Everything Has a Price Commodification of Everyday Life

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades

Master of Arts (MA)

an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

vorgelegt von

Lisa PRETZLER

am Institut für Amerikanistik

Begutachter: Rieser, Klaus, Ao.Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr.phil.

Graz, 2018 Declaration of Authorship

I hereby declare that the thesis submitted is my own unaided work. All direct or indirect sources used are acknowledged as references.

I am aware that the thesis in digital form can be examined for the use of unauthor- ized aid and in order to determine whether the thesis as a whole or parts incorporated in it may be deemed as pla- giarism. For the comparison of my work with existing sources I agree that it shall be entered in a database where it shall also remain after examination, to enable comparison with future theses submitted. Further rights of reproduction and usage, however, are not granted here.

This paper was not previously presented to another examination board and has not been published.

July 2018 Signed...... Date...... Table of Contents 1. Introduction...... 1 2. The Age of Capitalism and Globalization: Commodification in Visual Culture ...... 3 2.1. American Capitalism...... 3 2.2. Consequences of Capital and Ownership...... 5 2.3. Globalization and Commodification...... 7 2.4. Consumerism and the Role of Television...... 8 2.5. A Pedagogical Outlook...... 10 2.6. Alienation of Society...... 11 2.7. A Shift in Values: Money Governs the World...... 15 3. The Influence of TV Shows' Depictions of Everyday Life on Society's Mode of Thinking...... 18 3.1. Product Placement ...... 24 3.1.1. The Consequences of Product Placement and Commercial Breaks...... 27 4. Analysis: Selected US Contemporary TV Shows...... 29 4.1. Commodification of Women...... 29 4.1.1. Commodification of Women in How I Met Your Mother...... 31 4.1.2. Commodification of Women in The Big Bang Theory...... 35 4.2. Commodification of Relationships...... 38 4.2.1. Commodification of Relationships in How I Met Your Mother...... 38 4.2.2. Commodification of Relationships in The Big Bang Theory...... 40 5. Conclusion...... 45 6. Bibliography...... 49 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

1. Introduction The modern world is a world of images and visual media occupy a rather important position in humans' understanding of their lives. Additionally, the economic system of capitalism al- ters humans' behavior towards themselves and others. The question is, how are capitalism and visual media intertwined and how do they affect humans' everyday lives? Already Aristoteles, an ancient Greek philosopher, raised this issue and discusses the problematic relationship between money and value. SpiegelOnline published chapters from the philosopher's book about politics, which was written in the time between 800 BC and 600 AC. Aristoteles discusses consequences of trade and economy and points out that produced commodities are used in two different ways: first, the intrinsic use of the object itself and second, the extrinsic use that evolves out of trade businesses – owning and selling commodities for the purpose of earning money. In addition, the philosopher introduces the idea of 'natural' and 'unnatural' economies: unnatural trade forms include economies that solely operate as trade markets, meaning that produced commodities are not of intrinsic use but only gain value in trading processes. He concludes that money, as trading object, emerged out of the trading business, since something was needed, without intrinsic value, to enable trade on a larger scale. Aristoteles clarifies that a 'real' relationship between money and value is non-existent: money can be traded for anything and can be interpreted as something that is naturally without value. Therefore, society only subscribes valuable attributes to money. Being rich though, as in owning a lot of money, can still leave you poor: Aristoteles narrates the story of Midas: due to his insatiability for wealth, everything he touches turns into gold. As a result, Midas starves although he is wealthy in the sense of owning money. Money itself though does not provide richness since it is not of intrinsic value, but can only be traded for something that can make wealthy, as long as people subscribe money this unlimited power. This constitutes the unsolvable issue that comes along with trading businesses and money as exchange commodity. Therefore, he says, pure wealth cannot be defined by possessing money. Aristoteles' scripture clarifies the problematic aspects concerning the value of money and its role in economy in quite an early stage of economic progress. Nevertheless, new market forms, the emergence of capitalism as market ideology and accompanying industrialization and globalization processes resulted in a shift of ideology to an even higher degree. These developments are reflected in a shift in values that enables the empowerment of money, determining every part of everyday life. This paper is centered around the idea that TV shows have an immense influence in bringing capitalistic thinking into humans' homes and minds. This influence is elaborated on two dif- 1 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA ferent levels: first, how do TV shows depict women and relationships and second, which role does capitalism play in the course of it? The analysis of two popular US TV shows, namely How I Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory, serves as platform to discuss these questions, and highlights the ideological shift in values. There are two reasons for the selection of these particular series: first, their popularity and second, their subtle representation of commodification is of interest to investigate which controversial trends are discussed and which are simply accepted as social facts. The analysis focuses on the commodification of women and relationships in the afore-mentioned TV shows. These are rather personal human spheres and emphasizes that visual media already succeeded in bringing capitalistic thinking into people's homes, governing the most personal realms of everyday life. When depicting daily routines in the series, comedy plays a significant role. Comedy illustrates a mixture of 'real life' experiences and comedic representations of such and therefore allows to look at a 'representation' of the 'real' world. A world is created that reflects human's perception of values, social reality, social issues and ideologies. Is this representation solely humorous, or is there more to it? Do producers operate against capitalistic mechanisms, or do they simply reproduce these ideologies for comedic effect? The selected TV shows offer a visual medium to examine these issues and in addition, to illustrate how they perceivably influence the social, cultural and economic 'reality' of the 'real' world. The main focus lies on the investigation of global processes, affecting everyone who has access to TV sitcoms, via the internet or TV. Which role do globalization and industrialization play in visual culture, and how is society affected by the principles of capital and ownership? How did American capitalism develop and how did the economic system of capitalism result in an alienation of society, as well as a shift in values, with regard to Aristoteles' theories? This master thesis not only takes academic work, such as Karl Marx' theories, De Beauvoir's interpretations of the role of women, cultural studies theories, studies and academic research papers into account, but also fandom pages, articles and statistics, to enable a profound discussion of current capitalistic and consumeristic ideologies and their infiltration into personal human spheres. Especially theories by Sturken and Cartwright in Practices of Looking (2018) serve as tool to examine the theme of commodification in a culture that is surrounded by visuality. They elaborate on a wide array of visual media and explain how images are utilized to express ourselves and to interact with the world. Additionally, they foreground the significance of visual media in the modern world and show how visuality influences humans' lives; therefore, their concepts assist in discussing the influence of visual culture on society.

2 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

2. The Age of Capitalism and Globalization: Commodification in Visual Culture

For the purpose of understanding how TV shows successfully influence society in its mode of thinking, it is of importance to discuss developments such as the emergence of capitalism, also with regard to globalization and industrialization processes, and its interconnection with visual culture. Sturken and Cartwright offer an interesting overview of the age of capitalism and the commodification in visual culture. In Practices of Looking they claim:

“The term modernity refers to the historical period during which a broad set of economic and social structures took shape, including industrialization, the economic class system, and capitalist bureaucracy. This period saw ideological shifts such as the ascendance of secular humanism and scientific reasoning, the safeguarding of individualism, and the cultivation of economic growth through investment in science and technology“ (2018a: 89).

Through the introduction of the printing press in the 1440s, „the wider distribution of texts, promoting literacy and authorship outside of religion and monarchies“ enabled a shift in ideology, which „generated political conflict over the reproduction and dissemination of knowledge to the broad populace“ (2018a: 90). In this time period, an „intensive focus on the idea of human progress, the harnessing of scientific knowledge to liberal humanists notions of individual rights, the linking of technological advancement to industrial urbanization, including the rise of industrial commodity culture and mass media forms such as the newspaper, the telegraph, and the photographic reproduction“ occurred (90).

2.1. American Capitalism When discussing capitalism, it is essential to consider global differences in capitalistic developments. Since chapter 4. Analysis: Selected US Contemporary TV Shows is confronted with US series, this section discusses American capitalism in greater depth, for the purpose of better understanding why capitalism plays quite an important role in US society. This section also includes references to various newspapers and online articles, as it is particularly interesting to take various opinions on American capitalism into account. In “A Short History of American Capitalism”, which appeared online on NewHistory; Wein- berg suggests that capitalism strongly hit US society and was able to fully express itself without control. He states that

“American capitalists had almost a free hand in gaining control of a country unimaginably rich in natural resources. In straight-out contests of strength with both organized and unorganized workers American capitalists usually triumphed. State violence, judge-made law, compliant legislatures, and administrative procedures were arrayed effectively against challenges from below”. 3 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

The author claims that capitalism is an economic system with the following characteristics: “(1) private ownership of the means of production, (2) a social class structure of private owners and free wage-earners, which is organized to facilitate expanding accumulation of profit by private owners; and (3) the production of commodities for sale”. These characteristics suggest that there is a strong focus on capital, value, profit and commodification of goods for sale. It is stated that this form of capitalism only evolved around 1900 in the USA. The author divides the development into three parts and suggests that in the last phase, “economic development attains an extraordinary pace as industry and, increasingly, agriculture becomes subject to capitalist forces”. In addition, a dichotomy between a class of free and unfree elements rapidly evolved out of the growing capitalistic mechanisms. Karl Marx mostly dealt with Eng- lish capitalism which has to be distinguished from American capitalism, since the English economic system evolved out of feudalism, whereas the USA “was the first modern capitalist country to develop from a colonial status, from a slave base, and with an enormous natural-re- source endowment. Above all, American capitalists utilized more violence in the class strug- gle than their confrères in any other capitalist country”. Thus, English society already inher- ited a sort of ancient class system, while the class system in America developed in accordance with capitalistic mechanisms. It all started with the eviction of the Indian people in North America. Their land was taken over and inhabited by the new settlers, while it turned out to be the place of “the principal means of production”, in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Thus, Weinberg suggests, this fact helped to construct the ideology that “constituted the basis of America's claim to unparalleled economic sufficiency and generosity”. Wealth was never equally distributed and marginalized groups benefitted the least because those in power had better access to economic affairs and wealth. Additionally, he mentions that “Two years before the Declaration of Independence, wealth and income were concentrated in extreme fashion. This pattern continued in every seaboard town. As settlement moved westward, frontier communities repeated the pattern, whether in Paducah, Kentucky or Milwaukee, Wisconsin”. Around 1900, the USA was perceived as “the most favorite home for great wealth”. Weinberg cites Ignazio Silone´s Bread and Wine, in which one character plainly summarizes capitalistic mechanisms, saying “"The government has two arms of varying length. The long one is for taking—it reaches everywhere. The short one is for giving—it reaches only to those nearest." This citation defines the capitalistic government that has been ruling over the USA ever since, suggesting that “It was most generous to those nearest when it came to distributing land and other valuable properties. And it has not hesitated to reach out to collect from the poorest person sufficient funds to extend capitalist rule”. From the early exploitation of slavery, as the

4 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA foundation of wealth in the USA, developing into an exploitation of workers and the poor, en- riching the rich further and not only polarizing US society but promoting and supporting inequality in the country. The rise of capitalism gave way to new forms of production and distribution and at its core, it focuses on profit and the production of commodified goods. But where does commodification start and where does it end? Is it only apparent in the sales of goods or does it also include values that originally were perceived as unsellable? In “Capitalism in the U.S.”, which appeared online on Boundless; it is claimed that

“The United States is often seen as having a democratic capitalist political-e- conomic system. Democratic capitalism, also known as capitalist democracy, is a political, economic, and social system and ideology based on a tripartite arrangement of a market-based economy that is based predominantly on a democratic polity. The three pillars include economic incentives through free markets, fiscal responsibility, and a liberal moral-cultural system, which encourages pluralism. In the United States, both the Democratic and Republican Parties subscribe to this […] democratic-republican philosophy. Most liberals and conservatives generally support some form of democratic capitalism in their economic practices. The ideology of "democratic capitalism" has been in existence since medieval times. It is based firmly on the principles of liberalism, which include liberty and equality. Some of its earliest promoters include many of the American founding fathers and subsequent Jeffersonians”. This suggests that the market operates along democratic principles; nevertheless, the economic and social reality in contemporary US society suggests something different. It can hardly be understand as a liberal moral-cultural system since exploitation, inequality and an unequal distribution of wealth haven been inherent in US economic policies throughout history. In the sense of capitalism, as already mentioned, not only objects can be turned into a profitable commodity, but also humans are rethought and reconstructed as having some sort of value that can be exchanged for capital. In her book Das Andere Geschlecht (The Second Sex) Simone De Beauvoir (2017), a French philosopher, explains that when ownership came into play, humans, and in this case women, were first thought of as being objects that can be owned and bought. The principles of ownership and the power of money resulted in a patriarchal society that suffocated the freedom of women. Female members of society were not allowed to work, thus had no access to gaining power in society, as they could not earn any money. Therefore, men were able to literally own women in legal terms. This legislation was prevalent for a long time, and highlights the problems of ownership and capitalism.

2.2. Consequences of Capital and Ownership

Capitalism strengthens concepts such as capital and ownership in humans' minds and commodification constitutes one of the logical consequences of the domination of these concepts. Therefore, before discussing commodification in visual culture, it is helpful to comprehend 5 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA how commodification processes developed as a result of capital and ownership. Felluga (2015) explains that commodification can be interpreted as subordinating private and public spheres “to the logic of capitalism”:

“In this logic, such things as friendship, knowledge, women, etc. are understood only in terms of their monetary value. In this way, they are no longer treated as things with intrinsic worth but as commodities. (They are valued, that is, only extrin- sically in terms of money.) By this logic, a factory worker can be reconceptualized not as a human being with specific needs that, as humans, we are obliged to provide but as a mere wage debit in a businessman's ledger“.

This is one of the key issues that are analyzed in Chapter three: How do capitalistic mechanisms influence the depiction of everyday life? How do they inform our perception of the world and ourselves? In Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (1990) Marx is dealing with the physical side of commodities, which constitutes the intrinsic value of these objects, and associates this with “the use-value”. But an object can only be turned into a commodity, when someone produces use-values for others, thus “social use-values” (Marx 1990: 131). He con- trasts use-value with exchange-value, in other words, the “natural form and value form” (1990: 138) and explains that “The physical body of the commodity is made up of 1) the material provided by nature (e.g. linen, gold, etc.); and 2) the labor expended to create it” (1990: 133). Felluga adds that “a commodity can refer to tangible things as well as more ephemeral products (e.g. a lecture). What matters is that something can be exchanged for the thing”. Marx also introduced the concept of commodity fetishism: "The mysterious character of the commodity-form consists therefore simply in the fact that the commodity reflects the social characteristics of men's own labor as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves, as the socio-natural properties of these things" (1990: 164-165). Therefore, commodities are treated as having value inhered in the products themselves, rather than considering the labor force that was needed in order to facilitate the production of these goods. Marx explains that this happens due to the fact that the real workers remain invisible to the public's eye. Marx mostly dealt with English capitalism, but also found similarities to the USA. The US social order developed out of democratic capitalism, determined by capital and economic principles, which started with the division of labor. According to Felluga, money serves “as the universal equivalent in capitalist society”, thus, people do not see the hard work that is hidden behind the physical manifestations of capitalism: commodities and highlights that

“The relation of labor-power to the actual labor of a private individual is analo- gous” to “the relation of exchange-value to use-value. The system of labor-power relies on the belief that the laborer chooses freely to enter into a contractual relationship with an employer, who purchases that worker's labor power as a commodity and then 6 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

owns the goods produced by that worker. However, the worker is exploited insofar as he has no other option: the capitalist owns all the means of production”.

In this process, the capitalists want to “achieve the highest possible rate of surplus-value”, de- pending on to which extent work force is exploited. “The capitalist is thus driven by profit- making in and of itself, without regard to use-value or the suffering of the laborer”. Use-value and exchange-value define the value of commodities. In the market, exchange-value seems to be dominant: two different objects can be exchanged because they are both compared to a third party that operates as “universal equivalent”, “a function that is eventually taken over by money”. The universal role of money as exchange-medium thus succeeds in hiding the real equivalent to the commodities: “[...] money in fact hides the real equivalent behind the exchange: labor”.

2.3. Globalization and Commodification Globalization plays a significant role in the afore-mentioned processes; therefore, this section discusses its interconnection with the commodification of everyday life. In “The Commodification of Human Life: Human Trafficking in the Age of Globalization” (2010) Liu argues that besides aesthetic elements, such as art, natural landscapes, water; humans themselves are also commodified. People are seen as a commodity, being highly profitable, reusable, re-sellable; thus seen as a sort of value that can be exchanged for something else, such as money. The author mentions that the key to contemporary capitalism is its multinational aspects and the influence of multinational corporations that are working globally, on the number of objects that are turned into commodities. Liu claims that globalization further empowered capitalistic mechanisms, and widened the range of products, useable as commodities in the market. Globalization also influences the production and distribution of goods and has an immense impact on as to how social reality develops. In “Migration in an Intercon- nected World: New Direction for Action”, which appeared online on October 5, 2005 from the Global Commission on International Migration; it is stated that “In many industrialized states, the increasing competitiveness of the global economy has placed new pressures on both private and public sector employers to minimize costs and to maximize the use of cheap and flexible labor […]”. The increasing competitiveness in the market minimizes the value of human beings, since they are only viewed as 'valuable' when they can serve as some form of exchange value. The profit driven economic system that is inherent in contemporary capitalism slowly establishes a shift in the perception of value, establishing an ideology that does not focus on the well-being of all human beings, but concentrates on values as exchange values. In “RSA Animate: Crises of Capitalism”, a video clip that appeared online on October 06, 7 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

2010, on Youtube; Harvey explains that the biggest problem of capitalistic economies is that it cannot solve any of these problems, but only shifts the issues globally from one place to another. The major problem, Harvey argues, is the “internal contradictions of capitalist accumulation”. Capitalism promotes and supports greed and profit oriented thinking and the exploitation of natural resources and human beings, for the sake of profit, is a logical result. The capitalistic economy has been economic reality for many decades now and seems to have become a part of society's everyday life. This market form is not only applied when it comes to the exchange of natural goods, but also humans themselves. In these cases, the public character of the capitalistic economy seems to be determining the private sphere, including incentives and objectives of education, care-taking or the upbringing of children. In this sense, private aspects of life are commodified and influenced by market forces and ideologies. In “Education for Sale! The Commodification of Everything?” (2004) Ball argues that “defending some boundaries between public and private – in other words to ask whether there are places where the market form is just inappropriate” are significant for the attaining of human rights and democratic principles. The author continues with “Marx' notion of commodity fetishism” and highlights the implications of markets and competition in a moral sense. What is morally ac- ceptable? Should the commodification for the sake of profit stretch into the private or public sphere? Which incentives and ideologies should determine our market and social life? And who has to be protected from market and capitalistic forces? It comes down to the problems that arise when economic forms of capital influence and conceal underlying social relations. Ball states that

“Commodification encompasses both an attention to the naturalisation of changes which are taking place in the everyday life of our production and consumption activities and more general processes of capitalism and its inherent crises and instabilities which underpin the search for new markets, new products and thus new sources of profit. In fetishising commodities, we are denying the primacy of human relationships in the production of value, in effect erasing the social” (2004: 4)

2.4. Consumerism and the Role of Television Capitalism is strongly interconnected with consumer behavior, enhancing further economic growth. This chapter clarifies the role of television in consumerism and why especially US citizens are affected by consumerist ideologies. In the course of the nineteenth century, consuming developed into a kind of leisure activity throughout the USA and Europe. Through shopping malls, “strolling among and looking at products was as much a part of the shopping experience as the actual purchase of goods” (Sturken & Cartwright 2018b: 266). The increase of inhabitants living in urban settings

8 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century advanced even higher confrontation with consumerism and capitalism. The city is stuffed with consuming possibilities – encouraging the individual to buy into capitalistic strategies. In order to enable further economic progress, people need to consume – otherwise, current economic tactics could not be successful. Sturken and Cartwright claim that “The modern rise of urban populations and their increased mobility have contributed to the rise of consumerism” (2018b: 268). More mobility, which was also enabled by the invention of the automobile, widened “the field of the gaze” of the individual citizen. Suddenly, even rural places were provided with advertisements: “rural populations eagerly anticipated the delivery of each season's mail-order catalogues” (2018b: 269). Advertisements increasingly gained value and importance, trying to reach every single person, also in global terms. The great influence that this whole development had and has on US society is made even clearer:

“In the postwar period, consumers' embrace of the automobile as a symbol of individualism, freedom, and conspicuous consumption was part of a broader social engagement with consumption as a kind of civic duty. In the United States, consumerism was increasingly associated with citizenship, with the idea that to be a good citizen was to be a consumer who helped keep the job market strong by keeping the demand for new products strong” (2018b: 270).

This perception strengthened the connection between social and cultural belonging – yet, even determines the value of citizens: “[...] citizens understand consumerism to be the primary av- enue to achieve freedom, democracy, and equality” (2018b: 270). Sturken and Cartwright explain that

“Over a very short period of history, consumerism came to be understood as essential to the economic stability of many societies and has ultimately come to be understood as a primary activity of citizenship and belonging […] Today, consumption continues to be thought of as a practice of leisure and pleasure and as a form of therapy. It is commonly understood that commodities fulfill our emotional needs. The paradox is that those needs are never truly fulfilled, as the forces of the market encourage us, sometimes through activating our insecurities, into wanting different and more commodities – the newest, the latest, and the best” (2018b: 272). In order to support worldwide growth in consumerism, “In the 1950s, television became a key force of many parts of the world for the expansion of advertising into the home” (2018b: 271). Especially when TV was privately owned, advertisements would operate at their best:

“Television followed radio, on which the “soap opera” emerged in the 1930s, subsidized by a product promotional spots (for soap, of course). In the United States, advertisement spots paid for by manufactures became the television industry's primary revenue stream through its first decades, and advertising continues to be a major source of revenue for the industry”.

9 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

The necessity to fight over consumer attention started to gain importance in economy, since commercial spots time became increasingly expensive. This undermines the pressing need for more awareness about TV shows, and the surrounding advertisement. “This demand was in- tense for ads that could hold the gaze and leave an impression, and demand increased for pro- fessionals specializing in televisual advertising design and market research” (Sturken & Cartwright 2018b: 271). Television could and still can gain worldwide fame for its program and is often not taken seriously enough. So-called cheap entertainment, might not encourage cultural progress, but in the end it is reality and needs further examination. Probably, since it is not always taken seriously especially, for example, televisual representations in soap operas, sitcoms or reality shows, it should not be forgotten that product placement and commercial breaks that embed TV shows, are highly influential, with regard to the individual, social and cultural reality of the audience.

2.5. A Pedagogical Outlook

From a pedagogical point of view, mechanisms of capitalism and consumerism even fulfill another function. The market teaches citizens and directs people into certain directions. This though does not operate along current pedagogical theories of understanding and comforting the student, but drives people towards a direction of lack of self-consciousness and insecurities. Sturken and Cartwright famously address Jacques Lacan again, stating that he “suggests that desire and “lack” are central motivating forces in our lives” (2018b: 272). The economy, and thus also the state, is likely to dispel any maturity and reason in society in the course of it. The most important aspect about these strategies though is, that they implement a feeling of missing in humans' minds. This desire can never be fulfilled because it seems to not rely on true desires that directly rose form the heart of the individual. In that sense, mass production cannot operate as source of fulfillment, but speaks to other parts of our personality. Owning money is equating with being valuable – this leaves the people easily manipulated by superficial standards. The alienation form oneself is hardly noticeable when growing up in a society that operates along consumerism and capitalism. Historical developments often got two faces to them: capitalistic thinking enabled progress and instabilities at the same time. Delusion and alienation are two of the results of this process, leaving the people unable to practice reason, but relying on the market to determine what makes them feel complete. It is not necessarily important to argue about the importance of reason, but to famously refer to Plato: “A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers”. The market relies on money, and therefore, as Aristoteles already criticized, relies on empty values. These images, used in producing these desires, further strengthen the idea that one's life is going to improve when consuming: 10 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

“The values of individuality, self-fulfillment, and choice undergird the messages of advertising and consumerism” (Sturken & Cartwright 2018b: 274). The procedure built a society that “saw purchases of mass-produced goods as legitimately and necessarily motivated by desire for status and symbolic cultural capital, and not just by need or for investment” (275). The re- liance on superficial values in order to establish self-esteem in oneself is quite paradoxical. Advertisements are crucial aspects of life and determine, how we see ourselves and others, as well as what we long for and dream of. These thoughts and theories are crucial to be aware of when discussing the influence of television on society. Consumerism and Capitalism provide the framework for humans' 'reality' – images, symbols and representations are embedded in every sphere of everyday life: from the newest catalogues to commercial breaks.

2.6. Alienation of Society The influence of these afore-mentioned developments resulted in an alienation of society, thus this chapter clarifies, how and why society is alienated, and from what. Sturken and Cartwright (2018a) explain that global empires and national mass media evolved out of the aforementioned time period, also justifying colonialism. Industrial capitalism was informed by the Enlightenment period, foregrounding rationality and science, as means of gaining more power and knowledge. Through industrialization, work force was needed in factories:

„As Marxist historians of consumption have noted, wage labor produced alienation in workers for whom activity was reduced to repetitive machine-like tasks. Once on the market, products took on meaning through a commodity culture in which factory workers were further alienated, insofar as they paradoxically could neither afford nor rightfully claim as their own creation the mass-manufactured goods they made. Workers sought escape in a new leisure culture that included movie theaters designed for the mass consumption of cheap amusement“ (92).

These circumstances resulted in an alienation of society: the dominance of religion was broken, and thus industrial mechanisms gained greater power over every single realm of everyday life. In order to facilitate a happy life after all, people focused on their private spheres and leisure activities. Although life might be hard, some relief can be found in cheap entertainment, such as TV shows and other mass media products. In this time period though, all these developments, which, in fact, impacted the social reality permanently, were seen as progress, not destruction. The impact was only noticed later on: Sturken and Cartwright state that Karl Marx, German philosopher and economist, early “criticized industrial capitalism for its economic exploitation and social alienation of workers, but he did not predict the impact industrial development would have on the larger ecosystem” (2018a: 93). A new form of urban ex- 11 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA perience developed, which included living in crowded places, moving to urban settings and sacrificing everything in the name of progress. Some critics noticed cities' transitions “to a culture of consumption and leisure” and the scholars claim that “the changing design of the modern city was integral to the emergence of a society organized around consumption” (2018a: 93). The interconnection between capitalism and consumption is highlighted, since capitalism and mass-manufactured goods cannot be distributed without inciting desire for these goods. Therefore, “glass-covered pedestrian streets and windowed storefronts” (2018a: 93) are crucial steps to evoke this kind of desire - a desire that leads to more consumption since it always foregrounds what is not owned yet, but can be owned by spending money. The interconnectedness between living happily and owning commodities is therefore implemented into humans' minds and subtly directs humans' daily lives in favor of market progress. Whereas earlier, many people worked in agricultural settings, producing the products which were needed for living; the new urban individual was defined by working hard in factories, and finding relief in the consumption of industrial goods. The industrial cities changed “[...] Skyscrapers rose up amidst opulent shopping promenades and department stores like the crown jewels of industrial wealth”, before industrial work was “offshored to special industrial zones in the Global South” (2018a: 95). Everything operated along market ideologies, trying to enable unlimited progress. This unlimited progress though, did and does not benefit the workers themselves, but only big industrial companies. The human individual does not seem to represent the focus of industrial progress, but money does. Despite of ecological input, industrial mechanisms seem to alienate and destroy the human psyche and mass consumption only distracts from large-scale problems, reaching from the exploitation of humans to environmental issues. In “Gross Inequality All Too “Normal” Under Capitalism”, which appeared online on telesur, on July 27, 2014; Street says that “You don’t have to be a Marxist or other kind of anti-capitalist to understand that capitalism is all about socioeconomic disparity“, which is why the question arises, whether capitalism and consumer culture can benefit all people – or always only enriches the rich. The impact on the human psyche is of special interest for this paper. How is this alienation of society depicted in TV shows? Should it raise awareness about the issues of consumption and capitalistic society, or does it only reproduce these mechanisms, in order to distract from the issues that are present today? Sturken and Cartwright explain that

“Margaret Bourke-White, the prominent American photographer whose career bridged modernist fine art and commercial mass culture”, reveals “how worker bodies become enmeshed with the machines they operate and the equipment they manu- facture. These worker machine compositions can be interpreted through Marx's no-

12 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

tion of alienation. They foreshadow the late twentieth-century human-technology hy- brid dubbed the cyborg to describe a condition of being that is both biological and mechanical, with the two inextricably entwined” (2018a: 97). The interconnectedness between visuality, representation and mass consumption influences working conditions and thus, the human psyche. The authors point at René Descartes, who highlights the importance of visuality and representation and suggests that we can only understand life “representing it in ideas, not by experiencing it empirically through our senses” (Sturken & Cartwright 2018a: 101). Descartes' ideas informed a concept of the subject, which constituted “the basis of the Enlightenment notion of the individual as a conscious, self-knowing, unified entity with rights and freedom to think and act autonomously” (2018a: 101). Other scientists, such as Sigmund Freud, as the writers foreground, challenged these ideas because he claims that humans cannot be fully in charge of their actions, since unrecognized desires actually direct humans' behavior. Freud was not the only one though, “Karl Marx also questioned the human subject's autonomy, showing how the individual is rendered a mere cog in capitalism” (2018a: 101). Industrial and economic forces limit humans' free will and subtly try and eventually succeed in directing human actions in order to facilitate further economic progress, regardless of who is victimized in the process. The writers furthermore explain that, what the French philosopher Michel Foucault already noticed in the 1970s and 1980s, it is crucial to understand the role of the individual in modern times:

“Systems of discourse and classification are epistemic: they are period-specific knowledge systems. As they are integral to political formations and power struggles, they continually change. The autonomous human subject is neither a fiction nor a universal truth, but is produced in an epistemic context in which a particular formu- lation of what it means to be human emerges as dominant in a given time and place” (2018a: 101-102).

Sturken and Cartwright including other scientists, such as Jacques Lacan, a psychoanalyst, claim that a human's identity cannot be seen as one single entity, but changes throughout his/her life, and can only be constituted by self-recognition and misrecognition. The human psyche can never be whole since it is dependent on encounters with others, in order to determine something like a 'self'. “The subject is, in effect, constituted and reconstituted, made over and over in life, as it looks to others or to objects for self-definition and affirmation of autonomy. […] There is no past or potential unitary self, no experience that will make the subject complete – we will always feel incomplete and thus we are motivated to seek out others” (2018a: 102). Thus, the perception of the self and individuality are determined by comparing ourselves to others. In the time of capitalism and consumerism, humans have to go in line with current trends, as well as find their individuality in the confusing sphere of consumer 13 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA goods. Mass media and industry promote individuality, as in locating oneself in buying goods, equipping oneself with the latest fashion in order to be unique, although it only goes affirm with prominent ideologies about the subject's role in modern society. An alienation seems to be inevitable, since humans have to look at others, outside of themselves, in order to determine who they are. This is, thus, always subject to change. Capitalism leads people to believe in consumerism, to use consumerism in order to perceive oneself as complete and happy. Since progress and monetary wealth are the focus of capitalistic mechanisms, humans try to complete themselves along economic ideologies, which are determined by money. Money though, does not have any intrinsic value – humans seem to seek for completion in a realm of values that cannot serve as platform to actually negotiate the self. Despite the problem of finding oneself in this confusing world, the process of looking also involves other components. “Fundamental to all these definitions of the human subject is the idea that looking involves more than one agent, even when one looks at oneself [...] concepts of spectatorship and the gaze were introduced to film theory in the late twentieth century to capture both the specific experience of looking in a given field of activity and the contextual framework of that looking – the history and context that are outside the activity itself but inform it” (2018a: 103 - 104). These concepts include market ideologies and mechanisms that influence the perception of the world through media. It demonstrates how power relations determine how humans see and understand the world, but also themselves, which also illustrates the power of mass media on the human psyche. An alienation of the human psyche seems to be inevitable because humans seek for happiness in economy and capital. In “Terms Used by Marxism” (2015) Felluga explains that alienation, in Marxist theory, can be defined as

“The process whereby the worker is made to feel foreign to the products of his/her own labor. The creation of commodities need not lead to alienation and can, indeed, be highly satisfying: one pours one's subjectivity into an object and one can even gain enjoyment from the fact that another in turn gains enjoyment from our craft. In capitalism, the worker is exploited insofar as he does not work to create a product that he then sells to a real person; instead, the proletariat works in order to live, in order to obtain the very means of life, which he can only achieve by selling his labor to a capitalist for a wage (as if his labor were itself a property that can be bought and sold). The worker is alienated from his/her product precisely because s/he no longer owns that product, which now belongs to the capitalist who has purchased the proletariat's labor-power in exchange for exclusive ownership over the proletariat's products and all profit accrued by the sale of those products“.

Felluga claims that capital can be described as “Buying in order to sell at a higher price. […] One sells in order to buy something else of use to the consumer; Marx writes this formula as

14 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

C-M-C (or Commodity-Money-Commodity). Money allows this formula to be transformed, however: now, one can buy in order to sell (at a higher price): M-C-M, which becomes for Marx the general formula for capital”. The valorization of value thus only occurs “within this constantly renewed movement”.

2.7. A Shift in Values: Money Governs the World As already foregrounded, the progress of capitalism leads to a shift in values; therefore, this chapter answers the question as to how this shift can be defined. The misleading perception that everything has a price and therefore, can be turned into a commodity, even effects human relations in everyday life. Everything is evaluated in terms of quantity, every single thing is interpreted as a sum of value, already realized or at least hoped for. In “Education for Sale! The Commodification of Everything?” (2004) Ball argues that commodification can either be seen as the process of embedding consumer culture in our daily lives or as displacing “use value by exchange value”, and one could refer to society, due to its current developments, as a “market society” (2004: 23). One of the major issues is also the perception of ourselves, being influenced by market ideologies. People want to turn themselves into the human beings that are evaluated to be of value in the light of a capitalistic society. Ball argues that “I want nonetheless to suggest that perhaps what we are seeing is what Fou- cault has called an epistemic shift - that is a profound change in the underlying set of rules governing the production of discourses, the conditions of knowledge, in a single period – a cultural totality or multi-dimensional regularity if you like; social structures and social relations that take shape as the flesh and bones of the dominant discourse” (2004: 24).

In the end, through these mechanisms, Ball says, the entire world would be a place of contin- gencies, where authenticity and meaning are slowly erased. To append, Ball claims that it is high time that we rethought our economy and its influence on our social reality and go beyond excessive improvements, efficiency concepts, standards and build a strong foundation constructed in terms of moral obligations, values and ethics. In “Resistance is Fertile: The Com- modification of Life and Environmental Protest in the 21st Century”, which appeared online on ResearchGate on May 15, 2014; Halbert raises awareness about the interrelation between globalization, the protection of nature and social justice. She emphasizes that “Generally speaking, it is the developed world, specifically the United States, that benefits from a global patent regime while the patenting of seeds and the appropriation of traditional knowledge pri- marily harms the global south”, suggesting that privatization of goods benefits some, but dis- advantages many. The commodification, thus the shift of values and the increasing impor- 15 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA tance of exchange values, govern contemporary economic and social systems. Objects of value are those which can be used as exchange value for – in the end – profit. Especially, as Halbert points out, the privatization in the medical realm is significantly harmful to those who are not granted access to medication, such as for HIV/AIDS and states that “Dr. Shiva has linked environmental justice, social justice and globalization. She can be found marching to resist the patenting of HIV/AIDS medication, making a passionate speech against biocolonial- ism, or working to protect women's rights. She speaks to both the transnational nature of the threat and its connections with other aspects of the fight for social justice”. The commodification of every single aspect of humans' daily lives threatens social and environmental justice, and ultimately democratic principles. In “Commodification: the essence of our time”, which appeared online on Open Democracy on April 2, 2012; Leys and Harriss-White state that “Under advanced capitalism, commodification expands into all corners of social and political life, with devastating consequences. Finding a limit to this process is more urgent than ever”. In addition, they claim that objects become commodities only when it is feasible to trade them for profit. In the time of capitalism, even labor force can be bought by employers as commodity. Thus,

“The conversion of independent farmers and craftsmen into wage laborers created a demand for ‘wage goods’ – i.e. everything from bread and beer to shoes, which were needed by workers who could no longer produce them for themselves - and for commodified services, such as transport. Each of these became fields of new capitalist production, with similar knock-on commodifying effects in other fields of activity”.

In accordance with the technological revolution, new goods and needs were produced: “A major driver of commodification is the need to cut labour costs, but it can also have knock-on effects: for example, the technology developed to cut labour costs in one field creates possibilities for creating new wants or needs in another. The internal combustion engine was invented and developed for a variety of industrial pur- poses before its widespread use for transportation was realistically envisaged. It took half a century before petrol-driven cars became a consumer good and a universal want, and eventually a universal need. Similar new wants that may become needs, from mobile phones to electronic books, have been and are constantly being created by the development of digital communication technology“.

New technologies therefore are subject to capitalistic mechanisms, as well as drivers of those. The result is that everything in everyday life can be used and exchanged as commodity, and calls for social and political incentives to restrict these mechanisms. Since capitalism operates internationally, there is no appropriate international government that would control these mechanisms in order to enable counter activities to the constant dehumanization in capitalism. The writers provide an example for such rarely established incentives against capitalistic 16 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA mechanisms:

“Recent examples of such barriers are the intervention by the US government to prevent the human genome becoming a commodity belonging to Craig Venter's Celera company, and the public reaction which led to the abandonment of the British government’s plan to privatize publicly-owned forests. But more often the obstacles are overcome, circumvented or removed, as in the successful patenting of individual genes and viruses by profit-oriented researchers, or the (often violent) privatization of the Brazilian rain forest and common lands in many parts of the world from Bangladesh to Colombia“.

The question is whether governmental intervention happens due to the necessity of saving realms from capitalistic mechanisms, or to even facilitate further economic growth. Commod- ification affects every part of human life, from the social and cultural aspect, to the political sphere. “The social consequences of this process are destabilizing. New jobs are created in new industries called into existence by the commodification of older ones, but the people dis- placed from the old jobs don’t necessarily get the new jobs, and they may be less well paid or secure”. Leys and Harriss-White also elaborate on how eating is commodified in modern ages, which also includes “a big increase in the consumption of take-away meals, fewer family meals, and children often no longer learning how to cook, or knowing what constitutes a healthy diet, leading in turn to obesity and other serious health problems”. The commodification of the public sphere is another important aspect: health care is geared towards profit as well, working along economic ideologies. Leys and Harriss-White add: “instead of being distributed on the basis of who needs it, it is distributed on the basis of who can pay for it (with or without financial help from the state)”. The social sphere is thus not defined by solidarity and humane behavior, but by capitalistic operations and the ultimate exchange-value: money. To sum up capitalism, Leys and Harriss-White argue that: “capital shoots itself in the foot”. It is geared towards profit-making only, and therefore, has an immense impact on how humans perceive themselves as well as the world: “The logical end of neoliberalism is the commodification of everything – everything from speculating on the future prices of staple foods and housing to making profits from prisons. As capital is pushed to extremes pathological effects become painfully clear”. Furthermore they put the idea forward that politics would exclude future developments that would not be compatible with capitalism and commodification. They argue that “When society's capacity to define and plan for its collective interests has been surrendered to the pursuit of the private interests of a few hundred global companies,” our “very future is at risk”.

17 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

3. The Influence of TV Shows' Depictions of Everyday Life on Society's Mode of Thinking

After discussing capitalistic developments and the concept of commodification, this section centers around the question of how these ideologies are depicted on TV and why they influence a visual culture's mode of thinking. In Cultural Studies, Baker (2007) argues that television plays an important role in contemporary Western countries and states that “Television is a source virtually open to everybody in modern industrialized societies and an increasing one in the ‘developing’ world. It is a source of popular knowledge about the world and increasingly brings us into contact, albeit in a mediated way, with ways of lives other than our own“ (325). In the book Representations: Cul- tural Representation are Signifying Practices, Hall argues that television is somehow impli- cated in “the provision and the selective construction of social knowledge, of social imagery, through which we perceive the 'worlds'”, the „'lives realities' of others, and imaginarily recon- struct their lives and ours into some intelligible 'world-of-the-whole'“ (1977: 140). Thus, television is highly influential: people tend to interpret television and mass media as 'reality' to some degree, although, as Baker argues “News is not an unmediated 'window-on-the-world' but selected and constructed representation constitutive of 'reality'“ (2007: 326). Baker additionally points out that the dangers of media and television are real because there is evidence that mediated information has high impact on the public life. In this sense, the manipulative model, which, according to Baker, gives “Explanations for how and why the news promotes some world views and not others come in a variety of forms. In the manipulative model, media is seen as a reflection of a class-dominated society. Here ideology is said to be consciously introduced by media controllers“ (2007: 328). Of course, this model strongly focuses on mass media; nevertheless, the promotion of established ideologies and perceived or desired social 'realities' in soap operas and TV shows also support the production and reproduction of social injustice and economy, as well as social ideologies. Baker suggests that „Television news is an obvious arena of political and ideological interest. However, cultural studies has also been concerned with popular televisions; that is, game shows, police and hospital dramas, sport, reality TV, music and soap opera“ (2007: 335). This is also noticeable when looking at how media presents the working life: in “Studie: TV-Serien verzerren die Berufswelt”, which appeared online on Merkur.de, on January 05, 2011; the author suggests that in popular TV shows, the audience is not confronted with a world of employment that can be considered as representative cross-section of the real-world working life, but only show a distorted picture of it. A study, conducted by communication scientists of the University of Münster, highlights the fact that this distorted picture of the job market, especially, confuses the younger genera-

18 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA tions. The head of the Institute for Communication Sciences Professor Volker Gehrau analyzed the representation of the world of employment in TV shows, and especially concentrated on the influence on young people. The survey includes about 1300 students, who were investigated concerning their career plans. The result: watching a lot of TV can determine, or at least significantly influence, the mental image of the students' dream job: the idea to later find an occupation in the health sector increases when watching medicine related TV shows. The spokeswoman of the University of Münster says that some occupations are rarely represented on TV, including the craft sector, which is why teenagers are less interested in working in that sector. They also found that teenagers' professional wishes deviate significantly from the real-world occupational pattern, although not as strongly as it does in the shows themselves. The study expresses the idea that TV shows are highly influential concerning the perception of the 'real' world. Although, they only present fictional characters and stories, people include these images as 'reality' when interpreting the world and themselves. In Representa- tions: Cultural Representation are Signifying Practices Baker also highlights this issue and argues that soap operas have a strong emphasis on the family, suggesting that when personal and family issues are solved, everything in the world of the characters is going to be fine. Many TV shows lack to discuss important global and local issues, although they start to increasingly engage with topics, such as AIDS, racism, unemployment or crime. He points out that it is crucial to be aware of the „active audience“ (Baker 2007: 339), who actively produces meaning when watching soaps or movies and thus supports the construction of cultural meaning within the context. Furthermore, TV shows and other visual media themselves are ambiguous and carry various possible interpretations. It has often been claimed that „the active nature of the audience undercuts the role of ideology in television. That is, audience activity makes the reception and generation of meaning less problematically tied to textual construction and issues of power“ and that “the active audience“ was often associated with “a resistance to ideology“ (Baker 2007: 344). Additionally, he explains that although there is evidence that suggests that many viewers are aware of how television forms meaning, they often cannot resist „producing and reproducing ideologies“ (2007: 344) about relationships, gender, age and family. Especially the global access to various TV shows, soap operas and media is striking and gains more importance. Baker suggests that “There is little doubt that television is a global phenomenon in its production, dissemination and viewing patterns – and one that grows daily“ (2007: 349). Furthermore, globalization produced multimedia giants who dominate the market, and “Companies needed the financial power that can come from merges to undertake the massive investment required in order to be players in the global market“ (2007:

19 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

350). The financial and economic component of media is crucial in understanding the influence on the audience and the incentives of media producers all over the world. Thus, “Televi- sion is pivotal to the production and reproduction of promotional culture focused on the use of visual imagery to create value-added brands or commodity-signs“ (2007: 356). Media turned away from public service broadcasting and is now more than ever governed by economic and financial incentives. It is also stated that „global television is better understood as the promotion of bricolage and hybridity rather than cultural imperialism“ (2007: 360). Al- though, visual media seems to be working globally, the consumption takes place in a local framework and is thus interpreted in local terms by the audience. Therefore, stereotypical depictions and representations of family, relationship, education and other topics are discussed and interpreted on a global scale. The tensions that are inherent to soap operas, such as “the tension between the conventions of realism and melodrama“ incorporate the problematic interpretation of the depicted scenes as 'reality' and the accompanying production and reproduction of social injustice, ideologies and cultural perceptions. The economic interests of media – to gain profit – thus, suggests that the producers' primary interests do not lie within the desired depiction of 'reality' but is governed by consumerism and the promotion of capitalistic ideologies. The impact on the public sphere is not completely discernible yet but it is clear that soap operas, TV shows and mass media have an impact on the audience. This impact of capitalism is noticeable in every realm of society; therefore, promotes values which are significantly focused on profit. In a further step, it is of interest to take a look at how influential TV shows can be. In “Serien- Junkies auf Entzug: Fernsehen, bis der Arzt kommt”, which appeared online on SpiegelOn- line, on December 13, 2013; Schultz writes that the TV channel Fox wanted to understand as to how TV-show scenes affect people differently from 'real' world experience and commis- sioned a study. The survey found that the body shows symptoms of addiction when a person is not allowed to keep on watching his/her favorite show. Although this comparison is criticized by other scientists, it is clear that TV shows can influence humans physically and psy- chologically. Emotionally charged TV program churns people's feelings, and is a welcomed balance to everyday life, no matter whether these emotions are interpreted as negative or positive. This form of addiction again shows how influential TV can be: besides the possibility of experiencing TV shows as welcomed balance to everyday life, a study found that increased TV consumption can also be a sign for severe psychological problems. In “Glotzen bis zum Morgengrauen”, which appeared online on Süddeutsche Zeitung, on January 30, 2015; Chari- sius claims that a questionnaire showed that lonely and depressed people tend to show an in-

20 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA creased television consumption. Communication scientist Na Lee, from the University of Texas in Austin, explains that shows might help these people to suppress these negative feelings. Na Lee and her colleagues conclude that especially streaming-portals, such as Netflix and Watchever, support this behavior, since they enable mass episode-consumption. It is furthermore stated that many mainstream US TV-channels already promote their shows online, in order to keep up with video-on-demand platforms. Up to know, it is said, TV show addiction was evaluated as harmless, but now it is clear that tiredness, obesity and other health issues can already be interpreted as side effects of massive television consumption and constitutes a new social phenomenon that needs further investigation. Netflix or Amazon seem to be aware of these findings, since these ideas constitute their transmission concept: these platforms want to facilitate constant series watching, where one does not have to wait a whole week to watch the next episode. According to a Netflix press release, people become real fans of TV shows when there are no commercial breaks. Therefore, online TV show platforms enable continuous watching of sitcoms, soap operas and other media products, without being annoyed by advertising breaks. Netflix even conducted a survey to find out when people become fans of a show. In “Netflix-Studie über Serien: Wann Zuschauer zu Fans werden”, which appeared online on heise online, on September 23, 2015; it is claimed that the “Video-on-demand” platform Netflix has over sixty-five million members from more than fifty countries, who daily watch films and TV shows over one hundred million hours long. The platform needs people to watch these movies and series, and turning people into fans is their biggest goal. These companies could not be successful with the platform, if people stopped watching the provided program. When watching shows on this platform, Netflix itself suggests videos and shows that are related to the program the user has watched so far and therefore, encourages further engagement with new TV shows, movies and other videos. In “Modernity: Spectatorship, the Gaze, and Power”, Sturken and Cartwright say that when looking at a given situation, like looking at art in museums for example, “the field of the gaze” comes into play. “Spectatorship theory has drawn attention to this field and its discur- sive frameworks as well as to the broader cultural contexts that inform it” (2018a: 104). This field includes people present in a given scene, who watch the scene and also includes the given art that is displayed. It is stated that this field captures not only cultural and social themes of that specific moment, but succeeds in representing “its broader historical and social contexts” (2018a: 104). Reflecting this in the context of TV shows, it becomes apparent that these scenes also inform the audience about not only specific cultural and social implications, but also manages to reproduce and distribute broader cultural and social contexts. Sturken and

21 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

Cartwright claim that

“The concept of the spectator and the gaze are cornerstones of early film theory because they are crucial to understanding several key concepts in visual theory: (1) the roles of the unconscious and desire in viewing practice; (2) the role of looking in the formation of the human subject of the self; (3) the ways in which looking is always a relational activity. It is very hard to study unconscious thoughts and feelings with clarity and certainty. For this reason, scholars brought psychoanalysis from liter- ary theory into visual theory” (2018a: 104-105). This concept is of importance to the commodification of everyday life, as the audience becomes a part of the “field of the gaze”. In investigating spectatorship, we look at a relational and structural system, also taking into account “how images and media texts position the human subject in its particular historical and cultural context – that is, people who look understand themselves as individual human subjects”, but not solely in their and their fellow humans' perception, but also in the broader cultural context including “technologies that together make up the field of the gaze” (2018a: 105). The structural givings in the world determine the position of the spectator: Who is allowed to look, and what can be observed? What can the audience find out, and what is intentionally concealed from the people, in order to evoke more effect in the spectator's reception? Sturken and Cartwright state that, in contrast to spectator theory, when dealing with structural positions, in study of

“reception, we look at how actual individuals make sense of visual texts, through such methods as interviewers and surveys. Both ways of examining images, through reception and through address, are valid but incomplete on their own. To- gether they can help us understand looking by taking into account both the conscious and unconscious levels of viewer experience” (2018a: 105).

When investigating the interrelation between audience and art or visual media, it is crucial to look at reception, thus including the conscious reaction to specific representations, as well as the unconscious relational and structural input that these products include. In the modern age, Sturken and Cartwright add, a “rise of social institutions and bureaucracies” is “instituted to manage expanding populations in the new modern nation-states, colonies, and cities” (2018a: 109). Throughout the nineteenth century, optical representation “of classification and archiv- ing” are used “not only to organize knowledge but also to discipline and control people and nature, sometimes in the name of efficiency” (2018a:109). Pooling people into different groups is closely related to “keeping people under watch” (2018a: 109). This is not only visual in new techniques of ordering prison systems for example, but results in modern ways of controlling work force: “In the contemporary workplace, surveillance takes many forms, including online monitoring of activity and tracking production output” (2018a: 111). By en- abling further surveillance by new technologies, such as surveillance cameras, “The public 22 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA field of the gaze includes and even produces […] countergazes [sic!] and forms of resistance as people become frustrated at being under surveillance” (2018a: 111). These concepts are essential when thinking of modern TV shows: these media products seem to portrait a possible world, an image of the world that the spectator is living in. On the conscious level, the audience might be empowered to believe or not believe in the depicted images, scenes and people; nevertheless, there is an unconscious level that also reflects social and broader cultural para- digms. TV shows influence people's mode of thinking – what is said to be normal, moral, eth- ical or 'right', both unconsciously and consciously. The media industry is a highly profitable market: In “TV-Konsum weltweit im anschaulichen Vergleich”, which appeared online on ScreenForce The Magic of TV; it is claimed that in the USA, TV shows are watched by over 210 Million people every day, spending 840’000’000 hours per day watching TV. Although, many shows can be declared as being comedy, the fact cannot be denied that these images influence the way US citizens see themselves and the surrounding world. TV shows play an important role in everyday life – people talk about their favorite shows, complaining or confirm- ing current plot happenings. Furthermore, fandom pages enable even more engagement with these invented figures and circumstances, presented in various shows. Statistics show that in 2012, about 12,8 Million US-Americans spend their time watching The Big Bang Theory. TV is the number one entertainment source for most families – whereas TV shows can simply be considered as comedic relief for the hardships of the day, these series can also be interpreted as forming, adjusting and changing our world views. Although these shows probably should earn the producers and cast money, it is unclear, whether some critical aspects are intentionally expressed in the series, or simply reproduced. The characters in the two shows The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother, are presented as 'normal' people, living their 'normal' lives. The series leads the audience to believe that these are 'normal' people in 'normal' circumstances, and the spectator compares himself to these characters to evaluate what is 'normal' . The question is to which degree the audience, on the one hand, is aware of the fact that everything to TV shows is fictional. On the other hand, do people start comparing themselves, their lives, and the lives of other people, to these fictional characters? An easy example would be the depiction of women and their bodies. How are young, or old women affected by the depiction of women on TV? How much is unconsciously absorbed by the audience, influencing their gaze of the 'real' world? Although, the selected TV series are defined as sitcoms, they share certain features with other visual media, such as soap operas. According to Baker (2007), soap opera as a genre is char- acterized by “Open-ended narrative forms” (2007: 336), which suggests that the plot is unlim-

23 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA ited and does not necessarily provide closure. This open-ended format is also identifiable in the selected series. Another characteristic is the “Core location”, which manages to “establish a sense of geographical space” (2007: 336). This serves as central meeting point for the characters. Both selected shows are set in a modern contemporary urban space: The Big Bang Theory situates itself in Pasadena, California and How I Met Your Mother in New York City, New York. The shows are mostly screened indoor, and center around two or four core loca- tions. The audience can more easily relate to the story because familiarity comes into play, which supports the emotional engagement with the shows and its cast. Baker also mentions that “The pivotal themes of interpersonal relationships” is another feature of soap operas (2007: 336). The dynamic of the show is established by “marriages, divorces, break-ups, new alliances, arguments, acts of revenge and acts of caring” which can be considered as the core of soaps. The author points out that it is crucial to be aware of the different cultural settings and contexts of the shows since depictions of family, relationships and conventions vary across the globe. In the US, family is said to be depicted as a patriarchal system, and depicts men trying to keep the family together when facing problems. Here, “the family is intimately connected to questions of property, power and money” (2007: 337). Another characteristic, as suggested by Baker, is “The tension between the conventions of realism and melodrama” (2007: 336). Realism in the sense that it “refers to a set of conventions by which drama appears to be a representation of the 'real world', with motivated characters, recognizable loca- tions and believable social problems” (2007: 336). Melodrama is considered to have a sense of extreme dramatic tone, focusing on daily struggles in life. This is also applicable to both shows, featuring realist, comedic and dramatic aspects about the urban experience. These techniques enable a more personal relation to the characters in the shows, and add up to the influence of TV shows on the audience.

3.1. Product Placement

At this point of discussing the influence of TV shows' depictions of everyday life on the audience, the integration of product placement in visual culture constitutes a rather crucial aspect: What do the characters in the shows long for? What are their dreams and wishes, and how can they implement ideas about happiness and a fulfilling life in the people of the 'real' world? How can visual media shape consumer behavior? TV shows are used to promote various consumer goods – this is also the case in the selected TV shows The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother. Producers use product placement in order to earn money with presented consumer goods. The interrelation between the number of people watching TV shows and how it is utilized to shape consumer behavior is 24 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA quite controversial. To provide some examples: in How I Met Your Mother, references to Xbox 360, Star Wars, T-Mobile, Red Lobster and Microsoft, are screened throughout the show, to only name a few. On the website How I Met Your Mother, people chat about these different product placements:

“The blatant Microsoft product placement in this episode is gross. We see Ted in MacLaren's with a laptop (odd) that obviously features the Windows logo. When he maps out where the restaurant is, the displayed screen is quite clearly labeled as Microsoft's Bing. This happens again later, when in a flashback Ted looks for the "grade my teacher" website. And it might happen more, I'm only 6 and a half minutes in so far. The placement is so forced and out of place (I immediately thought it was weird that he had a laptop with him at the bar) that it really interferes with enjoyment of the episode. So totally fake. Is this something that happened a lot in HIMYM, maybe more in later seasons as the shows popularity increased? This is the first example I've noticed so far on the rematch, so either they didn't do it much or they usually did it better and in a more subtle way“.

Another user of the website recounts some of the product placement moments in the show: „There's a Red Lobster placement in "Come On" (1x22) -- in the DVD com- mentary, they talk about how Red Lobster had people on set to make sure there was- n't anything about the scene they'd be unhappy with. There's a T-Mobile Sidekick placement in "Single Stamina" (2x10) -- Barney's brother James has one and they're not subtle about it. The guys are seen playing Xbox 360 and Wii games at varying times in the series, although they're usually not mentioned outright. However, in "Miracles" (3x20), Marshall is seen playing with a Guitar Hero: Aerosmithguitar; the episode aired in May 2008 and the game released in June 2008. I recall all the various Microsoft ads in season 6. I think Maury Povich is carrying an Xbox 360 box in Sub- way Wars. They did indeed feel gratuitous, especially when they showed Bing“.

It is of interest to understand how people, watching the series in the 'real' world, interpret such instances. These statements show that the issue of commercializing TV shows for the benefit of increasing consumer activity does not happen unnoticed. Many of the users of the before- mentioned website try to determine why and where product placement plays a role in the show. One of the commentators says that “You'll notice less placement on the DVD than on the aired episodes as well; a company has added advertisements into episodes in post-production for airing during television”. Despite the question of where and when product placement plays a role in TV shows, it is far more interesting how this influences the 'real' world's consumer behavior. In ”How 'The Big Bang Theory' Dominated The 10 Best Product Placements of 2011”, which appeared online on BusinessInsider, on December 23, 2011; it is claimed that

“CBS's 'Big Bang Theory' had three of the 10 most memorable moments. And, apparently, it was unintentional. When the list came out, Bill Prady, the show's co-creator and executive producer, tweeted 'I'm not aware of #bigbangtheory doing any paid product placement'. We use real brand names so dialogue doesn't sound fake“. 25 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

It is said that the show includes several different product placements, such as Purell, Red Bull, and Wizards of the Coast Games. Various programs are financed by product placement, but Bill Prady asserts a different incentive, when using product placement. The production might not have bought into product placement for financial benefit, but the representation of products in the series does not happen and is not unnoticed, as it is also noticeable on several websites, such as the afore-mentioned website reddit or fandom pages. When watching an episode on TV, the information “Unterstützt durch Produktplatzierung”, meaning, “sponsored by product placement”, shows up at the beginning and at the end of episodes. This information enables a different view on the topic: even though, Prady maintains until today that product placement is not used for financial benefit, it is questionable whether the producers of The Big Bang Theory did not accept funds from creative advertising companies. In “Product placement in movies, TV shows is nothing new”, which appeared online on BND, on January 13, 2018; Schlueter claims that “Ever since the Golden Age of Television, viewers have been suffering through the phenomenon known as the Incredible Shrinking Program”. In the 1960s, commercials were not as present in TV as they are today. For years, companies have been paying a fortune for advertising in TV show, and not only in the commercial breaks. The writer says that this development started at least a century ago:

“Historians will tell you that product placement has been around more than a century. For example, way back in the 1870s transport and shipping companies asked — and perhaps paid — Jules Verne to mention them in his “Around the World in Eighty Days.” The famous painting “A Bar at the Folies-Bergère” by Èdouard Manet, clearly shows two bottles of Bass beer, although whether he was paid to include them is unknown”. Companies benefitted from this development, although products do not necessarily have to be presented in a perfect light: publicity alone is the key, whether it is good or bad. People become aware of certain products and are pushed to buy these goods in the 'real' world as well. Schlueter explains that

“Moviemakers took full advantage of this revenue stream almost from the start. In 2007, Jean-Marc Lehu, a French marketing professor, suggested a film by the Lumiere brothers in 1896 were made at the request of Lever Brothers in France and featured the company’s Sunlight soap. It’s perhaps the first product placement in movie history — and it wasn’t long before the practice got on people’s goats. In his Harrison’s Reports, a movie trade journal dating to the early 20th century, publisher P.S. Harrison often railed against the practice as harmful to movie theaters. As early as 1911, he condemned the Red Crown Gasoline logo showing up in “The Garage,” a 25-minute Buster Keaton/Fatty Arbuckle comedy. He had similar harsh words when a Smith-Corona typewriter appeared in the 1925 movie “The Lost World.” But as we know today, his criticism fell on deaf ears. Product placement has continued un- abated, often paying colossal dividends for the sponsors“. 26 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

The Cheesecake Factory, which is mentioned in The Big Bang Theory, did not pay anything for being included, nor did they give their permission. Interestingly, although the restaurant is not depicted in a positive light, the referenced one were greatful for publicity,. Early on, actors and producers were aware of controversial aspects concerning product placement. Nevertheless, the integrated commercial ads in TV shows have been pushed to the extreme, as it can also be found in the two selected shows The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother.

3.1.1. The Consequences of Product Placement and Commercial Breaks

The inclusion of product placement and commercial breaks in daily television routines, drives capitalism even further into humans' daily lives. TV shows – as long as watching them on TV – are embedded in commercial breaks and product placement. Therefore, on the one hand, shows can succeed in pretending to present 'real' people in 'real' settings, on the other hand, it subtly influences consumer behavior. Schlueter clarifies that it is more profitable for a firm to actually pay fees for product placement, than paying some actor to do the promotion for the product. The characters in the shows often en- joy great popularity; therefore, consumers are more easily tricked into buying products, when observing it on TV. Additionally, the emotional bond between audience and character also in- duces desire for products that their favorite characters are using. Commercializing the audience through TV is effective, despite the fact that it is only fiction. Visual culture is governed by images which are subscribed specific meaning. In the chapter “Brand Culture: The Images and Spaces of Consumption”, Cartwright and Sturken claim that our world is full of “brands, logos, symbols, and messages” which “permeate our cultures” (2018b: 257). Furthermore they claim that

“The global shift towards free-market economies since the 1980s has shaped social media, making it a powerful locus of personalized marketing and advertising. Brands have become integral to personal identity and emotional life, in part through social media, with its porous boundaries between private and consumer online discourses. This tendency has been especially prevalent in nations in which market models dominated by individual initiative have been promoted as morally and ethically superior. Globally, the ideology of freedom has become monetized, becoming more closely aligned with the freedom to buy, sell, and consume. Concepts of the human subject and human culture are increasingly interpreted through an economic para- digm” (2018: 257). In depicting commodification in popular US TV shows, this reality is also presented: freedom only means to have the “freedom to buy, sell, and consume”. Representing a culture that con- sumes, conveys the idea that freedom is linked to being able to buy products. This issue is also prevalent in The Big Bang Theory, by depicting two characters when struggling to make 27 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA their livings. This is also recognizable in How I Met Your Mother, where economic stability represents happiness and freedom, and is especially the case in times of economic distress, as the fictional personas find themselves in over and over again. “During the twentieth century, cultural theorists Marx Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno interpreted industrial production and consumption as aspects of an ideology that operates through symbols and representations, media texts and messages” (Sturken & Cartwright 2018b: 257). This model has changed though, “A Fordist, assembly-line approach to production and commodity reproduction became dominant alongside a culture of mass consumption of mass-media texts” (2018: 257). De Grazia explains that Fordism can be described as "the eponymous manufacturing system designed to spew out standardized, low-cost goods and afford its workers decent enough wages to buy them" (2005: 4). This system relied on mass-manufacturing and mass-consumption, but did not see the necessity of marketing since good products would sell themselves. In other economic systems is was later on realized that marketing, advertisement, distribution, “product design and packaging to salesmanship” (2005: 135) are of special interest in order to sell products. It is clear that consumerism demands desire, thus, product placement and commercial breaks assist in evoking this desire in humans' minds. The market continuously altered its strategy in order to attain greater attention and one of these strategies are brands. Sturken and Cartwright discuss the influence of brands on consumerism and propose the idea that brands dominate our personal, social and cultural lives. In addition, they insert that media succeeds in linking brands with emotions and, therefore, seem to gain value in the process. This process also goes hand in hand with the afore-mentioned inclusion of product placement and commercials on television: specific brands are presented and should facilitate further consumerism. Sturken and Cartwright argue that “The brand, once strongly associated with the representational mark (such as the trademark, or trade dress), is now a cultural framework for everyday life” (2018b: 259). The partaking in consumer and brand culture, is important in order to produce a sense of belonging. This belonging though, is also determined by “the freedom to buy”: “Brands are often equated with feelings of belonging, authenticity, patriotism, and community – all important aspects of one's emotional and civic life that are unlikely to be fulfilled by a consumer product” (2018b: 262). The authors defend this argument, saying: “But let us step back for a moment. Perhaps you are skeptical about the claim that one's sense of authentic experience is informed by consumption and is, in effect, branded. We want to suggest that even if one does not identify with a brand culture or a brand lifestyle, there is a cultural tendency to interpret people through the brands they use, or don't use” (2018b: 259). It is difficult to escape the realm of consumerism,

28 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA since people often evaluate others through brands, also unconsciously. Society provides the framework of humans' lives. If people are put into a realm of consumerism and capitalism, it is hardly possible to interpret life without being influenced by these ideologies, governed by capital and money.

“[...] brands can be both marketed and experienced as providing deep, emotional connections. In these branding experiences, the equation of brand, image, and self takes hold. Identity is no longer simply signified by a brand; rather, identity is the product that we consume when we engage with a brand, whether we consume the brand as information, image, or product. Branding has become not just a way of selling goods, but an inescapable mode of everyday communication” (2018b: 263).

The representation of famous brands and consumer goods in TV shows facilitates further consumer transmission and strengthens the role of brands in the experience of the spectators. This manipulation results in an alienation – the importance of buying and owning consumer goods is highlighted; one's social significance is repeatedly put into a realm of commodities and further supports consumer and capitalistic thinking in the audience.

4. Analysis: Selected US Contemporary TV Shows

This chapter illustrates how the afore-mentioned mechanisms are depicted on television. For this purpose, two contemporary US series, being The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother, will be analyzed with regard to the depiction of commodification of everyday life. The focus lies on the commodification of relationships and women. Besides identifying commodification processes in the shows, the analysis additionally concentrates on the role of comedy in visual media. The selected TV shows are referred to as sitcoms. On Merriam-Webster, sitcom is defined as “Situation Comedy”, and expresses the significance of comedy in the shows. The analysis therefore should offer insight into how come- dies represent 'reality' and how this perceived reality shapes humans' mind set, although it is centered around humor. How is 'reality' presented, with regard to relationships, women and money, and in the end, commodification? To which extent, is comedy applied to raise awareness about social issues? Or are societal struggles used for comedic affect?

4.1. Commodification of Women

Objectifying women, thus turning females into commodities is a recurring theme in the shows. Commodifying women in the field of the gaze, goes in line with concepts of the 1970s and 1980s; Sturken and Cartwright claim that “Controversial among these concepts is the idea that the locus of power in the field of the gaze is a male viewing point” (2018a: 121). Women were commonly presented as passive, being the “object of the gaze” (2018a 121), whereas 29 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA men were depicted as active agents and observers of these objects. They claim that women “[...] appear either as passive objects framed to show their bodies or as body fragments in close-ups decomposed into parts that may be fetishized and sexualized without concern for the human subject depicted” (2018a 121). Mulvey, author of “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” states that she uses psychoanalysis in order to discover “where and how the fascination of film is reinforced by pre-existing patterns of fascination already at work within the individual subject and the social formations that have moulded him” (1999: 833). The core idea is constituted by the assumption that “the way film reflects, reveals and even plays on the straight, socially established interpretation of sexual difference which controls images, erotic ways of looking and spectacle” (1999: 833). She adds that “The paradox of phallocentrism in all its manifestations is that it depends on the image of the castrated woman to give order and meaning to its world” (1999: 833). Simone de Beauvoir comes to a similar conclusion: in her opinion, women are equated with immanence, whereas men represent transcendence. Women are forced to stay at home and to nurse children; therefore, they are suppressed and forced to be and stay immanent in a male-dominated world. Men though, are ought to transcend into the world, transgress their individual life and partake in the progress of humans. Women are, in the gaze of a patriarchal society, restricted to their bodily attributes – thus, turned into objects rather than active agents. Men hold the power and define what a woman is, or should be. De Beauvoir claims that even in sexual intercourses, men are interpreted as the active part. A man takes a woman, and a woman gets something from a man (2017: 469). Although De Beauvoir published her book in French in the 1950s, these notions are still noticeable in contemporary TV shows, such as The Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother. Women are interpreted as source of sexual desire, and are turned into objects in the process. This male dominance, according to De Beauvoir, stems from the physical manifestations of the superior- ity of men: the phallus (2017: 345). This also explains why the male demand for dominance results in a sexual objectification of women since the penis, as well as the sexual active act itself, strengthen a man's ego and can be realized in consuming various women. The philosopher points out that although men feel superior to women, they seek for approval by women. Men see the other in women; which is why males try to evaluate their value through the eyes of women. It is not enough to compare oneself to other male people, they strive for judgment outside of their patriarchal reality – and turn to the other, the women, to determine their personal value in society (2017: 243). Even though, men interpret women as fragile, naive, stupid and unteachable, they turn to them in order to establish a self by looking at the other (2017: 264). There are various theories about the gaze, power and subject position. In the end, nowa-

30 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA days, many scholars agree that “identification and power in any field of the gaze is always multiple, complex, and fluid and does not necessarily follow from one's identity, given or as- sumed” and “Likewise, fantasy and identification enabled by visual culture are chimeric, subject to a range of political, cultural, and institutional forces” (Sturken & Cartwright 2018a: 123). In the shows, some female characters are not directed by men, and are actually agents of their own lives. Nevertheless, most of the time, all women turn into a source of sexual desire and sexual fulfillment, without recognizing deeper emotions or active, independent thinking. These women are very strongly objectified in the course of it, putting men in a more powerful position. In a next step, it is important to take a closer look at how these notions are realized in the selected shows.

4.1.1. Commodification of Women in How I Met Your Mother

Throughout How I Met Your Mother, Barney Stinson, one of the main characters, interprets women as objects that can be taken with tricks and are used to satisfy his sexual longings. Barney turns romance into a game, trying to fool women into having sex with him. He simu- lates interest and feelings in order to evoke real emotions in women, which reinforces De Beauvoir's (2017) ideas: although men do not subscribe women value, they need female part- ners in order to determine their self-worth. Barney is forced to seduce as many women as he can, since it is the only way to establish his self-confidence: he tries to avoid any closer romantic relationship since brief romances enable him to determine his self-confidence only by the sexual act itself, thus excludes many other factors that constitute the self. Barney needs to interpret women as sexual objects because otherwise, female subjectivity could display his real personality, which he seems to be afraid of. Since women are objects, he can establish his self-worth by using the flesh of women – and not their mental abilities. This is far less danger- ous than actually evaluating the self in the gaze of another subject. He does not interpret women as humans with emotions and mental abilities, but observes them as things that can be tricked in order to own them. The commodification of women is quite strongly reflected in Barney's interpretation of the role of women in society. The series does emphasize the inap- propriateness of Barney's behavior towards women, in episodes such as season five, episode eight, when Barney introduces his so-called “playbook” which summarizes all his attempts to conquer women by playing an imagined character and tricking women into a short affair. Lily Aldrin, another character and friend of Barney's, is quite disgusted by the playbook and expresses her criticism. Nevertheless, the show does not succeed in generally criticizing the overall perception of women in society. As Baker (2007) points out, one of US soap opera characteristics are patriarchal tendencies, 31 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA which are also noticeable in How I Met Your Mother, at this point. In episode eighteen, season three, Robin Scherbatzky, another main character, helps Barney seducing women. Ted Mosby, another friend, has always been Barney's “wingman”, thus, he has to support Barney in contacting and seducing women. Both, Robin and Ted, support the game of seducing women and do not highlight the problematic behavior. The depiction can be interpreted as representing 'real' experiences and is thus depicted as accepted part of urban life. Interest- ingly, Robin, as female character also objectifies other women. She herself has never been accepted as woman in her father's eyes. Helping Barney might reproduce and emphasize the fact that Robin has problems with her biological sex. When she was young her father acted as if she was a boy, since he would have preferred it. The objectification of other women might be a result of Robin's upbringing by her father: she did not learn that women are as valuable as men. The playful mechanisms within romances are explicitly represented in the show, establishing a notion of a game that incorporates women as passive figures. They are simply present to be conquered by men, and are not active agents of their longings and sexual desires. Although, it might not be money or profit that governs Barney's actions, he nevertheless, commodifies women. He uses them as cultural and social capital, in order to defend his status: a woman is like a trophy to him. It is his decision and that is how Barney succeeds in turning women into objects: he tries to conquer women by emphasizing how affluent he is. Therefore, it is arguable that Barney interprets women as objects that can be purchased by exchanging invested money, either by buying them things or by impressing them with financial capital. Therefore, he links economic principles of modern society with romances and women. Women are put into the realm of purchased objects, thus into the realm of economic and capitalistic ideologies. Ignoring the fact that these women are not to be tricked, but are agents of their lives and actions, Barney successfully turns women into commodities. Women are used to not only satisfy his longings, but also to strengthen his social role. The character is throughout dependent on how people interpret him and continuously wants to defend his position as irresistible lover. The audience is never given permission to understand what Barney is actually doing for a living – the spectator only gets to know his social role as seducer, but almost none of the other potential or actual social roles he performs. Finally, the audience is allowed to find out how Barney became Barney Stinson: in season nine episode “Unpause”, he drunkly tells Robin and Ted what he is doing for a living. Throughout, Barney answers with “please”, when he is asked about his work. But now, Barney reveals that this is actually an acronym for “Provide Legal Exculpation and Sign Everything”. Fundamentally, Barney is being a legal

32 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA scapegoat for the corrupt activities of his firm and earns a lot of money with it. When Barney was younger, he was naive, and quite a hippie, believing in love and idolizing his first love. His first love, though, breaks his heart and Barney discovers that a businessman successfully stole his girlfriend. Now, Barney wants to be like this man: he meets him in the office, and actually becomes the company's fall guy. The transformation from a nice guy with long blond hair and the belief in love has left Barney unhappy, and therefore he turns himself into his al- ter-ego Barney Stinson, the businessman and irresistible seducer. He subsumes that this must be the solution to his unfulfilling love life. But he actually gives up finding love and simply shuts himself off, seducing women, without ever letting deep feelings evolve out of the romances. He is not only the hard-ass worker at the firm, but also turns into this persona in his private life, especially concerning women. Barney might actually harm other people by stand- ing in for corrupt activities; but he does not care and this lack of empathy is also recognizable in his personal life. He does not mind hurting women but only cares for an ego booster and his love life becomes more technical and practical. Before this revelation, he was not able to display how successful he really is, despite the fact that he often brags about how much money he is earning. His social role as successful employee can only be presented in modest ways – whereas he can openly display his success with women, which is quite densely interconnected with his job performance. Barney only cares for a short romance – wearing suites and having a lot of money are crucial aspects in his life; therefore, it seems quite clear that he additionally puts women in the realm of capitalism and consumerism. He needs to earn as much money as he can – and tries to seduce as many women as he can – consuming them, always trying to get more. In season three, episode ten, called “The Yips”, Barney meets the woman he lost his virginity to, Rhonda French, but she does not recognize him anymore. Barney is baffled because back then, Rhonda told him that he was the best sex partner she had ever been with. Now though, it is revealed that Barney's brother actually payed Rhonda money to persuade her to sleep with him. His brother wanted to assist Barney in building his self-confidence up and it was a success: after Rhonda tells Barney that he was the best man she had ever been with, Barney suddenly sees himself as superman, being able to sexually satisfy all women. This experience shaped Barney's self-perception and constitutes a significant part of his self-confidence. When Rhonda does not remember Barney though, and reveals how their sexual engagement came about, Barney is insecure and suddenly behaves awkwardly in the presence of women. In the end, Rhonda and Barney discuss this issue and Rhonda wants to help Barney to build his self- confidence up, without sexual interactions. The woman thinks that this might constitute a

33 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA problem since Barney cannot evaluate himself without considering sexual interactions. Bar- ney interprets himself widely through his positive sexual experiences, they determine who he is, and also how valuable he is. In the end though, Barney and Rhonda have sex, and the character is back to normal and leaves Rhonda's apartment, being the old Barney Stinson. He does not learn anything about the respectful treatment of women in the process, but the happenings only reaffirm his assumption that he is the best lover. The incorrigibly false self evaluation is quite ridiculous and depicts Barney's deepest self-consciousness. Being able to make women happy is important to Barney, but not because he really wants to make them happy, but because he wants to make himself happy: by that he continuously tries to defend and protect his social status as successful man. Another example occurs in season one, episode thirteen, called “Drumroll, Please”: Barney is always on the lookout for new women in bars. He interprets himself as “ten”, meaning that on a scale of one to ten, concerning sexiness, Barney sees himself as the sexiest. This scale is also applied when looking for new women: he would only engage with women who are some- where between seven and ten on the aforementioned scale. Everything else is unacceptable. To attribute women specific numbers according to a certain scale system that should resemble the degree of sexiness puts women into a realm of things, which on the one hand, have to be new, and on the other hand, should – superficially speaking – be within a certain range of Bar- ney's perceived sexiness rating scale. It is not about a person's characteristics, but he interprets women as things, rating them, classifying them and ultimately again turning women into commodities, which do not have intrinsic value. Barney subscribes value to these things, based on a superficial understanding of sexiness and attractiveness, only considering bodily attributes. These women are objectified since the TV character does not see more than what meets the eye, but can only order, classify and simplify these female characters. Personality does not exist in Barney's interpretation of femininity, when it comes to women he might be sexually interested in. The simplification of the female psyche is also foregrounded by De Beauvoir (2017): a male view point that forces women to be immanent, not being able to transcend their physical appearance since they are objects; and therefore, only determined by the physical manifestations of their personalities. Barney treats some women differently: he seems to love his mother and even turns to her for solace and advice. This suggests that he sees more in his mother than only a woman. They do not really have an honest relationship with each other though, which might explain why Barney has no trouble lying in his personal and professional interactions. Most other women though are not allowed to have a complex personality. Bar- ney constructs his own 'reality' which sets women as passive objects. It is not of importance to

34 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA him who these women are since they are not more than what meets the eye. Women are gen- eralized in his perspective, which becomes clear when looking at his “The Hot/Crazy scale” that appears in season three, episode five: “How I Met Everyone Else”. He is fond of the idea of classifying women, in order to find general rules as to how to deal with them. Everything is turned into a resembling number, in a fixed system to allow Barney to think less about women's personalities, which is also why in his opinion, female personalities generally speaking, do not exist. At a particular point in the story, Barney explains Ted that being an architect, which is Ted's profession, opens up new doors for seducing women. Ted should use his social status to conquer women, but since Ted is dating Robin at that time, Barney secretly tries himself in Ted's role and introduces himself as “Ted Mosby: Architect”. This happens in season four, episode thirteen, and depicts a crazy night in which Barney proves that single women like architects. Again, he generalizes all women to certain attributes and claims to know all about them, how they can be tricked, playing with their feelings and at the same time not acknowledging that these women have feelings. He objectifies these women and turns them into one-dimensional things, being easy to understand and influenced and most of the time in the series, he is quite successful with his tricks. The presented women are not only interpreted as simple objects in Barney's world view, but also act and behave as if they were nothing more than their appear- ances. The show additionally depicts these females as naive, slow on the uptake and trustful towards Barney's advances. Although, Barney's friends generally point out that his behavior is unacceptable, they sometimes celebrate him and even support him in seducing women. What should the audience take away from these representations? Should these depictions represent and imitate the 'real' world? Or, should these scenes only serve the purpose of comedic relief (since naive, young and pretty women are stupid, and therefore hilarious?)? What does this suggest about the status of women nowadays? These thoughts are also elaborated on by De Beauvoir (2017): she discusses several famous narratives with regard to the representation of femininity. Femininity is represented in the unteachable female archetype because male subjects construct 'reality' and presented 'realities' in literature and movies.

4.1.2. Commodification of Women in The Big Bang Theory

At the beginning of The Big Bang Theory, Howard Wolowitz has difficulties meeting women since they are repulsed by his behavior. He cannot really find himself a woman in his natural environment, but Howard continually uses the service of prostitutes to satisfy his sexual desires. In “The Stag Convergence”, Howard and his friends celebrate his engagement with Bernadette and suddenly, Howard’s secrets are revealed: over the course of his life, he has en- 35 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA gaged with several prostitutes and other sexual affairs. Since the video of these revelations is uploaded, Bernadette finds out and confronts Howard, who claims that he is not proud of it, and that it did not mean anything – the women did not mean anything to him. Although, a prostitute's job is to earn money with having intercourses with various men, they are still valuable humans and not objects that can be used and re-used. The problem is that women in the sex business are mostly interpreted as commodities which can be bought, sold and exchanged. In “Historical Timeline. History of Prostitution from 2400 BC to the Present”, which appeared online on ProCon.org; it is stated that prostitution “occurs in the earliest lists of pro- fessions dating back to ca. 2400 B.C.“. Although prostitution can be considered as one of the oldest businesses on earth, the commodification of women cannot be interpreted as given social fact. Whereas Bernadette is not fond of Howard's past experiences, most of his friends la- bel this behavior as uncritical. Women are commodified in that sense and the show represents a common perception of prostitution by people who engage or do not engage in such sexual affairs. The women's body is commodified and can be used as exchange-value. In “The Com- modification of Women's Bodies in Trafficking for Prostitution and Egg Donation” (2009), Acero claims that this can be linked with Marx's ideas and shows how “female labor power is exploited”. In “The Objectification of Women in the Prostitution Industry: The Discourse of Agency”, which appeared online on January 20, 2009; it is stated that

“The discourse of the objectification of women has become in the forefront of scholarly research due to its unquestionable significance to many interdisciplinary studies. The objectification of women assumes various shapes; among which is the prostitution industry which remains a controversial issue in literature”.

Thus, since prostitution is present in the 'real' world, the depiction of prostitution in the show is not surprising or clearly controversial. The notion and perception of prostitution that is neither mentioned nor discussed or critically highlighted in the show, constitutes the center of the critique. Therefore, it can be interpreted as a 'normal' aspect of life that needs no further elab- oration. De Beauvoir (2017) argues that since women are thought of as immanence, they are reduced to their body: prostitution is thus directly linked to the commodification of women. In “The Panty Piñata Polarization“, Howard and Raj, another friend of his, try to find the house that is being mentioned in “America's Next Top Model“, a reality show on TV. Throughout this episode, the two men talk about the super model house like a pool of women who are just waiting to be seduced. The passivity of women is quite interesting in Howard's and Raj's behavior in this case. Although, both of them never experienced what it feels like to be popular in the women's world, they talk about the models like objects which are trapped in this house waiting to be freed and loved by the two men. This surreal expectation is quite 36 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA strong in its comedic affect for the show – the audience is aware of the fact that they do not really have a chance at seducing or owning these models. Owning a woman adds to how successful the two of them feel – bragging about with how many women they have slept with reinforces the idea of interpreting women as objects, commodities, which are necessary to consume in order to live a fulfilling life. The episode references the real show “America's Next Top Model” and highlights that women's bodies are commodified in the 'real' world as well. Modeling includes selling your body, or at least, that a model's capital is her body; she is her body. In her book Perfectionism and Contemporary Female Values, Yuracko claims that

“If commodified sexual relations prevent individuals from being capable of forming the kind of intimate personal relations necessary for human flourishing – because they lose the ability to think of themselves or others in the appropriate way- then what kinds of commodified activities must be discouraged? Should individuals be discouraged only from the most crass form of sexual commodification – prostitution – or must they also be discouraged from other variations of sexual commodification – stripping, pornographic modeling, fashion modeling? Where does the perfec- tionist ideal of caring intimate relations come down on these real-life choices and why?” (2003: 40)

The writer calls into question how fashion modeling and other forms of commodification of sexuality and women influence human's perception of themselves, as well as of women in general. Looking at shows such as “America's Next Top Model” reinforces these problematic issues since body is capital, and determines a woman's value. The concept of beauty seems to be invariable, although it is subject to change and only a trend question. The fashion industry is geared towards profit – as everything in capitalism – thus, women and men need to commodify their bodies in order to earn money. This includes to align oneself to current standards and ideas about a perfect body. The value of a model is determined by her salary as working force and the reduction to bodily attributes is therefore subject to various debates and one trig- ger for the commodification of women. Representing women as passive agents, as things or objects that can simply be taken and con- sumed by men, is highly controversial. Especially in Howard's case, women are not represented as having any personal longings – he does not ask whether these women want to be conquered or not – he simply believes that when he is seducing in the right way, he will be successful, independent from the personalities of women. All women are presented as having the same personality – and in the end, no personality. The only important thing to Howard, or Barney, is that they are female – that is the only characteristic that determines who the women are. A collective of female objects, unable to think, act or feel and only source of sexual desire.

37 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

4.2. Commodification of Relationships

This part of the analysis aims at studying the depiction of commodification of relationships in the selected shows. In “Commodification of culture and human relations”, which appeared online on Anthropol- ogy & The Human condition; it is claimed that “Commodification of culture and human interactions refers to the fact that values are allocated based on monetary worth assigned by different individuals and that culture and human interactions are being treated as commodity”. Where are these notions detectable in the depictions of the series?

4.2.1. Commodification of Relationships in How I Met Your Mother

In the series How I Met Your Mother, Ted is throughout searching for his true love. In the episode “Matchmaker”, Ted signs up for a matchmaking service, which is called Love Solu- tions. Although Love Solutions claims to find the perfect match for every individual, Ted ends up with only one match, one woman, who will marry the following weekend. With the technological revolution, new technologies and services are offered to people, in order to fulfill their lives. This also includes finding the one true love. In “Love and Capitalism: the commodification of dating and relationships”, which appeared online on Eventbrite; Gruswitz calls for a workshop against the commodification of love. The statement “Capitalism Kills Love”, clearly points at the problematic aspects about the influence of consumerism and capitalism on human relationships and other interactions:

“What does a drink buy you? How does objectification show itself in dating? Why are financial stresses the biggest conflict for married couples? In this workshop, we'll talk about how capitalism effects our love lives and how to get free. How do we unlearn the images and stories we are bombarded with in the media and entertainment about gender, sexuality, and money? How do we avoid financial conflicts in our relationship? How do we change the way our society functions in this regard? This workshop will be broken into three segments. In the first, we'll discuss how capitalism commodifies our love lives. In the second, we will discuss how to make changes in our lives to unlearn what capitalism has taught us and work on what we need to have healthy love lives. In the third, we will discuss ways we can advocate for systematic change”.

On the website it is said that “Abe Gruswitz is a community organizer for non-profits, cooper- atives, free schools, and communes, and is an ordained minister who coaches couples before marriage as well as officiating their weddings”. What a drink can buy you, was already discussed in Commodification of Women, especially in Barney's case. Spending money – buying a drink – can actually buy a woman, it is the first step to conquer women at the bar. At least

38 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA this is arguable when looking at examples of human interactions in How I Met Your Mother. Ted has to pay money in order to be matched by Love Solutions. They want to help people to find their true love – but not out of solidarity, but for the sake of money. The dating industry tells people that there exists an easy solution to their unfulfilling love lives: paying someone else to find that one person. This sounds obscene and undoable, but people do pay for services to find that one match. Owning and spending money is presented as the ultimate solution to everything. There is nothing cannot be bought, including love relationships. The commodification of love is two-sided: on the one hand, the love searching individuals themselves believe in commodifying love relations because it seems to be an easy answer to their unhappi- ness. On the other hand, the dating industry earns money from providing such services, and plays its part in the commodification of love. It is not easy to detect the real culprit – probably it is a partnership, enabled by capitalistic ideas and consumerism. In another episode, called “The Final Page”, three characters, namely Lily, Marshall and Bar- ney, run into their old high school friend Daryl. On How I Met Your Mother Wiki, it is said that “Meanwhile, while at Wesleyan, Marshall and Lily run into Daryl, who lives down the street from the Wesleyan campus and has a hacky sack stand at Wesleyan, called 'The Three Hackmigos', after him, Marshall and Lily. Daryl invites Marshall and Lily to his house to 'give them something'. He takes them to the basement of their house, making Marshall and Lily scared as they think he is going to murder them, which they blurt out when he returns with his hands behind his back. However, Daryl tells them that he only wanted to give them a check for a hundred thousand dollars for coming up with the idea of 'The Three Hackmigos' with him. Lily apologizes to him and for acting like idiots tries to accept the check, but he says it's fine and he doesn't need the their validations since he is doing great. He then tears the check, instead of giving it to them”.

Marshall and Lily are not happy to encounter Daryl, since they are scared of his craziness, but accompany him to his house and cellar, although they fear that he wants to kill them. Marshall though wants to get on Barney's nerves, and tries to prove that people can change, although he is sure that Daryl is still as crazy as back in High school. After Daryl reveals that he does not want to kill them but actually wants to give them a lot of money, although they had not been friends for years, Marshall and Lily's perception of Daryl changes. Now, they do not only see Daryl as creepy man, but can only think of the money that comes along with a friendship with Daryl. The possible monetary reward drives them into wanting to make friends with him again, but not because they suddenly perceive him as a nice individual. They detect the financial benefit of being in a social relationship with Daryl, which seems to be of more importance than simply benefitting from being friends with him, as a person. Even afterwards, Mar-

39 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA shal and Lilly do not realize that they did him wrong but only regret not receiving the money because of their behavior. Here, it is more effective to make the audience laugh about the missed opportunity, than to talk about how Lilly and Marshal behave towards Daryl. When looking at Barney's behavior, it becomes clear that owning seems to define Barney's social role, and is also linked to his status as successful man – in the personal sphere, as well as when it comes to earning money. Consuming more and more, owning more and more domi- nates Barney's interpretation of being successful, which is mostly influenced by his economic interests. Mass-consumption and mass-production resemble his perception of women and love: women are all the same, faceless, a number of inanimate commodities that Barney wants to own. Sometimes though, Barney has trouble seducing women on his own; therefore, when Barney and Ted meet, Barney soon sees a potential wingman in Ted; and this new friend, Ted Mosby, should help him pick up girls. Sometimes in the story, Ted wants to engage in morally questionable behavior towards women, loves his single life and does not treat women very respectfully in the meantime. At other occasions, Ted only wants to find his true love – marry, have children, and grow old together. The character Ted Mosby is inconsistent when it comes to his perception of women, and additionally, his perception of Barney. On websites, including Reddit, IGN Boards, Nique.at or other fandom pages and discussion forums, it becomes clear that the inconsistencies in Ted's character have not been left unnoticed: for example, in “Seriously, Ted Mosby is a Jerk”, which appeared online on Technique, on April 4, 2014; Narayan, like many other fans, complain about Ted's transformation from “the hopeless romantic” to an ”annoying hypocrite”. The writer discusses how Ted, on the one hand, likes to benefit from Barney's tack ticks, when it comes to seducing women; on the other hand, he complains about his friend's behavior. When Barney meets Ted and understands that Ted could be useful to him in assisting him in conquering women, Barney is motivated to become friends with Ted. Ted is considered to be a part of Barney's life as wingman, but not as a real person, but only for a specific function. When people meet, mutual evaluation can be considered the norm; the question is only, which qualities determine someone's value in terms of friendship. Even though Barney is a successful businessman, he craves for the attention of friends, and especially women, to define and create his desired social position. Friends are part of his social capital who should serve a specific purpose: conquering women. All of these aspects add up to his personal perception of a successful man in a capitalistic society.

4.2.2. Commodification of Relationships in The Big Bang Theory

In The Big Bang Theory, Raj is depicted as a rich character: his father is a rich Indian gyne- cologist, and Raj also profits from his parent's wealth. Raj has trouble meeting women, but is 40 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA finally set up with a deaf woman, called Emily, who is one of Penny's friends in the episode “The Wiggly Finger Catalyst”. Raj suffers from selective mutism, and therefore, it should not be a problem to be with Emily, since she is deaf anyway; which is itself a highly critical depiction but used for a comedic affect. Emily and Raj are dating for about one month and he loves to buy her things, such as clothes and jewelry. After his parents realize though that Raj is spending a fortune for his new girlfriend, his father tells him that he will stop providing him with money, as long as he engages with a woman, who is not Indian. Raj tells his parents that their love does not need money; but after he talks to Emily about his parent's resentment, she is not satisfied with Raj's plan to live without his parent's money. She soon breaks up with him: whether Emily was only with Raj because of expected wealth, or simply realized after some time that she could benefit financially from the relationship is not made clear in the show. Nevertheless, in this sense, Raj is commodified as being a potential open door to wealth. It seems as if Emily only engaged in the relationship because of money and not because of Raj's personality. For the audience, her resentment is presented in a comedic way and although Penny comforts Raj afterwards, Emily's behavior is not discussed in the series. Raj's friends even assume that Emily is after nothing but the money. The show suggests that money is always a potential incentive to be with someone, but fails in discussing this issue. Whereas Raj is devastated about how things turned out with Emily, Howard deals differently with such experiences. In season one, Howard starts a quick affair with Penny's friend Christy in the episode “The Dumpling Paradox”. Since Christy is staying at Penny's place and Penny is annoyed by Howard' and Christy's behavior, they soon move to his mother's place. Howard continuously provides Christy with food, jewelry and new clothes. Soon, Penny informs Howard that Christy is exploiting him for money, since he buys her things and she satisfies his sexual longings. Howard's reaction is sort of surreal though: he is happy about this revelation, celebrating that he can finally buy himself a woman who therefore performs sexual activities with him. He is not sad about being exploited for material goods – but celebrates the possibilities money opens up for him. Capitalism opens new doors for the ones who own money – nevertheless, some personal spheres should resist being dwelled into capitalistic ideologies. This emphasis is quite interesting, since it reveals, how people themselves accept being put into the realm of commodities. But in the end, Howard will and cannot find his true love in that way, but that is not the issue for him at this point of the show. Sheldon and Amy, two other main characters in The Big Bang Theory, have their own sort of relationship: they sign a binding contract that sets the rules of their social interrelation. They famously call the contract “Shamy's Relationship Agreement”. Amy first signs it in “The

41 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

Flaming Spitton Acquisition” and interprets it as quite romantic. Afterwards, in season six, she calls the contract “ridiculous”, although she is fond of the fact that it is binding. This contract gives them security and turns love into a practical matter. In earlier stages of society, marriage was also interpreted as a form of contract which is binding. Love is not the issue here, but ownership and legal justice determine a relationship. Sheldon's character likes to order his life – regulations are an important part of that. The relationship agreement should further enhance the regularity of his life. Treating it as a contractual agreement calls into question how Sheldon perceives relationships in general. His friends have very specific functions in his life: his roommate Leonard, for example, has the obligation to give him a lift to work. This is also put down in a contract between Leonard and Sheldon, in the sense of a roommate agreement. To Sheldon, human relationships are something very difficult to perform, since he feels quite uncomfortable with human closeness. Therefore, he tries to order his personal life with contracts, like any other business agreements. Life is unsafe to him and he finds solace in setting up binding contracts to save him from any unexpected happenings. This is not always directly linked to a monetary benefit, but in the end, his relationships seem business-like, and he does benefit financially from it. He is using and exploiting human relations to better his personal life and commodifies relationships in the sense that he operates on them in the realm of industrial mechanisms, only evaluating his personal profit. Even though, Sheldon, in the course of the story, becomes more humane and even feels that he needs his friends for more than just for some sort of benefit, he acts on relationships like business, and therefore commodifies every single participant in the course of it. In episode “The Sales Call Sublimation”, Penny tries to sell pharmaceuticals to a psychiatrist, called Dr.Gallo. She comes home complaining about having no chance of selling drugs to the psychiatrist. Soon, she comes up with the idea that Leonard should make an appointment at Dr.Gallo's office, in order to trick her into buying the aforementioned pharmaceuticals from Penny. At first, Leonard is not fond of this idea but he cannot refuse helping her. In this case, Penny's success in her job is dependent on his assistance and she uses her relationship with Leonard to be successful in her job. She thinks that since Leonard is her boyfriend, he has the obligation to help her in this scenario. Of course, Penny not only engages with Leonard because of financial benefit; nevertheless, she uses her personal relationship in order to gain monetary success. This becomes even clearer when looking at the beginning of their friendship, and later, relationship. They meet when Penny moves in next door – Penny starts hang- ing out with Leonard and his friends Sheldon, Howard and Raj. She wants to be an actress, but has difficulties fulfilling her dream. In the meantime, she is working at the Cheesecake

42 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA

Factory as waitress to afford her living. Again and again, she finds herself in a financial bot- tleneck, and borrows money from the boys. Additionally, she comes over to eat dinner with them – which is mostly bought by Leonard. When Leonard afterwards asks about money for dinner, she cannot give him any. Sheldon is outraged and asks how she can survive without money in her wallet – Penny answers “I am cute, I get by”. Penny commodifies her beauty in order to benefit financially from it, but also her friendship with the boys, since otherwise she could not afford food, rent or the bill for electricity. She knows that especially Leonard would always help her – exploiting his financial stability in order to personally benefit from it. After some time, Penny starts to like Leonard in a romantic way – it is questionable, whether this would have happened, if Leonard did not provide her with material goods. In season eleven, episode 9, “The Bitcoin Entanglement”, which was first aired in Austria on March 5, 2018, a big secret is revealed: one of Penny's ex-boyfriends shows Leonard and Penny a video that Penny made when she and Leonard first broke up, a few seasons before. Leonard himself says that he thinks that Penny did not care about the break-up, but the video shows her drunk, re- vealing that she really loves Leonard from the heart. This revelation changes the way one looks at their relationship: this is probably one of the most fascinating facts about sitcoms, they are “open-ended” (Baker 2007) and therefore, the story can always be changed in the following seasons. Therefore, real conclusions about the shows are rather difficult to draw. In- serting details later on in the show, on the one hand, makes it more 'real' since life is not linear in the first place, so why should the lives of the characters in the show follow a linear development? On the other hand, the audience cannot know, whether these late revelations were planned from the beginning, or only come in handy in later seasons to explain certain circumstances. The story can always be changed, even years afterwards, which makes it even harder to really understand the incentives and intentions behind the fictional characters. In season eight, Penny puts acting down, quits being a waitress and starts to work as a phar- maceutical sales representative in the same company as her friend Bernadette. Suddenly, Penny earns more money than Leonard – which is mentioned again-and-again as sidekick on Leonard. He though, does not seem to really care about the differences in income between him and his, now, wife. When Bernadette though, starts working at the same company a few seasons before, her husband Howard cannot deal with the fact that she earns more money than him. Howard starts questioning his masculinity and therefore, their income poses a problem in their relationship. On the one hand, Bernadette uses her higher income to restrict Howard's consumer behavior: he gets pocket money and has to obtain approval from his wife to buy certain goods. It is fascinating to observe how Bernadette's job change influences their rela-

43 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA tionship on a very personal level. Bernadette wields power over Howard's leisure activities, which she gains because of her financial capital. The character exercises power in their relationship, due to the fact that money, in Bernadette's and Howard's understanding, seems to play an important role in self-confidence. On the other hand, a high salary is one of the characteristics that define Howard as masculine. Being masculine is treated equally with attaining a higher income than his wife, a feminine persona. Bernadette derides Howard, maybe also since she continuously had to defend her position as a woman in science, and thus illustrates how she finally obtains power as a woman in a male-dominated business. The controversial aspect about this depiction is how money can determine who you are, and what you are worth. They do seem to be in love; nevertheless, monetary capital is abused in order to defend one's position in life, especially in relationships. Both of them attribute special value to money, thus reproduce capitalistic ideologies, such as the status of money, as the ultimate value. Again, these representations are surrounded by comedic elements. The audience can especially notice the comedic aspect through the added laughter. When watching the show, the spectators hear laughter that imitates a real audience, outside of the gaze of the viewers. This laughter encourages the spectator be amused as well and conceals problematic aspects about this depiction. Another example of commodification of relationships is the depiction of giving presents. At Christmas, Birthdays and so on; people like to give and receive presents. People grow up believing that presents are an important part of life, although presents often present more than just an attempt to evoke delight in the donee. They are material goods that are used to express a certain degree of friendship and closeness with the recipient. Although, this problematic theme is not really expanded on in How I Met Your Mother though, the discussion about an inappropriate present happens over and over again in The Big Bang Theory. In The Big Bang Theory, many harsh assertions are included for the comedic affect. Sheldon especially has a problem with giving and receiving presents. He thinks that when you receive a present, you have to give the person a present back, resembling the value of the first. Equality plays an important role for him, but only in the light of monetary expenses; meaning that the value of a present is determined by its financial aspect. This is one of the reasons why Sheldon does not want to get any presents in the first place. Once, Penny makes Sheldon aware of the social obligation to buy a friend a present for his/her birthday. She is of the opinion that this is part of being friends, which shows how personal relationships are put into the realm of consumerism and capitalism. The value of the present – the spent money – differentiates how close you are to someone: close friends are ought to receive more expensive presents. It is questionable though, whether this, in Penny's eyes, only applies to how she should distribute

44 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA presents or if she also thinks that others have the obligation to give her presents as well. In season two, episode eleven, called “The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis”, for example, Sheldon repeatedly explains that he does not like giving presents because it includes a social obligation. Is giving presents solely about social obligation, or can it also be interpreted as a more un- selfish act, simply to make someone else happy? This picture is not drawn in the show, but giving presents includes, in the character's eyes, thus in the show's eyes, that you will also receive a present in return. Therefore, social relationships are easily commodified in the case of giving and receiving presents, which is far more than making another person happy. A further instance of commodification of relationships in The Big Bang Theory is depicted when a new woman moves in upstairs in the episode “The Dead Hooker Juxtaposition”. Leonard, Howard and Raj go completely crazy because they are fond of the new resident. She is an actress and would be called beautiful, when comparing her to current beauty standards. After they meet, the boys offer, (the new resident also asks), to help her move in. The woman is glad about the help, and makes them believe that maybe, they will get to know each other even better, when they help her, but is actually only exploiting them. The boys do not necessarily care since they always had to work hard in order to get the desired woman. Penny dis- likes this scene because she thinks that the new woman wants to push her off the throne. She confronts the new resident, and they end up fighting over who gets to exploit the boys, by tricking them with their beauty. This shows how the three boys are being commodified for their practical use. They take care of several things in the woman's apartment; she probably would have needed a professional installer to do the work, but gets it done for free because of leading the boys to believe that she is sexually interested. When Penny confronts her, she ad- mits that this is indeed her intention – and does not understand Penny's outrage, since Penny, as the new resident claims, has been doing the same. For the first time, in “The Dead Hooker Juxtaposition”, Penny is confronted with the accusation of using the boys for her personal benefits, and she cannot really deny this fact. Yuracko discusses the importance of intimate social relations und highlights that resisting to commodify one's personal relations is a necessity (2003: 38). When continuously looking at sitcoms in order to evaluate oneself, others and the world, people are living in a 'reality' based on an illusionary image of the world. Standards can more easily determine people's lives, and makes them susceptible to manipulation in favor of consumerism and capitalism.

5. Conclusion

Despite the fact that commodification of everyday life constitutes a critical development, some scholars argue that the real problem of capitalism is that it needs wealth to be distributed 45 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA unequally. This inequality is one of the core problems about capitalism: it is not geared towards benefitting everyone, but can only enrich those who already own monetary capital. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, as a result, the financial gab is about to expand even further. The incentives of capitalism and consumerism cannot enable happiness, but only benefit those, who are willing to succumb themselves to the unpredictable power of money. The combination of capitalism and wide-spread digital distribution of visual media constitutes one of the many reasons why media products succeed in invading very personal human spheres. The selected shows offer an interpretation of a 'normal' life development, but is only an illusion that reproduces certain ideologies and a very specific life development that is only achievable for some people. The illusion is created that money can stand in for everything, including women and friends; although this assumption presupposes that someone actually owns money. People need money in order to partake in modern capitalistic leisure activities, but not everyone in the world is able to afford certain consumer goods, although consuming determines one's value in modern society. Further economic growth is only achievable by promoting consumer behavior. Earlier on, heritage determined someone's status in society; nowadays, money serves this function. In that illusory world, money stands in for the ultimate value, and can enhance a better life, when consuming. The interconnectedness between money and value, between consuming and social status, only speaks to those who own money – the rest falls by the wayside. The analysis of the selected series mirrors a world governed by money. The shows engage with some problematic aspects of capitalism and its influence on society, but remain ambiva- lent about it. It is crucial to point out that things are not necessarily commodified on purpose, but simply seem to happen because money determines value. Living things are not the most valuable objects but money is; while ethics give way to economic principles. The shows portray a perceived modern society, of a specific time and place. These media products though, are quite influential internationally, also due to globalization. Although it is questionable whether the shows actually represent 'reality', it is clear that they can only portray one 'reality', if at all. This 'reality' is determined by fictional characters and invented plots; therefore, a result of the collaboration of many different people, including producers, actors and creators. Comedic affect plays a crucial role in the shows, especially in The Big Bang Theory. In some cases, commodification is highlighted by comedy, but this comedic depiction cannot be char- acterized as satirical, which would imply a critical view on the theme. It should simply make the audience laugh, but not think. The shows seem to lack any moral lesson, and solely constitute a product in the television business. Although depicting the commodification of everyday

46 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA life can serve the purpose of forcing social change and raise awareness about social issues, the comedic characteristics of sitcoms might not enable this. It is arguable that by representing these issues, problematic aspects are already foregrounded, since showing already helps rais- ing awareness about some social, political and economic problems. Nevertheless, showing does not equal highlighting. It is not only about representing problems but about discussing them. When not evaluating them, ideologies are easily reproduced; thus, money gains power over human's personal, academic and professional lives in the process: the ultimate commodification of everyday life. Not to mention that it is debatable whether this is the incentive behind the shows. In the end, producers themselves are caught up in a world governed by economic principles; therefore, simply producing media for the sake of profit. Comedy on television is interpreted as compensation for huge 'real' world issues that people desire to ignore; and the selected shows seem to simply sell out to this desire. There are differences noticeable between the two selected shows, with regard to the commodification of women and the commodification of relationships. First, the commodification of women slightly differs between the series. In How I Met Your Mother, Barney's behavior is the most obvious example. Largely through his insecurities, Bar- ney strongly objectifies female characters. His friends, Robin and Ted, even assist him at some occasions, which foregrounds that Barney is not the only culprit in this case. In The Big Bang Theory though, Howard's friends for instance, do not want to help him seducing women, and Howard is far less successful with his advances. Whereas Howard not only objectifies women but also likes to be commodified himself; Barney never has to commodify himself in order to start a short romance. Barney though, acts even harsher upon women, turning them into objects and commodifying them for his own benefit. Additionally, in How I Met Your Mother female characters, besides Lilly or Robin for example, are depicted as naive and stupid. In the other show though, women are portrayed as strong personalities and the male characters actually have problems competing with them. Nevertheless, in both cases, women are commodified, which illustrates that the objectification of women is 'reality', regardless of who objectifies them. Second, the commodification of relationships is quite similarly depicted in both shows but there are nuances that differ. The characters in The Big Bang Theory, especially Penny or Sheldon, strongly objectify their friends to their own advantage. Interestingly, the objectification of relationships is more strongly expressed in the personal interrelations between the main characters, whereas in How I Met Your Mother, this form of commodification is more obviously depicted in less personal relations. This suggests that commodification of human

47 Everything Has a Price Pretzler Lisa, BA relationships is less critical when using less familiar personas to benefit oneself. This detail is interesting; nevertheless, in both cases, human relations are exploited for monetary benefit. Third, the comedic effect plays a more significant role in The Big Bang Theory. In How I Met Your Mother, the characters seem to have a more intimate relationship with one another, whereas in The Big Bang Theory, some characters are closer than others. The first sitcom does apply comedy in order to delight the audience; but in The Big Bang Theory the comedic effect includes more harsh assertions: the characters never miss a chance to make someone look like a fool. Although, some instances are quite controversial, they are less depicted as such. In How I Met Your Mother though, the characters join a process of reflection and the discussion about certain issues is presented. Nevertheless, Barney, in How I Met Your Mother, drives the commodification of women to the extreme, but at least, the show in general more obviously highlights that Barney's behavior is controversial. In the end, sitcoms sell out to capitalism, as earning money is the ultimate goal in the television business, and especially in comedy. The examples provided in the analysis undermine this argument: the commodification of everyday life is extremely prevalent throughout the plots of the shows. The engagement with the shows on fandom pages and discussion forums further enhances the influence of these series: fans discuss behavior, happenings and character traits, as if these fictional personalities were alive and active agents in a, thus, in the 'real' world. The characters are judged for their personalities, which undermines the claim that even though these are solely fictional personas, society is treating them as if they were part of the 'real' world. The representation of a seemingly 'real' world abstraction manipulates the audience, determining what is desirable and normal in a capitalistic world, resulting in the empowerment of money. The social is forced into the background, thus, solidarity is less significant than consuming and owning money. Humans live in social environments and cannot enable freedom for every single member of this social group, if people do not behave in a social manner. Money seems to have erased the social in humans, thus resulting in an alienation of human beings, putting more energy into earning money and consuming than into having sus- tainable relationships. Egoism can destroy social systems and thus, the peaceful co-existence of all human beings.

48 6. Bibliography Acero, Liliana (2009). “The Commodification of Women's Bodies in Trafficking for Prostitution and Egg Donation”. The International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. Vol 2. No.1.

Baker, Chris (2007). Cultural Studies. Los Angeles: Sage Publication.

Ball, Stephen J (2004). “Education for Sale! The Commodification of Everything?”. In: King´s An- nual Education Lecture. London: University of London.

Boundless. “Capitalism in the U.S.” https://www.boundless.com/business/textbooks/boundless-business-textbook/economics-and-business-2/businesses-unde r-capitalist-systems-28/capitalis- m-in-the-u-s-154-7826/ (Accessed 01 May 2017).

BrainyQuote. “Plato Quotes”. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/plato_400440. (Accessed 01 March 2018).

Charisius, Hanno. “Glotzen bis zum Morgengrauen”. Süddeutsche Zeitung. January 30 2015. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/gesundheit/suechtig-nach-tv-s erien-glotzen-bis-zum-morgengrauen- 1.2326536. (Accessed 07 March 2018).

De Beauvoir, Simone (172017). Das andere Geschlecht. (Aumüller, Uli & Grete Osterwald Trans.). Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. (Original work published 1949).

De Grazia, Victoria (2005). Irresistible Empire: America's Advance Through 20th-Century Europe. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

“Drumroll, Please”. Episode Thirteen, Season One. In: How I Met Your Mother.

Fandom. How I Met Your Mother Wiki. “The Final Page – Part One”. http://how-i-met-your-mother.wikia.com/wiki/The_Final_Page_-_Part_One. (Accessed 23 February 20189.

Felluga, Dino. “Terms Used by Marxism”. Introductory Guide to Critical Theory. 2015. Purdue U. http://www.purdue.edu/guidetotheory/marxism/terms/ (Accessed 20 February 2018).

Global Commission on International Migration. “Migration in an Interconnected World: New Di- rection for Action”. October 5 2005. gcim.org/attachements/gcim-complete-report-2005.pdf. (Ac- cessed 01 May 2017).

Gruswitz, Abe. “Love and Capitalism: the commodification of dating and relationships”. Eventbrite. February 13 2017. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/love-and-capitalism-the-commodification -of-dating-and-relationships-tickets-30945626201?aff=es2#. (Accessed 23 February 2018). Halbert, Debora. “Resistance is Fertile: The Commodification of Life and Environmental Protest in the 21stCentury”. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242092152 _ Resistance _is_Fertile _ The_Commodification_of_Life_and_Environmental_Protest_in_the (Accessed 11 May 2017).

Hall, Stuart. (1977). Representations: Cultural Representation are Signifying Practices. London: Sage.

Harvey, David. “RSA Animate: Crises of Capitalism”. Online video clip. Youtube. October 06 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0 (Accessed 01 May 2017).

“How I Met Everyone Else”. Episode Five, Season Three. In: How I Met Your Mother.

Carter, Bays & Thomas Craig (Producer). (2005). How I Met Your Mother. [Television Broadcast] New York: Central Broadcasting Service.

Jurran, Nico. “Netflix-Studie über Serien: Wann Zuschauer zu Fans werden”. heise online. Septem- ber 23 2015. https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Netflix-Studie-ueber-Serien-Wann-Zu schauer -zu-Fans-werden-2824277.html. (Accessed 07 March 2018).

LaMattina, John. “The Washington Post's Irresponsible Critique of Pharma”. Forbes. December 04 2012. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2012/12/04/the-washington-posts-irresponsible- critique-of-pharma/#607d1af607d1 (Accessed 19 May 20179.

LaMattina, John. “Are Pharma Companies Really Similar to Tobacco Companies?”. Forbes. June 17 2014. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2014/01/17/pharma-critics-want-complete- clinical-trial-transparency-yet-want-to-ban-publishing-pharma-funded-studies/#55a1290555a1 (Ac- cessed 19 May 2017).

Leys, Colin & Barbara Harriss-White. “Commodification: the essence of our time”. Open Democ- racy. April 02 2012. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/colin-leys-barbar a-harris- s-white/commodification-essence-of-our-time. (Accessed 20 February 2018).

Liu, Yanchuan (2010). “The Commodification of Human Life: Human Trafficking in the Age of Globalization”. In: Macalester International, Vol. 25, No. 11.

Marx, Karl (1990). Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Trans. Ben Fowkes. New York: Pen- guin, Vol. 1.

Merkur.de. “Studie: TV-Serien verzerren die Berufswelt”. Jannuary 05 2011. https://www . merkur.de/tv/studie-tv-serien-verzerren-berufswelt-1070407.html. (Accessed 11 March 2018). Merriam-Webster. 1828. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sitcom. (Accessed 03 March 2018).

Mulvey, Laura (1999). “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Film Theory and Criticism : Intro- ductory Readings. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (eds.). New York: Oxford UP. 833-44.

Narayan, Arvind. “Seriously, Ted Mosby is a Jerk”. Technique. April 04 2014. http://nique.net/opinions/2014/04/04/seriously-ted-mosby-is-a-co mplete-jerk/. (Accessed 23 March 2018).

Peet, Richard. “Contradictions of Finance Capitalism”. MonthlyReview. December 2011. https://monthlyreview.org/2011/12/01/contradictions-of-finance-capitalism/ (Accessed 19 May 2017).

Porter, Rick. “‘Big Bang Theory’ adjusts up; ‘Grey’s Anatomy,’ ‘Scandal,’ ‘Mom,’ ‘Powerless’ down: Thursday final ratings”. By the Numbers. March 31 2017. http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.- co m/daily-ratings/thursday-final-ratings-march-30-2017/. (Accessed 26 February 2018).

ProCon.org. “Historical Timeline. History of Prostitution from 2400 BC to the Present”. http://mys- tart.incredibar.com/?a=6OAcqiyp6K&i=26&did=10963&loc=skw (Accessed 17 May 2017).

Reddit. “How I Met Your Mother”. 2015. https://www.reddit.com/r/HIMYM/ comments/26clny/ product_placement/?st=je3yjlj2&sh =4587 d78f. (Accessed 26 February 2018).

“Rebound Bro”. Episode Eighteen, Season Three. In: How I Met Your Mother.

Sara Anthro Blog. “The Objectification of Women in the Prostitution Industry: The Discourse of Agency”. January 20 2009. https://anthropologyasawayofbeing.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/the-objectification-of-women-in-the-prostitution-industrythe-discourse-o f-agency/comment-page-1/ (Ac- cessed 17 May 2017).

Schlueter, Roger. “Product placement in movies, TV shows is nothing new”. BND. January 13 2018. http://www.bnd.co m/living/liv-columns-blogs/answer-man/article194555569.html. (Accessed 27 February 2018).

ScreenForce: The Magic of TV. ““TV-Konsum weltweit im anschaulichen Vergleich”. November 17 2016. https:// screenforce.ch/tv-konsum-weltweit/. (Accessed 26 February 2018).

Spiegel Online. Aristoteles: Politik – Kapitel 3. http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/politik-9246/3 (Accessed 20 February 2018).

Stampler, Laura. ”How 'The Big Bang Theory' Dominated The 10 Best Product Placements of 2011”. BusinessInsider. December 23 2011. h ttp://www.businessinsider.com/product-placemen- t-nielsen-top-ten-2011-12?IR=T. (Accessed 26 February 2018).

Street, Paul. “Gross Inequality All Too “Normal” Under Capitalism”. telesur. July 27 2014. https://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Gross-Inequality-All-Too-Normal-Under-Capitalism- 20140727-0017.html. (Accessed 03 March 2018).

Sturken, Marita & Lisa Cartwright (20183a). “Modernity: Spectatorship, the Gaze, and Power”. In: Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. 89-133.

Sturken, Marita & Lisa Cartwright (20183b). “Brand Culture: The Images and Spaces of Consump- tion”. In: Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. 257-299.

“Ted Mosby: Architect”. Season Four, Episode Thirteen. In: How I Met Your Mother.

“The Bath Item Gift Hypothesis”. Episode Eleven, Season Two. In: The Big Bang Theory.

Lorre, Chuck & Bill Prady (Producers). (2007). The Big Bang Theory [Television Broadcast]. CA: Chuck Lorre Productions and Warner Bros.

“The Bitcoin Entanglement”. Episode Nine, Season Eleven. In: The Big Bang Theory.

“The Dead Hooker Juxtaposition”. Episode Nineteen, Season Two. In: The Big Bang Theory.

Schultz, Nora. “Serien-Junkies auf Entzug: Fernsehen, bis der Arzt kommt”. SpiegelOnline. Decem- ber 13 2013. http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/fox-studie-tv-serien-loesen-entzugser- scheinungen-wie-bei-drogen-aus-a-93888 8.html. (Accessed 07 March 2018).

“The Dumpling Paradox”. Episode Seven, Season One . In: The Big Bang Theory.

“The Final Page”. Episode Eleven, Season Eight. In: How I Met Your Mother.

“The Panty Piñata Polarization“. Episode Seven, Season Two. In: The Big Bang Theory.

“The Playbook”. Episode Eight, Season Five. In: I Met Your Mother.

“The Psychic Vortex”. Episode Twelve, Season Three. In: The Big Bang Theory.

“The Sales Call Sublimation”. Episode Twelve, Season Nine. In: The Big Bang Theory.

"The Wiggly Finger Catalyst". Episode Four, Season Five. In: The Big Bang Theory.

“The Yips”. Episode Ten, Season Three. In: How I Met Your Mother.

TimonPumbaa. “Commodification of culture and human relations”. Anthropology & The Human Condition. October 29 2012. http://sc2218.wikifoundry.com/page/Commodification +of+ culture+ and+human+relations . (Accessed 23 February 2018).

“Unpause”. Episode Fifteen, Season Nine. In: How I Met Your Mother.

Weinberg, Meyer. “A Short History of American Capitalism”. NewHistory. Http:// new history .org/CH01.html (Accessed 01 May 2017).

Yuracko, Kimberly A (2003). Perfectionism and Contemporary Feminist Values. Indiana: Indiana University Press.