Core Response #2 - Sebastian

     Both Tania Modleski’s “The Rhythms of Reception” and Lynn Spigel’s “Installing the Television Set” address the intertwined relationship between domestic routines and the presence of television. This is explicitly the focus of Modleski’s essay, where she writes, “[T]elevision and its so-called distractions, along with the particular forms they take, are intimately bound up with women’s work” (74). She notes that the “rhythm” of daytime television both mirrored and structured the daytime work of housewives. Meanwhile, Spigel’s essay addresses ways in which the television set becomes integrated in the physical domestic space. In the 1950s, many prospective buyers worried that the television set would be a “technological eyesore” (25). As such, women’s magazines “sought ways to ‘master’ the machine which, at their most extreme, meant the literal camouflage of the set” (25). There were also complementary concerns that the television set would “master” its owners by acting as “an instrument of surveillance” (27). When read together, Modleski’s and Spigel’s essay suggest a spectrum regarding spectators’ relationships with their television sets in the 1950s – either they controlled it, or it controlled them; either they dictated how it was integrated in their routines, or it dictated their routines. 

    With that framework in mind, how has our relationship with television evolved since the 1950s? After years of familiarity and experience, do we today have even greater “mastery” over the television set? Or has television sunken its claws even deeper into our psyches? I suspect the answer to those questions depends on how exactly one defines “television.” For one thing, television is no longer confined to the television set. If we have the technological and financial means, we can watch our favorite shows on any number of devices (computers, phones, tablets, etc.) This would suggest that the physical device (i.e., the television set itself) no longer anchors us in the way it once might have. Likewise, we can now often skip commercials and chose to start, stop, and pause whenever we want. In other words, we no longer have to watch television on one designated device, in one designated place, at one designated time. If we so desire, we can watch 10 minutes of a Netflix show during breakfast, pause, go about our day, watch another 15 minutes during dinner, pause, do the dishes, and then watch the rest of the episode during the evening. This formulation would indicate a degree of autonomy on our part as spectators.  

            Yet it is entirely possibly that this is a far too narrow understanding of what “television” really is in our contemporary moment. As we discussed during the first day of class, YouTube, TikTok, and even social media might all qualify as “television.” If for nothing else, they are just as much a source of our news and entertainment today as television was several decades ago. And much has been written about the addictive qualities and data mining practices of YouTube and social media. One could simply read these practices as extensions of the fears that Spigel describes in her essay – the fear that new forms of media will dictate our lives and act as a surveillance apparatus. This possibility entirely reframes the notion of spectatorial autonomy. While we may have some limited choice in terms of when, where, and how we watch television, this is insignificant relative to the fact that we are continuously compelled to do so. In other words, we might decide what we watch on Netflix, but the compulsive design of Netflix ensures that we keep watching in the first place. 

    As someone who engages with television in a rather haphazard way, I don’t feel entirely qualified to determine which of these models is more accurate. I suspect that both possess some truth, and that individual variation is an important factor to consider. That said, I would like to contemplate one final point. In “The Rhythms of Reception,” Modleski writes, “Here I must take issue with Raymond Williams, who rejects the notion that television programs and commercials may be seen as interruptions” (71). Modleski contends that daytime television is structurally centered on habituating housewives to the constant interruptions and disruptions they will experience during their daily routines. With that in mind, how is television viewership today gendered? Do similar dynamics exist to the ones described in Modleski’s essay? How have those dynamics evolved? In what way do certain structures in television, YouTube, or social media target and interact with audiences in specifically gendered ways?