"Five" - which I insist on calling Channel Five - aired the first in its new series: The 1970s: That Was the Decade That Was.
It was a worthy attempt but a bit hit-and-miss. They are investigating a different theme each week. Last Friday it was gender, sexuality and sexual orientation; this coming Friday "how Britain went bust; society became divided; and racism was on the rise."
I was initially irritated as it uttered barely defensible assertions eg "The Seventies was the Decadent Decade, the one of Consumerism." Where does that leave the Eighties, I thought? Yes, people did buy consumer goods, but they had done so since the Fifties, to the extent that they could be afforded. It also highlighted certain social trends, such as out homosexuality and unmarried couples living together, which may well have started in the Seventies amongst the pace-setters but in my opinion did not really take off until later. Conversely, they suggested that illegitimate children was a total social stigma until the Seventies. I think that was a simplification, because I can think of many illegitimate children of my own age (ie born in the Sixties) and yet I will swear that there was considerable social stigma into the eighties and beyond.
The best bits of the programme was the archive footage, and the contribution of knowledgeable people, such as Rosie Boycott, who were actually there and making things happen. Some contributions were obviously thrown in for comedy value: Norman Tebbitt saying that he was not entertained by Women's Lib, followed by an immediate segue into a demonstration for Equal Pay for Women. Very depressing to think that a former Employment Secretary still does not understand the importance of Equal Pay to over half the population. And Henry Cooper proclaiming that before the Seventies married women didn't work, but instead had the dinner on the table for the children. My interpretation is that going back decades and decades working-class women did work, had to work, and also got the dinner on the table.
But I was puzzled at the inclusion of 'Celebrity Contributions'. People expressing their opinions in a Talking Head. Or perhaps mouthing the words of a researcher. I can't understand why they were used, because they did not seem to bring a particularly personal experience nor do they have any credentials as social commentators. Even more puzzling in a programme that was aimed at a UK TV audience and was exclusively about developments in British society was the use of American social commentators. They weren't there, what do they know. Sure, there were parallel developments in the US, but so were there in France, Germany and numerous other countries. I detest this inappropriate, incongruous and inappropriate constant-Americanisation by the media of UK space.
The absolute best contribution came from Tom Robinson, who, despite being a 'celebrity' was able to articulate and amusingly analyse a personal anecdote to illustrate a wider point. In his case, reading Gay Times on the Tube, knowing there was a City Gent behind him, expecting some verbal abuse, and then hearing the City Gent make a comment to the effect that he too reads Gay Times.
What I took away was that so many people are so anxious to control the lives of others, when it's none of their business. Failing to understand that giving other people a choice does not mean being obliged to do likewise. But I don't know to what extent it is stupidity or fear or hatred.
It will be interesting to see whether they tackle environmentalism, which is far more important in understanding how private actions really do impact on society and its constituent individuals than faux morality about private sexuality. Yet quarter of a century later, sexual 'morality' is still more controversial than environmental morality.
