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.
Hello Donovan:
You do have an interesting take on how women are represented on television shows, especially as it pertains to over weight challenged. It is an interesting take on how topics such as literacy about television has taken off. Do you think this is an obvious topic or something that has been understood in the past. For example, magazines showing “skinner” and “skinner” models as the ideal woman’s size?
Rob
Hey Roberto,
Thanks for the comment and the great question.
Regarding size “standards” for women, I think it’s a topic that’s been glossed over by many – then and now – but it’s gaining discussion in the mainstream, thankfully. To provide a specific example of why, I know someone who views Roseanne (the person *and* the actress) as nothing more than a “loud mouth” who has no entertaining talent whatsoever. This same person also made the statement about a different performer being an excellent actress despite not being very physically attractive. I think both tie in to the idea that a woman can’t be a legitimate screen actor – or model, as you brought up – unless she fits society’s stereotypes of what is beautiful. Fortunately, women like Bea Arthur, who had what many perceive as masculine traits, and the aforementioned Roseanne have gone against this mindset in the past with their successful, Emmy Award-winning turns on the screen; Melissa McCarthy, who earned an Oscar nomination for her supporting turn in Bridesmaids and an Emmy Award for her television series, Mike and Molly, is doing that right now, as she’s one of the only people – male or female – who can guarantee sold tickets in U.S. theaters.
This may date me, but I do remember watching both the shows you mention in your article when I was much younger (and they were not in syndication).
Designing Women, like most sitcoms, always ended too cleanly – with Burke’s older sister or the red head (who was always fiesty and whose name escapes me) standing up to some unenlightened boy/man. It became too predictable, and perhaps the show by creating this contrivance and a false sense of justice to the day to day injustices we all work through helped maybe to create a false sense of all-is-well when the bigger issues of injustice at work that were the root cause of all their problems was left unaddressed (ie. it was too easy to set the whole thing in the South, etc.).
With Roseanne, the split of a more complete multi-dimensional female lead of Barr’s character contrasted with the doormat character of her sister (and the title character coming to help her out constantly), in the context of a family sitcom (with the slacker young daughter, ditzy blonde older sister, and removed/oblivious father types) perhaps is just as guilty as DS was to missing the forest for the TV ratings (interesting [?] that Barr physically followed the opposite path of Burke as the shows progressed).
And then there was The Golden GIrls…
Anyway, eventually I do get to my point: do you have any thoughts on television literacy as it applies to, for lack of a better term, digital literacy? With smart phones and the digital platform so pervasive, do you see anything dangerous with people viewing the information/entertainment on their computers the same way they view what comes out of the TV screen (using the same intellectual tools)? This may be way far afield of what you are looking to pursue, but just curious if, based on what we talk about in class, if you see anything there that might get in the way progressive ideals as portrayed/created in the media.
Derek C.
Interesting question. Forgive me for the late response. I had to think quite a bit about the question before giving a definite answer. I think digital literacy and television literacy are similar – at least where consuming visual media (television series, films) is concerned. I see “the digital” as the most community-like media, whereas television once fit that mold.
That said, I think one can find a danger in this progression in that people see the media through a lens that is “foreign” to how the creators meant for viewers to consume the media. For instance, there’s a certain danger in people watching a television series on their computers because the series was intended to come through a television screen, not an iPod or iPhone screen. (New series like Netflix’s House of Cards and Orange is the New Black serves as an exception. Netflix’s revival of Arrested Development brings into the equation a unique case, but I digress.) To continue this relevant tangent, people often watch older television series on their computers. Cultural references fly over audiences’ heads just as often, because their life experiences do not mirror those of people who watched the series when it first aired.