Are Sitcoms That Deal with Social Issues Gone For Good?

While mourning the passing of the great comedic actress Bea Arthur this week, I couldn't help but also mourn, however belatedly, the death of the sitcom as a social and political force.

The sitcoms that Arthur appeared in — All in the Family, Maude and The Golden Girls — didn't only make us laugh, they also made us think on moral levels about the problems and controversies we face as a society — issues such as racism, homophobia, abortion, suicide, etc.

We have Normal Lear to thank for All in the Family and Maude (as well as Sanford and Son, The Jeffersons, Good Times, Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, and others), and Susan Harris to thank for The Golden Girls (as well as Soap, Benson and Empty Nest), but we also have to give credit to the times in which these shows were produced and the mindset of viewers, who were then willing to be provoked.

In today's Chicago Tribune, writer Phil Rosenthal posits that it's "inconceivable" that a network sitcom today would touch the social issues that a show like Maude, for example, touched in the 70s.

In November of 1972, two months before the Supreme Court handed down its decision on Roe vs. Wade, New York resident Maude Findley (played by Arthur) discovered she was pregnant in the first part of a two-part episode called "Maude's Dilemma" (written by Susan Harris). She was 47. Abortion was legal in New York, and after careful consideration, Maude decided in the conclusion not to have the child. (Video clip below.)

Abortion was a difficult issue for a sitcom to tackle then, and risky. Religious viewers objected to the content and boycotted; and when CBS re-ran the episode the following summer, a large number of affiliates dropped the show completely. But those reactions are minor compared to the ire an episode like that would likely draw from today's politically active Christians and a polarized public. Rosenthal quotes Jason Maltby, a top television buyer with MindShare, a marketing and media agency:

"That particular issue you have to put aside and say it's so polarizing that I don't think anybody in a sitcom or a drama [on a broadcast network] these days is willing to take the risk that Maude did back then. ... But back then it seems it was more a part of the national discussion. ... The tide was turning and they knew it was coming."

The issues tackled by some sitcoms over 30 years ago haven't gone away, but they've been shoved under a collective network-programming rug. 

Today, the all-important advertising dollar takes precedence over a producer's desire to provoke and stimulate viewers. And because the rules that kept the networks from owning the shows they aired back in the 1970s have disappeared, the networks today have more say in content and are guided in their decision making by the money to be made by syndication. In other words, a show doesn't only have to appeal to today's viewers, but also tomorrow's viewers.

That's not to say that networks are today completely socially gun-shy. Current sitcoms touch on heavy issues of course, but they do so with quick jokes, pithy one-liners, as opposed to a two-episode 'special event.' They are also void of the misanthrope that Lear offered — a character with a family of his/her own that we invited into our living rooms each week, despite their offensive social and political views.

I'm fairly certain that regular readers of Pimp My Wry would welcome a return of the provocative sitcom. And I suppose now is as good a time as any to tell you all that I've completed six episodes of such a sitcom, and I'm waiting patiently for someone to offer to produce it. But right now I'm wondering this: With comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who tackle social issues with news-driven humor and with great success, and animated comedies like South Park that do the same, is the character-driven sitcom as a social force truly obsolete? 

I was a child when All in the Family and Maude aired, so it's impossible for me to know for sure whether I would have been influenced more (or at all) by The Daily Show and South Park than I was with Lear's brand of humor. But if I had to take a guess, I'd say that the family dynamic that Lear was great at portraying was so closely related to my own that the experiences of his characters became deeply personal for me. And because I visited those families week after week, they became more than just groups of actors delivering jokes — they became friends who taught life-lessons through self-deprecation. 

As much as I love the new vehicles of social humor with their rapid-fire delivery of funny, there's something lost in translation. Maybe what's lost is the slow-cooked and more measured process of 'hitting home' our moral failures and successes through humor that's more intimate.

Or, maybe not. Maybe I'm just feeling nostalgic today.

In any case, the question still remains: Where is the love child of Normal Lear and Susan Harris, and why isn't he/she calling me?

Comments

[Tracy]

Nice article, good programs mentioned.

"But those reactions are minor compared to the ire an episode like that would likely draw from today's politically active Christians and a polarized public."

You are aware that the 'left' is onmipresent in terms of ire and histrionics as well?

[Jo Anna]

Excellent write-up, Kim. Really poignant and, as always, so well written.

Nice way to slip in a little self-promotion there, too. ;P

Dying to hear you got picked up!

[Tracy]

Ah crap!

Indeed Kim, bigger congratulations will hopefully be in order soon!

[Kim]

Thanks, Jo Anna. Will keep everyone informed.

Tracey, yes, liberals get upset about things, too. But conservatives aren't exactly known for their sense of humor or for pointing out the absurdity of certain social issues through satire or self-deprecation. They are usually the butt of the joke. But if you're aware of a sitcom storyline where libs got upset by the social message therein, do tell, because I can't think of one off the top of my head.

[Tracy]

Misplaced anger I guess. And I select that word deliberately, anger.

My beef is more 'real life'. Like suffering through all the 'tea-bagging' references lately.

Really? That's funny? Maybe one on one in a bar with friends, sure. I'm a vulgarian, I love that shit.

But NATIONAL media? And they're being PAID to talk like this? And it's still called, 'reporting'? With ZERO accountability?

I happen to think I have a great sense of humor. And I appreciate dissent.

But abject and virulent ridicule for and of my beliefs? No. Not a fan. Kind of like you feeling 'attacked' by the 'Christians'.

I don't treat other people like that and I sure the fuck don't like being treated that way. And I am. As are you.

Fuckin-A, I think we have the same bitch but from different points of view.

[Kim]

I don't think we're bitching about the same thing at all. I do agree that the media went overboard with the 'teabagging' jokes, but I also think it's hilarious that so many republicans didn't have a clue as to the alternate meaning of teabagging, not to mention the 'taxation without representation' nonsense. Those folks need a dictionary and a history book. That said, no one was ridiculing the teabaggers for their religious beliefs — the ridicule was due to their ignorance.

[Tracy]

The ridicule was not due to their ignorance, it was their BELIEFS! MY beliefs!

I don't find it funny that people are ignorant of sexual slang. Not everyone has a dirty mind and potty mouth like you and I.

Fucking har har, teabag, har har. Professionalism anyone?

The government is out of control, yes, starting back with W, and THAT'S what the tea parties were about. Having been one of the people emailing others and talking to friends and neighbors, and talking about 'tea parties' BEFORE Rick Santelli spoke out, as in January time-frame. As you might suspect Kim, I get a lot of GOP/conservative emails and mailings. No-ah-ah did this have anything to do with them. I don't know that I've ever been a part of anything 'grassroots' before. But my experience with this totally was. It was word of mouth, it was emails, and it was long before it was adulterated by ANY outside sources, left or right, which would be when you and a lot of Americans heard about it.

And it's beyond ridicule by the way, it's mocking. It's marginalizing. It's dismissive. It's attempting to invalidate the views of many average fucking Americans.

Do you like being mocked Kim? Because if you don't, why are you making excuses for those who do?

[Tracy]

Oops, that should have been, 'you and me', not 'you and I'.

[Kim]

You need to explain to me how making fun of teabagging turned into religious ridicule in your mind.

[Tracy]

It's not religious, it's more a right/left issue. It's no longer 'raising social conscious', it's belittling and discrediting those with whom they disagree.

'Tea-bagging' was an example, not my point. My point was, "You are aware that the 'left' is onmipresent in terms of ire and histrionics as well".

I like your stuff Kim, I think you know that. But (of course there's a but;), how many jokes in your sitcom 'cut both ways' as it were? It's your show, do with it what you want. You have your politics and I have mine. But do you not see that that which you do not like done to you and your community, your just as guilty of doing to another?

How much of your shows are, "'hitting home' our moral failures and successes through humor that's more intimate."

Are your sacred cows up for slaughter as well?

What makes your sacred cows more sacred than mine?

[Kim]

I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. There's enough sarcasm to go around. So, yes, bring on the 'slaughter.'

But I think we both know that, as I wrote above, the libs are much, much better at comedy. Is that because the right gives them so much material to play with creatively? Sure, that's part of it. But I also think that we're more in tune, socially -- more open-minded and not afraid of change. When it comes to progress, for lack of a better word at the moment, we're optimistic, whereas the conservatives are often pessimistic and wary of change.

[Tracy]

"I do agree that the media went overboard with the 'teabagging' jokes,"

The media went overboard with the teabagging jokes? Kim, the media should not have been MAKING teabagging jokes.

"the libs are much, much better at comedy. Is that because the right gives them so much material to play with creatively?"

Or is it that there are just so many more liberals in entertainment? I think that's more accurate. Why? Who knows, left brain-structure, right brain-creative... (not to confuse the left/right issue, I think you know what I mean regarding the human brain)

"But I also think that we're more in tune, socially -- more open-minded and not afraid of change. When it comes to progress, for lack of a better word at the moment, we're optimistic, whereas the conservatives are often pessimistic and wary of change."

You guys come out smelling kind of rosy with that stereotype don't you think?

My sense is that the left is 'open-minded' until someone disagrees. Then the dissenter is shouted down, labeled, and accused of some sort of 'ism.

Could you comment on this?

"do you not see that that which you do not like done to you and your community, your just as guilty of doing to another?"

[Tracy]

"conservatives aren't exactly known for their sense of humor or for pointing out the absurdity of certain social issues through satire or self-deprecation. They are usually the butt of the joke"

Being the butt of the joke typically doesn't 'open' a person's mind.

Could you comment on these too please?

"And it's beyond ridicule by the way, it's mocking. It's marginalizing. It's dismissive. It's attempting to invalidate the views of many average fucking Americans."

"Do you like being mocked Kim? Because if you don't, why are you making excuses for those who do?"

[Kim]

Tracy, you wrote: "Could you comment on this? ... do you not see that that which you do not like done to you and your community, your just as guilty of doing to another?"

I'm not sure what you want me to comment on exactly. I don't think we're talking about sitcoms as provocation anymore. When you write "community," are you talking about the liberal community or are you now talking about the gay community? If you're talking about the gay community, I don't think you can compare the conservatives' efforts to deny us equality with a little mocking.

But, if we're just talking about mocking in general, I think it's fair to say that liberals aren't mocked as much as the right, for the reasons I already gave.

Your other question ("Do you like being mocked Kim? Because if you don't, why are you making excuses for those who do?) is loaded. No one LIKES being mocked! But sometimes the shoe fits -- on both sides of the aisle. But you still can't compare mocking re: teabagging and mocking re: creatively via sitcoms.

[Tracy]

I was talking about 'real life' (as stated above, rather than just the sitcoms).

I was referring to the gay community (rather than the liberal community).

"But you still can't compare mocking re: teabagging and mocking re: creatively via sitcoms."

No, I'm talking about:

"You are aware that the 'left' is onmipresent in terms of ire and histrionics as well?" Recent example: calling a girl a cunt, talking about her fake breasts, and broadcasting her nudie pictures rather than addressing the issue at hand on its merits.

For example:

What if this girl had gotten a partial-birth abortion question. What if she said she thought you can choose to do it or 'opposite'. What if (big pretend here) the media were outraged by her answer (as if that's their FUCKING job?). They then start scrutinizing her personal life, bring up her fake breasts, her nudie pictures, etc.

Let's assume this time, you agree with her answer. Would you still condone the personal attacks on her? Would you realize it for what it is, a personal attack - a smear job to discredit her point of view by villainizing her for things that are unrelated to the issue and her response? Not debating the issue, but attacking the messenger to discredit the argument? You're smart Kim. You know these are abusive ad hominim arguments, and you know they're fallacious. Are you that blinded by your own personal interests?

[Kim]

I agree that she is being personally attacked re: the pics. In my mind, as I wrote in a more recent post, the pics are much ado about nothing; I haven't seen any pics that are 'shocking.' But I don't agree that her behavior is off limits in general.

Now that she's a spokesperson for a Christian organization that's against gay marriage, everything she does that even hints at un-Christian-like behavior, and everything she says that even hints at hypocrisy is fair game. She's made her holier-than-thou bed, and now she has to sleep in it. Saying "no offense" and "I'm not perfect" isn't going to make her words less offensive or her actions less important. She's no longer just an average person with an opinion; she's a woman actively working toward preventing an entire community of Americans from gaining equal rights.

I honestly don't know how I would have reacted if the question posed by a judge was about partial birth abortion instead. It's a separate issue and it's not on an equal playing field with the gay marriage issue. A better comparison/if-question would be this: What if she said that she's not in favor of interracial marriage? What if she said that she doesn't believe Jews should marry Christians?" We both know that she wouldn't have gotten away with those comments.

[Tracy]

I agree with you regarding glass houses...

Let's remember though that she was attacked "immediately" after her response, when she was still just an average citizen.

By the way, where is 'NOW' when a woman gets called a bitch and cunt from a man? Oh, I know, same place they were when three guys wore "Palin is a Cunt' tshirts whilst in Philadelphia. (So much for brotherly love.)

[Kim]

Good question about NOW. That org. could have released a couple of sentences saying that it doesn't agree with Prejean, but doesn't support Hilton's name-calling either.

Unfortunately, the truth is, NOW would probably have to hire 20 full time employees just to deal with these kind of attacks made on a daily basis all over the country (and half of them would work overtime just keeping up with Hilton's bullying of women).