The second key structural feature t

The second key structural feature to ‘reality’ television makes this contradiction even more intense, not just by the decontextualised immanent nature of much of the drama, but also by the way that the temporal version of ‘everyday life’ presented does not allow space for the type of modern self-reflexivity that Tony Bennett (2003) argues is necessary for the demonstration of depth and moral understanding. In discussing the literary construction of everyday life Bennett identifies two different architectures of the self, first, those who are said to live spontaneously at the level of everyday life, ‘reproducing its habitual routines through forms of consciousness and behaviour that remain resolutely single-levelled’ (p. 3) and those who have psychological and reflexive depth. The working class, he notes, have consistently been associated with the former, represented as incapable of acquiring the psychological depth needed for self-governance, hence their association with the ‘mass’. If ‘reality’ television relies upon producing dramatic tension through immediacy and happenstance that outcontextualise and ‘test’ an individual’s self-management, we need to ask: upon what resources can a participant draw to cope with the unexpected situations that develop?

Let us do this by comparing different programmes: No Going Back with Wife Swap. No Going Back is a documentary series made by Channel 4 about couples that decide to leave the ‘rat race’ and move abroad in pursuit of their ‘dream’. In one episode of the 2003 series (first transmitted 5 November) Miranda and William Taxis buy a Tuscan farmhouse in need of renovation. Over the one-hour documentary we see two years of their lives, their struggles, their financial hardships, their children going to a new school, their community relationship with locals, and over and again their reflexive to-camera moments of exasperation, despair or joy. We see them working in different environments, making their case at Italian planning courts, even challenging the mayor over a proposed airport.

In short we learn where they have come from and where they are going; on the Channel 4 web site we can see where they have ended – with an extensive complex of Tuscan holiday rentals. In many senses the focus in this series is still on the particular, in Nichols’s (1991) sense: each episode consists of one couple’s narrative of personal toil, rather than any socio-political commentary on what they are leaving behind, or why the narratives of escape might relate to any possible economic or cultural climate. But the way in which they can self-reflexively evolve renders this documentary as having a closer link with Bennett’s more complete ‘architecture of the self’ than is available in, say, Wife Swap. By comparison Wife Swap’s reliance upon melodramatic techniques calls on families to ‘improvise drama’ in relation to each other. The swap takes place over two weeks and we enter the drama immediately as the wives talk about how they feel about the ensuing set-up. In that sense their existence appears for the show and not despite it, therefore not a commentary on their ‘everyday life’ in which they can periodically demonstrate they are in control. In a Wife Swap from the same year (first broadcast 22 January 2003) Tracy swaps with Kate; both are workingclass mothers, their difference generated by Tracy’s aspiration to social mobility. The drama that unfolds is very much ‘in the moment’: the women are called to perform their differences from the outset. Tracy dedicates herself to her career and ‘nice things’ whilst Kate, a stay-athome mum, dedicates herself to her six children. How the women have come to those positions is not part of the narrative; their differences speak only to how they can immediately make good drama. Most of the drama unfolds in home-based interactions and not on location with outside others. Their reflexive moments to camera are immediate reactions to the behaviour of others or the drama of the day rather than conscious renderings of their location with a particular narrative or history. The ‘reality’ is generated through the verisimilitude of the locations – the kitchens, dining tables, bathrooms, including the minutiae of their everyday lives, including eating, cleaning, parenting – which all have the familiarity of most people’s domestic settings. The relationships are simultaneously familiar – as a subject position of ‘wife’, ‘husband’, ‘child’ – and totally unfamiliar, as they are detached and attached to others. The drama is generated through conflict and difference, edited and condensed into direct and immediate emotional statements: ‘How can you treat me like this!’ Comments are often a criticism of the relationship of the other wife – ‘How can she let him behave like this?’ ‘Why does she do all the work?’ ‘How can she stand this?’ etc. – detached from their ‘life narrative’ or their politics of a life, instead generated as a situational response: ‘I’m not your wife,’ ‘I can’t bear it.’ The only substantive context is the domestic setting, which although recognizably familiar to the viewer is designed to destabilize and test the choices and capacities of the swapped participant.

The point is that in many modes of ‘reality’ television the focus is less on a documentary portrayal of a developing, contextualized, interesting life than on immediate situational melodramatic demonstration of domestic and relationship conflict and failure, where life is lived at the surface.

The full story, then, is not the point, but the mundane decontextualized places of failure become the spectacular focus and overcoming them in the transformative programme style is the key to a better life. ‘Reality’ television participants therefore display class through access to or lack of the cultural and emotional resources required to move easily around the social spaces of unfamiliarity, offering instead people subject to forces beyond their control, detached from the comfort of their social position. Cultural difference is played out as dramatic pathology in the present, occluding all the structures, capitals, entitlements and exclusions that shape class relations from both the past and the present.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

The second key structural feature to ‘reality’ television makes this contradiction even more intense, not just by the decontextualised immanent nature of much of the drama, but also by the way that the temporal version of ‘everyday life’ presented does not allow space for the type of modern self-reflexivity that Tony Bennett (2003) argues is necessary for the demonstration of depth and moral understanding. In discussing the literary construction of everyday life Bennett identifies two different architectures of the self, first, those who are said to live spontaneously at the level of everyday life, ‘reproducing its habitual routines through forms of consciousness and behaviour that remain resolutely single-levelled’ (p. 3) and those who have psychological and reflexive depth. The working class, he notes, have consistently been associated with the former, represented as incapable of acquiring the psychological depth needed for self-governance, hence their association with the ‘mass’. If ‘reality’ television relies upon producing dramatic tension through immediacy and happenstance that outcontextualise and ‘test’ an individual’s self-management, we need to ask: upon what resources can a participant draw to cope with the unexpected situations that develop?Mari kita melakukan ini dengan membandingkan program-program yang berbeda: No akan kembali dengan istri Swap. Tidak ada akan kembali adalah sebuah serial dokumenter yang dibuat oleh Channel 4 tentang pasangan yang memutuskan untuk meninggalkan 'perlombaan tikus' dan pindah ke luar negeri dalam mengejar mereka 'mimpi'. Dalam satu tahun 2003 seri (pertama ditularkan 5 November) Miranda dan William taksi membeli sebuah rumah pertanian Tuscan membutuhkan renovasi. Selama satu jam dokumenter kita lihat dua tahun perjuangan mereka, kesulitan keuangan mereka hidup mereka, anak-anak mereka ke sekolah baru, hubungan masyarakat mereka dengan penduduk setempat, dan lagi dan lagi saat-saat refleksif untuk kamera mereka dari gemas, putus asa atau sukacita. Kita melihat mereka bekerja di lingkungan yang berbeda, membuat kasus mereka di Italia perencanaan lapangan, bahkan menantang Walikota atas sebuah bandara yang diusulkan.In short we learn where they have come from and where they are going; on the Channel 4 web site we can see where they have ended – with an extensive complex of Tuscan holiday rentals. In many senses the focus in this series is still on the particular, in Nichols’s (1991) sense: each episode consists of one couple’s narrative of personal toil, rather than any socio-political commentary on what they are leaving behind, or why the narratives of escape might relate to any possible economic or cultural climate. But the way in which they can self-reflexively evolve renders this documentary as having a closer link with Bennett’s more complete ‘architecture of the self’ than is available in, say, Wife Swap. By comparison Wife Swap’s reliance upon melodramatic techniques calls on families to ‘improvise drama’ in relation to each other. The swap takes place over two weeks and we enter the drama immediately as the wives talk about how they feel about the ensuing set-up. In that sense their existence appears for the show and not despite it, therefore not a commentary on their ‘everyday life’ in which they can periodically demonstrate they are in control. In a Wife Swap from the same year (first broadcast 22 January 2003) Tracy swaps with Kate; both are workingclass mothers, their difference generated by Tracy’s aspiration to social mobility. The drama that unfolds is very much ‘in the moment’: the women are called to perform their differences from the outset. Tracy dedicates herself to her career and ‘nice things’ whilst Kate, a stay-athome mum, dedicates herself to her six children. How the women have come to those positions is not part of the narrative; their differences speak only to how they can immediately make good drama. Most of the drama unfolds in home-based interactions and not on location with outside others. Their reflexive moments to camera are immediate reactions to the behaviour of others or the drama of the day rather than conscious renderings of their location with a particular narrative or history. The ‘reality’ is generated through the verisimilitude of the locations – the kitchens, dining tables, bathrooms, including the minutiae of their everyday lives, including eating, cleaning, parenting – which all have the familiarity of most people’s domestic settings. The relationships are simultaneously familiar – as a subject position of ‘wife’, ‘husband’, ‘child’ – and totally unfamiliar, as they are detached and attached to others. The drama is generated through conflict and difference, edited and condensed into direct and immediate emotional statements: ‘How can you treat me like this!’ Comments are often a criticism of the relationship of the other wife – ‘How can she let him behave like this?’ ‘Why does she do all the work?’ ‘How can she stand this?’ etc. – detached from their ‘life narrative’ or their politics of a life, instead generated as a situational response: ‘I’m not your wife,’ ‘I can’t bear it.’ The only substantive context is the domestic setting, which although recognizably familiar to the viewer is designed to destabilize and test the choices and capacities of the swapped participant.The point is that in many modes of ‘reality’ television the focus is less on a documentary portrayal of a developing, contextualized, interesting life than on immediate situational melodramatic demonstration of domestic and relationship conflict and failure, where life is lived at the surface.The full story, then, is not the point, but the mundane decontextualized places of failure become the spectacular focus and overcoming them in the transformative programme style is the key to a better life. ‘Reality’ television participants therefore display class through access to or lack of the cultural and emotional resources required to move easily around the social spaces of unfamiliarity, offering instead people subject to forces beyond their control, detached from the comfort of their social position. Cultural difference is played out as dramatic pathology in the present, occluding all the structures, capitals, entitlements and exclusions that shape class relations from both the past and the present.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Fitur struktural utama kedua untuk 'realitas' televisi membuat kontradiksi ini bahkan lebih intens, tidak hanya dengan sifat imanen decontextualised dari banyak drama, tetapi juga dengan cara yang versi temporal 'kehidupan sehari-hari' disajikan tidak memungkinkan ruang untuk jenis self-refleksivitas modern yang Tony Bennett (2003) berpendapat diperlukan untuk demonstrasi mendalam dan pemahaman moral. Dalam membahas pembangunan sastra kehidupan sehari-hari Bennett mengidentifikasi dua arsitektur yang berbeda dari diri, pertama, mereka yang mengatakan untuk hidup secara spontan pada tingkat kehidupan sehari-hari, 'mereproduksi rutinitas kebiasaan melalui bentuk kesadaran dan perilaku yang tetap tegas tunggal diratakan '(hal. 3) dan mereka yang memiliki kedalaman psikologis dan refleksif. Kelas pekerja, ia mencatat, telah secara konsisten dikaitkan dengan mantan, direpresentasikan sebagai mampu memperoleh kedalaman psikologis yang diperlukan untuk pemerintahan sendiri, maka hubungan mereka dengan 'massa'. Jika 'realitas' televisi bergantung pada memproduksi ketegangan dramatis melalui kedekatan dan kebetulan yang outcontextualise dan 'test' pengelolaan diri individu, kita perlu bertanya: pada apa sumber daya dapat menarik peserta untuk mengatasi situasi tak terduga yang berkembang? Mari kita lakukan ini dengan membandingkan program yang berbeda: ada Going Back dengan istri Swap. Tidak Pergi Kembali adalah seri dokumenter yang dibuat oleh Channel 4 tentang pasangan yang memutuskan untuk meninggalkan 'perlombaan tikus' dan pindah ke luar negeri dalam mengejar 'mimpi' mereka. Dalam salah satu episode dari seri 2003 (pertama dikirim 5 November) Miranda dan William Taksi membeli rumah Tuscan membutuhkan renovasi. Selama satu jam dokumenter kita melihat dua tahun hidup mereka, perjuangan mereka, kesulitan keuangan mereka, anak-anak mereka pergi ke sekolah baru, mereka hubungan masyarakat dengan penduduk setempat, dan lebih dan lagi mereka refleksif ke-kamera saat-saat putus asa, putus asa atau kegembiraan. Kami melihat mereka bekerja di lingkungan yang berbeda, membuat kasus mereka di pengadilan perencanaan Italia, bahkan menantang walikota atas bandara yang diusulkan. Singkatnya kita belajar di mana mereka datang dari dan di mana mereka akan; di situs web Channel 4 kita bisa melihat di mana mereka telah berakhir - dengan kompleks luas liburan Tuscan. Dalam banyak indra fokus di seri ini masih pada khususnya, di Nichols (1991) pengertian: setiap episode terdiri dari narasi salah satu pasangan dari jerih payah pribadi, daripada setiap komentar sosial-politik pada apa yang mereka meninggalkan, atau mengapa narasi melarikan diri mungkin berhubungan dengan setiap iklim ekonomi atau budaya mungkin. Namun cara di mana mereka dapat mandiri secara refleks berevolusi membuat film dokumenter ini sebagai memiliki link lebih dekat dengan Bennett semakin lengkap 'arsitektur diri' daripada yang tersedia di, katakanlah, Istri Swap. Dengan ketergantungan perbandingan Istri Swap pada saat teknik melodramatis menyerukan keluarga untuk 'berimprovisasi drama' dalam hubungan satu sama lain. Swap berlangsung selama dua minggu dan kita memasuki drama segera sebagai istri berbicara tentang bagaimana perasaan mereka tentang berikutnya set-up. Dalam arti bahwa keberadaan mereka muncul untuk pertunjukan dan tidak meskipun itu, karena itu tidak komentar tentang 'kehidupan sehari-hari' mereka di mana mereka secara berkala dapat menunjukkan mereka berada dalam kendali. Dalam Swap Istri dari tahun yang sama (pertama disiarkan 22 Januari 2003) Tracy swap dengan Kate; keduanya ibu workingclass, perbedaan mereka yang dihasilkan oleh aspirasi Tracy untuk mobilitas sosial. Drama yang terbentang sangat banyak 'di saat': wanita dipanggil untuk melakukan perbedaan mereka dari awal. Tracy mendedikasikan dirinya untuk karirnya dan 'hal-hal baik' sementara Kate, seorang ibu tinggal-athome, mendedikasikan dirinya untuk enam anak-anaknya. Bagaimana wanita telah datang untuk posisi tersebut bukan bagian dari narasi; perbedaan mereka hanya berbicara tentang bagaimana mereka dapat segera membuat drama yang baik. Sebagian drama terungkap dalam interaksi berbasis rumah dan tidak di lokasi dengan luar lain. Saat refleksif mereka untuk kamera adalah reaksi langsung terhadap perilaku orang lain atau drama hari daripada rendering sadar lokasi mereka dengan narasi tertentu atau sejarah. The 'realitas' yang dihasilkan melalui verisimilitude dari lokasi - dapur, meja makan, kamar mandi, termasuk hal-hal kecil dari kehidupan sehari-hari mereka, termasuk makan, membersihkan, orangtua - yang semua memiliki keakraban pengaturan domestik kebanyakan orang. Hubungan secara bersamaan akrab - sebagai posisi subjek 'istri', 'suami', 'anak' - dan benar-benar asing, karena mereka terpisah dan melekat pada orang lain. Drama ini dihasilkan melalui konflik dan perbedaan, diedit dan diringkas menjadi pernyataan emosional langsung dan segera: '! Bagaimana Anda bisa memperlakukan aku seperti ini' Komentar sering kritik dari hubungan istri lain - 'Bagaimana dia bisa membiarkan dia bersikap seperti ini?' "Mengapa dia melakukan semua pekerjaan?" "Bagaimana dia bisa berdiri ini? ' dll - terlepas dari mereka hidup narasi 'atau politik hidup mereka, bukannya dihasilkan sebagai respon situasional:' Aku bukan istrimu, '' Aku tidak tahan '. Satu-satunya konteks substantif adalah pengaturan domestik, yang meskipun dikenali akrab bagi pemirsa dirancang untuk mengacaukan dan menguji pilihan dan kapasitas peserta bertukar. Intinya adalah bahwa dalam banyak mode 'realitas' televisi fokusnya adalah kurang pada film dokumenter penggambaran berkembang sebuah, kontekstual, kehidupan menarik dari pada langsung demonstrasi melodramatis situasional konflik dalam negeri dan hubungan dan kegagalan, di mana kehidupan hidup di permukaan. Kisah penuh, maka, bukan itu intinya, tapi tempat decontextualized biasa kegagalan menjadi fokus spektakuler dan mengatasi mereka dalam gaya Program transformatif adalah kunci untuk kehidupan yang lebih baik. Oleh karena itu peserta Reality 'televisi menampilkan kelas melalui akses ke atau kurangnya sumber daya budaya dan emosional yang diperlukan untuk bergerak dengan mudah di sekitar ruang sosial pahaman, menawarkan bukan orang tunduk kekuatan di luar kendali mereka, terlepas dari kenyamanan posisi sosial mereka. Perbedaan budaya dimainkan patologi dramatis di masa sekarang, occluding semua struktur, ibukota, hak dan pengecualian bahwa hubungan kelas bentuk dari kedua masa lalu dan masa kini.