How Netflix can help us go beyond stereotypes
Published on
Translation by:
marisa melfiWhat's the most important media form of our age? For Francesca Vecchioni, founder and president of the Milan-based association 'Diversity', the answer is clear: the TV series. We talked to her about about the role web streaming services have to play in shaping democracy: from challenging prejudice to representing reality in all its diversity.
Where did the idea for Diversity come from?
'Diversity' was born over dinner one night with a group of friends. We were talking about television, or, more to the point, about representation and how we and others did not feel represented. It was a discussion about the difficulties that people, mostly young people, have in imagining their future.
So, everything started from the need for identification?
Actually, 'Diversity' isn't only about individual identification. More importantly it's about the need to spread a culture of inclusion in society, for ethical reasons that are also linked to wellness, happiness, joy, and the possibility of collective growth.
Tell us more...
When we enter into contact with something or someone we experience as different, we all undergo a process of growth. Inclusion implies the importance of recognising and communicating diversity as a value-in-itself. There are so many reasons for this. Economic: because one can live better in an inclusive society, and this leads to more business. And cultural: because a more advanced society spreads better ideas.
How does your association's work differ to that of other non-profit organizations in the same field?
When we set up 'Diversity', we did so because, in Italy, there was not yet a non-profit organization focused specifically on inclusion within the field of communication: i.e. focusing on analysing and studying the mass media world and fields related to it.
"From a holistic perspective there has been some progress in the world of TV and mass media, but there is still much more to do"
So many associations which take to the streets are concerned with "vertical" areas of inclusion: LGBTQI+ associations, gender associations, and those linked to a given ethnicity. We wanted to do something different, something intersectional, because all of us have more than one identity.
'Diversity' is concerned with media analysis. Where are we at in terms of representation?
From a holistic perspective there has been some progress in the world of TV and mass media, but there is still much more to do. Let's consider the most important areas of diversity used in academic research, for example: gender identity, sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic condition and disability.
"Stereotypes will always exist, because in neuro-cognitive terms this is the way that we navigate reality; through models. What we need to recognise is that we all reason in this manner, but that there are different ways of understanding the Other"
None of these forms of representation has reached a "level of equality." For example, if we look through a generational lens, we'll notice that people who are very old or very young are rarely or poorly represented in adverts or TV series, or films or, more generally, the images the make up our collective imagination, which represents "reality" as we see it.
Speaking of "reality", how might we define that concept?
On an individual level we perceive reality first and foremost as a bubble, which is to say the things around us. The next level up are the things we experience through the media: we'll never have a total perception of things. But if the images that shape us are heavily dependent on stereotypes this can create problems.
How can we confront stereotypes?
Stereotypes will always exist, because in neuro-cognitive terms this is the way that we navigate reality; through models. What we need to recognise is that we all reason in this manner, but that there are different ways of understanding the Other. It reminds me of a story by Fredric Brown The Sentinel, which describes a war against the aliens: the protagonist is a soldier in a trench who kills an enemy. As the author goes on to describe the dead figure, however, you discover that it is, in fact, a human being. And so, until that moment, the reader had, without knowing it, been identifying with the alien. That's the point: we're always ourselves and other than ourselves at the same time. We shouldn't be afraid of that.
The Diversity Media Awards (DMA) are given to mass media that have demonstrated they can deal well with issues of representation, and which valorise diversity. What's the most powerful medium as far as these issues are concerned?
"TV series are among the most attached to reality, by which I mean they tend to represent many different facets of life, and touch on a broad range of issues"
The most powerful, at least in my view, are TV series. As part of DMA we give awards to films, to series, to individual programmes and also to channels and platforms.
How can you establish with certainty what media form is the most powerful?
Representation is, in some respects, a quantitative issue. Indeed one of the general factors we consider is: “How many people receive a given image?” The generalist TV in Italy, for example, still reaches a high number of people, and its impact, in quantitative terms, is very strong.
So what makes the series such an important format?
TV series are among the most attached to reality, by which I mean they tend to represent many different facets of life, and touch on a broad range of issues. And of course, even when they deal with history or fantasy or visions of the future, these shows are also speaking to our contemporary age.
They're always based in reality, in other words
Exactly. At the end of the day there's always a need to touch people's hearts.
Going back to diversity, how can we concretely distinguish between a good representation, and a forced, stereotypical spectacle'?
There are plenty of tests and models which address this. One example is the Vito Russo test, which concerns the representation of the LGBTQI+ community (within the context of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, GLAAD). According to this model, for a representation to be adequate it must meet three conditions: there must be one evidently LGBTQI+ character present; that character must not have their sexual orientation as their primary characteristic; the character must be sufficiently relevant to the plot that their absence would have a serous impact.
As far as LGBTQI+ rights go there have been a few embarrassing barometers: one example is the ILGA EU ranking which puts Italy at 35th place out of 49 in Europe.
What about some other issues?
One might evaluate if a disabled person is only on screen because of their condition, for example, or for a more complex reason. Put simply: it shouldn't be a stereotype. Otherwise you've got a problematic character. This is also true of generational profiles, or representing the traits of a particular culture. In other words, in an on-screen context, people should be inter-changable. One has to ask: "would this character be treated in the same way if they were a white, male, twenty-something?"
Often in TV that strives to represent diversity we find two approaches: one is to present a situation that is better than reality; the other focuses on social criticism.
Yes, both these visions are present: there is the hyper-positive story, which seeks to inspire society to be the best it can be, and then there's the critical approach. The latter is not a problem. Showing fears and discrimination is vital: but it's important to look if there is also an internal criticism, one which manages to understand, truly, the profundity of what is being represented.
Would you say that one of the "aims" of TV is to educate people about the value of diversity?
Naturally we shouldn't expect all who produce within a given format to follow a certain ethic: at the end of the day writing for TV is an art, so everyone enjoys freedom of expression. Nevertheless, it's important to recognise that specific representations will have a certain effect on society.
How does Italy fit into the European context with regard to the acceptance of and promotion of diversity?
As far as LGBTQI+ rights go there have been a few embarrassing barometers: one example is the ILGA EU ranking which puts Italy at 35th place out of 49 in Europe.
As for the countries that occupy the top positions of these rankings, is there a particular area of diversity that is valued more than others?
The most advanced countries are concerned with all the issues, because those who face inclusion-exclusion tend to do so on multiple levels. There are many examples of good practice in the northern European countries, yet none of them are perfectly fair.
Translated from Francesca Vecchioni: «Netflix e le serie tv possono affossare gli stereotipi»