This show gives me so many Lady Mary moments it’s not even funny.
The big moment(s) in these two episodes surround David and Red, so I will save that bit for last.
- In case you hadn’t noticed by now. Bella wants respect. Bella wants to be heard. And yet, despite saying it every five minutes, she continues to repeat this like it’s her mantra. First, she is adamant about the chicken tractors EVEN THOUGH Bri (a veterinary aide who obviously has some valuable knowledge – more on that below) explicitly tells Bella removing chickens from their habitat (i.e., from the coop to the tractor experiment) could and probably will be detrimental to their egg-laying ability. This doesn’t phase Bella in the slightest, just so long as she gets her chicken tractors. When Bella’s chicken tractors are in jeopardy of not getting taken seriously by the rest of the group, she reverts to her main talking points: 1) not being taken seriously, and 2) this is “NOT [her] Utopia.” You know what else isn’t in Bella’s Utopia? A microwave. Yes – a microwave. Girl almost loses it over the possibility of a microwave entering the gates. At least she still has Josh to flirt with.
- In my post recapping Episode 1, I mentioned the subtle framing devices the show uses. I suspected it was geared mostly toward the female cast members, and this suspicion has not subsided during episodes 2 and 3. As I touched on above, Bri is a veterinary aide and has imparted some fairly substantial and valuable information to the rest of the group, especially where it concerns the livestock. During the scene (I unfortunately cannot find a video of this) where Bri approaches Bella to inform her of the danger involved moving the chickens from the coop, the announcer introduces Bri by calling her an “animal lover.” This could be innocuous, but when the show continues to highlight Bri’s relationship with Chris, rather than the knowledge she brings to the table, it’s tiresome. More irksome is how the show frames Amanda. It was announced during the first episode Amanda was a behavioral specialist, working specifically with children – which is equally commendable and impressive. However, whenever Amanda appears onscreen, and the text box appears with her name, age, and occupation, her occupation reads either “mom-to-be” or “expectant mother.” Now, even though Amanda initially wanted to conceal her pregnancy, she quickly announced it to the entire group. But it is incredibly frustrating the show chooses to undermine the obvious contribution these two women bring to the table – even though there hasn’t been a lot of chances to, or success in, convey it. Amanda even stated in her introductory portion of the first episode she wants to be on the show so she can help audiences see women, specifically women of color, as more than objects, sexual or otherwise, that they can be “people with substance.”
- Stemming from my criticisms of how the show frames Bri and Amanda, my other major gripe with the show is its INTENSE focus on coupling. Yes, it’s Bri and Chris like to see each other naked and makeout. It’s also painfully obvious Bella has a crush on Josh. And Episode 3 made it clear Mike and Dedeker were into each other. Aside from it being slightly awkward to watch what should be private moments, I’m fine with all of this. It doesn’t bother me cast members want to bang each other. It doesn’t bother me if they want relationships, monogamous or otherwise, with one another. But the show makes it such a huge focus, the exhibition of the “couples” is so exhaustive, it comes across as if audiences need it spelled out for them. Listen, there is undoubtedly going to be attraction between cast members, and they are on this compound for a FUCKING YEAR – intimacy and sex are going to happen, whether it’s fabricated or real. And yet the show dedicates so much valuable screen time to what is such an obvious and natural result of the situation. Move on and show me something productive.
- Two outsiders, Rhonda and Kristen, join the group and, after three days, the group decides which one will join permanently. I mostly yawned through this portion because there was so much else to fill the episode up with, not a lot of screen time was dedicated to either. The only part of this I found interesting was their final individual plea to the group. Rhonda, a tea party activist, went with the emotional approach, stating she wants to help change the world and would be sad to go. Kristen, an entrepreneur, takes the legislative approach and states she can bring her marketing expertise to the table and help the group make money. This hits especially close to home for the rest of the group because they are running dangerously low on cash. However, episode three ends without letting audiences know which member is chosen (I made the mistake of following the live updates on Twitter, so I knew several days before this episode even aired who they chose, but I won’t spoil it for anyone).
- The group gets electricity and plumbing through Josh’s expertise, with assists from Rob, Red, Aaron, and probably other members not shown. This allows the group to plug in their phone, use an electric razor, buy a refrigerator, stove, and toilet, use the shower, and essentially have running water not from a hose.
With the exception of Bella’s outbursts and micromanaging, the main sources of conflict have derived from Red and David. During Episode 2, after the group finally got electricity, they could call the store and order groceries to be delivered. Deciding the final grocery order was always going to be a difficult process – some cast members are vegan, some are vegetarian, some eat meat, some eat healthy, some are unphased by junk food. However, whenever cast members start sharing their thoughts about what to eat, Dave and Red become increasingly agitated because they feel their opinions are not being taken into account. Dave and Red do not agree with how the money is going to be spent. Dave and Red want “real” food. They want chips, cookies, burgers, etc. They don’t want “bird seed.” Their solution? Secede.
After declaring themselves independent from the rest of the group, they still want in on the grocery action – because independent states gotta eat! However, David and Red enter the main barn and overhear Aaron on the phone with the grocery store and he mentions radishes. All hell breaks loose because David and Red absolutely DO NOT want radishes, or basically any produce that doesn’t belong on a burger. Their response? Have a complete freak out and Start smashing canned food within the barn.
Watching David and Red smash cans of food was infuriating to watch. I didn’t agree with their logic and didn’t agree with their response. It was excessive and unnecessary. But I didn’t by default agree with how the other members handled David and Red, before or after the can-smashing incident. I started thinking about Teamsterville.
“Teamsterville” is the short title to an article I read in grad school and I think it is pertinent to the David/Red conversation. To give you some background information. Teamsterville is located on the South-side of Chicago; the majority of the population is white, and is primarily a low-income, blue-collared neighborhood. The author and researcher, Gerry Philipsen, studied the neighborhood while also doing social work for a total of 30 months: one 21-month leg during 1969-1970, and one 9-month leg during 1971-1972. Despite the research being conducted over 4 decades ago, the findings are incredibly eye-opening and enduring.
The study’s objective was examining the role of speech communication in the neighborhood – when it’s appropriate and when it’s not. Determining appropriateness of conversation in Teamsterville is how it affects one’s “manliness.” Philipsen found speech and conversation were used most often when the participants’ identities are symmetrical (i.e., age, occupation, location/residence, etc.). By contrast, there were times when conversation and talking were highly inappropriate, especially in the case of an insult. For example, Phillipsen recounts a story where a co-worker took a bus full of young men to a specific part of town, and they were all noticeably excited about the trip. While driving to the outing, the young men asked the social worker what he would do if his wife was insulted, how he would react to the person doing the insulting. His response essentially amounted to “trying to talk” or “ask him to leave,” and even stated he would not fight or get physical. The young men immediately wanted to return to their neighborhood because they no longer felt safe with the social worker. It became clear to Phillipsen self-presentation was an essential part of the “manliness” culture. He says,
“Specifically, an analysis of the Teamsterville data produces the generalization that when a man must assert power over or influence another person, speaking is disapproved as a dominant means of self-presentation and in such situations other means of expression are preferred, sometimes required, if the actor’s male role enactment is to be credible to those who witness it.”
The situations where conversation is no longer appropriate are 1) as mentioned above, an insult directed at him, or a female relative/girlfriend, 2) an attempt to influence an inferior, like a child, and 3) asserting himself politics or economics. In Teamsterville, speech is not a way to assert authority over someone, and only when it is peer-to-peer (or symmetrical identities involved) is speech preferred because it maintains solidarity and camaraderie. The main takeaway from the Teamsterville study is that “talk and speech are not valued everywhere.”
I bring this up when discussing the Red and David situation because I think it sheds light on why Red, but more specifically David reacted this way. Neither of them grew up in Teamsterville (although David is from, or currently resides in Chicago), but I think they responded in ways mirroring the findings of the Teamsterville study. It became increasingly clear from the beginning David and Red probably reside in the lowest income bracket out of the entire cast. When various cast members attempted to reason with Dave and Red about why chips and cookies weren’t great choices for groceries, they spoke to both in such demeaning and condescending ways, it would be easy to receive their talk as insulting. But more importantly, it heightened the fact they do not share symmetrical identities. There have been times when David has attempted to be cordial while simultaneously disagreeing with other cast members’ opinions, but in the end I think it was an overwhelming situation for him. If David’s background, like those in Teamsterville, means not responding to insults with conversation but rather by physical means, removing himself from the show was probably the best decision he could have made. And it’s important to note that, yes, exploding over groceries is petty – but emotions and agitations are most definitely amplified when removed from one’s natural environment and placed in one so opposite (good thing no one here has any pressure to lay eggs).
Again, I do not agree with the reactions displayed by David and Red, but revisiting the Teamsterville study was an enlightening way to examine their responses. Especially with the recent events regarding the NFL and domestic violence, discussing this article in no way provides a license for such behavior, but I think the main takeaway is to remember how we talk about such events, and how we talk to and about those with specific experiences because our identities are not symmetrical, and not everyone possesses the privilege of talk and conversation, and, more importantly, not everyone lives in a culture where talk and conversation are valued.
In addition to providing the citation, I have linked the full text of the Teamsterville article below – it isn’t your typical academic fodder and really is an accessible read, with dozens of practical applications.
I Have Notes 