Core Post #5

I found this week’s readings incredibly engaging and particularly useful for my future research. I was specifically drawn to the Mittell and McPherson readings. Mittell’s goal is to “arrive at a clearer understanding of how genres work to shape our media experiences and how media work to shape our social realities” (Mittell, p.28). Reading this statement has convinced my I needed to add this book to my shelf yesterday, as this is one of the reasons I am interested in studying crime drama television. Mittell states that, “examining genres as cultural categories, constituted by clusters of discursive processes operative within texts, audiences, industries, and cultural contexts – attempts to place genre analysis back onto the agenda of critical media studies” (Mittell, p. 27). It is impossible to avoid genre hierarchies because as a society we have prescribed to this kind of categorization. Much of this work banters with Bourdieu’s Distinction, as discussed in Mittell (2004). Culture – and by extension television genres - whether good, bad, mass, mid, pop, low, or high are matters of taste, which can be attributed to class hierarchies.  However, Horkhiemer and Adorno express their distrust for popular media in general. They state, “films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimate the trash they intentionally produce” (Horkheimer and Adorno, 1944, p.94).  They are resistant to the notion that culture can be entertainment, or that entertainment can be a form of culture equivalent to true art. I shudder to think where they would place television genre on their “trash” scale.

But beyond the cultural hierarchies delineated within genre television, there is clearly a level of gender politics in play as well. This notion is explored through McPherson’s (2007) analysis of 24. As someone who was immersed into 24 culture, both through family and friends, I found myself relating to her analysis of the hyper-masculine separating itself from the uncannily similar, femininity of soap. How is it that when a masculine following is “addicted” to serial drama, it can be categorized as quality TV? This is actually one of the reasons I like to study gender in crime drama television. I am interested in how women present gender in a stereotypically masculine space. Crime dramas more accurately depict society than any other television genre (Snauffer, 2006). In American television, crime dramas reflect how society views morals, politics, and behavioral norms. The audience judges the crimes committed, and a moral standard is set by the detectives, agents, technical analysts, and lawyers who bring the criminals to justice. Even if crime drama television is classified as scripted entertainment, it still holds significant weight because media entertainment informs and mirrors society. Therefore, it is interesting to see how gender is performed under these considerations. I think looking at the character of Chloe O’Brian in 24 is an interesting case study. Chloe’s character possesses eccentricities manifesting in a dry and sardonic monotone of annoyance. Yet, her persona and appearance is devoid of overt femininity. She is sharp, and rarely encounters a problem she cannot hack, she falls into what Williams (2007) describes as “the literate sidekick” category. The literate sidekick acts as the brain behind daring situations, and, in the background, supports the hero who ultimately uses physical, brute force to save the day (Williams, 2007). Chloe is a master of her domain on the show, a domain often perceived as a male space. However, Chloe reports to Jack Bauer, supplying this alpha male with all the information he need in order to physically take down the suspects.

So is it Bauer’s masculinity that helps position 24 as quality TV? Does Chloe’s wit and skill mollify the more “cringe-worthy” female characters (McPherson, 2007)?  Personally, I am resistant to the notion of genre hierarchies, because I believe in choice, agency, and dash of phenomenology. I can only know my lived experience and with what types of television I choose to engage and participate. Everyone is going to have a different set of lived experiences that shape the kind of entertainment they choose to embrace.