TV shows portray societal extremes

---

Tweet

Thanks to the overwhelming popularity of MTV’s “Jersey Shore,” no man could count how many “Jersey Shore” parties there were on campus last weekend. At the time, I lamented and wondered what our society actually is coming to, but then I put a little more thought into it.

I realized the television does not determine our value as a society. There are plenty of trends and shifts in entertainment, and these do not represent societal changes. For the past few years there has been a general shift in entertainment away from the realism of the 90s toward absurdism, which has defined the 2000s. The programs we see today are just a culmination of this slow shift. Merely looking back to the most popular programs of the 90s, we see programs grounded and based in reality. “Seinfeld,” a show literally about nothing, or “Friends,” a show merely about the adventures of six good friends, couldn’t be better examples of this. When watching either program, audiences saw themselves in the characters. This is far from the current truth.

Plots and characters have taken a turn for the absolutely absurd, but that doesn’t mean audiences have too. Looking at “Friends” and “Seinfeld,” arguably the two most popular comedies of their times, then looking at what could be the two most popular comedies of our times, “The Office” and “30 Rock,” very few similarities besides the use of real people as actors can be found. Although people saw themselves and people they knew in “Seinfeld” and “Friends,” does anyone actually see themselves as Michael Scott, the loveable, nearly incompetent boss in “The Office”? He merely is a caricature. The same thing could be said about “30 Rock.”

Even looking at reality TV — a name that couldn’t be more deceiving, shows started out in the 90s as believable and relatable, and today have turned into washed-up celebrities and personalities on some insane dating circus. People no longer want to be able to see themselves in the characters they watch. The mass appeal of these shows is because they all represent the outliers of society. The behavior demonstrated makes us say to ourselves “Oh no they didn’t!” rather than the previous response of “Sometimes I do that!” We think to ourselves that these people can’t be real, but I’ll just enjoy their drama rather than living through my own. The change in the taste of audiences toward the absurd does not reflect that people have embraced the ideas they see on television.

Many parents fear that there aren’t anymore role models on television. Children come home from school and watch shows about nothing relatable to their own lives. Many fear the popularity of shows like “Teen Mom” or “The Secret Life of the American Teenager” might spur the behavior seen in those shows by young teens today, but the data suggest otherwise.
According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 54.1 percent of teens in high school admitted to having sex at least one time in 1991, while in 2007 only 47.8 percent of teens admitted to having sex at least one time — a decrease of about 6 percent. Furthermore, teen pregnancies reached a 30-year low in 2005 before experiencing a slight increase in 2006. If the 90s can be defined by characters that could be considered “wholesome” role models for children and the 2000s without, then the quality of characters on television obviously is not a very good social indicator or very telling of the direction of our society. We do not receive moral guidance or derive our values from the programs we watch. Television’s purpose is to entertain, but when the entertainment enters the extremes, then it doesn’t translate to our society taking the same turn.

In the late 19th century, absurdism in literature experienced extraordinary growth as a contrast to the Victorian classic literature of the time. Authors used this to portray the extremes of societies, the outliers that exist. They would tell readers that “yes, some people do actually live like this” or “yes, some of this behavior does exist in some parts.” The same is occurring today. We watch “Jersey Shore” because we don’t know real people who fight over haircuts and generally are awful human beings, but we are intrigued by the idea that these people exist. Our lives suddenly look better, our faults and shortcomings seem trivial compared to the obvious faults of these reality stars.

Just because we watch fist pumping caricatures doesn’t mean we are becoming them.

Matt Manning is a State News guest columnist and international relations junior. Reach him at mannin84@msu.edu.

---