Reality TV and American Culture:

A re-affirmation of capitalism and cultural myth

Adam Mawer
090529310

CS 352 C Television Studies

Dr. Peter Urquhart
Friday March 23, 2012
Wilfrid Laurier University

Mawer 1
All entertainment has hidden meanings, revealing the nature of the culture that created it.
This is particularly true of the most powerful entertainment medium of all: television. Since its
popularization in the 1950s, television has arguably become part of the almost unnoticed
working equipment of our civilization (Cater, 1). In other words, television affects our culture,
our society and our lives. It influences the way we perceive and approach reality. In the United
States, the reality television genre of programming such as Big Brother, Dirty Jobs, Storage
Wars and Jersey Shore are currently very popular. As an audience, we enjoy establishing
psychological and emotional connections between ourselves and the people on the show. We
watch these private moments in peoples lives and feel like we are friends with him. However,
all television shows engage in ideological teaching and reality shows are no different; if not
being more egregious than most. At its core, an ideology is a set of shared values and beliefs held
by a group of people (Mittell, 272). Television works ideologically to promote and prefer the
specific values and interests held by the dominant class in society. With an increasing number of
Americans watching reality television, the opportunity for the dissemination and acceptance of
dominant ideas only increases. Here, it will be argued that reality television represents American
culture through the hegemonic re-affirmation of capitalist ideologies and cultural myths.
Historically, the reality television genre was established in 2000 by the popular American
program Survivor. However, the origins of American reality television stretch back throughout
television history (Mittell, 86). Predecessors of todays reality television shows were present in
the early years of television in such programs as Candid Camera. Reality TV was furthered in
the 1970s by such programs as PBSs An American Family. In the 1980s and 1990s, tabloid
shows such as Cops and Americas Most Wanted established the Fox Network and furthered the
genre (Mittell, 86). Other predecessors of reality television include Americas Funniest Home

Mawer 2
Videos, Unsolved Mysteries and Rescue 911. Some argue that MTVs The Real World and
ABCs Who Wants to be a Millionaire were crucial in setting the stage for reality televisions
popularization (Mittell, 87-88). The Real World was the first successful reality program featuring
ongoing characters, plots and situations. The program offered MTV low production costs as
highly paid actors and writers were replaced by editors and volunteer cast members (Mittell, 87).
The Real World also provided MTV with a very high potential for profit through advertising to
the lucrative teen market. Meanwhile, while widely considered a game show, Who Wants to be a
Millionaires huge success led networks to consider the potential for prime-time unscripted
shows (Mittell, 88). Thus, American television has a long history of presenting unscripted
programming featuring real people in real situations.
While the reality genre has a long history, the dominant ideas reflected by the genre are
largely historical and have changed over time. However, despite the time, one of the primary
ways television functions as ideologically is in presenting dominant meanings as part of a shared
common sense that appears natural and universal (Mittell, 272). When a position is framed as
common sense, it becomes an unquestioned cultural norm. The power of ideology stems from its
ability to become internalized while not requiring any forced indoctrination or explicit
propaganda such as posters and hand-outs (Mittell, 273). Currently, the most significant
component to American ideology is capitalism. Capitalism is conveyed in nearly every television
program we watch including reality TV. If the creators of a reality program live in a society that
pre-dominantly holds the shared ideology of capitalism as a cultural norm, then the shows they
create will reinforce this ideology (Mittell, 273). In turn, this further spreads capitalisms
associated ideas and beliefs among viewers who themselves continue to spread the ideology
through their own practices and daily lives.

Mawer 3
While the above discussion explains why capitalist ideologies are found within most
television programs, it does not describe how a viewing audience comes to freely accept them.
Some scholars and ideological critics argue viewers are indoctrinated with capitalist ideologies
through the concept of false consciousness. Under this theory, television is regarded as a
powerful force that turns viewers into victims of ideological brainwashing (Mittell, 276).
However, more recently, scholars have rejected the idea of false consciousness for a variety of
reasons. First, it assumes viewers are all passive sponges, absorbing every ideological message
without question. Audience research suggests that people are actually much more selective of
skeptical in their viewing (Mittell, 276). It is also argued that false consciousness is an inherently
elicit concept, condemning the abilities of the very people it claims to support: average viewers
who supposedly enable their own exploitation (Mittell, 276). Thus, as an explanation for how
viewers consume ideologies, the false consciousness approach is too straightforward.
In response to the shortfalls of false consciousness theory, ideological critics have
proposed more subtle ways of thinking about how viewers consume ideology without being
passively brainwashed into complacency (Mittell, 276). Rather than suggesting that television is
a form of one-way communication, it can also be viewed as a dialogue between the program and
the viewer. In this approach, viewers must be offered entry into a programs meanings, not just
brainwashed by ideology. French theorist Louis Althusser suggests that we are in fact hailed by
ideologies. Much like signalling for a taxi, television programs call out to viewers by getting
their attention and letting them know they are being addressed (Mittell, 277). When we watch a
program that grabs your attention and offers you what you want to see, you have been hailed.
Within the reality TV genre, viewers see themselves in the show either through identifying with
characters or accepting the premise as pleasurable or interesting (Mittell, 277).

Mawer 4
Programs hail viewers by making them feel that the worldview within a particular
program fits within their own personal attitudes. While this is easy for politically charged talk
shows, reality TV must hail viewers by making them feel comfortable with the shows
perspective and encouraging viewers to identify with characters and situations (Mittell, 278).
Through this practice of identification, viewers are invited to imagine themselves as part of the
story world or competition and to adopt an attitude consistent with its tone. For example, we
watch The Amazing Race and vicariously participate in the race by imagining how we would
complete challenges and picking a team we hope to win the prize money. By identifying with the
show, we tacitly endorse its capitalist position on intense competition and the need for money.
Therefore, when we give ourselves over to the pleasures of a program through identification, we
accept the ideologies promoted by the show and endorse its vision of the world as your own
(Mittell, 278).
Together, the concepts of hailing and identification suggest that ideology is not force-fed
to viewers but is accepted and even sought out (Mittell, 280). These two concepts are the critical
components to a concept known as hegemony. Hegemony describes how a dominant set of ideals
is accepted by viewers at large. Instead of being fooled or convinced by propaganda, under
hegemony, people actively accept ideologies as part of their everyday lives (Mittell, 280). As
these ideologies are acknowledged and embraced consent for the ruling classs positions and
belief systems. Television, particularly reality TV, helps to create consent by promoting
dominant viewpoints and underlying economic and political systems. Currently, within the
reality TV genre, the ideas and beliefs underlying capitalism as Americas main economic and
political system are emphasized. Due to our hegemonic acceptance, these ideals have gone
unquestioned.

Mawer 5
Our hegemonic acceptance of capitalist ideologies can be traced back to the debut of
Survivor in 2000. For those who are unfamiliar, Survivors premise involves sixteen strangers
who are stranded in a remote location. They are dived into two tribes of eight. Together,
they must build shelter, catch food and establish a new society. Tribes must work together to win
challenges, but ultimately, they are all competing against each other. Tribes who win challenges
receive rewards such as commercial food as well as immunity from being voted off the
show. Every third day, the competitors attend a tribal council in which one person is
eliminated from the show. After a number of constants are eliminated, a single tribe is formed as
the remaining challengers try to outwit, outplay and outlast the others (Morgan, 2-3). The
winner receives one million dollars.
In her article on the first season of Survivor, Carol Morgan argues that Survivor is a
symptom of American capitalism which is masked as an interpersonal game. She further
argues that, with its high ratings, there is no telling how many Americans were exposed to
Survivors inherently capitalistic premise. Survivor promotes capitalistic ideals on two levels:
economic and social (Morgan, 2). The economic arrangements that Survivor perpetuates are in
direct alignment with those of the game of capitalism: to gain money, success and fame (which
will lead to money). While Richard, the shows first million dollar winner, is now the
personification of the American Dream, other contestants also experienced post-Survivor fame.
For example, after elimination, former cast members appeared on various nightly talk shows and
did paid interviews (Morgan, 3). Cast member Joel Klug has done approximately 250 interviews
while Stacy Stillman was charging up to $1800 for a full interview. Some cast members even
appeared during commercials such as B.B. Anderson and Stacy Stillman appearing in a Rebock
ad. Meanwhile, others have made their way into Hollywood to appear on shows across a number

Mawer 6
of genres. Two of the female cast members even received large monetary offers to appear in the
popular gentlemans magazine, Playboy. Thus, despite all of the contestants not winning the final
price, they used their famous faces to win at the capitalistic game anyway (Morgan 2-3).
Socially, Survivor purports social strategies that are needed to get ahead in the capitalistic
world. Morgan argues that the theme of the strategy is nice guys dont last. This is
demonstrated by the fact that Gretchen, a nice strong, capable, and nurturing soccer mom was
the seventh to be voted off the island (Morgan, 3). However, on the other hand, Richard, the
million dollar winner, used Machiavellian smarts to scheme his way into winning. After the
final episode he said,
I really feel that I earned where I am. The first hour on the island I was stepping into my
strategy and thought I am going to establish an alliance with four people early on... I wanted
this to be planned and I wanted it to be based on what I needed to do to win the game. I dont
regret anything Ive done or said to them and I wouldnt change a thing, (Morgan, 3)
Richard formed an alliance with three other contestants: Susan, Rudy and Kelly. They decided
they would all vote the same person off the island so their changes at winning were maximized
(Morgan, 4). Thus, it became evident that being part of an alliance is defiantly needed to win this
capitalistic game as the four who were part of the alliance were the final contestants. This is
similar to corporate America where many people form cliques, alliances or particular
friendships in order to get ahead (Morgan, 4). Some people even betray others to reach
greater personal success.
This leads to another essential element to the social arrangement of Survivor: lying and
deception. In the ninth episode, Richard said to the camera outright lying is essential to get
ahead (Morgan, 4). Another example of outright lying is illustrated in the fact that the alliance
formed by Richard denied to the remaining cast members that they were scheming. While the
alliance strategy worked for most of the show, in the end, it was destined to dissolve when they

Mawer 7
had to start voting against each other (Morgan, 4). So just as in American capitalistic society, it is
ultimately still everyone for him/herself. Therefore, Survivor promotes capitalistic ideas
through the underlying philosophy that gaining money at all costs is acceptable. To do so, it is
tolerable to lie, scheme and deceive each other until we reach an satisfactory level of fame or
social standing. We hegemonically accept these ideas and beliefs through being hailed and
identifying with the show.
Another method used by reality TV producers to convey capitalist ideologies is product
placement. While products are embedded within nearly all varieties of programming, reality TV
seems particularly suited for such sponsorship opportunities. Product placements within fictional
shows are often used to support rather than jeopardize the realism of the show. However, a
product found within a reality program is often criticized as these shows typically occur outside
of or isolated from material culture and American consumerism. Yet, sponsors of reality shows
such as Survivor, American Idol, Americas Next Top Model and Big Brother recognize that such
placement is more than just creating passive awareness but is actually making their products
objects of desire and achievement (Mittell, 91). Product placement may be the future of
advertising as the mass use of DVRs (digital video recorders) allows viewers to skip commercial
breaks (Derry, 12).
To discuss the impact of reality TV and product placement, June Derry distinguishes
between two types of reality shows: hedonistic and the Spartan. The hedonistic version of reality
TV provides cast members with luxury and plenty of material goods. Current examples include
Jersey Shore, The Apprentice and Americas Next Top Model. In contrast, the Spartan involves
considerable deprivation, discipline and restriction as in Survivor, The Biggest Loser or Big
Brother. When it comes to product placement, hedonistic reality shows provide a multitude of

Mawer 8
opportunities which advertisers have quickly purchased (Derry, 13). Producers of hedonistic
reality shows are so serious about rewarding their sponsors that they systematically blur out
logos or brand names which are not under a sponsorship contract. This creates a strong artificial
display of products and brands that detracts from the shows supposed reflection of real life
(Derry, 13). As for Spartan reality shows, there would seem to be very limited opportunity for
product placement as a main premise of these shows is a lack of goods in the surrounding
environment. However, advertisers invented new ways of getting their message and product to
viewers.
Advertisers have learned to use the often barren landscape of Spartan reality shows as a
foil (Derry, 14). This renders their product placements more overt and more active: overt because
they are inevitably foregrounded and active because it is part of the narrative. For example, when
a product such as a bag of Doritos is offered on a show such as Survivor, there are huge
advantages for the advertiser. The prominent display of the Doritos places them firmly within the
mind of the viewer/consumer. Often, viewers remember episodes of Spartan reality shows based
on products contestants were competing for (Derry, 14). Plus, because Spartan reality show
contestants are deprived of goods, their desire for the good becomes a critical part of the
narrative. If we, as viewers, vicariously identify with cast members, this may also create a
similar desire in us for that product (Derry, 15). Other possibilities for retail promotions between
the show and the product also may exist.
Regardless of any deprivation or luxury, the theme of reality TV advertising is
predictably capitalist: the promotion of individual products and open competition for private,
usually financial, gain (Derry, 15). Advertising, in any form, goes hand in hand with capitalism.
It is often argued, particularly from a Marxist perspective, that advertising is such a vital

Mawer 9
component of capitalism that one cannot survive without the other (Leiss et al, 255). As part of
the dominant class, advertisers use product placements in reality shows to advance capitalism by
creating unnecessary desires for the consumption of mass produced goods. If goods are not sold,
the result would be stagnation and failure of capitalism and thus the economy (Leiss et al, 255).
Due to our hegemonic indoctrination, as viewers, we simply accept these product placements not
realizing they are re-affirming the capitalist ideology to buy needless goods.
Ideologies also function to degrade and exclude oppositional ideas that may challenge the
status quo. Hence, ideologies have the power to obscure social reality in ways convenient to
itself. Such mystification often takes the form of masking or suppressing social conflicts, from
which arises the conception of ideology as an imaginary resolution of real contradictions
(Eagleton, 161). Thus, capitalist ideology has the ability to hide its shortfalls and mask social
conflicts which arise due to its existence. The result is a number of false messages or cultural
myths being disseminated to a public. They are cultural in the sense that they grow out of
unexamined assumptions within the culture and are sustained and taught to people through social
institutions such as the media. They are mythic in that their purpose is to comfort and assure to
help people dream that the future is better than the present (Eagleton, 189). American reality
shows perpetuate cultural myths to mask the shortfalls of capitalism. The best examples are the
myth of the American Dream and classless society. Both can be found in ABCs Extreme
Makeover: Home Edition.
Since its premier in December 2003, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (EMHE) has
come to epitomize the cultural force of reality TV (Winslow, 271). As a hybrid show that
combines aspects of home improvement and reality programming, EMHE has become wildly
popular by following a fairly simple formula: host Ty Pennington and his team of designers

Mawer 10
travel around the country demolishing and re-building a home a week for a deserving family.
This typically involves several hundred volunteers, contractors and community members
(Winslow, 271). However, the re-build is only a small part of the show. Extreme Makeover is
much more about telling the story of a deserving family than the how-tos of home improvement.
The program tells each familys story in a way that lets the audience inside their past and current
struggles including intimate interviews with family members (Winslow, 271). Each program
begins with Pennington explaining to his design team why the family deserves a new home. The
audience learns that the family has recently fallen on hard times and are forced to live in decrepit
housing conditions. At the emotional conclusion of each episode, the gathered crowd of
neighbours, supporters and workers shout, Move that bus! and Pennington reveals the new,
luxurious home to the family and the world seems to be set right again (Winslow, 271).
Each episode has a pattern that viewers have come to expect and from which they
expect little deviation. To establish the pattern, each episode consists of three questions are
eventually answered by the end of the show. First, the show addresses What kind of people are
these? It is stressed that these people are all-American and good people. For example,
Pennington mentions that the Koepke family began as high school sweethearts who have been
married for 22 years which is soon followed by This family doesnt have a lot of money but
what they have is love for the town they live in, their family and their home (Winslow, 272).
Next, the show seeks to answer If these families are so all-American, why are they
living in decrepit conditions? As audience members, we have been trained to believe that if
someone is good, if they work hard and play by the rules, our capitalist economic system will not
let them be poor (Winslow, 272). Here, EMHE looks to evoke frustration from the audience so
they become more involved in the show and the resolution (the reveal of the new home) is more

Mawer 11
fulfilling (Winslow, 273). Frustration arises from the suffering of each family, typically rooted in
something outside of the social structure such as health problems, accidents and natural disasters.
Textual elements such as camera work and soft music evoke further emotion from the audience.
Finally, the show looks to be the answer to the final question: How can these problems
be resolved? At this point, the viewers must be assured that each family is helpless to improve
their material conditions on its own. This means that, despite their morality, work ethic and
character, it is clear that the familys situation is so dire that an outside intervention from
Pennington and his crew, ABC and the programs sponsors are the only remedy (Winslow, 275).
This intervention resolves the contradiction between the morality of the families and their
material conditions. Once the newly build home is revealed, the families emphasize prayer,
dreams and miracles as they try to make sense of their new lives (Winslow, 276).
Under the surface of this feel good show, significant ideological work is being done.
EMHE is not just entertainment; it is a supernatural event a fairy tale in which American
cultures most cherished myths are reinforced (Winslow, 277). The real subject here is not
Extreme Makeover but the politics of popular culture and the way stories like those presented on
EMHE produce and re-affirm representations of the social world that help to reinforce
capitalism. The ideological significance of a program such as EMHE comes from its ability to
hegemonically transform audience members. Therefore, the real work performed on the show is
not on the families but the recipients of the story (Winslow, 277).
The ideological work performed on EMHE has the potential to yield important insights
into how cultural myths are presented and which are more valued than others. Winslow argues
that the myths of the American Dream and classless society are re-affirmed by Extreme
Makeover. The American Dream is the common consensus based on the idea that, with the right

Mawer 12
amount of merit, anyone can rise from their meager beginnings (Winslow, 278). As a whole, the
American Dream in conjunction with the myth of the class society is a clearly formulated and
well understood fantasy. In reality, the myth of the American Dream and the classless society
stand in direct opposition with so many peoples material reality (Winslow, 278). Although the
myth of the classless society promotes the belief that all Americans can transcend their
socioeconomic, racial and gender constraints to rise to the upper class, the economic data tells a
different story (Winslow, 278). With the recent economic collapse, the gap between the upper
and lower class has widened like never before. CEOs and other executives continue to reap the
benefits of their position receiving huge bonuses while the average, blue collar worker struggles
to find a job. Therefore, shows such as Extreme Makeover exist to re-affirm our faith in these
myths and most importantly, capitalism itself. While it is not impossible to live the American
Dream, it is becoming increasingly hard without the help of reality shows such as Extreme
Makeover and their corporate sponsors.
To conclude, it has been argued that reality television represents American culture
through the hegemonic re-affirmation of capitalist ideologies and cultural myths. While reality
shows indoctrinate us with capitalist ideologies and cement particular myths, this does not
necessarily mean all television shows do the same. The majority of television shows produce a
mixed set of meanings rather than pure ideological propaganda. Thus, television has the
possibility to act as a cultural form where diverse ideas can be expressed. Shows may express
dominant ideologies (capitalism) while others might offer alternative perspectives of looking at
the world beyond hegemonic common sense (Mittell, 284). Further research should examine
television shows that look to subvert dominant ideologies and their cultural impact.

Mawer 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Botterill, J., Jhally, S., Kline, S., Leiss, W. (2005). Social Communication in Advertising:
Consumption in the Mediated Marketplace. New York: Routledge.
Cater, D. (1975). Television as a Social Force: New Approaches to TV Criticism. New York:
Praeger Publications.
Derry, J. (2004). Reality TV as Advertainment. Popular Communication, 2 (1) pp. 1-20.
Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. London: Verso.
Mittell, J. (2010). Television and American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, C. (2000). Capitalistic ideology as an interpersonal game: the case of Survivor. M/C:
A Journal of Media and Culture, 3 (5). Retrieved March 18, 2012 from
http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0010/survivor.php
Winslow, L. (2010). Comforting the comfortable: Extreme Makeover Home Editions
ideological conquest. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27 (3) pp. 276-290.