See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335692513
TOP GEAR AS A BASTION OF HETEROSEXUAL MASCULINITY
Chapter · January 2003
CITATIONS READS 3 142
1 author:
Angela Smith University of Sunderland
44 PUBLICATIONS 207 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Language and politics View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Angela Smith on 09 September 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
TOP GEAR AS A BASTION OF HETEROSEXUAL MASCULINITY
ANGELA SMITH
This chapter explores the construction of heterosexual masculinities in the BBC TV programme, Top Gear. In general, there has been little detailed analysis of broadcast masculinities, although much work has recently been carried out on the construction of the ‘new lad’ in lifestyle magazines. In particular, Bethan Benwell’s work (2003, 2004, 2006) has explored how the new lad is constructed in men’s lifestyle magazines in Britain, and her work will form the basis for this discussion of broadcast masculinities. Set against a social background of shifting masculinities in the wake of the rise of second-wave feminism, the new lad is described as a reaction against the ‘new man’ of the 1990s. Whilst the new man was characterised by an acceptance of feminism and responsibility in terms of commitment to long-term relationships, the new lad rebels against such responsibilities and is typified by a nostalgic retreat into adolescence. The importance of irony and banter within the construction of the new lad will be explored in a detailed study of Top Gear. The allied humour of the show will be discussed in relation to Benwell’s (2003) observation that the new lad oscillates between heroic and anti-heroic stances. ‘Traditional’ masculinity is what the new lad aspires to: anti-heroism is what he inevitably relapses into when this ambition either fails or is deemed too narcissistic or insufficiently ironic. This chapter will show how the programme’s three co-presenters collaborate with guests and studio audience to construct a form of new lad masculinity that meets broadcasting constraints whilst courting controversy through the extensive use of irony and banter. Here, I apply Benwell’s model to the television show, looking at similarities in the current format of Top Gear and ‘lads’ mags’ such as Loaded and FHM in a discussion of how laddishness is articulated by the middle-aged presenters of Top Gear. Top Gear has been broadcast on UK terrestrial television since 1977 against a background of shifting masculinities in the wake of the rise of second-wave feminism. As Whannel has observed, over this period
84 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity
‘forms of sexual discrimination, sexist imagery, and macho behaviour have become more commonly contested, where they had formerly been taken for granted.’ (2000: 291) The media’s role in supporting masculine power, as Talbot (1998) has suggested, remains important and whilst outwardly, the show seeks to attract a viewing audience that is heterogeneous in terms of class, age and gender (the web site for tickets to see the show specifically requests groups be split 50/50 in terms of gender), I hope to show this split operates within a discussion format which ensures that Top Gear remains a bastion of heterosexual masculinity. As Bonner (2003) has pointed out, the popularity of motoring shows internationally cannot be explained simply in terms of their utility to help viewers choose a vehicle. After all, ‘a car is a major purchase, and for the overwhelming majority of viewers, one they make no more than every five years’ (2003: 101). As she continues:
Whether the viewer watches for some kind of fantasy investment or for the acquisition of knowledge about the product which can then be socially traded like sports statistics, the viewing does not lead in any direct way to a decision to consume (ibid).
In this chapter, therefore, I argue that Top Gear is much less about purchasing cars than about a form of entertainment where viewers engage in the ‘fantasy investment’ which Bonner has identified as being part of such viewing practices.
The ‘new lad’
It is perhaps useful to begin this discussion with a description of the contours of the figure of the ‘new lad’. In her work, Benwell (2003: 14) argues that the notion that masculinity is currently in ‘crisis’ is a popular one. As well as the gains secured by second-wave feminism, it is also argued that recent shifts in patterns of production and employment have disrupted traditional gender formations and led to changing gender roles which have bolstered the social position and security of women at men’s expense. The changes in society and the increasing prominence of feminist issues has, allegedly, led to the view that masculinity is now in crisis as the old stabilities of the past have become eroded. The much-lauded ‘new man’ of the 1990s was perceived to be sympathetic to feminism: he was usually in a stable relationship, had a well-groomed appearance which matched his responsible job and middle-class lifestyle. In contrast, the ‘new lad’ is resolutely single and more casually dressed for a life which focuses on the pub and socialising with his mates, engaged in an (albeit
Angela Smith 85 idealised) form of working-class lifestyle. Connell’s description of ‘protest masculinity’ (1995:110) has many links with the identity of the ‘new lad’ in its rejection of authority, engagement with minor criminality, short-lived liaisons and an interest in motorbikes or cars. The superficiality of the post-modern male as described by Whannel (2000) is also apparent in Connell’s argument that protest masculinity is characterised as ‘something frenzied and showy’ (ibid). This commitment to a rejection of authority is something we will return to in a more detailed discussion of Top Gear later in the chapter. Several critics such as Whelehan (2000), Nixon (1996) and Benwell (2003) have commented on how adolescent tendencies are an essential feature of new laddism. Rutherford argues that ‘male redundancy has created cultures of prolonged adolescence’ (1997:7). In their study of men’s lifestyle magazines, Jackson et al. (2001) also found the same emphasis on excess, football, cars, drinking and music demonstrated in many other publications aimed at the new lad reader. For men’s lifestyle magazines, the implications of the ‘crisis’ account of masculinity resonate in the widely observed regressive and adolescent tendencies acted out by new lad magazines in which there is an evocative retreat to childish forms of behaviour. Such behaviour includes puerile humour, scatological obsessions, an absence of references to work or social responsibility and a kind of rebellious posturing against ‘adult’ authority or even feminism.
Hero vs. anti-hero
Benwell (2003) has argued that men’s lifestyle magazines are a particular site of tension or ambiguity between the heroic and the anti-heroic male. Firstly, a traditional, heroic masculinity can be characterised as featuring attributes such as physicality, violence, autonomy and silence which are celebrated (often through a profiled celebrity or iconic hero). Secondly, there is an anti-heroic masculinity which is ironic, humorous and self- deprecating which is intended to appeal to the imagined reader. Benwell argues that the textual identity of the new lad is actually situated in this oscillation between the two identities rather than being allied to one or the other. In this way, masculinity can be regarded as being Janus-faced1 where anti-heroism is an essential component of the masculine subject position, since it is the source of the self-deprecatory humour vital to new laddism. New lad magazines such as Loaded have retained a soft spot for traditional masculinity and its icons, and regularly pay tribute to celebrities such as footballers, boxers, actors as well as individuals associated with
86 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity dangerous professions and pursuits, an interest shared with the guests on Top Gear. The interviews with such celebrities are rarely challenging or critical but more likely to engage in a glorification of traditional masculinity. On the rare occasions when women feature in articles2, there is usually a celebration of the ‘traditional’ aspects of their femininity or, conversely, their ladette behaviours which resonate well with those of the new lad. In contrast, anti-heroism is associated with ordinariness, weakness and self-reflexivity and, as Benwell argues, is seen as a phenomenon which is particularly associated with a British sensibility, perhaps reflecting years of disappointment in following the national football team. The anti-hero is the guy who meets his mates in the pub to watch a football match rather than actually play football. He will drink excessively and wake up in a gutter somewhere, but will have turned this into an amusing anecdote to recount to his friends later. This use of humour is something we will return to shortly, as it is central to the construction of the new lad and, more specifically, to the gendered performances of the presenters of Top Gear. The show’s producer, Andy Wilman (2007) claims that the position of the show in the television schedule is also a major factor in its audience appeal: ‘Because our show is about “cocking about” and escapism, we’re a release valve that says you can extend the weekend by an hour.’ This ‘escapism and cocking about’ is central to the construction of the new lad.
Top Gear
Many features of new laddism described above as part of magazine culture can also be found in Top Gear. Since the show returned to terrestrial television in 2002 in its new 8pm Sunday slot (the BBC had ‘rested’ it following a ratings dive after its principal presenter, Jeremy Clarkson, left in 1999), it has attracted huge audiences. The relaunched Top Gear employed a new format, largely due to the fact that the previous production team and all the presenters (with the exception of Clarkson) had defected to Channel Five, taking the show’s format with them. The only thing the BBC had been left with was the show’s name. After luring Clarkson back, the BBC relaunched the programme with the old name but a different format, a format which I argue mirrors that of (men’s) lifestyle magazines and allows the presenters to reconfigure the programme as a platform on which to perform a version of new laddishness. The three presenters, Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May, constantly switch between the figure of the hero and the anti-hero (see media coverage of Hammond’s accident last summer for further examples).
Angela Smith 87
The magazine format of the show allows for the inclusion of ‘news’ items, introduced in the studio by the presenters, reviews of new cars (usually their prices are well out of the reach of ordinary viewers, providing a fantasy element to the show), celebrity interviews, competitions (albeit in the form of the ‘star in the reasonably priced car’ feature, where a different celebrity each week drives the same car around the Top Gear track), and ‘challenges’ which end of the show each week. Whilst Clarkson takes centre stage during the opening and closing sections of the show, and he alone conducts the interviews with guests, the other two presenters join him with equal status. However, there is another character on the programme whose image is suspended from the studio roof and whose name is used reverentially: this is The Stig3. The Stig is the show’s test-driver, whose real identity is kept a secret, as with traditional super heroes. His face is always obscured by his racing helmet and his all-white racing overalls act as his super-hero outfit. He embodies a hyper-real version of the traditional masculinity that is elsewhere found in superhero figures, and remains a character who is venerated by presenters, guests and fans of the show alike4. His image hangs in banners from the studio roof, although he himself never appears in there and thus remains a mysterious character. When we see him, he is usually shot from below, so appears to tower above the viewer, emphasising his masculine power. At times, however, he is seen standing next to Clarkson, who is himself very tall, which then shows that The Stig is actually much shorter. Even when seated in a car, the camera angle is set at eye level (or helmet level), thus retaining his dominant image. In the stills that adorn the studio, The Stig adopts an ironic, traditional super-hero pose with arms folded or else on hips, emphasising his masculine power. The Stig never appears in the studio and is never heard to speak on camera, thus embodying the ‘strong silent’ stereotype of traditional heroic masculinity. However, we do get reported speech via the presenters and guests, who report his words on the performance of cars or driving skills. The super-hero persona of The Stig is emphasised in the presenters’ ironic introductions to his on-screen appearances. Here, Hammond is introducing The Stig prior to test-driving a new car.
88 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity
RH Time then to find out which is the winner and (.) this being Top Gear (.) we start with the most important question (1) which one’s the fastest (1) and for that we need an independent adjudicator (.) someone who has no mortgage (.) no nine-to-five job and no children (.) [shot of The Stig in the car, pans to RH and JM on start grid] three (.) two (.) one go
Thus the masculine competitiveness of Top Gear is handed over to the superhero Stig at the encouragement of the presenters who wait on the finish line. As with Benwell’s description of the new lad’s status, the image of The Stig is designed to rise above mundane matters such as office work, home and family commitments. His performances on the test track are always the most efficient and swiftest lap times, making this the aspirational male that the Top Gear community aspires to. However, as Benwell has argued in the case of lads’ magazines, the new lad falls short of this traditional embodiment of masculinity. Such shortcomings are rendered acceptable through the use of ironic humour which comprise an essential element of the new lad’s image.
Humour
Turning to the use of humour, Benwell (2004:5) argues that, in lads’ mags, ‘humour is clearly a prerequisite of magazine masculinity, and it decorates almost every article and picture in a relentless way.’ Talbot (2007) has observed that such humour in lad mags contributes to the construction of a ‘phallacious fraternity’ for readers, whereby a community is constructed through an assertion of shared values. This use of humour is apparent in Top Gear and has been one of the show’s most popular characteristics. The first editor of FHM, Mike Soutar, has described how humour is an essential part of masculinity. He asserts that, ‘in a group of men there’s no-one more respected than the funniest guy’ (quoted in Varley, 1999). Humour is one of the central features of the Top Gear programme, each article in its magazine format being framed by knowing humour and irony. The BBC claim that the show is as much about entertainment as information, although to many viewers, its entertainment features are what make it more popular than its older format rival, Fifth Gear. To be part of the Top Gear community, it is essential that you understand or at least join in the humour that is articulated in the gendered performances found on the show. As Brown and Levison (1987) have observed, humour is a form of ‘positive politeness’5 whereby friendly behaviour is signalled by shared common ground; here, a shared sense of
Angela Smith 89 humour. As a community, Top Gear viewers and the studio audience need to be aware of the discursive arrangement by which new laddism is articulated. For example, Top Gear viewers are expected to engage in a knowingness and lack of seriousness that is essential for full enjoyment of a show where car crashes are treated as entertainment and the destruction of vehicles (particularly caravans) is a common occurrence. This version of hyper-masculinity requires viewers to engage with new laddism and not find it distasteful or odious. The BBC has often been called on to defend the show from complaints from those who find the show offensive. Here, in an extract from a lengthy response, any offence caused is framed as a misunderstanding of humour.
We acknowledge some viewers do not appreciate the Top Gear team’s sense of humour but their provocative comments are an integral part of the programme and are not intended to be taken seriously. (bbc.co.uk/complaints, 26 July. Accessed 23 November, 2006).
To ‘understand’ the programme, you have to share the sense of humour that is embodied in new laddishness. Of course, the overall mood of the show as a celebration of laddishness within the context of the interpretive community means that complaints are inextricably linked to the anti- heroic, ironic humour of the show. Beck’s notion of ‘constructed certitude’ (1987) is relevant here, too. This allows for the construction of certain narratives to be made in confidence and presented as being ‘common sense’ in contrast with other narratives that might oppose them. For example, in Top Gear, there is an apparent emphasis on the speed and style of vehicles at the expense of safety, where the top speed of a car is seen as more important than its performance within nationally observed speed limits. The traditional masculine competitiveness of the new lad is also part of this constructed certitude in the way in which the fastest drivers are more highly esteemed (particularly in the ‘star in the reasonably priced car’ feature mentioned earlier). The performance of James May is often constructed as a rejection of new laddishness, earning him the nickname of ‘Captain Slow’ by the other presenters, although it could be argued that his performance of new laddism is merely less extreme than that of the other two. His performance of more traditional masculinity on-screen acts as a source of amusement for his co-presenters, where he actively engages in banter that is self-deprecating. May retains a competitiveness that is part of his traditional masculinity, most noticeably when he test drives at speed, a visual image which is far removed from stereotypical image of the laid-
90 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity back hippy that he otherwise embodies. In fact, the show’s web site profile of May emphasises his laddish rejection of authority:
James admits that he was once fired from a job with a well-known magazine for putting a secret message in a supplement. It’s exactly this kind of japery that makes him perfect for the nation’s favourite motoring show (bbc.co.uk/topgear/teamprofile. Accessed 23 November 2007).
Here, the rejection of authority and subsequent dismissal are celebrated as embodying the adolescent humour found in performances of laddishness that the show is promoting. Most frequently, May plays the ‘straight guy’ to the ironic humour of Clarkson and Hammond. His collaboration in this can be clearly seen in the cover image of the Radio Times (January 2007) that heralded the return of the show following Hammond’s near-fatal accident in September, 2006 when he crashed whilst shooting for the new series. In this image, the three presenters stand side by side with May in the middle. A speech bubble from Clarkson reads ‘It’s a bloody nuisance he’s still alive’, to which Hammond is presented as responding with ‘Sorry to be so inconvenient’. This ironic humour, typical of the anti-heroic new lad, is emphasised by May who is depicted pointing at Clarkson, seemingly disowning the comment but drawing the reader’s attention to it in the way a school-boy would sneak on a fellow naughty child. In Top Gear, irony also allows the presenters to engage in other performances that appear to reject dominant discourses seen elsewhere as common sense. For example, there is an explicit rejection of ‘political correctness’ and ‘green’ discourses relating to environmental issues. This is in addition to attacks on those authorities who seek to impose rules or regulations that might inhibit the driver, regarding such authorities as kill- joys. Recent international debates about global warming have led to legislation in Britain that penalises drivers of vehicles that are inefficient in terms of fuel use and damaging to the environment in terms of carbon emitted. Given that such vehicles are exactly the favourite models of the Top Gear presenters (particularly sports cars and 4-wheel drives), it is hardly surprising that they frequently criticise such legislation whilst glorifying the speed and style they attribute to the offending cars. For example, the ‘team profile’ for Clarkson on the show’s web site states:
Clarkson has been accused of some amazing things in his time, including destroying a mountain, destroying the environment and destroying Rover cars. In his defence, the mountain is still there, we can all still breathe and Rover would still be here if their management hasn’t been so terrible (bbc.co.uk/topgear/teamprofiles).
Angela Smith 91
This is promoted as part of the show’s underlying ironic humour by the presenters on air. In the following extract, Clarkson and Hammond cooperate in the expression of PC discourses relating to religion in setting up such complaints as minor in relation to more masculine motoring matters:
JC Hey now talking about getting in touch 1 we had a number of people after last week’s show getting in touch to RH complain Mock shame JC They did (1) 5 We had well I said something about a Muslim (.) ok (.) two complaints (1) [hanging heads in shame] remember Jesus came last week (.) and talked to RH him (.) three complaints [audience 10 JC laughter] we were slightly rude about caravans (1) RH Yes we sort of set one on fire a bit A hundred and fifty complaints JC [audience laughter] (3) Straight to 15 Seriously camera, A hundred and fifty a lot of people are sheepishly RH now demanding an apology JC They are so (.) em (.) we really are sorry 20 and we promise that we all three of us To RH will never ever have a go at caravanning again No (.) no no no (.) I’m sorry we didn’t burn more caravans You’re right (.) so am I yeh that’s true [audience laughter]
In a show which is couched in humour and where serious conversation is rare, the apparent sincerity of the apology by Hammond and Clarkson in lines 1-8 is undone by the reference to ‘Jesus last week’, where the studio audience and regular viewers are implicitly directed to a humorous incident in the previous week’s show. This is followed by the extensive hedging used by both presenters in lines 9-10, where reference to an on- going joke about the presenters’ great dislike of caravans is represented as being more offensive to viewers than references to religion. The presenters
92 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity continue to act out sincerity in the face of studio audience laughter. Hammond is left to perform the ‘naughty but lovable scamp’ role that is most commonly his in the show, directing his apology to the viewers rather than the studio audience or his co-presenters. Clarkson intervenes in the apology in a mock refutation of the apology, at which point the ‘authentic’ laddish Hammond appears and employs irony to reinforce the point his apology was not sincere. The laughter of the studio audience indicates wide approval of this lack of sincerity, thus the laddish rejection of authority is emphasised as a positive feature of the show. Laddishness is celebrated in other ways through an implicitly male viewership. As mentioned previously, the show ostensibly seeks to attract male and female viewers. However, the use of irony allows the show’s producers as well as presenters to engage in laddishness. The web site seems to address a primarily male community. For example, the instructions for viewers to request tickets states that:
We also ask that groups of people coming to the recording have a 50/50 male/female split. This is so we don’t end up with a bunch of ugly male car geeks ruining everyone’s Sunday night (bbc.co.uk/topgear/beonshow).
Here, the attempt at inclusiveness in requesting an equal number of male and female ticket applicants rather backfires in the adoption of the male gaze that insists on an implicitly more attractive female studio audience. Indeed, as viewers can see, in every show the female audience members are the ones more clearly visible at the front. This is perhaps unsurprising, given that women are usually shorter than men and so many would need to stand at the front in order to get a good view. However, the very design of the studio requires all audience members to stand, and so women are forced to be situated in the most visible position. Perhaps we can see that this trait of the programme is part of its on-going ironic humour which allows the producers to engage in apparent empathy on the part of all the viewers rather than the fundamentally male gaze that would prefer to see an attractive female standing behind a car and the show’s presenters. Thus a solidly heterosexual masculinity is articulated in line with Talbot’s (2007) notion of the phallacious fraternity.
Taboo language
This same ironic humour allows the presenters and their guests to employ taboo language. De Klerk (1997:147) and other scholars have observed that the use of expletives in particular have become associated with power and masculinity in Western cultures. The use of taboo and swearwords are
Angela Smith 93 a matter of careful socialisation, with men in Western society learning habits of verbal aggression, thereby contributing to the perception that they are strong and powerful, and to the dominant forms that enable them to do this. However, broadcasting constraints mean that the use of taboo language before the 9pm watershed is prohibited. Despite this, traces of it can be found in Top Gear. Most noticeably, this is in the ‘bleeping’ over swearing when running pre-recorded tapes. This is most frequently during sequences of drivers travelling at speed or losing control of their vehicles, where the danger of the situation is diffused by the laughter of the studio audience. In the context of the production of the show, there is ample opportunity for potentially offensive language to be edited out, either through priority being given to a post-edit voice-over or else through the addition of a sound track that could be road noise or music (see also Livingstone and Lunt (1994) for a discussion of the power of editing in audience participation shows). However, in choosing the option of bleeping over the voice of the driver, it draws attention to this linguistic feature rather than concealing it. This fits with the anti-heroic stance of the new lad which Benwell has observed in magazines, whilst also underlining the rejection of authority (as in the use of non-taboo language in ‘polite society’ which is here manifest in the pre-watershed broadcast). I would further argue that the presence of the bleeped-over swearing and the generation of amused laughter in the studio audience adds to the camaraderie that permeates the studio audience. This feature adds to the notion of what Scannell (1991) refers to as ‘broadcast sociability’, and promotes a wider acceptance of the laddish humour that pervades the show. In other ways, taboo language is replaced by an engagement with taboo topics. There is, for example, an on-going jocularity about minor criminality such as speeding, where the show’s presenters readily pass on tips on the most effective ways to disable speed cameras (something for which the BBC is frequently called upon to defend as being simply another example of the show’s humour). A further example of this minor criminality can be seen in the exchange between Clarkson and Hammond (above), where there is a celebration of burning a caravan (which had been presented as an unfortunate accident during filming the previous week). Caravans, like speed cameras, are frequently drawn upon in the programme as being inherently impedimental to drivers. The glorification of speed is implicitly evident here in this denunciation of factors that might inhibit the driver of sporty cars, and is part of the constructed
94 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity certitude that permeates the show and adds to the overall presentation of rebellion against authority. During interviews, always conducted by Clarkson, male guests are challenged about their sex lives, where their cars and driving aptitude are aligned with their sexual prowess. More importantly, this is an explicit heterosexual masculinity that is articulated. As Talbot has pointed out, ‘heterosexuality is central to hegemonic masculinity’ (1998: 200), and the presenters and guests in Top Gear connive to ensure that the new laddism which is so evident in the programme is underpinned by an explicit heterosexuality. In fact, the production of new laddish behaviour in the programme could be said to be dependent on associations with homosexuality for its security so that ‘uncool’ cars that lack power and speed are often referred to as ‘hairdressers’ cars’. Clarkson was recently criticised by gay rights groups for his description of one car as being ‘a bit ginger beer’, using the laddish rhyming slang for ‘queer’. The power of a car is aligned with masculine power, which in turn is allied to heterosexual traditional masculinity. The sexual prowess of a man is thus represented as being reflected in his choice of car. In addition, in the hypermasculine use of banter, there is a celebration of the heavy drinking and a rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle that is associated with traditional masculinity, although the presenters are careful to separate this from the driving. All of these taboo topics underpin a general rejection of authority. In a Top Gear interview carried out by Clarkson with the F1 racing driver Jenson Button, the discussion about sex described below, can be seen as typifying the heroic and anti-heroic features Benwell identifies in lads’ magazines, here with Clarkson adopting the anti-heroic stance to emphasise the traditional masculinity of Button. The rejection of authority through minor criminality is celebrated by both participants at Clarkson’s instigation. This is done through the fantasy of fitting machine guns to racing cars to encourage faster motoring. This is later followed by Clarkson’s insistence on calling in a wager they had made on Button’s lap time around the Top Gear track.
Angela Smith 95
JB Yeh you’re right (.) have you told them 1 JC all JB No I’m about to we had a bet JC Yeh we did He said (.) he bet me twenty quid that he 5 could come down here (.) and drive Audience JB round our track faster (.) than The Stig laughter But the thing is you say that and (.) I JC can’t remember saying that at all You were quite drunk (2) and that is a 10 JB good thing for a Formula One driver you were /But I JC wasn’t drinking you must have been JB spiking me drink you were 15 JC JB /I was JC Jeremy you bet something JB I’ve I’ve brought the money along JC puts £20 note JC I did wake up a bit uncomfortable on table 20 There it is Oh really JB Twenty quid (.) that’s my twenty pounds Audience put your twenty pounds down there get laughter JC twenty pounds out you earn eight million 25 pounds so get twenty of them out Don’t you know about racing drivers we never carry cash JB puts £20 note Put twenty pounds (.) there because you on table have the bet (.) good put it on there (.)
In this section of the interview, Clarkson calls in a bet that he claims he and Button had arranged when ‘quite drunk’ (line 8). Button claims he had not been drinking and pretends to blame Clarkson for drugging him. Clarkson plays along with this conceit, with Button hypothesising about physical harm that he been inflicted through such a capricious act (line 17). When Clarkson insists on enforcing the bet, assuming a position of competitive masculine power that Button has momentarily conceded, Button attempts to evade this by aligning himself with those most powerful in society who are rumoured not to carry cash. However, Clarkson maintains his assertive masculine power and repeats the directive
96 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity
‘put twenty pounds there’ (lines 20 and 25). In this extract, we can see how Clarkson, although self-confessed to be less powerful in terms of such traditional masculine traits as financial wealth and (as we shall shortly see) sexual prowess, has assumed the new laddish masculine role of one who engages in gambling and drinking. This carries undertones of the ‘mischievousness’ that is found in May’s on-line profile, here with Clarkson pretending to use illicit use of drugs on others to get his own way. Elsewhere in the same interview, Clarkson and Button engage in banter on the subject of Button’s sex life.
JC You are paid a not inconsiderable amount of 1 money you are quite a good looking chap well before the beard obviously do you find it Audience JB difficult to get women?(3) laughter JC Err (1) that’s a tough one for me to answer at the 5 JB moment em Really? Why? JC Do I find it difficult to – yeh I do because I’m Incredulous JB just busy all the time (.) Really? Why? 10 JC Do I find it difficult to – yeh I do because I’m JB just busy all the time JC Really? Laughter You know I’m I’m bus you know I’m er racing and cars and er applause 15 Yeh that’s once a fortnight once a fortnight and JB you drive around a bit (.) and usually frankly you JC break down before the end this year we’re JB talking about an hour’s work a fortnight and they 20 you’re off Just like yourself JC Yeh exactly like me JB No we do a lot of testing as well a lot of testing 25 JC er finish training we do PR er yeh we do have some down time and er (.) I like to enjoy myself as we all do er (.) but no I don’t get er I don’t So you get a lot of sex Probably more than you Jeremy yes Yes (2) damn right mate
Angela Smith 97
Here, the pinnacle of the powerful, fast car – the racing car – is being aligned with a lifestyle that embodies traditional masculinity and its associated heterosexuality. Button’s initial reluctance to answer the question put to him by Clarkson could be explained by recent press reports of his liaison with prostitutes and the consequent breaking off of his engagement. His evasive strategy draws upon traditional masculine discourses, in particular, work taking up much of his time. This is challenged by Clarkson in a bantering move moves against Button’s claims of masculinity and eventually breaks down Button’s disinclination. Button’s utterance that ‘I like to enjoy myself’ is post-modified by the exclusive ‘we’ to refer to other racing drivers. When he stumbles over what to say next, appearing to fall back onto evasive strategies once more, Clarkson interrupts with the declarative ‘so you get a lot of sex’, abandoning the euphemism he’d employed earlier (line 24). Button instantly responds with a challenge to Clarkson’s own sexual prowess (line 26), which Clarkson – to the amusement of the studio audience – responds by adopting an anti-heroic stance that also serves to assert the sanctity of his own marriage. Button and Clarkson go on to cooperate in their construction of excessively heterosexual masculinity in this interview with the hypothetical addition of machine guns to racing cars, a £20 bet on Button’s lap time (a bet arranged, Clarkson emphasises, whilst they were both very drunk), and then the competitiveness of the lap time in the ‘star in the reasonably priced car’ challenge. As we can see, irony can be used ‘as a strategic disclaimer to the less palatable views expressed [and] plays a hugely important role in male discourse communities’ (Benwell, 2004: 7).
Banter
All of these features are frequently articulated in the form of what Easthope (1986) describes as banter. According to Easthope, banter has an important function for men in that the comic aspect allows certain things to be said that would not be permissible in routine interaction. It therefore operates in much the same way as irony in the case of the new lad. As previously mentioned, one of the show’s running jokes is May’s comparative lack of new laddishness, where his nickname of Captain Slow is brought up in the on-going rituals of mutual teasing between the presenters at several points. However, it is not just between the presenters that we can find evidence of banter. This frequently occurs during the interviews between Clarkson and the show’s guests.
98 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity
We can see this in the following extract, where Clarkson is interviewing the comedian Steve Coogan about his new comedy show. They have spent quite some time discussing the choice of car for the character Coogan plays. The extract opens at the end of that section of the interview and moves into an exchange of anecdotes relating to cars in film.
Steve Coogan interviewed by Jeremy Clarkson (2 July, 2006) SC I wanted the Boss 351 1 JC That’s the Bond one ** SC That’s one Bond one in Diamonds are Forever where the car goes sideways on two wheels down that alley-way= JC =But= 5 SC =There’s a continuity error in it JC Well there is and there isn’t SC Yeh b- I I know about this JC Go on then SC Ok [talks to audience] when they did the James Bond 10 film Diamonds are Forever there is one of the m- most famous mistakes on film (.) the car goes through on its wheels that way [gestures with right hand] like that (.) and when it comes out the alley [gestures with left hand] JC the it’s on the other on it’s the other way around (.) 15 SC Yeh So what they do is they put in a shot in the middle with him driving along and sudden the suddenly you see them in the car and it goes [engine noises] and then it goes [engine noises and demonstrates car flipping over] as if 20 JC somehow (2) [audience laughter] if it could do that it would have been able to drive through the gap normally SC (1) JC That was my favourite bit that the (.) you could just see SC them in the edit go (.) oh dear 25 Oh no We’ve got a continuity And do you know I thought what they might do is (.) this JC is really is (.) em (.) I thought they might flip the image but (.) when he drives out there’s lots of signs (.) er it’s 30 Las Vegas so there’s casino here and all the signs would be (.) backwards so Can I give you a really anal one on that (.) you’ll like this SC (.) you know in car adverts that are run all round the
Angela Smith 99
world (.) that’s why (.) people say Y YHY101 W the 35 JC number plates it’s so when they flip it to make it left or right hand drive the number plate still makes sense (4) [impressed audience murmur] I like that (.) I might use that at dinner parties I might use it at a dinner party when there’s an awkward pause (2) [laughter] Well I do (.) and the pause is even longer [laughter]
Here, Clarkson and Coogan initially appear to disagree (lines 5 and 7), but then Clarkson lets his guest take the conversational floor space to relate the anecdote about a Bond film ‘continuity error’. However, Clarkson has first made it clear that this is a story he already knows (line 8), thus maintaining his place with the viewers as knowledgeable host of the show. In this way, Clarkson is able to retain the dominant position in the interview by being seen to allow his guest to appear equally knowledgeable. Coogan happily obliges with an animated account of the error, much to the studio audience’s amusement and at the vocal encouragement of Clarkson (line 15). Clarkson joins in the narrative on line 21 with a supportive interjection, agreeing with Coogan’s account and allowing Coogan to expand on the hypothetical situation in the editing of the film when this mistake was realised. Clarkson picks up on one of the potential solutions that Coogan has suggested (flipping the film) and shifts the topic to one of his own choosing that allows him to display Clarkson’s own knowledge of the techniques of car filming. He adopts the anti-heroic stance by framing his story as being ‘really anal’, formulating this as a question (line 29) but not anticipating a negative response as this would be out of keeping with his role as the omnipotent interviewer. The studio audience’s response is important here, as it emphasises Clarkson’s impressive knowledge and, after a long gap in which Coogan is seen to join in this appreciation, Coogan eventually responds using a comic voice to pick up on the ‘anal’ character of this narrative. Clarkson’s response continues in the anti-heroic mode, where he presents an image of himself as an unsocial dinner party guest, implicitly suggesting that such banter is more appropriate to the traditional laddish setting of the pub than the more inclusive social domain of the dinner party table. So, here we can see the presenter and the guest collaborating through the use of banter that emphasises Clarkson’s new laddishness. In addition, Coogan is allowed to present his own ‘funny guy’ comic role, implicitly promoting his new comedy series through his performance.
100 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity
Conclusion
To conclude, as we have seen, Benwell’s model of ‘new lad’ masculinity as found in lads’ magazines can be applied to magazine television shows such as Top Gear, which I would argue, remain a bastion of heterosexual masculinity. The construction of the ‘new lad’ that Benwell describes as oscillating between the heroic and anti-heroic is apparent in Top Gear and can be seen as Janus-faced in the use of humour and irony which combine in the construction of heterosexual masculinity. The performances of masculinity by the three presenters, predominantly Clarkson and Hammond, present a case study of new-laddishness. This is apparent in the scripted narration that is a feature of this show as well as the more spontaneous talk that we have characterised as ‘banter’, particularly in the interviews Clarkson conducts with guests in the studio6. This is all carried over into the show’s website presence where the anonymous writers continue the construction of new laddishness which is implicit throughout the show. Finally, I would argue that the programme produces a form of toned down laddishness bridled to meet broadcasting constraints. That even the scripted segments of the show contain the taboo elements of new laddishness is clear from the number of complaints the programme generates and would seem to indicate that the show does test these constraints considerably. However, it could also be argued that the programme seeks to attract such critisism and indeed glories in it. There is a knowingness on the part of the presenters where heterosexual masculinity is provocatively produced, both in the scripted sections (where perceived weaknesses of cars are often associated with homosexuality) and the unscripted sections (where guests collaborate with the hosts in the construction of new laddishness). Despite the number of complaints the show generates, it would appear that there has been no attempt made to make the show less controversial, seemingly taking the view that all publicity is good publicity. In fact, the BBC responses to complaints emphasise the humour of the show, thus demonstrating a hegemonic acceptance of this toned down new laddishness. With viewing figures of over 7 million people for a Sunday evening programme, the provocative style of the show’s presenters appear to do little damage to the programme’s popularity. As with Benwell’s discussion of lads’ mags, the use of irony and banter are essential to the construction of new lad masculinities in Top Gear, where they are used to emphasise the underlying heterosexuality of the show. The blend of sexism, puerile humour and valorisation of minor
Angela Smith 101 criminality generate a form of masculine engagement by the middle-aged presenters of the show. Indeed, this underlying assumption of heterosexual masculinity in the performance of new laddism in Top Gear promotes a style of macho behaviour that has largely vanished from other mainstream, non-sports programmes on British television.
References
Beck, U. (1997) The Reinvention of Politics: rethinking modernity in the global social order. Cambridge: Polity. Benwell, B. (2004) Ironic discourse: evasive masculinities in men’s lifestyle magazines. Men and Masculinities, 7(1): 3-21. —. ed. (2003) Masculinity and Men’s Lifestyle Magazines. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. (2006) Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Bonner, F. (2003) Ordinary Television. London: Sage. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Burgoon, M; Dillard, J and Doren, .N (1983) Friendly or unfriendly persuasion. Human Communication Research vol.1 :244-8. Connell, R. W. (1987) Gender and Power: society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge: Polity Press —. (1995) Masculinities. Oxford: Polity Press De Klerk, V. (1997) The role of expletives in the construction of masculinity, in S. Johnson and U; Meinhof (eds) Language and Masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell Easthope, A. (1986) What a Man’s Gotta Do: the masculine myth in popular culture. Boston: Unwin Hyman Gauntlett, D. (2002) Media, Gender and Identity. London: Routledge Jackson, P., Stevenson, N. and Brooks, K. (2001) Making Sense of Men’s Lifestyle Magazines. Cambridge: Polity Livingstone, S. and Lunt, P. (1994) Talk on Television: audience participation and public debate. London: Routledge Scannell, P. (1991) Broadcast Talk. London: Sage Sloterdijk, P. (1988) Critique of Cynical Reason. London: Verso Spender, D. (1998, 1st edn.,1980) Man Made Language. London: Pandora Talbot, M. (1998) Language and Gender: an introduction. Cambridge: Polity —. (2007) Media Discourses: representation and interaction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press
102 Top Gear as a Bastion of Heterosexual Masculinity
Varley, N. (1999) ‘Away the lads’. The Guardian, 12 April. Whannel, G. (2000) The Lads and the Gladiators: traditional masculinities in a postmodern televisual landscape, in J. Buscombe (ed.) British Television: A Reader. Oxford: Clarendon Press Wilman, A. (2007) Radio Times, 27 January – 2 February 2007.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful for the comments made by students on my Broadcast Talk module whose responses encouraged me to expand on the initial lecture I gave to them on this subject. Thanks also for the very helpful comments I received during the writing of this article from Dr Michael Higgins, Anthony Smith and Dr Mary Talbot.
Notes
1 Thanks to Michael Higgins for helping to expand on this point. 2 Female guests are in the minority on the show, but include the sort of attractive and entertaining women who (it is assumed) men would like to talk to in the pub. These include radio DJs Zoe Ball and Sara Cox, and model Jodie Kidd. Interestingly, the fastest lap time for the ‘star in the reasonably priced car’ feature is that of one female guest – Ellen McArthur. The interview with McArthur is interesting as it takes pains to emphasise the danger and physical hardship she endures in round-the-world sailing, thus places her firmly in the traditional masculinity role that is celebrated in male guests who are sporting heroes. 3 According to Clarkson, the name ‘The Stig’ is one he recalls from his days at a private school where this was the name given to newcomers. The actual character of The Stig on Top Gear has evolved over the years to be more central, and yet remains somewhat removed from mainstream and retains something of the outsider image that the original use Clarkson recalls. 4 There is even a market for T-shirts bearing the slogan ‘I am The Stig’. 5 Brown and Levinson (1987) use ‘positive’ in a non-evaluative way. Here, it refers to attention to a person’s face or public self image, where positive politeness is used to signal closeness and friendly behaviour. This contrasts with ‘negative politeness’ which signals deference and consideration of another’s independence. 6 There is an irony in the fact that Top Gear has won several awards in the category of ‘unscripted broadcasting’. This is not lost on Clarkson, whose absence from the 2005 International Emmy awards in New York for the best show in the ‘Non-Scripted Entertainment’ category was explained by him in a statement that joked he was too busy to attend as he was writing the script for the next show.
View publication stats