In the last paragraph of Lynn Spigel’s “Installing
the Television Set,” Spigel quotes historian Carlo Ginzburg, who writes:
“Reality is opaque; but there are certain points—clues, signs—which allow us to
decipher it.” Why do you think Spigel closes her analysis of
post-war television’s role in American domestic spaces with this quote? How
does she describe her historical approach/methodology? What types of “traces”
of the past does she examine in this essay and how does she use them? Do you agree with her approach to history?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Spigel closes her analysis with this quote because it is hard to judge the circumstances of another generation unless you have lived through that era yourself. However, as she points out in her essay, the TV is very much a defining characteristic of the post WW2 period and so it is a good indicator, or "clue," for grasping the culture of that time. The content on TV, but also the craze surrounding the television in print media, reflect social norms and trends of the period and so through unwrapping these “signs” one can better understand this era in American history.
ReplyDeleteSpigel justifies her methodology by explaining that the television exposed stereotypical gender roles in the home, as well as the vast control of the corporation over the public through advertisements, and in doing so, the TV tells historians about the mass culture of the time. She examines not only the programs on television such as I Love Lucy, but more importantly looks at the the magazines and articles advertising televisions in the home. Looking at print media is significant because articles, such as the one from House Beautiful that Spigel analyzes, captured the movement from public to the private sphere that the TV produced both in the leisure and gender role departments.
I agree with her approach to history, as it is hard to infiltrate the details of a past era, yet popular culture is very telling of life at the time. By understanding what was attractive to audiences at the time, both from a commercial and entertainment standpoint, one can readily examine the private, as well as public, sphere of the era.
Spigel closes her analysis in such a war to invoke question. While in the piece she discusses how chairs and rugs were put in specific places on a television show to give the viewer and idea of space and have it appear more real, but what about the television in the actual home? Ginzburg’s quote is saying that people are always looking for clues to decipher reality as it is difficult to fully understand. This is why television was so important after the war.
ReplyDeletePeople wanted to make sense of the world and even if they couldn’t do so in reality, they could easily understand the false reality that was created on their television. Spigel discusses how easy it was for television to grow at such a time. People were moving out of the cities, home appliances were being created, and women stayed at home most of the day. All of these created the perfect atmosphere for an invention like the television to thrive. Women at home were depraved of normal social interaction due to the fact that they were away from cities, other people, and that they had all the appliances they needed at home to take care of themselves.
Spigel argues that people were looking for a way to have some sort of feeling of social interaction and the television was just what they wanted. Spigel observes the small seemingly insignificant facts of history at the time to properly examine why television became as successful as it did.
I believe that Spigel’s choice to end her piece with Carlo Ginzberg’s quote was an attempt to point out that while this analysis does revolve around the television’s role in the home as a form of escape and openness it may have denounced the audience’s curiosity and urge to understand what was being produced on their screens initially. The quote and the piece suggest that while advertisements, sitcoms, and other television programming may be taking viewers around the world, they are only exposing them to a strictly visual surface without much other substance during televisions initial surge in homes. So while millions of Americans have the opportunity to see Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, and the Grand Canyon they only receive a distorted view that is mainly set in place to spice up the program they are watching rather than actually feed them cultural and historical knowledge. Although this is not explicitly said, I believe the lack of references to the culture or history of the places the television set took audiences speaks volumes, although it would later change.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, television’s entrance into the domestic sphere and its ability to take viewers around the world, despite how limiting this trip may or may not have been, still allowed Americans to get a sense of “reality” not only internationally but also domestically after the war. It extended the sense of togetherness that was provided during World War II as everyone who owned a television set could watch and experience the same things without having to necessarily be in the same place. Through television and this sense of togetherness despite physical separation, things such as gender stereotypes were established and perpetuated across the country; another example of audiences taking in what is on screen at face value.
I do agree with Spigel’s approach that through television a sense of hyperrealism was established which brought America closer together from the comfort of their homes after World War II and helped perpetuate stereotypes not only then but now as well as our social memory of the era. I also agree with the idea that although the television did bring new frontiers to living rooms, it initially did not encourage further exploration beyond the plot of an episode of the program at hand or a commercial driven viewpoint. It would be interesting to see how Spigel would incorporate the aspect of racial and ethnic stereotypes immediately after the way in this analysis.