Supipi PereraTelevision Frames Our Lives
February 21st 2008 08:55
Since the advent of it, television has been increasingly seen as part of the everyday culture in society. Even when people are not watching television; television is seen to frame and structure the lives of many individuals. Not only does it provide a strong basis for social interaction to flourish (Abercrombie 1996:3), but it is also used to produce and maintain many national, cultural, and political ideologies and identities (Green & Guinery, 1994:41). Silverstone (1994:1) and Lembo (2000:27) both argue that there is no area in everyday life that escapes the power and presence of television. It not only governs the temporal aspects of a person’s life (for example people scheduling their day in accordance with certain TV programs), but through its spectacle (Debord 1994:13) and its use of representation (Baudrillard 1994:2), reality itself is being constructed. With the rise of realty TV, and the Internet allowing the audience to be placed in the position of the producer, Holmes (2005:85) suggests that this situation may be undergoing change, where everyday life actually influences television. However, for many of the theorists mentioned, television is seen as the dominant medium creating its world around its individuals.
Television is a culture. William (cited in Barker 2003:58) suggests that culture can be defined as the human lived experience, and because many individuals nowadays “live” their lives through television screens; use what they have seen to converse with one another, or relate to real life through what they have heard or seen on television; television becomes a culture. Lembo (2000:101) writes “turning to television, like turning to other activities, becomes a ritual part of people’s everyday life”. Adorno (1999:129) implies that television is seen to be a tool in the production of culture, which he further argues is driven by a capitalist state and comparable to any other commodity. He then suggests that the status quo delegated by the state, is preserved and enforced through television, resulting in culture becoming just another industry in the world of capitalism (Adorno & Horkheimer 1999:133). Even though many of his theories lean towards extremist views, where mass communication is seen as weapons of mass deception and the audience considered as passive; for many modern theorists such as Lembo (2000:19), Adorno’s arguments still hold their validity, as television does serve to maintain social norms, as well as to confer power and status on certain types of people (Lembo 2000:19).
Silverstone (1994:83) extends this argument, when he suggests that the material object of the television, itself, also assists in enforcing social norms. Commenting on McLuhan’s theory that the ‘medium is the message’, Silverstone (1994:87) writes that television “is consumed as a sign, as a status object both in itself and through its communications (the consumption of programmes to be shared and discussed)”. This means that by actually owning a television, people are conforming to a lifestyle represented through mass communication and its technologies. This is said to be true in the consumer society of the everyday, as objects are increasingly used to portray a person’s status or wealth (Baudrillard 1998:32). So, for example, having a high definition, wide screen TV, would imply more wealth and a higher status than a person having a standard model. In this way, McLuhan’s (cited in Silverstone 1994:83) theory becomes a reality as the object itself becomes just as important as the image it delivers. In addition, Silverstone theorises that with the purchase of television, and the consumption of its culture, further technologies become necessities in order to accommodate the time and space required by television. “Television spawned supporting technologies and created new spaces: TV dinners, the TV lounge, the open plan itself, labour-saving household technologies, all were designed in one way or another to integrate television into spaces and times of the household…” (Silverstone, 1994:100) So, by promoting the consumption of products as well as the lifestyle that accompanies it, people’s lives are framed by television even when they are not watching it.
The previous examples of how television constructs people’s lives comments on what Holmes (2005:85) states as the “‘control society’ age of broadcast”, which he suggests is something that is quickly disappearing. Holmes (2005:219) gives the example of reality TV, which he describes as a form of television that is supposedly governed by real life. “Simply put, reality TV is a genre in which the audience appears interchangeable with the producer” (Holmes 2005:219). Having an interactive voting system in place for shows such as Big Brother, the audience is under the guise that they are producers. However, these opinion polls and voting systems for Baudrillard (1993:63) reinforce the idea of the ‘control society’ as he suggests that having no other option than what is given, is evidence that control belongs to the ones behind the scenes of television, and not to the individual consumer. Baudrillard (1993:74) then suggests that this whole facade of audience participation helps support the hyper reality that is created through television. Lumby and Probyn (2003:13) supports this idea, as they suggest that reality TV’s “realness” and documentary style editing, allows reality TV to align themselves with news and current affairs programs, destroying the distinction between real life and mediated life. With reference to terrorism as something that is sensationalised by the media (Kellner, 2003:1), news itself is progressively becoming a commodity; and therefore the construction of real life portrayed by the media, using these two forms of programs as examples, blurs the lines between entertainment and information. It is then down to Debord’s (1988:9) theory of the ‘integrated spectacle’ (which television encompasses) that leads to television framing and managing people’s day to day lives.
Debord (1994:12) defines the spectacle as “a social relationship between people that is mediated by images”. Since the spectacle is seen as a commodity (Debord 1994:29), the relationship between them, could then be said to be a consumeristic one, where the people demand the spectacle and the spectacle supplies the people. Even as the Internet becomes more popular, due to its interactivity and almost democratic potential (Holmes 2005:9); it is still unable to divert the power that television has over society, because the spectacle as Debord (1994:13) suggests, remains supreme. Holmes (2005:207) also comments on this as he writes: “Publicity and public spectacle are, of course, an aspect of flanerie which cannot be achieved on the Internet.” A good example of this is seen through the YouTube and the Backdorm Boys. The Backdorm Boys were simply two students from Guang Zhou - China, who got bored one day and decided to film themselves miming to the Backstreet Boys. They launched this on YouTube, and eventually their popularity increased to the point where they were asked to appear on television to advertise products and do live performances. It could be argued that the Internet actually made them popular, but their fame was only validated through their appearance on broadcast TV. This can be referred back to Lembo (2000:19) when he suggests that television confers status on certain individuals. Television gives ordinary people the opportunity to experience fame, and the Big Brother obsession is evidence to this.
As technology develops even further, television or broadcast media will still have a dominant power over society. Even though the Internet is rising in popularity, computers come equipped with TV cards, suggesting that television is an integral part of everyday life. Baudrillard (1994:21) suggests that since reality is increasingly represented through the media, everything is being lost to the hyper reality of mediated culture. Since life is seemingly being structured and framed around the spectacle (embodied by television), Debord (1988:27) too, argues that technological advances which encourage image production, representation and consumption will result in the reduplication of reality, leaving the individual’s primary connection to the world to be forgotten. It is true that the audience is not as passive as some theorists like to believe. There are many people who study these concepts and are aware of these sorts of issues, and these people lead lives that are not framed around the television. However, for many people who are unaware, or who take television for granted (which is mentioned throughout Silverstone’s book); for these people, it can be said that television frames their lives even when they are not watching it.
References
Abercrombie, N (1996) Television and Society United Kingdom: Polity Press
Adorno, T.W (1999)‘The Culture Industry Reconsidered’ in Bronner S.E & Kellner D.M (Eds.) Critical Theory & Society: A Reader London: Routledge
Barker, C. (2003), Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn, London: Sage
Baudrillard J (1993) Symbolic Exchange and Death, London: Sage
Baudrillard J (1994) Simulacra and Simulation USA: Ann Arbor The University of Michigan Press
Baudrillard, J (1998) The Consumer Society – Myths & Structures, London: Sage Publications
Debord G (1988) Comments on the Society of the Spectacle London: Verso
Debord, G (1994) Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.
Green L & Guinery R (1994) Framing Technology: Society, choice and change NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwen Pty Ltd.
Holmes, D (2005) Communication Theory: Media, Technology and Society London: Sage Publications
Kellner D, (2003) Media spectacle London: Routledge – Taylor and Francis Group
Lembo R, (2000) Thinking Through Television, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lumby C & Probyn E (2003) Remote Control: New Media, new ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silverstone R (1994) Television and everyday life, London: Routledge
Television is a culture. William (cited in Barker 2003:58) suggests that culture can be defined as the human lived experience, and because many individuals nowadays “live” their lives through television screens; use what they have seen to converse with one another, or relate to real life through what they have heard or seen on television; television becomes a culture. Lembo (2000:101) writes “turning to television, like turning to other activities, becomes a ritual part of people’s everyday life”. Adorno (1999:129) implies that television is seen to be a tool in the production of culture, which he further argues is driven by a capitalist state and comparable to any other commodity. He then suggests that the status quo delegated by the state, is preserved and enforced through television, resulting in culture becoming just another industry in the world of capitalism (Adorno & Horkheimer 1999:133). Even though many of his theories lean towards extremist views, where mass communication is seen as weapons of mass deception and the audience considered as passive; for many modern theorists such as Lembo (2000:19), Adorno’s arguments still hold their validity, as television does serve to maintain social norms, as well as to confer power and status on certain types of people (Lembo 2000:19).
Silverstone (1994:83) extends this argument, when he suggests that the material object of the television, itself, also assists in enforcing social norms. Commenting on McLuhan’s theory that the ‘medium is the message’, Silverstone (1994:87) writes that television “is consumed as a sign, as a status object both in itself and through its communications (the consumption of programmes to be shared and discussed)”. This means that by actually owning a television, people are conforming to a lifestyle represented through mass communication and its technologies. This is said to be true in the consumer society of the everyday, as objects are increasingly used to portray a person’s status or wealth (Baudrillard 1998:32). So, for example, having a high definition, wide screen TV, would imply more wealth and a higher status than a person having a standard model. In this way, McLuhan’s (cited in Silverstone 1994:83) theory becomes a reality as the object itself becomes just as important as the image it delivers. In addition, Silverstone theorises that with the purchase of television, and the consumption of its culture, further technologies become necessities in order to accommodate the time and space required by television. “Television spawned supporting technologies and created new spaces: TV dinners, the TV lounge, the open plan itself, labour-saving household technologies, all were designed in one way or another to integrate television into spaces and times of the household…” (Silverstone, 1994:100) So, by promoting the consumption of products as well as the lifestyle that accompanies it, people’s lives are framed by television even when they are not watching it.
The previous examples of how television constructs people’s lives comments on what Holmes (2005:85) states as the “‘control society’ age of broadcast”, which he suggests is something that is quickly disappearing. Holmes (2005:219) gives the example of reality TV, which he describes as a form of television that is supposedly governed by real life. “Simply put, reality TV is a genre in which the audience appears interchangeable with the producer” (Holmes 2005:219). Having an interactive voting system in place for shows such as Big Brother, the audience is under the guise that they are producers. However, these opinion polls and voting systems for Baudrillard (1993:63) reinforce the idea of the ‘control society’ as he suggests that having no other option than what is given, is evidence that control belongs to the ones behind the scenes of television, and not to the individual consumer. Baudrillard (1993:74) then suggests that this whole facade of audience participation helps support the hyper reality that is created through television. Lumby and Probyn (2003:13) supports this idea, as they suggest that reality TV’s “realness” and documentary style editing, allows reality TV to align themselves with news and current affairs programs, destroying the distinction between real life and mediated life. With reference to terrorism as something that is sensationalised by the media (Kellner, 2003:1), news itself is progressively becoming a commodity; and therefore the construction of real life portrayed by the media, using these two forms of programs as examples, blurs the lines between entertainment and information. It is then down to Debord’s (1988:9) theory of the ‘integrated spectacle’ (which television encompasses) that leads to television framing and managing people’s day to day lives.
Debord (1994:12) defines the spectacle as “a social relationship between people that is mediated by images”. Since the spectacle is seen as a commodity (Debord 1994:29), the relationship between them, could then be said to be a consumeristic one, where the people demand the spectacle and the spectacle supplies the people. Even as the Internet becomes more popular, due to its interactivity and almost democratic potential (Holmes 2005:9); it is still unable to divert the power that television has over society, because the spectacle as Debord (1994:13) suggests, remains supreme. Holmes (2005:207) also comments on this as he writes: “Publicity and public spectacle are, of course, an aspect of flanerie which cannot be achieved on the Internet.” A good example of this is seen through the YouTube and the Backdorm Boys. The Backdorm Boys were simply two students from Guang Zhou - China, who got bored one day and decided to film themselves miming to the Backstreet Boys. They launched this on YouTube, and eventually their popularity increased to the point where they were asked to appear on television to advertise products and do live performances. It could be argued that the Internet actually made them popular, but their fame was only validated through their appearance on broadcast TV. This can be referred back to Lembo (2000:19) when he suggests that television confers status on certain individuals. Television gives ordinary people the opportunity to experience fame, and the Big Brother obsession is evidence to this.
As technology develops even further, television or broadcast media will still have a dominant power over society. Even though the Internet is rising in popularity, computers come equipped with TV cards, suggesting that television is an integral part of everyday life. Baudrillard (1994:21) suggests that since reality is increasingly represented through the media, everything is being lost to the hyper reality of mediated culture. Since life is seemingly being structured and framed around the spectacle (embodied by television), Debord (1988:27) too, argues that technological advances which encourage image production, representation and consumption will result in the reduplication of reality, leaving the individual’s primary connection to the world to be forgotten. It is true that the audience is not as passive as some theorists like to believe. There are many people who study these concepts and are aware of these sorts of issues, and these people lead lives that are not framed around the television. However, for many people who are unaware, or who take television for granted (which is mentioned throughout Silverstone’s book); for these people, it can be said that television frames their lives even when they are not watching it.
References
Abercrombie, N (1996) Television and Society United Kingdom: Polity Press
Adorno, T.W (1999)‘The Culture Industry Reconsidered’ in Bronner S.E & Kellner D.M (Eds.) Critical Theory & Society: A Reader London: Routledge
Barker, C. (2003), Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn, London: Sage
Baudrillard J (1993) Symbolic Exchange and Death, London: Sage
Baudrillard J (1994) Simulacra and Simulation USA: Ann Arbor The University of Michigan Press
Baudrillard, J (1998) The Consumer Society – Myths & Structures, London: Sage Publications
Debord G (1988) Comments on the Society of the Spectacle London: Verso
Debord, G (1994) Society of the Spectacle. New York: Zone Books.
Green L & Guinery R (1994) Framing Technology: Society, choice and change NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwen Pty Ltd.
Holmes, D (2005) Communication Theory: Media, Technology and Society London: Sage Publications
Kellner D, (2003) Media spectacle London: Routledge – Taylor and Francis Group
Lembo R, (2000) Thinking Through Television, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Lumby C & Probyn E (2003) Remote Control: New Media, new ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silverstone R (1994) Television and everyday life, London: Routledge
| 120 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Sven Topp
Parent Debate
Deafblind Dad
To be truly honest I think television is a tool just like any other. It's then up to the user as to how it's being and should be used and utilised. Much like a knife can be used to cut vegetables for dinner, so too can it be used as a weapon depending who has a hold of it.
Personally I don't think the TV is the medium. It's the broadcasts and the airwaves. The TV is merely the receptor and although it is often a status symbol (I really don't follow why people buy such things to show off with) its a bit of a stretch to argue that it's the actual producer of culture.
Of course, TV forms the centre of some or a lot of communication. On the other hand you could argue that without TV would so many people have such things in common an therefore not actually interact at all? (ie the tv is the point for the interaction and may actually be bringing more people together that might not normally have done so)