Description
4 pages, double spaced, Times New Roman, font size 12
1)one long-arc drama series* in which you can address long-term development of characters and family dynamics in different seasons- I have chosen Modern Family. For this assignment I have to analyse Modern Family, three episodes minimum and 2 seasons minimum, in which I can compare how character development of a few characters take place( don’t make it too complex)
PROMPT TO APPLY TO YOUR CHOSEN SHOW(S):
1) Using Sarah Ahmed theory about happy objects analyze how Modern Family (and maybe its credits, if it has them,) conveys the family-centric happy object of a character (s). Does the character achieve that happiness in the end over the long-arc, or is it revealed to be what Lauren Berlant calls “cruel optimism” that it was ultimately unachievable. If it applies, you can also bring in Melanie Kohnen’s meaningful diversity theory. Consider multiple characters in Modern Family or compare two with similar fixations on a happy object.
I have attached the respectful documents, please sight the attached documents, episodes and seasons at the end of the paper.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Berlant’s Cruel Optimism and Ahmed’s Happy Object Theories Handout
Sitcoms are teaching machines and in LIT 381 we are asking what sitcoms teach us about
happiness, love, and social roles and expectations. They might also teach us what happy
feelings should be and what interpersonal relationships should feel and look like.
There are several sitcoms and memoir pieces that depict the single-family, center-hall colonial
in the American suburbs as the happy object. Cultural theorist Sara Ahmed uses this term to
explore how our conception of happiness creates attachments to happy objects that embody
the good life. She uses the term object loosely, so it could mean “true love,” family, or friendsas-family or a more literal object such as “the right” house, car, décor, clothing, luxury items,
etc. Many people believe that obtaining one of these “objects” is the key to happiness.
Yet, Ahmed warns, happiness should not be externalized in this way, especially because it is
inaccurate to believe you will attain emotional fulfillment through the acquisition of certain
objects. As she puts it, “To be made happy by this or that is to recognize that happiness starts
from somewhere other than the subject who may use the word to describe a situation.” (21).
Cultural theorist Lauren Berlant would call this desire for the same ideal house and lifestyle an
instance of cruel optimism. Her theory helps explain why many people who consume American
TV develop a desire to achieve this lifestyle in their futures. As no one can achieve complete
perfection, she would say that consumers are developing an attachment to an impossible
ideal, which will be detrimental to their ability to be happy with their actual lives.
Explaining her theory of “cruel optimism,” Berlant implies that Hollywood encourages “a loving
attachment between us and the very patriarchal social structures that limit our agency and
narrowly define our categories of being in the world.” She adds that this leads to
“compromised conditions of possibility whose realization is discovered to be impossible,
sheer fantasy” (Berlant 2011).
In other words, sitcoms depict certain ways of living and interacting with people as achievable
when they are not (that is why they are impossible ideals). These ideals are cruel because
people blame themselves and their families for failing to live up to ideals that are not actually
achievable by anyone, especially not by those unable to or uninterested in conforming to one
single way of being or living. Sitcoms also falsely depict happy objects as things or modes of
being that everyone should aspire to if they want to be happy. They also sometimes imply that
those who fall outside these depictions are abnormal or at least less happy and fulfilled.
Ahmed, Sara. The Promise of Happiness. Duke University Press, 2010
Berlant, Lauren. Cruel Optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011.
Kohnen Meaningful Diversity Definitions
Does HSM TM TS embody the kind of meaningful diversity about which Melanie Kohnen
writes in her article on ABC Family? https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/mij/15031809.0002.205/-cultural-diversity-as-brand-management-in-cable-television?rgn=main;view=fulltext
Media scholar Melanie Kohnen uses an example of The Fosters (2013–) from the Disney-owned
cable channel ABC Family as her case study of “the strategic use of cultural diversity as brand
management tool in cable television” (2015). She examines 3 interrelated facets of The Fosters
and its industrial context, which can be applied to other series.
Kohnen borrows from Mary Beltrán (2010) to define meaningful diversity as moments in
television episodes “when characters of color move beyond token status and appear as complex
people with rich interiority and the agency to drive the narrative forward” (Kohnen 2015).
Kohnen then demonstrates how meaningful diversity functions as a branding strategy aligned
with the ABC Family tagline “A New Kind of Family.” She coins the term, “‘branded diversity’
to describe the inclusion of cultural diversity in television programming that is motivated by
and contributes to a channel’s branding strategies” (2015).
Kohnen examines how we might “make sense of diversity imbricated in corporate brand
management via a few examples of how meaningful and branded diversity overlap in The
Fosters,” arguing against “dismissing branded diversity” (2015).
Kohnen contends that by closely examining moments of branded diversity, we can
acknowledge “the possibilities and constraints of emerging culturally diverse representations
enabled by television brand management.” She concludes. “Even though the inclusion and
direct address of cultural diversity on The Fosters is motivated by corporate interests, it
nevertheless constitutes an important contribution to the representation of intersectional
identities on television” (2015).
In many cases, Kohnen finds that, “diversity is often a veneer—there to be looked at, but not to
be explored. Indeed, many seemingly diverse programs with ensemble casts only feature
people of color in supporting roles and direct the viewers’ attention toward the white
protagonists” (2015).
APPLICATION TO OTHER CHARACTERS
Characters are meaningfully diverse, according to Kohnen’s and Beltrán’s definitions, if they are
“‘fully realized individuals’ [Beltrán 2010] with interiority and agency created by writers who
seem to understand the communities with which the characters are affiliated. Moreover, the
diversity of the cast connects meaningfully to the setting: the city or region in which the
program takes place” (2015).
Although she explains that “race and sexuality are overlapping yet different discourses,” she
expands the initial “idea of meaningful diversity” and applies it “to the representation of
sexuality when considering tropes specific to LGBTQ representation on television. One might
ask whether LGBTQ characters are fully realized individuals, for example, and whether their
intimate relationships receive the same attention as those of straight characters” (2015).
Kohnen also contends that “diversity in the writers’ room not only enhances the program’s
meaningful diversity but also allows the show to be promoted as having an authentic voice,
which benefits ABC Family’s brand” (2015).
Kohnen says the program “overtly addresses what it means to be a part of a diverse,
nontraditional family and explores identity formation as an ongoing process” (2015).
She also notes that “one cannot understand the full significance of diversity on The Fosters
without examining the industrial context of the program” (2015).
See also Mary Beltrán, “Meaningful Diversity: Exploring Questions of Equitable
Representations on Diverse Ensemble Cast Shows,” Flow 12, no. 7 (2010).
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
