TV reality in an sartrian perspective
I always wonder
when I see a TV show like “Secret Story” or “Koh Lanta”: why are they doing
this? Why do they support the cameras everywhere? The TV shows mostly give a
bad image of them, how can they be motivated by it?
I think it
is interesting to analyse TV reality with an existentialist prism, especially
The Look from Jean-Paul Sartre.
TV reality : What are they looking (for)?
The Other’s
look is part of our existence because the other is an intermediary between me
and myself. That's why they support the cameras, because they know that they
are judge by the viewers. Nevertheless, they cannot answer with a smile to the
judgement they see in the others eyes. Is it why they feel relax, pride and
never ashamed? That is not a theatre, they did not see the public, and they
cannot have the pressure of their eyes staring at them. They should imagine
them; it deforms their perception of the other judgement.
I think that
the reason why they did not seem to be ashamed even if they are doing degrading
task, they think that’s what the others want them to do. They are acting as the
others expect it, they direct themselves alone to hell.
Secondly, « Nous ne sommes
nous qu’aux yeux des autres et c’est à partir du regard des autres que nous
nous assumons comme nous-mêmes. ». TV show candidates are sure of what they are, they are in the game
to win, to become admire and become popular. They are dreaming of money and/or
become the new “Nabilla”. But what does it means in a sartrian perspective? They
assume what they want to be because of the look of the other, it is like a kind
of approval: I made audience; insofar the others approve what I am. The others are staring at me, they appreciate me,
and so I am. Nevertheless, it is a bad faith; they are denying their own
freedom. They leave in an inauthentic existence, they are not in hell because
of the look of the other, but because of what they except them to think about
them.
Is TV reality a kind of Truman show ?
Viewers see the candidates as a role
in the game: they look at them as a reduction to their role. For example they
see Truman’s wife only as a wife. She is playing a game, she as a text to play,
like in everyday life when a waiter has to say the same courtesy in real life,
he also have a text to play because he isn’t himself but he is a waiter. It is
the same case in modern TV show: there is the seducer, the leader and the
manipulators: they are not seen as entire people with a complete identity, but
they playing a game in a stereotyped and artificial society. Viewers expect
them to play their role and they do it exactly as they expect it, they are like
a waiter with costumers who expect him only to serve his coffee. In a certain
extend, the whole world is a Truman show but without Truman since everybody is
conscious the social “role” they have to play. Nevertheless, there are no text
that has just to be read if everyone becomes conscious that he live for-himself
and not in-himself, that is to say to live an authentic existence. TV reality is denying his own freedom, going in hell alone because of his own perception of their imagination of the judgement of the other. Nevertheless, their lacks of understanding guide them to degrading tasks without shame, or inauthentic existence without the direct judgment of the others.
Hello !
ReplyDeleteI find very interesting to analyse TV reality through Sartrian philosophy.
So participating in a TV reality is an act of bad faith, it is a way to submit yourself to the other's look : you reduce yourself to what the audience expects you to be.
What can be strange is that for Sartre, the other's look is a real torture. The fact that the judgment that the other forms on you escapes you, that you can't know what the others thinks about you is painful. It is a part of your identity which is "stolen" from you.
Why do these people on TV do not feel this frustration ?
Do they find comfort in the votes they get ? Is it the fault of society ? Indeed society seems to have made the others's look desirable. It is hard to understand, isn't it ?
Hey! Nice post there :D TV Reality is a very complex social phenomenon, and I think it takes more than existentialism to fully understand it. However, still a compelling post!
ReplyDeleteI recommend you to read Sartre's famous play "No Exit", you will realize that the others' judgement is horrifying, torturing, and that's exactly the reason why "Hell is the others!" as Garcin claims it in the end.
As you said, TV reality is basically meant for people who want to be seen by others, but it's not only that. I don't agree with you when you say they want to be reified: it's contrary to everything Sartre says. We are projects and not objects because we can evolve. But the others' look is overwhelming because it gives a fixed, immuable image of ourselves. However, they do want to show their best self, and they want people to immortalize it by their glances. Anna seems to agree with me on this point.
Hi !
ReplyDeleteI agree with the two comments above mine. And I would also like to look at the motivations of their participation to TV reality. Indeed, it is quite surprising to see that they want to be seen by others while Sartre precisely talks about how the look of others is a torture as it is negating us.
But in general, we might wonder why fame is so attractive to so many people as it is exposing the individual to many "looks". We might think they want to be considered in their most flattering way by as many people as possible to get admiration. Indeed, thanks to fame, people know you not only from what they consider you as : father, friend, colleague... but also as someone with talent. But this fame often provokes a backlash and the person is known for her bad actions.
Thus, I find this attraction to fame being difficult to explicit through Sartre's theory. What do you think?
Hey, i just read all your points of view about Sartre and Secret Story.
ReplyDeleteWell, you've already said many things, but I just would like to add one thing. You seem to argue that other's look has consequences on TV show candidates despair and happiness. You may be right. But as you said, Alexandre, they wanted it. Then, I don't think we should find it weird that people still settling in this house every summer. In fact, as Sartre said, we are "Being-for-others" as much as we are "being-for-ourselves". In The Look, Sartre explains that we see everything around us as objects until we see someone : then our landscape is kind of lively. Therefore, whatever a bad or a good reputation? The only thing that these people see is that everyone is looking at them. They feel like existing. Then, they are.
Hello Alexander!
ReplyDeleteI would like to give a personal answer to your question: why do they support the cameras everywhere? I agree with you when you write that they are playing a role. Consequently, I understand why they support these cameras everywhere, because they are denying, not only their own freedom, but also their own individuality by participating to TV reality. Not only are they convinced that they are not free and that they cannot do anything else that playing this role (that is why they can be considered as bad-faith-people, Sartre would say), but also, to my mind, during the length of the TV reality they are denying themselves as humans and individuals. They unconsciously transform themselves as animals, which obey in the present hoping to be rewarded in the future. I think that they are more transformed than the waiter that Sartre takes as example: the waiter recognizes himself as an individual, but sometimes I wonder about these candidates when I see how typical they are. This is the first explication.
The second is very simple: for people who agree to participate to TV reality, this is not a shame. I mean, if somebody from Sciences Po participates to the next Secret story, he would be under social pressure, but I am not sure that it is also the case from the random candidate who comes from an other social background.
Do you agree with me?
Hey! Great post :)
ReplyDeleteTV reality show are in many way confusing by the need of people to put themselves under the spotlight, even if they risks to be judge and persecute by people they don't even know.
We cannot deny that it is a way to assert yourself by considering enough important and worth it to settle in the life of viewers. There is always this balance between being-for-other vs being-for-ourselves and to participate in that kind of structure might be just a way to assert their own well-being.
However, to answer to Gabriel response, I don't think that it would be more a shame to participate to TV reality than to use actual social media as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat in excessive way. Both case, our private life isn't no more .