Abstract
This month in Berlingske, I wrote about two of the largest Danish broadcasting companies (TV2 & DR) and their socially sustainable decision to address racism in their products for children.
Both companies pulled (or added trigger warnings to) reruns of Christmas programs with explicitly racist content (blackfacing, the N-word, etc.).
These decisions gave rise to a hullaballoo of public outcry and drama. People found it preposterous, that racist content was racist – and even if it was racist – what harm would it do?….
Clearly the issue is an emotional one, as racism so often is. Few Danes have viable knowledge about racism. They are not aware of the violence of normalizing racism for children, and the consequent harm it does. I must hope that this is a question of ignorance, because I cannot fathom why anyone would otherwise insist on normalizing racism for children.
Notwithstanding, my point in the column is that the decision to critically assess racist and discriminatory content in a company’s products is a socially sustainable one. It is a basic tenet of social sustainability that organizations and companies address their negative impacts, which includes addressing non-discrimination (and racism) internally, in products, and other potential points of influence. This can mean seeing things from another perspective than one’s own (in this case a minoritized perspective). It includes being sensitive to, and considerate of, targets of discrimination that could be harmed by one’s products.
TV2 & DR seem to have done some of this work. They appear to have gained some knowledge about non-discrimination (and racism), taken a critical look at their products, and made efforts to reduce their negative impact (on children). From an organizational perspective, this is socially sustainable and responsible. Judging from the public outcry in Denmark, this also requires a strong sense of conviction, knowledge and even bravery. Thank you to these companies for their socially sustainable and responsible practice.
Both companies pulled (or added trigger warnings to) reruns of Christmas programs with explicitly racist content (blackfacing, the N-word, etc.).
These decisions gave rise to a hullaballoo of public outcry and drama. People found it preposterous, that racist content was racist – and even if it was racist – what harm would it do?….
Clearly the issue is an emotional one, as racism so often is. Few Danes have viable knowledge about racism. They are not aware of the violence of normalizing racism for children, and the consequent harm it does. I must hope that this is a question of ignorance, because I cannot fathom why anyone would otherwise insist on normalizing racism for children.
Notwithstanding, my point in the column is that the decision to critically assess racist and discriminatory content in a company’s products is a socially sustainable one. It is a basic tenet of social sustainability that organizations and companies address their negative impacts, which includes addressing non-discrimination (and racism) internally, in products, and other potential points of influence. This can mean seeing things from another perspective than one’s own (in this case a minoritized perspective). It includes being sensitive to, and considerate of, targets of discrimination that could be harmed by one’s products.
TV2 & DR seem to have done some of this work. They appear to have gained some knowledge about non-discrimination (and racism), taken a critical look at their products, and made efforts to reduce their negative impact (on children). From an organizational perspective, this is socially sustainable and responsible. Judging from the public outcry in Denmark, this also requires a strong sense of conviction, knowledge and even bravery. Thank you to these companies for their socially sustainable and responsible practice.
| Original language | Danish |
|---|---|
| Journal | Berlingske Tidende |
| ISSN | 0106-4223 |
| Publication status | Published - 17 Dec 2022 |
