Texts can be dealt with in many different theoretical ways. Some texts may be looked at with a semiotic theory, while others may be looked at with the theory of exnomination. Exnomination is when something in a text is not being named. An important point that is made with exnomination is that the people in power, or the majority, are the only ones allowed to practice exnomination. They are the only ones that are allowed to ignore the differences between them and the minority. They are also the only ones allowed to nominate or name the minority. This theoretical approach is often used to deal with race and how it can be looked at on television.

On all television shows, someone's race is either exnominated or nominated. The difference is how obvious this exnomination and nomination is to the viewer. On some shows it is obvious who is in the majority because this factor does not change from episode to episode. It is on these shows that the viewer can easily "catch" when exnomination and nomination has taken place. For example, on Friends, when Ross dated Rachel, people did not point out that they were both white. There race was exnominated because whiteness is the majority on Friends. However, when he dated Julie, who was from China, a joke was made that pointed to the fact that she was not American, she was different. Her race was nominated because she was in the minority. This exnomination and nomination can easily be pointed out by the viewer because it is apparent that whiteness is the majority on Friends. However, when viewers watch shows where it would appear that the majority changes from one episode to the next (but in all actuality it stays the same), they cannot point out when exnomination and nomination occur. For example the show LOST is one of the few shows where it appears that the majority changes with each episode.

LOST is an ensemble show, and like most ensemble shows it will feature certain characters in certain episodes. The difference is that the ensemble cast is a diverse one, and this is why the audience will think that the majority changes from one episode to the next. The audience assumes that the majority changes along with the featured character. Whoever is being featured will be the majority. For example, in the episode "Solitary," Sayid, who is an Iraqi soldier, is the featured character. It is obvious he is the featured character because the episode focuses on a specific moment in his life, when, through flashbacks, the audience is taken into his world of interrogation. It is also apparent that he is the featured character because the other characters are the comic relief of the show. They are wrapped up in a golf game that does not advance their plot in any way. Given that he is the featured character, it would appear at first glance that he is the majority and will therefore exnominate the minority, or the rest of the ensemble. This however is not the case.

If Sayid was in the majority, the show would not point out that he is from Iraq. They would exnominate his race by showing no indication that he is of a different race than the majority of the audience. This, however, does not happen—his race is nominated in the begining of the episode. The most noticeable form of nomination is done with the simple act of using subtitles. When he is interrogating Falah about a bombing that killed two soldiers, the beginning of the scene is in subtitles. By using these subtitles they are acknowledging his language differences from the majority of the audience. When they make this acknowledgment, the nomination of his race is occurring. It is this nomination that proves it is not the characters on the show that hold the power, but the audience that is watching the show.

Exnomination is when a dominant group takes a position in the media as the “everyman.” By overtly failing to highlight their group’s dominance, they covertly do so. Race is a sphere in which exnomination is particularly interesting. White superiority is maintained through the media by portraying predominantly white characters without bringing direct attention to the fact that they are white. Because the only group that can effectively exnominate is the dominant one, whiteness is exnominated on television quite often.

A television program that exnominates the white majority is The West Wing. In a recent episode entitled “The Message of the Week,” the issue of race is overwhelmingly present. The majority of the characters of the show are white men, with the occasional woman. Very few characters are of an ethnic minority, and those that are, are portrayed as “credits to their race” and always have a personal saga of how they “pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.” It is always blatantly obvious when a character is not white, and it is made a key element of their character on the show. The president’s personal aide is a young black man who struggled through the hardships of growing up black in Washington D.C. His single mother was a police officer who was killed in the line of duty, leaving Charlie to support his young sister. Charlie is at the President's beck and call at all hours of the day and night, and still somehow manages to attend Georgetown Law School full time. This is obviously an impressive schedule for someone of any race. However, the white characters never seem to have an explicit elaborate past that they had to overcome in order to work in the White House. It is just assumed that people who work in the White House are white, and if not there is a story of blood, sweat and tears that got them there. By casting predominantly white men as important political figures a specific ideology is presented to the viewing public. The viewer is prompted to accept the ideology that white men are the most qualified to be in positions of political power. This silently operating ideology within the program directly opposes the ideology Americans loudly proclaim at every chance that presents itself; the idea that “everyone is equal” and that everyone, despite their race, is given an equal opportunity to succeed.

But I must be fair to the producers of one of the most consistently entertaining shows on television; there is definitely more ethnic diversity in the political world of President Bartlett than in the political world of President Bush. Unfortunately I find it unlikely a Latino Democrat from Texas could ever become a contender for the Presidency in our world.

Generally, sitcoms focus on one or two issues that are middle-class-appropriate issues, while exnominating every other issue from the series. That is why it is surprising to see a program such as Cheers, during its first season in 1983, nominate on primetime many controversial issues for its time period—but at the same time exnominate the issue of race.

In the first season of Cheers, there are plenty of white middle class issues, and even white lower class issues. This can be seen in episode 115, “Father Knows Last,” in which Carla tries to trick a successful man into believing he is the father of her child. Although any race or any class can deal with the issue of single mothers, the character Carla shows the viewer that she is lower class by saying that she is broke and that is the only reason why she tricks an MIT professor into believing he is the father; it will move her up the economic ladder. By the end of the episode, the problem is solved. It is important to mention, though, that the white middle class patrons of the bar solve the problem, reaffirming the ideology of the majority to white middle class viewers: they, the middle class, are truly charitable people willing to help lower class single mothers.

Yet, Cheers does more than help reaffirm the middle class ideologies. Ageism is dealt with on a weekly basis in the first season with the character Coach. He is a character that is clearly senile, as he is often easily confused, gullible, and upset by things, such as being asked if he wants to be a kidney donor at the DMV in episode 115. This action is stereotypical of a senior citizen that is senile (not to be confused with Alzheimer’s, something the show never dares address). Instead, the Coach is given a lofty job as an assistant bartender. By having Coach as an assistant at the bar, the viewer sees that senior citizens, even when they are getting senile, can still function and perform in society. It is crucial to remember, however, that Coach is an assistant rather than the owner because if he was the owner we would expect something like a ‘wise man story’ at the end of each episode. This would make the show rather unbelievable. However, by having Coach as an assistant, the writers of the show are able to present a more “TV realistic” view of senior citizens and show the issues of ageism in a light hearted way.

Ageism and single mothers are somewhat radical issues to deal with on a
show that was designed to cater towards middle class white Americans during primetime television, but there was another issue that was relatively controversial in 1983: homosexuality. Today the viewer is more willing to accept the appearance of homosexuals on a program (Note: however, dealing with homosexual issues such as marriage on primetime sitcoms is still too radical for the viewer), but in 1983, the idea of homosexuality was still controversial. Instead, Cheers lightly touches on the two waitresses, Carla and Diana, as being lesbians in episode 115. Also in episode 116, “The Boys in the Bar,” the issue of homosexuality is explicitly nominated as the “regulars” express their feelings about having any gay men in the bar.

It is surprising, though, that even after dealing with single mothers, ageism, and homosexuality, the program never nominates racism. Instead it is the one issue that is exnominated in every episode. In the first season, there are probably less than a dozen African Americans that appear in the bar, and all other races do not seem to appear at all. The reason for this exnomination of race is more than likely because of the setting of the show in a bar. If a primetime show aired presenting the majority white viewer with a minority member going into a bar and dealing with his issues the same way the other “regulars” deal with their problems, then the ideology of the show of being able to, as the theme song suggests “leave your worries” to go to “a place where everybody knows your name,” would be challenged. Essentially the white “regulars” on the show have miniscule “white” worries like losing a bet, which pales in comparison to a minority worrying about discrimination.

Even though Cheers never nominated race, the program was still racy for a primetime sitcom because it did nominate a lot of other issues that are against the white majority that would watch the program. By nominating certain issues, the success of Cheers could be considered as ‘paving the road’ for shows such as Will and Grace or Everybody Loves Raymond, which feature homosexuals and senior citizens as major characters on their shows.

The show that I decided to view was King of the Hill—a cartoon based in Texas, and displaying the daily lives of four male neighbors and how they approach their redneck problems with great seriousness. In this show, whiteness is exnominated, unnamed. Next to Sex in the City and Friends, King of the Hill is one of the whitest shows on T.V.

An example of how this show exnominates race occurred in the first five minutes of the show. All four of the male neighbors are standing in the alley drinking beer, discussing how President Bush is doing a great job in office when, Dale Gribbel’s wife Nancy and his son Joseph walk up to him and ask him for five dollars to go to the store. When explaining this to someone it seems normal, but when you view the show you immediately notice that Dale and his wife are two of the whitest people in Texas and their son has very dark skin and hair, and is obviously Indian. Noticing that Joseph is Indian upsets the entire balance of the show. Whenever Joseph comes and stands by his white father, you cannot help but laugh because the boy is obviously not Dale’s, but Dale is too dumb to figure this out.

While watching a show like this, one may never notice the complete whiteness of the show until something upsets the balance; this is called ideology. Ideology is when we never realize how white the show is, we never think about it, we just accept it and keep watching. Only when someone of a different race appears do we notice that whiteness is exnominated in this show. If we were to explain what is going on in this show to a complete stranger, we would tell them “That is Dale Gribbel’s Indian ‘son’ next to him,” and we would laugh to ourselves because this has upset the balance of the show. We would never say that is Hank’s white son, Bobby. This is exnomination at its finest.

Another example of exnomination in this show occurs when all four of the white male neighbors are looking under the hood of Hank Hill’s truck trying to figure out what is wrong with it. You can obviously tell that the truck is a Chevy, and Hank makes it clear that it is by calling it a Chevy numerous times. While they are working under the hood, Hanks Chinese neighbor, Kahn, drives by, smiling at the four men looking under the hood. Hank immediately makes the comment, “Kahn and his damn Honda make me sick. Those foreign cars just aren’t what these American-made trucks are.” This immediately made me laugh because Hank is bashing on foreign people and their foreign cars. His comment is the ultimate in proving that this show is a complete "whiteness show." Seeing that Hank has a Chinese neighbor once again upsets the balance of the show. Throughout the show, Kahn never speaks, but you see him walk by in the background and all of the guys begin to mumble things about him or they immediately stop their conversation until he is out of sight. This is another example of ideology; we never realize that this show is all about whiteness and we never think about it, we just accept it. Then we see someone such as a Chinese neighbor and we find ourselves saying, “Hank’s Chinese neighbor,” instead of just calling him Hank’s neighbor.

King of the Hill is a show that is all about whiteness. It is based in Texas in the heart of “Redneck” country and its whiteness secures its dominance by seeming not to be anything in particular. The whiteness of the show is extremely hard to notice, especially for white people. In this show there are two people who are not white and they are of no relevance in this episode. They are simply there to make the viewer laugh at certain jokes. This show exnominates whiteness and it produces an ideology that is operating invisibly. The reason that this show is able to pull off the enomination and the ideology is because whiteness is at the top of the hierarchy in the show, and everything else is below that.

The now defunct television show Futurarama takes place around the year three thousand. The society is space-faring, multicultural, and multiracial. For all of its diversity, however, the white ideology still dominates (over half of the show’s characters are ‘white’). At times this ideology is nominated to produce a comic effect; most often though, it remains hidden, exnominated, proving that even a show that at times calls attention to what we take for granted cannot wholly remove itself from hegemonic power.

In episode twelve, “When Aliens Attack,” aliens come to earth in search of the half-aired season finale of a thousand year old show. The first scene finds two large, green-segmented humanoids sitting on a couch in front of a TV. This shot produces a comedic effect because they are ‘acting like people.’ More correctly, they are acting like white people. The image of the alien is transplanted into the everyday hegemonic syntagm. This shift draws attention to the activity itself. Thus, this small part of (white) culture becomes nominated. To drive its point home, this scene is juxtaposed with a very similar scene displaying the white main characters practicing the same ritual as the aliens, sitting on the couch and watching TV. Within this scene (a scene included, almost assuredly to nominate that small part of the invisible ideology) more is exnominated than nominated.

The second of the two aforementioned scene opens with two the ‘white’ members of the cast sitting on the couch. One is a human. The other is a robot. They are both white in the sense that they buy into the white ideology (an ideolgy which, according to the logic of this show, will continue well into the future). It is not their skin color that makes them so—one has no skin—but the signifiers that surround them that work to this end.

In this world of spaceships and holograms, there still exist many artifacts of white culture. The TV set, the couch, and soda pop are just some of these items (all of which surround the two characters in the above scene). It is in the inclusion of these trinkets that the creators of this show reveal how much they actually buy into the exnominated culture. The creators had to choose elements from the present day paradigm so to make the audience feel comfortable and somewhat connected to the world of the future. However, to accomplish this comfort, the elements had to be selected from the white paradigm. Therefore, white culture is interlaced through this future world, and TVs and (hover)cars replace holograms and spaceships. If any other paradigm were used, or the hegemonic paradigm discarded, the show would be a horrible failure. The short life of this series may be directly related to the (relatively) small number of hegemonic signifiers placed within each episode.

>  >  >  >   m  a  n  o  n  '  s     c  o  u  r  s  e     p  a  g  e  s 


Page layout and design ©2004 by Hugh S. Manon for the Oklahoma State University Film Program. Some images on this page are the property of a third party and are used with permission. The marks of Oklahoma State University are controlled under a licensing program administered by The Collegiate Licensing Company.

Last update: 1/22/2005