A Critique of Daytime Television Gameshows and the Celebration of Merchandise: The Price Is Right

Scholars interested in popular culture in general, and the culture of consumption in particular, should find Morris Holbrook's Daytime Television Shows and the Celebration of Merchandise: The Price Is Right of interest for several reasons.' For example, Holbrook rightly points to the paucity of research that exists with respect to this genre; argues convincingly that as artifacts of "low culture," game shows "offer a potentially advantageous vantage point commanding a view on the vistas of meaning available to the modem mind" (10); and provides a lucid discussion of the difference between "critical" (Marxist) interpretation and the interpretive framework known as "readerresponse" theory. Finally, he reminds us of the variety of game shows that exist in American culture, thus aiding those who may wish to study issues within and across these programs. Yet while Holbrook's book may help game shows earn the attention they richly deserve, his basic assumptions nevertheless impose unnecessary restrictions upon those interested in pursuing work in this area. To illustrate this point, I examine each of Holbrook's major assumptions, and in the process provide an overview of the book. I then suggest ways to build upon Holbrook's work, thus allowing for a broader research agenda than the one he proposes. Assumption #1. Game Shows Demand To Be Interpreted Within the Critical Paradigm In Chapter 3, Holbrook offers an excellent discussion of the difference between the tenets of critical/Marxist interpretation, and those of readerresponse theory. Holbrook explains that critical scholars seek out existing meaning in text, and that such meaning always reaffirms that those controlling the mass media use these media to further their own goals. However, scholars who employ a readerresponse interpretation do not seek out existing meaning, but rather explore the "active, negotiated reading" (21) of mass-mediated messages from the point of view of the audience. Holbrook argues that the Marxist/critical perspective is the only logical framework from which to approach the meaning of the game show. He writes: Sometimes a program or type of program appears that is so single-minded in its obeisance to the dominant ideology that its hegemonic support of the capitalist ethic and the ethos of consumption cannot reasonably be avoided by any plethora of potentially viable resistant readings (25). Or expressed in terminology relevant to the subject of game shows, Holbrook insists that researchers always choose the critical/Marxist perspective behind "Door Number 1," rather than other, and potentially equally fruitful, interpretive paradigms that lie behind "Door Number 2," "Door Number 3," and so on. Holbrook's assumption that prize-oriented game shows could only achieve large-scale success in a capitalist, materialistic society is no doubt correct. However, it is premature to dismiss reader-response theory-or for that matter, any other potentially viable interpretive framework-as inapplicable to the study of game shows. It simply appears shortsighted to ignore the meanings that viewers may generate and negotiate while watching these programs. Thus, before all interpretive frameworks besides critical theory are dismissed, studies that apply these frameworks while examining the meaning of game shows are surely warranted. Assumption #2: Game Shows Are the Vilest Types of Television Programs in Existence Throughout his book, Holbrook makes no attempt to hide his disdain of game shows. He describes such programs as "insidious greed-dominated threat[s] to all that is potentially beautiful...in Western civilization" (28), as the embodiment of "all that is worst, lowest and most despicable in America's version of the Consumer Culture" (32), and as a "televised stream of vacuity" (37). Furthermore, he describes game show viewers as relatively uneducated, and "from the lower socioeconomic echelons of society" (85). …