In “The Rhythms of Reception:
Daytime Television and Women’s Work,” Tania Modleski examines how the “flow” of
daytime television – in particular, soap operas and quiz shows – shapes the daily
existence of the housewife. In her essay, Modleski unpacks the role of the housewife
and how daytime programs are situated to bring the housewife pleasure, while also
allowing her to complete her domestic work. As Modleski points out, although
there are numerous differences between daytime and nighttime programming, one
of the key distinctions for the housewife is that daytime television is
participatory, in that it stresses “connection to, rather than separateness
from, others,” [pg. 68]. This element of engagement and connectedness allows
the housewife relief from her otherwise solitary existence. It seems that the domestic
woman, as both wife and mother, is often defined by loneliness; she is literally
alone throughout most of the day and spends her evenings in selfless service of
her family – preparing dinner, getting the kids to bed, etc.
The work of the housewife, as
Modleski explains, has a similar flow as the programming of daytime television.
In order for the domestic woman to truly be productive, her schedule must have
a sense of variety (as slight as it may be), and soap operas and quiz shows
allow for such variability. Each style of programming is distinct (creating a
sense of change/flow), but similar in ways that attract the daytime viewer. Both
necessitate a sort of anticipation of what’s on a character’s or contestant’s mind (a quality which
plays upon the housewife’s need to foresee the wants of others and her fear
that she isn’t enough to those around her [pg. 69]) and each type of show
allows for the interruption and distraction of the viewer. In her analysis of
this relationship between the housewife, her television viewing habits, and her
domestic work, Modleski points out that it is crucial to understand that “women’s
popular culture speaks to women’s pleasure at the same time that it puts it in
the service of patriarchy, (and) keeps it working for the good of the family,”
[pg. 69]. This idea of television as a means of patriarchal control is also discussed
in Patricia Mellencamp’s “Situation Comedy, Feminism, and Freud: Discourses of
Gracie and Lucy.”
In her essay, Mellencamp addresses
the roles of Gracie and Lucy in Burns and
Allen and I Love Lucy. Although
both roles allow the women to act out in a sort of non-traditional way,
oftentimes stealing the show from their male counterparts, they are still ultimately
confined by traditional gender roles. In I
Love Lucy, Lucy Ricardo would like to escape domestic life and instead
pursue a career in entertainment. In each episode, she attempts to make
domesticity bearable by performing in her home: “Lucy endured marriage and
housewifery by transforming them into vaudeville: costumed performances and rehearsals
which made staying home frustrating, yet tolerable,” [pg. 87]. She never
escapes domesticity, and ironically, the only way for her to perform for the
audience is in her home while the audience is watching from theirs: “She can
never be a ‘real’ public performer, except for us: she must narratively remain
a housewife,” [pg.88]. It seems that although television allowed the housewife
to escape solitude, its ultimate ambition was to keep her contained, content, efficient,
and dutiful.
Great post Julia. Considering the role of Gracie Allen and Lucy, I'm reminded of the comedic trope of the "unruly woman" exemplified by Allen and especially Lucy. The unruly woman is one that transgresses the expected role of the woman and challenges gender stereotypes by using her body for comedy as opposed to as an explicitly sexual object. Although Lucy is a housewife, she is seen as sort of the ideal unruly woman. I wonder, then, have the expanded roles for women in TV comedy as symptom of a more progressive culture or have unruly female comedians like Lucy turned TV into a space where we expect women to be boundary-pushing and funny.
ReplyDeleteJulia, I enjoy reading your response very much, and I have some add-on thoughts on the roles of Gracie and Lucy. Patricia Mellencamp has mentioned in her article “comedy is a powerful and unexamined weapon of subjugation.” (90) Both shows portray Gracie and Lucy as the child-like, naïve character who is adorable, but not capable of working and following rules. Comedy allows the TV program to get away with the criticism of portraying females as simply housewives because it delivers the message: Of course, women are capable of working outside the home! Any women could, but just not Gracie and Lucy.
ReplyDeleteThus, comedy not only gets away with the criticism but also reinforces the patriarchy ideology. It is ironic that Lucille Ball herself has a successful career; she even ran a television studio herself. But she is only remembered as a domestic housewife. Comedy has the power to cover the real self.
Hey Julia, thank you for your response. Actually, this reading remind me another similar reading “Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar America” written by Lynn Spigel. Two articles both talked about the relationship between television and housewife. However, Spigel’s article was based on gendered metaphors, and she used it to define the role of main audiences of television (housewife). In the reading, Spigel mentioned some feminist critics and historians’ idea that the home is a work place because “not only do women do physical chores, but also the basic relations of our economy and society are reproduced at home (Spigel 74).” This means that the audiences of television (housewife) have “masculine” values of production, activity, attention. It is interesting to think about the housewife as audiences from the perspective of feminism.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post Julia! I agree that the portrayal of woman in Burns and Allen is confined by the traditional gender roles. Interestingly Gracie seems to have nothing to do with women's sensitivity in family politics as Modleski suggests (another traditional gender role/preconception): women are more expected “to be sensitive to the feelings of her family”, and to deal with complicated relationships. In fact, Gracie displays a shocking insensitivity in dealing with people. As Mellencamp points out, she is degraded to a dependent child. And her childishness/dependence, which is considered as funny or even lovable, works well for maintaining the stable patriarchal structure.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post Julia! I agree that the portrayal of woman in Burns and Allen is confined by the traditional gender roles. Interestingly Gracie seems to have nothing to do with women's sensitivity in family politics as Modleski suggests (another traditional gender role/preconception): women are more expected “to be sensitive to the feelings of her family”, and to deal with complicated relationships. In fact, Gracie displays a shocking insensitivity in dealing with people. As Mellencamp points out, she is degraded to a dependent child. And her childishness/dependence, which is considered as funny or even lovable, works well for maintaining the stable patriarchal structure.
ReplyDelete