.
