In the UK, we see poverty as a personal moral failure – and not a systematic problem caused by State policy – which is why Jeremy Kyle has been so successful.
I’ve read that 4 families from the same street had been invited on to the Jeremy Kyle show before – the now cancelled ITV daytime show – akin to Victorian era ‘Freak Shows’.
The show, named after and carried by Jeremy Kyle, a man so insecure about his own poor choices, failings and miserable character that he felt the need for nearly two decades to berate, humiliate and psychologically vilify members of the public for making similar mistakes.
The difference between ex-gambling addict, adulterer and divorcee Kyle, and the people he embarrasses on the show? Kyle is a privileged man – yet his guests come from some of the poorest and most deprived areas in the United Kingdom.
British class structure has always been a sternly criticised, yet simultaneously extremely guarded and protected institution: fetishized and maintained by the State, and the masses.
People love working class aesthetics, colloquialisms, history, and admire ‘the struggle’, but when it comes down to facing the realities in which they live - poorer health and personal maintenance, lower educational attainment, and sometimes, what we consider ‘continuously poor life choices’ – we are disgusted.
We are disgusted to the point of outrage in finding out a man from a council estate is on drugs, but buy and take cannabis regularly at university house parties.
We seek to shame women appearing on the show who have slept with multiple men, or use them for money – but see it as an empowering finesse if our Middle class counterparts do it.
We are horrified by the fact that someone on the show doesn’t have a job – but vote in governments that strip communities of educational or career-based opportunities.
Jeremy Kyle’s viewers see working class life as one of professional and consistent benefit scrounging, alcoholism, bad choices and petty crimes – and fail to see these actions or experiences as systematic or structural – experiences that people from all socio-economic backgrounds either experience and partake in.
The trouble is: we see poverty as a personal moral failure, and so hold poor people to higher moral standards, then relish in the fact that they cannot maintain them.
And so, we must reflect. Do these people deserve to die because of said failures, if others in more privileged positions can get on with life in private, despite also being in the public eye?
I wonder whether if the show genuinely helped, counselled and supported it’s guests in the ‘Aftercare Service’ well, as it so claims: why wasn’t Kyle happy to go on the show and open up about his addiction, affair and divorce?
Working class lives are disposable when the existence of poor communities is not ‘inspiring’ anymore or cannot be used for political election campaigns.
We can use these people’s sex, relationships and drug issues as entertainment, a fix for a boring day or to put on in the background when doing the laundry; but we are unwilling to accept other life experiences that poor people often face: lower life expectancy, more chance of suffering from a mental health condition, and higher rates of substance abuse problems.
Sex, drug and relationship issues are the tip of the iceberg of the real problems poor communities face – if you’re going to miss seeing these things on TV, consider watching soap opera omnibuses instead, and reflect upon the fact that you have been demoralising the wrong people all along.