Face to Race

16    The following analysis is based on several extracts drawn and transcribed from the 2007 Celebrity Big Brother series in the United Kingdom, with a focus on the strained relationship between Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty, and previous British Big Brother contestant Jade Goody, and two other young British women, Jo O'Meara and Danielle Lloyd. Particular focus is given to the interaction between gendered and racial discourses in the construction of specific identities. Conversations in which certain identities, actions and events were justified, explained and blamed by both the immediate protagonists and other housemates were examined with particular attention paid to the linguistic and discursive devices which were actively used to position people.

17    An ongoing theme that occurred throughout the series was the attribution of the girls' behaviour to their gender. Throughout the series, the bullying to which Shetty was subjected by the three British women was frequently denied, explained, justified and rationalised, both by the protagonists and their fellow housemates, as simply the behaviours of "girls being girls," suggesting that such behaviours are solely the result of their gender, rather than also their location as British women. This is particularly evident in a discussion that took place between two of the men in the house, Ian Watkins and Jermaine Jackson, constructing the previous night's disputes which occurred between the girls as being "typical female behaviour" stemming from supposedly female attributes, such as envy. Firstly, however, the two men build up a version of events which successfully exonerates the British girls from any act of intentional racism.

Jackson: When Jade [Goody] was going off when Shilpa [Shetty] — I was looking at Danielle [Lloyd] and Jo [O'Meara]. . .they were laughing.
Watkins: And that's what upsets me.
Jackson: They were laughing. They're being controlled by Jade, and then. . .and it's like – it's ignorance. . .that's all it is, it's ignorance.
Jackson: And I'm just speaking to both sides, just — just to be neutral. But I'm, I'm not gonna let, just things be unfair. Jade is Jade.
Watkins: Jade has her set of beliefs and she's acting upon them.
Jackson: Yeah right. Exactly.
Watkins: So in Jade's mind she's right, you know, and you can't change that. I've never witnessed anything like this before. Anything. Apart from in school.

While Jackson and Watkins obviously do not condone the behaviour they witnessed between the girls ("And that's what upsets me" — Watkins), it is nonetheless implied that rather than being purposeful, the bullying experienced by Shetty is due to inherent and unchangeable factors within the three British girls. This both works to deny individual accountability, and also acts to deny any role that the wider British or even Western social context plays in the construction of people's view and actions towards individuals from non-Western cultures. The behaviour of Lloyd and O'Meara is constructed as not entirely their own, but as stemming from their "ignorance" and tendency to follow group mentality. Such constructions of "ignorance" effectively exonerate the girls from acts of what could be called racial bullying, and instead positions their behaviour as the unintended consequences of "girls being girls."

18    Goody's behaviour is similarly constructed as not intentionally violent towards Shetty, with justifications such as "Jade is Jade" and she "has her set of beliefs and she's acting on them." While her treatment of Shetty is acknowledged to be "unfair," Watkins and Jackson partially justify her actions by implying that Goody has no control over her beliefs and behaviour, which are a presented as resulting from who she is, rather than a conscious choice. Goody's behaviour is furthermore constructed as unique to her as an individual, rather than having any link to the wider social environment, which is evident when Watkins says "I've never witnessed anything like this before." According to them, these kinds of beliefs and behaviours are somehow intrinsic to the person, rather than the society they live in, a common rhetoric identified by Van Dijk which works to deny the existence of underlying racism.

19    Watkins and Jackson thus establish that this particular incident is not indicative of wider British behaviour, but rather resides within the main protagonists, though not as a product of their intentional actions. They continue on to suggest that this kind of behaviour actually implicates the female gender in general. Interestingly, while it is suggested that the treatment of Shetty is "unfair," it is simultaneously implied that Shetty has played an active role in all unfolding events, by referring to her as being a "side" in the dispute. These events are regarded as being driven by generalised female (emotion-driven) behaviours such as jealousy and envy. This of course evokes discourses about female "hormones" which are constructed as the antithesis of adult rationality.

Jackson: hmm. . . hmm. You hear of um. . . situations where girls are kind of envious of each other, and jealous, and they um. . . sort of all of a sudden just speak their mind. And they just –
Watkins: Hormones are everywhere.
Jackson: Yeah. This place could have been full of guys and we all would have gotten along.

According to Watkins, "hormones are everywhere," a statement which suggests that rather than acting on conscious intent, the main protagonists are largely driven and controlled by the irrational (female) emotions of jealousy and envy. Furthermore, in Watkins' talk hormones are constructed as solely the domain of women ("this place could have been full of guys and we all would have gotten along" – Watkins), thus ignoring men's own (potentially hormonally-driven) behaviours, as were witnessed by many in the house when particular (heterosexually-identified) male housemates acted in lustful and indeed inappropriate ways towards female housemates.

20    By suggesting that the particular events or issues between the three British girls and Shetty would never have happened in a houseful of men, Watkins and Jackson effectively relegate the events as resulting solely from the women's gender, rather than also being culturally based. This raises the question as to whether Shetty would have been targeted by Goody, O'Meara and Lloyd had she been male, rather than a self-possessed female held in relatively high esteem within her own country, again drawing attention to the various ways in which race, class and gender are uniquely crosscut and articulated by each other .(Anderson & Collins; Burman) While intersecting discourses of race and gender appear at play within the interactions between the women, these are rendered invisible through a normative discourse of "girls being girls" within the house.