This article was originally published on THUMP for VICE. Read the original article here.

Diversity matters. Slowly but surely, we’re becoming increasingly conscious of the ethics of representation. From #OscarsSoWhite to the recommendation that ABC’s Q&A increases the amount of women present on the program, there’s a growing sense that if non-white, non-male professionals are to succeed, they need to see others who look like them succeeding. As Marie Wright Edelman wrote, “You can’t be what you can’t see”.

Nor can you be what you can’t hear.

Last year, The Guardian reported that, from a sample of 12 UK music festivals – including major ones such as Glastonbury and Creamfields – 86 percent of performers were male. Australia doesn’t do much better. The 2015 VIVID Live festival was criticised when, of more than 50 acts, only three featured women in any capacity. And the numbers aren’t very different in the US.

These are but a few instances of a growing conversation about gender diversity in the music industry. In one sense, we shouldn’t be surprised this conversation is going on. After all, gender equality in corporate workplaces has been the subject of widespread debate for more than a decade. Why should music be any different? And, if there isn’t any difference, should music festivals accept some social responsibility and impose gender quotas on their line-ups?

First things first; should music be any different when it comes to our expectations of gender diversity? The arguments in favour of gender diversity at festivals seem to be the same as they are elsewhere – they’ve been listed in detail in a report by the Centre for Ethical Leadership. In short, encouraging women’s presence in industries broadens market appeal, attracts more women to participate in the industry or event, and supports women’s rights to equal treatment, participation and representation. So why not pursue it?

Opponents might argue that actively forcing diversity is tokenism, that choosing in favour of women means potentially ignoring more qualified male acts who also deserve to be there. After all, it’s not their fault they were born men, is it? Men’s rights activists unite!

Is it the responsibility of festival producers to change our tastes for us any more than it’s the job of Macca’s to get us craving kale chips rather than fries?

This argument is hard to make in music, though. For one thing, what does it mean to be ‘qualified’? And how might we decide which of two similarly popular acts is more entitled to perform? Furthermore, the whole ‘tokenism’ argument presumes diversity isn’t intrinsically valuable, but that claim needs to be argued for.

There’s every likelihood that three male acts might share a large chunk of audience. So, even if all three outperform a female act in terms of ticket sales, if the women’s act has an entirely different audience they’d then be the better choice, wouldn’t they? Just like if a board of directors is looking for a variety of insights, they would be foolish to hire a bunch of similarly qualified white guys. Even if each of them deserves to be there on merit, it doesn’t follow that all of them deserve to be there together.

Another concern is that festival producers aren’t convinced diversity leads to broader market appeal or, more crucially, greater profits. Festival organisers want guaranteed ticket sellers – and for reasons feminists have been talking about for decades – the top ticket sellers are usually men. Is it the responsibility of festival producers to change our tastes for us any more than it’s the job of Macca’s to get us craving kale chips rather than fries?

When we picture a music artist, what do they look like? For many… they’re young and white.

The argument that ethics comes second to profits isn’t a new one, and it can seem easily dismissed – but if it’s a genuine question of survival, you can see where the organisers are coming from. They’re taking on all the financial risk, so why should they take on any more? If people start buying more tickets to female acts, they’ll book them!

So he question becomes who is responsible for bringing diversity to the industry? Organisers claim it’s the audience who buy the tickets. Many musicians believe they could sell more tickets if festivals had the courage to blood some diverse acts. And most listeners won’t concede to having any gender bias in their listening habits, even if, coincidentally, most of their favourite acts are men.

And here’s the rub – most of the barriers to diversity in representation, in any sphere,  aren’t deliberate acts of oppression. They’re the product of unconscious bias. When we picture a music artist, what do they look like? For many, I’d hazard they’re young and white. In some genres – hip hop, for instance – it might be different, but the dominance of men is likely to remain. This is despite the huge success of some female artists in a range of different genres.

The tricky thing about unconscious biases is that it’s harder to specify who’s responsible for countering them. Many will hold that it’s the people bearing the bias, but if they’re not aware they’re biased to begin with, it’s likely to be a slow burn.

People who are seen to benefit from quota systems are often seen as less qualified than those appointed ‘on merit’ – even by other people who have benefited from quotas.

And thus the argument for quotas – by enforcing a minimum standard for representation we force the issue. Festivals make their commitment to diversity public and transparent – and artists and listeners can hold them accountable. Plus, we don’t need to wait around for listeners to wake up to their own biases.

But quotas are no panacea. People who are seen to benefit from quota systems are often seen as less qualified than those appointed ‘on merit’ – even by other people who have benefited from quotas. This suggests the ‘tokenism’ narrative around quotas is hard to shake, and might even be creating negative self-appraisals in the very people quotas are designed to help.

So rather than having arbitrary thresholds for diversity, maybe it’s preferable for festivals to include diversity alongside other values – fun, integrity, artistry and so on – as one of the defining aspects of a festival. This means seeking diversity (and not just diversity of gender) as intrinsically valuable, rather than implementing quotas that make it seem like a necessary evil. 

People love a good story. As Aristotle said, we are story-telling animals. By engaging with stories we can consider different points of view and empathise with others – including fictional characters.

Stories let us reflect on how we would feel or act if we were in the shoes of another. They might even help us be more compassionate in real life.

Truth and Story-telling

True stories are among the narratives that grab our attention. Reality TV has become a phenomenon, while dramatic portrayals of the lives of famous people, and retelling real life events are increasingly popular. Perhaps the it’s driven by our desire to better understand human nature.

But how real are these representations? The idea of reality TV as scripted surely doesn’t surprise many viewers, but what about biopics like The Wolf of Wall Street, Spotlight or The Big Short?

Overt ethical messages in such movies are made all the more powerful if the audience sees these films as factual.

Any film based on reality will have a tough job conveying a person’s life or a series of events that unfolded over a number of years into a 120-minute linear narrative. There are important decisions to be made such as what to include or exclude, and from which perspective to tell the tale. Then there is the element of ‘moralising’ – sending a ‘take home message’ to the audience.

Overt ethical messages in such movies are made all the more powerful if the audience sees these films as factual. So does that mean filmmakers are obliged to be truthful in biopics, or are they only bound by what makes a good story?

Aestheticism – art for art’s sake

There is a strong historical precedent for separating the moral from the aesthetic value of artworks. Oscar Wilde’s famous quote from the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray states, “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.”

This sums up a philosophical position known as ‘Aestheticism’, which argues that the only relevant factor when judging the quality of an artwork is its aesthetic value. Wilde explicitly categorises himself as an ‘Aestheticist’, yet he is well-known as a moralist. What’s going on here?

The reason people watch films or read is primarily for enjoyment – to tap into this so-called aesthetic experience. This involves enjoying the beauty or creativity of an artwork for its own sake. Aesthetic value is unique to artworks, so Aestheticists claim this should be the sole basis for aesthetic judgement. Any moral message in the work should not, therefore, affect the overall value of the artwork, either positively or negatively.

Aestheticists like Wilde may also want to protect art from censorship. If an artwork is judged only on the basis of its aesthetic qualities, it should not be condemned for its moral message. This concern harks all the way back to Ancient Greece when Plato was worrying in The Republic that the poets might corrupt the youth.

Moralism – the message behind the masterpiece

Artists are often well placed to critically engage with moral themes. Wilde’s novels and plays satirised the social norms of his day, and the best way he could protect his artistic right to free speech was to claim that the only thing one should judge is an artwork’s aesthetic merit.

However, to take this further and say artists are not concerned with moral, economic or political concerns is, I believe, mistaken. Of course artists need to consider real world concerns. Partly because they need to make a living and survive in the world in order to continue making their art.

Society also needs artists to help explore diverse perspectives. Artworks can be informative, influential and possibly even transform social attitudes about certain issues. However, sometimes the moral and aesthetic judgements of an artwork will clash.

Leni Riefenstahl’s film Triumph of the Will is often described as aesthetically beautiful but morally evil.

The infamous 1935 propaganda documentary was commissioned by Adolf Hitler. In it, director Riefenstahl portrays the 1934 Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, Germany as a glorious event and Hitler himself as God-like with a positive vision for his country. Unnervingly, the film is majestic, with beautiful cinematography and an emotive soundtrack underscored by nationalistic Wagner (who else?). It is awe-inspiring in its beauty and chilling in the way it glorifies the fascist Nazis.

In Triumph of the Will, the ‘immoral’ message – that Nazism is good and positive – interrupts our aesthetic appreciation of the work. It is difficult not to devalue Riefenstahl’s work based on its moral content.

Philosophers would generally rather teach people to think for themselves than apply strict censorship rules to artworks.

The moralist would claim that the moral value of an artwork does impact on our overall aesthetic judgement of the work. So does this mean artworks with a good moral message are elevated by their ethical content?

Moralists worry about the influence propaganda films may have in rallying impressionable people to harmful causes – like Nazism. Hitler was likely well aware of this when he commissioned the film. Correspondingly, artists’ concerns about censorship are also valid, if we consider who dictates what should or should not be seen.

Philosophers would generally rather teach people to think for themselves than apply strict censorship rules to artworks. That way, spectators are encouraged to engage critically with the messages they are receiving.

Critical spectatorship

Critical spectatorship is important in the case of biopics like The Big Short. The movie depicts a moral message we may well support, and the mass-market nature of film means it’s a powerful way to quickly take that message to a large number of people. But does it matter if the audience is viewing this narrative as they might a news story? Perhaps we should consider how viewers engage with the news.

Even when watching the broadcast news, viewers should be critical and consider what’s being shown or left out, from whose point of view the story is being told, and with whom or ‘what side’ we’re being positioned to identify. We need to constantly analyse or fact-check what we are told, particularly as we exist in a 24-hour news cycle and receive so much more information than previously.

As social media encourages quick likes and shares, it really is worth pausing to consider the impact such stories may have on others, on society and on our collective cultural myths. This is not to say that we should cease telling all the stories, far from it. But let’s also receive them critically, compassionately and open them up for discussion.