Big Brother Is Watching You!

Opinion

I am not an avid fan of reality TV shows. I kinda see an easy comparison, of the social experimentation in such reality TV shows, superficial and exaggerated, with the real and brute fact of human laboratory testing and manipulation. There was nothing superficial about treating humans as lab rats or hamsters for experiments. Gory.…

Share

Share
Text size
+

I am not an avid fan of reality TV shows. I kinda see an easy comparison, of the social experimentation in such reality TV shows, superficial and exaggerated, with the real and brute fact of human laboratory testing and manipulation. There was nothing superficial about treating humans as lab rats or hamsters for experiments. Gory. Bizarre, one would say. That’s because what came to our minds, at the mention of human lab testing, was the scientist’s harvest of human parts, for research purposes and experimentation. We almost feel the goosebumps of some mad scientist’s nightmare. Well, reality TV shows may be far from the grotesque and downright unethical, but it dissects human parts on more delicate axes – human emotions. Placing a group of people together to live as housemates, who have no prior knowledge of each other’s history and personality, and blindfolding them on the inside, to check and publicize their strengths, errors, and weaknesses, I think, reeks of exploitation.

The Big Brother show is one particular reality TV show that has gained so much popularity, it has nearly dispelled the apprehension that initially greeted such an open exploitation and broadcast of manipulated human emotions. Nearly, though. With each turn of events and newer mistakes about the content of the show, people have come to grow some kind of scorn, in others, indifference, and yet others, skepticism, about the intentions of the organizers. The bulk of people, though, less concerned with critically reasoning out the aims and objectives of a show that preys on the emotional strengths and weaknesses of people paired together with the single mundane goal of a few million doughs, see the show as anything but bad.

Funny enough, the origins of the term, Big Brother, are a stark contrast to the connotations of the reality TV show. Big Brother was a term that originated from George Orwell’s famous oeuvre, “Nineteen-eighty-four”, written as a satire to project the near-future of advancing society. Big Brother was the fictional character and symbol of Oceania, a totalitarian state in Orwell’s fiction, wielding total power for its own sake. Through ubiquitous posters and telescreens, the all-seeing eye of Big Brother could detect even the slightest stirrings, in the depth of any citizen, of hope or revolution. Big Brother was the perfect satire to represent an abuse of civil liberty and individual rights of expression, as well as mass surveillance.

The Big Brother show of today, is more concerned as a social experiment, with broadcasting the most liberal expressions of people living together. It is more interested in people “breaking loose”, “breaking bad”, rather than the Orwellian society of abbreviated gestures and stolid countenances. One isn’t surprised then, when bosoms are bared, and lips interlock passionately with the wetness of other lips or swollen erogenous¬†regions, without care for their being seen by Big Brother or by the eager watching world through Big Brother’s eyes. The Big Brother Naija show is a perfect example of this new definition. This social experiment seems to reveal that the eyes of Big Brother, unlike Orwell hypothesized, trigger rather a revolutionary spirit than a timid one. A spirit, revolutionary of the culture that teaches that a man forsakes not his family, for the fleeting pleasure of monetary gain and cheap sex, or that holds that a woman’s pride be kept to herself, and not broadcast to the world, in curves, piercings, and nudity.

Whether this spirit is in need of exorcism or applause, is talk for another day. Hopefully, Big Brother’s eyes would have been dimmed then, to prevent us from, neither the limitation of timidity or the irascibility of audacious stupidity.

Responses

  1. Morris
    This is TNC, so… No, I wasn’t definitely expecting the post to be about the happenings.

    First, for some reason, the grammar was too much…Sigh, i am going to stop here.

  2. Cavey
    Friendly advise, wannabe writer (me) to writer (you): go easy on the contextual grammar; the best reads are easier to follow with simpler words so the message doesn’t get lost in translation.
    Good read though. Very well written.
  3. Moroxi!
    well…in my opinion its not the sardinical method (Packed like fish in a sardine can..lol) in which you filled the article that was boring as to the way you did it. It came off as though you were trying to prove yourself, you need to hold your grammatical horses man..let the real you write. I’ll be Looking foward to that
        1. Nickybert Post author
          Thank you, Cleo. I always welcome criticism. It helps me to better my writing, when I hear feedback, even if negative. I intend growing into a great writer. Cheers my friend.
  4. Not Your Average Girl
    I share your bias and I’m of the opinion the shows purpose be reevaluated.
    Your writing is ok, just note that the idea is to communicate and the best way is to keep your points short and simple. Maybe I get what you’re saying because I’ve read the book and I see the contrast but not everybody has.
    In creative writing I figure if you’re not going for imagery or poetry you keep it plain and simple… Talk to laymen.
    1. Nickybert Post author
      Thank you. Happy you see the point I may have been hitting at in vain there. I may sometimes take too literally the advice of theoretical physicist, L. Boltzmann, that matters of elegance were best left for the tailor and the cobbler…lol. Still polishing my style of creative writing. I’m an unrepentant philosopher.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

+