Classism and Realism

[alixtii]

There's some metafandom-ed posts about Supernatural and class, and at least one flocked post on my flist thinking about it in the abstract, and it's gotten me to revisit my thoughts, because class really does color the way I view fictional characters quite deeply. Well, maybe not class per se, since I've said things like that in the past and been forced to take them back, but classed markers certainly, even as I'm still not at all sure the distinction makes any sense. (Not gender per se but gendered markers? Not race but racialized markers? What are gender, race, and class except a set of markers? Is there such a thing as class essentialism?) Education, idiolect, certain values, cultural capital--things like that--with the archetypal example being high-school student Buffy Summer's ability to make topical allusions to Arthur Miller or Samuel Beckett. (So admittedly it is a very narrow set of classed--and raced and gendered, but especially classed and raced--markers that make me interested in a fictional character.)

Now, the thing I'm still struggling with is how problematic that fact is. It seems acceptable to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about working-class characters" in a way it would never be to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about women" or "I'm not interested in watching a show about characters of color." But as a person of immense privilege, the fact that it seems acceptable may be no more than an indicator of how far I still have to go--the way that replacing "white" and "black" for "men" and "women" in a certain situation can make it much clearer how problematic it is, as in this comment to a languagelog post:

In general, though, I would say there is clearly much more public tolerance in the US for prejudice against women and misogynistic speech than there is tolerance for racist speech. This was most clearly illustrated to me in a story a professor of mine in University told of an administrative meeting he attended where one of the speakers was discussing a vote that had taken place and in relation to that made a joke about how giving women the right to vote had been a mistake, and was met with genuine laughter. He noted, truthfully I think, that this would have been met with awkward incredulity if it were instead about African Americans or some other racial group.

Of course, the degree to which this works will depend on just how "real" one considers sexual difference to be, as evidenced by all the people who disagree with me on whether there will be gender-segregated bathrooms in the feminist utopia. (Of course, insofar as the point of gender-segregated bathrooms is to keep the other sex out, I'd argue there's something hugely heterosexist as well as sexist going on there.) (And if we look at the way racial difference went from seeming quite real to the idea being almost absurd, I don't see why the same process couldn't play out wrt gender.)

Still, it seems to be natural and unproblematic to say "it's better to be rich than to be poor" (even though what I'm really interested and invested in has nothing to do with income except insofar as hip-hop music has something to do with race or skirts have to do with gender) in a way one can't even say, say, "it's better to see than to be blind." (Not that I'd want to say the latter, mind you--I've learned better--but I think it's still intuitive for a lot of people.) And I can only doubt my privilege so much.

In the end, I suppose it comes down to the fact that while the "reality" of sexuality difference is more or less irrelevant to gender inequality (by which I mean that having a penis doesn't convey in itself any real power), and thus the semiotic power of gendered markers are able to function more or less independently of that reality, and the reality of racial difference (none at all chromosomally) is in some ways more and some ways less divorced from racial inequality, Not having a penis is only a lack once you've read Lacan. Similarly with not being white. Not having money, on the other hand--well, obviously this too is a lack which is in large part semiotic, since currency doesn't have any intrinsic value, as you can't eat or drink it--not having the stuff which money can buy to satisfy one's needs and wants, however, represents a real imbalance in power which is not present in the raced or gendered scenarios. And "classism" as a superstructural system of injustice where the rich think the poor are ignorant trash and the working-class think the upper class are pretentious twits sort of operates above this base.

Except that now I sound like some cross between a Lacanian, a classical Marxist, and a metaphysical realist (what is this "real" of which I speak?) and--perish the thought. And ultimately, this distinction does seem to be bogus. The phenomenology of women's lived experience under systemic injustice is that of a "real" lack, no more or less than the one that comes from not having money to spend. All the money in the world won't help you if your boyfriend won't let you out of the house to spend it.

Comments

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[elf]

I don't know "King of Queens"--but I do know that a lot of TV about "blue collar life" (or whatever's below that; a blue collar job is a step or two up from where most of my friends are) is hideously inaccurate.

In "Dharma and Greg," Dharma and her family & friends are supposed to be outcast hippie-freaks in SF. Setting aside the notion of several outcast hippie-freaks having their own nifty apartments in neighborhoods where Greg's family isn't terrified to visit... none of them seem to be employed at supermarkets or record stores (or three different shops); none of them are wearing oversized, ugly secondhand clothes when they're just hanging around the house; their kitchen appliances all work... I thought there must be some kind of trust fund involved.

*tries to think of other "working class" tv shows; I don't watch much network tv*

Hell, what are the "working class" shows?

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

You've hit a good point there. That being that TV is not supposed to be reflective of real life. Sitcoms are *exaggerated* versions of the lives most people lead. That's why they're funny. And why people on them can live in huge pads that they could never afford in real life.

As for "blue collar" shows, well, I just take that as meaning shows where the characters don't have much money. But, honestly, that's a pretty shallow way of looking at it. Since not having much money or having a traditionally blue collar job doesn't mean that the person acts in ways typically connected to the blue collar lifestyle.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[elf]

They're supposed to be exaggerated, but not fantastic. Often, the upper class details are skewed, and the lower class ones are so blatantly wrong it's obvious that either the writer or the producer (who changes details to match his preferences) has never known anyone who lived on less than $80k/year.

"Married With Children"... another fine example, even setting aside the size of the house (maybe there's a housing code issue with the place, and the landlord knows that if he kicks them out, he'll have to fix it before he can rent it again), of writing that has no idea how a family can survive on a single salesman's income.

not having much money or having a traditionally blue collar job doesn't mean that the person acts in ways typically connected to the blue collar lifestyle.

I dunno about that. Poverty shapes people's lives in ways that are frighteningly consistent. And while TV, especially sitcoms, are going to show a distorted, mocking view of that (and I don't have a problem with that), it'd be nice if I got the idea that somebody in the process of making that parody had any idea what it was actually based on.

And the lack of that connection, the lack of the reality awareness underneath the show, may be why people say "I'm not interested in lower-class shows." Because they're aware on a subconscious level that it's not real, that people aren't like that in those circumstances. Not even when you allow for exaggeration.

Lower-class people may watch them because any shred of accuracy feels like a vindication, and the inaccuracies are no more removed from their lives (my life) than the other shows on TV.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I think it is a bit like them having a pet pterodactyl - it works best as just a thing that is part of the story, not as something one analyses too closely. I know that as a bisexual I find it relaxing to have an imaginary world where everyone is bisexual, but yes, the illusion does break down if examined up close. Hence I tend just not to examine it :oD I think fiction can achieve useful things that way. I'm not sure if RTD knows that he has created a 'safe haven' for sexual minorities, or if he feels an obligation to preserve it by how he treats the Jack/Ianto relationship. He probably is aware because he seems very conscious of fan reactions, but he may not feel any obligation towards the situation. I have heard him comment on the burden of a writer having to represent any minority he happens to belong to, so he may feel he wants to break the requirement. It is after all rather a restriction on any writer to have to service their audience's socio-political expectations, he would probably rather concentrate on such minor matters as plot, character etc!

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

I think they probably were pandering in the first season. Which was fun if you happened to be one of the people being pandered to! But yes, it doesn't make much logical sense - like so much in Torchwood.

[http://users.livejournal.com/peasant_/]

It is, of course, the extremes of the curve which drives the perception of sexual difference

I disagree with that. If you have a plot of 'body strength' against 'frequency' and draw curves for 'men' and 'women' there will be overlap at the edges, where 'abnormal' people feature, but the basic curves won't overlap much. I would say the gender differences are very real and exist because the summits of the two curves are separated by some distance. The most obvious difference is reproduction equipment, and most of our historical gender differences seem traceable back to that. But simple daily observation tells me that most men are starting from a position of greater body strength than most women. It probably isn't apparent to people who work in offices but out in my daily life it is a hugely significant and dominant factor. Men are stronger - it's just a fact.

And let's face it, gender inequality didn't come about because of some huge conspiracy of men that women were too stupid to prevent, it came about because men are stronger and not rendered relatively immobile by pregnancy and young children. Those differences still exist and are still relevant in today's society.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Well, about half the characters on TV are female. So there ya go.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I think the problem here is that you're looking for comedy shows to be accurate. Comedy lives off misconceptions. Sitcoms are pretty much meant to be a cartoon version of real life. Now in drama I think being accurate is more important. But with realism dramas are usually a mixed bag.

In the end it's really not about comedy or drama. It's about good writing or lack there of.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

That's part of what bugs me. Torchwood has very smart writing most of the time. So they really don't need to pander.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[executrix.livejournal.com]

TV isn't quite as gender-unbalanced as the US Senate, but there are a lot more male than female characters, and male characters get a lot more lines.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

You're comparing TV to the Senate? Apples and oranges.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I'm not even sure that much is true.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Her overall point still stands, I think.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Maybe. Maybe not.

I suppose a 50/50 split across the board is unrealistic. I can think of a fair number of shows with an odd number of main characters, after all.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[elf]

What are the non-comedy shows dealing with lower-class/working-class life?

I don't watch much network TV, so I don't know if not being able to think of any just means I'm out of touch, or poor families aren't considered good for drama, just for jokes. (That probably sounds more sharp than intended. I'm really just puzzled, trying to think of "families like mine" in a non-comedy TV setting, and drawing a blank.)

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[elf]

I think about half the bodies you see on TV are female. I don't believe the number of named characters with speaking parts comes anywhere near equality between the sexes.

It's an interesting question; it'd take charts and graphs to find out.

Re: this may be unpopular but....

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

I think about half the bodies you see on TV are female

I'm still not sure about that much even. I'll have to think about it. (Excuse to watch TV!)

coming in late from metafandom

[miriam-heddy.livejournal.com]

One way to read that as not pandering is to assume a sort of Adrienne Rich reading, wherein Jack's created a climate of non-compulsory heterosexuality, which allows all of his people to explore their identity (sexual and otherwise), at will, in a work environment that essentially encompasses their non-work environment as well (as Gwen's learned, TW people are never off the clock).

Re: coming in late from metafandom

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Or it could just be the writers playing up "Sex sells."

Re: coming in late from metafandom

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Well, the two explanations work on different levels; the extra-diegetic Doylist explanation doesn't deny the diegetic Watsonian reading--or the need for the Watsonian reading, either. And the Watsonian explanations tend to be richer and more interesting, in my experience.

Re: coming in late from metafandom

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I like good ol' Occam's Razar.

Re: coming in late from metafandom

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

But if invoking the author when looking for an in-universe explanation counts as a least hypothesis, then the answer to all questions of science should be "God say so" or some such. The point isn't that one type of explanation is better than the other, but that they explain different things, and having one doesn't eliminate the need for the other.

[triestine.livejournal.com]

It seems acceptable to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about working-class characters" in a way it would never be to say "I'm not interested in watching a show about women" or "I'm not interested in watching a show about characters of color."

How are they not acceptable? I'm a woman, and I'm not interested in shows about women. In fact, any show with a cast consisting overwhelmingly of (group), be it women, immigrants, middle-aged white men, what have you, is likely to put me off because it is likely to focus on issues relevant to (group), and since I work on those IRL, what I want from my TV is entertainment. I really shouldn't have to feel ashamed because of this, or have it conflated with racism, sexism, or other discrimination.

[triestine.livejournal.com]

Ah, I just posted a comment trying to explain this, but you said it better.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

As usual, generalizations are always dangerous--it would be clearly wrong to say that someone who wasn't interested in X was motivated against intolerance against X (which I never said it, or would say it). At the same time, all things being equal (which they clearly are not in your specific case), it can function as a warning sign more or less along the same vein as "I'm not racist but..." (which doesn't logically need to be followed by a racist statement, even if it usually is). It's a square on a bingo card, something which may or may not be part of a larger pattern, something which may or may not be defensible on its own terms in a specific instance.

As to why it's a square on a bingo card, I don't think what we find interesting is ever innocent; they're product of our lives and our society and culture. Most people not interested in watching X's lack of interest doesn't stem from the fact that they are out fighting for justice on the part of X the rest of their lives, so I think we can legitimately ask what social forces are at work in creating such a disinterest (especially at a macro level, but on a personal level too). And I don't think the fact that it's intended to be entertaining is a get out of free card--our choice of entertainment is probably the strongest influence on who we are and who we are to become, and I think it needs to be asked why we find what we find to be entertaining entertaining.