Parasocial Politics

INTRODUCTION The unfortunate fact is that more scholars write about audience than actually research audiences. When they do write about audiences, they either singularize the ‘audience’ or, on the other extreme, it is reduced to the notion that “of course, everyone’s response is different.” . Moreover, today, theories of audience (the few that do exist) are in flux because of fragmented audiences, interactivity and transmedia experiences (Press 2006). Audiences are complex animals. People bring different knowledge, values, and experiences to their encounter with media texts, so their interpretations of the very same text will vary. Furthermore, when interpreting texts, people use multiple modes. Audiences may filter the text through their real-world experience or they may get lost in the fantasy, or oscillate between the two. They may be actively critiquing the message of the work or they may be absorbing the messages, or both. They may be passively soaking in the artistic beauty of the text or they may be critiquing the quality of the work (Michelle 2008). Finally, even after the initial consumption of the text, audiences continue to define their relationship with it through self-reflection, speaking with other (in-person and online), critiquing the value, and trying to figure out the meaning of the work. The truth is that there is no singular experience and no singular interpretation. Texts are open to many readings (polysemic) and are open to many evaluations (polyvalent). Rarely does the intent of the producer matter (Fiske 1986). But that does not mean that there is not patterns of similar readings which bind groups of people together (Barker 2006). Furthermore, the definition of audience is not straightforward - for a scholar to simply break down audiences by demographics would be a mistake. For example, ‘Trekkies’ come from all walks of life and are not defined by generations or race or socio-economic status. But, this does not mean that these demographic markers cannot be a determining variable, it just means that do not have to be (Kim 2004; Hunt, 1997; Gillepsie, 1995; Lievbes and Katz, 1991). MEDIA, AUDIENCES AND CULTURAL CITIZENSHIP More importantly, there is something inherent within the text itself that defines the audience. It is the text’s relationship with the individual that leads to a sociological media phenomenon (Morley, 2006). Fans of media commodities (movie franchises, television series, genres, actors, directors, bands, etc.) form a deep relationship with the text that goes well beyond the simple consumption. Audiences use these texts to help define their world- what it means to be in love, a part of a family, or to be a citizen. Fans will find other fans that have created similar meaning from a text. These fans will often form groups (such as the aforementioned Trekkies) and form online communities and real life conventions. Thus, “our [real] identities are engaged in multifarious ways in our media/cultural engagements.” (Barker 2006, 126). In other words, media defines our “cultural citizenship” (Morley 2006). Reception studies scholars have long been concerned with the role that mass media plays in determining an audience’s political reality. Traditionally, in audience research the debate was between two theories: 1) the passive audience that simply absorbs the producer’s ideological messages; and 2) the active audience that produces its own political meaning from texts. For example, two reception studies pioneers- Stuart Hall (1973) and David Morley (1980)- have dedicated their careers to examining political power, political identity, and political consciousness in a pluralistic democratic society, where the producers have little direct control over the masses. Whereas Janice Radway (1984) and John Fiske (1987) argued that audiences were able to negotiate an oppositional meaning of texts- or semiotic resistance. Thus, the audience was in control and decides the power of the text. Yet, Jensen (1990) argued that semiotic resistance is not political resistance: “The wider ramifications of opposition at the textual level depend on the social and political uses to which the opposition may be put in contexts beyond the relative privacy of media reception” (p. 58). In his study of television news consumption, he found that consumers’ readings of the text were related to their situational use. This included contextual uses (the habit of consumption), informational uses (a passive surveillance), legitimating uses (a narcotizing dysfunction), and diversional uses (bread and circus). And so the field of reception studies has gone back and forth between these two dominant theoretical underpinnings- scholars arguing about what is more important- the hegemonic power of the producers or the meaning-making ability of the audience. The answer is probably both. PARASOCIAL POLITICS In their classic study of ‘trashy’ talk shows, Livingstone & Lunt (1994) asked the pivotal question when it comes to popular culture and political engagement: Is any purpose served by these discussions or are they simply entertainment programmes designed to fill the schedules? … Is this a new form of public space or forum, part of a media public sphere? …Does ‘real conversation’ take place in these discussions and does this produce a community of citizens talking among themselves about issues of public concern? (p. 1). In our highly mediated world saturated with entertainment (Postman, 1985), separating entertainment from information is impossible and may even be detrimental for political engagement (van Zoonen, 2005). In fact “the behavior of fan[cultures]…is not fundamentally different from what is required of citizens…follow their objects intensely, promote them to outsiders, deliberate among each other, come to informed judgments, and propose alternatives” (van Zoonen, p. 16-17). Our consumption of media helps us to reflect on our cultural and political differences (Hermes 2005). There is no doubt that people learn about politics from mediated sources. The popularity of cable news and satire suggests that people are often absorbing and dissecting political messages from these channels. But, politically-charged media is not the only path that leads to an audience’s political engagement, discussion and reflection (Muller & Hermes, 2010). Other channels, media and texts will also discuss the important political issues of our time, even if it is not as overt. Ultimately, media consumers learn about, debate about, and decide on important political issues through their relationship with fictional media- just like we learn about debate political issues with our real life friends. Though there are many scholarly books that examine the ‘political’ messages of popular culture, very few examine how audiences read (or create) these messages. This edited collection examines how audiences form complex relationships with media texts (and characters) and how these readings exist in the nexus between the real and fictional worlds. This collection of empirical studies, which use various methodologies (surveys, experiments, focus groups, mixed methods, etc.), shows how consumers read the text to help construct the meaning about political issues. Part I of the collection examines how audiences make meaning about government and politics based on media depiction of these institutions. First, Will Miller examines media depictions of bureaucracy and bureaucrats from reality based television like Parking Wars to fictional programs like the NBC comedy Parks and Recreation. Miller has conducted an experiment to see how these programs affect viewers’ attitudes about real life bureaucracies. Next, Gregory Adamo explores the critically acclaimed HBO series The Wire. Adamo uses focus groups from Baltimore, MD (the setting of the show) to explore how they relate to television content and how they have related the show to their individual situations. Allison Novak’s research looks at how a traditional apolitical sitcom explores concepts of citizenship. Through diary collection, she examines how fans of the millennial generation negotiate the meaning of a specific episode of CBS’ How I Met Your Mother which deals with immigration and naturalization. Finally, Nichols and Novak look at the impact that celebrity Youtube videos have on political engagement. Through survey work, they examined the difference between viewing a candidate’s political speech versus the viewing of a viral celebrity video endorsing a specific candidate. Part II of the collection examines fantasy texts and its impact on politics and culture. Through interviews with fans, Mireno Berrettini looks at the cartoon Star Wars: The Clone Wars and its discursive messages about war, democracy and ethics. Next, William Ashton examines if two fan communities (Trekkies and [Big] Lebowskifest attendees) have different levels of political trust in government based upon the media texts that they relate to. Then Bryan Carr examines a recent storyline in the Batman comics that introduced a new Muslim superhero. Using online ethnography, Carr examines how fans of the comics read the new character in light of prevailing negative feelings toward Islam. Part III of the collection examines audience engagement with issues of cultural diversity in media. Brett Bebber conducts an archival analysis of British ‘race sitcoms’ from the 1960s. He examines contemporary government studies of the audience’s political response to the sitcoms. Then Zenor and Moody and examine the racially charged cartoon Boondocks which airs on Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim. Through a mixed methods approach, they extract prevailing audience readings about the show’s message on civil rights in the post-racial world. Carol Bell examines how fansites of the television shows Sons of Anarchy and The Good Wife promote politically heterogeneous groups to engage in (rare) civil discourse about race. Finally, Penelopi Alexandrou examines how real-life counterparts to the characters on Modern Family are inspired to discuss issues of homosexuality and acceptance. In selecting the chapters for this book, I have tried to sample a wide array of studies that reflect the complex nature of audiences and meaning making. I have also tried to select studies that use empirical research and scholars that actually talk to real people to discover what the audience is thinking. Admittedly, these studies are just snapshots in time and only reflect how these particular audiences were negotiating meaning. As we know, audience psychology is multifaceted, it is complex, and it is ever changing- thus one short collection cannot fully encapsulate audience/text phenomena or fully answer the major theoretical concerns in reception analysis. But, what these studies will do is begin to reveal how audiences are taking what is seemingly insignificant entertainment and extracting a larger social meaning which carries important cultural and political meaning. Hopefully, readers will be able to reflect on these studies, theorize about the phenomena that are occurring and be inspired to conduct future research. J.Z. REFERENCES Fiske, J. (1987). Television Culture. London: Methuen Gillespie, M. (1995). Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change. London: Routledge. Hall, S. (1973, 1980). Encoding and decoding in the television discourse. In Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A. and Willis, P. (eds) Culture, media, language. London: Hutchinson. Hermes, J. (2005). Re-reading Popular Culture. Oxford: Blackwell. Hunt, D. (1997). Screening the Los Angeles Riots. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jensen, K. (1990). The Politics of Polysemy: Television News, Everyday Consciousness and Political Action. Media, Culture and Society, 12:57-77. Kim, S. (2004). Re-reading David Morley’s The Nationwide Audience. Cultural Studies, 18(1). Liebes, T., & Katz, E. (1991). The Export of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Livingstone, S., Wober, M. & Lunt, P. (1994). Studio Audience Discussion Programmes: An Analysis of Viewers’ Preferences and Involvement. European Journal of Communication, 9, 355-379. Michelle, C. (2007). Modes of Reception: A Consolidated Analytical Framework. Communication Review, 10, 3, 181-222. Morley, D. (1980). The 'Nationwide' Audience: Structure and Decoding. London: BFI Morley, D. (2006). Unanswered Questions in Audience Research. Communication Review, 9, 2, 101-121. Muller, F., & Hermes, J. (2010). The Performance of Cultural Citizenship: Audiences and the Politics of Multicultural Television Drama. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27, 2, 193-208. Postman, N. (1985), Amusing Ourselves to Death. Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking. Radway, J. (1984). Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy and Popular Literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Press, A.L. (2006). Audience Research in the Post-Audience Age: An Introduction to Barker and Morley. Communication Review, 9, 2, 93-100. Zoonen, L. van (2005). Entertaining the Citizen. When Politics and Popular Culture Converge, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.