Mordant Belle

When people think of “feminism”, they think of a specific media-generated image that usually involves “unseemly” body hair, bra burning, child- and man-hating, angry, masculine women, lesbians, and (weirdly) by turns promiscuous and prudes, depending on which end of the popular culture spectrum you’re coming from.

Thankfully, this feminism does not exist.

Many of these stereotypes are exaggerations (child- and man-hating), while others are specific to a certain subdivision of feminism (not shaving or wearing makeup). Some were simply made up to sell papers. (There was never any bra burning. Bras are expensive, hello. This was an exaggeration of an event where many feminists, in protesting a Miss America pageant in the ’60s, threw their bras into a trash can…unlit.) While a few have some basis in fact, in general, the popular perception of feminism is completely misconstrued.

Trying to define feminism in any strict way is similar to trying to define Christianity in any strict way. There is hardly anything on which there is not SOME form of disagreement. And while the movement as a whole does have commonalities, it’s important to understand the different particular strands which a given feminist can belong to.

Again, it’s like Christianity: do you know the difference between Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Latter Day Saints, and the Presbyterians? Some do, but odds are you don’t. Even when these denominations can agree on certain broad tenets, many believe that the others are STILL going to hell, for whatever doctrinal reason. It’s very important to notice the differences between the different types.

The following post was adapted from notes from my Sex, Power, and Politics Women’s Studies class.

Keep in mind that some of these types of feminism can and do overlap, and that individual women can subscribe to more than one of these feminisms.

Let’s begin, then:

Read more

Active audience theory is used in media studies, for how viewers interpret media messages, especially in mass media like television.

Most theories about the interpretation of mass media messages and images can be boiled down to indoctrination in ignorance: audiences accept and interpret the messages that mass media (usually corporate businesses like Fox, CBS, NBA, and ABC) distribute like robots or sheep, exactly the way that the message makers want.

Active audience theory goes against all that, saying that the audience itself plays an active role in interpreting the messages using their own social contexts, and are capable of changing the messages themselves through collective action.

During my online discussion of this theory in my media studies class, one cynical commenter thought the theory was laughable. It’s important to notice that active audience theory is not only more important because it attributes power and agency to the audience, but it also takes into account that not everyone has spent their life submersed in the uncontested dominate messages of our culture. Below, his comment, my response.

“I find the definition of the active audience theory to be extremely ironic. A quote from the book says, “Because people are not as stupid, gullible, or easy to dominate as the media indoctrination perspective would have us believe.” I beg to differ, the current television landscape proves we are indeed just that. The current reality TV craze where they pump out as many variations as they can is an example of how gullible we are. I abhor that crap but numbers don’t lie, we watch them all. We have American Idol (a next generation Star Search Rip-off) to thank for starting it all. Other than reality TV your only option is some form of a cop show involving forensic evidence, which they also can’t stop duplicating.

The one aspect of the active audience theory that seemed to fit for me is the social context aspect. Using American Idol as an example, no other show in my memory has ever had people talking about it as much in a social context. These shows are the ultimate “water cooler talk” type programs. So, do others agree with me or is there holes in my reasoning?”

I think the most important thing to remember when it comes to the “active audience” theory is that television is NOT the only socialization tool the populace is subject to. Everyone brings a different “outside” context and lens to mass media, which they then use to interpret it, and this leads to multiple interpretations of the same content.

As a feminist, I will interpret messages from certain shows and ads differently than people who do not share my beliefs and perspectives. Other things that will inevitably affect an individual’s interpretation are: people who are affected by immigration, people who aren’t white, people who aren’t American, people who have different levels and focuses of education, and people of different religious backgrounds. Anyone belonging to these sub-groups, or combination of sub-groups, will interpret media messages differently and come to a variety of different, sometimes conflicting, conclusions - because they have different contexts and lenses through which to interpret the original message.

That’s the biggest point of the theory - people don’t come to mass media as blank slates. Audiences actively interpret the message based on their context and frame. So while the MAJORITY of the populace might agree on the DOMINATE message of a given mass media product, that’s hardly the only interpretation available. Seeking out other perspectives, contexts, and frames will enhance your understanding of the message.

What do you think? Are audiences numb sheeple, or active interpreters? Some combination? Are certain groups more prone to be accepting mass media messages without question?