Newcomb and Hirsh state, “the incidence of certain content
categories may be cited as significant, or their ‘effects’ more clearly
correlated with some behavior. This concern for measuring is, of course, the
result of conceiving television in one way rather than another, as
‘communication’ rather than as ‘art’” (Newcomb & Hirsh, p. 562). This
observation significantly resonated with me for several reasons. On the one
hand I completely agree with this notion. As a doctoral student in communication
who studies television, I am inclined to fully support the study of television
within the communication field. Media effects is one of the main considerations
for studying television within communication and separates it from an
interpretive “close-reading” method. However, as my undergraduate degree is in
drama, I want to push back against their idea that conceiving television as art
eliminates the possibility of studying its effects and correlated behavior. Art
is meant to inspire, provoke, challenge, change, and exist as medium for public
debate (Campbell & Martin, 2006). Why then, should there be a dichotomy
between communication and art? Cultural Studies is a prevalent subject within
communication, and much of cultural centers on communities’ art. Therefore, I
do not prescribe to the notion that art exists separately from communication
and vice versa. I believe they exist and can be studies interdisciplinarily. That
said, I appreciate the Newcomb and Hirsh article as an excellent foundation for
how and why I have chosen to study television from the communication
perspective.
Newcomb and Hirsh “suggest that in popular culture
generally, in television specifically, the raising of questions is as important
as the answering of them” (p. 565). Furthermore, “television does not present
form ideological conclusions… it comments on ideological problems” (Newcomb
& Hirsh, p. 566). I find this to be especially true considering the
traditionally social nature of television viewing. Quite often, a television
show I watch with friends or family, sparks a social or political discussion
based on the varying view points presented in the episode. What the characters
feel or how the plot resolves tends to be secondary to the discussion of the actual
issues. However, I am in agreement with Gitlin, that the plot conclusion or
character representations are a product of hegemony. Because it is often
apparent that, “within the formula of a program, a specific slant often pushes
through, registering a certain position on a particular public issue” (Gitlin,
p. 261). Often times, particularly in regards to designing media for social
change, there is this push to expose and upset the hegemonic powers. However,
the Gitlin piece made me question (and I will need to research Gramci’s thoughts
on this), what happens when hegemony is not only exposed but overturned. Is
there always a new form of hegemony? And in regards to television, will
hegemony always be inescapable?
To be fully transparent, my work is directly influenced by
my bias as both a feminist and acafan (Jenkins, 2008). I want to see race and
gender equality in my favorite shows to help inspire race and gender equality
in society at large. Last week, I was in debate with a friend about my content
analysis work in crime drama television. His argument was that it is unfair to
make judgments about the intention or social implications of isolated dialogue
without asking the writers what they specifically meant by it. In regards to a Father Knows Best episode, Roz Rogers
“said that the ending, which had been tacked on in order to reach a quick resolution,
‘did not ring true’ for him” (Hendershot, p. 205). This is interesting
considering the scholarly reaction to abrupt and sexist ending of the episode.
However, regardless of intention, the audience effects are real, and however
the audience decodes (Hall) an episode can have a rippling influence.
My final thoughts are that each of these three readings hold
weight. I ultimately disagree with Hendershot’s statement that, “the televisual
cultural forum that Newcomb and Hirsch identified so long ago may not exist
today, but Parks and Recreation
suggests that we should respond to the issues it raises” (Hendershot, p.211). I think it still very much exists today
and can be identified in any number of television shows and genres far
extending from Parks and Recreation.
"Often times, particularly in regard to designing media for social change, there is this push to expose and upset the hegemonic powers. However, the Gitlin piece made me question (and I will need to research Gramsci’s thoughts on this), what happens when hegemony is not only exposed but overturned. Is there always a new form of hegemony? And in regards to television, will hegemony always be inescapable?"
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts on the Gitlin piece were very generative for me, so thank you. I have been thinking a lot about the questions you raise here. In my understanding, hegemony can often function as a kind of ideological bumper lane (forgive my silly bowling analogy) in that it takes up alternative, oppositional ideas and redirects them in ways that reinforce and reproduce its own power relations. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a profoundly anti-capitalist figure who saw racial injustice and class injustice as intersectional and linked. The hegemonic forces have appropriated his legacy however, and have largely erased this from their discussions of him. As Gitlin himself observed, and is now even more profoundly evident in the age of Trump, many working class white Americans have been fooled into voting against their economic self-interest through wedge issues like abortion, racial dog-whistle tactics, gay marriage, etc. So in my understanding, hegemony functions to redirect activist energy to its own aims. In response to your question, “what happens when hegemony is not only exposed but overturned,” I would say that in order for hegemony to be overturned it would take a revolutionary change in the political economy of the culture. Hegemony is the ideology of the ruling class, which in the current era of late capitalism is the so-called “one percent.” Soviet-style communism tried very hard to institute a socialist hegemony, and their propaganda efforts were theoretically in service of the ruling proletariat (in practice I think it would be hard to argue that this was the case most of the time, but the example still stands). I think hegemony is inescapable in any form of corporate media, due not necessarily to overt acts of editorial control, but mostly because of the internalization on the part of the individuals who make up the media of hegemonic ideology. Noam Chomsky wrote a brilliant analysis of how this functions in the Anglo-American West is his book Manufacturing Consent. What stood out to me as very interesting in Gitlin’s essay was his focus on how the very format of television, and the way in which it segments time into discrete commodities to be consumed. In this way the medium itself, regardless of content, is an ideological tool of hegemony. It also got me thinking about how the transition away from network broadcasting towards on-demand streaming as the mode of television distribution has changed some of these ways that TV acts as a tool of hegemony. For example, while on-demand viewing provides a challenge to the traditional model of commercial advertising, it has profoundly expanded the ways in which the audience can be tracked and surveilled, and that data collected and sold to commercial interests. If anything, while we have managed to find ways around watching TV commercials, the sophistication of advertising technologies has increased and become even more insidious. Thank you for allowing me to use your thoughts as a spring board for my own. I hope they were as generative as yours were for me.