“TV is the Shepherd”: A Critical Analysis of the Powerful Influence of Early Television in Shaping Postwar Gender Roles in America
As a unique societal phenomenon originating in the mid-twentieth century, the television has become a habitual mode for the dissemination of many American ideals. Today, the average American watches a staggering 5 hours a day leading to the concern that by doing so, they are disproportionately influenced by this interaction more than many would like to admit (Kafka). By tracing this mediated construction of societal mores back to its genesis, much can be learned regarding the power of image, repetitive modeling, and idealization of familiar structuring through television. The emergence of televised media during the 1950’s contributed greatly to American notions of appropriate gender roles within their society, particularly the reinforcement of traditional familiar constructs of masculine hegemony within the domestic sphere.
Analyses of the impact of transmitted imagery can be traced back to Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave” found within his work; Republic (380 BC). The author asks the reader to imagine a cave where people are chained to a wall where they are only able to view shadows projected from a central fire. Puppeteers create the images and sound the prisoners experience until they eventually believe that these creations are reality. Plato suggests that if they were taken from the cave that they would be in pain but would slowly realize that the “real” world outside was preferable to the imagery they were exposed to in their captivity (Plato, 365-401). This early example from antiquity demonstrates that thinkers were already cognoscente of the power of the transmitted image in shaping perceptions. Writers, producers and advertisers during the postwar period would merely trade the flickering shadows on ancient cave walls for wooden cabinets holding flickering black-and-white screens. The medium will surely change but the symbiotic relationship between the mediated imagery and societal norms remains.
In 1920, a young Idaho farm boy was busy plowing a field when he had an idea that would have monumentally profound implications for the whole of society. Philo Farnsworth was just 14 at the time and while looking at the parallel rows of overturned earth he realized that therein might be the method by which he could “make pictures fly through the air” (Schatzkin, 13). Eight years later his idea became a reality as he transmitted the first televised image (Krull, 3). In the years to come, the mediated image through television would compete with, and even come to dominate the methods by which society constructs its idealized self.
The postwar period was a transformational epoch within American society. Returning servicemen sought to realize their share of the “American Dream” which included home ownership, an automobile, and yes…a television. By the 1950’s, affordability and more varied programming caused millions of Americans to bring television (and its influences) into their homes. The medium had surpassed all other forms to become the primary means of shaping public opinion (Diggs-Brown, 53). The die was cast. The flickering Platonic shadows on an ancient cave wall had given way to electronic imagery, yet the allegory remains relevant. The viewer’s (prisoner’s) perceptions, worldview, and sense of reality are fundamentally transformed by the transmitted image.
The collective psyche in postwar America left it increasingly vulnerable to mediated manipulations. Betty Friedan recalled the atmosphere, “Women went home again just as men shrugged off the bomb, forgot the concentration camps, condoned corruption, and fell into helpless conformity” (Friedan, 274). It was a time of redefinitions, of renormalization in an effort to trade wartime chaos for stability and consistency. Traditional conservative values could be relied upon once again and no more effective means was realized for the conveyance of those values than that of television programming. Two-thirds of American households bought televisions in a telling convergence of consumerism and mediated culture (LaFia, 1462). If you were effectively realizing the “American Dream” it was evident by the lacquered-wood console placed centrally in the living room. By doing so, the public opened themselves up to a mode of influence the likes of which has not been seen until the invention of the internet. The difference is that network programming during this period was limited to a very few broadcast channels while the choices one finds today on the web are endless. The American captive audience was ripe for electronic control, and they embraced the medium with whole-hearted abandon. If “people are sheep, TV is the shepherd” (Scott).
The term “gender role” was first used in the mid-1950’s contemporaneously with the advent of the television medium. John Money, psychologist, sexologist, and author, was one of the first to examine how societal constructs of “gender” affect an individual and coined the term to describe the norms and behavioral expectations (Bullough, 230). Although his work did not venture into areas of media theory, Money developed some of the useful terminology helpful when discussing concepts of gender, societal expectations and what is and isn’t normative behavior. Whether intentionally constructed, or a mere reflection of postwar ideals, televised depictions of the domestic space are complicated by applying Money’s concepts to the medium that evolved simultaneously with his groundbreaking research.
The middle-class ideology of the period was centered upon the patriarchal model. If families were anxious as a result of Cold War externalities, than the “ideal nuclear family turned inward, hoping to make their home front safe” (Bzukovich). The distribution of gender roles was centered upon the supremacy of male hegemony where fathers were considered omnipotent in the household. It is a reasonable assumption that these roles, rights, and distribution of gendered ideas were transposed into early programming created primarily by males.
Consider the iconic situation comedy Leave it to Beaver (1957-63) which was written by two males; Joe Connelly and Bob Mosher. One of the most prolific writing teams during this formative period, “Connelly, who was then the father of six -later seven-children, and Mosher, the father of two, had to look no further than their own homes for inspiration.” They constructed the familiar structure found within the program by enlisting their famous dictum, “write things we know” (McLellan). The things they knew were intact, flourishing nuclear households seen through an exclusively male generated perspective and recreated into entertaining half-hour episodes in primetime slots viewed by millions of Americans. Popular shows like Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best shaped how they viewed the role of the father within their homes.
A similar, male writing/producing team created another televised reproduction of the ideal American family in Father Knows Best (1954-60). Ed James, Robert Young, and Eugene Rodney, maintained and reinforced the patriarchal architype through their depiction of the fictional Anderson family. By 1955, 19 million households were tuning in on Wednesday evenings to the team’s persistent creation of a strong, loving father-figure character who was omniscient in all matters and omnipotent in the domestic domain (Father Knows Best). The opportunity for male-dominated writing teams to once again portray themselves through the medium was realized in what was becoming a pattern of influence unrivaled in its scope.
The distribution of gender roles through television programming was a primary source for society modeling during the 1950’s. As a microcosm of American society, the medium was a reflection of the current values of the overall society. “Because television "dominates the symbolic environment of modern life," and cultivates common perspectives, documenting trends in television imagery also gives us insight into the shifting meanings of gender in popular culture” (Signorielli et al., 157-170). In her groundbreaking work in media Studies, Lynn Spigel describes the power of television over the “domestic sphere” during the postwar period as one of “profound influence” where “the medium is not just something people “watch,” but is a part of daily life that reflects, reinforces, and has the potential to challenge the power dynamics that mark the spaces where it is situated” (Vogan, 435). No other medium enjoyed the impact as this unique phenomenon. Watching television was often a family pursuit. They gathered around the set as a unified entity eager to receive the messaging and mirror the depicted, idealized version of the family within their own home. The medium is the model, it is also the message.
Media theory pioneer Marshall McLuhan (July 21, 1911-December 31, 1980) is known for coining the expression “the medium is the message” when referring to the ways by which the form of the medium embeds itself into any message it would transmit or convey, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived (Wikipedia contributors). The content (programming) received from the flickering box is not the whole of the televised environment. Rather, the medium itself is the formative catalyst for “the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time. As society's values, norms, and ways of doing things change because of the technology, it is then we realize the social implications of the medium. These range from cultural or religious issues and historical precedents, through interplay with existing conditions, to the secondary or tertiary effects in a cascade of interactions that we are not aware of” (Federman). In short, McLuhan was well aware of the influential role of the television beyond the obvious programming. By removing the linear absolutes of time and place and formulating 30 minute summaries of the whole of unlimited human existence, televisions unique characteristics as a form of media uniquely affected the message it was coupled with. And that message was one founded upon a primary premise of female subordination to masculinity.
Women’s roles within society were fundamentally shaped by what viewers perceived as normative behaviors confirmed by depictions of subservient domestic wives and mothers who subordinated their will to that of the husband. The “June Cleaver’s” and “Margaret Anderson’s” of popular shows personified the collective psyche which never deviated from the established conservative values of the period. One analyst wrote that “motherhood is the axle around which the activities of women after the war revolved” (Christie, 166). The postwar TV mother/wife archetype was propagated from common domestic duties that served husband and children above all other functions. She never lacked affection and devotion in her service to her family. Any outside relationships or personal hobbies and interests were secondary considerations. This “lynchpin” of interfamilial dynamics was repeated in a variety of prime time shows to the extent that it became an iconic symbol of the ideal American female. Domestic bliss was the utopia young women should strive for complete with a strong, competent bread-winning husband and the well-scrubbed 1.33 children.
As the archetypal television wife and mother, June Cleaver (Leave it to Beaver) personified the collective American feminine notion. She was extremely dedicated to her family; always ready for service whether waiting at the front door for Ward or busy in the kitchen preparing meals. Her home is immaculate and kept so all the while never forgetting a fashionable appearance. The marriage is never presented with any real challenge, furthering the promise to American women that if gender role distributions are adhered to, they too will experience marital bliss. June Cleaver is every American’s mother, every American’s wife and is carefully presented as such in weekly episodes where the typical idealized housewife is disseminated to the public.
The femininity of the TV housewife was exaggerated through the popular programming of the day. She was up before the household, impeccable dressed in pearls and make-up, to ensure all were fed and sent out into the world prepared to succeed. The idealized image was often in stark contrast to the reality where robes and curlers were more reasonable. A 1994 study revealed that students viewed “non-current” or golden-age sitcom mothers [and] regarded [them] as more “stereotypically feminine” (Scharrer, 24). In fact, an exhibit showing the 1950’s kitchen environment at The Green Bay Neville Public Museum shows a mannequin clad in feminine dress, apron and high-heeled red shoes. A loop of Leave it to Beaver plays in the background; all artifacts of the influence television had wielded when women sought to model themselves against the ideal, against the elaborate presentation of feminine appearance that they should reproduce within their own homes (Sheehan, 942). The television becomes the electronic museum, the television wife/mother the artifact preserved in time as a reflection of American values.
The choice in title, “Father Knows Best,” exemplified of the idealized masculine atmosphere where ultimate sovereignty over the household was exclusively that of the father. This is a view of gender role distribution which has eroded over time and would be difficult to recognize in more modern depictions which tend to ridicule the father. Initially, television was watched as a unit. Modern television has evolved to include more fragmented content watched by increasingly fragmented audiences (Phillips). The situations that provided opportunities for children to learn important life-lessons, more often than not, showed postwar mothers deferring to a wise father’s judgement more than current mothers (Scharrer, 24). The integration of television into the domestic space merely served as a vehicle for the reinforcement of existing patriarchal superiority in matters of moral guidance, especially in regards to parenting duties.
Early television was reluctant to show women working outside the domestic sphere. When they did, it was as a comedic device where the enterprise was ridiculed and subordinated to more conservative viewpoints. Consider a very popular episode of the iconic I Love Lucy program which first aired in 1952. The patriarchs (Ricky and Fred) have taken issue with the girl’s (Lucy and Ethel) spending habits. They agree that the males will perform domestic duties and the women will work outside of the home. The men are so inept at cooking and cleaning that they make a terrible mess of things; furthering the assertion that this is not their domain. In one of the most memorable scenes in all of television history the women are tasked with working on a chocolate factory conveyor line. They cannot perform at all leaving the show’s protagonist to prophetically speak for all women of the day who might venture outside the home, “I think we are fighting a losing game” (Howard, 5:14). Ultimately, the characters realize the absurdity operating outside of firmly established gender roles prevalent in society at the time. They re-assume their prescribed roles, again dictated by the paterfamilias Ricky, “We’ll make the money and you spend it” (7:30). It was not until the advent of popular workplace dramas during the 1960’s that viewers began to view on their screens what they knew to be true in their everyday lives in more serious modes (Thumim, 213).
As microcosms of American society, television advertising during the “golden age” focused a more acute lens upon the period’s qualities, behaviors, and beliefs. Yet, there is much more to consider. It is by way of advertising (and our response to it) that the public was enticed to actively participate. Early television sponsors registered each consumptive act as a vote and conformation of their idealized American imagination. To consume is to confirm, to confirm is to conform, to conform is to reinforce and firmly establish the audience’s agreement with these ideals in a more tangible, proactive mode.
The brevity of the typical 30/60 second appeal to the consumer contributed much towards the mediated stereotypical depictions concerning masculinity/femininity, gender role distributions, and idealized familiar structures beyond what is often assumed. The 1950’s-‘60’s found patronage for television programming to generally follow the model of radio broadcasts where production costs were paid by corporate sponsors in exchange for almost exclusive positioning in commercial breaks (“Vintage Sponsor Spots). The consumerism of postwar American culture was propagated through the powerful adverts that were unique in that they were targeted at a new type of “captive” audience. “Both critics and industry insiders acknowledge that the primary purpose of television programming is to create an audience to watch commercials” (Allan et al., 186). With so much influence over the content and the ultimate appeal to consume, advertising deserves a proportional amount of analysis.
The television commercial during this formative period confirmed/reinforced the overall society’s differentiations between male and female types. “These typifications are framed in commercials…and are generally accepted as “normal” by the viewing public” (Allan et al., 201). Generally, when the product advertised is of a body product, domestic appliance or food product women are pictured almost exclusively. Likewise, if an “away” (away from home) product is depicted such as an automobile, luggage, sports or leisure activity, then the domain is upheld as dominantly masculine through male spokespersons and actors. The demarcations of gender role distribution are clearly defined and rarely are these lines crossed in both programming and commercials.
The perceived behaviors associated with gender roles (specifically occupations) were also formed and reinforced by the television advert. During the classic period, males were only depicted in parental roles within the commercials 6.9% of the time compared to 33.3% for females. However, when shown working outside the home, females were portrayed a paltry 14.8% and males 46.5% (Allen, Table I, 192). This idealized American self-image was at odds with reality that a third of 1950’s era women worked outside of the home (Fullerton). The illusion that “breadwinning” was an exclusively masculine function was exaggerated by such depictions; repeated ad nausea towards the integration of what the sponsors, writers, and marketing prescribed as normative behaviors.
The advent of television during the “golden age” was a unique opportunity for the creation of a collective idealized self within American culture. Male-dominated writing teams realized a “bully-pulpit” where they could effectively portray aggrandized doppelgangers of themselves to the overall society. Gender roles, distributions, and boundaries between the sexes were more firmly demarcated aligned with the prevalent conservative values of the day. The domestic sphere could be maintained by a subservient female yet ultimate sovereignty is deferred to the masculine power. Major decision making and parental guidance was his alone but the mundane choices of menus, soap brands, and decorating was exclusively relegated to the wife/mother. Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump once quipped, “One thing about television, it brings out personality” (Trump). Indeed, this is true; however, the personality it reveals is our collective personality, our collective values, and perceived views of our idealized self.
Works Cited
Allan, Kenneth, and Scott Coltrane. "Gender Displaying Television Commercials: A Comparative Study Of Television Commercials In The.." Sex Roles 35.3-4 (1996): 185- 203. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Nov. 2016.
Bullough, Vern L. "The Contributions Of John Money: A Personal View." Journal Of Sex Research 40.3 (2003): 230-236. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
Bzukovich. "Masculinity, Gender Roles, and T.V. Shows from the 1950s." The Artifice. N.p., 18 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
Christie, Dolores L. "Not June Cleaver: Women And Gender In Postwar America, 1945-1960." Magill Book Reviews (1995): Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
Diggs-Brown, Barbara. Strategic Public Relations: An Audience-focused Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Father Knows Best. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
Federman, M. (2004, July 23). What is the Meaning of the Medium is the Message? Retrieved Oct 9, 2008.
Howard, Michael. "I Love Lucy - Job Switching - Chocolate Factory Episode." YouTube. YouTube, 13 Mar. 2015. Web. 02 Nov. 2016.
Kafka, Peter. "You Are Still Watching a Staggering Amount of TV Every Day." Recode. N.p., 27 June 2016. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
Krull, Kathleen, and Greg Couch. The Boy Who Invented TV: The Story of Philo Farnsworth. New York: Knopf, 2009. Print.
McLellan, Dennis. "Joe Connelly, 85; Helped Create 'Leave It to Beaver'" Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 14 Feb. 2003. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
Phillips, Bill. "Why Are TV Dads Such Buffoons?." Men's Health 30.2 (2015): 10. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Nov. 2016.
Plato, G. R. F. Ferrari, and Tom Griffith. The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.
Scharrer, Erica. "From Wise To Foolish: The Portrayal Of The Sitcom Father, 1950S- 1990S." Journal Of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 45.1 (2001): 23. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Oct. 2016.
Schatzkin, Paul. The Boy Who Invented Television: A Story of Inspiration, Persistence, and Quiet Passion. Silver Spring, MD: TeamCom, 2002. Print.
Scott, Jess C. "A Quote from Literary Heroin (Gluttony)." Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2016.
Sheehan, Steven T., Kym S. Rice, and Benjamin Filene. "'Beyond The Cleavers: Life In The 1950S.." Journal Of American History 92.3 (2005): 942-944. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
Signorielli, N., & Lears, M. (1992). Children, television, and conceptions about chores: attitudes
and behaviors. Sex Roles, 27, 157-170
Thumim, Janet. Small Screens, Big Ideas: Television in the 1950s. London: I.B. Tauris, 2002. Print.
Trump, Donald. "Television Quotes." BrainyQuote. Xplore, n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2016.
"Vintage Sponsor Spots - Television Obscurities." Television Obscurities. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2016.
Wikipedia contributors. "The medium is the message." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 13 Oct. 2016. Web. 13 Oct. 2016.
Vogan, Travis. "TV By Design: Modern Art And The Rise Of Network Television By Lynn Spigel." Journal Of Popular Culture 43.2 (2010): 434-436. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment