FAITH IN POP CULTURE Religious Representation on Television

This study is concerned with the presence of religion and religious characters in contemporary popular culture, specifically which groups receive media attention and in what ways they are portrayed. After a careful review of studies in media, religion, and culture, American television is analyzed with a focus on the Fox medical drama House. Using both quantitative and qualitative data found in 155 episodes, the author argues that the world‐renowned television show implicitly holds an agnostic view on religious matters, leaving interpretation up to the audience. Despite many characters that are religious, atheist, or ambiguous about their beliefs, a sense of uncertainty and a lack of specificity appear to promote this idea. Caricaturizing specific beliefs and using them as plot devices also helps to hide religious representation in plain sight. Findings suggest that American popular culture has a tendency to target the broadest possible audience with regard to religiosity by presenting the most basic representation of various views without promoting any single standpoint. More research must be done to further the understanding of how religion is represented via worldwide media and how it is received by consumers. Powell 2 In an age of diverse religious plurality and global media popularity, a few questions must be asked: how do the realms of faith and popular culture intersect, intertwine, interact? How are those in power using our most complex and subtle cultural tools to construct images of differing worldviews? Religious institutions often serve as sources of social pedagogy, but the media does this as well ‐ with the additional power of teaching us how to think about other pedagogical forces (such as religion, philosophy, and academic institutions). Moreover, the universality and concentration of corporate television in modern society is telling: We are all subject to its limited views of faith and belief (Griswold 2008). To properly grasp the importance of popular culture in this regard, we must understand the relationships it has with other elements of the social world on both individual and societal levels (Croteau and Hoynes 2000). Relatively little sociological research has been conducted with the intent to better understand images of religion in popular culture. Indeed, this near vacancy remains the case in media studies “despite religion’s salient role in communication history” (Stout and Buddenbaum 2001:5). Of the literature that can be found, scholars tend to focus on news, documentaries and narrative feature films. More often than not, these authors come from a background in religious studies and focus on a singular religion (Zierler 2010; White 2011; Alleva 2010). A few authors have looked for depictions of numerous religions, but they tend to be trained in the particular medium which is investigated, major motion pictures being the most popular (Mitchell 2003). Scholars of film and video seldom adopt a sociological point of view when addressing religious content. Usually, they prioritize the history and production of movies and television over the relationships between the sociologies of media and religion. Powell 3 Studying religion in popular culture directly “contributes to media literacy” (Stout and Buddenbaum 2001:7). Analyzing the representations of religiously‐oriented cultural objects enhances our understanding of how to read, or consume, religious content as an element of cultural texts. As Jolyon Mitchell writes, “Analysis of representation, caricaturing and stereotyping of religious traditions and figures is an important part of developing any multi‐ religious approach to media, religion and culture” (2003:342). That, in short, should be a goal of sociologists of media and religion: to become aware of which religions receive representation, how they are portrayed, and what ideologies are being sent to us over the air. “Once we have a sense of how that cultural object fits into its context, we are on our way to understanding the culture as a whole” (Griswold 2008:16). RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIONS Those ideological messages we receive about religion are produced by a “cultural industry system” (Horkheimer and Adorno [1944] 1975) that transforms spiritual, philosophical, and ethical messages into products for consumption (Griswold 2008:75). Similar to the way items may be marketed to certain racial, ethnic, gender, or class groups, products are also sometimes developed to appeal to the prevailing religious ideology of the society they are produced within. However, it should not be assumed that the religiosity of a product is apparent or even univocal. Much like gendered products that are occasionally only noticed as such upon closer investigation, almost every religion bias (especially on television) is subtly hegemenous. Moreover, media producers often find generalization to be a useful tool. If a program can Powell 4 appeal to certain religious groups without necessarily pushing other groups away, that creates a larger audience/consumer draw. When speaking of religious ideology in mass communications, critical scholars often introduce the concept of propaganda. Harold D. Laswell defined propaganda as “the manipulation of symbols as a means of influencing attitudes on controversial matters” (1942:106). The question arises: to what extent does the mere presence of a religious character influence an audience’s attitude toward that religion? Does a kind‐hearted, heroic Christian make us feel better about Christianity? Does a lying, atheistic drug addict arouse negative attitudes about atheism? Essentially, what dispositions does a cultural object have the power to instill via association? The culture‐producing abilities of media are manifold. Media consumers’ views of religious groups can be reinforced, weakened, or altered through representation. Stout and Buddenbaum have argued that cults and new religious movements (NRMs) often work their way into cultural consciousness by inserting themselves into popular culture and the media (2001:42). However, the same authors go on to attest “popular culture’s power to foster new religious movements pales in contrast to mainstream popular culture’s massive ability to dilute religious traditions” (Stout and Buddenbaum 2001:43). Interestingly, it seems that rather than introducing new ideas or dismissing old ones, popular culture’s main impact on ideas about religion is often a leveling‐off effect. By this I mean that all members of a particular group will be portrayed as equivalent and homogenous. A Hindu character on American television will most likely not be a realistic representation of Hinduism, but rather a watered‐down, more digestible version which conforms to American stereotypes of that group. Complexities of a Powell 5 particular belief system and unfamiliar rituals associated with them tend to be omitted from popular culture. On the rare occasion they are included, it’s typically a voyeuristic moment to view how different other cultures are (a common anthropological malady). This stereotyping happens across the board, from the most popular religious views in America (like Protestantism) to the most socially stigmatized (like atheism). It pays (literally) to portray religious characters in a manner which will conform, or at least not disagree with, common stereotypes. Ramji writes that “Hollywood films represent all Muslims as Islamic fundamentalists” (2003:65). While this statement is clearly an overgeneralization, the idea isn’t entirely misleading. And when a Christian character appears, it makes more sense to keep his or her dialogue and actions nondenominational. By doing so, every Christian watching can assume their own beliefs are what the character represents. Likewise, every non‐Christian can think of the character as a personification of Christianity in general. In spite of these stereotypes, propaganda, and popular culture’s ability to spread its take on religion, the general public remain oblivious. From living room conversations to sociological research, religious representation is ignored. “Even when popular culture recognizes ethnic and cultural identity, it tends to ignore religiosity” (Stout and Buddenbaum 2001:44). Researchers are either unaware or afraid to talk about it. Why? It’s time to acknowledge the relationship between religion and media. RELIGION, MEDIA, AND MEANING In his classic article, “Encoding, Decoding,” Stuart Hall (1980) proposes a social framework of the semiotic paradigm. Semiotics, the study of signs and symbols as elements of Powell 6 communicative behavior and meaning‐making, can be aptly applied to both media and religion. Hall’s paradigm consists of four stages of communication: production, circulation, consumption, and reproduction. An object and its intended ideas are created and it is made available. Consumers then receive, interpret, and critique it in one way or another. Finally, that which works is reproduced with new changes, and the cycle starts over. At the beginning of each cycle, producers “encode” an intention into the symbols. On the receiving end, consumers “decode” it and arrive at their interpretations of its meaning. With religion on television, this can be easily imagined. A broadcasting company produces an episode of a series that contains religious content. Some people watch it and some don’t. Those that do will either like it or dislike it. The broadcasting company then examines audience reception, weighs the pros and cons of releasing similar material, edits the elements of the representations that seem discomforting, and produces new episodes in hopes of better ratings. Wendy Griswold writes that “at the point where human beings experience cultural objects, they have reactions, construct interpretations, and make meanings” (2008:85). The objects and symbols we encounter and consume directly impact our views of the world around us. As humans, we are driven by the need for meaningful orientation which popular culture bestows (Griswold 2008:42). That gift is made up of society’s “patterns of meaning, its enduring expressive aspects, its symbols that represent and guide the thinking, feeling, and behavior of its members” (Griswold 2008:11), all of which are embodied by the media objects it produces and reproduces. Importantly, media must produce something. Broadcasting companies are “institutional structures” which are “required to produce a program” (Hall 1980:93). Religiosity is, in essence, Powell 7 merely one of the varieties of possible program content that may be offered. Just as race/ethnic, gender and class representations often emerge as the prevailing stereotypes and culturally acceptable norms, religious content also tends to fall into the traps of giving audiences what they have learned to expect. These expectations about religion sometimes develop in guises such as “hypocritical piety” and “meaningless ceremony” (Stout and Buddenbaum 2001:45). Television is particularly important in this media communication process because it is available to just about everyone in the country. And, as Griswold points out, “virtually any competent human can master and use them. A two‐year‐old can attend to and follow a television program” (2008:103). Put simply, watching T.V. is easy. We need not be adult, educated, or even literate to consume television and the representations offered by popular culture. From childhood, television teaches the typical American how to think about all kinds of social phenomenon (such as religion) via television, although such messages are rarely made explicit. The FOX medical drama House is a particularly pertinent series to any discourse on media and religion. Frequently cited as the most watched television series in the world (Eurodata TV Worldwide), the show has a large, varied, and loyal global fan base. Interestingly, it also frequently comments on religion; well over half of the episodes aired thus far touch on the subject. Despite prime time television’s penchant for secularity (Stout and Buddenbaum 2001:43), House is a miraculously religion‐saturated program. Powell 8 DATA AND METHOD My goal is to to ascertain how media transmit cultural ideas about religion to media consumers. I chose House as a case study for multiple reasons. First, House frequently focuses on the subject of religion and faith. A number of episodes muse on the idea of religiosity, with titles such as “House vs. God,” “Damned If You Do,” “Cane and Able,” and “Instant Karma.” The titular character Dr. Gregory House is a devout atheist (pun intended) and that worldview pervades the portrayal of his character. Similarly, the religious beliefs of many characters (both hospital staff and patients) are prominently presented. House’s rejection of faith frequently enters into their discussions by way of his “God‐Complex” (“Larger Than Life,” Season 7, Episode 9) and “God‐like doctoring” (“Poison,” Season 1, Episode 8). Equally important to this sociological investigation is the popularity of the series. Currently House is the most viewed show in the world (CSI is number two) and is available globally. Despite being a dominantly verbal series (as opposed to action‐based), it is remarkably popular in non‐English speaking societies. House has been nominated for and won dozens of awards, including Emmys, Golden Globes, Golden Reels, NAACP Image Awards, Screen Actors Guild awards, Writers Guild awards, and a Peabody. In 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, House received the People’s Choice Award for Favorite TV drama, as wells as Favorite TV Drama Actor (Hugh Laurie). In 2011, the show added Favorite TV Drama Actress (Lisa Edelstein) and Favorite TV Doctor (Robert Sean Leonard) to its People’s Choice wins. A show with such accolades and universal popularity obviously has some control over which ideological messages it transmits (“intellectual force” in the terms of Karl Marx [2009:64]). On this, Griswold says that “to understand a certain group of people, one would look for the expressive forms through which Powell 9 they represent themselves to themselves” (Griswold 2008:51). The ways culture is reproduced (in Stuart Hall’s semiotic paradigm) relies on how images are transmitted and received. House is received considerably well. Wanting the most comprehensive picture possible of the representation of religion on House, I sampled all 155 episodes of the first seven seasons. I used a combined quantitative and qualitative content analysis strategy for my investigation. For my quantitative analysis, I coded for religious content using two different coding sheets. The first was a singular “overall” sheet on which I kept track of which religions were included, which were excluded, and the frequency of inclusion. Based on the religious categorization used by the CIA World Factbook, I listed the top nine American religions: Protestantism, Catholicism, Atheist/Agnostic/Unaffiliated/None, Other/Unspecified, Mormon, Judaism, Other Christianity, Buddhism, and Muslim. Throughout each episode I kept tally of which were specifically discussed. For each “Other or Unspecified” instance, I also kept track of how the representation occurred and which words were used to speak about faith. Typically, the terms “God,” “religion,” and “prayer” were kept so vague as to merit the “Other or Unspecified” categorization. The second coding sheet was episode‐specific and contained 24 possible religious ideas that could arise. These included certain characters’ views and topics such as “religion vs. atheism” and “afterlife/death.” I chose to exclude the expletive phrase “Oh my God” from my observations due to its inherent meaninglessness and ridiculously high frequency on the show. Obviously, such an utterance should not be entirely discounted. That commonplace expression is rooted in religion and embedded so deep into our culture to the point where we can fully disregard it in analysis of religion in media (which is exactly what I did). Yet, due to the nature of Powell 10 this study and my own prudence toward over‐representing religiosity on House, I omitted it. As will be seen, this exclusion certainly did not skew the findings in a noticeable way. In fact, despite leaving the phrase “Oh my God” out, the overwhelming presence of religion is still clear. Qualitatively, I used a grounded theory approach (Chambliss and Schutt 2010) to identify recurring themes, which characters promoted and/or argued against religious beliefs, and the manner in which those topics were handled. Tracking trends and identifying emergent themes proved less difficult than I had anticipated. The religious content on House is so obvious and omnipresent that I had a wealth of data speaking to me. For instance, the faith/science dichotomy (which became one of my key themes) is alluded to almost constantly in the series, and many characters take it for granted. For the most part, the quantitative data gave way to the qualitative data. RELIGION ON HOUSE House is a medical drama on Fox loosely based on classic detective mystery novels. The show focuses on the brilliant Gregory House, head of the diagnostics department at the fictional Princeton‐Plainsboro Teaching Hospital, and his team of doctors as they try to solve cases to save lives. In doing so, both doctor and patient beliefs about life, death, and religion arise. This may be expected, but religious representation on the show is surprisingly frequent and prevalent. Quantitatively, 119 instances of religious content appeared throughout 155 episodes (see bar chart, below, for a breakdown by specific religion). This excludes minor instances that could be included in a more strict analysis (such as characters saying things like “Oh my God” or Powell 11 “Go to Hell”) and references that may have simply been lost on me as a viewer. Nine different religious affiliations were discerned, including the CIA World Factbook categories of “Other or Unspecified” and “Atheist/Agnostic/Unaffiliated/None.” For the latter, I did not include anyone or anything that did not have a discernible religious status. Four major themes emerged from the quantitative and qualitative analysis, which I call “A Lack of Specificity,” “Complexities and Caricatures,” “An Overall Uncertainty,” and “Mortality and Morality.”