Remote Control Seiter Et Al.

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS:
TELEVISION
Volume 13
REMOTE CONTROL
This page intentionally left blank
REMOTE CONTROL
Television, Audiences, and Cultural Power
Edited by
ELLEN SEITER, HANS BORCHERS,
GABRIELE KREUTZNER, AND
EVA-MARIA WARTH
First published in 1989
This edition first published in 2013
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 1989, 1991 Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabriele Kreutzner, Eva-Maria Warth
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent
to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-415-82199-5 (Set)

eISBN: 978-0-203-51517-4 (Set)
ISBN: 978-0-415-83952-5 (Volume 13)
eISBN: 978-0-203-76897-6 (Volume 13)
Publisher’s Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but
points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.
Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would
welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.
Remote Control
Television, Audiences,
and Cultural Power
Edited by
Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabriele Kreutzner,

and Eva-Maria Warth
I~
London and New York
First published in 1989
First published in paperback in 1991
by Routledge
11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada
by Routledge, a division of Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.
29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001
© 1989, 1991 Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabriele Kreutzner, Eva-Maria Warth
Typeset in 10/12 Times by Laserscript Ltd, Mitcham, Surrey
Printed in Great Britain by TJ. Press (Padstow) Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall
All rights reserved . No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means , now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording , or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Remote control: television, audiences and cultural power
1. Television programmes. Audiences
I. Seiter, Ellen
302 .2'345
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Remote control : television, audiences, and cultural power / edited by
Ellen Seiter ... [et al.].
p. em.
Papers presented at a symposium held at the University of Tubingen's Heinrich-
Fabri-Institute, Blaubeuren, Feb. 17-20, 1987, organized by the University 's
Dept. of American Studies.
1. Television broadcasting - Social aspects - Congresses.
2. Television audiences - Congresses . I. Seiter, Ellen
II. Universitat Tnbingen. Abteilung fur Amerikanistik.
PNI992.6.R46 1991
302.23'45--dc20 91-34
ISBN 0-415 -06505-4
Contents
Preface ix
Introduction
Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabriele Kreutzner, and Eva-Maria
Warth ix
1 Changing paradigms in audience studies
David Morley 16
2 Bursting bubbles: "Soap Opera," audiences, and the limits of
genre
Robert C. Allen 44
3 Moments of television: Neither the text nor the audience
John Fiske 56
4 Live television and its audiences: Challenges of media reality
Claus-Dieter Rain 79
5 Wanted: Audiences. On the politics of empirical audience
studies
len Ang 96
6 Text and audience
Charlotte Brunsdon 116
7 Out of the mainstream: Sexual minorities and the mass media
Larry Gross 130
8 Soap operas at work
Dorothy Hobson 150
9 The media in everyday family life: Some biographical and
typological aspects
Jan-Uwe Rogge 168
10 Approaching the audience: The elderly
John Tulloch 180
v
Contents
11 On the critical abilities of television viewers

Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz 204
12 "Don't treat us like we're so stupid and naive": Towards an
ethnography of soap opera viewers
Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabriele Kreutzner, and Eva-Maria
Warth 223
Select bibliography 248
Index 258
vi
Preface
It is perhaps symbolic of the pervasiveness of television in our world today that

the symposium "Rethinking the Audience: New Tendencies in Television
Research," which gave rise to the present volume and the essays it contains,
should have taken place at the University of Tubingen's Heinrich-Fabri-Institute
in Blaubeuren. Blaubeuren is a small German town hidden away among the hills
of the Swabian Alp; Heinrich Fabri belongs to the town's medieval history. One
of the founding fathers of the nearby university, he served as abbot to Blau-
beuren's Benedictine monastery back in the fifteenth century. Where in Fabri's
day scholar-monks had pored over their palimpsests, a group of some forty
twentieth-century scholars from allover the world met from February 17 to 20,
1987, to consider what is arguably the most influential palimpsest of our present-
day cultural situation - television; their specific goal on this occasion was to
discuss television audiences.
The impulse for this gathering originated within a research project on the soap
opera as a prominent phenomenon in twentieth-century American culture. The
project was planned and undertaken by the University of Tiibingen's Department
of American Studies in 1985 and funded by the West German Volkswagen
Foundation. Although soap operas have for some time been a privileged object of
Anglo-American television research, scholarly interest has begun to grow in
other countries in direct proportion to the genre's growing global appeal. As the
four principal researchers of the project, we soon felt the necessity of involving
the project and ourselves in the very lively scholarly debate on television
audiences. It was in connection with an ethnographic study we did with American
soap opera viewers in the summer of 1986 (see our essay in this volume,
pp.223--47) that we decided to organize the symposium.
Motivation to provide a platform for an exchange of opinions about today's
trends in television audience research did not come from the project alone, but
also from our perception of similar trends in the field of American Studies. To put
it in very general terms, the discipline has moved over the past fifteen years from
a preoccupation with the artist as the shaper of cultural identity to a growing
concern for the social structures undergirding artistic and intellectual creation as
well as for the varieties of subcultural expression. At the heart of this new
ix
Hans Borchers
American Studies paradigm are two important elements. One is the central
question of how groups of people generateand reproduce cultural meaning. The
other is the ongoing debate over the various methodologies that help us address
this question. Janice Radway's 1984 investigation of American women who are
habitual readers of romances comes to mind as representative of the new
tendenciesin American Studiesand of their affinity to the current concerns with
the readers of television texts.'
More than other publications, a collection of essays deriving from a
symposium is the product of a collaborative effort. As organizers of the
symposium and editors of the ensuing anthology we are very grateful to all who
helped us achieveour goals.First and foremost, our acknowledgments are due to
the participants of the symposium. Their contributions, both as readersof papers
and as speakers during the discussion periods, have made this volume possible.
Lack of space unfortunately does not permit us to cite their individual names.
If we make an exception, it is because of a feeling of special indebtedness.
Herta Herzog has taken an active interest in the above-mentioned soap opera
project since its inception, sharingwith us her extensivescholarly experienceand
her keen insights. While we are very appreciative of her participation in the
project, we wouldalso like to expressour gratitudefor her pioneeringresearch in
the field of audiencestudies- research that goes back as far as the 1930sand that
has inspireda whole subsequent generation of scholars.
Special thanks go to those symposium participants whose contributions
appear in the present volume. We appreciate their willingness to thoroughly
revise their papers and their patience with our sometimes demanding editorial
requests.
We wouldalso like to acknowledge our indebtedness to the institutions which
made the symposium and, by extension, this volumepossible. We are grateful to
the Volkswagen Foundation for awarding us a second grant, therebyenabling us
to bring together in Blaubeuren a uniquegroup of television scholars, several of
whom came from as far away as Australia, Israel, and the United States. Our
sincere thanks also go to the University of Tiibingen and to the Department of
American Studies for providing the logistics indispensable for the organization
of an international conference, and to Ute Bechdolf and Margarete Endress for
their efficient assistance with all the nitty-gritty details of organizing a
symposium and preparing a manuscript.
Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Jane Armstrong of
Routledge for her unfailing support and to Rosamund Howe for her editorial
guidance.
Hans Borchers
Tubingen, March 1989
Note
1 Janice Radway, Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular Culture
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
x
Introduction
and Eva-Maria Warth
In a recent issue of LadiesHome Journal, a psychologist offers advice to readers

on "how to recharge your love life and revitalize your marriage." A quiz
questions the reader about the amount of time she spends talking to and touching
her partner in the course of a typical week. But when the reader turns the page to
compute her score on the quiz and assess the health of her interpersonal life, she
encounters a nasty surprise. Though the quiz itself included no questions about
television viewing , the obed ient respondent must now compute substantial
penalties for every minute she spends alone or with her spouse watching
televis ion. The author, Paul Pearsall, Ph.D., explains :
Before you analyze your score, you must reduce your MIMs (marital
investment minutes) by a penalty deduction. Subtract the time you spend each
week, either alone or with your husband, watching TV. TV addiction is one of
the most detrimental influences on the American marriage. As a shared
addiction it is among the worst, because it robs the relationship of time for
intimacy while each person contributes in the thett.'
This article exemplifies many of the ways television watching is usually talked
about: as an addiction , as a passive, individual activity which precludes direct
communication with others, as an impediment to fulfilling family relationships.
All these deleterious effects are thought to increase in direct proportion to the
amount of time the television is turned on in the home.
There is something suspect about this cluster of beliefs about the effects of
television viewing, for, as David Morley puts it in Chapter one of this book,
" ' television zombies' are always other people. . .. It is a theory about what
television does to other, more vulnerable people." These "other" people helpless
before the television set are implicitly feminine. Women are the ones responsible
for maintaining psychic and social well-being through the institution of the
family - the very things television is so often thought to destroy. Beliefs about
television viewing have much to tell us about our assumptions about gender, the
family, and society , for, as Hermann Bausinger argues, "often people speak of
television when they mean society in general .'? Before introducing the individual
papers collected here, we wish to situate this book in relation to the dominant
1
Ellen Seiter et al.
paradigms in media studies today; critique the concept of audience pleasure as it

is used in this book; describe the status of "critical" media studies; and finally,
discuss the relevance of this work to postmodern theories of television.
Our title Remote Control has a double meaning. The institution of television
controls us at a distance . It emanates from some place far away, yet it makes its
presence constantly felt in our everyday lives. As the gadget we use to change
channels, the remote control symbolizes the viewers' selection , control, and
manipulation of television broadcasts . Our frustrated "zapping" of commercials
has become the American television industry's worst nightmare . The work
gathered in this volume does not share a common theoretical or methodological
base, but it does share an interest in changing the way we think about television
viewing. The authors conceive of television viewing as a complicated social
experience, where different meanings are made of television programs by
different viewers. The field of mass communications has given us the
stimulus-response, or "hypodermic needle," theory of the mass media, with its
simplistic notion of direct effects, and the "uses and gratifications" approach with
its emphasis on individual, psychological meanings rather than social and
ideological ones. Though an enormous number of quantitative studies grounded
in these perspectives and insistent on proving the researcher's neutrality and
objectivity continue to be conducted every year, they have proven quite
inadequate to the task of understanding television viewing. Most of the authors
in this volume are academics trained in cultural and critical studies, who bring to
bear on the question of audience research an interest in psychoanalysis,
semiotics, and Marxism, rather than a background in positivist social science .
They are primarily interested in the social contexts of viewing and the way that
audiences ' interpretations of television programs are influenced by race,
nationality, class, age, and gender.
If the uses and gratifications researchers have attempted to upgrade the viewer
by stressing an "active" audience, the articles presented here are based on the
assumption that television spectatorship is much more complicated than the poles
of activity and passivity can accommodate. The authors recognize that much is at
stake in talking about television and its assumed effects: political and economic
agendas are always served by conceiving of the audience as controlling or
controlled, as duped or resistant , as making meanings or receiving them. This
book attempts to move cautiously toward a reconsideration of specific audiences,
an understanding of the various kinds of pleasure which television can offer, and
new perspectives - ones initiated by people outside the academy - on the
relation ship between ideology and television. No unified theoretical position
emerges from these papers. Indeed , many contradictions arise among them,
between the critique of television ideology and the analysis of audience
pleasures, between the significance of the text and the determinations of the
viewing context.
As Charlotte Brunsdon points out in Chapter six television audience studies
have proliferated after a period of preoccupation with textual analyses of
2
Introduction
television, as an attempt, in part, to verify empirically the kinds of ideological

readings constructed by (white and middle-class) critics. While the new critical
interest in television audiences can be traced to the end of the 1970s and, more
specifically, to the publication of David Morley's study of Nationwide? it was in
1986 that the debate on television audiences emerged as the focus of scholarly
attention at gatherings such as the International Television Studies Conference in
London. IL was also in 1986 that we planned the symposium at which the papers
collected here were eventually presented. While more work on audiences has
appeared in the meantime, the essential prob1ematics and challenges posed by
audience studies remain the same. This book offers a variety of positions and
approaches to research in order to promote debate and scrutiny of this turbulent
area of study and debate.
All of the work collected here exists in an uneasy relationship to the
mainstream mass communications and sociological research paradigms in the
United States. The case studies presented in Chapters seven to twelve deal with
extremely small samples, which can make no claims to representativeness.
Instead of adopting the neutral objective stance of the mainstream empiricist, the
authors are calling for an active and politically engaged production and
interpretation of interview material. Rather than offering white middle-class
college students (in their role as experimental subjects) as the universe of media
audience s, as mainstream mass communications research has often done, the
subjectivities of the audiences, including that of the researcher, are not only
investigated but tied to specific historical moments and cultural contexts.
A variety of research methods adapted from qualititative sociology have been
used in the studies of television viewing collected in this volume. Central to most
of these studies is the question how (specific) audiences make meanings and
pleasures in their engagement with television programs in the context of
everyday life. But to look at television in this context presents many problems.
How can we study what goes on when people watch television, when so much
viewing takes place in private, in the domestic sphere, in the context of intimate
relationships? How can we study talk about television? While there is agreement
here on the usefulness of qualitative interviewing techniques, considerable
variation exists in terms of contact time, how the interviews were conducted, the
appropriate settings for the interviews, the uses of group interviews, and the
problem of contacting television viewers willing to be studied and willing to talk
about their experience with the media.
At best, we should constantly undergo a process of self-examination about
whom this knowledge is for and how it is being presented . The challenge is to
describe a variety of experiences with television - women working together in an
office (Hobson, Chapter eight), Israel's different ethnic groups (Liebes and Katz,
Chapter eleven), German families (Rogge, Chapter nine), the elderly in one
housing project (Tulloch, Chapter ten), soap opera fans in the Pacific northwest
(Seiter et al., Chapter twelve) - without reducing the participants to essentialist
categories: age, race , class, gender. We must look at how the models of audience
3
Ellen Seiter et al.
research proposed here - relying on a particular kind of willing participation and

expenditure of time - adapt themselves to the study of social groups who are
different from the researcher. In a profession overwhelmingly dominated by
middle-class whites, this problem must be openly and regularly discussed . The
methodologies of audience research provoke deeply political questions about the
role of the academic researcher, which feminist sociologists have been careful to
point out.' How does the researcher deal with issues involving her own authority,
withholding or providing information, and the pretext of neutrality? What is the
responsibility of the researcher to her "subjects" or "informants"? Finally, what
is the relationship between the scholar's own analysis of the television text and
the viewer's? As len Ang reminds us (Chapter five), what is at stake in audience
studies, no less than in textual studies, is a politics of interpretation.
The goal is for this kind of empirical work to incorporate the perspectives of
people of color, of the elderly, gays and lesbians, women, and the poor - those
whose voices have not been heard in media research so far, and who do not
constitute the desirable demographic groups targeted by advertisers - into the
study of the media in society and the development of alternative media.'
The politics of pleasure

The idea that television offers its audiences experiences that are genuinely
pleasurable, if constrained in ways that are economically and ideologically
determined, has been central to the work done by scholars in television criticism
since the 1970s. The enormous body of work on television soap operas - a genre
once regarded as especially pernicious and objectionable - has had as its impetus
the explanation, if not the valorization of the particular kinds of enjoyments it
offers its audience , in particular its audience of women. The issue of pleasure has
motivated many contemporary studies of popular culture and the popularity of
certain television programs often serves as the implicit justification to address
such texts as adequate objects of criticism.
In the context in which audience pleasure has recently been used, heady
political claims have been made about the experience of television. For John
Fiske (Chapter three), oppressed groups use the media for pleasure, and this
pleasure involves the production of gender identities, subcultural indentities ,
class identification, and racial solidarity. Such a position provokes many
questions about the definition of pleasure in audience studies. One way to
approach the problematic of "pleasure" in audience studies is to ask why this
concept is being used at this point to valorize an activity - television viewing -
that has usually been represented as particularly harmful? John Fiske argues that
the pleasure of television viewing is often oppositional : it is a pleasure that comes
from resisting dominant ideology, from defining one's self or one 's group or
one's subculture as different. In this sense, television reinforces "the power to be
different" and therefore, the possibility for change. For this reason, Fiske
believes it is necessary for the critic to refuse to judge other people's media
4
Introduction
pleasures, as criticism and research on culture have historically done. However,

we are still far from having developed an adequate, contextualizcd
understanding of the question of pleasure(s) and the media. The issues that
scholarship needs to investigate further have been summed up by Simon Frith:
when popular culture critics place themselves on the side of the consumer, "the
resulting politics of pleasure cannot easily be separated, historically, from the
politics of leisure, from struggles over education, time and space, cultural capital
or from the question of signifying power - who can make meanings stickr'"
Academic enthusiasm over the (re-jdiscovery of pleasure must be tempered
with a number of cautionary points. First, no matter how popular certain media
experiences become in terms of sheer numbers, there is nothing inherently
progressive about pleasure. But stating the question of pleasure in these terms
implies the danger of theorizing the pressing issues in much too abstract terms.
Therefore, we have to remind ourselves that the relationship between pleasure
and politics has to be historicized, contextualized, and specified. For example,
the way that the domestic context of television viewing determines the unequal
distribution of pleasures between men and women is a very significant area for
study, as David Morley's and Ann Gray's work has demonstrated. Second, as len
Ang argued in our discussions at Blaubeuren, "you win something when you fmd
something pleasurable, but you can lose something at the same time." In its
provision of certain kinds of pleasures, television precludes others. For example,
soap operas allow women viewers to take pleasure in the character of the
villainess, but they do not provide characters who radically challenge the
ideology of femininity. Furthermore, the popularity of US television programs on
export around the world should not make us forget that other forms of television
might also please (and, possibly, please better). In our concern for audiences'
pleasures in such programs, we run the risk of continually validating
Hollywood's domination of the worldwide television market. Finally, we must
remember to think about other emotional states besides pleasure that may be
produced by watching television. For example, television also evokes feelings of
rage. As Larry Gross points out in Chapter seven on gay and lesbian audiences,
viewers may be enraged at stereotyping and denigrating representations. In our
interviews in Oregon (Chapter twelve), we were often reminded that continual
commercial interruptions and summer reruns also enrage rather than please
viewers. While this may be a more difficult topic for investigation than media
pleasures, it may also lead to work with audiences which would have clearer
implications for media activism.'
Uses of the "critical"

For readers unfamiliar with the range of current debate in the study of television,
the ways in which the term "critical" is used in this book may be confusing.
Several different meanings of the term come together in the kinds of work
included in this volume, and exemplify some of the debates engaging media
5
Ellen Seiter et al.
researchers. Each of these meanings is also associated with a line of argument

against audience studies that have been put forward by other scholars in the field.
The term "critical" may simply mean pertaining to the practice of criticism. It
is this sense of the term which informs the work of Liebes and Katz, when they
use "critical ability" to refer to the kinds of skills that are generally considered
the province of the professional critic (Chapter eleven). While "critical" is only
sometimes used in this sense in the papers collected here, a background in
criticism and a concern with television words, images, and stories as text informs
much of the work here. Indeed, we are engaged throughout this book not just with
audiences, but with the history and practice of television criticism. While
questions of textual interpretation have played a crucial role in the British
tradition of cultural studies, it has been almost entirely ignored in US mass
communications research. Since the 1970s, scholars from literature and film
departments have taken on the question of the meaning of television, and dubbed
their intellectual terrain "television studies" rather than mass communications.
This tradition has tended to produce textual analyses of the media from a vantage
point of high culture, especially literary theory.
A second important association of the term "critical" (one which many
literature and Germanistik scholars would reserve exclusively) is with the
so-called critical theory of the Frankfurt School, exemplified by the work of
scholars such as Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and
Herbert Marcuse . In this, the narrowest sense of the term, "critical" refers to work
which follows in the Frankfurt School tradition by combining psychoanalytic and
Marxist theories into a broad social critique.
Today , the term "critical theory" is often used by scholars in a wide range of
disciplines to embrace both the work of the Frankfurt School and that of
post-structuralists, such as Michel Foucault , Jacques Derrida, and Julia Kristeva .
In this usage, critical theory refers broadly to those philosophical traditions which
mistrust empiricism and positivism and insist on the relationship between
knowledge and power. While many of the scholars represented in this volume
share the Frankfurt School's insistence on a "critical" theory of society, they are
struggling to overcome deterministic notions of the media's all-pervasive power
without going to the other extreme of celebrating the freedom and autonomy of
the viewer. In the present debate about the meanings of being "critical," it is
increasingly important to understand the political situation which produced the
discourse of the Frankfurt School and compare it to the one which produces ours
today. In this direction, papers in this volume by Robert Allen, len Ang, Charlotte
Brunsdon , and David Morley trace the intellectual history of the past twenty
years and what produced the interest in television audiences .
Recently, attacks on audience studies have been mounted by some who see
this kind of work as implicitly and necessarily collusion - simply doing the
industry's market research for it. The alternative offered is doing textual
analyses , which are presumably untied to any economic interests. In Tania
Modleski 's discussion of audience studies - peculiar in that none of her examples
6
Introduction
involve actual empirical work - the danger is seen in "writing apologias for mass
culture and embracing its ideology" and "reproducing in their methodologies the
very strategies by which consumer society measures and constructs its
audiences."! For Modleski being "truly critical" means maintaining a critical
distance from mass culture. But this position reflects an anxiety over the
contaminating effects of mass culture which is one of the least helpful remnants
of the Frankfurt School position . Furthermore, we must recognize how academic
and critical discourse on the right and the left also serves a system of class
distinctions. As Pierre Bourdieu reminds us:
The denial of lower, coarse, vulgar, venal, servile - in a word, natural -
enjoyment, which constitutes the sacred sphere of culture, implies an
affirmation of the superiority of those who can be satisfied with the
sublimated, refined, disinterested, gratuitous, distinguished pleasures forever
closed to the profane. That is why art and cultural consumption are
predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfill a social function of
legitimating social differences."
Both textual analysis and the study of audiences are bound up with the historical
and economic context in which academics work. Neither approach can be seen as
free from ideology or the service of political and economic interests: all
intellectual labor is implicated in this context. The tendency to represent the
conflict as one of either audience study or textual analysis allows the discussion
to degenerate into a squabble over disciplinary turf. Instead, the methodological
and theoretical differences of the two approaches should be used to improve
understanding of the ambiguities of the academic discourse on television and its
cultural significance. To cast the argument in terms of mutually exclusive
approaches prevents interdisciplinary work and masks what are presumably the
shared interests of television scholars - working toward a more politically
engaged research, a better understanding of audiences, and better media.
The "critical studies" perspective cautions against an exuberance over the
discovery of "real audiences," the danger of lapsing into a happy positivism in
our methodologies, and an overreading of points of resistance. And indeed,
political dangers are involved in audience research. Modleski is right to remind
us that it is in the media industries' interests to adapt to the pleasures and tastes
of economically attractive audience groups. Thus, audience studies and textual
studies have to be informed by a high degree of theoretical awareness and
political responsibility.
Many of these meanings of "critical" are also implicit in the way that the term
identifies an area within mass communications research, especially in the US,
where it carries a polemical charge by opposing itself to mainstream or
institutional research. "Critical communications research" identifies a range of
research topics, but often focuses on the political economics of the media. Mike
Budd and Clay Steinman have stated the critique of cultural studies by political
economists this way:
7
Ellen Seiter et al.
As cultural studies gains influence in North America, Australia and elsewhere,

its work will be increasingly vitiated if it cannot break down the detailed
intellectual division of labor which so uncannily resembles that of the
capitalist society it seeks to understand. The political economists and others
who study concentration of ownership, economic imperialism and other
institutional questions may have the mistaken notion that texts, and culture
generally, don't matter very much, but that doesn't mean we can ignore
economic determination.'?
The most serious lack in the audience studies presented here is the integration of
a political economics perspective. There is a great deal of work which urgently
needs to be done in this area. But the political economics perspective should not
be used to diminish the importance of audience studies. David Morley (Chapter
one) has reminded us of the tendency within Marxist analysis to neglect
consumption in order to "prioritize the study of 'production' to the exclusion of
the study of all other levels of the social formation." This relentless employment
of an economist model adapted from classical Marxism to the media studies has
as only one of its shortcomings a firmly masculinist orientation. From the
Frankfurt School to Jean Baudrillard, consumption is feminine and bad,
production is masculine and good. I I Often in this book , a simple reversal of terms
- the television viewer as producer - is used to redeem the audience. In our
efforts to understand the workings of culture and ideology, however, we might do
better to rethink the usefulness of the production/consumption dichotomy.'>
Finally, scholars sometimes use the term "critical" to identify any research
which has something negative to say about the media: as though all that is called
for is taking a moral stand against the media (as journalists and The Ladies Home
Journal regularly do). Such a meaning is frequently found in the famous Ferment
in the Field issue of the JournalofCommunication, where "critical" occasionally
identifies any work which does not involve quantitative and survey research
methods. It is this plethora of meanings which has made the term of dubious
usefulness as a way of identifying intellectual positions. More interesting than
unpacking these differences in usage may be examining why the term "critical"
has become so overdetermined in meaning, and why left academics want so badly
to identify themselves and define their practices this way."
Postmodernism
At the present time, much of television studies is dominated by a discussion of
writing in critical theory and aesthetics which seeks to define the postmodem.
Though they share some of the same concepts, postmodem approaches to
television have remained somewhat indifferent to audience studies. Defining
postmodernism continues to be a very confusing business because of the blurring
of boundaries between "postmodernism as a set of stylistic phenomena and
postmodemism as a socio-economic phase. "14 Television represents a specific
8
Introduction
form of commodity culture in a particular phase of late capitalism as well as a

medium whose aesthetic strategies implicate a very different spectator from that
of cinematic realism or literary modernism . One of the most difficult problems in
relating television audience studies to postmodernism is, in Andrew Ross' words,
"in effect it (postmodernism) has been used as an epithet to describe a staggering
range of objects, practices and styles: right or left, hot or cold, dead or alive.?"
Audience studies are inspired in part by a recognition typical of
postrnodernism of "the instability of ideological processes," especially where the
media are concerned. In its philosophical versions, one of postrnodernism's
central notions has been the deconstruction of essentialist concepts of identity.
The cherished Enlightenment belief in "the existence of a stable, coherent self'
has been thrown into "radical doubt.?" This is an extremely important
development for audience studies, in that it presents the possibility of shifting
subjectivities on the part of the viewer. To varying extents, television has been
seen simultaneously as symbolizing and as producing this kind of identity crisis .
Jean Baudrillard's work has been influential within television studies. While
indebted to the Frankfurt School, he makes a radical break with traditional
Marxist positions. His is the latest example of a cultural critique inspired by
political economics (the postmodern as label for societies marked by late
capitalism's intense need to stimulate consumption) that expresses a massive
cultural pessimism in such notorious phrases as "the death of the social." The
cultural consumer of postmodernism has been repeatedly compared to the
schizophrenic; Baudrillard has drawn him or her as one who "sees himself at the
controls of a hypothetical machine, isolated in a position of perfect and remote
sovereignty at an infinite distance from his universe of origin."? It is no accident
that Baudrillard's extremely abstract work has not yet offered much help in the
study of the specific social and historical locations of viewers and their
interpretations of specific television texts and genres . Thus, in Lawrence
Grossberg's words, "a theory that celebrates otherness fails to acknowledge the
difference between experiences, real historical tendencies and cultural discourses
and meanings, as well as the complex relations that exist between them." In order
to account for these differences, we need to move back and forth between the
abstract theories of postmodernism and local, particular practices."
In textual analysis, broadcast television has been seen as embodying
postrnodern aesthetics, with its relentless intertextuality, its reworking of popular
culture, its effacement of history. As a theory of aesthetics, postmodernism offers
the possibility - yet unrealized - of dissolving the rigid distinctions between high
and low art so characteristic of modernism. Television has provided the raw
material for the avant-garde to produce postrnodern art, while itself borrowing
freely from experimental film and video. The problem of periodization which
postrnodernism poses looms even larger in popular culture criticism than it does
in literature and the visual arts. Where and when was modernism, if television is
now postmodern? Television critics have found music television, commercials,
and programs such as Miami Vice or Moonlighting to be especially good
9
Ellen Seiter et al.
examples, which lend themselves to the tendency within postmodernist television

criticism "to privilege the medium over the message, style over substance, and
form over content. "19
But many television genres, including those which address themselves
specifically to women as audience members, have so far failed to fit the mold. In
television studies as elsewhere, the postmodern debate has tended to exclude
questions of gender." This is perhaps the primary reason why theories of post-
modernism do not figure prominently in this book, where feminist readings,
domestic politics, soap opera, and particular local practices of television viewing
are the primary concern. As Elspeth Probyn has warned : "In the midst of all this
- in the timeless pass from the modem to the post, from marxism to postmod-
ernism - we seem to have lost the impulse to push politics into the everyday.'?'
While postmodern theory has tended to lead scholars back to the television
text, the work presented in this book insists on the necessity of meeting people
outside academic culture to discuss television - mindful of just how problematic
that interaction may be. What we offer are readings "from below, " mindful of
their mediation by our own discourses. It is the reluctance of television scholars
to engage in this kind of research which may explain the fact that while everyone
seems to be talking about television audience studies, surprisingly few of us
trained in cultural studies are actually doing them. The reasons for this reluctance
may involve the Angst of leaving the secure academic context to listen and talk
to social groups different from ourselves about television. But such an encounter
is a necessary starting point if we are to understand our own positions as
academics and the barriers to our political effectivity. As Janice Radway has put
it:
In learning how others actively make their own social worlds differently from
the way we make our own, perhaps it might also be possible to identify
together those points where articulations and alliances could be forged across
borders in the service of a future not yet envisioned and therefore neither
necessarily lost nor secured."
The first six chapters take up theoretical considerations in audience studies and
the following six consist of case studies of various aud iences. The book begins
with David Morley's overview of research on media audiences and critical work
on television texts. Morley traces the various theoretical influences - semiotics,
cultural studies, film theory, psychoanalysis - which have led to a departure from
the traditional paradigms of mass-communication research and to an interest in
studying media audiences . Morley stresses the role of social factors in the
production of meaning from television; the impact of genre on patterns of
viewing and negotiations of meaning , and the importance of contextualizing
television viewing within the framework of everyday life. His chapter plays an
essential role here in introducing the reader to the intellectual history which
informs most of the book 's contributions.
10
Introduction
Similarly, RobertAllen's "Burstingbubbles" tracesthe development of genre

criticism in film and literary theory, defining genre as a classificatory discursive
strategy which allows patterns of textual structureto be connected to the groups
in society for whom thesepatternsare meaningful. The term "soap opera" serves
as a catch-all for different discursive relationships between a variety of textual
features and at least three major interpretative communities: television industry
workers, critics, and viewers. For Allen, theories of the viewer's engagement
with soap operas are marked by disjuncture between the implications of the term
in critical discourse and the ways in which generic knowledge is employed by
viewersin making sense of and deriving pleasurefrom soap operas.
John Fiske suggests abandoning altogether the categories of "text" and
"audience" as separate analytical entities. Instead, television watching shouldbe
conceived of as a process of meaning production in which the "text" is merelya
substratum from which the viewermay construct various realizations. Television
must be analysed not in terms of political economy, but in terms of cultural
economy, in which viewers reject theirroleas commodity and becomea producer
of pleasuresand meanings. Television provides flexibility due to specific textual
and intertextual characteristics which militateagainstclosureand the inscription
of the dominant ideology. Becauseof the openness of the televisual text and the
diversity of patterns of engagement on the part of the viewer, the process of
watching television precludes theoretical fixation and can only be approached in
terms of moments in the semiotic process, wheretextual and social linesof force
intersect. This approach demands a researcher who is not a detached scientific
observer but a critic-as-fan, who shares discursive competence, social history,
and pleasures with the viewers under study.
In "Live television and its audiences," Claus-Dieter Rath focuses on live
television in terms of production and reception. Live programs - which are
especially common on European television - allow insights into institutional
value systems such as topicality and what determines the selection of suitable
broadcastmaterial. The verymodeof livepresentation renders eventsmeaningful
and important. Rathoutlines aspects of viewerengagement which are vital in live
broadcasts: the identification of the viewer with physical actions, the alignment
of the viewerwith the fieldof vision of thecamera, and the merging of the public
and private spheres. Through live broadcasts, television forms a collectivity
based on the experience, "I also will have seen."
Chapters five and six challenge the methods and the assumptions under-
lying audience study itself. len Ang criticizes recent tendencies which
point to a "new consensus" between thepreviously opposed "critical" and "main-
stream" camps in masscommunications research. She drawsattention to the fact
that despite shared terminology, both approaches arc based on epistemo-
logical concepts which are fundamentally opposed and make any methodo-
logical synthesis impossible. For Ang, the positivist will to truth cannot be
reconciled with the hermeneutic and political orientation of critical cultural
investigations.
11
Ellen Seiter et al.
Charlotte Brunsdon expresses reservations about the apparent displacement of

textual criticism by audience studies. The concentration on diverse modes of
television reception is misleading, since all cultural texts may be engaged with in
a variety of ways. Brunsdon argues that the interest in audiences expresses a
search for the authentic in the study of a medium whose aesthetics is strongly
marked by a lack of authenticity. Brunsdon describes the shift from text to
audience in the institutional history of television studies as a development from
the interest in "redemptive readings" of popular culture texts , from the
recognition of intertextuality and postmodernism, and from the use of the
autobiographical in feminist criticism. But for Brunsdon the choice of what is
recognized as constituting a single text is a political as well as a critical matter,
and retaining the notion of the text is therefore crucial to the development of
television criticism and aesthetics.
These theoretical articles are followed by case studies of the audience, some
of which focus on audiences for particular genres and some on specific groups
within the audience. We begin with "Out of the mainstream: Sexual minorities
and the mass media." One of the most important insights of the approach to media
effects developed by Larry Gross in his work with George Gerbner was that
habitual television viewing results in mainstreaming: it "tends to cultivate in
viewers .. . a relative commonality of outlooks and values"(see Chapter seven).
On the other hand television works towards a "symbolic annihilation" of
minorities and their norms and values. Gross draws attention to the important role
of the mass media in offering images of the Other, which have an impact on
straight audiences, as well as in the particularly difficult process of social
identification for gays. Using examples from several media, Gross discusses
three patterns of response, ranging from an internalization of mainstream norms
to active resistance through film and television productions by and for gays and
lesbians .
In "Soap operas at work," Dorothy Hobson investigates the ways in which
British soap operas enter the realm of work through everyday conversations with
colleagues. Hobson stresses that communication about media contents is
interspersed with accounts of personal experience and stories which are
frequently only touched upon in the programs under discussion. Apart from
providing a permissive framework for articulating personal concerns,
conversations about soap operas tend to reinforce group solidarity because they
draw on experiences shared by all members of the group.
In "The media in everyday family life," Jan-Uwe Rogge discusses the
functions of media use as they are interwoven with a family's need for
communication . Rogge recognizes the ways that various interests among family
members and their different biographies affect the meaning of the media in
everyday life. His emphasis in a research project involving interviews with
hundreds of families in West Germany is on change in media consumption and
changes in the everyday life of the family. Rogge discusses a number of family
12
Introduction
case studies to illustrate how changes such as unemployment alter the family's
use of and feelings toward television. Rogge argues that the historical
individual' s media reality has many facets, expressing "cultural orientation and
day-to-day life-styles" and defining "interpersonal relationships and the
emotional and communicative climate in a family."
John Tulloch 's chapter centers on the elderly, a group which has been largely
neglected in media studies, which have tended to concentrate on studies of
children and youth. As with women viewers, the elderly have been especially
prone to stigmatization and stereotyped as manipulated and addicted television
viewers. Tulloch's interviews reveal that the meaning of television series derives
to a large extent from their integration in daily routines of the elderly and their
meticulously executed schedules of organization and caring . In the second part of
his chapter, Tulloch examines the way that the social category of age is related to
class. Throughout, Tulloch takes a self-reflexive approach to his interviews and
raises important questions about ethnographic interviewing as a method.
Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz compare the interpretations of Dallas made by
Israeli viewers from four different ethnic communities (Arab, Russian,
Moroccan , and kibbutzim) . After gathering responses in group interviews, Liebes
and Katz analyse the viewers' critical abilities, i.e. how much they discussed the
program as a constructed, conventional narrative. The authors did fmd that
viewers outside the US had diverse strategies for defense against the perceived
message of Dallas and frequently voiced their moral or ideological opposition to
the show.
Finally, we present a report on our own research in "'Don't treat us like we're
so stupid and naive': toward an ethnography of soap opera viewers." It is based
on a series of group interviews with soap opera viewers in Oregon carried out in
1986. The study is part of a larger research project on the history, production, and
reception of American daytime soap operas based in the American Studies
Department at the University of Tubingen, Starting with a discussion of recent
work on the practical and methodological problems presented by an
"ethnography of reading," the paper problematizes the ethnographic principles
underlying our interview study . Problems of ethnographic authority as well as the
special nature of gendered discourse in all-women interviews are raised in this
context. The interview material is analysed in terms of the way that soap operas
are scheduled around women's work in the home, the way viewers described the
soap opera as text and as genre, and a reconsideration of Tania Modleski's
influential work on the textual position of the "ideal mother."
It is this research project which introduced us to the problems of studying the
television audience and inspired us to bring together an international group of
scholars in Blaubeuren to discuss these issues. This book presents a variety of the
positions taken and topics debated at that symposium. We hope that it will lead
to a refinement of methods, a clarification of theoretical positions, and a
thoughtful reconsideration of television and its audiences.
13
Ellen Seiter et al.
The academic pendulum swings along the fine line between re-seeing and
revisionism: valorisation of consumption replaces insistence on production;
recognition of escapism replaces the search for engagement; the centrality of
contradiction makes way for the importance of identity; work makes way for
relaxation and politics makes way for pleasure . Each of these shifts is
important and necessary where it occurs under pressure of a specific
theoretical and political demand. The difficulty is in slowing the process
which turns a radical shift into a new orthodoxy.P
Notes
1 Paul Pearsall, "Love Busters," Ladies Home Journal, October 1987. p. 98.
2 Hermann Bausinger, "Tolerant Partners: On the Intertwining of Communication
and Para-Communication" (paper presented at the symposium, "Rethinking the
Audience: New Tendencies in Television Research," B1aubcuren 1987), p. 11.
3 David Morley, The "Nationwide" Audience: Structure and Decoding (London:
British Film Institute, 1980).
4 For a feminist consideration of qualitative methodologies see Helen Roberts (ed.)
Doing Feminist Research (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981); and Gloria
Bowles and Renate Duelli Klein (eds) Theor ies ofWomen ' s Studies (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1983). Janice Radway critiques her own research
methods in "Identifying Ideological Seams," Communication 9 (1986): 93-123 ,
and in her introduction to the British version of Reading the Romance (London:
Verso, 1987), pp. 1-18.
5 For one of the best examples of work which fulfills this kind of promise see
Jacqueline Bobo 's "The Color Purple: Black Women as Cultural Readers," in
Deidre Primbrawm (ed.) Female Spectators Looking at Film and Television
(London: Verso, 1988), pp. 90-109.
6 Simon Frith, "Hearing Secret Harmonies," in Colin MacCabe (ed.) High Theory,
Low Culture (New York: St Martin's Press, 1986), p. 57.
7 For a discussion of the political usefulness of rage, see Julia Lesage, "Women 's
Rage," in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (eds) Marxism and Cultural
Interpretat ion (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988). pp. 419-28. Lawrence
Grossberg has suggested that the study of affect may solve the problems inherent
in the issue of pleasure. See his "History . Politics and Postmodernism: Stuart Hall
and Cultural Studies," Journal ofCommunication Inquiry 10. no. 2 (1986): 73-4;
and "Postmodernity and Affect: All Dressed Up With No Place to Go,"
Communication 10, nos 3-4 (1988): 271-93.
8 Tania Modleski, "Introduction," in Tania Modleski (cd.) Studies in Entertainment
(Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1986), pp. xi-xii.
9 Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique ofthe Judgement ofTaste, trans.
Richard Nice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984), p. 7.
10 Mike Budd and Clay Steinman, "Television, Cultural Studies, and the 'Blindspot'
Debate in Critical Communications Research," in Gary Bums and Robert
Thompson (eds) Television Studies (New York: Praeger, forthcoming) .
11 See Andreas Huyssen 's "Mass Culture as Woman: Modernism's Other," in After
the Great Divide (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986). pp. 44-64; also
Tania Modleski's excellent critique of Baudrillard, "Femininity as Masquerade: A
Feminist Approach to Mass Culture," in MacCabe. High Theory, Low Culture, pp.
32-57.
14
Introduction
12 John Caughie has made this argument in "Popular Culture: Notes and Revisions,"
in MacCabe, High Theory , Low Culture, pp. 156-71.
13 For examples of the various positions within mass communications see Ferment
in the Field, a special issue of Journal of Communication 33, no. 3 (1983).
14 Philip Hayward and Paul Kerr, "Introduction" to the Screen issue Postmodern
Screen 28, no. 2 (spring 1987): 5.
15 "Postmodemism and Universal Abandon," Communications 10, nos 3-4 (1988):
252.
16 Jane Flax, "Postmodemism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory," Signs 12,
no. 4 (1987): 624.
17 Jean Baudrillard, "The Ecstasy of Communication," in Hal Foster (ed.) The
Anti -Aesthetic (Port Townsend, Wash.: Bay Press, 1983), p. 128. See also Jean
Baudrillard, Simulations, trans. Paul Foss (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983); Jean
Baudrillard, l n the Shadow ofthe Silent Majorities, trans. Paul Foss (New York:
Semiotexte(e), 1983).
18 Grossberg, "History, Politics and Postmodemism," p. 74.
19 Steven Best and Douglas Kellner, "(Re)Watching Television: Notes Toward a
Political Criticism," Diacritics (summer 1987): 100.
20 This point has been made by a variety of feminist writers: Jane Flax,
"Postmodemism and Gender Relations," pp. 621-41; Terry Lovell, Consuming
Fictions (London: Verso, 1987), pp. 153-62.
21 Elspeth Probyn, "Memories and Past Politics of Postrnodemisrn,' Communication
10, nos 3-4 (1988): 309.
22 Janice Radway, "Reception Study: Ethnography and the Problems of Dispersed
Audiences and Nomadic Subjects," Cultural Studies 2, no. 3 (1988).
23 John Caughie, "Popular Culture: Notes and Revisions," in MacCabe, High
Theory, Low Culture, p. 163.
15
Chapter one
Changing paradigms in audience studies
David Morley
Effects, uses, and decodings

The history of audience studies during the post-war period can be seen as a series
of oscillations between perspectives which have stressed the power of the text (or
message) over its audiences and perspectives which have stressed the barriers
"protecting" the audience from the potential effects of the message. The first
position is most obviously represented by the whole tradition of effects studies,
mobil izing a hypodermic model of media influence, in which the media are seen
as having the power to "inject" their audiences with particular messages which
will cause them to behave in a particular way. This has involved, from the right,
perspectives which would see the media causing the breakdown of "traditional
values" and, from the left, perspectives which see the media causing their
audi ence to remain quiescent in political terms, or causing them to inhabit some
form of false consciousness.
One finds curious contradictions here. On the one hand, television is accused
of reducing its audience to the status of "zombies" or "glassy-eyed dupes" who
consume a constant diet of predigested junk food, churned out by the media
"sausage factory" and who suffer the anaesthetic effects of this addictive and
narcotic substance. However, at the same time as television has been held
responsible for causing this kind of somnambulant state of mind (as a result of the
viewers' consumption of this "chewing gum for the eyes") television has also
been accused of making us do all manner of things, most notably in the debates
around television and violence - where it has been argued that the viewing of
violent television content will cause viewers to go out and commit violent acts.'
One point of interest here is that these "television zombies" are always other
people. Few people think of their own use of television in this way. It is a theory
about what television does to other, more vulnerable people.
The second key perspective has been the work that has developed principally
from the uses and gratifications school. Within that perspective, the viewer is
credited with an active role , and it is then a question, as Halloran puts it, of
looking at what people do with the media rather than what media do to them.'
This argument was obviously of great significance in moving the debate forward
16
- to begin to look at the active engagement of the audiencewith the medium and
with the particular television programs that they might be watching. One key
advancewhichwasdeveloped by the uses and gratifications perspective was that
of the variability of response and interpretation. From thisperspective onecan no
longer talk about the "effects" of a message on a homogeneous mass audience
who are expectedto be affectedin the same way. However, the limitation is that
the "uses and gratifications" perspective remains individualistic, in so far as
differences of response or interpretation are ultimately attributed to individual
differences of personality or psychology. Clearly, uses and gratifications does
represent a significant advance on effects theory, in so far as it opens up the
question of differential interpretation. However, it remainsseverely limitedby its
insufficiently sociological or cultural perspective, in so far as everything is
reduced to the level of variations of individual psychology. It was against this
background that Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding model of communication was
developed at the Centrefor Contemporary Cultural Studies, as an attempt to take
forward insights which had emerged within each of these other perspectives.' It
took, from the effects theorists, the notion that mass communication is a
structuredactivity, in which the institutions which producethe messages do have
a power to set agendas, and to define issues. This is to moveaway from the idea
of the powerof the medium to makea personbehavein a certainway(as a direct
effect which is caused by stimulus provided by the medium) but it is to hold on
to a notion of the role of the media in setting agendas and providing cultural
categories and frameworks within which members of the culture will tend to
operate. The modelalsoattempted to incorporate, from the usesandgratifications
perspective, the model of the active viewer making meaning from the signs and
symbols which the media provide. However, it was also designed to take on
board, from the work developed within the interpretative and normative
paradigms, the concern with the ways in whichresponses and interpretations are
structured and patternedat a level beyond that of individual psychologies. The
modelwasalso, critically, informed by semiological perspectives focusing on the
question of how communication "works." The key focus was on the realization
that we are, of course, dealingwith signs and symbols whichonly have meaning
withinthe termsof reference supplied by codes (ofone sort or another) whichthe
audienceshares, to somegreateror lesserextent,with the producers of messages.
In short, the encoding/decoding model was designed to providea synthesis of
insights that had come out of a series of different perspectives - communication
theory, semiology, sociology, and psychology - and to providean overall model
of the communication circuitas it operatedin its socialcontext. It wasconcerned
with mattersof ideological and culturalpowerand it wasconcerned with shifting
the ground of debate so that emphasis moved to the consideration of how it was
possible for meaning to be produced. It attempted to develop the argument that
we should look not for the meaning of a text, but for the conditions of a practice
- i.e. to examine the foundations of communication, but crucially, to examine
thosefoundations as socialandcultural phenomena. This wasthepointof interest
17
David Morley
in socio-linguistics and in the connections with debates in the sociology of

education (most notably around the work of Basil Bernstein) which was evident
in the early development of the encoding/decoding model.' It was also connected
to the field of political sociology and notably with the work of Frank Parkin, in
so far as his theory of meaning systems which might exist within a given society
(dominant, negotiated and oppositional) provided the basis of the three decoding
"potentials" identified in the encoding/decoding model.' However, it remains a
limited model, in so far as it simply provides for the three logical possibilities of
the receiver either sharing, partly sharing, or not sharing the code in which the
message is sent and therefore, to that extent, being likely to make a dominant,
negotiated, or oppositional decoding of the encoded message. Further, following
the encounter with the work of Hymes , Bourdieu , and Bernstein the encoding/
decoding model also represented an attempt to develop an analysis of the role of
social structure in distributing different forms of cultural competence throughout
the different sections of the media audience."
In the more recent period, a whole number of shortcomings with the encoding/
decoding model of communication have been identified," These criticisms
concern, for instance, the extent to which the model tends to conceive of
language merely as a conveyor belt for preconstituted meanings or messages; the
way in which it tends to confuse textual meaning with the conscious intentions of
broadcasters; and the tendency to blur together under the heading of "decoding"
what are probably best thought of as separate processes along the axes of
comprehension/incomprehension, as opposed to agreement/disagreement with
the propositional content of messages . Furthermore, the concept of the preferred
reading, which is of course central to the encoding/decoding model, has been
subjected to a number of criticisms. At one level one can ask how specific the
concept of preferred reading is to the field of news and current affairs television
(within which the encoding/decoding model was first applied). How one might
effectively transfer that model to the analysis of fictional television remains a
problem. There are also further problems about the exact status of the "preferred
reading." Is it something which is in the text (a property of the text) or is it
something which can be generated from the text by certain methods of semi-
ological analysis, or is it a statement, or prediction by the analyst, as to how most
members of the audience will empirically read a given program or message?
There are then a number of problems with the model and in particular with the
concept of preferred reading as specified in that model. However, I would still
want to defend the model's usefulness, in so far as it avoids sliding straight from
the notion of a text as having a determinate meaning (wh ich would necessarily
impose itself in the same way on all members of the audience) to an equally
absurd , and opposite position, in which it is assumed that the text is completely
"open" to the reader and is merely the site upon which the reader constructs
meaning. This latter "reader as writer" position seems to unite theories as
apparently distanced as those of "uses and gratifications" and many forms of
"postmodern" theory. In either case, any notion of particular forms of textual
18
organization as constraints on the production of meaning disappearentirely and

the text is seen as infinitely (and equally)open to all interpretations. The point of
the preferred reading model was to insist that readers are, of course, engaged in
productive work, but under determinate conditions . Those determinate
conditionsare of course supplied both by the text, the producing institution and
by the social history of the audience.
Psychoanalytic theories of the subject

The other key perspective on the audience which has been developed in recent
years is the body of work, principally within film theory, based on a psycho-
analytic perspective, which is concerned with the positioning of the subject by
the text.
Despitethe theoretical sophistication of much of thiswork, in offeringa more
developed model of text/subject relations it has, until now, contributed little to
the empirical study of the audience. This is for the simple reason that those
working in this tradition have,on the whole, been content to "deduce" audience
responses from the structure of the text.To thisextent,and despitethe theoretical
advances achieved by this work in other respects, I would argue that the psycho-
analytically based work has ultimately mobilized what can be seen as another
versionof the hypodermic theoryof effects- in so far as it is, at least in its initial
and fundamental formulations, a universalist theory which attempts to account
for the way in which the subject is necessarily positioned by the text. The diff-
iculty, in termsof audiencestudies, is that this bodyof work, premised as it is on
universalist criteria, finds it difficultto provide the theoretical spacewithinwhich
one can allow for, and then investigate, differential readings, interpretations, or
responses on the part of the audience. This is so quite simplybecausethe theory,
in effect, tries to explain any specific instanceof the text/reader relationship in
terms of a universalist theory of the formation of subjectsin general.
From within this perspective emphasis falls on the universal, primary,
psychoanalytic processes through which the subject is constituted. The text is
then understood as reproducing or replaying this primary positioning, which is
then the foundation of any particularreading. Myargument wouldbe that, in fact,
we need to question the assumption that all specific discursive effects can be
reduced to, and explained by, the functioning of a single,universal set of psychic
mechanisms - which is rather like a theory of Platonic forms, which find their
expression in any particular instance. The key issue is that this form of
psychoanalytic theory poses the problem of the politics of the signifier (the
struggleover ideology in language) exclusively at the level of the subject, rather
than at the intersection between constituted subjects and specific discursive
positions - i.e. at the site of interpellation, where the discursive subject is
recognized to be operating in interdiscursive space.
In making this argument, I follow Stuart Hall's critique of the Lacanian
perspective. Hall argues that "without further work, further specification, the
19
David Morley
mechanisms of the Oedipus complex in the discourse of Freud and Lacan are
universalist, trans-historical and therefore 'essentialist."'8 To that extent, Hall
argues, these concepts, in their universalist forms, cannot useful1y be applied,
without further specification and elaboration, to the analysis of historically
specific social formations.
This is to attempt to hold on to the distinction between the constitution of the
subject as a general (or mythical) momentand the moment when the subject in
general is interpel1ated by the discursive formation of specific societies. That is
to insist on the distinction between the formation of subjectsfor language, and the
recruitmentof specific subjects to the subject positionsof discursive formations
through the processof interpel1ation. It is also to moveaway from the assumption
that every specificreadingis alreadydetermined by the primary structureof sub-
ject positions and to insist that these interpel1ations are not given lindabsolute,
but rather, are conditional and provisional, in so far as the struggle in ideology
takes place precisely through the articulation/disarticulation of interpel1ations.
This is to lay stress on the possibility of contradictory interpel1ations and to em-
phasize the unstable, provisional, and dynamic propertiesof subjectpositioning.
It is also to recognize that subjects have histories and that past interpel1ations
affect present ones, rather than to "deduce" subjects from the subject positions
offered by the text and to argue that readersare not merelybearers or puppets of
their unconscious positions. It is to insist, with Volosinov, on the "multiaccent-
uality of the sign" which makes it possible for discourse to become an arena of
struggle,"
However, it must also be recognized that, within this psychoanalytic
perspective itself, the gap between real, empirical readers and the "inscribed"
ones constructed and markedin and by the text has increasingly been recognized.
To that extent real readers can then be seen to be subjects in history, living in
social formations, rather than mere subjects of a single text (cf. the distinction
between the inscribed reader of the text and the social subject who is invited to
take up this position). This is furtherto recognize that address is not synonymous
with textual address,and that particularpositionsare a productof textualaddress
in conjunction with the immediate discourses and apparatuses that surroundand
support it, and that the social subject always exceeds the subject implied by the
text. We can point here to the work of Paul Willemen and Steve Neale who
developed this break with the ahistorical and unspecified use of the category of
the subject.'? It follows from this break that the meaning produced by the
encounter of text and subject cannot be read straight off from textual
characteristics or discursive strategies. We have to take into account what Neale
so aptly described as "the use to which a particulartext is put, its function within
a particularconjuncture, in particularinstitutional spaces,in relation to particular
audiences."!' This is, further, to recognize that the meaning of the text will also
be constructed differently depending on the discourses, knowledges, prejudices,
or resistances brought to bear on the text by the reader. One crucial factor
delimiting this will, of course, be the repertoire of discourses at the disposal of
20
different audiences, and the individual's position in the social formation will tend
to determine which sets of discourses a given subject is likely to have access to,
and thus to bring to their encounter with the text.
These then are, in my view, the main difficulties with much recent psycho-
analytic work, in so far as it is a theoretical perspective which presumes a uni-
lateral fixing of a position for the reader, imprisoning him or her in its structure,
so as to produce a singular and guaranteed effect. The text, of course, may offer
the subject specific positions of intelligibility, it may operate to prefer certain
readings above others; what it cannot do is to guarantee them - that must always
be an empirical question. This is, in part, because the subject that the text
encounters is, as Pecheux has argued, never a "raw" or "unacculturated" subject.
Readers are always already formed, shaped as subjects, by the ideological
discourses which have operated on them prior to their encounter with the text in
question.'?
If we are to theorize the subject of television, it has to be theorized in its
cultural and historical specificity, an area where psychoanalytic theory is
obviously weak. It is only thus that we can move beyond a theory of the subject
which has reference only to universal, primary psychoanalytic processes, and
only thus that we can allow a space in which one can recognize that the struggle
over ideology also takes place at the moment of the encounter of text and subject
and is not "always already" predetermined at the psychoanalytic level.
Valerie Walkerdine has recently produced an analysis which addresses the
question of how a psychoanalytic mode of analysis might be developed while
avoiding the problems of "universalism". Walkerdine sets out to offer an
understanding of a particular working-class family's viewing habits and
pleasures (and, in particular, the pleasure which the .husband derives from
watching the Rocky films) within the terms of what she describes as an
"ethnography of the unconscious." Her concern is with "the production of
subjectivity in the actual regulative practices of daily life" and with the
"effectivity of filmic representations within the lived relations of domestic
practices." In particular, Walkerdine aims to avoid the common problem
associated with psychoanalytic accounts which tend to "impose universalistic
meanings on particularistic viewing situations.':" Walkerdine offers an
illuminating analysis of a class-specific mode of masculinity. Thus, in seeking to
understand this working-class man's obsession with the Rocky films, rather than
simply understanding the fighting in the films as "macho violence" (and thus the
appropriate object of pathologization in a liberal anti-sexist discourse),
Walkerdine examines it in relation to this man's own understanding of himself as
a "fighter," struggling to defend his (and his family's) rights in an oppressive
system. Thus, for this working-class man, for whom advancement through
mental labor is not an option, there remains only the body - and the struggle for
advancement is then expressed either through manual labor, or ultimately,
through fighting. From this perspective then
21
David Morley
fighting is a key term in a discourse of powerlessness, of a constant struggle

not to sink, to get rights, not to be pushed out. In that lived historicity fighting
is quite specific in its meaning, and therefore not coterminous with what
fighting would mean in a professional middle class household. This is an
argument against a universalism of meaning, reading and interpretation."
From my own point of view, Walkerdine's analys is is of interest not simply on
account of the important "break" which it makes by developing a mode of
analysis derived from psychoanalytic theory which is, for once, historically and
contextually specific, but also because it opens up the whole question of how we
understand the specific conditions of formation of "pleasures" for particular
groups at anyone historical moment.
Moreover, the idea of the determining effectivity of the single text which has
been the cornerstone of much film theory is not simply deficient when we
consider the role of promotional material within the cinema. It is certainly
deficient when we consider the consumption of television, given the higher level
of interpenetration of different materials across the flow of television scheduling.
In this context, Nick Browne has usefully suggested a notion of the televisual text
which is quite different from the traditional notion of the discrete and separate
text. He proposes the concept of the "supertext" which consists of "the particular
program and all the introductory and interstitial materials - chiefly announce-
ments and ads - considered in its specific position in the schedule." He thus
argues that the
relevant context for the analysis of form and meaning of the television text
consists of its relation to the schedule, that is, to the world of television and
secondly, of the relation of the schedule to the structure and economics of the
work week of the general population. IS
As Larry Grossberg has put it, "not only is every media event mediated by other
texts, but it's almost impossible to know what constitutes the bounded text which
might be interpreted or which is actually consumed.?" This is because the text
does not occupy a fixed position but is always mobilized, placed , and articulated
with other texts in different ways.
However, it can be objected that this new emphasis upon intertextuality runs
several risks, notably that contextual issues will overwhelm and overdetermine
texts and their specificity. The question is whether, in following this route , we run
the danger of arriving at a point in which the text is simply dissolved into its
readings.
Texts and readings

The primary issue which contemporary work has opened up in this connection
concerns the definition of the text itself. To what extent can we still usefully
speak of the separate text, as opposed to what has variously been described as the
22
"paratext" or the "supertext"? I want to begin here by referring to Tony Bennett's

work on the problems for textual analysis highlighted in his case study of the
"James Bond" phenomenon." In that study, Bennett quotes Pierre Macherey as
asking what studying a specific text should entail. Macherey argues that studying
a text involves studying not just the text, but also everything which has been
written about it, everything which has collected on it or become attached to it,
like shells on a rock by the seashore, forming a whole encrustation. At that point
the very idea of a separable text becomes problematic. Macherey moves us
toward a perspective on the text which, rather than looking at it as a given and
separable entity, is concerned with the history of its use and its inscription into a
variety of different material, social, and institutional contexts."
John Fiske has called for a re-theorization of the televisual text, which would
allow us to investigate its openness by mobilizing Barthes' distinction between
"work" and "text." Barthes argued that the work is the physical construct of
signifiers, that becomes a "text" only when read." The text, in this formulation,
is never a fixed or stable thing but is continually being recreated out of the work.
Fiske has extended this argument toward the idea of a "readers' liberation
movement," involving a theory of audience reading which
asserts the reader's right to make, out of the program, the text that connects the
discourses of the program with the discourses through which he/she lives
his/her social experience, and thus for program, society and reading subject to
come together in an active, creative living of culture in the moment of
reading."
While I sympathize with this concern with "readers' rights," I would argue that
the concept of rights in this context is problematic, in so far as it is perhaps less a
question of the readers' rights to make out of a program whatever meaning they
wish (which presumably involves a moral or philosophical discourse concerning
"rights" in general) than a question of power - i.e, the presence or absence of the
power or cultural resources necessary to make certain types of meaning (which
is, ultimately, an empirical question).
Jane Feuer has usefully identified a number of the problems which lurk around
here. As she notes, from the standpoint of the reception theories on which Bennett
draws, the question of what constitutes the text is extremely complex. As she
notes, from this perspective it becomes increasingly hard to separate the text from
its contemporary encrustations - fan magazines, the ads, the product tie-ins, the
books, the publicity articles and so on, and indeed, the very sense of attempting
this separation is called into question. Feuer's argument is that this approach
endlessly defers the attribution of meaning. Whereas Bennett argues that "the text
is never available for analysis except in the context of its activations," as Feuer
puts it,
the reception theorist is asking us to read those activations, to read the text of
the reading formation. Thus, audience response criticism becomes another
23
David Morley
form of interpretation, the text for which is now relocated. If we take the
concept of the "openness" . . . of a text to its logical extreme, we have merely
displaced the whole problem of interpretation, for the audience responses also
constitute a representation, in this case a linguistic discourse. In displacing the
text onto the audience, the reception theorist constantly risks falling back into
an empiricism of the subject, by granting a privileged status to the
interpretations of the audience over those of the critic."
In Feuer's formulation, the problem is that when one attempts to combine this
perspective with empirical audience work ,
the authors begin by reacting against theories which assume that the text has a
total determinity over the audience. They then attempt to read their own
audience data . In each case, the critic reads another text, that is to say, the text
of the audience discourse. For the empirical researcher, granting a privileged
status to the audience response does not create a problem. But it does for those
reception theorists who acknowledge the textual status of the audience
response. They then have to read the unconscious of the audience without
benefit of the therapeutic situation, or they can relinquish the psychoanalytic
conception of the subject - in which case there is a tendency to privilege the
conscious or easily articulated response.
Feuer concludes that studies of this type are not necessarily "gaining any greater
access to the spectator's unconscious responses to texts than do the more
speculative attempts by film theorists to imagine the possible implications of
spectator positioning by the text. "22
Certainly, much of the audience work discussed here (including my
own) is inevitably subject to the problems of reflexivity that Feuer raises.
In my own research" I have offered the reader a "reading" of the texts
supplied by my respondents - those texts themselves being the respondents'
accounts of their own viewing behavior. However, in relation to the problems of
the status of any knowledge that might be produced as a result of this process of
"readings of readings" I would still argue that the interview (not to mention other
techniques such as participant observation) remains a fundamentally more
appropriate way to attempt to understand what audiences do when they watch
television than for the analyst to simply stay home and imagine the possible
implications of how other people might watch television, in the manner which
Feuer suggests.
In the case of my own research, I would accept that in the absence of any
significant element of participant observation of actual behavior beyond the
interview situation, I am left only with the stories that respondents chose to tell
me. These stories are, however , themselves both limited by, and indexical of, the
cultural and linguistic frames of reference which respondents have available to
them, through which to articulate their responses, though, as Feuer rightly notes,
these are limited to the level of conscious responses.
24
Changing parad igms in audience studies
However, a number of other points also need to be made. The first concerns
the supposedly lesser validity of respondents' accounts of behavior, as opposed
to observations of actual behavior. The problem here is that observing behavior
always leaves open the question of interpretation. I may be observed to be sitting,
staring at the TV screen, but this behavior would be equally compatible with total
fascination or total boredom on my part - and the distinction will not necessarily
be readily accessible from observed behavioral clues. Moreover, should you wish
to understand what I am doing, it would probably be as well to ask me. I may
well, of course, lie to you or otherwise misrepresent my thoughts or feelings , for
any number of purposes, but at least, through my verbal response s, you will begin
to get some access to the kind of language, the criteria of distinction and the types
of categorizations, through which I construct my (conscious) world. Without
these clues my TV viewing (or other behavior) will necessarily remain opaque.
The interview method then is to be defended, in my view, not simply for the
access it gives the researcher to the respondents ' conscious opinions and
statements but also for the access that it gives to the linguistic terms and
categories (the "logical scaffolding" in Wittgenstein's terms") through which
respondents construct their worlds and their own understanding of their
activities.
The dangers of the "speculative" approach advocated by Feuer in which the
theorist simply attempts to imagine the possible implications of spectator
positioning by the text are well illustrated in Ellen Seiter et al. 's critique of Tania
Modleski's work (see Chapter twelve of this volume). Seiter et al. argue that
Modleski's analysis of how women soap opera viewers are pos itioned by the text
- in the manner of the "ideal mother" who understands all the various motives
and desires of the characters in a soap opera" - is in fact premised on an
unexamined assumption of a particular white, middle-class social position. Thus,
the subject positioning which Modleski "imagines" that all women will occupy
in relation to soap opera texts turns out, empirically, to be refused by many of the
working-class women interviewed by Seiter et al. In short, we see here how the
"speculative" approach can, at times, lead to inappropriate "universalizations" of
analysis which tum out to be premised on particular assumptions regarding the
social positioning of the viewer. This is precisely the point of empirical work -
as len Ang puts it, to "keep our interpretations sensitive to concrete specificities,
to the unexpected, to history" - to the possibility of, in Paul Willis' words, "being
surprised, of reaching knowledge not prefigured in one's starting paradigm.'?"
Contexts, media, and modes of viewing

The question here is how we might develop a mode of analysis which combines
a focus on the understanding of viewing practices with an understanding of the
readings of specific program material in specific contexts. There are three main
issues that I wish to address. One concerns the adequacy of the traditional model
within film theory, which relates the spectator to the cinema text, or film. The
25
David Morley
second concerns the problem of the non-transferability of the modes of viewing

associated with the cinema to the dominant mode of viewing associated with
television. The third is concerned with the need to specify variat ions within the
different modes of viewing of television .
First, I want to consider the theorization of the film aud ience, within the
context of the cinema . Predominantly, within film theory, the subject which is
addressed is the subject of the text, i.e, the film. At its simplest , I want to argue
that there is more to the matter than the question of the film text, and that it is
necessary to consider the context of viewing as much as the object of viewing.
Simply put, films traditionally had to be seen in certain places, and the
understanding of such places has to be central to any analysis of what "going to
the pictures" has meant. I want to suggest that the whole notion of "the picture
palace" is as significant as the question of "film." This is to introduce the question
of the phenomenology of "going to the pictures," which involves the "social
architecture" - in terms of decor and ambience - of the context in which films
have predominantly been seen.
Quite simply, this is to argue that there is more to cinema-going than seeing
films. There is going out at night, the sense of relaxation combined with the sense
of fun and excitement. The very name "picture palace" by which cinemas were
known for a long time captures an important part of that experience. Rather than
selling individual films, cinema is best understood as having sold a habit, or a
certain type of socialized experience. This experience involves a whole flavor of
romance and glamor, warmth and color . This is to point to the phenomenology of
the whole "moment" of going to the pictures - " the queue, the entrance stalls, the
foyer, cash desk, stairs, corridor, entering the cinema, the gangway, the seats, the
music, the lights fading, darkness, the screen which begins to glow as the silk
curtains are opening .'?" Any analysis of the film subject which does not take on
board these questions - of the context in which the film is consumed - is, to my
mind, inadequate. Unfortunately most recent work in film theory has, in fact,
operated without reference to these issues, and has largely followed the protocols
of the literary tradition, in prioritizing the status of the text itself, abstracted from
the context of consumption.
Second, I want to raise a query about the possibility of transferring any
insights gained from the understanding of the film audience to the different
context of the understanding of a television audience. As Larry Grossberg has put
it, "film theory rests on the assumed privileging .. . of a particular form of
engaged subjectivity . .. [in which] the viewer [is] engaged in a concentrative act
in which they are absorbed into the world of the film."28 Now , not only must this
cease to apply in relation to film when we consider its consumption either on
broadcast television or on video in the home, since these provide a quite different
context of reception, and therefore a quite different set of subject positions for the
viewer. The problem is all the more marked if we try to transpose theories
developed in relation to the activity of the cinema audience to the activity of the
television audience.
26
Changing paradigms in audience stud ies
John Ellis has usefully pointed to the distinctions between cinema and
television, in terms of their different regimes of representation, of vision, and of
reception. Ellis attempts to sketch out cinema and television as particular social
forms of organization of meaning, for particular forms of spectator attention. He
argues that broadcast TV has developed distinctive aesthetic forms to suit the
circumstances within which it is used . The viewer is cast as someone who has the
TV switched on , but is giving it very little attention - a casual viewer relaxing at
home in the midst of a family group. Attention has to be solic ited and grasped
segment by segment. Hence, Ellis argues, the amount of self-promotion that each
broadcast TV channel docs for itself, the amount of direct address that occurs,
and the centrality given to sound in television broadcasting. As Ellis puts it
"sound draws the attention of the look when it has wandered away. "29
len Ang has noted that what is particularly interesting here is the way in which
Ellis treats the aesthetic modes developed by television, not as neutral or arbitrary
forms, but as rhetorical strategies to attract viewers. In short, he offers the
beginnings of a rhetoric of television. However, in relation to the third issue noted
in the introduction to this section, the need to specify variations in the different
modes of viewing television, len Ang points out that while Ellis' work is of
considerable interest in this respect, he
continually speaks about broadcast TV in general and tends to give a
generalised account of televisual discourse which is consciously abstracted
from the specificities of different programme categories, modes of
representation and types of (direct) address. (. .. [thus Ellis'] preoccupation
seems to be with what unifies televisual discourse into one "specific signifying
practice"). As a result, it becomes difficult to theorise the possibility that
television constructs more than one position for the viewer.l?
len Ang goes on to argue that the point is that
different types of involvement, based upon different ideological positions can
be constructed by televisual discourse. It docs not make sense, therefore, to
sec televisual discourse as a basically unified text without .. . internal contra-
dictions . .. [rather] .. . we should analyse the different positions offered to
viewers in relation to different parts of the televisual discourse."
In summary, the key issues identified here are the status of the text; the relation
of text and context; the usefulness of an expanded notion of the "supertext"; the
problem of "medium specific" modes of viewing; and the further problem of
variations of modes of viewing within anyone medium. It is this set of concerns,
I want to argue, which provide the framework within which one must, in fact,
consider the particular readings which specific audiences make of individual
programs.
27
David Morley
Genres, pleasures and the politics of consumption

One of the most important developments in recent work in this field has been the
shift from the concern with interpretations of specific films or television
programs to the study of patterns of engagement with different types or genres of
material. What is at issue here is how we can begin to understand the particular
pleasures which particular types (or genres) of material seem to offer to particular
audi ences in specific social situations. In this respect, Janice Radway offers what
I would regard as an exemplary proposal for the appropriate mode of analysis. As
she puts it
a good cultural analysis of the romance ought to specify not only how the wo-
men understand the novels themselves but also how they comprehend the very
act of picking up a book in the first place. The analytic focus must shift from
the text itself, taken in isolation, to the complex social event of reading.P
I will return later to this theme, in discussing the need to combine analysis of
viewing contexts and modes of viewing with the analysis of specific readings, but
first I want to focus on the issue of how popular taste and popular pleasures can
be understood. From my own perspective, the most interesting question is that of
why part icular types of material are particularly attractive to specific segments of
the audience. The key reference, most obviously, is to the work of Pierre
Bourdieu on patterns of taste, and the distribution of these patterns within
different segments of a society." The issue is how best to understand the "fit"
between particular cultural forms and particular patterns of taste.
In an earlier period, Barthes suggested that what was needed was an aesthetic
based on the pleasures of the consumer. My own argument is that the critical
issue is, in fact , the analysis of the particular pleasures of specific audience
groups rather than any abstract concern with the nature of "Pleasure" as such . To
pursue the latter route would be to risk replicating all the difficulties encountered
by the attempt to develop a theory of "the subject in general " in so far as all
specific instances of pleasure in all their various forms would be unhelpfully
subsumed within the general theory, as mere "replays" of a univer salized psychic
mechanism.
Here, in fact, it seems quite possible that we have much to learn from the
commercial world. In the context of the proliferation of channels and the much
heralded advent of "narrow casting," the commercial world has been fast to
identify the issue of audience segmentation as one of the keys to the successful
pursuit of profit. It is of some considerable interest that, within the realm of
British television it was, as Ian Connell has argued, undoubtedly the commercial
channel, lTV, which "led the way in making connection with and expressing
popular structures of feeling.'?' As Connell argues, by its ve ry logic a
commercial station is bound to attempt to meet the tastes and needs of its
audience more directly than any station (of a left- or right-wing political
persuasion) which takes a more paternalist attitude toward its audience.
28
Changing paradiqrns in audience studies
There are, evidently, a number of political difficulties running through these

debates, as has been well evidenced in Britain certainly by the debates between
Ian Connell and Nicholas Garnham concerning the question of commercial
television, popular taste, and public broadcasting." These same political
difficulties have also been brought into focus in another context, in the debates
between writers such as Jane Root and Kathy Myers," who have attempted to
analyse the specific forms of pleasure which are offered to consumers (and
particularly to women) - as against those such as Judith Williamson'? who argue
that the project of attempting to understand popular pleasures continually runs
the risk of ending up as an uncritical perspective which simply endorses popular
tastes because they are popular.
In a similar vein to Williamson, Tania Modleski has also recently argued that
we face a danger of "collusion" between "mass culture critics" and "consumer
society." Modleski's argument is that
the insight that audiences are not completely manipulated, but may
appropriate mass cultural artefacts for their own purposes, has been carried so
far that it would seem that mass culture is no longer a problem for some
"marxist" critics .... If the problem with some of the work of the Frankfurt
School was that its members were too far outside the culture they examined,
critics today seem to have the opposite problem: immersed in their culture,
half in love with their subject, they sometimes seem unable to achieve the
proper critical distance from it. As a result, they may unwittingly wind up
writing apologies for mass culture and embracing its ideology."
Modleski claims that the stress on the "active" role of the audience/consumer has
been carried too far. However, she is also concerned that the very activity of
studying audiences may somehow tum out to be a form of "collaborating with the
(mass culture) industry." More fundamentally, she quotes, with approval, Terry
Eagleton's comments to the effect that a socialist criticism "is not primarily
concerned with the consumers' revolution. Its task is to take over the means of
production. "39
It seems that, from Modleski's point of view, empirical methods for the study
of audiences arc assumed to be "tainted" simply because many of them have been
and are used within the realms of commercial market research. Moreover, in her
use of Eagleton's quote, she finally has recourse to a traditional mode of classical
Marxist analysis, the weakness of which is precisely its "blindspot" in relation to
issues of consumption - and, indeed, its tendency to prioritize the study of
"production" to the exclusion of the study of all other levels of the social
formation . The problem is that production is only brought to fruition in the
spheres of circulation and exchange - to that extent, the study of consumption is,
I would argue, essential to a full understanding of production.
I want to argue that the critical (or "political") judgment which we might wish
to make on the popularity of Dallas or any other commercial product is a quite
29
David Morley
different matter from the need to understand its popularity. The functioning of
taste, and indeed of ideology, has to be understood as a process in which the
commercial world succeeds in producing objects, programs (and consumer
goods) , which do connect with the lived desires of popular audiences. To fail to
understand exactly how this works is, in my own view, not only academically
retrograde but also politically suicidal. As Terry Lovell has argued, goods which
are produced for profit can only, in fact, acquire an exchange value if they also
have a use value to those who consume them. As Lovell puts it:
the commodities in question - films, books, television programs, etc . - have

different use values for the individuals who purchase them than they have for
the capitalists who produce and sell them, and in tum, for capitalism as a
whole. We may assume that people do not purchase these cultural artefacts in
order to expose themselves to bourgeois ideology . .. but to satisfy a variety
of different wants, which can only be guessed at in the absence of analysis and
investigation. There is no guarantee that the use value of the cultural object for
its purchaser will even be compatible with its utility to capitalism as bourgeois
ideology, and therefore no guarantee that it will in fact secure "the ideological
effect. "40
Popular forms: soap opera and American culture

I want now to move on, within this general framework, to look in a little more
detail at two particular areas of work on the question of the "fit" between
particular types (or genres) of programming and particular types of audiences.
These two areas are, first, the study of soap opera in relation to a feminine
audience and, second, the study of "American culture," American fictional
programming (and Dallas as a particular instance), in relation to non-American
audiences.
In relation to the study of soap opera, the body of work developed by writers
such as Tania Modleski , Dorothy Hobson, len Ang, Charlotte Brunsdon, Janice
Radway, Ellen Seiter et al., and Ann Gray is now extensive and I shall not comm-
ent here in detail on it." However, I would argue that what is most interesting
about it is precisely the concern to understand how and why it is that this specific
variety of programming is found to be particularly pleasurable by women.
Whether one locates that pleasure in the homology between the narrative style of
the programming and the constantly interrupted and cyclical nature of many
women's domestic work-time, or whether one locates the issue centrally around
the "fit" between particular feminine forms of social and cultural competence and
the particular focus of these texts on the complexities of human relations, the
mode of inquiry is, to my mind, exemplary in so far as it takes seriously, and is
concerned to investigate in detail, the specific types of pleasures which this
particular type of programming offers to a distinct category of viewers.
30
len Ang draws on Pierre Bourdieu's notion that popular pleasures are
characterized by an immed iate emotional or sensual involvement in the object of
pleasure (i.e. the possibility of identification) so that popular pleasure is first and
foremost a pleasure of recognition." As Ang says, the question is what do Dallas
lovers recognize in Dallas, and how and why does that pleasure work? Clearly,
one part of that identification, for a feminine audience, must be the way in which
soap operas do give expression to the contradictions of patriarchy. Thus, even if
the women within these narratives cannot resolve their problems, given the
structure in which they operate, minimally these are programs in which those
problems are recognized and validated. However, these forms of identification
themselves are clearly variable. Some soap operas clearly work on a level of
empirical realism, in so far as the characters within them are presented as living
in situations comparable to those of significant numbers of their audiences
(Brookside in the UK). In other cases, like Dallas, as Ang argues, the realism
need not be of an empirical kind. The stories can be recognized as realistic at an
emotional level, rather than at a literal or denotative level. As Ang puts it "what
is recognized as real is not knowledge of the world, but is subjective experience
of the world: a 'structure of feeling.'?" As she suggests, it would seem to be this
" tragic structure of feeling" in soap opera which , for many women, is what is
recognized and is that with which they can identify.
However, Dallas can also provide us with a useful bridge to the second theme
noted above. This is to focus on Dallas not so much as a soap opera but as "yet
more evidence of the threat posed by American style commercial culture against
'authentic' national cultures and identities . . . i.e. Dallas as the symbol of
American cultural imperialism.?" Here the issue becomes not so much one of
gend er but one of how Dallas "works" for non-American audiences, i.e. how and
why it can be pleasurable for a whole range of audiences outside of America and
indeed, outside of the First World. In this context the most important work is that
which has been conducted by Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebcs on international
readings of Dallas." Their project was designed to investigate how it is that US
commercial culture can be so popular throughout the world - how it is that such
a variety of international audiences can attend to it and indeed seem enthusiastic
about it. In short, the issue is, what is it about Dallas that is compatible with the
lives of its variously cultured viewers? How is this compatibility expressed? Or,
negatively, when and where does the program not work? One of the key issues
which Katz and Liebes have been concerned to investigate is the way in which
certain levels of the program might be expected to be universally understood (for
instance the universality of family conflict) whereas decodings of other levels of
the program might be expected to vary by social category of viewer, either in
terms of nationality, ethnicity, class, or sex. The broad framework within which
this project was initially conceived has allowed questions to be asked such as
whether the "meaning" of the program is to be found in the genre, in the
interactions of the characters, in the moral issues as embodied in these characters,
31
David Morley
or in the narrative form. As Tamar Liebes herself has written, this research
project has not been aimed at "attempting to demonstrate effect, but rather . . . to
investigate those processes that are prerequisite to any possible effect, namely,
understanding, interpretation and evaluation .. . i.e. to address the question of
how American films and television programs can cross cultural and linguistic
frontiers. "46
Their research has thrown up a number of examples of how community
members from a variety of ethnic origins negotiate the meanings of the program
by confronting the text with their own traditions and their own experience.
Moreover, this research has illustrated the important function which programs of
this type can serve for viewers in providing them with an "occasion" or forum in
which to debate issues of concern to them. As Katz and Liebes have shown, this
is not a process which simply goes on in a reflective manner, after the event of
program transmission - rather the viewing process itself is likely to include
ongoing comment, and indeed debate along these lines. Of further, substantial,
interest is the material which the research has produced, not simply in terms of
differential interpretations or evaluations of this or that program item, but in
relation to the different "angles of vision" (for instance, the distinction between
poetic and referential readings) which different groups bring to the program."
In the British context, where the very phrase "wall to wall Dallas" has come
to represent the notion of television at its very (and quintessentially American)
worst, this kind of precise investigation of the specific meaning of the program in
different contexts is to be particularly welcomed. What I want to briefly explore
now is a further set of issues, within this debate, about the way in which "glossy"
American series are held to have "invaded" European culture.
I want to try to relate the argument about cultural imperialism back to the
issues raised earl ier concerning popular taste, but now from a different
perspective. The idea that English or European "high culture" is in danger of
being swamped by a relentless deluge of"Americana" is not new. In the British
context Dick Hebdige traces these fears back to at least the 1930s, when writers
as different as the conservative Evelyn Waugh and the socialist George Orwell
were united by a fascinated loathing for modem architecture, holiday camps,
advertising, fast food, plastics, and, of course, chewing gum." To both Waugh
and Orwell, these were the images of the "soft," enervating, "easy life" which
threatened to smother British cultural identity. By the 1950s, the battle lines in
this debate were drawn - real working-class culture, quality, and taste on one
side ; the ersatz blandishment of soft disposable commodities, streamlined cars,
rock and roll, crime and promiscuity on the other. As Hebdige says, when
anything American was sighted, it tended to be interpreted - at least by those
working in the context of education or professional cultural criticism - as the
"beginning of the end." Hebdige describes how the images of crime, disaffected
youth, urban crisis, and spiritual drift became "anchored together around popular
American commodities, fixing a chain of associations which has become tho-
roughly sedimented in British common-sense."49 Thus, in particular, American
32
food becamea standard metaphor for declining standards. The very notionof the
Americanization of television came to stand for a series of associations:
commercialization, banality, and the destruction of traditional values.
The debate which Hebdige opens up here goes back centrally to Richard
Hoggart's work on The Uses of Literacy." Hoggart's book is a detailed
appreciation of traditional working-class community life,coupledwitha critique
of the "homogenizing" impact of American culture on these communities.
According to Hoggart, authentic working-class life was being destroyed by the
"hollow brightness," the "shiny barbarism," and "spiritual decay" of imported
American culture.This lamentation on the deleterious effectsof Americanization
was, and continues to be, advanced from the leftjust as muchas from the rightof
the political spectrum. However, Hebdige's central point is that these American
products - streamlined, plastic, and glamorous - were precisely those which
appealed to substantial sections of a British working-class audience (and, in
television terms, were related to the same dynamics of popular taste which lay
behind the mass desertion of the working-class audience toward commercial
television when it beganto be broadcastin the UK in the 1950s). While,from the
paternalistic point of view of the upholders of "traditional British values," these
American imported products constituted "a chromium hoard bearing down on
us," for a popular audience, Hebdige argues, they constituted a space in which
oppositional meanings (in relation to dominant traditions of Britishculture)could
be negotiated and expressed.
I would note a number of connections in this respect. First, the point which
Hebdige develops about the appealof American culture to disadvantaged groups
within another society is paralleled by len Ang's findings concerning the nature
of the pleasures offered by American-style commercial programming to
working-class audiences in Holland." Second, the work which Tim Blanchard
has done in Britain, analysing the differential preferences of various categoriesof
teenagers for different typesof television programs, adds some further support to
the argument." He identified a pattern among the young people he interviewed
in which black English teenagers had a particularly high regard for American
programming; this is by no means simply to do with the fact that there are more
blackcharactersin American shows, but is closelyrelatedto Hebdige's argument
about the subversiveappealsof certaintypesof "vulgar" commercial products for
subordinated groups.
In concluding this section, I would also like to add one moretwist to the story.
The images which Orwelland Hoggart use to characterize the damaging effects
of American popular culture have a recurring theme: the "feminization" of the
authentic muscle and masculinity of the British industrial working class, which
they saw as underattack from an excessof Americana - characterized essentially
by passivity, leisure, and domesticity, warm water baths, sun bathing, and the
"easy life." When thediscussion of American programming is combined with the
discussion of programming in the form of soap opera, principally understood as
a feminine form in itself, we are clearly, from Hoggart's or Orwell's position,
33
David Morley
dealing with the lowest of the low, or as Charlotte Brunsdon has characterized it
"the trashiest trash."s3 Audience research which can help us begin to unpick the
threads which lie tangled behind this particular conundrum would seem to be of
particular value.
Television and everyday life: the context of viewing

One of the most important advances in recent audience work has been the
growing recognition of the importance of the context of viewing. In the case of
television this is a recognition of the domestic context Of necessity, once one
recognizes the domestic, one moves rapidly toward questions of gender, given
the significance of gender in contemporary modes of domestic organization. I
will return to this point, but for the moment, let us begin by noting, with len Ang
that
an audience does not merely consist of the aggregate of viewers of a specific
program , it should also be conceived of as engaging in the practice of
watching television as such .. . so decodings must be seen as embedded in a
general practice of television viewing.>
In this connection , Thomas Lindlof and Paul Traudt have argued that
much TV audience research has concentrated on questions of why to the
exclusion of what and how. Scholars have attempted to describe the causes
and consequences of television viewing without an adequate understanding of
what it is and how it gets done.
As they argue, "in order for many of the central theoretical and policy questions
to be satisfactorily framed, let alone answered, a number of prerequisite questions
concerning what the act of television viewing entails . .. need to be posed and
investigated.?" This is not, by any means, to return to any abstracted notion of
the specificity of the medium of television, or even the specificity of television
viewing as such, as if that itself were an invariable and homogeneous category .
However, it is, first of all, necessary to distinguish television viewing as a
practice from, for instance, cinema viewing, or indeed, from the viewing of
video.
As Larry Grossberg argues,
the very force and impact of any medium changes significantly as it is moved
from one context to another (a bar, a theatre, the living room, the bedroom, the
beach, a rock concert . . .). Each medium is then a mobile term taking shape as
it situates itself . .. within the rest of our lives ... the text is located, not only
intertextually, but in a range of apparatuses as well ... thus, one rarely just
listens to the radio, watches TV, or even, goes to the movies - one is studying,
dating, driving somewhere else, etc."
In Grossberg's version of the argument ,
34
Changing paradigms in audience stud ies
the indifference of the media displaces the problematic of cultural theory from
that of coding ... to that of the apparatus itself .. . television makes this
displacement particularly obvious and disconcerting - in so far as television
viewing constitutes a large temporal part of our lives ... we must note its
integration into the mundanities of everyday life, and simultaneously, its
constant interruption by, and continuity with our other daily routines."
As Grossberg points out,
one rarely intentlygazes at television, allowing oneselfto be absorbed into the
work, but rather distractedly glances at it or absorbs it into our momentary
mood or position . .. television is indifferent to us (it doesn't demand our
presence,yet it is always waiting for us).
Thus, as he argues, we need to face up to the consequences of the fact that
viewersrarelypay attention in the waythatsponsors (or advertisers) want,and
there is little relation between the television's being on, and either the
presence of bodies in front of it, or even a limited concentration or
interpretative activity being invested in it.58
Hermann Bausinger approaches the problem of the domestic context of viewing
from a similarangle," and quotesthe following remark madeby an interviewee:
"Early in the eveningwe watch very littleTV. Only when my husband is in a real
rage. Hecomes home, hardly saysanything and switches on theTV." 60 Bausinger
notes that many media analysts wouldinterpret this man's actionas signifying a
desire to watch TV. However, as Bausinger goes on, in this case "pushing the
button doesn't signify 'I would like to watch this,' but rather 'I would like to see
and hear nothing."'61 Conversely, he notes, later, the opposite case where "the
father goes to his room, while the mother sits down next to her eldest son and
watchesthe sportsreview with him. It does not interesther, but it is an attemptat
makingcontact.T?
By way of a protocol, Bausinger also helpfully provides us with a number of
points to bear in mind in relation to domestic mediaconsumption:
1 To make a meaningful study of the use of the media, it is necessary to take

different media into consideration, the media ensemble which everyone
deals with today- the recipientintegrates the contentof different media.
2 As a rule the media are not used completely, nor with full concentration -
the degreeof attention dependson the time of the day, or moods, the media
message competes withother messages.
3 The media are an integral part of the way the everyday is conducted (for
example, the newspaper as a necessary constituent part of "breakfast")and
(media) decisions are constantly crossed through and influenced by
non-media conditions and decisions.
4 It is not a question of an isolated, individual process, but of a collective
35
David Morley
process. Even when reading a newspaper one is not truly alone, it takes
place in the context of the family, friends.
5 Media communication cannot be separated from direct personal
communication. Media contacts are materials for conversation."
In a similar way, Paddy Scannell has usefully analysed what he calls the
"unobtrusive ways in which broadcasting sustains the lives, and routines, from
one day to the next, year in, year out, of whole populations .?" This is, in effect,
to pay attention to the role of the media in the very structuring of time. Another
oblique connection is worth noting here. The perspective which Scannell
advances is closely related to Bourdieu's insistence on the materiality of the
subject, as a biological organism existing chronologically. This is to emphasize
the study.of the organization of time as a necessary focus for any sociology of
culture. At another level, Scannell's focus is on the role of national broadcasting
media as central agents of national culture, in the organizing of the
"involvement" of the population in the calendar of national life. Similarly, he
analyses the way in which broadcast media constitute a cultural resource "shared
by millions" and the way in which, for instance, long-running popular serials
provide a "past in common" to whole populations . Here we move beyond both
the study of the isolated text, and at the same time beyond any abstract notion of
the study of television as an undifferentiated "flow." Rather than having recourse
to either of these opposite, but equally inadequate positions, we must attend to the
issue of television scheduling and the manner in which, for instance, as Richard
Paterson has argued," the broadcasting institutions construct their schedules in
ways which are designed to complement the basic modes of domestic
organization, but also, inevitably, then come to play an active and constitutive
role in the organization of domestic time.
This, then, is to advance a perspective which attempts to combine questions of
interpretation with questions of the "uses" of television (and oilier media), an
approach more commonly associated with a broadly based sociology of leisure.
This perspective relocates television viewing within the overall context of
domestic leisure. Given that television is a domestic medium it follows that the
appropriate mode of analysis must take the unit of consumption of television as
the family or household rather than the individual viewer. This is to situate
individual viewing within the household relations in which it operates, and to
insist that individual viewing activity only makes sense inside of this frame. Here
we begin to open up a whole set of questions about the differences hidden behind
the indiscriminate label of "watching television." It is to begin to consider the
differential modes of viewing engaged in by different types of viewers, in relation
to different types of programs, shown in different slots in the overall schedule, in
relation to different spaces within the organization of domestic life.
Clearly, if we are considering television viewing in the context of the family,
things are pretty complicated. First of all one is not able to treat the individual
viewer as if he or she were a free or rational consumer in a cultural supermarket.
36
Changing parad igms in audience studies
For many people (and especially for the less powerful members of any
household) the programs they watch are not necessarily programs which they will
have chosen to watch . In the context of the domestic household, viewing choices
must often be negotiated. Moreover, this perspective introduces, as one of its
premises, what Sean Cubitt has called "the politics of the living room ," where, as
he puts it, "if the camera pulls you in to involvement with the screen , the family
is likely to pull you OUt."66 This is also to try to get beyond the way in which
television is often understood - simply as disruptive of family life. It is to look at
the way in which television is also used by people to construct "occasions"
around viewing, in which various types of interaction can be pursued. This is also
to get away from the idea that people either live in social relations or watch
television. Rather one must analyse how viewing is done within the social
relations of the household.
However, a number of points follow from this. As soon as one thinks about
television in the context of social relations then one is inevitably thinking about
television in the context of power relations. If one is considering the domestic
context, then it will inevitably be gender relations, in particular, that will come
into focus, within the household. This is to introduce a whole set of possible
connections and disjunctions between gender relations and the organization of
private and public life - not least, the differential positioning of women and men
within the domesti c space of the household. In short, if, for men, their concept of
time and space is organized around a notion of "worktime" and the "public" -
from which the domestic is a respite, for most women (even those who do work
outside the household) the fundamental principles of organization operate in a
different way . For them , the domestic is not understood as a sphere of leisure, but
rather as a sphere in which a further set of (domestic) obligations take
precedence, which complicate and interrupt any desires they may have to watch
television. Dorothy Hobson's work on the complicated modalities of women's
viewing has explored some of these issues," though again it is worth noting the
way in which it is women 's viewing which becomes the "marked" category, and
the " problem" for analysis - as opposed to the "unmarked" (i.e. masculine) mode
of viewing, which constitutes the taken for granted norm of the activity.
In this connection, it is also important to take note of James Lull's work on TV
viewing in the domestic context. One of the issues which Lull investigates is the
question of "who is responsible for the selection of television programs at home,
how program selection processes occur, and how the roles of family position and
family communication patterns influence these activities.?" Lull's point is that
program selection decisions are often complicated interpersonal communications
activities involving inter-family status relations, temporal context, the number of
sets available, and role-based communications conventions. Here we approach
the central question of power. And within any patriarchal society the power at
issue will necessarily be that of the father. This perspective involves us in
considering the ways in which familial relations, like any other social relations,
are also and inevitably power relations. Lull's central finding in his survey of
37
David Morley
control of the television set was that fathers were named (not surprisingly) most
often as the person who controlled the selection of television programs .
In essence, as Lull puts it, "the locus of control in the program selection
process can be explained primarily by family position."69 Thus, to consider the
ways in which viewing is performed within the social relations of the family is
also, inevitably, to consider the ways in which viewing is performed within the
context of power relations and the differential power afforded to members of the
family primarily in terms of gender and age.
In making these points about the structure of the domestic viewing context,
there is a certain sense of simply restating things which we "already know," from
our own experience of domestic life. This very insistence on the importance of
these banal considerations is made difficult by their "taken-for-grantedness" - as
the invisible routines and structures inside of which our lives are organized. In
Britain, the results of a study conducted during 1985 by Peter Collett, in which a
video camera was placed inside the television sets of a number of different
households, thus providing film of families watching television, had notable
effects in getting these considerations on to the agenda of public discussion." No
one who saw the tapes could really have claimed to have been surprised by what
they saw - pictures of people sitting in a room with their back to the television,
pictures of empty sofas in front of the screen, pictures of people dressing their
children, eating meals, and arguing with each other while seemingly oblivious to
the set, etc. However, it seemed that it was only at the point at which this kind of
videotape "evidence" of these everyday situations was made available, in the
context of respectable scientific research within a framework of behavioral
psychology, that it was possible, certainly for the broadcasters, to begin to take
these questions at all seriously.
In making these points about the complex nature of the domestic setting in
which television is viewed by its audience , I am not arguing for any kind of "new
optimism" which would allow us to rest content in the secure understanding that
because so many other things are going on at the same time, nobody pays any
attention to television and therefore we shouldn't worry about it. Rather, I am
trying to move the baseline, against which we precisely should then be concerned
to examine the modes and varieties of attention which are paid to different types
of programs, at different points in the day by different types of viewers. It is
precisely in the context of all these domestic complications that the activity of
television viewing must be seriously examined .
Old perspectives for new

Centrally, I have been trying to argue that the most useful work which has been
conducted within audience studies in the last few years is that which has taken on
board the questions raised about the flow of television, the positioning of the
subject, the contextual determinations operating on different types of viewing of
different media, alongside a close attention to the varieties of patterns of taste,
38
response , and interpretation on the part of specific members of the audience. Here
I would specifically like to support the arguments made by Elihu Katz and Tamar
Liebes when they note that they are
in disagreement with others who believe that the unit of television viewing is
better conceptualized as background, or as "a strip" that cuts through an
evening's viewing, or as a pervasive barrage of messages about society that is
embedded in all of prime time. Our argument is simply ... that certain
programs - some more than others - are identified by viewers as discrete
stories and, as such, viewing entails attention, interpretation, evaluation and
perhaps social and psychological consequences."
It is this kind of close attention to, for instance, the varieties of subject positioning
which, I would argue, we need to pursue. Without this kind of detailed empirical
attention to what actually happens in particular situations, we run the danger of
lapsing into the kind of structuralist perspective which in Peter Dahlgren's words,
incorporates a view of meaning and consciousness ... and the unconscious
... where the subject is essentially dominated by the object .. . [and] the
cultural text is reduced to an abstract grammar, with meaning residing wholly
in its confines. The negotiation of meaning and the historicity of
consciousness is denied."?
As Dahlgren continues,
in the heady wake of the structural reading of Freud it seems that the only
alternative to the infamous transcendental subject has been a view which
understands the subject not only as decentred by, but also created by, the
grammatical structures of the unconscious . The unconscious becomes an
abstract drive shaft of history, while the individual subject is emptied of any
conscious intentionality .73
Similarly, I would want to argue that the varieties of postmodern relativism in
which the text is seen as infinitely "iterable" or writable, according to the whim
of the subject, are equally unhelpful, if for the opposite reason. The demon-
stration that theoretically "anything goes," in terms of the potential polysemy of
any text, is very different from the demonstration that empirically "just anything"
happens when it comes to the actual reading of television texts. Such an approach
not only abandons any notion (however attenuated) of the effectivity of the text.
It also flies in the face of the empirical evidence we have of the way in which
attention, modes of viewing, response, and interpretation are pauerned in
observable empirical clusters as between different sectors of the audience.
Peter Dahlgren has advanced what, in my view, is a very useful definition of
a perspective which he describes as a concern with the "social ecology" of
viewing. He attempts to combine this perspective with a concern for what he also
describes as the different "epistemic bias" of different media (in so far as each
medium fosters a somewhat different dispositional relationship between itself
39
David Morley
and its audiences) and indeed, a concern with the differential "epistemic biases"
of particular types of television material. In a similar vein, Robert Deming has
advanced an analysis of the ways in which specific channels offer particular
positionalities to their viewers," and Ellsworth remarks on the way in which
MTV (the American all-music cable channel)
offers student-age viewers a place to stand in relation to other individual
groups in the culture ... a social identity . .. that positions the inscribed
viewer as a middle-class consumer of rock music with enough money to
purchase record albums, concert tikets, fan magazines and rock influenced
fashion, while excluding and evaluating those who are female, ethnic ,
working-class,"
Thus , as Deming argues,
the position "I" assume, when called by Dynasty is different from but related
to the position I assume when called by Dallas ... I am called to assume a
position vis-a-vis those two texts, but not all that I am is so called, only that
which is appropriate . .. I bring with me, as a Real Social Subject, all my
genre-, program-, and culture-specific competence but, again, only [what] is
appropriate to the subject-text position."
It is this level of differentiation of subject positions in relation to different types
of material which, it seems to me, is important for us to explore.
In short, this is to examine the material varieties of the positioning of the
subject, not in some l.1anshistorical or universalistic mode, but from a perspective
which would also properly involve very material questions about the physical
organization and inhabitation of the domestic space within which television is
ordinarily viewed."
The object of study, from this perspective, then focuses on systems of cultural
behavior and is necessarily concerned with the organization of diversity." Here
one can most usefully look for guidance to that body of work in socio-linguistics
which has been concerned with the study of communicative acts, in particular
socio-cultural contexts . My own argument is that the study of viewing will most
effectively be pursued along these same lines.
To make these points is to argue, ultimately, for the return of the somewhat
discredited discipline of sociology to a central place in the understanding of
communication. In this connection, I shall close by quoting from Richard Nice
who, some years ago, in a commentary on the significance of Pierre Bourdieu's
work, argued that
those who seek to expel sociology . .. in favor of a strictly internal analysis of
what happens on the screen, or how the viewing subject is articulated, can only
do so on the basis of an implicit sociology which, in so far as it ignores the soc-
ial realities of the differential distribution of cultural competences and values,
is an erroneous sociology, the more insidious for being unrecognized."
40
Notes
1 Jane Root, Open the Box (London: Comedia, 1986).
2 James Halloran (ed.) The Effects ofTelevision (London: Panther Books, 1970).
3 Stuart Hall, "Encoding/Decoding,' in Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew
Lowe, and Paul Willis (eds) Culture , Media, Language (London: Hutchinson,
1980), pp. 128-38.
4 Basil Bernstein, Class , Codes and Control, 3 vols (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1973).
5 Frank Parkin, Class Inequality and Political Order (London: Paladin Books,
1973).
6 See, for example, Dell Hymes, "On Communicative Competence," in lB. Pride
and 1. Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), pp.
269-93; Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984);
Bernstein, Class.
7 See, for example, Justin Wren-Lewis, "The Encoding-Decoding Model: Criticisms
and Redevelopments for Research on Decoding," Media, Culture, and Society 5
(1983): 179-97.
8 Stuart Hall, "Some Problems with the Ideology/Subject Couplet," Ideology and
Consciousness 3 (1978): 118.
9 Stuart Hall, "Recent Developments in Theories of Language and Ideology," in
Hall et al ., Culture, Media, Language, pp. 157-62.
10 Paul Willemen, "Notes on Subjectivity," Screen 19, no. 1 (1978): 41-69; Steve
Neale, "Propaganda," Screen 18, no. 3 (1977) : 9-40.
11 Neale, "Propaganda," p. 39.
12 Michel Pecheux, Language, Semantics and Ideology (London: Macmillan, 1982).
13 Valerie Walkerdine, "Projecting Fantasies : Families Watching Films"
(unpublished paper, University of London, 1986).
14 ibid.
15 Nick Browne, 'The Political Economy of the TV (Super) Text" (paper presented
at the International Television Studies Conference (ITSC), London, 1986).
16 Larry Grossberg , 'The In-Difference of Television," Screen 28, no. 2 (1987): 33.
17 Tony Bennett, "Text and Social Process: The Case of James Bond," Screen
Education 41 (1982) : 3-14. See also Tony Bennett and Janet Woollacott, Bond
and Beyond: The Political Career of a Popular Hero (London: Macmillan, 1987).
18 Pierre Macherey, A Theory ofLiterary Production (London : Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1978). See also "An Interview with Pierre Macherey,' Red Letters 5 (1977):
3-9.
19 Roland Barthes, Image-Music-Text (London: Fontana, 1977).
20 John Fiske, "TV and Popular Culture" (paper presented at Iowa Symposium on
Television Criticism, 1985).
21 Jane Feuer, "Dynasty" (paper presented at ITSC, London, 1986).
22 ibid.
23 See David Morley, The "Nationwide" Audience: Structure and Decoding
(London : British Film Institute, 1980), and David Morley, Family Television :
Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure (London: Comedia, 1986).
24 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1961, p. 40).
25 Tania Modleski, "The Search for Tomorrow in Today's Soap Operas," in her
Loving with a Vengeance : Mass-Produced Fantasies for Women (Hamden, Conn.:
Archon, 1982), pp. 85-109.
26 len Ang, "Wanted: Audiences: On the Politics of Empirical Audience Studies,"
Chapter five of this volume; Paul Willis is quoted in Ang's essay.
41
David Morley
27 Andrew Buchanan, quoted in Philip Corrigan, "Film Entertainment as Ideology

and Pleasure" (unpublished paper, University of London, 1984).
28 Grossberg, "The In-Difference," p. 32.
29 John Ellis, Visible Fictions: Cinema, Television, Video (London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1982), p. 162.
30 len Ang, 'The Battle Between Television and Its Audiences," in Phillip
Drummond and Richard Paterson (eds) Television in Transition (London: British
Film Institute, 1986), p. 256.
31 ibid., p. 257.
32 Janice Radway, quoted in Robert C. Allen, Speaking ofSoap Operas (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1985), p. 185.
33 Bourdieu, Distinction.
34 Ian Connell, "In Defence of the Tyranny of Popular Taste" (paper presented at the
ITSC, London, 1984).
35 Nicholas Garnham, "Public Service Versus the Market," Screen 24, no. 1 (1983):
6-27.
36 Root, Open the Box; Kathy Myers, Understains: The Sense and Seduction of
Advertising (London: Comedia, 1985).
37 Judith Williamson, "The Problems of Being Popular," New Socialist (September
1986): 14-15.
38 Tania Modleski, "Introduction," Tania Modleski (ed.) Studies in Entertainment
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), p. xi.
39 Eagleton, quoted in Modleski, "Introduction," p. xii.
40 Terry Lovell, Pictures ofReality: Aesthetics, Politics and Pleasure (London:
British Film Institute, 1981), p. 60.
41 Modleski, Studies; Dorothy Hobson, "Crossroads" (London: Methuen, 1982);
Charlotte Brunsdon, "Notes on Soap Opera," in E. Ann Kaplan, (ed.) Regarding
Television - Critical Approaches:An Anthology, American Film Institute
Monograph Series, vol. 2 (Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America,
1983), pp. 76-83; Janice Radway, Reading the Romance (Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1984); Ellen Seiter, 'The Role of the Woman
Reader" (paper presented at the Cinema Studies Conference, 1981); Ann Gray,
"Women and Video" (paper presented at the ITSC, London, 1986).
42 len Ang, Watching "Dallas" (London: Methuen, 1985).
43 ibid., p. 45.
44 ibid., p. 46.
45 See, for example, Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes, "Mutual Aid in the Decoding of
Dallas: Preliminary Notes from a Cross-Cultural Study," in Drummond and
Paterson (eds) Television in Transition, pp. 187-98.
46 Tamar Liebes, "Ethnocriticism: Israelis of Moroccan Ethnicity Negotiate the
Meaning of Dallas," Studies in Visual Communication 10, no. 3 (1984): 46.
47 In this connection, see also John Comer and Kay Richardson, "Reading
Reception" (paper presented at the ITSC, London, 1986).
48 Dick Hebdige, "Towards a Cartography of Taste 1935-1962," in his Hiding in the
Light (London: Comedia, 1987).
49 ibid.
50 Richard Hoggart, The Uses ofLiteracy (London: Penguin, 1957).
51 len Ang, 'The Vicissitudes of Progressive Television," New Formations 2
(summer 1987): 91-106.
52 Tim Blanchard, unpublished thesis, Institute of Education, London, 1986.
53 Charlotte Brunsdon, "Women Watching TV" (paper presented at the Women and
the Electronic Mass Media Conference, Copenhagen, 1986).
42
54 len Ang, "The Battle Between Television and Its Audiences," in Drummond and
Paterson (eds) Television in Transition, p. 252.
55 Thomas Lindlof and Paul Traudt, " Mediated Communication in Families," in
Mary S. Mander (ed.) Communications in Transition : Issues and Debates in
Current Research (New York: Praeger, 1983), pp. 261-62.
56 Grossberg, ''The In-Difference," pp. 34-5.
57 ibid.
58 ibid.
59 Hermann Bausinger, "Media, Technology and Daily Life," Media, Culture,
Society 6 (1984): 343-51. .
60 ibid., p. 344.
61 ibid.
62 ibid., p. 349 .
63 ibid., pp. 349-50.
64 Paddy Scannell, "Radio Times" (paper presented at the ITSC, London, ] 986).
65 Richard Paterson , "Planning the Family: The Art of the Television Schedule,"
Screen Education 35 (1980): 79-85.
66 Sean Cubitt, ''Top of the Pops," in Len Masterman (ed.) Television Mythologies .
Stars, Shows , and Signs (London: Comedia, 1984), p. 48.
67 Hobson, "Crossroads."
68 James Lull, "How Families Select Television Programs," Journal ofBroadcasting
26, no. 4 (1982): 801.
69 ibid., p. 809; see also James Lull, "The Social Uses of Television," Human
Communication Research 6, no. 3 (1980): 197-209 .
70 Peter Collett and Roger Lamb. "Watching Families Watching TV" (report to
Independent Broadcasting Authority, 1986).
71 Katz and Liebes, "Mutual Aid," p. 198, note 1.
72 Peter Dahlgren, "The Modes of Reception: For a Hermeneutics of TV News," in
Drummond and Paterson (eds) Television in Transition, p. 240.
73 ibid., p. 247 .
74 Robert H. Deming, "The Television Spectator-Subject," Journal of Film and
Video 38 (summer 1985): 48-63.
75 Elizabeth Ellsworth. "Critical Media Analysis. Radical Pedagogy and MTV"
(unpublished paper, quoted in R. H. Deming, "Television's Inscribed Spectator"
(Fredonia College. unpublished paper)) .
76 Deming, ''The Television Spectator-Subject," pp. 54-6 .
77 See, for example , Patricia Palmer's comments on the physical distance from the
screen taken up by children in relation to favorite or less favorite programs, in her
paper "The Social Nature of Children's TV Viewing" (presented at the ITSC,
London , 1986). See also David Morley and Roger Silverstone. "Domestic
Communications: Technologies and Meanings" (paper presented at the ITSC,
London, 1988).
78 See Dell Hymes, "On Communicative Competence," in Pride and Holmes (eds)
Sociolinguistics, pp. 269-94.
79 Richard Nice, "Bourdieu: A 'Vulgar Materialist' in the Sociology of Culture,"
Screen Education 28 (1978) : 24.
43
Chapter two
Bursting bubbles:
"Soap Opera," audiences, and the limits of genre
Robert C. Allen
The shop seemed to befull of all manner of curious things - but the oddest part
of it all was that, whenever she looked hard at any shelf, to make out exactly
what it had on it, that particular shelf was always quite empty, though the
others round it were crowded as full as they could hold.
"Things flow about so here!" she said at last in a plaintive tone, after she had
spent a minute or so in vainly pursuing a large bright thing, that looked
sometimes like a doll and sometimes like a work-box, and was always on the
shelf next above the one she was looking at. "And this one is the most
provoking of all - but I'll tell you what - " she added, as a sudden thought
struck her. "I'll follow it up to the very top shelf of all. It'll puzzle it to go
through the ceiling, I expect!"
But even this plan failed: the "thing" went through the ceiling as quietly as
possible, as if it were quite used to it.
Lewis Carroll
Through the Looking-Glass!
Genre is so basic to our notions of what literature is that, as Terence Hawkes has
put it, "a world without a theory of genre is unthinkable, and untrue to
experience.'? For most of its 2,000 years, genre study has been primarily
nominological and typological in function. That is to say, it has taken as its
principal task the division of the world of literature into types and the naming of
those types - much as the botanist divides the realm of flora into varieties of
plants .
When eighteenth- and nineteenth-century European biologists went out to
arrange all living things into types and sub-types, they did so secure in the belief
that their perception of similarity and difference corresponded to the way the
world really was. They were merely the recorders - certainly not the creators - of
ontological distinctions in the living world. Similarly, genre theorists have until
fairly recently presumed that their classification of the world of literature was
also based on features objectively and indisputably existing in the text itself.
Today, although the empiricism of much of modem science protects the
biolog ist from self-doubt, the literary theorist finds it increasingly difficult to
44
Bursting bubbles
hold to the notion that a literary genre is a "thing" or that genre study is merely
the disinterested mapping of the literary world. Genre describes not so much a
group of texts or textual features as it does a dynamic relationship between texts
and interpretative communities. To assign a name to a group of texts- fantasy,
romance, western - is to appropriate a linguistic signifier for use within a
particular discursive system. The appropriation of the same signifier by groups
occupying vastly different positions within society implies that individuals
withina culturesharea common language, but not necessarily that theyshare the
same discourses and hence the same meanings. Reframing genre as a
classificatory discursive strategy allows us to reconnect perceived patterns of
textual structure and reader expectation with the groups in society for whom
those patternsare meaningful. It also helps to reconnect the uses of language by
particulargroups with their goals and aspirations.
My purposein this chapteris to suggestthat far from naming a static groupof
texts and thereby defining theirnatureand meaning, the term"soap opera" much
more problematically describes several different sets of discursive relationships
between a variety of perceived textual features and at least three different types
of interpretative communities: what I will call the industrial, critical,and viewer
communities. In other words, "soap opera" is appropriated within at least three
different discursive systems. Further complicating matters is that fact that
whatever it is to whom, the soap opera is a transnational and transcultural
phenomenon, so that for each of these three types of interpretative communities
and corresponding discursive systems there are distinctive instances for each
national culture. Finally, each country's experience with the range of texts to
which the term "soap opera" has been applied is different. It is a bit like
ornithologists, taxidermists, and bird watchers from a dozen different countries
all talking about birds, but in one country there are only eagles; in another
pigeonsand chickens but no eagles; in anothermacaws and pigeonsbut no eagles
or chickens; and so on.
I want to concentrate on the useof the term"soap opera" within contemporary
critical discourse,' since as scholars we are the interpretative community with the
greatest responsibility to be self-conscious and self-critical about our use of
language. Also because media criticism seems to be moving away from a
text-oriented notion of critical practice and toward an audience- or
viewer-oriented one, the relationship between genre and audienceemergesas all
the moreimportant in contemporary mediastudies. The appropriation of the term
"soap opera" within contemporary critical discourse occurred at a particular
historical moment, and within the context of larger and somewhat differing
criticaland political projects. By examining thishistory andrecontextualizing the
use of the term "soap opera," I hope to suggest some of the reasons why "soap
opera" has beenconstructed as it has as a figurein thediscourse of contemporary
media criticism. At the very least I wish to make a case for the obvious: that we
cannot afford to assume an unproblematic relationship between the term "soap
opera" and either its signified or its referent.
45
Robert C. Allen
The practice of discussing contemporary television programming in terms of

genre - at least that practice as I am familiar with it in British, Australian, and
American media studies - developed as much out of cinema studies as literary
studies. Genre analysis was a logical adjunct to the auteur theory of cinema,
which so influenced Anglo-American cinema studies in the 1960s and early
1970s. Auteurism, in addition to providing the embryonic field of cinema studies
with a mantle of "theory ," quite literally helped to define the object of cinema
studies by perceiving and naming difference where earlier critics had seen only
sameness, and, conversely, by "uncovering" unity and coherence (within the
corpus bearing the name of an auteur) that had been unseen by those not
predisposed to look for it. As Andrew Sarris put it, auteur critics were able to see
individual trees within the forest of Hollywood cinema.
Given the nature of the Hollywood mode of production, it is not surprising that
early auteur critics found the key works of Howard Hawks, John Ford, Alfred
Hitchcock, and other auteurs to be - in Hollywood argot - formula pictures, or
genre films: combat films, westerns, screwball comedies, suspense films, etc.
Industry, audience, and critical recognition of generic patterns of
characterization, setting, and narrative organization both presented a challenge to
the auteur theory and demonstrated its ultimate validity - at least in the eyes of
Peter Wollen and others. The challenge came from the possibility that the "world
view" of a director such as John Ford might actually emanate more from the
conventions of the western genre than from Ford's manipulation of those
conventions. The "proof' of the validity of the auteur approach came when the
director 's world view could be discerned across genres.
For our purposes, cinema auteurism and genre study are important not only for
providing organizational schema for the study of screen narratives, but also for
foregrounding popular narrative forms (and in some cases critically despised
forms) and making them the object of "serious" scholarly discourse. Although
there would continue to be a critical community for whom the science fiction or
musical film would be critically illegible, by the early 1970s graduate courses at
major universities were being taught on the later westerns of John Ford, the
melodramas of Douglas Sirk, and the horror films of Val Lewton. Furthermore,
the inherent link between commercial Hollywood genres and their mass
popularity over time gave genre criticism a cultural, if not yet sociological, as
well as aesthetic cast.
Genre study in the United States and Great Britain really came into its own as
auteurism waned and the structuralist star rose in the early 1970s. Although some
critics attempted to accommodate auteurism within the framework of
structuralism and semiotics, auteurism's inherent emphasis on the vision
(conscious or unconscious) of the individual artist made this at best an
uncomfortable accommodation. The film genre, on the other hand, could be read
as a sort of unauthored but culturally accepted narrative langue and each genre
film a particular utterance. In Thomas Schatz ' Hollywood Genres. for example,
each genre was seen as embodying a different cultural opposition, the
46
Bursting bubbles
irreconcilability of which necessitated obsessive reworking within each film and

accounted for the genre's popular appeal.'
From its inception, cinematic genre study has been caught in what Andrew
Tudor has called an empiricist dilemma: a genre is defined in terms of features
drawn from ' a set of texts already identified by the analyst as containing the
defining features of the genre. This circularity afflicts genre study in literature as
well, of course, but not so severely. Cinematic genre scholars were intrigued by
the continuing mass popularity of certain types of Hollywood films and were
interested in linking textual markers to audience desire and, presumably, to
audience interpretation. Tudor's own solution to the empiricist dilemma,
articulated in 1970, was to define genre as an interplay between film maker, film,
and audience: genre becomes, in Tudor's words, "what we collectively believe it
to be," and, in tum, what film makers believe we collectively believe it to be.'
Tudor even hints that in order to establish what audiences expect a western to be
like we might have to ask them. However, the textuality of the dominant semiotic
model of film operation, in its ascendance in 1970, combined with a general
anti-positivist suspicion of anything approaching empirical research, militated
against genre analysts taking Tudor's sociological advice to heart. Genre study
survived in film study without having to tackle its central conceptual
contradiction in large measure, I think, because it contributed to a larger project
of discovering useful analytical differences among popular texts and, within
these patterns of difference, complex , coherent systems of signification and
pleasure production.
With the hegemony of Lacanian/Althusserian film theory in the mid-1970s
(sometimes referred to as Screen theory), the project of genre study was
temporarily side-tracked as Hollywood cinema once again was analysed in terms
of similarity rather than difference. The classic realist cinematic text came to be
seen as an awesomely effective machine for subject production and
interpellation, whose mechani sms functioned before and across any generic
distinctions. But just when the trees of popular commercial cinema were in
danger of blending imperceptibly into yet another critical forest, genre study -
this time aligned with feminist challenges to the more rigid versions of 1970s film
theory - once again pointed out the danger of assuming that all popular narratives
operated on all spectators in the same way.
Feminist film scholars looked to genres in which the construction of
masculine/feminine difference allowed for the possibility of more than one
reading and/or in which the film's address seemed to be to a female rather than a
male spectator: the film noir, melodrama, and the musical," The remapping of
cinema studies that resulted from the strong feminist intervention in film
theoretical debates not only pushed previously ignored genres into the center of
film study, it implicitly highlighted the relationships of different groups of
viewers to different types of popular narrative.
It is at this historical moment - that is, the late 1970s and early 1980s - and as
a result , at least in part, of the conjuncture of these and other intellectual forces
47
Robert C. Allen
that the soap opera emerges on the critical agendas of scholars on both sides of
the Atlantic. In the United States especially interest in the soap opera also signals
the increasing fascination of film scholars with television as an object of study. It
is no coincidence that much of the important recent critical work done on
American serial drama is by scholars trained primarily in cinema studies: Sandy
Flitterman-Lewis, Jeremy Butler, Ellen Seiter, Jane Feuer, Patricia Zimmerman,
and Louise Spence, among others. Some of this interest was no doubt stimulated
by the somewhat belated practical recognition that television had long usurped
film's position as the predominant form of popular entertainment in America. But
film scholars were also fascinated by the challenges that the most mundane forms
of television represented to film theoretical orthodoxy. For example, in his
monograph on cinema genres, Stephen Neale maintains that
the coherence of mainstream narrative [a category that would include
Hollywood film genres] derives largely from the way in which disphasure is
contained as a series of oscillations that never exceed the limits of "dramatic
conflict" (that never, therefore, exceed the limits of the possibility of
resolution), and from the way in which such conflict is always, ultimately,
articulated from a single, privileged point of view.'
The soap opera, by this definition at least, would not be a mainstream narra-
tive at all, since it is predicated upon the infinite delay of closure.
Furthermore, as Sandy Flitterman-Lewis argues with particular reference to the
American daytime serial drama, "where in the cinema the reverse-shot structure
works together with the point-of-view system to bind the spectator into a position
of coherence and fictive participation, in television, the effect is just the
opposite."
Interest in the soap opera can also be seen as part of a larger project among
feminist scholars to work out the nature of the relationships obtaining between
female viewers and readers and types of popular narrative primarily designed for
and largely consumed by them. It is here, of course , that Tania Modleski's work
on "feminine" popular narratives, produced first as her doctoral dissertation and
then published in book form in 1982 as Loving with a Vengeance, proved to be
crucial in framing much of the critical discourse on soap operas to follow. For
Modleski, the daytime serial drama represents a narrative form diametrically
opposed to more male-oriented novels and films: a feminine form of narrative
structure, which inscribes its reader as ideal mother, values dialogue over action,
disperses the viewer's attention over huge extended families of characters, and
forever retards ultimate resolution.
In Great Britain, two other trends helped to open up a space for "soap opera"
in critical discourse. The first was a concern over representations of class in
popular media and a reconsideration of scholarship on class and "the popular," as
it had been promulgated by Hoggart, Leavis, Williams, Thompson, Gramsci, and
others. As Richard Dyer makes clear in his introduction to the 1981 BFI
monograph on Coronation Street, this particular "soap opera" allows three
48
Bursting bubbles
distinct but related lines of inquiry to be broughttogether: interrogations of "the

popular:' representations of working-class life, and representations of gender:
The series lays claim to being "about" working-class culture and is also
marked by the presence of strong and positive female characters. It thus
supplies social images that are conspicuous for their rarity on British tele-
vision, and that are necessarily of particularinterestto anyoneworking within
broadly Marxistand/or feminist perspectives, as is the case in this book,"
The secondtrendwasone toward the inclusion of theaudience - and notjust their
subject positionsor textual inscriptions - on the agendaof media studies. In his
1980 monograph on Nationwide , David Morley is concerned "with the ways in
which decoding is determined by the socially governed distribution of cultural
codes between and across different sections of the audience." The text, he goes
on to say, "cannot be considered in isolation from its historical conditions of
production and consumption.'?"
Dorothy Hobson's doctoral dissertation-turned-book, "Crossroads" : The
Dramaof a Soap Opera, considers the production and consumption of whatwas
in 1982 Coronation Street's chief ratings rival. For Hobson Crossroads
represents an opportunity to explore media popularity as a culturalphenomenon
and the curious relationship between that popular appeal and near unanimous
disdain visited upon the program by critics in the popular press. Although she
does not put it in these terms,Hobson recognizes that the term "soap opera" has
beenconstructed within an "other" criticaldiscourse - a discourse thatconditions
the relationships between programs bearing that appellation and both their
producers and viewers. Hobson finds that the contradictory position of whatever
is called a "soap opera" is bound up with its address to and popularity among
women viewers. Thus, despite its status as an advertising vehicle within the
commercial television sector,Hobson finds soap operas to be "progressive" texts
by virtue of their "raising of problems which are seen as relevant to their
[women's] Iives."ll
Finally,critical interestin serial drama in the late 1970s and early 1980s was
prompted by the enormous success of Dallas in the United States in the
mid-1970s and its even more startling popularity elsewhere - first in Britain in
1978 and then in countries around the world. Dallas was framed within critical
discourse as a "soap opera," I suspect,in part becauseit had alreadybeen framed
that way by the popularand industry press in the UnitedStates,but also because
its perceived narrative seriality, prominent female characters, and dramatic
concernwith heterosexual romance, kinship,and family sufficiently relatedit, on
the one hand, to American daytime serials, and, on the other, to British serials
such as Crossroads, for it to be brought under the same generic designation.
Furthermore, as Jane Feuer makes clear in her 1984essayon Dallas and Dynasty,
these texts provided an opportunity to apply psychoanalytic, feminist, and
ideological analyses of Hollywood melodrama to television. Thus, although she
acknowledges important differences betweendaytime and prime timeserials,she
49
Robert C. Allen
chooses to set them aside ("For the purposes of this article") in order to examine
the relationship between melodrama and the serial form. She coins the term
"television melodrama" to describe a genre that includes daytime serials, Dallas
and Dynasty, and serial cop and medical shows (Hill Street Blues and St.
Elsewhere).J2
The transnational popularity of Dallas raised a collateral but distinct set of
critical and cultural issues that had not arisen with respect to "other" "soap
operas": the "Americanness" of Dallas and its representation of entrepreneurial
capitalism, wealth, and region; the show's interpenetration of the realms of
business, politics, sexuality, and family; the continuing cultural invasion of other
countries by American popular media; and simply accounting for the mass
popularity of Dallas among viewers around the world.
The five years since the publication of Hobson's book - the first British book
that I am aware of that uses soap opera in its title - have seen the publication of
many more books and articles about something called but seldom explicitly
defined as "soap operas," with still more research, books, and articles in progress.
Some of the works have examined particular programs (Ien Ang's Watching
"Dallas" and John Tulloch and Albert Moran's "A Country Practice": 'Quality
Soap,' to name the two most notable examples); others have considered a range
of texts. All have invoked the term "soap opera" to frame their enterprises.
To this point in the history of the appropriation of the term "soap opera" in
contemporary critical discourse, I would argue, it has not been particularly
important to specify with great precision and in each case the relationships
marked out by that term between programs and analysts, programs and
institutions, programs and other modes of critical discourse, and programs and
audience groups - any more than it was seen as necessary by feminist theorists a
few years ago to specify the limits of the film noir or the melodrama. What was
for them important and has been for the analysts of soap opera is the function of
a particular generic designation to mark analytically productive difference.
However vaguely defined and however related to particular programs, the term
"soap opera" has provided a convenient and useful framework within which to
examine programs whose narrative structure would seem to be fundamentally at
odds with that of the classic realist text, whose "ideological problematics" (to use
Charlotte Brunsdon's term"), modes of address, and methods of pleasure
production would seem to be quite different from other forms of television,
whose audiences would appear to be constituted differently from those for
"mainstream" television, and whose place in the lives of many of those audience
members renders soap time a special time of day.
However, as one reads back through these critical analyses, one can detect
traces of a largely unspoken unease regarding what a soap opera is for whom. In
the opening essay of the Coronation Street monograph, "The Continuous Serial
- a Definition," Christine Geraghty studiously avoids using the term "soap
opera" at all and warns in a footnote that the definition she gives of the
continuous serial applies only to British television and radio serials and not
50
Bursting bubbles
American ones. In the Introduction that precedes her essay, however, Richard
Dyer conflates the continuous serial and the soap opera and by the beginning of
the second paragraph has added a new term: the continuous soap opera.
Coronation Street, he informs us, is a typical instance of one of broadcasting's
most typical forms.'! To further confuse matters, Marion Jordon's essay refers to
the style of Coronation Street as "soap opera realism," placing the program in the
same genre as The Liver Birds, although she admits that the latter is "a series
rather than a serial, and not classified by the programmers as drama." Having
constructed a genre consisting of Coronation Street and perhaps one other
program (she mentions no others), Jordon then tells us that "in terms of narrative
management, [Coronation Street] fits the genre pattern of Soap Opera Realism
perfectly," as well it might."
As already mentioned, Jane Feuer's 1984 essay collapses US daytime and
prime-time serials into a single category, the television melodrama. However,
Annette Kuhn's essay on "Women's Genres," which follows Feuer's in the same
issue of Screen, explicitly excludes "prime-time serials like Dallas and Dynasty"
from her formulation of soap opera, even though it includes US daytime along
with early evening UK serials. No explanation is given for this constitution of the
genre."
In her book on Crossroads Dorothy Hobson gives as "a very basic definition
of soap opera" a program "that is a continuous drama serial which should be
transmitted daily." Thus, as she points out, "in this sense there are no soap operas
on British television." Although she relies upon Modleski's discussion of
American daytime serials as the basis for her conception of the "soap opera's"
narrative and thematic concerns, Hobson distinguishes between British and
American soaps primarily on the basis of production values: "One major
difference between the genre as it has developed in America and Britain is the
vast budgets which are allocated to soap operas in the USA." Many of the serials
shown on the BBC are, she says, "imports of expensively produced, high gloss
American television soap operas ." Since, so far as I know, American daytime
serials rarely have been shown in Great Britain, these lavishly produced soap
operas must be American prime-time serials such as Dallas.Dynasty, and Falcon
Crest. Thus, the American soap opera is defined in relation to daytime serials and
then stretched to include prime time serials as well.
Yet Hobson makes clear that the viewers with whom she spoke regard
Crossroads and Dallas as two quite different types of viewing experience.
Summarizing the comments of one viewer with regard to Crossroads'
representation of Birmingham life, Hobson concludes:
What she is saying is that it does not present a glamorized image of life either
in its contents or in its production style.... She also reveals how viewers
watch a programme like Crossroads for one kind of appeal and expect an
entirely different type of production and content when they watch a
programme like Dailas'l,
51
Robert C. Allen
Here Hobson opens up the possibility - one she does not pursue or even comment
upon - of disjunctures between discourses circulating around what she has called
"soap opera" and of the parsing of viewing experience by viewers themselves in
ways the analyst has not taken fully into account. Charlotte Brunsdon's quite
useful essay on the "gendered audience" for Crossroads argues that "just as a
Godard film requires the possession of certain forms of cultural capital on the part
of its audience to 'make sense' ... so too does Crossroads/soap opera." Among
the three categories of such competencies, Brunsdon includes generic
knowledge: "familiarity with the conventions of soap opera as a genre.''" This is
a point few would take issue with; however, it begs the questions: "How is that
generic knowledge structured?" And "Of what terms is it constituted?"
But these two questions beg a third: "By whom is this generic knowledge used
in making sense and deriving pleasure?" Again because of the legitimate desire
of scholars to interrogate gender differences in film/television texts and viewing
experiences, the "femaleness" of "soap opera" has been foregrounded in recent
research.'? I certainly recognize the distinction between a feminine subject
position - constructed through textual address, and through program publicity,
scheduling, advertisements and other forms of situating discourse - and the social
constitution of audiences for various forms of programming . The fact that the
audience for various "soap operas" might not be 100 per cent female in and of
itself no more vitiates an argument for the form's femininely inscribed spectator
than does the sexual heterogeneity of the film-viewing audience vitiate the
argument for the masculinely inscribed viewer for most forms of Hollywood
cinema. However, as Annette Kuhn has asked with specific reference to soap
operas,
what precisely does it mean to say that certain representations are aimed at a
female audience? However well theorized they may be, existing
conceptualizations of gendered spectatorship are unable to deal with this
question. This is because spectator and audience are distinct concepts which
cannot - as they frequently are - be reduced to one another."
By conflating audience and gender address we might be obscuring important
differences among audiences for types of programs as well as differences in the
relationships between audience groups and the spectator positions inscribed
within texts. Just as feminist interrogations of spectator inscription in the
Hollywood cinema opened up a theoretical space for a, consideration of the
relationship between social subjects and subject positions, might not opening up
a similar space with regard to the soap opera illuminate the viewing experiences
of different socially constituted groups?
I can only mention the fact that very little work has been done - at least by
scholars not in the employ of the television industry - to pin down the social and
demographic constitution of audiences for various types of serial drama in the
United States, Great Britain, and Europe . On the basis of data provided me by the
Office of Social Research at the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC), it
52
Bursting bubbles
appears that a majority of the adult audience for most forms of prime-time
programming - not just serials - is female. Even the programs currently
scheduled against Dallas and Dynasty (Miami Vice and Magnum Pf) have adult
audiences that are more than 50 per cent female . By the same token, the audience
for Dallas is nearly one -third male. Daytime serial audiences, on the other hand,
are on average nearly 80 per cent female. The above figures for male viewership
of "gender-specific" forms may well under-represent actual male viewing, since
some males are reluctant to admit they watch "soap operas" at all. David
Buckingham's research on EastEnders viewers suggests that this is the case in
Britain as well ." Furthermore, the image of the male viewer of serial dramas
staying in the living room only because he is outnumbered or overpowered by
female members of the household is challenged by at least one Broadcast
Audience Research Bureau study, which in November 1985 found that 69 per
cent of a sample of male viewers of Eastlinders specially chose to watch it, while
only 15 per cent watched as a result of someone else's choice and only 7 per cent
because they felt there was nothing else worth watching.P
We must also be aware that viewing patterns vary within program types, by
region, by class, and over time. In many instances, historical changes in viewer
demographics do not occur by accident but are encouraged by campaigns to
attract new categories of viewers or to shift the demographic center of viewership
from one group to another. In the mid-1970s, for example, American daytime
serial producers attempted to counter the "graying" of their audiences by
introducing younger characters and plotlines thought more likely to appeal to
teenagers and women in their twenties. By 1982, over 40 per cent of American
college students were watching soap operas, and today one out of every seven
viewers of General Hospital is under the age of 18.23 In Britain . Coronation
Street has added younger characters; Crossroads (before its demise) attempted to
"upscale" its audience; and both EastEnders and Brookside appear to have been
successful in attracting large teenage followings.
I hope my critique of the appropriation of "soap opera" in contemporary
critical discourse does not obscure my admiration for and debt of gratitude to the
work of these scholars who have done much to reinvigorate the study of
television in the United States. I think that one reason for my concern over the
minimizing or eliding of the discursive nature and functions of genre
designations stems from a recognition that, in the United States at least, "soap
opera" has been a term activated within the supervisory discourses of traditional
mass communication research and traditional criticism (as well as in their more
popularized variants) in order to hierarchize media experiences and texts by
gender, and having done so to create a large, undifferentiated "other world" to
which they (those gendered texts and viewing experiences) could be
conveniently consigned.> I am not in the least suggesting that the scholars whose
work I have discussed are unaware of the discursive "encrustation" of "soap
opera" (indeed, for several it is precisely the marginalization by sex of certain
television texts that has given impetus to their study of soap operas) or that they
53
Robert C. Allen
in any way share the assumptions or goals of these groups. It is just that I believe
that for practical and political reasons it is important that we do not - however
inadvertently - contribute to the reification of the term "soap opera" and, more
positively, that we build on the work already done within contemporary criticism
on "soap operas" (however defined) by refining our conceptualizations of
audience, textual engagement, textual inscription, and the discourses in which
they and their analyses are embedded.
Notes
1 Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass (London: Octopus Books, 1978).
2 Terence Hawkes, Structuralism and Semiotics (London: Methuen, 1977), p. 101.
3 By the term "contemporary critical discourse" I mean to mark out those
approaches to the study of cultural production that have followed from or
developed in reaction to the "structuralist revolution." I also mean to differentiate
this cluster of critical approaches from what might be called "traditional" or
pre-structuralist critical practice. The figuring of "soap operas" within the latter is
examined in my Speaking ofSoap Operas (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1985), pp. 11-18. Differences between contemporary and
traditional criticism as they relate to television analysis are discussed in Robert C.
Allen (cd.) Channels of Discourse : Television and Contemporary Criticism
(Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press/Methuen, 1987), pp.
1-16.
4 Thomas Schatz, Hollywood Genres (New York : Random House, 1981).
5 Andrew Tudor, "Genre and Critical Methodology," in Bill Nichols (ed.) Movies
and Methods (Berkeley: Univer sity of California Press, 1976), pp . 118-26.
6 See, for example, E. Ann Kaplan (cd.) Women in Film Noir (London: British Film
Institute, 1978); and Rick Altman (cd.) Genre, the Musical (London: British Film
Institute, 1981).
7 Stephen Neale, "Genre and Cinema," in Tony Bennet, Susan Boyd -Bowman,
Colin Mercer, and Janet Woolacott (eds) Popular Television and Film (London:
Open University/British Film Institute, 1981), pp. 12-13. Extracted from Stephen
Neale, Genre (London: British Film Institute, 1980).
8 Sandy Flitterman-Lewis, "Psychoanalysis, Film, and Television," in Robert C.
Allen (cd.) Channels of Discourse, p. 195.
9 Richard Dyer, "Introduction," in Richard Dyer, Christine Geraghty, Marion
Jordan, Terry Lovell, Richard Paterson, and John Stewart (eds) "Coronation
Street" (London: British Film Institute, 1981), p. 2.
11 Dorothy Hobson, "Crossroads" : The Drama ofa Soap Opera (London: Methuen,
1982), p. 35.
12 Jane Feuer, "Melodrama, Serial Form, and Television Today," Screen 25 (1984):
4-16.
13 Charlotte Brunsdon, "Cros sroads: Notes on Soap Opera," Screen 22 , no. 4
(1981): 34.
14 Christine Geraghty, "The Continuous Serial- a Defmition," and Richard Dyer,
"Introduction," in Dyer et al., "Coronation Street" .
15 Marion Jordon, "Realism and Convention," in Dyer et al., "Coronation Street",
pp.27-39.
54
Bursting bubbles
16 Annette Kuhn, "Women's Genres," Screen 25 (1984): 18-28 .

17 Hobson, "Crossroads," pp. 26, 27,120.
18 Brunsdon, "Crossroads".
19 In Dyer et al.'s Coronation Street monograph, a female audience is for the most
part assumed, as is a corresponding dislike of the program by men. Terry Lovell
(p. 50) , for example, says the program provides a validation of a set of concerns
women see as "theirs." To which she adds : "No wonder men dislike it." However,
in his article on the production context of Corona/ion Street which follows
Lovell's essay in the volume, Richard Paterson notes that between 1975 and 1980
the audience for the program in the Granada-controlled market included a " static
but quite high male viewership" (p. 56).
Brunsdon, at the beginning of her article "Crossroads;' cites demographic
research on American radio serial audiences conducted before and during World
War II to support her statement that "the audience for soap operas is usually
assumed to be female" (p. 32) . Furthermore, she argues, the scheduling of
Crossroads in the early evening hours (5.30-7.30 p.m.) implies a predominantly
female audience sought by broadcasters, as opposed to prime time, "which is
expected to maximise on a male audience" (p. 33). However, so far as I am aware,
Dallas, Dynasty, and other American prime time serials have always been
scheduled during prime time in Britain.
Hobson ("Crossroads;' p. 119) interviewed only female viewers of Crossroads.
There are male viewers as well, she admits, "but the proportion is much smaller."
However, she does not state how "small" that proportion is. Ang generated the
body of audience discourse she analysed in Watching "Dallas": Soap Opera and
the Melodramatic Imagination (London: Methuen, 1985) by placing an
advertisement in a "women's" magazine. Not surprisingly, only three of the
responses to this ad. were from men .
20 Kuhn, "Women's Genres;' p. 21.
21 David Buckingham, Public Secrets : "Eastlinders" and Its Audience (London:
22 Broadcast Audience Research Bureau Audience Reaction Service, "ReJXlTt on
EastEnders," November 26, 1985, Booklet Part B, p. 4. Eighty per cent of female
viewers reported that they specially chose to watch, and only 7 per cent because
someone else chose. Unfortunately for media scholars in the United States and
Great Britain (and perhaps in Europe as well), studies conducted by BARB,
Nielsen, and other companies are regarded as proprietary information and made
available only to clients. Those clients are specifically enjoined from publishing
or sharing these data with others - although in some cases sympathetic "clients"
are willing to help scholars. The data on US viewing were prepared by Hans
Stipp, Director of Social Research, NBC. I am grateful to him for his assistance.
23 "They 're Watching;' Brochure, ABC-Television Social Research Unit, 1982.
24 In Allen, Speaking ofSoap Operas , I discuss the encrustation of the term "soap
opera" in social science discourse in the United States. Despite the recent
fashionability of daytime serial viewing among American college students and the
popularity of prime-time serials, soap opera viewing continues to carry with it a
social stigma for many viewers. The nature of that stigma and viewers' strategies
for dealing with it are discussed in a recent and as yet unpublished study by
Alison Alexander and Virginia Fry : "Interpreting Viewing: Creating an
Acceptable Context" (paper presented at the Conference on Culture and
Communication, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa., 1986).
55
Chapter three
Moments of television:
Neitherthe text nor the audience
John Fiske
A group of people in front of the television set, spines curved weakly on the
couch, drinks or snacks in hand, eyes glued to the screen is, I suppose, the
commonsense model of television and its audience. What is on the screen is the
text, the people watching, multiplied a millionfold, arc the audience . In the not
too distant past there have been theories of both the text and the audience that,
unfortunately for them and us, have taken this model for the uninspected base of
their assumptions, for the scene the model paints is both typical and realistic . Its
problem lies in its easy categorization of the viewers into "the audience" and the
screen into "the text".
I wish to dissolve both categories. First, there is no such thing as "the
television audience ," defined as an empirically accessible object, for there can be
no meaningful categories beyond its boundaries - what on earth is "not the
television audience"? The "television audience" is not a social category like
class, or race, or gender - everyone slips in or out of it in a way that makes
nonsense of any categorical boundaries : similarly when in "it" people constitute
themselves quite differently as audience members at different times - I am a
different television "audience" when watching my football team from when
watching TheA-Team with my son or Days ofour Lives with my wife. Categories
focus our thinking on similarities: people watching television are best modeled
according to a multitude of differences .
Similarly, the television text, or program, is no unified whole delivering the
same message in the same way to all its "audience." The old literary idea of the
organic, self-contained text has been exploded so comprehensively that there is
no need for me here to contribute further to its demolition . But we still need the
term, or something like it to refer to television 's meaning-making potential,
though we might do better to make it less concrete, less comfortable to handle,
and to use the word "textuality" whose abstraction signals its potentiality rather
than its concrete existence. What the set in the living-room delivers is
"television," visual and aural signifiers that are potential provokers of meaning
and pleasure . This potential is its textuality which is mobilized differently in the
variety of its moments of viewing.
Textuality is realized in the making of sense and the production of pleasure,
56
Moments of television
and central to thisprocessis the inescapable intertextuality of our culture,a point

I shall return to later. For the moment I wishonly to point out that we have now
collapsed the distinction between "text" and "audience." The textuality of
television, the intertextuality of theprocessof making senseand pleasurefrom it,
can only occur whenpeoplebring theirdifferenthistories and subjectivities to the
viewing process. There is no text, there is no audience, there are only the
processes of viewing, - that variety of culturalactivities that take place in front
of the screen whichconstitute the object of study that I am proposing.
The viewer
This model,or models, will involvepeopleand television, despiteour resolution
not to separatethem into categories of audienceand text. This paper is primarily
concerned with textuality: but in order to discuss that I must briefly set out my
assumptions of viewers withoutwhom textuality could not be constituted out of
television.
Watching television is a process of making meanings and pleasures, and this
process is determined by two parallel and interlocking sets of forces. I use the
word "determine" in its literal sense of setting the boundaries, not in its more
common mis-sense of authoritarian social imperatives - thou shalt be, do, feel,
react as society determines. Determination, then, refers to a bounded terrain
within which peoplehave the space to exercisesome powerover their meanings,
pleasures, subjectivities. Peoplecan and do maketheirown culture,albeit within
conditions that are not of their own choosing. How much power is available
within this terrain, and how fixedly its boundaries are determined are matters of
considerable debate, in which I align myself with those who propose that
ideological and hegemonic theories of popular culture have overestimated the
power of the determinations and underestimated that of the viewer.
The two intertwined sets of determination are the social and the textual, the
one working upon the subjectivity of the viewer, the other upon the textuality of
television, and I wish to argue that the correspondence between subjectivity and
textuality is so close that the two leak into each other at every point of contact.
Viewers within this determined terrain are subjects constituted by
late-capitalist societies. Suchsocieties are characterized by heterogeneity - a vast
shifting range of subcultures and groups which are finally structured by their
relationship to the system by which poweris unequally distributed in them. Any
one person, or television viewer, forms a numberof shiftingalliances within this
heterogeneity, she or he enters the social system via differently constituted and
shifting socialformations: the metaphor of a nomadic subjectivity is a productive
one here.' Anyone viewer, then, may at different times be a different viewing
subject, as constituted by his or her social determinants, as different social
alliances may be mobilized for different moments of viewing: to return to our
spatial metaphor, the sociallyconstituted viewing subject may occupy different
spaceswithin the determined terrainaccording to the socialalliances appropriate
57
John Fiske
to this specific moment of making sense of and finding pleasure in the television
experience. Hall refers to a similar process as "articulation.'? Here he uses both
senses of the word, first as speech, that is a symbolic system used to make sense
of both self and experience, and second as flexible linkage. Hodge and Tripp's
school students who made sense of Prisoner by aligning themselves with the
prisoners, the wardens with school teachers, and the prison with the school were
articulating, in both senses of the word.? They were using the television program
to "speak," or make sense of their experience of institutionalized subordination
and thus to make sense of themselves as subordinated subjects, and they did this
by articulating (linking) their viewing of a soap opera set in a women's prison
with their social experience of school.
But many of the same students also enjoyed Sale ofthe Century-Prisoner and
Sale of the Century were the most popular programs amongst Australian junior
high school students in 1983. Here, the program was articulated with school in a
way that produced quite different meanings and pleasures.' Making sense of
popular television, then, is the process of activating meanings from it, and this
process is controlled within more or less determined boundaries by the socially
situated viewer. The text will be a source of popular pleasure when these
meanings become part of that larger cultural process by which the subject makes
sense of his or her material existence. For social experience is like a text: it can
only be made meaningful when a social subject brings his or her discursive
competencies to bear upon it. The shifting alliance of formations that constitute
social experience for the subject allows for a potentially unlimited range of social
differences so that each person may be constituted differently, yet these
differences are to be explained not by the individual differences of psychology
but by the variety of intersections of social alliances and social relations.
Social experience is like intertextuality. It is a vast interlocking potential of
elements that can be mobilized in an unpredictable number of ways. Any social
system needs a system of meanings to underpin it, and the meanings that are
made of it are determined only to an extent by the system itself. This
determination allows adequate space for different people to make different
meanings though they may use a shared discursive repertoire in the process. The
subject is not fully subjected - the sense we make of our social relations is partly
under our control - and making sense of social experience necessarily involves
making sense of ourselves within that experience.
This potential of meanings that constitutes our social experience must not be
seen as amoeba-like and structureless. Just as post-structuralism and discourse
theory must not be allowed to evacuate a notion of material social relations, so
too, my argument in favor of difference and a relatively empowered, relatively
loosely subjected, subject must not blind us to the determining framework of
power relations within which all of this takes place. In a similar vein, the
emphasis on the power of the viewer to achieve certain meanings from the
potential offered by the text can only be understood in terms of a textual power
and a textual struggle that are remarkably similar to social power and social
58
struggle. Making sense of social experience is an almost identical process to

making sense of a text.
What television delivers is not programs but a semiotic experience. This
experience is characterized by its openness and polysemy . Television is not quite
a do-it-yourself meaning kit but neither is it a box of ready-made meanings for
sale. Although it works within cultural determinations, it also offers freedoms
and the power to evade , modify, or challenge these limitations and controls . All
texts are polysemic , but polysemy is absolutely central to television's tcxtuality.
Television as cultural commodity

Television is a cultural commodity . It works within an economically determined
capitalist economy, but when we have said that about it we have said both much
and remarkably little. There is a financial economy within which wealth
circulates, and a cultural economy within which meanings and pleasures
circulate, and the relationship between them is not as deterministic as some
theorists have proposed. In the financial economy television is programs and
advertisements, not textuality. A program is a commodity produced and then sold
to distributors. In distribution its role changes and it becomes not a commod ity,
but a producer, and what it produces is a new commodity, the audience which is
then, in its tum, sold as a commodity to advertisers . The ramifications of this
financial economy are fascinating , but they are not the topic of this paper . I wish
to concentrate more on the cultural economy .
Here the role shift undergone by the program in the financial economy - that
from commodity to producer - is now undergone by the audience, whom I left as
a commodity sold to the advertiser. But in the cultural economy the audience
rejects its role as commodity and becomes a producer, a producer of meanings
and pleasures, and at this moment stops being "an audience" and becomes
different materializations of the process that we call "viewing television ."
While the metaphor of a cultural economy is a productive one, we must not let
it blind us to differences between it and the financial. Meanings and pleasures do
not circulate in the cultural economy in the same way that wealth does in the
financial. In the first place there is no exchange of money at the point of sale or
consumption. Television appears to be free, however it may actually be paid for.
Payment has no direct relationship to consumption - people can consume as
much as they wish and what they wish with no thought of what they are able to
afford . Watching an opera or a concert by Dire Straits costs no more than a quiz
show or a rerun sitcom.
This liberation from economic constraints frees the viewer from the
subordinate role in the market economy, that of "consumer" who, by definition,
gives more than he or she receives . This crucial difference between the television
commodity and other more material goods in the market-place foregrounds the
considerable freedom won by the viewer in the shift from consumer in the
financial economy to producer in the cultural . Meanings and pleasures cannot be
59
John Fiske
owned or bought and sold in a way that grants proprietorial rights over them to
some but denies them to others. Bourdieu's theory of cultural capital needs
re-examination: for him cultural capital works for one section of the bourgeoisie
(the intelligentsia) similarly to the way that economic capital works for the
business section.' It works to maintain power in the hands of the powerful,
advantaged minority, whether that power be expressed in economic or cultural
terms. We need to add to this notion that of a popular cultural capital that puts
bourgeois culture under constant pressure. Hobson, for instance, has shown how
the women viewers of Crossroads had made the program theirs, had constituted
it as their cultural capital that they could draw upon to articulate their social
relations and social identities - the meanings and pleasures of the program were
theirs, not the male producers' ," Similarly, Hodge and Tripp have shown how
Australian Aboriginal children have made American westerns into their cultural
capital.' They constructed a cultural category, a tool to think with, that included
them, American Indians, and American blacks in a way that enabled them to find
in the western some articulation of their subordination to white imperialism and,
presumably, to identify with instances of resistance to it. Such a reading position
will, we may predict, affect the sense they make of the inevitability of the final
narrative defeat of the Indians or non-whites. It was their ability to make a
non-white sense from, and find non-white pleasures in, a genre of white
imperialism and colonialism that made it popular with them. Without this ability
to be the producers of their own culture, the makers of their own meanings and
pleasures, it would be difficult to account for Aboriginals' choosing to watch
westerns.
This freedom of the viewer to make socially pertinent meanings and pleasures
out of television is considerable. Tulloch and Moran found that school students
in working-class and middle-class areas made completely different sense out of
an episode of the Australian soap A Country Practice which dealt with youth
unemployment.! The working-class students articulated it with their social
experience and found in it the sense that the economic system was at fault in not
providing enough jobs for the people. The middle-class students, on the other
hand, found meanings that supported the system and placed the blame upon the
failures of the (working-class) individuals: for them the unemployed were the
undereducated, and the episode's meanings for them were produced by the
socially derived discourses of class, education, and economics that they brought
to bear upon it. A group of Arab viewers in Katz and Liebes' study of different
ethnic group readings of Dallas found it incompatible with their own culture that
Sue Ellen, escaping with her baby from her husband, should return to her father;
so they "rewrote" it in their conversation about the program, making her return to
her former lover, not to her father," Of course, this freedom is inherent in all
popular art, not just television: Michaels, for instance, has found that Aboriginal
viewers of Rambo, who derived great pleasure from the movie, "rewrote"
considerable areas of it.10 They found pleasure in Rambo's conflict with authority
(presumably his Hispanic, non-white appearance, his verbal inarticulateness, and
60
his opposition to the white officer class will have helped here), but could find
neithersense norpleasurein his"patriotic," nationalistic motivation. Insteadthey
constructed for him a tribal or family motivation by inserting him into an
elaborate kinship network with those he was rescuing, which enabled them to
makesenseof the moviein a way thatparalleled the waythcymadesenseof their
social relationsboth witheach otherand with white power. The fact that the film
wasa favorite withbothRonaldReagan and Australian Aboriginals mustnot lead
us to assume any affinity between the two, nor between the meanings and
pleasuresthat each produced from the same cultural commodity.
The (usually) scatological versions of television commercial jingles produced
by schoolchildrenprovidean extremeexample of this"rewriting"processwhich
is itself typical. 11 Most viewers of coursedo not need to rewrite television to this
extent to find pleasurable meanings in it, but theseexamples demonstrate that the
freedom is there; they are not a distinct form of perverseor aberrantviewing, but
an exaggerated and therefore explicit example of the normal processof making
meanings and pleasures from television.
This model differs essentially from that underlying political economy in
stressing the relative autonomy of the cultural economy from the financial to
which political economy traditionally grants considerable , if not total,
determinate power. The political economy model is thus unable to progress
beyondseeingtheaudienceas a commodity, or in defining it other than in market
terms,those of demographic headcounting. Equally it cannotconceiveof the text
except as the free lunch that catches the audience for the advertisers. Of course
the audience is a commodity, of course the text is a free lunch: but neither
definition comes within a mile of adequacy. Politicaleconomy cannot conceive
of television audiences as being socially diverse and therefore capable of
producing different socially pertinent meanings from the same commodity, nor
of conceiving of this productive activity as pleasurable. It thus cannot conceive
of the cultural commodity as a text that requires reading, and thus a<; capable of
serving the contradictory interestsof both theproducers in the financial economy
and of the viewers in the cultural: it cannot conceive of the text as a site of
struggle for the power to make meanings; or of the notion that what finally
determines the meanings and pleasures provoked by a text is the social situation
of the viewer-reader, not the interests of the producers and their ideological
investment in consumer capitalism. This leads to another crucial factor in the
culturaleconomy which politicaleconomy is unable to takeintoaccount, and that
is popular discrimination. The people choose to make some texts popular, and
some not, and this process of choice is essentially a popular one: however hard
the industry may try through market research, promotion, advertising, and
scheduling to influence popular choice, its failure rate is enormous. It has thus
been forced into producing what Garnham calls a "repertoire" of products from
which the public is invited to choose." And it does not know which of its
products will be chosen: if it did, it could concentrate on producing a narrower
and thus more profitable repertoire. As it is, twelveout of thirteen records fail to
61
John Fiske
make a profit, as do the vast majority of films on their cinema release. Television
shows are regularly axed in mid-run. Political economy cannot conceive of any
audience activity that opposes the interests of the producers, whether this activity
be one of semiosis or of discrimination.
My position differs from that of political economy in locating at least equal, if
not greater, power in the cultural economy. The interests of the financial
economy would be best served by producing and reproducing the smallest
number of hit products: the cultural needs of the constantly shifting alliances of
its audiences force the industry into its constant search for products that have
enough originality to meet these shifts, but yet retain enough familiarity to meet
both the audience expectations and developed competencies, and the routinized
production practices of the producers . The major drive for innovation and change
comes from the audience activity in the cultural economy, and from the
relationship of this activity to larger movements in the political and social
system. Television's rehabilitation of Vietnam in shows like Magnum PI, Simon
and Simon, or The A-Team has participated in the 1980s shift of American values
to the Reaganite masculine right, but did not originate it. Similarly , shows like
Designing Women, Golden Girls, and Cagney and Lacey are part of the
redefinition of gender meanings, but the spur to redefine them came from the
changing material conditions of women. In both cases, it was the cultural
economy's dialectic relationship with the socio-political system at the level of the
meanings of social experience that fed into the financial economy and caused the
economic success and therefore the reproduction of these genres . Theorizing the
audience as commodity blinds us to the subtleties and complexities of these
social forces.
Of course the audiences' freedom and ability to make their socially pertinent
meanings out of television's text, even though these meanings may be beyond
both the prediction and the control of the producers , is, at one level, exactly what
the producers want: they neither know nor care what meanings and pleasures
their audiences produce, their concern is solely with the headcount and the
demographics. But only a tiny proportion of audience members are converted
into purchasers or even potential purchasers . We must be chary of singular
definitions of such multifarious (and ultimately untenable) categories as text and
audience . Just as television's textuality can simultaneously serve the economic
needs of its producers and the cultural pleasures of its audiences, however
oppositional these functions may be to each other, so the audience can, at one and
the same time, fill the contradictory roles of commodity and cultural producer.
Russian Jews, newly arrived in Israel, read Dallas as capitalism criticizing itself:
such a process can hardly be described as one of commodification.'! Of course
the industry will attempt, often successfully, to produce programs that invite and
encourage the audiences' powers as meaning-producers, but their commercial
intention can only describe a part and, I would argue, a small part, of the
audiences' activities within the cultural economy.
62
The democracy of the television text

I wish to adapt Barthes' theory of the writerly text by describing television as a
"producerly teXt."14 A producerly text does not prescribe either a set of meanings
or a set of reading relations for the viewer: instead it delegates the production of
meaning to the viewer-producer. It differs , however, from the writerly text in that
it is not avant-garde and does not shock the reader-writer into learning new
discursive competencies in order to read-write it: rather it offers provocative
spaces within which the viewer can use her or his already developed
competencies. IS
Television can only offer its viewers the flexibility of its producerliness
because of its textual and intertextual characteristics: all of which constitute it as
a particularly polysemic medium. I wish to deal with these under four main
headings: 1) segmentation and syntagmatic gaps; 2) intertextuality; 3) time and
seriality; 4) heteroglossia (many-languagedness). For the purposes of my
argument, I will take as read the means by which the dominant ideology is
structured into the text as an agent of closure working to oppose polysemy . My
attention, then, will be focused on the counterforces of openness and flexibility.
Segmentation and syntagmatic gaps

Williams' famous characterization of television viewing as an experience of
"flow" is useful in so far as it stresses television's lack of textual boundaries, but
within it he seems to suggest that the consequent contradictions and lack of
formal organization are regrettable rather than a positive textual characteristic."
Ellis' use of the term "segmentation" is more productive:" television's
continuous flow is actually fragmented into an often jarring experience of
segments in which discontinuity, sequence and contradiction take precedence
over continuity, consequence, and unity. Channel switching and zapping merely
exaggerate and exploit this characteristic. Segmented texts are marked by abrupt
transitions from segment to segment that require active, experienced, tclcvisually
literate viewers to negotiate. Abrupt changes from plot to plot in soap operas are,
to television illiterates, as confusing as the change from movie to promo . to ad.
were for Williams on his first experience of US television. (Television illiterates,
of course, are those whose textual experience is of books, movies, or theater
where the textual characteristics are quite different from those of television.) The
segmentation of television allows for connections between its segments to be
made according to the laws of association rather than those of consequence,
logic, or cause and effect. They are therefore much looser, much less textually
determined, and so offer the viewer more scope to make his or her own
connections. They resist textual hierarchization. The differential mode of
attention given to television means that the viewer views some segments more
intently than others: this is paralleled semiotically by the viewer's ability to give
greater significance to some segments than others. Thus Lewis found that
63
John Fiske
viewers of a news story exploited the contradictions between a live insert and the
studio narrative framework in a way that accorded semiotic precedence to the
insert, even though the textual structure was attempting to subordinate it to the
narrative framework and thus to close off many of the meanings that viewers
reportedly found in it." The prioritization of some segments over others is
performed by the viewers rather than the text
The segmentation opens up the syntagmatic gaps in television 's narrative so
that the viewer has to "write " in the connection." The largest, and most obvious
of these gaps are those produced by television's seriality. Many authors have
shown how, for instance, women viewers of soap opera write their own "scripts"
in their heads as they predict the future of the serial, and check these scripts
against the ones actually broadcast." This activity and the gossip that it involves
generate considerable pleasure, for they involve the viewers in a producerly
relationsh ip with the text: the viewers draw upon the same sort of cultural
competencies as do the actual scriptwriters - they know the conventions of soap
opera , they know the need to appeal to an audience, they know the difference
between the soap opera world and the real world, yet know that the connections
between the two must be readily available. They adopt a position of equality with
the scriptwriters, a position that gives them the right not only to predict future
developments, but to attempt to influence them directly by writing to the
producers/script writers.21
Segmentation not only opens up syntagmatic gaps, it also allows for a wide
variety of syntagmatic relations to be made. Williams failed to see that
television's apparent unawareness of the contradiction between the
syntagmatically related segments of a news story about Indian Civil Rights
protests at Wounded Knee and the promos for a cowboys and Indians movie later
in the evening were capable of producing a number of possible meanings about
Indianness in American society. Similarly, Dallas in Malaysia is viewed as
pornography by many males. Its syntagmatic relations with the rest of Malaysian
television and its intertextual relations with a largely Muslim culLure allow its
sexuality to provoke a different set of meanings and pleasures from those for
many of its American viewers.
Television's syntagmatic gaps and their range of potential syntagmatic
relations resist the organizing and controlling forces of its narrative and
ideological closure.
Intertextuality
Intertextuality is not a property unique to television but it does work in
televisually specific ways. Barthes' notion that culture is a web of intcrtextuality,
that all texts refer only to other texts and never anchor their referral in a final
reality , sets up a useful framework from which to start." He alerts us to the idea
that represented events and characters can be understood only in terms of their
intertextual relations , so that a "killing" on a detective show can only be made
64
sense of in terms of its relations with a murder story on the news or in the
newspapers, or other representations in novels, films, theater, fairy stories , and so
on. Culture as a web of intertextual meanings recognizes no boundaries of genre
or medium. Similarly, the "wronged mother" is an intertextual figure.
Intertextuality of this sort is not the fleshing out of the meanings of one text by
references to others, but rather a meaning potential that exists in the spaces
between texts, a cultural resource bank that texts and readers can draw from and
contribute to equally but differently . Barthes' theory is important because it
denies both the uniqueness of the text and its authority to impose its meanings.
But this general theory needs to be made more specific if we are to opcrationalize
it in the study of television. I suggest there are four dimensions of intertextuality
that require study.
Primary relations
These are the ones elaborated in Barthes' theory. All representational texts and
their readers have equal access to this intertextual resource bank and the texts
relate not to each other directly, as in the old literary sense of allusion, but
indirectly via this intertextual potential. At one level this can deny genre and
medium boundaries, at another the concepts of genre and medium act to organize,
direct, and thus limit intertextual relations.
Secondary relations
The excessiveness and openness of primary texts in our culture have produced a
huge industry of secondary texts that advertise, promote, criticize, and respond to
the primary texts of television, film, literature, and so on. Relations between these
and the primary texts are direct and specific: secondary texts relate to specified
primary ones and these intertextual relations are their sole raison d' eire. They
work to activate certain meanings rather than others, to legitimate certain
pleasures rather than others." They can be arranged on a scale that stretches from
producer interests at one end to viewer interests at the other. At the first are studio
publicity and promotions which can indicate some of the meanings and pleasures
which the producers believe their viewers will find and which they hope will help
to produce the audiences as commodity.
At the other end are viewers' letters to fan magazines sharing their responses
amongst other fans. Somewhere in the middle lie the professional critics who
purport to speak for viewers but generally fail because the discourse of formal
criticism originates at a social point occupied by only a minority of viewers.
More useful and more widely used are the articles which give background or
insider information about players, conditions of production, studio business, and
so on. All these secondary texts work to activate and often extend the meanings
of the primary texts. They are intertextual enablers.
Biographical gossip about soap opera players can indicate some of these
intertextual operations. It invites fans to explore the intertextual relations
between the representation and the real, or rather between texts of higher and
65
John Fiske
lower modality. The biographies are texts of higher modality than the soap operas
themselves, and the "real life" details of the biography of the player can be used
to validate or interrogate the verisimilitude of the represented character. They
can also provide insight into the mode of production: they give details of the
player's acting skill, of his/her hard work, and the conditions under which
that work is performed. They provide insider information about players'
earnings and contracts, and thus extend the fan's pleasures by extending the
primary texts.
Fans will predict the future of a character not only according to their
knowledge of the soap opera conventions, but also according to knowledge that
only secondary texts can provide - whether the player is pregnant in "real life" or
whether she or he is asking for too much money for the next contract. There is
also a sense in which those secondary texts provide a "ghost text," like the ghost
image on a television set with poor reception, so that viewers of Cagney and
Lacey, for example, can understand and enjoy both the relationship between the
two characters and that between the two players in a complex play of intertextual
and intermodal relations between primary and secondary texts that involves a
simultaneous surrender to, and distancing from, the illusion of realism . These
secondary texts increase the viewer's sense of power over the meanings and
pleasures offered by the primary texts because they grant them access to, and thus
allow them to participate in, the mode of representation. The pleasure of making
meanings is greater by far than that of finding them ready-made.
Oral culture
People talk about television: television is a great promoter of gossip. Katz and
Liebes, for instance, argue that part of the popularity of Dallas derives from the
ease with which its soap opera form enables it to intersect with a variety of oral
cultures." People's talk about television is not just a response to it, but is read
back into it: our friend's gossip about a program influences our reading of it.
Oral culture is a product of its immediate social formation, so the way that
television is talked about provides us with two sorts of clues - clues about how
television is being assimilated into the social formation and how that social
formation is read back into the text, and clues about which meanings offered by
the text are being mobilized in this process. This form of intertextual relations is
a bridge between the textual and the social, and is a crucial, if methodologically
difficult, area of study.
Methodologically more accessible is a secondary form of this talk, and that is
its written form, either in the newsletters and publications of fan clubs or in the
letter columns of the press and fanzines. Also methodologically accessible are the
verbal responses of viewers to researchers. All of these verbal responses are, of
course, not cold data, the verbal equivalent of galvanic skin responses, but texts
that require the same sort of theoretical investigation as do the primary texts, and
that can only be understood in terms of their intertextual relations with them.
66
Moments of televis ion
The subject and the social formation

Material social experience is made sense of by textualizing it, by bringing a
culture's discursive resources to bear upon it. As argued earlier , reading a social
experience parallels reading a text. This does not mean that the reading relations
of the two are identical; clearly they are not, because they operate in different
modalities. Essential to textual pleasure is an awareness, to whatever extent, of
its textuality. The pleasure in playing with the boundary between the represent-
ation and the real involves a recognition of their differences as well as of their
similarities. Textual experience and social experience are different , but not
totally unconnected. The discursive repertoires and competencies that are
involved in making sense of each overlap, and inform one another. These
discursive resources are also the ones that determine the produ ction of
subjectivity, so that the subject is an interdiscursive potential: subjectivity is like
textuality, capable of actualization in different forms at different moments. The
relations between textual experience, social experience, and subjectivity are
perhaps the most methodologically inaccessible; but theoretically and politically,
they are amongst the most important of all.
Intertextual relations are almost infinitely complex and diverse. They are
activated at the moment of viewing, and the process of viewing can only be
described in relation to them. They are inherent neither in the text nor in the
viewer, but in their interaction in the cultural process. They are an agent of
openness in the text and invite or require considerable semiotic activity from the
viewer . Activating them in some ways rather than others is one of the ways in
which a viewer exercises "cultural authority " over his or her text by exploiting its
producerly potential.
Time , seriality, and semiotic democracy

Television 's lack of "authority" over its viewers, its democratic delegation of so
many of the meaning-making functions, points us to another set of textual
characteristics. One of these is television's "liveness" or "nowncss.t'"
Television's world appears to be occurring in the same time as the world of the
viewer. Novels and movies are records of the past - we know that the end of the
narrative has already been written as we watch or read the opening scenes, but in
television serials, at least, the future appears to be as unwritten as our own. This
sets up the empowering reading relations that I have already noted in which
viewers feel they have both the right and the ability to influence the future
narrative . Television has no author in the sense of authority.
Television's nowness and its lack of textual authority are closely allied. Its
attempt to present itself as "live" is a recognition that "liveness" is a normative
and defining characteristic which sets up specific reading relations. Suspense in
sport or in game shows is quite different if they are seen as "live" rather than
recorded, and the hermeneutic engagement of the viewers is changed. They are
67
John Fiske
not engaged in solving enigmas and predicting narrative outcomes that a power-
ful author-role has already experienced and resolved, but are rather invited to
experience the suspense and its anxious uncertainty as less mediated, more direct,
and thus more open to their own inflections of it. Similarly , the hermeneutic
engagement of the viewer of soap opera, with its sense of an unwritten future, is
different from that of the cinema spectator or novel reader. The "livcncss" of quiz
shows like The Dating Game or Perfect Match invites viewers to bring their own
social expertise of pairing people off, or of reading into people from inadequate
clues , and to measure this expertise against that of the contestants in a much freer
way than if the shows had been presented as a record of who chose whom and for
which reasons. The apparent coincidence of the time frames of the show and of
the viewers resists the closure inherent in an already written text.
At a micro level, this authorial absence works much less obviously. The speed
with which television has to be produced makes it less well "crafted" than, for
instance, film. But this lack of craftsmanship is also a lack of authorial
intervention: for instance, the absence of post-production in soap operas may, in
the financial economy , be simply explained in terms of costs and returns, but in
the cultural economy its meanings are quite different. The result is that actions on
the screen take place in the same time scale as "reality": they cannot, in the
editing process , be speeded up by having "dead" bits removed. This helps the
impression that the events on the screen are happening "now" and are not an
authored account of events in the past.
The "newness" of news, like that of sport, takes a different form, but has
similar effects. The author-figure of news is explicit, there on the screen, telling
us what has happened. Because his or her authorial status is explicit, it is
therefore challengeable and, often , challenged. The live "inserts," however
controlled they may beby the conventional narrative structure of the news story
and the bulletins of which it is a part, rarely fit perfectly into the ideological slot
prepared for them. There are always rough edges, unresolved contradictions that
intransigently resist the explicit authorship of the bulletin. Television news is the
result of a constant struggle between authorial control and a sense of an
unwritten, unruly set of events that resist this control. The haste with which news
has to be produced means that its authorial control is both visible and inefficient.
The contradictions between the "voice of authority" and "the imperative of the
real" keep news and sport well within television 's producerly mode.
In sport this is explicit. Sports commentary is the authored text that exists
simultaneously with the "events" it is writing about: the opportunity for viewers
to "produce" their own scripts is openly offered and, frequently, eagerly
accepted. The constant flow of background and statistical information, of slow
motion replays , of replays from different angles and distances, gives the viewers
the insider information and therefore the power to make meanings that is
normally the cultural property of the author to be released in controlled doses to
the reader. The authorial function of the commentators invites, and frequently
receives, oppositional challenges from the viewers and television , along with a
68
Moments of telev ision
host of secondary texts, provides the material upon which such challenges
depend. This insider information is similar to that given by fan magazines. It
workssimilarlyin that it increases the viewer's awareness of the constructedness
of the text and, thus, encourages a producerly relation to it. Access to the mode
of representation is an important sourceof pleasurefor the literatereaders whom
producerly texts demand: and today's television viewers are, of course,
exceptionally televisually literate. Again the reading relations of television tend
toward a democracy rather than an autocracy.
Television's seriality works to underpin these closely allied appearances of
nowness and unwrittenness, for, like them, it works witha senseof a futurewhich
denies closure. However completely the plot of one episode is closed off, the
situation never is. All television series have somecharacteristics of serials- the
relationships between the characters and thepossibilities of thebasicsituation are
never completed or resolved, but remain open, reverberating, and ready for
reactivation next week. In action and detective series, the sense of an author,of
the writtenness of the text, may be much stronger than in many other television
genres, and the "nowness" of the action much less in evidence, but television's
tension between the forces of closure and of openness, between authorial and
viewer authority, still remains central to the textual experience they offer. It is
also pushing them to develop contradictory ways of foregrounding their own
constructedness, a point I shall return to in the next section.
Heteroglossia
Television's segmentation and its democratic delegation of semiosis make it
necessarily heteroglossic, and its heteroglossia is a precondition for its semiotic
democracy and its segmentation. Unity, continuity, and consequence are textual
signs of an author function whose authority is exerted in the creation of a
comparatively stable,comparatively uncontradictory, locus from which to make
sense of the textand of the worldthat weare invitedtoexperience through it. This
author function, of course,mustnot be reducedto an individual author: it is often
performed by institutional conventions and practices, and finally is a discursive
practice in an Althusserian model of ideology. But however this authorial
function is characterized, it is essentially a force toward homogeneity.
The diversity of television's modes of reception, the diversity of social
formations within which it may be viewed, and the diversity of cultural systems
and subsystems with which its meanings will be connected require us to
understand television in termsof diversity and difference rather thanof unityand
homogeneity. It is a diversity of voiceswhich resistanyauthorial hierarchization,
but which can be listened to differentially by different viewers and hierarchized
differently at different moments of viewing. Differentsegments can and do speak
with differentvoices,often contradictory ones.
One basictextualcharacteristic thatenablestelevision to speakcontradictorily
is its semioticexcess.Television's mainsemiotic energyis, according to Hartley,
69
John Fiske
not in producing meanings, but in policing and controlling the excess of meaning
it cannot help producing." Fiske argues that the excess allows television first to
offer the meanings preferred by the dominant forces, but that the overspill of such
meaning allows for resisting or at least evasive meaning to escape this control;
and Feuer argues it allows for the viewer to produce a counter-text." By
exceeding the norms, television draws attention to them and to their ideological
function, and by doing so opens up the possibility for contradictory meanings and
pleasures to be made. One of Ang's subjects was a Marxist who found in the
excessiveness of Dallas a critique of capitalism; another was a feminist who used
its excess of sexist display to produce oppositional, and vocally expressed,
pleasures." Elsewhere I have argued that devices such as irony, metaphor , and
jokes depend upon a collision of discourses that generates more meaning
potential than any authorial function can control : they depend upon
contradictions within segments rather than between them, a micro-level
heteroglossia." Television's recent tendency to self-reflexivity, the explicit
acknowledgment of its textuality, is a good example of this collision of
discourses and the way it delegates semiotic power to the viewers . When
characters in shows like Moonlighting refer to the writers or walk off the set,
when Miami Vice breaks the I80 -degree rule and draws attention to its stylistic
devices, or when Magnum PI is shot partially in black and white in an explicit
reference to film noir, television is setting up contradictions with its own realistic
mode: it is simultaneously inviting and shattering the illusion of realism. It is
significant that this tendency is clearest in those television genres that are most
"authored," closest to a novel or film, for in these realistic fictional genres
television has had to devise different methods from those of sport or news by
which to draw attention to its authorial authority , to demystify it, and, thus, to
allow the viewer access to it in a producerly way. The "willingness" of realism's
"willing suspension of disbelief' is central to the pleasures of viewing, those
producerly pleasures of access to the process of representation, and the reading
position that this access promotes. This playful toying with the boundary between
our sense of the representation and of the real exploits the final contradiction in
popular art forms which depend, at least in part, upon realism's request to
willingly suspend disbelief, and it is a necessary contradiction for television to
exploit. For realism is essentially a unifying, closing strategy of representation, it
is necessarily authoritarian. But the pleasures of television are democratic, to be
found in its diversity, so the fracture of realism, the inclusion of the viewer into
the process of representation is necessary if television is to be popular in a
heterogeneous society.
Of course, television viewers realized this long before its producers. Women
viewers of soap opera have long been adept at playing with this boundary
between the representation and the real." Their oft-chronicled and oft-derided
belief in the represented characters as "real" people is not only a knowing
self-delusion entered into to increase their pleasure, but is also one they are able
to extricate themselves from at will, particularly at the first sign of displeasure."
70
It is typically accompanied by a critical awareness of the conventions of soap

opera, and of its conditions of production. There is a pleasure in playing with
television's textuality, in exploiting one's ability to submit oneself to, and to
distance oneself from, its illusion of reality that is finally a democratic one, for it
allows the viewer both control of reading relations and access to the process of
representation.
Pleasure, semiosis, and difference

The relationship between pleasure and meaning needs to be rethought.
Universalistic notions of pleasure derived from psychoanalytic theory do not get
us very far in understandingsomethingas diverseas television. Similarly,notions
of jouissance and affective pleasure require an intensity of viewing and a loss of
subjectivity that do not accord with television's typical modes of reception.
Television is not an orgasmic medium. Any theoryof televisualpleasure must be
able to account for both the diversity of the televisualexperienceand the activity
of the viewers within it: it must derive from the social heterogeneity of viewers
and of moments of viewing, and from a notion of television textuality as
delegated semiosis, what we may call its semiotic democracy.
The pleasures of television lie notjust in the meaningsit provokes, but also in
the access it offers viewers to the process of representation itself. This invites
them to adopt a producerly reading relation to its textuality that is necessary if
they are to produce from it meanings and pleasures that are subculturally
pertinent to them. This producerly relation to the text is a non-subjected one that
is a precondition for pleasure. It has its parallel, too, in the world of the social, for
it is discursively similar to the subject's process of making sense of social
experience and of the social system that provides the conditions for that
experience; this process, of course, involves also making sense of our own
subjectivity. For this process to be pleasurable there must be some sense of
control over at least part of it, some sense of participation in it, and certainly no
sense of being excluded from it. There is no pleasure in being totally subjected
by the social system or in being made a "cultural dope" by a text." Semiotic
democracy entails the subject's power to participate in and inflect meanings of
text, social experience, and subjectivity.
The power inherent in this process is both pleasurable and political. But of
course it is not undeterminedor limitless. Power can only exist in the experience
of resistance: democracy is only necessary (or pleasurable) in the face of
autocratic forces. The power and the pleasure of makingone's own subculturally
pertinent meanings out of television can only exist in recognition that opposing
semiotic forces are at work in the text. The process of making meanings out of
television involves the recognition of authorial, centralizing lines of semiotic
force against which the viewer-produced, decentered, democratic meanings are
opposed. The centripetal-centrifugalmetaphor is a useful one here: the pleasures
of television are diverse, around the circumference, and can exist only in
71
John Fiske
unstable , shifting moments of balance with the opposing centripetal forces that
seek to center, unify, and provide ready-made meanings. But the model works in
both ways. Television expects to be disagreed with: its centripetal forces depend
upon centrifugal ones.
This viewer-disagreement, this viewer-challenge, goes beyond the challenge
to the meanings that television offers and becomes pleasurable when it becomes
a challenge to the power to make meanings. This is when it also becomes
political. For the power to make meanings, albeit within conditions not of our
own making, is the power to be different. This power to be different can only be
understood as power if it is seen in relations of resistance to homogenizing forces .
In a liberal pluralistic model of society there is neither power nor threat in social
difference; consequently social differences are seen as contributing to social
harmony and stability rather than as motors for social change . The social model
I prefer is one that characterizes the agencies of social power as working
hegemonically to minimize the awareness of social differences, to construct a
common sense of social relations that emphasizes harmony and commonality.
The power to be different, then, is a resistive power and one that keeps alive the
possibility of social change.
Any social system requires a system of meanings to underpin it, to stabilize it,
or destabilize it. Popular television can never have a direct radical or subversive
effect and it is fruitless to propose that it ought to. However many feminist
readings and pleasures women may find in soap opera, the viewing experience of
itself wiII never bring them out on the streets in anti-patriarchal revolution . The
domains of entertainment and of politics are simply not interconnected along
such direct, cause-and-effect channels . But neither is each domain completely
autonomous from the other.
The domain of entertainment deals in the interior pleasures of the meanings of
texts, of self, and of social relations; any resistance within it is semiotic, not
social. Semiotic resistance may not pass beyond the world of the interior, but this
does not invalidate it. Angela McRobbie argues that fantasy is a private , intimate
experience which can be part of a strategy of resistance or oppos ition for it
constitutes an area that cannot be finally colonized and is, paradoxically, as real
an experience as "baby sitting or staying in to do the washing.?"
The power to think differently from the way preferred by the structures of
dominance has a political dimension , even if the meanings produced by such
thought remain interior and are not circulated subcuiturally. The political
effectiveness of the minority whose resistance takes the form of organized social
action depends upon the support of a grass-roots body of the people who are
thinking similarly resistant thoughts. Though this semiotic resistance need not
translate into direct political resistance, it can, even if the politics is that of the
family rather than the state. Seiter et al. found a soap opera fan whose pleasure in
a woman character's extramarital affair translated into a direct, if playful,
challenge to her husband." Radway found similarly that some women readers of
romance novels found that their reading gave them the increased self-confidence
72
to stand up to and oppose the patriarchal power in their marriages." The

difference between semiotic resistance and socio-political resistance is not at all
clearly defined: the interioris, to coin a phrase, the political.
The origins of social change do not lie in cultural representations, but in
materialsocial conditions. Cultural representations obviously have an important
role to play in the meanings they can provoke people to make of these social
conditions, and television can and does participate to an extent in offering
progressive, if not radical, meanings. But I wouldargue that television'spolitical
effectivity and its progressive potential lie rather in its ability to devolve the
power to make meanings rather than in any alternative meanings it may offer. Its
delegated semiosis encourages the production of semiotic differences which in
tum enable social differences to be maintained.
Not all social differences are subjected to the forces of homogenization in the
same way. Racial differences, for instance may, as in The Cosby Show, be
"whitened" or homogenized (I suspect, in the absenceof direct evidence, that it
offers morepleasurable meanings of race to whites thanit does to blacks), or they
may be largely ignored, or written out of the system. This may result in such
groups not watching television (Morley found that unemployed black girls did
not watch Nationwide because it offered them nothing") or, if they choose to
watch they becomeingenious almostto the point of deviousness in finding black
pleasures and meanings in whitetexts- witness the Aboriginal readersof Rambo
and westerns quoted above. Gans discovered different oppositional reading
relations amongst Boston's Italian community in the 196Os.37 Young males
would enjoy jeering at white Anglo-Saxon television heroes in a way that gave
them pleasureand empowerment in their sense of ethnic difference: these were
not the pleasures of accommodation to the dominant, but of the subordinate
asserting their pride in their difference. Oppressed and silenced groups will only
enjoy television which offers them the opportunity to participate in this semiotic
democracy with its ability to empower the subordinate by providing the
opportunity of making resisting meanings of text, society, and subjectivity, and
thus to provide a sense of self-confidence in the subordinate that enables their
maintenance of social difference , their resistance to the hegemonizing,
incorporating process of homogenization.
Television's heteroglossia reproduces social heterogeneity. The contradiction
between television's statusas an authored text and its apparentunwrittenness that
allows the vieweraccess to the authorial roleof making meanings reproduces the
struggles for power and (semi-)autonomy in a capitalist democracy. Social
change can only be motivated by a sense of social difference, and television, far
from being the agent of homogenization that pessimists in the past have feared,
is moreproductively understood as an enabler,if not an active agent, of diversity
and difference.
73
John Fiske
Critical intervention
Television's textuality is not bounded by the titles and credits of a program ,
subjectivity cannot be confined within the skin or history of an individual, and
similarly viewing television cannot be confined to the periods when the set is
switched on. Television is not only part of the process of viewing, or reading or
talking about it, but it is also part of our cultural lives when its presence is less
direct, less obvious. We need to investigate ways in which a television fan
watches movies in a cinema or attends a live ballgame: we need to probe how a
middle-aged fan of Miami Vice makes sense of his own shabby dress. Television
is part of family relations and family politics, it is part of gender relations and
politics, part of consumer relations and politics. Again, a comprehensive map of
all the cultural processes, of which television viewing is only one, is both
impossible and unnecessary. What is needed is the investigation of instances that
are no more and no less typical than other instances. And the emphasis should be
not on what people do, not on what their social experience is, but on how they
make sense of it. Their recorded words and behaviors are not data giving us their
reactions and meanings, but instances of the sense-making process that we call
culture, clues of how this process works and can be actualized .
The ability of the critic to intervene in the politics of popular culture, to
counter the forces of domination and support those of resistance or evasion,
depends upon a far more sympathetic and detailed understanding of the cultural
economy than we have so far achieved. The traditional critical emphasis from the
left has focused upon the power of the industry and upon the power of ideology
and hegemony . This has led us to locate the appropriate sites of intervention in
the processes of production and representation. A more effective, if
methodologically much more difficult, focus for intervention might be the
diversity of sites of reception, but instrumental simplicity should not be the only
factor in our choice of appropriate political action.
The main problem facing the critic today is to understand popular pleasures
and popular discrimination, and on the basis of this understanding to decide how
and if to intervene in both the production and reception of texts. It may be that
open heteroglossic texts such as Dallas (which Altman characterizes as a "menu"
from which viewers choose") are actually socially and politically more
progressive than more closed , monoglossic texts, even ones that prefer more
apparently progressive meanings. The progressiveness of popular television may
lie in heteroglossic programs that not only promote the dominant ideology but
that also offer opportunities to resist, oppose, and evade it. As yet, we just do not
know.
We can only find out by paying more attention to the moments of reception for
only here can we determine which texts and which characteristics of those texts
offer their polysemy for semiotic mobilization by the subordinate, and how these
semiotic differences are produced and circulated subculturally . We also need to
discover why some members of subordinated groups are more productive or
74
more resistant viewers than others. The critic can only intervene effectively on
the basis of adequate understanding, and on the basis of a deep respect for the
pleasure that the subordinate make from their popular culture. It may seem
unfortunate that it is commercially motivated mainstream television that is best
able to offer these pleasures, but possibly the commercial imperative has brought
its producers to a closer relationship with popular social experience than the more
distantly theorized political-moral-aesthetic position of those with both a social
conscience and a social power has been able to achieve .
The question facing progress ive critics may now need reversing: rather than
asking how it is that the culture industry makes people into commodities that
serve its interests, we should now be asking how it is that the people can tum the
products of the industry into their popular culture and can make them serve their
interests .
Social differences are produced by the social system but the meanings of these
differences are produced by culture: the sense of them has to be constantly
produced and reproduced as part of the subject's experience of these differences.
Viewer-driven meanings made from texts and subculturaIly driven meanings
made of social experience involve the pleasures of producing meanings rather
than the subjection of being produced by them, and make it possible to maintain
a consciousness of those abrasive, uncomfortable social differences that
hegemonic common sense works so hard to smooth over.
And television plays a crucial role in this; though it is produced by the culture
industry and bears within it the lines of hegemonic force, it is met by the tactics
of the everyday. De Certeau argues that social power and the power to make
meanings that serve the interests of the dominant work strategically, that is, they
work in the manner of an occupying army, in a massively organized structure of
power." But they are met by the tactics of guerriIla warfare, by tactical, fleeting
raids upon their weak points which are not organized into any master plan, but
which exploit the particularities and possibilities of each tactical moment.
According to de Certeau, "people make do with what they have," and in the
heavily bureaucratized and industrialized society of late capitalism, what people
have is what is provided for them by the institutions and industries of capitalism.
It is through these that the social strategy is put into practice, but its effectivity
must not be read simply from its intent or from the strength of the forces at its
disposal. It is not only the US army in Vietnam and the Soviet army in
Afghanistan that have been unable to devise a strategy to beat guerrilla tactics.
What we need to investigate, after de Certeau's provocative theorizing, is the
everyday tactical, and therefore pleasurable, uses of these cultural resources
(albeit industriaIly produced), the everyday deployment of the tactics of evasion,
expropriation, and resistance.
The links between semiotic power/resistance/pleasure and the maintenance of
resistive social differences, the role of television in this, and the part that all this
can play in social change are theoreticaIly arguable. What I would like to see is
the methodologicaIly daunting project of tracing actual instances of these links
75
John Fiske
being made, of these processes being actualized, of the delineation of the

multitude of cultural processes at work in the different moments of viewing
television.
Notes
2 Lawrence Grossberg, "The In-Difference of Television," Screen 28, no. 2 (spring
1987): 28-46 .
2 Lawrence Grossberg (ed.) "On Postmodemism and Articulation: An Interview
with Stuart Hall," Journal ofCommunication Inquiry 10, no.2 (summer 1986):
45-60.
3 Robert Hodge and David Tripp, Children and Television (Cambridge : Polity
Press, 1986). Prisoner, (screened in the US under the title Prisoner - Cell Block
H) is an Australian soap opera set in a women 's prison . Hodge and Tripp (p.49)
found that school students identified many similarities between school students
and prisoners:
1 pupils are shut in;

2 pup ils are separated from their friends;
3 pupils would not be there if they were not made to be;
4 pupils only work because they are punished if they do not and it is less boring
than doing nothing at all;
5 pupils have no rights; they can do nothing about an unfair teacher ;
6 some teachers victimize their pupils;
7 there are gangs and leaders amongst the pupils;
8 there are silly rules which everyone tries to break .
These similarities enable Prisoner to provide the students with an imaginative

"language" with which to think through their experience of powerlessness in the
school. The meanings of subordination were those of the subordinate, not of the
dominant, and there is evidence that students found these meanings both
pleasurable and empowering.
4 Sale ofthe Century and Prisoner were both "articulations" of school in that both
could be linked with school and could be used differently to "speak," or make
sense of, the school experience. See John Fiske, Television Culture (London and
New York : Methuen, 1987).
5 Pierre Bourdieu, "The Aristocracy of Culture," Media, Culture, and Society 2, no.
3 (July 1980): 225-54.
6 Dorothy Hobson, "Crossroads" : The Drama ofa Soap Opera (London: Methuen,
1982).
7 Hodge and Tripp , Children and Television.
8 John Tulloch and Albert Moran, "A Country Practice" : 'Quality Soap' (Sydney:
Currency Press, 1986).
9 Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes, "Mutual Aid in the Decoding of Dallas:
Preliminary Notes from a Cross -Cultural Case Study," in Phillip Drummond and
Richard Paterson (eds) Television in Transition, (London: British Film Ins titute,
1985), pp . 187-98.
10 Eric Michaels, "Aboriginal Content: Who's Got it - Who Needs it" (paper
presented at the Australian Screen Studies Association Conference, Sydney,
December 1986).
76
11 Fiske, Television Culture ; e.g. Sydney children in 1982 and 1983 were singing
their version of a Tooheys beer commercial: "How do you feel when you're
having a fuck, under a truck, and the truck rolls off? I feel like a Tooheys', I feel
like a Tooheys ', I feel like a Tooheys' or two" (Children's Folklore Archives,
Australian Studies Centre, Curtin University).
12 Nicholas Gamham, "Concepts of Culture: Public Policy and the Cultural
Industries," Cultural Studies I, no.l (January 1987): 23-37.
13 See Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz' chapter in this volume, pp. 204-22.
14 Roland Barthes, Writing Degree Zero (New York: Hill & Wang, 1977).
15 Fiske, Television Culture .
16 Raymond Williams, Telev ision: Technology and Cultural Form (London:
Fontana, 1974).
17 John Ellis, Visible Fictions : Cinema Television Video (London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1982).
18 Justin Wren-Lewis, "Decoding Television News," in Drummond and Paterson,
Televis ion in Transition, pp. 205-34.
19 Robert C. Allen, Speaking a/Soap Operas (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, 1985).
20 See, e.g., Charlotte Brunsdon, "Writing about Soap Opera," in Len Masterman
(ed.) Television Mythologies : Stars , Shows and Signs, (London: Cornedia, 1986),
pp. 82-7; Tulloch and Moran, Country Practice ; and Fiske, Television Culture .
21 Tulloch and Moran, Countr y Practice .
22 Roland Barthes, SIZ (London: Cape, 1975).
23 Tony Bennett, "The Bond Phenomenon: Theorizing a Popular Hero," Southern
Review 16, no.2 (1983): 195-225 .
24 Katz and Liebes, "Mutual Aid."
25 Stephen Heath and Gillian Skirrow, 'Television: A World in Action," Screen 18,
no. 2 (summer 1977): 7-59; Jane Feuer, 'The Concept of Live Television:
Ontology versus Ideology," in E. Ann Kaplan (ed.) Regarding Television,
(Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, 1983), pp. 12-22.
26 John Hartley, "Encouraging Signs: TV and the Power of Dirt, Speech and
Scandalous Categories," in W. Rowland and B. Watkins (eds) lnierpreting
Televis ion: Current Research Perspectives (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984), pp.
119-41.
27 Fiske, Television Culture; Jane Feuer, "Melodrama, Serial Form and Television
Today," Screen 25, no. 1 (January-February 1984): 4-16.
28 len Ang, Watching "Dallas" : Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination
(London and New York: Methuen, 1985).
29 John Fiske, "Television: Polysemy and Popularity," Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 3, no. 4 (December 1986): 200-16.
30 Hobson, Crossroads, and Ang, Watching "Dallas" .
31 John Davies, "The Television Audience Revisited" (paper presented at the
Australian Screen Studies Association Conference, Brisbane, 1984); and Fiske,
Television Culture.
32 Stuart Hall, "Notes on Deconstructing 'The Popular.!" in Robert Samuel (ed.)
People 's History and Social Theory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981),
pp.227-40.
33 Angela McRobbie, "Dance and Social Fantasy," in Angela McRobbie and Mica
Nava (eds) Gender and Generation (London: Macmillan, 1984), pp. 130-61.
34 See the chapter by Seiter et al. in this volume, pp.223-47.
35 Janice Radway, Reading the Romance : Women, Patriarchy and Popular
Literature (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
77
John Fiske

37 Herbert Gans, The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian
Americans (New York: The Free Press, 1962).
38 Rick Altman, "Television/Sound," in Tania Modleski (00.) Studies in
Entertainment: Critical Approaches to Mass Culture (Bloomington : Indiana
University Press, 1986), pp. 39-54.
39 Michel de Certeau, The Practice ofEveryday Life (Berkeley, Calif.: University of
California Press, 1984).
78
Chapter four
Live television and its audiences:

Challenges of media reality 1
Claus-Dieter Rath
At the end of his televised address to the nation on New Year's Eve 1986, West
German Chancellor Kohl asked for God's blessings for 1986. For a while it was
not quite clear whether this was due to a lapse or a technical problem. Next day,
the first day of 1987, the network apologized and broadcast the correct New
Year's address. The prerecorded cassette had been mixed up with the one from
the year before. One of the commentators on the glitch wrote:
Shouldn't we - the people - be upset about being fed with canned material on
this dignified and festive occasion? I think it is reasonable to give a live
address if one wants to be taken seriously. Besides, it would be the best
guarantee against mixing up cassettes, be it intentionally or by stupid mistake.'
Live broadcast as a risk factor

This was one of the rare occasions when something went wrong with a
prerecorded broadcast. But then, generally speaking, live broadcasts are much
more risky both from a technical and from a content point of view. We need of
course to distinguish between regular, well-prepared routine live broadcasts and
special, out-of-schedule live events. Among the former are sports shows like
soccer games, car races, ski competitions, most studio discussions and talk
shows, news and public affairs programs, religious services, reports from the
stock exchange, some concerts and theater plays, certain game shows on
Saturday evenings. The second group includes the coverage of catastrophes,
national predicaments, festivities, and public anniversaries, important speeches
by political leaders or parliamentary debates, etc. As a rule, events of this second
type are mostly broadcast in an improvised way, since they are assumed to be of
particular or even urgent interest to the public. The regular program schedule is
then abandoned in favor of the rhythm of events.'
Live broadcast as a choice in programming

From a technical point of view, live television is no real necessity any more.
Since the late 1950s, when AMPEX developed electronic video-recording
79
Claus-Dieter Rath
facilit ies, preproduction techniques have allowed for an effective control of the
television program. Nevertheless, live broadcasts continue to exist just as in the
early days of television. Over the last decade they have become more and more
appreciated - at least by European audiences and television producers. We find a
growing number of live interviews and reports as part of the evening news or of
certain public affairs programs. Discussions of the meet-the-press variety, rock
concerts (often broadcast in several countries simultaneously or even
worldwide), talk shows, and live sports programs are increasingly represented on
television. This tendency has actually gone so far that live transmission is
presently regarded as a special quality of television. Let us examine some of
direct broadcasting's essential dynamics .
Live as an "impure" broadcast

Although the viewer knows that he or she is sharing the event via the eye of the
camera, direct broadcasting supports the illusion of one's immediate presence on
the scene, the impression that one is an eyewitness. This supposedly direct view
occurs almost in real time. Broadcasting time lasts as long as the cameras are
running.' Thus, the program is put together not by integrating several versions of
one take at the editing table, but by the spontaneous development of the events in
front of the camera and by the moment-to-moment decisions of the television
crew, who often become "actors" on the scene.' This is why, in a live broadcast,
footage which would have been cut out of a recording will actually get aired.
Mistakes - or what are considered such - cannot be erased . The live broadcast is
an "impure" broadcast.
The choice of topics

First of all, obviously, the mediated event is chosen among an infinite number of
events, since television has, of course, its economic and temporal limitations.
Among the major constraints producers work under are the need to make money
and the banal but important consideration that the viewers' day has only
twenty-four hours. Therefore, selection has to take place, selection among items
of information, topics, and images to be put on the air. One of the main criteria
for this decision is the degree of topicality of a forthcoming or ongoing event. Its
definition determines the placing and timing given to an event - and supposedly
the extent of the audience's attention. Live broadcasts based on the assumption
of an event's topicality have consequently become eagerly sought-after
commodities in the world of television - to the point where public and private
television stations compete for them. This race for topicality and the live
broadcast not only reflects changes in technology, but, more importantly, also in
the social fabric in general and consequently in aesthetics."
80
Live television and its audiences
Topicality
Approaching topicality? phenomenologically, we can describe it by
distinguishing between the set of opposites shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1
Topicality V5. Non-topicality
something new, news vs. something old, known for a long time
here and now vs. experience , tradition
emerging, vanishing vs, existing
urgent , imminent, hot vs. long-term, boring , lukewarm
alarm, horror vs. habit, the habitual
moment vs. duration
dynamic vs. structure
concrete vs. abstracr''
Essentially, then, topicality is an instrument for producing attention. Or, to

tum this around: the individual or a group pays attention to an event as soon as it
is marked by special, topical signs, a certain number of which are known in all
cultures and to all people: love and death, faithfulness and treachery, existence
and danger, power and failure, gain and loss,"
Topicality as a socialcondition
Proneness to topicality varies from one society to another, from one area of life
to another, from individual to individual, and from one situation to another.
While in static or "cold" (Levi-Strauss) societies topicality is mainly constituted
by cyclical events (rites of hunting and cultivating, of sacrifices, of initiation, of
war, etc.), the modem, historical, "hot" societies tend to be permanent generators
and consumers of topicality .10 Among the factors conducive to this dynamization
are the process of capitalist industrialization with its overall acceleration of
public and private areas of life, changing political power constellations, daily
stock exchange quotations, transport conditions in the big cities, news program
schedules , special announcements interrupting their rhythms, fashions
determining who or what is "in" or "out." But even "hot" societies may have their
"colder" and their "hotter" phases (economic crisis, civil war).
The impactof mediatopicalities

Individuals living in modem societies are in a certain sense subjected to a
permanent process of initiation through media topicalities . Media events generate
a cultural climate or mood which may become decisive for a period of our lives.
81
Claus-Dieter Rath
There are three aspects of viewer involvement with television broadcasts.

First, physical involvement: it functions via identification with the physical
actions of television's actors (sportsmen, game competitors, fighters, dancers,
lovers, etc.) as well as with the dynamics of sound-track and of camera
movements and montage. Second, linguistic involvement: through the
presentation of the event by means of sight and sound (the language of cameras,
editing, reporters' commentaries, etc.) the illusion of being there and of sharing
the view via the eye of the camera is created. Television thus becomes an
electronic network. Third , social and cultural involvement: the spectator is
brought into time through a linkage of macro- and micro-practices of power,
between the public sphere and private daily life, between the idea of collective
life and the rituals of the television viewer.
In a broad sense, the live media event presents a timing which is socially
compelling. It guarantees our being in time, our being up to date. We may
speak of live television , which thereby functions as an apparatus of synchro-
nization, as an audio-visual implantation into the social body's "inter-
dependence-chains." 11
Event - story - history

If the journalistic or media-bureaucratic routine is interrupted, this happens , as
we have discussed, in the name of a topical event. Since the latter connotes
something new, extraordinary, unprecedented, right now emerging, it is viewed
in relation to history, in terms of the (future) classification of the event in a
historical continuum. Our feeling is one of taking part in a historical event.
If a present or past event is declared to be of historical relevance, it must in
some way rise above the everyday chaos of factual details. As a special "point in
time"12 it must be specifically linked to the past and the future. It must also have
a special quality of content - a quality that attributes continuity to the plurality of
facts and fragments of the "discrete images in time."13 Thus an event, we may
say, is being subjected to the "chronological coding"14 of historiography.
Levi-Strauss calls historiography "never history but the history-for,':" that is,
history for an imaginary other - an absent subject like a future viewer, listener or
reader, people from other societies, etc. The individual occurrence gets
short-circuited into a fictitious historical stream, and the event gains
socio-cultural sense. Thus live broadcast narration, with its visual, verbal, and
sound commentary, integrates the event into the symbolic order provided by
historical and cultural continuity. We are dealing with a process which posits a
specific relationship between moment and structure.
Seen from the angle of the viewer, the apparently empty time of his or her
everyday life is transformed into full time - time filled by public or publicized
events. Life becomes full of supposedly significant events. The viewer becomes
part of the social fabric through the sudden impact of the "world outside " upon a
moment in his or her memory; in a flash these episodes of "public interest" add
82
fragments to his or her own life story. The viewer's life becomes a story, since
what emerges is a holographic social space, an electronic 3-D picture, in which
the individual suddenlyappears as part of a symbolic structure." More precisely,
attending the integration of a topical event, which may happen to be a relatively
shocking occurrence, into the symbolic forms of story and history, can help the
viewer, via identification, to integrate his or her individually perceived traumas
and subjective phantasies into the grids of symbolic, cultural order.'? In this
sense, television broadcasts represent cultural authority - even if they are not
considered to be, or labeled as, cultural broadcasts.
We are familiar with this type of extension of our everyday imagination and
experience, from participating in festivities or mass events - like national
anniversaries, parades, and public trials - from witnessing pickets or street
demonstrations or, still in some countries today, executions. The "Hands across
America" event which took place in 1986 is a recent example of this type. It is a
type which signals affirmation or protest against the establishedorder. Generally
speaking, the relationship between maintaining and overthrowing public order
which we observe in such traditional mass events appears to be a decisive
element of live television."
Television as part of social power-relations

It does not take a sociological training to regard television as an institution of
power. A viewer's dissatisfaction with a program will trigger responses such as:
"That's what they want to make us believel'"?
As an announcementmedium and one that providesconformitywith the spirit
of the time, television combines micro- and macro-practices of power. It is a
guiding medium both for those who control a station and for the watching and
listening subjects who ensure reality by means of television, by taking it as a
guide for their lives." Thus, an essential function of televisionlies in its capacity
for semantic and syntactic mediation, which is independent of the individual
program, be it news, political propaganda, or an entertainmentshow. Therefore
the power relationbetweentelevisionand theaudienceis alreadyoperative on the
level of its network form. This is not to say that the television institution is
necessarilya totalitarianinstrument, since
in itself the exercise of power is not violence; nor is it a consent which,
implicitly, is renewable. It is a total structure of actions brought to bear upon
possible actions; it incites, it induces, it seduces, it makes easier or more
difficult: in the extreme it constrains or forbids absolutely; it is nevertheless
always a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of
their acting or being capable of action. A set of actions upon other actions."
There is a conflict between televisionand political-economic institutionson the
one hand and televisionand the audienceon the other which is often grounded in
the concept of "inappropriate" representation of facts, i.e. restrained or
83
Claus-Dieter Rath
exaggerated consideration of an event. Within the social institution of television

conflicts may arise, when, for instance, a live-broadcast participant acts
unsuitably or is ill-mannered and "the audience" (which might be individuals or
representatives of parties or pressure groups) protests by telephone, or an editor
or TV director intervenes. The consequences may be the broadcast's immediate
interruption or sanctions against those who were in charge of the program
(commentators or editors will no longer be in charge of the program or will lose
their jobs). It might also happen that the mediated event itself initiates a dynamic
which leads to the broadcast's cancellation because of ethical, moral, political or
aesthetic considerations (if it deals with obscenity, atrocities , suffering or dying
people, scandals, etc .). The need for topicality requires suspense and the
extraordinary (extremes, sensations, the exotic, the monstrous, etc.). Not
infrequently, television is involved in such a dynamic, because an event's
representation must maintain its topical quality (something has to happen) and its
"telegeneousness" (i.e. it must be technically and dramaturgically accessible). In
its search for the extraordinary, television as a power institution runs the risk of
becoming overwhelmed by it. Thus a program could itself become involved in
the creation of a scandal by provoking a real drama, directly intervening in the
action."
On the other hand, we can observe as well that the mere presence of a station's
emblems ("Are you filming for TV or for yourself?") will feed back on to the
event. The presence of television cameras will cause the characters who
participate in the event to stage themselves for television. We shall return to this
point.
In the light of these considerations we are led to focus on a triple set of issues
which may be distinguished from one another:
1 the television institution's interrelation with a specific event, i.e. estimation

of its topicality, reactions to the event (ignoring, minimizing, dramatizing,
blowing it up), considerations about the political , financial, and technical
risks of a coverage, the internal limitations of its time grids.
2 the spectator's interrelation with the specific event, i.e. what does the
event signify to him or her, does it have a subjective topicality for the
spectator?
3 the spectator's interrelation with the television institution, i.e, how does he
or she judge the station's way of dealing with the event by symbolizing and
codifying it, by showing and telling what is "reality"?
Showing and telling the event

It would be wrong to assume that the live/non-live opposition has anything to do
with the reality/fiction opposition or with the realism/mise-en-scene dichotomy.
Without any doubt the event at the scene can be falsified by the broadcast. Live
editing has at its disposal not only the whole range of camera techn iques and
84
Live telev ision and its audiences
sound engineering but also a large variety of advanced electronic devices (like
picture and lettering inserts, acoustical and color effects, etc.) to manipulate
image and sound.
Needless to say, what we get to see on a live broadcast has already been
prepared and selected by live-editingon the control monitors.It has been scanned
and given a rhythm; the camera peopleand the speakers have already commented
on the event.
For Umberto Eco live television is "an improvised report.?" The director tries
to imposean order on an amorphoussituation. It is his or her job to tell a story by
interweaving diverse elements. Relying on organization,choice of elements, and
their composition, tonality, and style, the director has to blend qualitatively and
quantitatively different kinds of event sequences. The result may be an exciting
drama, but it will always be the director's symbolization or interpretation. "The
producer's choice becomes a composition, a narration, a discursive reunion of
images, analytically detached from the context of an entire series of simultaneous
and overlapping events.'?' What intervenes between the event and its represent-
ation is the order of discourse to which televisionproducers are subjected."
Live suspense
What live broadcasts share with other program types, such as television features
or fictional series, is their dramatic intensity. "Action" and "drama," of course,
are aesthetic concepts deriving in their audio-visualform from the theater and the
cinema, and as such they have to be constructed. Therefore, the dramatic quality
of fictional programs may be much higher than that of direct broadcasting. But
"live" television adds another dimension to these characteristics: like dramatic
incidents on the street or in the family, "live" television is endowed with the
special notion of an encounter with the "real." Its particular attraction lies in the
promise of the unforeseeable. An example is the tragic Brussels 1986 soccer
game with its panic scenes and the succeeding slaughter right in front of the
cameras.
"Live" is in opposition to "canned," "recorded" - just as fresh food stands in
contrast to canned food. But as fresh food is not the same as raw food, a live event
is not the same as the "real." It is rather a symbolic approach to the "real." As
Rene Magritte put it:
The mystery is obviously something unrecognizable, which is to say that it is
not representable, either iconographically or symbolically. Thus I am not
looking for a representation of the mystery but for pictures of the visible
world, which are united in an order that evokes the mystery."
If, then, the unforeseeablebreaks into the "live" broadcast, the representationwill
tend to destroy - at least for an instant - television's firmly established symbolic
order. In this instance, something gets out of control, and often the authority is
not able to stamp the event with its symbols; for a split second we find ourselves
85
Claus-Dieter Rath
in a non-legal space. Here, at the outer edge of the symbolic, a momentof horror
is constituted. The viewers then judge the unfolding discourse or even the
speechlessness of the media agent according to what they perceive in sight and
sound about that particular instance. They judge whether or not the right words
are found, whetheran adequate mise-en-scene is constructed, thus reintegrating
the event into the specificsymbolic, cultural order.
Topicalities and (pseudo-)myths

Although eagerness for topical events - as stories- is an effect of the historical
invention of the electronic media and, even before, of the press and cinema, its
origins lie beyond them, in a socio-cultural shift that took place in the course of
the twentiethcentury.
In 1933, the cultural philosopher Walter Benjamin pointed out the gradual
decline of "experience": after the disturbing experiences of the First World War
and inflation, the transmission of the human heritage from generation to
generation - expertise, maxims, various forms of knowledge as an aid for the
single subject acting in and interpreting the world - was no longer decisive."
Under the impact of these shocking historical events, traditional wisdom and
experience were superseded by the immediate present, the momentarily
meaningful, by topicalactuality. What emergedwasa specificdisposition toward
the present moment." This shift from experience to actuality represents, on the
one hand, an enormouschallenge to and - consequently - change in perception
and aesthetics; and on the other, paradoxically, it leads to an invasion of
imperativepseudo-myths.
This tremendous development in technology has brought along an entirely
new form of poverty for mankind. And the reverse fact of this poverty is the
oppressive wealth of ideas, which has come with the revivalof astrology and
yoga wisdom, Christian Science and palmistry, vegetarianism and gnosis,
scholasticism and spiritualism, and has been spread among- or rather, over-
the people.For it is not a case of true revival,but one of galvanization ."
The extinction of experienceis not synonymous with the extinctionof mythical
structures. Rather, the extinction of certain types of tradition (i.e, the transfer of
experience) can increase the value of others, something which is confirmed by
the significanceof such phenomena as sensational journalismor human interest
stories.Here, each occurrenceis presented as a recurrenceof certain (sentimental
or scandalous) patterns and dynamics - but in the form of a shockingevent.
As Benjamin pointed out, referring to the cinema audience's perceptive
situation,
the film is the art form that is in keeping with the increased threat to his life
which modem man has to face. Man's need to expose himself to shockeffects
is his adjustment to the dangers threatening him. The film corresponds to
86
profound changes in the apperceptive apparatus - changes that are

experienced on an individual scale by the man in the street in big-city traffic,
on a historical scale by every presentday citizen."
Catching the moment

Live broadcasting attempts to capture the significant moments of an event. This
is why it sometimes lasts unbearably long. The climax must be waited for. It is
not alwayspossibleto increasesuspense by presenting imagesor by the speaker's
intervention. Often, "nothing" happens: the soccer game has not started yet, the
president of the republic has not yet appeared in front of the waiting crowd to
make his declaration, the missile launch has been postponed, latest election
resultsare not yet in. But the cameras transmit images. We are thereand we stay
there, for the long-awaited "unexpected" could happen in just a moment. This
type of expectation can be produced - on different levels and with different
intensities - by the hesitation of a quiz candidate, the private confessions of a
talk-show guest, star appearances, sportsrecords, speeches to the nation in cases
of emergency, or by a possible catastrophe or an assassination attempt during an
official state occasion."
Whatfascinates us, whileweare still waiting, is the auraof the"inaccessible,"
that whichcan be imagined, yet - due to subjective and socialcensorship - is not
actuallyperceived. The uncanny is the majorcharacteristic of live television. We,
as assumed eyewitnesses, can see the unfolding of the event, perceive what
"evokes the mystery," in Magritte's words. What is expectedto occur (and what
causes the suspense) is a moment of truth.
Let us take as an example the - extraordinary - live coverageof situations in
which an individual or a group of people are trapped in a cave or mine, i.e.
situations which prohibit visual access. What we wait for in these instances is
evidence, the visualization of facts. In 1949, Kathy Fiskus' tragicentrapment was
commented uponas paradigmatic of television:
Two television stations, KTTV and KTLA, kept theircameras focussed on the
scene continuously for twenty-seven hours. The coverage was set down as a
milestone for the medium's development comparable to radio's spectacular
performance on the occasion of Floyd Collins' entrapment in Kentucky in
1925.32
Of course, hundreds of movies are based on the same situation (calamities in
Arcticstations,submarines, hotels,aeroplanes, elevators, etc.), but live television
works like an epiphany: the appearance of a hidden or lost, a desired object. It
may appear from one moment to the next. Will the victim live or die? Who is
guilty? Will MotherEarth set her prisoners free? Are there any heroes to snatch
the victim from the jaws of death? What we are facing here are facts (birth and
death) which can be dealt with in terms of stories. Birth and death cannot "tell
themselves" since they are hypolinguistic phenomena, but they have an
87
Claus-Dieter Rath
enormous cultural and subjective value, as we can easily perceive if we examine

our birth phantasies or our phantasies of danger, threat, and death. As discourse
events they appear in the form of myths, pseudo-myths or narrative stereotypes.
Thus, the events themselves acquire the status of topicality, because in a
particular socio-political situation they trigger phantasms of universal or at least
broad cultural range. They become local, regional, national, or even planetary
affairs which we face privately in our cosy living-rooms .
This concept is reinforced by public statements such as those which followed
the 1949 incident:
A little girl was dead. That was the news - just one little girl. Three days ago
only a few people knew the name of this little girl. Yesterday there was no one
in this country and few in other civilized countries who had not heard of
three-year-old Kathy Fiskus of San Marino, California. Millions upon
millions followed the heartbreaking story as they did no other news of the day
. .. . Yet, even Kathy's father and mother must have felt that something like a
miracle of human compassion had taken place. Their little daughter had
suddenly become a symbol of something precious in all our lives. Two great
world wars and many smaller ones have cost the lives of multitudcs.P
In this case we can observe how a perhaps not too uncommon incident became a
topic of nationwide symbolic meaning. Thus sometimes a private event can
become an emblematic affair whose solution symbolically stands for the state of
things.
Since live broadcasts are produced for a "mass audience," they don't deal with
unique objects for individual viewers. Rather, the specific uniqueness implied
here is signified by the collective, simultaneous perception of an event charged
with symbolic value. In this sense, we can say that something like a "live aura"
exists . It inscribes its audiences into the social order of what can be called the
"television community."
Acting audiences
The most heterogeneous kinds of "media events" are projected into our living
room: partly simulations or deceptions, partly real events whose procedures are
oriented toward television broadcasting." Small-scale events which are
inaccessible to the "masses" and "insignificant" are blown up into media events ,
thereby transforming themselves.
There are different ways for viewers to participate from their living-room
armchairs : they can express their approval or disapproval of a particular topic in
a television discussion by simply dialing a certain telephone number, an action
which will immediately register on the screen, or they can express their own
opinion directly in some broadcasts by passing on information to them." These
real-time interventions, by the way, work also as a kind of guarantee of
simultaneity.
88
Sometimes, the public may even act directly at the scene. It may be present as
an applauding audience in the studio or perhaps one individual may participate in
an entertainment show or ask critical questions in a political feature.
Occasionally, the audience takes matters into its own hands: after a reported
accident the audience may become curious and rush to the scene.
This is illustrated by the following example . In the early summer of 1981 in
Vermicino, near Rome, a little boy fell into an uncovered well. For two days and
two nights Italian television devoted three channels to uninterrupted reporting of
the rescue work which failed. The entire nation (including the press) followed the
developments. Attracted by the broadcasts, new actors thronged to the site,
claiming to be "saviors": alpinists, speleologists, acrobats, and contortionists, all
took turns to be roped down into the well to attempt to grasp the child. Each of
these actors thus played a role in this macabre live-television show." Signific-
antly it happened at a time of national political-economic crisis. Therefore, as in
the 1949 example , "saving the child" also meant saving one's own way of live.
As a new geographic entity, a sovereign "state," with its own guarantors , the
"space of the broadcast media" cuts across the geographies of power and social
life which together define national or cultural space. New modes of ordering
reality emerge at the push of a button : the world of television language, television
geography, television community . Television thus can create social reality, an
ability of a quite different order from merely improving family or community
life. What is decisive is not merely the medium's influence on reality, but its
power to constitute reality. Television events are able to work as an electronic
platform : only a small number of political and social issues have the same power.
The television community

The relationship between viewer and medium cannot be described in terms of a
system of representation which would allow viewers to make judgments about
whether or not they are adequately represented in the programs they watch. The
point is rather that viewers experience themselves as being "socialized," as
belonging to a kind of electronically constituted society whenever and as long as
they watch television. The experience of watching television may therefore be
described not so much by the words "I see," as by the words "I am among those
who will have seen." This sense of collectivity established by shared visual
perception is reminiscent of the kind of communities which may develop around
movie stars (such as fan clubs) or certain literary texts, as for example the
community formed by the readers of a particular newspaper, or religious
communities which -like the Christian Church - are founded on scriptures . Live
programs which are transmitted worldwide - such as the "mondovision" Band
Aid concert in July 1985 - may establish a sense of united humanity, thus inviting
the spectator to become a part of an imaginary totality. Long before the advent of
television, yet acutely aware of the social implications of the visual, Georg
Simmel, a German social philosopher, observed in 1908: "The immediate
89
Claus-Dieter Rath
generation of very abstract, unspecific social phenomena is ... privileged by the

proximity of viewing and a lack of closeness in verbal interaction."?"
Listening to a sermon or to a public speech by a political or cultural
personality is based not only on a desire to hear the message, but, as Umberto Eco
notes, also on the wish "to experience the event: to hear also the others, to take
part in a collective happening .'?" He adds, commenting on new forms of cultural
performances:
I presume people who go to the stadiums to hear Beethoven follow the
symphony from beginning to the end, but what counts is the collective rituality
- as if that which used to be the High Culture can be reaccepted and placed in
a new dynamics provided it also permits encounters, experiences in
common."
It thus seems that even in the age of mechanical reproduction, we may find a
vestige of what Walter Benjamin called "ritual value" (or cult value) in television
events: the mass of the audience celebrates its role as observer of the social body,
examining whether things are the way they ought to be, an attitude which may
often take on the characteristics of an obsession.'?
Mass reproduction is aided especially by the reproduction of masses. In big
parades and monster rallies, in sports events, and in war, all of which
nowadays are captured by camera and sound recording, the masses are
brought face to face with themselves. This process . .. is intimately connected
with the development of the techniques of reproduction and photography.
Mass movements are usually discerned more clearly by a camera [in the
German original Apparatur, which is a more comprehensive term] than by the
naked eye."
The representatives of the television community

Due to the millionfold reproduction of their televised images, people on the
screen become - at least for a moment - celebrities, celebrities who belong to
everybody, who immediately become ours. But at the very moment of its
constitution, the aura is dispersed. The people on the screen belong to those who
share them, who scrutinize them, as indicated in comments like: "My goodness,
how old he has become!" "He is still wearing the same tie!" "Look at this
haircut!" or "Look at that one!"
Such self-exposure and visibility claim their price. One is either rejected as a
flop, bore, or failure by the audience and the critics, or one is accepted and
promoted to the status of a representative or leading figure of the (imaginary)
television community - with all its consequences. People who are familiar from
the screen - popular show hosts or MCs, anchor persons or people who simply
attain television stardom by appearing in studio audiences (let alone
athletes or pop stars whose careers are promoted by television appearances) - are
90
usually the objects of merciless curiosity and - just like chiefs of tribal
communities - become subjected to permanent attention both on the screen and
in their private lives. They become objects of desire , including the desire for
physical contact , and, after a while, find themselves, in many cases symbolically,
in some instances even psychically, sacrificed .
The attention given to these representatives of television communities
indicates that the most important aspect of a (live) broadcast is not only its
particular topic, but, essentially, the success or failure of the anchor person, the
sports reporter, or the talk show host. In fact, this is precisely what distinguishes
the live television star from the movie star: for the latter it is crucial to imbue the
assigned role in the film with one's personal "aura" or "character," while it is
presence of mind and the style with which a given situation is mastered which
count for the former.
In the name of the audience

While it is true that television stars preside over their (media) communities, they
also act in front of cameras and microphones, which is the form in which the
invisible audience of millions confronts them. In this situation they are under the
same pressure to avoid mistakes as athletes, a fact which may lead to terrible
accidents as when athletes in dangerous sports such as slalom skiing push
themselves beyond their limits under the pressure of the live camera eye.
Both network directors and television critics continue their arguments in the
name of "The Audience," even if what is really at stake are ratings and cultural
prestige. In the international political scene, the audience becomes a more and
more imaginary, yet nevertheless quite effective factor of power. Thus Philippine
ex-president Marcos' loss of power may be explained as partially due to live
broadcasts by North American television companies, as when ABC News
commentator George Will "grilled Marcos via satellite last November [1985]; it
was one of those put-up-or-shut-up challenges."? After this event, many
Americans shared the feeling of Tom Shales who wrote in the Washington Post:
"Suddenly we are all terribly aware of the Philippines, but we don't fully know
why." Shales continues :
Dictators of the world take note: Clean up your acts, or risk a U.S. media
invasion. President Ferdinand Marcos thought he could go on television and
defeat it. Instead he became the star of a continuing saga that played a real-life
version of "Sins ." He played the sinner."
The article depicts a grim perspective on the interrelationship between politics
and the audience: "Revolution, it appears, can now take the form of serialized
talk show."44
91
Claus-Dieter Rath
Notes
92 This essay is based on my article "Live/Life: Television as a Generator of Events
in Everyday Life," in Phillip Drummond and Richard Paterson (eds) Television
and Its Audiences: International Research Perspectives (London: British Film
Institute, 1988), pp. 32-7 .
2 From a letter to the editor of Der Spiegel 3 (1987): 10; my translation.
3 Of course, a previously recorded live broadcast, a film, or a feature can also be
"an answer" to a special socio-cultural event, for example, the death of a famous
actor.
4 This is a common feature in live broadcasts and early forms of videotaping, when
video-editing facilities were not available, at least not for non-commercial groups.
This phenomenon could serve as a starting point for further reflections on the
relationship between styles and aestheticsof (early) video and live television.
We now also have live playbacks: points of major interest can be watched again
immediately, mostly from other perspectives and in slow motion, while the event
goes on simultaneously (meanwhile, we may be assured by the reporter: "Don't
worry, you won't miss anything important while watching the replay.") Thus a
kind of micro-memory becomes part of direct broadcasting, a technical innovation
not yet available when Umberto Eco wrote (in 1962{l) that "there is no narrative
trick by which a time-lapse could be created within the autonomous time of the
broadcast event" (Das offene Kunstwerk (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1977), p. 189; my
translation. Italian original: Opera aperta (Milano: Bompiani, 1967» .
5 For example, by fencing off and illuminating a space, cameramen and reporters
moving on to the scene, etc.
6 As Walter Benjamin put it: "... unspectacular social changes often promote a
change in receptivity which will benefit the new art form." The Work ofArt in the
Age ofMechanical Reproduction, trans. Harry Zahn (New York: Schocken Books,
1969); reprinted in John G. Hanhardt (ed.) Video Culture (Rochester, NY: Visual
Studies Workshop Press, 1986), p. 52, Note 26).
7 Because of its shared etymological root, the German term Aktua/itiit appears to be
adequately translatable into French (actualitei, but poses problems in English.
Here the term may occasionally mean "topicality," "actuality," "currency,"
"significance," etc., depend ing on the particular context. "Actuality" refers to
"what really is." In the sense of "topicality," the concept covers three areas: (1)
speed of information transmission , (2) the latest (production, distribution, and
reception of latest news), (3) societal, cultural, and personal concern and interest.
See Claus-Dieter Rath, "Changes in the Concept of 'Aktualitlit' ('topicality') in
the Age of New Electronic Communication Technologies" (paper presented at the
conference "The Press and the New Technologies - the Challenge of a New
Knowledge," organized by the Commission of the European Community,
Brussels, November 1985).
8 On a theoretical level, however, these opposites are related differently, since
highlights, extraordinary events such as festivities etc., can be considered as
indispensable for the maintenance of a given established order.
9 Tabloids usually rely on these topics of universal interest, which are projected into
the world of stars and crowned heads. The topics are constantly exploited to
provide a continuous stream of topical news (see, for example, the "Royal
Watchers" in Great Britain) . The tabloids offer examples of how topicality can be
deliberately constructed ; this may be contrasted to the process of "developing
topicality." Both types are combined in those cases in which the media create a
kind of extra-medial topicality (provocation, falsification, insinuation, alarmist
reports, scandals, scoops, etc.).
92
10 Claude Levi-Strauss , The Raw and the Cooked : Introduction to a Science of

Mythology, trans. John and Doreen Weightman (Chicago : Universtiy of Chicago
Press, 1979).
11 One cannot imagine . . . that oneself could ever experience events without
reference to a tightly knit framework of time measurement, such as hours of the
day or the sequence of calendar years. In actual fact, however, this specific time
experience is bound up with a stage of social development at which societies
could not function without a differentiated and firmly institutionalized framework
of time measurements - a society with long interdependence-chains binding the
social functions of many thousands of people to each other and thus requiring very
close coordination of their activities in terms of time. It is well known that people
of less differentiated societies neither possess nor need timing devices of our kind.
(Norbert Elias, "Scientific Establishments ," in Norbert Elias, Herminio
Martins and Richard D. Whitley (eds) Scientific Establishments
and Hierarchies, Sociology ofthe Sciences: A Yearbook, vol. 6
(Doordrecht, Boston, London: Reidel, 1982), p. 17)
12 Georg Simmel, "Das Problem der historischen Zeit" (1916), in Brii.ckeund Tilr
(Stuttgart: Koehler, 1957), p. 49; my translation.
13 ibid., p. 55.
14 Claude Levi-Strauss , The Savage Mind (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson , 1966).
15 ibid., p. 297.
16 See Claus-Dieter Rath, "The Invisible Network: Television as an Institution in
Everyday Life," in Phillip Drummond and Richard Paterson (eds) Television in
Transit ion (London : British Film Institute, 1985), pp. 199-204.
17 An object or a process becomes topical on condition that it contains the themes
listed above - on the level of a direct physical stimulus (e.g. pain; "primary or
hypolinguistic code"), on the level of a linguistic message (e.g. indication of a
conspiracy or a symbolic gesture; "secondary, i.e. linguistic or sign code"), or on
the level of an entire cultural and social order (e.g. collapse or devaluation of
certain forms of social exchange ; "tertiary, i.e. hyperlingu istic or text code"). In
this process a past, a distant event, or products of the imagination are brought into
a relationship of simultaneity , are brought into the present - i.e. into the field of
political slogans which suggest dangers or conflict solutions, or into the field of
fashion design "for ' with it' people," since, "while reality precedes thought, it
takes different forms according to the way the subject deals with it" (Jacques
Lacan, "Some Reflections on the Ego," International Journal ofPsychoanalysis
34, part 1 (1953) : 11).
18 See Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish : The Birth of the Prison (New York:
Vintage/Random House, 1979).
19 The major source of detachment, however, is the knowledge that the mass media
are part of the outside world, and that therefore they cannot be trusted. West
Enders enjoy making fun of the media as much as they enjoy the programs. As
one of my neighbours put it, "We heckle TV just like we used to heckle the freaks
at the circus when we were kids." . .. In effect, the mass media are approached
with some of the same ambivalence as other features of the outside world. This in
turn allows the West Ender to interpret the media content so as to protect himself
from the outside world and to isolate himself from its messages unless he wishes
to believe them. Because of his suspicion of the mass media as an institution, the
appearance of people and values of which he approves demonstrates that they are
there because they are superior and cannot be held back.
(Herbert 1. Gans, The Urban Villagers : Group and Class in the Life
of Italian-Americans (New York: The Free Press, 1962), pp. 194-5)
93
Claus-Dieter Rath
20 Perhaps the equivocal nature of the term conduct is one of the best aids for
coming to terms with the specificity of power relations. For to "conduct" is at the
same time to "lead " others (according to mechanisms of coercion which arc. to
varying degrees. strict) and a way of behaving within a more or less open field of
possibilities. [Translator's note: Foucault is playing on the double meaning of the
French verb conduire (= to lead or to drive) and se conduire (= to behave or
conduct oneself), which corresponds to the noun la conduite (= conduct or
behavior) .] The exercise of power consists in guiding the possibility of conduct
and putting in order the possible outcome . Basically. power is less a confrontation
than a question of government. ... To govern. in this sense, is to structure the
possible field of actions of others. The relationship proper to power would not
therefore be sought on the side of violence or of struggle. nor on that of voluntary
linking (all of which can. at best. only be the instruments of power). but rather in
the area of the singular mode of action. neither warlike nor juridical. which is
government. ... Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as
they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with
a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving. several reactions and
diverse comportments may be realized.
(Michel Foucault, "Why Study Power: The Question of the Subject;
How is Power Exercised?" in Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow
(eds) Michel Foucault : Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics.
2nd edn, with an afterword by and an interview with Michel Foucault
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1983). pp. 220-1)
21 ibid.• p. 220.
22 See the controversies about "responsible," "honest" vs. "irresponsible,"
"dishonest" journalism.
23 Eco, Das offene Kunstwerk, p. 192; my translation. See the chapter "Zufall und
Handlung. Fernseherfahrung und Asthetik (Asthetische Strukturen der
Live-Sendung ; Freiheit der Ereignisse und Determinismen der Gewohnheit), " pp.
186-211.
24 ibid.• p. 190.
25 Michel Foucault, 'The Discourse on Language." in The Archaeology of
Knowledge, trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith (New York: Harper/Colophon, 1972).
26 Interview with Pierre du Bois. in Rene Magritte, Siimtliche Schrlften, ed, Andre
Blavier (Miinchen: Hanser. 1981; Paris: Flamrnarion, 1979). p. 543; my
translation.
27 Walter Benjamin. Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken Books.
1969).
28 See Georg Simmel, "Das Abenteuer," in Philosophische Kultur (Berlin:
Wagenbach. 1983),p. 15.
29 Walter Benjamin , "Erfahrung und Armut," in Gesammelte Schriften, vol. II. 1
(Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1977), pp. 214-15; my translation.
30 Benjamin. The Work ofArt. p. 52, note 29.
31 Thus, the live broadcast of the tragic Challenger Space Shuttle lift-off in January
1986 was watched by a relatively small audience compared to previous launches.
The enterprise had developed into a routine matter and was no longer conceived
of as risky. President Reagan. who. up to this point, had apparently always
watched such events live on television. had to watch the catastrophe on a video
recording .
32 New York Times. April 4. 1949, p. 38.
33 New York Times. April 11. 1949, p. 24.
94
Live televis ion and its audiences
34 See the study on the Royal Wedding, 1981, by Daniel Dayan and Elihu Katz,
"Rituels publics a usage prive: metamorphose televisee d'un mariage royal, "
Annales. Economies , Societes , Civilisations 1 (1983): 3-20.
35 See Rath, ''The Invisible Network."
36 See also Billy Wilder's film The Ace in the Hole, originally titled The Big
Carnival. dealing with a case of entrapment in a cave as media sensation, and
Woody Allen 's Radio Days with the case of the dramatic but futile rescue action
of little Polly Phelps who fell into a well. A recent case of worldwide live TV
focusing on an entrapment in a well was the one of little Jessica McClure (October
1987, in Midland/Texas):
Alert and recovering from a two-and-a-half-day ordeal in an abandoned well, an
18-month-01d girl underwent minor surgery at the hospital at Midland, Texas. The
girl, Jessica McClure, who was rescued Friday night at the climax of a
life-and-death drama that brought wild cheers, sobs of joy and world attention to a
depression-weary city of 90,000 people in West-Texas, was tired but in a stable
condition. . . . Millions of people across the country and around the world watched
the drama on television. The three major networks inter rupted their programs.
Friday night Jessica , barefoot. dirty and strapped to a board like a papoose, was
raised up from the well to a thundering chorus of hurrahs and horns from crowds
that overwhelmed the rescue site. At Midland Memorial. where Jessica was rushed
to the emergency room, a parade of cars circled late into the night and the
switchboard was inundated with well-wishers' calls from around the world.
Thousands of teddy bears began pouring in.
(New York Times , October 18, 1987, p. 28)
37 Georg Simme1, Soziolog ie. Untersuchungen uber die Formen der
Vergesellschaftung (Berlin : Duncker & Humblot, 1968), pp. 488-9; my translation.
38 Umberto Eco, "Culture as Show Business" (1980), in Travels in Hyperreality .
Essays , trans. William Weaver (London: Picador, 1987), p. 154.
39 ibid., p. 155.
40 This should be considered in the context of the relation between obsessive
neuroses and visual ity.
41 Benjamin, The Work ofArt, p. 52, note 32.
42 Washington Post, February 24, 1986, pp. 01 , 02.
43 ibid.
44 ibid., p. 01.
95
Chapter five
Wanted: Audiences.
On the politics of empirical audience studies
len Ang
In his pioneering book The "Nationwide" Audience, David Morley situates his
research on which the book reports as follows: "The relation ofan audience to the
ideological operations of television remains in principle an empirical question:
the challenge is the attempt to develop appropriate methods of empirical
investigation of that relation."!
Although this sentence may initially be interpreted as a call for a technical
discussion about empirical research methods, its wider meaning should be sought
in the theoretical and political context of Morley's work. To me, the importance
of The "Nationwide" Audience does not so much reside in the fact that it offers
an empirically validated, and thus "scientific" account of "the ideological
operations of television," or merely in its demonstration of some of the ways in
which the television audience is "active." Other, more wide-ranging issues are at
stake.
Since its publication in 1980, The "Nationwide" Audience has played an
important role in media studies, especially in Britain, western Europe , and
Australia, not so much because of its inherent "informational" value, but because
of its strategic position in the field of qualitative empirical research on media
audiences - a field that has gone through a rapid development in the 1980s. It
seems fair to say that Morley's book forms a major moment in the growing
popularity of an "ethnographic" approach on media audiences - Morley himself
termed his project an "ethnography of reading .'? This type of qualitative
empirical research, usually carried out in the form of in-depth interviews with a
small number of people (and at times supplemented with some form of
participant observation), is now recognized by many as one of the most adequate
ways to learn about the differentiated subtleties of people's engagements with
television and other media.
This "ethnographic" approach seems to be gaining popularity in both
"critical" media studies and "mainstream" mass communications research.' A
sort of methodological consensus seems to be emerging, a common ground in
which scholars from divergent epistemological backgrounds can thrive. On the
one hand, qualitative methods of empirical research seem to be acceptable
because they offer the possibility to avoid what C. Wright Mills has termed
96
Wanted: Audiences
abstracted empiricism,' which is often leveled at quantitative methods by

"critical" scholars; on the other hand, some "mainstream" audience researchers
at least have acknowledged the limitations on the kind of data that can be
produced by large-scale, quantitative survey work, and believe that
ethnographically oriented methods can overcome the shortcomings observed.
Given this enthusiastic, rather new interest for the qualitative aspects of
television viewing, I would like to reflect upon its general implications for our
understanding of television audiences. What kind of knowledge does it produce?
What can this manner of doing empirical research on audiences mean? In short,
what are the politics of audience "ethnography"?
It is my intention in exploring these questions to try to clarify some of the
issues that are at stake in developing a critical perspective in empirical audience
studies. The term "critical" - as I would like to use it here - refers first of all to a
certain intellectual-political orientation toward academic practice: whatever its
subject matter or method of analysis, essential to doing "critical" research would
be the adoption of a self-reflexive perspective, one that is, first, conscious of the
social and discursive nature ofany research practice, and, second, takes seriously
the Foucaultian reminder that the production of knowledge is alwaysbound up in
a network of power relations. By characterizing "critical" research in this way,
that is as an orientation rather than as a fixed "paradigm," I aim to relativize the
more rigid ways in which "critical" and "mainstream" research have often been
opposed to one another. Formally speaking, positions can only be "critical" or
"mainstream" in relation to other positions within a discursive field. The two
terms thus do not primarily signify fixed contents of thought, but their status
within a whole field of thinking. The relations of force in that field can change
over time: what was once "critical" (or marginal) can become part of the
"mainstream"; what was once "mainstream" (or dominant)can lose its power and
be pushed aside to the marginal. Furthermore, as Larry Grossberg has usefully
remarked, the term "critical" can bear uneasy arrogant connotations: after all, is
there any scholar whose work is not "critical" in some sense?'
This does not mean, of course, that the distinction is totally devoid of any
substantive bearings. Historically, those scholars who are committed to doing
"critical" work have been led in their research agendas by certain philosophical,
theoretical, and political influences and currents, which have shaped their
interests and perspectives,and profiled their problematics. For example, in media
studies the "critical" tradition, whose beginnings can be located in the work of
the Frankfurt School, has generally derived its philosophical inspiration from
continental schools of thought such as Marxism and (post)structuralism. In terms
of research problematics, it has mainly been concerned with the analysis of the
ideological and/or economic role of the media in capitalist and patriarchal
society, while its epistemological underpinnings are generallycharacterized by a
strident anti-positivist and anti-empiricist mentality,"
This distrust of positivist empiricism on the part of "critical" theorists,
however, does not necessarily imply an inherent incompatibility between
97
len Ang
"critical" and empirical research, as is often contended by "mainstream"

scholars .' Indeed, if doing "critical" research is more a matter of
intellectual-political orientation than of academic paradigm-building, then no
fixed, universal yardstick, theoretical or methodological, for what constitutes
"critical" knowledge is possible. On the contrary, in my view what it means to be
critical needs to be assessed and constantly reassessed in every concrete
conjuncture, with respect to the concrete issues and directions that are at stake in
any concrete research field. In other words, I am proposing an open and
contextual definition of "critical" research , one that does not allow itself to rest
easily on pre-existent epistemological foundations but - on the contrary -
engages itself in reflecting on the ways in which it contributes to our
understanding of the world.
In the following, I hope to clarify some of the implications of this perspective
on doing "critical" research for an evaluation of the current developments in
audience studies. More concretely, what I will discuss and try to elaborate in this
chapter is what I take as the political and theoretical specificity of the cultural
studies approach as a "critical" perspective, from which David Morley, coming
from the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, has developed
his work," I will set this perspective on audience studies against the uses and
gratifications approach, in which an interest in the "ethnographic" has been
growing recently. In doing this it is not my intention to construct an absolute
antagonism between the two approaches. Rather, I would like to highlight some
of the differences in preoccupation in both approaches, in order to specify how
the project of audience ethnographies can take on a "critical" outlook in the sense
I have outlined . Before doing this, I will first give a short sketch of the intellectual
arena in which Morley intervened .
Against textual determinism

The "Nationwide" Audience appeared at a time when critical discourse about
film and television in Britain was heavily preoccupied with what Morley,
following Steve Neale, calls an "abstract text/subject relationship," formulated
within a generally (post)structuralist theoretical framework." In this discourse ,
primarily developed in the journal Screen, film and television spectators hip is
almost exclusively theorized from the perspective of the "productivity of the
text." As a consequence, the role of the viewer was conceived in purely formalist
terms: as a position inscribed in the text. Here, the subject-in-the-text tends to
collapse with "real" social subjects. In this model, there is no space for a
dialogical relationship between texts and social subjects. Texts are assumed to be
the only source of meaning; they construct subject positions which viewers are
bound to take up if they are to make sense of the text. In other words, the reading
of texts is conceived here as entirely dictated by textual structures.
It is this model's textual determinism that fueled Morley's dissatisfaction.
Theoretically, it implied an ahistorical, asocial, and generalist conception of film
98
Wanted: Audiences
and television spectatorship. Methodologically, the analysis of textual structures

alone was considered to be sufficient to comprehendhow viewers are implicated
in the texts they encounter. Politically, this model left no space of manoeuvre for
television consumers. They are implicitly conceived as "prisoners" of the text. It
is against this background that Morley decided to undertake an empirical
investigation of how groups of viewers with different social positions read or
interpret one particular text: an episode of the television program Nationwide.
One of the most important motivations of Morley's intervention, then, was to
overcome the theoreticism of Screen theory's discourse, in which the relation of
text and subject is dealt with "as an [a] priori question to be deduced from a
theory of the ideal spectator ' inscribed' in the text.'?" By looking at how one text
could be decoded in different ways by different groups of social subjects, Morley
intended, and succeeded, to demonstrate that encounters between texts and
viewers are far more complex than the theory would suggest; they are
overdetermined by the operation of a multiplicity of forces - certain historical
and social structures, but also other texts - that simultaneously act upon the
subjects concerned." Principally, what The "Nationwide" Audience explores is
the notion that the moment of decoding should be considered as a relatively
autonomous process in which a constant struggle over the meaning of the text is
fought out. Textual meaningsdo not reside in the texts themselves: a certain text
can come to mean different things depending on the interdiscursive context in
which viewers interpret it.
The meaning and politics of Morley's tum toward empirical research of the
television audience should be assessed against this critical background. It is first
of all a procedure that is aimed at opening up a space in which watching
television can begin to be understood as a complex cultural practice full of
dialogical negotiations and contestations, rather than as a singular occurrence
whose meaning can be determined once and for all in the abstract. Doing
empirical research then is here used as a strategy to break out of a hermetically
closed theoreticism in which an absolute certainty about the ideological
effectivity of television is presumed. Thus, when Morleysays that the relation of
an audience to television "remains an empirical question," what he is basically
aiming at is to open up critical discourse on televisionaudiences, and to sensitize
it for the possibility of struggle in the field of televisionconsumption- a struggle
whose outcome cannot be known in advance, for the simple reason that
encounters between television and audiences are always historicallyspecific and
context-bound.
Academic convergence?
The "Nationwide" Audience has generally been received as an innovative
departure within cultural studies, both theoretically and methodologically. If
Screen theory can be diagnosed as one instance in which critical discourse on
television suffered from the problem of the "disappearing audience,"12 Morley's
99
len Ang
project is an indication of a growing acknowledgment within cultural studies that

television viewing is a practice that involves the active production of meanings
by viewers.
But the book has also been welcomed by some adherents of the influential
uses and gratifications approach, who see it as an important step on the part of
"critical" scholars in their direction, that is as an acceptance of, and possible
contribution to, a refinement of their own basic axiomatic commitment to "the
active audience." On the other hand, some uses and gratifications researchers, for
their part, have begun to take over semiologically informed cultural studies
concepts such as "text" and "reader," thereby indicating an acknowledgment of
the symbolic nature of negotiations between media texts and their readers which
they, in their functionalist interest for the multiple relationships between
audience gratifications and media "uses," had previously all but ignored."
On top of this conceptual rapprochement, these social scientists have also
expressed their delight in noticing a methodological "concession" among
"critical" scholars: finally, so it is argued, some "critical" scholars at least have
dropped their suspicion of doing empirical research. In a benevolent, rather
fatherly tone, three senior ambassadors of the uses and gratifications approach,
Blumler, Gurevitch, and Katz, have thus proclaimed a gesture of "reaching out"
to the other "camp," calling for incorporating some of the insights developed
within the "critical" perspective into their own paradigm." Evoked then is the
prospect of merging the two approaches, to the point that they may ultimately
fuse into a happy common project in which the perceived hostility between the
two "camps" will have been unmasked as academic "pseudo-conflicts." As one
leading gratifications researcher, Rosengren, optimistically predicts: "To the
extent that the same problematics are empirically studied by members of various
schools, the present sharp differences of opinion will gradually diminish and be
replaced by a growing convergence of perspectives.?"
However, to interpret these recent developments in audience studies in terms
of such a convergence is to simplify and even misconceive the issues at stake. For
one thing, I would argue that the two perspectives only superficially share "the
same problematics," and that what separates a "critical" from a "mainstream"
perspective is more than merely some "differences of opinion," sharp or
otherwise : it concerns fundamental differences not only in epistemological, but
also in theoretical and political attitudes toward the aim and status of doing
empirical research as such.
The academic idealization of joining forces in pursuit of a supposedly
common goal as if it were a neutral, scientific project is a particularly
depoliticizing strategy, because it tends to neutralize all difference and
disagreement in favor of a forced consensus. If I am cautious about this euphoria
around the prospect of academic convergence, it is not my intention to impose a
rigid and absolute eternal dichotomy between "critical" and "mainstream"
research. Nor would I want to assert that Morley's project is entirely "critical"
and the uses and gratifications approach completely "mainstream." As I have
100
Wanted: Audiences
noted before , the relationship between "critical" and "mainstream" is not a fixed
one; it does not concern two mutually exclusive, antagonistic sets of knowledge,
as some observers would imply by talking in terms of "schools" or "paradigms."
In fact, many assumptions and ideas do not intrinsically belong to one or the other
perspective. For example, the basic assumption that the television audience is
"active" (rather than passive) and that watching television is a social (rather than
an individual) practice is currently accepted in both perspectives. There is
nothing spectacular about that." Also, I would suggest that the idea that texts can
generate multiple meanings, and that the text/reader relationship takes the form
of negotiations, is not in itself a sufficient condition for the declared
convergence.17
In other words, in evaluating whether we can really speak of convergence, it
is not enough to establish similar research questions, or to identify a common
acknowledgment of the usefulness of certain methods of inquiry. Of course, such
commonalities are interesting enough and it would be nonsense to discard them
categorically. I do think it is important to get rid of any dogmatism or
antagoni sm-for-the-sake-of-it , and to try to learn from others wherever that is
possible. But at the same time we should not lose sight of the fact that any call for
convergence itself is not an innocent gesture . It tends to be done from a certain
point of view and therefore inevitably involves a selection process in which
certain issues and themes are highlighted and others suppressed. And it is my
contention that an all too hasty declaration of convergence could lead to
neglecting some of the most important distinctive features of cultural studies as a
critical intellectual enterprise.
A difference in conceptualizing the object of study is a first issue that needs to
be discussed here. Thus, to take the common interest in "audience activity" as an
example in a cultural studies perspective, "audience activity" cannot and should
not be studied in isolation . Rather than dissecting "audience activity" into
variables and categories in order to be able to study them one by one, so that we
could ultimately have a complete and generalizable formal "map" of all
dimensions of "audience activity," which seems to be the drive behind the uses
and gratifications project," the aim of cultural studies, as I see it, is to arrive at a
more historicized insight into the ways in which "audience activity" is related to
social and political structures and processes . In other words, what is at stake is
not the understanding of "audience activity" as such as an isolated and isolable
phenomenon and object of research, but the embeddedness of "audience activity"
in a network of ongoing cultural practices and relationships .
As a result, an audience researcher working within a cultural studies
sensibility cannot restrict herself or himself to "just" studying audiences and their
activities (and, for that matter, relating those activities with other variables such
as gratifications sought or obtained, dependencies, effects, and so on). She or he
will also engage with the structural and cultural processes through which the
audiences she or he is studying are constituted and being constituted . Thus, one
essential theoretical point of the cultural studies approach to the television
101
len Ang
audi ence is its foregrounding of the notion that the dynamics of watching
television, no matter how heterogeneous and seemingly free it is, is always
related to the operations of forms of social power. It is in this light that we should
see Morley's decision to do research on viewers' decodings: it was first of all
motivated by an interest in what he - in the quote at the beginning of this chapter
- calls "the ideological operations of television."
It is important then to emphasize that the term "active audience" does not
occupy the same symbolic status in the two approaches. From a cultural studies
point of view, evidence that audiences are "active" cannot simply be equated
with the rather triumphant, liberal-pluralist conclusion, often expressed by
gratificationists, that media consumers are "free" or even "powerful" - a
conclusion which allegedly undercuts the idea of "media hegemony." The
question for cultural studies is not simply one of "where the power lies in media
systems" (i.e, with the audience or with the media producers)," but rather how
relations of power are organized within the heterogeneous practices of media
consumption. In other words, rather than constructing an opposition between
"the" media and "the" audience, as if these were separate ontological entities,
and, along with it, the application of a distributional theory of power (that is,
power is a property that can be attributed to either side of the opposing entities),
cultural studies scholars are interested in understanding media consumption as a
site of cultural struggle, in which a variety of forms of power are exercised, with
different sorts of effects." Thus if, as Morley's study has shown, viewers can
decode a text in different ways and sometimes even give oppositional meanings
to it, this should not be conceived as an example of "audience freedom," but as a
moment in that cultural struggle, an ongoing struggle over mean ing and pleasure
which is central to the fabric(ation) of everyday life.
I hope to have made clear by now that in evaluating the possibility or even
desirability of convergence, it is important to look at how "audience act ivity" is
theorized or interpreted, and how research "findings" are placed in a wider
theoretical framework. So, if one type of "audience activity" which has received
much attention in both approaches recently has been the interpretative strategies
used by audiences to read media texts (conceptualized in terms of decoding
structures, interpretative communities, patterns of involvement, and so on), how
are we to make sense of those interpretative strategies? The task of the cultural
studies researcher, I would suggest, is to develop strategic interpretations of
them, different not only in form and content, but also in scope and intent, from
those offered in more "mainstream"-oriented accounts." I will return to this
central issue of interpretation.
Beyond methodology
A troubling aspect about the idea of (and desire for) convergence, then, is that it
tends to be conceptualized as an exclusively "scientific" enterprise. Echoing the
tenets of positivism, its aim seems to be the gradual accumulation of scientifically
102
Wanted: Audiences
confirmed "findings." It is propelled by the hope that by seeking a shared

agreement on what is relevant and by developing shared methodological skills
the final scientific account of "the audience" can eventually be achieved . In this
framework, audience studies are defined as just another branch of an academic
discipline (i.e. mass communication), in which it is unproblematically assumed
that "the audience" is a proper object of study whose characteristics can be ever
more accurately observed, described, categorized, systematized, and explained,
until the whole picture is "filled in." In principle (if not in practice), this scientific
project implicitly claims to be able to produce total knowledge, to reveal the full
and objective "truth" about "the audience." Audience here is imagined as and
turned into an object with researchable attributes and features (be it described in
terms of arrays of preferences, decodings, uses, effects, or whatever) that could '
be definitively established - if only researchers of different breeding would stop
quarreling with each other and unite to work harmoniously together to
accomplish the task. 22
From such an academic point of view, the question of methodology becomes
a central issue. After all, rigor of method has traditionally been seen as the
guarantee par excellence for the "scientific" status of knowledge. In positivist
social science, the hypothetico-deductive testing of theory through empirical
research, quantitative in form, is cherished as the cornerstone of the production
of "scientific" knowledge . Theory that is not empirically tested, or that is too
complex to be molded into empirically testable hypotheses , is dismissed as
"unscientific." These assumptions , which are central to the dominant version of
the uses and gratifications approach as it was established in the 1970s, arc now
contested by a growing number of researchers who claim that reality cannot be
grasped and explained through quantitative methods alone. Furthermore, they
forcefully assert that to capture the multidimensionality and complexity of
audience activity the use of qualitative methods - and thus a move towards the
"ethnographic" - is desperately called for.23
From an academic point of view, it is this methodological challenge that forms
the condition of possibility of the perceived convergence. However, although I
think that the struggle for legitimization of qualitative research is a very
important one, I do believe that it is not the central point for critical cultural
studies . This is because the struggle is cast primarily in methodological terms,
and therefore its relevance is confined to the development of audience research
as an academic enterprise. Given the decade-long hegemony of positivism and
the quantifying attitude in audience research, this development is a significant
one indeed . Unfortunately, however, many discussions about the usefulness of
qualitative methods still do not question the epistemological distinction between
science and common sense that lies at the heart of positivism . The aim is still the
isolation of a body of knowledge that can be recognized as "scientific" (in its
broadest meaning), the orientation is toward the advancement of an academic
discipline, and concomitantly, the technical improvement of its instruments of
analysis.
103
len Ang
A cultural studies perspective on audience research cannot stop short at this

level of debate. For a critical cultural studies, it is not questions of methodology
or academic struggle as such that prevail. On the contrary, we should relativize
the academic commitment to increasing knowledge for its own sake and resist the
temptation to what Stuart Hall has called the "codification" of cultural studies
into a stable realm of established theories and canonized methodologies." In this
respect, the territorial conflict between "mainstream" and "critical," quant itative
and qualitative, humanistic and social scientific, and so on, should perhaps not
bother us too much at all in the first place. As James Carey once remarked,
"perhaps all the talk about theory, method, and other such things prevents us from
raising or permits us to avoid raising, deeper and disquieting questions about the
purposes of our scholarship."25 And indeed: why are we so interested in knowing
about audiences in the first place? In empirical audience research, especially, it
is important to reflect upon the status of the knowledge produced. After all,
scrutinizing media audiences is not an innocent practice. It does not take place in
a social and political vacuum. Historically, the hidden agenda of audience
research, even when it presents itself as pure and objective, has all too often been
its commercial or political usefulness . In other words, what we should reflect
upon is the political interventions we make when talking about audiences -
political not only in the sense of some distant societal goal, but, more
importantly, in that we cannot afford ignoring the political dimensions of the
process and practice of knowledge production itself. What does it mean to subject
audiences to the researcher 's gaze? How can we develop insights that do not
reproduce the kind of objectified knowledge served up by, say, market research
or empiricist effects research? How is it possible to do audience research which
is "on the side" of the eudiencet> These are nagging political questions which
cannot be smoothed out by the comforting canons of epistemology,
methodology, and "science."
Of course, it is not easy to pin down what such considerations would imply in
concrete terms. But it could at least be said that we should try to avoid a stance
in which "the audience" is relegated to the status of exotic "other" - merely
interesting in so far as "we," as researchers, can turn "them" into "objects" of
study, and about whom "we" have the privileged position to acquire "objective"
knowledge." To begin with, I think, critical audience studies should not strive
and pretend to tell "the truth" about "the audience ." Its ambitions should be much
more modest. As Lawrence Grossberg has suggested, "the goal of [critical
research] is to offer not a polished representation of the truth, but simply a little
help in our efforts to better understand the world.?" This modesty does not have
so much to do with some sort of false humility as with the basic acknow ledgment
that every research practice unavoidably takes place in a particular historical
situation , and is therefore principally of a partial nature. As Hammersley and
Atkinson have provocatively put it, "all social research takes the form of
participant observation: it involves participating in the social world, in whatever
role , and reflecting on the products of that participation."29 The collection of data,
104
Wanted: Audiences
either quantitative or qualitative in form, can never be separated from their

interpretation; it is only through practices of interpretative theorizing that unruly
social experiences and events related to media consumption become established
as meaningful "facts" about audiences. Understanding "audience activity" is thus
caught up in the discursive representation, not the transparent reflection, of
realities having to do with audiences .
These considerations lead to another, more politicized conception of doing
research. It is not the search for (objective , scientific) knowledge in which the
researcher is engaged , but the construction of interpretations, of certain ways of
understanding the world, always historically located, subjective, and relative. It
is the decisive importance of this interpretative moment that I would like to
highlight in exploring the possibilities of critical audience studies."
In positivism, interpretation is assigned a marginal place: as a result of its
emphasis on the empirical testing of theory, interpretation is assumed to follow
rather automatically from the so-called "findings." Achieved then is an apparent
innocence of interpretation, one that is seemingly grounded in "objective social
reality" itself. In fact, the term "interpretation" itself would seem to have definite
negative connotations for positivists because of its connection with
"subjectivism." And even within those social science approaches in which the
interpretative act of the researcher - not only at the moment of data analysis, but
also at that of data collection - is taken more seriously, interpretation is more
often than not problematized as a methodical rather than a political matter,
defined in terms of careful inference making rather than in terms of discurs ive
constructions of reality.
It should be recognized, however, that because interpretations always
inevitably involve the construction of certain representations of reality (and not
others) , they can never be "neutral" and merely "descriptive." After all, the
"empirical," captured in either quantitative or qualitative form, does not yield
self-evident meanings; it is only through the interpretative framework
constructed by the researcher that understandings of the "empirical" come about.
The choice of empirical methods of investigation is only one part of a double
venture: it is in the dialectic between the empirical and the theoretical, between
experience and explanation, that forms of knowledge , that is interpretations, are
constructed. Here then the thoroughly political nature of any research manifests
itself. What is at stake is a politicsofinterpretation: "to advance an interpretation
is to insert it into a network of power relations. "31
This also implies a shift in the position of the researcher. She or he is no longer
a bearer of truth, but occupies a "partial" position in two senses of the word. On
the one hand, she or he is no longer the neutral observer, but is someone whose
job it is to produce historically and culturally specific knowledges that are the
result of equally specific discursive encounters between researcher and
informants, in which the subjectivity of the researcher is not separated from the
"object" s/he is studying. The interpretations that are produced in the process can
never claim to be definitive: on the contrary, they are necessarily incomplete (for
105
len Ang
they always involve simplification, selection, and exclusion) and temporary. "If
neither history nor politics ever comes to an end, then theory (as well as research)
is never completed and our accounts can never be closed or totalized."32And on
the other hand, and even more important, the position of the researcher is also
more than that of the professional scholar: beyond a capable interpreter, she or he
is also inherently a political and moral subject. She or he is an intellectual who is
not only responsible to the Academy, but to the social world she or he lives in as
well. It is at the interface of "ethics" and "scholarship" that the researcher's
interpretations take on their distinctive political edge."
Of course, all this entails a different status for empirical research. Material
obtained by ethnographic fieldwork or depth-interviews with audience members
cannot simply be treated as natural "data." Viewers' statements about their
relation to television cannot be regarded as self-evident facts. Nor are they
immediate, transparent reflections of those viewers' "lived realities" that can
speak for themselves. What is of critical importance, therefore, is the way in
which those statements are made sense of, that is interpreted. Here lies the
ultimate political responsibility of the researcher. The comfortable assumption
that it is the reliability and accuracy of the methodologies being used that will
ascertain the validity of the outcomes of research, thereby reducing the
researcher's responsibility to a technical matter, is rejected. In short, to return to
Morley's opening statement, audience ethnographies are undertaken because the
relation between television and viewers is an empirical question. But the
empirical is not the privileged domain of the answers, as the positivist would
have it. Answers (temporary ones, to be sure) are to be constructed, in the form
of interpretations."
Towards interpretative ethnography

I would now like to return to David Morley's work, and evaluate its place in the
research field in the light of the foregoing reflections. To be sure, Morley himself
situates his work firmly within the academic context. And parallel to the recent
calls for convergence and cross-fertilization of diverse perspectives, Morley
seems to have dropped his original antagonistic posture. For example, while in
The "Nationwide" Audience he emphasizes that "we need to break
fundamentally with the 'uses and gratifications' approach,'?' in his most recent
book, Family Television : Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure, he simply states
that this new piece of research draws "upon some of the insights of this very
approach .'?" The latter book is also in a more general sense set in a less polemical
tone than the first one: rather than taking up a dissident's stance again st other
theoretical perspectives, which is a central attribute of The "Nationwide"
Audience, Family Television is explicitly presented as a study that aims to
combine the perspectives of separate traditions in order to overcome what Morley
calls an "unproductive form of segregation.'?' Furthermore, both books are
written in a markedly conventional style of academic social science, structured
106
Wanted : Audiences
according to a narrative line which starts out with their contextualization within
related academic research trends, followed by a methodological exposition and a
description of the findings, and rounded off with a chapter containing an
interpretation of the results and some more general conclusions. In both books
Morley's voice is exclusively that of the earnest researcher; the writer's I, almost
completely eliminated from the surface of the text, is apparently a disembodied
subject solely driven by a disinterested wish to contribute to "scientific
progress .'?"
Morley's academistic inclination tends to result in a lack of clarity as to the
political thrust of his analyses. For example, the relevance of Family Television
as a project designed to investigate at the same time two different types of
questions - questions of television use on the one hand, and questions of textual
interpretation on the other - is simply asserted by the statement that these are
"urgent questions about the television audience.''" But why? What kind of
urgency is being referred to here? Morley goes on to say that it is the analysis of
the domestic viewing context as such which is his main interest, and that he
wishes to identify the multiple meanings hidden behind the catch-all phrase
" watching television." Indeed, central to Family Television's discourse are, as
Stuart Hall remarks in his introduction to the book, the notions of variability,
diversity, and difference:
Weare all, in our heads, several different audiences at once , and can be
constituted as such by different programmes. We have the capacity to deploy
differ ent levels and modes of attention, to mobilise different competences in
our viewing. At different times of the day, for different family members,
different patterns of viewing have different "saliences.':"
Yet, when taken in an unqualified manner, it is exactly this stress on difference
that essentially connects Morley's project with the preoccupations ofthe uses and
gratifications research . After all, it is their self-declared distinctive mission to get
to grips with "the gamut of audience experience. "41 For them too, the idea of
plurality and diversity is pre-eminently the guiding principle for research. A
convergence of perspectives after all?
Despite all the agreements that are certainly there, a closer look at the
ramifications of Morley's undertaking reveals other concerns than merely the
characterization and categorizing of varieties within viewers' readings and uses
of television. Ultimately, it is not difference as such that is of main interest in
Morley's work. To be sure, differences are not just simple facts that emerge more
or less spontaneously from the empirical interview material; it is a matter of
interpretation what are established as significant differences.? In cultural studies,
then, it is the meanings of differences that matter - something that can only be
grasped, interpretatively, by looking at their contexts, social and cultural bases,
and impacts. Thus , rather than the classification of differences and varieties in all
sorts of typologies, which is a major preoccupation of a lot of uses and
gratifications work , cultural studies would be oriented toward a deta iled
107
len Ang
understanding of how and why varieties in experience occur - a venture, to be

sure, that is a closer approach to the ethnographic spirit
In Family Television, for example, Morley has chosen to foreground the
pattern of differences in viewing habits that are articulated with gender. What
Morley emphasizes is that men and women clearly relate in contrasting ways to
television, not only as to program preferences, but also in, for example, viewing
styles. The wives interviewed by Morley tend to watch television less attentively,
at the same time doing other things such as talking or housework. The husbands,
in contrast, state a clear preference for viewing attentively, in silence, without
interruption "in order not to miss anything."? These differences are substantiated
and highlighted by Morley's research as empirical facts, but he is careful to avoid
considering these as essential differences between men and women. As Charlotte
Brunsdon has noted, it seems possible "to differentiate a male - fixed,
controlling, uninterruptible gaze - and a female - distracted, obscured, already
busy - manner of watching television. There is some empirical truth in these
characterizations, but to take this empirical truth for explanation leads to a
theoretical short-circuit.?" Indeed, in mainstream sociological accounts, gender
would probably be treated as a self-evident pregiven factor that can be used as
"independent variable" to explain these differences. Male and female modes of
watching television would then be constituted as two separate, discrete types of
experience, clearly defined, fixed, static "objects" in themselves as it were."
Such an empiricist account not only essentializes gender differences, but also
fails to offer an understandingof how and why differentiationsalong gender lines
take the very forms they do.
In contrast to this, both Morley and Brunsdon start out to construct a tentative
interpretation which does not take the difference between male and female
relations to television as an empirical given. Neither do they take recourse to
psychological notions such as "needs" or "socialization" - as is often done in
accounts of gender differences, as well as in uses and gratifications research - to
try to understand why men and women tend to watch and talk about television in
the disparate ways that they do. In their interpretative work Morley and Brunsdon
accentuate the structure of domestic power relations as constitutive for the
differences concerned. The home generally has different meanings for men and
women living in nuclear family arrangements: for husbands it is the site of
leisure, for wives it is the site of work. Therefore, television as a domestic cultural
form tends to be invested with different meanings for men and women.
Television has for men become a central symbol for relaxation; women's relation
to television, on the other hand, is much more contradictory. Thus asserts
Brunsdon, in commenting on Morley's research:
The social relations between men and women appear to work in such a way
that although the men feel ok about imposing their choice of viewing on the
whole of the family, the women do not. The women have developed all sorts
of strategies to cope with television viewing they don't particularly like. The
108
Wanted: Audiences
men in most cases appear to feel it would be literally unmanning for them to
sit quiet during the women's programmes. However, the women in general
seem to find it almost impossible to switch into the silent communion with the
television set that characterises so much male viewing."
Women's distracted mode of watching television thus does not have something
to do with some essential femininity, but is a result of a complex of cultural and
social arrangements which makes it difficult for them to do otherwise, even
though they often express a longing to be able to watch their favorite programs
without being disturbed. Men, on the other hand, can watch television in a
concentrated manner because they control the conditions to do so. Their way of
watching television, Brunsdon concludes, "seems not so much a masculine mode,
but a mode of power."?
What clearly emerges here is the beginning of an interpretative framework in
which differences in television viewing practices are not just seen as expressions
of different needs, uses, or readings, but are connected with the way in which
historical subjects are structurally positioned in relation to each other. Women's
viewing patterns can only be understood in relation to men's patterns; the two are
in a sense constitutive of each other. Thus, if watching television is a social and
even collective practice, it is not a harmonious practice." Because subjects are
positioned in different ways toward the set, they engage in a continuing struggle
over program choice and program interpretation, style of viewing, and textual
pleasure. What kind of viewer they become can be seen as the outcome of this
struggle, an outcome, however, that is never definitive because it can always be
contested and subverted. What we call "viewing habits" are thus not a more or
less static set of characteristics inhabited by an individual or group of individuals;
rather they are the temporary result of a never-ending, dynamic , and
conflict-ridden process in which "the fine-grained interrelationships between
meaning , pleasure , use and choice" are shaped."
Morley 's empirical findings, then, acquire their relevance and critical value in
the context of this emerging theoretical framework. And of course it could only
have been carried out from a specific interpretative point of view. Needless to say
that the point of view taken up by Morley and Brunsdon is a feminist one, that is,
a position that is sensitive to the fact that male/female relationships are always
informed by power, contradiction, and struggle. Television consumption, so we
begin to understand, contributes to the everyday contruction of male and female
subjectivities. At this point, we can also see how Morley's research enables us to
begin to conceive of "the ideological operations of television" in a much more
radical way than has hitherto been done." The relation between television and
audiences is not just a matter of "negotiations" between texts and viewers. The
process of television consumption, and the cultural positioning of television as
such, have created new areas of constraints and possibilities for structuring social
relationships, identities, and desires. If television is an "ideological apparatus,"
to use that old fashioned-sounding term, this is not so much because its texts
109
len Ang
transmit certain "messages" as because it is a cultural fonn through which those

constraints are negotiated and those possibilities take shape.
But, one might ask, do we need empirical research or, more specifically,
audience ethnographies to arrive at such theoretical understandings? Why
approach audiences empirically at all?" I would like to make one last comment
on Morley's work here. Due to his academistic posture Morley has not deemed it
necessary to reflect upon his own position as a researcher. We do not get to know
how he found and got on with his interviewees, nor are we informed about the
way in which the interviews themselves took place. One of the very few things
we learn about this in FamilyTelevision is that he gave up interviewing the adults
and the young children at the same time, reportedly "because after an initial
period of fascination the young children quite quickly got bored"!" But what
about the adults? What were the reasons for their willingness to talk at such
length to an outsider (or was David Morley not an outsider to them)? And how
did the specific power relationship pervading the interview situation affect not
only the families, but also the researcher himself? These are problems inherent in
conducting ethnographic research that are difficult to unravel. But that does not
mean that audience researchers should not confront them, and, eventually, draw
the radical and no doubt uncomfortable conclusions that will emerge from that
confrontation."
Meanwhile, I do think that, in the ever-expanding field of audience studies, an
ethnographic approach can and does have a distinct critical value. Ethnographic
work, in the sense of drawing on what we can perceive and experience in
everyday settings, acquires its critical mark when it functions as a reminder that
reality is always more complicated and diversified than our theories can
represent, and that there is no such thing as "audience" whose characteristics can
be set once and for all." The critical promise of the ethnographic attitude resides
in its potential to make and keep our interpretations sensitive to concrete
specificities, to the unexpected, to history; it is a commitment to submit ourselves
to the possibility of, in Paul Willis' words, "being 'surprised,' of reaching
knowledge not prefigured in one's starting paradigm. ?" What matters is not the
certainty of knowledge about audiences, but an ongoing critical and intellectual
engagement with the multifarious ways in which we constitute ourselves through
media consumption. Or, as in the words of Stuart Hall: "I am not interested in
Theory, I am interested in going on theorizing.?"
Notes
British Fihn Institute, 1980), p. 162.
2 David Morley, "'The Nationwide Audience' - A Critical Postscript," Screen
Education 39 (summer 1981): 13. It should be noted, however, that the term
"ethnographic" is somewhat misplaced in this context. Within anthropology,
ethnography refers to an in-depth field study of a culture and its inhabitants in
their natural location, which would require the researcher to spend a fair amount
110
Wanted: Audiences
of time in that location, allowing her/him to acquire a nuanced and comprehensive

insight into the dynamics of the social relationships in the culture under study, and
enabling her/him to produce a "thick description" of it . Most qualitative studies of
media audiences do not meet these requirements. In Morley's Nationwide study,
for example , the informants were extracted from their natural viewing
environment and interviewed in groups that were put together according to
socio-economic criteria. In a looser sense, however, the use of the term
"ethnographic" could be justified here in so far as the approach is aimed at getting
a thorough insight into the "lived experience" of media consumption. For a useful
introduction to the principles of ethnography as an instance of social research, see
Martyn Hammersley and Paul Atkinson, Ethnography: Principles in Practice
(London and New York: Tavistock, 1983).
3 See, for example, Dorothy Hobson, "Housewives and the Mass Media," in
Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis (eds) Culture,
Media, Language (London: Hutchinson, 1980), pp. 105-14; and Dorothy
Hobson, "Crossroads" : The Drama of a Soap Opera (London: Methuen, 1982);
Janice Radway, Reading the Romance: Women , Patriarchy, and Popular
Literature (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); len Ang,
Watching "Dallas" . Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination (London
and New York: Methuen, 1985); James Lull, "The Social Uses of Television," in
Human Communications Resear ch 6, no.3 (1980): 198-209; Elihu Katz and
Tamar Liebes, "Mutual Aid in the Decoding of Dallas: Preliminary Notes
from a Cross-Cultural Study," in Phillip Drummond and Richard Paterson
(eds) Television in Transiti on (London: British Film Institute, 1985), pp. 187-98;
Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz, "Patterns of Involvement in Television Fiction: A
Comparative Analysis," European Journal of Communication 1 (1986): 151-71;
Klaus Bruhn Jensen, Making Sen se of the News (Ahrhus: University of Ahrhus
Press, 1986); Thomas Lindlof (ed.) Natural Audiences: Qualitative Research
and Media Uses and Effects (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company,
1987); James Lull (ed.) World Families Watch Television (Newbury Park,
Calif.: Sage, 1988).
4 C. Wright Mills, The Sociol ogical Imagination (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970),
chapter 3.
5 Lawrence Grossberg, "Critical Theory and the Politics of Empirical Research ," in
Michael Gurevitch and Mark R. Levy (cds) Mass Communication Review
Yearbook ,vol. 6 (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1986), pp. 86-106.
6 It should be stressed, however, that the "critical" tradition is not a monolithic
whole: there is not one "critical theory" with generally shared axioms, but many
different, and often conflicting "critical perspectives," e.g. political economy and
cultural studies .
7 Thus, I take issue with the conceptualization of recent debates in communication
studies in terms of a dichotomization of "critical" and "empirical" schools, as is
done in some contributions to the Ferment in the Field issue of the Journal of
Communication 33, no.3 (1983).
8 For an overview of the media studies work of the Centre, see Hall et al., Culture,
Media, Language. For an introduction to the cultural studies approach, see e.g,
Thomas Streeter, "An Alternative Approach to Television Research:
Developments in British Cultural Studies in Birmingham," in Willard D.
Rowland, Jr. and Bruce Watkins (eds) Interpreting Television: Current Research
Perspe ctives (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984), pp. 74-97; John Fiske, "British
Cultural Studies and Television," in Robert C. Allen (ed.) Channels ofDiscourse
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987), pp. 254-69.
111
len Ang
9 Morley, The "Nationwide" Audience, p. 161; Steve Neale, "Propaganda," Screen,

18, no.3 (1977).
10 Morley, The "Nationwide" Audience, p. 162.
11 The direct theoretical inspiration of Morley's research was the so-called
encoding/decoding model launched by Stuart Hall, which presented a theoretical
intervention against "Screen theory." See his "Encoding/Decoding" in Hall et al.,
Culture , Media, Language, pp. 128-38, and also, in the same volume, Stuart Hall,
"Recent Developments in Theories of Language and Ideology: A Critical Note,"
pp. 157-62. Morley himself elaborated on the "interdiscursive" nature of
encounters between text and subjects in "Texts, Readers, Subjects," in Culture,
Media, Language, pp. 163-73.
12 See Fred Feyes, "Critical Communications Research and Media Effects: The
Problem of the Disappearing Audience," Media, Culture, and Society 6 (1984) :
219·32 .
13 "Gratifications researchers, in their paradigmatic personae, have lost sight of what
the media are purveying, in part because of an overcommitment to the endless
freedom of the audience to reinvent the text, in part because of a too rapid leap to
mega-functions, such as surveillance or self-identity."
(Jay G. Blumler, Michael Gurevitch, and Elihu Katz, "Reaching Out:
A Future for Gratifications Research," in K.E. Rosengren, L.A.
Wenner, and Ph. Palmgreen (eds) Media Gratifications Research :
Current Perspectives (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1985), p. 272)
14 ibid.
15 Karl Erik Rosengren, "Communication Research: One Paradigm, or Four?"
Journal ofCommunication 33 (1983): 203; also Tamar Liebes, "On the
Convergence of Theories of Mass Communication and Literature Regarding the
Role of the Reader" (paper presented to the Conference on Culture and
Communication, 1986); and Kim Christian Schroder, "Convergence of
Antagonistic Traditions? The Case of Audience Research," European Journal of
Communication 2 (1987): 7-31. Such an insistence upon convergence is not new
among "mainstream" communication researchers . For example, Jennifer Daryl
Slack and Martin Allor have recalled how in the late 1930s Lazarsfeld hired
Adorno in the expectation that the latter's critical theory could be used to
"revitalize" American empiricist research by supplying it with "new research
ideas." The collaboration ended only one year later because it proved to be
impossible to translate Adorno's critical analysis into the methods and goals of
Lazarsfeld's project. Lazarsfeld has never given up the idea of a convergence,
however. See Jennifer Daryl Slack and Martin Allor, "The Political and
Epistemological Constituents of Critical Communication Research," Journal of
Communication 33 (1983): 210.
16 Note, for instance, the striking similarities between the following two sentences,
one from a uses and gratifications source, the other from a cultural studies one:
"There seems to be growing support for that branch of communications research
which asserts that television viewing is an active and social process" (Katz and
Liebes, "Mutual Aid," p. 187); "Television viewing, the choices which shape it
and the many social uses to which we put it, now tum out to be irrevocably active
and social processes" (Stuart Hall, "Introduction," in David Morley, Family
Television . Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure (London: Comedia, 1986), p. 8).
17 Tamar Liebes suggests that "the focus of the convergence is on the idea that the
interaction between messages and receivers takes on the form of negotiation, and
is not predetermined" ("On the Convergence," p. 1). However, as I will try to
show, what makes all the difference in the theoretical and political thrust of
112
Wanted: Audiences
ethnographic audience studies is the way in which "negotiation" is conceived.

Furthermore, "not predetermined" does not mean "undetermined," - and how
(complex, structural, conjunctural) determinations should be conceived remains an
important point of divergence between "critical" and "mainstream" studies. It is
also noteworthy to point out that, while uses and gratifications researchers now
seem to be "rediscovering the text," researchers working within a cultural studies
perspective seem to be moving away from the text. This is very clear in Morley 's
second book, Family Television, on which I will comment later in this chapter. In
fact, it becomes more and more difficult to delineate what "the television text" is.
18 See, for example, M. R. Levy and S. Windahl, "Audience Activity and
Gratifications: A Conceptual Clarification and Exploration," in Rosengren et al.,
Media Gratifications Research, pp. 109-22.
19 Blumler et al., "Reaching Out," p. 260.
20 In stating this I do not want to suggest that cultural studies is a closed paradigm,
or that all cultural studies scholars share one - say, Foucaultian - conception of
power. Thus, the Birmingham version of cultural studies, with its distinctly
Gramscian inflection, is criticized by Lawrence Grossberg for its lack of a theory
of pleasure. An alternative, postmodemist perspective on cultural studies is
developed by Grossberg in his "Cultural Studies Revisited and Revised," in Mary
S. Mander (ed.) Communications in Transition (New York: Praeger, 1983), pp.
39-70.
21 Strategic interpretations, that is interpretations that are "political" in the sense that
they are aware of the fact that interpretations are always concrete interventions
into an already existing discursive field. They are therefore always partial in both
senses of the word, and involved in making sense of the world in specific,
power-laden ways. See Mary Louise Pratt, "Interpretive Strategies/Strategic
Interpretations: On Anglo-American Reader-Response Criticism," in Jonathan
Arac (ed.) Postmodernism and Politics, (Minneapolis : University of Minnesota
Press, 1986), pp. 26-54 .
22 Rosengren expresses this view in very clear cut terms, when he reduces the
existence of disagreements between "critical" and "mainstream" researchers to
"psychological reasons" ("Communication Research: One Paradigm, or Four?," p.
191).
23 Cf. James Lull, "The Naturalistic Study of Media Use and Youth Culture," in
Rosengren et al., Media Gratifications Research, pp. 209-24; Klaus Bruhn Jensen,
"Qualitative Audience Research: Towards an Integrative Approach to Reception ,"
Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4 (1987): 21-36; Thomas R. Lindlof and
Timothy P. Meyer, "Mediated Communications as Ways of Seeing, Acting and
Constructing Culture: The Tools and Foundations of Qualitative Research," in
Lindlof, Natural Audiences, pp. 1-30.
24 Lawrence Grossberg (ed.) "On Postrnodernism and Articulation : An Interview
with Stuart Hall," Journal ofCommunication Inquiry 10, no.2 (summer 1986): 59.
25 James Carey, "Introduction," in Mander Communications in Transition, p. 5.
26 I borrowed this formulation from Virginia Nightingale , "What's Happening to
Audience Research?," Media Information Australia 39 (February 1986): 21-2.
Nightingale remarks that audience research has generally been "on the side" of
those with vested interests in influencing the organization of the mass media in
society, and that it is important to develop a research perspective that is "on the
side" of the audience. However, it is far from simple to work out exactly what
such a perspective would mean. The notion of the "active audience," for example,
often put forward by uses and gratifications researchers to mark the distinctive
identity of the "paradigm," is not in itself a guarantee for a stance "on the side
113
len Ang
of the audience." In fact, the whole passive/active dichotomy in accounts of

audiences has now become so ideologized that it all too often serves as a
mystification of the real commitments behind the research at stake.
27 Reflections on the predicaments and politics of research on and with living
historical subjects have already played an important role in, for example, feminist
studies and anthropology, particularly ethnography. At least two problems are
highlighted in these reflections. First, there is the rather awkward but seldom
discussed concrete relation between researcher and researched as human beings
occupying certain positions invested with power; second, there is the problem of
the discursive form in which the cultures of "others" can be represented in
non-objectifying (or better, less objectifying) ways. See, for example, Angela
McRobbie, "The Politics of Feminist Research," Feminist Review 12 (October
1982): 46-57; James Clifford, "On Ethnographic Authority," Representations 1,
no. 2 (1983): 118-46; James Clifford and George E. Marcus (eds) Writing Culture.
The Poetics and Politics ofEthnography (Berkeley, Los Angeles , London :
University of California Press, 1986). Researchers of media audiences have, as far
as I know, generally been silent about these issues. However, for a perceptive and
thought-provoking engagement with the problem, see Valerie Walkerdine, "Video
Replay: Families, Films and Fantasy," in Victor Burgin, James Donald and Cora
Kaplan (eds) Formations of Fantasy (London and New York: Methuen, 1986), pp.
167-99.
28 Grossberg, "Critical Theory," p. 89.
29 Hammersley and Atkinson, Ethnography, p. 16.
30 For a general overview of the interpretative or hermeneutic tum in the social
sciences, see Paul Rabinow and William M. Sullivan (eds) Interpret ive Social
Science (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1979). A
more radical conception of what they call "interpretive analytics" is developed by
Hubert Dreyfuss and Paul Rabinow in their Michel Foucault : Beyond
Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press,
1982).
31 Pratt, "Interpretive Strategies/Strategic Interpretations," p. 52.
32 Grossberg, "Critical Theory," p. 89.
33 Cf. Paul Rabinow, "Representations Are Social Facts: Modernity and
Post-Modernity in Anthropology," in Clifford and Marcus, Writing Culture, pp.
234-61.
34 A more general, lucid criticism of empiricist mass communications research is
offered by Robert C. Allen in his Speaking ofSoap Operas (Chapel Hill and
London: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), chapter 2.
35 Morley, The "Nat ionwide" Audience, p. 14. Morley's main objection to the uses
and gratifications approach concerns "its psycho logistic problematic and its
emphasis on individual differences of interpretation." At another place, Morley
even more emphatically expresses his distance from the uses and gratifications
approach: "Any superficial resemblance between this study of television audience
and the 'uses and gratifications ' perspective in media research is misleading"
(David Morley, "Cultural Transformations: The Politics of Resistance," in
Howard Davis and Paul Walton (eds) Language, Image , Media (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1983), p. 117).
36 Morley, Family Televis ion, p. 15.
37 ibid., p. 13.
38 Note that in positivist epistemology intersubjectivity is considered as one of the
main criteria for scientific "objectivity." One of the myths by which the institution
of Science establishes itself is that of scientific discourse as a process without a
114
Wanted: Audiences
subject. Hence the nonnative rule that the concrete historical subject of science,
the researcher, should be interchangeable with any other so as to erase all marks
of idiosyncratic subjectivity.
39 Morley, FamilyTelevision, p. 13.
40 ibid., p. 10.
41 Blurnler et al., "Reaching Out," p. 271.
42 It goes without saying that we are not speaking about significant differences in the
quantified, statistical sense here .
43 Morley, FamilyTelevision, chapter 6.
44 Charlotte Brunsdon, "Women Watching Television," MedieKultur 4 (1986) : 105;
also quoted in Morley, FamilyTelevision, p. 147.
45 All sorts of cautious qualifications as to the generalizability of such "findings,' so
routinely put forward in research reports that the validity of the given typifications
are said to be limited to certain demographic or subcultural categories (e.g. the
urban working class), do not principally affect this reification of experential
structures.
46 Brunsdon, "Women Watching Television," p. 104.
47 ibid ., p. 106.
48 An image of the television audience as consisting of harmonious collectivities is
suggested by Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes when they describe the social process
of decoding a television programme as an activity of "mutual aid." See Katz and
Liebes, "Mutual Aid."
49 Hall, "Introduction," in Morley, FamilyTelevision, p. 10.
50 In contrast to his later FamilyTelevision,The "Nationwide" Audience focused on
the ideological operations of the television medium itself.
51 Some critical scholars still dismiss the idea of doing empirical audience research
altogether, because, so they argue, it would necessarily implicate the researcher
with the strategies and aims of capitalist culture industry. See, for example, Tania
Modleski, "Introduction," in Tania Modleski (ed.) Studies in Entertainment.
Critical Approachesto Mass Culture (Bloomington lnd.: Indiana University Press,
1986), pp. xi-xii.
52 Morley, FamilyTelevision, p. 174.
53 Cf. Walkerdine, "Video Replay": "Much has been written about the activity of
watching films in terms of scopophilia. But what of that other activity .. . this
activity of research, of trying so hard to understand what people see in films?
Might we not call this the most perverse voyeurism?" (p. 166).
54 This is not the place to go into the more radical, metatheoretical attempts to
deconstruct the concept of audience as a useful starting point of research and
analysis . The future of audience studies, however, cannot afford not to reflect on
the consequences of such basic, radical critiques. See Briankle G. Chang,
"Deconstructing the Audience: Who Are They and What Do We Know About
Them?" in Margaret L. Mclaughlin (ed.) Communication Yearbook 10, (Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1987), pp. 649-65; Martin Allor, "Relocating the Site of the
Audience: Reconstructive Theory and the Social Subject," Critical Studies in
Mass Communication 5 (1988) : 217-33.
55 Paul Willis, "Notes on Method," in Hall et al., Culture, Media, Language, p. 90.
56 Grossberg (ed.), "On Postmodemism and Articulation," p. 60.
115
Chapter six
Text and audience
Charlotte Brunsdon
Preliminary: Soap opera and good television

The serial form has an international, multi-media history. Television serials,
distinguished internationally by their viewer loyalty, have proved themselves an
indispensable element in most broadcasting economies. Soap opera, in Britain,
has, as a genre, a very powerful metaphorical existence, even though we have no
equivalent of daytime North American soaps. To say something is soap opera is
to say that, minimally, it is bad drama. Frequently, it is to say that the drama is
slackly written , cheaply produced, poorly acted . Perhaps more significantly, it is
to imply cliche, banality, and bathos . It is never a term of approbation. This
meaning of the term "soap opera" is imbricated with another, more general
meaning. In this usage, the term "soap opera," with all the evaluative weighing I
have described, is used metonymically to refer to television itself. Thus reference
is made to a low-prestige leisure activity, engaged in thoughtlessly by those who
do not have the inner resources to do anything else.
In Britain , with its long tradition of audience-improving public service broad-
casting, this accretion round the term "soap opera" is particularly resonant,
condensing as it does an opposition between good television and popular tele-
vision . Good television in Great Britain generally draws its legitimation from
other, already validated art forms: theater, literature , music. That is to say,
television is good when it brings to a wider audience already legitimated high-
and middle-brow culture. In this mode, television can be good as a potentially
democratic, or socially extensive , transmitter.
The other mode of legitimation, or set of discourses within which television is
allowed to be "good," poses a privileged relation to the real. Although this mode
does reference specific qualities of broadcast media, the qualities concerned -
those facilitating the transmission of reports of live events - are precisely self-
negating . Thus sport, public events , current affairs , wild life programs, are "good
television" if we seem to get unmediated access to the real world, and are not
distracted by thinking about television as television.
The other term, that is constructed in opposition to "good television," is not
bad television ; it is popular or commercial television, and its origin, in Britain, is
116
Text and audience
usually, casually, dated to 1955, and the start of commercial broadcasting. This
bad television, which is where we find, and indeed what is meant by the
term, soap opera, has another name, and that is "American series." Dick Hebdige
has discussed the subcultural significance of "the American," and par-
ticularly of the discriminations made about design details like streamlining
among British working-class youth in the 1950s. 1 len Ang points to the sig-
nificant anti-American element in what she refers to as the "ideology of mass
culture.'? 1 want at this stage merely to reference these and other discussions in
pointing to a little connotat ional string: soap opera - television - commercial -
American.
We can see these wider, connotational meanings of soap opera when fears
about satellite television are expressed in terms of the specter of "Wall to wall
Dallas,") and in the terminological wriggling conducted by the production
companies of British soap operas. Granada, which produces the long-running
Coronation Street, is notoriously resistant to the idea that the serial should be
referred to as a soap, and when the BBC announced that a new continuing serial
was in production (EastEnders) , early newspaper coverage was sensitive to the
frisson of incompatibility between the meanings "BBC" and "soap opera" ("The
BBC prefers to call it ' a folk opera.' But that's splitting hairs.?') The implication
of this comment is useful to us here. Inside commercial, mass produced soap,
there is a traditional authentic community waiting to get out.
But television, producer of images in the age of electronic, rather than
mechanical, reproduction, is of course, par excellence, the medium without
authenticity. This founding lack of authenticity has two consequences which
should concern us: first, in the relation between the lack of authenticity and the
absence of a specifically televisual aesthetic, and second, in the way we
understand some of the approaches to the television audience .
The absence of authenticity creates a founding lack in any relation television
might have to already existent aesthetic discourse. Aesthetic discourses have
been traditionally and historically organized partly through notions of "the real"
and "the authentic," and the search for criteria which can identify and establish
these and other categories, such as "the beautiful" and "the good." As I have
observed, in British critical discourse about television, "the good" is precisely
constructed through reference to that which is other than television - already
existing and validated art forms, or "the real." It may be pertinent to note
Bourdieu's observation that the aesthetic gaze is constructed in and through an
opposition to the naive gaze.' In much contemporary cultural discourse,
television is the object of the naive gaze against which the aesthetic gaze is
constructed. Thus bad cinema or theater is designated soap opera, while video art
barely makes it to the arts pages of newspapers . This constitution of television as
the bad cultural object creates a critical abyss when we try to shift the gaze, to
look at television, not through it to the Real or High Art. To echo a formulation
which has a different political and historical resonance to my own project, there
is almost no elaborated discourse of quality, judgment, and value which is
117
Charlotte Brunsdon
specific to television, and which is not derived from production practices or

professional ideologies,"
Horace Newcomb , writing in 1974, has argued for the use of criteria of
intimacy, continuity, and history in a television aesthetic, and has also argued for
the importance of soap opera in the development of television drama? Intimacy
and continuity do seem important elements in characterizing what is specific to
television in certain textual modes. They are also, of course, characteristic of
certain ways of watching television. The challenge of an adequate television
aesthetic (if this is indeed what we should wish to call it) is that it must not only
take a position on the relationship(s) between what we might call the institutional
and the program components of televisual discourse, but it must also address
extremely variable and diverse ways of watching television.
By the former, I mean to indicate the critical and analytical importance
granted to what we might temporarily call the television-ness of television, which
can be taken as the dominant focus for analysis, as opposed to the more
traditional concentration on single programs . The classical site within British
cultural theory for discussion of how the television text can be constituted as an
object of study is Raymond Williams' formulation of "flow," taken up by John
Caughie in his analysis of "the world" of television, and John Ellis with the
notion of the segment," In North America, "the viewing-strip" was proposed as
the relevant unit by Newcomb and Hirsch in their 1983 essay," These attempts to
theorize how we may both grasp the continuousness of television and integrate
the experience of viewing into analysis, can, I think, be most usefully
supplemented by the deployment of the notion of "mode of address," which
allows us to specify, at a formal level, the way in which the television text is
always constructed as continuously there for someone. The differing identities
posed in these interpellations (child, citizen, hobby enthusiast, consumer, etc.),
and the overlapping and contradictory ways in which we are called to watch,
form one of many sites for further research." An insistence on the analytic
importance of these moments - continuousness and mode of address - gives us
some access to the inscription of television's institutional basis in its formal
operation.
Among commentators less sympathetic to the pleasures of popular television
viewing there is also a stress on the television-ness of television. Here though, the
attention to the institutional aspects of television viewing is not motivated by the
need to specify the modes of existence of a cultural form in order to lay the
foundation for further analysis, but to argue that the "television-ness" of
television viewing overwhelms any specific contents the medium may offer.
Particularly for those concerned with children and adolescent viewers, watching
television is often per se a bad thing, and thus program differentiation is of
limited interest. Attention is instead focused on children's absorption in the
screen and their inability to concentrate for longer than the length of a
commercial." A rather ironic advertisement on North American television at
present (1987) addresses the viewer as concerned parent: "Are your kids
118
Text and audience
spellbound?" over an image of a white male child glued to the box. The answer
to television addiction turns out to be a video game called Videosmarts which will
transform the TV zombie into an active and engaged spectator."
The difficulty of defining or constituting the television text is accentuated by
the privacy of television usage and the absence of an academy concerned to
regulate the production and consumption of television.'? These factors tend to
privilege the perception of diverse modes of engagement with the television text
as a specific and defining feature of television viewing. There are two problems
with this view . First, as Paddy Scannell has argued, this is surely a feature of
broadcast media, rather than television as such." Second, we should not forget
that people have always engaged very variously with all forms of cultural texts .
Many books bought are not read, many paintings in art galleries not looked at,
much music used as background, but the institutions of high culture, the
academy, the museum, patronage, the auction room, have historically codified,
both explicitly and implicitly, the proper mode of engagement with the text - be
it a (sublime) mountain view or a lyric poem. Although many people may not
engage in these proper ways , critical and aesthetic discussion is usually
conducted on the assumption - or negotiation - of this type of engagement.
This is not to polemicize for and against particular ways of watching
television. It is to point out that although historical research such as that of
William Boddy and Lynn Spigel shows us that there was originally considerable
uncertainty on how to understand the place of television in the home, the
institutions of television are primarily concerned with maximizing audiences and
revenue, not with the codifying of proper ways to watch. IS Thus the discovery, by
scholars who have to some extent historically defined themselves against the
older traditions of "uses and gratifications" research, of the existence of diverse
listening and viewing strategies, may seem to point us to defining features of
broadcast media, but these are, in a tautological manner, only defining if we
choose not to pay attention to what is on the screen.
An aesthetic of television would thus, in some ways, have to be an
anti-aesthetic to be adequate to its object and the practices constituting it. Most
interestingly, in relation to the question of an aesthetic, we have the question of
function. People do tum on the television to watch specific programs, but they
also put it on for company, to make the house feel lived in, to see if there's
anything on. People do lots of different things with television and partly judge it
accordingly. There is also evidence of a perpetual collection and classifying of
material related to favorite programs. Everyday, in workplaces and homes, the
previous night's viewing is sifted over and sorted , organized into categories
which could form one basis for a popular aesthetic.
It is here, with the audience, that we find television's only possible moment of
authenticity (and I do not propose authenticity as a desirable or necessary quality
of a medium). The audience is, of course, economically necessary to the
continuing profitability (existence) of the television companies which form just
one part of the combines which contribute to the expansion of multinational
119
Charlotte Brunsdon
leisure industries . But it is the symbolic necessity of the audience, its varied
inscription throughout the television text, with which I want to work here. From
audience as addressee of continuity announcements; laughing, gasping, and
participating in situation comedies and game shows; making purchase choices
from the address to the consumer in commercials; to audience as vox pop
commentator on newsworthy events, the audience is called on, and constructed
by television, as its main source of legitimation.
We can see this if we consider the connotational work done by the frequently
repeated phrase: "taped before a live studio audience." The show that can claim
this is, precisely, more authentic - more real , more natural, less manipulative, less
televisual - than the show with canned laughter. Similarly the nervous, often
emotional "person in the street" who comments, seemingly without rehearsal or
editing, on a news event, lends realism , a guarantee of authenticity, to the
awesome technological possibilities of electronic news-gathering services.
Television is not just a popular medium because lots of people watch it.
Television is a medium which constantly inscribes its own popularity into its
programming in the way in which it displays its ability to mobilize all different
kinds of people to participate, and thus to legitimate it, as the popular form.
We can see this in the institut ion's insatiable hunger for "real people." Jane
Root quotes the producer of The Price is Right, William G. Stewart, making an
illuminating comment about the search for authenticity:
I wouldn't pick someone to be a contestant who would attempt to be a star. I
want nice ordinary people who just come along for a bit of fun: some of them
are so ordinary they are surprised to be chosen."
In its most self-referential form, we see this hunger given expression in the range
of television trivia games, in which families compete with each other to
demonstrate the compatibility of their viewing habits and the totality of their
recall. It is, however, not only the institution of television which has an insatiable
hunger for nice ordinary people. As John Caughie has pointed out, "writing about
pleasure on television frequently seems to be about other people 's pleasure.?'?
Academic television researchers are also caught in this search for the authentic
response. We too are looking for folk, not soap, opera. I think it is arguable that
essential questions about the differentiation of television's output - about the text
- are being displaced on to questions about how television is watched . It is this
process of displacement which I wish to trace in the second part of this chapter.
The modes of dispersal of the television text

I wish here to examine what has happened to the television text as an object of
study in recent years. I want to trace, very schematically, the different ways in
which the television text as an object of study has been under assault, and to argue
for the importance of retaining the notion of text as an analytic category.
120
Text and audience
1. My first starting point is institutional , and consists of some observations of

trends at the two Interr:ational Television Studies Conferences held in London in
1984 and 1986.18 There are, of course, always on-going debates in particular
intellectual fields, which sometimes get into apparently obvious sets of issues and
concerns at particular historical moments in the academy. There are also always
more and less fashionable and attractive areas for research . Although not the only
shift in parameters of debate, there was, between the 1984 and 1986 conferences,
a clear move in interest from what is happening on the screen to what is
happening in front of it - from text to audience.
This is not in any way to underestimate the amount of research that has already
been conducted into the behavior and readings of the audience, both in
Britain/Europe and in the United States . It is to suggest that the 1986 conference
provides a convenient, if arbitrary, way of marking the entry of new and different
interests into audience research . The 1984 conference took place just at the very
end of a period of ten years or so of British culturalist analyses of popular film
and television texts.
These analyses had, in the main, what one could call a political motivation .
For a range of quite complexly articulated reasons, including the (semi-)
institutionalization of Film, Television, and Cultural Studies within the academy,
the rightward shift in the British political scene, the ageing of the generation
radicalized in 1968, not to mention the institutional convenience of textual
analysis, we had in Britain the burgeoning of academic analyses of popular texts
and pastimes which sought to discredit both the left-pessimist despair over and
the high-cultural dismissal of mass and popular cultures. From the mid-1970s
onwards, "progressive" academics in the cultural fields became increasingly
involved in the production of what could be termed "the redemptive reading."
Film noir, 1950s color melodrama, television programs such as The Sweeney ,
Coronation Street and Crossroads were among the many texts addressed."
The point about the "redemptive reading" is that it is not a simple populist
embrace of the entertainment forms of late capitalism. The purely populist
moment - although of course there has always been a straightforwardly populist
strain contributing to the arguments for this sort of work - comes at the end of
this period , roughly contemporary with the shift to the audience which I am
describing, and, in popular cultural terms, with Madonna's rise to stardom." The
redemptive reading is not populist in that it starts with an acceptance of the
uncongenial politics of whatever cultural text - for it is primarily a political
reading - and then finds, at the least, incoherences and contradiction, and at the
most fully articulated subtexts of revolt. Partly because of the centrality of
Hollywood to the constitution of Film Studies as a discipline, it is here that this
form of critical practice is at its most sophisticated and elaborated. The notorious
category "e" of Cahiers du Cinema ("films which seem at first sight to belong
firmly within the ideology and to be completely under its sway, but which tum
out to be so only in an ambiguous manner'?') is of course a category of reception
("If one reads the film obliquely , looking for symptoms "22), unlike all the other
121
Charlotte Brunsdon
categories in their influential 1969 taxonomy. The famous account of Young Mr

Lincoln reveals what was at stake for cinephiles when ideological correctness
became the principal critical criterion. The loved object, Hollywood cinema,
which would have had to be jettisoned under the regime of the right-on, could be
retrieved if its textual (here standing for ideological) coherence could be
demonstrated to be only apparent. 23
The redemptive reading frequently meets with a certain skepticism, a doubt
that real readers really read like that. The 1984 International Television Studies
Conference (ITSC) marked a suitable final appearance for the dominance of this
type of textual analysis - the theoretical position had now to be supported by
research into how non-academic readers read. In the 1984 ITSC, the conference
strand that was bulging at the seams was that of "textual analysis." In 1986,
submissions to this area were radically reduced and there was increased evidence
of qualitative audience research. This "new" audience work, which comes partly
from the necessity of testing the type of textual hypotheses referred to in the last
paragraph, and which is often influenced by the ascendancy of reception theory
in Literary Studies, met, often in ignorance, the older, more quantitative
traditions of Mass Communications research . As Jane Feuer observed in her 1986
paper, the television text has been displaced by the text of audience - a much
more various and diverse text - and the enormous conceptual and methodological
problems entailed."
I won't rehearse the problems of audience research here. It is, however,
undoubtedly the case that we are beginning to see a whole new body of research
into how people view television , and this research functions to disperse further
the Text as an analytic category. We can now, following the work of, for
example, Peter Collett, Ann Gray, Dorothy Hobson and David Morley (to take
British examples), only argue that people watch television in extremely
heterogeneous ways. People watch alone, with intimates, with strangers . They
watch while they are doing something else, even when they are in another room .
The notion of "flow," made less harmonious through practices such as channel
zapping, has to be supplemented by the major variable of audience-presence-
for-the-text. But how can we theorize this in a way which allows us to do more
than accumulate an ethnography of particular practices?
2. The second way in which we lose the text is through the proliferation , across
different media, of potential textual sites. At one level, this is a phenomenon of
marketing and product licensing, and of the international character of image
markets, to paraphrase Mattelart et al.;25 at another, of the deep penetration
television has in our daily lives. Thus we can buy videos of early episodes of
Coronation Street, read novels based on any of the soaps, etc., but we can also
overhear - and join in - conversations about soap characters, and read about
predicted narrative events in newspapers." Again, though, what is posed for us is
the question of how we organize our perception of these issues, rather than the
self-evident textual destruction that some have found.
122
Text and audience
Tony Bennett and Janet Woollacott have done exemplary work on what they
call "the Bond phenomenon," in which they examine the many moments, textual
existences, and transformations of James Bond. They set out "to demonstrate, in
a practical way rather than just theoretically, that 'the text itself' is an
inconceivable object.':" Their achievement, I think, is not to prove that the text
itself is an inconceivable object, but that the choice of what is recognized as
constituting "a" text, consciously or not, is a political as well as a critical matter.
It is around this issue that the contemporary struggles to dominate the critical
field will be fought.
Literary analysis has as one of its specialisms the identification of reference
and allusion. Modernism was partly modern in its use of quotation and the
assumed knowledge of other texts. But the intertextuality of television is in some
ways more radical , without the central organizing drive of the author, or, as I have
argued, the specific hierarchies of form given by an established aesthetic. This
quality, the promiscuous and nearly parodic self-rcferentiality of television, is not
quite specific to television in a way that could define the medium. It is a quality
- along with others also attributable to television - seen as characteristic of a
postrnodern era." It is essential that we recognize the fact that television, and
video, (along with the computer), are major agents in our understanding of
contemporary time and space, and they contribute to the trans- formation of these
categories in everyday life. This insight is potentially more useful than the
analysis of single programs as if they were poems . But I'm not sure that this
perception requires that we throw up our hands and say : "But it's all so
cpherneral/pastichcy/without refercncc/dcpthless/intertextual that there's
nothing to analyse."
3. The third type of textual dispersal can be traced to feminist critical initiatives.
This is of particular relevance because women have historically figured as
preferred objects (I use the term advisedly) of audience research. Women soap
opera viewers and listeners have proved particularly attractive to both comm-
ercial and academic researchers in ways which are I think relevant to us here.
If we accept that soap opera is in some ways the paradigmatic television genre
(domestic, continuous, contemporary, episodic, repetitive, fragmented, and
aural) we have also to ask why it has had until recently so little serious critical
attention. The first part of the answer comes from the little connotational set I
outlined earlier (soap opera - television - commercial- American). Soap opera
has had little attention , except, ironically, in terms of the investigation of its
effects on audiences, because it has not been considered textually worthy. Robert
Allen puts this nicely when he writes of soap opera viewers not being granted the
capacity of aesthetic distance from the text." A range of critics have also pointed
to the key significance of the social status of soap opera fans in determining the
aesthetic status of the form . Feminist critics in the 1970s added vehemence to the
general rejection of the genre , but have subsequently, in two slightly different
ways, contributed to the revaluation of the role of the listener/viewer.
123
Charlotte Brunsdon
First, in a relatively short period, feminist criticism has moved from its initial
repudiation of women's genres to the analysis and defense of traditionally
feminine forms such as soap opera , melodrama, and romance." This process, as
I have argued at greater length elsewhere, has necessarily involved the attempt to
analyse and enter imaginatively into the pleasures of the audiences for these
forms." Sometimes motivated by a desire to defend the audience and its
pleasures, sometimes concerned principally to use cultural texts as sites where
the constitution.of contemporary femininities can be analysed, this work necess-
arily demands the investigation of the responses of audiences/ readers/viewers to
the relevant texts. Thus much of the new audience research that I have already
referred to has been specifically concerned with "feminine" texts, female
audiences, and feminist methodologies.
It is the notion of feminist methodology which points to the other important
element contributed by feminist criticism. This is the use of autobiographical
data, and the validation of the use of "I" in academic discourse. I am of course
simplifying and generalizing to make my point - the "I" also enters academic
discourse through other routes , and the exploration of subjectivities constituted
in subordination has been essential to groups other than women, and fragments
the simple gender category. Here, however, the point is that the particular value
set on the recounting and exploration of personal experience within second wave
feminism, and the recognition of the extremely contradictory nature of
experience and identity, have worked to construct autobiographical data as
"proper" data. Thus, in addition to the audience studies of Janice Radway, len
Ang, Dorothy Hobson, and Ann Gray, in which the focus is on other women, we
also have Jo Spence's autobiographical photographic projects and the
outstanding cultural analyses of Judith Williamson and Rosalind Coward who
both work explicitly with their own histories." Because the definition of feminist
methodology frequently involves particular political understandings of the way
in which the researcher herself inhabits the gender category woman, we have, in
much feminist research, a certain fluidity of pronouns, a blurring of the
separation of the object and the subject of research . This blurring is of course a
feature of some sociologies - what I wish to do here is to point to the peculiar
force that the first-person pronoun has in feminist discourse, a force which often
has the resonance of "authenticity."
This "I" of some feminist discourse is a rather complicated affair in terms of
whom it speaks to and for. Sometimes we have the simple use of autobio-
graphical data, which is not explicitly articulated with either the assumed, or
researched, experiences of "other women." Sometimes we have an "I the
researcher," who sees herself as part of a larger category, "we women," on whose
behalf, for whose good, and to whom she will, at different moments and
simultaneously, speak. There will thus be the validation of autobiographical
material and a feminine "I" over and above any unitary and inherent meaning of
the text, but the status and identity of this reader/writer validated over the text
fluctuates.
124
Text and audience
For our purposes, the point could be seen as a paradoxical one, in that feminist
intervention in a particular academic field turns out to reproduce exactly the
existing structure or patterning of the field. The traditional approach to soap
opera within media research was to focus on audience rather than text. Although
differently motivated, and ascribing different moral qualities to the two terms,
text and audience, feminist research too has moved from the "bad" text to the
"good" audience.
To conclude
I am not trying to argue for the reinstatement of what we might call the
pre-audience text. Through the different routes which I have tried to outline, I
think we can see some of the reasons for the growth in audience research projects.
The discrediting of a simple cross/tick political aesthetic of popular texts, as if
that is all they merit , was overdue . The investigation of the activities of viewers
reveals the variety of contexts and modes of viewing which prevent the television
text ever being, in any way, a simple, self-evident object for analysis. Similarly,
we have to accept the potentially infinite number/flow of textual sites. Together,
I think these recognitions begin to lead us to the postmodern haven of
insignificance, and I have, in this context, characterized the pursuit of the
audience as a search for authenticity, for an anchoring moment in a sea of
signification .
So first, I want to argue that, difficult as it may be, we have to retain a notion
of the television text. That is, without the guarantees of common sense or the
authority of a political teleology with the recognition of the potentially infinite
proliferation of textual sites, and the agency of the always already social reader,
in a range of contexts , it is still necessary - and possible - to construct a televisual
object of study - and judgment.
Here, I think we can most usefully learn from the practices of television itself.
The broadcast world is structured through regularity and repetition. Time shift
video recording alters the viewer's position in relation to this regularity and
repetition , but I am not sure that it fundamentally transforms the broadcast
structure of the day and week. Although it is tempting to start with a distinction
between viewing alone and viewing with others, and recent research suggests that
this might be particularly important in relation to understanding women's
pleasures, the primary distinction seems to be between modes of viewing which
are repeated on a regular basis and uncommon or unfamiliar modes of viewing (it
thus incorporates the solitary/in company distinction)."
The need to specify context and mode of viewing in any textual discussion,
and the awareness that these factors may be more determining of the experience
of a text than any textual feature, do not, in and of themselves , either eliminate
the text as a meaningful category, or render all texts the same. I may normally
watch Brookside with one other person, and indeed prefer watching it in this
familiar way, but I can still recognize the program when alone or with a large
125
Charlotte Brunsdon
group doing something else. The fact that the text is only and always realized in
historicallyand contextually situated practices of reading does not demand that
we collapse these categoriesinto each other.
Second, I do want to raise questions about the overall political shape, or
weighing, of this concentration on the newly found audience. Although
frequently informed by a desire to investigate, rather than judge, other people's
pleasures, this very avoidance of judgment seems somehow to recreate the old
patterns of aesthetic domination and subordination, and to pathologize the
audience. Because issues of judgment are never brought out into the open, but
always kept, as it were, under the seminar table, criteria involved can never be
interrogated. It is for this reason that I wish to retain/construct the analytic
category of the television text, for if we dissolve this category into the audience,
we further inhibitthe development of a usefultelevision criticism and a television
aesthetic. This is quite difficultenoughwithoutcollapsing bad programsinto bad
audiences. I do not wish to argue that television studies should be devoted to
discriminating between"good" and "bad" programs- but I do want to insist that
most academics involved in audience studies are using qualitative criteria,
howeverexpressedor repressed, and that the constitution of the criteria involved
should be the subject of explicit debate.
What we find, veryfrequently , in audiencedata, is that the audienceis making
the best of a bad job. The problem of working always with what people are, of
necessity, watching, is that we don't really ever address that something else -
what people might like to watch (and I don't mean to imply that these other
desires simply exist without an object, but that is another whole paper at least).
The recognition of the creativity of the audience,must,I think, be mobilized back
into relation to the television text, and the demands that are made on program
makers for a diverse and plural programming which is adequate to the needs,
desires and pleasures of these audiences. Otherwise, however well intentioned,
our work reproduces and elaborates the dominantparadigm in which the popular
is the devalued term.
A later version of this paper entitled 'Television: Problems of aesthetics and

audiences' was presented to a conference on television held at the Centre of
Twentieth Century Studies, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in April
1988.
Notes
1 Dick Hebdige, "Towards a Cartography of Taste," Block 4 (1981): 39-56.
2 len Ang, Watching "Dallas": Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination
(London: Methuen, 1985).
3 Christopher Dunkley, television critic of the Financial Times used this phrase in
the title of his book on the future of television, Television Today and Tomorrow:
Wall to Wall Dallas? (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985).
126
Text and audience
4 Geoff Baker, "Queens of the East End," Daily Star, February 13, 1985.
5 Pierre Bourdieu, "The Aristocracy of Culture," in Distinction: A Social Critique of
the Judgment ofTaste, trans. Richard Nice (London : Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1984), pp. 11-57.
6 Robert Sklar opens his essay on television criticism: "This is an essay about a
subject that does not exist: television criticism" (Prime-Time America (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 143). The following provide useful surveys of
television criticism in Britain and the USA: Mike Poole, 'The Cult of the
Generalist: British Television Criticism 1936-83," Screen 25, no. 2 (March-April
1984): 41-62 ; John Caughie, "Television Criticism: ' A Discourse in Search of an
Object,''' Screen 25, nos. 4-5 (July-October 1984): 109-20; Horace Newcomb,
"American Television Criticism, 1970-1985," Critical Studies in Communication
3, no.2 (June 1986): 217-28.
7 Horace Newcomb, Television: The Most Popular Art (New York: Anchor, 1974),
particularly chapter 10. Robert Allen has argued that Newcomb is overdependent
on British television to exemplify his point. This would be significant in the
context of my argument because of the way in which the art/entertainment axis is
inscribed over British/American television. Robert C. Allen, Speaking ofSoap
Operas (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), pp. 222-3. See
also chapter 4 of Allen 's book.
8 Raymond Williams, Television: Technology and Cultural Form (London:
Fontana, 1974); John Ellis, Visible Fictions: Television Video Cinema (London :
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982); John Caughie, "The 'World' of Television," in
Claire Johnston (ed.) History, Production, Memory , (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Film
Festival Magazine , 1977), pp. 72-83.
9 Horace Newcomb and Paul Hirsch, "Television as a Cultural Forum," Quarterly
Review of Film Studies 8, no.3 (summer 1983): 45-56, reprinted in Horace
Newcomb (ed.) Television - The Critical View, (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1987). This essay offers one formulation of the agency of the viewer in the
constitution of the television text:
Using the viewing "strip" as the appropriate text of television, and recognizing
that it is filled with varied topics and approaches to these topics, we begin to think
of the television viewer as a bricoleur who matches the creator in the making of
meanings. Bringing values and attitudes, a universe of personal experiences and
concerns, to the texts, the viewer selects, examines, acknowledges and makes
texts of his or her own.
(Television, p. 467)
10 The 1982 British Fihn Institute Summer School "Who Does Television Think
You Are?" co-ordinated by David Lusted and held at Stirling University,
attempted to work through some of the issues involved in conceptualizing
television through notions of mode of address.
11 See, for example, Marie Winn, The Plug-In Drug (New York: Viking, 1977).
12 Philip Simpson (ed.) Parents Talking Television (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul 1987) provides a basis for a less paranoid discussion of children and
television .
13 I do not want to underestimate the role of industry spectaculars , Emmy nights,
etc., but in Britain at least these are radically separate from any type of
endorsement of television as "legitimate" culture - that one can, for example, gain
instruction in at universities . The more practice- and industry-oriented courses in
broadcast media at North American universities may make generalization about
this point quite improper.
127
Charlotte Brunsdon
14 Paddy Scannell, "Radio Times: The Temporal Arrangements of Broadcasting in

the Modem World" (paper presented at the International Television Studies
Conference, London, 1986). See also Simon Frith's discussion of the making of
BBC light entertainment: 'The Pleasures of the Hearth," in Formations of
Pleasure (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul , 1983), pp . 101-23 .
15 William Boddy, '''The Shining Centre of the Home': Ontologies of Television in
the 'Golden Age .' " in Phillip Drummond and Richard Paterson (eds) Television in
Transition (London: British Film Institute, 1985), pp. 125-34. Lynn Spigel,
"Ambiguity and Hesitation: Discourses on Television and the Housewife in
Women's Home Magazines 1948-1955" (paper presented at the International
Television Studies Conference, London, 1986).
16 Jane Root, Open the Box (London: Cornedia, 1986), p. 98.
17 Caughie, ''The 'World' of Television," p. 116.
18 I was a member of the organizing committee of the 1986 International Television
Studies Conference, and a discussant in 1984.
19 E. Ann Kaplan (ed.) Women in FilmNoir (London: British Film Institute, 1978) ;
Geoffrey Newell-Smith, "Minelli and Melodrama," Screen 18, no.2 (summer
1977) : 113-18; Screen Education 20 (autumn 1976), a special issue on The
Sweeney; Richard Dyer, Christine Geraghty, Marion Jordan, Terry Lovell,
Richard Paterson, and John Stewart (eds) "Coronation Street" (London: British
Film Institute, 1981) .
20 Madonna occasioned an absolute flurry of approving leftist and feminist review
articles in Britain - in, for example, Marxism Today, New Socialist, and Women's
Review. (This was the cover story for the March 1986 issue of Women's Review.
The byline on the contents page read "Madonn a - how Sheryl Garratt learned to
stop worrying and to love her.") The New Internationalist currently advertises for
subscribers with the slogan "From Mao to Madonna." E. Ann Kaplan discusses
one of her videos from a rather different perspective in RockingAround the Clock
(London: Methuen, 1987), and Madonna also pops up on the cover of Robert C.
Allen's collection of essays on television, ChannelsofDiscourse (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1987).
21 Jean-Louis Comolli and Jean Narboni, "Cinema/Ideology/Criticism," Cahiersdu
Cinema 216 (October 1969), reprinted in translation in Bill Nichols (ed .) Movies
and MethodsI (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976),
pp.22-30.
22 Nichols, Moviesand Methods, p. 26.
23 The Editors of Cahiers du Cinema, " John Ford's Young Mr Lincoln,"Cahiers
du Cinema 223 (1970) , reprinted in translation in Nichols, Moviesand Methods,
pp.493-529.
24 Jane Feuer, "Reading Dynasty: Television and Reception Theory" (paper
presented at the International Television Studies Conference, London,
1986) .
25 A. Mattelart, X. Delcourt, and M. Mattelart, International Image Markets
(London: Comedia, 1984) .
26 Rosalind Brunt, "Street Credibility," Marxism Today (December 1983): 38-9 .
27 Tony Bennett and Janet Woollacott, Bond and Beyond:The PoliticalCareer
ofa PopularHero (Basingstoke and London: Macmillan Education, 1987) ,
p.7.
28 Fredric Jameson, "Postrnodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,"
New Left Review 196 (July/August 1984): 53-92.
29 Allen, SpeakingofSoap Operas, pp. 28f. Allen also provides an extensive
bibliography.
128
Text and audience
30 A restricted set of references here would include: Ellen Seiter, "Eco's TV Guide :
The Soaps," Tabloid 5 (1982): 35-43; Dorothy Hobson, "Crossroads" : The
Drama ofa Soap Opera (London: Methuen , 1982); Charlotte Brunsdon,
"Crossroads: Notes on Soap Opera," Screen 22, no.4 (1981): 32-37; Dyer et al.,
"Coronation Street" ; Ang, Watching "Dallas"; Christine Gledhill (ed.) flome Is
Where the Heart Is: Melodrama and the Women 's Picture (London: British Film
Institute, 1987); Janice Radway, Reading the Romance : Women, Patriarchy, and
Popular Literature (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); Jean
Radford (ed.) The Progress ofRomance (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986).
31 Charlotte Brunsdon, "Women Watching Television," MedieKultur 4 (November
1986): 100-12. See also len Ang, "Feminist Desire and Female Pleasure," Camera
Obscura 16 (1988) .
32 Dorothy Hobson, "Housewives and the Mass Media," in Stuart Hall, Dorothy
Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis (eds) Culture, Media, Language
(London: Hutchinson, 1980), pp. 105-14; Ann Gray, "Behind Closed Doors:
Video Recorders in the Home:' in Helen Baehr and Gillian Dyer (cds) Boxed In:
Women and Television, (New York and London: Pandora Press, 1987), pp. 38-54.
An example of Coward and Spence 's work can be found in a piece they did
together: "Body Talk:' in Patricia Holland, Jo Spence, and Simon Watney (eds)
Photography/Politics: Two (London: Comedia, 1986), pp. 24-39; see also Sarah
McCarthy's "Autobiographies," pp. 134-41 in the same volume; and Judith
Williamson, Consuming Passions (London: Marion Boyars, 1986).
33 David Morley, Family Television : Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure
(London: Comedia, 1986); Gray, "Behind Closed Doors."
129
Chapter seven
Out of the mainstream:

Sexual minorities and the mass media
Larry Gross
In a society dominated by centralized sources of information and imagery, in

which economic imperatives and pervasive values promote the search for large ,
common-denominator audiences, what is the fate of those groups who for one or
another reason find themselves outside the mainstream? Briefly, and it is hardly
a novel observation , such groups share a common fate of relative invisibility and
demeaning stereotypes. But there are differences as well as similarities in the
ways various minorities (racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, political) are treated by
the mass media. And, given important differences in their life situations, mem-
bers of such groups experience varying consequences of their mediated images.
In this chapter I will discuss the general question of minority perspectives
applied to the study of mass media content and effects, and I will elaborate in
greater detail the situation of sexual minorities (lesbian women and gay men) as
members of the mass media audience .
Sexual minorities differ in important ways from the "traditional" racial and
ethnic minorities; they are, in an interesting sense, akin to political minorities
(so-called radicals and "fringe" groups). In both cases their members typically
are self-identified at some point in their lives, usually in adolescence or later, and
they are not necessarily easily identifiable by others. These two groups also
constitute by their very existence a presumed threat to the "natural" (sexual
and/or political) order of things, and thus they are inherently problematic and
controversial for the mass media. These characteristics can be seen to affect the
way members of such groups are depicted in the media (when they do appear),
and also suggest ways to think about the effects of such depictions on the images
held by society at large and by members of these minority groups.
Before turning to the discussion of minority audience perspectives , it would
be helpful to characterize briefly the role of the mass media, television in
particular, in our society.
The system is the message

First, the economic, political , and social integration of modem industrial society
allows few communities or individuals to maintain an independent integrity. We
130
Out of the mainstream
are parts of a Leviathan, like it or not, and its nervous system is telecomm-
unications. Our knowledge of the "wide world" is what this nervous system
transmits to us. The mass media provide the chief common ground among
the different groups that make up a heterogeneous national community . Never
before have all classes and groups (as well as ages) shared so much of the
same culture and the same perspectives while having so little to do with their
creation .
Second, representation in the mediated "reality" of our mass culture is in itself
power; certainly it is the case that non-representation maintains the powerless
status of groups that do not possess significant material or political power bases.
That is, while the holders of real power - the ruling class - do not require (or
seek) mediated visibility, those who are at the bottom of the various power
hierarchies will be kept in their places in part through their relative invisibility.
This is a form of what Gerbner and I have termed symbolic annihilation .' Not all
interests or points of view are equal; judgments are made constantly about
exclusions and inclusions and these judgments broaden or narrow (mostly
narrow) the spectrum of views presented .
Third , when groups or perspectives do attain visibility, the manner of that
representation will itself reflect the biases and interests of those elites who define
the public agenda. And these elites are (mostly) white, (mostly) middle-aged ,
(mostly) male, (mostly) middle and upper-middle class, and entirely heterosexual
(at least in public).
Fourth, we should not take too seriously the presumed differences between the
various categories of media messages - particularly in the case of television.
News, drama, quiz shows, sports,and commercials share underlying similarities
of theme, emphasis, and value. Even the most widely accepted distinctions (i.e.
news vs. fiction programs vs. commercials) are easily blurred. Decisions about
which events are newsworthy and about how to present them are heavily
influenced by considerations of dramatic form and content (e.g. conflict and
resolution) that are drawn from fictional archetypes; and the polished
mini-dramas of many commercials reveal a sophisticated mastery of fictional
conventions, just as dramatic programs promote a style of consumption and
living that is quite in tune with their neighboring commercial messages. More
important, the blending of stylistic conventions allows for greater efficacy and
mutual support in packaging and diffusing common values.
Fifth , the dominant conventions of our mass media are those of "realism" and
psychologically grounded naturalism. Despite a limited degree of reflexivity
which occasionally crops up, mainstream film and television are nearly always
presented as transparent mediators of reality which can and do show us how
people and places look, how institutions operate; in short, the way it is. These
depictions of the way things are, and why, are personified through dramatic plots
and characterizations which take us behind the scenes to the otherwise
inaccessible backstages of individual motivation, organizational performance,
and subcultural life.
131
Larry Gross
Normal adult viewers, to be sure, are aware of the fictiveness of media drama:
no one calls the police when a character on television is shot But we may still
wonder how often and to what extent viewers suspend their disbelief in the
persuasive realism of the fictional worlds of television and film drama. Even the
most sophisticated among us can find many components of our "knowledge" of
the real world which derive wholly or in part from fictional representations. And,
in a society which spans a continent, in a cosmopolitan culture which spans much
of the globe, television and film provide the broadest common background of
assumptions about what things are, how they work (or should work), and why.
Finally, the contributions of the mass media are likely to be most powerful in
cultivating images of groups and phenomena about which there is little first-hand
opportunity for learning; particularly when such images are not contradicted by
other established beliefs and ideologies. By definition, portrayals of minority
groups and "deviants" will be relatively distant from the real lives of a large
majority of viewers.
Television as the mainstream

The average American adult spends several hours each day in this television
world , children spend even more of their lives immersed in its "fictional reality ."
As I have already suggested, the mass media, and television foremost among
them, have become the primary sources of the common information and images
that create and maintain a world view and a value system. In a word, the mass
media have become central agents of enculturation. In the Cultural Indicators
Project we have used the concept of "cultivation" to describe the influence of
television on viewers' conceptions of social reality ,"
On issue after issue we find that assumptions, beliefs, and values of heavy
viewers of television differ systematically from those of light viewers in the same
demographic groups. Sometimes these differences appear as overall, main
effects, whereby those who watch more television are more likely - in all groups
- to give what we call "television answers" to our questions. But in many cases
the patterns are more complex . We have found that television viewing, not
surprisingly, serves as a stable factor differentially integrated into and interacting
with different groups' life situations and world views. In our recent work we have
isolated a consistent pattern which we have termed "mainstreaming."?
The mainstream can be thought of as a relative commonality of outlooks and
values that television tends to cultivate in viewers. By mainstreaming we mean
the sharing of that commonality among heavy viewers in those demographic
groups whose light viewers hold divergent positions. In other words, differences
deriving from other factors and social forces - differences that may appear in the
responses of light viewers in various groups - may be diminished or even absent
when the heavy viewers in these same groups are compared. Overall, television
viewing appears to signal a convergence of outlooks rather than absolute,
across -the-board increments in all groups.
132
Choices or echoes?
The mainstream which we have identified as the embodiment of a dominant
ideology, cultivated through the repetition of stable patterns across the illusory
boundaries of media and genre, and absorbed by otherwise diverse segments of
the population, nevertheless has to contend with the possibility of oppositional
perspectives and interpretations. What options and opportunities are available to
those groups whose concerns, values and even very existence are belittled,
subverted, and denied by the mainstream? Can the power of the mass media's
central tendencies be resisted? Can one avoid being swept into the mainstream?
The answers to such questions depend in large part on which group or segment
we are discussing; while many minorities are similarly ignored or distorted by the
mass media, not all have the same options for resistance and the development of
alternative channels.
In general the opportunities for organized opposition are greatest when there
is a visible and even organized group which can provide solidarity and
institutional means for creating and disseminating alternative messages. There
are numerous examples of groupings that have sprung up, as it were, along the
right bank of the mainstream. Most organized and visible among these are the
Christian fundamentalist syndicated television programs. These programs
provide their (generally older and less educated) viewers with an array of
programs, from news to talk shows to soap operas to church services and
sermons, all reflecting perspectives and values that they quite correctly feel are
not represented in mainstream, prime-time television or in the movies.' As one of
Hoover's conservative, religious respondents put it, in discussing network
television:
I think a good deal of it is written by very liberal, immoral people ... Some of
the comedies, the weekly things that go on every week, they make extramarital
affairs, and sex before marriage an everyday thing like everybody should
accept it ... and they present it in a comic situation, a situation that looks like
it could be fun and a good deal of these weekly shows I don't like go for that.'
The religious sponsoring and producing organizations are not merely engaged in
meeting their audiences' previously unmet needs for a symbolic environment in
which they feel at home; they are also attempting to translate the (usually
exaggerated) numbers of their audiences and their (constantly solicited) financial
contributions into a power base from which they can exert pressure to alter the
channel of the mainstream and bring it even closer to where they now reside, up
on the right bank.
At the moment, and for the foreseeable future in the United States, at least,
there is no comparable settlement on the left bank of the mainstream. There are
many reasons why the organized left has been unable to match the right's success
in harnessing the available resources of media technology. It is not hard to see
that some minority perspectives are in fact supportive of the dominant ideology,
133
Larry Gross
however much the media's need for massive audiences might sacrifice or offend
their interests, while other minority values are truly incompatible with the basic
power relationships embodied in that mainstream.
Minority positions and interests which present radical challenges to the
established order will not only be ignored, they will be discredited. Those who
benefit from the status quo present their position as the moderate center, balanced
between equal and opposing "extremes" - thus the American news media's cull
of "objectivity," achieved through a "balance" which reflects an invisible,
taken-for-granted ideology. As a CBS spokesman explained it, when dismissing
attempts by Jesse Helms and Ted Turner to lake over the network:
Anyone ... who buys a media company for ideological reasons must be
prepared to pay dearly for that conviction. The right-wingers and the
left-wingers in this country are vociferous but small in number compared to
the ordinary citizen, who, when it comes down to it, is a centrist. 6
The fatal flaw in the credo of centrism and moderation is that how one defines the
"responsible" extremes will determine where the center will fall. In the United
States the mass media-legitimated spectrum runs a lot further right than it does
left, which puts the "objectively balanced" mainstream clearly to the right of
center. Jesse Helms can be elected and re-elected to the Senate and can embark
on a public campaign to lake over CBS; his opposite number on the left, whoever
that might be, couldn't conceivably claim or receive that degree of visibility,
power, and legitimacy .
Yet, in the final analysis, neither flank can avoid serving in one way or another
to buttress the ramparts of the status quo, and to keep the truly oppositional from
being taken seriously. American presidential politics recently featured a matched
pair of Christian candidates, but neither the minister of the left, Jesse Jackson, nor
the minister of the right, Pat Robertson, could hope to do more than exert some
small pressure on their respective branches of the Property Party, whose two
official divisions - the Democrats and the Republicans - offer an illusion of
choice within the political mainstream.
Homosexuals and television: fear and loathing

Close to the heart of our cultural and political system is the pattern of roles
associated with sexual identity: our conceptions of masculinity and femininity, of
the "normal" and "natural" attributes and responsibilities of men and women.
And, as with other pillars of our moral order, these definitions of what is normal
and natural serve to support the existing social power hierarchy.
The maintenance of the "normal" gender role system requires that children be
socialized - and adults retained - within a set of images and expectations which
limit and channel their conceptions of what is possible and proper for men and
for women. The gender system is supported by the mass media treatment of
sexual minorities. Mostly, they are ignored or denied - symbolically annihilated;
134
when they do appear they do so in order to playa supportive role for the natural
order and are thus narrowly and negatively stereotyped . Sexual minorities are
not, of course , unique in this regard.' However, lesbians and gay men are
unusually vulnerable to mass media power; even more so than blacks, national
minorities, and women. Of all social groups (except perhaps communists) , we are
probably the least permitted to speak for ourselves in the mass media. We are also
the only group (again, except for communists and, currently, Arab "terrorists")
whose enemies are generally uninhibited by the consensus of "good taste" which
protects most minorities from the more public displays of bigotry .
The reason for this vulnerability lies in large part in our initial isolation and
invisibility . The process of identity formation for lesbian women and gay men
requires the strength and determinat ion to swim against the stream. A baby is
born and immediately classified as male or female, white or black, and is treated
as such from that moment, for better or worse. That baby is also defined as
heterosexual and treated as such. It is made clear throughout the process of
socialization - a process in which the mass media playa major role - that one will
grow up, marry, have children and live in nuclear familial bliss, sanctified by
religion and licensed by the state. Women are surrounded by other women,
people of color by other people of color, etc., and can observe the variety of
choices and fates that befall those who are like them. Mass media stereotypes
selectively feature and reinforce some of the available roles and images for
women, national minorities, people of color, etc.; but they operate under
constraints imposed by the audiences' immediate environment
Lesbians and gay men, conversely, are a self-identifying minority. We are
assumed (with few exceptions, and these - the "obviously" effeminate man or
masculine woman - may not even be homosexual) to be straight, and are treated
as such, until we begin to recognize that we are not what we have been told we
are, that we are different. But how are we to understand, define, and deal with that
difference? Here we generally have little to go on beyond very limited direct
experience with those individuals who are close enough to the accepted
stereotypes to be labeled publicly as queers , faggots, dykes, etc. And we have the
mass media.
The mass media playa major role in this process of social definition , and
rarely a positive one. In the absence of adequate information in their immediate
environment, most people, gay or straight, have little choice other than to accept
the narrow and negative stereotypes they encounter as being representative of
gay people . The mass media have rarely presented portrayals which counter or
extend the prevalent images. On the contrary, they take advantage of them.
Typically, media characterizations use popular stereotypes as a code which they
know will be readily understood by the audience, thus further reinforcing the
presumption of verisimilitude while remaining "officially" innocent of dealing
with a sensitive subject.
But there is more to it than stereotyping . For the most part gay people have
been simply invisible in the media. The few exceptions were almost invariably
135
Larry Gross
either victims - of violence or ridicule - or villains. As Vito Russo noted recently ,

"it is not insignificant that out of 32 films with major homosexual characters from
1961 through 1976, 13 feature gays who commit suicide and 18 have the
homosexual murdered by another character."! Even this minimal and slanted
presence, however, seems to be so threatening to the " industry" that gay
characterizations and plot elements always come accompanied by pressbook
qualifications and backpedaling. In his survey of the treatment of gay people in
American film,? Russo presents a sample of the predictable distancing that gay
themes evoke from directors ("The Children's Hour is not about lesbianism, it's
about the power of lies to destroy people's lives," William Wyler, 1962;
"Sunday , Bloody Sunday is not about the sexuality of these people , it's about
human loneliness ," John Schlesinger, 1972; "Windows is not about
homosexuality, it's about insanity," Gordon Willis, 1979), and actors ("The
Sergeant is not about homosexuality, it's about loneliness," Rod Steiger, 1968;
"Staircase is not about homosexuality, it's about loneliness," Rex Harrison ,
1971). It is easy to imagine how comforting these explanations must have been
to lesbian and gay audience members looking for some reflection of their lives in
the media. But it is not only the audiences who appear to require protective
distancing from gay characters and themes. We are frequently treated to showbiz
gossip intended to convey the heterosexual bona fides of any actor cast in a gay
role, as when the actor playing the swish drag queen Albin in the stage version of
La Cage aux folIes told several interviewers that he had consulted with his wife
and children before accepting the role.
The gay liberation movement emerged in the late 1960s in the United States ,
spurred by the examples of the black and feminist movements. Consequently,
media attention to gay people and gay issues increased in the early 1970s, much
of it positive (at least in comparison with previous and continuing heterosexist
depictions and discussions), culminating (in the sense of greater media attention
- in the pre-AIDS era) in 1973, with the decision by the American Psychiatric
Association to delete homosexuality from its "official" list of mental diseases. By
the middle 1970s, however, a backlash against the successes of the gay
movement began to be felt around the country, most visibly in Anita Bryant's
successful campaign to repeal a gay rights ordinance in Dade County, Florida , in
1977. Since then the gay movement and its enemies, mostly among the "new
right ," have been constant antagonists (right-wing fund-raisers acknowledge that
anti-homosexual material is their best bet to get money from supporters) , and
television has often figured in the struggle. But, although the right wing has
attacked the networks for what they consider to be overly favorable attention to
homosexuals, in fact gay people are usually portrayed and used in news and
dramatic media in ways that serve to reinforce rather than challenge the
prevailing images.
Kathleen Montgomery observed the efforts of the organized gay movement to
improve the ways network programmers handle gay characters and themes. In
particular she describes the writing and production of a made-far-television
136
network movie that had a gay-related theme, and involved consultation with
representatives of gay organizations. And the result?
Throughout the process all the decisions affecting the portrayal of gay life
were influenced by the constraints which commercial television as a mass
medium imposes upon the creation of its content. The fundamental goal of
garnering the largest possible audience necessitated that (a) the program be
placed in a familiar and successful television genre - the crime-drama; (b) the
story focus upon the heterosexual male lead character and his reactions to the
gay characters rather than upon the homosexual characters themselves; and (c)
the film avoid any overt display of affection which might be offensive to
certain segments of the audience. These requirements served as a filter
through which the issue of homosexuality was processed, resulting in a
televised picture of gay life designed to be acceptable to the gay community
and still palatable to a mass audience."
Acceptability to the gay community, in this case, means that the movie was not
an attack on our character and a denial of our basic humanity; it could not be
mistaken for an expression of our values or perspectives. But of course they were
not aiming at us, either; they were merely trying to avoid arguing with us
afterwards. In Vito Russo's words, "mainstream films about homosexuals are not
for homosexuals. They address themselves exclusively to the majority ."!'
However , there will inevitably be a great many lesbians and gay men in the
audience .
The rules of the mass media game have a double impact on gay people: not
only do they mostly show us as weak and silly, or evil and corrupt, but they
exclude and deny the existence of normal, unexceptional as well as exceptional
lesbians and gay men. Hardly ever shown in the media are just plain gay folks,
used in roles which do not center on their deviance as a threat to the moral order
which must be countered through ridicule or physical violence. Television drama
in particular reflects the deliberate use of clicheed casting strategies which
preclude such daring innovations .
The stereotypic depiction of lesbians and gay men as abnormal, and the
suppression of positive or even "unexceptional" portrayals, serve to maintain and
police the boundaries of the moral order . It encourages the majority to stay on
their gender-defined reservation, and tries to keep the minority quietly hidden out
of sight. For the visible presence of healthy, non-stereotypic lesbians and gay
men does pose a serious threat: it undermines the unquestioned normalcy of the
status quo, and it opens up the possibility of making choices to people who might
never otherwise have considered or understood that such choices could be made.
The situation has only been worsened by the AIDS epidemic. By 1983 nearly
all mass media attention to gay men was in the context of AIDS-related stories,
and because this coverage seems to have exhausted the media's limited interest
in gay people, lesbians became even less visible than before (if possible) . AIDS
reinvigorated the two major mass media "roles" for gay people: victim and
137
Larry Gross
villain. Already treated as an important medical topic, AIDS moved up to the

status of "front page" news after Rock Hudson emerged as the most famous
person with the disease. At present AIDS stories appear daily in print and
broadcast news - often with little or no new or important content - and the public
image of gay men has been inescapably linked with the specter of plague.
Television dramatists have presented the plight of (white, middle-class) gay men
with AIDS, but their particular concern is the agony of the families/friends who
have to face the awful truth: their son (brother, boyfriend, husband, etc.) is, gasp,
gay! But, even with AIDS, not too gay, mind you. In the major network made-for-
television movie on AIDS, NBC's An Early Frost, a young, rich, white, hand-
some lawyer is forced out of the closet by AIDS. "We know he is gay because he
tells his disbelieving parents so, but his lack of a gay sensibility, politics and
sense of community make him one of those homosexuals heterosexuals love.">
An Early Frost is thus another example of the pattern discerned by
Montgomery: although this time the familiar and successful genre is family- not
crime-drama, the focus is still on the heterosexual characters and their reactions .
As William Henry notes in a recent overview of television 's treatment of gays (or
lack of same) during the past fifteen years,
when TV does deal with gays it typically takes the point of view of straights
struggling to understand. The central action is the progress of acceptance - not
self-acceptance by the homosexual, but grief-stricken resignation to fate by
his straight loved ones, who serve as surrogates for the audience.
Homosexuality thus becomes not a fact of life, but a moral issue on which
everyone in earshot is expected to voice some vehement opinion . Just as black
characters were long expected to talk almost exclusively about being black,
and handicapped characters (when seen at all) were expected to talk chiefly
about their disabilities , so homosexual characters have been defined almost
entirely by their "problem.''"
Being defined by their "problem," it is no surprise therefore that gay characters
have mostly been confined to television's favorite problem-of-the-week genre,
the made-for-television movie, with a very occasional one-shot appearance of a
gay character on a dramatic series (examples include episodes of Lou Grant.
Medical Center and St. Elsewhere). Continuing gay characters tend to be so
subtle as to be readily misunderstood by the innocent (as in the case of Sidney in
Love . Sidney, whose homosexuality seemed to consist entirely of crying at the
movies and having a photo of his dead lover on the mantelpiece), or confused
about their sexuality and never seen in an ongoing romantic relationship (as in the
case of the off-again-on-again Steven Carrington in Dynasty, whose lovers have
an unfortunate tendency to get killed).
Despite their greater freedom from the competition for massive mainstream
audiences - perhaps because of their need to compete for the primary audience of
teens and young adults - commercial films are no more welcoming to gay
characters than television. In fact, as Vito Russo shows in the revised edition of
138
his 1981 study, The Celluloid Closet (1987), recent films are awash with gay
villains and victims once more:
The use of the word faggot has become almost mandatory. Outright slurs that
would never be tolerated in reference to any other group of people are
commonly used onscreen against homosexuals. . .. Anti-gay dialogue is most
often given to the very characters with whom the audience is supposed to
identify."
Films offer their makers a degree of license which isn't available to television
producers - an opportunity to use language and depictions of sexuality that go far
beyond the limits imposed on television - but as far as gay people are concerned,
this mostly serves as a hunting license.
Colonization: the straight gay

There are several categories of response to the mainstream media's treatment of
minorities ; among them are internalization, subversion, secession, and resistance.
To begin with, as we have already noted, we are all colonized by the majority
culture. Those of us who belong to a minority group may nevertheless have
absorbed the values of the dominant culture, even if these exclude or diminish us.
We are all aware of the privileging of male-identified attributes in our patriarchal
culture, and the dominance of the male perspective in the construction of mass-
mediated realities. Similarly , the US media offer a white-angled view of the
world which is shared with people of color everywhere. In a study of Venezuelan
children in which they were asked to describe their heroes. the hero was North
American in 86 per cent of the cases and Venezuelan in only 8 per cent;
English-speaking in 82 per cent and Spanish-speaking in 15 per cent; white
heroes outnumbered black heroes 11 to 1; and heroes were wealthy in 72 per cent
of the cases."
Sexual minorities are among the most susceptible to internalizing the
dominant culture's values because the process of labelling generally occurs in
isolation and because:
We learn to loathe homosexuality before it becomes necessary to
acknowledge our own. . . . Never having been offered positive attitudes to
homosexuality, we inevitably adopt negative ones, and it is from these that all
our values flow."
Internalization and colonization can also result in the adoption of assimilationist
strategies which promise upward (or centerward) mobility, although at the cost
of cutting off one's "roots." Gay people by and large know how to "pass"; after
all, it's what they have been doing most of their lives. But the security attained is
fragile and often illusory, and certainly will not provide support in resisting the
inferiorizing pressures of the straight culture they attempt to blend into. And all
too often, there really isn't any resistance anyway. as the process of
139
Larry Gross
internalization has achieved the desired goal. The Zionist polemicist Ahad
Ha-Am drew on a biblical analogy to describe this phenomenon, in his essay on
Moses: "Pharaoh is gone, but his work remains; the master has ceased to be
master,but the slaves have not ceased to be slaves.'?"
The supposedly liberal and tolerantdomain of the media does not necessarily
permit homosexuals (or other minorities) to overcome the burdens of
self-oppression:
When it comes to keepingminorities in theirplace, the entertainment industry
continuesto divideand conquer. For all the organizing that women havedone,
for instance, in their attempts to break down the barriers, well-placed women
executives say they've received very little mutual support from their equally
well-placed peers. The old-boy network rules, and the individual women,
gays, blacks, or hispanics who attain some degree of success usually have to
camouflagethemselves in the trappings of their masters,"
Similarly, gay writer Merle Miller recalled that, "as editor of a city newspaper,
he indulged in 'queer-baiting' to conceal his own homosexuality.?" Openly gay
actor Michael Kearns speaks of "a gay agent who makes it a habit to tell 'fag
jokes' at the close of interviews with new actors. If an actor laughs, he's signed
up; ifhe doesn't, he isn't.'?' Working backstage, it would seem,does not exempt
one from falling under the spell of the hegemonic valuescultivatedand reflected
by the media. However, as Raymond Williams has suggested, hegemony "is
never either total or exclusive. At any time, forms of alternative or directly
oppositional politics and culture exist as significantelementsin the society."21
Resistance and opposition

The most obvious form of resistance, but possibly the most difficult, would be
simply to ignore the mass media, and refuse to be insulted or injured by their
derogation and denial of one's identity and integrity as a member of a minority
group. Unfortunately, although some of us can personally secede from the
mass-mediated mainstream, or samplefrom it withgreat care and selectivity, we
cannot thereby counter its effect on our fellow citizens.We cannot even prevent
our fellow minority-group members from attending to messages which we feel
are hostileto their interests(this is, of course,a familiardilemmafor parentswho
feel that commercial television is not in thebest interestsof theirchildren). Given
the generally high levels of television viewing at the lower rungs of the
socio-economic ladder, it can be expected that large segmentsof the population
consumemedia fare that servesto maintain theirsubordinate status. In theUnited
States, black households are disproportionately heavy television consumers:
"Black households, which represented about 9 percent of all television
households surveyed, accounted for about 14 percent of all household viewing.
According to the United States Census Bureau, blacks constituted 12 percent of
the population last year.">
140
We might expect self-identified ideological minorities to be better able to

resist the siren's song of the mass media; and we have noted that the religious
right has developed alternative channels to provide their adherents with a source
of value-congruent media fare. We've also noted the absence of equivalent
programming on the left bank of the mainstream. Leftists, it seems, are faced with
fewer choices, and they experience the ambivalence of being aware of the central
role the media play in consensualizing a dominant ideology and yet not wanting
(or being able) to pull completely out of the mainstream themselves . In an
ongoing study of American leftists' relationships to the mass media, Eugene
Michaud has encountered many expressions of such hostility and ambivalence,
despite which the respondents interviewed continue to watch television:
"Frankly, I detest TV. It's the source of many family disputes. I really find TV
obnoxious and really intrusive on whatever you're trying to do. ...For most
people, I think TV is a way of relaxing - it's a distraction .. . life is hard - so
it's very easy to watch TV." (Male, 36)
"I have a lot of trouble with the TV news. I get upset and I want to run away.
Or I get obnoxious and start sneering at it, and my wife gets upset because
she's trying to listen.. . . I realize that there 's this vast treasure trove of ideas
and images from TV which most people are plugged into." (Male, 44)
"I hate watching the TV news and having someone give me the straight
administration line. . . . The way I watch TV is if I don't have anything else to
do and I'm bored." (Female, 32)
"We watch network news sometimes, but I feel like it's junkfood news. I
find it very frustrating. They never analyse anything. .. . It's also so easy to
tum on TV, and there's all this visual stuff. It's so effortless ." (Female, 32)
"I do watch Nightline, but it pisses me off to no end . . . the way they
manipulate things to put forth a certain point-of-view. It's a total set-up."
(Male, 32)23
Observers of the current television scene will not be surprised to leam that there
are one or two shows that do manage to appeal to Michaud 's leftist respondents.
Most frequently praised is Hill Street Blues , although it's generally judged to
have declined after its first few seasons. Its spin-off, St. Elsewhere , receives
similar reviews. The decline is often interpreted in ideological terms:
"I used to watch Hill Street Blues regularly, but I mostly don't bother any more
. .. it used to try to demonstrate the ambiguity people felt towards each other
and towards their work. Now, it's just the traditional good guys against the bad
guys . I think it's a reflection of the Reagan era." (Female, 34)
The ratings smash hit Cosby Show is popular among some leftists, despite its
up-scale values, because it features a black family and because "there' s a lot of
love, which is appealing, and it does capture the real dynamics of family life in a
funny way" (Male, 30).
141
larry Gross
Lesbian women and gay men do not constitute an ideological minority in the
same way that American leftists do (although those gay people who are part of
the "movement" certainly tend to be left-identified), and they are less likely to
condemn the mass media in the way the left does. However, few lesbian women
and gay men could remain unaware of how they are treated in the media - when
their existence is even acknowledged - and their relationship to the media is
likely to be colored by this awareness. Just as racial and ethnic minority groups
pay close attention to programs which feature their members, so too gay people
will tune in regularly to any program which promises an openly or explicitly
lesbian or gay character (or even a favorite performer assumed to be gay) . The
images and messages they will encounter will not, as we have already noted,
provide them with much comfort or support. More typically, they will again be
marginalized, trivialized , and insulted.
While working on this paper I went to see the latest film written and directed
by Woody Allen, Radio Days, and was irritated, though not surprised, by the
inclusion of a gay character whose only function is to evoke a laugh at his own
expense, and to further underline the hopelessness of a woman who would fall in
love with him. My irritation was caused not only by Woody Allen's gratuitous
insult - I've come to expect these from him - but also by the hilarity it produced
among the audience . The experience of having one's status as "fair game"
emphasized in this graphic fashion while sitting in a movie theater is familiar to
gay people, just as it is to people of color and to women. Even when a gay
characterization is intended to be sympathetic (as in the wildly successful La
Cageauxfolles), the gay members of the audience may wince at the falsity of the
image, and find themselves laughing at different times from the straight audience .
There can be a perverse pleasure in this perception - Elizabeth Ellsworth
describes lesbian feminist reviewers of Personal Best (a film written and directed
by a straight man, which includes a lesbian relationship as a central theme,
despite the usual pressbook obfuscation) who "expressed pleasure in watching
the dominant media 'get it wrong' in watching it attempt, but fail, to colonize
'real' lesbian space.'?'
It can be argued that the best stance for gay people to adopt vis-a-vis the mass
media would be to repay them with the same indifference and contempt they
reveal toward us. Unfortunately , while this might be a gratifying and appropriate
individual solution, it is not realistic as a general strategy. One may be able to
reduce one's own irritation by ignoring the media, but their insidious impact is
not so easily avoided. What cannot be avoided, however, can be better
understood, and studies of lesbian and gay audiences and their responses should
be included in the emerging research agenda.
Subversion
A second oppositional strategy is the subversion and appropriation of mainstream
media, as well as the occasionally successful infiltration. The classic gay (male)
142
strategy of subversion is camp - an ironic stance toward the straight world rooted
in a gay sensibility:
a creative energy reflecting a consciousness that is different from the
mainstream; a heightened awareness of certain human complications of
feeling that spring from the fact of social oppression; in short, a perception of
the world which is coloured, shaped, directed and defined by the fact of one's
gayness."
This characterization would, of course, also fit many other minorities who
experience oppression, but the gay sensibility differs in that we encounter and
develop it at a later stage in our lives; it is nobody's native tongue. Moreover,
while sharing much with other minority perspectives, camp is notably marked by
irony and a theatrical perspective on the world which can be traced to the
particular realities of gay experience:
The stigma of gayness is unique insofar as it is not immediately apparent
either to ourselves or to others. Upon discovery of our gayness, however, we
are confronted with the possibility of avoiding the negative sanctions attached
io our supposed failing by concealing information (i.e, signs which other
people take for gay) from the rest of the world. This crucial fact of our
existence is called passingfor straight, a phenomenon generally defined in the
metaphor of theatre, that is, playing a role: pretending to be something one is
not ; or, to shift the motive somewhat, to camouflage our gayness by
withholding facts about ourselves which might lead others to the correct
conclusion about our sexual orientation."
Camp offers a subversive response to mainstream culture, and provides both

in-group solidarity and an opportunity to express distance from and disdain for
the roles most gay people play most of the time. Exchanged in private settings,
camp is a mechanism of oppositional solidarity which repairs the damage
inflicted by the majority and prepares us for further onslaughts . As a restricted
code used in public settings, camp can be a way to identify and communicate with
other "club members" under the unknowing eyes of the straight world - in itself
an act of subversive solidarity (as well as self-protection) . Camp can also be a
form of public defiance , and a risky expression of a difference which dares to
show its face.
Camp is also the quintessentially gay strategy for undermining the hegemonic
power of media images." The sting can be taken out of oppressive
characterizations and the hot air balloons of official morality can be burst with
the ironic prick of camp humor. Most importantly, by self-consciously taking up
a position outside the mainstream , if only in order to look back at it, camp
cultivates a sense of detachment from the dominant ideology.
The sense of being different ... made me feel myself as "outside" the
mainstream in fundamental ways - and this does give you a kind of knowledge
143
Larry Gross
of the mainstream you cannot have if you are immersed in it. I do not
necessarily mean a truer perspective, so much as an awareness of the
mainstream as a mainstream, and not just the way everything and everybody
inevitably are; in other words, it denaturalizes normality. This knowledge is
the foundation of camp."
Camp can also be seen in the appropriation of mainstream figures and products
when they are adopted as "cult" objects by marginal groups. Camp cult favorites
are often women film stars who can be seen as standing up to the pressures of a
male-dominated movie industry and despite all travails remaining in command of
their careers (Bette Davis, Joan Crawford, Mae West), or at least struggling back
from defeat (Judy Garland") .
Cult movies like The Rocky Horror Picture Show provide occasions for
meeting others with the same perspective, and turning a media product into the
pretext for communal interaction . In a study of patrons waiting to see Rocky
Horror outside a Rochester, NY, movie theater, it was learned that, excluding the
first-timers, the mean number of times respondents had seen the movie was
eleven." The audience members are there to participate in a ritual and a social
event which create and reinforce a solidarity of non-mainstream identification.
The Rocky Horror cult has served all over the United States as an opportunity for
lesbian and gay teenagers to meet and support each other in the coming-out
process.
In our own voice

The most effective form of resistance to the hegemonic force of the dominant
media is to speak for oneself. At one level this means attempting to be included
in the category of recognized positions and groupings acknowledged by the mass
media. Achieving this degree of legitimation is not a negligible accomplishment,
and it is not to be despised or rejected as an important minority goal. The success
of various minorities in exerting pressure on the media can be seen in the care
with which images of these groups are balanced and presented . In fact, the
television networks have taken to complaining about the difficulties they face in
finding acceptable villains.
"In their desire to avoid stereotyping , I think broadcast standards and practices
sometimes goes to an absurd extreme," said Bruce J. Sallan, ABC's vice
president in charge of motion pictures on television. "There are almost no
ethnic villains on television . We can 't do a Mafia picture at ABC, because
broadcast standards won't let us deal with Italians involved in organized
crime.'?'
A recent ABC-TV film, The Children of Times Square, was allowed to have a
black villain after he was balanced by sympathetic black characters: "We had
instructions from the network that if a black is shown in a bad light, we must also
show a black in a good light. "32
144
Gay people have not yet achieved the degree of social power and legitimacy
which would permit them to demand the same self-censorship on the part of the
media, and consequently we are still treated to gay villains and victims
unbalanced by gay heroes or even just plain gay folks. As we have seen from
Kathleen Montgomery's research, gay pressure can hope at most for a limited
success: a story which offends neither minority nor mainstream sensibilities too
much. Could we hope for much more? Probably not, since the numbers simply
are not there to put sufficient pressure on the media - and numbers are the bottom
line. We might exact concessions along the way, forcing some respect for our
humanity , but we cannot expect the media to tell our stories for us, or allow us to
do so through their channels .
The ultimate expression of independence for a minority audience struggling to
free itself from the dominant culture 's hegemony is to become the creators and
not merely the consumers of media images. In recent years lesbian women and
gay men have begun - although with difficulty - to gather the necessary
resources with which to tell our own stories.
There have always been minority media in the United States; various
immigrant groups supported newspapers, books, theater and occasionally movies
in their native languages . But these immigrant voices were stilled as succeeding
generations were assimilated into mainstream culture, losing touch with the
language and culture of their grandparents. The black press has survived and
occasionally flourished alongside the mainstream media, and black culture
(music and dance in particular) has been the source of much inspiration and
talent which have crossed over into the mainstream (sometimes in
whiteface) .
Since the 1970s a lesbian and gay alternative culture has offered a range of
media sources and products - press, music, theater, pornography - which are
unmistakably the product of gay people's sensibility. Here, too, there is the
occasional cross-over, as when Harvey Fierstein's Torch Song Trilogy wound its
way from off-off-Broadway to a Tony Award for best play on Broadway. But
crossing-over is no guarantee of protection from the dominant culture. Even
speaking in his own voice - quite literally, as when Fierstein starred in his play-
the gay author may find that straight audiences do not see beyond their
preconceptions. Torch Song Trilogy was reviewed in the New York Times by
Walter Kerr, the "dean " of Broadway theater critics, and the review is both
patronizing and simply wrong." Much of the action in the third act centers on the
fact that Arnold, the protagonist, has adopted a gay teenager, and on the "return"
of his former lover who is in the process of leaving his wife. The play ends with
clear intimations of an emerging gay "nuclear family" - with Arnold as mother,
his returned lover as daddy, and their adopted gay son. What does Waiter Kerr do
with this? He misunderstands - or at least misrepresents - it so badly that I must
assume bigotry blinded him to plot details so obvious no tyro critic could miss
them. He implies that the adopted son is a "kept" boy Arnold has picked up. The
former lover is described as "also sharing the flat, though not yet the boy." When
145
Larry Gross
the boy tells the former lover, "I'd be proud to call you daddy," Kerr detects
"possible betrayal, sensual shiftings" - that is, he thinks the boy is seducing the
man!
One clue to Kerr 's stupidity - astound ing in so veteran a critic - may be found
in his comment about "this rambling and, because it can only move in circles ,
repetitive plot." Why , we might ask, can it only move in circles? The answer is
not to be found in the theory of drama, but in the tired homophobic cliches of
psychiatric theories about gay people. Kerr "knows" that we are all caught up in
narcissistic repetition compulsions. The truth is, of course, that Kerr is the one
who is handicapped by a repetition compulsion , sitting there on the aisle wrapped
in the old miasmal mist.
When mainstream critics do not blame gay artists for things which they have
themselves misread into the works they are reviewing, they may still find fault
with them for not rising above their parochial concerns, that is, for addressing
themselves to the concerns of their fellow gay people. In a letter to the New York
Times Book Reviewr' justifying his negative review of Edmund White's States of
Desire: Travels in Gay America , Paul Cowan assures us that,
it's crucial to communicate across tribal lines. Good literature has always done
that - it has transformed a particular subject into something universal. Mr.
White didn't do that: in my opinion it's one of the reasons he failed to write a
good book.
I'm tempted to say, aha, the old universalism ploy! Perhaps good literature has
always transformed a particular subject into something universal. But, of course,
there's always a double standard in the application of the universalism criterion.
In an essay entitled "Colonialist Criticism," the Nigerian writer Chinua
Achebe decries those western critics who evaluate African literature on the basis
of whether it overcomes "parochialism" and "achieves universality ":
It would never occur to them to doubt the universality of their own literature.
In the nature of things, the work of a Western writer is automatically informed
by universality . It is only others who must strive to achieve it.35
In the past decade lesbian and gay film makers have been able, with difficulty, to
raise the money needed to produce independent documentaries and fictional
films which have inaugurated a true alternative channel in the crucial media of
movies and television. The pioneering documentary Word is Out (1977), and the
more recent Oscar-winning Life and Times of Harvey Milk, among others,
represent authentic examples of gay people speaking for ourselves, in our own
words; although even here there have been compromises in order to meet the
demands of the Public Broadcasting System - the only viable channel for
independent documentaries in the United States." And, even more recently and
tentatively, there are the stirrings of lesbian and gay fiction films exhibited
through mainstream (art) theaters and becoming accessible to a nationwide gay
audience.
146
There is, alternatively, a homosexual cinema. It neither concerns itself overtly

with issues of gay politics nor does it present gay sexuality as society's
perennial dirty secret. The key to gay films, whether they are made by
heterosexuals or homosexuals, is that they do not view the existence of gay
people as controversial. . . . These films may reflect the fear, agitation, and
bigotry of a society confronted with such truth, but it is not their view that such
emotions are rational or even important to explore."
The products of the nascent lesbian/gay cinema find a powerful response among
their primary audience, and can easily become cult films of a different sort from
the midnight orphans of the mainstream industry. Desert Hearts is such a film.
Made on a small budget collected in two and a half years of arduous grass-roots
fund raising and based on a novel by lesbian author Jane Rule, Desert Hearts
achieved both cross-over box-office success and a cult following among lesbians.
" I' ve waited 25 years for this movie," says Pat, a 47-year-old secretary in San
Francisco, California. ''I'm sick of seeing only heterosexual love stories .
Desert Hearts is a movie I can finally identify with. It's like when I was little ,
we only had 'white dolls' to play with , as if all babies were white. Movie
makers have done the same thing; they 've generally ignored gays until the last
few years . This movie is a positive step in making lesbian movies more
acceptable to the general public. I've seen it 22 times and am still not tired of
it."
"I think that women are drawn to it, lesbians are drawn to it in the same way
that black people were drawn to Superfly. It isn't so much the content. It's a
matter of the identification with it and the way it's been presented," says
screenplay writer Natalie Cooper. "I'm glad that it served - for anyone - no
matter how small, something that could make people feel okay, instead of
feeling peripheral or put down. Just to say, 'Hey, I dig it and I love it; I do that,
too.' They can say, 'Th is is our movie , this is our thing.' It makes them feel,
dare I say maybe, not proud but viable. "38
Finally, then, the answer to the plight of the marginalized minority audience
would seem to lie in the cultivation of alternative channels, even while we
continue to press upon the media our claims for equitable and respectful
treatment. But neither goal can be easily achieved, and each will require
overcoming formidable obstacles.
Notes
2 George Gerbner and Larry Gross, "Living with Television ," Journal of
Communication 26, no.2 (1976): 182.
2 George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli , "Liv ing
with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process," in Jennings Bryant
and Dolf Zillmann (eds.) Perspectives on Media Effects (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1986), pp. 17-40.
147
Larry Gross
3 George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli, "The
'Mainstreaming' of America," Journal ofCommunication 3D, no.3 (1980): 10-29;
George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli, "Charting
the Mainstream: Television's Contributions to Political Orientations," Journal of
Communication 32, no.2 (1982): 100-27; and Gerbner et al., "Living with
Television" (1986).
4 See George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Stewart Hoover, Michael Morgan, Nancy
Signorielli, Harry Cotugno, and Robert Wuthnow, Religion and Telev ision
(University of Pennsylvania: The Annenberg School of Communications , 1984);
and Stewart Hoover, "The 700 Club as Religion and as Television," unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1985.
5 Hoover, 'The 700 Club," pp. 382f.
6 Murray Roth, "CBS Evaluates Turner Takeover: ' Not a Snowball's Chance .. .' ,"
Variety, April 24, 1985, p. 163.
7 See Larry Gross, "The Cultivation oflntolerance," in G. Melischek et al. (eds)
Cultural Indicators: An International Symposium (Vienna: Austrian Academy of
Sciences, 1984), pp. 345-63.
8 Vito Russo, "A State of Being," Film Comment (April 1986): 32.
9 Vito Russo, The Celluloid Closet : Homosexuality in the Movies (New York:
Harper & Row, 1981).
10 Kathleen Montgomery, "Gay Activists and the Networks," Journal of
Communication 31, no.3 (1981): 49-57.
11 Russo, "A State of Being," p. 32.
12 Andrea Weiss, "From the Margins: New Images of Gays in the Cinema," Cineaste
(1986): 4-8.
13 William Henry, "That Certain Subject," Channels (April 1987): 43f.
14 Russo, The Celluloid Closet, p. 251.
15 Antonio Pasquali, "Latin America: Our Image or Theirs?", in Getting the Message
Across (no editor listed) (Paris: The UNESCO Press, 1975), pp. 62f.
16 Andrew Hodges and David Hutter, With Downcast Gays: Aspects ofHomosexual
Self-Oppression (Toronto: Pink Triangle Press, 1977), p. 4.
17 Ahad Ha-Am (Asher Ginzberg), "Moses," in Selected Essays ofAhad Ha-Am, ed.
Leon Simon (New York: Atheneum, 1970), p. 320.
18 Gregg Kilday, "Hollywood 's Homosexuals," Film Comment (April
1986): 40.
19 Barry Adam, The Survival ofDomination: Inferiorization and Everyday Life (New
York: Elsevier, 1978), p. 89.
20 Samir Hachem, "Inside the Tinseled Closet," The Advocate, March
17,1987,p.48.
21 Raymond Williams, Marxism and Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1977), p. 111.
22 Thomas Morgan, 'The Black Viewers' New Allure for the Networks," New York
Times, December 1,1986.
23 Eugene Michaud, 'The Whole Left Is Watching," Ph.D. dissertation in progress,
University of Pennsylvania, 1987 (personal communication).
24 Elizabeth Ellsworth, "lllicit Pleasures: Feminist Spectators and Personal Best,"
Wide Angle 8, no.2 (1986): 54.
25 Jack Babuscio, "Camp and the Gay Sensibility," in Richard Dyer (ed.) Gays and
Film (London: British Film Institute, 1977), p. 40.
26 ibid., p. 45.
27 See ibid.; also Richard Dyer, Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society (London:
British Film Institute/Macmillan, 1987).
148
28 Derek Cohen and Richard Dyer, "The Politics of Gay Culture," in Gay Left
Collective (eds) Homosexuality : Power and Politics (London: Allison & Busby,
1980), pp. 177f.
29 See Dyer, Heavenly Bodies .
30 Bruce Austin, "Portrait of a Cult Film Audience: The Rocky Horror Picture
Show," Journal ofCommunication 31, no.2 (1981): 47.
31 Stephen Farber, "Minority Villains Are Touchy Network Topic," New York
Times, February 29, 1985.
32 ibid.
33 New York Times, June 27,1982.
34 New York Times Book Review, September 3,1980.
35 Chinua Achebe, "Colonialist Criticism," in Morning Yet on Creation Day (New
York: Anchor Books, 1976), p. 11.
36 See Thomas Waugh, "Minority Self-Imaging in Oppositional Film Practice:
Lesbian and Gay Documentary," in Larry Gross et al., (OOs) Image Ethics (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1988).
37 Russo, "A State of Being," p. 34.
38 Jan Huston, "Fans Make Desert Hearts a Cult Classic," Gay Community News,
January 25, 1987, p. 8.
149
Chapter eight
Soap operas at work
Dorothy Hobson
It's like Gail in Coronation Street. I only watch Coronation Street so I can
only talk about it - it's almost as if you know her so I think "I wonder what
she'll do about this baby" - almost like someone you work with in the office.
Soap operas, British, American, Australian, are part of the everyday lives of their
audience. They depict everyday happenings and they also form part of the
cultural exchanges which go on in both the home and the workplace. A large part
of the enjoyment which is derived from watching soap operas is talking about
them with other people. Television may be viewed in the home and research has
examined this aspect of the viewing experience but the talk about television also
happens some time after the program has been viewed. Often this takes place
outside the home with friends, at school, at work, or at leisure. This is also true
for other television programs and the completion of the process of communi-
cation is extended to the pleasure which is derived from exchanging views and
opinions with friends and colleagues about the programs which have been seen.
Talking about soap operas forms part of the everyday work culture of both
men and women. It is fitted in around their working time or in lunch breaks. The
process takes the form of storytelling, commenting on the stories, relating the in-
cidents and assessing them for realism, and moving from the drama to discussing
the incidents which are happening in the "real world," as reported in the media.
The process of watching soap operas is in no way a passive operation and it
continues after the viewing time and is extended into other areas of everyday life.
This chapter begins to look at the way that serials are incorporated into the lives
of viewers outside the home, at their workplace. It also explores the way that fict-
ion is interwoven with events in the "real" world - both those directly experi-
enced by the viewers and those which they have heard reported in the media.
"Let's meet at Tressines" - methodology

This chapter is based specifically on research which was conducted during the
week February 2-7, 1987. It was designed to find how much soap operas in
general fitted into the everyday cultural environment of work. The research
150
Soap operas at work
method involved an interview and "just talking " about the serials. The research
is based on an interview with a group of six women, all of whom work for
Birmingham City Council in one of the departments responsible for runn ing the
city's public education system.
Contact was made through a friend of mine who works in the same office and
had told me that the "girl s" (sic) in her office talked about soap operas at work. I
told her that I needed to talk to some women about soap operas and she then asked
them if they would talk to me. They agreed to meet me, and sent a message -
" We' ll meet you in Tressines." We arranged a mutually convenient time. This
was during their lunch hour and since they worked "flexitime" there was the
possibility that they could stay longer, although this would actually be costing
them money. The lunch hour also gave them the opportunity to leave after the
first hour if they wanted. Four of them stayed for over two hours and the other
two had to return to relieve those still back in the office. It was not possible or
desirable to meet at their office - partly because this would have only been
feasible with local authority approval but also because an informal setting is more
conducive to free conversation. I met them at Tressines, a city center night-club
a few minutes' walk from their office. A conventional club disco at night ,
Tressines opens at midday - between 12 and 3 - for drinks and lunches. It was an
interesting location in which to conduct the interviews. Dimly lit, with restrained
flashing disco lighting and music, food and wine - generally relaxed and
informal . We sat around on low sofas with a table between and they ate their
lunch and drank wine.
I recorded the interviews and my secretary came with me to take notes,
parti cularly on who was speaking to ease identification when transcribing the
tape. What I found surprising was that there were many more women there than
men; and , amazingly, there were young women with babies in buggies visiting
their friends, or just simply stopping for a lunchtime break. They knew the
night-club as an evening venue and had extended it to being a predominantly
female meeting place at lunchtime.
"The group"
The women I interviewed were all employed in various positions in the local
authority office. Their job involved the staffing of schools in the public education
system in the City of Birmingham. They advertised for teachers, auxiliary
workers, laboratory technicians, and secretarial staff. Working in clerical jobs,
they were responsible for the hiring and administration of all school employees.
Their qualifications ranged from 0 levels to, in one case, a university degree.
However, the degree reflected not the needs of the job but the fact that in a
decreasing job market many people are over-qualified for their jobs. They were
not of equal status: Diane and Wendy were Section Leaders - designated staffing
officers - and all the others were clerical assistants. Their ages ranged from 23 to
35. Their personal detail s are shown in Figure 8.1:
151
Dorothy Hobson
Figure 8.1
Whom do
Marital Occupa - How you watch Favorite
Name Age status lion Qualifications many TVs with programs
Vijya 23 separ- Clerical 30levels 3 family/ EastEnders, Colbys,

ated Ass istant alone Dallas , Catch
Phrase (0), Blind
Date (LE). Dynasty
Susan 24 single Clerical 12 0 levels 2 boyfriend / Crossroads. Coro -
Assistant 4 A levels alone nation Street,
B.Sc . Dynasty, East-
Mathematics Enders , Sons &
Daughters. Randall
& Hopkirk (Deceased)
(OS), horror films
Gill 33 mar ried Cler ical o levels 2 husband EastEnders.
Ass istant Howard's Way(O),
Ever Decreasing
Circles (SC), Brook-
side
Wendy 29 ma rried Staffing o levels 2 husband/ Corona tion Street,
Officer alone Dallas . Yesterday 's
Dreams (OS) ,
Howard's Way (OS) ,
nature prog rams
Mary 35 married Off ice o levels 2 husband Films . comedies,
Clerk documentaries
Diane 27 married Staff ing o levels 2 husband Brookside. soaps,
Officer comedies ,
documentaries
Key to programs: (OS) drama ser ies
(LE) light entertainmen t
(0) qu iz show
(SC) situation comedy
Bland facts or statistics give only a limited picture of any group of people.
Additional descriptive material adds to the information and builds up a pictureof
the group. As well as working together, the women do spendsomeof their social
time together. They wouldgo out for mealsin the evenings, visit each other, and
occasionally go together to visit the theater to see a play or a show. They are a
workgroup who havea bondof friendshipformed through their work; their ease
with each other was reflected in the way they talked freely about the television
programs and their own feelings about television, and the relation of those
thoughts and feelings to their own lives. Their work situation is unstructured and
they can plan their workprocesses and fit themin aroundtheir socialintercourse.
Anyresearcher entering a groupin orderto studyit and its opinions is unaware
of the group dynamics which already exist within it and the way that its normal
152
Soap operas at work
ways of operating will affect how the members talk to a researcher. My belief has
always been that the group dynamics which have already been established will
continue to operate in any group discussion. Of course, there are exceptions, as
when someone in the group has greater knowledge about a subject than the
others. In this discussion it became evident when Vijya was talking about Asian
culture as represented in EastEnders that her superior knowledge meant that
she took the leading role. During the rest of the discussion she was relatively
quiet.
Since my knowledge of the group was limited to the meeting which I had with
them, I used my contact, who was not at the discussion (since she did not
watch soap operas), to find out more about the women, to validate or
contradict the impression which I had of them. I asked a simple question, "Of the
group of women who would you have expected would have said the most or led
the discussion?" Her answer confirmed the exact way that the interview
and discussion had gone, even though she had no knowledge of what they had
said.
"Well, Wendy and Diane would have plenty to say and they are definitely
more intelligent than the others. Diane is the one who is the most intelligent
and what she says is usually worth listening to. Mary says a lot, but sometimes
she rambles on and gets off the point, but she would also have plenty to say.
Gill is much quieter and although she would have opinions she tends to say
less or is less forceful. However, that may be because she is not so much part
of the group as the others. Vijya's quite quiet as well but she is an Indian girl
who had an arranged marriage which didn't work out and she now lives with
her parents and is much more westernized and goes out with the girls. We all
spend a certain amount of time together outside work and apart from Sue, who
is rather younger than the others, they would go out for meals, to each other's
houses and to the theater. Everyone is happy in each other's company."
The closeness of the group of women had an effect not only on the free way that
they spoke about the television programs which they viewed and these programs'
relation to their own lives, but also on the actual mode of discourse in which they
operated . They interrupted each other, finished each other's sentences, and
presented the same word in unison to respond to something which someone had
said. An example was when Gill was talking about Brookside. "There are certain
ones in there that get on your nerves... ." "The Corkhills!" she was interrupted
in unison by all the women. They were so aware of what they all thought that their
responses were simultaneous. Their comments came quickly on the heels of each
other. They were often talking amongst themselves rather than answering
questions which I had asked. I might ask the first question but they would move
on to other topics as they took the discussion to areas which they would discuss
naturally amongst themselves .
153
DorothyHobson
A brief guide to soaps on British television

As the British soap operas which are discussed in this article may be unfamiliar
to some readers, I have given a very brief introduction to the characteristics of the
series which are mentioned.
Coronation Street, first transmitted December 1960, lTV . Set in the north of
England in a working class area with terraced houses, a local pub 'The Rover's
Return,' and a comer shop, all of which feature in the series. Reflects the northern
working-class values and way of life. The mother of British soaps and the one to
which all others paid deference. Wide range of strong, interesting women
characters spanning all ages.
Crossroads, first transmitted November 1964, lTV . Set in the Midlands
around Birmingham. Originally set in a motel to reflect the growth of motorways
and motels in the 1960s. One of the top-rated series for many years but also the
butt of all the jokes about soap operas and bad acting, etc. Much changed from its
original form with an almost complete change of cast. Now axed and last episode
transmitted in spring 1988.
Brookside, first transmitted 1982, Channel 4. The serial that extended the
genre. Set on a real housing estate in Liverpool. Features the lives of the people
who live in the houses. Families represent all social classes in Britain. Acclaimed
for its realism of production methods and inclusion of contemporary social
issues, although often criticized for the latter.
EastEnders, 1985, BBC. Set in Albert Square in the East End of London
(actually at Elstree Studios). The BBC's blockbuster series - massive support and
publicity from BBC. Life of families in the 1980s in the East End of London -
working class, ethnic, different social classes including invading Yuppies . Top of
ratings - innovative in content , form, and scheduling.
Sons and Daughters, lTV. Imported Australian soap.
Chateauvallon, Channel 4. French soap shown in French language version and
English subtitles , also in dubbed version.
Why do we watch soap operas?

The first question, which puzzles critics and fans of soap operas alike, is why do
people watch? They watch for the stories, the characters, the entertainment value,
and because the program-makers structure the series in such a way that everyone
wants to know what happens next.
The following comments perhaps sum up the reasons for the popularity of
soap operas:
DR Why do you actually like soap operas?

Di Easy to watch.
V I quite like the story.
Di Yea, you get involved.
154
Soap operas at work
In this interview the women refer to British and American serials, but clearly
differentiate between the two examples of the genre.
M I think some are more down to earth than others.

Di The fantasy Americans and that, you can't relate to. 1 mean they're
on a different planet really .
M But they're nice to watch because of the clothes and their houses,
and, etc.
DH And what about the characters in the American soaps? I mean why
do you like them or don't you really like them and do you feel you
can identify with any of them?
? No. [Laughter]
M I don 't think you can relate to them in that respect, no.
DH And is it mainly the women or the male characters that you think
are more interesting in the American soaps?
All The women really.
M The females really, in Dallas. I like to watch Bobby.
W I like J. R though . When he's sort of scheming and he'll sort of turn
his back on whoever he's playing up and this smile comes on his
face and 1 think, Doh, he's at it again , you know.
DH Why do you like people like J. R?
W Well he 's a very clever bloke, isn't he?
V He's very crafty .
Di You've got to admire him though, the way he - he knows his
business, sort of thing . He knows .
W And it's sort of the power that money can have, you know, that
really comes across. He'll say, "It don't matter what the price is, I'll
pay it but you do your job. " And 1 respect the way he says, "I want
a good job done," you know. 1just like him.
Di I suppose most people want to stand up to people in their life but
they haven't got the power that he has, have they?
DH Do you think the women in Dallas are weak?
All They all are.
M They are really.
Di If J. R was my husband I wouldn't marry him again. That sort of
thing . .. .
DH But you just said you find his portrayal of power is quite attractive.
Di Yea , on the telly but I don't think I'd like to be married to him.
[Laughter]
M But perhaps she means to other people and not necessarily to
whatsemarne -
Di Sue Ellen.
M 1don't think she comes out very well in it, she's a bit of a cry-baby
really, isn 't she, she 's always ....
155
Dorothy Hobson
DH What about the men in the American soaps?

V Geoff in the Co/bys. I quite like Miles as well.
W I quite liked Jack Ewing.
? Something attractive about him - sort of roguish. Joan Collins' ... I
don't know his name.
? Dexter.
W He wasn't too bad- had a nice body.
[Chorus of ooh's]
G Last week he was showing his body so you couldn't help see it.
? But I mean even in Dallas when it gets on to the technical side I can
carry on with me knitting but when it gets to scandal and gossip -
the knitting goes down - you start watching.
DH So that when they go into business parts you think that's a bit
boring.
M If I tape Dallas I fast forward that bit - not that important to the plot.
This exchange begins to differentiate between the British and American soap
operas. The first distinction is definitely in terms of categorizing British soaps as
"down to earth" and the Americans as "fantasy," "on a different planet really!"
Their saving grace is the pleasure derived from the clothes and the nice houses.
What British viewers never know is whether Dallas and Dynasty are fantasy for
American viewers as well. Fantasy or reality - it is the characters who really hold
the appeal for viewers. The women interviewed were unanimous when they said
in unison that it was the women who were the most interesting characters in the
American soaps. However, after being unanimous in supporting the women the
group then went on to discuss the devilish attraction of J. R. and the magnetism
of power, the physical attractions of Bobby and Jack Ewing, Geoff Colby, and
Dex's body. Sue Ellen is categorized as a cry-baby and no other women get
mentioned!
This extract summarizesJ. R.' s attraction. He is a good character within a soap
opera but certainly not one to be desired in real life. Similarly the other men are
admired by some for their attractive or just plain sexy qualities but neither are
they fantasies which anyone would like to bring over into everyday life. The lives
of soap opera men at work are boring and the blessing of a recording means you
can fast forward past the work bits!
Even the glamor of living in an American soap holds little appeal for the
women. I broached with them the subject of whether they were affected by
watching too much glamor - did it make them envious?
DH When critics interview me they always say, but surely its wrong for
people to see programs with so much glamor and money and it must
make people envious. What do you think, how would you answer, if
they said that to you?
M It doesn't make me envious but it's nice to see how the other half
lives.
156
Soap operas at work
Di It's fantasy though, isn't it?

? Yea, yea.
DR But does it relate - do you think, "Is this realistic or not?" Or does
that not enter into it when you watch a program like that?
M When you look at the plots I think, "That's not very realistic." Or I
can imagine that happening but I don't think I could live like them
anyway .
W I wouldn't like to live in the same house as my mother-in-law
[laughter] and all my brothers and sisters, you know. The bedrooms
are just sort of down one corridor. It's not that big. And you're
dolled up as though you're going out for an evening meal at
breakfast, you know. I just couldn't live like that. But I like to
watch it I think there must be people who live like this.
The prospect of living at Southfork does not appear to be the fantasy of British
soap viewers, at least not if they would have to live with their in-laws. There is
no envy and certainly no wish to have a similar life-style. Clearly, the
Englishwoman's home is still her castle, especially if she doesn't have to share it
with her family or her mother-in-law .
Even the American soap "queens" come in for criticism.
DR Do you talk about the clothes?

M Comment about something that caught your eye.
W It's like the hair. You think, "What's she done?"
Di Only about the women.
M Men look the same all the time.
V Joan Collins' outfits are funny and strange - looked like a clown.
Big shoulder pads and you think how's she going to get through the
door? Krystal is better dressed.
DR They are not young.
V Quite ancient.
Again, the actresses may be beautiful but the audience is still critical. "What has
she done to her hair?" they ask - and the "cruelty of youth" is clear when
23-year-old Vijya describes them as "quite ancient."
British realism
If American soaps represent fantasy, then British soaps are definitely judged for
their realism . The subject is one about which the audience is very knowledgeable
and they make judgments to decide how well the production has represented the
fiction and its characters. The characters in the British soap opera EastEnders are
either conventional East End working class or the ever-emerging Yuppies who
now star as the fantasy of the British television and advertising executive. Most
of the rest of the population have only seen or heard of the species through the
157
Dorothy Hobson
media! The recognition that it is the women characters who are the strongest in
the series is one which is common to audience reactions to British soaps. The
women characters who are seen as the most popular are those who have to
struggle against the vicissitudes of life. It is their abil ity to "cope" which is seen
as admirable and women's behavior was not expected to be "wimpish." Even
within the fantasy of American soaps, these women saw Sue Ellen as a
"cry-baby." If the characters are seen as keeping on top of their own lives that is
judged as admirable and only in extreme cases does the audience excuse lapses
in strength from the women in the soap operas.
DH What about the English soaps then? What do you think about the
characters in those?
M They're ve~ealistic.
Di Women se ~ 'o : ,to be much stronger in them, don't they.
DH Who do you think are strong characters in British soaps?
Di Well, in EastEnders it's Pauline.
M What's his name's wife at the caff.
W Sue, Sue.
Di She seems to moan a lot but I mean she doesn't get any results, does
she? She was looking for his brother the other night.
When I went to get more wine the conversation continued and when I returned
they brought me up to date. The discussion had moved to the physical appearance
of the characters and a clear distinction is made between the actress and the
character she plays. Since the BBC has a tendency to promote EastEnders
through other programs, its stars regularly appear as themselves on chat shows
and in charity events and major variety programs. In fact, many of the stars now
appear regularly on television. There is no confusion for viewers who know, for
example, that Wendy Richards is playing a "role" when she appears looking "old
and awful" in EastEnders.
Di While you were up the bar we was talking about Pauline in

EastEnders and said doesn't she look old -look awful.
DR You mean as actress or character?
Di Character - looks old - not the glamor part, is it.
DH Is anybody glamorous in British soaps?
Di Don't watch Crossroads regularly but Nicola Freeman, she 's
attractive in a funny sort of way.
? Which one's that?
Di The boss at Crossroads. Yes, she's attractive.
DH What about the men - are they attractive?
Di In Brookside they are all right.
DR Who?
Di The young ones .
158
Soap operas at work
G They are not as classy.

Di Perhaps that's part of the character.
Not only characters are judged for realism, the events in their everyday life also
have to conform to an expectation which the audience has about the way that they
would behave. However, as Mary says, it is how she would "imagine" that part
of London to be. The only person who can really judge the realism of a soap are
those in the region in which the soap is set.
DH Do you think characters in British soaps show realistic pictures of

life in the areas where they are supposed to be?
M Fairly. How I would imagine that part of London to be in say
EastEnders.
V Dr Legg's always in the pub and visiting homes.
Di That's what I don't like about EastEnders and Coronation Street. A
lot of it is round the pub.
V If you want a cup of tea you go up to the cafe.
G Now Brookside there isn't a pub, is there?
M I'm referring to the bits at allotments, that sort of bits are fairly
realistic - not all of it though - the bar and the caff - no.
Di In EastEnders they go to the caff when they live over the road.
M You wouldn't spend money on a cup of tea if you were unemployed
and sometimes they walk in, say something and they're off again.
Di Another time they don't pay for what they have.
The expectations of realism are not confined to the level of cups of tea and having
a chat. These women expected a level of realism which incorporated the basic
necessities of everyday living.
W Never go to the toilet.

Di Hilda cleans the toilet every morning and nobody uses them.
DH Would you want them to go? If somebody suddenly said I've just
got to go to the 100 - does anybody go to the 100 in anything on
television?
All No.
V Except in comedy programs, then they laugh at them.
W If they do, it's only ever the men who are sort of stood there.
? I don't think its necessary to film 'em in there.
W In Minder- they go to the 100.
Di A lot of the police ones, they do. It's sort of undercover and it's a
place to have a chat.
These comments reveal not only the level of realism which the women would
expect in a serial, but also the way in which they widen the conversation to
include other program genres. They oscillate between a criticism of the lack of
159
Dorothy Hobson
reality when toilets are not included and then criticize their appearance in other
series. Interestingly, none of the police film series which they cite is included in
their favorite television programs. In the earlier extract when they comment on
the fact that "Dr Legg's always in the pub and visiting homes," they are making
a comparison with their own experience of "reality" when doctors are not known
to socialize with patients and they certainly do not sit in local pubs.
Pleasure at work
One of the areas of particular interest to me was the way in which soap operas
and, indeed, television in general is discussed by women at their workplace and
the way that they bring the interests of the private sphere into the public domain.
Indeed it is the fusion of the two areas which characterized much of the
discussion which we had.
DH So how, in what, how does television in general come into your

conversation at work?
M It's almost every morning, isn't it really. We tend to say, "Did you
see such and such last night?" It depends on the plot in the program
at the time.
Di If it's been a gripping episode then even those who haven't seen it
talk about it.
M The Michelle and Lofty episode was quite a talking point
Di But also we come in when we miss one and say, "What' s
happened?"
DH What do you do if you miss something - do you ask at work the
next day?
M Yes.
Di But whether that's because of the way we are, the way the office is
set up. We get on with our work but we've got a relationship where
we can and do talk about these sort of things. The general banter
going on in the office that allows us to be able to do that
M Whether you'd get that similar situation elsewhere I'm not sure.
DH If you are at work you're talking about other things as well. You are
saying that your work enables you to chat at the same time as you
work.
M No, you fit it in.
Di It's the way we can get on with our work.
M It may be in between phone calls. If someone rings. It can go dead
for half an hour - if the phone rings you say "Hang on a minute -
don't say any more."
Di Conversation might take all morning.
M You stop, then when you put the phone down you start again and
someone else's phone will go and you stop again.
160
Soap operas at work
This extract indicates the way that these women are able to discuss what
happened the previous evening and carry on with their work. They do not talk
while they are working, but rather they carry on the general conversations about
the soaps in between their work. The storytelling carries on with breaks while
they take and make telephone calls.
They also told how people who have not seen an episode and have recorded it
are "protected" from hearing what has happened. How do they all know how
much of a story they can tell?
Di Well, say like we're talking now and say we are talking about
Dallas, someone will say "Shl don't tell me," and then we'll say
after "Have you watched it?" and then we'll talk about it.
The group respects the wishes of the person who has missed an episode and if she
has recorded it, waits until it has been watched before talking about it in the
office. But not all missed episodes are recorded and it is then that "catching up
on the stories" happens at work. It is clear that the soap producers are served
exceptionally well by their viewers because they act as the bridge between
episodes. This is beneficial to the producers and the television company because
it helps to ensure that the viewers do not lose interest and stop watching a series
because they have missed what is going on.
Soap operas depend on the audience following the stories and need their
audience to be loyal and watch regularly. Built into the structure of the programs
are devices which enable the viewers to keep up to date. If viewers miss an
episode such devices help them to catch up and to be ready to see the next
episode . The storytelling within the serials is reproduced outside when the stories
are retold for friends and colleagues. In one sense retelling soap opera stories
gives everyone,the opportunity to be a storyteller without the necessity to be able
to create their own storylines. In some instances it is the talking about soap operas
at work or among families and friends that determines whether someone begins
watching the series in the first place. When a storyline is so strong that it is a main
topic of conversation it is reason enough to get someone watching so as not to be
left out of the conversation which takes place at work.
The famous storyline in EastEnders of the Michelle-Lofty,
will-she-won't-she, on-off marriage became such a talking point that it made
Mary start watching the program.
Di But Mary never watched EastEnders until she heard us all talking at
work about what is going to happen.
M But my sister she was always going, "You must watch it," or if!
was on the phone to her and it was two minutes to half past, then
she'd say "I'll have to go."
161
Dorothy Hobson
The myth of the passive viewer

One of the most fallacious myths to have grown up about watching television is
that of the passive viewer. According to the theory, widely held by newspaper
television critics and interviewers on television current affairs shows, the viewer
is a cultural and economic hermaphrodite of indeterminate age, who watches all
television programs from a slumped position, having switched off their brain
before they fell into the chair. Viewers lose all critical faculties, including the
ability to distinguish between fact and fiction, to know whether they are being
preached at or manipulated and to make intelligent judgments about the programs
which they are watching.
The only people I ever met who have been confused about the difference
between fact and fiction on telev ision have been television critics. In fact, they
are not confused themselves but they fear for the rest of the audience. Their fears
are misguided. Criticism of the soap operas takes place while people are watching
them and when they talk about them afterwards.
As well as telling the story of the missed episodes the conversation which
takes place at work is critical of the programs. Exchanges take place which
indicate that far from accepting everything that is shown, viewers heavily
criticize the soaps. The following is a selection of criticisms from the women to
whom I spoke. Each serial comes in for light-hearted attack.
American Soaps:
DR So which would you say is your actual favorite soap?
? Well anyone really -Dallas.
G That's gone off.
M Oh, it has gone off, definitely.
Di That's gone on for too long without the storyline being changed.
The British soaps, OK, they've been going on but storylines have
progressed on.
M Dallas seems to have gone back rather than on, but I will have to
watch it. I wouldn 't have said there was a lot to choose between
Dallas and The Colbys either, they're the same sort of. ...
And on to Crossroads:
M Well they used to. I haven't watched it since - I used to watch that
every night, Crossroads, for a long long time but I haven 't watched
it for about three or four years and I don't miss it at all. I thought I
would but I don't, I find it dreadful to watch now. Very amateurish,
isn 't it, when you look back now.
Di When you compare it with others.
Chateauvallon:
? I don't like that new French one they've put on.
DR Chateauvallon.
162
Soap operas at work
? No because you know, it's all out of sync.

G It's like an amateur film, it's all dubbed.
DH Have you not seen it with the subtitles?
G No, no.
DH Would you think you'd prefer it with sub-titles?
? I don't know whether to read or look at the pictures.
M I prefer dubbed I think.
G At least you haven't got to concentrate on the writing - voices don't
match with the person .
M But at least you can hear even though it's not synchronized.
Brookside:
DH Can we talk specifically about Brookside and EastEnders - what do
you think of Brookside?
Di I like Brookside but - I watch it every week but some of the things
that have happened there in one close - I mean if I lived there I'd
move. I mean murders , rape.
? I don't watch so I don't know.
G There are certain ones in there that get on your nerves.
All The Corkhills .
Di The Corkhills are, I mean they 're awful. And Bobby Grant, I hate
him.
W He's not the same character that he used to be.
DH What do you think is wrong with him?
Di He's stroppy with everyone and every situation that occurs, and I
mean he was never like that at one time.
G He's such a know-all. . ..
Di . .. change a job .
EastEnders:
DH What about EastEnders?
Di Has its ups and downs. I enjoy - I watch it but some weeks I find .. .
M Patchy, isn't it really? I mean I know people are addicted to it.
All the soaps came in for criticism . The comments speak for themselves but do
indicate that viewers are not sitting passively watching in an uncritical manner.
They are always making judgments on the serials both within the truth of the
fiction and by comparing the serials with "real" life.
Another way in which the mingling of fiction and reality goes on in the telling
of the stories is when viewers discuss the way that a storyline has been developed
and decided . They make assessments of the validity of what happens in the soap
opera and compare it with what they believe the character would do; but they also
comment on what they would do if they were in the same position .
163
Dorothy Hobson
During the week of the interviews the main talking point about soaps with the
women I interviewed was the story of Gail and her baby. This story in Coronation
Street had been running since the previous summer when Gail Tilsley, a young
working-class wife and mother, had been experiencing difficulties with her
marriage. Her husband Brian, who had been a local Romeo both before and since
his marriage, had become completely engrossed in his own car repair business
and had taken to spending too much time with his business colleagues and
neglecting his wife. Gail repeatedly tried to regain his attention, to no avail , and
at the low point in the marriage, Brian's cousin Ian arrives from Australia on a
visit and becomes very attracted to her, and she becomes attracted to him. A
relationship develops and, against her better judgment, Gail sleeps with Ian while
Brian is away. In due course , Gail finds that she is pregnant and, much against the
wise advice of her mother, she tells Brian that the baby might not be his. Her
marriage breaks up and eventually Ian returns to England and asks her to go back
to Australia with him. Ian has a blood test at the hospital which proves that the
baby is not his and so supposedly is Brian's after all. Gail asks him not to tell
anyone what he has found out as she does not want Brian to come back to her for
the reason that he is the father. During the interview week this was where the
story had reached and was the main talking point in all discussions about soap
storylines for that week. The women talked about the way that Gail was handling
the situation. I asked them what was the secret of soap operas.
W It's entertainment. The key thing is to entertain those watching.

M Why do you keep watching?
Di Because you get involved in the characters . As though living their
lives. Almost become ....
W Like Gail in Coronation Street. I only watch Coronation Street,
that's why I can only talk about that, it's almost as if you know her
so I think I wonder what she'll do about this baby - almost someone
you work with in the office.
M Or is it because you think would you make the same decision in that
position? Would you do the same? The other night and she had had
the baby and was in hospital and the Aussie was outside waiting to
see her. Now he was standing outside and I was thinking will she let
him in or won't she? She didn't in the end. I was thinking, well, I
would have let him in.
W You think, Oh, he's been standing there all that time.
M You think in that situation would you do the same.
Di You get involved.
DH Did you think it was in her character that she didn't let him in?
Di Yes, 'cos she's quite strong-minded , isn't she.
W Has she always been? She hasn't.
M No, she was weak. It's only recently that she's built up. When I first
used to watch it was fairly weak. Brian walked allover her.
164
Soap operas at work
W Only since she had this fling with Ian that character has built up. At
first when she said, he knew he wasn't the father and she said don't
tell anyone. At first I couldn't make out why. I thoughtshe was
going to tell Brian and then I realizedshe wants Brian to go back
because he wants her and not just because he knows the baby's his.
She's quite good really.
Di You're thinkingabout it, getting involvedin the character.
M Is that why you watch it though?
W Yes - I think it is. I've got to watch again to find out, you know,
what is going to happen,what's she gonna do, is Brian gonna go
back, and I hate it when you read in the paper if they put it in before
it happens.
It is clear from this extract that the women have a strong affinity with the
characterand have made no moralistic judgmentsabout her behavior. They even
see the character as having a stronger will than they might have had in the
circumstances. They are also making criticaljudgments of the program in terms
of reality and what they see as true to the character. It shows the complex
interpretations which are at work in the watching of soaps and indicateshow far
from correct are those who see soap audiences as passive sponges for the
messages of drama. The comments show an interweaving of fact and fiction in
the commentary upon the television program and events in everyday life.
However, there is no confusionof fact and fantasy and each area is kept separate
in the discourse. There is a complex linguistic movement between subjects and
there is no need to signal that people are talkingabout different topics. Because
the subject matter of the soap operas is so familiar to the viewers there can be a
free exchange of information.
A special knowledge - Asian culture

One of the women in the group, Vijya, was Asian and she had a specific
knowledge of the culture which was represented in the series Eastlinders. The
fiction did not satisfy her ideas of the way that her people shouldbe portrayed.
As the discussion progressed the other women began asking Vijya what she
thought of the storyline which is currently running. The characterNaima did not
get on with her husband fromthe arrangedmarriageand she stayedon in England
while he returned to Bangladesh. Her family have kept a check on her and they
have now sent her cousin to take control of the shop and ultimately to marry her.
V Nairna's cousin- don't know his character- so demanding.
W Wants everythinghis way.
DH Is that realistic?
V No. It's Naima's shop and she wouldsay, "That's my shop and
everything goes where I say:'
DH I wondered, is that realistic?
165
Dorothy Hobson
V They are trying to arrange a marriage but it wouldn 't work. They
wouldn't send him round and try to fix them up together like that. It
wouldn't work like that.
DH Do you mean that he wouldn't be sent there to live or it wouldn't be
to do with a marriage?
Di Knowing what Naima's family are like, would she be allowed to
keep the shop?
V Well, she 's got the shop and I think she's doing everything against
her parents.
Di But you never see her parents. In real life surely her parents would
be there. Are they supposed to be here or in Bangladesh?
? In Bangladesh. She came over with her husband and they have gone
back.
V So really she hasn't any family to say "Don't do this!"
DH She would be allowed to be left here, she wouldn't have to go back?
V She could stay - I don't know .
Di Would her family disown her because, knowing how they are,
because she hasn't gone back, been all independent?
V When she started in EastEnders she was very, very Indian and then
she changed herself and became more westernized. To her she
belongs to this country. She thinks, I don't need to go back, don't
need to listen to my parents. Her husband didn't respect her, they
weren't getting on, she didn't have the freedom.
Vijya's knowledge of the culture was far greater than anything which the other
women knew and they asked her about the reality of the storyline. Her analysis
was that it was not realistic but when I talked to my friend after the interviews she
said that Vijya had had an arranged marriage herself the previous August and it
had not worked out and her husband had returned to Bangladesh while she had
returned to live with her parents. Her assessment was based on her knowledge of
the culture and of her own experiences: a nice example of the way that the
knowledge of the audience is always at work when they are making readings of
television texts. It was also a subtle way for the other women to find out about the
situation in which Vijya found herself.
Conclusion
This chapter has attempted to discuss the way that talking about soap operas and
television has fitted into the working life of one group of women. Most of what
they say will be familiar to anyone who has done research about audiences and
particularly to those involved with research into soap operas . The findings are not
invalidated by this similarity to earlier findings; rather, they confirm that
whenever and wherever audiences discuss programs they come up with similar
conclusions.
166
Soap operas at work
They discussthe eventson television in relation to the fiction, the accuracyof

the fictional representation, and also in relation to criteriawithin the"real world."
There is no confusion, only an interweaving. They compare eventsin soaps with
events which have happened in their own experiences and those of people they
know. The findings add to the body of research which is now accumulating on
this genre and also belies the myth that soap opera viewers are passive.
Soap opera is a genre wherethe vieweris alwaysin a superiorposition to the
producers, becausethe topic is the everyday life of thecharacters. If the producer
makes a mistake or the actor or actress behaves differently from how viewers
thinkhe or she shouldbehave, then they have the superior feeling that they know
best. They can excuse the mistakes becauseof the innocence or the ignorance of
the production, and their own views are discussed and revised with their
colleagues and friends whenthey talk aboutthe soapsat workor at homethe next
day.
The processof television communication is recognized as not beingcomplete
until it is perceived and understood by the viewer. A program is made by its
production team, exists as a physical entity on tape or film - but only exists as a
meansof communication or culturalform when it is transmitted and received by
the viewers. Butthe waythataudiences talkaboutthe viewing of soapoperasand
other forms of popular television programs indicates that a further stage of
communication takes place when they talk about the programs in a context
completely removed from the viewing situation. It is the talk about television
programs and often the relating of those programs to the everyday life of the
viewers that move television into a further dimension from that which ends with
the viewing moment. Indeed, talking about television programs and what has
happened in them is essential to making a program popular and part of the
cultural capital of generaldiscourse.
167
Chapter nine
The media in everyday family life:

Some biographical and typological aspects
Jan-Uwe Rogge
It is a Sunday afternoon like any other in the Smith family: Robert Smith, aged
45 , a truck driver; his wife Mary Smith, aged 40; and their three children Uwe,
aged 5, Anna, aged 7, and Petra, aged 9. The family lives in a three-bedroom
apartment.
I met Anna while doing some field research at a kindergarten . The children
were asked to draw a picture portraying Sunday afternoon at home. The focal
point in Anna's picture was the dominant father, sitting next to mother on the sofa
with the three children in front of him, pressed up against his knees. On the table
was the Sunday "coffee and cake," and in the background, out of perspect ive, a
television set showing Pinocchio could be seen. In the left-hand comer of the
picture was a window, through which the outlines of a truck could be recognized.
The room in the picture exuded an atmosphere of security, warmth and
intimacy. When I showed it to the mother, she made the following comments :
"Yes, that's the way things are in the afternoon at our place. Anna has
certainly caught the mood. But what else can we do? Things are not so easy
for us with my husband on the road all the time. Sunday is the only time we
have to spend together. My husband doesn't want to go out, he wants some-
thing to take his mind off things because he has to be off again early on
Monday morning."
In a talk I had later with Mr Smith, he also confrrmed that Sunday afternoons in
the Smith family are usually devoted to the same routine, which he
unquestioningly accepts as normal, namely to media activities. However, he did
add in a tone of resignation : "Well, I know we should try to do something
different really, in fact, we do now and then." To this Mrs Smith remarked: "The
last time we did something different was four months ago."
On the whole, they talk very little. Mrs Smith is responsible for bringing up
the children. Robert Smith has a lot of time for his own thoughts when he is on
the road. "You see, you tend to do a lot of thinking to yourself and forget what
it's like to talk to other people . It's a good thing we manage to get by without too
much talking."
168
The media in everyday family life
Sunday afternoon presents no problem for the children . Here is what Petra has
to say:
"We have enough time for playing during the week . ... If we go out Daddy
is always so jumpy. It's better at home. There we can have him all to our-
selves . . .. It doesn't really matter what's on on TV. The main thing is that
Daddy's home."
Later on, Anna adds:
"It does matter. When Pinocchio's on, I get all excited and nervous, and when
I can feel Daddy there things are not half as bad as they would be if I had to
go through all that on my own."
These extracts from my interviews with the Smith family may be used to
illustrate some aspects which highlight the subjective significance which media
activities have for the Smith family. The media have a definite place in the family
interaction pattern . They structure the framework of family life, the external
milieu, the demands imposed by the world of work, etc. When examining a
family 's media activities it is therefore not sufficient just to ask the usual
questions, like "What effect do the media have on families?" or "How do families
use the media?"
The way in which families use the media points, rather, in a different
direction : it highlights two aspects of a family's way of negotiating their contact
with the media, one that has to do with content and another that has to do with
function. From the point of view of content, media activities can be understood
as an attempt to construct a meaningful relationship between the media program
and reality as actually experienced. Conscious, subconscious, or preconscious
wishes play an important role in the way people use the media. The media are
interpreted against the background of everyday life as it is lived and experienced,
they are used to cope with everyday problems. The media are unquestioningly
accepted as normal, they are something completely familiar. Their general
ubiquity causes them to be allocated certain functions in people's everyday lives.
The media form a part of the family system, a part many can no longer imagine
living without. This is one of the principal reasons why media activities are
characterized by emotional familiarity . People seek contact with the media
because the media appeal and give access to feelings such as pleasure, fear, joy,
and insecurity. The situations in which the media are used also have a high
emotional value. The media provide remedies for loneliness, they are used to
create "good" feelings or to define human relationships.
For this reason, everyday media activities within the family context cannot be
reduced to a simple medium-receiver relationship . To ascertain the motivating
factors of media use in everyday life, it is necessary, rather, to examine what
significance is given and what functions are allocated to the media. It is also
important to understand and record the needs and motivations of all members of
a family. I should like to illustrate this by referring to the Smith family once more.
Their media activities quite clearly reveal their wishes, value systems, upbringing
169
Jan-Uwe Rogge
methods, and everyday knowledge. They further show how difficult it is to alter
unsatisfactory situations, especially when the objective structures hinder rather
than encourage alternatives. Media activities and their possible alternatives
cannot, therefore, be seen in isolation from the exigencies of the world of work
and a family's concrete circumstances of life. It is equally important to take into
account the communicative climate in the day-to-day life of a family or at the
place of work. Also, the psycho-social, economic, and ecological background of
a family's use of the media must enter into the analysis.
Thus, as a first point, we can ascertain that there is, in families, a connection
between and a close interweaving of the need for communication and media
activities at any given time. However, when establishing such homologies, it is
essential not to overlook another aspect which I would now like to draw attention
to. The word "new" now seems to be undergoing a kind of inflation in connection
with the discussion of changes in information and communication technology.
Media activities in families consist of the use of old and new media. To view the
phenomenon solely from the point of view of change is to reduce illegitimately
the complexity of everyday human activity, for if we take a closer look at the way
families negotiate their contact with the media in their day-to-day lives it is
obvious that their activities are characterized by permanence in change. In other
words, it is not only the momentary need for communication that determines the
everyday media routine, but also past experiences which extend their influence
into present media activities. Let me illustrate this with an excerpt from an
interview.
Helga Peters is aged 58, a secondary-school teacher, married with two
children, aged 26 and 28. Both children have left home. In this part of the
interview, Mrs Peters tells me about her contact with the media during her youth
and childhood. For her there were only books, reading material of the more
demanding type, visits to the theater, and concert-going. The cinema, popular
magazines, and radio music were all frowned upon:
"This continual search for merit, this concentration on educative material has
been the dominating trend throughout my whole life and, although I now see
it as a bad thing, it strongly influenced the way I brought up my children. I
passed on the values my father drilled into me.... Of course, it wasn't so easy
to do this with my children as it had been with me, they broke out far more
often than I had ever been able to, or dared to."
The media habits Mrs Peters had acquired and lived during her youth and
childhood also continued into the early years of her marriage:
"Take the cinema, for example. It's only in the last few years that my husband
and I have taken to going to the cinema because it gives us pleasure and
enjoyment and now it annoys me to see how much I've been missing .... It's
exactly the same with television, radio, and books, this step away from having
to find a justification for everything, away from this consumption of education
and culture, to be able to admit to oneself that something was great and not to
170
alwaysask like a little teacher- so, whatbeneficial effectdid that haveon us

. .. ? There are some things that never even occurred to me until a couple of
years ago, after the children had left home, but it was still a big step to take
from thinking about a thing to actually doing it, and I haven't completely got
out of myoid habits and don't want to either because there are still a lot of
things that were good . .. I was much more conscious of the ways I received
what was offered.. . . Today,people tend moreto just consumethings,but on
the other hand, I think that the pretentious attitude is just as bad."
I would like to discuss this interview excerpt in terms of the change and
continuity aspect. The way people use the media is something that is acquired
duringthe courseof an individual biography; it is theresultof a longsocialization
in the family. A person's early experiences with the media, therefore, have a
decisive influence on the way he/she negotiates his/her contact with the media
later in life. Eachpersonhas a certainnumberof "media careers"in the courseof
a lifetime, e.g. in early childhood, during the school years, the beginning of
adolescence, the first months in the first job or at college, the early years of
marriage, etc. When looked at from the point of view of media careers, media
activities can be seen to have two aspects: one which is dynamic and subject to
change and one which stresses the permanent and more stubborn qualities of a
person's behavior.
At thispoint, it is perhapsnecessary to makesomebasiccomments on the state
of research into mediaactivities in families. I wouldlike to touchuponfive main
aspects. The two interviews from which I have quoted so far clearly indicatethe
complex nature of media activities. It quite often happens, however, that this
many-sidedphenomenon is collapsed intoa linearmodel operating withconcepts
of effect or reward (What effect do the media have? or: how do people use the
media?). Such models fail to account for the great differences in the way a
program like Dallas or a quiz show is usedas far as viewing and communication
needs are concerned.
This leads us on to a further gap in current research. There has not been
sufficientinvestigation into the areasof everyday life (particularly family life) in
which the mediamake their influence felt.There has been much faciletalk about
families, about youth and children, but little attention has been paid to families '
strategies of action or their ways of thinking. The theories they develop for
coming to terms with everyday life and the knowledge they possess based on
everydaycommon sensehavenot reallybeenaccounted for in audienceresearch.
Equallylittleregardhasbeen paid to the closeinterrelationship between the work
situation, leisure-time possibilities, socio-ecological determining factors, and the
routinesestablished in contactwith the media. Thiscomplexity has not only been
overlooked, but all too often completely ignored. It is therefore easy to
understand Why the research has by and large beenrestricted to a reduced wayof
seeingthe phenomenon, namely as a situation in which families are threatened by
the media. But anyone who wishes to describe changes in family life (due to
171
Jan-Uwe Rogge
whatever influences) must take into account the results of research into the
sociology and psychology of the family. Only by integrating such data and the
relevant research methods into our methodological approach are we able to do
justice to the multidimensional problem we're facing.
Let me add a final point of criticism that pertains in particular to the dramatic
changes we're witnessing in communication technology today. I pointed out that
some of the research in this area has been too quick to argue with abstract
typologies, assuming a theoretical "average viewer." Anyone who asserts that
TV consumption is on the rise in households with cable television is arguing both
in the abstract and without making sufficient differentiation. Only when such
trends are examined in relation to educational background, social class,
conditions of work and living, to the psycho-social situation and the emotional
climate, to the family history and the methods of upbringing adopted is it possible
to make statements which approximate the actual changes in patterns of
television consumption, and only on this basis can we develop more concrete
pedagogic strategies which are in closer touch with day-to-day existence.
The attempt to develop an approach appropriate both to the methodological

complexity of the problem and to the new conditions brought about by the
advances in communication technology was made in the context of two research
projects carried out between 1981 and 1986 at the University of Tubingen's
Ludwig Uhland Institute for Empirical Cultural Studies, under Klaus Jensen's
and my direction. In both projects our central concern was the changes in
everyday family life brought about by the media. Within the framework of this
overall objective. we attempted to provide as detailed an account as possible of
everyday media use in the family unit. At the same time and on the basis of an
adequate understanding of the new ways which families are developing for their
media use, we also aimed at an accurate description of the more traditional
structures of everyday media behavior.
Any understanding of individual and familial activities with regard to the
media must be based on an interpretative paradigm which emphasizes the
dynamic aspect of social situations and human actions. By employing such an
approach we were able to account for the ambivalences and complexities of
social reality, and to offer evaluations of the different meanings given to specific
situations by our informants. Only by concentrating on an individual's strategies
of meaning construction and rituals of action, i.e, the structural moments of
subjective media reality, are we in a position to isolate certain interpretations as
adequate out of the almost inexhaustible spectrum of possible ones. For the
perceived meaning of a given object (and this includes media messages) can be
conceived of as a point of intersection between a person's individual and social,
biographical and contemporary situational contexts.
In order to do justice to the complexity of human actions in relation to the
media, we need a method of hermeneutic interpretation. Applying such a method
to the family in its specific set up as well as its broader social conditions enables
172
The media in everydayfamily life
us to describe those structural aspects which are relevant to the family's everyday
media-related activities. Such an approach may be called hermeneutic and
interpretative because it does not lose sight of the actual living situations . Rather ,
it relates media use to the concrete everyday world of a given family.
It is of course trivial to state that the family as such simply does not exist.
Factors such as the material resources available or the kinds of occupations held
by family members vary considerably from family to family. Another criterion
for distinguishing between families is the family biography (e.g. its specific
cultural traditions , communicative competence, emotional climate) which is
unique in each case. At the same time, each family undergoes different cycles of
development. Such cycles are characterized by continuity and change in
communication and media habits. Taking all of this into account it stands to
reason that an essential prerequisite for an adequate explanation of the everyday
use of the media is an approach to the family that is based on system theory.
By family system I mean that all events and all activities (including those that
have to do with television or the media) have a systematic character, that is all
members of a family participate in these events with differing degrees of
involvement. Examples are easy to find: the father who reads the newspaper at
the breakfast table, ignoring the other members of the family; the mother who
does not allow her children to watch television, but whose order is boycotted by
her husband ; the sports program on a Saturday which causes the family to
postpone their evening meal together; the resulting discord; the television set
running in the background to enforce silence or to make the stillness easier to
bear.
By everyday family life I mean the familiar world of a family's experience,
the world in which it lives. It is a world unquestioningly accepted as normal, a
world whose general framework is taken for granted. This everyday life is not
static, as is often assumed, but possesses a dynamic character. It encompasses the
past, the present, and the future, as becomes apparent from the two concepts,
family biography and family cycle. Everyday life is lived out in a field of tension
formed by individual and family biographies, socio-cultural and social structures,
and socio-historical processes of development.
This means that everyday knowledge (e.g. knowledge about the media) is
never complete, although it is not something that can simply be changed at will.
Thus, a new media program is interpreted against the background of existing
opinions and a new family serial is compared with what is known about past
serials of this type. I have thus alluded to a third concept. Each family constructs
its own media world. This includes knowing about the media, for example which
programs are available, how genres influence and affect each other. Media
worlds are the product of meaning-making within a family. This alone is
sufficient reason for looking at media activities and everyday family life from the
point of view of the families themselves. In such a perspective, the media not
only appear different from how they do to the researcher or the educator, they
actually are different.
173
Jan -Uwe Rogge
In the two projects above, we interviewed a total of 420 families . Even though
our research emphasized the everyday use of the media in different types of
households, our research design did not overlook the fact that the media-related
activities of families are not only determined by the specifics of the family
system , but also by other subsystems such as the world of work , club
memberships, activities in organizations, kinship relations, circles of friends, etc.
Our concentration on families did not preclude taking into account other social
relationships or social factors. Rather, it provided the necessary focus, a focus
which promised to yield insights into the integration and effect of transcendent
structures. This means that the methodological design the two projects employed
called for a multiple-level analysis. Therefore, the guiding principle of the
narrative family interviews was to address the multiple aspects of concrete living
situations and other realms of everyday life. Such a procedure and the data it
yielded allowed us, during the interpretation phase, to bring to bear the different
sets of data on a single family member and his/her biographical as well as present
situation - a strategy which also helped to preserve the uniformity of our data
material.
In sum, our approach may be described as qualitatively oriented field work, a
type of research which relies on direct or indirect, systematic or unsystematic
participant observation as well as on structured or unstructured narrative
interviewing. In concrete terms, our methodology employed four separate
components: the standardized questionnaire, the qualitative interview,
participant observation, and, finally, a media journal (which I cannot comment on
here). The questionnaire was handed out to each member of a given household;
it served to generate basic statistical data. The qualitative interviews were done,
as far as possible, with the entire family, for the presence of all household
members during the interview yielded initial insights into the family 's
communication structures. Open questions encouraged the informants to supply
specific information on their everyday lives. Asking precise questions and close
observation allowed us to explore concrete behavioral patterns and concomitant
cognitive-emotional styles which people have developed for their media use. It
further helped us to understand how the use of the media intersects with other
everyday activities and life-styles, which interactions predominate during the
process of media assimilation, which media supplies are subjectively most
important.
The overall objective of our data gathering was of course to subject linguistic
utterances and observed behavior to interpretation in order to arrive at general
statements about the structures of everyday behavior. Interpretation was, and this
is important to emphasize, not limited to an individual and "unrnediated"
experience of the media. Rather , it was always directed at establishing links and
connections between the individual phenomenon and the fundamental structure.
The cases I am now about to mention will help clarify the relevance and scope of
the concepts I have just outlined. In these case studies I have tried to work toward
174
establishing qualitative links between day-to-day life and a family's use of the
media. Case studies are indispensable at this point in audience scholarship
becausethey allow for the multilevel analysis I havejust outlined, and becauseit
is of course too early to make statistically relevantstatements about the relation-
shipsbetween media-related actionsand thevarious aspectsof people's everyday
worlds. The case studies have been selected out of a large numberof families in
order to illustratetypical trends.
Sandra Higgs, aged 31, is employed full-time at the public library. Peter
Higgs, 35 years old, had a post as a civil engineer"before the fum went bank-
rupt." They have twochildren, Harryand Heather, aged 7 and 5. The unemploy-
ment of Mr Higgs has its effectson all members of the household. These effects
can be described by the terms "restructuring," "reorientation," and "functional
change."First of all, magazines "that werejust boughton the side" are no longer
read. The sameappliesto books: "Now I borrow morebooksfrom the library and
don't buy so many for the kids. But they don't really miss that because I can
always manage to borrow something," comments MrsHiggswhen describing the
change in the situation. A more noticeable change is the importance that
television has now assumed for the members of the family. Before Mr Higgs
became unemployed they had a very consistent attitude toward using the media,
an attitudethat tried to achievea balancebetween educational and entertainment
programs. Now "the box," to use the words of Peter Higgs, has becomeincreas-
ingly important to compensate for boredom, dissatisfaction, stress,and tensions.
"I'm gradually getting to notice how much more important the box is becom-
ing for me. It's not that I'm watching that muchmoreTV now,it's thekind of
thingsI watchand the eagerness I lap them up with. Before, that wouldnever
have entered my mind. ... What worries me is the way the box is beginning
to occupy my thoughts so much ... I would never have thought how quickly
such a thing can get a grip on you without you realizing it. ... Yes, and how
difficult it is to get out of the habit again once you've got used to it ... and
then, of course thereare the children who used to watch very little television.
You should see the way they watch TV now - three months and you've got
kids who are always glued to the box because you're always glued to it
yourself."
The two children were also tom out of their accustomed rhythm but they have
now adaptedto the new situation. Harrysays:"Now I am allowedto watchmore
teIIy in the evenings too. Mum lets me." But he also thinksthat "Mum gets cross
more than she used to. She loses her tempermore," which makes him feel sad.
SandraHiggs has also observed the changein herselfand has noticedthat her
daughter, on these occasions, becomes intimidated and withdraws to her room,
sits down in her "cosy comer" and listensto her cassettes: "She obviously needs
to retreat like that and probably feelsquite OK. That's what I think,anyway. She
knows that I love her."
Mrs Higgs has also noticed something else:
175
Jan-Uwe Rogge
"Lately Heather has only been listening to those daft programs, dreadful I
would say. But of course I don't say it. but she rejects outright anything that is
in any way linked with problems. Yes, and then sometimes she will just burst
into tears when she's watching or reading something that's quite harmless .
She has become a lot more unstable . That's her way of reacting to everything."
Harry, too, increasingly tends to avoid anything in the media that is problem- or
reality-oriented. According to Sandra Higgs, he uses the television "to kill the
time." Harry and Heather have developed an attitude that is geared toward
compensation in their use of the media.
Unemployment changes the media routines, as far as both the quality and
quantity of media activities are concerned. Media activities in the home,
especially, assume a more central position. The television slips into the role of
sole entertainer. To use the media increasingly means to relax and switch off, to
escape depression and ward off boredom . The psycho-social and psychological
strain which is a concomitant factor of unemployment hampers communication
within the family and allocates a special entertainment function to the media . The
dwindling of interpersonal communication which then follows is an expression
of a lack of orientation, of discouragement, self-doubt, uncertainty and isolation.
Wendy Rees lives with her three children (aged 6, II, and 15) in an old block
of tenements in the center of a big city. She has a two-bedroom apartment, has
been separated from her husband for many years, and has an afternoon job as a
cashier, which means that she does not arrive home from work until eight o'clock
in the evening. "Irene, my eldest, looks after the children until then," says Mrs
Rees . In the mornings she carves wooden pendants for a boutique and works at
home. " I need that." she explains , "otherwise things would get me down." When
she is doing this work she listens to the radio,
"folk music or pop, then you don't feel so alone. Oh yes, and the news . I must
always listen to the news, to see if anything has happened. Then I have to see
the same thing on the telly or read about it in the papers . I'm a real catastrophe
Jane."
She laughs, but seems sad at the same time.
"Take the police report, for example. I think Irene should start to look at that,
too. I always get shivers down my spine when I'm watching that. Yes, it really
gives me the shivers. I don't think I could face watching that if I was on my
own. But you don't mind the bit of fear when there are two of you."
The Reeses not only watch a lot of television; they also own a video-recorder.
Irene comments:
"If the weather is bad or in winter or when there's nothing else to do, then the
children already start watching the video in the afternoon, they look at those
slushy , sentimental films or plenty of adventure films. Sometimes they will
watch one after the other."
176
The mediain everyday family life
Mrs Rees tries to persuade herself that this is nothing to worry about. She
remarks: "I still think that's better than them hanging around doing nothing.
Anyway, what else is there for them?"
Sometimes she punishes the children, especially John and Jimmy, by
forbidding them to watch the television or the video. "But then, neither of them
will talk to me. They've really got me where they want me. They know I don't
like being on my own. I nearly always give in." It's the same with the evening
meal, which is nearly always eaten in front of the television when the
evening news is on: "I think that's good for them. They can learn something from
that."
Mrs Rees tries to draw her children's attention in particular to catastrophes and
accidents or to suffering and need.
"Sometime they've got to learn to take care and they should learn to realize
that we don't have it all that bad. When we are all sitting there together nice
and cosy, I feel like we're a real little clique."
The way Mrs Rees uses the media, using them for her own particular needs and
to define her relationship to the children, also became apparent in two other
situations. She makes her children stay seated a long time at the table, showing
them how much importance she attributes to the media in this situation . The
television situation creates a bond between the children, induces an enforced
intimacy and imposes a feeling of community with no words being spoken . John
and Jimmy, in particular, have seen through their mother's rituals and have used
them for implementing their own strategies for coping with everyday life. The
children know that their mother cannot be consistent in carrying through her
prohibition of the media.
Late in the evening , Wendy Rees watches her daily "video weepy": "Then I
can forget everything, but I have to be completely on my own, otherwise I can't
really get into it."
A few interpretative comments are in order here. In this case it is not the
quantity but the quality of the media activities which is the problem. Television
rituals mean not speaking, an enforced community; the television routine
suppresses real conflicts or offers a superficial harmony. The example of the Rees
family also illustrates how media programs compensate for emotional deficits
and can act as a substitute for real experience; it shows how television is used to
give expression to ideas of intimacy and closeness. There is also another
important point to be made. The discussions on the new media have caused many
of the older media to be forced into the background and disregarded. This, for
example, is true of radio, which still plays an important part as far as quantity is
concerned. From the point of view of the user, it often serves the purpose of
offering a constant flow of background noise, helping him/her to avoid negative,
depressive moods, and providing contact to the world outside the home, or
replacing real communication partners. This is also true of other media. They are
used to bring relief, but this superficial and short-term relief causes further
177
Jan-Uwe Rogge
problems because the silent community, thus engendered, veils the real problems
and their resolution through dialogue. It thus hampers and finally cripples such
dialogue.
At the outset I mentioned two levels of approach: the level of objective media
reality, i.e. the significance the media have in everyday family life, and the level
of subjective media reality, i.e. the fact that families structure their everyday lives
on the basis of greatly varying ideas. In conclusion, I would like to highlight
some trends issuing from the individual cases, thereby commenting on the level
of objective media reality.
The mass media, with the rhythms and the weekly and daily schedules
peculiar to them, have a formative influence on lifestyles and patterns of
communication. But households and household members never make use of the
whole media spectrum. Rather, they select. from the totality available, their own
program which has its special significance for them. Here parental influence
largely determines the genre preferences and media styles of children. Styles of
media are not merely current styles, but are always biographically determined. A
sediment of acquired knowledge helps structure the way in which the media are
perceived in the present. The situations in which the media are received are
generally characterized by ambiguity. Thus for one particular family, watching a
detective program can mean entertainment and excitement, for another this
experience can promote a group feeling, while for a third it can be used to
compensate for an inner vacuum, stress situations, or feelings of loneliness.
Media entertainment is also used for the sake of the alternatives it would seem
to offer to mundane reality, for the space it provides for phantasies and
daydreams.
I should now like to tum to the second level of analysis: subjective media
reality. This has mainly to do with people's everyday knowledge about the
media, the patterns of behavior adopted. They show the interrelation between
individual day-to-day experiences and patterns of using the media. Here it is
possible to pick out three trends that can be generalized: parents have opinions
about the media, for example about the disadvantages of television or the merits
of books, they have experiences with genres ("Sport is exciting," "Dallas is
wonderfully feeble-minded") . They understand the significance of the media in
stress situations ("Just switch on the TV, then switch off yourself. Empty your
mind"). Such conceptions are learned from early childhood, especially when the
example of the parents shows them to be appropriate for coping with everyday
life. Another aspect of subjective media reality is knowing about the significance
the media have in day-to-day life; perhaps the television set is used as an
instrument of power to assert certain needs and interests; films and music are
used to compensate for loneliness, programs are seen to hide real conflicts . Media
activities have long established themselves as a routine , a ritual , there is
something typical, something ever-recurring about them: tuning into a certain
radio station first thing in the morning, getting used to being given the time,
178
reading strategies for newspapers and magazines, listening to the radio on the
way to work, switching on the TV after returning from work, watching the
evening news, Dallas on a Tuesday, the sports program on Saturdays, etc.
Thus, subjective media reality has many facets: on the one hand, the form
taken by media activities expresses cultural orientation and day-to-day
life-styles. Mediaactivities can be defined as part of a wayof life. On the other,
media contact defines interpersonal relationships and the emotional and
communicative climate in a family. Certain aspects of media use can illuminate
defects or evenskillsin negotiating everyday family life.Finally, mediaactivities
can be seen as a fusion of the intentions behindthe programs of the media andthe
experiences of the user.
The preceding is of course only a rough outline of the two research projects
dealing with everyday family life and the mass media. Probably the most
important insight we had in the course of our work on these projects was to
realize that audience scholarship currently needs to press on with a
medium-range theory which is able to linkbasictheoretical insights and practical
field work in its analysis of media influences on society and families.
179
Chapter ten
Approaching the audience:

The elderly
John Tulloch
Recent work I have done with the sicence fiction audience provides a point of
departure for analysing the characteristics of elderly television audiences . The
elderly soap viewer differs from the younger science fiction fan in a number of
ways. First , he or she is unlikely to be part of an organized audience community,
and so is much less likely to adopt a position of discursive power in relation to an
interviewer. Doctor Who fans have regular conferences where episodes from the
archives are rescreened, and where knock-out quizzes based on intensive
knowledge of the minutiae of the program's history produce a confident
understanding of what the show is "about." In interview situations this intensive
history dominates, and except where called into discussion the interviewer ceases
to exist to a degree I have not experienced in any other audience group.' The
elderly I interviewed , in contrast to the science fiction fans, are isolated in small
domestic units, have fewer opportunities for group conversation about their
favorite shows, and (when confident about the interviewer) will want to talk
(often during the show you are watching with them). Often they will call the
interviewer back later on to say something they had forgotten to say on the first
occasion .
Second , then, the elderly are particularly keen to discuss their favorite shows,
not only having fewer community gatherings, but also far less space in general
where they can engage with television, unlike children who may act out their
favorite soap in the playground, talk about it in the classroom, write fan letters to
stars, discuss it at fan clubs, and so on. Writing to the producers of the show is
one of the few ways in which the elderly do engage with the show, and analysis
of these letters indicates that they regard the show just as much as theirs as do the
young science fiction fans, though in a different way, with references out to their
own experience rather than inwards to the show's mythography . Here, for
instance , is a letter from an elderly English viewer of A CountryPractice:
How I enjoy it! I feel I've got to know all of you now, as I must not miss it.
It's cold here now, and getting dark between 3 pm and 4 pm when I switch on
to look at you all. I am a widowed pensioner and have been enjoying each
programme as I sit in my comfy armchair (with my knitting) and prepare to be
180
Approaching the audience: The elderly
wafted away to the other side of the world. My husband would like to have
come over to Australia way back in 1945 to start a new life after "the War."
We had lost everything, house, all possessions and I was evacuated to a safe
part of Britain with our baby son only 3 monthsof age. Havingseen our home
in ruins and loss of near and dear neighbours my husbandwas all for us going,
but I was afraid of the uncertainty. No job, no home and a baby so we never
came. Our son is 38 now and althoughbuying his own house 50 miles away is
kind and attentive to me. I get lonely as I've been alone now for 9 years. My
darling died very quicklyaged 57 & he knew how I loved TV although he was
a Radio Ham enthusiast in touch with many countries and Radio Stations.
Must finishoff now as I'm apt to go on and on (eventalk to myself).I'm happy
to see you all and thought I'd let you know. Hope you get this alright. Good
health.'
In addition to this personalmemoryemphasis,letters from the elderly to JNP (the
production company of A Country Practice) tend to underline the "clean" and
"nice" aspects of the show in contrast to the "constant obscenities, cruelty and
violence" seen on television generally. In these letters, the producers are asked
to
please keep this show as nice as it mostly is, then you will never get
complaints- only commendations. Pleasedo not try to makeour littlies"grow
up" too quickly - let them know instead what nice things are on offer in this
world. Knowledge should be kept for those mature enough to bear it 3
Sometimes commendation of the show for its wholesomeness comes with
implied threats of discontinuing viewing, as in the case of the viewer who had
read in a newspaper that the young romantic leads, Simon and Vicky, would get
divorced:
I am one who hopes that the marriage doesn't end in divorce, mainly because
this seems to happen so often in "Soapies." .. . Marriage is damned hard
work and each partner has to learn to give as wellas to take. One only gets out
of a marriage what one puts into it. I don't usually write letters like this but I
feel so strongly about T.V. shows where marriage usually ends in divorce. I
only hope this one will not go that way. I feel I write on behalf of a lot of
viewers.'
Quite explicit in this elderly woman viewer's letter is the opinion that fans have
earned the right, through their loyalty to the show, to expect the marriage to last.
Their investment of time and emotion has made it their show, to the degree of
asking the producers to ensure the stability of marriage. Here the words "I feel I
write on behalf of a lot of viewers" is an attempt to mobilize a collectivity of
viewers out of a disparate and isolated viewing situation. Unlike science fiction
fans who orchestrate the media and organize massive letter-writing campaigns
when there is a threat of their show being taken off, the elderly soap viewer has
181
John Tulloch
little power; and is doubly weak in that whereas science fiction is a mega-buck,
currently "in" genre with the advertiser-desired younger audience, shows liked
primarily by older audiences are constantly under threat. Feuer, for instance, talks
of the network war for young adult demographics in the US in the early 1970s
leading to the cancellation of "demographically impoverished" shows that
appealed to the elderly.' and in Australia Carson's Law, a period soap with a
strong older audience but few younger viewers, was taken off, while A Country
Practice (which also appealed to the elderly but was protected by broad audience
demographics) continued .
Further, where elderly people 's favorite shows are protected in this way by
broad demographics , there is yet another threat. Under ratings pressure (for
instance when a number of major stars leave the show, as happened with A
Country Practice), there may be a new narrative shift toward the younger viewer.
As the executive producer told me, at these times (when other channels mount a
campaign to attack a top-rating show at its moment of weakness), the program
gives the committed older viewer "enough to keep them happy" and
"concentrates on the swinging voter. ?" "Young people's themes" (teenage
sexuality , drugs, etc.) are introduced quite consciously, and these may disturb the
older viewer's comfortable relationship with the show. A number of elderly
viewers, for instance, told me that they were disturbed by the English soap
Eastlinders (which they originally liked) introducing "punk" and teenage sex
themes.
However, in the case of A Country Practice it seems that this emphasis on
young people and "romance" is contained successfully for the elderly within the
rhythm of the show. The executive producer spoke of the way in which Vicky and
Simon were
originally brought ... into the show as young romantic leads, but you can't
stay a young romantic lead. You have to develop the characters. After two
years they got married, and after another year they had children , and after
another year they were written out. So we have to replace the romantic stream.
We are going back to the early . .. situation and starting again,"
Provided that they were written out together (i.e. are not divorced) most elderly
people I spoke with were sorry but not distressed; as one said, it is like "normal
family life" where the young grow up and leave home.
Far more disturbing to elderly viewers was when their favorite soaps
dispensed with older characters; in interview after interview they said that
Crossroads, Coronation Street, Emmerdale Farm, The Sullivans had "gone off'
since the older regulars died or left. To some extent this was a reminder of their
own lives and mortality:
"It's strange when they all start dying, one starts going, then another."
"Well, actually, when you come to work it out, they become part of your
life. They're in your room."
182
Approaching the audience:The elderly
In particular, they valued the family, and the role of the mother in holding the
family together. When the mother in The Sullivans died:
"There's no story there now, really. She kept it together,"
"She reminded me of normal family life. The family drift apart when the
mother dies."
In one case, an elderly viewer, thinking I had some power to influence what
happenedin Australian soaps, tried to mobilize the interview situationto change
things:
"I watch The Sullivans which I like very, very much - I really do. The wife,
she was supposed to be killed, isn't she, in England in the war, and I would
like her, really, to come back, only she had sort of lost her memory and in
hospital or whatever, and then to come back into the series when she had
regained her memory. I'd like that, because I thought she was a very good
actress and it makes a very startling thing to bring in another character again,
and it would be nice for the father. I think the father is so nice that he's not
complete without a wife really, and it might make a bit of a surprise if she
came back that way.People during the war did lose their memories, they were
dug out, and for some time didn't regain it, and when they did it was possible
to pick up the old traces."
This elderly womanhad not been includedin my originalscheduleof interviews,

had waylaid me in the corridoron the way to another flat, drew me into her unit,
and began with the comments just quoted. Then, after discussing her likes and
dislikes generally, she returned to the same theme as I left, calling for the
reinstatement of The Sullivans' mother.
The elderly, I am arguing, have neither the formal spaces for wide discussion
of their favorite shows, nor the economic resources to control television's
direction and future. But they often generate what public discourse they can,
either in letters to the production house, or, when the situation arises, in
enthusiastic discussion with researchers.
The Bournemouth study

My approach to the elderly in Bournemouth (England) was not designed as an
ethnographic study in itself. I had been researching and co-writing a study of A
Country Practice, which included an audience section. Here we examined the
show "at home," "at school," and "at work," covering all the broadly targeted
audiencesexcept the elderly." We tried (by publicityin the press and by personal
visits to social events for elderly people at a shopping center) to get access to
elderly people at home. The press publicity (in a widely read article about the
show) attracted only one letter, that of an 80-year-old lady who excused herself
on the groundsof "old age and dilatoriness" from responding further. In addition,
183
John Tulloch
I don't feel that I could undertake to watch any programme on a commercial

channel regularly, as I find the interruptions so irritating - I should say
maddening . . . I am really more interested in radio than TV, both classical
music and talks and commentaries, and have afew TV programmes which I
follow.
Obviously our publicity had not attracted even one regular A Country Practice
viewer. At the shopping center there were many A Country Practice viewers, but
none was prepared to invite us home as researchers . They were "frightened of
strangers" and their rooms were "too small." Our attempt to find out about their
"other family" of soap opera was threatening the very same domestic world of
closeness and security which the program generated.
During the time of the research, A Country Practice (together with other
Australian soaps - Sons and Daughters, The Young Doctors, The Sullivans, and
later Neighbors) began to screen regularly in England. Bournemouth is an
English town noted for its elderly population (as a southern seaside town with a
mild climate). My own elderly family lived there, and my uncle and aunt (both in
their late seventies) lived in a Shaftesbury Home, which catered solely for the
elderly, with a live-in warden and custom-designed facilities for the physically
handicapped. Its residents would see it as one cut above the town's "old people's
homes ."
I chose this particular home for a reason. len Ang has usefully questioned the
positivist tendency of relegating the audience "to the status of exotic 'other' -
merely interesting in so far as 'we' as researchers use 'them' as 'objects' of study,
and about whom 'we' have the privileged position to know the perfect truth."? In
the Bournemouth study, neither I nor the elderly audience was "other" in this
way. My uncle arranged the majority of the interviews among people he knew; I
was first of all "Douglas' nephew" to the old people I spoke with, and second "an
Australian researcher about television ." And my intention was to share, as far as
possible , the "mutual knowledge" about television of these old people , a task
made easier by many years of sharing television with my own elderly family and
relatives in Bournemouth.
The first set of interviews (with the twenty elderly people who consented to be
interviewed) took place in November 1985 during a short research trip to
England, and consisted of my visiting people (introduced by my uncle) in their
flats and discussing with them over the space of one to two hours their television
likes and dislikes, their viewing habits, daily routine , and a little of their past
background. The second set of interviews took place in November 1986, during
which time I sat with each set of interviewees for a couple of hours on a
Wednesday evening, noting (and taping) their reactions to television shows, their
choices of show, their conversation, and talking with them when they wanted to.
There were fewer groups this time; one couple were too sick to see me, one old
man had died, and others I had interviewed the first time who did not, by and
large, watch television were not relevant to this stage of the research.
184
I began by asking them about Austral ian soaps , then broadened out to include
Engli sh and US soaps and other genres. All the elderly people who watched
soaps were very forthcoming (they all especially liked the Australian soaps).
Those who did not watch soaps were also very reveal ing, elaborating without
prompting on their daily activities and leisure pursuits, and on why they did not
watch soaps.
On the second visit, I chose the evening when Dallas was screening, because
it had been the focus of most recent soap/audience research, and I was interested
in comparing these findings where the major emphasis was on younger women
and homemakers, with my work on the elderly." In fact, too few watched Dallas
for me to make any systematic comments about this age group ; however, some
meaningful responses (in terms of gender and class) did emerge, which I will
discuss later .
The elderly: Habits a/viewing

For some old people, who live alone in specially designed, labor-saving units,
and have little to fill their time, the preoccupation with soap opera characters is
both intense and catholic, as with Mrs McLaughlan who "likes them all":
"I have The Sullivans at 12.30 - I switch the set on for that. And then I have
the news, and I've just had cookery and ... short story.... And now it's Take
the High Road - I always watch that, the Scottish one. 1 like that one as well
because it's a family, and I love Scotland, it's partly my home. Then we go on
to Young Doctors today. Well, then, when that one finishes at 4 o'clock . .. I
switch off and I go on again for, like yesterday, Sons and Daughters . . . . And
most of the evening I have it on, after that."
But other old people in the same units see things differently. Miss Harring (an
elderly lady who is physically handicapped and confined to a wheelchair) re-
sponded similarly to the 80-year-old who wrote to us in Australia:
"I normally don't watch the television in the daytime hardly at all,
unless there's something like a coronation or a royal wedding or some-
thing special. ... When you get to this stage, you're so slow about everything
that, you know, there are priorities. And I never have really been a
great television fan. I think there 's a lot on it now that is good; more
the documentaries I suppose . And I do, I'm afraid , fall for it occasionally. 1
watch it from bed at night. I go to bed early and watch it, and some-
times - I'm either waiting for something I want to come on and there
is some other basically rubbi shy stuff, and I sort of put up with it. And
occasionally 1 fall for it afterwards. But 1 usually put it on at six for
the news. . . . That's on BBe. . . . 1 can 't stand lTV , basically because I can-
not bear being interrupted constantly by these adverts. The first time 1 ever
saw lTV I was very untelevision-minded. This is going back twenty years , and
185
John Tulloch
I went to stay with friends who put on the television ... on lTV .... Suddenly
it seemed to sort of not make sense.... We'd gone into an advert and I hadn't
realized it."
This difference between Mrs McLaughlan and Miss Harring, a continuous and a
"discriminating" viewer , matches closely Nancy Wood Bliese's experience of
the elderly. "Some older persons, like Sarah, are so busy that they do not have
much time for television or other media use; others, especially the homebound,
used media to fill time.'"' Sarah
has little time for television . She usually watches one or two programs a day,
which she chooses for their informative or cultural enrichment characteristics.
She .. . is too busy to bother watching "trash" programs .... She has a very
busy schedule of volunteer work during the day and her evenings are spent
catching up on correspondence with friends, doing necessary housework,
engaging in her hobby of needlepoint, or curling up with a good book."
My experience with the Bournemouth elderly suggests it is "high culture" values

rather than not being homebound which determines the "continuous versus
discriminating" distinction. Miss Harring, for instance, is seriously disabled and
confined indoors to a wheelchair. Yet, when friends rented a television set for her
one Christmas, Miss Harring
was furious. I didn't want the beastly thing, and for some little time
when I first had it, rather than keep switching it on and off, I put it
on so that I would know what was coming on and what wasn't, and
covered it up with a teatowel. I used to go and lift it now and again
and have a peek, you know. But back in those days I wasn 't so
pushed for time, and I'm bound to say I did get hooked on things
like Z-Cars and even Dr Kildare . . . . Cliff Michelmore used to do a
thing in the early evening, Tonight.
Int.: Why did you say, "even" Dr Kildare?
Miss H: Pretty grotty, isn't it, really? I mean, it's terribly sort of - it's not
getting you any further, is it? I mean, quite honestly - and this
sounds priggish - but I haven't really got time to spare to sit here
and simply amuse myself. I've got more than enough to do. I write
umpteen letters. I've got many, many interests .. . which I haven't
got time to pursue. I don't even read much in the daytime at all; any
reading I do is done in bed. I do lie down in the afternoons, and if I
don't fall asleep , I read then. But I suppose really, when it comes
down to it, I've got a vast number of friends and I love to write
letters and I love to receive letters. That takes a lot of time because
my letters stretch into small books. And I'm constantly sort of
stirring up trouble, like "Save the Children " and that sort of thing,
and all these things, they take a lot of time.
186
It was in writing and receiving letters that Miss Harring "purchased" that need
which other old people describe as "knowing another family" via soaps. The
interpersonal relationships that one old person uses soap operas for, another
constructs by way of letters. These daily "books" were, in a sense, Miss Harring 's
own soap opera . As for television, it had its place only when this important task
of relating to friends was done, and then she would watch news and current aff-
airs, but never Coronation Street, Eastlinders or things "I cannot waste time on."
Bliese rests content with using her example of Sarah to challenge the
stereotype of the elderly as "passive" consumers of media. In fact, the difference
in television viewing habits between Mrs McLaughlan and Miss Harring is worth
exploring further. Miss Harring's use of television, and her preferences, were
very similar to another Boumemouth pair, mother and daughter, Eileen and
Judith Oldfellow . Judith suffers from an unknown virus with similar effects to
MS and, in middle age, is looked after by her mother. Like Miss Harring, the
Oldfellows are too busy to be "drawn into these love affairs that are going on all
the time, everywhere" in soaps. Again:
"The trouble is, we can't really sit for long enough. Unless there's something
very interesting that holds us there, we're finding something else to do.
Writing letters, or reading."
"We go abroad quite a lot. But I don't know, there's so much to see if you
look. But a lot of people don't look, do they? And we go off up to the forest."
"RSPB, bird watching."
"And also for the disabled club."
"Yes . Access to various places. We spent a few days on the Isle of Wight,
surveying . . . toilets ... to see what access is like. ... We had two community
nurses with us who we met by accident; they didn't have a clue. They said, 'Oh
well, a wheelchair can get into that toilet,' and it was only across a field and
up a step!. . . Even with people on sticks, or frail people, you see: how do they
get in and out of these places? . ."
"We don't just sit and watch anything."
"You see, some people have television on all day, don't they?"
"It's a time waster."
"Yes, it is."
"But it's good for people who are shut in."
"And you do learn, certain things."
For the Oldfellows "learning certain things" depended on watching programs
based on "fact": "News, current affairs, and travel," and they were disappointed
that the Australian dramas don't show a lot "about Australia: Australian life. ...
The way they live .. . the customs ....We like things like that, interesting." As
for television dramas, they were prepared to give A Country Practice a try when
they heard it had stories about MS and mentally handicapped children (Judith
works voluntarily at a mentally handicapped children's school); and they liked
Tenko :
187
John Tulloch
"Again, it was based on fact."

"That happened."
"Yes , it did happen unfortunately. I knew several women who came home
from these camps in Burma, and they said it was absolutely true to life. And
The Flame Trees of Thika; anything that's based on fact, I like. I don't like-
fantasy; perhaps we don't need it."
For these women Tenko and The Flame Trees of Thika combined their search for
"facts, interesting things" with travel and knowledge of other cultures . Clearly
there was an important class clement in this; the Oldfellows were well enough
placed financially to "travel a lot," and so be able to speak knowledgeably about
Canadian, Dutch, and Italian television . Similarly, Miss Harring's put-down of
soaps and "rather grotty" serials was from a high-culture position.
Yet, Miss Harring's account of a program she particularly liked revealed areas
where she, too, had been disadvantaged: as a woman.
"I've tried to watch Triumph ofthe West . I only understand about half of it, but
at least I'm sort of trying to understand it. ... It's about how the development
of the western civilization has sort of taken over - it's become so powerful.
Going right back - the Christian wars and all that sort of thing, bringing it right
up to date . I must say, it does make one feel rather ashamed, the way we have
behaved. But it's really a little bit beyond me. I want to go on a bit or some-
thing.. . . I am basically extremely ignorant. . . . I had a nicely private educat-
ion, where I was taught deportment more than anything else, you know . . . .
And I think perhaps I'm missing out on it now."
Clearly, these texts (Tenko, Triumph of the West, The Flame Trees ofThika) had
some continuity of information content, in that they were all about the interaction
of western with eastern or so-called "primitive" cultures. There were also
differences between them in the degree to which they problematized the meaning
of this interaction in terms of western imperialism. However, for Miss Harring,
such texts operated by way of a more personal meaning, which had to do with her
own condition of disability and exploitation as reader of the text. Not any text
would do (as all these non-regular television watchers insisted), and certainly the
influence of the aesthetic and academic discourses that Robert Allen, len Ang,
and others have described seemed clear in these women's definition of the
"grotty" and the "waste of time." Nevertheless, their pleasures in television
drama were no less functions of their daily routines than those who watched
soaps all afternoon and evening.
Miss Harring's account of how she actually did get "hooked" on a soap - the
radio serial, The Archers - is an interesting example of the complexity of "needs"
that are part of the social experience of the audience.
Miss H: There was a time, and it was only for a spell of two or three years, I
used to listen to The Archers. Before that I couldn't have bothered
188
with The Archers, then suddenly I must have listened to it a bit and
enjoyed it, and I went on for quite a long time. But I never listen to
it now."
Int.: Why do you think you actually got into it?
Miss H: I think probably because at that time I used to stand up on calipers
to eat my lunch at the sink .. . because it was not wasting time
doing two things at once, and I used to have the wireless on while I
was doing that.
Int. : So you mean it could have been anything?
Miss H: I suppose it could, but I did get that I wanted to put it on the next
day to see what happened.
The Archers was, like A Country Practice, an "information" and "country
issues "-oriented drama, which might account for why Miss Harring listened to it
long enough to "want to put it on the next day to see what happened." But even
for people stridently opposed to it as a "waste of time" like Miss Harring, soap
opera clearly can have , as Cassata and Skill point out, "the uncanny ability to
create characters and situations which hook the viewer into a willing complicity
in the life that it offers. " 13 How is this?
I want to suggest that there are at least two important reasons for this willing
complicity. The first has to do with the enormous shared knowledge that regular
soap viewers quickly build up; the second , with the interaction between soap text
and the viewer's practical consciousness."
Shared knowledge and paradigmatic complexity

Robert Allen argues that the high degree of narrative redundancy in soaps
invokes a "paradigmatic network." Whereas "high culture" viewers see this as
"an endless string of excruciatingly retarded subplots," to "the experienced
reader . . . soap opera's distinctive networks of character relationships open up
major sources of signifying potential that are simply unreadable to the nalve
reader.'?' It is the lack of appropriate cultural capital to enter and use soaps (to
compare and contrast, with the minutest discrimination) which leads the natve
reader to say she "can't get into it," is "sort of out of the picture," and complain
of an episode of A Country Practice that
"There 's nothing going on, excepting a whole bunch of people talking on here
and there yesterday. We saw one man in one bed in a room, and he had his
brother there . He'd had an accident - and that is all. And then we saw the two
doctors - they were off duty - sitting in their canteen, having tea. And we saw
another one at the end, just came in, put his coat on, off he went"
Naive readers, by the way, are not necessarily "high-culture" ones; the elderly
lady quoted here was in fact an avid watcher of other soaps. But it is high-culture
readers who habitually make their criticism visibly discursive (in "quality"
newspapers, university literature courses, etc .), and place that criticism
189
John Tulloch
(legitimated by talk about cardboard stereotypes and banality) within the

discourse of "mass culture" ideology."
It is because of its syntagmatic redundancy that critics who want their
television to connect them very directly with the real world, like Miss Harring ,
complain that soap isn't "getting you any further, is it?" And it is because of its
paradigmatic complexity that viewers who, like the Oldfellows and Miss
Harring, "can't really sit still for long enough" to watch it (and so are unable to
acquire the cultural capital to make fine distinctions of character and place)
define soaps as "these love affairs, that's going on all the time everywhere." But,
when for very specific experiential reasons (such as Miss Harring's disability and
daily routine) the critic becomes the fan, aesthetic complaints about soap
redundancy turn into narrative urgency: "I did get that I wanted to put it on the
next day to see what happened."
Soaps and practical consciousness

In the case of one elderly woman (who had an extremely poor short-term memory
but a good long-term one) afternoon soaps seemed to give her the focus on her
daily affairs that was otherwise lacking. Her memory was too poor to complete
efficiently household tasks like cooking (her husband did that); instead she sat in
her chair watching each soap opera in turn, whistling or humming the signature
tune of each one, and smiling a lot at the storylines . Sitting in her familiar room,
among familiar characters and tunes, she more confidently organized her day; in
the evenings she frequently organized it differently, recalling in detail her family
past.
To take the question of the relationship between soap pleasures and practical
consciousness further, consider the daily routine of a couple who, like the
McLaughlans, were "continuous" television viewers. Mr and Mrs Mallard's
preference for medical soaps illustrates how television drama is part of a daily life
pattern, and how this routine is determined by ageing.
Mr Mallard enjoys A Country Practice "because I've got diabetes, and on
there they talk about it"; for Mrs Mallard "it's our favorite" because there is a
close parallel between the caring nature of people in the show and her own daily
routine. She described how she would nurse her husband, lying awake between
his prescribed 9 o'clock bedtime and 10 o'clock Complan, reading (usually a
medical biography); and how she would organize people to take her shopping in
accordance with the needs of her husband and timing of her favorite "medical"
soap.
"And then we come back, because the bus only runs every hour.... And
when I come back on Tuesday , A Country Practice is on, so I'm back in time
for that. . . . I have to get back for lunchtime because Harry has to have his
meals at certain times every day, so we get back in time for that."
"Getting back in time for that" refers to both Harry Mallard's special lunch and
A Country Practice. It is not simply that television watching has to be carefully
190
positioned by elderly people who cannot afford VCRs and are reliant on other
people to take them shopping (I heard frequent comments that an elderly woman
couldn't watch The Sullivans or A Country Practice because she was preparing
the lunch, or Sons and Daughters because she was preparing tea). It is also that
the themes of some soaps are part of the daily experience of the elderly. For these
old people soaps were firmly placed within a routine of organization and caring
- by the center's warden, by younger family and friends with cars, by Mrs
Mallard herself; similarly their favorite programs were about professional
organization and caring. In that sense, soaps became part of their practical
consciousness, their competence in caring or being cared for. These things were
of no less life-and-death significance than the information on the news (which the
Mallards disliked); they were simply more manageable , and became part of their
day in an experiential way. In an important sense, soaps are generically defined
by these old people as the non-news, non-current affairs (and therefore more
manageable) world of daily living and dying.'?
Television drama texts are defined as much by the regime of watching as by
their conditions of production, and have effect as part of the domestic routine. As
Fiske says, "such texts not only mean but do," and he draws on Barthes' metaphor
of the economy of the text "by which he refers to the text's function, not meaning,
and this function is as a coin of exchange by which the reader purchases
something which he or she needs as part of his/her cultural identity."18 This
places Terry Lovell 's notion of the use value of the text within the daily routine
of its audience." For the Mallards, medical soaps (and books) were used and gave
pleasure within the "care" routine of the elderly.
The main emphasis of the first phase of my interviews with the elderly was to
examine television (and non-television) use as part of daily routine. Here I was
allowing them to tell me their story, and afterwards place it in a critical
perspective. In the second phase I spent more time with elderly people whom I
had interviewed the year before, whom I either already knew or whom, through
their friendship patterns, I came to know better. In this stage of analysis I wanted
to go further into mutual knowledge, and also to take more account of my
position as interviewer.
Case studies: Generational values

In her "uses and functions" approach to media and the elderly, Nancy Wood
Bliese points to the fact that the "range of types of media used, functions of those
uses, and amount of usage seems to be very similar to the range for all adults over
thirty-five ," although there may be more intense use of particular media forms by
the elderly because of problems of eyesight or budget." Thus, for instance, I
found much less negotiation about, and pre-planning of, the week's television
than Morley did in his home audience study." Many of the elderly could not
afford the IV Times, and so would use that day's newspaper to decide what to
view, or, alternatively, would simply leave the television switched on ,
191
John Tulloch
remembering the day and channel of their favorite programs . In the Gilroys'
home the newspaper was used to check memory rather than to pre-plan, and the
television set was left running.
MrG: We watch quite a lot, you know - things we get talking about
MrsG: At our ages there's nothing else to do, is there? Let's be fair.
Far from this continuous flow of television being used to "disengage" or

"substitute" for reality, however , it was used actively and with discrimination. In
the first place, even in the smallest flats, where the television was running
constantly, the elderly would vote with their feet or with their attention .
Mrs S: He usually lets me have what I want on. Or if there's a clash I go

over to my friends across the road, and he watches what he wants
. . . 'cause he likes cowboys and that, and I won't watch 'em.
A common practice in my parents ' home would be for my father (who, unusually
among the elderly I observed, has always done most of the cooking) to potter
around in the kitchen whenever soaps come on, with the stern instruction to "call
me for the news." When his brother visited, they would stand talking (usually
about politics) in the kitchen even if there was no cooking or washing up to be
done. When the situation was reversed, in my uncle's smaller flat, they would
stay in the living-room talking, while my aunt would place her chair close to the
television set, intermittently watching it while the soaps were on. Similarly, my
uncle (who doesn't cook) would play the "male" host role when visitors
(including myself as interviewer) came, pottering in and out of the kitchen with
beer or Scotch. As he told me, "I can't stick Coronation Street- I mean, I look at
it sometimes, but, you know, when it comes on think 'Oh law,' and I go into the
kitchen to wash up."
Second, even when sitting still in front of the screen, the elderly actively
engage with it; my father and uncle vent their anti-trade union anger consistently
during the news - which they watch so ritually (every news broadcast on BBC
radio and television during the day and evening) and with so much irritation as to
constitute one of the main means of regulating their day and the tenor of their
emotions. In this case their main engagement is with the screen ; no one in the
room normally discusses their comments about unions.
In other cases, criticism arising from a show is more personal, and more
amenable to negotiation. Bliese is right to argue that the elderly particularly enjoy
game shows for the intellectual stimulation and challenge. This in itself is a
matter for discussion, which they flesh out with the personalities of the
contestants and the jokes of the quiz master. The Savages had a quite precise set
of distinctions for quiz celebrities they liked "as a laugh" or thought were "too
noisy and over the top"; and they would engage in their own character
hermeneutic running parallel to the fortunes of the game show itself. The night I
watched Strike It Lucky with them, for instance, one of the female contestants
192
wore an outrageously tight dress to draw attention to her breasts and figure, so
that it was difficult for her to walk comfortably up the steps to her position in
front of the boxes.
MrsS : If she knew what she looked like.

Int.: I think she does, doesn't she?
Quiz
master: A food processor - you don't really need it to get out of that. ..
MrsS: She couldn 't have that frock much tighter, could she? Look!
Quiz
master: . ..dress better .
MrsS: He's taking the rise out of her. Look at it!
Quiz
master: A knitting machine!
Bliese noted that 29 per cent of her sample of elderly people mentioned watching
specific programs that their friends also watched so that they could use the
program as a topic for conversation. This "interpersonal interaction" use of
television is, in fact, prepared for by ongoing comment and discussion between
an elderly couple during a program, to the extent that they find no difficulty at all
in airing their views with an interviewer . The only problem, Mr Gilroy felt, was
remembering everything he wanted to say during the space of the interview; and
he was one of the people who called for me to come back so that he could say
some more.
What is particularly noticeable with the elderly as a group is the way in which
they engage with television (and the interviewer) in terms of "their generation 's
values." Watching television with the Savages, for instance, was to hear
constantly about "the older people ." We were watching This Is Your Life :
MrS: When you see young kids on there, This Is Your Life, it's wrong.
How can it be their lives?
MrsS: Someone that's getting on and done something really well.. ..
MrS: When we did get the older people on, the people that have lived
their life more or less, it shows more. . .. The other week it was -
even a chap like Bob Geldof - they haven't lived, have they? He's
only young.
MrsS : I know he'd done good and all that, but. . .
MrS: They haven't lived a life.
MrsS : It can't be "This" Is Your Life, can it?
MrS: Today's chap's got something to say, hasn't he? - He's got about
eighty years of it.
Again, they mentioned enjoying "the Royal Variety Performance this time. .. .
Nearly all old stars. Vera Lynn was on it"; and also Name That Tune for "its
memories."
193
John Tulloch
I have argued elsewhere that the elderly, deprived through their low appeal to
advertisers of programs of their own choice, "must carve out their pleasure as a
kind of guerilla activity, weaving together another temporal zone out of genres as
different (or even apparently opposed) as Name That Tune, Minder, and Till
Death Us Do Part,"ll and further that sitcoms are enduringly popular because
structured in terms of the comedy of generational difference . As such, they help
center for the elderly their memories, their "other" maps of place, time, language ,
and value. Soap opera helps do this in a different way, since, as one elderly man
said of the older characters in A Country Practice, "things are centered round
them. Because no matter what happens, it always seems more or less to come
back to them - Frank and Shirley."
"I think it would be more of a problem if Frank and Shirl left than the younger
ones. That would spoil it. It's like Crossroads - we used to love that. but I
can't get so interested in it now that it's changed like that ... because we lost
two good older characters.'?'
I found no case of the elderly complaining about the portrayal of older people in
soaps, as Bliese did for commercials and other programs." The elderly see older
people in soaps as a privileged point of narrative transmission; it is only when
they die or disappear that they switch off.
The working-class Savages focused this most clearly in terms of being
comfortable with characters and places.
Mrs S: Crossroads - that's not the same as it used to be since they've
modernized it all up as they have. . .. Made it into a leisure center.
Mr S: They've had quite a few new people come in and had the whole
hotel done up - swimming pool and everything else in it.
Mrs S: Really poshed it up.. .. It's not so homely as it was. . . . They're
trying to bring it too much up to date. I wouldn't like to go there. If
I had to go there I don't think I'd be comfortable in a place like that.
It's the way it's done now. When she moved out, they sacked her,
didn't they, that Meg - it seemed to go downhill from then I think.
The kind of "guerilla activity" I'm describing is the selecting out from different
programs, different narratives, a particular space for "older people" - pleasure as
a brico/age of generic appropriations. And frequently the principle of selection
for this brico/age is a mix of gender and class as well as age. As the Savages told
me, the genre which they (and most old people they talk to) particularly like is
quiz shows "because the majority of them are down to our level." Similarly,
soaps work "at our level," while the news carries 'a degree of violence that is
frightening because "beyond us. We've reached a stage now where it sickens us.
It's not our way of life, so obviously we don't want to know about it."
Bliese links her "functions" of media usage among the elderly loosely to
television genres. For instance: "For intellectual stimulation and challenge (e.g.,
game shows). As a less costly substitute for other media (e.g., television news
194
instead of a newspaper) .... For self-improvement (e.g., exercise programs, lang-

uage lessons)." In contrast, other uses and gratifications approaches found that
various television genres could fulfill most of the "needs" analysed, to different
degrees among different people." My point, though, is not to legislate between
different uses and gratifications conclusions, but rather to criticize the approach
generally on the grounds (familiar enough within cultural studies) that it is al-
together too atomistic and psychologistic in its approach to the elderly. It ignores
subcultural difference (the elderly are very articulate about their generational
difference, as we have seen), and within this generational set of likes and dislikes,
it ignores the different ways in which members of the same elderly cohort sharing
different class and gender positions will interpret a set of messages differently.
By and large, the gender differences I found tended to support what other
theorists have already described:" the old people themselves were particularly
clear about these differences between "male" genres (news, "cowboys') and
"female" ones ("I like a good romance")," though in some cases elderly men had
begun to "not want to know" about the news. However, I also found that class
patterns related to gender in complex experiential ways. I describe elsewhere
how generational memory (and perceptions of "the real") relate to class
differences." here I will conclude by looking briefly at class/gender differences
I found by contrasting two families (the upper middle-class Tollards and
working-class Gilroys) as an indication of the kind of analysis available to
ethnographic research , while still taking account of the role of the interviewer. It
is perhaps important to mention here my observation that the power exchange in
the Tollard interview seemed less that between interviewer and respondents than
between husband (using the interview as a chance to criticize soaps) and wife.
The man who always went into the kitchen when Coronation Street was on was
only too keen to interrupt my discussion with his wife of her favorite soaps with
"I don't know if you're interested in what I have to say." He then proceeded to
dominate the conversation.
Prior to this I had observed Mrs Tollard watching television, choosing each
soap opera as it came on - Crossroads, Coronation Street, Dallas - with
considerable enjoyment. Her laughter with favorite characters while watching
was in marked contrast to her more muted "Well, I do like them" at the beginning
of the interview, and her "Well, it's a bit common, isn't it?" after her husband's
attack on Coronation Street. Within the extended and acutely class-conscious
Tollard family, Mrs Tollard had never been recognized as "of the same class" as
her husband, and it seemed that in her almost private communication with
Coronation Street (her chair pulled close to the screen while Mr Tollard pottered
in and out of the kitchen) she was enjoying that "vicarious, evanescent ...
alternative reality" that James Lull describes as part of television's function in
"helping married couples maintain satisfactory relationships.'?" As such, it was
an almost silent alternative world except for Mrs Tollard's laughter. In the
interpersonal situation of the interview she avoided dramatizing her alternative
world since this might well have caused conflict with her husband. Instead, she
195
John Tulloch
mediated her view in terms of her husband's class values, playing a conciliatory
role which recognized his competence and dominance, while ensuring their
solidarity as a couple. This negotiation was particularly marked when, after Mr
Tollard railed against a strike in Crossroads as both "unreal" and the sort of thing
"I can't stand," she tried to fill out the causes of the strike, finishing (when he was
still unsatisfied) with "still, it's all over now, isn't it?"
Mr Tollard was one who consistently mobilized "my generation" in his
discussion of television programs that he liked or disliked. His sense of current
television drama is that it consistently "knocked down" his class, its heroes and
values. He disliked Coronation Street as typical "working-class" fare ("why
can't they have something that is middle class, that is decent English?"); and he
hated people who promoted strikes in Coronation Street and Crossroads, fearing
they were more in tune with the present than he was. "Our world was a different
world. We can't adjust ourselves, the other people can."
In contrast to the Tollards whose family had been "officers and gentlemen" in
the British Raj for over 200 years, the Gilroys were working class; and clear class
and gender differences were apparent both in their television pleasures and in
their interpersonal interaction around the television set Mr Gilroy, a Cockney,
had been forced on to the streets early as a barrow boy. "The only way I knew
how to eat was to go out and try and earn it. I played truant from school and never
went at all - just to eat." Becoming a bookie, Mr Gilroy was "a very quick
learner, I was quick at anything. I used to get in with people, like millionaires
although I never had tuppence.' Some of these were in organized crime, like the
Kray twins, and Me Gilroy (who particularly liked boxing on television)
discussed the shooting of former world light-heavyweight boxing champion
Freddy Mills in relation to this: "I knew that feller, he was an angel of a man ...
wouldn't hurt a soul. ... Somebody shot him, put the gun inside the car and said
he'd shot himself."
Unlike Mr Tollard who disliked Dallas ("all they can think about is parties and
sex.... And of course it's the same with everything now practically.. .. Not
only television, it's life itself'), Mr Gilroy liked it, because he saw the big-money
characters in Dallas as similar to people he had known. But he told the Freddy
Mills story to distinguish the ones "on the fiddle" whom he approved of from
those whom he didn 't.
In contrast to Mrs Tollard, Mrs Gilroy was not at all self-conscious about her
watching of soaps. Like her husband, she wove current pleasures through her
past. She argued that Mr Gilroy liked soaps where people were "fiddling the
money ," such as EastEnders and Dallas, because he would dearly like to go from
the world of one to the other. "You like the richness of Dallas, which you'l1 never
have." He didn't, she said, like any soaps "in the middle - like Sons and
Daughters," whereas she did because of the "everybody knows everybody "
gossip they contained. "This is more the story of my life. I was brought up in
Boumemouth, and this place was a little village when I was born you see. This is
how we lived, all sort of everybody knew everybody, all intertwined."
196
Characteristically her discussion of Freddy Mills was as someone who was

part of her close-knit Bournemouth community.
"Freddy was my age, near enough. . . . He came from here, I call him a local
boy. See, Chrissie his sister's still alive. I know her. With Freddy and Chrissie
and all them lot I went to school. ... But them Londoners, they're terrible - I
think they're a cruel lot."
It is clear from this discussion that the Gilroys had a perfectly clear understanding
of their likes and dislikes, and a way of "making sense" of it within their own
cultural space . They used shows like Dallas, Eastlinders, SonsandDaughters (as
well as boxing heroes) to understand their past and present difference (as between
London and Bournemouth working class). Both class and gender differences
were mobilized in their discussion with me to explain their preferences; and there
was no sense here, as there was in Mrs Tollard's case, of a pleasure that was
acceptable only as long as it was not discussed. Mrs Gilroy regarded her
television pleasures as of equal status with those of her husband.
My role as interviewer was partly to try to understand and so share this mutual
knowledge, partly to make it discursive . In doing so I was inevitably at times
bringing my own "second-order" concepts to the situation, through questions
like: "So maybe the big-money characters in things like Dallas are a bit like, but
on a bigger scale, people you did know?" But these were questions which derived
from mutual knowledge they were sharing with me, and the questions could then
be accepted and elaborated, disagreed with, or modified. In this case, my question
generated the discussion about Freddy Mills, and their different discursive
positioning of this "star." This then led on to Mrs Gilroy's thoughts about
"roughness," and the difference of posi tioning between herself (as
small-community "local") and her husband (as "rough" Londoner) in relation to
television soaps.
My point is that there is no objectively neutral way for an observer or
interviewer to gain understanding from an audience; he or she is part of the
process of "making meaning," of making practical consciousness discursive, of
"getting to know what actors already know, and have to know, to 'go on' in the
daily activities of social life." The division between practical and discursive
consciousness (the difference between the Gilroys' perhaps non-conscious
grounding of their pleasures in different social experience and their discussion of
it with me) can be altered by all kinds of learning experience, including in this
case the research process itself. There is nothing artificial about this; equally it
might have occurred over drinks with their friends, the Tollards . It is the way all
living proceeds."
Approaching the observer"

I have described two phases of my audience research with the elderly, the first
stage concerned with questions of daily routine and practical consciousness, the
197
John Tulloch
second trying to draw out the relationship of interviewer to the (practical and
discursive) consciousness of the audience. There is a third phase of research still
to be done. I want to describe briefly here what its parameters will be.
As I said before, a major focus of old people's negotiation of television is via
generational memory. In his discussion of memory, Giddens argues:
Discursive consciousness connotes those forms of recall which the actor is

able to express verbally. Practical consciousness involves recall to which the
agent has access in the duree of action without being able to express what he
or she thereby "knows." The unconscious refers to modes of recall to which
the agent does not have direct access because there is a negative "bar" of some
kind inhibiting its unmediated incorporation within the reflexive monitoring
of conduct and, more particularly, within discursive consciousness."
I have not examined unconscious "memory" in this paper. I have emphasized

instead the relationship of practical to discursive consciousness (and of both to
memory) because of their significance to ethnographic research, in so far as
practical consciousness consists of that active "knowing" of the rules and
procedures which constitute daily social life (of which television watching is
part); and discursive consciousness is the daily process of recalling that
"knowing" in words (a process of which the interviewer is part). Also, I agree
with Giddens that recent psychoanalytical theories which have tried to show the
foundation of institutions in the unconscious are guilty of two forms of
reductionism, failing to take serious account of the operation of historical social
forces and of the reflexive control (at both practical and discursive levels) that
agents have over their conduct. This double reductionism has led
psychoanalytically inspired film theory that is concerned with the "positioning of
the subject" to leave us with the sense of a determined and passive audience.
Consequently, it is not surprising that ethnographically oriented research
concerned with the culturally active agent has tended to ignore the unconscious.
Nevertheless, the relationship of discursive consciousness, practical
consciousness, and unconscious is a crucial one for current social theory,
replacing, as Giddens says, that older psychoanalytical triad of ego, super-ego,
and id." Just as important as the discursive relationship between interviewer and
audience is the unconscious one. Valerie Walkerdine (in the best analysis of this
relationship that I know") speaks of the "voyeurism of the theorist" in her
discussion of her experience of watching a working-class family watch a video
of Rocky II.
In the first step of her analysis, Walkerdine relates their voyeurism (of
violence) to class and gender patterns within the family, in particular to the
fantasy of the working-class male.
The fantasy of the fighter is the fantasy of a working-class male omnipotence

over the forces of humiliating oppression which mutilate and break the body
198
in manual labor ... Mr Cole is a very small man. Fighting is a way of gaining
power, of celebrating ... that which is constituent of oppression."
As a conscious "fighter" for his class Mr Cole is quite discursive, urging his
children to fight against both middle-class teachers and their peers. However,
latent beneath Mr Cole's conscious self-identification as a fighter may lurk the
fear of a small man whose greatest fear is his cowardice and his femininity. It
is this which has to be displaced by projection on to, and investment in, others
(his wife, Joanne) who can be the objects of his protection and for whom he
fights."
His daughter Joanne ("Dodo") is stretched across this world of conscious struggle
and unconscious fear and fantasy: encouraged as a "tomboy" to fight like her
brother, she is also infantilized by her father's nickname and his determination to
be "her Other - the big man, the protector." The gender positioning within their
practice of television/video viewing thus "reveals the complexity of his
identification with, and investment in, her as he makes her simultaneously his
feminine ward to be protected ... and his masculinized working-class fighter,
like her brothers. "38
In the second step, Walkerdine relates her voyeurism (as the observer who was
initially shocked and disgusted at working-class "violence" and "sexism" as Mr
Cole replayed the most brutal boxing sequence again and again) to the history of
her own subjectivity. This included her relationship with her own working-class
father as "Other, his forbidden femininity, the powerless child; "39 her experiential
desire to "be that fairy - small, protected, adored and never growing Up;"40 and
her ability to use her mind rather than body (unlike Mr Cole) to "fight" out of the
working class and become, as academic, a "Surveillant Other" in her tum.
The great value of Walkerdine's analysis is in relating psychoanalysis to
ethnographic work by rejecting the quest for the unobtrusive observer, and
instead foregrounding the social regulatory power of intellectualization. On the
one hand there is the "will to truth" that "designates the social scientist as an
expert in the bourgeois order which produces this intellectuality." This is the role
of "theorist/voyeur" (which was Walkerdine's position at the start of the
research) who "expresses shame and disgust at the 'animal passions' which have
to be monitored and regulated.'?' On the other hand there is the observer's
movement toward knowledge by way of recognizing her own fantasies.
I wanted to use my own fantasied position within those practices as a way of
engaging with their unconscious and conscious relations of desire and the
plays of anxiety and meaning. Often when interviewing the participants I felt
that I "knew what they meant," that I recognized how the practices were
regulated or that I understood what it was like to be a participant."
Walkerdine became aware of the relation (in class, gender, and
interviewer/interviewee terms) between Mr Cole's "desperate retreat to the
199
John Tulloch
body " and her own desperate retreat to the mind - both as ways to "become
bourgeois."?
My study of the elderly audience in Boumemouth was not designed to
examine the kinds of problem that Walkerdine poses: a much more focused
analysis of individual television programs and individual viewer responses than
I had time for would be required. Walkerdine herself only examines one film text
(Rocky If) and one family watching it on one occasion . Moreover, her class, age,
and gender relationship with her audience was very different from mine ,
generating quite different possibilities of "mutuality." Unlike her, I was a male
interviewer, and much younger than my (mixed working- and middle-class)
audience group. I was also (unlike Walkerdine) middle class by birth as well as
by academic aspiration. My "memories" (unconscious, practical, and discursive)
are very different from hers. How then to understand my positioning as observer
in (to use Walkerdine's words) that "fantasy space" which constitutes knowledge
of my audience? As I have said, this requires a third phase of research not yet
done; but in concluding I briefly want to indicate the direction this kind of
analysis could take.
It would start with my uncle: the point of mediation between the elderly
people and me, their "observer" and "young friend." While discussing (and
criticizing) the "realism" of television drama during the second period of
interviews, he mentioned his strong dislike of socialist playwright Trevor
Griffiths ' recent demystification of the "Scott of the Antarctic" legend in the
series The Last Place on Earth; adding : "I would never follow a man like that.
Whereas the Scott that I imagine would be rather like your uncle Cromarty,
whom one would follow - at least, I would."
My uncle here was putting together a personal and a public history. Indeed ,
several histories intersected in his words;" Trevor Griffiths' own critique in the
series of the conventional empiricism of television historiography; the
intertextual history of the Scott family's rebuttal (as circulated very visibly in
newspaper previews) of The Last Place on Earth, with particular emphasis on
Lord Kennet's words, "no such man as that portrayed here could have held a
polar expedition together"; my uncle's own history as the youngest, least
sporting, least "macho" brother in a proud imperialist family, in which his brother
Cromarty (holder, like me, of the sign of our history - a family name traceable to
the fourteenth century) was supreme emblem; my uncle 's positioning (while at
his exclusive English public school) within the history of a Boy's Own reading
formation that did so much to generate, circulate, and refurbish the Scott myth;
my own history as the first generation to "fail" the family by going to a state
secondary school, partially recuperated in my uncle's eyes through my studying
history at Cambridge, and later lost to him again through the experience of May
'68 and radical sociology; my very recent history as an academic, talking with
Trevor Griffiths and watching him at work making a film with Ken Loach .
In my interviews with Griffiths a particular history (and mutuality) was
mobilized; in my interview with my uncle quite another. Yet that engagement I
200
had with Griffiths(via a post-'68 radical social theory) wasone which, in a very
different form, my uncle (as the "soft," non-colonist "intellectual" of the family)
had had with Sydneyand BeatriceWebband then with the perceptions of 1930s
Russia (Stalin was one of the"heroes" whom, togetherwithScott and Churchill,
he didn't want knocked). In my own case, too,going to university, "staying with
the schoolbooks" and so not being "out in the real world," was regarded
ambivalentIy within the family. So both he and I carried with us a set of desires
(to understand beyond our family colonist order) and anxieties (as "soft"
near-outsiders to that order) which, as theyintersected, becamediscursive around
the discussion of Scott - a mutuality which was at the same time a profound
opposition worked through different historical positions (the 1930s, the 1960s).
How this relates to that academic dominance of "Surveillant Other" in the
interview discussion of Griffiths is an interesting question; so too are the
representations of our relationship that my uncle carried forward to the other
elderly people I interviewed. Different fantasies, different desires, different
anxieties, different recognitions and memories were made to work with and
against each other as I moved, as interviewer, from Trevor Griffiths one week to
my uncle in Boumemouth the next, and from my uncle(by wayof his mediation)
to the Gilroys, the Savages and the Mallards. As interviewing subject I was
positioned in multiple sites (as were my elderly audience). A reflexive
understanding of that positioning is crucial if we are to avoid what Walkerdine
rightly calls the fantasy of intellectualization - a regulatory processthatproduces
audiences as "other" in our quest for knowledge-as-power.
Notes
4 See John Tulloch and Manuel Alvarado, "Doctor Who" : The Unfold ing Text
(Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1983). Other audience groups examined included
mothers and pre-school children , primary and secondary schoolchildren,
university students. and others targeted by the show.
2 John Tulloch and Albert Moran. "A Country Practice" : 'Quality Soap' (Sydney :
Currency, 1986), pp. 228-9 .
3 ibid., p. 229.
4 ibid., p. 233.
5 See Jane Feuer, "MTM Enterprises: An Overview," in Jane Feuer, Paul Kerr, and
Tise Vahimagi (eds) MI'M : "Quality Television" (London: British Film Institute,
1984), pp. 4ff.
6 See John Tulloch, Television Drama: Agency, Audience and Myth (London:
Routledge, forthcoming).
7 James Davern, interviewed in 1986.
8 See Tulloch and Moran, "A Country Practice," chapters 15 and 16.
9 See len Ang's chapter in this volume, pp. 96-115.
10 See for instance len Ang, Watching "Dallas" : Soap Opera and the Melodramatic
Imagination (London and New York: Methuen, 1985) and the chapter by Seiter et
4al. in this volume, pp. 223-47 .
11 Nancy Wood Bliese, "Media in the Rocking Chair: Media Uses and Functions
Among the Elderly," in Gary Gumpert and Robert Cathcart (eds) Inter/Media:
201
John Tulloch
Inter-Personal Communication in a Media World (New York: Oxford University

Press, 1986), p. 575.
12 ibid., p. 573.
13 Mary Cassata and Thomas Skill, Life On DaytimeTelevision: Tuning-InAmerican
SerialDrama (Norwood, NJ: Ab1ex, 1983), p. 169.
14 Practical consciousness : "What actors know (believe) about social conditions,
including especially the conditions of their own action, but cannot express
discursively" (Anthony Giddens, The Constitution ofSociety (Cambridge : Polity
Press, 1984), p. 375).
15 Robert C. Allen, Speaking ofSoap Operas (Chapel Hill and London: University
of North Carolina Press, 1985), p. 71.
16 For further discussion of soap opera and "mass culture" ideology, see Ang,
Watching "Dallas", pp. 86-116.
17 See Tulloch, Television Drama.
18 John Fiske, ''Television, Culture and Communication" (paper presented at the
Australian Communication Association Conference, August 1985), p. 20.
19 For an elaboration of notions of exchange and use value in relation to soap opera,
see Terry Lovell, Picturesof Reality: Aesthetics, Politicsand Pleasure (London:
20 Bliese, "Media in the Rocking Chair," p.575.
21 David Morley, Family Television: Cultural Powerand Domestic Leisure
(London: Comedia, 1986).
22 Tulloch, Television Drama.
23 Tulloch and Moran, "A Country Practice", p. 290.
24 Cassata, Anderson, and Skill note the positive, "stable emotional," "highly
respected" and "opinion leader" qualities of the older soap opera inhabitant when
"compared to the overall depiction of the older adult in television as a whole,"
projecting "an almost unrealistically 'good' image of the older person" (Mary
Cassata, Patricia Anderson, and Thomas Skill, "Images of Old Age on Daytime,"
in Cassata and Skill, Life on DaytimeTelevision, p. 43).
25 Bliese, "Media in the Rocking Chair," p. 575.
26 For instance, see Denis McQuail, Jay Blumler, and 1. R. Brown, "The Television
Audience: A Revised Perspective," in Denis McQuail (ed.) Sociology ofMass
Communications (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), p. 153.
27 While the competences necessary for reading soap opera are most likely to have
been acquired by those persons culturally constructed through discourses of
femininity, the competences necessary for reading current affairs TV are most
likely to have been acquired by those persons culturally constructed through
discourses of masculinity .
(David Morley, "The Nationwide Audience' - A Critical
Postscript," Screen Education 39 (summer 1981): 13)
28 For instance, Mrs Gilroy:
'''Course women are different to men - we like a good searching soul story .. .
Thornbirds for instance. . . . Dallas is not a man's scene. It's got too many Joan
Collins types and all this business. It's all right for the women, with the dresses
and the glamor and the beautiful hair."
29 John Tulloch, "The TV Audience: Generational Memory and 'the Real'''
(unpublished paper, 1987).
30 James Lull, "The Social Uses of Televis ion," Human Communication Research 6,
no.3 (spring 1980): 204 . This is part of the "Affiliation/Avoidance" relational use
of television; other relational uses which Lull isolates are "Communication/
202
Approaching the audience:The elderly
Facilitation," "Social Learning," and "Competence/Dominance," all of which, in

different mixes, are useful in understanding television viewing practices.
31 For a full account of theories of human agency and social structure, see Giddens,
Constitution ofSociety.
32 A longer theoretical section at the beginning of my paper in which I explained the
ethnographic approach in my study had to be omitted for publishing reasons.
33 Giddens, Constitution ofSociety. p. 49.
34 ibid., p. 7.
35 Valerie Walkerdine, "Video Replay: Families, Films and Fantasy," in Victor
Burgin, James Donald, and Cora Kaplan (eds) Formations ofFantasy (London:
Methuen, 1986), pp. 167-99.
36 ibid., pp. 173, 182.
37 ibid ., p. 183.
38 ibid ., p. 188.
39 ibid., p. 186.
40 ibid., p. 187.
41 ibid., p. 194.
42 ibid., p. 191.
43 ibid ., p. 181.
44 This analysis will be elaborated in my forthcoming book, Television Drama.
203
Chapter eleven
On the critical abilities of television

.
viewers
Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz
The status of the viewer has been upgraded regularly during the course of
communications research. In the early days, both major schools of research - the
dominant, so-called, and the critical - saw the viewer as powerless, and
vulnerable to the agencies of commerce and ideology. Gradually, the
viewer - and indeed, the reader and the listener - were accorded more power.
With the rise of gratifications research, the viewer began to be seen as more
selective and more active than was originally supposed, at least in the sense of
exercising choice in the search for satisfaction, and less isolated.' The
new-Marxists, for their part, have recently acknowledged that the media can be
consumed oppositionally or in a mediated sense and not only hegemonically,
thereby adding the notion of conscious decoding to counter the instrumental and
even intuitive matching implicit in gratifications.P It appears that recent literary
theory has followed a similar course, abandoning the idea of readers uniformly
fashioned by the text in favor of readers as members of interpretative
communities that are in active "negotiation" with the text, both aesthetically and
ideologically.' Although it may seem that the reader posited by gratificationists
is most powerful of all because s/he is free to bend the text in any way s/he sees
fit - indeed, virtually to abolish the text - the fact is that her or his seeking is
determined by her or his needs, and these needs - so the critics say - may well be
determined by the media.'
In short, the reader/listener/viewer of communications theory has been
granted critical ability . The legendary mental age of 12 which American
broadcasters are said to have attributed to their viewers may, in fact, be wrong.
Dumb genres may not necessarily imply dumb viewers, or, in other words, there
are creative options within formulaic popular culture which may challenge both
producers and readers.'
Empirical evidence for critical ability is still very sparse: Neuman and
Himmelweit have made a start toward classifying viewers' reactions to programs
and their critical vocabularies," So far, one can say only that there is a growing
consensus among these and other scholars that the operational definition of
"critical" coincides with an ability to discuss programs as "art" or constructions ,
that is to recognize or define their genres, formulas, conventions, narrative
204
Critical abilities of television viewers
schemes, etc. We would give equal credit for critical ability to viewers who are
able to perceive a "theme" or "message" or even an "issue" in a fictional
narrative, such as the message"there is room at the top," for example.' We would
code such a generalization as critical, all the more so if it takes a more complex
form such as "the program says that mobility is possible because this is what the
producers have been paid to tell us." We wouldalso credit as critical viewers who
are aware that they themselves are using analytic criteria - such as "schemes,"
"scripts," "frames," "roles," and other notions of viewer processing and
involvement in their own responses to the program.
Two of these categories relate to the viewer's awareness of the text as a
construction either in its semantic aspect - themes, messages, etc. - or in its
syntactic aspect - genre, formulas, etc. The third category relates to the viewer's
awareness of the processing of the program by her or his cognitive, affective and
social self. This third form of criticism, we shall call pragmatic.
We attempted to identify these three categories of criticism in viewers'
reactions to the television series Dallas. Our data consist of some sixty-five
focus-group discussions of an episode of Dallas among three married couples
who are friends or neighbors and who share the same ethnic background.Four of
the ethnic communities are Israeli - Arabs, recent Jewish immigrants from
Russia, Moroccan Jews, and second-generation kibbutz members; a fifth is
second-generation Americans in Los Angeles; a sixth consists of Japanese in
Tokyo where Dallas badly failed,"
The Israeli groups - some ten from each one of the four communities- were
assembled by asking a host couple to invite two other couples from their intimate
circle to view an episode of Dallas together, at home, at the time of its broadcast
on Israeli television. The serial is subtitled both in Hebrew and in Arabic and
broadcast with the original English-language soundtrack. An interviewer and a
technical assistant joined the group to make notes on the interaction during the
viewing, and to conduct and tape the post-viewing discussion which lasted
approximatelyone hour. Interviewswere conducted over a period of four weekly
episodes; ten to twelve groups, from each ethnic community, saw one of the
episodes.
The ten American groups were recruited in similar fashion and similarly
interviewed, except that they were shown tapes of the same episodes that were
seen off-the-air by the Israelis. Since the American Dallas was two seasonsahead
of the Israeli Dallas, we chose to show the Americansthe same episodes, even if
many of them had seen them before.
An effort was made to achieve ethnic homogeneity within each group, and on
the whole this was successful, partly because of a tendency to ethnic
homogeneity within neighborhoods, partly because of the natural tendency to
ethnic friendships,partly because the person who contacted the host couple made
clear that the discussion would be conducted in the shared languageof the group.
Thus, the Russians and the Arabs were interviewed in their native languages; the
Moroccans and the kibbutz members were interviewed in Hebrew. A similar
205
effort was made to achieve homogeneity with respect to age and

secondary-school education, since the aim of the study was to compare cultural
differences in reaction to the program . This was intrinsically more difficult,
however, given the real-world variations among groups as to education level.
Accordingly, in order to make certain that the differences we attribute to ethnicity
are not better explained by education, we have double-checked our conclusions
by introducing rough statistical controls for educational level.
The Japanese, of course, were in an entirely different situation. Since Dallas
survived only for a few months on one of the private television networks in Japan,
and almost none of the focus-group members had seen it, it hardly made sense to
show them the episodes that the other groups had seen; instead they were shown
the very first episode of the serial, dubbed for broadcast in Japanese.
It should be noted that each of the ethnic groups uses the program more
referentially - as a connection to real life, including their own lives - than they
use it critically or, in Jakobson's sense," metalinguistically. Overall, referential
statements exceed critical statements by a ratio of more than 3: 1. The ethnic
communities, however, vary considerably in this regard. About 30 per cent of the
framing statements made by western groups - Russians, Americans, and kibbutz
members - are critical, compared with only 10 per cent ofthe framing statements
made by Arabs and Moroccans . This difference holds even after educational
differences are accounted for; indeed, among the lower-educated, the only
metalinguistic statements are made by the more western groups." Japanese
viewers made, proportionately, the most critical statements of all.
If most referential statements are "hot," by our definition, most critical
statements may be considered "cool." But just as we find "cool" involvements in
the referential frame - in playful responses to the reality of the program , for
example - so we find "hot" involvements in the critical frame. These "hot"
responses concentrate in the semantic realm, as we shall see.
Using an altogether different coding method, we attempted to validate this
pattern by analysing replies to the more specific question: "Why all the fuss about
babies?"!' Some participants told us that the program dotes on babies "because
they are needed by dynasties as heirs" - a statement we coded as referential.
Others told us that babies are good for soap operas because they permit parents
to fight over them - a statement we coded as critical, or metalinguistic. Consider
the following quotes , illustrative of referential or metalinguistic "babies,"
respectively:
Luba The emphasis on the issue of babies in the family shows the
importance of babies in a monarchy. They cannot risk [the
possibility] that the empire they have built would vanish with their
death; continuity is important (Russian Group #62)
Ahavon-
chitz There are a lot of problems around babies in such a family - the real
identity of the baby, sicknesses, kidnappings - which provide a lot
206
Critical abilitiesof television viewers
of possibilities for the writer of the series in constructing the

plotline. (Kibbutz Group #81)
Table 11.1 Function of babies
Americans Moroccans Arabs Russians Kibbutz

(percentages)
Storybabies:
forthe characters 14 19 24 16 16
Realbabies:
forpeople("life") 58 75 74 67 66
Dramatic babies:
for theproducers 28 5 5 15 19
Totalstatements
(= 100%) (120) (175) (68) (82) (61)
Table 11.1 reports on these differences in relating to babies. The referential

divides in two: statements which speak of the function of babies for "life," and
statements which speak of the function of babies for the characters in the story,
as if they were real. Metalinguistic babies speak of the function of babies for the
producers and writers.
In the analysis of these data, the three western groups again exceeded the
others in their use of critical explanations, but the Americans this time showed a
marked preference for this kind of framing; they made almost twice as many
critical statements as the Russians and the kibbutzniks and six times as many as
the Moroccans. The Arabs gave almost no metalinguistic explanations for the
fuss about babies. Further examination of these data by educational level (of the
group) shows that the higher educated make most of the critical statements, but
that the ethnic differences persist.
The higher rate of making critical statements about television programs
among the western groups may reflect their greater experience with the medium,
or their greater training in criticism, or perhaps their greater familiarity with the
society being portrayed. That the Americans are strikingly more critical in
response to the more specific question about babies suggests that they do, after
all, have more experience with television genres and their production than even
the other western groups. The Americans seem especially able to respond to
specific questions of this kind, although we do not know why. Thus, in the
discussion of babies, they seem to be aware of the difference between the
function of a baby for the story (whether it is seen or only talked about) and its
appearance on the screen - both critical framings." They are also the only ones
who sometimes perceive a demographic message in the appearance of babies,
apparently because Americans are having to struggle between the ethic of
self-fulfillment vs. the ethic of altruism.
207
Table 11.2 Critical statements, semanticand syntactic
Americans Moroccans Arabs Russians Kibbutz

(percentages)
Syntactic statements
Genre , formula 48 43 20 49 48
Dramatic function 40 25 35 12 21
Semantic statements
Themes. ideology.
message 21 31 44 38 31
Total critical statements

(= 100%) (80) (28) (20) (86) (52)
With this basic distinction in mind, we devote the rest of the paper to analysis
of the critical realm. As stated at the outset, the critical involves awareness either
of the semantic elements of the text and/or of the roles of the reader as processor
of the text. Accordingly, what follows is a discussion of the critical statements of
Dallas viewers in each of these realms. Obviously, the analysis must focus
disproportionately on the three western groups who participate most in the
metalinguistic realm, but it is important to bear in mind that most of the
statements of these viewers, too, fall into the referential realm, and thus that the
sophisticated viewer should be seen as a commuter between the referential and
the critical, and not just as one or the other."
We now consider these critical categories, illustrating each by reference to
viewers' statements. The critical categories employed by the Japanese groups are
included here as well, at which point it should be noted that the Japanese have
hardly any referential statements at all since they had no opportunity to get "into"
the program."
Most of what we want to say is illustrative. We wish to show how ordinary
viewers frame everyday television critically, or metalinguistically, and to map
the several ways in which they subdivide the frame. We draw on three different
data-sets to provide an overall context to what is primarily a qualitative analysis.
First, in Table 11.2, we present a glimpse of differences among the ethnic
communities (the four Israeli groups and the Americans) in their use of the
semantic and the syntactic, that is in the proportion of their critical statements
about content and form. A second set of data, to be introduced as Table 11.3, is
based on a reanalysis of the critical realm, in order to compare the critical
statements of the Japanese with those of the others, and, while we were at it, in
order to operationalize the critical categories we had developed in the course of
the qualitative analysis presented in this paper.
A glance at Table 11.2 suggests that the several communities differ in the
target of their critical statements. The Arabs and the Russians give greater
208
Critical abilities of telev ision viewers
emphasis to the semantic - to the thematics of the program, its ideology, and its
message - while the Americans concentrate on statements about form." The
Americans (and the Arabs, although the absolute number is small) give rather
more emphasis to statements about the functions of characters in the dramatic
construction, showing awareness of the dimensions in terms of which the
characters are polarized (good-bad, strong-weak, etc.)."
Semantic criticism
Theme
The form of criticism closest to the acritical referential realm is the ability to
discern and generalize the theme of the narrative. Viewers who say that the
program reflects the egoism of the modem world are taking a first step away from
the referential where they would say: "J .R. tricks people. This is interesting
because it is the only way to succeed. I, for instance, am going to do the same
thing myself. I am going to accumulate money, acquire land and use my cunning"
(Arab Group #46). As hegemonic theorists would expect, the referential viewer
takes for granted that J.R. is real, and speaks as if Dallas were some sort of
documentary. The critical viewer - even at this elementary level - shows
awareness of the program as separate from reality and is concerned with the
accuracy of the relationship. In this realm, there are notable similarities between
Arabs and Russians who see the program as representing "moral degeneracy" or
"rotten capitalism," although the Russians somewhat more than the Arabs
question the accuracy of the representation.
The Arabs are more likely to blame moral degeneracy for the ills of modem
society, whereas the Russians see more political causes. But it is often very
difficult to separate the two; indeed, several (four of ten) of the Arab focus groups
employ Marxist rhetoric to assert that the program reveals that capitalism is to
blame for the moral and political degeneration of the west. For example:
Anise "[Dallas] embodies western capitalism and shows that the more
freedom there is for people, it becomes too much because it has
already led to anarchy" . (Arab Group #43)
A possible explanation of the high sensitivity of Arabs in Israel to the dangers
of western culture is offered by Samooha who claims that (1) Israeli Arabs are at
a different stage in the modernization process (with respect to the status of
women); (2) western culture is associated with the colonial administration under
which they suffered, and which, in their opinion, favored the Jews over the
Arabs; (3) even after the withdrawal of colonialism , western culture continued to
be associated with it, and Israel itself is considered a present-day colonial
power; (4) capitalism is perceived as a threat to the traditional social system.'?
Arabs therefore have more reason than others to dissociate themselves from the
culture of Dallas.
209
Some of the Japanese viewers claim that Dallas is compatible with a sense of
a creeping recession. In an America which has come to realize that it is past its
prime, "bitter," unhappy , unharmonious dramas express the Zeitgeist . Put
differently, one Japanese participant sees the adventures of the Ewings as
demonstrative of the end of the era of the American rich (Group #5). Indeed,
some of the Russian groups go so far as to wonder whether the text is not itself
critical of western society and its economic and moral order, reminding us of
Fiedler's contention that the best of popular culture is subversive." Hanna, a
member of one of the Russian groups (#68), claimed that Dallas is a "socialist
text."
Messages
These discussions of theme may appear either as inferences of the viewers or as
intentions - "messages" - ascribed by the viewer to the producers. Thus, the
most frequent theme perceived in Dallas - that the rich are unhappy - may be
mentioned as the viewers' own conclusion or may be thought to be what the
producers are trying to teach us. Yet a further step - one particularly
characteristic of the Russians - is not only to ascribe intent to the producers but
to ascribe manipulative intent, in the sense that the producers are telling us
something they want us to believe but do not necessarily believe themselves. For
example :
Alona I started to wonder why the series is so popular. What happens
there? Why does it attract the middle-class person that much? It's
nice for him to know that the millionaires are more miserable than
himself. Sure, a miserable millionaire is a nice thing because
everyone within himself wants a millionaire to be poor, and
nevertheless, he himself wants to be a millionaire. Here he sees the
millionaires portrayed as if they were real. (Russian Group #62)
Thus, we are dealing here in three levels of thematics - the elementary, the one
closest to the referential, in which viewers make an inference about the theme of
the program; a second level in which viewers make an assumption about the
producer's didactic aims in introducing the theme ("message"); and a third level,
in which viewers suspect the producer of trickery, even if they themselves see
through the trick. Some of these statements are as "hot" as many referential
statements are. In other words, critical statements are not simply "cool" and
contemplative, but can express intense feelings.
Our coding of "messages" does not permit us to distinguish easily between
"the program teaches us" and "the producers are trying to tell us," although we
did code manipulative intent separately." Messages, like themes, are sprinkled
throughout the discussions, although many are concentrated in reply to our
explicit question: "What is the program/the producer trying to
say?" Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the Russians and the kibbutzniks
210
Critical abilities of televisionviewers
(to a lesserextent) are mostactivein spotting messages, anticipating our explicit

question long before it was asked. As Table 11.2 shows, the Arabs and
Moroccans - not the Americans - follow the Russians and kibbutzniks in the
frequency of themes and messages, although mostof their replies are in answer
to the explicitquestion. From the natureof these replies - Arabsgive particular
emphasis to the theme"the Americans are immoral" morethan to the theme"the
rich are unhappy" - it seems safe to infer that the Arabs are responding in the
realm of themes ratherthan intentional messages.
But whathappened to the Americans this time? In thedomain of messages, the
Americans tend to be resistant. Not only do they offer fewer messages than any
of the other ethnicgroups, they also protestthat Dallas can have no message for
them since it is just entertainment, only escape. Paralleling their playful
statements in the referential, the Americans refuseto acknowledge that therecan
be anything serious about Dallas. When the Americans do acknowledge a theme
or a message, they tend to say that the message will be so perceived by foreign
viewerswhodo not know that the program is just escape.and not aboutanything
real. When the Americans perceive messages for themselves - and this is
relatively rare - they ascribe didactic and meliorist intent to the producers; e.g,
the producers thinkthatit is important to havea strongfatherfigure in society,or
that babies are a goodthingafterall, and thatonecan havebabies and go on being
egoistic." In this realm, at least, the Americans are surely less critical than the
others, and thus perhaps more vulnerable to manipulation. They believethat the
producers do good homework, and that they have a sense of responsibility on
which the viewer can count.
Archetypes
A higher level of thematic criticism might be labeled archetypical in that
generalization about the narrative is based on the perception of an underlying
theme that unitesa classof textsor performances. The imageof the good sheriff
enteringthe enemy campunarmed and staring the villain intosurrender tojustice
and civilization is equally applicable to the classic western movie, President
Sadat's heroic visit to Jerusalem, and an American detective shaming a mafioso
off his private island." The essence of this form of criticism is intertextual,
revealing an awareness of similar dynamics among different texts; at its most
classic. it is archetypical in the same way as Oedipus, or Joseph, or Cain and
Abel. This form is not very frequent in our data, although the occasional
archetypical allusions are dramatic indeed. Thus.we heardJ.R.compared to Arab
sheikhs in the Persian Gulf, and - by both Arabs and kibbutzniks - to General
Sharon. Of course, the reference to classic sibling rivalries in a dynastic context
is much more frequent, although most of these do not make explicit mention of
the various pairsof biblical brothers." A Japanese viewernotesthat the imageof
an ancestral fatherbestowing his blessing on that son whowill delivera first heir
also figures in Japanesestoriesof dynastic intrigue.
211
At the extreme of archetypical themes, the viewer is saying in effect that the
theme must have influenced the narrative, consciously or not Semioticians
sometimes speak as if the writer or producer is merely an instrument through
which these classic stories retell themselves. This structural aspect of
storytelling, therefore, stands on the borderline between semantic and syntactic
criticism : in so far as it deals with themes, it belongs in the domain of the
semantic ; in so far as it alludes to a classic sequence of actions or to themes that
are elements of an identifiable narrative genre, it belongs in the domain of the
syntactic, to which we now turn.
Syntactic criticism
Critical ability in the syntactic domain reveals an understanding of the
component elements of a genre or formula and the nature of the connections
among these elements. Almost two-thirds of the critical statements of each of the
four Israeli groups are of this character - relating either to Dallas as a soap opera,
or to a comparison of Dallas and other genres, or to the rules of storytelling which
dictate the behavior of characters and the sequence of events in the corpus of
Dallas episodes. An even larger proportion of the critical statements made by
Americans are of this type but rather than be impressed by this syntactic ability
of the Americans one should be impressed by the high level of similar ability
shown by the non-Americans who are far less experienced with the regularities
of American television drama. It should be noted, in this connection, that Israel
has never seen a proper soap opera; Dallas is the closest they have come.
Genre
Nevertheless, Israeli viewers often volunteer quite precise definitions of what we
would recognize as soap opera even when they cannot name the genre. Consider
the following examples from two members of kibbutz groups:
Orly Every week the program focuses on the story of one of the stars.
Every now and then they move from one to another and succeed in
showing a few minutes of each star, to show that the story
progresses a little bit . .. and they've introduced a new character,
that is the daughter of the mother, and they leave us with some line
of thought about each one - what will happen between her and
what's-his-name. (Kibbutz Group #80)
Ze'ev It's impossible to achieve one's goal in this series; I'll tell you why.
It's what they call a "soap opera" in the States. Are you familiar
with this term? It's a series that goes on for years on end, and in
order to get the audience to stay with it, it ends in the middle. The
audience hopes the missing end will be told next week, but it never
is. They always manage to get to another scene that won't be
212
completedeither. That's the way they hold the audience for years,
endlessly. If they get to some ending, if everybody gets what he
wants the following week, nobody will view. (Kibbutz Group #81)
In Japan, on the other hand, viewers say that they will stay with a series only if
all the charactersare reasonably satisfiedat the end of the episode.In comparing
the formula of American soaps to the brand they themselves produce, viewers
claim that, unlike Dallas - where an episode races at a fast tempo to end at the
height of conflict after fifty minutes- the Japanese "home drama" goes on for
two hours, at a much slowerpace, endingon a note of harmony. According to the
discussants, Japanesecannotbear family conflictto dragon from one week to the
next as this would spoil "the mood of relaxing" at home. This incompatibility
between the formula and viewers' expectations gives a clue to the reason why
American family dramas have failed in Japan.
It is interesting to compare these statements with Thorburn's analysis of the
television melodrama whichargues that since the story's end is never in sight the
dramatic tension inheres in the short conversational segments with their heavy
emotional loading." The steady barrage of these crises is what makes for the
melodrama. Members of a kibbutz group and a Russian group put it rather
similarly:
Ze' ev I don't rememberone scene which did not consist of a conversation
betweena man and a woman, not necessarily married. He talks to
that one, then they change the scene and she talks to that other one.
There is a lot of tensionin these conversations, actually in every
scene. There is no sex in the program but the relationships between
the sexes are very prominent (Kibbutz Group #81)
Sasha Normally, the series of events would be sufficientfor a hundred
families; suddenly everything fell on the family. . . . We forgive
Katzman [the series' producer] . It's true he has to hold the
audience, to drag the time. (Russian Group #63)
Attention is also given to the repetitivenessof the story. The point that the story
is always the same was proposed in one of our Moroccan groups. Thus, Yossi
(#20) counters the interviewer's request that the group relate the story by saying
"the same as last week; believe me, [they are] the same faces." But the group
ignores him in favor of a detailed discussion of what the story is about The
Americans, on the other hand,are muchmoreinsistentabout the formulaic aspect
of the story; they point out that J.R. has a weekly trick with somebody as his
intended victim.
Mich Well, it's very well written though they'll always let you hang, you
know, at the end of the program and you, well, like we say, we got
to tune in and see what happened - to so-and-so and so-and-sofrom
the episode.
213
Deana And two years ago they ended the season when J.R. got shot and we
had to wait a couple of months to find out who shot him, and this
year they had the big fire and now you're going to have to wait for a
couple of months to find out what happened. (American Group #8)
Apart from identifying Dallas as a soap opera, there is occasional awareness of
the way in which Dallas is not a soap opera. The Americans specialize in these
nuances, emphasizing that Dallas is in prime time, and that the leading character,
in his devil-like surrealism, is somehow different from soap opera characters.
"Without JR," someone says, "the rest of it is soap garbage" (Group #14).
Comparisons are made between Dallas and successors such as Dynasty, in
character delineation, geographic location, dramatic inventions and rhythm."
Sometimes Dallas is perceived as belonging to less obvious genres. A number
of comments compare Dallas to Godfather stories, noting the similarity to the
adventures of a family mafia, just as Mary Mander does in her academic analysis
of the program." Japanese viewers prove more familiar with American culture
than Israelis, and several of them join Michael Arlen in associating the Ewings
with the legendary oil dynasty of Edna Ferber's Giant." Made famous in its
Hollywood film version, this saga depicts intrigue and sibling rivalry of a wealthy
family living in an isolated, large, gloomy ancestral mansion. One Japanese
discussant recalls Gone With the Wind, describing the attachment of southern
gentry to Tara and the land.
Many comments compare Dallas to the genres of their own cultures,
emphasizing differences. The Russians, in particular, make pejorative
comparisons to the family sagas of Pushkin and Tolstoy for example, while
Japanese also make analogies to the family dramas of Chekhov, defining Dallas
as a "family collapse story," molded on the pattern of The Cherry Orchard.
Americans mention The Forsyte Saga and The Brothers, pointing out that the
stories of these families, unlike that of the Ewings, are interwoven with political
and historical process. Dallas characters are afloat in space and time. They do not
even age. Comparing Dallas with Forsyte, an American group member remarks:
Norman If you watched it [Forsyte] for six to eight weeks, and you started
when they were twenty and you ended when they were sixty, the
whole life went through what was happening in the country at the
same time - the strikes in 1926 and so forth. Here, nothing. I mean
the atom bomb could be blown up somewhere and the people in
Dallas wouldn't care. (American Group #4)
The syntactic critics see the program as a story of endless tum-taking between the
good guy and the bad guy rather than as a developing narrative. Indeed, one
American went so far as to say that it is not so much a moral struggle as amoral
entertainment, like wrestling, he says.
Greg When I watch it sometimes I feel like I'm just about watching
wrestling tape team matches or something like that. The bad guys
214
keep squashing the good guys, using all the dirty tricks and then
every once in a while some good guy will resort to the bad guys '
tricks and, you know, stomp on the bad guy for a while and all
the crowd will go, yeh, yeh, yeh, and then the next week, the bad
guys are on top again squashing the good guys. (American Group
#3)
Dramatic Function
Analysis of the dramatic functions of the characters is part and parcel of the same
kind of critical ability. Earlier we reported on the response to our question, "Why
all the fuss about babies?" by which the three western groups - but especially
the Americans - revealed an awareness of how babies propel the story along, in
generating conflict, for example. The Americans are aware, further, that the
babies need not even be seen on the screen; all they need to do is to be present in
the minds of the others. In this connection it is interesting to note that some
Japanese viewers - it will be recalled that they are not acquainted with the
serial - retell the first episode in terms of the potential dramatic function of the
two persons perceived as the central characters." Thus, the two "keys" to how the
narrative will continue are identified as an internal and an external force. From
within the family, they predict, J.R. will move the story along by virtue of being
a trickster while as an outsider, Pamela, the newcomer wife, will advance the
story through her love for Bobby, thus to break the vicious pattern of the rival
families' feuds, to transform Bobby and make the newly wed couple into the
spiritual, if not material, winners. One of the Japanese viewers speculates on the
delicate balance between the central characters needed to make the story
interesting: "If Pamela is going to control J.R., the program won't be interesting
because what is interesting is J.R.'s tricks."
The obvious references to the personification of good and evil, or to the
function of the minor strands of the story in providing tension release, are further
examples of sophistication about how stories are constructed and punctuated.
Carol "They kind of use [Ray] as a fill-in ... I seem to focus on the hard
core stuff and every time they show Ray in there it is just like a
side-track when you go and get a cup of coffee" (American Group
#16) .
Business
The Americans, again, are the most sophisticated about that other set of building
blocks of television narrative, namely the business behind the box. Their critical
statements show keen awareness that characters come and go not only as a
function of the needs of the story but as a function of the deals they strike with
producers and of the accident rate on the Santa Monica Freeway. Two of the
215
American groups contemplate the possibility that Pamela's attempted suicide

may be related to her contractual state. The similarities in the narrative of Dallas
and D.vnasty are also remarked upon and attributed to the " invisible college" of
writers and producers. Consistent with such economic and/or gossipy framing,
Americans - when asked by us how the serial can ever end - tend to say "by
catastrophe," as if to say that only some deus ex machina can do it. This is in
contrast to other groups who say - when asked the same question about how to
end the story - either that there will be a happy end for everybody, or that the
good and bad will be appropriately rewarded. These latter endings are consistent
either with a more referential view of the characters as real or with a
metalinguistic view of a traditional story. By their catastrophic ending, the
Americans seem to be saying that the story cannot be stopped by inherent or
conventional means, and that only radical external intervention will do. The
Americans also note that the great climaxes at the end of the season create a
tension strong enough to hold the viewer through the summer months, and that
the best programs are broadcast during the semi-annual special ratings
("sweeps ").28
While far less knowledgeable than the Americans about what goes on behind
the scenes, the Russians know, nevertheless, that "something" is going on. They
are interested , however, not in contractual relations at the level of actors but in
the business of buying and selling audiences, and in the suspicion of ideological
control of the program by elites. Indeed, the Russians, curiously, are the only
ones who take the credits seriously. They know the names of the producers,
speculate on what motivates them, and sometimes believe that they are being
manipulated from on high, and that producers are propaganda mongers."
There is no question that the Americans are far ahead of the others in the
making of metalinguistic statements of all kinds. They are the only ones who
show awareness or interest in the business aspect; they are the most sensitive of
all groups about the nuances of genre and why Dallas is and is not a soap opera,
and how and why it compares with its several spin-offs. The Russians also show
a high level of syntactic awareness but their emphasis is rather more on the
formulaic aspects of the story and its valuelessness as literature; they are also
more likely to suspect that some sort of propaganda is at work. Kibbutzniks tend
to pay more attention to the segmental structure of the program as a sequence of
two- and three-person conversations interwoven through the episode and its
never-endingness.
Pragmatic criticism
Awareness of the nature and causes of involvement in the semantics and
syntactics is what we call "pragmatic criticism." Some groups express this
awareness with respect to the nature of their involvement in characters and
themes; others are aware of the ways in which the structure of the program
captures and occupies their imagination.
216
Critical abilities of televis ion viewers
The naturalness of the characters is remarked by a number of discussants,

particularly Americans. It is the awareness that the characters are acting
"themselves" - that it is very difficult to separate character from actor in the
ubiquitous genre of soap opera - that puts people in this particular kind of critical
mood. For example:
Janet This guy is such a jerk I really get mad. You know I always thought
that these women that saw actors and actresses in airports and called
them by their stage names or whatever was the last part they played
... but I honestly feel that if I saw this guy in the airport - I would
be tempted to tell him off - even knowing actually that this is a part
I would really like to ram him hard. (American Group #9)
Viewers are also aware of the way in which their involvement may result from
the similarities between family problems in the story and family problems of their
own . For example :
Eitan I would say that somehow we enjoy it because the problems the
Ewings have evoke some of the dark secrets which exist in every
family. I used to say that my family was a zoo until I discovered
that every family has different animals but everybody has a zoo at
home.
Helen If you will take your own family and create a series for us every
week ... I would not like to hurt you.
Eitan No, you don't hurt me. I agree with you, this is my own family zoo,
but I think every family has such zoos. (Kibbutz Group #80)
The genre, too, is recognized as a source of involvement. A number of
discussants mention the built-in compulsion to find out what will happen next
week or, better , to spend the week inventing possible solutions to last week's
problems or to next week's continuation. This participatory function is well
known from the earliest research on radio soap opera and, indeed, from literary
research on novels published in installments in popular magazines, such as
Dickens."
Altogether, the point of this pragmatic criticism is that it connects reflexively
between the text and the readers' definition of their own experiences or of their
roles. Thus, the ludic viewer fancies himself in the role of putative writer as well
as reader, or of a sports spectator placing bets on likely outcomes. Indeed, one
viewer called Dallas a game of "risk" and another called it a wrestling match.
More traditional viewers refuse to play games and insist that they are
viewing - licentiously perhaps - as persons with moral convictions that
predetermine their response to the program. The Arab groups, for example,
regularly speak of the program in terms of "we" and "they," and although this
polarity is by no means metalinguistic , it does imply a self-consciousness about
the "role of the reader." The following quote from Machluf makes the same
point:
217
Machluf You see I'm a Jew wearing a skullcap and I learned from this film
to say [quoting from Psalms] "Happy is our lot" that we're Jewish.
Everything about J.R. and his baby, who has maybe four or five
fathers, I don't know ... I see that they're all bastards. (Moroccan
Group #20)
The Japanese also explain their non-involvement in the program in terms of the
difference between the two cultures and in terms of their attitude toward
American society:" indeed, the incompatibility they experienced was enough to
dissuade them from viewing. As one non-viewer claims, the Japanese could have
been affected by the series "some years ago [when] Japanese had admired
American life and society." Now that they are more critical of the Americans they
see beyond the glamor into the violence within the family, and it only makes them
wary.
By contrast, the Russian and American viewers show their self-awareness in
the viewer role by explicitly excluding themselves from the kinds of effects that
they attribute to others. In pointing out the ideological manipulation they
perceive in the story, the Russians are saying that others, not themselves, will be
affected. Similarly, the Americans who insist that the program has no message or
moral for them are equally insistent that the rest of the world will misread Dallas
as an America full of neurotic people walking on streets paved with gold.
Conclusions
It should be reiterated, in conclusion, that these types of critical statements about
Dallas emerged in the course of focus-group conversations that did not require
discussants to use the critical register.P Indeed, the two more traditional groups
in our study volunteered only a small number of the sort of metalinguistic
statements we have analysed in this paper, and all six ethnic groups excepting the
Japanese talked more referentially than critically. It is important to note that even
the most critical groups speak referentially as well.
Critical reactions do not necessarily imply distance; indeed, some of them are
genuinely "hot" in the intensity of their involvement and, sometimes, outrage.
Indeed, the "coolest" kinds of critical framing - the syntactic statements - may
lower the barrier to the penetration of unchallenged messages. In this sense, the
Arabs and Russians are better "protected" than the Americans. When the Arab
groups speak critically, they express awareness of the politics of the program and
of a theme or message to which they are opposed; this parallels the "normative
opposition" of Arabs and Moroccans in the referential realm. Some Russian
groups go even further and perceive conspiracy; they think the producers may be
willfully distorting reality in order to influence us.
The Russians also reject the program on aesthetic grounds, by comparison
with the literary genres with which they are familiar. This "aesthetic opposition"
takes its place alongside "normative opposition."
218
Critical abilities of telev ision viewers
Table 11.3 Forms of opposition
Referential Critical
"Hot" moral ideological

"Cool" ludic aesthetic
It is worth noting, again, that the forms of opposition are diverse. Thus, moral
opposition may be either referential - when it accepts the message as reality,
gives it "standing," and argues with it - or it may be critical, when it betrays an
awareness of the (manipulative) construction of an ideological message. Indeed,
all critical statements - certainly including "aesthetic opposition" - may be
deemed oppositional in the sense of rejecting the referential reading." This may
clarify a confusion in some of the literature on oppositional readings."
The types of opposition may be presented schematically, by cross tabulating
the hot/cool dimension with the referential/critical. Thus, Table 11.3 shows that
the combination referential/hot may produce "moral opposition" to the content of
the programs while critical/hot, through awareness of the manipulative
construction of the message, may produce what we have called "ideological
opposition." Within the cool mode, referential/cool is associated with the ludic,
and critical/cool may produce "aesthetic opposition." Each of these forms of
opposition, as we have said , constitutes a different kind of "defense" against the
message of the program, and, by implication, as we have also noted, a different
form of vulnerability.
We have said at various points that each type of "opposition" may both defend
a viewer and cause her or him to be open to influence. Thus, moral defense is
based on giving a program standing, and so deeming it worthy of argument.
Ideological defense is vulnerable because it is based on automatic
transformations, as if to say that the opposite of the message is the truth .
Aesthetic defense risks letting the ideological message slip by, while the playful
escape of ludic defense may fail to bring one back to earth .
We wish to thank the Annenberg Schools. Inc. and the Hoso Bunka
Foundation for their support ofthisproject. Professor Sumiko Iwao collaborated
in collection and analysis ofthe Japanese data.partsofwhichare includedhere.
Notes
219 See Elihu Katz, "Communications Research Since Lazarsfeld ," PublicOpinion
Quarterly 51, no. 4; part 2 (winter 1987): 525-545.
2 R. Parkin, Class. Inequality and Political Order (London: MacGibbon & Kee,
1971); Stuart Hall, " Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse," in
Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis (eds) Culture,
Media, Language (London: Hutchinson, 1980), pp. 128-38; and David Morley,
The "Nationwide" Audience: Structure andDecoding (London: BritishFilm
Institute, 1980).
219
3 Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority ofInterpretive

Communities (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980); and Janice
Radway, Reading the Romance. Women, Patriarchy and Popular Literature
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984).
4 Philip Elliott, "Uses and Gratifications Research: A Critique and a Sociological
Alternative, " in J. Blumler and E. Katz (eds) The Uses ofMass Communication
(Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1974), pp. 249-68.
5 Umberto Eco, "Innovation and Repetition," Daedalus 114, no. 40 (fall 1985):
161-84.
6 W.R. Neuman, "Television and American Culture : The Mass Medium and the
Pluralist Audience," Public Opinion Quarterly 46 (1982): 471-87; and Hilde
Himmelweit, Betty Swift, and Marianne E. Jaeger, "The Audience as Critic," in P.
H. Tannenbaum (ed.), Entertainment Functions ofTelevision (Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 1983), pp. 67-106.
7 Sari Thomas and Brian P. Callahan, "Allocating Happiness: TV Families and
Social Class," Journal ofCommunication 32 (1982): 184-90.
8 The sample is in no sense "representative." It is too small, for one thing, and not
random in any formal sense. Informally, however, one can make a good case that
these are bona fide members of their respective subcultures.
9 Roman Jakobson, "Linguistics and Poetics," in DeGeorge and DeGeorge (eds)
The Structuralists: From Marx to Levi -Strauss (New York: Anchor Books , 1980),
pp.85-122.
10 Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz, "Patterns of Involvement in Television Fiction: A
Comparative Analysis," European Journal of Communication 1, no. 2 (1986):
151-72.
11 We coded every reply to the question "Why all the fuss about babies?" in terms of
types of babies ("story," "real," "dramatic") and types of functions ("inheritors ,"
"pleasure-givers," " tension-creators," etc.), paraphrasing statements or parts of
statements in the form of codeable nuclear sentences. Thus, the statement: "There
are a lot of problems around babies in such a family: the real identity of the baby,
sicknesses, kidnapping . Therefore around them there is a lot of scope for the
writer to build up a plot." This is coded: Drama babies function/or producers as
conflict. The average group provided some ten codeable replies. Japanese groups
could not be expected to answer questions about babies since they viewed only
the first episode, where the problem of babies does not yet exist.
12 As in the following example (American Group #4):
Donna Kids don't play an important part. The only time when you ever see them
is when the maid is carrying the baby off.
Sandi The babies play important roles only because of what revolves around
them.
13 Empirical observations lead us to this conclusion, which reinforces the idea that
sophistication may be defined as observation of one's more naive self. Eco, in
"Innovation and Repetition," in our opinion, makes too sharp a distinction
between the naive and the sophisticated.
14 We omit here the pragmatic domain, because our original coding was based only
on the semantic and the syntactic.
15 The semantic statements are "hotter" as we shall note again, and sometimes
include negative evaluations of the ideology of the theme or message, paralleling
the statements of normative opposition to the Ewings in the referential. The
former qualify as critical because of their explicit recognition that the program has
a theme or message.
16 For an analysis of these dimensions from the viewers' perspective see Sonia
220
Livingstone, "Viewers' Interpretations of Soap Opera: The Role of Gender, Power

and Morality" (paper presented at the International Television Studies Conference,
London, 1986).
17 See Sammy Samooha, "Between Two Cultures: How Jews and Arabs in Israel
Perceive Their Own Culture and Each Other's Culture" (paper presented at the
conference " Attitudes to Western Culture," The Van Leer Institute, Jerusalem,
1984).
18 Leslie Fiedler, What Was Literature? Mass Culture and Mass Society (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1982).
19 We coded all statements beginning with "the program/the story teaches us" or
"they - the writers/producers - are trying to show/tell us" as messages and marked
whether this message was manipulative or not.
20 Greg They [the producers] are trying to show a family; a family needs a strong
father image. Some of the programs they show today, so many today, are
without fathers anymore. That is not good for family entertainment, we need
a strong father figure holding everyone together. (American Group #16)
Janet Maybe they are trying to relate to the young people of today, who many of
them don't want children because it interferes with their selfish lives, to put
across that it is OK to want children, to say that you can care about yourself
and be selfish but you can have a child also. (American Group #3)
21 For an analysis of Sadat's televised visit to Jerusalem see Elihu Katz, Daniel
Dayan, and Pierre Motyl, "Television Diplomacy: Sadat in Jerusalem," in G.
Gerbner and M. Seifert (eds) World Communications (New York: Longmans,
1980), pp. 127-36; also Tamar Liebes, "Shades of Meaning in President Sadat's
Knesset Speech," Semiotica 48, no. 3/4 (1984): 229-65. For an analysis of an
American detective as the lone hero of a western, see BBC, Violence on
Television: Programme Content and Viewer Perception (London: BBC Audience
Research, 1972).
22 Biblical themes in the Dallas stories are discussed in Tamar Liebes and Elihu
Katz, "Dallas and Genesis: Primordiality and Seriality in Television Fiction," in
James Carey (ed.) Communications and Culture (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage,
1988), pp. 113-25.
23 David Thorburn, "Television Melodrama," in Horace Newcomb (ed.) Television-
The Critical View, (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982, 3rd
edn.), pp. 529-46.
24 Robin Dynasty, which I watch a lot of now, moves a little bit slower. You know,
with this one, if you really miss an episode you've got to try and figure
out what happened in between - unless you're able to talk to someone
else, 'cause there always is something going on, and Dynasty in
comparison the show moves a lot slower . (American Group #4).
25 Mary Mander, "Dallas: The Mythology of Crime and the Moral Occult," Journal
ofPopular Culture 171 (fall 1980): 44-8.
26 Michael J. Arlen, "Smooth Pebbles at Southfork,' in his Camera Age : Essays on
Television (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1980), pp. 38-50.
27 As Dallas is not broadcast in Japan, our Japanese participants were shown the first
episode of the series in which Bobby brings Pamela to Southfork after having
married her in secret. The new wife happens to be the daughter of the Barnes
family, the enemies of the Ewings.
28 Lynn They seem to have certain shows that are preliminary to other shows. I
guess they save the better shows until rating time (American Group #16).
29 The Russians are "literate." They read the title of the episode, for example, and
ask whether it is a good name for the story.
221
30 Herta Herzog, "What Do We Really Know About Daytime Serial Listeners?" in

Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Frank Stanton (eds) Radio Research 1942-1943 (New
York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1944), pp. 3-33; Wolfgang Iser, The Act ofReading :
A Theory ofAesthetic Response (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978).
31 As Kyoko puts it, "it might be the difference between meat-eating people and
grass-eating people. Europeans and Americans are war-like."
32 Except for "messages," which we decided to include, belatedly, among the critical
categories. But, as we have noted, the coding permits us to distinguish between
messages supplied in answer to our explicit query and those volunteered prior to
our putting of this question.
33 We note again that we are discussing statements, not people . Almost everybody
who makes oppositional statements in the critical frame also makes referential
ones.
34 In The "Nationwide" Audience, Morley makes the point, which we make in this
chapter, that his focus-group discuss ions of a television newsmagazine accepted
the ideology of the program even while they were critical of its aesthetics. Others
opposed the ideology while remaining uncritical of the construction. Morley was
thus surprised to learn that critical readings do not necessarily constitute a defense
against ideology.
222
Chapter twelve
"Don't treat us like we're so stupid and

na'ive":
Toward an ethnography of soap opera viewers
and Eva-Maria Warth
During the summer of 1986, the Tiibingen Soap Opera Project team conducted
twenty-six ethnographic interviews with viewers in western Oregon. The first
part of this paperplacesour study withinthe contextof recentethnographic work
on particularsocialaudiences of populartextsand describes our research design.
The second part gives a preliminary report of our analyses and is divided into
three sections: 1) soap operas in the contextof everyday life for women working
in the home; 2) how viewers constructthe soap opera as a text;and 3) a feminist
approachto the issueof genderand genre. Finally,we takea discursive approach
to the interviews conducted by Kreutzner, Warth,and Seiter in all-female groups
in our postscripton gendered discourse.
The ethnography of reading

Our study of Oregon soap opera viewers is indebted to recent work in the
"ethnography" of reading that has been done by David Morley and Janice
Radway. In The "Nationwide" Audience, Morley proposes a model for the
interaction of viewer and television text which challenges both the uses and
gratifications model, with its unlimited possibilities for individual responses to
the media,and the hypodermic needletheoryof massculture,withits ideological
overdetermination.' In "A Critical Postscript" to The "Nationwide" Audience,
publishedin 1981,Morley raises a numberof issuespertinentto our own study.'
Whereas the "Nationwide" study emphasized the influence of class as a para-
meterof culturaldecodings, the postscriptdraws attention to the investigation of
sex/gender as a crucial aspect in the production of meaning. As the work of
Charlotte Brunsdon suggests, the social category of gender is essential to an
understanding of the specific relationship between a generic form and gender-
specific cultural competences of viewers.' Morley's critical reassessment of
"Nationwide" also points to theoretical problems raised by ftctional texts. The
conceptof "preferredreading," which hasbeen developed in the contextof news
and current affairs television, raises a number of problems when applied to
fictionalforms. The hierarchy of discourses in television's ftctional textstends to
223
Ellen Seiter et al.
be more ambiguous, preventing narrative closure on all levels of the text, and thus
rendering the text more open to divergent meanings.
Another point of departure from Nationwide lies in Morley 's reformulation of
the notion of decoding, which is no longer conceived of as a single act of reading ,
but also as "a set of processes - of attentiveness, recognition of relevance, of
comprehension, and of interpretation and response.:" This conceptual shift is
closely related to a stronger emphasis on respondents' actual interlocutions as
primary "data" rather than, as in Nationwide, dealing only with the substance of
the viewers' responses. Morley suggests that specific meaning constructions can
only be accounted for by close attention to the linguistic form in which they are
expressed. In conclusion, Morley proposes an "ethnography of reading" which
would account for the cultural rules organizing individual diversities of a
basically social phenomenon .'
Janice Radway 's study of forty-two American women who are avid readers of
romances, Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and PopularLiterature,
starts from the premise that the popular appeal of a fictional text depends on the
recognition of its genre attributes. Radway sets out to "represent schematically
the geography of the genre as it is surveyed, articulated , and described by the
women themselves." By relying on empirical work - questionnaire responses
and intensive interviews - Radway avoids the pitfalls both of an older type of
formula criticism developed within popular culture studies and of the theoretical
assumption of the implied reader as used in models of reader-response criticism.
The value of this approach lies in its capacity to account for the affinities and
correspondences between a certain narrative style and the cultural competences
of a particular group of readers.
Conceived of as an ethnography, Radway 's book is not limited to the
exploration of text and genre. Locating her findings within the theoretical
frameworks furnished by feminist sociologist Nancy Chodorow and Marxist
critic Fredric Jameson , she concludes that women who purchase and read
romances use the act of reading to create their own space in the confining routines
of their daily lives as wives and mothers. Thus, reading romances provides the
women relief from the seemingly endless demands on them as nurturers . In more
general terms, the reading of romances implies a gesture of protest against the
strictures of their everyday lives within a patriarchal society. Radway's decision
to shift the emphasis of inquiry from the text itself to the social event of reading,
and to investigate this event through the application of ethnographic methods,
were influential on the design of our own research project. Like David Morley 's
recent work on television in the familial context, Family Television, Radway
offers the insight that in order to understand the meaning of popular culture, one
has to ask what it is that people are doing when they read or watch, and how they
themselves understand these activities.
In adapting Morley's and Radway 's work to a study of the soap opera, our
work focuses on a privileged object within television research. The genre 's
special status has a number of rather different sources. Thus the first empirical
224
broadcast media audience study, Herta Herzog's pioneer article "On Borrowed
Experience," investigated soap opera listeners," Textual analyses have frequently
centered on soap operas, which attract scholarly interest because of their
comparatively long history, their proliferation, and the special problems posed by
seriality and melodrama. Because they are broadcast daily, soap operas lend
themselves to an investigation of television in the context of the everyday. Since
the genre has been associated with an audience of women, it has attracted the
attention of feminist critics. This body of work has attempted to theorize the
construction of gender within the text and within the audience. Finally,
prime-time serials such as Dallas and Dynasty have become symbols of US
cultural imperialism, and the subject of study outside the United States. Within
the context of the problematic of culture and ideology, empirical audience studies
on US prime-time soap operas in other countries have attempted to come to terms
with cross-cultural readings of these shows.
The Oregon audience study

All of the interviews took place in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area of
western Oregon. The area is characterized by high unemployment (9.5 per cent
during the summer of 1986), relatively low per capita income ($7,302 per year),
and a predominantly white population (blacks making up only 1,618 of a county
population of 275,226; other minorities, mostly Chicanos (Hispanic-Americans),
Asians, and Indians, make up about 3 per cent of the total population). The largest
employer in Eugene is the University of Oregon; in Springfield it is the
Weyerhauser lumber mill, where the workers were on strike during most of the
interview period (a strike which ended with the workers giving up about $4 an
hour in wages and fringe benefits). Like the entire state of Oregon,
Eugene/Springfield has suffered from serious economic depression since the
1970s, due to its reliance on the lumber industry (which suffered from a drastic
fall in housing starts) and tourism (which suffered from the rise in gasoline
prices).
Between July 21 and August 16, 1986, we conducted a total of twenty-six
interviews. Each interview was carried out by two scholars of whom at least one
was German. Fifteen all-women groups were visited by a female research team.
All of our informants were white. Among the sixty-four participants were fifteen
men. Eleven informants were unemployed at the time of the interview. The large
number of unemployed men and women in our pool reflects our technique for
contacting informants - to run an ad. in the Help Wanted section of the Eugene
newspaper - and also reflects the economic depression which characterizes the
region. Because of the tendency in this kind of academic research to deal
predominantly with middle-class informants, and because of our interest in
working-class readings of soap operas, we welcomed this composition of our
informant pool. We judge our failure to contact any women or men of color for
the interviews, however, as a serious limitation of the study.
225
Ellen Seiter et al.
The text of our ad. ran, under the bold print headline SOAP OPERAS, as
follows: "We are writing a book and need to talk to people about soap operas. If
you and your family/friends watch them, we would like to interview you as a
group at your home ($5/hour per person). Please contact us at. ..." The
advertisement ran for three days; we were flooded with telephone calls. We asked
the callers what programs they were interested in, where they lived, and how
many friends or family members were available for an interview . Appointments
were arranged with callers, giving preference to those who could promise large
groups for the interview, to older respondents , and to callers who lived outside
the university area.
The groups ranged in size from two to nine participants . The interviews took
place at one informant's home and in the company of friends and family members
she had chosen for the purpose of the interview. While some audience studies
hire interviewers who are not involved later in the analysis of the transcripts and
tapes, we remained within the boundaries of the ethnographic method in that all
of the interviews were carried out by the four primary researchers on the project.
The informants impressed us as remarkably open and secure in the
uncontested and undisparaged status of their knowledge about soap operas . The
location of the interviews - the home of the informant who initially answered our
advertisement in the newspaper - added to the sense of comfort. This also
allowed us to gather more information about the informants by observing the
domestic surroundings, which were carefully noted immediately after the
interview. The ethnographic concern with speech was facilitated by the cultural
difference between informants and interviewers (since at least one of the two
interviewers was German). The definition of slang expressions, the identity of
characters and actors, the description of the shows, and reviews of past plot
events could be elicited from a believable (and often factual) non-initiate position
that created less defensiveness from the informants, who were in a position , as
members of the culture and authorities on US television, to speak to the
'foreigners' with competence and expertise.
In the first minutes of each interview we explained that US prime-time shows
such as Dallas or Dynasty, but no daytime soap operas, are shown on German
television, and that the goal for the German members of the team was to learn
about soap operas while visiting the United States. The informants usually were
not at all surprised to hear about the success of Dallas or Dynasty in West
Germany, but frequently expressed some pity for German viewers deprived of
daytime soap operas," Most of our informants assumed from our ad. that we were
interested in talking about daytime programs, and hesitated to discuss prime-time
serials until they were assured of our interest.
Questions cfmethodology
The author of the leading textbook on ethnographic methods defines ethnography
as "the work of describing a culture."? Ethnographers working within
226
anthropology emphasize " the native po int of view" or the "ideational

orientation," that is "the importance of understanding any given group 's lifeways
by discovering the learned systems of meaning by which it is structured. "?
Television audience studies , even when they use ethnographic or qualitative
methods, have not satisfied the requirements of ethnography proper, and our own
study is no exception. While ethnographies are based on long-term and in-depth
field work, most television audience studies have involved only brief periods of
contact, in some cases less than one hour, with the informants. Also, while
ethnographic methods have traditionally been used to study culture as a whole,
television researchers study only one aspect of a culture when using this method
and attempt to relate it to social identity." Ethnographic audience studies share,
however, ethnography's basic interest in an empirical investigation of cultural
practices as lived experiences.
Recently, hermeneutic and discursive approaches to the study of culture have
led to a fundamental critique of the epistemological, theoretical, and political
assumptions implied in the concept of ethnography as "the work of describing a
culture." As the title of James Clifford's seminal article indicates, "ethnographic
author ity" has increasingly come under scrutiny." Of particular importance in
our context is the critical challenge to traditional ethnography's implicit
insistence on scholarly experience as an unproblematic source and ultimate
guarantee of knowledge about a specific culture or cultural process. Today, there
is an increasing tendency within ethnography to reject "colonial representations,"
i.e. "discourses that portray the cultural reality of other peoples without placing
their own reality into jeopardy.?" Such a position does not only apply to
e thnographic accounts of "other" cultures, but is also significant on an
intracultural level. Audience studies are carried out by academics with specific
social and cultural backgrounds, who "go out in the field" to learn about the uses
and understandings of groups of viewers with social and (sub)cultural
backgrounds usually different from their own. This means that the differences
and similarities between participants and scholars in terms of class, gender, race,
culture or subculture, educational background, age, etc. have to be reflected.
These aspects will inevitably be at work in the exchange between interviewer and
interviewee, and, as we shall try to show, they will shape the understandings and
meanings produced in this situation."
The following sections of our chapter present preliminary reports on our analyses
of the interviews." In the first section, "Soap operas and everyday life ,"
Eva-Maria Warth describes the way soap operas serve to organize time in the
context of everyday life, especially housework. In the second section, "Text and
genre," Hans Borchers discusses the various ways in which viewers define and
describe the soap opera as text and as genre. Ellen Seiter and Gabriele Kreutzner,
in "Resisting the place of the ideal mother," compare women's readings of the
soap opera with the feminine subject position which critics see "inscribed" in the
soap opera text.
227
Ellen Seiter et al.
Soap operas and everyday life

(Eva-Maria Warth)
It was above all the work performed at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural
Studies at Birmingham and by Hermann Bausinger at the Department for
Empirical Cultural Studies at the University of Tubingen which drew attention to
the necessity of analysing media experience in its social context. According to
this approach, the construction of the meaning of television and its programs is a
social process that occurs within the everyday interactions of the home and the
workplace. The question of how the media take part in structuring and organizing
everyday life is inextricably related to the question of what meaning viewers give
to a certain media product, in our case, the soap opera. What is important here,
however, is the relationship between the levels of the general and the concrete:
while soap operas certainly do belong to everyday life for those who watch them,
individual routines differ remarkably according to class, gender, and age.
This section concentrates on the ways in which soap operas intersect with the
everyday lives of women working in the home. While our study turned out to be
rich in material on the interrelationship between the social condition of house-
wives and the soap opera discourse, this section focuses mainly on how our
informants describe the ways in which media schedules influence and intersect
with the temporal organization of their work. We will begin with a brief historical
outline of the mass media's implications for the organization of time in the dom-
estic sphere. The media's function in the context of the rationalization of house-
work will then serve as a backdrop for our informants' accounts of how their
viewing is fitted in between the demands of housework and their need for leisure.
In his influential study "Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism,"
E. P. Thompson proposes that temporal organization must be analysed
historically in terms of its relation to the production process." His study shows
that the revolution in the experience of time in the nineteenth century was not
limited to the production process proper, but rather influenced all aspects of life.
Training in time discipline was reinforced by rationalization efforts in the
industry at the beginning of this century, which also produced changes in the time
organization of the domestic sphere. The subjugation of the sphere of
reproduction to time patterns similar to those of the production sphere resulted in
a rigidity typical of the workplace.
These changes were of special importance for women, for whom the home
primarily represents a place of work rather than a sphere of leisure, as it usually
is for men. Despite the interdependency of the spheres of production and
reproduction, housework is still surrounded by a discourse of naturalness, which
renders it universal and timeless . In this context, housework is theorized as
determined by natural time cycles, as a sphere of autonomy which resists
industrial time economy.
It is the achievement of Gisela Bock and Barbara Duden to have countered
such ideologies of naturalness by theorizing housework in economic and
228
historical terms." They show how Taylorism, which initiated the rationalization
process in the US in the 1920s, grew to encompass the sphereof reproduction as
well. This extension of rationalization to the home was seen as a prerequisite for
workplace efficiency. According to the new principles of scientific management,
housework appeared irrational and unstructured. The separation of planning and
execution of daily work was seen as the most important requirement in the
process of restructuring. Housework was no longer theorized as relying on the
natural skills of women, but was conceived of as a "science" which neededto be
studied. If on the one hand this implied an upgrading of housework, it
simultaneously surrendered housework to a male discourse, which from then on
was assigned final authority in questions of child rearing and household
management. Radio, and especially daytime soap operas, which were designed
for a specifically female audiencein the 1930s, playeda vital part in this process.
Informative programs on household management as well as other women's
programssuch as the soapopera dealt,respectively, with practical and emotional
problems encountered by women working in the home. In addition, theregularity
of the broadcast supported the effortstoward efficiency and rationalization which
were introduced via daily schedules, e.g. distinct time structures which were
modelled in accordance with the production process. The schedules of radio and
television were not arbitrary, but were designed in accordance with certain
structures created by housework itself. The schedules thereby became
synchronized and tied into a well-defined and "universal" schedule. Lesley
Johnson describes this process:
In the promotion of radio as the constant companion to the housewife,
programmers had adapted their timetables to the imagined patterns of a
woman's life. Through this process radio stations set out to regulatethe work
and rhythms of daily life of all women to this pattern. So similarly did radio
strive to control the domestic lives of all members of the community in the
attempt to time-table their listening according to strict, reliableschedules. IS
Although the hour or two of soap opera watching represents a fixed point in the
daily schedule for most of our informants, there were significant differences in
the way women reconciled this fixed pattern to their obligations and needs.
Soap opera viewing raises the problem of female pleasure and its place in
women's lives. Housewives especially are not usually granted a right to
relaxation, since housework is constructed as a potentially endless task. Nancy
Chodorow has drawn attention to the "fundamental asymmetry in daily
reproduction. Men are socially and psychologically reproduced by women, but
women are reproduced (or not) largely by themselves.?'? The problem of
women's reproduction is aggravated by the fact, noted by Ann Gray, that "the
domestic sphere is increasingly becoming defined as their only leisure space.'?"
The lack of a clear spatialdemarcation between workand leisure therefore makes
it even more complicated for women to assign a comfortable space for
themselves and to reconcile their own needs with the needs of others.
229
Ellen Seiter et al.
For women in the home, leisure activities such as watching television must be
viewed as complementary to work. The practices of soap opera viewing and their
evaluation may be seen as women's attempts to resolve contradictions inherent
in domestic work. In this context, television reveals the constraints of housework
as unpaid labor (which accounts for the absence of regulated leisure time).
In our study we observed significant differences in our informants' patterns of
soap opera engagement and their evaluation of viewing as a habit. These
differences seem to be closely connected to the way in which the organization of
their work allows for or excludes the possibility of leisure time . These
organizational patterns correspond closely to Ann Oakley's findings in her
seminal study, The Sociology of Housework." Oakley differentiates between
women who perform their household duties according to set standards and
routines and those who do not. The work patterns of the first group show the
effects of the industrialization of"domestic" time in the attempt to impose a sense
of rationality, efficiency, and security on a potentially endless and typically
frustrating activity. Those of our informants who fit this first category used soap
operas as a fixed point in time around which daily tasks are organized: "I
schedule all my activities in the morning so that I'm home in the afternoon to
watch my shows." Household duties are planned and timed according to the
television schedule: "I go out and fix casseroles for supper and throw them in the
oven between two and three o'clock, you know, so I don't miss them [the soaps]."
In the context of this kind of household management, which is subjected to
norms of efficiency and rational organization, soap operas may be more easily
regarded as a reward, as a well-earned moment of leisure which is enjoyed
without guilt:
55 What I try to do is get everything I want to do done before that time.

Then 1 don't feel guilty if! sit down and watch them.... I like to
get up in the morning and get done what 1 figure I should do and
then that's my relaxing time. It's just to sit down for a few hours.
One woman in her fifties very self-confidently described the way she defends her
soap opera pleasure against social obligations and the needs of others :
MD People know not to call me between 12.30 and 3.00 unless it's a
dire emergency . If it's really something, they can call me at 1.30.
Cause Capitol is on and I don't really watch it. .. . All of my friends
know, do not call at that time. My husband ... if he comes in he's
very quiet and just goes right on out.
The pleasure of undistracted and concentrated viewing, which Charlotte

Brunsdon has described as a mode of viewing associated with power (and thus
with male viewing patterns) is made possible for these women by adapting their
work to principles associated with the sphere of production and thus paid for by
a submission to the norms of male discourse.
230
While most of our informants would consider undivided viewing the ideal
mode of soap opera reception, the women who belong to the second group - those
who do not adhere to a strict routine - experience this pleasure only as a rare
luxury. One of these informants could afford a soap opera "treat" only during a
time which for many women is associated with guilt-free indulgence : "I used to
sit, especially when I was pregnant, to sit three hours and watch TV. . . . I can't
do that any more." The women who do not tightly structure their housework,
either because domestic circumstances do not allow it (e.g. the presence of small
children in the household) or because it is not their style, must constantly struggle
to reconcile their need for leisure with conflicting obligations: "I turn it on when
I can, if I'm in the kitchen, I turn the TV on ... I'm usually cooking dinner or
making the kids' lunch or something."
If soap operas cannot be aligned with special household chores demanding
little concentration, the soap opera text becomes reduced to what can be heard
while working in different parts of the house: "I listen to them, honest to God, I
never sit! The voices ... I keep it punched [keep the volume up]." Viewing in this
case becomes highly selective and is restricted to moments of high dramatic
impact, as the following quote from another viewer suggests:
RG I'll clean, but I'll have the TV on so I can hear it ... if you can hear
what's going on .. . like, you know, if there is a good fight or
something going on, I always run in here and turn off the water and
then sit in here and watch what's going on.
The conflict between household demands and the pleasures of soap opera
viewing is one aspect which may account for the ambivalent attitude some of
these women have toward their habit of viewing. The underlying sense of guilt
("I realized that I'm not getting anything done") which accompanies viewing for
women in the second group may have contributed to the different kinds of
relationships they established with us as interviewers compared to the first group.
Those women who presented themselves as untroubled by conflicts over
housework tended to remain rather formal and distant in the interview situation
and tended to address us mainly in terms of our roles as academics . In contrast to
this attitude, the informants belonging to the second group often quickly
transformed the interview into the scenario of an intimate confession. We were
frequently treated as confidantes, with the expectation that we would be
sympathetic to the pleasures of soap opera viewing and understanding of the
troublesome consequences these pleasures were reported to have in terms of
neglected household work.
These differences in viewing behavior suggest that the conditions under which
soap operas are watched differ even for women in similar situations, i.e. those
working in the home, and they have considerable influence over selectivity,
attention, and involvement with soap opera programs.
231
Ellen Seiter et al.
Text and genre

(Hans Borchers)
The decision to do an audience study pertaining to an entire genre of television
programming distinguishes our approach from other soapoperaaudiencestudies
which focus on a specific show or a single episode. Examples of this type of
research are the studies ofIen Ang and of Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes. Ang's
Warching "Dallas" was inspired by the reception of the prime-time soap opera
in Holland. Apart from her concentration on one show, Ang's approach differs
methodologically from ours. Ang did not actually see and interview her inform-
ants, instead she used letters from viewers, written in response to an ad. in a
women's magazine. The audience research done by Katz and Liebes focuses on
a single episode.P Their interview sessions werecenteredon the showing of this
episode which the authors then encouraged their informants to discuss. The
project's concern with specific decoding processes of different cultural groups
necessitated the restriction to one episodein orderto allow forcomparison. Using
only a "slice of the text" as the basis of their investigation does not, however,
provide insights into the specific nature of the reception of a potentially endless
serial program.
In contrastto the work of Katz and Liebes,our researchemphasizes meaning
negotiations and specific forms of interaction generated by soapoperasas a genre
per se; a restriction of the textual base would have been a serious limitation.
Therefore we did not rely on reactions to one episode, but rather identified the
text with theexperience of soap operasas our viewersdescribed it on the basisof
their individual exposure to the genre (length of viewing period, regularity,
choice of programs, etc.), Thisapproach allowedfor the determination of the text
from the perspective of the viewer,who tendsto discusssoap opera narratives in
terms of plotlines, rather than in terms of individual episodes. The narrative
material resulting from the interviews therefore provides insights into the way
selections are madeduringthe interaction withthe genrein its entirety. Whileour
approach is less often revelatory of the meanings attributed to smaller segments
of text, it generates a great deal of information on how viewers perceivethe soap
opera generically.
It is in termsof sucha comprehensive understanding of thesoapoperatext that
our interview material bears on recent theoretical studies. One of the most
significantpoints such studies have made is the identification of the soap opera
text as a fictional narrative governed by certain aesthetic and generic rules.
Robert C. Allen's book Speaking ofSoap Operas is exemplary of this approach
in that it develops a strong argument against the notion that soap operas are
representations of real life. Allenemphasizes the form's textuality, its identityas
a fictional and narrative construct, and henceits inherentsimilarity to literaryand
film genres.One majorconsequence of addressing the soap opera as an aesthetic
constructis to take its full dimensions into account, to acknowledge it as a "huge
232
meta-text," a saga which, in some cases, has taken shape over the course of
several decades."
No television critic can possibly claim to be in control of this kind of text - as
opposed to the literary or film critic whose texts tend to be much more
manageable. The soap opera viewer's position in relation to the text is similar to
the critic's but not identical with it. Although the textual knowledge and genre
competence of the habitual viewer are, generally speaking, of a higher order than
those of the television scholar, her or his reading will remain at best an
approximation of the total text The point is that the nature of soap operas as
"huge meta-texts" necessitates, be it in smaller or in larger measure, selectivity.
If the awareness of one's necessarily fragmentary actualization of the text is a
groundrule for watching soap operas, the question arises: how do people cope
with the soap opera text's gigantic dimensions and characteristic elusiveness?
Our informants were aware of the impossibility for a single person to grasp fully
the text of a soap opera. They freely admitted that, for one reason or another, their
readings were incomplete; they even took this incompleteness for granted . A
woman who no longer owns a television set told us: "Now, see, I don't even have
a TV. I haven't watched for two months, three months, and I still know what's
going on." Such a claim shows that the concept of text entertained by viewers
differs to a remarkable degree from what the standards of a traditionally print-
oriented culture tend to define as "the text." Because of the vicissitudes of their
personal circumstances, working careers, and everyday lives, even the most loyal
fans are perfectly aware that at best they only have a very sketchy notion of the
text in its totality.
What we found in our interviews over and over again was that soap opera texts
are the products not of individual and isolated readings but of collective con-
structions - collaborative readings, as it were, of small social groups such as
families, friends, and neighbors, or people sharing an apartment, Most viewers
report that they have made it a habit to rely on other people in order to compen-
sate for gaps in their comprehension. One woman admitted she usually falls
asleep during her soap opera hour. She can afford to because her daughter, who
watches the show with her, will be there to tell her about the episode when she
wakes up at the end of the hour: "I feel like all I've got to do if I want to know
something is ask Shauna and she'll fill me in." Another woman reported that she
called a friend in Los Angeles to tell her about the love-affair between Victor and
Nicki in The Young and theRestless. Sometimes women watch the show together
over the phone: "I'll call Christie, the other girl who watches it [All My Children]
and we'll sit on the phone and watch it together and talk about everything as it's
happening."
Since viewing a soap opera is an activity which often extends over many
years, relying on another, more experienced viewer becomes standard practice
for the neophyte. Those informants who talked about their earliest encounters
with soap operas very often conceived of this process in terms of an initiation
233
Ellen Seiter et al.
they underwent under the supervision of a more knowledgeable viewer, usually

their mothers. Here is a typical version of this initiation story:
LMo My mother is the one that got me hooked on soap operas. It was a
long time ago. She used to watch them as a kid, when she was in
college. And so a long time ago, when I was at home, helping to
take care of my younger brother, and she'd be home sometime
during the day, working, and she'd tum on the soap operas and so
I'd ask her who these people were. And she can give me a whole
run-down history twenty years ago.
If calling upon the familial and social networks for support in the formidable task
of keeping track and making sense of their shows is one way of coping with the
text, the strategy of a deliberately selective reading is another. Since our lack of
familiarity with some of the shows quickly became obvious to our informants,
they often volunteered to give plot summaries. What these summaries reveal is
the soap opera viewer's ability to discriminate between subjectively attractive
and unattractive storylines, and to concentrate on those segments of the text
which they find personally most satisfying. A 34-year-old woman was very
outspoken in describing her technique of separating, as she put it, the fillers from
the meat:
LMa They introduce like maybe three plotlines, and then, usually there is
one that thrills, you know, you're dying to find out what's going on,
and the other two are fillers, and I'll skip through the conversation
ones. I do that a lot on SantaBarbara. Like, "OK, come on, let's
just ...," you know. I'll skip to the meat, you know.
Many of our informants mentioned this habit of focusing on a particular storyline
instead of attempting to keep abreast of the whole complicated plot structure of a
soap opera. Some reported using video recorders for the express purpose of
cutting out segments they classified as unexciting or meaningless. A 24-year-old
college student told us that he regularly watched four soap operas and that in
order to keep track of all the stories, he would borrow a tape from his next-door
neighbor whenever he couldn't watch his shows in the afternoon:
MM So I can just go over at night if I want to time it. You can watch a
whole show in a half an hour, easy. Oh yeah! Zap through all the
commercials, zap through all the meaningless scenes where nothing
happens or no dialogue .
Assembling a condensed version of the text requires, of course, a thorough and
sophisticated knowledge of the genre. We found that our viewers not only
possessed expert textual knowledge , they were also very much aware of the
poetic and generic rules that govern soap opera programs. Often informants
explained to us the basic elements of the genre as well as the precise manner in
which these elements ,arc introduced and orchestrated, as in the following
account:
234
RG They 'll have one group of people that's really suspenseful . .. like a
murder that's going on and they're investigating it . . . or there's
some juicy affair . ... And they're always introducing people that
have got a deep secret. And you want to find out what the hell the
secret is. . . .They always introduce new characters, you know, like
somebody new comes to town and somebody else is all upset about
it and they go "but why?" and then all of a sudden that son comes
along that's illegitimate, that so and so doesn't know about, and that
kind of stuff.
Generally speaking, we found that viewers have a strong sense of the

constructedness of soap operas, of the essential artificiality of their favorite
program. Not only did viewers frequently talk about and criticize the people who
make soap operas (especially writers), they also commented on the conventions
that rule and structure the shows. Their genre competence comes in many
disguises. It was apparent in the complaint that writers cancel and replace
characters too facilely, in the sober assessment of the cycles soap opera plots go
through in the course of a year relative to the ratings sweeps weeks, as well as in
the often-reported practice of predicting future plot developments - what
Charlotte Brunsdon has called, "the pleasure of hermeneutic speculation.'?'
Another aspect of their generic competence was the informed and mostly
negative opinion the majority of our interviewees expressed about prime-time
soap operas. Since we encouraged them to talk about prime -time television , they
offered a whole assortment of critiques of Dallas, Dynasty, Knots Landing, and
other prime-time shows. With the exception of a few viewers who voiced their
impatience with a certain dragging on of storylines on daytime soaps, the large
majority expressed their preference for the daytime variety of the genre.
Prime-time soap operas were judged as too glittery and expensive-looking; our
informants complained that they don 't deal with "the normalcy of people."
Others resented the rich veneer of prime-time soaps, their "mega-buck
characters," especially the actress Joan Collins ("She makes more in one day than
I've made in my whole life"). For many, prime-time soap operas belong to a
different category altogether. One viewer said he likes "the soaps better
than Dallas and Falcon Crest"; another told us that "the soaps are more laid
back , they 're not made for nights," and a third viewer remarked that although
she watches daytime and prime-time soaps, the prime-time variety is "not as
hooky ." Most of our viewers expressed their loyalty to the daytime soaps and
tended to be very conscious of the differences between the original thing and the
spin-off.
Alongside their generic expertise, their discrimination and critical distance,
our informants also evinced the seemingly contradictory impulse to permit the
fiction to spill over into their real lives and social worlds. Most of them told us
they were bound to the characters on their show by feelings of intimacy. They
sometimes referred to them as friends with whom they talked, laughed, cried, and
235
Ellen Seiter et al.
suffered. Here is a young woman who resented her boyfriend's lack of

understanding when she cries over the characters on her show:
DL Yeah, and the old man comes home and he'll say: "God, why do
you get so involved with it It's just TV!" [Changes her voice]
"Yeah, but you don't know them like I do, you know, they're like
my friends." He don't understand.
Another woman, who lives with her ageing mother, took the trouble of typing out
an account of the two "most memorable, moving scenes I've seen on soap
operas," in response to our post-interview questionnaire. Her account amounts to
a highly personal reaction to the deaths of two characters on Days of Our Lives
and Another World.
The pleasure our viewers derive from their appreciation of the text's
fictionality does not prevent them from getting personally involved in the text -
and, by extension, from experiencing soap operas as texts which are relevant to
social reality . Our interview with a group of four viewers provided an example of
the coexistence of both attitudes toward the soap opera text. While one group
member argued that a soap opera is "just a TV show," another claimed that "they
do set moral standards" and that "there are people that really do believe those
things. " He continued to substantiate his point by establishing an analogy
between Phoebe's disapproval of Tad and Hilary's affair on All My Children and
his own great aunt's severe standards in sexual matters - standards from which
he himself and his girlfriend had suffered .
It seems, then, that the soap opera text, not least because of the strong need it
creates for collaborative readings, has considerable potential for reaching out into
the real world of the viewers. It enables them to evaluate their own experiences
as well as the norms and values they live by in terms of the relationship patterns
and social blueprints the show presents. It is important to remember, however,
that this is only one side of the text's appeal. Our women informants appreciated
the notorious Erica Kane of All My Children because of the remarkable success
she enjoys in her personal life and her career, and it became clear that they tend
to see her as a model applicable to their own private situations and to the social
roles they were themselves involved in. At the same time, they took great
pleasure in the very unreality and fictional constructedness of the storylines Erica
was often a part of. When a particularly outlandish tum in the plot required Erica
to walk through the jungle for three days, they commented : "It's unreal that she
would look like that after three days of not washing her hair and. ... But they had
her that way so . . . it was kind of funny! That's part of it, that it's fun to watch
that!"
Our viewers' appreciation of both aspects of the Erica Kane character points
to the divergent ways in which the soap opera text may elicit gratification. It also
testifies to the ability of experienced viewers to commute with considerable ease
between a referential and a purely fictional reading - even if these readings
236
appear to be mutually exclusive. The evidence our interview material contains

leads us to conclude that, whilethe text has the potential of addressing its readers
on a levelof socialengagement, its principal appealis undoubtedly to theirgenre
competence, senseof criticaldistance, and enjoyment of the sheerplayfulness of
fiction.
Resisting the place of the "ideal mother"

(Ellen Seiter and Gabriele Kreutzner)
In her influential analysis of the daytime soap opera, Tania Modleski describes
the woman's position as a readerinscribed in the text in theseterms:
The subject/spectator of soap operas, it could be said, is constituted as a sort
of ideal mother, a person whopossesses greaterwisdom thanall her children,
whose sympathy is large enough to encompass the conflicting claims of her
family (sheidentifies with them all), and whohas no demands or claimsof her
own (she identifies with no one character exclusively)."
The soap operavillainess maymakeit difficult for viewers to assume this female
position comfortably, for they may find that she acts out their own, largely
hidden, desires for poweralthough at the sametime theyfeel theymustcondemn
and despise her. The model Modleski uses is Freudian: "The extreme delight
viewers apparently take in despising the villainess testifies to the enormous
amount of energy involved in the spectator's repression and to her (albeit
unconscious) resentment at being constituted as an egoless receptacle for the
suffering of others."26
Modleski offersno possibility for conscious resistance to the soapopera text:
the spectator position is conceived of in terms of a perfectly "successful" gender
socialization entirely in keeping with a middle-class (and white) feminine ideal.
The desire to watch soap operas comes from a kind of repetition compulsion
brought about by the conflict between the ideal mother position of feminine
passivity and the villainess's expression of real but hidden fantasies of power.
Robert C. Allen has suggested that this work poses a problem in that "although
Modleski seems to presentthe mother/reader as a textually inscribed position to
be takenup by whoever theactualreaderhappens to be, she comescloseat times
to conflating the twO."27
In our description of those Oregon interviews conducted within all-female
groups, we wouldlike to take Modleski'sconceptof the textual position offered
by the soap operasas a starting point. While this position was partially taken up
by some of our middle-class, college-educated informants, it was consciously
resisted and vehemently rejected by most of the women we interviewed,
especially by working-class women. The relationship between viewer and
character more typically involved hostility - in the case of some of the
presumably sympathetic characters - as well as fond admiration - for the
supposedly despised villainesses.
237
Ellen Seiter et al.
Strongly held preferences for individual characters and dislikes for others
prevented the ideal mother position as Modleski describes it from ever being
fully taken up. Sympathy for characters was mentioned only rarely, while
outrage, anger, criticism, or a refusal to accept a character's problems was
frequently expressed. The women we interviewed showed a conscious,
full-fledged refusal of the narrative's demand for sympathy and understanding.
This refusal was fueled by the recognition of a gaping class difference between
the comfortable professional lives of the television characters and the difficult
financial situations in which many of our informants often find themselves . The
fact that women characters on soap operas usually bear no visible responsibility
for childcare and housework increased this resentment. It is not the villainess
whom these working-class informants despise - it is the woman who suffers
despite her middle-class privileges , a character type they call the "whiner," or the
"wimpy woman."
The "whiner" came up repeatedly in our interviews with a group of six
women, the mother MP, her three daughters, and their female room-mates, all of
whom lived next door to each other in Springfield, worked at minimum-wage
jobs (newspaper delivery, bartending) and helped operate M's home telephone
answering service. What is most irritating and infuriating about the "whiner" is
her passivity , her dependence on men, her failure to take care of herself. While
reconstructing the storyline around the character of Rick Webber, one of General
Hospital's doctors , his wife, television journalist Jeannie Webber, was discussed
by the group:
DI And now he married Jeannie and all she does is cry and whimper,
that's all she does.
MT I don't like her either!
DI She don't do nothing! I mean she cries about her son, she cries
about her job, she cries about her baby, she cries about everything.
MT She cries when she makes love, I think.
DI She cries all the time! She's a wimpy woman!
Both They can take her off! She 's a wimpy woman!
Among a group of middle-class women in their fifties who worked at home, we
found another hostile rejection of a sympathetic character who herself acts like
an ideal mother:
MD Like Karen on KnotsLanding, the neighbor that you'd like to
choke. I mean she's a little busybody. She's always going around
and telling everyone what to do and what they should do. And
sympathizing .
This remark is especially interesting because Karen comes under attack
specifically for her feminine qualities, such as sympathizing with others.
In a group consisting of a woman in her thirties, JS, and her mother-in-law,
two foster-daughters, a cousin, and a friend and neighbor, the women discussed
238
their feelings for the villainesses on their favorite shows. All of the women
commented on their preference of strong villainesses; the younger respondents
expressed their pleasure in and admiration for the powerful female characters
who were also discussed in terms of transgressing the boundaries of a traditional
pattern of resistance for women within patriarchy . The pattern here of finishing
each other's sentences was typical of many of our interviews with all-female
groups :
LD Yeah, they can be very vicious [Laughs] - the females can be very
vicious . . .
JS Seems like females have more of an impact than the males.
SW and they have such a ...
TM conniving . . .
SW brain! Yeah! [Laughter]
LD They're sneaky!!! Yeah!
SW They use their brain more .. . [Laughter] instead of their body!
They manipulate, you know!
Tania Modleski 's work suggests that the only outlet for female aggression and
anger on the soap opera is the character of the villainess. Drawing on
psychoanalytic theory, Modleski argues that female aggression is repressed and
is symbolically taken up, played out, and neutralized in the character of the
villainess. Our respondents, however, expressed love and admiration for these
powerful female transgressors. For them, one of the pleasures of soap opera
viewing consists in targeting certain characters as objects of their own verbal
aggressions. KK and JH, two college-educated women sharing a house and
making their living from organizing adult education courses, put it this way:
JH A lot of times we just get caught up in it, and [we go] "Oh you
bitch" or something .. .
KK Yeah, it's a good cathartic kind of thing, you know, because, we can
just kind .. . one creep Waide comes on, you know, and we go:
"Yeah , I hate you, this is stupid ," you know, so we get out a lot of
stuff ...
These women explained their own viewing in terms of their interest in eastern
philosophy and psychotherapeutic work. The pleasure in working out
aggressions, however, seemed to be extremely important for many of our
viewers. In another interview, KH, a 35-year-old woman employed doing clerical
work for a cottage-industry record business expressed her enjoyment in taking
unrestricted aggression toward a male character:
KH We should have Jodie here, she's fourteen years old, and she and I
just get We
KH so excited
should talking OneLife to Live . . .
abouthere,
have Jodie
DH Yeah, Jodie yells at them, I don't. [Turns to KH] You sit there and
yell at them!
239
Ellen Seiter et al.
KH Oh, I do! .. . Especially when that ugly guy was on General

Hospital, and he played two parts ...
DR Oh, Grant!
KH Grant and somebody . .. who was his own twin ...
DR She hated Grant!
KR And I hated him! I hated him, the original one, and then when they
came up with a twin, and I had to see him again, in another part, I
just screamed at him: "Where's your forehead," you know, I just
hated him!
DR . .. and he was ... he was in Eugene, and a friend of hers saw him
and she wanted to run out and say: "Please, can I have your
autograph, my friend hates you!" I love that! Isn't that great?
Aggression was not limited to the actors, but extended to the scriptwriters as well,
for slowing down the storylines and underestimating the viewer's intelligence, as
MT expressed it: "just don't drag them out and don't treat us like we're so stupid
and naive, you know! Like I said: I don't like to figure out stuff myself: keep me
hanging , too."
Most women have an ambivalent relationship to the narratives: enjoying the
suspense but conscious of being manipulated by the story, made to wait for plot
developments. And while some women enjoyed successfully predicting plot
developments, for MT (who works for minimum wage), scriptwriters have ajob
to do, one they get paid a lot of money for, and they should be better at it than she
is, i.e. able to provide her with surprises. Like MT, a number of women felt they
could write soap operas themselves, if given a chance.
In our interviews, female anger was far less repressed than the Freudian model
of the feminine subject or Modleski's textual position allows for. In their
interaction with the fictional world of the soap opera, women openly and
enthusiastically admitted their delight in following soap operas as stories of
female transgressions which destroy the ideological nucleus of the text - the
sacredness of the family. In a follow-up interview with JS and SW, both
expressed their partisanship for female transgressions of the holy law of marriage
in cases where the (fictitious) situation seemed to become unbearable for the
female character. Both said their husbands disapproved of this attitude:
SW But there's lots of times where you want the person to dump the
husband and go on with this ...
JS Oh, Bruce [hzr husband] gets so angry with me when I'm watching
the show and they're married and I'm all for the affair. [Laughter]
It's like, it's like [Voice changes to imitate Bruce]: "I don't like
this, I don't know about you" [Laughter] . .. [and I say] "Dump
him II!"
Both women explained to us that they strongly favored the breakup of soap opera
marriages in cases where the husband neglected the wife, and drew explicit
connections to their own situations:
240
SW He gets mad at me, but . .. it does justify the reason for her [if the
husband neglects the wife], I'm all for it . . . think where you're
saying: pay more attention!
JS Right! See, this happens to you if you don't pay attention to me!
These quotations indicate a vast gap between the model of the passive feminine
subject inscribed in the text and our women viewers who fail to assume the
position of the all-understanding (and therefore powerless) spectators of textual
construction. The "successful" production of the (abstract and "ideal") feminine
subject is restricted and altered by the contradictions of women's own
experiences. Class, among other factors, plays a major role in how our
respondents make sense of the text. The experience of working-class women
clearly conflicts in substantial ways with the soap opera's representation of a
woman's problems, problems some women identified as upper or middle-class.
This makes the limitless sympathy that Modleski's textual position demands
impossible for them. The class discrepancy between textual representation and
their personal experience constituted the primary criticism of the programs. Let's
return to our conversation with MP and her daughters:
MP The one thing I guess I don't really care about in the soaps is that
.. . they're playing all the women as being career-oriented and, ah,
making lots of money, they are not .. . they are not bringing other
people . . . you know, not every woman is making a good income.
DI Asa's wife doesn't. Asa's wife, she's not ...
MP Yeah, but she's not working, she's a staying-home wife. They need
to bring in a few single mothers that are trying to . ..
DI Make and take on five an hour.
MP Yeah, right, trying to juggle the books and find a baby sitter .. .
MT .. . deliver newspapers at one o'clock in the morning, working there
until .. .
MP They don't need too many of them, 'cause there is a lot of women
that, you know, don't want that, they need escape to what it would
be like when they're rich, but once in a while they should bring that
in, 'cause .. . it shows: "Hey, this is what it's really like!"
DI Say, wake up and . . .
MT That's why you want them to escape, cause after three hours you
tum them off and you might return to your three thirty-five job.
MP Yeah, I know, but if that's all you see, then, it'll . . . you'll lose
your interest.
One of the problems with the spectator position described by Modleski is that the
"ideal mother" implies a specific social identity - that of a middle-class woman,
most likely with a husband who earns a family wage. This textual position is not
easily accessible to working-class women, who often formulate criticism of the
soap opera on these grounds. But criticism is expressed only in terms of realism
and escapism, as in the quote above, where a complaint about class norms
241
Ellen Seiter et al.
(having only career women or staying-home wives as characters) is answered by

a validation of their function as escapism on these very same grounds (characters
whose lives are different from those of the viewers). Any alternative version of
the text is impossible for these women to imagine because it is so far beyond the
horizon of reasonable expectation .
Postscript: a gendered discourse

Recent audience studies conducted by David Morley and Ann Gray in Great
Britain have found women to speak "defensively and self-depreciatingly about
their choices and preferences" with regard to television programs." Charlotte
Brunsdon argues that these studies confirm the "extremely contradictory position
that female viewers seem to occupy in relation to their pleasures.t'Pln
comparison, our interviews show no such explicitly apologetic overtones.
Moreover, they are considerably less informed by what len Ang calls " the
ideology of mass culture.i'" This non-defensive position about television
viewing was held most strongly in interviews conducted in groups where all the
participants (informants and interviewers) were women - fifteen of the
twenty-six interviews. In part, this suggests significant differences between the
United States and Europe in what we might call the social construction of
femininity." But it also indicates the importance of situating the decoding of
television programs within the context of concrete social exchanges, among
subjects whose histories determine the interaction and the kind of discourses
which will be used.
To use Benveniste's definition of discourse, the meanings given to soap
operas in our interviews depended on the "Is" and "Yous" engaged in a given
communicative exchange." Although recent audience studies try to address the
discursive "Yous " as historical subjects (rather than as scientific objects), they
tend to exclude (as is the academic norm) any systematic account of the
researcher's own subjectivity." But discourse analysis focuses on the practices of
all participants (including the interviewers) as social and historical beings . This
is especially important when dealing with interviews, which unlike "natural"
conversations, are, from the beginning, the researcher's creation. Because of the
way we initially identified ourselves in the newspaper advertisement ("writing a
book"), the discourse of the interviews was to some extent predetermined by our
roles and status as: 1) employers, 2) foreigners, 3) academics, and 4) women. The
interviewers' initial identification as academics and employers means that a
social hierarchy is already at work in the interactions. In order adequately to
understand the meanings of soap operas produced in our interviews , we have to
recognize the asymmetrical, power-laden nature of the discourse in which they
are produced and, more specifically, the significance of the researchers'
subjectivities therein.
In retrospect, our communicative strategy was to de-emphasize our role as
academ ics and employers. The position of relatively ignorant but interested
242
"non-initiates" into soap operas and of non-native speakers helped Kreutzner and
Warth to counterbalance the initially asymmetrical discursive arrangement 34
However , in analysing the interview tapes and transcripts, our status as women
and our activation of specific patterns of gendered communication emerge as the
most decisive factors for the developing interlocutions. These gendered patterns
include both what we talked about - fashion, housework, heterosexual
relationships, fantasy, sexism - and the way we talked. The interviews evidence
what sociolinguists have found to be
recurring patterns which distinguish talk among women from that in
mixed-sex and all-male groups: mutuality of "interaction work" (active
listening, building on the utterances of others), collaboration rather than
competition, flexible leadership rather than the strong dominance patterns
found in all-male groups."
If our identification as academics, foreigners, and employers placed us in the
category of "other," gender provided a position of "sameness" in relation to the
informants.
In his reflections on ethnographic interviews, James Clifford points to the
necessity of an intersubjective ground in any attempt to interact. According to
Clifford, such a shared experiental world is "precisely what is missing or
problematic for an ethnographer entering an 'alien cuIture.'''36 But ethnographic
audience studies significantly differ from classic ethnography's attempt to
understand "other" cultures. Coming from western , late capitalist, and patriarchal
societies, both interviewers and informants spontaneously relied on such a
"common sphere," a shared experiential world according to which "sameness" in
terms of gender provides specific possibilities to interact. That is, the inter-
subjective relations between the discursive "Is" and "Yous" were predominantly
con structed according to the historical subjects' gendered identities. In
retrospect, our motives for subordinating other social positions to the gendered
one can be explained by three factors: 1) the existence of what a German
ethnographer has called the researcher's Angst created by the transition from the
relatively secure and well-known academic (sub)cuIture to the "unknown" field
situation:" 2) our own (varying) gender-specific ambivalences concerning our
positions as academics;" and 3) the fact that such a communicative repertoire is
an integral part of female subjectivity practiced since we learned to talk. Indeed,
these communicative patterns seem to be so "natural" and "transparent," so much
a part of ourselves, that they go unnoticed in everyday activities, and we were
scarcely conscious of using them in the interviews.
Our informants, on the other hand, were provided with few other social
positions which they could take up discursively . As Susanne Sackstetter points
out, ethnographic interviews in which researchers and informants are men can
rely on a broad repertoire of possible discursive relations in terms of shared social
positions." Except for a gendered one, women have few social positions at their
disposal which can be taken up communicatively.
243
Ellen Seiter et al.
The discursive formation of women talking to women in a domestic setting

suggests the construction of a distinctly female space. Such a discursive space
corresponds to the one in which most of our female informants reportedly engage
with the soap opera text - a private, domestic space which is often characterized
by the absence of men. In this social context, the focus is on the women: they are
the protagonists, whereas men play supportive, if not subordinate parts. The
metaphor of performance illustrates a particular "fit" between women's
understanding of their immediate social environment and of the soap opera texts
(as both were expressed in the interviews). Here and there, female characters are
of absolute priority. The male characters/subjects will add problems, pleasures,
and "spice" (e.g. in terms of romance), but they are placed second - the emphasis
is on the women who perform and perceive themselves as strong and active
subjects. In critical retrospect, the context provided by feminist ethnographic
work confirms that such understandings have to be contextualized:
interpretations based on this kind of self-perception tend to be expressed only in
discursive formations characterized by a collectively shared female identity and
by the absence of men. It is significant that the ongoing discourse in the female
group interviews was always at some point defined in terms of differing from an
"other" one - usually identified as the male perspective on soap operas or in
terms of the ideology of mass culture. Some women mentioned their male
partner's deprecatory attitude toward the genre, yet such deprecation was not
represented as leading to conflict.
This suggests that the opportunity to produce meanings and pleasures by
engag ing with a discriminated popular text is "paid for" by women's willingness
to conceal these pleasures and meanings whenever the dominant discourse is
spoken in a social situation . There, women tend to remain silent or describe their
own meanings and pleasures from a position which discriminates against itself.
If we perceive women's social contexts in terms of a set of interrelating speech
practices, the relationship between the gendered and the dominant discourse(s)
on soap operas is a monological, unreciprocal one. Within the framework of
social relations under patriarchy , women create a gendered, oppositional space to
produce their own meanings and pleasures. The closing off of these meanings and
pleasures can be seen as a strategy to avoid confrontation and conflict.
By relating differing discourses on soap operas produced in varying social
contexts to each other, we can begin to trace the "working" of social power in the
cultural production of meaning . Therefore, our future work will address the
production of meanings (and pleasures) by historical subjects in at least two
interrelating frameworks: 1) one which is constituted by the historical subjects'
social practices (in which other discourses on the text are prominent); and 2) one
established by the textual determinacy executed by the television program or
genre. Both interactions - between a historical subject and a television text and
between a historical subject and her social environment - have to be understood
as a site of social struggle fought out on the terrain of language and speech
practices.
244
Notes
British Fihn Institute, 1980).
2 David Morley, "The Nationwide Audience' - A Critical Postscript," Screen
Education 39 (1981): 3-15 .
3 Charlotte Brunsdon, "Crossroads: Notes on Soap Opera," Screen 22, no. 4
(1981): 32 -7.
4 Morley, "A Critical Postscript," p. 5.
5 In this context see also Morley's Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic
Leisure (London: Comedia, 1986).
6 Janice Radway, Reading the Romance: Women, Patr iarchy, and Popular
Literature (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), p.
13.
7 Herta Herzog, "On Borrowed Experience. An Analysis of Listening to Daytime
Sketches," Studies in Philosophy and Social Science 9, no. 1 (1941): 65-95 .
8 While German viewers are familiar with US prime-time serials such as Dallas,
Dynasty, and most recently Flamingo Road, Knots Landing and Falcon Crest
which are broadcast by West Germany 's public broadcast stations ARD and ZDF,
it was only with the advent of commercial television that German viewers became
acquainted with daytime soap operas like Guiding Light and Santa Barbara in
1987 . US daytime serials had already been adopted by commercial stations in
other European countries such as Italy and France, and the expected opening of
West German television to these programs was one of the motivations for the
Tubingen Soap Opera Project to investigate the genre.
9 James P. Spradley, The Ethnographic Interview (New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1979), p. 2.
10 John L. Caughey, "The Ethnography of Everyday Life: Theories and Methods for
American Culture Studies," American Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1982): 226.
11 See David Morley, The "Nationwide" Audience; Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes,
"On ce Upon a Time, in Dallas," Intermedia 12, no . 3 (1984): 28-32; and James
Lull, " How Families Select TV Programs; A Mass -Observational Study," Journal
ofBroadcasting 26, no. 4 (1982): 801-11.
12 James Clifford, "On Ethnographic Authority," Representations I, no . 2 (1983):
128.
13 James Clifford, "On Ethnographic Authority," p. 133.
14 See also James Clifford, "Introduction: Partial Truths," in James Clifford
and George E. Marcus (eds) Writing Culture . The Poetics and Politics of
Ethnography (Berkeley, Calif.: The University of California Press, 1986), pp .
1-26.
15 In-depth analyses will be presented in the forthcoming book : Hans Borchers,
Gabriele Kreutzner, and Eva-Maria Warth, Never-Ending Stories: American Soap
Operas and the Cultural Production ofMeaning. CROSSROADS: Studies in
Ame rican Culture (Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier).
16 E. P. Thompson, "Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism," Past and
Present 38 (1967): 56 -97 .
17 Gisela Bock and Barbara Duden, "Arbeit aus Liebe - Liebe aus Arbeit, Zur
Entstehung der Hausarbeit im Kapitalismus,' in their Frauen und Wissenschaft.
Beitriige zur Berliner Sommeruniversitdi der Frauen (Berlin, 1977), pp. 118-99.
18 Lesley Johnson, "Radio and Everyday Life. The Early Years of Broadcasting in
Australia, 1922-1945," Media , Culture and Society 3, no . 2 (1981): 167-78.
19 Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction ofMothering : Psychoanalysis and the
Sociology ofGender (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1978), p. 36.
245
Ellen Seiter et al.
20 Ann Gray, "Behind Closed Doors: Video Recorders in the Home," in Helen Baehr
and Gillian Dyer (eds) Boxed In: Women and Television (London: Pandora Press,
1986), p. 41.
21 Ann Oakley, The Sociology ofHousework (London: Martin Robertson, 1974).
22 Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes, "Once upon a Time in Dallas," Intermedia 12, no.
3 (May 1984): 28-32.
23 Robert C. Allen, Speaking ofSoap Operas (Chapel Hill and London: University
of North Carolina Press, 1985).
24 Charlotte Brunsdon, "Writing about Soap Opera," in Len Masterman (ed.)
Television Mythologies: Stars, Shows , and Signs (London: Comedia, 1986),
p.83.
25 Tania Modleski, Loving With a Vengeance : Mass-Produced Fantasies for Women
(Hamden, Conn. : Archon Books, 1982), p. 92.
26 ibid., p. 94.
27 Allen, Speaking ofSoap Operas, p. 94.
28 Charlotte Brunsdon's review of Morley and Gray's work in "Women Watching
Television," MedieKultur 4 (1986): 105.
29 ibid., p. 109.
30 Ang, Watching "Dallas," Soap Opera and the Melodramataic Imagination
(London and New York: Methuen, 1985), pp. 86-116.
31 The importance of this difference was called to our attention by Charlotte
Brunsdon.
32 "Discourse, in Benveniste's classic discussion, is a mode of communication where
the presence of the speaking subject and of the immediate situation of
communication are intrinsic" (Clifford, "On Ethnographic Authority," p. 131).
33 See also len Ang's chapter in this volume, pp. 96-115.
34 Our roles as "students" of soap operas and, for Kreutzner and Warth, as
non-native speakers operated on two levels: we could apply them as "strategic
devices," e.g. to interrogate particular descriptions and concepts ("What is a
'hunk '? ") and to motivate character descriptions or narration ofplotlines.
However, such a strategic use did not contradict our sincerity as communicative
partners (which is essential to intersubjective exchange), since our familiarity with
the soap texts was indeed a limited one.
35 Barrie Thome, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley, "Language, Gender and
Society : A Second Decade of Research," in Barrie Thome, Cheris Kramarae, and
Nancy Henley (cds) Language, Gender and Society (Rowley, Mass.: Newbury,
1983), p. 18.
36 Clifford, "On Ethnographic Authority," p. 128.
37 Rolf Lindner, "Die Angst des Forschers vor dem Feld," Zeitschrift fiir Volkskunde
77 (1981): 51-65.
38 In her theoretical reflections on ethnographic interviews on women's lives,
Susanne Sacks tetter points out that the psychological discomfort caused by the
entrance into an "unknown field" must be experienced even more strongly by
female scholars whose "space" within academia is much less established than that
of men. Moreover, to "go out into the world" may produce conflicts with
gendered social norms, both individually and socially. This is especially true in
West Germany, where women's public positions are significantly less well
established than in the United States . See Susanne Sacks tetter. '''Wir sind doch
alles Weiber.' Gesprache unter Frauen und weibliche Lebensbedingungen," in Utz
Jeggle (cd.) Feldforschung : Qualitative Methoden in der Kulturanalyse
(Tiibingen: Tubinger Vereinigung fUr Volkskunde, 1984), pp. 159-76.
246
39 Sackstetter points to Utz Jeggle's account of an ethnographic interview which he

calls "Honoratioren unter sich" ('The intimacy of people of rank"). Jeggle argues
that in his interview the discursive relationship between ethnographer and
informant was constructed via a shared social position as "men of rank" (the
interviewer as a university professor and his male informant as a village
celebrity); Utz Jeggle, "Geheimnisse der Feldforschung,' in Europiiische
Ethnologie: Theorie und Methodendiskussion aus ethnologischer und
volkskundlicher Sieht (Berlin: Veroffentlichung des Museums fur Volkerkunde
Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 1982).
247
Select bibliography
Allen , Robert C., Speaking ofSoap Operas, Chapel Hill and London : University of
North Carolina Press, 1985.
- - (ed.) Channels ofDiscourse, Chapel Hill and London: University of North
Carolina Press, 1987.
Allor, Martin, "Relocating the Site of the Audience : Reconstructive Theory and the
Social Subject," Critical Studies in Mass Communication 5 (1988) : 217 -33.
Althusser, Louis, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. Ben Brewster,
London: New Left Books, 1971.
- - For Marx, trans. Ben Brewster, Harrnondsworth: Penguin, 1986.
Ang, len, 'The Battle Between Television and Its Audiences: The Politics of Watching
Television," in Phillip Drummond and Richard Paterson (eds) Television in
Trans ition, London: British Film Institute, 1985.
- - Watching "Dallas" : Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination, London and
New York : Methuen, 1985.
- - "Feminist Desire and Female Pleasure," Camera Obscura 16 (1988): 179-90.
Baehr, Helen , and Dyer, Gillian (eds) Boxed In: Women and Television, New York and
London: Pandora Press, 1987.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M., 'The Problem of Speech Genres," in Speech Genres and Other
Late Essays, trans. Vern McGee, Austin, Texas : University of Texas Press, 1986.
Barthes, Roland, The Pleasure ofthe Text , trans. Richard Miller, New York: Hill &
Wang, 1975.
Basso, Keith H., and Selby, Henry A. (eds) Meaning in Anthropology, Albuquerque,
NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1976.
Bauman, Ricard, and Sherzer, Joel (eds) Explorations in the Ethnography ofSpeaking ,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.
Bausinger, Hermann, "Media, Technology and Daily Life," Media, Culture, and Society
6 (1984): 343-51.
Bennett, Tony, "Text and Social Process: The Case of James Bond," Screen Education
41 (1982) : 3-14.
Bennett, Tony, Boyd-Bowman, Susan, Mercer, Colin, and Woollacott, Janet (eds)
Popular Telev ision and Film: A Reader, London: British Film Institute/Open
University Press, 1981.
Bernstein, Basil, Class, Codes, and Control, 3 vols, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1973.
Bliese, Nancy Wood, "Media in the Rocking Chair: Media Uses and Functions
Among the Elderly," in Gary Gumpert and Robert Cathcart (eds) Inter!
Media : Inter-Personal Communication in a Media World, New York : Oxford
248
Bibliography
BIumler, Jay G., Gurevitch, Michael, and Katz, Elihu, "Reaching Out: A Future for
Gratifications Research," in Karl E. Rosengren, Lawrence A. Wenner, and Philip
Palmgreen (eds) Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives, Beverly
Hills: Sage, 1985.
Bobo, Jacqueline, "The Color Purple: Black Women as Cultural Readers," in Deidre
Pribram (ed.) Female Spectators Looking at Film and Television, London : Verso,
1988.
Bourdieu, Pierre , "The Aristocracy of Culture," Media , Culture, and Society 2, 3 (July
1980): 225-54.
- - Distinction. A Social Critique ofthe Judgement ofTaste, trans. Richard Nice,
Cambridge, Mass .: Harvard University Press, 1984, London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul,1986.
Brody, Gene H., and Stoneman, Zolinda, "The Influence of Television Viewing on
Family Interactions," Journal of Family Issues 4, 2 (June 1983): 329-48.
Browne, Nick, "The Political Economy of the Television (Superj'I'ext, " Quarterly
Review of Film Studies 9 (summer 1984): 174-82.
Bruck, Peter, "The Social Production of Texts: On the Relation Production/Product in
the News Media," Communication-Information 4 (1982) : 92-124 .
Brunsdon, Charlotte, "Crossroads: Notes on Soap Opera," Screen 22 (1981): 32-7.
- - "Writing About Soap Opera," in Len Masterman (ed.) Television Mythologies.
Stars, Shows, and Signs, Londo: Comedia, 1984.
- - "Women Watching Television," MedieKultur 4 (1986) : 100-12.
Brunsdon, Charlotte, and Morley, David, Everyday Television: "Nationwide" , London:
British Film Institute, 1978.
Butler, Jeremy, "Notes on the Soap Opera Apparatus: Televisual Style and As The
World Turns," Cinema Journal 25 (3) (spring 1986) : 53-70.
Bybee, Carl R., "Uses and Gratifications Research and the Study of Social Change ," in
David L. Paletz (00.) Political Communication Research: Approaches, Studies,
Assessments, Norwood , NJ: Ablex, 1987.
Carey, John, "A Primer on Interactive Television," Journal ofthe University Film
Association 30 (1978) : 35-40.
Cassata, Mary , and Skill, Thomas, Life on Daytime Television: Tuning-In American
Ser ial Drama, Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1983.
Caughey, John L., "The Ethnography of Everyday Life: Theories and Methods
for American Culture Studies ," American Quarterly 34, 3 (Bibliography 1982):
222-43 .
Caughie, John, "Television Criticism: 'A Discourse in Search of an Object, '" Screen 25,
4-5 (July-October 1984): 109-20.
- - "Popular Culture: Notes and Revisions," in Colin MacCabe (ed.) High Theory,
Low Culture, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986.
Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (ed.) Culture, Media, Language.
Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-79, London: Hutchinson, in assoc-
iation with the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of
Birmingham, 1980.
Chang, Briankle G., "Deconstructing the Audience: Who Are They and What Do We
Know About Them?", Communication Yearbook 10, Margaret L. McLaughlin,
Beverly Hills: Sage, 1987.
Chodorow, Nancy, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology
ofGender, Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1978.
Clifford, James, "Fieldwork, Reciprocity, and the Making of Ethnographic Texts," Man
15 (1980) : 518-32.
- - "On Ethnographic Authority," Representations I, 2 (spring 1983): 118-46.
249
Bibliography
Clifford, James, and Marcus, George E. (eds) Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics
ofEthnography, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press,
1986.
Collett, Peter, and Lamb, Roger, Watching Families Watching Television, Report to the
Independent Broadcasting Authority, 1986.
Corcoran, Farrel, ''Television as Ideological Apparatus: The Power and the Pleasure,"
Critical Studies in Mass Communication 1 (1984): 131-45.
De Certeau, Michel, "On the Oppositional Practices of Everyday Life," Social Text 3
(fall 1980): 3-43.
- - The Practice of Everyday Life, Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press,
1984.
Deming, Robert H., "Discourse/Talk/Television," Screen 26 (1985): 88-92.
- - "The Television Spectator-Subject," Journal of Film and Video 7 (1985) : 49-63.
Derrida, Jacques, OfGrammatology, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1944.
Devereux, Georges, Angst und Methode in den Verhaltenswissenschaften,
Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1984.
Douglas, Jack D., Understanding Everyday Life, Chicago, 1970.
Drummond, Phillip, and Paterson, Richard (eds) Television in Transition, London:
- - Television and its Audiences: International Research Perspectives, London:
Du Bois, Barbara, "Passionate Scholarship: Notes on Values, Knowing and Method in
Feminist Social Science," in Gloria Bowles and Renate Duelli Klein (eds) Theories
ofWomen's Studies, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.
Duelli Klein, Renate, "How To Do What We Want To Do: Thoughts About Feminist
Methodology," in Gloria Bowles and Renate Duelli Klein (eds) Theories of
Women's Studies, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.
Dwyer, Kevin, "On the Dialogic of Field Work," Dialectical Anthropology 2,2 (1977):
143-51.
- - "The Dialogic of Ethnology," Dialectical Anthropology 4, 3 (1979): 105-224.
Dyer, Richard, Geraghty, Christine, Jordan, Marion, Lovell, Terry, Paterson, Richard,
and Stewart, John (eds) "Coronation Street", London: British Film Institute, 1981.
Easterday, L., Papademas, D., Schorr, L., and Valentine, C; "The Making of a Female
Researcher," Urban Life 6, 3 (1977): 333-48.
Elliott, Philip, "Uses and Gratifications Research: A Critique and a Sociological
Alternative," in Jay Blumler and Elihu Katz (eds) The Uses ofMass Communication,
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1974.
Ellis, John, Visible Fictions: Cinema Television Video, London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul,1982.
Emmett, B. P., "The Television and Radio Audience in Britain," in Denis McQuail (cd.)
Sociology ofMass Communications, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
Ferment in the Field, Special issue, Journal ofCommunication 33, 3 (1983).
Feuer, Jane, "The Concept of Live Television: Ontology vs Ideology," in E. Ann
Kaplan (ed.) Regarding Television, Frederick, Md.: University Publications of
America, 1983.
- - "Melodrama, Serial Form, and Television Today," Screen 25, 1 (1984): 4-16.
- - "Narrative Form in Television," in Colin MacCabe (ed.) High Theory, Low
Culture, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986.
- - "Genre Study and Television," in Robert C. Allen (ed.) Channels ofDiscourse.
TV and Contemporary Criticism, Chapel Hill and London: University of North
Carolina Press, 1987.
250
Bibliography
Feyes, Fred, "Critical Communications Research and Media Effects: The Problem of
the Disappearing Audience," Media, Culture, and Society 6,3 (July 1984) : 219-32.
Fish , Stanley Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority ofInterpretive Communities,
Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press , 1980 .
Fiske, John , "Television: Polysemy and Popularity," Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 3, 4 (December 1986): 392-408.
- - "British Cultural Studies and Television," in Robert C. Allen (ed.) Channels of
Discourse. TV and ContemporaryCriticism, Chapel Hill and London: University of
North Carolina Press , 1987.
- - Television Culture, London and New York: Methuen, 1987.
Fiske, John, and Hartley, John, Reading Television, London and New York: Methuen,
1978.
Flax , Jane, "Postmodemism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory," Signs 12,4
(1987): 621-41.
Flitterman-Lewis, Sandy, "Psychoanalysis, Film, and Television," in Robert C. Allen
(ed.) Channels ofDiscourse,TV and ContemporaryCriticism, Chapel Hill and
London: University of North Carolina Press, 1987.
Foster, Hal (ed.) The Anti-Aesthetic, Port Townsend, Wash.: Bay Press, 1983 .
Foucault, Michel, History ofSexuality, vol. 1, New York: Random House , 1978.
- - Power/Knowledge, New York: Pantheon, 1980 .
Fraser, Nancy, and Nicholson, Linda, "Social Criticism Without Philosophy: An
Encounter Between Feminism and Postmodernism,' Communication 10,3-4 (1988):
345-66.
Garfinkel, A., Forms ofExplanation, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981.
Garnham, Nicholas, "Concepts of Culture: Public Policy and the Cultural Industries,"
Cultural Studies 1,1 (1987): 23-37 .
Geertz, Clifford, The InterpretationofCultures, New York, 1973.
- - "From the Native's Point of View: On the Nature of Anthropological
Understanding," in Keith H. Basso and Henry A. Selby (eds) Meaning in
Anthropology, Albuquerque, NM, 1976.
Gerbner, George, and Gross, Larry, "Living with Television," Journal of
Communication 26, 2 (1976):
Gcrbner, George, Gross, Larry, Hoover, Stewart, Morgan, Michael, Signorielli, Nancy,
Cotugno, Harry, and Wuthnow, Robert, Religion and Television, University of
Pennsylvania: The Annenberg School of Communications, 1984.
Gerbner, George, Gross, Larry, Morgan, Michael, and Signorielli, Nancy, "Living with
Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process," in Jennings Bryant and Dolf
Zillmann (cds) Perspectives on Media Effects, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1986 .
Giddens, Anthony. "Positivism and its Critics," in T. Bottomore and R. Nisbet (eds) A
History ofSociologicalAnalysis, London: Heinemann, 1979.
- - The Constitution ofSociety, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.
Giles, Denis, "Television Reception," Journal of Film and Video 38 (summer 1985) :
12-25.
Glaser, B., Theoretical Sensitivity, San Francisco, Calif.: The Sociology Press, 1978.
Gramsci, Antonio, Prison Notebook: Selections, trans. Quinton Hoare and Geoffrey
Nowell Smith, New York : Intematioanl Publishers Co ., 1971.
- - Selections from Cultural Writings, ed David Forgacs and Geoffrey Nowell Smith,
trans. William Boelhower, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985.
Gr ay, Ann, "Behind Closed Doors: Video Recorders in the Home ," in Helen Baehr and
Gillian Dyer (eds) Boxed In: Women and Television, New York and London:
Pandora Press, 1987.
251
Bibliography
- - "Reading the Audience, " Screen 28,3 (1987): 24-35.

Gross , Larry, "The Cultivation of Intolerance," in Cultural Indicators: An International
Symposium, ed G. Melischek et al., Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences , 1984.
Grossberg, Lawrence, "Cultural Studies Revisited and Revised," in Mary S. Mander
(ed.) Communications in Transition, New York: Praeger , 1983.
- - "Strategies of Marxist Cultural Interpretation," Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 1,4 (1984): 392-421.
- - "History, Politics and Postmodernism: Stuart Hall and Cultural Studies," Journal
ofCommunication Inquiry 10,2 (1986): 73-4.
- - "Critical Theory and the Politics of Empirical Research," in Michael Gurevitch
and Mark R. Levy (eds) Mass Communication Review Yearbook, vol . 6, Newbury
Park : Sage, 1987.
- - "The In-Difference of Television," Screen 28, 2 (1987): 28-45.
- - " Postmodernity and Affect: All Dressed Up With No Place to Go,"
Communication 10,3-4 (1988) : 271-93.
- - "Wandering Audiences, Nomadic Critics," Cultural Studies 2, 3 (1988): 377-91 .
Hall, Stuart, "The Hinterland of Science: Ideology and the 'Sociology of Knowledge:"
Working Papers in Cultural Studies 10 (1977): 9-31.
- - "Recent Developments in the Theories of Language and Ideology: A Critical
Note," in Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis (eds)
Culture, Media, Language, London: Hutchinson, 1980.
- - "Encoding/Decoding," in Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul
Willis (eds) Culture, Media, Language, London: Hutchinson, 1980.
- - "The Rediscovery of 'Ideology': Return of the Repressed in Media Studies," in
Michael Gurevitch, Tony Bennett, James Curran and Janet Woollacott (eds) Culture,
Society and the Media, London and New York: Methuen, 1982.
Halloran, James, The Effects of Television; London: Panther Books, 1970.
- - "The Context of Mass Communications Research," in Emile G. McAnany, Jorge
Schnitman, and Noreene James (eds) Communication and Social Structure: Critical
Studies in Mass Media Research, New York: Praeger, 1981.
Hanunersley, Martyn, and Atkinson, Paul, Ethnography: Principles in Practice, London
and New York: Tavistock, 1983.
Harris, M ., Cultural Materialism: The Struggle/or a Science ofCulture, New York :
Random House, 1979.
Hartley, John, and O 'Regan, Tom, "Quoting not Science but Sideboards: Television in a
New Way of Life," in Michael Gurevitch and Michael Levy (eds) Mass
Communication Rev iew Yearbook, vol. 7, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, in press.
Heath, Stephen, and Skirrow, Gillian, "Television: A World in Action," Screen 18, 2
(1977) : 7-59.
Hebdige, Dick, Subculture: The Meaning ofStyle, London: Methuen, 1979.
- - "Towards a Cartography of Taste 1935-1962," in B. Waites, Tony Bennett, and
G. Martin (eds) Popular Culture: Past and Present, London: Croom Helm/Open
- - Hiding in the Light. On Images and Things, London: Comedia, 1987 .
Herzog, Herta , "On Borrowed Experience. An Analysis of Listening to Daytime
Sketches," Studies in Ph ilosophy and Soc ial Science 9, 1 (1941): 65-95.
- - "What Do We Really Know About Daytime Serial Listeners?", in Paul F.
Lazarsfeld and Frank N. Stanton (eds) Radio Research 1942 -1943, New York:
Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1944.
Hobson, Dorothy , "Housewives and the Mass Media:' in Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson,
Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis (eds) Culture, Media, Language, London:
Hutchinson, 1980.
252
Bibliography
"Crossroads" : The Drama ofa Soap Opera, London: Methuen, 1982.

Hodge, Robert, and Tripp, David, Children and Television, Cambridge: Polity Press,
1986.
Hoggart, Richard, The Uses ofLiteracy: Aspects ofWorking-Class Life with
Special Reference to Publications and Entertainments, Harmondsworth:
Penguin,1976.
Houston, Beverley , " Viewing Television: The Metapsychology of Endless
Consumption," Quarterly Review ofFilm Studies 9,3 (summer 1984): 183-95.
Huyssen, Andreas, "Mapping the Postmodern," New German Critique 33 (fall 1984):
5-52 .
- - "Mass Culture as Woman : Modernism's Other," in After the Great Divide
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Hymes , D. H., "On Communicative Competence," in 1. B. Pride and Janet Holmes (eds)
Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
Iser, Wolfgang, The Act ofReading: A Theory ofAesthetic Response, London :
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.
Jameson, Fredric, "Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture," Social Text 1 (1979)
130-48.
Jeggle , Utz (ed.) Feldforschung: Qualitative Methoden in der Kulturanalyse, Tubingen:
Tubinger Vereinigung fur Volkskunde, 1984.
Jensen, Klaus Bruhn, Making Sense ofthe News, Ahrhus: University of Ahrhus Press,
1986.
- - "Qualitative Audience Research: Towards an Integrative Approach to Reception,"
Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4 (1987): 21-36 .
Johnson, Lesley , "Radio and Everyday Life. The Early Years of Broadcasting in
Australia, 1922-1945," Media , Culture, and Society 3, 2 (1981) : 167-78.
Jules-Rosette, B., "The Veil of Objectivity: Prophecy, Divination, and Social Inquiry,"
American Anthropologist 80, 3 (1978) : 549-70.
- - "Towards a Theory of Ethnography," Sociological Symposium 24 (1978): 81-98.
Kaplan, E. Ann (ed.) Regarding Telev ision . Critical Approaches - An Anthology,
Frederick, Md.: University Publications of America, 1983.
Katz, Elihu, "Communications Research Since Lazarsfeld, ' Public Opinion Quarterly
51, 4 part 2 (winter 1987): S25-S45.
Katz, Elihu, and Liebes , Tamar, "Once Upon a Time in Dallas.lIntermedia 12,3 (May
1984) : 28-32.
- - "Mutual Aid in the Decoding of Dallas: Preliminary Notes from a Cross-Cultural
Study," in Phillip Drummond and Richard Paterson (eds) Television in Transition,
London: British Film Institute, 1985.
Kristeva, Julia, Desire in Language, New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.
Kuhn, Annette. "Women's Genres," Screen 25,1 (1984): 18-28.
Leavis, F.R., The Great Tradition: George Eliot. Henry James. Joseph Conrad,
London : Chatto & Windus, 1950.
Levy, D. 1., Realism: An Essay in Interpretation and Social Reality, Manchester:
Carcanet New Press, 1981.
Levy, M. R., and Windahl, S., "Audience Activity and Gratifications: A Conceptual
Clarification and Exploration," in Karl E. Rosengren, Lawrence A. Wenner, and
Philip Palmgreen (eds) Media Gratifications Research: Current Perspectives,
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1985.
Liebes, Tamar, "Ethnocriticism: Israelis of Moroccan Ethnicity Negotiate the Meaning
of Dallas," Studies in Visual Communication to, 3 (1984): 46-72 .
Liebes, Tamar, and Katz, Elihu, "Patterns of Involvement in Television Fictions: A
Comparative Analysis," European Journal ofCommunication 1 (1986): 151-71.
253
Bibliography
Lindlof, Thomas (ed.) Natural Aud iences : Qualitat ive Research and Media Uses and
Effects , Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company, 1987.
Lindner, Rolf, "Die Angst des Forschers vor dem Feld,' Zeitschrift fUr Volkskunde 77
(1981): 51-65.
Lovell , Terry, Pictures ofReality . Aesthetics. Politics and Pleasure, London: British
Film Institute, 1980.
- - Consuming Fictions, London: Verso, 1987.
Lull, James, "The Social Uses of Television," Human Communications Research 6, 3
(1980): 198-209.
- - "How Families Select Television Programs: A Mass-Observational Study,"
Journal ofBroadcasting, 26, 4 (1982): 801-11.
- - "The Naturalistic Study of Media Use and Youth Culture," in Karl E. Rosengren,
Lawrence A. Wenner, and Philip Palmgreen (eds) Media Gratifications Research:
Current Perspectives, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1985.
- - (ed.) World Families Watch Television, Newbury Park: Sage, 1988.
MacCabe, Colin, High Theory, Low Culture, Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1986.
MacCannell, Dean, and Flower Juliet, "Ethnosemiotics: Beyond Structural
Anthropology," in Dean MacCannell and Juliet Flower The Time ofthe Sign . A
Semiotic Interpretation ofModern Culture, Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1982.
McQuail, Denis, "With the Benefit of Hindsight: Reflections on Uses and
Gratifications Research," Critical Studies in Mass Communications 1 (1984):
177-93.
McQuail, Denis, Blumler, Jay G., and Brown, 1. R., "The Television Audience : A
Revised Perspective ," in Denis McQuail (ed.) Sociology of Mass Communications,
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
McRobbie, Angela, "The Politics of Feminist Research, " Feminist Review 12 (October
1982): 46-57.
Mander, Mary, Communications in Trans ition, New York: Praeger, 1983.
Marcus, George E., and Cushman, Dick, "Ethnographies as Texts," Annual Review of
Anthropology, 11 (1982): 25-69.
Mercer, Colin, "Complicit Pleasures," in Tony Bennett, Colin Mercer, and Janet
Woollacott Popular Culture and Social Relations, Milton Keynes and Philadelphia:
Open University Press, 1986.
- - "That's Entertainment: The Resilience of Popular Forms," in Tony Bennett, Colin
Mercer, and Janet Woollacott (eds) Popular Culture and Social Relations, Milton
Keynes and Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1986.
Modleski, Tania, "The Search for Tomorrow in Today's Soap Operas: Notes on a
Feminine Narrative Form," Film Quarterly 33 (1979): 12-21.
- - Loving With A Vengeance . Mass-Produced Fantasiesfor Women, Hamden,
Conn.: Archon Books, 1982.
- - "The Rhythms of Reception: Daytime Television and Women's Work," in E. Ann
Kaplan (ed.) Regarding Television. Critical Approaches - An Anthology, Frederick,
Md.: University Publications of America, 1983.
- - "Femininity as Masquerade: A Feminist Approach to Mass Culture ," in Colin
MacCabe (ed.) High Theory, Low Culture , Manchester: University of Manchester
Press, 1986.
- - "Introduction," in Tania Modleski (ed.) Studies in Entertainment. Critical
Approaches to Mass Culture , Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Morley, David, The "Nationw ide" Audience: Structure and Decoding, London : British
254
Bibliography
- - "Texts, Readers, Subjects," in Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and
Paul Willis (eds) Culture, Media, Language, London: Hutchinson 1980.
- - "The Nationwide Audience' : A Critical Postscript," Screen Education 39
(summer 1981): 3-15.
- - "Cultural Transformations: The Politics of Resistance," in Howard Davis and
Paul Walton (eds) Language. Image. Media, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983.
- - Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure, London: Comedia,
1986.
Nelson, Cary, and Grossberg, Lawrence, Marxism and Cultural Interpretation, Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1988.
Newcomb, Horace C., Television : The Most Popular Art, New York: Anchor Press,
1974.
- - "American Television Criticism, 1970-1985," Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 3, 2 (June 1986): 217-28.
- - (ed.) Television - The Critical View, 4th edn, New York: Oxford University
Press, 1987.
Newcomb, Horace C., and Hirsch, Paul M., ''Television as a Cultural Forum:
Implications for Research ," Quarterly Review of Film Studies 8, 3 (summer 1983):
45-55.
Nightingale, Virginia, "What's Happening to Audience Research?" Media Information
Australia 39 (1986): 18-22.
Oakley, Ann, "Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms," in Helen
Roberts (ed.) Doing Feminist Research, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,
1981.
Palmer, Patricia, The Lively Audience: A Study ofChildren Around the TV Set, Sidney:
Allen & Unwin, 1986.
Paterson, Richard , "Planning the Family: The Art of the TV Schedule," Screen
Education 35 (1981): 79-85 .
Pecheux, Michel, Language, Semiotics and Ideology, London: Macmillan, 1982.
Petro, Patrice, "Mass Culture and the Feminine : The ' Place ' of Television in Film
Studies," Cinema Journal 25, 3 (1986): 5-21.
Poole, Michael, "The Cult of the Generalist: British Television Criticism 1936-1983,"
Screen 25, 2 (1984): 41-62 .
Pratt, Mary Louise, "Interpretive Strategies/Strategic Interpretations: On Anglo-
American Reader-Response Criticism," in Jonathan Arac (ed.) Postmodernism and
Politics, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986.
Pribram, Deidre (ed.) Female Spectators Looking at Film and Television, London:
Verso, 1988.
Probyn , Elspeth , "Memories and Past Politics of Postrnodernism," Communication 10,
3-4 (1988) : 305-10.
Rabinow, Paul, and Sullivan . William M. (eds) Interpretive Social Science, Berkeley,
Los Angeles , London : University of California Press, 1979.
Radway, Janice, "Women Read the Romance: The Intertextuality of Text and Context,"
Feminist Studies 9,1 (spring 1983): 53-78 .
- - Reading the Romance : Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature, Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press. 1984.
- - "Identifying Ideological Seams : Mass Culture, Analytical Method, and Political
Practice," Communication 9 (1986): 93-123 .
- - "Reading Reading the Romance," in Janice Radway , Reading the Romance,
London: Verso, 1987.
- - "Reception Study: Ethnography and the Problems of Dispersed Audiences and
Nomadic Subjects," Cultural Studies 2, 3 (1988): 359-76.
255
Bibliography
Real, Michael, "The Debate on Critical Theory and the Study of Communications,"
Journal ofCommunication 34,4 (1988): 72-80 .
Roberts , Helen (ed.) Doing Feminist Research, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul ,
1981.
Root, Jane, Open the Box . London: Cornedia, 1986.
Rosengren, Karl Erik, "Communication Research: One Paradigm, or Four?" Journal of
Communication 33 (1983): 185-207 .
Rowland, Willard D., Jr, and Watkins, Bruce (eds) Interpreting Television: Current
Research Perspectives, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984
Rubin, Alan M., "Media Gratifications Through the Life Cycle," in Karl E. Rosengren;
Lawrence A, Wenner, and Philip Palmgreen (eds) Media Gratifications Research,
Current Perspectives, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1985.
Sackstetter, Susanne, '''Wir sind doch alles Weiber' : Gesprache unter Frauen und weib-
liche Lebensbedingungen," in Utz Jeggle (ed .) Feldforschung: Qualitative Methoden
in der Kulturanalyse, Tubingen: Tubinger Vereinigung fur Volkskunde, 1984.
Sahin, Haluk, and Robinson, J.P., "Beyond the Realm of Necessity: Television and the
Colonization of Leisure : ' Media , Culture, and Society 3, 1 (1981) : 85-95.
Sarris, Andrew, The American Cinema : Directors and Directions, 1929-1968, New
York : E.P. Dutton, 1968.
Schroder, Kim Christian, "Convergence of Antagonistic Traditions? The Case of
Audience Research:' European Journal of Communication 2 (1987) : 7-31.
Seiter, Ellen, "Eco's TV Guide - The Soaps:' Tabloid 5 (winter 1982): 35-43 .
- - "Promise and Contradiction: The Daytime Television Serial:' Film Reader 5
(winter 1982): 150-63.
- - "Men, Sex and Money in Recent Family Melodramas:' Journal ofthe University
Film and Video Assocation 35, 1 (winter 1983): 17-27.
Sigman, Stuart J., and Frey, Donald L., "Differential Ideology and Language Use:
Readers' Reconstructions and Descriptions of News Events," Critical Studies in
Mass Communication 2, 4 (1985): 307-22.
Silverstone, Roger, The Message ofTelevision: Myth and Narrative in Contemporary
Culture, London: Heinemann, 1981.
Simpson, Philip, Parents Talking Televis ion, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987.
Slack, Jennifer Daryl, and Allor, Martin, "The Political and Epistemological
Constituents of Critical Communications Research," Journal ofCommunication 33
(1983): 208-18.
Spence, Louise, "Life's Little Problems . . . and Pleasures: An Investigation into the
Narrative Structure of The Young and the Restless," Quarterly Review of Film
Studies 9 (1984): 301-8.
Spigel, Lynn , "Installing the Television Set: Popular Discourses on Television and
Domestic Space 1948-55," Camera Obscura (March 1988): 11-46.
Spradley, James P., The Ethnographic Interview, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1979.
Streeter, Thomas, "An Alternative Approach to Television Research: Developments in
British Cultural Studies in Birmingham," in Willard D. Rowland, Jr, and Watkins,
Bruce, (eds) Interpreting Television: Current Research Perspectives, Beverly Hills ,
Calif.: Sage, 1984.
Surlin, Stuart, "Television Criticism in Canada, " Critical Studies in Mass
Communication 2 (1985) : 80-83.
Taylor, Laurie, and Mullan, Bob, Uninvited Guests : The Intimate Secrets ofTelevision
and Radio , London: Chatto and Windus, 1986.
Tulloch, John , Television Drama : Agency, Audience and Myth, London: Routledge,
forthcoming.
256
Bibliography
Tulloch, John, and Alvarado, Manuel, "Doctor Who" : The Unfolding Text,
Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1983.
Tulloch, John, and Moran, Albert, "A Country Practice" : 'Quality.soap', Sidney:
Currency Press, 1986.
Turner, Victor, "Process, System, and Symbol: A New Anthropological Synthesis,"
Daedalus 106, 2 (1977): 61-80.
Walkerdine, Valerie, "Video Replay: Families, Films and Fantasy," in Victor Burgin,
James Donald, and Cora Kaplan (eds) Formations of Fantasy, London and New
York : Methuen, 1986.
Webster, Steven, "Dialogue and Fiction in Ethnography," Dialectical Anthropology 7, 2
(1982) :
Webster, James G., and Wakshlag, Jacob J., ''The Impact of Group Viewing on Patterns
of Television Program Choice," Journal ofBroadcasting 26,1 (1982): 445-55.
Williams, Raymond, Television: Technology and Cultural Form, London : Fontana,
1974.
Willis, Paul, "Notes on Method," in Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and
Paul Willis (eds) Culture, Media, Language, London: Hutchinson, 1980.
- - Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs,
Farnborough: Saxon House, 1977.
- - Profane Culture, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.
- - "Cultural Production is Different from Cultural Reproduction is Different from
Social Reproduction is Different from Reproduction," Interchange 12, 2,3 (1981):
48-67.
Winner, Irene and Thomas, 'The Semiotics of Cultural Texts," Semiotica 18,2 (1976):
101-56 .
Woal, Michael B., "Defamiliarization in Television Viewing: Aesthetic and Rhetorical
Modes of Experiencing Television," Journal ofthe University Film and Video
Association 34 (1982): 25-32.
Wollen, Peter, Signs and Meaning in the Cinema, London: Seeker & Warburg, British
Woods, P. "Understanding Through Talk," in C. Adelman (00.) Uttering, Muttering :
Collecting, Using and Reporting Talkfor Social and Educational Research, London:
Grant McIntyre, 1981.
Wren-Lewis, Justin, ''Th e Encoding-Decoding Model: Criticisms and Redevelopments
for Research on Decoding," Media, Culture, and Society 5,2 (April 1983): 179-97.
- - "Decoding Television News," in Phillip Drummond and Richard Paterson (eds)
Television in Transition, London : British Film Institute, 1985.
Zimmerman, Patricia R., "Good Girls, Bad Women: The Role of Older Women on
Dynasty," Journal of Film and Video 37 (spring 1985): 66-74.
257
Index
aesthetic(s) 27,80,85,117,119,123, Bourdieu, Pierre 18,28,31,40,60;

204,232-3; theory 9-10; age; viewing (1984)7,117
category 13, 38; see also class; elderly Britain, American culture in 32; soap
Allen, Robert 6, 11,44-55, 123,232,237 opera in 48,51,116-17,154-67
America: soap opera in 3~, 48, 51, Brookside 53, 153, 153, 154, 158, 162
116-17, 224-42; see also cultural Brunsdon, Charlotte 2-3,6, 12,30,52,
imperialism; Dallas 108-9,116-29,223,230,235;(1986)
Ang, len 4,5,6, 11,27,30,31,34, 242
96-115,117,124,232,242
Archers, The 188-9 change 62; family and use of media
audience/viewer(s) 132; active/passive 12-13, 170, 171, 172,173;seealso
14,16-17,88-9,101 ,162-6,167,217; social
attention/interest 27,35, 161,224; characters, soap opera : female 49,
criticism/analysis 12,52, 124-5, 156-60,237-42; reactions to 156-60,
204-22; and genre 44-55,217; and live 163-5,182-3,189,194,195 ,244
television II, 79-95; and meanings 2, Chateauvallon 154, 162-3
60-1,62; and media cinema/television viewing 26-7, 34, 48
use/resistance/adaption 16-17,75; class 7, 13,48, 195,223,241
roles of 8,61 ,62,82, 88-9,98, 101, closure, textual 63, 64, 68, 69
217; studies 4-5,8-14, 16-43,49, codes/coding 17,35; see also decoding;
96-115, 121, 123,225-6; and text 12, encoding
19,24,56-78,99,116-29,167,223; Colbys, The 156, 162
see also authenticity; elderly ; ethnic ; commercial television 28, 29, 75, 116-17
ethnography; female; identification ; communication(s) 11, 17-18,40, 170,
involvement; male; manipulation; 174, 178, 243-4; media 132; theory
pleasure; postmodernism; reader; 204; see also mass
segmentation; semiotic power; soap community, television 88, 89-91
opera; women consciousness and unconsciousness 39,
auteur theory 46 198,204
authenticity 117, 119-20, 124, 125 consumer relations and politics 74
consumption 14,28,30; and production
Barthes , Roland 23, 28, 64-5,191; (1977) 8,29
63 contexts , media 3,25-7,28,34-8,125,
Baudrillard, Jean 8, 15n; (1983) 9 228; see also social
behavior 25,40; viewing 231 Coronation Street 48-9,51,53, 117,
Bliese, Nancy Wood 191, 192, 193, 121, 154, 164-5, 182, 187, 192, 195,
194-5; (1986) 186, 187 196
Borchers, Hans et all-IS, 223-47 Cosby Show , The 73, 141
258
Index
Country Practi ce, A 60, 180-1, 183, 187, everyday life and media 10, 34-8, 228-31
189, 194 experience(s) 86; lived 227; social 2, 58,
critic(s) 11,24,29,74-5, 162 71,228
critical: abilities, viewers' 204-22;
dimension of text 123; research/studies Fa/con Crest 51
5-8, 11, 12,96,97-8,204; statements family and use of media 12-13 , 168-79;
(Dallas) 208-19; theory/theorists 6, 97, class and gender patterns 198-200;
100-1 ; see a/so intervention politics 74; relationships 1, 13,37,74,
criticism, television 6, 12, 124-5, 173
204-22; see a/so Dalla s; feminist fantasy 72, 155, 156, 157
Crossroads 49,51 ,52,60, 121, 154, 158, female: audience/viewers 48, 52, 53, 55n
162, 182, 194, 196 60; characters 49; see a/so women
cultural : analysis 28; behavior 40; capital femininityl"feminization" 33, 242
theory 60,167, 189, 190; commodity, feminist: criticism 12, 123-5 ;
television as 59-62; competences 18, perspectives 14n, 15n, 49, 52, 72;
223; context theory 21; economy 11, research studies 4, 47, 48,124
59,61 ,62; imperialism, American 30, Feurer, Jane 23-4, 48, 49, 51, 70,122
31,32,225 ; resource 36,65; studies fiction(ality) 18, 150, 165, 167,223-4,
101, 102, 107-10; see a/so decoding; 236-7
identity; involvement; representations films: genre 4; theory 22, 25, 26; see a/so
culture 7, 23, 45, 46-7, 75, 226-7 ; cinema
American 30-4; oral 66-7 ; popular 4, financial economy 59,61 ,62
74,204; viewers' complementary to Fiske, John 4-5 , 11,23,56-78; (1985)
textuality 57, 60-1 , 73; see a/so mass 191
folk opera 117,120
Dallas 49-51,53, 74, 117, 155, 162, 196, Frankfurt School 6, 7, 8, 29, 97
197; viewer criticism of 13,60, 185,
205-19; see a/so cultural imperialism; games shows and the elderly 192-3
oral culture "gays" see homosexuals
decoding 16-19,34,99,102,204,224, gender 10,49,52,53, 107-9, 195,223;
242; cultural; see a/so coding; encoding politics 74; relations and television 37,
diversity/difference 40, 107, 122; of 38, 74; and research 13, 53, 243-4; see
pleasure 69, 70, 71-3 a/so postmodemism
Dynasty49,50,51,53,156,214,225 genre 10, 11, 13, 173,212-15; choice
28-38; and the elderly 194, 195; films
economy 7, 74, 80; see a/so cultural; 46; limits of 44-55; and text 232-7;
financial; political theory 44
elderly viewers 13, 180-203; using gratification(ists) 102,236 see a/so uses
television 185-97; see a/so values and gratifications
Emmerda/e Farm 182 Gray, Ann 5, 30, 122, 124,242; (1986)
empirical research 7, 10,24,25,29, 229
96-115,224 Gross, Larry, 5,130-49; and Gcrbner,
encoding/decoding model 17-19 George (1976) 12, 131
entertainment 164, 211; political Grossberg, Lawrence 9, 22, 26, 34-5,
influence through 72 104; (1986) 97
escapism 14,241-2
essentialist perspective 20 habit(s): television viewing 170, 175,
ethnic groups: reactions to Dallas 13, 185-91, 230, 231
206-19 Hall, Stuart 17, 19-20,58,104, 107, 110
ethnograph y: definition 226-7; of reading Hebdige, Dick 32, 33; (1981) 117
223-7 ; of soap opera viewers 13,96, heterogeneity, social 73
223-47 heteroglossia 69-71, 73
259
Index
Hill Street Blues 141 meaning(s) 10, 70: construction!

historical context and theory 21 interpretation 17, 18, 169, 172,224;
Hobson, Dorothy 12,30,37,49,51-2, divergent 223-4; and pleasure 3,60-1,
60, 122, 124, 150-67 62,66,71,73,102,244; systems,
home context: television viewing 5, 34-8 theory of 18; and text 19, 58-9, 60-1 ,
homosexuals and media 12, 134-49; 223-4; and social dimension 58-9,
subversion 142-4; see also lesbians; 60-1,244; see also audience/viewer;
minority media; stereotyping gender
housework and media 228-31; theories media 4-5 , 102, 170, 171,204;
228-9 communications as worldwide common
hypodermic" theory 16-19,223 background 132; and everyday life
12-13, 168-79,228; reality, challenges
"I": use in feminist research, 124 to 79-95; topicalities; use/under-use
identification, audience 31,60,73,83 16-19,35-6,38,170,175,176,177,
identity 4,9, 14,40; cultural 191; female 178, 194-5; see also change; contexts;
244 cultural resource; habits; mass;
ideology 2, 3, 7,19,21,69,74,204,242; minority; pleasure; reader, needs of;
dominant, media as 133, 141; mass real(ism); social defmition;
culture 242 socio-economic groups
individual perspective 17, 172 melodrama 49,51, 124
interest, maintaining audience 161 men and media 5, 37, 107-9,244; see
interpretation: research 4, 106-10, 172-3, also characters; male
174; social context of21; textual6,17, methodology, research 24-5,96-7, 10,
24,204,224 102-6, 124; see also empirical;
intertextuality 12,22,64-7, 123 researcher
intervention, critical 74-6 minorities and media 130-49; power 131;
involvement, viewer 82, 217, 236 television influence on attitudes to 12,
132; see also representation;
KIWts Landing 238 stereotyping
Kreutzner, Gabriele et a11-15, 223-47 minority media 145-7
modernism and postmodernism 9-10
lesbians 12, 135; see also homosexuals Modleski, Tania 13, 14n, 25, 29, 30, 51;
Liebes , Tamar and Katz, Elihu 6, 13, (1982)48,237,238,239,240,241;
31-2,39,204-22,232 (1986) 6-7
listener see audience; reader Morley, David 1,5,6,8, 10, 14n, 16-43,
live broadcast II , 67-8, 79-95, 116 see 122,242;(1980)3,49,73,96,98-100,
also reality 102,106-10,233,234;(1981)223,
224;(1986) 129n, 191
mainstream 11, 12,48,75,96,97, 100-1, "mother, ideal" 13, 25, 48, 237-42
102, 108; media and minorities 130-49
male viewer 53, 55n, 139, 230; see also objectivity 134
characters; men openness/flexibility, textual 63,67,68,
manipulation 29,53,210,211,216,218, 69
219,240; by viewer 75
marital relationships I, 195-6 pleasure(s) 2, 3, 4-5, 52, 56-7, 70, 71-3,
Marxist perspectives 2, 8,9,29,49,97, 196-7; analysis/study of 21-2,29; see
204,209 also diversity; meaning; women
mass communications research II, 122 plurality: audience studies 107
mass culture 29; ideologies 117, 190, political: context in audience studies
202n, 242; theories 223 105-6; economy 8, 61, 62, 83-4;
mass media: and sexual minorities power of television and viewer 72; see
130-49; stimulus-response theory 2 also entertainment
260
Index
politics 5, 7, 14, 19,72,91 ; consumer/ Russo, Vito (1986) 136, 137; (1987)
family/gender 74; and pleasure 5, 14, 138-9
28-38
popular/popularity 29-30, 49, 74, 120, Screen theory 47
126, 154-60 secondary relations 65-6, 68-9
positivism 102, 103, 105 segmentation 28, 63-4
postmodemism 8-14, 15n, 39,125; Seiter, Ellen 48; et all-15, 25, 30, 72,
theory 18 22~7
poststructuralism 6, 97, 98 selection/selectivity 37-8,188,194,204,
power 91, 102, 131, 182,204,230; 232-3
relationships 37-8, 83-6; social 72, semiotic: democracy 67-9, 71, 73;
83-6, 244; see also political; semiotic differences 74, 75-6; power 70,75-6;
primary relations 65 resistance 72-3, 75-6
production : and consumption 8, 29, 59, serials/seriality 49-51, 67-9, 235
61; and escapism 14 sex see gender
program(s) 37-8, 53, 59, 61,126,167; sexual minorities and mass media 130-49
maintaining interest 161; see research; signifiers 19, 23
selection soap opera II, 44, 45, 51, 232-4;
psychoanalytic theory 19-21 ,22,23-4 attitudes to 4, 53,116-117,123-5;
criticism of 123-5,162-3; and the
racial differences and television 73 elderly 13, 180-203; and everyday life
radio as media 177 228-31; interest in, maintaining 53,
Radway, Janice 14n, 15n, 28, 30, 124, 65-6,68-9,161; personal
223,224; (1984) 72-3 ; (1988) 10 life/involvement 217,236-7;
Rath, Claus-Dieter 11,79-95 popularity of 154-60; research 125;
reader 18-19,23,204; see also audience; study of 48, 224-5; see also American;
text Britain; characters; ethnography;
reading(s) 22-5,121, 122,223-7; feminist; fiction; housework ;
"preferred" 18-19; theory of 23 involvement; "mother ideal"; pleasure;
realism 31, 70, 131,241-2; and escapism realism; reality; secondary relations ;
241-2; and soap opera 51, 157-60, status; text; work
163-6 social: change 57, 73; contexts of viewing
reality 79-95,117,132,139,169,178-9, 2,4,26-7,88,101,102,224;
209; and fiction, interweaving 150, definition and mass media 135;
165,167; social 89, 132, 172, 174, differences and culture 7, 75; ecology
236 ; see also representation of viewing 39-40; environment and
reception theory 23-4, 122 texts 244; information, soap operas as
relationships/relations: see domestic; 67; meanings 10, 27; perspective 52;
family; gender; marital; power; social relations, family 36-8, 174; structure,
representation 5, 70-1, 73, 131, 132 role of 18; see also age; experience;
research 2, 3,6,7-8,28,116-29; femininity; heterogeneity; identity;
academic 4; dominant 204; see also interpretation ; involvement; power;
audience studies; critical; empirical; reality; status; stigmatization
feminist; ideology; interpretation ; socio-economic groups, lower; and mass
mainstream ; mass communications; media 140
methodology; "universalization" Sons and Daughters 154, 196, 197
researchers 4,13,25,197,198-201,227, status and soap opera 123, 204
242-3 stereotyping 5, 13, 135-9, 144
revisionism and re-seeing 14 subject 19, 20, 40, 67
ritual 90, 172, 177 subjectivism 105
Rogge, Jan-Uwe 12-13,168-79 subjectivity 57, 71, 242
romance(s) 124,224 Sullivans, The 182
261
Index
taste and popularity 28, 29-30 topicality 11,80-91

telecommunications and society 131 Tulloch, John 13, 50, 180-203; and
television 2, 3, 34-8, 83-4, 123, 167; Moran, Albert (1986) 60, 181
attitudes to I, 116. 117; and cinema
26-7,48; cultural dimensions 11, unconscious see consciousness
59-62,74; "good" 116-20, 126; United States (US) see America; cultural
industry 61-2. 74, 119,216; as imperialism; femininity
information source 132, 188; popular universalism 21-2
74,116-17,118; making sense of 57, universalistic theory 19. 20
58.60-1,74,241; and social reality 89, universalization: research 25
132; see also aesthetic; audience; uses and functions approach 191
commercial; community; criticism, uses and gratifications 16-17, 98, 103,
cultural; diversity/difference; elderly, 106, 107, 108, 119, 204; "active"
the; fiction; intertextuality ; live audience, stress on 2, 100, 102;
broadcast; media; minorities; popular ; challenge to 223; and the elderly 195
power; reality; serials; topicality;
viewing; women values, generational 191-7
text 6, 16,23,24,27,52,131,224; and viewers see audience
audience study II, 12, 19,56-78, viewing 4, 57; in everyday life 10, 34-8;
116-29; democracy 63-71; dispersal, modes of 25-7, 36-8, 39.118,125-6;
modes of 120-5; "encrustation" 23, 53; patterns 53; social dimensions of 2,
"feminine" 124; producerly 63, 69; 39-40,101, 140; see also behavior ;
reader/reading 18-19,22-5,204; soap cinema; female; gender; habits; home;
opera 13, 232-7, 244; "supertext" 22, identity; power; reading; research;
27; and viewer interaction 99, 127n, social contexts; social ecology; women
167, 191,223; see also fiction; film;
gender; genre; historical; Walkerdine, Valerie 21-2; (1986)
intertextuality; secondary relations; 198-200
subject; television, making sense of Warth, Eva-Maria et all-15 , 223-47
textual: analysis 122, 126; criticism 12; Williams, Raymond 48,64; (1974) 63,
determinism 98-9; interpretation 6; see 118; (1977) 140
also closure; openness women and media I, 5, 29, 53, 107-9,
textuality 56-9, 60-1, 73 123; housework and leisure 37,
theory see aesthetic; auteur; 228-31; interview interaction 243-4;
communication; context; critical; and postrnodernism 10; representation
cultural capital; film; genre; historical ; and the real, handling 70-1; and soap
housework; "hypodermic"; mass opera 4,25,30-1.49,64,244; see also
culture; mass media stimulus-response; characters ; romance; social factors
meanings systems; psychoanalytical; work and television/soap opera 12, 14,
reading; reception; Screen; 23, 150-67
universalistic working class life: representations in
time I, 67-9, 80, 82-3; see also everyday soap-opera 32-3, 49
life
262

Remote Control Seiter Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remote Control Seiter Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remote Control Seiter Et Al.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS:

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

ISBN: 978-0-415-82199-5 (Set)

Ellen Seiter, Hans Borchers, Gabriele Kreutzner,

11 On the critical abilities of television viewers

It is perhaps symbolic of the pervasiveness of television in our world today that

In a recent issue of LadiesHome Journal, a psychologist offers advice to readers

paradigms in media studies today; critique the concept of audience pleasure as it

television, as an attempt, in part, to verify empirically the kinds of ideological

research proposed here - relying on a particular kind of willing participation and

The politics of pleasure

pleasures, as criticism and research on culture have historically done. However,

Uses of the "critical"

researchers. Each of these meanings is also associated with a line of argument

As cultural studies gains influence in North America, Australia and elsewhere,

form of commodity culture in a particular phase of late capitalism as well as a

examples, which lend themselves to the tendency within postmodernist television

Similarly, RobertAllen's "Burstingbubbles" tracesthe development of genre

Charlotte Brunsdon expresses reservations about the apparent displacement of

Changing paradigms in audience studies

Effects, uses, and decodings

in socio-linguistics and in the connections with debates in the sociology of

organization as constraints on the production of meaning disappearentirely and

Psychoanalytic theories of the subject

fighting is a key term in a discourse of powerlessness, of a constant struggle

Texts and readings

"paratext" or the "supertext"? I want to begin here by referring to Tony Bennett's

Contexts, media, and modes of viewing

second concerns the problem of the non-transferability of the modes of viewing

Genres, pleasures and the politics of consumption

There are, evidently, a number of political difficulties running through these

the commodities in question - films, books, television programs, etc . - have

Popular forms: soap opera and American culture

Television and everyday life: the context of viewing

1 To make a meaningful study of the use of the media, it is necessary to take

Old perspectives for new

27 Andrew Buchanan, quoted in Philip Corrigan, "Film Entertainment as Ideology

The practice of discussing contemporary television programming in terms of

irreconcilability of which necessitated obsessive reworking within each film and

distinct but related lines of inquiry to be broughttogether: interrogations of "the

16 Annette Kuhn, "Women's Genres," Screen 25 (1984): 18-28 .

and central to thisprocessis the inescapable intertextuality of our culture,a point

struggle. Making sense of social experience is an almost identical process to

Television as cultural commodity

The democracy of the television text

Segmentation and syntagmatic gaps

The subject and the social formation

Time , seriality, and semiotic democracy

It is typically accompanied by a critical awareness of the conventions of soap

Pleasure, semiosis, and difference

to stand up to and oppose the patriarchal power in their marriages." The

being made, of these processes being actualized, of the delineation of the

1 pupils are shut in;

These similarities enable Prisoner to provide the students with an imaginative

36 David Morley, The "Nationwide" Audience: Structure and Decoding (London:

Live television and its audiences:

Live broadcast as a risk factor

Live broadcast as a choice in programming