Millions of people are glued to soaps – EastEnders alone famously drew in 16.6 million viewers eager to find out who bumped off Archie Mitchell on 19th February 2010. Yet it is usual for people, whether they know about them or not, to criticise the soap opera harshly for being a “lowbrow” cultural form. There are objections to their sexy yet formulaic sensationalism, their realism, surrealism or escapism, their lack of sophistication, their mind-numbing-ness, or simply a perceived complete lack of artistic merit. Their cultural value is often seen as below interrogation. The people who watch and invest in them are, consequently, passive consumers or idiots – telly addicts, people without lives, deluded into believing the characters are “real” and just not particularly intellectual.
 |
| Fans know the soaps they watch are not "real" (Coronation St set) |
The thing is, I LOVE soaps, and interact with them in many different ways. Sometimes I tune in to the telly at the familiar times; I watch them online; surf blogs which provide spoilers and chat about the stories in forums; survey the fan fiction (aint gotten round to writing some yet but it is only a matter of time…); flick though the mags; check out the interviews of the soap stars and producers; discuss the storylines with my friends and family. I pride myself for keeping up with, must be, almost a score of soaps from around the world. I am a hardcore soapy.
So am I unintellectual, brainwashed, passive and a loser without a life? Probably… but no more than many non-soapys, and there is, hopefully, more to me that this definition. I like learning, politics, playing music, fiddling around with creative writing, footballing, socialising, travelling and taking on new things. Just, I like soaps as well – not as a dirty indulgence but as an equal part of a pursuit of a well-rounded personality. But why should I feel forced to lay my intellectual credits on the table in order to get you to listen to me? If I wasn’t that person, does that render my experiences and thoughts invalid? Why should I give a damn about what certain people approve as appropriate intellectual pursuits?
 |
| There is now an international cultural exchange between soap fans. |
Adorno showed clear similarities to Kant: art can therefore have this transcendence, almost spiritual, quasi mystical quality. Likewise, Adorno famously observed that the jitterbug, a jerky popular dance in the 1940s, was ritualistic and an act of “compulsive mimicry” whereby people just responded to the music “whirring around like fascinated insects.” Yet neither philosopher really defined art, and behind these arguments are a suspicion of functionalism and the primitive senses of the body which can in some way be aroused by cultural objects. The formalists have argued that art should be discussed in terms of style or “significant form.” There are clear philosophical connections to Kant’s “beauty”, which also stressed on that detachment from other kinds of interest we have in an object. But the suggestion that objects have inherent qualities which evoke certain responses risks being an assertion of essentialism or absolutism. In fact the term aint any easier to understand than “art” – many things have a “form” which we admire.
Flaco and Lalo: gay footballers in Argentinian soap Botineras redefine "high art"
The upshot is that we are confronted with the inability of art and high art to define themselves despite smug claims that high art is better than low because it is more difficult or arouses deeper emotions and that low art is inferior because it is formulaic and encourages passive consumption. At the end of the day, this leaves us with the unsatisfactory position that art is a certain judgement made by certain people – which actually aint such a bad definition after all? Institutionalist philosophers would call these “certain people” the “Art World” or cultural intermediaries – who basically tell us what is or isn’t art. Marxist cultural critic Eagleton argues in Ideology of the Aesthetic (1990) that economic, social and political forces not only shape a society's idea about art but artistic judgements are a fundamental to society’s structure. Going back to Kant, Eagleton argues that in this regards aesthetic judgement upholds the prevailing morality and social order. Likewise, assigning value to art and culture is closely connected to debates over censorship and social control. Capital, states and institutions control people’s access and ideas - but this aint just about laws or even commercialism, but about systems of selection, funding, promotion and, of course, constructions of taste.
Basically people are essentially prejudiced towards low forms of culture or art, and not only is this hierarchy related to social class, but social snobbery is inherent in the concept of high art – there can be only high art if there is low art. The idea that art has a special value which cannot be found in mass culture ends in a complete lack of respect for the cultural habits of the masses. And yet culture is an important part of all of our lives - attached strongly to our sense of identity. It is a hell of a thing to tell someone thattheir taste is shit and below discussion. It follows that the consumers of low art are less intelligent, and lower, than those of high art. When people flippantly dismiss soaps, surely they are also dismissing the people to whom soaps are important?
Once we move away from thinking that forms and styles have intrinsic value, many questions arise… Why should a cultural object be difficult and quasi- mystical? Why don’t we pride communication and engagement with working class culture as a skill? Why is it that the less people can access an art the better it is? Isn’t all culture formulaic in some way? Why should there be an art experience that is somehow higher than sensuality? What is wrong with escapism, cartharsis, sensuality or hedonism?
Look, it aint to say that we don’t have a critique of the commercialism and commodification of every part of our lives (for which Adorno is actually useful) nor about who wields power under capitalism. Clearly the denial of working class expression is a part of the dictatorship of capital. But at the end of the day everything is controlled by capital – whether it is bourgeois art or mass culture. The construction of the stupid, ‘tricked’ and passive soap–watcher allows no space for people to express agency. Saying that someone’s culture is crap and less sophisticated is a part of the denial of expression.
 |
| Eastenders "baby-swap": viewers' response influenced storyline |
Going back more directly to the stuff said against soaps, academic Dorothy Hobson’s work Crossroads: The Drama of a Soap Opera revealed that the concept of the completely passive soap viewer is a myth. Confirming my experiences, she found that soap-viewers’ interaction with the medium is complex. That viewers had a high level of critical awareness, based on a close knowledge of story lines, and rooted in their experience of everyday life. Discussing characters in the soap as if they were real was a ‘game’ they played with one another, well aware of what they were doing
Indeed, as a soapy, I am always conscious of the ‘writer’, “the producer” and “the channel”. Storylines are created in dialogue with the viewer’s mood. There are many examples where storylines have changed directions as a result of the viewer reaction – most recently Ronnie Branning’s ‘baby-swap’ story in EastEnders. It is funny to see what writers/producers attempt to get away with and what they can’t. The development of online fan fiction means that viewers actually take control of the characters as they write scenes which continue the storylines or completely change them. People cut and mix scenes into extremely diverse and creative music video or montages on YouTube. Some people translate soaps and post them, within minutes of them airing, on to online forums for others in different countries to enjoy: for no reason but sheer commitment. Soaps are ‘popular art’ with communal participation and yes, they may offer companionship to people who may be living mainly solitary lives under the alienation of capitalism – what is wrong with this????? Soaps are just a form and style – it is what is done with them that is (or is not) interesting.
'Twisted Love': a fan's creative response to Hollyoaks
I like soaps coz I am fascinated with language, characters (and characterisation), stories (and story telling). I have an intrinsic understanding of the different formulas used by different soaps, aired by different channels in different countries – I know the codes like I know the back of my hand. I assess what I believe to be ‘good’ and ‘bad’ writing or character development. I am interested in not only what they say about a culture, what they say about how cultural intermediaries try to define a culture and to what extend people accept and resist this. I look to soaps for their realism - in that I relate and empathise with characters or grapple with the social issues which they throw up - and their escapism - to play with living the lives of these fantastical characters and events. I like soaps because they challenge me with new ideas and cultures but that they are also familiar and routine. Coz they include me in the many worlds they create (fictional and in terms of viewer communities). Coz they stimulate my consciousness and make me ask questions. Coz they also make me chill out. Coz they are addictive. Coz they give me a buzz and release in a pressurised society. Coz my Grandmother has watched Coronation Street since it began in the 1960s. Coz everyone watched Neighbours at school. Coz EastEnders is gritty and is both like and nothing like the East End. Coz Hollyoaks is fun. Coz they can be hard hitting. Coz they can be ridiculous. Coz they don’t exclude me or make me feel inadequate. Coz they connect me to other people who understand them. I love soaps because I can own them and make them mine in loads of different ways. And I don’t see why doing something you love, if it isn’t hurting anyone else, is wasting your time (something I am often accused of)…
 |
| Mercy: fighting deportation. Heather: coping with poverty. Soaps can challenge social problems in a radical way |
I am sick of hearing some people dismissing soaps with a smug Guardian reading, independent record label preaching, Radio Four listening, aged furniture loving, Bob Dylan adoring, vintage chic wearing, organic food eating, self-congratulating recycling laugh – as if this means you got everything sorted with the world. Not that I am actually dissing any of these things themselves (most apply to me anyways) but I am just trying to crudely paint a “type”. And/or those who do not watch soaps and do not understand their codification. Those that judge soaps on a pre-prescribed criteria which, of course, is designed to fail them. Those that spout an opinion from ignorance. Those that have made no effort to discover the thoughts and feelings of viewers. Hobson gets it right when she says; “it is false and elitist criticism to ignore what any member of the audience thinks or feels about a programme.”
Do I think all soaps are great? Nah. Do I think that they escape the power constructions and commercialism that surrounds information and culture? Of course not - I may be a soapy but I aint an idiot. And to all those of you who dislike soaps – that’s cool, let's have a discussion. My bone of contention aint with those who engage honestly in thought-out criticism - just don't tell me that something which is an important part of my life is beneath consideration. And in particular, surely any Marxist who dismisses the thoughts and feelings of millions of people is walking on very dangerous ground?
[Many thanks to Marilyn Monroe]
8 comments:
Clarification on Adorno:
Adorno has nothing but the greatest of respect for 'low culture'. For him, high culture (especially modernism) is the ruling class's own staging of its bankruptcy, whose very difficulty attempts to cut through the illusion of coherent sociality thrown up by the ruling ideology.
Low culture, meanwhile, is the spontaneous creativity of the masses, the cultural forms that genuinely grow out of the collective life of the subordinated classes. As such it is quite as authentic as the highest of high culture.
The major opposition is between both these terms and the culture industry, which is a kind of 'bad synthesis' of the two - the most elaborated techniques of high culture are mobilised to sell something TO the masses. The critical faculty of high art is lost, and so is the autonomous character of low art.
In this respect, the 'culture industry' would include soap operas as a matter of course. Youtube chop-jobs make no odds, as people make youtube chop-jobs of absolutely fucking everything. The soap is a product of a highly advanced technical-aesthetic apparatus, operated by middle-ranking functionaries of corporations and (in the case of Eastenders) the state, NOT the masses.
It would also include, for example, the Brit-art explosion, whose rather simplistic shock-value actually does have mass appeal well beyond what the high-modern masters enjoyed in their day.
I would argue it's a useful enough preliminary division of cultural artefacts, but with serious limitations: in particular, the rather insistent historicism tends to delete the possibility of different spectator relations to cultural industrial texts, stemming from his pessimism about the revolutionary potential of the masses post-war.
I would remain, as somebody with an interest in sf and fantasy, sceptical about overstating the critical value of fandom.
I agree that 'Eastenders' is largely state-influenced, at least throught the rather dubious 'independent' filter of the BBC. Yet it is its blend of 'fantasy fiction' i.e. making a drama out of every situation and 'reflecting reality' (which it has to do much more than say Grays Anatomy or a sitcom) which complicates the art-form, so I do think it has a qualitative difference from most products of The Culture Industry.
For example, recently there has been a spate of poverty and unemployment-based storylines on eastenders, including a couple moving into a squat. The fictionalisation element means *nothing* is exactly like a real job-seeker moving into a squat, but I believe there is an almost dialectical transformation from 'state-sponsored fictionalised story' and 'grim reality of real world' which leaves the art-form rather different to a pure entertaiment show. Soaps are neither pure entertainment nor education. And I think the catalyst to this transformation must be the viewers' influence, however indirectly.
So in film or TV, 'what the script-writers can get away with' = influence of revenue and of viewer figures alone. Yet in soap it is also a demand for realism, and an empathy with the characters as genuine adult Imaginary Friends. So I really can't bear that Tanya is sleeping with Max again. I can hardly watch it. Not like when someone injects heroin or bleeds in a movie, but because she has a specific reality to me (obv I know she's fake and I feel nothing for the actress when I see her on a chat-show), and our relationship is *distinct* from just her character's public presentation.
(Not very good at Adorno though)
You are correct in your analysis of Adorno – which is not actually at odds with what I have written. As I said, Adorno defends and advocates “art” (the art which he likes) for its ability to provoke critical reflection, but never actually defines art other than (crudely) by this ability to provide critical reflection (which he himself has deemed). His opinions on types of art he approves of (and what he doesn’t) are very erratic (indeed as are his constructions of high art and low art).
All of what you say sounds fine until you are asked to explain exactly what defines a) high culture, b) “spontaneous creativity of the masses” or c) “the critical faculty” or “autonomous nature” art? In particularly, c) is very problematic because it is so subjective and contradictory. In order for art to have a critical faculty then the subject experiencing the art must surely have a certain level of understanding and knowledge, which is mediated by society – that is unless you argue that certain ‘forms’ have an intrinsic value that evoke the same (or similar) response from every viewer in every age (there we are back to defining ‘significant form’). The argument is circular - art stimulates critical thinking and something is called art because it is stimulates critical thinking – who decides this? How do you know that every person responding to what you approve of art is engaging critically or that the consumer of mass art has no critical engagement? This is my problem with Adorno – to speculate about the responses of people without actually engaging in their arguments and experiences, ultimately renders them expressionless.
What is the “authentic” culture of the masses then? All of our lives in some way come in to contact with the commercialism and commodification driven by capitalism. I ask this question genuinely, as it is unclear to me what working class art would be. Searching for ‘purity’ or ‘authenticity’ seems, to me, fairly futile. Struggling for it, with what we have, seems to ring more true.
“The soap is a product of a highly advanced technical-aesthetic apparatus, operated by middle-ranking functionaries of corporations and (in the case of Eastenders) the state, NOT the masses.”
This is not to say that Adorno’s analysis of the culture industry is incorrect. And yeah – I recognise the above statement to be true (as quoted). I don’t think I argued that soaps were made by the masses, but instead watched, enjoyed and played-with by the masses. It is one thing to acknowledge the role of the culture industry in manipulating and attempting to control the masses. It is another to say that every soapy, watches soaps uncritically. Like I said everything in society is controlled in some way by the complex and overlapping political hegemonies within capitalism – from what we learn at universities, the arts academies, record labels, schools, states…I think it is dangerous to only understand low culture in this way. Surely we acknowledge, that the companies who publish novels make political judgements all the time – most crudely who to publish, how to package them, editing etc…? There is also a real problem in attributing intrinsic value to form – could not a collective of people not create a drama serial (using many of the stylistic traits of soaps) in a revolutionary way? Indeed, are not the stylistic traits of soaps found in other types of storytelling?
I feel that there is a real danger of falling in to crude conspiracy generalisations or simplifications. Culture is contradictory, complex and a site of struggle. Whilst hegemonic cultural and economic forces do determine culture, it is constantly being challenged and as such, boundaries are continually negotiated. In fact, with regards to all types of culture – people challenge, subvert, accept, reject what is fed to them in a whole host of complex ways. That is why definitions of art and culture change (very often over time with the incorporation of what was termed low art in to the high art category). The dominant culture has to keep selling itself over and over again. The relationship between culture from below and above is dialectical. Likewise, the dominant culture is never homogenous and often includes competing ideologies - in the case of soaps is Eastenders doing the same thing as Coronation Street? Are they the same as American soaps such as Days of Our Lives or As the World Turns? Your position allows for no differentiation between what different soaps represent in different contexts.
With all due respect mate, you have fallen in to the trap which was laid out before you. Having a cultural analysis in which you have shoe horned soaps, with what seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) very little knowledge of them, is exactly the drawback of an approach which begins with the sweeping generalisation that soaps are only mass manipulation. You haven’t actually dealt with soaps directly at all (artistically or socially) because your initial position prevents you from doing so. Why don’t you prove your argument by actually dealing with the soaps? Show people how (and what) the BBC is ‘selling’ with Eastenders? Show how soaps’ form ‘trick’ the audience?
It is not a case of over-exaggerating the culture importance of soaps – they are important to many people - this is a fact. The choice you face is to make a general statement which will disconnect you from soap watchers or actually dissect and understand what role soaps (as a form and cultural force) play in our lives. You can label an audience as passive or you can engage in understanding in which ways they do assert an agency (and why) and, most importantly, use the soap form itself to connect to millions of people in discussions about art and society.
As revolutionaries, we must have the careful strength to walk the lines of contradictions that the imposition of living under capitalism entails. I recognise soaps are a form of social control but I also know them to be the instigator of a form of cultural expression for many people. This is the contradiction, along with many, that many working class people live with every day.
“The soap is a product of a highly advanced technical-aesthetic apparatus, operated by middle-ranking functionaries of corporations and (in the case of Eastenders) the state, NOT the masses.”
This is not to say that Adorno’s analysis of the culture industry is incorrect. And yeah – I recognise the above statement to be true (as quoted). I don’t think I argued that soaps were made by the masses, but instead watched, enjoyed and played-with by the masses. It is one thing to acknowledge the role of the culture industry in manipulating and attempting to control the masses. It is another to say that every soapy, watches soaps uncritically. Like I said everything in society is controlled in some way by the complex and overlapping political hegemonies within capitalism – from what we learn at universities, the arts academies, record labels, schools, states…I think it is dangerous to only understand low culture in this way. Surely we acknowledge, that the companies who publish novels make political judgements all the time – most crudely who to publish, how to package them, editing etc…? There is also a real problem in attributing intrinsic value to form – could not a collective of people not create a drama serial (using many of the stylistic traits of soaps) in a revolutionary way? Indeed, are not the stylistic traits of soaps found in other types of storytelling?
I feel that there is a real danger of falling in to crude conspiracy generalisations or simplifications. Culture is contradictory, complex and a site of struggle. Whilst hegemonic cultural and economic forces do determine culture, it is constantly being challenged and as such, boundaries are continually negotiated. In fact, with regards to all types of culture – people challenge, subvert, accept, reject what is fed to them in a whole host of complex ways. That is why definitions of art and culture change (very often over time with the incorporation of what was termed low art in to the high art category). The dominant culture has to keep selling itself over and over again. The relationship between culture from below and above is dialectical. Likewise, the dominant culture is never homogenous and often includes competing ideologies - in the case of soaps is Eastenders doing the same thing as Coronation Street? Are they the same as American soaps such as Days of Our Lives or As the World Turns? Your position allows for no differentiation between what different soaps represent in different contexts.
With all due respect mate, you have fallen in to the trap which was laid out before you. Having a cultural analysis in which you have shoe horned soaps, with what seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) very little knowledge of them, is exactly the drawback of an approach which begins with the sweeping generalisation that soaps are only mass manipulation. You haven’t actually dealt with soaps directly at all (artistically or socially) because your initial position prevents you from doing so. Why don’t you prove your argument by actually dealing with the soaps? Show people how (and what) the BBC is ‘selling’ with Eastenders? Show how soaps’ form ‘trick’ the audience?
It is not a case of over-exaggerating the culture importance of soaps – they are important to many people - this is a fact. The choice you face is to make a general statement which will disconnect you from soap watchers or actually dissect and understand what role soaps (as a form and cultural force) play in our lives. You can label an audience as passive or you can engage in understanding in which ways they do assert an agency (and why) and, most importantly, use the soap form itself to connect to millions of people in discussions about art and society.
Forgive my base opinion on this but I think the reason Soaps are frowned upon is because a lot of people think that good 'art' shares some wisdom about the human condition that is true, even if it provokes confusion or a state of disinterestedness. Soaps are not plausibly realistic. They depict a grim kind of reality that is unrepresentative of life and the community. They make working class people look stupid and morally backwards, like stealing babies and shit. Doesn't it piss you off that a lot of the North think Eastenders is what london is like? I think I am talking specifically about Eastenders.. however I think Soaps can be good when they are hammed up, like 'Cutting it', remember that? Although that was more of a drama series... I guess the writers of Soaps don't have enough time to explore the characters and scenarios as much as they could because they have to work so quickly. I don't think I like the inbetweeness of a Soap, it's not quite a gritty drama and not quite a documentary and it's not quite trash either because it's not trashy enough - it hasn't admitted to itself that it's trash because it's still trying to be serious. I've never watched a Soap like Eastenders and empathised with the characters. I would never judge you for watching a soap but if you were watching Eastenders I'd recommend turning it over to watch something else, like 90210. I also dislike Hollyoaks because I don't get it.
Maybe in the same way people don't get pretentious art - some people just don't get soaps. I don't even think it's about it being a 'low' form of art, I think some people just don't get it and don't have the patience to get it. I don't agree that to deny a Soap as being a legitimate art form is to deny the working class artistic expression because although it's popular among the working class I am not convinced it's made by working class people (I could be wrong) and I don't think it's their outlet. It's a representation of the working class. The fact people respond to it creatively is great and although I don't like Soaps I can appreciate someone's quirky video montage and another persons creative writing inspired by a Soap plot. I don't think those things would be frowned upon by a real culture lover. The reason pretentious people don't like Soaps is because of mainstream popularity. Soaps have a function, just like Pop music has a function, and if they fulfil that function well then it must be due to some kind of artistic merit (maybe good acting). However, I think the reason it's considered to be so 'low' is because, like Macdonald's, there is just better things for consumption out there (e.g. Tubby's Kebab). However, if Soaps do all those things to you francey, you should keep watching.
http://shareorshelve.blogspot.com/2013/02/eastenders-another-east-london-whitewash.html Another blog on soaps and society...
Post a Comment