Television has become a tool in modern society. The TV set is no longer simply a source of entertainment for the masses of public in the world but a tool for marketing ideas, politics and products. In American society, we are defined by the genre of television program which we subscribe to and group ourselves accordingly. If you do not watch the show Glee, but your friend does, chances are you will not understand half of the references he or she makes to the show. People tend to group themselves around the type of entertainment they choose, seeking fraternity with those who can relate to their opinions of what they have watched. This is a trend that is quite common in American society and is a sign of what Lila Abu-Lughod refers to in her chapter, The Objects of Soap Opera.
The chapter begins with a controversy in Egypt about the role of television programming in Egyptian society and whether it should be aimed at advancing the people culturally by giving the Egyptian people "familiarity with the news, appreciation of art, a taste for art, music and theater" (Abu-Lughod 378)as defined by Muhammad Fadil, a Egyptian director vs. what Fadil described as "pumpkin seed" (378)programming which satiated entertainment goals but did nothing to advance viewers knowledge.
I, for one, do not believe that the medium of television should be held to the high expectation of bringing cultural value to viewers because of the very mode in which television is watched. In order to enjoy television, you must be stagnant and inactive, sitting on a couch. This is a complete contradiction of the effort it takes to be a "mobile, politically participating opinion holding personality essential to modernity" (376) which Abu-Lughod mentions.
Abu-Lughod refers to the ethnographic work that she did in an Egyptian village near Luxor and how she observed that because of the daily strife that the villagers had to contend with, television did not play a central role in their lives. She stated that such villagers make "elusive targets for cultural elite's modernizing message" because television "does not displace whatever already existed". (Abu-Lughod 387) This is proof that the reason television plays such a central role in the lives of many Americans is because we do not share many of the hardships that these villagers endure. We are fortunate in this country to have the luxury to enjoy Television and adapt it to our lives so centrally, though I believe that it is not a productive use of time nor can it lead to any type of meaningful cultural epiphany.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
The television represented a way to engage the public through various experiences. From the illiterate, to women and children, this mode of media allowed the distribution of stories previously exclusive to men. Egypt had the idea that, “in a general atmosphere of national advancement the government had a plan of using media and art to change people’s views on political participation and life” (Abu-Lughod 377). This introduced a way to use the television not only as entertainment, but also as an educational tool. Although their serials were more politically and culturally based, this made me think of American children shows such as Franklin and Little Bill. The cartoon is what catches the attention of the child, and yet the characters symbolize qualities centered on sharing, friendship, and healthy interaction. This goes along with the idea of moving from the explicit content to the implicit message.
I think it is also worthy to mention Meyer’s Below the Line pieces, because I was intrigued by the two different types of labor presented. We are given the physical labor and creativity of the assembly workers, to the point where they can describe the pieces of the television as extensions of themselves. Also described is the task of the caster, where they “indicate the importance of identification as an invisible labor practice throughout the new television economy” (Meyer 105). The chain of show idea, to show production, to television presentation (and hence television assembly) is crucial, and yet the producer is usually the individual who reaps most of the benefits. This was just something interesting for me to think about.
I definitely agree with the lead post that the television in American society and culture has become a modern tool for the communication of ideas and adverstising, and is not limited to purely entertainment. However, I think today many Americans watch and identify with television as a mediator due to its entertainment value. Espeically our generation is obsessed with TV shows and, similar to the lead post, seek unity with those who can relate and enjoy the shows and television that they also watch.
In reading the Mayer readings, I was interested to learn about things concerning TV that I had never even thought about before, like that of the creativity of the electronic assemblers. I was fascinated by the idea that they are the "invisible creative class of global television production". I had never thought about TV assemblers as capable of having creativity while performing their jobs, but I was surprised to see that much of their motivation to work and overall production is fueled by creativity. In addition, Mayer's article on sponsoring selves proved to be very interesting in its discussion of reality TV casters. Clearly reality TV dominates today's most popular TV and I have never thought of a caster's job as so intricate and essential. At the beginning of this article I was totally agreeable to the negative associations connected to sponsors and advertisements, but as the article went on to describe the detailed, sometimes invisible, but essential duties of casters, I was tending to enjoy it. I never thought casters had such a tough time in their work, being labeled as a labor community and all. Both articles were definitely eye opening to the different aspects of TV.
The reading on the Objects of Soap Opera was also enlightening. I completely agreed with Abu-Lughod when she said that television communicates nonlocal experiences into the most local place possible, the home. I am sure we can all agree that we have watched plenty of TV at home, and I especially enjoy watching TV at home to take a break from work or relax. Abu-Lughod explains how the Egyptian soap opera, Hilmiyya Nights, served as a medium capable of promoting national unity. This made me think of the many times TV has been a medium for my family, friends and I to connect to the whole of our community or nation. I don’t think anyone can say they did not see the attacks on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 on the television that day, or that they have never seen the excerpt of the first moon walk on TV. I really enjoyed this last article because of the way it made me realize how TV has been such a connective medium in my life.
I definitely agree with the lead post that the television in American society and culture has become a modern tool for the communication of ideas and adverstising, and is not limited to purely entertainment. However, I think today many Americans watch and identify with television as a mediator due to its entertainment value. Espeically our generation is obsessed with TV shows and, similar to the lead post, seek unity with those who can relate and enjoy the shows and television that they also watch.
In reading the Mayer readings, I was interested to learn about things concerning TV that I had never even thought about before, like that of the creativity of the electronic assemblers. I was fascinated by the idea that they are the "invisible creative class of global television production". I had never thought about TV assemblers as capable of having creativity while performing their jobs, but I was surprised to see that much of their motivation to work and overall production is fueled by creativity. In addition, Mayer's article on sponsoring selves proved to be very interesting in its discussion of reality TV casters. Clearly reality TV dominates today's most popular TV and I have never thought of a caster's job as so intricate and essential. At the beginning of this article I was totally agreeable to the negative associations connected to sponsors and advertisements, but as the article went on to describe the detailed, sometimes invisible, but essential duties of casters, I was tending to enjoy it. I never thought casters had such a tough time in their work, being labeled as a labor community and all. Both articles were definitely eye opening to the different aspects of TV.
The reading on the Objects of Soap Opera was also enlightening. I completely agreed with Abu-Lughod when she said that television communicates nonlocal experiences into the most local place possible, the home. I am sure we can all agree that we have watched plenty of TV at home, and I especially enjoy watching TV at home to take a break from work or relax. Abu-Lughod explains how the Egyptian soap opera, Hilmiyya Nights, served as a medium capable of promoting national unity. This made me think of the many times TV has been a medium for my family, friends and I to connect to the whole of our community or nation. I don’t think anyone can say they did not see the attacks on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 on the television that day, or that they have never seen the excerpt of the first moon walk on TV. I really enjoyed this last article because of the way it made me realize how TV has been such a connective medium in my life.
I definitely agree with the lead post that the television in American society and culture has become a modern tool for the communication of ideas and adverstising, and is not limited to purely entertainment. However, I think today many Americans watch and identify with television as a mediator due to its entertainment value. Espeically our generation is obsessed with TV shows and, similar to the lead post, seek unity with those who can relate and enjoy the shows and television that they also watch.
In reading the Mayer readings, I was interested to learn about things concerning TV that I had never even thought about before, like that of the creativity of the electronic assemblers. I was fascinated by the idea that they are the "invisible creative class of global television production". I had never thought about TV assemblers as capable of having creativity while performing their jobs, but I was surprised to see that much of their motivation to work and overall production is fueled by creativity. In addition, Mayer's article on sponsoring selves proved to be very interesting in its discussion of reality TV casters. Clearly reality TV dominates today's most popular TV and I have never thought of a caster's job as so intricate and essential. At the beginning of this article I was totally agreeable to the negative associations connected to sponsors and advertisements, but as the article went on to describe the detailed, sometimes invisible, but essential duties of casters, I was tending to enjoy it. I never thought casters had such a tough time in their work, being labeled as a labor community and all. Both articles were definitely eye opening to the different aspects of TV.
The reading on the Objects of Soap Opera was also enlightening. I completely agreed with Abu-Lughod when she said that television communicates nonlocal experiences into the most local place possible, the home. I am sure we can all agree that we have watched plenty of TV at home, and I especially enjoy watching TV at home to take a break from work or relax. Abu-Lughod explains how the Egyptian soap opera, Hilmiyya Nights, served as a medium capable of promoting national unity. This made me think of the many times TV has been a medium for my family, friends and I to connect to the whole of our community or nation. I don’t think anyone can say they did not see the attacks on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 on the television that day, or that they have never seen the excerpt of the first moon walk on TV. I really enjoyed this last article because of the way it made me realize how TV has been such a connective medium in my life.
I definitely agree with the lead post that the television in American society and culture has become a modern tool for the communication of ideas and adverstising, and is not limited to purely entertainment. However, I think today many Americans watch and identify with television as a mediator due to its entertainment value. Espeically our generation is obsessed with TV shows and, similar to the lead post, seek unity with those who can relate and enjoy the shows and television that they also watch.
In reading the Mayer readings, I was interested to learn about things concerning TV that I had never even thought about before, like that of the creativity of the electronic assemblers. I was fascinated by the idea that they are the "invisible creative class of global television production". I had never thought about TV assemblers as capable of having creativity while performing their jobs, but I was surprised to see that much of their motivation to work and overall production is fueled by creativity. In addition, Mayer's article on sponsoring selves proved to be very interesting in its discussion of reality TV casters. Clearly reality TV dominates today's most popular TV and I have never thought of a caster's job as so intricate and essential. At the beginning of this article I was totally agreeable to the negative associations connected to sponsors and advertisements, but as the article went on to describe the detailed, sometimes invisible, but essential duties of casters, I was tending to enjoy it. I never thought casters had such a tough time in their work, being labeled as a labor community and all. Both articles were definitely eye opening to the different aspects of TV.
The reading on the Objects of Soap Opera was also enlightening. I completely agreed with Abu-Lughod when she said that television communicates nonlocal experiences into the most local place possible, the home. I am sure we can all agree that we have watched plenty of TV at home, and I especially enjoy watching TV at home to take a break from work or relax. Abu-Lughod explains how the Egyptian soap opera, Hilmiyya Nights, served as a medium capable of promoting national unity. This made me think of the many times TV has been a medium for my family, friends and I to connect to the whole of our community or nation. I don’t think anyone can say they did not see the attacks on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 on the television that day, or that they have never seen the excerpt of the first moon walk on TV. I really enjoyed this last article because of the way it made me realize how TV has been such a connective medium in my life.
I definitely agree with the lead post that the television in American society and culture has become a modern tool for the communication of ideas and adverstising, and is not limited to purely entertainment. However, I think today many Americans watch and identify with television as a mediator due to its entertainment value. Espeically our generation is obsessed with TV shows and, similar to the lead post, seek unity with those who can relate and enjoy the shows and television that they also watch.
In reading the Mayer readings, I was interested to learn about things concerning TV that I had never even thought about before, like that of the creativity of the electronic assemblers. I was fascinated by the idea that they are the "invisible creative class of global television production". I had never thought about TV assemblers as capable of having creativity while performing their jobs, but I was surprised to see that much of their motivation to work and overall production is fueled by creativity. In addition, Mayer's article on sponsoring selves proved to be very interesting in its discussion of reality TV casters. Clearly reality TV dominates today's most popular TV and I have never thought of a caster's job as so intricate and essential. At the beginning of this article I was totally agreeable to the negative associations connected to sponsors and advertisements, but as the article went on to describe the detailed, sometimes invisible, but essential duties of casters, I was tending to enjoy it. I never thought casters had such a tough time in their work, being labeled as a labor community and all. Both articles were definitely eye opening to the different aspects of TV.
The reading on the Objects of Soap Opera was also enlightening. I completely agreed with Abu-Lughod when she said that television communicates nonlocal experiences into the most local place possible, the home. I am sure we can all agree that we have watched plenty of TV at home, and I especially enjoy watching TV at home to take a break from work or relax. Abu-Lughod explains how the Egyptian soap opera, Hilmiyya Nights, served as a medium capable of promoting national unity. This made me think of the many times TV has been a medium for my family, friends and I to connect to the whole of our community or nation. I don’t think anyone can say they did not see the attacks on the World Trade Centers on 9/11 on the television that day, or that they have never seen the excerpt of the first moon walk on TV. I really enjoyed this last article because of the way it made me realize how TV has been such a connective medium in my life.
I agree with Danny’s comment that it would be hard to have television bring some kind of cultural value to its viewers. Although I am not fully aware of the cultural values Egyptians hold most important, I know that if it were the United States in this situation this would not work because the masses as a whole are not interested in expanding their cultural views. Television is a part of culture it is not a separate entity. What shows are popular on television is a reflection of the masses’ values and cultural systems. One cannot simply create a show intended on expanding cultural values when there will be others channels and shows that already reflect the viewers’ wants and interests.
The Mayer article reflects why the production of such shows would be improbable. Producers of television shows, Mayer argues, have become more interested in making a profit than being artists of production. She attributes the mass production of reality shows to this. Producers tap into existing culture of the masses and give the familiar a twist to captivate viewers’ interests. Instead of expanding culture, producers work with the culture that already exists within a society. Profit is a part of most mass culture values and because television is a part of a culture, the producers’ values for making a profit will be reflected in the television shows they make. If producers of shows do not find it important within their value set to expand people’s culture then shows will not be produced with this aim.
I agree with the lead blog post as well about television being a means of communication instead of just a source of one’s entertainment. As I was reading the Abu-Lughod article, I had the same realization as Jen in that as I watch TV in the privacy of my own home, I am instantly connected with other people who are watching the same show at the same time. Also, I realized that social media has picked up on this connectivity among viewers since television serves as a medium for the communication of ideas through marketing and advertisements. Recently, I have noticed an increase of television shows that show hashtag marks followed by the name of the show in the bottom corners of the screen. This is so that users of the social media site Twitter can “tweet” about their reactions and feelings of the show in real time and communicate with other viewers about the events taking place.
This realization about twitter and marketing connects to the Mayer readings where she talks about the many different people that go into creating television besides the producers of the shows. Like the people that physically put together television sets and casting agents, there are marketing people who have to put in the time and thought process to make a certain television program successful. This not only means increasing ratings but also increasing awareness and “buzz” about the show. When reading the part about the casting agents, it made me appreciate how hard their job is to find the exact people that they want to connect with their intended audiences. To find a person that fits a mold created by the shows producers is extremely challenging and the fact that these agents are able to put together as many “believable” casts as they do is very impressive.
As the lead post mentioned, television series in Egypt were more than entertainment, and instead served as tools to “eliminate cultural illiteracy and produce a common national dream”. Abu-Lughod mentioned that soap operas in Egypt did “what no American soap would ever do; it provided an explicit social and political commentary on contemporary Egyptian life” (378). I don’t agree with this argument. Although American soap operas are clearly more concern with love affairs than political affairs, I would not say that American television never provides explicit social or political commentary. Belinda mentioned how American children shows like Franklin and Little Bill provide implicit messages to children. I’ve also begun to realize lately that many of the popular television series are becoming more explicit with their messages. Shows like “The Wire” shine light on issues in Baltimore, from the illegal drug trade to the flawed school system. Shows like The Wire are entertaining to watch but most importantly they send a deep seeded message to the viewers. Also, Glee is one of those television shows that is enjoyed by children and adults alike, but raise a lot of controversial issues like LGBT sexuality and even the abolition of the ‘National Endowment of the Arts’ (a policy that is heavily favored by the Tea Party). Many conservative groups have attempted to censor some of the messages in the show like the censors in Egypt that sought to “protect the public from Hilmiyya Nights’ messages” that glorified Nasser (381). Although the messages in American television series are not as extreme as those in Egypt, they still produce heated debates.
As for the Meyer articles, like Jen I was also intrigued by the role of the reality television caster. I have never thought about the important role that the caster plays in the success of reality television shows but after last week's lecture, it is clear that there is a clear distinction between a recruiter and a caster in terms of trying to fill a specific role in the show.
I'm not sure that I agree with the lead post, because I am having trouble lining up two of the thoughts discussed. The first is that "the TV set is no longer simply a source of entertainment for the masses of public in the world but a tool for marketing ideas, politics and products," which I completely agree with and I think is supported by our readings. The other idea is that it cannot "lead to any type of meaningful cultural epiphany." How is it possible for TV to be such a powerful tool in social and political life but not be constructive in the least in terms of our own perceptions of culture?
Perhaps TV does not hold such a strong grip on every person in every culture, but it certainly has a lot to do with many people in many cultures, and shapes the world we know today in a big way. I was particularly intrigued by the example of 9/11; I do not know one person in this country (above a certain age, perhaps) that has not seen the live footage of the events of that momentous day. As soon as a plane fell, the news was on it, and as soon as the news was on it, every group of people - whether watching from home or work or school or a pub or a coffee shop or the window of a TV store - became one. The majority of our nation was watching the same thing at the same time and being affected by it in a similarly moving way. If this isn't a cultural epiphany of some sort, I don't know what is.
Similarly, there are many historic examples of the power of television to sway public opinion. The first televised presidential election debate, between Nixon and Kennedy, is a commonly noted example. Those who watched the debate on TV favored Kennedy, while those who heard it on the radio gave it to Nixon. This is indicative of how much our society is influenced by physical appearance, and therefore how much a message can be changed simply by using a TV as the medium.
Still, there are other categories of television beyond the news. But I'd argue that in some way, TV series and programs (soap operas included) shape our culture. Even the fact that people tend to group themselves according to their favorite types of entertainment and those people that have the same preference, as Lila Abu-Lughod puts it, is indicative of the way TV affects our culture. Somehow, we identify more with those that enjoy the same TV shows that we do. We feel a connection with them without even knowing their other traits! This is important to realize, because it shows that television even takes part in defining our social circles.
You have the casting for actors, ensuring that they have their lines memorized. The search for the perfect shot, usually after trial and error, the production, the advertisements, the countless hours editing and then the final product. Television production from the inception of an idea to unleashing the finished product is tedious, a point that the Meyer paper talks about. Yet, the audience enjoys this finished product without realizing how much work went into making it. One might see that as a disadvantage, but it actually is an advantage. The success of any TV show lies in how much conversation it brings. Whether it sparks conversations about the political culture of a nation as with news broadcasts, or talks about the relative stupidity of fellow Americans as with reality television, a successful TV show must bring some element worth discussing to the table. With our short-attention spans, the easiest mode for producers is by bombarding us with conflicts in all directions. For one, these conflicts bring us entertainment. However, unlike the lead post I agree with the Abu-Lughod piece that television also advances the people cultural knowledge. In fact, most television shows do both, technically, if we take the definition of knowledge as the acquisition of facts. Wife Swap for example, does give us a glimpse into the lives of different types of families. Last class, we learned a little about pirates during the episode, even though this family represents an extreme case, bothering on craziness. In the show, House, we learn about the culture of the hospital and how a doctor interacts with the staff and patients alike, if only in an exaggerated and overly dramatic way. Overall, these shows entertain while at the same time disseminating knowledge. The question is do we consider this knowledge? And does this knowledge do more harm than good, i.e. when they help to reinforce stereotypes?
-Emmanuel Ohuabunwa.
The idea of people grouping themselves (as someone posted) by the type of entertainment they enjoy is a very interesting one. This made me think of shows like Modern Family, that seem to engage a wide variety of viewers. In Modern Family,there are 3 families, all related in some way, but each of the three families has something really unique about them. There is an older man with a very young Colombian wife and son, there is a gay male couple with an adopted Asian daughter, and a family of five, each member with their own quirks. It seems that shows like this can appeal to several different kind of people. What then, happens when there are shows that almost everyone likes--how do people categorize themselves then? By other forms of entertainment? I will agree to some extent with Belinda's statement which is that television is used not only for entertainment but for educational purposes, or "to enlighten" as described in the Abu-Lughod article. The show Breaking Bad, which is on the opposite end of the spectrum of Modern Family, features a father who has lung cancer and decides to become a Methamphetamine cook and dealer to support his family. Few people can actually relate to the events that occur in the plot of this series, but many can find it entertaining, and it even offers underlying lessons. The show makes it cool to be "badass" and intelligent, while at the same time making sure the viewer sees that being involved in the drug world is an extremely dangerous and serious situation to be in. Thus the show is entertaining and enlightening in some ways which makes it an incredibly powerful tool in society.
A lot of people have posted about TV as a social force—creating groups and connections between people who watch the same shows, and the way this phenomenon is explored in and interacts with the content of the Abu-Lughod reading. I am a big TV person in that I watch several TV shows regularly and I definitely share the feeling of an instant connection to people who watch the same shows as me. Leslie mentioned that this aspect of TV is starting to take on another role as companies start integrating social media into their TV shows. I watch a good amount of shows on Showtime and they have recently been advertising an iPad app that they developed which is meant to be used while watching their shows. The idea is that it will sync with the TV and give you opportunities to answer questions regarding what you think will happen next to a particular character, or post some response to the show on a blog, and it feeds you the responses they get from other people in real-time. To me, this is a crazy extension of TV as a medium that brings people together. The funny paradox of the TV to me is that it brings people together but also requires that people don’t interact. When I was back in high school my family would all sit together to watch certain TV shows. Even though we wouldn’t be speaking to each other during the show, and our eyes would be glued to the television, there is a certain feeling that you are sharing a meaningful moment with those sitting next to you.
The Meyers article on casting reminded me of a man I met this summer who was a location scout for a lot of well-known movies and TV shows (most recently, HBO’s Boardwalk Empire). Although he isn’t involved in casting people, he is basically the person who casts locations (if you were to put it that way). What he said was very intriguing because he works in an area of TV that we sometimes take for granted (similar to the way a lot of people have been responding to the information in the Meyers article). He also mentioned that on some projects where he was working for a reality TV program, he was pressured by producers to pick locations for shooting that might cause conflict between the cast members (i.e. places where some of them might be distracted, or might disagree on what they should do).
m
I disagree with the statement in the lead blog post that television is incapable of creating any meaningful type of “cultural epiphany”. While television may be incapable of providing any life-altering epiphanies, it is certainly capable of uniting masses of people in laughter, mourning, interest, etc. Television, perhaps better than any other medium of entertainment or media, is capable of creating extensive “imagined” or real communities. For most individuals, popular culture pervades their daily interactions. Therefore, individuals are more likely to surround themselves with people that share their interests in shows and programs within their own frame of reference. I do not think many people would argue with the previously mentioned 9/11 reference. Through the images and videos of the towers falling on 9/11, our county was most certainly united in some form or fashion of mourning and apprehension of the future.
In Abu-Lughod’s article she mentions that “Essential to this construction of television entertainment as serious art that is socially or politically uplifting is the contrast with commercial entertainment” (Abu-Lughod, 378). I like her point because there is a great divide between television that I would consider “socially or politically” constructive and television meant purely for entertainment. The clip of “Wife Swap” and the quotes from various casting directors and producers demonstrates that some programs are created only to serve as a humorous distractions in our lives. Television as a form of mediation is important because it possesses the ability to reach nearly all divisions of society with social and cultural messages of varying significance.
-Daniel Gergen
Television is such a widely used media in the world today that it is difficult for it not to be used as something other than solely for entertainment purposes. I think that the lead blog used an extremely accurate word to describe television: tool. In modern day, television is as much a tool as it is an entertainment device. Through commercials, educational channels, and documentaries, many different interests and movements are shown.
I actually disagree with the lead post's view that television has to be watched in a stagnant way, mainly because I believe that it is now so mainstream that people can casually be watching t.v. while doing other things and interacting with other people. With the accessability of television these days, it is easy to be able to mobilize ideas and express views and movements expressed on it. Although I disagree with the way in which people watch television, i agree that television should not be responsible to bring cultural values to the viewer, which correlates with my belief that television is much more casual and informal in terms of how the viewer watches. There are so many other different types of media that are directly focused on promoting cultural values that all of the responsibility should not be put on television. I am not saying that television does not have the ability to achieve this goal, but I do not think it should be a responsibility of it.
You have the casting for actors, ensuring that they have their lines memorized. The search for the perfect shot, usually after trial and error, the production, the advertisements, the countless hours editing and then the final product. Television production from the inception of an idea to unleashing the finished product is tedious, a point that the Meyer paper talks about. Yet, the audience enjoys this finished product without realizing how much work went into making it. One might see that as a disadvantage, but it actually is an advantage. The success of any TV show lies in how much conversation it brings. Whether it sparks conversations about the political culture of a nation as with news broadcasts, or talks about the relative stupidity of fellow Americans as with reality television, a successful TV show must bring some element worth discussing to the table. With our short-attention spans, the easiest mode for producers is by bombarding us with conflicts in all directions. For one, these conflicts bring us entertainment. However, unlike the lead post I agree with the Abu-Lughod piece that television also advances the people cultural knowledge. In fact, most television shows do both, technically, if we take the definition of knowledge as the acquisition of facts. Wife Swap for example, does give us a glimpse into the lives of different types of families. Last class, we learned a little about pirates during the episode, even though this family represents an extreme case, bothering on craziness. In the show, House, we learn about the culture of the hospital and how a doctor interacts with the staff and patients alike, if only in an exaggerated and overly dramatic way. Overall, these shows entertain while at the same time disseminating knowledge. The question is do we consider this knowledge? And does this knowledge do more harm than good, i.e. when they help to reinforce stereotypes?
-Emmanuel Ohuabunwa.
After discussing film last week, I was particularly inspired by Abu-Lughod’s quote, “More than any other form of mass media, (…) television brings a variety of vivid experiences of the non-local into the most local of situations, the home,” (pg. 377). In our section discussion last week on the topic of film, we emphasized how, in Tamil culture, the both active and interactive experience of viewing a movie at the cinema represents a critical component in the process that establishes how a film is received by the general public. While today, one may be able to rent films or watch them on a movie channel, I found Mayer’s emphasis on the actual television device as an important element in the creative production of television to be a particularly fascinating perspective when considered alongside the act of watching film from the comfort of one’s own home.
In her two articles, Mayer discusses how individuals across the gamut of the television industry- from electricians to television producers- all play crucial parts in the creative process that goes into television programming and production. I would like to consider this argument in regard to movie channels and rented films. When an individual watches a movie on a movie channel, she is utilizing her television set, exposed to an array of advertisements geared toward her assumed demographic characteristics (based on the movie she chooses to watch), and participating in a private yet simultaneously collective act with other viewers around the country. When one watches a rented movie, she is still utilizing the television set to view the film. However, she is not exposed to demographic-specific advertisements and is also no longer participating in a semi-collective act, unless other people coincidentally happen to be viewing the same rented movie at the same time. In looking at these two distinct situations of watching movies on one’s own television, I can’t help but wonder whether Mayer’s argument for television construction as part of the creative process of television holds true when one is no longer viewing television-related media on the device? Sorry if my question is long-winded and confusing, I am just unsure whether I fully believe that the people who physically build televisions should be considered to add to the creative production of television, and would like to discuss this argument of Mayer’s further, perhaps employing rented film viewed at home as an example of how the device itself does not add to the overall “creativity” of this particular media form.
In all the topics we study, we always draw lines between the different cultural experiences related to media in different socio-political or cultural environments. I have the feeling that these distinctions are shattered by what the television medium has become, and I thought that the texts we read did not address this.
As Patrick Le Lay, president of France's #1 channel claimed in 2004: "Our goal is to help Coca-Cola sell their product. For the commercial message to be perceived, the viewer's brain must be available. The aim of our programs is to make the brain available, to distract it. What we sell to Coca-Cola is available brain time". While reflecting on the so accurate cynicism of this statement, I realised that television follows the same agenda everywhere in the world (Egypt, USA, Italy...) and in every program it creates - whether it is soap operas, news, reality shows etc...Just like the philosopher Bernard Stiegler writes in "Telecracy against Democracy" (2008), TV has become the WMD of our consumerist society, and the viewer is simultaneously lonely and part of "an artificial crowd from which stem processes of regressive identification" (Stiegler).
It is in this paradox - the fact of being alone yet part of a crowd watching the same screen - that lies the great anthropological interest of TV, and its great power. I am sure you have all had this experience (I have for sure) of watching a reality show alone at home and being taken by what happens on screen, with the show bringing out all your voyeuristic pulsions. You are alone, feeling a sort of guilty shame or pleasure, yet you sense that, simultaneously, millions of people are feeling in the exact same way. More than radio, the hypnotic power of the TV screen creates the new mass society in which we are living: alone yet in a mass. This reminded me of the work of Gustave Le Bon, who wrote in 1885 the "Psychology of Crowds", but even more of Hannah Arendt, who explained in "The Totalitarian System" that "isolation" (from the traditional social structures) was the key to convince the individual to be dominated by the totalitarian state, this individual being alone yet part of the mass of people.
I admit that talking about totalitarian systems may be far-fetched - we live in pretty free societies; nevertheless, TV produces a new anthropological avatar of "mass loneliness". The isolation/relation-to-the-mass that TV creates gives us - in my opinion - 1)a sense of unreality that disconnects us from reality (we have seen the images of Khadafi's corpse over and over this week. It would probably shock more the majority of people if a scene of two homosexuals kissing was shown); 2) the satisfaction of a double desire: the intimate impulses and pleasures AND the gregarious needs. Is this not perfect for advertisers? Now the individual can sit comfortably in his couch watching TV and adopt the attitude of the mass: he does not even need to leave his house (refuting what Gustave Le Bon thought).
Television works deeply with hypnosis in my opinion and this is a general characteristic, not related to specific cultural contexts.
- Ayan Meer
I disagree with the lead post that states television should not be held to high expectations and bring cultural value to viewers. I think people surround themselves with people that share their common interests and I think it is the same with what shows and programs they watch. It culturally connects people with one another. People watch T.V while multitasking with things such as working on a computer, or cooking, getting ready for work or whatever. You do not have to be “stagnet or inactive” to enjoy TV.
“Essential to this construction of television entertainment as serious art that is socially or politically uplifting is the contrast with commercial entertainment” (Abu-Lughod, 378). Politically you might get opinions from talk or news shows where socially you might get from entertained from comedies or dramas. The reference made to 9/11 was a good example showing the impact on how people came together and completely pushed aside other issues and focused only on what had happened. I liked the reference that someone made about the debate that was televised when Kennedy won votes because those who watched it on T.V liked Kennedy because he looked better and those who listened on the radio liked Nixon. Everyone has their own special T.V shows that appeal to them in some way. I for one would not watch Breaking Bad that was mentioned in the blog but I would watch Modern Family. I can relate to the crazy, funny and unique family depicted on that show because my family is unique and funny in many ways also. In Breaking Bad I can not relate. I agree with Lila Abu-Lughod who says, “the way TV affects our culture” (378).
I had posted this the other day, and I thought it went up but when I was going over the posts again to do the discussion summary I realized it was missing:
A lot of people have posted about TV as a social force—creating groups and connections between people who watch the same shows, and the way this phenomenon is explored in and interacts with the content of the Abu-Lughod reading. I am a big TV person in that I watch several TV shows regularly and I definitely share the feeling of an instant connection to people who watch the same shows as me. Leslie mentioned that this aspect of TV is starting to take on another role as companies start integrating social media into their TV shows. I watch a good amount of shows on Showtime and they have recently been advertising an iPad app that they developed which is meant to be used while watching their shows. The idea is that it will sync with the TV and give you opportunities to answer questions regarding what you think will happen next to a particular character, or post some response to the show on a blog, and it feeds you the responses they get from other people in real-time. To me, this is a crazy extension of TV as a medium that brings people together. The funny paradox of the TV to me is that it brings people together but also requires that people don’t interact. When I was back in high school my family would all sit together to watch certain TV shows. Even though we wouldn’t be speaking to each other during the show, and our eyes would be glued to the television, there is a certain feeling that you are sharing a meaningful moment with those sitting next to you.
The Meyers article on casting reminded me of a man I met this summer who was a location scout for a lot of well-known movies and TV shows (most recently, HBO’s Boardwalk Empire). Although he isn’t involved in casting people, he is basically the person who casts locations (if you were to put it that way). What he said was very intriguing because he works in an area of TV that we sometimes take for granted (similar to the way a lot of people have been responding to the information in the Meyers article). He also mentioned that on some projects where he was working for a reality TV program, he was pressured by producers to pick locations for shooting that might cause conflict between the cast members (i.e. places where some of them might be distracted, or might disagree on what they should do).
Disscussion summary:
In our talks about television we focused on three key areas:
(1) Television as a social force: The lead post talked about how people group themselves around the TV they watch. People who watch the same TV not only have something to talk about but can make references to the show in conversation. This was also talked about in the way television programs have capitalized on social media to get people talking about the show, and, as I had commented on, they try to get this conversation going not only after the show is over, but while it is going on. This also goes hand in hand with another topic of conversation this week, which was that of TV as a “tool” of some sort.
(2) TV as a tool. A lot of people talked about the power of television, what it does to us, what it can do to us, and what it should do to us. This conversation stemmed nicely from the Abu-Lughod reading. Most people agreed that TV is more than just entertainment, but it has some potentially educational value, and that it works as a form of communication of ideas. A lot of this discussion focused on the potential for television to make a large impact on our culture, or lead to some “cultural epiphany.” It certainly seems like television has the potential to move people in such an extreme way, but whether it currently does is debatable.
(3) the last area of focus for our discussion this week was concerning the “behind the scenes” type work on TVs. This discussion was fueled mainly by the Meyers readings. People expressed their fascination in learning about TV manufactures, and the description they had of TVs as an extension of themselves. The other area of focus was on casting. People commented that they realized the caster was far more important than they may have thought before, in that he or she ultimately decides on the personalities that will appear in the show (especially in regards to reality programing). While a lot can be said about the end product in TV shows, the discussion of assembly line workers and casters demonstrated the wealth of content to be explored in the process of TV production as well.
--Oliver
SUMMARY:
This week the lead post made strong comments that stirred up disagreement among the blog responses. In the lead post, Danny mentioned how he did not believe that television should be held to high social and cultural expectations because to enjoy television you should really be stagnant and inactive. Danny believed that television couldn’t bring forth a cultural epiphany as mentioned in the reading.
There were a few people that disagreed with the lead post, particularly with the notion of cultural epiphanies. One of the examples given to counter the lead post’s argument is the 9-11 footage that was shown through television sets around the country, which was certainly unifying the nation. Someone else wrote how television is actually capable of uniting masses of people in laughter, mourning, etc, and thus uniting people in an imagined community.
There were also responses that agreed with the lead post in that television is nothing but a tool for commercials, education and documentations and should not be responsible for bringing cultural values to the viewer.
On the same lines of television having a social impact, many responses talked about how television plays an important role in social circles. People associate themselves with viewers of the same show. There is also a crossing over of other media forms into the television realm (i.e. twitter and discussion boards) that now allow viewers to connect with each other to discuss their thoughts on a television series.
Most of the blog posts focused on the Abu-Lughod reading, but there were a handful of responses concerning the Meyer readings. Most of us were intrigued by the amount of creativity that is incorporated into the invisible labor practices of television. Amy brought up an interesting argument about watching non-televised material on the same television set and how that gets rid of the array of advertisements that viewers are bombarded with. Amy argued that perhaps Meyer’s argument for television construction as part of the creative process of television doesn’t hold true when one is no longer viewing television-related media on the device.
Post a Comment