Toxic Culture: Rosanne, the BARR Is So Low: ABC Finds—and Defends—the Line on Polarizing Speech
By Karetta Hubbard, Lynne Revo-Cohen, Gwen Crider, and Maria Morukian. Maria is an internationally recognized diversity expert, with sixteen years of experience developing integrated, experiential organizational development initiatives, with a special interest in diversity and inclusion, intercultural competence, and organizational culture transformation.
As most of the world is aware, comedian Roseanne Barr made racist comments last week in reference to Valerie Jarrett, former aide to President Barack Obama. Because of the incendiary nature of the remarks, NewPoint is presenting a two-part series addressing racism in America. The first article discusses ABC’s response to the incident, and the second addresses solutions in which we can all participate, called Civil Dialogue(s). Maria authored both articles.
Part 1.
Comedians often use language intended to shock audiences out of their comfort zones, to force perspectives and make us see contemporary issues in a different light. It’s not always smooth. In some cases, the jokes receive a collective groan from viewers. In other cases, there may be a more intense reaction of disgust at the comedian’s lack of decorum. Many comedians perceive it as a necessity to anger some portion of their audience.
Nevertheless, there’s a difference between boldly challenging an audience to think differently and maliciously resorting to decades-old tropes designed to sow fear and hatred.
Recognizing the difference is precisely why ABC Disney’s decision to cancel Roseanne Barr’s successful reboot in response to a tweet the company called “abhorrent, repugnant, and inconsistent with our values” is so important. ABC’s swift action is a learning moment for companies struggling to navigate the challenges of accountability in a time of great social polarization.
There’s nothing clever or groundbreaking about Barr using imagery from Planet of the Apes and of Middle Eastern terror to insult Valerie Jarrett. Rather, it’s simply the latest example in in the long history in American culture of systematically dehumanizing and marginalizing African Americans and Muslims. These messages are so deeply engrained in the psyche of American life that most Americans are not conscious of how the stereotypes of people of color and Muslims influence their attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.
Dating back to Reconstruction, Americans have been deluged with images of African Americans as ape-like. These images infiltrated our media, including minstrel shows, Hollywood movies, and cartoons. They appeared in children’s books and toys, from Mammy dolls to the “Little Black Sambo” books. They showed up in household products ranging from salt and pepper shakers to toothpaste. These caricatures have been prominent cultural artifacts in our country for generations and continue to filter our vision of African Americans today.
The continuous portrayals of African Americans as poor, violent, and animalistic is insidious because it becomes embedded in people’s minds from a very young age and contributes to a collective unconscious bias against people of color. Recent studies show that news media over-represents African Americans in portrayals of poverty and criminality. Studies have found that white people unconsciously associate African Americans with apes.
Similarly, since the 1920s, Hollywood has often portrayed Arab and Muslim characters as thieves, killers, belly dancers and brutes. Since the September 11thattacks, Muslims have typically been reduced to characterizations of terrorists, wealthy oil barons, or repressed women. The portrayal in the news media shows an over-representation of Muslims carrying out terrorist attacks, when in reality, right-wing extremists and white supremacists carry out twice as many attacks in the United States as Muslim extremist. Moreover, there has also been a rise in crimes committed against Muslins in the United States in recent years, with the number of physical assaults in 2016 surpassing that of 2001, and a rise in intimidation and vandalism against Muslims.
That’s why Roseanne’s comments and ABC’s subsequent response are important. Although some defenders of Roseanne are trying to shift the focus from her racist, xenophobic statements to other comedians or media personalities who make inappropriate or uncivil jokes, this “what about ______?” argument creates a false comparison. The imagery and rhetoric that Barr employed has led to real, measurable harm to racial and religious minorities in the U. S. for generations. The recent rise of the meme #LivingWhileBlack exemplifies how those harms continue for African Americans in part because of unconscious associations.
Canceling Roseanne was a courageous move for ABC Disney, considering the popularity of the program and the company’s desire to maintain a very broad audience. ABC could have tried to ignore or excuse Barr’s racist statement. It could have weathered what probably would have been a short-term storm of anger from a portion of the population. In a time when we are so consumed by an overload of shocking news reports, ABC could have ridden out the negative reactions until the next big shocking news came. Instead, ABC made a decision that maintained its integrity and showed its support for inclusiveness, even though it will likely upset a portion of its viewers who don’t see a problem with what Roseanne said.
The fact that there has been and continues to be a portion of the population that is just fine with this kind of speech is also important. High-profile transgressors typically seem to get second acts in America. It wasn’t too long ago that Mel Gibson was publicly shunned after a DUI arrest where he made anti-Semitic remarks, only for the public to learn that this event was just one of a multitude of reports and recordings of racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBT statements he had made. In recent years, Gibson has re-entered Hollywood’s good graces, without showing any true public remorse for his years of bigoted behaviors.
Roseanne also has not been a stranger to controversial, conspiratorial, and racially charged statements, so it’s unlikely that we’ve heard the last of her. Despite Barr’s past online comments, ABC greenlit the reboot of the Roseanne show and gave her a platform, which then resulted in the company having to make the controversial decision to cancel the show after her recent tweet.
So, is there a third act for Roseanne, and if so, how will she show up? While her attempts to avoid accountability and feign contrition have fallen on deaf ears so far, how long will it be before some network or outlet gives Roseanne the person or Roseanne the show another chance? And will that chance be given to a reformed Barr who has learned and grown from this experience OR to one seeking a willing accomplice to help her reach the audience of supporters who see nothing wrong with her behavior and thirsts for more hate speech?
Sometimes the right thing to do brings controversy and discomfort. ABC should be lauded for its bold response in a crucial moment.
We welcome your thoughts and comments. Each contributes to the conversation which is the key to understanding and culture change.
Please send them to WATExplorer@gmail.com and we will publish them. Thanks!
Photo (l to r): Lecy Goranson, Roseanne Barr, and Sarah Chalke/Bigstock
Last week’s article on The Pence Rule generated many comments from readers. Representative are two below.
Reader No. 1: Very thought-provoking. The only hesitation I felt was centered on the speculation about why the Pence Rule was espoused by the Pences. It may well have been grounded in some religious/moral reluctance they have to place themselves in temptation’s path, or to create fodder for political scandal (something we often see created at the drop of the hat, in the sense of “where there’s smoke, there must be fire….). I do agree that such a “Rule” should never be used in a business setting where men/women must meet and communicate; it cannot be an excuse to disenfranchise women from participation in an equal setting. While I’m not a fan of the VP, I won’t fault him for the Rule unless I can understand its underpinnings and resulting effect on women in a business or political setting.
Reader No. 2: ——oh my Lord, I had to comment on the Pence Rule. I recalled the times I was in DC lobbying, and I had dinner alone with union members. It really made me giggle recalling at the chances that these men took having dinner with an older woman (very older)!!! Haha!
Pence must be quite confident that he is very attractive to women! That is so funny!
As I get older, I sit back and wonder about what is going on? Is this attitude progress or a solution to the male ego or are we regressing to the Dark Ages!!
Pence’s wife has probably scared the poor man on not venturing to events without her!! Or has convinced him that he is a Hunk!!!
Loved the article!
