I don't think you exaggerated at all; you hit the nail on the head. I began to realize this a few yeara ago, sometime after a reconversion as well. Finally ejected "The Office" from my canon of culture, which I actually consider to have good character work and decent comedy.
To explore one of your points more, a sitcom psychologically acts like family time in the evening. We are watching and emoting with a group of people who do not exist, and have no intended end, only when they lose funding for the show.
This is different than a show like Breaking Bad (which I certainly have qualms with now as a faithful Catholic and haven't watched it since). But Breakimg Bad functions more like a Brothers Karamazov, it has an intended ending and it has something to say. In that sense it is actually art, whereas the Office, Friends, Parks and Rec, How I Met Your Mother, are all placeholders for a family and and a mental medication for social conditioning.
I love that explanation, and I'd say I completely agree. Sitcoms are designed to be superficial, whereas good shows (even if they are a bit too violent or not "virtuous" per se), have a deeper meaning and a quality that makes them way less damaging (for the most part)
Artist trying to say something whether bad or good are at least functioning as an artist rather than someone that makes work that doesn't seek to transform the soul but rather waste its time in meaningless banter. Meaningless banter is for your family and friends.
I would add that before the advent of sitcoms, an author would write a story that would have an ending. Even if Robin Hood or King Arthur appeared in more than one story, each story stood on its own with a beginning, middle and end. You'd hear or read a story, or see a play or pageant performed, then go on to do other things.
I remember the first time the absurdity of sitcoms really hit me.When I was in high school, my whole family watched MASH. One day, at around 17, I realized there were more episodes of MASH than there were days of the actual boots-on-the-ground Korean conflict.
I had never considered sitcoms in this light. Oddly enough, your comment reminded me of Scheherazade, who told stories every night to save her own life, as the Shah married virgin women only for the night (to have sex) and then killed them and repeated the process (according to one of the interpretations). Scheherazade told a story every night with a cliff-hanger. After 1,001 nights, he fell in love with her and became a better man.
Even old tales of shameful behavior had better morality.
Thanks. I have been unable to get likes to register, so consider this an upvote as well as a comment.
Cliffhangers were also used in serializations, such as short movies, Batman 2-part episodes and comic books. But even in these instances, as well as the 1001 Nights, it's not a story that continues endlessly like a sitcom, it's splitting a story up into 2 or more segments, but an ending was still expected and delivered.
For some reason, when I comment to you, the box and your entire comment is highlighted in red. Normally, it is green. Have you stated unpopular opinions often, I wonder?
Update. My husband said my math was incorrect. The Korean War active fighting lasted 3 years (I got points for knowing there was a cease fire before the current one). But we can put it like this - MASH lasted 11 years, more than 3 times longer than the 3 years, 1 month of active conflict.
I agree with the article's premise but wondering how much you can really expect from 20 minutes of programming and merch (commercials) being pushed on you the other 10 minutes. But then I think about The Cosby Show and realize it is possible to impact healthy values.
You make a good point. At one time, TV promoted healthy American values. Now, it does not. Because of this, when my kids were young, I would watch select 80s and 90s sitcoms with them that agreed with my core values. None of them watch TV at all as adults. But they do watch streaming content.
Yeah I would just say streaming content is the same kind of thing. It just has replaced tv as the avenue where we watch it.
I'm a filmmaker making pieces with Christian values. You can watch my latest film (27min) on substack. If you subscribe and DM me your email I'll comp it so you and your family can watch it for free:
I'll defend The Office, for a variety of reasons, but I do see where you're coming from. It's far better than sex-fueled narcissism like HIMYM, Big Bang Theory, or Friends, and it holds closer to the values of the Natural Law -- marriage is the goal, infidelity is wrong, working hard is worthwhile, families and children are most important -- but it's more of an "Everyman" kind of show than an actually moral one. At its best it promotes real truths; at its worst it engages in C.S. Lewis' version of flippancy, laughing at things that are supposed to be serious. Most of the time, though, it's just funny without being exploitative. I'd say if anyone is going to watch a sitcom made after 1975, this is the one to watch.
Pam is totally unfaithful to her fiance in the beginning. The gay character is carefully crafted to be palatable to conservatives of the 2000's. I'm sure it allows for sleeping around and sleeping and living together before marriage. Also feminism is exmeplified in the Pam/Beasley complex throughout the show. It all contributed to the degradation of my teenage mind. It has many great points, but in the Hollywood propoganda machine, they want to sell to every demographic and slowly slide them to more degeneracy. The Office fills the role of being the everyman show for Christians to wear away just the edge of their morals.
Pam was *very* faithful to Roy, even past the point where she should have been. He refused to set a date and treated her like garbage, and even though a wiser, better man whom she loved confessed his love for her, she *still* didn't cheat on Roy. She broke up with him, and was then alone for almost a year.
The gay character wasn't crafted to be palatable; that's what gay characters were like on every show across the board back then, if they had them at all, which obviously they shouldn't have, but the point I'm making is that Oscar wasn't some kind of attempt to trick conservatives into tolerating the show.
As for the sleeping around and such, for sure that's there and shouldn't be. But then it's literally almost everywhere that isn't a kids' show, going all the way back to the 1970s. You'd basically have to watch nothing, if you were trying to avoid the casual sex. Which, actually, I can get behind: it's fine to watch nothing but a handful of clean shows. But you can't say The Office is in some particularly bad category based on that; it's actually significantly tamer than in other shows.
Pam kissed Jim while she was engaged to the other guy who did suck sure. That's from my memory but haven't watched it in years.
Just because it was one character among other gay characters doesn't mean they weren'y crafted to be palatable.
Sure, it's not that The Office is particularly secular world view propoganda, it's that it was so popular and beloved that it gets a pass. I don't think it should get a pass.
I would agree that none of this should get a pass, but I think we can hold to the *general* principle that entertainment that excuses sin (not simply portrays, but excuses) ought not be made, and yet some people will be able to watch certain things that others can't without any real spiritual risk, because different people are tempted by different things.
There are some things I simply can't go near but that I know others enjoy; I can accept that. There are, though, definitely some things I think no one should be desensitized enough to enjoy; Friends is one of those things. You can't even edit it to make it worthwhile. It's broken from almost the first premise.
Yeah I agree with that. I don't think it's immoral to watch The Office. Friends is just bad art as well as heavily condoning fornication. I don't know what your beliefs are but as a Catholic I don't think The Office is conducive to building a soul in virtue and holiness though.
Long story short, I know there's not many CURRENT alternatives, but I am making my way through all older art that seems like it will be enriching for me. My goal is to make art for Christians NOW that is an alternative to the lukewarm or outright degenerate art and storytelling we have now. I no longer watch things like The Office any more because I think it's a waste of time on earth and there are better alternatives, and I want to make more alternatives. I think other people should do the same: seek out art they can put in the canon of who they are, because it enriches their soul and builds them into the people God designed them to be.
I haven't gone back and reviewed but I don't watch anything with nudity or heavy sexual content. I seem to remember there being some of that in Breaking Bad. Been 11-14 years since I watched it.
This comes mostly from my experience as a film director, coupled with learning how to value the dignity of each human being from the Catholic faith.
I really think it is a matter of perspective. When i watch friends i watch it to have a fun time watching people who behave like kids struggle to get their life together despite irony, bad luck, etc.
At no point am i trying to become like them.
The whole piece stems on the idea that you will imitate what you consume. But that is not true. You are affected by what you consume and it is about the perspective in which you are consuming that dictates the emotions and actions that follow.
If it were as simple as imitate what you consume then all detectives would be murderers. Consuming can definitely lower your sensitivity to such things and make you more likely to do such things, but it isn’t as cut and dry as the article makes it seem.
I think the premise of this article as a consequence calls for a society that hides itself from anything that isn’t rainbows, when in reality we are called to combat darkness and we’ll need to study it to do so.
Overall, I think the article touches on something real but mistakes the solution for total abstinence instead of perspective change or the state of your heart.
I think there's no reason why total abstinence shouldn't be practiced. There really isn't any value in those shows that you couldn't get somewhere else without the added problems mentioned. Of course you can watch them every once in a while, without any issue, but why? It's also not about "hiding", and I guarantee that those who are attached to these shows don't watch them to "study darkness so they can combat it". And even if you watch in moderation, be aware that you are getting used to those behaviors and desensitizing against them., however slightly and subconsciously.
(Btw totally agree that most people aren’t watching the show to combat darkness, im only speaking of my experience, not other people). I think it just boils down to a differing approach to life. For me complete abstinence from everything that contains a bad influence would be complete abstinence from everything as there isn’t a thing is this world that isn’t touched by the fallen spirit. This thinking (to me at least) seems to have no apparent limitations besides personal judgement (which is what you are criticizing as too “soft”), thus making the argument somewhat spin endlessly into more extreme views. Yes, the world is flawed, but i live in it and i need to be capable of (at the very least) watching friends without being possessed by a spirit of reckless behavior or any other fallen acts you are suggesting are more likely as a consequence of watching friends.
Again i think your argument has a good base, but it was expanded too broadly in two ways:
1. You assumed the show had the same effect on everyone as it had on you
2. You decided that the answer was in complete avoidance instead of framing and that everyone should follow that (which again if that is the lifestyle you want, it is your life. I just dont think it applies to everyone).
I think that is where it mainly fell apart, people are different and this article assumes we are all the same with the same goals and same methods for getting to them.
Btw im not trying to argue with you at all, just thought i’d share my perspective and learn more about what you meant as well.
“I guarantee that those who are attached to these shows don't watch them to "study darkness so they can combat it". “ I DO!!! But also to pick out the remnants of the good, the true, and the beautiful that have persisted despite our society’s rejection of Christ.
I like the piece, but I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Great sitcoms hold a mirror to society and show us what we are. It’s why Cheers still holds up 30 years after it debuted. Its characters, while flawed, are relatable.
Spencer Klavan just wrote a piece on The American Mind similar to this. He suggested that we have a culture run by dullards who watch plenty of shows, but lack judgement. We need to be able to watch a piece of media, pull out what is good or relatable, then toss out the rest.
“Do you think this is a coincidence? Or an intentional effort to subvert God’s design for what a family should be and for the preciousness of human life?”
I agree that sitcom culture is generally bad for society, and much of your critique is agreeable.
But you still have to be careful about what media you’re consuming. The idea that friends was created with an intention to “subvert god’s designs for…” (etc) is goofy. There’s a lot of conservative and fundamentalist cultural media out there which will creates seductive narratives about how anything “worldly” is the work of some satanic cabal.
Can you imagine the show runners of Friends saying “Yes, this ‘smelly cat’ song will definitely help us to subvert god’s plans, mwahahaha.”
Of course not. Friends is just a reflection of humans being humans in a, frankly, unhealthy culture.
If we become reactionary about it, we only make the problem worse.
Maybe not everything in the series is intentionally written to promote vice and unnatural ways, but don’t you think that it’s fishy how there’s not one example of a normal family in the 6 main characters?
I agree that maybe the overall “goal” isn’t to promote vice, but it’s very interesting to me that when it comes to family and sexual behavior, not one of the characters acts in a way that it’s virtuous. It would be more realistic if there was some variety there too, so it’s also not about being realistic. It’s very weird
I don’t think it was consciously intentional - it could have been unconsciously, but for some time I was very suspicious, and I agree with the reactivity comment. It inflames.
A good majority of modern entertainment is trash. News, TV series, movies, and music. Somewhat disappointed in myself for the years I wasted watching and listening in my youth. I’m just glad I never had an appetite for video games.
It’s unfortunate that so many people make these THINGS their lives. Has been isolating pulling away from them, but enlightening to see how uninteresting most people are which is a big reason I left social media slowly over the last few years and then completely a couple of months ago.
Spot on brother. Same here, although I was an avid gamer for years. It's crazy how many people literally idolize these shows and make them their entire lives. Same goes for sports, movie franchises, celebrities, etc.
Ok so its not just me. I clicked this thinking I’d get some leftist critique of Friends and sitcoms and instead found a bunch of braindead religious fundamentalists acting like the morality police.
There's an old Stewart Lee sketch where he mocks the idea that corporations have values to defend, aside from rampant capitalism. I like the idea, from this, that sitcoms should have a consistent moral and ethical framework
“Avoidance of Depth: Can’t handle silence, vulnerability, or serious topics without tension or laughter”
I see this on a daily basis. Even in my interactions with faithful Catholics who can’t allow a serious discussion to proceed without injecting a crude joke about it, or offer a sincere apology without making a sarcastic remark to break up the seriousness of the situation. It’s a defense against the uncomfortable reality that we all must confront from time to time but they don’t want to.
What's the evidence, though, that sitcoms actually cause or increase that sort of behavior?
I find it more believable that people are already like that, and are therefore drawn to shows like Friends.
The article argues things like "Friends convinced an entire generation they should never be alone", which seems like an absurd takeaway to me. I think people simply like having friends, and in the modern world often don't have enough close friends, and Friends is just a nice fantasy.
There's nothing wrong with portraying a heartfelt, closely knit group of friends.
Evidence that sitcoms cause behavior? How would I actually produce that evidence? Can such cause & effect be measured? “Dear survey participant, please indicate which TV show caused you to become a sexual degenerate?”
Do you think such surveys are producible? Look, I love evidence as much as anyone else, but how can such evidence be produced? Sometimes you have to trust in the common sense that what we consume has a subtle effect on us, which is not measurable scientifically but we know must exist.
Agree wholeheartedly. Additionally, Friends truly was the dumbest of the dumb. Around a month ago just to verify my 1990s opinion I watched 5 minutes of the first episode…and the idea in your piece, that these shows are damaging both individually and societally hit me hard…by sheer fact of presenting debauchery and stupidity as “this is normal.”
I struggle over Seinfeld, as the negative themes you explore are broadcast there, too..but it’s so funny and well crafted so often, that it’s probably even more dangerous than Friends?
I have not watched Seinfeld so no idea, really. I think some are better than others but in general it's just better not to become attached to any of them. Thank you for reading!!
I think the majority of the 6 main characters are / were very talented comedically. Friends had very little in the way of ethics though and was incredibly superficial in order to just wrap up each episode and keep the will they or won't they plot going. (We were on a break/ I wouldn't have written the list etc)
Seinfeld was interesting in that it was amoral in a lot of ways and most episodes are about the main characters getting their comeuppance in the end.
Seinfeld was interesting, it was purposefully terrible and none of the characters were role models.Rather the characters represented our worst selves. You wonder the deleterious effect it had on our culture.
In Seinfeld, the characters are weird and neurotic and everyone knows they are weird and neurotic. The (much maligned) final episode is about how shallow and terrible they all are.
What bothers me the most about sitcoms, is the fakeness of how relational problems resolve. The answer is almost always "we just needed to recognize how much we love each other." That isn't how the majority of relational problems in life are actually solved.
I just never found 'Friends' funny. 'Home Improvement' is funnier in it's early seasons as a 90's sitcom. Some episodes of the later are "meh". I never watched 'How I met your mother'.
The last time I saw an example of a functional family in a television show was The Walton's.
That show depicted the historical family, multigenerational structure, form and function.
The “Nuclear” family is an invention of the twentieth century. The Nuclear family myth, of isolated small structures consisting only of a single generation of adults/parents and immediate children depicts the dissolution of the ancient social order based upon the full, extended family, grand parents, aunts, uncles , cousins.
The extended traditional family provides a support system making the family independent. Which is to say, not dependent upon outside authority/ resources.
The isolated nuclear family is entirely dependent upon the government/authority system for child care, education of children, resources, security.
The Nuclear family was a step in the process of deconstructing the traditional family social order.
The next step was of course encouraging single parent households, which are entirely under the control of central authority, completely dependent upon the State. The welfare system was deliberately arranged so as to simultaneously remove the need and presence of the father in the family structure.
An often underappreciated notion. I never see this among the reasons for low birthrate. Sometimes I forget this too.
It was in my mind since we buried my grandma not long ago. It was a "great" occasion (as far as a burial can be "great"). I haven't met some of the people there for years, but it reminded me that in my childhood I was meeting them almost daily. Cousins, second cousins, grandmas brothers and so. Even when my parents were working, I always had family around. I have to say that my childhood was blessed like this.
And now what? A life of wandering and fleeting friendships far away from my own blood.
And what's worse, everything is telling us that this is the way to be. Be mobile, pay the state, pay the nanny because that's how the GDP will go up and the most value can be extracted out of you.
Thank you for making this point; it's a question I've been dealing with for several years, and I can now see the "nuclear family" trend going back several generations in my own lineage.
Great piece. Especially on how most of the media we expose ourselves to are Trojan horses to malignant ideas that infest and destroy us on the inside. Music perhaps has had a worse effect on the psyche of individuals than any other media.
How do you feel this argument would relate to shows where you are laughing at the characters. Where the cast are explicitly non-admirable people and the joke is that their faults are bad. Such as Arrested Development or Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia? No one in any of these shows is ever framed as someone worth emulating.
I haven’t watched Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but arrested development is so cartoonish and ridiculous that it enters in a different category, IMO. I thought about adding a short paragraph explaining how watching sitcoms is not that bad if you at least have the awareness to realize they’re basically fantasy stories and not at all reflecting of real life
I don't think you exaggerated at all; you hit the nail on the head. I began to realize this a few yeara ago, sometime after a reconversion as well. Finally ejected "The Office" from my canon of culture, which I actually consider to have good character work and decent comedy.
To explore one of your points more, a sitcom psychologically acts like family time in the evening. We are watching and emoting with a group of people who do not exist, and have no intended end, only when they lose funding for the show.
This is different than a show like Breaking Bad (which I certainly have qualms with now as a faithful Catholic and haven't watched it since). But Breakimg Bad functions more like a Brothers Karamazov, it has an intended ending and it has something to say. In that sense it is actually art, whereas the Office, Friends, Parks and Rec, How I Met Your Mother, are all placeholders for a family and and a mental medication for social conditioning.
I love that explanation, and I'd say I completely agree. Sitcoms are designed to be superficial, whereas good shows (even if they are a bit too violent or not "virtuous" per se), have a deeper meaning and a quality that makes them way less damaging (for the most part)
Artist trying to say something whether bad or good are at least functioning as an artist rather than someone that makes work that doesn't seek to transform the soul but rather waste its time in meaningless banter. Meaningless banter is for your family and friends.
I would add that before the advent of sitcoms, an author would write a story that would have an ending. Even if Robin Hood or King Arthur appeared in more than one story, each story stood on its own with a beginning, middle and end. You'd hear or read a story, or see a play or pageant performed, then go on to do other things.
I remember the first time the absurdity of sitcoms really hit me.When I was in high school, my whole family watched MASH. One day, at around 17, I realized there were more episodes of MASH than there were days of the actual boots-on-the-ground Korean conflict.
I had never considered sitcoms in this light. Oddly enough, your comment reminded me of Scheherazade, who told stories every night to save her own life, as the Shah married virgin women only for the night (to have sex) and then killed them and repeated the process (according to one of the interpretations). Scheherazade told a story every night with a cliff-hanger. After 1,001 nights, he fell in love with her and became a better man.
Even old tales of shameful behavior had better morality.
Thanks. I have been unable to get likes to register, so consider this an upvote as well as a comment.
Cliffhangers were also used in serializations, such as short movies, Batman 2-part episodes and comic books. But even in these instances, as well as the 1001 Nights, it's not a story that continues endlessly like a sitcom, it's splitting a story up into 2 or more segments, but an ending was still expected and delivered.
For some reason, when I comment to you, the box and your entire comment is highlighted in red. Normally, it is green. Have you stated unpopular opinions often, I wonder?
Completely agree. Well said.
Hilarious observation, they would continue the carnage of war just for a few laughs...
Update. My husband said my math was incorrect. The Korean War active fighting lasted 3 years (I got points for knowing there was a cease fire before the current one). But we can put it like this - MASH lasted 11 years, more than 3 times longer than the 3 years, 1 month of active conflict.
Still a hilarious observation and one I am going to tuck away for reference later. Might use it in my own writing on cultural commentary.
Thanks. You’re so right.
I agree with the article's premise but wondering how much you can really expect from 20 minutes of programming and merch (commercials) being pushed on you the other 10 minutes. But then I think about The Cosby Show and realize it is possible to impact healthy values.
I look at it more as "culture". Is this my culture and does it hold my values? Or is it slowly shaping me into something else?
You make a good point. At one time, TV promoted healthy American values. Now, it does not. Because of this, when my kids were young, I would watch select 80s and 90s sitcoms with them that agreed with my core values. None of them watch TV at all as adults. But they do watch streaming content.
Yeah I would just say streaming content is the same kind of thing. It just has replaced tv as the avenue where we watch it.
I'm a filmmaker making pieces with Christian values. You can watch my latest film (27min) on substack. If you subscribe and DM me your email I'll comp it so you and your family can watch it for free:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jhguy/p/bloom-c1e?r=h5khh&utm_medium=ios
Please excuse my typos.
I discovered that if you click on the 3 grey dots on the upper right, opposite your Name, you can go back and edit your post.
Oh fantastic thank you.
I'll defend The Office, for a variety of reasons, but I do see where you're coming from. It's far better than sex-fueled narcissism like HIMYM, Big Bang Theory, or Friends, and it holds closer to the values of the Natural Law -- marriage is the goal, infidelity is wrong, working hard is worthwhile, families and children are most important -- but it's more of an "Everyman" kind of show than an actually moral one. At its best it promotes real truths; at its worst it engages in C.S. Lewis' version of flippancy, laughing at things that are supposed to be serious. Most of the time, though, it's just funny without being exploitative. I'd say if anyone is going to watch a sitcom made after 1975, this is the one to watch.
Pam is totally unfaithful to her fiance in the beginning. The gay character is carefully crafted to be palatable to conservatives of the 2000's. I'm sure it allows for sleeping around and sleeping and living together before marriage. Also feminism is exmeplified in the Pam/Beasley complex throughout the show. It all contributed to the degradation of my teenage mind. It has many great points, but in the Hollywood propoganda machine, they want to sell to every demographic and slowly slide them to more degeneracy. The Office fills the role of being the everyman show for Christians to wear away just the edge of their morals.
Pam was *very* faithful to Roy, even past the point where she should have been. He refused to set a date and treated her like garbage, and even though a wiser, better man whom she loved confessed his love for her, she *still* didn't cheat on Roy. She broke up with him, and was then alone for almost a year.
The gay character wasn't crafted to be palatable; that's what gay characters were like on every show across the board back then, if they had them at all, which obviously they shouldn't have, but the point I'm making is that Oscar wasn't some kind of attempt to trick conservatives into tolerating the show.
As for the sleeping around and such, for sure that's there and shouldn't be. But then it's literally almost everywhere that isn't a kids' show, going all the way back to the 1970s. You'd basically have to watch nothing, if you were trying to avoid the casual sex. Which, actually, I can get behind: it's fine to watch nothing but a handful of clean shows. But you can't say The Office is in some particularly bad category based on that; it's actually significantly tamer than in other shows.
Pam kissed Jim while she was engaged to the other guy who did suck sure. That's from my memory but haven't watched it in years.
Just because it was one character among other gay characters doesn't mean they weren'y crafted to be palatable.
Sure, it's not that The Office is particularly secular world view propoganda, it's that it was so popular and beloved that it gets a pass. I don't think it should get a pass.
I would agree that none of this should get a pass, but I think we can hold to the *general* principle that entertainment that excuses sin (not simply portrays, but excuses) ought not be made, and yet some people will be able to watch certain things that others can't without any real spiritual risk, because different people are tempted by different things.
There are some things I simply can't go near but that I know others enjoy; I can accept that. There are, though, definitely some things I think no one should be desensitized enough to enjoy; Friends is one of those things. You can't even edit it to make it worthwhile. It's broken from almost the first premise.
Yeah I agree with that. I don't think it's immoral to watch The Office. Friends is just bad art as well as heavily condoning fornication. I don't know what your beliefs are but as a Catholic I don't think The Office is conducive to building a soul in virtue and holiness though.
Long story short, I know there's not many CURRENT alternatives, but I am making my way through all older art that seems like it will be enriching for me. My goal is to make art for Christians NOW that is an alternative to the lukewarm or outright degenerate art and storytelling we have now. I no longer watch things like The Office any more because I think it's a waste of time on earth and there are better alternatives, and I want to make more alternatives. I think other people should do the same: seek out art they can put in the canon of who they are, because it enriches their soul and builds them into the people God designed them to be.
Why can't your watch Breaking Bad as a faithful Catholic?
I haven't gone back and reviewed but I don't watch anything with nudity or heavy sexual content. I seem to remember there being some of that in Breaking Bad. Been 11-14 years since I watched it.
This comes mostly from my experience as a film director, coupled with learning how to value the dignity of each human being from the Catholic faith.
If there was no depiction of sex, would you watch it?
And no nudity yes.
I really think it is a matter of perspective. When i watch friends i watch it to have a fun time watching people who behave like kids struggle to get their life together despite irony, bad luck, etc.
At no point am i trying to become like them.
The whole piece stems on the idea that you will imitate what you consume. But that is not true. You are affected by what you consume and it is about the perspective in which you are consuming that dictates the emotions and actions that follow.
If it were as simple as imitate what you consume then all detectives would be murderers. Consuming can definitely lower your sensitivity to such things and make you more likely to do such things, but it isn’t as cut and dry as the article makes it seem.
I think the premise of this article as a consequence calls for a society that hides itself from anything that isn’t rainbows, when in reality we are called to combat darkness and we’ll need to study it to do so.
Overall, I think the article touches on something real but mistakes the solution for total abstinence instead of perspective change or the state of your heart.
I think there's no reason why total abstinence shouldn't be practiced. There really isn't any value in those shows that you couldn't get somewhere else without the added problems mentioned. Of course you can watch them every once in a while, without any issue, but why? It's also not about "hiding", and I guarantee that those who are attached to these shows don't watch them to "study darkness so they can combat it". And even if you watch in moderation, be aware that you are getting used to those behaviors and desensitizing against them., however slightly and subconsciously.
(Btw totally agree that most people aren’t watching the show to combat darkness, im only speaking of my experience, not other people). I think it just boils down to a differing approach to life. For me complete abstinence from everything that contains a bad influence would be complete abstinence from everything as there isn’t a thing is this world that isn’t touched by the fallen spirit. This thinking (to me at least) seems to have no apparent limitations besides personal judgement (which is what you are criticizing as too “soft”), thus making the argument somewhat spin endlessly into more extreme views. Yes, the world is flawed, but i live in it and i need to be capable of (at the very least) watching friends without being possessed by a spirit of reckless behavior or any other fallen acts you are suggesting are more likely as a consequence of watching friends.
Again i think your argument has a good base, but it was expanded too broadly in two ways:
1. You assumed the show had the same effect on everyone as it had on you
2. You decided that the answer was in complete avoidance instead of framing and that everyone should follow that (which again if that is the lifestyle you want, it is your life. I just dont think it applies to everyone).
I think that is where it mainly fell apart, people are different and this article assumes we are all the same with the same goals and same methods for getting to them.
Btw im not trying to argue with you at all, just thought i’d share my perspective and learn more about what you meant as well.
“I guarantee that those who are attached to these shows don't watch them to "study darkness so they can combat it". “ I DO!!! But also to pick out the remnants of the good, the true, and the beautiful that have persisted despite our society’s rejection of Christ.
Absolutely correct 👏
I like the piece, but I think you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Great sitcoms hold a mirror to society and show us what we are. It’s why Cheers still holds up 30 years after it debuted. Its characters, while flawed, are relatable.
Spencer Klavan just wrote a piece on The American Mind similar to this. He suggested that we have a culture run by dullards who watch plenty of shows, but lack judgement. We need to be able to watch a piece of media, pull out what is good or relatable, then toss out the rest.
Not that I could stand to watch it, but it didn't seem much a reflection of our society whatsoever.
And antisemitism is just a way for you to blame someone else for your sad existence.
And Jew hatred is the hallmark of a pathetic, small minded person
That’s a whole lotta words to say “I blame others for my personal failings.”
Word salad. Have you taken your meds lil bro?
“Do you think this is a coincidence? Or an intentional effort to subvert God’s design for what a family should be and for the preciousness of human life?”
I agree that sitcom culture is generally bad for society, and much of your critique is agreeable.
But you still have to be careful about what media you’re consuming. The idea that friends was created with an intention to “subvert god’s designs for…” (etc) is goofy. There’s a lot of conservative and fundamentalist cultural media out there which will creates seductive narratives about how anything “worldly” is the work of some satanic cabal.
Can you imagine the show runners of Friends saying “Yes, this ‘smelly cat’ song will definitely help us to subvert god’s plans, mwahahaha.”
Of course not. Friends is just a reflection of humans being humans in a, frankly, unhealthy culture.
If we become reactionary about it, we only make the problem worse.
Maybe not everything in the series is intentionally written to promote vice and unnatural ways, but don’t you think that it’s fishy how there’s not one example of a normal family in the 6 main characters?
I agree that maybe the overall “goal” isn’t to promote vice, but it’s very interesting to me that when it comes to family and sexual behavior, not one of the characters acts in a way that it’s virtuous. It would be more realistic if there was some variety there too, so it’s also not about being realistic. It’s very weird
Why would it be fishy when the entire premise of the goofy sitcom is "6 single adults and their hijinx in dating, etc"?
Yeah but the point of these shows is to get laughs. Normalcy wouldn't be as funny.
“Normal” is perspective and people outside of what you deem “normal” would find your shortsightedness on what family “should” look like offensive.
I don’t think it was consciously intentional - it could have been unconsciously, but for some time I was very suspicious, and I agree with the reactivity comment. It inflames.
A good majority of modern entertainment is trash. News, TV series, movies, and music. Somewhat disappointed in myself for the years I wasted watching and listening in my youth. I’m just glad I never had an appetite for video games.
It’s unfortunate that so many people make these THINGS their lives. Has been isolating pulling away from them, but enlightening to see how uninteresting most people are which is a big reason I left social media slowly over the last few years and then completely a couple of months ago.
Spot on brother. Same here, although I was an avid gamer for years. It's crazy how many people literally idolize these shows and make them their entire lives. Same goes for sports, movie franchises, celebrities, etc.
How am I getting puritans in my feed in the year two thousand and twenty five Jesus Christ
Ok so its not just me. I clicked this thinking I’d get some leftist critique of Friends and sitcoms and instead found a bunch of braindead religious fundamentalists acting like the morality police.
I’m surprised these people are able to use Substack from their candlelit hovels. Would’ve thought their bonnets would block the screen
There's an old Stewart Lee sketch where he mocks the idea that corporations have values to defend, aside from rampant capitalism. I like the idea, from this, that sitcoms should have a consistent moral and ethical framework
lol
May His name be praised now and forever.
Btw I’m Catholic and I don’t agree with this article’s conclusion
“Avoidance of Depth: Can’t handle silence, vulnerability, or serious topics without tension or laughter”
I see this on a daily basis. Even in my interactions with faithful Catholics who can’t allow a serious discussion to proceed without injecting a crude joke about it, or offer a sincere apology without making a sarcastic remark to break up the seriousness of the situation. It’s a defense against the uncomfortable reality that we all must confront from time to time but they don’t want to.
100%, it's once again avoiding to grow up and face the realities of life.
What's the evidence, though, that sitcoms actually cause or increase that sort of behavior?
I find it more believable that people are already like that, and are therefore drawn to shows like Friends.
The article argues things like "Friends convinced an entire generation they should never be alone", which seems like an absurd takeaway to me. I think people simply like having friends, and in the modern world often don't have enough close friends, and Friends is just a nice fantasy.
There's nothing wrong with portraying a heartfelt, closely knit group of friends.
Evidence that sitcoms cause behavior? How would I actually produce that evidence? Can such cause & effect be measured? “Dear survey participant, please indicate which TV show caused you to become a sexual degenerate?”
Do you think such surveys are producible? Look, I love evidence as much as anyone else, but how can such evidence be produced? Sometimes you have to trust in the common sense that what we consume has a subtle effect on us, which is not measurable scientifically but we know must exist.
Then why do you believe in this causal direction rather than the opposite one I described?
It simply follows common sense that people will be influenced by the content they are consuming.
"Entertainment is harmless" is one of the "Five Lies of the Century" according to the book of the same name.
This was a VERY strong piece, and a great subject
Thank you brother, really appreciate the kind words!
Agree wholeheartedly. Additionally, Friends truly was the dumbest of the dumb. Around a month ago just to verify my 1990s opinion I watched 5 minutes of the first episode…and the idea in your piece, that these shows are damaging both individually and societally hit me hard…by sheer fact of presenting debauchery and stupidity as “this is normal.”
I struggle over Seinfeld, as the negative themes you explore are broadcast there, too..but it’s so funny and well crafted so often, that it’s probably even more dangerous than Friends?
Thank you for this article!
I have not watched Seinfeld so no idea, really. I think some are better than others but in general it's just better not to become attached to any of them. Thank you for reading!!
agreed!
I think the majority of the 6 main characters are / were very talented comedically. Friends had very little in the way of ethics though and was incredibly superficial in order to just wrap up each episode and keep the will they or won't they plot going. (We were on a break/ I wouldn't have written the list etc)
Seinfeld was interesting in that it was amoral in a lot of ways and most episodes are about the main characters getting their comeuppance in the end.
Seinfeld was interesting, it was purposefully terrible and none of the characters were role models.Rather the characters represented our worst selves. You wonder the deleterious effect it had on our culture.
Seinfeld is borderline a morality tale the characters are punished for wickedness all the time and wind up in jail.
In Seinfeld, the characters are weird and neurotic and everyone knows they are weird and neurotic. The (much maligned) final episode is about how shallow and terrible they all are.
What bothers me the most about sitcoms, is the fakeness of how relational problems resolve. The answer is almost always "we just needed to recognize how much we love each other." That isn't how the majority of relational problems in life are actually solved.
Absolutely, in general, how they show conflict resolution is terrible
I just never found 'Friends' funny. 'Home Improvement' is funnier in it's early seasons as a 90's sitcom. Some episodes of the later are "meh". I never watched 'How I met your mother'.
How I met Your Mother is probably the worst of the lot
Did you watch "Two and a Half Men"? 🤢
No, I have not. Just the ads and they didn't seem funny either.
Call yourself blessed. I wanted to bleach my eyeballs and get a labotomy after….
Ohhhhh gosh! That's like when I lost my appetite when The Big Bang Theory was on at my workplace. Now, game shows are on.
That's as funny as a sitcom joke! Perfect timing.
Thanks for the tip.
The last time I saw an example of a functional family in a television show was The Walton's.
That show depicted the historical family, multigenerational structure, form and function.
The “Nuclear” family is an invention of the twentieth century. The Nuclear family myth, of isolated small structures consisting only of a single generation of adults/parents and immediate children depicts the dissolution of the ancient social order based upon the full, extended family, grand parents, aunts, uncles , cousins.
The extended traditional family provides a support system making the family independent. Which is to say, not dependent upon outside authority/ resources.
The isolated nuclear family is entirely dependent upon the government/authority system for child care, education of children, resources, security.
The Nuclear family was a step in the process of deconstructing the traditional family social order.
The next step was of course encouraging single parent households, which are entirely under the control of central authority, completely dependent upon the State. The welfare system was deliberately arranged so as to simultaneously remove the need and presence of the father in the family structure.
An often underappreciated notion. I never see this among the reasons for low birthrate. Sometimes I forget this too.
It was in my mind since we buried my grandma not long ago. It was a "great" occasion (as far as a burial can be "great"). I haven't met some of the people there for years, but it reminded me that in my childhood I was meeting them almost daily. Cousins, second cousins, grandmas brothers and so. Even when my parents were working, I always had family around. I have to say that my childhood was blessed like this.
And now what? A life of wandering and fleeting friendships far away from my own blood.
And what's worse, everything is telling us that this is the way to be. Be mobile, pay the state, pay the nanny because that's how the GDP will go up and the most value can be extracted out of you.
Thank you for making this point; it's a question I've been dealing with for several years, and I can now see the "nuclear family" trend going back several generations in my own lineage.
Great piece. Especially on how most of the media we expose ourselves to are Trojan horses to malignant ideas that infest and destroy us on the inside. Music perhaps has had a worse effect on the psyche of individuals than any other media.
You know what’s worse? Watching left wing media (Netflix, Disney etc) today.
What's worse about it?
How do you feel this argument would relate to shows where you are laughing at the characters. Where the cast are explicitly non-admirable people and the joke is that their faults are bad. Such as Arrested Development or Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia? No one in any of these shows is ever framed as someone worth emulating.
I haven’t watched Always Sunny in Philadelphia, but arrested development is so cartoonish and ridiculous that it enters in a different category, IMO. I thought about adding a short paragraph explaining how watching sitcoms is not that bad if you at least have the awareness to realize they’re basically fantasy stories and not at all reflecting of real life