Introduction
When TV chef Philip Harben first appeared on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in the late 1940's, it's probably fair to suggest that his particular genre of lifestyle television was somewhat of a cultural anomaly. Since this birth of the television set however, and now more than half a century on from Harben's day, such TV cookery shows occupy an apparently permanent place on UK television. Just a few British TV chefs past and present include Philip Harben himself, along with Fanny Cradock, Elizabeth Craig, Elizabeth David, Keith Floyd, Sophie Grigson, Ainsley Harriott, Nigella Lawson, Marguerite Patten, Gordon Ramsay, Delia Smith, Rick Stein and Antony Worrall Thompson. Similarly, some of the popular cookery shows broadcast on British TV at present, include Hell's Kitchen, Food Poker and Rick Stein's Mediterranean Escapes. Given this undeniable popularity of such cookery shows on British television, the general purpose of this essay is to offer an explanation for why this might be. I could have chosen any one of a number of TV light entertainment programmes as illustrative material for my general argument. The cookery show however, presented itself as an obvious first choice, given its undeniable popularity and endearing appeal across the UK and indeed beyond. I begin then, by setting the contextual scene. This will entail a consideration of the general socio-economic conditions in Britain and in particular, the significance of the ongoing division of labour. Following this, I briefly consider the general social significance of TV light entertainment of which, the cookery show is but one example. Finally, I apply this understanding to the particular institution that is, the television cookery show.
Social Context
Let us begin then, with a consideration of the context in which both the television set, and the TV chef were born. I use the word concrete for good reason here, for nothing, including television sets, cookery shows and the like either evolve from, or else exist in a void. Thus must we pay particular attention to the prevailing socio-economic conditions. This is because in order to survive, humans must first of all necessarily associate together in one or other economic pattern, as their only means of producing and reproducing their means of life. It logically follows from this, that such socio-economic patterns are bound to be of the utmost importance, for ultimately, they stand to condition and affect the whole concrete social existence of a given people. To a greater or lesser degree, the dominant social relations stand to shape the way the people in question think, feel and act.
Capitalism
Britain in the 1940's then, was, and is to this day, a country based on capitalist property and capitalist socio-economic relations. Capitalism, is an historically specific pattern of socio-economic organisation, based on the private ownership by a minority in society (the capitalist class) of the means of production. By means of production I refer to such things as factories and other buildings, land, raw materials, commercial transport, patented scientific knowledge, and so on. Alongside this property-owning capitalist class stands a property-less class of people. Namely, the majority of society. By property-less I mean those having no ownership rights, or else no significant ownership rights over any aspect of the general means of production.
As a consequence of this economic pattern, the capitalist is able to exploit the property-less worker to varying degrees, simply because the latter is compelled to sell his / her labour-power to the former, as his / her only means of securing a share of social wealth. These working people are paid less in wages / salaries than the value produced by the relative expenditure of their labour power when undertaking one or other economic task. This is the source of capitalist profit and also the source of the unavoidable polarisation of wealth so evident in any such society. The capitalist class as a whole is legally able to appropriate this 'surplus value' by virtue of its legally enshrined ownership rights over the various means of production and thus, the resulting products.
It may not surprise the reader to learn therefore, that under such circumstances, commodity production and exchange (including the commodification of human labour itself), and on a mass scale, becomes an objective necessity. This is simply because the social means of production is parcelled out and privately owned. Thus does it become necessary to buy and sell commodities, in order to get the other necessary and culturally desired means of life one requires.
The three main features of the capitalist system then, may be summed up as follows: (1) The totality of social wealth is legally concentrated in the hands of a minority of people; (2) The majority have to sell their various work capacities (physical, mental or a mixture of both) to one or other owner of the means of production as their only means of surviving. The owners of the means of production for their part, are able to exploit these property-less workers; (3) Virtually all production assumes the form of commodity production and exchange.
The Ongoing Division Of Labour
Like any other socio-economic system of course, capitalism is based on an historically specific division of labour. The particular form adopted by the division of labour under conditions of capitalism merits some attention I believe, not least because one of its suggested negative human consequences, has an important explanatory role to play in this essay's overall argument.
It is reasonable to assume that in primitive times, this division assumed a natural form, namely based on differences between the sexes, one's age and so on. Weak and strong, young and old necessarily performed different kinds of work. Society under such conditions enthused a communal wholeness. Yet such a primitive existence barely delivered the means of life. Division of labour based upon the intelligent and ongoing development of productive techniques, was a given people's only means of breaking free from their near absolute subordination to natural forces;
"In primitive society, before the formation of classes, man
had a wholeness which he has since lost. But the price of
that wholeness was a universal ignorance and poverty which
left him [relatively] helpless in the face of his surroundings.
The division of labour and the formation of classes was his way
of escape from this poverty, the only way open to him"
Morton, (1963, p. 143)
As people's productive forces evolved (by productive forces I mean all the tools, technology, techniques and human knowledge, labour and skill employed in the production process), such division progressively assumed an ever-more artificial form, as individuals and small groups started to specialise in one or other craft or productive technique. And of course, this new kind of division of labour needed to be socially regulated as the only means of maintaining a functioning economy. Thus did the idea of private property arise. Those people, for whatever reason having access to the meagre means of production and the resulting products, became regarded by wider society (and more importantly the law) as the owners of such means and products.
So many stages in this evolving division of labour, have unavoidably culminated today in the atomised class society of the modern capitalist world. Under this socio-economic system, working people, along with the productive forces in existence have become naturally and spontaneously subordinated to the relentless pursuit of profits. In other words, they have become tied to the interests of those who own the means of production. And it is this collective subordination of technology, science and people's various human capacities to private property and the pursuit of profits, that inevitably gives rise to ever-greater division, not merely in terms of productive techniques, but also in terms of ever-greater subordination of the productive human being, to one or other branch of economic activity. In terms of the exercise and development of their potential all-round mental / physical capacities, working people under capitalism, have become hopelessly divided, and ultimately imprisoned, in one or other specialised economic role. It is not uncommon for example, for many working people this day and age, to undertake the same service work or productive activity, day after day and for their entire working lives. The very fact that 'careers', 'specialists' and the like exist at all, is a clear reflection of the material fact that the productive human beings in question, are relative prisoners to their own productive forces and subsequent socio-economic activities. And even under what might be termed favourable circumstances, in which some people become reasonably mobile in terms of their employment, perhaps moving quite frequently from one kind of job to another kind of job, all this boils down to at root, is movement from one atomised and bounded form of employment, to another atomised and bounded form of employment. 'Man proposes but God disposes' is perhaps unsurprisingly, a dominant thread in ideological thinking under such circumstances of natural economic imprisonment.
This negation of human potential, is what Marx (1940, p. 22) draws attention to in The German Ideology, when discussing this naturally arising contradiction between on the one hand, the interest of the individual or minority group, and on the other, the interest of the wider community. "[A]s soon as labour is distributed [under capitalism]" Marx wrote, "each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd, or a critical critic and must remain so, if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood". The socio-economic categories may have changed somewhat since Marx's day, but the argument remains as valid now as it ever did. Thus, instead of a hunter, fisherman, critic or shepherd, today one might be a solicitor for life, or a doctor for life, or a politician for life, or an electrician for life, or a teacher for life, or a policeman / woman for life, or a coal miner for life, or a bricklayer for life, or a TV chef for life, or a shop assistant for life, or a road sweeper for life, or whatever else for life. Clearly then, the possibility for the nurturing and development of all-round human potential under such conditions, is essentially sacrificed, as an inevitable consequence of economic specialisation. The peculiar situation has arisen in capitalist society then, in which people come to know more and more about less and less. And art, media and other such cultural expressions are necessarily produced for society, and not by society.
The General Need For Entertainment
The capitalist class of course, did not invent the phenomenon of TV entertainment merely for its own sake. What it did do however, over a period of a few hundred years, was to necessarily create the largest number of property-less, atomised and alienated people ever known to human history. Once advances in science and technology had made TV possible, it was only a matter of time before such technology was naturally embraced by the capitalist class as one means of entertaining the exploited masses. Television is but one means, of off-setting the inevitable boredom and monotony associated with the inhumane and depersonalized existence of most working people. Naturally then, the kinds of TV programmes made under conditions of exploitation, are bound to represent the values and ideals of the dominant, ruling class. The ideals and values of those who own and enlist the use of such technology. "Since the dissolution of primitive communism, society has been divided into antagonistic classes, into exploiters and exploited...And corresponding to the economic structure of society at a given stage of development...one or another class has occupied the dominating position in [the] economy...The views and institutions, therefore, which reflect the given economic structure of society, reflect the interests of the class whose dominance depends on that economic structure" (Cornforth, 1956, p.122). This dissemination of ruling class ideas (in this case by way of television) helps to explain among other things, the ongoing popularity of entertainment TV generally and that of the cookery show in particular. For these kinds of programmes, I believe, tend both to passify, and to normalise the mindset of those who watch them. No one can "escape from the...[consequences]...which the [capitalist] class structure of modern society imposes upon him without a conscious philosophy which can help him to understand the forces at work [in wider society] and [which] can teach him how to combat them" (Morton, 1963, p. 134). From an exploited people's point of view, this means that they will uncritically accept the dominant values and ideals disseminated by the ruling class of the epoch. Moreover, logic dictates that under such circumstances, if the exploited peoples in question are ever to escape their miserable existence, then such relief must assume a temporal, psychological form, as opposed to a potentially more permanent, practical escape. Let us examine this suggested psychological dimension in more detail now, with specific reference to the TV cookery show.
A Therapeutic Journey
Arguably, the first way that TV cookery programmes psychologically function to naturally serve ruling class ends, is to induce passivity by degrees, in the minds of those who warm to such programmes. They naturally function to temporarily transport viewers to an alternative world; a world which is very different from the often unpleasant and confusing reality to which they are daily accoustomed, and from which they cannot yet escape in a concrete, practical sense. An alternative virtual world in which human aim and intent is rarely, if ever distorted or thwarted. Think about this for a moment. The typical celebrity chef, is, for the most part, a creative individual with almost absolute freedom of expression. In effect, an artist (albeit necessarily specialised) who is in conscious control of affairs from beginning to end, and working as he / she does in the most pleasant of social environments. The consciously willed end for its part, is almost always realised, and realised moreover, in active co-operation (as opposed to antagonistic competition) with any others involved in the show. Very often for example, one or more members of the public will assist the chef in his or her efforts to artistically create a culinary masterpiece. And even when competition is evident, for example when two celebrity chefs compete to win the endorsement of the studio audience for their respective dish, such competition is invariably friendly. This kind of planned and creative work is the complete anti-thesis of much social reality in capitalist Britain. A reality conditioned by impersonal institutions and one which compels us by degrees to spend our entire working time, doing and making specific things for others to appropriate, and working as many of us do moreover, in the most unpleasant and intense of work environments. Discussing the 'psychology of folklore' in primitive societies, Lewis (1969, p. 186), in his detailed and wide-ranging anthropological studies, arrives at the conclusion that "myths have a therapeutic effect similar to that of the novel or film in our day. By transporting men and women into a realm where problems are solved as they rarely are in actual life, folklore shows itself as a means of psychological release of tension and creative self-expression on both the conscious and the unconscious levels". Cookery shows I believe, function for some viewers, in this kind of psychological manner.
Let us consider this particular notion of 'artistic creativity' in a little more detail. At the start of a typical cookery show, the chef in question is confronted with a modest bundle of food items which he / she subsequently proceeds to consciously transform and integrate, almost invariably into some kind of artistic and asthetic masterpiece. Sometimes the resulting effort presents itself as almost being too good to eat! And, unlike the majority in society, who, whether they consciously realise it or not, feel a sense of being tied to an alien production process, here on the contrary is an individual who exhibits a certain creative freedom, along with supreme technical skill and a definite idea as to his / her intended artistic design. Someone who creates a certain order and beauty in a world otherwise packed with its fair share of disorder and confusion. This kind of activity must naturally appeal in a psychological sense to many people, and not simply because they are prevented from being artistic to any such degree as a consequence of their concrete existence. But more importantly I think, because since ancient times, our earliest ancestors have shown a natural desire to be artistically creative. Artistic creativity, and no matter the form, is uniquely human having deep roots in our past. As Dr. Lewis notes; "[Art] plays an essential part in every culture in giving that culture a meaning, an emotional tone, in contributing a unifying force which at the same time exalts" (Lewis, 1969, p. 210). Whether for ceremonial, religious, communicative or purely artistic purposes, cave and rock paintings have been found at various places across the globe with some dated to prehistoric times. This psychological fleeting journey then to another world; a world of artistic creativity must I believe, unconsciously appeal to many of those TV viewers, currently living within the exploitative and atomising capitalist system.
A Normalising Role
A second dimension relates to the suggested potential for TV cookery shows to play a part in directly contributing to a wider psychological sense of normality and contentment in the minds of many who watch these kinds of light entertainment programmes. In short, they function to induce a sense in viewers' minds as to the essential rightness and inevitability of the prevailing social order. Cookery shows in this sense, arguably lend weight to the impression that we are a most fortunate and normal society. It is normal and right to simply sit before the television set, in order to be entertained by a highly specialised individual, in this case on the general topic of food and food preparation. Conversely, no one it is implied, need even begin to theorise the social origins and ongoing sources of social influence of such a show. No one is encouraged to begin to wonder why it is, that this kind of socio-cultural relationship exists. It simply does, and that's it. I think the British annual charity television bonanza we call 'Children in Need' ideologically functions in a similar manner, namely by encouraging us to 'think' and 'feel' that we are most fortunate and very normal as a society, not least because we can raise about £19 million for 'needy' British children. While Children in Need is undoubtedly a worthwhile cause given prevailing circumstances, the fact that we have to help these children, effectively via a charity whip-round, and in one of the richest countries in the world; and the fact that we are obliged to help these children through the impersonal mechanism of finance, seems to trouble no one.
Then there is the commercial, commodity-driven element itself. Most televised cookery shows I would suggest, either directly, or else indirectly (in the latter case just view the website of any celebrity chef or TV cook show) naturally function to extol the virtues of private property ownership and commodity culture generally. Again, this can only contribute to a wider sense of rightness and inevitability in the minds of the viewers concerned, as to the prevailing commodity culture. The programme makers and / or the celebrity chef, are not simply in the business of entertaining the wider public for its own sake. They are acutely interested in generating many financial spin-offs from the television programme itself such as books, DVD's, the sale of various kitchen appliances and so on. It was inevitable that TV generally, would become glazed with all things commercial under conditions of a capitalistic, commodity-based culture. And these kinds of commercial activities are simply accepted by the programme makers who own the means of production, as being in the nature of things. The TV chef then, is effectively saying; 'this is how life is and this is how life always will be'.
Culinary profiteering, has, in many cases, served to deliver obscene amounts of wealth to a minority of individual TV cooks. Wealth polarisation of course, is but one of many unavoidable, negative consequences of a capitalist system but here again, it is uncritically taken for granted. As something thoroughly natural, and normal. Nigella Lawson for example, an immensely popular TV cook at present, "is reportedly worth £7 million a year and...has sold nearly 3 million cookery books worldwide" (Nigella Lawson, 2007, online). Similarly, the TV chef Jamie Oliver "from 1998...was the public face of the Sainsbury's supermarket chain in the UK, appearing on television and radio advertisements and in-store promotional material. The deal earned him an estimated £1.2 million every year. By 2004, the company had made 65 adverts with Jamie". His books include 'Something for the Weekend', 'The Naked Chef', 'Jamie's Kitchen', 'Cook with Jamie' and 'Jamie at Home' (Jamie Oliver, 2007, online). The number of celebrity chefs, so-called food experts and the like now selling books for a living is almost limitless. Rick Stein, Gary Rhodes, Delia Smith, Ken Hom, Raymond Blanc, Ainsley Harriott, Gordon Ramsay, Tana Ramsay, Michel Roux, Antony Worrall Thompson and so the list continues. Culinary profiteering also takes place on a far grander scale as one might expect. The BBC for example, has instituted the international commercial channel 'BBC Food' in conjunction with various commercial sponsors, and it is this particular channel which has recently played a part in contributing to BBC Worldwide's overall annual profits for 2007 of £810.4 million (BBC Worldwide, 2007, online). Not a word from the BBC in its annual report however, about how such profits were concretely generated, namely by way of human exploitation and the subsequent appropriation of surplus value. Many TV cookery programmes then, argaubly function in this kind of psychological sense, as natural endorsements of an exploitative, commodity-based culture. They arise as a consequence of a commodity-driven society, and then in turn, actively function in many ways to naturally react back on the society in question, lending a sense of rightness and inevitability to the prevailing social order.
Conclusion
Lifestyle television, of which the cookery genre is but one sub-division, has, over the past half century become an incredibly popular phenomenon across the British television network and beyond. In this essay, I have tried to offer some explanations for just why this might be, and from a UK context. The particular genre of the television cookery show is one cultural reflection I believe, of an exploitative and atomised capitalist system. It is an institution moreover, that has spontaneously arisen, and now naturally functions in its own way, to help play a part in the ongoing thwarting of any material challenge to capitalism's overall social dominance. It achieves this in no small part, by inducing a sense of passivity and normality in the minds of viewers. Such a TV show's psychological significance in this sense, ultimately rests on the fact that most people in Britain still lack a guiding materialist philosophy with which to rationalise the general social forces at work in wider society. Unless and until such a guiding, scientific philosophy takes root on a sufficient scale, (i.e. in the minds of millions upon millions of organised, working people) these kinds of TV shows will remain popular, and for all the wrong reasons.
REFERENCES
BBC Worldwide [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at:
BBC Worldwide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cornforth, M (1956) Dialectical Materialism, An Introduction, Volume Two, Historical Materialism, London, Lawrence and Wishart.
Jamie Oliver [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at:
Jamie Oliver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kitchen Magician, [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at:
Kitchen magicians - TV & Radio - Entertainment - theage.com.au
Lewis, J. (1969) Anthropology Made Simple, London, W.H.Allen.
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1940) The German Ideology, Parts I & III, The Marxist-Leninist Library, London, Lawrence and Wishart.
Morton, A. L. (1963) The Challenge of Marxism, Chapter Four, The Arts and the People, London, Lawrence and Wishart.
Nigella Lawson [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at:
Nigella Lawson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia