Nalazite se na CroRIS probnoj okolini. Ovdje evidentirani podaci neće biti pohranjeni u Informacijskom sustavu znanosti RH. Ako je ovo greška, CroRIS produkcijskoj okolini moguće je pristupi putem poveznice www.croris.hr
izvor podataka: crosbi !

Audience, Text and Context: Television Comedy and Social Critique (CROSBI ID 366134)

Ocjenski rad | doktorska disertacija

Popović, Helena Audience, Text and Context: Television Comedy and Social Critique / prof.dr.sc. Breda Luthar (mentor); Ljubljana, Fakultet društvenih znanosti, Sveučilište u Ljubljani, . 2011

Podaci o odgovornosti

Popović, Helena

prof.dr.sc. Breda Luthar

engleski

Audience, Text and Context: Television Comedy and Social Critique

This research sets out to explore the social reception of a controversial television comedy series in a comparative perspective including Croatia and the United Kingdom (UK). The research is framed within media theory on the text-audience relationship that has moved from the ‘old’ to a ‘new’ paradigm which includes different visions of the power of the text and audiences as well as different visions on how to research this area. Setting out with the assumption that a cultural product never stands alone, but rather that it refers to previous texts and is multiplied in the extra-textual environment, this new paradigm argues that the process of meaning-making can only be located in the more complex connections between texts, audiences and context of encoding and decoding. Following the reception theory’s assumption that interpretation and the negotiation of meaning is always social, I attempt to locate the ways that meaning is produced and to identify which maps of meaning emerge with regards to comedy with all its generic specificities. The social context within which these maps of meaning are formed is important because it fosters some interpretive repertoires while rejecting others, and thus reveals what types of ideas are dominant in a specific socio-cultural context. Thus, the aim of the research is to explore the reception of television comedy, framed within the dispute between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ paradigm, in order to understand how the meaning-making processes evolve. I argue that although the text provides clues for its reading, meaning-making is socially determined: the broader socio-cultural context provides the frames that guide what a text means for the audiences. In addition, although the ‘new’ paradigm has shed important light on the text-audience relationship, the ‘old’ paradigm has not yet been completely exhausted in the assessment of the relationship between the text and audiences. Setting out with the assumption that a cultural product never stands alone, but rather that it refers to previous texts and is multiplied in the extra-textual environment, I have, as indicated in the title of my thesis, organized the study of social reception of this ambiguous, controversial text into three interconnected parts: the text/genre, the extra-textual environment (including academic and newspaper articles), and an exploration of the interpretive community that likes this type of text. In the first part, I consider the text. I focus on Da Ali G Show, created by Sacha Baron Cohen, which is (based on my own reading) a critical commentary. In addition to the fact that all popular texts are useful for understanding everyday life and the construction of meaning, creation of identity and community in a particular culture – this type of provocative comedy and its broader reception also reveals the boundaries of what can and should be said in public, as well as what counts as civilized and tasteful in contemporary society. This is particularly interesting since comedy and humour in general is an area in which tolerance of the blunt and the outspoken is more acceptable than in most spheres of life, revealing the nitty-gritty of social life – the acceptable and its transgression. Even if sensitive themes provoke reaction and constantly balance on the border of (un)acceptable utterance, it is true that comedy, in the last two decades, carries a more overt ‘ruthlessness’, perhaps as a negative reflection of the normative condescension that has emerged with the political correctness debate. The second part is the analysis of the extra-textual environment. This includes academic articles, and newspaper articles mainly written by professional journalists and critics located in UK and Croatia. The academic articles mainly originate from the British, Canadian and American academic community. Three discourses were found, the most dominant one being the identity and political correctness discourse - linked to the interplay between powerful and subordinated identities, in which the one arguing in favour of the text claimed that it subverts stable categories and initiates discussion and self-criticism while the opponents argued that it perpetuates stereotypes and is politically incorrect, harmful and offensive. However the ‘victims’ of Cohen’s comedy were differently defined: Black, Eastern Europeans, Kazakhstan, Muslims. The other discourse that appeared was the discourse on cultural competence – here the conventions and communicative strategies of the text were put forward as the factors creating ambiguity. The underlying assumption of this discourse is that the text is a repository of meaning but that because of its deliberately confusing communicative strategies the audiences might not recognize the preferred meaning, which is social commentary. The third one was labelled the postmodern ‘diagnosis’ of contemporary cultures - that in line with one of its main features – distance, didn’t carry any particular position, pros or cons of the text, but immersed it in the context of signifiers such as hyper-reality, remediation, post-irony, deconstruction, camp, narcissism etc. The analysis of the newspaper articles in the UK and Croatia that referred to the text showed that in both contexts parallels were drawn to previous work and inter-textual references were frequently made in order to make sense of the text. Also two types of discourse dominated the extra-textual field in the evaluation of the show: Meaning - the issue of whether it was offensive or not – which was related to power and identity and the potential social consequences of it. In this respect the identity of the author (Cohen) was frequently put forward ; and Product - the role of marketing campaigns, popularization and the media industry, i.e. in a world dominated by media products more aggressively than ever. Within these two contexts, there were substantial differences: while the UK articles were predominantly concerned with race framed within the context of multiculturalism and respect for other identity groups. The Croatian articles were immersed in a nation state discourse that either focused on geopolitics in which countries of Eastern Europe (including Croatia) sharing a socialist past were viewed as powerless compared to the power of the West, or on the holiness of the nation and nation-state in general, in which scorning this was not considered appropriate. The research on the actual readers was conducted through interviews carried out in London and Zagreb. The audience was conceptualized as an interpretive community built on shared preference for the show. The research showed that the broader social context was important in shaping the meaning that the show had for the readers. There was an obvious difference in the position the text itself had in these respective communities. This was most notable in the way the readers constructed themselves as audiences. The UK interpretive community constructed the audience in relation to socio-demographics, of which age was the most important one, followed by gender (more male) and class (mostly middle class). It was basically measured against their own position, and linked to the author (Cohen) and the way he was embedded in the social structure – as male, young, middle class, white. Since the show was very popular in the UK, it was almost obligatory to watch it, especially among the young people, as a way of being trendy. The Croatian interpretive community defined the audience as a small niche, a minority (which they too formed a part of), constructed through specific traits that were seen as the opposite of the Croatian mainstream: being urban, English speaking, modern, liberal, unconventional, open-minded, knowledgeable etc. This reflects the marginal position the text had in Croatia, viewed by a small niche that considered themselves to be alternative to the Croatian mainstream. The way the interviewees talked about the show revealed two totally different discourses within the respective cultural settings. The UK interpretive community engaged in a completely clear-cut politically correct, ‘civilized’ discourse ; in the Croatian interpretive community, a politically incorrect discourse was dominant. The majority of the Croatian interpretive community explicitly expressed negative attitudes towards gays, Americans, Jews, Croats, human kind in general, Blacks, Eastern Europeans etc. This was also reflected in their decoding of the show. In the UK interpretive community mechanisms were found in the process of meaning-making which enabled one to appreciate the show and still remain within a ‘civilized’ discourse. This ‘window’ was provided by the ambiguous communicative strategies. It was seen as exposing hidden prejudices towards marginalized groups, but also as being a welcome provocation in order to open up debates on the issues of identity and exclusion in Britain that seemed to be suppressed by the politically correct discourse. The mechanisms visible in the UK interpretive community were absent in the Croatian interpretive community, since there was no sense of a violation of the norm if one engaged in a politically incorrect discourse. The appeal of the text for the Croatian interpretive community seemed to lie in the already mentioned all-inclusive scorning that was in accordance with a somewhat cynical worldview of the Croatian interpretive community. However, it was also due to its subversion of the superior image of the West which showed that the supposedly inclusive, civilized, politically correct conduct of the West was fallacious. Finally, framed within media theory, the findings suggest that the meaning-making process is shaped by the social context. The way a text is interpreted is always in relation to the broader systems of signification. External agencies, such as dominant ideologies, institutions and values that circulate in the discursive environment guide the way a text is read. These external agencies determine both the way a text is encoded as well as decoded. Together, the interconnectedness of these parameters is what shapes the way texts are read. This is what limits the possible decodings within a specific historical context, and it is also what enables one to draw conclusions about the modes of decoding that are contextually not legitimate. This research also shows that the text is frequently viewed as powerful. It is seen as a repository of meaning, reflected in the frequently expressed fear that the text will be ‘misread’ by the audiences. It is also reflected in the discussions which imply that the text influences the audience – regardless whether it does so in a positive or negative manner. The identity of the author and his intention as viewed by the reader is quite important – at least when comedy and humour are concerned – since it guides the process of decoding and evaluating the comedy. However, this might be specific to comedy and more generally to humour – especially if it balances on the border of what is considered to be a socially acceptable utterance. Last but not least, the constraints caused by structural positions are still visible in the consumption practices and meaning-making. All this indicates that the old paradigm might not have been exhausted yet in the assessment of the complex relationship between the text, audiences and context.

Audience; old and new paradigm; edge comedy; textual event; decoding

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

nije evidentirano

Podaci o izdanju

222

20.04.2011.

obranjeno

Podaci o ustanovi koja je dodijelila akademski stupanj

Fakultet društvenih znanosti, Sveučilište u Ljubljani

Ljubljana

Povezanost rada

Informacijske i komunikacijske znanosti