Monday 7 May 2018

Bigots Got Talent: why we should separate issues of talent from issues of bigotry and criminality

When news about Kevin Spacey's alleged sexual misconduct emerged, it wasn't long before the public were tweeting that people should boycott all his movies, as well as the upcoming House of Cards series which was due to screen on Netflix. And recently a news story has emerged regarding a Britain's Got Talent (BGT) contestant who has liked and commented on homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist YouTube videos. Below I argue that we should separate art from the artist; that we can with a clear conscience enjoy the talents of Kevin Spacey and Jenny Darren (the BGT contestant) whilst condemning their (alleged) actions in their private lives. The issues in the two cases are slightly different, so I'll deal with them separately: BGT first, and Kevin Spacey second.

So, a contestant on BGT liked some YouTube videos which were by all accounts, expounding bigoted opinions. The show has apparently 'reprimanded' her, but I'm not fully clear on why they have reprimanded her. Racism, anti-semitism, and homophobia are undoubtedly unsavoury, (prima facie) wrong, and in some cases illegal, but what concern is it of the BGT team if a contestant is a bigot in her life offstage? The show is Britain's Got Talent, not Britain's Got Politically Correct Viewpoints. The woman's talent (or lack thereof - I haven't seen her perform) are entirely independent from her ability to sing, dance or otherwise perform. It's not clear to me why BGT should only permit people with benign and politically correct viewpoints perform. If she were a drug addict, a football hooligan or a dog-beater would they reprimand her for that too? These things are horrible, problematic and even wrong ways of life, but they would not detract from her talent.

If someone's act on stage involved dressing up as a member of the Ku Klux Klan, having a bigoted stand up routine, or singing racist songs, then I would thoroughly understand and endorse the programme stepping in to prevent such broadcasts, but that is substantively different from a singer who performs a crowdpleasing song, but has offensive views while offstage. Even if a performer was a crowdpleaser onstage but was abusing other contestants while offstage, I'd understand the bosses telling the performer that their behaviour is inappropriate. But when the performer's views do not form part of their act, nor their behaviour while at the shows, it's not BGT's place to police contestant's viewpoints. 

The winner of BGT will be chosen by the public, and the public may well take someone's personal views into account when voting, but then it has ceased to be a talent show, and instead become a popularity contest. To be honest, it sails pretty close to that line most of the time anyway, with talentless but likeable people faring pretty well in the public vote. However, this doesn't mean that winners should be chosen in such a way. If BGT really is a holistic assessment of contestants' opinions and lifestyles, then the show should just come out and say it - and perhaps rebrand itself as Britain's Got Nice People With Talent. It's not as catchy, admittedly, but it would be more accurate.

In sport, the person who runs the fastest, throws the farthest or scores the most points is the winner. If that person happens to be something of a bigot or an otherwise unpleasant person in their private life, then that does not feature in whether or not they are awarded the gold medal. It seems evident to me that, with the few exceptions I mention (the opinions are on-screen or directed at a fellow colleague), this is the way talent shows and entertainment should be. In sport, if someone is an excellent sports(wo)man but a bit of a $@#! in their private life, then so be it; that doesn't - and shouldn't - prevent them from being recognised as an excellent footballer, runner, tennis player etc. Acts which occur within the sport - a footballer shouting racist abuse at a member of the opposing team, for example - isn't and shouldn't be tolerated, but what happens off-pitch should stay off-pitch.

The Kevin Spacey (Weinstein, Dustin Hoffman, Bill Cosby, or any of a seemingly endless list of male celebs of a certain age who've been accused of sexual misconduct) situation is a little different, since it involves not just offensive views, but (allegedly) criminal behaviour. If one were to be casting for a new film, and looking for an actor to play a significant role, one would need to take into account the safety of the other members of the cast and crew. Bringing a convicted sexual assaulter or rapist into the cast could spell trouble (and no, I don't think someone merely being accused of something by a single person is reason enough to exclude him, because not all accusations are true.) Kevin Spacey has not denied the accusations, and he has offered an apology of sorts - so  this might be considered an admission of guilt. Given this, it's reasonable for any future casting directors to avoid casting him, for the safety of others. But retrospectively boycotting all films or series with Kevin Spacey in them is just ludicrous. People who've decided not to watch House of Cards, Seven, The Usual Suspects etc in virtue of the fact that it has KS in it are misguided. I understand the motivation is that they don't want KS to receive any money for his work (but since films usually pay actors a set fee rather than continual royalties, this boycott doesn't deprive KS of any money at all.) If anyone is deprived of money, it will be the directors, producers etc who in all likelihood are decent hardworking people who had no idea hat KS was a wrong'un. Depriving them of profit because they lacked the clairvoyance to know who was a sexual predator and who wasn't, (in the absence of any allegations,) is absurd and pointless. Kevin Spacey has been in some fantastic movies, and they don't become any less fantastic in virtue of knowing that he's (allegedly) a $&@!# in his private life. 

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post where I argued that we should stop criticising Donald Trump for his tiny hands or silly hair, because these features are not relevant to his ability to be a good President. And here again I make a similar point; knowing that Kevin Spacey has been accused of criminal behaviour, or that a contestant on BGT has liked some anti-Semitic YouTube videos is entirely independent of their ability to be a talented performer. It strikes me as decidedly odd that when the bigoted opinions and behaviour of someone really matter for his job (because he makes laws, for example) we focus on his hairdo, but when the bigoted opinions of someone don't matter for their job, (because they're a singer or actor, for example) we're all about judging the off-screen behaviour as if it's central to their job. In the arts, art can be separated from artist, and (allegedly) bad people can be brilliantly talented. We can and we should admire the talent while condemning the (alleged) bigoted or criminal behaviour.

Saturday 5 May 2018

Conference presentations

Well, it seems like it's all go at the moment, in a good way. Last month I responded to four calls for papers / abstracts, and I've had word that I've been accepted by two of them. I suppose lots of students get invited to speak at lots of conferences, but it's the first time I've been accepted, so quite exciting, and hopefully it's the first of many such experiences.

One event is an interdisciplinary graduate research event at UoN, and the other is a philosophy conference focusing on philosophy and current events, in the USA. I was thinking to myself that the UoN conference was probably not all that competitive so not that much of an achievement, but then, there are over 8000 postgraduate students here at Nottingham uni, so perhaps I ought to give myself more credit. There's no way for me to know how many applied to either event anyway, so maybe I should just feel pleased. I'm not posting the exact details on here (yet) in case it all falls apart! I'm quietly hopeful but sensibly cautious. I'm not sure how these things are funded: who pays for the flights, accommodation and suchlike for the conference in the USA where I'm due to speak? I hope it's not me.

I also presented at the PGR seminar this week (that's not an achievement though; any philosophy postgrad student can present; there are a group of about 8 of us who regularly attend, and so the audience is usually only about 10 people.) At the two upcoming events, I'll be presenting the same paper that I presented at the PGR seminar; it's one which I've been working on for my MA dissertation. It's about sexbots and some intrinsic wrongs associated with a particular type of sexbot. The presentation went well, I think. Lots of questions pressing me on the distinction between a robot which intentionally represents someone, and a robot which accidentally resembles someone.

If I am able to proceed with my PhD, I plan to be studying a whole lot more socio-political-ethical-legal issues surrounding sexbots and other (non-sexual) lifelike robots. Aside from the fact that it's fascinating and exciting and what I always hoped I could research when I saw things like I Robot and Star Trek, one great thing about my research is how current it is. Hopefully the philosophical investigations into robots won't just be a flash in the pan, because building my career on a mere trend could be problematic. But I am versatile and I have wide-ranging philosophical interests, so even if I am not researching robot ethics for the next 20 years, there will be no shortage of issues I want to write about.

I just hope that these conferences go well. Sometimes I feel as though other people are so much more cut out for this than I am. That seems unfounded though, given that teaching involves (in part) presenting to an audience, and given my extensive experience in that, then it's just implausible to suggest that I'm not cut out for this. Nonetheless, the feelings of inadequacy persist. Maybe they'll dissipate in time; if these upcoming presentations go well, it will help. I've had some academic / funding disappointments recently, so hopefully some better times are on their way. I'm not referring to it as luck, as I think very little of what happens in academia is down to luck, but that's another post for another day.