Jelena Core Post

Jelena Culibrk

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a fine example of the changes brought onto the media landscape in the 1990s with numerous institutional, political, cultural and economic changes. Most annoyingly, for my respective colleagues and myself, the intergretion of the the musical into the series was painful. Hybridisation of genre is naturally present in Buffy, and relates to Caldwell’s notion of the “assemblage.” Namely, divergent forms of “content” (not anymore monolithic “programmes”) are brought in together to address and cater to the widest possible audience. Both domestic and overseas. Yet, I cannot help but notice that the most annoying aspect of Buffy—the musical—was the most formalistically potent one for it allowed, probably what would otherwise be a censored aspect, representation of young female sexuality (more conrectely, orgasm through the musical scene in which Tara is lifted from the bed whilst singing). Moreover, Buffy is also rembered for its pioneering representation, and controversial (due to it’s abrupt ending), of a teenage lesbian relationship. From Caldwell’s piece, we can assume that these are all formalistic changes that were brought on by “the promise of diversity.” Namely, 1990s television brought these myriad forms of content to the audiences. However, Caldwell and Jenkins view these as not neutral technological achievements. While Jenkins understands the change as insidious (for the paradoxical interplay between “freedom of choice,” and the content-monopoly), Caldwell is interested in explaining how content amlgamation displayed not only the changing relationships of television to the internet, previously seen (or topically seen) as antithetical, but also television’s unique resilience. The change Caldwell goes against the grain by posing that “new media” (i.e., the internet) brought on interactivity. For Caldwell, interactivity was/is central to television.

Interactivity, according to Caldwell, was always economically feasable from television’s beginnings in the 1940s. Indeed, interactivity can be seen as a form of extended public sphere that texts create when they are consumed by either its critiques or vehement supporters. I suppose this 1 of 4 comes from the capitalist notion that any publicity is good, given that the system is presupposed on heightening the levels of production AND consumption. Particularly in the neoliberal version of capitalist logic, production ceases to be the most important aspect of a company’s mission, but rather the perpetuation of “brands.” This we know from popular sources like Naomi Klein’s No Logo published around the time (circa 2000), according to Caldwell, television and internet have extended their cooperation. Hence, there is certainly a relationship between television and neoliberal logic, as we have seen on the most blatant example of the Regan-era Dynasty. However, we can find this connection in Caldwell’s nuanced examples. Neoliberalism [I would also add the destruction of the two political blocs, and the notion of “a historical end,” alla Fukuyama], lax on syndication laws in 1990s, cable television, and new modes of television interactivity are all part of the same interactive-logic that is deeply tied into aggressive capital production. Unlike the cinema, television was incredibly resilient to the threats posed by interactivity. Moreover, it welcomed it. [One only needs to think about the pitiful and rare 2000s efforts to produce an interactive film. I was at such a screening. William Castle with his late-1950s scent-cards was innovative in contrast to these cinema productions.] However, the Caldwell piece left me methodologically unsatisfied by its lack of clear flag-posting.

While reading John Caldwell’s piece, particularly the question: “What if a broadband network had already been in place?” apropos of the relationship of television to the internet is interesting, albeit not as revolutionary as I would expect from this informative, oft-times informationoverloaded article. More conrecetly, I critique Caldwell’s “eureka” moment with historiographic questions that have been in circulation for at least the last three decades. [Most predominantly with the establishment of my much-beloved journal Representations.] I cannot say with certainty that this is due to the two disciplines—historiography, and media studies at a particular moment—lack of dialogue. Indeed, media studies have undergone a tremendous shift from the much-crticised form-obsessed analysis (i.e., close-analysis of media texts) to contextualisation—historic, socio2 of 4 economic, political etc. I am also aware that Caldwell’s goal in this piece is not to entertain with historiographical questions, but rather to show the adaptibility, flexibility, and resilience of television to the threats of “new media.” However, Caldwell rightly reaches the eureka moment— how “new” is the new? Lisa Gitelman has given us great piece on the development and relience of “new media” to 18th century ones. Yet, early modern historians, particularly those that are concerned with the history of the book (which is an odd little discipline, or perhaps a historical attitude. I am yet to find out.) are doing tremendous work in chipping away “the modernity” argument that has tarnished media studies for far-too long. [My own intellectual development has, until recently, entirely depended on 1990s/early 2000s works on modernity.] Interestingly, even Buffy incites an interest in the relationship between the printed book, and modern media. Shots of old manuscripts, and rare books dominate the series. Moreover, they invite or preclude Western culture’s newly-resurrected interest in “intellectual fiction” (for the sake of not knowing how to find the better word to name massive teenage media content like Harry Potter that privilege the atmosphere of learning, curiosity, friendship, and fun.) There is much to be told about the relationship between television and the book as an older, pre-VCR form of a “programmes” afterlife. I am thinking here about the BBC personal documentaries of the late-1960s and early 1970s. Not only did books, as a condensed version of the shows, function as an extended after-life but also as pragmatic tools that changed intellectual histories of many future American scholars. [I am going to heavily criticise the BBC’s Eurocentricism in my presentation next week, but there is also much to be praised in the cultural changes these shows brought. Not least a new mode of visual historiography.]

Perhaps my frustration with Caldwell stems from the fact that I am looking for a more clear “wink” at the way knowledge is being influenced by these changing socio-political landscapes, otherwise exceptionally analysed by Caldwell. I want intellectual history under convergance media. Yet, how much can an academic article do? There certainly are forms of restraint, either imposed by 3 of 4 the discipline, publisher, or the author herself/himself. Is actually Jenkins’ analysis of “knowledge culture” the wink much-needed?