It seems like every day we’re told that the fruits of modernity are bad for us.
Sugary drinks cause obesity, cars pollute the atmosphere and TV makes us apathetic and dumb. Right?
Well, not quite. The first two are empirically true, but there is good reason to question the wisdom of the last. The idea that TV induces a comatose-like stupor—the stuff of mothers’ wisdom and Shel Silverstein poems—is just plain wrong.
That’s right. TV is good! This column is going to be about something positive for once.
TV may make people a bit plumper, more docile and less intellectually curious, but it just might be one of the most positive forces for social change in the 21st century. It has the potential to reduce birth rates in developing countries, make the world more united in response to global tragedy, and, most importantly, improve equality between the sexes.
That’s journalist Charles Kenny’s argument in the forthcoming issue of Foreign Policy magazine. Kenny asserts that Twitter may have made headlines by connecting protestors in Iran during the summer, but TV is the one technology that has been and will continue to be a positive and wide-reaching force for good in the coming years.
Around 90 percent of U.S. households have TVs. But Kenny points out that in the world’s least developed and most populous countries, like Nigeria and Bangladesh, only 30 percent do.
Those numbers are changing quickly, though, according to Kenny. A TV is one of the first things poor people acquire when they have the money to do so. In areas of the world where there are few books and no Internet, television has a high level of market penetration that makes it a potential vehicle for social change, particularly in hard-to-reach rural areas where many of the global poor live.
Part of TV’s transformative potential lies with the fact that it is hard for governments to control. And with the proliferation of cable and satellite options, it is increasingly difficult for many oppressive states to prevent foreign programming from entering their country. Foreign news, music videos and reality TV shows will get past even the most stringent censors.
But—you must be wondering—how can TV be a positive force for equality between the sexes, especially because the most-watched TV show of all time is “Baywatch?”
Although the show used poorly constructed story lines to feature the work of L.A.’s best plastic surgeons in as many beach-running scenes as possible, it still portrayed women who were in control of their lives, both personally and professionally. They were women who weren’t constrained by traditional gender roles.
TV’s liberating effect for women is clearer in other genres, particularly soap operas. In many developing countries, like Brazil and India, soaps have huge audiences and regularly portray women who have fewer children, are more assertive and more frequently exercise their legal rights to divorce.
The effect of soap operas is greatest in rural areas.
“The introduction of cable or satellite services in a village... goes along with higher girls’ school enrollment rates and increased female autonomy,” writes Kenny. “Within two years of getting cable or satellite, between 45 and 70 percent of the difference between urban and rural areas on these measures disappears.”
A 2001 article produced by the journal Transnational Broadcasting Studies, confirms Kenny’s argument with respect to the Arab world, finding that the spread of satellite television had contributed to a more positive portrayal of women in the region.
“Many satellite services, in contrast to national systems, portray Arab women as involved in economic, educational and industrial activities,” writes author Hussein Amin, TBS Senior Editor. “Rural women are shown as being responsible for the most labor-intensive agricultural tasks, rather than covering only their role in the household of food preparation and as sex symbols in television commercials and video clips.”
What is remarkable about the proliferation of television is that its cultural impact is often greatest in areas where its penetration is lowest. In Afghanistan this year, when a woman reached the final five of “Afghan Star,” the country’s take on “American Idol,” the director asserted it could “do more for women’s rights than all the millions of dollars we have spent on public service announcements for women’s rights on TV.”
If New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof is right and the critical issue of this century is the unequal status of women, then we better send TVs with our development aid and keep producing telenovelas.
Yousef AbuGharbieh is a Trinity senior. His column runs every other Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.