John Fiske’s assertion that people are not passive consumers of mass culture, but rather interpret and use products in ways that serve their own social needs, reminded me instantly of the addictive early-2000s TV series, The Office. I presume some of the following observations would also hold true for the original British version that gave birth to the American series, but for the sake of this post I’ll reference the one I (and millions of others) devoured—the American mockumentary starring Steve Carell that originally aired from 2005-13.
The Office can be studied from a number of other perspectives as well. From the Marxist perspective, it’s clearly a satire of the capitalist labor system. Dunder-Mifflin employees are doing uninspiring work selling a commodity (paper) that’s losing its value, without doing anything to try to change their plight or resist corporate structure. Michael Scott hands out “Dundie Awards,” a poor substitute for meaningful recognition or fulfillment in their roles.
Through a Walter Benjamin lens, The Office shows how media form can impact perception. Its mockumentary style has cameras in the office, comically violating privacy at every turn. Benjamin points to mechanically reproduced media replacing original art. The characters in The Office are certainly portrayed as replaceable. And the show’s humor itself becomes massively reproduced in the form of syndication (you can watch it almost any time of day on some channel), internet and social media memes, or friends interrupting conversation with a “That’s what she said” joke.
Assuming you’re a fan of the show, which perspective do you feel best nails The Office?
I lean toward Fiske, whose popular discrimination posits that art is a “resource bank from which different, possibly widely divergent, readings can be made (Fiske, 2005, p. 217).” This is very much the case with The Office.
Scott, the regional manager of Dunder-Mifflin’s Scranton branch, can be read in multiple ways as a main character. He’s either a critique of capitalist management, a sympathetic victim of a corporate culture that keeps people from advancing, or someone who—to the best of his ability—is trying to disrupt workplace power through humor. Heck, he might be all three.
Then there’s the audience. Us. We take different things from the show. For some, it’s those meme-producing lines like “that’s what she said” or “limitless paper in a paperless world.” For others, it’s a romance between coworkers Jim and Pam that builds through the early seasons. Others might enjoy the show as commentary on their own job situations.
It’s one of those shows that can be enjoyed on a per-episode basis for those very reasons. Jump in and out. Quote it as you will. Bring it into your own social sphere however you see fit. Fiske, and probably Michael Scott, would approve.
Thank you for your response! I agree with you, this show can be viewed through many different lenses. As you mentioned, depending on the episode, you can take out of it what you choose! Reminds me a lot of Raymond Williams, and his hope for consumers to try and understand the role of pop culture in our lives. Before this class, I would not been able to see The Office as more than just a comedy. There is a lot more present than just the feud between Jim and Dwight. Even though that is sometimes all I choose to see!
ReplyDeleteI found this post very effective in applying John Fiske's idea that audiences actively interpret popular culture rather than passively consume it. The discussion of The Office as a "resource bank" of meaning, especially through quotes, memes, and everyday references, clearly supports that concept. I also appreciated how Michael Scott is presented as a character who can be read in multiple ways depending on the viewer's perspective. The use of Walter Benjamin's concept of mechanical reproduction adds an important layer to the analysis, particularly in explaining how syndication and social media shape how the show continues to circulate and be understood.
ReplyDelete