Is Diversity the New Black?
An Intersectional Analysis of the Netflix Original Master of None.
Marieke Hulzinga 10352589 26 June 2017 Sudeep Dasgupta
Toni Pape
Television and Cross-Media Culture University of Amsterdam
Index
1. Introduction 3
2. Media and theories about race, gender, stereotypes and intersectionality 6
2.1 Race 6
2.1.2 Binary oppositions 10
2.1.3 Whiteness 11
2.2 Gender 12
2.2.1 Three problems 12
2.2.2 Gender Trouble & Undoing Gender 15
2.3 Stereotypes 17
2.4 Intersectionality 19
3. Analysis of Master of None 22
3.1 Race in Master of None 24
3.1.1 Everyday racism 24
3.1.2 Stereotypes 27
3.1.3 Whitewashing and whiteness 29
3.2 Gender in Master of None 33
3.2.1 Masculinity and performance 33
3.2.2 Performing being a woman 35
4. Conclusion 42
5. References 48
1. Introduction
“Diversity is not a trending topic.” – Viola Davis (Betancourt n.pag.)
Netflix started as a DVD provider in 1997 but gradually moved into a global streaming media provider (Lima, Moreira and Calazans 242). “It was in 2013 that Netflix started to invest more
in original content, launching series after series exclusively for its platform” (248). The debut of these ‘Netflix originals’ came with House of Cards (2013) and Orange Is the New Black (2013), with many other projects that followed. The decision to produce original content turned out to be a wise decision. The original content that was published in 2014 seemed to be Netflix’s most efficient content (McDuling n.pag.). “These originals cost less money […] than most of their licensed content, much of which is well known and created by the top studios” (n.pag.). In the end, it turned out to be cheaper to produce content than to license it.
Because of the global success of their original content, Netflix’s pace of releasing new shows steadily increased (Luckerson n.pag.). House of Cards and Orange Is the New Black turned out to “make big splashes for Netflix, winning fans, critical raves, Emmy nominations and new customers” (Levin n.pag.). Ted Sarandos, the Chief Content Officer of Netflix, stated in the beginning of 2015: “We can successfully support about twenty original scripted series every year, with a new series or a new season every two to three weeks, and still maintain a level of quality we expect” (n.pag.).
Netflix and its success has generated a new and wide discussion. Where Hollywood and broadcast networks still struggle with its diversity problem, it has become clear that “Netflix has become the unlikely architect for a sorely needed solution” (Kilson n.pag.). Kilson continues: “As the streaming content giant strives to become a legitimate production company, it is not so quietly putting together a portfolio of programming that includes a wide array of talent across lines of race, ethnicity, and gender” (n.pag.). Content like “Narcos,
Marco Polo, Aziz Ansari’s Master of None, and the critically acclaimed Orange Is the New Black have been rightly lauded as great TV, and for featuring some of the most diverse
casting in recent memory” (Kilson n.pag.).
This thesis will specifically focus on the Netflix original Master of None (2015), created by and starring comedian and actor Aziz Ansari. The show, among other recent shows, has “openly acknowledged how far America has to go when it comes to issues of institutional racism and interpersonal bias” (Ryan n.pag.). “The willingness to take on thorny topics and explore a wide variety of American lives has paid dividends […]” (n.pag.). The show has received “more than its share of media and awards attention, as well as devotion from fans, who have long been hungry to see a more representative array of characters depicted on the small screen” (n.pag.).
What Netflix is doing with their original content, is similar to what happened with the big American broadcast networks between 1965 and 1970. Michele Hilmes describes how during those years, for example, “CBS […] went after a young, urban, more socially relevant image” (258-250). A hit like The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970), “took up the abandoned tradition of early 1950s career-woman comedies and transposed a budding feminism onto it […]. Mary provided an engaging, nonthreatening introduction to the gender revolution that would find fuller depiction in the late seventies and eighties” (272).
By going down this new path in programming, “CBS moved into first place in the ratings overall and gained a critical reputation for quality programming” (259). Other
networks also followed: “NBC took its socially relevant revisions into more ethnic and racial diversity […]. The drama I Spy brought Bill Cosby to the screen in 1965 […]” (259), who later starred in The Cosby Show (1984), “TV’s first professional, African American Father
Knows Best family […]” (306).
01: The Mary Tyler Moore Show (Fame Focus) 02: The Cosby Show (Glamour)
What is clear, is that Master of None is not the first to discuss issues concerning race or gender. Before Netflix even started, there were already different TV shows challenging the stereotypes of race and gender. The shows that have been mentioned before, have been able to pave the way for new shows to continue the conversation or the struggle about these
important issues. Master of None can be seen as a modern-day descendant of the shows that went before. But one thing that makes it different from aforementioned shows and makes it outstanding, is that it tackles both issues of race and gender. It is with this seemingly intersectional focus that the following research question will be proposed: How does the
Netflix show Master of None break with stereotypes concerning the media representation of race and gender?
The structure of the thesis is as follows; the first chapter is dedicated to theory from Cultural studies in order to explain the media representations of race and gender. The focus with this chapter lies on exploring and explaining the most important concepts and theories, to understand the categories of race and gender in relation to media. Furthermore, there is a focus on the notion of stereotypes, and there is a section dedicated to the importance of intersectionality.
All of this is combined to analyze the first season of Master of None in chapter three. For clarification reasons, there is one section of the analysis that focuses on how the show discusses race, the other section focuses on gender. However, intersectional elements are taken into account in both of these sections. Not only does this analysis focus on the content (plot) of the episodes, it also looks at the form and style (audiovisual elements). After this analysis, the research question is answered in the conclusion.
2. Media and theories about race, gender, stereotypes and intersectionality
“How individuals construct their social identities […] is shaped by commodified texts
produced by media for audiences that are increasingly segmented by the social constructions of race and gender. Media, in short, are central to what ultimately come to represent our
What is explained with this first quote, is the important role media play in representing our so-called social realities (297). Cottle also writes that: “media perform a crucial role in the public representation of unequal social relations and the play of cultural power” (2). Representation, then, is important, because “it is in and through representations […] that members of the media audience are variously invited to construct a sense of who ‘we’ are in relation to who ‘we’ are not, whether as ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’, ‘colonizer’ and ‘colonized’, ‘citizen’ and ‘foreigner’, ‘normal’ and ‘deviant’, ‘friend’ and ‘foe’, ‘the west’ and ‘the rest’” (2).
This chapter takes an intersectional approach to analysing the media representations of race, gender and stereotypes in order to analyse Master of None in the following chapter. Each topic is discussed in a different section, using the most important authors and concepts within Cultural studies.
2.1 Race
Brooks & Hébert claim that: “[…] most critical and cultural approaches to media studies work from the premise that Western industrialized societies are stratified by hierarchies of race, gender, and class that structure our social experience” (298).
An important thing to mention in discussing race, is that it is a “cultural and historical category” (Storey 171). Simon Cottle explains that “historically, ideas of ‘race’ developed as a means to differentiate social groups as biologically discrete subspecies marked out by physical or phenotypical appearance, innate intelligence and other ‘natural’ dispositions” (4) in order “to measure, calibrate, typologize and rank people in a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority” (4). When seen in the context of Western imperialism and colonialism “such efforts served to naturalize […] oppressive social relations” (4). Race is also often understood as a ‘social construction’ (26), as Andersen writes: “race is a social construction, news
perhaps to some, but a point known by sociologists since the founding of the discipline” (26). What this means, is that “race is not ‘real’ but stems from social relations […]” (26). The role of the media becomes clear in realizing how systems of power and domination have found expression in, what Cottle calls, “the production and circulation of popular cultural imagery […]” (4). How are these systems of power and domination visible in media and how can they be explained?
One of the most important concepts from Cultural studies in discussing the predominance of one group over the other, comes from Antonio Gramsci with the concept of ‘hegemony’. In addition to Gramsci, other sources will be used to further explain this concept.
Gramsci considers “a crucial conceptual distinction between power based on
‘domination’ and the exercise of ‘direction’ or ‘hegemony’” (20). The function of ‘hegemony’ can be used by the dominant group in society (145). Gramsci describes how there is a
“consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group” (145). How this works, is that “this consent is ‘historically’ caused by the prestige (and consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its position and function in the world of production” (145). Popular culture and the mass media play a role in this. For Gramsci, this is “where hegemony is produced, reproduced and transformed […]” (Strinati 156). Strinati, summarizes Gramsci’s
understanding of ‘hegemony’ as:
[…] a cultural and ideological means whereby the dominant groups in society,
including fundamentally but not exclusively the ruling class, maintain their dominance by securing the ‘spontaneous consent’ of subordinate groups, including the working class. This is achieved by the negotiated construction of a political and ideological consensus which incorporates both dominant and dominated groups. (153)
For Gramsci, the hegemony of a political class meant that “that class had succeeded in persuading the other classes of society to accept its own moral, political and cultural values (Joll 99). Joll continues, that “if the ruling class is successful, then this will involve the minimum use of force […]” (99).
What becomes clear with looking at Ransome’s writing, is that with the concept of ‘hegemony’, Gramsci has found a way to describe different modes of social control “available to the dominant social group” (150). Gramsci distinguishes “between coercive control which is manifest through direct force or the threat of force, and consensual control which arises when individuals ‘willingly’ or ‘voluntarily’ assimilate the world-view or hegemony of the dominant group; an assimilation which allows that group to be hegemonic” (150).
‘Hegemony’ can then be summarized as a “’consensual’ acceptance by subordinate groups of the ideas, values and leadership of the dominant groups” (Strinati 154), but “the extent to which the subordinate groups genuinely consent to the hegemony of the dominant group is open to question” (154).
One way of understanding why ‘hegemony’ is accepted and how it is able to work, is because it “relies upon the granting of concessions to subordinate groups which do not pose a threat to the overall framework of domination” (Strinati 154). Gramsci himself writes in
Selections From the Prison Notebooks:
the fact of hegemony presupposes that account be taken of the interests and the tendencies of the groups over which hegemony is to be exercised, and that a certain compromise equilibrium should be formed—in other words, that the leading group should make sacrifices […]. (161)
One way of looking at the connection between ‘hegemony’ and race, is by using Hall’s article “Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity”. Furthermore, Robert Carley’s article on the interrelation between Gramsci and Hall on this topic is used to further explain the writings of these two authors. Hall begins his article by reminding readers that Gramsci was a “political intellectual and a socialist activist on the Italian political scene” (5), and not an “academic or scholarly theorist of any kind” (Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race
and Ethnicity 5). His writing was also based on his “own society and times” (5), did not
contain any “academic purpose” (5), and was not specifically targeted to discuss racism. One question Hall raises is: how is it that Gramsci’s work informs contemporary analyses of race, given that during the period in which he wrote most scholarly conceptions of race were rooted in biological, socio-biological, and criminological approaches? (Carley 415). “Through Gramsci, Hall is able to demonstrate that throughout the 20th century – from, for
example, the early phases of mass industrialization to globalization, from late colonialism to post-colonial independence movements, from modernity through to current neoliberal perspectives – the cultural phenomenology of race becomes a de facto socio and political economic category” (Carley 415). Carley explains with this how the notion of race has transformed, for it was first seen as a biological concept, and then moved on to becoming a socio and political economic category.
Hall’s aim at the end of his article, is to describe ways that “Gramsci can make a solid contribution to the analysis of race and ethnicity” (Carley 417-418). One way in how Gramsci contributes to this, is by helping to “interrupt decisively the homogenization of racism” (Hall,
Gramsci’s Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity 23). The homogenization of racism
is the notion that “[…] because racism is everywhere a deeply anti-human and anti-social practice, that therefore it is everywhere the same – either in its forms, its relations to other structures and processes, or its effects” (23).
Hall ends his article, by writing that “Gramsci’s original conception of hegemony is not about the solidity and endurance of power through the formation of stolid structures, but rather, that it is about placing cultural difference and cultural meaning and mobilization into a relationship with power and justifications for the continuity of power” (Carley 425).
What is made clear, is how power works in the form of ‘hegemony’, how this is done by the use of consent and how this can be tied to the hierarchy of race. With this discussion of race, it is not just about power, as Hall explains, it is about placing cultural difference and meaning into a relationship with power and justifications for the continuity of power (425).
When this is connected to the role that media play, what is highlighted is that coercive power can be found in institutions of civil society, such as the mass media, who are
“responsible for producing and disseminating hegemonic power” (Gramsci, Prison Notebooks 91). What has been explained before, is that ‘hegemony’ implies the consent of the
dominated. However, most often, hegemony does not appear this way in society. It most often “appears as the “common sense” that guides our everyday, mundane understanding of the world” (Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks 333), naturalizing oppressive discourses. An analysis of media representations is therefore crucial to understanding how racial hierarchies are established in hegemonic power.
2.1.2 Binary oppositions
Another important approach to the discussion of race, comes from Jacques Derrida with his explanation of binary oppositions. Derrida is a French philosopher who is most often
associated with post-structuralism and linguistics. However, his idea of binary oppositions is an important one to discuss for this research for it shows that even in language, in the terms that are being used, there is a presence of power.
Derrida states that when it comes to binary oppositions: “We must recognize that, within the familiar philosophical oppositions, there is always a violent hierarchy. One of the two terms controls the other, holds the superior position. To deconstruct the opposition is first to overturn the hierarchy” (c).
Stuart Hall uses Derrida’s argument to discuss race and racism in contemporary culture. Between binary oppositions, he says, there is no “peaceful coexistence”
(Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices 258). “One of the two term governs, the other or has the upper hand” (258). Examples that Hall gives of binary oppositions are “white/black, day/night, masculine/feminine, British/alien” (235). Even though these binary oppositions “have the great value of capturing the diversity of the world within their either/or extremes, they are also a rather crude and reductionist way of
establishing meaning” (235). Hall further explains the problem of binary oppositions as follows: “Thus, while we do not seem able to do without them, binary oppositions are also open to the charge of being reductionist and over-simplified – swallowing up all distinctions in their rather rigid two-part structure” (235). Because there is always a “relation of power between the poles of a binary opposition” (235), one should really write “white/ black, men/ women, masculine/ feminine, upper class/ lower class, British/ alien to capture this power dimension in discourse” (235).
Another interesting aspect of binary oppositions is described by John Storey, who writes: “For Derrida, the binary opposition […] is never a simple structural relation; it is always a relation of power, in which one term is in a position of dominance with regard to the other. Moreover, the dominance of one over the other […] is not something that arises
‘naturally’ out of the relationship, but something that is produced in the way the relationship is constructed” (129).
2.1.3 Whiteness
Another term that is tied to the discussion of race is ‘whiteness’. “In terms of the population of the world, white people do not make up a significant number. Yet in terms of power and privilege, they are the dominant colour” (Storey 183).
Richard Dyer writes in the chapter “The Matter of Whiteness” about the “imagery of race” (9). With his focus on white people he wants to show that “[…] race is not only
attributable to people who are not white, nor is imagery of non-white people the only racial imagery” (9). The problem of only discussing race when it is applied to non-white people, and not racially seeing and naming white people, is that “they/we function as a human norm. Other people are raced, we are just people” (10). This problem is connected to power as well. As Dyer writes: “There is no more powerful position than that of being ‘just’ human” (10).
This problem of ‘non-racing’ white people is most visible in “the habitual speech and writing of white people in the West” (10). Dyer gives the example of synopses of films, where it might say: “Comedy in which a cop and his black sidekick investigate a robbery”,
“Skinhead Johnny and his Asian lover Omar set up a launderette”, “Feature film from a promising Native American director”, and so on (10). This idea of power then also leads to representation. Dyer writes: “Research repeatedly shows that in Western representation whites are overwhelmingly and disproportionately predominant, have the central and elaborated roles, and above all are placed as the norm, the ordinary, the standard” (11).
Dyer concludes by stressing the importance of researching and discussing this notion of ‘whiteness’. He writes: “[…] as long as whiteness is felt to be the human condition, then it alone both defines normality and fully inhabits it” (11). What has been made clear by Dyer is that “the equation of being white with being human secures a position of power” (11). This “(white) hegemony” (12) is problematic, because: “[…] white people create the dominant images of the world and don’t quite see that they thus construct the world in their own image; white people set standards of humanity by which they are bound to succeed and others bound to fail” (12).
This first section has highlighted the fact, that race has moved from being a biological category to a social category, which “stems from social relations” (Andersen 26). Race as a social category, is viewable in society, where it is used to establish hierarchies “that structure our social experiences” (Brooks & Hébert 298). With the discussion of Gramsci’s
‘hegemony’, it has been made clear how popular culture and the mass media play a role in producing, reproducing and transforming hegemony from one dominant group over another group (Strinati 156) which is important to understand in discussing how race works in society.
With the focus on binary oppositions, and the notion of whiteness, it shows that with divisions such as white and black, there is an inequality that reinforces the unequal power relations that are already present. How these terms and theories all come together is in showing that ‘whiteness’, or ‘being white’ is the norm in society, it is the dominant class and the binary opposition that holds the superior position.
2.2 Gender
This research also looks at the social construction of gender and the role media play in this. For the discussion of gender, feminism and the feminist critique of popular culture are used to highlight that “inequalities in gender power relations are socially and culturally constructed” (Strinati 165). Some main topics are important to mention within this discussion: “These include popular cultural representations which marginalize or stereotype women, the relative absence of women involved in cultural production and the relative neglect of women as audiences for popular culture” (166). These themes, among others, are discussed in this section.
2.2.1 Three problems
The first problem that is named, is the way women are marginalized or stereotyped in cultural representations. These representations “support and perpetuate the prevailing sexual division of labour and orthodox conceptions of femininity and masculinity” (Strinati 167). One thing that stands out, is that with the problem of representation, not only femininity is discussed, but masculinity also comes into play. This can then be connected to Derrida’s notion of binary oppositions. He explains this as a “violent hierarchy” (c), where “one of the two terms controls the other, holds the superior position” (c). This was already tied to the notion of race in the previous chapter, but Hall saw the “relation of power between the poles of a binary opposition” (235) also in different fields of domination. It is not just white that holds the superior position over black, there is also masculine over feminine, upper class over lower class or British over alien (235).
Julia Wood further discusses the marginalization and stereotyping of both women and men in the media. She writes: “All forms of media communicate images of the sexes, many of which perpetuate unrealistic, stereotypical, and limiting perceptions” (31). The way men and
women are stereotypically represented, is that men are usually portrayed as “active,
adventurous, powerful, sexually aggressive and largely uninvolved in human relationships” (32). Wood discusses the representation of masculinity and femininity in different television formats. Masculinity in children’s television for example “shows males as aggressive,
dominant, and engaged in exciting activities from which they receive rewards from others for their ‘masculine’ accomplishments” (32). There have also been other studies about the representation of men in prime-time television, where men are portrayed as “independent, aggressive, and in charge” (32). In television programming for all ages, men are mostly depicted as “serious, confident, competent, powerful, and in high-status positions” (32).
Depictions of women are typically “as sex objects who are usually young, thin, beautiful, passive, dependent, and often incompetent and dumb” (Wood 32). “The requirements of youth and beauty in women even influence news shows, where female newscasters are expected to be younger, more physically attractive, and less outspoken than males” (33). What becomes clear at looking at different forms of television, for example children’s programming or channels such as MTV, is that “the few existing female characters typically spend their time watching males do things” (33), or picture “women satisfying men’s sexual fantasies” (33).
Another point Wood discusses, is how “media have created two images of women: good women and bad ones” (33). “These polar opposites are often juxtaposed against each other to dramatize differences […]. Good women are pretty, deferential, and focused on home, family and caring for others. Subordinate to men, they are usually cast as victims, angels, martyrs, and loyal wives and helpmates” (33). Versions of bad women, are described as “the witch, bitch, whore, or nonwoman, who is represented as hard, cold, aggressive – all of the things a good woman is not supposed to be” (33). This all leads Wood to conclude that “a woman may be strong and successful […] if she also exemplifies traditional stereotypes of femininity – subservience, passivity, beauty, and an identity linked to one or more men” (33).
The second problem which is part of the feminist critique of popular culture, is the absence of women. Wood writes: “[…] women are underrepresented which falsely implies that men are the cultural standard and women are unimportant or invisible” (31). “Media misrepresent actual proportions of men and women in the population” (31) in different subjects on television; prime-time television, children’s programming or newscasts (31).
The third problem, the relative neglect of women as audiences for popular culture, can be explained by looking into the notion of the ‘male gaze’ (Mulvey 11). In her essay “Visual
Pleasure and Narrative Cinema”, Mulvey discusses “the way the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form” (Storey 107). In her own words, Mulvey explains the ‘male gaze’ as follows:
In a world ordered by sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female. The determining male gaze projects its phantasy onto the female figure, which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness. (11)
Gauntlett adds that with the ‘male gaze’, “male viewers identify with the (male) protagonist, and the female characters are the subject of their desiring gaze” (38). However, “female viewers [...] are also compelled to take the viewpoint of the central (male) character, so that women are denied a viewpoint of their own and instead participate in the pleasure of men looking at women” (38).
With this section, three main problems from the feminist critique on popular culture have been mentioned, which were the marginalization and stereotyping of women, the relative absence of women and the relative neglect of women as audiences (Strinati 166), which was further explained using the concept ‘male gaze’ from Laura Mulvey (11). What has become clear with the different examples of portrayals of women, compared to the portrayals of men in the media, is that women hold the inferior position in the binary structure of the sexes. Men are still seen as the cultural standard and hold the superior position, in the “violent hierarchy” that Derrida mentions (c).
2.2.2 Gender Trouble & Undoing Gender
Having discussed the feminist critique of popular culture, this section now focuses on one of the most important authors to write about gender, Judith Butler. Her claim is that “we should challenge the traditional views of masculinity, femininity, and sexuality, by causing ‘gender trouble’” (Gauntlett 135), which is also the name of the book she published on this topic.
female “Other”, and the hierarchy between the two (vii). She notices that “power appeared to operate in the production of that very binary frame for thinking about gender” (viii). Butler asks herself: “[…] what configuration of power constructs the subject and the Other, that binary relation between ‘men’ and ‘women’, and the internal stability of those terms?” (viii).
By establishing the problem with the binary relation between the sexes, Butler goes on by asking: “What best way to trouble the gender categories that support gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality?” (viii) What Butler emphasizes with her work, is that gender categories are productions that have become problematic. One should therefore trouble these categories, for they do more harm than good. Furthermore, Butler has been one of the key authors and thinkers to discuss the idea of ‘gender as a performance’. In Gender Trouble, she writes:
If the body is not a “being,” but a variable boundary, a surface whose permeability is politically regulated, a signifying practice within a cultural field of gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality, then what language is left for understanding this corporeal enactment, gender, that constitutes its “interior” signification on its surface? (177)
Butler asks herself: in what way is gender an act? She states that “the action of gender requires a performance that is repeated” (178). Butler therefore concludes that gender is an identity that is “tenuously constituted in time, instituted in an exterior space through a stylized repetition of acts” (179). The “bodily gestures, movements and styles of various kinds
constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self” (179).
Another important aspect that Butler discusses, is something she explains in her book
Undoing Gender. The book focuses “on the question of what it might mean to undo
restrictively normative conceptions of sexual and gendered life” (Butler 1). Butler writes: “If gender is a kind of a doing, an incessant activity performed, in part, without one’s knowing and without one’s willing, it is not for that reason automatic or mechanical. On the contrary, it is a practice of improvisation within a scene of constraint” (1). This ‘scene of constraint’ becomes more clear with the following statement:
If I am someone who cannot be without doing, then the conditions of my doing are, in part, the conditions of my existence. If my doing is dependent on what is done to me, or, rather, the ways in which I am done by norms, then the possibility of my
persistence as an “I” depends upon my being able to do something with what is done with me. (Butler 3)
With Gender Trouble, Butler discusses the idea of gender as a performance, which is
something that is made clear through the repetition of acts, gestures and movements that give the illusion of a gendered self (179). She also talks more about the hierarchy of the masculine subject and the female “Other” (vii). With her book, she wants to cause ‘gender trouble’, by acknowledging the fact that the existing gender categories are problematic productions that support gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality (viii).
What has become clear with Undoing Gender, is that every doing of gender is also an undoing of gender. This, because of the world of constraints that every subject is part of. Or how Butler further explains it: “If I have any agency, it is opened up by the fact that I am constituted by a social world I never chose” (3).
To conclude this section on gender, what is evident is the idea that since gender is not natural but learned, media are crucial for internalizing gender norms which can then constrain anyone who does not follow these norms. Gauntlett writes: “[…] the mass media
conspicuously circulates certain kinds of male and female performance as preferable, thereby making the gender categories more ‘real’” (108). However, taking ‘gender as a performance’ as a central idea, acknowledges the fact that gender representations are actually key in constructing gender norms. Gauntlett continues that:
[…] the changes in gender representations in the past three or four decades […] show that the recommended expressions of gender are eminently flexible. Within particular moments, then, the media might make gendered behaviours seem more ‘natural’, but when considered over time, the broad changes reveal the very constructedness of gender performances (108).
The instability of gender becomes visible in looking how the media represent gender, and how it changes over time, thereby emphasizing how gender is fluid and constructed.
2.3 Stereotypes
In this paragraph, the notion of stereotypes in media is explained in more detail. There has already been touched upon the stereotypes in gender in the previous section, but this paragraph primarily focuses on racial stereotypes in media and society.
Shohat and Stam have written about this, and start by looking at the question of ‘realism’ (178). They say that “debates about ethnic representation often break down on precisely this question of ‘realism’, at times leading to an impasse in which diverse spectators
or critics passionately defend their version of the ‘real’” (178). Furthermore, “although there is no absolute truth, no truth apart from representation and dissemination, there are still contingent, qualified, perspectival truths in which communities are invested” (179). Even though media do not have a claim for the truth, they do participate in displaying or producing problematic representations which all contribute to creating and maintaining stereotypes.
A solution in countering “the objectifying discourses of patriarchy and colonialism, is for oppressed groups to use ‘progressive realism’ to unmask and combat hegemonic
representations, and provide a vision of themselves and a reality ‘from within’ (Shohat and Stam 180). This ‘progressive realism’ can be further explained with what McHale writes: “In order to engage with reality, one must “deform” the model, thereby jarring the reader or viewer into a confrontation with “the real” itself” (7).
Shohat and Stam also discuss the idea of the ‘burden of representation’ (182). This is explained by them, “by looking at how minorities are being projected as ‘all the same’” (183). “Any negative behaviour by any member of the oppressed community is instantly generalized as typical […]” (183). “Representations thus become allegorical; within hegemonic discourse every subaltern performer/role is seen as synecdochically summing up a vast but putatively homogenous community” (183). This is in contrast with representations of dominant groups, who are not seen as “allegorical but as ‘naturally’ diverse” (183). This translates to minorities having to represent a bigger whole, which is something that does not count for the dominant group in society.
Stuart Hall has also written about the ‘burden of representation’, but specifically about black culture in Britain. James Procter explains Hall’s understanding of the term as follows: “Because the opportunities ‘to come into representation’ were so few and far between, there was a certain burden placed on black artists to be representative and speak for the whole black community” (126). Apart from that, “[…] there was a pressure to counter the ‘negative’ representations of blacks within mainstream culture with ‘positive’ black representations” (126). Negative images of an underrepresented group can become “sorely overcharged with allegorical meaning as part of what Michael Rogin calls the ‘surplus symbolic value’ of oppressed people; the way Blacks, for example, can be made to stand for something beside themselves” (Shohat and Stam 183). The main problem with stereotypes and distortions in media can be explained by “the powerlessness of historically marginalized groups to control their own representation” (184).
What is also apparent in the discussion of stereotypes in the media, is the problem of white people playing members of minorities, instead of people that belong to that ethnic
group. Something that is referred to as ‘whitewashing’. Shohat and Stam discuss how this decision can be seen as a ‘triple insult’ (189), implying to minorities that:
(a) you are unworthy of self-representation; (b) no one from your community is capable of representing you; and (c) we, the producers of the film, care little about your offended sensibilities, for we have the power and there is nothing you can do about it. (189-190)
The text by Shohat and Stam ends with this final problem: “The racist idea that a film, to be economically viable, must use a ‘universal’ (i.e. white) star, reveals the intrication of
economics and racism” (190). This was also discussed by Dyer and the idea of ‘whiteness’ in the previous section on race.
Another addition to this discussion on stereotypes comes from Stuart Hall in
Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. He explains the idea of
‘being stereotyped’ as: “reduced to a few essentials, fixed in Nature by a few, simplified characteristics” (249). It reduces everything to a few certain traits, exaggerates and simplifies it, and then fixes it, “without change or development to eternity” (258). Hall’s first point in discussing stereotypes, is thus that it “reduces, essentializes, naturalizes and fixes
‘difference’” (258). “Secondly, stereotyping deploys a strategy of splitting. It divides the normal and the acceptable from the abnormal and the unacceptable. It then excludes or expels everything which does not fit, which is different” (258).
Hall also explains the relation between stereotypes and power: “[…] stereotyping tends to occur where there are gross inequalities of power. Power is usually directed against the subordinate or excluded group” (258). He then finishes his argument by using different concepts from other authors. As discussed before, Derrida explains that, in binary oppositions, there is always one of the two terms that “governs, one that has the upper hand” (Hall 258). There is no peaceful coexistence between binary oppositions, “rather a violent hierarchy” (258). Hall also mentions Gramsci, who sees stereotypes as “an aspect of the struggle for hegemony” (259).
In this section on stereotypes, one important thing that has become clear is how the media participate in displaying and producing problematic representations, which contributes to creating and maintaining stereotypes. These “exaggerated and fixed traits” (Hall 249), have the effect of reducing people to a few essentials, or fixing them by a few, simplified
characteristics (249). The ‘burden of representation’ has been explained, by seeing how “any negative behavior by any member of the oppressed community is instantly generalized as
typical […]” (Shohat and Stam 183), which puts pressure on a spokesperson to speak for an entire community. The problem of ‘whitewashing’ has also been mentioned, which
emphasizes the idea that minorities are deemed unworthy of self-representation (189).
2.4 Intersectionality
This final section looks into the idea of intersectionality. By now, it may have become noticeable that most authors that talk about the role of the media in constructing social identities, not only just name race, or gender, but always make connections to other power structures and hierarchies in society. Intersectionality comes in, then, for its focus on accepting that all those different axes of power are connected, and should be discussed together. Kimberle Crenshaw was the first author to use and explain this term, she writes:
Race, gender, and other identity categories are most often treated in mainstream liberal discourse as vestiges of bias or domination – that is, as intrinsically negative frameworks in which social power works to exclude or marginalize those who are different. According to this understanding, our liberatory objective should be to empty such categories of any social significance. (1242)
With her own text, Crenshaw focuses on “two dimensions of male violence against women – battering and rape […]” (1243), where she considers “how the experience of women of color are frequently the product of intersecting patterns of racism and sexism, and how these experiences tend not to be represented within the discourses of either feminism or antiracism” (1244). With intersectionality, by focusing on both feminism and racism, she found a way to rightfully discuss this problem.
She has used this method multiple times in her work. In an earlier article, she used “the concept of intersectionality to denote the various ways in which race and gender interact to shape the multiple dimensions of Black women’s employment experiences” (Crenshaw 1244). With this text, Crenshaw, builds “on those observations […] by exploring the various ways in which race and gender intersect in shaping structural, political, and representational aspects of violence against women of color” (1244).
The importance of intersectionality becomes clear with her example of the occurrence of rape among Black women: “race and gender converge so that the concerns of minority women fall into the void between concerns about women’s issues and concerns about racism. But when one discourse fails to acknowledge the significance of the other, the power relations
that each attempts to challenge are strengthened” (1282). With this example, she explains how power relations will only become stronger by ignoring the connection to other axes of power.
Crenshaw concludes by saying that categories such as race or gender “have meaning and consequences” (1296). With her own article, she wants to focus on the idea that the problem is not “the existence of the categories, but rather the particular values attached to them and the way those values foster and create social hierarchies” (1297).
A different author that promotes intersectional thinking, is Patricia Hill Collins. She writes: “Viewing the world through a both/and conceptual lens of the simultaneity of race, class, and gender oppression and of the need for a humanist vision of community creates new
possibilities […]” (553).
With what she calls ‘Black feminist thought’, she “fosters a fundamental paradigmatic shift in how we think about oppression” (553). “By embracing a paradigm of race, class, and gender as interlocking systems of oppression, Black feminist thought reconceptualizes the social relations of domination and resistance” (553).
Using this interlocking system of race, class, and gender oppression, authors are able to expand “the focus of analysis from merely describing the similarities and differences distinguishing these systems of oppression” (Hill Collins 554) and it offers them a way to give “greater attention on how they interconnect” (554).
Hill Collins also sees trouble in existing binary oppositions, or as she calls them: “additive models of oppression” that are “firmly rooted in the either/or dichotomous thinking of Eurocentric, masculinist thought” (555). “One must be either Black or white in such thought systems […]” (555) and this emphasis on “quantification and categorization occurs in conjunction with the belief that either/or categories must be ranked” (555). She therefore asks for a replacement of these additive models of oppression with interlocking ones “to create possibilities for new paradigms” (555).
A final thought on intersectionality comes from the authors of the book “Gender, Race, and Class in Media”, who write:
[…] cultural critics have begun to agree that gender, race, and class are most usefully understood not as discrete categories but as intertwined in complex ways. In the early days of feminist media discussions, gender analysis did not sufficiently acknowledge race and class differences among women, and it tended to generalize from the experiences of white middle- and upper-class women – other “femininities” and most “masculinities” were frequently missing from the discussion. Thankfully, media
studies as a field now has a more sophisticated understanding of the interrelationships among gender, race, and class. (Dines and Humez 6)
By discussing intersectionality, the aim to not only focus on one axis of power at a time, but to include others as well, has been made clear. It is important to note that existing categories in society cannot be taken apart separately, but should all be considered and taken into account with the use of interlocking systems. Even though, as Stuart Hall writes, the inter-relationship between class and race has “proved to be one of the most complex and difficult theoretical problems to address” (Gramsci's Relevance for the Study of Race and Ethnicity 24), it is very necessary to do so.
3. Analysis of Master of None
This chapter analyzes certain excerpts from the first season of Master of None. This is primarily a textual analysis, focusing on the content (plot) of the episodes. Apart from that, it also takes into account form and style (audiovisual elements). For reasons of clarification, this chapter is split into two sections; one focusing on the category of race, the other on the
category of gender. Because this research uses an intersectional approach, certain intersectional elements are discussed in both sections, according to Crenshaw’s and Hill Collins’s advice. Because when “one discourse fails to acknowledge the significance of the other, the power relations that each attempts to challenge are strengthened” (Crenshaw 1282). It is for this reason that this analysis does not merely describe “the similarities and differences distinguishing […] systems of oppression” (Hill Collins 554), but gives “greater attention on how they interconnect” (554).
Before starting this analysis, it is worth mentioning some general information and important elements of the show Master of None, by going into more detail of the style the show uses in for example dialogue and visuality. The show has been praised by many, after its release in 2015. In November 2015, the New York Times wrote:
‘Master of None’, the year’s best comedy straight out of the gate, is a lot of things. It’s an adorable but mature rom-com. It’s an idea-packed bulletin on technology and social mores. It’s a showbiz satire. It’s a casually multicultural, multiracial comedy that’s also acutely conscious of how identity still matters. (Poniewozik n.pag.)
One thing that stands out is the light, comedic, and often satirical style the show uses, without becoming too superficial. With this style, the show is able to address several heavy subjects, such as immigration, ethnicity, everyday racism, feminism, sexism and stereotypes. The two creators, Aziz Ansari and Alan Yang, who have worked together before on Parks and
Recreation (2009), said they wanted to tackle issues they also face in their own lives
concerning these big themes (Ryan n.pag.).
Where this light, comedic style is most viewable, is in the dialogue. One recurring aspect, is that the dialogue sometimes does not have any clear importance, or does not necessarily contribute anything to the storyline of the episode. An example can be found in the following conversation from episode 3 (“Hot Ticket”), between main character Dev and his friend Arnold.
Dev: You know what I was thinking about the other day?
If I played pool all the time for, like, three months, I think I could be a pool shark. Like, how good you got to be to get to shark status?
And then the whole pretending to be bad? I mean, that I can do really well. Arnold: Dude, same with bowling.
If I bowled every night for a month, I would be on that nonstop strike status. Dev: Yeah, pro bowlers are just people that practice bowling all the time.
Arnold: I guess what we’re saying is, if you do something long enough, you’re gonna be good at it.
Dev: Mm, yeah. This conversation isn’t that insightful.
This is just one example of how the show uses dialogue in a way that does not necessarily contribute something to the plot, and it does not have as its primary goal to move the story forward. These ‘unnecessary dialogues’ are a recurring element throughout this entire first season.
A style element that contributes to making this season a very cohesive whole, is the title card of each episode. The name of each episode appears in the same font each episode, whilst changing colour, and with a song put underneath it that has something to do with the main theme of that episode. For example, in episode 5 (“The Other Man”), in which Dev has an affair with a woman who is already married, the song “Take a Walk on the Wild Side” is playing underneath the title card. When the end credits of that episode roll, a song called “Cheating” is playing.
03: Title card for episode 4: “Indians on TV” (Netflix)
These are just a few examples of how the show works with audiovisual elements such as title cards and the use of music, and how it also uses comedic dialogues as a recurring aspect in the plot. All of these elements contribute to creating a very cohesive and distinctive show.
3.1. Race in Master of None
“Why can’t there be a Pradeep just once, who’s, like, an architect, or he designs mittens, or does one of the jobs Bradley Cooper’s characters do in movies?”
In this section, several examples of the show discussing notions of race are discussed and connected to the literature that was introduced in the previous chapter. Before this research delves deeper into the actual content of the show, it also focuses on the outlook of the show. One thing that is important to acknowledge, is that both creators are part of ethnic minorities in the United States, statistically seen, but also on a representational level in the media. Aziz Ansari, who also plays the role of main character Dev, is born in the U.S. but his parents moved there from India. Alan Yang, the other creator, is also born in the U.S., but his parents are originally from Taiwan. The cast of the show is quite racially diverse and challenges heteronormativity by including characters that are part of the LGBTQ+ community. Apart from Dev, main characters include Brian, who has a Taiwanese/Chinese background and is heterosexual, Denise, who is an African-American lesbian, Arnold who is a white,
heterosexual man and Rachel, who is a white heterosexual woman. Maureen Ryan, for
Variety, writes the following about Master of None and its diverse cast:
It was a jolting and refreshing change to have a show that not only avoided TV’s typical tropes — one black friend or one Hispanic detective in a given ensemble — but portrayed a varied group of Hispanic, Asian, African-American and white characters with an enormous array of personalities, backgrounds and agendas. Not every critic and viewer loved every storyline, but it was as if, after ignoring issues of race and especially women of color for decades, TV was finally trying to make up for lost time. (n.pag.)
3.1.1 Everyday racism
One way the show discusses notions of race, is by including examples of everyday racism in very subtle ways. An example of this can be found in episode 2 (“Parents”), where the viewer sees the story of how Dev’s and Brian’s parents moved from India and Taiwan to the U.S., and how they were treated in this land “of the free”. Dev’s parents arrive in New York in 1980. One scene shows how Dev’s dad is being shown around the hospital where he will start working by a white male doctor. After the tour, the doctor asks him in exaggerated slow English: “Do you understand everything?” To which his dad simply replies: “Yes…”. He then asks the white doctor: “So someone said when the new doctor comes to town, you usually take the family to the steak house. Is that tonight? Should I get my wife?” The man looks to a different white male doctor, who vigorously shakes his head no. The doctor responds, still speaking very slowly English: “Uh, no. There is no dinner. You can just get to the cafeteria
and eat.” The next shot shows a sad looking cafeteria with just Dev’s parents eating their dinner.
Brian’s parents arrive in New York in 1981. In one scene, the viewer sees them being denied a table in a restaurant, even though it is obvious that there is plenty of space. When the camera pans to the rest of the restaurant, only white couples are seen eating. Brian’s dad says to his wife in Taiwanese: “I think they don’t want to seat us because we’re Asian.” Two years later, in 1983, they get their ‘revenge’ by opening their own restaurant.
04 & 05: Dev’s and Brian’s parents in episode 2: “Parents” (Netflix)
What is shown with these two examples, is what it was like to be an immigrant in the U.S. in the 1980s, and how these two couples are treated by the dominant white class in society. This white hegemony becomes clear in how they are being treated like a subordinate class in society: how the white doctor speaks very slowly to Dev’s dad, because he thinks he does not speak English, in the way that him and his wife are denied a dinner with his boss, something that probably would have happened if they were white, and with the example of Brian’s parents where they are being denied a table in a restaurant.
What was explained earlier, was that the hegemony of a political class meant that “that class had succeeded in persuading the other classes of society to accept its own moral,
political and cultural values” (Joll 99). Or how Ransome explains it, with the concept of ‘hegemony’, Gramsci has found a way to describe different modes of social control, “available to the dominant social group” (150). Gramsci distinguishes “between coercive
control which is manifest through direct force or the threat of force, and consensual control which arises when individuals ‘willingly’ or ‘voluntarily’ assimilate the world-view or hegemony of the dominant group; an assimilation which allows that group to be hegemonic” (150).
The two scenes given before, explain the struggle that comes with white hegemony and the competing understandings of race that are present. It becomes clear how the
subordinate class is denied equal treatment because of their ethnicity, and how these parents face problems and experience racism by not being able to be part of the dominant class in society.
An intersectional aspect that can be named with these two scenes, is that there is a clear difference in the possibilities of for example Dev’s dad and his mom during that time. Dev’s dad is able to become a doctor in a hospital, where his mom just stayed home. When Dev asks his mother in that same episode what her first day in the U.S. was like, she tells him that she sat on the couch and cried. A person could be part of a subordinate class because of their ethnicity, but men would still have more chances in society than women. The experience of being an Indian woman at that time, and not being able to actively participate in society, is something Crenshaw would describe as “intersecting patterns of racism and sexism” (1244). This issue of minority women falls into the void between “concerns about women’s issues and concerns about racism” (1282).
Another example where the show does not shy away from discussing racism, is when Dev and his white girlfriend Rachel are at a wedding in episode 10 (“Finale”). The father of the groom approaches the two, and says: “Aw, that’s nice. I love seeing ethnically mixed couples. You two are beautiful together. Have you ever dated an ethnic man before this, Rachel?”. To which Rachel sarcastically replies: “Oh. No. I was very nervous. I had been dating a lot of whites. Just so many whites. Then one day, I woke up and just thought, ‘Rachel, you have to go out there and try yourself an ethnic’”. After the man leaves, Dev says: “Wow, I’m sure his heart is in the right place, but he really shouldn’t be saying ‘ethnic’ that much”.
With this example, the viewer is furthermore reminded “that Western industrialized societies are stratified by hierarchies of race […]” (Brooks & Hébert 298). The show educates the viewer on this idea, by showing how members of subordinate classes experience this in everyday situations, for example at a wedding. During this scene, Dev is clearly seen as someone who is part of the subordinate class in society because of his ethnicity. With the use
of the word ‘ethnic’, Dev is set apart from ‘being normal’, meaning ‘white’. This then can be tied to the idea of ‘whiteness’, in seeing how being white is the norm in society. Something that Dyer further explains as: “As long as race is something only applied to non-white
peoples, as long as white people are not racially seen and named, they/we function as a human norm” (10).
The wedding scene is a clear example of showing white hegemony, and emphasizing the fact that Dev is literally a minority in this scene because of his ethnicity. It is also worth mentioning how Rachel wants to challenge this idea of only discussing race when it is applied to other skin colours, by plainly calling white people ‘whites’. This can be connected to what Dyer writes about how being white should also be considered an ethnicity, because “[…] race is not only attributable to people who are not white […]” (9).
3.1.2 Stereotypes
The show also does a great job in discussing stereotypes of certain minorities in society. The discussion of stereotypes goes a bit deeper, compared to the everyday racist situations that were mentioned before. The consequences of, and problems with stereotypes are all discussed, by also critically looking at the media landscape itself. Episode 4 (“Indians on TV”), sets out the entire problem of the media representation of Indian people.
This starts with the first minute of the episode, where the viewer gets to see different clips put together that show Indian representations in the media from the last 50 years, which include a lot of stereotypes, white actors playing Indian characters in Hollywood movies and TV series, the Indian accent as a funny element, and it ends with a recent commercial of Ashton Kutcher in brown face make-up, playing an Indian man to sell a product called
Popchips. This first compilation of quite racist and very stereotypical Indian representations in the media really sets the tone for this episode and tells the viewer what it can expect from this episode. It gives a kind of historical context of the media representations of Indian people, of predominantly men, and shows these distorted, almost caricatured images which leave the viewer feeling possibly quite uncomfortable with the fact that Indian people are represented this way, compared to the representation of white people.
After this setup, the episode continues with Dev at an audition. He has to read lines for the part of an ‘unnamed cab driver’ and after he is done saying his three lines, the white audition lady asks him: “I want to try it again, but this time, we need you to do an accent.” Dev explains that he rather does not want to do an Indian accent, because he feels weird doing
that. The lady responds with: “You know, Ben Kingsley did an accent in Gandi, and he won an Oscar for it, so…”. After a short discussion about the accent, the lady concludes that “they’ll be in touch”. To which Dev answers: “Okay, but it sounds like you won’t be, because of the whole accent thing.” - “Yeah, no.”
In this one scene, there are already different aspects that can be mentioned in this discussion of stereotypes and the overall hierarchy of race. The Indian accent is a clear stereotype, something that has become a requirement for Indian people in media to do, in order for it to be ‘relatable’ or ‘real’ for audiences. This claim for ‘realism’ has been brought up by Shohat and Stam. They say that this question of ‘realism’ can lead to “an impasse in which diverse spectators or critics passionately defend their version of the ‘real’” (178). The audition lady, who represents an also bigger problem in Western media, defends her version of the ‘real’. For her, an ‘unnamed cab driver’ is an Indian man, who speaks with an Indian accent. For Dev, being born in the U.S. and not speaking with an Indian accent, this means something different. Dev finds himself having to compete with this “exaggerated and fixed trait” (258), as Hall calls stereotypes, of the media representation of Indian people.
What this scene also emphasizes, is the idea that even though there are generations of Indian Americans that still talk with an accent, there are now also other Indian Americans that do not speak with an accent. Look for example at Dev and his parents in the show. His parents talk with an accent, but Dev does not. So, what it means to be an Indian American changes over time. It can be said that the social category of race changes over the years, for it is not fixed. Stereotypes of Indian people, however, are still very fixed in media and society. Which is something this episode wants to discuss and challenge.
An intersectional aspect can be found in the fact that all the stereotypes that are mentioned in this episode are about Indian men. It is the ‘unnamed cab driver’ part that Dev auditions for, but it also comes back later in a discussion between him and his actor friend Ravi, where they talk about the parts they usually audition for: scientist, IT guy, shop owner. There is no mention of the media representations of Indian women, apart from mentioning actress and comedian Mindy Kaling somewhere in this episode.
So, with this in mind, what becomes clear with this episode, is that the consequences and problems that are tied to these stereotypes, can only really be connected to the Indian male experience. These are not the same for Indian women, which is an aspect that is lacking from the problems that are being brought up. Looking at the media representations of Indian people often seems to be connected to just the Indian male representation, which emphasizes the idea that men, white or Indian, are still seen as the cultural standard.
3.1.3 Whitewashing and whiteness
In the conversation Dev has with his actor friend Ravi, they discuss the movie Short Circuit 2 (1986), in which a white actor was cast to play an Indian scientist. Ravi did not know this, which results in him feeling very frustrated with the movie and the nostalgic memories he had of this. Ravi: “So they got a real robot, but a fake Indian?!”. The sentiment Ravi is expressing can be tied to the problem that Shohat and Stam explain as a “[…] powerlessness of
historically marginalized groups to control their own representation” (184). The decision to let a white actor play an Indian man in Short Circuit 2, sheds light on the historical
marginalization of specific groups in the media. Minorities are often unable to choose who represents them, and when they are represented, these ethnic characters are represented for a mainstream audience which then often perpetuates stereotypes.
The problem of ‘whitewashing’ in Hollywood and television has been mentioned before. ‘Whitewashing’ is the notion of white people playing members of minority groups, instead of people that belong to that group, which is the case with Short Circuit 2. This is a big problem when it comes to representation, and only makes the emphasis on stereotypes bigger. In order to make a white actor playing an Indian person ‘believable’, means having to use brown face make-up and speak with an Indian accent. This was made clear by the
beginning of the episode, where this was done by Ashton Kutcher in order to play an Indian man in a commercial.
Moving from ‘whitewashing’ to the notion of ‘whiteness’, the show also brings up the problem of how many ‘ethnic’ cast members there can be in one show. In this episode, Ravi and Dev end up having to compete against each other for a spot on a new TV show. The producers of the show like both of them, but two Indian guys in a show with three main characters is just too much. Dev has an entire discussion with the producer of the show, Jerry Danvers, about this:
Dev: Why can’t there be two Indian guys in a show? Why is it between me and Ravi? Jerry Danvers: If I put two Indian guys on the poster, everyone thinks it’s going to be an Indian show. It wouldn’t be as, you know, relatable to a large mainstream audience. Dev: Yeah, but you would never say that about a show with two white people. Every show has two white people. People don’t say that. People don’t watch True Detective and go, “Ooh,
there’s that white detective show”. You know?
Jerry Danvers: But just to be clear, that’s not me okay? That’s the public. Jerry Danvers, you know, would love to see two Indian people on a show. Who cares? Right? But, we’re just not at that point.
With this conversation, Dev is pointing out the notion of ‘whiteness’ being the norm in the media. A show with two main white characters is not a ‘white’ show, because white is not seen as an ethnicity, but as something neutral. Casting two Indians in a show, however, definitely makes it an ‘Indian’ show. Dyer has explained how this ‘whiteness’ is a problem of power, because “there is no more powerful position than that of being ‘just’ human” (10). And even though the producer in this scene personally does not see a problem with two Indian guys being in one show, he blames it on the public, who are not ready for that kind of show yet. The show needs to be for ‘everyone’, but ‘everyone’ is apparently white. Which is problematic, for Dyer points out that “[…] white people create the dominant images of the world and don’t quite see that they thus construct the world in their own image […]” (12). It is hard to break through the idea of what producers think ‘the public’ wants to see. In a way,
Master of None itself, is an example of breaking away from this habit of ‘whiteness’ and
wanting to start a conversation about what the norm is and how this can be changed. Dev and Ravi also go intersectional in their conversation. They discuss the current situation in the media landscape, and specifically TV shows, by focusing on the progress in representation for minorities in race but also in gender. Dev: “Indians, Asians, gays: there can be one, but there can’t be two.” To which his friend Ravi replies: “But, you know, there’s two gay dudes in Will & Grace. And two gay dudes on Modern Family!” Dev: “All right, I get it. There can be two gay guys, alright? Progress exists. Shout-out to gays.”
What is brought up with this conversation, is that different minorities have different levels of representation in the media. Black people have just gotten to that point, where there can be two in a show, unlike Indian people whore are more like set decoration, according to Dev. What becomes clear with the representation of members of the LGBTQ+ community, is that there actually can be two already as well, look at Will & Grace or Modern Family. However, this is not the case for Indians yet. There is progress, but this is different for different racial or gender minorities. This episode then not only opens up a discussion about just Indian stereotypes, it makes it a broader discussion, where the underrepresentation of certain gender minorities is also discussed, which can be seen as an intersectional approach.
In this sense, the notion of ‘whiteness’ could be tied to the idea of being male or being heterosexual in this society. Hanke connects ‘whiteness’ to the privilege of being male in this society: “[…] both whiteness and hegemonic (white) masculinity do not appear to be
cultural/historical categories, thus rendering invisible the privileged position from which (white) men in general are able to articulate their interests to the exclusion of interests of women, men and women of colour, and children” (186). In mainstream media, there seems to be limited space for minorities, which results in a conflict between ethnic and gender
minorities having to compete for who gets the most representation.
The show is very reflective on the media landscape itself, as was noted before by openly discussing what seems to be the norm in media. This reflection on the media landscape is also something that comes up in a conversation between Dev, Brian and Denise in episode 4, where they sit together and discuss who the spokesperson or role model for their minority is in the media. Note that the only two white main characters, Arnold and Rachel, are missing in this conversation, so that all the focus is on these three as a minority. For Dev, his
spokesperson is Deepak Chopra, or the Indian guy from No Doubt, according to him. To which Brian asks: “Yeah, but who is my guy? Steve Aoki? George Takei? He’s busy with gay stuff.” Denise then also asks: “Who’s my girl? Like, Oprah? Or Beyoncé? Oh shit, I got the heavy hitters. Never mind.”
The spokesperson each of them name is an example of what is explained by Shohat and Stam with the ‘burden of representation’, in seeing how “minorities are being projected ‘all the same’” (183). The burden a spokesperson might carry, could negatively affect a minority, for “any negative behaviour by any member of the oppressed community is
instantly generalized as typical […]” (183). “Representations thus become allegorical; within hegemonic discourse every subaltern performer/role is seen as synecdochically summing up a vast but putatively homogenous community” (183). Shohat and Stam also explain this by comparing this to the way the dominant group in society is being represented. For white people, there is people representing them everywhere. For minorities, there are sometimes only a few people who can represent them. These people end up having to represent a bigger whole, instead of just themselves. With this burden, there is also a pressure to replace the already existing ‘negative’ representations with ‘positive’ representations (Procter 126).
What becomes clear with this conversation, is how especially Dev and Brian are frustrated with the fact that there is only limited space for people from their minority to represent them. What is brought up as well, is that certain minorities already have more
