On racism in the Big Brother House
I think the first thing to say would clearly be that there are three unpleasant, ignorant, culturally myopic young English girls in the Big Brother House who have made comments that are unacceptable and quite deplorable in any normal social setting. No one is trying to justify or excuse them. But equally is it right that they are so easily and quickly labelled as racist? Given the potential explosiveness of this charge, it is important to analyse this claim. Channel 4 has suggested instead that the dispute and comments made reflect cultural differences and ignorance. I think one needs to distinguish between the cause of the dispute and its ensuing salvoes. This allows the question of racism to be addressed. A second question is whether any of this ugly episode should have been broadcast at all.
To answer the first question, a distinction must be drawn between first and second order racism. First order racism is when verbal or physical abuse is racially motivated. In this instance this would be the case if a contestant in the BBH was resented simply for the colour of their skin. In other words, other housemates would object to them simply because they were of a different colour. This is clearly not the case here. The dispute between Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O’Meara on the one side and Shilpa Shetty on the other has more to do with the base human envies and game-playing that exist whenever a number of people are confined together in such a small space. In fact this is the very basis of the entertainment of BB. It is these interpersonal rivalries and bitchy coalitions which comprise the ‘human interest’ of the programme. The fault-line between the two ‘camps’ is caused by the striking contrasts in feminine wile, beauty and class on the one hand and the jealous, callow, crass English wannabes on the other. As Germaine Greer pointed out in The Guardian the other day, Shetty is an educated, successful individual who is perfectly capable of managing the situation within the House to her advantage, in the process marginalising the other girls and forming strong alliances with the males of the House. Her success in this, and in so many other aspects of her life, give her such a dominance over the others that they instantly feel threatened and huddle together for comfort. It is always the insecurities of the bully which drive them to taunt their victim so.
Now the ‘battle-line’ has been drawn it is clear that the antagonism is not racially motivated - it can not be considered first-order racism. In their immaturity and basic lack of intelligence the three resort to name calling and childish playground bullying tactics to retaliate against Shilpa’s obvious superiority. They pick on differences to make themselves feel better about themselves. For this to work, they need to find differences which are common to the three. It is clear then, that Shilpa’s Indian-ness provides just such ammunition. This is where second-order racism can come in. Once a dispute has been fashioned, when the verbal engagements descend into name calling this can sometimes include overtly racist comments. It is the difference you see, the weapon that comes first to the unthinking mind that is wielded simply to hurt. In the BBH there have been numerous comments along these lines. But we need to be a little careful here. Shilpa Shetty is not British Asian, she is an Indian national. And even if this does not diminish the unpleasantness of the comments thrown against her, is does change their character. For example, telling a British Asian woman to “f*ck off back to your own country”, is straight out of the BNP. It implies Britain is a white-only country, and to belong you have to be white. It is racist, pure and simple. To say it to a non-Briton is not racist but xenophobic, not to say disgraceful and unacceptable. To suggest, “they all eat with their fingers over there”, is similarly xenophobic, nationalistic and culturally ignorant, but it is not in itself racist. We need to be clear. To say something about Americans (for example) is not racism, as Americans are not a race of people, they are a nation. It is nationalistic xenophobia, not racism. It is no less acceptable, but we must draw the distinction to ensure that we do not overuse the word racism. There is a clear danger that, if in any instance such as this the equal rights establishment are quick to play the race card, they begin to lack proportion, measured judgement, and a public (which at best is indifferent about multiculturalism) will start to turn away - right into the arms of the people you’re trying to save them from: the BNP.
And this leads us to the second question, is it right to broadcast such exchanges. A reality TV show, celebrity or no, is a mirror to the country of its setting, and while no-one should be fooled into thinking Jade Goody represents mainstream opinion in the UK (please God, no), there is something uncomfortably close to the bone in all of this. The comments reflect ignorance, which stems from a lack of education, both in the classroom and real life experience. Most school leavers are ignorant as to the cultural norms of different countries across the world. Similarly most school leavers are to a large part segregated along racial lines. Not necessarily deliberately, but the nature of the racial distribution across the UK, although this has changed a lot even in the last 10 years, is for clusters of non-white groups within the major cities. Many white kids have gone to school with no or very few non-white kids. This lack of experience can lead to the tabloid attitudes to race and other cultures which have been seen in the BBH. To not show this because it is uncomfortable is to bury one’s head in the sand. This exists, it may be marginal, but it needs to be dealt with. It is behaviour which needs to be made an example of. It needs to be publicly hung up, pointed to, and sternly rebuked as unacceptable. Any counter-argument that by showing this sort of thing somehow says to people that this is acceptable is ludicrous. This country can not have sunk so low such that people would tune into BB, hear Jade et al espouse their cheap chides and think, “oh, it’s OK to think that, I’ll regurgitate that tomorrow”. Anyone looking to Jade for moral norms needs help. Equally anyone looking on thinking that this sort of thing represents mainstream behaviour cannot be serious. Even ignoring the amount of legislation in this country to protect minorities, anyone looking around the cities of the UK, its work or leisure places, will see diverse races working and playing together. That isn’t to say there isn’t segregation of a sort, to a degree, but it is not the explosive two-country situation of the French banuilles. (There. Knew I could get some French-bashing in somewhere!)
The point is that this isn’t a racist country on paper, but of history. And while laws can be changed quickly, attitudes take longer. Those who live in multicultural areas of the UK find that any residual uncertainties quickly evaporated, and the multicultural face of the media increasingly presents this reality to everyone in the UK. Part of this education process is the exposure of past prejudices, and somewhat surprisingly and accidentally BB has contributed to this. While I would contend that the majority of comments made were nationalistic xenophobia, and only a couple are second-order racism, this misses the bigger point. There is a danger within the UK that a section of society will be left behind, economically, socially, culturally and politically as Globalisation draws together a cosmopolitan middle class of which Shilpa is clearly a part and which threatens and confuses the traditions and comforts of the (white) working class of which Jade is such a recognisable example. It is this which is the real issue thrown up by BB, which they should be allowed to show and of which we should all take note.