Mordant Belle

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?

From the author of The Macho Paradox comes Tough Guise, a great documentary which I watched during one of my Media Studies classes.

Here’s an excellent preview; more embedded below the fold.

Read more

The Body Project: An Intimate History of American Girls
by Joan Jacobs Brumberg, 1998, Vintage, 336 pages
Mel’s Reading Status: UNREAD

Summary, Description, and/or History:
This book is both historical and sociological, exploring the ways in which perceptions of the female body (and it’s importance to a girl’s self-worth) have changed over time. Not only has the development of girls’ body changed — menstruation and sexual activity begin much earlier — there is also much greater emphasis of the body as defining your self. Girls grow up believing that “good looks”, rather than “good works” — personal, communal, and professional accomplishments — are the highest form of female perfection. It includes previously unpublished entries from the diaries of girls across America, as well as a photo essay with photographs, advertisements and postcards that show how girls and their bodies have changed since the nineteenth century. Per the book’s web site:

From corsets to body piercing, The Body Project demonstrates how the preoccupation with the body has intensified and why adolescent girls and their bodies have born the brunt of social change in the twentieth century.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and and How All Men Can Help
By Jason Katz, 2006, Sourcebooks, 296 pages
Mel’s Reading Status: UNREAD

Commentary:
This popped up on my Amazon recommendations, and it looks fascinating. Katz, who I never heard of before looking at this book, is a famous anti-sexist and anti-violence advocate, specializing in prevention. Once I started looking into him and his work, I realized I’d already seen some of it, as the man behind Tough Guise: Violence, Media, and the Crisis in Masculinity, an excellent documentary from the Media Education Foundation, who I hope to post on more in the future.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
From Publisher’s Weekly, via Amazon.com:

“Katz is cofounder of the Mentors in Violence Prevention Program (MVP), and his focus is on prevention—his intended audience is not violent men who need help changing their ways, but all men, who, he says, have a role to play in preventing male violence against women.
His basic assertion is that rape, battering, sexual abuse and harassment are so widespread that they must be viewed as a social problem rooted in our culture, not as the problem of troubled individuals. He urges men to directly confront the misogynistic attitudes and behavior of their peers.
Some men may find Katz’s advice occasionally baffling: he is full of directions about what not to do (such as paternalistic actions that deprive women of their autonomy). He wants to bring men into the larger discussion of pornography (which, he points out, has been dominated by women) and get them to look at its impact on themselves. Katz also presents eye-opening exercises and discussions from the MVP model that engender productive discussion among participants — usually high school or college students.”

A great excerpt from the opening page:

“Most people think violence against women is a woman’s issue. And why wouldn’t they? Just about every women in this society thinks about it every day. If they are not getting harassed on the street, living in an abusive relationship, recovering from a rape, or in therapy to deal with the sexual abuse they suffered as children, they are ordering their daily lives around the threat of men’s violence.
But it is a mistake to call men’s violence a women’s issue.”

Additional Comments always welcome.

-