Ideology in My Controversy

Thinking about my controversy holistically, its important to address information surrounding both sides of the argument. In this post, I will answer some ideological analysis questions about the groups involved in my controversy.

Ver en vivo. "Ver Oscar 2015 en vivo en directo" 9/5/2015 via flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic 

• Who is involved in the controversy?

I think that the general groups in this conflict are the academy and its supporters versus those who are extremely passionate about racial equality.

• Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?

I think that the African American Academy president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, was a major leader on the side that supported the Oscar's nominations as fair and just. Reverend Al Sharpton was a major player for the opposition, calling the Oscar nomination list "appalling."

• What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

The side that believes the Oscars were racist had the social power of the entertainment industry and actors of color. The opposition had the power of the Academy itself, which gave it considerable leverage in the debate.

• What resources are available to different positions?

Largely, I think both sides were equally equipped in this controversy. Each had a media platform and the same information/event. The side that saw a fair and just Oscars did, however, have the public relations clout of the Academy.

• What does each group value?

I think the group in support of the Academy and the Oscars values the art of good film-making and pure, unbiased opinion. The opposition stands for racial equality, the righting of past wrongs, and the representation of people of color in the film industry.  

• What counts as evidence for the different positions?

Evidence for the group in support of the Oscars includes the fact that the Academy president is a black female, that 12 Years a Slave won big the year before, and that the nominations have been diverse every year since 1997.

The actual list of nominations supports the opposition, because all the films center around white males. Also, diversity is a well known obstacle in the entertainment business in general.

• Is there a power differential between the groups?

In my opinion, the opposition has the upper hand in this situation since racial equality is a touchy issue in the United States. In some cases, we are still trying to make up for past wrongs. Therefore, by pushing the Oscar controversy to centerstage, the opposition creates a winning situation for itself.

• Is there any acknowledged common ground between groups?

Both groups generally agree that movies that feature a more diverse cast have equal merit to less-diverse films and that they should be judged fairly.

• Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

By engaging in the conversation, both groups agree that race is still an issue on the forefront of this country. As much as they might bicker, they all feel as though it is a problem that requires further exploration.

• Do the various groups listen to each other?

There is virtually no discussion among the two camps, as both sides are entrenched in their beliefs. Once the hashtag #oscarssowhite was created, any back-and-forth dried up and it became one side against the other. The Academy director did, in the months after the ceremony, address the racial concerns of the other side and announce the addition of more people of color and women to the Academy voting group.