RACE is in the news again, and boy, do we take to that topic like a duck to water.

There’s no need to wax lyrical about the who and what when it comes to this sensational subject. We’re quicker to point the finger at racism abroad than look at our own institutionalised forms of racism.

The elephant in the room when “race” is discussed, however, is “class”, for each ethnic community often has its own power and hierarchical structures, which create and perpetuate internalised inequalities and power relations.

One way to shed light on this is by addressing the concept of class when discussing the arts, and how it has come to shape our policies.

Even to a casual observer of the Malaysian media, social and political landscape, it’s evident that the public discourse on broad issues is coloured by the subtext of race and stereotype. So, let’s attempt to define the three main concepts of race, stereotype and class in order to diagnose ourselves as a community through the lens of cultural studies.

Before we get racy (pun intended), let’s ponder the academic definition of “race” according to Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies by O’Sullivan et al, 1994:

“A social category of people who are supposedly distinguished by inherited and invariable characteristics. Whereas race can, at first glance, be viewed as an innocent description of what certain people look like, it carries a hidden agenda about their ‘nature’, how they behave and are expected to behave. Racist ideologies, therefore, claim that essential genetic and psychological characteristics define a population that has little choice in the matter, and as such, is stereotyped.”

We tend to define “race” in these terms, which are inherently linked to the notion of how “different” somebody else is from us. Scientists have proven that race is a social construct. In our own backyard, race can be traced to being a colonial construct, a discourse that, ironically, we find ourselves continually embroiled in, but an effective currency for nationalists and right-wingers globally.

The qualification of these “differences” is often informed (or misinformed) by assumptions circulating in the popular imagination, by way of the media, education system and social relations. But what are these forms of “assumptions” called?

For that, we must look at the concept of “stereotype” according to O’Sullivan et al:

“The social classification of particular groups and people as often highly simplified and generalised signs, which implicitly or explicitly represent a set of values, judgments and assumptions concerning their behaviour, characteristics or history.”

“Stereotype” can also be described as the form in which ideas about race circulate; the simpler the form, the faster something travels. Unfortunately, stereotypes also permeate industrial practices, which are tied to the larger consumer culture. In Malaysia, race and language play no small role in deciding target markets, as these segments are easier to milk because they can be “isolated” value-wise.

For example, look at the various ways slimming products and services are marketed to Malaysian women. Not all buy into the ads, but they are good “symptoms” to unpack our values and study how they are often ideologically normalised in different social and cultural groupings. Even within the discourse of “whitening creams”, there exist the racist trope of “whiteness” and certain ideals.

Of course, one finds different categories of consumers (doesn’t anyone use the term “citizens” anymore?) within these target markets. These segments can be defined by social classes within each race.

“Class” (or social class) is academically defined (again, according to O’Sullivan et al) as:

“Those distinct social formations made up of groups of people who have similar relationships to the means of production in society, and as a result, a common social and cultural position within an unequal system of property ownership, power and material rewards. As the term refers to the fundamental determinant of social stratification within modern industrial societies, you should expect to encounter it frequently.”

Discussing social class seems radical in contemporary Malaysian society (although it’s standard framing in the humanities) because to do so, one must look at the ownership and control of the production of material goods, as those with that power also have access to curate the ideas that circulate in society. We need to start thinking outside the frame and discourse of race, and about bettering society through an understanding of social relations by comprehending social classes.

The arts, for better or worse, has been misunderstood as the parlance of the bourgeoisie, when in fact, we need to look at how they make us human first and foremost (i.e. everybody is capable of creating art). Satire, for instance, is an important art form that empowers artists to keep the powers that be in check.

No democracy can sustain itself if artists don’t have a “voice” and can’t stand up to be counted regardless of race. But in this world dictated by commerce and lacking in political will (framed by the political capital of race), it’s an uphill battle to convince stakeholders (I’m pointing at policymakers and lawmakers) that not all art is “entertainment”.

We’ll continue our discussion next week. Class dismissed. – June 12, 2020.

* Azmyl Yunor is a touring underground recording artiste, and an academic in media and cultural studies. He has published articles on pop culture, subcultures and Malaysian cultural politics. He adheres to the three-chords-and-the-truth school of songwriting, and Woody Guthrie’s maxim “All you can write is what you see”. He is @azmyl on Twitter.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.