Brad tries understanding critical theory.

1

In American Idol, TV viewers are not only given an insider’s look at the process of creating a pop star, they are invited to participate in the process by voting for their favourite from among several competing performers. This participatory aspect of the Idol machine marks a shift in viewer subjectivity. In discussing this, I will be making use of Guattari’s argument that the contents of subjectivity are dependent on a multitude of machinic systems (1995, p.112). He distinguishes three distinct paths/voices in these systems; paths/voices of power that coerce human groupings from outside; paths/voices of knowledge; and paths/voices of self-reference that develop a processual subjectivity that is self-defined but can still maintain relations to outside mental and social stratifications (1995, p.114). I will outline the paradigmatic shift from the passive TV viewer to the participatory viewer emblematic of the Idol voting process. I argue that this process produces a “prosumer” subjectivity that serves the capitalist system through gifting the viewer with illusory empowerment but also opens up a fissure in the star creating process that has seen the emergence of Idol winners that subvert the traditional image of pop stars. The voting process also (re)produces a “democratic” subjectivity whose fetishization of the voting process distracts the masses from alternative modes of consumption and cultural production. There is, however, the possibility that participation in the process of creating a pop star creates a heightened media awareness and produces a viewer subjectivity that questions patterns of production and consumption.

2

Since the end of the last century, there has been a shift in the way the televisual image is consumed and experienced, marked by reality shows such as Big Brother and American Idol. The old paradigm is exemplified by John Ellis’ observations about the experience of events through the mechanically reproduced image, a mode of perception he calls “witness” (2000). One of the televisual image’s effects is a feeling of “separation and powerlessness: the events unfold, like it or not… So for the viewer, powerlessness and safety come hand in hand” (Ellis, 2000, p.11). This view of the spectator/consumer as passive informs arguments that consumers of the culture industry are slaves to the capitalist system, pre-determined to choose a category of mass product churned out by the industry (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1993, pp.32-33). These arguments all rest on a conception of the culture industry that separates consumers and producers. But as pointed out by the clip below (at 1:03), media advances have seen the emergence of a new subjectivity, that of the prosumer.

The word “prosumer” was coined by Alvin Toffler who wrote in 1980 that businesses using a model of production that increased profit through the mass production of standardized products would initiate a process of mass customization to increase profit margins. But this would involve consumers taking part in the production process. (see “prosumer” wikipage). Contemporary examples of this include the online serial It’s All in Your Hands where the audience can choose the plot of a thriller and American Idol where the audience can choose a pop star. The element of Idol wherein the audience can vote via SMS for their favourite contestant marks a new paradigm of televisual experience in which the spectator does not simply consume the image but is actively involved in it, shaping the events on the screen live through the participatory act of voting.

3

The prosumer subjectivity, as one might suspect, is not necessarily empowering. In a sense, the Idol machine reinforces our subjectivation under the capitalist regime through the illusion of choice. Adorno & Horkheimer discuss this illusory element of the culture industry, arguing that all mass culture is identical and standardized for economic efficiency despite the existence of various brands: “What connoisseurs discuss as good or bad points serve only to perpetuate the semblance of competition and range of choice” (1993, pp.30-33). In Idol, the voting process creates a semblance of power over the process of creating a pop star but closer analysis shows that the process is manipulated towards homogenization. This is seen in how the panel of judges dominate discourse on what determines “quality”, how the “genre themes” of episodes force a standardization of performance style, how the two last finalists are required to sing the same “Idol song”. Voting in the grand finale gives the impression that one has control over the product one consumes (i.e. the Idol CD) but one inevitably ends up with the same product. As such, the machinic subjectivity of the spectator/prosumer/voter is circumscribed through the imaginary capture of the mind (Guattari, 1995, p.114). Thus, the industry’s maintenance of cultural standardization is served rather than the self-defined subjectivity the audience imagines it attains through voting.

4

What this analysis of the Idol machine cannot account for is the emergence of atypical pop stars from the process. In 2003, the audience of Australian Idol voted the afroed Malaysian-born Guy Sebastian to victory over the arguably more marketable Shannon Noll. In 2004, the overweight, chain-smoking emo Casey Donovan won Australian Idol only to be dropped by SonyBMG for failing to fit a marketable image. Ellis argues that the televisual image always contains more than their manipulators, organizers and explainers can bring to our attention and whether any viewing witness notices them is “a matter for the vagaries of the individual viewing experience” (2000, p.12). Perhaps audiences see something of themselves, of their immediate reality, in the unconventional contestants of Idol. By inviting the audience into the process of pop star creation, the audience can reconfigure celebrity images to encompass persons traditionally considered “not-ready-for-prime-time” (Williams, 2005, p.639). This is contrary to the needs of the culture industry that prefers predictable standardized commodities, a “unity of style” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1993, pp.35-36). The voting process of Idol does open up the concepts of “pop star” and “celebrity” to creative and subjective mutations (Guattari, 1995, p.114) which serves to produce a more self-defined, processual subjectivity.

5

The emphasis on voting for a pop star in Idol produces a democratic subjectivity that circumvents human groupings by paradoxically distracting the spectator from real participation in culture. As Williams notes, “the equation of democratic citizenship with the exercise of suffrage rights is a distinctively twentieth-century phenomenon, one that emerged at a time when public faith in the feasibility of democracy in mass-scale modern societies faltered under the pressures of modernization” (Williams, 2005, p.641). She goes on to argue that “electoral democracy” is a form of rule designed not to empower the people but to pacify the masses by reducing civic participation to voting rights, “a manoeuvre that allows the citizenry to participate, not in power but in the rituals and festivals of power” (2005, p.641). Idol’s unveiling of the process behind the creation of a pop star and the ability to vote, all speak to a growing desire in people to participate in the culture industry, the prosumer subjectivity. Voting is by far the primary avenue for the viewer to engage in the process. The program’s presenters constantly ask of the viewer something along the line of, If you want X to be your next Idol…SMS their name to XXX-XXX, while the SMS number appears on screen.

Idol’s emphasis on voting as an entry into the culture industry machine distracts them from engaging in other potentially disruptive or transformative modes of production and consumption. The viewer is content to vote from their couch and disregards other activities such as creating original music or seeking out alternative media outlets (such as community media or local venues) or navigating music-related communities both online (e.g. last.fm) and offline. In these alternative avenues of production and consumption there is the potential for the development of a “processual subjectivity that defines its own coordinates” (Guattari, 1995, p.114) but they are activities circumvented by the production of a democratic subjectivity by the Idol machine that equates voting in a reality show to cultural empowerment.

6

The democratic process of Idol may, however, encourage paths/voices of self-reference (Guattari, 1995, p.114) through the contradictory discourses on what constitutes the quality of a performance. Williams argues that reality TV constructs a more active and engaged ideal of the voting process than that in news coverage of elections because emphasis is placed on the reasons and rationale of decision-makers’ choices rather than just how the public will vote (2005, p.643). In Idol, the judges comments, the words of supporters in the audience, the posted comments of fans-they provide contradictory opinions on who should win Idol and, more importantly, why that person should win Idol. In this way, the spectator becomes a “witness” to the decision-making process behind the creation of pop stars. From the resulting media consciousness emerges a political consciousness (Ellis, 2000, p.11). A good example of this is how Idol’s exposure of practices of body fascism in the pop star-creating process resulted in the emergence of Casey Donovan as winner of Australian Idol in 2004 and Ruben Studdard as winner of American Idol in 2003. One possible outcome of Idol’s voting process, then, is the emergence of a media-savvy subjectivity that encourages the re-evaluation of consumption patterns. Paths/voices of knowledge enabled by the Idol machine create ruptures in capitalist logic that can serve to enlighten consumers and loosen the culture industry’s grip on consumer subjectivity.

7

The voting process of Idol serves the needs of the culture industry by purporting to empower consumers while maintaining market standardization and discouraging subversive engagement with culture by fetishizing the power of the vote. However, opening up the process of pop star creation to the TV viewer is changing consumer subjectivity in unpredictable ways. I have argued here that the new prosumer subjectivity has seen the emergence of pop star images that subvert the standardized image of pop music and might also see the emergence of a heightened media consciousness that questions how me consume and how we might produce culture. These changes to a prosumer subjectivity means a greater emphasis on Guattari’s path/voice of self-reference and in which the subject is less passive and more empowered to engage with culture according to more self-defined co-ordinates.

Key texts cited:

Ellis, J. (2000), ‘Witness: A New Way of Perceiving the World’, Seeing Things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty London: IB. Tauris, 6-16.

Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M. (1993), ‘The Culture Industry: enlightenment as mass deception’, in The Cultural Studies Reader, ed. S. During. London & New York: Routledge, 29-43.

Guattari, F. (1995), ‘Regimes, Pathways, Subjects’, in Soft Subversions, ed. S. Lotringer. New York: Semiotext(e), 112-130.

Williams, J. (2005), ‘On the Popular Vote’, Political Research Quarterly, 58(4), 637-646.