[colinbaker62]

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 presence and growing popularity of such lifestyle cookery shows (complete with celebrity chef) on British television, the general purpose of this essay is to try to explain the material origins and ongoing sources of social influence of such a television institution in a British context. I could have chosen of course, any one of a number of such TV light entertainment programmes as illustrative material for my general arguments. The cookery show however, somehow presented itself as a natural first choice, given its undeniable popularity and growing appeal among a significant minority of people both here in Britain, and beyond. I begin then, by setting the contextual scene. This will entail a consideration of the general socio-economic conditions and in particular, of the significance of the ongoing division of labour. Next, I will consider the significance of this afore-mentioned socio-economic context with regards to the general institution of TV light entertainment and the cookery show in particular. The focus here, will involve in particular, a consideration of the nature of institutions themselves, along with a consideration as to the origins, growth and ongoing sources of social influence of such television. Finally, I apply the general understanding derived from my overall argument, to the particular institution of the television cookery show itself, in an effort to demonstrate this particular institution's suggested ideological role in British society.




Social Context


Let us start then, with a consideration of the concrete socio-economic 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 and cookery shows, 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 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 (the reason for this natural and spontaneous character of the division of labour is that production relations themselves are not yet consciously understood and controlled. This point will be expanded upon later). 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 (which has been in the past and still is today, a necessary division for ongoing socio-economic advance), but also in terms of ever-greater subordination of the productive human being, to one or other branch of economic activity (this latter kind of division being a once necessary, but now wholly crippling phenomenon).

In this sense, the division of labour, itself the initial historic cause of private property, has over time, become one of private property's greatest casualties. For people themselves in capitalist society, in terms of the exercise and development of their potential all-round mental / physical capacities, 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 or productive work, 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 particular 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) was drawing 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 principle remains as good now as it ever was. 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 the myriad specialised roles played by people in their various profit-generating economic activities for the minority who own the social means of production. The peculiar situation has arisen in capitalist society, in which people come to know more and more, about less and less.




Institutions And Classes


It was into this kind of atomised, and exploitative society that the television set in general, and the TV cookery show as an institution in particular, first emerged in Britain in the first half of the twentieth century. And this national and international institution, equipped with celebrity chef(s), continues to flourish in precisely this kind of social context. Our above understanding of the socio-economic background, helps to explain the form assumed by one or other TV cookery show. Here we have a highly specialised individual (a cultural reflection of the concentrated division of labour) brimming with much knowledge, and relating as such knowledge must to a tightly bound subject matter. Meanwhile, the ultimate motivation driving our celebrity chef to do what he / she does is money of course, the cash nexus, secured in the only way open to the chef, namely through the sale of his / her labour power in exchange for a salary.


An understanding of Britain's socio-economic background also helps to explain why it is, that the material need for such institutional entertainment has naturally and spontaneously arisen in capitalist society. Specifically, it helps to explain both the objective motivation driving the capitalist class as a whole to create such cultural institutions, as well as serving to explain the immediate concrete reasons for why a majority in capitalist society, psychologically and physically yearn for such televised entertainment. Before considering these matters further however (they will be the subject of the following sub-section), a little must here be said I think, relating both to the nature of institutions, and to the instituting process itself. To begin with, what do we mean by the word 'institution'? I am happy in this regard to use the definition as stated in the Penguin Dictionary of Sociology (p. 180) where it is suggested that the term, institution, is "widely used to describe social practices that are regularly and continuously repeated, are sanctioned and maintained by social norms, and have a major significance in the social structure". Turning to institutions themselves now, it is first of all important to realise that the various institutions arising in capitalist society, are not neutral phenomena, formed by disinterested people, merely to help them and others in society live full and happy lives. Politicians and others endlessly give the impression that this is indeed the case, but this can never logically be so. For all institutions arising under such conditions (including the proverbial cookery show) are the product of dominant / subordinate class relationships created both by, and for the respective instituting class. Britain, as we have seen, is a society based on a capitalistic minority's exploitation of a property-less majority. It is therefore a society unavoidably bristling with conflicting material interests. Under such circumstances, not only must the dominant social institutions be regarded as capitalist constructs, it is also important to recognise that without these various dominant political, economic and cultural institutions, capitalist relations of production, premised as they are on such unavoidable class antagonisms, could not be practically maintained for very long across society as a whole. Thus, "to maintain its material rule, the ruling class must always maintain its rule over the minds of men. It must...secure the propagation of ideas which, by [naturally] expressing its dominance, forestall any challenge to that dominance" (Cornforth, 1956, p. 124).


Next, it is also important to realise that the dominant institution building engaged in by the ruling class is not a conscious process. To suggest that it is, would be to imply that the capitalist class generally, has a scientific understanding not only as to its historical origins and significance as a class, but also therefore, an understanding as to its inevitable historical demise. There are no signs that such a conscious state has been, or indeed ever could be reached in the collective mind of a minority exploiting class. History teaches us as much. Thus is it reasonable to conclude that the afore-mentioned institution building is an unconscious affair. Or rather should I say, given that all human activity is conscious activity, that such class consciousness, is false by degrees. In short, the fundamental objective motives impelling the capitalist class to act in this way or that, remain unknown to it or else such motives are rationalised by way of illusory ideas.

This kind of natural and spontaneous consciousness underpinning the instituting activities of all class institutions in human history to-date, arises because of the misunderstood nature of production itself. Production relations have an indispensable quality, in the sense that no human society can function unless and until it arranges and organises itself into one or other economic pattern. However, a common feature of human history to the present day, is that such social relations have yet to be consciously and deliberately instituted and controlled by the people concerned. Instead, they have naturally and unconsciously arisen in accordance with a given people's historically determined productive techniques and through the natural development of the division of labour, private property and classes. As was shown earlier, the ongoing division of labour has been, and continues to be a thoroughly natural and spontaneous matter, necessarily involving the subordination of the majority of working people, to the privately owned means of production. Thus, instead of people being conscious masters of their various means of production, the converse is the case. Namely the existing means of production function to control people's daily lives; to imprison them in one or other economic activity. Similarly, the natural and spontaneous development of a mass commodity culture all but rules out the possibility of economic activity based solely on the mutual exchange of human(e) activities. Instead, people are compelled to scramble and compete in an anarchic marketplace, for the things they both need and desire.

Those with no understanding of this historically indispensable, yet unconscious and spontaneous character of human social relationships, naturally fail to recognise the significance, origins and most important of all, the transitory nature of the present economic pattern. Consequently, they come to logically and uncritically think of the existing social relations as part of the necessary order of things. It is beyond question that those responsible for initially instituting light entertainment television were consciously acting in response to some immediate need, not least the undeniable presence of a mass of property-less and thus largely passive people. Yet they knew nothing (or else formed illusory ideas) about the historically determined material conditions giving rise to this mass of people; about the inevitable antagonistic consequences caused by the private ownership of the means of production; about the natural subordination of people to the division of labour and so on. In short, the fundamental historical causes impelling these institution builders to act, remained unknown to them.


The Need For Entertainment

We can now move on to consider in greater detail, the suggested material origins, ongoing sources of social influence, and subsequent growth of TV entertainment generally, and the TV cookery show in particular. The capitalist class of course, did not invent, merely for the sake of it, the phenomenon we now term TV entertainment. 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. And this mass of exploited people, necessarily subordinated to the social means of production and ongoing division of labour, naturally cries out to be entertained in some or other form, as one means of off-setting the inevitable boredom and monotony that is unavoidably associated with such an inhumane form of existence. Moreover, in any industrial society, the basic struggle to realise the means of life is effectively no longer a pressing day-to-day concern for those constituting such a society. In short, such people can collectively produce and reproduce a plentiful surplus in their various and ongoing economic activities (although how such surplus is subsequently appropriated and socially divided up is another matter entirely). Consequently, people in general, even the majority who are daily exploited, have relatively more free-time, not least to think. This is in direct contradiction to those less fortunate humans who are endlessly engaged in the struggle to realise their daily means of life. And therein rests a real danger for the dominant capitalist class. For under such circumstances, the possibility always exists that the exploited and property-less majority, will begin to collectively think, and in a profound manner, about its origins as a class and about the particular ongoing sources of social influence serving to maintain its concrete plight as a subordinate class. Given that this majority, as we have seen, is an unavoidable consequence of the capitalist system, an entertainment industry has naturally and spontaneously arisen I would argue, above all to function as one dominant cultural means of psychologically passifying and normalising this largely alienated, and potentially revolutionary mass of people. Lest we forget, working people (the exploited) constitute the majority under conditions of capitalism. Shortly, I will examine in more detail, just how this suggested passifying and normalising function, performed as it is by the seemingly benign TV cookery show actually works in a psychological sense.

Meanwhile, the capitalist class for its part has set about this necessary institutional task of mass entertainment with historical vigour, not least via the instituting of various forms of TV entertainment. And it has been able to do so of course, chiefly because (A). it owns the means of ideological production and dissemination (not least the broadcasting institution we know as the BBC here in Britain, but also the myriad mainstream newspaper publications and the like) and (B). because "the way in which changes in production techniques...scientific discoveries [and technological advances] receive expression in...society, depends upon the type of production relations [in existence]" (Cornforth, 1956, p. 106). In other words, it is the legally enshrined property relations of the dominant class in society through which all scientific and technological discoveries are filtered. The invention of the television set then, has been exploited to its utmost potential by the capitalist class as a whole, to serve its particular material interests. Merely the briefest glance at any TV listings magazine in contemporary Britain, betrays both the wider public's basic need to be superficially entertained, and also the determination of the capitalist class as a whole to naturally and spontaneously stave off this inevitable boredom and monotony with all the technological power at its disposal. In this week's 'TV Choice' magazine for example (November, 2007), we find the usual mix of quiz shows, light entertainment programmes, soaps, and fly-on-the-wall documentaries. Programmes like, and in no particular order; 'The X-Factor', 'Countdown', 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?', 'This Morning', '60 Minute Makeover', 'Airline', 'I'm A Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here', 'Emmerdale Farm', 'Coronation Street', 'Hollyoaks', 'The National Lottery: Who Dares Wins', 'Casualty', 'Eastenders', 'Neighbours', 'Doctors', 'Spooks', 'Diagnosis Murder', 'Strictly Come Dancing', 'Bargain Hunt', 'Home Under The Hammer', 'The Flying Gardener', 'Animal Park', 'Film 2007', 'Match of the Day', 'Arrange Me A Marriage' and plenty more besides. Then there are the cookery shows themselves, like 'Food Poker', 'Nigella Express', 'Rosemary Shrager's School For Cooks', 'Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares', 'Saturday Cooks', and 'Rachel's Favourite Food For Living'. . Capitalism in this sense, has nurtured a society in which many things are now necessarily done by a tiny minority, for and on behalf of the people, as opposed to by the people.


An Explanation For The Growth Of TV Cookery Shows

Since its inception of course, as was briefly noted in the introduction, the cookery show has not merely endeared, but has gone from strength to strength in its popularity as a light entertainment television programme. And I think the primary reason for such a growth in popularity, is to be found in the inevitable ongoing intensification of (in)human(e) existence in the workplace under conditions of capitalism. The whole purpose of capitalist production is to increase profits. It is not a system geared to meet the material and cultural needs of people generally. Consequently, the drive to increase profits will naturally assume the dominant role in human productive activity under such conditions. As this suggested ongoing intensity of exploitation has increased (and with it, the intensification of a sense of atomisation and alienation in the lives and minds of working people), so too in proportion I would suggest, has the need to entertain, and to be entertained, also increased. As Eaton (1949, p.70) argues in his discussion about capital and accumulation; "the capitalist may increase the unpaid labour that he appropriates [i.e. increase the amount of surplus value produced by the exploited worker] either by lengthening the working day [an absolute increase] or by increasing the intensity of work [a relative increase]. Both methods get more out of the worker; both methods add to the amount of surplus value that the worker produces". Given that increases in absolute exploitation are limited, not least on account of the finite hours in each day, the dominant competitive struggle among and between capitals to increase surplus value largely assumes a relative form, namely, the endless investing in productive techniques, scientific knowledge and the like as the chief means of decreasing wages in relation to the profitable rewards of increased productive output. David Harvey (1989) coined and developed the concept of 'time-space compression' when seeking to explain capitalism's increasing global reach and growing intensity as a socio-economic system. Harvey argues that the endless and unavoidable competitive race for ever-greater profits by capitalists, necessitates the endless drive to exploit new technology and scientific knowledge, to seek out new markets and above all, to increase the speed of the turnover time of capital. By turnover time, Harvey basically means the relative time taken for the capitalist(s) to realise a profitable return on invested capital, and it is hoped from a capitalistic point of view, with fewer and fewer humans employed. As a consequence of these kinds of developments he argues, the capitalist system as a whole has become a system of ever-increasing intensity and ever-greater scope, and in no small part, thanks to the ongoing developments in science and technology.

In practice, this suggested prolonging of the working day, along with a general and ongoing intensification of socio-economic activity, boils down to the fact that working people generally, (it is often completely forgotten that capitalism is first and foremost an association of people and that profits are the result of human productive activity whereby surplus value is realised) have progressively been obliged to work more intensely, and also, often longer (unpaid) hours in their various employment roles. Time today, is quite literally, money. Take the contemporary UK for example. One source estimates that "Britons put in 36 million hours of free overtime each year (this is effectively an unpaid extension of the working day and thus, a route to increased profits) with one in three [now] refusing to take all their holidays, fearing a backlog of work when they return...Figures, based on Labour Force Survey statistics...showed how UK workers are owed [an estimated] £23 billion from unpaid overtime" (Trades Union Congress, 2007, online). Meanwhile, Audrey Gillan, writing in the Guardian newspaper in 2005 begins her article on Britain's suggested long and intensified work culture as follows; "In Japan they call it karoshi and in China it is guolaosi. As yet there is no word in English for working yourself to death, but as more and more people put in longer hours and suffer more stress there may soon be". She continues, "Ronald Reagan was wrong, it seems, when he said: 'Hard work never killed anyone'. Death from overwork is not a new phenomenon in Britain but it is largely unremarked upon". Gillan supports her claim by citing the cases of a number of British workers who arguably died as a direct / indirect consequence of their work pattern (Guardian Unlimited, 2007, online). It is this undeniable growth of an intensified and ever more alien workplace that for me, accounts in no small part for the equally undeniable growth of TV light entertainment programmes in general, and cookery programmes in particular, across the media networks here in Britain and beyond.




A Natural Function Of Cookery Programmes In The Serving Of Ruling Class Ends


Just how then, might a typical TV cookery show specifically function as an institution to serve ruling class ends; to ideologically passify and to normalise an exploited, alienated and atomised majority? The idea here is that dominant social ideas and institutions, having arisen on the basis of the material life of society, in turn react back on those very conditions to consolidate, and to justify society as it currently exists. Particular ideas and institutions are not merely mirrored reflections of the specific prevailing social order. On the contrary, once arisen, they function to react back on those very circumstances. Moreover, and as was noted earlier, the ideas and institutions that generally reflect the dominant economic structure of society (here we mean capitalism) naturally and spontaneously reflect, and function to defend and to justify the interests of the particular dominant class in question. The BBC as a broadcasting institution for example, has regular meetings and the like, with British ministers (capitalists for want of a better phrase) at the highest level in government. So too, do mainstream newspaper editors and so on.

The first thing to say on this matter of TV cookery shows serving ruling class ends then, is to make clear that in common with the capitalist class generally, and as implied more than once in the above analysis, the majority of working people here in Britain, currently have no conscious understanding of the social laws that serve to regulate human productive activities. Just as the capitalists, as we have seen, do not consciously understand the real motives that naturally oblige them to institute one or other institution (they simply create them in an unconscious and spontaneous manner to meet some or other immediate or else illusory need), so too the majority of exploited people have no conscious idea as yet, as to the workings of these objective social laws, and thus in a particular sense, no conscious understanding of the real reasons for why they require such TV entertainment in the first place, or for why they warm to the particular kinds of TV entertainment programmes broadcast. They are no doubt aware that such television programmes make them happy, or relax them, or help them temporarily forget unpleasant concrete things or whatever. But they are not conscious of the underlying material basis upon which their thinking and feeling is based, and of which it is a reflection. They do not consciously think of themselves as people who are currently exploited and atomised by historically determined property relations and the accompanying definite division of labour. Consequently, the mass of working people are also obliged to make sense of their existence in a superficial or else downright false manner. Their respective ideas and theories must be made to fit what appears to them, to be the natural order of things. As Morton points out, no one, whether exploiter or exploited, 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). It is of course, in the interests of the capitalist class to unconsciously and spontaneously resist any obvious social desire to scientifically understand human existence. This is certainly not the case with regards to the property-less and exploited majority. But unless and until this majority is materially driven to consciously pursue such a scientific understanding, they too will logicaly be compelled by degrees to formulate false ideas about the world in which they live.

This kind of suggested mass social ignorance and the consequences thereof, is probably similar to that which long ago, originally gave rise to religious thought. Discussing the suggested origins of religious ideas, Lewis (1958, p. 13) traces them all to the material conditions of life; "Man in all ages (but particularly before the days of modern science) cannot control his environment. There are wide gaps in his knowledge. There are weaknesses in the social structure. Life is hazardous and man is full of apprehension and looks everywhere for help and support. His desperate need is reflected in his eager grasp at supernatural help...In doing this, man abandons - or may for a time suspend - the task of changing the world by material means and resorts to spiritual methods". There are several ways, I think, in which the typical cookery show functions on a deeper psychological plain to naturally 'forestall any challenge' to capitalist class rule. Here, I focus on two of them. Firstly, I would argue that a typical cookery programme enthuses therapeutic qualities, functioning to psychologically transport the viewer to a more pleasant world, albeit sometimes for 30 minutes or less. Second, I think the typical cookery show, paradoxically functions to contribute to a sense of social normality in many viewers' minds. Both these features in their own way, arguably contribute in a natural, unconscious sense to a 'forestalling of any challenge to capitalist class rule' by way of fostering passivity in the minds of those affected. Let us begin by considering the first of these.




A Therapeutic Journey


The first way I would argue in which TV cookery programmes psychologically function to serve ruling class ends then, is to induce passivity in the minds of those who warm to such programmes. They function to naturally 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 unlike in the real world. 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


Our 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 in a UK context. This has involved a consideration of both the suggested origins and the ongoing sources of social influence of such a TV programme. These origins and sources of influence moreover, were sought in the material conditions of life, for nothing, including a daytime TV cookery show with its celebrity chef, can exist and thus be understood in splendid isolation from the concrete conditions of life. 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 mind of the viewer. 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 materialist philosophy takes root on a sufficient scale in the minds of millions upon millions of organised working people, these kinds of TV shows will continue in my view, to enjoy both the superficial, and more importantly for the capitalist, the ideological successes that they presently do.







REFERENCES






BBC Worldwide [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Worldwide

Cornforth, M (1956) Dialectical Materialism, An Introduction, Volume Two, Historical Materialism. Lawrence and Wishart, London.

Eaton, J. (1949) Political Economy. A Marxist text Book. Lawrence and Wishart, London.

Guardian Unlimited, [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/britain/ar...552800,00.html

Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Blackwell, Oxford.

Jamie Oliver [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Oliver

Kitchen Magician, [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--ra...748642617.html

Lewis, J. (1958) Religions of the World Made Simple. Double & Company, New York.

Lewis, J. (1969) Anthropology Made Simple, W.H.Allen, London.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1940) The German Ideology, Parts I & III, The Marxist-Leninist Library, Lawrence and Wishart, London.

Morton, A. L. (1963) The Challenge of Marxism, Chapter Four, The Arts and the People, Lawrence and Wishart, London.

Nigella Lawson [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigella_Lawson


The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology, (2000) Clays Ltd, St. Ives, England.


Trade Union Congress, [Accessed online, November, 2007] Available at: http://www.tuc.org.uk/work_life/inde...474&minors=474

TV Choice, 17 - 23 November, 2007, issue 47.

[Bluejay]

Wow, so much here. As always, this was well written, with many thoughts expressed (you have the singular distinction of simultaneously contributing the shortest poems and the longest essays on SM). I don't feel like I want to attempt to refute the things you've said. It's not because I don't question many of them; it's just that I really have no idea where to begin. So rather than constructing a cohesive response, I'll just give reactions.

- I find the distinction between the owners of a business and those who work in a business (described as "classes") a bit artificial. Perhaps it has to do with connotations I have for the word "class" (implying a designation that doesn't allow mobility). But since anyone can both be hired to work for a company as well as own a company and hire others (perhaps even at the same time), painting a picture that shows people forced into one of two "classes" (where one is oppressed and chained for life) seems inaccurate to me.

- There are a number of things that you attribute negative qualities to that I don't (or haven't). One is the specialization of workers. Why would it preferable to have people who know a little of everything as opposed to those who are specialists in what they do? Would things operate as well if everyone was a "jack of all trade, master of none"? For example, I've been a computer programmer for over 20 years. I love doing it, I think I'm pretty good at it, the people I work with want me to keep doing it with them, and I get paid well for it. I have thought about changing job fields just to expand myself (and, to be honest, the reduction in pay for such a switch can be a deterrent), but I don't think that being really good at what I do and letting others do what they're good at is a negative. It seems like everybody wins.

Now, obviously, that perspective is from that of the workplace. That's what helps a business be successful so that the employees have their livlihood. Is it rewarding on a personal level? That's up to the invididual. And there's no requirement that work be the be-all and end-all of existence. My company recognizes that having people burn out is a "bad thing"; time off is encouraged as well as is a flexible schedule to allow for family needs.

So, you may say, not all businesses are like that. For sure. But my point is that intolerable work conditions are not a necessary result of the capitalist machine. And it's in the best interest of businesses to keep their employees happy, since it's the employees who make the business a success.

- The notion of cooking shows existing in "the psychological service of the capitalist class" seems a bit out there to me. People have always looked for ways to brighten their lives a bit, whether it be watching television, reading a book, going to symphonies, playing in the streets, etc. It has existed forever, capitalist society or no. Do non-capitalist countries not have such shows? To me, that would be dreary.

I see cooking shows as a product, just like anything else. That makes them tied into the "capitalist machine" along with everything else, but why is that a problem? Cooking shows exist because people want to watch them. They don't say, "My life sucks because I hate my job. Oh, here's a cooking show!" My life doesn't suck, and I like to watch them from time to time. Why? Because I learn something about cooking, something I'm interested in. And because when you have someone who has worked at something like cooking long enough that they live and breathe it, watching them do what they do can teach you so much beyond just the mechanics of what they're doing. You learn the mental approach, the nuance, the mindset that sets apart someone who is good from someone who isn't. Why read more into it than it being educational or mind-expanding for people? From what I gathered is that you're basically saying "Though nobody intends it or realizes it, this the real reason why this is happening." Maybe this time a cigar is just a cigar.

- What's wrong with cooking shows and other shows that people enjoy watching?

Ok, I'll stop now. To be honest, I see so much "agenda" behind this, with an effort to squeeze things into a particular world view, that I think the facts are lost behind the ideology. Since I don't look at things the way you're expressing, it just felt contrived to me. If your goal is to try to open people's eyes or otherwise make them think new thoughts, then I think you may have failed with this, because the argument on its own isn't strong enough (or perhaps even seen as enough of an issue) to turn people around.

[alloallo3]

I frankly wasn't sure you weren't joking. Is it possible people watching these shows may simply be interested in cookery?

[colinbaker62]

Thank you Bluejay for this response. Your thoughts are most interesting and my apologies for not replying a little sooner. If I may, I'd like to work through them one at a time.

I find the distinction between the owners of a business and those who work in a business (described as "classes") a bit artificial. Perhaps it has to do with connotations I have for the word "class" (implying a designation that doesn't allow mobility). But since anyone can both be hired to work for a company as well as own a company and hire others (perhaps even at the same time), painting a picture that shows people forced into one of two "classes" (where one is oppressed and chained for life) seems inaccurate to me..

I think your general conception of the term 'class' is indeed a common one. Many people view classes as relating to people who are doing one or other job. Sometimes also, it is applied to the kind of house one owns or the number of cars one owns etc..This latter phenomenon is rife across contemporary Britain at present. People seem to think they can buy a new car (often with high interest finance), add an extension to their existing home and bingo! they are middle class. I agree with you as well, when you point out that mobility is a real phenomenon under conditions of capitalism.

My own thoughts on these particular matters would go something like this. For me, class is a material phenomenon indeed, but not in the sense of how many cars you own or how many houses etc...It is to do with one's legal relationship to the social means of production and consequently, the resulting social product or a share thereof. Those who own such means (whether outright or by way of a controlling stake) for me, are capitalists and moreover, will be compelled to behave as such. Conversely, those having no ownership rights, or largely insignificant ownership rights (perhaps a few shares for example) over the means of production are, for me, working class albeit often with radically different work experiences and relationships to the property owners themselves.

As to the issue of mobility. I think the origins of such a phenomenon are to be found in the capitalist system itself. These 'mobile people' are a consequence of a social system that requires equal rights before the law for each and every individual (at least on paper) because such rights were initially necessary to help establish and consolidate the capitalist system itself. The fact still remains however, that such mobility is at best patchy. It is one thing to be told you are as equal as the next person. It is quite another to freely exercise such a right. The same goes for free speech and all the rest of it. Mobility like anything else under conditions of capitalism, will I believe, be ultimately conditioned by property rights.

There are a number of things that you attribute negative qualities to that I don't (or haven't). One is the specialization of workers. Why would it preferable to have people who know a little of everything as opposed to those who are specialists in what they do? Would things operate as well if everyone was a "jack of all trade, master of none"? For example, I've been a computer programmer for over 20 years. I love doing it, I think I'm pretty good at it, the people I work with want me to keep doing it with them, and I get paid well for it. I have thought about changing job fields just to expand myself (and, to be honest, the reduction in pay for such a switch can be a deterrent), but I don't think that being really good at what I do and letting others do what they're good at is a negative. It seems like everybody wins..

I think it would be preferable because humans are not merely creatures to be put to work in one or other task, and perhaps forever. This is, and always has been a consequence of exploitative relationships since they arose in human history. And yes, exploitation and the artificial division of labour (not only techniques but people's capacities) were necessary in their time as the only means of advancing the human species. However, we are now at a stage in which our productive forces under conditions of capitalism have become so massively powerful and on a social scale, that the need for the subordination of people to the division of labour, along with the existence of classes has become a fetter on further human development. Our potential human capacities are almost limitless given we are the only animal on the planet capable of conceptual thought. This potential is, in my view, currently thwarted for each of us is tied to a part of the productive machine. We need to become rounded human beings, and not remain atomised as is currently the case. Division of techniques, yes. Division of human capacities and the existence of antagonistic classes of people, no.

Now, obviously, that perspective is from that of the workplace. That's what helps a business be successful so that the employees have their livlihood. Is it rewarding on a personal level? That's up to the invididual. And there's no requirement that work be the be-all and end-all of existence. My company recognizes that having people burn out is a "bad thing"; time off is encouraged as well as is a flexible schedule to allow for family needs..

I found this section of your reply very interesting, essentially because for me, it (by which I mean the issue of work) goes to the heart of capitalist society. I couldn't agree with the claim that the potential for a personally rewarding working life rests with the individual. If nothing else because such an idea for me, overlooks the objective relationship existing between the employee and the employer. Try as an employee taking time off whenevr you like and see what happens!

I would agree however, that some employers are becoming more aware of the fact that many employees are burning themselves out for one or other boss. Of course then the obvious questions arise. For example why is it, with so much science and technology available to us westerners, people are still being driven to 'burn themselves out'? It would seem that such science and technology is not primarily developed with the aim of making the worker's life any more pleasant than it need be. Similarly, what objective factors are motivating some people to work in such an inhumane fashion? Who benefits from this kind of labour intensification? Why has work become more intensified generally?

I particularly found your claim about there being 'no requirement that work be the be-all and end-all of existence' of the utmost interest. The first thing to say on this matter is that work is indeed the be-all and end-all of human existence. Without human productive activity both with wider nature and of course, among and between one another as humans, the species would perish. Work must be undertaken and history shows us that this is indeed what we have been doing as a species since descending from the trees. The question is always there of course as to how best organise as the most efficient means of undertaking this necessary work. As I say in the above essay, this historically determined pattern of organisation has thus far in human history, arisen spontaneously and naturally on account of our lack of conscious understanding and control over the various social fiorces at work in wider society. Consequently, work assumes the natural characteristics it does in capitalist society. Work of course was of a very different kind under conditions of feudalism, and different again, in the ancient world under conditions of slavery.

When Marx argued that work must become life's prime want, he was essentially arguing that work must be brought onto the human(e) plain. Humans cannot avoid work (unless in today's world you are rich). Thus it is reasonable to try to undertake such work in a human manner. This, of course, is yet to happen and certainly cannot be the case under conditions of capitalistic exploitation. Thus do many people grow to hate their job, or else try every excuse not to work etc....Should we ever arrive at a society however, devoid of class antagonisms and ipso facto exploitation; a society based on rational and disinterested criticism and self-criticism would then become possible as the means of solving problems of a social kind. Then I think, work would indeed become life's prime want because everyone would benefit by working, and not for money, but simply for the collective sake of the species. Simply to assist one's fellow being for its own sake.

So, you may say, not all businesses are like that. For sure. But my point is that intolerable work conditions are not a necessary result of the capitalist machine. And it's in the best interest of businesses to keep their employees happy, since it's the employees who make the business a success...

This kind of reasoning reminded me a little of the pioneering work and underlying attitude of Robert Owen. In Scotland in the nineteenth century as you may well be aware, Owen asserted exactly this kind of attitude, namely to look after the workforce and they will, in turn so the theory goes, look after the property-owner. Indeed, he put it into practice. Where it ultimately failed I think, was on account of its mechanistic character. Such a belief that people who are looked after will work better is essentially a view of humanity as a mcahine. Just like a well serviced watch, keep it oiled etc and it will give good service. The trouble with this, (and Owen realised this in the end) is that it does nothing to alter the relationship between boss and worker. It is essentially an argument for a more tolerable form of exploitation. And without any doubt, if the boss felt the material need to start cracking the whip again, then crack it he or she most certainly would. Moreover, it is always worth considering what it is we are producing. Is it socially useful? Does it stand to enrich the material and cultural life of society en masse or just a small clique of society?

The notion of cooking shows existing in "the psychological service of the capitalist class" seems a bit out there to me. People have always looked for ways to brighten their lives a bit, whether it be watching television, reading a book, going to symphonies, playing in the streets, etc. It has existed forever, capitalist society or no. Do non-capitalist countries not have such shows? To me, that would be dreary. ..

You may well be correct in your judgment when you suggest that 'the notion of cooking shows existing in "the psychological service of the capitalist class" seems a bit out there'. Perhaps it appears this way, because only one kind of example was drawn upon. My own view is that such TV does naturally and unconsciously play a part in inducing passivity in the minds of many of those who watch these cultural offerings. And yes, the capitalist class did not invent entertainment. The point is to ask why it exists under capitalism and why in its current form? If we start from the premise that there are no such things as causeless phenomena, then the phenomenon that is, entertainment, must have a material basis somewhere or other. That was my guiding thesis throughout I suppose.

I see cooking shows as a product, just like anything else. That makes them tied into the "capitalist machine" along with everything else, but why is that a problem? Cooking shows exist because people want to watch them. ..

This is undoubtedly true. But surely the point is, to ask why? Why do millions of people warm so readily to such TV? What is the underlying reality motivating them to embrace TV as they do? In short, I believe in such circumstances we need to ask; what is the origin and ongoing source of social influence of these people's thinking?



Thank you again Bluejay for your reply. It was so interesting that it triggered many thoughts in my mind. And consequently, I have rambled for which I apologise in advance.




Colin

[colinbaker62]

Originally Posted by alloallo3

I frankly wasn't sure you weren't joking. Is it possible people watching these shows may simply be interested in cookery?

Thank you alloallo3 and sadly no, it was / is no joke. At least it was not intended as such....I do agree with you by the way that many people may indeed watch these shows because they are interested in cookery. But the question still arises, why do they like watching cookery and in this from and in such numbers? Clearly, this is not simply a matter of individual interest. There is a material 'something' driving millions and millions of people across Britain, Western Europe and beyond to watch these kinds of programmes.


Colin

[alloallo3]

A few comments from an American cousin. This is more anecdotal than yours (don't look for footnotes), and perhaps hopelessly digressive, but I hope you and your readers may find some of this interesting.

I first visited England in 1976. I was struck by a number of distinctions between our two nations -- our two cultures -- but three of those differences are particularly apropos to this discussion:
1) I had anticipated the standard of living would be equivalent. Instead I found England, Wales and Scotland to be poorer than the U.S. The homes were less well-appointed, the clothing of lesser quality, the cars tiny in comparison.
2) The TV sets only had two or three buttons for channels! In the United States all tvs were equipped for 50 or more channels (though nowhere was this variety actually available. In my hometown we received just three channels.) It's important to note, however, that our tv stations and networks were privately owned, while in GB the populace paid a tax for television.
3) The food, pretty much everywhere, was awful. I remember one day in desperation asking for an omelet. This, I thought, was too simple to screw up. I was wrong. It was delivered butterless and burned to a crisp.

While I have returned to England a few times in the intervening years, let's look at the circumstance I found in England in the summer of 2006, 30 years following my first introduction to Great Britain.

1) The British standard of living now matches or exceeds that of the United States. It has become a fantastically wealthy nation. For the American traveler in the 60s and 70s traveling England and the Continent was a lark -- there was little we couldn't afford with our almighty dollar. Now it is excruciatingly expensive. This, despite our own advances in productivity and our remarkably expansive economy.
2) There are dozens of channels available on British television, a direct result of the implosion of the government monopoly on broadcasting.
3) The food everywhere is vastly improved. It is now possible to discuss British cuisine without irony.

What happened to cause these changes?

It would be easy to say Margaret Thatcher happened. Thatcher, after all, loosed the iron grip of the government on production. Innovation happened. Richard Branson happened. And the gross national product of England soared. People were free to pursue their own economic ends.

(As a note to younger British readers: Do you remember George Harrison singing in Taxman, "one for you, 19 for me"? That is not hyperbole. At the time Harrison was paying 95 percent of his income to the Taxman. The old money people were safe. But those who had the tenacity and the talent to earn extravagant incomes? They were brutalized.)

I don't think it's entirely accurate to accord all of the credit to Thatcher. The British people in the latter half of the 20th century have often been remarkably fortunate in their choice of leaders. Indeed they have regularly chosen leaders whose individual greatness dwarfs that of the collective. These PMs were punished for their greatness, of course. Churchill, savior of the free world, and working toward his Nobel Prize in Literature, was considered insufficient for leadership of post-War England. Thatcher, whose efforts resulted in the great expansion of the post-War economy, was savaged as cruel and thoughtless. And then there is Tony Blair, the last balled man in England, who was called Bush's lapdog.

But to return to my point. With the efforts of England's remarkable leadership, the people were for the first time freed from the ennervating effects of endless poverty. They recovered from the lasting effects of World War II. Many were no longer required to spend all of their energy simply surviving. They had, for the first time, disposable income. In 1945, or 55, or 65, the idea of watching a show about cookery would have struck many as not just useless, but cruel. They hadn’t the means, either financial or temporal, to pursue such a frivolous pastime. But now, in 2007, they have both the time and the wherewithal for leisure and leisurely pursuits.

Are Britons newly-bored? Yes. And do they fill these empty hours with empty entertainment? Sure. This isn't a new phenomenon. As colinbaker surely knows, the Romans 2,000 years ago sated the needs of the masses with "bread and circuses." They kept the potentially unsettled populace in their place by ensuring they were fed and entertained. I believe colinbaker would suggest today's circumstance is a direct parallel.

Does he have a point? Does the new access to vast resources of entertainment keep the masses in line -- does it keep them anesthetized against societal and financial imbalances? Sure. Somewhat.

But the problem with Marxist thought it that it has to squeeze the entire human condition into an economic model. We are economic creatures, of course. But we are much more.

The difficulty with leisure is this: when we are not busy acquiring and spending, when we quiet the economic tumult in our mind, when we introspect, we often find nothing there. We find we are not comfortable with having nothing to do. We are uncomfortable with ourselves. This discomfort has often been defined as a God-shaped hole. (I've often wondered if they meant that as a verb or adjective). That is, we feel there is something more to life, and we don’t quite know what it is or how to attain it. Who would have a greater God-shaped hole than the British in 2007? Formerly the greatest race of people on earth (circa 1945), they have declined to exhibit an emptiness of spirit that would have stunned the French of the 1970s, who formerly held the record as the world's least human human beings. One result of this emptiness is the sad but much admired speech in the execrable "Love Actually." What a wheedling defense of a great nation Hugh Grant delivered! (As every good parent knows, when you have to demand respect, it's because you haven't earned it -- and you haven't earned it largely because you don't have self-respect.)

But back to my point: Britons now watch cookery shows because they can gainfully do so. They have the money, the access to foodstuffs and the leisure to enjoy what they have learned. And learning cookery, that is, the "culinary arts," is a reasonable use of time -- a profitable one, I would say, in the sense of being expansive of the soul.

Dining together is, after all, perhaps our most important social function. For an indication of that, look at the emphasis the great religions put on the communal meal. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam -- they all recognize the centrality of eating in the human experience.

In fact it's difficult for me to understand why colinbaker would choose this topic as his subject for the discussion of light entertainment. Why not cage fighting? Or (gasp) football?

Cookery, as Britons have lately discovered, can be a matter of considerable seriousness. It is a subject to which serious people can devote their lives.

There are certain additional assertions in colinbaker's thesis that also require addressing. I recognize they are part and parcel of Marxist theology, but they, like Marx, are largely dead and disproved.

1) "[Workers] have become hopelessly divided, and ultimately imprisoned, in one or other specialised economic role."
Nonsense. Fifty years ago Ireland's economy was mostly agrarian. Today Ireland is the second-largest supplier of software in the world -- second only to the United States. This radical shift was made possible by the growing acceptance of social mobility, which expands opportunities. My own story is typically American. At 22, I was the editor of a small-town newspaper. At 32 I was the manager of a country inn. At 42 I was the publisher of a successful chain of industry newsletters. At 52 I started a charter secondary school. Today I create websites for a living.


2) "Then I think, work would indeed become life's prime want because everyone would benefit by working, and not for money, but simply for the collective sake of the species. Simply to assist one's fellow being for its own sake. " This extraordinary claim has been proven false so many times it is astonishing to see it still being bandied about. The communist experiments have always produced the same disastrous results for the same self-evident reason: men are, by nature, self-interested. How many people have to die, how many people have to live in inexorable poverty, before we realize this? It cannot be changed by wishful thinking or sweet exhortation (sorry, folks, but we can't "Imagine" it into being). We can continue to repeat the disastrous mistake of ignoring this fact, or we can channel this self-interest into a mechanism that produces useful results. (Churchill put it more elegantly: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.")

3. "Culinary profiteering has naturally served to deliver obscene wealth to a minority of individuals." Please define obscene. One of my pet peeves is the belief that we should determine how much is enough. It is class envy at its worst. Some profit-taking is vulgar, but that hardly makes it obscene. And what is the option? My guess (it's only that) is that colinbaker would like to see this wealth redirected to the government coffers where the people as a whole could determine its best use. In other words, 1) we would reduce the impetus to create wealth, and 2) these "excess" funds would reasonably accrue to the "people."

Let's look at that. Perhaps we in the U.S. should have taxed the righteous crap out of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. We could have seized their profits for our collective use. What would have been the result? First, I doubt either would have worked as hard. Why should they? Second, 40 to 60 percent of the money collected would have simply disappeared in the bureaucratic miasma. That is, only 60 to 40 percent of the collected funds would have reached the target audience.

Instead, what has happened? Gates and Buffet are together giving nearly $100 billion to the charity they created, ensuring 95% or more of the funds are delivered to the people who are in need. And these aren't just handouts. Because Gates and Buffet understand the ability of money to create money, these are investments! Their investment will improve the lives of Africans and others not just for a moment, but for the foreseeable future! How different is that from government handouts, which are mostly stolen by the brutes who rule Africa with an iron fist?

Tell me. Should they have been taxed to the point where they only earned "reasonable profits"?

Do some people spend their money foolishly, or conspicuously? Sure. But the appropriate response is to laugh at them, not to impose our ideas on how their money should be spent.

4) "Why do millions of people warm so readily to such TV? What is the underlying reality motivating them to embrace TV as they do? In short, I believe in such circumstances we need to ask; what is the origin and ongoing source of social influence of these people's thinking?"

Personally, I hate TV. It is a medium for idiots. But you ask why people warm so readily to TV? The answer is simple: compared to sociologists on college campuses, or Marxists (if you'll pardon the redundancy), the people at the tv production companies truly understand human nature. They don't gloss, nor do they see sophistication where none exists. They don't deny the truth of many stereotypes. Their only purpose is to make money, and they do that by maximizing the number of people who watch their shows. Are the results mind-bogglingly awful? Sure.

In fact I would say the only thing worse than TV for the masses is TV engineered by the government -- TV designed not by entrepreneurs, but by our masters. TV, as they would surely say, that is good for us.