“Democracy as ‘self-government’ is thus reliant upon the technical procedures, such as the ones that we have discussed that mediate the government of the self. From this starting point, we can begin to figure out how televisual techniques and technologies become instrumental within the arrangement, experiments, and rationalities of government, and particularly how these technical procedures and rationalities of government support particular democratic states and their constitutions — even as these techniques are continually modified and replaced.” (Ouelette and Hay,206)
In Ouellette and Hays’ formative scholarship on reality television, they illustrate the relationship between reality television’s techniques and techniques of democratic governing. Countering the optimistic valence of scholarship on how television courts a participatory mode of viewing/engaging, Ouellette and Hay demonstrate that democracy and modes of democratic participation are not fixed. Rather, “democracy is always a provisional achievement, involving on-going failures and break-downs and whose technical procedures provisionally allow citizens to govern themselves actively and responsibly” (206). The authors further contend that “reality TV offers demonstrations in group participation and governance” (215). We use two series, Style by Jury and Survivor, to illustrate the ways in which reality television represents group governance under the organizing logics of neoliberalism.
The TLC reality television series Style by Jury is a makeover show conceived as a spin-off of the Canadian show of the same name. In each episode, a makeover candidate would, unbeknownst to them, be judged on their physical first impressions during a “preliminary” interview by a jury of nine strangers hidden behind a two-way mirror. After the reveal and the playing of a recording of the panel’s derogatory comments, the candidate is more-or-less shocked into an intensive one week makeover, which is evaluated by a second panel of strangers at the end of the seven days.
In the clip we have selected, the host of the series is adamant about the importance of first impressions. The host’s introduction demonstrates how the series relies on neoliberalism's emphasis on success being the result for a self-enterprising subject. The jury’s commentary is layered with critiques outlining the myriad ways the subject has failed herself. First, she “looks homeless.” Instead of understanding homelessness as an increasing reality for a broad swath of Americans as the social safety net is decimated and affordable housing is hard to find, homelessness can be demonstrated through a certain look. This doubles as an admonishment of the episode’s subject as someone who is not performing her class status in a way that will likely cut her off from further opportunity. Notably, another jury member notes that she looks as if she does farm work. Additionally, a jury member asserts that she looks like she “doesn’t care about herself.” After all, under neoliberal capitalism where individuals must assume responsibility for their socio-economic realities, “looking like you care about yourself” becomes paramount.
Most notable in this clip, is the actual jury. We have a very obvious form of group governance being demonstrated in this clip. Style by Jury adopts a form of participation in the U.S.’s democracy as a form of entertainment yes, but critically it also demonstrates to viewers the ways that we are expected to participate in liberal democracy. After the jury finishes with their scathing comments, they vote on whether or not the subject needs a makeover. Of course, we find it hard to imagine an instance in this show where the vote is a no, further demonstrating how reality television illustrates particular technologies of group governance.
The concept of “self-enterprise” and “self-reliance” are evident in Style by Jury in the sense that the jury’s initial evaluation of the participant is subsequently shown to the participant. The participants face the “reality” of the moment, or the show’s structure, in which they essentially feel bad enough about themselves that they presumably change their behavior and lifestyle for the rest of the episode. The seemingly unquestionability of the show’s structure for the rest of each episode reflects the neoliberal self, or neoliberal democracy, insofar as the participant is responsible for their social and cultural failures and thus must take it upon themselves to ensure their success. The idea of group governance informs the show through the use of the two juries. The jury’s evaluation of the participants effectively informs, and subsequently governs, the participant through their scathing comments. However, these comments were met with little to no resistance from the participants. The comments were effectively self-evident and thus true to the extent that the participant will makeover themselves for the second jury’s evaluation. The second jury’s evaluation affirms the self-enterprise and self-reliance of the contestant through comments that were positive in comparison to the initially negative comments. Ultimately, Style by Jury’s structure continues to perpetuate itself for the rest of it’s seasons, and reflects some ways in which neoliberal ideas of the “self” and self-governance are sustained in the “real world”--that is, the structures of society and the show’s structures are not somehow responsible for the “realities” of the citizen or the contestant, but that the citizen and contestant must play the rules of the game, show, society.
These tendencies also find themselves apparent in CBS’ Survivor. Literally a survival show, the series places 20 “castaways” on an island where they must contend with surviving with minimal resources (providing food, water, and other necessities by themselves) while also competing for the ultimate grand prize: $1,000,000. Though the series is an individual competition, the contestants are placed in teams where the losing team of the week is voted off in a tribal council of their peers, ultimately determining who the last man standing will be.
In the tribal council clip from Survivor, it is clear how self-reliance is an inherent characteristic for Kimmy and Jeremy, but even more, it’s built into the very structure of the show. The sheer existence of a hidden immunity idol denotes that to be successful and remain in the competition, one must be unquestionably self-reliant. The neoliberal structures of the show (which value monetary success and individual exceptionalism) are unquestioned by contestants as they use these rules to attain both an exclusive status as the “Sole Survivor” and a hefty $1 million prize. The very concept of a tribal council, similar to Style by Jury’s panel, reflects Hay and Ouellette’s analysis of The Apprentice and the ways the show illustrates “where public and private government intersect” (215). The tribal council here is a clear example of group governance, where the members of the group, by vote, determine who remains as players in the neoliberal pursuit. It’s an adoption of a jury system, but undermines it by allowing those on the “chopping block” a way out through the very concepts of self-reliance and self-enterprise: the hidden immunity idol. Though the clip cuts off as they reveal there have been technically 0 votes for the first time in Survivor history, the episode later concludes with a re-vote and a blindsiding departure for a clueless contestant. Though the outcome was initially manipulated by Kimmy and Jeremy, the voting process remained successful and implemented, demonstrating another way group governance is affirmed in reality television.
As demonstrated by these different examples of types of reality television, which incorporate both competitive and self-improvement strands of the overarching genre, Ouellette and Hays’ argument can be taken to reflect reality television’s relationship to democracy and governance.
-Jackie, Ryan Swen, Anthony, Maddie
No comments:
Post a Comment