In his time, Shakespeare provided entertainment to everyone from Elizabeth I and her court to London's labouring classes. His plays were meant to be enjoyed and not dissected by academic theorists. The creators of Big Brother, Survivor and the Biggest Loser et al also primarily want to provide entertainment and make a lot of dosh along the way (as did Shakespeare). The fact that Big Brother can be analysed in terms of a deconstruction of hegemonic discourse within a hetero-normative framework is irrelevant to Mr De Mol and his colleagues in the entertainment industry.

What is relevant and what I consider a problem is that Big Brother encourages gross egotism and a desire for fame for its own sake. Selfish behaviour and wanting to win by humiliating other people is part of the package. I find this both boring and repulsive and it seriously worries me that many people tune in to see people behave in such a self-centred, "look at me" manner.

CJ I don’t think it’s so much about not being able to ‘cope’ with quantitative methodology as it is about understanding that it is not always an adequate way of accurately exploring a topic. A problem those working within the field of quantum mechanics also struggle with from time to time.

I also fail to see how proponents’ age or sex has anything to do with anything. It's all ideas right?

Curious but rather blunt and misdirected points by DJ and CJ (is that Borat's "CJ" from town of Baywatchers?)

DJ writes: "The fact that Big Brother can be analysed in terms of a deconstruction of hegemonic discourse within a hetero-normative framework is irrelevant to Mr De Mol and his colleagues in the entertainment industry." Irrelevant indeed, but I thought any such discussion was hardly meant for Mr De Mol et al (why bother?). So what was DJ's point, except perhaps to appear in command of the discourse with impressive-sounding conceptual glitter i.e., "deconstruction...hegemonic discourse...hetero-normative framework", with the "in terms of" cliche for good measure ("Look at me!")? Or does DJ join this debate on behalf of Mr De Mol, expecting everyone else to do so too? I think DJ sets unfair standards here, because "gross egotism...desire for fame for its own sake...Selfish behaviour...wanting to win by humiliating other people" should apply not only to the program's participants, but especially to its rich sponsors and producers. Therefore, many punters probably tune in to learn what attitudes may get them out of exploited drudgery, debt and other humiliation.

This is an ideological dilemma, all part of the Neo-Liberalist package and its aggressive market of anything for the Mammon-God monetarists call "growth". However, many neo-libs/cons then hypocritically and snobbishly brand themselves as above such savagery (except for many, no doubt, behind locked club, society and party doors). The phenomenon resembles "bum fights" films, where homeless beggars are offered prizemoney to beat each other senseless in the street. Or more nakedly, where middle-class schoolboy gangs brutally assault such people, unprovoked. Ridiculing disabled people is a logical result of an individualist cult which deifies pampered beneficiaries of the purported meritocracy.

So CJ's neo-cons may take pot shots, but only in a phoney war against a discourse largely reproduced and simulated from venues of the neo-cons' own ideological origins! Given such a cornered market, we realize just why they're so hostile to marginal ideology opposed to their market's premises and its corrupted notions of 'supply-demand' and 'competition'.

The pseudo-academic babble I used was meant as a joke. Okay, so I'm not Ross Noble.

I do agree with the authors' point that subjectiveness and relativism at all costs in academia is appalling (although that's a subjective statement in itself). But comparing Big Brother favourably to Shakespeare, as some academics appear to do, isn't the main problem. An article recently on John De Mol was enlightening. De Mol thinks that intellectuals, far from endorsing Big Brother and its clones, are his main critics. De Mol believes his support base comes from non-tertiary educated "ordinary people". And he may be right. I don't think the regular Big Brother viewer gives two hoots whether QUT lecturers like Big Brother or not.

It's the market driving "reality" television and what academics think is a side issue.

Side issue it may be, but I saw the article specifically being about academic discourse, not an attack on big brother - you can't miss your point if you write about what you are focusing on.

I wondered how long before the content of the article was interpreted as a discussion point advocating the removal of big brother.

I for one, don't believe this article is a side issue - the article is largely about the decline in standards of what is studied in universities - the driving force being a prevailing ideology of post-modern deconstructionist thought - that is, there is no unifying concept of what is worthwhile and what isn't, so lets study everything. For this issue, big brother's nothing more than an example of low culture (if I'm permitted to call it that).

Nothing more, nothing less. This isn't about big brother, that topic is censorship, something that personally, I'd oppose.

I guess what it comes down to, is whether you believe popular culture should be studied in universities, and whether there should be an effort to distinguish worthwhile cultural pursuits.

I frame the debate in terms of cause and effect - the effect is, that studies are being dumbed down to a degree, and there is diminishing awareness of past western culture when compared to the popular present. This makes placing them within a framework and judging the present much more difficult.

That isn't to say I'd advocate removing studies of popular culture, but if we can integrate them with other studies a little more, and perhaps find ways to encourage more variety in cultural studies, we'll be better off.

Besides, practically speaking at present we need more scientists, nurses engineers and teachers. The last thing we need is more cultural analysis, though of course, this isn't the fashionable statement to express...

Say the authors: "the radical philistines have taken the high culture v low culture distinction and inverted it."

No. The "philistines" have merely made the case - with scads of historical evidence and well-argued theory to back them up - that "the high culture v low culture distinction" is a false dichotomy.

And Hookham & MacLennan, in their ivory tower, who have made their career out of drawing a line and declaring themselves to be on the "high" side, don't like having their toys taken away.

Before you accuse me of being a relativist, let me assure you I believe this to be absolutely true: "the high culture v low culture distinction" is a gimcrack parlour trick. It's bulldust. It exists only in your heads. Get over it.

There's culture all around you. Make your false distinctions if you like. But if you try to build a case that your distinctions have any existence outside your own terms of reference, you'll fail.

And I believe the above claims to be absolutely true - no "relativism" about it.