The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _Maksutov »

Doctor Scratch wrote:And there are yet more parallels here that are worth exploring. Consider Dean Robbers's observations about the Neighborhood of Make-Believe, with its emblematic trolley tooting cheerfully through the tunnel. Isn't this sort of like the Mopologists "passing through" some sort of veil, to a world where Nephi was a real person, and horses existed in pre-Columbian Latin America? (It's telling that the fantasy realm in the show is called "Neighborhood of Make-Believe"; it's not "Neighborhood of Fantasy" or "Neighborhood of Whimsy" or "Neighborhood of Imaginary Stuff"--it's "Neighborhood of Make-Believe.")

I love this. :biggrin:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _cinepro »

I finally saw the documentary, and there is one point that I don't think has been brought up.

The movie talks about a Mr. Rogers "backlash" years ago among some people in the conservative movement based on the perception that Mr. Rogers' insistence that "everyone is special" is somehow counterproductive to human development.

For example...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JkzyGXJ2w

I don't know how widespread this sentiment was, but my wife and I agreed (after seeing the movie) that it is based on a misunderstanding of what Mr. Rogers was actually conveying. He wasn't saying "you're special so you don't have to do anything or accomplish anything in your life..." He was saying "Even if you aren't an Olympic Gold Medalist, Oxford Scholar or a billionaire, you have value and worth." This is very similar to what the LDS Church teaches in that everyone is a "child of God" and has value. So whatever "backlash" there was is obviously misguided and probably more of an attempt to gin up some ratings than a sincere objection to what he was actually saying.

But I think there's a lot of projection and overreaching regarding what Peterson actually wrote. As others have pointed out, he just wasn't in the age group (2-5 year olds) for the show. The show nationally aired in 1968, when Peterson would have been 13. He wasn't supposed to like it.

I have the same low opinion of the show "Barney", which was beloved by a generation of kids but aired when I was in my teens (and I would loudly complain when my younger siblings co-opted the TV to watch it). Hopefully that doesn't make me a bad person.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _Runtu »

cinepro wrote:I finally saw the documentary, and there is one point that I don't think has been brought up.

The movie talks about a Mr. Rogers "backlash" years ago among some people in the conservative movement based on the perception that Mr. Rogers' insistence that "everyone is special" is somehow counterproductive to human development.

For example...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JkzyGXJ2w

I don't know how widespread this sentiment was, but my wife and I agreed (after seeing the movie) that it is based on a misunderstanding of what Mr. Rogers was actually conveying. He wasn't saying "you're special so you don't have to do anything or accomplish anything in your life..." He was saying "Even if you aren't an Olympic Gold Medalist, Oxford Scholar or a billionaire, you have value and worth." This is very similar to what the LDS Church teaches in that everyone is a "child of God" and has value. So whatever "backlash" there was is obviously misguided and probably more of an attempt to gin up some ratings than a sincere objection to what he was actually saying.

But I think there's a lot of projection and overreaching regarding what Peterson actually wrote. As others have pointed out, he just wasn't in the age group (2-5 year olds) for the show. The show nationally aired in 1968, when Peterson would have been 13. He wasn't supposed to like it.

I have the same low opinion of the show "Barney", which was beloved by a generation of kids but aired when I was in my teens (and I would loudly complain when my younger siblings co-opted the TV to watch it). Hopefully that doesn't make me a bad person.


Yep. There was a "self-esteem" backlash among some conservatives several years ago (I know a woman who wrote a book about the myth of self-esteem), and I agree it was based on a misunderstanding of the message from people like Fred Rogers. But yes, Dan's offhand statement has been blown out of proportion, but it's still just weird that he would say it publicly. I don't know.

My kids watched Barney when they were little, and I can see how someone not in the target demographic wouldn't like it. Teenaged cinepro is definitely not who they were going after.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _Kishkumen »

cinepro wrote:I don't know how widespread this sentiment was, but my wife and I agreed (after seeing the movie) that it is based on a misunderstanding of what Mr. Rogers was actually conveying. He wasn't saying "you're special so you don't have to do anything or accomplish anything in your life..." He was saying "Even if you aren't an Olympic Gold Medalist, Oxford Scholar or a billionaire, you have value and worth." This is very similar to what the LDS Church teaches in that everyone is a "child of God" and has value. So whatever "backlash" there was is obviously misguided and probably more of an attempt to gin up some ratings than a sincere objection to what he was actually saying.

But I think there's a lot of projection and overreaching regarding what Peterson actually wrote. As others have pointed out, he just wasn't in the age group (2-5 year olds) for the show. The show nationally aired in 1968, when Peterson would have been 13. He wasn't supposed to like it.

I have the same low opinion of the show "Barney", which was beloved by a generation of kids but aired when I was in my teens (and I would loudly complain when my younger siblings co-opted the TV to watch it). Hopefully that doesn't make me a bad person.


I don't know. Do you think that Barney is as culturally significant as Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood (relatively speaking)? Why is your dislike of Barney pertinent? I don't really care for Friends. So what?

Let's review the passage:

DCP wrote:I was, I have to admit, never a Mr. Rogers fan. I doubt that I ever watched an entire episode. I really couldn’t stand the show. So I was a bit surprised at the news that we were going to see Won’t You Be My Neighbor? tonight. It was interesting, though. And there was one section, in the last quarter of the film, involving a young boy in a wheelchair, that was genuinely moving.


First:

I was, I have to admit, never a Mr. Rogers fan.


OK. Disinterest or dislike of Mr. Rogers.

I doubt that I ever watched an entire episode.


So, lots of exposure to Mr. Rogers, plenty to conclude that:

I really couldn’t stand the show.


So, in the less than an entire episode he watched, he conceived a very deep dislike for Mr. Rogers.

Weird.

Unless you understand him to be signaling to other conservatives who do not like Fred Rogers, his show, its values, and the fact that he successfully defended public television, something conservatives want to get rid of.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _Maksutov »

Some people--usually men--have a problem with him as being effeminate. It sets their teeth on edge, roils their guts. It's weird. I still see it in all kinds of places, like where Doc in another thread dissed two unappealing (to him) lesbians as some sort of political statement. Some folks expect all of their media and public figures to fit very narrow standards of appearance and image. If they check all of those boxes, they're in. Hence the rise of the telegenic and the reality stars. But it's corrupting. Too much emphasis on easily edited appearance. I personally think this kind of narrow crap has produced worse popular music...now it's even harder to make it in music if you don't look great or have a gimmick. Video killed the radio star indeed. What are we headed for? The people on our screens have to make us hard or wet? Sounds like devolution to me.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _Kishkumen »

You are right. Lots of people have pretty fragile identities. I suppose it would not be conventionally macho to admire Fred Rogers. It is not conventionally macho to admire Jesus, hence:

Image

It is really strange how people demand others conform to their particular presentist images of masculinity and femininity. They freak out about differences. I think this is truer of the Right than the Left. On that topic, Haidt is pretty good reading.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

cinepro wrote: He wasn't saying "you're special so you don't have to do anything or accomplish anything in your life..." He was saying "Even if you aren't an Olympic Gold Medalist, Oxford Scholar or a billionaire, you have value and worth." This is very similar to what the LDS Church teaches in that everyone is a "child of God" and has value.


True. But this isn't a teaching that the Mopologists typically follow. I mean, what "value"--in their eyes--does Jeremy Runnells or John Dehlin have? How about Ed Decker? Sandra Tanner?

As others have pointed out, he just wasn't in the age group (2-5 year olds) for the show. The show nationally aired in 1968, when Peterson would have been 13. He wasn't supposed to like it.


Interestingly, Dr. P. himself has never explained why he "couldn't stand the show." (And there is a difference between saying, "This clearly isn't for me," vs. "I couldn't stand the show.") In his "Sic et Non" post, DCP points out that Mister Rogers' Neighborhood is "a program that has often been criticized as, precisely, bland, unadventurous, and very vanilla." Of course he doesn't elaborate on this or commit to it as a reason for his own dislike, because...well, I assume you know why. Because guess what else is "bland, unadventurous, and very vanilla"?

I have the same low opinion of the show "Barney", which was beloved by a generation of kids but aired when I was in my teens (and I would loudly complain when my younger siblings co-opted the TV to watch it). Hopefully that doesn't make me a bad person.


I don't think the comparison is an especially good one. Mr. Rogers was an actual, authentic human being with a multi-decade track record of unflagging kindness and decency--something that most of us can only aspire to. Barney, on the other hand, was a disingenuous purple dinosaur whose show was interesting mainly due to how surreal the whole thing was. Didn't you wonder on some level what the person inside the Barney costume was actually like? Imagine how "meta" this discussion becomes when you imagine that Barney was played by one of the Mopologists--say, for example, Matthew Roper.... Or, God forbid, Scott Lloyd.... the horror..... the horror....
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _Gadianton »

Professor, you’ve touched on a profound issue here. Cinepro brought up an important consideration: target audience. But here’s the thing. It shouldn’t matter.

If I say “I never liked Pee Wee Herman,” which is true, the reader or listener subconsciously does some math, and realizes I’m judging it with respect to its target audience. It would be quite odd for me to talk up Dora The Explorer for the sake of myself, and if I were to do praise Dora, the listener would immediately realize I’m praising it for its value for children, perhaps my own. Once a friend of mine went on a rant against Chicken and Cow. I knew immediately he was speaking in reference to his three small children who watched it.

Even for adult progaming, say Monday Night Football, if I went on a rant about it, it could be incredibly confusing without a proper explanation, because I’m not a football fan and so the listener may be left confused over whether there are really deficiencies in the programming or whether I just don't like football.

The point about target audience is quite damning if it holds, and I assume it doesn't. It’s a matter of empathy that causes a person to take into account target audience when offering an opinion about a show. If I dismiss The Bridges over Madison County as a “chick flick” or Mr. Rogers as a “kids show” well, in a sense, fine. Where it starts getting weird is if my criticism leaves it totally up in the air as to what the failings are with respect to target, and seems to imply I lack the social awareness to consider the value for its target. The music reviews in American Psycho illustrated this phenomena masterfully.

An adult dismissing (or praising) Mr. Rogers either means he or she has a problem with the shows value for children (or regards it highly); or it means he or she lacks the ability to empathize normally with other people.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _cinepro »

Gadianton wrote:An adult dismissing (or praising) Mr. Rogers either means he or she has a problem with the shows value for children (or regards it highly); or it means he or she lacks the ability to empathize normally with other people.


Keep in mind the phrasing that is under consideration here:

I was, I have to admit, never a Mr. Rogers fan. I doubt that I ever watched an entire episode. I really couldn’t stand the show.


Until the recent documentary came out, I doubt anyone has really thought much about Mr. Rogers' show in quite a while. Peterson isn't passing judgement on the show as an adult. He's simply explaining the context in which he saw the documentary. Many people see the documentary through the lens of having enjoyed the show as a child (myself included). It's fair for someone discussing the documentary to explain if that's not the case for themselves.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: The Mopologists Don't "Get" Mr. Rogers

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
DCP wrote:We’ve just returned from a showing of the documentary film Won’t You Be My Neighbor? about the legendary children’s television personality Fred Rogers, of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood.

I was, I have to admit, never a Mr. Rogers fan. I doubt that I ever watched an entire episode. I really couldn’t stand the show. So I was a bit surprised at the news that we were going to see Won’t You Be My Neighbor? tonight. It was interesting, though. And there was one section, in the last quarter of the film, involving a young boy in a wheelchair, that was genuinely moving.

It occurred to me that there must be more to the blog comment than what you originally posted. Used the link. Guess what? There's not. That's it. That's his take away from the movie.

"It was interesting, though."

Admittedly I haven't seen the movie. I can't imagine coming away from it without appreciating the wisdom of the gifted teacher that was Fred Rogers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djoyd46TVVc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKy7ljRr0AA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYAXD-Z-ztE

"Rich? Not rich. Famous? Well, it's more like Mr. Rogers is quietly powerful" ~ John Donvan
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Post Reply