Twenty years ago, the major Quebec television networks launched into a new genre that was both loved and despised: reality TV. Since then, the programs have multiplied, shattering ratings records and gradually winning the heart and respect of both the public and the traditional media. But between the failures, the controversies and the loss of speed of the small screen, can we always predict such a bright future? Sixth text in a series that will continue over the next few weeks.
A very, very long time ago, a watchword from the sages recommended hiding one’s life “as the cat hides its poop”. The advice has been thrown into the dustbin of history (like a soiled litter box), and the world is now turned upside down. Since the turn of the century – and exponentially – everyone’s lives have been exposed on social networks, and reality TV shows have amplified the great media coverage of the private sector. Goodbye kitty, nothing goes…
“It seems to me that it is no coincidence that the way in which the exposure of the private on television has evolved is very similar to what was the same evolution in the practices of self-exposure online”, writes the ethnologist Madeleine Pastinelli, professor in the Department of Sociology at Laval University, in a text published in 2019 in the journal Youth and society. “It goes without saying that these two media spaces each reflect in their own way the transformations that culture is undergoing, that they are, one like the other, the product of their society and their time, and therefore that e cannot be surprised to see them evolve in a similar way. »
The article comes from an order placed with Professor Pastinelli, an ethnologist by training, to open a symposium on daily life. “I was asked to talk about reality TV, she explains in an interview with Duty. Very quickly, I made the connection with the use of social media — of Facebook in fact, the most popular platform then. It was implicitly thought that I would offer a critical reading of the thing, to say how alienating, silly and insignificant it is. I rather did a real ethnological work without postulating that the millions of people who watch reality TV shows are imbeciles. They find something meaningful in it, and so it speaks to us about our society, our time. »
To say what, then? Sociologists — and not the least — have conceptualized this social situation. Richard Sennett (The tyrannies of intimacy, 1974) showed the growing revalorization of an “intimate society” since the 19e century, of a world populated by individuals seeking their “true self” in complete transparency, a process that goes hand in hand with “the fall of public life” (this is the subtitle of the book). Christopher Lasch (The culture of narcissism, 1979) traced the roots of “narcissistic pathology”, with its cult of the ego, of the moment and of well-being, its fascination with appearances, its passion for youth and technology, where the individual “s ‘constantly examines’ and exposes himself shamelessly in ‘a society of permanent spectacle’.
Professor Pastinelli develops her analysis of reality TV and social networks on this conceptual background of narcissistic society. “It’s a real fundamental question,” she said. What reality TV participants do and what people do on certain social networks is to expose their private life quite widely. Doing what we do today would have been unthinkable in the past. [Ça aurait été] immodest and shocking. What does it rhyme with? What does this shift in sensibilities tell us? »
Ego sum
To answer, the specialist does not postulate a fundamental technological determinism, while recognizing that technical means (the development of inexpensive mini-cameras, for example) influence social practices. Rather, it relies on the leeway available to the individual seeking to organize his life in an individualistic society, including through public and media exposure of private and intimate life.
This mediatic-narcissistic practice predates reality TV and social networks. Television first exposed the private of public people, including stars, with for example the show talk to talk (1984-1994) by Janette Bertrand. The small screen then made it possible to relay the extraordinary lives of ordinary people and, ultimately, their ordinary existence. The Télé-Québec program Storefront (1995-1999) concentrated this shift by relaying the daily experience of young students.
The subsequent exposure of oneself on the Internet has undergone the same mutation from retrospective personal presentation (a bit like a CV) to the continuous relay of moments experienced in real time, with a strong desire and a possibility of s ‘expose. “It’s about taking others as witnesses of the commitments that the individual makes by speaking out publicly,” sums up the ethnologist. The individual then lets others see what he feels, what he desires and what he aspires to in the immediate future. »
The professor closely analyzed fifteen hours of the 2009 season of reality TV Double occupation. The exercise allows him to make some basic observations:
Commitments. Reality TV shows less interactions between participants (barely a third of the time in the corpus) than the post comments of players on their experiences. Words therefore take precedence over action, and the challenge presented relates to breaches of this same word, commitments and principles. The participants have understood this so well that they show restraint in their remarks in the “confessional” so as not to be too caught out in this complex interplay between social experience and the discourse on this interaction.
Duration. This exposure of oneself, of one’s desires and intentions, this form of commitment is made to constrain oneself over time.
Consistency. “Individuals are engaged in a struggle with themselves,” says Ms.me Pastinelli. They fight against their own inconsistency over time and use the gaze of others to try to establish themselves as subjects endowed with unity and coherence. »
The professor admits that this practice is not necessarily widespread. And she is well aware that social media and their multifaceted uses have evolved over the past ten years. We don’t use TikTok, Instagram or Twitter like Facebook. Only, on connected screens, very few hide their lives like cats hide their droppings.
“Some platforms now require a lot of staging, with polished photos, for example, with a lot of effort to simulate the natural,” says the ethnologist of mediated existences. “Despite everything, we still see a lot of coming outlarge public statements by people announcing that they are separating, for example. […] Today, it is acceptable to expose what one feels in the open, which was unthinkable before. We live in a time when the prevailing culture values emotions and personality. It’s a new way to present yourself to others. »