Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Move that schoolbus!

Move that schoolbus!

Last updated on: February 14, 2008 at 9:07 pm by Fred Clark

Move that schoolbus! 2008-02-14T21:07:49-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I need to revisit “Shlock and Awwww: Commercializing Altruism” — Jon Mooallem’s conflicted appreciation of ABC television’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

Mooallem’s summary of the show’s process is dead on:

“In charity,” Francis Bacon wrote, “there is no excess.” But then Bacon never saw Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, which since 2003 has been meting out garish and super-sized acts of charity — each more skillfully choreographed and excessive than the last — every Sunday night on ABC.

Each week, the reality show’s “design team,” led by cloying carpenter Ty Pennington, parks its tour bus at the dilapidated doorstep of a deserving, downtrodden family and unleashes a whopping assault of good will. …

The family is whisked off to Disney World and the design team begins demolishing its house and building a better one — fully landscaped and prominently decorated with brand-name appliances and furnishings supplied by Sears, Home Depot, and the show’s other sponsors — in one week.

I’ve just had an up-close look at that weeklong process as it unfolded on South Clayton Street in Wilmington, Del. We provided wall-to-wall coverage of every step of the way at the paper.1 Everything Mooallem captures about the experience of watching the show — the precisely calibrated sentimentality, the choreographed emotion, the misery inflation — is also present in the show’s production.

That last point, the misery inflation, is particularly troublesome. Mooallem describes it well:

Even infrequent viewers will notice how the show has tightened its stranglehold on our consciences by gradually inflating its misery quotient. While the first season featured a couple that needed a larger home for its (surprise!) triplets, only two seasons later we were deep into a gallery of woe: twins with leukemia, the mother of a little girl who wandered off to catch fireflies and disappeared forever. In a memo acquired by the Smoking Gun Web site, a producer asks the show’s casting agents to look for a kid with “congenital insensitivity to pain”: “There are 17 known cases in US, let me know if one is in your town!”

This is partly a result of the show’s strange origin and evolution. It is, as that colon in the title suggests, a spinoff from an earlier program called Extreme Makeover. That show began as a flagrantly exploitative bit of trash TV, following the silly and the shallow as they sought the most radical forms of plastic surgery, tummy-tucking and breast- and lip-augmenting themselves into unrecognizable parodies of the airbrushed, glossy ideals of beauty. Then, partly as an apology for its Midway freak-show tastelessness, the show turned to more “deserving” beneficiaries — children with cleft palettes palates and other deformities who actually needed the reconstructive surgery of an “extreme makeover.” This turned out to be more popular with viewers and thus the even-more popular spin-off was born, reconstructing houses instead of faces.

But the deeper reason for the escalation of the show’s “misery quotient” has more to do, I think, with the show’s essential problem: It provides gifts. Gifts are, by definition, not earned or paid for. For American audiences, that is a problem. If a family didn’t earn the gift, then why do they deserve it? Americans’ discomfort with such gifts is probably half Protestant work ethic2 and half deadly sin of envy. To ensure that the recipients of the show’s largesse are not resented, the show’s producers are desperate for ever-increasing levels of pathos. They’re racing to stay ahead of the wave of resentment always directed at the “undeserving poor.”3

The family selected in Wilmington fit the bill: virtuous, diligent and cheerfully struggling to provide for their children with special needs.

The “whopping assault of good will” Mooallem describes is impressive to behold up close. The show’s producers are very good at recruiting, coordinating and focusing the contributions of thousands of volunteers and dozens of corporate donors/sponsors. The “makeover” of the family home — actually its total replacement — was indeed extreme. The new, home was blitz-built in 106 hours by some 3,500 volunteers. It’s beautiful. The surrounding homes on the city block got a makeover too — new roofs and siding or paint. It’s all lovely.

The deluge of additional gifts to the family is also just as Mooallem describes:

Just like that, Makeover plucks poor or working-class people from their misfortunes and not only gives them a new Owens Corning roof over their heads, but — the implication is — newfound stability and comfort. Often the family also gets a new car, computers, or college scholarships for the kids. These changes can be profound. That Mississippi mom, reeling beside her new Ford Edge SUV while Pennington shouts, “It looks great, it’s fun to drive, and best of all it’s all yours!” mentions that she’s never owned a new car before. Suddenly we grasp the life-changing enormity of just giving her a reliable vehicle. But wait — here are an iPod, modern art, bicycles, a karaoke machine, Panasonic flat-screen TVs, a collection of African percussion for her son, and a spacious new storefront for her fledgling business. Plus, gospel singer CeCe Winans has turned up to raise the family a nest egg!

Here, from the paper, is a (partial) tally of the additional gifts bestowed by corporate donors yesterday on the family in Wilmington:

$125,000 to pay off the mortgage from ING Direct; four $25,000 savings accounts, one for each of Ju-Juanna Latif’s children, from Discover Bank; full tuition, room and board for three of the children from University of Delaware, upon admission; $3,600 raised during a family fundraiser at Kid Shelleen’s; a $1,000 gift certificate for steaks from Safeway Cargill; two pizzas a week for a year from Grotto Pizza; season tickets for life for the family … [for] the Wilmington Blue Rocks; cleaning services for one year from Pride Klean Inc.; free lifetime memberships for the children from Boys & Girls Clubs; free lifetime membership for the family from the YMCA; reading assistance for the children from Reading ASSIST Institute …

As with most corporate donations, this largesse is mainly a form of public relations — a way of investing in good will that can help to boost the bottom line. Local companies pitched in, in part, so that they could bask in the warmth of the saintly halo cast by this “whopping assault” and receive a share of the civic pride and gooey warm sensation generated by this media circus.

But this event also illustrates another motive that’s often a contributing factor in corporate contributions. All this giving became kind of infectious and even corporate executives can get caught up in it. The unspoken idea is something like, “Hey, look what we could do for this family.” There’s a sense that something real and profound and hopefully lasting could be achieved, if only for one particular family. Maybe we can’t solve all the problems of the city, or global poverty or world peace, but maybe we can transform the lives of these four kids. Even the executives from the notorious Delaware-based credit-card banks weren’t immune from the allure of that possibility.

The presence of ABC’s camera crews and its elaborately rehearsed and orchestrated whirlwind of altruism harnesses both of those motives — the cynical posturing and the fuzzier desire to have an impact — and is thereby able to bring to accomplish a dizzying amount in a week’s time.

What exactly has been accomplished, and what the long-term impact of it will be, is hard to say. It’s not something Extreme Makeover tracks. The show is a sprint, a blitz-build affair, not a marathon or a marriage. Mooallem notes that:

Several newspaper reports4 have exposed how some Makeover families wind up unprepared for their new, exponentially higher utility bills and property taxes. A blind New Jersey man with three disabled children and a $14,000 tax bill on his new abode told one paper, “With all the taxes, it’s like we’re on a chopping block.” Meanwhile, five siblings featured on an Easter Sunday 2005 episode recently sued their adoptive parents for driving them out of the nine-bedroom, six-bathroom house built for them. They also sued the show for rebroadcasting their episode knowing that its ending had soured. The kids’ attorney happily revealed to the Los Angeles Times that the show’s touching “door knock” scene, in which the design team first arrived at the house and dispensed hugs, took seven takes to shoot.

That accomplishment and that longer-term impact will depend, in large measure, on what this family and those four kids make of the opportunities they have been given. They will realize that too, and the pressure that brings will be a new kind of challenge for them, one the departing cameras aren’t going to assist them with. Yet still they’ve been given a shot, and that’s something.

I’d like to see ABC capitalize on the success of its Extreme Makeover franchise by testing the scope of this new tool it has created. I’d like to see them roll out Extreme Makeover: School Edition.

Pick a public school, an elementary school that’s struggling, underfunded and overwhelmed. The pool of potential candidates is large. Focus the cameras and the army of volunteers and corporate donors on that school for a week or two (maybe even a whole month, since schools are larger than homes) and see what might be accomplished. Picture the moistly congenial Pennington hugging the principal surrounded by the throng of adorable smiling children — it would be a ratings bonanza. (It’s worked out well for Oprah, after all.) Hey, kids, do you like your new computers? Your new music facilities and state-of-the-art cafeteria? Do you like the clean, well-lit hallways and the smartboards in every classroom? Do your teachers all like their new hybrid Ford Explorers? Wait, there’s more, the governor’s here to announce the new equitable funding system that means your education is no longer tied to the dwindling property-tax base of your declining neighborhood …

OK, that last bit is probably beyond the scope of what’s achievable here. That’s politics, and Extreme Makeover is resolutely a-political. It offers reforms of a more Dickensian sort — the kind that might be provided by a newly discovered Good Rich Uncle in the book’s final chapter. Dickens’ abrupt happy endings can often seem contrived and sentimental, just like Extreme Makeover, but the author loved his characters too much — and made readers love them too much — to begrudge them such a gift.

There are a lot of families, a lot of schoolchildren and schools and neighborhoods in America that could really use a Good Rich Uncle. Extreme Makeover might be the closest they’ll get to that.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

1 Which was, in its own way, impressive. I just wish I could think of more examples of such thorough and enthusiastic coverage for other subjects. Like maybe the elections, or the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I suppose with limited resources, we can’t cover every story this thoroughly, so we have to pick and choose, and the skilled PR people from ABC helped make this story easier to cover. There’s an echo in all of this of the satire from David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest. Wallace describes the slow death of television as it is supplanted by the Netflix-ish “Interlace cartridges,” with the dying medium inexorably forced to devote all of its attention and adspace to the new medium taking its place. The paper’s relentless enthusiasm for this visit from a television crew takes as a given that TV is more significant and more meaningful than the printed page or the paper’s Web site or, well, pretty much anything. That assumption is all the more disturbing when one realizes that the people assuming it can’t imagine any other possible way of looking at the world and that those same people are the ones running a newspaper.

2 Which arose, itself, in reaction to a theological system that emphasizes the seeming arbitrariness of grace. Calvin’s insistence that “salvation is grace, ethics is gratitude” morphed into a desperate attempt to demonstrate that we are deserving of grace while they are not.

3 I.e., poor, and therefore by definition undeserving. Panglossian nonsense if you think about it for even a moment, but this isn’t really a “thinking” response.

4 I hope that our paper will also do this kind of follow-up reporting down the road, long after the cameras have gone. Here, as always, it is a newspaper’s job to be skeptical, but that is different from being cynical. The task here is to separate the reality from the hype, but to do so without falling into the anti-hype that does nothing more than reflect and nurture the pre-existing resentment of any beneficiary of such a gift.5 Such reporting requires a powerful BS-detector, but if it indicates that the entire world is composed of 100 percent BS, then its sensors are defective and it needs to be recalibrated. I can’t find the passage just now, but C.S. Lewis talked about this in terms of illusion and disillusion — of the necessary discernment in life of “seeing through” illusion, while also remembering that the person who sees through everything lives in an invisible world no different from that of the blind.

5 See also the cycle of honeymoon and backlash with political candidates.

class warfare

Previous Post

February 13, 2008

The weight of words

Next Post

February 15, 2008 Up to The Usual Thing

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What city was the capital of Israel before Jerusalem?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Bethel Jericho Shechem Hebron