class blog for JMC 562, Media Studies and Culture, Fall 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Reading questions for 9/22/09: Fiske
Please post reading questions for the 9/22/09 Fiske readings (Ideology and Meanings and beginning of British Cultural Studies and Television essay) here. Treat these as one reading for the sake of the questions.
On page 178 in the Ideology and Meanings article, Fiske discussed Althusser's theory of hegemony and how he suggests that the subordinate group may "consent to the dominant ideology and thus participate in its propagation." Would this consent be a form of a self fulfilling prophecy or is does he mean they just accept it without a fight knowing that its not accurate?
Both articles discussed hegemony which was defined as the "means by which their consent to the system that disadvantages them is won (Ideology and Meanings, p184)." I was wondering since ideology is not static, can cultural ideology change without hegemony or does the change need the hegemonic process?
Fisk says on page 183, in the Ideology and Meanings reading, that some myths only change historically and are socially produced. He says that one needs to insert oneself into the social system. So is he saying that however you place yourself mentally in society, that is where you will be?
In the same reading on page 15, he says that "Ideological theories stress that all communication and all meanings have a socio-political dimension, and that they cannnot be understood outside their social context." What does he mean by socio-political dimension?
In Fiske's example of the BBC's Food and Population program, he mentions that the program's "statement [about science] is meaningful only in so far as its maker and audience are members of a science-based culture" (167). Isn't this "simply" producing material for the "target audience" (the already indoctrinated)? They aren't showing this to the Andean people, but the science-based culture in Britain.
Is Fiske contending that the message of the program was ideological or is he saying that the access/the means by which the program was produced (obviously the Andean people can't produce such programs/messages) is itself the ideology, or both?
1. I like how Fiske describes the system and the way dominant Western ideologies work. He definitely has a lot of radical ideas that challenge the status quo. Judging by his work, you'd think that he exists as a rogue outside of the establishment. Yet he says: "by participating in the signifying practice, I am the means by which ideology maintains itself". This makes me wonder: what does it take for people to realize that they are perpetuating an exploitative system that saps them and benefits the bourgeois class? Also, is this to say that even if you KNOW you're a part of it, there is nothing you can do about it? It seems so unfair.
2. Fiske labels the enemy as patriarchal capitalism, which is the dominant ideology in which all other things come to serve and prolong. He labels the mass media, politics, public schools, legal systems and publishing as means that support the ruling class and hinder the subordinate class. On page 177, he states that "there is no escape from this ideology". However, he also cites research done on hegemonic ideology, which is overbearing, yet "momentary, precarious and unstable". I don't understand why the ideology is impossible to overcome, yet at the same time prone to being overthrown. Why is this? I understand that Althusser thinks that this is possible, while Marx says it's inevitable. And also, what would it take to eliminate the exploitation and start working on a fairer society?
3. Fiske describes Hall's "preferred readings" in the British Culture and Television article. The three ways of reading a message include the dominant way, negotiated way and the oppositional way. What would be a reasonable estimate of how many Americans default to the oppositional reading when it comes to messages messages in TV shows (like in the show 24)? Do you think the majority of people never even consider masculinity being reinforced and the male hero embodying patriarchal capitalism? I would say a huge majority go along with the dominant thinking, or perhaps are simply oblivious to any message whatsoever.
@ Holly: When Fiske says that all meanings have a socio-political dimension he is pointing out that the meanings we make (of any signifying system, from language to media representations) are shaped and influenced by the society in which we live. Can't separate how we understand things from the world in which we live.
@John: Just because the program was produced for an audience that was already science-based does not mean it is not ideological. Ideology is not just about persuading the unpersuaded. Rather, it is about making beliefs one may already hold seem natural and inevitable, thus the program still performs ideological work when it "preaches to the converted."
@Dugan: We'll deal with your questions 1 and 2 in class (but keep in mind that ideology and hegemony are not exactly the same thing). And we will deal with no. 3 on Thursday.
1) On page four of "Ideologies and Meaning," Fiske discusses the idea of intertextuality, i.e. that the meaning of a text is largely generated by the meanings of other similar texts. Think of common car commercials or even the Apple vs. PC ads...how are these texts influenced by another? How does this play in to myth and political economy?
2) On page 12, Fiske discusses "false consciousness." In terms of Marx's capital/labor ideology, is it fair to assume that laborers are "duped" into this false consciousness? What social discourses or roles might we be naturalizing in the process of assuming this? Does this perpetuate myths?
3) In relation to the Seventeen Magazine article, Fiske suggests that commodification plays a large part in gender and societal roles (pg. 20). How does the concept of ideology play in to commodification, particularly in terms of capitalism? Is this idea only relative to women?
Just a few more questions I forgot to mention...Is "hailing" to blame for the success or failure of certain media texts (p.6)? How is hailing relative to determining target audiences? Also, how does it relate to negotiation (p.16)?
I'm also still unclear on Fiske's idea of hegemony in terms of the media, or culture/society in general. Is Fiske suggesting that media hegemony is when media texts promote the same message, i.e. the dominant groups?
@ Kate -- thanks for all the great questions. We'll be getting to hegemony in class today (Thursday). Re: question #2 -- good questions about false consciousness and the problems with the idea. More on this in class. And interesting question re: "hailing" and media texts--I think Althusser meant it to talk about the ways we are hailed as members of a society rather than as an audience or as consumers of particular products, but the idea does work to some extent in the way you suggest, too.
On page 178 in the Ideology and Meanings article, Fiske discussed Althusser's theory of hegemony and how he suggests that the subordinate group may "consent to the dominant ideology and thus participate in its propagation." Would this consent be a form of a self fulfilling prophecy or is does he mean they just accept it without a fight knowing that its not accurate?
ReplyDeleteBoth articles discussed hegemony which was defined as the "means by which their consent to the system that disadvantages them is won (Ideology and Meanings, p184)." I was wondering since ideology is not static, can cultural ideology change without hegemony or does the change need the hegemonic process?
Fisk says on page 183, in the Ideology and Meanings reading, that some myths only change historically and are socially produced. He says that one needs to insert oneself into the social system. So is he saying that however you place yourself mentally in society, that is where you will be?
ReplyDeleteIn the same reading on page 15, he says that "Ideological theories stress that all communication and all meanings have a socio-political dimension, and that they cannnot be understood outside their social context." What does he mean by socio-political dimension?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Fiske's example of the BBC's Food and Population program, he mentions that the program's "statement [about science] is meaningful only in so far as its maker and audience are members of a science-based culture" (167). Isn't this "simply" producing material for the "target audience" (the already indoctrinated)? They aren't showing this to the Andean people, but the science-based culture in Britain.
ReplyDeleteIs Fiske contending that the message of the program was ideological or is he saying that the access/the means by which the program was produced (obviously the Andean people can't produce such programs/messages) is itself the ideology, or both?
1. I like how Fiske describes the system and the way dominant Western ideologies work. He definitely has a lot of radical ideas that challenge the status quo. Judging by his work, you'd think that he exists as a rogue outside of the establishment. Yet he says: "by participating in the signifying practice, I am the means by which ideology maintains itself". This makes me wonder: what does it take for people to realize that they are perpetuating an exploitative system that saps them and benefits the bourgeois class? Also, is this to say that even if you KNOW you're a part of it, there is nothing you can do about it? It seems so unfair.
ReplyDelete2. Fiske labels the enemy as patriarchal capitalism, which is the dominant ideology in which all other things come to serve and prolong. He labels the mass media, politics, public schools, legal systems and publishing as means that support the ruling class and hinder the subordinate class. On page 177, he states that "there is no escape from this ideology". However, he also cites research done on hegemonic ideology, which is overbearing, yet "momentary, precarious and unstable". I don't understand why the ideology is impossible to overcome, yet at the same time prone to being overthrown. Why is this? I understand that Althusser thinks that this is possible, while Marx says it's inevitable. And also, what would it take to eliminate the exploitation and start working on a fairer society?
3. Fiske describes Hall's "preferred readings" in the British Culture and Television article. The three ways of reading a message include the dominant way, negotiated way and the oppositional way. What would be a reasonable estimate of how many Americans default to the oppositional reading when it comes to messages messages in TV shows (like in the show 24)? Do you think the majority of people never even consider masculinity being reinforced and the male hero embodying patriarchal capitalism? I would say a huge majority go along with the dominant thinking, or perhaps are simply oblivious to any message whatsoever.
@ Holly: When Fiske says that all meanings have a socio-political dimension he is pointing out that the meanings we make (of any signifying system, from language to media representations) are shaped and influenced by the society in which we live. Can't separate how we understand things from the world in which we live.
ReplyDelete@John: Just because the program was produced for an audience that was already science-based does not mean it is not ideological. Ideology is not just about persuading the unpersuaded. Rather, it is about making beliefs one may already hold seem natural and inevitable, thus the program still performs ideological work when it "preaches to the converted."
@Dugan: We'll deal with your questions 1 and 2 in class (but keep in mind that ideology and hegemony are not exactly the same thing). And we will deal with no. 3 on Thursday.
Good questions everyone!
1) On page four of "Ideologies and Meaning," Fiske discusses the idea of intertextuality, i.e. that the meaning of a text is largely generated by the meanings of other similar texts. Think of common car commercials or even the Apple vs. PC ads...how are these texts influenced by another? How does this play in to myth and political economy?
ReplyDelete2) On page 12, Fiske discusses "false consciousness." In terms of Marx's capital/labor ideology, is it fair to assume that laborers are "duped" into this false consciousness? What social discourses or roles might we be naturalizing in the process of assuming this? Does this perpetuate myths?
3) In relation to the Seventeen Magazine article, Fiske suggests that commodification plays a large part in gender and societal roles (pg. 20). How does the concept of ideology play in to commodification, particularly in terms of capitalism? Is this idea only relative to women?
Just a few more questions I forgot to mention...Is "hailing" to blame for the success or failure of certain media texts (p.6)? How is hailing relative to determining target audiences? Also, how does it relate to negotiation (p.16)?
ReplyDeleteI'm also still unclear on Fiske's idea of hegemony in terms of the media, or culture/society in general. Is Fiske suggesting that media hegemony is when media texts promote the same message, i.e. the dominant groups?
@ Kate -- thanks for all the great questions. We'll be getting to hegemony in class today (Thursday). Re: question #2 -- good questions about false consciousness and the problems with the idea. More on this in class. And interesting question re: "hailing" and media texts--I think Althusser meant it to talk about the ways we are hailed as members of a society rather than as an audience or as consumers of particular products, but the idea does work to some extent in the way you suggest, too.
ReplyDelete