Abby Corbett - Core Response #1

In Modleski’s chapter she discusses the idea of flow in relation to the work of women in the home, especially as it relates to programming such as soap operas, quiz shows, and commercials. She quotes Raymond Williams who said “The fact of flow, defines the central television experience.” Modleski says that women’s work in the home is another kind of flow, but one that is often driven by distraction and the juggling of multiple tasks and television mirrors this interruption of flow through it’s programming. She says, “I would argue that the flow of daytime television reinforces the very principle of interruptibility crucial to the proper functioning of women in the home…moreover…her duties are split among a variety of domestic and familial tasks, and her television programs keep her from desiring a focused existence by involving her in the pleasures of a fragmented life.” Modleski says that critiques of television often accused its viewers of indulging in escapism.  Her argument, however, is that rather than distracting women from their “real situation” in the home, the distracted mind is crucial to efficient functioning in this “real situation.”

 

I’m curious how this paradox of the fragmented flow can be applied to television as it exists today (TiVo, uninterrupted streaming, multiple screens in the home, screens in our pockets) and how it can be extended and applied to the rise of the internet and the proliferation of social media platforms. Particularly in relation to social media, how does our exposure to constant fragmented flows train us to function in the ideological hegemony that Gitlin speaks of? In what ways is this training of sorts disguised as entertainment, or escapism, or “a desire to stay in the know” (in the case of using social media as a news platform)? And how does the increased privatization of our screens and increasingly personalized flows contribute to the drive to find pleasure in commodity capitalism?