Race and the refusal to name racism: consumption, identity and choice in the &lt;i&gt;Celebrity Big Brother&lt;/i&gt; House

Dania Thomas

doi:10.16997/eslj.56

Abstract

The centrality of consumption in the resolution of the ‘race row’ in the Celebrity Big Brother(CBB) House 2007 characterizes ‘the consumption politics of race’ engendered in response to ‘racism lite’ (adopting Mary Riddell’s term) - forms of racial harm articulated in normative frames specific to the entertainment industry. The regulatory response to racism litewas premised on a radical and post-modern framing of race and racial harm. When compared with the responses to racism outside the CBB House, this framing reveals a cautionary tale. The recognition of racism liteis confined to a market defined framework that attributes responsibility with a view to furthering economic agendas of dominant market actors. The danger is that this dominance can (as was the case with the ‘race row’ in the CBB House) henceforth define the terms on which racism is debated in contemporary society.

Highlights

Should the law be invoked when individual victims disavow racism with a view to increase status, wealth? In the absence of the possibility of making the broadcaster responsible to compensate the victim for racism, can we dismiss this particular instance of disavowal as insignificant? Or is it the case that the „race row‟ successfully tested the existing regulatory framework and we need to congratulate ourselves on its efficacy? Should this success be seen as a regulatory template that supplements or maybe even obviates the need for recourse to formal legal remedies under race legislation? Especially since it successfully apportions a „marketdefined‟ responsibility through a system of economic rewards for the choices a victim makes and sanctions „offensive and bullying‟ behaviour
The flip side of affirmative answers to any of these questions is whether with celebrity, the 8 danger that the articulation of racial harm as a factor in the production of celebrity makes racism itself „inauthentic and constructed‟? Will all racial harm in the media be named as the neutral „offensive and bullying behaviour‟ and dealt with in a market defined framework that valorises choice and the comfort of a target audience? Is there a danger that the dominance of consumer choice as a standard by which to assess racial harm makes racism in http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/eslj/issues/volume7/number1/thomas contemporary Britain mere fluff, a harm defined by media spectacle produced for consumption?
If viewed in its own terms why is the disavowal of racism pivotal? Does the 9 disavowal reflect a discomfort with the persistent reality of racism outside the CBB House and the failure of the law to deal with it? Is the disavowal of racism sanitizing programming decisions to increase viewing figures? Does this in turn maintain the hegemony of certain values „essentially tolerant and fair society‟, „ white-Englishness‟? Or does the regulatory response to the „race row‟ that accommodates media generated constructions of identity engendering a hegemonic commonsense about race, racism and identity? Do victims of racism in the streets need to negotiate this commonsense?

Summary

ASSESSING THE COMMONSENSE

An additional (and unexamined) aspect of the debate that followed the commonsense on 28 racism was that the scope of democratic accountability was broadened to include the consumption decisions of a target audience. For instance, instead of having a fixed (racial or ethnic) identity imposed on her, Shetty had the choice of deciding whether or not and when to strategically assert her identity as a non-White, non-English Asian woman with Indian citizenship Given that she disavowed racism, she voluntarily denied herself the protection of a legal framework that would impose legal responsibility on the Channel and the programmers to compensate her for the harm caused to her. The recognition of individual choice and strategic assertions of identity in the normative 46 frameworks specific to the entertainment industry as a regulatory template is an alternative to essentialism In this form it avoids the two necessary elements of race legislation and immigration policy: the ascription of an essentialised identity and the comparison with an essentially defined hegemonic „other‟. This dominance defines the terms on which racism is debated in contemporary society, the danger is that the distinction between the reality of racism outside the CBB House and racism lite in Reality TV is blurred

CONCLUSIONS

Findings

LINKS TO EXTERNAL SOURCES