Morally Ambiguous Characters

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen The following full text is a publisher's version. For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/197057 Please be advised that this information was generated on 2021-09-27 and may be subject to change. VIEWERS’ ROUTES TOWARDS MORAL EVALUATION OF MORALLY AMBIGUOUS CHARACTERS OF MORALLY EVALUATION MORAL ROUTES TOWARDS VIEWERS’ Viewers’ Routes Towards Moral Evaluation of Morally Ambiguous Characters Merel Elizabeth van Ommen Merel Elizabeth van Ommen 20 18 Viewers’ Routes Towards Moral Evaluation of Morally Ambiguous Characters. ISBN 978-94-028-1197-1 Cover illustration Elza Zijlstra - www.trashworks.nl Design/lay-out Promotie In Zicht, Arnhem Print Ipskamp Printing, Enschede Copyright © Merel van Ommen All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reported or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without permission of the author Viewers’ Routes Towards Moral Evaluation of Morally Ambiguous Characters Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op het gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. J.H.J.M. van Krieken, volgens besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 29 oktober 2018 om 16.30 uur precies door Merel Elizabeth van Ommen geboren op 20 juni 1983 te Utrecht Promotor Prof. dr. Moniek A. Buijzen Copromotoren Dr. Serena Daalmans Dr. Rebecca N.H. de Leeuw Manuscriptcommissie Prof. dr. Jan A.M. Bransen Prof. dr. Arthur A. Raney (Florida State University, Tallahassee,Verenigde Staten) Dr. (Tonny) A.F.M. Krijnen (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam) Welches ist der große Drache, den der Geist nicht mehr Herr und Gott heißen mag? “Du-sollst” heißt der große Drache. Aber der Geist des Löwen sagt: “Ich will”. Friedrich Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra. Row, row, row your boat, Gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, Life is but a dream. Popular children’s song Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction, dissertation’s aim, approach, outline, 9 and conclusions Chapter 2 Analyzing prisoners’, law enforcement agents’, 31 and civilians’ moral evaluations of The Sopranos Chapter 3 Analyzing the moral evaluations of medical students 63 and physicians of House, M.D. Chapter 4 Analyzing the moral evaluations of law and 87 (developmental) psychology students of Dexter Chapter 5 Analyzing moral evaluations about love and romantic 115 relationships in Gossip Girl Chapter 6 Morally ambivalent television series and moral evaluation 143 of viewers: Constructing an overarching theoretical framework Nederlandse samenvatting (Dutch Summary) 173 Dankwoord 193 Curriculum Vitae 197 1 1 Introduction, dissertation’s aim, approach, outline and conclusions INTRODUCTION, DISSERTATION’S AIM, APPROACH, OUTLINE AND CONCLUSIONS Introduction Does life imitate art or does art imitate life? Screenwriter Woody Allen once paraphrased and updated Oscar Wilde’s famous answer to this question by estimating: “Life doesn’t imitate art, it imitates bad television” (in: Husbands and Wives [Greenhut & Allen, 1992]). Nevertheless, according to French philosopher Paul Ricoeur (1988), it are stories – such as television stories – that replicate our human reality of action and suffering in a highly concentrated way, and with an intelligibility that is denied in our own lived experience. Drawing upon Aristotle’s understanding of how tragic poetry imitates life, Ricoeur’s theory explains that stories lay a net, catching the reader’s imagination and holding it imprisoned, if only temporarily (Ricoeur, 1988; Turnau, 2004). Why do some “television nets” feel too excruciating, simplistic or insignificant to play the game of storytelling and identification, while others seem meaningful, morally deep and important? How do we, as audiences, make such evaluations anyway? The increasingly popular drama series produced by American premium television networks, such as HBO, Netflix and AMC, are lauded by critics for their artistic and convincing portrayals of complexities of human life (Chaney, 2017; The Economist, 2011; Tryon, 2015). They are described as postmodern- (Dant, 2005), existential- or morally ambiguous drama series (Lane, 2001), and characterized as challenging for the viewer, with a patient style of storytelling that revels in loose ends and morally complex characters (The Economist, 2011; Tryon, 2015). They are also full of immoral behaviors such as law breaking, (sexual) violence, infidelity, drugs abuse, deceit or fraud (Turnau, 2004; Tryon, 2015). As a result, in both public and academic debates the view is repeatedly put forward that these kind of gross moral violations articulated in these shows and on television in general stimulate – if not cause – immoral behavior in society (e.g., Comstock & Scharrer, 2003). Conversely, studies based on a Durkheimian, functional perspective have argued that norm violations in the media are useful for society. As long as those violations are condemned in an unambiguous manner, they may actually function to uphold the moral order (Daalmans, Hijmans, & Wester, 2017; Grabe, 2002; Klapper, 1960). For example, classical police procedurals (e.g., CSI, Criminal Minds) make clear-cut distinctions between “right” and “wrong” motivations and behaviors, and every violation of the moral order is rectified by the actions of the hero/protagonist (Lane, 2001). These types of shows, therefore, function as a contemporary public scaffold where norm violations are publicly denounced, and society’s norms and values about justice and appropriate behavior are unmistakably reaffirmed. This straightforward moral reasoning is argued to create moral certainty for viewers (Lane, 2001). Moral reasoning is the line of 11 CHAPTER 1 reasoning in the narrative that articulates a moral message, more generally termed as moral reasoning in the narrative (cf. Raney 2004). However, the last decades have witnessed a growing array of television drama that articulates much less clear-cut moral messages (Lane, 2001). Particularly, cable network shows like those introduced above are not centered around classic morally good heroes, but feature anti-heroes or even criminals as (main) characters: the so-called morally ambiguous characters [MACs] (Eden, Daalmans, & Johnson, 2017; Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012; Shafer & Raney, 2012). Notable and extremely popular examples of these MACs include Tony Soprano (The Sopranos), a sociopathic mobster who is also a loving family man and suffers from panic attacks; Dr. Gregory House (House M.D.), a brilliant, but irreverent, pill popping and distrustful doctor specialized in diagnostic medicine, Dexter Morgan (Dexter), a traumatized serial killer who works for law enforcement while murdering the “immoral” at the same time, and the main characters of Gossip Girl, whose compound quest for romantic love is heartbreaking and unescapably tramples others. MACs inner moral deliberations about their actions and underlying motivations are discussed explicitly in voice-over (Dexter) or with therapists (The Sopranos; Dexter), family members (The Sopranos; Dexter; Gossip Girl), peers (Gossip Girl), or colleagues (The Sopranos; Dexter; House M.D.) and more implicitly with other MACs within the cast. Because these characters are often engaged in multiple, morally complex and long running storylines (Willis, 2002), these series continuously articulate a wide variety of complex moral dilemmas that stay unresolved in the narrative (Dant, 2005). Whereas morality in, for example, traditional police procedurals is often self-evident and ritualized, morally ambiguous drama unendingly lacks moral certainty and features morally reprehensible main characters (Lane, 2001). Therefore, the continuous discussion in these series about values connected to, for example, justice, professionalism and love, “demands some complex judgment on the part of the viewer” (Dant, 2005, p. 6). How does this “judgment” or moral evaluation of viewers work for MACs? To theoretically build towards the central question of this dissertation, we must first outline both MACs and viewers’ moral evaluation. Defining MACs: Creators of Morally Ambiguous Moral Reasoning MACs have become prominent features in contemporary media psychological research, which is devoted to defining what sets them apart from good and bad characters (Eden, Daalmans, & Johnson, 2016; Eden, Grizzard, & Lewis, 2011; Daalmans, Hijmans, & Wester, 2017; Tamborini et al., 2010), describing their role in the narrative context (Kleemans, Eden, Daalmans, van Ommen, & Weijers, 12 INTRODUCTION, DISSERTATION’S AIM, APPROACH, OUTLINE AND CONCLUSIONS 2017; Shafer & Raney, 2012), and unraveling their appeal for viewers (Janicke & Raney, 2015, 2017; Krakowiak, 2015; Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012; Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2013, 2015; Shafer & Raney, 2012). In this dissertation MACs (Eden, Daalmans, & Johnson, 2017; Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012; Shafer & Raney, 2012; Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015) are said to “do both good and bad things” (Krakowiak & Oliver, 2012, p.117) and “often behave in immoral ways” (Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015). However, this immoral behavior is frequently alleviated by redeeming qualities that set them apart from villains (Krakowiak & Tsay-Vogel, 2015). MACs actions cause a series of events in the endless narrative of drama series, yet their moral predicaments often remain. They may react to circumstances and happenings, but the way the narrative develops is determined by the course of action

Load more