12
———
Media Messages
MEDIA MESSAGES
If “Dances With Wolves” had been about people who happen to be Indians, rather than about Indians (uniformly stoic, brave, nasty to their enemies, nice to their friends), it might have stood a better chance of acting as a bridge between societies that have for too long woodenly characterized each other.
Indians in Aspic,
michael dorris
Each year American society invests $160 billion in higher education, more per student than any nation in the world except Denmark. A full 45 percent of this money comes from the federal, state, and local governments. No one can say we are starving higher education. But what are we getting for our money, at least as far as the liberal arts are concerned?
The Visigoths in Tweed,
dinesh d’souza
The campuses are no more under siege by radicals than is the society at large. It has been clever of the Kimballs and D’Souzas to write as if it were so. It is always clever of those in ascendance to masquerade as victims. Rebecca Walkowitz, the newly elected president of the Harvard Crimson, understands perfectly how this dynamic works. . . . Walkowitz has said “. . . It’s important to remember who has the power here, because it’s not students. Who would dare criticize a professor for political reasons now? In addition to fearing for your grade, you’d fear being pilloried in the national press.”
What Campus Radicals?
rosa ehrenreich
The feminist objection to pornography is based on our belief that pornography represents hatred of women, that pornography’s intent is to humiliate, degrade, and dehumanize the female body for the purpose of erotic stimulation and pleasure. We are unalterably opposed to the presentation of the female body being stripped, bound, raped, tortured, mutilated, and murdered in the name of commercial entertainment and free speech.
Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet,
susan brownmiller
MINABERE IBELEMA
Identity Crisis: The African Connection
in African American Sitcom Characters
Born in 1952, Minabere Ibelema is a professor of journalism at Eastern Illinois University. He has written many scholarly articles, as well as essays for the popular press, on images of African-Americans in the Western media. His research suggests that, in general, media portrayals tend to undervalue what is unique to African-American culture and, instead, tend to stress the importance of black American assimilation into mainstream white cultural values.
Suggestions for Prereading or Journal Writing
1.
Think about a television sitcom with which you’re familiar. In what ways is this show a realistic portrayal of American life? In what ways is it unrealistic? How influential do you find this sitcom to be as far as shaping your values and ideas?
2.
Survey your own television viewing habits. How often do you watch TV? What types of shows do you most enjoy? What are some of the main reasons you watch television?
Besides concerns with representation and coverage, studies and critical appraisal of African Americans in the media have focused on their portrayal from the early years of film at the turn of the century, through radio a few decades later, to television in the 1980s. The thrust of these studies is that their portrayal has been negative and stereotypical.1 Among the stereotypes identified by critics and researchers are the shiftless Negro, the happy-go-lucky singer/dancer, the street-smart hustler, the buffoon, the fat, docile mammy, the matriarch, and the lecherous black man.2
These stereotypes have evolved through the various media and apparently reflect deep-rooted societal attitudes towards African Americans. Some scholars have traced some of the stereotypes to Euro-American perception of Africans and African culture. Anthropologist Elliot P. Skinner, for instance, sees a link between the negative portrayal of Africa and the views held of black Americans by white Americans. “This portrayal has meaning for American society in that the presence of blacks in America serves to underscore the supportive myths about Africa,” Skinner has been quoted as saying. If this is the case, then the portrayal of African Americans in relation to their African cultural identity may be revealing of the nature and impetus of media stereotyping.
But in spite of the potential insight, little has been done to examine the overt portrayal of blacks in the media with regard to their expression or projection of identity with African culture. Even studies and critical appraisals of the television program Roots glossed over this element apparently because, as a miniseries, it could not have established a pattern from which to draw larger conclusions.3 This study explores the African connection in the characterization of African Americans by examining how the theme of African cultural identity is dealt with in television situation comedies.
Three specific questions are examined: (1) How frequently is identity with African culture an episodic theme in situation comedies featuring major African American characters? (2) Is development of that theme, taken as a whole, supportive or dissuasive of such identity? And (3) What theoretical perspectives best explain the supportive or dissuasive portrayal?
Research Methods and Rationale
5
Situation comedies or “sitcoms” were chosen for this study for several reasons. First, they are the most popular form of programming (World Almanac, 357). Second, of all dramatic programs (night and daytime soaps, cop shows, adventure series, mysteries) sitcoms have the highest African American representation (Reid). For instance, compared to other dramatic forms, there have been more sitcom programs that revolve around African American characters. Third, contrary to popular belief, as David Marc notes, sitcoms tend to be more reflective of societal tendencies than any other dramatic form. Given these considerations then, an examination of sitcoms is as good a beginning as any for the study of the subject of this paper.
The programs examined are Sanford and Son, What’s Happening, The Jeffersons, Diff’rent Strokes, Facts of Life, and Gimme a Break. All but one of these programs feature blacks as the main characters. The exception, Facts of Life, has one major black character.
Data for this paper were gathered first by perusing the synopses of every episode of the programs. Episodes dealing with racial or ethnic identity were selected and viewed for the critique. Scripts for episodes that for logistical or contractual reasons could not be viewed were obtained and perused. Thus, the research data do not represent casual references to issues of identity; they represent only treatment of the topic as an episodic theme.
Frequency of Identity as Episodic Theme
Very few episodes of the programs explore African American identity with Africa as a primary or secondary storyline. No episode of Gimme a Break deals with racial or ethnic identity. Only one episode of What’s Happening deals with a racial theme4 and none deals with cultural identity with Africa. The Jeffersons has one episode that deals with African ancestry and Facts of Life has one on African identity. Another episode of Facts of Life explores interracial dating. Diff’rent Strokes has one episode dealing directly with African identity and Sanford and Son has two.
Nature of Portrayal
There is a definite pattern in all the episodes on African or racial identity. First, concern with African identity results from a personal crisis. The African American character does not project his African cultural identity in normal times. Overt awareness and projection are triggered by an event or in moments of self-doubt. Secondly, the character begins to engage in uncharacteristic behavior, rejects most social norms, and acts in exaggeratedly strange ways. In other words, overt awareness and expression of African identity is portrayed as a form of personal revolution and social rebellion. Thirdly, the character is confronted with “evidence” that convinces him that assertion of African identity is not necessary. Fourthly and finally, the character reverts to his old ways, and the identity crisis is over.
10
One of the two episodes of Sanford and Son dealing with African identity is the most illustrative of this pattern of portrayal. In that episode, entitled “Lamont Goes African,” Lamont Sanford’s meeting with a princessly Nigerian woman precipitates a fanatical embrace of his African heritage. He drops the name Lamont in favor of an African name, replaces his Western shirts with “dashiki” and insists that his father, Fred Sanford, not eat sausage because it contains “pig poison.” When Lamont comes home for the first time following his cultural conversion and tries to persuade Fred to accept his new identity, the following dialogue ensues:
Lamont: I’m a black man, right?
Fred: You can say that again. (Laughter)
Lamont: So I should have a name and a language and clothes that let everybody know I am a black man.
Fred: Listen, people will know you are a black man if your name was Spiro D. Agnew. (Heavy laughter)
Lamont: We shouldn’t even have these names. Do you know any white people with names like Lumumba, or Kasavubu or De Shaka?
Fred: I don’t even know no black people with names like that.
Lamont: That’s the point, pop. Black people in America have been cut off from their homeland for so long they don’t even know the names of their ancestors.
Fred: My father’s name was Sanford, his father’s name was Sanford. And their fathers’. We’ve all been Sanford. Now I’ve been cut off from my homeland a little over 30 years. (Laughter)
Lamont: And I suppose that’s when your ancestors left Africa, ha?
Fred: No, that’s when I left St. Louis. (Heavy laughter)
Lamont: I’m talking about before that.
Fred: Before that, well, that was ancient history. Don’t even bring that up. Lamont: Pop, what we called ourselves before we called ourselves Sanford is what is important to black people, because that reflects where we originally came from. And that’s why I have chosen a name that leaves no doubt about my origin.
Fred: And what’s your original new name?
Lamont: Kalunda. (Scattered laughter)
Fred: Kaa what? (Laughter)
Lamont: Kalunda.
Fred: If you think I’m gonna change the sign from Sanford and Son to Sanford and Kalunda, you’re crazy. (Laughter) (Sanford and Son, “Lamont Goes African,” Tandem Productions, 1972.)
After some jesting with the name, Fred said, “It just doesn’t sound right for a junk dealer. With a name like that you should be driving an elephant, not a truck” (Heavy laughter).
Fred was unsuccessful in convincing Lamont to shed his new identity, but a subsequent development in the plot did. During a visit by the Nigerian woman, Olaiya, Lamont is irked by Fred’s continued skepticism about the “African thing,” as Fred calls it, and they both go into a spirited argument. Olaiya is stunned by Lamont’s conduct and chastises him for disrespecting his father, a behavior she says is not tolerated in Africa. Before departing, to underscore her disapproval of Lamont’s behavior, Olaiya counsels Lamont:
Brother Kalunda, you have far to go along this path you have chosen for yourself before you reach your destination. Do not mistake Dashiki and sculpture and hairstyle for Africa, because they aren’t. Nor can you expect merely to put on that cloth and become such a man as your ancestors were. The clothes you can put on and take off; it is the heart you must change—the heart.
This counsel apparently convinced Lamont that African identity, at least in the forms he was expressing it, was not for him. Soon after Olaiya’s departure, Lamont shed his dashiki, and when Fred referred to him as Kalunda, he responded: “The name is Lamont.” There was no explicit or implicit commitment by Lamont to “change the heart,” and subsequent episodes of the program reflected neither an outward expression that Lamont engaged in nor the inward transformation that Olaiya prescribed.
An episode of Diff’rent Strokes entitled “Roots” explores the issue of identity with the same pattern of crisis, resolution, and normalcy. The two black boys living with a benevolent white millionaire take steps to assert their African cultural identity after being told by their Harlem mate that they were getting indoctrinated into white American culture. They suddenly became aware that their adoptive father takes them to ballets and similar elite cultural events, but not to black ones. The boys adopt African names, insist on eating only ethnic dishes, obtain African cultural artifacts, including decorative masks and drums, mount them all over their rooms, and begin to beat their drums to a deafening frenzy, screaming in the tradition of Tarzan movies. After trying in vain to get the boys to moderate their nascent cultural expressiveness, their adoptive father, Mr. Drummond, turns to a black psychologist for help. The psychologist gets Mr. Drummond to admit that he has done little to expose the boys to black culture and influences and to promise to redress that. And he counsels the boys that “blackness isn’t just a matter of what you eat or the way you walk or talk. It’s the way you think, feel and conduct your life.” (Tandem Productions, 1981, Diff’rent Strokes, “Roots”). With the family crisis thus resolved, the boys return to normalcy, the masks and drums all gone.
15
Another example is an episode of Facts of Life. Tootie, the black character among a group of white students, has an identity crisis when her segregationist new boyfriend implied that she may be becoming too “white.” In the episode entitled “Who Am I?” Tootie begins to assert her cultural differences with her white mates in every way possible. She even refuses to go to a dance contest with a white dance partner with whom she won the contest the previous year and opts instead for her black boyfriend. But during the dance she realizes that the boyfriend is not nearly as good a dancer as her white partner. An ensuing dialogue with the boyfriend convinces Tootie that her nascent concern with her cultural identity is unwarranted. Accordingly, she turns again to her white dance partner and they win the contest again.
The pattern of thematic development in these three episodes is typical of all the episodes dealing with African Americans’ identity with their ethnic origin.5 That is, African American identity with African culture is depicted as a passing fancy that surfaces only in times of cultural identity crisis, rather than as an enduring element of the black psyche. In no episode is the new awareness sustained to the end. In “Lamont Goes African,” it is not clear why Olaiya’s well-meaning advice to Lamont causes him to abandon his new cultural views. In “Roots,” the Diff’rent Strokes episode, the adoptive father makes promises to the boys to appease them and so they give up their new cultural commitment—entirely. And in “Who Am I?” Tootie returns to her “normal” ways for very tenuous reasons. The moral of each story seems to be that nascent identity with African culture is an abnormality, and, like most abnormalities, it can be rectified with appropriate measures or in due course.
It is important to emphasize that in no episode is African (or African-American) culture denigrated. In “Lamont Goes African,” for instance, the Nigerian woman is portrayed as beautiful, intelligent, cultured, and dignified. Even the skeptical Fred ends up trying on the dashiki and owning that there is substance to the “African thing.” Nothing in the portrayal could make a strong case of racism, per se. Yet the portrayal of African Americans’ cultural identity with Africa as a transient abnormality begs for explanation.
Theoretical Perspectives on Portrayal
The pattern of portrayal identified here bears some resemblance to a theory of identity evolution first postulated by William E. Cross, Jr. Cross posited that African Americans come to terms with their identity through a process involving five stages: The preencounter (or prediscovery) stage, the encounter (or discovery) stage, the immersion-emersion stage, the internalization stage, and the commitment stage. The programs under analysis imply the first stage, specify the second stage, deal rapidly with the third, and reverse the process before it reaches the fourth and fifth stages in which permanent transformation is attained.6 While Cross states that progression to the final stage is not automatic and, in fact, that some people revert to preencounter characteristics, there is no suggestion that reversion is the dominant or usual tendency. And while there are no figures on the rate at which African Americans come to terms with their identity (internalization-commitment) and it is probably impossible to quantify, studies of groups such as black Moslems suggest that those who have the encounter and immersion experience do not typically revert to their preencounter outlook (see, e.g. Essien-Udom; Porter and Washington). Thus the portrayal of identity with Africa as a transient phenomenon does not seem to have a basis in reality.
There is probably no one theory that exclusively explains the pattern of portrayal identified here, but two theories seem to be the most plausible, namely, media determinism and cultural assimilation. The dictates of the medium and media producers’ inherent belief in the soundness and vitality of the American sociopolitical and cultural system seem to be the most plausible explanations for the portrayal.
20
Marshall McLuhan’s notorious aphorism that “The medium is the message” provides a general basis for understanding the constraints of the medium on the message. McLuhan’s point, in essence, is that every medium places some parameters within which the messenger must work. For this study, the parameters are those of the medium of the situation comedy.
The format of the sitcom is quite rigid. As Sholle notes, “A look at its structure . . . reveals a fixed form that limits not only possible narratives but possible solutions.” Unlike straight dramas, which thrive on what Hollywood calls “cliffhangers,” sitcoms have self-contained episodes. Few episodes have storylines that are “To be continued.” Therefore, the plot for each episode has to be developed and resolved within the 23 or so minutes of actual body time. That forces a quick resolution to every storyline. And since the episodes are self-contained, writers avoid leaving “unfinished businesses” which will affect the storylines of other episodes. They are especially careful not to introduce a new situation to the situation comedy. That explains, for instance, why Rebecca never goes to bed with Sam (in Cheers), and Fred and Lamont always lose whatever wealth comes their way. If Lamont had not abandoned his nascent Africanness, for instance, the “situation” of Sanford and Son would have changed in a way that would have affected future storylines.
In regular drama there is continuity in story line. For that reason, a theme introduced in one episode is likely to remain with the show indefinitely or for several episodes. In contrast, sitcom episodes tend to be independent of each other. The characters and their situation are the elements of continuity. The storylines are not. The sitcom medium, thus, limits the options for ending its episodes.
Also, since sitcoms thrive on exaggeration, the exaggerated behavior of the transformed characters may be attributed to the medium. In this case, the exaggeration provides a justification for treating the new identity as a passing crisis. Thus the medium not only prescribes the nature of characterization but also justifies a particular resolution.
However, though exaggeration is a common element of comedy, it is not an essential one. As Mel Watkins has noted, for instance, traditional African-American comedy derives more from nuances of delivery than [from] punchlines. Producers and writers in the programs here did not have to resort to exaggeration. Also, though the medium limits options for ending episodes, it does not specify them. Thus, producers who have reason to modify characters or situations still do so. Therefore, neither the whimsical element of comedy nor the constraint of sitcom plots satisfactorily explains the portrayal of African identity as transient.
25
A more cogent explanation of the depiction is the media’s tendency to portray mainstream American values and tradition as all-serving and selfredeeming. Lee Loevinger’s “reflective-projective theory” of mass communication explains this tendency. Loevinger “postulates that mass communications are best understood as mirrors of society that reflect an ambiguous image in which each observer projects or sees his own version of himself and society” (252). Loevinger supports his characterization of the nature of mass communication by arguing that:
A nation or community is formed by common interest and culture—by a common image and vision of itself. But to have a common image or vision, there must be one that is seen, understood, and accepted by most people, not merely by a minority or by an elite. This requires that the social image reflected in the media mirrors be one that truly reflect the masses. (p. 256)
While Loevinger’s argument is aimed at those who wonder why television is not dominated by elite programming, his point does also explain why African-American expression of African identity is portrayed as rebellious and transient. To let the characters’ new identity become permanent would be to suggest that American mainstream values [are] not good enough for all Americans. That would be a deviation from the collective image in Loevinger’s theory. Moreover, as Gans has noted, the media rarely blame American mainstream political and social values for American problems (in the sense that they blame communism for the problems of the Soviet Union, Cuba, or Nicaragua, for instance). Rather the media treat them as rectifiable conditions or “as deviant cases, with the implication that American ideals, at least, remain viable” (Gans, 42). Thus, the African American characters’ reversion to their old identity serves to reinforce the viability of mainstream values and to uphold the collective mirror. That is, all problems can be redressed in the context of mainstream values, not outside them.
The portrayal of African Americans is also consistent with Milton Myron Gordon’s theory of assimilation in America. Gordon posits that the concept of assimilation, rather than that of “the melting pot” or “cultural pluralism,” is the dominant tendency in race interaction in the United States. Gordon writes that assimilation is characterized by Anglo-conformity, which has “as a central assumption the desirability of maintaining English institutions (as modified by the American Revolution), the English language, and English-oriented cultural patterns as dominant and standard in American life” (88). That contrasts with the melting pot (in which all cultures contribute to a shared new standard) and cultural pluralism (in which each culture maintains its separate identity in coexistence with others.) The programs seem to encourage Anglo-conformity, with minor tradeoffs as necessary.
That minority portrayal is consistent with the goals of assimilation is further supported by stages in minority presence in the media. Cedric Clark has identified four stages in the portrayal of minorities as: (1) nonrecognition (when the minority is hardly present in the media), (2) ridicule, (3) regulation (when the group is portrayed in roles that convey adherence to law and order), and (4) respect. These stages may be explained as follows: A minority group is initially ignored in the media because it is not considered a part of the culture. But when that minority can no longer be ignored (for social or political reasons), it is ridiculed to discredit its culture and values. Discrediting of the group’s culture induces self-doubt within the group and thus a willingness to be assimilated into the dominant culture.7 Regulation then would have the effect of conditioning the dominant culture for acceptance of the minority. Having been assimilated, at least to a satisfactory degree, the minority is then respected. This granted, one may add “maintenance” as a fifth level of portrayal by which assimilation is reinforced. Thus, projection of African identity as a transitory frame of mind may serve to remind African Americans that they have no reason to look beyond their American identity.
It is important to distinguish between this argument and the one that attributes black characterization to the stereotypical images held of blacks. Crediting the idea to Tony Brown, Melbourne S. Cummings writes, for instance, that the characters in most black sitcoms are “appealing precisely because (their) images do not disturb or dispute the overall view of black people generally held in the minds of the viewing American audience.” However, the unprecedented popularity of The (unstereotypical) Cosby Show defies this theory. Granted one can dismiss The Cosby Show as an exception. Still, the larger idea that mainstream values, not stereotypes, per se, are the dominant force in program creation and acceptance provides a more compelling explanation of black portrayal on television. Certainly, stereotypes are inherent aspects of cultural values. But as The Cosby Show demonstrates, consistency with other aspects of the values can override stereotypes in determining program acceptance and popularity.
30
The Cosby Show epitomizes family wholesomeness, fun, and comfortable living, in easy combination with individuality, adolescent misadventures, and adult wisdom. These are aspects of the American cultural vision which, without going into a detailed analysis of the factors of program popularity, must be elements of the popularity of The Cosby Show. Moreover, while the program is nonracial in tone and theme, it seems to convey a sense that the American ideal has no regard for race, and perhaps that African Americans are at last an integral part of that ideal. In short, The Cosby Show seems a perfect exemplification of the reflective—projective—mirror theory.
Conclusion
The foregoing findings and analysis suggest two predictions on media portrayal of African Americans. One is that, even if society’s stereotypical views of African Americans continue, African Americans increasingly will be portrayed positively—successfully—in the media, if the programs tap into aspects of the American collective self-image that can override the stereotypical views. Conversely, and for the same reasons, African American assertion of African cultural identity is less likely to be endorsed in mainstream entertainment programs. Certainly, it will not be a recurrent theme in such programming. Works Cited
artis, william jr.
“The Tribal Fixation,” Columbia Journalism Review (Fall 1970): 48–49.
clark, cedric.
“Television and Social Controls: Some Observations on the Portrayal of Ethnic Minorities,” Television Quarterly (Spring, 1969): 18–22.
cross, william e. jr.
“The Negro-to-Black Conversion Experience: Toward a Psychology of Black Liberation,” Black World (July 1971): 13–27.
cummings, melbourne s.
“The Changing Image of the Black Family on Television,” Journal of Popular Culture 22 (Fall 1988): 75–85.
essien-udom, essien-udosien.
Black Nationalism: A Search for an Identity in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
gans, herbert j.
Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek and Time. New York: Vintage, 1979.
gordon, milton myron.
Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.
loevinger, lee.
“The Ambiguous Mirror: The Reflective-Projective Theory of Broadcasting and Mass Communication,” Gary Gumpert and Robert Cathcart, eds., Inter/Media: Interpersonal Communication in a Media World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 243–260.
marc, david.
Comic Visions: Television Comedy and American Culture. Winchester, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
mcluhan, marshall.
Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
porter, judith r. and robert e. washington,
“Black Identity and Self-Esteem: A Review of Studies of Black Self-Concept, 1968–1978,” Annual Review of Sociology 5 (1979): 53–74.
reid, pamela trotman.
“Racial Stereotyping on Television: A Comparison of the Behavior of Both Black and White Television Characters,” Journal of Applied Psychology 64 (October 1979): 465–471.
sholle, david j.
...
Januszek66