The Case for Authentic Disability Representation in Media and Why Our Society Desperately Needs It
HIGHLIGHTS
• More than 95% of all characters with disabilities seen on television are played by non-disabled actors.
• Media can make a difference by helping to normalize disability and expose people, disabled and able bodies alike, to disabled characters they can admire and relate to.
• Hollywood is leaving approximately $125 billion annually on the table by not having authentic and accurate disability representation.
Our society is currently buzzing with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) movements. From the classroom to corporate board rooms, and all over social media, you can find people of all ages discussing things like how to be anti-racist or how to properly use gender pronouns. While these are all vastly important conversations to have, the largest marginalized group in the world is consistently left out of this conversation: the disabled population. All of these DEI efforts are vital as we strive to continue learning and growing to make our world a more loving place, but we will never succeed if we’re ignoring the world's largest marginalized community.
The media mirrors this societal oversight — disability representation lags far behind every other marginalized group. In the U.S. today, one in four people (26 percent) have a disability and yet only 3.1 percent of characters on-screen are disabled. In children’s television representation is even worse - less than one percent.
With over a quarter of our population identifying as disabled, recent market research found that Hollywood is leaving billions of dollars on the table. That is a striking number, but not what’s most concerning. Media tends to reflect our society’s values so more importantly, above everything -- the lack of visibility all around is killing disabled people. Let’s explore why.
As children, we observe the world around us in order to make meaning of our own lives, identities, and experiences. When we see people we can relate to and look up to, it helps us create a sense of self. However, when we don’t see anyone similar around us we can relate to, we turn to movies and television to fill that role. When we see positive portrayals of characters we connect with, it can positively impact our mental health. My younger brother, who has Cerebral Palsy, had virtually no positive portrayals in media. No characters that looked like, talked like, or processed the world like him. Not only did that impact my brother’s sense of self, I realized the lack of representation in media impacted the way non-disabled people interacted with my brother and those like him.
We often fear what we don’t understand, and some disabilities may look or sound startling if you’ve never seen it before. This is where media has an opportunity to be largely impactful by creating exposure and understanding through authentic representation. Media can make a difference by helping to normalize disability and expose people, disabled and able bodies alike, to disabled characters they can admire and relate to. I witnessed this lack of exposure first hand with my brother, and his physical differences due to his Cerebral Palsy. People stared, but it wasn’t their fault; they had never been exposed to people with bodies that were built and functioned atypically. My brother uses a walker as a mobility aid, but often still falls down due to weakness in his leg muscles. Sometimes he’d knock things over in public on his way down, which made my family a spectacle. When we were younger I tried to hide my embarrassment, pushing my emotions aside, pretending it was no big deal. But I desperately wished others could see my brother as I did: just a kid with some extra challenges.
This lack of exposure and understanding has been seen throughout history, perpetuating more misunderstanding and stigma around the disabled population. Historically, disabled people have been killed, sent away, hidden from the public, or socially pressured to hide their disabilities if possible. This is why it’s vital that we include characters with disabilities in media, especially children’s media -- so we can normalize all types of bodies and neurodiversity. Studies have shown that kids who are exposed to diverse types of people at a young age grow up to be less discriminatory and more accepting individuals. If kids and adults could get to know and interact with more disabled people, whether in real life or on screen, seeing my brother wouldn’t be such an event to stare at.
COVID-19 pandemic emphasized society’s “ableist” values
A larger reason we must strive for more disabled representation is because authentic representation can actually shift societal cultural values. Our society needs to start valuing the lives of disabled people. In the beginnings of the COVID-19 pandemic, many disabled people in group homes were essentially triaged as less important lives to save and they and their staff didn’t receive access to essential COVID-19 precautions and resources. This resulted in an astounding death toll for this group. In New York, one study found people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who were living in group homes with roommates and care staff, were dying at nearly 8 times the rate. In England, one article reported 60 percent of the deaths from COVID-19 in 2020 were disabled individuals and many of these deaths were preventable. Yet, mainstream media has not been covering this. The lack of news coverage is telling, and reflects our society’s ableism at its finest - the idea that non-disabled lives are more important than disabled ones.
Unfortunately, this is just one blaring example of ableism that directly resulted in a devastating number of disabled deaths. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities overall tend to have a higher mortality rate. In some cases there may be other health factors related to their condition that makes their lifespan shorter. However, in many cases it’s a lack of access to and receiving proper and effective healthcare that is the true barrier. Disabled people are dying unnecessarily, period. This can only change when our society as a whole starts valuing disabled lives - but first they must see ableism as a problem. One way we fight ableism? All together now! More accurate and authentic portrayals in the media.
Disability as a prop or “inspiration porn” in media
In 2020, CSS released a report on the importance of authentically inclusive representation in regards to diverse identities, with a special focus on race. One way to ensure authentic representation is by breaking harmful group stereotypes - for example in the case of race, not only showing Asians as quiet and nerdy, or Black women as sexualized and dominant. In the same way we must also be mindful with our portrayals of disability and what it means to be authentic. Oftentimes if disabled people are visible on screen at all, they are depicted as unintelligent (or off-puttingly intelligent), as a burden, or simply a prop to progress the story along. The character is reduced to one aspect of their identity, their disability. Often a main, non-disabled character is motivated by or learns a lesson thanks to this disabled side character. When portrayals are limited to this and people are diminished to just their disability, we as a society expect them to be merely a side character in our world which leads to more discrimination and exclusion.
While often well-intended, there is another problematic trope of these generic and cliché portrayals of disabled people. The main character, typically an able-bodied person, often helps or “saves” a disabled person, or even uses the struggles and triumphs of a disabled character to inspire others. This surface-level touching story is commonly referred to as “inspiration porn.” This can be tricky because good intent unfortunately reduces the disabled character to being objectified only to inspire others, rather than celebrating and spotlighting the disabled person as just a person. This instead promotes the message that disabled people should be pitied or need help rather than celebrating them for the intricate humans they are and what they have to give to the world.
In this way, the media we consume has the power to create negative biases towards disabled individuals unintentionally. However, we also know that when thoughtfully portrayed, narrative stories have the power to dismantle biases and shift our culture to be a more inclusive society. Researchers studied this phenomenon by comparing internalized racial bias to LGBTQ+ biases during the Obama years. You might think having a Black president would shift our internalized racism, however the levels of bias didn’t change over the eight years. Yet, during those same years, LGBTQ+ biases dropped significantly which researchers attribute to popular media and television shows that were LGBTQ+ inclusive, like Glee. So how can we do this with disability?
Getting it right: include disabled individuals
There’s a common saying amongst the disabled community: nothing about us without us. In the context of storytelling, this speaks directly to the idea that if the story features a disabled character, there should be people involved both behind and in front of the camera who can directly relate to the character. We have a lot of room for growth, as more than 95 percent of all characters with disabilities seen on television are played by non-disabled actors. However, there are a few recent shows that have made waves in authentic disability representation. Shows like Speechless, Special, and Everything’s Going to be Okay intentionally and authentically portray disability by actually hiring creators and actors who are disabled. The lead characters in Speechless and Special have Cerebral Palsy, as do the actors who portrayed them. In Everything’s Going to be Okay, one of the lead characters is Autistic and the actress who plays her has Autism Spectrum Disorder. These shows also had creators behind the camera who had direct experiences with the disabilities portrayed in the show and the combination of having actors and creators with lived experiences made these shows stand out and recognized for their work.
But let’s talk business.
So why should a behemoth industry like Hollywood care? For one, research shows that disability-inclusive workplaces significantly increase revenue, profit margins, and employee productivity. Inclusive or universal design, is the concept that when things are designed for people with permanent disabilities, everyone in society benefits. It’s sometimes referred to as the “curb-cut effect” as a curb-cut was designed for wheel-chair users, but people pushing strollers, or people riding bikes, or a film crew unloading equipment, also benefit. At the end of the day, Hollywood is a business, so to speak to that angle - in 2019 the Ruderman Family Foundation found that Hollywood is leaving approximately $125 billion dollars annually on the table by not having authentic and accurate disability representation. Talk about missed opportunities!
Imagining an inclusive world
All in all, it’s time we start recognizing and celebrating people with disabilities as a valuable part of our society because disability impacts ALL of us. Disability is the only minority group anyone can join at any time. Take a moment to let that sink in. Disability is the only minority group anyone can join at any time. In the UK they found that eighty percent of the disabled population were not born with a disability. That means that experiencing disability personally or through a loved one very likely will be a part of your life if it isn’t already. This is a universal experience that pervades race, sexuality, and socioeconomic status, so it’s time we start talking about it and representing it as so. Let’s use the power of media and storytelling to foster connection and belonging, to uplift others, and truly create a more inclusive world. Hire disabled people and let them tell their stories. My dream is to see a world where diversity is truly celebrated and embraced, and this includes disability. As we all know “with great power comes great responsibility,” so Hollywood - it’s time to walk the walk and step up to the responsibility of the power you have, to truly make our world a better place. I want to look around and see films and series’ that show people like my brother having a life filled with purpose, connection, mishaps, friendships and love. Because even though the challenges may look different on the outside, we can all relate to the pains and joys of what it means to be human.
How to Diversify Autism Representation in the Media and Why Intersectionality Matters
HIGHLIGHTS
• Autism is a complex spectrum that includes a variety of symptoms, and no two autistic individuals exhibit the same ones.
• White children are 110% more likely to be identified with autism than Black children and 120% more likely than Hispanic children.
• Transgender and gender-diverse individuals experience higher rates of autism in comparison to their cisgender counterparts.
Growing up as an autistic individual has been difficult for many reasons, most of which stem from my interactions with other people. One memorable instance occurred during a speech therapy session I had in middle school. Although I was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) at the age of 2 and had numerous records indicating so, my then-speech therapist insisted that there was no way I could be autistic. Why? Because I did well in school. This was not an isolated incident though: to this day, I find that many people, including professionals, are surprisingly ignorant about autistic people who deviate from the typical white male savant. I, for instance, am a woman who isn’t a savant and was able to make friends and find love.
Unfortunately, autistic people like me are not represented often in the media, where many people develop their understanding of the autistic experience. While most autistic characters are portrayed as white male geniuses (like Rain Man and The Good Doctor), the fact is, autism is exponentially more complex and diverse than what we see on-screen.
In fact, a study done in 2018 on media portrayals of ASD found that around 46% of the autistic characters on-screen had savant abilities, yet only 10% of autistic people possess these skills in real life. In reality, autism is a complex spectrum that includes a variety of symptoms, and no two autistic individuals exhibit the same ones. Further, the autistic narrative excludes many important aspects of life, such as experiences with dating and romance. Perhaps most disappointing, though, is the sheer lack of intersectionality with media representations of ASD, especially with regard to gender and race.
Connections with Gender and Sexuality
Autism affects individuals of all genders and sexualities, yet most media portrayals reinforce the aforementioned stereotypes. In an article highlighting the experiences women have with ASD, it was noted that women are expected to act “normal” while living with ASD. For instance, young women are expected to complete their studies, behave like their neurotypical peers, and pick up social cues all without supplemental aid. This can lead them to camouflage behaviors (i.e., mimic neurotypical individuals to act “normal”), ultimately delaying the proper diagnosis and treatment they need. While their male counterparts quickly receive assistance and ASD identification, women feel out of place due to society providing cis men a space to “act out”, allowing neurodirvergence to be seen rather than ignored. Furthermore, one 2020 study found that transgender and gender-diverse individuals experience higher rates of autism in comparison to their cisgender counterparts. Although there are many women and LGBTQ+ individuals on the autistic spectrum, in the rare instances where autistic relationships appear on-screen, they are almost always shown from the male, heterosexual perspective.
Fortunately, there have been recent increases in shows and movies about autism’s intersection with gender and sexuality. Atypical explores an autistic boy’s difficulties with dating and coming of age, and Love on the Spectrum includes queer representation. Everything’s Gonna Be Okay includes one female character navigating her experiences with ASD and the dating world, a role played by an actor who actually has ASD, Kayla Cromer. However, these few stories cannot capture everyone’s experiences with ASD. While Atypical discusses how to navigate romance, it once again follows the narrative of a white, cisgender, male character. Similarly, Love on the Spectrum and Everything’s Gonna Be Okay mainly consisted of a white, cisgender cast. So, while the media continues to include more women and LGBTQ+ people with autism, there must also be a push for more nuanced representations with race.
Connections with Race
According to a 2018 community report on autism, white children are 110% more likely to be identified with autism than Black children and 120% more likely than Hispanic children. Many factors influence this occurrence, such as socioeconomic status and even cultural differences. To protect against discrimination, for example, African American families often emphasize independence and self-reliance in their children; if misinterpreted by family or health care providers, these characteristics could lead to a delayed diagnosis of autism. Furthermore, these diagnostic delays can often stem from healthcare provider bias, which could then lead to doctors misinterpreting symptoms and misdiagnosing patients from underrepresented groups. And due to stigma surrounding disability in some ethnic communities, some families may struggle to reach any diagnosis or may not even accept the presence of autism. As a result, many autistic children of color do not receive the proper treatment and support they need compared to white autistic children. Further, low-income communities of color tend to watch the most TV in the US, making it more likely that these individuals will encounter the redundant portrayal of white autistic characters.
Stories featuring autistic people of color may decrease late diagnosis in these communities by reducing stigma and depicting what autism truly looks like. One great example is Pixar’s short film “Loop,” whose main character is a nonverbal, autistic girl of color. The short has been praised by the ASD community and provides a great foundation for future representations of autistic people of color. Diversifying autism in the media can help eliminate misconceptions that prevent people of color from receiving the proper identification they need.
Conclusion
Increasing autism representation in the media would be invaluable for autistic viewers, especially autistic youth. As you may expect, autistic youth tend to experience more bullying than their neurotypical peers and may face additional bullying for other aspects of their identity such as race and sexuality. It doesn’t help that the media illustrates autistic characters as unappealing or unwanted. By including a wide array of autism representation in the media, autistic youth of all ages, races, genders, and sexualities may feel better represented and understood.
Actionable Insights
Show the diversity within the autistic community by including characters of varying race, gender, socioeconomic status, and sexuality.
Directly involve more autistic people in content creation: cast more individuals on the spectrum, recruit more autistic people behind the scenes, and consult the autistic community often.
Highlight varying issues that different populations have while growing up and living with ASD, like an autistic woman’s struggle with diagnosis or person of color’s experience with cultural stigma around disability.
This article is written from the perspective of:
B.A. Psychology, Research Assistant at Developmental Transitions Laboratory
Co-authors:
CSS Intern
CSS Intern
B.A. Psychology, Research Assistant at Developmental Transitions Laboratory
B.A. Psychology, Research Assistant at Developmental Transitions Laboratory
B.A. Psychology, Research Assistant at Developmental Transitions Laboratory
5 ways to challenge systemic ableism during Autism Acceptance Month
This article originally appeared on The Conversation on April 21, 2021.
April is World Autism Month. It kicked off on April 2 — World Autism Awareness Day — launching a month of activities and events across the world including the Autism Speaks’ Light It Up Blue campaign. Each year, key landmarks across Canada and the globe, including Toronto’s CN Tower, Ottawa’s Peace Tower and Vancouver’s B.C. Place light up blue to promote public awareness and understanding.
What could possibly be wrong with a campaign to sensitize the public to autism?
World Autism Month and Light it up Blue have been the subject of protest from autistic self-advocates and organizations such as Ontario’s Autistics for Autistics and the national group, Autistics United Canada.
Self-advocates point to the absence of autistic leadership in awareness campaigns and describe how the powerful advocacy organizations that fund them — led primarily by non-autistic people — continue to portray autistic people negatively as mysterious puzzles to be solved. They continue to focus on cures for autism or therapies that aim to “fix” autistic people.
At first blush, it might seem that autism organizations are finally heeding the concerns of autistic self-advocates. Words such as “inclusion,” “diversity,” “acceptance” and “understanding” pepper their campaigns. Yet these organizations persist in advancing the rhetoric of autism as a burden and disorder and often exclude autistic people from leadership.
As allies, parents and critical autism researchers, we understand the dire need for awareness, advocacy and research. Findings from our Re•Storying Autism project show autistic children and adults experience higher rates of bullying, mental health struggles, misunderstanding, inferior education, underemployment and even premature death.
Families struggle with the stigmatizing effects of misunderstanding and the lack of meaningful or culturally relevant help. This is especially true for racialized autistic people and families, who face compounded forms of exclusion and harm.
Instead of communicating care or concern through awareness campaigns and lighting it up blue this year, consider learning about initiatives led by autistic people such as #RedInstead, Autism Acceptance Month and others. Here are five things that autistic people have been saying for years that require the attention of those who claim to intervene in the name of autism:
1. Awareness
The idea that “awareness” of autism is needed suggests there is widespread ignorance of the existence of autism. The explosion of autistic self-advocacy, social media presence and representation in mainstream media and television shows like Atypical suggest otherwise (though mainstream media still limits diverse representation).
Autism was once considered a rare condition, but one would have to be vastly disconnected to be unaware of it today. Instead of awareness, we need to challenge the ableism of autism awareness campaigns, advocacy and research — the persistent barriers and attitudes that value and favour able-bodied people. This devalues and excludes embodied difference, or only considers autism as something that must be “overcome.” People don’t get over autism — they live with it. And many live with it joyfully.
2. Perspective
A focus on autism awareness privileges the perspectives of non-autistic people. The organizations that support awareness such as Autism Speaks, are run mainly by non-autistic people and rarely include autistic adults.
Challenging ableism also means challenging the leadership and power of campaigns such as Light It Up Blue for autism and World Autism Day. Rather than focus on charitable organizations and “helping,” we need to turn our attention to self-advocacy, alternative activities, forms of support and research led by autistic people themselves.
3. Leadership
Much work is needed to achieve accessible and culturally relevant policies and practices for autistic children and adults, the latter of whom are frozen out of policy considerations. The continued lack of guidance and leadership from autistic people serves as a painful reminder that lives that deviate from what constitutes “normal” are only included on terms dictated by those policing the boundaries of what is considered “normal.”
Taking seriously the perspectives advanced by autistic people, means asking them what types of supports can make a qualitative difference in their lives. It means turning to the vast body of work by speaking and non-speaking people who identify as autistic. It means moving the focus away from blue lights, ribbons or other gimmicks, and working towards a sustained challenge to systemic ableism.
4. Neurodiversity
Becoming knowledgeable or informed about autism means appreciating the vast differences among autistic people and the many varieties of what it means to be autistic. Not all autistic people are alike and, thankfully, there are also many viewpoints. Troubling tropes of autism as a disorder and burden must be left behind, and replaced by a form of neurodiversity that embraces diversity.
5. Inclusion
We need to recognize and rectify the persistent exclusion of perspectives and initiatives advanced by members of Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC) communities from autism awareness campaigns, as well as diagnosis and support. This includes embracing different cultural understandings of autism that depart from a western biomedical lens focused on deficits.
This April, and every month, we urge you to reconsider the meaning of World Autism Month from the perspective of autistic people themselves.
This article was co-authored by Estée Klar, a Ph.D. in Critical Disability Studies and Neurodiversity and an artist. She is the former founder of The Autism Acceptance Project in Canada (2005-10) and is presently co-collaborator with her non-speaking son/poet/artist, Adam Wolfond, and other speaking and non-speaking neurodiverse people at dis assembly: a neurodiverse arts collective.
Associate professor Disability Studies and Inclusive Education, Brandon University
Professor, health policy, disability, public policy, social movements, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa
This article originally appeared on The Conversation
Wonder Woman 1984: When Lack of Diversity Makes Wonder Woman Lose Her Wonder
If you were to ask the typical moviegoer who is the first female superhero you think of, chances are they would say Wonder Woman. While other female superheroes do exist (say Catwoman or Storm for example), they often take a backseat to the male protagonist, serving as a romantic interest or cliche rather than as a nuanced, complicated character. So when Wonder Woman came out in 2017, it provided a much-needed breath of fresh air in an overly saturated male-centric superhero genre. Seeing Princess Diana in her native land with her sister warriors of Themyscira by her side inspired millions of girls around the world, telling them that they too could be the heroes of their own story.
But while Wonder Woman (2017) pushed the boundaries of representation and diversity forward, its sequel, Wonder Woman 1984, failed to break new ground, sacrificing the empowering plot of its predecessor for empty spectacle. And the consequences were considerable. While Wonder Woman (2017) boasted a B Mediaversity rating, 93% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, and 76 Metascore, Wonder Woman 1984 suffered from a measly C- Mediversity rating, 59% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes, and 60 Metascore. So what went wrong?
Where Wonder Woman 1984 Went Wrong
The film opens with a breathtaking flashback sequence, showing a pivotal moment in the life of young Diana, years before she’d become Wonder Woman. As she competes against fellow Amazons twice her size and age in feats of strength and skill, a perfect euphony of swift camerawork, quick editing, and an epic score fills the screen. The scene showcases Diana’s fearlessness and teaches her the virtue that truth triumphs over deception. Unfortunately, the rest of the film pales in comparison, whether it be in visual cohesion, story structure, or emotional impact.
To start things off, the film treats Barbara, Diana’s coworker at the Smithsonian Institution, as a two-dimensional plot device that reduces her to the strange girl trope. The two bond over a meal discussing how they fit in society, but beside that, Barbara’s role in the film becomes apparent: so Diana can have a big (poorly rendered) CGI fight with a physically imposing antagonist in the third act that seemingly every superhero film has. Considering the lack of nuanced female friendships in superhero films, it’s a shame that the screenwriters favored a heterosexual romance with Steve Trevor rather than exploring a potential relationship between Diana and Barbara, especially given that Wonder Woman is canonically bisexual in the comics. This was a perfect opportunity to represent the LGBTQ+ community that has been historically underrepresented, particularly within the superhero genre.
Instead, the film relies on what we are used to in superhero films, a heteronormative relationship in which the superhero’s purpose is based on their partner. Romance has the potential to be resonating and meaningful, but in Wonder Woman 1984, it feels forced and undeserved, especially given the context of how Steve sacrificed himself in Wonder Woman (2017). Diana’s abilities are regained only when she learns to let go of Steve, and there’s something deeply depressing and illogical about a female superhero whose identity is intertwined so much with a man that she is willing to lose her powers for him. Also, what is going on with the man whose body has been magically overtaken by Steve? Does he have a family or a job? Is he in the white man’s sunken place? Doesn’t Diana, who is supposed to be a beacon of truth and morality, find the notion of Steve inhabiting another man’s body problematic? The plot could have focused on this as the consequence of Diana’s wish, as it would have been much more thematically resonating for her to struggle with choosing her moral code over her love for Steve.
And that begs another question, why doesn’t Diana miss her Amazon sisters or her mentor who inspired her to believe in truth in the opening scene? Wonder Woman (2017) devoted the entire first act to the Amazons, portraying them as warriors, politicians, caregivers, and complex women with nuanced relationships. It set the standard for a feminist plot that didn’t pander to its audience but empowered them. The sequel would have benefitted from furthering this story arc by venturing deeper into Paradise Land, home of the Amazons of Themyscira. Instead, it takes place in a mostly white D.C., even though the city has been majority-Black since the 1950s and white residents made up just 26% of the population in 1984. It also relies on a banal plot device in a stone that can grant wishes, which seems more like a lazy deus ex-machina. rather than something original and exciting. Diana’s wish doesn’t cause a chain of events that lead to her losing her powers, they just magically disappear as a tradeoff for the sake of the plot and theme.
Lastly, I want to talk about the theme of the film: truth. Wonder Woman 1984 bashes the viewer in the head with this theme through dialogue that lacks subtlety and relies heavily on telling the audience rather than showing them. Its connection with the main plot seems incoherent at worst and passable at best, reducing the complex issue of longing for what you don’t have into something that is black and white (reminiscent of Kendall Jenner “solving racism” by handing a police officer a Pepsi) rather than addressing class differences and social/economic inequality. Barbara wants to be cool and confident so that she can become likable, but must stay a nerd because if she wishes to be like Diana then she becomes a cheetah? That just seems cruel and anti-feminist. And the film’s solution of Diana magically convincing the entire world to stop being greedy over the span of a painfully ignorant monologue was as tone-deaf as when Gal Gadot sang “Imagine.” The world may be beautiful if you’re a gorgeous Amazon superhero, but for most people, telling people to put rose-colored glasses over their terrible situation is patronizing. I’m sure the filmmakers’ intentions were in the right place, but the execution of the theme was mediocre and is obviously pandering to today’s political climate, sacrificing its authenticity in the process.
Why It Matters
You might be thinking, why do all of these things matter, can’t Wonder Woman 1984 solely be based on entertainment value? While I would argue the film doesn’t even meet that quota, we as a society cannot settle for mediocrity. And from a financial standpoint, there is a great benefit to having authentically inclusive representation. Yes, there is content that represents underrepresented communities in a profound way, but there’s still a huge room for improvement before we can get complacent. Very few films have the audience and reach that the Wonder Woman banner has, which is why it’s so important that the film, along with movies that have similar platforms, empower underrepresented communities instead of kicking them to the curb. Yes, there will be bumps and bruises along the way, but that’s to be expected with generational long-lasting change. The late great novelist James Baldwin put it best, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” Take risks as creatives and challenge the status quo, and then just maybe Wonder Woman can have a shot at getting back her wonder.
Actionable Insights
Take tests like the Race in Entertainment Media (R.E.M.) Test to help evaluate Authentically Inclusive Representation in your content.
Use your platform to empower underrepresented communities instead of avoiding them in your film.
Hire more women and POC in behind-the-scenes positions who can incorporate their lived experience into the plot, otherwise, their characters’ storylines may lack authenticity or even be depicted as raceless.
Write characters that defy both negative and positive stereotypes to help prevent prejudice and discrimination.
Showcase stories that are authentically diverse, as meaningful representation consists of more than simply casting women and people of color.
CSS Intern
Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this blog belong solely to the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Center for Scholars & Storytellers.
How to Achieve Authentic Racial Diversity in Hollywood Media
When I was younger, between the ages of 2 to 9 years old, there were only a few Black characters with whom I genuinely connected. Of course, I found great examples of characters who shared my identity in Rugrats’ precocious Suzie Carmichael and The Proud Family’s spunky Penny Proud, among others. However, I knew what to expect as the general unspoken rule: the characters who shared my racial identity would not appear as the active protagonists in my favourite shows. The hours that I spent watching TV after school often left me feeling disappointed and hungry for the well-rounded experiences that I saw conveyed in stories about characters with other racial identities.
As I got older, the children’s media landscape began to include more Black characters who were not only present but were also richly-developed and thoughtfully portrayed. I learned about the power of these media representations first-hand in 2009, when The Princess and the Frog premiered. Princess Tiana appeared on-screen as an ambitious, hard-working, resilient Black woman and changed my world. For the very first time, I saw myself fully represented in a daring and capable being who actively pursued her own happy ending. For the very first time, I imagined myself as an adult who could overcome any challenge and achieve my biggest dreams. Soaring eagerly upon the winds of change that Tiana brought about, for the next few years I spent every waking hour telling anyone who would listen about the deep beauty that I found in Tiana’s dreams. Throughout elementary and high school, I collected every film-related book, incessantly researched the film’s development, and made a hobby out of setting and achieving big goals to ensure that I could keep pace with Tiana’s signature brand of ambition. With every stellar grade that I achieved, I was rewarded with the internal glow that I imagined Tiana felt when she got her restaurant. “Almost There” became my mantra and my anthem.
My relationship with Princess Tiana is far from unique. Across the country, children are discovering, identifying with, and learning from the characters that they encounter as they spend over 4 hours each day watching TV, playing video games, and browsing websites. During these impactful hours, children are both constructing their identities and learning how to perceive others, particularly those from social groups with which they have little contact. Indeed, the inclusion of racially diverse characters in children’s media has increased over the past 2 decades. A recent report that I co-authored with the Toronto-based Children’s Media Lab revealed that between 2018 and 2019, 49% of animated characters on Canadian children’s television shows were depicted as people of colour; an increase from the estimate of 35% that was given one year earlier in a report which focused on both live-action and animated programs. Although these changes should be commended, since kids and teens are now engaging with media more than ever before, it is crucial to move beyond simply including racially diverse characters in stories. It is time for content creators to authentically portray racially diverse characters, as this will foster a genuine appreciation for diverse identities and inclusion.
When storytellers develop narratives, characters, and worlds that support well-rounded depictions of race, they create standout content that will reach wide audiences and inspire generations of viewers to live and breathe the social harmony for which our society hungers.
Authentic Representations of Race Strengthen Kids
While there are many real-life resources that children use to shape their identities, media offers children something truly unique: the opportunity to see themselves and their cultures represented in fantasy. When Princess Tiana entered my life in 2009, not only did she inspire me to imagine myself as a talented, resourceful leader who could deftly navigate life’s unexpected bayou adventures; she also showed me that I could accomplish these things while embracing my ethnic and racial identities. As Disney’s first African American princess, she pulled me off of my couch and into her lively world so that I could become the protagonist of my own life. The long-term impacts of media characters on children are well-documented beyond my experience.
One study revealed that for children whose racial identities were misrepresented in media, watching television was linked to decreases in self-esteem due to an absence of characters who positively reflected their identities. Other studies have revealed that negative representations of Latinx and Black characters lead viewers to feel ashamed and less positive about their social groups. In a landmark study, researchers found that Indigenous American adults who saw stereotypical representations of their cultures felt less positive about their identities, and predicted that they would achieve less in the future than those who did not see the stereotypical representations.
The inclusion of authentic, racially diverse characters is particularly impactful for children who are members of underrepresented groups. Seeing characters who not only look like them but who also share their experiences can help them to absorb positive messages that boost their self-esteem. Additionally, when children who are not from underrepresented groups see these rich characters portrayed, they may learn how to respect and empathize with individuals from other racial groups.
Authentic Representations Create Excellent Content
A list of the top-grossing films of 2019 in the US shows that authenticity sells. Many of the films that appear on the list, such as Frozen 2 and The Lion King, were created by production and development teams that travelled to the countries that appeared in their films and learned about the cultures that they depicted.
Lived experiences are particularly crucial when depicting characters from diverse racial groups. Acclaimed films such as the Oscar-winning and high-earning Black Panther and Pixar’s animated Soul (which has already been nominated for 2 Golden Globes and received 3 trophies from the Critics Choice Super Awards) were developed by directors, producers, and writers who shared their characters’ identities and experiences. As a result, they captured nuances that made the films deeply resonate with diverse audiences which, in turn, enabled the films to become blockbusters.
Films and television shows that feature authentic representations of race also stand out because they depict dynamic, three-dimensional characters that defy common tropes. This is important because children more strongly remember and connect with characters who have well-rounded and relatable qualities. In fact, many leading resources that offer tips for developing compelling stories advocate for the creation of detailed characters who have believable desires and fleshed out personality traits. When racially diverse characters are depicted as dynamic individuals who both inhabit and shape their worlds, they easily captivate viewers with their enduring appeal and attract a loyal fan base.
Authentic Representations Evoke Change
While it is crucial for all children to see themselves represented on the screen, creating characters through which viewers can also hear themselves, see their diverse abilities portrayed, and embrace their unique personalities can also dismantle harmful racial stereotypes and biases. A recent analysis of contemporary media showed that Black characters are often portrayed as unemployed and aggressive individuals. Other findings were that Latinx characters tend to be portrayed as individuals who are unintelligent and short-tempered; East Asian characters are often portrayed as characters who fulfill the “Model Minority” stereotype; and Arabic characters are often portrayed as criminals. While inauthentic representations persist, research shows that positive, authentic representations of people of colour can make public attitudes towards these groups more positive.
With the exciting possibility of making an enduring impact across the media landscape, content creators have an opportunity to transform films, TV shows, and video games into powerful catalysts for positive social change.
Actionable Insights
Encourage writers, directors, artists, and other industry professionals who have diverse racial identities to share their authentic stories.
When representing racially diverse characters, consult with as many individuals who share characters’ races, cultures, and experiences as you can. Since no single experience will apply to all individuals from a given racial group, consult with diverse experts at every stage of content development and production.
Create racially diverse main characters who have a variety of personality traits, quirks, abilities, appearances, and conflicts that make them relatable and able to stand on their own.
Hire voice actors who share characters’ racial identities. Many talented voice actors are aware of the impact that authentic representations have on young audiences, and are eager to work on projects that champion authentic stories.
Hold frequent user testing and focus group sessions with members of the racial group that you are depicting, to ensure that your characters and stories are respectful and resonate with your target audience.
The compelling strength that Tiana brought to my world through her well-developed personality ignited my decision to become a children’s media consultant: a role that has enabled me to watch and contribute to the trend of increasing authentic diversity in media by supporting industry leaders. During and beyond Black History Month, I celebrate and acknowledge storytellers’ efforts to authentically represent racially diverse characters so that their stories can be remembered and relished long after the credits roll. While we have trends yet to change, I truly do believe that we are almost there.
Josanne Buchanan, BSc.
Children’s Media Consultant at OK Play / Research Assistant at Children’s Media Lab
Food Issues: Telling a Truer Story About Our Relationships with Food
Take a moment to think of the last time you saw “food issues” portrayed on television or film. No, I’m not talking about the most recent season of the Great British Baking Show. (Although I’m certainly open to talking about it.) When I say “food issues,” picture a character with an emotionally laden relationship to food. Someone for whom a slice of cake is not just a slice of cake.
Think back. If you can remember a time at all, I’m guessing food issues looked one of two ways: Perhaps it was someone who refused to eat. Alternatively, perhaps it was someone who ate with abandon. Either way, I bet she was young, I bet she was straight, I bet she was white – and I bet she was a she. I bet she was either very thin or very large, and nowhere in between.
If you yourself have food issues, or if you have friends and family members who do, you already know that this picture isn’t quite right. In reality, the presentation of food issues varies as much as the people they afflict. The question for storytellers is this: How can food issues on-screen look like those in real life? How can we get it right?
What are food issues?
Food issues are not eating disorders. (Eating disorders have quite strict diagnostic criteria.) That being said, food issues are similar to eating disorders in that they may include cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components. Food issues frequently develop during adolescence, when greater cognizance of social, cultural, and familial pressures collides with the reality of changing bodies. In the scientific literature (this article, for example), food issues are sometimes defined by behaviors - things like fasting or eating very little, skipping meals, vomiting, abusing laxatives, or over-exercising. But there are also cognitive and emotional components: guilt, preoccupation, dissatisfaction. There’s the process of second (and third, and fourth) guessing before putting something in your mouth. (Am I really hungry? Maybe I’m just bored! Or thirsty!) Often, there’s hunger – hunger that’s more emotional than physical, hunger that results from not just days but years of distrusting one’s own appetite. Those are food issues, and each component – behavioral, cognitive, and emotional – belongs on-screen.
Actionable Insights
Here are three ways storytellers can more accurately depict food issues.
Show diversity and intersectionality. While the portrayal of food issues on television might suggest otherwise, food issues do not predominantly affect white, straight, young, cisgender women. Although food issues often develop in adolescence, they are also common in postmenopausal women. Further, research suggests that food issues disproportionately affect historically marginalized groups, such as sexual, gender, and racial minorities. Although cisgender men are affected at lower rates, their odds increase as they age. Building intersectional portrayals of food issues will not only improve the accuracy and relatability of your characters but may further empower diverse audiences to examine their own food-related thoughts, feelings, behaviors.
Show what food issues actually look like. Evidence suggests that food issues will be supremely relatable to your audience. Seventy-five percent of women endorse the idea that their weight or shape directly impacts their happiness. About half of US adults dieted in the last year (including over 25% of those who are at a “normal” or below-normal weight), and at least 30% of people resort to unhealthy methods of weight loss, such as fasting and purging through an array of compensatory behaviors.
However, food issues don’t often get a fair cameo. They don’t have to involve sneak-eating in the middle of the night or disappearing to the bathroom after a meal. Rather, perhaps your characters simply feel shame around their appetite (no surprise, when the diet industrial complex uses words like “guilty” or “sinful” to describe food). Perhaps your characters are “good” throughout the week, in order to “afford” a “cheat meal” or “cheat day” on the weekend. Perhaps they have internalized the toxic idea that a good meal is something one must “earn” or “budget for” through tracking steps or counting calories. Perhaps they turn down social invitations simply because the proposed restaurant doesn’t have low-carb options or hasn’t posted their nutrition information online. These are examples of realistic and nuanced ways to portray food issues.
Show that “not bad enough” is bad enough. Food issues need not progress into a full-blown eating disorder in order to suck the joy, spontaneity, and inspiration from life. Take it from me: About two years ago, I tried my hand at “intermittent fasting,” or the practice of eating all of one’s daily calories in a relatively short window of time. A podcast or two had claimed that intermittent fasting would “heal my gut” by giving my organs a “rest” – but of course, I was unconsciously hoping for weight loss, too. Nearly every day for nine months, I spent the workday hungry. I got winded on the stairs to my office. In afternoon meetings, I worried whether I’d be too hungry to think. When anyone (a friend, a partner) offered me food outside my allotted eating window, I made up a lackluster excuse to avoid it.
In short: while I didn’t qualify for any specific eating disorder, food issues rendered my life in grayscale. To appease my food issues, I was quite literally sacrificing my performance in the two areas that mattered most to me: work and relationships. Portraying a more subtly problematic relationship with food can convey an important message to your audience: “not bad enough” is plenty bad enough. “Not bad enough” still takes our freedom away.
Why get it right?
As a storyteller, you might be asking yourself this: If food issues aren’t real eating disorders, and if food issues really are as common as this article states, do they really deserve their own storyline? Why bother with these painstaking and nuanced portrayals? Aren’t there more important things to do?
Only you can answer that question. Perhaps there are better uses of your time. For me, there aren’t. As a storyteller myself, I have found immense relief and gratification in telling real stories (often my own story) about food issues. I have heard from readers, friends, and fellows in diet recovery that the stereotypical eating disorder narrative just doesn’t cut it; more often than not, it leaves them feeling ignored, unseen, or needlessly triggered.
I have also experienced it from the other side. That is, I have experienced the transformative power in hearing my own food issues told by someone else. For example, when I learned that my two favorite authors - the late Caroline Knapp, and the bestselling author Glennon Doyle – have themselves struggled with food and body, I was forced to face a key question: How much freer would these women be if they’d made peace with food? And more importantly: How much more free will I be when I do the same?
Give your audience the gift of this question.
Anna Joliff, she/her/hers, MS Counseling Psychology
Research Specialist for the Social Media and Adolescent Health Research Team (SMAHRT)
Gender Representation On-Screen
Children begin to form ideas and concepts of gender early on in life. Specifically, by age 2, children start to use gender to guide their social and learning preferences and by age 3, children’s awareness of gender develops into a rigid social category and they become increasingly aware of basic gender stereotypes. With this, it can be argued that preschoolers are particularly vulnerable to these types of stereotypical messages both in society and in the media.
Although children gather (and observe) a lot of information about gender from their parents, peers, and teachers, screen media also plays a large role in children’s learning about gender and gender roles. Children in the 21st century are spending significant amounts of time watching, engaging, interacting, and communicating with a range of media and media characters. However, when closely examining the types of characters they are interacting with (specifically in children’s television programming), scholars have found a consistent presence of one-dimensional, stereotypical characters that are often defined by their social group, such as their gender. Specifically, these stereotypical portrayals are largely evident when examining the appearance and behaviours of female media characters.
For example, content analyses have consistently observed that girls/women characters are significantly more likely to be thin and sexualized than male characters (e.g., wearing revealing clothing). It has also been found that male characters are more likely to engage in problem-solving than female characters, specifically by using STEM and physical power, whereas females are more likely to use magic and talking to solve problems.
Regular engagement with these types of characters can alter and influence children’s beliefs and attitudes about various issues (e.g. gender roles) and might largely impact children’s perceptions about different groups of people. Recent studies have found that exposure to stereotypical television clips led to different effects than counter-stereotypical clips. For example, Bond (2016) discovered that girls who watched a stereotypical clip of a television show, were more likely to express interest in stereotypical feminine careers and were less likely to draw a female when asked to depict what they thought a scientist looked like.
Overall, it is clear that media has the power to shape children’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours about gender and content creators must be actively aware of this as they create new projects.
Actionable Insights
Here some actionable insights for content creators:
Aim for gender parity and gender equality. Male characters should not consistently outnumber female characters—they should be equal and featured in the same types of roles (e.g., lead roles).
This also means increasing the number of diverse characters in the cast, who may not identify as male and/or female.
Showcase women and female-identifying characters in complex and intricate roles instead of rigid, simple, and stereotypical roles.
A character’s gender should not define who they are. There is nothing wrong with behaving or appearing in a gender stereotypical manner, but consistently portraying women/female-identifying characters this way can be harmful. Give these characters more substance!
Create multi-dimensional characters.
Develop detailed character profiles that showcase the different layers to a character. If we want children to see themselves reflected on-screen, we must create realistic characters who have human-like qualities. This means showing all sides of a character—regardless of gender (e.g., strengths and weaknesses, varying emotions and personalities, struggling and overcoming obstacles, etc.).
Adrianna Ruggiero
Ph.D. Student, Ryerson University
Junior Fellow of the Center for Scholars and Storytellers