Yesterday, I was chatting to an academic who studies what some might politely call pop culture ‘ephemera’. Others might say ‘junk’. He pokes through the detritus of film, TV and music for clues to what our disposable, seemingly meaningless, entertainment says about Britain down the decades.
His field offers Colonel Hufton-of-Pufton types the welcome chance to get their mustard-coloured trousers in a tangle. "A Professor of Beyonce!? What’s society coming to!?"
There was a ruckus recently when Exeter University offered an MA in Magic. Cue a battalion of Colonel Huftons on Twitter screaming about purple-haired layabouts studying Paul Daniels. It turns out – evidently – that the master’s course was a rather serious exploration of the sociology and psychology of witchcraft, a peek into our ancestors’ history from a fresh perspective. What a dim world it would be if we just looked at the past through the eyes of kings and queens and the rich and powerful.
READ MORE: Neil Mackay: Farewell dark side - I’ve learned to love Therapy TV
That Masters course sounds like one of those brilliant BBC4 documentaries where you learn about Edwardians and Empire through their interior decor, or what troubled Elizabethans from their popular street songs. In other words: what seems like throwaway culture often reveals the concerns of the millions of ordinary people who make up a society.
It surprised me recently that Channel 5 had a nice line in social history documentaries about the 1970s, using the supermarket as the method of exploring what we were like back then. It was fascinating, thankfully nostalgia-free, and a very honest investigation of the period of my childhood: the joys and woes of a long-gone era, that’s increasingly misunderstood, told through mass-produced food.
I still – very wrongly, it seems – consider Channel 5 a station which airs nothing but shows about sharks, tanks and Hitler. I’ve worked a fair bit in TV and there used to be an industry joke that the perfect C5 programme featured a Nazi shark driving a tank. The station has grown up considerably, clearly. Therefore, I rescind all slurs and apologise.
So really, the truth is that hoking through culture’s dustbin is a valuable exercise. Which takes me to this thought: I increasingly feel we can learn as much about our society from Big Brother as the Booker Prize shortlist.
I’m not saying this for cheap controversy. I write novels, so I’m not here to dump on literature. Far from it. It’s humanity’s singularly most important cultural achievement: the moment two minds – writer and reader – mix and mingle. Nothing else does that, not film, not architecture, not even theatre has the novel’s intimacy and exchange.
READ MORE: Neil Mackay: Scream it out loud, sinister Scotland is the natural home of horror
However, in terms of what future historians will most probably use to anatomise we strange people of the 21st century, it’s just as possible that they’ll study our reality shows and pop music as our art and literature.
It’s pretty likely that in 200 years, Beyonce will be considered to say just as much about this world we inhabit as any modern-day composer. That might make us all somewhat shudder – if we’re hideous snobs – but academia seems to be on a trajectory which increasingly looks at history from the bottom up not top down. Good.
To be honest, this phenomenon isn’t new. HG Wells and TS Eliot were obsessed with the Music Hall; that was the place where they could unravel the minds of the people who comprised the society in which they lived, and which they wanted to explore in their writing. If you think modern telly is tacky, check Music Hall acts back in Victorian and Edwardian times.
So, as someone perpetually curious about this weird society I find myself living in, I’m very pleased Big Brother is back – again. The show gets resurrected more than Dracula in Hammer movies. I’ve been a fan of this insane reality series since it premiered in July 2000; a very fitting opening of the 21st century’s cultural doors.
Big Brother paints an eye-scalding yet honest picture of the period we live in, whether we like it or not. It sits alongside its contemporaries, social media and the mobile phone. All three combine as the ultimate expression of our rampant narcissism, and this era’s most defining social shift: a levelling of the playing field, a democratisation, where Joe Blow from Nowhere-Town can have a voice just as loud as any politician or movie star.
READ MORE: Neil Mackay: Lewis Capaldi, Cat-Children and the truth about our kids
Isn’t that the very essence of our age? This is a time when ordinary people – online, on their phones, on the telly – have power and visibility. That’s quite something, even if it does come dressed in screaming day-glo clothing.
Of course, the downside is nastiness – whether it’s online or on the box – but guess what? That’s who we are. We can be nasty. If art holds up a mirror to society, and our society is cruel, then isn’t Big Brother art? That’s for my academic pal to answer.
There is, however, also a rather gentle side to Big Brother. The first series saw the winner, Craig Phillips, a brickie from Liverpool, give his winnings to a friend with Down’s Syndrome. He’d also put the original Reality TV baddie ‘Nasty’ Nick Bateman in his place.
Culture in the 21st century is pretty much like culture in the 1st century: we still love a hero and we still loathe a villain.
The current series presents a lovely vision of modern, diverse Britain. It may also have given us one of the most heartwarming TV moments in quite sometime: a tender hug between a hijab-wearing Muslim woman and a trans woman.
Now, if you believed the vision of Britain presented on social media – and much traditional media – you’d think such a moment was impossible. How utterly wrong.
What Big Brother shows us is that yes, we can all be silly, juvenile and narcissistic, and that yes, some of us are mean and nasty. But most of us are decent folk, we care for one another, we don’t want to see people who ‘differ’ from us suffer, and our hearts are open.
In this bloody awful period we live in, that’s a hell of a profound lesson. It’s life-affirming. It’s just strange it takes a tacky TV show to teach us that simple truth.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here