You don't have to watch Glee (a musical series on Fox) to be aware of the determinedly diverse cast. The high school glee club ensemble includes students of varying ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientation, and level of physical ability. It includes students from both ends of the high school popularity food chain, as football players and cheerleaders are recruited and continuously feign reluctance to be on the team. The overarching theme of this show, aside from the pure entertainment value of Bon Jovi/Usher mashup performances (admittedly not for everyone), is that of inclusion.
The show doesn’t shy away from issues regarding these differences, and it somewhat formulaically addresses each one in turn. In the season finale, for example, the team competed in a sectionals tournament against an all-girls reform school and a school for the deaf. Yet I can’t help but wonder why, despite these efforts, every character that doesn’t fit the characteristics of the majority is relegated to the sidelines. The photo included above (click to view the whole photo) demonstrates the careful balance of acceptability that’s been crafted: the four main characters (center-right) are white, heterosexual, and non-disabled. Other characters on the periphery that also meet these requirements include girlfriends, wives, and best friends/love-triangle rivals of the main characters; it would seem that any interracial relationships including any the main characters are off limits.
The sense of inclusiveness is one of the major commodities of the series, yet it is arguably only within pre-determined “acceptable” limits. This photo is probably enough to discuss without having seen the show, but full episodes and episode recaps are on hulu.
This is an excellent post, and super provocative example. It would be great to discuss further "how is difference being fetishized (Marx) and used as commodity"? It also brings up some great material to discuss in terms of socially acceptable difference and the Other in mainstream representations. I haven't seen the show...but will check it out before class. Prof. Molina
ReplyDeleteI've caught a few episodes of this show, I thought I should see what all the hype was about. What I found most interesting about Glee is how diversity has become neutralized. There are, as you said, socially acceptable limits on difference - and this is how the show has made such differences palatable for prime time television.
ReplyDeleteSam--diversity is neutralized because of the marketability of blandness......but how could this be true? How could it POSSIBLY be true that we will pay for the bland? How could being spicy be bad business?
ReplyDeleteWhen's the last time the spiciest dish on the menu got sold out? I've heard myself say it more than once--yeah, I'll take some hot sauce......ON THE SIDE! I RESPECT and sometimes even ENVY my peers that scoff at the raw jalapeno, and that ask for extra spicy when we go out for thai....but when I'm eating Pad See Ew, I want to enjoy it, not to challenge myself to a painful contest of hot/too hot.
So it goes when I sit down to watch my fave TV show. I'm not there to see if it'll be too hot......I want a break and I've damned well earned it. So don't go challenging me with too much of your equality bullshit...I like it mild!
OK and one more thing, Marx talks about it.....I go to the Art Institute in Chicago's contemporary art section.....and I see a big plaster hand that doubles as a chair. Cool, I say!
ReplyDelete(But hell no is that thing going in my living room....)
It's FETISHISM. Well, the first part is, anyway.....I've given a price to this hand-thing. I'm commodified it, given it a value based on the personal labor given to its many parts....the dry plaster, the water, the paint.....I've even given it a higher value based on its eclectic-properties....it's a frickin hand.
But there are limits towards which we will pay. A chair with neon colored seats, ok. I'm a racy lady that likes to challnge tradition. But a hand chair? No. People might think I just like getting my ass grabbed!
P.S. Sam, I liked your use of the word "palatable" and should have referenced it in that first response.
Despite never seeing the show, it seems plausible to propose that the notion of “accepting differences/inclusiveness” is serving as the value commodity. The show challenges social relations, yet, by representing differences only in terms of “socially acceptable ones,” it inherently reinforces the status quo. This speaks to the concept of hegemony. Gilroy addresses ‘a new theory of multiculturalism which enhances tolerance and respect’ and that such could potentially be achieved through ‘rethinking cultural differences through notions of hierarchy and hegemony.’ The institution of media has real implications in society, despite media merely being a socially constructed representation of reality. By workings of a top-down, profit-driven, homogenous media institution, is such a “multiculture” based on “mutual equivalence” fathomable? I think not. Discourse/power relations and representation are always at play. When a show like Glee proposes that certain “differences” are “acceptable,” yet others are not, this says that certain differences are “chosen” and welcomed into an evolving status quo, yet, inevitably other differences are “othered/marginalized.” It is uplifting to imagine a society which celebrates difference as if it were similarity, yet it seems a bit utopian given the sociocultural processes constantly fueling the system. Difference is key to the notion of identity formation; if “difference” has an ever-changing meaning, and identity is constantly unstable, and a status quo is consistently hegemonically upheld, then how can difference inform an acceptable identity contrary to the status quo? Marx discusses commodities in terms of being valued entities which participate in a sociocultural exchange. It is interesting to think about “inclusiveness” as a commodity being bought and sold, if you will, in the marketplace of values projected to society. How can a minority group or value become so inclusive that it is deemed socially acceptable and “mutually equivalent” to the majority? Is “mutual equivalence” ever possible?
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to question the validity of the 'inclusion' that is often associated with the cast of Glee and the way that it truly functions on the show. Sam makes a good point when she notes that these differences are, to some degree, neutralized. While I would agree with you that there definitely have been limits to the relationships of each diverse character, I would have to disagree that there isn't a 'mutual equivalence' between all of the characters within the realm of the show and the glee group that they're involved in.
ReplyDeleteThe show is in its first season and there has yet to be a lot of plot movement but there has been heavy character development. While there has been more focus on the two, heterosexual white main characters this is because of whom their character functions as in the show - the top two singers in the group.
I think the depth that the minority characters have received and demonstrated is phenomenal. In the season finale that was cited, the solo for sectionals was given to the African American girl and the team unanimously chose her. Another example would be the vulnerability and the confidence that was displayed by Artie, the handicapped member of the team, when he discovered that his team member who he related to due to her ‘speech impediment’ was not permanently disabled like he was and rejected her love interest. Not too mention, when the homosexual boy on the team came out to his working class father, I may have shed a tear. While these situations might not be wildly challenging to social norms, there is certainly a deviation that is commendable.
Excellent line of discussion we'll pick up in class. What is the "value" given to "diversity" as a commodity? Under what conditions can it be commodified? And is commodification itself always a negative process? Certainly, as Patrick mentioned there can be a case for commodification as central to the process of "self-representation" especially for subaltern or marginalized communities.
ReplyDeleteI have honestly never watched the show Glee and really don't pay much attention to what is said about it. I was talking to my friend about it earlier to get some background and from what I have read in the blog it seems like the differences that are put in the show are limited to what is marketable. I personally think the media is always looking out for its own interest it's refreshing to watch a show that is so diverse in terms of everything, cultures, colors, disabilities, sexual orientation but at the same time the fact that they constrict the degree of difference just goes to show that's the way we live. when your growing up people always tell you be yourself, be different, but then you have to worry about fitting these norms society places on us. that if you don't grow up in this mold society will shun you out and oppress you, and even when you are born different there is always this desire to just be "normal" like everyone else. it's like everything we do, say, wear, how we act has to be "socially accepted" the societal pressure dictate what is done and this show from what I hear and read shows just that, how being different and diverse is good but not too different and not too divers. Limits, they are everywhere...I personally thinks it's is ridiculous that we live like this and I love to see different people who really just don"t give a HOOT.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed knecast2's post. I had very similar thoughts when reading the Glee piece. In Gilroy's piece "British Cultural Studies and the Pitfalls of Identity," he discusses why their is a societal stress on having an identity. When looking at the cast it made me think about how some of the characters are necessary in the show in order to portray identity. Immediately after I read Olivia's post I thought of the coined (no pun intended) social science term "tokenism." Yes, the photograph portrays four individuals of societal perfection, yet we cannot forget to token characters on the left side of the photograph. Although I have yet to see the show, I could probably safely assume that the female Asian American and the handicapped white male add to the show a unique sense of humor and "lightheartedness." When thinking about US media's carefulness for "political correctness" they will never forget to include a smidgen of polite and moderate diversity. So has Glee successfully commodified itself for mainstream America? According to the text, their job seems to be successful, all I know is my parents love it.
ReplyDeleteBTW Audrey...extra props for doing the graduate readings...tokenism is perhaps the best way to describe the race/ethnicity in the current state of television. "Moderate" or "safe" diversity playing an important role in drawing in larger audiences and increasing the "exchange value" of the program--no?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Neyshalee with the comment about how the media wants to "refresh the shows" to contemporary society... as an attempt to reflect it ? no, as an attempt to sell and commodify, mmm yes.
ReplyDeleteWHAT IS INTERESTING FOR ME: Is that this show is a MUSICAL!!!... it appears that through this medium differences are more easy commodified and accepted by the viewers. The musical becomes the artifice through identities are sold... It is not a reality show, is a musical!!! lalalalalala....and this characteristic, really opens the door for illusions and blurry notions of reality, there are some notions of romanticism surrounding this embrace towards diversity.
The show, is an idealistic way to present these identities, and the relationships between the characters. It seems that this 'embrace' towards diversity is only plausible through a form that by definition operates with theatricality. GLEE is just creating an illusion.
What you all think?!?!
I have to add... an illusion that sells...
ReplyDeleteI don't know much about this musical but I'm interested in how the differences or the marginalized were chosen to include? Are these marginalized "minorities" (Asian Americans, gay men, people on wheelchair) also the most visible or powerful minority groups in the US society?
ReplyDeleteIt is fair to say this show is a “commodity” and people are extremely interested and entertained by the social challenges the characters face. But we must ask ourselves is this diversity at its best? So may say yes because it has a cast made up of all different races and cultures. However I feel this show is marketable but doesn’t reach the extremes in which I would like to see it’s too bland. However I guess it is doing what it intended to do which is convince people that is truly a diverse show although we can clearly see the one sided views….but we continue to watch it!
ReplyDeleteNibia's point is an interesting one -- does the fact its grounded in a musical genre make it easier to accept ethnic, racial, sexual difference. Again, it is important to think through under what conditions is "difference" considered to be commodifiable within mainstream popular culture? Is commodification "better" than invisibility for marginalized groups? Does "authenticity" matter, and what are the conseguences of "inauthentic" representations? Those are some of the questions asked by the commentators on this blog that are interesting to explore further.
ReplyDeleteThose are very interesting questions to ponder. I would be interested to hear what those who are of a minority group have to say. However, we are dealing with media, which provides one socially constructed representation of reality, which is produced top-down through profit-driven media companies seeking the largest profit margins and the largest audience appeal, so is anything ever portrayed through the media truly authentic? Even documentaries supposedly presenting all fact are presented a certain way. It is hard to say whether commodification is "better" than invisibility. Commodification at least provides a voice, however a voice which can then lead to great misunderstandings and marked inferiorities, which can have real life implications. I think the consequence of "inauthentic" representations is misunderstanding. I would say "authenticity" matters, but as I asked before, is anything portrayed through media truly authentic? Also, is misunderstanding such a big deal? I mean all in all any communication can be misunderstood, and it is up to the viewer to use his/her critical thinking skills to assess the polysemic texts surrounding him/her in everyday life. I mean even if a minority group WAS presented in the most authentic fashion possible, receivers of that information are still going to “read” the message according to selective perception, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that diversity is the new look for commodity to get out there. But the things is where culture implies into the TV shows. It seems like the minorites are giving into what looks good in media instead of accepting their own culture. Commodity is all about what is acceptable to the people in society to discover. Sometimes they put it mainstream to see how people will react to it.
ReplyDeleteFrom my point of view, Glee is trying to neutralize the diversity because they want to satisfy a larger group of audiences. It indicates that it is not only a musical for a certain social group, but a musical where everybody can see him/herself in it. Therefore, in order to have people commodifying it, it has to let people discover its value.
ReplyDeleteAs has been mentioned in some earlier comments, this show represents differences only in terms of the socially acceptable ones. For me, it seems that it has polarized differences into two kinds: positive ones and negative ones. And the producer thinks those positive differences can be accepted or commodified by a larger market.
However, who is the person that makes the standards to judge these differences? Why should the so-called “minority” be considered as “different” and “others” in most cases? Why should the “minority” be commodified but not the “majority”?
I have to agree that it’s actually a smart choice for Glee to choose those dominant traits of socially acceptable differences and create such illusions. At least, it can help it win the “majority” favorable opinions.
I find this blog very interesting. I have never thought about the idea of inclusiveness being a commodity. I work for University Housing as a paraprofessional and our goal as a staff is too make them most inclusive environment that we can in our efforts to build community. As other bloggers have pointed out, I have noticed that there is a limit to how far one can go when promoting diversity. I find my staff limiting our "inclusiveness" to what is acceptable by the residence. If anything deviated from what is acceptable the residences go against it through various forms of vandalism to show their intolerance. I do agree that this show represents the commodification of inclusiveness but there still remains in a box of limitation. As Marx article discusses, commodities are often fetishized. This show was well as my job are too examples of how diversity is viewed as something that everyone should embodied.
ReplyDeleteYes, inclusiveness I agree is seen as sort of a good or positive commodity in which it is drawing viewers that have the same experiences and backgrounds as the characters of Glee. There does seem to be an acceptable level of difference indicated within the show. Based on the description of several shows in which Patrick gives, I am pretty much convinced that this show illustrates diversity to the audience. The depiction that everyone is equal and no one has a problem with tolerating these images in the media seems to be acceptable right? No. Not at all. Tolerance is a term given by those who are not considered diverse. Therefore, this method of tolerance as far as racism goes shows that, similar to what Audrey states, this a form of moderate diversity in which political critics would deem acceptable.
ReplyDelete