Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Here's an idea: Reality TV might affect our views on Surveillance.
I think I've said this on Idea Channel before, but I always think of the "Reality" in Reality
TV as something of a GENRE designation...
... and less of an accurate description of what kind of TV you're watching.
It's kind of like the word "Wrestling" in "World Wrestling Entertainment". It's DEFINITELY wrestling
but it's very different from the "wrestling" that came before these very large, theatrically
minded gentleman.
Wrestling isn't about wrestling it's about WRESTLING. Likewise, Reality TV isn't about
reality, it's not a docmentary, it's about REALITY.
You could say that it's about verisimilitude, or the appearance of being real, being RELATED
to reality.
It MIGHT even be that in ANY sitation, as soon as you point a camera at it, it stops
being strictly "real". Especially if people are involved -- it's kind of like a Media Related
Observer Effect.
Anyway -- though some part of us might know, deep down, that Reality TV is anything but,
many of us tend to still talk and think about it as if its realness were forreal.
There was all kinds of upset when it turned out producers might have been planting valuable items in
Storage Wars;
Certain shows which imply they are filmed on location are actually on sets and that's a little disappointing;
many shows employ a technique called "frankenbites" where bits of dialogue are re-combined to create
previously nonexistant scenes and that feels DISHONEST. Though not very surprising.
Maybe it makes sense, then, that many producers have begun distancing themselves from the designation "reality"
and have started calling their shows "unscripted drama".
Regardless, we are gonna watch it, in DROVES.
Duck Dynasty, Survivor, and American Idol were amongst the top watched shows in America
last year.
And reegardless of their ratings The Jersey Shore, Keeping Up with the Kardashians and Real Housewives
are massive cultural forces.
We watch these people, go about their everyday lives under Surveillance. In a paper for Psychology
of Popular Media Culture, Karyn Riddle and J. J. DeSimone even call this subgenre of
reality programming the "Surveillance Subgenre."
And maybe that "surveillance" is something like the previously wrestled-with "reality":
Maybe we don't think of it as surveillance, but as a kind of ur-surveillance. Sur-ur-veillance.
Unless we're talking about Big Brother in which case yeah that's just ... plain old SURVEILLANCE.
You have to admit though, that the situational and technological arrangement of things bears at least a passing resemblance
to the process of being surveilled:
People, their lives, cameras and the recording of generally-not-public odds-n-personal-ends.
And sure, reality stars might be willing in many respects. They might even be handsomely paid
(though its arguable whether said stars know exactly what they're signing on for. And might--if
not for the promises of riches or reknown--be otherwise unwilling to have their business
broadcast.)
Does a contract and some bucks make the whole thing any less exploitative
or imbalanced? I'm not sure.
BUT. I am sure that many of us--TENS OF MILLIONS of us, classify the whole arrangement as "entertainment."
And I'm not saying it's not! I grew up on The Real World, and Master Chef is a SERIOUSLY
intense guilty pleasure of mine.
But Reality TV or Unscripted Drama or whatever other rose by any name would smell as real.
(which is to say maybe not real at all)
It DOES confront and familiarize us with a group of well-known people willing to have
their lives recorded, sometimes 24/7.
Is there a chance that the popularity, or at least the very PRESENCE, of such a media
phenomenon in some way EXALTS... or maybe just NORMALIZES... being... watched?
Because, and at the risk of trivializing some very important business, it turns out that
all of us--Americans at least--are likely stars in our own little REALITY SERIES.
Except it's not produced by an eccentric millionaire or a TV genius but by a someone who
works for the government and I imagine looks like Mr. Universe from Serenity.
Related, of course of course, to watching people and being watched is the very important
concern of PRIVACY.
Kim Kardashian willingly elects and selects certain people to breach particular privacy
boundaries...
...while at the same time she battles with another group that is not, strictly speaking... approved
Which sounds like a pretty normal arrangement. Like, you're probably fine with your parents watching you
eat breakfast, or your significant other seeing you get dressed in the morning...
...but it would be a little weirder if it were that guy from the sandwich shop or that
lady from city hall or ... President Obama.
Of course, your parents PROBABLY aren't pointing a camera in your face for the sake, or due
to the popularity of, an internationally aired television show. The point is, I think
it's fair to say that "privacy" is different for different people.
Or in the words of Daniel J Solove in his paper "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings
of Privacy" -
"we should ... think of privacy as a set of family resemblances. In Philosophical Investigations,
Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that some concepts do not have "one thing in common" but "are
related to one another in many different ways." ... In other words, privacy is not reducible
to a singular essence, but is a plurality of different things that do not share one element
in common but that nevertheless bear a resemblance to each other."
Or as Garret Keizer put simply in his book "Privacy", "What preserves
mystery might also be mysterious."
"Privacy", for some peple, is DONT YOU LOOK AT ME. And for others it's ... yeaaahhh they'd
rather not have you looking in their windows. And for others still it's I'VE GOT
NOTHING TO HIDE.
I think of this last one as the Reality TV
Brand of privacy.
If you haven't done anything wrong--and you like who you are--why should you be afraid
of inviting the world into your life?
Wellllll, lots of reasons, I'd say, at least. Solove covers them much more completely than
we ever could here but on the short list:
You probably do have some things to hide, even if you think you don't. Privacy isn't
just yours its EVERYBODY'S--And functional Privacy is, in some ways, arguably integral
to a well functioning society.
So but THEN, topping the ratings list are successful and oftentimes very entertaining
people who seemingly have NOTHING TO HIDE.
The Riddle and DeSimone paper referenced earlier explains how Reality TV can influence viewers'
ideas of Reality... REALITY. That they can think what happens on Man vs Wild or
The Hills is what the world is actually like.
And I wonder, given the similarities between what they call the "surveillance subgenre" of
Reality TV...
...and ACTUAL SURVEILLANCE... it could then influence those viewers' ideas on Privacy,
as well?
What do you guys think? Is it possible that reality TV could influence a viewer's
ideas about privacy? Let us know in the comments and if you subscribe
I can't promise that I won't tell the world. And also if reality TV is
your jam get excited because a little birdie told me that Jamin on
Game Show is talking about reality TV and the Sims this week. That comes out
tomorrow. Keep an eye out. And also a clicking finger.
I learned so many new euphemisms for 'booger'.
I think my favorite was "bat in the
cave". Let's see what you guys had to say about algorithms.
GenesicShinZyraelKai says that
it might not be the algorithms worthy of
a spiritual consideration but maybe the computers themselves, as a lot
of people don't think of the software or the operations happening on it
but rather the object itself. And I think, yeah, I used to do work in
tech support and the number of people who came
in and their computer was just this magical thing beyond their control
was, yeah, it was a high number. I think that's a very astute observation. Mike Rugnetta. Mike Rugnetta.
Danly09grad says that a lot of people might have the same attitude toward algorithms
and spiritual concepts but that there is one very important distinction
to be made which is that if you have a strong grasp on mathematics or the sciences,
that you can dive into algorithms as far as you
want and uncover how they work. And while I agree that that
is true I wonder at what point actual access gets in the way
of that. And that you are not really going to be able to
get to the bottom of literally every algorithm. Some will just always be mysterious
To everyone concerned about my pronunciation
of Doge, I also say scenario, ideology, and GIF. I... deal with it. And then read this
Slate article that's really good. I'll put a link in the description. Doge actually as
it turns out is the second most popular pronunciation. I don't know if it's
the right one and frankly, I don't know if I'm, I don't know how much I... I don't care.
And the abyss stares back LexMan89. Andrew Murray kind of gets to
the heart of the question when he says that religion is kind of defined by what you give
agency, and that there is, there's probably a
group of people who gives more agency to technology than they give to their own perceptions
and actions in the world. And I might add that they might even do that
unconsciously. That might not be a decision that they make. Argyris Galamatis
to whom I want to sincerely apologize for butchering their name, then brings up a
related point about creators and so where does the agency lie
in that relationship between algorithm and programmer?
Is the algorithm in some way bigger than the programmer
that made it? Is this kind of like a question of, is
the captain the ship? Does the captain control the ship? Does the relationship
make something that's bigger than the sum of the parts?
I don't know. Mr. MonfresClass and Daniel Maloney see a connection between this unseen power
of algorithms and trouble related to net neutrality. Parker Ensing
relatedly wonders why that idea of big semi-invisible power, why I might
correlate that to spirituality in some way and not just
people's lack of understanding about technology itself which is a very fair point and I think
maybe the nugget of the episode that like we're trying to get to is that, like is
that, is that what spirituality is, and is that what technology is? And it seems like, seems like
the responses are all over the place. Which I love.
Relatedly Philosophy Tube and a couple other people wonder whether or not spiritual is even
the right word in this context because spiritual things tend to be privileged and technology
more and more is becoming a quotidian thing. I don't know. Because
something is every day I don't necessarily think that means it's not
privileged but that's an interesting question too, and
maybe why, I think why this whole conversation is, is so apropos and cool. You guys are all so smart. I love it.
This week's episode was brought to you by the hard work of these snot rockets. We
have an IRC, a subreddit, and a Facebook page. Links in the
description. And the tweet of the week comes from Wythe Marschall who points us towards
an infographic detailing the super future. As the subtitle says, it
looks like there may be trouble ahead.