Applying critical interpretations to Reality TV
By Jenny
When presenting the newly devised project to the students, despite this audio-visual text’s growth, obvious appeal and real-world application, Miller came up against obstacles from departmental heads questioning motives, methodology and the course objectives. Using Reality TV, looking beyond the heroic, star-struck façade, to actually critique this media form, was the objective. This removal of the face value, outer layer would enable students to determine the underlying meanings, themes and messages presented in Reality TV shows.
This goal, of setting socially and culturally relevant, student-centred lessons, is stated on sj’s personal webpage, and echoed in the opening paragraph of the article. Corroborating with this theme is the posting by Nicole, which advocates Media Literacy studies to ensure students become critical consumers of popular culture. Significant to me; however, is the promotion of 21st Century learning, in certain educational institutions, faces such an “unanticipated barrier” – particularly when in an arena where innovation and pedagogy should be at the forefront (Miller, 2011, p. 135). Conflicting with normative practices, Miller’s approach, while pedagogically sound, bucked the system… The usual course of action was not being followed – thus the “dissonance” towards this new approach as the departmental heads “argued against its (Reality TV’s) legitimacy as a visual literacy” (Miller, 2011, p. 135).
This dissonance placed Miller in the position of having to justify the legitimacy of the course. The process of doing so, to me, gives further clarity and conviction to Miller’s original objective – providing over the course of a semester, a student-centred, interest sustaining Reality TV project. Through the closer examination of the course design, Miller finds that not only are the Liberal Studies objectives met, but so are the National Council of Teachers of English Standards (Miller, 2011, p. 138). Highlighting the investigative aims of the project and meeting the set goals of high interest and engagement whilst exposing students to this genre saw the strategies of critical media literacy pedagogy evolve.
Just as Miller faced challenges, Livingstone, advocates, “what Lars Nyre, quoting McLuhan, calls the shift of academic interest from the Ivory Tower to the Control Tower”. Livingstone questions their “critical and reflexive commitments” noting how commonplace is disruption as opposed to building and reshaping. She questions empirically those not promoting a softly, softly approach. Further stating “support for the gradualists who identify evolutionary not revolutionary change, who emphasise the reconfiguration of identities more than their transformation… not (the likes of Miller who instigate) wholly new kinds of activity, (with) refashioned styles of learning and participating, but perhaps not or not yet new forms of relationship or institution” (2010, p. 14).
The promotion of critical literacies for students is also the theme of this social justice advocate author’s collaboration with colleague, David Kirkland, in the co-editing of Change Matters. Prudently noted within the book’s forward, Miller cites John Baldwin, almost as a mantra: “The paradox of education is precisely this – that as on begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he [sic] is being educated” (2010, p. xvi). Encapsulated within the title of the article, like the mantra, demythologizing is about removing mythological elements in order to trace underlying significance. This would allow tracking to elements of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, spiritual belief, social class, age, ability/disability, political affinities, marital status, education attainment; the paradigm of our individual and multiple identities and their embodiment. As Miller acknowledges, these Reality TV shows clearly have immense authority and persuasion over their audience’s sense of self and way of life (Miller, 2011, p. 137). This power, traced historically by Miller, utilises the appeal and availability of Reality TV, making it the ideal teaching tool for exploring critical literacies. Miller includes other educational researchers supporting this concept.
Unpacking Reality TV is an important stage in understanding its popularity and prevalence as a form of popular culture. Kirsten’s post acknowledges that parents and teachers are instrumental in using this media form in a positive way through its critical deconstruction. Promoting this same conclusion is Shelley’s post on Reality TV. It is acknowledged that this media form has breadth; “one can view almost any topic these days” and it has infiltrated or converged into other media forms such as chat rooms, blogs, internet sites and “even the fashion industry” (Miller, 2011, p. 136). Miller examines Reality TV’s beginnings, tracing back to Candid Camera in the US, The Family in the UK, and for Australian audiences, Sylvania Waters. He also gives credit to Real World, a high rating, multi-season plus Reality TV show, that he believes altered viewing dramatically in the US (Miller, 2011, p. 137).
Following the concept of the convergence of Reality TV shows, Miller notes many of the approaches used to market these shows to consumers. Strategies of cross promotion, advertising of other products, featuring on covers of magazines, merchandising of clothing, just to name a few, are as Miller suggests, testament to the “great power and influence over identities and lifestyle” these shows have (2011, p. 137). It is for these very reasons, Miller’s Reality TV project and others like it should be a priority in educating youth.
By using Reality TV, raising the awareness of how media audiences interpret and engage with the vast array of these shows, Miller encourages their dissection. Allowing for own choice of Reality TV show, after making observations, relevant to their criteria and reflecting on the whole series of episodes, the students were expected to critique it. Through analysing, then synthesising their findings, students would individually or collaboratively, develop a presentation via a media, again of their choice: either written or audio-visual of their hypotheses of the outcome for once the series had ended. These critical observations by the students as a result of their deconstruction, were as Miller described “stupendous” (Miller, 2011, p. 135).
Miller emphasises the importance of discourse, drawing upon the work of Gee to distinguish between what he notes as primary and secondary forms. The primary discourse he sees as what we come packaged with – our immediate identifiers of family, friends, culture and language – in essence our personal paradigms. Whereas, the secondary discourses he explains are organisational influences of religion, political affiliations, schools, clubs, employment and others. These perspectives, Miller believes, citing Tremmel, “are what good teaching tells us to build upon” and encourages students to acknowledge their identities. Miller maintains it is only when students have “the tools to negotiate their identities, by unpacking the hidden sociopolitical, gendered, capitalist, and heteronormative messages embedded in Reality TV, (do) students gain power to make informed decisions about their lives” (2011, p. 139).
Student responses to Reality TV as noted in the article were, for me, as expected. Their personal choice of Reality TV shows rose from reasons of: personal appeal, portrayal of particular ethnicity, popularity, were already fans of, came recommended or simply seemed interesting. Students also pigeonholed the target audience, finding Reality TV shows rarely market religion. Here, the students suggested, Reality TV imply morals that are basic to most religions. They noted audience appeal was due to a combination of features, or “meta-categories… (of): moralistic, competitive, family/relationship, improvement and moralistic/competitive”. Identification of the seductive powers of Reality TV, via audience manipulation and invitation to develop relationships with the characters, were ways the students believed viewers became more likely to watch the next episode (Miller, 2011, pp. 146-147). During the analyses, students also came to identify and question the way Reality TV shows maintain yet also confront stereotype expectations.
Overall, this article considers teaching theory while seeking to empower students through a classroom practice, to grow and increase student access and understanding of critical media literacy. This occurs through the scaffolded discovery of “how power is used and misused in literary practices and, provides… the tools to negotiate what is being fed to them through Reality TV” (Miller, 2011, p. 141).
References
Bach, J. (2011). How teachers negotiate the use of reality television in their pedagogy. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 6(2), 144-153.
Burr, V., & King, N. (2011). Teaching research ethics through reality TV.
Kirkland, D. E. (2010). Change Matters: Critical Essays on Moving Social Justice Research from Theory to Policy: Peter Lang.
Miller, S. (2011). Demythologizing Reality TV: Critical Implications as a New Literacy. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3).
sj Miller. (n.d.). Welcome Dr. sj miller Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved October, 20, 2011, from http://www.sjmiller.info/
