I just watched Primetime yesterday, September 26th. (obviously this is dated atp) I kind of knew what was going to happen because I had already written a paper on this exact real life scenario (the article the movie was based off of)- three years ago, for a class titled Ethics in Business, Government, and Society. Reader, in case you have somehow forgotten, I was a Political Science major at a small liberal arts school. Please factor this into your interpretation moving forward.
The several hints to the then-ongoing Afghanistan war during the film got me thinking. As did seeing descriptions of this film as a post-9/11 movie- one that demonstrates the societal need to seek vengeance on someone, somehow, somewhere, even if that driving anger is misguided.
The brief conversation between Hansen and the man on the plane (Creed from The Office??) was also of note- and exemplified the film’s treatment of subjects like performativity, retribution, and spectatorship. This is so up my alley.
Being the overanalytical aspiring critical theorist that I am, I walked out of the theatre thinking about Lacan’s Real and Other, conceptions of ‘perverse’ justice, and the commodification of vengeance, all topics which are fundamental to a sound understanding of today’s current political and social conditions. What follows is a fragmented attempt to understand how each of these elements play out in Lance Oppenheim’s ‘Primetime’, while drawing on the work of several prominent theorists.
(Okay so its been a while since I actually attempted to write something coherent, so I’m just gonna copy and paste some of my notes from a few sources, and include some of my thoughts-I’ll put it in like italics or something so you know its me. I’d rather let you draw your own conclusions from the film- I’ll just give some background info to guide my(maybe your!) understanding of the film)
Quick Background on Lacan- Psychoanalytic Film Theory
From UChicago Theories of Media Glossary
“"The symbolic," "the real," and "the imaginary" all have individual OED definitions, all relate to something significant in our daily sense of the world, all evoke meanings and references independent of each other. We seek out (or avoid) the Real World; we have Imaginary Friends; we experience Symbolic Moments.
However, if we’re talking about media, perception, and representation, we begin with the symbolic-real-imaginary triad of Jacques Lacan’s three psychoanalytic orders, developed during a series of lectures in the 1950’s. In the Lacanian arena, the symbolic-real-imaginary forms a trio of intrapsychic realms which comprise the various levels of psychic phenomena. They serve to situate subjectivity within a system of perception and a dialogue with the external world. Since perception, subject formation, language and image are common stakeholders in both psychoanalytic and mediatic discourses, theories of media (in their various forms and abstractions) are embedded with invocations of these three Lacanian orders and a further concern with their interplay. In a general sense, attempts to theorize media in terms of the intricate and slippery border between the internal and the external, discussions of language, image, sound…often begin with Lacan’s infantile mirror stage and further align the continued reproduction of subjectivity with the influences of external stimuli such as media.”
Crimes and Punishments- Ethical Analysis of To Catch a Predator
Ok now seems like an appropriate time to mention that I took a Political Theory class called Punishment a few years ago.
From Caught in the Web: Exposing To Catch A Predator, MA Thesis, Mark Magidson
“Analysis of the content of each episode (of TCAP) revealed broader social implications for what is being communicated throughout the course of the show, and how it is being communicated to audiences. To Catch a Predator’s portrayal of justice, through specific methods of undercover surveillance and public punishment through shaming, reveals how partnerships between private and public institutions can function to communicate messages of the state. Further examination of the episodes provide insight into how the relationships between private citizens including Perverted Justice (dearest loyal readers if you’ve seen the movie, did you know that this was based on a true story before going in? Or did you find out at the credits at the end? How did that potential reveal effect your understanding of the movie?), local law enforcement, and institutions of mass-media can communicate message of sexual morality, punishment, and the need for social control within the United States.”
Ok emphasis added duh
Flock?
(from Lit review)- “David Garland’s study of the death penalty, Peculiar Institutions: America’s Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition, offered an important theoretical roadmap for understanding how historical cultural, legal, and political shifts influence public attitudes towards punishment within the United States. Garland’s analysis provided a theoretical framework for understanding how American attitudes towards punishment of sexual deviants can be best defined as political theatre, representing cultural consumption more than it is an instrument of the state.”
Pete Hegseth live execution?
“As seen in Garland’s findings, To Catch a Predator’s “re-insertion of the victim’s supporters into the process, [suggesting] a movement toward a form of justice that is popular rather than professional” (Garland 2007: 445).”
“Kitsuse’s theoretical framework works to identify the ways in which a deviant’s conception of self is conceived to be constrained by the morality of those who define and stigmatize him or her (Kitsuse 1964: 56). First, an audience must interpret the actions of a specific actor as deviant. The title of the show reveals that a predator is being caught, while television viewers (ok but I want to interrogate this idea further- obviously the audience is ‘participating’ by watching, but a TV audience’s sole function is to like… passively consume, not participate. Is passively consuming ‘justice’, and therefore other political ideals equivalent to participating in the processes of achieving them? My argument is no, as I’m sure you could have guessed.) Dateline crews, members of Perverted Justice, and law enforcement agencies are collectively participating in the capture. Each episode identities the suspect as the source of deviance and distrust within society while the rest of society, including police, media institutions, and private citizens are working together to fight criminal and moral threats.”
““The second component of Kitsuse’s model reflects the process of categorizing, or labeling, individual actors as deviant in relationship to other actors within society. To Catch a Predator emphasizes categorizing actors as irredeemable deviants, and functions to justify the ostracism of deviants in society while highlighting new forms of social control against deviants. Some additional variables that influence the ways in which actors are seen as deviant in selected episodes include intensity, visibility, and audience power to magnify the image creation of the sexual predator. Each confrontation is a dramatic exchange between accuser – Chris Hanson on behalf of us, the public – and the accused, takes place in a highly visible setting, and likely creates long-lasting stigma against the accused.” (popular vs. professional justice– is stigma our end goal for the criminal here? What would true justice look like in this situation, beyond just recognition and stigma?)
“Becker defines a moral entrepreneur (super interesting concept- which public figures or politicians are moral entrepreneurs today? My mind goes to someone like James Talarico, Angie Nixon (COME ON FLORIDA!!!!), or Zohran Mamdani) as a defender of social values; one who justifies the actions as a means for achieving a desired result (Becker 1963: 150). Hanson’s presence as a moral entrepreneur is seen through his universal role as the father, state, and defender of social values.”
“During the confrontation, when suspects ask Hanson if they will be punished, he claims he has no such authority and they are free to leave the decoy house. As seen in all selected episodes, Hanson’s role as moral entrepreneur ensures his main point has been won, while leaving the implementation of reaching his goal to others, including private and public methods of enforcement (Becker 1963: 152). The sexual and social threat seen in each episode is exclusively framed as an issue created, confronted, and solved by an authoritative man.”
So clearly Hanson knows his limits as a moral, but NOT political/social figure. He leaves the implementation of the law to others. Once again, popular, not professional, justice.
I want to question the idea that the issue is actually ‘solved’ by Hanson- the ‘authoritative man’. Primetime is an excellent film because Oppenheimer documents how the issue is confronted while immersing the audience in the culture that created the widespread desire to solve said issues. I think this same pattern can be applied to ‘You Can See Everything’ probably.
“Therefore, although state-sanctioned forms of punishment have moved behind prison walls, public punishment as a spectacle continues to express itself through unofficial forms of justice, as seen on To Catch a Predator. The show’s depiction of punishment as a public spectacle also facilitates societal desire to inflict revenge upon a suspected predator. The images of sexual predators getting exposed, confronted, and arrested reflects the “public’s appetite for ever more public, ever more humiliating, and ever more stigmatizing forms of retribution” (Lancaster 2012: 3026-3029).”
““The forms of public humiliation and shaming on "To Catch a Predator" reflect the blurring boundaries between mass-media institutions and law and order institutions, and the ways in which ideas of punishment and social control are defined. In the latter half of the twentieth century, the rise in the criminal justice entertainment industry, as seen in popular television programming, has expanded the increasingly complex role entertainment assumes in creating knowledge of criminal threats within society. These expansions led to heightened forms of shaming and humiliation shaped through the lens of privatized policing efforts.”
Okay so we have quickly left the age of shame thru private citizens and are now in some kind of punishment thru private corporations type thing.
“Some scholars have argued that modern forms of shaming through public punishment may be linked to a “public collective outrage at a criminal justice system to be ineffectual” (Kohm 2009: 190). The need to visualize and celebrate public shaming amplifies the public’s desire to place the role of punishment in the hand of private citizens and companies. By bridging the gaps between effective law enforcement and sexual morality within society, To Catch a Predator helps satiate the audience’s hunger for visible proofs of justice.”
“To Catch a Predator casts society as a collection of suspicious neighbors and strangers. This in part, is reflected in the new and evolving role technology has assumed in surveillance against deviant behavior. These technologically advanced “modes of surveillance [can] multiply in the community, at schools, in the workplace—and increasingly citizens are primed to crave new techniques of supervision, which are silently disseminated across the landscape” (Lancaster 2012: 4926-4927). By providing technologies for surveillance, To Catch a Predator “acts as a bridge between online vigilantes and cash-strapped local police forces,” and therefore enjoys great authority in shaping public awareness of and response to sexual predators (Kohm 2009: 196). The show is simultaneously encouraging distrust amongst neighbors, community members, and online networks, while promoting absolute trust in the messages presented through mass media, the state, and both private and public law enforcement.”
Intermission/Brain Break
If I was attempting to present this info as a lesson, –which, I kind of am– I would recommend taking a break here. If I was teaching my fifth graders, we would take a stretch break and play 20 questions for a few minutes. Maybe you could play the Wordle or something.
Repressive Desublimation
From Wendy Brown’s “Neoliberalism’s Frankenstein: Authoritarian Freedom in Twenty-First Century “Democracies” “
Okay this isn’t Primetime/TCAP-focused but it’s another key to my understanding of the film. Most of what follows is my notes on the article.
White backlash against globalism and neoliberalism personifies itself through… populism, fascism, voting for Trump? (some kind of repressive desublimation?)
Brown uses Hayek, Nietzsche, and Marcuse to uncover the logics and effects of neoliberalism
Neoliberal rationality is different than ideology (a distortion or mystification of reality)-- neoliberal rationality is “productive, world-making: it economizes every sphere and human endeavor and replaces a model of society based on the justice-producing social contract with society conceived and organized as markets and with states oriented by market requirements.”
Neoliberal freedom is “equated wholly with the pursuit of private ends, it is appropriately unregulated, and it is largely exercised to enhance the value, competitive positioning, or market share of a person or firm. Its sole political significance is negative– flourishing where politics and especially government are absent.”
Under neoliberalism, social justice is misguided as it inevitably attempts to replace traditional morality with one group’s idea of the Good
This is where moral entrepreneurship, and TCAP come into play!
“In the US, as neoliberal rationality has widened and deepened its hold, this abstract principle of securing personal freedom against the presumed coerciveness of political life has unfolded concretely in both legislation and popular discourse.”
Expanding this form of privatization (personal protected sphere) is a way to usher family values and claims into public spaces
Examples of ‘opting out’- private school vouchers and letting businesses discriminate based on religion
“In short, expanding the “personal, protected sphere” and curtailing the reach of democracy in the name of freedom develops a new ethos of the nation, one that replaces a public, pluralistic, secular democratic national imaginary with a private, homogenous, familial one.”
Reminded of Lakoff’s political metaphors- https://wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
“Rights are strategically redeployed from their intended attachment to individuals to something else– corporations, property, capital, families, churches, whiteness.”
“Extending the purview of the private and extending the disintegrative force of de-regulation to everything everywhere enables a novel practice of freedom to quite literally materialize the claim that “there is no such thing as society” as it assaults the values and the practices sustaining social bonds, social inclusion, social cooperation, social provision, and, of course, social equality.”
Ok so that was the logic of fascist neoliberal governing reason- here comes the affective energies
Present condition of political neoliberal globalism cannot be reversed, but “can be politically instrumentalized”
Whites did not really experience an economic decline, but experiences lost entitlement to politically, socially, and economically reproduced supremacism
One of the most important concepts I learned from my Political Science advisor and professor was ‘relative deprivation’ (lost entitlement).
to politically, socially, and economically reproduced supremacism
“This is how nihilism goes—not the death of values but their becoming protean, along with their availability for branding projects and covering purposes that manifestly do not comport with them.”
Values become malleable and marketized, not non-existent.
Sluga- Trumpism embodies the desublimation of the will to power
Freud and Nietzsche understood civilization itself to be sublimation’s product- “With nihilism’s devaluation of values, there is, Sluga argues, “a falling back and collapse of the will to power into its own elementary form… Even religion and the appeal to religious values become cynical instruments for the unrestrained use of power.””
Elizabeth Anker (I admire both her and Wendy Brown SO much) - humiliation is “ugly freedom”
Primetime/TCAP!!
“Instead, the nihilistic disintegration of ethical values combined with neoliberalism’s assault on the social and the unleashing of the right and the power of the personal generates a freedom that is furious, passionate, and destructive—symptomizing ethical destitution even as it sometimes dresses in conservative righteousness. This freedom is paradoxically expressed as nihilism and against nihilism, attacking and destroying while faulting its objects of derision for the ruin of traditional values and order. It is freedom unbridled and uncultured, freedom to put a stick in the eye of accepted norms, freedom from care of the morrow, joyous in its provocations and animated by aggrieved, vengeful reactions against those it holds responsible for its suffering or displacement. It is the freedom of “I will because I can, and I can because I am nothing, I believe in nothing and the world has become nothing.” This is the freedom remaindered by nihilism, in the making for centuries, and embodied in neoliberal reason itself, which posits no value apart from that generated by price and speculative markets.”
Pleasure/indulgence becomes incorporated into capitalist machinery (Marcuse)
Hegel’s term for resolving the conflict between desire and social requirements by aligning one’s consciousness: Happy consciousness
Wait this lowkey reminds me of the Happy Medium from ‘A Wrinkle In Time’
“In Marcuse’s words, “Loss of conscience due to the satisfactory liberties granted by an unfree society makes for a happy consciousness which facilitates acceptance of the misdeeds of this society. [This loss of conscience] is the token of declining autonomy and comprehension.””
“For Marcuse, autonomy declines when comprehension declines (this is the cognitivist, if not the rationalist, in him), and comprehension declines when it is not required for survival and when the unemancipated subject is steeped in capitalist commodity pleasures and stimuli. Put the other way around, instinctual repression takes work, including the work of the intellect.”
Heyyyyyyyy Jacques Ranciere Emancipated Spectator
“Therefore, as late capitalist desublimation relaxes demands against the instincts but does not free the subject for self-direction, demands for intellection are substantially relaxed. Free, stupid, manipulable, absorbed by if not addicted to trivial stimuli and gratifications, the subject of repressive desublimation in advanced capitalist society is not just libidinally unbound, released to enjoy more pleasure, but released from more general expectations of social conscience and social comprehension. This release is amplified by the neoliberal assault on the social and the depression of conscience fostered by nihilism.”
“Repressive desublimation, Marcuse argues, is “part and parcel of the society in which it happens but nowhere its negation.” It looks like freedom while shoring up the status quo and submitting to it.”
Thats kind of all I have for now. I also saw Digger, obviously. I’ll write something up about that soon. It was SOOOOOOOOOOOO Brecht.
xoxo,
Laney
