More Big Brother Thoughts

Last week, I posted some thoughts on the current season of Big Brother. Two days later, on the telecast on Thursday, August 26, the same kind of issue that I had addressed came up again. In this instance, when Matt was evicted from the house, during his post-eviction interview with host Julie Chen, he referred to fellow houseguest Britney as a "succubus." Instantly, Chen told Matt to "keep it clean." Matt responded by saying that the FCC allows the word, to which Chen suggested that that didn't mean it should be said on this telecast.

On the one hand, this draws attention to the inappropriateness of using some terms. So, in a way it addresses my point from my previous post. On the other hand, it does so in a way that doesn't really address the issue. Rather than simply stating that using the word is inappropriate under the same kind of "family programming" veneer that's been used on previous episodes, Chen could have allowed Matt his use of the word and then challenged his use of it, pointing out how it is derogatory toward women and how it reinforces the system of sexism in United States society.

With that in mind, I see this as a missed opportunity that ends up reinforcing the same kinds of things I brought up last week. As I mentioned, I'm very much for the liberalization of language use. To do otherwise keeps people from actually discussing and dealing with problems. In this case, Matt's use of a derogatory word is called out as inappropriate without explanation of why it might be inappropriate. All this reflects and teaches is a dictatorial kind of rule--i.e., "Don't do this because I said so." In the end, that doesn't address the systematic oppression of women that this term, along with other terms that continue to be allowed like "bitch" and "ho," reflects. In fact, given how much patriarchy has historically given the same kind of "just because" reasoning when women have attempted to challenge gendered oppression, it can be argued that this kind of treatment of use of "succubus" reinforces oppressions of many kinds (including gender) by reinforcing the idea that those with less power should not do or say things simply because those in power tell them not to, regardless of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the reasons that those in power have for what they have commanded others to do or not to do. That, to me, seems like a very dangerous lesson--a lesson of brushing problems under the rug rather than dealing with them that leads society little of anywhere but continued hegemony, as the powerful maintain and grow their power because attention has been deferred from looking at the ways that power works, particularly as it works in oppressive manners.

I don't necessarily blame Chen here. She's asked by CBS and the producers of the show to fulfill a role within certain social and industry expectations. She's in a position where she could address the bigger issue of oppression, so it's disappointing that she doesn't. She's also, though, in a role where she could easily be dismissed should she articulate things that CBS or the show's producers don't like. Media companies, media industries, and the folks that own and run these institutions have a much higher degree of culpability. Of course, CBS is also subject to a bigger game of hide and don't seek, which is particularly acute for them since they were the network that received heavy fines by the FCC after the "wardrobe malfunction" in the Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson performance during the 2004 Super Bowl. So, it is political and economic systems and institutions that are creating this kind of situation. And that just seems to suggest all the more fully that we need greater and fuller analysis and critique of the system of capitalism that sets many of the rules for life in the contemporary U.S. world. Of course, with these same institutions and systems developing even greater and greater influence over schools, media, and other educational experiences on all levels, that critique becomes even tougher to express and sustain.

And, as this occurs, to quote F. Scott Fitzgerald writing 85 years ago, "so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." Perhaps, though, I should be quoting George Orwell's 1984. After all, the show does take its name from that book, and the social critiques offered by that book seem to apply so readily to the whole situation.