Big Brother and I

I have never been a big fan of “Soap Opera’s” because I believe they can trivialise, and make entertainment of, issues that are the cause of great distress to some people.

I am though a great fan of good “reality television”, (I guess it’s the people watching; amateur psychologist inside me that led me into Social Work). I am particularly a fan of “Big Brother” and when I was lecturing, I was one of only two people in the staff room who were prepared to admit this.

I think this series has been the best for some time. Because the “hysterics” and the “bullies” were evicted relatively early we have had a chance to get to know in depth the more interesting contestants who are usually inhibited by the aforementioned types of personality and end up being unfairly evicted for being boring. (I certainly would not feel able to be true to myself in the company of some of the characters from the last three series including the first six weeks of this one).

I am though (in forums and to Channel 4) a fairly strong critic of some of the “Psychologists” who lend their professional title to the “On The Couch” spin off show. As professionals I have a problem with them sanctioning “punishments” such as the withdrawal of basic necessities, food and sleep, which they know are character altering punishments pushing people to limits they will never experience to the same extent in their own lives, therefore providing inaccurate examples of the contestants’ real behaviour.

As a humanist I have a problem with those Professionals, and Channel 4, sanctioning actions outlawed by the United Nations Declaration Of Human Rights. The claim that contestants know what they are signing up to does not carry weight with me. Contestants on these shows have demonstrated a degree of desperation to become celebrities by entering the show in the first place, and in my opinion, no professional “carer” should be a party to taking advantage of this desperation and using it as an excuse to treat them in what (the U.N. would say) is an inhumane manner.

I was amazed a couple of weeks ago when one of these experts, (a psychiatrist I think), raised the name of my hero Erving Goffman:

(see http://brianbeesblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Goffman%20Essay
and http://brianbeesblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Self%20Help)

and his (Goffman’s) concept of “Total Institution”. He quoted Goffman’s work to illustrate the way the contestants are adopting what Goffman would term an “Inmate Mentality”. Having done so I would have expected an ethical professional to also point out that Goffman also identified a “Staff World”. In this “Staff World” those trusted with the welfare of the inmates, lose sight of the humanity of their “inmates” and drive them to unacceptable levels of stress in the interest of experimentation, or, perhaps even worse, in the interest of entertainment. To explain this further I need to digress.

Did you see the Reality TV programme about three years ago in which people were split into Prison Officers and Prisoners. The programme was based on a “real” psychological experiment carried out during the 1970’s at the Department of Psychology, Stanford University, California, USA, under the director of Professor Phillip Zimbardo. The experiment went completely wrong, the students chosen to be Prison Officers became so absorbed in the power they had over fellow students chosen to be prisoners that they began to exercise their power over their colleagues in cruel and dangerous ways.

Equally alarming were the ways in which the “prisoners” submitted to the abusive treatment of the guards, giving in to the “role” imposed upon them even though they could have complained and walked away at any time they wanted to.

Following the premature ending of the experiment after the intervention of a third party Phillip Zimbardo admitted his surprise that he had become so involved in the research implications of the observed behaviour that he was desensitised to the affects of the abuses of power and the cruel treatment of the “prisoners”. It was in fact a professional colleague invited by Phil Zimbardo to observe what he (Zimbardo) still perceived purely as a marvellous experiment, who pointed out the inhumane ways in which the prisoners were being treated. Immediately Zimbardo was confronted with the fact that he and his team had become “task” as opposed to “people orientated” he called as halt to the experiment.

What has this to do with the Big Brother TV programme? Read on.

My concern is not only that the Big Brother Psychiatrist drew attention to the “Total Institution” aspects of the BB House without acknowledging this “Staff World”. I am further concerned that the Psychiatrist in question, along with other psychologists involved in the programme, appear to have been drawn into the excitement of being involved in the broader experimental nature of the programme. I think this occurs to such an extent that they no longer see the “real people” inside the one-dimensional characters the programme makers create through showing only certain characteristics of individual housemates.

There are times when the psychologists speak of the housemates in caring tones but the inferences they draw from housemate behaviour demonstrate, (usually through things that are not said), that they have no idea of the overall personality of the housemate. Their observations are absolutely out of step with the observations of viewers, posted on internet message boards, who observe the behaviour of the housemates as often as possible during any twenty-four hour period.

In the context of this article it is alarming how often the testers come up with a character trait that supports the trait of a housemate that is currently being emphasised by programme editors, and spoken of in detail by presenters of “spin off” programmes. Perhaps the most alarming thing is that the behaviour traits, (and subsequent “labels”) presenters attach to contestants based on these distortions of the truth, are often first identified and voiced by the most aggressive or spiteful characters in the house for negative reasons.

I wonder if these professionals ever take account of the possible long term affects for housemate Y about whom they say: “So here is the evidence that housemate X is correct to label housemate Y as dishonest”. Even worse, they forget that within their professional circle powerful terms such as “manipulative” or “paranoid” or “devious” are applied to clients with no judgemental intent. These terms might be the verbal currency of the professional but to the layperson some of these terms carry very negative connotations.

My major concern here has been the lack of acknowledgement of the existence of the “Staff World” dynamics between Medical Professionals, Presenters, and Programme Makers throughout the current (and previous) series of Big Brother in the UK. I could draw on many examples from the current series to illustrate the things I have said above, I think two, concerning the same young woman, will suffice.

This young woman suffered depression last year following the painful decision to abort a foetus and the subsequent break down of the relationship that had led to the pregnancy. The programme makers and their psychologists were aware of these factors (and those relating to her very stressful childhood) when they deemed her able to cope with the stresses incurred by housemates on the programme. A vivacious young woman initially, she gradually became visibly depressed as the series progressed. This was partly through forming a relationship with a man in the house in which the “experts” assessed she was being manipulated by the man to his own ends: and partly through being scapegoated and bullied by this seasons “villain”, who the experts chose to describe as being “assertive and honest”.

(This denial and minimising of bullying behaviour by all members of the production staff is not new, it happens every year, passed of as “Good Telly” by the presenters whose “Staff World” mentality appears to obscure the impact of such behaviour on those who are targeted and endure it.) A quick journey around the message boards provides insight to the outrage felt by observers whose opinions are not affected by the need to provide “Good Telly”).

As the weeks progressed the young woman began to react quite hysterically, sometimes within view the housemates group, sometimes in the supposedly supportive and protective privacy of the “diary room”. The bully and her clique began to label the woman “copy cat”, claiming she was falsely duplicating the behaviour of a popular contestant from the previous series. The presenters, as they have done consistently across all series, began to respond and repeat the persecuting group’s opinion’s, giving acceptance and showing approval of the persecutory behaviour.

In fact, the non-experts such as me, who inhabit the notice boards, could see at once a major difference between the behaviour of last year’s housemate and this years. Last years housemate would exaggerate her reactions to things she found unfavourable in a manner, which often left her laughing at herself. Our young woman this year was clearly in genuine distress, and making genuine requests for help, through her hysteria. One presenter who had found the behaviour of last year’s contestant entertaining and funny began to laugh at and joke about the distress of this year’s contestant. I was relieved when, for once, one of the psychologists told the presenter that we were observing genuine distress being expressed in a manner that was concerning. The reaction of the presenter was to continue laughing even while the psychologist was explaining this to her. She apologised saying, “I know it’s real but I can’t help finding it funny”. Despite having been told she was witnessing genuine distress the presenter repeated these actions and words many times during subsequent shows right up to the the point the contestant could take no more and walked off the show.

Absolute “Staff World” behaviour, and out of character. I believe (based on aspects of her personality shown on other programmes, and other editions of this one) that Davina McCall, the presenter, is a very caring lover of humanity. Her continuing belief it was ok to laugh, and to continue laughing even when told (basically), this is not funny, is excused in that Staff World in the interest of “good telly”. To please the other occupants of that “world” she put aside her own sensitivities and continued with the behaviour that is rewarded within the Staff World. For these reasons I can forgive Davina McCall but not the psychologist who I believe had an ethical obligation (particularly regarding the supposedly confidential Diary Room content), to say, this is real, these emotions should not be used for entertainment. Why didn’t he or any of his professional colleagues say these things? Because they also inhabit that staff world where the interests of the staff world, “Good Telly”, and possibly their own advancement within the medium, take precedent over the needs of vulnerable “inmates”.

Three weeks after the above incidents our vulnerable inmate had experienced the elation of thinking her main adversary had been evicted and having that happiness snatched away 30 minutes later when her adversary was readmitted. (I guess this was done in the cause of entertainment but just whose entertainment is unclear because the adversarial behaviour had led to almost universal condemnation and both media and private complaints to Channel 4).

The following week she became hysterical once again when asked to carry out a group task wearing what she perceived to be a “Pregnant Woman’s” dress. The half of the housemates with whom she had shared her history, with the exception of her adversary, all understood her predicament, the other half, including the man she usually turned to for support, berated her.

Here I can forgive the other inmates any shortcomings because they were all involved with their own stress in respect of their inmate duties. However, I once again found myself thinking, “Where are her protectors from the Staff World? The people she trusted with the most intimate secrets of her sad short life so they could take care of her whenever that was necessary”. These “power people” knew she had the abortion a few months ago. Even if the needs of the task led the task setters to forgot this history, she reminded them of it the second she said, “I can’t wear a pregnant woman’s dress”. Once again the culture of the Staff group overrode the needs of a vulnerable “inmate”. This, to such an extent, that the episode was shown for entertainment on both the main show and the spin offs. The producers, nor psychologists, provided balance by mentioning the history.

I started off here saying I am perplexed by the involvement of the Psychiatric and Psychological professions in the Big Brother TV show. I have explained my view that the “Staff World” culture of the programme leads them to act unethically, allowing the needs of “Entertainment” to take precedent over the human “rights” of people placed in a vulnerable position. I have expressed my opinion that these professionals have an ethical obligation to speak out and tell Big Brother when they see abuse of individuals taking place, that they have an obligation to remember that what is “Interesting Behaviour” to them, is possibly detrimental to the person on the receiving end of that behaviour. I also believe they have an obligation to point out that the negative behaviour of some individuals should be stopped in the long term interest of the individual, not encouraged in the name of entertainment.

Finally, in respect of the young woman whose experiences I drew upon to make the examples above, if she should ever read this I hope it is clear that I am full of admiration for the way she handled a very traumatic experience, and I am going to finish this piece with her words.

If I were a psychologist with a brief to advise on the welfare of people on a television programme, I think I might view it as throwing self on sword time if someone I had already known was especially vulnerable before she started out on the programme, walked out of the programme a few weeks later saying “I would have gone mad if I had stayed in there one more day”. Within the staff world of course they will all be saying “her choices, her responsibility”.

Luv Brian