Challenging biases and dual timeline
The seventeenth season of Grey´s Anatomy was released in mid November and while the first two episodes had a mix between pre-covid life and the chaos of the beginning of the pandemic, after the fourth episode we finally have material to consider. Indeed, a doctors´tv show seems to be the perfect place to reflect our current covid/ post-quarantine state of affairs. Even though this series has always brought Shonda Rhime´s imprint in the issues it covers (and by the way the issues are covered) it is now more than ever that we can follow our daily struggles through the screen. Besides showing us the frontline drama of doctors and patients alike, it keeps foregrounding social issues such as the inequality, discrimination and racism.
Having said so, my interest in this post lies in two aspects: the unconscious racial bias of one of the main characters and the dual timeline it forces on the spectator. I believe that there are significant lessons to be drawn from the last two episodes and probably the rest of the season.
Firstly, it is interesting the way the writers chose to address the issue of racism. It does not come from a supporting actor or even an antagonist. Instead, it is Owen, one of our beloved chiefs, the one that falls into the problematic assumption: giving a diagnosis without considering the ethnic background of the patient (an Asian patient- later we learn that, statistically, the number of cases in that minority group are different compared to white people) because he could not think outside his white background. And it is precisely this background that leads him, ultimately, to make universalistic assumptions without a second thought.
Although he is not the only biased character and certainly the degree of assumption varies- there was also a patient remarking his preferences to be attended for a non-Asian doctor- it will be Owen the one that has to realize and reflect on his own biases. And this is where it gets interesting. The development from his first excuses to the final acceptance, remorse and compromise to question his own assumption and paying more attention to particularities, is somehow hasty- I needed more minutes on the conversation regarding equality and equity- but effective. These reactions and reflections within the drama are not only steps towards raising awareness, which as I have said above are Shondaland´s hallmark, but also constitute pedagogical tools and an attempt to build resilience within the discriminated communities. To what extend these attempts can be successful? That is a question for another day.
Secondly, the season started at the very beginning of the pandemic and we, the public, have already overcome the first reactions and stages of this experience. This gives us a sort of unprecedented «advantage» in terms of understanding and anticipating the characters reactions and, most importantly, this dual timeline oblige us to relive the experience from day one.
By doing so, it forces us to think about how the pandemic has been lived across different countries and across social divide such as class, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. In other words, it confronts us with our privileges, be it due to race, gender or sexuality. Indeed, it is impossible to ignore the attention given to the effects of racism. Besides the number of times the characters referred to Covid impact within the Black Community, there is one scene worth mentioning here: Miranda Baily and Maggie Pierce, two black women with impressive careers, sitting on a bench sharing their stories about loss and the «othering» experiences they have had to face up to that moment despite the different generations they belong to.
When they were growing up, neither of them were seen in their full potential (future surgeons) because they were both seen primarly through their skin color -and most likely their gender. The othering mechanism they related (being suggested a more «confortable» school or something within her «speed»), as well as the coping mechanism they used («try harder and do better just to be considered average», or «to be considered at all») will undoubtedly resonate with the audience. However, I cannot dismiss the triumphant discourse of these two characters. It runs the risk of reproducing an individualistic and meritocratic discourse that rather than encouraging resilience and resistance, hides the material structures of inequalities. And this is especially relevant at a time when we can no longer afford ignoring the globalized world we live in, and the economic structure, values and political culture behind our responses to it.
Despite this unease, the fifth episode, and the bench scene in particular, has been a great incentive to look back at our intertwined realities and to consider our responses to this common threat.
SERIAL POLITICS 