Many of you may have seen this video created by the social experiment group STHLM Panda, exposing through a hidden camera a gross case of homophobia in employment in Sweden.
Talking to Konrad Ydhage about the strategies behind the action gave us more insights into this action, which we wanted to share with you.
The action was sparked by one of STHLM Panda’s members, who reported that he was sacked openly because of his homosexuality and faced explicit homophobia. In a country like Sweden, expressions of homophobia are mainly indirect ways (like stereotyping) and ‘private’ (at-the-pub-with-friends jokes). That case seemed to provide a rare opportunity to uncover the ‘invisible’ layers of homophobia and to prove that these still exist in Swedish society. The type of company, a small to medium-sized business in the industrial sector, seemed to provide the typical representation of middle-class mainstream Swedish society. Unveiling its homophobia would clearly go much beyond documenting an isolated case, to constitute an X-ray of Swedish society’s inner state.
The Panda team knew that to make their point, the documentation needed to be direct (no commentary), compelling (strong evidence), and convincing (little editing). The guys are well-versed in video documenting with hidden cameras, as their main tactic is capturing the public’s reactions when confronted with certain situations (see their site for more examples of their work). It was the first time, though, they did investigation journalism through a hidden camera in a private office setting, which is clearly a much riskier business than the classic hidden camera.
A central piece of advice from them was that activists must get good equipment, and invest in a sound recording device, with excellent options starting at 200$. Clearly, in this case, the impact of the video was only made possible by excellent recording techniques. Subtitles help, but the original sound has, in any case, to be totally clearly audible; not just for the Swedish audience but also to prove the veracity of what is being documented. Also, bad images and/or sound look amateurish and weaken your credibility (and also simply put people off).
Once the operation was over, and the footage clearly exceeded expectations, there was a question about whether to be public or not with the company’s identity. A quick check with lawyers revealed that going public would not be an option, as the company could engage legal action (which they probably would not have done as it would only have made their case worst, but the risks were still real) and as Youtube would have taken the video down before they could have achieved the stunning 750,000 views which the video got within a couple of weeks.
It is worth noting here that the Panda initiative is registered within a platform of online social entrepreneurs, which provides, amongst other things, legal services at affordable costs. This kind of platform exists in many places and is a serious asset for all smaller groups.
After it was posted, the video sparked such high levels of outrage, including physical threats towards the homophobic business owner, that this provided an additional important argument in hindsight against publicly disclosing the identity.
This is a really interesting contribution to the debate on outing, and one we are clearly not mentally trained to envision when we take action. In most settings, we see ourselves so clearly as the victim that we don’t consider our potential to cause damage.
With empowerment of the LGBTI community, resulting in potential upsurge of reactive violence (as did a lot of social struggle movements) we might need to include this factor in our risk-management strategies more systematically.
Interestingly, it was only after the video was produced and distributed that contacts were made with Swedish LGBT orgs. In hindsight, the Panda team acknowledges that contacts could have been taken earlier as it might have helped to make the script even better, e.g. have a less aggressive ending. But part of the genius of this kind of action is that it is spontaneous. Prior discussions would have added a layer of complexity, and the action could have been watered down. We here have a clear case of conflict between “Too many cooks spoil the broth” vs “Seek expert support before you act.”
The action resulted in a large series of outcomes beyond the direct reactions mentioned above. First, the group’s membership grew tremendously, driving a new ‘cohort’ of people into social activism (the group doesn’t live from members’ contributions; attracting new members is a full part of its objective to increase social awareness and participation).
One interesting impact of this action on the organisers is that it changed their public image. From a social experiment based on filmmaking, the initiative is now perceived as political activism. With clear consequences as the group became a reference for unveiling social injustices, with hundreds of people calling on them to expose the injustice they had been victims of. We didn’t talk about how they manage this enormous influx of demand, but this surely poses quite a challenge and might also drive them to be more reactive to proposals, at the detriment of a more proactive definition of their initiatives.
