|
|
The Show about Nothing is about Some ThingThe Show about Nothing is about Some Thing: It’s about our American Values, Behaviors, and Fears of Social Rejection.
by Catherine L. Galusha - 28 October 2002
If we examine what it is about a particular television show that captures the attention of such large audiences, we may find that the characteristics portrayed in the show are similar to that of its captive audience. On the other hand, we may find that the characteristics are that of which we wish or would like to emulate. The Seinfeld show is a prime example of our American societies receptiveness to messages that appeal to our similarities and admirations. Of course, Seinfeld has gone beyond the ordinary behavior of most individuals by exaggerating obsessive and neurotic behaviors within its characters, which is what ultimately has given the show its popularity. Although the Seinfeld characters acknowledge the rules of social conformity regarding appearance and work ethics, they participate in disingenuous acts to fulfill their social obligations; as a result, this creates a sub-culture of American society that can be depicted as superficial.
Every society is marked by multitudes of social rules in which one adheres to. In Seinfeld society the characters over value social conformity by creating exaggerated scenes and making these scenes ridiculous. For instance, one episode begins with Elaine’s current boyfriend showing up at the restaurant wearing a fur coat. Elaine’s reaction to Putty’s less than appropriate appearance demonstrates a desire for social conformity. But as the episode progresses the fur coat theme becomes more and more wacky. This particular theme becomes the center of the Seinfeld world. Ultimately it manages to involve all the characters by emphasizing the fur coat as a symbol of feminism. In other words, a man wearing a fur coat is socially incorrect. In fact, “men don’t wear fur coats unless they’re fancy boys” states Jerry.
I’m surprised that this type of comedy is not critiqued. But according to Ray Misson author of “Living the Lifestyle” he claims that “[c]ritique of society is deflected, because the obsession with trivia is seen as a personal attribute rather than a social one: it stems from psychological quirkiness rather than from distortions in the social systems” (73). At this point I would have to agree with Misson that the ridiculous and quirkiness of the fur coat scene out way any assumptions that could be generated into social tension. First of all, the initial scene is viewed as a personal preference not to be seen with a man wearing a fur coat. The following scene represents a collective notion not to be seen with a man wearing a fur coat. The Final scene actually has Jerry wearing the fur coat, and this gives the show its ability to escape societal critique. But how does the show manage to escape critique over one of societies basic rules such as work ethic?
The fact is most Americans have grownup with the idea that we must go to work everyday. However, George does not conform to this social rule, and his character becomes known as a slacker who calls in sick way too often. He is also portrayed as the leading social misfit out of the entire group. He is continually engaging in oddities such as poking holes in his shirt cuffs for cufflinks or carrying a wallet stuffed with paper receipts on the verge of self-destruction. According to Misson “[c]learly we do make discriminations between the actions of various characters, sometimes guided by Jerry’s reactions in his role as observer” (73). Therefore, Jerry reinforces the social rules and is the guider of normalcy, which gives him the ability to create the stigma of lunacy within each character. For example, it is Jerry who calls our attention to the fact that George is skipping work again: so we label George as a slacker. Furthermore, it is Jerry who notices that George’s shirt is not the high quality type that would require cufflinks. Now George must admit to having poked holes in his shirt cuffs: so we label him a misfit. Behold, we have a recipe of normal conformity mixed with nonconformity resulting in a ridiculous image of American society that becomes almost impossible to critique.
This crazy world of Seinfeld has attracted many viewers. It’s popularity stems from societies hidden desires of escaping social obligations. The characters of Seinfeld go beyond any normal tactic of avoiding social obligation, but rather they engage in disingenuous acts as a means to fulfill their social obligations. For example, in one episode the social ritual of gift exchange at Christmas has inspired George to make-up a fake charity. George passes out cards that read “a donation has been made in your name to the Human Fund.” Once again the entire episode is centered on a social rule that invokes neurotic behaviors in its characters. This particular episode is a prime example of what Misson calls, “trying to make an impression for social ends” (72). It’s easy to see how a sitcom such as Seinfeld can poke fun of one of societies desires for “social interaction and [at the same time] the desire for superiority” (Misson 72). George never gains social superiority; what he does gain is a reputation of being self-centered, shallow, and neurotic just like the rest of the Seinfeld characters.
It is completely ironic that the Seinfeld show does not get critiqued for its superficiality. After all, these characters do represent an idea of our American society. They represent the things we do—the things we think about doing but wouldn’t dare—they are images of people we know—people like us—just largely exaggerated. Yet, Misson’s claim is that the characters are so eccentric that they escape “any questions of moral and ethical responsibility” (73). He could be right; although, the show could still be critiqued for the image portrayed about our American values.
First of all, the show portrays Americans as obsessed over appearances. This reoccurring theme is accentuated throughout all the characters. For instance, Elaine refers to an interested male as the denim vest guy, which is an image she despises. Likewise, Jerry refers to a current date as the good, the bad, and the ugly; he prefers the good but gets the bad and ugly. Secondly, the show portrays Americans as immoral. Both Kramer and George’s character exemplify persons who neither conforms to right and wrong principals or a standard of right behaviors. Thirdly, the show portrays Americans as slackers and cheaters. For instance, most of the characters lack appropriate work ethics; Kramer is permanently on strike and George calls in sick all the time. Eccentric or not these characters do represent American values.
In all, the Seinfeld group as a whole depicts an American society caught up in social rules and nonconformity with no regard toward the image in which they themselves portray; an image of superficiality. Mission has deemed the show “A very attractive world, because in it free rein can be given to the kind of neurotic social worries that we all have” (74). I find this ridiculous because most of us real people have real worries. The Seinfeld show has become its own sub-culture of American society, and in this sub-culture are the superficial people—the people who have no real worries—the people who have no regard for behaviors—the portion of American society that is only concerned with its own individualism: Nothing else matters. Of course this is just an analysis of a popular sitcom, but why do you think it is so popular? Maybe the behaviors portrayed in the show resemble our American society more than we will ever know. Maybe the obsessions and neurotic behaviors are more admired then any of us care to admit. Maybe the show is just plain funny because it gives us a tool to laugh at our own superficiality.
|
|
|
