Sweet and Sour Served by Kids in the Kitchen free essay sample

This article was written by Tim Soutphommasane and published in The Australian on December 10, 2010 (Soutphommasane, 2010a). According to his website, Dr Soutphommassane is a left-wing, political philosopher and commentator. He is  a University of Sydney Postdoctoral Fellow at  the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights and School of Social and Political Sciences. He has been a regular columnist for The Australian for ten years. He also writes for the Melbourne Age (Soutphommasane, 2010b). The Australian is a national daily newspaper with a circulation of about 129,363 and a readership of 417,000. It also has an online edition (Space, 2013). This essay will critically examine the arguments in the abovementioned article and, assess the strength of these arguments against theory. The article is an opinion piece about the reality television show, Junior Masterchef. Based on the highly successful Masterchef format, young male and female contestants aged between eight and 12 participate in cooking challenges. At the conclusion of each episode, one contestant is eliminated from the show based on their performance in the kitchen and their execution of the cooking challenges. In the ‘grand final’ one contestant is crowned ‘Junior Masterchef’. According to Soutphommassane, the show attracts 1. 5 million viewers on a Sunday night and is one of Australia’s most popular cooking shows. It is also syndicated to other networks around the world. Clearly, it is a ratings winner for the television network. While 1. million Australians watch Junior Masterchef, Soutphommassane article shows he is clearly uncomfortable with the concept of the show. In his article, he uses all three persuasive techniques: logos or logical arguments; pathos or emotive arguments and ethos or credible arguments (Eunson, 2008). He starts by questioning the ethics behind Junior Masterchef. He disagrees with the premise of the show and does not think that children should be participating in, what is essentially, a format designed for adults. He feels it ‘appears to expose children, some as young as eight, inappropriately to the pressures of a TV compet ition’. Soutphommassane’s argues (Soutphommasane, 2010a) that it is not about children being subjected to a competition where there is a clear winner or loser but ‘perhaps more fundamentally about the loss of a childs innocence’. He goes on to talk about ‘protecting’ a child’s fragile personality from corruption. But let’s examine this argument more closely. To accept this premise, you would firstly need to accept that a ‘child’s personality is fragile’ and secondly, that it needs to be ‘protected from corruption’. Whilst the language, Soutphommassane is using, is, in itself quite cryptic, it is hardly a valid premise as defined by Eunson (Eunson, 2008). One could argue that to prepare a child for the world, means that he or she must be exposed to the realities of competition, discover that losing is not the end of the world and that working hard does not necessarily mean that you will get what you want. Southphommassane then introduces philosopher Joanne Faulkner’s assertion that, as a society, we grossly exaggerate the risks that children are exposed to. We look for dangers and threats to childhood in every sphere of life. Southphommassane appears to agree that it is, indeed, unnecessary to look for such dangers everywhere. He also appears to support Montaignes counsel that ‘it is not right to bring up a child in the lap of his parents’. He then appears to change track and argue that it is the fact that Junior Masterchef involves the deliberate act of pushing children into the lime light that has provoked his discomfort. While it is impossible for parents to protect their children from all the dangers the world may present, they can be held responsible for purposefully inviting such scrutiny of their children by signing them up for a show like Junior Masterchef: â€Å"Though we may reject an all-encompassing ideology of innocence, we shouldnt abandon responsibility for protecting children from harm whether it is physical, psychological or indeed moral. † While he is perhaps trying to construct a logical argument with the referencing of Faulkner, his language is clearly emotive. When it comes to children, the use of the words, ‘innocence’, ‘protection’ and ‘fragile’, all conjure up images of our children being exploited in some way. While he says that he does not think that we need to descend into moral panic over the popularity of Junior Masterchef, the implication is that we need to be concerned. Soutphommassane makes an interesting case against the Junior Masterchef concept. While he goes to great length not to overstate his objection, he still does use some very emotive (pathos) language to make his point. He also ties in some logical arguments (logos) from Faulkner to temper his more emotional language. But at the very heart of his piece is a question about the ethics (ethos) of exposing children to a cut-throat, adult style reality television programme. The question is around whether or not children have the maturity to cope with the format of this show. While parents cannot protect their children from most harsh realities of life, deliberately putting their children in a high pressure, televised competition is very much a stress that could be avoided. If parents have the option to protect their children from such pressures – then shouldn’t they? Soutphommassane presents some robust arguments. His language is very reasonable, rational and thought provoking. He tries hard not to exaggerate or dramatize the potential ‘damage’ that appearing on Junior Masterchef could do. This is an excellent tactic as it does not alienate the fans of the show or make parents feel like they are necessarily doing the wrong thing by their children. Really, he is asking the question. He is opening up a dialogue about whether or not the show is questionable – or not. In conclusion, Soutphommassane constructs a good case. Childhood is preparation for adulthood. All children need to learn about competition, winning and losing, and that we don’t always get what we want in life. But whether that learning has to take place on national (or international) television is a completely separate matter.