MG Kaplan
Sept 7 2022
Tom Hanks’ recent statement reported in New York Times
Magazine (July 14, 2022), that he wouldn’t play his gay character in the movie Philadelphia
if it were being made today, contains a contradiction at its core. While likely
his intent is to be inclusive, the impact is one that if applied broadly, would
interfere with progress towards inclusion and pluralism. Hanks says the audience wouldn’t “accept the
inauthenticity of a straight guy playing a gay guy.” The argument appears to be
that a straight character can’t play a gay character because 1) a member of the
dominant or majority group (heterosexual) can’t understand the life experiences
of a member of the subordinated or minority group (gay), and 2) it takes away
an opportunity for a gay actor, who’s roles may be limited by bias and
discrimination. While there are truths
in both of these arguments about the challenges of operating in a diverse
society, the inherent opportunity is missed.
The U.S. has a core strength built into our system: diversity is what feeds our creativity, and
creates our resilience. The more we push
ourselves to work with and across difference, the stronger we become. The world’s most diverse democracy,
constituted to create equality and opportunity, should aspire to become more
inclusive and pluralistic.
Hanks’ argument does have a truth based in the very real
power dynamics connected to difference.
It is true that a straight person would be challenged playing a gay
character. When we are in the dominant
group on any issue of difference, such as gender identity/gender, race,
culture, and sexual orientation, we aren’t compelled to deeply understand the
life experiences of those groups less powerful.
Correspondingly, the person in the subordinated group often faces the
reality of needing to understand the dominant group in order to thrive, fit in,
or even survive. This power dynamic is
reflected in the different amount of awareness, energy and real work required
by each. Using myself as an example, as
a white person I generally don’t have to understand or adapt to black people in
order to fit in or be successful. Yet as
a gay person, I have invested much energy in understanding straight people, in
order to be seen as acceptable, and to have access to opportunities. It was a lot of work to figure out how to fit
in, eventually to come out, and to become a fully functioning and free
person. I appreciate Mr. Hanks’
sensitivity to this struggle, and he is right that he faces a real challenge in
playing a gay character, even moreso given the substantial progress made since
the filming of Philadelphia. His
good work in portraying Andrew Beckett in Philadelphia is the sort of
work that helps this country grow, because it flips the power dynamic
concerning who needs to learn about whom.
By the way, should Bruce Springsteen not have written the theme song for
the movie? His highly acclaimed “Streets
of Philadelphia”, the lyrics of which captured a deeply resonant moment for the
gay community, also resonated broadly.
Both Hanks and Springsteen are models for growth and change, and for
pluralism.
His comment to the Times that “one of the reasons people
weren’t afraid of that movie is that I was playing a gay man” indicates the
problem of a sort of bias that could impact a gay actor’s opportunities. However, he also states that we are “…beyond
that now”, and this reveals a counterproductive irony. Should progress lead us to be more separate,
and less able to authentically empathize and portray the experiences of someone
different? Hanks’ work in Philadelphia
helped to reduce bias and discrimination, yet by not playing a gay character
today he would embrace a perspective that would help freeze in place these
non-inclusive, non-pluralistic dynamics.
To imply that identity in a subordinated group is so sacred that a
member of the dominant group shouldn’t even attempt to portray that experience,
even actors who are constantly seeking to embody the experiences of different
others, will only cause bias to persist, and thicken the boundaries around our
group identities. Change can’t wait
until we have a “perfect” bias-free world, which will likely never exist.
The national conversation about creating a diverse society
that is inclusive is perhaps our most important conversation. Our history represents the best and the worst,
when it comes to tolerance and acceptance of difference. Pluralism, which focuses on both creating the
space for diversity to be expressed and the broader value add to the society,
should be a guiding construct. If we
focus primarily on the power dynamics of dominant and subordinated, or
oppressor and oppressed, it is that broader value add that is missed, and we
risk remaining unnecessarily polarized. This doesn’t mean we should ignore bias and
discrimination, but we should also see the ways we are changing, the good
intent of many, the opportunities in front of us, and the risk if we stay
stuck.
We are in a time of change and progress, even if it doesn’t
always feel like it. Not only, according
to social science research, are our attitudes about diversity improving, our
demographics are shifting in profound ways.
At the center of this shift is the inevitability that in about 2 decades
whites will become less than 50% of the population. At such an important time of change and
progress, some want to keep us stuck in the past. On the right, the goal seems to be a return
to a time when certain groups, particularly whites and men, were in a dominant
position. This is obviously untenable
and would likely lead to the downfall of our country and system of
government. On the left, there also
seems to be a desire to stay in a past where the power dynamics of dominant and
subordinated groups remain unchanging, and progress is not acknowledged. While the threat from the right is more
extreme and particularly palpable, real change rarely involves shifting just
one group or one perspective. Real
change involves a sense of a shared future that we can collectively own.
Our demographics, and our Constitution, are to a large
extent our destiny, and we should embrace it. Diversity is our biggest strength, our
biggest challenge, and our biggest opportunity.
We need to spend more time deepening empathy across our differences, not
less. The constant polarization around
identity groups needs to be allowed to evolve towards pluralism, in which we
have space to thrive in our differences and allow those differences to make us
stronger, more creative, and more resilient.
Tom Hanks should be encouraged to stretch himself in his
portrayals. His courage should push him,
and perhaps help us, to develop more empathy.
He should eagerly seek feedback from gay and straight people alike,
about his impact. Yes, because of our
progress it might be harder for him to play a gay character today, but should
he step up to that challenge, he, and others like him, will be role models for
what it looks like to live together in a rich, diverse, pluralistic society.
