Much like Egalitarianism and its rhetorical equivalent Equality, Representation is a political weapon, and one of a modern incarnation. It is a weapon designed precisely for an age of mass culture and technologically distributed media. It rode the wave of television’s proliferation in the west across the 60’s and 70’s and well into the era of twenty four hour cable programming. The exponential take up of television and the subsequent programming boom revolutionised western cultures and how they were consumed. It became, and still is in the form of streaming, the dominant media outlet. This has had a number of effects on society —too many to discuss here. One major effect was the increased centralisation of cultural production, as a small number of massive television networks consume the public’s time. An evolution of the mass-culture radio boom of the 1920’s that preceded it, television gave direct access to not only what the public heard in the home, but now too the very images and scenes of the programming being viewed. Access to this much of the public’s time made it fertile ground for politics, and on a grander scale a powerful tool in the shaping of the public’s perceptions over generations.
Around the early 1970’s we begin to see in feminist academic literature the phrase “representation in media”, one which we are all too common with now. It is a simple concept on the face of it; media should better represent the makeup of society, which is roughly half female; therefore, there should be a greater representation of women in media, in order to tackle sexism. Said media in question being television in the majority of cases. This of course carries with it either the implicit, or sometimes explicitly stated, assumption that society is itself sexist. Other arguments about “painting positive images” aside. It is clear that a charge is being placed upon those who do not comply with this call for representation, those who would wish to ignore this influence when producing their programming must of course be sexist, more on this later. Whether or not these charges held any sway is of little importance yet, we must only focus on the pattern of what is being demanded and to whom influence and power would be given to. It is up to the righteous intellectuals, of course, to dictate what the makeup of society was, and so to was it them who should declare when representation is adequately proportioned and framed.
The issue of Representation grows into the 80’s and 90’s fully flourishing into the constant whining we see today on social media, as progressive activists take every opportunity to chide any piece of media which doesn’t suit their image of society, or rather what they might wish it to be. Through its continued popularisation beyond academic spheres, it became another pet issue across many left-wing activist groups. Representation was no longer just a tool for battling the evils of sexism. It was unleashed on the forces of racism, homophobia, islamophobia, and so on over the years, so that now its effects are near unavoidable in mass media. The networking and collaboration between activist groups created a much larger pressure than that of the small number of intellectuals prior to, and allowed for pressure to be directed in a much more institutional fashion. No longer was the charge of “sexist” an attempt at public smearing. It was now a legal and financial threat holding behind it the power of organisations like the NAACP and the ADL, yet still addressing itself to the public as that which appealed to fairness and was in the public's interest as they with their intellectual backing are the ones to know.
As the 90’s unfolded, television became fully beholden to these pressure groups and went to great lengths to implement as much representation as they could manage, even to the extent of producing programming specifically for chosen demographics. Funnily enough, many of the pressure groups didn’t like this later development, many felt it played up to stereotypes, or had the hallmarks of “blaxploitation”. Might it be that these activists wished for all the public to witness “representative” programming, as opposed to programming that directly represented one group which was intended for said group? The answer need not be given, as it is clear to anyone that studies the workings of leftist social engineering, that children are always the target of subversion. The long march through, not the institutions, but through the generations is a method employed by progressivism since the mid-19th century, one which operates through education.
“In the United States, Lester Frank Ward (1841–1913), a father of academic sociology and a devotee of Comte, advocated the creation of a “telic and dynamic society” that would pursue rational collective ends. Sociological reformers hoped to implant these ends in all citizens. Ward’s concept of “realistic education” influenced heavily Thorstein Veblen, Dewey, and other early-twentieth-century American reformers. Such figures found in public education a training ground for an enlightened democratic citizenry—one that might be cleansed of unseemly religious beliefs, among other flaws.”
Representation wasn’t limited just to its use to assault and subvert television; it carried over into video games and was then used to anachronistically attack historical media and history itself. In the same vein to the progressive, education is not to be limited just to the school grounds, education can be done at home –even in secret. Remember that the purpose of education to those who seek progressive ends is not to teach you new information or techniques for your own ends, but instead to shape you appropriately for the society they see fit to set upon you.
If shaping people is your aim, then where better to start with the malleable minds of children. This is what makes the slippery slope so slippery, the depiction of current and past society in mass media erodes and destroys the living memory of the old world as generations pass. All the while it is celebrated across social science departments as the wicked ways of a bygone age are “educated” out of the youth.
“Television is available without ceremony, without a special journey and without companionship. Its pleasures are increasingly solitary, especially in the millions of homes where it is on most of the time and where there is a set in each child’s bedroom.”
To Jacques Ellul the effectiveness of mass media in terms of generating social change was great due to its capability to address one both as an individual, and yet as one that was part of the masses. It was able to approach “you”, whilst still approaching all the other “yous” all the same. The watcher, listener or reader who consumes mass media knows in some way that he does not do so alone. For all he knows the whole of society too is taking interest and being involved in the consumption of whatever media he consumes. The irony of course being that the more media you consume as an individual the less connected you are to the masses despite all carrying out the same behaviour. Ellul refers to this as the “lonely crowd” a concept similar to that which is often bluntly handled as atomisation.
“The most favourable moment to seize a man and influence him is when he is alone in the mass: it is at this point that propaganda can be most effective.”
In its final and most pervasive form representation acts as the propaganda mechanism for what is commonly referred to as demographic replacement. As to be expected the progressives take, hold and make use of power wherever they can find it. So as to implement their image of what a perfect society is–and educate the public into compliance with it. This is why we now see the blatant overrepresentation in mass media of chosen demographics, to the point of erasing the roles and performances of native westerners who are not willing to fit the mould. The public are assured that they are being represented, and (in the case of the UK) it is argued time and time again that doing so is:
Creating media in the “true” image of the British public.
That doing so is common sense and in being so is the “common” opinion.
It is a fight against racism, sexism, homophobia etc.
That it is inline with a good sense of fairness.
There is a sense that they too understand their Ellul well, for they place and subsequently address the individual as a member of British society, the mass as it were, which according to them has already made its mind up. So too do they throw in the notion that this is a righteous development, one which any educated person would celebrate. Once again positive images of the right state of mind within a false sense of social pressure, leaving very little to choice for the lonely crowd. Who dimly follow along.
To some extent one can’t entirely blame the public for accepting such a case, to be against what is being argued for is already being framed as prejudicial –that folly of the social pariah. The case that is being made is not entirely true either, for the proponents of representative media do not care for reflecting anything “true” about British society, other than that which suits the image they wish to portray. Nor do they think much of a “common opinion”, progressive activists and intellectuals see themselves as above the common man. Otherwise there would be no drive to educate the commoners into the progressive orthodoxy. This also justifies their methods of deception and personal attack on those who in some way reject the false images being portrayed. No matter the reason the opponent will be branded with the appropriate “ists” and may find themselves under the boot of civil or legal disputes, further creating a pressure on the public to comply no matter how far the representation goes.
There is a deliberate strategy at play here: the Motte-and-Bailey fallacy, wherein a proponent of an argument holds two differing positions at once. One being a radical position–this being the Bailey–which can be quickly disbanded with and replaced with a moderate one–the Motte–which can be held on to as a latter line of defence for the initial argument.
In the case of representation, the radical position is that of attempting to force an image that represents the society progressives wish to create, they do this by demanding that lurid and skewed perspectives be integral to the programming viewed by the public. Yet when they are challenged on this as a blatant misrepresentation of Britain, be whatever aspect has been overblown, understated or smeared as a backwards old-worldism. The progressive then leaps to the safety of the moderate position, that fairness is surely a British value, that we are past the days of racism and that being against these notions puts you on the outside of civil society. This portrays the opponent as a radical, a position which most dare not adopt given the threat of possible repercussion for those of any social significance. The radical position is then given credence as the “right thing to do” with its new found moderate appeal and power.
The radical case of representation and the power it has been granted allow for programming to be implanted with racial demographic shifts, unrealistic LGBT representation and generally negative portrayals of native western populations. In doing so, the images of the past disappear altogether, even being replaced with the brown-washing of historical depictions. It is worth noting this is not just agitation for agitation's sake, there is a reason for this pivot. From representation to overrepresentation the method has not changed, only the target. As demoralising as it may be to see the supposed public celebration of alternative lifestyles and non-western culture within media, it is not the main goal.
The purpose of such material is to further involve and integrate those who are already participating or are open to alternative lifestyles and those from non-western cultures into western societies. This development reflects the innovative propaganda techniques adopted by those who wish to create social change, both the consumers of the programs and many of the activists themselves are plagued by a propaganda that attempts not to change their mind or views, but instead amplifies pre-existing views within them to the point of engaging in action by their own choice that suits the propagandists’ goals. This will of course capture many of an indifferent opinion, but this is just a consequence of their suggestibility. Children are of course a special case for this phenomena and can be considered as being subject to pre-propaganda that may go in part to set their very views and values, the proliferation of content that normalises sexual behaviour in adolescents is evidently an attempt to create lasting social change the likes of which we have never before seen.
For the consumer the action is simple and takes the shape of passive acceptance and the consumption of media that portrays the various diversities foisted upon them. For the activist who demands and carries out representation they take on a more serious task, their call to action is answered by a constant mobilisation for the one cause–the destruction of the west. We can see this is in the shift of strategy and the increasing intensity of representative media, in the 90’s activists took issue with what were in some effect “black-only” programming, at the time many would have overlooked this as some appeal to decency or discrimination. Yet we can now see that as programming moves towards being entirely anti-western and consequently anti-white in nature. Not a mention is given about this, for of course it is the intention. Just showing foreign faces to white people on television no longer garners the social change the propagandists are after, now they seek to demonise white people and glorify non-western cultures for a pre-convinced and non-western audience.
To some people this will be to little or no surprise, yet I see few who draw the appropriate conclusions from this. There are those who demand that an institution like the BBC should represent western cultures or be held publicly accountable, this of course is laughable if modern mass institutions could be held to account by the public or through legal action for discrimination against westerners, we would never be in this mess in the first place. The only way in which the BBC can act as it does is that it fears no accountability, for propaganda must be total. It is only the widespread acceptance and deference to progressive doctrine that makes this possible—doubly so in its mask wearing moderate form. Elements of society like the BBC can then be hijacked to achieve radical ends yet in times of scrutiny cling to its public image as a well-meaning neutral entity. Power pervades everything, it is a prerequisite for the enactment of social change. Lord Reith, founding member of the BBC, knew all too well how integral power was to the operation of media in accordance with a set of values, he “...had warned that it was only the brute force of monopoly which allowed his corporation to take a conservative moral position.” Today the monopoly is very different; it is one of an ideological backing that wields institutional power not the other way round. This monopoly can of course be challenged, and there is very much a space for alternative media. I dread to think that we should only limit ourselves to purely digital media. I for one hope that westerners as a whole take offence to television programming and seek greener cultural pastures, even if designed for a mass consumption pattern.
Further video essays can be found on our YouTube. Thank you to Plasmarob for the copy editing.