RELATIVE AUTONOMY: MEDIA, FILM & POLITICS
  • blog
  • about
  • Writing

the war according to jeremy

5/2/2014

 
Picture
At the start of what promises to be a bumper year for crypto-patriotic television 'commemorations' of the First World War, the BBC has begun broadcasting its four-part documentary series Britain's Great War, fronted by Jeremy Paxman. Predictably enough, neither Paxman, nor the programme's interviewees (including Julian Fellowes, who delivered a paean to the brutal Lord Kitchener of Battle of Omdurman and Boer War infamy), offered many opinions to which Michael Gove or Max Hastings would object. You 'can't fail to be impressed' by the numbers of men who signed up for the war, enthuses Paxman, who also refers repeatedly to 'the war effort' - a phrase whose nominalized neutrality elides the chaos and murder that this 'effort' entailed.

Even less subtle is Paxman's interview in the second episode with two contemporary Clydeside unionists. When these men express their admiration for the Glasgow shipbuilders who struck against their profiteering owners during the war, Paxman responds by jovially dismissing the workers as 'difficult buggers'. In a similar vein, Paxman asks the relative of a conscientious objector who refused conscription whether such men were not 'just being awkward'. This is psychologism as historiography. Just as Paxman, in a recent interview, regarded Russell Brand's rejection of bourgeois electoral politics as an expression of apathy ('you can't even be arsed to vote'), he regards those who objected to war on principle as having an attitude problem. Clearly, these men needed to buck up their ideas. Indeed, the list of those too dense or perverse to get behind the war effort includes such irredeemable dunderheads as Bertrand Russell, Eugene Debs, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, all of whom were jailed for their opposition; what a bunch of losers!

It is in summing up his own attitude towards the 'conchies' that Paxman makes explicit his opinion about the war in a direct address to camera. Describing 'absolutist' objectors as 'cranks', he emphasizes that the war 'had to be fought' to save Europe from becoming a gigantic German colony. Yet the moral force of this argument would be easier to accept if Britain in 1914 had not presided over the most extensive empire in the world - a feat achieved by an unparalleled dedication to deadly force. But Paxo does not register Britain's history of colonial violence; he even opines that military conscription was a tough sell in Britain, since it contradicted the country's 'respect for individual freedoms'; these were, presumably, the freedoms that Britain was safeguarding through its pre-war terrorisation - including rape, torture and murder - of India, China and South Africa.

If the working-class perspective on the war is absent from Paxman's own commentary, it a structuring absence: Paxman often seems to be arguing against the anti-war position he knows many of his viewers will share. What else could people do, he asks exasperatedly, except join the 'war effort'? This is a rhetorical question, no doubt, but it is one to which Lenin had a fairly convincing answer: the working class had to turn the imperialist war into a class war by overthrowing the butchers who had led their friends and family members to the slaughter. And this is precisely what workers attempted to do, with tragically limited success, in Russia and Germany at the end of the conflict.

One might wonder whether there is any real reason to worry about how the First World War is being spun in the media. James Heartfield writes in a recent article on the subject:

"Those arguing over the First World War will find out soon enough that there is neither the opportunity nor the danger that there will be an upsurge of nationalistic identification with the British war effort. The depleting forces of popular militarism are clear for all to see."

I'm not sure about this. Certainly, a third world war is not immediately on the horizon - and even if it were, it would likely be fought with nuclear weapons, conveniently dispensing with the need for a mass mobilisation of brainwashed, jingoistic conscripts, even if these could be created. Nevertheless, programmes like Paxman's - together with popular 'militainment' documentaries and dramas on television and campaigns such as Help for Heroes - have the general effect of instilling a sense of nationalism and rationalising the horrors of war in ways that serve to justify current imperialist adventures. For this reason, they must be clearly exposed for what they are: nationalist and militarist state propaganda.

Back to iraq: on the bbc's 'the iraq war'

17/6/2013

 
'No matter how brutal the crime, you will always get glorification of heroism and tradition from the eunuchs of bourgeois culture' (Amadeo Bordiga)
Picture
Ten years after the 'coalition' invasion of Iraq, the gap between the public perception of the war and the realities of the conflict remains staggeringly wide. A recent poll conducted by the research consultancy ComRes, for example, showed that the British public massively under-estimates the number of casualties during the Iraq war. As Channel 4 journalist Alex Thomson notes, this in turn raises questions about the accuracy and efficacy of the British news media's reporting of the war. The BBC's journalistic record during the Iraq War has been called into question many times and its presentation of the conflict continues to be a source of anger for many.

A new three-part series, titled simply The Iraq War, sets out to document the deliberations of high-profile political decision-makers both before and after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, drawing upon an impressive array of archive and original interview material. Produced by documentary supremos Brook Lapping for BBC2, the Series Producer is Norma Percy. Percy, a former parliamentary researcher, has acquired a formidable reputation for gaining access to high-profile figures, although I have found her previous work hugely problematic. Her take on Balkan wars of the 1990s in The Death of Yugoslavia and The Fall of Milošević, for example, demonises Slobodan Milošević and presents the Serbs as the sole aggressors in the conflicts - an appealingly simple Manichean narrative that is fully consistent with the mainstream Western script, but which will not do as a serious account of the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, The Iraq War adopts the same techniques - and displays the same geopolitical biases - as Percy's earlier work.

Television critics have generally applauded the production. In a blog post for the Telegraph, for example, David Blair writes that: 'As with all the best documentaries, there was no attempt to exaggerate: episode one covered the build-up to war and the programme-makers allowed the drama to speak for itself'. But there are good grounds for questioning whether documentary producers can ever really adopt a 'hands-off' approach to their material, as Blair implies they can. Every documentary tells a story that is the result of innumerable choices, including the selection of interviewees and archive material, the style and content of the narration and editing. So what kind of story is told in The Iraq War? What points of view does the documentary, to use Blair's word, 'allow' - and by the same token, what perspectives does it disallow?

The series' use of a 'Voice of God' style of narration, its tendency to concentrate on testimony rather than voiceover, and its stately mis-en-scene (which largely consists of elite politicians - mostly men - talking dispassionately to camera in elegantly furnished rooms), all construct the production as authoritative. But The Iraq War has a clear pro-coalition bias. For one thing, the majority of the interviewees are key British and US politicians, along with members of the Iraqi interim government they installed. And these politicians are not interrogated; rather, they are given the opportunity to talk to camera uninterrupted by the interviewers' questions, which are edited out.

As one might expect, then, the documentary's take on the Iraq war reflects the point of view of the US and British ruling classes. The first episode, for example, ends with US Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley's comment that the US's attempt to kill Saddam Hussein before the invasion constituted a 'last ditch effort to head off a war' that 'regrettably failed', as though the US had been reluctantly drawn into the invasion. Throughout the documentary, meanwhile, violence and disorder are linked to Iraqi insurgents, while the coalition partners are constructed as harbingers of peace. At the end of the first episode, for instance, the narrator, Alex Jennings, asserts that 'America and Britain quickly won the war, but lost the peace'. In the second episode, he comments that in Fallujah in 2004, US forces 'hit back' after the killing of four contractors by insurgents - an extraordinary description of a devastating assault by the US Marines that left much of the city in ruins. According to The Iraq War, then, coalition forces fought reluctantly and defensively for the good of the Iraqi people. Indeed, for the politicians and advisers interviewed here, there is no doubt that the invasion was well-intentioned and benign, if not always successful. As Paul Bremer recalls saying to George W. Bush, apparently without irony, 'fixing a country is not something you do overnight'.

Often what is most revealing about a documentary is not so much what is said, but what is missed out. Significantly, there is no mention in any of the production's three episodes of Western oil and other industrial interests in Iraq, which arguably constituted a major part of the rationale for invasion; rather, the attack on Iraq is presented as a bid for 'régime change' (the title of the first episode). Hussein, we are reminded by several of the interviewees, was a brutal villain whose 'régime' had to be brought to an end; yet the violent history of the Western powers is predictably ignored. Ignored, too, are the lies told to justify the invasion of Iraq: namely, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, posed a deadly threat to the world, and had links to Al Qaeda. And what of the longer history of Iraq's relationship with the US - in particular the 12 years of inhuman sanctions that preceded the 2003 invasion and which surely undermine any claim that the Iraq war was fought out of a concern for the wellbeing of Iraqi people?

The Iraq War is certainly not without interest: it does provides some insights into the often murky relationships between politicians and journalists and into the differences of opinion among members of the British and US governments as the war drums began to beat (indeed, there can be little doubt that many sceptical politicians were forced to bite their tongues as the war began and many are likely to have been practising a sort of political Ketman ever since). Some moments in the documentary are even open to a critical reading. As John Crace notes in The Guardian, one of these comes in episode 3 when Jack Straw openly admits that he and Condoleeza Rice talked Ibrahim al-Jaafari into stepping down as Iraq's first Prime Minister - an action that indicates the extent of neo-colonial manipulation in post-invasion Iraq. What is missing, however - despite the occasional reference to the public opposition to the war - is the perspective of the working class, who were, in large number, the victims of the war and who had no interest in its prosecution.

Stephen Poliakoff's Dancing on the Edge

22/2/2013

 
Picture
Dancing on the Edge, the five-part BBC2 series whose final episode will be broadcast on Monday, has all the hallmarks of a late-period Stephen Poliakoff artefact: sumptuous settings; deep focus shots revealing a wealth of period detail; an Expressionist use of colour with lots of vibrant, Meaningful Red; a camera that lingers on black and white photographs; mouthwatering scenes of feasting that bring together unlikely combinations of people; and the looming shadow of fascism. So far, so familiar. But predictability maketh the auteur and Poliakoff’s latest extravaganza has been anticipated and analysed by Britain’s television commentariat with almost as much relish as a new film by Lynch or Tarantino; The Guardian, for example, has been running an online episode-by-episode guide to the programme. The question is: is Poliakoff’s drama worthy of the hype?

There’s no doubt that Poliakoff has written an impressive array of distinctive television plays in recent years; but even Robin Nelson, in his recent, mostly affirmative book about Poliakoff, expresses concerns about the sentimentality and lack of dramatic plausibility he detects in some of the writer’s work. Certainly, since his return to television in the late 1990s with such elegant and off-centre offerings as The Tribe (1998) and Shooting the Past (1999), the doyen of BBC quality drama has divided the critics like no other auteur around.
Picture
Dancing on the Edge follows the ups and downs of a black jazz band – an interesting focus for Poliakoff, whose dramas seldom feature black actors – that quickly becomes the talk of early 1930s London. The band’s rise to fame is assisted by the charismatic music journalist Stanley Mitchell (played by Matthew Goode, whose appearance, speech and mannerisms here strikingly recall Damian Lewis in Poliakoff’s earlier Friends and Crocodiles). Things take a darker turn, however, when Establishment corruption and racism rear their ugly heads. In this sense, the drama recalls Poliakoff’s 2009 film Glorious 39, in which the crookedness of ‘pro-appeasement’ parliamentarians on the eve of the Second World War becomes increasingly apparent (Poliakoff’s view of Britain’s role in that war as progressive permeates his oeuvre; it’s not a view that I share - but let’s leave that geopolitical debate to one side for now). Stanley gets one over on the Nazis when he invites Louis Lester (Chiwetel Ejiofor), the band’s pianist, to perform at the German embassy; but in Dancing, as in Glorious 39, it’s not just the German elites that are rotten and in Monday’s finale we will discover, I suppose, just how far the web of corruption extends. Donaldson (Anthony Head) already looks like a bad egg and the American mogul and freemason Masterson (John Goodman) is looking increasingly shifty (although I have a feeling that this could be a red herring).

The lingering camera shots and glacial narrative progression of Dancing on the Edge confirm Poliakoff as the master of ‘slow television’ (to borrow Amy Holdsworth’s phrase). In fact, notwithstanding Louis’s getaway scenes in the fourth episode, Dancing on the Edge has crawled along, at times making The Jewel in the Crown look like The Bourne Identity. For some critics, this is frustrating. Mark Lawson, for example, complains that Poliakoff’s leisureliness seems to have become an auteurist indulgence which is not motivated by any diegetic requirement. That may be so; but in an age of turbo-capitalism when what Nelson identifies as ‘flexiad’ aesthetics are so dominant in film and television, I welcome Poliakoff’s change of pace, his attempt to stop the flow of what Adorno called film’s ‘relentless rush of facts’.
Picture
Much of what happens in Dancing on the Edge is implausible from a realist perspective. In episode three, for example, the band’s singer Jessie (Angel Coulby) is subjected to twists of fate worthy of a Hardy novel. And then there’s the question of language. Here, as in most of Poliakoff's television dramas, the dialogue is markedly repetitious, stiff and sterile. Barely five minutes pass without one character declaring another to be ‘interesting’, ‘extraordinary’ or ‘important’; yet in the absence of almost any character exposition or backstory, viewers are left with few clues as to why these adjectives pertain. And for a drama that pays so much attention to period detail, the idioms are oddly anachronistic. To hear Pamela (Joanna Vanderham) lament that she ‘can’t be there’ for her creepy brother Julian (Tom Hughes) is disorientating because, to echo Lawson’s criticism above, there seems to be no narrative rationale for the inclusion of such a contemporary phrase. In light all of this, it is difficult to resist the conclusion - and some commentators have given up trying - that Poliakoff simply cannot write.

But perhaps there is more to it than that. It is tempting to read into the clichéd, frigid superficiality of Poliakoff’s stilted dialogue a Gatsby-esque critique of bourgeois alienation and emotional repression, although this analysis doesn’t quite work, since almost all of Poliakoff’s characters – good and bad – tend to talk the same way. In a more general sense, however, the reticence about expressions of interiority does, I think, serve a potentially valuable critical function, disrupting television drama’s conventional recourse to psychological realism and character ‘depth’. For me, there is something refreshing about characters who refrain from laying bare every aspect of their own, or others’, inner lives. Television fictions – particularly soap operas, legal and police dramas – are so full of characters feverishly explicating their reasons, histories and motives that to escape from such torrents of ratiocination can come as a welcome relief and even introduce an element of mystery. After four episodes of Dancing on the Edge, we have learned next to nothing about the backgrounds or motives of the main characters; but for me this adds to the enigma of it all.

My concerns about Poliakoff relate not so much to plausibility or writing style as to social and political representation – especially in connection to class. The problem is not so much that Poliakoff often writes about toffs rather than workers (after all, there are plenty of television dramas featuring working-class characters). It has more to do with the ways in which ordinary people are portrayed. Too often in Poliakoff plays, working-class people either serve as angelic helpers for powerful men (like Stella in 2006’s Gideon’s Daughter) or appear as hooligans intent on wreaking havoc – see, for example, Caught on a Train (1980), Bloody Kids (1980), The Tribe (1998), Friends and Crocodiles (2005) and Joe’s Palace (2007).

While there are some sympathetic working-class characters in Dancing on the Edge – notably Stanley and his assistant Rosie (Jenna-Louise Coleman) – Stanley’s mother is a bovine comic butt and when he is on the run from the police, Louis is crashed into by an aggressive working-class boy on a bicycle who shouts ‘watch out you bastard’ at him (although the accident is clearly the boy’s fault). The hoi polloi on the streets, it seems, are almost as unpleasant as those beastly Germans.

That said, there’s currently nothing quite so beautiful as Dancing on the Edge anywhere else on British television. The decision to broadcast it on BBC2 rather than BBC1 may be an indication that Poliakoff no longer has the industrial clout that he did a few years ago; nevertheless, I hope that the present drama is not – as is being rumoured in some corners of the Internet – Poliakoff’s television swan song. Poliakoff’s work may have its faults and it is marked, as suggested above, by a certain social and political conservatism; but it is considerably more visually arresting than most of the drama on British television at the moment.

The arrest of Mladić: has justice been Serbed?

1/6/2011

 
Picture
The recent killing of Osama Bin Laden provoked widespread criticism among left-wing and radical commentators. This is hardly surprising; after all, even among liberals, Osama's value to the Western powers as a scapegoat and all-round bogeyman was well understood. By contrast, the events surrounding Ratko Mladić's arrest, and in particular its media reporting, have elicited far fewer expressions of concern, either from mainstream journalists or from radical and leftist bloggers. 

On The Guardian's Comment Is Free blog, Misha Glenny (whose book The Fall of Yugoslavia lays the blame for the break-up of the country squarely, but in my view quite unfairly, at the door of Serb nationalists) praises the Serbian president Boris Tadić for the part he played in capturing the Butcher of Srebrenica. But as Glenny himself acknowledges, bringing Serb war criminals to justice has been a key condition of Serbia's EU membership; for this reason alone, the president's deliverance of Mladić can be seen as an act not of moral resolution, but of political expediency.

As well as smoothing Serbia's passage to EU membership, much of the recent media reporting of Mladić's arrest reinforces longstanding Western propaganda about the Bosnian war. Rather like Glenny's article, Henry Porter's recent piece in The Guardian, for example, implies that the war in Bosnia was perpetrated solely by Serbs and that the war's only victims were Muslims. By focusing on Serb atrocities and omitting any mention of the role of the Western powers in the devastation of Yugoslavia, the news media continues to present the great powers' manifold economic, political and military manoeuvres in the region - including the brutal Operation Storm in 1995 and the decisive bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 - as so many noble interventions in the fight against virulent Serb nationalism.

The virtual absence of any challenge to the media's recurrent presentation of the Bosnian war as a Manichean struggle between good ('the West') and evil (the Serbs) shows just how deeply the dominant narrative of that war has penetrated public consciousness - and just how far down the memory hole anything resembling an adequate account of the Balkan wars has been shoved.

We can have no sympathy for Mladić, who surely now faces severe punishment for his crimes. But to celebrate his arrest, as Timothy Garton Ash does in another Guardian Comment Is Free contribution, as evidence of 'a global movement towards accountability' is to ignore the fact that 'international justice' operates systematically in the interests of the powerful. That is why Mladić is now languishing in The Hague - and why Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright are not.

What is class?

16/3/2011

 
Picture
Since I have been talking to some groups of media students recently about the vexed subject of class, I thought it might be worth posting here my attempt to answer two questions. How can we understand social class from a Marxist perspective? And how can this understanding help to illuminate the role of the media in capitalist society?

As Bell Hooks notes at the start of her book Where We Stand, ‘nowadays it is fashionable to talk about race or gender; the uncool subject is class. It’s the subject that makes us all tense, nervous, uncertain about where we stand’. The contemporary queasiness about ‘class’ is reflected by the virtual eradication of the word from mainstream media discourse. News reports typically refer to ‘ordinary’ rather than working class people. Governments, too, increasingly forswear the language of class exploitation, preferring the more emollient rhetoric of ‘marginalisation’ and ‘social exclusion’ – keywords in what Pierre Bourdieu and Loïc Wacquant, in their article on ‘neoliberal newspeak’, have called the ‘new planetary vulgate’ of liberal capitalism, ‘from which the terms “capitalism”, “class”, “exploitation”, “domination”, and “inequality” are conspicuous by their absence’. In academia, meanwhile, class has become what Ulrich Beck calls a ‘zombie category’ that continues to haunt critical discourse although its substantive content has largely been hollowed out. If we are to understand capitalism or its media from a communist perspective, however, class must be our starting point.

The theory and practice of communism are premised on the analysis of capitalism. In The Communist Manifesto of 1848, Marx and Engels proposed that capitalism was spreading across the globe and that the structure of industrialised societies was increasingly bifurcating into two mutually antagonistic classes. The bourgeoisie or ruling class owns the means of production (such as factories, supermarkets, schools or call centres) and derives profit from the ‘surplus value’ produced by workers. The proletariat or working class creates society’s wealth, producing commodities in return for a wage. The terms of this basic analysis remain relevant today. It is certainly true that many contemporary workers hold wrongheaded or confused opinions about the nature of their class interests. At the same time, deindustrialisation, gentrification, the breakdown of the extended family and many other factors have wrought massive changes in the nature of working class culture in Western countries in recent decades. It must also be acknowledged that some individuals occupy conflicted class positions that are resistant to classification; as Martin Glaberman notes in his pamphlet The Working Class and Social Change, the communist view of class, unlike its sociological counterpart, does not attempt to account for everybody and is no less valid for that. Yet as capitalism’s crisis deepens, the fundamental fact of working class existence – exploitation – is more palpable than ever, as is the social antagonism between the exploited and their rulers. In fact, The Communist Manifesto’s description of class polarisation now seems grimly prescient: since Marx’s era, when the global working class was massively outnumbered by the peasantry, capitalism has conquered the entire globe, subjecting ever greater swathes of humanity to its rule.

For communists, class – rather than gender, sexuality, race or nationality – is the central category of political and social analysis. In his 2008 New Left Review article ‘Against diversity’, Walter Benn Michaels bluntly proposes that American liberals tend to ‘carry on about racism and sexism in order to avoid doing so about capitalism’. Michaels observes that decades of anti-racist and anti-sexist legislation and campaigning in the US, far from reducing inequality, have been perfectly compatible with its deepening:

"In 1947 – seven years before the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, sixteen years before the publication of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique – the top fifth of American wage-earners made 43 per cent of the money earned in the US. Today that same quintile gets 50.5 per cent. In 1947, the bottom fifth of wage-earners got 5 per cent of total income; today it gets 3.4 per cent. After half a century of anti-racism and feminism, the US today is a less equal society than was the racist, sexist society of Jim Crow. Furthermore, virtually all the growth in inequality has taken place since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 – which means not only that the successes of the struggle against discrimination have failed to alleviate inequality, but that they have been compatible with a radical expansion of it. Indeed, they have helped to enable the increasing gulf between rich and poor."

When there is exploitation to be done, capitalism is essentially blind to differences of gender, race and sexuality. Although the cultivation of racism, sexism and homophobia often proves politically useful to capitalists, it is perfectly possible, in theory at least, for capitalism to offer formal equality to black people, women, and homosexuals. It follows that feminism, civil rights and gay rights movements do not in themselves threaten capitalism as class struggles do. The attempts of New Left theoreticians and contemporary hegemony theorists to posit the replacement of the working class as a revolutionary subject with a coalition of identity groups are therefore highly problematic. Unlike other categories of social difference, class constitutes an absolute division in capitalist society, since the antagonism between the exploited and exploiting classes is the system’s essential structural feature. In the brutally simple words of Joe Kenehan in John Sayles's film Matewan:

"Now, they got you fightin' white against coloured, native against foreign, hollow against hollow, when you know there ain't but two sides in this world - them that work and them that don't. You work, they don't. That's all you got to know about the enemy."

Politicians naturally attempt to deny or mystify this antagonism through a variety of strategies. In so-called ‘rich’ states such as Britain and the US, they have periodically propagated the myth of a universal middle class. When Labour came to power in the UK in 1997, for example, the party’s John Prescott (the pie-muncher pictured above) declared the class struggle to be over, asserting that Britons were ‘all middle class’. Just a few years later, Tony Blair argued that the working class was disappearing and giving way to ‘an expanded middle class, with ladders of opportunity for those of all backgrounds’. Yet if anything, the ‘middle class’ of relatively well-off workers has been shrinking since the 1970s, as capitalism’s economic crisis forces workers to work longer for less pay and previously privileged groups of workers are proletarianised.

When they are not denying the existence of the working class, politicians seeking to boost their public credibility like to claim membership of it. On the BBC’s political discussion programme The Andrew Marr Show (23 May 2010), for example, Labour’s Andy Burnham – a self-described socialist – professed his frustration that too few people can access professions such as politics, law and the media, frequently alluding to his own working class ‘background’. Similarly, in a BBC documentary entitled John Prescott: The Class System and Me (2008), John Prescott embarked on a quest to understand the meaning of class, identifying himself as a worker, despite his erstwhile denial of class hierarchies. Tucking into a portion of fish and chips, Prescott averred that his unpretentious meal signalled his proletarian status and claimed that he drew strength from the support he received from ‘ordinary working people’. ‘They give you that succour’, said Prescott, ‘that comfort that comes from solidarity, even though they know I’m in a different kind of world than they are’. Like Josiah Bounderby in Dickens' Hard Times, Prescott presents himself as a humble man of the people, distancing himself from the accusations of luxurious living that once earned him the mocking soubriquet ‘Two Jags’. Yet Prescott does inhabit ‘a different kind of world’ to the working class people whom he claims support him. This is not just a question of his lifestyle choices. Communists understand class as a relation to the means of production, which one class owns and controls and another uses in production. No matter how many chips or pints of beer he consumes, Prescott – who in 2010 accepted a peerage after many years of gamely professing his distaste for such honours – is a part of the apparatus of capitalist political control. We should judge capitalist politicians not by what they say - most of which is, in any case, merely deception and rhetoric - but by what they do. For example, we should judge Prescott not by the regrets he now expresses over the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but by the fact that he voted in support of the attack.

Class is not primarily a matter of one’s accent, consumption habits, place of birth, or whether one performs manual or mental labour. Put simply, the working class is the source of profit for capitalists. It is the dispossessed class: its members have no capital, no control over the overall conditions of their lives and nothing to live upon but their ability to work for a wage. Workers may possess a house and a car and may even have some ‘disposable income’; but they must nevertheless sell their labour power to an employer in return for a wage. Workers’ material interests are to obtain better living and working conditions from capitalists, and ultimately – as the only revolutionary class – to destroy capitalism. The objective of the capitalist, however, is to increase exploitation and profits while reducing costs. Since the conflict between these interests is irreconcilable, the principal propaganda role of the capitalist media is, as Marx and Engels succinctly put it in The German Ideology, to ‘present a particular interest as general or the “general interest” as ruling’. The capitalist media must convince workers that their true interests lie in supporting capitalism (presented as ‘the national interest’) and that the interests of workers and capitalists are congruous, such that – whether in war, industrial action, economic or environmental crisis – we are ‘all in it together’. We are not.

Reality TV's war on the working class

27/2/2011

 
Picture
TV say if you’re poor, you must be slow and shiftless / But you pay ’em to say that so we don’t want it different – The Coup, ‘Lazymuthafucka’

The dreams have no dream - Adorno, Minima Moralia

This blog tends to focus on the propaganda function of contemporary news and current affairs media (that is, after all, where the biggest lies are to be found). Yet popular media formats also help to sustain capitalist hegemony. A brief consideration of some of the themes and concerns of contemporary lifestyle and reality television will help to illustrate how class-based discourses are diffused through popular culture.

Gilles Deleuze proposed that developed capitalist societies transitioned in the course of the twentieth century from ‘disciplinary societies’, in which capitalists manage workers through physical discipline and institutions, to ‘societies of control’, in which individuals voluntarily internalise the interests of their rulers. In the society of control, the media – and in particular the ‘domestic’ medium of television – play a major role in constituting us as capitalist subjects by manufacturing a social consensus based on bourgeois values. In 1962, in the wake of the Pilkington Report into the quality of British television, Raymond Williams noted in his article ‘Television in Britain’ that ‘majority television’ was ‘outstandingly an expression of the false consciousness of our particular societies’. Williams’s judgement remains eminently applicable to popular television today. In The Apprentice, contestants compete against one another for an internship with a business mogul, while in Dragon’s Den and High Street Dreams, ordinary members of the public seek to impress businesspeople and financiers with their entrepreneurial acumen. Other programmes fetishize the acquisition of houses (tellingly called ‘properties’ in lifestyle television-speak), while television programmes about obesity, exercise, cosmetic surgery and dieting encourage viewers to focus their attentions on their personal well-being and appearance. Indeed, the proliferation of ‘transformational’ reality television programmes in recent years – from home improvement shows to makeover programmes – reflect and reinforce a profound investment in disciplinary work and biopolitical self-regulation. In such programmes, as Adorno observed of contemporary capitalist society in Minima Moralia, ‘everybody must have projects all the time’, so that ‘the whole of life must look like a job’.

Such television programming also interpellates working class people as self-contained units of production and consumption, fostering what the Marxist writer Christopher Caudwell liked to call the ‘bourgeois illusion’ of individualism. Little wonder that so many people today believe that human beings are ‘naturally’ selfish – a proposition that has been refuted by scientists from Peter Kropotkin to Stephen Jay Gould – and that this supposed ‘fact’ precludes the possibility of communism. (It might be noted here that even if human nature were essentially characterised by selfishness, this would constitute an argument not against communism but in favourof it, since the fact of human selfishness would necessitate reciprocal social arrangements capable of preventing the exploitation of some human beings by others).

The entrenched individualism of these popular television programmes tends to vitiate any sense that the problems faced by working class people and communities can be overcome collectively. In each episode of Channel 4’s reality programme The Secret Millionaire, an undercover millionaire encounters several community-minded individuals, each with their own project designed to help a disadvantaged group of people. At the end of the episode, the millionaire reveals her identity, writing a cheque for one or more of the deserving causes she has encountered. Here, as in Slavoj Žižek’s ‘chocolate laxative’ paradigm, capitalism is posited as the remedy for the very problems it has caused. Channel 4’s How the Other Half Live operates on a similar premise: a wealthy family donates money to a poorer one, having first ensured that its members are deserving of support. In programmes such as these, working class people are urged to ‘better themselves’ through hard work. This in turn tends to deny agency to the working class as a class, implying that complex social problems can be rectified not by the collective action of the workers against their exploiters, but by a combination of individual effort and perhaps, for a lucky few, thedeus ex machina of benevolent philanthropic intervention – a proposition that chimes with the emphasis placed upon private charity in the Cameronian one nation fantasy of the ‘Big Society’. As for collectivity, we are left with the ersatz participation of the X Factor phone-in.

The radical critique of ‘reality’, ‘aspirational’ and lifestyle television formats should in no way involve a moralistic objection to consumerism; after all, in contrast with the gloomy ressentiment and anti-consumerism of left-liberal politics, the communist demand is nothing if not a demand for more. The criticism is rather that lifestyle television’s exhortations to social mobility and consumerism serve to occlude both the reality of exploitation and the potential for collective socio-political action. They also disregard the increasing poverty of the working class. As the ‘wealth gap’ widens and social mobility rates stagnate, average wages and living standards for workers in ‘developed’ capitalist societies have fallen in recent years, as even the capitalist news media are sometimes compelled to acknowledge.

The increasingly fragile fantasy of upward mobility finds expression in many other popular media forms today. It is a convention of hip-hop videos, for example, to be set dually ‘on the street’ and ‘at the mansion’. In the dream-like logic of the music video, celebrity rappers transition effortlessly between these two settings. Association with ‘the street’ allows even the most sybaritic celebrities to maintain a reputation as ‘authentic’, ‘real’ and ‘cool’. The mythologisation of easy social advancement, meanwhile, furnishes an aspirational ideal while eliding the economic constraints that preclude social mobility for the majority of people in the real world. As such examples suggest – and as any advertising executive knows – capitalist hegemony is maintained not only through the assertion of nationalist symbolism and state propaganda, but also through the reconfiguration of human dreams, desires, aspirations and emotions.

As well as encouraging individualism and voluntarism, many popular media forms ridicule of working class people who attain media prominence: witness the outpouring of class hatred in tabloid television’s treatment of working class – especially female – ‘chav’ or ‘white trash’ celebrities, such as Jade Goody, Kerry Katona and Britney Spears, who are often censured for their emotional instability, stupidity, vulgarity, corpulence or maternal incompetence. It is precisely such undisciplined and recalcitrant working class people that the experts and gurus of ‘rehab’ reality television aim to instruct in the virtues of self-restraint and hard work. In BBC3’s Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum, young working class people are mocked for their indolence and cajoled into taking low-paid, service sector jobs. In Channel 4’s Benefit Busters and The Fairy Jobmother, meanwhile, presenter Hayley Taylor mobilises a mixture of moral censure and therapeutic rhetoric in an attempt to wean working class families ‘off benefits’ and ‘into work’ – as though unemployment were, to use the phrase of the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, a ‘lifestyle choice’.

But it is perhaps in the treatment of crime that the anti-working class nature of these popular media formats is most evident. The police force is all but venerated in reality television documentaries, while working class criminals, from violent gangs to ‘hoodies’ and ‘chavs’ are excoriated in the news media and in television docusoaps such as Bravo channel’s Street Crime UK and its replacement Brit Cops. And while largely juvenile, anti-social crime does constitute a genuine blight on society (one whose impact is felt most keenly in working class communities), what Marcuse termed ‘the mature delinquency’ of the ruling class – such as brutal invasions and bombings, lethal sanctions on food and medicines, health and safety violations – are either simply not classified as crimes or ignored; indeed, corporate and political crimes barely feature in crime-related television programming. The truth is that the most pernicious and chronic threats to the well-being of working class people are posed not by other workers, but by what Žižek calls the ‘objective’ or systemic violence of capitalist social relations, which finds expression in work-related ‘accidents’, poverty, ‘stress’, environmental damage, genocide and warfare. But there’s not much entertainment value in discussing any of that.

    Archives

    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    November 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010

    Categories

    All
    5G
    9/11
    Adam Curtis
    Advertising
    Afghanistan
    Alastair Campbell
    Angelina Jolie
    Anti-fascism
    Ashley Madison (hack)
    Aung San Suu Kyi
    Barack Obama
    Bbc
    Black Lives Matter
    Bnp
    Bosnia
    Brexit
    Burma
    Cancel Culture
    Censorship
    Channel 4
    Charlie Hebdo
    China
    Christopher Hitchens
    Christopher Nolan
    Class
    CNN
    Conspiracies
    Cornelius Cardew
    Covid-19
    Czech Republic
    Daily Mail
    Dalai Lama
    David Berman
    Donald Trump
    Economics
    Egypt
    Environment
    European Union
    Extinction Rebellion
    Facebook
    Falklands
    Fascism
    Feminism
    Film
    Free Speech
    Gaza
    Google
    Greece
    Greta Thunberg
    Guy Hibbert
    Hillary Clinton
    Hong Kong
    Immigration
    Internet
    Iran
    Iraq
    Isis
    Israel
    Itn
    Japan
    Jeremy Clarkson
    Jeremy Corbyn
    Jia Zhangke
    Johann Hari
    John Molyneux
    Jordan Peterson
    Katie Hopkins
    Ken Loach
    Kony 2012
    Labour Party
    Lawrence Hayward
    Libya
    Malala Yousafzai
    Marcuse
    Margaret Thatcher
    Marxism
    Mental Illness
    Music
    Myanmar
    Neoliberalism
    News International
    New Statesman
    New Zealand
    Niall Ferguson
    Noam Chomsky
    Norway
    Ofcom
    Osama Bin Laden
    Owen Jones
    Pakistan
    Palestine
    Paul Mattick Jnr
    Peter Bowker
    Peter Kosminsky
    Populism
    Press Tv
    Quentin Tarantino
    Racism
    Reality Tv
    Red Poppy
    Reith Lectures
    Rihanna
    Riots
    Robin Williams
    Russell Brand
    Russell T. Davies
    Scotland
    Silver Jews
    Single Mothers
    Sky Tv
    Slavoj Zizek
    Stephen Fry
    Stephen Poliakoff
    Stereotypes
    Strikes
    Suicide
    Syria
    Television
    Terrorism
    Terry Eagleton
    The Express
    The Guardian
    The Mirror
    The Sun
    Thomas Piketty
    Tony Grounds
    Tunisia
    Vaclav Havel
    War
    Washington Post
    Winston Churchill
    Wire
    Yugoslavia

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.