Core Post Week 5

Towards the end of “The Meaning of Memory," Lipsitz supports his argument with three different academic disciplines—cultural studies, sociology, and literary criticism—by merging Stuart Hall’s understanding of commercial mass media with Habermas’ reading of capitalist culture and Bakhtin’s “dialogic imagination” (97-98). Relying solely on his summaries (as I haven’t read the works myself), I found Bakhtin’s understanding of communication to be the most enlightening, especially in relation to today’s mass media. Lipsitz suggests that by the 70s, programs such as All in the Family and Sanford and Son merely repeated the old shows, through the “commodification of all human relationships, especially families” (103). Having watched several episodes from both periods in class, it is quite understandable why he continues to examine issues of consumerism in relation to family, as the sitcom hardly changes its basic structure, taking place primarily inside living rooms. Thus, he aligns with all three writers by stating that such capitalist ideology always has an oppositional force that “legitimizes” the very types of representation that is supposed to be suppressed. Only Bakhtin, however, takes a more general approach, focusing on how the “text” is a reflection of past, present, and future. Whereas Hall and Habermas focus on capitalism, Bakhtin can be applied more freely to any “social matrix,” a more universal principle in relation to some of today’s sitcoms.    

In reading, I was reminded of Hendershot’s argument about Parks and Recreation, in which the show’s characters make up a diverse cultural forum, much like Bakhtin’s world of discussion and contradictions. I also thought about another show created by Greg Daniels, NBC’s hit sitcom The Office, which shares much of the same humor and mockumentary style. I think that The Office ventures away from Lipsitz’ manipulative capitalist terrain by presenting a much more mundane and dry version of everyday life than in the traditional sitcoms, where every joke came loaded with a certain optimistic experience of reality. The Office does everything it can to make capitalism look miserable. In terms of structure, The Office is also hardly interested in family life. Whereas Hall and Lipsitz situate sitcoms primarily in relation to “consumption” (98), The Office takes place solely on the production side. In other words, the family unit is replaced with the workplace, which Michael Scott, the show’s central idiot boss, often ironically refers to as a family. Thus, The Office moves beyond the familiar dialogues between the commercial and the domestic towards new possible contradictions. I don’t have time to fully develop a thesis here, but Bakhtin has me thinking about a few episodes, such as “Sexual Harassment” and “Gay Witch Hunt,” in which the racist and sexist attitudes of the past are played for jokes without a firm rooting in a dominant ideology. What exactly does the workplace in The Office represent? Is Michael Scott an Archie Bunker who appeals to an audience in conflict with other fans of the show? Which opposing dialogues are operating in this show?