'Questions of Culture and Ideology'

Having read a second chapter in his book, I'm willing to admit that I was probably a little hasty in thinking that this Barker is, well, pretentious. There, I said it.
Anything involving the discussion of ideology is heavy without having to add culture to it. To delve into these things is a daunting task, and we're doing JUST THAT. Call me daunted.
I'm glad he took the time to mention the anthropological definition of culture because that field is precisely where that term was born. Now there is virtually no field which does not rely on cultural studies for one thing or another.
The description of culture builds exponentially and inevitably mentions classes and is therefore interceded by the forerunning ideals of Marxism. This is where Barker builds the bridge to the next section, "Ideological Analysis." This section held the most interest for me out of the entire chapter. Barker references something a Cantor fellow said about television shows and their representation of "typical" American families and lifestyles. I agree that there are negative consequences to this formulaic canon of American life, but I see different ones than those Barker listed. Many shows almost preach that a single and self-indulgent lifestyle is more rewarding than a self-sacrificing family life. That's the first trend with which I take issue. The second is the insanely excessive overdose (I hope these extreme words drive home the idea) of materialism. I realize that much television programming is meant to sell products, but too many shows go way overboard. Also, there's a social ideal represented in these things - they court both extremes (the social deviant as a shocker and the raving success as an example), but the middle is sadly neglected. Basically, the perspectives are tragically linear.
The video I've included in this blog is a series of clips from the late 80's to early 90's sitcom entitled "Roseanne." I got the video from YouTube. I've always loved this show, for many reasons. The primary reason was that it was slightly reminiscent of my own family life. Also, it seemed to be the only show where the family wasn't sickeningly rich and happy. In "Roseanne" the family was always just scraping by, nobody was unnaturally attractive, tomboyishness was represented, the house in question was in constant disarray - as was the family, and there was an afghan hanging over the couch. Basically, it was the most accurate portrayal of a lower middle class American family that I've seen (even now) on TV. It was never clean-cut, sometimes things didn't tie up, and no one lived happily ever after. They were dysfunctional and sometimes miserable, but they were happy in their own way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wievc5X5gb0