You’re right that you avoided the word authenticity, and I apologize for implying otherwise. I think I brought it up because it seems to be the shield Wiener uses to defend himself against criticisms about the lack of diversity, and that opens a bigger can of worms.

I agree that the makeup of the writing staff probably has quite a bit to do with the kinds of stories that are told, but I’m not sure it’s an excuse — an explanation, certainly, but not a way to avoid responsibility.

I also disagree that the show is entirely constructed through Don’s eyes. From the first episode Peggy, at least, has provided a counterbalancing perspective, acting as a second protagonist through much of the series and showing us glimpses of a world (of Catholicism, family, etc.) that have nothing to do with Don. And her world, as we’ve seen this season as she’s made new friends, continues to expand beyond the ad agency. Even the secondary characters, like Joan and Pete, have home lives that Don isn’t privy to, so Don’s obliviousness and privilege can’t be the only reason we only see select views of the world outside the office. The ad agency is clearly central to the stories Weiner is telling, but the show has proven on many occasions that it can go beyond that, and I can’t help wishing that its visits to the world outside were a bit more diverse.

Authenticity is a tricky word that I tried very carefully to avoid. I’m walking a fine line with it too because I’m suggesting that accuracy is a key structuring factor in determining the ways that blacks appear in the show. However, I think that what is so key about Mad Men is that it is recreated history through one man’s eyes. The world of advertising in 1960s America through Don Draper’s eyes. Because Draper has no connection to blackness (Carla, I think functions as an object rather than a subject to Don and to Betty), it’s not something that he would give much attention to. Now, women? And, specifically white women? They surround him daily. Thus it makes sense that they would have dimensionality and depth in their roles. White women’s struggles and formation in the feminist movement are well-documented and serve as the official record. But not black womanhood. Betty, while not connected to the ad world (at least not any more…remember, she was a model before she married Don), is still tied to the program because of Don. And, if you notice, this season she’s not in as many episodes precisely because she is no longer married to Don.

From a production standpoint, again, if half your writing staff are white women, then that clearly shapes the output. If all your staff are white, then that clearly shapes the output. Thus, I wholeheartedly agree with you that in 1965 there clearly should be a way that people of color can have some entry onto the very white world of SCDP (Carla would be a breathtakingly amazing narrative they should have begun a long time ago); but I disagree that the world is any less about SCDP, the great metaphor for white privilege, where its members do not have to deal with racial and cultural difference.

I have waited to see how Mad Men would explicitly address racism, period. Again, I think the show spends a great deal of tiime using the events of the period as historical context with occasional commentary from one or more of the characters. However, I honestly don’t believe that Weiner has figured out how or even if he wants to pursue racism on the show. Sexism, yes. Sexism against white women, yes. And that makes sense given that a large share of his writing staff are women–white women. I think I worry that the lack of color on the production side will yield a lack of story on the content side. I worry that these writers are already negotiating their “liberal white guilt” through the peripheral stories of Clay vs. Liston.

I think and have always thought that following Carla home would be a wonderful story. That we never truly know what Carla is thinking–that they never give her the opportunity to voice her thoughts–is sly but also cowardly.

I can’t see why the show couldn’t do more for characters of color — follow Carla home, as Jeremy suggests, or explore the lives of the Japanese businessmen we met this season. It may be impossible to fully integrate those characters into the world of SCDP, but the show has become much more than SCDP.

(On another inclusiveness note, I’m still bitter about Sal’s exit. While a gay man getting fired because of his sexuality in the 1960s is completely authentic, by relying on “authenticity” as an excuse for writing him out of the show, as Wiener has done in interviews, the show is replicating that very injustice — firing an openly gay actor. Could we not have seen his path past Sterling Cooper?)

It makes me wonder how MAD MEN could address ’60s racism. Would it make sense to explore the parallel worlds of black and white culture, to follow housekeeper Carla home?