Global Humanities

HIB-F-2016

Autumn Semester

Roskilde University

2017

Number of Characters: 97795

Friends: An Investigation of Television in Modern Capitalism

Authors: 61157 Adam Bahloul 60180 Aileen Wrobble 60203 Lavinia-Georgiana Chifan 61302 Lucas Cordeiro Yoshida 60169 Galatea Bellugi

Abstract

This paper explores the pilot episode of the sitcom ‘Friends’. It investigates the images, narratives and underlying messages and puts them in relation to the critical theory of popular culture, which entails that art in modern capitalism is commodified. In this mode, art and culture start to resemble and reproduce society and the current social regime instead of exposing alternative realities and worldviews. The investigation concludes that the show, through humor, clichés, stereotypes, symbols and other features, imposes the various ideals and messages of reality and society, which perpetuates and reinforces the familiar worldview of the audience.

I dette projekt udforskes den første episode af sitcom-serien 'Venner'. Den undersøger billeder, fortællinger og underliggende meddelelser og sætter dem i forhold til den kritiske teori om populærkultur, hvilket indebærer, at kunst i moderne kapitalisme er en vare som skal sælges. I denne tilstand begynder kunst og kultur at efterligne og reproducere samfundet og den nuværende sociale ordning frem for at fremstille alternative realiteter og verdensbilleder. Undersøgelsen konkluderer, at showet gennem humor, klichéer, stereotyper, symboler og andre træk formidler de forskellige idealer og budskaber om virkelighed og samfund, som understøtter og forstærker det allerede kendte verdensbillede hos publikum.

1 Table of Contents

Abstract 2

Table of Contents 3

Introduction 5

Problem Formulation 6

Dimensions 7 Philosophy and Science 7 Text and Sign 7

Theory of Science 8 What is Art? 10 What Does Art Do for People? 11

Theory 15 A Small Introduction to Kantian Enlightenment 15 Adorno and Horkheimer - The Culture Industry 17

Methodology 24 Theories of Text and Sign 24 Structuralism 25 Psychoanalysis 25

Empirical Data 26

Analysis 29 Introduction 29 Setting and Timeframe 30 Stereotypes and Clichés 31 Clichés 31 Stereotypes 32 Humor 34 Symbols and Ideals 37 Conflicts 39 Chandler’s Conflict 40 Rachel’s Conflict 42 Summary of the Analysis 44

Delimitations 45

Conclusion 47

Bibliography 49

2 Literature 49 Websites 49

3 Introduction

Nowadays, TV shows are a very constant and present thing in people’s lives and it is because of their popularity that we find it necessary to critically investigate what possible implications they might have. In the quest to do so, we decided to explore if TV shows have a similar role to that of art, which is an important aspect that has been part of human lives for centuries. Moreover, one of the questions that drove our curiosity, was whether or not they take or can take anything away from the shows; perhaps, a message or a lesson. In order to get to the bottom of the issues concerning TV shows, people and their relation to it, we decided to look at the popular sitcom Friends, as people from different generations have watched and still watch it due to its relatability. To analyze it, we have chosen to engage with different theories from different writers and philosophers; such as, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Ellen Dissayana. Their concepts and theories serve as a foundation for our analysis, as they aid us as lenses, through which we interpret what is being said and conveyed in the show. We have decided to focus on the pilot episode of the show to see which social dynamics can be identified in it, if any. Being equipped with these different tools, we can delve into the parallel between TV shows and life and into their connection. Finally, one of our goals is to critically think about art and whether or not it imitates life, if they influence and if they shape each other.

4 Problem Formulation

In which way can analyzing the sitcom ‘Friends’, from a philosophical perspective, help us have a better understanding of modern television and its relation in regards to the viewer and social dynamics?

Sub-questions: - Can we establish a parallel between art and television shows? - What makes people relate to television shows? - What are the potential problematic features of art in modern capitalism ? - How can such features be seen in Friends?

5 Dimensions

In this project, we are moving in two different dimensions in order to work with our empirical data.

Philosophy and Science

When embedding our project in the dimension of Philosophy and Science, we are looking at different theoretical perspectives. We are connecting Kant’s enlightenment project with theories from Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, with which we will move into critical theory and which will give us an insight into the views on enlightenment and on the concept of culture industry. All this will lead us to understand the base of pop-culture and its purpose in modern society. ​ ​

Text and Sign

The second dimension in which our project is situated is the dimension of Text and Sign. Concentrating on the two concepts of structuralism and psychoanalysis, we will use those as tools as part of our methodology to look at the empirical data, which is a television show. Aspects such as linguistic features are looked at in order understand how the audience sees themselves connected to the content of the television show.

6

Theory of Science We wish to elaborate a bit further on our ontological and epistemological position in our project and how this reflects in the theories we have chosen to work with. A few things regarding the core of the project can be explained further. We are dealing with television, specifically one show, as an aspect of a popular culture which plays an extremely significant role in contemporary society. We believe that there are certain elements of television which need to be understood better in order to understand the genre, its role and potential in society as a whole. We wish to shed light on certain elements and instances of the show. We argue that this engagement with particularity will broaden the scope of how one might deal with and understand some general features of art in contemporary society. This is done through the scrutiny of the particular narratives, images and ideals depicted in ‘Friends’ and related to the theoretical framework of popular culture. In that sense our investigation is always bound in the particular and takes place always on the micro-level. At the same time, it must always be situated in relation to the macro structure of popular culture. Adorno and Horkheimer provide critical view of such structure, and it must thus be clarified that our investigation, in negotiating with such critique will itself depart in a critical unease with the relation between the particular narratives and the macro structure. In that sense, we will be in constant negotiation between the particular and how it relates to the structure – and the structure and how it permits and sometimes demands the particular. Hence, part of the theory must deal with the macro-structure of contemporary popular culture, wherein we can situate and comprehend the particularity under analysis. We have decided on an emphasis on critical theory. This is the case for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, critical theory provides a set of lenses which positions us partially inside, partially outside the metanarrative in which popular culture operates. That is, it enables us to look at popular culture with a

7 set of fresh eyes from the outside, though we are aware that theory is always for someone and never neutral. The second component of our reasoning in dealing with critical theory is bound in the general acknowledgment of the enormous potential and power of popular culture in contemporary society. We are however skeptical as to how this power is currently used. That is, we believe that popular culture has an overwhelming potential and we want to critically engage with whether this potential is utilized in its most positive and constructive manner or not. We do not necessarily believe that something is wrong, but we are concerned with the potential tragedy popular culture permits if not allowed to flourish in its most beneficial way. Before moving into critical theory, we must lay the groundwork of what we consider a pivotal period for art and of course modernity, namely the early enlightenment. In dialogue with Kant, we get a sense of the period which set in motion a lot of the philosophies and worldviews which still prevail today. Many of these views stand in stark contrast with our theoretical emphasis on critical theory, which understands the basic premises of enlightenment thinking as fallacious. We move then from an understanding of enlightenment to a critique of enlightenment, in order to critically engage with contemporary popular culture.

We find after these reflections on theory the importance of once again emphasizing our exact position in the project. Our weight is placed on critical theory due to its emphasis on modernity and its problems. In that regard, television and shows serve as some of the pivotal mechanisms of a society of instrumentalization and alienation. This should be understood as our main position. At the same time, we believe that a starting point in Kant and The Age of Enlightenment can provide a general understanding of art as part of the philosophy which embodies our modern contemporary society.

8 What is Art?

As we wanted to look at TV shows and at the relation that people have to them, we deemed it of extreme importance to investigate what art is, what can be considered art and how people interact with it. We thought it was relevant to explore the world of art due to the importance it has had in different societies and how it can and has influenced cultures, societies and people. On this note, we would like to find out if it is possible to draw a parallel and say that TV shows have a similar role in relation to that of which art has had throughout centuries. In order to be able to have a better and broader understanding of how art can influence people and what can be considered art, we went on a quest to find some ideas and concepts that would help us have a better grasp of TV shows. That is, understanding how people relate to them, what they take away from watching them, why they turn to them in the first place and what it is about a certain show that makes them keep coming back to watch it. We came across the book “What is Art for?” by Ellen Dissanaya, who explores ​ ​ art, its definition, functions and relations to human beings and nature. Something she points out, for example, is the relation between art and value and how challenging it is to discern art, as we tend to categorize it as good or bad. One of her examples is someone singing at work and someone singing in the opera (Dissanaya, 1998); they are both singing, but one is most likely to be considered art or artistic, whereas, the other one is consider as something casual. This example shows us how the same thing - same in the sense that they’re both singing - has a different value depending on who is listening to it, where it is being sung and the attributes that are associated to it. She also talks about how finding a common denominator in order to be able to categorize something and make sense of it, is something that occurs quite often when people try to officially have a definition of art. However, as she indicates, there are differences among things that fall under the same category; there are chairs that don’t have four legs, but they are still chairs. Such differences do not necessarily put them in a different category, because they still have the same function. So, to better

9 understand a category within art, for example, it can be more productive to look at its functions. (Dissanaya, 1998).

What Does Art Do for People?

“What does art do for people” is the title of the third chapter of Dissayana’s ​ ​ book and also the question she suggests might open more doors in terms of understanding art; she thinks it makes more sense to look at what art can do for people and their lives instead of trying to pinpoint what exactly the traits and features a certain object, action, show, etc. should have in order for them to be considered art. Dissanaya stresses that when one looks at art, the aesthetic aspect of something should not be the main determining factor for classifying it as art, as there are other factors that might have a higher relevance; how it impacts the observer or the person engaging with it, for instance. As she mentions: “Even when one can point to useful, functional social motivations and effects of art — such as showing one’s social position, impressing others, illustrating an important myth or precept, propaganda - it is not always clear why attracting attention, conveying information, and the like should take the form of concern with aesthetic elements such as shape, proportion, design, and colour arrangement. “ (Dissanaya, 1998;61) Thus, what holds more importance would be the content and not how something is presented, solely. Once we adopt the mindset that the content or the function of an object, be it a song, a script, a painting or a show, holds the key to understanding the effect it has on people, then we can start to think about in which ways art manifests itself in our lives. On the other hand, Dissayana states: “art echoes or reflects the natural world of which we are a part of” (Dissanaya, 1998;64). Following this line of thought art is, then, imitating life and as it is part of our world and reality, art becomes something that is easy to relate to. Maybe that is why we and generations before us are drawn to art, because it is familiar. It is familiar in the sense that we can recognize elements of our life in art; the long drooping limbs of the weeping willow, for example, which is often associated with sadness and grief. (Dissanaya, 1998). Identifying the similarities found in art in the natural world, consciously or

10 subconsciously, means that the aesthetics of it does hold a certain importance as well, even if it is not the central aspect when one considers the functions of art. “[Descriptive words for ecstatic aesthetic experiences, such as, up, inside, calm, excitement]… are exaggerations or manipulations of normal life processes that extend throughout the sentient world. It is only ”natural” that art should be concerned with them and that they should be integral to its effect — that individuals should find their manifestations desirable and satisfying.” (Dissanaya, 1998;65) The familiarity with the real world, which is found in art, makes more sense when we can see that it stems from our own experiences and references. In order to have different perspectives about art and the role it plays in people’s lives, we think it is of great help to look at some ideas and concepts from different philosophers, writers and thinkers, which is something that Dissayana mentions in the third chapter of “What Is Art For?” : ​ ​ “Art is said to be both pleasurable and advantageous because it is therapeutic: it integrates for us powerful contradictory and disturbing feelings (Stokes. 1972; Fuller , 1980); it allows for escape from tedium or permits temporary participation in a more desirable alternative world (Nietzsche, 1872); it provides consoling illusions (Rank, 1932); it promotes catharsis of disturbing emotions (Aristotle Poetics 6.2)” (Dissanaya, 1998;66) According to the ideas above, we can see that art is being described as something that gives people something, it does something for people. For the most part, it seems like art works as a coping mechanism; it is utilized as a tool that assists people through their daily lives, by alleviating their suffering and giving them hope and alternatives to their realities. “Art can help the individual adapt to an often uncomfortable and indifferent world”(Dissanaya, 1998;66), a possible interpretation of the function of art here, could be that it arms the individual, who engages with it, with the necessary tools, which allow them to re-situate themselves in their own life, while giving them different perspectives than the ones they get from their daily interactions throughout their life. In hopes to find out more about the relation between functions and aesthetics in art when we reflect upon them, we can ask the question: what is therapeutic about

11 pleasant aesthetics? And maybe it is not art itself, but the “[…] making-believe, “acting out”, formalizing or distancing that is therapeutic […]”. (Dissanaya, 1998;66) In other words, we might feel attracted to certain types of art based on the way they look, but the effect and impact they have on us and our lives is linked to the function it exerts on us and not necessarily how it looks. “Art connects us to the immediacy of things — we feel the direct impact of color, texture, size, or the particularity and power of the subject matter”. (Dissanaya 1998;67) If we take this concept — that art facilitates for our attention to focus on the details that are being presented for us — and think about it in terms of a TV show for example, we can play with the idea that a movie or a TV show allows us to turn our attentions to emotions or situations that would, otherwise, be disregarded in our daily lives, as we have become accustomed to them; when writing a script an author tries to convey certain emotions or messages, which are available to the audience; again, we focus on the details, because we are present in the moment and dedicated to paying attention. It has an effect upon us. It “fights” our abstraction/indifference (Burnshaw, 1970 as seen in Dissanaya, 1998;67), which we might have towards certain social situations, ideas and things, by making us see them with focus. “Art is more often the means of access to a supra mundane world, a level of reality different from everyday immediacy” (Dissanaya, 1998;67). When we engage with art and are present and focused on it, there are principles, ideas, social norms and situations that are being processed in our mind “[…]because art exercises and trains our perception of reality, it prepares us for the unfamiliar or provides a reservoir from which to draw appropriate responses to experience that has not yet been met with.”(Dissanaya, 1998;67) As Susanne Langer suggests, ”art gives us humans an increasingly firmer grasp of reality” (Dissanaya, 1998;67). On this note, art, especially if we talk about a TV show for example, sharpens our senses by equipping us with different possible situations that might take place in our own lives and, therefore, it ends up solidifying our principles and points of view and/or even making us re-evaluate them. Which is another feature of art that Dissayana touches upon; it is called a

12 “deviant feature — breaking up the familiar, disordering the expected, and acquainting us with the unusual — which, has been claimed by Morse Peckham (1965) to have selective value in that it provides the sense of old solutions are found no longer to be effective.” (Dissanaya, 1998;70)

As Dissanaya mentions, art along with other things — for example, being in love, sports, religious emotions or certain heightened emotions, like the one from giving birth, experiencing dealing with death, wars and natural disasters, for example — “are sources of escape and excitement as well avenues to a sense of meaning, significance, or intensity.” (Dissanaya, 1998;70) Respectively, art is not the only unique element in our lives, which is a source of experience that makes time stop or makes one stop, think and be present. However, it still plays an important role, as it can act as a maintenance tool that glues together the cracks of our reality. She also mentions that “one of the commonest early explanations of art’s value was its ability to arouse sympathy or fellow feeling among people (Grosse, 1897); Dewey, 1934) “. (Dissanaya, 1998;71) Hence, another thing that art can do for people is establishing a certain sense of unity, in the sense that it brings people closer together by allowing them to relate to each other on deeper levels. As she mentions, some people talk about TV shows, advertising, music as being widely influential arts, regarding modern art and its social function, which is what we would like to focus on and delve into. We wish to investigate how a TV show works in relation to these concepts and to the concepts we are going to explore in the next chapter. We deem it important to question the function of TV shows and what they do for people; what people can take away from watching them, which messages are being offered in the show and how certain themes are being approached.

13 Theory

A Small Introduction to Kantian Enlightenment

To critically deal with contemporary popular culture in modern capitalist society, we argue it is necessary to investigate the foundation on which it is based. On that note, we employ a focus on one of the central figures from the Age of Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. It would be nothing short of a philosophical tragedy to attempt at summing up Kant’s legacy in the matter of a couple of pages. Hence, we shall limit our consideration to one of Kant’s epistemological principles and how these relate to the notion of enlightenment. On the backdrop of the scientific revolution of the 16th and late 17th century, Kant intended to establish a new basis of ​ ​ epistemology and metaphysics. This happened in the wake of a decreasing faith in the dogmas and doctrines of the church, which was being confronted with the unharmonious and reforming discoveries of the sciences. Kant’s concern was, thus, one of freeing humanity from the constraints and superstitions previously corrupting and limiting it in its inquiry about itself and its place in the universe. (Allen & Goddard, 2017;87)

The necessity for a new epistemology was based on a general discomfort with previous epistemological separations between empiricism and rationalism. Furthermore, scientific discoveries framed human life and the universe in a rather calculable light. That is, the emergence of scientific accuracy threatened previous ideas of mystery to the extent that even human free will was put to doubt. Thus, Kant intended to bring about an epistemology that negated the scientific calculable determinism with the emphasis on human autonomy of rationalism. He made a clear distinction between the actual world and the world as we perceive it, and stressed that the only thing worth consideration is the world as it is perceived through our senses. To make sense of these appearances, to organize them, Kant claimed that human beings are born with innate abilities of categorization prior to experience. That is, an ‘a priori’ awareness of concepts; such as, space, time and causality,

14 which are given at birth and precede any experience. (Allen & Goddard, 2017;88) Through the a priori, we can conceptualize, structure and organize the objects as we perceive them. Furthermore, through a process of what Kant calls ‘synthesis’, we are able to accumulate the total sum of objects in relation to each other for a coherent perception of the world. Kant argues that if the human mind is to make any sense of appearances, there must be an intuitive a priori ability to reason. It is in this process of reasoning, where making consistent sense of impressions, self-consciousness and awareness over the self take place. This is crucial in Kant’s case for human freedom. As explained, the notion of causality entails predeterminism and, thus, a lack of free will. Kant solves this issue by placing human subjectivity, the self, beyond the realm of the natural world. Reason can cause an effect but is not necessarily bound to act on the basis of an external cause. In other words, human autonomy is possible because the a priori ability to reason is not restricted to the natural world of cause and effect. (Allen & Goddard, 2017;93)

The liberation of human subjectivity places enormous responsibility on the individual’s ability to decide between actions; to act rationally. Kant argues that man in his freedom to decide, must act always according to a set of moral laws, a ‘categorical imperative’, which states that one must “act only according to that maxim ​ whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 1993, [1785];30). It is in this light, that enlightenment thinking is based. The free autonomous human subject is free to act according to his will. If he is to be truly free however, he must base every decision on a rational ground, for if he acts according to instincts, feelings or emotions - which are of the natural world - he acts according to the natural law of causality and cannot be said to be free. (Allen & Goddard, 2017;94) Man has a moral duty to act rationally.

It is in the tracing back of this epistemological logic where we can find the general rationale of modernity. In his establishment of a free individual, Kant places significant faith in man’s ability to act according to an objective moral law with reason and rationality, through which a utopian society of freedom, prosperity and absence of suffering can be reached. It seems fitting then to note, that our ongoing and future notions throughout this

15 paper that are connected to The Age of Enlightenment, will be of this Kantian emphasis on reason, rationality and moral conduct, as well as the perpetual strive for progress which follows. In the following chapter we shall connect it to modern capitalism and problematize the role of art in such a society.

Adorno and Horkheimer - The Culture Industry

The exact consequential legacy and influence of Immanuel Kant and the Age of Enlightenment on modernity will never be fully estimated. Nevertheless, it has been argued that much of the values, ideas and principles of modernity are rooted in enlightenment philosophies. Such a view is held by two of the main figures of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. They wrote during the 20th century both before and after the Second World War. “Dialectic ​ of Enlightenment” (ci, 1944) is the investigation of a modern world which, in its wars, homicides and slavery, had shown itself from one of the most cold hearted sides ever witnessed by humanity. In the analysis, they trace the root of modernity back to the Age of Enlightenment, which, as discussed, envisioned a society of rationality, freedom, progress and peace. Adorno and Horkheimer argue that it is namely in the ultimate system of means-to-ends rationality, capitalism, that such irrationalities as world wars and human exploitation can exist. In the enlightenment of humanity, the dismissal of mysticism and welcoming of knowledge, we have created new forms of mysticism and committed great crimes in the name of it. This is explained through the intriguing paragraph “Myth is already enlightenment; and enlightenment reverts to mythology” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;218). They claim that, in comprehending the unintelligible question of purpose, man has always been concerned with attributing meaning to a seemingly meaningless world, and that this has taken form through various myths, religions and beliefs. The seemingly paradoxical statement, that enlightenment reverts to mythology, signifies that meaning must bring along new myth. That man in his total sense making of the world must revert to explaining his reasoning in a new mythology. (Allen & Goddard, 2017;114) Adorno and Horkheimer hold the view that the Age of Enlightenment in its episteme differs scarcely from any such belief system. It is itself nothing but another myth which, in its pursuit for

16 knowledge about the world, clutches to the unfounded assumption that man possesses abilities to derive such knowledge. The tale of enlightenment, of man in the center of the universe who through reason and rationality can derive knowledge and progress toward by bending nature to his will, is itself a myth created by man’s urge to make sense of his position in the universe. “Enlightenment and myth are not seen, therefore, as irreconcilable opposites but as dialectically mediated qualities of both real and intellectual life.” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;218) Adorno and Horkheimer argue that enlightenment has ultimately reverted to the myth of modernity, from which, in line with Kantian liberal and enlightenment values, capitalism and its alienation, mechanization and instrumentalization of citizens, derive. It is in this light, in the traditional Marxist unease with capitalisms fundamental exploitative base-superstructure relation, that the critique of modernity is based. The core argument lies in the claim that the legacy of enlightenment, namely efficiency, economic and social progress, domination over nature and scientific rationality, cannot be separated from the exploitation, nullification and domination over the individual. That is, in the process of mastery over nature, even human beings will eventually be caught under the spotlight of means to ends, as instruments in the efficient mechanisms of profit and progress. (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;18). ‘The Culture Industry’ is an investigation of the function of art and culture in such a society, and Adorno and Horkheimer see it as one of the core means through which the fundamental injustice of capitalism perpetuates, and thus upsets Marx’s prediction of a social revolution. (Allen & Goddard, 2017). For the duration of this chapter, we shall examine how the two intellectuals measure the character and problematic features, which arise with art in a capitalist society. The reason that art and aesthetics have such a central role in Adorno and Horkheimer’s investigation of modernity is rather straightforward. They are of the understanding that art has the potential to expose alternative worldviews and challenge the dominant ideas held by the current social composition. They distinguish between autonomous art and commodified art. Autonomous art prevails only when it is purposeless. When it needs not live up to any demands in particular. Under this condition, art can be emancipatory and provide alternative worldviews and ideas which challenge the current order. Adorno and Horkheimer’s primary

17 worry is that, in a market-based capitalist society with undisrupted focus on profit, the commodification of art is inevitable. In the consumer-producer binary, art is something to be either purchased or sold. In the rise of a consumer demand, art loses its autonomy and with it, its potential exposure of alternative realities. (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;128) Capitalism commands artists, manufacturers and all other producers of content, to think in terms of profit. In the search for profit they have learned to schematize expressions, pulsations and data aimed at appealing to, what Kant dubbed, the a priori ability to categorize experience. “According to Kantian schematism, a secret mechanism within the psyche preformed immediate data to fit them into the system of pure reason. That secret has now been unraveled.” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;98) Thus, art is turned into a matter of manufactured products which live up to the schema of mass culture, freeing the consumer from the task of having to schematize and categorize the data himself. It appeals a priori . Or in Adorno’s words, it turns into baby food. It has already been chewed before it is eaten. (Adorno, 1991) It is art for the masses rather than the individual. The audience is deprived of the subjective experience of engaging with the piece of art. In its commodification, the product has been thought out to fit into a priori categories, and thus the culture industry takes out any possibility for agenda. Everything has been thought out, so people need not to think individually. Subjective experience is lost. Adorno and Horkheimer claim the consequence of this to be rather severe. What has been made is a complete recipe on how to produce art that sells. The rationality of the market generates standardization, and such is the power of the free market system, that any producer who wishes to survive in the competitive business, must conform. The old narratives, storylines and structures are repeatedly reused. What is new in popular culture is that nothing new can ever be introduced. Consumers are content and satisfied, and producers, rather than being encouraged into exploring new horizons, are comforted by the safety of a standardized recipe, which guarantees the ultimate rationality of economic profit. (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;106) A serious emphasis must be placed on the fact that Adorno and Horkheimer blame no one to be at fault in this tragic demise of art. Rather, it is a failure of the

18 system. Producers conform to the premises and rules of the market, and it so happens that what people demand in an exploitative, energy-absorbing capitalist society, is easily consumable and relieving cultural goods. “Entertainment is the prolongation under late capitalism. It is sought by those who want to escape the mechanized labor process so that they can cope with it again.” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;109) The culture industry simply meets the demand of escapism created by mechanized labor in capitalism. Here, the interesting claim can be added, that escape in the culture industry is an escape of the opposition in the mind of reality, rather than an escape from the actual reality. (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;117) That is, an escape into a world which portrays the same worldview, the same reality and the same power dynamics, rather than opening to alternative perspectives. Because of the ease with which it can be consumed, all agents are concerned that their products “ensure that the simple reproduction of the mind does not lead to the expansion of the mind”. (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;100) It then follows that art and culture in capitalism develop a rather circular logic. The working class audience demand easily-digestible products to relieve the burden of exploitative power dynamics. Manufacturers of art and culture, encouraged by the profitable rationale of the free market, meet this demand, namely in the production of art which follows the familiar and standardized formula. This formula portrays already existing social relations and images of ‘reality’, thus encouraging any consumer to accept their lot in life and repeat next morning. Commodified art in industrial capitalism brings severe consequences. It deprives people of individuality in its schematized standardization. The potential of art as a challenge to current dominant ideas, emancipatory, or even broadening to diverse world views, hangs by a thread. Rather, it becomes a mechanism which reinforces the current system. It reproduces current social relations and power dynamics, dominant ideas and a limited worldviews. It is this notion of reproduction and its particularities that we now turn to.

Reproduction and Cliché The circular logic of the culture industry, nesting on the means-ends-rationality of capitalism, reproduces in all its peculiarities the system

19 under which it rests. Its scope seeks out all modes of life in such a society and reproduces them in order that the audience can cope with them again. In its portrayal of ideology, the real is turned into a cliché. Television must keep its adventurous highs and lows within the comfort zone of the audience. Conflicts, disasters or even danger have to stay true to the promised return to a happy ending, and “everything appears predestined – all needs such as security are catered for. It is a constructed false and safe thrill.” (Adorno, 1954;217). Adorno and Horkheimer explain how “the familiar experience of the moviegoer, who perceives the street outside as a continuation of the film he has just left, because the film seeks strictly to reproduce the world of everyday perception, has become the guideline of production.” (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;99) In this world, where life becomes art and art becomes life, even subjectivity is limited to what subjectivity means on screen. Art comes to embody ideology. In an exploitative capitalist society, the protagonist of any narrative must be the protagonist who faces constant struggle, who suffers, who stumbles, who must fight every day of his life, only with the slightest prospect that he might some climactic day meet his antagonist, defeat him and attain happiness. (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;110). The culture industry has appropriated the appealing narrative of a psychological conflict and turned it into an easily consumable cliché. The struggle of everyday life is perennially depicted as the inner struggle of overcoming one’s own demon. “The inward psychological process of inner conflict and moral struggle which was once so detailed and appealing, has become a caricature of the real.” (Adorno, 1954 ;217). Adorno sees this depiction as covering the actual struggle, namely that of class struggle. One which represents a rudimentary exploitative social relation and is the fundamental cause for the struggle and suffering of the people. He provides an example of such an ideal character of capitalism in the female protagonist who, in her ultimate fight for survival, must hustle and strive for the bare necessity of food. Every moment of conflict is depicted as the introspective conflict of psychological struggle. (Adorno, 1954;217). The audience comes to accept the suffering not as a structural and societal problematic, but rather as something to be overcome through the characteristics of such a strong character. In the process of identification with the charm, beauty and mental strength of such protagonist, any viewer is bound to come

20 to accept the line of reasoning which shifts all attention from social injustice to subjective ability. The hidden message is one of conformity in the way that “stories teach their readers that one has to be ‘realistic’, that one has to give up romantic ideas, that one has to adjust oneself at any price, and that nothing more can be expected of any individual” (Adorno, 1954;220). What prevails is the juxtaposition between misery and happiness, which has been overtaken by the culture industry to such an extent, that the road to heaven appears paved with the overcoming of misery. Even the good life cannot escape the rationality of means to ends, in the sense that it must be paid for before it can be claimed. In this portrayal of an unjust life, any individual who suffers comes to accept her suffering with the promise that she herself one day might slay her dragon and claim happiness. The commodification of art, in its production of ideals that conform to the demands of capitalism, becomes ideological. It reinforces the premise and conventional values on which Kantian enlightenment was initially founded. Its liberal values prevail on the microlevel to the ultimate extent that individual happiness can be attained through suppression of instinctual desire and action of progressive means-to-ends rationality. That is, if one is to become happy as the protagonist on screen, one must act in the same way. A logic which imbues any marketing strategy, with the promise that so too, one must buy in the same way as they do on the screen. The happiness and freedom which has been taken away by capitalism can be reclaimed through the purchase of cars, clothes, houses, cigarettes and alcohol. (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002;115) Adorno states that the ultimate moral value of rationality is held in such high regard in the images of popular culture, that daydreaming is dismissed as an irrational inaction and that listening to instinctual desires is ridiculed in its very introduction to the screen. “Not only eating, but also uncontrolled manifestations of sexual impulses tend to provoke laughter in audiences (…) Laughter is a defense against the forbidden fruit.” (Adorno, 1954;219) Humor and jokes become the devices through which the character’s psychological reconciliation between modernity’s demand for rationality and the natural desire is dealt with. It must be noted that the stereotypes and clichés on television take various shapes and forms. Clichés may appear with however rich diversity, so long as the

21 common denominator of overcoming the suffering imposed by society through an introspective psychological fight, is there. The characteristics of each stereotype take form in innumerable variations because of the high variety in the composition of the working class of society. (Adorno, 1954; 219) What essentially follows is that the stereotypes of the culture industry take shapes and forms of every imaginable protagonist. Nevertheless, the essential internal struggle, is of such mainstream appeal that any audience may process it with only minimal effort.

“The repetitiveness, the selfsameness, and the ubiquity of modern mass culture tend to make for automatized reactions and to weaken the forces of individual resistance” (Adorno, 1954;217). In a social system where art enters the realm of the free market, the demand of consumers will always be of primary importance. In a social system where the consumers are also the exploited working class, a vicious cycle such as the one seen in the culture industry is bound to happen. Such is the paradox of enlightenments ultimate reverting to the myth of modernity, which is not only excluded to the myth of a liberal value system, but to the myth where the pseudo-reality of art mirrors the pseudo-reality of life and vice versa. The escape from reality becomes an escape into the same reality with the only difference being in its shifting of attention away from the issue of the social structure to that of the individual. The function of art in such a society becomes one which reinforces rather than challenges. It limits the scope of possible realities rather than expanding it. The images on television reproduce both social and material reality. Individuals are depicted as ones who learn to conform to the demands of society in their personal fights which shadows the fact that “society is always the winner, and the individual is only a puppet manipulated through social rule” (Adorno, 1954;219). We shall in the following chapter attempt at coming to grips with such depictions as they are seen in one of the most popular sitcoms of all time, ‘Friends’.

22 Methodology

When the project was at its starting phases, we decided that in order to understand the relation between a viewer and a TV show, we had to analyze how a certain show is structured and how the characters are presented. To do so, we chose Text and Sign as one of our dimensions, as we have found theories that allow us to have access to the content in the show. These theories - namely, Structuralism and Psychoanalysis - help us have a favorable approach towards interpreting what we can find in the show in relation to philosophical theories and concepts. Concerning the latter, we deemed it crucial to have Philosophy and Science in our dimensions as well, as a major part of this project is grounded in how a reflection of life can be seen in the show; such reflection can, then, be analyzed in connection with concepts and theories from different philosophers, such as, Adorno and Horkheimer. Once we had decided on our theories and Text and Sign approaches, we sat down as a group and decided that processing our analysis would be more digestible, if we chose to divide it into different themes and topics that we could observe in the show, which is what we have done. In order to have more coherent results, we intertwined excerpts from the show and philosophical concepts, so they would complement each other and give us a clearer understanding of what is going on in the show.

Theories of Text and Sign

The foundation of our Text and Sign theories comes from Camelia Elias’s book ‘The Way of the Sign: Cultural Text Theory in Two Steps’, in which she offers a variety of theories and different ways of analyzing a text. From all these theories and ways, we deemed, as mentioned before, Structuralism and Psychoanalysis, important, which we will elaborate on below.

23 Structuralism

Analyzing a television show requires the need to apply theories based on details and sense of observation, which is what Structuralism is based on. Elias mentions in her book that in order to approach a text or any material in a critical way, we must have “attention to detail”. (Elias, 2011;22) In the analysis of the pilot ​ episode of Friends, one must pay attention, not only to the text or script, but, in the same manner, also to body language, sounds, grammatical constructions, and behavior. We deemed this approach important, as it helps us find out if there is any meaning behind what is happening in the show. To accomplish that, we decided to take into consideration the questions that Elias proposes, when one is analyzing a text. “Is there an ideology behind? How it is expressed through metaphors? Are there ambiguous words, words that have several meanings?”. (Elias, 2011;22) Elias also points out that “when reading signs, we may bear in mind that there is an agency behind them. They are there for a reason, written by someone with a reason”. (Elias, 2011;21)

Psychoanalysis

Psychoanalysis will help us understand how shows appeal to their audiences. Elias states that it is easier to put ourselves in imaginary situations; “[...]the tendency is to replace the pain with some dream of a better life [...] believing that it is natural to follow the way in which the meaning of life is explained according to powerful people whom we see in public...”. (Elias, 2011;51) In our case, the show Friends can be seen as a version of an easier life; easier in the sense that all hardships one faces are tackled with the help and support of good friends. Elias adds that the way we internalize situations that may not be relatable to us at a given moment, will help us escape and deal with what happens in our personal life through self-analysis. Using Psychoanalysis when looking at a text, will not show us what the author is saying, but rather why is he saying what he is saying; the messages that can be taken away from the show. (Elias, 2011) Therefore, this

24 theory will put an emphasis on language, vocabulary, and on how things are put on paper. Having in mind that art serves the purpose of reflecting aspects from real life, helps connecting the theory with what we might find relatable in the episode. The aim of psychoanalysis is to analyze the different structures of the mind and then reproduce the content in the way the subject, the viewer, can perceive it and accept it more easily.

Empirical Data

In terms of our empirical data, we are focusing on the American television series ‘Friends’. It was first released on September 22nd, 1994 and was running up

th until May 6 ,​ 2004. Each episode is between 22-24 minutes long. It has been ​ created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman and has been produced by Bright/Kauffman/Crane Productions and Warner Bros. Television. Friends is known as a so-called sitcom, since it is “a humorous drama based on situations that might arise in day-to-day life” (Vocabulary.com). This is also due to the fact that it hosts a fixed set of characters and settings that are reappearing on the show. The fact that it is amusing and entertaining, plays a remarkably big role. When discussing which show could be interesting to analyze, we took different shows into consideration. We always had in mind, that we should use a television series that is rather famous in order to find out why it is that a high number of people are turning to that series and keep on watching it over a longer period of time. The show should be able to show some relatable features. The series and potential quotes from it will be cited by time measurement. We take it as a given, that people have access to the series through common streaming services. The show is about six friends - Monica Geller, Rachel Green, Ross Geller, Chandler Bing, Joey Tribbiani and Phoebe Buffay - around their mid-twenties up to their mid-thirties, who are living their every-day life in New York. The audience is getting insights into their personal and professional lives. Throughout the ten years of screening, the six friends face together the high and lows in their lives. We decided to work with the very first episode of the series, which is a pilot episode.

25 We thought it would be interesting to look at the first episode, because that is the reason and base why Friends has been a very big success for many generations of people from all over the world. In the first episode, the characters and the main atmosphere of the show are being introduced. The first episode of Friends is the pilot episode with the name “The One Where Monica Gets a Roommate”, which begins with a scene showing one of the reappearing settings of the series, the café Central Perk. Monica, Ross, Chandler, Joey and Phoebe are sitting on and around an orange couch. They are talking about Monica’s dating life as well as the recent divorce between Ross and his ex-wife, Carol. Rachel is dressed in a wedding dress and comes into Central Perk looking for Monica; she has just left her fiancé, Barry, at the altar. Monica and Rachel used to be friends but have not been in contact for a while. After calming Rachel down, the group goes to Monica’s apartment, which is one of the main settings of the show as well. Rachel gets the opportunity to talk to her father, who does not like the fact that she ran away from her own wedding and who seems to not understand Rachel’s reasoning. As she explains to him, she realized that she does not love Barry, and that she was unsure of whether she should try something completely different or not, mentioning that she doesn’t know who she is. Rachel tells her father that she will stay at Monica’s apartment and that she can live without him and his financial support. She, however, regrets saying the latter immediately. As the audience gets to know a little later, Rachel is fully dependent on her parents, since she never has had a job. She also mentions that she wanted to marry Barry in order to be independent from her parents, but then dependent on Barry. Monica is seeing a man called Paul and is very happy about it, especially after he told her that he has had problems performing sexually since his last break up. After Monica spends the night with him and he seems to have no problems anymore, Monica feels very good about being the one who was able to help him overcome his dilemma. However, she later finds out that Paul had been using that trick with a few other women and Monica is now hurt, disappointed and mad at him. At the same time, the audience gets to know that Ross’ ex-wife found out she is lesbian and that that is the reason why they broke up. Ross is now, with the help from Chandler and Joey, putting up new furniture in his now empty apartment. After Monica and the

26 others realize that Rachel is still financially bound to her parents, they make her cut all of her credit cards into half in order for her to be a part of the real world. The real world being seen as the everyday life of the other friends, where everyone has to be independent and work in order to earn money and to be able to live off of that. Furthermore, it is revealed that Ross used to romantically like Rachel. After Rachel tells him that she knew about his crush on her, he asks her if he could maybe ask her out on a date one day, to which she replies with “maybe”.

27 Analysis

Introduction

We find it necessary to clarify a couple of points and potential pitfalls before examining the nature of the images and narratives seen in the pilot episode of ‘Friends’. In that regard, we wish to specify the exact intention of our analysis. We intend to investigate the narratives, conflicts, images, symbols, mechanisms, and general features of the episode as ones which perpetuate and reproduce social dynamics under modern capitalism. We shall examine how humor, clichés, stereotypes and jokes are used as mechanisms through which ideals and values, which fit with the system of capitalism, are depicted. Lastly, we will shed light under how rather significant individual conflicts are portrayed as minor issues. In this regard, the various coping mechanisms used by the characters will be measured in terms of what kind of underlying message of conformity to previous ideals is communicated to the audience. We argue then, that our focus is limited exclusively to an understanding of how life of conformity and coping in modern capitalism is as well expressed as requested in the duration of the pilot episode of ‘Friends’. Hence, all examples are chosen solely on the premise that they in some way or shape aid such understanding. In the last instance, these reflections amount to a discussion of how ‘Friends’, as an example of popular culture and art in modernity, exposes its image of reality. This will be related to the ideal purpose of art as explained by Adorno and Horkheimer

We must also note that the analysis, due to the mentioned limited focus, excludes an array of possible aspects through which an analysis could be conducted. We intentionally omit to look at anything in the realm of technique such as camera angles, lighting, sounds, color symbolism and other such features. Furthermore, we keep any look at setting and environment to a basic descriptive level. While a deeper investigation of elements such as environment could provide for a possibly richer understanding of, among other things, the sociocultural, material and social background of the characters, we argue that such attention to detail would

28 be only of marginal significance. We reason this on the basis, and emphasis must again be turned to the point, that our investigation is grounded in the underlying ​ messages of social dynamics as seen in the overt narratives and conflicts of the ​ characters. The structural conduct of the analysis can be seen as a constant negotiation between the mechanism and the message. We move thus back and forward in the steady interplay between specific observation, theoretical abstraction and interpretative reflection and our designated categories should be understood as guidelines which overlap each other rather than strict separations.

Setting and Timeframe

The first episode of Friends takes place in two main settings; Monica’s apartment and Central Perk, a café close to her apartment. There are two other settings presented in the first episode, but they are used only for two scenes. One is the restaurant, where Monica and Paul go out to eat on a date and the other one is Ross’ new and unfurnished apartment. Monica’s apartment is a big place, where the other friends are constantly at for gatherings, dinners and other occasions and her living room is where many important moments of the episode take place. Monica is the only one that lives there, until Rachel’s unexpected appearance changed it, and she welcomed her into the apartment. That is a clue we get right from the moment we read the episode’s title, which is “The one where Monica gets a roommate”. Apart from Monica’s apartment, ​ ​ another important place in the show is the café Central Perk, which is where the friends meet and socialize. Both physical settings, through their feeling of coziness, allow a space for them to communicate and at the same time facilitate the presence of humor, making it easy for them to tell jokes and tease each other, even when there are serious subjects in discussion. The length of the first episode is of 22 minutes and 44 seconds, which tells the narrative of the equivalent to more or less two days. The conflicts and the big themes -- love, independence and work -- that we met while watching it, are presented superficially. There are conflicts, such as Rachel’s independence or Ross’s marriage that are presented in a short time and with the presence of humor.

29

Stereotypes and Clichés

Clichés

Based on their actions and the things they say, we are going to identify some clichés that one can possibly associate with the characters. Monica can be seen as the cliché of someone who has a very structured life, which she has a lot of control over. She has her own apartment, a fixed job, but, even though she seems to have a very functional and prosperous life, she still struggles with love. Phoebe, on a different note, is portrayed as a hippie. As soon as ​ ​ Ross sits on the couch, she starts cleansing his aura, as she sees it as being contaminated. In addition to that, she has a very creative side to her that can be seen when she sings to Rachel when trying to calm her down and tries to sing what Monica and Chandler say when they are at Central Perk. Phoebe is also portrayed as someone that has faced many hardships in her life, but still keeps a graceful and positive attitude, even though she can be perceived as being very edgy sometimes, which she does with charisma. Joey is the cliché of a playboy. He is constantly ​ ​ concerned about getting together with women and about being charming. At the same time, he is the kind of person that is constantly joking around trying to diffuse the tension in different situations. Chandler is a character, who can be seen as ​ ​ someone who has a regular job at a company; a job, which he is not very fond of. On top of that, he does not hold very tight bonds to his mom. He also is someone, who, through sarcasm, is constantly making fun of himself and the situations he finds himself in, which he turns into something comic. Ross is the cliché of a romantic ​ ​ guy, who believes in marriage and in having one true love, however, he does not have a lot of luck in his romantic life. He also has a goofy and geeky personality to a certain extent, which makes him seem as a very playful character. Last, but not least we have Rachel, who is the cliché of a spoiled girl and who is financially ​ ​ dependant on her family. She is someone that never had to work in her life before, so interacting with the other characters offers her a whole different perspective on

30 life and how society works. She can also be seen as a naive person, as she is learning about how things work differently for people, who are part of the working class, while she learns to navigate this new world herself. According to Adorno, clichés are reinforced through culture, as a reflection of what can be seen in society. It is a way of ‘normalizing’ reality, people can see themselves and their life in a TV show, for example, which helps them cope with their lives in a capitalist society and its effects by offering characters that are relatable, which allows the viewer to establish a certain connection between the show and their lives, which in turn, works as a coping mechanism. On this note, as one starts watching the pilot episode, right from the beginning they can have an idea about the the characters, as they come to life as they start talking and interacting with each other.

Stereotypes

When we look at the scene when Rachel is almost hyperventilating after she talks on the phone with her father, we can see that Monica is trying to calm her down and comfort her; whereas, Joey hits on Rachel, even though he can clearly see that she is vulnerable. Joey sees her vulnerability as a chance to let her know that he would be interested in going out with her. Here, there are two stereotypes that are being reinforced; how men usually behave towards women and how women behave towards women. Joey could be seen as a reflection of masculinity. Specially if we attribute masculinity certain traits, such as, being insensitive in certain emotional situations and trying to take advantage of the situation for their own benefit. On the other hand, women could probably see themselves reflected in Monica, as she is very caring towards Rachel, which is an emotional quality that is mostly associated with femininity and maternal figures. Another stereotype one could see in the episode is one related to physical appearance. When Paul the wine guy walks into the apartment and Monica’s friends see them for the first time, Ross gesticulates and mouths that he approves of Paul, as he finds his height adequate, which shows that being tall is seen as a good physical attribute to have; a standard imposed by society. Another stereotype connected to Ross is seen in the comment he makes about the beer can. He is at his apartment unpacking some boxes with Joey and

31 Chandler, as he gets a beer; the beer was his ex wife Carol’s favorite one. They recently got divorced as his ex wife came to terms with her sexuality and came out as lesbian, which resulted in the divorce and in her leaving Ross for a new partner. When Ross holds the beer he says he should have known that Carol was a lesbian, as she drank beer straight from the can. What this tells us is that there is a certain belief that lesbian women have traits, which are usually correspondent to men; in this case, drinking straight from the beer can is not seen as delicate nor sophisticated, which are adjectives commonly attributed to women and people who have a more feminine identity. If we think about it as a reflection of our own reality, Ross is perpetrating a stereotype that might not be true to all lesbian women.

During this episode we find out that Chandler works with number at an office, which is a job that many people perceive as a man’s job. In society, there are certain jobs or career paths that are associated more with men and some more with women and if one investigates the reasons why it happens, the answers probably lie within the power dynamics, which have a historic background; privilege and hierarchy, for example. Rachel, on a different note, does not even have a job and is portrayed as someone that is financially dependant on her family and as someone that was about to get married as a result of a possible financial interest. The way we interpret Rachel’s situation is that the show is reflecting how women are believed, sometimes, to not need to provide for themselves as they could marry someone who could do it for them. Looking at friends as a commodified art, we can see that it reinforces the current system; socially and financially and the dynamics in between and around it. It reproduces current social relations and power dynamics, dominant ideas and a limited world view. It is this notion that we are coming from when talking about certain stereotypes we could find in the show. Throughout the pilot episode of ​ Friends there are different aspects that can be found depending on what one is focusing on. Stereotypes in terms of gender roles, for example.

32 Humor

We have argued that any attempt of coming to an understanding of the images, narratives and underlying messages of ‘Friends’ must depart in the various features through which such messages are facilitated. In order to do so, one needs not look any further than the one central feature of sitcoms, namely, humor. It might be added here, that when talking about the feature of humor, we are not speaking of one specific type, but rather address all those moments of amusement and laughter. Humor is omnipresent throughout the episode. It is the point of departure through which all notions of character building, storytelling and unfolding of conflicts is portrayed. It transcends and surrounds all moments of either joy or discontent, of good or bad, of comfort or discomfort. Hence, there is good reason to scrutinize the various modes of humor in the series as well as the outcome of such use. First and foremost, the jokes and humorous inputs have a variety of characteristics due to the variety of the characters. Chandler is the classic ‘funnyman’, in his way of ridiculing both his friends as well as himself. He constantly seeks to provide a sarcastic input. Phoebe is rather clumsy. Her awkward comments never seem to fit into the social context, but is to some degree accepted by the rest of the group, as seen when she massages Monica's feet. (17:55) Joey and Rachel are oftentimes portrayed as naive, and one laughs when their lack of intelligence is put on the spot and contrasted to the rational and somewhat condescending Monica and Ross, who themselves are laughing stocks in the way that their misery is ridiculed by Joey and Chandler. There is, thus, a great variety in the way in which the series makes the audience laugh. It is not limited to one type of humour.

Due to its ubiquity, the humour must by all means avoid being monotonous. At the same time it must appeal to the audience’ request for familiarity. It is bound to navigate the paradoxical wish for sameness and freshness, and combine stagnant cliché with dynamic creativity. This is done mainly through the composition of the six central characters. The earlier established cartoonish nature, the cliché, of each character, composes a rather odd group of friends. One of rich multiplicity. It is

33 exactly in this oddly diverse composition of people, that the dynamism, through which the humor of the series lives and breathes, is found. The repeating clash between clichés, personality traits, values and worldviews is what facilities a constantly engaging caricature of the characters. The banality is kept fresh due to the way in which one cliché is challenged by its diametrical opposite. The ‘fun’ emerges in the synthesis of two dialectics. We see this when serious and depressed Ross is confronted with superstitious Phoebe, who starts cleansing his aura. Phoebe's trait is contested by and opens up for Ross’ ditto and his rational response, “No, no don't! Stop cleansing my aura! No, just leave my aura alone, okay?” (2:20) is ​ both fun and appealing. Such dialectics are seen throughout the episode, as for instance, whenever depressed Ross and Monica are opposed by the sarcasm and straightforward mocking of Chandler and Joey, and it is what drives the show in a constantly engaging dynamic.

An essential pattern can be seen in the relation between the use of humour and the occurrence of conflicts and personal problematics. Throughout the episode, several conflicts of varying significance are introduced, and we shall return to the nature of these shortly. For now, however, it seems relevant to address the codependence between problematics and humor. It is noticed that all moments of sadness, seriousness, anger, fear and travesty are followed by the recurrence of jokes, sarcastic mocking and lack of empathy. Any point of vulnerable exposure must, without deviation, lead to the contrasting moment of relieving laughter, in which the former is swept under the carpet. It permits no possibility for dealing with the conflict in itself. Such example is seen when Monica reveals that she has been lied to by Paul the Wine Guy where, in exposing herself, she despairingly admits that, “I just thought he was nice, y'know?” (17:58). The succeeding couple of ​ ​ seconds show the complete silence and the tension that was created, as one can see the, respectively, sympathetic and upset faces of Joey and Ross. The powerful tension is then broken up by Joey, who mockingly confesses that “I can't believe you ​ didn't know it was a line!” (18:55). Humor has the vital role in making sure that the serious conflicts stay within the limits of what can be processed by the audience. We might with good application return to Adorno’s claim that “Laughter is a defense ​ 34 against the forbidden fruit.” The depiction of conflicts must not be too serious. They must not demand too much of its audience. Rather, they must only slightly be presented, understood and quickly dismissed as unbearable truth of reality which can be coped with through laughter. The significance of which entails that one must not take life too seriously. One must not deal with one's problems. Such examples can be further scrutinized, and we intend to do so shortly. For now it is sufficient to state that the implication of such narration, where conflict is substituted by trivial laughter, is quite significant. The audience understands that the general reality of a difficult life must be dealt with, not through opposition to such reality, but rather through a conforming inaction and acceptance that ‘that´s just the way it is’. The audience is confronted with the irresistible message that injustice can be coped with insofar that one is as fun as they are on screen and has such group of friends who can distract from that same injustice.

In the humorous contestation between clichés, we are introduced to the central characteristics of each person. The laughter opens up for identification with already familiar stereotypes, and we need nothing more than one episode, if not one minute, to establish a trusting relationship to the characters. Jokes create a welcoming and comfortable environment. In this environment significant conflicts of individual and social struggle can be introduced to the audience, and processed with such minimal effort that they are comfortably relatable. They invoke inaction and conformity rather than revolt. So too is it in this environment of unnaturally excessive warmth and ridiculous laughter that ideals and underlying messages find their greatest breeding ground. Messages of severe consequence are displayed in this forum of humorous triviality, where one needs not occupy the tragedy of life for longer than the couple of seconds it takes for an interrupting joke to emerge. In an omnipresent mist of laughter, normative ideals of life and reality are imposed with great power, before they are carefully concealed behind a veil of new jokes. It is these ideals and their implications, which prevail in their subtle imposition, that we are going to turn to next.

35 Symbols and Ideals

The viewer can observe a range of ideals and symbols in the pilot episode of Friends. These symbols and ideals are the glue to the storyline of the episode as well as a help for the audience to connect to and understand the content. One of the main ideals is marriage and it is depicted in a variety of different symbols; Firstly, right in the first scene, Rachel is wearing a very stereotypical white wedding dress with a long veil. Secondly, her watching a movie, which is about two people who love each other getting married, is another symbol. With this, it is obvious that the idea of marriage is put on some kind of pedestal. Love is taken as a basis, and a rather big goal in the lives of Rachel, as well as of Ross and Monica, is to find this true love. Within these three, we can distinguish between different approaches to it. Rachel is, already in the pilot episode, living through a big change of her world views when she realises that not money but love is the base and the most important component to a marriage and a, at best, lifelong union. To Ross on the other hand, this was something that has been apparent all along. He has the specific idea of only having one true love in life and he is afraid that he has already experienced this one love. This can be seen when he talks to Rachel about the fact that she will miss her honeymoon. (09:00) His facial expression nearly suggests that he is about to cry. This can be interpreted as him ‘suffering’ with her for missing the honeymoon, which is a great part of marriage. Monica is also having the goal of finding one specific person. Here is to be noted, that not necessarily marriage is being mentioned, rather dating in general can be seen as a symbol and a pig part of her everyday life. This can be observed right in the first scene of the episode, when the friends are talking about Monica dating a new man. On the opposite to the ideal of love, we can observe an ideal of lust which is being perpetuated by Joey. In the scene in Ross’ apartment, where Joey ‘teaches’ Ross about the fact that in his view, there is no such thing as just one person for everyone. “What are you talking about? One woman. That’s like saying there is only one flavour of ice cream for you.” (11:31) The fact that he uses the metaphor of women being like all the different flavours of ice cream one can try, his view on love as something rather physical is

36 being cemented. However, we can find a stronger concentration on the ideal of marriage than on the ideal of lust. This can, for example, be seen on the reactions of disbelieve or negative judgement of Rachel, Ross and Monica whenever Joey is making a comment that is downgrading the concept of marriage. Also, the use of humor in those scenes as well as the fact that Joey is being depicted as the foolish and never-growing-up one of the friend group contributes to the fact that marriage is being placed above a different ideal of love. Through this, and especially the double depiction of love and marriage when Rachel watches TV, the audience is being shown the apparent importance of finding one special partner, love and to get eventually married in life. Another interesting observation here is the fact, that no alternative option to either love or marriage is being suggested. Another ideal of the episode is masculinity in modernity. When Ross, Joey and Chandler are putting up furniture, the scene is depicting a very traditional masculine picture, showing them as handy-men. This however, is being questioned through use of humor and non-existent knowledge and understanding of the instructions, showing that not being talented at handy things as a male is acceptable too. Through this, the idea of men to be manual skilled is being debilitated and men in the audience do not have to feel pressured to represent that cliché about men. In the two reappearing settings of the show, Monica’s kitchen as well as the café Central Perk, coffee is a very strong symbol. It is recurring in the sense that it helps the friends deal with their every-day problems, being a way to relieve stress - just as it is also depicted in modern society. When Rachel walks into Central Perk, running away from her own wedding, the first question she is being asked by the waitress is if she needs some coffee, suggesting that that will help her to calm down. Furthermore, Joey and Chandler are drinking coffee in the morning before going to work, which is showing the importance of coffee nowadays to get started into the day and be able to ‘survive’ it. This can be directly connected to the following ideal of work, which depicts materialism in a very strong way. This is, for example, visible when looking at the fact that Rachel is buying herself some boots when she is not able to get a job, even after having several job interviews, where she got laughed at. She uses her boots as a source of happiness, putting material goods at a very high level of importance in order to cope with the fact that she does not live up to society’s

37 expectations. This, however, is being reduced by Monica’s comment on the fact that ​ Rachel’s father paid for those boots, as a result of Rachel not earning money herself. Having a job is been seen as one of the priorities people have to set in their lives. Even having a job one hates, as Chandler does, which is obvious when he talks about the fact that whether or not he does his job, does not make a difference, is better than not having a job. Monica saying: “Welcome to the real world! It sucks, you’re gonna love it.” (19:51), shows that in order to provide for yourself, financial independence is seen as the ultimate goal of being part of exactly that real world. This is shown several times throughout the episode, for example also when Rachel notices that everyone in the friend group has a job, and therefore decides to find a job herself, because she wants to fit in and be part of society. That this is something every ‘normal person’ does, which can be seen in the reaction of Monica, “See, that’s how we buy stuff.” (15:35) , showing Rachel that the way she has been raised and lived her life up until now, is alienated. This comment of Monica is also the ultimate example for Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of means-ends-thinking as destiny of modern capitalism. Showing understanding of how the audience of Friends is in the same situation as Monica and the others of the group; dependant on having a job in order to be able to afford living, and with this also understanding emotional links that are tied to those norms for the audience.

Conflicts

We argue that some of the most essential problematic features of “Friends” are found in the way in which a few of the individual conflicts are depicted. By problematic is meant a general unease with the possible negative implication of such features. This unease is based on the underlying messages of conformity to current reality prevalent in the character of these depictions. Conflict in this regard, refers to any notion of inner struggle evident in the unfolding narrative of characters. Two important conflicts will be looked at in detail. The small but telling portrayal of Chandler’s role in society and Rachel’s larger confrontation with life in the working class. It must be noted that, due to the simplicity in which especially Chandler’s conflict is depicted, only few quotations will be used. It is namely exactly in the

38 shallow account of rather compelling conflicts, that a strong imposition of messages is possible, and there is thus, a critical need to scrutinize the implication of such simple narrative.

Chandler’s Conflict

Even though he is not a central figure in any of the main conflicts of the episode, a couple of observations might be considered to the way in which Chandler presents and deals with his own situation and position in society. In the opening scene of the show, when explaining a dream, he gives an account of his relationship to his mother, who “never calls” (1:48). As previously outlined, quite substantial conflicts are conveyed through a veil of humor. In Chandler’s case, the problematic relationship to his mother is thrown out into the open and only subtly addressed with a rather sarcastic distance. The second moment, and arguably the more important of the two, occurs when he mentions his work. “All right, kids, I gotta get to work. If I ​ don't input those numbers,... it doesn't make much of a difference...” (15:20). The honest account offers an insight into Chandler’s position in society, as well as his state of mind. It appears that he works in a company in the area of finance or accounting, where his primary or only function is to insert numbers into a program. How long he has been working there is not revealed, but it appears, with his statement that he has ‘gotta get to work’, that he is quite conscious of the fact that he is situated in a society, where mechanized and standardized labor processes are required. In the same way, it appears that he is aware of the lack of purpose such work entails. He works due to necessity rather than gratification, fulfillment or joy. Kant’s moral imperative of enlightenment echoes louder than ever, in this regard. Chandler must suppress his instinctive inclination of doing what he desires. He must comply to rationality and means-to-ends based thinking. That is, he must work so that he can sustain a living. Despite, or arguably because of, this realization of the necessity of displeasure, he proceeds with the same sort of sarcastic attitude apparent in his dealing with the relationship to his mother. He mocks the paradoxical idea of having to dedicate a considerable portion of his life to a cause with which he feels no connection, and continues regardless.

39 What prevails is what Adorno would argue to be the perfect personification of working class life as depicted in the commodified art of the culture industry. Chandler is alienated from his mother. He must unwillingly go to work to meet the demand of capitalism. The constant need for efficiency and progress means that he must fulfill the function of standardized labor. He is deprived from any sense of purpose or contribution to society. Nevertheless, he seems to be living a happy life. He is surrounded by good friends and he is both charming and amusing. The schematization of the culture industry, the great necessity for producers to create art which resembles life, has created a character with whom the audience is able to identify. They live that same inescapable reality of alienation, so they must escape into a world, wherein the same reality exists but, at the same time it is imbued with laughter and happiness and wherein displeasure is a false displeasure, which stays within the limits of comfort. The same exploitative power relations exist in this reality. The same injustice. Life becomes art and art becomes life. A significant problematic arises in this portrayal of life in modernity. The conflict, which Chandler faces, Marcuse would argue should be one of class struggle. One which sheds light on the exploitative and alienating nature of modern capitalism. But it is not addressed in this way. Adorno claims that that this is because “the inward psychological process of inner conflict and moral struggle which was once so detailed and appealing has become a caricature of the real.” (Adorno, 1954; 217). That is, in its caricature of the real, the psychological process of inner conflict has been appropriated by producers of art to the extent that it has become the main narrative of all conflict, even that of class. The individualized focus on Chandler’s conflict, as one which must be dealt with by personal attributes, is problematic, because it sends a certain message to the audience. It signifies that the misery of a life without purpose can be overcome through personal charm, through sarcastic distance, through constant laughter and close friends. The person who watches from home, who feels alienated and disconnected from life and labor, in their escape into a world of sameness, comes to understand that their misery is natural. They come to understand that this is the only reality available; their misery is his own fault and they themselves must have as close friends and become as charming and amusing as Chandler, if they are to embody the character who survives the exploitation of

40 capitalism and lives a proper life. Thus, in its sole focus on individual ability, ‘Friends’ rejects the root of the problem which is an exploitative and unjust system. Instead of appealing to revolution and change, it appeals to conformity and sameness. The notion of reproduction is inevitable in such mode of art, which mirrors rather than explores.

Rachel’s Conflict

Contrary to the subtle and shallow depiction of Chandler’s conflict, Rachel is faced with a central problematic which takes up a substantial part of the episode. In the span of only two days, she undergoes a radical process of new impressions and change, which amount to a fundamental shift in her understanding of the world and view on life. In the beginning of the episode, Rachel enters the the Central Perk and it is revealed that she has abandoned her soon-to-be husband, Barry, on the day of their wedding. She realizes that she is more turned on by a gravy boat than by him. (4:31) She has been confronted with an essential doubt regarding her reasoning for marriage. The statement, “why am I doing this, and who am I doing this for?” (4:50) ​ reveals that she comes from a background in which there is a certain ideal of marriage. She questions the idea of getting married based on her father's expectation, one which does not necessarily entail love. (5:35). This reverts to an ultimate doubting of the ideals, expectations and worldviews which have previously been weighing on her shoulders; “It's like, it's like, all of my life, everyone has always told me, 'You're a shoe! You're a shoe, you're a shoe, you're a shoe!'. And today I just stopped and I said, 'What if I don't wanna be a shoe? What if I wanna be a- a purse, y'know? Or a- or a hat!” (5:55). The metaphor declares Rachel’s conscious dismissal of her old life and her ambition for future change. She comes to embody of the American Dream in her eagerness to employ her freedom and prosper. The rest of the episode reverts around how this old way of life must be substituted with a new one, and it is exactly in the aftermath of the fundamental turnaround that an array of working class ideals can be seen.

In the midst of a complete breakdown, Rachel is comforted by Monica’s excitement; “Okay, look, this is probably for the best, y'know? Independence. Taking

41 control of your life.” (07:20). Rachel’s shift in circumstances, the entering into a new group of friends who are all living a working class life, means that she is confronted by new ideals. Monica’s notion of independence, of taking control over one’s own life, appeals to Rachel’s individual ability to survive in a capitalist society. The image of life in the working class is portrayed as a positive. The life of work, is depicted as the only way in which she can live freely. As superior to the life of comfort which she has abandoned. It soon becomes evident that Rachel starts to grasp the message and slowly begins to conform. When hearing Chandler talking about work, she asks; “So, like, you guys all have jobs?” (14:29). In the following scene she asks Monica to wish her good luck, because she is “gonna go get one of those job things.” (16:43) What prevails is the image of a woman who has started to “take control over her life”. She shows courage, independence and a willingness to conform to the demands of capitalist the society she lives in. This is further symbolized by her attempt at making coffee for the first time. (14:15) The journey toward independence is depicted as difficult and problematic. Rachel copes with the newly met suppressive powers of the system and the fact that she is unqualified to sell her labour power, by buying boots. (18:35) The fact is that she is not fully committed to the meet the demand of hustling and struggling that life in the working class entail, until she is confronted by the friends. They make her cut over her credit cards. The symbolic gesture, the metaphor for cutting the remaining ties to her old life, is met by Monica’s pertinent greeting; “Welcome to the real world! It sucks. You're gonna love it!” (19:44). One finds hardly any statement more accurate in the depiction of the paradoxical fetishism of the American Dream. In the perpetual attention directed against individuality, Rachel is convinced that the “real world” which “sucks” must be confronted and challenged on the individual level. It is up to Rachel to

42

Summary of the Analysis

In our analysis of the pilot episode of Friends, we dissected different aspects of it and discovered some interesting facts. We found that the show exposes the image of life in modern society in such a way that social dynamics, norms and values that are expected from such society, become clearer and more obvious. Herewith, the conflicts that the characters face, end up disclosing many of the problems that are results of living in modern society. In return, the way the characters are depicted and the way they tackle certain problems and situations also illustrate different ways, with which one can deal and cope with their own life in terms of living in society in a sustainable way; not only financially, but also emotionally. On a different note, we have found that the show can be seen as being problematic, when one considers some choices made in it, in terms of talking about society and its complexity. That is due to the fact that it does not reveal the exploitative social dynamics that are part of a capitalist society, which is the case for the characters and their lives. The show does not have a focus on the system from a bigger picture, but rather, the focus is on the individual lives of the characters and how they perceive and experience their lives. Life is being depicted at a micro level instead of a macro level. The show ends up working like a bubblegum for the mind; it gives people something to chew on, but nothing to digest. In other words, the show provides the viewer with content, which keeps them entertained and amused, but also a content that does not necessarily give them food for thought and make them question the possible reasons them and the characters go through certain situations; situations that most likely have a social and political background.

43 Delimitations

During the process of writing the project, there were choices that had to be made, and direction that had to be taken, which means that the end-result of the project would have been very different from the one we have now. That is something we have been aware of and that we would like to elaborate on in this section. One aspect that we would like to mention is the fact that we purposely did not do a technical analysis of the show, as our focus was on the dialogues and contexts of different situations. This means that we did not look at things such as sound, light and shooting perspectives. Our analysis is very focused on speech and intercharacter play. If we had chosen to incorporate technical structures into our analysis, it would, most likely, have given us a deeper and more whole analysis of the characters and the show itself. However, if we had decided to focus on the technical details of the episode, the outcome of the analysis and the answer to the problem formulation would have taken a very different direction. On one hand, the technical aspects could have supported and underlined the analysis, but on the other hand, the findings of a technical analysis could have contradicted the present analysis. We could imagine, that a technical analysis would have helped us understand the different features that can be used in a television production in order to appeal to a broad audience, which would have given us a broader perspective on how messages are conveyed through television to audiences. Another delimitation is the fact that we did not cover all the different characters with as much depth as we did with Chandler and Rachel. This is due to the fact that we decided to concentrate on specific aspects of their characters, in order to be able to connect the empirical data with the theories we chose to use. We could see that their characters faced situations that are very intriguing, which we deemed as being of great importance, as it regards the different dynamics people have in society, in relation to money, relationships and work. One of the bigger and most imminent delimitations is the fact that we only focused and used critical theory, which means that we really narrowed down our way of looking at the television series and its potential purpose. By using critical theory,

44 we moved in a very one-sided field of theoretical framework, which is a rather normative standpoint. Had we used a theory that better matches the ideals and concepts of capitalism, the outcome of the project would have been grounded in different theories and concepts and therefore, the project would have had a whole different appeal to it. This is connected to another delimitation, which is that we produced a very specific project, since it is limited in theories as well as it is only looking at one series and one episode of that series. That means that it is important to keep in mind that with this project we cannot generalize all television series. If another series had been chosen, then the conclusion would most probably be one of a very different content. To conclude, our curiosity to find out more about the relation between viewers and TV shows lead us to find answers that are tied to the show Friends, which means that not all conclusions would be universally applicable to different shows.

45 Conclusion

In our project we found out that television shows and art have a lot in common, especially when one looks at their function; in this case, what they do for people. We have discovered that, just like art, TV shows can be used by people as a coping mechanism to endure the hardships of everyday life, as it offers familiar situations and somehow an alternate version of real life in which certain goals or ideals established by society are met; having supportive friends, being able to easily deal with certain situations, finding love or being open to find love, among other things. We have also come to find that, similarly to art, TV shows can, indeed, influence people’s lives. It can reinforce values, norms and patterns that are seen in society, as well as give people the knowledge to deal with unexpected situations, even if they obtain this knowledge subconsciously. On a similar note, one of the sub-questions in this project, which we wanted to find out about, was what it is that makes people relate to television shows. This question has been regarded in our analysis. By using different theories on the empirical data we were able to shed light on the fact that, in the specific example of Friends as television show, the audience is most likely to identify and relate to the content and the characters. This stems from the base of a set of stereotypical main characters, who represent different clichés in modern society. Therefore, the audience can easily apply events, occurring emotions and conflicts to their own personal life and through that, come to terms with the values of society, since those are being re-imposed. That is a result of how the show is made, which we argue has to do with the fact that commodified art -- in this case, a TV show -- , in other words, art that is tailor-made to be consumed by the masses ,can have negative outcomes. Even though it also offers beneficial aspects to the viewer, who engages with it. However, in return, it can culminate in alienating the viewer, by offering content that has already been digested; digested in the way that it provides a view on life that focuses on subjective experiences of how to navigate the fortunes and misfortunes of life, instead of offering thought-provoking concepts and ideals that could possibly aid the viewer in terms of helping them understand their

46 position in society and the dynamics found within it and how these dynamics play out in their lives. We could see some of these dynamics reflected in the show. ​ ​ In our analysis we can observe some of those features when looking at the symbols and ideals that are being shown and portrayed in Friends. One specific example is the one of love, marriage and lust, which is a crucial component of the episode. The goal of marriage and love in life is being represented over and over again, not giving the audience the possibility to come up with their own idea of what it means to step into relationships with other people. Furthermore, there is no escape other than finding real love and marriage or pure lust. A similar feature is shown in the way that Rachel is conforming to the norms and values of society, when looking for a job, which can also be seen when we see that Chandler works for the sake of money and not because he enjoys working or thinks he can make a difference in the world by doing something he deems to be meaningful. In Friends, there seems to be no other option than working in order to follow the capitalistic demands. And with this, art is being commodified in order to make the audience follow this route of conformity. Having analyzed Friends has given us an insight in terms of how to understand what happens in a TV show in regards to how it is structured and developed in relation to the viewer, life and the social dynamics that are to be found within it. The philosophical theories we used served us as tools to help us decode the different elements and forces that interplay in our society and as a reflection in the show as well. To conclude, we believe that one can always find different results and answers when analyzing different shows. However, we also believe that, even though the content might be different, it can always tell us about various power relations, social dynamics and how we experience and view life.

47 Bibliography

Literature

- Adorno, Theodor W. (1954) How to Look at Television. University of California Press. ​ ​ - Adorno, Theodor W. (1991). The Culture Industry - Selected Essays On Mass Culture. ​ Edited by J. M. Bernstein. Routledge, London and New York. - Allen, Ansgar and Goddard, Roy. (2017). Education and Philosophy - An Introduction. ​ Sage Publication Ltd. London. - Dissanaya, Ellen. (1998). What is Art for?. University of Washington Press, Seattle ​ ​ and London. - Elias, Camelia. (2011); The Way of Sign: Cultural Text and Theory in Two Steps. ​ EyeCorner Press. UK and US.

- Horkheimer, Max and Adorno, Theodor W. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Edited ​ ​ by Gunzelin Schmid Noerr Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Stanford University Press. Stanford California. - Kant, Immanuel (1993) [1785]. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated ​ ​ by Ellington, James W. (3rd ed.); Hackett.

Websites

- Ginsborg, Hannah. (2014). Kant's Aesthetics and Teleology. The Stanford ​ ​ Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved December 01, 2017 from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/kant-aesthetics/ ​ - Klinger, Max. (2012). A summary of Adorno and Horkheimer’s quite interesting and ​ staggeringly pretentious views on art. Retrieved December 15, 2017 from ​ https://themaxklinger.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/a-summary-of-adorno-and-hor kheimers-slightly-interesting-and-staggeringly-pretentious-views-on-art/ - “The One Where Monica Gets a Roommate (Pilot episode)”. Friends. (1994). ​ ​ Crane, David and Kauffman, Martha. First aired on NBC. Netflix.

48 - Vocabulary.com. (n.d.). Sitcom. Retrieved December 6, 2017 from ​ ​ https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sitcom

49