Like you and the others one who commented, I never saw the show. It makes me wonder who was watching the show. Perhaps it was those who were scandalized by it. Watching for the shock value. When I first heard about the show, I thought that's dangerous --- to set yourself on such a platform, to live before those that will compare you to themselves.. I thought they will probably be perceived by most as odd. For some truly sensitive and vulnerable viewers, the Duggers' choices will stir shame. That shame will lead many to desire the Duggers' downfall. No doubt many of those viewers were "comforted" by the moral failures now on display, including their manipulation of their children. It makes me think about this: how does our witness work before the world? Do we call people to the full measure of "true piety" this way? Do we preach ourselves in hopes many will come to Christ . . . or do we preach Christ, whose Spirit's transforming work in us follows a path that is rarely predictable and cannot be copyrighted.
I never watched and I was sickened to see the popularity. Watched our deeply loved friends family spiral into sibling rape and porn addiction all under Gothards rule.
That's a really good point about the children not knowing how to meaningfully consent to having their lives turned into a spectacle, and I know our collective friend circle has had some very good discussions about child actors before - this is no different than what Hollywood sometimes does, and Hollywood doesn't usually use the "doing it for Jesus/the patriarch" angle; did the children share in any of the wealth from the show, or did that go to the parents? This makes me think of Jackie Coogan.
I don't think I ever had an interest in the show—I think Mom watched it once or twice—but for all of the religious complaints against a certain other industry, the concept of nineteen children's inevitable "Pleasantville moments" being put on display for millions of viewers to see probably also had plenty of luridness of its own. "More than a hint of voyeurism," as you put it. I never watched the show, so I know very little about it, but the eventual portrayal of however many kids going through puberty and learning about love and responsible-yet-enjoyable adult life had to be awkward. If I may be blunt, all of these elements about the show and its audience context - the question of "meaningful consent" (especially with that five-year contract, GROSS), the co-opting of significant life milestones for a wide audience - frankly sounds like "porn for the church audience," minus only the skin, which I'm guessing a lot of people treated as a sufficient "purity job" well done.
Reading about the man-behind-the-curtain scenes with the show's producers makes me wonder if I ever watched The Truman Show, and it also makes me question the extent that the show's producers either played Prime Directive (staying out of the family's affairs) or interfered with real-life events behind the scenes in order to stage more drama for the children's own tiny little world to have to deal with. I also wondered about this when Focus on the Family complained about Adele's disproportionately negative subject matter - https://www.pluggedin.com/album-reviews/adele-25/ - as I worried whether her own life experiences (no matter how small they were against the whole of her life) were being exploited for entertainment and fame.
The paragraphs toward the end, with Jill complaining about media exploiting subject matter for entertainment, reek of irony that I have no idea if she's self-aware of or not. Back when the Josh story either first broke or first really started to take off, one of those girls complained about how they were "victims," not referencing Josh but referencing the media coverage.
But then, within the proper boundaries of tact, the world needed to know what was going on.
And I'm glad Derick Dillard's attempts to injure a cat failed and were not successful. ♥ Though I was very displeased to hear other people laughing when they could clearly see the cat was in danger.
Like you and the others one who commented, I never saw the show. It makes me wonder who was watching the show. Perhaps it was those who were scandalized by it. Watching for the shock value. When I first heard about the show, I thought that's dangerous --- to set yourself on such a platform, to live before those that will compare you to themselves.. I thought they will probably be perceived by most as odd. For some truly sensitive and vulnerable viewers, the Duggers' choices will stir shame. That shame will lead many to desire the Duggers' downfall. No doubt many of those viewers were "comforted" by the moral failures now on display, including their manipulation of their children. It makes me think about this: how does our witness work before the world? Do we call people to the full measure of "true piety" this way? Do we preach ourselves in hopes many will come to Christ . . . or do we preach Christ, whose Spirit's transforming work in us follows a path that is rarely predictable and cannot be copyrighted.
I never watched and I was sickened to see the popularity. Watched our deeply loved friends family spiral into sibling rape and porn addiction all under Gothards rule.
Such an excellent article. Really enjoyed this.
Just met someone last night writing a book about this. Wild stuff.
That's a really good point about the children not knowing how to meaningfully consent to having their lives turned into a spectacle, and I know our collective friend circle has had some very good discussions about child actors before - this is no different than what Hollywood sometimes does, and Hollywood doesn't usually use the "doing it for Jesus/the patriarch" angle; did the children share in any of the wealth from the show, or did that go to the parents? This makes me think of Jackie Coogan.
I don't think I ever had an interest in the show—I think Mom watched it once or twice—but for all of the religious complaints against a certain other industry, the concept of nineteen children's inevitable "Pleasantville moments" being put on display for millions of viewers to see probably also had plenty of luridness of its own. "More than a hint of voyeurism," as you put it. I never watched the show, so I know very little about it, but the eventual portrayal of however many kids going through puberty and learning about love and responsible-yet-enjoyable adult life had to be awkward. If I may be blunt, all of these elements about the show and its audience context - the question of "meaningful consent" (especially with that five-year contract, GROSS), the co-opting of significant life milestones for a wide audience - frankly sounds like "porn for the church audience," minus only the skin, which I'm guessing a lot of people treated as a sufficient "purity job" well done.
Reading about the man-behind-the-curtain scenes with the show's producers makes me wonder if I ever watched The Truman Show, and it also makes me question the extent that the show's producers either played Prime Directive (staying out of the family's affairs) or interfered with real-life events behind the scenes in order to stage more drama for the children's own tiny little world to have to deal with. I also wondered about this when Focus on the Family complained about Adele's disproportionately negative subject matter - https://www.pluggedin.com/album-reviews/adele-25/ - as I worried whether her own life experiences (no matter how small they were against the whole of her life) were being exploited for entertainment and fame.
The paragraphs toward the end, with Jill complaining about media exploiting subject matter for entertainment, reek of irony that I have no idea if she's self-aware of or not. Back when the Josh story either first broke or first really started to take off, one of those girls complained about how they were "victims," not referencing Josh but referencing the media coverage.
But then, within the proper boundaries of tact, the world needed to know what was going on.
And I'm glad Derick Dillard's attempts to injure a cat failed and were not successful. ♥ Though I was very displeased to hear other people laughing when they could clearly see the cat was in danger.
Thank you as always for sharing these posts.