Globally, inequality has been widening at an alarming rate. As it happens, in creative work, which often escapes full-fledged policy attention, things have always been alarming. In this sector, there are longstanding gender problems, inequalities in access and income, harassment, and so on.
Given their influence on society, there is a pressing need to examine inequality in the creative industry in the context of economic and social aspects of human development, and explore what can be done about it. This exploration, moreover, can focus on the problem of rising economic inequality as reflected in the creative sector.
But why is it important to examine inequality through the lens of the creative sector? There are several reasons.
First of all, consider music. In the current context, although it can be argued that music represents a small percentage of economic activities, yet in our daily lives, music looms large. Therefore, studying creative sectors like the music industry, helps shed light on one key factor: The role of superstar markets.
In arts, technology and globalization fuel income inequality by enabling superstars to net super incomes. Although digital technologies can benefit even lesser-known artists, they also amplify superstar effects. These technologies therefore have not been as egalitarian as was previously thought. Moreover, some aspects of intellectual property that tightly connect with commerce in creative work tend to favour corporate interests, and raise questions about whether they have gone too far.
Second, a great many people confuse the underlying motivation of economic life with greed and the blind pursuit of money. But economics recognizes that people are motivated by much more than money. The great joys of life come from pursuing one’s passions, spending time with friends and family, and enjoying experiences. Since the arts fulfill people’s lives beyond money, they invite us to take a broader perspective. The sole purpose of human life is not to get people to function as robots that serve the economy.
Third, creative works, like arts, often portray our lives. They have the power not only to shape the way we perceive our world, but also to influence the kind of world we want to live in. Indeed, since the desire to create art and engage with aesthetics is hardwired in our brains, as neuroscience shows, in many ways we make sense of our world through creativity.
That is why there is concern that when movie industries sexualize women in the name of making money, for example, what they do does not just stay on the screen; it can get into people’s minds and thus influence culture. Furthermore, people’s tastes and preferences are partly determined by social pressures, and subject to change based on experience. This is nowhere more evident than in music.
It is important to analyze inequality in both material and non-material ways, not just because it is the right thing to do in egalitarian terms, but also because such a holistic approach can enlighten economics and public policy in making more informed decisions.
Inequality arises in numerous spheres of human activity. People have unequal political power, they are unequal before the law, and they also have unequal cultural representation. Inequalities are also open to many interpretations -- are we concerned with inequality of opportunity or inequality of income? When presented with data on inequality, we should always ask, inequality of what, and among whom?
Conceptually speaking, given that inequality is embedded in all aspects of our society, the inequalities in our lives tend in fact to be interdependent. Political inequality can cause economic inequality, and vice versa. Or cultural and social inequality can cause political and economic inequality and vice versa.
At any rate, in what might be called “inequality within inequality” or “inequality on top of inequality,” for the creative industry, it might be rendered as “prejudice within prejudice” or “prejudice on top of prejudice.”
The sole purpose of human life is not to get people to function as robots that serve the economy
Let us consider the following points to better explain:
Dark-skinned actresses in the film industry may face skin colour prejudice on top of gender discrimination, because they work in an industry that tends to put a premium on fair skin. This not only cuts into their chances to get hired and the kinds of opportunities they get, or the roles they play, but also how much they get paid. Gender, racial, and religious discrimination (in the cultural and social space) lead to not only cultural and social inequality, but also to political and economic inequality.
The issue of skin colour prejudice no doubt deserves much attention. For it bears investigating why, even at an individual level, we are more likely to see photographs of light skinned women in glossy magazines. The gender problem in photography, where the matter is not just about gender, but also voice, and where women play a major role, but are usually not famous themselves.
In fact, if the music industry elucidates the broader winner-take-all problem in society, the photography profession arguably serves as a microcosm of the larger inequality problem in the arts.
In addition, the unequal freedom of movement that is often neglected in inequality debates concerning the creative industry. Let us say that there are two groups of photographers, for example, Group A and Group B, with the same equipment, same ability, and same training, ceteris paribus, and the only difference is that Group A is connected to the ruling class, and Group B is not.
Then when it comes to opportunities like travel, Group A might be better positioned to take advantage of them than Group B. Here, for instance, photographers from marginalized African tribes or communities may face far more hurdles to travel to the West to participate in photography exhibitions than their connected counterparts.
One could argue that if there were less inequalities in other sectors, then, in relative terms, there would be less to worry about inequality within the creative sector. For the field would attract only those who want to be there. After all, they get joy out of what they do.
That mode of thought, however, could sidestep the fact that already many artists leave or do not take other jobs which may pay better, because they prefer to eke out a living while doing something they love. And some may work two or more jobs besides trying to sustain their creative ventures. Further, that thought may also perpetuate the idea that artists do not deserve to be paid well or paid at all, because they enjoy what they do.
The idea that inequality within the creative sector should be so much of a worry is also probably more focused on the monetary angle, as for examples, pay rates, ignoring other factors like gender bias and sexual harassment, which in turn can affect income and general well-being. Is it enough to say that that is the nature of the business and then not do anything about it?
Dr Selim Jahan is Former Director, Human Development Report Office and Poverty Division, United Nations Development Program, New York, USA.