LB's Blog

Henry Jenkins: “The cultural logic of media convergence” The International Journal of cultural Studies. 7.1 (2004) 33-43.

For Bio info in Henry Jenkins see Shawn’s Blog.

Jenkins’s essay identifies “major sites of tension and transition shaping the media environment for the coming decade” in order to outline spaces where the results of media convergence are yet to be determined and can be influenced by Cultural Studies scholarship (33). He sees trends that both empower consumers and participation while at the same time concentrates media conglomerate ownership into a few hands. No matter what the outcome, Jenkins argues that media convergence undeniably “alters the relationship between existing technologies, industries, markets, genres and audiences” (34).   The IPhone is one of the clearest examples of convergence, as users may access TV, Movies, games, the Internet, and music all on the same device. However, in Convergence Culture, Jenkins clarifies that convergence as he sees it is more than the device or “appliance.” Rather, convergence is “The flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want” (2006, 2).

Jenkins describes this transition phase as “a kind of kludge” emphasizing the current awkward state where technologies and users struggle to find a clear integration. (Perhaps the IPad is a good example of “ kludge”, a step along the way, and yet not quite right). For Jenkins, convergence also “represents a reconfiguration of media power and a reshaping of media aesthetics and economics” as we move to an information system driven by both the commercial media and what Pierre Levy calls “collective intelligence” (35).

In response to these changes, Jenkins calls for a “détente” of sorts between camps in Cultural Studies that advocate political economy or audience activism at the exclusion of the other. Stating we need to move away from “culture-jamming” as evidenced by the movie The Truman Show where the main character merely walks away from media an shuts the door, Jenkins finds great potential in the power of the blogosphere. “Bloggers are rewriting the ending, resulting in a new vision of media politics” (37).  Finally, Jenkins asserts that current media companies will need to adjust to media convergence and “rethink old assumptions” (37). NBC’s coverage of the Vancouver Olympics is a perfect example of media companies not responding to these changes, and the resulting audience frustration with its failure to do so.

In looking at the sites of tension Jenkins identifies, what has changed over the last 6 years of the decade? Are any of these issues more or less disputed today? Are we any closer to finding resolution in any of them? Have any of these tensions intensified? Are there new ones we should add? They are:

1. Revising audience measurement: understanding not just who is watching and using the media content, but more importantly, how.
2. Regulating media content: the burden of filtering media is more on the individual than ever before.
3. Redesigning the digital economy: to what extent and how will consumers pay for content on the web?
4. Restricting media ownership: To what extent can Viacom etc. be allowed to own everything? Will regulations pull this back?
5. Rethinking media aesthetics: how will the rise of transmedia story telling, such as The Matrix or Blair Witch Project change conventions?
6. Redefining intellectual property rights: how will legal issues of copy write, access, and fan repurposing be resolved?
7. Renegotiating relations between producers and consumers: to what extent should producers control and limit fan usage?
8. Remapping globalization: to what extent will media from other countries effect pop culture and economy?
9. Re-engaging citizens: how does fan and pop culture engage participant in wider political issues and create symbolic allegiances?

John Fiske

BIOGRAPHY:

Fiske is best known for his academic work in television studies and popular culture.  A graduate of Cambridge University in Britain, he became a Professor of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He has also taught in Australia. Most of his work, such as Understanding Popular Culture and Television Culture was written during the 1980’s and early ’90’s.  Fiske is now retired from academic life and currently runs an antique shop in New England with his wife, Lisa Freeman.  He is also the editor-in-chief of an online antiques journal called New England Antiques Journal.

Click here for summary of Understanding Popular Culture.

Fiske Matters

Moments of Television: Neither the Text Nor the Audience

Summary- Fiske’s essay rejects the idea that the “television audience” is “an empirically accessible object” because there are no social categories or boundaries in which an audience can be placed.  Neither can a television program be defined as a stagnant text, because a program is never received in the same way by all who watch it. He writes, “There is no text, there is no audience, there are only the processes of viewing” (537). Fiske argues that it is this process that should be studied further. First, Fiske  asks how viewers are able to construct differing meanings from the same program. Arguing that each individual brings their own social experience to the viewing process, he equates this to a type of intertextutality that enable the subject to make sense of the text. While not denying the presence of a hegemonic framework, Fiske believes the viewer maintains considerable power to read programs as a “semiotic experience” and interpret them according  to their own social position and interest. Similarly, Fiske argues that viewers should not be categorized as a mere commodity sold to advertisers, but also as producers. By constructing meaning of their own, making identifications, rewriting story-lines, and most importantly, choosing which shows are successful and which fail, the viewer appropriates his/her  own power. Television producers cannot predetermine any of this, though they may try. As a result, Fiske calls for greater research and attention to “sites of reception” as opposed to the past focus on sites of production. By understanding how recipients “make sense” of what they watch, we may gain better insight into effect resistance of dominant ideologies.

Analysis:

This essay follows the trend established in Williams and Jenkins that allows the recipient a certain amount of agency in how they receive texts and cultural artifacts. It denies the Marxist assumption that people have no control over how they process information and interpret it. Rather, Fiske argues for a more interdependent and intertwined relationship that is far more difficult to articulate. I especially like how Fiske sees the social as a type of intertextuality that the viewer brings to the viewing process. It allows for a mixture of identity and values to be present in the same individual, as opposed to reducing them to one category of race, gender or class. Moreover, he acknowledges that while television producers can control what they put on the air, they cannot control which shows become popular and which ones fail. I also like Fiske’s speculation that “heteroglossic programs”  that offer more points of identification over “monoglossic programs” which offer a limited identification might provide an answer as to why some shows are more successful. Can we see this in today’s successful shows such as Lost or Heroes? What about reality programing? American idol? How can Fiske help us to understand the “Pants on the Ground” phenomenon?

I find few weaknesses in this essay in terms of his criticism and observations, however the task he asks those in television and cultural studies to take on seems a challenging and difficult one.  I keep asking what methodologies can we use to study these points of reception and how can we draw definitive conclusions when reception seems so fluid and variable. While I am sure these methods exist, Fiske gives little detail here into answering the question of how.

We should also consider how the change in television over the past 20 years may change the way we apply Fiske’s arguments. Not only is there a much wider variety of programing due to the explosion of cable TV, but we also watch on our own time due to DVR’s and the internet. Does this give the viewer even more agency? In what ways does it help the producers and dominant superstructure? And what about YouTube? Is this the end result of audience becoming producers?

Quotes taken from: Fiske, John. “Moments of Television: Neither the Text Nor the Audience.” Media Studies: A Reader. Sue Thornham and Paul Marris Eds. New York: NYU Press, 2000. 536-546.

Antonio Gramsci- 1891-1937

Biography: Gramsci was Italian philosopher who became the leader of the Communist Party of Italy (PCI) in 1924 after the arrest of Amadeo Bordiga by the Fascist Government of Mussolini. In 1926 he too was arrested by the Italian government and held in confinement until 1934.  His health declined significantly while in prison and he died in Rome shortly after his release at the age of 46. While in prison, Gramsci became a prolific writer and it is through these Prison Notebooks that his Marxist philosophy is fully developed. Though written in the 1930’s, much of Gramsci’s writing was not published until 1971. Gramsci aligned himself with the Lenin school of Marxist thought, but he is best known today for his revisions to the concept of hegemony and his explanations for how ideology works through culture to cause the lower classes to see the interests of the dominant classes as in their own interest. For more on Gramsci’s philosophical thought click here.

For an exhaustive list of Gramsci’s work see Marxism.org

Summary:

(i) History of the Subaltern Classes: Here Gramsci calls for a detailed study to test his hypothesis that “civil society” is closely related to political society- particularly, he wishes to study how resistant subaltern groups form while also swayed to maintain the dominant framework or ways of thinking.  These groups are consequently incorporated into the dominant framework, giving the appearance of assent while at the same time reinforcing its own control.

(ii) The Concept of Ideology: Gramsci traces the meaning of the word from “the science of ideas” to “the analysis of the origin of ideas” to a specific “system of ideas.” The term “ideology” within Marxism, Gramsci argues, takes a “negative value judgement” because of its perceived relationship to the superstructure. If, as Marx and Engels argue, structures produce ideology, then no ideology will be effective to change the superstructure. It becomes “useless, stupid, etc” (15).  However, Gramsci argues a distinction should be made between those ideologies that are arbitrary and those that are “historically organic” (15). The historically organic ones are more useful because they create a greater organized response as opposed to individual “movements” though even these, he admits, are not completely useless.

(iii) Culture Themes: Ideological Material: Gramsci calls for a study of how material media, press and culture maintain this ideological “front.” He foresees monumental results from such an investigation.  By understanding the “fortifications” of the dominant class, one is equipped with better “resources” of resistance.

Analysis:

Gramsci’s model appears to offer slightly more hope of resistance against ideological power than Marx and Engels provide. Han’s Bertens defines Gramsci’s view of hegemony as “the domination of a set of ruling beliefs and values through ‘consent’ rather than through ‘coercive power’” (88). While culture is still employed as the ally of the ruling force, there becomes room for opposition, as long as such opposition is framed or reincorporated within the hegemonic structure. Though perhaps ‘baby steps,’ non-dominant classes do have some efficacy under this model. Gramsci’s call for further study, especially in part iii,  articulates the justification and purpose for what we now call Cultural Studies; too both see and understand how ideology works in culture for the purpose of countering its influence.

Yet Gramsci still makes assumptions that are difficult to reconcile. For example, in part ii he states one must “distinguish between historically organic ideologies. . . and ideologies that are arbitrary” (15) but gives little guidance as to how such a distinction can be drawn, especially by one who is still at the mercy of the ideological workings of culture. This also still implies some innate sense of right and wrong that must somehow exist outside of ideology. This seems counter to the idea that popular conviction is always a manipulation of the ruling class, at least for me.

Within our context of New Media and participation possibilities for resistance also seem to increase, but to what extent if all the participants are also at the mercy of ideological power? Is this truly counter, or only enough of the appearance of dissent to satisfy? -that is if we apply Gramsci to the question.

Works Cited

Bertens, Hans. The Basics: Literary Theory. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Gramsci, Antonio. ” (i) History of the Subaltern Classes; (ii) The Concept of ‘Ideology’ ; (iii) Cultural Themes: Ideological Material” Media and Cultural Studies KeyWorks Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas Kellner Ed. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 13-17.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

• Karl Marx: 1818-1883 -
• Friedrich Engels: 1820-1895

Biography:

Marx is best known for The Communist Manifesto (1848), where, together with Engels, they argue that class struggle is  pervasive throughout history, and where they advocate a Communist classless society as a necessary replacement to an oppressive Capitalist society. Though his work is the foundation for modern examples of Marxist/ Communist thought, how closely these examples represent Marx’s original vision is debatable. Marx’s philosophy was highly influenced by the work of Hegel and Kant. Though German, Marx spent a large amount of time in Paris, Belgium and London as an adult. He met Engels in 1844 in France. Engels’s best known work, The Conditions of the Working Class in England, outlined the horrendous conditions in which members of the working class were forced to live and work under in industrial England. This shared concern for the state of the proletariat led Engels and Marx into a lifelong partnership.  Not only did Engels financially support Marx at various times, he also finished editing and publishing volumes 2 and 3 of Das Kapital after Marx’s death in 1883 of pleurisy. Engels died in his London home of throat cancer in 1895.

Summary:

In “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas” Marx and Engels argue that the prevailing ideas of a given historical time are formed by the ruling class and serve the ruling class. This is contrary to the apparent illusion that ideas and thoughts form and exist separate from the ruling class. “The class which has the means of material production at its disposal consequently also controls the means of mental production  so that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it” (9). Attributing an “independent existence” of  ideas to a specific epoch of time masks this reality. Marx and Engels argue that this illusion is achieved in three ways. First, ideas are separated from those who rule by separating them from the empirical or material conditions in which they appear.  Secondly, ideas are given a “mystical connection” by regarding them as “self determined” or appearing on their own (11). Third, these concepts are then personified in particular “thinkers” or philosophers. Thus the illusion that philosophy and ideology manifest separate from the political is complete. Moreover, history itself becomes a vehicle  for ideological deception.

Analysis:

This essay is important in that it is is one of the first attempts to both identify ideology’s presence in society and explain how it works to serve the ruling class. Marx and Engels attempt to flip the conventional thinking that ideas create society to say that those at the top of society create ideas to keep them there, naturalizing and legitimating their own rule. While history is one vehicle for dissemination, culture and media are vital to this equation. For Marx and Engels, nothing exists independently or in a state of neutrality. Rather, they call us to examine how the general wisdom of ideas actually serve to propagate the domination of those who passively accept those ideas, believing them to be universals and serving their general interest.

To what extent their observations are valid, both in their own time and in ours, is difficult to determine. If we apply their own argument to their philosophy, we must conclude that they too are not independent “thinkers” but subject to some form of illusional ideology that serves a ruling class as well. Moreover, their insistence on all things material leaves no room for the existence of a human spiritual consciousness.  Rather, this is simply another illusion designed to dominate. Finally, we must ask if understanding how ideology works actually helps our ability to resist it? With all our interactive New Media and social/political theory, are we less victims? If one holds to Marx and Engels’ initial rationale, how could the answer to that question even be determined?

Quotations from the essay are taken from Marx, Engels, “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas” Media and Cultural Studies KeyWorks Meenakshi Gigi Durham and Douglas Kellner Ed. Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 9-12.