How TV Stigmatizes the Working Class

Class Dismissed: How TV Frames the Working Class

Loretta Alper and Pepi Leistyna (2005)

Film Review

This documentary is based on a book by the same title by late linguistics professor and media critic Pepi Leistyna. Its primary focus concerns the role of TV programming in the stigma associated with working class identity.

Frank discussion of social class is largely taboo in US society. For the past five decades the corporate elite has aggressively promoted the myth that the US is a “classless” society – in much the same way they champion the myth of America’s “post-racial” society.

Even though 62% of the labor force has a “working class” job (these are 2005 numbers – eight years post-crash this percentage has substantially increased), Americans lucky enough to have full time minimum wage jobs persist in referring to themselves as “middle class.”

The commentators interviewed differ over the definition of working class. Does it refer to occupation, lifestyle, income or merely failure to have control or authority over the work you do? All agree the minimum wage service jobs which have replaced the high wage manufacturing jobs the neoliberals exported overseas are working class positions.

The also agree to the heavy influence of corporate advertisers in using TV programming to market consumption and a sanitized, suburban, middle class way of life.

Stigmatizing Working Class Families

As the cold war deepened and anti-communism and anti-union sentiment flourished, corporate media launched a frontal attack on any lingering sense of working class pride and solidarity. Ever since the early sixties, TV has consistently portrayed working class characters in a negative light. They typically play comic roles, in which the men especially display hopelessly bad taste, dysfunctional family values, low intelligence and poor self-discipline.

Class Dismissed illustrates with great clips of the Honeymooners, the Flintstones, the Simpsons and All in the Family. Typical messages these programs put across were that poverty is a lifestyle choice, that poor people don’t deserve better economic circumstances because they wouldn’t appreciate it and that working class men are incapable of serving as head of the household (their wives are always smarter and more self-disciplined).

Clips from “working class” reality shows, such as Jerry Springer, are even more illuminating. Guests are deliberately portrayed as white trash (behind the scenes producers refer to them as “trailer trash”). All are carefully coached to behave in extreme and flamboyant ways. In other words to reinforce the stereotype that working class people have no discipline or self-control and are essentially fat, sloppy and emotionally labile. The clear message is that middle class people who behave this way are screwed up – it’s totally normal when working class people do it.

TV Treatment of Minorities

The documentary also examines TV’s treatment of minorities and women. When black sitcoms first became popular in the 1980s, the format religiously showcased a sanitized middle class black lifestyle (eg the Cosby Show). Even shows set in the “ghetto” portrayed a comfortable middle class lifestyle. In addition to erasing the realities of black poverty, these programs also put out the message that ghettos aren’t that bad – thus there’s no need for affirmative action or welfare.

“Moving on up” was another common theme of early black sitcoms (eg the Jeffersons, Different Strokes and the Fresh Prince of Bel Air). A secondary theme was the need to rely on white people and rich blacks to help you move out of the ghetto.

The rise of cop shows in the eighties and nineties featured the stereotyped role of blacks as criminals. The goal here was to justify the growing prison system, in which the majority of inmates are African American and Latino, while simultaneously delivering the message that black poverty stems from the bad behavior of African Americans (and has nothing to do with capitalist structural problems, racism or white privilege).

The Link Between Gender Discrimination and Poverty

TV also consistently ignores the link between gender discrimination and working class status. Women of color always hold the worst, lowest paid jobs. This is never depicted as an economic necessity – but as a lifestyle choice or the result of poor choices or failure to take responsibility.

LIkewise, TV never realistically portrays the link between single motherhood and poverty (in 2005, 28% of single mother lived in poverty with an average income of $28,000). All the single mothers on TV are either middle class or temporarily down on their luck due to past mistakes.

Roseanne was a clear exception, owing to demands Rosanne Barr made on her producers to portray a strong feminist working class character. Barr battled constantly with her producers (ie she threatened to quit). Although she ultimately got her way, the Hollywood and tabloid press excoriated her for being difficult and demanding.