Core Response #2 (Devin Glenn)

In “Television as a Cultural Forum,” Newcomb and Hirsch argue that television shows should be seen not as pushing fixed political agendas upon their viewers, but as opening a discussion space, or forum, in which “a multiplicity of meanings rather than a monolithic dominant point of view” can be present (564). This acknowledgement stood out to me in our readings as it emphasizes that both the modes and motivations of production and consumption are essential to consider when reading into the political possibilities of TV programs. Eileen does an excellent job exploring the ways in which “Betty, Girl Engineer” could be read alternatively using queer and feminist frameworks. In this response, I too would like to build upon Newcomb and Hirsch’s fundamental thesis by providing yet another example of an episode from the early 1950s which is commonly viewed as reaffirming conservative values, but also has the potential to contain “a multiplicity of meanings” depending on how it is analyzed (564).

            During an episode of I Love Lucy entitled “Job Switching,” Lucy, Ethel, and their spouses decide to exchange places according to their traditional gender roles—the husbands act as housewives for a day while the wives go out in search of work. This deliberate flip-flop of the social order enforced through western patriarchal ideologies reflects what Bakhtin describes as the carnivalesque; a second life set apart from the rigid rules and strict caste system of everyday life. But because all those involved in this experiment end up failing miserably at their respective tasks and return to their assigned roles at the end of the episode, many (including Bakhtin himself) might argue that the characters in I Love Lucy ultimately remain unchanged. It is hard to deny that this is problematic when viewed as a cautionary tale attempting to reinforce the status quo.

However, the interesting thing to note about this episode is that Lucy and Ethel do not actually take over Ricky and Fred’s jobs. Instead, they work at a candy factory on an assembly line. In a comedic scene which draws inspiration from Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, Lucy and Ethel cannot keep up with a mechanic conveyor belt which only ever increases in speed. Perhaps, then, when looked at through more of a Marxist lens, this episode could be read as a rejection of capitalistic structures which prioritize consumerism and effectiveness over workers themselves. Had Lucy and Ethel been able to take over from Ricky and Fred as a music leader and landlord, the outcome may very well have been different. And even if it weren’t, shouldn’t the failures of all four characters be attributed less to their gender and more to the fact that it was only their first days on their new jobs? Once again, this could be read more as a critique of the system itself which forces individuals to become “experts” within a small sector of society, denying them access to other forms of labor and knowledge.

And now I’m not quite sure how to wrap up. I suppose I’ll end by saying that this act of analyzing cultural products using alternative contextual modes allows such works to be viewed not necessarily as didactic decrees, but as open forums.