Upending the status quo: Power-sharing and community building in Schitt’s Creek

Abstract

In the CBC sitcom Schitt’s Creek, a family adjusts to living in a small, rural town after losing their fortune. While Schitt’s Creek embraces the ‘fish out of water’ trope, the series explores a community’s efforts to build equity and empathy across difference. This article argues characters undergo a philosophical shift – from understanding power as an all-or-nothing proposition to an approach that values multiple perspectives and just collective action. Noting the severity of wealth inequality and unequal access to resources around the world, the series shows possibilities for growth and recovery when the status quo has been upended.

Keywords

television power community collaboration empathy

Questions and concerns about who holds power, how to wield power and power holders’ responsibilities pervade intimate and public spaces. From political pundits and late-night hosts to heads of business, household or government, people hold opinions about the role and ramifications of power. The discourse on power takes into account concerns about accessibility, equality, ethics and abuse, while also considering possibilities such as inclusive leadership and disrupting dominant hierarchical models (Severs et al., 2016). Scholars and practitioners offer numerous definitions and manifestations of power, establishing links to ‘historical and political dynamics, social organization, humans’ relationships with one another and with the natural ecology, and the quality of people’s lives’ (Pratto, 2016: 15). Noting power’s complexity and pervasiveness in the contemporary global landscape, it is unsurprising cultural texts, including television series, attempt to grapple with concerns about dominant power structures and imagine alternative possibilities. The CBC sitcom Schitt’s Creek (2015–2020) uses the fictional Schitt’s Creek community to expose and unpack destructive, interpersonal and class-based power dynamics and envision new pathways for cultivating relationships and community grounded in more equitable power relations. While many popular, contemporary television series raise questions about destructive power dynamics and their consequences (e.g. Black Mirror (2011–present), The Handmaid’s Tale (2017–present), Orphan Black (2013–2017)), Schitt’s Creek relies on a more familiar, rather than dystopic, reality to show the negative outcomes of zero-sum approaches to power as well as possibilities for change and growth grounded in equity, hopefulness and a queering of dominant power dynamics.

The creative team behind Schitt’s Creek, led by co-creators Eugene Levy and Dan Levy, uses humour to comment on contemporary social and political inequalities. The series (specifically seasons 1–4, which this article considers) also explores what a changed status quo means for individuals and a community at large while considering how people can forge recovery efforts. Regarding the inspiration behind Schitt’s Creek, Dan Levy acknowledges the influences of The Real Housewives (2006–present) and Keeping Up with the Kardashians (2007–present) reality TV franchises. Levy notes popular and persistent cultural representations of extreme wealth made him question, ‘What would happen to a family…if the money was stripped away…what is a relationship that has been so tightly associated with money and superficial bandages that have been easily remedied by swiping credit cards…what do these people look like with nothing?’ (Dresden, 2018). Born out of Levy’s curiosity, Schitt’s Creek uses humour to play with these questions and potential outcomes. The series focuses on the aftermath of the Rose family losing their fortune and adapting to a new understanding of, and place in, the world. Gone are the mansion, jet, private staff, couture fashion and luxury vacations. Left with no other option, the Roses move into a roadside motel in a small, rural town they once purchased as a joke. Abandoned by friends, the family – Johnny (Eugene Levy), Moira (Catherine O’Hara), David (Daniel Levy) and Alexis (Annie Murphy) – must learn to navigate their new community much to their chagrin.

Schitt’s Creek’s writers portray different power-based dynamics to consider how (fictional) individuals and communities understand, access and navigate power. Skirmishes over who holds and is entitled to power in Schitt’s Creek create comedic (and sometimes dramatic) tension since characters initially see power as a zero-sum game, or the notion that power is finite and one person or group’s gain results in an equivalent loss for another. Yet, conflicts also spark new possibilities and ways of seeing the world, and the Rose family and community members begin developing strategies that encourage acting together for individual and communal well-being. Difference in place, values and ideas help characters (re)build relationships, act on dreams and invest in community. Schitt’s Creek shows possibilities for growth and recovery when the status quo has been upended (even if just for one family and their new community).

By embracing the possibility of meaningful individual growth, collaboration across difference and restructuring communities with the goal of shared power, Schitt’s Creek offers alternative, progressive cultural scripts. Pointing to media influence, Mary Celeste Kearney argues, ‘the media…are better able than other social institutions to produce and circulate images and messages that consumers use to construct knowledge and values’ (Kearney, 2012: 3). Dan Levy confirms that media, particularly television, can help people ‘understand’ or feel ‘compassion’, as Schitt’s Creek viewers routinely convey how the show’s characters and narratives ‘cracked open their world’ and ‘changed their outlook’ on queer people and relationships (Ahearn, 2018). Recognising that a sitcom such as Schitt’s Creek can change ingrained attitudes, the show’s favourable depiction of cross-class community building and power-sharing is ever-pressing as wealth inequality and divisions between the working poor and upper class expand and appear normal and acceptable. As Brandi Lawless argues, ‘Empathy and willingness to understand varying levels of privilege and disadvantage as they are lived on a day-to-day basis have the potential to impact micro- and macrolevel change’ (Lawless, 2016: 346). The cross-class community building and power-sharing featured in Schitt’s Creek offers viewers a narrative questioning the status quo by queering the prevailing, divisive social class system and imagining alternative, yet plausible, economic and social futures. While a queer future imbued with hope and structured by equitable power relations may seem idealistic or forever confined to the fictional realm, José Esteban Muñoz argues ‘hope is spawned of a critical investment in utopia that is nothing like naive but, instead, profoundly resistant to the stultifying temporal logic of a broken-down present’ (Muñoz, 2006: 825–826). In Schitt’s Creek, a broken present and efforts to cultivate a more utopic future go hand in hand.

Divisive power-over mentality

Destructive class and interpersonal power dynamics initially shape Schitt’s Creek’s interactions. Both the Roses and the Schitt’s Creek community, as led by Mayor Roland Schitt (Chris Elliott), operate within a power-over framework. In their critique of dominant models of power, legal scholars Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres argue the term ‘power-over’ reflects the zero-sum concept of power differentiating those with power from those without (Guinier and Torres, 2002: 111). Guinier and Torres emphasise a conventional zero-sum framework considers a hierarchy distinguishing winners and losers as normal and necessary (Guinier and Torres, 2002: 114). The Rose family, even amid financial ruin, understands themselves as ‘winners’ and as more powerful and civilised than the Schitt’s Creek community. The Roses not only own the town, and can thus sell Schitt’s Creek, but also understand their class identity – shaped by past economic and social power – as a marker of difference and superiority over community members. The family makes little effort to ingratiate themselves or invest in the town unless they see a direct pay-off. While the Roses embrace an outsider status, the community members position themselves as insiders. Long-term residents can rely upon historical and cultural knowledge, draw upon networks and navigate town politics more adeptly than new inhabitants. As insiders in a small, tight-knit community, residents can also depend upon ‘the transmission of information [and] financial help’ to ‘effectively access and participate in’ community life (Cinalli, 2005: 175). The residents use their sense of belonging to exert power and status over the Roses, thus marking the family as outsiders and heightening conflict. As Holly Jeanine Boux asserts, treating power as an all-or-nothing proposition contributes to discord and undermines coalitional possibilities (Boux, 2016: 12). Ultimately, tension builds in Schitt’s Creek as each side attempts to establish authority and leans into differences, stereotypes and biases, thus making the prospect of a shared community difficult and undesirable.

A power-over mentality informs the Rose family dynamics and creates discord and distrust, contributing to an inability to forge personal relationships requiring intimacy and vulnerability. Obsessed with and distracted by the pursuit of wealth and social status, the family knows little about one another and shows minimal interest in cultivating relationships. Upon arriving in Schitt’s Creek, Alexis immediately begins planning her escape route, which excludes her brother and parents. David calls her a ‘sociopath’ for abandoning ‘her family in some vomit-soaked dump to gallivant around the world with her dumb, shipping heir, loser boyfriend’. While the family chastises Alexis for her selfishness, and simultaneously positions themselves as morally superior, subsequent interactions underscore a shared responsibility for the damaged relationships. David absurdly insists Alexis sleep closest to the door so she will ‘get murdered first’ if someone breaks into their room (‘Our Cup Runneth Over’, 1: 1). David’s demand, which Alexis ignores, reflects the power-over perspective that one benefits at another’s expense and that, even in ‘horizontal relationships, the exercise of power can take on aspects of domination’ (Guinier and Torres, 2002: 121). Meanwhile, John and Moira’s effort to polish the past, particularly their parenting choices, exemplifies power-over interpersonal dynamics as they justify and normalise their version of the family’s interpersonal relationships. John maintains they ‘did everything right’ by sending their children ‘to the best boarding schools’ and ‘hir[ing] the best nannies’. Yet, these choices resulted in strained and distant relationships, exemplified by neither parent remembering Alexis’ middle name. Moira tries to justify the blunder, ‘We have so many disasters bombarding us right now…the middle name of an ungrateful child is hardly a priority’. The writers follow Moira’s humorously clueless commentary and dismissal of Alexis’ concerns with a shift to emotional vulnerability as John admits, ‘Somehow we’ve lost touch with our kids. We’ve become complete strangers’ (‘Bad Parents’, 1: 4). The family failed to nurture personal connections and now struggle to relate to or support one another during crisis, even becoming combative as they seek to establish their position and perspective as dominant, thus demonstrating how power-over dynamics learned and borrowed from capitalist pursuits can pervade interpersonal relationships.

In addition to familial conflicts, the Rose family struggles to relate to Schitt’s Creek residents. The run-down motel and an uncomfortable first encounter with the mayor shape the Roses’ impressions of Schitt’s Creek, and they quickly make assumptions about the town and its inhabitants. Stevie Budd (Emily Hampshire), the motel manager, invites David to a tailgate party. She jokes, ‘It’s not exactly clubbing, but, you know, close’. David quickly rebuffs the invitation, ‘in my mind I’m picturing like a Klan rally…I’m not really in the mood to be a victim of a hate crime tonight’ (‘The Drip’, 1: 2). Brand new to town and knowing nothing of the culture or community values, David’s sardonic response draws upon stereotypes of a rural town as backwoods and backwards (contrary to his fashionable cosmopolitan life). Even after living in Schitt’s Creek for a while, David indicates he is ‘having a very hard time to adjusting to the overall aesthetic of the town’ (‘Wine and Roses’, 1: 6), whereas Moira brutally describes the town as ‘disgusting’ and ‘gruesome’ (‘Our Cup Runneth Over’, 1: 1). Through these barbs, the Rose family establishes themselves as superior to the town and the perennial ‘losers’ who choose to live in Schitt’s Creek, thus exemplifying a power-over mentality. These characterisations also reveal the family’s commitment to positioning themselves as outsiders and temporary denizens, which discourages meaningful cross-class collaboration or investment. From clothing to cultural touchstones, the Roses’ upper-class identity ensures they view themselves as necessary outsiders in a rural town populated by middle- and working-class residents.

Even though the Roses’ financial position changed dramatically and forced their move to Schitt’s Creek, their perspective remains firmly grounded in the upper class (or 1%). While wealth and class are often conflated, the difference is important to the Roses’ relationship to the town. Donna Langston explains,

‘Class is more than just the amount of money you have…class is how you think, feel, act, look, dress, talk, move, walk; class is what stores you shop at, what restaurants you eat in; class is the schools you attend; class is the very jobs you will work at throughout your adult life’ (Langston, 2012: 401).

For example, Johnny leans into his previous success as a CEO and offers Roland unsolicited advice on running the town, while Moira name-drops famous connections and attempts to regale the town with stories about the family’s lavish past. Yet, prior to their economic collapse, the Roses would never have acknowledged or cared about Schitt’s Creek or its inhabitants. The family would not need to justify their superiority or any power held over the town, because the hierarchy would have been natural and self-evident (from their vantage point).

Losing their fortune and coming face-to-face with Schitt’s Creek eventually forces the Roses to reckon with their privilege and relationship to power. Stephanie Patrick argues the Rose family exists in a precarious state, which ‘brings with it attendant feelings of insecurity, anxiety, and…placeless-ness’ (Patrick, 2018: 298). Building upon Patrick’s argument, the Roses’ sense of precarity contributes to the family feeling they must distinguish themselves from the town. For instance, when Stevie calls David’s clothing ‘funky’, he replies, ‘funky is a neon t-shirt you buy at an airport gift shop next to a bejeweled iPhone case. This…is luxury’ (‘Bad Parents’, 1: 4). Wearing high-end designers such as Helmut Lang or Rick Owens puts the vestiges of the family’s wealth on display, but David’s mohawk hooded sweater and Moira’s outrageous wig collection starkly contrast the mass-market jeans and flannel preferred by community members. While Stevie acknowledges David’s aesthetic differs from hers, he uses class markers – neon t-shirt versus luxury attire – to situate his sartorial choices, and thus himself, as superior to the townspeople. Similarly, after Jocelyn Schitt (Jennifer Robertson) treats Moira to a spa day, Moira complains about her damaged wig and new look. She tells John, ‘Until I get in the shower, I’m stuck looking like every other inmate in this Godforsaken prison’ (‘Turkey Shoot’, 1: 7). Rather than expressing gratitude, Moira worries she looks too much like the women of Schitt’s Creek, whom she likens to inmates or people without freedom or options – people she resists finding common ground with. As power holders, the Roses prioritise their feelings and perspectives often at the expense of others. This self-centred approach reflects power holders’ tendency to focus more on personal needs and benefits instead of ‘collective concerns’ (Scholl et al., 2018: 113).

While interpersonal power-based hierarchies existed in the community prior to the Roses’ arrival, the prevailing power-over dynamic grounded in significant class-based divisions intensifies feelings of ‘precarity’ (Patrick, 2018) for long-time community members who feel uncertain about their place in Schitt’s Creek. The small, tight-knit community feels the effects of the Roses’ presence, thus altering community members’ behaviour and roles. For example, Jocelyn’s generosity and efforts to befriend Moira are tested when both women run for town council. Jocelyn feels threatened by the attention Moira receives at a meet the candidates event. She marks Moira as an outsider, ‘What you’re wearing is something that people around here aren’t really used to or comfortable with’ (‘Milk Money’, 2: 8). Feeling anxious about the election, Jocelyn changes her wardrobe and hair to appear more sophisticated, though she indicates, ‘I don’t like what this campaign is doing to me’ (‘Lawn Signs’, 2: 12). Eventually, Jocelyn drops out of the race, realising the election makes her feel insecure about herself and her place in the community. Similarly, Roland and Jocelyn alter their usual welcoming and open attitude in response to the Roses. As the town’s mayor and first lady, the Schitts strive to build community. They host an annual community BBQ but exclude Johnny and Moira. When the Roses question the missing invitation, Jocelyn attempts to mollify through flattery. She tells Johnny and Moira, ‘We didn’t think you’d want to hang out with “regular people”’ (‘Honeymoon’, 1: 10). The Schitts’ assumption stems from the barrier Johnny and Moira constructed, but the decision to exclude the couple demonstrates how the Roses affect the residents’ choices and behaviour. The town council also feels unnerved by the Roses. Desperate to sell and leave Schitt’s Creek, Johnny proposes improvements to the town, which he sees as mismanaged and unappealing to visitors. His request for a family-friendly welcome sign irritates town counsellor Ronnie Lee (Karen Robinson). Rejecting his proposal, she notes, ‘That’s all we need is some outsider coming in here and changing everything’ (‘Don’t Worry, It’s His Sister’, 1: 3). Johnny believes his aesthetic preference and financial needs supersede the town’s history and perspective; his approach further magnifies the residents’ sense of precarity as the Roses attempt to exert power over the town, residents and the community’s future.

These conflicting views over the town’s future cause tension between the Roses and community members along with frank communication concerning the family’s place in the community. Roland feels unsettled by the Roses’ presence, as he is accustomed to making decisions on behalf of the town and enjoys his mayoral title and recognition. He feels threatened when Moira runs for town council, since he knows ‘those with control maintain control because they set the agenda’ (Guinier and Torres, 2002: 110). Roland designates Moira as an outsider trying to interfere with a place she does not belong: ‘You come in here and you think you know everything…You’re a phony baloney blowhard, who’s desperately scared of being thought of as a regular person’. But Moira pushes back; she describes Schitt’s Creek as ‘woefully mismanaged’, and tells Roland, ‘You are an emotionally stunted, self-absorbed man-child. You lord this counterfeit power of yours over others like a schoolyard bully’ (‘The Motel Guest’, 2: 11). The interactions prove tense and reveal the toxic power-over dynamic between the Roses and community, but the conflict also helps open channels for self-reflection, communication and new connections.

Shifting power dynamics

With power-over dynamics seen as ‘normal and necessary’ in a Western context (Guinier and Torres, 2002), identifying and embracing new models takes time and effort. Yet, alternative forms of power, communication and collaboration appear possible and even natural within Schitt’s Creek thanks in part to creator and showrunner Dan Levy’s outright rejection of homophobia within the fictional community. Describing and constructing the town as an ‘oasis in terms of acceptance and love’ (Picardi, 2019), Levy upends real world power structures naturalising heteronormativity and sets the stage for a queer future shaped by equitable personal and communal power dynamics that normalise interdependence and vulnerability. For Schitt’s Creek characters, a shifting perspective on power requires both individual and relational changes grounded in reconciliation efforts. Brandon Hamber and Gráinne Kelly argue reconciliation requires, ‘developing a shared vision of an interdependent and fair society…acknowledging and dealing with the past…building positive relationships…significant cultural and attitudinal change…[and] substantial social, economic and political change’ (Hamber and Kelly, 2005: 190). While Hamber and Kelly focus on reconciliation in post-conflict societies, and the fictional community of Schitt’s Creek cannot be termed a post-conflict society (it is not recovering from warfare or addressing historical or contemporary atrocities – such as national erasure efforts targeting Indigenous peoples), the concept of reconciliation is useful for understanding the shift from a power-over to power-with mentality. Within the series, characters ‘aim to reconcile competing community interests, create new institutional structures and develop a new vision of the political future, based on agreed principles and practices’ (Hamber and Kelly, 2005: 192). By engaging in reconciliation efforts individually and collectively, the Roses and Schitt’s Creek community members begin resolving their differences and rejecting a power-over mentality. The Roses, in particular, come to realise they must undertake self-reflection and self-work to build healthier and more productive relationships. As the Rose family increasingly identifies with Schitt’s Creek residents, they shift from a personal to social identity, or from an ‘I’ to ‘we’ mentality, thus heightening their ‘willingness and motivation to engage’ with the community (Scholl et al., 2018: 115). Community members respond in kind, which opens channels for communication and collaboration.

The family gradually recognises their once lavish lifestyle diminished any desire or need to develop basic skills or understand the world beyond their perspective. The Roses must acknowledge and deal with their past to move forward (Hamber and Kelly, 2005). Eating exclusively in the local cafe for weeks, the Roses reminisce about meals prepared by former staff. Moira realises neither of her children knows how to cook; she tells David,

‘When I was a young girl, my sister and I baked bread from scratch…I could fix a wobbly table…Then I met your father, and suddenly I had people to do everything for me. And I assumed that I would maintain my proficiencies…but, no, I have lost all my skills. Now I know how it feels to be utterly helpless like you and your sister’ (‘Family Dinner’, 2: 2).

While Moira’s commentary seems hyperbolic, David’s job search proves he is ill-prepared to live without the protection of his family’s wealth. He tells Stevie he is looking for an ‘art curating or trend forecasting’ position. When Stevie informs him of a grocery bagging position paying minimum wage, David naively responds, ‘which is what, 40, 45 something an hour?’ (‘Don’t Worry, It’s His Sister’, 1: 3). The Roses’ initial difficulty adjusting to their new environment forces the family to evaluate their strengths, weakness and the changes required to ensure a more fulfilling future. Likewise, community members engage in critical self-reflection. Realising even the mayor needs help at times, Roland swallows his pride and asks Johnny for a job at the motel. Yet, Roland bristles at the job responsibilities, questioning, ‘how’s it going to look to have the mayor of the town changing sheets?’ (‘Asbestos Fest’, 4: 3). When Johnny threatens to fire Roland, the latter has a change of heart and concedes he needs the job to support his growing family. Roland must deal with his hang-ups about mayoral prestige in order to be a better husband, father and town leader.

As the Roses spend more time in Schitt’s Creek and connect with people whose experiences and ideas differ, they create ties with individuals they initially ignored or disparaged. For example, David befriends Stevie. He shifts from ‘trying very hard not to connect with people’ (‘The Drip’, 1: 2) to calling her his best friend. When Stevie tells David she fears the same lonely, unfulfilling life as her late aunt, David tells her, ‘You are not your aunt!…She made her decisions. And you’re going to make yours and they are going to be different. And they are going to be great’ (‘New Car’, 3: 3). David empathises with Stevie’s insecurities and offers sincere support as she struggles to find personal and professional fulfilment. Like David, Johnny finds himself valuing unexpected friendships. When Johnny and Moira run into former friends at a local restaurant, they present a polished version of their new life. Jocelyn and Roland play along, even as the dinner guests mock Schitt’s Creek. Fed-up, Johnny says, ‘I’m sitting here in a half-decent restaurant with my wife and our friends…Roland and Jocelyn could not have been more generous with what little they have. They found us a place to live, they’ve offered us their truck whenever we’ve needed it, they’ve invited us to their parties, they even offered to take us out to dinner tonight’ (‘Happy Anniversary’, 2: 13). Presented with a glaring contrast between a couple who abandoned them post-financial ruin and Roland and Jocelyn, Johnny appreciates the Schitts’ generosity and compassion. In order to find common ground and move forward, the Roses and townspeople must recognise and build positive relationships (Hamber and Kelly, 2005), as ‘changes to class systems and stratifications will only come about through cross-class interaction’ (Lawless, 2016: 335).

In addition to blossoming friendships, the younger Roses open themselves up to intimate relationships. While Alexis and David dated a lot – David asserts, ‘I’ve kissed like a thousand people’ (‘Dead Guy in Room 4’, 4: 1) – previous relationships were short-lived and never emotionally intimate. Alexis finds herself in new territory when, post-breakup, she realises, ‘I’ve never felt anything after a breakup…but this time it’s different…I think he changed me a bit…I let him know me’ (‘Moira vs. Town Council’, 2: 6). Feeling vulnerable catches Alexis off guard, but she processes how intimacy and even a relationship’s end helped her learn something new about herself. Like Alexis, David historically put up barriers in his relationships, noting, ‘The more I revealed of myself, the less interested people got’ (‘The Jazzaguy’, 4: 8). David falls for his business partner, Patrick (Noah Reid), and feels wounded when Patrick’s secret ex-fiancé shows up wanting to reconnect. Rather than jumping ship immediately, David takes time to consider the relationship’s future, while enjoying the gifts Patrick sends as an olive branch (after all, change takes time). Both David and Alexis undergo significant ‘attitudinal change’ as their modus operandi of acting out of ‘suspicion, fear, [and] mistrust…is broken down’ and replaced with patience, sensitivity and a willingness to ‘hear and be heard’ (Hamber and Kelly, 2005: 190).

Between self-improvement and relationship building, the Roses grow into capable people invested in something bigger than themselves. They start taking an interest in the community and begin working towards social, economic and political change (Hamber and Kelly, 2005). For instance, Alexis applies for the town’s art and culture grant. The council supports her proposal to plan a Schitt’s Creek singles’ week. While the task proves stressful, Alexis’ commitment to others shows her considerable personal and professional growth. Talking in the third person, she notes, ‘Alexis has been working very hard on herself. She just closed a very important chapter of her life with Ted last week, and still she’s putting everything she has into finding love for other people’ (‘Singles Week’, 4: 12). Moira also invests in the town. Rather than just complaining about Schitt’s Creek, she lobbies the council for plants to beautify the town. Moira desires change and drolly notes,

‘A year ago we had a staff of twenty five working the grounds of our home, and now we walk by a mattress on the side of the road without thinking twice about it…I will not accept this life’ (‘Moira vs. Town Council’, 2: 6).

The council nominally funds the beautification project – putting planters outside the motel – which both frustrates and emboldens Moira. Believing she can accomplish more with power and resources, she joins town counsel. Moira brings new ideas and perspectives to the group, and her presentation at the regional municipal association meeting earns positive and unexpected attention for Schitt’s Creek. While Moira and the council enjoy the praise, public service forces Moira to realise governing demands rules, budgets and a more comprehensive understanding of residents’ needs and challenges. In stark contrast to her previous problem-solving strategies, Moira learns she cannot focus solely on her own interests or throw money at a problem to make it go away. Investing in the town and assuming a leadership role positions Moira as an ‘other-regarding leader’ who prioritises the needs of the group (Harrell and Simpson, 2016: 1285), though especially when the community’s needs match her own.

Opening up to new people and opportunities allows the Roses to experience the benefits of community membership. Moira joins the Jazzagals, a women’s acapella group Jocelyn directs. Although not a professional group, the ensemble offers Moira a return to the stage. She finds joy in ‘working the old muscles again, riding the melody, bending the notes!’ (‘Jazzagals’, 2: 3). Moira misses the attention and fulfilment of her time as a soap opera star; performing with the Jazzagals delivers a small reminder of her entertainment career. She admits to John how much she ‘look[s] forward to time with the gals’, describing the group as one of her ‘few pleasures’ (‘The Jazzaguy’, 4: 8). Investing in the community also gives David a greater sense of meaning. He decides to lease an empty storefront and start his own business, Rose Apothecary. David takes a risk professionally, especially after learning his parents propped up his previous business ventures. Plagued with doubt about his vision for the store and ability to succeed, David turns to friends for support. Patrick boosts David’s confidence by telling him, ‘It’s a good idea…rebranding local products and crafts’ (‘Motel Review’, 3: 8), and the community agrees by supporting the store’s grand opening. In addition to enjoying the benefits of community membership, the Roses begin recognising their responsibility in building an interdependent and fair community (Hamber and Kelly, 2005). The process of self-improvement, investing in relationships and participating more directly in Schitt’s Creek helps the Roses understand power dynamics in new ways. The move towards interdependence is not unilateral, as Ronnie Lee, the town counsellor who sparred with Johnny over the sign, shows a willingness to hear and potentially support Moira’s bid for counsel. Ronnie worries Jocelyn’s presence on council will strengthen Roland’s agenda and drown out other perspectives. Moira argues the women could ‘support each other’s agendas’ and offer new directions and leadership for the town (‘Ronnie’s Party’, 2: 10). They lean into a power-with model, which philosopher Amy Allen describes as ‘the ability of a collectivity to act together for the attainment of an agreed-upon end’ (Allen, 1999: 127). This new approach to power-sharing shapes their professional relationship as well as the town’s future, as both the Roses and Schitt’s Creek community begin to embrace a power-with model.

Leaning into power-with

Recognising Schitt’s Creek as home, the Roses gradually shift from apathetic outsiders to insiders mindful of their responsibilities to the community. No longer focused solely on their own needs, or desire to flee, the Roses work towards representing the interdependent personal and communal needs (though Moira would certainly leave Schitt’s Creek if an opportunity arose). From joining town council to establishing and supporting local business, the family embraces a power-with model. This shift requires reconsidering ‘affinities and alliances’ and working in tandem with community members to change and grow the town for the collective good (Carrillo Rowe and Lindsey, 2012: 303). Inevitably, the shift from power-over to power-with is not linear; it unfolds at different rates for different characters and regression occurs along the way. However, efforts to shift signify a more collaborative, empathetic and inclusive community that subverts, though never fully seeks to overturn, dominant power structures.

Rose Apothecary represents a move towards shared power. Opening a new business creates financial and social benefits for David and the greater Schitt’s Creek community. Leasing the general store ensures the space remains local (a corporate chain planned to move in). Further, David’s business model supports local development and benefits vendors, patrons and owners. David describes his work as ‘curating a selection of products from local vendors and selling them on consignment in a one-stop-shop retail environment that benefits both the vendor and the customer’ (‘The Affair’, 3: 9). While not the plan at the start, David’s business model amplifies previously marginalised voices, promotes multiple perspectives, represents the needs of the many and ‘dissolves rigid distinctions between the so-called powerful and the powerless’ (Severs et al., 2016: 350). It also creates ‘diverse economies and more ethical economic’ relationships (Harcourt, 2017: 1018), thus producing unexpected outcomes. For example, beyond creating a local economic network, Patrick wants to establish the store as a community space and seeks ways to ‘engage with the community’. He tells David, ‘We need to do something to make this store feel a little bit more accessible, a little bit more inclusive’ (‘Open Mic’, 4: 6). Partially motivated by a desire to attract more business, Patrick’s call for inclusion also demonstrates a deeper commitment to fostering community.

The roadside motel run by Stevie and occupied by the Rose family also represents a move towards power-sharing models. Johnny collaborates with Stevie to run the motel. The partnership provides income and personal fulfilment and shows Johnny’s understanding of success has evolved. Looking at an old Rose family portrait, Stevie observes the family does not ‘look very happy’. Johnny indicates the ‘motivation was to look successful’. The image and reality of success came at a cost, as ‘the family often wasn’t all together back then’. Stevie points out the family is together ‘all the time now’, and the observation helps Johnny realise their lives have changed immeasurably – beyond just the size of their home or bank accounts (‘Friends & Family’, 3: 12). This transformation also includes Johnny’s professional life. Rather than running a multimillion-dollar company employing thousands, he values the daily work of operating and improving the motel. After booking all the motel rooms for the first time in years, Johnny tells Stevie, ‘I am so proud of this little team’ (‘Grad Night’, 3: 13). Instead of asserting himself as the expert or boss, Johnny embraces a team-based operational model in which he and Stevie are ‘interdependent’ actors (Cinalli, 2005: 172) whose complementary strengths enhance the business. Acknowledging the partnership, Johnny installs a new sign which gives the motel an official name – Rosebud Motel. The name combines Rose and Budd (Stevie’s last name) and signifies Johnny’s plan to stay in the town (‘Open Mic’, 4: 6). Finally, investing in Schitt’s Creek and working collaboratively is not a one-sided change, as Jocelyn and Roland signal the Roses’ value and place in the community by naming their baby Roland Moira Schitt (‘Singles Week’, 4: 12).

Conclusion

It is easy to characterise Schitt’s Creek as a ‘fish out of water’ story. The show’s narrative arch, particularly in early seasons, focuses on the Roses’ difficulty in acclimating to the town, and the writers take great care to highlight the different background and lived experiences of the Rose family and Schitt’s Creek residents. Further, the show’s promotional materials lean into the notion the Roses do not quite match their new environment, with ads showing the family dressed in designer fashion while standing in front of the dingy, roadside motel or a broken-down car. Ultimately, Schitt’s Creek examines insider/outsider dynamics and resulting challenges and opportunities. The ‘fish out of water’ description demands a focus on the Rose family, their changed circumstances and process of adjusting to the town. Yet, Schitt’s Creek, as the eponymous title indicates, is a story about a community.

By telling the story of a community, Schitt’s Creek gives voice to different perspectives, needs and realities. These differences can prove instructional for characters within the fictional world but also for the viewing audience. The series acknowledges tension and conflict among people with competing interests and concedes change is rarely easy or desirable (particularly for those with power and privilege). Yet, Schitt’s Creek also opens a space for viewers to see possibilities, including the reduction of wealth inequality, growing out of collaboration and power-sharing that respect and support communal needs. The Roses and long-time residents of Schitt’s Creek create alternative communities and practices, allowing them to forge more equitable personal and professional relationships – promising depictions of upending the status quo.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Katharine Schaab

References

Ahearn

(2018) Daniel Levy on playing a pansexual character on Schitt’s Creek. The Canadian Press. Available at: https://nationalpost.com/pmn/entertainment-pmn/daniel-levy-on-playing-a-pansexual-character-on-schitts-creek (accessed 20 April 2019).

Allen

(1999) The Power of Feminist Theory: Domination, Resistance, Solidarity. New York: Westview Press.

Black Mirror (2011–present) Netflix. House of Tomorrow.

Boux

(2016) Towards a new theory of feminist coalition: accounting for the heterogeneity of gender, race, class, and sexuality through and exploration of power and responsibility. Journal of Feminist Scholarship 10(Spring): 1–22.

Carrillo Rowe

Lindsey

(2012) Reckoning loyalties: white femininity as “crisis.” In: Kearney

(ed), The Gender and Media Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 292–306.

Cinalli

(2005) Below and beyond power sharing: relational structures across institutions and civil society. In: O’Flynn

Russell

(eds) Power Sharing: New Challenges for Divided Societies. Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, pp. 172–187.

Dresden

(2018) Daniel Levy’s queer comedy asks what would happen if the Kardashians went penniless. Out. Available at: www.out.com/out-exclusives/2018/2/12/daniel-levys-queer-comedy-asks-kardashians-penniless (accessed 22 March 2019).

Guinier

Torres

(2002) The Miner’s Canary: Enlisting Race, Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hamber

Kelly

(2005) The challenge of reconciliation in post-conflict societies: definitions, problems and proposals. In: O’Flynn

Russell

(eds) Power Sharing: New Challenges for Divided Societies. Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, pp. 188–203.

10.

Harcourt

(2017) Gender and sustainable livelihoods: linking gendered experiences of environment, community and self. Agriculture and Human Values 34(4): 1007–1019.

11.

Harrell

Simpson

(2016) The dynamics of prosocial leadership: power and influence in collective action groups. Social Forces 94(3): 1283–1308.

12.

Kearney

(2012) Introduction. In: Kearney

(ed), The Gender and Media Reader. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–21.

13.

Keeping Up with the Kardashians (2007–present) E!. Ryan Seacrest Productions.

14.

Langston

(2012) Tired of playing monopoly? In: Kelly

Parameswaran

Schniedwind

(eds) Women: Images and Realities. New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 400–404.

15.

Lawless

(2016) Ally, friend, or mentor? Creating and maintaining effective cross-class alliances. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication 9(4): 334–350.

16.

Muñoz

(2006) Thinking beyond antirelationality and antiutopianism in queer critique. PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 121(3): 825–826.

17.

Orphan Black (2013–2017) Space. Temple Street Productions.

18.

Patrick

(2018) Without a paddle: Schitt’s Creek, CBC, and the return to community and family in uncertain times. Canadian Journal of Communication 43(2): 297–314.

19.

Picardi

(2019) Ew, David! Dan Levy is our fashion issue cover star. Out. Available at: www.out.com/television/2019/9/17/how-schitts-creek-changed-dan-levy-life-and-career (accessed 4 December 2019).

20.

Pratto

(2016) On power and empowerment. The British Journal of Social Psychology 55(1): 1–20.

21.

Schitt’s Creek (2015–2020) CBC. Not a Real Company Productions.

22.

Scholl

Sassenberg

Ellemers

, et al. (2018) Highly identified power-holders feel responsible: the interplay between social identification and social power within groups. The British Journal of Social Psychology 57(1): 112–129.

23.

Severs

Celis

Erzeel

(2016) Power, privilege and disadvantage: intersectionality theory and political representation. Politics 36(4): 346–354.

24.

The Handmaid’s Tale (2017–present) Hulu. MGM Television.

25.

The Real Housewives (2006–present) Bravo. Evolution Media.