What follows are what I believe to be the most insidious and manipulative corporate attempts at television-based mass persuasion today.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
For those of you who don't have the time or inclination to read the whole article, my basic arguments are presented here:
1. Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, has the effect of making us not only question government's ability to help the disadvantaged and needy, but to believe corporate America offers the solutions. It also serves to appease our feelings of guilt at having government/public services being cut, because the private sector is perceived as "picking up the slack."
2. "Undercover Boss" has the effect of muting employee discontent and bolstering worker/employee empathy with and compassion for mid-level and upper level management.
3. "Outsourced" has the effect of making us more tolerant of outsourcing.
TV SHOW ONE: EXTREME MAKEOVER: HOME EDITION
One television show I find to be particularly manipulative is called "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition." It is on ABC and is hosted by Ty Pennington.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Makeover:_Home_Edition
When this show first came out, I enjoyed it very much and watched it religiously with my wife. I was often brought to tears watching the plight of these struggling families, who were often beset by poverty, disability and an inability to make ends-meet. They often seemed a paycheck away from homelessness and destitution.
I felt that the TV folks running the show were amazing exemplars of humanity, they were so good and gracious for assisting these poor families, were awesome for getting the community and local (and national) businesses together to "pitch-in" and help, so as to make their community, their nation and yes, even their world, a better place in which to live.
Over time, however, I started thinking. Everybody I know feels the same way when they watch this show. We all know that poverty and foreclosures and homelessness are on the rise, as are increases in the number of people without recourse to adequate health insurance , which is often a major cause for people losing their homes. Their medical bills are so steep and enormous, they don't have enough money to pay their mortgages and their hospital bills at the same time. Forced to choose between living and having a home, many families choose life and are forced out into the streets or into a shelter as a result. We humans normally feel a sense of outrage and anger over such a condition. When we are confronted by it, our normal impulse is to donate money to charities, to call our Congressmen, to agitate for political, legal and social change.
This television show tends to have an opposite effect. Everybody I speak with who watches this show, seems to think that government is not doing its job and that only companies can get the job done. That only the private sector can be relied-upon to help those in distress. I was speaking one day to some random guy in a Pizza parlor, waiting to pickup my Pizza. He told me that Ty Pennington "shows us that businesses can not only help the poor faster than the government can, but they can provide everybody with a big-ass mansion, uniquely tailored to their special needs, whereas the only thing the government can do is put you in cookie-cutter public housing in the ghetto." I wonder if he is the only one watching this show who is left with the same impression?
One day, I was on the PATCO and started a discussion with some girls coming back from law classes at Temple Law School. They told me that they did not think there was a serious housing problem in the US, such that the government needs to get involved and spend more money on assistance, because private charities, private individuals and private corporations are moving-in to pick up the slack and help the less fortunate and privileged among us. They cited "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" as their most poignant example.
It is my belief that shows such as "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," have an intended or unintended consequence. They tend to mislead people into thinking that government can't help the disadvantaged, that government doesn't need to help the disadvantaged, and that we should all look upon the Noblesse Oblige of Big Brother Corporations to help the least fortunate among us.
TV SHOW TWO: UNDERCOVER BOSS
Another TV show which has a similar impact is "Undercover Boss," which airs on CBS. It is a remake of a formulaic reality TV series which is also being shown in Great Britain and Australia (Anglo-Saxon, free-market, capitalistic societies with major income inequalities and infrastructural disintegration).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Boss_(U.S._TV_series)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Boss_(UK_TV_series)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Boss_Australia
This television series is a take on the old Peter the Great, Henry V tactic of having a leader dress-up like a commoner and walking among-us, so as to gather intelligence on the ground-level operations of his organization. Kings and generals once did this so they could see if mid-level management was giving them an accurate picture of the tactical-situation at the front lines, if the troops' morale was high, and whether heroic leadership was needed, such as through a grand, eloquent, highly-motivating speech. Think St. Crispan's Day..."We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he who sheds his blood with me shall be my brother..."
That being said, such noble aims are not the purpose of a show such as this. The purpose appears to be far more manipulative, not only for the employees and company concerned, but for the viewing audience in particular.
Each episode follows a pre-designed formula. During each show, the CEO dresses-up like a low-level employee and works at 3 or 4 basic jobs in 3 or 4 different locations. During these jobs, he is paired with a low-level supervisor, usually one with a heart-wrenching, personal sob-story. The high-point of the undercover-portion of the show is when the employee-in-question reveals their sob-story to the CEO, who is then shown, in poignant close-ups, crying, hugging and embracing the employee. Off set, the CEO will then be shown in an intimate monologue with the camera, telling the viewers, "he had no idea it was so hard for people at the bottom."
At the very end of the show, the CEO goes back to his Home Office/Corporate HQ and puts on his most expensive business suit, french cuffs and all. He goes to his office, behind his mighty CEO desk and waits. The low-level employees he interacted with are called-in, one by one (they are flown to the home office, all expenses paid, for precisely this purpose). There, the CEO reveals his identity (like Batman in the batcave), and he gives out cash, goods and services. The employees cry and embrace their beloved, caring Leader. Viewers at home cry, too. They are brought to the realization that "all CEOs are like this, deep down inside; If only they knew about our troubles, they would help us..."
That being said, the purpose of this television show isn't the inspiration of the CEOs' corporation, so much as it is the inspiration of the television viewer. During the current recession, many Americans justly feel that large banks and CEOs are making lots of money and giving themselves insane amounts of money through unjustified bonuses and whatnot. At the same time, prices for food, gas, rent, clothing and a plethora of other goods and services are on the rise. Our salaries are either stagnating or declining. Or benefits are being cut. Our standard of living, as Americans, is declining. It is natural, sociologically speaking, for a society in such a state to grab its proverbial pitchforks and storm the castle.
So what do the kings and dukes, bishops and barons do? They put out a TV show which makes us "understand" and "sympathize" with our corporate overlords. A show like this makes us "understand" our corporate Leaders in an intimate way. A show like this shows us that they are "people, too." They have "feelings, hopes, dreams and aspirations." They, too are moved by the plight of the common man, "if only they knew."
A show like this is aimed at nothing less than diffusing the anger of blue and low-level white collar employees and make them identify with management, in much the same way that domestic household slaves on Antebellum Plantations in the American South were encouraged to personally identify with the personal affairs, troubles and tribulations of the Plantation Owner and his family. Because they lived so close to the Owner, they naturally posed the greatest threat to his personal safety. As such, it was of the utmost importance to win over their hearts and minds. Indeed, many slave insurrections were effectively put-down, because the rebels were sold-out by members of the household staff (whom they confided in), folks who, ironically, often identified more with the Plantation owner than they did with their enslaved compatriots in the cotton fields. Such are the tools of psychological manipulation utilized by predatory capital...
TV SHOW THREE: OUTSOURCED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsourced_(TV_series).
I have seen a few of these episodes and clearly, the show is aimed at diffusing American hostility toward the concept of outsourcing. (BTW: A similar show was made in Britain, called "Mumbai Calling," and it serves the same functional purpose: to desensitize people to the outsourcing of service jobs to India. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_Calling)
"Outsourced" takes place in India and focuses on a young, low-level American employee, right out of college, who is managing an Indian customer-support center for a large American company. In this show, there are two bad guys. One is corporate management in the United States. The other is a mid-level manager in India, who serves under the American. The good guys are the young American manager and the innocent, hard-working Indians, who are just trying to get-by.
One might think, on the face of it, that the TV show is therefore dedicated to the creation of an international sense of "proletarian class consciousness." Rather than feel hostility for those who are taking our jobs, we are supposed to feel sympathy for our "fellow-workers," because they have to deal with the same American corporate management techniques we have to deal with on a daily basis.
Granted, the show operates, on its face, through this structural format. Simplistically speaking, that's how it will come off to some people. But clearly, corporate America would never, ever, ever, not in a million years, put a TV show out that had such a message. Particularly not NBC, the network that set-up Ronald Reagan and got him started on his GOP career to political stardom. No.
The show's purpose is to put a face on outsourcing and make Americans less opposed to it. The purpose is to create, to manufacture sympathy and tolerance and understanding for a situation which, objectively speaking, we should be intolerant of.
In this sense, the purpose of the show is no different from how Antebellum southern Plantation owners would finance traveling minstrel shows that would travel throughout the south, specifically to poor white areas, to make them more accepting and tolerant of the Plantation System, to make them more sympathetic-to and compassionate toward the Plantation Owners and the Overseers, even though the Big Plantations had the unintended effect of putting most poor whites out of business, forcing them off their land, and pushing them into the mountains of Appalachia where they could barely make a decent living. (The Plantation system was the most centrally organized form of agricultural enterprise known in this country prior to mid-20th century Agribusiness. It had the same impact on small family farms in the south in the 19th century, that agribusiness had on small family farms in the midwest in the 20th century).
Amazingly, the biggest concern of Establishment Liberals in the U.S. mainstream media regarding "Outsourced" has been whether or not South-Asian actors in the show would be depicted as three-dimensional characters, or whether they would be crude stereotypes, thus perpetuating bias and prejudice. (See the discussion in the wikipedia article, above, which discusses various major newspapers' discussions on this issue. Amazingly, none of them discuss the issues I put-forth, above...).
Once again, Establishment Liberals' unfamiliarity with continental-style Critical Theory permeates their analytical discourse. For them, the narrative must always be "conservatives/companies will pander to ethnic stereotypes" and "liberals/progressives will pander to ethnic justice and sensitivity." Through continuously engaging in this trite, worn analysis, one more fitting for the 1960s than today, they fail to see that the major issue for Progressive Politics in the United States, perhaps all of Western Civilization today, is the SALIENCE OF CLASS and ECONOMIC INTEREST.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
Ethnicity and how it is portrayed by corporations will always be dictated by the economic interests of said corporations. Here, Corporate America gains more by portraying South Asians in a positive, sympathetic light. This is necessary, because the political policy of outsourcing necessarily depends upon Americans feeling sympathetic for South Asians and/or guilty for taking these jobs back from them. This necessarily depends upon "humanizing" those in south Asia working in said industries. As such, the issue never was and never could be whether they would present South Asians in a negative light. They would never do this, provided they had nothing to gain, financially.
The problem with the above-mentioned Establishment Liberal analytical framework is that it, in of itself, is one-dimensional. It assumes that once the necessary and initial, superficial racial-bias-analysis has been concluded, the work of the "Progressive Police" is necessarily over and complete. FINITO. That corporate America can go about on its merry way. The problem with this cursory/superficial one-dimensional analysis is that Corporate America also knows that this is how Progressives think. As such, they actively try to co-opt these sentiments in such a way that furthers their own financial gain. They may even hold a Media Outreach event discussing how they went to great lengths trying to depict south Asians in a positive light. The media will be impressed with such efforts and will applaud the network for its sensitivity and progressiveness on this issue. The essence of critical theory, though, is that all official positions and causes, and the official rationales and justifications for these causes must all be questioned and deconstructed. If the media engaged in this sort of analysis, as they do in Europe, then our level of journalism would necessarily evolve into a more mature and erudite form.
The problem is that the media, by only focusing on the stereotype issue, is thus diverted from engaging in a deeper analysis of the presupposition underlying the purpose, intent and effect of the intended program, namely, the manufacturing of consent for the economic policy of outsourcing and its effect on the American working and lower-middle class. This basic premise or presupposition will go unchallenged. Attention to it has been diverted, through the superficial/faux-attention paid to the South-Asian character dimensionality issue.
(what I have just done here has been to deconstruct the entire sociological processes involved in basic media analysis of a tv program...lol)
CONCLUSION
In any event, we should always be suspicious of the motives of any television show with an underlying political/economic message, especially during these days of MEDIA CENTRALIZATION and ECONOMIC RECESSION. It is obvious that BIG MEDIA and its CORPORATE SPONSORS have a BIG INTEREST in PACIFYING DISCONTENT. What better way of doing it than through TELEVISION ENTERTAINMENT?
TV often serves a sociological, political function in society. The corporations discern this need and they produce a product that caters to it. The problem is that these are often real, sociological needs of a tribe, needs that require actual realization and fulfillment. Television can thus hinder the emotional and sociological evolution of a society by either blocking the real-world manifestation of acts and behaviors based on feelings of genuine empathy and compassion, or by creating empathy, compassion and tolerance for situations, people and conditions that are objectively reprehensible.
Television, by catering to the sociological, mass-psychological need to act upon empathy and compassion, either intentionally or inadvertantly, serves to pacify these needs, such that the society at issue is left with the impression that the given empathic/compassionate need is being met, when in fact it is not. The image or perception thus trumps the reality.
Television, by creating empathy, understanding, tolerance and compasison for a situation that is patently intolerable and unjust, thus manufactures a consensus in support of the status quo, thereby nullifying efforts and attempts at progressive social change.
Whether these functions and proceses are intentional or unintentional is irrelevant. Motivation is inconsequential. What matters are the results, the consequences of said actions. Motivation is irrelevant because if they intend to bring about this mass-perception, we can't persuade them to stop. If this isn't their intention, but only an unintended side-effect, we still can't persuade them to stop, because they are making too much money to give a damn. All we can do, as Progressives, is notice the phenomenon, diagnose it, and educate our peers about it. In time, people will be on-guard and the effect will be less pronounced among the population. This is all we can hope for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BACKGROUND ON THE STATUS-QUO-TOLERANCE-BUILDING TECHNIQUE
This concept (promoting tolerance of injustice) may seem alien to many of my readers, but it should not be surprising. Slavery and Jim Crow in the United States were, in part, maintained through such propaganda methods.
While open, intentional, pseudo-scientific racialistic arguments put forth by various religious, legal and scientific scholars had some impact on preserving segregation and slavery, the thing that had the most insidious and potent impact on people's racial perceptions were those "indirect" racial portayals found in media, whether it was caricatures in movies, tv or radio, minstrel shows, musicals, sublte comments or depictions on product advertisements or posters, or even sublte, unquestioned presuppositions in basic songs, cultural celebrations and public rituals. These things were far more influential because they were indirect and inluenced people through culture, through the medium of entertainment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_(song)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Ben%27s_Rice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunt_Jemima
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammy_archetype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom
The "uncle tom" stereotype of the loyal slave was a classic propaganda tool utilized by the Antebellum Planter class, and Reconstruction/Jim Crow white establishment, to perpetuate certain behaviors and social relations conducive to the then-existing race and class-based power structure.
One of the most disgusting and revolting utilizations of this stereotype-as-tool can be seen in regard to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the death of Hayward Shephard.
From October 16-19 of 1859, the infamous and controversial anti-slavery freedom fighter/terrorist (take your pick), John Brown, attempted to ignite a large-scale slave insurrection in the American South. He did this by organizing an armed group of men, both black and white, and planned to seize the national armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia. From there, they planned to travel from plantation to plantation, distributing weapons to the slaves, spawning a massive uprising.
During the initial hours of the planned rebellion, on October 16, as the rebels disembarked from a train and began to unload their weapons, an African-American freedman baggage handler named Hayward Shephard tried to confront them. A scuffle ensued and Mr. Shephard was killed by John Brown's men. The event was quickly forgotten and overshadowed by the massive battles fought on subsequent days between the rebels and federal troops led by Robert E. Lee. In any event, the planned uprising failed and within three days, John Brown and his men were captured and executed.
After the uprising, the African-American Hayward Shephard became a "hero" to the racist, Planter Class. He was lauded in songs, musicals, childrens books and minstrel shows throughout the south. His death was celebrated as an example not only of how African Americans should behave in regard to northerners and their manipulative attempts to stoke the fires of servile insurrection, but also to show whites how "loyal" blacks were to their masters and how much they "identified with them. " In doing so, the Planter class wished to nullify white moral opposition to the slave plantation system. The rationale was that if it was a moral evil, and if slaves were truly treated bad, then "why would Mr. Shephard have opposed John Brown?"
In 1931, African Americans were facing increased economic problems, along with the rest of the country, due to the Great Depression. With many Americans out of work, many (but not all) poor whites and blacks were joining Labor Unions, putting their old racial hatreds aside. This prospect of a united white-black working class alliance terrified the white southern aristocracy. Once again, they began to fear that there would be a new, 20th century version of "Servile Insurrection."
As such, the Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans erected a commemorative stone rock that lauded the heroism of Hayward Shephard and his committment to preserving the status-quo social order, despite the injustices upon which it was based. The marker, a great photo of which is contained in a link below, lauds Shephard and all those like him, "who resisted the temptation to revolt" during the Civil War. It was errected in an attempt to keep blacks out of the labor movement. That being said, it was rather useless in this regard, as organized labor was destroyed in the South, due to racism and anti-communist hysteria.
In any event, it is a crass, vile and racist monument. But it is an early example of elitist spin, one aimed at creating sympathy for an unjust status-quo.
To this day, the Klan and numerous NeoConfederate groups meet there.
http://www.wvculture.org/HiStory/jbexhibit/bbsph05-0053.html
http://sonsofconfederateveterans.blogspot.com/2009/10/anv-declares-hayward-shepherd-day.html
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ted Frier
Tom Degan
pob2006
500words
john guzlowski
Bob Simpson
Salon.com
Comments
TV is the opiate of the American masses and corporatists have learned how to produce it in mass quanitities and control us. We are seeing that to our detriment right now, as corporations are able to buy candidates through TV ads, since we are conditioned to respond to that medium as we are supposed to respond to flesh and blood fellow human beings.
I never raised my kid with TV. This made her a pariah in school. I did not care. It has made her a woman basically untouched by this cultural brainwashing.
BRAVO!
The Flaw: Examining the Roots of Economic Malaise
Unlike a state-run welfare agency, the private sector has no social welfare duty. There are no social workers, no follow-up, no after-the-fact accountability. I would much rather have a well-funded and well-staffed Urban Housing program with smart, innovative programs, even if there is some inherent inefficiency, then delegate all these functions to a big corporate charity (whose purpose, really, is to make money through televising the feel-good charity work)
Its wierd. Most pro-Establishment moderates, both Democrat and Republican, get visibly uncomfortable if you suggest that a politician or corporation has "ulterior motives." They accuse you of peddling conspiracy theories, even if they aren't; even if they are merely logical, common-sense legal arguments.
I once worked as a student attorney in an urban Public Defender office. One day my classmates and I sat-in on a lecture about the drug trade and RICO. We discussed old cases from the 1970s and 1980s, how the various groups/people were charged, their defenses and how the cases played out.
The PD and Prosecutor giving the presentation discussed real-world examples of criminal conspiracy, both street-level and white-collar level.
Almost all my classmates (all Public Defenders in training, and presumably "smart" in the ways of the world) gave the white-collar professional the benefit of the doubt in terms of the explanations he gave for the criminal conduct charged. The same group, however, refused to believe the explanations of the African American defendants. They all jumped to conclusions in saying he was guilty.
At the end of the seminar, the PD and DA giving the lecture informed us that the African American convicted was eventually set-free. He was found to have been wrongfully convicted. The White-collar, white dude was not convicted and was set-free. However, he was later found to have been involved in even bigger stuff at much higher levels with much greater degrees of criminality. Everybody was shocked and in disbelief. Many refused to believe it even as they left, even though the guy willingly confessed.
What I realized here is that there is an immediate class-bias in terms of white, middle class folks willingly believing that minorities or foreigners can engage in criminal conspiracy, but an inherent reluctance to believe that middle class, upper-middle class or wealthy whites can engage in the same things.
Its as if there needs to be a conformance between the stereotypical image of criminality and the act of criminality. The image of professional white-collar respectability is discordant with the act of criminal conspiracy, so we are much less likely to believe it.
The problem with conspiracy theories is that the conduct one accuses or alleges group X or Person X to be guilty of, is often contrary to the public image this group or person tries so hard to create.
As such, I believe, it will often be necessary to annihilate the public reputation of a person and/or organization you wish to expose, prior to the time you expose them with facts. In this manner, the public will be brought to a place where they will be ready, psychologically speaking, to accept the truth. You must bring them to a state where their optimisim and naivete are eroded, where they can be in the perfect state of intellectual objectivity, which often comes from a state of being jaded and cynical. We dislike these traits as being negative, but being negative is the best intellectual trait one can have, as any scientist will tell you.
In science, we more often come to the truth through the refutation of a claim, than through the proving of an assertion. Yet, by the constant refutation of various claims (all through the rigorousness of the scientific method), it is invariably more likely that we can prove the truthfulness of an assertion, because all the irrelevant counter-factual chaff has been cleared from the analysis. Before we can know what the truth IS, we must first know what it IS NOT. This is why Socrates was so right with his cynical questioning of all things. It is the only way to come to truth.
As such, we must bring all people to this state of cynical questioning. Sadly, it must come from the method of throwing shit at all respectable institutions, so that all are equally smelly and relegated to an equally stinking state of fallability and mortality. Then and only then will the people accept any truth we hurl at the enemy.
Although we did raise Daughter without TV, we have one now but without cable. (She still does not have one. Reads alot.)
OPB is our station. Tonight, I will watch a special on crows. Love my corvids!
"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is a huge waste of time and resources. Everyone in the US knows that living in poverty, suffering and needless death are perfectly acceptable and just part of nature. The resources would be better spent building more ghettos, Now we have homeless people wandering around everywhere. It’s unsightly having people who suffer misfortune out in the open. It’s just silly to have show waste time and depress people like this.
I found "Undercover Boss" boring and disappointing. I wanted them to use people who were completely identical in looks, speech and mannerism and have them labeled with shirts with huge numbers. This would prove that the CEO’s are in fact just like other humans. Then at the end, viewers could vote on who they thought was the boss and which people were humans. A grand finale would include the boss showing us a vivid example of spontaneous combustion as he was only a paper effigy of a person. The abused employees could be supplied with sticks and the makings for Smore’s perhaps singing an updated version of Kumbaya. I’m content with special effects if my suggestion is outside the laws of sensibilities. Personally I think they should just blow up the real CEO’s, there are an abundance and Mozillo may be off the market but there are hundreds just like him.
I had not heard of “Outsourced” but it seems fairly logical considering it truly is one world. I see nothing out of the ordinary in the way things are going, this is a natural process of evolution where the strong and independent will survive. It’s the desirable outcome in a system devoted to the economics of some being worthy of more than others. We were told quite clearly that we would have a leveled playing field and so we have, we are all free to be treated the same way. I think it sounds like a refreshingly honest show with all the pointless sentimentality taken out of things. I wonder if it’s a bit too much too soon.
I find the ABC show “What would you do?” fascinating. I’m particularly interested in the episodes where a young woman has a man trying to do something terrible to her in a cocktail lounge. It’s astonishing that in couples who are observing the “bad” man, the husband will be watching the game and the wife will try to get his interest. She will give up on her husband then intercede on behalf of the young woman. Sometimes the old man will get involved with her. It’s interesting that women in the US still show strong signs of primitive tribal behavior. Packs of young men also interceded as well as packs of young women. Probably some protective hormonal thing that it’s hard to breed out of women. It’s also interesting to note that certain races and women in general are more likely to defend people being abused.
I would be fascinated to see one episode of a show where they focus on the types of women who are able to climb the ladder of success. I’ve worked for a number of these women and they really have what it takes to get ahead in a man’s world. I know many ordinary women who would like to learn their techniques. I think these shows are popular because people genuinely like them. Life is hard and there is very little fame and glory. It’s comforting to sit around and watch people showing us how to live on TV. I wish they had shows I liked instead but I’m not a big shopper so I’m not the target.
Great post, you really got my attention and I was focused on disconnect. I am no longer fond of feeling things, it's easier to just think.
i think the corporations are chasing a dollar here, rather than pursuing an ideological plan, but you could be right, and the result is the same. the uppers have been telling soothing lies to the lowers for about 5000 years now, it's cost effective control.
Thinking is always preferable to emoting. But nothing is better than emoting on the behalf of an idea you have arrived at through countless hours of careful, scrutinizing thought and study.
What's the difference between a 10 year old playing with matches and accidentally setting my house on fire, and a 10 year old doing the same thing who intentionally sets my house on fire? Don't I still need to show the same urgency and concern for my family and safety? Don't I still need to get them to a safe place? Doesn't the fire department still need to show the same urgency and concern in extinguishing the flames?
There is no difference between being the victim of an intentional crime, negligence or recklessness. The victim is still harmed and still needs to make themselves whole again.
This goes on at all levels. Political, social, economic, you-name-it. I gave up watching TV entirely about 6 months ago. When I now talk to others around me who still get their daily doses of contrived misinformation, I feel like I'm walking around in Orwell's 1984 listening to "new-speak".
^R^++++
Television is an inherently corrupt and corrupting medium.
It makes me a little uncomfortable when others tell jokes about a series like Seinfeld or the Sopranos, and I have no idea what they are talking about, but I really don't feel like I've missed anything.
You ARE what You eat.
You become what You watch.
GREAT post.
-R-
Anyway, the Romans had advanced into the 20th century and all the Coliseum fights were televised. The crowds were all imaginary (the applause box), the coliseum was a painted set (it took place in an indoor tv-studio). The only thing that was real was the fight-to-the-death between convicts.
With the Romans, the Coliseum served various functions:
1. It kept the proles off of the streets and away from politically dangerous forms of protest and activity
2. It kept the masses militarized and desensitized to violence, which helps, if you are a brutal authoritarian regime that bases its livelihood not on productive economics, but on conquest and enslavement
3. Reinforces the ruling/founding/establishmentarian myths of Rome. For example, you would have team fights with a Roman/Gaul/Briton/Arab on one side and a bunch of crazy Germans or Huns on the other. This would reinforce the multi-ethnic cosmopolitan multicultural civilization of the Romans in contrast to the unicultural barbarism and ignorance of the northern tribes/Germans/Huns.
They would also re-enact famous battles from Roman history, which would serve indoctrination purposes about the greatness of Rome and the like.
The Roman Coliseum was the world's first form of Reality Entertainment.
You are correct in pointing out the parallels. It is absolutely 100% equivalent, both in terms of form and function. I will post the wiki link here so people can read about the criticisms of that show.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_for_a_Day
Look at the Amish. I may not want to live that way, but I definately think they retain a major portion of their humanity through that lifestyle, a portion many of us lose through modernity. I wonder how much of a role TV has in that? I mean, I had a blackout in my town in lawschool. I never spoke with my neighbors. The lights and energy went out and all of a sudden we were all outside at 2am on beachchairs, talking, joking eating chips and drinking beer. We set-up candles on the side-walk so we could see and it was an amazing thing. I wonder how often that would happen, that sense of community and togetherness, if we didn't atomize and alienate ourselves with television and technology?
Its like we wish to transplant and re-live our isolated and lonely workplace cubicle existence at home.
Today, noblesse oblige, like chivalry (and other cool French words dealing with honor and responsibility), is dead. Our elite is now behaving in the unbridled, materialistic manner of conspicuous consumption typical of Latin America. We have seen how this destabilized Latin America. Without US intervention, most of the countries down there would have gone Left long ago. It remains to be seen what will happen here.
Unlike Marcuse, I do not think that the battle for the future of the world will take place within the Third World. I do not subscribe to this "Endor-Theory" of national liberation. I think it will take place in ground-zero, within the United States. Once we change the system here, peacefully, through a massive election, the whole world will change. But it cannot be done through the current Democratic Party. That much is certain. The DP must be purged of its current corporate cronies. And when I say purged, I mean "purged."
The perception of outsourcing among the socially conservative, economically moderate, middle class/working class/lower middle class folks is of utmost importance, because it is the Achilles Heel of the Establishment.
These folks usually support and buy-into the GOP and DLC line on Free Trade and Unions and Tariffs and the like. But the Outsourcing issue is the achilles heel. It puts nationalism on the same side as perceived economic self-interest. This puts the right-wing at a disadvantage, because their economic policy is seen as costing American jobs. Unlike other programs, this policy is seen as having a face and a voice, namely, some Indian guy on the phone when you call customer service.
The economic impact may be negligible, as you say. But the PERCEPTION of it, is of the HIGHEST POTENCY. This issue has the potential to drive a wedge between the populist working class/lower middle class/middle class and the Corporatist Overlords that they typically support.
Once they question the rationale and justification of Outsourcing on Nationalistic Grounds, the entire NeoLiberal House of Cards thus collapses. At least this is what happened to me. Free Trade is questioned. Low Taxes are questioned. The illegal immigration issue is questioned. Once you hack away at the Achilles Heel and fell the Demi-God, you realize he is mortal and you keep hacking away until he is dead. This is human nature.
Personally, the Left has gained much internationally from blending Leftist Economics with a Nationalistic Ideology of national liberation. We saw this in China with Mao, in Cuba, in Africa and the like. The key is to ensure that it is a Progressive, non-xenophobic nationalism. Both Mao and the KMT were nationalistic. They just spun it in different ways.
The Western Left has consistently shot itself in the foot, I believe, by not playing the nationalist card. It can and must be done in a progressive manner. Luckily, American Nationalism has a strong multicultural and progressive component and can be handled and articulated in such a way as to not benefit the Establishment.
What do you think? I certainly think the Teddy Roosevelt concept of "Economic Nationalism," might be a good introductory essay for the Great Silent Majority in bringing them to our way of thinking.
When the Goths, Lombards, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Huns, Visigoths, Saxons, Teutons and others invaded the Empire and established their own independent kingdoms, the Roman Patrician class, being highly educated, cultured, multilingual and highly connected with the elite throughout the known world, throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, decided that their best interests would be served by serving in the courts of the crowned heads of the new Feudalistic/Tribal Kings of the abovementioned tribes.
Ergo, during Europe of the Middle Ages, many of the noble families in France, Germany, Italy and Spain could trace their direct lineage directly back to the ancient Roman patrician class and Senate.
The same thing is happening today. American CEOs and their families and kids, as the nation collapses, will travel throughout the world and transplant themselves in various nations. They will become a thin, well-connected and well-financed group of elites on the international level that help run and administer the world's first true global order. They will work in the top businesses and financial institutions of China, Indonesia, Japan, Russia, Europe, South America and the like. This, while the USA collapses and sinks into anarchy and despair.
The same thing happens time and again throughout history. Few read it and as such, few learn.
R.
rated
Merely engaging in full-time critique is politically futile, unless it serves some greater purpose. If not, other people will take advantage of the weakened bull moose, and proceed to kill and devour it for their own personal purposes. What do you think?
I hear you re: nationalism. Zizek said in the New Left Review, in a recent article, that the solution isn't to fall back on nationalism, but to embrace a progressive form of internationalism and international regulation. He said pretty much what you're saying: that the big boys will fall back on nationalism and xenophobia as a way of manipulating their home/client states out of funds in order to stay afloat.
I have also encountered GOP corporate types badmouthing economic nationalism by picking up the torch of Woodrow Wilson-style international brotherhood rhetoric (but clearly, only in regard to economics and not in regard to geopolitics and/or military use). By going the nationalist route, you also allow the Big Boys to paint themselves as rational, liberal progressive alternatives and capitalistic saviours of the Global System.
Ergo, Zizek is right. We should go bigger, broader, more international and more progressive. Going backwards only plays into the hands of Capital. Good discussion!!!! 8)
haha now if you will only apply this lucid, clearheaded thinking to 911/blding 7. wink :p
In the modern world, smart folks may not be blind and they may not be led by the blind, but if the majority of the folks around them are blind, they can elect blindmen or idiots to office. Together, they will lead all of us, even the intelligent, into a ditch. United we stand, United we fall. We are in this together.
Don't throw away your TV. Don't stop watching it. You just wrote the best post I've seen in quite a while about its content. (A lot of your better writing has recently shown up in the Comments on my posts, good enough that I sent PM's to a few people I know suggesting they come to my blog not to read my writing but yours.) We can't afford the separation. The people watching these shows are people we ultimately have to reach - we need to know what they assume and why.
I don't know how to respond to your various suggestions because I don't know the best way to get where we need to go from here. At one point I thought the best hope we had was John Edwards, who alone of the candidates (with the peculiar exception of Mike Huckabee of all people) understood that the economic attack on the middle and working classes was the most important issue we faced. Unfortunately, he clearly imploded.
I think Boko is right about nationalism, largely because of who the common enemy would have to be. Jingoism is ultimately divisive and, in this case, would be beside the point - the common enemy lives and works here. This has to be handled so carefully, probably by co-opting some of the business community, which I think could actually be done.
Now, I'd rather find good stuff like your posts to read.
I'd read about Undercover Boss and had the same thoughts as you without ever seeing a single episode. I wasn't aware of these other two shows, but I can definitely see how they could foster tolerance and acceptance of certain situations that should not be accepted.
As to the question of whether the effects of these shows are intentional or unintentional, I don't have nearly enough information to say for sure but my guess would be that there is at least some intention behind it. Whether it happens at the stage in which these programs are conceived or whether it happens when the studio executives decide which shows to go with, I'm fairly certain there are people who know that these shows will help pacify the American people and that's exactly what they want to do.
Because the only American television I watch are HBO programs and downloadable news broadcasts, I often forget that most Americans aren't watching these kinds of things, and their perceptions are much more heavily influenced by reality TV.
You left out football, which everyone in the future must watch.
Just in case anyone is interested the book Manufacturing Consent by Herman and Chomsky may not be available free on line but the follow up by Noam Chomsky is: Necessary Illusions
Robert McChesney has also had a lot to say about how to improve this problem.
In these situations, its always good to find a powerful patron. Michael Moore has done this through his movies and books, which are produced and distributed through a corporation. In the old days, Martin Luther did this through the support of Frederick III (the wise) Elector of Saxony. All revolutionary personalities and ideas need the support of a well-financed and connected bigwig sponsor.
Of course, this can turn against you...so its a mixed bag of goods. But we shouldn't discard all tactics.
I got turned off to "makeover" the first time I watched it. The family simply wanted help, but what they got was a mansion they obviously would not be able to afford to keep! Who pays the maintenance, taxes etc. I saw right through it. "Why just help them, let's show them the good life".
Re: Undecover I have always admired the Germans for the fact that CEO's are not chosen by share holders, but by the employees. They are not rewarded with outlandish salaries and bonuses, for cutting jobs and quality.
I have not bothered to watch outsourced. Just the idea was a turnoff. Not only is the audience taken for fools, but the workers in India as well. While they are portrayed as poor working stiffs, trying to earn a living. The fact is they are being taken advantage of by their American employers!
A couple of things:
I think I am closer to Al Loomis on how corporations go about this. I don't think it's ideological as much as it is pragmatic. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, "hope" sells. "Hope" can be packaged in many different and deceptive forms. and I think hope/aspiration -- however misguided -- is bound up in this. Reality shows rely on the power of projection: "Hey, that's me." This is the way people hope in uncertain times. And, to fiddle with Mencken, no one ever went broke selling hope/aspiration.
As a pastor, I use movies/tv often to illustrate points I am trying to make. But I have to chose the illustrations carefully. I made an off-handed comment about "The Biggest Loser" one time (a show I have only seen for about fifteen minutes because I found it so excruciatingly painful to watch) and got several concerned responses. They all centered around the motivation/hope axis.
Which leads to the second comment: no question that this is bread and circus. But it is a pernicious form of bread and circus that corrupts hope, misdirects aspiration, and is ultimately self-destructive.
I read an article in Scientific American a few months ago summarizing research on "why on earth do humans always tell stories?" The gist of it was -- and of course it is only a hypothesis, because it is untestable and so can't even be a theory -- that human social organization is so complex and so demanding (ever since we became human) that in order to maintain our social structures and educate our people in them (a never-ending process), we basically have to expand everyone's functional experience outside what they have PERSONALLY experienced. In that sense, every story is propaganda. And the poisonous ones are very, very, very dangerous.
As a side note, I used to have a soft spot for Ross Perot too, heh. AFAIK, he's kind of lost the plot recently and is all obsesso on some deeply stupid "you must not tax the rich" kick -- gaaaah. But -- okay, backtracking. Way Back When, I was working in a management consulting office and read the Harvard Business Review regularly. The articles were whatever, some good, some bad, but my attention was caught by an ad campaign that scared the pee out of me. It was an appeal by Yucatan to US biz types, touting the advantages of their low-cost labor and total lack of regulation. Want to drop your compliance and labor costs to just about zero? The tagline was: "Yes you can in Yucatan." JESUS.
So anyway, this was before the Gore/Perot debate on NAFTA. (Mr. Gore's corporatist water-carrying on that score is something I cannot and will not forgive him for. People seem to forget it, somehow.) It was PEROT who brought up the Yucatan ad campaign (and I had been getting to think that no one else had noticed it); it was PEROT who brought up that freeing corporations to use what is functionally slave labor in other countries was a nightmare on both American business grounds (eating out our working base) and humanitarian ones (the effects on the all-but-slaves and their communities -- bad enough to be enslaved by local overlords, but SO MUCH WORSE to be enslaved by far-away masters with all the resources of the world at their disposal). And Perot is not exactly the poster boy, nor was he then, for being employee-friendly. But Gore outdid him in cynical corporatism.
And he was also widely regarded as the winner of that debate. (Perot made the tactical error of getting mad.) I saw it very, very differently, and I still do.
Apply the same Frankfurt School analysis to the rest of our entertainment industry, however, and I suspect you'll come up with the same results. Take children's films, e.g. the beloved "Home Alone," which celebrates the upper middle class, suburban worldview, and where an underclass Italian and an underclass Jew are thwarted from their efforts to reappropriate their stolen livelihoods through the skillful deployment of high-tech rich kid toys. It's the most reactionary piece of tripe you can imagine - aside from "Jumanji," of course, but don't get me started. Ditto anything made by Disney.
Regarding what people tell you about "conspiracy theories" and corporate capitalism: Of course it's a conspiracy, sillies, corporations are conceived as conspiracies to make money! If they didn't, they'd go bust - or else just ask for another bailout.
Rated.
Rated
We are told we cannot serve God and Mammon both, Mammon being money. Didn't Christ say its easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a man of wealth to enter the kingdom of God? Our focus with objects and commodities has deprived us not only of our human-essence but also our knowledge of the divine, the divine that exists both within us and without. This is part of our problem. The corrosive spiritual effects of consumerism and capitalism.
The best way to prevent protest is to prevent people from even coming together. Alienation/atomization serve that purpose. "Bowling Alone," a book by Robert Putnam, discusses this phenomenon in the United States and how it is ruining our civil society and nation.
Perot was 100% correct on NAFTA. Gore was wrong. Clinton and Bush were wrong. This was the first example the US public had that both parties were basically run by the same companies, but that they appealed to the voting public in different ways. They win conservatives through appealing to profit, they win democrats by appealing to tolerance. At the end of the day we all support an economic policy that costs Americans jobs--outsourcing of US factories to Mexico; poor environmental policies, increased border violence. Increased exploitation of Mexican labor through the Maquilladora programs and the like.
Re: Caesar and Mammon, it surprises me routinely that most people don't seem to regard morality the same way I do, namely as something very much of this world. It is not about play-acting as if one were in Heaven; it is about how to deal with the HERE AND NOW. It is profoundly pragmatic.
One of my ultimate favorite things, when sick, was to watch "The Price is Right." Yes, it is total consumer commodity propaganda. Yes, all the items one wins as prizes are not-so-subtle forms of commercial advertisement/product-placement. That said, these things are crass and obvious, even for Joe Sixpack. Further, I like to see all the common folks on the show, as I am working class and they remind me of my family, minus the Moo-Moos. 8)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moo%20moo
One thing I am interested in, re: Germany was how, prior to the 1930s, the nation's belief in the occult and paranormal skyrocketed. Belief in dragons, fairies, magic, UFOs, demonology and similar nonsense increased in leaps and bounds. My good friend from high school, Joey Cohen, said his family left in the 1920s, not because of anti-semitism (which was bad), but because they were afraid about people's growing lack of critical thinking skills. People were starting to believe whatever they were reading in the newspaper. People were basing major life decisions on horoscopes and zodiac stuff. Belief in Vampires was on the rise. His family was afraid of how this would impact anti-semitism and anti-intellectualism in the coming Germany.
Another pal of mine lived in Serbia in the 1970s-1990s. He said a similar phenomenon happened there prior to the genocides of the 1990s. Belief in the occult, paranormal and mysticism increased in leaps in bounds. He even quantified it in a college paper at the time.
All this stuff, media and how it can impact tolerance of injustice and how it can decrease a society's capability for sober, reflective, critical thought and analysis requires more study.
I believe much of this is a function of capitalism and its need to cater to the basest needs, most common element of society due to the profit motive...this in of itself warrants more study. Capitalism gives people what they want for the lowest costs. It not only tells them what they want, but caters to all of their wants, even those that aren't in their best interests. If we left the policy of mandatory public schooling in the US, for example, up to the free-market, most consumers would invariably choose to dumb it down, or abolish it all together, even if its not in their best interests.
My studies of the writings of the various folks of the Frankfurt School have been most illuminating, as have my recent forays into the New Left Review. We need to spread the word about folks like Habermas, Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer and Zizek on OS. Unlike the Baby Boom generation, my generation, generation X and Y--a whole generation of American liberals---is basically in the dark regarding their greatest intellectual champions.
My local Barnes and Noble recently stopped carrying the New Left Review, though. They have replaced it with the "objectivist" journal put out by the Ayn Rand society. 8(
This journal is called "The Objective Review."
The biggest article in there was how this large non-profit has raised over $152 Billion to teach "pro-capitalism" classes on American university campuses. How can the Left even combat that? $152 billion? Somebody should write an article about that!!!!!
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2010-fall/john-allison.asp
This is the essential "brilliance" of our system. Totalitarian societies, contrary to common perception, don't need subtle, persuasive propaganda. Any brutish, crude narrative will do. This is because brutal, physically violent coercion serves to keep the people docile, and serves to keep opposing views out of the public marketplace of ideas. As such, the "officially sanctioned gvt narrative" predominates.
This is impossible in a democratic capitalistic society such as ours. The Elites here need more nuanced and subtle ways to manage the masses. Since elections are keys to power, and people vote based on ideas, controling or managing how people think or feel is of the utmost importance for the Elite in our society. Even more important than in more brutal, authoritarian societies. They rule through "persuasion/manipulation," whereas abroad, in let's say, Iran, they rule through overt coercion.
That being said, all elites are basically the same. They want to preserve their wealth and power at all costs. Our laws and culture dictate the tools they can use to accomplish this. But their "will to power" is the same, in all socieities, based on their inherent "class position."
Feuerbach, a famous German philosopher discussed this in his essays on "reification." He developed this most clearly in his essay, "The Essence of Christianity."
His argument was basically that Christianity has had a bad tendency, as of late, in that we take all the good-virtues of humanity, such as compassion, humility, love, mercy, community, tenderness, forgiveness and such, and we project them onto what he considers to be an abstract, man-made deity (I am not an atheist and am quite Catholic, so I disagree with him re: the man-made aspect of God, regardless, his analysis of the sociological consequences of this psychological mechanism are quite illuminating).
In any event, by projecting these aspects of ourselves onto an abstract deity, we give it a "life" of its own, which is in mirror image to our own. We are then able, he says, to live a life in opposition to these very human virtues, because we have bifurcated them from our own essential "human essence." We thus feel like we have no need of compassion, mercy, community, forgiveness or tenderness, because these are things that belong to God and are for "Him" to dole out. Since we are not deities, we need not act in this matter. Bismarck once said, "Leave compassion to Christ, just give me the army," or something like this. This sort of sums-up what Feurbach was talking about.
Marx later took this concept of reification and, rather than use it to analyze man-deity relations, used it to analyze man-commodity relations. How we divorce aspects of humanity from our work product and invest commodities with abstract, human qualities and wisdom. "The invisible hand," the "wisdom of free markets," and the like. Its quite interesting and has much to do with what you mention above.
Some useful links for further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Essence_of_Christianity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(Marxism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
I agree with TV re: homosexual and inter-racial relationship acceptance.
However, Marxists say that changes in social mores occur due to changes in the means of production. As such, tolerance of various identity groups would merely mean that the capitalist system wishes to integrate a larger number of workers into the Bourgeois power-structure, so as to integrate them and make them interdependent with their own patronage/power system. Marcuse was big on this topic. "Repressive Tolerance" and "Integration of previously defiant groups."
If anything, wouldn't positive depictions of identity groups reflect nothing more than the Bourgeois-ification of said groups and their coming into the fold of the American power elite? This is good, of course, as the more diverse the Bourgeoisie becomes, the more fractures exist in it, the easier it is to rip assunder.
That being said, as you stated, it works both ways. As groups become integrated into the power structure, they develop a vested interest in protecting the power structure that has recently "emancipated" them.
This happened in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and was discussed at length by Marx and Engels, following the Revolutions of 1848, in which ethnic minorities (Czechs, Croats, Slovenes, Ruthenians and Serbs) were used to put down German and Hungarian pro-democratic revolts. These groups were formerly oppressed, but took up arms to "prove themselves" to the regime. Once the revolt was suppressed, the old power-relations re-asserted themselves.
I am not in opposition to the two-way street. But I think the two way street often serves those in power, more than anything else. It only takes on the appearance of moral progress, when in fact the decision to integrate was based on economic factors. If not, then the elite would never have supported it.
Look at the abolition of slavery. Its interesting that it never happened at the peak of the US agricultural economy, but only when agriculture started to become displaced by the ascendant northeastern industrial system. Marxists would say that this means that slavery was no longer profitable as a labor system for the new mechanisms, technology and modes of production and that as such, new relations of production (wage labor) were required, due to the increased fungibility of labor. The existence of slavery hindered the smooth transition to this system, so it was abolished.
Many "progressive" social movements are based, I believe, on the economic interests of the elite who mask their actions under a gauze of progress. I think the only true progress that can come about is economic. From this, all progress and enlightenment are born.
I wrote a post sometime back about Hitler and Socialism. It discusses how the Socialist movement has tried to avoid identity politics for the past 150 years, precisely because it has been, more often than not, a tool by which Established interests can divide and tear assunder the collective, unified economic interests of working folks. The history of antisemitism, which I discuss in said posts, was particularly instructive for Socialists in coming to this realization.
In Battleship Potemkin there is a famous scene that also addresses this issue.
I predict you'll become a revolutionary world leader when you manage to distill your ideas into meaningful, lucent, one-line mandates that can be immediately understood and embraced by the average person.