It's a rich television age and a demanding one. The selection is now so plentiful and fragmented and good. And deciding among hundreds of channels, on-demand options, DVR, Internet streaming and iPhones requires so much research, planning and commitment that viewers have become proprietary about their choices. Alliances are formed, and so are antipathies. Snobbery takes root. Preferences turn totemic. The mass audience splintered long ago; now viewers are divided into tribes with their own rituals and rites of passage.Adorno would be dismayed, to say the least. What does this say about the quality of our culture today? And of us and our social values? Is it even true? Do we feel as if what we tune into (and I mean on a regular basis) says something about who we are? I think it might suggest something about our likes and dislikes, but I am not sure it goes to our essential identity.
I'm going to write more about this, but for now, I wanted to pose this for discussion...
13 comments:
I don't know that we should be surprised that people use television to make distinctions between each other, and to establish both status and group affiliation.
As the post mentions, humans do this with a whole host of things, from fashion to language use. We should expect that we will use any significant cultural element for grouping.
Television is definitely a huge part of the culture of the United States. We watch a lot of it. We discuss the shows we watch. They become part of our everyday lives.
And, they become another way that people can lump themselves into groups.
Advertisers have known this for years.
However, I think that the use of language in the NYT piece is interesting. The author uses a bunch of anthropological terms that have historically been used to refer to cultures seen as primitive or backward, and infers that our culture is backward because we are acting in these ways. We are totemic and tribal in her analysis.
The analysis treads on shaky ground here. First, are tribal cultures inferior to modern western culture? The article seems to forward this as a given.
Second, lets be real here. Human beings have had the same brains with the same software for about forty-thousand years. It just may be that tribal thinking is a central component in our psychology.
And, isn't the author creating an implied group distinction within the piece--people who do use TV to form groups, and people who don't?
Oops! We just formed another group.
How about people who think that using television to form groups is bad v. those who think it's OK?
How about people who think that TV is a negative part of US culture v. those who think its OK?
Forming groups based on anything isn't bad, or primitive.
It's just human.
Although I do believe that what we watch involves our likes and dislikes and may even pull at our personalities, I do not think that we are what we watch. Chapter six of Media and Society makes two good points when comparing media content and the “real” world. First it says that studies remind us that representations are not reality, even if we do compare to them sometimes. Secondly, it says that the media do not usually try to reflect the “real” world.
While the recent splurge of reality television has become increasingly more popular, even those shows do not compare to real life. I mean how often in real life does one guy have the opportunity to pick or “fall in love” with their choice of 25 beautiful women. And I’m pretty sure that most of us would agree that our lives are not comparable to those who live in Orange County. I have to admit that watching these shows may be my guilty pleasure, but I by no means want their lives or could even imagine mine as such. I do find myself sympathizing in the rare occurrence that these “characters” confront situations that I could see myself in, but I think that’s just human nature. Culture is what you make of it, just because I watch trashy television doesn’t mean that they rub off on me and reflect my social values or that our culture is of poor quality.
Popular medium vehicles provide a shared experience for those who enjoy them, and they can create a micro culture of fans (star wars, etc) However, our essential identity is not defined by the choices we make in media consumption. This is simply because the media we consume is a CHOICE we make. I would argue these choices are instead a reflection of our established identity.
Fiske's article outlines the 'polysemic'nature of discourse in television. He argues, "different socially located viewers will activate its meaning potential differently." In other words, people who watch the same show, can take different meanings from the same dialogue. Thus, how can we fragment ourselves into 'tribes' of shared indentity when many people don't even share the same meaning from the media their watching?
Now, it is very true that certain demographics are more likely to consume certain media than others. So Fiske's argument does have certain limitations. However, in the end it is NYT's declaration and summary of today's 'culture wars' that is ultimately misguided.
Kyle
Remember how Dr. Robinson regularly comments on “The Office” television show? Just a few classes ago, she asked who are the people who do NOT watch the office to exemplify ingroup/outgroup behavior. Nonwatchers of The Office were posed as some strange alien consumers. What people watch DOES say quite a bit about them.
But it is not just due to the choice of watching program A versus program B. Within the chosen television program, beliefs and values are communicated. Topics addressed within shows become topics discussed among friends. And of course advertisers target certain demographics by positioning commercials during some programs and on some channels but not on others, which means that television programs sometimes determine which products individuals will be exposed to. The products advertised during “Meet the Press” are very different than those advertised during “Sponge Bob Square Pants”.
Considering this, I believe television shows may be part of our identities, a reflection at least – maybe much more for heavy television watchers. However, as Kyle commented about Fiske’s theory on the polysemic nature of television, different communities or individuals may interpret or gather different messages from the same programs. So there may be multiple groups for any given show. The group an individual may identify with may be determined by not just the television shows they watch but also their social position.
I would like to pose a different way of analyzing how the TV programs we watch represent our identity using Johnson's Sleeper Curve Theory from "Everything Bad is Good For You."
The NYT article and previous posts have analyzed the content of the programs as how they express "who we are." This follows the assumption that if someone enjoys "The Hills" they are superficial or if someone likes "Law & Order" they have a strong interest in our judicial system. Johnson would disagree, and suggest it is the way the TV program challenges our minds that keeps us viewing week after week. A viewer must follow multiple threads, fill-in the blanks and have a high emotional IQ (using Johnson's terminology).
Johnson states, "Part of the pleasure in these modern television narratives comes from the cognitive labor you're forced to do filling in the details"(77). He then goes on to describe that, "The content has less of an impact than the kind of thinking the entertainment forces you to do"(190). Thus, it's not the storyline that engages us as much as the exercise a program produces on our brain.
So, a TV show may express our identity in terms of our motivation for a challenge or problem solving skills. This would then group us with other lovers of the show who enjoy our same mental intelligence. This viewpoint would possibly put our social values and quality of our cultural in a better light.
Oi, achei seu blog pelo google está bem interessante gostei desse post. Gostaria de falar sobre o CresceNet. O CresceNet é um provedor de internet discada que remunera seus usuários pelo tempo conectado. Exatamente isso que você leu, estão pagando para você conectar. O provedor paga 20 centavos por hora de conexão discada com ligação local para mais de 2100 cidades do Brasil. O CresceNet tem um acelerador de conexão, que deixa sua conexão até 10 vezes mais rápida. Quem utiliza banda larga pode lucrar também, basta se cadastrar no CresceNet e quando for dormir conectar por discada, é possível pagar a ADSL só com o dinheiro da discada. Nos horários de minuto único o gasto com telefone é mínimo e a remuneração do CresceNet generosa. Se você quiser linkar o Cresce.Net(www.provedorcrescenet.com) no seu blog eu ficaria agradecido, até mais e sucesso. (If he will be possible add the CresceNet(www.provedorcrescenet.com) in your blogroll I thankful, bye friend).
I don't fully agree that we are what we watch, but I think it does make sense to say that there is a close connection between what we are and what we watch. As Carey said of communication, I think watching TV has ritual meanings as well. By sharing a common mediated and virtual experience on TV, a sense of common identity can be formed. It may not be clearly the case that these people share a common identity because of the TV program their watching, and chances are that they already have a lot of other social contexts in common (e.g. the Oprah-watching housewives). But it can be that their common identity is enhanced by sharing the common experience of watching the same TV program. Of course, the sharing becomes even more of a common experience when the program is talked about in further detail at water fountains and coffee shops.
Also building on clare's comment above, I think Johnson's theory of "filling in the details" while watching TV (p.77) has a magnifying effect in this process. However I think that it is not the individual viewer, but the collective group of viewers that do the job. For example, look at all the TV program discussion forums online, among which even full-scale Wiki sites exist(e.g. Heroeswiki.com). And in that shared filling-in process, the common identity grows even stronger.
Chapter six of Media and Society states, "Does media content reflect the realities of the social world? Based on the accumulated volume of media research, the answer is an emphatic no". I think from a literal sense the same is true of the statement "You are what you watch."
Because the world depicted in many of todays most popular shows (Lost, 24, CSI, Entourage) is so far out of touch with its average viewer, it is very unlikely people share any semblance of the life with the characters they watch. No one i know who likes 24 battles terrorists or is involved in any secret government work, at least to my knowledge.
As such, I think it is hard for people to really distinguish themselves from one another soley based on what their favorite tv shows are about, particularly if these shows have nothing to do with their interests outside of television.
While diehard fans of shows may do socialize together in online forums or at fan conventions, this is not yet the reality of most viewers. I think it will be a sad day for society if people refuse to socialize with those who do not share their television programming interests.
I'm not sure that what we watch makes up our essential identities. Of course, it speaks to our identities - as Sue said, it speaks to our likes and dislikes, and our senses of humor and personalities. And of course, all these things function to FORM our essential identities, but I'm not sure it's a strictly cause/effect thing. There are other things that function to form our essential identities.
Most of the time, we watch certain TV shows to be entertained. And many times, we watch certain shows because we can, in some ways, relate with the characters of the content. As Fiske said, "All television texts must, in order to be popular, contain within them unresolved contradictions that the viewer can exploit in order to find within them structural similarities to his or her own social relations and identity."
Fiske is not saying that what we watch forms our identities, he is saying that we use our identities in order to find ways to relate to certain shows, because these shows have ways of speaking to our identities. And this, of course, is a relational tool - we connect with people whose identities are like ours. These people find the same things to relate to in the same television shows that we do - this forms group affiliations, as Brian said. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that what we watch defines who we are.
-Abby R.
The amount of options media consumers have today is astounding, without a doubt. And, for the most part, I agree with the NY Times article that "the mass audience splintered long ago..." Certainly, I am committed to certain programs, while others I have no interest in even watching. I don't think that this says anything terribly bad about our culture, though. If having so many options of what and how to view media that made the public act so individualistically (I don't think that's a word, but...) that we all became hermits, it would be problematic. But, in my experience, having channels/programs that appeal to a narrow audience is a way for people to connect in a, sometimes deeply, personal way.
A component that I find specifically interesting is on-demand and DVR and on-line videos, because here the technology allows the consumer to use the media when and where they wish. This can enable community as much as it can inhibit it.
I agree with Abby that we find ways to relate to certain shows through our identity. Watching a specific show can often be a reflection of our personalities and our likes (or dislikes). For some, TV characters and plots, and the values and opinions they represent, can have a fairly significant impact on their lives. I think this is most apparent in the connections they make with others due to the TV show.
The first ever fan convention for The Office is being held this weekend in Scranton, Pennsylvania (which - I admit - I kind of want to be at!). 50,000 are set to attend. These types of fan communities are subcultures that compose the TV audience (Fiske). Subcultures have a common set of values, norms and symbols, all important notions of shared culture.
Like Amy said, topics addressed in the shows become topics of conversation among friends. It enables discourse and a sense of community. It acts as a confirmation of our beliefs or challenges our beliefs. TV shows can also have a significant impact on opinions that are not yet formed. As Gross said, "The contributors of the mass media are likely to be the most powerful in cultivating images of groups and phenomena about which there is little firs-hand opportunity for learning; particularly when such images are not contradicted by other established beliefs or ideologies," (407).
Even if the 'polysemic' nature of discourse is true, I think the audience still has a shared identity. People can take different meanings from a TV show, yet share a common appreciation of it.
This post is an interesting one and I find it somewhat entertaining that we are all so quick to infuse it with statements of judgement and our own personal defense. Of course what we watch reflects our likes and dislikes, and isn't that a core part of what makes up who we are? I'm not saying that if we watch a show, that means we want to be like the people on it or can even relate to the people on it. But I think that our motivations for watching shows say a lot about us and who we are.
This entire post and the comments following all triggered thoughts of news I received when I logged onto Pandora this morning at work to listen to my favorite radio stations. The latest blog post, http://blog.pandora.com/pandora/archives/2007/08/pandora_now_on.html, gives details on Pandora's new joint venture with Facebook. This reminded me of one of the millions of apps out there on facebook that the people of our generation are using to define themselves. With sections for everything from favorite movies to favorite TV shows, we are encouraged to define ourselves by the things that we consume.
This join venture of Pandora (internet radio where you can create your own playlists) and Facebook is just one more step in what we listen to saying something about who we are. And although I don't agree with the NY Times article's view that this is a BAD thing (and I agree with the first comment on here, since when is tribal bad?), I do agree that it is becoming increasingly the way that we define who we are.
If Adorno could be my friend on Facebook, he would probably be appalled that one of my stations is proudly titled "N Sync Radio." Does this mean that my identity is reduced to solely being a lover of boy bad music? I think it merely reflects one of the many aspects of my tastes that make up who I am.
--Nicole F.
A couple of the previous responses have mentioned points from our readings to serve as points against the notion that we are what we watch.
Fiske's quote about the polysemic nature of discourse in television where he says "Different socially located viewers will activate its meaning potential differently" and the quote from Ch. 6 of Media in Society stating, "Does media content reflect the realities of the social world? Based on the accumulated volume of media research, the answer is an emphatic no."
While I'm not quite bold enough to just come out and say, "We all are exactly what we watch. Period. No ifs, and or buts", I do think that the shows we watch convey significant meanings about us.
On facebook.com, you can view people's favorite television shows, and I have noticed that, much of the time, a person (that I may or may not be facebook-stalking at the time) won't have any favorite shows in common with me, but that when someone does, they'll usually have more than one.
If someone likes watching shows on Animal Planet or Discovery Channel(such as myself), than you can likely infer that that person has an interest in nature. From there, you can make other assumptions about that person (which, of course, may not be true, but often are). In the case of an Animal Planet-watcher, you could guess that that person likes spending time outdoors and that they tend to be liberally minded, among many other possible characteristics. If someone prefers The Daily Show or The Colbert Report over CNN or Fox News, you could infer that they are skeptical of our media.
Basically, the shows we watch convey our interests, and our interests can act as a strong indicator of the type of people we are.
Post a Comment