|
RE: Reality TV
|
Terence O'Leary
|
Apr 10, 2007 18:56 PDT
|
Bob,
Thanks for your work on the "fallacy" of "Reality TV."
I was surprised that you failed to include a preeminent example of your
"capitalism" model, when you did not include the "new" Donald Trump "You're
Fired" reality-TV show. Trump is prima facie
evidence of your theory. Donald Trump never "earned" a penny of his wealth,
he merely "expanded" upon his father's "real estate holdings."
Terence
MESSAGE FROM: psychoh-@topica.com
We have all observed with ironic appreciation the rise of =E2=80=9Creality T=
V.=E2=80=9D
As Jim Duffy has noted, it is a good rule of thumb in this technological
world to remember that the claims for a product usually mean the
opposite. For example, it is claimed that cell phones enhance
communication, yet people ignore those with whom they are face to face
in favor of cell phone banter.
Obviously, =E2=80=9Creality TV=E2=80=9D is not a vehicle for enhancing our a=
ppreciation
of reality.
What does it mean and why has it emerged now?
I have some reflections on this matter.
Please bear with me, as these involve a digression into some
particulars.
I watch much less sports than I used to because I find the spectacle of
men hurting men very distasteful.
Back in the 1990's a new sport emerged known as =E2=80=9Cmixed marshal arts,=
=E2=80=9D
MMA.
In the early days of MMA fighters from different disciplines opposed
each other. For example, a boxer might oppose a wrestler. Those who use
strikes and blows=E2=80=93boxers, karate, kick boxers and the like=E2=80=93a=
re called
strikers. Those who use grappling techniques, throws, holds=E2=80=93(collegi=
ate)
wrestlers, judo, jiu jitsu=E2=80=93are called grapplers.
I found this new sport intriguing for two reasons.
Firstly, something occurred which no one anticipated. Those with
grappling styles easily defeated those with striking styles. Boxers and
all styles of karate performed pathetically. They were thrown to the
grown by the grapplers and could hardly land a blow.
It is an interesting psychohistorical observation because the reason we
expected otherwise was simply the portrayal of super karate men in
martial arts movies. In such movies fighters whirl through the air
spinning their hands and kicking their feet and everyone they touch goes
flying backwards several yards quite in defiance of the laws of physics.
In the real world, for a blow to do any damage, the striker has to be
planted. Strikers can plant themselves against people who are striking
back (fighting under the same rules) but not against people who are
trying to throw them or take them down.
So MMA was dominated by wrestlers and jiu jitsu practitioners.
Not only was this a complete surprise, it produced fights which required
much skill and in which there were fewer injuries. Indeed, as a MMA
style of fighting emerged which included both grappling and striking,
rules had to be changed to keep the striking in it so one could still
see bloody noses and such. But this potential for less bloodshed was
also something that initially attracted me to MMA fighting.
I have followed, on and off and with disappointment, the rise of MMA.
The chief MMA organization in the US is called the Ultimate Fighting
Championship=E2=80=93UFC. There is also a major one in Japan called PRIDE.
MMA fighters today don=E2=80=99t fight in a special style anymore but
incorporate striking, grappling, and submission holds.
As I watched the UFC grow, I was waiting for the development of
tournaments or of a ranking system as we see in boxing, tennis, golf,
etc. Nothing like this emerged. There is a championship belt for each
weight class, but fighters are simply matched by the UFC.
There is also a =E2=80=9Creality TV=E2=80=9D show in which young competitors=
join teams
coached by established fighters and the teams compete with the winners
in each class getting a =E2=80=9Ccontract.=E2=80=9D
Fighters are drawn from the TV show, the PRIDE league, and other
disciplines and matched, more or less arbitrarily, in monthly shows
which are given a loose =E2=80=9Ctheme=E2=80=9D such as UFC: Revenge.
Because MMA fighting incorporates different components, even highly
skilled fighters are vulnerable to an errand punch or throw. This makes
it difficult to predict fights, which is not a bad thing. However,
without a system of ranking, there is no way to get a feel for the
relative competency of the fighters. This results in a great deal of
hyping, both before and after the fights. Every fight is billed as a
great match-up, though many turn out to be boring. After the fights,
this match is proclaimed the greatest ever and another fighter emerges
as the greatest.
In a recent competition, a fellow considered the greatest UFC fighter
lost. The fellow who beat him was then considered the greatest UFC
fighter. In a later fight in a different weight class, the outcome was
considered the greatest upset ever.
In the next month=E2=80=99s fights, the fellow newly considered the greatest
ever lost to a lesser opponent and the fight was called the greatest
upset ever.
There is a soap opera component to this which is absurd. In boxing (or
tennis or golf) it takes years to be considered =E2=80=9Cthe next great=E2=
=80=9D in the
sport and colossal upsets happen maybe once a decade. This is because
with tournaments and a ranking system, one can get a feel for the
relative ability of competitors.
This is exactly what MMA is avoiding. Instead of true sports history
where we measure a Mike Tyson or Tiger Woods against their peers and
against greats from the past, we have the instant history of the
hyper-real. One month, this fighter is the greatest ever, this fight is
the greatest ever; this upset is the greatest ever; the next month it
all changes.
Obviously, the terms =E2=80=9Cgreatest,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Cmost,=E2=80=9D and=
the like are not
meaningful.
This is the hyper-real. It is a form of =E2=80=9Creality television=E2=80=
=9D and in
reality television =E2=80=9Cart=E2=80=9D imitates life imitating =E2=80=9Car=
t.=E2=80=9D
I was led to this realization about the UFC while contemplating the
mother of all reality television: =E2=80=9CAmerican Idol.=E2=80=9D
If anyone doesn=E2=80=99t know, =E2=80=9CAmerican Idol=E2=80=9D is a putativ=
e singing
=E2=80=9Ccompetition=E2=80=9D in which contestants compete for contracts and=
tenure with
American Idol.
I do not know the actual details of the contracts but I doubt winning
contestants are =E2=80=9Cset for life.=E2=80=9D
The music industry has been getting away from a =E2=80=9Cstar system=E2=80=
=9D and record
companies tend to take on a new band or artist for a few albums, them
let them go and pick up another new artist.
We noted in our discussion of the UFC that there has been an
informalization of the appraisal process in order to create drama and
instant history.
This informalization is also evident in Idol, which is hardly a true
competition.
In true competitions, there is pre-screening, then contestants are
judged by professional judges using =E2=80=9Cobjective=E2=80=9D measures in=20=
different
categories. If the competition is lengthy, points are accumulated so a
point leader will not find herself in an all or nothing position in the
last round.
On Idol. The =E2=80=9Cpre-screening=E2=80=9D is a literal farce and one of t=
he big draws
of the show. More attention is paid to the zany acts than to those who
are allowed to proceed. For the most part, the pre-screening is very
arbitrary with now stern judges telling a talented vocalist that they
are not unique, then the same burnt out judges letting a clown pass to
the next round.
Eventually the very arbitrary judges are no longer rating the
contestants. Instead, viewers vote by calling and text messaging. The
technologically savvy among the viewers can flood the vote for those
they choose while tying up the lines of other contestants. Viewers can
vote as much as they like. The results of the votes are not disclosed by
the producers of Idol.
Two seasons ago it seemed that the best singer won and the format was
working. Last year, after a handful of singers were left, they seemed to
be eliminated in reverse order from the strongest to the weakest of the
few. This, of course, is no matter to producers, because it is not a
competition and only fuels interest and =E2=80=9Ccontroversy.=E2=80=9D
Yet, in their comments, the judges treat each performance as if its
quality will impact the results=E2=80=93=E2=80=9CIf you keep singing like th=
at, you=E2=80=99ll
be gone next week.=E2=80=9D
This informal, arbitrary process =E2=80=9Cincreases drama=E2=80=9D but also=20=
levels the
playing field. Someone needs to survive the vote each week until the
last week, not so the best singer can be determined, but so the boy or
girl next door can be crowned =E2=80=9CAmerican Idol.=E2=80=9D
This is the key to =E2=80=9Creality TV=E2=80=9D programs, particularly compe=
titions=E2=80=93and
I include the UFC in this=E2=80=93there is a rags to riches element which is
like =E2=80=9CThe American Dream=E2=80=9D on acid or in fast forward. With a
proliferation of these shows, virtually any day, one can turn on the
television and see the boy or girl next door being crowned the =E2=80=9Cbest=
=E2=80=9D
singer, genre singer, dancer, cook, model, designer, date, skater...
Even when these shows employ judges rather than voters, the same kind of
informal rules tend to attain. Just as in life, anyone can win and
anyone can be struck down suddenly. It is a curios amalgam of the myth
of the meritocracy with its opposite, the elimination of the measure of
merit. In true hyper-real fashion, a winner is crowned and a winner is
always a winner (if only nominally). The measures and methods which
truly allow a judgement and determination of achievement have been
eliminated, just as in the lottery commercials which punctuate such
shows in which the fellow in a poor job seeks an out buying a lottery
ticket. Yet this rags to riches dream is antagonistic to the idea of a
meritocracy.
This has always been an essential contradiction in capitalism. Early
capitalists sought to emulate the aristocracy because the early
capitalists were still servants to the old thinking: greatness is not
achieved, it is inborn.
Finally, capitalists sold the idea that greatness is achieved, not
inborn, but the measure of this achievement had to be wealth, which one
could get by mere inheritance or by being, say, a whore. Criticize
someone like Howard Stern and the inevitable retort comes: =E2=80=9CYou wish=
you
had his money.=E2=80=9D The having of money is greatness and success, even i=
f
one finds it in a suitcase.
Capitalists want to believe that those who have deserve to have=E2=80=93a
meritocracy. Yet the American dream is that anyone can have, that having
or getting is democratic.
The resolution of these competing myths is the hyper-real where there is
appearance without reality...
It remains to be observed that while television is crowded with =E2=80=9Crea=
lity
shows=E2=80=9D which, if they are not =E2=80=9Ccontest style=E2=80=9D are st=
ill filled with the
promise of a dramatic turn of events to be so declared by announcers or
producers, news shows more openly shy away from reality=E2=80=93reporting th=
e
war only if they are =E2=80=9Cembedded=E2=80=9D with troops and complying wi=
th
government expectations that they not show bodies being shipped back.
Again, the formal rules of real news gathering are compromised in
service to the hyper-real.
It also remains to be observed that all of this occurs as the standard
of living continues to decline. There are record foreclosures, consumer
debt is at an all time high, millions have no health care, full-time
work is more difficult to find, women and children swell the ranks of
the impoverished...
We do not get =E2=80=9Creality TV=E2=80=9D which documents the hardships of=20=
the poor. We
get the promise of rags to riches dramatic turn arounds. Terms like
=E2=80=9Cgreatness,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Csuccess=E2=80=9D achievement=E2=80=9D=20=
are made meaningless as the former
delineations and measurements are eschewed and a winner is simply
someone who is declared a winner without any further objective meaning
or sense.
As we work longer hours for less compensation; as our lives grow more
difficult and necessities move out of reach; as there is greater want
and greater instability; we are offered the compensation of the fantasy
that anyone can be a =E2=80=9Cwinner.=E2=80=9D
Best,
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Scharf [mailto:psycho-@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:16 PM
To: psychoh-@topica.com
Subject: PH Reality TV
MESSAGE FROM: psychoh-@topica.com
We have all observed with ironic appreciation the rise of =E2=80=9Creality T=
V.=E2=80=9D
As Jim Duffy has noted, it is a good rule of thumb in this technological
world to remember that the claims for a product usually mean the
opposite. For example, it is claimed that cell phones enhance
communication, yet people ignore those with whom they are face to face
in favor of cell phone banter.
Obviously, =E2=80=9Creality TV=E2=80=9D is not a vehicle for enhancing our a=
ppreciation
of reality.
What does it mean and why has it emerged now?
I have some reflections on this matter.
Please bear with me, as these involve a digression into some
particulars.
I watch much less sports than I used to because I find the spectacle of
men hurting men very distasteful.
Back in the 1990's a new sport emerged known as =E2=80=9Cmixed marshal arts,=
=E2=80=9D
MMA.
In the early days of MMA fighters from different disciplines opposed
each other. For example, a boxer might oppose a wrestler. Those who use
strikes and blows=E2=80=93boxers, karate, kick boxers and the like=E2=80=93a=
re called
strikers. Those who use grappling techniques, throws, holds=E2=80=93(collegi=
ate)
wrestlers, judo, jiu jitsu=E2=80=93are called grapplers.
I found this new sport intriguing for two reasons.
Firstly, something occurred which no one anticipated. Those with
grappling styles easily defeated those with striking styles. Boxers and
all styles of karate performed pathetically. They were thrown to the
grown by the grapplers and could hardly land a blow.
It is an interesting psychohistorical observation because the reason we
expected otherwise was simply the portrayal of super karate men in
martial arts movies. In such movies fighters whirl through the air
spinning their hands and kicking their feet and everyone they touch goes
flying backwards several yards quite in defiance of the laws of physics.
In the real world, for a blow to do any damage, the striker has to be
planted. Strikers can plant themselves against people who are striking
back (fighting under the same rules) but not against people who are
trying to throw them or take them down.
So MMA was dominated by wrestlers and jiu jitsu practitioners.
Not only was this a complete surprise, it produced fights which required
much skill and in which there were fewer injuries. Indeed, as a MMA
style of fighting emerged which included both grappling and striking,
rules had to be changed to keep the striking in it so one could still
see bloody noses and such. But this potential for less bloodshed was
also something that initially attracted me to MMA fighting.
I have followed, on and off and with disappointment, the rise of MMA.
The chief MMA organization in the US is called the Ultimate Fighting
Championship=E2=80=93UFC. There is also a major one in Japan called PRIDE.
MMA fighters today don=E2=80=99t fight in a special style anymore but
incorporate striking, grappling, and submission holds.
As I watched the UFC grow, I was waiting for the development of
tournaments or of a ranking system as we see in boxing, tennis, golf,
etc. Nothing like this emerged. There is a championship belt for each
weight class, but fighters are simply matched by the UFC.
There is also a =E2=80=9Creality TV=E2=80=9D show in which young competitors=
join teams
coached by established fighters and the teams compete with the winners
in each class getting a =E2=80=9Ccontract.=E2=80=9D
Fighters are drawn from the TV show, the PRIDE league, and other
disciplines and matched, more or less arbitrarily, in monthly shows
which are given a loose =E2=80=9Ctheme=E2=80=9D such as UFC: Revenge.
Because MMA fighting incorporates different components, even highly
skilled fighters are vulnerable to an errand punch or throw. This makes
it difficult to predict fights, which is not a bad thing. However,
without a system of ranking, there is no way to get a feel for the
relative competency of the fighters. This results in a great deal of
hyping, both before and after the fights. Every fight is billed as a
great match-up, though many turn out to be boring. After the fights,
this match is proclaimed the greatest ever and another fighter emerges
as the greatest.
In a recent competition, a fellow considered the greatest UFC fighter
lost. The fellow who beat him was then considered the greatest UFC
fighter. In a later fight in a different weight class, the outcome was
considered the greatest upset ever.
In the next month=E2=80=99s fights, the fellow newly considered the greatest
ever lost to a lesser opponent and the fight was called the greatest
upset ever.
There is a soap opera component to this which is absurd. In boxing (or
tennis or golf) it takes years to be considered =E2=80=9Cthe next great=E2=
=80=9D in the
sport and colossal upsets happen maybe once a decade. This is because
with tournaments and a ranking system, one can get a feel for the
relative ability of competitors.
This is exactly what MMA is avoiding. Instead of true sports history
where we measure a Mike Tyson or Tiger Woods against their peers and
against greats from the past, we have the instant history of the
hyper-real. One month, this fighter is the greatest ever, this fight is
the greatest ever; this upset is the greatest ever; the next month it
all changes.
Obviously, the terms =E2=80=9Cgreatest,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Cmost,=E2=80=9D and=
the like are not
meaningful.
This is the hyper-real. It is a form of =E2=80=9Creality television=E2=80=
=9D and in
reality television =E2=80=9Cart=E2=80=9D imitates life imitating =E2=80=9Car=
t.=E2=80=9D
I was led to this realization about the UFC while contemplating the
mother of all reality television: =E2=80=9CAmerican Idol.=E2=80=9D
If anyone doesn=E2=80=99t know, =E2=80=9CAmerican Idol=E2=80=9D is a putativ=
e singing
=E2=80=9Ccompetition=E2=80=9D in which contestants compete for contracts and=
tenure with
American Idol.
I do not know the actual details of the contracts but I doubt winning
contestants are =E2=80=9Cset for life.=E2=80=9D
The music industry has been getting away from a =E2=80=9Cstar system=E2=80=
=9D and record
companies tend to take on a new band or artist for a few albums, them
let them go and pick up another new artist.
We noted in our discussion of the UFC that there has been an
informalization of the appraisal process in order to create drama and
instant history.
This informalization is also evident in Idol, which is hardly a true
competition.
In true competitions, there is pre-screening, then contestants are
judged by professional judges using =E2=80=9Cobjective=E2=80=9D measures in=20=
different
categories. If the competition is lengthy, points are accumulated so a
point leader will not find herself in an all or nothing position in the
last round.
On Idol. The =E2=80=9Cpre-screening=E2=80=9D is a literal farce and one of t=
he big draws
of the show. More attention is paid to the zany acts than to those who
are allowed to proceed. For the most part, the pre-screening is very
arbitrary with now stern judges telling a talented vocalist that they
are not unique, then the same burnt out judges letting a clown pass to
the next round.
Eventually the very arbitrary judges are no longer rating the
contestants. Instead, viewers vote by calling and text messaging. The
technologically savvy among the viewers can flood the vote for those
they choose while tying up the lines of other contestants. Viewers can
vote as much as they like. The results of the votes are not disclosed by
the producers of Idol.
Two seasons ago it seemed that the best singer won and the format was
working. Last year, after a handful of singers were left, they seemed to
be eliminated in reverse order from the strongest to the weakest of the
few. This, of course, is no matter to producers, because it is not a
competition and only fuels interest and =E2=80=9Ccontroversy.=E2=80=9D
Yet, in their comments, the judges treat each performance as if its
quality will impact the results=E2=80=93=E2=80=9CIf you keep singing like th=
at, you=E2=80=99ll
be gone next week.=E2=80=9D
This informal, arbitrary process =E2=80=9Cincreases drama=E2=80=9D but also=20=
levels the
playing field. Someone needs to survive the vote each week until the
last week, not so the best singer can be determined, but so the boy or
girl next door can be crowned =E2=80=9CAmerican Idol.=E2=80=9D
This is the key to =E2=80=9Creality TV=E2=80=9D programs, particularly compe=
titions=E2=80=93and
I include the UFC in this=E2=80=93there is a rags to riches element which is
like =E2=80=9CThe American Dream=E2=80=9D on acid or in fast forward. With a
proliferation of these shows, virtually any day, one can turn on the
television and see the boy or girl next door being crowned the =E2=80=9Cbest=
=E2=80=9D
singer, genre singer, dancer, cook, model, designer, date, skater...
Even when these shows employ judges rather than voters, the same kind of
informal rules tend to attain. Just as in life, anyone can win and
anyone can be struck down suddenly. It is a curios amalgam of the myth
of the meritocracy with its opposite, the elimination of the measure of
merit. In true hyper-real fashion, a winner is crowned and a winner is
always a winner (if only nominally). The measures and methods which
truly allow a judgement and determination of achievement have been
eliminated, just as in the lottery commercials which punctuate such
shows in which the fellow in a poor job seeks an out buying a lottery
ticket. Yet this rags to riches dream is antagonistic to the idea of a
meritocracy.
This has always been an essential contradiction in capitalism. Early
capitalists sought to emulate the aristocracy because the early
capitalists were still servants to the old thinking: greatness is not
achieved, it is inborn.
Finally, capitalists sold the idea that greatness is achieved, not
inborn, but the measure of this achievement had to be wealth, which one
could get by mere inheritance or by being, say, a whore. Criticize
someone like Howard Stern and the inevitable retort comes: =E2=80=9CYou wish=
you
had his money.=E2=80=9D The having of money is greatness and success, even i=
f
one finds it in a suitcase.
Capitalists want to believe that those who have deserve to have=E2=80=93a
meritocracy. Yet the American dream is that anyone can have, that having
or getting is democratic.
The resolution of these competing myths is the hyper-real where there is
appearance without reality...
It remains to be observed that while television is crowded with =E2=80=9Crea=
lity
shows=E2=80=9D which, if they are not =E2=80=9Ccontest style=E2=80=9D are st=
ill filled with the
promise of a dramatic turn of events to be so declared by announcers or
producers, news shows more openly shy away from reality=E2=80=93reporting th=
e
war only if they are =E2=80=9Cembedded=E2=80=9D with troops and complying wi=
th
government expectations that they not show bodies being shipped back.
Again, the formal rules of real news gathering are compromised in
service to the hyper-real.
It also remains to be observed that all of this occurs as the standard
of living continues to decline. There are record foreclosures, consumer
debt is at an all time high, millions have no health care, full-time
work is more difficult to find, women and children swell the ranks of
the impoverished...
We do not get =E2=80=9Creality TV=E2=80=9D which documents the hardships of=20=
the poor. We
get the promise of rags to riches dramatic turn arounds. Terms like
=E2=80=9Cgreatness,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9Csuccess=E2=80=9D achievement=E2=80=9D=20=
are made meaningless as the former
delineations and measurements are eschewed and a winner is simply
someone who is declared a winner without any further objective meaning
or sense.
As we work longer hours for less compensation; as our lives grow more
difficult and necessities move out of reach; as there is greater want
and greater instability; we are offered the compensation of the fantasy
that anyone can be a =E2=80=9Cwinner.=E2=80=9D
Best,
Bob
To subscribe go to psychohistor-@topica.com
To unsubscribe go to psychohistory-@topica.com
|
|
 |
|
