For the purposes of this post, I’m going to define morality as the ‘rules’ regarding the actions, ideas and identities accepted by a society at large. This form of morality is a powerful tool, typically both determined and used by the force in power. For us, this tends to mean that morality, or at least that of our society, is determined by what’s left of British sovereignty, combined with influences from Māori culture. This type of morality is what’s most relevant to both points brought up in Dr. Hirini Kaa’s discussion and my own point.
Many of the most defining aspects of this morality are unfortunately made clear through discrimination. This seems to be because discrimination is where we draw the clearest lines regarding what is unacceptable within our society; ideas regarding what is acceptable are already expected to be mutually understood, and therefore need no such clarification. One way this phenomenon can clearly be seen is in mainstream media, particularly film. Films focusing on characters and actors who fit the acceptable actions, ideas and identities generally pass without discourse. However, films with characters and actors who differ from this accepted norm, in areas such as race, gender and sexuality, among many other factors, often face varying levels of backlash, with films like ‘Black Panther’ and ‘Captain Marvel’ famous for this sort of reaction.
The above is therefore a clear example of just how morality can be used in combination with discrimination to regulate what identities are generally acceptable. This translates to power in that, through this harsh regulation, this morality strips power from marginalised people, taking away their rights and devaluing their opinions. It creates a clear hierarchy between marginalised and non-marginalised people. As such, morality as defined by the force in power has the ability to strip power from identities deemed ‘unacceptable’. This phenomenon can be seen in the use of missionary Christianity to devalue and dismiss Māori culture and ideas, elements of which still remain pervasive.
While the most obvious use of morality is as a tool to strip power from marginalised groups, it should also be acknowledged that this doesn’t mean marginalised people are also stripped of their agency. The morality used against them is frequently redefined, repurposed or even mocked in such a way that empowers the marginalised. One example of this is the difference between the Christianity toted by European missionaries and that embraced by Māori—the morality used against them was redefined in such a way that allowed it to become an apparent cornerstone of Māori cultural identity, influencing ideas and traditions, like kaitangata, without European influence. This process is undertaken by many different groups, including the LGBTQIA+ community, who frequently convert pockets of society, like gay bars, to places where morality is redefined in order to allow for identities outside the norm.
This post is very interesting, particularly how you chose to define morality. Whilst by no means being right, I’ve always tended to see morality as a more personal and individual guide for how each of us act, so I’m curious as to how my interpretation of morality fits into your discussion of society.
I agree that some films and groups are deemed to not comply with the values of society, and are therefore discriminated against. However, if I see morals as being highly individualised, what is determining how society reacts to these ‘contentious’ identities or films? I’d propose that what appears to be the morals of a whole society can often actually be only the morals of the most vocal or powerful members of society, rather than being largely accepted ideas. It may seem sometimes that these opinions align with the common values, yet I’d argue this is simply because of perception, and that the morals of dissidents still maintain value despite not being expressed.
You comment that “morality as defined by the force in power has the ability to strip power from identities deemed ‘unacceptable,'” and I would agree that the most powerful set of cultural norms tends to overshadow the less powerful; however, I’d argue that the morality of the smaller group can still remain intact as a set of morals, despite not being prevalent in society. You comment at the end that places such as gay bars ‘redefine’ morality, whereas I would venture to say that they simply add their understanding of what is moral to the hugely multifaceted melting pot which makes up society.
Despite my comments, your definition is a very interesting and valuable way of understanding morals, I just thought I would pit it against my own. 🙂