Week 5: Representation: Ideology, Discourse and Power

This week’s lecture focused on representation involving discourse analysis. From the key reading of Long and Wall we can see a key theorist in discourse is Michel Foucault who defines discourse as 'practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak.' (Long and Wall 2012, 363)

'Foucault meant by his definition that discourses are ideas in embedded in what we do, say and think and that these create the terms upon which we know the world.' (Long and Wall 2012, 364)

Foucault did not use the term ideology as he wanted to move away from the idea of hierarchies and Marxist thinking. Instead Foucault 'speaks of regimes of truth' that are produced by practices and languages.' (Long and Wall 2012, 264) in other words known as discourse.

The key reading of David Machin and Andrea Mayr focuses on the idea of critical discourse analysis (CDA). Here the idea is that 'critical discourse analysis has its origins in 'critical linguistics'.  (Machin and Mayr 2012, 2) Meaning that critical linguistics 'show how language and grammar can be used as ideological instruments.' (Machin and Mayr 2012, 2) This is the view that language is a social construction, 'language both shapes and is shaped by society.' (Machin and Mayr 2012, 4) This relates to power as 'CDA assumes that power relations are discursive. In other words, power is transmitted and practised through discourse.' (Machin and Mayr 2012, 4)

With the example of a speech by an old British Prime Minister (Tony Blair) 'Fairclough and Wodak (1977: 273) argue that such language reflects and reproduces power relations in society.' (Machin and Mayr 2012, 6) The idea that the language he used during his speech implied that we should 'know' and 'understand'. However, it became recognised that 'meaning is generally communicated not only through language but also through other semiotic modes' (Machin and Mayr 2012, 6) and this bought about the idea of multimodal CDA.

The key reading also considers the concept of 'linguistic determinism, where our thinking is determined by our language.' (Machin and Mayr 2012, 16). However some linguists see it from a view that 'the way we see the world might be influenced by the kind of language we use rather than be determined by it.' (Machin and Mayr 2012, 16) The reading consists of the idea that the language we use is determined by social factors meaning that 'we use language to create a society' (Machin and Mayr 2012, 17) and this uses the idea of communication as a social semiotic theory.

The discourse analysis of 'The L Word' discusses the way in which sexuality is represented in the series. 'Lesbian sexual identity is represented as settled and stable' (L word page 179) while 'bisexuality is, in itself, "gory".' (L word page 181) The L Word discourse analysis raises the dominance and power of lesbianism producing an ideology of it being as a norm unlike bisexuality. However the representation of lesbians in 'The L Word' are of pretty women wearing make-up, when Shane is introduced to the show she fits the stereotype of a butch lesbian as 'she is symbolically and physically "boyish" in nature' (L word page 186) thus not fitting the ideology of the 'normal' lesbian in 'The L Word'.

Bibliography

Beirne, Rebecca (2008) Televising Queer Women, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 179 - 193

Long, P and Wall, T (2012) 'Discourse, power and media’ IN Media Studies: Texts, Production, Context (2^nd Edition), London: Pearson. pp 363-369

Machin, D and Mayr, A (2012) How to do a Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Sage. pp 1-29

Week 4: Censorship, effects, and moral panics: what do the media do to people?

This week’s lecture discussed media regulation, 'censorship', effects and moral panics.

The act of consuming media presents us with observable actions, feelings and relationships with media forms, at the individual and group levels, which we can understand in conceptual and theoretical terms.

 (Long and Wall 2012, 276)

The view that media consumed has a direct effect on audiences comes from the idea that audience are passive. 'The first model tends to relate to what we describe as 'mass society' perspectives and approaches, in which audience members are often understood as the passive receptacles for these messages.' (Long and Wall 2012, 279) However, this is not the case as effects theories such as hypodermic needle theory assumes that all audience members respond to media in the same way, but still this theory is seen as a common sense theory. A second media model 'takes a broad view of media products and their meanings as in some way determined by consumers themselves, rather than being products full of meanings simply imposed on them externally.' (Long and Wall 2012, 279)

Regulation can be used for two reasons, morality - protecting vulnerable groups and individuals and for choice - in order to provide diversity. Official regulation includes statutory state regulation and self-regulation. In Bignall's key reading he discusses how those with power are able to control what the audience can and cannot see. 'In media theory, members of the elite group that has the power to determine what information can be circulated are referred to as 'gatekeepers'.' (Bignall 2004, 231) 'the gatekeepers make use both of published regulations and guidelines about programme content, and of their own internalised sense of what is right and wrong to broadcast.' (Bignall 2004, 231)

The reading I have acquired this week talks about media culture and government policy. 'In the United States, media culture is produced and disseminated by large and powerful private industries.' (Crane 1992, 156) This relates to the concept discussed in the Bignall reading of control and power.

Television regulations have been largely made by well-educated and socially powerful elite groups in society, the underlying ideology of television regulation has considered the less socially powerful and less well-educated mass audiences of television as vulnerable and prone to bad influences.

(Bignall 2004, 242)

However Bignall suggests that using regulation and censorship will protect the audience rather than undermine them. Unlike the Crane reading which says that 'the power to decide what will be shown over the air rests with a very few.' (Cranes 1992, 157) This gives the view that when media texts are regulated it is without the choice and consideration of what the audience would want to see and rather presuming that the audience cannot handle uncensored and unregulated material.

The Nelmes reading talks about 'those who argue in favour of censorship claim that it reflects and protects standards of morality generally held in society.' (Nelmes 1999, 48) this is the belief that censorship advocates and upholds morality held in society. However, 'those who argue against it say that, rather than reflecting standards, it imposes them.' (Nelmes 1999, 48) 

Bibliography

Bignell, J (2004) An Introduction to Television Studies, London: Routledge. pp 229-252

Crane, Diana (1992) The production of culture, media and the urban art: Foundations of popular culture vol. 1, California: SAGE Publications pp. 156 - 157

Long, P and Wall, T (2012) ‘Producing audiences: what do media do to people?’ IN Media Studies: Texts, Production, Context (2^nd Edition), London: Pearson. pp 274-299

Nelmes, J (1999) An Introduction to Film Studies, 2^nd Edition, London: Routledge. pp. 48-53

Week 3: Text: Is Film/TV a Language?

This week’s lecture has looked at how TV and film can use both rhetoric and narrative techniques to see film and TV as a language. While there are the obvious differences between film and TV, it is also important to consider the differences between image and sound. From the key reading of Ellis Part 1 - Broadcast TV as sound and image I have come to the conclusion that image is much more powerful when combined with sound. 'Sound holds attention more consistently than image, and provides a continuity that holds across momentary lapses of attention.' (Ellis 1982, 128) This is because 'sound tends to carry the details.' (Ellis 1982, 129) Therefore sound together with an image creates a more effective image rather than either of them alone.

With the idea of using rhetoric in TV and film, it takes the idea that audience will develop certain meanings and emotions when consuming the text. 'The audience is expected to understand these references.' (Ellis 1982, 134) However from the lecture I have understood that audience do not always accept the dominant ideology due to them being able to tell that meanings are constructed. '...there is in possibility of the film meaning anything without the creative intervention of the spectator in determining what to pay attention to and what sense to give it.' (Nowell-Smith 2000, 10-11)

Considering the idea of broadcast TV as a narrative of having a beginning, middle and an ending an important aspect of narrative to be noted is repetition of segments. 'Segments are bound together into programmes by the repetition device of the series. This constitutes a basic ongoing problematic, which rarely receives a final resolution.' (Ellis 1982, 158) This is what keeps audience members engaged, especially with television series that use repetition, mainly soap operas rather than film which usually finds a resolution in the ending.

Although there are differences between narratives in film and tv it is important to note that 'there is no real difference in narrational form between news and soap opera. The distinction is at another level: that of source of material.' (Ellis 1982, 159) However the difference in narratives between film and TV is of the ending. Film provides an ending 'the film text aims for a final coherent totalising vision, which sets everything back into order.' (Ellis 1982, 156) Whereas with TV 'the incidental problems are solved, but the series format provides no real place for its own resolution.' (Ellis 1982, 156)

Bibliography

Ellis, John (1982) Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video, Routledge: London - pp. 127-159

Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey (2000) ‘How films mean, or, from aesthetics to semiotics and half-way back again’ in Gledhill, C and Williams, L. (2000), Reinventing Film Studies. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Week 2: The Political Economy of Film and Television: Production and Consumption

In this week’s lecture we have looked at the context of film and television while looking closely at the political economy of the media and media institutions. Through the lecture the idea was discussed that media texts are seen as cultural commodities meaning that they are made to be sold to make a profit.

Revenue can come from two sources. The first is directly from the final consumers, made in some form of payment for a physical artefact.... The second is by selling some of the space in the physical artefact to advertisers, who wish to communicate with the audience.

                                                                                                           (Long and Wall 2012, 174 - 175)

Political economy 'concerns the nature of production and the wider social conditions under which it takes place.' (Long and Wall 2012, 172) This relates to what was discussed in the lecture of the three key aspects to political economy which are: funding, organisation and regulation which can be seen as the social conditions.

However another definition of political economy is concerned more with the power relations of media texts. Vincent Mosco has defined political economy as 'the study of the social relations, particularly the power relations, that mutually constitute the production, distribution and consumption of resources.' (Long and Wall 2012, 173)

This relates to how political economy is known to be 'concerned with exploring the relationship between the range of meanings available in media and the underpinning economic interests and ownership patterns across the different media spheres. (Long and Wall 2012, 173)

From the key reading I have found that many meanings developed from audience members consuming texts relate to the ideologies presented through the text:

A paternal system, Williams states, is

An authoritarian system with a conscience: that is to say, with values and purposes beyond the maintenance of its own power.' In this philosophy, the institution-audience relationship is primarily defined in cultural and ideological terms: 'the paternal system transmits values, habits, and tastes, which are its own justification as a ruling minority, and which it wishes to extend to people as a whole.'

(Ang 1991, 3)

From my own reading I have found that values are transmitted more easily now due to synergy. 'Synergy is a number of processes working together within a system for greater benefit than they could achieve individually' (Long and Wall 2012, 177). Tying in with the fact that 'films are produced by the same companies that are involved with other media and communication activities, and it is no secret that fewer and fewer giant corporations control these activities.' (Wasko 1999, 230)

Bibliography

Chapter 2 ("Audience-as-market and audience-as-public") in Ang, Ien (1991) Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge.

Long, P and Wall, T (2012) ‘Political Economy of the Media’ IN Media Studies: Texts, Production, Context (2^nd Edition), London: Pearson. pp. 172-185

Wasko, J (1999) ‘The Political Economy of Film’ in Miller, T and Stam R (1999) A Companion to Film Theory. Oxford: Blackwell