Programme: MA Brand Development Department of Media and Communications Course: Media, ritual and contemporary public cultures MC71088A

A Course/seminar leader: Veronica Barassi

Belgian Idol 2011: discuss to what extent the concept of ritual helps in the analysis of a media format

Wordcount: 4993

Student number: 33227990 Term: Spring 2012

33227990

MC71088A

The intense emergence of reality TV formats in the last two decades has incited academic reactions of both enthusiasm and criticism. While some appraise it as an egalitarian empowerment of the public, others despise it as the secret theatre of neoliberalism. Throughout this essay, we hope to achieve a clearer understanding of reality TV formats, their functioning and power roles by applying a ritual approach to Belgians equivalent of the British reality TV show called Pop Idol. By implementing primarily a literature review and four interviews with Idol 2011 finalists, this writing hopes to move beyond limited (neo-) Durkheimian interpretations of reality TV formats towards a post-Durkheimian comprehension of the recently debated symbolic power of media institutions, and more specifically, reality TV formats as Idol 2011. We will start by providing a brief general outline of Idol 2011, before moving on to a short but broad ritual analysis of the format. Durkheims analysis of social contagion and cohesion in religious rituals will form the starting point of our analysis, to which we will add Turners (1974) post-Durkheimian notions of social conflict. In order to discuss accounts on power and ideology, we emphasise the neo-Durkheimian validation of media as the centre of society (providing us societys true values), and moreover, focus on Couldrys counterargument (2003) of it as a myth that works as a tool of symbolic power and needs constant legitimisation. Medias power to ascribe an entity (events, people, places, values) to the world of profane or sacred is seen as the basis of its powerful role in our society (Couldry, 2003). Current debates (e.g. Holmes; Cui and Lee) are questioning the extent to which the generated boundary between the two worlds is being challenged by the rise of reality TV formats. These formats provide a platform for ordinary people seeking fame, while offering the audience forms of interactivity and a previously inaccessible sight into celebrity construction. We will analyse Rojeks approach to the celetoid in relation to the concepts of democratisation and intimacy proposed by Holmes (2004a; 2004b) and Cui and Lee (2010). Are the power roles being reversed because of the rise of the celetoid? Can we speak of a genuine democratisation of celebrity culture? It is these questions we aspire to answer, and finally, this essay will connect them to broader concerns of ideological capitalist power linked to individualism, governmentality and surveillance (Couldry, 2004; 2008; Gamson, 1994; Rojek 2001). Idol 2011 and its ritual dimensions The media format Idol is the Flemish equivalent of the previously founded popular reality TV formats Pop Idol and Popstars in UK (first broadcasted in 2001 and 2002; Holmes, 2004b) and their counterpart American Idol. The global rise of formats following the same concept demonstrates its universal popularity. Its rights were bought by the media

33227990

MC71088A

company Flemish Media Society (VMM in Dutch), to broadcast on their national Belgian television channel VTM (Flemish Television Society). As the fourth season of Idol on Belgian television, this years competition reached an average of 800.000 viewers throughout four months of weekly broadcasting. The general concept and process of the format follow its popular foreign precursors by providing a platform to ordinary people seeking notions of fame. Pre-selections were organised on numerous locations in Flanders months before the first live show in March 2011, attracting more than 3.500 candidates (VTM, 2011). A glimpse at the generally emotive episodes of first rounds signals a high degree of entertainment, which consists essentially of portraying the most extreme performances (on both ends of the quality scale). In contrast to for instance Super Girls Voice (Cui and Lee, 2010), the show does not state any criteria (e.g. voice quality or dancing ability); and as a result, possibly providing a higher level of entertainment to the audience. The number of performing candidates was over two rounds reduced to twenty-four final contestants by four professional judges: a musicproducer, professional singer, music coach and the owner of a teenage magazine (VTM, 2011). The latter confirms the significance of looks and more generally, X-Factor in this contest. Before the first live episode, the remaining contestants were moderated further to fifteen finalists during a trip to Dominican Republic. At this point, the ten-week-long emulation - presented by Flemish celebrities Koen and Kris Wauters, and teenage-idol Sean Dhondt - commences which every week end with the elimination of one (or more) candidates, decided by both the judges and public (SMS and digital television voting-system) (ibid.). To obtain a thorough understanding of this media format, one should, before doubting them, take Durkheimian and neo-Durkheimian ritual approaches into account. First of all, by accentuating the meaning of collective effervescence in religious events to explain broader social order, Durkheim (1995) provides a first significant basis for ritual theory. In relation to Australian societies and their sacred acts of congregation, Durkheim (1995: 217) described social contagion as a sort of electricity generated from their closeness that quickly launches them to an extraordinary height of exaltation. It is indeed these sensations of being together in one place, as members of a group (Couldry, 2004: 8) that justify the social excitement (almost emotional hysteria) during media events (for instance, the live shows) when fans are confronted with their virtually sacred favourite candidate. Moreover, according to Durkheim (1995), rituals may reach a level of emotional movement that ignites previously unimaginable behaviour: Because he is in moral harmony with his neighbour, he gains new confidence, courage, and boldness in action quite like the man of faith who believes he feels the eyes of his god turned benevolently toward him. (Durkheim, 1995: 211)

33227990

MC71088A

It is in for instance the absurd act of throwing ones intimate clothing towards Kevin or Manuel that we find this certain need to set themselves above and beyond ordinary morality (Durkheim, 1995: 218). Following Durkheims narrative on religion, media events, such as the Idol 2011 live shows, can in this light partly be seen as special times when members of contemporary societies come together through media and become aware of each other as a social whole (Couldry, 2003: 6). Couldry (2003) agrees to Durkheimian and neo-Durkheimian media-approaches to a certain extent, stating that indeed, much more is at stake in our relationship to the media than just distracted forms of image consumption (2003: 7; original emphasis). Nevertheless, a critical analysis of this reality TV format should move beyond pure Durkheimian accounts of collective contagion. We will hence take notions of conflict, symbolic power and ideology into account. As argued by Turner (1974), the coherence and structure of contemporary societies work intensively through social conflict, hence less through Durkheims traditional concept of social solidarity. On the one hand, mechanical solidarity is not at stake in this contemporary format (Durkheim in Couldry, 2003; Dayan and Katz, 1992). Its concept is essentially founded on the ethos of individual competition, with candidates from diverse backgrounds. As indicated by Idol-finalist Manuel: There was a great diversity in appearance, personality and background [] It was often hilarious to see a group of Falkos queer fans cheering next to Kevins macho supporters. Consequently, this brings about a diversified audience (each with its own values and beliefs) that hold together through organic solidarity, in contrast to Durkheims mechanic solidarity in totemic rituals (Couldry, 2003). On the other hand, in Turners terms, the idol format reinforces the concept of liminality (Turner, 1974). The final episode consisting of only two remaining rivals competing for the ultimate prize, may work as a clear example for this process. An obvious separation (anti-structure/communitas) occurs during the period preceding the final judgement (Turner, 1974). Both contestants and their fans are in a mode of (soft) rivalry before the conclusive moment of liminality, described by Turner as: The midpoint of transition in a status-sequence between two positions, outsider-hood refers to actions and relationships, which do not flow from a recognized social status but originate outside it. (Turner, 1974: 237)

33227990

MC71088A

During this short period of time, both competitors are classified as neither idol nor second place. A physical and emotional division now takes place when Kato (the non-winner) is detached from Kevin (winner), who remains solely on the stage as his status transforms from Idol-finalist to Idol (ibid.). According to Bourdieus Rites of Institution (1990), this provokes an enduring distinction between the one who is and the one who is not subjected to the ritual. Along with his personal transformation, the structural remodelling from communitas to societas transpires as Kevin - and his fans - become re-integrated with the other candidate and her fans (Turner, 1974). In short, contrary to Durkheimian understandings of the role of social cohesion in rituals, post-Durkheimian readings (e.g. Turner, 1974; Couldry, 2003) hint at the function of ritual social conflict in structuring modern societies. A second significant challenged aspect of (neo-)Durkheimian theories (built on the previously described conceptual role of collective emotion), is found in the neo-Durkheimian recognition of media as a connection to the centre of society (Silverstone, in Couldry, 2003). As Couldry clearly argues, these beliefs are based on the assumption that society has a core of true social values waiting to be expressed (2003: 42; own emphasis). Society is so thoroughly diversified (mechanical solidarity; Turner, 1974), one can never identify a central set of true values that represents society. Accordingly, Couldry (2003) continues stating that media do not connect us to reality and its social values shared by members of society. In the context of reality TV formats as Idol, media paradoxically seek to present us the unmediated reality within a fully managed artificiality surrounded by cameras (Couldry, 2003: 83; 103). Idol 2011 winner Kevin affirms this argument by describing his reaction when the production team during their week in Dominican Republic asked the candidates to behave and speak as if no cameras were present: the most real actions or conversations happened when no cameras were rolling (own emphasis). Handelman summarizes this ambiguity of reality TV formats: The representation of social order under surveillance, under control, manipulated by its compositors and auditors magnified through the exact, clinical optic gaze of televised and videotaped events. (Handelman in Couldry, 2003: 44) Therefore, Couldry asserts medias claim to provide privileged access to the centre of societys reality is merely a myth (myth of the mediated centre) that requires constant legitimisation so as to preserve their media power (Couldry, 2003: 45).

33227990
Idol 2011, symbolic power and ideology

MC71088A

To achieve legitimization of medias claim to present us the centre of society, media rituals reinforce the boundary between what is inside the media as opposed to what is outside the media. This distinction founds its basis in Durkheims theory on religion, which recognizes a division of the world into two domains, one containing all that is sacred and the other all that is profane (Durkheim, 1995: 34). Sacred objects (e.g. totems, Holy Cross), places (e.g. temples, churches) or individuals (e.g. kings, priests) are isolated as ritual bodies working as a higher reality, hence contrasting the mundane reality of the ordinary (Bell, 1992: 102). According to Bourdieus Rites of Institution (1990), the boundaries dividing both worlds are naturalised through rituals to give the appearance of being based on objective differences (Bourdieu, 1990: 120). To have control over these rituals means to possess the symbolic power to distinguish ordinary from extraordinary; and thus, to possess great power in general (Bourdieu, 1990; Bell, 1992). Linked to broader ideological power (discussed further more thoroughly), Bell defines medias symbolic power as: The power to constitute the given by stating it, to create appearances and belief, to confirm or transform the vision of the world and thereby action in the world, and therefore the world itself. (Bell ,1992: 199) By the creation and maintenance of the arguably impassable border between media and non-media, media ascribe magical value to mediated entities such as celebrities (Bourdieu, 1990). Kato, Idol 2011 runner-up, describes finding herself on television screens as a weird feeling, because you are used to seeing celebrities on television. This is also expressed by Manuel, who explains: for the viewers, me being on television is a merit and reason to photograph me. Clearly, media desire to keep the public in awe of the aura of the media world to sustain its authority (Cui and Lee, 2010: 258). The effect of the construction of aura reaches its most extreme end when it turns into obsession and stalking. Manuel and Kato epitomised this by explaining how both of them received requests for sexual encounters. This entirely artificial construct is fabricated by the social process of ritualisation as a means to legitimate boundaries (Bell, 1992; Cui and Lee, 2010). The presence of for instance the live shows stage, security, flamboyant clothing and fixed lighting generate an intentional emotional and physical distance between public and celebrity to convince us of the centre of society. In order to question whether formats as Idol 2011 challenge medias symbolic power, this essay must briefly examine celebrity on the subject of Idol 2011.

33227990

MC71088A

Following Rojeks (2001: 10) definition, we outline celebrity as the attribution of glamorous or notorious status to an individual within the public sphere in which media play the most significant role. To understand celebrity in reality TV formats, we must differentiate three different types of the term: attributed, achieved and ascribed celebrities (Rojek, 2001). Reality TV is often linked to the formation of ordinary individuals into attributed - celebrities, termed celetoids by Rojek (2001). Divergently to achieved celebrities, these celetoids are simply known for their well-known-ness (as in for instance Big Brother or talk shows), rather than for greatness, worthy endeavours or talent (Boorstin in Holmes, 2004a: 5). Some candidates of Idol 2011 definitely follow the narrative of celetoids. For instance, according to the four judges, Thierry Segers performance was below average hence ending their oral evaluation stating Thierry would rather belong on the stage of a dodgy bar at four in the morning (De Leur, 2011). And indeed, after the broadcast on national television, Thierry achieved a form of fame and became highly booked by bars and pubs (ibid.). Noteworthy is how celetoids receive their moment of fame to then disappear from public consciousness quite rapidly (Rojek, 2001: 20). Nevertheless, we suggest here that beyond cases of attributed celebrity (mostly extreme performances in the selection rounds), Idol 2011 finalists often acquire accounts of achieved celebrity due to their singing and performance abilities. Accordingly, the candidates in Idol 2011 that have become part of public awareness, are characterised by elements of simultaneously achieved and attributed celebrities, since, according to Rojek (2001), it is only rare to categorically belong to one type of the term. Current debates (Holmes, 2004a; 2004b; Cui and Lee, 2010; Couldry, 2003) have wondered to what extent these notions of attributed celebrity culture in reality TV formats challenge the principle media boundaries set by media. The essence of gamedocs embodies common people who compete to escape into another ritually distinct category (Couldry, 2003: 107), which was previously a strictly enclosed sphere controlled by mass media institutions: The distinction in which ordinary people are not expected to be in the media at all, but only to appear on the media in certain limited circumstances has been blurred by reality TV, which plays with the boundaries between on/in the media with its celebritisation of the ordinary person. (Couldry in Holmes, 2004a: 114) Does that then mean the traditional power relations become inverted in Idol 2011 (Cui and Lee, 2010)? Are, as speculated by Rojek (2001: 29), modern celebrity culture and the celetoid direct descendants of the revolt against tyranny? To answer these question, we will mainly

33227990

MC71088A

hence following the narratives offered by Holmes (2004a, 2004b) and Cui and Lee (2010) emphasise the apparent democratisation and intimacy of our format. Dovey (in Holmes, 2004a: 112) and Kilborn (in Couldry, 2003) announce reality TV as a challenge to and democratisation of the ethos of television. Idol 2011 certainly owes a great part of its success to the temporary opening it offers. Although it is correct to assert reality TV formats provide the opportunity for a wide public of ordinary individuals to reach formerly inaccessible spheres and notions of power, it is an overstatement to view this as a transformation into egalitarian media democracy that terminates the existing boundaries and roles. Our arguments are based on the restrictions of the power of the individuals seeking fame and of the audience desiring to voice themselves. Firstly, Holmes (2004a) contrasts neo-Durkheimian writings - e.g. Rojeks (2001) understanding of celetoids as a democratisation of celebrity culture - by arguing the candidates still function within an established structure and context that is controlled by the show and its producers. The potential candidates are ought to be between sixteen and twentyfive years old and require the Belgian nationality (VTM, 2011) Moreover, the producers decide which individuals deserve media exposure. The proportion of candidates to those broadcasted is likely to be even more unbalanced than Keighrons fifty-to-one calculation of the ratio in reality TV format Video Diaries (in Couldry, 2003: 108). In my interview with finalist Kristof, he declared how the majority of candidates receiving media exposure are either the applicants that would reach the group of fifteen finalists or the ones delivering potential mockery. Secondly, we can argue that the power received by the public is highly restrained. Before only fifteen candidates are left, the judges continuously own the exclusive right to determine who is selected (based on unspoken criteria) for the next round. From that moment, the public receives the power to vote (using SMS or digital TV technologies) for their favourite finalist, thereby indeed obtaining an certain influential role. Significantly, to augment the feeling of empowerment, the format for the first time in history of Idol - unleashed an online voting contest requiring individuals to upload a video of their performance. It was then up to the public to vote for their favourite performance so he/she could skip selection rounds and directly become part of the twenty-five finalists. Writers have praised these accounts of interactivity as an authorisation of the ordinary people (Niu in Cui and Lee, 2010) and described the audience as the real author of the programmes outcome (Tincknell and Raghuram in Holmes, 2004b: 163). Nevertheless, we regard this level of interactivity rather as a limited active role within an authored environment (Holmes, 2004b: 165) functioning to serve capitalist objectives (to amplify audience numbers and voting revenues), than as a genuine revolutionary empowerment for the purpose of democracy.

33227990

MC71088A

In addition to promising democratisation, reality TV insinuates a disappearance of the void between the world of the mundane (common people) and the sacred (celebrities). Because the format offers us formerly inaccessible intimate views on celebrities and their construction, it implies the evaporation of the aura of magic (Rojek, 2001: 78) that embodies celebrities and their culture. Established celebrities, who have not chosen the path to success via reality TV shows, are not mediated whilst moving from ordinary into extraordinary spheres, consequently creating an immediate distance with the public. In contrast, the entire focus of Idol 2011 lies on the transformation of ordinary people to whom we can easily relate into celebrities. Holmes summarizes these notions by declaring: Pop Idol is based on the entire premise that, because we follow the serialized process of construction from ordinary hopeful to famous pop idol, we are left with a greater sense of knowing the star as a real person. (Holmes, 2004b, 159) It therefore lies in the roots of the show to produce feelings of familiarity. This is intensified by the formats emphasis that we are not watching stars here, nor evidently people who could ever hope to have a career in the music industry (Holmes, 2004b: 158). Due to the characteristics of the format, the narratives are able to generate a feeling of propinquity by highlighting the human and emotional aspects of the contestants (mostly during the episodes preceding the live shows). For example, during their trip to Dominican Republic, the finalist Devon intimately confessed to his friend Manuel why he joined this competition: I want to prove my brother and best friend, who both lost their lives next to me in a car crash, that we can eventually make it as musicians. Similarly, the first love story in Idol concerning Manuel and Kato, was brought to the viewers with details one would never expect from traditional celebrities. We follow the participants from when they wake up to going to bed, as if they were a close friend. Moreover, as a pledged guarantor of authenticity and real emotion, the show employs techniques of superenhanced realism (Holmes, 2004b: 161). To exemplify, when Devon heard he was allowed to move on to the next round, he sprinted to his friend Manuel in pure delight which was in post-production slowed down and overlapped with an emotional melody to exaggerate, in Grindstaffs terms, this money shot (Grindstaff, 1997). As an other technique, viewers of the live shows were motivated to ask questions to their favourite contestant through Twitter. During short breaks, presenter Sean Dhondt would personally pose your question to the regarding finalist.

33227990

MC71088A

The ordinary identity of contestants, emphasis on human emotions and techniques of superenhanced realism all work to construct a sense of familiarity amongst the audience. Yet, as argued by Holmes (2004b), media institutions have always intended to create the impression of closeness to celebrities, to portray them as real people (Marshall, in Holmes 2004a). The public seeks to identify oneself with celebrities, thus looking for moments of truth (Hill, 2002). Through the employment of for instance close-up shots, media reply to the audiences quest for intimacy and authenticity (Holmes, 2004b). Also, this explains why celebrity magazines have always sought to provide insights into the ordinary lives of the extraordinary celebrities. Therefore, reality TV formats as Idol amplify a method that was already in use (Holmes, 2004b). The intensification of this method results in strong feelings of attachment to celebrities in reality TV shows. This potentially clarifies Katos response when asking how fans approach her in public: in a surprisingly familial way as if they have known me for years, using my first name and asking me very direct questions. Even though this was the case for Kato, not all finalists seem to be accosted in a similar manner. Manuel for instance, explained he is generally addressed in a humble, sometimes submissive style and ascribes this to his personal, maybe less approachable appearance on television. In this sense, even within this reality TV format, contestants who choose to not fully show their authentic selfs to the world, potentially follow less a celetoid than a rather traditional understanding of celebrity. Nonetheless, following the celetoid logic of celebrities, Rojek (2001: 77) describes the relationship between public and celebrities as an illusion of proximity and Gamson as an illusion of intimacy (1994: 44). Even if the format sincerely offers the audience the feeling of closeness to these celetoids, they only experience their mediated personality and even less do they enter their private group of elites. Moreover, as the season reaches the live shows, the emphasis moves from the ordinariness to the professionalism of the candidates who are now becoming restyled, put on a stage and turned into celebrities (Holmes, 2004b). Along with the screaming crowds, the flashing camera bulbs, the waving banners (Holmes, 2004a, 117), the created intimacy is now naturally replaced by the traditional boundary between audience and celebrity, which is one characterised by aura, distance and inaccessibility. As Cui and Lee (2010) and Holmes (2004a; 2004b) have concluded in their analysis of similar reality TV formats, the democratisation and intimacy linked to the show do not create a destruction but a temporary opening up of the symbolic boundary separating the two worlds during which the media institution did not relinquish control of the process (Cui and Lee, 2010: 269; Holmes, 2004a; 2004b). In this sense, Idol 2011 strongly follows the logic of Big Brother (Holmes, 2004a), Brithish Pop Idol (Holmes, 2004b) and Chinese Super Girls Voice (Cui and Lee, 2010). Subsequently, as indicated by Gamson, we may contend that even though the claim of reality TV as empowerment is valid to a certain extent a world where stardom is

10

33227990

MC71088A

more accessible since the inborn requirements are fewer (Gamson, 1994: 53), its enactment is highly restricted and controlled by the media institutions. On a broader ideological level, Rojek (2001) takes this outlook on contemporary symbolic power to an extremer level by criticising how, paradoxically, rather than reversing the power roles, reality TV formats reinforce the authority of privileged media-entities; described by Gamson as: The media, the industry, the star makers, able to make and control images, able to direct mass attention through marketing machinery. This new vision of authority, of systematic control and manipulation by the star system and its workers, deserves careful attention. (Gamson, 1994: 53) Rojek (2001: 33) continues this approach by stating the celetoid is the expression of an ideology of heroic individualism, upward mobility and choice in social conditions wherein standardization, monotony and routine prevail. Because notions of luck are inherent to a traditional celebrity culture supposedly based on raw talent and skills, it encourages the masses to adopt a fatalistic attitude to life, rather than to question the distributive logic of a system that allocates life chances so unequally (Rojek, 2001: 37). Celebrity construction through reality TV formats however claims to provide egalitarian opportunities to the mass public (formerly discussed as the claim to democratisation). The format follows the logic of the American dream where every individual may reach popular spheres of great fame through their own blood, sweat and tears (Gamson, 1994: 44). In Idol 2011 this is obviously portrayed within the character Devon, who, from the beginning, is ascribed to as the ordinary boy from a small city at the Belgian coast. Throughout the entire programming, the show re-emphasises his background and story whilst mentioning how his hard work is paying off. For post-structionalist Dyer (quoted in Holmes, 2004b: 156), this is the success myth of a society, sufficiently open for anyone to get to the top regardless of rank. Also Holmes recognises this as a myth and thus clarifies that in foregrounding the harsh nature of the audition process, it (melo) dramatizes how capitalism necessarily works for the benefit of the few at the expense of many (2004b, 158). The judges in the first selection rounds of Idol 2011 firmly demolish the dreams of many contestants as a serialized spectacle (Holmes, 2004b: 158), hence substantiating values related to social inequality. Also Couldry (2004; 2008) links reality TV and more specifically, Big Brother, to capitalist ideologies as individualism, governmentality and surveillance. Even if the connection is less obvious for the concept of Idol than for Big Brother, we can still find confirming examples

11

33227990

MC71088A

since [] all gamedocs are social processes that take real individuals and submit them to surveillance, analysis and selective display as a means to entertainment and enhance audience participation (Couldry, 2004: 97; original emphasis). Viewers of the episodes in Dominican Republic are subjected to the full-time surveillance of the final 25 contestants. The consequential projection of e.g. intimate conversations and people sleeping is provided to us without any reflexive distance (Couldry, 2008: 14). The neoliberal workplace and its unquestionable external authority are, as suggested by Couldry (2008: 14), increasingly validated through the notions of hypersurveillance in gamedocs as Big Brother and Idol. To conclude, we argue that, through its claims to offer the genuine and significant centre of societal values, reality TV formats such as Idol support beliefs in capitalist and individualist values as the basis of a taken-for-granted neoliberalist ideology that constructs our contemporary economy and society (Couldry, 2008; Rojek, 2001). We consider however, medias power not as a simple manipulative injection of an ideology, but rather as a process that validates ritual boundaries. Conclusion The growth of reality TV formats as Big Brother and Pop Idol has led to discussions on its effects on media power. Before this article analysed the connection between Idol 2011 and symbolic power, it defined the format and demonstrated the urge of moving beyond (neo-) Durkheimian approaches - focusing on collective effervescence and media as the centre of society to take notions of social conflict (Turner, 1974; Bourdieu, 1990), symbolic power (e.g. Couldry, 2003; Bell, 1992; Holmes, 2004a; 2004b) and ideology (e.g. Couldry, 2004; 2008; Rojek, 2001) into account. We have followed Couldrys logic on the myth of the mediated centre that states that medias claim is one based on assumptions to guarantee its own power. To maintain its power, media seek to naturalise the boundaries it creates between the mundane and the sacred. We have then moved on the focus of our essay: does the rise of reality TV demolish the boundaries to transform into a more egalitarian distribution of power where everyone can obtain the status of celebrity? We argued that, firstly, although it provides a formerly unseen platform to ordinary people seeking fame, Idol 2011 works firmly within a vast structure of selectivity where only a few individuals will achieve some respectable level of fame. Secondly, the insinuated empowerment of the audience through interactivity is to be perceived as counterfeit because of its highly restricted status. Thirdly, the strong feelings of familiarity among the public is essentially artificial since it is not bound to break existing boundaries and moreover, towards

12

33227990

MC71088A

the end of the show, the environment and public reinforce the original distance between both worlds. This has led us to conclude that the indicated opening of the boundary is spatially and temporarily limited by the media institution, VTM. Theorists as Rojek (2001) have argued that instead of reversing the power roles, reality TV intensifies the power of media institutions. Following mainly Rojek (2001), Holmes (2004b) and Couldry (2004; 2008), we have then linked this to broader criticism on the ideology these formats portray. Through the claim to present societys genuine central values as a higher truth, reality TV formats as Idol validate beliefs related to individualism, governmentality and surveillance.

13

33227990
Bibliography

MC71088A

Bell, C. (1992) Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990) Rites of Institution in Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity, chapter 4. Couldry, N. (2003) Media Rituals: A Critical Approach. London: Routledge. Couldry, N. (2004) Teaching Us to Fake It: The Ritualized Norms of Televisions Reality Genres in S. Murray and L. Ouellette (eds) Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture, New York: New York University Press. Couldry, N. (2008) Reality TV, or the Secret Theatre of Neoliberalism, Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 30, 3-13. Cui, L. and Lee, F. (2010) Becoming Extra-ordinary: Negotiation of media power in the case of Super Girls Voice in China, Popular Communication, 8(4), 256-272. Dayan, D. and Katz, E. (1992) Media Events: The Live Broadcasting of History. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. De Leur, T. (2011) I am not a drunk bar singer, Het Nieuwsblad. [online] Available at: http://www.nieuwsblad.be/article/detail.aspx?articleid=GJP35SLLO [accessed on April 8 2012]. Durkheim, E. (1995) [originally published 1912] The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Glencoe: Free Press. Gamson, J. (1994) Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America, Berkely: University of California Press. Hill, A. (2002) Big Brother: The Real Audience, Television and New Media 3 (3): 323-41. Holmes, S. (2004a) All Youve got to Worry About is the Task, Having a Cup of Tea and Doing a Bit of Sunbathing: Approaching Celebrity in Big Brother, in S. Holmes and D. Jermyn (eds) Understanding Reality Television, London: Routledge. Holmes, S. (2004b) Reality Goes Pop!: Reality TV, Popular Music, and Narratives of Stardom in Pop Idol, Television New Media, 5, 147-172. Idool 2011, 2 Februari 2011 20 May 2011, VTM. Kato, Skype interview with author, 19 March 2012. Kristof, E-mail interview with author, 23 March 2012. Kevin, E-mail interview with author, 23 March 2012.

14

33227990

MC71088A

Lifetoday (2011) How much does VTM earn from Idol 2011?, Lifetoday [online] Available at: http://lifetoday.be/2011/05/zo-veel-verdient-vtm-aan-idool-2011-de-bedragen/35SLLO [accessed on April 11 2012]. Manuel, Skype interview with author, 14 March 2012. VTM (2011), Idol 2011. [online] Available at: http://vtm.be/idool/programma [accessed on March 19 2012].

15