When studying the Structuralist,
Levi-Strauss emphasizes the arbitrariness of the individual tale at face value
and discouraged studying a tale based only off the surface reading. Instead, he is fascinated by the deeper
meanings that a culture’s myths unveil about their beliefs. I had always considered the parallels of
popular today shows and Levi-Strauss solidified the notion. After spending quite some time watching two
of my favorite shows Seinfeld and GIRLS, I recognized that they have much more
in common than their surface descriptions.
The show aired at different times
with Seinfeld running for nearly a decade, from 1989 to 1998, while GIRLS
premiered two years ago and is still producing new episodes. Seinfeld consists of thirty-something year
olds who have stable jobs living in Manhattan.
In contrast, GIRLS focuses on mid-twenty year olds attempting to
navigate their lives while residing in Brooklyn. The main character’s sex
obviously differs, with Hannah and Jerry being the central focus of their respective
shows. They do share a commonality with
both having a career in art and performance, with Jerry being a stand up
comedian and Hannah working on becoming a successful author. Both Jerry and Hannah have a central friend
group that is rather eccentric with each friend having a specific label. There is the best friend who is rather
self-centered and has a failed relationship with their ex significant
other. In Seinfeld it’s George and his
dead fiancé Susan and in GIRLS Marni is the best friend who can never decide if
she wants to be with Charlie (who inevitably leaves her for good). Then there is the crazy, free-spirited friend
who you’re never quite sure what they are up to. The shows peg these archetypes pretty well
with Kramer in Seinfeld and Jessa in GIRLS.
Finally there is the ex who are they are still good friends with
exhibited by Elaine and Hannah’s ex who is now gay, Andrew. The shows delve into all aspects of
character’s lives, also focusing on the relationships that Jerry and Hannah share
with each of their parents. Both of the
shows have the common backdrop of hanging out in New York, the workforce, and
the process of dating.
With surface differences the shows
appear to have much more in common than most would guess. Though different in tone (Seinfeld is comedic
while GIRLS is slightly more serious) they both follow the trials and tribulations
of these groups of friends in the city.
If having to boil it down, the shows are simply about a group of white
people (living in one of the most diverse cities in the world) and confronting
petty problems throughout their lives (or rather episodes). George’s statement: “it’s a show about
nothing” (un)intentionally summarizes the overall happenings of the shows. But this does not stop them from being
popular. Moreover, Lena Dunham (the
creator, writer, and actor of Hannah in GIRLS) has been dubbed “the voice of
our generation”. A critical look at the
shows unveils that the shows are premised around character who are acting in an
haphazard manner while attempting to construct their lives. I think that’s what makes these shows so
successful, how viewers easily associate with the characters on the screen. The deeper understanding could be that we
view day to day activities as rather trivial, often questioning their impact in
the grand scheme of things yet are continually fascinated in knowing what
everyone is doing. Levi-Strauss would use these shows to looks the underlying structure of
our society and realize that we put a very large emphasis on the journey to the
lives and careers we build. These two shows unconsciously highlight the importance
of where you work and if you enjoy it, the people you associate with, and the
emotional decisions in regards to personal relationships.
Fascinating, would have liked to see the analysis pushed even farther!
ReplyDeleteReading this post has not only really helped me better understand what Levi-Strauss was about, but also raised a lot of questions as well. I have never watched the show GIRLS and although I haven’t watched much of Seinfeld either, I have seen a few episodes and see the points you were making about its characters. Your response was so interesting to me because I feel like I could take this and replace all of Seinfeld’s character’s names and literally replace them with names from one of my favorite shows, FRIENDS, which also aired around the same time.
ReplyDeleteWhat I have done below is copied and pasted a part of Elizabeth’s response, and simply replaced the names of Seinfeld’s characters with FRIENDS characters, in an effort to emphasize just how similar these shows are.
“There is the best friend who is rather self-centered and has a failed relationship with their ex significant other. In FRIENDS it’s Rachel, who can never decide if she wants to be with Ross. Then there is the crazy, free-spirited friend who you’re never quite sure what they are up to (Phoebe). Finally there is the ex who are still good friends with exhibited by Ross and Ross’s ex, Carol, who is now Lesbian. The shows delve into all aspects of character’s lives, also focusing on the relationships that Ross and Monica’s share with each of their parents. Both of the shows have the common backdrop of hanging out in New York, the workforce, and the process of dating.” (Copied and modified from Elizabeth Harrakka’s blogpost)
The rest of Elizabeth’s response also describes the motif of FRIENDS. When reading this post, and as I realized just how similar these shows were, it made me wonder about a few different questions. There are hundreds of shows on TV today and I can almost guarantee that if we compare the ‘favorite’ shows of even just the students in this class, this list of similar shows mentioned above will grow longer. So, first of all, why are there sooo many shows that are essentially the same, as in, how do they even exist and thrive? Does this mean that human beings are just extremely unoriginal creatures? Are the similarities of these shows a conscious thing, or could this an example of the phenomenon that Sapir categorizes as the “Unconscious patterning of behavior in society”. Along these lines, would it be appropriate to remember our good friend Ruth Benedict, and have this be an example of how our culture here in the states resembles a Dionysian society because not only do we value shows that are purely for entertainment, we extravagantly create and give value to numerous shows that are essentially the same, “instead of trying to get past the experience with the least possible discomfiture”. (167, Readings for HAT)