issues makes some interesting points for religious
educators.
The Jerry Springer Show is an example of the
extent to which moral discernment about human
behaviour has been brought into the public domain,
not so much for the purposes of advancing moral
philosophy, but as a form of entertainment. Live
human drama is screened to get ‘ratings’ and
generate market share.
The show has parallels with some of the bawdy
morality plays from the middle ages.
It has
unusual behaviour, moral discernment and
especially personal conflict; but it is colourfully
packaged to attract casual viewers and keep them
riveted to the television screen. It works on the
principle that what happens in ‘real life’ can be
much stranger than fiction -- the lynch pin of the
“reality” television shows.
THE JERRY SPRINGER SHOW
AND
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION
Interpreting what is happening in the culture and
how it affects peoples’ values and behaviour is a
perennial task for the religious educator. I heard
of the popularity of the Jerry Springer Show in the
United States and on television generally; to get
some idea of what this phenomenon was about, I
watched a number of the shows.
Yes, it
showcased examples of bizarre human behaviour,
especially in the area of sex. What surprised me
were the issues raised for contemporary school
Religious Education.
Am I suggesting that Jerry Springer can teach us
something about Religious Education? No and
yes. No: I do not suggest that we bring the Jerry
Springer Show or any of its content into Religious
Education. Yet, the way Springer handles moral
The show looks out for stories that are strange and
arresting. But it tells you that this really happens.
Springer, in both his manner and words, usually
treats participants in an objective and impartial
manner; but he always manages to ask the
questions that, in a well orchestrated fashion,
expose secrets and set off conflict. These days, a
show without fights and the chanting of “Jerry,
Jerry”, would be unusual.
He listens to what
participants have to say, no matter how strange
their behaviour or the stance they take. He gives
them a chance to tell their story without
interruption.
The security staff intercept
interruptions from antagonistic participants if they
become violent, and the editor beeps out the foul
language.
As Springer himself admits, show business and
television ratings are all important motivations for
making a spectacle that will capture the attention
of viewers.
After the final break, Springer returns to the show
with a “final thought” for the audience. Here the
tone is very different.
He steps back and
interprets what has happened from a moral point of
view. If you had never seen the rest of the show
and only these final thoughts, you could be
justified in thinking “This is good moral advice!”
It sounds like some contemporary secular sermon,
exhorting people to be more truthful and sensitive
in their dealings with others, and more faithful to
personal values and commitments. He concludes
with the words “Take care of yourself and each
other.” Have a look at an isolated example below
and judge for yourself.
Even if the particular
behaviour which prompted the remarks is very
unusual
and
sometimes
revolting,
the
advice/wisdom might well have more general
applications.
Journal of Religious Education 49(2)
61
In his reflections, he makes observations from a
moral perspective, interpreting behaviour in the
light of particular values. He often disagrees with
the stance of participants and is critical of what
they might have done in their lives.
What follows are some examples of “final
thoughts” from the Jerry Springer Show (quoted
from his book, Ringmaster)
The participants know in advance that Springer
may well disagree strongly with their views and
behaviour but they know he will at least give them
a fair hearing.
“You should know that I've never been in a fight in
my life. I'm either a wimp or a pacifist. I don't
believe violence is ever the answer, except in selfdefence. Then how do I explain my show and
violence on television, in general?
Well, what might be learnt from this for Religious
Education. One point to note is that commitment
to particular beliefs and values is not incompatible
with conducting a forum in which individuals
express views which are contrary to those values.
If religious teachers are shocked and offended by
what students might say, they can lose student
cooperation. This is not to encourage outrageous
and offensive comments; but to allow a critical
debate. Critical views are considered, they are not
necessarily taken as the views of those who discuss
them. Debate is stifled if it is steered into the
direction of personal testimony to commitments.
Nevertheless, it will not be much of a debate if the
only voices that can speak are those in favour of
what the teacher is implicitly recommending.
After openly looking at conflicting views on an
issue, this openness is not compromised by a
teacher’s conclusion which interprets the various
viewpoints from a particular Christian value
position. These values may well challenge some
of the views expressed in the preceding debate.
This is not asserting authority, but acknowledging
the value context of the Church school, without
imposing this as a sort of enforced mind-set.
Sometimes it is appropriate for the teacher to give
a little personal advice at this stage. It is not
moralising, but recognising that the experienced
teacher often has a human wisdom that can be
offered to students.
Where offered in an
environment that has been open and critical, such
advice can be valued by the students.
Another point:
if moral discernment is now
common material for television entertainment, then
it certainly has a place in religious education.
This is not recommending a Jerry Springer
method!
Helping young people learn how to
become critical interpreters of behaviour and
thinking is a task of great importance for religious
education. There is now an increasing emphasis
on issues and value interpretation in other subject
areas like English, history and social science.
Religious education should be giving a leadership
role in critical interpretation of culture.
*
62
*
*
*
*
Journal of Religious Education 49(2)
On fighting and television violence
As I said, but for self-defense, I don't ever think
violence is an appropriate response. However, I
do think it's important for television to reflect real
life-the bad as well as the good... But it should
never put something on that encourages or entices
bad or violent behaviour.
That is why the fictional violence we see on
prime-time television and in movies, where guys
are ‘blowing each other away’ with AK-47s and
Uzis, where we have five killings and six
muggings or rapes before each commercial break,
is the kind of violence that is dangerous to our
society because it's made to seem ‘glamorous’ and
‘exciting’. Indeed, our biggest movies today are
the ones which wipe out the most people. This
kind of entertainment is dangerous because it's
done in a very enticing way, with drop-dead
gorgeous actors, beautiful background and scenery,
amazing special effects, and powerful music. It’s
all put in a very provocative package, so kids, even
though they know it's fiction, are encouraged, even
subliminally, to fantasise about such behaviour.
And the more and more we see these kids walking
into classrooms with their guns, spraying death and
destruction among teachers and classmates alike,
the more it should become clear that this form of
enticing dramatic fiction entertainment is horribly
destructive and dangerous.
On the other hand, there is nothing, I repeat,
nothing at all enticing or attractive about the
behavior you see on my show, nothing that ever
says to the viewer of whatever age, “Gee, this is a
productive or exciting or attractive way to behave.”
Indeed, nobody ever could watch our show and
say, “Wow, I think tomorrow I’ll become a
transsexual …”
The point being, if those in the industry are serious
about eliminating violence on television and in the
movies, the kind of violence that entices viewers to
become violent themselves, then fine. Eliminate
the programming that shows guns and knives, or
killings, or rapes. Indeed, we don’t ever show
violence that in any way is enticing to anybody.
Can the rest of television say that? Of course not.
It feeds on violence. And the best response critics
can come up with is to start arguing about a silly
talk show. You can see how it’s hard to take their
protestations and hand-wringing seriously. Don’t
we have bigger issues to talk about?”
Final thought: In response to the program on “I’m
making my first ‘adult’ film”
“For better or worse, in our culture we are defined
by what we do. It is the second question we ask
upon meeting someone: “Hi, what’s your name?”
Then, “What do you do?” A doctor, a teacher, a
sales rep., a stripper. Each, fairly or not, paints an
immediate picture of who this person is and, to a
large extent, how he or she will be perceived,
treated, respected…or perhaps not respected.
So those who decide to pursue a career in the adult
entertainment industry may, if fact, make some
quick money. They may enjoy the momentary
attention. The hours aren’t bad, and it’s not as if
you need a lot of training or a particular skill. But
they only fool themselves if they ignore the
reality—that this is no stepping stone to the future,
either in terms of a career or in one’s personal life.
It’s not bad money for just stripping oneself of
one’s clothing. But when you strip yourself of your
dignity, is any amount worth it?
That’s not to suggest the advice is bad—or that our
opinion is necessarily wrong. It’s just that if love
isn’t exactly blind, it at least passes over what it
chooses not to see.
But if you simply harp on what a bum the
boyfriend or husband is, she’ll only start to resent
you and become ever more defiant.
The best approach is to offer your advice only if
asked, while constantly building up her own selfesteem by reminding her that no one ever has the
right to mistreat her or disrespect her.
Perhaps then she’ll reach a sensible conclusion
about the man she’s with on her own.
Love is great for us…but we don’t always love
who is great for us. . . . .
We often know what we want. We don’t always
know what’s best for us. At least not initially.
We are led by the heart, emotionally drawn and
attached, and sometimes the relationship can be
downright destructive. But we rationalise away
the
faults—blinded
by
this
emotional
dependency—and we try and hang in however
obvious it may seem to others that we ought to
dump our mate.
Final thought: In response to the program “Get rid
of that jerk!”
The truth is, whenever the senses are involved,
what is most pleasurable or intense isn’t
necessarily good.
We probably all know someone who’s dating or
married to someone we can’t fathom. What a
jerk? We think. Surely she can do better than
him. He mistreats her. He’s no good. And what
in God’s name does she see in him?
Life is like a box of chocolates. No, you don’t
always know what you’re going to get. But even
if you did—and it’s exactly what you want, and it
tastes great—that doesn’t mean it’s good for you.
Sometimes you are better off without it—or him.”
And yet, the more we offer our opinion, the more
she seems to resist the advice and stick with him.
Graham Rossiter
Journal of Religious Education 49(2)
63