English
中文Big Brother is one of the most successful television formats in the world, and a pioneer of “reality” television. However, it is important to remember that “everything in the Big Brother house is controlled.” (18/10/01, www.bbc.co.uk) Indeed, it was the manipulative element of the show that led programmers to question the viability of a celebrity format – and in 2003, Celebrity Big Brother was born. But by 2007, the format was becoming stale. Now an established vehicle for launching celebrities in their own right, the lines between “celebrity” and “normal” Big Brother had fast become blurred and the relatively well-known names that had volunteered for the show in the past either shied away from the format, or kept up a façade so as not to reveal their personal details to the cameras. Even though, as Crick claims, “considering how heavily cut it is, the idea of anything in Big Brother as reality is nonsense on stilts.” (18/08/00 The Guardian)
What has now become known as the “Big Brother race row” began when Jade Goody, a former housemate in the “normal” show, joined the celebrity version along with her mother Jackiey Budden and boyfriend Jack Tweed. Jade has made no secret of her South London background, and the fact that both she and her family began at least as working to lower class (her mother once worked as a prostitute.) Jade’s presence in the show intimidated other contestants to the point where two (Donny Tourette and Ken Russell) walked out of the house in protest within as many days. Meanwhile, Jade’s mother Jackiey clashed with Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty over a refusal to pronounce her name properly, and instead branded her “The Indian.” Following Jackiey’s eviction, comments from Jade, Jack and fellow contestants Danielle Lloyd and Jo O’Meara, who had all formed an alliance against Shilpa, suggested the actress was a “dog,” and that she should “fuck off home.” Her accent was also mocked, and comments were passed such as “They eat with their hands in India don’t they – you don’t know where hers have been” (Jo), followed by the infamous claim from Jade. “I don’t know what her name is – Shilpa Poppadom?” As what the Commission for Racial Equality termed “distasteful” comments continued, complaints of racism and bullying to regulator Ofcom rose from 200 to more than 13,000 in one day. At the climax of the show (which Shilpa won) that figure had reached more than 40,000 – the highest in Ofcom’s history.
Analyse one media example of your own choice according to this methodology and think through what sorts of questions and conclusions this perspective encourages.
This study will attempt to analyse the recent Celebrity Big Brother “race row” within a Marxist ideological context that will address issues of class, social standing, and the media representation of Britain’s attitude to race within a Marxist ideological structure. It will also analyse the possible background to the “racist” comments, and will compare this against the dominant white ideology. Although this study will attempt to investigate how Marx ideology affects the event in question, it will not attempt to draw any conclusions surrounding the row. i.e. if the protagonists were in fact “racist” in this case. It will however draw on the questions and conclusions that employing this method of analysis can raise.
Marxist’s theory of ideology, supported by Althusser, and the Frankfurt School of thinking, scrutinizes the most meaningless aspects of popular entertainment and suggests they are invested with complex and debilitating political expressions. It refers to a specific social construct of ideas as to how society is perceived – in essence an ideological construct. Marx focuses this system largely on class, and suggests that in fact, “the ideology in society is the ideology of the dominant class.” (Chandler: 1995) He argues that as a ruling factor, it is the media classes that “disseminate the dominant ideology.” (Ibid.) The question the analysis in this study raises is: which is the dominant class? It is the accepted standpoint that in media circles and dominant ideologies, it is the middle or upper classes who display the dominant discourse. However, the main issue that led to the Big Brother row being raised on BBC Question Time, in parliament and on Chancellor Gordon Brown’s trip to India, was that the show was in fact holding up a mirror to a strong undercurrent of racism in modern Britain. Marx supports the theory that the attitudes of British culture may not in fact come from the ruling upper classes, but from the working class “mob” mentality, claiming: “The ideas of a ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. i.e. The class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time the ruling intellectual force.” (1989: Boudon: 37)
Class was consistently blamed throughout the show as the reasoning for the girls’ behaviour. Both political and social commentators claimed the girls did not know better and were merely stupid and segregated, while Shetty herself blamed class and a lack of education. But as Marx himself argues: “The existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production.” (Ibid.) In other words, because working class culture is perceived as low in education, were the media too quick to blame the girls’ backgrounds? In theory, coming from working class backgrounds, two of which were from London, the other from one of the most diverse port cities in the north of England, would all three not have had experience of integration and education on race-related issues already? So, was it too easy to blame the reaction on class? After all, Marx claims that “the rich will do anything for the poor but get off their backs.” (Ibid.) It may have been especially easy to deflect the controversy surrounding “modern racist Britain” by deflecting the subject as a whole away from the white newscasters and onto the lower class scapegoats who were antagonized into displaying a stereotypical reaction. Marx supports this theory in his assessment of the German ideology, claiming: “in order to suppress a class, certain conditions must be assured under which it can, at least continue its slavish experience.” (Ibid.)
So were Big Brother producers asking for trouble? Was it the constant irritation of conflicting social classes that created the tension or was it something else based on a political ideology long ingrained within Britain? To assess this fully, we must deliberate the dominant white ideology.
Despite living in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society, it is undoubtable that the dominant ideology – particularly that portrayed by the media – is white. As Bonnett writes: “Everyone, whatever their skin colour, knows what it means to be white.” (2000:110) But how does this tie in with class? Although possibly the dominant ideology, particularly in Britain, Feagin claims: “if a person is white and low-income/lower working class it’s not as great as it used to be.” (2001:197) In other words, the white, working class in Britain is perceived by the media and the upper classes as being “thick” or “uneducated”. After all, it is worth noting that Jade’s family was paraded onscreen as some form of white working class stereotype. And it is worth remembering that when Jade’s grandparents were invited to dinner as part of a “twist” in the show, Shilpa laughed at them as opposed to be with them, patronizing them and freely admitting she “couldn’t understand a word they were saying.” But for all their intellectual failings, or perhaps despite them, the white working class ideology is still the dominant force displayed, as Marx would argue, by the media. It may be for this very reason that Jade chose to turn on Shilpa Shetty – a successful Bollywood actress. In comparison with Jade, Shilpa is beautiful, rich, and crucially talented – a notion that goes against white ideological sensibilities.
Or perhaps it was the viewers to blame? It is also, as Feagin suggests part of the white ideology to perceive oneself as “not racist” and a “good person” while enforcing black derogatory stereotyoes.'” (2001: 187) but that does not mean the label cannot be pinned onto others, particularly the “uneducated” working class. But Feagin also suggests that this is part of the dominant, upper class white thinking that, as a person from an ethnic background, particularly a female Indian should be offended by Jade’s comments. This notion in itself is both uneducated and discriminative, in particularly when, as Greer writes: “As a Tamil, Shetty has certainly had to deal with discrimination at home in suburban Mumbai.” (17/01/01 The Guardian)
On a whole it would appear that the media in this instance has proved Marx’s theory by focusing a white, middle-class ideology on the public to substantiate its views. The media vilified Jade and her group as “bullies,” but as members of the white, upper classes, were often unsure how to label her. But the racist element of the story mattered little when class could be blamed. For those who chose not to follow a left or right wing perspective and label Jade specifically, the media exploited her class. In this particular case, class was clearly a key issue, and one that had not raised its head quite so prominently in British discourse for a long time. But the issue of “classism” was exploited not only by the media, but the programme-makers as a whole, who were aware of the fact that by putting people of different class as opposed to race (which may have been an afterthought – Ken Russell, the white film director who left the house shortly after Jade’s arrival, called her family “vulgar slum dwellers,” 09/01/07 www.yahoo.news.com) would cause conflict more than any other factor due to the largely white, dominant, social ideology of what to expect from an Indian woman (in theory subservient and domesticated, whereas Shilpa was largely different.)
In conclusion, this study does not wish to assess if Jade, Jo and Danielle were racist, but in summary, it does find that class conflict was exploited by the protagonists that surrounded the event. The media, as a whole demonstrated this ideology to its fullest, defying Gormley’s argument that “the physical origins of cultural information have now become less important.” (2005: 138) This study has found that it was the assumption that white, working class girls would not associate with a middle to upper class Indian woman, that created the media furore surrounding the problem as this is the dominant ideology represented by the white upper class members of the media spectre itself. As a whole, the Big Brother race row has proved Marx’s writings on class ideology and the scrutinisation of the dominant discourse are apparent within current class issues and the way they are displayed by the media. By following this methodology, the study has also proved that the class system in Britain, no matter how regularly it is referenced, is still alive and well in Britain, whether the race issue is prevalent or not. It would appear that although Marx’s original theory came in the 1850s it would appear it was not just that but a prophecy which, in Britain, will be displayed in what Gormley terms the “unstable white identity” (2005:132) for many years to come.
