Course Description:
Where is the audience in media studies? Usually embedded in their ratings or assumed in their textual analyses, media scholars have long quantified and generalized audiences, but rarely tried to examine the complex identities of the real people who consume media everyday and in many different ways. For example, what does it mean when women watch soap operas? Are these expressions of gendered identities? Functions of gender socialization? Resistance to gendered norms? The challenge to understand people as media consumers is both a theoretical and methodological challenge as scholars have attempted to investigate private spaces, personal choices, and daily practices that few people even consider seriously.
This course attempts to reproduce the history of these forays into the unknown audiences and the producers who attempt to know them. Focusing primarily on liberal, Marxist, and feminist audience theories, we will look at case studies of audience research and seek the methodological threads that underlie their theoretical assumptions. From there, we will attempt to apply these same theories and methods to the media production process, asking how producers’ gender and class identities shape their interpretations of media they make, and how they make media for the audiences they address.
Course Mechanics:
Student Conduct and Evaluation:
Students will be expected to work towards a shared knowledge of media consumption and production in this course. To do this, students are expected to have read the readings thoroughly and critically in order to engage their fellow students in a summary and critique of the authors and their arguments. Each week, a group of students will facilitate the discussion in order to highlight the main points of the readings but also expose the vulnerabilities of each reading for class critique. Critical essays will be assigned in order to prepare class participants and to practice good critical writing skills. There are no make-ups for failing to bring these essays to class or failing to come to class except in cases of emergency or serious illness (both must be documented or confirmed through the student’s advisor or the Dean’s office). Students who do not do reading assignments may be asked to leave the classroom if it becomes disruptive to the collective group. Participation grades will be assigned regularly and will based on attendance, active contribution to class discussions, and informed commentary or critique based on course readings.
With this shared knowledge, students will devise a research proposal for a case study of audiences. In the second half of the course, this proposal will be expanded to include a review of the literature (8-10 pages) appropriate to the group of consumers that the student has chosen. At the end of the course, we will discuss the proposals as a group, highlighting the ways that past research may alter the research methods that students originally proposed.
This course values and adheres strictly to the Tulane Honor Code. All forms of academic dishonesty (cheating, plagiarism, turning in previous work, unauthorized collaboration, etc.) will be reported and punished to the full extent of the Code. Those not familiar with the Code can find it located at http://www.tulane.edu/~uc/honorcode.htm. I can also answer questions on the policies.
Grades will be assigned based on the following criteria:
My Conduct:
Any questions about these standards or other course issues are welcomed before or after class as well as during my office hours. I am happy to meet with students other hours by appointment. E-mail is the best way to contact me for the quickest response, generally within 48 hours.
I am also happy to integrate and utilize Blackboard in favor of more student interactions and the sharing of work and resources.
Readings:
Available at University Bookstore:
Brooker , Will and Deborah Jermyn, Editors. The Audience Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Grindstaff, Laura. The Money Shot: Class, Trash, and the Making of TV Talk Shows. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2002.
Bloustein, Geraldine. Girl Making: A Cross Cultural Ethnography of the Process of Growing Up Female. London: Berghahn Books, 2004.
Available on E- Res: (Password is ConProd)
Ang, Ien. “Conquering the Audience: The Institutional Predicament.” Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge, 1991.15-42.
Bourdieu, Pierre. “Introduction” and “The Dynamics of Fields.” Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Richard Nice, Trans. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1983. 1-7, 226-256.
Dornfeld, Barry. “Negotiating Documentary Production: Authorship and Imaginary Audiences.” Producing Public Television, Producing Public Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 61-88.
Powdermaker, Hortense. “ Hollywood and the U.S.A.” Hollywood, the Dream-Factory, An Anthropologist Looks at the Movie Makers. Boston: Little and Brown, 1950. pp. 307-332.
Seiter, Ellen. “Feminist Methods: The Parents Support Group.” Television and New Media Audiences. London: Oxford UP, 1999. 34-57.
Course Schedule:
( subject to minor modifications)
*** signals E- Res reading
1/11 Tu Introduction and Group Assignment
I: Liberal Models of Consumption
1/13 Th Ang, Ien. “Conquering the Audience: The Institutional Predicament.”***
1/18 Tu Lazarsfeld, Paul, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. “The People’s Choice:
How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign.” AS
Merton, Robert. “Mass Persuation: The Social Psychology of a War Bond Drive.” AS
1/20 Th Cooper, Eunice and Helen Dinerman. “Analysis of the Film Don’t Be a Sucker.” AS
Winick, Charles. “Tendency Systems and the Effects of Movie Dealing with a Social Problem.”AS
Group 4 turns in Critical Essay 1
Group 1 leads discussion
II: Marxist Models of Consumption
1/25 Tu Adorno, T. W. “Culture Industry Reconsidered.”AS
Wertham, Frederic. “Seduction of the Innocent.”AS
1/27 Th Hoggart, Richard. “The Uses of Literacy.”AS
Barker, Martin. “The Newson Report: A Case Study in Common Sense.” AS
Group 3 turns in Critical Essay 1
Group 2 leads discussion
III: Feminist Models of Consumption
2/1 Tu Mulvey, Laura. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.”AS
Hansen, Miriam. “ Babel and Babylon: Spectatorship in American Film.” AS
2/3 No Class
2/8 Mardi Gras
2/10 Th Stacey, Jackie. “Star Gazing: Hollywood Film and Female Spectatorship.” AS
Ang, Ien. “Living Room Wars: Rethinking Audiences for a Postmodern World.” AS
Group 2 turns in Critical Essay 1
Group 4 leads discussion
IV: Reception and Resistance
2/15 Tu Morley, David. “The Nationwide Audience.”AS
De Certeau, Michel. “The Practice of Everyday Life.”AS
2/17 Th Fiske, John. “Understanding Popular Culture.” AS
Woods, Gregory. “We’re Here, We’re Queer and We’re Not Going Catalogue Shopping.”AS
Group 1 turns in Critical Essay 1
Group 3 leads discussion
V: Fans
2/22 Tu Jenkins, Henry. “Out of the Closet and Into the Universe: Queers and Star Trek.” AS
Muggleton, David. “Inside Subculture: The Postmodern Meaning of Style.” AS
2/24 Th Ehrenreich, Barbara, Elizabeth Hess and Gloria Jacobs. “ Beatlemania: Girls Just
Want to Have Fun.” AS
Gwenllian-Jones, Sara. “Histories, Fictions and Xena: Warrior Princess.” AS
Bacon-Smith, Camille. “Suffering and Solace: The Genre of Pain.” AS
Group 2 turns in Critical Essay 2
Group 4 leads discussion
VI: Gender, Generation, and Interpretative Communities
3/1 Tu Radway, Janice. “Reading the Romance: Women Patriarchy and Popular
Literature.”AS
Seiter, Ellen. “Feminist Methods: The Parents Support Group.”***
Group 3 turns in Critical Essay 2
Group 1 leads discussion
3/3 Th Mc Robbie, Angela. “Feminism and Youth Culture.”AS
Currie, Dawn. “Girl Talk: Adolescent Magazines and Their Readers.” AS
Sonnet, Esther. “Just a Book, She Said: Reconfiguring Ethnography for Female Readers of Sexual Fiction.”AS
Group 4 turns in Critical Essay 2
Group 2 leads discussion
VII: National and Diasporic Interpretative Communities
3/8 Tu Jhally, Sut and Justin Lewis. “Enlightened Racism: The Cosby Show, Audiences and the Myth of the American Dream.” AS
Bobo, Jacqueline. “The Color Purple: Black Women as Cultural Readers.” AS
Group 1 turns in Critical Essay 2
Group 3 leads discussion
3/10 Th Liebes, Tamar and Elihu Katz. “The Export of Meaning: Cross Cultural Readings of Dallas.” AS
Gillespie, Marie. “Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change.”AS
VIII: Consumers as Producers
3/15 Tu Bloustein, Gerry. “Introduction.” GM.
Bourdieu, Pierre. “Introduction” and “The Dynamics of Fields.” ***
3/17 Th Research Proposals Due
3/22 Spring Break
3/24 Spring Break
3/29 No Class -- SCMS
3/31 No Class -- SCMS
4/5 Tu Bloustein, Gerry. GM. Discussion of rest of book.
IX: Re-Theorizing Producers
4/7 Th Powdermaker, Hortense. “ Hollywood and the U.S.A.”***
Dornfeld, Barry. “Negotiating Documentary Production: Authorship and Imaginary Audiences.”***
4/12 Tu Grindstaff, Laura. “Prologue,” Chapter 1, and “Epilogue” MS
Group 1 turns in Critical Essay 3
Group 2 leads discussion
4/14 Th Grindstaff, Laura. Chapters 2-3. MS
Group 3 turns in Critical Essay 3
Group 4 leads discussion
4/19 Tu Grindstaff, Laura. Chapters 4-5. MS
Group 2 turns in Critical Essay 3
Group 3 leads discussion
4/21 Th Grindstaff, Laura. Chapters 6-8. MS
Group 4 turns in Critical Essay 3
Group 1 leads discussion
4/26 Tu Class Discussion of Proposals
4/28 Th Class Discussion of Proposals
Review of Literature for Proposals Due
Take Home Final Exam Due: 219 Newcomb Hall, Monday, May 9th, no later than 3 p.m.
[Finals turned in after this date/time, will not be graded.]