American popular culture may be one of the most beautiful yet perverted things in existence. Beautiful in the sense of the emotional narratives and creativity it can express. Take the television program LOST for instance. The show masterfully displayed fully human, emotional experiences and stories in a new and imaginative setting. The audience was transported to a unique world where they could dare to dream. Yet this unique world still had deep emotional resonance as viewers could relate to the show’s characters’ feelings and stories. Unfortunately though, this free expression isn’t always put into practice by much of popular culture. Instead, we see human creativity stifled and marred by some of the terrible ideologies and ethics that our society and culture hold.
While it may be easy to talk about the various ideological systems that have seeped their way into American popular culture, it’s harder to actively identify said systems, analyzing the impact they have on our cultural expression. This course has greatly helped me to better diagnose and become increasingly aware of the problems that exist in popular culture today. In particular, after taking this course I have become more aware of the struggle for equality in American culture. Although equality is a core American value, close inspection of American culture uncovers an underlying power imbalance that should generate concern in American Christians.
One area where this power imbalance manifests itself is in the area of gender representation. In an astounding number of cultural texts patriarchal language and images perpetuate inequality through language and images that denigrate females, silencing women by denying them a voice, and by portraying women as lacking. In a country where men and women are supposedly equal, we see a systematic representation in popular culture that suggests just the opposite. Judging by media representations of gender normalizations, it would seem that gender inequality is not a problem of the past; rather, it is a major problem still plaguing our society today.
Race is another area where the power imbalance facing popular culture is abundantly clear. A claim that Americans often make is that everyone has a voice in this country. However, popular culture fails to express this as minorities are often portrayed in harmful stereotypes. Instead of coming across as unique, engaging characters, minorities often seem to be silenced by being placed in a comedic role or in a role that exists to serve as a means for white characters to use to achieve an end. In American popular culture one can see hegemonic whiteness in action as white value systems and ideals are attempted to be passed off as the values that all individuals in America should strive towards.
Perhaps the most disturbing way that inequality attempts to hide itself within American culture is through the perpetuation of the “American dream.” Despite all of the areas that contribute to the power imbalance in culture, many people fail to see and understand them due to the myth that “anyone can shake free of the limiting past in a struggling ascent toward the realization of promise in a gracious future” (Benre and Hefner). With this idea firmly implanted into many Americans’ consciousnesses, it becomes extremely hard for them to recognize and respond to the power imbalance that American culture faces.
With these ideas and observations in mind how do Christians respond to the challenges that American culture presents them with? One of the best ways to overcome any problem is through awareness and questioning. Individuals are often simply content with drinking in the messages culture sends without being fully aware of what messages mean and the implications that they carry. Many individuals will sit down in their nice, comfy, lazy-boy recliners after a hard day’s work and simply “veg out” while watching television or a movie. People don’t comprehend that various texts such as commercials and television shows that they are being bombarded with are drawing them into the systematic ideology that American culture holds. Individuals don’t take the time to examine and discuss with others the texts that they are being subjected to. They don’t question or critically examine the information presented to them. Instead, they allow themselves to fall into a state of slothfulness, letting American culture shape the interactions they have with it. If Christians want to break free of the ethic provided by American culture and truly serve the kingdom of heaven, they need to actively examine pop-culture as a whole and purposefully discuss it and their findings with other Christians, striving for God-honoring conversations, insightful knowledge, and potential paths of effective action. In this manner, humans can begin to subdue the popular culture’s influence and promote a Christian ethic.
After this questioning and examination, there is still more work for Christians left to do. If they stop short and only identify and spread awareness about the problems that exist within culture today, then no progress will have been made. If somebody goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with diabetes and doesn’t seek any sort of treatment, then nothing will change and they won’t get better. In fact, it is very likely that things will only get much worse. This is why Christians need to have a proactive response to the problems that they identify in popular culture.
Two of the best ways to do this are through creation and cultivation. If Christians are to create culture then they must find creative ways to do so that can be consumed by a broad audience. The option of creation isn’t available to most Christians. Few will find themselves in positions such as directors or writers that can do so. If Christians can’t create positive texts that fight against the problems that plague our culture then they need to cultivate culture. This means preserving or spreading existing texts that capture or portray certain positive elements that fight against the harmful generalizations perpetuated by culture. By creating and cultivating, Christians can muster an appropriate response that begins to combat the existing problems in American culture.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Stereotypes in The Big Bang Theory
I realize that it has been quite sometime since I've last posted on my blog. I hereby apologize for my extreme neglectfulness. Now that fall semester is over I have quite a few papers and essays I'm willing to publish on the blog and I will be doing so over the next few weeks. I may even write a couple new things (exclusively for this blog :P) over break. So, to kick things off here's a little piece I wrote for my communication class on stereotype usage in the popular CBS sitcom, The Big Bang Theory.
There are three universal topics of conversation in America: the weather, relationships, and television. Whether for good or ill, television has become a dependable, influential fixture in our conversations. We talk about it at water coolers, on internet forums, over drinks with friends, and on the phone with loved ones who may live thousands of miles away. Whether the topic is reality shows, sitcoms, dramas, or political talk shows, television is a source of commonality between millions of individuals. However, to hold onto a large audience, television shows need to make some “sacrifices," employing various stereotypes to easily generate humor and inform viewers how certain characters fit into the mythos of a show. While these sacrifices may lead to some negative effects, the utility and potential positive effects make stereotypes an extremely useful tool to employ in television programs. A case in point is CBS’s The Big Bang Theory.
The Big Bang Theory is a traditionally-shot sitcom about two physicists, Leonard and Sheldon, and the various situations they find themselves in with their friends, Rajesh, Howard, and Penny. The show began airing in September 2007 and has steadily attracted a wide audience, becoming the highest-rated live action comedy among the coveted young-adult demographic (ages 18-34).
One character on The Big Bang Theory who clearly falls into the territory of being a stereotyped persona is Rajesh "Raj" Koothrappali, portrayed by Kunal Nayyar. As an Indian astrophysicist, Raj displays many characteristic often associated with both Indians (or foreigners) and nerds. The character speaks with a thick Indian accent and often makes remarks about how great certain aspects of America are compared to Indian practices, illustrating the common behavior of Indians admiring Americans. Raj also suffers from a form of selective mutisim which prevents him from speaking to women – unless he is inebriated. This inability to talk to women seems to play into both the idea that male nerds have trouble talking to the opposite sex and the stereotype that young, foreign men having difficulty communicating with attractive women. Additionally, Raj’s parents are frequently shown trying to interfere with his romantic life – strengthening the association between Raj and what Americans believe to be typical Indian characteristics. Finally, Raj being both a nerd and Indian plays off of the resonance had by Americans between individuals of Asian ancestry being nerds versus the dissonance of Hispanic or African individuals being nerds. Viewers are encouraged to take Asians nerds seriously, while black nerds such as Steve Urkel are viewed humorously, because they don't fit into society's conception of nerds.
Another stereotyped character on the show is Howard Wolowitz, portrayed by Simon Helberg - a nerdy, Jewish, aerospace engineer. Wolowitz still lives at home with his extremely loud, overly informative, obnoxious mother. He is also explicitly portrayed as the creepiest and least likable character on the show. Wolowitz is completely out of touch with women and usually just ends up offending them when he attempts to interact with them. Here viewers are presented with several traits all popularly associated with young Jewish men. Wolowitz is very comparable in many ways with the famous Jewish sitcom character George Costanza of NBC’s Seinfeld, who also lives with his mother and is woefully inept at interacting with women.
One other significant stereotype on The Big Bang Theory is Penny – played by Kaley Cuoco – the protagonists’ next-door neighbor. Penny is pigeonholed into her stereotype so strongly that the writers have never even given the character a last name. She fits right into the typical “girl next door” character type in several ways. Firstly, she’s blonde and very attractive. She also hails from the Midwest (Nebraska) and works as a waitress as she tries to become a professional actress. Penny is initially portrayed as a sweet, unintelligent individual who gets by on her good looks and charm rather than possessing a strong intellect or talents. Finally, Penny fits the stereotype of a beautiful young neighbor by being presented as rather sexually promiscuous. Men are often seen leaving her apartment the morning after she's been on a date, and in episode 401,“The Robotic Manipulation,” Sheldon seems to accurately estimate the number of Penny’s sexual partners to be thirty-one.
Examining these examples, one could contend that the show uses stereotypes in two main ways. The first purpose is to generate comic relief at minimal investment. The common stereotypes incorporated in The Big Bang Theory are quite familiar to the majority of its audience. This allows the show to allot its time to better set up the main story threads it wants to promote while investing little to no time generating the secondary chuckles that sitcoms seem to require. In essence, using stereotypes often nets a show the best “bang for its buck.” While hour-long dramas have the time to develop side characters and situations, sitcoms writers know that time is at a premium. Networks expect them to fit as many laughs into a twenty-one minute time slot as possible. Character development is not essential to a sitcom, because the constantly changing scenarios provide for enough entertainment.
We can see stereotypes used to set up humor in The Big Bang Theory in a number of situations. One such case is in episode 108,“The Grasshopper Experiment.” In this case Raj’s parents – being the controlling, match-making Indian parents that they are – try to set him up with a woman from India. This situation based upon a stereotype allows humor to be found in multiple ways, including Raj taking up drinking to speak to women, Raj making a fool of himself in front of his arranged date, and Raj’s parents’ reactions when they find out the unfortunate results of said date. A similar situation occurs in episode 223, “The Monopolar Expedition.” Towards the end of this episode we see Raj’s and Howard’s over-controlling parents going at each other when their sons announce plans to go to the North Pole for a science experiment. Their ethnic backgrounds are played off each other to generate maximum comedic effect. Throughout the series one can see a plethora of simple jokes that require certain stereotypes in order to work. Without such stereotypes, much of the show's easily-generated side humor simply wouldn’t function.
The second primary purpose stereotypes serve in the series is to provide a shortcut in establishing who its characters are as people and how they fit into the show's mythos. In the very first episode we are introduced to all five main characters, and the stereotypes they are portrayed to fit immediately allow the audience to get a solid grasp on what it can expect from them. Raj is the awkward foreigner, Howard is the creepy Jewish guy living with his mom, and Penny is the desirable but dim girl next door. After one episode, with little exposure to these characters, the audience has a solid foundation for how to perceive them. Again, the show is using stereotypes to better allocate its resources, allowing it to focus on the main characters of Leonard and Sheldon.
It's important to note that these stereotypes are only a starting point for these characters. While certain elements of the stereotypes remain in place – such as Raj having an Indian accent, Wolowitz living with his mother, and Penny being attractive – others are removed in order for the characters to develop and show more complexity. In Episode 217, “The Terminator Decoupling,” Raj is seen interacting with a woman in a positive way, something not initially seen on the show. In Episode 212, “The Killer Robot Instability,” Wolowitz shows a sensitive side, and the audience is given an explanation for why he comes off as creepy and inept. Finally, in episode 207, “The Panty Piñata Polarization,” Penny is seen to possess a keen mind, proving herself to be an extremely capable foe for Sheldon. All of these significant developments take place in season two, which lends itself to the idea that the stereotypes were used as springboards, allowing characters to exist in a familiar form until the show had time to better define them.
While they clearly serve a useful purpose for shows, stereotypes can also have a negative effect, reinforcing and perpetuating prejudices of audience members. Seeing a character in a stereotypical role adds credence to the stereotype. However, as shown in the previous paragraph, the use of stereotypes can be a net positive if they are eventually explored and pursued by a show. If a show can establish a character of a particular stereotyped group and then turn certain conceptions of that character completely around, the audience’s perceptions may be changed. Counterexamples and surprises in the stories may bring traditional views into question. Of course, this is not always the case. Rather than adjusting the given stereotype to fit the character, the audience will sometimes chose to instead move said character out of that stereotypical group. Even in these cases, it still seems that audience members make a little progress into better understanding stereotypes.
As more and more television shows are produced, we can expect the use of stereotypes to continue. Despite the negative effects they may carry, they are simply too efficient at providing humor and establishing characters to be simply tossed aside. However, one can hope that as more shows employ stereotypes, these stereotypes will begin to dilute somewhat, due to audiences being shown so many variations of the same type of character. While this may simply cause broad stereotypes to fracture into smaller, more specific stereotypes, doing so will reduce the amount of generalization that each stereotype encompasses. Ironically enough, the continued use of stereotypes may, in time, show audiences more nuanced sides of various, stereotyped groups that exist in today’s television landscape.
(Special thanks to my lovely sister, Sarah Joy Hewitt for the input and corrections she provided me with for this piece.)
There are three universal topics of conversation in America: the weather, relationships, and television. Whether for good or ill, television has become a dependable, influential fixture in our conversations. We talk about it at water coolers, on internet forums, over drinks with friends, and on the phone with loved ones who may live thousands of miles away. Whether the topic is reality shows, sitcoms, dramas, or political talk shows, television is a source of commonality between millions of individuals. However, to hold onto a large audience, television shows need to make some “sacrifices," employing various stereotypes to easily generate humor and inform viewers how certain characters fit into the mythos of a show. While these sacrifices may lead to some negative effects, the utility and potential positive effects make stereotypes an extremely useful tool to employ in television programs. A case in point is CBS’s The Big Bang Theory.
The Big Bang Theory is a traditionally-shot sitcom about two physicists, Leonard and Sheldon, and the various situations they find themselves in with their friends, Rajesh, Howard, and Penny. The show began airing in September 2007 and has steadily attracted a wide audience, becoming the highest-rated live action comedy among the coveted young-adult demographic (ages 18-34).
One character on The Big Bang Theory who clearly falls into the territory of being a stereotyped persona is Rajesh "Raj" Koothrappali, portrayed by Kunal Nayyar. As an Indian astrophysicist, Raj displays many characteristic often associated with both Indians (or foreigners) and nerds. The character speaks with a thick Indian accent and often makes remarks about how great certain aspects of America are compared to Indian practices, illustrating the common behavior of Indians admiring Americans. Raj also suffers from a form of selective mutisim which prevents him from speaking to women – unless he is inebriated. This inability to talk to women seems to play into both the idea that male nerds have trouble talking to the opposite sex and the stereotype that young, foreign men having difficulty communicating with attractive women. Additionally, Raj’s parents are frequently shown trying to interfere with his romantic life – strengthening the association between Raj and what Americans believe to be typical Indian characteristics. Finally, Raj being both a nerd and Indian plays off of the resonance had by Americans between individuals of Asian ancestry being nerds versus the dissonance of Hispanic or African individuals being nerds. Viewers are encouraged to take Asians nerds seriously, while black nerds such as Steve Urkel are viewed humorously, because they don't fit into society's conception of nerds.
Another stereotyped character on the show is Howard Wolowitz, portrayed by Simon Helberg - a nerdy, Jewish, aerospace engineer. Wolowitz still lives at home with his extremely loud, overly informative, obnoxious mother. He is also explicitly portrayed as the creepiest and least likable character on the show. Wolowitz is completely out of touch with women and usually just ends up offending them when he attempts to interact with them. Here viewers are presented with several traits all popularly associated with young Jewish men. Wolowitz is very comparable in many ways with the famous Jewish sitcom character George Costanza of NBC’s Seinfeld, who also lives with his mother and is woefully inept at interacting with women.
One other significant stereotype on The Big Bang Theory is Penny – played by Kaley Cuoco – the protagonists’ next-door neighbor. Penny is pigeonholed into her stereotype so strongly that the writers have never even given the character a last name. She fits right into the typical “girl next door” character type in several ways. Firstly, she’s blonde and very attractive. She also hails from the Midwest (Nebraska) and works as a waitress as she tries to become a professional actress. Penny is initially portrayed as a sweet, unintelligent individual who gets by on her good looks and charm rather than possessing a strong intellect or talents. Finally, Penny fits the stereotype of a beautiful young neighbor by being presented as rather sexually promiscuous. Men are often seen leaving her apartment the morning after she's been on a date, and in episode 401,“The Robotic Manipulation,” Sheldon seems to accurately estimate the number of Penny’s sexual partners to be thirty-one.
Examining these examples, one could contend that the show uses stereotypes in two main ways. The first purpose is to generate comic relief at minimal investment. The common stereotypes incorporated in The Big Bang Theory are quite familiar to the majority of its audience. This allows the show to allot its time to better set up the main story threads it wants to promote while investing little to no time generating the secondary chuckles that sitcoms seem to require. In essence, using stereotypes often nets a show the best “bang for its buck.” While hour-long dramas have the time to develop side characters and situations, sitcoms writers know that time is at a premium. Networks expect them to fit as many laughs into a twenty-one minute time slot as possible. Character development is not essential to a sitcom, because the constantly changing scenarios provide for enough entertainment.
We can see stereotypes used to set up humor in The Big Bang Theory in a number of situations. One such case is in episode 108,“The Grasshopper Experiment.” In this case Raj’s parents – being the controlling, match-making Indian parents that they are – try to set him up with a woman from India. This situation based upon a stereotype allows humor to be found in multiple ways, including Raj taking up drinking to speak to women, Raj making a fool of himself in front of his arranged date, and Raj’s parents’ reactions when they find out the unfortunate results of said date. A similar situation occurs in episode 223, “The Monopolar Expedition.” Towards the end of this episode we see Raj’s and Howard’s over-controlling parents going at each other when their sons announce plans to go to the North Pole for a science experiment. Their ethnic backgrounds are played off each other to generate maximum comedic effect. Throughout the series one can see a plethora of simple jokes that require certain stereotypes in order to work. Without such stereotypes, much of the show's easily-generated side humor simply wouldn’t function.
The second primary purpose stereotypes serve in the series is to provide a shortcut in establishing who its characters are as people and how they fit into the show's mythos. In the very first episode we are introduced to all five main characters, and the stereotypes they are portrayed to fit immediately allow the audience to get a solid grasp on what it can expect from them. Raj is the awkward foreigner, Howard is the creepy Jewish guy living with his mom, and Penny is the desirable but dim girl next door. After one episode, with little exposure to these characters, the audience has a solid foundation for how to perceive them. Again, the show is using stereotypes to better allocate its resources, allowing it to focus on the main characters of Leonard and Sheldon.
It's important to note that these stereotypes are only a starting point for these characters. While certain elements of the stereotypes remain in place – such as Raj having an Indian accent, Wolowitz living with his mother, and Penny being attractive – others are removed in order for the characters to develop and show more complexity. In Episode 217, “The Terminator Decoupling,” Raj is seen interacting with a woman in a positive way, something not initially seen on the show. In Episode 212, “The Killer Robot Instability,” Wolowitz shows a sensitive side, and the audience is given an explanation for why he comes off as creepy and inept. Finally, in episode 207, “The Panty Piñata Polarization,” Penny is seen to possess a keen mind, proving herself to be an extremely capable foe for Sheldon. All of these significant developments take place in season two, which lends itself to the idea that the stereotypes were used as springboards, allowing characters to exist in a familiar form until the show had time to better define them.
While they clearly serve a useful purpose for shows, stereotypes can also have a negative effect, reinforcing and perpetuating prejudices of audience members. Seeing a character in a stereotypical role adds credence to the stereotype. However, as shown in the previous paragraph, the use of stereotypes can be a net positive if they are eventually explored and pursued by a show. If a show can establish a character of a particular stereotyped group and then turn certain conceptions of that character completely around, the audience’s perceptions may be changed. Counterexamples and surprises in the stories may bring traditional views into question. Of course, this is not always the case. Rather than adjusting the given stereotype to fit the character, the audience will sometimes chose to instead move said character out of that stereotypical group. Even in these cases, it still seems that audience members make a little progress into better understanding stereotypes.
As more and more television shows are produced, we can expect the use of stereotypes to continue. Despite the negative effects they may carry, they are simply too efficient at providing humor and establishing characters to be simply tossed aside. However, one can hope that as more shows employ stereotypes, these stereotypes will begin to dilute somewhat, due to audiences being shown so many variations of the same type of character. While this may simply cause broad stereotypes to fracture into smaller, more specific stereotypes, doing so will reduce the amount of generalization that each stereotype encompasses. Ironically enough, the continued use of stereotypes may, in time, show audiences more nuanced sides of various, stereotyped groups that exist in today’s television landscape.
(Special thanks to my lovely sister, Sarah Joy Hewitt for the input and corrections she provided me with for this piece.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)