hedvigwerner

[hedvigwerner]

Hollywood’s expulsion of Johnny Depp – double standard?

After Johnny Depp’s libel case against The Sun’s publisher News Group Newspapers (NGN) was dismissed by Judge Mr Justice Nicol recently – ruling that Depp “did assault” Amber Heard – Warner Brothers asked Depp to resign from his role as Gellert Grindelwald in the Fantastic Beasts franchise. 27 April, 2018, The Sun published the article: “Gone Potty: How can JK Rowling be ‘genuinely happy’ casting wife beater Johnny Depp in the new Fantastic Beasts film?” written by executive editor Dan Wootton. Depp filed a suit against NGN for describing him as a “wife beater”. 

Depp’s divorce from Heard in 2017 and her allegations of marital abuse in a Washington Post op-ed instigated a sharp fall from grace for the Hollywood power actor. In 2018, Disney fired Depp from The Pirates of the Caribbean – a franchise I don’t think can exist without Captain Jack Sparrow. As a consequence of his recent court defeat in the UK, Depp is to be replaced in Fantastic Beasts 3, possibly by Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen. 

During the libel case, the court heard evidence from Depp and his former wife Amber Heard as well as family, friends and employees of the ex-couple. Now both Depp and Heard allege domestic abuse. In an audio recording presented to court and on the witness stand, Heard admits to hitting Depp – but she claims she did this to defend her sister. Despite these revelations, Heard’s career is not suffering, with her role in Aquaman 2 looking safe. I think this calls for a little review of Hollywood’s history of turning a blind eye on some. 

When the news broke that James Bond actor Sean Connery passed away at 90 years old 31 October this year, love poured out across the Internet. Connery was the first actor to portray the 007 agent, heading seven Bond films between 1962 and 1983. In light of the praise, several outlets critiqued the public’s outpouring with a reminder of Connery’s controversial stance on domestic abuse. In a 1962 Playboy interview, Connery said: "I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman – although I don’t recommend doing it in the same way that you’d hit a man. An open-handed slap is justified if all other alternatives fail”. In a 1987 interview, Barbara Walters referenced the Playboy quote to Connery, “I didn’t love that”, and in response, he said, “I haven’t changed my opinion”. It wasn’t until 2006 that he changed his stance. Connery was certainly a man of a different time and culture, but after so many decades of “I don’t think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman”, did he deserve the recent outpouring of love?  

Despite several controversies with a capital C – a history of making anti-Semitic, racist and homophobic remarks and domestic assault – Mel Gibson’s career persists. For a while there, it did look as though his career was kaput, but in 2016, Gibson made a roaring comeback with World War Two film Hacksaw Ridge starring Andrew Garfield. The film ranks 190 on IMDB’s top 250 and received six Oscar nominations with two wins, including a directing nomination for Gibson. All was forgotten in Tinseltown. 

In July 2013, Emma Roberts was arrested for assaulting her then-fiancé Evan Peters. While at a hotel in Montreal, the police was called to their room after other hotel guests reported hearing a fight. The police found Peters with a bloody nose and a bite mark. Peters did not pursue charges. For this year’s festive season, Roberts launched Netflix’s 2020 Christmas programming with romantic comedy Holidate about two strangers who decide to be each other’s platonic plus-ones for holidays to avoid family scrutiny (even Mother’s Day) but then end up falling in love, for real. With the Montreal incident in past tense, Roberts’ career goes on. 

Sean Penn, another power actor, allegedly abused Madonna when they were married in the 1980s. In 1987, Penn allegedly struck Madonna with a baseball bat. In 1988, following another alleged incident, Penn was charged with domestic assault after Madonna reported him to the police. However, a week later she retracted the complaint and has since denied abuse. Two years following the 1988 incident, the couple divorced. These allegations haven’t had much bearing on his career, having since been nominated for five Academy Awards, two of which he won. 

These are a few examples of Hollywood’s double standard that make me question the industry’s booting of Depp. There isn’t an innocent party in this relationship. From what I’ve read, the marriage was volatile, but the volatility looks to have been incited by both parties. Even though a majority of domestic violence cases involve female victims doesn’t mean that it exclusively happens to women. Men can also be victims of physical and verbal abuse. Hence, the public must take Depp’s allegations seriously, but by that, I don’t mean to exonerate Depp and bully Heard with “Amber Turd”. In the end, this is very much a ‘he said, she said’ case. 

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Do you think Hollywood’s treatment of Johnny Depp is fair or unfair? Considering Johnny’s Depp’s allegations against Heard, should her career suffer as well? 

[hedvigwerner]

How I went from impulsive to mindful shopper

Today I thought I’d share a different type of post and talk a bit about the tools I use to shop mindfully. Over the past few years, I’ve come face to face with the effects of overconsumption on the environment. In the final term of my bachelor’s degree, I took a class on environmental politics that left me more anxious about the future of our planet than ever before. We are in urgent need of action, but can’t rely on large industries and governments for the solution due to short-term thinking – profit and power – clouding their eyes. 

We are, though, seeing big business shift towards renewable energy, with billionaires pumping big money into the energy of the future (they follow suit wherever the money flows). However, I am hesitant about renewable energy, especially wind, solar and biomass. If you’re curious as to why I’m concerned, I recommend Planet of the Humans, which is available to stream for free on YouTube (I might tackle this topic properly in another blog post). 

In all seriousness, I believe the only way for us to really get a grip on this crisis is to do a complete lifestyle and become mindful consumers. This requires a drastic alteration of consumption habits, and I think a great place to start is with our shopping habits. According to a 2016 McKinsey article, the world consumed 60 per cent more clothing in 2014 than in 2000. As a result of brand’s releasing multiple collections each year, UNEP states, “the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles is landfilled or burned” every second. The fashion industry is the second largest consumer of water and the second largest water polluter. According to a report by ECAP, UK consumers buy more clothing than any of their European cousins. On average, every Brit buys an estimated 26.7 kg of clothing each year compared to 15.6 kg in other European nations. These are some worrying facts, and unfortunately, we can count on big fast fashion brands – including luxury – to make drastic changes. 

Overconsumption is a problem that facilitates the fashion industry to continue its destruction of the environment. With demand rising, the industry continues to grow its supply to meet the increasing demand. McKinsey suggests that consumers are choosing to “overlook or tolerate the social and environmental costs of fast fashion”. We see fast fashion companies like H&M releasing “conscious” collections – which sounds like a step in the right direction – but if we look at their business as a whole, the remainder of their collections are not “conscious”. Overproduction can never be “conscious”. If a company markets a new piece of clothing – even though it’s made of recycled or eco-friendly materials – the most sustainable option is always to abstain from purchasing. 

I admit it. I used to buy things on a whim, only to wear an item once or twice to then abandoning it at the back of my wardrobe. However, materialism wasn’t making me happy so I quit overconsumption and implemented 11 mindful habits: 

Time: This was the big one for me. Take the time to consider if you need an item before you buy it. Ask yourself some critical questions. Do I see myself wearing this in two years? How does this fit into my existing wardrobe? Bonus: Your wallet will love you for this one! When you take the time to consider a purchase, you stop buying things you don’t actually need. Give it a few days and you may find that you’ve forgotten all about it. 

Research environmental/ethical brands: Research brands on Good On You, a website/app that rates fashion brands' environmental impact, labour conditions and animal welfare. Using the average scores from these key issues, Good On You gives brands a score of: Great, Good, It’s a Start, Not Good Enough and We Avoid. If you need to buy something, this resource can guide you towards the most sustainable option.

Vintage: Shop vintage and second hand as much as possible. This is also an opportunity to support small businesses. 

Natural fibers: Only purchase clothing made of natural fibers. Even though an item is made of recycled polyester, I wouldn’t buy it just because every time I clean it, it releases micro plastics into the water. A tip if you have clothing made of polyester is to get a wash bag that reduces the release of micro plastics. All in all, I prefer the feel of natural fibers on my skin.  

Quality over quantity: If I buy something new, I make sure it’s good quality. Instead of five cheap items that won’t survive a round in the washing machine, I prefer to get one expensive piece that will last me years.

Made to order: There are small brands popping up that do handmade to order clothing, which is how people back in the day used to get their clothing fix (or they sewed it themselves). Currently, I’m only aware of womenswear labels, I recommend Olivia Rose The Label and Maison Cleo.   

Rent: If you have a special event coming up, rent the outfit. When we buy an outfit for a ball or a wedding, we tend to wear it only once or twice. Because... When the next special event comes up, we usually want something new. Renting is a sustainable option that allows you the variety you’re craving. It means you can wear that really pretty designer dress for a night without paying the exorbitant price tag. 

Avoid trends: Buy clothing that fits your personality and pairs well with your existing wardrobe. Don’t get carried away by an influencer’s haul or the latest trend piece making the rounds on Instagram. 

Mend holes: Get yourself a sewing kit so that you can mend holes and seams, or – if you’re not that handy with a needle – go see a seamster (your local dry cleaners will most likely have this service available). 

Sell: Sell old clothing and accessories on Depop, Vinted or Vestiaire Collective. By finding a new owner, you extend the life of your old garments. 

Donate: Give away to friends or donate to charity shops.

[hedvigwerner]

We’re all sheep, but from different herds.

While procrastinating on the Interweb around my 4 pm slump yesterday, I came across a video by Swedish YouTuber Jenny Mustard called “Childfree in my 30s – what’s wrong with me”. Curious, I clicked on the video to gain a better understanding of her reasoning. It was an anti-climatic answer. She says she doesn’t want kids but that there is no particular reason for this, she just doesn’t want one and is perfectly content with life as is. After watching, I thought, “...why did I care to know her reasoning?”. Why do we expect women who don’t want kids to explain themselves? 

To criticise a woman for not wanting kids is misogynistic because it perpetuates the idea that a woman’s main role in life is caretaker. I want kids but I don’t have anyone asking me to explain that choice, so why demand that from women who don’t want kids? The ability to give birth doesn’t come with an obligation to do so. Unfortunately, for women, there are certain paths that society expects us to take and if we derail from those, people don’t seem to handle it very well. There has to be something wrong with us, they think. 

Take, for instance, being single. In Bridget Jones’s Diary, during a holiday dinner party, Bridget is the only single person at the table and a smug couple decides to interrogate the poor singleton. The husband asks, “How is your love life, Bridget? (...) Offices full of single girls in their 30s. Fine physical specimens but they just can’t seem to hold down a chap”. Then the wife serves the knock-out blow, “Yes, why is it that there are so many unmarried women in their 30s these days, Bridget?”. Bridget laughs it off with a joke but is humiliated. These questions serve to exert blame onto Bridget. The reason why she is single is because she can’t hold down a man. It’s her fault. But why can’t it be the other way around? How about: 30-something men can’t seem to hold down smart, beautiful 30-something women. Or maybe she wants to be single! Mind blown. Considering this film is from 2001, it is a bit sad that this is still an issue. How about we stop putting women up against a wall with uninvited questions regarding their personal choices or circumstances?

Back when I was single, I attended a birthday party where I was seated next to a Parisian girl who, after greeting me, went straight for the “Do you have a boyfriend?” question. I was taken aback, said “no” and proceeded to excuse my single status. I felt uncomfortable with the way she looked at me, like 'single’ was embarrassing to admit. There are so many interesting questions she could have asked me that night. I was only 24 at the time and had recently made the permanent move to London from Paris. We could have talked about that. 

Similarly, people who don’t drink alcohol are often barraged with questions about their against the grain choice. Are you an alcoholic? Is it for religious reasons? Do you not like alcohol? Are you trying to be healthy? These are personal questions. People shouldn’t have to explain why they do as they do, so let’s turn it around, why do you drink? If you find it uncomfortable or peculiar that someone turns their back on the herd, then I think it’s time to take a long, close look at your life, sheep. There is nothing wrong with being a sheep because we’re all sheep in one way or another. However, we must allow people to choose their herd – which isn’t necessarily the mainstream herd – without demanding an explanation from them. There are many ways to be a sheep and that’s A-OKAY. 

[hedvigwerner]

Do you read the full article before sharing?

In 2013, Farhad Manjoo wrote an article for Slate called “You won’t finish this article”. He opens with: “I’m going to keep this brief, because you’re not going to stick around for long. I’ve already lost a bunch of you. For every 161 people who landed on this page, about 61 of you—38 percent—are already gone. You “bounced” in Web traffic jargon, meaning you spent no time “engaging” with this page at all.” Manjoo had Chartbeat set up an analysis to compare twitter shares with readers scrolling Slate articles, and they found little correlation between Twitter activity and article completion. This means people often share articles without even reading the whole thing. 

ITV published the following article today: “Coronavirus: Rishi Sunak suggests musicians and others in arts should retrain and find other jobs”. The headline was subsequently shared in anger on social media. As a creative, I was upset by the headline that was regurgitated across social media and reacted accordingly, but then a friend recommended I take a closer look. I watched ITV News’ clip with the Chancellor and found that the journalist had twisted Sunak’s words in the headline to fit a certain agenda. 

In the video, the journalist asks: “If you are a professional musician, what is your message right now? If they can’t earn enough money to live, is your message for them: ‘you’re going to have to get another job’? Sunak responds: “My simple message to everybody is that we’re trying everything that we can to protect as many jobs as possible. Look, it’s a very sad time (...) I can’t pretend that everyone can do the exact same job that they were doing at the beginning of this crisis. And that’s why we’ve put a lot our extra resource into trying to create new opportunities for people”. Sunak’s reply was evidently meant for everyone, not just creatives (as the headline incorrectly framed Sunak’s statement as). ITV has since mended the headline to reflect this: “Covid: Rishi Sunak says people in ‘all walks of life’ are having to adapt for employment”. Unfortunately, as is evidenced by Manjoo’s Slate article and now this, we have a tendency to share prematurely. 

Even though I firmly believe that the creative industries deserve more support and disagree with many of the government’s policies, I think that in this particular case, Sunak’s message was pretty rational. We’re in a crisis and have no other choice but to adapt. Creatives, that means doing what we do best: being creative. 

Lesson of the day: scrutinise headlines and read/watch until the end.  

[hedvigwerner]

Do you have a beauty bias?

“Mitch McConnell is ugly”. I’ve seen this line tossed around the Internet for the past two days in connection with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rushing to get Trump’s nominee for the vacant Supreme Court seat a vote in Senate before the presidential election. It’s a type of attack I’ve been guilty of employing as well. I disagree strongly with McConnel’s policies, no question, but I think his appearance is irrelevant to the coverage of the undemocratic policies he’s pushing. 

You don’t start a conversation by hurting someone’s feelings. Imagine that we’re having a disagreement and my first reaction is: “You look like a turtle”. How are we going to have a civil conversation about our disagreement? I am closing the gate before the conversation even takes place because who wants to talk to a bully? We go on and on about how the Internet is a bully, but at the same time, our first point of attack is to call someone ugly or fat. Isn’t that ironic? Commenting on appearance does nothing but prove that the Internet is a bipartisan bully. In the same way we call Mitch McConnell ugly, our attempts to fat-shame Donald Trump are futile and completely misses the point. We have a beauty bias and it’s time for a reckoning. 

Earlier this year, Baby Driver actor Ansel Elgort was accused of sexual assault by Gabby, a girl he had a brief relationship with in 2014. He issued a denial and poor apology on Instagram, in which he seemed to insinuate, not directly, that her accusation was revenge for him ghosting her. Fans quickly came to his rescue, commenting things in the tone of ‘oh I wish I could have been with him’ and ‘she’s lucky’. His fans suffer from a beauty bias. From watching his films, they had formed a certain image of him in their heads, and to them, Ansel Elgort, a handsome actor, could never do anything wrong. He doesn’t look like a bad person. 

As shown in the Netflix series Conversations with a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, after serial killer Ted Bundy was given the death sentence, the Miami trial’s judge, Edward D. Cowart of Dade County Circuit Court, told the murderer:  

"Take care of yourself, young man. I say that to you sincerely; take care of yourself, please. It's a tragedy for this court to see such a total waste, I think, of humanity that I have experienced in this court. You're a bright young man. You would have made a good lawyer and I would have loved to have you practice in front of me, but you went another way, partner. Take care of yourself. I don't feel any animosity toward you. I want you to know that. Once again, take care of yourself".

The display of kindness demonstrated by the judge towards Ted Bundy, a man who killed 40 women, exemplifies our bias around beauty. Despite being a serial killer, Ted Bundy was perceived as a ‘bright, young man’ because of his traditionally ‘likable’ traits. 

Truth is, bad people don’t look a certain way, and that’s why we need to stop conflating appearance with actions. By equating looks and actions, we are inherently linking poor morals with ‘unattractive’ traits. 

[hedvigwerner]

Are you thinking what I’m thinking?

I visited an independent bookshop on a tight alley off of the high street in Richmond yesterday. On one of their over-stacked tables lay several cookbooks. All looked pretty much the same. Minimalist design featuring text in happy, summer-y colours (either pink or green or both) and the author laughing/smiling, looking off to the side or down at the food in front of them (a hysterical bowl of curry). Cookbook publishers have found their formula and are sticking to it. However, because everything looks the same, nothing sticks out. Not that I was on the hunt for a new cookbook, but if I was, none of them made me feel hungry. I’ve definitely seen this before. 

This is the case with most things, the internet especially. The internet has, in fact, sped up the rate of regurgitation. Cottagecore is a popular aesthetic on Instagram, and I have admittedly lost myself in several profiles capturing this idyllic existence. Old cottage house. Washed linen in muted colours. Shabby chic. Long, flowing dresses. Knee-high grass. Antiques. The aesthetic is so beautiful but it is regurgitated over and over, just with a different person inhabiting the space. 

Job ads are regurgitations as well because companies seem to always be looking for the same type of person: Collaborative but also independent. Works well in a fast-paced environment. Self-starter. Excellent communication skills. Can-do attitude. Highly organised. Same person, different job.

I think we might be caught in a regurgitative cycle, and my guess is that it comes from a need to feel accepted. A need to fit within a certain identity. Subsequently, people end up creating various iterations of something that already exists. If something already works or is widely agreed upon, we sort of take it from there. Same design, different person. That isn’t always a bad thing, if the regurgitation is an improvement (that’s how we evolve). But sometimes I think you can lose a sense of yourself in that process because you are essentially conforming.

So how do we stop regurgitating? With so much input daily, from other people and social media, it’s hard to filter out our original beliefs/thoughts/ideas from those which are borrowed. We are unique at our core, but we’ve been clouded by the meaning given to us by the community we subscribe to. Deconstructing the regurgitated layers starts with questioning each of them. Where did this idea come from? Why do I believe this? Who made me think this way? What do I really think? 

In the blog post titled Postmortem: Every Frame A Painting, Tony Zhou announced the end of YouTube channel Every Frame A Painting but also gave the very valuable advice of seeking information offline:

“A huge percentage of the Internet is the same information, repeated over and over again. This is especially apparent on film websites; they call it aggregation but it’s really just a nicer way to say regurgitation. So go to the library. Read books. We cannot emphasize this enough: read books, read books, read books. Your work is only as good as your research, and the best research tool we have is the public library (or a film archive/research library if you’re lucky)”.

[hedvigwerner]

Political Ambiguity

In what I find to be a highly politicised public discourse, I feel obliged to pick a side; to define myself. Here the other day, I spent the afternoon googling around in an anxious attempt to pigeonhole myself, asking “Who am I, politically-speaking?”. Thoroughly frustrated with my internal monologue, I turned to my boyfriend: “If I think so and so, does that make me a so and so? But on the other hand, I don’t think so and so is the case, which usually so and so thinks”. He simply replied: “You don’t have to define yourself politically”. “Really?”. “Really”. What a relief, I thought. Just because I believe in certain ideas pertaining to Y, doesn’t mean I have to identify as Y, seeing as I might not agree with all of Y’s ideas. 

Personally, I view media’s treatment—especially social media—of politics to be extremely toxic. It’s like two camps at war—liberals versus conservatives—and I am disenchanted with both as I see the space between them getting widened by the hour; both at full speed towards each respective extremity in outright condemnation of the other. Both equally intolerant. Political affiliation has become synonymous with identity, which I don’t think is a good thing. I agree with Aristotle’s zoon politikon (= political animal), that human beings are political by nature and thus, everything we do is political, but that doesn’t mean our political identity is fixed. It is fluid—or at least it is for me.

I have never been nor ever seriously considered becoming a member of a political party. The reason for that is simple: it’s impossible to find a political party that you agree with on all policies. My vote has usually been cast as a result of whether I like the current party leader or not and if most of their policies and general discourse align with my views. Or I voted for the party that I viewed, at the time, as the lesser evil (as depressing as that always sounds). I think it’s safe to say that political parties and systems are in need of some serous refurbishment, however, bureaucratic hurdles make it hard for new parties to make ground.

With this in mind, I now identify as politically ambiguous. To clarify, that doesn’t mean I’m a moderate, it means I’m politically undefinable. And that’s that. 

[hedvigwerner]

Part 2: Self-Righteous Beings

This is part two in a two-part reflection series on the book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion by Jonathan Haidt. Read Part 1: Liberal Anger. 

With ‘self-righteous beings’ I’m referring to the belief that we—individuals or groups—are morally superior to others. An incident described in The Righteous Mind that stood out to me was a survey where Jonathan Haidt and his team asked liberals, moderates, and conservatives to answer a questionnaire as themselves but also as the other to investigate how well the different sides understood each other. As a matter of fact, conservatives emulating liberals performed much better than liberals answering as conservatives (especially those who identified as far-left). Liberals, answering as conservatives, made the most errors when answering questions relating to Care and Fairness, mislead by a stereotypical belief that conservatives don’t care about the wellness of others. Exposing stereotypical ideas such as this reveals a Manichaean view of political society. Each side identifies as good in opposition to the evil other.

Before I deep dive into the moral matrix of political groups, let me introduce you to Haidt’s definition of moral systems first: 

“Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.”

Haidt applies moral foundations theory—which consists of six foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression—to differentiate between liberals, libertarians, and conservatives. Considering liberals value caring for victims of oppression, their moral matrix emphasises Care/Harm, secondly Liberty/Oppression, and thirdly, Fairness/Cheating. Libertarians’ moral matrix rests heavily on Liberty/Oppression and a fair bit on Fairness/Cheating, as libertarians value individual liberty above all. According to conservatives, traditions and institutions help preserve a moral community, and for them, their moral matrix is much broader than the two aforementioned and covers all six moral foundations. The makeup of each group’s moral matrix differs, but it also shows that certain stereotypes are in fact just stereotypes. 

I think this reflection on different versions of morality is important to keep in mind because in order to break away from self-righteous behaviour, we have to understand where the other side is coming from. Sometimes what the other side is proposing isn’t as far-fetched as you might think at first. Conservatives are often more hesitant towards change compared to their liberal counterparts, especially when they feel that change poses a threat to institutions, such as the family unit. However, this hesitance doesn’t mean they are opposed to change. Bear in mind that groups are crucial to human beings because we crave belonging. Even though groups do at times exclude, which liberals are very much against, they serve a purpose because it is in groups that we develop virtues. Without groups or institutions, human beings begin to experience anomie (coined by sociologist Émile Durkheim), which is when people start feeling disconnected to their society as a result of norm disintegration. Change is good, but maybe something to take away from the conservative point of view is that we need to pace ourselves? 

Before moving to London, I lived in Paris for a year and a half. Although I loved Paris and still do, I did feel a sense of anomie during my time there. I found that in France, it was a struggle to locate different types of groups and people. It’s hard to articulate, but I would describe it as a diverse display of colours being painted over by a single neutral colour. When France won the World Cup in 2018, Trevor Noah jokingly said “Africa won the world cup”. The French Ambassador, Gérard Araud (who I believe is a liberal as he was ambassador under the socialist government of President François Hollande), to the US at the time sent Trevor Noah an angry letter: 

“France is indeed a cosmopolitan country, but every citizen is part of the French identity and together they belong to the nation of France. Unlike in the United States of America, France does not refer to its citizens based on their race, religion, or origin. To us, there is no hyphenated identity, roots are an individual reality”. 

Trevor Noah defended his stance by saying that the football players could be both French and African at the same time. My experience coupled with this example taught me that groups and affiliations are important—I can see the wisdom of the conservative mindset. For conservatives, the group affiliation might mean religion, whilst for me, that just means likeminded people. When I lived in France, I found their neutral approach troubling because their supposed “blindness” to difference essentially censored diversity. Neutrality isn’t always a good thing. 

The most important lesson that Haidt wishes the reader to take away from The Righteous Mind is that there is no single moral matrix that works for everyone. To believe your morality is superior to that of someone else is essentially fundamentalist. In the end, morality varies across the board and is incredibly diverse; it’s plural. And there you have it... To overcome divide and rid ourselves of our self-righteousness, I’ve learnt that we must try to relate to and empathise with the circumstances of the person or group with which we disagree. The goal isn’t necessarily to persuade or come to an agreement, but to respect each other. Agree to disagree, so to say. 

[hedvigwerner]

Hollywood and the ‘Good versus Evil’ Trope

Last night I watched the 2014 film American Sniper for the first time, which stars Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle, a Navy Seal sniper who fought in the Iraq war. The film is intended to shed a light on the aftermath of war and veterans' struggles with PTSD, but since a majority of the plot takes place in Iraq, with Kyle battling Iraqis, the film renders the scenes focused on Kyle's acclimatisation to normal life ineffective. In truth, I was pretty surprised when I was told mid-film that it is about veterans and PTSD because my impression watching this was that Clint Eastwood was glorifying a highly controversial war. Eastwood portrayed American soldiers as the 'good' in the good/evil binary whilst Iraqis were either portrayed as savages or victims. The 'good versus evil' trope is an incredibly damaging simplification of war, and blockbuster war films have a tendency to perpetuate this stereotype.

Firstly, war is complex. Secondly, when it comes to Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, the Americans were most definitely the bad guys. Quick disclaimer: my second point is not to say that Saddam Hussein's authoritarian regime was good, but Bush's invasion of Iraq was based on false rumours of WMD and the cover story of American liberation of the Iraqi people. Again, things are complex and the good/evil binary is not as clearcut as Hollywood films make it out to be. It is important to understand that the violence and oppression of Saddam Hussein's regime is inextricably linked to the cycle of violence established by Western colonialism in the Middle East, but this is a conversation for another day (I recommend checking out Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth; he looks at the replication of violence in Algeria by the colonised in their quest for freedom from the French colonisers).

The 9/11 terror attacks feature early on in American Sniper, which is problematic because right afterwards the film skips to Kyle's first deployment to Iraq. This sequence of scenes make me think Eastwood uses 9/11 to justify the war against Iraq. 9/11 was a tragedy, but I think the reference to it in this film is outrageous since there were no Iraqis involved in 9/11. 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudi, and the rest were from the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and Egypt. So I ask, why is a scene showing 9/11 relevant to the plot of this film? As an audience member, I see everything that a filmmaker chooses to include in a film as intentional because every scene or line is there supposedly to drive the plot forward.

The below video makes a comparison between American Sniper and the Nazi propaganda film in Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds where a Nazi sniper singlehandedly shoots down 250 allied soldiers from a church tower. This bears an uncanny resemblance to the hero-ification of sniper Chris Kyle and his 160 confirmed kills in Iraq:

American Sniper brought me right back to the topic of my bachelor dissertation "The Hypocrisy of American Foreign Policy in Iran and Saudi Arabia", in which I applied post-colonial theory to reveal how stereotypical discourse in American foreign policy post-Bush has been used to justify American policy in Iran and Saudi Arabia. In order to introduce the chapter on American foreign policy in Iran, I looked at Ben Affleck's portrayal of Iranians in his Oscar-winning 2012 film Argo. The film chronicles the Hostage Crisis at the American embassy during the Islamic revolution in Iran and is the true story of a Canadian-American operation to rescue six American embassy workers hiding in the Canadian embassy by disguising them as a Canadian film crew location scouting for a science fiction film. The Hostage Crisis was an awful and traumatising event, but so was Iran's 20th century history at the hands of foreign powers (which Argo ignored completely). Argo utilises stereotypical depictions of Iranians; they are portrayed as dangerous, aggressive and foreign opposite the heroic, empathetic and familiar Americans. This film is an example of how Iranians, and people of the Islamic faith, are often perceived in cinema and media in general, and consequently, in public discourse.

The othering of the Middle East in American cinema I find extremely problematic as it seeps into public opinion. Hollywood, in the same way as American politicians (both Republicans and Democrats), is implicit in spreading xenophobia. Most of the Hollywood films that paint a patriotic image of American 'bravery'—a depiction that is enforced by the 'barbaric' portrayal of Islamic terrorists— in the Middle East ignore, for instance, American exploitation of Middle Eastern oil resources in the 20th century or their support of friendly authoritarian governments (one of which used to be dictator Saddam Hussein). To step away from war or conflict films for a moment, Disney's Aladdin is also a prime example of Western-stereotyping of Muslim-majority countries. The song and scene A Whole New World sees Aladdin and Jasmin escaping an evil sheikdom on a magic carpet for a better world. What comes across as a beautiful song—in a movie intended for children—has an insidious orientalist overtone.

I leave you with two conclusions:

1: It's time to stop glorifying war or conflict in cinema, and instead, make films that paint an accurate image of war and the opposing sides. The good versus evil binary dismisses the complexity of war.

2: It's time to make films that don't stereotype Muslims as either jihadi terrorists or victims in need of Western salvation.

[hedvigwerner]

Part 1: Liberal Anger

This is part one in a two-part reflection series on the book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion by Jonathan Haidt.

Liberal anger is something I’ve struggled with for quite some time. My liberal anger very much peaked in 2016 with Brexit and the election of Donald Trump (and subsequent rise of extreme right parties across the world), and has sort of simmered below surface ever since. A resting active volcano, waiting for the next blow to its moral beliefs. In recent years, my anger has centred around climate change and its sceptics, especially after the IPCC released their 2018 report. My anger reached a tipping point where I found it emotionally impossible to discuss climate change with people who didn’t share my beliefs. The anger blindsided my ability to reason as defensive flood gates broke loose, and no coherent arguments ensued. Honestly, I don’t want to be angry anymore. It’s exhausting and it doesn’t do me or my ability to debate any good whatsoever.

In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt explains the moral psychology behind why people have different views and how that puts them at odds with each other. People have different moral world views because they have grown up in different circumstances. Despite appearances, liberals and conservatives might still have the same motivation or desired outcome, but their ideas on how to get there conflict. Haidt points out that both liberals and conservatives are, for instance, concerned with prevention of STDs and teen pregnancy, but for liberals, sex education is the way there, and for Christian conservatives, abstinence might be key. When the author saw where the other side was coming from and that their arguments did make sense (even though he was still firm in his beliefs), he was able to let go of his partisan anger: “It felt good to be released from partisan anger. And once I was no longer angry, I was no longer committed to reaching the conclusion that righteous anger demands: we are right, they are wrong. I was able to explore new moral matrices, each one supported by its own intellectual traditions”.

When we approach others with anger, they will most likely respond with anger in return. When this happens, there is little chance that meaningful conversation will come of it. Haidt describes humans as having an elephant and a rider. The elephant is our intuition, which means the elephant is in charge of our immediate response. The rider is reason, so it creates arguments to support the elephant’s reaction. If someone’s elephant approaches another person’s elephant with immediate rejection, the rider will frantically assemble reasoning to reject everything the other person says. And the other person’s elephant and rider will likely do the same... With this approach, it becomes impossible to convince anyone of anything. Partisan anger makes us reject first, then ask rhetorical questions later. If we want to change someone’s opinion, we have to hold our horses and be willing to listen to their side of things and ask critical questions. 

A good example of this kind of conversation happened back in 2016, when liberal Trevor Noah invited conservative commentator Tomi Lahren to the Daily Show. However, Noah received a ton of backlash from liberal critics who argued that by having Lahren on the show, Noah was providing her with a platform. He followed up with a Behind the Scenes as an answer to the criticism, “I love having discussions with people I know I don’t agree with, and they don’t agree with me. I also think that’s the best place to challenge your ideas, otherwise you get trapped in a bubble where you're just talking to people who agree with you, like “I think this”. “I agree”. “Yeah!”. “Yeah!”. But I never have to sharpen my ideas, unless I meet someone who challenges those ideas, you know?”. 

It feels like we’re in such a politically divided world, and Putin is loving it... Learn to converse with and respect those who don’t share your beliefs. Who knows, they might even have the same end goal. But... At least there is an opportunity to sharpen your arguments, like Trevor Noah, and maybe even change some minds in the process.

In Part 2: Self-Righteous Beings - the belief in our own moral superiority, I’ll be looking closer at the moral foundations of liberals and conservatives.