The conservative reaction to popular culture is often tinged with antagonism, and understandably so. When your values, morals, and beliefs are so often ridiculed, it is easy to lash out at every perceived slight. And given that Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general have gone out of their way for decades to insult the traditional values of many Americans, there is plenty of pent-up anger to be released at every opportunity.
But is such an antagonistic approach to popular culture, though understandable, really constructive? I would argue that is it is not only not constructive but is in fact counterproductive.
First, a little philosophical background on the matter. It is my conviction that human beings are made in the image of God, and as such they cannot escape reflecting that image. Our ability to choose the course of our lives, to reason, makes us fascinatingly complex. Whether we do good or evil, create conflict or resolution, or work toward destruction or redemption, human beings make great stories. The Bible itself is one long story with an amazing amount of pathos, joy, and everything in between, having happened over the course of centuries.
It so happens that among these human beings, made in the image of God, are those who write and make the stories that entertain, delight, alarm, or dismay us. Regardless of their politics, worldview, or beliefs, these people cannot escape human nature and the moral universe we all inhabit. And also regardless of their intentions in telling a story, it has been my observation that they always—wittingly or not—confirm a view of reality that corresponds with what the Bible teaches, even if only at the temporal level of morals and ethics, truth and beauty, evil and ugliness.
Hence my approach to any work of art, and specifically, in this instance, stories told on moving picture screens, begins with fascination. I watch in wonder as human beings reveal, in a myriad of ways, that we live in a universe of profound meaning, and not one we would expect to find if it were merely a product of blind chance.
This doesn’t mean that one can’t be critical of these stories, but it does allow for a much broader field of interpretation that can lead to more constructive analysis. If everyone is out to get me, as conservatives tend to believe, the world appears a most frightful place. As a consequence, too many conservatives’ approach to culture is bitter and angry.
A good example of this, along with a positive contrast, is to be found in a couple of reviews of a recent episode of Fox’s hit show House. I saw the episode before I read either article, and I thought it a typically nuanced treatment of the big issues often addressed in the show. Conservative critic Brent Bozell obviously didn’t think so, while Gina Dalfonzo did.
Reading the Bozell piece and then Dalfonzo’s article, one marvels to think that both are talking about the same show. Bozell’s paradigm sees prejudice and intolerance toward Christians in general and Catholics in particular in popular culture. This House episode gives him some possible ammunition, because a Catholic priest who has lost his faith after being accused of molesting a teenager is the focus of Dr. House’s efforts. Bozell states something very telling:
The script writers wanted everyone to assume the priest is guilty.
Well, maybe so, but how does he know this? He doesn’t; he simply assumes it, because, well, that’s just what Hollywood does. In my view, there was plenty of ambiguity in the episode, and at the end you find out that the priest is in fact not guilty. This further disappoints Bozell, because nobody seems to apologize to the poor Father.
But as Ms. Dalfonzo points out, there’s a much more important story here:
[T]he priest, realizing just how many "coincidences" had led to his healing, embraced God once again. And the good doctor was left just a little flustered.
This is far better, and more creative, than a verbal apology. Dr. House thinks his rationalism is all-powerful, when in fact it is shown to be a poor, myopic substitute for a fuller understanding of reality. And he’s more the miserable for it.
(In addition, it is only once House accepts that the priest has indeed witnessed a miracle, that the good doctor can diagnose him correctly and prescribe the appropriate treatment. Thus the hitherto extreme atheist embraces the miraculous, because he has no other explanation that fits the facts of the case. Here we see the value of House’s sincere rationality.)
The approach Bozell takes in his jeremiad against this very intelligent TV episode is typical of his work, and unfortunately also the norm for many other conservative writers as well. It is a terribly shortsighted and counterproductive approach in so many ways, not the least of which is that it distorts the truth. And on a strategic level it is an equal failure, as it misses an opportunity to affirm a traditional interpretation of our world against the pervasive nihilism that seeks to counter us at every turn.
Well, I’m looking forward to the new House episodes after Obama’s health care plan, where House finds the mystery ailment only to find out the character doesn’t qualify for the cure. Also, his drug abuse becomes a non-issue, so to increase the artistic tension, he secretly marries, has a kid and has to hide it from his peers.
I enjoyed that episode very much. “House” is a must-watch show for me (I even chose it when they scheduled it against “Chuck,” which was a hard decision). What makes “House” great from a cultural point of view is not that it’s conservative, but that you can never tell in advance what the “lesson” of the episode will be. That’s rare evenhandedness in today’s entertainment world.
I did skip the episode about the androgynous boy, though. There are limits.
Good piece, as usual, Mike. It’s a pity that Bozell — so valuable (groundbreaking, even) in his service as a counter to liberal orthodoxy in the popular culture — can miss so badly so often. He’s too much of a killjoy by reflex. His Offense-O-Meter is a bit too sensitive. And it harms “the cause” because he is such a prominent face. This blog that Sam has founded will do its part to fight on ground more worthy of battle. And I’m happy for it.
I’m a BIG fan of House, to the point that when I’m surfing around DirecTV for something to watch, my wife and I will often choose a re-run of a House episode over a “new” episode of something else. The show is just captivating — and it doesn’t hurt that Hugh Lawrie is the best actor on American TV today, with the most compelling character to play. Bar none. Lawrie, a comedic British actor by trade, manages to give such a broadly drawn character a delightful dose of subtlety, nuance and mirth (yeah … I have a bit of a man-crush. Sue me.)
Anyway, one of the things that is immediately attractive about House to a conservative is its protagonist. He’s about as un-PC as it gets. He’s sexist towards the female doctors Cuddy and Cameron. He’s makes racist cracks at the black Dr. Foreman and the Indian-American “Dr. Kumar!” (as I call the character played by Kal Penn). The targets of his ire, being adults brush it off, give a little back (if they’re up for it), and move on with their lives. They are not destroyed by mere language. They accept House for who he is: A brilliant, aggressively antagonistic man whose personality is essential to who he is. Just seeing such “tolerance” toward House’s antics is revolutionary in today’s culture. For that alone, the show has enormous value, and makes it a bit of a “guilty” pleasure for this conservative.
I’m Catholic and saw the episode in question — and to be honest, I was bracing for trouble. Maybe it’s because I’ve known a cynical, drunken priest who was a good man, but troubled. I gave the Fr. Dan of my teen years a fair shake, and was rewarded. I figured this episode of House wouldn’t — for good reason. I remembered a previous episode featuring a teen-aged “faith healer” whom House outed as a charlatan (in his eyes). The kid and his parents were merely mistaken, and were made to question their beliefs (at least partly) after medical science revealed the truth. And though I didn’t enjoy the episode as much as others, I let it pass. For a show that is so often overtly and unapologetically contrarian to liberal shibboleths, it was an affordable toll.
So it was a great surprise to see the “drunken, cynical Catholic priest” episode play out. As you note, in the end the priest regained his faith. His innocence was proved to House and his medical team — who presumed him guilty of molestation. The priest, who entered the show with just “a job,” regained a calling.
How Bozell missed that … well, he has axes to grind. He just picked the wrong ax. Bozell writes:
Yes. Our “sex-drenched society” thinks that’s freakish. But the priest in the show insisted that he’d been celibate. It was medically proven — at least in the fact that an STD wasn’t the source of his ailment. What’s Bozell’s beef?
So what that the doctors didn’t “apologize” for their false assumptions. The audience — which Bozell doesn’t give much credit to — realize the truth. And the fact that the doctors don’t apologize overtly (I think the regret on their faces is telling) is an indictment of them, not the priest or the faithful.