>

30 Peter Golding and Graham Murdock

>
GREENSLADE,R., 1993: ‘Sky is not the limit’. New Statesman and Society 10 September,
16-17. 2
1-IABERMAS, 1., 1989: The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
HALL, s., 1983: ‘The problem of ideology - Marxism without guarantees’. In B.
Matthews (ed.) Marx: A Hundred Years On, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 57-85. Feminist Perspectives on the
-W 1986: ‘Media power and class power’. In J. Curran et al. (eds) Bending
Reality: The State of the Media. London: Pluto Press, 5-14.
HERMAN, E. s. and CI-IOMSKY,N., 1988: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of
Media " >
3
The Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books. . §
x
HMSO, 1994: The Future of the BBC: Serving the Nation Competing World Wide.
London: HMSO Cmnd. 2621.
Liesbet van Zoonen r
t

2
nous]; OF COMMONS, 1977: Royal Commission on the Press: Final alieport. London:
HMSO Cmnd. 6810. x

ILLICH, 1., 1981: Shadow Work. London: Marion Boyars.

KEANE, 1., 1989: ‘Liberty of the press’ in the 1990s. New Formations 8, Summer, 35- .1;as
1!;
53. ll
MORLEY,D., 1983: ‘Cultural transformations: the politics of resistance’. In H. Davis and 2%
P. Walton (eds) Language, Image, Media, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 104-17. E'4
MURDOCK, G., 1989a: ‘Cultural Studies: Missing Links‘. Critical Studies in Mass the current p_roli|fe'ration andlfragmentation of feminist theory and itt
Communication, vol. 6, 4, December, 436-40. i E3L:Il¥IS,krcX1ew1ng {6IT111'1lSl; perspectives on the media has become a hazar- t
if
-- 1989b: ‘Televisual Tourism’. In Christian W. Thomsen (ed.) Cultural Trans- s as . ' - - .
fer or Electronic Colonialism‘? Heidelberg: Carl Winter-Universitatsverlag, 171-83. of feminist (Il%§Cri)eLi-12'1S€0l>\,/el1r1\lt;eZvdsglilggnfield '
-i 1989c: ‘Audience Activity and Critical Inquiry’. In Brenda Dervin et al. (eds) tably excludes other Often e ua" la%dO?€C’an hardly dp Justice
s_ owndparticular to the ‘(anet-y
approach 11‘l6V1- it
-X
Rethinking Communication Volume 2: Paradigm Exemplar-s. London: Sage Pub- Shall usa both apptmaches qwhylev I1 emimsdt iscourses. In this chapter I
lications, 226-49. " academic preferences Ida-ho 6 to capinot fen)! my own Political and it.
1!

-M 1994a: ‘Money Talks: Broadcasting Finance and Public Culture’ in S. Hood 5;

(ed.) Behind the Screens: The Structure of British Television in the Nineties. understand historical, develophientsplzihii i?e€enl:tant1reWd)rk'gell€rai imough io
Studies‘ en s in emtnist media
London: Lawrence and Wishart, 155-83. E

‘ii
—-—— 1994b: ‘The New Mogul Empires: Media Concentration and Control in the zii
ril
Age of Convergence’, Media Development vol. XLI, 4, 3-6.
MURDOCK, G. and comma, !>., 1978: Theories of Communication and Theories of on analyzing gender aélzl mech ,_ 60-TE3.1'X1Sm, etc.. Its unconditional focus ii‘'5?
Society. Communication Research vol. 5, 3, 390-456. worlds and our experiences of é1]|;1I;m‘t lat Ztructfpresmaterial and ‘symbolic
media. Even by mid and late sevem, 1S ar to nd in othertheories of the
1%
---— 1974: For a Political Economy of Mass Communications. ln R. Miliband and xi‘
J. Saville (eds) The Socialist Register 1973. London: Merlin. did not Segm t b _ t 1es mainstream communication scholars i
—-—— 1989: ‘Information poverty and political inequality: citizenship in the age of . o e very interested 111 the Sl.1b_]€ClI woman . ‘And why should
3'
privatized communications’. Journal of Communication vol. 39, 3, Summer, 180- -.1211
..,,@Y ? B 6f0f6 the ad‘/611$ Of the women * s movement these [sex-role] stereo-
95. 1 . types seemed natural, “given”. Few questioned how they developed how ' as-5;:
.=.=a: h5\.
OFFICE or ARTS AND LIBRARIES 1988: Financing Our Public Library Service: Four iigéghxeriggiggoixccd, or how they were maintained. Certainly the media’,s role r
Subjects for Debate. London: HMSO Cmnd. 324. ii’
.2 :.»_, .;
REl'1‘H.J., 1924: Broadcast Over Britain. London: Hodder and Stoughton. commuiiication
- sgli 0ilot
ars quesltioniad Cruchman’
in t e forefront 197-8:. 5)‘ the
of recognizing Nor.lIT1pOl‘tancc
wem critical of
SCHILLER, n. 1., 1989: Culture Inc: The Corporate Takeover of Public Expression. New "‘§‘5Tld6f,as the account of the Women’s Studies Group of the Cgntfg far
York: Oxford University Press.
scnuosou, M., 1989: ‘The sociology of news production’. Media, Culture and Society, gggfigllggragffgultlulal Sluflif‘-"5 (CCCS) at Bimlingham confirms: ‘We found
vol. ll, 3, July, 263-82.
y 1 cu t to participate m the CCCS groups and felt, without being
able to articulate it, that it was a case of the masculine domination of both
T1-IOMPSONJ. 3., 1990: Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era It
of Mass Communication. Cambridge: Polity Press. intellectual work and the env'ro t ' h‘ h ' - ~ , $1
WELCH. C., 1994: Whose Economic Uptum? The New Review, Nov/Dec, Low Pay Unit. (Women Take Issue, 1978: ll)i nmen m W [C It was bemg camed out $33

WlLLlAMS.R., 1980: Problems in Materialism and Culture. London: Verso. ' The situation has improved to a certain extent There seems to be a
WILLIS, P., 1990: Common Culture. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. -h,5?$lant
‘t acknowledgement of the necessity i . .. of. f¢1'n1n15[j
and viability . .
*9"
_§§§‘Pfoaches to the media. Academic journals of communications have
§§l)1_1ShBd review articles of feminist media Studies and ggmgtimgs devoted
u'<~<e';i:»-‘ i2'li=~:- .<=,-.: '. - >_»z.’wI<
1%,£‘-%~=_',*—‘»151?‘_#‘~"‘7;5“."i».£'"}*'='i:' ‘ issues to it (cvmmwflifidlivfl. 1936; Dcrvin, 1987' Foss and Foss
 an .
=4-

32 Liesbet van Zoonen Feminist Perspectives on the Media 33

-
l '9
tr;-t .
1983; Journal of Communication Inquiry, 1987; McCormack, 1978; Rakow, QWith its substantial project, it is the reciprocal relation between theory
1986; Smith, 1983; Steeves, 1987; van Zoonen, 1988). However, in ‘gen- politics and activism, the commitment of feminist academics to have their
eral’ reviews of main trends in communication theory and research one finds }it< work contribute to a larger feminist goal — however defined the blurred line
few traces of this growing body of feminist scholarship. In special issues between the feminist as academic and the feminist as activist, that distin-
about communications research in western and eastern Europe published by guishes feminist perspectives on the media from other possible perspectives.
the European Journal of Communication and Media, Culture and Society , a"1d°XiCfl1ly.as I shall try to show in this review, the growing theoretical and
(1990) references to gender or feminism are all but absent. sophistication of feminist media studies has not only jeopardized its
.1
In the field of cultural studies feminist concerns have gained more ground. .t for a critical feminist media politics but also diminished its
Many innovating studies about ‘women’s genres’ such as soap operas, as a comprehensive cultural critique. For example, as we acknowl-
romance novels and women’s magazines and their audiences have informed the pleasure women derive from watching soap operas, it becomes
and have been informed by this approach (e. g. Hobson, 1982; Modleski, 1982; 3§;§§§i%§i;'%%;1f:%»i»-increasingly difficult to find moral justifications for criticizing their contribu-
Radway, 1984; Winship, 1987). Moreover, authors such as Fiske (1987) and to the hegemonic. construction of gender identities. To disentangle this
Morley (1986) addressing other issues in cultural studies, have incorporated -..i.;,,..iparadox I shall first ClISCUSS liberal, radical and socialist feminist discourses
gender in their research as one of the crucial mechanisms iii structuring our (\:)htCl'l sh_are_— in spite of their many‘ differences — a social control model of
cultural experiences and our outlook on daily life. Notwithstanding the mmunicatron, and a conceptualization of gender as a dichotomous category
successful and inspiring conjunction of feminist and cultural studies, not all ,>,..'
with a historically stable and universal meaning.
feminist studies are cultural studies, and not all cultural studies are feminist
studies. I shall elaborate the former as I review different feminist perspectives
later on. The latter brings me to a second distinctive feature of feminist media
studies. . Igiberal, Radical and Socialist Feminism
The feminist academic venture is intrinsically political. In the early years of
the revived movement, a concurrence of research writing and political
activism was common practice. A typical example is Betty Friedan’s feminism in three neatly separated ideological currents is certainly at
research about the construction of the American cultural ideal of ‘the happy the present fragmentation of feminist thought. It seems hard to
housewife-heroine’ in women’s magazines and advertisementsl The book Yr for example, postmodern and psychoanalytic trends satisfactorily in
The Feminine Mystique (1963) was an immediate bestseller and gave rise Also, feminist theory and practice is often rather eclectic,
1; » .,
. .
to a revival of the women’s movement which had been dormant since the elements from different ideologies as circumstances and issues
successful struggle for women’s suffrage. One of the first ‘second wave’ .1.»
necessitate. As a result few feminist media studies can be unequivocally
feminist groups was the National Organisation of Women, headed by Betty classified 111 one of the three categories. However, taken as ideal types — which
Friedan. Not surprisingly, NOW declared the media to be one of the major ..,t>>>.:'=1.l/ shall do here ~ they are indicative of the various ways in which feminists
Viz/.5".~,<tu t perceive
5?’/‘ the media. Although less dominant than in the seventies and early
sites of struggle for the movement: in the spring of 1970 approximately 100
women occupied the offices of The Ladies Home Journal demanding among they still underlie many feminist self~perceptions and analysis.2
other things a female editor in chief, a child care centre for employees and the §,__ ‘ft/;¢3».E:;:~.= . =;j.. .

publication of a ‘liberated issue’ to be compiled by the protesters. At least one * t 1 >2 *<>‘3¥'?.\z.§. '- .' .
'-I - -
1 *
feminist supplement to the Journal appeared. A nationwide research project
monitoring television networks and local stations for sexist content was
: I ‘t
Feminism .
conducted with the intention to challenge the licence of any station with a feminist discourse irrational prejudice and stereotypes about the
sexist record when it came up for renewal before the Federal Communications /~v. M3”/“’se@;? n /
natural role of women as wives and mothers account for the
Commissions (Hole and Levine, 1972: 264). Although by the beginning of the of women in society. General liberal principles of liberty
eighties much feminist research came from the academy, its political nature it should apply to women as well. Equal Rights or ‘reformist’
remained, therewith fundamentally undermining the dominant academic, are other labels for these principles which find their political
paradigm, of objectivity, neutrality and detachment. For example, Tuchman ‘*1, in attempts to change legislation, in affirmative action programs,
(1978: 38), introducing one of the first volumes about women and the media, t women to take up non-traditional roles and occupations and to
asks herself: ‘How can the media be changed? . . . How can we free women masculine qualities to acquire power. Such role reversal is much less
from the tyranny of media messages limiting their lives to hearth and home?’ J/-"‘*‘i'¢¢"u-1,=-tratifie- r“““’.@,; advocated for men.
The book concludes with a chapter discussing the policy implications of the role stereotypes, prescriptions of sex-appropriate behaviour, appeap
research material presented. Numerous other academic publications Skins and se]f_pBrcepti0nS am at the Core of Hbcral feminist
’“’Wme“”,:*»c,. »
with recommendations for change (e.g. Creedon, 1989; Gallagher, 1980', "yr.\.s._"¢'-.“,:-1-‘_ *”~\s/yAa»yr":§,.:_-~,"’~<' (Tuchman, 1978: S). Numerous quantitative content analyses
de»my
~na.-~4?s=va'
Thoveron, 1986). ,gsta;@i.1.%lll.t%,i1.shown that women hardly appear in the mass media be it depicted as
 is
34 Liesbet van Zoonen Feminist Perspectives on the Media 35

wife, mother, daughter, girlfriend; as working in traditionally female ]0l)S Radical Feminism
(secretary, nurse, receptionist); or as S6X—0l)_]6CI. Moreover they are usually In radical feminist discourse ‘patriarchy’, a social system in which all men are
young and beautiful, but not very well educated. Experimental research done _ samed to d oininate
as ' and oppress all women, accounts for women’s position- -
in the tradition of cognitive psychology tends to support the hypothesis that i in society. Patriarchy is conceived to be the result of men‘s innately wicked
media act as socialization agents — along with the family — teaching children inclination to dominate women, a genetically determined need which they can
in particular their appropriate sex roles and symbolically rewarding them for fulfil — in the last instance ~ by exercizing their physical strength. Radical
appropriate behaviour (cf. Busby, 1975; Gallagher, 1980). It is thought that . iii; .. . A feminists have been in the forefront of exposing male abuse of women and
media perpetuate sex role stereotypes because they reflect dominant social Ifpoliticizing issues formerly considered as private: sexual violence, wife
values and also because male media producers are influenced by these ;lll)ii.II€‘,l“II1g, incest, pornography, and more recently, sex tourism and trafficking
stereotypes. _ women. It is obvious that men can have no place in radical feminist utopias.
The solutions liberal feminism offers are twofold: women should obtain n order to free themselves completely women have to cut off all ties with
more equal positions in society, enter male-dominated fields and acquire ,_inen and male society, and form their own communities. Lesbianism therefore
9»: 1
power. With a time lag mass media will reflect this ch\'i\11g°- M6a‘_‘Whlle= “IS necessarily following political choice — another example of the radical
» 1il §,,%¥§ poiiticization of the personal.
'1-i; ~
media can contribute to change by portraying more women and men in non-
isi X i operate Sinceimass media are in the hands of male owners and producers, they will
traditional roles and by using non-sexist language. The strategies liberal
to the benefit of a patriarchal society. Apparently this premise does
feminists have developed to reach these goalsare many: teaching non- not need further researc h , given ' ' studies
'
the few media that have been
sexist professionalism’ in Schools of Journalism (Van Z0006", 1939); .1‘ll = f, conducted from a radical feminist perspective. The main focus is on porno-
Qfgating awareness among broadcasters and journalists about stereotypes ipgraphy and rather polemical: ‘Pornography exists because men despise
and their effects; putting ‘consumer pressure’ on mediainstitutions, espe- , ispm,_p,_pp_p_qivvomen, and men despise women because pornography exists’ (Dworkin
‘
cially on advertisers; demanding affirmative action policies of media institu~ 1611980‘' 289)
gpaffect
,... ‘Lzi_n=='
<
men,S ~ Inb radical
" t§.-Z=,j:;
. a{»%L=i h_ , _ feminist media anal Y S es tll e power o f h e media
i to’
tions (cf. Thoveron, 1986). Liberal media strategies have had some Ia; if: 5
ii ll e dVIOLlI towards women and women s perception of them-
unwarranted consequences. The emphasis on role reversal for women in V.=,,,,,,1;*i,svelves is beyond discussion: ‘Researchers may have been unable to prove a
"' l
: ».\
gr
'85

particular has created a new stereotype of ‘Superwoman , the’ response of >3, 'xi5.‘F;~'»:I:': connection between any particular instance of media and any particular
commercial culture to the demands of liberal feminism. Women s magazines l .1’ "
fact, but there can be no doubt that media distortion contributes to a general
and advertisements portray her as an independent and. assertive career A 3%:-Eli I of discrimination and abuse of women’ (Davies et al., 1988: 6. author
>

woman, a successful wife and mother, who is still beautiful and has kept italics).
4.-1::W
the body she had as a girl in perfect shape. Real women trying to live up to .4-»\
‘ ilap
ilézth‘
, ii5s>;~‘,.{
. 2. - . The media strategies of radical feminism are straightforward: women
1.» 7 1'
this image end up suffering from serious burn-out symptoms (Dowllng, should _creae
t th eir
‘ ownbmeans of communication.
' ' -
Technological develop-
1989). _ _ ments in print and audiovisual media made the proliferation of feminist
Another unforeseen consequence of liberal strategies is showing painfully writing, newsletters, magazines, radio and TV programmes, video and film
., ‘M
1' groups possible. A host of feminine ideas would otherwise have not received a
_;t.~i~
in developments in the media workforce. The numbers of female journalists public forum (Kessler, 1984). Most media are produced by a collective of
have increased considerably in recent years with the United States in the \
yolunteers, who usually work without profits motives and share responsibil- ‘
rs

forefront (MRTW, 1989). Sadly enough, however, as American researchers _ €

“lll'6S 7* Radical feminist logic does not allow fo r h’ierarc h ies; they are thought to
P
have observed ‘a female majority in the field does not translate gnto ta.
.-.t
e
l§§§.M{E3-fp6l'VCI‘Sl0Il _
of masculine society. .
Contributions are anonymous or signed
_..».=.~.,.v;.-.--».
power or influence for women: instead, it has been translate to mean ii er first names only since it is assumed that all women share the same k' d
decline in salaries and status for the field’ (Creedon, 1989: 3). In part these isgqéa
.-v.
'5 -' " - .
oppression.
problems arise from liberal feminism’s disregard for socio—economic struc-' §§,§,%f;’}iRadical media strategies have been more problematic than they seemed at
tures, and power relations. Social conflict is presented as a difference of..,t}ll,i.,,;}; §f?firs‘t’»sight: the belief_ that women togeth er — all innately
' good people — would
opinion which can be resolved through rational argumentation. This a_iSSL1mP' be able to work without competition, hierarchy or specialization and would
!
tion is reflected in the emphasis on strategies which imply teaching ‘and .,-,. ~ write or film from the same source of essential femininity, proved an illusion
raising awareness of (male) media producers, and in the rflllhfif Olmmlslfc A constant fea ture o f radical feminist ‘ ' media' has been internal
' ' about
conflict
= K
belief that media institutions can be changed from within by female media ~\.~ forgaiiization and editorial policy. Power differences, difference of opinion
professionals. That men — as radical feminists would argue — or consumer i -is interests appear to exist among women also, and are not a male preserve
~,/._
capitalism ~ as socialist feminists would argue — have vested interests lIl jflnother dilemma has been posed by the inability of feminist media to attract
maintaining their power over women, does not easily fit in the ideal it, and audiences beyond the feminist pans ' h Wh'li e their self proclaimed
rational disinterested argumentation. . * 1;. ‘
aim£25,:
often 1S to inform and mobilize larger audiences, movement media tend to
\E?»t z.< »
42‘§i=~3L};’§§f!=3i§‘.:.j'.",I .‘
'.=
‘
-
,v , V _ c
I‘ 5

36 Liesbet van Zoonen Feminist Perspectives on the Media 37

m
; l Si »;.
iii
in-K
fulfil more of a ritual function. With the waning enthusiasm for collective aPPT°fl¢l1¢$ I0 gender and media, that I Shall discuss later, build on these
expressions of feminism, the circulation figures of feminist media declined .,;i °°I'1¢<=PlS Of ideology. Many authors (e.g. Steeves, 1987) place them in the
rather dramatically resulting in the demise of many of them.3 Same Category. I Suggest it is important to distinguish between socialist
,. feminist d'iscourse and cultural studies
- . different
approaches due to their .
In its pure form, radical feminist media analyses have not gained much
Cmlceptualizations of power. In socialist feminist discourse power remains
ground. However, many elements of it are also found in other theories. ll‘, located in so 010
‘ _ economic
' structures, be it
- mediated
- ,
Socialist feminism incorporates the concept of patriarchal ideology in its ill? A. through the relatively
marxist analysis of women’s position, without however adopting its essenti- 11%; autonomous level of ideol ogy. Cultural studies
' approaches account for power
alist stance. The conviction that differences between men and women are a discursive prac t‘ice that can appear independent
' from material
- conditions
. .
Q The distinction however is one of emphasis" both are reluctant to f l
essentially biological has emerged in other feminist perspectives as well.
French feminists drawing heavily from psychoanalytic theory have very l gender exclusively and try to incorporate material and cultural condfficdiiss
accounting for women’s position in society.
sophisticatedly located the difference between men and women in the differ-
Initsmostc
_ ru d e form, the socialist" feminist
'- communication
- - model of the
ent structure of male and female genitals. considering, fOl\ example, classic seventies clin g s t0 radical ' - which - - are perceived .
linear narrative structure as an expression of masculine, goal oriented sexu- models in media to be
ideolo ical i t ' - - . _
ality. French feminist theory has particularly influenced literary and film
studies, but is rare in studies of mass media (e.g. Mattelart, 1986). The
[1
Y I the ..if.....i 0l3§lmi§§i?@5Z?S°"“lgi-‘hi °“P‘*a"S‘~ ’"“ P“‘"‘t"°““‘ *‘°°‘e‘Y “S
- , sociaist eminism is distinguished by a much
solution for women’s position is not sought in withdrawing from patriarchal _g 6; er concern for the way in which ideologies of femininity are constructed
culture, but in creating new and legitimate spaces for the feminine voice, . int emed'a, 1 an d to whose avail. ‘ 9 Much of its
- research consists. . ,
of ideological
supposedly more process oriented. This has been extremely successful in the Y sis of med'la t 6X t S, using
' ' instrumentarium
the analytic - - offered by struc-
area of women’s writing, but the feminist avant-garde film of the seventies and semiology (e.g. Coward, 1984). The solutions socialist feminism
never acquired a large following (e.g. Pribram, 1988). an \lil7{' .. ., are not so much different
_ from liberal or radical media strategi es
vs -..,"'§;:.n-;»¢='
§‘;:7:';'E;}_;
.-:,»:¢.~
I “R 1 ass:-1s:=-';» :.- 3 dmlble strategy is advocated: reforming the mainstream media as
's is
z:";~Ji¥:1-2i1e:i,I',-’» '
11$ producing - - media.
separate feminist - What distinguishes
- . . the socialist
~, z .i-kt<»»:>=>=».=...-.:v
=~.=.l,'.t...
f0l' f6 ma I 6 media
' producers is
‘ an awareness of the middle
- class bias
. of that
Socialist Feminism liali
§.l'a1 E933’ (6 . g . Baehfl 1931) and the acknowledgement that at the same time
.
Unlike radical and liberal feminism, socialist feminism does not focus structural
changes in the organization of media labour are necessary. For
exclusively on gender to account for women’s position, but attempts to ~l£i.;;~,; exam P le, a D ‘Itch Pressllle group Of fflmlnlst
. . Journalists
. . .
campaigned rather
incorporate an analysis of class and economic conditions of women as well. §uccessfully for affirmative action policies in journalism, increase of part-time
Central concepts are ‘the reproduction of labour’ and ‘the economic value of ]0l)
gfficepossibilities,
(Diekerhof pa t I l
ct1:l1.'lj98%z;ve an d childcare
- ' '~ ~
facilities at the newspapers
domestic labour’. Although not recognized as such, the nurturing, moral, r
educational and domestic work women do in the family is said to be ii
1
».,;;,
indispensable for the maintenance of capitalism. Were all this labour to be /1 .;_.,,_.. .- -' _
'- iii"
paid, the profit margins of capitalism would be critically diminished (cf. l
l1_
1 '5 -

Zaretsky, 1986). Socialist feminism shares with liberal feminism an emphasis ,.,_...2i
l of Gender and Communication
on the need for women to take up paid labour. However, at the same time a ll‘.
fundamental restructuring of the labour market is called for, in which the =.-asi ll dl ,
l average labour week is reduced to 25 hours so that women and men have time... iii? ”ssZ'Y:=s-»=

left to share nurturing and domestic responsibilities. i .. 3’5e$- ey aim either at reforming existing media institu-
1 ' professions, or at creating new feminist ‘institutions’ and developing
More recently, socialist feminism has tried to incorporate other social exp ,5ac/#4;_ ~,.1sYi,.aé,,4<‘;,. S. _....
)
‘l
.|;-i
feminine and feminist interpretations of prqfcsgionaljgm However Q
divisions along the lines of ethnicity, sexual preference, age, physical abil-it the Privile 86 Of hindsight.
‘ ' - a position - - '
ity, since the experience of, for example, black, lesbian and single women did We are now in to observe how
..~.......1?-liseful these strategies have been It would
:l=!
not fit nicely in the biased gender/class earlier model. This has resulted in an i . a ear that s
I
M . very successful. S ome even seem to have pp been counterproductive,
Omc of thcmhavcas"ptin
K increasingly complicated and incoherent theoretical project, which until now :j< . case of America ' ‘ ' -
has not produced a satisfactory account of the way material and cultural 6;‘, ..;..- i . "J0ul'flfl1lSITl becoming a female-dominated field reduced
1?;status and salaries Such ' ' ' ' ' - -
conditions
, interact. More and more, ideology in
_ itself has become
, the it
lTlfllll_I:§3
. p%¥l160I'6lIC3.l _ flaws which . all three perspectives
political disillus share These flaws ' Concern
object of study. The work of Althusser, stating the relative autonomy fits °<~*i§¢~ ' ' - of gender as a dichotomous
nceptualization - Ions category
are' 'mn°al‘-313’
. a llnkfid
with I0
homoge-
ideological apparatuses like the family, school, church and the media 9,.v-.il'l€.()I1S1 and universal meaning and the premise of mass media being instru-
\
vis the economic conditions, and the work of Gramsci analyzing lioiili >;.-_i ,
to the cont1'01 needs of respectively, ' -
society, -
patriarchy, and
dominant ideology takes on the form of common sense (hegemony)
 §%=.i';'-"1 .
i"i

38 Liesbet van Zoonen i Feminist Perspectives on the M d. 39

" i e ta
Tho US ~ has not led to an increase in th ' '
Gender
Radical and liberal feminism share their appreciation of gender as an inevi-
iizaizrint is
d
o t - . . ;iai2“i;i°%$"i
.
ree , 1 . to i
Strawgy I equa 1.it P 1°11 or liberal feminism then seems to be a me(r)i3:1adj(i)i:Z;1e3,3i
table consequence of sex differences, consisting of two binary and universal is
- ii *2» , same’. y as dsfined by dominant masculine culture ‘equal but the
'
canons of behaviour, ' ' and values found either
characteristics ' ' wome n — the i
in . . . Radical feminist as Sumptions of essential d' ‘ en women 'd
feminine
' ' c anon — or in men — the masculine canon. lfterences betwc
erationFemininity is supposed
communal to
sense, com- .. .W311, and their call for Sepafate womenss SPaces and c ' ' an
be composed of emotionality, prudence, coop , ’.%§ti2@i:;%zi%;~;::.PT0blemati C,. They 1_1TlPly ' 0111
a return to an ontological 6X;Il:h}aiiZi1a§i’el?uu1-$1133
Pliance i etc - Masculinity supposedly ~ is its opposite: rationality, efficiency, pg nces introducing E1 iyrann Y of biological destin h' t ' ll
' '
competition, ' ' ' '
individualism, ruthl essness, etc . Liberal feminism
v 'has it that we
l ~ the “
'-5'I:=3 Circumscribe women’s place in societ A Y 1S orica y used to
learn to accept these canons as normal through women s mothering ro e in A iifiii1.-, .
W...
‘iii>‘,,»,;;'- ,1:>‘f
'>.=::‘:» » . _
totalitarian t d ' -
6 n _encies as its main-
y' 5 $u¢h radical feminism ‘has the
antagonist patriarchal S0ci3[ H
' l ization ag ents like the media, while radical ;.;_Ol‘Jll'lStEiI'lC6, can radical feminism erceiv . Y . 0W
family and through other socia
feminism' ‘
believes ' the essential
in ' nature of these differences.
‘ T ransgressioiis $31rt$i:PP?S<g<%l‘y Zlnnate femininityypother fhgloggfigeihilelgcgl) :0t_¢Qnform to
o f th'is d'chotom
i y, manifested for example in androgynous appearances like women £0 a m" _04—28)-_ Radical feminist strategies ine 'tel:laUOnS? (Ct
Grace Jones and Prince, in certain. types of lesbian and . homosexual
. . culture,
. ind , ,6, W ,. false consci arginal position: they will be either op I vi a ly condemn
the Phenomenon of transsexuality, and more routinely. in daily lives an ousness within at - . , _ P essed suffering from
f P riarchal socier 11slfigiei Slépposed to be beyond
experiences of women an d men w hose behaviour and characteristics do not _ €;c<i>E1:11€.1t(3r tlgey chooseto step out of patriardlhhvl
fit easily in the feminine or masculine canon, are considered exceptions to the '
5
g Of mdicalrp tit remaining isolated and marginal as FOY _ eing free and true to
thus defined universal ‘sex-gender system . ‘ '
eminist media illustrates The problem is si r illnstfncfi the llfecyclo
l transcendentg fig i'i§‘3Ssential'ist currents.- ‘For if - as ' .
;1illi\t I°?*i5.‘J' 1?
'
Consider '
the ‘sameness-difference ’ dilemma
‘ '
such a universa mi ar in psychoanalytir;
506- I b, I some psychoanalytic theories appeal. to
conc ept of g ender runs into‘. for liberal_ feminism ‘ _ women are essentiallyI . ,1 la _ su _|ects a _re determined ' through family . relations and 1
same as men but not equal; for rad ica . l feminism women . are . essentrallyas \ F
d f7 ac q U1 sition, prior to the introduction of other d anguage
cons‘ ' - -
dflerent
1 from men and not equal. (It is most easy to explain this ilemmawit 2::i Personal back J - . 1 erations incl d
by juxtaposing liberal and rad ical femi nism . That is not to say , however thatii = ties 'b d
b ram 1988 . 6) In radical
ground or hlstoncal moment, the social conlitiitligt rfiftié
. .
socialist feminism is less bothered by it.) Liberal feminism urges wome e i5 E1 Closed system fe unamenable
' ' d- to other sub‘16¢ ' i formations’ (Pg-
"/“-
particular to regain that sameness becoming equal in the process. , _
’ 1_- erence
- dilemma is ‘different
mlmst 1560 but not equal.
. .
feminism tells women to celebrate their being different and to struggle E ial,?fi?e d ff _ urge the mevltable Ollttlome of the
social revaluation of femininity. Both solutions are intrinsically problematie.'§§§§; in .7 , SofPaffllyling
gender asdllemma havi- ng ais universal
P
a - roduct anf d
0 ra ical an d liberal
‘ conce
_ pFt ua 1‘. iza-
h l es of the protestant work ethicfii p li flosoph d d transcendent meanm .
Liberal feminism implicitly
. . accepts. t e va u . . Idy ”’ w,g.s_ _, d ers an historians h -
ave pointed t th - . _ _ em; nist
g.
basic to modern capitalism by telling women to leave their domestic wor
. -wig;
U emotional are 251% litrigiiilnsppo
' ‘ -
:12:;pnal,Lwh(;le . women would be more
enter the (male) workforce
. . and. develop the masculine . features
. necessarythan
toga iisfiiefi1 ea t that- men, 1 urc_ 0 5 h1$t0rlcal specificity ofi the '
ese ideas in the work of R an B5 (1933) locates the origins
ac quire power. Masculinity is advocated as an ideal to live up to, at
expense of human values tra dit ionall y associated with women . Role reversal is F h Revolut _ oussgau, Momesquieu and other philosophers
x
. T6110
and called men ilp)n,thigiroSL1FP1recglrepublicans to banish women to the
might render equality to women, but in the process important . ' ose .
ii.4 Elgagespltigg gendering elf the guhilizlilddflillillgiiifihg11 thl: world of
l
vaues are dismissed and lost . This is an outcome no liberal feminist aspi_re§,,i§
to it is thus argued that women should go public‘ without forsaking . ,. 7,. 7 ec in nganyd (feminist)
~ - . 6 SIineahihzvi-1‘;
er
xx: igpigenider’ can thus be cog discourses about the
fem
’ ininitY . Moreover their supposedly moral superiority should feed . t. ‘:1'5i 5< » ti
ld f El htain , 1981) . In feminist mediiff§i%i»
improve the degenerated public wor (c . s . l
.
_ universal andnsi historically
ere to be aThus
transcendent. ' 0111 specific
not h - th
construction b
, y
:,§32nQn:ibflH1Sh€d women t y as e F
studies this liberal dogma is reflected in the call for more female Liéggglgggnlnlsti.-
theory and 019 t11‘? family: > it- has also succeeded inrench im RFvolu -
whose specific feminine input of concern for human relations and persongigt W$7“ti-v»>>'.:'i" . p itics in its philosophical framework (Cf V P%ISOn1I’lg
'
experiences would improve '
the current distanced and dehumanize’ d news st i5‘ '\- V 531991) ' An acknowled - _ an
l ' 1984) There lS a theoretical inconsistency here“ ‘V 1* liefs about women getlinem of the hlstoncal Speclficity of current dOIFI)l?::§lI'if
(e.g. Neverla and Kanz eiter, . M§._ H p p new ways of Conce ptualizing
,,,.i:a
,;?¢;§;3l;,;<){;.fi$ universally given, but as socially constructed. Th ~ . .
8 ende
_ r,
whilst
' the essential
' . sameness of women_ and. men is ' use d to leg itiniiiiiitlli‘
W: I‘ i an an men opens u
.
deinands for eq uality, difference enters again through the backdoonrtigé " "ii . i is
_ sci how to promote a c rt _ e issue then is noI‘
women need their specific ‘ feminine ’ feau t ms K’ mod“ y the °ga1‘“Z‘“§§:iil ligi“ 0 ismiss femin' '
t ‘llll§‘i§§tiiii'it‘
conse q uences of the struggle for equality. The rather naive assumptionxk ,.,._ li~l" = d' to 'analyze how
ill .,, trather 6and
inityand am
wh typeart'of femininity
rnasculiriit
YI altogetheras in radical rafeminism
as in libe ifemmlsm, - ~’ o
w 1 5.5.Hi.i
i , minity aris - 11 lSt0l'iCa]
- N; u ar constructions
- - of masculinity - - and
dominant masculine cu l ture wou ld easil y make room for its necessarft FF: 1 -=_
umiiianceover
: . 3 ll’! l|‘

others and how

y p I10
Cg I'lt6X[S,
domindiitalgy certain constructions gain
feminine complementation has more important practical consequencesl%;i§if’jiran" r
already mentioned, th e recen t increase of the number of female 3ournali§i§?§§iiii§- °f Women and men. S llctlons relate to the lived
 Feminist Perspectives on the Media 41
40 Liesbet van Zoonen . 5

. Realism
it
.\
Communication ‘~25. It is obvious that many aspects of women’s lives and experiences are not very
we ll re fl ected by the media. ‘ Many more women work than media-output . '
Liberal, radical and socialist feminist discourse share an instrumental per- i
spective on communication. Media are perceived as the main instruments in = -X;
a "
Suggests, very few women are like the ‘femme fatales’ of soap operas and
conveying respectively stereotypical, patriarchal and hegemonic values about kI::;?I:eSE;lt€:édd€ld wlomen s desires consist of a lot more than the hearth and
if womfin mi hé iona wplpien s magazines. call for more realistic .images of
women and femininity. They serve as mechanisms of social control: in liberal . ,
feminist discourse media pass on society’s heritage - which is deeply sexist - S?! ; _ 8 Seem $6 -evldfint. but is quite problematic. Gender stereotypes
in order to secure continuity, integration, order and the transmission of afor instance do not come out of the blue, but have social counterparts which
ls“.
y; imany might perceive. as ‘real’. Thus a common negation of the accusation that
dominant values (Tuchman, 1978); radical feminism argues that patriarchal ‘*1’ _=2I 5j
media serve the needs of patriarchal society by suppressing and distorting
gin!
mfidla distort reality is: ‘But many women are mothers and housewives ’ Who
,, $5 .. . _ . .
women’s experiences which, if expressed in their true form, would seriously
disturb the patriarchal set up (Mattelart, 1986); socialist feminism assumes = .
illustrated
category ASW%men‘7
Bmnsc-IonThes as C prevloushparagraphs
(lggganlfgeg haw only amumnany
ilnuc less ‘be considered uniform
that media present the capitalist, patriarchal scheme of things as the most
attractive system available. Direct social control becomes unnecessary since
for moreirealistic
is meant ima es of
by flrealistign ramwo mgln )'1S uto yertigage
argues:111. the
Thus for femlmsts
struggle tp definetowhat
can
dominant ideology has been translated into ‘common sense’ (Women Take
Issue, 1978). Media fulfil the structural needs of respectively democratic, imaggs Ar um f , er an to o er easily available alternative”
. . . .. g u g or more realistic images is always an argument for [hg
patriarchal and capitalist society by transmitting its distorted dominant 11%;‘ ‘
representation of your” version of reality.’
values about women. What feminism of each kind advocates is the transmis-
A related problem of the ‘reality reflection thesis’ is the implication that
sion of the reality of women’s lives instead: media should be instrumental to .- l 'j‘;'>%»'
at
' ,-
media output has unequivocal meanings: they are either real or not teal, This
creating feminist utopias. Feminist value judgements are thus completely cast
in future oriented political terms, with ‘political’ referring to the complete fix! ,.:g€$fic2‘:l;1lcp(;np:lexf and mulqiple meanings of media texts implied by the
:5‘
social set-up. As a result ‘good’ media — contributing to feminist goals — and iisocial
‘bad’ media - maintaining the status quo, are easily distinguished. Suppo- a ll‘<
<. preflectigrouup s
1-I-.2 aid
_ fsou bmilfs me(c‘fl. Fiske,
_cu ures n'eedmg1987).
to beInpopqlar among
facing the a varmy
dilemmas of
of the
sedly, it is only a matter of time for women’s collective awareness to surface tr ,;
\ 2i
,, on esis, eminist media studies have been profoundly influenced by
o
resulting in a massive exchange of ‘bad’ women’s magazines, romance §5§~i¥§*ij:’1i3j?,fClllluffll Studies and by its own shift to a constructivist theory of gender
ll’l'—1?a€"i':?
1» =__ »
novels, etc. for ‘good’ feminist media. » <1»;-» " "§5l’E|l;::’;,g1lell_K’t]‘°‘t unifiird‘ aPP1'0flC_h with a consistent programme, cultural
_!l%.'<.r'1.
v.
In the 1990s, however, having more than 20 years of organized feminism ‘i a culture} is Crfsat gnet 0d.éJO1TllTll1I1lCa[l0ll as a process through which a shared
~.§ll ‘if,
behind us, Utopia is still far from near. A variety of new women’s magazines illtlt~= _ 11}? , H10 1 ed and transformed (Carey, 1989; 43), impfies a
r. V). MM. conceptualization of media texts as sites of struggle over meaning (e g of
have entered the market successfully adapting to the fragmentation of a n 5,
formerly unified female readership: girls, young women, older women, career
ll >1“
8*;/%1d¢}’), rather than as transparent cultural prescriptions. The reality media
women, rich housewives, the avid cook or gardener, ordinary working
._>. F §°:=:;/
I.%%-i1"
Q33;
'i EDS; :1; Pfgfillcl Of gpgolng negotiation at the level_of media institutions,
' L:
women, travelling women and the traditional housewife all happily subscribe x
~ .1‘
_ _.;vj<|‘ll i
,__‘....l F," l§"¢@$ ( fidhlll, 1988). As a result media texts are inherently
to their own kind of women’s magazine; romance novels have introduced new l s~ $3,. ., :1:,5PQY5¢m1° (F1$k¢, 1937) and construct diverging and sometimes conflicting
- rt‘./;s&:r=‘
iv.2;.
heroines profoundly touched by feminist calls for independence, but still 2: l ~: 1 of femininity. Although it is often quite clear which atticumions
:=;;.»- lgi
longing for and always attaining heterosexual everlasting romance; soap . . "?P'L‘*“iii %§,Qf,,.fBminin1ty are to be preferred according to media producers (the dominant
4 §, §:!§!‘?f1I1I11B of U16 WXI). the idea of a polysemic nature of media texts under-
operas like Dallas, Dynasty, Falcon Crest and its successors — a typical
1980s television genre — attract a predominantly female audience in spite of pA Ihfi possibility of thinking of audiences as onesidedly and unambigu-
its ‘overtly’ sexist, patriarchal and capitalist content; and feminist media will
‘plllsly affeclfid by media. Which of the many meanings of the texts will they
struggle with reaching a larger audience, attracting advertisers, maintaining -.c.~.a j1z < l11_)?_This brings me to the second major problematic of the feminist
p p l “rip trans mission model of communication.
- - . its
- passive
- .
audience .
conception.
their old audience, or suffer from internal conflict or simply boredom. :,~’a l ;_=,4i,
Obviously the feminist transmission model of communication cannot account '}'§.ll lg“>" '
for these developments, other than plaintively reproaching the avid consumers E- l ll ,‘l %;}
of the ‘bad’ media with ‘false consciousness’. I suggest instead to ascribe this
ineptitude to the realistic bend and the passive audience conception of the
lll _,
The Audience and ‘Us’
.-anch I
model. V1,».
feminist transmission models of communication audiences don’t have
. .3», ii l V choice in interpreting media texts. Either they can accept them as
is hindwlgich case they are successfully socialized (liberal ft-3min-
3'
_»

:7?
W.‘
gaé>’.#<s vM»
...-.=',‘»ti.-.1. K ;r. st. - ~ as 6 ( y patriarchy) or lured to the idea that what they see and
~.¥.?-. 5"?‘ 7 <31
42 Ltesbet van Zoonen .§_»_, -_ if Feminist Perspectives on the Media 43
l
- (l987) addressing precisely this question irl her analysis of women’s maga-
read is ‘common sense’ (socialist feminism‘). Or they see through the tricks alzgiafioglfgiissfthat she has been a ‘ploset reader’ of Cosmopolitan and
mass media play on them and reject the sexist, patriarchal, capitalist repre- '35.:/'
1 or years, since a true feminist is not supposed to derive
sentation of things. It seems clear that many feminists consider themselves p easure from such ghastly products. Hers is one of the few examples of a
among the latter ‘enlightened’ people raising themselves ‘to the lofty pedestal i Study in which the personal experiences and pleasures of the researchers are
of having seen the light’ (Winship, 1987: 140). A deep gap is constructed I . i, V n integrated element of the study, thus releasing the tension between ‘us’ and
between ‘us’ feminists, and ‘them’ the audience. Objectionable in particular
are soap operas, romance novels, and women’s magazines which create a ‘cult .=;._ .\
w
n, l '5}/:;'-(‘ta V. ul;l;@l:)’lni A5‘:v§l(1I‘I‘O:V (l%861: ll_l5) has argued: ‘In investigating popular culture
<3 , y y no to ee ike a snooping health investigator, sniffing out
of femininity and heterosexual romance’ that — since these media are pre- :>;. is
lQ
1*
someone’s environment is fit to live in, is to examine some aspect
dominantly consumed by women — set the agenda for the female world (cf. >
ti or
form of it which evokes passionate feeling in oneself.’5
Ferguson, 1983). Such a strong conviction about the value (or rather lack of it) 5Z
Si 2X r
of these media for women’s lives, is remarkably similar to the patriarchal r?’==.».‘»;
la
. _ .- ,1 ->4.»
.‘ I

attitudes of men knowing what is best for women. Dismissing women’s I

genres for their supposedly questionable content, carries an irrflslicit rejection it Feminism and Cultural Studies
of the women who enjoy them. That is obviously at odds with the feminist tip ,
mission to acknowledge and gain respect for women’s experiences and view- lti“ From the points of criticism to feminist transmission models of communica-
points. Moreover, it does not contribute to our understanding of how con- l:l
tending constructions of gender are articulated in such cultural phenomena. is.,> t. élgnqilfililstng zlld m, th6_P7e"’l0u5 Paragraphs, the Contours of a ‘cultural
_ ,§t~;_ p e ia s u ies project emerge. Though it would be hard to defend the
Why, then, are these genres so popular among women? How do women use
ii:§(l)¢;-;CBO?l% tl well-defined theoretical and. empirical program, to which 3
them to give meaning to their daily experiences‘? How do ‘discourses of
. _] y eminist communication scholars adhere, it does seem justified to
femininity’ articulated in them interact with other non mediated discourses ' ;< . x‘,...
3S:7,»_-,»_.‘;';',I gsay that cultural studies approaches are gaining momentum given the growing
of femininity such as motherhood and sexuality (cf. Brunsdon, 1981). #3:’'I3(;§<-.=.E=;;§;::»; 1 --
number of publications in this vein (e.g. Baehr and Dyer 1987' Brown 1990"
The above questions have activated a unprecedented concern with the Y V
.,_.Gamman and Marshment, ‘l988; Pribram, 1988; Shevelow, l989).
female audience, expressed in a boom of mainly ethnographiclstudies about = My own formulation of its theoretical premises would start from Hardin ’s
female recipients of particular genres, soap operas and romance novels ..¢;> 9. ,
jA(l_986: 17) definition of gender ‘as an analytic category within which humfns
leading the field (see Ang and Hermes in this volume). However, the problem
of ‘us’ feminists versus ‘them’ the audience is not solved by the ethnographic
twist in feminist media studies and might in some cases even be intensified as
» »;. t -l}-\
‘_:_ /.1 ":

“ is
>912»
5‘ 1 to individual pm I8 in dpfti} orteven mprely as a social variabie assignedis a
the feminist researcher puts herself in the authoritative position of the all conceptualization gf ender im ell] lfliayS' mm qultllre to Culture ' SuCh- a
f eiréi v»;~m~i
knowing expert of female media pleasures, while in the end still rejecting according to s ecificgcultu l p deli‘ atitslmfiallmg IS never given but Yam-is
them as unproductive for ‘the’ feminist revolution. This is utterly problematic »: »t,- subject to ongtling CllSCl.ll‘Sl:: sfrrii llstorilca Setlmgs, and that its meamng ls
in Radway’s by now almost classic study Reading the Romance. After reaching socio-cultural im p 1'ications.
- gg 6This
mi struggle
ncgouatloni
overthe Oulcome
meaning havmg
is not far
a mere
respectfully analyzing the romance reading experiences of married working ,%g;f{.. ll
f;pll.lI‘flllSIlC ‘debate’ of equal but contending frames of reference. It is circum-
women, she claims that romance reading contains an act of protest against fcribed by existing ethnic and economic power relations. and by the fact that
patriarchal culture. Briefly and bluntly summarized: by the social act of ' (15 gin virtually all cultures, whatever is thought of as manly is more highly
reading romance, women signal a time-out for their domestic and caring » =9: .
»-.=.».»./ .3‘
. . -{valued than whatever is thought of as womanly’ (Harding, 1986: 18)
labour; and by taking up romances in particular with their omnipresent --.:-=:1;;t1% .~ 1-I
»-»,. ‘._t:;~...
-
jWhat part do media play in the ongoing social construction of gender‘?
androgynous hero capable of nurturing woman herself, they deny the legiti-
an 3ztttd;:ia3“‘2; 3,1’;-no" is
1. 1231 ‘Fa
-,
.1141 3&5
:.'::.r: -t‘ %_<.»,..::.:.=,-*
macy of patriarchal culture in which such men are quite hard to find. Radway 4<z:,)(_.
1-

now militantly concludes that ‘we, who are committed to social change’ (my gcast) on thfi particular cme;r(speci c c aracteristic (e.g. print versus broad-
, ,
. _¢ it ,
italics), should keep looking for and encouraging these traces of social they obviousiy
aflppfifil to and on tghfiapelac:-gh news vcrslls
in Soap
thoseOpera‘), on {Emdaily
alldlepcgs
2
protest: ‘If we do not, we have already conceded the fight and, in the case
1, rig 3->1»'
' fix E» -:1,
pi
But an media am eytgccupy ‘Ell.lCll6l'lCCS lives.
of the romance at least, admitted the impossibility of creating a world where meaning takes place Stuart Hallpnagsg centrzgp sites in which struggle over
»»
the vicarious pleasure supplied by its reading would be unnecessary.’ (Rad- 11. i-93,
i"
starting point in case Accordin St H ilerlico mgwdelzodmg model 1% a good
way, 1984: 222). In the end the only value of romance reading Radway ‘>5- ‘encoded’ text which-does not cgonstitute
0' a at closed
6 prodllcuon
ideological
Slructure
system
ylclds
but ‘in
in
acknowledges is its potential - however far hidden — for the feminist .11:
(-§2\‘»‘i::' which contradictions of the production process are discounted The thus
revolution. . rt,-,.(.
encoded structure of meaning
' is
' brought back into
- -
,

But what to make of those feminists who enjoy soap operas, who revel in 1 ‘iv
= ,_ the practices of. audiences
-
iliby their similar but reverse ‘decoding’ process. Encoding and decodin need
harlequin novels and who are addicted to their weekly subscription of their to be symmetrical, i.e. audiences don’t need to understand media tgxts as
favourite women’s magazine, to mention just a few ‘bad’ genres. Winship ‘fix
.-;;.;s>.*0 ‘ii t§*\1».~_t._~.'
in-<2.-itit-2
:',»:'.*.
E‘
 E §

“ ri
:-, iv
44 Liesbet van Zoonen it Feminist Perspectives on the Media 45
producers have intended them. In fact, a certain ‘misunderstanding’ is likely, (1989) argues that the series’ narrative form, representational codes and
because of ‘the a-symmetry between the codes of “source” and “receiver” at .».,.,
structures of looking empower women and encourage women-identified
the moment of transformation in and out of the discursive form. What are E?
constructions of meaning. The series combines the linear narrative of the
called “distortions” or “misunderstandings” arise precisely from the lack of 1, -,. . » police series — a crime usually related to such feminist issues like sexual
equivalence between the two sides of production’ (Hall, 1980: 131, original up harassment, rape, prostitution, etc. is committed and solved — with the more
\
italics). Gledhill’s (1988) analysis of meaning production as cultural negotia- i circular structure of the soap opera. Integrated in the linear narrative is the
tion at the level of institutions, texts and audiences builds on the encodingl personal life of the heroines which follows a more open and fragmented
decoding model. I
wt. :~
In that narrative the emphasis is on process rather than action, on
institutional negotiation results from conflicting frames of reference within t . :-.= -
rather than solution: ‘We don‘t know from any cause effect structure
media organizations. ‘Creative’ personnel is guided mainly by professional Chris [Cagney] will decide about marriage or how MaryBeth [Lacey]
and aesthetic logic, while managing directors predominantly have economic iiwill cope with having breast cancer’ (Clark, 1990: ll9). What we do see are
and ideological interests in mind. D’Acci’s (1987) analysis of the American their considerations, their ideas and feelings which are extensively played out
- .2
police series Cagney and Lacey, featuring two female detectives, illustrates while the outcome of their deliberations (not to marry, what kind of treatment
the intricate interplay between institutional and textual negotiations indicative to take) does not get much emphasis. According to Clark representation of the
of the complexities and contradictions of the encoding process. Having a ll"liill‘” decision-making process ‘invites the participation of the spectator to complete
1
female buddy pair at the heart of the series satisfied two institutional needs list/litéi; ' the process of meaning construction in ways that are meaningful to her’ (l 19).
at once: to revitalize the popular but somewhat stale genre of police series, ‘Z ;l. .,.;,
§ Textual analysis such as described above, utilizing concepts from psycho-
1?‘? V,
and to respond to social changes caused by the women’s movement. In analysis, structuralism and semiotics, has been quite common in film studies
practice these two claims were not easily realized. A continuous struggle itss<:~.i., : ,(l’ri'bram, .1988) but more and more television texts are being analyzed in a
between the writers and the network accompanied the production of the 2 we “similar vein. For example, Ang (1990) analyzes how the textual construction
" -
series, the conflicts all boiling down to the question of how to reconcile the giof Sue Ellen, one of themajor female characters of Dallas, provides several
E .<,.. :,t2
treatment of feminist issues with the commercial interest of the network to W‘V‘ umaginary subject positions for women: Lewis (1990) and Kaplan (1988)
== '-'.’.§ 1:: :1
keep away from controversial topics. The negotiations about an episode in 1%,/\ how music videos appeal to a gendered audience; Holland (1987) (
which unmarried career cop Cagney thinks she is pregnant shows how it is 4:1.-In-, _
Qand van Zoonen (1991) examine the significance of women newsreaders for
diverging frames of reference enter at the level of script development. The , l, g .1. l
ongoing construction of traditional femininity. Older research about
writers did not even consider to let Cagney have an abortion, anticipating that novels and women’s magazines can also be considered part of this
the network would never allow that solution. So a miscarriage was proposed, .. ,,..
- 11‘ star: body of work (Modleski, 1982; McRobbie, 1982; Winship, 1987).
but the network rejected the story anyway, not wanting ‘to shine the spotlight ' tr $1-‘ii: i . ~ The concept of polysemic ‘media texts should be embraced with caution,
on pregnancy and the problems of an unmarried pregnant woman’ (D’Acci,
:=‘;‘:Il -
l
: (5%?
5’
>. H‘ tr .~-.1.
however. In spite of its essential ambiguity, the range of meanings and subject
1987: 219). Obviously, negotiation at this point concerns the ideological -r l \'J‘Q positions_a text offers is_not infinite. ‘Encoding will have the effect of
...i .
implications of the script. The networks countered the writers with a proposal =57
i\
construpting some of the limits and parameters within which decodings will
1
of a story in which Cagney (in her late thirties) has to decide whether she will operate (Hall, 1980: 135). So most texts do have a ‘preferred reading’ which
'“<'/ea->-1
ever have children. This was unacceptable to the writers for its lack of l'I§I> 4
Qgiven the economic and ideological ‘location of most media, will tend td 2
>
narrative resolution, the negotiation here being about professional standards ' +22:
_,-ijeconstruct dominant values of a society — unless we are dealing with
of sound scripts. Finally, the contending claims were reconciled by letting .. 55 »_;_~.
i: §»> _.,,,_,_.,,§§»?ltemativemedia
x Is‘ which should also be thought of as polysemic and
Cagney think she is pregnant. As becomes clear by the end of the episode, she its
within a rather different set of constraints, however. Moreover,
is not. How her pregnancy could happen and what she means to do about it is .2...
V
Qt s §flII63I1lIlgS in texts need to be activated by real audiences before they can
hardly discussed in the rest of the episode, since that would involve such “ll-it lap on any social significance. The negotiation over meaning at the level of
‘ _ t;'r l

politically and socially explosive issues as birth control and abortion. A rather ,»i-mag: audience ‘reception’ has the most radical potential. ‘Reception’ implies two
dim narrative remains to which each woman can bring her own experiences is :=,.i.» i,;:;r¢ 1.‘-:1. '.-=3related sets of audience practices: use and interpretation. ' as%
with (un)wanted pregnancies and ‘career/children’ dilemmas. D’Acci’s ana- i vi. V.
In Hall’s encoding-decoding model three hypothetical positions from which
‘.2 V
lysis of Cagney and Lacey is a rare exception to the tendency within feminist . X,‘ audiences may interpret television texts are identified: the viewer who takes
gi
media studies to focus on gender only as explaining particularities of media §s/ I j _adominant-hegemonic position reads the texts in terms of its encoding
content.
Negotiations at the level of texts concern the availability of meanings in a
1;, i *;"<
ljl .1 ;,1:'»§§€ which makes the model symmetrical; the negotiated positions entail many
. It
its»:
-more contradictions since the negotiating viewer accepts the global sense of l
it
text as expressions of the encoding process, and as a result of independent and 3:5: dominant encoding, but lets her own logic prevail at a more situated level-
unpredictable interactions between contending elements in the text. Next to .,, p:..most radical reading comes from an oppositional position in which the
that textual interactions allow audiences to take up different ‘subject posi-_‘z.=.-s
. ..
i.-
ie’ader/viewer recognizes the text as inflected with dominant codes and .l
tions’. To take another analysis of Cagney and Lacey as an example: Clark. _.x
. ‘i ._ it within her own alternative frame of reference. Hall’s hypothetical
F2‘ =$w=.~-mm.%_-_i.~. v.1 .;i*~<£»?»;'s=.-2
.a-:-
N. .. .I

'2 »> git t>$."i?;3I€*'-‘F-I:

it
'1 ;. ;- ' Feminist Perspectives on the Media 47
il li 3, 46 Liesbet van Zoonen la .
ll ;
‘are taken seriously
' ' creators of their
- ~ own daily
- lives
- .
1‘
I'll positions have been empirically validated by Morley’s (1980) research on as active and experiences,
llmfifld Of being ‘medicalizecl’ as helpless victims of dominant culture. By
‘i Nationwide Audience, a British current affairs program which indeed proved is-1.,»
Way of conclusion, in true feminist tradition of undermining certainties rather
ili to be subject to a variety of interpretations of the audience. The situation in ,
‘s B

than advancing them, I would like to raise some new problems assggiated with
.,gli = V
.,,H which audiences actually turn on the television set or pick up a magazine - 3;‘ ‘flit \ K: __Ej-j:_r.5‘
-:
agurrent theoretical arid empirical practices of feminist media studies. Since the
i‘ r their social use of media — circumscribe their interpretations. Some examples 1‘;‘€ld‘1S fully in motion, I can only call attention to them and consider some
illustrate this: Bausinger (1984) describes a family in which the man returns .1, l‘$ ;.i .'
E’ £1. 3118165 from “’hiCh l° approach them. Offering definite and author-
5 ii;
t ‘st I 2 home from work and immediately turns on the TV, seemingly to watch the lily 21' ' ' ' . . _ _
news, but effectively expressing a desire to be left alone. Gray (1987) 3:1;";°“5_
6 Op in'5mutual
beY0l1ddeliberation,
my capacitynotand by my conviction that
of feminism
-~ 1' if
SM. the prescriptions academic
¢ observes how watching rented videos and discussing soap operas form an '
K35 -
l important part of the friendship of a group of neighbours: ‘These popular texts it ll begin with a relatively easy problem of empirical emphasis. In spite of
( . . . ) give a focus to an almost separate female culture which they can share the "
theoretical - - that gender construction
recognition - .
involves both women and
together within the constraints of their positions as wives‘-and mothers’ (Gray, glzflkvgpl liiyie gocugtgd ?r1dCOI1S3I'l1C[_lOflS of femininity in media and genres that
1987: 49). Ang and Hermes (in this volume) present a detailed analysis of
studies about gender and reception. novels and Wollslléfifslfllrfa gigtzeomxipntlykpy Euomen; soap operas, romance
Ti, 2:22:.
,:l

The concept of negotiated meaning and the emphasis on reception practices ._-(é , attention to implied
implies acknowledgement of gender construction as a social process in which than not drawn fromand Ectual fim lmgslde
tmditionalefaa t" is of
elau uences focus Wegenres,
those have limited our
more often
women and men actively engage. In transmission models of communication accumulated b rm y situations. The knowledge we have
_ Y 110“/, COIICHIIS a very particular group of media consumed by
,,. women are perceived as victims of dominant culture as expressed in media ~ *a*very particular group of women This is a focus born out of necessity since
ll‘ ~¢r
r/v~/ex-:‘/xvi,v/'/>*-
if messages. Supposedly, they are bombarded by disempowering images all but
e,: '
,,r ti. alien to their true selves. The interaction between media and female audiences .:;=e,.;;;t= l are Precisely thfi genres and audiences that have been neglected by
research. An academic community preoccupied with such presti-
thus takes on the form of a one~way street. However, people do not only take _;;;'=...,?..|§§i. .<= l0t1S 1 ' ' ' . -
media as expressions of dominant culture, they also use media to 6XpI‘6SS; _ ssues as new communication technologies, the future of public broad-
Orhthe effects of political communication, does not come down very
something about themselves, as women or as men. Being a woman (or a man) , y 0 t e more profane level of media use in the daily lives of ‘ordinary
implies ‘work’ since modern society offers so many distinct and sometimes ,5
---.i»rt
“v/3.-037»<

_, 1 But consider the implicit message of our research focus: do we really

l contradicting subject positions (cf. Rakow, 1986). In each social situation an
l
appropriate feminine identity has to be established and expressed. Women Sender iS only constructed in ‘women’s media’? How about the con-
_.i.;,,;%i‘;ia:)V.;sLruct1ons of masculinity found in sports programmes, war movies, Playboy
use media to pick up and try out different feminine subject positions at the and Penthouse, to ventilate _|l.lS[ a few stereotypes about men How do men use
tiinti,it
level of fantasy. But the actual use of media can also be expressive as the H%iic,..ith0se media to construct their gender identity, to express that they are not
glossy existence of expensive ‘life style’ magazines, read by many not so well . ,, i K“ffwomen? And to i cut across the dichotomy
- of women’s’ and , men , s , media
-
off readers, proves. Another illustration comes from Turkle’s analysis of the ‘ 5?,
.,'§:§{ l‘ do men’s ‘feminine’ activities such as reading a women’s magazine or
reticence of women to bother about the relatively new social domain of
information technologies. She argues that ‘women use their rejection ill‘ a soap opera relate to dominant constructions of masculinity‘?
computers ( . . . ) to assert something about themselves as women . . . It Some 6P_<¢¢Pll011$ men and masculinity have managed to remain
2?.,.....,.invis bl e in media research. This has always been its ruse in order to hold
a way to say that it is not appropriate to have a close relationship ""{|ii
l=».».; .- ,.

machine’ Turkle (1988: 50). Although many men reject information power. Masculinity tries to stay invisible by passing itself off as normal
»>;’ 6: i. .i
iii ( . . . ) If masculinity can present itself as normal it automati-
ogies for exactly the same reason, the attitude of women takes on ,. /~@'V

meaning considering the continuous social construction of gender thefocus

the feminine seemreception
on the deviant and different’
of soaps, (Easthope,
romances and l986'
women’s I)
. ....,<: 9’?-:-i~< I
...;__,:,§,;
1"’
seriously narrows our potential for articulating a comprehensive
;,. at .CI‘lI1gLl61 for webterid to ignore whole areas of social and cultural
Feminist Media Politics Reconsidered i2 _ ce. at t e eve] of institutional negotiation, of the production of actual
, there is little research that goes beyond the observation that women work
The Concgpts of gender as a Social construction and culture as negotiatgayégpgQgpggiayymale-dominated field: at the level of textual negotiation there are many
meaning release feminist media studies from many of the tensions of W9 do press,
popular "OI KHOW much
sports, 3'90"? Y6!’
quizzes, etc. 6-SI
Newnews anddevelopments
media CUITBTUL affairs,and
quality
‘the
,<\_/ . 2:»’
mission models of communication. Paralyzing debates about the autonomougggfppv
gendered contribution of individual female media producers become society’ do attract considerable funding for Research and Devel-
dant by giving precedence to the institutional context of media but have only recently gained feminist attention (e.g. Jansen, 1989,
The multiple realities of media texts are acknowledged as is the 1990) I have Called the narrow focus Qf¢1_11‘f¢n[ feminist media
 \
2
E
t
t
l§
48 Liesbet van Zoonen
=2;
s
Feminist Perspectives on the Media 49
Th - -
fcmi:iS§fr£l>1té1(q1:;o:l‘culiiralhrelativism -
and populism . .
are not privileges of
incorporation of new fields of attention (transforming mainstream studies —\l;
Y.z. u ies, ut aunt each contemporary attempt to formulate 3
seems less likely). In practice, however, given the minimally triple burden
of feminist academics (with personal, feminist and academic responsibilities) P_T°gT¢$5i"¢ cultural critique Schudson (I987: 66) discusses the new valida-
this might not be an easy task at all.
There is a more fundamental problem to culturalist feminist media studies.
an ‘V.

‘lb! educator holdingdup_ for

and a reiluctam _ emulati
h on6 some
a tvacl ues
umverslty Should
and texts
*0to
be aothers),
(and not moral
As the importance of specific contextual and textual features for the construc- 3

tion of meaning suggests, it seems unlikely that from this field a general
is IiL»? ii”
3 '
Y
‘ 5;;t\¢:¢:'1'>':=’ :
,
1- a mission t at defining the basis of moral edugatjgn 15 an
theory of gender and media that goes beyond abstract premises will emerge. »>'.i,¢
often unrecognized task.’ Schudson’s doubts Can bf; translated
an '
For our understanding of contemporary cultural processes, fragmented and .» i
Etgtclgtzerslégnio
the dilpmmas of a contemporary feminist media critique:
unpredictable as they are, I suggest this a pro rather than a contra. But the i mist me ia critique derive legitimacy from and how do our
particularist shift in theory and research does raise some disturbing questions .,-5'.
a emic efforts contribute to feminism s larger political project? If current
if
about the political nature of feminist media studies, precisely the feature ;iS6&fCthll1]?S1lflUght us anything, it is that general judgements and strategies
»..1! .
which I suggest determines the exceptional nature of the feminist academic I 6 lI_10 _1 e y to gain much support or to be successful. The strategical
1 er? .2»
project. If meaning is so dependent on context, can we still pass valid feminist imp lC3.Il(_)nS‘ of our research are much less self-evident as they were in the
judgements about the political tendencies and implications of texts? For we IIE2?at1» . ~gi;t*élpfieli‘bVqplal, radical app socialist feminism. However, I will attempt to
don’t know how audiences will use and interpret texts. A feminist judgement i K I Su t sfome possi ly' relevant general considerations and questions.
of obvious textual oppression does not need to be shared by other (female) 215.2-. I p gges a eminist media critique should start from the reception of
audience groups. If one interpretation is not by definition better or more valid ii’; an
specific genres in specific social context. To give an example: genre codes
,,. conv en t‘ions of news produce a relatively
-
than another, what legitimation do we have to discuss the politics of repre- . 1i’i5 =.e> s E iggsiié k closed structure of meanings
l- at .,3‘ C01-n p a red to soap operas for instance
- Considering
. . that news Qlalms
_ an
sentation, to try to intervene in dominant culture‘? V 1 E.» .‘ I i>- _., ' z),

The above P roblem has been recognized and responded to in several ways:;,_ J /5, ‘§j§1*1iii?*i="i‘?§li11iimbiguousrelation with reality — a claim many people think justified — we
_, .,,_,~¢.;
. Ii».
Ang (I985: 135) proposes to consider the fantasies and pleasures involved inj,=ji ;§_§§g quite a different set of moral considerations from which to develop
watching Dallas as independent and relatively isolated dimensions of sub{,%§15;%;l§iI$f and strategies when analyzing news, which may not be applic-
jectivity, making daily life enjoyable in expectation of feminist ’l.l lO[.7lElS§j;:; 1_;:=l_;§§%':?;
.!. .._, it in the case of soap operas. Acknowledging - that news too is
. a social
.
‘Fiction and fantasy, then function by making life at present pleasurable, zi 1 fj;::' >i*ii">:;;€F?¥'5lY"°l10n, would it still be very inappropriate to expect a decent and ethical
at least liveable but this does not by any means exclude a radical politicalfff.-, ;>,~_ t. ., Of, for example, feminist issues and the women’s movement?
p 5. '
-<i§“i}
activity or consciousness’ (Ang, 1985: 136) — a radical activity that applies to- no er issue that might be explored is a consequence of the importance
an

the politics of representation in a very limited sense. Ang’s argument implies '5 rs’ given to audience—text relations. Does it not seem logical, now that we are
that as feminists we are allowed to produce new fantasies and fictions ,1;pp Ma
. 8 and fi n d‘mg actively
‘ ' '
interpreting -
audiences, to develop strategies
ourselves, but we should not interfere with the pleasures of the audience,‘ at tli1(e ‘semiotic empowerment’ of female media recipients? Schudsori
.-Er‘
since ‘no fixed standards exist for gauging the “progressiveness” of a fantasy l ma 95 3 $lIIl11fi1' point when he argues that a task for the universities
(ibid). Brown (1990) does not follow this reticence to evaluate soap operas 5%~<;
r ‘ iii‘ t t3>
be to educate readers in reading critically and playfully. I do not mean
and the like. She appreciates ‘soap operas, like women's talk or gossip -‘r 1‘ »t;ni5— Ry th'Ing like' making ' '
female audiences aware of the i true . sexist
- patriarchal
.
women’s ballads as part of women’s culture that exists alongside dominaufi; ‘ i},Q%1,‘:,:_§flpl[allS[ meanings of a text. But rather I refer to the pleasures of
K

culture and that insofar as the women who use these cultural forms iii?
""“ iii»
multiple and sometimes contending constructions in a text a Q

conscious of the form’s otherness, they are practising feminine discourse§;j;1;;;;;;g that I Wpé1ld_ gather is not so much different for academics and
According to Brown ‘feminine discourse‘ implies acknowledgement is1t (.1> 1=-15>‘ women . Finally, we should not define our sense of ‘a larger
women’s subordination often expressed in parodic form by making fun "s . is t po l’itical
' '
project too narrowly. Our own academic - work is
. still.
dominant culture. Feminine discourse thus implies an act of resistance, albeit?iii. paailllfivliflbly POIIIICHL £01‘ LII11°01'tI1I1fltely the relation between gender and culture
with cultural tools provided by the dominant order. Brown’s appropiiation"ofr7;f§; ..-2, Y et , fHr from being ' a legitimate
- - -
and integrated - concern, with
academic .
women’s pleasure is useful for it implies a conception of politics that is ’ ,6XCeption of a few enlightened places.
incorporates power relations in the private domestic sphere of media con—:3 Z. ..i >1» »
sumption. For example, women’s televisual pleasures tend to be ridiculed by'~15%? r’ '4
fl‘ gt

other (male) family members and often have to yield to sports and other male it . .i;?: ‘‘ E
ti
favourites. Brown’s notion that research can contribute to the legitimation ‘iii.
women’s fantasies can thus mean quite a relief in the here and now of . :-»,a-ti ’.t2-,2-;i\
ti "
life. However, Brown’s appraisal of feminine discourse borders on
populism, for how women’s ‘nomination, valuation and regulation’ of Qonstruction‘ is not a label that Friedan would have used, but the word
R um her project in the vocabulary of current feminist theory.
own pleasure relate to the dominant social order remains undiscussed. -'-/ea’?
'2} »=..,\_~< '>21\ Y>
:-!.:~’\ ' ' §./'.-;,-Ii‘:=.:'-;':’»-
3
-'-‘Ii-‘»=1'=’~‘l ~
~=..,*-.-.>.<»~.i-1».-1-1' =
"Erie
Feminist Perspectives on the Media 51
it
,.
|:! 50 Liesbet van Zoonen . it
2 The reader with a more specific interest in connecting authors and studies toipg?p§§p??§L$HTA|N-I
1 ;i;.§:;,;-i_;e;i,§.,i_t$'uroj'2ean iJournal
1931 Public M¢1r1._PH1f¢1I¢ 1990:
of Communication, Wflmwfl.Communications
0Xf0r<1.'Mt_\rt1n Research
Robinson-_in Europe:
perspectives is referred to Steeves (1987). 5 k ;; State of the Art’, 5(2-3).
3 My discussion of the policies and problems of feminist media is based
knowledge of the Dutch situation but I would be surprised if the gist of this analysis§;§§M.,
X ‘ii. ’ 1983: Forever Feminine: Women’s Magazines and the Cult of Feminin-
does not apply to other western countries as well. R 1-0I1d0l11 H¢lfl§l1_1fll1f1-
1987: Television Culture, London: Methuen.
4 See note 3. _ ,1 and FOSS. s 1983' ‘The Status of Research on Women and Communication’,
5 I am indebted to Joke H_ermes_for thispassage. b d Quarterly, 31, I95-204.
6 At least from
mems and Soap Operag my experience in teaching extramural coursesia out a . wt»;
3., 1963: The Feminine Mystique, London: Penguin Books.
.e.'_
‘.2? §<.= t 9
4;:
M., 1980: Unequal Opportunities: The Case of Women and the Media,

.t'ۤ L; and MARSHMENT. M. (eds), 1988: The Female Gaze: Women as Viewers of
References ’li;1i~;,.\‘i Popular
Culture, London The Women s Press
,.
<:., 1988; ‘Pleasurable Negotiations‘, pp. 64-79 in E. D. Pribram (ed.)
Spectators: Looking at Film and Television, London: Verso.
ANG I. 1985: Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic ill
London: Methuen. J»
W.
1987: ‘Behind Closed Doors: Video Recorders in the Home’, pp. 38-54 in H.
-—, 1990: ‘Melodramatic Identifications: Television Fiption and Women’s §, ‘l ‘ , and G. Dyer (eds) Boxed In: Women and Television, London: Pandora.
pp. 75-88 in M. E. Brown (ed.) Television and Women s Culture: The POllllCS of F~":»~»
1- ‘i
i 1' /fl$1. u.
lll i‘a,e~’*a»’.'."-" <vf
1980: ‘Encoding/decoding’, pp. 128-38 in S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe and P.
P l ,L d n: S e. _ “ (eds) Culture, Media, Language, London: Hutchinson.
BAE1flf.uHfirl980lrl ?Worr?§n’s Employment in British Television’, Media, 5., 1986: The Science Question in Feminism, London: Cornell University
Society, 3(2), 125-34. . A “Cerf
"
BAEHR. H. and DYER.G., 1987'. Boxed In; Women and Television, London. 1982: Crossroads: The Drama of 5-mp Opera’ London: Methuenp
»:_‘“W_at_»~~r\
,5 *' .-
BAUSINGER, n., 1984: ‘Media, Technology and Daily Life’, Media, Culture and .11.; ..
LEVINE, 5., 1972: Rebirth of Feminism, New York: Quadrangle.
6 343-51. . ,,,.
=‘a’~:.;.

;(eds)
1987' ‘When a woman reads the news’ pp 133-50 in I-i. Baehr and G.
Boxed In: Women and Television, London: Pandora.
BR01NN.M. E. (ed.), 1990: Television and Womcn’s Culture: The Politics of the - . . . .
London: Sage. , ‘ ‘Gender and the Information Society: A Socially Structured Silence’.
1f*"‘i~‘i.~i~<. i i

nnunsnow c. 1981: ‘Cross roads: Notes on a Soap Opera , Screen, 22(4), i‘$-la": = of Communication, summer, pp. 196-215.
I___ 1933: ‘Feminism and Soap Opera’, pp. 147-50 in K. Davies, J. Dickey Communication Inquiry, 1987: ‘The Feminist Issue’, 11(1).
5
Stratford (eds) Out of Focus: Writing on Women and the Media, I-0Ild°111 1 -tw=5ll 1988: ‘Whose Imaginary‘? The Television Apparatus, the Female Body and
Women’ s Press. Strategiesin Select Rock Videos on MTV’, pp. 132-56 in E. D. Pribram
t BUSBY, L., 1975; ‘sax-role Research on the Mass Media’, Journal of Communicatigll§§{if.‘i-ias= - Female Spectators: Looking at Film and Television, London: Verso.
> autumni _ t_ A Culture Essays on Media and Society RES
“Stan L, 1984 The Dissident Press Alternative Journalism in American History,
9» ggipndon. Sage.
CAREY, 1., : ommunzca ion s I ~
3
Unwin Hyman. _ _ _ , , 1 7 1.,I988: Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution,
\
li
CLARK.D., 1990: ‘Cagney & Lacey: Feminist Strategies of Detection , pp. l - Cornell University Press.
I E. Brown (ed.) Television and Women's Culture: The Politics of the 5;.» -i..,. :':>‘i' ‘Consumer Girl Culture: How Music Video Appeals to Girls’, pp. 89-
London: Sage. 4“ E. Brown (ed.) Television and Wornen’s Culture: The Politics of the
Communication, 1986: ‘Feminist Critiques of Popular Culture , 9(1). _ "K;
wt. .5§-
at\I London: Saga
. J. ..ll
cowARo,R., 1984'. Female Desire: Women ‘s Sexuality Today, London. Paladin Q» 'wE>:; up\ .
1, ~’ M 1986 Women, Media, Crisis: Femlninity and Disorder, London:
CREEDON.P. (ed.), 1989: Women in Mass Communication: Challenging Gender t
_ London: Sage 'r., 1978: ‘Machisrno in Media Research: A Critical Review of Research
i...t.;¢:
D‘ACCI, 1., 1987: ‘The Case of Cagney and Lacey’, pp. 203-26 in H. Baehr and and Pornography‘, Social Problems, 25(5), pp. 544-55.
(eds) Boxed In: Women and Television, London: Pandora. I
utfi/"
DAVIES . K . DICKEY J and STRATFORD T (eds) SS1988: Out of Focus: Writing 5" . Wgbi
ifi,t4iaia»sezr g 1931
1982:1987: Mass
‘Jackie: AnC0m'"“”iC“tl0" Theo’?-' ‘mFemininity’,
Ideology of Adolescent I'1”Odu‘-'“_°”i
pp.L°“d°“i
263-83 Sage-
in B.
the Media, London: The Women’s Pre . ,1 T. Bennett and G. Martin (eds) Popular Culture: Past and Present, London:
DERVIN. 5., 1987: ,> V
. .0 ‘The Potential Contribution
. . of Feminist Scholarship to the 5 r"
3;1. Helm.
Communicati n’, Journal of Communication, autumn 1937. 107-211 ; 1-. tun
‘ 552% ‘ll Culture and Society, 1990: ‘The Other Europe? ’, 12(2).
si DIEKERHOF, ELIAS. M. and sax, M., 1985: Voor zover plaats aan de perstafel. 1. . “till?/1¥,(Media Report to Women), 1989: ‘Women gained editorship in 1988’ March!
El gen: Meulenhoff. _
s
all
DOWLING. C., 1989: Perfect Women, New York: Summit Books. 3-4‘
§Zl§§£SK_I,fT.,
1982: Loving with a Vengeance." Mass Produced Fantasies for Women,
.;_. “I er, 3
DWORKlN, A., 1980: ‘Pornography and Grief’, pp. 286-91 in L. Lederer (ed.) Methuen.
11:2
. the Night, New York: William Morrow. 11980: The Nationwide Audience: Structure and Decoding, London: British
EAST]-i0PE, A, 1986- What a Man’s Gotta Do: The Masculine Myth in Popular
=
r
London: Paladin Books. <. s
. . i it:-.-.~.»:»s.$\
 pt
‘p»ipe,/-2.-.~.:-:1-=,z'
'.»*;<~..,-;.-.-:.-.§1».'-.
.
>.‘.\! '. £2
re-s 12'1"
» .
..-
Q ,
ye» V .
w ~<-A
1
S2 Liesbet van Zoonen .3
V
it S
FI\'. -.1 if: .
‘YI;:-.51“.-. ..
» , ..
I
. 2§ ____, 1986: Family Television: Cultural Power and Domestic Leisure, London: "1 r‘
Comedia.
F kfurt Campus Verlag
NEVERLA. 1. and KANZLElTER,G., 1984: Journalistinnen, ran» 1 1 . - 1 L d -‘tsp, 4
PRIBRAM, E. D. (ed.), 1988: Female Spectators: Looking at Film and Television, on on: ti‘
' . .
>
Verso. Q,r -is, - i
RADWAY, 1., 1984: Reading the Romance: Women, Pa triarchy and Popular LiteratureV;i§;;§>
Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Ode!‘l1lSm and Television
RAKOW. L., 1986: ‘Rethinking Gender Research in Communication’, Journal of
munication, winter, pp. 11-26.
SC1-IUDSON.M., 1987: ‘The New Validation of Popular Culture: Sense and
._ -
Fiske
4$ftav
4»:/$e~<>e ( /

in Academia’ Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4, pp. 51-68. .

SHEVELOW, 14., 1989: Women and Print Culture: The Construction of Femininity in t
Ea rly Periodical , London: Routledge .
SK1RROW,G., 1986: ‘Hellivisionz an analysis of videograms’, pp. 115-43 in C. 1,.
(ed) High Theory Low Culture, London: Methuen. I 213 27in .
SMITH, M. Y., 1983: ‘Research Retrospective: Feminism and the
" 'Media’, ' pp. — "ti fill ’
E. Wartella and D. C. Whitney (eds) Mass Communication Review Yearbook,‘ 1‘itM’
London: Sage. ~ Li
STEEVES, H. 1., 1987: ‘Feminist Theories and Media Studies’, Critical Studies in Marti;
Communication, 4. 95-135. >>iI?hose who give us bri '
Tl-IOVERON, 0., 1986: ‘European Televised Women‘, European Journal of Communicaggg, - . 1989) agma 61’ working
on the definitio
fuzzinegsgff phostmodernism - (eg. Hebdige,
tion. 1 9 pp. 289-300. V any consensus among its users‘ In this gssterml and the difficulty of
W nd the Media New York‘?
TUCHMAN. o., 1978: Hearth and Home: Images of omen a , 5 them, partly because they have d . ay make no attempt to
Oxford University Press. 3 applying postmodernism to televone it better than I could, and partly
it
TURKLE, 5., 1988'. ‘Computational Reticence. Why Women Fear the intimate Machinefg
pp. 41-62 ‘H1 C. Kramarae (ed. ) Tec h no logy and Women's Voices: Keeping1; taiggggprehensive , in my use of its - constitutive
. W0" I'9qUll'6S Tme1 to' be
elements e evision' sele t‘We’ not
andC popular
Touch London: Routledge. >’ have tended t0 be marginal - - mggt postmodern
in ' theor which h
’ E an Journal
van Zoonen » i. » 1988 = ‘Rethinking women and the news ~ urope k r 1 more concerned to articulate its break ' 11 Y, as
Communication, 1, pp. 35-52. ;%..eii.;i.=.i‘*=§P3Yt1Clllflrly architecture , painting
' ' -
and literature 0 elT11Sm
More in
recthe ‘highbrow
_--, 1989: ‘Professional Socialization 0 f Feminist Journalists in the Netherlandsisl l written extensively on ' . ' ently Deleuze
Women ‘s Studies in Communication, in press. t =“‘ . sit drmard (198381; Ig1;;I;nai9bg1;)o£ the (Ii)1‘ll1'l3Ty postmodern theorists,
fW nd New” . fizgpular ts» culture directly, so it iq his brand Ofagozltdregsed the mass media and
!__, 1990; -Intimate Strangers’): Toward a Cultural Approach 0 omen a I
Media‘, P p. 43-53 in GRANITE (eds) For Business Only? Gender and Neiif}f}‘ .i[§;§i§3£thisessay Of course, there‘ have been a numb f
Information Technologies, A m sterclam : SISWO . ;_ ~-,
’ it ,§l;§j* "19 emism
er
thatlshall discuss
._“A, 1991: ‘A Tyranny of Intimacy‘? Women, Femininity and Television News’, in in theory to television (6 g Connoro l3l309reGgcne1i,aI applica-
' ' and Citizenship
Dahlgren and C. Sparks (eds) Communications '' ' i London IR out 1 e Y1ge {_ W M? P H",Th '1; Wollen, 1986 W ' ' ’ 4 “>88 ere 1987.
'
WINSHIP, J 1987'. Inside Women's Magazines, London: Pandora Press.
s ,;,n,,,Qu;tura1 medium has not fi u dyner, 1986) but on the whole television
' ’ S
Women Take Issue, 1978. Women s tu iesd' Grou p ,Centre for Contemporary Cultuiiiljg € 12:4: gm,15 are 3113, I believ-3 g re centrally in the debates am UH d post-
» -
i~§it5ta»te1ev1sion . . good reasons forthjs - F0 r while contem or
' Studies, London‘ Hutchinson. i.».,,“-w ex h ibits . . -
ZARETSKY, 5., 1976._'capiialism, the Family and Personal Life, London. illeory,5‘.can offer US manyman)’ Postmodern
pl-Ovoca . .
stylistic
.
features, and postmogem
*~ ,,~r’ < ive inst
- - 3 hts int0 31¢ 'Iextuality
important sch 001$ Of t6l€VlS101'l - of television
. .
_
‘eras;
pin this chaptcr, then, I ‘siigolgrsgzi that Provide strongs
.1-»...-1>- =. 1fits»-
zff"
., mwe; . emism_
which
_ _
offer
_
most potential for the study Ofal $110.56, features of
.. -. ’__ e evision and th
tfi-Y their lll'l1l[2ll10[‘|3_ en
E‘*i‘€§3¢, of the characteristics ‘ ' of d
ll.1;
r °§i " W~"“§’?‘/hi’?
5-modem)was its belief t hat ‘mo emism’
und ers t andmg
' (i.e. that
social
. which
experience
_ w b thf:
PI'€C6d6d h
sable and the proper enterprise of art Oft h as ot
‘=i:§',¢3;' tr 433.40 rod . _ ’ . en t e aim of this understanding
s*::i' “Cg 3 grand narrative , a ooh erent theory capable of 6 Xplainin
P . .
...i.?iéfr.nult'1 f3I‘IOlIS
'
IL‘

and apparently unrelated facets of experience ( . 8

392%
cillfilllsm
d or
. psychoanal sis)
Y - Orh d 6 g rnarxism,
er mo ernist movements, such as the
~"I§%I"i e» "'94
and iv produce
comradicto . th'‘S understandlng
- via the shock value of
».'».=.=-an = ii. TY Images. In the stud Oft 1 ' ' .
t Y C BVISIOH 38 dISCOur5e
 Mass Media
e and
Society
Second Edition

Edited by
James Curran
Professor of Communications, Goldsmiths’ College,
University of London V
and
Michael Gurevitch
Professor, College of Journalism, University of Maryland

Knihovna FSS MU Brno

4240707894

in,‘ ~. ‘~u-1 I
1%-I“
"Mag -.,(%%

A member of the I-Iodder Headline Group

LONDON ~ NEW YORK - SYDNEY I AUCKLAND