«Class, Consumption, and Media»

Lisa Glebatis Perks
«The Nouveau Reach: Ideologies of Class and Consumerism in Reality-Based Television»
Studies in Language and Capitalism, 2(1), 2007

Studies in Language and Capitalism | Loughborough University | Department of Social Sciences | Loughborough | UNITED KINGDOM


Extracto del apartado en páginas 105-107 del artículo en PDF

«In a very simplified description of Marxism, this critical philosophy argues that the capitalist system is exploitative, denying the proletariat meaningful work, which results in their subjugation by the bourgeoisie capitalist class. Marx employed the term “ideology” to explain why the alienating conditions of capitalism do not necessary result in revolution (Aune 1994). Ideology in Marxism clarifies how the economic structure of society shapes the legal and political superstructure which, in turn, moulds one’s social consciousness: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness” (Marx 1975a: 425). An important part of economically inspired ideologies is that they must work to subversively maintain consent for an exploitative capitalist system. Summarizing Marx, Eagleton (1991: 84) asserts that ideology may denote “illusory beliefs” which distract men and women from their “actual social conditions” and may also signify “ideas which directly express the material interests of the dominant social class.”

»Ewen (1988: 61) traces Veblen’s concept of conspicuous consumption and the rise of consumer democracy beginning with industrialization to argue that class is defined “almost exclusively, by patterns of consumption” (emphasis in original). This conflation of lifestyle with class is an ideological mechanism that perpetuates the myth of class mobility, thereby obscuring actual conditions and discouraging collective action to improve existing social conditions. Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism is part and parcel of this hegemonic mechanism. Marx argued that as products of labour are disassociated from production and detached from their use-value (in other words, they become commodities), and as workers feel alienated from the products of their labour, secondary meaning systems step in to stabilise value hierarchies. Commodity fetishism results from these fragmented, anomic conditions. The value of a commodity thus comes to be defined by exchange value, what Marx (1978a: 322) described as a “social hieroglyphic,” and people come to be defined not by their work, but by the commodities their work enables them to purchase. In other words, the relationship between people comes to be defined by the relationship between things (Marx 1978a: 321).

»Marx did not predict the incredible staying power of capitalism. In light of this, it is important to examine how capitalism has maintained its ideological grip on American society. Media scholars Jhally and Lewis (1992: 74) elaborate on the inner-workings of the capitalist system asserting that, “To sustain consent for a market economy constructed upon enormous disparities in income and wealth, it is necessary to persuade people not to question but to consume.” Lears (1994: 10) traces the ethics of consumption back to advertising practices at the turn of the 20th century. He explains that advertisements evoked desire and sought to harness the power of that desire, “to stabilize the sorcery of the marketplace by containing dreams of personal transformation within a broader rhetoric of control.” Whereas advertisements are explicitly intended to sell products, subtler forms of consumptive ideologies perpetuate almost all forms of media, and may be considered extremely powerful in reality-based or lifestyle television programs.

»Adorno and Horkeimer’s theory of the culture industry (1979) and Jameson’s (1992) concept of the fantasy bribe are productive in explaining the inner-workings of these mediated hegemonic consumptive ideologies, which collectively create the semblance of class mobility and perpetuate the myth of the American dream. Much like Gerbner’s cultivation theory, Adorno and Horkheimer argue that media send uniform messages to the masses. These messages help retain class division by encouraging a false sense of hope in the working class:

»“The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises... The promise, which is actually all the spectacle consists of, is illusory: all it actually confirms is that the real point will never be reached, that the diner must be satisfied with the menú” (Adorno & Horkheimer 1979: 363).

»By providing a window into the upper class world, and by making the path to that world seem easily negotiated, media pacify lower classes. This mechanism is similar to Jameson’s fantasy bribe in which he argues that mass culture exploits the anxiety and hope of the collective consciousness and soothes that anxiety with a Utopian vision, or fantasy bribe. Both of these theories are consistent with Lears’ observation that mass media actively shapes and channels consumptive desire in order to maintain consent for the capitalist system.

»Indeed, various contemporary scholars have found a link between media and commodity consumption. Schor (1998: 80) claims, “The more TV a person watches, the more he or she spends.” The likely explanation for the link between television and spending is that what we see on TV distorts our sense of what is normal. As Lewis (2004: 295) asserts, television programs encourage viewers to make ideologically based judgements about social class and further reinforces these judgements with “fictional constructions of class behaviour [sic].” In his survey of domestic comedies from 1950-1990, Butsch (1992) found that only 11 domestic comedy series (out of 262) depicted blue collar employees as the head of the household. Furthermore, the author observes that many of the middle-class families appeared unusually affluent and successful. The difference in portrayals of the working class compared with the upper class appears to be greatly polarised. Synthesising various studies on the portrayals of class in television, it is possible to conclude that middle and upper class lifestyles are depicted as normal, proper, and ideal (Butsch 1992; Jhally & Lewis 1992; Lipsitz 2003; Schor 1998).

»In opposition to the class segregated world depicted in standard television programming, Andrejevic (2004) argues that reality television touts itself as a more democratic and socialist genre as the “masses” now allegedly have free access to media (in the form of participating in a reality television program). As the analysis will soon explain, however, this more democratic genre may be little more than a fantasy bribe.»

References

«Adorno, TW & Horkheimer, M 1979, ‘The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception’, in J Curran, M Gurevich, & J Woollacott (eds.), Mass communication and society, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 351-383.

»Andrejevic, M 2004, Reality TV: The work of being watched, Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham.

»Aune, JA 1994, Rhetoric and Marxism, Westview Press, Boulder.

»Butsch, R 1992, ‘Class and gender in four decades of television situation comedy: Plus ca change....’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, vol. 9, pp. 387-399.

»Eagleton, T 1991, Ideology: An introduction, Verso Press, New York.

»Ewen, S 1988, All consuming images: The politics of style in contemporary culture, Basic Books, New York.

»Jameson, F 1992, Signatures of the visible, Routledge, New York.

»Jhally, S & Lewis, J 1992, Enlightened racism: The Cosby Show, audiences, and the myth of the American dream, Westview Press, Boulder.

»Lears, J 1994, Fables of abundance: A cultural history of advertising in America, Basic Books, New York.

»Lewis, J 2004, ‘The meaning of real life’, in S Murray & L Ouelette (eds.), Reality TV: Remaking television culture, New York University Press, New York, pp. 288-302.

»Lipsitz, G 2003, ‘The meaning of memory: Family, class and ethnicity in early network television’, In G Dines & JM Humez (eds.), Gender, race, and class in media, 2nd edn., Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 40-47.

»Marx K 1975a, ‘Concerning Feuerbach’, in Q Hoare (ed.), Karl Marx early writings, Vintage Books, New York, pp. 421-428.

»Marx, K 1978a, ‘Capital, volume one’, in RC Tucker (ed.), The Marx-Engels reader, 2nd edn., New York: W. W. Norton & Company, New York, pp. 294-438.

»Schor, JB 1998, The overspent American: Upscaling, downshifting, and the new consumer, Basic books, New York.»