Abstract
As I read these two books focused on reality television, I kept in mind the sociology of culture class that I teach each spring semester. My students would be quite interested in what these authors have to say as they analyze reality television, specifically the makeover show format. At this point there are very few ways in which to engage students to think systematically and critically about current television programs, so these evidence-based books are a welcome addition to the conversation. We have been exposed to reality television for nearly a decade without much scholarly opinion on the matter within the social sciences.
Reality television originated in the 1990s due to a writers’ strike in Hollywood, resulting in a smaller budget and a less visible script. We have learned from undercover stories about Survivor, and the internet voting scandal surrounding Bristol Palin in Dancing with the Stars, that such shows are really not based in reality, really. Reality television and makeover shows are scripted entertainment venues, possessing manipulative devices to keep viewers interested, even in schadenfreude ways (e.g., taking pleasure in others’ pain). Television is a “voice” that the audience communicates with, and audience voice has grown with the emergence of reality television. Traditionally, viewers would vote for programs with their channel selections, which the Nielsen system measured, but clearly, cable television, the internet, and especially reality television programs have altered this system of measurement. Thus, as we interact with television differently, we sometimes feel “ownership” in how reality television participants fare on shows.
Both books in this review center on the gendered design and implementation of reality television. Makeover television makes use of the male and otherwise authoritative gaze that inspects and critiques show participants until they have adopted the new and improved way of thinking, speaking, dressing, and looking (and being looked at). When the hosts reveal the “new and improved” person, we collectively agree that this person’s life must be better now as he or she faces the world sometimes with an absolutely new face, thanks to plastic surgery. Makeover television presents a façade of viewer independence, but as the authors of these books point out, television has not changed that much. The viewing public prefers to think that the “reality” they see on makeover television is an improvement of their own realities, that the world has become more democratic, putting into place the American Dream. If you work hard (or renovate your home or self well, meaning earnestly), you, too, can succeed and have a happy life. Makeover reality shows presuppose a democratic, yet individualistic perspective regarding personal improvement, and one that is based solely in appearance. If one ordinary person can change (read: improve) one’s appearance, then one can improve one’s life overall.
In Makeover TV, Weber spent more than 2,500 hours watching a variety of reality programs on both network and cable stations. Weber emphasizes three themes in the book, which I discuss here. First, the makeover employs “renovation and rejuvenation” narratives (p. 29). Second, the makeover relies on an interplay of humiliation and neglect combined with an eagerness to pursue the uniqueness of a self improved. Third, the makeover utilizes the “big reveal” touting the expertise of the fixer on the success story of the guest’s body/face/career/etc.
Makeover shows most often involve women as objects under reconstruction, who (eventually) welcome the critical male gaze. Weber centers on the critical gaze used mostly on women in contemporary society, pointing out that women eventually are agreeable and comply with the gaze and the recommendations, wanting to improve and make changes toward a better self. This logic plays out for male participants, too, for when men are the show’s participants they are feminized subjects of the male gaze. They are under surveillance, objectified and manipulated into a more successful version of their former selves.
Importantly, Weber demonstrates that makeover shows reinforce inequality through consumption. Reality shows promote better selves through consumption of expensive and outlandish goods for the individual, aligning with celebrity construction and consumption. Linking makeover show outcomes of an upper class femininity ideal to celebrity culture standards certainly muddies social class and inequality for television viewers. The programs fake “new and improved” people through a surface-level appearance-based change—new clothes make for a better man or woman. The corporate-sponsored changes for each individual are not realistic for them or for the show’s viewers. Shows deny harsh economic realities and instead encourage dreams of a better life through glamour, continually being unaware of the larger social issues that contribute to bank bailouts, economic and personal depressions. In short, Weber highlights how reality show guests are analyzed and improved with the unrealistic help of one-time decorative assistance.
The use of social class and femininity (specifically an exaggerated femininity based on upper-middle-class white straight norms) combine to indicate that something is “wrong” with the reality guest—she (or he) does not spend enough time/money/obvious effort attempting to appear and behave in proper gendered ways. This zeroing in on what is “wrong” with individuals is not a U.S.-based practice, for Weber includes television programs in and outside the United States. The reality show is an attractive format because of the democratic pose it suggests—that with the proper facelift, breast enhancement, extensive dental work, new wardrobe, and new home, anyone can succeed. In addition, the success story of a renovated self gives hope to viewers that no matter how resistant one is to change (and success), the individual will triumph over influential social forces.
Along these lines, Fix Me Up provides 15 different short chapters, each dealing with some type of dating or makeover show, including those based on wife swapping, modeling, home, and self makeovers. The most interesting chapters in relation to Weber’s work are the chapters titled “The Swan as Sado-Ritual Syndrome,” “She Just Called You a Metro,” and “Materialism, Disposal and Consumerism,” for these chapters center on the intersectionality of gender and class, as well as introduce sexuality with the metrosexual focus of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Of particular note, in “The Swan as Sado-Ritual Syndrome,” Rodkey (p. 94) states that “the women on the show are prisoners in a system that has dictated that their own bodies are prisons; the liberation from this prison is the knife.” Rodkey further links reality show participants to prisoners used for medical experimentation, challenging women’s “free choice” within the beauty industry, which is laced with patriarchal, racialized, and classed notions of ideal beauty types.
Overall, these books are well written, thoughtful, and provide a much-needed critique on makeover shows. These books could be used quite successfully in general sociology courses, as well as upper-level culture and gender classes, and those focused specifically on media analysis. In addition, these authors frame the reality television genre within feminist research, making them of particular interest to Gender & Society readers.