If you are in any way tuned into pop culture, you’ve definitely heard of the reality TV show, Love Island. While the show originated in the United Kingdom, a U.S. version was created in 2019. Since then, there have been several seasons, with the seventh season recently coming to an end.
Love Island features an equal number of men and women contestants, or “islanders.” From the outset, the islanders choose one other person of the opposite sex to couple up with. Throughout the series, they undergo a series of games and activities that are typically sexual in nature, such as make-out challenges. Periodically, new islanders will appear, and other islanders will be kicked off, either as a result of being left single and not in a couple, or due to a lack of votes from their fellow islanders or viewers. The intended goal of the show is for each islander to find a true partner and remain a couple, hopefully for life, in the outside world. As the show comes to an end, American viewers vote for their favorite couples, and the couple with the most votes wins a cash prize.
Just with this brief summary, it is clear that the show relies on dominant heterosexual norms, which underlie the structure of the show as contestants are expected to couple up with members of the opposite sex. While this is not an explicitly stated rule, it is an implicit rule that has only been broken once, despite numerous seasons with a lot of re-couplings as islanders choose throughout the show to stay with their partner or couple up with a new partner. The show also emphasizes the way contestants should act in relationships, given their gender. For example, men are expected to take the dominant, leader role in the relationship as they dictate the pace at which the relationship progresses and are expected to ask their partner to be exclusive when they feel like their relationship has reached that point. Women are also often portrayed as overly emotional when they express their concerns in the relationship, reinforcing dominant gender roles and harmful stereotypes.
Love Island further promotes traditional gender norms as contestants are generally expected to express their gender in traditional feminine and masculine ways. For example, the men are often seen in the gym while the women are seen in the makeup room. The men are also generally seen shirtless, showing off their physiques, while women typically dress in sexual, hyper-feminine ways. Relatedly, most, if not all, of the islanders reflect traditional beauty standards, with the women typically being thin and the men typically being muscular.
While there are several other examples, these should be enough to persuade anyone that Love Island reflects and is structured by dominant social norms of heterosexuality and gender. As such, it perpetuates harmful beliefs and ideas concerning the ways people should act based on their gender. This is particularly harmful for women as they are often depicted in ways that portray them as irrational, devalued, and dependent on men, thus keeping them in positions of inferiority.
Interestingly, according to a report by Nielsen, 79% of the viewership for Love Island USA Season 7 at one point were women. Reports for other seasons of Love Island have also indicated that over half of the viewership comes from women. Does this indicate that women support these traditional social norms that are known to uphold patriarchal norms and a system of gendered inequality?
While data doesn’t exist to track whether or not viewers support the norms that are represented in the show, we can assume that there are at least some viewers who do support them, as well as a large number of viewers who do not. I, myself, am a viewer who does not endorse these patriarchal norms, yet I still watch. My question then is: am I, and others like me, reinforcing these dominant norms by consuming a show that is structured by and reflects them?
One clear reason we might think the answer is yes is that regular, continued viewing suggests that the viewer enjoys the show, at least to some extent. Enjoyment is a positive attitude. If you feel a positive attitude towards a show that so aggressively promotes oppressive dominant norms, it follows that you yourself must feel some sort of positive attitude towards the norms as well. At the very least, you cannot be disgusted by these norms because this would seemingly prevent you from enjoying this sort of show. Now, we might say that other aspects of the show generate a positive attitude despite the negative attitudes generated by the oppressive norms. However, given how deeply ingrained the dominant norms are in this specific show, it seems unlikely that one could enjoy the show while also holding a completely negative attitude towards the dominant norms.
On the other hand, we might think that there are just too many additional factors as to why someone watches and enjoys a form of entertainment. For example, people often claim that they enjoy reality TV specifically because it allows them to observe and analyze human behavior. They might also use it as a tool for observing and highlighting social norms at play, allowing them to deepen their understanding of the social world. Others enjoy it as an important form of social interaction, as reality TV has increasingly become an integral part of our social fabric. So much so that people often host watch parties where they gather with friends to watch and discuss the details of the show together. As such, shows like Love Island serve as catalysts for connecting with others, something that we tend to believe contributes to our flourishing. This is especially true for women, given that they compose the majority of viewers. These reasons for watching Love Island do not seem to uphold dominant norms, at least not directly.
However, there still seems to be an important issue when someone who disavows dominant patriarchal norms supports a show that explicitly reinforces those very norms. But what is the problem? I think the problem is an ethical one concerning one’s duties to resist oppressive structures.
Firstly, the norms in question are oppressive norms. Norms of male dominance, heterosexuality, and beauty are used to keep women in a social position of inferiority while upholding men in their positions of power and dominance. By reinforcing traditional gender roles and ideas of masculinity and femininity, which dictate how men and women should act and interact, the show reinforces the patriarchal structures that underlie gender inequality.
Thus, it seems like, if we have a duty to resist oppressive structures, then we would have some duty to resist supporting and watching Love Island, a show that reinforces patriarchal norms. Do we have such a duty? Philosopher Carol Hay argues that we do have this sort of duty because resisting oppressive structures entails protecting our rational nature, our ability to act in reasonable ways, and act towards goals we find valuable that contribute to our well-being. Hay thus offers a self-regarding account.
To briefly summarize her view, Hay argues that people must resist oppression because it damages their rational nature in various ways. For example, they may come to approve of the social norms and stereotypes that are responsible for their oppression, they may internalize the idea that they are inferior to men and believe that they deserve unequal treatment, their self-worth might be damaged, and, as a result, they might not set ends that they find valuable or that are conducive to their well-being. All in all, failing to resist oppressive structures can lead people to internalize oppressive norms as they start to believe in their validity and then allow them to influence their actions. This, in turn, damages the person’s sense of self along with their ability to think and act rationally.
We can see how Love Island might lead someone to internalize oppressive social norms, resulting in a negative effect on their values and beliefs, and the ends they set for themselves. Women watching might believe that they must express their gender in certain ways, such as by wearing certain clothes and applying makeup daily. They might also come to believe that they are only valuable if they look a certain way and that beauty is their primary source of value. They might also come to believe that only certain social roles should be pursued based on gender or that they must act in certain ways to be praised. This is not just conjecture. A 2021 study published in The Journal of Sex Research found that adolescents who consumed a significant amount of reality TV endorsed gender norms and gendered social scripts to a greater extent than those who consumed other genres of television. Thus, it’s clear that watching reality TV shows like Love Island can impact one’s beliefs and, hence, one’s rational capacities.
If Hay is correct, then it seems like we do have a duty to resist watching Love Island on the basis of a duty to our own rational capacities. However, we might also have a further duty to resist on the basis of our duty to others. It can be argued that we ought not to support programs or activities that contribute to oppression because doing so contributes to oppression itself. Philosopher Ann Cudd explains this line of thinking when she claims that, “By participating in an oppressive institution, one lends some strength and stability to it, perhaps even legitimates it to some degree” (441).
If we apply this argument to the consumption of Love Island, viewers would be providing support for a show that reinforces patriarchal norms and signaling that the norms portrayed in the show are acceptable. Viewers, thus, participate in strengthening and upholding the oppressive institution by failing to express their disapproval of the norms and their belief that they are harmful, unfair, and oppressive. On this basis, then, it seems like viewers ought to stop viewing.
While I do not necessarily agree that we have a strict duty to outwardly resist oppressive structures, it does seem like we have some duty to resist, especially when there is little to no cost, and avoiding a popular television show does not seem like a high cost. If we are truly committed to rejecting harmful social norms and changing the way women are treated in our society, it seems like we may have to stop watching reality TV shows that reinforce these norms, including Love Island.
At the very least, we ought to be wary of media and entertainment that target a particular group while reinforcing the very norms that are meant to keep that group in a position of inferiority. While some believe that TV shows like Love Island are harmless forms of mindless entertainment that can even be informative, they may actually do more harm than we realize. We might need to take a step back and reconsider the forms of entertainment we consume and the ways in which they can shape us and our society as a whole. If we do choose to watch these shows, we should do so critically, remaining aware of the social implications. As a result, we might learn something about our society, the norms that structure it, and even ourselves.
The Women in Philosophy series publishes posts on those excluded in the history of philosophy on the basis of gender injustice, issues of gender injustice in the field of philosophy, and issues of gender injustice in the wider world that philosophy can be useful in addressing. If you are interested in writing for the series, please contact the Series Editor Elisabeth Paquette or the Associate Editor Shadi “Soph” Heidarifar.
Katherine Vidueira
Katherine Vidueira is an Assistant Professor in the Institute for Ethical Leadership at St. Thomas University. Her research interests include ethics, social philosophy, and rational agency. She is particularly interested in marginalized agency and the effects of oppression.
