Class Divisions in Serial Television

Sieglinde Lemke, Wibke Schniedermann, Sieglinde Lemke, Wibke Schniedermann

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781137594488
• eBook ISBN: 9781137594495
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Film & Video

This book brings the emergent interest in social class and inequality to the field of television studies. It reveals how the new visibility of class matters in serial television functions aesthetically and examines the cultural class politics articulated in these programmes. This ground-breaking volume argues that reality and quality TV's intricate politics of class entices viewers not only to grapple with previously invisible socio-economic realities but also to reconsider their class alignment. The stereotypical ways of framing class are now supplemented by those dedicated to exposing the economic and socio-psychological burdens of the (lower) middle class. The case studies in this book demonstrate how sophisticated narrative techniques coincide with equally complex ways of exposing class divisions in contemporary American life and how the examined shows disrupt the hegemonic order of class. The volume therefore also invites a rethinking of conventional models of social stratification. 

Part I
(Di)Vision: “Lower” Class Televisibility

© The Author(s) 2016

Sieglinde Lemke and Wibke Schniedermann (eds.)Class Divisions in Serial Television10.1057/978-1-137-59449-5_2

Begin Abstract

Framing Class, Vicarious Living, and Conspicuous Consumption

Diana Kendall¹

(1)

Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA

End Abstract

The world leadership qualities of the USA, once so prevalent, are fading faster than the polar ice caps. We once set the standard for industrial might, for the advanced state of our physical infrastructure, and for the quality of our citizens’ lives. All are experiencing significant decline … At a time when a college education is needed more than ever to establish and maintain a middle-class standard of living, America’s young people are moving in exactly the wrong direction … Instead of exercising the appropriate mental muscles, we’re allowing ourselves to become a nation of nitwits, obsessed with the coming and going of Lindsay Lohan and increasingly oblivious to crucially important societal issues that are all but screaming for attention …. We no longer know how to put our people to work. We read less and less and write like barbarians. We’ve increasingly turned our backs on the very idea of hard-won excellence while flinging open the doors to decadence and decline. No wonder Lady Gaga and Snooki from “Jersey Shore” are cultural “heroes”. ¹

These words from New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in a piece titled “Putting Our Brains on Hold” may sound harsh; however, for many years, Herbert has framed his articles and blogs to call attention to numerous pressing social problems worldwide, including vast and growing economic inequality, high rates of un- and underemployment, and massive homelessness and poverty. It is no surprise, therefore, that Herbert’s words have become more strident as he has wearied of being a lone voice in the wilderness calling for significant changes before these major economic and social problems overcome us. The first edition of Framing Class, published in 2005, argued that the media often trivialize heavy topics, such as class and social inequality. Clearly, journalists like Herbert are the exception to this statement, and more media have shifted their framing of class-related articles and entertainment programs as the USA has experienced persistent economic problems in the 2000s.

The first edition of Framing Class also posited that the media encourage overconsumption among people of all classes, particularly those who seek to emulate the rich—whether or not they can afford to do so. Chapter 7 of Framing Class began with a TV critic’s statement that Paris Hilton, a wealthy celebrity and occasional reality TV star, like others who are “famous for being famous,” could take “the heaviest of topics and make them weightless as a social X-ray.” ² That critic’s point was well made: media representations of inequality frequently make light of the problems of the poor and working class while emphasizing the values and virtues of the middle class and celebrating the luxurious lifestyles and material possessions of those in the top tier of the social hierarchy, regardless of how they may have accumulated these possessions. Previously, I placed most of the blame on journalists, entertainment writers, and web content providers who seemed insensitive or oblivious to class-based inequality:

Rather than providing a meaningful analysis of inequality and showing realistic portrayals of life in various social classes, the media either play class differences for laughs or sweep the issue of class under the rug so that important distinctions are rendered invisible. By ignoring class or trivializing it, the media involve themselves in a social construction of reality that rewards the affluent and penalizes the working class and the poor. ³

Although my newer data largely confirm this statement, the Great Recession of the 2000s, for which there was no end in sight as of 2011, is apparently affecting how some journalists, bloggers, and entertainment writers represent the growing economic problems of individuals and the nation as a whole.

Throughout Framing Class, I have provided many examples of how the media frame class and the messages these framing devices may convey to audiences. In this chapter I look at the sociological implications of how framing contributes to our understanding of class and leads us either to try to emulate other people or to take the ostrich approach, sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring the everyday realities that surround us. First, we look at two questions: How do media audiences understand and act upon popular culture images or frames? Do we understand class differently today because of these frames?

Media Framing and the Performance of Class in Everyday Life

In a mass-mediated culture such as ours, the media do not simply mirror society; rather, they help to shape it and to create cultural perceptions. ⁴ The blurring between what is real and what is not encourages people to emulate the upper classes and shun the working class and the poor. Television shows, magazines, and newspapers sell the idea that the only way to get ahead is to identify with the rich and powerful and to live vicariously through them. From sitcoms to reality shows, the media encourage ordinary people to believe that they may rise to fame and fortune; they too can be the next winner of the lottery or American Idol. Constantly bombarded by stories about the lifestyles of the rich and famous, viewers feel a sense of intimacy with elites, with whom they have little or no contact in their daily lives. ⁵ According to social critic bell hooks, we over-identify with the wealthy because the media socialize us to believe that people in the upper classes are better than we are. The media also suggest that we owe no allegiance to people in our own class or to those who are less fortunate. ⁶

Many people’s reading and viewing habits and their patterns of consumption reflect vicarious living—that is, the tendency to watch how other individuals live rather than to experience life for ourselves—through media representations of wealth and success. According to hooks, television promotes hedonistic consumerism:

Largely through marketing and advertising, television promoted the myth of the classless society, offering on one hand images of an American dream fulfilled wherein any and everyone can become rich and on the other suggesting that the lived experience of this lack of class hierarchy was expressed by our equal right to purchase anything we could afford. ⁷

As hooks suggests, equality does not exist in contemporary society, but media encourage audiences to view themselves as having an “equal right” to purchase items that will somehow render them equal to people above them in the social-class hierarchy. However, the catch is that we must actually be able to afford these purchases. Manufacturers and the media have dealt with this problem by offering relatively cheap products that buyers can purchase without actually having the money to pay for them. ⁸

The media’s framing of stories about class does make a difference in how we think about other people and how we spend our money. Media frames constitute a mental shortcut (schema) that helps us formulate our thoughts.

The Upper Classes: Affluence and Consumerism Make People Happy

Although some media frames show the rich and famous in a negative manner, they still glorify the material possessions and lifestyles of the upper classes. Research has found that people who extensively watch television have exaggerated views of how wealthy most US residents are and of the material possessions they own. Studies have also found that extensive television viewing leads to higher rates of spending and lower savings, presumably because television stimulates consumer desires. ⁹

For many years, most media framing of stories about the upper classes has been positive, ranging from consensus framing, which depicts the wealthy as being like everyone else, to admiration framing, which portrays them as generous, caring individuals. The frame most closely associated with rampant consumerism is emulation framing, which suggests that people in all classes should reward themselves with a few of the perks of the wealthy, such as a larger house, a more luxurious vehicle, or better jewelry. The writers of television shows like Platinum Weddings, The Fabulous Life, and Keeping Up with the Kardashians rely heavily not only on admiration framing but on price-tag framing, according to which a person’s worth is measured by what he or she owns and how many assistants cater to his or her whims. In this world, the people with the most expensive limousines, yachts, and jets are declared the winners in life. Reality shows like American Idol, America’s Got Talent, and The Apprentice suggest that anyone can move up the class ladder and live like the rich if he or she displays the best looks, greatest talent, or sharpest entrepreneurial skills. No wonder economist Juliet B. Schor finds that the overriding goal of children aged ten to thirteen is to get rich. In response to the statement “I want to make a lot of money when I grow up,” 63 percent of the children in Schor’s study agreed, whereas only 7 percent disagreed. ¹⁰

Many adults who hope to live the good life simply plunge further into debt. Many reports show that middle- and working-class US consumers are incurring massive consumer debts as they purchase larger houses, more expensive vehicles, and many other items beyond their means. According to one analyst, media portrayals of excessive consumer spending and bombardment by credit card advertisements encourage people to increase their debt. ¹¹ Consequently, some people with average incomes who aspire to the lives of luxury of the upper classes have instead found themselves spending their way into the poor house, joining members of the impoverished class. According to a Pew Research Center study, “Inside the Middle Class: Bad Times Hit the Good Life,” middle-income US-Americans have spent more and borrowed more since the 1980s, in large part for housing. Many families bought new single-family dwellings, which are about 50 percent larger than in the past, and existing houses were about 60 percent more expensive (in inflation-adjusted dollars) in 2008 than in the mid-1980s. ¹² According to this study, increased consumerism, even by those who cannot afford it, relates to the vastly expanding supply of goods to purchase and services to desire:

Goods and services that didn’t exist a few decades ago—such as high definition television, high speed internet, and cable or satellite subscriptions—have become commonplace consumer items. And the costs of many of the anchors of a middle class lifestyle—not just housing, but medical care and college education—have risen more sharply than inflation. ¹³

As working-class and middle-income people saw the rich grow increasingly wealthy and the income gap between the rich and everyone else continue to grow, until it was the highest it had been in thirty years, they found it extremely tempting to buy houses with adjustable-rate mortgages, which initially made the property affordable; then, monthly payments would spiral upward, making it impossible for owners to keep up with their mortgage payments and all the monthly expenses associated with the property.

As wealthy elites have publicly run afoul of the law and media coverage has intensified about financial tycoons’ improprieties and excessive spending, some journalists, late-night talk show hosts, cable TV network talking heads, and social media bloggers have berated these so-called masters of the universe. Despite condemning the actions of unscrupulous individuals, however, many people still hold a grudging admiration for those who manage to accumulate the trappings of wealth and success, regardless of how they do so. Many corporate CEOs and financial executives, such as hedge-fund managers accused of civil or criminal offenses, have exited their organizations with golden parachutes—severance packages that amount to millions or billions in cash and stock options. Ironically, people view some scoundrels leaving such parachutes as winners because, in their own perverse way, they have achieved the American Dream, just not in the traditional manner. Media framing of stories about the wealthy and unscrupulous continues to exhibit grudging admiration, mixed with disdain, for the illegal actions of elites: the media spotlight highlights their prominence in society and vividly describes the lavish trappings of their success. Occasionally, when it looks like getting ahead is a game that only the already wealthy can play, people in other classes become angry about the exclusionary nature of the winner-takes-all society in which business as usual is an exclusive private club. Secretly, many people wish that they had the wealth and benefits of the upper classes without having to face some of the problems affluent people experience. According to a social analyst quoted in the New York Times:

There’s always been envy and hatred toward the rich, but there was also a strong undercurrent of admiration that was holding these people up as a goal. This time it’s different because it feels like it’s a closed club and the rich have an unfair advantage … But the same people who say that money is bad say that money is connected to their self-worth—and they wished they had it and you didn’t. ¹⁴

The Poor and Homeless: “Not Me!”—Negative Role Models in the Media

The sharpest contrasts in media portrayals are between depictions of people in the upper classes a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• Introduction: Class Di_visions and the Cultural Politics of Serial TV
• 1. (Di)Vision: “Lower” Class Televisibility
• 2. Di*Visions: Screening Exploitation, Neoliberal Lies, and Class Realignment
• Backmatter