Teaching & Learning Guide for: Toward a Sociology of Reality Television

Abstract

Reality shows cast relatively diverse groups with the intention of seeing whether conflict or harmony will result. Success in reality competitions is often achieved through the development of alliances and strategic relationships and the process by which these unions form can be sociologically fascinating to watch. Yet, sociology, in method and theory, has rarely been applied to the analysis of reality television. This is not to say that reality television has not been examined academically. In fact, there is a growing body of research, primarily conducted by communication studies scholars, that takes this type of television seriously. Thus, there is a foundation for teaching the sociology of reality television and excellent resources for doing so.Author recommendsAndrejevic, Mark 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.This book was one of the first monographs on reality television. Andrejevic looks at the significance of the ‘digital era’ and the idea of how genres like reality television encourage interactivity. He was able to interview cast members of reality programs and analyze their experiences, a body of data not available elsewhere. Also, Andrejevic discusses multiple shows including Survivor, The Real World, and Big Brother.Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.Although not a piece of scholarly research, this book would be useful in a course on reality television or new media as it raises questions regarding ethics in the genre and it is also very readable and engaging. Brenton and Cohen discuss underpublicized controversial episodes in reality television production and ask at what cost to society and participants are these shows made. They ponder the future of reality television and where and when lines will be drawn as to what is too invasive or private or inhumane to be broadcast.Dubrofsky, Rachel 2006. ‘The Bachelor: Whiteness in the Harem.’Critical Studies in Media Communication 23: 39–56.Dubrofsky looks at depictions of race and gender on the reality dating show The Bachelor. She notes how shows like this privilege whiteness through casting and editing. The Bachelor occasionally makes use of racial and ethnic minorities as exotic others when it serves the show to contrast such contestants. This is a good example of how racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes can be reinforced by media.Hill, Annette 2005. Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. London, UK: Routledge.Hill is one of few researchers who has conducted detailed audience analysis. Using survey research and ethnographic methods, Hill looks at the ways viewers watch and interpret reality shows. She discusses motivations for watching, what appealed to viewers and what did not, and the degree to which viewers take what they see as real.Jones, Janet Megan 2003. ‘Show Your Real Face: A Fan Study of the UK Big Brother Transmission (2000, 2001, 2002). Investigating the Boundaries between Notions of Consumers and Producers of Factual Television.’New Media & Society 5: 400–21.Janet Megan Jones conducted a three‐wave survey of 8,000 viewers of Big Brother UK in order to determine what audiences respond to on the program, particularly which characters and characteristics are most appealing. She argues that viewers enter into a ‘personalized reality contract’ with the show and the contestants in which they suspend their disbelief regarding the constructed nature of the show. Fans search for the truth or reality within the unreal environment; even though they know the show and its premise are contrived. This is one of the most comprehensive pieces of audience research and its interesting findings should generate class discussion.Misra, Joya 2000. ‘Integrating The Real World into Introduction to Sociology: Making Sociological Concepts Real.’Teaching Sociology 28: 346–363.A guide to using clips from the reality program, The Real World, to teach sociology. The principles suggested in this article may be useful in stimulating use of clips from reality programs generally and specifically.Escoffrey, David S. 2006. How Real Is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.Holmes, Su and Deborah Jermyn (eds) 2004. Understanding Reality Television. London, UK: Routledge.Murray, Susan and Laurie Ouellette (eds) 2004. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press.These three edited volumes are excellent collections of articles about reality television. All deal with production, content, and consumption. Any would be suitable as a text for class as they all contain interesting chapters that cover themes like defining the genre, the reality television industry, political culture, and representations of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.Online materialsTo my knowledge, there are no online resources specifically dealing with academic analysis of reality television. However, there are some Web sites that would be useful for exploration and incorporation in a course and in course projects. http://www.nielsen.com/ The Nielsen media group, who conduct the Nielsen ratings of television viewing, provides a limited amount of free information regarding viewing patterns on its Web site. There is some material regarding ratings and some reports that can be accessed here. Information about grants and internships and other resources for students are also available on this site. http://www.realitytvworld.com This Web site contains comprehensive listings and information about reality shows, past and present. If you are unfamiliar with a particular reality show or students are unfamiliar, this Web site could be consulted for background information. Links to news articles about reality shows and contestants are also listed here. http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com Television Without Pity provides very detailed recaps and discussion forums for selected television programs, including many reality shows (including America's Next Top Model, Survivor, Big Brother, The Biggest Loser, Project Runway, and Top Chef). If you are studying a show in depth or analyzing a particular show and miss an episode or want detailed summaries to use in class, this site is quite useful.Sample syllabus Course Outline and Selected Reading Assignments 1. Studying television from a sociological perspective Ang, Ien 1985. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. New York, NY: Routledge.Gamson, Joshua 1998. Freaks Talk Back: Tabloid Talk Shows and Sexual Nonconformity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Grindstaff, Laura and Joseph Turow 2006. ‘Video Cultures: Television Sociology in the “New TV” Age.’Annual Review of Sociology 32:103–25. 2. Foundations of reality television Baker, Sean 2003. ‘From Dragnet to Survivor: Historical and Cultural Perspectives on Reality Television.’ Pp. 57–72 in Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and Reality Television, edited by Matthew J. Smith and Andrew F. Wood. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.Biressi, Anita and Heather Nunn 2005. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London, UK: Wallflower Press.Cavender, Gray and Mark Fishman 1998. ‘Television Reality Crime Programs: Context and History.’ Pp. 1–18 in Entertaining Crime: Television Reality Programs, edited by Mark Fishman and Gray Cavender. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Clissold, Bradley D. 2004. ‘Candid Camera and the Origins of Reality TV: Contextualising a Historical Precedent.’ Pp. 33–53 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.Corner, John 2002. ‘Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions.’Television & New Media 3: 255–269.Gillan, Jennifer 2004. ‘From Ozzie Nelson to Ozzy Osbourne: the Genesis and Development of the Reality (Star) Sitcom.’ Pp. 54–70 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.McCarthy, Anna 2004. ‘“Stanley Milgram, Allen Funt, and Me”: Postwar Social Science and the “First Wave” of Reality Television.’ Pp. 19–39 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, UK: New York University Press. 3. Defining a genre Biressi, Anita and Heather Nunn 2005. Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London, UK: Wallflower Press.Bignell, Jonathan 2005. Big Brother: Reality TV in the Twenty‐First Century. New York, NY: Palgrave.Fetveit, Arild 1999. ‘Reality TV in the Digital Era: A Paradox in Visual Culture?’Media, Culture & Society 21: 787–804.Holmes, Su and Deborah Jermyn 2004b. ‘Introduction: Understanding Reality TV.’ Pp. 1–32 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.Kilborn, Richard 1994. ‘“How Real Can You Get?” Recent Developments in “Reality” Television.’European Journal of Communication 9: 421–39.Murray, Susan 2004. ‘“I Think We Need a New Name For It”: The Meeting of Documentary and Reality TV.’ Pp. 40–56 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press. 4. Production of reality Andrejevic, Mark 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.Couldry, Nick 2004. ‘Teaching Us to Fake It: The Ritualized Norms of Television's Reality Games.’ Pp. 57–74 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette, 57–74. New York, NY: New York University Press. 5. Images, stereotypes, and issues of content a. Representation and stereotypes Andrejevic, Mark and Dean Colby 2006. Racism and Reality TV: The Case of MTV's Road Rules. Pp. 195–211 in How Real is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth, edited by David S. Escoffrey. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.Callais, Todd M. and Melissa Szozda 2006. ‘Female Police Officers and Reality Television: Analyzing the Presentation of Police Work in Popular Culture.’ Pp. 133–48 in How Real Is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth, edited by David S. Escoffrey. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.Dubrofsky, Rachel 2006. ‘The Bachelor: Whiteness in the Harem.’Critical Studies in Media Communication 23: 39–56.Heinricy, Shana 2006. ‘The Cutting Room: Gendered American Dreams on Plastic Surgery TV.’ Pp. 149–64 in How Real is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth, edited by David S. Escoffrey. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.Johnston, Elizabeth 2006. ‘How Women Really Are: Disturbing Parallels between Reality Television and 18th Century Fiction.’ Pp. 115–32 in How Real Is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth, edited by David S. Escoffrey. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.Kraszewski, Jon 2004. ‘Country Hicks and Urban Cliques: Mediating Race, Reality, and Liberalism on MTV's The Real World.’ Pp. 179–196 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press.LeBesco, Kathleen 2004. ‘Got to be Real: Mediating Gayness on Survivor.’ Pp. 271–87 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press.Rapping, Elaine 2004. ‘Aliens, Nomads, Mad Dogs, and Road Warriors: The Changing Face of Criminal Violence on TV.’ Pp. 214–230 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press.Stephens, Rebecca L. 2004. ‘Socially Soothing Stories? Gender, Race and Class in TLC's a Wedding Story and a Baby Story.’ Pp. 191–210 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, NY: Routledge. b. Other analyses of content Cavender, Gray 2004. ‘In Search of Community on Reality TV: America's Most Wanted and Survivor.’ Pp. 154–72 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.Propp, Kathleen M. 2003. ‘Metaphors of Survival: A Textual Analysis of the Decision‐Making Strategies of the Survivor Contestants.’ Pp. 111–31 in Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and Reality Television, edited by Matthew J. Smith and Andrew F. Wood. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.Wingenbach, Ed 2003. ‘Survivor, Social Choice, and the Impediments to Political Rationality: Reality TV as Social Science Experiment.’ Pp. 132–152 in Survivor Lessons: Essays on Communication and Reality Television, edited by. Matthew J. Smith and Andrew F. Wood. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co. 6. Audience response and analysis Crew, Richard E. 2006. ‘Viewer Interpretations of Reality Television: How Real Is Survivor for Its Viewers?’ Pp. 61–77 in How Real Is Reality TV? Essays on Representation and Truth, edited by David S. Escoffrey. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.Hill, Annette 2005. Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. London, UK: Routledge.Jones, Janet Megan 2003. ‘Show Your Real Face: A Fan Study of the UK Big Brother Transmission (2000, 2001, 2002). Investigating the Boundaries between Notions of Consumers and Producers of Factual Television.’New Media & Society 5: 400–21.Ticknell, Estella and Parvati Raghuram 2004. ‘Big Brother: Reconfiguring the “Active” Audience of cultural studies?’ Pp. 252–69 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn. London, UK: Routledge.Wilson, Pamela 2004. ‘Jamming Big Brother: Webcasting, Audience Intervention, and Narrative Activism.’ Pp. 323–43 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press.Zurbriggen, Eileen L. and Elizabeth M. Morgan 2006. ‘Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? Reality Dating Television Programs, Attitudes Toward Sex, and Sexual Behaviors.’Sex Roles 54: 1–17. 7. The business of reality television Brenton, Sam and Reuben Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London, UK: Verso.Madger, Ted. 2004. ‘The End of TV 101: Reality Programs, Formats, and the New Business of Television.’ Pp. 119–36 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press.Raphael, Chad 2004. ‘The Political Origins of Reali‐TV.’ Pp. 119–36 in Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, edited by Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette. New York, NY: New York University Press.Films and videosSurvivorOne of the earlier and more influential (in the USA) reality television series; some seasons are available in their entirety on DVD. Survivor is a show where 16 people live in a remote area with no modern conveniences. Every 3 days, participants compete in challenges and the outcome of these challenges determines which contestants are subject to being voted out of the game. At the end of the approximate 40 days, ousted players vote for who they believe should be the winner of the game. There are many in class analyses that can be done in conjunction with readings. Most reality shows would work in this manner (Big Brother, The Bachelor, The Amazing Race, Top Chef, etc.). Stereotyping, group dynamics, ethics, representations of reality are all themes that can be explored using episodes of Survivor. 1900 House (or any other PBS reality show). http://www.pbs.org/wnet/1900house/In this show, a family volunteered to live in a house that was set up to replicate the conditions of 1900. It is a good contrast to reality programs that air on network television, in terms of production values, editing, casting, etc. A professor might show clips from 1900 House and clips from Survivor and compare and contrast in a discussion of audience, entertainment, the reality of reality television, etc. The Reality of Reality TV (produced by Bravo, September 2003). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381797/This six episode miniseries featured an analysis of reality television production. It is likely to be difficult to find; however, if one is able to access it, it would be useful in to show in class. I mention it because there are no other comparable programs that I am aware of.Project ideasRepresentations of race, class, gender, and/or sexuality This assignment is intended to have students measure representations of race, gender, sexuality, and social class on reality shows. Students should watch a particular series throughout the semester or for several weeks. They should be given coding sheets (which can be designed in class) where they take note of representations of things like race, class, gender, sexuality, etc. For example, if they were assigned or chose to focus on representations of gender and sexuality, they might note the way men and women are dressed, emphasis on different body parts and body images, the amount of attention directed to appearance both by the contestants/participants and the editors, terms used to refer to women and men, activities that men and women are shown participating in, skills or tactics women and men are shown using to make alliances and/or win challenges. Students should write a paper where they describe these representations of gender and discuss whether or not they feel this is reflective of actual reality, with supporting evidence from academic articles on gender and sexuality. They should also discuss the implications of these images and whether or not such representations matter.Fan discussion of reality television This assignment is intended to expose fans to the ways in which viewers make meaning of and interact with reality shows. Direct students to a Web site for fans of reality television that allows nonmembers to browse or ‘lurk’ in forums (e.g. http://community.realitytvworld.com/boards/cgi‐bin/dcboard.cgi; http://forum.realityfanforum.com/)Have the students review topics on message boards and several pages (10–12) of message board dialogue in order to determine the ways in which fans use message boards, the subjects they discuss, whether or not they accept the dominant reading offered by the shows, their awareness of editing and production, popular and unpopular contestants, etc.Students should write a paper in which they discuss the ways in which viewers make meaning of and interact with reality shows, noting specifically how technology can change the relationship between viewers and producers and television programs.