Based on your viewing of our screening of Thirtysomething as well as Feuer's analysis of the program--what role do you think yuppie guilt plays on the show and how is it represented?
The episode of Thirtysomething screened for class helps to illustrate what is defined as “Yuppie Guilt” in Feuer’s essay. The married protagonists represent the yuppies, products of the baby-boomer generation. They have a nice house, the husband has a good job and they have lots of friends. The hardest thing they have to decide on in life is how to remodel the breakfast nook. In this way, they perpetuate the idea of Yuppie Envy, acting a representation of everything the viewer should see and desire for themselves. However, the husband perpetuates the idea of Yuppie Guilt. Though he has everything he wants he feels guilty about having it. He stresses about having the ability to redo the breakfast room. Though he has a great job, he creates problems were none exist about finding an adequate space to shoot a commercial. His guilt comes from the fact that he was once and artist, uninterested in material possessions, but he has since fallen into the settled life of a “have”, a yuppie, rather than a “have not”. The ultimate culmination of his guilt occurs when he has a nightmare about everyone he cares about calling him out on his possession of wealth and materialism. Even so, he does not relinquish his materialism but simply claims his resentment for it, thus perpetuating the idea of Yuppie Guilt; he feels guilty over his stability but likes it too much to give it up.
The characters of Michael and Hope from the tv show Thirtysomething embody yuppie guilt. Hope has sacrificied her potential to become a housewife and take care of the kid. Whilst taking care of the child and house she has lost her identity, her life outside of the house is nonexistent and even when she gets the chance to do something adventurous, she must logic herself out of that situation as that is not what society dictates makes for a good relationship. Hope has given up her freedom in order to fit a societal stereotype of the American dream. In the episode we watched in class, she did not even leave the house, as if the outside world does not exist to her in the present but is just a sweet memory of the past. She does not stand for anything, she just is.
Michael on the other hand struggles to find meaning in his work other than as a means for him and his family to stay off the streets. He does not understand why he has to spend so much money to impress people that he does not even care about. He has regrets about his life choices and for having drifted away from his hippie past.
The central pillar of yuppie guilt comes from the feeling that the central political and ideological ideals of the 1960s, the time of the yuppie's youth, have been abandoned by the class in an attempt to access comparatively meaningless material wealth. Feuer discusses that yuppie guilt was used to create the tone of the show: a show in which the main characters spent most of their time "whining" as discussed in Feuer's argument on page 68. In the episode, Michael is on trial for being a yuppie in the dream sequence. He's accused of "selling out" and becoming a "profit-mongering capitalist," (73). Feuer's argument is that, unlike most yuppie television shows of the era, "thirtysomething" did not attempt to use envy and guilt in tandem in the way that "Miami Vice" and "L.A. Law" did but that the advertisements during the show acted as the envy creating portion of the dynamic while the show itself focused on the guilt. In fact, given that the entirety of Michael's defense against the charge of being a yuppie is that he wants the things yuppies want but that he's unable to afford them and the fact that the show's creators themselves were convinced that Michael was not a yuppie seems to indicate that while yuppie guilt largely shapes the narrative style of the show and the largely effects the content, the show itself was an apology for and to yuppies. Essentially saying that, while you might want material goods and the success and rampant wealth that comes from a free and unregulated market, it's okay, especially when you can't completely afford everything you want. However, as this is directly countered in the guilty verdict from the "tribunal." While the show may have attempted to lampoon the idea of Michael being a yuppie and assure yuppies among the audience that they weren't guilty of "selling out" and becoming a cog in the machine.
It's an interesting argument from Feuer's article, which is brought up in the previous post, that "Thirtysomething" used guilt as its plot device and advertisements around that program were meant to serve as its counterpart envy. This is true, but only as long as the audience of "Thirtysomething" are of equal socioeconomic status to Michael and his family. In that context, no, the show doesn't invite viewers to envy the family. However, the screening did characterize Michael as envious of people who could afford the luxuries that he lacks. Despite a big home, a healthy wife and child, and steady income, Michael is not satisfied. In my opinion, he's not only guilty about being a "sell-out," but also extremely stressed and pressured by the implications that come with career success. He worries about expansion and investment, ideas that wouldn't mean anything to him if he hadn't been successful in the first place.Also quite interesting is that the showrunners didn't believe Michael was a yuppie. Based on his lack of acknowledgement that he is in a good situation and should be thankful for all he has, the show does deal a lot with envy. He feels guilty not just because he sold out, because he's envious of people who sold out for more.
The episode of Thirtysomething screened for class helps to illustrate what is defined as “Yuppie Guilt” in Feuer’s essay. The married protagonists represent the yuppies, products of the baby-boomer generation. They have a nice house, the husband has a good job and they have lots of friends. The hardest thing they have to decide on in life is how to remodel the breakfast nook. In this way, they perpetuate the idea of Yuppie Envy, acting a representation of everything the viewer should see and desire for themselves. However, the husband perpetuates the idea of Yuppie Guilt. Though he has everything he wants he feels guilty about having it. He stresses about having the ability to redo the breakfast room. Though he has a great job, he creates problems were none exist about finding an adequate space to shoot a commercial. His guilt comes from the fact that he was once and artist, uninterested in material possessions, but he has since fallen into the settled life of a “have”, a yuppie, rather than a “have not”. The ultimate culmination of his guilt occurs when he has a nightmare about everyone he cares about calling him out on his possession of wealth and materialism. Even so, he does not relinquish his materialism but simply claims his resentment for it, thus perpetuating the idea of Yuppie Guilt; he feels guilty over his stability but likes it too much to give it up.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe characters of Michael and Hope from the tv show Thirtysomething embody yuppie guilt. Hope has sacrificied her potential to become a housewife and take care of the kid. Whilst taking care of the child and house she has lost her identity, her life outside of the house is nonexistent and even when she gets the chance to do something adventurous, she must logic herself out of that situation as that is not what society dictates makes for a good relationship. Hope has given up her freedom in order to fit a societal stereotype of the American dream. In the episode we watched in class, she did not even leave the house, as if the outside world does not exist to her in the present but is just a sweet memory of the past. She does not stand for anything, she just is.
Michael on the other hand struggles to find meaning in his work other than as a means for him and his family to stay off the streets. He does not understand why he has to spend so much money to impress people that he does not even care about. He has regrets about his life choices and for having drifted away from his hippie past.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe central pillar of yuppie guilt comes from the feeling that the central political and ideological ideals of the 1960s, the time of the yuppie's youth, have been abandoned by the class in an attempt to access comparatively meaningless material wealth. Feuer discusses that yuppie guilt was used to create the tone of the show: a show in which the main characters spent most of their time "whining" as discussed in Feuer's argument on page 68. In the episode, Michael is on trial for being a yuppie in the dream sequence. He's accused of "selling out" and becoming a "profit-mongering capitalist," (73). Feuer's argument is that, unlike most yuppie television shows of the era, "thirtysomething" did not attempt to use envy and guilt in tandem in the way that "Miami Vice" and "L.A. Law" did but that the advertisements during the show acted as the envy creating portion of the dynamic while the show itself focused on the guilt. In fact, given that the entirety of Michael's defense against the charge of being a yuppie is that he wants the things yuppies want but that he's unable to afford them and the fact that the show's creators themselves were convinced that Michael was not a yuppie seems to indicate that while yuppie guilt largely shapes the narrative style of the show and the largely effects the content, the show itself was an apology for and to yuppies. Essentially saying that, while you might want material goods and the success and rampant wealth that comes from a free and unregulated market, it's okay, especially when you can't completely afford everything you want. However, as this is directly countered in the guilty verdict from the "tribunal." While the show may have attempted to lampoon the idea of Michael being a yuppie and assure yuppies among the audience that they weren't guilty of "selling out" and becoming a cog in the machine.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting argument from Feuer's article, which is brought up in the previous post, that "Thirtysomething" used guilt as its plot device and advertisements around that program were meant to serve as its counterpart envy. This is true, but only as long as the audience of "Thirtysomething" are of equal socioeconomic status to Michael and his family. In that context, no, the show doesn't invite viewers to envy the family. However, the screening did characterize Michael as envious of people who could afford the luxuries that he lacks. Despite a big home, a healthy wife and child, and steady income, Michael is not satisfied. In my opinion, he's not only guilty about being a "sell-out," but also extremely stressed and pressured by the implications that come with career success. He worries about expansion and investment, ideas that wouldn't mean anything to him if he hadn't been successful in the first place.Also quite interesting is that the showrunners didn't believe Michael was a yuppie. Based on his lack of acknowledgement that he is in a good situation and should be thankful for all he has, the show does deal a lot with envy. He feels guilty not just because he sold out, because he's envious of people who sold out for more.
ReplyDelete