We’re all familiar with them: The dumb blonde or jock. The homely, repressed, spinster librarian. The clueless dad left all alone to do laundry, or—horrors—watch the kids. I could go on, but I’m sure you have a few of your own you could add.
I’m talking about stereotypes, of course. Said to be based on some partial truth (this is debatable), they provide a superficial, quick way of assessing individuals when little information, other than readily observable traits, is available.
Some stereotypes may be thought of as harmless, or even beneficial (i.e. Asian Americans as “model minorities,” though they are beginning to chafe at this label); others are unquestionably harmful. The problem with any stereotype is that it reduces individuals to categories based on race, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc., without taking their individuality into account. For example, is “woman,” “gay,” “Indian,” the sum total of all there is to know about anyone? Most people of reasonable intelligence would say not. Why, then, are Americans as a whole so tolerant of persistent stereotyping in the media? It could be just me, but the problem seems to be getting worse.
There was a time, in the not-too-distant past, when I would experience a quick burst of righteous indignation, or, more likely, mild irritation, upon witnessing the more flagrant flaunting of stereotypes in the media, then peacefully resume my day. But now—whether due to advancing age or the fact that, as a mother, I care more now than before about the state of the world my child will inherit—my tolerance threshold seems to have radically decreased, and continues to diminish.
A couple of years ago, Chevrolet had a commercial, in heavy rotation, particularly on Oprah Winfrey’s OWN channel, which it called “America the Beautiful” in celebration of its 100th anniversary. The commercial featured sepia-toned photographs harkening back to a time in the country, when, apparently, there were no Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Indian people, no single-parent households and, most assuredly, no gays. Only White people are featured: postwar, wholesome, nuclear families and carefree friends sharing the joys of their Chevrolets. All this with, ironically, Ray Charles singing his soulful version of “America the Beautiful” in the background (and produced during a time when we have our first U.S. president of color).
Incensed, I went to Oprah’s website intending to ask how she, as a woman of color, could countenance running such an ad on her network. But, unable to find a viewer feedback section (my heightened nerves may have been to blame), I went to Chevrolet’s site and wrote:
“Re your new commercial featuring the song ‘America the Beautiful’: Really? I am disappointed that, although an African American man is performing this iconic song, no African Americans—or any other people of color, for that matter—are shown. Have African Americans and other people of color not purchased Chevys over the years? What ‘America’ are you living in? The vision of this country that you are apparently trying to evoke does not exist; in fact, it never existed. Really Chevy—this was a bad call. What were your marketers thinking? I have spoken to other African Americans, and they feel the same.”
Two days later, a Chevrolet Customer Service Specialist named Aya e-mailed me. The response read, in part:
“… As the world’s largest automaker, GM markets vehicles to all Americans, and we value all of our customers. We are highly interested in learning about the experiences and opinions of our customers. This type of information is very important to us in evaluating public reaction to our advertisement.
Feedback from customers like you is very helpful to us. We have taken your comments very seriously, and they have been brought to the attention of the appropriate people in our organization for future consideration. Because of your concerns, we will review and continue to monitor our advertising practices to ensure they are consistent with our policies.”
Now, you may scoff, but I never saw this commercial again. Of course, I’m not presuming that it was discontinued as a direct result of my lone complaint, but I, at least, never saw it again.
Contrast GM’s response to my feedback with that of Progressive Insurance, which is currently running a commercial, part of its popular “Flo” series, which fairly revels in stereotype. The commercial features a loud, fat, aggressive African American woman shouting, “Where’s Flo?!” When she accosts Flo, Flo cringes as if she’s about to be smacked. Enough said?
Encouraged by GM’s positive reception of my note, I e-mailed Progressive last month, writing:
“I am a Progressive policy holder, and I am highly offended by the most recent ‘Flo’ commercial featuring a ‘stereotypical’ African American woman. As an African American woman, I believe this loud, pushy, overweight caricature is a derogatory representation. Just as you ended your highly offensive ‘Chinese restaurant’ commercial, please end this one, or replace it with a normal portrayal of an African American woman. Most of us are not loud and pushy. Please do not perpetuate this harmful stereotype. I have spoken with other African Americans who feel the same way. Do you not conduct focus groups before you release new ads? If you do not do something soon, I may switch to another insurance company.
The next day, a Progressive internet representative Aimee C. responded:
“We make every effort to deliver a positive message that will appeal to all our customers. I’m sorry to hear that for you, we missed the mark. We take your feedback seriously, and I’ve already passed it on to our advertising department …”
Needless to say, my e-mail has had no discernible impact. In fact, the commercial seems to have gone into even heavier rotation since my e-mail to Progressive. I don’t know whether Aimee C., forwarded my note to the appropriate department, or assuming she did, whether anyone even read it. Now of course, I didn’t expect that my threat of cancellation would leave Progressive quaking in its boots, but I seem to recall hearing somewhere that one consumer complaint is considered by large companies to represent 100,000 consumers who don’t bother to make contact.
I’m sure many people find the ad funny and/or amusing. Their positive feedback likely outweighs my objection by far. So what does this all have to do with Unitarian Universalism?
“The inherent worth and dignity of every person” is the first of our seven principles. When we tolerate the propagation of seemingly harmless stereotypes in the media, by either not speaking out and/or continuing to financially support the purveyors of such stereotypes, we are complicit.
And lest you think I’m overreacting, stereotypes taken to the extreme, as we’ve seen in the George Zimmerman case, can, and have, had tragic consequences. Zimmerman assumed that because Trayvon was Black and wearing a hoodie, that he did not belong in Zimmerman’s neighborhood and was a physical threat to him. (For more information on Unitarian Universalist response to the Zimmerman case, see Lynn Unger’s “I’ll Stand Her Ground” in the Fall 2013 issue of UU World.)
“Every individual” should mean that each and every one of us is taken to be a unique entity, and not a mere representation of some random, socially constructed category. One characteristic, however you define that characteristic—gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.—does not define an individual. Any transgression of a person’s individuality should not be tolerated.
