Monday, September 16, 2013
Consumerist Morals
What does George Lipsitz mean when he suggests that working class ethnic sitcoms of the 1950s put the borrowed moral capital of the past at the service of the values of the present? Based on his essay and your viewings this Thursday, how did these sitcoms demonstrate how "wise choices enabled consumers to have both moral and material rewards"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The idea that "wise choice enabled consumers to have both moral and material rewards" stems from the long preached American ideal "greed is good". This attitude is nothing new, and has been told to the American public long before the advent of TV or even radio. On "The Honeymooners" Ralph and Alice get their reward ironically without spending much money. They're both doing their proper jobs. Ralph is working hard as a bus driver and Alice is doing her "duty" at home. They make a "wise decision" to both get a television, and get one for a much lower price. The episode then ends with a moral about this device bringing people together and community. The "wise decision" here is getting a TV, and the reward is community. Materialism (current value) begets community (past value). In "Amos and Andy," Andy discovers a valuable nickel worth far more than its face value. King Fish then tries to scam Andy into getting the money. After getting out of jail charges, Amos tricks King Fish into abandoning his quest for money. Amos then gets the coin back, keeping the money and getting the last laugh over King Fish. Here, intelligence is the virtue that begets money. Amos thinking for himself and tricking the leech King Fish allowed him access to a reward. He gets the literal victory of the money, and the moral victory of tricking someone who that that he was stupid. In both of these cases, old values enable the access to current rewards.
ReplyDelete