For my essay, I plan to look at how media literacy – specifically television literacy – can help one see how certain female-led sitcoms come against stereotypes and harmful norms prevalent in mainstream society.
The Research Question:
Author Jeremy G. Butler looks to the television sitcom Designing Women, originally marketed as part of a feminine (but not necessarily feminist) reaction to male domination of television, and wonders if the series actually “privilege[s] meanings that belong to the feminist discourse of the 1980s and 1990s” (14).
Research Methodology:
For his article, Butler realizes that he must examine “the general functioning of discourse in TV narrative” (14). He examines Designing Women alongside other female-led sitcoms like Roseanne and The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, specifically hoping “to examine the narrative texts and audial-visual style of” these series how they handle the polysemic nature of television (14).
Summary:
Butler compares the “fat” aspects of both Delta Burke of Designing Women and Roseanne Arnold (née Barr) of Roseanne. He points their similarities as large and “unruly” women on television but quickly notes their differences. Burke succumbs to the body norms placed on her as she gains weight throughout the run of Designing Women (15). However, Arnold, perhaps by virtue of being a primary creative force on her television series, subverts stereotypes about larger women – those that limit them as nurturing, “mammy” figures – reinforced by characters like Aunt Bee from The Andy Griffith Show (16). Burke is seen in a negative light as one who breaks taboos, while Arnold can exist in the framework of patriarchal society and is seen in a positive light (17). This is because Arnold’s character is domestic and takes care of the children; Burke’s character used to be a beauty queen, a femme fatale (17). Butler further notes that Designing Women features unruly women who break taboos through their use of language but fail to truly come against the patriarchy, while the female lead on The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show shows more potential for subverting patriarchy with her speech (17-18). Butler suggests that Designing Women only works as feminist “[i]f we define sexism as any discursive […], economic, political, or social practice that subordinates, victimizes, or exploits women, and feminist discourse as a system of representation that confronts these practices” (20). Butler additionally explores “The Strange Case of Clarence and Anita,” an episode of Designing Women about Anita Hill’s charges against Judge Clarence Thomas (20). Butler concludes that Designing Women fails to change the game and come against the status quo of patriarchy because, in a paradox, its cast of women only comes against taboo in acceptable ways (24).
How the Article Fits into My Research:
This article addresses Designing Women, a show I’m not planning to explore in my essay, but fits into my research because it examines the topic of progressive ideals being portrayed and supported through the medium of television. More specifically, it fits into the genre of the television sitcom, citing examples led by women or a woman. The overall questions posed by the class focus heavily on technological advancements and how they mold current and future forms of literacy. Butler also ties into how technological advancements and the subsequent development of new texts lead to needs for new literacies to develop – television literacy in this case – but mostly does so indirectly. However Butler makes reference to television literacy when discussing “The Strange Case of Clarence and Anita.” He explains how “[e]nthusiastic applause on the soundtrack validates Mary Jo’s choice [of feminism] as the correct one” and “[t]he laughtrack [sic] thus clearly signals this episode’s preferred reading” (21). To that end, this article will help me look more closely for research that directly addresses television literacy.
Works Cited
Butler, Jeremy G. “Redesigning Discourse: Feminism, the Sitcom, and Designing Women.” Journal of Film and Video 45.1 (1993): 13-26. Web. 24 Sept. 2013.