Pop Culture in the Classroom:American Idol, Karl Marx,and Alexis de TocquevilleMiguel Centellas, University of Mississippi

ABSTRACT This article discusses the use of pop culture in the classroom as ameans to teachfoundational political science authors and concepts. I focus onmy experience usingAmer-ican Idol as a point of reference to discussMarx and Engel’sThe CommunistManifesto andTocqueville’s Democracy in America in undergraduate comparative politics courses. Stu-dents are asked to construct a written argument projecting Marx or Tocqueville’s percep-tions of American Idol, based on their readings. My experiences demonstrate that askingstudents to reflect on their own contemporary experience through the prism of these twoworks helps them in three ways: (1) to better understand the ideas of Marx and Tocque-ville, as well as their di!erences; (2) to develop an appreciation for the continued relevanceof works in the discipline’s canon; and (3) to sharpen and develop critical thinking andanalytical skills.

In this article, I discuss the use of a specific pop culturereference—American Idol—in undergraduate classes as away to help students better engage with two classic worksin the canon: The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marxand Friedrich Engels, andDemocracy in America, by Alexis

de Tocqueville. This article is based on my experiences using thepopular television show American Idol as a reference point forclass discussions. These discussions have been e!ective in push-ing students to grapple with and apply the complex ideas pre-sented in their assigned readings. In addition to explaining mymotivations behind such an unorthodox approach, I discuss someof the interesting arguments students that have made over thecourse of these arguments. More recently, I developed a writingassignment based on this theme, which strengthened andimproved in-class discussions.

Marx andTocqueville are interesting to compare for a numberof reasons.The authorswere contemporaries, and theirworkswerepublished in close succession (Democracy in America in 1835, theCommunist Manifesto in 1848). Reflecting on important socialchanges in their own time, each developed a theoretical model forhuman history and social change.Where Tocqueville saw the tri-umphant march of equality, Marx saw the systematic expansionof misery and exploitation. Both, however, placed the emergingmiddle class at the center of their analysis, presenting it as a force

that eroded traditional aristocratic privileges. Each also repre-sents a di!erent intellectual tradition. As I often remind my stu-dents, one simple way to compare Marx and Tocqueville is to askthe question: “What is the engine of history?” ForMarx, materialconditions“structure”political,social,andeconomiclife.ForTocque-ville, it is ideas that pushhistory forward, reshapingpolitical, social,and economic institutions. Finally, while both authors present ateleological view of history and discuss the importance of “revo-lutions,” both weave their narrative in di!erent ways that con-tinue to influence debates within our discipline to this day.

Clearly, there is much that a professor can do in a classroomwith Marx and Tocqueville. I have found, however, that studentsengage with the ideas presented by Marx and Tocqueville—ideasthat remain at the root of our discipline—in rich and meaningfulwayswhen they apply those ideas to their own contemporary expe-rience. Just as Tocqueville’s ideas about the importance of com-munity served as inspiration for Robert Putnam’s (2000) critiqueofAmerica’s declining social capital, or asMarx’s observation aboutcapitalism’s tendency to produce ever-larger monopolies shapedRobert Reich’s (2007) argument that globalization was producinga new “supercapitalism,”1 I believe students can mine the canonfor insights into their own experience.Yet because students rarelydeconstruct their own social context, they often find themselvesoverwhelmed by the question: “What would Marx or Tocquevillethink about our society today?” Instead, it is helpful to narrowthat question to a specific cultural reference point. I chose Amer-ican Idol, but one could use some other reference point just aswell. However,American Idolworks particularly well for two basic

Miguel Centellas is currently the CroftVisiting Assistant Professor of Political Scienceat theUniversity ofMississippi, where he teaches courses in comparative politics, LatinAmerican politics, and first-year seminars. His research focuses on the e!ects of institu-tional reformsonelectoralpolitics inBolivia.Hecanbereachedatmcentell@olemiss.edu.

The Teache r............................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................

doi:10.1017/S1049096510000818 PS • July 2010 561

reasons: (1) students are more likely to be familiar with the showthan with other (more niche) pop culture references, and (2) thespecific format and scope of American Idol makes it particularlyrelevant for this particular exercise.

USING POP CULTURE INTHE CLASSROOM: DILEMMASANDOPPORTUNITIESA number of professors doubtless use pop culture references inthe classroom, especially with an undergraduate audience. Someof us may deliberately include popular films or television pro-grams in our curricula.2 Typically, these involve specific scenesor episodes that speak to specific relevant course themes. Scenesfrom The West Wing may be particularly useful to illustrate theinner workings of the U.S. presidency (Beavers 2002). Scenesfrom Battlestar Galactica may facilitate interesting discussionsabout the war on terrorism. I once acted as a teaching assistantfor an undergraduate lecture course in which the professor usedscenes from the television police drama Law and Order and thefeature film The People vs. Larry Flynt to illustrate key conceptsin constitutional law. Area studies classes are often peppered withsuch materials, which may be used either to illustrate importantconcepts or as platforms for exercises in deconstruction. Suchmaterials not only help make otherwise dry material more funfor undergraduates, but they also help students hone critical think-ing skills, integrate classroom lessons into the real world (asthey understand it), and build holistic understandings of learn-ing and exploration that are consistent with the liberal artstradition.

The use of pop culture in the classroom is not without limita-tions. This approach is particularly problematic if the audienceincludes international students unfamiliar with some of the sub-tle nuances of American pop culture. An added di"culty is theincreasing “balkanization” of American youth culture—if stu-dents are unfamiliar with a specific pop culture reference, theymay becomemore confused, tune out, and become alienated fromthe learning experience. A Star Trek reference may mean nothingto students unfamiliar with the adventures of Captain Kirk andhis crew, regardless of the show’s historical impact on Americanmulticulturalism (Bernardi 1998; Byrd 1998). A detailed explana-tion of a pop culture reference requires time that could instead bespent explaining the original concept. Students may then viewthe reference as a distracting tangent, rather than a failed analogy.

Another limitation is related to the selection of specific scenesfor use in classroom discussions. A simple solution to the prob-lem of the failed reference is to select an appropriate scene toeither view in class or assign for outside viewing. This is the typ-ical framing approach inwhich the teacher selects a specific chunkof material to present to students. Such a solution has its ownlimitations: First, there are the practical problems of selecting anappropriate scene, making it available to students, and fitting itinto the course schedule (O’Connor 1987). Second, there is theongoing problem of familiarity. Assigning scenes from TheWestWingmay implicitly require students to be familiarwith the show’scharacters and previous plot lines. Third, this approach oftenencourages students to think of a film or television clip in thesame way as any other text, generally stripped of much of its sur-rounding context. This understanding may be appropriate orunavoidable in specific circumstances. But a good teacher shouldbe aware that he or she is assigning another text, and should treatit accordingly.

Finally, there is the danger that the framing itself shapes stu-dent perceptions about the subject matter. For example,TheWestWing may not serve as an accurate reflection of the Americanpresidency, but may instead foster inaccurate perceptions of theAmerican presidency (Rollins and O’Connor 2003; Crawley 2006;Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles 2006). Studentsmay come away fromthe experience believing that President Josiah Bartlet’s WhiteHouse is a more accurate portrayal of the inner workings of theexecutive branch than the descriptions theyfind in their textbooks.

I do not, of course, mean to dissuade teachers from using popculture in the classroom. Some of the limitationsmentioned abovecan be overcome if teachers are careful to select pop culture refer-ences that are widely di!used throughout society. In fact, suchreferences o!er significant advantages over themore typical fram-ing approaches. My experience using American Idol suggests thata carefully selected pop culture reference can serve as a launchpad for rich, detailed, and innovative discussions about primarytexts in the political science canon.

WHY (AMERICAN) IDOLWORKSI have not yet met a single student who is unfamiliar with Amer-ican Idol. I do not suggest that all my students watch, or evenenjoy, the ratings juggernaut that is American Idol.3 Yet all of mystudents have a remarkable familiarity with the show’s purpose,format, style, and three (now four) celebrity judges. They knowthat each season, the show begins with tens of thousands of con-testants who wait in long lines in various cities for a chance toaudition before the panel of judges (Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul,Randy Jackson, and now also Kara DioGuardi4). They also knowthat horrible auditions will be televised for viewers’ amusementand that a pool of the best contestants will be formed that slowly,over several weeks, reduces to a single winner. They know, too,that in the later weeks of the show’s season, the television audi-ence members (not the judges) select who is sent home, and thatviewers can vote for contestants either by phone or SMS textmes-saging. Even studentswhodespiseAmerican Idol are able to decon-struct it—perhaps gleefully so—by wielding the ideas ofMarx andTocqueville as sledgehammers.

The same level of familiarity holds true for the internationalstudents that I have had in the past three years. In part, this isbecause licensed Idol franchises and copycats can be found inmorethan 40 individual countries across the globe (American Idol isitself a franchise of the original British Pop Idol ), in addition tothe various “regional” Idol competitions that feature contestantsfrom several countries (e.g., Idols West Africa and the Arab worldXSeer alNaja). Additionally, various unlicensed copycats are foundin countries around the world, even in unexpected places (e.g.,Afghanistan’s AfghanStar, currently in its fifth season and therecent subject of an HBO documentary). Needless to say, even ifinternational students have not personally watchedAmerican Idol(which is also televised around the world by various cable andsatellite networks), they are likely to have been exposed to a localversion of the Idol format.

In short, American Idol works because it is so di!used acrossglobal pop culture. When I ask students to use the writings ofMarx or Tocqueville to comment on American Idol, I am essen-tially asking them to consider howwe can use the concepts, ideas,and theories of Marx and Tocqueville to understand our increas-ingly globalized world. In many ways, the Idol phenomenon is,like the spread of Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Starbucks, a sign

The Teache r : Pop Cu l t u r e i n t h e C l a s s r o om............................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................

562 PS • July 2010

of our growing cultural homogeneity, a product of global neolib-eral hegemony. Surely, students can find something in Tocque-ville or Marx that relates to such a global process.

THE CHALLENGE: MARX ANDTOCQUEVILLEIN FORTYMINUTESOriginally, my assignment consisted merely of a framing promptannounced in class before the reading assignment. This exercisehas evolved into a short “reflective” essay assignment (3 to 4pages),followed by in-class discussion. Although I found the earlierin-class discussions to be quite fruitful, I decided to push studentsto better prepare for discussion by asking them to formulate andexpress their ideas well ahead of time. This expectation has twoadvantages: A written assignment gives all students an equalopportunity to formulate and express their own ideas, with nei-ther the pressures (nor the advantages) of in-class discussion. Sec-ond, the assignment gives students a chance to practice usingreference citations in an argumentative essay.

It is in this format thatmy students encounterTocqueville andMarx. Each author is included in a set of readings, Tocqueville onadvanced democracies and Marx on communism and postcom-munism; our discussions of Tocqueville and democracy precedeour discussions of Marx and communism.5 Thus, students firstencounter Tocqueville in the larger context of understandingdemocracy in theWest before they read his Author’s Introductionto Democracy in America. Students first encounter Marx in thecontext of understanding communismandpostcommunismbeforethey readThe CommunistManifesto (parts I, II, and IV). I set asidemost of a class period to discuss the question of what Tocquevilleand Marx would think of American Idol.6

Ideally, wewould spendmore than 40 to 50minutes on each ofthese two seminal authors. But, as anyone that teaches undergrad-uate introductory courses knows, we are regularly tasked to covera significant amount of material in a limited amount of time. Oneof our greatest challenges is to ensure that students can grasp andinternalize the material as we whisk through at an occasionallybreakneck pace.

I do not assign students specific clips ofAmerican Idol towatch,either in or outside of class (although they are certainly free to doso on their own). Although this approach relies on students’ famil-iarity with American Idol, I have not found it to be a limitation.True, di!erent students have di!erent levels of familiarity withIdol ’s nuances (e.g., they may not know that contestants are oftenrequired to sing from a limited selection of songs). But the assign-ment is not intended to judge students’ correct interpretation ofAmerican Idol, but rather to see how well they can select passagesfromMarx and Tocqueville to apply to the show in their analyti-

cal writing.The di!erences in interpretation actually serve a fruit-ful purpose by generating lively in-class debates that force studentsto defend their interpretations.

I am consistently impressed by how well students are able toincorporate the ideas of Marx and Tocqueville and present themin class, often fostering vigorous discussions, when asked to thinkabout American Idol. Not only do students actively participate inclass discussions, but they also show themselves able to select keypassages from Marx and Tocqueville to support their positions.

TOCQUEVILLE AND AMERICAN IDOLWhen I first thought of introducing American Idol into a classdiscussion on Tocqueville, I assumed that students would over-whelmingly argue thatTocqueville would see the show in amostlypositive light. After all,American Idol promotes the idea that any-one can become a pop star, if only he or she can connect with atelevision audience. Yet a number of students came to a di!erentconclusion, pointing instead to Tocqueville’s ambivalence about

the e!ects of equality inAmerica. Such disagreements led to ener-getic debates, in which students called upon specific referencesfrom the text to support their positions.

Students who believe that Tocqueville would embrace Idol(perhaps as a fan) point to the French philosopher’s emphasis ondemocracy’s role in leveling social di!erences in rank: “the noblehas gone down the social ladder, and the commoner has gone up”(309). They remind the class that Tocqueville argues that democ-racy, on the whole, is a positive development (even “the work ofGod”), and that the advance of equality is “universal, it is lasting,it constantly eludes all human interference” (310). These studentsregularly emphasize that Idol ’s format substantially alters the bal-ance of power between artist andproducer. Because the showholdsauditions across the United States, almost anyone has a shot atauditioning before a panel of A-list Hollywood producers, with-out having to work up the ladder from the bar scene, hoping to bediscovered. Once on the show, contestants sing before a live audi-ence of millions on a weekly basis. More important, despite thecomments by the panel of judges—particularly the harsh criticismtypical of Simon Cowell—contestants’ futures are in the hand ofcommonviewers, not experts. In short, students argue that becauseof Idol, “distinctions of rank are done away with” (311). Democ-racy, in short, is good, and American Idol is evidence of (musical )democracy in action.

Additionally, students familiarwithPutnam’s arguments about“social capital” suggest that Tocqueville would approve of Idolprecisely because it builds social capital. They point out that Idolbrings people together for viewing parties, that students from dif-ferent social groups engage in conversations about each episode

In short,American Idolworks because it is so di!used across global pop culture.When I askstudents to use the writings of Marx orTocqueville to comment onAmerican Idol, I amessentially asking them to consider how we can use the concepts, ideas, and theories of MarxandTocqueville to understand our increasingly globalized world. In many ways, the Idolphenomenon is, like the spread of Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Starbucks, a sign of ourgrowing cultural homogeneity, a product of global neoliberal hegemony.

............................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................

PS • July 2010 563

(the ubiquitous “water cooler” e!ect), and that the show encour-ages active participation through voting. Further, they point tothe strongbonds of friendship and camaraderie developedbetweencontestants as evidence of social capital.

Other students, however, think thatTocqueville would be crit-ical of Idol. They point to statements inwhich the author bemoansthe loss of “high” culture brought about by democracy’s relentlessleveling: “We have destroyed an aristocracy, andwe seem inclinedto survey its ruins with complacency and accept them” (313).Theypoint to the low quality of many contestants during the prelimi-nary phase, particularly the masses of people with little or notalent clinging to the hope that they, too, can become pop stars.Tocqueville, such students argue, would describe suchmasses as a“coarse and ignorant multitude” (311). Others cite Tocqueville’sadmonition that such people have been “abandoned to [their]wild instincts, and [have] grown up like those children who haveno parental guidance . . . and who are acquainted only with thevices andwretchedness of society” (311). Democracy, in short,maybe inevitable, but it comes with a hefty price.

Still others believe thatTocqueville’s attitude toward the showmight be more ambiguous. Yes, contestants and viewers knowthat the fate of each season’s future pop stars rests in a democraticvote by television audience members. But everyone still reallywants to please Simon Cowell (in particular) and the rest of thepanel of judges. Such students point to this passage by Tocque-ville: “The spell of royalty is broken . . . The people have learnedto despise all authority, but they still fear it” (312). At the sametime, even though contestants frequently claim theywant to charttheir own path to stardom, they slowly change their clothing, hair,and mannerisms based on the judges’ advice. In the end, perhapsIdol has leveled the playing field and given everyone a chance tobecome a pop star. But they are all slowly becoming the same kindof pop star.

MARXAND AMERICAN IDOLMost students react to Marx as I expected: they overwhelminglyargue thatMarx (the father of communismand therefore all things“anti-American”) would be extremely critical of American Idol.After all, Idol is closely tied toAmerican consumerism and isman-aged by a group of producers whose sole stated purpose is to findnew artists for their production label (19 Management). Interest-ingly, students are able to put themselves into the role of KarlMarx, using his own words to launch strong criticisms of the Idolfranchise. Still, a small minority of students believe that Marxwould actually approve of Idol, and they make interesting argu-ments to support this conclusion.

When students argue forMarx’s critical view of American Idol,they point to key passages from The Communist Manifesto. Themain source of their critique is that Idol has replaced the tradi-tional mode by which artists become pop singers (e.g., payingone’s dues in local clubs, waiting to be discovered). Sure, such amode of discovery is fraught with the dangers of exploitation, butstudents argue that Idol ’s producers havemerely replaced one formof exploitation with “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploita-tion” (354). Before,musicians honed their skills in the small club—the “little workshops of the patriarchal master” (357); now theycompete on the Idol stage—“the great factory of the industrial cap-italist” (357).The gigantic scale of the competition, involving thou-sands of contestants, also means that the “[m]asses of laborers,crowded into the factory, are organized like soldiers” (357). In par-

ticular, students point to the original auditions, in which untal-ented contestants are publicly berated andmocked on camera forthe pleasure of the television audience. This aspect of the audi-tion process also highlights the cutthroat nature of Idol ’s compe-tition format.

Students also believe thatMarxwould have criticized the “com-moditization” of the show’s contestants. They point to such pas-sages as: “These laborers, who must sell themselves piecemeal,are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and areconsequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition” (356).Not only are contestants mere commodities (since they try to selltheir performance), but over the course of the show, they are heav-ily pushed to modify their dress, hair, and even mannerisms tobecomemoremarketable, as defined by the show’s producers andthe panel of judges. This pressure means that the “work of theproletarians has lost all individual character . . . [becoming] anappendage of the machine” (356–57). Such criticisms equate Idolwith a musical sweatshop, with contestants having little freedomto either perform their own original material (they must sing thehits of other, established pop stars) or otherwise go beyond rigidpop conventions.

Other students focus their criticismon the Idol franchise empireinstead.They suggest thatMarxwould see inAmerican Idolmerelyanother example of a capitalist enterprise seeking to monopolizean entire market (in this case, pop music). With more than 40licensed franchises, including regional competitions on every con-tinent, Marx would see evidence here that the “need for a con-stantly expanding market for its product chases the bourgeoisieover the whole surface of the globe” (355). Yet some students seethis global reach as a potentially positive sign, given that Idol ’suniversal appeal suggests that “[n]ational di!erences and antag-onisms between peoples are dailymore andmore vanishing” (363).On the one hand, the whole world is becoming homogenized tothe same kind of pop culture, but this trend could also diminishthe sources of di!erentness that cause frictions between peoples.If India and Pakistan both have an Idol franchise, can peace be farbehind?

A few students o!er a more nuanced interpretation. They seein Idol a bourgeois revolution sweeping away the aristocracy oftraditional pop stars. When a virtual unknown like Kelly Clark-son can become a double-platinum recording artist, is it still accu-rate to speak of Michael Jackson as the “King of Pop”? For thesestudents, Idol represents a middle-class revolution that will inev-itably set the stage for a future proletarian one.They point to howthe Idol revolution demonstrates that the “bourgeoisie cannot existwithout constantly revolutionizing the instruments of produc-tion, and thereby the relations of production, and with them thewhole relations of society” (354–55). Clearly, American Idol is rev-olutionizing American pop culture in significant ways: the best-selling pop musicians now increasingly come from the ranks ofIdolwinners and top contestants, whichmakes the show an attrac-tive way for singers to bypass the club scene entirely (altering“the relations of production”) with the hope of being catapulteddirectly into the limelight. Meanwhile, American Idol has alteredour cultural fabric (“the relations of society”).These students arguethat Marx predicts that, in time, “the bourgeois itself . . . suppliesthe proletariat with its own elements of political and general edu-cation . . . it furnishes the proletariat with the weapons for fight-ing the bourgeoisie” (358). The advice given to contestants (andtelevised to the audience) during the Hollywood boot camp epi-

The Teache r : Pop Cu l t u r e i n t h e C l a s s r o om............................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................

564 PS • July 2010

sodes, as well as throughout the competition more generally,imparts important advice to other aspiringmusicians in the audi-ence. If Marx were alive today, these students argue, he wouldsuggest that the lessons of American Idol will in time revolution-ize the relationship of artists with their audience. Such studentsinvariably point out that the Internet (particularly sites like My-Space andYouTube) allows potential pop stars to appeal directlyto their audience, bypassing producers entirely.

CONCLUSIONOverall, these class discussions have been successful. The addi-tion of awriting exercise strengthened the conversations by allow-ing students to better prepare for them. But the most remarkablemeasure of success has been that students come away fromTocque-ville andMarx with a deeper understanding of each figure’s argu-ment. This outcome is particularly striking with Marx, a figurewho many undergraduates dismiss as irrelevant in a post–ColdWar world. Yet, most students are able to internalize the theorybehindMarx’s critique of capitalism and apply it toAmerican Idol.Such studentsmay still leave class strongly disagreeingwithMarx,which is fine. But they also leave class with a fuller understandingof what Marx actually argues, which is what truly matters.

Finally, these class discussions are a powerful way to get stu-dents to think critically about their own cultural environment. Inlarge part, this occurs because American Idol is “safe.” Asking stu-dents to deconstruct American political culture can be a painfulprocess. Students are closely tied to their culture and often unwill-ing to question some of their own assumptions. For undergradu-ates who have learned little more than praises of Americanexceptionalism in high school civics or government classes, cri-tiquing American democracy can often be excruciatingly di"cult.But a class discussion of American Idol induces them to do justthat. As they look to Marx and Tocqueville for insights into apopular television show, they inevitable make connections withtheir broader political culture.

NOTESI thankmy students at DickinsonCollege andMount St.Mary’s University, where thisclass exercisewasfirst developed. I also especially thankDavidRehmandMichael J.Towle.

1. Unlike Putnam, who is a self-described “neo-Tocquevillian,” Robert Reich isnot a self-described Marxist. Marx does not even appear in the book’s index.Still, it is hard to fathom that a trained economist would be unfamiliar with thegeneral thrust of Marx’s argument. Even a superficial glance at Supercapitalismreveals its indebtedness to Marx, even if Reich does not come to Marx’s radicalconclusions.

2. In defining “popular” films or television shows, I specifically exclude documen-taries or similar works, which are also often used by a number of teachers (in-cluding myself ).

3. Since 2003, American Idol has remained one of the most-watched televisionshows in history. It has remained in the #1 spot according to the Nielsen rat-ings for more than five consecutive seasons, a feat matched only by The CosbyShow and All in the Family. Even with a slight drop in viewership in 2009, theseason finale attracted 30 million viewers, placing the episode first in itstimeslot.

4. Paula Abdul was replaced by Ellen DeGeneres in season nine.

5. Students read both texts in O’Neil and Rogowski (2006). All page citations forboth Marx and Tocqueville refer to this edited volume.

6. An alternative approach, which I will test next semester, is to assign both read-ings during the same week. This schedule may allow for a more direct dialoguebetween Marx and Tocqueville.

REFERENCESBeavers, Staci L. 2002. “TheWestWing as a Pedagological Tool.” PS: Political Sci-

ence and Politics 35: 213–16.

Bernardi, Daniel. 1998. Star Trek and History: Race-ing toward aWhite Future. NewBrunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Byrd, Marquita L. 1998.Multicultural Communication and Popular Culture: Racialand Ethnic Images in Star Trek. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Crawley, Melissa. 2006.Mr. Sorkin Goes toWashington: Shaping the President onTelevision’s TheWestWing. Je!erson: McFarland.

O’Connor, John E. 1987. Teaching History with Film andTelevision.Washington,DC: American Historical Association.

O’Neil, Patrick H., and Ronald Rogowski, eds. 2006. Essential Readings in Compara-tive Politics. 2nd ed. NewYork:W.W. Norton.

Parry-Giles, Trevor and Shawn J. Parry-Giles. 2006. The Prime-Time Presidency:TheWestWing and U.S. Nationalism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Commu-nity. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Reich, Robert. 2007. Supercapitalism: TheTransformation of Business, Democracy,and Everyday Life. NewYork: Knopf.

Rollins, Peter C., and John E. O’Connor. 2003. TheWestWing: The American Presi-dency as Television Drama. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

............................................................................................................................... ..............................................................................................................................

PS • July 2010 565