I started this blog as an academic, looking at ways of connecting the discipline of social policy with the cultural life around me. At the end of August 2020, I took voluntary redundancy from my academic post and have considered just closing this account. But I still want to write about the culture I consume and how it makes me think and feel. And to be honest, I have never needed entertainment more.
The Queen’s Gambit has been one of the surprising hits of the Pandemic. A drama about a young woman playing chess would hardly seem a mainstream choice, and yet the miniseries has topped Netflix most-watched chart. We have binge-watched a show about addiction…
I don’t have to make any clever connections anymore. I’m not being paid for it. So, I shall start shallow. Boy, did this series look good. The period details of late 1950s and early 1960s America are lushly re-imagined. Beth Harmon’s wardrobe evolves as she finds freedom (from the orphanage, from boredom, from poverty, from expectations) and she wears the co-ordinated, designer outfits well. This is a show where the costume and set design are integral to the narrative. We see time pass from the domesticity of the 1950s to the travel of the 1960s.
The sexism of the time, of chess, of the expectations and limitations placed on women are present. It highlights perfectly the problem that Betty Friedan describes in the Feminine Mystique:
We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: ‘I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.’
(1963: 29)
It is also possible to argue that the miniseries, like the Friedan’s book, argues from a particular view point that ignores the marginalization of other groups implicated in supporting those living the Feminine dream. Mr Shaibel’s obvious intelligence and ability to teach wrapped up in a janitor role, as a Russian Jewish immigrant. Jolene, Beth’s closest friend is an African American woman, who has tales of her own oppression and who never gets to be adopted. However, their key role in this drama is to support Beth Harmon.
There have also been criticisms of the way in which addiction is depicted in the drama, as it concentrates on the addicts account of what the pills and drink offer the addict. Of course, an addict may not be a reliable narrator. However, the story does make it clear that addiction starts because the substance is fun. So many tales about addiction miss out the vital information that the reason people become addicted is not because they want their lives to spiral, but because their lives are rotten and drugs and alcohol are often enjoyable, before they become a problem. And it is worth noting that in the context of the 1950s and 1960s America, tranquilizers were routinely prescribed to traumatized children, and women who felt left behind. They were easier than dealing with trauma or providing women with independence.
Reflecting on the drama, it was so beautifully produced with an exquisite central performance that maybe the social commentary doesn’t matter. Or maybe, because it was so beautifully conceived and executed, I am happy to think back on what it has to say about the more difficult issues.
Social Policy and the Doris Day Fan 