Jersey Shore

There's no doubt MTV/Viacom's Jersey Shore has reshaped modern, mainstream visual anthropology. It's a feat, but not really something to be proud of... What [perhaps] began as an ethnographic documentary into the lives of [certain types of] Italian-Americans vacationing [really?] in a quaint [not anymore] Jersey Shore summer town, is now a work of fiction. Although still shot in a manner that hints at a "let's peer into the lives of an American subculture"-type documentary, over the course of the show's 4 seasons [really, a fifth season is planned too?] the show has become more entertainment than the poor excuse for a documentary, as the show's style was presented in the first season. Just as Survivor changed the fate of reality TV forever, so has Jersey Shore for this reality/ ethnographic hybrid, a genre more showing up more often in our mainstream prime time lineup.

I'm trying really hard not to venture into the realm of moral dilemmas, but with this show it's hard not to. Instead, I'll focus on how the show has affected viewers, as other ethnographic films have. First off -- and this is an easy one -- the stereotype of Italian-Americans has changed not only in America, but worldwide. Young people are seeing this and, in time, don't stand a chance but to succumb to the brainwashing, ultimately thinking that at least some of these horrible stereotypes are true.

Unlike some other ethnographic films where anthropologists will view a 30-90 minute video, and discuss their interpretations, Jersey Shore offers a false glimpse into the lives of these literally fake people. What's worse, their target audience is roughly 16-24 year-olds. Further, it's not some bad movie you watch once or twice. There are currently 47 episodes over the course of the past three years. And more are coming. And according to Wikipedia, there are more than nine different spin-offs currently on air around the world, each focusing on a certain race, and each trying their hardest to cash in on this booming entertainment niche.

This really is the power of ethnographic film. But is it an ethnographic film? Parts of Flaherty's Nanook were staged. So was Rouch's Jaguar to a high degree. Does that take away from the merit of the work? I would argue that Jersey Shore is more slander than educational/accurate anthropologically, but does that nix it from the category of "ethnographic film?" Could the scene of Nanook chewing on the record count as "slander toward Inuits?" One could argue that it doesn't count as long as Nanook was in on it, as he was. But then again, so are the Jersey Shore cast. Where are these lines drawn, and how do we avoid moral dilemmas and circular dialogue?