“When culture is mass-produced, all art is in danger of becoming the same”

In order to convince you that sitcoms have made us all different versions of the same person, let us consider the following scenarios. Brad is a working-class, middle-aged man from Cleveland, Ohio. He has consistently watched The Simpsons in his basement with friends since 1989 and Family Guy since its premiere in 1998. [1] Jason is a middle class, studious twenty-year-old student at a top university who watches Black-ish and Modern Family. Liz is an upper-class teenage girl from New York City, and religiously watches Friends, How I Met Your Mother, and The Office on Netflix. What if I told you that all of these people are exactly the same? Before you put this essay down in disagreement, indulge me for a second and let me explain why the situation comedy, or “sitcom”, has turned us all into slaves of pop culture.

In order to understand how sitcoms mold us into the same person, we must first step back and examine their basic structure. Sitcoms are essentially shows about nothing; they follow a person or group of people through a “typical day”. Things never go as planned for the characters, which is the main source of the shows’ humor. Other humor comes from one-liners, cultural references, pointless jokes, and physical – or “slapstick” – comedy. Sitcoms are typically filmed in front of a live audience and have pre-recorded laugh tracks. Episodes last about twenty to thirty minutes and the setting does not vary much from episode to episode. Slightly altered sitcom forms include the animated sitcom, such as The Simpsons, and documentary-style, such as The Office. Documentary-style sitcoms lack a laughing track and live audience, include character interviews, and have a drier sense of humor; animated sitcoms push physical boundaries. The idea behind sitcoms is simple: the more laughter you provoke, the higher income you bring in. The uniform structure of sitcoms shows that they all have the same purpose: shaping us into mindless robots of society.

Sitcoms either focus on a family or a group of people with something in common – friends, coworkers, etc. In the latter, there are typically two central love stories: one is drawn out until the series finale and one is more stable. In Friends, the two main love stories are those of Ross/Rachel and Monica/Chandler, while The Office focuses on Jim/Pam and Dwight/Angela. Both Ross and Rachel and Dwight and Angela have on-again, off-again relationships that are stable until a major conflict ends them (Ross cheats on Rachel and Dwight kills Angela’s cat). Throughout the series, the characters almost get back together but are interrupted by people or events. Finally, in the series finale, the two relationships end up working out – The Office ends with Dwight and Angela’s wedding, while Friends ends with Rachel promising Ross that “this is it” (s10e18).

While these relationships provide drama, the other main love stories take essentially the opposite path. Monica and Chandler in Friends and Jim and Pam in The Office are kept apart until a few seasons into the show – Pam is engaged, Jim is in a relationship, and Monica and Chandler have no romantic interest in one another. However, once they start dating, their relationships are stable and viewers have no doubt that the relationships will remain intact. Relationships that follow these formulas are seen in other sitcoms; for example, in How I Met Your Mother, Ted and Robin follow the Ross/Rachel and Dwight/Angela pattern, while Lily and Marshall follow the Monica/Chandler and Jim/Pam pattern. This demonstrates that different sitcoms’ plots actually have no variation. Nothing in a sitcom is unique.

Sitcoms such as The Simpsons, Modern Family, and Black-ish follow families and are the same in that their characters all fit certain archetypes. There is a dad who no one takes seriously: Phil in Modern Family, Homer in The Simpsons, and Andre (“Dre”) in Black-ish­. These characters often get themselves into idiotic situations; for example, Phil brings home an alpaca because he “[doesn’t] always make great decisions under pressure” (s3e8), Homer gets his head caught in a bridge (s9e24), and Dre is stuck in an elevator alone with a crying little girl (s3e4). In contrast, the mothers – Claire in Modern Family, Marge in The Simpsons, and Rainbow (“Bow”) in Black-ish – are all competent, educated, intelligent voices of reason. The children in these shows also fill similar roles. Haley in Modern Family and Zoey in Black-ish are social, while Alex in Modern Family, Andre Jr. and Diane in Black-ish, and Lisa in The Simpsons are intelligent. Finally, Bart in The Simpsons, Luke in Modern Family, and Jack in Black-ish are mischievous and take after their fathers. Thus, these sitcoms lack any character or plot variation. This puts us on the path to understanding how sitcoms are all the same and subject us to pop culture.

What makes family-focused sitcoms and other-focused sitcoms similar? What all sitcoms have in common – and the reason for their success – is that they are relatable and humorous. The situations that the characters find themselves in are exaggerated realities. Who hasn’t had an awkward Thanksgiving like in Friends or a crazy boss such as in The Office? When we watch sitcom characters, we recognize similarities between them and ourselves. Sitcoms are structured to make real life situations humorous. Thus, these shows make us laugh at ourselves.

At this point, we must examine the work of Theodor Adorno, an avid critic of pop culture and slapstick comedy. Though Adorno is a divisive, controversial culture theorist, his argument is essential to uncovering how sitcoms make people such as Brad, Jason, and Liz the same. In Adorno and Horkheimer’s “The Culture Industry”, they argue that cartoons and slapstick comedy represent the worst of our society. Slapstick makes us laugh at situations we find ourselves in. Seeing others suffering in a similar way to how we do makes us feel like we fit in:

To the extent that cartoons do more than accustom the senses to the new tempo, they hammer into every brain the old lesson that continuous attrition, the breaking of all individual resistance, is the condition of life in this society. Donald Duck in the cartoons and the unfortunate victims in real life receive their beatings so that the spectators can accustom themselves to theirs (110).

Adorno would thus argue not only that sitcoms are structurally similar but also that they serve the purpose of acclimatizing us to our pain. The true lessons of these shows have little to do with their content. Their purpose is to condition us to society’s expectations and brainwash us into thinking that our suffering is normal.

Adorno’s central argument is that “culture today is affecting everything with sameness” (95). He argues that the more mass-produced culture becomes, the more similar art becomes. Our structural analysis of the sitcom has already revealed the truth behind this. As the sitcom became more popular, directors made them more formulaic. People want to make money, and once they have seen a method to success, they will not search for new ways to do this. Further, streaming sites such as Netflix and Hulu make sitcoms more accessible than ever before. Even more, illegal websites where you can stream shows for free are everywhere. A Google search as simple as “watch The Office season 1 episode 1 online for free” draws you into the sameness that dominates our world. Culture is at our fingertips; this is what Adorno means when he argues, “all mass culture under monopoly is identical” (95). As large corporations give us more access to these sitcoms, we are more easily molded into similar people.

Now that I have shown the lack of structural and ideological uniqueness in sitcoms, let us examine the effect of this on the viewers – us. I propose we take Adorno’s argument further; the mass-production of culture does not only endanger art, it also makes us all the same. Let us return to our examples of Brad, Jason, and Liz and examine how three seemingly different people can actually all be the same just because they all watch sitcoms.

From the knowledge that all sitcoms use the same type of humor, we can acknowledge that all people who watch sitcoms respond to the same type of humor. Liz laughing at Ross, Rachel, and Chandler trying to lift a couch through a small New York City stairway (s5e16) is no different than Brad laughing at Homer overgrowing his hair with a product called “Dimoxinil” (s2e2) or Jason laughing at Phil getting hit in the face by a toy plane (s1e3). They are all being pulled into the same culture as society trains them to laugh at things that could happen to them. Further, laugh tracks make us a slave to these shows. They essentially instruct us when to laugh, but give us the illusion of free will. Considering this, what is preventing these shows from subconsciously influencing our other emotional responses?

Sitcoms also affect our physical characteristics. For example, as Friends gained popularity, the “Rachel haircut” dominated society. Women across the world cut their hair to match Jennifer Aniston’s haircut. Further, since Friends came to Netflix streaming on January 1, 2015,[2] ‘90s fashion– for example, grunge – has made a comeback.[3] This means that the sameness sitcoms create transcends generations; Liz is watching the same shows and wearing the same outfits that her mother wore at her age. Since access to technology is constantly on the rise, it seems likely we are entering an age where anyone who has ever watched a sitcom will become the same – there will be no divides based on age or any other demographic.

What does this say about the seemingly unique characteristics of sitcom viewers? Maybe Brad likes football, Jason reads, and Liz bakes. Wouldn’t this clearly show that they are not the same person? The truth is that these are not real differences, but ones implanted in us by society to make us think that we are different. If we realized we were all the same, we would rebel against the constraints that have been placed on us. Instead, society puts us under the illusion that we are different. Jason is attracted to intellectual sitcoms, while Brad watches blatantly stupid ones, and Liz likes mainstream sitcoms; however, what matters is that everyone can find shows that fit their personalities. Sitcom culture – and pop culture – eases us into sameness. Society implants its ideals on us in a subtle way.

Finally, we must address one final question. What about people who do not watch sitcoms? How can they have the sameness that Brad, Jason, and Liz have? Realistically, people who try to be outside of a culture (in this case, sitcom culture) are actually placing themselves in the culture by resisting it. There are people everywhere trying to be unique. Thus, resisting culture makes you the same as everyone else who is trying (and failing) to be an individual. Just as Brad falsely thinks he is different from Liz and Jason because he likes football and they do not, people who think they are unique because they do not like sitcoms are being lulled into a false sense of distinctiveness by society. No one is an individual – society is just playing a trick on us. After all, isn’t that what society is all about?

Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor & Max Horkheimer. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” via Dialect of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002). Pages 94-136.

Anderson, Mick. (2017). “Editor Picks: 10 Best American Sitcoms.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/list/10-best-american-sitcoms.

Barris, Kenya. Black-ish. (United States: American Broadcasting Company, 2014-present).

Bays, Carter and Craig Thomas. How I Met Your Mother. (United States: National Broadcasting Company, 2005-2014).

Crane, David and Marta Kauffman. Friends. (United States: National Broadcasting Company, 1994-2004).

English 117: Introduction to Cultural Theory. (Williamstown, MA: Williams College, Fall 2017).

Gervais, Ricky and Stephen Merchant. The Office. (United States: National Broadcasting Company, 2005-2013).

Groening, Matt. The Simpsons. (United States: Fox, 1989-present).

Lloyd, Christopher and Steven Levitan. Modern Family. (United States: American Broadcasting Company, 2009-present).

Raftery, Liz. (2014, Oct 15). “Friends is Coming to Netflix!” Tvguide.com. Retrieved from http://www.tvguide.com/news/friends-netflix-video-gunther-1088084/.

Williams, Lashuana. (2017, April 18). “’90s Fashion Trends That Made a Comeback.” Instyle, Instyle.com. Retrieved from http://www.instyle.com/celebrity/90s-trends-made-comeback.

[1] Anderson, Mick. (2017). “Editor Picks: 10 Best American Sitcoms.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/list/10-best-american-sitcoms.

[2] Raftery, Liz. (2014, Oct 15). “Friends is Coming to Netflix!” Tvguide.com. Retrieved from http://www.tvguide.com/news/friends-netflix-video-gunther-1088084/.

[3] Williams, Lashuana. (2017, April 18). “’90s Fashion Trends That Made a Comeback.” Instyle, Instyle.com. Retrieved from http://www.instyle.com/celebrity/90s-trends-made-comeback.