Are you a viewer or voyeur?

The so-called 8216;celebrities8217;, on the other hand, comprise an assortment of volatile have-beens and page-3 wannabes, all with enough chutzpah to bare their coarse personalities. Desperate to save their sagging reputations, the celebrities have latched themselves on to the show in the hope that its shooting TRPs might boost their careers. They yawn, brush teeth, bare skins, scratch bottoms, display their idiosyncrasies and share their crass conversations in front of the camera. The setting and situations in the house are designed to induce clashes, jealousy, prejudice and insecurity. The intention is to celebrate nastiness, as it were.

Celebrity culture is itself a turn-off. Now, their exhibitionism under the powerful glare of public gaze makes it repugnant. The camera has become privy to a seed-bed of base human emotions 8212; intrigue, manipulation, embarrassment, depravity and so on 8212; to quench the viewer8217;s thirst for such action. Is it not the same appetite that drives us towards gossip? The camera8217;s roving gaze is tuned to stop at every juicy morsel that could attract the viewer. Moreover, the inclusion and use of a trans-gender individual to stir up that extra titillation is certainly distasteful. It sensationalises and dilutes the gravity of issues that sexual minorities have, time and again, attempted to highlight. Herein lies the hypocrisy of the middle classes. As a mark of possessing progressive minds, we approve cheap sexual innuendos and pour scorn on those 8216;puritans8217; who disagree, while viewing individuals with a different sexual orientation as perverts.

The other debatable aspect is the 8216;reality8217; of such entertainment. Critics of reality shows have often stated that the 8216;reality8217; portrayed is the result of a well-devised brief. The point, therefore, to be noted is that such reality shows are merely unscripted, not unedited! This Indian version of the UK and US Big Brother series is anyway said to be a safer bet, with less sex and violence. The censors would not have allowed an Indian Temptation Island. Reality 8212; without make-up, unedited and uncensored 8212; is not too easy to stomach. For if that was the case, why do we not smack our lips at the coverage of suicidal Vidarbha farmers? Why does that reality not attract advertising revenue or SMS voting? It is clearly not reality but debauchery that makes reality shows saleable. An exercise allowing the viewer to revel in their prejudices, by encouraging them to make snap judgments about 8216;good8217; and 8216;bad8217; people, while offering them sleazy scoops reeks of an obsession with profits nurtured by private and 8216;free8217; media conglomerates. The argument that revenues drive market forces and, therefore, also shape popular culture, public taste and consumption patterns has just got more glaring evidence.

Contemporary culture, with its loud demand for freedom and individuality, has muffled other voices. Its strong gaze too might be turning us into confident voyeurs who sneer at their closet counterparts. Remember, it is considered cool to wear your attitude on your sleeve. Yet, making money out of offering a peep into others8217; privacy cannot be justified as creative entertainment. However, since morality is now a dirty word and public morality more so, we are transfixed to our TV screens as our jaded tastebuds know only the gluttony that feeds on degraded entertainment.

Judging a bunch of publicity-seekers and casting votes for them is done with quick enthusiasm by the TV-viewing classes, but casting political votes invites only apathy. Such is the state of us consumers of high gloss and high drama that in our false consciousness we allow the so-called purveyors of entertainment to lead us on. Let us critically question our sources of pleasure and maybe let the camera be just that 8212; a camera and not a keyhole.

The writer, an alumnus of the University of Oxford, has written on issues dealing with women in the journal, 8216;Oxford Women in Politics8217;