Article Review

 In “Transforming Citizens? Green Politics and Ethical Consumption on Lifestyle Television.” Tania Lewis (2008) discusses the push for television shows universally to present people with ways to cope with the rising unease about social issues and personal responsibility to the greater world. Using the idea of “lifestyle television” as a framework, Lewis shows that there are positive and negative elements to this push of “green politics”, and to be aware of these limitations makes us all the closer to becoming the socially responsible individuals we so strive to be.

“Lifestyle politics” is described as networks, rooted in “civic agency”, promoting ethical and conscious individuals (p. 228, quoting Bennett, 1998). It promotes the idea that “our everyday lives are embedded in questions of civic values and concerns around social responsibility in ways that complicate oppositions between public issues, politics, and citizenship…” (p. 229). Some examples of television shows directly involved in this process are Honey, We’re Killing the Kids and The Biggest Loser. By creating reality shows that give people advice on how they can easily participate in the green culture as well; these television shows bring lifestyle politics right to the typical family’s living room. Lewis also states that some of these shows offer "viewers rather romanticized, escapist images" of the alternative, "slow" modes of living (p. 233), other shows exhibit a "'shaming and blaming' element" (p. 237).

Near the close of her article, Lewis briefly explains the implications of socioeconomic status in the green revolution. She comments that it is most directly targeted towards the white middle class. To give this article more contemporary relevance, I propose studying the affects of these lifestyle politics in members of another socioeconomic position. Being that bourgeois ideals tend to permeate a great deal of cultures overall, the affects of this new lifestyle must have some influence on other groups of people than those who are watching the shows. Since these reality shows make eco and green living more accesible for all people, not just the culturally conscious, wealthy, or white, another study could be done on how the presence of these shows affects people's purchasing. People generally buy what they see on television, and the reality nature of the shows makes it even closer to home and heart for viewers.

The detrimental nature of eco-consumerism is also of note in Lewis’s article. Further discussion on the amounts of trash generated by new green technology and misuse of green products by individuals simply to attain a sense of self-righteousness would be helpful and fascinating. Lewis writes (quoting Monbiot, 2007) “one of the major limitations of green consumerism is its tendency to encourage more rather than less consumption,” (p. 237). A thorough examination of the nature of the green revolution belonging to the category of “consumerist” or “anti consumerist” is necessary here.

This article is helpful in discussing the depiction of lifestyle politics as far as television goes and brings up many good points concerning ethics and how social responsibility is portrayed to us through these shows. It does fall short in analyzing the positive and negative affects of these portrayals. She gives so much evidence of different television shows, and does very little to explain the effects of the shows in our everyday lives and opinions. Since the article covers worldly matters and does not solely focus on one country, the article is fairly heuristic (though it could have encompassed more cultures). Lewis was, however, thorough in her definition of and theoretical implications of lifestyle politics. She gave much background information and references to other academic studies relating to her topic.