In “What Happened to All the Good Middle-Class Sitcoms,” Holly Eagleson argues that while television portrayals of American middle-class life have always been problematic, they have become even more so in recent decades. Eagleson argues that TV’s “middle-class” families are unrealistically free from financial struggles. Eagleson mentions Parks and Recreation, The Fosters, and Breaking Bad, as well as The Middle, as exceptions to this trend. Do you agree with Eagleson’s assessment? Is there a TV program that you watch that effectively dramatizes the financial anxieties of middle-income Americans?
April 14, 2019 at 5:05 pm
Eagleson brings up good points regarding the lack of middle-class sitcoms and misrepresentation of the middle-class in those sitcoms. I agree with her that there is a lack of middle-class representation on television, but I also disagree with the labeling of some of the shows she sees as middle-class representation. I do not necessarily think that Parks and Recreation accurately portrays the financial anxieties or realties for middle-class Americans. Though many of the characters initially have low paying government jobs and average lifestyles, their evolution throughout the series shows them gaining financial security and job success that pushes them into the realms of the upper class. For example, Andy Dwyer, played by Chris Pratt, begins the series with no job and then works his way from a shoe shiner to having his own television show. This upward trajectory from someone without a college degree is unrealistic for most middle-class Americans, and it is seen in other characters in the show. By the final season, all of the central characters have moved on from their humbler middle-class beginnings and have jobs and salaries that place them in the upper class. This type of character evolution from middle to upper class is also seen in The Office with Darryl the warehouse worker who by the final season is opening a sports marketing company with Jim – another central character. Interestingly, many middle-class labeled sitcoms either do not accurately portray the middle-class or have their characters move up in the class structure, leaving little room for Americans to imagine themselves as these characters. It will be interesting see if future television shows attempt to portray the middle-class or solely focus on the upper class.
April 13, 2019 at 12:17 pm
I would agree with Eagleson’s assessment of current popular television in America. I think she points out a lot of the trends we’ve already talked about and makes some insightful claims as to the root of the problem and its drawn out effects.
Firstly, I think her ideas about Parks and Recreation are smart and important to note, especially as it was a hit on such a big network as NBC. I never really considered Parks and Rec. as being revolutionary in itself, but it does a good job creating a wide range of experiences, activities, topics, and struggles all within a solidly middle-class backdrop. The trials of being a government worker do not often come with a luxurious paycheck, and yet it is a commonly evangelized sector in America. That is to say, there is a lot of propaganda about how working for the government, at any level, is good, honest work. And yet, in no small part due to our government’s low taxes, these honest workers are rarely rewarded for their service to the public sector. Featuring this in such a quirky and idiosyncratic place as a small town in the midwest had a charming effect. Yet it still kept in mind the trivial and unrewarding (in a funny way) nature of the work, if not the specific financial struggles. So even though Eagleson says that Parks and Rec. perhaps misses the mark for this goal, I still think it is important to encourage and note the unprecedented success it has had while portraying an underrepresented industry.
I also liked how Eagleson quoted Robert Thompson who calls out those that say that we actually have had representative sitcoms for a long time. The often-referenced Leave it to Beaver, and Father Knows Best were actually less realistic and representative of middle/working class than most assume/point out. I never considered how the set design may be middle-class, but the plot can be devoid of such characterizations. We may relate to them or find them “down to earth” if they live in a smaller home, but that often overshadows the fact that financial struggles are often left out. If this is the case, they were never really good middle-class representations at all. I commend the author and Thompson for making this point.
Next, Eagleson points out that the TV industry itself is dominated by wealthy people who then perpetuate the cycle of writing about what they know about and less about the middle class that they do not know about. She mentions this point briefly, but I find it hugely important, as this cycle just perpetuates the content that is accessible and accurate to the writers, content which is totally separate from most of America.
A show that I know that more accurately represents the working class is Everybody Hates Chris. Eagleson mentions this show as truly middle class but still not as a true key/solution to the problem in that it is a nostalgia piece, representing the 80’s and that specific financial climate. She has a point, that such period/nostalgia pieces do well but we still lack shows that talk about the financial struggles of today. Regardless, Everybody Hates Chris still does a good job depicting every aspect of life for a family while weaving in financial struggles rather effortlessly and realistically rather than avoiding them. Chris goes to school, has friends, adventures, jobs, all the while his dad mentions their money issues several times an episode. Entire plotlines focus on Chris’ fear of punishment for wasting money etc. Another show not mentioned that I believe does a good job is That 70’s Show, depicting a working class family again in the midwest whose financial issues are also often mentioned, not to mention the overall down-to-earth and not flashy nature of their lifestyle. However, as a testament to the today’s lack of middle-class representation, the two shows I came up with are also period/nostalgia pieces.
April 12, 2019 at 12:25 pm
I think Eagleson makes some good points in her article, and her argument that the portrayal of the American middle-class lifestyle is become increasingly more problematic on TV is fair. While I have not seen many of the shows Eagleson references, I do feel that a handful of the shows I watch gloss over the concept of money and focus on other issues instead. Having seen The Middle, I agree that there aren’t many series that really show the financial struggle that many middle-class American’s face. In my opinion, I do find Jane the Virgin to be an except to this. I believe that Jane the Virgin does a nice job showcasing the financial burden placed on many families in America. Throughout the course of the show we watch as Jane struggles to make ends meet and keep to a strict budget. Her main job is working at the Marbella Hotel as a waitress while trying to get through grad school and write her book as well as raise her son. For a large portion of the show she lives in a house with her grandmother and her mother and her son. Their house is modest and all three women work at least one job to make ends meet. The show also depicts a handful of wealthy characters losing their jobs and having to adjust to a more modest lifestyle as well as learning to budget. While the show is certainly quirky and full of lots of drama, heartache and many laughs, it does a great job depicting a middle-class lifestyle of a single mother. Further, it also touches on issues of immigration and the role and stress that puts on a person and their family’s life.