I have loved all three series of The Traitors so far. Claudia Winkleman does an amazing job at hosting, the drama at the round tables makes for entertaining television and, of course, the series has gifted us the UK’s new People’s Princess, Alexander Dragonetti.
But The Traitors also gives a fascinating insight into human psychology. How do people behave as a group when thrust into an intense, stressful situation, where they must fight hard every day to remain in the game? More specifically, how does unconscious bias affect the actions that the players take in the game?
The fact that I am addressing unconscious bias in The Traitors does, in no way, mean that I am suggesting that the players are actively discriminating. Unconscious bias, by its very definition, is when we “make judgments or decisions” while “not aware that we are doing it“. We have implicit preferences for our in-groups, and we are all influenced by our past experiences, deep-seated thoughts and social psychology.
A more noticeable example of unconscious bias in The Traitors is how Alexander and Fozia, having entered the game at a later stage, were treated as an out-group. By Episode 4, bonds and alliances had been forged among the players; Fozia and Alexander had missed out on this bonding.
There was the immediate assumption that either Fozia or Alexander (or both) had entered the game as traitors, and this impacted the relationship between them and the rest of the group. Alexander had much unwarranted suspicion on him, partially due to him being in the death match. There was far more suspicion on him than on Anna and Leon, and this was because there was an unconscious preference for the in-group (Anna and Leon).
The Traitors is no stranger to racial unconscious bias either: I strongly believe that the dismissals of Jaz (a South Asian man) and Anthony (a black man) in Series 2 were the effects of racial unconscious bias.
Anthony was not necessarily aggressive at the round table, but many of the players dismissed him as being so – black men are typically stereotyped as aggressive and violent. There was suspicion on Anthony, so he rightfully defended himself, in the same way any other player would. However, the unconscious bias of the players led to the general consensus that this was, in fact, “aggression”, ultimately contributing to Anthony being banished.
The treatment of Jaz, particularly towards the end of Series 2, frustrated me. He was very perceptive, being the only player to suspect Harry and make brilliant contributions to the round table discussions. However, he was constantly dismissed and was instead accused of being a Traitor. Compare this to Jake in Series 3, who led the charge against Linda for much of the series, and never came under suspicion. The viewpoints of ethnic minorities are often implicitly dismissed in conversation, with their ideas and perspectives subconsciously treated as being less worthy or important.
Both Jaz and Anthony were part of an out-group in Series 2. They were not on equal footing with other players and were punished much more harshly for doing things that all the other players did.
You might say I am reading too much into this, but I would disagree. White people are often less aware of how racial unconscious bias plays out as they are not impacted. It is also difficult, as the privileged group, to have difficult conversations, acknowledge unconscious bias and recognise their own biases, as it requires a recognition of unjust social power structures, a reality that people of colour live with every day.
I also found an example of ableist unconscious bias in the banishing of Dan in Series 3. Dan is very open to the viewers about being autistic – being neurodivergent influences thinking patterns, and perhaps influenced the way Dan played the game. Dan played The Traitors in a self-interested way, which, given the nature of the game, is actually how you’re meant to play it. It was Claudia herself who said, “No cuddling, that’s a different game“.
I enjoyed watching Dan; I thought it was refreshing how he did not beat around the bush, and I loved his camp sassiness. I believe that Dan’s banishment was a result of the other players not even trying to understand his game plays. They subconsciously dismissed him as an out-group that made them feel uncomfortable, and so they voted him out. This is an example of a neurotypical in-group subconsciously dismissing someone who is neurodivergent, while neurodivergent people are expected to constantly mask to navigate society’s systemic ableism.
Again, you might say I’m reading too deeply into this, but that is because recognising unconscious bias in The Traitors forces us to have difficult, uncomfortable conversations about how unconscious biases are endemic in society. The Traitors is brilliant entertainment, but we would be doing it a disservice to treat it as nothing more than that.
Misogynistic microaggressions were also rampant in Series 2, with Claudia herself branding this as “problematic“. The unconscious bias here is Team Traitors being a “boys’ club”, comprising Paul, Harry, Miles and later Ross. The only female Traitor was Ash, and she was the first one to be banished.
The male-dominated Team Traitors also frequently chose to murder women: 5 of the 7 murdered Faithful were women in Series 2. This speaks volumes about gendered power dynamics, with a group of (mostly) men subconsciously dismissing women. I am not saying that the male Traitors in Series 2 are active misogynists – it is called “unconscious” bias for a reason.
I believe Series 3 responded to these criticisms by having a group of exclusively female Traitors, including two women of colour, Minah and Armani. This could, however, be seen as “girlboss feminism“, which elevates individual women to positions of power instead of the “liberation of women as a whole”. Is The Traitors subconsciously suggesting that women can only be respected and taken seriously when in positions of power, instead of being respected as a person in their own right?
Even more ironic was the backlash against Minah for only wanting to recruit female Traitors, deemed as “sexist” by some. One comment even said, “If it was a “brotherhood,” it would likely be labelled sexist”. Team Traitors in Series 2 was a “brotherhood” in all but name. I wonder if this comment had the same reaction to the Series 2 Traitors.
As previously said, I loved the Traitors and I will certainly be watching Series 4 when it comes out. One reason why I love the series is because it provides a medium to discuss unconscious bias. You can point to Jaz and Anthony and open up a discussion about racial microaggressions, for example. The fact that The Traitors gives us the opportunity to confront unconscious bias, understand how it feeds power structures, and understand our own deep-seated prejudices can only be a good thing.
