There are shows that I enjoy hate-watching with my friends at a sleepover and films that, in conversation, I’ve apologized for watching. There are also ones that have become a comfort to watch because they’re terrible. How is it that engaging with such objects that are categorized as “bad” has become a “thing?”
These “bad” cultural objects (whether shows or films), according to publications, are classified through a consensus regarding their moral, artistic, emotional, or political appropriateness. Additionally, despite being associated with adjectives like exaggerated and cheap, they are valued for their failure. Popular examples of these “trashy, bad, awful, and dreadful” media are films like Twilight, reality TV shows like Jersey Shore, and soap operas like Desperate housewives, etc.
More specifically, these “Badfilms” are appreciated through a “counter-aesthetic” known as paracinema. This “good taste of bad taste” requires the general criteria of judging films to be discarded which grants the object a re-evaluation. Moreover, paracinema is considered the binary opposite of Hollywood and, therefore, rejects its mainstream style. By self-othering (when the ‘powerless’ group creates boundaries), paracinematic audiences proudly stand as anti-Hollywood.
Nevertheless, when we engage with “bad” cultural objects, we are making a normative contradiction: as viewers, we cross the symbolic boundaries of culturally “good” versus “bad,” engage with, and even enjoy, objects belonging to the negative label. To understand this relationship between culture and consumption, we must include class.
Influential sociologists have highlighted this relationship between preferences and social hierarchies. According to Bourdieu, the dominant classes establish symbolic boundaries of “good” and “bad,” “high” and “low,” that reflect the social order; opera, for instance, would reflect the “highbrow” culture, and soap operas would reflect “lowbrow” culture. He elaborates that influential classes place more value on the highbrow and shun objects belonging to the lowbrow. However, later theories demonstrate that the elite classes still consume lowbrow objects for a more diverse cultural palette. Furthermore, according to Holt, along with differentiating what cultural objects are consumed, the elite classes also differentiate how they are consumed. In the context of television and film, there are various viewing styles that dominant classes use to maintain their social standing despite their “omnivorous” consumption of culture and, consequently, resolve their normative contradiction.
One of the viewing styles is a “camp sensibility,” wherein the cultural object is not looked down upon because it is “bad,” but is sincerely appreciated without mockery. Here, viewers empathize with the creator’s vision which enables them to re-evaluate and even celebrate the object because of its failure—camp, then, becomes a “tender feeling.”
On the other hand, interacting with “bad” television can give rise to negative emotions like guilt. People usually describe guilty pleasures as a thing they are not supposed to enjoy but they do. Firstly, this implies a clash between a positive and negative interaction; secondly, the feeling of guilt indicates a norm regarding the cultural objects one should and should not enjoy. Considering this, people are in between the symbolic boundaries and, as a result, do not resolve the normative contradiction. Surprisingly, guilt arises when we believe we have violated non-aesthetic norms (personal and, to a lesser extent, social norms) more so than aesthetic norms (e.g., we should enjoy an Oscar-winning film and not a corny, poorly directed romantic film).
Furthermore, personal and social norms dictate our viewing experience as they are more influential in defining us. We make personal norms for ourselves and they reflect the person that we want to be—our ideal self. For example, a male who aspires to be traditionally “manly” would not allow himself to cry or indulge in a rom-com film; doing so would oppose the identity he wishes to pursue. Social norms, on the other hand, are thought to be violated when we enjoy something we know others would condemn. For instance, enjoying a movie that is sexist or laughing at a racist joke. These non-aesthetic norms can evoke guilt in the viewer because we believe our enjoyment reveals more about ourselves than the object we are consuming. To cope with this guilt, viewers even convince themselves that they are viewing the object ironically.
Having said that, one of the most popular styles to watch “bad” television is “hate-watching” or consuming it ironically. Here, the viewer derives pleasure from mocking and ridiculing the object and its characters which ultimately makes them feel superior to it. By condemning the text, viewers maintain a “normative distance” which reinforces boundaries during consumption and, thus, resolves the normative contradiction. This is found in viewers watching reality TV like Jersey Shore (a similar show in India called Bigg Boss) as well wherein the show offers an “unregulated” fantasy life to the viewer who can escape into it while looking down upon it simultaneously. Additionally, consumers feel superior to other viewers too as they believe that they are not the target audience and can watch the show ironically. Interestingly, these viewers experience the third person effect conceitedly: they believe their consumption is ironic but may have been genuinely invested in the show at some point.
An aspect adding to the pleasure of hate-watching is that of “enunciative productivity” wherein viewers express their thoughts about the show to other viewers and thus engage in “fan talk” to make meaning of the object. Like Jerry Seinfeld said, “I can't go to a bad movie by myself. What, am I gonna make sarcastic remarks to strangers?”
Having said that, hate-watching is “inherently communal”—ironic viewing requires a like-minded community for context and, therefore, to exist. This social aspect of irony can even aid to cultivate interpersonal relationships; after all, as Henry Rollins would say, “nothing brings people together more than mutual hatred.”
In conclusion, studying the paradox of watching “bad” television reveals our current cultural preferences and ability to re-evaluate these objects on a personal and public level. Interestingly, producers have begun to use these viewing styles as a strategy to increase viewership; for instance, Karan Johar, the host of his show “Koffee with Karan,” calls it the audience’s favorite “guilty pleasure” and a “cringe binge.” Most importantly, the extent to which media and preferences are intertwined with our identity, norms, and social dynamics—both positively and negatively—makes research in this field quite compelling.
Paranshi Zaveri
