EastEnders, a very popular British TV soap opera, was first broadcast on BBC1 in 1985. It is watched by a little under a third of the British population, by more women than men, and more by those in lower socio-economic groups (Livingstone 1990, p. 55). The characters tend to be mainly working class. In addition to women, young characters and men are given strong roles, so that the potential audience is wide. It has become particularly popular with teenagers.
EastEnders Audience (1988) (percentages)
Weekdays Omnibus edition Age 4-15 16 17 16-24 14 17 25-34 18 16 35-44 15 13 45-54 12 13 55-64 11 10 65+ 14 14 Sex Male 40 39 Female 60 61 Social Grade* AB 12 8 C1 22 20 C2 32 33 DE 34 39 Average Audience 13.4 6.5 (Millions)
(Adapted from Hart 1991, p. 35)
*Socio-economic grades
Set in London's East End, it is in the social realist tradition. The programme makers emphasized that it was to be about 'everyday life' in the inner city 'today' (in Goodwin & Whannel 1990, p. 124). They regard it as a 'slice of life'. Producer Julia Smith disingenuously declared that 'we don't make life, we reflect it' (Geraghty 1991, p. 32). She has also reported: 'We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuals, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc. in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism. Unemployment, exams, racism, birth, death, dogs, babies, unmarried mums - we didn't want to fudge any issue except politics and swearing' (ibid., p. 16). EastEnders has also featured single-parent families, teenage pregnancy, prostitution, arranged marriages, attempted suicide, drug problems, alcoholism, generational conflicts, a protection racket, a cot death, extra-marital affairs and marital bust-ups, sexism, urban deprivation, mental breakdown, disappearances, muggings, a fatal road accident and a suspected murder: it has sometimes been criticized for being bleak! Perhaps in an attempt to attract more male viewers once can sometimes notice a tendency to shift a little towards the genre of the crime series. Nevertheless, much of the action remains deliberately mundane.
Although it was part of the intention to handle 'controversial social issues' the programme makers insist that EastEnders is not 'issues-based' (i.e. storylines are not developed simply to illustrate predetermined issues). They see themselves as pursuing 'documentary realism' and their dramatic use of conflict leads to issues arising 'naturally' (Buckingham 1987, pp. 16; 30; 83). They accept that the programme has an informational or educational function for viewers, offering a discussion of topics of concern to them, but they are more concerned with raising questions than with offering answers. Entertainment is seen as the main purpose. The programme makers probably seek to avoid putting viewers off by seeming to be patronising. However, critics have occasionally noted episodes involving a very didactic style. The programme does not confine itself to the naturalistic mode, but sometimes shifts towards either melodrama or sitcom.
Dr David Buckingham is a lecturer in Film and Television at the University of London Institute of Education. Buckingham's (1987) study of viewers of EastEnders (published as part of his book, Public Secrets: 'EastEnders' and its Audience) was based on group discussions in 1986 with 60 young viewers in the London area (some at schools in or near the East End). These discussions involved children and teenagers aged between 7- and 18-years-old in twelve groups (with average of 5 people in each). These were largely 'friendship groups'. Most were 'fans' of EastEnders. Nearly all were 'working class'; some groups were almost exclusively black; only three groups were single-sex (two all-girls and one all-boys) (pp. 158-60).
Buckingham notes that his intention was 'to make these discussions as open-ended as possible, and to avoid directing them towards particular issues' (p. 158). He began by asking background questions about viewing habits, and then asked each member of the group to identify their favourite and least favourite characters in EastEnders and to give reasons for their choices. This usually generated discussion. He sometimes asked about characters or storylines which had not been mentioned, and finally showed the last few scenes from the latest episode, pausing occasionally to invite comments. 'I was attempting to allow the group to define its own agenda for discussion' (p. 158).
Buckingham points out that 'conversations about the programme were... part of a broader process of social interaction, through which friendships and enmities were constructed and reconstructed. They typically took place on the margins of "official" school life' (p. 162).
Buckingham notes that the children in his study had detailed recall of past events in the programme. Retelling was also 'a collective process': children interrupted each other to dispute or add details (p. 164). When shown a recording children talked along with the characters, 'often anticipating particularly comic or dramatic pieces of dialogue' (p. 164). Many of the children took pleasure in imitating and exaggerating the behaviour of characters (p. 166).
Buckingham notes that much of the children's fascination for EastEnders - particularly that of the younger children - arose from its inclusion of 'aspects of adult life from which they were normally "protected"' (p..200). For the younger children this was 'akin to voyeurism' (p. 164). 'Discussing television may provide a relatively "safe" way of acknowledging things which they are normally forbidden to talk about; as well as allowing us to look without being seen, television also allows us to pass comment without fear of reprisals' (p. 164). The kinds of 'secrets' which were seen as most fascinating included sexual activity, crime and violence (p. 165). Retellings of violent incidents appealed particularly to the boys. The children took pleasure in being 'shocked' (pp. 167, 171). The younger children also enjoyed reading about the private lives of the stars of the programme (p. 169). The children tended to see some relationships as the embodiment of 'boring everyday life' and to see stormy relationships as far more interesting (p. 174). He notes that 'only very rarely did anybody express a desire that characters might live "happily ever after"' (p. 168).
The children enjoyed predicting future events in the narrative and debating the likelihood of the various possibilities (pp. 167, 170). Buckingham observes that 'viewers constantly test their own and others' predictions against the evidence provided by the programme' (p. 171). Their predictions were often informed by their reading of press coverage of the programme (p. 169). The children speculated about how a certain character would be written out when it was learned that the actor playing the part would be leaving the programme (p. 169).
As for age differences, 'the older children were generally more articulate and self-reflexive about their own viewing experience. While many of the younger children clearly possessed a grasp of some of the categories and concepts which might explain that experience, they lacked a more "theoretical" vocabulary with which to describe it' (p. 201).
Buckingham repeatedly stresses that often in the discussions children shifted from intense involvement in the fiction to critical (often ironic/satirical) distance from it (pp. 165-6, 169, 172, 180-1). 'They were by turns moved, deeply involved, amused, bored, mocking and irreverent' (p. 200). He notes that 'the ability to be moved by the fiction was not necessarily incompatible with a desire to ridicule it' (p. 166; see also 180-81, 200). 'While the pleasure of passing moral judgment on the characters is to some extent premised on a belief in the psychological coherence and plausibility of their actions and motivations, the pleasure of questioning and even ridiculing the artificiality of the programme is clearly based on an awareness that it is, precisely, a fiction' (p. 200). He adds that 'the children's more distanced perspective was informed by their understanding of the production process' (p. 183).
At certain points, they appear to be judging the programme and the characters from outside the fictional world, while at others they seem to accept the reality of that world, and make their judgments, as it were, from inside it. In each case, they also use different types of evidence to support their arguments. Furthermore, within each perspective there is a range of different but related, concerns. From the more distanced 'outside' perspective. there is firstly a concern about representation... [e.g.] about the ways in which teenagers (that is, they themselves) are typically represented... Secondly, they are clearly aware that the programme is a constructed artifact, and that decisions about how particular stories develop may be determined at least partly with a view to ratings... From an 'inside' perspective, the group is concerned to debate the moral validity of... [a character's] behaviour... Cutting across this inside/outside movement is the group's concern for plausibility. (pp. 172-3).
Buckingham observes that the issues of representation, construction, morality and plausibility are closely inter-related. 'Judgments about plausibility in particular may often be based, not so much on a comparison with 'what life is really like' as with aspirations about what life should be like' (p. 176; my emphasis). 'Moral judgments about the behaviour of characters blend into a discussion of the plausibility of the narrative, a discussion which is clearly informed by an understanding of the constructed nature of the programme as a whole. These considerations in turn feed into a broader critique of the representation which is provided' (p. 188; my emphases).
Children were quick to note both 'bad acting' and 'wicked [admirable] acting' (p. 182). In a few cases, 'judgments of acting quality were clearly linked with their assessment of the character' (p. 182).
Many of the children described the programme as 'realistic', though as Buckingham acknowledges, what this means may vary (p. 180).
Their description of the programme as 'realistic' may be seen to be as much an aesthetic judgment as an assessment of the accuracy of its representation of reality. In other words, by describing it as realistic, they were not merely judging it to be a relatively truthful depiction of the world - particularly insofar as it showed aspects which were often kept hidden from view; they were also, I would argue, identifying it as a generally good example of the category 'realism'. (p. 186)
'The programme was... seen by many to reveal areas of experience usually hidden from view... and while this may allow a degree of voyeurism, it could also perform a more therapeutic or educational function' (p. 179). Many felt that some of the characters were like people they knew personally. However, 'The prerogatives of realism were sometimes perceived as being in conflict with the desire for likeable characters' (p. 179).
'These young viewers... were aware that EastEnders is constructed, and did not confuse its representation of the world with reality' (p. 200). Buckingham notes that the younger children rarely confused characters with the actors playing them (p. 170). They often read press coverage about what the various actors were doing in 'real life', and this may have helped to undermine any belief in the reality of the narrative.
A belief in the realism of television, in its ability to 'tell the truth' about aspects of the social world which are often hidden or misrepresented, does not necessarily entail a belief in the reality of its fictional world. Indeed, the extent to which the children were prepared to accept the reality of EastEnders' fictional world was strictly limited... The extent to which the children I interviewed were prepared to question the plausibility of events was quite remarkable... This questioning was informed, not merely by comparisons with their own experience, but also by an understanding of the production process of television. Although they clearly enjoyed the game of make-believe, they were also... well aware that it was only a game. Yet the pleasures gained through this willing suspension of disbelief were, if anything, enriched by the pleasures gained from questioning and, in many instances, ridiculing the artifice. (p. 180)
'Some of the older children... noted what they felt were inconsistencies between consecutive episodes, or major gaps in the narrative' (p. 184). 'Although the rapid pace of EastEnders' narrative was generally admired... it was sometimes regarded as excessive... Yet even the younger children were aware that the pace of narrative developments in soap opera was determined at least partly by external pressures' (p. 185).
Perhaps contrary to expectations, the group of fourteen-year-old boys whom I interviewed felt that in many respects EastEnders did provide an authentic representation of the area in which they lived... At the same time the group did identify a number of aspects which they regarded as implausible. As with other groups, these particularly concerned the representation of young people, and their relationships with their parents... Like a number of other groups, they felt that the social world of EastEnders, and particularly that of its younger characters, was rather limited. Although these criticisms were shared by other groups, what distinguishes the comments of this group is that their judgments of the programme's lack of authenticity were informed by two specific, and related, ideological concerns - firstly by their notions of masculinity, and secondly by a rather different East End mythology from that provided by EastEnders. (pp. 189-90)
'Many of the children... argued that the programme did not represent young people in ways which related to their own experience, and implicitly found this inadequate and patronising.' (p. 201). For one group, 'the younger characters in EastEnders were lacking in plausibility not only because of their apparent innocence, but also because of their lack of specificity: they are seen as "straight", all-purpose young people, without the diversity and detail of specific "youth cultures"' (p. 200).
'Psychological consistency was regarded as indispensable if the programme's authenticity was to be maintained. Indeed, a central feature of the children's discussion of the characters was their attempt to infer motivation, and thereby to construct consistency' (p. 186).
'Most of the children distinguished between complex characters, with whom they were more likely to identify, and simpler characters, whom they were more likely to ignore, or in many cases, to ridicule' (p. 186). 'The children also categorised characters in terms of their degree of authority [e.g. being 'wise']... Physical attributes were also important, particularly for the boys [for whom being 'hard' or tough was important]' (p. 187). 'Although... "villains"... were much disliked, they were seen as necessary, both in order to guarantee continued narrative interest and in order to ensure realism' (p. 187).
'In some respects the children simply failed to recognise that the programme was seeking to address them at all, and largely ignored aspects of it which they might have been expected to seize upon as relevant to them. While this was partly the case with the younger characters, it was most notable in the way in which the black children I interviewed effectively ignored the presence of black characters in the programme' (p. 201). 'The children sometimes failed to identify with characters who were "like them", and whose perspective one would therefore expect them to share. In the case of the younger characters, this appears to have resulted from the fact that they were generally seen as inauthentic' (p. 196). 'These children's enthusiasm for EastEnders... was not primarily based on their identification with its younger characters - although this was at least partly the producers' intention in including them. On the contrary, much of their fascination - and in particular that of the younger children - arose from its inclusion of aspects of adult life from which they were normally "protected"' (p. 200).
Buckingham observes that
EastEnders directly invites its viewers to make moral
and ideological judgments... However... the kinds of judgments which are
invited are more frequently moral rather than ideological ones - that is
judgments which relate to the rights and wrongs of individual behaviour,
rather than to broader social forces. Nevertheless, in criticising and
discussing the characters, viewers may well be using television as a vehicle
for working out their own ideological perspectives, or for giving voice
to their own needs or desires. Their judgments may often extend beyond
questions of morality to address broader ideological or political issues...
For example, gender differences were a crucial factor in the debates [about
some characters]... In one instance, with an all-girls group, this criticism...
became a debate... about EastEnders' representation of women...
(pp. 174-5)
He later notes that
The issues of morality and authenticity... were both significant factors in the children's discussions of their character preferences. It was here that the differences between the readings produced by different groups and individuals were made apparent and, in many cases, debated. It was here also that the relationship between the programme and its audience assumed a more directly ideological dimension and, particularly with the older children, provoked some explicitly ideological criticism of it. (p. 188)
'For all of them, discussing the programme was... an opportunity to engage in a moral debate, which in the case of the older children was often extremely sophisticated' (p. 171). Some of the negative moral judgments related to when a character was seen to be 'using' someone else (p. 192), selfish (p. 194), 'wanting her own way all the time' (p. 192), 'weak' (p. 196), failing to 'get her own back' (p. 196), a 'bad mother' (p. 194), a poor wife (p. 194), 'sexist' (p. 197), 'racist' (p. 194), 'bossy' (p. 192) or 'a busybody' (p. 192). Some involved an explicit class dimension - being 'stuck up' or 'posh' (p. 192). Harsh judgments were often made about middle-class characters. Such characters were also typically described as less authentic, whilst 'the working-class characters were widely regarded as more authentic' (p. 193). 'Insofar as "class" featured explicitly or inexplicitly in these discussions... the children were... [mainly] interested in using it [EastEnders] as a vehicle for expressing their dislike of "snobs", and other figures of authority' (p. 193). 'Instances where more "serious" or self-important characters were "shown up" or "put down" were told with great amusement' (p. 166). There was sometimes an 'almost sadistic desire' to witness disliked characters suffering (pp. 168, 192).
Buckingham observes that it was rare for any of the groups to address spontaneously and directly the social themes, issues or 'problems' raised by the programme (such as racism) (p. 163). 'It would, I think, have been extremely difficult for any of these groups to answer a question like "What do you think EastEnders is saying about racism?"' (p. 163). 'Although the attempt to provide a positive representation of a multi-ethnic community was a significant element in the initial conception of EastEnders, this theme was conspicuous by its absence from these discussions. When I did attempt to introduce it, the children soon directed the conversation into other topics, manifesting not so much reluctance as indifference' (pp. 193-4). 'The racist attitudes of some of the white characters were more of a focus for discussion' (p. 194). Some of the children liked the programme's 'mixture of races'. However, 'some of the older children were... suspicious of the programme's didactic intentions, and accused it of tokenism' (p. 195). 'Nevertheless, this kind of criticism was exceptional. What was far more typical was the general lack of interest in this aspect of the programme... What was notable was precisely the lack of explicit reference to ethnicity in the children's discussions of these characters. These responses might be seen as a consequence of the programme's tendency to suppress ethnic difference in its attempt to provide a positive representation of a "multicultural" community' (p. 196).
In most cases... the children responded enthusiastically to the programme's invitation to sit in judgement on the characters. Their comments were clearly informed by their social position, and in the case of some of the older children, by fairly consciously-held ideological positions as well... Few of the children felt that the programme had 'designs' on them - and in cases where they did feel that a particular lesson was being put across, there was considerable dispute about precisely what the lesson was. (p. 177)
'Although few of the children discerned any directly "educational" intentions on the part of EastEnders, they were in some cases critical of what they perceived as the partiality and lack of authenticity of its representation of the social world' (p. 188). Buckingham interprets such cases as reflecting these viewers' awareness of ideological motives on the part of the programme-makers: in criticising the programme's 'negative image of teenagers' one 17-year-old was not merely questioning the programme's authenticity but also making an ideological judgement in rejecting its claim to speak on behalf of its audience (p. 188; see also p. 201). Buckingham admits that 'few of the children voiced this kind of direct rejection' but argues that 'the type of questioning which informs [this criticism]... was a feature of many of these discussions' (pp. 188-9). He argues that 'although the children's awareness of representation was often expressed as a judgment of the programme's lack of accuracy, it was in many cases simultaneously a judgment of its ideology' (p. 188).
The girls tended 'to favour female characters whom they regarded as "strong"' (p. 196). The boys favoured characters, who - though they might have moral failings - were 'hard' (pp. 197, 197). 'Gender differences were a crucial factor in the debates [about some characters]... In one instance, with an all-girls group, this criticism... became a debate... about EastEnders' representation of women...' (p. 175). 'Some of the girls felt that its female characters were often presented as unrealistically passive, and were frustrated by the characters' failure to assert themselves in the way they would have wishes to do in their own lives' (p. 201).
Buckingham reports that one character (Den) was regarded by nearly all of the boys as their favourite character largely because of his 'dirty tricks' whilst another (Ian) was rejected as 'a softy'. 'Yet significantly, this also led them to question the plausibility of his behaviour... The boys' comments on the plausibility of the characters were thus directly related to their own investment in a particular notion of masculinity' (p. 190). Buckingham argues that the 'softy' was regarded as 'too far fetched' 'because he does not behave in a way the boys themselves would like to be seen to behave' (p. 190). These boys identified enthusiastically with stories of the villainy of the East End underworld which they did not find reflected in the programme (p. 191). The ITV series The Bill was praised as a more accurate representation of the East End in this respect. The boys noted that some of the actors in EastEnders revealed that they were not 'real East Enders' when their 'posh' accents were heard on chat shows. Buckingham argues that 'the boys' perception and understanding of their own experience, and hence their judgments of what was and was not realistic, were dependent upon their own social position as young working-class men, and their attempts to define that position in positive terms. The ideology which informed these perceptions and understandings was therefore bound up with their sense of their own identity' (p. 191).
The boys tended to admire the amoral behaviour of a male 'schemer'. However, Buckingham cautions that 'it would be false to conclude... that the boys merely valued action and violence, while the girls favoured more emotional and domestic storylines. The issues which the children were prepared to discuss inevitably depended on how they wished to appear to each other; and particularly in the case of the boys, I would argue that this acted as a strong constraint on their contributions. In nearly all the discussions, and especially those with older groups, the boys were markedly more reticent - indeed, untypically so... There may well be significant differences between what boys actually enjoy, and what they are prepared to admit to enjoying' (pp. 197-8).
Daniel Chandler
January 1997