‘The devil is in the level’: understanding inequality in Australia’s Film, TV and Radio industries

Abstract

This article applies a quantitative analysis of gender diversity variables to custom data sets of 2011 and 2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data for Film, TV and Radio employment. Prima facie, employment figures across a whole sector or employment segment can appear to be broadly representative of the Australian population, but looking more closely, it becomes apparent that the ‘devil is in the level’. Although there is often parity at the macro level, drilling down into specific roles and their differential levels of seniority and power reveals inequalities between those in key and more secure gatekeeping positions and those further down the organisational hierarchy. Focusing on gender, this article will argue that the lack of diversity at senior levels of employment is a key contributing factor to lack of diversity within cultural and creative industries, reinforcing power imbalances and social and economic inequity.

Creative Aspiration and the Betrayal of Promise? The Experience of New Creative Workers

“…The general assumption that creativity can be monetised was of course central to the UK's early identification and celebration of the creative industries (Department for Culture, Media and Sport 2001). For the individual worker, an improvised personal pathway is consistent with the creative ethos that following your dream or 'passion' is a formula for achieving eventual success (Banks 2007;Luckman et al 2019a). Taylor and Littleton (2012) found that aspiring workers in a range of creative fields recount stories of a childhood enthusiasm and talent for things creative, presenting these early markers of creativity as both a warrant and qualification for an eventual career.…”

“…In apparent contrast to these improvised pathways, education and training courses prima facie appear to offer a surer entry point to a creative career. A recent EU-funded project on creative industries and the digital economy (Luckman et al 2019a) noted the very wide range of available courses. These target different audiences, from young people who are outside other approved pathways (in UK terms, 'not in education, employment or training'-the so-called NEETs) (see also van den Berg, this collection) to mature workers seeking to upskill or retrain.…”

What comes after fields, capitals, habitus? Suggestions for future cultural consumption research in Australia

“…These are not only economic matters, they have censorious effects on cultural production that add further problems to what is already a difficult sector to navigate and work in (Taylor & Luckman, 2020). It is increasingly evident that cultural production and the so-called creative industries are dominated by the privileged (Eikhof & Warhurst, 2013), especially those who are white and male (Idriss, 2018;Luckman et al, 2020). The sectors themselves are mired in the rhetorical promotion of 'fakequity' (Hadley et al, 2022) rather than addressing issues of social justice and inequality.…”

Fire, pestilence and the extractive economy: cultural policy after cultural policy

“…Thus as of the time of the announcements discussed here, these parts of the economy had not been particularly impacted by Covid-19 (Ludlow, 2020;Maine, 2020;Zhou, 2020), unlike the arts and cultural sector. There has long been acknowledgement that the frequently informal, network-based and otherwise precarious work practices underpinning much employment in the arts and creative industries are effectively operating as a barrier to gender, ethnic, class and wider social inclusion in the creative economy (Banks, 2017;Conor et al, 2015;Luckman et al, 2020). Nonetheless, the inequities upon arts and creative employment have disproportionately impacted women, who are more likely than men to be employed casually, part-time or be self-employed (Hill, 2020).…”