Chapter one Changing paradigms in audience studies David Moriey ' 7a■■ SoW^j. (*&-) k.*«* £***** LotaA*-- iaujitA** lito. Effects, uses, and decodings The history of audicne^ studies during the post-war period can be seen as a scries of oscillations between perspectives which have stressed Ute 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 mosi obviously represented by the whole tradition of effects studies, mobilizing a hypodermic model of media influence, in which the media are seen as having the power lo "inject" their audiences with particular messages which will cause them to behave in a particular way. This has involved, from die right, perspectives which would sec the media causing the breakdown of "traditional values" and, from the left, perspectives which sec the media causing their audience to remain quiescent in political terms, or causing them to inhabit some form of false consciousness. One finds curious contradictions here/On die one hand, television is accused of reducing ilS audience to the status of "zombies" or "glassy-eyed dupes" who consume a constant diet of prcdigeslcd 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 somna m bulaní 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.1 One point of interest here is that these "television zombies" are always otner people. Few people think of their own use of television in diis way. It is a dieory about what television docs to other, more vulnerable people. The second key perspective has been the work that has developed principally Írom thc\)ses and gratifications school. Within that perspective, (he viewer is redited 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.1 This argument was obviously of great significance in moving (he debate forward \Q Changing paradigms in audience studies - to begin to look at trie active engagement of the audience with the medium and with the particular television programs that they might be watching. One key advance which was developed by the uses and gratifications perspective was that of the variability of response and interpretation. From this perspective one can no longer talk about the "effects" of a message on a homogeneous mass audience who arc expected lo be affected in the same way. However, the limitation is that the "uses and gratifications" perspective rcjnainsJlMÜvidualistJc, jn so far as differences of response or interpretation arc ultimately attributed lo individual differences of personality or psychology. Clearly, uses and gratifications docs represent a significant advance on effects theory, in so far as it opens up the question of differential interpretation. However, it remains severely limited by 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 Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, as an attempt to take forward insights which had emerged within each of these other perspectives.' It look, from the effects theorists, the notion that mass communication is a structured activity, in which the institutions which produce the messages do have 'ä power tosci agendas, and to define issues. This is to move away from the idea of the power or the medium to make a person behave in a certain way (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 witl tend to operate. The model also attempted to incorporate, from the uses and gratifications perspective, the model of the active viewer making meaning from the signs and symbols which the media provide. However, it was also designed to lake on hoard, from the work developed within the interpretative and normative paradigms, the concern with the ways in which responses and interpretations arc structured and patterned at a level beyond that of individual psychologies. The model was also, critically, informed by scmiological perspectives focusing on the question of how communication "works." The key focus was on the realization that we arc. of course, dealing with signs and symbols which only have meaning within the terms of reference supplied by codes (of one sort oranothcr) which the audience shares, lo some greater or lesser extent, wilh the producers of messages. In short, the encoding/decoding model was designed lo provide a synthesis of insights that had come oul of a series of d iffcreni perspectives - communication theory, semiology, sociology, and psychology - and to provide an overall model of the communication circuit as it operated in its social context. It was concerned wilh matters of ideological and cultural power and il was concerned with shilling the ground of debate so lhal emphasis moved to the consideration of how it was possible for meaning to be produced. It attempted to develop the argument that we should took not for the meaning of a text, but for the conditions of a practice - i.e. to examine the foundations of communication, but crucially, lo examine those foundations as social and cultural phenomena. This was die point of interest David Mortey in socio-linguistics and in üic connections with debates in ihc sociology of education (niosi 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 die 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.3 However, it remains a limited model, in so far as it simply provides for the three logical possibilities of the receiver Cither 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 Hymcs. Bourdicu, 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 diroughout the different sections of ihc media audience.6 In the more recent period, a whole number of shortcomings with the encoding/ decoding model of communication have been identified,7 These criticisms concern, for instance, the extent to which the model tends to conceive of language merely as a conveyor bell for prcconstiiulcd meanings or messages; the way in which it tends to confuse textual meaning with the conscious intentions of broadcasters; and ihc tendency lo blur together under the heading of "decoding" what arc probably best thought of as separate processes along (lie axes of comprehension/incomprehension, as opposed to agreement/disagreement *w other people might watch television, in the manner which Fcucr suggests. In the case of my own research, f would accept lhat in the absence of any significant clement of participant observation of actual behavior beyond die interview situation, 1 am lefl only with the stories that respondents chose to lell me. Those stories are, however, themselves both limited by, and indcxical of. ihe cultural and linguistic frames of reference which respondents have available to them, ihrough which to articulate ilicir responses, though, as Feuer rightly notes, these arc limited to the level of conscious responses. -20 Changing paradigms 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. 1 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 pan - and the distinction will nol necessarily be readily accessible from observed behavioral clues. Moreover, should you wish to understand what I am doing, it would probably be as well lo ask mc. I may well, of course, lie to you or otherwise misrepresent my thoughts or feelings, for any number of purposes, bul at least, dirough my verbal responses, you will begin lo get some access to die 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 die researcher to the respondents' conscious opinions and statements but also for the access thai it gives lo Ihc linguistic terms and categories (the "logical scaffolding" in Wittgenstein's terms14) ihrough which respondents construct their worlds and iheir own understanding of their activities. The dangers of ihe "speculative" approach advocated by Feuer in which the theorist simply attempts to imagine the possible implications of spectator positioning by ihc text arc well illustrated in Ellen Seiler el al. 's critique oi Tania Modlcski's work (sec Chapter twelve of this volume). Scitcr el al. argue lhat Modleski's analysis of how women soap opera viewers arc positioned by die text - in ihc manner of die "ideal mother" who understands all the various motives and desires of ihc 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 Modlcski "imagines" lhat all women will occupy in relation lo soap opera texts turns out. empirically, to be refused by many of the working-class women interviewed by Scitcr el al. In short, wc sec here how the "speculative" approach can, at times, lead to inappropriate "universal i/aiions" of analysis which turn out to be premised on particular assumptions regarding the social positioning of the viewer. This is precisely ihc point of empirical work -as len Ang puts it, lo "keep our interpretations sensitive to concrete specificities, to Ihc unexpected, lo history" - lo Ihc possibility of. in Paul Willis' words, "being surprised, of reaching knowledge not prefigured in one's starling paradigm."2* Contexts, media, and modes of viewing The question here is how wc 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, "lltcrc arc three main issues that I wish lo address. One concerns the adequacy of the traditional model within film theory, which relates the spectator to the cinema lexl. or film. The 68 David Mortey second concerns the problem of the non-iransferabilÍly or üic modes of viewing associated with the cinema lo (he dominant mode of viewing associated wiih television. The Uiird i5 concerned with ihc need to specify variations within die different modes of viewing of television. First. I want to consider the iheorization of the film audience, within the context of the cinema. PrcdominanUy, 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 dian the question of the film teal, 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 die pictures" has meant. I want to suggest thai the whole notion of "the picture palace" is as significant as the question of "film." This is to introduce die question of the phenomenology of "going to the pictures," which involves die "social architecture" - in terms of decor and ambience - of the context in which films have predominantly been seen. Quite simply, this is to argue dial 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 pan of that experience. Rather than selling individual films, cinema is best understood as having sold u 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 die phenomenology of the whole "moment" of going to die pictures - "the queue, the entrance stalls, the foyer, cash desk, stairs, corridor, entering die cinema, the gangway, the seats, the music, the lights fading, darkness, the screen which begins to glow as the silk curtains arc opening."11 Any analysis of the film subject which docs not take on board these questions - of the context in which die 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 die protocols of die lilcmry 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 die different context of the understanding ofa television audience. As Larry Grossbcrg has put it, "film theory rests on the assumed privileging ... of a particular form of engaged subjectivity... [in which] die viewer (is) engaged in a concentrativc act in which they arc absorbed into the world of the film."" Now. not only must this cease to apply in relation to film when we consider its consumption cither on broadcast television or on video in die 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 wc try to transpose theories developed in relation to the activity of the cinema audience to the activity of the television audience. u Changing paradigms in audtenco studios 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 lo 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 litde attention - a casual viewer relaxing at home in the midst of a family group. Attention has to be solicited 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."1* len Ang has noted that what is particularly interesting here is the way in which Ullis 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 ofa rhetoric of television. I lowevcr. 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 represe n tat ion and types or (direct) address. <... (thus EllisT 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.50 len Ang goes on to argue dial 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, lo see televisual discourse as a basically unified toxi without... internal contradictions ... Iralhcrl... wc should analyse the different positions offered to viewers in relation to different parts of Ihc televisual discourse.11 In summary, the key issues identified here arc the status of the text; the relation of tcxi and context; the usefulness of an expanded notion of the "supcrtcxl": the problem of "medium specific" modes of viewing; and the fuidicr problem ol variations of modes of viewing wiihin any one medium. It is this set of concerns, J want to argue, which provide the framework wiihin which one must, in fact, consider the particular readings which specific audiences make of individual programs. 43 David Mor ley Genres, pleasures and Ihť politics or consumption One of üic most important developments in recent work in this Held has been the shift from the concern with interpretations of specific films or television programs lo 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 audiences in specific social situations. In this respect. Janice Railway 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 ihe women 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 isolution, to the complex social event of reading." 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 particular types of material are particularly attractive to specific segments of the audience. The key reference, most obviously, is to the work of Pierre tiourdicu 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. Banbcs 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 "Ihe 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 universalized psychic mechanism. Here, in fact, it seems quite possible dial 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 lo identify the issue of audience segmentation as one of the keys lr> the successful pursuit of profil. It is of some considerable interest thai, within the realm of British television it was, as Ian Connell has argued, undoubtedly the commercial chnnncl, ľTV, which "led the way in making connection with and expressing popular struciures of feeling."3* As Connell argues, by its very 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. Changing paradigms 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 Gamharn concerning the question of commercial television, popular taste, and public broadcasting.11 These same political difficulties have also been brought into focus in another context, in the debates between writers such as Jane Root and Kailiy Myers,M who have attempted m analyse the specific forms of pleasure which are offered to consumers (and particularly lo women)- as against those such as Judith Williamson1* who argue (hat the project of attempting lo understand, popular pleasures continually runs the risk of ending up as an uncritical perspective which simply endorses popular tastes because they arc popular. In a similar vein lo Williamson, Tania Modlcski has also recently argued that we face a danger of "collusion" between "truBS culture critics" and "consumer society." Modlcski's argument is that the insight that audiences arc not completely manipulated, but may appropriate mass cultural artefacts for their own purposes, has been carried so far thai it would seem that mass culture is no longer a problem for some "marxist" critics___If die problem with some of the work of Ihe Frankfurt School was lhal iis members were too far outside the culture they examined. Critics today seem to have the opposite problem: immersed in thci*-culture. half in k>ve with their subject, they sometimes seem unable to achieve the proper critical distance from it As a result, they may unwillingly wind up writing apologies for mass culture and embracing iis ideology.™ Modlcski claims thai die 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 turn out to be a form of "collaborating with the (mass culture) industry." More fundamentally, she quotes, with approval. Terry Faglcton's comments to the effect that a socialist criticism "is not primarily concerned with ihe consumers* revolution* lis lask is to take over the means of production."** II seems that, from Modlcski's point of view, empirical methods for lite study of audiences are assumed to be " tainted" simply because many of them have been and arc used within the realms of commercial market research. Moreover, in her uscof Eagleton's quote, she finally has recourse loa 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 ihe study of "production" 10 the exclusion of ihe study of all oihcr levels of ihe social formation. The problem is lhat production is only brought to fruition in the spheres of circulation and exchange - to thai 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 wc might wish in make on die popularity of Dallas or any other commercial product is a quite David Morley different maller from ihc need io understand its popularity. The functioning of taste, and indeed of ideology, ha?; 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 : ovcll has argued, goods which ate produced for profit can only, in fact, acquire an exchange value if they also have a use value to (hose who consume them. As Lovell puis it: Ihc 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 lhat 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 Popular forms: soap opera and American culture I wiint now to move on. widiin this general framework, lo 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 arc. first. Ihc study of soap opera in relation to a feminine audience and, second, the siudy of "American culture." American fictional programming (and Dallas as a particular instance), in relation to non-American audiences. In relation io the study of soap opera, the body of work developed by writers such as Tania Modleski. Dorothy Hobson, len Ang. Charlotte Rrunsdon, Janice Radway. Ellen Scitcr el at., and Ann Gray is now extensive and I shall not comm-cnl here in dcuiil on it.41 However. I would argue lhat what is most inicresting about it is precisely the concern to understand how and why i| is lhat this specific variety of programming is found lo be particularly pleasurable by women. Whether one locales thai pleasure in the homology between the narrative style of the programming and (he constantly interrupted and cyclical nature of many women's domestic work-lime, or whether one locates the issue centrally around the "fit" bciwccn particular feminine forms of social and cultural competence and the particular focus of these lexts on the complexities of human relations, die mode of inquiry is, to my mind, exemplary in so far as it takes seriously, mid is concerned to investigate in detail, the specific types of pleasures which this particular type of programming offers to a distinct category of viewers. do Changing paradigms in audience studies len Ang draws on Pierre Bourdicu's notion lhat popular pleasures arc characterized by an immediate emotional or sensual involvement inllieohjceiof pleasure (i.e. dtc possibility of identification) so that popular pleasure is first and foremost a pleasure of recognition.41 As Ang says, the question is what do Dallas lovers recognize in Dallas, and how and why docs lhat pleasure work? Clearly, one pail of lhat identification, fora feminine audience, must bellte 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 ihc structure in which they operate, minimally Ihcse arc programs in which dtosc problems arc recognized and validated. However, these forms of identification themselves arc clearly variable. Some soap operas clearly work on a level of empirical realism, in so far as die characters within them are presented as living in situations comparable to diosc of significant numbers of their audiences (ßrookside 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, bul is subjective experience of the world: a 'structure of feeling.'"" AsshesuggcsLs.it would seem lo he diis "tragic structure of feeling" in soap opera which, for many women, is what is recognized and is Nut with which they can identify. However, Dallas can also provide us wiih a useful bridge to the second üieme noted above. This is to focus on Dallas not so much as a snap opera but as "ycl more evidence of Ihc threat posed by American style commercial culture against 'authentic' national cultures and idem i lies ... j.e. Dallas as ihc symbol of American cultural imperialism."44 Here die issue becomes noi so much one of gender 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 ihc most important work is lhal which has been conducted by Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes on international readings of Du/ŕat.41 Their project was designed to investigate how it is dial US commercial culture can be so popular ihroughout ihe 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 ihe lives of ils variously cultured viewers? 1 low is [his compatibility expressed? Or. negatively, when and where docs Uic program nol work? One of the key issues which Kaiz and Liebes have been concerned lo investigate is llic way in which certain levels of the program might be expected lobe 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, ciUtcr in terms of nationality, ethnicity, class, or sex. Ihc broad framework within which this project was initially conceived has allowed questions lo be asked such as whether the "meaning" of die program is to be found in ihc genre, in ihe interactions of the characters, in ihe moral issues as embodied in ihc sc characters. David Mor ley or in the narrative form. As Tamar Liebes herself has written, Ihis research project has not been aimed ul' attempting lo dcmonsiralc effect, but rather... to investigate those processes that arc prerequisite to any possible effect, namely, understanding, interpretation and evaluation ... i.e. to address ihe question of how American films and television programs can cross cultural and linguistic frontiers."4» Their research has thrown up a number of examples of how community members from a variety of ethnic origins negotiate the meanings of Ihe program by confronting the text with their own traditions and ihcir own experience. Moreover, this research has illustrated the important function which programs of this type can serve for viewers in providing them wiih an "occasion"' or forum in which to debate issues of concern lo them. As Kaiz 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 ihcse lines. Of further, substantial, interest is the material which the research has produced, not simply in terms of differential interpretations or evaluations of diis or that program item, bui in rclalion lo llic different "angles of vision" (for instance, the distinction between poetic and referential readings) which different groups bring [0 the program." In the British context, where the very phrase "wall to wall Dallas" has come to represent ihe notion of television at its very (and qui messe ntially 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 scries are held to have "invaded" European cullure. I want to Iry to relate the argument about cultural imperialism back 10 the issues raised earlier 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 f lebdige 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, ihe battle lines in Ibis debate were drawn - real worKing-class cullure, quality, and taste on one side; die ersatz blandishment of soft disposable commodities, streamlined cars, rock and roll, crime and promiscuity on the other. As Hcbdigc 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." Hcbdigc describes how the images ol'crime. disaffected youth, urban crisis, and spiritual drift became "anchored logcdicr around popular American commodities, fixing a chain of associations which has become thoroughly sedimentcd in British common-sense."4* Thus, in particular. American Changing paradigms in audience studies food became a standard metaphor for declining standards. The very notion of the Americanization of television came to stand for a scries of associations: commercialization, banality, and die destruction of traditional values. The debate which Hebdtge opens up here goes back centrally to Richard Hoggart's work on TAe Uses of Literacy.x Hoggau's book is a detailed appreciation of traditional working-class community life, coupled with a critique of the "homogenizing" impact of American culture on these communities. According lo Hoggart. auUiemic working-class life was being destroyed b> ihe "hollow brightness." the "shiny barbarism." and "spiritual decay" of imported American cullure. This lamentation on the dele tcrious cffccls of Americanization was, and continues to be. advanced from the Ic ft just as much as from llic right of the political spectrum. However. Hebdigc's central poim is that these American products - streamlined, plastic, and glamorous - were precisely diose which appealed to substantial sections of a British working-class audience (and. in television terms, were related to Ihe same dynamics of popular laste which lay behind die mass desertion of the working-class audience toward commercial television when ii began lobe broadcast in die UK in the 1950s)-While, from the paternalistic point of view of Ihe upholders of "traditional British values." ihese American imported products constituted "a chromium hoard bearing down on us," for a popular audience. Hcbdigc argues, ihcy constituted a space in which oppositional meanings (in relation to dominant traditions of British culture) could be negotiated and expressed. 1 would note a number of connections in this respect. First, the point which Hcbdigc develops about the appeal of American culture lo disadvantaged groups within another society is paralleled by Icn Ang's findings concerning die nature of ihe 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 cnlegories of teenagers for different types of television programs, adds some further support to die 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 lhal there arc more black characters in American shows, but is closely related to Hebdigc's argument about the subversive appeals of certain types of "vulgar" commercial products for subordinated groups. In concluding this section, I would also like to add one more twist lo ihe siory. The images which Orwell and Hoggart use to characterize the damaging effects of American popular culture have a recurring theme: the "fem in i zntion" of the authentic muscle and masculinity of the British industrial working class, which ihcy saw as under attack from an excess of Americana - characterized essentially by passivity, leisure, and domesticity, warm water badis, sun bathing, and llic "easy life." When the discussion 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 arc clearly, from Hoggart's or Orwell's position, David Moflay dealing wiih [lie lowest of die low. or as Charlotte Bfunsdon ha? characterized it "the trashiest (rash."*' Audience research which can help us begin to unpick die threads which lie tangled behind this particular conundrum would seem m 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 die case of television this is a recognition of the domestic comc-xi. 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, I« us begin by noting, with len Ang that an audience does not merely consist of die 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 diis connection. Thomas Lindlof and Paul Traudl have argued dial 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 gels done. As ihcy 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 emails ... need to be posed and investigated.*'" This is not. by any means, to return to any abstracted notion of the specificity of die 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 disunguish television viewing as it practice from, for instance, cinema viewing, or indeed, from the viewing of video. As Larry Grossbcrg argues. the very force and impact of any medium changes significantly as it is moved from one context to another fa bar, a theatre, the living room, die bedroom, die bench, a rock concert...), Each medium is then o mobile term Liking shape as íl situates itself... within Ihc rest of our lives ... the text is located, not only intcrtcxtually. but in a range of apparatuses as well... thus, one rarely just listens to die radio, watches TV, or even, goes to the movies - one is studying, dating, driving somewhere else, etc.** In Orossbcrg's version of the argument. V1 Changing paradigms in audience studios the indifference of the media displaces the problematic of cultural theory from that of coding ... 10 that of the apparatus itself ... television makes diis displacement particularly obvious and disconcerting - in so far as tele vision viewing constitutes a large temporal part of our lives .... Wfi must note its integration into the muhdanitics of everyday life, and simultaneously, its constant interruption by. and continuity with our other daily routines.*' As Grossbcrg points out, ' one rarely intently gazes at television, allowing oneself lo be absorbed into tlie work, but rather distractedly glances at it or absorbs u into our momentary mood or position ... television is indifferent lo us (it doesn't demand our presence, yet it is always wailing for us). Thus, as he argues, we need to face up to the consequences of the fact thai viewers rarely pay attention in ihc way that sponsors (or advertisers) wanl. and ihcrc 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." Hermann Bausingcr approaches the problem of the domestic contcxi of viewing from a similar angle.-** and quotes the following remark made by an interviewee: "Early in the evening we watch very little TV. Only when my husband is in a real rage. He comes home, hardly says anything and switches on the TV.",,n Bausingcr notes thai many media analysts would interpret ibis man's action as signifying a desjrejojwatch TV. However, as Bausingcr goes oň. in ihis case "pushing ihc button doesn't signify 'I would like lo watch this,' but rather 'I would like to sec and hear nothing."*" Conversely, he notes, later, the opposite ease where "the Taihéŕ goes lo his room, while the mother sits down next lo her eldest son and watches the sports review with him. It does not interest her. but ii is an allcmpl at making contact."*3 By way of a protocol, Bausingcr also helpfully provides us with a number ot points lo bear in mind in relation to domestic media consumption: 1 To make a meaningful study of the use of the media, it is necessary lo lake different media into consideration, the media ensemble which everyone deals with today - die recipient integrates the content of different media. 2 As a rule the media are not used completely, nor with full concentration -the degree of aticnlion depends on die lime of the day. or moods, the media message competes with other messages. 3 The media arc an integral pan of the way the everyday is conducted (for example, the newspaper as a necessary constituent part of "bicakfast") and (media) decisions arc constantly crossed through and influenced by non-media condidons and decisions. 4 U is not a question of an isolated, individual process, but ol a collective David Morley process. Even when reading 3 newspaper one is noi truly alone, i( lakes place in ihe conical of ihe family, friends. 5 Media communication cannot be separated from direct personal communication. Media contacts arc materials for conversation." In a similar way. Paddy Scanned has usefully analysed what he calls die "unobtrusive ways in which broadcasting sustains die lives, and routines, from one day to the next, year in, year out, of whole populations."64 This is, in effect. 10 pay attention to the role of the media in the very structuring of time. Another oblique connection is worth noting here- The perspective which Scanneil advances is closely related to Bourdicu's insistence on the materiality of the subjeel, as a biological organism existing chronologically. This is to emphasize the sludy of the organization of time as a necessary focus for any sociology of culture. At another level, Scanncll's focus is on the role of national broadcasting media as central agents of national culture, in Ihe organizing of Ihe "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 sludy of ihe isolated text, and at the same tíme beyond any abstract notion of the sludy of television as an undifferentiated "flow." Rather than having recourse to cidicr of these opposite, but equally inadequate positions, we must nttend to the issue of television scheduling and the manner in which, for instance, as Richard Patcrson has argued." the broadcasting institutions construct their schedules in ways which arc designed to complement the basic modes of domestic organization, but also, inevitably, then come to play an active and constitutive role m Ute organization of domestic time. This, üwn, is to advance a perspective which attempts lo combine questions of interpretation with questions of the "uses" of television (and other media), an approach more commonly associated with a broadly based sociology of leisure. This perspective relocates television viewing within Ihe overall context of domestic leisure. Given that television is a domestic medium it follows that die appropriate mode of analysis must take the unit or 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 diis frame. Mere we begin to open up a whole set of questions about the differences hidden behind the indiscriminaie 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 lypcs of programs, shown in different slots in the overall schedule, in relation to different spaces within the organization of domestic life. Clearly, if wc are considering television viewing in the context of the family. things arc pretty complicated. First of all one is not able to treat the individual viewer as ifhc or she were a free or rational consumer in a cultural supermarket. Changing paradigms in audience studies For many people (and especially for ihe less powerful members of any household) the programs they watch arc not necessarily programs which the y 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 Scan Cubilt lias called "the politics of the living room," where, as he puts it, "if the camera pulls you in to involvement with Ihe screen, the family is likely to pull you out."66 This is also to try to gel beyond the way in which television is often understood-simply as disruptive of family life. It is lo look at the way in which television is also used by people 10 construct "occasions" around viewing, in which various types of interaction con 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 die social relations of ihe household. However, a number of points follow from this. As soon as one Üiinks about television in die context of social relations then one is inevitably thinking about television in tlie eontcxt of power relations. If one is considering the domestic context, dien it will inevitably be gender relations, in particular, that will come into focus, within the household. This is lo introduce a whole set of possible connections and disjunctions between gender relations and die organization of private and public life - nol least, ihe differential positioning of women and men within die domestic space of ihe household. In short, if. for men, their concept of time and space is organized around a notion of "worktimc" 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 nol 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.1" though again ii 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, il is also important to take note of James Lull's work on TV viewing in the domestic context. One of Ih« 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 wc approach ihe central question of power. And within any patriarchal society ihe 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, arc also and inevitably power relations. Lull's central finding in his survey of David Morley control of (he television sei was lhat fathers wctc named (nol surprisingly) mosi often as the person who controlled the selection of television programs. In essence, as Lull poll ii, "the locus of control in ihc program sclcciion process can be explained primarily by family position."** Thus, lo 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 ihe domestic viewing context, there is a certain sense of simply restating things which we "already know," from our own experience of domcslic life. This very insistence on the importance of these banal considerations is made difficult by their "lakcn-for-gran icdncss" - as lbe invisible routines and structures inside of which our lives arc organized. In Britain, the results of u study conducted during 1985 by Peter Collen, 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 considers lions on lo the agenda of public discussion.70 No one who saw ihc tapes could really have claimed to have been surprised by whal they saw - pictures of people silling in a room with their back to ihc television. piciurcs of empty sofas in front of the screen, pictures of people dressing their children, eating meals, and arguing with each other while seemingly oblivious lo 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 ihe broadcasters, to begin 10 take these questions at all seriously. In making ihcsc 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 opLimism" which would allow us lo rest content in ihc secure understanding thai because so many olher ihings arc going on at ihc same lime, nobody pays any attention lo television and therefore we shouldn't worry about il. Rather. I am trying lo move ihe baseline, against which we precisely should Ihen be concerned 10 examine the modes and varieties of attention which arc paid to different types of programs, at different poinis in the day by different types of viewers. It is precisely in the context of all these domcslic complications lhal the activity of television viewing must be seriously examined. Old perspectives for new Centrally. I have been trying to argue Hint ihc most useful work which has been conducted within audience studies in the las) few years is thai which has laken on board ihc questions raised flboul the flow of television, the positioning of the subject, ihc conicxiual deierm i nations operating on different types of viewing of different media, alongside a close attention lo die varieties of patterns of laste. Changing paradigms in audience studies response, and interpretation on ihc pari of specific members of the audience. Here 1 would specifically like lo support ihc arguments made by Elihu Kaut and Tamar Liebes when they note lhat they arc in disagreement wilh others who believe thai the unit of television viewing is belter conceptualized as background, or as "a strip" lhat cuts ihrough 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 ... lhat certain programs - some more lhan others - arc identified by viewers as discrete stories and, as such, viewing emails aucnik>n, 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 ihc danger of lapsing into the kind of structuralist perspective which in Peter Dahlgrcn's words, incorporates a view of meaning and consciousness ... and ihc unconscious ... where the subject is essentially dominated by die object ... fand] ihc cultural icxi is reduced to an abstract grammar, wilh meaning residing wholly in its confines. The negotiation of meaning and the historicity of consciousness is denied."'1 As Dahlgrcn continues, In ihe heady wake of the structural reading of Freud it seems lhat die only alternative to Ihc infamous transcendental subject has been a view which understands the subject not only as deccnüed by, bul also crcoicd by. ihc grammatical structures of the unconscious. The unconscious becomes an abstract drive shaft of history, while the individual subject is emptied of any conscious intcnlionalily.71 Similarly, I would want lo argue thai ihe varieties of postmodern relativism in which the text is seen as infinitely "itcrablc" or writable, according lo ihe whim of the subject, arc equally unhelpful, if for ihe opposiic reason. The demonstration lhai theoretically "anything goes," in terms of ihc 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 texis. Such an approach not only abandons any notion (however attenuated) of the cffccliviiy of the text. U also flies in ihe face of ihc empirical evidence we have of the way in which attention, modes of viewing, response, and interpretation arc patterned in observable empirical clusters as bel ween different sectors of ihe audience. Pcicr Dahlgrcn has advanced whal, in my view, is a very useful definidon of a perspcciive which he describes as a concern wilh the "social ecology" of viewing. He attempts lo combine this perspective with a concern for what he also describes as the different "cpisicmic bias" of different media (in so far as each medium fosters a somewhat different dispositional relationship between itself David Motley and its audiences) and indeed, a concern with the differential "cpistcmic biases" of particular types of television material. In a similar vein, Robert Denting has advanced an analysis of the- ways in which specific channels offer particular positional it ies to llicir 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 10 purchase record albums, concert iíkets. fan magazines and rock influenced fashion, while excluding and evaluating those who arc female, ethnic, working-class.** Thus, as Denting argues, the position "I" assume, when called by Dynasty is different from but related to the position I assume when called by Dallas ... 1 am called to assume a position vis-a-vis those two texts, but not all that I am is so culled, only that which is appropriate ... I bring with me, as a Real Social Subject, all my genre-, program-, and culture-spec i He competence btii. again, only [what] is appropriate to the subject-text position.15 U is this level of differentiation of subject positions in relation to different types of material which, it seems to rnc, is important for us to explore. In short, this is to examine Ihc material varieties of the positioning of the subject, not in some iranshistorical or univcrsalislic mode, but from □ 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.77 The object of study, from this perspective, dien focuses on systems of cultural behavior and is necessarily concerned with the organization of diversity.71 Here one can most usefully look for guidance to that body of work in socio-unguis tics which has been concerned with the study of communicative acts, in particular socio-cultuml contexts. My own argument is dial the study of viewing will most effectively be pursued along diese 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 social realities of the differential distribution of cultural competences and values, is an erroneous sociology, the more insidious for being unrecognized." Changing paradigms in audience studies Notes 1 Jnnc Root, Open the Box (London: Comcdia. 1986). 2 Junes Halloran (cd.) The Effects of Television (London: Panther Books. 1970). 3 Stuart Hall. "Encoding/Decoding." in Smart Hall. Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe. -.ii.i Paul Willis (eds) Culture, Media, language (London: Hutchinson. 1980). pp. 128-38. 4 Basil Bernstein. Class. Codes and Control, 3> vols (London: Rouilcdgc A: Kegan Paul. 1973). 5 Frank Parkin. Class Inequality anil Political Order (Loniion: Paladin Books. 1973). 6 See, [or example. Dell Hymcs, "On Communicative Competence." in J.B. Pride and J. Ii"i -zz (eds) SocioHnguistics (\\armonůsv.nilb. Penguin. 1972), pp. 269-93; Picnc Bourdku, Distinction (London: Roiilledgc A K>gan Paul, 1984); Bernstein. Class. 7 Sec. fcr example. Justin Wren-Lewis. "The Encoding-Decoding Model: Criticisms and Redevelopment! for Research on Decoding." Media, Culture, and Society 5 (1983): 179-97. 8 Smart Hall, "Some Problems with the Ideology/Subject Couplťl." Ideology and Cofticio«J/ir«3(l978): 118 9 Smart 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 I9.no. I (1978): 41-69; Steve Ncale. "Propaganda." Screen 18. no. 3 (1977): 9-40. 11 Nealc. "Propaganda," p. 39. 12 Michel Vecheux, Language. Semantic t and Ideology (London: Macmillan. 1982). 13 Valerie Walkerdinc, "Projecting Fantasies: Families Watching Films" (unpublished paper. University oí London. 1 986). 14 ibid. 15 Nick Browne, 'The Political Economy of the TV (Super) Text" (paper presented at die International Television Studies Conference (fTSC), London. 1986), 16 Larry Giossbcrg. "The ln-Diľfcrcnce ofTcIcvision/Screeví 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 Janei Woollacotl. Bond and Beyond: The Political Career of a Popular Hero (London: Macmillan, 1987). 18 Picnc Machercy. A Theory of Literary Production (London: Rouilcdgc A Kegan Paul. 1978). Sec also "An Interview with Pierre Machercy." Red Utters 5 (1977): 3-9. 19 Roland Baflhes. Image-Music-Text (London: Fontána. 1977). 20 John Fiske. 'TV and Popular Culture" (paper presented al low» Symposium on Television Criticism. 1985). 21 Jane Feuer, "Dynasty" (paper presented ai ITSC. London. 1986). 22 ibid. 23 See David Morley, The "Nationwide" Audience: Structure anj Decoding (London: British Film Institute, 1980). and David Morley. Famly Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure (London: Comcdia, 1986). 24 Ludwig Wittgenstein. Tractalus I\ngico-Phitosophieu* (London: Rouilcdgc & Kegan Paul, 1961. p. 40). 25 Tania Modleskt. 'The Search for Tomorrow in Today's Soap Operas." in her Loving with a Vengeance: MassProduced Fantasies for Women (llamden. 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.