Turning An Academic Lens on Reality TV
Let’s start by putting this out there. Danielle J. Lindemann is a sociologist and an Associate Professor at Lehigh University. On her website, the “About Me” page ends with the following line: “In my downtime, I’m a fan of crossword puzzles and really, really terrible reality television.” Fortunately for us readers and also television watchers, Lindemann has mined her downtime passion to write a very readable academic book that dwells on Reality TV without dismissing it. After all, across the world, we can definitely aver that Reality TV is here to stay. It’s now stitched into all our “realities”, even if one claims to be someone who never watches these shows.
I haven’t watched most of the shows that Lindemann has. But I have watched Indian Matchmaking – the show that features the jet-setting Sima Aunty, who has spawned a legion of internet memes and jokes. And who is much derided on Twitter for perpetuating stereotypes and inequities of various sorts. Honestly, I haven’t watched the show for lofty academic purposes, but for base ones: as in, for gossipy, voyeuristic reasons. Because it’s fun to watch diasporic (and Indian) couples fumble through the matchmaking business, all this while being tracked by cameras.
But I, too, like the viewers that Lindemann describes, have felt weirdly guilty about admitting to this. I recommend the show to others with an apologetic caveat: “If you’re in the mood for something mindless, then I suggest...”
So it was honestly a relief to find someone like Lindemann, who hasn’t been watching such shows mindlessly, but mindfully. And is unapologetic about relishing some of the more outrageous ones. And has managed to turn what we Indians would call a “timepass” activity into study material.
Reality TV Reflects Our Social Environment
As an academic, Danielle has always been intrigued by notions of gender, sexuality and deviance. For instance, her previous book focused on Commuter Spouses, on couples who were forced to live geographically apart for professional reasons.
In paying attention to some of the “extremes” that Reality TV thrusts into our living rooms, True Story dwells on how these participants delineate social and cultural shifts. As Lindemann puts it in an interview about her book: “While Reality TV is often called whacky, we can watch it to come to a better understanding of ourselves.” Of course, in a study like this, it might be worthwhile to define Reality TV. After all, documentaries or news would not fall into this genre, despite dealing with “real” affairs.
What Is Reality TV?
Aware that definitions of social constructs can be problematic, Lindemann says that in broad part, any TV show that purports to entertain viewers with real people, supposedly playing themselves, would fall into this category. Most people trace the origins of this genre to The Real World, which premiered on MTV in the U.S. in the early ‘90s. While certain dating shows in the 1960s might also fall into this category, The Real World pioneered many of the formats and techniques that are prevalent across such shows, including:
- Character or Narrative arcs that extend over a season
- Talking heads or confessionals – people explaining their actions or dialogues in retrospect.
Race, Class And Gender Hierarchies are Reinforced
The Real World primarily featured white, heterosexual couples, but it showed participants engaging in very profound conversations about gender, race and religion in a manner that television viewers hadn’t witnessed till then. Lindemann points out that the show, by reproducing white privilege, was also holding up a mirror to its prevalence in the U.S. The Bachelor similarly carries pointers about gender, race and social class, and also about the way in which singles often prioritize “sameness” while picking partners.
Moreover, people of colour are often slotted into tropes or stereotypes. For example, The Bachelor does not have any Asian men, who according to Lindemann, are often dismissed as “technical robots.” In general, while negative stereotypes are perpetuated, some scholars also point out that cast members do challenge or resist these stereotypes.
Like race, sexuality is rarely accorded diverse or inclusive representation. Gay cast members usually tend to be white men and bisexual men are rarely featured. Danielle observes, “it’s a very narrow version of queer sexuality.” Most of the queer diversity permitted tends to feed the male gaze.
Notions of Motherhood in The Kardashians
Keeping Up With The Kardashians might be flashing many simultaneous messages. But one of its thrusts is on motherhood – reflecting norms that characterize good and bad mothers. In The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood, the author Sharon Hays proposed that a new ideology of “intense mothering” had developed in opposition to the role women play in the workplace. The intense mothers were expected to more or less be the sole caretakers of their children, with a parenting approach that was “child-centered, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labour-intensive and financially expensive.”
Mothers are expected to inhabit a perfect middle-ground, to be intense without helicoptering their children. They can’t be negligent either. In The Kardashians, Kris Jenner is often castigated for veering between two extremes: over-involvement and neglect. As Lindemann puts it, “Kris Jenner does not hit that sweet spot.” Some viewers can feel better about their own mothering skills by watching Kris Jenner get it all wrong. In some senses, the show perpetuates a rather conservative view on mothering, rather than challenging notions that women should be primary caregivers.
A Remaking of Childhoods
Moreover, deviance from certain conservative or liberal norms are often shown as “bad”. While kids are sexualized in certain shows – think dance shows, or child talent shows, kid beauty contests – childhood is also constructed as a space, in which children retain their innocence. And needs to be protected from adult fantasies and desires. However, kids are also expected to master adult-like skills – whether on junior cooking shows, or music and dance shows. When these child stars are already performing at pro-levels, it also brings into question about what childhood really is. Does it still exist as a separate space in most households?
Class Differences Among Viewers
The fragmentation of viewers among reality shows also throw up class distinctions. After all, friends and neighbours are likely to connect over certain shows, signalling a certain “taste” – which like all cultural attributes, are often shaped by socioeconomic positions. In Entitled: Discriminating Tastes and the Expansion of the Arts, the sociologist Jennifer Lena argues that although elites have broadened their vistas to include many “pop” or “lowbrow” forms of culture, a social hierarchy remains intact. So as Lindemann points out, with Reality TV, middle class audiences might distance themselves from “slumming” or working class shows.
Donald Trump and Reality TV
Of course, Lindemann could not conclude the book without dwelling on the world-famous “Reality Star” who occupied the White House – Donald Trump. Trump’s ascent to the Presidency also reinforced what a significant role Reality TV has started playing across societies. Trump exploited viewer scepticism towards Reality Shows to shake the public’s belief in any reality. The idea of “Fake News” was bolstered by a perception that everything might be fake in show business and in life.
We Cannot Dismiss Reality TV
In general though, Danielle argues that we cannot occupy a judgmental, snobby distance from Reality TV. And it’s not as if cast members – in comparison to professional actors – do not possess special skills. After all, as a sociologist, she is acutely aware that even “skills” are merely a construct. For example, she says that she can wiggle each ear independently. However, since this skill has no market or social value, it does not fall into acceptable notions of talent.
She also champions Reality TV’s ability to “scribble wildly outside the lines.” By showing us exaggerated and outrageous forms of behaviour, by shattering certain conventions and norms, they help us question those “norms”.
These shows also perform a role similar to celebrity gossip. They foster social cohesion among viewers, substituting for the kind of community or village gossip that might have held folks together in earlier times. After all, nothing forges friendship better than a shared revulsion towards someone – and better still, if that person is a relatable, ordinary TV character that you are unlikely to encounter in person.
Another valid question that Lindemann asks is why reality shows are considered more disgusting or degrading to watch, than let’s say sports? As she puts it, “Maybe we’re reticent to admit we watch these shows because we think their participants’ behavior reflects on us.”
References
Danielle J. Lindemann, True Story: What Reality TV Says About Us, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2022