Musings Report #3 1-18-14 What Does Mainstream TV Say (indirectly) About America?

You are receiving this email because you are one of the 400+ subscribers/major contributors to www.oftwominds.com.

For those who are new to the Musings reports: they are basically a glimpse into my notebook,the unfiltered swamp where I organize future themes, sort through the dozens of stories and links submitted by readers, refine my own research and start connecting dots which appear later in the blog or in my books. As always, I hope the Musings spark new appraisals and insights. Thank you for supporting the site and for inviting me into your circle of correspondents.

My January request for renewal of your support in 2014

Every January, I send out a request to those contributors who need to renew their support of the site in 2014 to continue receiving the Musings Reports. Rattling the tin cup is far from my favorite thing to do, but subscribers and major contributors like you enable the site to post and archive 275+ free essays every year. My goal in the Musings Reports is to provide some value that is significantly beyond the expense of supporting oftwominds.com via occasional insight or amusement. To everyone who responded to the request--your support is greatly appreciated.

What Does Mainstream TV Say (indirectly) About America?

By its very nature as a mass shared experience, popular entertainment practically begs for a subtextual analysis--that is, what does the film/show/trend communicate on a deeper level about the culture that created it and made it popular?

This kind of analysis has itself been popular in America since the 1950s, if not earlier. The film noir of the 50s, for example, was widely deemed to express the angst of the Cold War era. In another version, the rising prosperity of the 50s enabled the populace to explore its darker demons--something the hardships and anxieties of the Depression did not encourage.

The Depression gave rise to the screwball comedy and light-hearted entertainments featuring the casually wealthy: for example, the Thin Man series, precisely because these were escapist antidotes to the grinding realities of the non-casually wealthy.

To subtextual eyes, even television shows that were denigrated as superficial and inane in their own era (for example, Bewitched in the 1960s) may be revealed as politically harmless expressions of profound social changes: the "witch" in Bewitched is a powerful young female who is constantly implored by her conventional domineering but comedically ineffectual husband to conform to all the bland niceties of a suburban housewife, but she is constantly rebelling against these strictures.

What can we make of the popular TV series and films of the present era? What do they say, beneath the surface, about American culture and society?

I will confess I don't watch American TV except the PBS series Nova, American Experience, etc. and see few current films. In one way this disqualifies me, i.e. "how can you do an analysis without watching every episode of Breaking Bad"?, but on the other hand, this total ignorance of the plot contrivances, characters and other moving parts of each series enables me to gaze on the mise en scene with fresh eyes.

I know this inability to find anything remotely engaging or entertaining in American TV makes me sound like a snob, but it's the opposite: the utterly conventional machinery of mysteries soothes my enfeebled state of mind much more than "edgy, challenging entertainment. " For some reason I prefer the stylistic and cultural conventions of mysteries produced in Europe (Montalbano, Coliandro, Blood of the Vine, Frank Riva, Vares, Annika Bengtzon, etc.) and Japan (Partners 8, etc.) to the multitude of U.S. crime/mystery series. (Lost was intriguing but I lost the thread in the first season by missing a couple of shows. As for paying for access to thousands of programs--. I'm trying to escape from the tsunami of digital media, not put myself in its path.)

Among the many possible aspects of American TV worth examining, I'll start with the genre that has been a dominant force in American TV for some time: the winner-take-all talent show. These include reality shows, games shows, etc.

The long-running Survivor series was a winner-take-all contest of political guile, while the singing/dancing contests put entertainment skills to the competitive test. An enormous range of other entries stage competitions in food, entrepreneurship, losing weight, negotiating idiotic obstacle courses, and so on.

What are the subtexts of these explicitly competitive winner-take-all reality shows?

We could start, I think, with the fact that the stars (other than the hosts/judges) are apparently ordinary "every man/woman" Americans, i.e. people not too unlike us. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine ourselves on stage, in the kitchen, etc., trying to impress the judges with our talents and skills.

We too could become visible on national TV (for at least the length of time we're a contestant), and perhaps we could win the accolades of the judges and fans and be the winner who takes it all.

This natural sympathy with the temporarily famous with whom we can vicariously experience the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat is clearly tapping a deep cultural desire to taste celebrity and the implied financial rewards of winning in an increasing winner-take-all society/economy.

Could the financial/political marginalization of the average household and the growing gulf between the typical household and the top of the fame/wealth pyramid have something to do with this fascination for winner-take-all competitions on the public stage?

I suspect there is an expression of cultural values at play: we accept that ours is a highly competitive society, and that it is becoming even more so as the top "winners" skim the vast majority of the winnings (media visibility, wealth, adulation, social status. etc.), leaving a few morsels for the top 10% and nothing but crumbs for the bottom 90%.

But these TV programs also project the fantasy that our fight-to-the-figurative-death society is still a meritocracy--the best guy/gal wins, as judged by "experts" (or blowhards claiming expertise--the judges' expertise is structured to be unassailable--just like all the other "experts" in our society). But if we can't win it all on merit, there is an alternative way to win: we might win based on our popularity with the audience.

(interestingly, this echoes the coliseum audiences of the late Roman era, who also had some sway over who lived to fight another day on the choreographed battlefield below.)

Perhaps this helps explain our collective obsession with celebrity and the many measures of popularity available to everyone now--Instagram, Facebook likes, Twitter followers (for sale in lots of 10,000), Klout scores, and so on.

In other words, as success grows increasingly distant and we feel increasingly marginalized as individuals, then vicariously competing and "winning it all" becomes very compelling. Rather than accept the vast injustices of our system, we cling to the social norm that meritocracy matters, even as "winning" in real life is increasingly a game of cronyism, gaming the system, masking the truth, etc.

And so we thrill to the play-acting display of meritocracy in action, as it confirms that that despite the predations of Wall Street and Washington, merit still counts.

And when all else fails, we have a fall-back source of identity, pride and "winning"--our popularity. And if we don't have enough of our own, then we can share vicariously in the popularity of TV show winners and celebrities who have reached the pinnacle.

This is the core message of an interesting half-hour talk on celebrity given by Games of Thrones actor Jack Gleeson (via correspondent Yoni F.)

"During a recent visit to the Oxford Union, Gleeson took the opportunity to dismantle the "religious hysteria" of celebrity worship with an appropriately epic rant, breaking down the economic, psychological, and sociological catalysts for public reverence of celebrities and their negative impact on society as a whole."

Setting aside that it is a complete misrepresentation to label this highly intelligent lecture a rant, Gleeson draws upon a number of sources (Weber, Baudrillard, et al.) in his discussion of the contemporary culture of celebrity, and concludes that celebrity fills the the void left when development of a true Self is stunted.

In effect, when the mechanisms and opportunities for developing a true Self have been reduced to popularity, public visibility/recognition and the status that flows from these, then the worship of celebrity and the aching desire for a moment in the spotlight become rational substitutes for a true Self.

Yet these wispy contingencies can never form a true selfhood, and so even those who do "win" the competition for popularity and celebrity are ultimately dissatisfied and disillusioned.

In sum, it seems to me that the obsession with competitive winner-take-all TV programs reflects the paucity of opportunities for selfhood and the substitution of celebrity worship for the difficult task of forging an identity that is independent of what others think and say.

Summary of the Blog This Past Week

A Thought Experiment in American Autarky 1/17/14

Who Has the Time and Motivation to Comprehend the Mess We're In? Almost Nobody 1/16/14

Resolution #1: Let's Call Things What They Really Are in 2014 1/15/14

It's a Lose-Lose-Lose Deal for America: How Real Estate Bubbles Push Rents Higher 1/14/14

After Seven Lean Years, Part 1:
US Residential Real Estate: The Present Position and Future Prospects 1/13/14

The essays on money (Resolution #1) and housing are very important works in my view; many readers responded positively to the "who has time?" essay.

Best Thing That Happened To Me This Week

Spending time with my sister and brother and sister-in-law, who are visiting us from France. What's rock-solid positive in our lives? if we're lucky, it's our siblings.

Market Musings

One of the primary drivers of the (pre-chaotic) volatility noted in last week's Musings is the widely-discussed gap between the real economy, which is faltering, and the financial sector that rests on top of the real economy.

The financial sector is only nominally connected to the real economy; its main drivers are the forces of financialization: the central banks expansion of credit for the few at the top, the rampant securitization of debt, shadow banking, etc. This bifurcation explains why the stock market can keep rising even as the real economy stagnates or contracts.

But since financialization is yielding rapidly diminishing returns, ever-greater sums of credit, QE, hidden subsidies, etc. are needed to keep the asset bubbles inflated. At some tipping point, the bubbles will deflate. Given the monumental size of the financialization needed to inflate the third such bubble in 15 years, the popping may well be chaotic and disorderly, as the unwinding may not be within the control of the state or central banks.

This struggle to keep the asset bubbles inflated is reflected in the wobbling of stocks and other assets. An increase in volatility will be one clue that the forces inflating bubbles are weakening or losing their effectiveness.

From Left Field

Why the Mantis Shrimp is My New Favorite Animal (via C.C.) -- amusing and insightful...

Before They Pass Away: A Photographer Races After Vanishing Tribes (via U. Doran, who commented: "Honor the man with the missionary zeal for his life's mission."

What Is Your Income Percentile? -- interesting to see that $70,000 puts one in the top 10% as single taxpayer....

In the Name of Love: “Do what you love” is the mantra for today’s worker. Why should we assert our class interests if, according to DWYL elites like Steve Jobs, there’s no such thing as work?

An Update On The Housing "Recovery" -- good overview by my colleague Lance Roberts

Real Retail Sales Per Capita: Another Perspective on the Economy

Household Net Worth Hits Record High -- boost the income of the top 10% by a lot and the total househod income hits a new high even if the wealth of the bottom 90% declines...

The Rise and Fall of the Failed-State Paradigm: Requiem for a Decade of Distraction

Japan Remains Hotbed of TPP Protest as U.S. Tries to Fast-Track Trade Deal, Crush Environmental Laws (via John S.P.)

New York's Museum of Modern Art: a case study in how to ruin an institution

Understanding the Underbelly of Online Marketing & Why You’ll Lose if You Don’t (via Maoxian) -- gaming the system to fake a meritocracy...

How a PLA General Built a Web of Corruption to Amass a Fortune (via Maoxian) -- the real story of China: multiply this by tens of thousands and look who's fled to the West with their ill-gotten gains...

"The need to speak, even if one has nothing to say, becomes more pressing when one has nothing to say, just as the will to live becomes more urgent when life has lost its meaning." Jean Baudrillard

Thanks for reading--

charles