on the misdirection of, and addiction to, classing-up

Music: Drive-By Truckers: The Big To-Do (2010)

A couple of years ago I remember sitting under an overpass at the intersection of Cameron Road and Research Boulevard and listening to the radio. At that time there was a lot of construction, so getting caught at the red light meant a four minute wait---enough time to wave off a church ministry panhandler and to hear a complete NPR segment about popular perceptions of wealth. I cannot recall much detail about the story except that a Very-Important-Firm's polling revealed a majority of "Americans" believed they would be wealthy one day. The story concerned our mass delusion, as a majority of this country's citizens would never be among that top five percent. I recall the story ended in speculation: despite a growing rich-poor gap, and the ever-increasing ranks of the poor (many who identified as the "middle class" were, in fact, the working class), why is it that a majority of those polled believed they would be wealthy one day? Television, of course.

I say, however, if there is any one agent responsible for fantasies of unlikely wealth, it's HGTV. I jest, of course, but really: what is up with this cable channel? More rant to come.

It's been some years since I caught up on research in television studies, but last I checked the industry rule was that television families were deliberately two or three tax-brackets higher than the target audience. Sure, there are exceptions---Sanford & Son and Married with Children come to mind, maybe Family Guy---but by and large(r) television families are much more affluent than those watching them. Chicken or egg, yes? I side with Stuart Hall on this one, but even so, television executives will tell you ratings depend on audience projection.

The exigency for these musings is a show I saw this evening when I got home from school: HGTV's Selling New York. The show is about two real estate firms selling condos and apartments in New York city to wealthy clients. Tonight's episode was about an international writer of "shopping guides" looking for a place in Manhattan, with about three million to burn, and a "photographer" wanting to sell his loft for six million (but being talked down to 4.9). I expected to be repulsed by the whole thing, but instead, I was surprised: both the agents and their clients seemed very down to earth. These millionaires were not pretentious, and while the places they were selling or considering were eye-popping, these folks seemed like people you could go out and have a drink with. Perhaps I wasn't offended because the money they're throwing around is inconceivable to me? I mean, I'm scrounging and saving to get a toilet flange repaired, so maybe their reality is so unreal to me that I just let them have it?

I reckon my reaction surprised me because I get so irritated with the people usually featured on HGTV real estate shows. I originally got cable last summer to watch celebrity-related things in preparation for a course I was teaching on celebrity. I found myself utterly addicted to the Food Network. And then, I don't know why or how, I migrated over to HGTV---and have been hooked (if the Food Network stops creating competition cooking shows, I might go back). I cannot explain why I get hooked on HGTV, because normally I get so ticked off at the house-hunters on their real estate shows. Unlike Selling New York, on shows like House Hunters or Property Virgins extremely picky and fickle couples dither about half-million dollar home purchases. I love to watch Property Virgins cause I have this thing for Sandra Rinomato, but I usually cringe at the couples she advises who are pissy about paint color or the fact a house doesn't have stainless steel appliances. And is a "popcorn ceiling" really all that devastating?

Unlike fictional television families, real estate shows on HGTV are in the "reality" genre, which means the tacit claim is one of fact: the bulk of 20-somethings are white and wealthy; they can afford homes that are hundreds of thousands of dollars. They exhibit an expectation of a dream home, the kind featured in magazines and, er, on HGTV. And while the folks featured on this cable network can probably afford the homes they are buying, the fact remains the vast majority of viewers cannot---and these viewers are getting younger. They're the folks sitting in my classes.

In a time of recession, massive layoffs, high unemployment, foreclosures by the fistful---in a time when young people are finishing college and moving back in with their folks---in a time when the average student can no longer afford a college education at a land-grant university, it seems like the affluence fantasyland is growing like the blob. Commentator after commentator warns that people need to be adjusting their expectations and "living within their means," and yet, we seem to be bombarded with fantasies of excessive extravagance (stainless steel appliances and granite countertops seem to me the key signifiers). HGTV thrives on the promise of effortlessly produced value---the promise of lifestyle magic.

So why is it that I get pissed off at the young couple who turns up their nose at non "open concept" home but not the uber-rich professional shopper dropping a few million on Annie Lebovitz's loft?

I'm not sure. Perhaps it is because of the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous thing, that the uber-rich are presented that way: out of my reach. Perhaps it's because what's advanced as "normal" for HGTV is impossible too, but does not come with the signature disclaimer? Perhaps its because the fantasy of "middle class" puts off the vibe of magic, that one's stuff is the way to recognition and love, instead of who is sitting on the couch, drinking coffee with you?

Here's one thing I noticed: the uber-rich folks looking for places to live in New York are thinking about where they will be living. They comment about where they will be sleeping, bathing, doing their writing, and doing their cooking. The "middle class" folks on the other shows mention, time and time again, how their home will show to their friends. Almost every one of them make comments about "entertaining"---about showing off their home for friends and family. It's not about living, but rather, the appearance of a life. The rich folks comment about life in their lofty lofts. The "middle class" comment about living life in the tomorrow. Thoughts of Baudrillard on Disneyland come to mind.

I keep thinking of one of Walter Benjamin's theses on the concept of history. He says that the Hegelian notion of progressive history encourages us to put our hopes in an abstract future instead of reckoning with the brutal reality of the present, and the sins of the past. Maybe I get so pissy with HGTV's presentation of normalcy because it encourages the young and the working class to think of themselves as something other than the young and the working class?

Ultimately, I think the reason why Selling New York doesn't bother me, and House Hunters does, has something to do with the way the former impresses upon the viewer her class standing, while the latter works to erase it. If there is anything good about the recent economic recession, it's that it has reminded "Americans" of their class standing, and that this standing is neither "natural" nor "fair." Home ownership is the dream of affluence, of course. The more MSM promotes the fantasy of the unattainable, the less likely we are to be pissed off about where we actually live.