Perhaps the most frequent observation about family situation comedies in the Comfort TV era, especially among those who dislike them, is that they are unrealistic because they present an idealized view of family life. In fact, this viewpoint is now so ubiquitous that even folks who enjoy these shows largely accept it.
But I don’t. Never have, and never will.
Before anyone objects, let’s take a closer look at the term ‘idealized.’
The Oxford Dictionary defines something idealized as “regarded or represented as perfect or better than in reality.”
That’s actually two definitions, as “perfect” is hardly the same as “better than in reality.” Marilyn Monroe was better than reality. Audrey Hepburn was perfect.
So thinking back on any of these shows from the 1950s - 1970s, did they portray an American family as perfect? I don’t think so.
To me perfect connotes an absence of conflict; a life free from worry over health issues or money issues or relationship troubles. But these topics were frequently explored in sitcoms from this era. Granted, problems were almost always resolved with no real harm done, but I can provide dozens of examples of episodes where a dream job didn’t come through, or the boy a young girl had a crush on didn’t ask her to the dance, or a chance at public acclaim turned instead into a moment of embarrassment. These were struggles that would have been familiar to any viewers at home.
With “perfect” off the table, those seeking to make this case must now try and prove “better than reality.” That should be pretty easy, right?
This is where you get people saying things like “Father Knows Best was idealized because Robert Young was a kind, understanding dad, but my dad was a drunk with a bad temper,” or “the kids on The Brady Bunch always had money to buy new clothes and go out on dates, but in my family we had to struggle just to pay the bills and put food on the table.”
Well…okay. But we have to acknowledge that no television show could ever encapsulate a recognizable reality for everyone in such a large and diverse nation. So it’s unfair to expect Leave it To Beaver or The Donna Reed Show or The Cosby Show to epitomize everyone’s personal experience.
But if these shows managed to approximate the real lives of some families in America, then that “better than reality” indictment is nullified. And I believe they do.
If you disagree, then you would need to offer examples of situations or behaviors from episodes of these shows that would not be achievable by a real family in the era the episode aired. If anyone tries, I’ll look forward to those responses.
Shows like Roseanne have exacerbated this assessment. “Now that’s a realfamily!” you hear critics rave, and perhaps those caustic (but still loving) relationships are indeed more familiar to a higher percentage of the viewing audience. My parents never spoke to each other the way the Conners do, so for me that show was a reality I didn’t recognize.
What saddens me most about this topic is how readily we dismiss happy, loving, well-adjusted traditional families as an impossible fantasy. What does that say about us: that a series about a middle-class couple and their kids can be put into the same category as a show about a man with a talking horse?
The more this perception persists, the more grateful I am for these shows, and for the DVDs and cable networks that continue to air them every day. In a culture that continually celebrates the lowest common denominator, they represent what is possible when we treat those closest to us with patience, tolerance and compassion.
If you see your childhood in these shows, as I often do, then you have been blessed. If you didn’t, then aspire to them as a reality worth pursuing, and a road map for how to get there. It's not as hard as you might think.