(L)eyes and (F)ears of the Government

The presentation on Henry VI was fantastic, but I’ll focus on one point in particular for the sake of brevity. Shakespeare’s plays were demonstrative of Elizabeth’s messages, from warning the populace against disobedience and rebellion to validating the legitimacy of her predecessors’ (and thus her own) reigns. When viewed in light of the more modern crime shows that the article touches on, it seems that both Shakespeare’s dramas and our contemporary criminal/forensic dramas perform the same function (i.e., legitimize the current government and encourage individuals to participate in and contribute to that government as a personal responsibility). Individual citizens are called to be accountable and hold each other accountable to the government, proffering any data (personal or otherwise) that would further the aims of the political leaders; early modern citizens were to be Elizabeth’s eyes and ears, while postmodern citizens are to willingly give their private data/DNA to government databases.

This use of popular media (Shakespeare’s plays and modern crime shows) to promote governmental desires whilst under the guise of entertainment reminded me of Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of the culture industry’s mass-produced art. The people who participate in said art are furthering it; the public “favors the system of the culture industry…[and are] a part of the system and not an excuse for it” (1112). In addition, Horkheimer and Adorno state that “All the other films and products of the entertainment industry which they have seen have taught them what to expect; they react automatically” (1114). The genre of criminal/forensic drama has established a code of reaction, a perspective through which such shows are viewed; mainly, they are lent an air of authority. The audience believes that that is how the technology actually operates, and “we are led to think that we can [understand it] through graphic illustrations” (Sugano 20). The TV dramas “teach” us, essentially, giving themselves a platform of authority from which to guide and train the viewing audience. Thus, as the presentation indicated, an individual is freer with his/her private data/DNA in regards to governmental procedures and authority. Moreover, just as Horkheimer and Adorno asserted that films reflect reality until the films become reality, so the crime dramas are (presumably) reflective of actual criminal investigation and, in the mind of the audience watching and “being educated” via the show, those procedures are reality.

The audience, because of the culture industry’s sway, participates in this perception of reality. The result for this propaganda is essentially what it was for Shakespeare’s own plays: the government’s message is conveyed to a receptive audience. The individual members of the viewing masses feel educated in the “truth” of reality as seen in the dramas, and so each is more willing to participate in the individual responsibilities demanded of him/her by the government. Providing personal data is normal according to the authoritative dramas on the television, and so that provision is not as likely to be seen as intrusive.

Essentially: both Shakespeare’s dramas and the current crime/forensic dramas convey messages that validate the government’s aims, and, as the audience is trapped in the culture industry, the media (and its message) becomes reality.