George Orwell when he wrote 1984 in 1948 envisaged a totalitarian world where cameras were everywhere and the unseen voice of Big Brother controlled every aspect of life and only two months ago in a poll conducted by the Guardian Newspaper online the book received 22% of the votes to decide which work of fiction best defined the twentieth century. Others works featured in the top ten included Huxley's Brave New World, The Diary of Anne Frank, Catcher in the Rye, The Grapes of Wrath and Bridget Jones Diary.
According to a recent radio programme there are more surveillance cameras per head of population in the UK than anywhere else and in one of two visits to separate surveillance centres, I learnt that that there are no limits to what people will do in public places especially when they are aware of being on camera. Thirty years ago I suggested to an incredulous group of international business men that people would pay to watch people in their everyday round the clock activities, but I suspect Mr Orwell would be even more incredulous to learn that fifty years after writing his work, people all over the world commenced to volunteer in hundreds of thousands to do just that, spend several months in a confined area, being watched by cameras day and night and by anyone anywhere in the world through the internet, and with TV channels also showing the situation live as well as a variety of special programmes ranging from psychological and psychiatric assessments to a weekly programme where members of the public vote to evict one or more of the participants, sometimes to be replaced by new arrivals.
However not only are the programmes, adopted in countries throughout five continents, called Big Brother House, but programme leaders are called Big Brother and exercise totalitarian control over participants individually and collectively. There is the carrot of what has become a substantial monetary sum £100000, and celebrity status albeit for perhaps a week nationally, with only someone, now and again translating their success into an ongoing career, but for most their lives are significantly changed by the experience.
This week has been given over to Big Brother, especially after finding that I could watch key events live online, not shown on the TV channels, and because of the decision of the programme controllers to radically disturb the dynamics of the situation in original ways. The remaining participants comprising immature twin girls, two single typical young men without the benefit of further education, whose like we tend to send to war as infantrymen, one brighter young man, a Machiavellian former popstar and his equally manipulative bedmate, plus a controlling and manipulative mother figure, and an eccentric, boring but popular with public thirty year old were suddenly confronted with five newcomers, as they bid farewell to an aggressive hothead, and then the female bedmate of the former popstar who decided to walk out when she could not get her own way.
The first twist is that the five newcomers were placed in an inferior accommodation half way house and were given individual four hour slots to enter the main house and make their pitch for being the two to enter as full participants, with the sting that an existing housemate had to move into the half way unit. Then the three newcomers and one former main house participants were set a competition with the prize of re-entry, with the twist that the successful individual had to chose an existing main housemate to transfer over in their place.
After twenty four hours the programme controllers pulled their masterstroke by announcing that all four half way participants would move into the main house and they had two minutes to nominate those to take their place. These four would face a public eviction vote today. This had the effect of bringing the worst out of everyone who almost without exception turned on Amy, the glamour model. There was something of a come uppance tonight when the two faced predatory male was evicted to great acclaim along with the stripper who funked the team task and too easily went for Amy as the scapegoat for the somersaulting changing of position as well as making a play for Ziggy, thus confirming the psychological assessments that one was too devious for his own good and other had little perception of how others perceived her behaviour.
I suggest that the success of the programme is not only due to the natural childhood desire to make ourselves the centre of attention and our natural sense of curiosity which have no limits until controlled by our parents and relatives, and then being in school, although the boundaries in these respects have been changing. There is also the development of group dynamics in a stressful competitive situation and where each week there is a "Feeding the Christians to the Lions" situation.
What surprises me is that the participants purport to have viewed the programme before and presumably have sat down with others and worked out how the public respond as well as what devices and manoeuvres the programme controllers use to develop and maintain an audience. This does involve mixing those who are uneducated and unworldly with those who are, those who have considerable self awareness and perception about the behaviour of others with those who have little, and our general dislike of those who put on an act to gain our attention which does not reflect their actual personalities, or behave in an unscrupulous and devious fashion to those who are unable to defend themselves emotionally and psychologically. The character Charlie was a classic in the respect and everyone enjoyed the loud having a go catfight between her and Chanelle because we knew they were both capable of taking it, but when Charlie put the boot into alleged friend Brian, she crossed the line and became damned. The mid thirties stripper who bared her boobs on the first night that she entered the house was endearing because of her vulnerability, her lack of self deception, and limited social skills, but she became doomed with the established group when she failed to even have a go at consuming a pint of mayonnaise, and the public noted the reaction of the group.
This year the two most interesting participants left early. One a self made millionaire left prematurely because of the expected death of an elderly relative and the realization that personal and family relationships were more important to him than his wealth, or pursing challenges to their limits. You knew he had become enriched by his experience of only a couple of weeks and he would have a better life and enrich the lives of others in a meaningful way as a consequence of participation in the programme. The other was that of a successful head hunter who spent her professional life applying psychological knowledge and skills about individual and group behaviour to identify the best candidates for specific occupational roles and tasks and had a lifestyle which involved designer clothes, fast cars and help in the home. When she entered the home she had the knowledge immediately helped her to assess the others and identify a role for herself which achieved some acceptability but as soon she realised she did not possess the drive or inclination to throw herself into the front line she resigned her commission. In war time this would have been branded cowardice, but in the nature of this programme it was self preservation common sense.
I also feel that the young lady who let slip a word which the wicked natured and clever street fighter Charlie milked for all is worth under the banner of racism was made something of scapegoat for the situation which developed last year, but that her departure was inevitable in the circumstances because of the important social change achieved in our society over the last two decades. Once it was no only within the confines of private homes that racism was commonplace, but in most workplaces and social situations, and even today the expression of such sentiments continues but has become less explicit. These normal prejudices have been successfully suppressed because as an economic society we urgently needed to move into being an integrated and effectively functioning multi racial society admitting a variety of people of different races and cultures to the countries which form the UK and respectful and equality trading with their homelands across all continents. The consequence is that most children going to school today will be oblivious to the prejudice of their grandparents and will respond with horror when they come across examples of prejudice in films and books. If only a similar social change could be masterminded through a programme such as Big Brother in relation to smoking and swearing. It would be a simple measure to exclude all applicants who smoke and who cannot talk for ten seconds without swearing.
I have experienced a number of intense group situations during my life, one of six months, one of a year, one of a month and several lasting from a few days to two weeks involving diverse strangers. Over all I floundered to begin with, in one instance disastrously, but when there was time, picked up, and sometimes finished with a good flourish, but that was all over a decade ago and I now know that my time has past for wanting and being able to cope with such a challenge. I do have one wicked suggestion for a series in which the programme controllers, editors and presenters become the participants though.
According to a recent radio programme there are more surveillance cameras per head of population in the UK than anywhere else and in one of two visits to separate surveillance centres, I learnt that that there are no limits to what people will do in public places especially when they are aware of being on camera. Thirty years ago I suggested to an incredulous group of international business men that people would pay to watch people in their everyday round the clock activities, but I suspect Mr Orwell would be even more incredulous to learn that fifty years after writing his work, people all over the world commenced to volunteer in hundreds of thousands to do just that, spend several months in a confined area, being watched by cameras day and night and by anyone anywhere in the world through the internet, and with TV channels also showing the situation live as well as a variety of special programmes ranging from psychological and psychiatric assessments to a weekly programme where members of the public vote to evict one or more of the participants, sometimes to be replaced by new arrivals.
However not only are the programmes, adopted in countries throughout five continents, called Big Brother House, but programme leaders are called Big Brother and exercise totalitarian control over participants individually and collectively. There is the carrot of what has become a substantial monetary sum £100000, and celebrity status albeit for perhaps a week nationally, with only someone, now and again translating their success into an ongoing career, but for most their lives are significantly changed by the experience.
This week has been given over to Big Brother, especially after finding that I could watch key events live online, not shown on the TV channels, and because of the decision of the programme controllers to radically disturb the dynamics of the situation in original ways. The remaining participants comprising immature twin girls, two single typical young men without the benefit of further education, whose like we tend to send to war as infantrymen, one brighter young man, a Machiavellian former popstar and his equally manipulative bedmate, plus a controlling and manipulative mother figure, and an eccentric, boring but popular with public thirty year old were suddenly confronted with five newcomers, as they bid farewell to an aggressive hothead, and then the female bedmate of the former popstar who decided to walk out when she could not get her own way.
The first twist is that the five newcomers were placed in an inferior accommodation half way house and were given individual four hour slots to enter the main house and make their pitch for being the two to enter as full participants, with the sting that an existing housemate had to move into the half way unit. Then the three newcomers and one former main house participants were set a competition with the prize of re-entry, with the twist that the successful individual had to chose an existing main housemate to transfer over in their place.
After twenty four hours the programme controllers pulled their masterstroke by announcing that all four half way participants would move into the main house and they had two minutes to nominate those to take their place. These four would face a public eviction vote today. This had the effect of bringing the worst out of everyone who almost without exception turned on Amy, the glamour model. There was something of a come uppance tonight when the two faced predatory male was evicted to great acclaim along with the stripper who funked the team task and too easily went for Amy as the scapegoat for the somersaulting changing of position as well as making a play for Ziggy, thus confirming the psychological assessments that one was too devious for his own good and other had little perception of how others perceived her behaviour.
I suggest that the success of the programme is not only due to the natural childhood desire to make ourselves the centre of attention and our natural sense of curiosity which have no limits until controlled by our parents and relatives, and then being in school, although the boundaries in these respects have been changing. There is also the development of group dynamics in a stressful competitive situation and where each week there is a "Feeding the Christians to the Lions" situation.
What surprises me is that the participants purport to have viewed the programme before and presumably have sat down with others and worked out how the public respond as well as what devices and manoeuvres the programme controllers use to develop and maintain an audience. This does involve mixing those who are uneducated and unworldly with those who are, those who have considerable self awareness and perception about the behaviour of others with those who have little, and our general dislike of those who put on an act to gain our attention which does not reflect their actual personalities, or behave in an unscrupulous and devious fashion to those who are unable to defend themselves emotionally and psychologically. The character Charlie was a classic in the respect and everyone enjoyed the loud having a go catfight between her and Chanelle because we knew they were both capable of taking it, but when Charlie put the boot into alleged friend Brian, she crossed the line and became damned. The mid thirties stripper who bared her boobs on the first night that she entered the house was endearing because of her vulnerability, her lack of self deception, and limited social skills, but she became doomed with the established group when she failed to even have a go at consuming a pint of mayonnaise, and the public noted the reaction of the group.
This year the two most interesting participants left early. One a self made millionaire left prematurely because of the expected death of an elderly relative and the realization that personal and family relationships were more important to him than his wealth, or pursing challenges to their limits. You knew he had become enriched by his experience of only a couple of weeks and he would have a better life and enrich the lives of others in a meaningful way as a consequence of participation in the programme. The other was that of a successful head hunter who spent her professional life applying psychological knowledge and skills about individual and group behaviour to identify the best candidates for specific occupational roles and tasks and had a lifestyle which involved designer clothes, fast cars and help in the home. When she entered the home she had the knowledge immediately helped her to assess the others and identify a role for herself which achieved some acceptability but as soon she realised she did not possess the drive or inclination to throw herself into the front line she resigned her commission. In war time this would have been branded cowardice, but in the nature of this programme it was self preservation common sense.
I also feel that the young lady who let slip a word which the wicked natured and clever street fighter Charlie milked for all is worth under the banner of racism was made something of scapegoat for the situation which developed last year, but that her departure was inevitable in the circumstances because of the important social change achieved in our society over the last two decades. Once it was no only within the confines of private homes that racism was commonplace, but in most workplaces and social situations, and even today the expression of such sentiments continues but has become less explicit. These normal prejudices have been successfully suppressed because as an economic society we urgently needed to move into being an integrated and effectively functioning multi racial society admitting a variety of people of different races and cultures to the countries which form the UK and respectful and equality trading with their homelands across all continents. The consequence is that most children going to school today will be oblivious to the prejudice of their grandparents and will respond with horror when they come across examples of prejudice in films and books. If only a similar social change could be masterminded through a programme such as Big Brother in relation to smoking and swearing. It would be a simple measure to exclude all applicants who smoke and who cannot talk for ten seconds without swearing.
I have experienced a number of intense group situations during my life, one of six months, one of a year, one of a month and several lasting from a few days to two weeks involving diverse strangers. Over all I floundered to begin with, in one instance disastrously, but when there was time, picked up, and sometimes finished with a good flourish, but that was all over a decade ago and I now know that my time has past for wanting and being able to cope with such a challenge. I do have one wicked suggestion for a series in which the programme controllers, editors and presenters become the participants though.
No comments:
Post a Comment