I may actually have to re-evaluate my opinions on The Simpsons. That study done by Alters put me in the uncomfortable position of seeing my own hypocritical views on the show through those two families. Then again, maybe I would just like the show better if it wasn't a comedy... but then it wouldn't be The Simpsons, would it? Perhaps there are unresolvable conflicts of interest.
On a tenuously related note, did anyone think that the two families that Alters did her case study on were similar to the families in Wife Swap?
I found the second family in Alters' article to be amazingly selfish and contradictory. First, the whole "serial employment" notion strikes me as unbelievably selfish and against the best interests of the children. Alters says, "The Garcias' economic arrangements were aimed at helping the children excel at book-based learning in order to secure a claim to the middle class." Yet, Bob exercises a "Do as I say, not as I do" philosophy with his children as he cannot help but watch "The Simpsons" and allow his children to do the same.
ReplyDeleteThe parents justify their children watching the show by pointing out their children's ability to read "The Simpsons" as they would a literary text. Try as they might to secure themselves in the middle class, they are typical of most families who lean on television in their daily lives. And Alters touches on this. It entertains, it distracts, and it babysits. Really, what the serial employment allowed was more time for the father to watch "The Simpsons."
That's an interesting interpretation, Roy. I didn't see it that way at all. I was actually really happy that the parents worked so hard to be around the kids. But now that you mention it, that is a pretty bad example that he's setting.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I would have to disagree with you that TV is bad as a daily thing. TV of late has had better writing than most of the recent movies. And, if you look at us film students, we're constantly "reading" TV and movies. Maybe I'm just not seeing where you're coming from. Whenever I watched TV or movies with my parents they would constantly remark on the behaviors portrayed by the characters, evaluating the morality of it and helping me to understand it.
I would argue that television is still a very counterproductive and pernicious instrument. To me, "better writing" translates to more addictive plot twists and hooks from premium cable shows and more placative, idealistic dialogue from network television series'. These attributes don't invoke introspection. At best, network "family programming" is usually promoting a sappy sense of social change that they would like you to feel has already taken shape. At worst, television universally is very rarely made with a purpose outside of monetization. Unlike film, television is very, very rarely ever made with the intention to express some form of moralistic or revelatory outlook on life at the pocket's expense. Then again, people apparently don't want these types of values anyways (which are coincidentally pervasive in actual reading), so who is really to blame?
ReplyDeleteOn the notion of The Simpsons and these two families, I find it interesting that neither family ever commented on the purpose of the show. Unlike 99% of television, The Simpsons has clear intentions and provocations in its text: to criticize the patriarchal norms and contradictions of the American middle class. I find it extremely troubling that the father of the second family could not associate this to his liking of The Simpsons, as this makes me wonder if the show is even successfully translating these ideas to the masses if all one can say to justify its watching is "it's cute, it's funny." While I didn't appreciate the author's assumptions that the family's answers were unknowingly (to the families, apparently) spawned from ignorant associations and ideals with middle class veneers, it makes me wonder if such rude assumptions are a necessary evil...