I find some of the media mentioned hard to watch, like I would video of any other psychological or physical abuse. I'm not a bleeding heart, but I think that sort of "reality" TV is our little Coliseum.
NurtureShock, a book about parenting and child development research, has a chapter discussing how children's television shows kids behaving badly for dramatic reasons, followed by a resolution that "teaches a lesson". It turns out that, instead of learning the lesson, kids just internalize the bad behavior.
I wonder if a similar phenomenon happens with adults, especially since these reality shows don't even have the redeeming/lesson element. These shows reinforce dysfunctional culture by making it look normal and/or exciting.
I’ve heard of similar research around language use: young children tend to focus on nouns and verbs to the exclusion of adverbs, etc, so “don’t throw sand at Tommy” may reinforce “throw sand at Tommy” as the “don’t” is subconsciously elided.
(A more effective phrasing might be ‘keep the sand on the ground’)
I have noticed that, on reddit at least, entertainment has a very strong region from which it converges to "getting off on feeling smarter/better than other people".
This is based on my own experience filtering subs from r/all when I notice that this is the experience that they are providing. The filter list is currently dozens to hundreds of subreddits long, and almost all of them have several hundred thousand subscribers.
I suspect, based on these anecdata, that television has the same convergence properties, and the abusive reality TV spectacle is mostly about assuaging viewers' inferiority complexes in the same way. "Look at how badly this person is running this restaurant, at least you aren't as dumb as they are", "Look at these idiots taking this dating show seriously. If I were a contestant on the bachelor, I would never ____", etc.
(I am not intrinsically opposed to the notion that it's just gladiatorial spectacle, but I have been acutely aware of this force for a while now, and try to shoehorn it into explaining every social malady.)
I don't disagree with what you're saying necessarily or with the negative implications of that genre of reality tv.
But for me, specifically with Gorden Ramsey's shows, the appeal is different. To me, it's about watching someone who tries to pull one over on Ramsey and fails miserably. The deciept is a part of the appeal (sometimes the deceipt is self deciept, admittedly).
I've always despised (for example) Gordon Ramsay's abusive style and never quite understood the appeal of a show that demonstrated such bad treatment of fellow humans. I don't care how you dress it up -- high standards, toughening them up etc. etc.-- it's just a fucking horrible way to treat people.
And even if you can somehow justify it, what is it about working in a kitchen of all places that necessitates treating staff like utter shit? I can think of much higher stakes careers where this type of treatment would never happen nor be deemed to be "required" for any reason whatsoever.
It's even more reprehensible when you consider the position of power these people are in, and how those keen to get into the industry are more likely to submit themselves to this demeaning behaviour for the sake of their career.
And even even more so when you consider what a wide reach these people have in terms of audience. How many young people are they being a bad role model for.
Finally, an admission of hypocrisy on my part (given the above); I recently watched and enjoyed quite a few episodes of Gordon Ramsay's courses on Masterclass, where mercifully he is alone in his kitchen, with no one to abuse, and is actually quite cordial and charismatic. I've never given a crap about cooking before, and watched an episode on a whim and found myself quite inspired. So that at least seems to imply that there is an alternative way of presenting cooking shows without ripping junior staff to shreds. (Or alternatively, it implies that I'm a hypocrite and you should ignore everything I say).
I'd venture that some of it at least is a combination of two factors:
- Compulsive and systematic abusers can make their way to powerful positions in the majority of modern organizations, where hierarchy and a lack of empathy can provide them with an edge.
- Normal people who suffer abuse - even if it's indirectly, and even if they're not really aware or able to articulate that something is wrong (for example, if they've experienced angry comments or unnecessary work from a manager, who is in fact simply passing down unpleasant demands they've received from above) are comforted and sedated by seeing that kind of abuse normalized on a "respectable" / "popular" television show.
If that theory is accurate, it wouldn't necessarily mean you have to be sympathetic to either population. It's just a possible way to understand the circumstances that lead normal people to spend their downtime with shows like this. Understanding can lead to empathy, and with both it's possible to find improvements. Change without understanding and empathy can be risky.
> By exploring television shows, like “Hell’s Kitchen,” and chef memoirs, like Bourdain’s Kitchen Confidential, readers will see how bullying and harassment are romanticized in these mediums, glorified as a product of kitchen subculture, and consequently normalized in the kitchen.
Can the study really make this conclusion? Has media had an effect on bullying and harrasment in the cooking industry or is something that is already common in that industry being shown as entertainment?
> Can the study really make this conclusion? Has media had an effect on bullying and harrasment in the cooking industry or is something that is already common in that industry being shown as entertainment?
I do see your point in terms of questioning how they came to this conclusion.
However, to put it a different way; Given the extreme behaviour depicted in these widely watched shows, would you consider that violent/aggressive behaviour in kitchens would likely be overall, A) less normalised, B) the same (no effect), or B) more normalised?
In other words, it may well have already existed in the industry already, but are the shows helping to make this better or worse...
Another strangely abusive environment is theatre. Theres just like, a very weird culture of entitlement and control among the directors I’ve dealt with. It feels super unnecessary to the end product, just a side effect of… some confluence between egos, culture, and borderline personality disorder, I guess
I have two kids that are actresses (both are getting their first professional jobs now), and well, here goes: prior to 2019, asshat producers and directors were the norm. Everything from attempted casting couch-ish shenanigans (both were in their teens so, have a seat over there needed to happen to these guys) to screaming fits in rehearsals. Between cancelling sexual predators and COVID changing people's tolerance for abusive behavior, things are getting a lot better.
The disorder in all of it were lots of people were in the business for reasons other than putting on a great experience for audiences... and I do se a huge improvement on the stage from what was going on a few years ago. It's really important that everyone in the business, from Hollywood to the local youth civic theater continue to root out the bad ones.
There's a lot of great talent waiting to direct and produce the next show/movie/whatever, and it's time we gave them a chance over the abusive, predatory asshats that were the norm of the past.
I wonder if this is related to the low pay. I'm a part time working musician (as in, don't quit your day job). I've noticed that how the musicians are treated by both bandleaders and venues is roughly proportional to how much we're getting paid.
But I've also noticed that the abusive environment that we've heard about at the top of the business, doesn't necessarily trickle down to the lower echelons. At the level of work that I typically get called for, bandleaders who abuse their players get weeded out very quickly.
I don't watch any "reality" shows. Because they're not reality -- they're some show runner's idea of what will sell. The producers choose people and situations for their dramatic potential, and then manipulate the "actors" until they get what they want.
Reality doesn't have a soundtrack. And most of the time, it's boring and nothing is happening. As soon as you edit out all the boring parts, you're not "reality" anymore.
One show that does creative competition right is the glass-blowing competition "Blown Away" on Netflix. Interesting characters, fascinating and demanding medium, good affirmative vibe while allowing for honest criticism. My daughter rewatches the episode from both existing seasons frequently and enjoys the personalities.
It's great indeed, really enjoyed it. Turns out you can make a fascinating show about a creative process without people calling each other dickheads every minute, and without what I call "American" editing where there's dramatic music and camera zooms for every mundane action on the screen.
As someone that worked in kitchens for years, this is backwards. The environments are already like this and the media simply describe it.
My personal theory is that kitchen jobs attract a certain sort of person: ones with short attention spans (making a dish is immediately rewarding) and those that couldn’t get a “real job” due to tattoos, drug use, alcoholism, etc. etc. This all adds up to a more variable group of people than the white collar academic media class considers normal.
Blaming television is easy. But this is not a new problem created by television. Commercial kitchens are high stress, fast paced, cramped hot environments with little pay that act as a job of last resort for many people. That's why there's violence.
I find the vilification of Gordon Ramsey misguided. He is the nicest man in the kitchen (not to mention the world's top TV chef at the moment). Look how tenderly and patiently he acts with his own children in the kitchen segments where they appear. If he's dealing with an idiot sandwich, yeah, he does what needs to be done, but he is never wantonly or arbitrarily abusive, and it makes satisfying watching to boot!
Being able to turn the violence on and off like a switch is a feature of an abusive boss.
Still, without knowing for sure, I've always assumed that the outbursts are staged, if not rehearsed. I can't deny that it's entertaining, like reality cop shows. A lot of drama is about worlds that I wouldn't choose to live in.
He’s not abusive to his own children? What a saint he must be. “Dealing with an idiot sandwich” is precisely the differentiation between nice person and asshole. “Dealing with an idiot sandwich” is also victim-blaming. The idiot sandwich might also argue “idiot boss who can’t articulate what he wants”.
> If he's dealing with an idiot sandwich, yeah, he does what needs to be done, but he is never wantonly or arbitrarily abusive, and it makes satisfying watching to boot!
I am so very sick of this false rationalization.
There is nothing about having high standards that requires abusive behavior to enforce them. That is straight up bullshit.
Ramsey is indeed playing up the abuse for the sake of attracting viewers, however it's not purely an act. He was trained under Marco Pierre White, arguably the first modern celebrity chef, who was infamous for straight up violence in his kitchens. Kitchens are dangerous enough. There is zero excuse for throwing pots at peoples heads or starting straight up fist fights.
Listen to people who've worked in Ramsey's restaurants and it's clear the example he sets results in abusive behavior top to bottom.
By way of contrast, there's a Canadian chef named Laura Caulder that was traditionally trained by someone very high up in the French culinary world. She had a show for a number of years on Canadian tv, including a special episode where she went back to her alma mater to help out with a very high profile dinner (think ambassadors and royals sort of thing). Her mentor was fascinating to watch, because she was completely unyielding on holding the very highest standards, but without a shred of abusive behavior. She simply stated things as they were, demanded better, and that was that.
There's nothing about Ramsey's antics that are necessary for achieving greatness, and it's depressing that people find abusive behavior satisfying to watch.
I disagree with this. Calling names and yelling and screaming is a lot less efficient than a quiet "This isn't right. How can we not have this happen again?" I say this as a guy who learned to lead in the Navy, and discovered that, when I yelled and grandstanded, it was all about my ego and not about getting things done and done right. I will say that assholes in high pressure situations are entertaining to watch on TV, but absolutely not that effective (the idiot sandwich will quit and piss in the soup on the way out) in real life.
That is exactly... abuse. Abusive bosses can be nice to their kids. Abusive bosses can be nice to their employees. Abusive bosses can even be nice to "idiot sandwiches." What makes an abusive boss is how they are at their worst: a professional boss will act with composure, either trying to help the worker become better or firing them professionally if they need to go.
The difference between the UK and the US version of Kitchen Nightmares is extreme. The US cut puts so much emphasis on aggression that there isn't room for anything else.
Yep, strongly agree with this take. All of the yelling and aggression is an act for US television if you watch other programs he's been in.
Another thing based on UK Kitchen Nightmares is you really only see the hostile side come out when he's put into a situation where the other person is hostile. If the person genuinely wants to learn and try to save their business, he's nothing but helpful. There are episodes of the UK show where they're basically just wholesome all around.
If you watch his UK shows basically it boils down to if you call yourself a professional chef he expect you to be one. If you are not then he will get angry. But on many occasions you see someone in the kitchen that just straight up say they have no clue what they are doing and you get to see him teach them without any of the yelling etc.
There is something about the vocal rejection of mediocrity and bad work that creates some great things. It also attracts young naive geniuses who want to be abused but create greatness. I’ve seen the same in the contemporary art world.
From Gordon Ramsey to Steve Jobs to the film whiplash. People who are very vocal about wanting the best can get it.
And don’t forget. Literally anyone who decides to work with Gordon Ramsey or Steve Jobs knows what they are like. They did it willingly. They aren’t abusing random innocent souls. They are expecting the best from people who decided to work with them.
While I'm not sure about your take, as someone with some links to the world of ultra-high end dining, Gordon Ramsey's persona is definitely made for TV. He worked for the chef whose persona he copies on TV (Marco Pierre White) but I've heard that he's much more pleasant in his own restaurants.
That being said, the glorification of such personas is troubling and a problem for the restaurant industry.
Readit News
I wonder if a similar phenomenon happens with adults, especially since these reality shows don't even have the redeeming/lesson element. These shows reinforce dysfunctional culture by making it look normal and/or exciting.
(A more effective phrasing might be ‘keep the sand on the ground’)
This is based on my own experience filtering subs from r/all when I notice that this is the experience that they are providing. The filter list is currently dozens to hundreds of subreddits long, and almost all of them have several hundred thousand subscribers.
I suspect, based on these anecdata, that television has the same convergence properties, and the abusive reality TV spectacle is mostly about assuaging viewers' inferiority complexes in the same way. "Look at how badly this person is running this restaurant, at least you aren't as dumb as they are", "Look at these idiots taking this dating show seriously. If I were a contestant on the bachelor, I would never ____", etc.
(I am not intrinsically opposed to the notion that it's just gladiatorial spectacle, but I have been acutely aware of this force for a while now, and try to shoehorn it into explaining every social malady.)
But for me, specifically with Gorden Ramsey's shows, the appeal is different. To me, it's about watching someone who tries to pull one over on Ramsey and fails miserably. The deciept is a part of the appeal (sometimes the deceipt is self deciept, admittedly).
I've always despised (for example) Gordon Ramsay's abusive style and never quite understood the appeal of a show that demonstrated such bad treatment of fellow humans. I don't care how you dress it up -- high standards, toughening them up etc. etc.-- it's just a fucking horrible way to treat people.
And even if you can somehow justify it, what is it about working in a kitchen of all places that necessitates treating staff like utter shit? I can think of much higher stakes careers where this type of treatment would never happen nor be deemed to be "required" for any reason whatsoever.
It's even more reprehensible when you consider the position of power these people are in, and how those keen to get into the industry are more likely to submit themselves to this demeaning behaviour for the sake of their career.
And even even more so when you consider what a wide reach these people have in terms of audience. How many young people are they being a bad role model for.
Finally, an admission of hypocrisy on my part (given the above); I recently watched and enjoyed quite a few episodes of Gordon Ramsay's courses on Masterclass, where mercifully he is alone in his kitchen, with no one to abuse, and is actually quite cordial and charismatic. I've never given a crap about cooking before, and watched an episode on a whim and found myself quite inspired. So that at least seems to imply that there is an alternative way of presenting cooking shows without ripping junior staff to shreds. (Or alternatively, it implies that I'm a hypocrite and you should ignore everything I say).
- Compulsive and systematic abusers can make their way to powerful positions in the majority of modern organizations, where hierarchy and a lack of empathy can provide them with an edge.
- Normal people who suffer abuse - even if it's indirectly, and even if they're not really aware or able to articulate that something is wrong (for example, if they've experienced angry comments or unnecessary work from a manager, who is in fact simply passing down unpleasant demands they've received from above) are comforted and sedated by seeing that kind of abuse normalized on a "respectable" / "popular" television show.
If that theory is accurate, it wouldn't necessarily mean you have to be sympathetic to either population. It's just a possible way to understand the circumstances that lead normal people to spend their downtime with shows like this. Understanding can lead to empathy, and with both it's possible to find improvements. Change without understanding and empathy can be risky.
Can the study really make this conclusion? Has media had an effect on bullying and harrasment in the cooking industry or is something that is already common in that industry being shown as entertainment?
I do see your point in terms of questioning how they came to this conclusion.
However, to put it a different way; Given the extreme behaviour depicted in these widely watched shows, would you consider that violent/aggressive behaviour in kitchens would likely be overall, A) less normalised, B) the same (no effect), or B) more normalised?
In other words, it may well have already existed in the industry already, but are the shows helping to make this better or worse...
The disorder in all of it were lots of people were in the business for reasons other than putting on a great experience for audiences... and I do se a huge improvement on the stage from what was going on a few years ago. It's really important that everyone in the business, from Hollywood to the local youth civic theater continue to root out the bad ones.
There's a lot of great talent waiting to direct and produce the next show/movie/whatever, and it's time we gave them a chance over the abusive, predatory asshats that were the norm of the past.
But I've also noticed that the abusive environment that we've heard about at the top of the business, doesn't necessarily trickle down to the lower echelons. At the level of work that I typically get called for, bandleaders who abuse their players get weeded out very quickly.
Reality doesn't have a soundtrack. And most of the time, it's boring and nothing is happening. As soon as you edit out all the boring parts, you're not "reality" anymore.
My personal theory is that kitchen jobs attract a certain sort of person: ones with short attention spans (making a dish is immediately rewarding) and those that couldn’t get a “real job” due to tattoos, drug use, alcoholism, etc. etc. This all adds up to a more variable group of people than the white collar academic media class considers normal.
Still, without knowing for sure, I've always assumed that the outbursts are staged, if not rehearsed. I can't deny that it's entertaining, like reality cop shows. A lot of drama is about worlds that I wouldn't choose to live in.
I am so very sick of this false rationalization.
There is nothing about having high standards that requires abusive behavior to enforce them. That is straight up bullshit.
Ramsey is indeed playing up the abuse for the sake of attracting viewers, however it's not purely an act. He was trained under Marco Pierre White, arguably the first modern celebrity chef, who was infamous for straight up violence in his kitchens. Kitchens are dangerous enough. There is zero excuse for throwing pots at peoples heads or starting straight up fist fights.
Listen to people who've worked in Ramsey's restaurants and it's clear the example he sets results in abusive behavior top to bottom.
By way of contrast, there's a Canadian chef named Laura Caulder that was traditionally trained by someone very high up in the French culinary world. She had a show for a number of years on Canadian tv, including a special episode where she went back to her alma mater to help out with a very high profile dinner (think ambassadors and royals sort of thing). Her mentor was fascinating to watch, because she was completely unyielding on holding the very highest standards, but without a shred of abusive behavior. She simply stated things as they were, demanded better, and that was that.
There's nothing about Ramsey's antics that are necessary for achieving greatness, and it's depressing that people find abusive behavior satisfying to watch.
Another thing based on UK Kitchen Nightmares is you really only see the hostile side come out when he's put into a situation where the other person is hostile. If the person genuinely wants to learn and try to save their business, he's nothing but helpful. There are episodes of the UK show where they're basically just wholesome all around.
Dead Comment
From Gordon Ramsey to Steve Jobs to the film whiplash. People who are very vocal about wanting the best can get it.
And don’t forget. Literally anyone who decides to work with Gordon Ramsey or Steve Jobs knows what they are like. They did it willingly. They aren’t abusing random innocent souls. They are expecting the best from people who decided to work with them.
What definition of abusiveness _doesn't_ include targeting only "those who deserve it", as defined by the abuser?
That being said, the glorification of such personas is troubling and a problem for the restaurant industry.