Written by Katrina Varey

Disability, where for art thou? 

Lifestyle reality television shows are to many ‘guilty pleasure’ watching. The format the shows rely on are ones that do not challenge or break boundaries, but remain within the standard remit of what is expected on prime time television and also what is expected by a style of show that purports to show ‘real’ Australian life. The audience is therefore comforted by the continuation of a television style that maintains existing accepted ideologies. 

Upon considering the minorities that are represented in shows like My Kitchen Rules, inclusions of the disabled, either mentally or physically is non-existent. In saying this many may argue the case of Bonnie in Masterchef, which comes from the same lifestyle subset as MKR, yet this example is not without its concerns.

In the previously aired television series Masterchef the Professionals, a participant, Bonnie, was partly deaf. This is very uncommon when looking at the inclusion and exclusion of reality television programs, as those with a disability are generally overlooked and ignored. In saying this Dawn Perlmutter argues, "In terms of visual imagery, being deaf is not the same as being a quadriplegic. In our society hearing impairment is the most socially acceptable physical disability because it is invisible and hence does not cause visual discomfort to the viewer" (2000, p.158) It is the propensity for all television, even reality television to maintain an ideal of beauty and perfection above all else that results in viewers shying away from ‘uncomfortable’ content. 

Perhaps this is why the complete under representation of disabled people in reality television, not only in Australia but worldwide. As according to a summary of the report titled 'The Employment of Performers with Disabilities in the Entertainment Industry' "found that less than 2% of the characters on television display a disability, that only one-half percent had speaking parts, and that physical disabilities were portrayed more often than developmental or psychiatric disabilities (Hayward & Raynor, 2005, p.4) These sorts of statistics, which ring true for Australia concurrently, are concerning when considering how this reflects Australian-ness on reality television. 

The ANZAC hero- Aussie battler myth that is communicated and reiterated throughout shows like My Kitchen Rules and Bondi Rescue leave no space for disability. They are about being a ‘battler’ having the ANZAC spirit, and of course in the army at the time of the ANZACS no disabled people were allowed to fight. The ‘ideal’ Australian presented is an able-bodied agile male, who is through his strength and ability is able to succeed. Therefore their exclusion from this myth results in an exclusion from this television show. In Bondi Rescue we see strong, fit, able-bodied lifesavers and beautiful people on the beach, to have a disability is to not fit within this ‘ideal’ beach culture. Where My Kitchen Rules may throw in a few contestants of different races or sexual orientation it is only to cover the bases to appear multicultural or tolerant. Yet, just as Bonnie is in Masterchef the Professionals, as epitomised in the opening theme segment when we see Bonnie the sound goes out emphasising her disability as her defining factor, these contestants are tokens for a entire sections of society that are being under or poorly represented on reality television. They are almost used as a safeguard against critics who would call the shows out on their inequality. Wilson equates this to “the unrealistic standards of appearance proffered by such shows” and how they are “problematically based on a white-abled bodied, heteronormative paradigm”, such as the Aussie battler(2005, p. 207). 

The glorifying of this national identity through the ‘edited’ bodies and narratives of Reality Television compels a deliberation of how format and style is defining a very specific kind of Australian subject and ideal. As Murray and Ouellette prompt "Reality TV opens up new possibilities and limitations for representational politics" (2004, p. 8). It is these sort of discussions and analysis that need to be considered if the representation and exclusion of minorities is going to be altered on Reality television in Australia. It is the foundations of the actual format and not just the content of the shows that need to be scrutinised, as the continuous reproduction of the same style of program invites further omissions and misrepresentations. 

Ultimately, if a comparison between formats of programs like My Kitchen Rules, and more ideologically challenging shows like Go Back to Where you Came from as paradigmatic examples of two styles of reality television that could be utilised, one may ask which will produce a more realistic representation of Australian identity. However glorifying a program such as Go Back to Where you Came From from as a ideal format and denouncing My Kitchen Rules as a false and unrealistic one is not capturing the crux of the argument. It is not that one format is good and one is evil, but rather considering that both formats have their merits. The question is will shows that challenge audiences ever be as popular as those that reaffirm existing ideologies when it comes to reaching a widespread audience that watch reality television mainly for comfort. Perhaps a better question is to ask, is it possible to open up and adapt formats like that of My Kitchen Rules for a discourse on “representational politics”. And conversely, can you alter formats like Go Back to Where you came from to maintain their political and thought-provoking content, whilst also welcoming a stronger viewership. 

It is from here scholars and media makers alike, must consider what is the future of lifestyle reality television? What aspects of these shows and their formats can be adapted and altered to avoid or repair the aforementioned representative issues? What is the future of Australian identity as depicted on reality television, and can it ever be changed? Do Australians want a more challenging format that will break the existing stereotypes, or will the popularity always lie with shows that are easily digestible and replaceable? These questions necessitate answers if Australian’s want reality television to communicate a more well rounded and accurate view of Australia and our identity.

Butler, Judith 1991, ‘Imitation and Gender Subordination’ in D, Fuss (ed) Inside/Out: Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, Routledge, London, pp. 13-31.
 
Chui-shan Chan, Nicole 2008, ‘Gender stereotypes: A sociolinguistic study of “The Amazing Race Asia Season Two”', LCOM Papers, vol. 2008, no. 2, pp. 45-56.

Davis, Carolyn 2008, 'The Gender Factor of "Survivor": A Q Method Approach', International Communication Association 2008 Annual Conference
 
Edwards, Leigh H. 2004, ''What a Girl Wants': Gender Norming on Reality Game Shows', Feminist Media Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 226-
228.
 
Hamner, Rosalind 2005, 'Queer Television Discourse - Reality TV', Graduate Journal of Social Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 99-119.


MacDonald, L. & Sharp, J. (eds) 1997, Space, Gender, Knowledge: Feminist Readings, Arnold, London.
 
Price, Emma 2010, 'Reinforcing the myth: Constructing Australian identity in 'reality TV'', Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 451–459.

Tehranian, John 2000, 'Performing Whiteness: Naturalization Litigation and the Construction of Racial Identity in America' The Yale Law Journal, vol. 109, no.4 pp 817-848.
Turner, Graeme 1994, Making it National: Nationalism and Australian Popular Culture, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Raynor, Olivia and Hayward, Katharine 2005, 'The Employment of Performers with Disabilities in the Entertainment Industry' Screen Actors Guild, viewed 9 May 2013, <http://www.sagaftra.org/files/sag/documents/sagpwd2005.pdf>

Roscoe, Jane. 2001. 'Big Brother Australia: Performing the ‘real’ twenty-four-seven.' International
Journal of Culture Studies 4, no. 4: 473–88.

Wilson, Natalie 2005, 'Excessive performances of the same: Beauty as the beast of reality TV', Women & Performance: a journal of feminist theory, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 207-229.