There were two types of surveillance described in these articles: Orwellian surveillance and surveillance that feeds into the voyeuristic desires of the masses. Robins and Webster talk mainly of the Orwellian surveillance used as mind/thought control and compiling information that will give one group power over another. Andrejevic mentions this, but focuses on fulfilling our voyeuristic fetishes and how that displays itself in reality TV and various other consumer/viewer-based media.
We like to watch, and according to Andrejevic, we want to watch more people like us. Fading are the days of watching Hollywood elites pretending to be the “average Joes or Janes,” when it is possible to watch the real thing. I think this can ultimately result in a softened view of surveillance, and that this desire to see “real” people in “real” situations is founded in the basest of psychological desires.
Now, I don’t think because people want to watch others or want to be watched that we will allow ourselves to become subject to Orwellian surveillance. However, I do think that our voyeuristic tendencies could be taken too far when government officials are stating that new “security” technologies would only be used as a crime deterrent or to keep our computers safe – like the YouTube video argues. We need to be aware of what the government is preaching about closed circuit cameras or television services and safe computing scanning: we could lose the freedoms given to us in the Bill of Rights to a security feature that invades more than it protects.
My second point is founded in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. One of those needs is belonging. We all want to feel like we belong somewhere or within some group of people. Watching people whom we can relate to on TV, makes us feel like we belong – like we aren’t alone. It lets us think, “Hey, I’m kind of like Jane Doe on Amazing Race – I could win that race if I wanted.” Having the reality TV genre as a kind of mirror for the “average Joes and Janes” who watch works as justification or validation for how “real” people live. Granted, some things are scripted to create drama. But it’s still real people “acting out” the script.
2 comments:
I agree that one function of reality TV is for viewers to identify with the people in the show (ie. "Gee, I sure am a lot like New York, I bet Flava Flav and I would get along great as well!") but I also think the opposite function can be achieved. I can't be the only person that has spent time watching some reality TV simply because it makes me feel better about my own life. In Burke-speak I guess that would be that every time we identify with someone we are also necessarily disidentiying with someone at the same time, and vice versa.
Oh sure! But a lot of the literature was talking about how viewers were watching "real" people versus celebrities because they could relate. I assumed it was a positive relation, but it also could be negative. I don't recall if the authors ever articulated one way or the other specifically.
Post a Comment