Toward a Sociology of Reality Television

Abstract

Reality television has become a standard genre of programming in the twenty-first century. The popularity of these unscripted programs merits investigation. Reality shows can be seen as significant cultural objects whose production and consumption reflect and reveal norms and ideologies of contemporary culture. Although what is currently conceived as the reality television genre is perceived as novel, this type of programming has a long history, with its foundations dating back to the early days of television. Despite the popularity of reality television and its solid roots in Western media, sociology has been underused in its analysis. In this essay, I review the research on reality television. Its definition, history, and issues of classification in the genre are addressed. Then, I summarize the major themes in the research: production; analysis of content, presentations of race, gender, and sexuality; and audience response and interaction. I conclude with a discussion of what sociology might add to the existing research.

Dealing with reality: Market demands, artistic integrity, and identity work in reality television production

“…4 However, few have researched reality television production (see Montemurro, 2008). Existing reality television studies are primarily interview based and often focus on ordinary people as participants rather than on the professionals who work with them (Andrejevic, 2004;Aslama, 2009;Roscoe, 2004;Shufeldt and Gale, 2007;Syvertsen, 2001).…”

‘I'm Making a TV Programme Here!’: Reality TV'SBanged Upand Public Criminology

“…Some of the material above on the issues that arose in making the programme relate to documentaries and reality TV more generally. For example, reviewing the sociology of reality TV, Beth Montemurro (2008) notes:…”

“…Montemurro (2008) helpfully suggests: ‘it may be more useful to discuss reality television with respect to realism, rather than reality, following the tradition of television studies of fictional programs’ (p.86). We would not seek to enter into this argument but have indicated how the reality/realism was produced (further discussion can be found in the work of Hill (2005) and Corner and Pels (2003) particularly on the move this represents away from traditional documentary).…”

Documentary at a Crossroads: Reality TV and the Hybridization of Small‐Screen Documentary

“…Conceptual work on reality programming so far primarily consists of classifications that comprise the main stages in its historical development: (i) ‘reality magazine’ or ‘accident and emergency format’ (Bondebjerg 2002; Kilborn 2003); (ii) ‘docu‐soap’; and (iii) ‘reality show’, ‘docushow/gamedoc’, or ‘created‐for‐TV’ (Bondebjerg 2002; Corner 2000; Hill 2005) – or quasi‐inventories (e.g. Murray and Ouellette 2005) of the variety of formats that have been referred to as ‘reality television’ (for an overview and discussion of the different ‘waves’ of reality television so far, see Montemurro 2007). So, despite all the readings and contestations propelled by reality television, the critical debate does find a common textual ground that is ‘minimally sufficient’ for a more profound and comprehensive clarification of the phenomenon’s constituent parameters and dimensions.…”

“…Marxist, political economic, feminist, and cultural studies traditions). A key area of interest here is the ‘politics of representation’, which centers on stereotypical representations of social groups and the reproduction of ideologies through popular television, primarily in relation to class, gender/sexuality, race/ethnicity, and nation(al) identities (see Montemurro 2007 for an elaboration of this strand of research into ‘reality television’). It should be added, though, that in this regard reality programming’s mediation of ‘discourses of everyday life’ (Bondebjerg 2002) is equally seen to carry a democratizing and empowering potential to transform public (television) speech and power relations, for instance by increasing accessibility, not only in terms of mode of address, but also through participatory and interactive approaches.…”