first draft context

Big Brother is a form of participant observation, with the “nation” observing, it is a form of overt observation as the participants know they are going to be watched.

Functionalists, such as Durkheim, would argue that like religion, television brings people within the community together. If something shocking is on the news, such as a high profile murder investigation, then people bind together, showing them sharing the same norms, roles and values. This can also be said of television, if lots of people watch a program then they share their ideas and opinions with others. However if something shocking was to happen on Big Brother like nudity or sex then the nation would come together but it is more likely they would be revolting rather than sharing beliefs.  During the 1950’s Talcott Parsons developed a structural-functionalism theory where he stated that people were “acting” in an involuntary way. He said that society was moulding people and making them think there is a certain way to look and act.[1] This is relevant to Big Brother as the group within the house may be acting as they think people outside the house want to see them act rather than acting as they normally would.

The New Right tend to have a very middle class view of Big Brother and especially of the types of people that are in the house. Many of them would say that the group in the house are “abnormal”. However they can be seen as merely contesting normal social roles. These types of people often haven’t met with transsexuals or openly gay people. The fact that these people are on television is shocking to them, although this is not necessarily their fault it seems they should be unable to judge these people without truly knowing them. This may be relevant to me when sending out my questionnaires as people who believe in New Right ideals may have a biased view as these people don’t act the way that they believe people should act.

Marxists would say that reality television is entertainment created by the bourgeoisie to oppress the proletariat, whilst they are busy watching television they are not working and making money. It gives them a false consciousness and whilst they are watching television they are not thinking about money or working. Big Brother can also be seen as the bourgeoisie oppressing the people in the house who are acting as proletariats. However the group in the house know how Big Brother is run as there have been four other series’, so although they are being oppressed they should be expecting some kind of oppression on things they are and aren’t allowed to do. The last person to remain in Big Brother wins a prize of around £70,000; Kincaid would argue that this makes the group work harder over the period of 71 days in order to receive the money and therefore the money is the main incentive.[2] This may mean that the group are acting in a false way are therefore roles, norms and values may appear to be broken down when they aren’t or vice-versa.

Feminists would say that the oppression put on the group is like the oppression which men put on women and the title “Big Brother” implies this. Big Brother is, however, run by women; the producer, press officer and 02 brand consultant are all women. Radical feminists, such a Germaine Greer, may see Big Brother as quite liberating for women as they can break away from traditional norms roles and values. This breaking away from tradition allows them to act up and not necessarily act how it is stereotypical for women to act, like doing the housework.  This may be proof that society has changed at the traditional norms, roles and values no longer exist.

Symbolic Internationalists, such as Erving Goffman, would see Big Brother as a way of seeing different interpretations of things. When the group first entered Big Brother and first began to meet they may have been projecting an ideologically image of themselves onto others. However there is also the interpretation that the audience have on the group and what each individual sees the group as. E.g.: One person may think that one of the group is arrogant where another person may see them as misunderstood.  The idea of having different interpretations and different views on the roles within the house and the way the group are shown is a good idea as it allows the individual to make up their own minds about the people in the house.

Post modernists would see Big Brother as a way of showing diversity in society. Traditional norms, roles and values are broken down. There are several gay members of the group and a transsexual and housework is normally shared within genders. I think this will perspective into my research as I can look at how traditional norms, roles and values are broken down and how socially constructed ideas of people can be broken down

Social construction is also discussed by Michel Foucault, a post-modernist, who labelled families “normal” or “abnormal”, although his ideas didn’t take into account the diversity within families, his ideas of labelling people can be related to Big Brother. [3] Post-modernists would believe that the presentation of gender roles, within the house shows diversity. It is not as tradition, with the women cooking and cleaning, everyone helps out and cooking is on a rota system. This shows a breakdown in traditional norms, roles and values. Also, Kitten is a lesbian and her actions show a break down in traditional relationships and the role of women as a housewife. There are also gay members of the group which shows the breakdown in these roles further.

Philippe Aries, a French sociologist, studied and wrote on what the idea of what a child is and how it is socially constructed and how children between the ages of 7 and 15 didn’t exist, children in this age group went out and worked and were more like miniature adults. Social construction may also exist within the Big Brother house. Some of the housemates may have changed the way in which they act or dress in the household to live up to a stereotype of what’s “normal” and “abnormal”. If they wish to be rebellious, like Kitten, then they are likely to be trying to be acting more towards the “abnormal”, however if they wish to conform they are more likely to change their actions to what is socially constructed as “normal”. Often, people who are trying to be “abnormal” act this way in order to gain interest and popularity with the viewers. They believe that their exaggerated characteristics are how they should act in order to win.