So, in the last couple of days we’ve witnessed arguments
from various sides after the suspension of Phil Robertson from the A&E
television show Duck Dynasty
following a
set of remarks he made about sexuality (and, by the way, let’s not forget the
deeply problematic things Robertson said in regard to race as well.)
I don’t regularly watch Duck
Dynasty. I don’t care much for most
reality television, and the little bit of Duck
Dynasty that I have seen reconfirmed the reasons I don’t watch reality television
shows. Additionally, what I have seen in
terms of the marketing of the show and the use of the show by its fans suggests
that I don’t align personally or ideologically with a significant amount of
what the show represents.
As part of that, I don’t agree with Phil Robertson’s
characterization of sexuality. The more
I have studied and learned about sexuality, the more complex and nuanced
position I have developed of it; the more I have come to see that ideas
suggesting heterosexuality is natural are socially, historically, and
politically constructed; and the more I have come to see the value of a society
celebrating a diversity of sexual identities and forms of expression. Phil Robertson’s position on sexuality does
not suggest that he has truly spent time learning about sexuality. Still, he can think and say what he wants;
that would seem to be part of democracy.
Yet, his views contain significantly contestable, if not
downright flawed, elements to them, and if he is going to voice them publicly,
then he should be prepared for public response.
Indeed, what would seem consistent with democracy is that various views
enter into dialogue with one another in a deliberative fashion. And, with that in mind, I would caution folks
(particularly, though not exclusively, on the liberal political side) who are
offering arguments in support of A&E’s decision to suspend Robertson. These arguments do have a correct point in
combatting other arguments that use the language of rights. Technically, Robertson’s rights have not been
violated. The government has not
sanctioned him for what he said. His right to say it has been maintained. Rather, an organization with which he works
has exercised its right to suspend its working relationship with him because of
the comment. Simply put, A&E made a
decision regarding their affiliation with Robertson after he said what he did.
Yet, here is where I would caution those who not only make,
but also defend that distinction (like here). Consider the world we are creating when
organizations have this kind of power. Actually,
more to the point, consider the world we are perpetuating since organizations
already do have this power. On this
particular issue, perhaps one may disagree strongly with what Robertson said,
and thus one may find A&E’s decision more acceptable. Imagine, though, if this were a situation in
which you said something that an organization with which you are affiliated
found objectionable or controversial, and you were dismissed or suspended because
of it. Indeed, consider what’s
going on in higher education in Kansas over a tenured professor posting online something
deemed objectionable. Additionally,
consider that most of us do not have the amount of financial resources that
Robertson has, meaning this kind of action would have a much more significant
and devastating effect on our lives. Again,
we’re not talking technically about
the right to express these things or not, but we are talking about how freedom
of expression can be impeded by the power that organizations have and
wield. I’m thus concerned with arguments
justifying A&E’s actions based on their right to act in what they perceive
as their own interests.
Meanwhile, arguments defending Robertson (particularly, though
not exclusively, on the conservative political side) have their own set of
problems. I’ll use Glenn Beck as an
example here. He
equates what A&E has done to fascism, and indeed, the connection may
have some value. However, his articulation
of the connection is sorely lacking, namely because if there is fascism here,
that fascism is fueled by the same system that he himself arduously defends – a
capitalist, market-based economic system.
In capitalism, organizations seek to make profit, and they make
decisions based on appealing to customers, not on the basis of what necessarily
promotes greater freedom of expression or democracy. Sometimes those objectives may align, but often
they do not. The example of A&E’s
decision regarding Phil Robertson is right in line with the capitalist system
Beck and many other conservatives who are complaining about Robertson’s
treatment vehemently defend. In an effort
to manage their public image so that they might remain profitable, A&E has
made a decision about their association with Robertson. A&E is not the root of the fascism here,
and neither are GLAAD or the gay rights movements. Both have, quite conservatively in this case,
worked within the market system. GLAAD
pressured A&E with threat of losing business; A&E responded in an
effort to maintain business. If there’s
fascism here, we find it in the capitalist system in which these organizations work. If Beck is really that concerned about free
speech and fascism, he ought to examine much more fully his own commitment to
capitalism.
Meanwhile, let’s remember here that many of the same
conservative folks arguing that the treatment of Phil Robertson is an
impediment on free expression of views on sexuality are the same folks who
actually do advocate a system that
limits free expression of views on sexuality on the level of rights. They oppose many efforts to provide for and
protect the rights of folks who do not identify as heterosexual. This includes opposing gay marriage but also goes
much further than that to include many other political positions such as opposition
to anti-discrimination efforts in areas such as housing, healthcare, and
employment. Again, if these folks are so
committed to free expression, they ought to consider much more fully how their
own political commitments regarding sexuality work against free expression and democracy.
In the end, I don’t find A&E’s decision regarding
Robertson to be too consistent with a society that seeks democracy. I think a much more effective way of handling
this would be to place Robertson into a position in which he has to confront folks
who hold opposing opinions and who identify differently from him in terms of
sexually. (This is the kind of thing
that caused me to see greater value in what Russell Brand represents, because
it’s exactly what he did
with members of the Westboro Baptist Church.) If Robertson wishes to voice his views
publicly, then democracy would have him confront opposing views. A&E could facilitate that by making that
confrontation happen – and by confrontation, I mean not in a violent and
uncivil way, but in a nonviolent, empathetic way that makes Robertson have to
come into contact, dialogue, and work with individuals whose views oppose his
and whose sexualities differ from his.
Perhaps we could all learn something, and I think various sides of
the political aisle appear to have much to learn. Heck, for that matter, I’m sure I do too, and
the opportunity to learn that would be the kind of thing that might get me interested
enough to watch Duck Dynasty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment