(This is a series of posts reflecting on the place of "the show" in contemporary society and culture.)
We can ask whether or not a tree falls in a forest when there is nobody there to hear it. But there is now a more relevant question: Does anything happen, in a meaningful way, if it is not filmed or photographed? Digitalized "film" is slowly being accorded more reality than that which is filmed. Something not filmed is becoming irrelevant and quaint. More and more, we live in the show, as spectators and participants.
As the show has permeated more and more of contemporary society, political change has become easier. As people become less and less moored to religious, family, and civic institutions their ideas, political and otherwise, become more malleable. In the area of civil rights, this is a good thing.
Perhaps the greatest example of the use of the show to create political change is the nonviolent civil disobedience of the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. expertly saw to it that the violent excesses of Southern authorities would be televised to the whole nation—and the world. Outrage and embarrassment helped to end legalized segregation. Part of King's genius was to see how televised news could be used to create social change. The Civil Rights bill was passed only 99 years after the end of the Civil War. Things moved quickly.
The gay rights movement happened even more quickly. Again, the show was a major factor. Celebrities either coming out or coming out for gay rights made a major difference. The TV show "Ellen" had an important impact. It is slowly becoming unacceptable to utter homophobic comments in polite company. While the show was probably not as big a factor as it was in the Civil Rights movement (perhaps friends, family, and colleagues coming out was more important), the very context of the show, which loosens traditional biases and assumptions, makes such quick change possible.
The show is a tool. It can be used for positive social change. And it can be used for other, less positive, things as well.
Social issues seem to be the place where the show makes the biggest impact. As far as economic issues go, it makes barely a ripple. Perhaps this is because the show, to a large degree, creates the economy. Demand results from the show: advertising, celebrity, and so on. There is very little latent demand left in the economy. Even food has become part of the show, as advertisers and health advocates fight it out over creating or mitigating the demand for junk food.
In other words, the show does not critique that which it creates in the first place. The critique of the economy, while it has elements of the show in it, takes place on the fringes—in scholarly circles, in radical periodicals, among political groups. When these groups are taken up into the show—such as the Seattle World Trade Organization protests in 1999—their objections are not even clear to the general population. The WTO protesters appeared to be a bunch of hooligans lacking ideology. The same cannot be said for the Civil Rights or Gay Rights protesters. The show can make their issues clear; the show can engage social issues.
The show cannot engage economic issues well because it is so bound up with the economy that critique necessitates standing at the edge, outside of the bright lights. But you cannot both be in the show and stand at its edge. In other words, a critique of the economy necessitates a critique of the show. However, such a critique can only take place from a position outside or at the edge of the show. The kicker is that being outside the show is, to a large extent, to be irrelevant.
The inability to critique the economy results from no intent on the part of the show. Indeed, the show has no intent whatsoever. It just devours. If it could, it would colonize the critique of the economy just as it colonizes so much else. But it can't. This means that mounting any sort of political protest against the economy in the time of the show is quite difficult.
Before the show, political speeches and debate were entertainment. People turned out at the courthouse steps to hear Lincoln debate Douglass. In the 19th century, listening to hours long speeches was sometimes Saturday's pastime. But these did not take place in the context of the show. They were leisure time activities, more or less segregated from the rest of the economy and life. Today, the show of politics invades all aspects of life. Political commercials are ubiquitous. Grandstanding has become shrill. The distinction between politicking and governing has ceased to exist. The passing of laws is becoming a rhetorical act in the political race. While this has always been true to an extent, it is more true now. The TV cameras are always on. The politicians are always playing. There is no place to hide where the work of governing can take place.
In the past, there was no need to hide. Less of life was filmed. Playing for the camera happened only in specific places.
No comments:
Post a Comment