In “Modern Family is a class-blind fantasy world,” Daniel D’Addario discusses the lavish consumer practices of the Pritchett clan. He writes,
The Pritchett clan should do whatever makes them happy in their fictional universe. But the most jarring part of “Modern Family” is that there’s no contrasting perspective. Everyone on the show has a large and tastefully decorated home; each of the three families, despite their differences in age, sexual orientation and racial makeup, is able to spring for big group vacations without mentioning the price. Their differences are narcissistically obsessed over, when their commonalities — the social capital and wealth to afford homes and college educations — allow them to engage with one another in their preferred, vacation-heavy manner. The show makes a point of drawing out differences in outlook between the older couple, the younger couple and the gay couple — and yet all of them are able to afford keeping a parent home full-time, and none of them seem ever to meet anyone unlike them out in the world. No wonder they all spend so much time together — in a still-difficult labor market and with the cost of living rising, they’re anomalies.
In your view, is this a fair characterization of the show? Why or why not?
April 15, 2019 at 2:24 pm
Yes, it’s fair. Modern Family is celebrated for its portrayal or underrepresented non-traditional families, a gay couple, first generation Americans, an adopted child, and rightly so, but it also monumentally ignores the working class. The show bravely engages with race, age, sexual orientation, but perpetuates illusions of the American Dream. While this sort of televised escapism has been around for decades, a show that purports itself as a refreshing representation of the new face of the median American family should do better from a socio-economic perspective. Omitting the working class serves to intensify tensions between working class families and progressivism, reinforcing stereotypes of the working class as “non-progressive” or “ignorant”.
While Modern Family has these issues, its praise is not undeserved. It does more than most current sitcoms to grapple with issues of sexuality and race. It broadens horizons. It normalizes underrepresented families. It portrays those families in a semi-relatable lens. These accomplishments are nothing to brush over, especially given the massive following the show has built up. Perhaps, it’s simply too much to ask one show to cover such a scope of social issues while maintaining mass appeal to a consumer base attracted to upper-middle class consumer culture. Issues of race, sexuality, and age are new and sexy. They appeal to audiences with money, with disposable income, the types of audiences advertisers look for. Working class viewers do not have this same appeal, bringing to light a failure of Hollywood audience incentives, rather than a failure of Modern Family.
April 15, 2019 at 12:15 pm
Daniel D’Addaria’s analysis of modern family as a class blind fantasy world is accurate. The show portrays itself as progressive, flaunting large cultural, age, and sexuality differences between its main characters, but the shows narrative is completely void of socio economic differences between its characters. I agree with his analysis because the goal of the show, and the appeal to many, is to portray a normal modern family living in the US today, and without portraying any financial struggles, it is not an accurate representation. The typical family in the US is forced to make certain decisions for economic reasons. For example, many mothers go back to work because a single income is not sustainable to provide for their family, where as in the show Modern Family, the mother Claire goes back to work because she is bored and misses it. There is nothing wrong with the premise of the show, but it is wrong for people to assume that their lifestyle is normal. Living in large houses, sending their kids to college, and going on family vacations are all things that middle class families in the US struggle to afford, and I think that D’Addaria’s critique that this financial burden is never mentioned in the show is a fair one.
April 14, 2019 at 12:14 pm
I do not agree with D’Addario’s view of Modern Family. While Modern Family clearly depicts white upper-class families, I do not think that is a bad thing. It is okay for shows to not show that families are struggling and that there is a difficult labor market. There are a lot of families that can relate to the families from Modern Family. I think people like watching Modern family because they can connect to it about a lot of the issues not related to say income or jobs. For example, in the episode that aired last week, Cam and Mitchel wanted to attend a concert in which they had to purchase tickets at a certain time and they were both on their laptops at the same. Once they secured the tickets, they realized they could not find their credit cards. I thought this scene was really funny and anyone who is buying tickets that are really important to them can relate. I know there have been situations when my entire family has gotten on their computer to try to secure tickets. I think you have to look at the larger meaning of Modern Family besides just the social status of the families. There is a lot of nice lessons and meanings in the episode. The show does a nice job of conveying a tight-knit family and the bond they all have. In addition to showing how Jay has excepted Mitchel for being gay. I think people can connect to the show in other ways and that not all shows have to touch on the issues related to labor markets.
April 12, 2019 at 10:14 am
This is definitely a fair depiction of this show. Although it does touch on multi-generational, multi-ethnic and multi-sexuality that most shows ignore, there are other societal issues that are brushed aside for the sake of comedy. As we have talked about many times, it is hard to hone down exactly what “modern” or even “average” is when we hear these words in the context of family. However, I think it is fairly clear that these families are not what encompass a modern family in America. As D’Addario explains above, there are many things that explain their expensive lifestyles that seems not only unrealistic in terms of what they do as jobs and all that they are able to afford, but how problematic it may be by using the term modern to explain this family in comparison to modern American families today. Of course when a tv show is trying to depict a “modern” family, the default is not going to be a run down apartment, parents working multiple jobs and just barely getting by living paycheck to paycheck. This is not necessarily going to sell a show if it is not exciting or funny. The viewers want to see something that is a feel good show that they can some what relate to even though it may not be spot on to their idea of a modern family or maybe a little out of reach. The article explains how most tv shows are fantasies of social class and an exaggeration of a lifestyle that is not even possible in comparison to their profession and where they live. However, this show is not just a somewhat boosted up or exaggerated fantasy of a modern family in order to get people to watch, but this family is clearly very wealthy. You can see this through each couple with one working while one stays at home, the loss of jobs not making any impact on the financial status, the availability to take and taking multiple vacations in general which all seems to be accessible to these people and does not lead to financial insecurity like a may to an average American family. This is a large contrast to most modern or average families, or at least in the way that I would describe a modern or average family: two working parents, comfortable but not struggling, saving for their kids for college which is somewhat of a worry financially, no extreme vacations if any. But then again, the words modern family may differ from person to person. Therefore, I think the above description makes an important point that there is no contrast to this big, wealthy, healthy, unrealistic family in the show and that is a big flaw when using the word modern to describe this family. That makes me wonder if the word modern is not necessarily worried about economic values of this family in this show, but the social context and the shifting of family dynamics in today’s age. That being said, the unrealistic description of these well-off couples is a somewhat small issue to be concerned with when it has done a phenomenal job bringing in other important aspects such as multi-generation, multi-ethnic and multi-sexual that has been largely ignored on other tv shows.