The show as a whole elicits
universalizing discourses throughout the seasons by having a wealthy African
American family. Their white mansion represents their wealth, along with their
own house cleaner, or butler, named Geoffrey. Geoffrey fits outside of the norm
when it comes to his role throughout the television show, including season 6,
episode 1 show called “Burnin down the house”. The norm for a house cleaner in
shows is typically a woman and of lower status. Geoffrey, on the contrary, is a
black male who is from England. His position in this particular episode praises
his ability to satisfy the needs for the family through his cooking. In this
show, Geoffrey is the ticket for Phillip Banks in being eligible to be accepted
as being a Supreme Court judge. Phillip Banks position is also another
universalizing discourse represented in the television show. Being a judge is
not something that would not normally be expected of an African American male.
However, the television show also demonstrates minoritizing discourses through
hidden methods.
In “Burnin down the house”, Phillip
tells Will in the beginning of the episode that an important figure (Supreme Court
judge) will be coming over for dinner in order to determine whether Phillip can
be a judge and that he must be extra nice (which Will rephrases as “kissing the
judge’s butt”). Thus, the audience does not see whom the Supreme Court judge
until his arrival for dinner. When the judge does arrive, Kellner’s discussion
of power in her writing is presented. Kellner points out that Ideologies make
inequalities and subordination appear natural and just and thus, induce consent
to relations of domination. A tall, white, older man walks into the house as
the Supreme Court judge that Phillip Banks has to “kiss butt to”. Once cannot
be surprised that the Supreme Court judge who walked in was not an African
American or Latina woman. Unless one understands how images are portrayed in
the media and how minoritizing discourses are imbedded, one would think that
the white male as the judge is normal or plain coincidence. This is not the
only scenario in which this show demonstrates a topic in which minoritizing discourse
are displayed.
According to Mayne, “a common
representation of women involves the Madonna versus the whore”. The
minoritizing discourse represented in “Burnin down the house” is shown in a
very subtle way. Normally, the whore would indicate of someone with lower
socioeconomic status, while the Madonna is of upper class. Thus, the whore is
not intelligent and pure, compared to the Madonna. In this show, however, the
two representing characters are of equal socioeconomic status because they are
sisters of the same wealthy father. The oldest daughter however, Hilary, who
dresses a bit more provocative because she is “allowed to”, being the older daughter,
is a young woman who is dependent and completely ditzy throughout the episode. Hilary
is not able to take care of herself and relies on her father for the majority
of her choices. She represent the “whore” in the family, whereas the teenager
in the family, Ashley, is seen as pure and having the capability to succeed in
life. Ashley and Hilary are two opposites throughout the show and particularly
in this episode when it shows Hilary as incapable of being able to take care of
herself and Ashley seen as pure because she is not allowed to wear tight, short
clothing.
Both Mayne and Kellner’s theories
on the depiction of certain ideologies in the media are apparent in “Burnin
down the house”. The universalizing discourse presented in this show
demonstrates that the ideal immigrant woman is not always the house cleaner, or
that an African American male has the capability to be educated and be able to
support his family. Although there are universalizing discourses presented in
this show, one should analyze the minoritizing discourses as well. The necessity
for the wealthy African American father to praise a white male in order to move
up is what Kellner has explained that normally happens in media. Therefore, as
it happens regularly, one does not notice this when watching the show because it
is seen as “normal”. In addition, the opposite subtle demonstration of the Madonna
versus whore is represented by using the two wealthy daughters. Being dependent
and unintelligent versus being pure and smart is a way that Mayne explains is regularly
demonstrated in the media.
I agree that the Fresh Prince of Bel- Air is a show that has both minoritizing and universalizing discourses, but I think that this show produces mostly universalizing discourses. From this episode, it seems as if Philip Banks is aware that his race can get in the way of achieving this job, especially because the "important figure" who is a supreme court justice is white, but still recognizes that he can move around with his social power because he is well educated and wealthy. If this show expressed minoritizing discourses he might have felt stuck because of his race and therefore could have felt inhibited.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this show has some universalizing discourses. It's in fact a good show to display that African Americans can be just as successful as a white family and live a wealthy lifestyle. I think it's universalizing as well that Phillip is going to be a supreme court judge because, even in many TV court shows, it is uncommon to see an African American judge. I believe the show has minoritizing discourses as well, especially that the supreme court judge coming for dinner is white. This is typical of the media and it is even more ironic that Phillip is having Geoffrey help him in achieving his goals. This seems like the stereotypical portrayal of an African American male working to please a white man. As for the daughters in the show, I'm not sure if I necessarily agree because maybe Ashley just isn't allowed to dress in provocative clothing because she is younger than the other girls and not solely because she is "pure."
ReplyDelete