Podcasts

The Lie of Representation (Essay)

By January 28, 2025 No Comments

THE LIE OF REPRESENTATION
The lie of representation fixates on externals which divide instead of internals which unite.

Over the last several decades a decision was made to obsess over the socialist-inspired conjuration that unless we see someone who looks exactly like us doing a specific work or action then we’ll never know what we’re capable of, what they’re going through, or how to even communicate with them. If we don’t see, or acknowledge seeing, others in our socially-imposed categorization by skin, ethnicity, physical ability, and host of other secondary labeling we are so adept at projecting upon others, then they basically don’t exist. Without so-designed representation they are somehow shunted, dismissed, belittled, erased. In a word, representation is validation.

Little wonder that such a creed is so well received considering the state of the day. In an age when anyone can turn a camera around and beam their image, opinion, and self-declared authority to the world at large, individuals become solitary stars lost within the galaxy glittering with myriad others. While every voice now has a chance to shout, most aren’t heard in the cacophony of so many resounding at once, the current white noise of reality. Which only further compounds the obsessive need to know someone out there has noticed. It’s validating, after all.

External features, so we’ve been told, say more about who we are, who we should befriend, and how we should behave than any other feature, even if said feature is more enduring, uniting, and preserving of societies for centuries. External features, we’ve been told, are the real components of our true selves, so anyone who shares such features is automatically relatable if not the very same. If someone decides to be, well, an individual who finds more alignment in truths, values, and philosophy, then they’re obviously a fake version of their external features or their internal selves have been replaced by the internal features of some other group’s external features. It sounds backward and ridiculous because it is.

Contesting this system of validation through made up communities is akin to placing a target on the forehead with markers for all sorts of accusations like hater, denier, eraser, and -ists of all stripes. What it doesn’t elicit, however, is a coherent, much-needed explanation as to how this convoluted perception demonstrably makes anything better.

The lie of representation reductions individuals down to aspects which may portray some part of them, but not all or even most of the essential, enduring truth of them. Moreover, the categories chosen for representation in this exclusionary system are descriptors oft only elevated through enforcement and indoctrination. Rather than rectify, this lie emphasizes all sorts of things that should be secondary, tertiary, irrelevant, if we’re to achieve any real unity, empathy, or acceptance, specifically the sorts of things incessantly harped upon by those working to strengthen and reinvigorate wedges of division. It tarnishes centuries of “others as yourself” adherence for a doctrine which deliberately unravels the threads that bind us. In others words, calling attention to these so-called markers of representation ultimately drives people farther apart.

The system purporting fairness and equalized attentions has imposed a series of external checkmarks which only enact external changes, and, if anything, enhance internal resentment. From film to advertising to politics to publishing to corporations, industries scramble to assemble a particular, imposed imagery which has little to nothing to do with real betterment. The worst sort of tokenism is mandated to appease the loudest noisemakers, ultimately doing more harm than good on all sides. And that aside from creating greater animosity toward the selected groups by those deliberately left out. So, the lie is not relegated to the twisting of words and attempts to reshape perceptions of reality, but also undeniably damaging in actual result. Moreover, these classifications are impossible to maintain as there’s really no end to the amount which can be contrived, a situation ridiculous enough to undo this newfound philosophy of representation entire.

In broad strokes, representation in politics should qualify anyone living in the same neighborhood as the represented, walking the same streets, patronizing the same businesses, attending the same schools, living under the same laws. “Inclusivity” and “empathy” have no effective role in balancing budgets or making neighborhoods safer, but have unsurprisingly made those, and many other factors, worse. Despite inevitable political differences, the former list at least ensures that the representative has some measure of understanding of the world his constituents inhabit, regardless of external appearances. Without, the resulting disconnect not only inevitably allows policies which harm the neighborhood, but also the absurdness of supposed representatives not living in the areas they represent. Who, rather what, are they truly representing?

They-Who-Choose how the represented gain a much vaunted “voice” do so according to their own metrics. The demand to overhaul the representation system lays claim to all sorts of diversity initiatives, but, as noted, only of a particular kind. Thus, those claiming to increase the representative showing of certain groups inevitably focus on particular subsets within the group then declare the enforced achievement of their objectives a victory for representation. Any contestation of such methodology resurrects the dynamic pinwheel of all things -ist.

Did anyone ask recently anointed acronyms if they approve of how they’re being portrayed? How can every one of every “minority” group be consulted in regard to the image established through their assigned representation? How many nationalities, speakers of gendered languages, agreed to adding arbitrary letters to remake their speech and, considering their faiths and cultures, how many agreed to the proliferation of certain types of characters supposedly relaying the “lived experiences” of…whom? Same for much purported representation of religious groups which tend to center around characters who’s “lived experience” is assimilation, so the character may be of a particular religion but in no way represents it. A steamy romance with religious iconography tucked into the background of the cover image isn’t representation. Because in most if not all cases, real representation of the fundamental beliefs of where these characters come from would not align with what activists intend to represent. There’s a reason all representation ultimately looks and sounds the same, how it all focuses on the same themes, subsets, and emotions.

Ironically, the elevation of these subset groups only serves to meld them into a larger umbrella group with slightly different shadings. A “community” is created, then various hyphenated subsets within the “community,” which essentially result in giving the parent “community” the dominant voice. All in the name of representation and validation. As with much else of the modern era, the drive for representation of designated marginalized and minority communities has been used as a social cudgel resulting in new groups of marginalized and minority instead of a way to widen opportunities and increase the range of voices. Also, these marginalized and minority statuses entirely depend upon region. Thus, despite claims, the window hasn’t been widened but shifted.

Where is the representation for religious individuals in the mainstream world? Where are the voices of those who love their country, for those who don’t want whatever ideology a fringe minority is foisting upon them? You’ve had your time, they’ll say.

Who is “you”? What does almost anyone alive today have to do with anything decades past? Somehow everyone’s blamed for the actions of others or not allowed an opportunity to change despite the demand to ally! educate yourself! Well, if you wish to adhere to this contortion then be prepared for it to work both ways. Such accusations reveal the truth of the calls for representation, in that it’s not really about bringing new voices in as much as pushing certain voices out.

The lie of representation hides it’s real goal of merely diversifying the faces of individuals representing the same school of thought, to keep the outgroup out, while continually shielding and validating those on the in. It creates identity not around what you do or say, true markers of character, but around immutable characteristics which shouldn’t be given the attention they receive. A simple way to know the difference between true representation and mere validation is to ask if the representation centers around what can or can’t be controlled.

For example, skin color, ethnicity, genealogy are not of an individual’s choosing. A Force higher and more powerful than any designates each and there’s naught to be done but accept it as a detail of who you make yourself into. Such factors don’t make someone worthy of special treatment just for existing. However, if representation is focused on something within human control, decisions, moral choices, philosophy, worldview, etc, then that commonality will result in better representation, connection, and unity than any of the celebrated externalities. To avoid falling into the trap of validation, decide if the group descriptor can actually be changed. Then decide if it’s some thing or some attitude which needs adjusting. Act; move on.

Real representation would look at the truths that lie past such terminologies. How could anyone ever engage with anything portraying someone who doesn’t look exactly like them otherwise? How can any story be set in outer space, in a fantasy realm, under the sea, with superhuman powers, in the past, considering as none exist at present, if at all, so by such logic these stories and characters represent no one. Yet, they persist. For the obvious reason that these sorts of details aren’t what makes a story relatable.

If people shouldn’t be judged by appearances, then stop focusing on them. If children aren’t punished for acts of the father, then stop condemning them. If anything, what catches the viewer or the customer is that the imagery captures something relatable despite people looking different. Because what truly unites us are things we all have in common—desire for safety, plenty, community, meaning, family, et al—things which are universal because they’re fundamental to the human condition not only a particular subgroup. Individuals who don’t look alike connect when they recognize these similarities, accomplishing far more for representation and empathy and validation than any externalities ever can. There’s a reason people of all types and backgrounds can salute the same national flag.

It’s a lie to claim that no one can know what they can achieve if they don’t see someone exactly like them doing it. There’s always a first who figured it out without a mirror image to look at. By this logic, what exact shades of similarity are necessary to confirm representation has been achieved? Saying no one can accomplish without first seeing someone exactly like them is a lie and disservice to their abilities. Moreover, the first of any venture had naught but his own drive and determination to guide him. When we respect the truth of what we have in common, when we respect what people are truly capable of, then externalities fall away, not from denial but to resume their proper place as mere details. We only further imbed that which we don’t want to be an impediment through intentional hyperfocus on it.

The whole lie of representation can only flourish when we struggle to define the real self. Advocates and activists of this damaging lie would place color and preferences over values and goals, easily proven by any of the names for so-designated marginalized groups. Consider, for example, an individual from any one of these categories. If only one externality was slightly changed, would they still be themselves? Would they fall out of favor because their coloring isn’t right enough or positions left enough or socio-economic standing not dire enough? Do they lose their claim on representation with a slight external change? The answer reveals much about this lie’s true intent.

The truth combatting the lie of representation is in assessing the entirety of an individual by every metric but the ones given artificial primacy. Only real truths unite outwardly disparate individuals, and where there is surety in the alignment of these truths, real representation can occur.

Most importantly, validation contingent upon someone else is hollow and ephemeral at best. It must be fed constantly, but will never find satiety as it depends upon the whims and notice of others. True validation, should the need present itself, can only come from a deep conviction of striving upon the path of proper fulfillment and meaning, regardless of others’ notice. Representatives of such living are certainly not where validation activists want you to look.