Analysis Of Dianne's Essay Framing Class, Vicarious Living

Professor at Baylor University, Dianne Kendall, in her essay “Framing Class, Vicarious Living, and Conspicuous Consumption,” published in 2005 touches on the fact that what we see from the media is a humongous influence on how we define social classes and argues that the media tends to trivialize issues of class and to downplay the existential problems poverty entails. Television shows such as “Family Guy”, and “Keeping up with the Kardashians” use frames to alter how we perceive social classes, whether it be for good or bad. These frames, in turn, affect how we think about class divisions and economic inequality, how we relate to the affluent and the poor. Class representations are filtered through a number of frames, which are organized hierarchically:

from top to bottom. And those on the bottom will struggle forever to get to the top.
Kendall makes her opinion clear right from the start, believing that media either “play class differences for laughs or sweep the issue of class under the rug so that important distinctions are rendered invisible” rather than “providing meaningful analysis of inequality and showing realistic portrayals of life in various social classes” as it should (424). She emphasized the degree of distortion, and that the media trivializes world issues and playing up consumerism. The media obsessively praises the rich, and condemn the poor. This has translated into societal actions, creating an extremely consumerist society whose views on social classes are extremely skewed.
Right from the get-go Dianne dives right into one of the most pressing issues of misrepresentation - the poor and homeless.

More often than not, the homeless are viewed as weak and helpless. They are seen in movies as street beggars, and are vehicles of pity and remorse to touch the hearts of the viewers. Moreover, the media trains its audiences to believe that homelessness comes from the fault of the person. They are “bums, alcoholics, and drug addicts, caught in a hopeless downward spiral because of their individual pathological behavior” (427). In reality, it is the perpetuating cycle of wealth that keeps them in at a standstill in their struggles. The media only condones this very same cycle because it trains the masses to believe that people are poor due to their bad decisions. This overall census that the poor are addicts and alcoholics only makes it easier to drag their image further through the mud, going as far as calling them “crazy.” This is highlighted in shows such as Cops, or Law & Order. With the idea that these people are bad news it is easy to “buy into the dominant ideology construction that views poverty as a problem of individuals” (428). Although some of the issues of the poor are highlighted through episodic framing, for the most part the lower class is a faceless group who bring no real value to the

world.
Through blood, sweat, and tears the working class is who keeps the world running yet they get no applause through the media.

As Kendall notes, “the media portrays people who produce goods and services as much less interesting than those who excessively consume them” (429). Viewers want to be entertained, and simply just don’t care about the struggles of the working class. They overlook “low wages (and) lack of benefits” (429) because through caricature framing the media sways people to believe works to be stupid and reckless. Using this frame, they created people such as Homer Simpson, showing people that the working class doesn’t deserve raises, better healthcare, or any such luxuries because they can’t think for themselves. If that wasn't bad enough, the media often characterizes all workers as wanting to transcend their class (429). Through shows such as Extreme Makeover, they depict people who want to spice up their life and improve themselves as people, and that they need help to get to the next level. The media has undercut all of the hard work of this class, and has made people believe that the working class is unavailable, dumb and needs help to be their best self when in fact they are what allows for the success of

everything.
The Middle Class was lucky enough to avoid the flame of the media, but instead are sugar coated, and presented with a cherry on top. They are the backbone of the nation, and the media understands this, so they presented in a way that shows how they “hold the nation together” (429). Shows need to eap to the middle class because they are a huge proportion of the viewers. Keeping this in mind, they strayed away from making fun of the middle class as a whole, but rather focuses on the dysfunctional families that would make people count their blessings that their families aren’t like that.
Nowadays owning many things and living the lavish lifestyle has become glorified. This can be seen in shows such as “Keeping up with the Kardashians.” The media puts them up on a pedestal, and exalts their way of life, portraying them as kind and generous people. This is done through admiration framing. It makes the people trust and admire the rich more because they believe them to be nice people. Secondly, consensus framing is used to make the wealthy more relatable. This can be seen in magazines such as “People”, where a whole section is devoted to “celebrities doing daily things.” The relatability people then have draws a larger audience because people see a bit of themselves in these wealthy shows, and it makes them feel good about themselves. Finally, the rich are framed through emulation, suggesting that all people should reward themselves with “perks of the wealthy” (427). For example, Kylie Jenner has created a lipstick line that is flying off the shelves due to people’s obsession with being like the rich. These three frames have created a society obsessed with flashy things, and the appearance of looking wealthy, which has caused tremendous troubles. People are more comfortable living in debt, than living within their means.