By now, most people have seen this clip of Susan Boyle. She is a spunky misfit with great talent, and the modesty and age to bring a tear to our eyes. I cried too. She seems like a lovely lady. There are a great number of assessments of "why we love her." Here's the latest one I read, but there are plenty more. They all boil down to our own need for acceptance, her profound giftedness and charm, and a little studio exploitation. I can buy that.
But the Susan Boyle phenomenon also strikes me as having a dark side. Not for her--things will work out quite well for Susan, as they did for her predecessor, Paul. Rather, the dark side of this media sensation is what it says about us (okay, Britain, but it can be said of the U.S. as well). That is, we're terribly stratified. So much so that these two talented individuals--Susan and Paul--could live their lives in obscurity because their parents were not wealthy or connected. And it's not just these two individuals. The truth is, most famous, powerful, and wealthy people in the U.S. and Britain had famous, powerful, or wealthy parents.
What's worse, Susan and Paul are used as stories of hope and inspiration. We are expected to be grateful for the reality world's acceptance in embracing their talent and giving them the opportunity to shine. Through them, we can feel better about class stratification. "Look! It worked out okay for them!"
Reality shows owe much of their existence to our need to believe in the American Dream (and whatever its British equivalent is). And of course, they owe a great deal to class stratification in general. Britain's/America's Got Talent does not tell us that any working class schmo can get ahead. It tells us--through weeks of audition episodes--that most working class schmos belong exactly where they are. They suggest that talent is rare among the ignoranti and that the "truth will out" and will save these few gems from their surroundings. They encourage a belief in talent as raw and pure, needing no expensive coaching or time to cultivate. In fact, the opposite is true. Potential greatness exists among the working class, just as it does in the middle and upper classes. It is the money, independence, confidence, time, and access to resources that they lack.
Bourbon-Ginger Pecan Pie
6 months ago
Posts
2 comments:
this is just armchair sociology here, but it strikes me that there is a cultural difference here. it is not an accident that both paul and susan were on BRITAIN'S got talent. would they have made the first cut on AMERICA'S got talent?
i think you're right about the story that goes along with their success - the exception proving the rule. the truth of their talent will come out and the rest of the working-class poor folks obviously lack talent or it would have come out. but the story is a little different in america.
i think that in america, it is more about appearance and less about socio-economic class. quite simply, being attractive is a necessary attribute that you have to have in order to "make it". we don't care whether you come from a rich or poor family, but we sure as heck care how you look. which is not to say that SES doesn't matter; obviously even talented and attractive folks from poor families have the deck stacked against them.
but when i watch paul and susan, i can't help but think that america would prefer a less-talented singer who was 18 years old and beautiful.
in the end, it is the same general logic though. in britain, poor people are poor because they lack talent, and the truth will come out. in america, ugly people are ugly and therefore they lack talent...but with the right makeover the truth will come out.
I've thought about that too. But then why the embrace of Susan & Paul among American audiences? I do think the larger entertainment system in the U.S. is more geared toward physical appearance. But the larger story within American talent shows is essentially the same (but with prettier people--or people who can be made over).
Post a Comment