Most Iranians are not as shallow and
materialistic as depicted in the series. We work hard and strive to achieve.
The show's portrayal of Iranians is very narrow. As an Iranian these are not a
group I would hang out with. We are normal people assimilating well in to
American society as decent hard working friendly people. Most Iranians do not
fit the mold depicted in the show. (Ardavan
Ashrafi, 2012)
Shahs of Sunset
(2012-2015), a reality television show telecast in Bravo featuring the Iranian-American
community has been controversial for several reasons. Put together by Ryan
Seacrest Productions, the show follows the affluent life of six Iranian-Americans
in their mid 30s in Los Angeles. Los Angeles has a special relationship to the
Iranian community. Following the mass influx of Iranians during and after the
turbulent revolution in Iran, Los Angeles became the second largest settlement
of Iranians outside the geographical space of Iran. Shahs of Sunet was subjected to a wave of negative opinion by the
Persian community in LA who found it to be offensive on several counts. The
opposition to the use of the tag of Persian identity in the reality programme
was soon followed by counter allegations that “Iranians were not exactly
Persians.” This in turn, led to bitterness among the Iranian community who had assimilated
themselves within the syncretic melting pot of “Persian-ness” as a way to
integrate themselves against the onslaughts of the revolution in Iran.
Some
of the debates on the politics of representation and racial stereotyping hinted
in last week’s readings can be directly connected to the controversies that
were triggered off by Shahs of Sunset. In
many ways it also opened up the element of “authenticity” for debate. This becomes increasingly relevant considering the
tense relationship shared by the United States and Iran in the recent past. When
the pilot was launched in 2012, one of the concerns that many Iranian Americans
faced was how the timing of the show could be detrimental in painting a picture
of Iranians that were far removed from real. The escalating tension in the US
over Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons programme had contributed to the tension
among the Iranian community in the US.
One
of the most stark representative elements of the show is the way it associates
wealth with the community, inciting responses from the community that this
might water down the “reality” of the Iranian community. The clash between the
import of Western values and the erosion of the cultural purity was played out
in the seething tensions that followed the telecast of the show. “We are not these
people,” became the immediate response for majority of the community and some
even invited journalists over to their houses to see for themselves the sea
difference that separated their everyday lives from what was projected in the
show. An online petition against the airing of the show on Change.org for
instance contested that:
“The
show, regardless of its intent to "entertain" is, in fact, political
[…]Many people lost everything during the revolution. They left their families,
their friends and their home. They came to the United States completely alone
and unable to speak the language […] Iranian-Americans quickly embodied the
American ideals of hard work, self-sacrifice and family. It is this trait that
has made the Iranian American so successful in the United States […] This show
not only threatens the good name of Iranian-Americans, but it may also threaten
the physical safety of Iranian-Americans in this country. In this day and age,
caricatures of Middle Eastern groups in the media are even more likely than
other forms of ethnic stereotyping to lead to threats or physical violence.”[1]
The
concern of the petition that the American public would wrongly construe the
character of Iranian-Americans connects directly to Anna McCarthy’s argument
about citizenship and reality television. McCarthy suggests that “reality television is something of a privileged site,
annotating transformations in the institution of the individual (citizenship’s
raw material) through its consolidation of connections between three discursive
apparatuses for the formation of citizen and self: state, family, and cultural
text” (19). But McCarthy also points to the “affective weight of cultural
artifacts” (19) that marks reality television. One could argue that the
negative response to Shahs of Sunset was
exactly that—a response to the affective weight of its politics of
representation.
The fear that cultural stereotyping
in a television show could “lead to
threats or physical violence” in real
life makes Shahs of Sunset a site
for contesting the notion of an ideal Iranian-American
notion of citizenship. In fact, the Change.org petition could be seen as an
effort at crisis management outside the
text of the show, but because of that
very text. The crisis here is signaled by the larger politics of American
involvement in the Middle East. The “social-text” of the show, then is formed
by the triangulation of actual political and military action, a history of
immigration, and the threat of xenophobic backlash. The Change.org petition
then, becomes a sort of a preamble for “ideal” Iranian-American citizenship, widely understood. The petition
states:
As
has been shown by many studies, Iranian-Americans are much more likely than
average to attend graduate or professional schools or be professionally
employed as doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, scientists, entrepreneurs
and academics. However, that reality is not well understood by the American
public. The materialistic, shallow banter of six individuals on Bravo's
"Shahs of Sunset" now represents the entire Iranian American
community.
The larger social-text of Shahs of Sunset then reflects a colloquial engagement with the idea
of the “good citizen.” If one were to follow the logic of the petition, Shahs of Sunset militates against this
ideal of the good immigrant-citizen, who having assimilated and succeeded in
forms of public life after going through a historically traumatic experience, should
be able to avoid justifiable violence. Even though Shahs of Sunset is not about suffering per se, it signals a crisis
in public life that has deeper connections with historical trauma and migrant
memory. The “excesses” of Shahs of Sunset
then, does truly lead to “a rethinking of the place of suffering in civic
life” (21), even though this might be a side-effect of its representational
politics.
Darshana,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your wonderful piece on 'Shahs of Sunset.' I just wanted to add one more controversy into the mix!
In 2014 (on the cusp of the season 4 premiere) Shah’s entire postproduction crew went on strike as a result of not receiving health insurance and other employee benefits. The strike, which lasted about one month, caused the season premiere to be delayed and created tension with advertisers. Although the crew eventually ratified a union agreement, the process was certainly sticky.
In this Fast Company article (How "Shahs Of Sunset" Is Changing Hollywood: http://www.fastcompany.com/3040648/how-shahs-of-sunset-is-changing-hollywood) the author points out the importance of the editors strike, which in reality TV, was entirely unheard of. It made me think of the Raphael chapter, “The Political Economic Origins of Reali-TV,” in which he notes the low cost of making "reality" programming and mentions the cost-cutting strategy of bypassing unions, something that Ryan Seacrest Productions got away with until the Shahs strike.