27th October 2023

Finished reading Media/Society! The rest of the relevant chapters mainly focused on audience response, and how audiences interpret media messages. This could be really useful if I want to look at possible impacts of media depictions of asexuality/aromanticism. Some useful notes on what I've read:

• Earliest model of media effect on audience is the "hypodermic model" - essentially there is a "direct and powerful influence on the public", the public are easily and wholly influenced by what they see in media ("passive and gullible"). Uses war propaganda and the War of the Worlds panic as examples (p..237)
• Then there is the "mass society theory" - again argues that media influence is "dramatic" but is particularly focused on how mass media plays "a crucial role in uniting (and homogenizing) a disparate and atomized population". Basically "interpersonal and group relations" are becoming less important, society is becoming more homogenised, and mass media plays a role in influencing everyone to follow the same values (p.238)
• In contrast, the "minimal effects model" argues that media has "weak and short-lived" effects on people - "media messages acted to reinforce existing belief rather (p.238) that to change opinion" (p.239) - model set forth by Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet (1948)
• "Agenda setting" model became widely accepted in 60s - emphasises importance of media in directing "people's attention toward certain issues" rather than actively influencing what they believe - more to do with news than with entertainment media, but similar principles could potentially still apply? (p.239)
• One interesting point the book makes is the disparity between what researchers/scholars believe and what public opinion believes - generally accepted by researchers that media has "limited effects" on people's beliefs, while "the public's general perception" is "that media play a very influential role in society" (p.241)
• Acknowledges that this may be because researchers only look at "a narrow range of media effects", often focusing specifically on "factual learning from the media" and less on "more complex" effects. (p.241) Another potential factor is the difficulty in "measuring" the impact of media, considering that "media stimuli routinely interact with other social stimuli" (p.242)
• A "media-reader interaction" model argues that "media information is but one element that citizens use in developing political beliefs" and is generally a lot more focused on the active role of the audience in interpreting media. Gamson's study in 1992 showed how people combine "media-based information with popular wisdom and experiential knowledge" - media is just one "tool" people can use to form beliefs and opinions. (p.242)
• "Political socialization theory" looks more at the "long-term, cumulative effect of exposure to mass media" and points out that "media influence may be especially strong" for young people who perhaps have not had as much life experience or opportunity to develop their own beliefs. (p.242) Also speculates that this influence may increase as young people have more exposure to mass media now than they did in the 50s and 60s. Relevantly for me, it specifies that "the lessons of such socialization sometimes emanate from entertainment television as well as news and public affairs media" (p.243)
• The final theory discussed is "cultivation theory" - based on a project by George Gerbner in the 90s that examined impacts of television on people watching over the course of 20 years. Similar in some ways to mass society theory - argues that "television plays a homogenizing role for otherwise heterogenous populations" - however it is more specifically focused on "continued and lengthy exposure to television in general, not just exposure to individual programs or genres" -> more focus on overall patterns. Findings show that people who watch a lot of TV "internalize many of the distorted views of the social and political world presented by television", for example underestimating the number of older people in the population as they are shown less on TV, or being influenced by TV's high focus on "crime and violence" to "believe that most people cannot be trusted" (p.243)
• In the end, the book's authors come down on the side that media effects are "neither blatant nor unqualified" and "most significant effects of media exposure come about after long-term, heavy use" (p.244)
• On an unrelated to audience interpretation, but interesting, note - the book discusses music producers' desire to not "alienate too many in the audience". The authors go on to say "Mainstream radio hits, therefore, are full of platitudes about love and - well - little else" (p.252). It's a funny quote, but it's also interesting to me how romance is seen as inherently non-alienating and universal. Not only by the music producers in question, but the authors of the book also don't seem to argue against that premise. Certainly interesting from an aromantic perspective!
• "Active audience theory" - basically a complete refutation of the hypodermic model/mass society theory - people aren't "stupid, gullible, or easy to dominate" (p.262) and are active interpreters of the media
• The intended message by the producer doesn't always "correspond" with the message the audience interpret - affected by how well the message is delivered, whether the producer and audience have "a shared interpretive framework", or even just luck! "Audiences may not know the implicit references, they may draw upon a different interpretive framework, or they may focus on different components of the message than the producer had planned" (p.263)
• "Understanding media requires that we explore the interpretive strategies of real people as they encounter various forms of mass media" (p.266)
• One important factor is the social groups we're part of - "social location matters because it shapes whom we talk to about different media, what we perceive to be our own best interests and most important concerns, and what kind of interpretive framework we bring to the mass media" (p.268) - so in the context of my research, it's worth considering that aspec people and non-aspec people will respond differently to depictions of aspec identities!
• Different types of readings: 'Preferred' reading - the reading that "the text itself is most amenable to", reading that fits most "with the underlying values of the culture". 'Divergent' readings are alternative readings that people may come to based on their "interpretive community" (p.269)
• Also two types of divergent reading: "negotiated" and "oppositional"
• Really good point: "Ideological representations are most powerful when they pervade the realm of 'common sense' such that competing meanings are no longer even entertained" (p.269) - This I think is really relevant to portrayals of aspec identity (or lack thereof)! I would say that for most people, ideas like 'everyone falls in love' or 'everyone wants sex' are seen as just 'common sense', so when media implicitly promotes such messages it can strongly reinforce these ideas. Or at least, y'know, that's my thinking.
• Interesting methodology point: David Morley in 1980 did a study interviewing people from different social backgrounds about the program Nationwide to see how their interpretations differed (p.270)
• "Social class - and we would add age, race, ethnicity, and gender - plays a key role in providing us with cultural 'tools' for decoding" (p.272)
• Another study mentioned is by Liebes and Katz: used focus group discussions with groups from different countries and ethnic groups, asking them questions on how they interpert the same episode of a TV program (p.277)
• "Oppositional decodings are part of the construction of a subcultural identity that embodies a resistance to traditional norms and roles" (p.288) - man there are SO many ways I could apply this to aspec identity. Like just off the top of my head the idea "reclaiming" characters that are depicted as not being interested in sex/romance to make them seem villainous. Will this be relevant to my overall point? MAYBE NOT but worth noting.
• "In his study of television, John Fiske (1987) argues that the act of interpretive resistance itself produces pleasure" (p.292) again, not sure this is actually relevant but I do think this Fiske guy is onto something and I kinda wanna check out his own work just for my own interest
• HOWEVER important to note: "Interpretive resistance may be fun, but it may also be comparatively rare" (p.293) - so preferred reading is still the most influential
• Summary of the issue: "Although audiences are active, their activity is still subject to a variety of structural complaints. The media messages themselves matter - even if they can have multiple meanings - because they make some interpretations more likely than others. The cultural tools that audiences bring to the interpretation of media are not uniform; different people from different social locations will not have the same resources at their command. By ordering the distribution of cultural tools, social structure serves as a constraint on the process of meaning-making." (p.293)
• Finally some important notes on the meaning of 'mass media': it has a "one-to-many" orientation (produced by one person/group and distributed to many), sender is usually known to audience while audience are anonymous to sender, and it is not amenable to direct feedback from receivers (p.298). However the authors acknowledge that the lines have become more blurred with the advent of the internet (p.299)
• I lied. Actually finally is a summary of the whole point of the book: "By now it should be clear that looking only at media content - the most common way to talk about 'the media' - provides us with an incomplete picture of the media and their significance for society. Instead we must be alert to the relationships that exist within in our model, relationships that involve the media industry, media messages or products, technology, active audiences, and the social world beyond the media." (p.363)

In case you couldn't tell from the copious amount of notes I made, I found this book SUPER useful. While it was a very broad overview of a lot of issues and didn't necessarily go into a lot of detail, it covered a lot of different relevant topics, such as how media conveys ideology, how different groups are represented, and how audiences interpret media messages, as well as defining a lot of terminology that could end up being key to my project. Importantly, it's also provided me with a lot of ideas for further sources to look at that that will hopefully go into these topics in more detail. I should definitely look into some of these studies into audience interpretation, not just to improve my understanding of audience interpretation, but also because their methodologies may prove useful to me!

However, as a book published in the year 2000, it does have the obvious drawback that a lot of the discussion in this book is rather out of date now. One thing that especially struck me is that there is no discussion of the impact of the internet on how people interact with media. Nowadays, that would almost certainly be a hugely necessary consideration, as a lot of media discussion occurs online, and fans of certain media are able to connect with each other across the globe. It is entirely possible that this will have had an impact on scholarly understanding of how audiences interpret media, especially if 'interpretive communities' are as important as this book claims. Even without the influence of the internet, I got the impression from this book that the debate around how media impacts audiences is still an ongoing point of contention, so it seems necessary to look into any developments in this field: have new models or theories emerged since the publication of this book?

Possible further reading (mostly research into different models of media influence on audiences):

• The People's Choice by Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet (minimal effects model)
• The Emergence of American Political Issues by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw (agenda setting model)
• Processing the News by Doris Graber (media-reader interaction model)
• Talking Politics by William Gamson (media-reader interaction model)
• Mass Media and American Politics by Doris Graber (political socialization theory)
• Growing Up With Television by George Gerbner (cultivation theory)
• The Nationwide Audience by David Morley (study in how different groups interpret the same piece of media
• Television Culture by John Fiske (more stuff on how people interpret media, especially oppositional readings)

Isabel's methodology tangent

While I've been reading all these books about media and society and their impact on each other, the question of methodology is one that keeps coming up. There have been some important general points to bear in mind, such as the importance of focusing on patterns over individual pieces of media. This is really what I want my research to be about, so hopefully it won't be too hard to remember that. Another interesting point is the matter of narrowing down the types of media I look at, to avoid making sweeping generalizations. Croteau and Hoynes mention that a lot of studies of media ideology will focus on a very specific subset of media, such as just one genre or one time period. I kind of assumed I wouldn't need to worry about this since there's so little representation of aspec identities anyway, but Willem made a good point that all of the pieces of media I've talked about so far have been English-language, so that's certainly one form of narrowing it down. Also the fact that I'm specifically looking at film/TV (or maybe just TV! Honestly there's few enough films it's not like narrowing further would make much of a dent in the research) could be another parameter.

Since I want to look at the intersection between messages in the media and societal norms and how they reflect each other and such, I think it's fair to say that it will not be enough to just look at the media in isolation. As Croteau and Hoynes constantly emphasise, you have to also look at wider society. Ideally, I would like to run focus groups or interviews to try and gauge people's opinions on depictions of aspec identities in media, and perhaps their experiences with media messages surrounding sex and relationships. I took part in Louise's workshop and focus group on nonbinary character design last year and not only was it a great experience, but they found it really useful for their research, so it could be really beneficial to do something similar.

Now, there's a few ways I could go about this. Several of the studies mentioned, such as Morley's and Liebes and Katz's, used the strategy of interviewing people from a variety of different backgrounds or social groups. This could be a potentially productive way forward - for example, I could have one set of interviews specifically with aspec individuals, and one set specifically with non-aspec individuals. I could then see how different groups interpret portrayals of aspec identities differently, or how their opinions on sex and relationships differ. Liebes and Katz's strategy of having their focus groups all watch the same TV episode together also seems like it could be relevant to my research. Perhaps one approach could be getting people in a focus group to all watch an episode of a show that deals with asexuality, such as Sex Education, and then having them discuss it. The potential downside to this is I feel fewer people would be willing to take part in a focus group that they have to do "homework" for.

Aside from the more social aspect of the research, there is of course the question of how to actually analyse the media that depicts aspec identities itself. For this, I find myself turning to the work of feminist scholars writing about portrayals of women in media, as I feel like I'll be able to use a similar methodology for portrayals of aspec people. The two methods presented in Douglas' essay on gender in media are content analysis, which was widely used for analysing gender stereotypes in media, and Laura Mulvey and John Berger's approach of looking more generally at how the structure of the media affects how we view images. Content analysis seems like it might translate more easily to looking at aspec stereotypes, but perhaps the idea of the gaze could be applied in some way too? Mulvey's essay is one of the next things I have on my list of things to read, so I guess I'll find out soon. I'll also need to look more into content analysis, because while it's a method I've seen referenced a lot, I'm not 100% sure what it specifically entails.

Alternatively, a brief glance at the introduction to Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives implies to me that some of the essays in that collection may have promise in providing asexual lenses to look at portrayals of sexuality and at media in general, though of course I'll need to actually read the damn things to be sure.

AND ON THAT NOTE....

Other sources I've started looking at:

A bunch of my interlibrary loans and reservations have finally arrived in my hands! I looked at the introductions to Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives, Refusing Compulsory Sexuality, and Visual and Other Pleasures to determine which chapters will be most useful. I've identified a few essays in Asexualities and Visual and Other Pleasures that seem like they may be key, while Refusing Compulsory Sexuality I get the impression may be one I have to read cover-to-cover. If nothing else, I want to read it cover-to-cover - it got me hooked from the intro! Look at all the fun notes I made just from the intro:

• The question of definitions of asexuality - Brown presents a bunch of different definitions, and points out that different ace people use different definitions
• Possible definition: "People on the asexuality spectrum, also called ace, experience little to no sexual attraction and/or little to no sexual desire, and these things are not evidenced by either the presence or absence of sexual arousal or activity." (p.2)
• She also talks about common assumptions - "things people 'know' about sex, attraction, and desire" - including the idea that sexual attraction is universal, and that sex is inherent to human life. (p.2) This section really connects to what Croteau and Hoynes talk about wrt media having a more powerful influence when it reinforces existing "common sense" beliefs. Media that supports these beliefs may potentially have a significant effect in reinforcing them.
• Possible definition from Lisa Orlando's "Asexual Manifesto": "'Asexual', as we use it, does not mean 'without sex' but 'relating sexually to no one.' [...] Asexuality is, simply, self-contained sexuality." (p.5)
• "Discourse and educational resources about asexuality often work to reassure readers that some asexuals still engage in 'normal' amounts of sex for an array of reasons" (p.5) - This stuck out to me because in the depictions of asexuality I've seen so far this aspect of asexuality is actually quite underplayed. Sex Education and Heartstopper don't mention it, while BoJack Horseman does but it doesn't appear to apply to any of the main ace characters. So perhaps there's a disconnect between entertainment media and resources that are meant first and foremost to be educational?
• Another definition of compulsory sexuality: "The idea that sex is universally desired as a feature of human nature, that we are essentially obligated to participate in sex at some point in life, and that there is something fundamentally wrong with anyone who does not want to" (p.7)
• A lot of really useful points about the intersection of asexuality and race: Black people are seen as "sexually savage" and "others are free to project their own desires" onto them - "this is the historical and social narrative that works to eclipse the possibility of the Black asexual" (p.12)
• Really interesting quote from Owen's essay in (I believe) Asexualities: Feminist and Queer Perspectives: "Discussions of asexuality are inextricably linked to the concept of hypersexuality and the consolidation of its discursive attachment to blackness" (p.13)
• Queering the Color Line: Race and the Invention of Homosexuality in American Culture by Siobhan B. Somerville - seems like a potentially really interesting source!!!!

Other events of the week:

• Contextual review briefing! We went over what the information the contextual review should cover and how to structure it. The main points the contextual review should cover are key issues and current debates related to the research question, the methods I plan to use, why the research topic is important, and why I'll be using the chosen methods. In terms of structure I'm leaning towards either a pyramid structure that starts broad and narrows down to my focus, or a wheel structure that draws together a few different existing fields.
• Research mapping session! This was a workshop where we tried to map out how best to structure our contextual review. I ended up settling on mostly a wheel structure, represented by the venn diagram in the final image. However, because I'm indecisive, I also figured there should be elements of a pyramid when it comes to narrowing down the focus. I discussed narrowing it down with Willem a bit during the workshop - while I assumed it wouldn't take much narrowing down due to how little depiction of aspec identity there is, he did make the salient point that if I'm only including English-language media then this is something I need to specify.

• Lecture from Juliette Losq! Really intersting lecture about her PhD work on landscape drawings and optical devices. This was a really interesting lecture that got me feeling really inspired, especially seeing her printmaking and watercolour work! These are things I used to work with a lot before I started having no time to do anything besides animate. This lecture made me realise how much I've missed them, and I want to try and find the time to work on them again soon.
• The lecture was also interesting because I got to learn about her experience studying a PhD. Part of the reason I'm doing the MREs in the first place is because I'm interested in possibly doing a PhD some day, so it was really interesting to hear about her experience and get more of an insight into how PhD study works.She talked about how she didn't have a set question when she started out, and how the direction of her research evolved over time as she looked into new topics. The main takeaway is that PhD research is impossible to predict!

Previous week

Next week

Back to weekly journal

Back to home