Here's an idea.
Reality TV might affect our views on surveillance.
I think I've said this on Idea Channel before,
but I always think of the reality in reality television
as something of a genre designation
and less of an accurate description of what kind
of television you're watching.
It's kind of like the word wrestling in World Wrestling
Entertainment.
It's definitely wrestling, but it's also
very different from the wrestling that
came before these very large, theatrically minded gentleman.
Wrestling isn't about wrestling.
It's about wrestling.
Likewise, reality TV isn't about reality.
It's not a documentary.
It's about reality.
I'm way prettier than you.
You could say that it's about verisimilitude,
or the appearance of being real, being related to reality.
It might even be that any situation, as soon
as you point a camera at it, stops being strictly real,
especially if people are involved.
It's kind of like a media-related observer effect.
Anyway, though some part of us might know, possibly deep down,
that reality TV is anything but, many of us
still tend to talk and think about it
as though it's realness were for real.
There was all kinds of upset when it turned up
producers might have been planting valuable items
in "Storage Wars."
Yeah!
Certain shows which imply that they are on location
are actually filmed on sets, and that's a little disappointing.
Many shows employ a technique called frankenbites, where
bits of dialogue are recombined to create previously
nonexistent scenes, and that feels dishonest,
though not very surprising.
Maybe it makes sense then that many producers
have started distancing themselves from the designation
reality and have started calling their shows unscripted drama.
Regardless, we are going to watch it in droves.
"Duck Dynasty," "Survivor," and "American Idol"
were amongst the top watched shows in America last year.
And regardless of their ratings, "Jersey Shore,"
"Keeping Up With the Kardashians,"
and "Real Housewives" are massive cultural forces.
We watch these people go about their everyday lives
under surveillance.
In a paper for "Psychology of Popular Media Culture,"
Karyn Riddle and JJ DeSimone even called
this subgenre of reality programming the surveillance
subgenre.
And maybe that surveillance is something
like the previously wrestled with reality.
Maybe we don't think of it as surveillance,
but as a kind of ur surveillance, sur-ur-veillance.
Unless we're talking about "Big Brother," in which case,
yeah, that's just plain old surveillance.
You have to admit, though, that the situational and
technological arrangement of things
bears at least a passing resemblance
to the process of being surveilled,
people, their lives, cameras, and the recording of generally
not public odds and personal ends.
There's no privacy.
And sure, reality stars might be willing in many respects.
They might even be handsomely paid,
though it's arguable whether or not
said stars know exactly what they're signing on for,
and might, if not for the promises of riches or renown,
be otherwise unwilling to have their business broadcast.
Does a contract and some bucks make the whole thing any less
exploitative or imbalanced?
I'm not sure.
But I am sure that many of us, tens of millions of us,
classify the whole arrangement as entertainment.
And I'm not saying it's not.
I grew up on "The Real World" and "Master Chef"
is a seriously intense guilty pleasure of mine.
But reality TV or unscripted drama
or whatever other rose by any name
would smell as real, which is to say maybe not at all,
it does confront and familiarize us
with a group of well known people willing
to have their lives recorded, sometimes 24/7.
Is there a chance that the popularity
or at least the very presence of such a media phenomenon
in some way exalts or maybe just normalizes being watched?
Because-- and at the risk of trivializing
some very important business-- it turns out that all of us,
Americans at least, are likely stars in our own little reality
series, except it's not produced by an eccentric millionaire
or a TV genius, but by someone who works for the government
and I imagine looks like Mr. Universe from "Serenity."
Related, of course, of course, to watching people and being
watched is the very important concern of privacy.
Kim Kardashian willingly elects and selects certain people
to breach particular privacy boundaries,
while at the same time she battles with another group that
is not, strictly speaking, approved,
which sounds like a pretty normal arrangement.
Like, you're probably fine with your parents watching
you eat breakfast or your significant other
seeing you get dressed in the morning.
T-shirt time!
But it would be a little weirder
if it were that guy from the sandwich shop
or that lady from City Hall or President Obama.
Of course, your parents probably aren't
pointing a camera in your face for the sake
or due to the popularity of an internationally
aired television show.
The point is I think it's fair to say that privacy is
different for different people.
Or in the words of Daniel J. Solove in his paper
"I've Got Nothing to Hide and Other Misunderstandings
of Privacy," we should think of privacy
as a set of family resemblances.
In "Philosophical Investigations,"
Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that some concepts do not
have one thing in common, but are related to one another
in many different ways.
In other words, privacy is not reducible to a singular
essence, but is a plurality of different things
that do not share one element in common,
but that nevertheless bear a resemblance to each other.
Or as Garret Keizer put simply in his book
"Privacy," what preserves mystery
might also be mysterious.
Privacy for some people is, don't you look at me.
And for others, it's, yeah, they'd
rather not have you looking in their windows.
And for others still, it's, I've got nothing to hide.
I think of this last one as the reality TV brand of privacy.
If you haven't done anything wrong and you like who you are,
why should you be afraid of inviting
the world into your life?
Well, lots of reasons, I'd say at least.
Solove covers them much more completely
than we ever could here.
But on the short list, you probably do have some things
to hide, even if you think you don't.
Privacy isn't just yours, it's everybody's.
And functional privacy is in some ways
arguably integral to a well functioning society.
So but then, topping the rating lists are successful
and oftentimes very entertaining people who
seemingly have nothing to hide.
The Riddle and DeSimone paper referenced
earlier explains how reality TV can influence
viewers' ideas of reality reality,
that they can think what happens on "Man Vs.
Wild" or "The Hills" is what the world is actually like.
And I wonder, given the similarities between what they
call the surveillance subgenre of reality
TV and actual surveillance, it could then
influence those viewers' ideas about privacy as well.
What do you guys think?
Is it possible that reality TV could influence
a viewer's ideas about privacy?
Let us know in the comments.
And if you subscribe, I can't promise
that I won't tell the world.
And also, if reality TV is your jam,
get excited, because a little birdie told me
that Jamin on Game/Show is talking
about reality TV and The Sims this week,
so that comes out tomorrow.
Keep an eye out, and also a clicking finger.
I learned so many new euphemisms for booger.
I think my favorite was bat in the cave.
Let's see what you guys had to say about algorithms.
GenesicShinZyraelKai says that it might not
be the algorithms worthy of spiritual consideration,
but maybe the computers themselves, as a lot of people
don't think of the software or the operations happening on it,
but rather the object itself.
And I think, yeah, I used to do work in tech support.
And the number of people who came in
and their computer was just this magical thing
beyond their control was-- yeah, it's a high number.
I think that's a very astute observation.
Mike Rugnetta.
danly09grad says that a lot of people
might have the same attitude towards algorithms
and spiritual concepts, but that there
is one very important distinction
to be made, which is that if you have
a strong grasp on mathematics or the sciences,
that you can dive into algorithms as far as you want
and uncover how they work.
And while I agree that that is true, I wonder at what point
actual access gets in the way of that, in that you are not
really going to be able to get to the bottom of literally
every algorithm.
Some will just always be mysterious.
To everyone concerned about my pronunciation of dogue,
I also say sah-nah-rio, id-ee-ology, and gif.
I, um-- deal with it.
And then read this "Slate" article that's really good.
I'll put a link in the description.
Dogue actually as it turns out is the second most popular
pronunciation.
I don't know if it's the right one.
And frankly, I don't know if I'm-- I don't know how much I--
I don't care.
And the abyss stares back, LexMan895.
Andrew Murray kind of gets to the heart of the question
when he says that religion is kind of defined
by what you give agency, and that there is probably
a group of people who gives more agency to technology than they
give to their own perceptions and actions in the world.
And I might add that they might even do that unconsciously.
That might not be a decision they've made.
Argyris Galamatis, to whom I want to sincerely apologize
for butchering their name, then brings up
a related point about creators.
And so where does the agency lie in that relationship
between algorithm and programmer?
Is the algorithm in some way bigger than the programmer
that made it?
This is kind of like a question of is the captain the ship?
Does the captain control the ship?
Does the relationship make something
that's bigger than the sum of the parts?
I don't know.
MrMonfresClass and Daniel Maloney
see a connection between this unseen power
of algorithms and trouble related to net neutrality.
Parker Ensing relatedly wonders why
that idea of big, semi-invisible power, why I might correlate
that to spirituality in some way and not just people's
lack of understanding about technology itself, which
is a very fair point and I think may
be the nugget of the episode that we're
trying to get to, like is that what spirituality is?
And is that what technology is?
And it seems like-- it seems like the responses are all
over the place, which I love.
Relatedly Philosophy Tube and a couple other people
wonder whether or not spiritual is even
the right word in this context, because spiritual things tend
to be privileged and technology more and more is
becoming a quotidian thing.
And I don't know, because something is everyday,
I don't necessarily think that that means it's not privileged.
But that's an interesting question too
and maybe I think why this conversation
is so apropos and cool.
You guys are all so smart.
I love it.
This week's episode was brought to you
by the hard work of these snot rockets.
We have an IRC, a subreddit, and a Facebook page,
links in the description.
And the tweet of the week comes from Wythe Marschall,
who points us towards an infographic detailing
the super-future.
As the subtitle says, it looks like there
may be trouble ahead.