SPECIAL NOTE: So I actually wrote this quite some time ago (back when there were only two seasons that Chibnall had created). At the time, there were lots of folks going on about how they considered the show to be "too woke". So I decided to do an essay addressing the issue. I never ended up posting it for two principle reasons:
1) I had a feeling this would just incite the wrong kind of debate. People were just going to get mad and/or overemotional. The topic was, essentially, too delicate.
2) The essay just seemed to go on and on and I couldn't figure out, at the time, where to make the appropriate cuts!
Some time has passed. Opinions have cooled and I became detached enough from what I wrote that I can finally do the necessary editing! So I thought I would dig it back up and post it:
Every time I do this, of course, I run the risk of legitimately pissing off my readership. But I feel I must do it, anyway. It could be my sense of integrity. More than likely, however, it's my need to self-sabotage.
WHAT IS THE "WOKE MYTH"?
It's a stupid term that I've come up with on my own, really. But it describes a phenomenon that I see going on in fandom since Chibnall has taken over as Head Writer. So, yes, brace yourselves: This is going to be another one of those entries that I like to write from time-to-time where I actually defend what he has been doing with the show. Where I'm going to, basically, accuse fandom of being ridiculously over-critical.
Even before a single second of the Chibnall era was transmitted, there were fans that were already ranting about this notion that he was making the whole show feel "too woke". Because he'd cast the lead as a woman and made one companion a non-white male and another companion a non-white female, certain fans were sure that the show was now going to bombard us with constant messages about "checking our privilege". That everything was going to be about Political Correctness and the importance of being a Social Justice Warrior (or "SJW" as the cool kids like to call them). That it was no longer going to be about telling exciting science-fiction stories- we were just going to be made to feel guilty about ourselves if we were straight white males.
The fact that this opinion was being expressed quite heavily before any of his episodes even aired points, already, to its ludicrousness. By the time we were actually viewing any of his content, many fans had already made up their minds. Chibnall was cramming his Left Wing Agenda down our throats at the expense of good story-telling.
This is why I like to refer to it as: "the woke myth". It works in much the same way as traditional mythology works. Back in the day, a few influential Greeks said: "Hey! I bet there's a whole pantheon of gods looking down on us, right now, and toying with our fates!" Before long, the rest of their civilisation was like: "Yeah! That makes a lot of sense! I bet there must be gods up there that are in charge of war and wine and love and other stuff like that! Let's start worshipping them!"
The truth of the matter is: there were no gods of this nature. Apollo and Zeus didn't hang out together in Olympus and talk crap about Hades and Poseidon. But, for a good long time, a lot of people believed these gods to be real. They built shrines for them and everything. Sadly, under the right conditions, unfounded opinions can spread like wildfire and come to be accepted as absolute truth.
So, the point of this essay will be to prove that Chibnall's version of Doctor Who is not "too woke" - as some fans are trying to lead us to believe. That it is, essentially, the same sort of programme we've been getting since it first began. It's not suddenly trying to push an agenda or trying too hard to educate us on certain social issues. It's just being the show it's always been.
SOME CLARIFICATION
As usual, it might be good to get a few definitions out before we get too far into this. Especially for a topic this delicate. The most important one would be: What does it mean to be "woke"?
My impression of the term is that it is an awareness that certain groups in our civilisation have been systematically marginalised (or even wholeheartedly persecuted) by one predominant demographic. That segment of the population that keeps trying to assert its dominance is referred to as "privileged" and needs to be frequently reminded of the unfair advantages it has had throughout history. Only by being reminded of their privilege on a regular basis can they consider themselves' "woke".
It would follow that if you are in one of these marginalised and/or persecuted groups, that you are just naturally "woke." Because of the advantages you have been denied, you are constantly being reminded of the injustices you suffer.
Being "woke" is, essentially, being aware of discrimination. Most forms of discrimination that "woke" people rail against are the notorious social "isms". They include Racism, Sexism and Classism (discrimination against someone for their financial status). Homophobia, though not an "ism", would be another topic that is frequently denounced by "woke culture" On the other end of the spectrum, they are usually very strong supporters of Environmentalism. .
There are some less talked-about atrocities, that "woke" people will sometimes still highlight to us. Ageism or cultural misappropriation (sometimes known as gentrification) would be two stronger examples of this. They don't get mentioned as much, but they are referenced on occasion.
JUST A BIT MORE CLARIFICATION
I do hope that the definition I just composed did not come across, in any way, as being sarcastic. Some of you may have been consciously looking for that tone but I was doing my best not to imply it. The truth of the matter is: I do feel that we all need to be a bit woke. Some take the concept to an extreme, of course. They are the ones who become a bit of an embarrassment for those who are trying to represent the whole ideology fairly. But I do believe that it is important for me to recognize that, as a straight white male, I have had a lot of opportunities handed to me. I even feel that certain things do need to be done to re-dress the balance a bit.
So we have a fairly clear definition of what constitutes "being woke" and I have stated my own personal stance on the whole philosophy. Let's make one more thing very clear: I am not going to say that Chibnall's version of Doctor Who is not being "woke" at all.
The truth of the matter is: Doctor Who has always been a bit "woke". Although the term that would have probably been applied to it back in the day would've been "progressive". With the Doctor being the sort of character that fights injustice, he's bound to come across as a bit of an SJW from time-to-time. He will even handle certain relevant social issues with an opinion that leans slightly to the Left. Which tends to be the camp that woke culture resides in.
Even in the very second Doctor Who story, ever, we can see that being displayed just a little bit. It's not hard to see those Daleks as evil rampaging conservative capitalists that are up to no good (they're certainly meant to represent fascism - which is, pretty much, all those political ideologies taken to an extreme) and the Thals as peace-loving socialists who are just trying to work together for a better future. Quite clearly: Right is bad, Left is good. And, as I said, it took only one story before such an agenda started to show itself.
We should remember this is a show that started in the 60s. Back then, TV was, essentially, being run by old white men.. Nonetheless, one of the more progressive old white men chose a woman to be the producer. It's very first story was directed by a non-white gay male. To have people from these demographics creating a show during such a period made it almost inevitable that these sort of leanings would come out quite quickly and define the show for the rest of its existence. And I'm pretty okay with that. Because, for the most part, Doctor Who did not try to beat us over the head with its politics.
Which leads me to my real point: Chibnall's Doctor Who is a bit "woke". I'm the first to admit that. But then, as I just said, the show has always been that way. What I aim to prove in this particular essay is that the programme has not become "too woke". Even though certain elements of fandom would have you believe otherwise.
HOW DOES ONE BECOME "TOO WOKE"?!
So, probably just one more definition to cover, here. But, really, all this "defining stuff" is actually already re-enforcing some of my points so we are legitimately getting into the meat of the essay. This isn't like the "Visually Comedic Doctors" series that I did last month where I had to spend a whole entry just defining things!
Being "too woke", of course, is highly subjective. Some would even say that being "woke" at all is "too woke". People who think this might even be the sort of folks that are launching these "too woke" accusations at Chibnall's Doctor Who. But, as I've stated previously, if you're mad at the current iteration of the show for being "woke" - then you really shouldn't be watching the series at all. Because it's always been this way.
I should probably try to point out the differences between "woke" and "too woke". In my opinion, there are two basic ways in which a person becomes "too woke". Let's break them down:
1. Bringing up social issues too often
This is the most blatant way of exhibiting this particular flaw. A person is literally being too woke because you can almost measure it in a quantitative manner. The atrocities of racism or sexism or other such things are brought up so frequently in discussions with them that their whole campaign to "educate the privileged" has become counter-productive. The frequency of their rhetoric is starting to annoy us so much that we stop listening to what they have to say.
If, for instance, the Doctor was always bemoaning the fact that she is now a female and that she is constantly being denied opportunities - then I would say Doctor Who has become too woke. I don't feel that this is happening, though. Sometimes, when she has gone into the past, she has been discriminated against. We saw this very clearly in The Witchfinders. Quite literally, the Doctor's hands become tied on certain occasions during that story because she is now a gender that does not get equal rights. This makes sense, however. That era of history was particularly oppressive towards women. Yes, some men were found guilty of being warlocks. But, most of the time, it was witches who were burned and/or dunked. During that period, possessing a female reproductive system not only restrained you greatly, it actually put you in greater danger!
What I do appreciate is that there are other times when the Doctor has slipped into the past and very little emphasis has been placed on the stigmas she must, sometimes, suffer. When she gets transported back to 1834 with Ada Lovelace in Spyfall, only the briefest of mentions is made to Ada (not even the Doctor) about "how a woman is meant to behave". Ada very quickly skirts around the problem and saves the Doctor from the Master. Basically, there is a quick acknowledgement of the sort of stereotypes against women that existed at the time - and then the plot moves on from it. Chibnall does not dwell on the point, though. In my opinion, if he had been too woke, the entire sequence that takes place in the 1800s would have droned on endlessly about the horrors of the values that existed at the time. Ada and the Doctor would not have been capable of doing anything without ridiculous levels of opposition from male characters (which, in all honesty, would have been a fairly accurate depiction of that era). But Chibnall decides not to take this slant. He doesn't ignore the sexism that existed during that period, but he doesn't go on about it too much, either.
There are other stories that take place roughly in this period that handle sexism in a similar manner. The Haunting of Villa Diodati is another good example of this. Certain social stigmas that women suffered at the time get vaguely mentioned now and again. But, for the most part, the plot focuses on a crazy haunted house being attacked by a weird Cyberman. Which is exactly where the focus should be.
Again, I'm hard-pressed to find examples of content in the last two seasons of Who that was too woke. Certain social injustices do get acknowledged when they need to be. Were they not mentioned, at least, in passing - then the story would actually seem unrealistic. But, at no point have I found that these topics were being brought up too frequently. Even in something like Rosa - a story that takes place in a society where racism has gone to a ridiculous extreme - there's still time to tell an exciting science fiction story and even develop some characters a bit. It's not just "look how terrible racism is" for an entire hour. There's plenty of other stuff going on, too.
2. Decisions that are made purely for the sake of "wokeism"
This one is a bit more subtle. The easiest way for me to illustrate it would be to discuss casting decisions.
I did go out with a woman for a while who really enjoyed (trying not to retch as I write this) Hallmark Christmas Specials (had to to take a break from writing this to do a bit of vomiting!). She pointed out, one time, how she was watching one where the main character was from Texas. She was getting married and all her old sorority friends were going to be in her bridal party. The protagonist looked like a stereotypical Texan girl who would go to a sorority: Tall, blond-haired and blue-eyed. Among the rest of her extensive bridal party, however, not a single white female was to be found. This struck the woman I was going out with as being almost a bit silly. Women of this particular cultural background were going to be predominantly white. Perhaps one non-white individual in the bridal party was believable. But all of them being minorities smacked of a casting director with an agenda!
Decisions that come across as legitimately impractical and are made mainly for the sake of appearing politically correct would be something that I would label as too woke. Are we seeing this sort of thing in Chibnall's Doctor Who? I don't think so.
I look at the way the TARDIS crew had two visible minorities travelling in it for the last two seasons. With both characters, their racial background had a significant bearing in certain stories. For Ryan, it was Rosa. For Yaz, Demons of the Punjab. So they were not just written into the show so that Chris Chibnall could show off that he wasn't a racist. He didn't just, arbitrarily, decide to make them Black and Pakistani.There were actual reasons for having them be the races that they are.
Truthfully, he didn't even really need to go to such trouble. As far as I'm concerned, he really could have just put Yaz and Ryan in the show just to improve diversity. Way back in the day, the show definitely had a tendency to cast a little too much on the white side and the balance does need some re-dressing..But I do like that Chibnall goes to the trouble of actually justifying why he made his casting decisions. This definitely appears to me to be someone who is not trying to be too woke.
There are, of course, a few other methods people might use that would insinuate too much "wokeness" on their behalf. But we don't see this happening all that much. The examples I just gave are the two most obvious traits.
POINTING OUT THE FLAWS IN PEOPLES' REASONING
(MY FAVORITE PART)
At last, we get to the best section of an essay like this. This is where I look at what fandom seems to be saying on a certain subject and poke holes in their theories. Basically, everything I've been writing so far has been leading up to this moment!
Just as there are two basic ways to be too woke, there are two main flaws that I see in this Doctor Who is too woke opinion. Or, perhaps it might be more accurate to say that when people are claiming that Doctor Who has become too woke, I see them making the same two mistakes over and over.
Once more, we'll break things down:
1. Skewing things
This is one of the most common errors people make when trying to make a point. They're building a hypothesis and trying to back it up with facts. They suddenly realize there's just not enough of those facts to really make their opinion look solid. So they start twisting the context of things. Or, in some cases, they full-on lie. They're hoping, of course, that you don't go back and do some research of your own. That you'll just accept that what they're bringing up is accurate.
People who say Doctor Who is too woke seem to do this a lot. Here's a fairly clear example:
I was listening to a podcast a while back where they were having a discussion about Series 11. They all agreed that the season had too many stories about racism. This confused me. The only story that really dealt with the issue was Rosa. Is one story about racism too much?
As I bore with them (and it really was tough to hang in there. It wasn't the easiest podcast in the world to listen to!), I learnt that they also considered Demons of the Punjab to be a second story in the season that preached against racism.
There are, at least, two flaws that I can see in their reasoning. The first one being that, if Demons of the Punjab really was about racism, that really is just two out of ten episodes that brought up the subject. Is that really too much? I mean, if there had been, say, seven episodes out of the season that dealt with the matter, I might say: "Okay! Okay! I get it! Racism is bad. Can we talk about something else, now?!". But can we really consider two episodes to be too much? I don't really think so. I think the podcasters were skewing a bit. Trying to make it sound like 90% of the season's content was talking about racism when it was really only twenty.
The second big problem with this opinion is a much more serious one. Demons of the Punjab is not actually about racism. It's about religious persecution or extreme nationalism. But it's not about racism.
Stories involving racism display one race attacking another in some way. We could even say that an episode like The Doctor's Daughter fits such a description. The central thrust of the story is about humans and Hath hating each other. Even if one of those races are fictional, the story is displaying the evils of racism.
But Demons of the Punjab is about people of the same race fighting amongst each other. It's Hindu against Muslim. But everyone is, essentially, Indian. Even when Indian characters are expressing their discontent about what the UK has done to them, they always refer to them as "British". Not white. So, really, this is either religious discrimination or the horrors of colonialism**.
So, I'm sorry podcasters, but I'm not really seeing racism, here. Your statement is similar to reviewing a film involving Irish Catholics fighting Irish Protestants and saying that it's about Sexism. Clearly it's about two religions not being able to tolerate each other. Not about one gender denying opportunities to another.
In many ways, the podcasters made themselves sound a bit ignorant. They saw a story that didn't have a whole lot of white people in it so they assumed it must be about racism.
So often, this is what I'm seeing when people try to present "facts" to back up the idea that Doctor Who is now too woke. A little error here and there is understandable, of course. We all get minor facts wrong from time to time. But there's some serious misrepresentation going on with people perpetuating the Woke Myth that is, oftentimes, not even that hard to spot. But a fan that's looking for something to complain about isn't going to question the data too hard. They're just going to jump onboard. I'm sure any number of other people that listened to the podcast just agreed with them without really thinking through their claim.. It's like those Ancient Greeks who never bothered to say: "Well, have we actually ever seen any evidence of these gods?!" Instead, they just went ahead and started building those shrines!
**If you bother to do some historical research, you'll see that colonialism has little to do with racism. Britain attempted to colonise any number of places where the population was as white as white can be. They weren't really trying to racially persecute anyone, they just liked to conquer stuff!
2. Forgetting the Past
In many ways, I've brought this up quite a bit, already. But I do think it's good to take a healthy dive into it and really pick it apart. The basic idea is that if you despise Chibnall's era because it's too woke, then you should really be hating the show's entire 38 seasons and a telemovie. Because it's all, pretty much, as woke as the current era. In some instances, the show has been even more woke than it is now.
Again, it's best to go with an example. If you're a keen reader of my blog, you'll notice I've actually brought this one up before. But it is a really good one. So I'll use it again. In fact, I'm so lazy that I'm just cutting and pasting the whole thing from its original entry:
Case in Point: A friend of mine claimed after Praxeus that Chibnall was talking too much about LGBTQ culture. He was referring to the fact that two of the supporting characters in that story were in a same-sex marriage. Admittedly, if you're paying careful attention, you will also notice incidental characters in two other episodes from Series 11 and 12 mention they are in relationships with someone of the same gender. Because of this, he feels Chibnall is pushing an agenda too hard.
"You do realize," I responded, "That RTD had a bisexual character who was a companion for a bit and then became a recurring character. And Moff had a lesbian companion for an entire season. Compared to them, Chibnall practically looks like a gay-basher!"
"You do realize," I responded, "That RTD had a bisexual character who was a companion for a bit and then became a recurring character. And Moff had a lesbian companion for an entire season. Compared to them, Chibnall practically looks like a gay-basher!"
Again and again, I see this from the Chib-haters. They make all these claims that he's executing all sorts of unprecedented changes in the show that have ruined it. The idea that Chibnall is making Doctor Who too woke, of course, is usually their biggest beef of this nature. They swear that the show was telling simple science fiction stories before this era that never tried to get political. They seem to have forgotten that the show was plenty woke before he ever went near it.
Admittedly, this is one of my favorite arguments when I do these sort of entries. I will point out that he's not really doing anything that hasn't been done before by other Showrunners. And yet, when his predecessors did it, no one got angry with them. In some cases, they were even praised for the choices they made. Which is why I level my whole over-critical accusation at fandom. Why is it okay for someone else to do it? But, suddenly, when that someone is named Chris Chibnall, they're "killing the show"?
CONCLUSION:
So, basically, if you're going to claim that Chibnall has, somehow, introduced new things that we've never seen before into the format and turned Doctor Who into something it isn't, you might want to do a little re-watching, first. I know, in some cases, it's difficult to look back into a show that has run as long as this one has - but you should still do your homework before you state such strong opinions.
Which is why I love, all-the-more, my little example of my friend complaining about LGBTQ representation in the Chibnall era. If you have only watched New Who, you can still dispel his opinion quite easily.
The fact of the matter is: Of all the Showrunners in New Who, Chibnall has given the least amount of representation to marginalised groups. In this respect, he actually seems less woke than his predecessors. We can keep going down the line with various other issues that woke culture loves to harp on about and see that, for the most part, RTD and Moff dealt with it far more than Chibnall did. With the exception of a few minor points.
Once more, we'll work in twos. There are probably only two areas where Chibnall might be a bit more "woke" than his predecessors:
1) Casting a TARDIS crew that was a bit more racially-diverse than most.
2) He does love to go on about the environment!
Otherwise, if we're being really objective: Doctor Who has actually become less woke during his period.
Okay, I do seem to be going down a bit of a rabbit-hole, here. Apparently, I have much more to say on this matter than I had originally thought. So, before I blather on any further, I'm going to end this entry and work on a second part. Hopefully, you've enjoyed this rant and will continue on with me.
In Part Two, I'm going to do a genuine "woke count" for both of Chibnall's seasons. I will look at each individual story and see how much it deals with topics that woke culture likes to bring up (or, in several cases, if they deal with these subjects at all!). With that same meter, I will show that there are, in fact, other eras of the show that are actually more woke than this current one. I'll probably cover a few other things along the way as I do seem to be full of opinions on this subject.
Well, full of something, at least!
ANOTHER SPECIAL NOTE: Having written this a year or two previously, I really don't remember much of what I intended for the second part. However, if you really liked the topic I was exploring, let me know. If enough of you want to see it, I'll go to the trouble of writing a Part Two. I'll even bother to include Chibnall's third season. Which, quite honestly, is so much less "woke" than his other two seasons.
First they made the Master trans, then the Doctor. Now he's gay Sammy Davis Jr. Verdict: mega woke.
ReplyDelete