Why Do People Watch Reality Television?

The other members of my family have discovered their latest obsession: reality television. Every night, it seems, they will turn on Netflix and flick over to the latest episode of DC Cupcakes, a truly awful show about a cupcake shop in the capital state fulfilling orders. As I type this, they’re going on their third mental This comes on the heels of their other obsessions like the even more routine Cake Boss or the mental-health tragedy cases of Hoarders: Buried Alive. Their desire to use free time to watch reality television makes absolutely no sense to me.

Cultural critics of reality television have often been dismissed as elitists ignoring the reality of the arts: the pleasure principle. I’m all for pleasure. But they’re watching cupcakes get made. Television could show you literally anything happening in the world right now and they’re showing you some slightly drama-inflated women make cupcakes. And people watch it. Avidly. It’s like some sort of bizarre capitalist fantasy, where the luxury time that we spend our job money supporting is spent on watching other people at their jobs. Marx would have something to say about this.

I’ve been thinking about what motivates the reality TV market. To me, there are some obvious reasons that people watch such counter-intuitively popular shows:

Being better than the profiled characters. Viewers of Honey Boo Boo or Hoarders: Buried Alive get a sense of reinforcement of their own normalcy. I may have some things going bad for me, but hey, at least I’m functioning and have some standards of taste. (Of course, you could argue that the one with less taste is the one who watches tasteless activites, not the one doing them, but there you have it.)

Being worse than the profiled characters. All art- including reality television shows- has an aspect of fantasy to it. The ladies of DC Cupcakes open their show by declaring that they “left their corporate jobs” and “followed their dreams” to start a bakery. Just as a reader of sci-fi dreams how cool it would be to have kickass gadgets, the viewer engages in a happy escapism from a dull corporate life.

Competition. Whatever the context, people enjoy watching competition. I remember how much I got into the one season of American Idol that I watched. To be honest, in my mind, elections play out much like a competitive reality show, but with characters I have stronger feelings about. I would guess that those who watch sports get a similar kick from it.

Redemption. The story of overcoming adversity and immorality and returning to functioning society is just as present in reality television as anywhere. It’s the story of classic poetry, country lyrics, and crime dramas in equal shares. And it’s what viewers of Hoarders and Intervention turn on their TVs to hear.

Morbid curiosity. Here, I’m thinking of shows like Fear Factor. Yes, I remember Fear Factor from when I was in third grade or so. It was that big. The sheer number of emotions inspired by watching a housewife eat roaches blindfolded on a tightrope, with no characters or plot attatched, is enough to keep viewers addicted. Augh! Why? What’s it like? Would I enjoy it? It’s what psychologists talk about as neophilia- the curiosity that brings humans to entertain even the oddest notions and relish it. (Thank you, psychology class.)

Talent. All said, the women of DC Cupcakes are really good at making cupcakes. In the most recent bit I saw, the two were MacGyver-ing a wedding dress from cupcakes and swimming noodles. People just love watching talented people do their thing.

I did a bit of searching and found a few other reasons.

Immorality. In the article “Why America Loves Reality TV” from Psychology Today,[1] psychologist, a group of psychologists claim that fans of reality TV enjoyed watching a lack of personal honor. The survey they cited focused on the TV program Temptation, which focused on people in the process leading up to adultery. Fans of high-quality television like Breaking Bad get some of the same kick from watching Walter White’s descent into methamphetamine-driven madness.

Competition (again). Surveys backed me up on this one- viewers of reality television are more interested in revenge than the average viewer.

Prestige. Prestige is the last thing that comes to my mind in the TV genre that birthed Jersey Shore and Bridalplasty, but viewers of reality television prioritize it higher than average. The psychologists explain that reality television showcases essentially overnight transformations from average person to prestigious superstar, transformations that they can then fantasize about happening to them.

Blending unreality and reality. Going back to fantasy: we can fantasize all we want about magic or sci-fi, but we know they’ll never happen. With reality television, that barrier’s not there. I’m about as likely to build artificial intelligence as I am to win American Idol, but people really don’t understand statistics, and one AI seems a lot more plausible to me if I’ve watched it happen to real people. It’s fantasy, but a much deeper form of fantasy than fiction can provide. Columnist Nicole McDermott points this out in an article on Greatist.[2]

I wonder if reality television could theoretically move up the artistic status ladder and become an occasionally high-brow art. I don’t see any real reason someone couldn’t make a really fascinating reality series, i.e. one actually in touch with reality. It’s got many of the same appealing aspects, just in different capacities.

---

[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200109/why-america-loves-reality-tv

[2] http://greatist.com/happiness/why-we-watch-reality-tv/

In Support of Terrible Art

This month is National Novel Writing Month. Artsy types everywhere are cramming at night to assemble a 50,000-word novel by midnight on the 30^th, hoping for a prize from the NaNoWriMo committee. Skeptics, many of them friends with these nouveau novelists, are not happy about the festival, however. (I don’t know any situation in which I’d say skeptics are happy about something, but there we have it.)  Columnists have complained on the internet about NaNoWriMo, calling it an ego project that only serves to contribute to the abundance of awful art on the internet.

Participants in NaNoWriMo have retorted that several published novels, most notably Sara Gruen’s Water for Elephants, started at projects in the competition. But those who make this defense, as well as the project’s critics, are missing the real point of the competition.

We in the United States and other western nations live in a thoroughly industrialized world. (Point two for obvious statements.) Part of living so enmeshed in an economy is that we must, for perhaps eight hours a day, participate in mounds of work which we may or may not enjoy doing. We subvert our creativity and play into someone else’s economic fantasy. We can look for a job we enjoy, but at the end of the day, we can’t all do whatever we want.

But we want. We want to create. We want to bring something into this world that no one else did or will make. Jean-Paul Sartre understood this when he formulated his philosophy of authenticity. Art lets us feel meaningful, individual, and powerful, all vital human impulses.

It was this economic conundrum that many anti-societal writers have discussed. Another great was environmentalist and “rogue economist” E. F. Schumacher, who wrote in his classic work Small is Beautiful about the tragedy of modern creativity. Because of mass production, one who wishes to work with their own hands must be wealthy enough to create a studio to do so. It cannot be a person’s livelihood to create handmade versions of common objects; it’s simply not economical.

The beauty of the internet is how it has flipped that paradigm entirely on its head. Using the mass-produced and increasingly mass-available computer, anyone can create anything and share it with anyone. Everyone, especially those working drone jobs, needs a creative outlet. It’s why, everyday, the internet fills more with stunning Flickr photography, artsy YouTube videos, strange SoundCloud songs, hilarious Tumblr satires, and, of course, opinionated blog posts. And the platforms are all free.

It doesn’t matter if everyone who reads a NaNoWriMo novel judges it utter shit. It doesn’t matter if nobody reads it at all. It doesn’t matter if piles and piles of disgustingly awful novels sit on the website and never get seen once. What matters is that someone created them. Art isn’t about the best and the brightest anymore, the vision of divinely-inspired creators rising to the top of the art world. Art is about each person as an individual.

To readers participating in NaNoWriMo: Stay sane and keep at it. To my friends who create everything else that makes the internet a better place: keep doing what you do. To anyone who wants to create terrible, terrible art: go for it. No matter how badly you do, you’ll be happier with yourself. If you need me, I’ll be over here blogging.

Web Gems #1

The first in what I hope to be a series. A few things I’ve found scrolling  around the internet in recent weeks.

Jean-Paul Sartre's Blog.  I'm always happy to give a boost to my fellow bloggers. This blog, by playwright and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, is on track to being one of the best blogs of 1959. For a taste, try this choice quote:

         Sunday, 12 July, 1959: 9:55 A.M.
         An angry crow mocked me this morning. I couldn’t finish my croissant, and fled the café in despair.
         The crow descended on the croissant, squawking fiercely. Perhaps this was its plan.
         Perhaps there is no plan.

How to Eat aTriceratops. For this one, I thank my friend Lucy Li. In a wonderful example of the exact opposite of service journalism, the scientific journal Nature published a very serious article on how other creatures ate triceratops. Scientists expect this will provide a breakthrough for nothing ever. Still, it’s kind of awesome, and written with such seriousness it sounds like the author hasn't grasped its ridiculousness.

The Latest xkcd Poster.  Randall Munroe's xkcd, one of the best comics on the web, gave us another fascinating graphic image last week: a graph of the ideological makeup of the US Congress. Few people are as good with data as Munroe. (For those who don't read xkcd, look up some of his old graphics, like his money comic.)

Beautiful Curves. This fascinating HTML drawing app from web developer Tim Holman allows the user to draw colored lines with random curves. If you've got time (or are looking to procrastinate), he's got a web site full of odd treasures.

This Wonderful Pro-Climate Ad. Entitled "Romney vs. Sandy," perfectly sums up my thoughts on this past election. It's passed, but it's still a relevant ad. For related literature, see my blog post on the presidential debates.

The Television Vote

Well, the election’s come and gone, and Obama’s been reelected to a second term. It’s time for an analysis of voting demographics. Tonight I’m conducting an original analysis of those crucial voters: fictional characters from television shows. Specifically, those television shows on the air right now that I’d watch.

Breaking Bad

Hank: The four main characters probably vote Republican. Hank, almost certainly. He once compared drug users to insects: “When you see a cockroach, you don’t ask why it’s there. You just crush it.” He holds a conservative view of evil, where bad people are a product of disgusting subversion of the natural order, not of underlying social issues.

Marie: used the word “degenerate” several times to refer to Jesse. No liberal uses the word “degenerate”. Again, conservative view of evil.

Walter: More shaky, but he’s probably voting red, too. He’s terrified of dependency and assistance. He refuses to take Eliot’s money for his treatment, insisting he must be manly and pull himself up by his bootstraps. He would be the kind of person to go for the rhetoric of the “welfare queen” and “recovery, not dependency.”

Skyler: Let’s go with Republican. The apple never falls far from the tree.

Gus: Probably sided with 94% of African-Americans and voted for Obama. That is, if he votes at all.

Gale: We Gale’s Ron Paul sticker in his notebook. No word on whether he would have deferred to Gary Johnson after Paul dropped out.

Community

Jeff Winger: I can’t see him caring enough to vote.

Abed: Most Muslims vote for Democrats[1], except for those with staunch social-conservative views, which Abed lacks. Also, his fascination with filmmaking and experimentation suggest that he’s very open to  experience, a trait which correlates with liberalism.

Troy: Supported Obama.

Shirley: Her Christian views make it hard for me to believe that she voted for a Democrat, but we can’t forget that whole 0%-of-blacks-for-Romney deal, not to mention how Romney has badmouthed single parents. She’s probably the perfect example of a swing voter.

Annie: Someone of Annie’s religion, reserved personality, and attitudes towards sexuality would probably be pretty liberal.  

Britta: She’s too far to the left to have supported Obama. Given how related her and my political views are, I’d guess she’d go for Green Party Jill Stein. But I could see her marking down someone crazy like Peta Lindsay or Roseanne Barr.

Pierce: On one hand, Pierce is an angry liberal’s caricature of a Republican. He’s an old, racist, sexist, homophobic business heir. But honestly, Pierce might be to weird to understand politics. The guy joined a pseudo-Buddhist cookie-crisp-wizard-related cult. He’s the

Chang: Convicts aren’t allowed to vote.

Dean: I doubt someone with Dean’s sexual liberalism would go for a conservative candidate.

30 Rock

I really can’t write much about this one. The show’s so overtly political that most characters have stated their preferences by now. However, on the subject of politics, I deeply hope we get to see more of Tracy's alter ego, Governor Bob Dunston.

Modern Family

Mitch and Cam: ¾ of LGB voters supported Obama over Romney. Mitch is an environmental lawyer and Cam is a public school arts teacher. There’s no way these two are not liberal.

Claire: A suburban housewife with a controlling but not authoritative personality, Claire is probably a swing voter. I’ve only started watching recently; otherwise, I’d probably analyze her run for city council.

Phil: He tries very hard to act strong and masculine, but I doubt they’re strong enough to move over to conservative ideas of moral strength. He has a happy-go-lucky feel about him that makes me think he could be very open to experience, a trait correlated with liberalism. In the end, though, he’s a broadly-written character for a show designed for broad appeal, and they try hard not to anger anyone with his political views. He may not have any at all.

Jay: Probably a socially liberal economic conservative. He wants his son to get married, obviously, but he’s shown some discomfort with his son’s sexuality. He’s also the owner of a small business who would want to avoid red tape, minimum wage hikes that might necessitate firings, or paying more taxes. I’d call this one for Romney.

Gloria: This one would take too long. Gloria is still firmly attached to her homeland of Colombia. Her views on the issues, as well what she considers political issues, would still be steeped in Colombian social concepts. She also displays a certain aloofness, as well as a focus on herself and her family, that might distract from strong political views. I forget, often, that most Americans don’t vote.  

That’s all I’ve got for now. I might try with Lost or House later. Comment if you disagree with any of these. Happy trails.

---

[1] http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/03/muslim-voters-could-swing-election-report-finds/

Everybody Running for President is Crazy

I was reading an interesting article on Cracked entitled "The Six Most Insane People Ever to Run for President.", which you can find here. I recommend it. They've found some really odd platforms for president. It got me thinking about everybody running right now. Think about it. Is there anybody out there without a radically different position from yours?

                      

Just look at this year's nominees.

• Barack Obama: If somebody told me my ideal liberal choice was a man using drones to shoot Pakistani civilians, I would look at them funny. Yet, here we are.
• Mitt Romney: Cannot remain consistent whatsoever. He has switched positions on abortion during a twenty-four hour period.[1] Yet half of America still considers him the best choice.
• Jill Stein: The Green Party candidate has been arrested three times during her campaign, including once when she tried to break into the presidential debates, which I assume seemed like a great idea at the time. She has spent her time out of jail doing such things as comparing workfare to mandatory labor.
• Gary Johnson: The Libertarian Party candidate wants to close the IRS and Department of Education and audit the Federal Reserve. No word on what organization he wants to use to audit the federal reserve.
• Virgil Goode: His entire economic plan hinges around removing immigrants, who he blames for introducing socialism into the country. I’m suspecting the Constitution Party is a bit racist.
• Roseanne Barr: From the Peace and Freedom Party, Roseanne (yes, that Roseanne) has provided lots of rhetoric, but given concrete plans about nothing, except for: legalize marijuana, end aid to Israel, and kill rich people who don’t pay taxes.
• Peta Lindsay: Lots of good-looking policies… also she wants to abolish capitalism.
• Dean Morstad: He wants to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
• Jim Carlson: Running with the Grassroots Party ticket, whose only goal is to legalize drugs. There doesn’t seem to be anything else he’s worried about.  

If you dig deeper, you can find all sorts of insane people running in one state or another. Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who started Burn a Koran Day and hanged an effigy of Obama, is running as an independent. The Naked Cowboy is running as well, despite being The Naked Cowboy. The only candidate I couldn’t find something crazy for was Rocky Anderson, of the newly formed Justice Party. I’m sure in time, some insanity will turn up.

Happy next four years!

---

[1] http://americablog.com/2012/10/romney-flip-flops-twice-on-abortion-in-one-day.html

Election Predictions

A week out from election day, the maps seem to be stabilizing. I've been keeping an obnoxiously close eye on this election. I'm taking my data from Nate Silver's 538 blog and recent polls on ballot measures on the national level, as well as conversations with people who follow the state legislature and my own observations on the state level. My predictions:

• President Obama narrowly retains the presidency by winning Ohio. Romney takes Virginia, North Carolina and Florida.
• Democrats retain a majority in the senate. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusets, Tim Kaine of Virgina, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin all win their senate seats. 
• Both amendments to the Minnesota Constitution (Marriage and Voter ID pass. 
• In all likelihood, in fact, none of the states that have gay marriage on the ballot will vote in favor of it. If any do, though, I'd guess Maine.
• Colorado will legalize recreational marijuana; Oregon will not.
• California will require labeling of genetically engineered food but not ban the death penalty. 
• Democrats retake one, but not both, houses of the Minnesota State Legislature. 

In my mind, the best outcome of this presidential election (aside from everyone spontaneously deciding to vote for Jill Stein) would be if Obama won the electoral vote but Romney the popular vote, because it could get Republicans interested in ending the electoral college system. It could theoretically harm Obama's legislative ability, but that didn't seem to happen with Bush's first term. 

Happy voting, everyone.