The “prejudice show” is a lax public humiliation that leaves no one unscathed
“Before your wedding night did you call the city hotel and ask if it was possible to separate the beds in the suite.”
The nastiness comes from the TV profile and the podcast Emil Persson and said to the prime minister Ulf Kristersson. Kristersson laughs strainedly and says haha no, it wasn’t like that at all.
Is this fun? For example, do you get a glimpse of something important about the prime minister through this type of “joke” where the cape is also directed in a very infamous way at his wife?
The exchange of words takes place in The television program “Fördomsshowen” on SVT, where the concept is that Emil Persson subjects the party leaders to a different kind of grilling.
Some examples of prejudices that are aired:
“You have urged a man to taste his own sperm for the sake of equality” (to the Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch).
“You can’t bear to ride your husband in bed” (to the Left Party’s party leader Nooshi Dadgostar).
“You’ve never had sex in a car” (to the Center Party’s party leader Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist).
The presenter Emil Persson is a classic “nice guy”, i.e. a man with strong self-esteem and an unreflective contempt for sissies and other jerks. Since the idea of the program is to confront the interviewees with prejudices – which can be inherently shitty or misogynistic – he has acquired a classic free pass. That’s not an opinion, just a bias!
What makes it all so painful? I think it’s the nonchalant ferocity combined with a sultry but very easily recognizable pecking order. In the studio, the same power dynamics prevail as in a classic American high school movie. At the top of the pyramid is the crappy alpha guy (Emil Persson). He can say whatever shit, people will still laugh. Just below there is the prettiest girl – in this case Ebba Busch. Between these two in the studio, a really nasty atmosphere arises, it’s embarrassing to watch but doesn’t feel directly degrading.
It’s late it gets worse. Because according to high school logic, all jerks are free rangers and Emil Persson uses that to the max. Party leader of the Social Democrats Magdalena Andersson is certainly alpha enough for Persson not to really bully her, but he does better with the others. Dadgostar, Thand Ringqvist and Mohamsson are thoroughly humiliated. The women suffer the worst – because the high school logic also means that girls without Busch’s generic handsome capital are absolutely at the bottom of the hierarchy – but even the program with Kristersson is very unpleasant.
In the interview with Nooshi Dadgostar, Emil Persson returns to his prejudice that she is lethargic and lax. How is it even possible that he has landed there? She is an immigrant girl born in a refugee facility in Skåne who, through sheer will and talent, made her way to one of the country’s most important missions. When Persson, on the other hand, vents his prejudices Jimmie Åkesson it’s about him liking hard rock, watching porn or appreciating the gender rocker Björn Rosenström. Absolutely, says Jimmie, because the prejudices Persson has play perfectly with the image Åkesson himself wants to present to the world.
Is the test in the program simply how well do people tolerate humiliation and oppression? In Dagens ETC expresses the former SVT profile Anna Hedenmo precisely that opinionthe show is valuable because we “understand that Nooshi Dadgostar has a sense of humor and can take offense”.
But, as most of us know, it is not obvious that a laugh provoked by humiliation is a sign of humor. And why would Nooshi Dadgostar even tolerate being insulted?
In defense of the programme, one could say that it exceptionally exposes things about the party leaders that we did not know, but which are relevant. Simona Mohamsson enormous knowledge gaps, for example. But there’s a big difference between making fun of someone’s flaws and exposing them. The first requires a comedian with absolute ear, the second a journalist with empathy. Emil Persson is none of that.
The French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu coined the term symbolic violencewhich are forms of dominance that are not perceived as violence by either the perpetrator or the victim. They are power structures that are maintained by our perceptions of who has the right to say what. The “nice guy” Emil Persson doesn’t see it himself, but it is this silent logic that gives him the right to humiliate others – as well as to dismiss the feelings aroused by his behavior.
To Dagens ETC, Emil Persson also quite rightly says that those who criticize him are “people who might not be so funny at a party”. In classic bully fashion, he also claims that it didn’t seem like Ulf Kristersson took offense at all. He was laughing!
It’s a perfect position, inviolable. Everything is just for fun, Emil Persson can say what he wants and anyone who can’t stand jokes is a curmudgeon.
I will be like that extremely tired when I watch the show. Maybe because it sometimes feels like I’ve worked half my life to avoid screwing up nice guys or caring what they think. Nevertheless, this text is strangely difficult to write, because Bourdieu’s symbolic power works within me as well. You don’t want to be a boring dork, I thought I liked parties?
However, the strongest emotion is another, shame. Because that’s the thing about sloppily performed public humiliation: no one walks away unscathed. Not the victim, not the perpetrator, not even the bystander.
