In a recent conversation about the new Star Trek series (Starfleet Academy) I remarked that one of the many reasons I disliked it was how it couldn’t tell the difference between depicting diversity and fetishizing it, something the original series had figured out back in 1966. One of my friends, whose politics lean left, responded that I wouldn’t have a problem if it were fetishizing something traditional.
I had to think about that for a while. And I’ve concluded he was right.
But first I had to question whether it was even possible to fetishize (have an excessive and irrational commitment) to widely shared beliefs and customs that have not changed for a very long time.
I guess so. Baseball has been played in America since 1869, and over the decades new rules were added, interleague play was adopted, and both leagues now have designated hitters. Someone who fetishized the game might object to all of that. But at its core baseball is still the same – nine players to a side, three strikes and you’re out. Fans may have different views on non-essential rules modifications, but we know where the line is that shouldn’t be crossed.
We should be able to say the same about tradition, at least in how it is manifested in our lives and our art, which includes television. Our minds seek truth, our souls seek happiness, and for many of us those things are found in the traditional. Whether it’s the classic shows of the past, our daily routines, or the beliefs found in centuries-old creeds, we come to these things because they are familiar, they are time-tested, and they just seem to work.
And in this strange era when so much of what falls under that category is not only being challenged but disparaged, it awakens in many of us a crusade to defend what is being lost. That wasn’t upmost in my mind when I started this blog in 2012, but as I’ve analyzed, celebrated and occasionally defended the Comfort TV era, that impetus was never far from the surface.
When did we lose sight of where lines should be drawn? Television used to be a purveyor for such knowledge, extolling through its shows the responsibilities of citizenship, what separates the rational from the fanatical, and the basic differences between right and wrong. Family sitcoms, dramas, westerns, police procedurals, all endorsed community over individuality, and recognized how the exaltation of the self, when we claim the right to define our own concept of existence, just leads to narcissism.
There was also, even if it was rarely stated implicitly, the conviction that there was inherent value in our nature and purpose as human beings, beyond what we ascribed to ourselves.
That is why I cling to the traditional in my television viewing. It did not dismiss the lessons of the past because they were old but valued them as the achievement of the striving of our ancestors.
Television is no longer a central figure in America’s households, which is particularly regrettable because the lessons it once imparted are also disappearing from other sources. The foundations of Western civilization are either denigrated or no longer taught, and that also diminishes the artistic works – television, literature, music, and art – which are the products of that civilization. Quotations from the Bible or Shakespeare, characters from Casablanca or I Love Lucy, the knowledge of which could be assumed across generations, are now as unfamiliar as Egyptian hieroglyphs.
To speak of “seeing through a glass darkly,” or “Here’s looking at you, kid” or “One of these days, Alice…” will not register with people who are the product of what one writer described as “four years of expensive brain deprivation, known as a bachelor’s degree.”
What is emerging to fill that vacuum? Nothing from television, I’m afraid, because not as many people are watching, much less watching the same shows as we did for decades. There are no universal messages being sent through that medium anymore, and the ones that are loudest are doing more harm than good.
We are in a period of cultural decline, not because of material or military failure, but because we’ve succumbed to destructive messages that we, in our superior wisdom, can simply dispense with God, nature, and our great spiritual and intellectual beliefs. In other words, all of what has come to be viewed as traditional.
I guess I didn’t talk about television the way I usually do in this blog. I apologize for that. But if you share my affection for the classic shows of the past, you know that these musings apply to them and are one of the reasons – perhaps the most important reason – that we still enjoy them.
Mr. Hofstede, do you even vaguely remember a short-lived TV sci-fi series called "The Powers of Matthew Star"? It aired on NBC during the 1982-83 television season. Peter Barton played the title role. There's a segment of one episode that I'd like you to check out. Go to the following URL:
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/QiK8tu63Wik?si=gGnqyAmD_VC8ckR5&t=132
Imagine how a youngster living in a blue state in 2026 would react to the segment lasting from 2:12 to 3:44.
I have to admit I've read this a couple times now and it's gone over my head; but I watched that video clip above of Matthew Star and I'm not getting the issue there either!
ReplyDeleteI think the clip referred to a boy going into a girls locker room, but of course the circumstances then were much different than how that issue is being discussed now. As for what I wrote, if I had to summarize I would just say the traditions we've always followed in how we live, work, play, worship, etc. - traditions that are reflected in television and other artistic expressions - are worthy of being preserved and defended against those who now find fault with them. Not everyone will agree but that's what makes the discussion more interesting.
DeleteI remember watching an episode of Magnum P.I. in the 80s called 'Have you seen the Sunrise', or something like that. At the conclusion of the episode Magnum confronts the villain, who admittedly is a scumbag, yet he is unarmed. At the end of the scene Magnum shoots and kills him in cold blood.
ReplyDeleteA scene that never would have been allowed to air in years past.
That is true - I guess whether that's a good thing or bad thing depends on one's perspective.
DeleteI like to think that many of the touchstones of Western culture (both "high" and popular) are being kept in currency by the Web. Maybe Casablanca, The Honeymooners, etc. are not part of a universally shared culture as they were for people growing up in the '40s through the '90s, but people are still discovering them thanks to their being in general circulation in places like YouTube. Ditto for high culture like Shakespeare, etc. which is still serving as the basis for popular movies (a Shakespeare biopic just came to the silver screen last month). Are you familiar with any of the new faith-based series? "The Chosen" is a global phenomenon with millions of fans worldwide. So these traditional touchstones are definitely still out there.
ReplyDeleteThe problem may be that there are so many cultural products out there that the traditional touchstones that we value tend to get drowned out. The shared culture has evaporated, and it has been replaced by a pluralistic environment in which all cultural products of past and present are coexisting. I'm not sure where that leaves us.
I'm not sure either, but I like to think the old saying is true that the cream always rises to the top. Thank you for that thoughtful response.
DeleteLook into political neuroscience. It suggests that "conservatives" value order, are threatened by novelty, prefer more hierarchical structures, etc. "Liberals" tend toward the opposite. While there's no gene for ideology, various factors probably play a role. I assume that because both traits have survived, both have benefits. Sometimes the strange new fruit is a valuable food source. Sometimes it's poisonous.
ReplyDeleteThings that appeal to something basic in us survive, like "Romeo and Juliet." They also spin off new variations e.g. "West Side Story. Blues and R&B beget Rick and Roll. They incorporate new sensibilities more relevant to new times. "Leave It to Beaver" and "Roseanne" reflect family life differently. I suspect that the latter, despite its over the top dysfunction reflected aspects of life for a lot of real families, even back in the 1950s. Lucy not being able to say the word "pregnant" was the product of a of an attempt to enforce a "morality" that was exaggerated, even then. Is pretending teens won't have sex or they will abstain with enough preaching abstinence better for society than teaching them about consent, contraception, the realities of STDs etc. the best for society?
TV reflects more of the makeup of the country today. In the 50s, other than entertainers, Blacks were virtually absent, save in stereotyped roles, the same was largely true for other minorities. Later, Mayberry had Black extras in crowd scenes, but apparently they were never crime victims or criminals. Oddly, "The Little Rascals" portrayed an integrated world way back in the 1930s. Commercials didn't feature Blacks other than on a pancake or rice box until the late 1960s, IIRC. Today, to the irritation of some, most spots feature minorities, including the occasional LGBTQ character.
As an art form representing society, you're going to have a Mary Richards who who isn't a "tradwife," though without a felinr she wasn't a transgressive "childless cat lady." With more women going to college and delaying marriage, there are a lot more Marys, interracial couples, etc. today and good capitalist sponsors know the world's changed. Again though, the classics survive. I can't think of how many people who say they learned of a show from their parents or grandparents. I still watch "The Honeymooners" and "Our Miss Brooks" on Catchy. Frankly, I'm more worried about ideological takeovers of media than I am about some reboot changing canon. Admittedly, the new hip, young Steve McGarret was a disappointment. Sheesh, just do a new show and let the classics alone. Stellar updating of the opening though.
In spite of its virtues, I wonder if conservatism is as suited to such a rapidly changing world. We need alliances, not antagonism. The real enemy isn't drag queens, immigrants, or tradwives, or unions. It's an oligarchy that increasingly is allied with authoritarianism. Hopefully the recent exposure of the Epstein class will be instructive. We have a large number of young men in particular, who are understandably ired at not having the blue collar jobs of yore. It's the corporations seeking to maximize profits that automated or shipped them offshore. Now AI's moving up the occupational food chain. What happens when they're very few jobs and no social safety net? Something's got to give and eventually heads will literally roll. Of course the crowd storming the Bastille didn't face drones and sonic weapons. Meanwhile always easy to play bait and switch with culture war issues. We need to wake up and realize that E pluribus unum isn't just something printed on the money. It's how we really create positive change for everyone.
Sorry for the long, disjointed rambling.
No apology needed - you've brought up some interesting points to ponder. Certainly order should always be preferable to chaos, yet can be too harshly implemented.
DeletePerhaps 'Roseanne' was more realistic than Leave it to Beaver or Ozzie & Harriet - but I'm not sure - there are always more happy, well-adjusted families than those that are dysfunctional - it's just that the latter kind are the ones that make the news. Regardless, a responsible mass medium (as TV once was) should be aspirational - we've all heard of how its presentation of positive role models helped shape the course of lives and careers in the real world.
Does TV reflect more of the current makeup of the country? African-Americans are less than 15% of the US population yet appear in 90% of the TV commercials. So it's not just reflection but agenda-driven inclusion - or if we're being honest, pandering.
Lastly, I've wondered as well if conservatism is suited to this rapidly-changing. Further discussion would require a more precise definition of that term, and certainly not one that would be used by its political rivals. But if the goal of life on earth is eternal life in Heaven -as I believe – it’s imperative that we need to remember the truth, and hold to it, especially when it’s in danger of being abandoned or distorted.
Thanks for the reply. Let's just say old family sitcoms may have sanded off rough edges a bit. Of course realism.wasn't their mandate. I've enjoyed "Leave it to Beaver" since its original run. Lately, I do find myself frustrated with Ward's always discounting June's opinion. He credits his wisdom because at least he doesn't best the boys like his father did him. Of course the scripts are written so that he's always right and June is always worrying over nothing. It's the epitome of "Father Knows Best" - a show sadly missing from syndication.
DeleteI'm glad you mentioned "aspirational." Yes a home in the 'burbs where mom was a tradwife (in pearls) who kept house while dad worked in some vaguely specified office job was aspirational for many. It was the American Dream writ amusing. The opposite side of the coin is those who can't achieve it, though not for lack of trying. The insidious part is the mindset, perhaps more prevalent among certain ideologies, that poverty is a moral shortcoming. It's used to justify cuts to social support programs because people are "taking advantage" of them. There's also perhaps a symmetry with the "prosperity gospel" crowd. Not doing well, send brother John more money. Just look at how well he's doing.
Asoiration's great, but there's something to be said for the reality of reflecting the real struggles of so many. I don't seeing people like themselves is going to make the less advantaged content with their situation, but it might bring them a bit of "comfort" in their TV. America's always worshipped Mammon in a way, but as the playing field is shown more and more to favor the obscenely wealthy and their paid representatives in government, we may be moving toward revolutionary change.
Of course happiness varies by time. According to Gallup, the number of people very satisfied with their lives has been trending down since 2001. Even in the idealized 1950s there was discontentment among women due to constrained roles after Rosie the Riveter had to give up her job. Among men there were pressures of stereotyped masculinity. A Google search on:
"Despite the "perfect" television image of families (e.g., Leave It to Beaver), many women felt discontented, and husbands felt immense pressure as the sole provider." Brings up some examples in the show more drop-down.
There's an interesting paper: "White Americans Preference For Black People In Advertising Has- Increased in the Past 66 Years a Meta Analysis" https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2307505121
My assumption is that this applies to other minority groups as well. Clearly though, the positive shift isn't universal. A few years ago, I looked around, spurred by some "too many Black people" comment, and found quite a bit of unhappiness.
Fascinating subjects. I watch mostly the old shows, but I'd certainly take some modern ones to a desert island too. Check out "Catchy Loves Lucy" on Sundays - great personal anecdotes from Lucie Arnaz. Take care.
"Leave It to Beaver" showed quite a few dysfunctional families - think of Larry Mondello and his harried mother (and absentee father), all of Beaver's friends who seemed constantly worried that their fathers would corporally punish them, Eddie Haskell, and the chronically underachieving Lumpy Rutherford. It wasn't all rosy on "Beaver" and it was a much more complex show than people give it credit for.
ReplyDeleteDavid: I really appreciate your spiritual perspective, which I share, but just to tweak your statement a little: technically speaking, scripture promises us a new heaven and new earth rather than simply an eternal future in heaven. This is obviously way beyond the scope of a blog on classic TV, but the books of N. T. Wright do a marvelous job of explaining these theological issues, if you are so inclined. And I agree 100 percent on your statement about the need to hold to the truth and defend it.
I am familiar with N.T. Wright, though mostly through the commentaries of William Lane Craig on topics like Wright's views on atonement - but as you say these are outside our scope here.
DeleteI agree with you that 'Beaver' and other shows of that era are more complex than they seem at first glance. The lazy view that they only portray perfect (and thus unrealistic) families and do more harm than good by doing so is one I've addressed in my book "When Television Brought Us Together." There was too much talent involved to produce something so bland.
Michael, Excellent point. LITB did feature some less than rosy moments. For me, the most touching one was Eddie being afraid to stay home alone. I think it was that one where he let his tough guy facade drop for a moment with Beaver. Of course the shows were limited by the mores of the day, no sex, drugs, etc. Kids worrying about getting whippedl, IRRC, were more likely to trigger the low key laugh track than the serious musical passage. The genre/format was designed more for quick resolutions than serious angst.
DeleteThere's nothing wrong with that. OTOH I'd say that "The Honeymoners" was one of the few that actually showed the reality for many of those outside the suburban enclaves, economic struggles - often leading to marital discord, and (comedic) attempts to improve their situation, etc. "Our Miss Brooks" showed the economic hardships of teachers. Connie was the rare independent woman also actually aggressively chasing a man. Of course that was tempered by her ultimate traditional goal of being a housewife. There was a little something for everyone, but it was skewed pretty heavily toward a particular image. I'm not sure the narrative was as much about an aspirational model for the have nots, or comforting the haves that they repesented the norm. There was a notable exception where I think it was Beaver and Wally meeting the junk man's kids and learning about their own privilege.
I'd like to also challenge the assertion that shows were limited by network standards or the Code of Practices - as these guidelines did not restrict subject matter. Season one of 'The Defenders', which debuted in 1961, covered all manner of unsavory topics, including abortion and euthanasia. It did so effectively without risking censorship.
DeleteI'm more familiar with the old motion picture Hays Code. Other than profanity, I don't know what the network or FCC taboos were. The differences between gritty dramas and family sitcoms aside, I think the cultural climate was a primary factor in restraint or self-censorship, depending on one's POV.
DeleteI doubt there was a rule mandating twin beds, not saying "pregnant" or not showing toilets. Those "wholesome" to the point of ridiculously priggish things, IMO, were, I assume, a perhaps paternalistic attempt to avoid corrupting the public - similar to Hays.
I still enjoy watching "Arthur" on PBS and wish we'd had the network when I was a growing up. Being a big kid, I don't watch "Sesame Street" too often, but I was introduced to Maren Morris when she was on the show. Who could object to kids and furry "monsters"? Apparently some folks still chafing because Bobby Lee came up short at Gettysburg in 1970, when Mississippi's educational TV honchos banned the show because the state was "not yet ready" for the integrated cast of kids playing together.
That raises a question for me. Is the role of art to maintain the status quo, or does it also have a role in introducing us to new ideas that may challenge our comfort zone, but also lead us to recognize our common humanity? The core values expressed most succinctly in the Golden Rule or the Beatitudes don't change. The real threat lies less in real or imagined heathenism, than in the apostatic abandonment of them in favor of a nihilistic credo that echoes the Vietnam war meme; "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." Flinging ourselves off the cliffs of Masada would be more defensible if a bunch of oligarchs weren't hanging back laughing at the spectacle. It's an old story. The heavy in "Paradise Lost" who said; "Better to rule in hell than serve in Heaven" ran the same con.