What are creative industries? What are media industries? How are they related?

You are required to submit a one-page draft with your chosen topic and three primary references. You can choose the topic of your interest, but it need to fall within the course outline and incorporate the provided readings. Include at least one specified reference from the reading material. Make sure to familiarise yourself with academic writing and APA Style citations and formatting.

The reading material and course outline is attatched below

Requirements: one page

Course Title Creative and Media Industries: Concepts and Histories Course Code VSP501 Recommended Study Term Term 1 No. of Credits/Term 3 Mode of Tuition Sectional approach Class Contact Hours 3 hours per week Category Required Prerequisite Nil Co-requisite Nil Exclusion Nil Exemption Requirement Nil Brief Course Description The past three decades have brought profound change to the operation of creative and media industries – from the production of content and management of labour to the marketing and distribution of movies, television, music, and interactive media. This course argues the distinct features of creative and media industries – including their labour practices, entanglement with intellectual property, reliance on official policy, and fast-moving technologies – call for distinct modes of study. Through the examination of key academic texts, guided in-class discussions, and independent research, this class will ground students in the conceptual foundations and historical claims made by the field of creative and media industries. MACMI students will learn to skilfully reflect on the concepts and methods scholars have developed to analyse these industries and will build a research project addressing a creative industries topic of their own choosing. Aims This course empowers students both to analyse and to deploy key concepts from the field of creative and media industries. Students will further learn to describe and assess connections between government policies, local/regional/global cultures, and creative and media industries. Learning Outcomes (LOs) On completion of the course, students will be able to: 1. Describe the conceptual frameworks propelling the field of creative and media industries. 2. Assess the interconnection between policy, culture, and creative and media industries. 3. Utilise analytical tools from creative and media industries to examine specific global industries. Indicative Contents Part One: Defining Creative and Media Industries

1. What are creative industries? What are media industries? How are they related? 2. How have concepts of creative and media industries evolved? 3. What methods have scholars used to assess creative and media industries? Part Two: Key Components of Creative and Media Industries 1. Labour in creative and media industries. 2. Copyright in creative and media industries. 3. Policy in creative and media industries. Part Three: Analyses of Creative and Media Industries 1. US, UK, and Asian Context of creative and media industries 2. Cultural and National Identity in Pop Culture 3. Future for Sustainable Creative Industries Teaching method This course uses a combination of teaching methods, such as lectures, case studies, and discussion-based learning, to give students a complete grasp of the creative industries. It is crucial for students to actively participate in class discussions, as this is the first part of the assessment. The formal assessments consist of assignments and exams focusing on the creative industry’s historical and conceptual aspects. The final assessment is a research project in which students analyse an industry and submit a research paper combining course theories with empirical data. In summary, the course encourages active involvement, critical thinking, and academic and practical readiness in creative industries. Measurement of Learning Outcomes Learning Outcome Assessment Methods Class Participation & Discussion Facilitation In-class Exams Final paper 1. Describe the conceptual frameworks and analytical methods propelling field of creative and media industries.   2. Assess the interconnections between policy, culture, and creative and media industries.   

3. Utilise analytical tools and conceptual lenses to analyse specific global creative/media industry.   Assessment Methods Students’ progress will be assessed through a balanced mix of methods, including individual assignments, class participation, and a final paper. These assessments will collectively gauge the depth of understanding, critical thinking abilities, and practical application of concepts acquired during the course. Class participation & Discussion Facilitation 30% In-class Exams 30% Final paper 40% Class Participation (15%): To succeed in this course, it is important that you attend all class sessions and complete the assigned readings before each session. The articles and chapters will be available on Moodle, our online learning platform. It is recommended that you print them out and bring them to class every week. If you prefer not to print, make sure you can access the articles on a device other than a cell phone. During each class, we will ask random questions about the readings. Your thoughts and opinions are highly valued, and we will have in-class discussions and activities that require you to share your well-informed viewpoints weekly. To achieve the highest marks, it is crucial to demonstrate that you have completed the assigned readings before each session and communicate clearly with your classmates and the instructor. Discussion Facilitation (15%): The last hour of each session is dedicated to class discussion, with six members in each group. I will provide discussion topics and allocate 30 minutes for sharing ideas. A designated leader, who will rotate each session, will guide and summarise the discussion, presenting it to the class within 1-2 minutes during the final 15 minutes. During this time, you should introduce the main ideas from our readings and propose discussion questions for the class. In-class Exams (30%): In weeks 4, 7, and 12, there will be short multiple-choice exams based on the assigned readings. Each exam will contribute 10% to the total grade. More details about the exams will be provided in week 2. Final Paper (40%: 10% draft with topic, 10% proposal, 20% final paper): Throughout our discussions on various topics, it is crucial to continuously develop ideas and practice writing concisely. You are required to submit a one-page draft with your chosen topic and three primary references by October 2nd. Additionally, you should submit a 1000-word proposal (excluding bibliography) with expanded references and proper citations. For the final paper, you will research and write an original essay of 2500-3000 words (excluding bibliography) using academic writing conventions. We will extensively discuss the final paper in the upcoming weeks. Make sure to familiarise yourself with academic writing and APA Style citations and formatting. You can find the guidelines for the reference style here: https://www.library.ln.edu.hk/en/research/publish/citation

Weekly Topics and Readings Week 1 (4 Sept) Introduction of the course: Creative and Critical Thinking Week 2 (11 Sept) Creative and media industries (CMI): concepts and contexts Required readings: Justin, C. (2010). The cultural and creative industries: A literature review 2nd Edition. In Education. Jones, C., & Thornton, P. H. (2005). Transformation in Cultural Industries. In Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 23, pp. xi–xxi). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-558X(05)23009-4 Hesmondhalgh, D., & Toynbee, J. (2008). The Media and Social Theory. In The Media and Social Theory. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203930472 Flew, T., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Creative Industries After the First Decade of Debate INTRODUCTION: CREATIVE INDUSTRIES POLICIES AROUND THE WORLD. The Information Society, 26(2), 113–123. Supplementary readings: Flew, T. (2002). Beyond ad hocery: Defining creative industries. In Cultural Sites, Cultural Theory, Cultural Policy, the Second International Conference on Cultural Policy Research. Jones, C., Lorenzen, M., & Sapsed, J. (2015). The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries. Oxford University Press. Jones, C., & Thornton, P. H. (2015). Transformation in Cultural Industries. In Transformation in Cultural Industries (pp. xi–xxi). Week 3 (18 Sept) Historicizing CMI: UK, US and Asian Cultural, Creative and Media Industries Required Readings: BOP Consulting. (2010). Mapping the Creative Industries: A Toolkit. In Creative and Cultural Economy series/ 2. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/mapping_the_creative_industries_a_toolkit_2-2.pdf Moore, I. (2014). Cultural and creative industries concept – a historical perspective. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 738–746. Caves, R. E. (2003). Contracts between art and commerce. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(2), 73–83. UNESCO. (2013). CREATIVE ECONOMY REPORT 2013 SPECIAL EDITION. Supplementary Readings: Lee, H. K. (2019). The new patron state in South Korea: Cultural policy, democracy and the market economy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 25(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2018.1557651 Leung, G. (2019). Government Policy: From Non-Intervention to Bureaucratic Control and Greater Bay Area: Hong Kong’s co-opetition with Mainland cities. In Innovation and Creative

Industries in Hong Kong. Routledge Press: London, pp. 159-200. Liang, S., & Wang, Q. (2020). Cultural and creative industries and urban (re) development in China. Journal of Planning Literature, 35(1), 54-70. Week 4 (25 Sept ) Commodifying Culture and Art: Cultural Products and Celebrity Branding in CMI Required Readings: McCain, R. (2006). Chapter 5 Defining Cultural and Artistic Goods. Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, 1(06), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0676(06)01005-2 Power, D., & Scott, A. J. (2004). Cultural industries and the production of culture. Cultural Industries and the Production of Culture, 1–268. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203392263 Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critics corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies, 42(5), 1031–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00531.x Otmazgin, N. K. (2011). Commodifying Asian-ness: Entrepreneurship and the making of East Asian popular culture. Media, Culture and Society, 33(2), 259–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393386 Supplementary Readings: Currid-Halkett, E. (2015). Stars and stardom in the creative industries. In The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (Issue January, pp. 1–10). Cvetkovski, T. (2015). The Pop Music Idol and the Spirit of Charisma. Palgrave MacMillan. Kang, J. M. (2017). Rediscovering the idols: K-pop idols behind the mask. Celebrity Studies, 8(1), 136–141. Centeno, D., & Jianfeng, J. (2017). Celebrities as human brands: An inquiry on stakeholder-actor co-creation of brand identities. Journal of Business Research, 74, 133–138. Loy, S., Rickwood, J., & Bennett, S. (2018). Popular music, stars and stardom: Definitions, discourses, interpretations. In S. Loy, J. Rickwood, & S. Bennett (Eds.), Popular Music, Stars and Stardom (pp. 1–20). ANU Press. Week 5 (2 Oct) Public Holiday Week 6 (9 Oct) Making and Analysing Policy: Global and Local Context of CMI Required Readings: Hughson, J., & Inglis, D. (2001). ‘Creative industries’ and the arts in Britain: Towards a ‘third way’ in cultural policy? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 7(3), 457–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286630109358156 Hui, D. (2006). From cultural to creative industries: Strategies for Chaoyang District, Beijing. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 9(3), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877906066878

Lee, H. K. (2020). Making creative industries policy in the real world: Differing configurations of the culture-market-state nexus in the UK and South Korea. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(4), 544–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2019.1577401 Pratt, A. C. (2005). Cultural industries and public policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1), 31–41. Supplementary Readings: Keane, M. (2013). Culture in Flux. In Creative Industries in China (pp. 12-49). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Mangset, P. (2020). The end of cultural policy? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 26(3), 398–411. Lee, H.-K. (2016). Politics of the ‘creative industries’ discourse and its variants. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 22(3), 438–455. Kwon, S. H., & Kim, J. (2014). The cultural industry policies of the Korean government and the Korean wave. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 20(4), 422–439. Week 7 (16 Oct) Digitalisation and Globalisation: Risk and Opportunities from CMI Perspective Required Readings: Hesmondhalgh, D. (2019). Have digital communication technologies democratized the media industries? In Curran & Hesmondhalgh (Eds.), Media and Society (pp. 101-120). Navarro, B. (2016). Creative industries and Britpop: The marketisation of culture, politics, and national identity. Consumption Markets and Culture, 19(2), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.2015.1068168 Supplementary Readings: Kim, G. (2017). Between hybridity and hegemony in K-pop’s global popularity: A case of Girls’ Generation’s American debut. International Journal of Communication, 11, 2367–2386. Kim, G. (2018). K-pop female idols as cultural genre of patriarchal neoliberalism: A gendered nature of developmentalism and the structure of feeling/experience in contemporary Korea. Telos, 184, 185–207. Week 8 (23 Oct) Public Holiday Week 9 (30 Oct) Researching CMI: Research Methods and Critical Writing (Submit Proposals) Holt, J., & Perren, A. (2019). Media industries: A decade in review. In M. Deuze & M. Prenger (Eds.), Making Media (pp. 31-45). Amsterdam University Press. Havens, T., Lotz, A., & Tinic, S. (2009). Critical media industry studies: A research approach. Communication, Culture & Critique, 2(2), 234-253. Stokes, J. (Ed.). (n.d.). Researching the Creative Industries: Studying Organizations, Institutions, and Producers. In How to Do Media Studies, 3rd Edition (pp. 171-222). Sage Publications.

Week 10 (6 Nov) Creativity and Managerial Understanding of CMI: Creative Management Required Readings: Styhre, A., & Sundgren, M. (2005). Managing creativity in organizations: Critique and practices. In Managing Creativity in Organizations: Critique and Practices. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505575 Thompson, P., Jones, M., & Warhurst, C. (2007). From conception to consumption: Creativity and the missing managerial link. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 625–640. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.465 Supplementary Readings: Bilton, C. (2006). Management and creativity: From creative industries to creative management. Wiley-Blackwell. de Bruin, A. (2005). Multi-level entrepreneurship in the creative industries. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6(3), 143–150. de Bruin, A. (2007). Building the film industry in New Zealand: An entrepreneurship continuum. In C. Henry (Ed.), Entrepreneurship in the creative industries: An international perspective. Edward Elgar. Week 11 (13 Nov) Entrepreneurial Organisations and creative Leadership: Creative Strategies Required Readings: Ellmeier, A. (2003). Cultural entrepreneurialism: On the changing relationship between the arts, culture and employment1. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1028663032000069158a Naudin, A. (2017). Cultural entrepreneurship: The cultural worker’s experience of entrepreneurship. In Cultural Entrepreneurship: The Cultural Worker’s Experience of Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315444680 Bilton, C., & Cummings, S. (2010). Creative strategy: Reconnecting business and innovation (Vol. 3). John Wiley & Sons. Supplementary Readings: Cray, D., Inglis, L., & Freeman, S. (2007). Managing the arts: Leadership and decision making under dual rationalities. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 36(4), 295–313. Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705-750. Schlesinger, P. (2010). ‘The most creative organization in the world’? The BBC, ‘creativity’ and managerial style. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 16(3), 271–285. Week 12 (20 Nov) People, Place and Platform in CMI: Creative labour and Stability Required Readings: Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2013). Creative labour: Media work in three cultural industries.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855881 Hartley, J., Potts, J., Cunningham, S., & Flew, T. (2013). Entries on “Creativity,” “Creative cities,” “Creative class,” “Creative Economy,” “Creative Industries,” in Key Concepts in Creative Industries. London: Sage, 43-68. Mommaas, H. (2004). Cultural clusters and the post-industrial city: Towards the remapping of urban cultural policy. Urban Studies, 41(3), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000178663 Nieborg, D. B., & Poell, T. (2019). The platformization of making media. In M. Deuze & M. Prenger (Eds.), Making Media (pp. 85-99). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Supplementary Readings: Curtin, M., & Sanson, K. (2016). Precarious creativity: Global media, local labor. In Precarious Creativity: Global Media, Local Labor (pp. 1-18). Berkeley: UC-Press. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2010). Normativity and social justice in the analysis of creative labour. Journal for Cultural Research, 14(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/14797581003791461 Fung, A. (2016). Redefining creative labor: East Asian comparisons. In Precarious Creativity: Global Media, Local Labor (pp. 200-214). Berkeley: UC-Press. Conor, B., Gill, R., & Taylor, S. (2015). Gender and creative labour. The Sociological Review, 63(1), 1-22. Week 13 (27 Nov) Intellectual property and copyright: protecting or monetising creative ideas Required Readings: Stopps, D. (2008). How to make a living from music. In Creative Industries (Issue 4). World Intellectual Property Organization. Townley, B., & Gulledge, E. (2015). The market for symbolic goods. In The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (p. 119). Oxford University Press. Macmillan, F. (2015). Copyright, the creative industries, and public domain. In C. Jones, M. Lorenzen, & J. Sapsed (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (pp. 439-455). Supplementary Readings: Kretschmer, M. (2015). Copyright and its discontents. In C. Jones, M. Lorenzen, & J. Sapsed (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries (pp. 456-464). Pang, L. (2004). Piracy/privacy: The despair of cinema and collectivity in China. Boundary 2, 31(3), 101-124. Week 14 (4 Dec) Reading Week

Further Readings: Bell, D., & Oakley, K. (2014). Cultural Policy (pp. 1–176). Routledge. Hartley, J. (2005). Creative Industries. Blackwell Publishing. Lazzeretti, L. (2012). Creative Industries and Innovation in Europe: Concepts, Measures and Comparative Case Studies. Creative Industries and Innovation in Europe: Concepts, Measures and Comparative Case Studies, 1–310. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203112571 Lim, L., & Lee, H. K. (2018). Routledge Handbook of Cultural and Creative Industries in Asia. Routledge. Louw, P. E. (2001). The Media and Cultural Production. Sage Publications. Lowe, G. F., & Brown, C. (2015). What’s So Special About Media Management? In Managing Media Firms and Industries. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08515-9 O’Brien, D. (2013). Policy: Management, Value and Modernity in the Creative Industries (pp. 1–166). Routledge. UNCTAD. (2022). Creative Economy Outlook. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ditcted2018d3_en.pdf Important Notes: (1) Students are expected to spend a total of 9 hours (i.e. 3 hours of class contact and 6 hours of personal study) per week to achieve the course learning outcomes. (2) Students shall be aware of the University regulations about dishonest practice in course work, tests and examinations, and the possible consequences as stipulated in the Regulations Governing University Examinations. In particular, plagiarism, being a kind of dishonest practice, is “the presentation of another person’s work without proper acknowledgement of the source, including exact phrases, or summarised ideas, or even footnotes/citations, whether protected by copyright or not, as the student’s own work”. Students are required to strictly follow university regulations governing academic integrity and honesty. (3) Students are required to submit writing assignment(s) using Turnitin. (4) To enhance students’ understanding of plagiarism, a mini-course “Online Tutorial on Plagiarism Awareness” is available on https://pla.ln.edu.hk/

Class Participation & Discussion Facilitation (30%) Assessment Rubrics Assessment Categories Excellent (A) (10.0 – 9.0) Good (B) (8.9 – 7.5) Pass (C) (7.4 – 6.0) Fail (F) (5.9 – 0) (1) Active class High class engagement, Low class engagement, Poor class engagement, Level of engagement, pose pose good questions in rarely pose questions in pose no question in engagement excellent questions in class, show ability to class, rarely show ability class, show no ability to (33%) class, strong ability to stimulate class to stimulate class stimulate class stimulate class discussion and comment discussion and comment discussion and comment discussion and comment on others’ points. on others’ points. on others’ points. on others’ points. (2) Positive listening, Positive listening, Rarely participate in Not participate in class Level of response interpret others’ views interpret others’ views class discussions. discussions. (33%) with an open mind and constructively. ready to negotiate opinions and views. (3) Prepared well for class, Prepared for class, Almost always Unprepared for class, no Preparation showcase in-depth showcase adequate unprepared for class, sign of familiarity with for class familiarity and familiarity and little sign of familiarity or understanding of (34%) understanding of course understanding of course with or understanding of course materials. materials. materials. course materials.

In-Class Exams (30%) Assessment Rubrics Assessment Categories Excellent (A) (10.0 – 9.0) Good (B) (8.9 – 7.5) Pass (C) (7.4 – 6.0) Fail (F) (5.9 – 0) (1) Understanding of and response to the subject (25%) Mature and nuanced understanding of and response to the subject, demonstrates a top-tier level of cognisance of, awareness of and insight into the subject Strong and clear understanding of and response to the subject, demonstrates a satisfactory cognisance of, awareness of, and insight into the subject Attempts in understanding of and response to the subject, demonstrates a competent but incomplete level of cognisance of, awareness of, and insight into the subject Deeply flawed understanding of and response to the subject, demonstrates a lack of cognisance of, awareness of, and insight into the subject (2) Analytical ability (25%) Mature and nuanced level of analytical ability, demonstrates a top-tier level of conceptual understanding and ability to make sophisticated, coherent and warranted conceptual distinctions Strong and clear level of analytical ability, demonstrates a satisfactory conceptual understanding, and ability to make sophisticated, coherent and warranted conceptual distinctions Attempts in exercising analytical ability, demonstrates a competent but incomplete level of conceptual understanding, and ability to make sophisticated, coherent conceptual distinctions Deeply flawed level of analytical ability, demonstrates a lack of conceptual understanding, and ability to make sophisticated, coherent conceptual distinctions (3) Organization and coherence of ideas (25%) Mature and nuanced organization and coherence of ideas, demonstrates a top-tier level of organization and coherence of thought, ideas, and/or argument Strong and clear organization and coherence of ideas, demonstrates a satisfactory organization and coherence of thought, ideas, and/or argument Attempts in organization and coherence of ideas, demonstrates a competent but incomplete level of organization and coherence of thought, ideas, and/or argument Deeply flawed organization and coherence of ideas, demonstrates a lack of organization and coherence of thought, ideas, and/or argument

(4) Research effort and quality (25%) Mature and nuanced level of research activity and quality of activity, demonstrates a top-tier level of engagement with a wide range of relevant research resources, and aptitude for making creative and/or rational thinking in locating, addressing or applying relevant information and ideas Strong and clear level of research activity and quality of activity, demonstrates a satisfactory level of engagement with a range of relevant research resources, and aptitude for making creative and/or rational thinking in locating, addressing or applying relevant information and ideas Attempts in research activity and quality of activity, demonstrates a competent but incomplete level of engagement with a wide range of relevant research resources, and aptitude for making creative and/or rational thinking in locating, addressing or applying relevant information and ideas Deeply flawed level of research activity and quality of activity, demonstrates a lack of engagement with a wide range of relevant research resources, and aptitude for making creative and/or rational thinking in locating, addressing or applying relevant information and ideas

Final Paper (40%) Assessment Rubrics Assessment Categories Excellent (A) (10.0 – 9.0) Good (B) (8.9 – 7.5) Pass (C) (7.4 – 6.0) Fail (F) (5.9 – 0) (1) Understanding of and response to the subject (25%) Mature and nuanced understanding of and response to the subject, demonstrates an optimal level of cognisance of, awareness of and insight into the subject Strong and clear understanding of and response to the subject, demonstrates a sufficient level cognisance of, awareness of, and insight into the subject Attempts in understanding of and response to the subject, demonstrates a competent but incomplete level of cognisance of, awareness of, and insight into the subject Deeply flawed understanding of and response to the subject, demonstrates a lack of cognisance of, awareness of, and insight into the subject (2) Analytical ability (25%) Mature and nuanced level of analytical ability, demonstrates a an optimal level of conceptual understanding and ability to make sophisticated, coherent and warranted conceptual distinctions Strong and clear level of analytical ability, demonstrates a sufficient level of conceptual understanding, and ability to make sophisticated, coherent and warranted conceptual distinctions Attempts in exercising analytical ability, demonstrates a competent but incomplete level of conceptual understanding, and ability to make sophisticated, coherent and warranted conceptual distinctions. Deeply flawed level of analytical ability, demonstrates a lack of conceptual understanding, and ability to make sophisticated, coherent and warranted conceptual distinctions (3) Organisation and coherence of ideas (25%) Mature and nuanced organisation and coherence of ideas, demonstrates an optimal level of organisation and coherence of thought, ideas and/or argument Strong and clear organisation and coherence of ideas, demonstrates a sufficient level of organisation and coherence of thought, ideas and/or argument Attempts in organisation and coherence of ideas, demonstrates a competent but incomplete level of organisation and coherence of thought, ideas and/or argument Deeply flawed organisation and coherence of ideas, demonstrates a lack of organisation and coherence of thought, ideas and/or argument (4) Research effort and quality (25%) Mature and nuanced level of research activity and quality of activity, demonstrates an optimal level of engagement with a wide range of relevant research resources, and aptitude for making creative Strong and clear level of research activity and quality of activity, demonstrates a sufficient level of engagement with a wide range of relevant research resources, and aptitude for Attempts in organisation and coherence of ideas, demonstrates a competent but incomplete level of organisation and coherence of thought, ideas and/or argument Deeply flawed level of research activity and quality of activity, demonstrates a lack of engagement with a wide range of relevant research resources, and aptitude for

and/or rational and sophisticated thinking in locating, addressing or applying relevant information and ideas making creative and/or rational and sophisticated thinking in locating, addressing or applying relevant information and ideas making creative and/or rational and sophisticated thinking in locating, addressing or applying relevant information and ideas.

1Beyond ad hocery: Defining Creative Industries Terry Flew Media & Communication Creative Industries Faculty Queensland University of Technology Paper presented to Cultural Sites, Cultural Theory, Cultural Policy, The Second International Conference on Cultural Policy Research, Te Papa, Wellington, New Zealand, 23-26 January 2002 ABSTRACT This paper explores the rise of the creative industries, whose development marks an increasingly central element of contemporary economies, whose form is informational, global and networked. It begins with a discussion of the various ways in which the creative industries have been defined, in both policy statements and in the academic literature. It relates the development of the creative industries to three trends. First, it is connected to has the development of cultural industries as an object of public policy, as well as a critical rethinking of the best means by which cultural development can be supported through cultural policy. Second, the rise of the knowledge-based economy, and debates about the relationship between information, knowledge and creativity, have provided a stimulus to creative industries development. Third, the shift from manufacturing to services as the dominant employment sector has raised important issues about

2the nature of services sector employment and the services industry model. Finally, there is a discussion of the significance of creative industries development to the concept of cluster development and policies to promote the development of creative cities and regions, as part of the ‘night time economy’. Introduction The emergence of creative industries is related to the rise of cultural industries, the significance of knowledge to all aspects of economic production, distribution and consumption, and the growing importance of the services sector. It is linked to the dynamics of the ‘new economy’, whose form is increasingly informational, global and networked (Castells 2000). Cultural processes such as design and signification impact upon all aspects of everyday life, particularly those related to the consumption of commodities. Culture is thus recast from being a distinct sphere of social life, to something that permeates everything from the design of urban spaces, offices, means of transport and communication (eg. the design of cars or mobile phones), the ways in which clothing signifies an identity to both its users and those who see the user, and the promotional strategies of corporations and, indeed, governments in an era of ‘promotional culture’ and electronic commerce. Similarly, creativity does not simply reside in the arts or media industries, but is a central- and increasingly important- input into all sectors where design and content form the basis of competitive advantage in global economic markets. This turn to the creative industries results in part from the scope of ICTs to allow for greater flexibility in production, such as small batch production rather than long production runs. It is also connected to a growing reflexivity in consumption, or a process whereby consumers increasingly use commodities to construct a personal identity. Scott Lash and John Urry have termed this the ‘semiotisation of consumption’ (Lash and Urry 1994: 61), that is a part of what Mike Featherstone

3has identified, more broadly, as the ‘aestheticisation of everyday life’, connected to consumer society and the blurring of lines between art, aesthetics and popular culture (Featherstone 1991). Lash and Urry also observe that ‘specialised consumption and flexible production entail knowledge-intensive production’ (Lash and Urry 1994: 60), defined not only in terms of a greater need and capacity to process information, but also in terms of the capacity to creatively understand and respond to aesthetic signifiers and other non-informational- principally cultural- symbols. Defining the Creative Industries The formal origins of the concept of the creative industries can be found in the Blair Labour Government’s establishment of a Creative Industries Task Force after its election in Britain in 1997, where the newly-created Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) set about mapping current activity in the creative industries, and identify policy measures that could promote their further development. The Creative Industries Mapping Document, prepared by the UK DCMS in 1998, defined creative industries as ‘those activities which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have the potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property’ (www.culture.gov.uk/creative/creative_ industries.html). In a similar vein, the Minister for Culture and Heritage, Chris Smith, observed that: The role of creative enterprise and cultural contribution … is a key economic issue … The value stemming from the creation of intellectual capital is becoming increasingly important as an economic component of national wealth … Industries, many of them new, that rely on creativity and imaginative intellectual property, are becoming the most rapidly growing and important part of our national economy. They are where the jobs and the wealth of the future are going to be generated (Smith, 1998).

4 The Manchester Institute for Popular Culture (www.mmu.ac.uk/h-ss/mipc) has identified creative industries initiatives in the cities of Barcelona (Spain), Goteburg (Denmark), Milan (Italy), Jamtland (Sweden), Tilburg (Netherlands), Berlin (Germany), Helsinki (Finland), and Dublin (Ireland). In East Asia, the governments of Singapore and Malaysia, who were pioneers in developing networked broadband infrastructure through their ‘Intelligent Island’ and Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) initiatives, have been increasingly focusing their attention upon the development of industries that can produce content for broadband services. In Australia, the Queensland State Government has invested in a Creative Industries Precinct, developing a high-tech urban village in inner Brisbane in collaboration with the Queensland University of Technology, while the Federal Government has developed a taskforce to assess strategies for Australia’s digital content and creative industries. It has identified the relationship between digital content and creative industries in the following way: Digital content and applications produced by the creative industries include the output of the computer games industry, web sites, digital video arts and digital film and television production covering text, graphics, special effects, animation and post-production. Digital content and applications are also produced in the fields of new media, music, architecture and design, and education and health (DCITA 2001). Such initiatives are consistent with the identification of content as a new growth industry in the context of digitisation and convergence, and the opportunities for growth, particularly through promoting the development of start-ups and small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs), in what the OECD has identified as the ‘copyright industries’, or those enterprises creating content for networked broadband services (OECD, 1998). Howkins (2001) has observed that in 1997, copyright became the U.S. economy’s leading export, and the U.S. produced over $414 billion worth of books, films, music, TV programmes and other copyright products in that year. In

5the same year, the Spice Girls were Britain’s leading export, through sales of their music, attendances at their film Spice World, and ancillary merchandising. The UK Creative Industries Task Force identified thirteen sectors that comprised the creative industries: Figure 1 Creative Industries in the United Kingdom • Advertising • Architecture • Arts and antique markets • Crafts • Design • Designer fashion • Film • Interactive leisure software • Music • Television and radio • Performing arts • Publishing • Software Source: DCMS 1998. Such listings inherently carry an ad hoc and pragmatic element to them. In the UK case, the inclusion of sectors such as architecture and antiques is connected to the institutionally alignment of culture with the heritage sector, while the inclusion of areas such as designer fashion may reflect both the fact that Britain is a world leader in this area, and the Blair Government’s attempts to ‘rebadge’ the ‘old country’ as ‘Cool Britannia’ (McGuigan 1998). A recurrent feature of creative industries initiatives in Britain has been a demarcation between areas involved with mass production and distribution and hence more directly connected to the market, and the more ‘artist-centred’ areas of culture, which can retain a focus upon ‘quality’ as assessed by their peers (O’Connor 1999: 4). O’Connor argues that this distinction has arisen from the institutional divide

6between those areas of the performing and visual arts whose development remains predominantly associated with Arts Council subsidy, and those sectors that are associated with the new DMCS. In Europe, the term ‘cultural enterprise’ is sometimes preferred, with the distinction between private sector-driven activities and those associated with culture in a more traditional sense continuing to inform cultural policy. O’Connor rejects such demarcations between ‘commercial value’ and ‘cultural value’, arguing that: The commercial sector provides wealth and employment (as do the arts), but it is also a prime site of cultural consumption for the vast majority of the population. The role of ‘arts’ in this configuration needs to be rethought not just ‘defended’ against the vulgar market. For the cultural industries have asked questions about the definition of arts and ‘culture’ itself. New forms of production, new understandings of ‘culture’, new forms of consumption and distribution have over-run the cosy separations of ‘art’ and (mass or ‘folk/ethnic’) culture set up by the European state funding systems (O’Connor, 1999: 5). One attempt to define the creative industries more analytically has been undertaken by economist Richard Caves, who has defined creative industries in these terms: “Creative” industries supply goods and services that we broadly associate with cultural, artistic, or simply entertainment value. They include book and magazine publishing, the visual arts (painting and sculpture), the performing arts (theatre, opera, concerts, dance), sound recordings, cinema and TV films, even fashion and toys and games (Caves, 2000: 1). Caves has stressed that discussion of the economic properties of creative industries, and those who work in them, should be distinguished from debates about the pros and cons of public subsidy for the arts. For Caves, the importance

7of this point arises from the fact that both ‘subsidised’ and ‘unsubsidised’ creative industries activities share common elements, including: 1. Considerable uncertainty about the likely demand for creative product, due to the fact that creative products are ‘experience goods’, where buyers lack information prior to consumption, and where the satisfaction derived is largely subjective and intangible; 2. The ways in which creative producers derive non-economic forms of satisfaction from their work and creative activity, but are reliant upon the performance of more ‘humdrum’ activities (eg. basic accounting and product marketing) in order for such activities to be economically viable; 3. The frequently collective nature of creative production, and the need to develop and maintain creative teams with diverse skills, who often also possess diverse interests and expectations about the final product; 4. The almost infinite variety of creative products available, both within particular formats (eg. videos at a rental store), and between formats; 5. Vertically differentiated skills, or what Caves terms the ‘A list’/ ‘B list’ phenomenon, and the ways in which producers or other content aggregators rank and assess creative personnel; 6. The need to coordinate diverse creative activities within a relatively short and often finite time frame; 7. The durability of many cultural products, and the capacity of their producers to continue to extract economic rents (eg. copyright payments) long after the period of production. What these characteristics point to, for Caves, is major risk and uncertainty about the economic outcomes of creative activities. This uncertainty and risk, and the need to spread risk and provide insurance to creative producers, has provided one reason for public funding for some creative activities. In commercial terms, risk and uncertainty are also managed through contracts, whereby the various parties involved in the production and distribution of a creative product seek to manage

8risk and diversify rewards, based upon the skills and capacities they bring to the project and the need to ensure mutual obligation to meet commitments. The ongoing management of risks, contracts and creative production processes is a factor that leads to industrial organisation in the creative industries, in forms such as publishing, recording, broadcasting and film companies to commission production and manage distribution; guilds, unions and legal arrangements to protect creative producers; and intermediaries such as agents to manage the more commercial elements of a career in creative practice. A significant problem with Caves’ analysis is that, because he is concerned with applying common tools to a diverse range of creative industries, he is reluctant to differentiate new forms of creative industry (such as games and interactive multimedia), from more traditional cultural industries such as film or TV, or from the subsidised arts. In Living on Thin Air: The New Economy (Leadbeater, 1999), Leadbeater links the creative industries to ‘new economy’ dynamics by identifying the key to creative industries as being the alignment of micro-businesses and SMEs in the content creation area, where creativity largely resides, with large cultural organisations- both public and private- that can provide national and international distribution networks to realise commercial value from this creativity: Creative industries, such as music, entertainment and fashion, are driven … not by trained professionals but cultural entrepreneurs who make the most of other people’s talent and creativity. In creative industries, large organisations provide access to the market, through retailing and distribution, but the creativity comes from a pool of independent content producers (Leadbeater, 1999: 49). The relationship of creative industries to the knowledge economy, cultural industries, and the services industries sector, is central to understanding the dynamics of the new economy. As ‘new growth’ economics identifies innovation

9as the principal source of economic growth (eg. Boulding 1996; David 1999), and as it is observed that sustained processes of technological and economic innovation need to be underpinned by social, cultural and institutional innovation, the question of what are the conditions that support or retard creativity has become one that is not only of interest to those involved with the creative industries, but has come to be of interest to policy makers worldwide. Manuel Castells has observed that the new economy is cultural, in that its dynamics are dependent upon ‘the culture of innovation, the culture of risk, the culture of expectations, and ultimately, on the culture of hope in the future’ (Castells 2001: 112). Cultural Industries and Cultural Policy: Three Stages of Development The concept of the cultural industries was first developed, albeit in a bitterly ironic fashion, by the German Marxists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer (1977), in their critique of the industrialization of culture in advanced capitalist societies. For Adorno and Horkheimer, the industrialization of culture, and its absorption within capitalist industry and commodity aesthetics, meant the negation of ‘true’ art and culture, and the artificial differentiation of cultural commodities in the context of overall standardization and mass production. Adorno and Horkheimer’s account of the culture industries has been critiqued from a number of standpoints (Bennett, 1982; Mattelart and Piemme, 1982; Thompson, 1991; Sinclair 1996). John Thompson summarises the problems with the Frankfurt School approach with his observations that it presents ‘an exaggerated view of the cohesive character of modern societies and an overly pessimistic prognosis concerning the fate of the individual in the modern era’ (Thompson, 1991: 97). Moreover, by developing a critique of the cultural industries that saw an ideal form of culture as one that was ‘too closely connected with nostalgia for a cultural experience untainted by technology’ (Mattelart and

10Piemme, 1982: 52), it lost sight of the overall economic dynamics of the industries that provided mass communication and cultural goods and services. The elitist disdain for mass media and commercial culture found in early accounts of the cultural industries was to some extent mirrored in traditional rationales for arts policy. Early forms of arts and cultural policy strictly demarcated between publicly supported ‘excellence’, and popular arts and cultural forms that were primarily commercial in orientation. In traditional arts policy models, governments supported the production and exhibition of art forms such as opera, orchestras, theatre, the visual arts, dance and literature, on the basis of: 1. A discourse of social improvement, and a belief that such cultural forms have intrinsic worth to the community; 2. Systems of public subsidy, whereby government financial support was provided on the grounds that these forms were not otherwise commercially viable; 3. Promotion of national culture, and the belief that ‘elite’ arts could best represent national character and cultural aspirations. What resulted was a paradoxical situation whereby cultural activities became the focus of arts policy only to the extent that they failed to reach sufficiently large audiences to be commercially viable. In a study commissioned by UNESCO, Augustin Girard observed this central paradox of national cultural policies that had promoted state-funded cultural activities with limited impact, while largely ignoring and often condemning the commercial sector of the cultural industries. Girard argued that, contrary to such cultural policy assumptions, ‘far more is done to democratise and decentralise culture with the industrial products available on the market than with the “products” subsidised by the public authorities’ (Girard, 1982: 25). Indeed, the legacy of the ‘left-pessimist’ position had proved to be politically counter-productive, since, in its focus upon supporting those areas of arts and culture least contaminated by commerce, it supported those activities

11with the lowest rates of growth in consumption and the strongest class biases in terms of who consumed them (DiMaggio and Useem, 1978). A second, and more productive approach to understanding the cultural industries emerged in Europe, and particularly in Britain, in the 1980s. Political economist Nicholas Garnham, advising the Greater London Council (GLC) in the early 1980s, observed that a central danger of what he termed the ‘idealist’ tradition in cultural analysis, that rejected the market and focused on a residual approach to public intervention in the cultural sector, was that: Most people’s cultural needs and aspirations are being, for better or worse, supplied by the market as goods and services. If one turns one’s back on an analysis of that dominant cultural process, one cannot understand either the culture of our time or the challenges and opportunities which that dominant culture offers to public policy makers. (Garnham, 1987: 24-25) Rather than defining cultural industries in terms of their difference from the products of mass production and distribution, Garnham offered a more descriptive definition of the cultural industries as ‘those institutions in our society which employ the characteristic modes of production and organisation of industrial corporations, to produce and disseminate symbols in the forms of cultural goods and services, generally, although not exclusively, as commodities’ (Garnham, 1987: 25). For Garnham and other cultural policy theorists (eg. Mulgan and Worpole, 1986; Lewis, 1990), such an approach pointed to the need to get a better understanding of how cultural industries and cultural markets actually worked. One of Garnham’s most significant findings was that the media sectors were far more important in the United Kingdom as employers of labour, objects of consumption, and areas of public intervention, than the traditional performing and visual arts, defined as those which received support through Government arts funding.

12 These analytical frameworks were drawn upon in Britain by groups working with Labour-controlled local councils in cities hard hit by industrial decline, such as Bradford, Sheffield, and Glasgow. In Australia, cultural industries research was developed through the Australian Key Centre for Cultural and Media Policy (eg. Bennett, 1998), and informed the Keating Labor Government’s Creative Nation cultural policy statement, released in 1994 (DoCA, 1994). Such approaches understood cultural industries as being important in terms of their contribution to national economic development, and pointed to the value-adding possibilities arising from effective policy development, particularly in relation to developing the cultural industries value chain, or ensuring that the products and outputs of artistic creativity were better distributed and marketed to audiences and consumers. This expanded definition of cultural industries also enabled media policy to be seen as a form of cultural policy, in line with shifting notions of culture from aesthetic excellence to the whole way of life of a community. Cultural policy also sought to reach sectors, such as popular music, that had typically not been well served by traditional arts policy, as well as emergent sectors such as multimedia (Breen 1999; Comonos 1996). The focus on the arts and cultural industries as having economic importance also led to a burgeoning literature on the economic value of the arts, that identified a new role for arts and cultural industries as generating flow-on and multiplier effects for other industries, and as important to quality of life, the ‘image’ of cities and regions, tourism, and ancillary service industries (Myerscough et. al. 1988; cf. Gibson 1999; Throsby 2000). These second-stage analyses of the cultural industries broadened and enriched debates about the role of cultural policy quite considerably. At the same time, a number of abiding problems emerged. The first was definitional. If cultural industries were defined in general terms as those sectors involved in the production of symbolic goods and services, was it then possible to exclude any

13activity of industrial production that had a symbolic dimension? Was the design and branding of a Coca-Cola can a part of the cultural industries, or the use of indigenous artwork on a QANTAS jet, or the design of mobile phones, or the use of music by artists such as Moby or Fatboy Slim to promote the sale of those phones? The definitions of culture drawn from cultural theory were of little help in making these distinctions, divided between an aesthetic definition which tended to equate culture with the subsidised arts, and an anthropological definition of culture as a way of life that was so all-inclusive as to prevent almost any realm of human activity from being defined as ‘cultural’. The issue is also not simply rhetorical since, as creativity becomes a value-adding service to a range of enterprises, the sorts of investment in creativity and cultural development that may lever the best policy outcomes may not necessarily be delivered through those institutions and practices deemed by policy-makers to be ‘cultural’ (O’Regan 2001). The second problem, which is derived from the first, was that, in practice, cultural industries tended to be largely defined as those activities that were under the policy purview of those areas of government that were already defined as responsible for the administration of culture. The Australian Creative Nation statement, to take one example, identified cultural policy as being responsible for such areas as: performing arts; orchestras; contemporary music; literature; dance; visual arts and crafts; film; television; radio; multimedia; built heritage; cultural property; indigenous cultural heritage; open learning; and libraries (DoCA, 1994). Within this list, there were areas that more obviously attracted governmental support than others- orchestras rather than contemporary music, and film and television more than radio- but the point remains that the bases of support were defined primarily by the areas that were within the policy domain of the Department of Communications and the Arts. Indeed, in an earlier policy statement (DASET, 1991), media industries such as television and radio were absent from cultural policy, on the basis that they were at that time administered

14by a different government department, responsible for transport and communication. This ad hoc element in defining the cultural industries for policy purposes should not be seen as accidental. What has become increasingly apparent in policy debates around the cultural industries, is the extent to which they have been drawn upon by traditional elements of the subsidised arts, that have been able to selectively use the economic discourses surrounding cultural industries, particularly the elements associated with market failure- such as public good, merit good and externality arguments- to accommodate more traditional arguments for arts subsidy (Craik, 2000). For their critics, such arguments have been based upon a combination of state paternalism and special pleading, and use contemporary economic analysis in order to justify the continued use of public revenue for the benefit of particular well-organised interests, and present the associated danger of policy-makers being ‘captured’ by these special interests (Court, 1994; Peacock, 1997). As Justin O’Connor has noted in the British case, ‘The economic aspect [of cultural industries] was mostly used opportunistically by arts agencies or city cultural agencies concerned to bolster their defences against financial cuts and ideological onslaught by the conservative government’ (O’Connor, 1999: 4). Arguments justifying the continuation of existing forms of arts and cultural funding while broadening the definition of the cultural industries also exposed the problem of inappropriate mechanisms to support emergent cultural industries sectors. While cultural industries discourses stressed the economic value of artistic and cultural activities, they were also widely seen as being about providing new forms of legitimation for traditional arts and cultural sectors. As a result, they were not seen as willing to address the limitations of traditional forms of cultural policy, such as the difficulties faced in broadening the audience/consumption base beyond higher-income earners with the requisite levels of cultural capital (Gibson 1999), and a perception of decision-makers

15being ‘captured’ by their clients, and a tendency for peer assessment to encourage familiar patterns of funding and be based on pre-existing affinity networks (Court 1994; Madden 2001). Moreover, such frameworks have been unable to engage with sectors such as popular music and multimedia, which are highly dispersed in their employment and participation patterns, largely operate without strong representation by industry bodies, and are characterised by decision-making processes that are incompatible with the timeframes required for bureaucratic allocation of resources (eg. Brown et. al. 2000; Flew et. al. 2001). Creativity, Content and the Knowledge-Based Economy A better case for supporting artistic and creative activities may arise from a better understanding of the relationship between information, knowledge and creativity, and the ways in which sustained technological and economic innovation is accompanied by social, cultural and institutional innovation, and the existence of cultural formations that promote innovation and risk-taking. The emergence of a knowledge-based economy has been identified as a central trend in modern economies, in recognition of the increasingly important role of information, technology and learning in economic performance (OECD 1996). Structural transformations towards a knowledge-based economy include: 1. The shift of economic activities towards more knowledge-intensive sectors, particularly those involving extensive application of ICTs; 2. Changing patterns of investment, with a growing emphasis upon investment in ‘intangibles’, such as research and development, organisational restructuring, and ICTs; 3. A general ‘upskilling’ of the workforce across all economic sectors; 4. Growth in exports of high technology products.

16Charles Leadbeater has defined the role of knowledge in the new economy in these terms: In the new economy more of the value of manufactured products will come form the software and intelligence that they embody, and more of what we consume will be in the form of services. Across all sectors the knowledge content of products and processes is rising … Knowledge push and market pull have made know-how the critical source of competitive advantage in the modern economy (Leadbeater 1999: 39). The concept of knowledge push refers to the growth in outputs in education and scientific research arising from public and private investment, and the ways in which ICTs speed up the production, collection and dissemination of such research outcomes, enabling more rapid transformation into new products, services, activities and processes. Market pull factors that promote the rise of a knowledge economy include economic globalisation, increased competition, greater sophistication in consumer demand, and the growing importance of intangible assets, such as branding and know-how, to competitive advantage. Leadbeater emphasises that this phenomenon is not confined to the high-tech industries or elite knowledge workers. Rather, ‘the increased supply of know-how and the growing demand for innovation affect virtually every part of the economy and all organisations within it, large and small, manufacturing and services, high-tech and low-tech, public and private’ (Leadbeater 1999: 47). Brown and Duguid (2000) have pointed out that knowledge is not synonymous with information. At an epistemological level, they distinguish knowledge from information on the basis of the personal dimensions of ownership of knowledge, the difficulties in disembedding knowledge from those who know it, and the need for knowledge transfer to involve a learning process. Arguing that a knowledge economy is different, not only to an industrial economy but also to an information economy, they emphasise how ‘the importance of people as creators and carriers

17of knowledge is forcing organisations to realise that knowledge lies less in its databases than in its people’ (Brown and Duguid 2000: 121). Pointing to the limits of knowledge management by means of distribution of knowledge through ICTs, such as ‘best practice’ knowledge in an organisation, they differentiate between networks of practice, or the distribution of knowledge within an organisation through newsletters, Web sites, e-mail, online discussion lists etc., and communities of practice, or the ways in which people in an organisation acquire knowledge through a shared, and typically face-to-face, learning process. In order to build communities with a shared commitment to knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, Brown and Duguid argue for the development of communities of practice, and indicate that the transition from ‘atoms’ to ‘bits’ should not be seen as a one-off, linear process, since ‘there are advantages to working together, however well people may be connected by technology’ (Brown and Duguid 2000: 146). Brown and Duguid’s observations about the embodiment of knowledge and learning in people and communities is supported by Andy Pratt’s (2000) observation that knowledge in the new economy is characterised not only by its weightlessness but also by its embeddedness in people, locations, networks and institutions, and the related point that cultural activity and employment is not only growing, but is becoming more tied to places, especially cities. Justin O’Connor (1999b) has connected this to new modes of cultural production and consumption among the young (18-35 years old) in urban centres, associated with what sociologists Scott Lash and John Urry (1994) have termed reflexive accumulation, where consumption takes increasingly expressive and symbolic forms as expressive of one’s identity and positioning within a local culture, which in turn feeds into new ‘postmodern’ modes of cultural production, characterised by O’Connor where: 1. Making money and making culture are one and the same activity;

182. There is an antipathy to distinguishing between ‘work time’ and ‘leisure time’; 3. There is a heavy reliance on informal networks for information and ideas; 4. There is an emphasis on intuition, emotional involvement, immersion in the field, and an ‘enthusiast’s’ knowledge of the market; 5. Cultural producers desire to ‘work for themselves’ and outside of the ‘9-to-5’ routine. Such a workforce is central to the development of content for new media. In identifying content as a new growth industry, the OECD has observed that ‘content creation for large media companies is already often outsourced to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) … SMEs are in a number of instances becoming the seedbeds of innovative content creation in digital technologies’ (OECD 1998: 5). The growth of the new media sector in New York’s ‘Silicon Alley’ in the 1990s was driven by freelance workers and SMEs. Pavlik (1999) has observed that of the 4,881 new media companies in New York in 1997, 68 per cent had been in business for less than three years, and 30 per cent had been established in the last eighteen months. Factors that promoted the development of new media industries in New York in the 1990s included the availability of a large pool of creative talent; proximity to customers, particularly in the traditional media and publishing sectors; availability of extensive support services; and the image and credibility of the city. Kenney and von Burg (2000) have observed that the development of the San Francisco Bay Area, or ‘Silicon Valley’, was based upon the development of two interconnecting economic structures. The first (economy One) was established organisations and those who supported their activities, such as specialist suppliers, customers and research institutions such as universities. The second (Economy Two) was the institutional infrastructure that had emerged to support the creation and growth of new firms, or start-ups. In the case of both New York’s ‘Silicon Alley’ and San Francisco’s ‘Silicon Valley’, there is a complex and embedded relationship between creativity,

19innovation, knowledge transfer and entrepreneurship, which has opened up considerable debate – to be considered below – about what are the conditions for developing creative industries in particular cities and regions, and can the experiences of one city or region be translated into success in other places. There is an argument, to be explored in more detail below, that creative personnel, and those establishing SMEs and microbusinesses, seek not only work opportunities, bandwidth and venture capital, but also a creative milieux in which to establish these enterprises, that generates pleasure, enthusiasm and networking opportunities with other creative people. The relationship between ‘creative cities’ and ‘creative regions’ and the supply of creativity and innovation will be considered in more detail below. Services Employment and the Services Industry Model A third major trend in advanced capitalist economies has been the rise of the services industries. In terms of both employment and the share of total output, the services industries have grown in significance for most of the 20th century, and especially in the period after 1970. Castells and Aoyama (1994) traced trends in non-farm employment in the leading industrial economies (or the Group of Seven, or G-7 economies) in terms of the proportions of the workforce involved in industrial and services activities, and in the handling of goods or information. They observed significant shifts in all G-7 economies, especially in the United Kingdom and the United States, which could now be considered to be predominantly services-based economies. Importantly, Castells and Aoyama’s analysis indicates that, in terms of employment, advanced capitalist economies become service industry-based economies before they become information or knowledge economies, as services industries are typically more labour-intensive and less able to be automated than both manufacturing and information-based industries. This is seen in the higher growth of the services: industry ratio than the information: goods ratio in the table below.

20 Table 6.4 Employment Trends in Selected G-7 Economies 1920-1990 Germany Japan United Kingdom United States 1920 1970 1990 1920 1970 1990 1920 1970 1990 1920 1970 1990 Industry 59.1 51.2 41.5 46.3 42.1 35.8 53.0 49.4 29.6 48.0 34.0 24.9 Services 40.9 48.8 58.5 53.7 57.9 64.2 47.0 50.6 70.4 52.0 66.0 75.1 Goods Handling 78.8 71.4 60.8 76.8 73.0 65.9 76.3 67.6 54.2 73.3 61.2 51.7 Information Handling 21.2 29.1 39.2 23.2 26.9 33.4 23.7 32.2 45.8 26.7 39.0 48.3 Services: industry (ratio) 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.8 0.9 1.0 2.4 1.1 1.9 3.0 Information: Goods (ratio) 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.9 Source: Castells and Aoyama 1994, pp. 15-16. Any discussion of the size and significance of the services sector raises a number of conceptual and analytical problems. The first is that any attempt to measure the size of the services sector comes up against the inadequacy of existing methods of gathering industrial data. This reflects the tendency of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories, developed in the heyday of manufacturing industry, to make detailed classification within industry, but to treat services as a residual category, defined as those activities that are not agriculture, mining, construction, utilities or manufacturing. As a result, simply observing the growth of service industries employment may be in part a statistical illusion, generated by inadequate classificatory schemas. It may also not be particularly informative, since the term covers so many disparate industries and forms of employment that the implications of services industries growth may be hard to determine. Castells

21and Aoyama (1994) disaggregate the services sector to some extent by differentiating between: 1. Producer services, such as business and professional services, financial and insurance services, and real estate; 2. Distributive services, or those services associated with transportation and communication; 3. Social services, including government services, and other health, education and welfare services; 4. Personal services, such as tourism and recreation, entertainment and hospitality, domestic, retailing, and services associated with personal appearance and well-being (eg. hairdressing, fitness services). Another issue arising from consideration of services is their relationship to industrial production. There has been a tendency, first emerging in classical political economy, to see the production of physical output as constituting the ‘real economy’, and to see services as essentially derivative activities, or else as largely unproductive and wasteful (Allen and du Gay 1994). A contemporary variant of this argument sees services industry work as involving the creation of poorly-paid, low-skill jobs with high employee turnover – so-called ‘McJobs’, after the McDonalds fast food chain – or as being symptomatic of an unbalanced economy that is highly vulnerable to economic fluctuations, such as economies that are strongly based on tourism and migration, such as the state of Florida in the United States, island nations such as Bermuda and the Bahamas, or the Gold Coast region in Australia. Such negative perceptions of the services sector, which emerged in part as a reaction to overly optimistic assessments of ‘post-industrial society’ (Castells 1999), have obscured some important points. Most importantly, it obscures the growing convergence between manufacturing and services. Larry Hirschhorn (1988) has argued that the growing significance of design and service principles in the delivery of quality products to meet more specialised customer expectations, combined with the move from mass production to flexible

22production aimed at niche markets, means that service-based and knowledge-based activities are integral to contemporary commodity production in all of its sectoral forms. As a result, while services sector industries are becoming industrialised and using ICTs to enhance productivity, manufacturing industries are increasingly adopting the ‘relational’ elements of product sale and delivery that have historically typified the services sector (cf. Allen and du Gay 1994). Such developments are particularly relevant to the cultural and creative industries. Andy Pratt (1997) has argued that the nature of the cultural industries value chain is such that clear distinctions between content creation, manufacture and distribution, and final delivery of a product or service, are difficult to make, and are becoming more difficult as new media technologies are increasingly applied at all stages of the value chain. Scott Lash and John Urry have argued that, contrary to the dire predictions about the industrialization of culture in advanced capitalism, other manufacturing and services industries are increasingly taking on characteristics of the cultural industries: Even in the heyday of Fordism, the culture industries were irretrievably more innovation intensive, more design intensive than other industries. The culture industries, in other words, were post-Fordist avant la lettre. … Our claim is that ordinary manufacturing industry is becoming more and more like the production of culture. It is not that commodity manufacture provides the template, and culture follows, but that the culture industries themselves have provided the template. (Lash and Urry 1994: 123) Their argument is that contemporary models of ‘flexible production’ are not merely more knowledge-intensive, with increased flexibility being associated with the need to incorporate more detailed information about customers, service and product quality into the production process. They are also more design intensive, and hence more explicitly cultural, since the inputs are not only informational, but also aesthetic, and value adding involves the acquisition of

23sign-value properties associated with the brand and the image of the product. There is also a growing significance attached in all sectors of the economy to product research & development, and the testing and trailing of prototypes, which is very much in keeping with the development of the cultural or creative industries, where the production of physical commodities is a minor sub-set of the activities associated with discovering creativity and distributing and marketing it to identifiable sections of the community. Cluster Development and Creative Cities and Regions A further element of creative industries development is the emphasis upon locational geography, and particularly the formation of creative industries clusters. The development of creative cities and regions in the knowledge-based economy has been associated with what Harvard Business School economist Michael Porter (1998) has described as the development of clusters. Porter defines clusters as ‘geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field’ (Porter 1998: 78). The elements of a cluster can include suppliers of specialised inputs, providers of specialised infrastructure, producers of complementary products and services, specialist customers, and universities and research institutions that provide specialist knowledge, training, information, education and technical support. New York’s ‘Silicon Alley’ and the San Francisco Bay Area’s ‘Silicon Valley’ are two examples of clusters in the high-technology sector, but others include the Californian wine industry, the Italian leather fashion industry, the German chemicals industry, and the Hollywood film industry. Clusters generate competitive advantage for those within them in three ways. First, they increase the productivity of firms within the cluster through access to specialist inputs, labour, knowledge and technology. Second, they promote innovation, by making all forms aware more quickly of new opportunities, as well as enhancing the capacity for rapid and flexible responses to new opportunities. Third, they promote new business formation in

24related sectors, through distinctive access to necessary labour, skills, knowledge, technology and capital. The significance of clusters to ICT development and creative industries is at first glance paradoxical, since a characteristic of economic processes that are increasingly informational, global and networked would seem to point to the declining significance of geographical location to economic activity. In contrast to traditional performing arts and cultural industries, where consumption in real time in defined geographical spaces is central, distribution through new media technologies points to the delivery of content to the home, workplace, educational institution or other sites that are not linked to the geographical site of production. The development of the Internet as a global content distribution network means that, subject to available bandwidth capacity, content creators can be promiscuous and footloose in where they sell or distribute their content to, just as content distributors can source material from many points of the globe. This is in contrast to traditional national cultural policies, where national cultural authorities have sought to use funding to direct cultural production towards particular national cultural goals. The declining significance of place was one prediction that was commonly made in the early development of new media technologies. One way to understand the continuing significance of place in the new economy is to note the stalled history of tele-working, or working from home. Contrary to earlier predictions, the level of tele-working, or tele-commuting, is about 2 to 3 per cent of the workforce in OECD economies. By contrast, what has grown dramatically has been ‘supplementary work’, or working professionals undertaking additional tasks from home, or from other designated workspaces, as well as working in their offices, which means that an increasing number of workers have an ‘office-on-the-run’, as well as a designated workspace. Part of the reason for this lack of a shift to tele-working no doubt lies in the distinction between information and knowledge observed by Brown and Duguid (2000); all imformation is accessible

25over the Internet from home, but the cognitive processes through which information is transformed into knowledge occur through the development of a shared understanding among one’s peers, and that, more often than not, happens in the workplace. The significance of geographically-defined clusters arises not only from the limits of teleworking, but also from the nature of networked knowledge entrepreneurship. Such entrepreneurs increasingly require location within and around sites that provide relatively low-cost, modern office space, access to high-speed bandwidth and high-end facilities, and access to networks of individuals and companies with complementary skills, particularly business and legal skills. Castells and Hall identified these as milieux of innovation, which has a spatial dimension based upon complementary skills co-existing within a particular site, but which is primarily ‘based on a social organisation that by and large shares a work culture and instrumental goals aimed at generating new knowledge, new processes, and new products’ (Castells 1996: 389-390). Such sites can include what Saskia Sassen (1991) identified as global cities, such as New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Singapore and Sydney, or what Castells and Hall termed technopoles such as Silicon Valley, New York’s ‘Silicon Alley’, Boston’s Route 128, the ‘Cyberjaya’ development in Malaysia’s Multimedia Supercorridor, and the Shenzhen special economic zone in China (Castells and Hall, 1994). The development of Silicon Valley as a high-tech entrepreneurial region rested in part upon its two economies: established organisations such as Hewlett-Packard and the supplier, producer services, consumer and research organisations that clustered around them; and the network of new entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and suppliers of producer services that supported the development of new SMEs (Kenney and von Burg 2000). A number of cities and regions have sought to develop their creative and cultural industries through public intervention, either in response to the decline of other sectors such as industrial manufacturing, or in response to the absence of a

26perceived economic base in other sectors. Within such frameworks, culture is not understood simply as a competitor for consumer spending, or as a supplement to everyday life and commerce, but as a central wealth-creating component of the new economy. Charles Landry (2000) has drawn attention to the significance of a creative miliex to the development of creativity in modern cities and regions, which he defined as a combination of hard infrastructure, or the network of building and institutions that constitute a city or a region, and soft infrastructure, defined as ‘the system of associative structures and social networks, connections and human interactions, that underpins and encourages the flow of ideas between individuals and institutions’ (Landry 2000: 133). The concept of ‘soft infrastructure’ is a reminder that networks are never simply technological, or clusters simply institutional or economic; both are embedded in systems of ongoing interaction among institutions in communities, frequently linked in physical and interpersonal rather than virtual terms. It is also an indicator of the importance of creativity, not simply in the development of new products, services or IT code, but in the development of a dynamic city or region. Lovatt and O’Connor (1995) have referred to the importance of a city’s night-time economy as a factor in the development of sustainable creative infrastructure, and as a potential source of locational advantage in a globalised economy. As the city is increasingly a site of consumption, and a site of cultural, creative and services production, rather than of industrial production or ‘9-to-5’ office work, the leisure, entertainment, hospitality and tourism sectors are increasingly important elements of the ‘night-time economy’, or the range of activities undertaken by tourists and by locals outside of the hours of formal work or study. As they note, such developments require innovative public policy thinking, that sees activities associated with the night-life of a city, not as a problem for local authorities, but as both a source of new opportunities for creative industries development, and as part of a creative milieu that gives a city or region a dynamic image, and acts as an attractor to creative personnel in globally networked new economy industries.

27 References Cited Adorno, Theodor, and Horkheimer, Max 1977, ‘The Culture Industry: enlightenment as mass deception’, in Mass Communication and Society, eds. J. Curran, M. Gurevitch and J. Woollacott, Edward Arnold, London: 349-383. Allen, John, and du Gay, Paul 1994, ‘Industry and the Rest: The Economic Identity of Services’, Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 255-271. Bennett, Tony 1982, ‘Theories of Media, Theories of Society’, in M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran and J. Woollacott (eds.), Culture, Society and the Media, Methuen, London, pp. 30-55. Bennett, Tony 1998, Culture: A Reformer’s Science, Allen & Unwin, Sydney. Breen, Marcus 1999, Rock Dogs: Politics and the Australian Music Industry, Pluto Press, Sydney. Brown, Adam, O’Connor, Justin, and Cohen, Sara 2000, ‘Local music policies within a global music industry: cultural quarters in Manchester and Sheffield, Geoforum 31, pp. 437-451. Brown, John Sealy, and Duguid, Paul 2000, The Social Life of Information, Harvard Business School Press, Massachusetts. Castells, Manuel 1996, The Rise of the Network Society, vol. 1 of The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Blackwell, Massachusetts. Castells, Manuel 1999, ‘Flows, Networks, and Identities: A Critical Theory of the Informational Society’, in M. Castells, R. Flecha, P. Freire, H. A. Giroux, D. Macedo, and P. Willis, Critical Education in the New Information Age, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 37-64. Castells, Manuel 2000, ‘Materials for an Exploratory Theory of the Network Society’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 5-24. Castells, Manuel 2001, The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on Economy, Society and Culture, Oxford University Press, London.

28Castells, Manuel, and Aoyama, Yuku, 1994,‘Paths Towards the Informational Society: Employment Structure in G-7 Countries, 1920-90’, International Labour Review, Vol. 133, No. 1, pp. 5-33. Caves, Richard 2000, Creative Industries, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Conomos, John 1996, ‘At the End of the Century: Creative Nation and New Media Arts’, Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media and Culture, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 118-129. Court, David 1994, ‘Capture Theory and Cultural Policy’, Media Information Australia no. 73, November, pp. 23-25. Craik, Jennifer 2000, ‘Blokes, the Bush, and the Arts: The Politics of Cultural Policy in Australia, paper presented to the Australian Political Studies Association 2000 Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, 3-6 October. Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 2000, Convergence Review: Issues Paper, http: www.dcita.gov.au/text_welcome.html. Department of Culture, Media and Sport 1998, Mapping the Creative Industries, http://www.culture.gov.uk/creative/creative_industries.html. Featherstone, Mike 1991, Consumer Culture and Postmodernism, Sage, London. Flew, Terry, Ching, Gillian, Stafford, Andrew, and Tacchi, Jo 2001, Music Industry Development and Brisbane’s Future as a Creative City, Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre and Brisbane City Council, Brisbane. Garnham, Nicholas 1987, ‘Concepts of Culture: Public Policy and the Cultural Industries’, Cultural Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 23-37. Gibson, Lisanne 1999, ‘The Arts as Industry’, Media International Australia, No. 90, February, pp. 107-122. Girard, Augustin 1982, ‘Cultural Industries: A Handicap or a New Opportunity for Cultural Development?’, in Cultural Industries: A Challenge for the Future of Culture, UNESCO, Paris, pp. 24-39. Hirschhorn, Larry 1988, ‘The Post-Industrial Economy: Labour, Skills and the New Mode of Production’, Services Industry Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 19-38.

29Howkins, John 2001, The Creative Economy: How people make money from ideas, Allen Lane, London. Kenney, Martin, and von Burg, Urn 2000, ‘Institutions and Economies: Creating Silicon Valley’, in M. Kenney (ed.), Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA., pp. 218-252. Landry, Charles 2000, The Creative City, Earthscan, London. Lash, Scott, and Urry, John 1994, Economies of Signs and Space, Sage, London. Leadbeater, Charles 1999, Living on Thin Air: The New Economy, Viking, London. Lewis, Justin 1990, Art, Culture and Enterprise: The Politics of Art and the Cultural Industries, Routledge, London. Lovatt, Andy, and O’Connor, Justin, 1995, ‘Cities and the Night-time Economy’, Planning Practice and Research, vol. 10 no. 2, 1995, pp. 127-133. Madden, Christopher 2001, ‘Using “Economic” Impact Studies in Arts and Cultural Advocacy: A Cautionary Note’, Media International Australia, No. 98, February, pp. 161- 178. Mattelart, Armand, and Piemme, Jean-Marie 1982, ‘Cultural Industries: The Origins of an Idea’, in UNESCO (ed.), Cultural Industries: A Challenge for the Future of Culture, UNESCO, Paris. McGuigan, Jim 1998, ‘National Government and the Cultural Public Sphere’, Media International Australia, No. 87, May, pp. 68-83. Mulgan, Geoff, and Worpole, Ken 1986, Saturday Night or Sunday Morning? From Arts to Industry- New Forms of Cultural Policy, Comedia, London. Myerscough, John 1988, The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain, London, Policy Studies Institute. O’Connor, Justin 1999a, The Definition of ‘Cultural Industries’, Manchester Institute for Popular Culture, www.mmu.ac.uk/h-ss/mipc/iciss/home2.html O’Connor, Justin 1999b, ‘Cultural Intermediaries and Cultural Industries’, in J. Verwijnen and P. Lehtovuori, (eds.) Creative Cities, Helsinki, University of Art and Design Publishing Unit.

30O’Regan, Tom 2001, Cultural Policy: Rejuvenate or Wither?, Griffith University Professorial Lecture http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cmp/mcr1publications.html#tom. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 1996, The Knowledge-Based Economy, OECD, Paris. Pavlik, John 1999, ‘Content and Economics in the Multimedia Industry: The Case of New York’s Silicon Alley’, in H.-J. Braczyk, G. Fuchs and H.-G. Wolf (eds.), Multimedia and Regional Economic Restructuring, Routledge, London, pp. 81-96. Peacock, Alan 1997, ‘Economics, Cultural Values and Cultural Policies’, in Cultural Economics: The Arts, the Heritage and the Media Industries, ed. R. Towse, vol. 1. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 547-558. Porter, Michael 1998, ‘Clusters and the New Economics of Competition’, Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec, Vol. 76, Issue 6, pp. 77-91. Pratt, Andy 1997, The Cultural Industries Sector: its definition and character from secondary sources on employment and trade, Britain 1984-91, Research Papers in Environmental and Spatial Analysis No. 41, Department of geography and Environment, London School of Economics, July. Pratt, Andy 2000, ‘New media, the new economy and new spaces’, Geoforum 31, pp. 425-436. Sassen, Saskia 1991, The Global City, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Sinclair, John 1996, ‘Culture and Trade: Some Theoretical and Practical Considerations,’ Mass Media and Free Trade: NAFTA and the Cultural Industries, eds E.G. McAnany and K.T. Wilkinson, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 30-60. Thompson, John 1991, Ideology and Modern Culture, Cambridge, Polity Press. Throsby, David 2000, Economics and Culture, Sydney, Allen & Unwin.

QUT Digital Repository: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/ This is the accepted versionof thisjournal article: Flew, Terry & Cunningham, Stuart D. (2010) Creative industries after the first decade of debate. The Information Society, 26(2), pp. 113‐123. © Copyright 2010 Taylor and Francis This is an electronic version of an article published in The Information Society, which is available online at informaworldTM

TheInformationSociety,26:1Ð11,2010CopyrightcTaylor&FrancisGroup,LLCISSN:0197-2243print/1087-6537onlineDOI:10.1080/01972240903562753CreativeIndustriesAftertheFirstDecadeofDebateTerryFlewandStuartCunninghamCreativeIndustriesFaculty,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,Brisbane,AustraliaIthasnowbeenoveradecadesincetheconceptofcreativein-5dustrieswasÞrstputintothepublicdomainbytheBlairLabourgovernmentÕsCreativeIndustriesMappingDocumentsinBritain.Theconcepthasdevelopedtractionglobally,butithasalsobeenunderstoodanddevelopedindifferentwaysinEurope,Asia,Aus-tralia,NewZealand,andNorthAmerica,andalsoininternational10bodiessuchasUNCTADandUNESCO.Areviewofthepolicylit-eraturerevealsthatalthoughquestionsandissuesremainarounddeÞnitionalcoherence,thereissomedegreeofconsensusemergingaboutthesize,scope,andsigniÞcanceofthesectorsinquestioninbothadvancedanddevelopingeconomies.Atthesametime,debate15abouttheconceptremainshighlyanimatedinmedia,communica-tion,andculturalstudies,withitscriticsdismissingtheconceptout-rightasaharbingerofneoliberalideologyintheculturalsphere.Thisarticlecouchessuchcritiquesinlightofrecentdebatessur-roundingtheintellectualcoherenceoftheconceptofneoliberalism,20arguingthatthistermitselfpossessesproblemswhentakenoutsideoftheAnglo-Americancontextinwhichitoriginated.Itisarguedthatissuessurroundingthenatureofparticipatorymediaculture,therelationshipbetweenculturalproductionandeconomicinnova-tion,andthefutureroleofpublicculturalinstitutionscanbedevel-25opedfromwithinacreativeindustriesframework,andthatwrit-ingoffsuchargumentsasaprioriideologicalandßaweddoeslittletoadvancedebatesabouttwenty-centuryinformationandmediaculture.Keywordscreativeindustries,creativity,culturalpolicy,globaliza-30tion,informationsociety,innovation,media,neoliberal-ism,theartsReceived11October2008;accepted1November2009.ThankstoHarmeetSawnheyforhiseditorialadviceonthisarticle,AdamSwiftforhiscopyediting,andthreeanonymousrefereesfortheirreportsonanearliersubmittedversion.AddresscorrespondencetoTerryFlew,CreativeIndustriesFaculty,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,MuskAvenue,KelvinGrove,Queensland,Australia,4059.E-mail:t.ß[email protected]:CREATIVEINDUSTRIESPOLICIESAROUNDTHEWORLDTheconceptofcreativeindustriesemergedinthelate351990sprimarilyasapolicydiscourse,althoughthesub-sequentdecadehasseenalivelysetofacademicaswellasindustryandpolicy-relateddebatesaboutitsutilityandimplicationsforresearch,criticism,andcreativepractice.Itsoriginscanbetracedtothedecisionofthethennewly40electedBritishLabourgovernmentofTonyBlairtoestab-lishaCreativeIndustriesTaskForce(CITF),asacentralactivityofitsnewDepartmentofCulture,MediaandSport(DCMS).ThestoryoftheCITFhasbeentoldbyvari-oussources(Hartley2005;Pratt2005;OÕConnor2007;45Hesmondhalgh2007)andisnotrecountedindetailhere,excepttonoteitsfourmajorcontributions.First,itestablishedthecreativeindustriesasacentralplankoftheUnitedKingdomÕsÒpostindustrialÓeconomy,observingthatthesectoraccountedfor5percentoftotal50nationalincomein1998,employed1.4millionpeople,andwasgrowingataboutdoubletherateoftheBritishecon-omyasawhole.EstimatesintheUnitedStateswerethatthecreativeindustriesaccountfor7Ð9percentofgrossnationalproduct(AmericansfortheArts2008;Siwek552006),whilecountriesasdiverseasAustralia,Singapore,SouthAfrica,andChinawereidentifyingÞguresintherangeof3Ð5percent(UNCTAD2008;CunninghamandHiggs2008).Second,itmarkedoutthecontinuationofatrend,ÞrstidentiÞableinculturalpolicyintheUnited60KingdomandAustraliainthe1980sandearly1990s,toviewculturalsectorsascontributorstowealthcreationandeconomicperformance,andnotsimplyasclaimantsonpublicrevenuesonthebasisofnonmarketorintrin-sicvalues.Third,byapproachingthecreativeindustries65inwaysthatwentbeyondthetraditionaldiscoursesofthesubsidizedarts,andgivingacentralroletocreativityinthegenerationofeconomicwealth,debatesaboutthesesec-torsmovedintolargerdiscoursessuchasthoseoftradepolicy,copyrightandintellectualproperty,urbandevel-70opment,andeducationalfutures.Finally,indevelopingadiverseandeclecticlistofindustriesthatrangedfromcom-mercialmediatopubliclysubsidizedarts,thelive-analog1

2T.FLEWANDS.CUNNINGHAMandthedigital-multimedia,andthosewithlargelyone-offartisanalmodesofculturalproductiontocomplexand75highlycapitalizedsitesofculturalproduction,creativein-dustrieswereexplicitlylinkedtodiscoursessurroundingtechnologicalconvergence,theinformationsocietyandtheÒneweconomyÓ(Flew2005a).Thecreativeindustriespolicydiscoursewastakenup80inanumberofothercountries.SingaporeandHongKongdevelopeddetailedanalysesoftheircreativeindustriessectorsthatwerestronglyinßuencedbytheUKmodel.TheconceptalsogainedpolicypurchaseinTaiwan,Ko-rea,and,inthehybridformofÒculturalcreativeindus-85tries,ÓinChina(Kong,Gibson,Khoo,andSemple2006;Keane2007).TheEuropeanUnion(EU)identiÞedthecul-turalsectorsasexperiencingemploymentgrowththatwasfourtoÞvetimestheEUaverage,andnotedthatthecul-turalworkforcewaspioneeringwidertrendsinEuropean90labormarkets,suchashigherratesofself-employment,highlevelsoftertiaryeducation,andagreaterpropor-tionoftheworkforceintemporaryorcontractjobs(KEA2006).MostEuropeangovernmentswerehesitanttoadopttheBritishformulationofcreativeindustries,preferring95totalkoftheculturalindustriesortheculturalsectors,whereassomeScandinaviancountriestalkedofthecre-ativeeconomyortheexperienceeconomy.Creativeindus-trieswasalsotakenupbygovernmentsinAustraliaandNewZealand,althoughintheAustraliancaseitwasstate100governments,suchastheQueenslandgovernment,thatwerethemoreenthusiasticproponentsofcreativeindus-triespolicies(Craik2007).IntheUnitedStates,thecom-parativeweaknessofnationalculturalpoliciesisoffsetbyapatchworkofsubnationalstrategies,wherestateand105localgovernmentsundertakediverseinitiativestobolstertheartsandentertainmentindustries,oftenwiththepur-poseofrebadgingtheircityorregionasahubofcreativity(Wyszomirski2008).OnaglobalscaletheUnitedNationsCommissiononTrade,Aid,andDevelopment(UNCTAD)110hasbecomeanenthusiasticproponentofthecreativein-dustriesasanewengineofgrowthindevelopingcountries(BarrowcloughandKozul-Wright2008;UNCTAD2008),whiletheUnitedNationsEducational,ScientiÞc,andCul-turalOrganization(UNESCO)hassigniÞcantlyupgraded115itsstatisticalframeworkstoincorporatethesize,scopeandsigniÞcanceofculturalproductionintheglobaleconomy(UNESCO2007).THESTRUGGLEFORDEFINITIONALCOHERENCETheearlylist-basedapproachtocreativeindustriesdevel-120opedintheUKcontextbyDCMSwasopentothechargeofadhocÐery,asitwasnotclearwhatweretheunder-lyingthreadslinkingthisseeminglyheterogeneoussetofindustrysubsectors(Flew2002).Thelistdrewtogetherindustriesthatwerehighlycapitalizedandindustrialized125intheirmodesofproductionanddistribution(e.g.,Þlmandtelevision),andthosethatweremorelabor-intensiveandartisanal(artsandcrafts,designerfashion,music,thevisualandperformingarts),aswellascombininghighlycommercialsectorsmarkedbythebusinesscycle(e.g.,130advertising,architecture),withartssectorslargelydrivenbypublicsubsidy.CriticsoftheDCMSapproach,suchasNicholasGarnham(2005),arguedthattheinclusionofthesoftware,computergames,andelectronicpublish-ingindustrieshadtheeffectofartiÞciallyinßatingthesize135andeconomicsigniÞcanceofthecreativeindustries,whileDavidHesmondhalgh(2007)questionedtheexclusionofsectorssuchasheritage,tourism,entertainment,andsport.Thetwolinesofdemarcationproposedintheoriginal140DCMSdeÞnitionÑindividualcreativitythatcouldtaketheformofintellectualpropertyÑdidlittletoclarifywhatAndyPratt(2005)describedastheÒbreadthquestionÓindifferentiatingthecreativeindustriesfromothersectors,whileChirsBiltonandRuthLeary(2002,50)observed145thatÒitisdifÞculttothinkofaproductwhichdoesnotex-ploitsomeintellectualcomponentintheformofpatents,designelementsorotherintangible,symbolicpropertieswhichmakethatproductunique,ÓThefocusonintellec-tualpropertyalsoraisedconcernsthatintheshiftfrom150culturaltocreativeindustries,theresultwouldbeaone-sidedfocusuponthatwhichwasÒnew,Óproducedthroughdigitaltechnologies,andcommerciallyoriented,losingsightofthecomplexculturalecologiesthatlinkcommer-cialandpubliclysupportedformofculturalproduction,as155wellaslinksbetweendigitalandtangibleartsandmediaforms.Thisfocusuponthelinkbetweencreativityandintellectualpropertyalsoraisedconcernsabouttherisksofsubordinatingculturetothecommercialmarketintheshiftfromculturaltocreativeindustries(Hesmondhalgh1602008).The2000shaveseenincreasingconsensusemergeamongpolicymakersaboutworkingdeÞnitionsofthecre-ativeindustriesandwhatsectorsshouldorshouldnotbeincluded,albeitwithsomedebatesaboutwhatshould165beconsideredtobeÒcoreÓcreativeorculturalindustries.WorkundertakenforUNESCOindevelopingitsrevisedFrameworkforCulturalStatistics(UNESCO2007)hascomparedtheculturalstatisticsframeworksoffourteenconstituencies(tencountries,oneregion,onecity,the170EuropeanUnion,andtheWorldIntellectualPropertyOr-ganization)andhasfoundthataconsensusexistsaroundinclusionofthefollowingsectorsinculturalstatisticsmodeling:1.Publishingandliterature.1752.Performingarts.3.Music.4.Film,video,andphotography.

CREATIVEINDUSTRIESDEBATE35.Broadcasting(televisionandradio).6.Visualartsandcrafts.1807.Advertising.8.Design,includingfashion.9.Museums,galleries,andlibraries.10.Interactivemedia(Web,games,mobile,etc.).Sectorsforwhichtherecontinuestobedebateabout185theirinclusioninaculturalstatisticsframeworkincludear-chitecture,software,productandreceptionhardware(e.g.,musicalinstruments,electronicgoods),festivals,intangi-bleculturalheritage,andleisureactivities,includingsport.Nonetheless,considerableprogresshasbeenmadeinde-190velopingcommonstatisticalandanalyticalframeworksthatenablethedevelopmentofempiricallyrobustdatathatcanbecomparedbetweencountriesandanalyzedovertime,thusallowingformorespeculativeclaimstobesubjecttodetailedpolicy-relatedperformancemetrics.195ThiscanbeseenintheworkofUNCTADoncreativein-dustriesandthecreativeeconomy,whichhasbeenabletodevelopasectoraltaxonomyofthecreativeindustriesbe-tweenthearts,media,heritage,andÒfunctionalcreationsÓ(ormoreservice-orientedsectors),aroundthefollowing200broaddeÞnitionofthecreativeindustries:Thecyclesofcreation,production,anddistributionofgoodsandservicesthatusecreativityandintellectualcapitalasprimaryinputs;Asetofknowledge-basedactivities,focusedonbutnotlim-Q1205itedtothearts,potentiallygeneratingrevenuesfromtradeandintellectualpropertyrights;Tangibleproductsandintangibleintellectualorartisticser-viceswithcreativecontent,economicvalue,andmarketob-jectives;210Atthecross-roadsamongtheartisan,services,andindustrialsectors;andComprisinganewdynamicsectorinworldtrade.(UNCTAD2008,13)Figure1showshowtheseprincipleslinkuptosec-215torsandcategoriesthatconstitutethecreativeindustriesworldwide.Thequestionofwhatrelationshipexistsbetweenthepublicandprivatesectorsincreativeindustriesdevelop-menthasalsobeenclariÞedsigniÞcantly.Ratherthanbe-220ingadiscoursethatsimplychampionscommercialpop-ularcultureastheobverseoftraditionalÒmarketfailureÓrationalesforartsandculturalfunding,whathasinsteadbeenemergingisabetterunderstandingoftheenablingroleofpublic-sectorinstitutionsandgovernment-funded225culturalactivitiesasdriversofinnovationandsociallynet-workedmarkets(Cunninghametal.2008).JohnHoldenhasobservedthatÒasgreaternumbersofpeopleareen-gagingwiththecontentandspacesofpublicly-fundedculture…theworkinglivesofgreaternumbersofpeople230aretakingonthecharacteristicsandprocessesofculturalpractitionersÓ(Holden2007,8).Thepublicsectorhastyp-icallybeenseenasbothanenablerofcommercialcreativeindustries,assistingwiththedevelopmentandprovisionofinputs,includingpeoplewithcreativeskills,aswellas235havingresponsibilityfortheempiricalÒmappingÓofthesesectorsandtheireconomicimpacts(Holden2007).SinceFIG.1.UNCTADmodelofthecreativeindustries.Source:UNCTAD(2008,14).

4T.FLEWANDS.CUNNINGHAMtheglobalÞnancialcrisisof2008andthesubsequenteco-nomicdownturn,public-sectororganizationsareincreas-inglybeinglookedtofortakingtheleadoninnovationin240thecreativeindustriessectors(Pratt2009).CULTURALANDCREATIVEINDUSTRIES:INFORMATIONSOCIETYREDUX?CulturaleconomistDavidThrosby(2008)hasobservedthatthedistinctionsmadebetweenculturalandcreative245industriesarisefromamixofinherentdeÞnitionaldifÞ-cultiesindelineatingÒcultureÓandÒcreativityÓ;distinc-tivenationaltraditionsinunderstandingthesecategories;andthepoliticsofculturalpolicyandtheimpactofgov-ernmentprioritiesatthetimeonhowtherelevantsectors250aredeÞnedandtheirrolesconceptualized.Suchquestionsarise,forThrosby,inacontextwhereÒtheverystatusofculturalpolicyhasbeenchanginginanumberofcoun-triesasaresultoftheemergenceoftheculturalindustriesasanobjectofinteresttoeconomicpolicy-makersÓ;a255growinginterestincultureasasourceofeconomicvalue-addingisseeingÒculturalpolicy…rescuedfromitspri-mordialpastandcatapultedtotheforefrontofthemodernforward-lookingpolicyagenda,anessentialcomponentinanyrespectableeconomicpolicy-makerÓsdevelopment260strategyÓ(Throsby2008,229).Culturaleconomistsoftenusethetermsculturalandcreativeindustriesinterchangeably,astheirprimaryfocusisuponthemixofproductqualitiesandconsumerneedsthatrendersaparticularcommodity,activity,orserviceto265bedeemedcultural(Towse2003).Inotheraccounts,mostnotablytheworkofThrosby(2001,2008),artsandculturalindustriesaretherespectivecoresubsetsofthecreativeindustriesinwhatisknownastheÒconcentriccirclesÓap-proach,whereindustriesaredistinguishedbytheÒcoreÓ270rolegiventocreativityintheinputstageofproduction(e.g.,thevisualartswouldbeseenasaÒcore,Óbutadver-tisingwouldbeseenasmoreÒperipheralÓasitcombinescreativeinputswithotherinputs).Fromtheeconomicper-spective,industryclassiÞcationsareloosetaxonomiesthat275havetoÞtupontheshiftingnexusofsupply-demandrela-tionshipsbetweenindividualsandÞrms;theclassiÞcationofcommoditiesandmarketsisanalyticallypriortothatofindustries.Inthecriticalhumanities,bycontrast,thepoliticaland280ideologicalweightgiventothesedifferentsigniÞersofanindustryissubstantiallygreater.ThetermÒculturalin-dustryÓhasitsoriginsinneo-Marxistphilosophy,wheretheriseofindustrializedculturalproductionintheearlytwentiethcenturywasseenÑandisstillseenbymany285criticaltheoristsÑaspromotingÒclassrule,ÓaÒcapitalistlifestyleÓandanÒadministeredsocietyÓ(termstakenfromEdgar2008).Therehas,however,beenaturnawayfromamonolithicandpessimisticmodelofÒcultureindustryÓsincethe1970s,markednotonlybyaconceptualshifttoa290moreempiricallybasedunderstandingofhowproduction,distribution,andcirculationactuallyworkedinthesequitevariedindustries,butalsobyagreaterinterestinthepolicysettingsthatcouldenablethesesectorstogrowwhilefur-theringsocial-democraticagendastodemocratizeaccess295toandparticipationintheculturalsphere.Inhishighlyinßuentialworkfortheleft-wingGreaterLondonCouncilintheearly1980s,politicaleconomistNicholasGarnhamarguedagainstwhathetermedtheÒidealistÓtraditioninculturalpolicythatrejectedmarketsasincompatiblewith300culture,pointingoutthatÒmostpeopleÕsculturalneedsandaspirationsarebeing,forbetterorworse,suppliedbythemarketasgoodsandservicesÓ(Garnham1987,25).Garnhaminsteadarguedforapproachesthatwouldbetterunderstandhowtheculturalindustriesworkedas305Òinstitutions…whichemploythecharacteristicmodesofproductionandorganizationofindustrialcorporationstoproduceanddisseminatesymbolsintheformofculturalgoodsandservicesgenerally,althoughnotexclusively,ascommoditiesÓ(ibid.).Theintentionwastoenablecultural310policymakerstobetteridentifythescopetointerveneinculturalmarketsinordertofurtheraccessandparticipa-tionagendas,ratherthanrejectculturalindustriesandthecommodityformtoutcourt.Itisworthnoting,then,thatGarnhamsubsequently315cametobeoneofthemoretrenchantcriticsofcreativeindustriestheoryandpolicydiscourse,claimingthatitinappropriatelysmugglesinargumentsandassumptionsassociatedwiththeinformationsociety.Garnham(2005,20)aguesthattheshiftfromculturaltocreativeindustries320isopportunistic,Òanattemptbytheculturalsectorandtheculturalpolicycommunitytoshareinitsrelationswiththegovernment…theunquestionedprestigethatnowattachtotheinformationsocietyandtoanypolicythatsupposedlyfavorsitsdevelopment.ÓMoreover,intheBritishcontext325ofTonyBlairandGordonBrownÕsÒNewLabour,Ócre-ativeindustrieswasperceivedasapolicyTrojanhorsetopromoteÒtheshifttoandreinforcementofÔeconomicÕandÔmanagerialÕlanguageandpatternsofthoughtwithinculturalandmediapolicyÓ(ibid.,16).Thiscritiqueof330creativeindustriesasaformofideologicalmystiÞcationhasalsobeenmadebyDavidHesmondhalgh(2008,567),whoproposedthatitisbaseduponÒargumentswhichalltoooftencomeclosetoendorsinginequalityandexploita-tionassociatedwithcontemporaryneo-liberalisms,Óand335byAndrewRoss,whosuspectedthenewpolicyrubricofbeingÒÔoldwineinnewbottlesÕÑaglibproductionofspin-happynewLabourites,hotfornakedmarketiza-tionbutmindfuloftheneedforsociallyacceptabledressÓ(Ross2007,18).340Thecreativeindustriesconceptshareswithinforma-tionsocietytheoriesaninterestinthelong-termshiftinemploymentandnationalincomefromagricultureand

CREATIVEINDUSTRIESDEBATE5manufacturingtoservicesinadvancedcapitalisteconomies;thelimitationsofÒindustrialeraÓstatistical345modelingincapturingtheeconomicdynamicsofservicesandinformation-basedsectors;andthegrowingroleofknowledgecapitalasaprimarydriverofgrowthintheseeconomies(DavidandForay2002).IntermsoftheÞvesetsofargumentsthatGarnhamassociateswithinforma-350tionsocietythinking(foranotheraccountsoftheinfor-mationsociety,seeHassan2008),theoriesoftheserviceeconomyandpost-Fordistßexibleproductionmodelshavebeenmostinßuential,withtransactioncost-basedtheoriesoftheÞrmhelpingtoshapesomeeconomicaccountsof355creativeindustries(e.g.,Caves2000),andSchumpete-rianmodelsofinnovationandentrepreneurshipinßuenc-ingthinkingaboutthesigniÞcanceofsmall-to-mediumÞrmsasincubatorsofinnovationandnewbusinessmod-elsinthearts,media,andculturalsectors(Cunningham360etal.2008).NotionsoftheInternetanddigitalmediaasÒtechnolo-giesoffreedomÓhavehadmoreinßuenceonthegrowingliteratureonthesigniÞcanceofnetworksandcollaborativesocialproduction(e.g.,Benkler2006)thanoncreativein-365dustriestheories.DanielBellÕsoriginalthinkingabouttheinformationsocietyhashadonlylimitedinßuence,withmostaccountsofthecreativeindustriesbeingconsider-ablymorecircumspectaboutproclaimingapostindus-trialutopiaforthecreativeworkforce,andtherehasbeen370considerablerecognitionofthequestionofprecariousla-borthatoftenunderpinscontractemploymentandßexibleworkingarrangements(Deuze2006;Cunningham2008).Indeed,creativeindustriestheoristshaveoftenpointedtothelimitationsofinformationsocietymodels,arguingthat375afocusonhumancreativityÑoftenderidedamongcriti-caltheoristsasaresidueofbourgeoisindividualismandaromanticisationoftheartist(Miller2002;Donald2004)Ñisanimportantcorrectivetopoliciesoverlyfocuseduponinfrastructureandtechnologicalhardwaretothedetriment380ofhumanfactorsandsocialsoftware(Mitchelletal.2003;Hartley2005;Cunningham2009b).GarnhamÕs(2005,16)claimthatcreativeindustriesdis-courseÒassumesthatwealreadyknow,andthuscantakeforgranted,whatthecreativeindustriesare,whytheyare385importantandthusmeritsupportingpolicyinitiativesÓisalsoopentoquestion,particularlyifweshiftourfocusoutsideofitsoriginsinGreatBritainunderTonyBlairÕsNewLabour.CunninghamÕs(2007;2009b)evaluationof1200creativeindustriespolicydocumentsdevelopedout-390sideoftheUnitedKingdomfrom1998to2006foundahighdegreeofincrementalism,policyvariance,andatten-tiontolocalcontextualfactors,ratherthananunreßexiveblanketimpositionofneoliberalrationalÐcomprehensiveorthodoxiesaboutthepropercultureÐeconomyrelation-395ship.Inverygeneralterms,aglobalscanofthispolicyliteratureÞndsfourmainvariants:AUnitedStatesmodel,wherethereisasubstan-tivedivideinthinkingandcalculationtowardartsandcultureontheonehandandtheentertain-400ment/copyrightindustriesontheother,andwherethebulkofpolicyinitiativesarehighlylocalizedandsubnationalintheirfocus,asseenwiththeriseoftheÒcreativecitiesÓmovement(Wyszomirski2008).405AEuropeanmodelthatemphasizestheculturalmissionoftheseindustriesandstrategiesforso-cialinclusionforcommonculturalbeneÞtandwherethetermÒculturalindustriesÓisgenerallypreferredtothatofcreativeindustries.410AdiverserangeofAsianapproaches,whichstronglyemphasizetheroleofnationalsociocul-turalandpoliticalcircumstances,butstilliden-tifyopportunitiesforexportgrowthandsuccess-fulbrandingofglobalcity-regioninthehighly415competitiveAsia-PaciÞcregion,whileatthesametimechallenginglong-heldorthodoxiesaboutin-strumentalisteducationandthedominanceoftheICTsectorsindrivingeconomicgrowth(cf.Kongetal.2006).420DevelopingcountrymodelsinSouthAmerica,SouthAfrica,theCaribbeanandelsewhere,wherequestionsofculturalheritagemaintenance,povertyalleviation,andprovisionofbasicinfras-tructurehaveprecludedoverlytechnocraticcon-425ceptionsofcreativeindustriesbeingpromotedun-criticallyastheinevitablefruitsoftheinformationsociety(UNCTAD2008).CREATIVEINDUSTRIESANDCULTURALPOLICYWhathasbeentracedinthisarticlethusfaristheman-430nerinwhichtheriseofcreativeindustriesasboththeoryandpolicydiscoursehasintersectedwithchangingunder-standingsoftherelationshipofthearts,themediaandap-pliedcreativitytonewmediatechnologies,globalizationandthetwenty-Þrstcenturyknowledge-basedeconomy.435OvertheperiodfromtheinitialdevelopmentofcreativeindustriesintheUnitedKingdominthelate1990stothepresent,therehasbeenareÞningofdeÞnitions,models,agreementsofwhatindustriesareincludedorexcluded,andmeasurementtechniques.Thishasreachedthepoint440whererecentworkundertakenthroughbodiessuchasUN-ESCO(2007)andUNCTAD(2008)isgeneratingmorestatisticallyrobustdataonthesize,scope,andsigniÞ-canceofthecreativeindustriesonaglobalscale,whichrestsuponstrongerempiricalfoundationthanthemore445adhocorspeculativeaccountsthatprevailedinthelate1990s.Atthesametime,therearesigniÞcantvariationsinnationalandregionaladaptationsofthecreativeindus-triestemplatefromtheforminwhichitÞrstemergedin

6T.FLEWANDS.CUNNINGHAMtheUnitedKingdom,incontrasttoclaimsthatitissim-450plythereßectionofasingularÒmasterdiscourse,Ósuchastheinformationsociety,exportedfromTonyBlairÕsÒCoolBritannia.ÓAdistinctionthatcouldbefurtherexploredisthedifferenceinapplicationsoftheconceptbetweenEu-ropeandAsia.Europehastendedtowardwhathasbeen455referredtoastheÒconcentriccirclesÓmodel,wherearts-relatedactivitiesareseenasbeingintheÒcoreÓcreativeindustries,whereasÞeldssuchasadvertising,architec-ture,anddesignaswellasmediaindustriesareseenasonlybeingpartiallycreative(Throsby2001;KEA2006;460WorkFoundation2007).Bycontrast,AsiandeÞnitionsofthecreativeindustrieshavetendedtobemoreeclecticandinclusive.Indeed,ithasbeenarguedintheChinesecasethatitmaybeusedintooinclusiveamanner,withwhatKeane(2007)referstoastheÒsuper-signÓofcre-465ativitybeingappliedtoareasasdiverseashairdressing,themeparks,andfurnituremanufactureinordertobolsterclaimsthatcreativeindustriesarecentraltoaÒnewChinaÓthatcanmovebeyondbeingtheglobalcenteroflow-costmanufacturing.470Althoughpolicydiscoursesaretendingtosettlearoundcreativeindustries,ifnotnecessarilyconverging,thegulfbetweencreativeindustriestheoryandpolicydiscourseandthepositionsofcriticaltheoristsremainswide,andhasalmostcertainlywidenedoverthe2000s.Variousar-475gumentshavebeenmadethatcreativeindustriessubtlyendorseneoliberalmarketisation(Hesmondhalgh2008),havebeeninappropriatelyusedasconsultancy-speak(Miller2009),giveapositivespintotheactivitiesandproductsofglobalmediacorporations(Kellner2009),and480ignoretheplightofprecariouslabor(Rossiter2006).Atonelevel,suchcritiquescanbeunderstoodasanextensionofdebatesinthe1990saboutculturalpolicystudies,andwhetherthereisaneedtoincorporatepolicyconsidera-tionsintothestudyofcultureasaÞeldshapedbygovern-485mentalpracticesanddiscourses(Bennett1998).Alotofthecriticaldebateaboutcreativeindustriescanbeseenasavariantofearlierdebatesaboutwhetherafocusuponthepragmatic,adhoc,ameliorativeandÒideas-thickÓrealmofpublicpolicymakingappearsinadequateandcompro-490misedintheeyesofthosewhochampionthetransfor-mative,heroic,programmaticandÒideas-richÓrealmsofculturalcritiqueandthecriticalhumanities(Cunningham1992).However,thestakeshavebeenuppedincreativeindus-495triesdebatesfromtheculturalpolicydebateofthe1990s.OnemajorreasonisthatlargerclaimsarebeingmadeaboutthebroadersocioeconomicsigniÞcanceofcultureandcreativityarisingfromtransformationsinthetechno-logicalandeconomicsubstructureoftwenty-Þrst-century500globalcapitalism.Asaresult,creativeindustriesdiscourseseekstoengagenotonlywiththepublicsectorandreg-ulatedculturalindustries,butalsowithawiderrangeofknowledgeandserviceindustries,professions,andprac-tices.Thismeansthatthefocushasshiftedtowardwhether505creativeindustriesarelociofinnovationandemploymentgrowthinincreasinglyknowledge-basedeconomies;cul-turalpolicyismovingfromartssubsidyandadvocacytothecenterstageofeconomicgrowthpoliciesinpostindus-trialeconomies,atthelevelofcities,regions,ornations.510CREATIVEINDUSTRIESANDTHEGREATNEOLIBERALISMDEBATEAtthecoreofthecriticaltheoristsÕdissentwithcreativeindustriesistheclaimthatitpromotesneoliberalismasapoliticalideology,andthatthisfurthersthehegemony515ofmultinationalcorporatecapitalovertheculturalsphere.MillerÞndsthatÒneoliberalcreativeindustriesdiscourseÓhasbeenpromotedbyÒcarpet-baggingconsultantsÓpush-ingaÒcybertarianmythology,ÓwhileÒtheculturalindus-triesremainunderthecontrolofmediaconglomeratesÓ520(Miller2009,188,190,194).DesFriedmanviewstheriseofcreativeindustriesdiscourseintheUnitedKingdomaspartofalargerprojectofÒtheneo-liberalizationofme-diapolicy,ÓwhichÒisdesignedtotransformtheexistingbalanceofpower…toassisttheexpansionofprivate525accumulationandtounderminethelegitimacyandexis-tenceofnon-proÞtandpublicservicemediaprovisionÓ(Freedman2008,224).Theclaimofcomplicitywithneoliberalismisamoreseriouschargedirectedatcreativeindustriesarguments530thanthoseconcerningwhatindustriesareincludedorex-cluded,orwhetheritishelpfultodifferentiatecreativityandcultureinunderstandingsectoraldynamicsandtheirpolicyimplications.Neoliberalismasaconceptemergedinthelate1990sandearly2000sasanomnibustermused535byactiviststocritiqueandprotestinstitutionsandforumsassociatedwithglobalization,suchastheWorldTradeOr-ganizationanditsinauguralmeetinginSeattlein1999,andsummitsofworldleaderssuchastheGroupofEight(G8)SummitinGenoain2001andtheGroupofTwenty(G20)540SummitinLondonin2009.Asthecritiqueofneoliber-alismdevelopedininternationaleconomicsinthe1990s,italsoreferredtowhathasalsobeentermedtheÒWash-ingtonConsensus,ÓwheretheapplicationofacommonsetofpoliciesbasedaroundÞscalausterity,privatization545ofpubliclyownedassets,andmarketliberalizationwasthecommonrecommendationofU.S.-basedinternationalinstitutionssuchastheInternationalMonetaryFundandtheWorldBankfordevelopingcountriesfacingeconomicdifÞculties(Stiglitz2002).550Criticswouldseeneoliberalismandglobalizationasbe-ingconnected.Scholte(2005,1)referstoneoliberalglob-alizationasÒaneconomicallydrivenprocessthatshouldproceedonÞrstprinciplesofprivatepropertyandunin-hibitedmarketforces,ÓandwhereÒothereconomicrules555

CREATIVEINDUSTRIESDEBATE7andinstitutionsareÔpoliticalinterferencesÕthatunder-minemarketefÞciencyandshouldthereforebereducedtoaminimum.ÓNeo-MarxistssuchasDavidHarvey(2005)identiÞedneoliberalismasaglobalstrategytoreasserttheclasspowerofbusinessandeconomicelitesthathasitsori-560ginsintheideasandpoliciesthatshapedtheThatcherandMajorgovernmentsinBritainfrom1979to1997andtheReaganadministrationintheUnitedStatesinthe1980s.Harvey(ibid.,2)deÞnedneoliberalismasÒ[a]theoryofpoliticaleconomicpracticesthatproposesthathuman565wellbeingcanbestbeadvancedbyliberatingindivid-ualentrepreneurialfreedomsandskillswithinaninstitu-tionalframeworkcharacterizedbystrongprivatepropertyrights,freemarkets,andfreetrade.ÓHarveyÕsneo-Marxistcritiquesitsalongsideneo-Foucauldianaccountssuchas570thoseoftheBritishpoliticaltheoristNikolasRose,whoidentiÞesneoliberalismwiththeassociation(foundonthelibertarianleftaswellasamongmanyconservatives)ofÒnotionsoffreedom,andtheassociatedcelebrationofthepowersoftheindividual…whetherasdiscerning575customer,enterprisingindividual,subjectofrightorau-tonomousfellowhumanÓ(Rose1999,64).Whilethismaysoundlikeasomewhatacademicdebateinsomecircles,therangeofanti-corporateandanti-globalizationprotestsoverthe2000shaskeptthetermontheagenda,whilethe580globalÞnancialcrisisthatbeganinOctober2008sawsuchapparentlyestablishmentÞguresastheAustralianPrimeMinister,KevinRudd(2009),attributingtheseverityofthecrisistotheimpactofneoliberalpoliciesandÒextremecapitalism.Ó585Debatesaboutneoliberalismandcreativeindustriesareconnectedthroughthreefactors.TheÞrstistheÒNewLabourÓadministrationsthatgovernedBritainunderBlairandGordonBrown.AstheBlairLabourgovernmentpro-videdmuchoftheearlythoughtleadershipaboutcreative590industriesbeinginthevanguardofapostindustrialÒCoolBritannia,Ócreativeindustrieshastendedtobeseenaspro-totypicalofthatgovernmentÕsÒThirdWayÓideology.Thesecondfactorwasthefocusuponmarkets,entrepreneur-ship,andintellectualpropertyfoundinthecreativeindus-595triesliterature,which,itwasargued,didnotadequatelyconsiderthewaysinwhichcapitalistmarketscouldpro-duceinequalitiesofaccessorshapeculturalformsinwaysthatmaybedeemedatoddswithwidernotionsofthepub-licorsocialgood(Hesmondhalgh2007).Finally,thefocus600uponnewindustries,emergentmarkets,andthesmall-to-mediumenterprise(SME)sectorcutacrosstraditionalpolicydivides,withneoliberalsfocusingontheeconomiccaseforgreatercompetitionandontheopportunitiespre-sentedbynewtechnologiesandreducedpublic-sectorin-605tervention,andtheleftfocusingonthesocialcaseforpublicownership,regulation,andpublicsubsidyofthearts(Flew2005b,2006).SincecreativeindustriesdidnotspeakthelanguageofthetraditionalleftÑamixofcul-turalMarxism,suspicionofmarketsandcommercialen-610terprise,andenthusiasmfortheregulatorystateÑitwaseasytoseeitasafeinttowardthepoliticaldarksideamongthoseassociatingtheirownpositionswiththoseofwiththetraditionalleft,wonderingwhetherÒneo-liberalem-phasesoncreativityhavesucceededold-schoolcultural615patrimonyÓ(Miller2009,187).ADDRESSINGTHECRITIQUEOFCREATIVEINDUSTRIESASNEOLIBERALISMAwidercritiqueofneoliberalismasanexplanatorycon-ceptisbeyondthescopeofthisarticle,butpointsthathave620beenraisedinrelationtocreativeindustriescanbead-dressed.TheassociationofthecreativeindustriesconceptwithÒNewLabourÓgovernmentsinBritainhasenabledcriticstotietheconcepttoawidermeta-narrativeaboutne-oliberalismasapolitical-ideologicalprojectofdominant625economicelites,withtermssuchastheÒneweconomyÓandÒcreativeindustriesÓasideologicalobfuscationsde-signedtodisguisetheextenttowhichtheyhadessentiallyacceptedthepoliciesoftheirconservativepredecessors.BothHesmondhalgh(2007)andFreedman(2008)struc-630turetheiranalysisofmediapolicysince1980inpreciselytheseterms,anditisthedominantapproachtakenbypo-liticaleconomistsmoregenerally(see,e.g.,Curran2006;McChesney2008).ThenotionthatwehavebeeninaneraofÒneolib-635eralglobalizationÓorÒneoliberalcapitalismÓsincethe1980shasbecomesomethingofanintellectualtruism,es-tablishedasagivenintellectualpropositionbyvirtueoffrequentenunciation.AndrewKipnis(2007)hasobservedthatthenumberofarticlesinleadinganthropologicaljour-640nalsusingthetermÒneoliberalÓincreasedfromlessthan10percentinthedecadepriorto2002to35percentofarticlespublishedbetween2002and2005.Nonini(2008,149)notesthat:ThetermÒneoliberalÓhasrecentlyappearedsofrequently,645andbeenappliedwithsuchabandon,thatitrisksbeingusedtorefertoalmostanypolitical,economic,socialorculturalprocessassociatedwithcontemporarycapitalism….Atermwithsomanymeaningsobviouslyhasgreatutility,becausemostprogressivescholarscanagreethatwhateverneoliber-650alismis,theydonÕtlikeit,andtheambiguityofthetermallowsdiscursivecoalitionsofthelike-mindedtoformwith-outthetroublesomebotherofhavingtoclarifyexactlywhatitistheyopposeorarecriticalof.Thelimitsofneoliberalismasageneralexplanatory655frameworkforglobalcapitalismsincethe1980sareev-identinthecaseofChina.ContrarytoHarveyÕs(2005)accountofChinesedevelopmentssince1980asÒneo-liberalismwithChinesecharacteristics,ÓNonini(2008)arguesthatthedepthofofÞcialcommitmenttoprivate660propertyrights,freemarkets,andfreetradeÑtotakethree

8T.FLEWANDS.CUNNINGHAMbaselinecommitmentsofneoliberalismÑislimited,con-tingent,andreversible,particularlyifenhancementofanyoftheseweretochallengethepoweroftheChineseCom-munistparty-state.Moreover,hearguesthatpopularsup-665portforaneoliberalpolicyprograminChinaisvirtuallynonexistent,reßectingthehistoricallyweakpositionofliberalismasapoliticalphilosophyinChinesesociety,andthatwhiletheremaybesomesupportforaÒweakÓvariantofneoliberalismbasedaroundsupportformarkets,670entrepreneurship,andconsumeristvalues,Òthestrongver-sionofneoliberalismdoesnotexistinChinaasahege-monicprojectÓ(ibid.,168).Chinamaybeanexceptionalcase,givenitssize,itsrapidgrowthratessince1978,anditssigniÞcanceintheglobaleconomy.Moreover,inso-675farastheChinesecasehasparallels,itisinthegener-allystrongsupportfoundfortheÒdevelopmentalstateÓinAsiancapitalistsystems(Weiss2003).RatherthandebatingtheChinesecaseatlength,thepointinraisingitistodrawattentiontotheextentto680whichuniversalizingclaimsaboutneoliberalismmayinfactrestuponakindofMarxistfunctionalism,wherebyanall-encompassingdominantideologyisdevelopedtoÒserveÓcapitalinitslatestphase,whichisdeemedtobeglobalandßexible.Nonini(2008,151)proposesdown-685sizingourclaimsaboutneoliberalismandgivingthemhistorical,geographical,andculturalspeciÞcity.Other-wise,therealriskexistsofÒassumingthatßexiblecap-italismbringsabouttheverypoliticalconditionswithinnation-statesofderegulationandprivatisationetc.,which690itneedsformaximumcapitalaccumulation,and…thatßexibleÔcapitalÕhasauniversalglobalcapacitytodoso,andthattodosoissomehowÔneo-liberalÕgovernance,restructuring,dominationetc.,whereveritoccursintheworld.ÓWecannotehereWillHuttonÕsargumentthat695ChinarequiresanÒEnlightenmentinfrastructureÓinor-dertoproperlydevelopcapitalism,andthatÒChinawillonlybeabletotrulycompetewiththeWestifitbe-comesmorelikeus.ÓTheresponseofeconomistMegh-nadDesaitotheclaimthatthereisoneÒtrueÓcapital-700ismbasedonindividualism,liberty,andpluralismthatChinaneedstoadopt,isthatÒCapitalism…hasaccommo-datedavarietyofinstitutionalarrangementsandonlyinthemostrecentphaseofglobalizationhavewethoughtthatanAnglo-Saxonstyleliberaldemocracyisitssine705quanonÓ(HuttonandDesai2007).InlightofthewideQ2rangeofworkthathassoughttocriticallyevaluatedif-ferentnationalcapitalismsandtheirresponsestoglob-alization(see,e.g.,PerratonandClift2004),wewouldshareKipnisÕs(2007,387)observationthatÒtona¬õvely710drawuponalltypesofanalysesofneo-liberalismwith-outnotingtheircontradictionsleadstoahodgepodgesortofanalysisinwhichtheworldasawholeandevery-thinginitappearstobelongtoasingletheoreticalcate-gory.Ó1715CREATIVEINDUSTRIESBEYONDCARICATURESIfwemovebeyondthecrudeclaimthatinvokingTonyBlairorÒNewLabourÓprovesinitselftheneoliberalprovenanceofcreativeindustries,considerationneedstobegiventohowevidenceofneoliberalstrategiesmanifest720themselvesinvariouspoliciesandformsofpolicydis-course.Thereiscertainlyconsiderabletalkaboutmarkets,entrepreneurship,competition,andinnovationincreativeindustriespolicies,butithasbeennotedthatthiswasnotanewthing:Culturalpolicysincethe1970shadbeen725movingfromasupply-side,artist-centeredapproachtoonethatgavestrongerconsiderationtoconsumerdemandandculturalmarkets.OnedistinctivefeatureofcreativeindustriesasapolicydiscourseÑifnotnecessarilypoli-ciesasactuallyappliedintheartsandmediasectorsÑ730hasbeenincreasedattentiongiventothenatureofsmall-to-mediumenterprises(SMEs)inthecreativeindustries.Althoughartspolicyhasoftenbeenorientedtowardßag-shipculturalinstitutionsandmajorevents,andpoliticaleconomistshavefocuseduponthelargestcommercialand735publicsectormediaconglomeratesÑwhatNickCouldryreferstoasÒthemythofthemediatedcentreÓ(Couldry2006)ÑthecreativeindustrieshavecometoevolvewhathasbeentermedanÒhourglassÓstructure,withasmallnumberofmajorplayersineachsectorsittingalongside740amyriadofindividualenterprises,smallcompanies,andnetworksofcreativetalent(Deuze2006).Astheseindi-vidualsandsmallgroupsarerelativelynewandnothighlyconcentrated,andasÒportfoliocareersÓcharacterizedbymultiplejobsacrossdifferentsectorsareoftenthenorm745forthesesegmentsofthecreativeworkforce,theylackthepoliticalpowerandlobbyingcloutofbigcorpora-tions,establishedtradeunions,andtraditionalartsorga-nizations.YetthereisgrowingevidencethatsuchlooselyconÞguredcreativenetworksareacoresourceofinnova-750tioninthearts,media,andculture,andthechallengehasbeenraisedofhowpolicyframeworkscanbestsupportsuchnetworksthatdiffersfromthetraditionallarge-scaleinstitutionaldomainsofmediaandculturalpoliciesandpolitics.755AnotherdistinctiveissuehasbeenhowtheInternetanddigitalmediaproductionanddistributionmodelsarechangingtheproducer-consumerdichotomythathaslongcharacterizedmasscommunicationmodelsandcriticaltheoriesofthemassmedia.Whileculturalstudiestheo-760ristsandcriticalpoliticaleconomistshavelongdebatedthecapacityforautonomousagencyamongmediaconsumersusingtheproductsdistributedbymassmediacorporations,theriseofwhatYochaiBenkler(2006)termssocialpro-ductionmodelsbasedaroundcollaborativenetworksand765peerproductionaregeneratingnewsourcesofcompeti-tion,conßict,andcontradictionattheheartofindustriesconnectedtoinformation,knowledge,communication,

CREATIVEINDUSTRIESDEBATE9culture,andcreativity,whicharethemselvesmovingtothecenteroftwenty-Þrst-centuryeconomies.Benkler(ibid.,770122)observesthatÒsocialproductioningeneralandpeerproductioninparticularpresentnewsourcesofcompe-titiontoincumbentsthatproduceinformationgoodsforwhichtherearenowsociallyproducedsubstitutes.ÓThisrequiresadifferentapproachtothepoliticsofmediare-775form,focusednotonlyontheregulationofmediacorpo-rationsandprovisionofsupportforpublicservicemedia,butalsoonnewßashpointissuessuchasthefutureofcopyrightandintellectualpropertylaw,open-sourcever-susproprietarysoftware,user-generatedmediacontent,780andquestionsofopenaccesstorepositoriesofcreativecontent.AsHenryJenkinsobserves,inwhathereferstoasconvergenceculture,Òthepotentialsofamorepartici-patorymediacultureareworthÞghtingfor…[as]conver-gencecultureisthrowingmediaintoßux,expandingthe785opportunitiesforgrassrootsgroupstospeakbacktothemassmediaÓ(Jenkins2006,248).Whilesuchconcernshavebeencaricaturedasclaimsthatcreativityandtech-nologywillinandofthemselvestrumpcorporatepowerstructures(e.g.,Miller2009),thereseemtobeveryim-790portantandcurrentpoliticalquestionsarisingoutofsuchpowershiftsbetweenusersanddistributorsofdigitalcul-turalcontent.Finally,thereistheroleofpublic-sectorculturalin-stitutionsinthecreativeeconomy.Theimplicationsof795creativeindustriestheoriesandpolicydiscoursesarenotnecessarilyneoliberalonesthatÒcementthevictoryofprivateoverpublicinterestsÓorÒlimitthescopeofpublicservicebroadcastingandreduceittoaghettoizedcor-nerofthebroadcastmarketwhereprivateoperatorshave800nodesire(andnocompulsion)togoÓ(Freedman2008,224).Bypointingtoapositivecorrelationbetweenthedevelopmentofcultureandthecreativeindustriesandeconomicgrowthandinnovation,ratherthanseeingcul-turalprovisionasarentextractedfromtheÒrealÓorÒpro-805ductiveÓeconomyonthebasisofsocialorculturalvaluerationalesalone,wecanbegintothinkaboutsuchcul-turalinstitutionsaspublic-sectorsocialinnovationincu-bators(Cunningham2009a).Governmentscanusetheirmoredirectleverageovertheseinstitutionstoestablish810themasleading-edgesitesforinnovationsarounduser-generatedcontent,openaccess,andamoreparticipatorymediaculture,andtheycanoperateasafulcrumforwiderchangesintheculturalsphere.Thisisnottosaythattheinßuenceofgovernmentswillinvariablybeabenign815oneÑthelonganddebilitatingÒculturewarsÓincoun-triessuchastheUnitedStatesandAustraliaindicatetheextenttowhichsuchculturalinstitutionscanbehobbledforperceivedpoliticalgainÑorthatsuchinitiativewillnotberesistedfromwithintheorganizationalcultureof820suchlarge,well-establishedculturalinstitutions.Butitistosaythatcreativeindustriestheoriesandpolicydis-coursesarenotdeÞnedbyanideologicalpreferenceforlargecommercialinstitutionsoverthoseofthepublicsec-tor.Rather,theycanactasanadvocateforthecontri-825butionofSMEs,andfortheformativeroleofpublic-sectorculturalinstitutionsasculturalquestionsmovetotheforeofglobalizedknowledge-basedeconomiesandsocieties.NOTE8301.SuchaproblempervadesFreedmanÕs(2008,223)accountofthepoliticsofmediapolicyinBritaintheBlairgovernmentandtheUnitedStatesduringtheBushadministration.DespitetheauthorÕsconcernsaboutÒthetendencytotreatneo-liberalismasanundifferen-tiatedÔbogeymanÕofcontemporarycapitalism,Óitcanbearguedthat835hisaccountofadiverserangeofmediapoliciesinthetwocountriesasvariantsofneoliberalismbecomespreciselythis.Thisismostmarkedinhisanalysisofpublicbroadcasting,wheretheovertpoliticizationanddefundingofthePublicBroadcastingService(PBS)bytheBushadministrationintheUnitedStatesisseenasbeingessentiallysimilar840totheBlairgovernmentÕspromotionofnewmarketopportunitiesfortheBritishBroadcastingCorporation(BBC).Inthisandothercasesinthebook,suchascontentregulationandcensorship,quitedifferentpoliciesareapproachedasevidenceofÒtheemergenceofvarietiesofneo-liberalism…[where]statesareexperimentingwithandinternal-845izingdifferentaspectsoftheneo-liberalagenda,contributingtotheemergenceofÔdiversitywithinconvergence.ÓÕInotherwords,evenwhenpolicieswouldappeartobequitedifferent,theyareinfactquitethesame,allexplicableundertherubricofvariantsofneoliberalism!ForacriticalreviewofFreedman,seeFlew(2009).850REFERENCESAmericansfortheArts.2008.Researchservices:Creativeindustries.http://www.artsusa.org/informationservices/research/services/cre-ativeindustries/default.asp(accessedAugust13,2009).Barrowclough,D.,andZ.Kozul-Wright.2008.Creativeindustriesand855developingcountries:Voice,choiceandeconomicgrowth.London:Routledge.Benkler,Y.2006.Thewealthofnetworks:Howsocialproductiontransformsmarketsandfreedom.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.860Bennett,T.1998.Culture:AreformerÕsscience.Sydney:Allen&Unwin.Bilton,C.,andR.Leary.2002.Whatmanagerscandoforcreativity:Brokeringcreativityinthecreativeindustries.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy8:49Ð64.865Caves,R.2000.Creativeindustries:Betweenartandcommerce.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Couldry,N.2006.Transvaluingmediastudies:Or,beyondthemythofthemediatingcentre.InMediaandculturaltheory,ed.J.CurranandD.Morley,177Ð94.London:Routledge.870Coyle,D.1998.Theweightlessworld.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Craik,J.2007.Re-visioningartsandculturalpolicy:Currentimpassesandfuturedirections.Canberra:AustralianNationalUniversitye-Press.

10T.FLEWANDS.CUNNINGHAMCunningham,S.1992.Framingculture:Criticismandpolicyin875Australia.Sydney:Allen&Unwin.ÑÑÑ.2002.Fromculturaltocreativeindustries:Theory,industryandpolicyimplications.MediaInternationalAustralia102:57Ð67.ÑÑÑ.2007.CreativeindustriesaspolicyanddiscourseoutsidetheUnitedKingdom.GlobalMediaandCommunication3:347Ð52.880ÑÑÑ.2008.CreativeindustriesasagloballycontestablepolicyÞeld.ChineseJournalofCommunication2:13Ð24.Cunningham,S.,andP.Higgs.2008.Creativeindustriesmapping:Wherehavewecomefromandwherearewegoing?CreativeIn-dustriesJournal1:7Ð30.885Cunningham,S.,J.Banks,andJ.Potts.2008.Culturaleconomy:TheshapeoftheÞeld.InCulturaleconomy,ed.HermanAnheierandYudhishthirRajIsar,15Ð26.London:Sage.ÑÑÑ.2009a.Reinventingtelevision:TheworkoftheÔinnovationÕunit.InTVstudiesafterTV,ed.GraemeTurnerandJinnaTay,83Ð92.890London:Routledge.ÑÑÑ.2009b.TrojanhorseorRorschachblot?CreativeIndustriesdiscoursearoundtheworld.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy.Q3Curran,J.2006.Mediaandculturaltheoryintheageofmarketlib-eralism.InMediaandculturaltheory,ed.JamesCurranandDavid895Morley,129Ð48.London:Routledge.David,P.,andD.Foray.2002.Anintroductiontotheeconomyoftheknowledgesociety.InternationalSocialScienceJournal171:9Ð23.DepartmentofCulture,MediaandSport.1998.Creativein-dustriesmappingdocument.http://www.culture.gov.uk/creative/900creativeindustries.html(accessedMay5,2001).Q4Deuze,M.2006.Mediawork.Cambridge,MA:PolityPress.Donald,J.2004.WhatÕsnew:AlettertoTerryFlew.Continuum:Jour-nalofMediaandCulturalStudies18:235Ð46.Edgar,A.2008.Cultureindustries.InCulturaltheory:Thekeycon-905cepts,ed.AndrewEdgarandPeterSedgwick,83Ð84.London:Rout-ledge.Flew,T.2002.Beyondadhocery:DeÞningthecreativeindustries.ProceedingsCulturalSites,CulturalTheory,CulturalPolicy,SecondInternationalConferenceofCulturalPolicyResearch,Wellington,910NewZealand,January23Ð26,ed.MichaelVolkerling,181Ð191.ÑÑÑ.2005a.Creativeeconomy.InCreativeindustries,ed.JohnHartley,344Ð360.Oxford,U.K.:Blackwell.ÑÑÑ.2005b.Sovereigntyandsoftware:Rethinkingculturalpolicyinaglobalcreativeeconomy.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy91511:243Ð60.ÑÑÑ.2006.Thesocialcontractandbeyondinbroadcastmediapolicy.TelevisionandNewMedia7:282Ð305.ÑÑÑ.2009.Agameoftwohalves[ReviewofDesFreedman,ThePoliticsofMediaPolicy].AustralianJournalismReview30:125Ð27.920Freedman,D.2008.Thepoliticsofmediapolicy.Cambridge.Polity.Galloway,S.,andS.Dunlop.2007.AcritiqueofdeÞnitionsofthecul-turalandcreativeindustriesinpublicpolicy.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy13:17Ð31.Garnham,N.1987.Conceptsofculture:Publicpolicyandthecultural925industries.CulturalStudies1:23Ð37.ÑÑÑ.2005.Fromculturaltocreativeindustries:AnanalysisoftheimplicationsoftheÒcreativeindustriesÓapproachtotheartsandmediapolicymakingintheUnitedKingdom.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy11(1):15Ð29.930Hartley,J.2005.Introduction.InCreativeindustries,ed.JohnHartley,1Ð39.Oxford,UK:Blackwell.Hassan,R.2008.Theinformationsociety.Cambridge:Polity.Hesmondhalgh,D.2007.Theculturalindustries,2nded.London:Sage.935ÑÑÑ.2008.Culturalandcreativeindustries.InTheSagehandbookofculturalanalysis,ed.TonyBennettandJohnFrow,552Ð69.London:Sage.Hesmondhalgh,D,andA.Pratt.2005.Culturalindustriesandcul-turalpolicy.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy11(1):1Ð94013.Higgs,P.,S.Cunningham,andH.Bakhshi.2008.Beyondthecreativeindustries:MappingthecreativeeconomyintheUnitedKingdom.London:NESTA.Holden,J.2007.Publicly-fundedcultureandthecreativeindustries.945London:DEMOS.Hutton,W.,andM.Desai.2007.DoesthefuturereallybelongtoChina?ProspectMagazine130(January).http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/articledetails.php?id=8174(accessed8April2009).950Jenkins,H.2006.Convergenceculture:Whereoldandnewmediacollide.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.KEAEuropeanAffairs.2006.TheeconomyofcultureinEurope.StudypreparedfortheDirectorate-GeneralforEducationandCulture,EuropeanCommission.Brussels:KEAEuropeanAf-955fairs.http://www.keanet.eu/ecoculturepage.html(accessedApril13,2009).Keane,M.2007.CreatedinChina:Thegreatnewleapforward.Lon-don:Routledge.Kellner,D.2009.Mediaindustries,politicaleconomy,andme-960dia/culturalstudies:anarticulation.InMediaindustries:History,theoryandmethod,ed.J.HoltandA.Perren,95Ð107.Malden,MA:Blackwell.Kipnis,A.2007.Neo-liberalismreiÞed:Suzhidiscourseandtropesofneo-liberalisminthePeopleÕsRepublicofChina.Journalofthe965RoyalAnthropologicalInstitute13:383Ð400.Kong,L.,C.Gibson,L.-M.Khoo,andA.-M.Semple.2006.Knowl-edgeofthecreativeeconomy:TowardsarelationalgeographyofdiffusionandadaptationinAsia.AsiaPaciÞcViewpoint47:173Ð94.970McChesney,R.2008.Thepoliticaleconomyofmedia:Enduringissues,emergingdilemmas.NewYork:MonthlyReview.McQuire,S.2001.WhenisartIT?InTheÞbreculturereader:Poli-ticsofadigitalpresent,ed.H.Brownetal.,205Ð12.Melbourne:FibreculturePublications.Q5975Miller,T.2002.Aviewfromafossil:Theneweconomy,creativityandconsumptionÑTwoorthreethingsIdonÕtbelievein.InternationalJournalofCulturalStudies7:55Ð65.ÑÑÑ.2009.CannaturalLudditesmakethingsexplodeortravelfaster?Thenewhumanities,culturalpolicystudies,andcreative980industries.InMediaIndustries:history,theoryandmethod,ed.J.HoltandA.Perren,184Ð98.Malden,MA:Blackwell.Mitchell,W.,A.Inouye,andM.Blumenthal.2003.Beyondproductiv-ity:Informationtechnology,innovation,andcreativity.Washington,DC:NationalAcademies.985Nonini,D.2008.IsChinabecomingneo-liberal?CritiqueofAnthro-pology28:145Ð76.OÕConnor,J.2007.Theculturalandcreativeindustries:Areviewoftheliterature(ReportforCreativePartnerships).London:ArtsCouncilEngland.990

CREATIVEINDUSTRIESDEBATE11Perraton,J,andB.Clift.2004.SoWherearenationalcapitalismsnow?InWherearenationalcapitalismsnow?ed.J.PerratonandB.Clift,195Ð260.Basingstoke,UK:PalgraveMacmillan.Pratt,A.2005.Culturalindustriesandpublicpolicy.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy11(1):31Ð44.995ÑÑÑ.2009.Thecreativeandculturaleconomyandtherecession.Geoforum40:495Ð96.Rifkin,J.2000.Theageofaccess.London:Penguin.Roodhouse,S.2001.Havetheculturalindustriesaroletoplayinre-gionalregenerationandanationÕswealth?InProceedingsofAIMAC10002001:6thInternationalConferenceonArtsandCulturalManage-ment,ed.J.Radbourne,457Ð66.Brisbane:FacultyofBusiness,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology.Rose,N.1999.Powersoffreedom:Reframingpoliticalthought.Cam-bridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.1005Ross,A.2007.Niceworkifyoucangetit:Themercurialcareerofcreativeindustriespolicy.InMycreativityreader:Acritiqueofcre-ativeindustries,ed.G.LovinkandN.Rossiter,17Ð39.Amsterdam:InstituteofNetworkCultures.Rossiter,N.2006.Organizednetworks:Mediatheory,creativelabour,1010newinstitutions.Amsterdam:InstituteofNetworkCultures.Rudd,K.2009.TheglobalÞnancialcrisis.TheMonthly42.Q6Scholte,J.A.2005.Thesourcesofneo-liberalglobalizationOverar-chingConcernsPaperNo.8.UnitedNationsResearchInstituteforSocialDevelopment,Geneva,Switzerland.Siwek,S.2006.CopyrightindustriesintheU.S.economy.Washington,1015DC:InternationalIntellectualPropertyAlliance.Throsby,D.2001.Economicsandculture.Cambridge:CambridgeUni-versityPress.ÑÑÑ.2008.Modellingtheculturalindustries.InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy14:217Ð32.1020Towse,R.2003.Culturalindustries.InAhandbookofculturaleco-nomics,ed.R.Towse,170Ð76.Cheltenham,UK:EdwardElgar.UnitedNationsCommitteeonTrade,AidandDevelopment.2008.Creativeeconomyreport2008.Geneva:UNCTAD.UnitedNationsEducational,ScientiÞc,andCulturalOrganisation.10252007.The2009UNESCOframeworkforculturalstatistics(Draft).Montreal:UNESCOInstituteforStatistics.Weiss,L.2003.Bringingdomesticinstitutionsbackin.InStatesintheglobaleconomy:Bringingdomesticinstitutionsbackin,ed.L.Weiss,1Ð37.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.1030Wyszominski,M.J.2008.ThelocalcreativeeconomyintheUnitedStates.InCulturaleconomy,ed.H.AnheierandY.RajIsar,199Ð212.London:Sage.

 

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:i1–xivTheMediaandSocialTheoryMediastudiesneedsricherandlivelierintellectualresources.Thisbookbringstogethermajorandemerginginternationalmediaanalyststocon-siderkeyprocessesofmediachange,usinganumberofcriticalperspectives.Casestudiesrangefromrealitytelevisiontoprofessionaljournalism,frombloggingtocontrolofcopyright,fromsocialnetworkingsitestoindigenousmedia,inEurope,NorthAmerica,Asiaandelsewhere.Amongthetheoreticalapproachesandissuesaddressedare:•Criticalrealism•Post-structuralistapproachestomediaandculture•PierreBourdieuandfieldtheory•Publicspheretheory–includingpost-Habermasianversions•Actornetworktheory•Marxistandpost-Marxisttheories,includingcontemporarycriticaltheory•Theoriesofdemocracy,antagonismanddifferenceEssentialreadingforundergraduateandpostgraduatestudentsandresearchersofculturalstudies,mediastudiesandsocialtheory.DavidHesmondhalghisProfessorofMediaandMusicIndustriesintheInstituteofCommunicationsStudiesattheUniversityofLeeds.HisbooksincludeTheCulturalIndustries(2ndedition,2007),MediaProduction(2006)andUnderstandingMedia:InsideCelebrity(withJessicaEvans,2005).JasonToynbeeisSeniorLecturerinMediaStudiesattheOpenUniversity.HisbooksincludeBobMarley:HeraldofaPostcolonialWorld?(2007),AnalysingMediaTexts(withMarieGillespie,2006)andMakingPopularMusic(2000).

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:ii1–xivCulture,EconomyandtheSocialAnewseriesfromCRESC–theESRCCentreforResearchonSocio-culturalChangeEditorsProfessorTonyBennett,Sociology,OpenUniversityProfessorPennyHarvey,Anthropology,ManchesterUniversityProfessorKevinHetherington,Geography,OpenUniversityBookSeriesBoardMichelCallon,EcoledesMinesdeParisMaryPoovey,NewYorkUniversityAndrewBarry,UniversityofOxfordEricHirsch,BrunelUniversityAntoineHennion,ParisInstituteofTechnologyDipeshChakrabarty,TheUniversityofChicagoMikeCrang,UniversityofDurhamRollandMunro,KeeleUniversityTimDant,LancasterUniversitySharonZukin,BrooklynCollegeCityUniversityNewYork/GraduateSchool,CityUniversityofNewYorkTimothyMitchell,NewYorkUniversityJean-LouisFabiani,EcoledeHautesEtudesenSciencesSociales,ParisRandyMartin,NewYorkUniversityJohnLaw,LancasterUniversityAndrewPickering,UniversityofExeterHughWillmott,UniversityofCardiffTheCulture,EconomyandtheSocialseriesiscommittedtoinnovativecontem-porary,comparativeandhistoricalworkontherelationsbetweensocial,culturalandeconomicchange.Itpublishesempirically-basedresearchthatistheoreticallyinformed,thatcriticallyexaminesthewaysinwhichsocial,culturalandeconomicchangeisframedandmadevisible,andthatisattentivetoperspectivesthattendtobeignoredorside-linedbygrandtheorisingorepochalaccountsofsocialchange.Theseriesaddressesthediversemanifestationsofcontemporarycapitalism,andconsidersthevariouswaysinwhichthe‘social’,‘thecultural’and‘theeconomic’areapprehendedastangiblesitesofvalueandpractice.Itisexplicitlycomparative,publishingbooksthatworkacrossdisciplinaryperspectives,cross-culturally,oracrossdifferenthistoricalperiods.Theseriesisactivelyengagedintheanalysisofthedifferenttheoreticaltraditionsthathavecontributedtothedevelopmentofthe‘culturalturn’withaviewtoclarifyingwheretheseapproachesconvergeandwheretheydivergeonaparticularissue.Itisequallyconcernedtoexplorethenewcriticalagendasemergingfromcurrentcritiquesoftheculturalturn:thoseassociatedwiththedescriptiveturnforexample.Ourcommitmenttointerdisciplinaritythusaimsatenrichingtheoretical

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:iii1–xivandmethodologicaldiscussion,buildingawarenessofthecommongroundthathasemergedinthepastdecade,andthinkingthroughwhatisatstakeinthoseapproachesthatresistintegrationtoacommonanalyticalmodel.Seriestitlesinclude:TheMediaandSocialTheoryEditedbyDavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeeCultureClassDistinction(forthcoming)TonyBennett,MikeSavage,ElizabethBortolaiaSilva,AlanWarde,ModestoGayo-CalandDavidWrightMaterialPowers(forthcoming)EditedbyTonyBennettandPatrickJoyce

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:iv1–xiv

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:v1–xivTheMediaandSocialTheoryEditedbyDavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbee

[14:26 16/4/2008 5145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex] Job No: 5145 Hesmondhalgh: The Media and Social Theor y Page: vi 1–xivFirstpublished2008byRoutledge2ParkSquare,MiltonPark,Abingdon,OxonOX144RNSimultaneouslypublishedintheUSAandCanadabyRoutledge270MadisonAvenue,NewYorkNY10016RoutledgeisanimprintoftheTaylor&FrancisGroup,aninformabusiness©2008Editorialselectionandmatter,DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbee;individualchapters,thecontributorsAllrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereprintedorreproducedorutilisedinanyformorbyanyelectronic,mechanicalorothermeans,nowknownorhereafterinvented,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orinanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublishers.BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationDataAcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibraryLibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataThemediaandsocialtheory/DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbee.p.cm.1.Massmedia–Socialaspects.2.Communication–Socialaspects.I.Hesmondhalgh,David,1963-II.Toynbee,Jason.HM1206.M3892008302.23–dc222007046124ISBN10:0-415-44799-2(hbk)ISBN10:0-415-44800-X(pbk)ISBN10:0-203-93047-9(ebk)ISBN13:978-0-415-44799-7(hbk)ISBN13:978-0-415-44800-0(pbk)ISBN13:978-0-203-93047-2(ebk)This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’scollection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”ISBN 0-203-93047-9 Master e-book ISBN

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:vii1–xivContentsContributorsixAcknowledgementsxiii1Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory1DAVIDHESMONDHALGHANDJASONTOYNBEEPARTIPoweranddemocracy252Mediaandtheparadoxesofpluralism27KARIKARPPINEN3Neoliberalism,socialmovementsandchangeinmediasystemsinthelatetwentiethcentury43DANIELC.HALLIN4Recognitionandtherenewalofideologycritique59JOHNDOWNEY5Cosmopolitantemptations,communicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnion75PHILIPSCHLESINGERPARTIISpatialinequalities936Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemedia95DAVIDHESMONDHALGH7AcontemporaryPersianletteranditsglobalpurloining:Theshiftingspatialitiesofcontemporarycommunication112ANNABELLESREBERNY

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:viii1–xivviiiContents8RethinkingtheDigitalAge127FAYEGINSBURG9Mediaandmobilityinatransnationalworld145PURNIMAMANKEKARPARTIIISpectacleandtheself15910Formandpowerinanageofcontinuousspectacle161NICKCOULDRY11Spectacularmorality:‘Reality’television,individualisationandtheremakingoftheworkingclass177HELENWOODANDBEVSKEGGS12Variationsonthebrandedself:Theme,invention,improvisationandinventory194ALISONHEARNPARTIVMedialabourandproduction21113‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’:MediaStudies3.0213TOBYMILLER14Sexanddrugsandbaitandswitch:Rockumentaryandthenewmodelworker231MATTSTAHL15Journalism:Expertise,authority,andpowerindemocraticlife248CHRISTOPHERANDERSON16Mediamakingandsocialreality265JASONTOYNBEEIndex280

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:ix1–xivContributorsChristopherAndersoniscompletinghisdoctoralstudiesincommunicationattheColumbiaUniversityGraduateSchoolofJournalism.Hehaswrittenextensivelyonnewmediatechnologies,journalisticauthorityandthesociologyoftheprofessionsforbothscholarlyandpopularpublications.Hehascontributedchapterstoanumberofbooks,includingTheHandbookofJournalismStudies(withMichaelSchudson,2007),TheInternationalEncyclopediaofCommunication(2008)andMakingourMedia.AndersonservesontheeditorialboardoftheNewYorkCityIndependentandhasworkedasanorganiserandeditorattheNewYorkCityIndependentMediaCenterforthepastfiveyears.NickCouldryisProfessorofMediaandCommunicationsatGoldsmiths’College,UniversityofLondon,whereheisalsoDirectoroftheCentrefortheStudyoftheGlobalMediaandDemocracy.Heistheauthororco-editorofsixbooks,includingMediaRituals:aCriticalApproach(2003),ContestingMediaPower(co-editedwithJamesCurran,2003),ListeningbeyondtheEchoes:Media,EthicsandAgencyinanUncertainWorld(2006)andMediaConsumptionandPublicEngagement:BeyondthePresumptionofAttention(withSoniaLivingstoneandTimMarkham,2007).JohnDowneyisSeniorLecturerinCommunicationandMediaStudies,DepartmentofSocialSciences,LoughboroughUniversity.In2007hewasVisitingProfessorofSociologyatWilliamsCollege,WilliamstownMA.HehascompletedprojectsfortheBBCGovernorsontheBBC’scoverageoftheMiddleEast,fortheCommissionforRacialEqualityonmediaconstructionsofBritishness,andacomparativestudyofcoverageoftheEUconstitution.Hisresearchinterestsincludethepoliticaleconomyofcommunication,comparativemediaanalysisandpoliticalcommunication.FayeGinsburgisfoundingDirectoroftheCenterforMedia,CultureandHistoryatNewYorkUniversity,wheresheisalsotheDavidB.KriserProfessorofAnthropologyandCo-directoroftheCenterforReligion

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:x1–xivxContributorsandMediawhichsheestablishedin2003.Ananthropologistandfilmmaker,herworkovertheyearshasfocusedonculturalactivism,fromherearlyresearchonwomeninvolvedintheabortiondebateintheUnitedStatestoherlong-termworkonthedevelopmentofindigenousmediainAustraliaandelsewhere.Sheistheauthororeditoroffourbooks,mostrecentlyMediaWorlds:AnthropologyonNewTerrain(editedwithLilaAbuLughodandBrianLarkin,2002).Herbookonindigenousmedia,MediatingCulture,isforthcoming.Hermostrecentworkfocusesonthewaythemediaarebeingtakenupasaformofculturalactivismamongthedisabled.DanielC.HallinisProfessorattheDepartmentofCommunication,UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego.Hallin’sresearchconcernspoliticalcommunicationandtheroleofthenewsmediaindemocraticpolitics.Hehaswrittenonthemediaandwar,includingVietnam,CentralAmericaandtheGulfWar.Hehaswrittenontelevisioncoverageofelections,demonstratingtheshrinking‘soundbite’andofferinganinterpretationofitsmeaningforpoliticaljournalism.Hisnewresearchfocusesoncomparativeanalysisofthenewsmedia’sroleinthepublicsphere,concentratingonEuropeandLatinAmerica.AlisonHearnteachesmediatheoryandculturalstudiesintheFacultyofInformationandMediaStudiesattheUniversityofWesternOntario,London,Ont.Sheisco-authorofOutsidetheLines:IssuesinInter-disciplinaryResearch(withLioraSalter,1997)andhaspublishedinsuchjournalsasTopia:CanadianJournalofCulturalStudies,TheInternationalJournalofMediaandCulturalPolitics,andBadSubjects.SheiscompletingabookentitledRealIncorporated:RealityTelevision,PromotionalCultureandtheWilltoImage.DavidHesmondhalghisProfessorofMediaandMusicIndustriesattheUniversityofLeedsandCo-director(withJustinO’Connor)oftheCulturalandMediaIndustriesResearchCentre(CuMIRC).HeistheauthorofTheCulturalIndustries(secondedition2007)andeditorofMediaProduction(2006),UnderstandingMedia:InsideCelebrity(withJessicaEvans,2005),PopularMusicStudies(withKeithNegus,2002)andWesternMusicanditsOthers:Difference,RepresentationandAppropriationinMusic(withGeorginaBorn,2000).KariKarppinenisaResearchAssociateattheDepartmentofCommuni-cation,UniversityofHelsinki.Hisresearchinterestsincludetheoriesofthepublicsphere,themediaanddemocracyandmediapolicy.Hehaspublishedonthecontroversiesinvolvedintheusesanddefinitionsof‘mediapluralism’inEuropeanmediapolicy.PurnimaMankekarteachesWomen’sStudiesandAsianAmericanStudiesattheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.Sheistheauthorof

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:xi1–xivContributorsxiScreeningCulture,ViewingPolitics(1999),whichwontheKovacsAwardfromtheSocietyofCinemaStudies.Sheisalsoco-editorofCasteandOutcaste(withGordonChangandAkhilGupta,2002).Sheisworkingontwobooks,oneonSouthAsianpubliccultures,thesecondontheracialviolencefacedbySouthAsiansintheaftermathof11September2001.TobyMillerchairstheDepartmentofMediaandCulturalStudiesattheUniversityofCalifornia,Riverside.HeistheauthororeditorofoverthirtybooksinEnglishandtranslation.HislatestisCulturalCitizenship(2007).HeeditsthejournalsTelevisionandNewMediaandSocialIdentities.PhilipSchlesingerisProfessorinCulturalPolicyattheUniversityofGlasgow,wherehedirectstheCentreforCulturalPolicyResearch.Heisworkingoncreativeindustriespoliciesaswellasonastudyofliteraryethnography.HismostrecentbookisTheEuropeanUnionandthePublicSphere(editedwithJohnErikFossum,2007).FellowoftheRoyalSocietyofArtsandoftheRoyalSocietyofEdinburgh,andanAcademicianoftheAcademyoftheSocialSciences,hehasheldvisitingpostsinFrance,Italy,Norway,SpainandSwitzerland.BevSkeggsisChairinSociologyatGoldsmiths’College,UniversityofLondon.ShehaspublishedTheMedia:IssuesinSociology(1992),FeministCulturalTheory(1995),FormationsofClassandGender(1997),Class,Self,Culture(2004),SexualityandthePoliticsofViolenceandSafety(withLesMoran,2004)andFeminismafterBourdieu(withLisaAdkins,2005).AnnabelleSrebernyisthefirstProfessorofGlobalMediaandCommunica-tioninthenewCentreforMediaandFilmStudiesatSOAS,UniversityofLondon.HerinterestsinmediachangecentreondevelopmentsintheglobalSouth,particularlyintheMiddleEastandIran.ShetriestoestablishmediaasasignificantfocusforMiddleEastscholarsandtointernationalisemediastudies.HerseminalworkSmallMedia,BigRevolutionappearsonAmazon’sbest-sellerlistofbooksontheIranianrevolution.HerworkfocusesonthecommunicationsdynamicsofUS–IranrelationsandontheIranianblogosphere.EditedbooksincludeCoveringPoliticalViolence(2006)andInternationalNewsintheTwenty-firstCentury(2004).MattStahlisanAssistantProfessorintheFacultyofInformationandMediaStudiesattheUniversityofWesternOntario.HehaspublishedinPopularMusic,theJournalofPopularMusicStudiesandLabor:StudiesintheWorkingClassHistoryoftheAmericas,aswellasthecollectionBadMusic:TheMusicweLovetoHateonthesocialrelationsofanimationandpopularmusicproduction,theplaceoftheserelations

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:xii1–xivxiiContributorsinthe‘neweconomy’,andtheirrepresentationinfilmandtelevision.HeiscurrentlyworkingonabookentitledThatFeelingofaRevolution:Power,LaborandPropertyinPopularMusicMaking.JasonToynbeeisSeniorLecturerinMediaStudiesattheOpenUniversity.Hehaswrittenoncreativity,ethnicityandcopyright,mainlyinthecontextofpopularmusic.AuthorofMakingPopularMusic(2000)andBobMarley:HeraldofaPostcolonialWorld?(2007),hehasalsoco-editedThePopularMusicStudiesReader(withAndyBennettandBarryShank,2006)andAnalysingMediaTexts(withMarieGillespie,2006).HelenWoodisPrincipalLecturerinMediaStudiesatDeMontfortUniversity,Leicester.SheisauthorofTalkingwithTelevision(inpress)andhaspublishedarticlesontelevisionandaudienceresearchin,forexample,Media,CultureandSociety,CommunicationReviewandEuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies.SheisassistanteditorofthejournalEthnographyandhasco-editedacollectionoftheCentreforContemporaryCulturalStudiespapers(inpress).

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:xiii1–xivAcknowledgementsThisbookderivesfromaninternationalconference,‘MediaChangeandSocialTheory’,heldatStHugh’sCollege,Oxford,on7–9September2006,andattendedbyover200people.TheconferencewasorganisedbytheESRCCentreforResearchonSocio-culturalChange(CReSC),basedattheUniversityofManchesterandtheOpenUniversity.Wewouldliketothanktheconferenceorganisers,JosineOpmeerandCatherineLillie(stillCatherineAustinwhenwefirstplannedtheconference),fortheirwork,andTonyBennett,CReSCCo-director,forhissupportandguidance.OurthanksalsotoMarieGillespie,HelenWoodandFaridaVis,whohelpedwiththeacademicco-ordinationoftheevent.Mostofthechaptershererepresentdevelopedandupdatedversionsofpaperspresentedattheconference.Weheardmanyexcellentpapers,andwishthatwecouldhavepublishedmore.Intheendwemadeaselectionbasedonwhatweheard,aimingforbalanceacrossthebook.Wewouldliketothankeveryonewhocontributedtotheconference.D.H.J.T.

[14:2616/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Frontmatter.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:xiv1–xiv

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:11–241WhymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheoryDavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeeThisbookderivesfromtheconvictionthatweneedtoenrichtheintellectualresourcesbeingbroughttobearonthemediaandthatonevaluablewaytodothiswouldbeformediaanalyststoengagemuchmoreseriouslywithsocialtheory.Therearetwobroadproblemswithexistingmediastudiesintermsofitstheory.Thefirstappearswhenweconsiderthemajorhistoricalquestionscurrentlybeingraisedinthefield.Shouldweunderstandcontemporarydevelopmentsinmedia(globalisation,theinternet,proliferationofmediaplatformsandsoon)asmarkingourentryintoanewperiodcharacterisedbyunprecedentedformsofmediatedsocialrelations?Orratherdothesesamedevelopmentssimplymakeforcontinuityintheorderofsociallife?Thereisagrowingbodyofempiricalworkwhichpresentsoneorotheroftheseinterpretations.Yetoursenseisthatmanyattemptsinmediastudiestohistoricisethepresentlackametatheoreticaldimension–thatis,theydonotestablishbasicpremisesaboutthenatureofthemediainmodernsociety.Exceptinaratherobliquefashion,theyfailtoconfrontissuesofcausation,from,withinandtothemedia;orofnorms,thatistosayhowfarputativechangesinthecharacterofcommunicationbearonsocialjustice,orprospectsforagoodlifeforall.Withoutaddressingthesequestionsinasystematicwayitbecomesdifficulttomakeanassessmentofthequalityandextentofchangeinthemediaanditsconsequences.Thesecondchallengehastodowiththenarrownessofthesourcesofexistingmediatheory.Nowofcoursemediatheoryhasbeeninformedbysocialtheory.MediastudiesjournalsarefullofnamessuchasHabermas,Bourdieu,Foucault,Castells,Hall,Butler,Žižek,Laclau,Bauman,Beck,Deleuze,WilliamsandGiddens,allofwhomcanlegitimatelybecalledsocialtheorists.1Theproblemisthewaythatsuchtheoriestendtobemobilisedinmediatheoryandmediastudies.Typically,asingleaspectoftheirworkistakenup,ratherthanthebroadersocial-theoreticalagendathatthebestofthesetheoristsutilise.SoHabermas’snotionofthepublicsphereiseitheremployedordismissed–onesmallpartofhiswork,writteninthelate1950s,withsomelatercomments.Thesameistrueofverydifferenttheorists.Itismoreusual,forexample,toreadinvocationsof

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:21–242DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeeJudithButler’sconceptof‘performativity’thantoseeherconceptsanalysedinrelationtothefundamentalprinciplesunderlyingherwork.2Thishasledtoapeculiarnarrowness,evenasmediastudieshasdrawnuponawiderangeoftheorists.Ithasmeantthatlookingfurtherafield,toreflectonhowgeneralproblemsraisedbysocialtheorymightbeilluminatedthroughconsiderationofcontemporarycommunications,israrelyattempted.Twochallenges,then.Tomeetthem,wehavebroughttogethersixteenauthorsinordertoconsiderkeyprocessesofmediachange,usingawidearrayofsocial-theoreticalperspectives.Wediscussthechaptersandthebookstructurelateron.Buttobegin,thisintroductorychapterfocusesonaseriesofintertwinedissueswhichemergefromthechallengeswehaveidentified:whatwemeanbysocialtheory;thestateofexistingtheoryinmediaandcommunicationstudies;andhowre-engagingwithsocialtheorymightenrichthebroadsubjectarea.Socialtheory:principlesanddominantpositionsThecorpusofsocialtheoryislargeandwithalonghistoricaltail,stretchingbacktotheEnlightenmentatleast.Itcanclearlybecutupinavarietyofways–byschool,intermsofthegenealogyofideas,andaccordingtopoliticalstance.(SeeBentonandCraib2001andDelantyandStrydom2003foralternativewaysofpresentingthefield.)Wehavenoroomtoprovideourownaccounthere.So,instead,wemovestraighttoestablishingafewprinciplesaboutwhatsocialtheoryisandwhatitdoes.Thenwesetupanoppositionbetweenwhatwetaketobethetwoleadingtheoreticalpositionstoday–constructionismandempiricism–examiningsomeintellectualandpoliticalconsequencesoftheirdominance.Socialtheoryisconcernedwithexplainingtheexperienceofsociallife.IanCraib(1992:7)definestheoryingeneralas‘anattempttoexplainoureverydayexperienceoftheworld,our“closest”experienceintermsofsomethingwhichisnotsoclose’.Whenweundertakesocialtheory,weareattemptingtobemuchmoresystematicaboutexperienceandideasconcerningthesocialworldthanineverydaydiscourse.Indeed,asCraibemphasises,goodtheorymaywellinvolvemakingpropositionsthatarecountertoourdirectexperience.ThisisobviouslysointhecaseofexplanationsofsocietysuchasMarxismaccordingtowhichhowlifeislivedisdeterminedlargelybyadeepstructurewhichcannotbedirectlyapprehended,andmayevenbehiddenthroughtheoperationofideology.Butitisalsotrueofinterpretiveapproaches,thoseinfluencedbyanthropologyforexample,wherethekeygoalistopresentanaccountofaparticularsocietyaccordingto‘insiders’.Heretooagapopensupbetweentheexperienceandtheaccount,asJamesClifford(1986)forcefullyremindsusinhisargumentabouttheinevitablepartialityofethnographicwork.Cliffordraisesasocialtheoreticalquestionthen,butsignificantlyherefusestofollowitthrough.Ratherthantryingtonegotiatethegap

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:31–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory3betweenwritingaboutasocietyandhowthatsocietyisexperiencedfromwithin,hemovesstraighttotheconclusionthatitsinvariableconsequenceistheproductionoffictionalaccountsbyethnographers.Toattempttounderstandasocietyisactuallytowriteastoryaboutitwhichisshotthroughwithyourownsubjectivityandculturalvalues.Needlesstosay,perhaps,werejectthisradicalsubjectivism.Forustheproblemofdistancebetweensocialexperienceandsocialexplanationpromptsratherthanpre-emptssocial-theoreticalenquiry.Ifexplanationliesattheheartofsocialtheory,aproblemarises,namelythatsuchusefulnessoftheoryisnotalwaysapparenttopeopledoingtheempiricalworkwhichitissupposedtoinform.AsDerekLayder(1993)pointsout,oneofthereasonsthattheoryhasabadreputationisthat,toactiveresearchers,itcanseem‘speculativeandtoofarremovedfromthedown-to-earthissuesofempiricalresearch’(p.6).Thisscepticalattitude‘hindersthegeneraldevelopmentofsocialunderstandingbypreventingtheharnessingofgeneraltheorytotherequirementsandproceduresofsocialresearch’(ibid.).Layder(1993:15)suggestsanumberofwaysinwhichtheoriescanbelinkedwithempiricalresearch:bytakingseriouslythefactthat‘theoreticalideasactasbackgroundassumptionstoempiricalresearchandthatwheretheseareimplicittheyshouldbemadeexplicit’;byusingtheorytocontextualiseresearchandtoinfluenceoutcomes;andbyphilosophicallyexaminingthebasesofknowledgeandcausationthatunderlietheresearchprocess.Weneed,saysLayder(1993:7),toseetheoryaspartly,butneverfully,autonomousofempiricalevidence.Suchanattitudeunderpinsthisbook.Insomeofthecontributionstothisvolumethereisanemphasisonsocialtheoryitselfandonclarifyingandmakingexplicitconceptsthatactasbackgroundassumptionsintheworkofothers.Inotherchaptersthereis,rather,anemphasisontheauthors’ownmediaresearch,wherethefocusisinsteadonhowtheorymightbestunderpintheparticularresearchquestionsbeingasked.Inotherwords,andasourcontributorsshow,theorycanbedevelopedbyexaminingtheadequacyofalreadyexistingideas,oritcanemergefroma‘bottomup’processofabductinggeneraltheoryfromparticularempiricalcases.Theory,then,weseeasusefulabstraction,nevertoofarremovedfromconcretisingevidenceandexperience,yetneverthelessalwaysremovedtosomedegree–itisseparationfromthedomainsoftheempiricalandexperientialwhichprovidestheconditionsofpossibilityoftheory.Butwhatdowemeanspecificallybysocialtheory;whatsocialthingsisitabout?Beyonddefiningitcomparativelyviaitsobviousconcernswithsociety(asopposedtonature,orpoliticalinstitutions)anditsattempttodistinguishbetween,andmakegeneralisationsabout,differentkindsofsociety(Callinicos2007),itisperhapsmostusefultothinkofsocialtheoryintermsofthedefiningproblemsithasgenerallysoughttoaddress.Delanty(2005:22)forexample,identifiesthreesuchdefiningproblemsinmodernsocialtheory:socialsubjectivityorsocialisation,therationality

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:41–244DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeeofknowledge,andthelegitimationofpower.JohnScott(2006)prefersculture,systemandsocialisation;action,conflictandnature;andmodernityandrationalisation.Someemphasisethegreattheoreticalbinariesofstructure/agency,micro/macroanduniversalism/particularism,whileothershavepaidcloseattentiontocritiquingthesebinariesandsuggestingtheirredundancy(wrongly,inourview,butatleastthedebateisworthhaving).Muchdependsupontheparticulardisciplinaryareaofsocialenquiryfromwhichtheclassifierapproachesthesocial:sociologistswilltendtoseethesethingsverydifferentlyfromgeographers,forexample(asHarvey2005discusses).Nowitprobablygoeswithoutsayingthatwethinkthattherearemoreandlessvalidtreatmentsofthesequestions,moreandlessusefulwaysofprivilegingcertainofthethemesoverothers.Ourclaimherethoughisquitelimited,namelythatjusttoaddresssuchmetatheoreticalproblemsisanecessaryfirststepforsocial–andthereforealsomedia–enquiry.Manyinfluencedbypost-structuralismandpostmodernismwillalreadybetroubledbythewaywehaveputthings.Outofadesiretoavoidessentialismandreductiontheywouldrejectthisemphasisoncentral,definingproblemsofsociety.Forthem,suchanapproachwouldbejusttoofixedandfailtobesensitivetotheeverchangingnatureofthesocialwherebyprocess,orbecoming,isall.Alternatively,influencedbyFoucault,somemightarguethatthereissimplynopositionbeyonddiscourseandthesocialpracticesinwhichitisimbricated.Withnooutside,andthereforenodistancefromsociety,therecanbenotheorisingofit;onlytheidentificationandenumerationofsocialpractices.3Significantly,agreatdealofmediastudies,anditssiblingareaofenquiry,culturalstudies,hasbeeninfluencedbysuchperspectives.Indeed,someofourcontributorswouldsharethispost-structuralistdistrustof‘totalising’theory.Itisprobablyworthsayingatthispointthatourownperspectiveisinflu-encedbyourownencounterswithpost-structuralismandpostmodernism.Webelievethatthereareelementsofpost-structuralistthoughtthathaveenhancedsocialtheory,specifically:anemphasisontheimportanceofidentityanditssocial-psychologicalformation;thecrucialroleoflanguageand,moregenerally,ofrepresentationinsociallife;andafocusontheissueofstandpointinrelationtoresearchorknowledgemorebroadlyconceived.Suchdevelopmentshavebeenabsolutelyvitaltoadvancesinourunderstandingofthesocialsincethe1970s.Thisisnotonlyamatterofourownevaluation.Mostsignificantly,thebroadlyconstructionistapproachhasgrownexponentiallysincethe1980sandhasnowbeguntochallengethelong-standingorthodoxyinsocialscience,namelyempiricism.Empiricismisaproblematicterm,ithastobeadmitted.Pejorativeintone,itisneverusedbyexponentsoftheviewswhicharesaidbyitsopponentstoconstituteit.More,manyofthosewhocriticiseitintheconstructionistcampdenythatempiricismisatheoryatall.Rather,theysuggestthatwhatmarksoutempiricistsistheirlackoftheoryandreflectiononwhatonedoesasaresearcher.Nonethelesswe

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:51–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory5wouldsuggestempiricismisausefulattributionwhichdoesindeedpointtoasubstantivetheoreticalposition.Inthefirstplace,empiricismelevatesthesignificanceofexperiencetotheextentthatsocietyisreducibletoit.Noknowledge-claimsaboutthesocialworldcanbemadeunlesstheyhavebeenfoundedonobservationortestedthroughexperiment.Second,socialscientificlaws,likescientificlawsingeneral,describerecurringpatternsofevents,andassuchtheyhaveapredictivefacility.Third,empiricismposesthecompleteseparationof‘merely’subjectivevaluesfromobjective,factualstatementsaboutthesocialworldthataretestable(BentonandCraib2001:14–22).Clearlythereareseriousdifferencesbetweenempiricismandconstruc-tionism.Yetwewouldproposethatthereisalsoconsiderableconvergence.Wecanseeitinacommonemphasisonexperienceforonething.Whetherthroughobservationandmeasurement(empiricism),orinformsofknowledge,discourseandsoon(constructionism)bothcampstaketherealmofthesocialtobecoterminouswithexperience.Thereisnothing,asitwere,beneathexperience–forinstance,socialstructure,causalityormoregenerallyconditionsofactionwhichcannotbeapprehendedthroughthesenses,orarenotalreadyinscribedindiscourse.Asforlawsandprediction,whileamongconstructioniststheadvocatesoffluidityareclearlyopposedtotheempiricists’notionofthecoveringlaw,Foucauldianstakeregularities,stablediscursiveregimesandsoontobethedefiningcharacteristicsofthesocial.Finally,inrelationtosubjectiveandobjectivedomainsthedifferenceisperhapsmoreapparentthanreal.Certainly,whileempiricistsprize‘objectivity’insocialscience,constructioniststendtocelebrate‘subjectivity’.Yetineachcasewhatseemstobeatstakeisaformofidealismwherebythesocialworldisalwayslimitedtoourknowledgeandexperience.Whatwewanttoargue,then,isthatrenewedattentiontoaparticularkindofsocialtheorycanhelpusmovebeyondthesepositionsandtheirwidespreadadoptioninmediastudies.Itisnot,wehastentoadd,thatwerejecttheinsightswhichhavebeenachievedthroughbothapproaches.Rather,thatintheir(oftenunexamined)metatheoreticalassumptionseachtendstoblockthedevelopmentofacriticalsocialscience,andofcriticalmediaresearch,whichcanaddressquestionsofwhatisandwhatoughttobe,aswellaswhatisknownandexperienced.However,alongsidethesetendenciestherenowexistsastrongtradi-tionofcriticalsocialtheory,wherehistoricallyinformedandsystematicexplorationofsuchnormativeandexplanatoryquestionsisfarmoretothefore.Thiskindofsystematicexplorationisapparent,forexample,insomeofthewriterslistedearlier,oftencitedinmediastudies,butrarelyaddressedacrossasufficientrangeoftheirwork;writerswhoareappropriatedforparticularconceptsandproblems,suchasHabermas,Bourdieu,Giddens,MouffeandButler.Itisalsoapparent–perhapsevenmoreapparent–intheworkofcertainwriterswhoareveryrarelyreferredtoinmediastudiesbutwhohaveproducedwhatmightbecalled–without

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:61–246DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeetoomuchfacetiousness–a‘loosecanon’ofcriticaltheoreticalwork.ThesewritersincludeAxelHonneth,NancyFraser,AlexCallinicos,MargaretArcher,CraigCalhoun,SeylaBenhabib,DavidHarvey,AndrewSayer,PerryAnderson,IanCraibandDerekLayder.Theyarebroadlyleft/liberalrationalistswhohaveastrongsenseoftheimportanceofthesymbolicandso(thoughperhapsmorebyextension)ofthemedia.Wehaveourownpreferencesamongthesewritersandthinkers,andamongthetendenciestheyrepresent.But,toreiterate,ourpointhereisnottoadvocateaparticularline,somuchassuggestthatsuchcriticalsocialtheoryprovidesasystematicexplorationofnormativeandexplanatoryquestionsthatispotentiallyhelpfulforsocialresearchandformediastudies.Thepovertyofmediatheory:parochialismandmediacentrismIndefendinganenablingconceptionofsocialtheoryDerekLayder,citedabove,waswritinginresponsetoasplitinsociology,exemplifiedinthedivisionbetweenuniversitymoduleson‘theory’andthoseon‘socialstructure’and‘methods’.Suchdivisionsareperhapsinevitable;largefieldsofenquirywilltendtosplitupintoareasofspecialism.Theissuesofconcernarewhetherthedifferentcampsspeaktoeachother,andwhetheracriticalmassofresearchersisabletocombine,forexample,theoryandempiricalworkinasatisfactoryway.Thereiscertainlyanechoofsuchsplitsincontemporarymediaandcommunicationstudies,whereitisnotunusualtofindseparatemodulesandtextbooksonmediaorcommunicationtheory.4Doctoralresearchersoftenapplytoprogrammesinordertoinvestigateaparticulararea–say,transformationsinnationalbroadcastingsystems,orthewayaudiencesindifferentcountriesrespondtorealitytelevisionshows–andarefrequentlyaskedtopaygreaterattentiontowhatmediaorcommunicationtheorytheywilldrawupontomakethesequestionsofmoregeneralinteresttothefield.Inthiscontext‘doingthetheory’canbeseensimplyasanirritatingburdenwhichdistractsonefromtherealtaskinhand.Yetforthatveryreasonexamininghowtheoryistaughtinmediaandcommunicationdepartmentsmaybeinstructive.ForteachingconstitutesadisciplinaryapproachintheFoucauldiansense.Ifyoumakepeoplelearnthingsinacertainwayyouaredefiningthefieldinthestrongestpossibleterms.Themostusualwaytodividemediatheoryupisaccordingtotheclassictriangleofproduction,textsandaudiences;see,forexample,McQuail’sstandardmasscommunicationtheorytextbook(McQuail2005)orWilliams(2003)orGripsrud(2002).ItisbuiltintotheOpenUniversity’sfamous‘CircuitofCulture’model(Hall1997),whichextendsStuartHall’sdiscussionofthedifferencesbetweenencodinganddecoding(Hall1993/1973)byintroducingrepresentation,regulationandidentityasextratopics.5Thissplitmakespedagogicalsense,forthisishowmuchresearch

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:71–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory7isdividedup,withsomeresearchersspecialisingintextualanalysis,someinproductionanalysisandsomeinaudiencestudies,andwithvarioustheoreticalinterestsandsourcesassociatedwitheach.Itisalsomakessomeconceptualsense,forthiswayofthinkingaboutthefieldatleastforefrontstheimportantasymmetryinthemediabetweenproducersandaudiences–howeverthepowerrelationsbetweenthesetwogroupsareunderstood.Whatgetscalled‘communicationtheory’issomewhatdifferent.Heretextbooksandmoduleswilloftenhaveamorehistoricalbent,usuallyoutliningtheearlydevelopmentofthefieldintheUnitedStates,oftensetting‘administrativeresearch’againstthecriticaltheoryofAdornoandmaybeothermembersoftheFrankfurtschool,tracingeffectsresearchthroughthe1950sand1960s,andinmanycasestellingastoryofhowvariousformsofcriticalresearchinfluencedbyculturaltheorycamealonginthe1970sand1980stochangethefield.Theseapproachestoteachingmediatheorytendtobeecumenical,then.Theydiscusswhatwehavebeencallingempiricismandconstructionismtogetheraspartofanargumentativefamilyoftheoriestheoldestmembersofwhicharenowreachingaripeandrespectableage.Suchperspectivesevenattimestouchonthekindofcriticalsocialtheorythatwediscussedearlier,intheformofAdornoandperhapsStuartHall’sencounterswithGramsciandAlthusser.Certainlythishistoricalframinghassomevalue.6Theaimofgivingstudentsasenseofwheretheirtheorycomesfromislaudable,andhistoryisgoodforthebanalbutvalidreasonthatittellsus(inpartatleast)abouthowwegothere.Yettheconventionalhistoryisalsoremarkablynarrow.Indeed,itisstrikingthat,otherthaninthehighlyselectivewaydiscussedearlier,criticalsocialtheoryhardlyappearsinit.Consequently,mediatheoryasithasbeenenshrinedpedagogicallyisoftenlackinginphilosophicalquestionsofnormativityandexplanation.Metatheorisingisrare.Wegetasimilarimpressionifwelookattheacademicfieldinanotherway,accordingtohowithascharacteriseditscentralproblematic.Fromthisperspectivewemightsaythatafocusonmedia-in-societyhasprogressivelygivenwaytoformsofmediacentrismandparochialismovertheyears.Suchtendenciescanbeseeninthetrajectoryofthe‘politicaleconomyversusculturalstudies’debatewhichhasloomedlargeinthefield.Firstacaveat;thereisaquestionaboutwhetherweshouldbediscussingthisdebateatall,becausemediastudiesreallyismorecomplexthanthebinarysuggests.Therearemanyapproachesthatdonotfalleasilyintotheready-madecategories,andmanystudiesthatarethoughtofasbelongingtooneortheothershouldnotbepigeonholedinthissimplisticway.However,theshorthandsteadfastlyrefusestogoawayjustbecauseitdoesrefertoasignificantinstitutionalandintellectualsplitintheanalysisofthemedia.BothcampshavetheiroriginsintheMarxismwhichconstitutedakindofintellectualavant-gardeacrossthesocialsciencesandhumanitiesinthe1970sandearly1980s.Butwherepoliticaleconomyfocusedon

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:81–248DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeeculturalcommoditiesandtheroleofthemediasectorincontemporarycapitalism,culturalstudieswasconcernedwiththeinterlinkedquestionsofideologyandrepresentation.ToputitinMarxisantterms,theformerconcentratedonthemediaasbase,whilethelattertreatedthemediaassuperstructure.Thisdifferenceinidentifyingwhatwasthecentralproblemofthemediaincapitalistsocietyincreasinglyturnedintoadifferenceaboutselectingobjectsofstudy.Forpoliticaleconomythefocustendedtobeonproduction,forculturalstudiesitwastexts,andthenveryquicklyaudiencesandconsumption.Andinaseriesofrelatedsplits,culturalstudiesanalysedpopularcultureandentertainmentmediawhereaspoliticaleconomyexaminednewsandfactualmedia.Asfortheformulationofmediapolicy,itwasclaimedbypoliticaleconomywhiletheeverydayexperienceofmediabelongedtoculturalstudies.Severalpointsneedtobemadeaboutthesedevelopments.First,theyinvolvedadouble,theoretical-empiricalcarvingupofthefield.Itmaywellbethecasethatthekindsofspecialisationencapsulatedinthesplitconstitutealegitimateacademicdivisionoflabour.However,whatisproblematicisthesuperimpositionofsuchspecialisationontothetheoreticalandnormativedividebetweenpoliticaleconomyandculturalstudies.Thishasgreatlyreducedthepossibilityofgroundingatheoreticaldebatebetweenthetwocampsbecauseeachhaslittleknowledgeof(orrespectfor)themediaevents,processesandexperiencesinvestigatedbytheother.Thedivisionhasalsobeenaccompaniedbyagrowingtheoreticalparochialism.Interestingly,asmediaandculturebecameincreasinglyimportanttopicsinthesocialsciencesmorebroadly(theso-called‘culturalturn’)somediastudiesitselfgrewmoreinwardlooking.Perhapsthefactthatotherdisciplineswerelookingtowardsthisemergentfieldhadtheeffectofreducingtheperceivedneedtolookfrominsideout.Thedoubletheory–topicsplitsurelyhadanimpacttoo.Bothcampsinmediastudiesgrewmoremediacentric,moreconcernedwithjustifyingwhichmediaelementsorprocesseswerekey,whilethebiggerquestionofthemediainsociety,whichthedebatehadbegunwith,becamelessimportant.Asfortheirpoliticalconcerns,whilepoliticaleconomyandculturalstudiesoriginallysharedacommitmenttohumanemancipationderivedfromMarxism,asMarxismlostcredibilityintheacademysoeachbranchsoughtnewpoliticalfootings.Ontheonehand,culturalstudiesdevelopedaformof(mainlyaffirmative)identitypoliticsinfluencedbyfeminismandblackculturalpolitics,butalsopost-structuralistthought.Representationofparticulargroupidentitiesinandthroughthemediabecamethemainfocus,whiletheeverydaywastakenupasthedemoticemblemofapopulist‘everyone’.Ontheotherhand,bytheearly1990spoliticaleconomywascallingupHabermas’sworkonthepublicspheretojustifyargumentsforpublicownershipandcontrolofthemediaintheinterestsofcommunicativerationality.

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:91–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory9Finally,thesecrypto-normativerationaleshavebeenoverlaidontoaper-sistingdisputeaboutcultureandeconomy.So,whereaspoliticaleconomyemphasisedtheimportanceofunderstandingtheeconomyandpolityasprimarycausalfactorsinshapingthecharacterofmedia,researchersinculturalstudiesemphasisedthefirstnessofcultureandtheautonomous,constructednatureofallknowledge(see,forexample,Hall1997)Thisstoryofpoliticaleconomyversusculturalstudiesisworthtelling,wethink,becausewhileitisashorthandaccountofthetrajectoryofacomplexacademicfielditneverthelesscharacterisesamajordisputebetweendistinctpositions.Forthatreasonwecannotagreewiththosewhoimpatientlysnortthatthedivisionisentirelyredundantandmeaninglessandweshouldjustmoveon.Equally,wedonotendorsecallsforreconciliationbasedonthesmoothingoverofsubstantiveissuesofdifference.Thisissimplynotpossibleunderpresentcircumstances,forthevariousepisodesoftheschism,outlinedabove,nowmutuallyreinforceoneanothertotheextentthatdialoguebetweenthecampsonlydeepensthesplit.Theproblem,then,isthatmediastudieslackstheoreticalframeswhichmightenablesynthesisandinturntranscendenceofexistingentrenchedpositions.Ourview,asshouldalreadybeclear,isthatamoreexplicitaddressofcriticalsocialtheorycanhelptoprovidesuchaframe,andenabledialoguetotakeplaceonclearerground.FromsocialtomediatheoryTherearetwomainelementswewouldwanttotakefromsocialthe-ory.Thefirstisamuchstrongerphilosophicalgroundingofnormativequestions.Mediastudiesthinksofitselfascritical,inthebroadandoftenundefinedsensethatitseekstodrawattentiontothingsthatarewrongintheworld,especially,ofcourse,inthemedia.Yet,aswesawintheprevioussection,incommensuratepositionshavedevelopedacrossthefieldaboutwhatthegoodandthejustmightbe.These,wewouldargue,arecrypto-normativepositions,becausetheydonotmakeclearthebasisoftheirclaims.Soculturalrelativiststendtoemphasisethecontext-specificityofvalues,anddenythepossibilityofarrivingatethicaljudgementsoutsidetheparametersofparticularcultures.Anyattemptstodosoarelabelleduniversalist,viatheassertion(morethantheargument)thatsuchuniversalismwoulddenyculturestheirautonomy.RelativisminmediastudieshasalsocomeinthroughtheworkofFoucault,who,asNancyFraserputsit:vacillatesbetweentwoequallyinadequatestances.Ontheonehand,headoptsaconceptofpowerthatpermitshimnocondemnationofanyobjectionablefeaturesofmodernsocieties.Butatthesametime…hisrhetoricbetraystheconvictionthatmodernsocietiesareutterlywithoutredeemingfeatures.ClearlywhatFoucault[…]needs

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:101–2410DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeedesperatelyarenormativecriteriafordistinguishingacceptablefromunacceptableformsofpower.(Fraser1989:33)Meanwhile,amongpoliticaleconomistsandtheirliberalcompatriots,universalismpersists.Yet,aswiththeanti-universalismoftherelativists,itisnotwelljustifiedinmostaccounts.Itmaybeinferredfromthematerialismofsomeoftheanalysis;weallhaveeconomicinterestsanditisthereforepossibletoevaluatetheorganisationofthemediaonthebasisofhowitrelatestoquestionsofdistribution.Orelsetheremaybealiberalappealtocommunicativereason,thepublicsphereorsimplytheneedforpluralism.Butnotonlyisthenormativecaseverythininbothapproaches(whydoesdistributionmatter,whyispluralismgood,andshouldeverybodyhavetohaveit?)thestandpointoftheresearcherhardlygetsaddressed.Thisisimportant.Wewouldarguethatreflexivityaboutthepositionfromwhichresearchersresearchisavaluablecontributionofpostmodernismandacrucialcountertotheassumptionoftenmadeinempiricistresearchthatneutralityisbothdesirableandpossible.Still,suchreflexivityneednotexcludenormativethinking.Indeed,ourviewisthatweneedtomovebeyondtheManicheanbinariesthatprevailinwhatpassesforethicalthoughtinmanypartsofmediastudies.7Thereisnogoodreasonwhyacknowledgementofstandpointandtheparticularityofculturescannotbeaccommodatedalongwithauniversalethics.Anumberofstrandsinsocialtheorycanhelpushere.AsAndrewSayersuggests,‘[h]umanbeingsareindeedextraordinarilydiverse,butweshouldaskwhatisitaboutthemwhichenablesthemtoexhibitsuchvariety?’Hisansweristhat,‘[f]orittobepossibleforanythingtobeshapedinaparticularway(forexamplebyculture)itmustbethekindofthingwhichissusceptibletosuchshaping,thatis,itmusthave(orhaveacquired)theaffordancesandresistanceswhichallowsuchshaping’(2004).Humanbeings,wemightsay,dependfortheirveryacculturationonasetofsharedpropensitieswhichthenissueinculturaldifference.Itfollowsthatitistheoreticallypossibletobuildanethicsanthropologically,‘up’fromwhatitisthatisshared.Thisargumentcertainlyhelpstoprovidetheontologicalgroundsforanethics.Tospecifywhatitmightconsistinwecanturntoagrowingbodyofworkwhichwouldbothdelineatethenormativeandrelocateitattheheartofsocialtheory.SothereistheongoingdebatebetweenNancyFraserandAxelHonneth(2003)aboutwhetheritispossibletobaseanethicssolelyontheprincipleofrecognition.8Andwehavethe‘qualifiedethicalnaturalism’ofAndrewSayer(2005)–‘naturalistinthatitconsidersthattheverynatureofgoodandbadcannotbedeterminedwithoutreferencetothenatureofhumansocialbeing’(p.218);qualifiedbecauseitacknowledgesculturalshapingoftheinterpretationofneeds,andeveninsomecasesofthoseneedsthemselves(p.219).Sayerdrawshereupontheapproach

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:111–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory11ofthephilosopherMarthaNussbaum(2001),whoarguesforthecentralimportanceofhumanflourishinginapracticalethicswherecompassioniskey.Compassioninvolvesasenseofsocialsolidaritythatisepistemologicalaswellemotionalincharacter.Onerecognisesoneselfintheother,oneweighsthescaleoftheother’spredicament,onejudgesthattheotherpersonwasnotresponsibleforthepredicamentherself(p.321).Itisverycommoninmediastudiestohear‘universalism’andespecially‘essentialism’usedastermsofabuse.Theproblemisthatthesevaluesremainunder-explored.AninvocationofGayatriSpivak’snotionof‘strategicessentialism’orPaulGilroy’s‘anti-anti-essentialism’isasfarasthosemediaresearchersconcernedwithsuchissuesarelikelytogo.Butthelazyandwidespreadaccusationofessentialismin‘thepoliticsofculture’runsthedangerofbrushingasidetheimportantsearchforthecharacteristicpropertiesofthegood.Thenewattentiontopracticalethicsinsocialtheory,andespeciallynotionsofrecognitionandhumanflourishingasuniversalyetnon-exclusionarynorms,maythusprovideanimportantresourceformediastudiesinallbranches.Asecondelementincriticalsocialtheorythatmighthelptorenewmediatheoryistheconceptofcausality,theideathatthesignificantthingwearetryingtofindoutaboutinsocietyiswhythingshappen–including,ofcourse,whywehavethemediathatwehave.Thepredominantviewinculturalstudiesisthatthesocialisamatterofrepresentationordiscourse.Thisessentiallyflatnotiondoesawaywithcauseanddepth.Insteadthereisradicalcontingency,actuallyacrypto-normativevaluebecauseitimpliesthatwhat’sgoodistheunexpected,andthatexcitingthingshappeninculturethroughdiscoveryandthecreativepowerofchance.Alternatively,assometimesfoundintheFoucauldianconspectus,thereisatendencytoposecontinuity–forexample,Foucault’sleadingquestionaboutthehistoryofsexuality:‘Wastherereallyahistoricalrupturebetweentheageofrepressionandthecriticalanalysisofrepression?’(1990:10).Ceaselesscontingentchangeormonumentalcontinuity:theseseemtobethepredominantapproachesinculturalstudiestotheproblemofhistory.Amongmaterialistsinthepoliticaleconomytradition,ontheotherhand,thedriverofhistoryisbigbusiness,oranunholyallianceofpoliticalandcorporateelites.Herethereiscertainlyabigcause,butthedangeristhatitistreatedasoverwhelmingandunchallengeable.Wewouldsuggest,then,thatwhatislackingacrosstheboardinmediastudiesisreflectiononthegeneralproblemofsocialcausality.Thisisanissuewhichsocialtheorycontinuestobestronglyinterestedin.Atitscentreisthelongrunningstructure–agencydebateinwhichtherehavebeenpartisansononesideortheother(forexample,thefunctionalist–interactionistdispute),butalsoattemptsatsynthesiswhichgivedueweighttobothsides.AnthonyGiddens’sstructurationtheoryisprobablythebestknownofthese(Giddens1984)andindeedithashadsomeinfluenceinmediastudies(e.g.Moores2005).YetarguablyGiddens

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:121–2412DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeeisguiltyof‘elisionism’(Archer1995:93–8),thatistosay,therunningtogetherofstructureandagencysuchthattheybecomeinseparable.Thepossibilitythatcausalityarisesintherelationsbetweentheseelementsthusdisappears.Ourpreferencewouldthenbeforarealisttheoryofstructureandagencywhichinsistsontheirontologicaldistinctivenessyetmutualimpactupononeanotheracrosstime.Thisshouldbecoupledwithanunderstandingofsocietyasdeep,thatistosay,consistinginlayeredstructuresorgenerativemechanisms,butwhere,nevertheless,higherlevelsareirreducibletolowerones.Somenotionof‘emergence’isthereforenecessaryinordertoaccountfornewthingsandevents,andclearlyagencyitselfmustbeconsideredasanemergentpropertyofhumansubjects(Archer1995;Bhaskar1998).Abstractasitis,theenormousadvantageofsuchanapproachisthatitenablesustothinkaboutagencyandstructuretogetherinwayswhichnotonlydojusticetotheefficacyofbothbutwhichmaybecarriedintoempiricalworktohelpexplaintheirinterrelationshipintheworldofhumanexperienceandevents.Thisconnectswiththeissueofnormativity.Foragency,emergentfromstructure,clearlyhasastrongnormativedimension.Nowhereisthismorepalpablethaninthemedia,wherenormativequestionsaboutthechoicesmadebyaudiences,thestate,companiesandindividualproducersarerightlycentraltoresearch.Yetwithoutsometheoreticalmeansofevaluatingthecauseofnewkindsofinterpretation,representationorchangingmediaregimes–thatistosay,throughdiscriminatingbetweenstructureandagency–wehavenomeansofcriticalanalysis,andultimatelynopossibilityofinterveningintheworldofthemedia.Thereisonefurtherissuethatarisesinrelationtocausality.Weaccusedmediastudiesofparochialismandmediacentrismabove.Toomuchatten-tionhasbeenpaidtothemediaquamedia,eitherbecausetheworldisconsideredtobeaproductofrepresentation,withthemediathenbeingthecentralmeansofthatrepresentation,orelsethemediaaretreatedasobscurersoftherealworld,asinpessimisticpoliticaleconomyapproaches.(Ofcoursethisisacaricature,butasbeforeweareinclinedtocarryonpaintingwithathickbrushfortheheuristicadvantagesitmaybring.)Insuchacontext,theoriesofcausalityderivedfromsocialtheoryenableareturntothequestionofmediainsociety,itselfavariantoftheculture-and-societyproblemsketchedbyRaymondWilliamsmanyyearsago.Wecanbeginthinkingagainabouthowthemediadothingsinsociety,howsocietyimpactsonthemedia,andindeedhowthereiscomplexdeterminationthroughandbetweeneach.Mostofallthiswillcallforacertainde-specialisation,alookingoutwardfromthemediatosocialrelationsingeneral.Butthat’swhatsocialtheoryisverygoodat.Weshould,ofcourse,concedethatthisoutlinehasbeenonethatleanstowardscriticalrealism,andawayfrompost-structuralism;thatmanifestsapreferencefortheargumentativestrategiesofanalyticalandpost-analytical

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:131–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory13philosophyoverContinentaltraditions;andthatseekssynthesisratherthanexploration.Nodoubtsomeofourcontributorswouldnotsharesuchpreferences.However,therearegeneralaimsofgoodtheorisingthattranscendsuchdifferences,andwhichwebelieveareapparentevenintheusesoftheorymadebychaptersfarremovedfromourowninclinations.What’smore,atameta-levelwewouldcontendthatthedifferencesinthiscollectionpointupmanyoftheissueswehavebeentalkingabout.Inotherwords,thebookhasaprobing,question-raisingagendaaboutkindsoftheoryandwhatitisfor,ratherthanapartyline.Undoubtedly,theuseofsocialtheorycanenrichourunderstandingofsocialproblems,unmetneeds,sufferinganddubiousbeliefs.Itcanalsounderminethecosyassumptionsofmoreabstractphilosophythroughitsroleinunderpinningtheexactinganalysisofcasestudies.Thesemayinturnsuggestnewavenuesofanalysis.Weidentifyexamplesofthiskindofmoregeneraluseofsocialtheoryinmediaanalysisintheoutlineofindividualchaptersthatfollowsthissection.Thatsaid,thereneedstobeasensibledivisionoflabourbetweenthosewhofocusonphilosophicalunderpinningsandthosewhoemploysocialtheorytoachieveamorethoroughinvestigationofthesocialthroughempiricalwork.Wealsorecognisethatsomeofthecriticalsocialtheorythatwehavebeenpraisingherehasnotdonenearlyenoughtointegratethetheoreticalwiththeempirical(this,forexample,isstilltrueofcriticalrealism–anobservationalsomadebyBaert2000).So,asusualintheproductionofknowledge,wecansaythereisplentymoreworktodo.OutlineofthebookHowthendothechaptersofthisbookusesocialtheorytoenrichourunderstandingoftherelationsinandbetweenthemediaandsociety?Wehaveidentifiedfourbroadthemesofcentralimportancetomediatheorythatourcontributorsaddressinthefourpartsthatfollow.Thefirstpartisconcernedwiththethemeof‘Poweranddemocracy’thathasbeensocentraltomuchofmediastudies.Chapter2,byKariKarppinen,exemplifiesforusthepotentialbenefitsofcarefulattentiontocriticalsocialtheorywhenitcomestoquestionsofnormativity.Karppinenconfrontshead-onthequestionsraisedbytheverywidespreadcommitmenttopluralisminmediastudiesandmediatheory,manifestintheabundantconcernwithdifference,identityandanti-essentialismintheliterature.AsKarppinenexplains,theproblemisthatthepluralismimplicitlyinvokedbymuchmediastudiesisaveryambiguousnormativeprinciple.ItisnotunusualtoseetheworkofChantalMouffemobilisedtocriticiseHabermasianapproachestodemocracy,andKarppinensummarisesthedebateshere.Hepointsout,though,thattheradicaloragonisticpluralismofMouffeandothershasrarelybeenappliedtothemediaintheformofinstitutionalproposalsorconcretepoliticalquestions(cf.Born2006).

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:141–2414DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeeInfact,suchradicalpluralismismoreoftenmobilisedinthecauseofanaivecelebrationofmulitiplicity–andKarppinenshowsthatthisisdirectlyatoddswiththeworkofMouffe.Radicalpluralisminfactdirectsourattentiontomacro-politicalconcernsthatareconsistentwiththeaimsofpoliticaleconomy,andpotentiallyprovideamuchmoresolidbasisforitthanHabermasianpublicspheretheory.WhileKarppinenwritesinmetatheoreticalmode,inChapter3DanielHallinoffersahistoricalaccountofmediachangethatdrawsuponsocialtheory,andcontributestoitbyenrichingourconceptionsofakeyterminsocialandpoliticaltheoryofthelasttwentyyears:neoliberalism.Hallinpointsoutthataccountsofmediamarketisationandneoliberalismoftenrestonvagueandsimplisticformulationsandoffersamoreadequateversion.Hedoessobypaintingafullerpictureoftheinstitutionsthathadpreviouslycounterbalancedmarketlogicsinthemedia,namelythestrongtiesbetweenthemediaandorganisedsocialgroupssuchaspoliticalparties,tradeunionsandchurches,andjournalistprofessionalism.Hallinshowshowthissituationchangedthroughmediacommercialisation,andthroughsocialandpoliticalchanges.However,Hallinemphasisesthatthesechangesinvolvedmorethanashifttoconsumerismandcommercialism.Thesocialmovementsofthe1960sand1970scountercultureplayedanintegralpartinunderminingtraditionalformsofauthorityand,significantly,journalisticprofessionalismcontributedtoandwasinfluencedbytheriseofthesenewsocialmovements.Neoliberalism,then,isnotsomethingthatcanberigidlyopposedtopopulistanti-elitismandnewsocialmovements;theyweretosomeextentmutuallyreinforcing.Hallinalsoquestionstheassumptioninsomeaccountsofneoliberalism(suchasWendyBrown’s)thatneoliberalismhasmeantthecollapseoftheliberaldemocraticvaluesofthe1960sand1970s.Hestressestheimportanceofholdingontothecomplexityofthewaythatmarketforceshaveaffectedthedemocraticroleofthemedia,withoutlosingsightofthemanytroublingfeaturesofmediacommercialisation.This,then,ismediaanalysisthatshowsusthecomplexityofmedia/socialrelations,andsuggeststosocialtheorytheimportanceofthinkingmoreadequatelyaboutthemedia.LikeKarppinen,butcomingfromaratherdifferentdirection,JohnDowneyinChapter4wantstomovebeyondHabermas.HemakesthepointthatwhileHabermasisreferredtoconstantlyinmediastudies,theCriticalTheoryofotherwritershasbeenvirtuallyignored.Yetitsinsights,particularlyintheshapeofAxelHonneth’sworkonrecognition,haveenormoussignificanceforanypoliticallyengagedunderstandingofmedia.Downey’sstartingpointisanessaybyJohnCornerwhichattemptstoputtheconceptofideologytorest.Bothimpreciseandincoherentinitsdifferentversions,ideologyisaconceptwhichhashaditsday.However,Downeydisagreesand,callinguponJohnThompson’sbookaboutideology,andthenHonnethhimselfonrecognitionethics,hearguesforarecoveryoftheconceptofideologyandforitscentralplaceinmedia

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:151–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory15studies.Quitesimply,withoutitthereisnowayofshowinghowpoweriscarriedsymbolically,norwhatitisthatissystematicallydevaluedandmisrecognisedindominantformsofthemedia.Finally,Downeymakesalinkbetweencriticalmediastudiesandactivism,suggestingthatrenewalintheacademydependsnotjustonthedevelopmentofideasbutalsoonre-engagementwith‘mediaconstruction’–alternativemedia,mediacampaignsandultimatelythatcentralpartofthestruggleforhumanemancipationwhichissymbolic.Howdoweconceiveofsocialcommunicationinaneraofglobalisation–oratleastof‘globalisingtendencies’?AsPhilipSchlesingersuggestsinChapter5,thisisavitalquestionforunderstandingpoweranddemocracyinmodernsocieties.Answeringitrequires‘thick’theoriesofsocialcommunicationthatencompassculture,everydaylifeandemotionalattachmentstoplacebutthatalsorecognisethecontinuingimportanceofpoliticalinstitutions.Schlesingerdistinguishesbetweenthosestatistswhoemphasisethecontinuingimportanceofthenation-stateandthosecosmopolitanswhoseeadegreeofpoliticalhopeinadiminishingroleforthenation-state.Manyinmediastudieshavetendedtotakethelatterroute.Bycontrast,SchlesingerarguesthattheEuropeanUniondemonstratesthefragilityofcosmopolitanvisions,andheprovidesacritiqueofvariousvisionsofEuropeannessaspartofanewcosmopolitanorder,includingHabermas’s‘thin’emphasisontheimportanceoftheEuropeanconstitution,andUlrichBeck’sfailuretoaddresstheinstitutionalrealitiesoftheEuropeanUnion.AcrucialissuehereisthattheEuropeanUnionisbothafederationandaregulator.MediatedcommunicationintheformofEurope-focusedjournalismisstronglygearedtothelatter.Schlesingerfindsthatnationalpublicspheresremainrobust,andthereislittleimmediateprospectoftranscendingtheminthenameofacosmopolitanpoliticalspace.PartIImovesusonfromissuesofmediaandpoliticalpower,broadlyconsidered,tothequestionof‘Spatialinequalities’.Heregeographyanditsattendanttheoreticalproblemsenterthepicture–themobilityofpeople,capitalandcommunication;butalsothefixityofsocialstructuresofinequalityatagloballevel,andindeedformsofresistancetothem.WebeginwithDavidHesmondhalgh(Chapter6),whoisconcernedtoharnesstheoriesofimperialismtomediaanalysisinanewandcriticalway.Arguingagainstthelong-standingconceptofculturalimperialism,whichhefindsbothimpreciseandsimplistic,HesmondhalghcallsonDavidHarveyinordertosetoutatheoryofcapitalistimperialism,onewithastrongmediadimension.Thistakestheformoftheexpansiveglobalcopyrightregimewhich,viainternationaltreatyandincreasinglytoughpolicingbytheUnitedStates,isbringingpoorcountriesintotheambitofcommodifiedculture.Strongcopyright,then,representsamuchmoreclear-cutinstanceofimperialismthanthecomplexflows(andsometimesbenignoutcomes)oftheold‘cult.imp.’model.More,DavidHarvey’s

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:161–2416DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeetheoryofover-accumulationhelpstoexplainwhythismassiveexpansionofthedomainofculturalpropertyishappeningnow.Itisnothinglessthan‘accumulationbydispossession’,thelatesttwistinthelonghistoryofstrategiesthroughwhichcapitalismhascoped,sofaratleast,withitssystemiccrises.Bycommodifyingcultureandmedia,viaextensionsofthetermofcopyrightandstrongglobalenforcement,capitalismrebuildsitseconomicmuscleswhileatthesametimeexpropriatingthesymboliccreativityofsomeoftheworld’spoorestcultures.Chapter7,byAnnabelleSreberny,convergesinaninterestingwaywithChapter6.Thewritersofbothrejectthestandardcriticalmodelofglobalmediaorganisation,namely‘culturalimperialism’.Sreberny,however,comesfromacompletelydifferent,post-structuralistdirection.CitingIranianPresidentAhmadi-Nejad’sopenletterofMay2006toUSPresidentGeorgeW.Bush,shetakesLacan’sdiscussionofEdgarAllanPoe’sThePurloinedLetterasherpointofdeparture.Thetaleofthisfictionalletter,objectofsubterfugeandtrickery,isunderstoodbyLacantoshowthat‘aletteralwaysarrivesatitsdestination’.SrebernyprefersDerrida’salternativereading,though,accordingtowhichthereisalwaysanexcessofmeaninginaletter,suchthatitneverarrives.HowdoesthismetatheorisingbearonthemissivefromAhmadi-Nejad?ThepointisthatinBush’srefusaltoacknowledgeit–anostensiblesnub–amultiplicityofmeaningsopensup,aDerrideanexcesswhichconfoundsthepoweroftheglobalhegemontocontrolglobalcommunications.Thisisnotonlyasymbolicevent,however.ChangingmaterialconditionsintheshapeoftheinternetandnewmediachannelslocatedoutsidetheOccidenthaveenabledpreciselythekindsofchallengetotheinterpellationofaudiencesthatisrepresentedbytheletteranditsvicissitudesofreception.WhereSrebernyfocusesonresistancetothepoweroftheWest,aresistanceenabledvianewformsofmediatedglobalvisibility,inChapter8FayeGinsburgshowshowindigenouspeoplesarenowusingmediaasmirrorstotheirowncultures,elaborating–yetconserving–traditions.WiththreecasestudiesfromInuitsintheArctic,indigenouspeopleofthenorth-westcoastofCanada,andaboriginesinAustralia,Ginsburgdevelopstheconceptof‘culturalactivism’topointupthewayinwhichsuchcommunitiesareconfounding‘DigitalAge’theory.Castellsandothershadannouncedaparadigmshift(anotherversionofthehistoricisationofthepresentwhichwenotedearlier),ashiftmarkedbytheadventoftheinternetanddigitisation.ButGinsburgshowsthatnewmediatechnologieshaveanentirelydifferentmeaninginthehandsandeyesofculturalactivistsfromindigenouscommunities.Whatisatstakehereisneithertheconstructionofawhollynewvirtualrealm,northedestructionofexistingculturalground,butratherassheputsit,theextensionof‘traditionalculturalworldsintonewdomains’.Ineffect,then,Ginsburgtakesthemediapracticeofindigenouspeoplesasakindoftheory-in-action,andameansofrefutingboththeextravagantlyoptimisticDigitalAgeandthepatronisingly

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:171–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory17pessimisticDigitalDividediscourses.Thesearetheorieswhichhavetobeinterrogatedinthelightofthepraxisofothers.ThethemeoftheredemptivenessofmediapracticeiscarriedforwardbyPurnimaMankekar.InChapter9sheexploreshow‘mobilemedia’aretransformingnotonlythesenseoftimeandplaceexperiencedbydiasporiccommunitiesbutthereforetoothelargerworldsocialhistoricalformation.Themobilityofmediawhichisinvolvedherederivespartlyfromthewayinwhichdiasporashavebecomethesubjectsofnewformsofmediarepresentation.MankekardiscussesanemergingnewgenreinIndianfilmthatfocusesonmigrantcommunitiesinLondonandNewYork.Inanimportantsense,themobilityofthesepeople,theirtranslocationfromIndiatotheWest,providesthenarrativetheme.Yet,asMankekarnotes,theexperienceofmobilityandmigrationisactuallyjustasimportantforthepeoplewhoremain,physically,athome.InthiswayIndiabecomesa‘node’inanimagined,mediatedworld,andhomelandanddiaspora–farfrombeingbinaryopposites–become‘mutuallyimbricated’.Mankekarisnotarguingagainstwhatshetakestobedominanttheoreticalpositions,aswasthecasewithGinsburg.Rather,shesuggests,mobilemediabearoutandextendwhatanthropologistsandsocialtheoristshavealreadybeendelineating–thegreatlyincreasedsalienceoftime–spacerelationsinaglobalisingworld.Thethemeof‘Spectacleandtheself’formsthemotifofPartIII.Inoneofthemostimportantattemptstoapplysocialtheorytothemedia,publishedin1995,JohnThompsoncontrastedtherelationshipbetweenpowerandvisibilitycharacteristicofthecontemporarymediawiththoseidentifiedbyFoucaultinhisanalysisofthepanopticoninthefollowingmanner:‘thankstothemedia,itisprimarilythosewhoexercisepower,ratherthanthoseoverwhompowerisexercised,whoaresubjectedtoacertainkindofvisibility’.Furthermore,observedThompson,thismodernformofmediapowerwasquitedifferentfrompre-modernformsofspectacle,for‘thevisibilityofindividualsandactionsisnowseveredfromthesharingofacommonlocale’(bothquotations,Thompson1995:134).Thesequestionsofpower,visibilityandspectaclehavenotbecomelesssignificantintheerasinceThompson’sbookwaspublished(seeKellner2003foragoodbook-lengthtreatment).Threeofourcontributorsaddresstheseissues(alongsideotherkeysocial-theoreticalquestionsconcerningthemedia)andtwoofthemrelatemediaspectacletomodernsubjectivity.ForNickCouldry,inChapter10,spectaclerepresentsastartingpointforthinkingabouthowanumberofkeysocialtheoriesconceiveofpowerandofsociety.Actornetworktheory,highlyfashionableamongmanyinfluencedbypost-structuralism,Couldryfinds,onbalance,tobeoflimitedvalue.OnereasongivenbyCouldryechoesourdiscussionofnormativityabove.BrunoLatourdismissesthe‘totalising’panoramasoftheorists,politiciansandothers,buthecanoffernowayofsortingoutbadpanoramasfromgoodorlessbadones.Actornetworktheory’slimited

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:181–2418DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeeontologymeansthatitalsohaslittletosayaboutrepresentation–essentialtounderstandingthemedia’sroleinsociety.Couldryinsteadoffersanaccountofthemediabasedon‘ritualanalysis’,emphasisingquestionsofbeliefandlegitimationthataresidelinedinactornetworktheory.CouldryiscloserheretoDurkheimianandBourdieuansociologythantoMarxistideologicalanalysis,butheoffersa‘deconstructive’versionofritualanalysis,whichquestionsthe‘mythofthemediatedcentre’inmuchmediasociology,initsParsonian-functionalistandothervariants.Importantly,though,Couldryaimstodeconstructthesocialinaverydifferentwayfromactornetworktheoryandfrompost-structuralistssuchasLaclauandMouffewhofromapositionofmilitantanti-essentialismclaimthereisnoobjectsuchassociety,insteadthereisonlythe‘openness’andnon-totalisabilityofdiscourse.ForCouldrythisisan‘inverteduniversalism’,an‘absolutismofdenial’thatunderminesthehistoricalclaimsthatLaclauandMouffewanttomake(and,wemightadd,potentiallyhasstrongimplicationsforthewayinwhichKarppinenseesotherworkbyMouffeasapotentialresourceinrenewingpoliticaleconomyanddemocratictheory).Couldryturnstotheunder-exploredworkofRoyBhaskarforamoreadequateandyetstillscepticalaccountofthenotionsof‘thesocial’andsociety.Couldryproceedsfromtheconceptofspectacletointerrogateandrecon-structthenormativeandontologicalbasesofsocialtheories.InChapter11HelenWoodandBevSkeggsapproachthepoliticaldimensionsofspectaclefromthebottomup,analysingoneofthemostimportantmediaphenomenaofthelastdecade,realitytelevision.Criticswhodecrythedepthlessspectacleofrealitytelevisionmissacrucialaspectofitspolitics,sayWoodandSkeggs.Forrealitytelevision,centredonrepresentationsofworking-classpeople(andespeciallyworking-classwomen),demonstratesinasupremelyvisiblewaythewaythatclassisbeingremade.Inparticular,thereisincreasingemphasisinneoliberalsocietiesonself-management,ontheresponsibilityofpeopletomanagetheirownliveseffectively.Oneproblemwiththisshiftisthatitdownplaysthesocialforcesconstrainingpeople’sabilitytomakechoicesandtakeactionandinsteadimplicitlyexplainssocialbehaviourinindividualistic,psychologicalterms.Thisshiftisdramatisedinrealitytelevision,whichplaces(working-class)peopleinsituationswithwhichtheyareunfamiliar,andthenassessestheirperformanceandworthonthebasisofhowwelltheycope.WoodandSkeggsmaketheinterestingclaimthattheemphasisonnownessandimmediacyintheprogrammesmakesitevenmoredifficulttodemonstratetheself-reflexivedepthassociatedwithmoralworthinmodernsocieties.Thisisespeciallytrueofthatsub-genreofrealitytelevisionthatemphasisesthemodificationofbehaviourinthenameofproviding‘useful’advicetoaudiences.But,moregenerally,WoodandSkeggsshowhowrealitypro-gramming’suseofsensationandemotion,andinparticularitscombineduseofmelodramaanddocumentarygenresinitstellingof‘intimatestories’,

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:191–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory19producespectaclesthatdemonstrateandperpetuatenewformsofmoralinequality.Thereisapoliticsofspectaclehere,then,butitisnotquitethepoliticsthatthosewhomournthedeclineofdocumentarysayitis;ratheritreferstonewformsofselfhoodmandatedbyneoliberalism.WoodandSkeggsthereforedrawonthewaythatsocialtheoristssuchasGiddensandBeckshowhowtheindividualiscompelledtomakeher/himselfthecentreofher/hisownlifeplanandconduct,buttheystronglydisputethedownplayingofclassinsuchtheorists.Hereweseehowmediatheorycanchallengeandenrichsocialtheorybyfocusinginmuchgreaterdepthonquestionsofrepresentation.ThosesamesocialtheoriesconcerningthereflexiveprojectoftheselfprovideAlisonHearn’sstartingpointinChapter12onpersonalbrandingandself-promotion,andshetooreferstorealitytelevisionasamanifestationofsometroublingdimensionsofthisproject.Hearnconnectstheseideaswithothertheoriesconcerningthecentralroleof‘promotionalism’inmodernsociety(AndrewWernick)andnewmodesofcapitalism.EchoingWoodandSkeggs,andanticipatingthenextsection’sdiscussionoflabour(especiallyMattStahl’schapter),Hearnobserveshow‘theresponsibilityforself-fulfilmentandmeaningfulcommunityisdownloadedontotheindividualworker’,leadingtonewformsofworkingexperienceandsubjectivity.ShedrawsontheworkofMauricioLazzarato,DavidHarvey,LucBoltanskiandEveChiapelloamongotherstodeveloptheseideas.Thisnewkindofrelationshiptotheselfisapparentinvariousmediaphenomena:realitytelevisionsuchasTheApprenticeandAmericanIdol,asalreadymentioned,butalsothepersonalbrandingmovementinmanagement(forHearn,thismovementinvokesanimageofautonomoussubjectivitywhichactuallyunderminessuchautonomythroughitsinstrumentalism)andwebsitessuchas2night.comandsocialnetworkingsitessuchasMySpaceandFacebook.Hearniscarefultoqualifyherclaimsbymakingitclearthatself-promotionisnothingnew.Butshesuggestsimportantnewdevelopmentsintherelationshipbetweenpowerandvisibility.Weare,sheimplies,makingspectaclesofourselvesinsociallydamagingways.Thecontributorstothefourthandlastpartofthecollection,‘Medialabourandproduction’,bringtothesefamiliartopicsinmediastudiesacertaintheoreticalfreshnessthatderivespartlyfromtheiraddressofakeyquestionwehavebeenconsideringthroughoutthischapter:isthepresentanewepochinmediastructureandpractice?Atthesametimethereisalsoamoreproperlymetatheoreticalconcernwiththenatureofmediaproductionanditssignificancevis-à-visreceptionorconsumption.Thequestionhereis:doesmedialabourmatterandifsowhy?TobyMillertacklesboththesequestionsinChapter13.Millersketchesoutabinarymodelofexistingmediastudies.MediaStudies1.0includesthetraditionofmediaeffectsresearchwhichemergesfrombourgeoisintellectualanxietyabouthowthemassesmightbeaffectedbytheshock,

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:201–2420DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeedangerandsheerseductivenessofmodernmediatedlife.Version1.0alsotakesinvariantsofpoliticaleconomyandcriticaltheorythathavescornedpopularculture.Bywayofcontrast,MediaStudies2.0isoptimistic,andinvestsaudienceswithahermeneuticpowerthatcanemancipatethemfromthesortofbondageposedinversion1.0.Condemningthenarrownessofboth(1.0ignoresactivityandstruggleinthemedia;2.0deniesstructureandrealpowerrelations),Milleradvocates‘frottage’betweenthem.Thetheoreticalmeansofachievingthisconsist,first,inarejectionoftheoriginarybinarismoftheCartesianmind–bodyduality,abinarismthatunderpinstheMedia1.0versusMedia2.0opposition.Instead,Millerinsists(withLawrenceGrossberg)onadialecticalshifttowards‘politicisingtheoryandtheorisingpolitics’.Andthatinturnsuggestspayingrenewedattentiontolabourbroadlyconsidered,aswellasinternationalisationofthemedia.Millerthusconcludeswithacriticalcasestudyoftheglobal‘precariat’,anewlayerofinternationallabour–insecure,exploited,displaced–locatedinsectorsasdiverseasthemediaandofficecleaning.InanimportantsenseChapter14,byMattStahl,on‘rockumentary’film,constitutesacasestudyinthisprecariousnessofmediawork.Takingthe2004filmDig!ashiscentrepiece,Stahlsuggeststhattheemerginggenreoftherockdocumentaryservestoprovideinstructionin‘good’creativework.Ontheonehand,asexemplifiedinthecareerofthebandtheDandyWarhols,weareshownaformoflabour‘thatpromisestofosterautonomy,self-actualisationandde-alienation’.Ontheother–andthisispickedoutinthedisintegratingcareeroftheWarhols’erstwhilefriendsandcolleagues,theBrianJonestownMassacre–wearepresentedwithanarrativeofself-indulgence,moraldeclineandfinancialcollapse.Itiswhathappenswhenyouabuseautonomy.Themoralisclear.Ifcreativelabourisazoneoffreedom,thenitisonewhichhastobeconstantlysustainedthroughdiscipline,focusand,aboveall,plentyofhardwork.Stahl’scontributiontotheory,then,consistsinshowinghowthesesontheculturalconstructionofwork(fromWebertoBeck)findcorroborationinrockumentaries–thesearetrainingmanualsforlearningtolabourintheneoliberalknowledgeeconomy.Contemporaryjournalismhaslittleincommonwithrockmusicmaking,wemightassume.However,Chapter15,byChrisAnderson,suggestsastrongparallel.Both‘professions’arerivenbyinsecurity,andinbothcasesthereisdeepambiguityaboutthenatureandstatusoftheoccupation.SurveyingUSjournalismresearchsincethemid-1970s,Andersonoffersacritique,andthenasynthesis,ofwhatheidentifiesasthethreekeystrandsinscholarship.Tracingorganisationalanalysisofjournalism(mainlyfromthelate1970s),workontheproductionofjournalisticdiscourseandinterpretivecommunities(chieflyZelizersincetheearly1990s)andjournalism-as-field(astillflourishingBourdieuianapproach),Andersonshowstheenormousexplanatorypoweroftheoreticalintegration.Forit

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:211–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory21isonlybybringingthethreeapproachestogether,heargues,thatwecanmakesenseofthecurrentjournalisticmomentinwhich,onthefaceofit,journalisticexpertiseisbeingchallengedbyanewinformationlaityofbloggersandnetizens.Inthiscontext,then,professionaljournalistsstruggletoestablishjurisdictionoverjournalisticexpertisewhileatthesametimeattempting,asheputsit,‘tocontroltheculturaldiscoursethatbothdefinestheminrelationtoothersanddefinestheverynatureoftheirexpertise’.Organisation,discourse,field–allthreetheoreticalframesareneededtomakesenseofthepresentconjuncture,Andersoninsists.Or,toputitinthetermsweusedatthestartofthischapter,ifyouwanttohistoricisethepresentinmediastudiesyouhavetodevelopsomekindoftheoreticaloverviewofhowyourmediumworks.InthefinalchapterJasonToynbee(Chapter16)returnstothequestionsconcerningtherelationshipbetweenproduction,audienceandtextsraisedbyTobyMiller.Toynbee’saimisnotonlytoarguefortheprecedenceofproductionbutalsotoshowhowcriticalrealistphilosophycanprovideamuchmoreseriousbasisforsuchaclaimthanexistingschoolsandtendencies–notablyempiricismandsubjectivism.Themediashowafundamentalasymmetrybetweenproducersandconsumers(inspiteofthemanyabsurdclaimsabouttheeffectsof‘user-generatedcontent’insocialnetworkingsitesandthelike).Soproducershaveprecedencebecausetheycontrolformandcontent,butthisonlytakesussofar.Howisproductionorganisedandwhatshapesitsoutput?Answeringthesequestions,saysToynbee,drawinguponcriticalrealistsocialtheory,requiresadequateconsiderationofstructureandagency.Onthestructureside,criticalrealismprovidesanontologywhichbringstogetherstructures(economicandotherwise),ontologicaldepthandhorizontalconjunction.Thismeanswecanavoidhavingtochoosebetweenmacro-andmicro-causality,betweeninferencefromtextandfromcausallinkage,butcanusebothapproachesinstead,andbetterreflecttheneedformultipleperspectivesinunderstandingthecomplexityofmedia–societyrelations.Ontheagencyside,criticalrealismoffersaformulationofagencyasintentional,yetalsolimitedbytheopacityofsocialbeing,whichisoffundamentalvalueinunderstandingmediaproduction.Forithelpsexplainhowmediamakingcanbeinstrumental–inotherwords,subjecttomarketcontrolormorebroadlyinfluencedbypowerfulsocialforces–andyetatthesametimecanexistasazoneofrelativeautonomyandcounter-intuitiveexpression.Finally,Toynbeeusescriticalrealismtoargueagainstthetendencyinmediastudiestodownplaythereferentialfunctionofthemedia.Themediahaveaspecialcapacitytorepresenttheworldbeyondmerehearsay.Andofcourseproducerscanunknowingly,ormorerarelyintentionally,makefalselyobjectivetexts.ForToynbee,thismeansthatthereisaneedfortextualanalysiswhichwillitselfbedrivenbyanethicofobjectivity.Lookingbackonthischapter-survey,perhapswhatemergesmoststronglyisthesheervarietyoftheoreticalsourcesbeingcalleduponin

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:221–2422DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeethefield.Earlierwesuggestedthatintegrationshouldbeagoalofnewtheoreticalworkinmediastudies.And,indeed,thechaptersofthisbookdointegrateideasfromwithinandbeyondmediastudies.Integrationgeneratesbothintellectualdevelopmentandlucidity–positionsbecomeclearer.Thenextstep,then,mightbetomoveinanotherdirection,dialecticallytowardsstrongargumentandintellectualstrugglebetweenclearlyopposedpositions,withaviewtosynthesisingandwinnowingoutthebestmediatheory.Thatwillbeadifficultconferencetoorganise,andatoughbooktoedit.Welookforwardtothem,though.Notes1Inthebroadersenseinwhichweusesocialtheoryinthisbook,toincludepoliticaltheoryandculturaltheory.Someareperhapsmorereadilyidentifiedasotherthings–Habermas,DeleuzeandButlerasphilosophers,Foucaultasahistorian.2Suchfetishismisnotuniquetomediatheory,ofcourse.InsociologytheholytrinityofMarx,DurkheimandWeberhaveformedthebasisofclassicalsocialtheoryfordecades.Allthreeofthesenamesoccasionallymakeanappearanceinmediaandcommunicationtheorytoo.Butitseemstousthatsociologistswouldtendtomakelessselectiveuseofthisholytrinitythanmediastudiesresearchershaveofthetheoristsmentionedabove.3Toclarify,thisisnottosaythatFoucauldianworkisatheoretical,butratherthatitstheoryeitherconcernsotherthingsthansociety,orelsetreatsthesocialasanepiphenomenonofdiscourse,power–knowledge,governmentalityandsoon.4Inourexperience,researchmethodsaremuchlessoftentaughttoundergraduatesinmedia,communicationandculturalstudiesthaninothersocialscienceprogrammes,butthatisanothermatter.5Weshouldownupthatweourselvesdecidedtomaintainthisdivision(whileacknowledgingitslimitations)inputtingtogetheranewOpenUniversityMediaStudiescourseforthe2000s,DA204‘UnderstandingMedia’(see,forexample,EvansandHesmondhalgh2005).6EspeciallywhentoldwiththeenjoyablevigourofScannell(2007)ortherigorousoriginalityofMorrison(1998).7Wewouldpoint,however,tointerestingdevelopmentsinsomemediastudies,involvingmuchgreaterattentiontoanalyticalethics(see,forexample,Kieran1998andCouldry2006)butalsoJohnDurhamPeters’sbrilliantunpicking,inhisbookSpeakingintotheAir,ofthenormativeassumptionsthathaveaccruedaroundthenotionof‘communication’.8ForadiscussionseeJohnDowney’schapterinthisvolume.BibliographyArcher,Margaret(1995)RealistSocialTheory:theMorphogeneticApproach.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Baert,Patrick(2000)PhilosophyoftheSocialSciences:towardsPragmatism.Cambridge:PolityPress.Benton,TedandCraib,Ian(2001)PhilosophyofSocialScience:thePhilosophicalFoundationsofSocialThought.Basingstoke:Palgrave.

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:231–24Whymediastudiesneedsbettersocialtheory23Bhaskar,Roy(1998)ThePossibilityofNaturalism:aPhilosophicalCritiqueoftheContemporaryHumanSciences,3rdedn.Abingdon:Routledge.Born,Georgina(2006)‘Digitisingdemocracy’,inJohnLloydandJeanSeaton(eds)WhatCanBedone?MakingtheMediaandPoliticsBetter.Oxford:Blackwell/PoliticalQuarterly.Callinicos,Alex(2007)SocialTheory:aHistoricalIntroduction,2ndedn.Cambridge:PolityPress.Clifford,James(1986)‘Onethnographicallegory’,inJamesCliffordandGeorgeMarcus(eds)WritingCulture:thePoeticsandPoliticsofEthnography.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Couldry,Nick(2006)ListeningbeyondtheEchoes:Media,EthicsandAgencyinanUncertainWorld.BoulderCO:Paradigm.Craib,Ian(1992)ModernSocialTheory:fromParsonstoHabermas,2ndedn.NewYork:HarvesterWheatsheaf.Delanty,Gerard(2005)SocialScience:PhilosophicalandMethodologicalFounda-tions,2ndedn.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Delanty,GerardandStrydom,Piet(2003)PhilosophiesofSocialScience:theClassicandContemporaryReadings.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.Evans,JessicaandHesmondhalgh,David(eds)(2005)UnderstandingMedia:InsideCelebrity.MaidenheadandNewYork:OpenUniversityPress.Foucault,Michel(1990)TheHistoryofSexuality:anIntroduction.London:PenguinBooks.Fraser,Nancy(1989)UnrulyPractices:Power,DiscourseandGenderinContemporarySocialTheory.MinneapolisMN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Fraser,NancyandAxelHonneth(2003)RedistributionorRecognition?APolitical–PhilosophicalExchange.London:Verso.Giddens,Anthony(1984)TheConstitutionofSociety:OutlineoftheTheoryofStructuration.Cambridge:PolityPress.Gripsrud,Jostein(2002)UnderstandingMediaCultures.London:HodderArnold.Hall,Stuart(1993/1973)‘Encoding,decoding’,inSimonDuring(ed.)TheCulturalStudiesReader.London:Routledge.Hall,Stuart(1997)Representation:CulturalRepresentationsandSignifyingPractices.London:Sage/OpenUniversity.Harvey,David(2005)‘Thesociologicalandgeographicalimaginations’,Interna-tionalJournalofPoliticalandCulturalSociology18:211–55.Kellner,Douglas(2003)MediaSpectacles.London:Routledge.Kieran,Matthew(ed.)(1998)MediaEthics.London:Routledge.Layder,Derek(1993)NewStrategiesinSocialResearch:anIntroductionandGuide.Cambridge:PolityPress.McQuail,Denis(2005)McQuail’sMassCommunicationTheory,5thedn.London:Sage.Moores,Shaun(2005)Media/Theory:ThinkingaboutMediaandCommunications.London:Routledge.Morrison,DavidE.(1998)TheSearchforaMethod:FocusGroupsandtheDevelopmentofMassCommunicationResearch.Luton:UniversityofLutonPress.Nussbaum,Martha(2001)UpheavalsofThought:theIntelligenceoftheEmotions.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

[12:059/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch01.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:241–2424DavidHesmondhalghandJasonToynbeePeters,JohnDurham(1999)SpeakingintotheAir:aHistoryoftheIdeaofCommunication.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Sayer,Andrew(2004)‘Feminism,criticalrealismandeconomics:aresponsetoVanStaveren’,Post-autisticEconomicsReview29(6),article5,http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue29/Sayer29.htm(accessed27September2007).Sayer,Andrew(2005)TheMoralSignificanceofClass.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Scannell,Paddy(2007)MediaandCommunication.London:Sage.Scott,John(2006)SocialTheory:CentralIssuesinSociology.London:Sage.Thompson,JohnB.(1995)TheMediaandModernity:aSocialTheoryoftheMedia.Cambridge:PolityPress.Williams,Kevin(2003)UnderstandingMediaTheory.London:HodderArnold.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:2525–42PartIPoweranddemocracy

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:2625–42

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:2725–422MediaandtheparadoxesofpluralismKariKarppinenTheoriesandconcepts,onwhichnormativeviewsofmediaanddemocracybuild,havegenerallytakenapluralistoranti-essentialistturninrecentdecades.Whilenotionssuchas‘mediaquality’or‘publicinterest’areincreasinglycontested,pluralismanddiversitynotonlyhavebecomeindisputablevalues,butalsorankamongthefewpoliticallycorrectcriteriaforassessingmediaperformanceandregulation.Hardlyanyonewoulddisagreewiththeideathatcitizensneedtohaveaccesstoabroadrangeofpoliticalviews,culturalexpressionsandaestheticexperiencesinthepublicsphere.Themeaningandnatureofpluralismasanormativeprinciple,however,remainvagueandarguablyunder-theorised.Muchoftheconfusionsurroundingthenotionsofpluralismanddiversityinmediastudiesundoubtedlystemsfromtheirdisparateusesindifferentcontexts,butthereisalsoacertainambiguityinherentintheconceptofpluralismitself.AsGregorMcLennan(1995:7)hasnoted,theconstitutivevaguenessofpluralismasasocialvaluegivesitenoughideologicalflexibilityforittobecapableofsignifyingreactionarytendenciesinonephaseofthedebateandprogressivevaluesinthenext.Pluralismthusconstitutesahighlycontentiousandelusiveprincipleinpoliticalandsocialtheoryaswellasforevaluatingtheperformanceofthemedia.Takingsomedistancefromtheattractivenessofcommonsensepluralism,thischapterfocusesonsomeparadoxicaldimensionsinthepresentdiscussiononpluralismandthepublicsphere.Reflectingtherenewedemphasisonpluralisminpoliticaltheory,normativemodelsofdeliberativedemocracyandthepublicspherehavebeenincreasinglycriticisedforoveremphasisingsocialunityandrationalconsensus.Insteadofasingularnotionofthepublicsphere,publicuseofreasonorthecommongood,theoristsincreasinglystressthepluralityofpublicspheres,politicsofdifferenceandthecomplexityofwaysinwhichthemediacancontributetodemocracy.Asaresult,variousradical-pluralisttheoriesofdemocracythathaveattemptedtodeveloplessrigidlynormativeconceptionsofdemocracyandthepublicspherehavegainedmoreandmoreprominencealsoinmediastudies.IncontrasttotheallegedlyrationalisticandmonisticthrustoftheHabermasianpublicsphereapproach,theyareoftenseentoresonate

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:2825–4228KariKarppinenbetterwiththechaoticandcomplexnatureofthecontemporarymedialandscape.Idiscusstheimplicationsandpotentialsignificanceoftheradical-pluralistapproachformediastudiesandmediapolicyherebydrawingmainlyfromthepoliticalphilosophyofChantalMouffe(1993,2000,2005),whosemodelof‘agonisticpluralism’constitutesoneofthemostprominentalternativestodeliberativeconceptionsofdemocracy.Theratio-naleforthisistwofold.First,agonisticpluralismprovidesafundamentalcritiqueofthetraditionalHabermasianapproachtothepublicsphereanddemocracy.Second,andperhapsmoreimportant,Iarguethatherideasalsoprovideanequallystrongcritiqueof‘naivepluralism’thatcelebratesallmultiplicityanddiversitywithoutpayingattentiontothecontinuedcentralityofthequestionsofpowerandexclusioninthepublicsphere.AsMcLennan(1995:83–4)notes,oneofthemainproblemswithany‘principledpluralist’perspectiveremainshowtoconceptualisetheneedforpluralismanddiversitywithoutfallingintothetrapofflatness,relativism,indifference,andunquestioningacceptanceofmarket-drivendifferenceandconsumerculture.WhileMouffe’sapproachitselfisopentocriticismonmanyfronts,itservesasagoodstartingpointforillustratingsomeoftheproblemsindebatingthevalueofpluralisminmediapolitics.Thepurposeofdiscussingtheagonisticapproachhereisthereforenottoargueformorepluralismassuch.Instead,itservestoquestiontheinclusivenessofcurrentpluralisticdiscoursesandemphasisethecontinuedimportanceofanalysingrelationsofpowerincontemporarypublicspheres.Whiletheproblemsof‘naivepluralism’arecertainlynotforeigntocontemporarymediapolicy,theagonisticmodelofdemocracyisdiscussedhereasapossibletheoreticalbasisforbringingthecurrent‘ethosofpluralisation’tobearalsoonthelevelofmediastructuresandpolitics.TheambiguityofpluralismTheideaofpluralismasacrucialsocialandpoliticalvalueisnothingnew.Premisedontheimpossibilityofunambiguouslyestablishingtruth,rightorgood,especiallyinsocialandpoliticalaffairs,pluralismisoneoftheconstitutivetenetsofliberaldemocracy.AccordingtoMouffe(2000:18),theacceptanceofpluralism,understoodas‘theendofasubstantiveideaofthegoodlife’,isthemostimportantsingledefiningfeatureofmodernliberaldemocracythatdifferentiatesitfromancientmodelsofdemocracy.Atitsbroadestdefinition,pluralismcansimplybedefinedasatheorisedpreferenceformultiplicityoverunityanddiversityoveruniformityinwhateverfieldofenquiry(McLennan1995:25).Inthissense,almostallparticulardiscoursescouldbeconceivedasreflectingsomeaspectofthepluralism/monisminterface,andforMcLennan,ratherthanasaspecific

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:2925–42Mediaandtheparadoxesofpluralism29ideology,pluralismisbestconceivedasageneralintellectualorientation,whosespecificmanifestationswouldbeexpectedtochangedependingonthecontext.Despite,orperhapsbecauseof,itsubiquitousnature,itcanbearguedthatsometimespluralismitselfhasbecomethenewfoundationofsocialtheory.JohnKeane(1992),forinstance,hasarguedthatpoliticalvaluesofdemocracyandfreedomofspeechthemselvesshouldbeconceivedasmeansandnecessarypreconditionsofprotectingphilosophicalandpoliticalpluralism,ratherthanasfoundationalprinciplesthemselves.Whileacceptingmultiplicityandpluralismhasbecomealmostendemictorecentsocialtheory,variousuniversalformsofpoliticshavegivenwaytoanewpluralistimaginaryassociatedwithidentitypoliticsandpoliticsofdifference(seeBenhabib2002).AsAnnePhillips(2000:238)notes,therehasbeen‘anexplosionofnewliteratureonwhatareseenasthechallengesofdiversityanddifference’–whichaccordingtoBonnieHonig(1996:60)is‘justanotherwordforwhatusedtobecalledpluralism’.Insteadoftheutopiaofarationallybasedunitarypublicsphere,manyarguethatdemocracyneedstobeseenaspluralisedandmarkedbynewkindsofpoliticsofdifference.ForwriterslikeKeanetheidealofaunifiedpublicsphereanditscorrespondingvisionofaunitarypublicofcitizensarebecomingincreasinglyobsolete.Similarly,inmediastudies,ElizabethJacka(2003:183)hasarguedthat,insteadofuniversalvisionsofthecommongood,democracyneedstobeseenasbasedon‘pragmaticandnegotiatedexchangesaboutethicalbehaviourandethicallyinspiredcoursesofaction’,andweneedto‘countenanceapluralityofcommunicationmediaandmodesinwhichsuchadiversesetofexchangeswilloccur’.Suchapluralistapproachwouldthenbeinclusiveofdifferentgenresofmediatextsanddifferentformsofmediaorganisation,notprivileging‘highmodernjournalism’asasuperiorformofrationalcommunication.Inthecontextofthemedia,theattractionofpluralismwouldseemtobecloselylinkedtotheattacksonuniversalqualitycriteriaorotherunambiguouscriteriaforassessingmediaperformance.Inthissense,pluralismnotonlyconstitutesaperspectiveforassessingtheperformanceofthemediabutalsoaformofpoliticalrationalitythatdirectlyconcernsmediapolicy.AccordingtoNielsen(2003),theideasthatallformsofculturecontaintheirowncriteriaofqualityhavebrokentheuniversalbasisfordefiningculturalqualityandhaveledtoa‘pluralisticconsensus’inmediaandculturalpolicy.Thenotionsofquality,culturalvalueorpublicinterestarethusincreasinglyconceivedinarelativistmanner,avoidingthepaternalismoftheoldparadigmofmediapolicy.Theproblemwiththepluralisticconsensus,however,liesintheambi-guityofpluralismasanormativeprinciple.Inageneralsense,weareallpluralists,butoncloseranalysisitseemsthattheemphasisonpluralismanddiversitywillinevitablycreateitsownpathologiesandparadoxes.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3025–4230KariKarppinenPluralismanddiversitymayremaininherentlygood,but,asMcLennan(1995:8)writes,indeconstructingtheirvaluewearefacedwithquestionsofthefollowingorder.Istherenotapointatwhichhealthydiversityturnsintounhealthydissonance?Doespluralismmeanthatanythinggoes?Andwhatexactlyarethecriteriaforstoppingthepotentiallyendlessmultiplicationofvalidideas?AccordingtoLouiseMarcil-Lacoste(1992),pluralismentailsacertainambiguity‘betweentheover-fullandtheempty’:ontheonehand,pluralismsuggestsabundance,floweringandexpansionofvaluesandchoices,but,ontheotherhand,italsoevokesemptiness.Torecog-niseorpromotepluralityinsomecontextistosaynothingaboutthenatureofitselementsandissues,theirrelations,andvalue.Stemmingfromthis,pluralismcancombinebothcritiqueandevasion.Itinvolvescritiqueofallmonismsanditaimstodeconstructtheirfoundationalclaims.Yetthereisalsoevasion,intermsofitsrefusaltodevelopsubstantivenormativepositionsconcerningsocial,politicalandeconomicprocesses(ibid.).Inmanyways,theethosofevasivenessandvacuousnessisnotforeigntocontemporarydebatesinmediastudiesandmediapolicyeither.Partic-ularlyforthoseconcernedwithinstitutionalpoliticsandmediastructures,postmodernanti-foundationalismandparticularismhaveoftenrepresentedanirrationalthreattomoderndemocraticideals.Ifthereisnorationalbasisorcommonstandardforevaluatingthemedia,itisfeared,relativismwilltakeoverandthe‘politicsofdifference’willleadtoa‘politicsofindifference’.Giventhatpluralismisanotionthatnecessarilygeneratesconsensusanddoesnotimposeanylimits,itsflipsideisthatitindicatesnospecificcontentandfailstoresolvetheproblemsassociatedwithmediastructureanddemocraticregulationofthemedia.Forthisreason,thereisaneedtoanalysethedifferentlevelsandmeaningsoftheconceptandtheproblemsitinvolves.PluralismandthepublicsphereAlthoughpluralismmayhaveanumberofotherjustifications,Iwillherefocusonlyonthestatusofpluralismindemocratictheoryandpoliticalphilosophy.Asmentionedbefore,liberaltheoristsofdemocracyhavelongseenpluralismandtheclashofdivergentopinionsandinterestsinvariousrealmsofsociallifeasmediatingprogress(Bobbio1990:21–4).PerhapsmostfamouslythispointwasmadebyJ.S.Mill(1859/1986),whodefendedfreedomofspeechbyarguingthatallopinions,whethertrueorfalse,musthavetheirplaceinpublicsothattheirmeritscanbeopenlyevaluated.Thelegacyofliberalpluralismformediaregulation,however,hasbeenfarfromunproblematic.Liberalmediapolicydiscoursescommonlyconceptualisepluralismintermsof‘thefreemarketplaceofideas’–althoughthemetaphoranditscorrespondingtenetsofminimalregulationandfreedom

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3125–42Mediaandtheparadoxesofpluralism31ofchoiceforconsumersactuallyrepresentratherpoorlytheoriginalideasofMill(seeGordon1997;Baum2001;Splichal2002).Giventhelongtraditionofcritiquefromthecriticalpoliticaleconomyofcommunication,thenotionoffreechoiceinthemarketplacehasprovedafarfromadequateframeworkforconceptualisingmediapluralismoranyothergoalsformediapolicyotherthaneconomicones.Inresponse,criticalscholarshaveinsteadmostlyemployedthenotionofthepublicsphereasatheoreticalframeworkinwhichtoseekgroundingforthevalueofmediapluralism.Ingeneral,itisarguablyaroundthenotionofthepublicspherethatmostfruitfulinteractionbetweenpoliticaltheoryandmediastudieshastakenplaceinthelastdecades.WhilemuchofthedebateonthemediaandthepublicspheredrawsuponHabermas’searlywork(1989),thepublicsphereisalsomorebroadlyunderstoodasageneralcontextofinteractionwherecitizensgetinformedandpublicdiscussiontakesplace.Inthisgeneralsenseoftheconcept,voicingofdiverseviewsandaccesstoawiderangeofinformationandexperiencesarerarelyquestionedasapreconditionforcitizens’effectiveparticipationinpubliclife.Onreflection,however,itbecomesevidentthattheconceptofthepublicspherealsoincludesanaspectofcommonalityandunity.Therelationshipbetweenpluralismandthecommonalityinherentinthenotionofthepublicspherehasproventobeoneofthecentralpointsofcontentioninrecentdemocratictheory.Itcanbearguedthatatsomepointtheemphasisondiversityandpluralismrunsagainsttheimaginarypresuppositionsofdemocracyitself,sothatthereisaninherenttensionbetweenpluralismand‘publicness’(McLennan1995:92).Similarly,Mouffespeaksof‘thedemocraticparadox’:howtoenvisageaformofcommonalitystrongenoughtoinstitutea‘demos’butneverthelesscompatiblewithtruereligious,moral,culturalandpoliticalpluralism(Mouffe2000:64)?Consequently,therelativestatusofuniversalandpluralconceptionsofthepublicspherehasalsobeenoneofthekeysourcesofcontentionintheorisingtherelationshipbetweenmediaanddemocracy(seeBorn2006).Asthetheoreticalframeworkthathasdominatedmuchoftherecenttheorisingontheroleofthemediaindemocracy,theideaofdeliberativedemocracytriestoreconcilethistensionbymakingthediscursiveformationofthepublicspheretheessenceofpoliticalcommunity.Incontrasttoliberalpluralismorcommunitarianism,thedeliberativeapproachthusdeniesthepluralismoffixeddifferences(individualorcommunity)thatleadtoeitheranaggregationmodelofindividualinterestsorirreduciblecommunityidentities.Instead,theemphasisondifferenceiscomplemented,andqualified,withanemphasisonthestrongpublicsphereofrational-criticaldeliberation(seeDahlberg2005).Intheapproachesinformedbydeliberativedemocracy,theroleofthepublicsphereandthemediaisthenconceptualisedintermsofthe‘publicuseofreason’byfreeandequalcitizens.Itprovidesanorm

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3225–4232KariKarppinenofrational-criticaldeliberation,whichisfreefromstateandcorporateinterests,inclusive,aimedatunderstandingandagreement,reasonedandreflexive.Ascertainsocialinstitutionsevidentlyencouragethistypeofcommunicationmorethanothers,italsoprovidesanexplicitlynormativeframework,whichhassparkedawealthofdebateontherelationshipbetweenthemediaanddemocracy.Theidealofdeliberativedemocracy,however,hasnotescapedcriticism.Formany,therational-criticalbasisofthepublicspheredeliversanoverlyrationalistconceptionwhich,despiteclaimsthatitmakesroomfordifference,failstotheorisepluralismadequately.DrawingontheoristssuchasFoucaultandLyotard,criticsseethatthedeliberativeemphasisoncommunicativereasonleadsinevitablytoasupportforthestatusquoofexclusionsandinequalities,becauseitfailstoacknowledgethenormalisingtendenciesinvolvedinthedesignationofaparticularformofcommunicationastherational,democraticallylegitimatenorm(see,forinstance,Villa1992;Fraser1992;Baumeister2003;Gardiner2004).MuchofthecriticismisarguablybasedonarathersimplifiedreadingofdeliberativedemocracyandespeciallyHabermas’slaterwork,whichcanbeseenasadvocatingamuchmorepluralconceptionofpublicspheres(seeBrady2004;Dahlberg2005).Still,theemphasisonrationalconsensusiscommonlyseentounderestimatethedepthofsocietalpluralismandthefundamentalnatureofvalueconflicts,intermsofculturaldifferenceandstructuralconflictsofinterest.Thegeneralthrustofdeliberativedemocracyisthusseenastoodependentontheviewthatabenignsocialordermustbegroundedintheidealofconsensus.Whilesocialrealityisincreasinglyconceivedasachaoticsituationofdiversityandpluralism,theinsistenceonconsensusisseenastooidealised,toounrealisticandtooacademic(seeRescher1993).Inshort,thestressonconsensusanduniversalcriteriaofrationalityisseenasleadingtoanover-centralisedmodelofthepublicspherethatisincompatiblewithsocietalpluralismandthatinevitablyignoresinequalitiesbetweensocialgroupsandtheirspecificneeds.IrisMarionYoung(1997:401)amongothershasarguedthatthedefiningcharacteristicofapublicispluralityanditisirreducibletoasingledenominator.Thereforeaconceptionofpublicitythatrequiresitsmemberstoputasidetheirdifferencesinordertouncoverthecommongoodisseentodestroyitsverymeaning.OrevenmorebluntlyasBauman(1997:202)putsit:‘Habermas’s“perfectcommunication”,whichmeasuresitsownperfectionbyconsensusandtheexclusionofdissent,isanotherdreamofdeathwhichradicallycurestheillsoffreedom’slife.’Oneofthehallmarksof‘post-Habermasian’politicaltheory,then,seemstobeitsdistancingfromtheemphasisonrationalconsensus.Asaresult,theorisingaboutthepublicspherehastakenamarkedlypluralisticturninthepastdecades.Themostnotableimplicationofthisistherejectionofauniversalorsingularideaofthepublicsphereinfavourofaplurality

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3325–42Mediaandtheparadoxesofpluralism33ofpublicspheres,conceptualisedasacomplexfieldofmultiplecontestingpublics;arevisionthatevenHabermashimselfhasnowlargelyconceded.FromrationalconsensustoagonisticpluralismInlightoftheabovecritiquesofdeliberativedemocracy,agonistic,orradical-pluralist,theoriesofdemocracyhaverecentlyemergedamongthemostprominentalternativeimaginariesindemocraticthought.Radical-pluralisttheoriesofdemocracytypicallymaintainthatcivilsocietyisnotharmoniousorunitarybut,rather,characterisedbyconflictsofinterestandanirreduciblepluralismofvalues.Consequently,anysystemofrationalconsensusisseenasnotonlyutopian,butalsodangerousandnecessarilyexclusive.Iftheoriesofdeliberativedemocracyandthepublicspherehaveessen-tiallytriedtoreconcilethetensionbetweenpluralismandcommonalitybyplacingemphasisonagreementamongrationalinquirers,theagonisticmodelofdemocracyadvocatedbyChantalMouffecanbeseenasitsdirectantithesis:Thebeliefinthepossibilityofauniversalrationalconsensushasputdemocraticthinkingonthewrongtrack.Insteadoftryingtodesigntheinstitutionswhich,thoughsupposedly‘impartial’procedures,wouldreconcileallconflictinginterestsandvalues,thetaskfordemocratictheoristsandpoliticiansshouldbetoenvisagethecreationofavibrant‘agonistic’publicsphereofcontestationwheredifferenthegemonicpoliticalprojectscanbeconfronted.(Mouffe2005:3)Theunderlyingargumenthereisthattheidealofrational-criticaldeliber-ativepublicspherefailstoaddresspowerandexistingformsofexclusion.Furthermore,ithasnotadequatelytheorisedthethemesofplurality,opennessandundecidability,andthusinevitablyexcludesthearticulationofdifferenceandconflictoutsidedemocraticdeliberation.AsMouffe(2000:49)argues,‘consensusinaliberal-democraticsocietyis–andwillalwaysbe–theexpressionofhegemonyandthecrystallisationofpowerrelations…[and]becauseitpostulatestheavailabilityofconsensuswithoutexclusion,themodelofdeliberativedemocracyisunabletoenvisageliberal-democraticpluralisminanadequateway’.WhileHabermasconceivesthepublicsphereasanarenaofrationalandcriticaldebateleadingtoaconsensus,radicalpluralistsarguethatdemocracyshouldbeconceivedasagonisticconfrontationorcontinuedcontestation.AnothermistakeofliberalrationalismthatMouffe(2005:6)seesascharacteristicofdeliberativedemocracyistoignoretheaffectivedimensionmobilisedbycollectiveidentificationsandpassionsinpolitics.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3425–4234KariKarppinenInHabermas’sapproach,theseparationoftheprivaterealm,therealmofirreconcilablevaluepluralism,andtherealmofthepublic,whererationalconsensuscanbereached,isakeydistinction.AccordingtoMouffe,whatthisseparationreallydoesistocircumscribeadomainthatwouldnotbesubjecttothepluralismofvaluesandwhereaconsensuswithoutexclusioncouldbeestablished.Inassumingthatalldifferencescouldberelegatedtotheprivatespherethroughtheconstructionofaprocedurallybasedrationalconsensus,deliberativedemocratsignoretheirresolvablenatureofconflictsoverpoliticalvalues.They‘relegatepluralismtoanon-publicdomaininordertoinsulatepoliticsfromitsconsequences’(Mouffe2000:33,91–2).Agonisticpluralismalsorequiresabandoningtheessentialismdominantintheliberalinterpretationofpluralismandacknowledgingthecontin-gencyandambiguityofsocialidentities.Identitiesareneverfixed,butalwayscontested.Anagonisticpublicsphereisthusnotonlyanarenafortheformationofdiscursivepublicopinion,ortheaggregationofpredefinedinterests,butalsoasitefortheformationandcontestationofsocialidentities.Consequently,oneofthemainusesfortheagonisticapproachforscholarsinmediaandculturalstudieshasbeentopromoteamodelofthepublicspherewhichtakesintoaccountnotonlyrationaldebate,butalsoquestionsofemotion,passion,identityandtheirimportanceinmediause.RadicalpluralismandmediapoliticsWhenappliedtonormativedebatesonthemedia,suchradical-pluralistcritiquehasobviouslyfoundmostofitsresonanceasacritiqueofthebiasesandflawsofexistingnormativeframeworks.Inaway,thisalsoreflectsthedivisionofdemocratictheoriesinto(1)thoseorientedtodemocratisingorrationalisingtheproceduresofdecisionmakingand(2)thoseconfinedmoreexplicitlytotheprocessesofresistanceandcontestationasinherentlyvaluable.AsBonnieHonig(1993:2)writes,theradicalpluralistapproachjustifiesitselfaboveallasacritiqueofpoliticaltheoriststhatmeasuretheirsuccessbytheeliminationofdissonanceandconflict,andthusconfinepoliticstothetasksofstabilisingmoralandpoliticalsubjects,buildingconsensus,orconsolidatingcommunitiesandidentities.Radicalpluralismtherebyexplicitlyaimstoshifttheemphasisofdemocraticpoliticstotheprocessesofdislocation,contestationandresistance.Whilebothlogicsmayhavemerits,theroleofthemediahasneverbeenunderstoodsomuchintermsofdirectparticipationinstatepowerbutprimarilyintermsofacritiqueofothercentresofpower.EvenHabermas(1996:359)demotedthepublicspheretothestatusofa‘warningsystemwithsensorsthat,thoughunspecialised,aresensitivethroughsociety’andhastherebyseeminglyrelieveditfromtheburdenofsolvingproblemsorhavingtoproducearationalsolutiontopoliticalquestions.Inthissense,

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3525–42Mediaandtheparadoxesofpluralism35itiseasytounderstandwhyanapproachthatemphasisestheaspectsofcontestationanddislocation(insteadoftheutopiaofrationalisingsocietythroughsomeuniversalprinciples)seemsparticularlyattractiveintheorisingtheroleofthecontemporarymedia.Thedemandfornewtheoreticalperspectivesthusseemsevident.AsGeorginaBorn(2006)hasargued,currentdebatesonmediapolicyhavetendednottopaysufficientattentiontotheimplicationsofpluralismforcontemporarymedia.Atthesametime,however,shearguesthatmediapolicyanalystshavebaulkedatthechallengeoffoundingideasforreformonnormativerationalesorpoliticalphilosophy.TheproblemseemstobethatwhiletheHabermasianpublicsphereapproachhaslongbeenmobilisedasanormativebackboneindebatesonmediastructureandpolicy,forinstanceindefenceofpublicservicebroadcasting,theimplicationsofradicalpluralistperspectivesforthemediahavebeenmuchlessdebated.Infact,itseemsthatalackofinstitutionalproposalsorofinterestinconcretepoliticalquestionsisamorewidespreadfeatureofpostmoderntheoriesofradicaldifferenceandpluralism(McLennan1995:85).Theseperspectiveshavebeenusedmoreasoppositionaldiscoursesorcriticaltoolsinquestioningvariousmonismsofmediastudiesandpoliticaleconomy,andnotascoherentnormativetheoriesthatwouldpertaintoquestionsofmediastructureandpolicy.Formanycritics,thisaffirmstheproblemsofevasivenessandvac-uousnessinpostmodernandradicalpluralistperspectives.Whilemostacknowledgethattheyoftenprovidevaluablecritique,theygetcriticisedfortheirrefusaltodevelopsubstantivenormativepositions.Thishasledsomecriticstoarguethatwiththeemphasisondiversity,differenceandtheproliferationofidentitymovements,politicsisbecomingpluralisedtothepointofbeingtrivialised.Justasthe‘oldpluralism’ofliberalindividualismandinterestgrouppoli-ticswasmarkedbyastrategicavoidanceofpoliticaleconomyandquestionsofpower(seeMcClure1992),itcanbearguedthatthe‘newpluralism’ofidentitypoliticsissimilarlymarkedbyindifferenceandrelativismtowardsbroaderpoliticalandeconomicstructures.Inconcentratingontheformationofmultipleidentitiesitneglectstheunequalpossibilitiesopentodifferentgroups.NancyFraser(1997),forinstance,speaksofadividebetweenpoliticsofredistribution,understoodinmaterial,institutional,political-economicterms,andthe‘ethosofpluralisation’foundonthelevelofmicro-politicsandthesymbolicrealm.Initsdenialofalluniversalismandsystemicconcerns,Fraserargues,thediscourseofpluralisationhassofarbeenincapableofdealingwithmacro-politicalconcerns.AgainstnaivepluralismItseemsthatattimestheemphasisonpluralismandcomplexityechoesthepostmodernantipathytowardsallkindsofsocialcentralismandplanning

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3625–4236KariKarppinenandleadstoamoregeneralcritiqueofallkindsof‘culturalpolicing’,whichareseenasattemptstostabiliseorstifledifference,tocreatepoliticalclosureortodefineinotherwaystheacceptablelimitsofpluralismfromabove.Intheabsenceofalternatives,muchofthetheoreticalreflectiononmediaanddemocracyremainseitherexplicitlyorimplicitlybasedonnormativemodelsderivedfromtheHabermasiannotionofthepublicsphere,whichcriticsclaimisunnecessarilypessimisticandone-dimensional.Asacarry-overfromthepessimismofHabermas’sinitialformulationsofthepublicsphere,itwouldseemthatgrowingsocialdisintegrationandculturalfragmentationareinevitablycounterproductivetotheidealsthemediaoughttoserve,imposingatheoreticalframethatonecriticcalls‘democracyasdefeat’(Jacka2003).Consequently,radical-pluralistperspectiveshavebeenemployedmainlyascounter-narrativestotheHabermasianapproach.Forauthorswithamoreoptimisticoutlook,thekeydevelopmentthatissupposedlymakingamorepluralistmediasystempossibleisthegrowthofchannelavailabilitythatallowsevergreaterdiversityandchoice,cateringtomoreandmorespecialisttastesandneeds(Jacka2003:188).Pluralisticdemocracyisthenseentoberealisedwhenpeoplecanfreelyconstructtheiridentitiesbychoosingfromtheever-expandingoptionsinthepublicsphere.Followingthislineofreasoning,JohnHartley,forinstance,hascoinedthenotionof‘semioticdemocracy’toseparatedemocracyfromthetediousnessofcollectiveactionandtore-articulateitwithquestionsofself-realisationandthechoicespeoplemakeforthemselves.Interpretingcitizenshipprimarilyintermsofidentityanddifference,Hartleyinventstheconceptof‘do-it-yourselfcitizenship’as‘thepracticeofputtingtogetheranidentityfromtheavailablechoices,patternsandopportunitiesonofferinthesemiosphereandthemediasphere’(1999:178).Seeking‘democratisationwithoutpoliticisation’,writerslikeJackaandHartleyenvisageashiftfrompoliticaldemocracytosemioticdemocracy,afutureofpost-political,post-adversarialcitizenshipthatisbasedonsemioticself-determination–choicespeoplemakeforthemselves–ratherthanstatecoercionorpaternalism.Suchpostmodernanti-paternalism,whichleansontherecognitionofcomplexityandplurality,isfoundedonresistancetoanycentralrationalistplanningandthedenialofanysystematicorintegrativemetatheories.However,basedonsuchpraiseofindividualculturalautonomyandchoice,itisnowonderifthecurrentstressonpopularconsumption,activeaudiencesandindividualcreationofmeaningismistakenfortheneoliberalideaofconsumersovereignty.Itcanbearguedthatthediscussionofpluralisminmediastudiesandmediapolicyhasoftentakenaformofnaivecelebrationofallmultiplicity,whichalltooeasilyconvergeswiththeneoliberalillusionoffreechoice.Mypurposehereistoarguethatitispreciselythiskindof‘naivepluralism’andtheevacuationofpoliticaleconomythattheradical-pluralist

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3725–42Mediaandtheparadoxesofpluralism37approachindemocratictheoryisaimedagainst.Contrarytothepost-moderncelebrationofpluralism,Mouffehasexplicitlyarguedthatradicalpluralismmustbedistinguishedfromtheformsofpostmodernpoliticswhichemphasiseheterogeneityandincommensurabilitytotheextentofvalorisingalldifferences.Becauseofitsrefusaltoacknowledgetherelationsofpowerinvolvedin‘constructionsofdifferences’,suchnaivepluralism,Mouffe(2000:20)argues,iscompatiblewiththeliberalevasionofpolitics,andconvergeswiththetypicalliberalillusionofpluralismwithoutantagonism.Instead,forradicalpluralismtobecompatiblewiththestruggleagainstinequality,onemustalsoacknowledgethelimitsofpluralism.Equallycriticalofideassuchaslifepoliticsorsubpolitics–whichthenotionofsemioticdemocracywouldseemtoreflect–Mouffe(2005:54)hasexplicitlystressedtheneedtoacknowledgethecrucialroleplayedbyeconomicandpoliticalpowerinthestructuringofthehegemonicorder.Insteadofstandingfordissolutionofpoliticsintosemioticdemoc-racy,personaltherapy,orindividualdo-it-yourselfcitizenship,shehasstressedthatthedemocratisationofanysocialinstitutionisaboveallapoliticaltask.Itisbyemphasisingquestionsofpowerandexclusionthatradicalpluralismthereforetakesitsdistancefromboththeliberalnotionofthefreemarketplaceofideasandthepostmodernpraiseofalldifference.Iarguethat,inmediastudies,theradical-pluralistapproachisbestinterpreted,notaspraiseofmultiplicityassuch,butasacalltorecognisetheaspectofpower,exclusionandcontrolinherentinallconceptionsofthepublicsphere.Assuch,itdepartsfromthepoliticalminimalismofliberalpluralism,for,incontrasttotheviewthatpluralismisbestprotectedbyrestrictingpoliticstoitsbareessentials,radicalpluralistscontendthatspacesinwhichdifferencesmayconstitutethemselvesascontendingidentitiesaretodaymostefficientlyestablishedbypoliticalmeans(seeConnolly1991:xi).Thereisnoreasoninprinciple,then,whytheradical-pluralistperspectiveshouldbeincompatiblewithquestionsofmediapolicyorpoliticaleconomy.Rethinkingpluralism,choiceandregulationAmongthecentralmetaphorsthroughwhichpoliciesonmediapluralismoralmostanyotherpublicpolicyareconceivedtodayarethemarketplaceand‘choice’.AsZygmuntBauman(1997:93)putsit,freedomofchoicehasbecomethemainstratifyingvariableinourmultidimensionallystratifiedsocieties,toanextentthatchoosingiseverybody’sfate.Theonlydifferencesaretherangesofrealisticchoicesandtheresourcesneededtomakethem.Ofcourse,inthetraditionofcriticalpoliticaleconomyofthemedia,modelsbasedonfreecompetitionandchoicehavelongbeencriticisedfor

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3825–4238KariKarppinenignoringthatchoiceisalwayspre-structuredbytheexistingconditionsofcompetition.AsSplichal(1999:291)argues,the‘plurality’ofthemediaassuchisnotareliableindicatorofasociety’sleveloffreedom,sinceitmaycreateonlytheillusionofcontentdiversitybyhidingthefactthatallmasscommunicationprocessesarerestrainedbydifferentformsofindirectcontrolexercisedbyboththestateandprivatecorporations,rangingfromformalregulationtopressuresofadvertisingandsubsidisers.Arealisticquestionisthusnotwhethertherewillbeformsofpoliticalinterventionorregulationinthefuture,butratherwhatformtheyshouldtake,whatvaluestheyarebasedonandhowthesedecisionsarearrivedat.Moreeloquently,Bauman(1999:73–8)explainsthat,throughoutmoder-nity,theprincipaltoolof‘settingtheagendaforchoice’orpre-selectionhasbeenlegislation,atoolwhichpoliticalinstitutionsarenowaban-doning.However,this‘liberalisation’doesnotnecessarilymeanthatthefreedomofchoiceisexpanding,butthatthepowerofpre-selectionisbeingcededtonon-politicalinstitutions,aboveallmarketsthemselves.Consequently,thecodesorcriteriaofpre-selectionarechanging,and,amongthevaluestowardswhichchoosersaretrainedtoorienttheirchoices,short-termpleasure,hedonism,entertainmentandothermarket-generatedneedscometooccupyaprivilegedplace.So,accordingtoBauman,thelatemodernemphasisonfreedomofchoiceandindividualautonomyhasnotreallyincreasedindividualfreedom,buthasinsteadledto‘unfreedom’,thetransformationofapoliticalcitizentoaconsumerofmarketgoods.Thisillustratesthepointabouthowtheequationofmediapluralismwithfreechoicefailstotakeintoaccountthewiderrelationsofpowerinwhichthemediaaresituated.Contrarytothelanguageof‘thefreemarketplaceofideas’wherethemarketisseenasaself-regulatingandspontaneousmediator,themarketitselfisapoliticallydesignedinstitution,notahomogeneous,unstructuredandunregulatednaturalentity(seeKeane1992:119).Theactualshapeofthemarketsmustalwaysbecraftedbypoliticalandlegalregulationandithardlyemergesspontaneouslyasaneutralmediatorofcivilsociety.Anymarketalsoimposesitsowncriteriaofpre-selectionandconstructionofdifference.Inotherwords,everykindofsystemnecessarilylimitstherangeofpublicchoices,yetallofthemhaveatendencytopresentthisprocessofpre-selectionasneutralornaturalwhileintruththeircriteriaareinevitablypolitical,inthebroadsenseoftheword.Ifstructuralinequalitiesandconflictsareineradicable,asMouffeargues,themainquestionregardingthepublicsphereisthennothowtobracketoreveneradicaterelationsofpower,butrathertorecogniseandmakethemvisiblesothattheycanentertheterrainofpoliticalcontestation.Powerrelationscanbemodifiedandroomcanbemadeforapluralityofalternativemodesofpower.Acrucialquestionformediastudiesinformed

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:3925–42Mediaandtheparadoxesofpluralism39byradicalpluralismthusremains:whatinstitutionalarrangementswillbesthelpnarrowthegapinparticipatoryparitybetweendominantandsubordinategroupsandcreateapluralityofpowerstructuresthataremaximallyopentodemocraticcontestation(Fraser1992:122)?Basedonthis,wecanunderstandradicalpluralism,notasapostmoderncelebrationofspontaneousmultiplicity,butasacallforattentiontoinstitutionalrestructuringandmacro-politicalconcernsthatalsopertaintothepoliticaleconomyofthemedia.InthissenseitarguablyprovidesevenstrongernormativeframeworkformediareformthanthetraditionalHabermasianframework.Itisduetotheseparationofthecommunica-tiverealmfromthesystemicspheresofmoneyandpowerthatDryzek(2000:26),forinstance,hasconcludedthat,ifitprovidesnosenseofhowpoliticalandeconomicstructuresshouldbefurtherdemocratised,itisdifficulttoregardHabermas’stheoryofdemocracyasacontributiontocriticaltheory.WhileHabermasassumesthatparticipantsinidealpublicdeliberationsomehowbracketinequalitiesandtreateachotherasequal,hisradical-pluralistcriticslikeMouffeclaimthat,inpractice,thestructuralinequalitiesareundistinguishablefromtheactualcommunicativepractices.Inthissensetheyalsoconceivablypaymoreattentiontotheirmodification.InfacttheissuesherearequitesimilartothoseraisedbyNicholasGarnhamregardingidentitypolitics.Whileoneformofidentitypoliticsisaclaimforrecognitionandtoleration,anotheraspectisaclaimonscarceresources,suchasaccesstothemedia,culturalsubsidiesorproductionresources.Yet‘toooftenthereisanattempttocombinearequestforrecognitionandashareofpublicresourcesthatsuchrecognitionbringswithitand,atthesametime,demonisetheverycommondecisionmaking,thepolitics,thatmustinevitablygowithsuchresourcedistribution’(Garnham2003:198).Allinall,Iarguethatthereisnoreasonwhyradical-pluralistargumentscouldnotbeusedtodefendconcreteinstitutionalarrangementsinmediapolicy.(ForoneofthefewattemptstodothisseeCraig1999.)Publicser-vicebroadcastingorsupportforalternativemediastructures,forinstance,canbeseenaskeytoolsincreatingapluralityofpowerstructuresthatareopentodemocraticcontestationandthatresistthehegemonictendenciesofthemarket.ConclusionIbeganbypointingtosomecontradictionsandparadoxesinusingpluralismasacatch-allvalueinmediapolitics.Whilemanycurrentargumentsinmediapolicypointbacktosomeofthecentralproblemswithpluralism–bothphilosophicallyandpolitically–itisnotmypurposetoarguethatpluralismshouldnotremainanimportantvalueincontemporarymediapolicy.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4025–4240KariKarppinenHowever,itisimportanttonotethat,regardlessoftheirpopularity,pluralismanddiversityhavetheirlimitsaspolicyprinciples.Notonlyaretherelimitstopluralisminbothpolitical-economicandethicalterms,theconceptofpluralismitselfdoesnotoffermuchunambiguousbasisforthedemandsofdemocraticpoliticsonthemedia,butratherconstitutesitselfanobjectofpoliticalcontestation.Withdevelopmentsinmediatechnologyitisbecomingevenlessclearinwhichsenseitismeaningfultospeakofmediapluralism,ifthemedialandscapeischaracterisedmorebyabundanceandlimitlesschoicethanbyscarcityorlackofoptions.WhatIhaveproposedhere,bymeansofapplyingtheideaofagonisticpluralismtothecontextofmediapolitics,isthatitisnotenoughtoconceivemediapluralismintermsofheterogeneityandadiversificationofoptions.Instead,itneedstobeanalysedinconnectionwiththestructuralrelationsofpowerthatdefinethecriteriathatguidesystemsofrepresentationandlimittheavailablechoices.Posedasanalternativetobothliberalminimalismandtotherationalisticidealisationsofdeliberativedemocracy,theradicalpluralistapproachcanthusbeunderstoodasanargumentforthecontinuingcentralityofquestionofpowerinmediapolitics.ThedangerofwhatIcalled‘naivepluralism’isthereforethatsuchquestionsareveiledorignoredundertheillusionofcommunicativeabundanceorlimitlesschoice.Unequalrelationsofpowerremaincrucialinthefieldofmediapolicyandmediainstitutionsandthereisnoreasontothinkthattechnologicaloranyotherdevelopmentswillleadtospontaneousharmony.Thispointstothecontinuedrelevanceofthecriticalpoliticaleconomyofcommunication,anditsattemptstorevealandanalysestructuralhierarchiesofpowerthatinfluenceandshapeourmediaenvironment.Andassuchanalysisusuallyleadstonormativequestions,italsodemandsthatwecontinuallyengagewithnormativepoliticaltheoryofdifferentorientationstotestournormativeassumptions.BibliographyBaum,B.(2001)‘Freedom,powerandpublicopinion:J.S.Millonthepublicsphere’,HistoryofPoliticalThought22(3):501–24.Bauman,Z.(1997)PostmodernityanditsDiscontents.Cambridge:PolityPress.Bauman,Z.(1999)InSearchofPolitics.Cambridge:PolityPress.Baumeister,A.T.(2003)‘Habermas:discourseandculturaldiversity’,PoliticalStudies51(4):740–58.Benhabib,S.(2002)ClaimsofCulture:EqualityandDiversityintheGlobalEra.PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Bobbio,N.(1990)LiberalismandDemocracy.London:Verso.Born,G.(2006)‘Digitisingdemocracy’,PoliticalQuarterly76(1):102–23.Brady,J.S.(2004)‘AssessingtheagonisticcritiquesofJürgenHabermas’stheoryofthepublicsphere’,PhilosophyandSocialCriticism30(3):331–54.Connolly,W.(1991)Identity/Difference:DemocraticNegotiationsofPoliticalParadox.IthacaNYandLondon:CornellUniversityPress.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4125–42Mediaandtheparadoxesofpluralism41Craig,G.(1999)‘Perpetualcrisis:thepoliticsofsavingtheABC’,MediaInternationalAustralia95:105–16.Dahlberg,L.(2005)‘TheHabermasianpublicsphere:takingdifferenceseriously?’TheoryandSociety34(2):111–36.Dryzek,J.S.(2000)DeliberativeDemocracyandBeyond:Liberals,Critics,Contestations.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Fraser,N.(1992)‘Rethinkingthepublicsphere:acontributiontothecritiqueofactuallyexistingdemocracy’,inC.Calhoun(ed.)HabermasandthePublicSphere.CambridgeMA:MITPress.Fraser,N.(1997)JusticeInterruptus:CriticalReflectionsonthe‘Postsocialist’Condition.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.Gardiner,M.(2004)‘Wildpublicsandgrotesquesymposiums:HabermasandBakhtinondialogue,everydaylife,andthepublicsphere’,inN.CrossleyandM.Roberts(eds)AfterHabermas:NewPerspectivesonthePublicSphere.Oxford:Blackwell.Garnham,N.(2003)‘AresponsetoElizabetJacka’sDemocracyasDefeat’,TelevisionandNewMedia4(2):193–200.Gordon,J.(1997)‘JohnStuartMillandthe“marketplaceofideas”’,SocialTheoryandPractice23(2):235–50.Habermas,J.(1962/1989)TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere.Cambridge:PolityPress.Habermas,J.(1996)BetweenFactsandNorms.Cambridge:PolityPress.Hartley,J.(1999)UsesofTelevision.London:Routledge.Honig,B.(1993)PoliticalTheoryandtheDisplacementofPolitics.IthacaNYandLondon:CornellUniversityPress.Honig,B.(1996)‘Difference,dilemmasandthepoliticsofhome’,inS.Benhabib(ed.)DemocracyandDifference.PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Jacka,E.(2003)‘Democracyasdefeat’,TelevisionandNewMedia4(2):177–91.Keane,J.(1992)‘Democracyandthemedia–withoutfoundations’,PoliticalStudies(specialissue)40:116–29.Marcil-Lacoste,L.(1992)‘Theparadoxesofpluralism’,inC.Mouffe(ed.)DimensionsofRadicalDemocracy.London:Verso.McClure,K.(1992)‘Onthesubjectofrights:pluralism,pluralityandpoliticalidentity’,inC.Mouffe(ed.)DimensionsofRadicalDemocracy.London:Verso.McLennan,G.(1995)Pluralism.Buckingham:OpenUniversityPress.Mill,J.S.(1859/1986)OnLiberty.BuffaloNY:PrometheusBooks.Mouffe,C.(1993)TheReturnofthePolitical.LondonandNewYork:Verso.Mouffe,C.(2000)DemocraticParadox.London:Verso.Mouffe,C.(2005)OnthePolitical.London:Routledge.Nielsen,H.K.(2003)‘Culturalpolicyandevaluationofquality’,InternationalJournalofCulturalPolicy9(3):237–45.Phillips,A.(2000)‘Equality,pluralism,universality:currentconcernsinnormativetheory’,BritishJournalofPoliticsandInternationalRelations2(2):237–55.Rescher,N.(1993)Pluralism:AgainsttheDemandforConsensus.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Splichal,S.(1999)PublicOpinion:DevelopmentsandControversiesintheTwentiethCentury.LanhamMD:Rowman&Littlefield.Splichal,S.(2002)PrinciplesofPublicityandPressFreedom.LanhamMD:Rowman&Littlefield.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch02.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4225–4242KariKarppinenVilla,D.R(1992)‘Postmodernismandthepublicsphere’,AmericanPoliticalScienceReview86(3):712–21.Young,I.M.(1997)‘Differenceasaresourcefordemocraticcommunication’,inJ.BohmanandW.Rehg(eds)DeliberativeDemocracy:EssaysonReasonandPolitics.CambridgeMA:MITPress.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4343–583Neoliberalism,socialmovementsandchangeinmediasystemsinthelatetwentiethcenturyDanielC.HallinOverthepastfewdecades,manydimensionsofsociallifethatonceremainedatleastpartlyoutsidethestructureofthemarkethavenowbeenincorporatedsubstantiallyintoit.Themassmediaareamongthemostimportantofthosesocialinstitutionswhichhavebeensubjectto‘enclosure’bythelogicofthemarketintheAgeofNeoliberalism.Itiscommontodaytobuildthestoryofrecentsocialchange,andinparticulartodiscusschangeinmediainstitutionsoverthepastgeneration,intermsoftheshifttoneoliberalism.Alltoooften,however,thiswayoftellingthestoryofmediaandsocialchangerestscontentwithvagueandsimplisticformulationswhich,Iwillargue,arefarfromadequatetounderstandthechangesthathavetakenplaceinmediaandinsocialsystemsoverthisperiod.TakeforexampleDavidHarvey’sgenerallyveryusefullittlebookABriefHistoryofNeoliberalism.Thisbooksayscuriouslylittleaboutthemedia,thoughitcouldbearguedthatchangesinthemediasystemareactuallyrathercentraltotheriseofneoliberalism.Thisisbecausemarket-basedmediahaveoftendisplacednon-marketformsofsocialorganisation–aspoliticalmarketing,forexample,displacesolderformsofpoliticalorganisation–andbecausecontemporarymediaareamongthe‘newapparatusesthatintegratesubjectsintoamoralnexusofidentifications’(Rose1996:57–8)thatarecrucialtothe‘governmentatadistance’thatconstituteswhatRosecalls‘advancedliberalism’.WhatHarveydoessayisthefollowing(p.80):‘afewmediamagnatescontrolmostoftheflowofnews,muchofwhichthenbecomespurepropaganda’.ThisanalysisisconsistentwithHarvey’sgeneralinterpretationofneoliberalismasaboveallarestorationofthesocialandpoliticalpowerofeconomicelites.Manyaccountswithinmediastudiescharacterisetheshifttoneoliberalisminthemediasphereratherdifferently,asaprocessofdepoliticisation,inwhichmedialosetheirfunctionasinstitutionsofthepublicsphereandareabsorbedintotheworldofcommerceandconsumptionasmerevehiclesforadvertisingandforacommodifiedentertainmentindustry.Therearewaysinwhichthesetwoformulationsmightbereconciled,buttheyaredifferentenoughonthesurfacetosuggesttheneedforafairlycarefulanalysisaboutjustwhatthesignificanceoftheshifttowardmoremarket-drivenmediaactuallyis.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4443–5844DanielC.HallinOnethingthatisoftenmissinginaccountsoftheriseofneoliberalismisaclearanalysisofwhereneoliberalismcamefrom,whattheoldsocialorderwasthatitdisplaced,andwhythatoldorderbrokedown.WhatIwouldliketodointhischapteristotracethishistoricalbackgroundmoreconcretelyandtoshowhowthiscanpointusinthedirectionofamorecomplexunderstandingofmediaintheAgeofNeoliberalism.Oncewebegintryingtomovetheanalysisbeyondtheglobalconceptofneoliberalism,ofcourse,wehavetoconfrontthefactthatthishistoryisnotthesameallovertheworld,thoughtheremaybesomecommonelementstoit.IwillfocushereonthreeareasoftheworldwhichIknowreasonablywell:theUnitedStates,WesternEuropeandLatinAmerica.Partsoftheanalysiswillcertainlyapplytootherpartsoftheworld,otherpartsmaynot.TheshifttoneoliberalisminmediasystemsanditshistoricalcontextTheoldorder:themarket,politicalinstitutionsandmediaprofessionalisminthemid-twentiethcenturyThemassmediaintheWesthavealwaysbeencentrallyaninstitutionofthemarket.JohannesGutenbergwasagoldsmith,andFutz,whobankrolledhisenterpriseandeventuallycontrolledit,wasalawyer;bothwerepartoftheemergingmarketsocietyofearlymodernEurope.Theearly‘printcapitalism’ofwhichtheywerepioneerswasthentransformedinthenineteenthcenturywiththeriseofmass-circulationnewspapers,beginningintheUnitedStatesinthe1830s,andlaterintheninetenthcenturyinEurope.Thenewspaperwasoneofthefirstmass-producedcommodities,andnewspaperswereamongthelargestmanufacturingcompaniesinthenineteenthcentury,atleastintheUnitedStatesandBritain.Inthepresssystemsthatprevailedinthemid-twentiethcentury,however,marketplacelogicwascounterbalancedandmodifiedbytwoforces.First,andespeciallyimportantincontinentalEurope,werethestrongtiesthatexistedbetweenthemediaandtheorganisedsocialgroupsthatmadeupthepublicsphere,andalsolargelycontrolledthestate:politicalparties,tradeunions,churchesandthelike(HallinandMancini2004).IntermsofBourdieuianfieldtheory,wecouldsaythattheseties,togetherwiththerelatedfactthatbroadcastingwasorganisedasaninstitutionofthestate,meantthattheinfluenceofthepoliticalfieldonthemediacounterbalancedtoasignificantextentthatoftheeconomicfield.Koller(2007)arguesthatHabermas(1989),inhisaccountofthestructuraltransformationofthepublicsphere,collapseswhatwereactuallytwostructuraltransformations:thefirst,inthenineteenthcentury,involvingthedevelopmentoflarge-scalemassmediatiedtomassformsofsocialorganisation,andthesecond,takingplaceinthepost-WorldWarIIperiodinEurope,involvingthedisplacementof

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4543–58Neoliberalism,socialmovementsandchange45theseorganisations,whichformedpartofthepoliticalworld,bypurelycommercialmedia.1Thesecondforce,especiallyimportantinUSnewsmedia(whereotherforcesbalancingthemarketweremuchweaker),butalsoinslightlydifferentformsinEurope,wasjournalisticprofessionalism.Journalisticprofessionalismhasacomplexrelationshipwiththemarket;indeed,ithasacomplexrelationshipwithalltheforcesIwilldiscussinthischapter–themarket,thestateandpoliticalparties,andsocialmovements.Itsorigins,particularlyintheUnitedStatesandBritain,arecloselyconnectedwiththeriseofthecommercialmasspressandthespecialisationofthereportingfunctionthattookplaceinlargecommercialnewspapers.Butitdidincrucialwaysprovideacounterweighttothemarket.Itinvolvedtheconsolidationofarelativedegreeofwhat,inBourdieu’sterms,wouldbecalledfieldautonomy,includinganormativeorder,widelyacceptedformanydecadesnotonlybyjournalistsbutalsobymediaownersandbythewidersociety,whichemphasisedtheresponsibilityofjournaliststowidersocialgoalsandnotjusttotheirparticularemployers.ItwasstrongenoughthatwhenHerbertGans(1979)didhisclassicparticipantobservationstudyofAmericannewsorganisationsinthe1970s,hefoundthatjournalistspaidlittledirectattentiontomarket-basedcriteriaintheproductionofnews.ItwasinstitutionalisedintheformofprofessionalassociationsliketheAmericanSocietyofNewspaperEditorsand,inEurope,ofteninstrongtradeunions,presscouncils,andsometimeslegalregulationsorstructuresprotectingjournalisticautonomywithinthenewsorganisation.Theextenttowhichprofessionalismexistedintensionwiththecommer-cialbasisofthepressisclearinthekindsofconflictthathavearisenasneoliberalismhaschallengedtheautonomyofthejournalisticfield.AfewcoversfromtheColumbiaJournalismReview,themainprofessionalpublicationofAmericanjournalism,giveasenseofthestrongreactionofjournaliststothischallenge:‘Moneylust:howpressureforprofitispervertingjournalism’(July–August1998);‘Zipit:newpressuresfromadvertisers’(September–October1997);and‘Crackingthechurch–statewall…it’snotjustLosAngeles’(January–February1998).InAmericanjournalisticideologythe‘church–statewall’hasadoublemeaning,referringtotheseparationrequiredbyjournalisticethicsbetweentheeditorialpageofthenewspaperandthenewscolumns(betweenjournalismandpolitics)andbetweenthebusinessandeditorialsidesofthepaper(betweenjournalismandthemarket).Oneofthedifferencesbetweenneoliberalismandtheliberalismofthemid-twentiethcenturyisthatmid-twentieth-centuryliberalscelebratedprofessionalismpreciselybecause,intheirview,itprovedthatcapitalismdidnotnecessarilyleave‘noothernexusbetweenmanandmanthannakedself-interest,thancallous“cashpayment”’–asMarx(1974:70)hadchargedinTheCommunistManifesto;theriseofprofessionalismprovedthatthemarketcouldcoexistpeacefullywith

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4643–5846DanielC.Hallinothersocialstructures,whereothervaluesystemsandlogicsofsocialactionprevailed.ThiswasTalcottParsons’(1939)view.Neoliberalsdonotbelieve,asParsonsdid,in‘differentiation’andarecontemptuousoftheideathatprofessionalshaveresponsibilitiesthattranscendmarketvalues.Broadcasting,meanwhile,haddevelopedalongverydifferentlinesthanthepress:inEuropeitremainedforthemostpartoutsidetheworldofcommercealtogether,governedbyvaryingcombinationsofpoliticallogicsandlogicsofjournalisticprofessionalismandrelativelyautonomousculturalproduction.EvenintheUnitedStates,commercialbroadcastingwasstate-regulatedandbasedona‘trusteeshipmodel’whichimposedpublicserviceobligationsonbroadcasters.Regulationcombinedwithlimitedcompetitiontomutemarketpressures,atleastwherethenewsdivisionsofthetelevisionnetworkswereconcerned(Hallin2000a).ThebalancetipstowardmarketforcesThisoldorderintheWesternmediasystemwasunderminedbyanumberofforces.Onewasthecommercialisationofthemediathemselves.Asearlyasthe1950spartynewspapersandotherformsofrepresentativemediawerelosinggroundtothecommercialpress,andtheyforthemostpartdiedoutasasignificantforceinthelasttwodecadesofthetwentiethcentury.Newspapermarkets,withtheirdramaticeconomiesofscale,tendtowardconcentration,anditbecameincreasinglydifficultforpartypaperstocompetewithlarge‘catch-all’commercialpaperswhichde-emphasisedpoliticalcommitments.IntheUnitedStatespartypaperswerealreadylongdeadbythemid-twentiethcentury.Butfromaboutthe1950stothe1970stwospecialconditionsprovidednewspaperswithlimitedinsulationfrommarketpressures(Hallin2000a).Mosthadachievedmonopoliesintheirprimarymarkets,socompetitivepressureswereminimal.Andmostwerefamily-owned,meaningthattheywerenotsubjecttothepressuresofWallStreet.ItwasinthiseconomiccontextthatjournalisticprofessionalismwasconsolidatedintheUnitedStates,andnewspaperstendedtopresentthemselvesnotasordinarybusinessesbutasinstitutionsofdemocraticcitizenship.Beginninginthe1970s,however,mostnewspaperswereeventuallysoldtopub-liclytradedcompanies,andasthishappenedexpectationsrosefortheprofitmarginstheywouldreturn.Readership,meanwhile,wasdeclining,andinrecentyearsadvertisingrevenuehasaswell.Bythe1990s,astheColumbiaJournalismReviewlamented,journalistswereincreasinglyforcedtodefertobusinessmanagersandthemarket-basedlogictheyenforced.Inbroadcastingthechangewasevenmoredramatic,withEuropeanbroadcastingshiftinginthe1980sand1990sfrompublicservicesystemstosystemsdominatedbycommercialbroadcasting,whileintheUnitedStates

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4743–58Neoliberalism,socialmovementsandchange47deregulationlargelyremovedthepublicserviceobligationswhichhadbeenattheheartofthe‘trusteeship’model.Inbothcases,moreover,televisionmarketsbecamevastlymorecompetitive,andaprimarilycommercialinternetsectordevelopedalongsidebroadcasting.LatinAmerica,liketheUnitedStates,alwayshadprimarilyprivatelyowned,commercialmedia,thoughwithdirectstateinterventionincertaincountriesandcertainperiods.NeverthelessinLatinAmericamarketforceswereoftenovershadowedbypoliticalforcesinthemid-twentiethcentury.Newspapers,whichneverhadthecirculationsoradvertisingbasesoftheirNorthAmericanorEuropeancounterparts,wereoftendependentonsubsidiesfromthestateorweresupportedbywealthyelitesasvehiclesforpoliticalintervention.Journalistswereoftenintegratedintoclientelistpoliticalnetworks.Andmoreprofitablebroadcastingenterpriseswereoftenrunbyownerswhoseclosepoliticaltiesallowedthemtoexcludesignificantcompetition.Inthe1980sand1990s,however,therewasastrongshifttowhatWaisbord(2000)calls‘market-powerful’media.State-runenterprises,includingstate-runmedia,wereprivatised,broadcastmarketsgrewconsiderablyandbecamemorecompetitive,for-eigninvestmentincreased,politicallytiednewspapersoftenlostouttomarket-orientedones,andmediaofallsortswereincreasinglyintegratedintoeconomicallypowerfulmultimediaconglomerates,oftenwithstrongtransnationaloperations.ThepoliticalandsocialcontextThecollapseofthemid-twentieth-centurymediasystem,anditsreplace-mentbyamediasystemclearlydominatedbymarketforces,tookplaceinthecontextofabroadersocialandpoliticaltransformationinwhichkeyinstitutionsofthepoliticalfield,particularlytheorganisedsocialgroupsthatmadeupthepoliticalpublicsphere,losttheircentralitytopeople’slivesandcommitments.Thistransformationbeganbeforetheriseofneoliberalideologyinthe1980sand1990s,andisclearlycrucialtounderstandingthelatter.Ithasnot,however,beenanalysedbyscholarsinnearlythedetailitdeserves.Thereisnoclearconsensusonwhattocallit;HallinandMancini(2004)refertoitas‘secularisation’.BeckandBeck-Gernsheim(2002)refertoitas‘individualisation’.Thereare,however,largeliteraturesthatdocumentpartsoftheprocess,forexamplethedeclineofpoliticalpartiesandotherorganisedsocialgroups,or,perhapsmoreprecisely,theirtransformationfromorganisationsintimatelyconnectedwiththelivesandidentitiesofsocialgroupsintoprofession-allyrunenterprisesthattargetindividualcitizensasconsumerswithinpoliticalmarkets(e.g.DaltonandWattenberg2000).Animportantpartoftheshift,andonewhichdeeplyimplicatedthemedia,wasashiftfrommorecollectivisttomoreindividualistorientationsandpatternsofcommunicationandassociation.Swedishresearchers,forexample,

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4843–5848DanielC.Hallinlookingatthetransformationofjournalisticdiscourseoveraperiodofdecades,describethedominantcommunicationpatternsinthe1950sthisway:Atypicalcommunicativesituationatthistimemightshowagroupinconversationoranaudiencelisteningtodiscussions,lecturesandinau-gurationspeeches.Adominatingthemeisbelongingversuslonelinessorisolation,inconnectionwithwhichwefindreportsaboutunique,symbolicevents:Bridgesarebeingbuiltfortheisolated,andicehockeyhallsandyouthclubsareconstructedfortheyoung.Bridgesconquerdistanceandeliminateisolation,andpeoplegatherinnewhallsandclubs.(Olsson2002:69–71)Thisactivityofsocialconstructionwasaccomplishedbycollectivepoliticalinstitutions,bythestateandbyorganisedsocialgroupsco-operatingwiththestate.Themediaidentifiedthemselvescloselywiththeseinstitutionsandtheirprocessofco-operation.Bythe1990sthetalkshowcouldprobablybeconsideredthequintessentialforumofpoliticalcommunication,aforminwhichindividualcitizensexpresstheirparticularopinions,andcollectivepoliticalinstitutionsaregenerallyseenasobstaclestotherealisationoftheirends.Whythistransformationtookplaceremainsanopenquestion.Surely,though,oneofthebasiccauseswastheincorporationofthemassofthepopulationinEuropeandNorthAmericaintoanaffluentconsumersocietyandastablewelfarestate,inwhich,forbetterorforworse,individualsfelttheywerenolongerdependentontheirparticulargroup,itsorganisationandleadership.Koller(2007)alsoemphasisestheimportanceoftheColdWar,whichcontributedtothedeactivationoftheideologicalandgroupboundariesthatwerecentraltotheoldpoliticalorder.Lateron,theshifttoneoliberalism,andtheconstraintsthatshiftimposedonwhatcouldbeaccomplishedthroughthepoliticalrealm,nodoubtcontributedtofinishingoffthemorecollectivistpoliticalcultureofthemid-twentiethcentury.Themediathemselveswerenottheprimemoversofthissocialtransfor-mation,thoughtheyprobablydidcontributetoitinsignificantways.Massmediacertainlyplayedaroleinpromotingthegrowthoftheconsumersociety,mostobviouslyintheAmericas,wherecommercialtelevisiondominated,buttoasignificantextentinEuropeaswell.Andevenapartfromconsumerism,thestructureofmediaaudiencesincreasinglycutacrossgroupboundaries,andmediadiscourseswereincreasinglydirectedinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturytoindividualsratherthantodistinctcommunitiesororganisedgroups.Commercialnewspapersexpandedtheiraudiencesacrossgroupboundaries,forexample;televisionallowedpoliticalpartiestoappealtowiderpublicsbeyondtheirorganisationallyconstituted

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:4943–58Neoliberalism,socialmovementsandchange49bases;andthesedevelopmentshelpedtotransformbothcultureandsocialstructure.Criticalprofessionalism,populismandnewsocialmovementsAnotherwayinwhichdevelopmentsinternaltothemediacontributedtothetransformationhastodowithprofessionalism,andhereIcometothepointwhereIwanttobegintocomplicatethepicture,todeveloptheargumentthatthereismoretothissocialtransformationthansimplytheshifttoconsumerismandeventuallyneoliberalism.Inthe1960sandearly1970stherewasanimportantshiftinthenewsmediatowardwhatmanyanalystshavecalled‘criticalprofessionalism’(e.g.Djerf-Pierre2000;Neveu2001,2002).Journalistswhohadpreviouslydeferredtopartyandgroupleadersortostateofficialsincreasinglybegantoasserttheirindependenceandtheirrighttoscrutiniseelitesandestablishedinstitutionsonbehalfoftheirreadersandof‘society’or‘thepublic’.ThistrendoccurredbroadlyacrossvirtuallyallofEuropeandNorthAmerica,andtosomeextentinLatinAmericaaswell.OneexamplewouldbeMexico,wherejournalistsattheleadingnewspaperExcélsiorbeganassertingindependence(Leñero1991;SchererandMonsiváis2003),wereoustedbytherulingpartyin1976,andwentontofoundwhatwouldbecomeanewindependentpresssectorapartfromtheoldcorporatistsystem(Hallin2000c;Hughes2006;Lawson2002).HereishowaSwedishresearchersummarisestheshiftthere:Thenewjournalism[oftheperiod1965–85]approacheditsaudienceintheirroleascitizensandaimedtoprovidethemwithknowledgeandinsightswhichwerecrucialtomassparticipationindemocraticprocesses.Underlyingthenewjournalistculturewasaconflictper-spectiveonsociety.Thisindicatedaradicalshiftinperspectivefromtheidealofjournalismasamirrorandtheconsensusperspectivethathadprevailedthroughthe1950sandearly1960s.Oneoftheprimeambitionsofthenewjournalismwastocastlightoninjusticesandwrongdoing,toexposeabusesofpowerandtoexaminetheundersideofsociety.(Djerf-Pierre2000:254)Theriseofmedia-drivenscandalsinthisperiodwasofcoursecloselyrelatedtothisshift(Thompson2000).Criticalprofessionalismunderminedtheauthorityofthepoliticalinsti-tutionsandweakenedtheirholdonthemediaandonsocietyandculturemoregenerally.Politicalelitesandtheirdefendersoftendecriedthisdevelopment.ThusSamuelHuntington,inthesectionontheUnitedStates

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5043–5850DanielC.Hallinhepreparedaspartofa‘ReportontheGovernabilityofDemocraciestotheTrilateralCommission’,wrote:Themostnotablenewsourceofnationalpowerin1970,ascom-paredto1950,wasthenationalmedia….Thereis…considerableevidencetosuggestthatthedevelopmentoftelevisionjournalismcontributedtotheunderminingofgovernmentalauthority.Theadventofthehalf-hournewsbroadcastledtogreatlyincreasedpopulardependenceontelevisionasasourceofnews.Italsogreatlyexpandedthesizeoftheaudiencefornews.Atthesametime,thethemeswhichwerestressed,thefocusoncontroversyandviolence,and,conceivably,thevaluesandoutlookofthejournalists,tendedtoarouseunfavorableattitudestowardestablishedinstitutionsandtopromoteadeclineofconfidenceingovernment.(Crozieretal.1975:98–9)Huntingtonexaggeratedtheextentofthechange,ignoredthehighlydeferentialbaselinefromwhichitbegan,andobscuredthewidersocialandpoliticalcontextinwhichittookplace–theVietnamWar,theabusesofpowerrevealedinWatergate,etc.Butthechangehewasreferringtowasveryrealinmanyways.Theriseofcriticalprofessionalisminjournalismcanbeunderstoodinpartasadevelopmentinternaltothemedia,aresultoftheincreasingscaleofnewsorganisationsandtheexpansionofthesizeandsocialroleofthepresscorps.Butitwasalsocloselyconnectedtoanotherimportantsetofsocialchangesthattookplaceparalleltotheriseofconsumeristindividualism:thiswastheculturalandpoliticalrebellionofthe1960sand1970s,the‘rightsrevolution’,asSchudson(1998)termsit,andtheriseofnewsocialmovements.Thesesocialmovements–probablywehavetoincludeamongthemnotonlytheleft-wingmovementswetraditionallyassociatewiththisperiodbutalsotheright-wingpopulistmovementsthatbegantodevelop,usuallyabitlater,includingtheevangelicalChristianpoliticalmovementintheUnitedStates–clearlyplayedaveryimportantroleinunderminingthepoliticalinstitutionsthatdominatedtheoldorderinpost-WorldWarIIWesternsociety.Theyreliedtoasignificantextentonanincreasinglypowerful,autonomousandinsomeways‘individualised’mediatocompetewithmoreestablishedpoliticalinstitutionsforaccesstothepublicsphere.Criticalprofessionalismwasalsorelatedtothewelldocumented,thoughperhapsnotfullyexplained,shifttowardwhatIngelhart(1971)called‘post-materialist’values(Ingelhart1990;AbramsonandIngelhart1995).Journalisticprofessionalismcontributedtoandwasalsoinfluencedbytheriseofnewsocialmovementsandthepopulist,‘post-industrialist’politicalculture.Ithadacomplexrelationshipwiththosemovements,however,justasitdidinotherwayswiththemarketandwithpoliticalauthority.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5143–58Neoliberalism,socialmovementsandchange51Professionalsareauthorities;theyarepartofthestructureofpower.Journalisticprofessionalscertainlywereseenthiswaybythemasspublic.Eventually,populistangeratestablishedauthoritiesturnedonjournalists,underminedtheirclaimtospeakforthepublic,andinawayfacilitatedtheneoliberalattackonthejournalists’claimtoservevaluesapartfromthoseofthemarket.Itisalsoworthaddingthat,ifthe‘riseofthemedia’underminedpoliticalauthority,themultiplicationofmediachannelsalsoplayedasignificantroleinunderminingtheauthorityoftheprofessionaljournalist,asblogsandtalkshowsproducedcompetingclaimstorepresentthevoiceofthepeopleandbroughtthejournalists’controloverchannelsofcommunicationintoquestion.Fortheseandotherreasonscriticalprofessionalismeventuallywentintodecline.Aswesawabove,theGoldenAgeofjournalisticautonomyinthepost-WorldWarIIperiodinthecontextofwhichcriticalprofessionalismdevelopedwasmadepossiblebyparticularstructuralconditions;themedia,itcouldbesaid,wereleftisolatedorsuspendedbetweenthetwostructuresthatcontrolpowerandresourcesinsociety,thepoliticalsystemandthemarket.Thisproducedanunusuallooseningofconstraintsandavacuumofpowerwhichtheprofessionaljournalistwasabletofillforawhile;butitisnotsurprisingthatthissituationprovedtransitory.Theactivismandindependenceof1970scriticalprofessionalismhaveclearlydeclined,thoughitwouldnotbecorrecttosaythatthechangesofthateraweresimplyerased.ToreturntotheSwedishexampleandbringitfullcircle,Djerf-Pierre(2000:255)describesajournalistcultureinthe1990s,followingtheintroductionofcommercialtelevision,thatcombinesan‘activistapproachtowardsthedominantinstitutionsandaconformistapproachtowardstheaudience…’Media,neoliberalismandthedemocraticpublicsphereThisbringsmetomyfinalsetofarguments,abouthowtounderstandneoliberalisminrelationtotheriseofnewsocialmovements,populismandthedemocraticroleofthemedia.Itisimportanttonote,firstofall,thattheriseofneoliberalismwasnotaseparateorentirelyopposeddevelopmentfromthegrowthofpopulistanti-elitismandofnewsocialmovements.Thesehistoricalforcesinteractedwithoneanother,andtosomeextentweremutuallyreinforcing.Horwitz(1989)haspointedout,forexample,thatderegulationintheUnitedStates,includingtelecomderegulation,waspushedforwardinthe1970sbyacoalitionofneoliberalactivistsseekingtorollbackstateregulationandsocialactivistschallengingthe‘capture’ofregulatoryagenciesbypowerfulinterests,includingmediacorporations.Lee(2007),meanwhile,showsthat,inthefieldofmedicalcare,asignificantshifttowardmarketplacelogicwaspromoted,inpart,byactivistgroupscriticalofmedicalpatriarchy.ThusthelandmarkbookOurBodiesOurSelvesusedthelanguageofconsumerismtoargueforthe

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5243–5852DanielC.Hallinrightofwomentoconfrontthephysiciannotintheinfantilisedstatusofpatientbutintheadultstatusofconsumer,andtoinsistontherighttomakedecisionsabouttheirownhealthcare.AsCohen(2004)andGarcíaCanclini(2001)argue,indifferentcontexts,consumerismandcitizenactivismhaveneverbeensimplypolaropposites,buthaveoftenmergedwithoneanother.Onewaytounderstandtheprocessofsocialchangeinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcenturymightbetosaythattherewasaperiod,astheoldpoliticalorderwasbreakingdown,whendivergentpossibilitiesforsocialchangeemerged,whenwecouldhavegoneinthedirectionofconsumeristindividualismorofactivistcitizenship,ofmarket-dominatedmediaorofmediaservingamorethoroughlydemocraticpublic,andthatintheend,withthetriumphofneoliberalism,thepowerofcapitalandofconsumeristculturesuppressedthepossibilitiesfordemocraticchange.Certainlythereismuchtruthtothatview.Neoliberalismwasinpartaverydeliberateeffortonthepartofeconomicelitestoturnbackchallengestotheirpowerrepresentedbythenewsocialmovements–andbyrelatedphenomenaliketheriseofactivistjournalism.Theveryfactthatnewsocialmovementshadtoresorttothelanguageofconsumerrightstochallengehierarchiesofpowercouldbesaidtoreflectthealreadygrowinghegemonyofconsumercultureastheyemerged.(ItisprobablynoaccidentthatthestrongestexamplesoftheintertwiningofcitizenactivismandconsumerismcomefromtheUScase.)Neoliberalism,moreover,hasbeenveryeffectiveincreatingpoliticalideologiesthatcanco-optandincorporaterhetoricsofempowermentandliberationandpopularcritiquesofauthorityintolegitimationsofthemarket.Inthemediasphereitisclearthatmarketlogichasbecomeincreasinglydominantandalsothatmanagementhasinmanycasesreassertedauthoritycededtojournalistsinearlierdecades.YetIamnotconvincedbythecommonnarrativethatseesaunilineardeclineinthestateofdemocracy,andofthedemocraticroleofthemedia,intheeraofneoliberalism.WendyBrown,forexample,inaprovocativeessaytitled‘Neoliberalismandtheendofliberaldemocracy’(2003),arguesthatneoliberalismshouldbeseennotmerelyasaneconomicpolicy,butasatransformationofthestateandthepublicsphere,andthatithasproducedan‘unprecedenteddegreeofpassivityandpoliticalcomplacency’(para.1047).Brown’sargumentimpliesanhistoricalshiftfromsomeperiodwhenliberaldemocracywashealthiercomparedwithtoday’s‘unprecedented’decline.Butwhenwouldthishavebeen,intheUnitedStates,onwhichshefocuses?Presumablynotthe1950s.Wasitin1963–65,theyearsKennedyandJohnsontooktheUnitedStatestowarinVietnamwithnosubstantialdebate?Wasitin1968–72,whenRichardNixonwasattheheightofhispower?Maybeitwasinabout1973–74,whenhefell–thisisplausible,andasfarasthemediaareconcerned,thiswastheheightofcriticalprofessionalism,andnewsocialmovementswere

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5343–58Neoliberalism,socialmovementsandchange53certainlyactive.ButthisisaprettyshortGoldenAge.Maybeitwasthe1930s–butthenitwouldn’tbeneoliberalismthatcausedthedecline,itwouldbewarandempire.Anyway,themediawerehardlyamodelofdemocracyintheUnitedStatesin1930s;manyofthesameissuesofpoliticalinterventionbymediaowners,forexample,thatarebeginningtore-emergewiththedeclineofprofessionalisation,wereverymuchaliveinthatera.ConsiderthecaseoftheIraqwar.IhavebeensurprisedtohearmanycolleaguesexpressingnostalgiafortheVietnamera,saying,‘Whycan’tthemediatodaybecriticalandaggressivethewaytheywereduringVietnam?’There’snodoubtthatafterSeptember11theAmericanmediashiftedtowardadeferentialstancereminiscentoftheearly1960s–thoughnever,intruth,quiteasextreme.Neoliberalismmayhavesomethingtodowiththis,inthesense,forexample,thatithasmadejournalistsmoreconformistinrelationtotheirbossesandtomarketforces,thoughtheconstrictionofdemocracyinthisperiodreallyhasmoretodowiththeascendancyofneoconservatism,aratherdifferentideologicalcurrent.2ButthepaththeAmericanmediaandpublicopinionhavefollowedinthecaseoftheIraqwarisreallynotverydifferentfromthepaththeyfollowedinVietnam(Hallin1986);supportforUSpolicyinIraqhasdeclinedatleastasrapidly–orasslowly,dependingonone’spointofview–asitdidinthecaseofVietnam.TheincreasedcentralityofmarketforcesintheAmericanmedianodoubthadsomethingtodo,forexample,withCNN’sinstructionstoitspersonnel,duringtheAfghanwar,tode-emphasiseciviliancasualties;itsprincipalcompetitor,Fox,wasusingpatriotismasamarketingvehicle.Butmarketforcesprobablyalsohadsomethingtodowiththestrongemphasisonthehumancostsofthewarlateron;contemporarynewsculture–ajointproduct,Iwouldargue,ofthegrowthofmarketforcesandtheinfluenceoftheculturalandpoliticalanti-elitismofthe1960sto1980s–easilylendsitselftoheavydramatisationofdeadandwoundedAmericantroopsandtheirfamilies.(TheactualAmericancasualtyrateismuchlowerinIraqthanitwasinVietnam.)IfweturntoLatinAmerica,itisevenmoreclearthatwecannotsimplyassumethattheriseofneoliberalismmeansthedeclineofliberaldemocracy.TheshifttoneoliberalismhasbeenquitedramaticinLatinAmerica,wherestate-centred‘importsubstitutionindustrialisation’wastheprevailingeconomicpolicythroughtheearly1980s.NeoliberalismwasinasensefirstputintopracticeinChile,duringthePinochetdictatorship.Butthedictatorshipsthatprevailedacrossmostofthecontinentinthe1970scollapsed,andliberaldemocracy,forallitslimitations–someofthemcertainlyimposedbyneoliberalism–isobviouslymuchstrongertherethanitwasagenerationago:notonlyhavecompetitiveelectoralsystemsemergedorre-emergedbutsocialmovements,forexampleamongindigenouspopulations,haveproliferatedandoftengainedunprecedented

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5443–5854DanielC.Hallininfluence,andeliteshavelostmuchoftheimmunitytheyoncehadfrompublicscrutiny.ThemediafieldinLatinAmericaisincreasinglydominated,asWaisbordputsit,by‘market-powerful’media.Fueledbytechnologicalinnovationsandlaissez-fairelegislation,majormediacompaniessoughthorizontalandverticalexpansion.Therehasbeenadeclineinthenumberofnewspapersandreaders.Yettheexpansionofthetelevisionaudience,privatizationofbroadcastingstations,andtheexplosionofcableandsatellitetelevision,havemadethemediaindustryhighlydynamicandextremelyprofitableforpowerfulconglomerates.Thepoliticsofeconomicstabilizationalsobenefitedlargemediacompaniesasadvertisingrevenueshaveincreasedwhileinflationisundercontrolandthereiseconomicgrowth.(Waisbord2000:71–2)Whatistheeffectofintensifiedmarketforcesonthedemocraticroleofthemedia?Itisclearlycomplex.Inimportantways,marketforceshavecontributedtowardmoreindependentmedia,lesspronetocontrolbythestateortoinstrumentalisationbyparticularpoliticalinterests,moreopeninthecoverageofbothelectoralpoliticsandcompetingsocialinterests,moreprofessionalisedandmoreorientedtowardservingreadersandviewers,ratherthanparticularnarrowinterests.Moreindependentmediahaveinmanycasesoutcompeted‘officialist’mediaalignedwiththeoldregime,competitionhasforcedtheabandonmentofpropagandisticreportingstylesandtheadoptionofpopulistpoliticalstances,andmarketpowerhas,incertaincases,emboldenedmediatocrusadeforpoliticalchange(e.g.Brazil’sFolhadeSãoPaolointhemid-1980s)ortoengageininvestigativereporting,whichhasbecomeincreasinglycommonacrossthecontinent(Waisbord2000;Lawson2002;Hughes2006;Porto2003;Matos2008).Marketforcesalone,however,wouldneverhavebroughtaboutdemocraticchangeinLatinAmericanmedia.Inmanycases,forexample,thepioneersofchangewerenotlargecommercialmediabutmoremarginalnewsorganisationsdrivenasmuchbyjournalisticorpoliticalidealismasbymarketforces(LaÉpocainChile,Pagina/12inArgentina,ProcesoinMexico).AndneoliberalrestructuringofLatinAmericanmediacanclearlyhavestronglynegativeeffectsfordemocracyaswell,producing,forexample,extremelevelsofsensationalismintelevisionnews(Hallin2000b)–afamiliarphenomenoninmuchoftheworld–orconcentrationsofmediapowerthatmakethemediathemselvesathreattodemocracy.TheabilityofMexico’sbroadcasters,includingthetelevisiongiantTelevisa,toblockaninitiativebylegislatorsandcitizengroupstowriteanewmedialawandrewriteittoservetheirparticularinterestsisaclearexample.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5543–58Neoliberalism,socialmovementsandchange55ConclusionOverthepastfewdecadesadramaticchangehasclearlytakenplaceinthestructureandsocialroleofthemedia.Thischangeinvolves,verycentrally,ashiftinthebalanceofpowerbetweenpoliticalinstitutionsandthemarket,anincreaseddominanceofmarketforceswithinthemediaandtosomeextentincreasedpowerofthemediathemselves,nowfirmlyrootedinthemarket,relativetosocialinstitutionsthatoncecontrolledorinfluencedthem.Theenclosureofthemediabymarketforcesisatroublingdevelopment,asmanyhaveargued(e.g.CroteauandHoynes2001;HermanandMcChesney1997;Franklin1997).Marketforcesdonotguaranteethatthemediawillservetheirnon-economicfunctionasinstitutionsofthedemocraticpublicsphere,andinmanywaysthebreakdownoftheforcesthatcounterbalancedmarketforceshasalreadytakenitstollonthequalityofdemocraticmedia,producingloweredinvestmentintheproductionofnews,sensationalismandotherethicalproblems,biasesinthesegmentsofsocietyservedbythemedia,andinsomecasespotentiallydangerousconcentrationsofmediapower.Certainlymediapolicyneedstobecentrallyfocusedonmechanismsthatmightpreventthemediafrombeingabsorbedmorefullystillintomarketmechanisms.Commercialisation,however,isnottheonlyprocessofsocialchangethathasshapedthecontemporarymedia,norisitentirelysimpleorconsistentinitseffects.Themediaculturethatprevailstodayisacontradictoryjointproductofseveralcurrents–growingcommercialisation,yes,butalsoimportantlegaciesoftheshifttowardcriticalprofessionalisminjournalismandtowardamorepopulistpoliticalculturewheresocialmovementsandordinarycitizensdemandandoftengetapublichearing.Manyofthespecificchangesthathavetakenplaceandthespecificgenresorpracticesthathaveemergedarequitecomplexintheirimplicationsfordemocracy.Oneexamplewouldbetheincreasedpersonalisationofpubliccommunication,thefocusofmediaon‘private’lifeandonindividualexperience.Thiscanbeseeninsomewaysasadepoliticisationofpubliccommunication,andhenceashrinkingawayofthepublicspherewhichincreasesthepowerofelitesbyleavingimportantareasofsociallifeoutsidethearenaofpublicdebate.Thisisfarfromaconsistentpattern,however,andinotherwaystheerosionofestablishedboundariesbetween‘public’and‘private’(andbetweeninformationandentertainment)3representsanopeningtoactorspreviouslyexcludedfromtheinstitutionalisedpublicsphere(seee.g.Leurdijk1997)andapoliticisationofareasofsociallifenotpreviouslysubjecttopoliticalcontestation,fromtheexperienceofindividualsoldiersandtheirfamiliestothefieldofmedicalcare(BriggsandHallin2007).Theprocessofchangethathasledustowherewearetodayisacomplexprocess.Ifwearetounderstandit,weneedtoavoiddichotomous

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5643–5856DanielC.Hallinunderstandingsinwhichtheforcesdiscussedhere–themarket,newsocialmovements,individualisationandsecularisation,professionalism–areplacedneatlyintothecampsofgoodandevil.Themarketisnotconsistentlypro-oranti-democracy;neitherisjournalisticprofessionalism;neitheraresocialmovementsorthepoliticalcultureofpopulism:theyarealldeeplyambivalentintheirrelationtodemocracy,inpartbecauseofthewaystheyhavemutuallyshapedoneanother.WealsoneedtoavoidthetrapofassumingthatacriticalanalysisneedstopositaGoldenAgeandthentoanalysesocialchangeasaunilineardeclinefromthatGoldenAge–aview,inotherwords,thatstandsold-fashionedmodernisationtheoryonitshead.Thepositionofthemediainstructuresofpowerandpoliticalparticipationhasbeenrestructured;howthatrestructuringhasaffectedthedemocraticpublicsphereisclearlyopentodebate,andasophisticatedanswertothequestionislikelytobefairlycomplex,withsomewhatdifferentanswersfordifferentaspectsofsocialandpoliticallife,differentkindsofconjunctureanddifferentregions.Notes1KollerarguesthattheUnitedStateswentthroughthesecondstructuraltransformationearlier,nearthebeginningofthetwentiethcentury.Hisanalysisofthetwostructuraltransformations,however,ismorepersuasiveforcontinentalEuropethanfortheUnitedStates,orindeed,tosomeextent,forallthesystemsHallinandMancini(2004)termLiberalsystems.USmediawereindeedpartisaninthenineteenthcentury,butmarketforceswerealwaysverystrongafterthe1830s,andthemediawereneverintegratedintoapoliticalfieldoforganizedsocialgroupsthewaytheywereincontinentalEurope.2Theoneaspectoftheneoliberalstatethatprobablyhasthegreatestimpactonpublicactivisminwartimeisthe‘volunteer’–ormarket-based–army.ItishardtoimaginetheIraqwarbeingfoughtwithdraftedmilitaryforces,giventhechangesinAmericanpoliticalculturethatoccurredinthelaterpartoftheVietnamWar.Ifindeedelitescouldnotfightawarwithdrafteestodayastheydidinthe1960s,ofcourse,thisreinforcesthepointthattheriseofneoliberalismisonlyoneofseveralsocialchangesthathaveaffectedcontemporarydemocracy.3Someimportantinterventionsinthedebateaboutthepoliticalimplicationsof‘infotainment’includeSparksandTulloch(2000),Brants(1998)andBaum(2003).BibliographyAbramson,PaulR.andIngelhart,Ronald(1995)ValueChangeinGlobalPerspective.AnnArborMI:UniversityofMichiganPress.Baum,Matthew(2003)SoftNewsgoestoWar:PublicOpinionandAmericanForeignPolicyintheNewMediaAge.PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Beck,UlrichandBeck-Gernsheim,Elisabeth(2002)Individualization:Institution-alizedIndividualismanditsSocialandPoliticalConsequences.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.Brants,Kees(1998)‘Who’safraidofinfotainment?’EuropeanJournalofCommunication13:315–35.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5743–58Neoliberalism,socialmovementsandchange57Briggs,CharlesandHallin,DanielC.(2007)‘HealthReportingasPoliticalReporting:BiocommunicabilityandthePublicSphere’,paperpreparedforpresentationattheannualmeetingoftheInternationalCommunicationAssociation,SanFrancisco,24–8May.Brown,Wendy(2003)‘Neo-liberalismandtheendofliberaldemocracy’,TheoryandEvent7:1.Cohen,Lizabeth(2004)AConsumers’Republic:thePoliticsofConsumptioninPostwarAmerica.NewYork:Vintage.Croteau,DavidandHoynes,William(2001)TheBusinessofMedia:CorporateMediaandthePublicInterest.ThousandOaksCA:PineForgePress.Crozier,MichelJ.,Huntington,SamuelP.andWatanuki,Joji(1975)TheCrisisofDemocracy.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.Dalton,RussellJ.andWattenberg,MartinP.(2000).PartieswithoutPartisans:PoliticalChangeinAdvancedIndustrialDemocracies.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Djerf-Pierre,Monika(2000)‘Squaringthecircle:publicserviceandcommercialnewsonSwedishtelevision,1956–1999’,JournalismStudies1(2):239–60.Franklin,Bob(1997)NewzakandNewsMedia.London:Arnold.Gans,Herbert(1979)DecidingWhat’sNews:aStudyofCBSEveningNews,NBCNightlyNews,NewsweekandTime.NewYork:Pantheon.GarcíaCanclini,Néstor(2001)ConsumersandCitizens:GlobalizationandMulticulturalConflicts.MinneapolisMN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Habermas,Jürgen(1989)TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere:anInquiryintoaCategoryofBourgeoisSociety.CambridgeMA:MITPress.Hallin,DanielC.(1986)The‘UncensoredWar’:theMediaandVietnam.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Hallin,DanielC.(2000a)‘CommercialismandprofessionalismintheAmericannewsmedia’,inJ.CurranandM.Gurevitch(eds)MassMediaandSociety.London:Arnold.Hallin,DanielC.(2000b)‘Lanotaroja:popularjournalismandthetransitiontodemocracyinMexico’,inColinSparksandJohnTulloch(eds)TabloidTales.Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield.Hallin,DanielC.(2000c)‘Media,politicalpoweranddemocratizationinMexico’,inJamesCurranandMyung-JinPark(eds)De-WesternizingMediaStudies.London:Routledge.Hallin,DanielC.andPaoloMancini(2004)ComparingMediaSystems:ThreeModelsofMediaandPolitics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Harvey,David(2005)ABriefHistoryofNeoliberalism.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Herman,EdwardandMcChesney,Robert(1997)TheGlobalMedia:theNewMissionariesofCorporateCapitalism.London:Cassell.Horwitz,RobertBritt(1989)TheIronyofRegulatoryReform:theDeregulationofAmericanTelecommunications.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Hughes,Sally(2006)NewsroomsinConflict:JournalismandtheDemocratizationofMexico.PittsburghPA:UniversityofPittsburghPress.Ingelhart,Ronald(1971)‘ThesilentrevolutioninEurope:intergenerationalchangeinpost-industrialsocieties’,AmericanPoliticalScienceReview65:991–1017.Ingelhart,Ronald(1990)CultureShiftinAdvancedIndustrialSociety.PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

[12:069/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch03.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5843–5858DanielC.HallinKoller,Andreas(2007)‘TheSecondStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere’;paperpresentedattheannualmeetingoftheInternationalCommu-nicationAssociation,SanFrancisco,24–8May.Lawson,ChappellH.(2002)BuildingtheFourthEstate:DemocratizationandtheRiseofaFreePressinMexico.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Lee,Nancy(2007)‘CuringConsumers:HowthePatientbecameaConsumerinModernAmericanMedicine’,Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego.Leñero,Vicente(1991)Losperiodistas.México:JoaquínMortiz.Leurdijk,Ardra(1997)‘Commonsenseversuspoliticaldiscourse:debatingracismandmulticulturalsocietyinDutchtalkshows’,EuropeanJournalofCommunication12(2):147–68.Marx,Karl(1974)TheRevolutionsof1948:PoliticalWritingsI,ed.DavidFernbach.NewYork:Vintage.Matos,Carolina(2008)‘JournalismandpoliticaldemocracyinBrazil’,Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks.Neveu,Erik(2001)Sociologiedujournalisme.Paris:LaDécouverte.Neveu,Erik(2002)‘Thefourgenerationsofpoliticaljournalism’,inR.KuhnandE.Neveu(eds)PoliticalJournalism:NewChallenges,NewPractices.London:Routledge.Olsson,Tom(2002)‘TherighttotalkpoliticsinSwedishjournalism,1925–1995’,inM.Hurd,T.OlssonandP.Åker(eds)Storylines:Media,PowerandIdentityinModernEurope.FestschriftforJanEkecrantz.Stockholm:Hjalmarson&Högberg.Parsons,Talcott(1939)‘Theprofessionsandsocialstructure’,SocialForces17(4):457–67.Porto,MauroP.(2003)‘MassmediaandpoliticsindemocraticBrazil’,inMariaD’AlvaKinzoandJamesDunkerley(eds)Brazilsince1985:Economy,PolityandSociety.London:ILAS.Rose,Nikolas(1996)‘Governing“advanced”liberaldemocracies’,inA.Barry,T.OsborneandN.Rose(eds)FoucaultandPoliticalReason:Liberalism,NeoliberalismandRationalitiesofGovernment.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.SchererGarcía,JulioandMonsiváis,Carlos(2003)Tempodesaber:presnsaypoderenMéxico.México:Aguilar.Schudson,Michael(1998)TheGoodCitizen:aHistoryofAmericanCivicLife.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.Sparks,ColinandTulloch,John(eds)(2000)TabloidTales.Lanham,MD:Rowman&Littlefield.Thompson,JohnB.(2000)PoliticalScandal:PowerandVisibilityintheMediaAge.Cambridge:PolityPress.Waisbord,Silvio(2000)WatchdogJournalisminSouthAmerica:News,Account-abilityandDemocracy.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:5959–744RecognitionandtherenewalofideologycritiqueJohnDowneyJohnCorner’sobituaryfortheconceptofideologyinwhichhearguesthatweshouldnotmournitspassingtoomuchandbegintomoveonispremature(2001:525–33).1Attheriskofappearingmelancholic,Iarguethattherevivaloftheconceptisofimportance(noless)forthefutureofemancipationingeneralandthefutureofmediastudiesasapoliticallyengaged,criticalfieldofstudy.Thestrikingabsenceoftheconceptincurrentmediastudies,incontrasttoitsubiquityinthe1970sand1980s,issymptomaticbothofthedisturbinglywidespreadassumptionofthetheoreticalandpoliticalexhaustionoftheEnlightenmentprojectandofthedeeplyunfortunatenarrownessofmediastudiesatthepresenttime(itselfaconsequenceoftheotherwisedesirabledrivetowardsprofessionalisationofthefield).Thereare,however,nocompellingreasonsforeithertobethecase.Indeed,thereverseistrue.Persistentandindeedwideningeconomic,socialandpoliticalinequalitieslocallyandgloballymeanthatitisethicallyimperativetobreathenewcriticallifeintomediastudiesasmediainstitutionsarenotonlypartofaneconomicsystemthatpreventshumanflourishing,butalsooftenpresentsuchastateofaffairsaseitherinevitableor,indeed,desirable.Thedishearteningpoliticalsituationshouldnotsanctionaturningawayfromcriticalintellectualengagement.Thereare,moreover,intellectualresourcesavailableforthisenterprisethathavebeenleftuntouchedbymediastudiesscholars.Thedeclineintheconceptofideology,Corneragrees,isindicativeofabroaderdeclineinthefortunesofWesternMarxismbutthefallisalsodue,hecontends,tointernalproblemsinthewaythattheconcepthasdeveloped.Thisisevidentinthreeattemptstoreviveaconceptofideologyinthe1990s–thoseofJohnB.Thompson,TerryEagletonandTeunvanDijk(Thompson1990;Eagleton1991;vanDijk1998).WhileCorner’scritiquesofEagletonandvanDijkaresound(andwillnotbediscussedhere),hefailstodojusticetoThompson,whoismuchthehardesttargetofthethreetohit.Thompson’sworkhasbeenlargelyoverlookedinmediastudiesandthishaslesstodowithinternalproblemsoftheconceptdeveloped(althoughtherearesome)thanwithanunwarranteddisconnectionbetweenmediastudiesandyoungergenerationsofcritical

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6059–7460JohnDowneytheoristsworkingwithinorinfluencedbytheFrankfurtschooltradition,suchasAxelHonnethandNancyFraser,thatmaybereferredtoasthethirdgenerationofCriticalTheory.(Onecouldalsoarguethatthereisabroaderdisconnectionbetweenmediastudiesandagooddealofbothclassicalandcontemporarysocialtheoryandsociology.)Whilemediastudiesforatimedrewheavily,ifverycrudely,upontheworkofthefirstgenerationoftheFrankfurtschool,whowerethefallguysforculturalpopulism,onecouldbeforgivenforthinkingthat,withafewlaudableexceptions,itsacquaintancewithsecondandsubsequentgenerationsbeginsandendswithHabermas’searlyworkonthepublicsphere(Habermas1989).Notalltheblameforthisdisconnectionshould,however,belaidatthedoorofmediastudies.WithinCriticalTheorytherehasalsobeenaturnawayfrommediaandculturalcritiquetowardslegalandmoralphilosophy,politicaltheory,andcommentaryontheworkofCriticalTheoriststhemselves.WhatisrequiredisarenewaloftheacquaintancebetweenmediastudiesandtheFrankfurtschool.WhileThompson’sconceptofideologyisitselfinneedofsomerepairwork,itdoesmarkaconceptualstepforwardforideologycritiquethatshouldbemorewidelytakenupinempiricalresearchandisthusagoodplacefromwhichtobegintorenewtheacquaintance.Corner’smajorproblemwithThompson,itseems,isthatThompsonsimplyreiterates,withoutperhapsrealisingthatheisdoingso,muchoftheestablishedliteratureinmediastudies(forexample,ontheproblemof‘readingoff’audienceresponsestomediatexts)andso,farfrombeingnew,Thompsondoesnothavemuchtotellmediastudies.ItistruethatThompsondoesnotappeartobeaswellversedinthemediastudiesliteratureashemightbe(anirritatingblindnesssharedbyothersocialtheorists–forinstance,ManuelCastellsandPierreBourdieu).ThevalueofThompson’swork,however,liesinalucidand,inparticular,asystematicdevelopmentoftheoryratherthaninoriginalapplicationsoftheconcept.(Onemightargue,however,thatthisrepresentsareasonabledivisionofacademiclabourbetweensocialtheoryandmediaanalysis.)Cornerreachesthis‘notmuchnew’judgementbecausehefailstounpacksufficientlyhisacknowledgmentthatThompson’stypologyofideologicaldevices‘hassuggestiveforceforallthinkingonthistopic’(2001:528).CornerdoesnotmentioninternalproblemswithinThompson’sconcept.Whiletherearesome,primarilythe‘problem’liesinthathisconcepthasrarelybeenpickedupandapplied.ThishastodowithinternalproblemswithinmediastudiesaswellasabroaderexhaustionofWesternMarxism.Theinternalproblemsofmediastudiesmaybeconceivedintermsofitsnarrownessthatmayberelatedtothegrowthofmediastudiesquadiscipline(forexample,lackofengagementwithbothclassicalandcontemporarysocialtheory)andtomuchmoredeep-seateduncertaintiesandconfusionsconcerningquestionsofethics,epistemology,andpoliticalpraxis.InthefollowingIwillfirstoutlinewhatItaketobeThompson’s

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6159–74Recognitionandtherenewalofideologycritique61modest,butnonethelesssignificant,conceptualadvanceandwillthendiscussthreeproblemareaswithhisworkandsuggesthowtheymightberepairedundertheheadings:ethics,explanationandpoliticalpraxis.TorepairThompsonIwilldrawontheworkofAxelHonnethandNancyFraser.Thompson’sadvanceThompsonisunusualincurrentsociologyinthathedefendsapejorativeconceptofideology.Tostudyideologyis‘tostudythewaysinwhichmeaningservestoestablishandsustainrelationsofdomination’(1990:56).Thompsonisthusmakingethicalandepistemologicalclaims.Dominationis‘bad’,symbolicformsthatservetoestablishorsustaindominationare‘bad’.Wecanalso,accordingtoThompson,identifytheoperationsofideologyandhowtheyrelatetorelationsofdomination,i.e.wecansaysomethingtrueaboutthesocialworld.AlthoughThompsonwishestoreducethe‘epistemologicalburden’ofideologycritiqueitisdifficulttoseeclearlythatheissuccessfulintheendeavour(1990:56).Forexample,considertheconceptofreificationthatmeansthepresentationofamutablethingasafixedthing.Inordertorecognisereificationweneedfirsttobeabletorecognisethemutablething.Theuseofapejorativeconceptofideologydemandsrobusttheoriesoftruthandofthegoodwhichservetounderpincritique.Thetendencyinthehumanitiesandsocialsciencestoshyawayfromsuchethicalandepistemologicalclaimsgoesalongwaytowardsexplainingthedemiseoftheconcept.Anypejorativeconceptofideologyhastosubstantiatetheseethicalandepistemologicalclaims.IwillputthesetoonesideforthemomentinordertooutlineThompson’sconceptualadvancethatconcernsthesystematicwayinwhichhecategorisesdifferentmodesofoperationofideology.Thesegeneralmodesandstrategiesarenot,itshouldbenoted,ideologi-calinthemselves.Asamodeofthinking‘legitimation’mayormaynotbeideological.Itbecomesideologicalwhenanattemptismadetolegitimatedomination(Table4.1).Nowthereisnothingneworevenunexpectedaboutthepresenceofthesestrategies.Theyarecommonlycommenteduponinavarietyofworksinsemiotics,linguistics,discourseanalysis,criticaldiscourseanalysisandsoon.Theybelongtoastandardconceptualtoolkit.Theyarethebread-and-butterofmediaanalysisthathas,however,becomedisconnectedfrombroaderethical,explanatoryandpoliticalconcerns.WhatisnewinThompson’sworkisshowinghowthesedifferentstrategiesfittogetherandmaybesystematicallyrelatedtoacriticalconceptofideology.Itisnotparticularlydifficulttoapplytheseconcepts.ThefactthatThompson’sconcepthasnotbeentakenupanddevelopedthroughempiricalwork,throughideologycritiqueperse,thenhasnothingtodowiththisaspectofhiswork.Itmustlieinthateitherhisworkhas

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6259–7462JohnDowneyTable4.1Thompson’smodesofoperationofideology(1990:60)GeneralmodesSometypicalstrategiesofsymbolicconstructionLegitimationRationalisationUniversalisationNarrativisationDissimulationDisplacementEuphemisationTropeUnificationStandardisationSymbolisationofunityFragmentationDifferentiationExpurgationoftheotherReificationNaturalisationEternalisationNominalisation/passivisationnotbeenreadand/orithasnotfoundresonancebecausetheethicalandepistemologicalclaimsthathemustmakeareatpresentintellectuallyunpalatable.Whatisneededis:first,thereconnectionofthevocabularyofanalysistotheideaofa‘goodlife’;and,second,thereconnectionofsymbolicanalysistoananalysisoftheeconomicandpoliticalpracticesthattheyhelptoreproduce.Ethics:fromparticipationtorecognitionThejustificationforcritiquegoestotheheartofthecontemporaryproblemsofcriticalsocialscience.Whyisdomination‘bad’?Withoutanideaofabetterplaceorthe‘goodlife’thenotionofcritiquebecomesnonsensical.WhileThompsoncriticisesHabermas’sprematurejettisoningoftheconceptofideologyandclaimstobegoingbacktoMarx’snotionofdominationinhisreworkingoftheconceptofideology,thejustificationforcritiquethatThompsonpositsisimplicitlybasedonHabermas’sdiscourseethics.Thompsondoesnotgivereasonsforwhydominationis‘bad’(andthisisaproblematicabsence)butwecanworkthisoutifweconsiderthewayinwhichThompsonwritesabouthowinterpretationsmaybejustified:Insupposingthataninterpretationisjustifiable,wepresupposethatitcouldnotbejustifiedbybeingimposed.Wepresuppose,inotherwords,thatthereisadistinctionbetweenjustifyinganinterpretationandimposingitonothers,orhavingitimposedonourselves.Tojustifyistoprovidereasons,grounds,evidence,elucidation;toimposeistoassertorreassert,toforceotherstoaccept,tosilencequestioningordissent.Tojustifyistotreattheotherasanindividualcapableofbeingconvinced;toimposeistotreattheotherasanindividualwhomust

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6359–74Recognitionandtherenewalofideologycritique63besubjected.Thisdistinctionsuggeststhataninterpretationwouldbejustifiedonlyifitcouldbejustifiedwithoutbeingimposed,thatis,onlyifitcouldbejustifiedunderconditionswhichincludedthesuspensionofasymmetricalrelationsofpower.Ishallcallthistheprincipleofnon-imposition.(1990:321)Thompsongoesontooutlineotherprinciplesthathangtogetherwithnon-imposition(suchasself-reflectionandnon-exclusion).Itshouldbeclearthatthisiscloseto,ifnotexactlythesameas,Habermas’saccountoftheuniversalpresuppositionsoflanguage.Toenterintodebateistopresupposethepossibilityofjustificationthatentailsrecognisingindividualsasequalparticipantsinthedialogueandwithequalpowertodeterminetheoutcomeofthedialogue.Thecritiqueofdominationisthusultimatelygroundedinthecharacteroflanguage.Thisneo-Kantiandiscourseethicsisonepossiblewayofseekingtojustifyideologycritique.IncertainrespectsitisverysimilartoNancyFraser’sHabermasianjustificationof‘participatoryparity’.Itisundoubt-edlytruethatadissatisfactionwiththisattempttogroundcritiquehelpstoexplainthedeclineinfortunesofCriticalTheoryasanintellectualenterprise.Dissatisfactionwiththisneo-Kantianapproachisalsodiscernible,how-ever,withinthethirdgenerationofCriticalTheoryandismostclearlyarticulatedintheworkofAxelHonneth(althoughthereisatendencywithinAnglo-AmericansocialtheorytoseeHonnethasafollowerofHabermas).HonnethmovesawayfromanattempttojustifycritiquethroughreferencetoadiscourseethicsandtowardsajustificationofcritiquebaseduponareworkedHegelianconceptofrecognition.ThisisbothanimportantnewavenueofenquiryforCriticalTheoryasawholeandalsoforthenotionofideologycritiqueasthisallowsustoreconceptualisesuchcritique.2Honneth,drawingontheearlyworkofHegel,arguesthatrecognitionisessentialforindividualself-realisation,forhumanflourishing.Individualsrecognisethemselvesassubjectsbybeingrecognisedbyothersassubjects:Theindividuallearnstograsphisorherselfasbothafullandaparticularmemberofasocialcommunitybybeinggraduallyassuredofthespecificabilitiesandneedsconstitutinghisorherpersonalitythroughtheapprovingpatternsofreactionbygeneralizedinteractionpartners.(2004a:354)TheIisasocialIthatflourishesthroughbeingrecognisedbyothers.Mutualrecognition,whereindividualsrecogniseeachotherasfullandequalparticipants,istheconditionthatpermitshumanflourishingtoits

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6459–7464JohnDowneygreatestextent.WhilethestartingpointforHonnethisHegel’sspeculativeaccountofrecognitioninhisJenaworkbeforePhilosophyofSpirit,heseekstodevelopthenotionofrecognitionthroughtheworkofMeadonsocialisationandreferstopsychoanalyticalcurrentsofthoughtonidentityformationandtheintersubjectiveturnthatagainarerarelyreferredtointhecopiousmediastudiesliteraturethatisinfluencedbypsychoanalysis(Honneth1995;Benjamin1990,1995;Winnicott1965).TherearealsopotentiallyhereanumberofinterestinglinksviaMeadbetweenthethirdgenerationofCriticalTheoryandthepragmatisttraditionintheUnitedStatesthathasrecentlyseenaconsiderableintellectualrevival.Ifrecognitionisessentialforhumanflourishing(Honnethreferstothisasa‘quasi-transcendentalinterest’inrecognition)thenthemoralcourseofactionistoattempttoextendtheconditionsofrecognitiontoallandthisnecessarilyinvolvescritiqueofmodesofthinkingthatmisrecognise.Aswellasideologycritique,then,recognitionmayhelptofurnishcriteriaofjudgingpoliticalaction:ifsuch-and-suchhappens,willitbringaboutcircumstancesofgreaterrecognitionornot?AccordingtoHonneththerearethreeprinciplesofrecognitioninmodernsocietiesthatshouldformthebasisofapluraltheoryofjustice:thoseoflove,equalityandmerit.Societiesaretobejudgedaccordingtohowwelltheyperformwithreferencetothesecriteria.Indeed,socialstrugglesandsocialactionsaretobejudgedaccordingtowhethertheyseektoadvanceorobstructrelationshipsofrecognitioninthesedomains.Afterjustifyingthenotionofcritique,thetaskofCriticalTheoryistoexplainthetrajectoryofsocieties:whyisrecognitionadvancingorretreating?Thespecifictaskofideologycritiqueinthisprojectistoshowhowandwhymisrecognitionoccursandhowitisproducedandreproducedmateriallythroughinstitutionalandeverydaypractices.Honneth,drawingonHabermas,arguesthatitisonlyinthesphereofmodernlawthatclearprogresshasbeenmadeintermsofrecognitionviatheprincipleofequality(universalsuffrage,forexample).ThatisnottosaythatHonnethseesthisprocessasbeingcompleteorirre-versible(forexample,thecontinueddiscriminationagainsthomosexuals,thegreaterrestrictionsplaceduponmigrantsandasylumseekers,rollingbackthe‘welfare’stateinaneraofrapidglobalisationandsocio-technicalchange).Incontrast,verylittleprogresshasbeenmadeintermsofself-esteemandtherecognitionofmerit.Honnetharguesthatthenotionsofmeritandachievementhavebeenlargelycolonisedbyacapitalistvalueorstatussystem.Thisistruebothinthefieldsofproductionandconsumption.Somecertainformsofwork(forexample,workthatconcernsthecaringforornurturingofotherswhichonecouldclaimisfundamentaltoestablishingtheconditionsforrecognitionandhumanflourishing)aresystematicallydevalued.‘Merit’isrelatedtoprofitratherthantothebroadersocial

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6559–74Recognitionandtherenewalofideologycritique65consequencesofworkeitherfortheproducers(theirmisrecognitionatworkasmereinstrumentsoftheproductionprocessratherthanasequalparticipants)orforthoseaffectedbyproduction(forexample,thoseaffectedbytheecologicalconsequencesofproduction).Statusinconsumptionisrelatedeithertoquantityorperceivedqualityofthatconsumed(hencebrandsandtheirsymbolicimportanceforestablishingandsustainingrelationsofinequality)ratherthantheconsequencesofconsumptionforothercitizens,forproducersandforthoseaffectedbyconsumption.Inlatecapitalistsocieties,then,ideologycritiquemeansacritiqueofthecapitaliststatusorderaswellasofnational,racialandgenderstatusorders.Fromthestandpointofanethicsofrecognitionthatemphasisestheconditionsthatmustbemetinordertopermithumanflourishing,thedevelopmentofthesestatusordersappearstobepathologicalservingtolegitimateeconomicandpoliticalinequalitywithinandbetweensocieties.Ideologycritiquethushasacentralrolebothinthecritiqueofcurrentstatusordersandintheconstructionofrivalsbaseduponprinciplesofrecognition.TheimplicationsofHonneth’sworkisthatthecapitaliststatusorderneedstobereplacedbyastatusorderbasedonmerit,i.e.onthecontributionthatindividualsmaketohumanwell-beingratherthansayanotionofmeritbasedonanindividual’sperformanceinacapitalistmarket.Theideaofmeritocracythatiswidelyembracedbypoliticiansofthecentreleftandrightincontemporarypolitiesisonethatisaprimecandidateforideologycritique.‘Merit’hereoftenmeanstheequalopportunitytobesuccessfulinthecapitalistmarketplace,whichisnaturalisedasameasurementofmerit.(ThisunderstandingofmisrecognitionintermsofunjustifiedstatusinequalityshouldremindusofthepotentialimportanceofMaxWeber’sworkformediaandculturalanalysis,apointmadebyFraser2004:377.Weberagainisamajorsociologicalfigurewhoseworkpresentsalargelyuntappedsourceformediastudies.)NowwhileFraser,ThompsonandHonnethmaybedividedoverwhetheritisbesttoattempttojustifycritiqueinaneo-Kantianoraneo-Hegelianway,inshallowerphilosophicalwaterstheyagreeabouttheimportanceofrecognitionandthecritiqueofstatusorders.Thesortofsocietytheywishtoachieveisverysimilar–baseduponequalparticipation,theabsenceofimposition,inclusion–theirdisagreementisabouthowthisisbestjustified.Inonesense,onemustdecideaboutwhichsideoftheargumentismorecompelling,butinanothertheimplicationsofthedisagreementfortheactualconductofideologycritiqueareminoraslongasoneacceptstheargumentsofonesideortheother.AFrasersupporterandaHonnethsupporterlockedinaroomwithacopyoftheFinancialTimeswouldproduce,Isuspect,asimilarideologycritique.Beforewedumptheconceptofideologyweshouldatleastconvinceourselvesthatneitheroftheseoptionssatisfiesus.Idonotseethisdebateoccurringinmediastudiesor

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6659–7466JohnDowneyindeedseemanyreferencestothefactthatadebateisoccurringinpoliticalphilosophy.Ifwetakerecognitionratherthandominationtobefoundationalwecanreformulatethemeaningofthestudyofideology:Tostudyideologyistounderstandandexplainthewaysinwhichmisrecognition(Missachtung)occursandhowthisisrelatedtotheoperationofeconomicand/orpoliticalpower.Heremisrecognitionrefersbothtothepresentationofunwarrantedsupe-riorityaswellastounwarrantedsubordination.Theyaretherectoandversoofideology.InhisrecentworkondevelopingapluralconceptionofjusticeithasbecomeincreasinglyevidenttoHonneththatheneedstoaccountformisrecognitionininstitutionalcontexts:WhatIcanseeisthatIwasnotalwaysawareenoughofthefactofinstitutionalformsofrecognition,ideologicalformsofrecognition.ThisformeisadifficultproblemwhichIstillhavetoresolve…whatIhavetodoistopreservetheconceptualmeanstomakeadistinctionbetweenthesefalseformsofrecognitionwhicharedefinitelythereandformsofjustifiedrecognition,inthatsensecorrectrecognition.(2004b:388)EarlierIreferredtoareasonableacademicdivisionoflabour.IfwemustrelyonHonnethtoregenerateCriticalTheoryviaareadingoftheyoungHegelandhelpusseetheethicalimportanceofdistinguish-ingbetweenrecognitionandmisrecognition,thenitissurelyreason-ableformediastudiesscholarstohelpHonnethoutthroughprovidingaccountsofhowandwhymisrecognitionoccursinourlimitedfieldofanalysis.AtthispointwecanusefullyreintroduceThompson’sworkonthemodesofoperationofideologyandstrategiesofsymbolicconstructiontohelpHonnethresolvethisproblemandprovidealinkbetweenHonneth’srecastingofcriticaltheoryandthepracticeofideologycritiqueinthefieldofmediastudies.Wecan,withoutmuchado,boltThompson’smodestconceptualadvanceontoHonneth’stheoryofrecognition.Theproblemislessatheoreticalonethanoneofactuallysimplydoingtheanalysis.Explanation:fromintereststounderstandingsocialpathologiesThatisnottoargue,however,thatallisresolvedbyaddingThompsontoHonneth.Thompsonsuffersfromalackofengagementwiththepsychological.Thompsoninhisreconstructionoftheconceptofideology

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6759–74Recognitionandtherenewalofideologycritique67goesbacktoMarxofthetimeofthePrefacetoaCritiqueofPoliticalEconomythatheseesasthebeginningofamoresystematicdiscussionofideologyinhiswork.Ideologyis,forMarx,awayofexpressingandsustainingclassinterests.NowThompsonwishestoamendthisintwowaysthatarerelativelyuncontentioustoday.Thefirstwayistoarguethatclassdominationisnottheonlyformofdominationincontemporarysocietyand,therefore,ideologycritiqueshouldbeextendedtocoveragreaterrange(gender,‘race’,nation,sexualityandsoon).Thesecondistoquestionthebase–superstructuremetaphorandseethesymbolicas‘constitutiveofsocialreality’ratherthanasanappendage(1990:58).TheproblemcomesintheareawhereThompsondoesnotamendMarxinthatideologiesarestillseenasrepresentingthe‘interests’ofadominantclass,sexor‘race’.ThusThomsondevotesallofhisenergytounderstandinghowideologiesareproducedandreproducedsymbolicallyandinstitutionally,whiletheexplanationforwhythereareideologiesisassumed.Whatispresenthere,black-box,isthedefactonaturalisationofawilltopowerorawilltodominate,aHobbesianwarofallagainstall.Ifweworkwiththissimplisticmodelofhumanactors,wenotonlyfailtoexplaintheexistenceofideologybutalsoaredoomedtofailtoaccountforthedesiretoliveinanegalitarianworld.Theoppositiontoideologycouldonlybeanattempttoassertanotherideologybyanewgroupofactors.Whatisneeded,therefore,aswellasanunderstandingofhowideologyoperates,isanexplanationofwhyideologyoperates–why,touseHonneth’sexpression,socialpathologiesoccur–thatadmitsthecomplexityofhumanactors.TheMarxofthePrefacedoesnothelpusinthisrespect.Thenotionthatideologiesreflectinterestsbringsexplanationtoanunjustifiablyabruptend.‘Interests’hereareadeusexmachina.Whydoesmisrecognitionoccur?Whyisthereadesiretodominate?Whyistherealsoadesiretojustifyone’sdominationtoboththedominatorsandthedominated?Thompson’saccountofthehowofideologyneedstobeaccompaniedbyanexplanationofitsexistence.Inthistask,socialpsychologymusttakeitsplacebesidepoliticaleconomy,social-historicalandformalanalysisofmediatextsinideologycritiquewithoutsubstitutingpsychologicalforeconomicreductionism.SlavojŽižekarguesthatpsychoanalysiscanplayacentralrolein‘providingthemissingsupportoftheMarxisttheoryofideology(or,morepreciselyofaccountingfortheverylackintheMarxisttheorythatbecomesvisibleaproposofthedeadlocksofthetheoryofideology)’(1994:29),citingasevidenceforthisFreud’ssocialpsychologythatheseesascompatiblewithaformofMarxism.WhatevertherelativemeritsofŽižek’swork,herehesuccinctlypointstosomenecessaryrepairworkintheconceptofideology.ThepopularityofLacanianpsychoanalytictheoryinmediastudies,however,hascontributedtotherelativeneglectofintersubjectivecurrentsofpsychoanalyticthoughtthatmaybemorehelpfulherebearinginmind

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6859–7468JohnDowneytheimportanceplacedonrecognitionasasourceofmoralandpoliticalstruggle(Winnicott1965;Benjamin1990,1995;Kohut1971;Billig1999;Whitebook1995).Thereisnoquestionthatthisisanimmenselydifficulttasktoachievebutevenfurnishingthickdescriptionsofhumanactorsandtheirmotivations,enabledandconstrainedbyinstitutions,isimmeasurablybetterthantheprovisionofexplanationsbasedoncrudeassumptionsaboutthecharacterofhumanactionmarkedeitherbyeconomicorbypsychologicalreduc-tionism.Aswellasintersubjectivepsychologyanotheruntappedresourceformediastudiesisneo-institutionalanalysisofthekindpractisedbyPaulDiMaggioandWalterPowell.Thismaywellbehelpfulinembeddingananalysisofsymbolicmeaningwithinabroaderinstitutionalanalysisthatisessentialifideologycritiqueistobemorethanadisembodiedanalysisoftexts(1991).IfThompson’sworkmaybethoughtofasmovingtheconceptforwardintermsofsystematisingsymbolicanalysis,thenhisfailuretoengagewithpsychologicalthoughtrepresentsastepbackwardsincontrasttothefirstgenerationoftheFrankfurtschool.InadditiontothewellknownworkofBourdieu,thedevelopmentofneo-institutionalmodesofanalysiscouldprovetobeafruitfulresourceformediascholarswishingtosituatetheanalysisofsymbolicmeaningwithinabroadermaterialistanalysis.Politicalpraxis:fromaffirmativetotransformativestrategies,fromidentitypoliticstoemancipationIfHonnethiscorrecttoarguethattheexperienceofeconomicexploita-tionisphenomenologicallysecondaryincharactertotheexperienceofmisrecognition,disrespectandhumiliation,thenthisservestohighlightthecentralpoliticalimportanceofideologycritiqueinpoliticalstruggle(2004a:352).WhatHonnethmeansbythisisthatstrugglesoverredistri-butionofpowerbecomeimportantoncesubjectsfeelmisrecognised,andthereforestrugglesoverredistributionarepartof,notseparatefrom,astruggleforrecognition.Thishighlightsthecentralimportanceofideologycritique.Itwouldbewronghere,however,tojumpfromthefactofunequalstatusandeconomicandpoliticalinequalitiestotheassumptionof‘falseconsciousness’,theacceptanceofmisrecognition.Thenotionsoffalseandtrueconsciousnesssimplydonotmakesense,astheysuggestthepresenceoftwoincommensurableconceptualschemesthatwouldlogicallybeclosedtooneanother.Ratherthanthinkaboutitinthisrathercrudeway,itisbettertoconceiveofthesituationasadialecticalstrugglebetweenmisrecognitionandrecognition,asacomplex,unevenprocess.Itmakessensetotalkoffalsebeliefsandfalsesetsofbeliefsbutnotoffalseconsciousness.Inordertoexplainthepresenceofsuchbeliefs,however,weneedtoconsidernotonlythepresenceofideologicaloperationsandstrategiesbutalsothe

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:6959–74Recognitionandtherenewalofideologycritique69circumstancesofreception,thehowandwhyofacceptance,rejectionornegotiationofsuchoperations.Iftherelationshipbetweenideologicaloperationsandacceptanceisnotsimplethentherelationshipbetweenrejectionandpoliticalactionissimilarlycomplex.Anabsenceofovertpoliticalstrugglemaynotbetheconsequenceofanacceptanceofmisrecognition.Acritiqueofmisrecognitionisanecessarybutnotsufficientconditionforenlightened,progressivepoliticalaction.Otherfactors,suchasperceivedprospectsforsuccessdependentuponthebalanceofforces,areclearlyimportant.However,theimportanceofrecognitionimpliesthecentralityofideologycritiquetopoliticalstruggle.Whatroleshoulditplay?TherelationshipbetweenideologycritiqueasaformofpoliticalpraxisandotherformsisnotanissuethatisdevelopedsystematicallybyThompson.Thereareafewremarksconcerningideologycritiqueasan‘intervention’butfurtherpoliticalimplicationsarenotteasedout(1990:323).Thereisnothinginternal,however,toThompson’stheorythatpreventsthis,butitsabsencefromThompson’sworkissymptomaticofanunfortunateseparationbetweencriticaltheoristsandpoliticalactivists.AlthoughbothFraserandHonnethadopttheconceptofrecognitiontheybothrejectidentitypolitics,withwhichtheconceptofrecognitionhasbeenrecentlyassociated.Theycriticiseidentitypoliticsonthegroundsthatitseekstowinrecognitionforparticulargroupidentities.FraserandHonnethareuniversalists,theywishtowinrecognitionforindividualsashumanbeings,asfullandequalparticipants,ratherthanforaparticulargroup.Fraserlinksidentitypoliticstoastrategyofaffirmation(wheretheculturalcharacteristicsofaparticulargrouparevalorised)whereassheadvocatesastrategyoftransformationwherehithertodistinctidentitiesundergoatransformationinorderthatindividualsfromgroupspreviouslyconsideredtobedistinctareseenasindividualswithinthesamecommunityofequals.Ideologycritiqueisthusacrucialcomponentofpoliticalpraxis,asitisthemeansbywhichtheconstructionofindividualandgroupidentitiesisunderstoodifnottransformed.Itisanecessarybutnotsufficientpartofapoliticalpraxisthatseekstoestablishrelationsofrecognition.NancyFraserhasdiscussedtherelationshipbetweenherpoliticalphilos-ophyandpoliticalstruggle.Shearguesthattherearebasicallytwopoliticalstrategies:theaffirmativeandthetransformative.Affirmativestrategieshavetwoproblems.First,theytendto‘reifycollectiveidentities’that‘lendthemselvesalltooeasilytoseparatismandrepressivecommunitarianism’(2004:76).Second,‘theyoftenprovokeabacklashofmisrecognition’,adding‘theinsultofdisrespecttotheinjuryofdeprivation’(2004:76–7).Transformativeordeconstructivestrategies,incontrast,‘aimtodestabiliseinvidiousstatusdistinctions’,seekingtoreplace‘overweeningmasterdichotomies,suchasblack/whiteorgay/straight,withadecentredcongeriesoflower-casedifferences’(2004:77).

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7059–7470JohnDowneyClearlythenFraserpreferstransformativestrategies.SuchstrategiessitverycomfortablywithThompson’sconceptofideologyandthecri-tiqueofthevariousmodesofoperationofideology.ItalsositswellwithHonneth’suniversalism.Recognitionmeansfirstofallbeingrecog-nisedasahumanbeing,notasaparticularsortofhumanbeing.Onthatuniversalbasisstrugglescanbefoughtconcerningwhatparticu-larindividualsorgroupsrequireinordertoberecognisedinprac-tice.Thisuniversal-transformativeuseoftheconceptofrecognitionandofideologythusservestoencouragethebringingtogetherofpoliticalmovementspotentiallyseenasdisparate.Theirstrugglesforrecognitionareseenasthesamemoralstrugglethatdeservemutualsupport,asintegralpartsofanunfinishedEnlightenmentprojectofemancipation.Theirstrugglesagainstmisrecognitionarestrugglesagainstsimilarwaysofthinkingandactingthatestablishandsustainstatusdifferenceandeconomicandpoliticalinequality.Suchatransformativestrategyisnotonlyethicallyandepistemologicallyrightbutalsopoliticallypragmatic.Anadvocateofaffirmationmayarguethatsuchstrategiesaretheonesmostlikelytoappealtooppressedgroupsbutequallythetransforma-tionistmightarguethatitispoliticallythemostpragmaticpositionbecauseitencouragesthedevelopmentofanupper-caseEmancipatorymovementmadeupofindividualswithlower-casedifferences.Thatthisisatoddswiththesupposedlyprogressiveaffirmativepoliticsofidentityandmulticulturalismtestifiestotheimportanceofrevivingideologycritique.Canwefixit?Mediatheory,praxisandthecriticalimaginationMichaelBurawoyinhis2004presidentialaddresstotheAmericanSociologicalAssociationcalledforthereinventionof‘publicsociology’,asociologythatexplicitlyattemptstoengagethepublicorpublicsaswellasacademicaudiencesandcontributethroughtheexerciseofcriticalimaginationtocreatingabetterworld(Burawoy2005).Aswellasmorepublicsociology,weareinneedofsomepublicmediastudieswherethecriticalimaginationreturns.Givenmediastudies’publicimageintheUnitedKingdom,itistemptingeithertoretreattotheivorytower(oratleastofficetowerblock)oronlytocomeoutinpublicwearingawhitecoatandlargespectacles.ThepassionatedebateaboutthenatureofthedisciplinethatBurawoy’saddressprovokedshouldbehadinthefieldofmediastudiestoo.ForthehopelesslymelancholicthereisthecommitmenttoMarx’scalltoarmsinhiselevenththesisonFeuerbach:philosophershaveonlyinterpretedtheworld,thepointistochangeit.Thisraisesthequestionofhowtheprincipleofrecognitioncanbeappliedtosocialstruggles.Whichstruggles

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7159–74Recognitionandtherenewalofideologycritique71arespurnedandwhichsupported?Thisisamatternotonlyofmoralevaluationbutalsoofpoliticalefficacy:Theturntothenormativebecomesnecessaryassoonaswearenolongerdiscussinghowpresent-daysocialstrugglesaretobeappropriatelyanalysedtheoretically,butturntothequestionoftheirmoralevaluation.Itisobviousthatwecannotapproveofeverypoliticaluprisingassuch,norholdeverydemandforrecognitiontobemorallylegitimateordefensible.Rather,ingeneralwejudgetheobjectivesofsuchstrugglestobepositiveonlywhentheypointinthedirectionofasocietaldevelopmentthatwecangraspascomingclosertoournotionsofagoodorjustsociety.Naturally,inprinciple,othercriteriacanalsoplayadecisiverolehere;criteriarelatedmorewiththeaimsofsocietalefficiencyorstability,butthesetoothenonlyreflectvaluedecisionsmadeatahigherlevelaboutthenormativemeaningandpurposeofasocietalorder.(Honneth2004a:353)Asubsetofthesepoliticaldecisionsandactionsrelatestomediaandculturalinstitutions:mediascholarsnowbyandlargeseethemselvesasprofessionalinterpretersofmediainstitutionsratherthanasmediaactivists.Whileprofessionalisationhasmeritsitalsomeansthatwemaybelosingsightofbroaderethicalandpoliticalconcernsthatwerecentraltobothmediaandculturalstudiesinthe1970sand1980s.Can‘recognition’helptorenewthislostdimension?Howarewebesttoactinordertocreatemediainstitutionsthatmorecloselycorrespondtoournotionsofagoodorjustsociety?Wemust,ofcourse,firsthavesomeideaofwhatmediainstitutionswouldlooklikethatarefoundedintheprinciplesofmutualrecognition.Suchavisionnotonlyenablescritiquebutisalsoanecessaryconditionofsuccessfulpoliticalaction.OnenoteworthyattempttobringtogethersocialscientistswhoshareacommitmenttoemancipationhasbeentheRealUtopiasprojectledbyErikOlinWright(http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/∼wright/RealUtopias.htm).Thefocusofthisprojectislesstoanalysethecurrentstateofaffairsthantothinkthroughhowcertainideasforpoliticalactionmightbedevelopedthatwillleadinthedirectionofemancipation.Conferencesandbookshaveconsideredtheissuesofdevelopingmoreparticipatoryanddeliberativeformsofdemocracy,howmarketsocialismmightwork,howpensionfundscouldbeusedtocontrolthecapitalisteconomy,andhowlegislationmightleadtoemancipatorychangeingenderrelations.Attentionhasrecentlyturnedtotheideaofabasicincomeoracitizens’income,aguaranteedminimumincomethateveryonereceivesirrespectiveofincomeorvolitiontowork(CohenandRogers1995;Roemer1996;BowlesandGintis1999;FungandOlinWright2003;Ackermanetal.2006).Thereareplanstohold

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7259–7472JohnDowneyaconferenceledbyRobertMcChesneyandproduceabookonhowmediainstitutionsmightbechangedtofurtheremancipation.Giventheemphasisinmediastudiesoncriticalscholarship,itissurprisingthat,tothebestofmyknowledge,nosimilargroupofscholarsexiststhatseekstoproduceablueprintofwhatamediasystemwouldlooklikethatwouldfurtheremancipation,oratleasttorespondpubliclytothewaythatmediainstitutionsareatpresentorganised.Theabundanceofcriticalscholarshiphasnotbeenmatchedbyanincreaseinpoliticalengagement.Thereisadisjointbetweenmediatheoryandanalysisandmediapoliticalpraxis.Aswellasmediacritiquethereisaneedformediaconstruction.Recognitioncanplayacentralconceptualrolebothincritiqueandinconstructionandthusisfundamentaltobringingtogethertheoryandpraxis.Longseenasoneofthebackwatersofmediastudies,somescholarsofalternativemediahavebeenparticularly‘public’inrecentyears.TheOurMedia/NuestrosMediosnetworkwassetupin2000andnowhasover500membersinfortycountries.Itaimstobringtogetherscholarsandactivistsbothvirtuallyandotherwise;todemocratisethemediathroughencouragingtheproductionofgrass-rootsmedia;and,toinfluencemediapolicyinsupportofcitizens’media.OneofthemostimpressiveaspectsoftheOurMedia/NuestrosMediosnetworkisthatitisnotentirelydominatedbyNorthAmericanandWesternEuropeanscholars.SpanishisusedtocommunicateaswellasEnglishandtherehavebeenconferencesinSouthAmericaandAsiaaswellasrichergeographicalregions(www.ourmedianet.org).Theavowedlyactivistandcosmopolitanagendaofthisnetworkisworthyofemulationbyotherspecialismswithinmainstreammediastudies.ConclusionTheabsenceoftheconceptofideologyinmediastudiesisnot,contrarytoCorner’sessay,somethingtobewelcomedbutratherisindicativeofalackofphilosophicalandpoliticalambitiononthepartofmediastudies.Thisshouldbeunderstoodinthecontextofbroaderintellectualandpoliticalmovementsaswellasthegrowingmaturityofthefield.Perhapsitisnowtimefortheincreasinglyrobustandprofessionalisedfieldtolookoutwardonceagaininordertoreconnectwithsocialtheory,ontheonehand,andpoliticalpraxis,ontheother?AswellasthethirdgenerationofCriticalTheory,workinthefieldsofneo-institutionalanalysisandintersubjectivepsychologycouldsurelyhelptoinformmediaanalysisthatseekstounderstandsocietyasatotalityandcontributethroughguidingpraxistotheemancipatorygoalsofcriticalsocialscience.Cornerconcludeshisobituarybyarguingthattheconceptofideologyasfrequentlyusedinmediastudiesinhibitedresearchbecause‘itsuggestedatheoreticallyprecisegraspofmediationprocessesthatwassimplynotpresent’.Asaresult‘itwouldbebettertohopethatwearecomingtothe

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7359–74Recognitionandtherenewalofideologycritique73endofattemptsatrepair.Wemightthenbeinbettershapetopursuefurtherresearchandargumentabouttheinterconnectionsofmeaning,value,socialstructureandpower’(2001:532).Inplaceofthegrandiosityofideologyweneedcarefulandpreciseanalysisoftheprocessofmediationinitscomplexity.IncontrasttoCorner,ithasbeenarguedherethereisnothingabouttheconceptthatnecessarilyinhibitsapreciseanalysisthatadmitscomplexity.More,withoutsuchaconceptembeddedinacriticalunderstandingofthesocialsciencesitislikelythatwewilllosetrackoftheimportanceofvalueandpowerandconsequentlythedesirabilityofchangingtheworld,theverythingsCornerparadoxicallywishestokeepinsight.Notes1EvensometheoristssympathetictoMarxismhavearguedthatideologyasaconcepthasoutliveditsusefulness.PierreBourdieu,forexample,claimsthattheconceptofideology(withsomejustification)‘hasbeensousedandabusedthatitdoesnotworkanymore’(1994:266).IarguethattheconceptcanberepairedandmademorepoliticallyusefulandcanavoidtheproblemsofBourdieu’scompetitornotionssuchas‘symbolicpower’thattendtoskateoverthesubstantialdifferencebetweenthesymbolicandtheexerciseofeconomicandcoercivepowerinthatthesymbolicworksthroughpersuasionratherthanforce(seeLukes2004).ThisisimportantbecauseBourdieu’sworkhashadconsiderableinfluenceuponmediastudies.2Thepresent-dayInstituteofSocialResearchatFrankfurthasdevelopedavibrantempiricalresearchprogrammebasedaroundHonneth’sphilosophicalwork,seewww.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/forschung/schwerpunkte.htm.BibliographyAckerman,B.,Alstott,A.andvanParijs,P.(2006)RedesigningRedistribution:BasicIncomeandStakeholderGrantsasCornerstonesofamoreEgalitarianCapitalism.London:Verso.Benjamin,J.(1990)TheBondsofLove:Psychoanalysis,FeminismandtheProblemofDomination.London:Virago.Benjamin,J.(1995)LikeSubjects,LoveObjects:EssaysonRecognitionandSexualDifference.NewHavenCT:YaleUniversityPress.Billig,M.(1999)FreudianRepression:ConversationcreatingtheUnconscious.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Bourdieu,P.(1994)LanguageandSymbolicPower.Cambridge:PolityPress.Bowles,S.andGintis,H.(1999)RecastingEgalitarianism:NewRulesforAccountabilityandEquityinMarkets,StatesandCommunities.London:Verso.Burawoy,M.(2005)‘Forpublicsociology’,AmericanSociologicalReview70:4–28.Cohen,J.andRogers,J.(1995)AssociationsandDemocracy.London:Verso.Corner,J.(2001)“‘Ideology”:anoteonconceptualsalvage’,Media,CultureandSociety23:525–33.DiMaggio,P.andPowell,W.(eds)(1991)TheNewInstitutionalisminOrganizationalAnalysis.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

[12:079/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch04.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7459–7474JohnDowneyEagleton,T.(1991)Ideology:anIntroduction.London:Verso.Fraser,N.(2004)‘Recognition,redistributionandrepresentationincapitalistglobalsociety:aninterviewwithNancyFraser’,ActaSociologica47(4):374–82.Fraser,N.andHonneth,A.(2003)RedistributionorRecognition?APhilosophical-politicalExchange.London:Verso.Fung,A.andOlinWright,E.(2003)DeepeningDemocracy:InnovationsinEmpoweredParticipatoryGovernance.London:Verso.Habermas,J.(1989)TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere.Cambridge:PolityPress.Honneth,A.(1995)TheStruggleforRecognition:theMoralGrammarofSocialConflicts.Cambridge:PolityPress.Honneth,A.(2004a)‘Recognitionandjustice:outlineofapluraltheoryofjustice’,ActaSociologica47(4):351–64.Honneth,A.(2004b)‘Fromstrugglesforrecognitiontoapluralconceptofjustice:interviewwithGwynnMarkle’,ActaSociologica47(4):383–91.Kohut,H.(1971)TheAnalysisoftheSelf.NewYork:InternationalUniversitiesPress.Lukes,S.(2004)Power:aRadicalView.Basingstoke:Palgrave.Roemer,J.(1996)EqualShares:MakingMarketSocialismWork.London:Verso.Thompson,J.B.(1990)IdeologyandModernCulture.Cambridge:PolityPress.VanDijk,T.(1998)Ideology:aMultidisciplinaryApproach.London:Sage.Whitebook,J.(1995)PerversionandUtopia:aStudyinPsychoanalysisandCriticalTheory.CambridgeMA:MITPress.Winnicott,D.W.(1965)TheMaturationalProcessesandtheFacilitatingEnviron-ment:StudiesintheTheoryofEmotionalDevelopment.London:Hogarth.Žižek,S.(ed.)(1994)MappingIdeology.London:Verso.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7575–925Cosmopolitantemptations,communicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnionPhilipSchlesingerTheconceptofthe‘publicsphere’isofcentralimportancetomediaresearchandintegraltothinkingaboutbothpoliticalcultureandpopularculture.1Whiletherelationsbetweenmediatedcommunicationandpublicity,publicsandpublicopinionhavebeenontheagendafromtheverystartofanalyticalreflectiononmasscommunication(Splichal1999),itwouldbetruetosaythatforrecentgenerationsofscholars,JürgenHabermas’s(1989)classicformulationofthestructuraltransformationofthepublicspherehasconstitutedadecisivestartingpointfordebateandinvestigation–whetheroneisinagreementwithorindissentfromhisviews(Calhoun1992).Thediscourseonthepublicsphereisprovingtobeoneofthemostfruitfulcontemporaryconjunctionsbetweenpoliticaltheoryandmediaresearchandhasbecomeindispensabletohowwethinkaboutthecommunicativeconditionsofademocraticpolityandpolitics.Currently,thereisextensivedebateoverhowtoconceptualisethepublicsphereatatimeofglobalisingtendencies(albeithighlyunevenones)intheeconomy,internationalrelationsandculturalflows,whilealsotakingintoaccountthefar-reachingeffectsofthepresentdigitalrevolution.Intheeraofthemodernstate,theprincipalspaceofpoliticalcommunicationhasbeencommonlyequatedwiththeterritorialboundariesofanationalcommunity.However,forcontemporarycosmopolitans,bycontrastwiththetropeofanationalhome,communicativespaceispotentiallyglobalinscope.Consequently,socosmopolitansargue,thekeystageformuchpoliticalaction(andrelevantformsofdiscourse)isnowproperlytransnational.Butstates–longconsideredtobethemodal,modernframeworksofpoliticalcommunicationandtheidealisedhomesofnationalcultures–havenotyetbeentranscendedastheprincipalcontrollersofcitizenship,thepurveyorsofkeycollectiveidentities,orthedeliverersofamyriadofservicesanddemandsthatshapetheeverydaylivesandexperiencesoftheirinhabitants.Nevertheless,fromacosmopolitanviewpointtheyhavebeenrelativisedascommunicativespacesandcontainersofpoliticalaction.Cosmopolitans,therefore,asopposedtonationalcitizens,areinvolved(potentially,ifnotactually)inaglobalconversationaboutthegoodsociety.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7675–9276PhilipSchlesingerThus,whenitcomestoconceptualisingthepublicsphere,twobroadper-spectives–thestatistandthecosmopolitan–arethepolargrandvariantsinplay.True,thisdualisticcharacterisationsimplifiesanddramatises,butitdoesofferusaclearentrypointintotheargumentsthatfollow.If,respectively,thestateandtheglobedescribedistinctconceptionsofpoliticalspace,politiesthatareneitherclearlytheonenortheotherrightlybecomeobjectsofconsiderableanalyticalinterestandpresentaconceptualchallenge.Inabinaryframeworktheirtroublingambiguitysimplycannotberesolved.TheEuropeanUnionissuchananomaly.Lessall-embracingthantheglobe,itisalsomorefar-reachingthanthestate.Sohowmightwethinkthroughthescopeandscaleofthepublicsphereandwhatthismightsignifyforthepolitico-culturalidentitiesandcohesionofdifferentkindsofcollectivity?Whetherweframetheproblemintermseitherofaninternationalsystemofstatesandnationsorofaglobalcommunityinstatunascendiishighlyrelevant.Eachconceptiondiffersradicallyinhowitimaginesthespacesofpoliticalaction,addressestheirsignificanceandlocatesprocessesofcommunication.Each,moreover,conjuresupdiverseviewsofhumanpossibilityandthepoliticalconstraintswithinwhichthisunfolds.WhatIwishtoemphasisehereisthecontinuinganalyticalimportanceofpoliticalinstitutionsasthebedrockforourunderstandingofthepublicsphere.TheEUisanintergovernmental,regulatorypolitythatmightyetbecomeafederalsystem(FossumandSchlesinger2007:1–19).BecausetheUnion’soverallcharacterasapolityremainsunresolvedthishasmajorconsequencesfortheorganisationofcommunicativespaces–andthereforeforthepossibilityofcosmopolitanism.SocialcommunicationandthestateItispreciselytheEuropeannation-state,addressedasapoliticalcommu-nity,whichJürgenHabermas’s(1989)earlytheorytookasitsframeworkforthepublicsphere.Buthowarewetothinkofpublicnessinthemulti-levelcomplexityoftheEU?Bothnationaland‘European’discoursesandinstitutionscoexist.TheEU’spolicymakingisaconstitutivepartofmemberstates’domesticpoliticalagendasandalsooftheirlegalandeconomicframeworks.YettheUnionalsooccupiesadifferentpoliticallevelandisoftenrepresentedasanexternallocusofdecisionmaking.HereinliestheessentialambiguityoftheEuropeanpublicsphere.TheevolutionoftheEUhasensuredthatthestate-boundedcontextnolongercompletelydefinesthepoliticalscopeofcommunicativecommunities.Consequently,toanalyseemergentEuropeancommunicativespaces,thefocusneedstoshiftoutwardstothetransnationalarenascentredonthepoliticalcapital,Brussels,andtoconsiderhowthesetrytoaddresstheirconstituentpublics.Thechallenge,therefore,istodevelopasocialcommunicationtheorycapableofaddressingtheEuropeanUnion’scomplexity,bywhichismeant

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7775–92CommunicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnion77‘thenumberofelementsininteractionandthenumberofdifferentstatesthatthoseinteractionscangiveriseto’(Boisot1999:5).Socialcommunicationencompassesthegamutofdistinctivesignifyingpractices,valuesandcollectivelyheldbeliefsthatdefinesanddelimitsacommunicativecommunity,operatingwithintheframeworkofabroadlyanthropologicalideaofacultureasa‘distinctwholewayoflife’(Williams1981:13).Itismoreextensiveinscopethanpoliticalcommunication,althoughpoliticalinstitutionsandmediatedcommunicationaboutthesedohaveafocalimportanceforourcontemporaryunderstandingofsocialcommunication.Arguably,aEuropeanpublicspherepresupposesatheoryofsocialcommunicationbecausetherelationsitentailsgobeyondhowcitizensquacitizensinteractwithpoliticalinstitutions.Civilsocietyistobeconceivedonlyinpartasoperatinginthepoliticaldomain.Itisalsosimultaneouslyasocio-culturalhinterlandandarealmofeverydaylife.Thusatheoryofsocialcommunicationencompasses‘thick’socialrelations–notleastthoseproductiveofasenseofbelongingandemotionalattachments–thatcontinuetobeintegraltonationallife,despiteitsconflictualdynamics.Inthisconnection,weshouldconsideronelineofinquirythatisdeeplyrootedinthelongueduréeofEuropeanexperience.KarlDeutsch(1966)firstexplicitlyoutlinedasocialcommunicationtheoryofnationalismhalfacenturyago,althoughitsoriginsdoubtlessliefurtherinthepast.SomefiftyyearsbeforeDeutsch,theAustro-MarxisttheoristOttoBauer(2000)wroteaseminalaccountofthe‘nationalquestion’thatisthelikelyprecursorofDeutsch’stheory.Together,BauerandDeutschhaveexercisedaremarkable–andvirtuallyunacknowledged–influenceoversomeofthemoresignificantrecenttheorisingaboutthecommunicativedimensionofthenation(andthereforeofthepublicsphere).SuchnowvenerableAustro-Marxistthinkingisofmorethanpassinginterest.FindingapluralisticsolutiontocommunicativecomplexityinsidetheEuropeanUnionhasastrongfamilyresemblancetoBauer’swishtogiveduerecognitiontonationalculturalautonomyinamultinationalempire.Theintimateconnectionbetweennationalityand‘cultureandlanguage’(broadlyunderstoodassocialcommunication)wascentraltohisanalysis;notleastthepassionsandemotionsthatcompetinglinguisticandculturalclaimscould–anddid–generatewithinacreakingimperialorder.Bauer(2000:34)contendedthatamoderndemocraticnationshouldbeseenasa‘communityofculture’.Incontemporaryconditions,itismorecommontothinkintermsofacommunityofcultures.2Baueralsofamouslyobservedthatthenationwasa‘communityoffate’(eineSchicksalsgemeinschaft)engagedin‘generalreciprocalinteraction’(ibid.:100),therebysharingacommonlanguageandculture.Heremarked:Theculture’ssphereofinfluenceextendsonlyasfarasthecommu-nicativepossibilitiesofthelanguage.Thecommunityofinteraction

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7875–9278PhilipSchlesingerislimitedbythescopeofthelinguisticcommunity.Communityofinteractionandlanguagereciprocallyconditioneachother.(Bauer2000:102)Thenationqualinguisticcommunity,then,isconceivedasculturallyself-containedor,attheveryleast,astendingtowardscommunicativeclosure.Thiswasanearlystatementofasocialcommunicationtheoryofthenation.Itcamefromtryingtothinkthroughastrategyforensuringculturalautonomywithinawiderpoliticalorder.ThisefforttoaddresstheKulturkämpfeofthedecliningyearsoftheAustro-HungarianEmpirehasleftitsconceptualimprintoncontemporarytheorisingaboutthepublicsphereintheEuropeanUnion.Bauer’slineofargumentwascarriedforwardbyKarlDeutsch–appropriatelyenough,anearlytheoristofEuropeanunion–whocontendedthatnationsandnation-statesarestronglyboundedbytheirpatternsofinteraction:‘Peopleareheldtogether“fromwithin”bythiscommu-nicativeefficiency,thecomplementarityofthecommunicativefacilitiesacquiredbytheirmembers’(Deutsch1996:98).Socialcommunication,inotherwords,isheldtoproducecollectivecohesionandidentity:weareinvitedtoshareacommonfate.BauerandDeutsch,therefore,hadafundamentallysimilarapproachtohowcommunicativeandculturalpracticesandinstitutions(towhichlanguageiscentral)mightstrengthenthecollectiveidentityofanationalgroupbycreatingandmaintainingboundaries.Thissimple–butcompelling–ideaisreproducedinanumberofinfluentialtheoriesofnationalism.ErnestGellner’s(1983)viewthatcultureis‘thedistinctivestyleofconductandcommunicationofagivencommunity’andthatitis‘nowthenecessarysharedmedium’ofthenationislikewiseatrootasocialtheoryofcohesion.Culturalboundariesbecomedefinedbynationalcultures,whichdiffusealiterate‘highculture’,inwhichthekeyagencyisthenationaleducationsys-tem.Mediaareseenassustainingthatpoliticalcommunity,providingitwithitsdeepcodesfordistinguishingbetweenselfandother.Forhispart,BenedictAnderson(1991)hascontendedthatmechanicallyreproducedprintlanguageshaveunifiedfieldsoflinguisticexchange,fixednationallanguagesandcreatedidiolectsofpower.So,bygoingtoGellner’sschools,culturednationalsmayacquirethecompetencetoreadAnderson’snovelsandnewspapers,andthusenterthepublicsphereendowedwithculturalcapital.Foreachofthesewriters,thecollectiveconsumptionofmediatedcommunication(basedonacommon‘national’language)createsandsustainsasenseofcommonbelong-ing.MichaelBillig(1995)hasendorsedandextendedthisbroadargu-ment.Asnationals,hesuggests,welivelessinastateofperpetualmobilisationthanoneofthebanalassimilationofeverydaysymbolismandcategorisationthroughknowingaboutflagsandanthems,making

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:7975–92CommunicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnion79distinctionsbetweenhomeandforeignnews,absorbingnationalhistoriesandlanguages,andhavingaparticularsenseofpoliticalgeography.Nationalidentity–outsideofcrises–isunremarkablyreproducedintheroutinesofeverydaylife.Cultureholdsustogether:itbothcondi-tionsandinformsourconceptionsofnationalidentity.Whereassocialcommunicationtheoristsmaydifferonthekeymechanismsorprocessesthatproduceculturalcohesion,allneverthelessagreethatsomeorotherdimensionofcommunicationiscentraltohowthenationshouldbeconceived.Theabovediscussionmerelyunderlinestheobvious–thatnocultureisanisland.Inthetheoriesoutlinedabove,theemphasisisontheplace–theterritory–occupiedbythenation.However,nationalsystemsofcommunicationareinfluencedbywhatliesoutside.Nationalculturesareusuallypermeable,howevermuchtheymaybecensoredandcontrolled,andintheageoftheInternet,mobiledevices,andsatellitebroadcasting,suchrelativeopennessisnecessarilygreaterthaneverbefore.Ihavearguedelsewhere(Schlesinger2000)thatthemainthrustofclassicalsocialcommunicationstheoryistoconcernitselfwiththeinteriorofthenationalcultureandcommunication,withlargelyendogenousexplanationsofwhatmakesuswhatweare,withhowboundariesaredrawnaroundus.LookatBauer’sFragestellungandsuchinteriorityisnotatallsurprising:itiscongruentwiththeassertionoftherighttohaveanationalcommunicativespacewithinawiderimperialconstitutionalframeworkofcompetingnationalcultures.Itrepresentsboththequestfor,andthedefenceof,culturalterritory.Butitisobviousthatsuchaneatlydemarcationisttheoryofsocialcommunicationandpublicspaceisnolongertenable.Itisespeciallythecase,ina‘globalised’world,thatitslimitationsarethrownincreasinglyintoreliefbytherapiddevelopmentofnewformsofpublicelectronicconnectednessthroughinformationandcommunicationstechnologies,althoughtheemergenceofnetworkedspacesdoesnotmeanweshouldnowregardthecontinuedshapingroleofthestateinsocialcom-municationatthenationallevelasirrelevant(Hjarvard2001;Street2001;Sinclair2004).Nevertheless,asautarchyisutterlypasséunderglobalisingpressures,statistideasofcommunicationsovereignty–andthereforeofthepublicsphere–havebeenforcedtoshiftfrom‘theunilateraltotheconsensual,thenegotiated,andthemultilateral’(Price2002:230).OttoBauer’scentury-oldproblemhasbeenposedafreshbytheevolutionoftheEuropeanUnion:howmaymanydiversenational,ethnic,linguisticandotherculturalcommunitiesachieveautonomywithinasingle,over-archingpoliticalframework?TheoldHabsburgempirehadtoadjusttonationalistclaimstoautonomyfrombelowanditdidnotsurvivethese.3Bycontrast,theEUisanimporterofalreadyformednationsshapedby(moreorlesswell)establishedstates.4IfBauerwastryingtofinda

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8075–9280PhilipSchlesingersolutiontonationalistdemandswithinanoverarchingframework,currentcosmopolitanwritersemphasisethetranscendentpotentialoftheemergentEuropeanframeworktoconnectanewglobalorderthatneedsapublicspheretomatch.ThegradualemergenceofatransnationalformationsuchastheEU(asadistinctivelydevelopedinstanceofwidertrendstowardssupranationalgovernance)hasunsettledhowwemightnowconceiveofestablishedcommunicativerelationsbetweennationalpublicsandstate-centredsystemsofpower.Ithasmadeusintenselyawareofthediverselevelsatwhichpublicsmightform,thehorizontaltiesthatbindacrossstateboundaries,andhowourcommunicativecompetenceneedstomakeappropriateadjustments.IftheEUisengagedinaformofstatebuilding,thenitlacksoneofthekeycomponentsofacommonpublicsphere,aEuropeanintelligentsia.AsAbramdeSwaan(2007)haspointedout,theEUdoesnot–asyet–havethesupportingapparatusofjournals,academies,prizes,careeropportunitiesandacommon,synchronousdebateaboutkeymattersofpublicconcern.Ashealsonotes,thereareindeedmultipleinterrelationsattheexpertlevel–inshort,particularmicro-publicsdoexist–butthereisnothingthatequatestotheroutinegeneraldebatethatstillcharacterisesthenationalpublicsphere.DeSwaancontendsthattheEU’slinguisticdiversity–alongsidethedefactoriseofEnglishas‘thevehicularlanguageofEurope’–hascontinuedtounderpinthepullofthenational.Thematerialunderpinningsofanew‘culturalopportunitystructure’,hesuggests,arenowneededtocounteractthecontinuingrobustnessofstatesystems.Thus,accordingtothisargument,thenecessaryconditionsforsustainingaEuropeanpublicspherearenotyetinplace.Whetherthemicro-publicscreatedbytheproblem-orientedtheorising,empiricalresearchandconsultancythathaveaccompaniedthegrowthofEuropeaninstitutionswillintimeconstitutepartofacosmopolitan,Europeanintelligentsiaisstillanopenquestion.While,atpresent,linguisticdiversityatthelevelofthememberstatesandafragmentedintelligentsiadostandinthewayoftheformationofacommonpublicsphere,thequestionofculturalcomplexityextendsmuchfurther.First,theEU’smemberstatesarenotmonolingualormonoculturalnationalformations.Regionalorminoritylanguages,oftenwithsupportinginstitutionsandmediasystems,operateatasub-statelevel,perhapsmostpotentlyinregionsthatarealsoself-consciously‘statelessnations’.Publicsexistatthesub-statelevel,andareconstitutedthereonthebasisoflinguistic,culturalornationaldistinctiveness(CormackandHourigan2007;MoragasSpàetal.1999).Asidefromthis,continuingmigrationanddiasporiclinkshaveensuredthat,aselsewhere,non-indigenousformsoflinguisticandculturaldiversity–inpartsustainedbytransnationalmediaconsumption–areinescapablypartofthecontemporarylandscapeoftheEU’smemberstates

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8175–92CommunicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnion81(JouëtandPasquier2001).Theconsequencesarecomplex.Forinstance,AsuAksoyandKevinRobins(2000:358)haveargued–inthecaseofTurkishmigrantsinWesternEuropewhoareconsumersofadiverserangeofTurkishtelevisionprogrammes–thatsuchconsumptioninitiatesaprocessof‘thinkingacrossspaces,withallthepossibilitiesthatthisthenopensupforthinkingbeyondthesmallworldofimaginedcommunities’.However,theevidenceofsuchemergentpost-nationalidentitiesisambigu-ous.Wemayask,forinstance,whetherdiasporicconnectionssustainedviathemediacrystallisenewcosmopolitanpossibilitiesorinsteadsustain‘long-distancenationalism’.Butthesearenotmutuallyexclusivealternatives,asThomasHyllandEriksenhasobserved.Basinghisargumentontheusesoftheinternetbyawiderangeofmigrantgroups,hewritesthat:Somearecontenttostrengthenandconfirmaparticularculturalorreligiousidentityinthecontextoftheircountryorresidence;someprioritiseinterpersonallinkswiththeircountryoforigin;whileothers–presumablyaminority–usetheInternettoactivelypromotethepoliticalcauseofaterritorialnation,realorprospective,inadisperseddiaspora,whichisbroughttogetherasanabstractcommunityonlybecauseoftheInternet.(Eriksen2007:7)Eriksen(2007:16)goesontopointoutthatthetransbordersocialcohesionandculturalintegrationaffordedbytheinternetisinherentlyunstable;itisfacedbythecontradictorypullofthe‘territorialisingforcesofthenation-stateandthedeterritorialisingforcesconnectingpeopletoanationwhichiselsewhereorperhapsonlyincyber-space’.ThecomplexityofcommunicativespacesintheEUsketchedabovehasbeenaddedtobytheUnion’senlargementeastwardsandsouthwards.ThishasmeantthatnationalquestionsheldincheckduringtheColdWarareincreasinglytheinheritanceoftheEUtomanage(asarerelationswithRussia).Post-communistEuropehasbecome–inRogersBrubaker’s(1996)phrase–aspaceof‘nationalisingstates’.Theselegacies–whichinvolvecontestedideasaboutthenation–areaninherentpartofthediscussionwithinnewandaspirantmemberstatesabouthowaEuropeanpublicspheremightevolve(HellerandRényi2007).Inmanycases,nationalminoritieswithoutcitizenshipofthenewnationalisingstateconstituteasignificantcomponentofaneighbouringstateorstates.5TheimplosionofYugoslaviahasleftresidualethno-nationalproblemsthatmightberesolvedbyeventualaccessionforthesuccessorstates.AndthereisthemootquestionofTurkishaccessiontotheEU,embroiledintherecurrentdebateoverwhetherornottheUnionshouldunderlineitsChristianheritageasanintegralpartofitsidentity,aquestionmorepoliticalthanreligious(SchlesingerandForet2006).

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8275–9282PhilipSchlesingerTowardsacosmopolitancommunicativespace?ThedebateoverhowtoaddressEurope’sreligiousheritagehasbeenconductedintheEU’sinstitutionalheartlands,involvingtheEuropeanCommissionandtheEuropeanParliament,andwaspartofthediscussionovertheConstitutionalTreatyin2002–4(ForetandSchlesinger2007).Ithasalsobeenwidelydisseminated–albeitunevenly–throughmediacoverage(Koenigetal.2006).Thisexampleillustratesthat,inthestruggleovercollectiveidentitiesintheEU,itisimpossibletoavoidinstitutionalpolitics.Onthisscore,cosmopolitansdivideintotwomaincamps:institutionalandpost-institutional.Institutionalcosmopolitansusethelanguageofrightsanddutiesandtakeseriouslythemeansbywhichthesemightbeenforced.Habermas’srights-based,supranationalconceptionoftheEUconnectstoaglobalperspective.Heportraysthepublicsphereaspotentiallyunbounded,asshiftingfromspecificlocales(suchasthenation)tothevirtualco-presenceofcitizensandconsumerslinkedbypublicmedia.Habermas(1997:373–4)arguesthatcommunicativespaceistobeunderstoodintermsof‘ahighlycomplexnetwork[that]branchesoutintoamultitudeofoverlappinginternational,national,regional,localandsubculturalarenas’.Heenvisagesthat‘hermeneuticbridge-building’willoccurbetweendifferentdiscourses.AEuropeancommunicativespaceconceivedinopennetworktermshasbecomethenewpoliticalplayground(ibid.:171).AEuropeanpublicspherewouldthereforebeopen-ended,withcommunicativeconnectionsextendingwellbeyondthecontinent.Whatthisleavesunresolvediswhetherornotconvergentcommunicativepracticesmightintheendproducesomekindofculturalcohesion,resultinginaEuropeancommunityoffate.Habermas’sanswertothatquestionistoproposethatEUcitizensbecome‘constitutionalpatriots’.Thispost-nationalist,rule-boundformofidentificationimpliesanorderofpreferenceand(howeverfluid)atleastsomedistinctionbetweenan‘us’anda‘them’.Itstillcarriesinescapableechoesofanolder,inter-state,conceptionofpoliticalorder.Ifasocialcommunicationsapproachtothepublicsphereinsistsonthe‘thickness’ofwhatsustainsthepoliticalculture,constitutionalpatriotismpresumes‘thin’relations–however,italsopresupposesaffinitieswithotherpatriots.SotheEU’scosmopolitanpotentialisstillanchoredinawebofaffiliations.Habermas(2004)emphasisestheimportanceofaEuropeanconstitution.Thisdemarcatesadistinctpoliticalspaceandprovidesacommonvalueorientation.ConstitutionalismremainscentraltohowaEuropeanpublicspheremightbeimagined:linkedupwardstomoregeneralstructuresofgovernanceanddownwardstomoreparticularones.Habermashasarguedthatthe‘themakingofsuchaconstitutionrepresent[s]initselfauniqueopportunityoftransnationalcommunication’(ibid.:28).Hehasstressedthekeyroleofa‘European-widepublicsphere’and‘theshapingofa

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8375–92CommunicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnion83politicalculturethatcanbesharedbyallEuropeancitizens’(ibid.:27).Quitehowthisistobeachievedisstillamootpoint.Wemayquestionwhethertheconstitutionalprocesswasaneffectiveformoftransnationalcommunication.MorestrikingwasthenationalframingofthedebateandhownationalconsiderationsplayedintorejectionoftheConstitutionalTreatyinFranceandtheNetherlandsinMayandJune2005(Dacheux2005:129).Theratificationprocessranintothesandsandonlyin2007didmajornewmovestakeplaceundertheGermanpresidencytorecoverthelostmomentum.AconstitutionalframeworkremainsofkeyimportanceforthedevelopmentoftheEU’spoliticalidentity.Asidefromitsdirectlylegalandpoliticalsignificance,aconstitutionalsodefinesthelimitswithinwhich‘European’patternsofpoliticalcultureandcommunicationmaybeencouragedtoemergeattheEUlevel.Habermas’sattempttonavigatebetweenthefreeflightofcosmopolitanpotentialandthegravitationalpullofinstitutionsisakintoManuelCastells’s(1998)approach.ForCastells,thenewcommunicationtech-nologiescontributetotheformationofanovelkindofsociety,the‘informational’.HeseestheEUasaprecursorofanewpoliticalorder,ofnewformsofassociationandloyalty.TheemergingEuropeanpolityepitomiseswhatCastellsterms‘thenetworkstate’.TheEUisimaginednotonlyasapolitical-economiczonebutalsoasaspecifickindofcommunicativespace.Castellsfocusesonhownetworks,facilitatedbyinformationandcommunicationtechnologies,transcendborders,thusineffectprovidinganinfrastructureforcosmopolitanism.TheboundariesoftheputativeEuropeancommunicativespace–andthereforethepotentialpublicsphere–areproducedbythenexusofpoliticalinstitutionsthatconstituteUnionEurope,thedealingsbetweenthem,andgrowing‘subsidiary’horizontallinksacrossthememberstates(Castells1998:330–1).6CastellsarguesthattheEUhasdifferent‘nodes’ofvaryingimportancethatmakeupanetwork.Regionsandnations,nationstates,EUinstitutions,togetherconstituteaframeworkofsharedauthority.Castellssuggeststhatcomplexinterconnected‘communicativecom-plementarities’–asDeutschonceputit–mayemergeoutoftheinformalprocessesofmakingtheunion.ThepotentiallyglobalisingpullofcommunicationstechnologiesiscounteredbyemergentpatternsofsocialinteractionintheEuropeanUnion’sspace.Withadifferentemphasis,DavidHeld(2004)hassketchedaninstitu-tionallyorientedcosmopolitanconceptionofcitizenshipandthekindofpublicspherethataccompaniesthis.Heenvisagesacitizenshipthatgoesbeyond‘exclusivemembershipofaterritorialcommunity’to:analternativeprincipleofworldorderinwhichallpersonshaveequivalentrightsanddutiesinthecross-cuttingspheresofdecision-makingwhichaffecttheirvitalneedsandinterests….Citizenship

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8475–9284PhilipSchlesingerwouldbecomemultilevelandmultidimensional,whilebeinganchoredincommonrulesandprinciples.(Held2004:114)TothinkofthepoliticalcommunityasnolongerboundedbythesovereignnationstateishighlypertinenttotheEU,whichHeld–likemanyothers–seesasanexampleofthe‘reconfigurationofpoliticalpower’(ibid.:87).Politicalcommunities,hesuggests,nolonger‘correspondinanystraightforwardwaytoterritorialboundaries’(1995:225).Inconsequence,‘[t]heculturalspaceofnation-statesisbeingrearticulatedbyforcesoverwhichstateshave,atbest,onlylimitedleverage’(ibid.:126).Heldarguesforaninternationalorderbasedoncosmopolitandemocraticpubliclaw(ibid.:227)because‘theregulativecapacityofstatesincreasinglyhastobematchedbythedevelopmentofcollaborativemechanismsofgovernanceatsupranational,regionalandgloballevels’(2004:15).Inthisvisionofa‘socialdemocraticmultilateralism’wefindadistantechoofOttoBauer,sinceforHeldtheworldconsistsof‘overlappingcommunitiesoffate’(2004:107).Suchdiversityrequirestheestablishmentof‘anoverarchingnetworkofdemocraticpublicfora,coveringcities,nation-states,regionsandthewidertransnationalorder’,workingalongthelinesofrationaldeliberation,arguedforbyHabermas(ibid.:109).ThatiswhyinHeld’sargumenttheEUisjustanothernodeintheinstitutionalnetworkenvisaged,andnotaprincipalfocusofinterest.Onechallengetothisvariantofcosmopolitanism,therefore,istoaskwhatthesignificanceisofparticularfora.ForHelditisthearticulationbetweenfora(moreorlessinstitutionalisedcommunicativespaces)thatisemphasisedovertheinternalelaborationofterritoriallyboundedspaces.Understandably,therefore,thedetailedworkingsofaEuropeanpublicspherewillbeamatterofrelativelyminorinterest.Thisechoestheoutlookofpost-institutionaltheoristsofcosmopoli-tanismwhoarguethatitisessentialtothinkofEuropeannessasevolvingbeyondthelimitinginstitutionalframeworkoftheEU;insteadweneedtolocateitinaglobalcontext.ForUlrichBeck(2006:164),theEU’sstrugglewithitspoliticalfutureisactuallyan‘institutionalisedfailureoftheimagination’thatdoesnotliveupthecosmopolitandreamsofitsfoundingfathers.TheUnion,hemaintains,lackspoliticalpragmatismandradicalopenness.Thepresenttensionsbetweentheregulatoryandfederalmodels,whichareactuallyofvitalexplanatoryimportance,aresweptasidebyBeck(ratheroddly)asdenyingEurope’sdiversity(ibid.:171–2).Instead,Beckargues,‘ThepoliticalunionmustbeconceivedasacosmopolitanunionofEurope,inoppositiontothefalsenormativityofthenational’(ibid.:167).Indeed,theprospectheldoutisvariouslythatofa‘cosmopolitanstate’ora‘cosmopolitanco-operativeofstates’.Butbeyondtheseslogansitisnotatallclearhowpowerwouldbeexercised,howpost-territorialpolitics

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8575–92CommunicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnion85wouldfunctionorhowspaceforethno-culturaldiversitymightbesecured.Thus,whileIwouldnotdissentatallfromBeck’sviewthatEuropeanstatesmustco-operatetosurviveinthecontextofglobalrisks,thereislittlebutexhortationinhisanalysis–andcertainlylittlerealisticengagementwithinstitutionalpolitics.Forinstance,accordingtoBeck,theEUhasinaugurated‘astruggleoverinstitutionswiththeaimofconfrontingEuropeanhorrorwithEuropeanvaluesandmethods’.Thus,afterWorldWarIIandtheHolocaust,hebelieves,oneofEurope’smostpositiveachievementsistostandfortheprotectionofhumanrights.HefurtherassertsthatcommemorationoftheHolocaustisaninstitutionalfoundationfortheEU’sidentityandindeedforawiderEurope.However,Beck’spositiontakesnoaccountofHolocaustdenial,orofthewayinwhichoppositiontoactsofofficialcommemorationisnowconnectedwiththepoliticsoftheMiddleEast,orofthedifferencesbetweenofficialactsandpopularsentiment,orindeed,ofpresent-daycompetitionovervictimhoodthroughoutEurope.GerardDelantyandChrisRumford(2005:20),takinganevenmoreradicallypost-institutionalline,maintainthat‘thestatedoesnotdefineapeople’simaginary.NewconceptionsofpeoplehoodcanbefoundinthecosmopolitancurrentsthatareafeatureofEuropeanisation’andtheemergentsocialconstructionofEuropeshouldbeunderstoodinthewidercontextofglobalisation.Theconceptionofidentityhereis‘thin’anddialogicalandrootedin‘asystemofrelationsandacapacityforcommunication’(ibid.:68).Theargumentisaboundary-transcendingandtransformativeone,takingitsdistancefrompoliticalsciencemodels,sothatEuropeisseenasaspaceofpossibilitiesfornewcosmopolitanattachmentsinwhichthechallengefortheEUisto‘createspacesforcommunication’.Communicationisjudgedvaluableprincipallyinarticulatingconnec-tionsbeyondtheEU,ratherthaninbuildingtheUnionintoapoliticalcommunityoracollectiveidentity.The‘emerging’Europeanpublicsphereischaracterisedas‘European-wideformsofcommunicativecompetence,discourses,themesandculturalmodelsandrepertoiresofevaluationwithindifferentnationalcontexts’.Itsuniquenessisheldtobe‘basedoncertaincommonissuesandinterconnectingdebatesinwhichthecommunityofreferencebecomesincreasinglydilutedand,asitdoesso,reconfigured…itisamediuminwhichnewexpressionsofcosmopolitanismaretakingplace’(ibid.:103–4).Fromthispointofview,theEuropeanpublicsphereisnotsomuchaninstitutionalisedspacethatmightdemocratisetheUnion–andalsodealwithEurope’schequeredpast–asapost-institutionallaunchingpadforaneworientationtotheworldthatincreasinglyshedsitsEuropeancast.However,boundedrelationssurelystillremainimportant,because,asChristerJönssenetal.(2000:184–5)argue,‘socialcommunicationismosteffectivebetweenindividualswhosementalworldshavebeen“formatted”analogouslyoverlengthyperiodsoftime’.Strikinglycongruentwith

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8675–9286PhilipSchlesingerDeutsch’sprincipleofcommunicativecomplementarity,theargumentisthat‘humanthoughtrequiresboundaries’,basedinproximity,likenessandlinkage,sothat‘place,neighbourhoodandregionwillcontinuetoplayimportantrolesasrealmsofexperienceandepistemiccommunities’.This,inturn,‘fosterslocalanchorageandregionalidentity’sothateven‘[i]ntheageofelectronicnetworking,conversationthereforecontinuestohaveamajorrole,asdoesthefacetofacemeeting’(ibid.).InananalysisofsuchmeetingsCatherineNeveu(2000,2002)adoptedaprocessualapproachto‘becomingEuropean’,exploringtheinternaldynamicsofEuro-networking.InvestigatingwhathappenswhenEuro-peaninstitutionsinvitevariouscategoriesofpeopletoparticipateintransnationalactivities,shesuggeststhattheresultingacculturationmayhavea‘returneffect’onceparticipantsgobacktotheirplacesoforigin.InvolvementinnetworksandexchangesareseenasbuildinganimportantpathtotheformationofaEuropeanpublicsphere.InteractionwithEuro-peaninstitutionsconstitutesakindof‘trainingprocess’thatmayimpactonpeople’snotionsofcitizenshipandidentity.Neveu’santhropologicalapproachrevealshowbackgroundmodelsandrepresentationsgroundedinnationaldiscoursescomeintoplayandaremodified.Itremainsanopenquestionwhethersuchencounterscanbuildupacommonsentimentalbasisforanascentcosmopolitanism.Tosumup:thedevelopmentofaEuropeanpublicspheremaybeconceivedasbasedininteractionbetweenEuro-institutionsandEuro-networks.InanechoofNorbertElias’sthought,KeithMiddlemass(1995:684–5)haswrittenofthe‘Euro-civilisingaspect’asinformallyshapingacommunityovertime.Arguably,theEUisdevelopingaspecialinteractiveintensitythatinsomesectorsofpubliclifefavoursinternalcommunicationandcreatesaninternallydifferentiatedreferentialboundary.Notallinstitutionshavethesamecentrality;notallnetworkshavethesameintensityofinteraction.Althougharelativelyweak,transnationalpublicspacehasindeedevolvedaroundthepolicy-makingactorsintheEUinstitutions,states,nationsandregionsremaincruciallyimportantaslocalesfordebateandsourcesofidentity.Castells’sEuro-networkerhasnotcompletelyforgottenhowtowaveBillig’snationalflaganditisplainthattheEU’scitizensdonotyetconformenbloctoHabermas’sidealofconstitutionalpatriotism.‘Europeanness’,thepublicsphereandmediatedcommunicationItisnosurprise,then,thatJuanDíezMedrano(2003:5)hasarguedthatthe‘internationalvariationinsupportforEuropeanintegration’continuestoberootedinhowandwhytheEUisdifferentlyinterpretedinthememberstates.Hisempiricalresearchintotheproductionandreproductionofdiversecultural‘frames’innationalnewsmedia,amongpoliticalelitesand

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8775–92CommunicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnion87atthelevelofpopularopinionconcerningtheEuropeanUniondocumentstheprofoundambiguitiesofperceptionsofEuropeanintegration.Althoughtheintegrationprojectcancertainlybelikenedtoastate-buildingprocess,eventualEUstatehoodisbynomeansanineluctableoutcome.BecauseEUpolicymakingandpoliticaldirectionimpingeincreasinglyonmemberstates,theEuropeandimensionimpactsontheagendaofthemediatedpoliticaldiscourseofnationalpolities.However,afaultlinerunsthroughcontemporarytheorisingabouthowpoliticalcommunicationimpactsoncitizenship,collectiveidentityandpatriotism.Arethesenowshiftingfromtheirlong-standingandoftenexclusivealignmentwiththememberstates(andnations)intoamoreinclusivecosmopolitan‘European’citizenship,collectiveidentityandconstitutionalpatriotism?Or–andthisistheviewespousedhere–doestheUnion’sliminalstatusbetweenregulatorandfederationmeanthatouranalysisnecessarilyneedstobegroundedinambivalence?Somehavearguedforakindofspill-overeffect,inwhichthedis-seminationofargumentanddiverseperspectivesacrossnationalbordersstimulatesawider,Europeanlevelofpoliticalengagementthroughacollectivelearningprocess(Eder2007;TrenzandEder2004).Asnoted,theconstitutionaldebatehasbeenseenasofferingeducativecontentforthebuildingofacommoncitizenshipbutsofarthesehopeshavenotbeenrealised.Evenatkeyconstitutionalmoments,coverageisframedprincipallyintermsofnationalpolitics(Dacheux2005;GleissneranddeVreese2005).Withinthenationalpublicspheres,‘Europeanisation’appearstobeuneveninimpact.RuudKoopmansandJessicaErbe(2004)haveshownhowspecificpolicyarenascoveredbytheGermanpressarediverselyexposedtoEuropeanthemesandperspectives.PaulStatham(2007)hassuggestedthatalthough‘Europeanisation’meansthat(tovaryingdegrees)certainEUpolicyissuesarenowroutinelyreported,inFrancedebateaboutEuropeisdirectlyconnectedwiththeEUlevelwhereasintheUKitremainsfarmoredistancedandself-contained.Suchanalysisunderlinesthecontinuingweightofnationalpoliticalsystemsinshapingthescopeofdebatesinthepublicsphere.WhilenewsmediaintheEUmayaddresssimilarissuesatthesametimeindifferentmemberstates,thisdoesnotnecessarilyequatetothewidespreaddistributionofasharedEuropeanperspective.Andevenifthedistributionofmediacontentwereuniformthatwouldnotstopitfrombeingdiverselyinterpreted.Inasmuchasamedia-sustained,transnationalcommunicativespaceisemergingbecauseofEUintegration,thisisclass-inflectedandpredomi-nantlythedomainofpoliticalandeconomicelites,notyetthatofageneralEuropeanpublic.ExamplesoftransnationalmediaincludeTheEconomist,theFinancialTimes,theInternationalHeraldTribuneandintheaudio-visualsphereEuronewsandArte.TraditionalprintjournalismcentredonEuropehasnoteasilytranscendednationalboundaries,astheshortlifeof

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8875–9288PhilipSchlesingerTheEuropean(London)andthemuchbrieferoneofl’Européen(Paris)haveshown(E.Neveu2002;Schlesinger1999).EuropeanjournalismisgearedtotheEU’sintergovernmentalism,toitscontinuingroleasaregulatoryratherthanfederalentity.Inthememberstates,nationaleditorialvaluesshapecoverageofEuropeanthemesandissues(Kevin2003:179),notleastbecauseestablishedsource–mediarelationsunderpinthenationaldiscourse.NationalgovernmentalsourcesarestillofparamountimportanceforjournalistscoveringEUissues(Morgan1999)evenifothervoicesarealsogainingaccesstonewsagendas.ResearchinBrusselssuggeststhatsomeweaklytransnationalformsofexchangehavedevelopedattheEUlevelbetweenjournalistsandtheirsources.ChristophMeyer(2000)hasarguedthatthereisanincreasingtendencyfortransnationalinvestigativejournalismtoemerge,therebycontributingtotheaccountabilityoftheinstitutions.Occasionally,butnotsofarsystematically,thiscanhavepoliticaleffects,particularlyintheexposureofscandalandcorruption.ButsuchalliancesstillappeartobeatransientratherthanasystemicfeatureoftheEuro-politicalscene.OlivierBaisnée(2002)alsoreferstotheco-operativecontextofBrusselsreporting.Althoughheclaimsthatjournalistshavebeensocialisedintobeing‘Europe’sonlyrealpublic’(ibid.:112,115)diverseorientationsandpatternsofcoverageprevailinBritishandFrenchnewsmedia,withtheEUseenasnotverynewsworthy(Baisnée2003).SimilardivergenceswereapparentintherowtriggeredbyEuropeanCouncilpresidentSilvioBerlusconi’saddresstotheEuropeanParliamentin2003.HisinsulttoaGermanmemberoftheEuropeanParliamentwaswidelyreportedas‘aclashof(ethnic)nations’ratherthantriggeringEuropeandeliberation(DowneyandKoenig2006:184).Ifweareattentivetothecosmopolitanpotentialofsocialinteraction,wecertainlyshouldnotdiscountthetransnationalrelationsandnegotiationsthathavebecomepartoftheeverydayreportingexperience.Butnorshouldweoverestimateit.Europeanjournalismremainsdividedbydiversenationalideasofprofessionalism,servingdomesticmarketsandprincipallymeetingnationallyrootedaudienceexpectations.Thesestillholdthekeytocareersuccess.ThecontinuingnationalpullofjournalisticpracticeandframeworksofreferenceexplainsthesheerdifficultyofdevelopingjournalismeitherforaEurope-widegeneralpublicorindeedaparticularpublicorientedtotheEuropeanUnioncontainedwithinagivenmemberstate.ThisisamicrocosmicillustrationofthetensionsthatstillpersistbetweenthenationalprincipleandEuropeanness.TheorisingtheevolutionoftheEUrequiressimultaneousrecognitionoftherelativerobustnessofnationalpublicspheresandoftherelativefragilityofthecosmopolitan,transnationaldimension.States,nationsandregionsremaincruciallyimportantaslocalesfordebateandassourcesofidentity.Europeanisationisitselfaprofoundlyambiguousprocess.Whonow–andwhointhefuture–willbepermitted

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:8975–92CommunicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnion89tobea‘European’isanincreasinglyintensefocusforstrugglesbetweeninclusionandexclusionbothwithinmemberstatesandatthebordersoftheEUitself.BecauseEuropeanisationisaboundary-definingprocessaswellasatransnationalisingone,itdoesnotofitselfnecessarilypointtoacosmopolitanoutcome.Notes1ThischapterisasubstantialrevisionofSchlesinger(2007),itselfamajorrevisionofatextfirstpublishedasSchlesinger(2003).2Although,thatsaid,since9/11multiculturalismitselfhasincreasinglycomeunderpressureasquestionsofsocialcohesionandpoliticalloyaltyriseuptheagenda.3Withthe2004and2007enlargements,andthosestillinprospect,theEUisincorporatingmoreandmoreoftheoldHabsburglands.4Thisisanoversimplification,ofcourse.ItiscertainlynotthecasethatallEUstatesaretoberegardedashomogeneous,asisevidentfromthepoliticsofdevolutionand/orseparatismin,forinstance,Belgium,France,Italy,SpainandtheUnitedKingdom.5TheHungarianminorityinRomaniaandSlovakiaisawellknowncaseinpoint,butmanymoreexamplescouldbecited.6Castells’smorerecentworkhasmovedbeyondthisposition.However,hisutopianvisionofan‘InternetGalaxy’asazoneofcitizenfreedomstillhastocontendwithaworldofstatesthatcombinetoregulatethreatstotheircontroloverinformation(Castells2001:178–85).BibliographyAksoy,AsuandRobins,Kevin(2000)‘Thinkingacrossspaces:transnationaltelevisionfromTurkey’,EuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies3(3):343–5.Anderson,Benedict(1991)ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginandSpreadofNationalism,2ndedn.London:Verso.Baisnée,Olivier(2002)‘CanpoliticaljournalismexistattheEuropeanlevel?’,inR.KuhnandE.Neveu(eds)PoliticalJournalism.London:Routledge.Baisnée,Olivier(2003)‘Uneactualité“invendable”:lesrédactionsfrançaisesetbritanniquesfaceàl’actualitécommunautaire’,inG.GarciaandV.LeTorrec(eds)L’Unioneuropéenneetlesmédias:regardscroiséssurl’informationeuropéenne.Paris:Harmattan.Bauer,Otto(2000[1907])TheQuestionofNationalitiesandSocialDemocracy.MinneapolisMN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Beck,Ulrich(2006)CosmopolitanVision.Cambridge:PolityPress.Billig,Michael(1995)BanalNationalism.London:Sage.Boisot,Max(1999)KnowledgeAssets:SecuringCompetitiveAdvantageintheKnowledgeEconomy.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Brubaker,Rogers(1996)NationalismReframed:NationhoodandtheNationalQuestionintheNewEurope.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Calhoun,Craig(ed.)(1992)HabermasandthePublicSphere.CambridgeMAandLondon:MITPress.Castells,Manuel(1998)EndofMillennium.MaldenMA:Blackwell.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9075–9290PhilipSchlesingerCastells,Manuel(2001)TheInternetGalaxy:ReflectionsontheInternet,BusinessandSociety.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Cormack,MikeandHourigan,Niamh(eds)(2007)MinorityLanguagesMedia:Concepts,CritiquesandCaseStudies.Clevedon,BuffaloNYandToronto:MultilingualMatters.Dacheux,Eric(ed.)(2005)Comprendreledébatsurlaconstitutiondel’UnionEuropéenne.Paris:Publibook.DeSwaan,Abram(2007)‘TheEuropeanvoid:thedemocraticdeficitasaculturaldeficiency’,inFossumandSchlesinger(eds)TheEuropeanUnionandthePublicSphere.Delanty,GerardandRumford,Chris(2005)RethinkingEurope:SocialTheoryandtheImplicationsofEuropeanization.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Deutsch,Karl,W.(1966)NationalismandSocialCommunication:anInquiryintotheFoundationsofNationality,2ndedn.CambridgeMA:MITPress.DíezMedrano,Juan(2003)FramingEurope:AttitudestoEuropeanIntegrationinGermany,Spain,andtheUnitedKingdom.PrincetonNJandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress.Downey,JohnandKoenig,Thomas(2006)‘IsthereaEuropeanpublicsphere?TheBerlusconi–Schulzcase’,EuropeanJournalofCommunication21(2):165–87.Eder,Klaus(2007)‘ThepublicsphereandEuropeandemocracy:mechanismsofdemocratisationinthetransnationalsituation’,inFossumandSchlesinger(eds)TheEuropeanUnionandthePublicSphere.Eriksen,ThomasHylland(2007)‘NationalismandtheInternet’,NationsandNationalism13(1):1–17.Foret,FrançoisandSchlesinger,Philip(2007)‘ReligionandtheEuropeanpublicsphere’,inJohnErikFossumandPhilipSchlesinger(eds)TheEuropeanUnionandthePublicSphere:aCommunicativeSpaceintheMaking?LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Fossuum,JohnErikandSchlesinger,Philip(eds)(2007)TheEuropeanUnionandthePublicSphere:aCommunicativeSpaceintheMaking?LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Gellner,Ernest(1983)NationsandNationalism.Oxford:Blackwell.Gleissner,MartinanddeVreese,ClaesH.(2005)‘NewsabouttheEUconstitution:journalisticchallengesandmediaportrayaloftheEuropeanUnionconstitution’,Journalism6(2):221–41.Habermas,Jürgen(1989[1962])TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere.Cambridge:PolityPress.Habermas,Jürgen(1997)BetweenFactsandNorms.Cambridge:PolityPress.Habermas,Jürgen(2004)‘WhyEuropeneedsaconstitution’,inE.O.Eriksen,J.E.FossumandA.J.Menéndez(eds)DevelopingaConstitutionforEurope,LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Held,David(1995)DemocracyandtheGlobalOrder:FromtheModernStatetoCosmopolitanGovernance.Cambridge:PolityPress.Held,David(2004)GlobalCovenant:theSocialDemocraticAlternativetotheWashingtonConsensus.Cambridge:PolityPress.Heller,MariaandRényi,Ágnes(2007)‘EUenlargement,identityandthepublicsphere’,inFossumandSchlesinger(eds)TheEuropeanUnionandthePublicSphere.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9175–92CommunicativespacesandtheEuropeanUnion91Hjarvard,Stig(2001)‘Newsmediaandtheglobalizationofthepublicsphere’,inStigHjarvard(ed.)MediainaGlobalizedSociety.Göteborg:Nordicom.Jönssen,Christer,Tägil,SvenandTörnqvist,Gunnar(2000)OrganizingEuropeanSpace.London:Sage.Jouët,JosianeandPasquier,Dominique(eds)(2001)‘Médiasetmigrations’,thematicissueofRéseaux19(107):9–237.Kevin,Deirdre(2003)EuropeintheMedia:aComparisonofReporting,RepresentationandRhetoricinNationalMediaSystemsinEurope.MahwahNJ:Erlbaum.Koenig,Thomas,Mihelj,Sabina,Downey,JohnandGencelBek,Mine(2006)‘MediaframingsoftheissueofTurkishaccessiontotheEU:aEuropeanoranationalprocess?’Innovation19(2):149–69.Koopmans,RuudandErbe,Jessica(2004)‘TowardsaEuropeanpublicsphere?VerticalandhorizontaldimensionsofEuropeanizedpoliticalcommunication’,Innovation18(2):97–118.Meyer,Christoph,O.(2000)‘TowardsaEuropeanpublicsphere?TransnationalinvestigativejournalismandtheEuropeanCommission’sresignation’,inBarbaraBaernsandJulianaRaupp(eds)InformationandTransnationalCommunicationinEurope:PracticeandResearch.Berlin:Vistas.Middlemass,Keith(1995)OrchestratingEurope:theInformalPoliticsofEuropeanUnion,1973–1995.London:HarperCollins.MoragasSpà,Miquel,Garitaonandía,CarmeloandLópez,Bernat(1999)TelevisiononYourDoorstep:DecentralizationExperiencesintheEuropeanUnion.Luton:UniversityofLutonPress.Morgan,David(1999)TheEuropeanParliament,MassMediaandtheSearchforPowerandInfluence.Aldershot:AshgatePublishing.Neveu,Catherine(2000)‘CitizensofEuropeandEuropeancitizens:exploringEuropeancitizenship’,inI.BellierandT.Wilson(eds)AnAnthropologyoftheEuropeanUnion:Building,ImaginingandExperiencingtheNewEurope.Oxford:Berg.Neveu,Catherine(2002)‘DevenirEuropéen:entreindividualismeetemprisedescadres’,Anthropologieetsociétés26:127–38.Neveu,Eric(2002)‘Europeasan‘Un-imaginableCommunity’?ThefailureoftheFrenchnews-magazinel’Européen’,JournalofEuropeanAreaStudies10:283–300.Price,MonroeE.(2002)MediaandSovereignty:theGlobalInformationRevolutionanditsChallengetoStatePower.CambridgeMA:MITPress.Schlesinger,Philip(1999)‘Changingspacesofpoliticalcommunication:thecaseoftheEuropeanUnion’,PoliticalCommunication16(3):263–79.Schlesinger,Philip(2000)‘Thenationandcommunicativespace’,inHowardTumber(ed.)MediaPower,ProfessionalsandPolitics.London:Routledge.Schlesinger,Philip(2003)TheBabelofEurope?AnEssayonNetworksandCommunicativeSpaces,ARENAWorkingPaper,Oslo:ARENA.Schlesinger,Philip(2007)‘Afragilecosmopolitanism:ontheunresolvedambiguitiesoftheEuropeanpublicsphere’,inFossumandSchlesinger(eds)TheEuropeanUnionandthePublicSphere.Schlesinger,PhilipandForet,François(2006)‘Politicalroofandsacredcanopy?ReligionandtheEUconstitution’,EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory9(1):59–81.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch05.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9275–9292PhilipSchlesingerSinclair,John(2004)‘Globalization,supranationalinstitutions,andmedia’,inJohnDowning,DenisMcQuail,PhilipSchlesingerandEllenWartella(eds)TheSageHandbookofMediaStudies.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.Splichal,Slavko(1999)PublicOpinion:DevelopmentsandControversiesintheTwentiethCentury.LanhamMD:Rowman&Littlefield.Statham,Paul(2007)‘Politicalcommunication,Europeanintegrationandthetransformationofnationalpublicspheres:acomparisonofBritainandFrance’,inFossumandSchlesinger(eds),TheEuropeanUnionandthePublicSphere.Street,John(2001)MassMedia,PoliticsandDemocracy.Basingstoke:Palgrave.Trenz,Hans-JörgandEder,Klaus(2004)‘ThedemocratisingdynamicsofaEuropeanpublicsphere:towardsatheoryofdemocraticfunctionalism’,EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory7(1):5–25.Williams,Raymond(1981)Culture.London:Fontana.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9393–111PartIISpatialinequalities

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9493–111

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9593–1116Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemediaDavidHesmondhalghGlobalisationandimperialismTheterm‘globalisation’appearstoberapidlyfallingoutoffashion.1GeorgeW.Bushhashardlyeverusedit,andonthepoliticalrightitisincreasinglyfelttorefertoa1990sagenda,associatedwiththeThirdWaypoliticsofClintonandthefirstperiodofBlair’sgovernment,onewherethebenefitsofFreeTradewouldpowercapitalistexpansion,reapingfruitsthatwouldsupposedlybesharedbyeveryone.Ontheleft,globalisationisstillawidelyusedconcept,buttheeventsoftheearlytwenty-firstcenturyandchangesinintellectualfashionhavebroughtadifferentpoliticalvocabularytothefore:thatofempireandimperialism.ThisisnotjustamatteroftheneoconservativeventureinIraq.ItistruethattheSecondGulfWaranditsappallingaftermathbroughttothesurfaceasetofconcernsthathadbeenstrangelysubmergedduringthe1990s,andthatthewarinIraqreunifiedsomesectionsoftheradicalleft(atleastthosepartsofitconcernedaboutgeopolitics)bymakingclear,eventosomewhosupportedearlierinterventionsinKosovoandAfghanistan,themalignnatureoftheUSstate.ButthereturnsoftheconceptsofempireandimperialismprecededtheelectionofGeorgeW.Bush.HardtandNegri’sbookEmpire,publishedin2000,foundareadyaudienceamongradicalthinkersandactivists.Andtherisinginterestinimperialismhasbeensharedbyliberalandconservativeintellectuals.In2002theNewYorkTimesmagazinefamouslygaveupitsentirefrontpagetothewords‘TheAmericanempire.Getusedtoit’andinsidetheCanadiancommentatorandpoliticianMichaelIgnatieffextolledthevirtuesofanenlightenedUShegemony(Ignatieff2002).JanNederveenPieterse(2004:31)hasnotedothersuchapologiesfor‘enlightened’empireandremarksthat,untilrecently,‘impe-rialismwasaleft-wingterm,butnowempirehasbecomeamainstreamthemeandmakesacomebackineverydaylanguage’.Thisshiftfromglobalisationtoimperialismhasaparticularresonanceinthesocialsciences.Forthoseengagedinthestudyofinternationalcommunication,inthe1990sglobalisationreplacedculturalimperialismasthetermmostwidelyusedindebatesinthatsub-field.Insocial

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9693–11196DavidHesmondhalghtheory,globalisationwasveryoftenusedtodenotesomethingquitedifferentfromitsmeaningamongleftactivistsandcentristpoliticalstrategists:globalinterconnectednessratherthanthehiddencoercionsoffree-tradeeconomics.Forexample,themostdevelopedcritiqueofthenotionofculturalimperialisminsocialtheory,byJohnTomlinson,explic-itlycontrastedimperialismwiththissocialsciencesenseofglobalisation:‘Theideaofimperialismcontains,atleast,thenotionofapurposefulproject:theintendedspreadofasocialsystemfromonecentreofpoweracrosstheglobe.Theideaof“globalisation”suggestsinterconnectionandinterdependencyofallglobalareaswhichhappensinafarlesspurposefulway’(1991:175).Yetthisstillleaveshangingquestionsabouttheroleofintention,strategyandtheservingofinterestsintheglobalsystem,onthepartofbusinesses,nation-statesandinternationalinstitutions.Thereadyembraceofconceptsofempireandimperialismmaywellreflectasensethattheterm‘globalisation’bysocialtheoristsevadessuchquestions.2Thisisnottosaythatglobalisationisacompletelyredundantterm.However,itmaynowbeatermthathasbeenusedinsuchavarietyofwaysthatitsanalyticalpurchasehasbecomelimited.Ithasbeenusedtoooftentospeaksimplisticallyaboutatransitiontoaneweraof‘complexity’or‘connectivity’,andinawaythatsomehowdownplaysinequality,exploitationandinjustice.Ofcourse,therearemanypooranalysesofimperialismtoo,buttherecentworkofDavidHarveysuggeststhatthisconceptstillhassomepotentialforunderstandingthecontemporaryworld,aslongasitisusedinawaythatissensitivetohistoricalchange,andtosocialtheory.SointhischapterIarguethat,handledcorrectly,imperialismcanbeausefulconceptforunderstandingtherelationsbetweeneconomics,politicsandmediacultureinourtimes.Marxiansmayembracesuchaclaim,butotherswillfindithardertoaccept.StillmorecontroversialisasecondclaimthatIseektodefendhere:thatthemostusefulwaytothinkaboutimperialisminrelationtocultureinthepresentconjunctureisviathenotionofcopyright.HereishowIgoabouttryingtojustifythesetwoclaims.Aninvocationoftheterm‘imperialism’inrelationtoacriticalanalysisofthemediaislikelytobeconfusedinmanyquarterswithadherencetotheconceptofculturalimperialism.Inthenextsection,Ibrieflydifferentiatemyargumentfromadvocatesof‘theculturalimperialismthesis’.(Mydistancefromglobalisationtheorywillalreadybeclear,Iassume,frommyearliercomments.)Letmebeexplicit,then.Iamnotadvocatingareturntothosemodesofmediatheorythathavetendedtobelabelled‘culturalimperialism’.Onthecontrary,Ioutlinemyviewthatthoseapproachestothemediathathaveadoptedthetermculturalimperialismdonotingeneralprovideadequateconceptualmeansforthinkingthroughrelationsbetweeneconomics,politicsandculture.InthethirdsectionIthenproceedtoarguethatanessential(thoughnotsufficient)conditionforunderstandingpolitical,economicandcultural

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9793–111Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemedia97relationsinthepresentconjunctureisatheoreticalandhistoricalanalysisofneoliberalism,andIoutlinewhatIthinkarethemostpromisingusesofthisterm.DrawinguponHarvey’swork,Iseeneoliberalismasarestructuringofstrategiesfordealingwiththerecurringproblemsofover-accumulationthatafflictcapitalism,intheinterestsofthemostpowerfulandwealthycorporationsandindividuals,andawayfromsocialbenefits.Thefourthsectionthenaddressesthesecondclaimabove,regardingcopyright.Ishowthatanewnexusofstateandfinancialpowerunder-pinnedbyneoliberalismisnowbecomingincreasinglytiedtotheglobalgovernanceofsymbolproductionandconsumption.Ithenarguethatinternationaldevelopmentsincopyrightprovideaverysignificantexampleofthistrend.Copyrightissignificantinthisrespectbothbecauseofitspracticalimportance(itprovidesthebasisbywhichcultureismadeintoproperty)andbecauseitsstrengtheningunderneoliberalismhasimportantpoliticalandethicalconsequences.Thefifthsectionprovidesfurtherkeyelementsinjustifyingthetwomainclaimsoutlinedabove,andagainDavidHarvey’srecentworkisaresource.ForHarvey’sconceptofaccumulationbydispossession(arevisionofMarx’snotionofprimitiveaccumulation)inhisbookTheNewImperialism(2003)helpstoprovideanexplanationofwhyneoliberalismhasmadeitsown‘culturalturn’.Inotherwords,ithelpstoexplainwhytherehasbeenanincreasingemphasisoninformation,knowledgeandcultureinneoliberaldiscourse.Inanutshell,formsofcreativityandknowledgewhichwerenotpreviouslyconceivedasownablearebroughtintotheintellectualpropertysystem,makingthemavailablefortheinvestmentofcapitalandthemakingofprofit,andhelpingtoavoidtheperennialproblemsofover-accumulationwhichhauntcapitalism.Capitalismdrivesfurtherintorelativelyuncommodifieddomainsanditssamerestlessexpansionalsoleadsitsdriveintonewgeographicalterritories.Afinalsectionthenconsiderstheimplicationsoftheargumentsinthechapterforunderstandingtherelationsbetweenimperialismandculture,andthepotentialrewardsformediaanalysis,andsocialtheory,iftheserelationsareproperlythoughtthrough.CulturalimperialismtheoryanditsproblemsCriticshaveovertheyearspointedtoanumberofproblemswithworkcarriedoutunderthebannerofculturalormediaimperialism(orculturaldependenceandothervariantsoftheapproach):thatitoperatedwithanoverlysimplisticdualismbetween‘West’and‘non-West’;thatitassumedthehomogenisationofculture,inthefaceofevidenceofcomplexmulti-plicationandhybridisation;andthatittendedtoassumecertaineffectsforWesternculturalexportsratherthaninvestigatingtheambivalentwaysinwhichtheywereincorporatedintootherspaces.3Iagreewithmanyformulationsofthesecriticisms.Ithinkthatcapitalistcultureismore

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9893–11198DavidHesmondhalghcomplexandcontradictorythanmanyculturalimperialismwriterswereabletorecognise.Yet,evenifwedonotreturntotheseparticularandproblematicoperationsoftheconcept,itmightbearguedinresponsetosuchcriticismsthatculturalimperialismservesasan‘evocativemetaphor’,inAnnabelleSreberny’s(1997)words,forglobalprocessesof(cultural)inequality.(Sreberny’sfinepiecewasnotadvocatingthis,butwasratherpointingtothewaythetermhasgenerallybeenused.)Tousetheterminthislooselymetaphoricalwaywouldinmyviewbeamistake,becauseweneedgreaterclarityabouttherelationsbetweenimperialismandculture.Vividmetaphorsareimportantbut,asDavidHarveyremarks,‘imperialismisawordthattripseasilyoffthetongue’and‘hassuchdifferentmeaningsthatitisdifficulttouseitwithoutclarificationasananalyticratherthanapolemicalterm’(2003:26).TherearegoodreasonstobeinterestedintheconceptofimperialismbutIbelieveweneedtotakethetermimperialismmoreseriouslythandidthevastmajorityofwriterswhousedthetermculturalormediaimperialism.‘Imperialism’,forexample,wasoftenusedinthisliteraturesimplytodesignatethedominationofpeopleinsomecountriesbypeopleinanother,orofsomestatesbyothers.HerbertSchiller,whomanyinmediaandcommunicationstudieswouldnameastheleadingexponentoftheideaofculturalimperialism,tendstouseculturaldominationandmedia/culturalimperialismmoreorlessinterchangeably.Schiller’sdefinitionofimperialismwas‘asystemofexploitativecontrolofpeopleandresources’(1991:17).Theproblemisthatthiscouldjustaswellserveasanequallyloosedefinitionofcapitalism.Andthispointstoacrucialissueinunderstandinginternationalculturalflowsinthepresenthistoricalmoment:therelationshipbetweencapitalismandimperialism.Inthemodernworldtheremaybeanumberoftypesanddefinitionsofimperialism,butthetypethatisgenerallyagreedtomatter,whetherontheleft,therightorinthepoliticalcentre,iscapitalistimperialism.Itseemsreasonabletoinferthatanyadequateunderstandingofimperialismneedstoinvolveadevelopedconsiderationofcontemporarypolitical-economicprocesses–andviceversa.Consequently,ifwewanttothinkaboutcultureinrelationtoimperialismitisalsosurelyimportanttoaddressthewayinwhichcontemporarycapitalismoperatesinrelationtoculture–andhereImeancultureinthespecificsenseoftheproductionandconsumptionofsymbols.Thisthenmeansthinkingabouthowtheculturalindustriesfit–anddon’tfit–withdevelopmentsincapitalismasawhole.ExplainingneoliberalismWritersofallpoliticalpersuasionsagreethatgrowthisfundamentaltocapitalism,becauseonlythroughgrowthcanprofitsbeassured.Stagnationiscrisisincapitalism.Alleconomicsystemsareinclinedtocyclesof

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:9993–111Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemedia99expansionandcrisisbutthesystemswecallcapitalistareespeciallyso.Acharacteristicofleftistpolitical-economicanalysisistoopposecon-servativeandpostmoderncomplacencyaboutsuchcyclesbyseekingtounderstandhowtheycomeabout.Someseetheseperiodsascrisesofover-accumulation,wherebyopportunitiesforprofitableinvestmentcannotbefoundforcapitalandstagnationthereforesetsin.Thisiswhathappenedinthe1930sand1970s.Suchcrisesareregisteredinavarietyofforms:glutsofcommodities;idleproductioncapacity–includingvastnumbersof‘unemployed’womenandmen;andsurplusesofmoneycapitallackingoutlets.OneofDavidHarvey’smajorcontributionstosocialandpoliticaltheoryhasbeentoanalysehowcapitalists,andthenation-statesandfinancialinstitutionslinkedtothem,attempttoresolvethisrecurringproblem.ForHarveytherearetwomainwaystoabsorbexcesscapital.Thefirstistemporally,vialong-termcapitalinvestment.Thiscouldbedirectlyprofit-seeking(suchasanewdrug,oranewfilm)oritmighttaketheformofsocialexpenditure(suchasnewschools).Thesecondisspatial,viatheopeningupofnewmarkets,thecreationofnewproductioncapacities,ortheseekingofnewresources,includinglabour,landandrawmaterials.Inpracticethetwoarecombined,inwhatHarveycalls‘spatio-temporalfixes’.Inotherwords,theseareattemptstofixorsolvetheover-accumulationproblemthroughspatialandtemporalmeans(Harvey1982,1989).Thepoliciesofnationalstates,andofinternationalorganisationssuchastheIMF,haveahugeimpactontheformsthesespatio-temporalfixestake,andonwhichregionsandnationsbenefitfromthemandwhichdonot.Inhismorerecentwork(notably2003,2005)Harveyhasexploredtheprofoundshiftthathastakenplacesincethe1970sinhowstatesmanagenationalandinternationaleconomicprocesses,beginningwithexperimentsinChileandArgentinabutconsolidatedintheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdominthe1980s.Ofcoursethetermgenerallyusedforthisnewconceptionofpolitical-economicmanagementisneoliberalism.Harveyportraysneoliberalismasaresponsetotheworldwideeconomiccrisisofover-accumulationinthe1970s.Inthefirstinstance,commentsHarvey,itis‘atheoryofpoliticaleconomicpracticesthatproposesthathumanwell-beingcanbestbeadvancedbyliberatingindividualentrepreneurialfreedomsandskillswithinaninstitutionalframeworkcharacterisedbystrongprivatepropertyrights,freemarkets,andfreetrade’(2005:2).Whileadvocatesofsuchneoliberaltheoryportrayfreetradeandprivateenterpriseasthemeanstorevivifystagnanteconomies,theyalsoassume–importantlyforthepresentcontext–thecontinuingexistenceofextremelypowerfuloligopoliesandnodalpointsofstatepower,especiallytheUnitedStates.Buthowhavethesetheorieshavebeenimplementedinpolicy?Harvey(2005)arguesthatneoliberalismhasinvolvedanimportanthistoricalshift.Thesocialconcessionsthatwereachievedinthepost-warperiodbythe

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10093–111100DavidHesmondhalghworkingclassesinadvancedindustrialeconomieshavebeenoverturnedinsomecasesandremainunderthreatinothers.Neoliberalpolicyhasdirectedover-accumulatedcapitalawayfromsocialexpenditureintheinterestsofsocialjusticeandtowardsventuresthathavebeenhugelyprofitableforanewinternationalclassofchiefexecutiveofficersandinvestors.Justasimportanttoneoliberalismaschangesingovernmentpolicy,thoughlesspubliclyacknowledged,hasbeenthe‘deregulation’ofinternationalfinancecapital.Thishasresultedinamassiveincreaseinthetransnationalpowerandactivityoffinance.WallStreetandtoalesserextenttheLondon‘City’havebecomethemaincentresofglobalfinance.TheUSTreasuryandWallStreethaveaconsiderableinfluenceovertheregulationofthistransnationalfinancialactivity,andoverthekeyglobaleconomicinstitutions,theIMFandWorldBank,whichforcevulnerablestatestoopenuptheirbordersfor‘freetrade’andfinancialflows.Sotheworldwidespreadofneoliberalismhascreatedanetworkedworldoffinancialflowsofsurpluscapitalwithvastconcentrationsofpower(bothreflectingandreinforcingtheconstanttendencyincapitalistcompetitiontowardsoligopoly).Thesesurplusescanbeusedupbyinvestmentin‘productive’thoughoftenextremelyharmfulactivities(damsinIndiaandChina,forexample)butalsobydevaluingassetsinvulnerablecountries,suchasThailandandMexico.TheWallStreet–USTreasurynexuscontrolsglobalcapitalvaluesthroughitsabilitytocontrolthevalueoftheinternationalcurrency,thedollar.Ineffect,then,neoliberalismhasre-establishedtheUnitedStatesastheglobalhegemon,apositionthatseemedindoubttomanyasrecentlyastheearly1990s.Thispositionmaynotbesecureinthelongterm,anditnevercouldbe,giventhefragilestabilityoftheinternationalfinancialsystem.4However,thisdominance,alongwiththeusebytheUnitedStatesofmilitaryforceasacentralplankofitsforeignpolicy,hashelpedtoreinvigoratediscussionofimperialism.Neoliberalisminthesymbolicrealm:copyrightandTRIPSNeoliberalism,then,isauseful–indeed,essential–overarchingtermtodescribewhathaveemergedasthecentralguidingprinciplesofeconomicthoughtandmanagementinadvancedindustrialcountries–andincreasinglyindevelopingandleastdevelopedcountriestoo–overthelastthreedecades.5Itcanalsobeunderstoodasprovidingthebasisofanewvariantofcapitalistimperialism,basedontheTreasury–WallStreetnexusandthepolitical-economic(aswellasmilitary)mightoftheUnitedStates.Buthowhaveneoliberalpoliciesbeenmanifestedandimplementedinthedomainsofmediaandculture?Thekeytermismarketisation–theprocessbywhichmarketexchangeincreasinglycomestopermeatemediaandculturalsectors.Thisinvolvesanumberofprocesses,mostnotablyprivatisationofgovernment-ownedenterprisesandinstitutions,theliftingofrestraintsonbusinessessothattheycanpursueprofitmoreeasily,and

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10193–111Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemedia101theexpansionofprivateownership.Variousrationaleshadunderpinnedtheinvolvementofthestateinculturalmarkets,includingtheviewthattelecommunicationsneededtobeunderstoodasapublicutility,alongthelinesoftransportortheelectricitysystem;theviewthatbroadcastingwasalimited,nationalresourcethatgovernmentsneededtoparcelout;andalsothebeliefthatbroadcastinghadaparticularsocialpower,whichneededcontrolling.Elsewhere(Hesmondhalgh2007:105–36)Ihaveanalysedhoweachoftheserationaleswasunderminedinthe1980sand1990s,leadingtofourwavesofmarketisation.ThefirstwavetookplaceintheUnitedStatesfromtheearly1980sonwards,andthisthen,inasecondwave,hadanimportantinfluenceonchangesinotheradvancedindustrialstates.Athirdwaveintheearly1990ssawanumberofcountrieswithauthoritariantraditionsofstatecontrolandownership,includingtheStalinistregimesofEasternEurope,initiatepoliciesofcommunicationsandmedia‘liberalisation’.Finally,afurtherroundofpolicychangesinvolvedpavingthewayforsupposedconvergencebetweentelecommunications,mediaandcomputersinthe1990sand2000s.6Twofactorsprovidedimportantlegitimationforthisneoliberalmarketi-sationintherealmofcultureandcommunication.Thefirstwastheideaoftheinformationsociety(andvariantssuchasthe‘knowledgeeconomy’,morerecentlyreinventedasthe‘creativeeconomy’)–thatinformation,knowledge,culture,etc.,werethemaingrowthareasofnationalandinternationaleconomies,andthereforethebasisoffutureorpresentpros-perity.Thesecondwastheexploitationofunderstandableanxietiesaboutgovernmentinterventioninpersonal,culturalandpoliticalexpression.Asinallofthedifferentrealmsofeconomieswhereneoliberalismhashadanimpact,internationalpolicyagencies–whethersupranationalunionsofstatessuchastheEuropeanUnion(EU),tradeblocssuchasNorthAmericaFreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA)orinternationaltradeorganisationssuchastheWorldTradeOrganisation(WTO)–havehadanimportantroletoplay.Thesechangeshavecontributedtoconsiderablechangeintheculturalindustriessincethelate1980s,includingthefurthergrowthofmassiveconglomerates,andevengreaterinternationalflowsofculturethanbefore.Toputthepointbluntly,capitalhasshownanunprecedentedinterestinculture–andIconsiderthereasonsforthisbelow.Aswehaveseen,‘globalisation’and‘culturalimperialism’theoriesdifferconsiderablyintheirinterpretationsoftheintensifiedandacceleratedflowsofculturethattheworldhasbeenwitnessing.Here,though,Iwanttofocusonadimensionofneoliberalismthatthesetheorieshavenotreallydealtwith,onewhich–torecallHarvey’sconcisedefinitionabove–advocatesanddevelops‘strongprivatepropertyrights’.Intherealmofculture(understoodhereastheproductionandconsumptionofsymbols)themostimportantwayinwhichprivatepropertyrightsareconstructedand

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10293–111102DavidHesmondhalghprotectedisviacopyright.Itisworthnotinginpassingthatthisfacthasbeenneglectedtoaremarkabledegreeinanalysisofinternationalcommunication,including‘culturalimperialism’theory,andindeedinmediaandculturalstudiesingeneral.Thisisodd,because,asIwillexplain,culturalpropertyrights(especiallycopyright)areacriticalfactorintherelationshipbetweenimperialismandculture.Animportantsignthatculture,informationandknowledgearebecomingmorecentraltocapitalismthaneverbeforeistobefoundintheimplemen-tationoftheWTOtreaty.Acrucialdevelopmentwasthe1994signingofTRIPS(TradeRelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRightsAgreement),oneofthetwenty-eightagreementsor‘chapters’thatcameoutoftheUruguayroundofworldtradenegotiations.AnotheragreementsetuptheWTOandtheWTOadministersTRIPS.TheintellectualpropertystandardsinTRIPSarethereforeobligatoryforthe(currently)149membersoftheWTOwhomust–withsmallprovisosanddelays–changetheirnationallawsandpracticestoconformtothesestandards.ChristopherMay(2004)hasshownhowdevelopingcountriesarereceivingextensivetechnicalsupportintraininglegislatorsandadministratorsfromavarietyofinternational,governmentandnon-governmentalorganisations.Thisisdouble-edged.ItmeansthatdevelopingcountrieswillhavemoreexpertisewhichtheycanusetotakeadvantageofflexibilitiesinTRIPS.Butitalsoundoubtedlyinvolvesthespreadofwhatwemightcallculturalneoliberalism.Atthepolicylevel,compliancewithTRIPSmeanshugeadjustmentsincountriesthathavenonotionofintellectualpropertyinthesenseinwhichitisenshrinedin‘Western’copyrightlaw.Whilemanycreativeartistsindevelopingcountrieswelcomecopyrightbecausetheybelieveitwillprotecttheirworkfromexploitation,byotherswithintheirownsocietyandbyWesterncorporations,infactthespreadofTRIPSmeansthenormalisationandlegitimationofafundamentally‘Western’notionofcultureacrosstheworld.Thisvisionseescopyrightasanecessaryincentiveforartisticorsymboliccreativity(andpatentsasthenecessaryincentiveforscientificcreativity).Individualcompensationisportrayedasthemaindrivingforceofhumanculturalactivity.Mymainargument,then,isthatthesevariousdevelopmentsneedtobeinterpretedasaformofimperialisminrelationtoculture.Powerfulinterestsincertainnationstatesincertainpartsoftheworldareexercisingtheirpolitical-economicpoweroverthoseelsewhere,inordertoextendtheirpowerandinfluence.Thejustificatoryrhetoricofculturalneoliberalismclaimsthattheglob-alisationofintellectualpropertyrightsembodiedinTRIPSwillbringmoreinvestmentandinnovation,forthebenefitofall.ButthereisnodoubtthatthemainbeneficiariesofTRIPSsofarhavebeenbasedintheUnitedStates.7Oneimportantquestionforunderstandingtherelationshipbetweenimperialismandculturethereforebecomes:howdidthishappen?HowdidthissignificantinternationalagreementenhancetheUnitedStates’

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10393–111Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemedia103(andtosomeextenttheEU’s)dominantpositionintermsofintellectualproperty,includingcopyright?DrahosandBraithwaite’sauthoritativeaccount(2002)showshowasmallnumberofUScompanies‘capturedtheUStradeagenda-settingprocessandthen,inpartnershipwithEuropeanandJapanesemultinationals,draftedintellectualpropertyprinciplesthatbecametheblueprintforTRIPS….Theresistanceofdevelopingcountrieswascrushedthroughtradepower’(p.12).This,theyargue,wasafailureofdemocracy,andavitalonebecauseofthewayinwhichpropertyrightsconferauthorityoverresources,andthewayinwhichinformationalandculturalresourcesareimportanttosomanypeople.Theygivetheexamplesofinformationintheformofchemicalformulae,theDNAinplantsandanimals,thealgorithmsthatunderpindigitaltechnologiesandtheknowledgeinbooksandelectronicdatabases.(SeeSell2003foranothervaluableaccountofTRIPS,usingrealistsocialtheory.)AsDaveLaing(2004)hasoutlined,thechangestonationallegislationregimesaroundtheworldthathavebeenbroughtaboutbyTRIPSarecomplementedbytheactionsoftheUnitedStatesTradeRepresentative(USTR),whounderSpecialProvision301inthe1988OmnibusTradeandCompetitivenessActcanblacklistcountrieswhoseintellectualpropertypracticesareharmfultotheUScopyrightindustries.Thislistisannouncedeachyear,andtheUSTRdrawsheavilyoninformationprovidedbytheInternationalIntellectualPropertyAlliance(IIPA),whichiseffectivelyalobbyingarmofthemajorUSculturalindustries(Laing2004).Therel-evanceofallthistodebatesaboutlinksbetweenimperialismandcultureshouldnowbeclear.Thewealthiestandmostpowerfulcountrieshaveusedtheirprivilegedpositiontofurtherensuredominanceofarapidlygrowingareaofmodernproductionandconsumption.Thenegativeimplicationsofthisarenotjustaboutinequality,theyalsoconcernadangertobasicrightsposedbynewkindsofintellectualpropertyregulation,involvingwhatDrahosandBraithwaitecall‘aquietaccretionofrestrictions’(2002:4).ChangestonationallegislationthathavetakenplaceinthewakeofthepolicyatmospheregeneratedbyTRIPShaveacceleratedthelong-termtrendtowardsstrongercopyrights.Thekeyelementsherearelongertermsofexistingrights,fewerexceptionstotherestrictionsonusersembodiedinthoserights(mostimportant,areductionin‘fairuse’or‘fairdealing’)andinmanycasesthecreationofnewrights.Thereisnospaceheretodealwiththeseissuesindepth,butSivaVaidhyanathan(2001:25)providesanoutlineofhow,intheUnitedStatesitself,copyrighttermshavebeenextended:1709Fourteenyears.1831Twenty-eight,renewableforfourteenmore.1909Twenty-eight,renewablefortwenty-eightmore.1976Untilfiftyyearsaftertheauthor’sdeath.1998Untilseventyyearsaftertheauthor’sdeath.8

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10493–111104DavidHesmondhalghSuchstrengtheningsofcopyrighthavepreventedvastnumbersofworksfrompassingintothepublicdomain.Thishassignificantimplicationsforhumanfreedomintherealmofculture.Itisimportantthat,againstromanticandindividualisttheoriesofcreativity,weunderstandthat‘significantdifferenceisnotmadeoutoftheinternalresourcesofthecreativesubject’;rather,asvariouswritersincludingRolandBartheshavesuggested,suchdifferenceis‘generatedthroughtheselection,combinationandrevoicingofwhatisalreadythere’(Toynbee2001:8).Creativity,inotherwords,issocialandintertextual.Ifthisisthecase,thentoplaceradicalrestrictionsonthis‘selection,combinationandrevoicing’throughlimitationsonthepublicdomainisethicallyproblematic.Mymainfocusinthischapterisonwhatinternationaldevelopmentsincopyrighttellusabouttherelationsbetweenimperialismandculture.Earlier,indiscussingDavidHarvey’saccount,Iarguedthatanadequatesocial-theoreticalaccountoftheserelations(onewhichwouldthrowlightonpotentialconnectionsbetweeneconomics,politicsandculture)needstoconsidertheproblemofcapitalistimperialism.Whatdoestheinternationalstrengtheningofcopyrighttellusaboutthis?Onewaytobegintoanswerthisquestionistoseethestrengtheningofculturalpropertyrights,exemplifiedhereintheinternationalisationofthecopyrightaspectsofTRIPS,asamanifestationofawidertrend:theincreasingencroachmentofprivateownershiponknowledgeandculture.Thespreadofcopyright,alongthelinesdefinedinTRIPSandinthevisionsofadvocatesofstrongercopyright,bothwithinadvancedindustrialcountriesandinothersocieties,meansthatinmoreandmoreplacestheprevailingconceptionsofwhatconstitutescreativeorculturalworkbegintoshifttowardstheindividualpropertymodel,andawayfromanotionofsocialorcollectivecreativity.AndwhileWesterncopyrightlawintheoryprotectstheindividualauthor,inpracticecopyrightstendtobeownedbycorporations(whichinabizarretwistaredefinedasindividualsforthepurposesoflaw).Thisthenfeedsintoaviciousspiralbywhichculturalcorporationsbecomemorepowerfulandmoreeffectiveinlobbyinggovernments,whichthenincreasescorporatepowerstillfurther.9Howisallthisconnectedtotheearlierdiscussionsofneoliberalismandcapitalistimperialism?TRIPSwouldsimplynothavebeenpossiblewithoutthegeopolitical-economicdevelopmentsdescribedabove,whichhavereinforcedtheeconomicandpoliticalpowersoftheUnitedStates,andtoalesserextenttheEU.AsIindicatedbrieflyintheprevioussection,neoliberalismcanbeseenasasetofprinciplesunderlyingtherestructuringofstrategiesfordealingwiththerecurringproblemsofover-accumulationthatafflictcapitalism,inawaythatsystematicallyfavourstheinterestsofthemostpowerfulandwealthycorporations,statesandindividuals.Ifitisvalidtounderstandneoliberalismaslinkedtoanewformofcapitalistimperialism,basedaroundtheUSTreasury–WallStreetnexus,andthepolitical-economicmightoftheUnitedStates,thenhereIthinkwebeginto

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10593–111Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemedia105seeimportantconnectionsbetweencontemporarycapitalistimperialism,ontheonehand,andcultureontheother.ForthecopyrightaspectsofTRIPSandtheirimplementationoverthelastdecadesuggestthattheriseofanewnexusofstateandfinancialpowerunderpinnedbyneoliberalismisnowbecomingincreasinglytiedtotheglobalgovernanceofsymbolproductionandconsumption,withmarkedeffectsonhowcreativityisconceptualisedandpractised.Thereisofcourseacuriousironyhere.Neoliberalism,widelypresentedbyitsadvocatesasalimitingofoppressivegovernmentintervention,intheculturalrealmaselsewhere,actuallydependsuponstateregulationandcontrol.Inculturalmarketsthistakestheformofintellectualpropertystatutes,agenciesandpolicing(andotherformstoo).Culturalaccumulationbydispossession?However,thisleavesanimportantissuestillunresolved.Whyhasneolib-eralismmadeitsown‘culturalturn’?Whytheincreasingemphasisoninformation,knowledgeandcultureinneoliberaldiscourse,andincon-temporarycapitalism?Tobegintoanswerthis,weneedhistory.ThetransitionfromfeudalismtocapitalisminEuropeisgenerallytakentohavehappenedbetweenthefifteenthandeighteenthcenturies.Howdidcapitalistsfirstgetholdoftheircapitalascapital?Thisearth-shatteringshiftwasmadepossiblebywhatAdamSmithcalled‘original’or‘primitive’accumulation.BuildingonSmith,MarxoutlinedinPartVIIIofVolumeOneofCapitalthemajorformsofprimitiveaccumulation.Theseincludedtheexpulsionofthepeasants;theappropriationofassets;monetisationofexchangeandtaxation;thecommodificationoflabourpowerandthesuppressionofalternatives;usury,nationaldebtandthecreditsystem;theslavetrade;theconversionofcommon,collective,propertyrightsintoexclusiveprivatepropertyrights;andthesuppressionofrightstothecommons.HannahArendt’saccountoflatenineteenthandearlytwentieth-centuryEuropeanimperialism(publishedasthesecondpartofTheOriginsofTotalitarianism,butalsoasaseparatevolume,Arendt1968)sawitasrootedintheneedforthenewlydominantbourgeoisietoexpandtheireconomiccontrolbeyondtheincreasinglyinadequateterritorialboundariesofthenationstate.DavidHarveyinTheNewImperialismfollowsArendt’scueinopposingexplanationsofimperialismbasedonunder-consumption(suchasthoseprovidedbyLeninandRosaLuxemburg).Harvey’semphasisinsteadisonthethrustbycapitaliststodealwiththeever-presentproblemsofaccumulationviaexpansion,orbytheuseofspace,andhetiesthistoanimportantargumentaboutprimitiveaccumulation.Takingtheviewthatprimitiveaccumulationmayinfacthaveremainedcentraltocapitalism,ratherthandisappearingwithitssecureestablishmentinEurope,andinordertoavoidtheconnotationsof‘primitive’,Harveycoinsthephrase‘accumulationbydispossession’.10IfweacceptHarvey’sviewofthe

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10693–111106DavidHesmondhalghcontinuingrelevanceoftheseprocesses,thenitseemstomethat,ofthevariantsof‘accumulationbydispossession’discussedbyMarx,twoareparticularlypertinenttounderstandingcapitalistimperialisminthecontextofcultureandknowledgeinthepresentperiod:theconversionofcommon,collective,propertyrightsintoexclusiveprivatepropertyrights;andthesuppressionofrightstothecommons.Thetermcommons–usedtorefertothecommonlandavailabletoallinthesettlementsoffeudalEurope–isespeciallyinterestinghere.‘Enclosure’isatermusedhistoricallytorefertotheprocess,whichinthecaseofEnglandtookplacemainlybetweenthefifteenthcenturyandtheeighteenth,bywhichthemedievalcommonsbecametheprivatepropertyoflandowners.11Butthetermcommonshasbeenincreasinglyusedbycriticsofintellectualpropertylawandpracticeasametaphorforthatpartofourliveswhichshouldbeasharableresourceforthebenefitofall,andthetermenclosurehasbeenappliedtotheincreasingencroachmentonsuchcommonsofprivateownershipofcultureandknowledge(e.g.May2000;Boyle2003).Thisuseof‘commons’willprobablybefamiliareventothosewhodonotfollowcopyrightdebatesclosely.Buttheconceptof‘accumulationbydispossession’allowsustounderstandboththeoriginalactsofenclosureinthetransitionfromfeudalismtocapitalismandwhatJamesBoylecallsthe‘secondenclosure’movement,involvingtheprivateappropriationofcultureandknowledge,asmorethanjustmetaphoricallylinked:theyarepartofthesamelong-termglobalmarchofcapitalistrelationsintoevermoreareasoflife.12Thisthencanprovideatleastpartofanexplanationforcapitalism’sturntoculture,knowledgeandinformation.Formsofcreativityandknowledgewhichwerenotpreviouslyconceivedasownablearebroughtintotheintellectualpropertysystem,makingthemavailablefortheinvestmentofcapitalandthemakingofprofit,andhelpingtoavoidtheperennialproblemsofover-accumulationwhichhauntcapitalism.Importantly,thisappliesnotonlytoculture,whichiscommodifiedprimarilythroughcopyright,butalsotootherwaysinwhichpreviouslyinalienableproductsaremadetheobjectofownership,includingnatureandtheperson,wherepatentisthecrucialinstrument.JohnFrow,forexample,hasanalysedtheintellectualpropertyissuesandtheirimplicationsforcontemporarycultureofthesignificantandever-growingtradeinbodilyorgans,andintheuseofthebiodiversityofdevelopingcountriesintheagrochemicalandpharmaceuticalindustries(Frow1996:chapter3).Buthowdoesthisfitmorespecificallywithanunderstandingofimperialismorcapitalistimperialism(ratherthanofcapitalismmoregenerally)?Harveyargues,drawingonearlierworkbyGiovanniArrighi,thatanunderstandingofimperialismneedstotakeaccountoftwodistinctbutintertwinedlogics,whichtakedifferentformsandrelationsindifferentimperialistprojects:thepoliticalstate-drivenlogicofterritorialexpansion,

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10793–111Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemedia107andtheeconomicallydrivenlogicofcapitalistexpansion.Imperialisticpracticesinvolve,fromthepointofviewofthissecond,economicallydrivenlogic,‘exploitingtheunevengeographicalconditionsunderwhichcapitalaccumulationoccurs’(Harvey2003:30)andtakingadvantageofasymmetriesinexchangerelations.This,then,iswhatweseeinthespreadofintellectualpropertyacrosstheworld:increasingopportunitiesforprofitforWestern-basedcorporations,andthecommodificationandprivatisationindevelopingcountriesofaspectsofculture,natureandpersonhoodpreviouslyconceivedofasoutsidethemarket.ImperialismandcultureInthisfinalsectionIwanttoconsidertheimplicationsofthisdiscussionforarenewedaccountoftherelationsbetweencultureandimperialism,andforthestudyofmediaandinternationalcommunication.Animplicationofmyapproachhereformediastudiesofinternationalcommunicationisthatweneedtomovebeyondacertainimpasseintheculturalimperialismliterature.Itisprobablyunfairforcriticstoclaimthatconceptssuchasactiveaudiencesandculturalhybriditydemolishthenotionofculturalimperialism.Afterall,therewasmoretotheideaofculturalimperialismthanfunctionalistassumptionsabouttheeffectsoftexts.Butwecanaccepttheviewthattheeffectsofimportedcontentaremuchmorecomplexandambivalentthanmanycriticalscholarswereinitiallypreparedtoaccept,andstilldevelopacriticalaccountofinternationalcommunication.AsIhaveimpliedinthischapter,Ithinkthatoneextremelyimportantpartofsuchacriticalaccount(thoughnot,ofcourse,theonlyone)needstobebasedonanunderstandingofthecommodificationofcultureasaccumulationbydispossession.IarguedabovethatthisisclearlymanifestedinattacksontheculturalcommonsenshrinedinthestrengtheningandspreadofcopyrightandmoregenerallyofEuro-Americannotionsofintellectualproperty.Thisattentiontocopyrighthasotheradvantagesforacriticalaccountofthemedia.Itraisesfundamentalissuesaboutwherethemoneyfromsymbolmakingcomesfromandwhereitgoes,andthiscouldservetomakequestionsconcerningculturallabourmorecentralthantheyhavebeeninmediastudies(seePartIVofthisbook).Butitalsopotentiallylinksupdebatesabouttheinternationalgovernanceoftheculturalindustrieswithotherdebates,suchasthoseaboutthecontrolofpharmaceuticalandagriculturalpatents.Theconnectionisthenotionofintellectualproperty,oftheownershipofideas,ofknowledge,ofculture.While‘ownershipandcontrol’haverightlybeenaveryimportantelementofpoliticaleconomyresearch,asomewhatintellectuallyimpoverishednotionofownershiphasbeenatworkthere.Toimproveonthis,weneedtorelatedebatesabouttheownershipofcompaniestothemorefundamentalideaofwhatitmeanstotreatknowledgeandcultureasproperty.Forthisraisesimportantquestions

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10893–111108DavidHesmondhalghaboutcontroloverwhohastherightandthepowertospeak,makeimages,singandsoon,formsofcontrolwhichoftenexacerbatemoregeneralpatternsofinequality,linkedtoclass,ethnicityandgender.Ihavealsoarguedforthevalueofimperialismasaconceptwithrealrelevanceforunderstandingthemedia.Thereareimplicationshereforthoseversionsofsocialtheorythatseeglobalisationasanessentiallyundirectedprocessofincreasingglobalcomplexity.Atonelevel,suchtheoryisrighttopointtoproblemsinidentifyingsomedirective,intentionalforce.Thereisnocommitteeoftherulingclassdictatingstrategiesofaccumulationbydispossession.Itistheproductofhundredsofbusinesspeopleandfinanciersmakingdecisionsabouthowbesttoachieveagoodreturnoninvestment.But,atanotherlevel,thereisnodoubtthatmanyofthechangesdiscussedherearetheresultofconcertedactivityintheinterestsofparticulargroupsofpeople–especiallytheownersandexecutivesofthelargecorporationsthatdominatetheproductionanddistributionofculture,andparticularlyintheUnitedStates.Andtheseactionsareunderpinnedbyracistsystemsofthought,whichholdthattheculturaloutputsofotherpeoplesareultimatelylackinginvalue,andthattheirsystemsofproductionandconsumptionneedtobebroughtintolinewiththewaythingsaredoneintheWest.Thishasimplicationsforactivism–buttheyarenoteasyones.Accountsbasedontheideaof‘culturalimperialism’lackedanexplanatoryaccountwhichcouldlocatethecommodificationofcultureacrosstheworldwithinthebroadercontextofcapitalistaccumulation.Theversionhere,basedonHarvey,isonlypartofsuchanexplanatoryaccountbutthenotionofaccumulationbyculturaldispossessionhelpstodrawlinkswithothersimilarformsofaccumulation,includingenvironmentaldepletion.Perhapswhatisneededintheshorttermisakindofradicalculturalfair-trademovement,whichattemptstodevelopalternativeformsoflicensingsystemsappropriatefordifferentdevelopingcountries(seeDrahosandMayne2002foranimportantcollectionofanalysesoftheseissues);perhapswhatisneededinthelongertermistopersuadeeveryoneonthelefttorecognisetheimportanceofintellectualpropertyinthemodernworld,andtobuildawidespreadcommitmentforamorerobustnotionoftheculturalcommons.Atthesametime,however,thisfightagainstaccumulationthroughdispossessionincultureneedstobealliedtoacritiqueoftheromanticcelebrationofpre-capitalistrelations.Weneedadialecticalunderstandingofthedevelopmentofcapitalism.Marxwasfamouslydisparagingaboutthesocialrelationsthatcapitalismdisplaced;evenimperialismwasbetterthanfeudalpovertyandignorance.WedonotneedtotakethisMarxistlinetorecognisethatcapitalismcanbringpositivechangesinitswake.Wecannotargueforkeepingculturalinstitutionsindevelopingcountriesatthelevelofoftenexploitativelocalentrepreneurship(thoughthefactthatcriminalsbecomesoinvolvedinculturalproductioninsuchcountriesisitselfaproductofdubiouscopyrightregimes).Thereare

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:10993–111Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemedia109noeasysolutions.Yetitseemsclearthatthosecommittedtoapublicconceptionofculture,ratherthanaprivatised,individualisedone,needtoworktoresistthespreadofneoliberalintellectualpropertyregimes.Notes1ThischapterisbasedonpapersthatIgaveatconferencesinEvora(Portugal),Helsinki,Taipei,CairoandLondonin2006.I’mgratefultothevariousorganisersandtothosewhocommentedonthosepapersattheseevents,plusDesFreedman,NickStevensonand,asever,JasonToynbee.AnearlierwrittenversionappearedinFinnishinTiedotustutkimus29:2(2006).2Amongthethousandsofsocialtheorypublicationsonglobalisation,probablytheleadingaccountwasGiddens(1990),whereitiscoupledwiththatothergreatsocialtheoryconceptofthe1990s,modernity.JanNederveenPieterse(2004:31–9)hasaddressedexplicitlytherelationsbetweenglobalisationandempire.Heisrighttosaythatglobalisationdoesnotequalimperialism,buthisdifferentiationbetweenthetwoterms,whichheendsupequatingwithdifferenteras,seemstometobedubiouslyoverstated.Theeraof‘contemporaryglobalisation’mayhaveseensomemultiplicityanddiffusionofpowerbuttherehasalsobeenrecentralisationandgreaterinequality.3ThemostthoroughandintelligentcriticaltreatmentisTomlinson(1991),alreadymentionedabove.Lee(1979)alsoprovidedsomeusefulsystematictreatmentofearlieraccounts.4TheeconomichistorianGiovanniArrighibelievesthattheriseofEastAsianeconomieswilldestabiliseUShegemony(seeArrighi2005).Thatmaybethecaseinthemediumterm,butfornowtheUnitedStateshasriddenallthesuccessiveshocksandcrisesofthelastfifteenyears,andcontinuestoprosper.5Somecriticswouldclaimthatneoliberalismistoobroadatermtobeuseful.(ThisisstronglyimpliedbyLarner2003,forexample.)Butthefactthatneoliberaltheoryisappliedindifferentformsindifferentnationstatesinnowayinvalidatesthenotionthatthereissomethingthatcanusefullybelabelled‘neoliberalism’thattheyshareincommon.6InhischapterinthisbookDanielHallinfurtherunpacksneoliberalismandmarketisationinrelationtothemedia.7‘NoonedisagreesthatTRIPShasconferredmassivebenefitsontheUSeconomy,theworld’sbiggestnetintellectualpropertyexporter’(DrahoswithBraithwaite2002:12).8Itisworthnotingthat‘authors’areveryrarelytheownersofrightswithanyvalue;suchrightsarenearlyalwaysassignedtocorporations.Also,thereisaseparatesetofrightsinmostcountries,forthoseworkscreatedoutofcorporateauthorship,suchasfilms.TheUSCopyrightTermExtensionActof1998extendedcorporateauthorshipfromseventy-fivetoninety-fiveyears.9AsMaypointsout,‘whilemechanismsexistatthenationalleveltoameliorateproblemsthattherighttoprivaterewardsmightproduce,fewmechanismsexistatthegloballevel.ThereislittlewayfordevelopingcountriestomeaningfullyfactorinthenationalsocialcostsofstrongIPRlaws’(p.833).WhileMayismainlythinkingofpatentshere,thesameistrueofcopyrightlaw.10TheemphasisinMarx’saccount(inCapital,VolumeI)isoncoercionratherthanabstinence,andthisisakeydifferencefromWeberandothernon-Marxianaccountsoftheriseofcapitalism.Harvey,asagoodneo-MarxistwhohasreadhisGramsci,acceptsthatweneedtounderstandthewaythatconsentismobilisedforsuchchangesaswellastheuseofforceandviolence

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:11093–111110DavidHesmondhalghtoachievethem.TherearenumerousdebateswithinandoutsideMarxismabouttheadequacyofMarx’sconceptionofprimitiveaccumulation.MauriceDobbargued,likeMarx,thatcontradictionsinpre-capitalistrelationsweretheprimarymotorofchange,withtheriseofcommerceasjustthemaincatalystforbreak-up,ratherthantheprimarycauseinitself,whereasPaulSweezysawexchangeasthebasisofthebreakingupofpre-capitalistrelations.SeetheessayscollectedinHilton(1976).11Theinjusticesoftheoriginalenclosureshavebeendiscussed,amongmanyothers,byPolanyi(2001/1944:36ff.).SeeTravis(2000)foradetailedcomparisonoftheoriginalenclosureswith‘enclosures’ofintellectualproperty.12Boyle’sarticle(2003)containsadiscussionoftheconceptofcommonsinrelationtointellectualproperty,andacomparisonoftheideawiththatofthelegalconceptofthe‘publicdomain’.Onereasonhegivesforpreferringthenotionofthecommonstothatofthepublicdomainisthatphenomenasuchasfreeoropen-sourcesoftware,althoughoftenunderstoodasbelongingtothepublicdomain,areactuallyoutsideit,andarebetterunderstoodintermsofthelong-standingdebatesinthelegalandpoliticalscienceliteratureon‘governingthecommons’.Thisishelpful,butBoyleremainssilentonthehistoricalforcesdrivingchangesinintellectualproperty.BibliographyArendt,Hannah(1968)Imperialism.NewYork:HarcourtBrace.Arrighi,Giovanni(2005)‘Hegemonyunravelling–2’,NewLeftReview33:83–116(secondseries).Boyle,James(2003)‘Thesecondenclosuremovementandtheconstructionofthepublicdomain’,LawandContemporaryProblems66:33–74.Drahos,Peter,withBraithwaite,John(2002)InformationFeudalism:WhoownstheKnowledgeEconomy?London:Earthscan.Drahos,PeterandMayne,Ruth(eds)(2002)GlobalIntellectualPropertyRights.Basingstoke:Palgrave/Oxfam.Frow,John(1996)TimeandCommodityCulture.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Giddens,Anthony(1990)TheConsequencesofModernity.Cambridge:PolityPress.Hardt,MichaelandNegri,Antonio(2000)Empire.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.Harvey,David(1982)TheLimitstoCapital.Oxford:Blackwell.Harvey,David(1989)TheConditionofPostmodernity.Oxford:Blackwell.Harvey,David(2003)TheNewImperialism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Harvey,David(2005)ABriefHistoryofNeoliberalism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Hesmondhalgh,David(2007)TheCulturalIndustries,secondedition.LondonandLosAngeles:SAGE.Hilton,Rodney(ed.)(1976)TheTransitionfromFeudalismtoCapitalism.London:Verso.Ignatieff,Michael(2002)‘Nation-buildinglite’,NYTMagazine,28July.Laing,Dave(2004)‘Copyright,politicsandtheinternationalmusicindustry’,inSimonFrithandLeeMarshall(eds)MusicandCopyright,2ndedn.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch06.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:11193–111Neoliberalism,imperialismandthemedia111Larner,Wendy(2003)Guesteditorial,EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace21:509–12.Lee,Chin-Chuan(1979)MediaImperialismReconsidered.BeverlyHillsCA:Sage.May,Christopher(2000)AGlobalPoliticalEconomyofIntellectualPropertyRights.London:Routledge.May,Christopher(2004)‘Capacitybuildingandthe(re)productionofintellectualpropertyrights’,ThirdWorldQuarterly25(5):821–37.NederveenPieterse,Jan(2004)GlobalizationorEmpire?NewYork:Routledge.Polanyi,Karl(2001/1944)TheGreatTransformation:thePoliticalandEconomicOriginsofourTime.BostonMA:BeaconPress.Schiller,HerbertI.(1991)‘Notyetthepost-imperialistera’,CriticalStudiesinMassCommunication8:13–28.Sell,SusanK.(2003)PrivatePower,PublicLaw.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Sreberny,Annabelle(1997)‘Themanyculturalfacesofimperialism’,inPeterGoldingandPhilHarris(eds)BeyondCulturalImperialism.London:Sage.Tomlinson,John(1991)CulturalImperialism.London:Pinter.Toynbee,Jason(2001)‘Creatingproblems:socialauthorship,copyrightandtheproductionofculture’,PavisPapersinSocialandCulturalResearch3.MiltonKeynes:OpenUniversity.Travis,Hannibal(2000)‘Piratesoftheinformationinfrastructure:BlackstoniancopyrightandtheFirstAmendment’,BerkeleyTechnologyLawJournal15(777[sic]).Vaidhyanathan,Siva(2001)CopyrightsandCopywrongs:theRiseofIntellectualPropertyandhowitthreatensCreativity.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:112112–1267AcontemporaryPersianletteranditsglobalpurloiningTheshiftingspatialitiesofcontemporarycommunicationAnnabelleSrebernyIstartwithasmallcommunicativeevent,aletterfromonepersontoanother,andtrytoexplorewithandthroughittheramificationsformediaanalysis.1IwanttousetheletterthatPresidentAhmadi-NejadofIransenttoPresidentGeorgeW.BushoftheUnitedStatesinMay2006tothinkaboutthemultiple,intertwined,formsofcommunicationthatconstitutethecontemporarymediascape;thewayitfunctionstoerodetheboundarybetweenprivateandpublicspace;andabouthowandwhichpeopleare‘interpellated’bycontemporaryformsofcommunication.Theformsandefficacyofcontemporaryinternationaldiplomacy,specificallythevolatilerelationshipbetweentheUnitedStatesandIran,willbeonlybrieflytoucheduponhere.Itisoftensaidthattheletterasaformofcommunicationisdead,replacedbye-mailandmobiletelephony,andthatcollectivelywewillleaveapoorpapertrailforfuturehistorianstoexcavate.Andyetaratherancientformofpoliticalletterstillexistswithindiplomaticrelations,despitetheavailabilityofapluralityofotherformsofcommunication.Ontheonehand,thiswasaprivateexchangeoflettersbetweentwomen;ontheotherhand,itpartakesofalonghistoryofdiplomaticlettersthatinhabitaquasi-publicstatus,especiallyashistoricaldocuments.2Sothedynamicsofprivate–publiccommunicationwereforegrounded.IwillusetheworkofJohnDurhamPeters(1999)toexploretheseissues.Anotherissuebecameapparentwhentheonepersontowhomtheletterwasaddresseddidnotansweritwhileothers,bothprofessionalcommentatorsandordinarymembersofthepublicinmanycountries,respondedinanabundantprofusionofseriousandsatiricalways.Thisraisesthequestionofwhoexactlyis‘interpellated’orhailedbyamessage,whichofcoursedoesnothavetobethe‘intendedrecipient’.IexplorethisissuebyexaminingtheargumentsraisedbyLacan(1988)inrelationtoEdgarAllanPoe’sshortstoryThePurloinedLetterandDerrida’sdisputewithLacan.Thislineofargumenthastwobroadconsequences.OneistoopenuponceagainananalysisofinterpellationfromAlthusseron.Hismodelseemstoimplybothalinearprocess–thosewhoarehailedacceptthe

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:113112–126AcontemporaryPersianletter113hailing–butalsothatthosewhoare‘hailed’arehailedonlyoncebytheirhegemonicnationalideologicalapparatus.Hismodelofideologicalinterpellationseemstoseeeffectsasdirect,univocalandpotent,essentiallyapre-mediastudiesposition,butalsoasframedwithinanationalpolitybytheideologicalstateapparatus.So,inaglobalisingenvironment,withmessageswilfullypayingnoheedtoboundaries,whereactuallyishegemonylocatedandindeedcanitbe/shoulditbespatialised?LacanandDerridaofferamoreopenandambivalentunderstandingofresponse,whileLaclauresolveshegemonyintopracticesofarticulationandthusoffersthepossibilityofunendingantagonismbutalsocontinuouschange,sincecounter-articulationsarealwaysbeingconstructed.Thesecondissue,whichisdirectlylinkedtothefirst,isthecomplexanddifficulttaskofactuallytryingtothinkaboutmediawithinaglobal,ortransnational,frameofreferenceandtoacknowledgethataudiencesasself-selectingagentsacceptorrespondto‘hails’frommanyandvariedmessages,notallofwhichwereintendedforthem.AnoverlyglibapproachinmediaandculturalstudiesandbeyondistoseetheUnitedStatesasglobalhegemonbyvirtueofitsexpansivemediaconglomerates,aninterestingelisionfrompoliticalarticulationtoeconomicinfluence.Indeed,thereisanoddcrossoverinrightandleftperspectivesintheassumptionofaseamless‘empire’(HardtandNegri2000)intowhicheveryoneisentangled,whilethe‘clashofcivilisations’(Huntington1997)atleasthasthemeritofrecognisingsomeongoingstruggleforhegemony.HereitisparticularlypertinentthatthislettercomesfromtheIranianPresidenttotheUSPresident;indeed,itisquiteover-determined.TheIslamicRepublicofIranhasbeenframedintheWestastheinstigatorofIslamicradicalismsinceitsemergencein1979andhasindeedmaintaineditsownradicalcritiqueofWesternculturalimperialismandUSattemptsathegemony.In2008itappearsthatIranisactuallygainingcredibilityandsupportamongnumerouspopulationsasaglobalcounterweighttoUShegemony.ThusmyfinalstrandofanalysisisaboutthemeaningoftheletterasanoverturetodialoguebetweentheIslamicRepublicandtheUnitedStates,whichhavebeenfrozeninanicysilencesincethehostagecrisisof1979.Heremyfocusisontheshiftinthepowerdynamicsofletterswhenthesendingandreceivingarevisiblyplayedoutonaglobalstage,andontheconsequencesforthephonypropagandawarinwhichthetwonationsarecaughtup.Thisissimplyatasteofthecomplexsetofissuesaround‘hard’and‘soft’powerthatundiplomaticrelationsmakesproblematic.Thus,whileIstartwithasmallcommunicativeevent,thetheoreticalissuesbecamecomplex.Thelettercanbeseenasabrilliantcounter-articulationtotheUnitedStates’attempttopresentitselfashegemonic.Inthewaytheprocessplayedout,theletterworkedtopunctureUSpre-tensionstolisteninganddialogueandactuallyrevealedtheratherclumsynatureofpurportedhegemony.Ihopethisapproachhasthemeritof

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:114112–126114AnnabelleSrebernyprovidinganactuallyexistingexampleoftheblurringofboundariesbetweenprivate/closedandpublic/opencommunicationthatwasplayedouttransnationally;ofthedifficultiesofthinkingabouthegemonyandinterpellationinacontextofconvergenceamongdifferentformsofcommunicativetechnologiesthatcutacrossnationalborders;andofaninstanceofglobality,orglobalreception,whenspontaneouslyproducedresponsesoccuracrosstransnationaldivides.Aletter,addresseesandresponsesOn8May2006PresidentAhmadi-NejadoftheIslamicRepublicofIransentPresidentGeorgeW.BushoftheUnitedStatesaletter.TheUSPresidentdidnotreply,whilevociferousresponsesechoedaroundtheworld.Forallthewhirlingtalkof‘democracy’Ahmadi-NejadprobablyenjoysalargerelectoralmajoritythanBush,withthecontestationabouthangingchadsandvotermisregistration,althoughitistruethatthechoicesputbeforetheIranianelectoratehadalreadybeenhighlyfiltered.Relationsbetweenthetwocountrieshavebeenformallyfrozensincethepost-revolutionaryhostagecrisisof1979.AmidstaloominginternationalcontroversyaroundIran’sdesirefornuclearenergy,andmanyinternetwhispersabouttheUSdesireforandpreparationstoward‘regimechange’,theeighteen-pageletterwasdeliveredbySwissintermediaries.AsJohnDurhamPetershaseloquentlyremindedusinhiswonderfulbookSpeakingintotheAir(1999),thenotionofthepostedletterasa‘private,specificallyaddressedmessage’wasquitelateindevelopment.Inthemid-1850sintheUnitedStatespostmasterswereprivytolocalnewsandgossip,andweremonitorsofwhowasreadingwhat,sincelocalpostofficeskeptlogbooksofwhopurchasedpostageforwhatmail,aspaymentwastypicallymadebytherecipient,notthesender.Itwastheinnovationsofthemid-nineteenthcentury–whichincludedthepre-paidpostagestamp(1840,GreatBritain),patentsforenvelopesthatsealedoffthecontentsfromanykindofinspection(1849,UnitedStates)andthearrivalofthestreetpostbox–thatheraldedtheconventionofmailasasecureprivatechannel,givingthesendercontrolovertheirletterandmakingtheaddresscircuitrymorefocused.ItisthusperhapsnotsuchasurprisethatEdgarAllanPoe’sshortstoryThePurloinedLetterwaswrittenin1845,beforetheprivatisationofthepost,whenthereceiptofalettertriggeredallkindsofresponses.Ican’texplainmorethanthegistofthestoryhere:TheQueenreceivesaletterand,whilebeingvisitedinherboudoirbytheKing,herevidentembarrassmentandattempttohidetheletterareseenbytheMinister,whocontrivestoreplacetheletterwithasubstitute,totheknowledgeoftheQueen,whocandonothingforfearofattractingtheKing’sattention.Aftereighteenmonthsoffrustratedpoliceattempts

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:115112–126AcontemporaryPersianletter115tofindtheletter,Dupin,thedetective,arrivesattheMinister’soffice,onlytodiscovertheletterisinthemostobviousplace,hanginginfrontofthemantelpiece,whereuponhesubstitutesforitanotherletter,unknowntotheMinister.However,Dupin’sletterincludesamessageinhisownhandwritingthatwillmakehisactknowntotheMinisterifandwhenheopenstheletter.Theobviousplaysareonwhoseeswhat,whohaspoweroverwhom,aboutinterpersonalpoliticsandthedeceitsthatareperformed.LacanpresentedhisseminaronThePurloinedLetterin1955,aspartofhisweeklyseminaronFreud’sBeyondthePleasurePrinciple,anditformedthefirstessayinEcrits,acollectionofhiswritingspublishedin1966(andrepublishedin1988).Hisfocusistwofold.Heexplorestheanomalousnatureoftheletter,whichservesasthe‘truesubject’ofthestory,sincethereaderknowsverylittleabouttheactualcontentoftheletternoraboutthesender.Healsoexploresthepatternofintersubjectiverelationshipsinthestorywherethevisiblemonitoringoftheactionsoftheothercharacters,theirinterchangearoundtheletter,generatestheprincipalinterest.Lacan’sseminarendswiththefamousphrase‘aletteralwaysarrivesatitsdestination’(Lacan1988:53).In‘Lefacteurdelaverité’DerridatakesonLacan’sreadingofThePurloinedLetter,mainlytoquestionLacan’sclaimthat‘whatthe“purloinedletter”,thatis,thenotdeliveredletter[letterensouffrance],meansisthataletteralwaysarrivesatitsdestination’(1987:443–4).Derridaarguesthat‘alettercanalwaysnotarriveatitsdestination’,thepointbeingthatnotonlycanaletteralwaysnotarrive,butratherthat‘itbelongstothestructureofthelettertobecapable,always,ofnotarriving’(1987:444).AsŽižek(2001)pointsoutinhisreplytoDerrida,thepointofthisclaimisnotthataletterwillalwaysreach‘theempiricalother,whomayreceiveitornot’butratherto‘[lay]baretheverymechanismofteleologicalillusion’,topointoutthatinfactthatthe‘trueaddressee’is‘thebigOther’,thesymbolicorderitself,whichreceivesit‘themomenttheletterisputintocirculation’(2001:10).Thatistosay,atonelevelitsmeaningisalreadypredefined.ŽižekobjectstoDerrida’scritiqueandaccuseshimof‘misread[ing]theLacanianthesis’,withwhatŽižekdescribesasthe‘primordialresponseofcommonsense’argumentthat‘alettercanalsomissitsdestination’(2001:10).However,itisprobablyŽižekwhohasperformedthemisreading.WhileŽižekarguesthattheletteralwaysarrivesinthesymbolicorder,Derridapointsoutthattheletter‘canalwaysbefragmentedwithoutreturn,andthesystemofthesymbolic,ofcastration,ofthesignifier,ofthetruth,ofthecontract,etc.,alwaysattemptstoprotecttheletterfromfragmentation’(1987:444),anattemptthatbyitsveryexistencedemonstratestheacknowledgedpossibilityoffragmentation.Whilethevariousauthorsinvolvedinthisdebatearekeentoaccuseothersofmisreadings,itseemsquiteclearonsustainedreflectionthat

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:116112–126116AnnabelleSrebernywhatisatstakehereisamorefundamentalconflictofideas.Derridainfact,inhiscritiqueofLacan,istakingonmorethanjustthe‘seminaronThePurloinedLetter’andisdevelopingacritiqueinlinewithalargeportionofhiswork.Ashesays,preciselyatthemoment‘Dupinandtheseminarfind’thepurloinedletter,‘whentheybelievethatitishereorthereasonamap,aplaceonamapasonthebodyofawoman,theynolongerseethemapitself:notthemapthatthetextdescribesatonemomentoranother,butthemap[carte]thatthetext“is”’(1987:443).Thatistosay,despitetheattemptsofcharacterorreadertoconsignthelettertooneplaceinasymbolicorder,thereisalwaysanexcessmeaning,aremainderthatcannotbesodefined.SohowdoesthisdebateoverthepossibilitiesofaletterrelatetoourownquiteparticularcaseofaletterfromIran?PreciselyintheemphasisplacedbyDerridaonthesurplusofmeaningthatisdeniedbytheoristsofsymbolicorder.Itisbeliefintheoverridingdominanceofaparticularsymbolicorder,abeliefthatsubsumesallfactsandrealities,convenientornot,intoitsownoverridinglogicthatdrovetheUSadministrationtorejectthisletter,toviewitasnothingmorethanacheap,transparentpieceofpropaganda,Realpolitikclearandsimple.Anditisnotthatthereisnoelementoftruthintheirargument;buttoadvanceonlythisfar,tostophere,istomissoutonsomuchaswell.AsDerridawouldpointout,thereisalwaysmore:thereisalwaysaremainder.Indeed,anacknowledgementthat‘alettercannotarrive’maybeanacknowledgementoftheotherwithadifferentvaluesystemandsetofinterpretativelenses.Finally,here,Žižek’sposition,thataletter‘alwaysarrivesatitsdestination,sinceitsdestinationiswhereveritarrives’(Žižek2001:10)maybeexplainedthroughhisreformulationofAlthusser’s(1977)interpellatorycall:thecallismeantforwhoeverturnsroundandrecognisesitasacall.ButIamalsosuggestingthatthereisafurtheranalyticsteptobetakenaroundissuesofinterpellationthatworkswithandthinksthroughthenationcentricboundednessofthenotion.Inaglobalisedenvironment,wheremessages,ideologies,interpellationsdonotremainwithinnationallyboundedspace,wherethenisthelocationofhegemony–indeed,doeshegemonyhavealocation?Althusserhasbeenreaddifferentlybysubsequenttheorists.WhileHall(1989)retainsasenseoflocus,ofhegemonybeingmonolithic,massiveandoppressive,LaclauandMouffe(1985)treathegemonyasmuchmorelabileandlessfirmlysituated.Theyresolvehegemonyintopracticesofarticulationandsotheoccasionforunendingantagonismbutcontinuouschange(evenifnotapparent),becausecounter-articulationisalwaystakingplace.ThelettercanbeseenasachallengetoaputativeUShegemony,acounter-articulationonthepartofafarlesspowerfulcountry.Theman-nerinwhichtheUnitedStatesitselfrespondedandtheresponsesofcommentators,athomeandabroad,towhichIturn,showtheagonistic–orantagonistic–internationalpoliticsatwork.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:117112–126AcontemporaryPersianletter117Intendedrecipient,interpellatedaudiencesThuswehavehere,triggeredbyanineteenth-centuryessayaboutapurloinedletter,anearlyandfascinatingargumentamongthecontem-porarypsychoanalyticanddeconstructionistgreatsabouttheintentionofcommunicationand‘actual’versusintendedaudiences.TheactualPersianletterinvitedjustsucharealdebateonaneruditeacademice-maillistthatfocusesontheMiddleEast.Preciselysuchargumentsweretobefoundasexpertssoughttodisentanglethemotiva-tionbehindAhmadi-Nejad’sletter.Weren’ttheIranians‘simplyplayingpolitics?’Iheardarealistspecialistininternationalrelationsargue,sopositioningAhmadi-Nejadintoapre-fixedsetof‘knowledgeable’positionsaboutwilyIranians.OtherswonderediftheletterwasreallyintendedforBush.Wasn’tAhmadinejadtryingtospeaktotheAmericanpublicoverBush’shead?Didn’ttheletter‘really’summon‘internationalpublicopinion’?Wasn’tAhmadi-Nejad‘really’speakingtohisIranianpublics?Itcouldevenbeaskedifhehimselfhadreckonedthatthefailuretoreplywouldbesorevelatory.Theintentionofthesenderandsecond-guessingtheintendedaudiencewerethefocusofdebate,andtheletteritselfwasnottakenseriouslyasacommunication,letalonepositivelyimaginedasaninvitation,anopeningupofpossibledialogue,noraspossiblyaddressingmultipleaudiencessimultaneously.TheWhiteHouseimmediatelydismissedtheletterascontainingnothingneworofconsequence.Bushstayedsilent.SomeactualresponsesDiplomaticlettersaremorelikemedievalletterspatent,whichwerenotpersonalbutopenones.ThisletterwasmadepublicbothbytheIraniansand,translated,bytheAmericanssomedaysafteritsdelivery,andpostedontheweb.3Iftheintentionoftheletter’ssenderremainedobscure,theactualresponsestothisletterwerevivid.Exploringtheactualresponsesisalargeresearchproject.HereIcanonlysketchsomeofthefindingsandfocusontheanalyticissuesraised.Inshort,itseemedthatalmosteveryoneexceptthepersontowhomtheletterwasaddressedhadsomethingtosay.Thereisanobviousdivisionofrespondents:thosewhodothisforalivingandthosewhodonot,so-called‘experts’and‘commentators’ofvariouskindsandordinarypeople.Theprofessionalcommentatorsareinterestingbothforthespecificlogicsofargumentbutalmostasmuchfortheirinterlinkages;oneright-wingcommentatorisconnectedtoanotherwhileoneIraniandiasporicvoicelinkstomanyotherssuchvoicesandtomoreliberalWesterncommentary.USliberalcommentators,forexample,sawitasanopeningthatBushshouldtakeup,asindeeddidHenryKissingerandMadeleineAlbright.GeorgePerkovich(2006),oftheCarnegieEndowmentforInternational

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:118112–126118AnnabelleSrebernyPeace,on9May2006saidtheletterraisedquestionsaboutAmerican‘justice’,questionedwhethertheUnitedStatesorIranismorerighteous,andsuggestedthatthelettershouldbeansweredinkindbytheBushadministration.‘Youknow,liberalsocieties,liberaldemocracies,haveawholelottosayontheirbehalfintermsofjustice,andweoughttohavethatdiscussion,andtakeitfrontally,’saysPerkovich.‘Weoughttotakeupthechallenge’.FredKaplan(2006)atSlate.com,inapieceon10May2006entitled‘DearMahmoud’,notedthepolitetermsofaddressused.‘Itmaybeworthnotingthathisletteropens,“MrGeorgeBush,PresidentoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica”(asopposedto,say,“SupremeDeviloftheLandofInfidels”).TwelvetimesinthecourseoftheletterAhmadi-Nejadbeginsanewthoughtwitharespectful“MrPresident…”.TwicehecallsBush“YourExcellency”’.Kaplanremarkedthatnever,inthetwenty-sevenyearssinceAyatollahKhomeini’srevolution,hasanIranianheadofstateaddressedanAmericanpresidentdirectly–andsocordially–andarguedthatBushshouldpubliclyrespondtotheletter,atlengthandindetail:Daffyastheletteris,itdoescontainonecluethatAhmadinejadmightreallybeseekingadialogue.Moretothepoint,manypeopleandgovernmentsintheworld,especially(butbynomeansexclusively)intheMuslimworld,aretakingtheletterseriouslyandbelievethatitdeservesareply….Inshort,itprovidesaperfectopportunityforBushtodowhatheshouldhavebeendoingforthelastfewyears–tolayoutwhatAmericastandsfor,whatwehaveincommonwithMuslimnations,andhowourdifferencescanbetoleratedorsettledwithoutconflict.DavidLimbaugh(2006),aright-wingcommentator,on11May2006realisedtheCatch22thatBushwasinbynotreplying.Ahmadi-Nejad’sletterwasseenasapositivestepbymanynationsandmediaaroundtheworld.ItwasbroadlywelcomedbytheArab‘street’.TheIndonesians,theMalaysiansandtheChineseallurgedBushtorespondandtonegotiatewithIran.Theworldsawthedeliveryoftheletter.Thesilenceandlackofresponsewerealsoseen,andspokeasloudly.Satiricalinterventionsabounded.OnIranian.com,aposton16May2006(http://www.iranian.com/Shorts/2006/may2006.html#9b)read:AttheWhiteHouse,aidessaidthatwritingaletterofsuchlengthtoPresidentBush,whoisknownforhisextremedistasteforreading,wasthemostprovocativeactMr.Ahmadinejadcouldhavepossiblycommitted.‘EveryoneknowsthatthelastbookthepresidentreadwasMyPetGoat,’oneaidesaid.‘Expectinghimtoreadaneighteen-pageletterisreallyaskingforit,andthatIraniandudemusthaveknownthat!’

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:119112–126AcontemporaryPersianletter119Cartoonists,increasinglyinpublicviewbecauseofthecontroversyovertheDanishcartoonsaswellasAhmadi-Nejad’sproposaltosolicitcartoonsoftheHolocaust,inanexhibitionthatwentonshowinTehraninautumn2006,offeredcondensedvisualisationsofthis‘moment’.Thepublic(s)’responsesW.PhilipsDavidsonmanyyearsago(1984)arguedabouttheimpossibilityofconceivingofglobalpublicopinion,sincetherewerenoformsthroughwhichitcouldbeexpressed.Bynowtherearejournalsandarticlesaboutit,andPEWResearchCenter(http://pewresearch.org)studiesregularlypresenttheworldwithastatisticallyaccuratesampleof‘globalpublicopinion’whichisessentiallyacollectionofnationalsamplescompiledtogetherandnotreallythenameasureof‘global’publicopinion.Amoreinterestingwaytoconceiveofandtostudyglobalpublicopinionisthediversewaysinwhichanevent–heretheletter–ispickedupthroughinter-mediacommentaryandinternetdebate.Therearemanycyberspatiallydistributedsiteswherediscussionabouttheletterhastakenplace,whereindividualswhofeelthemselvessomehow‘interpellated’bytheletterengageindiscussionaboutit,itsmeaninganditsramifications.Thesediscussionsabouttheletter,itsintention,meaningandpossibleresponsesappearedinmanylanguagesonmanywebsites.TheIranianpressandwebsiteswerebuzzing,includingdiasporicvoices.AnumberofdiscussionforumswerelocatedintheUnitedStates.TheChinaDailyrananextensivedebateinEnglish,asdidtheAsiaTimesonline.Therearemanyhermeneuticpitfallsintryingtounderstandtheselists.Onecan’tassumethatpeoplepostingtoalistinChinaareChineseorliveinChina.ButChinaDailypostsclearlyincludedChinesewhohadvisitedIran,enjoyedtheirstayandfeltthatIranhadalegitimatecaseinrelationtonuclearenergy.AsianTimespostsalsoraisedquestionsaboutUSpowerinthatregion.Whatissignificantisthattheseforaexistatall,thattheytooktheletterandIran–USrelationsasatopicfortheirdiscussions.Iwouldmaketwopointshere.Oneisthatherewehaveaspecificexampleof‘globality’inaction,thetermcoinedbyRolandRobertson(1992)thatsuggeststhattheworldisincreasinglyseenasasingleplaceandthatpeoplearoundtheworldfeel‘interpellated’byavarietyofeventsalongwayawayandhavesomethingtosayaboutthem.Andsecond,inresponsetoPhilipsDavidson,thewayinwhichthenetallowsforsuchspontaneouslyoccurringpublicopinionaroundtheworldaswellasforexploringthemainpoliticallinesofargumentsevidentindifferentlistsisonewaytothinkaboutandexaminesomethingwemightstarttocall‘globalpublicopinion’.Furthermore,muchworkontheinternetexamineshowpre-existinggroups–diasporasandothersocialcollectivities–extendthemselvesincyberspace.Byfollowingthelinksbetweencommentatorsandopinion

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:120112–126120AnnabelleSrebernyformerswecanseenewnetworksemerging,evidenceoftherealglobalextensivityofthenet.Thusasupposedlysmallinterpersonal,perhapsbilateral,eventbecameglobal.Everyonehadanopinionabouttheletterandvoicedit,exceptforthepersontowhomitwasaddressed.Ofcourse,mosteveryonehasanopiniononeverything,butwhilethere’slotsofcrackpotstuffoutthere,analystsandordinaryfolkalikebecomeabletowatchthemovementofopinions.ResponsesasalreadyalwaysmediatedHerecomestheotherliteraryfigurewholurksinmytitle,Montesquieu,whosePersianLetters(1977)areanearlystagingoftheencounterbetweenOrientandOccidentintheformoffictitiouslettersbytwoPersiantravellerscomingtoseekenlightenmentintheWestandthemannerinwhichthedisciplineintheirharembackhomecollapses.Whilemorenuancedthanmany,itstandswithinatraditionoforientalismidentifiedbySaid,oftheEastdefinedandrepresentedbytheWest.However,thispurportedhegemonyofWesternrepresentationsoftheotherandthe‘power’ofWestermmediachannelsisbeingprofoundlychallengedbyarangeofarticulationscomingfromwithinthe‘MiddleEast’,notleastfromIranitself.Nolongeronlyrecipientsofexternalrepresentations,Arabicmediachannelsintheperiodsincethe1991GulfWarhaveseenmassiveinvestment,withnewchannelslaunchedsuchasalJazeera(Qatar)andalArabiyya(SaudiArabia),butalsoexternalbroadcastinginEnglish(AlJazeeraEnglish,launchedin2006).ThestatebroadcastingsystemoftheIslamicRepublicbroadcastsinArabicandAzeri,andin2007launcheditsownEnglish-languagenewschannel,PressTV.Hence,onceagain,anyattempttoclaimWesternculturalhegemonyhastoexplain,orexplainaway,theseothervoicesandpositions.Any‘opinions’wemayfindonthenetarealwaysalreadymediatedinmanyways,bycompetinghistoricalnarrativesandsedimentedunderstand-ings;byspecificnationalmediacoverageofanevent;bythedomesticandinternationalbroadcastingofthetwocountriesconcerned;andbythediffusionofthiscontentovercountlessothermediasites.Aquestionabouttherealobjectofmediastudiescanberaised.Nolonger,ifever,canweutiliseaframeworkthatrecognisesonlyandsimply‘national’media.Buttherearenotyetfullyglobalmedia,thatis,channelswithubiquitousreach,norindeedisthereafully‘global’system,sincemanypopulationsremainwithoutaccessandtherequisitelinguisticbackground.Ratherthereexistsahugemeshingoftransversal‘flows’(aterribletermfromhydraulicsbutonethatservessomepurpose)ofimagesandinformation,receivablethroughanarrayofcommunicationstechnologies:anenormoushallofmirrors,materialbeingreflectedandrefractedincountlessways.Howdowemakeanintelligentcutintoallofthistogainapictureofwhat’shappening?

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:121112–126AcontemporaryPersianletter121Withinthiscomplexsystem,theUnitedStatesandIranappeartobeunequalprotagonists.EnglishhasfargreaterreachthanPersian.ThereisthewelldocumentedrangeandpenetrationofUSchannels.TheUnitedStatesseemstohavedeterminedthediscoursesontheirconflict,itsconstantmentionof‘Iran’snuclearweapons’creatingalinguistic‘fact’evidencedinalmosttwomillionGooglehitswhilethenewtropeof‘Islamicfascism’ispickedupincountlessstories.AsomewhatsedimentedmediaanalysisoftherelativeculturalandpoliticalstrengthsoftheUnitedStatesandIranwouldproducesuchargument.Yetevenacursoryreadingoninternetpostsabouttheletterrevealedfarmorenuancedandfine-grainedpositionspostedone-lists.ManyoftheseacknowledgedIranasasignatorytotheNPTtreatywhiletheIraniandesirefornuclearenergywasseenbymanyasalegitimaterightofdevelopingnations;notedthelackofattentionto,evenrecognitionof,Israel’snuclearweapons;andnotedthehypocrisyoftheUnitedStatesinitselfnotrecognisinginternationalagreementssuchastheKyotoprotocols.Further,aPEWstudyconductedintheperiodaftertheAhmadi-Nejadletterhadbeenmadepublicexploredwhichcountrypeopleinfifteencountriesfearedthemost.IttriggeredalargeheadlineintheBritishGuardiannewspaperthattheUnitedStateswasfearedmorethanIran.Atleastinthisongoingpropagandawar,theobviousimbalanceofmediaticpowerisnotproducingtheexpectedglobalresponse.Indeed,ifanything,thereverseseemstobethecase,inthatkudosattachestoAhmadi-Nejadassimply‘standingup’totheUnitedStates.Inmediastudieswearefacedwithasignificantconundrumthat,despitetheprevalenceofUSchannels,itappearsthatmanypopulationsareescapingtheironhandofAmericanpropaganda.Ourcrudeargumentsleaveussomeexplainingtodo.Indeed,thereismountingevidencethattheAmericansthemselvesrecognisethisproblem,inthegrowingdebatesaboutthefailureofpublicdiplomacyandtheintended‘exportofdemocracy’whicharereadilytobefoundinRandCorporationpapers(e.g.Bernard2004).Thecommitmentof$65billionofarmamentsto‘friends’intheregionisalsoanimplicitsignthatUS‘softpower’throughpropagandachannelsinArabicandPersianhasnotworked.Idonotwishtoarguethatthenetdebatepresagesaglobalpublicsphereofrationaldebate.Muchofthedebateisraucous,illinformed,naiveandplainscary.Butbyinterrogatingitwegetasenseforwhichpopulationsare‘hailed’byspecificpoliticaleventsandthelogicsoftheirarguments.Italsobecomespossibletoexplorethedynamicswherebypreviouslyunconnectedpeoplebuildnetworksthroughcitationsandlinkages.Theemergenceofvariedepistemiccommunitiesthroughcommunicationisoneofthekeypotentialsofthenet,andonethatweneedtotakemoreseriously.Also,ifcontendingideologiesandarticulationsoftheworldareincreas-ingaccessibletomorepeople,amodelofhegemonyorinterpellationboundedbythenation-statemakesnosense.Theglobalisationofneoliberal

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:122112–126122AnnabelleSrebernyeconomicsisincreasinglyfacedwithanexpandinganti-globalisationmove-ment.ThevaststructureofUSmilitary,financialandideologicalpowerfindsitselfboggeddowninunwinnablewarsandlosingfacetoacountryithastriedtoconstructasapariahstate.Perhaps‘audiences’constitutethemselvesandselectwhich‘interpellations’tohear.TheletterandUS–IranrelationsLetmereturntothedynamicoftheletterasasymbolofUS–Iranrelations,frozeninanicysilenceforoveraquarterofacenturysincethetakingofhostagesintheUSembassyimmediatelyafterthe1979revolution.Aswithgiftsandotherformsofinteraction,thepowerdynamicsinletters–evene-mail–arefascinating.Muchanalysiswouldsuggestthatpowermeansnothavingtoreply.Hereisalockingofhornsbetweencompetingmalesandtheirmails:BushandAhmadi-Nejad.BushtreatsAhmadi-Nejadlikeatypicalunequalandshowshispowerbynotreplying.Butgiventheglobal‘publicness’,paceJohnThompson(1995),oftheletter,bynotreplyingandbeingseennottoreplyBushlookedchurlishandtheonetorefusedialogue.ThisprocesswasnoticedbymanyUSnewspapersfromthefirstpressconferenceonthetopic.Inacontextofincreasingglobalvisibilityofsomeevents,thedynamicsof‘purloining’becomemorecomplex.PerhapsthecommentatorsandbloggersallplaytheroleofDupinthedetective,‘findingtheletter’andleavingasubstitute?SodidtheIranianoverturesmakeitthe‘weaker’party?Notnecessarily.Ansari(2006)hasarguedthattheoldandprevalentorientalistimageofthewilyPersianshasrealrootsinsofarashistoricallyIranianshavebeenbadatandhavenotenjoyedwar;indeed,fromthenineteenthcenturyRussia,FranceandBritainexploitedIranianmilitaryweakness.HearguesthatIranianswilluseallsortsof‘political’methodsattheirdisposaltoavoidwar.Incomparison,itcouldbearguedthattheUnitedStatesisgoodatwar,thatitlikestotestitsinvestment,technologies,organisationandtraining,and,bydefault,thatitisbadatpolitics.Thismaywellbefartoocrudeabinarybutitmeritssomethought.Beeman(2005)offersadifferentbinaryopticforviewingtheirrelationship.HesuggeststhattheUnitedStatesandIranutilisedifferenttypologiesofinteraction.Broadly,hearguesthattheUnitedStatesassumesegalitarianstructureswithinthecountry,ofanincreasinglyclasslesssociety,butastheglobalhegemonitanticipatesahierarchicalstructurebetweencountries,herebetweentheUnitedStatesandIran.Iraniancultureistheobverse.Itassumeshierarchicalstructurewithinitsowncommunity,thatproducescomplexpatternsofresponsibilityandreciprocity,butegalitarianstructuresbetweencountries,i.e.betweentheUnitedStatesandIran.Hencethestand-off:whileIranseeksrecognitionandengagementasanequalontheworldstage,theUnitedStatesrebuffsIranasaminorplayer,albeitonthe‘axisofevil’.Yettheburdenofglobalvisibility–thatincludes

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:123112–126AcontemporaryPersianletter123thenightlyvisibilityofnewsaboutchaosinIraq,ongoingconflictinAfghanistanandtheinstabilityofPakistan–suggeststhatfortheUnitedStatesatthemomentthisisafailingoption.AsIhaveindicatedalready,thereareindicationsthatIran’spoliticalcommunicativepracticesaremoreeffectiveexternallythantheAmericans’atthispointintheirpropagandawar.ThebrutalviolencethathasbrokenoutinIraq,partlybutnotsolelytobeunderstoodalongfactionallines,andtheincreasingvolumeofrhetoricabouta‘Sunni–Shi’itesplit’hasmeantthatIranissuddenlyseenasakeyplayerandpossiblemediatorinIraq.ThusitwasthatUSambassadorRyanCrockerandIranianambassadorHassanKazemiQumitalkedinBaghdadinMay2007.Therehasbeenlittlefollow-up.Indeed,Ahmadi-Nejad’svisittotheUnitedStatestoaddresstheUnitedNationsweremarkedbyrefusaltolethimvisittheWorldTradeCentersiteandbytheaggressivenewspaperheadlinesmarkinghimas‘evil’.Thepoliticalstand-offbetweenthetwocountriescontinuesevenasthepoliticalcontradictionsinsideIrangrewmoreevident.WhileAhmadi-NejadhasstartedhisownbloginternallyIranisclampingdownagainonnewspapersandbloggers.Overthespringandsummerof2007theIslamicRepublicimprisonedanumberofvisitingIranian-AmericanswhomitcondemnedascomplicitinUSmanoeuvrestodestabiliseit:probablyacrudewarningtoitsownpeoplenottobetooresistant.TowardanendingSomeweeksafterthedeliveryoftheletter,attheendofMay2006,CondoleezaRiceappeared,orratherwasseenonthescene,abitlikeDupin,butshedoesnotactuallyvisitIran.(PerhapssendingRicetoIranwouldbelikesendingcoalstoNewcastle!)Again,theSwisswereusedasmessengertocommunicatewiththeIranians.TheUSstatementstartedwiththewords‘ThepursuitbytheIranianregimeofnuclearweaponsrepresentsadirectthreattotheentireinternationalcommunity,’hardlyapositiveinvitationtodialogue.IntheLacanianreadingofthePoestory,theletterquestionstheQueen’shonourablerelationshipwiththeKing,situatingherinachainofsignifiers.Thenotionof‘purloining’suggeststhatthereisadiversionormisplacementandthatthesignifierhasapropercourse,thestructureofrepetition,theletterofthelaw.BynotclosingdownthewebsofsignificationearliertheworldhasinterposeditsvariedmeaningsandUShegemonylooksweakened.Noticeableinallofthis,bothinthepurloinedPoeandinresponsestotheAhmadi-Nejadletter,isthatlittleattentionispaidtotheactualcontentoftheletter.TheletterfromIranwarrantssomeanalysisinitsclaimstoasharedlogicbythemonotheisticAbrahamicreligionsandasharedreligiositybetweenAhmadi-NejadandBush.Butevensuchecumenismfallsondeafears.So,startingwithaletter,andusingtheLacan–Derridadebate,andprobingAlthusser’snotionofinterpellation,Ihavetriedtoexplorethe

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:124112–126124AnnabelleSrebernyblurringofprivate–publicboundariesproducedbytheextensivevisibilityofcontemporaryglobalcommunications.Isuggestadifferentnotionofaudience,asthosepeoplewhoactivelyrespondtoevents,whochooseandcreatethemselves.Clearlydifferentaddresseescanbeinterpellatedindifferentwaystodifferentendsatthesametime.Meaningalwaysoverflowsstructureorintention.Itistimetoreconsiderinterpellationcriticallywithinamoreglobalframeandaskwhetherthathasnotalsobeensubjecttohegemonicclosure.Inshort,howtheinterpellatedaccepttheirinterpellationremainsalmosttotallyunconsidered.Ihaveproposedherethatonewaytoexplorethephenomenonofglobalityisbyexaminingtheeventsthatdotriggerglobalreactions,evenifthosearevaried,antagonisticanddissonant,andtosuggestthatcounter-articulationisalwayspresentalongsideanymomentarilydominantarticulation.IhavealsosuggestedthatonewaytoexaminethetangledmeshofUS–Iranianrelationsisbyanalysingtheircommunicativemodes.TheletterwasinsomewaysanoddlydirectmodeofaddressforIranians,whooftenprefertofindaparti-bazi,orthirdperson,toputforwardanimportantcase.Bush’srefusaltoengage–indeed,thedismissaloftheletterasnotcontaininganythingofinterest–wasarebuttalofIraniannationalstandinganditsgrowingregionalsignificance,itselfaby-productofthefailedstrategiesinIraqandelsewhere.Thereareobviousironies.AUnitedStatesthattrumpetsdemocracyandfreedomofspeechisseennottorespondandtoclosedowncommunicationwhiletheIslamicRepublicofIran,knownforitscensorship,triestoengage.Asocietythatbelievesitisgoodtotalkdoesn’ttakeanoverturetodialogueseriously.AnessentialelementofUShegemonyconsistsinrecognisingdialogueonlyonitsownterms,alreadyslantedtoitsframeofreference.Theplayofissuesaroundopennessversuscover-up,transparencyversusdeceit,istheverystuffofpoliticalcommunication,sothereisplentyofanalyticworktobedone,notleastabouthowtothinkbeyondtheenduringframeofthe‘national’towardtransnationalresponsesinvariedpartsoftheworld,andamongquitedifferent,evenunexpected,populations.Ihavetriedtosuggestthatanapparentlysimpleandunimportant‘gesture’byaleaderofaThirdWorld,indeedMuslim(thereforeback-ward),country,whichwaslargelydismissedbythoseinpower,raisesmuchbroaderquestionsaboutthewholenatureofcommunication,itsaddresseesandwhatisatstakeininterpellation,includingitsspatiality.Akeyissueis:whodetermineswhoissupposedtobeincludedininterpellation?Thetrapininterpellationisthat,beingpre-mediastudies,itassumestherelationshipbetweenthesourceofaninterpellationandthevariouspotentialaddresseesisrelativelyuncomplicated.However,paceDerrida,thereisamoreradicalrupturebetweenproducersandrecipients,withundecidabilityasthecentraloutcome.Heretheoriginalanalysisofthepurloinedletterissignificantonceagain,becauseitisessentiallyaboutvisibility,whoseeswhomdidwhat?Itis

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:125112–126AcontemporaryPersianletter125aboutinterpersonalsurveillanceandashiftingbalanceofpowerbetweencharacters.Inamediaandcommunicationsenvironmentofcomplexgeospatialextensivityitisacertaintythat‘others’willseewhat‘we’doandreact.Thisnewcommunicativespatialitymustbecomemorecentraltothestudyofthemedia.Ihavetriedtoreflectinacomparative-historicalwayonthemultipleinterconnectinglevelsinwhichpublicpoliticalcommunicationtakesplace,andtoacknowledgehowlittlewestillunderstandabouttheseprocessesinacontextmarkedbyaglobalinternetsystemandglobalpowerstruggles.FocusingonaletterasaformofcommunicationwhichhasonlyrecentlylapsedinWesterncultures,andnowissuddenlyhoikedoutintotheglobalarenaagain,isagoodwayofrelativisingtheall-too-easyassumptionswemake,especiallyintheWest,aboutthetechnologicalproceduresofpubliccommunication,diplomacyandreaderships/audiences.DurhamPeterscompleteshisanalysisoftheemergenceoftheprivate,addressedletterwithananalysisofthe‘DeadLetterOffice’,thematerialevidenceoflettersthatneverarrive,ofmissedcommunication,‘thedumpforeverythingthatmisfires’,andasks,‘WhatisthemeaningoftheletterburiedintheDeadLetterOfficewhosewriterdoesnotknowitislostandwhoserecipientdoesnotknowitwaseversent?’(1999:171).InThePurloinedLetterlostmatterissettledbackintoplace.Dupinhandsthelettertothepolice,whosupposedlyreturnittotheQueen.Inthiscase,animportantletterwasdelivered.It’snevertoolateforareply.Notes1IwouldliketothankAnghadChowdhry,whofirstpointedmetowardthedebatesaroundThePurloinedLetter,andChrisRoberts,whoworkedwithmealongthewayandwhowillfindechoesofhisvoiceinthetext.IhavealsobenefitedfromgenerouscommentsfromJohnDowning,MarkHobart,RonInden,JasonToynbeeandGillianYoungs.Theweaknessesareallmyown.2ThreesetsofletterswithMiddleEastfociareal-Jabarti’sinterrogationsofNapoleon’sproclamations,Gobineau’sremarkablecorrespondencewithdeTocqueville(deTocqueville1959)andKennedy’scorrespondencewithNasser(Bass2003).3AswithAhmadi-nejad’sspeechabouttheHolocaust,therearedifferencesintranslatedtextswhichhavebecomethesubjectofanalysisthemselves.BibliographyAlthusser,L(1977)‘Ideologyandideologicalstateapparatuses’,inForMarx.London:NewLeftBooks.Ansari,A.(2006)ConfrontingIran:theFailureofAmericanPolicyandthenextGreatConflictintheMiddleEast.London:Hurst.

[12:089/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch07.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:126112–126126AnnabelleSrebernyBass,W.(2003)SupportanyFriend:Kennedy’sMiddleEastandtheMakingoftheUS–IsraelAlliance.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Beeman,W.(2005)The‘GreatSatan’vs.the‘MadMullahs’:HowtheUnitedStatesandIrandemonizeeachOther.Westport,CT:Praeger.Bernard,C.(2004)FivePillarsofDemocracy:HowtheWestcanpromoteanIslamicReformation.SantaMonicaCA:RandCorporation,http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/spring2004/pillars.html(accessed12October2007).Derrida,J.(1987)‘Lefacteurdelaverité’,inThePostCard.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.DeTocqueville,A.(1959)TheEuropeanRevolutionandCorrespondencewithGobineau,trans.J.Lukacs.NewYork:DoubledayAnchor.DurhamPeters,J.(1999)SpeakingintotheAir.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Hall,S.(1989)‘Ideologyandcommunicationtheory’,inB.Dervin,L.Grossberg,B.J.O’KeefeandE.Wartella(eds)RethinkingCommunicationI,Paradigmissues.London:Sage.Hardt,M.andNegri,T.(2000)Empire.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.Hobart,M.(2000)‘Theendoftheworldnews:televisionandaproblemofarticulationinBali’,InternationalJournalofCulturalStudies3(1):79–102(unpublishedpostscript).Huntington,S.(1997)TheClashofCivilizationsandtheRemakingofWorldOrder.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.Kaplan,F.(2006)‘“DearMahmoud”:howBushshouldrespondtotheIranianPresident’sletter’,Slate,10May,www.slate.com/id/2141589/(accessed12October2007).Lacan,J.(1988)‘Seminaron“ThePurloinedLetter”’,inJ.P.MullerandW.J.Richardson,ThePurloinedPoe.BaltimoreMD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Laclau,E.andMouffe,C.(1985)HegemonyandSocialistStrategy:TowardsaRadicalDemocraticPolitics.London:Verso.Limbaugh,D.(2006)‘FatherlylessonsfromPresidentAhmadinejad’,11May,http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2006/05/new_column_fath.html(accessed12October2007).Montesquieu,C.L.deS.(1977)PersianLetters,trans.C.J.Betts.Harmondsworth:Penguin.Muller,J.P.andRichardson,W.J.(1988)ThePurloinedPoe.BaltimoreMD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Perkovich,G.(2006)‘BushshouldengageBushindialogue,notbackaway’,CarnegieEndowmentforInternationalPeaceCouncilonForeignRelationsinterview,9May,http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=18322(accessed12October2007).PhilipsDavidson,W.(1984)‘Globalpublicopinion’,inG.GerbnerandM.Seifert(eds)WorldCommunications:aHandbook.NewYork:Longman.Robertson,R.(1992)‘Globalityandmodernity’,Theory,CultureandSociety9(1),153–61.Thompson,J.(1995)TheMediaandModernity.Cambridge:PolityPress.Žižek,S.(2001)EnjoyyourSymptom!London:Routledge.

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:127127–1448RethinkingtheDigitalAge∗FayeGinsburgInMarch2005,theUnitedNationsinauguratedalong-awaitedprogramme,a‘DigitalSolidarityFund’,tounderwriteinitiativesthataddress‘theunevendistributionanduseofnewinformationandcommunicationtechnologies’and‘enableexcludedpeopleandcountriestoentertheneweraoftheinformationsociety’(‘FromtheDigitalDivide…’,2005).1Whatthismightmeaninpractice–whichdigitaltechnologiesmightmakeasignificantdifferenceandforwhomandwithwhatresources–isstillanopenandcontentiousquestion.DebatesaboutplansfortheFundatthefirstmeetingoftheWorldSummitontheInformationSociety(WSIS)inDecember2003aresymptomaticofthecomplexityof‘digitaldivide’issuesthathavealsobeencentraltothesecondphaseoftheinformationsummit,heldinNovember2005inTunisia.2Inthischapter,Iconsidertherelationshipofindigenouspeopletonewmediatechnologiesthatpeopleinthesecommunitieshavestartedtotakeupwithbothambivalenceandenthusiasmoverthelastdecade.Togiveasenseofthatoscillation,letmestartwiththreequotesthatarticulatetherangeofstakes.Thefirst–astatementleaningtowardthetechnophilic–isfromJoleneRickard,aTuscaroraartist,scholar,andcommunityleader,introducinganonlineproject,calledCyberPowWow,3thatbeganin1996inordertogetmoreNativeAmericanartontheweb:Wasn’tittheHopithatwarnedofatimewhentheworldwouldbecircledbyaspiders’webofpowerlines?Thattimehascome….ThereisnodoubtthatFirstNationpeoplesarewiredandreadytosurfandchat.Itseemslikeadistantmemorywhenthetoneofdiscussionaboutcomputers,interactivity,andaboriginalpeoplewasfilledwithPropheticcaution.Ironically,theimageofNativesisstillfirmlyplantedinthepast.TheideathatIndianswouldbeonthefrontierofatechnologyisinconsistentwiththedominantimageof‘traditional’Indians.(Rickard1999)

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:128127–144128FayeGinsburgThesecond,moresceptical,quoteisfromAlopiLatukefu,regionalmanageroftheOutbackDigitalNetwork,4adigitallybasedbroadbandnetworkthatbeganin1996,linkingsixAboriginalcommunitiesinAustralia:SoseductiveisthepoweroftheICTmediumthatitmightonlyappeartoremovecentralisedcontroloutofthehandsofgovernmentandintothehandsofthepeople,givingthemthenotionof…empowerment.Whileongoingstrugglesforself-determinationplayacomplexroleinthedrivetobringtheInformationAgetoindigenouscommunitiesinAustraliaandaroundtheworld,itcanbearguedthatself-determinationwithinonesystemmaywellbeafurtherbuy-intoanother.(Latukefu2006:4)Latukefucontinues:TheissuethatneedstoberaisedbeforeanyquestionofindigenoususageoftheInternetisaddressedis:whoseinformationinfrastructureor‘info-structure’determineswhatisvaluedinaneconomy–whetherinthelocalcommunityorthegreaterglobaleconomywhichtheyarelinkedto?…AssociatedwiththisistheoverarchingissueofwhodeterminesknowledgewithintheseremotecommunitiesandforthewiderindigenouspopulationsthroughoutAustraliaandbeyond?(Latukefu2006:4)Thethirdquoteisfromthe2003indigenouspositionpaperfortheWorldSummitontheInformationSociety,whichstates,‘Ourcollectiveknowledgeisnotmerelyacommoditytobetradedlikeanyotherinthemarketplace.Westronglyobjecttothenotionthatitconstitutesarawmaterialorcommercialresourcefortheknowledge-basedeconomyoftheInformationSociety.’Likesomeoftheircorporatecounterparts,internationalindigenousrepresentativeswanttolimitthecirculationofparticularideas,knowledgeandculturalmaterials.They‘stronglyrejecttheapplicationofthepublicdomainconcepttoanyaspectrelatedtoourculturesandidentities’andfurther‘rejecttheapplicationofIPR[intellectualpropertyrights]regimestoassertpatents,copyrights,ortrademarkmonopoliesforproducts,dataorprocessesderivedororiginatingfromourtraditionalknowledgeorourculturalexpressions…’(IndigenousPositionPaper,2003).TheissuesraisedinthesequotesechothoseIhaveheardinmyownresearchwithindigenousmediamakers,positionsthatarenotnecessarilyincontradiction.Fundamentally,theyaskwhohastherighttocontrolknowledgeandwhataretheconsequencesofthenewcirculatoryregimesintroducedbydigitaltechnologies.Rickardarticulatesadesire,asanindigenousartist,toworkwithdigitaltechnologiesinordertolink

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:129127–144RethinkingtheDigitalAge129indigenouscommunitiestoeachotherontheirownterms,objectingtostereotypesthatsuggesttraditionalcommunitiesshouldnothaveaccesstoformsassociatedwithmodernity.Latukefucautionsthatonemusttakeintoaccountthepowerrelationsthatdecidewhoseknowledgeisvalued,whilethestatementoftheIndigenousPeople’sWorkingGroupoffersastrongwarningagainstthecommodificationoftheirknowledgeunderWesternsystemsofintellectualproperty.Whyaretheirconcernsbarelyaudibleindiscussionsofnewmedia?Iwouldliketosuggestthatpartoftheproblemhastodowiththeriseoftheterm‘theDigitalAge’overthelastdecadeandtheassumptionsthatsupportit.Whileitinitiallyhadtheshockofthenew,itnowhasbecomeasnaturalisedformanyofus–Westernculturalworkersandintellectuals–asatemporalmarkingofthedominanceofacertainkindoftechnologicalregime(‘theDigital’)asis‘thePalaeolithic’s’associationwithcertainkindsofstonetoolsforpalaeontologists.Thisseemsevenmoreremarkablegivencertainrealities:only12percentoftheworldiswired(accordingtostatisticsfromtheJanuary2005WorldEconomicForuminDavos),andonlysixteenpeopleineveryhundredoftheworld’spopulationareservicedwithtelephonelandlines.5Digeratimayseethosenumbersandsalivateatthepossibilitiesforentrepreneurship.But,forananthropologistwhohasspentagoodportionofhercareerlookingattheuptakeofmediainremoteindigenouscommunities,theunexaminedethnocentrismthatundergirdsassumptionsabouttheDigitalAgeisdiscouraging;indeed,theseemingubiquityoftheinternetappearsafacadeofFirstWorldillusions.Iamnotsuggestingthatthemassiveshiftsincommunication,sociality,knowledgeproduction,andpoliticsthattheinternetenablesaresimplyirrelevanttoremotecommunities;myconcerniswithhowthelanguagesmugglesinasetofassumptionsthatpaperoverculturaldifferencesinthewaythingsdigitalmaybetakenup–ifatall–inradicallydifferentcontextsandthusservetofurtherinsulatethinkingagainstrecognitionofalteritythatdifferentkindsofmediaworldspresent,particularlyinkeyareassuchasintellectualproperty.Inthischapter,IexaminehowconceptssuchastheDigitalAgehavetakenonasenseofevolutionaryinevitability,thuscreatinganincreasingstratificationandethnocentrisminthedistributionofcertainkindsofmediapractices,despitepriorandrecenttrendstode-Westernisemediastudies(seeCurranandPark2000).Workinnew(andold)mediathatisbeingproducedinindigenouscommunitiesmightexpandandcomplicateourideasabout‘theDigitalAge’inwaysthattakeintoaccountotherpointsofviewintheso-calledglobalvillage.AhistoryofdigitaldebatesLetmeturntomyfirsttaskbybrieflyreviewingsomeoftherecentdebatesaroundtherhetoricoftheDigitalAge–forcertainlyIamnot

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:130127–144130FayeGinsburgaloneinmyconcern,thoughminemaybeshapedinaparticularway.Withintheranksofthosewhohavebeenwritingandworryingabout‘CulturalProductioninaDigitalAge’anditsglobalimplications,thereissomecontestationasto‘whetheritisappropriate,givenunequalaccesstoadvancedtechnologies(letalonemorebasicgoods)’indifferentpartsoftheworldthattheterm‘theDigitalAge’beusedtodefinethecurrentperiod(seeKlinenebergandBenzecry2005).ThisdebateoccursintandemwiththatattachedtotheDigitalDivide,thephraseinventedtodescribethecircumstancesofinequalitythatcharacteriseaccess(orlackofaccess)toresources,technologicalandotherwise,acrossmuchoftheglobe.Evenasitwantstocallwellintentionedconcerntosuchinequities,thetermnonethelessinvokesneo-developmentalistlanguagethatassumesthatlessprivilegedculturalenclaveswithlittleornoaccesstodigitalresources–fromtheSouthBronxtotheglobalSouth–aresimplywaiting,endlessly,tocatchuptotheprivilegedWest.Inevitably,thelanguagesuggests,theyaresimplyfallingfartherbehindthecurrentepicentre,whetherthatbeSiliconValleyortheMITMediaLab.SomeexemplarycasesthathavemadeittotheNewYorkTimesandtheWallStreetJournalprovidecharmingcounterpointsofhopefulpossibility,storiesoffar-flungvillages‘catchingup’totheWest.Forexample,inaNewYorkTimesarticle,JamesBrooks(2004)describestheworkofBernardKrisher,representingbothMIT’sMediaLabandtheAmericanAssistanceforCambodiagroupinOSiengle,Cambodia,avillageoflessthan800peopleontheedgeoftheforestthatisemblematicoflifeforthemillionsofAsianswholiveontheunwiredsideoftheDigitalDivide.ThroughtheMotomanproject,thevillageconnectsitsnewelementaryschooltotheinternet.Sincetheyhavenoelectricityorphones,thesystemispoweredbysolarpanels,and,asBrooks(2004)describesit:Aninternet‘Motoman’ridesaredmotorcycleslowlypasttheschool[onceaday].Onthepassengerseatisagraymetalboxwithashortfatantenna.TheboxholdsawirelessWi-Fichipsetthatallowstheexchangeofe-mailbetweentheboxandcomputers.Briefly,thisschoolyardoftreestumpsandahand-crankedwaterwellbecomesanInternethotspot[aprocessduplicatedinfiveothervillages].Atdusk,themotorcycles[fromfivevillages]convergeontheprovincialcapital,BanLung,whereanadvancedschoolisequippedwithasatellitedish,allowingabulke-mailexchangewiththeoutsideworld.6Tellingly,thisstorywasintheBusinessSectionoftheTimes,suggestingthatpartofitscharmisthepossibilityofnewmarkets,theenginethatdrivesevensuchidealisticinnovationinconsumertechnologies;computersandtheinternetarehardlyexceptional.Thistechno-imaginaryuniverseofdigitalerasanddivideshastheeffect,Iargue,ofreinscribingontotheworldakindof‘allochronicchronopolitics’

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:131127–144RethinkingtheDigitalAge131(toborrowatermfromJohannesFabian’s1983TimeandtheOther),inwhichthe‘other’existsinatimenotcontemporarywithourown.Thishastheeffectofre-stratifyingtheworldalonglinesofalatemodernity,despitetheutopianpromisesbythedigeratiofthepossibilitiesofatwenty-first-centuryMcLuhanesqueglobalvillage.Forthelasttwodecades,scholarshavearguedabout(andmostlyfor)thetransformativepowerofdigitalsystemsandtheircapacitytoalterdailylife,democraticpolitics,andpersonhood.ThatsenseofaparadigmshiftisperhapsmostevidentinCastells’s1996classicTheRiseoftheNetworkSociety.Thepremiseofhiswork,ofcourse,isthattheinternethasmoreorlesscreatedanewerabyprovidingthetechnologicalbasisfortheorganisationalformoftheInformationAge:thenetwork.InTheInternetGalaxy(2003)Castells’sscaleseemstohaveexpandedfromsocietytothecosmos.Whilehecelebratestheinternet’scapacitytoliberate,healsocautionsusaboutitsabilitytomarginaliseandexcludethosewhodonothaveaccesstoitandsuggeststhatweneedtotakeresponsibilityforthefutureofthisnewInformationAge.Takingthecritiqueabitfarther,nolessaluminarythanBillGates,founderofMicrosoftandoncethepersonificationofnewmediaevange-lism,hasbecomeanoutspokencriticofthatattitude.Initially,hewaspartofthegroupofAmericanexecutiveswho,atthe1998WorldEconomicForuminDavos,dedicatedthemselvestoclosingthegapondigitalequity.By2000,however,inaspeechataconferenceentitled‘CreatingDigitalDividends’,Gatesdemonstratedaremarkablechangeofheart,offeringblisteringcriticismoftheideaoftheDigitalDivideanditscapacitytoblindpeopletotherealityoftheconditionoftheglobe’spoorestpeople.Asheputitatthetime:OK,youwanttosendcomputerstoAfrica,whataboutfoodandelectricity–thosecomputersaren’tgoingtobethatvaluable.Themothersaregoingtowalkrightuptothatcomputerandsay,‘Mychildrenaredying,whatcanyoudo?’They’renotgoingtositthereand,like,browseeBayorsomething.Whattheywantisfortheirchildrentolive.Theydon’twanttheirchildren’sgrowthtobestunted.Doyoureallyhavetoputincomputerstofigurethatout?(QuotedinVerhovic2000:A1)7Hisapparentdisdainforthenotionthattheworld’spoorestpeopleconstituteasignificantmarketforhigh-techproductshashadanimpact.Theprioritiesofthe$21billionBillandMelindaGatesFoundationarewithhealthcare,inparticularthedevelopmentanddistributionofvaccines.AttheJanuary2005WorldEconomicForummeeting,whiletechnologyguruNicholasNegropontewasmarketingamock-upofa$100laptopcomputer,hopingtocaptureChina’s220millionstudentsaspossibleconsumersofdigitaltechnology,Gateswasreportedtobe‘inthethickof

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:132127–144132FayeGinsburgplenarydiscussions…consideringwaysofeliminatingpovertyanddiseasethatdonotencompassinformationtechnology’(Markoff2005).8‘Ithinkit’sfascinating,’Gatescommented,‘thattherewasnoplenarysessionatDavosthisyearonhowinformationtechnologyischangingtheworld’(Markoff2005).9Theinternet,ofcourse,hasbeenmetwithsomeoptimismbythosesharingconcernsofbroaderaccessforfreedomofexpressionandsocialmovements.ManuelCastellsinThePowerofIdentity(1997)notedtherangeofdissidentsocialactors,suchastheZapatistasinMexico.Today,wewouldaddtothatlistanarrayofgroups,fromthegrass-rootsleftistpoliticalsentimentsorganisedbymoveon.orgtoright-wingChristiansandmilitantIslamiststotheFalunGonginChina.Theseandscoresofothergroupshaveusedtheinternettoshapewhatsomecall‘thenetworklogic’ofanti-[corporate]globalisationmovementsandsmartmobs,aswellasitsuptakebylooselylinkedIslamicterrorists.Additionally,anumberofresearchershavenotedhowtheinternethasinmanycasesreducedthe‘priceofentry’intoaculturalfield,creatingopeningsforactorsandorganisationswhowerepreviouslyunabletogettheirworkintothepublic,astheinclusionandimpactofbloggersduringthe2004USpresidentialcampaigns(Massing2005).Clearly,then,digitalnetworkscanenabletheglobaldispersionofcreativeandpoliticalactivity.Inits12–18March2005coverstory,nolessanadvocateforthespreadoffreeenterprisethanTheEconomistfeaturesarethinkingoftheterm(andtermsof)‘TheRealDigitalDivide’,alongwithacompellingphotoofayoungAfricanboyholdinganersatzcellphonemadeofmudtohisear.Itsleadopinionpiecestatesthat:thedebateoverthedigitaldivideisfoundedonamyth–thatpluggingpoorcountriesintotheinternetwillhelpthemtobecomerichrapidly….Soevenifitwerepossibletowaveamagicwandandcauseacomputertoappearineveryhouseholdonearth,itwouldnotachieveverymuch:acomputerisnotusefulifyouhavenofoodorelectricityandcannotread.(‘Technologyanddevelopment’2005)IdeasaboutwhattheDigitalAgemightofferlookdifferentfromtheperspectiveofpeoplestrugglingtomanagetomakeendsmeetonadailybasis.AsTheEconomistnotes,researchsuggeststhatradioandcellphonesmaybetheformsofdigitaltechnologythatmakethedifference,oncebasicneedsareaddressed(Norrisetal.2001).Myconcernhere,however,istoaskwhethertermsliketheDigitalDividetooeasilyforeclosediscussionaboutwhatthestakesareforthosewhoareoutofpower.Ratherthanimaginingthatweknowtheanswers,clearly,weneedtokeeplisteningtothelargepercentageoftheearth’spopulationthatisontheunwiredsideoftheso-calleddigitaldivide.

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:133127–144RethinkingtheDigitalAge133Goingdigital:indigenousinternet‘ontheground’Sowhatdoesthe‘DigitalAge’feelandlooklikeinindigenouscommunitiesinremoteregionsoftheworldwhereaccesstotelephonelandlinescanstillbedifficult?AsKyraLandzeliusasksinher2006collection,NativeontheNet,‘Cantheinfo-superhighwaybeafasttracktogreaterempow-ermentforthehistoricallydisenfranchised?Ordotheyriskbecoming“roadkill”:casualtiesofhyper-mediaandthedrivetoelectronicallymapeverything?’(2006:1).Recentdevelopmentsgivesomeinsightintowhatitmightactuallymeanforindigenoussubjects.AsHaraldPrins(2001)hasarguedregardingtheplaceofindigenouspeoplein‘cyberia’:Althoughindigenouspeoplesareproportionallyunderrepresentedincyberspace–forobviousreasonssuchaseconomicpoverty,techno-logicalinexperience,linguisticisolation,politicalrepression,and/orculturalresistance–theInternethasvastlyextendedtraditionalnet-worksofinformationandcommunication.Greatlyenhancingthevisibilityofotherwisemarginalcommunitiesandindividuals,theinformationsuperhighwayenablesevenverysmallandisolatedcom-munitiestoexpandtheirsphereofinfluenceandmobilizepoliticalsupportintheirstrugglesforculturalsurvival.Inadditiontomain-tainingcontactwiththeirowncommunities,indigenouspeoplesalsousetheInternettoconnectwithothersuchwidelydispersedgroupsintheworld.Today,itisnotunusualforaMi’kmaqinNewfoundlandtogoontheInternetandcommunicatewithindividualsbelongingtootherremotegroupssuchastheMaoriinNewZealand,SaamiinNorway,KunainPanama,orNavajoinArizona.Togetherwiththerestofus,theyhavepioneeredacrossthenewculturalfrontierandarenowsurfingdailythroughCyberia.Clearly,Prinspointstothecircumstancesinwhichuseoftheinternet–andmorebroadlythecross-platformeduseofdigitaltechnologies–isbeingtakenupinindigenouscommunitiesontheirownterms,furtheringthedevelopmentofpoliticalnetworksandthecapacitytoextendtheirtraditionalculturalworldsintonewdomains(Anderson,nodate).ItisthatlatterenterprisethatIaddressinthefollowingexamples.Recentinitiativesdemonstratewhatsomeofthesepossibilitieslooklikeinthreeverydifferentpartsoftheworld:InuitregionsofNunavutthroughtheworkofIgloolikIsuma;theworkofArrerntelivingintowncampsinAliceSprings,centralAustralia,creatinganinnovativeinteractiveprojectcalled‘UsMob’;andadigitalanimationprojectbyCanadian-basednorth-westcoastAboriginalartistsandstorytellerswhohavecreatedananimatedversionofTheRaven’sTale.Allareexemplaryofcommunity-basedgroupscollaboratingwithanumberofagenciestoindigenisetheuseofdigitaltechnologiesintheinterestsofstorytellingasawaytogeneratebroader

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:134127–144134FayeGinsburgunderstandingsoftheirhistoriesandcultures,forwideraudiencesbut,mostimportant,fortheirownculturalfutures.10IgloolikIsumaandSila.nuDuringthe1970s,assatellite-basedtelevisionmadeitswayintotheCanadianArctic,InuitpeoplebeganexploringthepossibilitiesthatthesecombinationsofmediaformsofferedforlocalproductionsthatcouldbedistributedoverthevastexpansesofCanada’snorth.ZachariasKunuk,ayoungInuitmanatthattime,hadthevisiontoturnthesetechnologiesintovehiclesforculturalexpressionofInuitlivesandhistories,formingamediaproductiongroupcalledIgloolikIsuma.11Kunukworkedwithfriendsandfamilymembers,creatingaremarkableteamofnon-professionalactorswhorecreatedthestoriesofthetransformationsoftheirownlivesoverthelastcentury,startingwithworkssuchasQaggigin1988andquicklymovingontocreatetheremarkabletelevisionseriesentitledNunavut,whichisalsothenameoftherecentlyformedInuit-controlledterritorywhereKunuk’shomesettlementislocated.TheseriesNunavutwasastaplenotonlyofTVNorthernCanada(thepan-Arcticsatellitestationthatprecededthecurrentfirstnationalindigenouscabletelevisionstation,AboriginalPeoplesTelevisionNetwork),butitalsoscreenedatMoMAinNewYorkandthePompidouCentreinParis.Fast-forwardto2001andthepremiereattheCannesFilmFestivalofKunuk’sfirstfeature,theepicrecreationofawellknownInuitlegend,Atanarjuat,theFastRunner,12attheCannesFilmFestival.There,thisfirstfilmevermadebyanInuitdirectorintheInuktitutlanguagereceivedthecovetedCamerad’orawardforbestfirstfeatureandwentontostunningcriticalandtheatricalsuccess,pickingupmanymoreawardsalongtheway.In2005,Kunukandhiscrewshottheirsecondfeature,aDanishco-productionentitledTheJournalsofKnudRasmussen,basedonthewritingsofthefamousInuit-DanishexplorerwhotravelledthroughouttheArcticinthe1920sexploringthetransformationsofInuitlifethatwereoccurringintheearlytwentiethcentury,whenInuitshamansfirstencounteredChristianmissionaries.ThejournalsprovidethestorylineforafilmthatprovidesanInuitperspectiveonthatfatefulhistoricalencounter.But,nevercontenttothinkconventionally,Kunukandcompanyestab-lishedanincrediblewebsitefromthefilm’sproductionlocation(http://www.sila.nu/live)thatallowedustofollowwhatwashappeningonthefilmsetonadailybasiswhilealsosendingusbacktoRasmussen’sjournalsandthekeycharactershemetinhisjourneysthroughtheArctic.13Dailyblogsbyan‘embedded’journalistand(ofcourse)theirownanthropologistprovideddifferentperspectives,whileQuickTimemoviesshowedushowmultiplelanguages(English,French,Inuktitut,Danish)werenegotiated,aswellashowpropsandfoodweremanagedinthis

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:135127–144RethinkingtheDigitalAge135remoteArcticlocale.Pop-upsofferedalinkedglossaryforforeignormorearcanewords.Backgroundbiosonkeypersonnel–onandoffscreen–illuminatedthecommunity-basedapproachtofilmmakingthatKunukandhispartnerNormanCohnhaveperfected.(Mypersonalfavouritewastheinterviewwiththeleadsleddog,Tooguyuk,who‘described’thetrialsoflearningcommandsinboth‘Greenlandic’and‘Igloolik’andtalkedaboutlookingforwardtohis‘girlfriendhavingpuppies,soI’mexcitedtobeadaddy’.)InuitwebsiteproducerKatarinaSoukupexplainedtheprojectanditsorigins:Isumahaswantedforalong,longtimetousetheInternettoconnecttheremoteArcticwithpeoplearoundtheworld,awaytobringpeopletoIgloolikwithouttheextremeexpenseandinconvenienceoftravelinghere,aswellastoallowInuittoremainintheircommunitiesandoutonthelandwithoutlosingtouchwiththetwenty-firstcentury.Onedreamisanomadicmedialab/televisionstationoutonthelandconnectedtotheInternet.Itjusthasnotbeentechnicallypossibleuntilnow,thankstoahigh-speeddatasatellitephoneandwirelessbroadbandinNunavut,makingremote,nomadiccomputingmuchlessexpensive.ThegoalswiththeeducationalwebsitearetoconnectpeopletoInuitculturethroughtheInternetandourfilms.Wehavebeencreatingmaterialsfortheeducationalmarketforabouttwoorthreeyears(e.g.theIsumaInuitCultureKit),andthesiteisanotherstepinthisdirection.TheprojectemploysaninnovativetechnicalinfrastructuretodelivertotheworldpricelessInuitculturalcontent,suchasinteractivee-learningactivities,video-on-demand,customisableteacherresources,andInuktitutlanguagelessons.ItisaplatformforNorth–Southcommunicationandcollaboration.InadditiontoeducatingthepublicaboutInuitculture,anothergoalofthesiteistodevelopayouthandeducationalmarketforourfilms.(QuotedinGinsburg2005b)Thesitewasbeautifullydesignedineverysense.Theprojecthadtwoteams,oneintheArcticatIgloolikandanotherinMontreal.InIglooliktheteamwasmadeupofaboutninemembers:threevideographers,anaudioreporter,aphotographer,andthreewriterswhodidthedailyblogs,aswellaseightyouthtraineesfromthecommunitywhowerelearningaboutmediaproduction.TheSilawebsitepresentedaremarkabledemonstrationofhowthistechnologymightbesuccessfully‘indigenised’tohelpInuitschoolkids,collegestudentsinNewYork,MaoricolleaguesinNewZealand,andmanyothers,learnabouttheirfilmmaking,theArctic,indigenouslives,missionisation,andnewwaysof‘understandingmedia’(McLuhan1964/1994)andtheirpossibilitiesinthetwenty-firstcentury.

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:136127–144136FayeGinsburgUsMob,centralAustraliaAdigitallybasedprojecthasbeendevelopedbytheactivistlawyeranddocumentarymakerDavidVadivelooincollaborationwithArrernteAboriginalyouthlivinginHiddenValley,atowncampoutsideofAliceSpringsincentralAustralia.UsMobisAustralia’sfirstAboriginalchildren’stelevisionseriesandinteractivewebsite.Onthesite,usersinteractwiththechallengesanddailylivesofkidsfromthecamp–Harry,Della,Charlie,andJacquita–followingmulti-pathstorylines,activatingvideoandtextdiaries,forums,movies,andgamesthatofferavirtualexperienceofthecampandsurroundingdeserts,anduploadingtheirownvideostories.Thesite,inEnglishandArrernte,withEnglishsubtitles,waslaunchedattheAdelaideFilmFestivalon25February2005andsimultaneouslyonABCtelevisionandABConline.14TheprojecthaditsoriginsinrequestsfromtraditionaleldersintheArrerntecommunityincentralAustraliatoDavidVadiveloo,whofirstworkedwiththatcommunityastheirlawyerintheir1996historicNativeTitleclaimvictory.Switchinggearssincethentomediaactivism,Vadiveloohasmadesixdocumentarieswithpeopleinthearea,includingtheaward-winningworksTrespass(2002),BeyondSorry(2003),andBushBikes(2001).UsMobisthefirstindigenousprojecttoreceiveproductionfundingunderanewinitiativefromtheAustralianFilmCommissionandABCNewMediaandDigitalServicesBroadbandProductionInitiative(BPI);itreceivedadditionalsupportfromtheAdelaideFilmFestival,Telstra,andtheSouthAustralianFilmCorporation.TheUsMobprojectwasmotivatedbyVadiveloo’sconcerntousemediatodevelopcross-culturallinesofcommunicationforkidsinthecamps.Asheputit:AftertenyearsoflisteningtomanyArrerntefamiliesinTownCampsandremoteareas,IamtryingtocreateadynamiccommunicationbridgethathasbeenopenedbytheArrerntekidsofAliceSpringswithaninvitationextendedtokidsworldwidetoplay,toshare,andtoengagewithstorythemesthatarecommontoallyoungpeoplebutaredeliveredthroughUsMobinatrulyuniqueculturalandphysicallandscape.(QuotedinGinsburg2005a)Inkeepingwithcommunitywishes,Vadivelooneededtocreateaprojectthatwasnotfictional.Elderswereclear:theydidnotwantcommunitymembersreferredtoas‘actors’–theywerecommunityparticipantsinstoriesthatreflectedreallifeandrealvoicesthattheywantedheard.Toaccomplishthat,Vadivelooheldworkshopstodevelopscriptswithover70non-actorTownCampresidents,whowerepaidfortheirparticipation.ThetopicstheyraisedrangefromAboriginaltraditionallaw,ceremony,

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:137127–144RethinkingtheDigitalAge137andhuntingtoyouthsubstanceabuseandotherAboriginalhealthissues.BuildingbushbikesisthefocusofoneofthetwoUsMobgames,whilethesecondonerequireslearningbushskillsasplayersfigureouthowtosurviveintheoutback.ProducerHeatherCroallandInteractiveProducerChrisJoynerwereintegralpartnersforVadiveloo.Apartfromraisingfinance,theywrotetheprojecttogetherwithVadiveloo;then,finalscriptswerewrittenbyindigenousscreenwriterDanielleMcLean.CameraworkwasbyAllanCollins,theindigenousaward-winningcinematographerandAliceSpringsresident.ThefinalprojecthasbeenapprovedbytraditionalownersandtheIndigenousorganisationTangentyereCouncil.Increatingthisproject,VadiveloohopedtocreateatelevisionseriesaboutandbyAboriginalyouth,raisingissuesrelevanttothem,aswellasanonlineprogrammethatcouldengagetheseyoungpeopletospendtimeonlineacquiringsomeoftheskillsnecessarytobecomputer-literate.Hewasparticularlyconcernedtodevelopanalternativetotheglutofsingle-shootergamesonlineandtheconstantdietofviolence,competition,anddestructionthatcharacterisethegamestheywereexposedtointown.‘Whenkidsplayandbuildtogether,’Vadivelooexplains,‘theyarelearningaboutcommunityandconsequence,andthatiswhatIwantedtoseeintheproject’(quotedinGinsburg2005a).And,ratherthanassumingthatthegoalisthatAboriginalchildrenincentralAustraliacatchuptotheothersideoftheDigitalDivide,basedonsomeoneelse’sterms,hewantedtohelpbuildaprojectthatdignifiedtheirculturalconcerns.ThisischarminglybutemphaticallyclearinthefirstencounterwiththeUsMobhomepagethatinvitesyouinbut,asitwouldbeifyouvisitedtheminAlice,notifiesyouthatyouneedapermittovisit:EveryonewhowantstoplaywithusonthefullUsMobwebsitewillneedapermit.It’sthesameasifyoucametoAliceSpringsandwantedtovisitmeandmyfamily,you’dhaveagetapermittocomeontotheTownCamp.Onceyouhaveapermityouwillbeabletovisitusatanytimetochat,playgames,learnaboutAboriginallifeandsharestories.Welovegoingoutbushandwe’rereallylookingforwardtoshowingyouwhatit’slikeinCentralAustralia.We’llemailyouwheneverweaddanewstorytothewebsite.Wereallyhopeyoucanaddyourstoriestothewebsitecoswe’dlovetolearnaboutyourlifetoo.15UsMobandHiddenValleysuggestanotherperspectiveontheDigitalAge,onethatinviteskidsfrom‘elsewhere’tocomeoverandplayontheirside.RavenTales,north-westcoastofCanadaRavenTales:HowRavenstoletheSun(2004)isthefirstofaseriesofexperimentsindigitalanimationbySimonJames(Kwakwaka’wakw)

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:138127–144138FayeGinsburgandChrisKlentz(Cherokee)thatcreatenewversionsofcenturies-oldstoriestobeshownacrossCanadaonthatcountry’sAboriginalPeople’sTelevisionNetwork.Thisworkreworksfamousnorth-westcoastmythsfromKwakwaka’wakw,theSquamish,andHaidapeoples–inpartic-ulartheRaventricksterfigure,alongwithEagle,Frog,andthefirsthumans.ItincludesvoicesrangingfromwellknownnativeactorssuchasEvanAdamsofSmokeSignals(ChrisEyre1998)fametothevoiceofhereditarychiefRobertJoseph.Cuttingacrossbothcenturiesandgenerations,itusestheplayfulspiritofanimationtovisualiseandextendthelivesofthesemyths.Thesestoriesandthedistinctivelookofnorth-westcoastdesignhavebeenproven,asproducerSimonJamesjokedduringtheQ&AattheNewYorkpremiereofthisworkinthefallof2004,by‘10,000yearsoflocalmarketresearch’(quotedinGinsburg2005c).Spicingupthesestarkandcomplextraditionalstorieswithsomecontemporaryhumourandthewondersofdigitalanimationisalwaysarisk.Butclearlyitwasariskworthtaking,whenthemurkydarknessoftheMythTimeissuddenly(anddigitally)transformedfrombarrensmokygreystobrilliantgreens,theresultoftheRaven’stheftofthegiftoflightanditsreleaseintotheworld.16AttheNewYorkpremiere,animatorSimonJames’sfather,aKwakwaka’wakwartistandelder,cameonstagewithhisdrum,embellishedwiththedistinctiveravendesign.InvitingotherNativemediamakerswhowerepresenttojoinhimonstage,hesang‘Wipingthetears’torememberthosewhohavecomebeforeandaregoneandtopraisetheworkofthisnewgeneration.WhenPamBelgarde,aChippewawomanwhohadproducedanotherworkshowninthesession,cameup,hedressedherinthetraditionalblackandredregalia,astunningfull-lengthbuttoncapewithappliquésofwildrosesandaregalfurhat.Ashedrapedthecapeacrosshershouldersheexplained,‘Whenwemeetsomeonewearehonoredtomeet,wedressthemtoshowthatwearewillingtogocoldinordertokeepourguestswarm.’Simonbegantobeatthedrumandaskedustolookattheemptyseatsinthetheatreandthinkofthosewhocamebefore;themediaproducersonstageloweredtheireyes.Attheconclusionofhissong,headdressedtheaudienceandsaid,‘Allourceremoniesneedwitnesses.Andaswitnessesweaskyoutobepartofthattradition,andgoandsharewithotherswhatyouhaveseentoday.’Ineachofthesecases,digitaltechnologieshavebeentakenupbecauseofthepossibilitiestheyoffertobringinyoungergenerationsintonewformsofindigenousculturalproductionandtoextendindigenousculturalworlds–ontheirownterms–intothelivesofothersinthebroadernationalcommunitiesandbeyondwhocanserve,inthewaythatSimonJamesexpressed,asvirtualwitnessestotheirtraditions,histories,anddailydilemmas.

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:139127–144RethinkingtheDigitalAge139ConclusionToreturntotheconcernthatmotivatedthischapter,IwanttounderscorethewaythatthetermDigitalAgestratifiesmediahierarchiesforthosewhoareoutofpowerandarestrugglingtobecomeproducersofmediarepresentationsoftheirlives.Itisanissuethatisparticularlysalientforindigenouspeople,who,untilrecently,havebeentheobjectofotherpeople’simage-makingpracticesinwaysthathavebeendamagingtotheirlives.And,unlikeotherminorities,questionsoftheDigitalAgelookdifferentfromtheperspectiveofpeoplestrugglingtocontrollandandtraditionsthathavebeenappropriatedbynowdominantsettlersocietiesforaslongas500years.Inanefforttounderscorewhattheirworkisabout,Iusethetermculturalactivisttodescribetheconsciouswayinwhichtheyare–likemanyotherpeople–usingtheproductionofmediaandotherexpressiveformsasawaynotonlytosustainandbuildtheircommunitiesbutalsoasameanstohelptransformthemthroughwhatonemightcalla‘strategictraditionalism’(toborrowfromBennettandBlundell1995).Thispositioniscrucialtotheirworkbutiseffacedfrommuchcontemporaryculturaltheoryaddressingnewmediathatemphasisesdislocationandglobalisation.Theculturalactivistscreatingthesenewkindsofculturalformshaveturnedtothemasameansofrevivifyingrelationshipstotheirlands,locallanguages,traditionsandhistoriesandarticulatingcommunityconcerns.TheyalsoseethemediaasameansoffurtheringsocialandpoliticaltransformationbyinsertingtheirownstoriesintonationalnarrativesaspartofongoingstrugglesforAboriginalrecognitionandself-determination.Increasingly,thecirculationofthesemediaglobally–throughconfer-ences,festivals,co-productions,andtheuseoftheinternet–hasbecomeanimportantbasisfornascentbutgrowingtransnationalnetworkofindigenousmediamakersandactivists.Theseactivistsareattemptingtoreverseprocessesthroughwhichaspectsoftheirsocietieshavebeenobjectified,commodified,andappropriated;theirmediaproductionsandwritingsareeffortstorecuperatetheirhistories,landrights,andknowledgebasesastheirownculturalproperty.Thesekindsofculturalproductionareconsistentwiththewaysinwhichthemeaningandpraxisofcultureinlatemodernityhavebecomeincreasinglyconsciousoftheirownproject,anefforttouseimageryoftheirlivestocreateanactivistimaginary.Onemightthinkofmediapracticesasakindofshieldagainsttheoftenunethicaluseorabsoluteerasureoftheirpresenceintheever-increasingcirculationofimagesofotherculturesingeneral,andofindigenouslivesinparticular,astheindigenouspositionpaperfortheWorldSummitontheInformationSocietymakesclear.Ateverylevel,indigenousmediapracticeshavehelpedtocreateandcontestsocial,visual,narrative,andpoliticalspacesforlocalcommunitiesandinthecreationofnationalandotherkinds

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:140127–144140FayeGinsburgofdominantculturalimaginariesthat,untilrecently,haveexcludedvitalrepresentationsbyFirstNationpeopleswithintheirborders.Thecapacityofsuchrepresentationstocirculatetoothercommunities–fromindigenousneighbourstoNGOs–isanextensionofthisprocess,acrossanumberofformsofmediation,fromvideoandfilmtocyberspace(DanajaandGarde1997).Indigenousdigitalmediahaveraisedimportantquestionsaboutthepoliticsandcirculationofknowledgeatanumberoflevels;withincommunitiesthismaybeaboutwhohashadaccesstoandunderstandingofmediatechnologies,andwhohastherightstoknow,tell,andcirculatecertainstoriesandimages.Withinnation-states,themediaarelinkedtolargerbattlesoverculturalcitizenship,racism,sovereignty,andlandrights,aswellasstrugglesoverfunding,airspaceandsatellites,networksofbroadcastinganddistribution,anddigitalbroadband,thatmayormaynotbeavailabletoindigenouswork.Theimpactofthesefluctuationscanbetrackedinavarietyofplaces–infieldwork,inpolicydocumentsandinthedramasofeverydaylifeinculturalinstitutions.IexplorethetermDigitalAgebecauseitsopowerfullyshapesframe-worksforunderstandingglobalisation,media,andculture,creatingthe‘commonsense’discourseforinstitutionsinwaysthatdisregardtheculturalsignificanceoftheproductionofknowledgeinminoritisedcommunities,increasinganalreadyexistingsenseofmarginalisation.Ratherthanmir-roringthewidespreadconcernoverincreasingcorporatecontrolovermediaproductionanddistribution,andtheoftenparallelpanicovermulticulturalism(Appiah1997),canweilluminateandsupportotherpossibilitiesemergingoutoflocallybasedconcernsandspeakfortheirsignificanceincontemporaryculturalandpolicyarenas?Institutionalstructuresarebuiltondiscursiveframeworksthatshapethewayinwhichphenomenaareunderstood,naturalisingshiftsinsupportforarangeofculturalactivities.Ingovernment,foundations,andacademicinstitutions,theseframeworkshaveanenormousimpactonpolicyandfundingdecisionsthat,forbetterorworse,canhaveadecisiveeffectonpractice.Otherscholarswhorecognise,moregenerally,thesignificanceoflocallysituatedculturalpracticesinrelationtodominantmodelspointinsteadtotheimportanceoftheproductions/producerswhoarehelping(amongotherthings)togeneratetheirownlinkstootherindigenouscommunitiesthroughwhichlocalpracticesarestrengthenedandlinked.Forexample,RobWilsonandWimalDissanayakepointtosuchprocessesaspartof‘anaestheticofrearguardresistance,rearticulatedbordersassources,genres,andenclavesofculturalpreservationandcommunityidentitytobesetagainstglobaltechnologiesofmodernisationorimage-culturesofthepostmodern’(1996:14).Indeed,simultaneoustothegrowingcorporatecontrolofmedia,indigenousproducersandculturalactivistsarecreatinginnovativework,notonlyinthesubstanceandformoftheirproductions,

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:141127–144RethinkingtheDigitalAge141butalsointhesocialrelationstheyarecreatingthroughthispractice,thatcanchangethewaysweunderstandmediaandtheirrelationtothecirculationofculturemoregenerallyinthetwenty-firstcentury.Sucheffortsareevidenceofhowindigenousmediaformedoverthelastdecadesnowfindthemselvesattheconjunctureofanumberofhistoricaldevelopments:theseincludethecircuitsopenedbynewmediatechnologies,rangingfromsatellitestocompressedvideoandcyberspace,aswellastheongoinglegaciesofindigenousactivismworldwide,mostrecentlybyagenerationcomfortablewithmediaandconcernedwithmakingtheirownrepresentationsasamodeofculturalcreativityandsocialaction.Theyalsorepresentthecomplexanddifferingwaysthatstateshaverespondedtothesedevelopments–theopportunitiesofmediaandthepressuresofactivism–andhaveenteredintonewrelationshipswiththeindigenousnationsthattheyencompass.Iconcludeonanoteofcautiousoptimism.Theevidenceofthegrowthandcreativityofindigenousdigitalmediaoverthelasttwodecades,whateverproblemsmayhaveaccompaniedit,isnothingshortofremarkable.Formationssuchasthese,workingoutofgroundedcommunitiesorbroaderregionalornationalbases,offeranimportantelaborationofwhattheDigitalAgemightlooklike,interveninginthe‘leftbehind’narrativethatpredominates.Whileindigenousmediaactivismalonecertainlycannotunseatthepowerasymmetrieswhichunderwritetheprofoundinequalitiesthatcontinuetoshapetheirworlds,theissuestheirdigitalinterventionsraiseaboutthepoliticsofcultureareonacontinuumwiththebroaderissuesofself-determination,culturalrights,andpoliticalsovereignty,andmayhelpbringsomeattentiontotheseprofoundlyinterconnectedconcerns.17Indigenousmediaofferanalternativemodelofgroundedandincreasinglyglobalrelationscreatedbyindigenouspeopleabouttheirownlivesandcultures.Asweallstruggletocomprehendtheremappingofsocialspacethatisoccurring,indigenousmediaoffersomeotherco-ordinatesforunderstanding.Termssuchas‘theDigitalAge’glossoversuchphenomenaintheirownrightorasexamplesofalternativemodernities,resourcesofhope,newdynamicsinsocialmovements,oraspartofthetrajectoryofindigenouslifeinthetwenty-firstcentury.PerhapsitistimetoinventnewtermstoremindusoftheissuesofpoweratworkfromapositionthatinterrogatesthehegemonicorderimpliedinthelanguageoftheDigitalAge.Notes∗Thischapterisanexpansionofapieceofworkthatisbeingpublishedelsewhere:Ginsburg,F.(2008)RethinkingtheDigitalAge,InGlobalIndigenousMedia,PamWilson,MichelleStewart(eds).DukeUniversityPress.1Iwouldliketothankthefollowingpeoplefortheongoingconversationsthathelpedmetowritethischapter,inparticularLeoHsu,DavidVadiveloo,KatrinaSoukoup,andBarbiZelizer.Thepiecegrewoutofacolumnfirstwrittenforthe

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:142127–144142FayeGinsburgonlinejournalFlow,inJanuary2005,andalectureofthesamenamedelivered22February2005attheAnnenbergSchoolforCommunicationattheUniversityofPennsylvaniaintheirScholarsProgrammeseries.ThankstoPamWilsonandMichelleStewartforencouragingmetowritethispiece,andtoJasonToynbeeforhisinsights.2Forinformationonthe2005WSISseehttp://www.itu.int/wsis/index-p1.html.3Asthesite’sfoundersexplainathttp://www.cyberpowwow.net/about.html,‘TheCyberPowWowproject,conceivedin1996,ispartwebsiteandpartpalace–aseriesofinterconnectedgraphicalchatroomswhichallowvisitorstointeractwithoneanotherinrealtime.Togetherthewebsiteandpalaceformavirtualgallerywithdigital(anddigitized)artworksandalibraryoftexts…’4Seethewebsiteathttp://www.odn.net.au/.5Fordiscussionofthesestatisticsatthe2005WorldEconomicForumseehttp://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/New+Technologies.ForanexcellentdiscussionofthecomplexityofaccountingfortelephonystatisticsseeShirky(2002).6Thesystem,developedbyFirstMileSolutions,basedinBostonMA,usesareceiverboxpoweredbythemotorcycle’sbattery.Thedriverneedonlyrollslowlypasttheschooltodownloadallthevillage’soutgoinge-mailanddeliverincominge-mail.Newlycollectedinformationisstoredforthedayinacomputerstrappedtothebackofthemotorcycle.7ThankstoLeoHsuforpassingthisreferenceontome.8ThankstoB.RubyRichforthisreference.9MycitationofBillGates–oneoftheworld’swealthiestmen,whohasonlyrecentlyadoptedsuchastance–ismeanttosomeextentasaprovocation,butalsotopointoutthatthereareindeeddifferentpositionswithintheworldofthedigeratithatareworthtakingseriouslyforthoseofusinterestedinfindingawedgeinthediscursiveandpoliticalfields.10ForotherexamplesseeLandzelius(2006),Prins(2002),andChristen(2005).11Seetheirwebsiteathttp://www.isuma.ca.12Seehttp://www.atanarjuat.comforthefilm’swebsite.13Seehttp://sila.nu/swf/journalandhttp://www.sila.nu/live.ThewebsiteisfinanciallysupportedbyTelefilmCanada’sNewMediaFund,GovernmentofNunavut(DepartmentofSustainableDevelopment),NunavutCommunityEconomicDevelopment,HeritageCanada(CanadianStudiesProgramme),NationalResearchCouncil(IndustrialResearchAssistanceProgramme).NunavutIndependentTelevisionNetwork(NITV)isacollaboratingpartner,alongwithsponsorshipsfromArdicomDigitalCommunications,SSIMicro,andStratosGlobalCorporation.14Forwebsiteseehttp://www.usmob.com.au.15UsMobwebsiteathttp://www.abc.net.au/usmob.16RavenTalespremieredinLosAngelesin2005attheNationalGeographic’sAllRoadsFilmFestival(http://www.nationalgeographic.com/allroads),whichgavetheprojectcompletionfunds,theonlydigitalanimationinthatproject.ItwasslatedtoaironCanada’sAPTNaboriginaltelevisionnetworkin2005.17MythankstoJasonToynbeeforhishelpfulremindertokeepthoseconnectionsalive.BibliographyAnderson,J.(nodate)‘Theimaginarypoliticsofaccesstoknowledge:whoseculturalagendasarebeingadvanced?’Unpublishedmanuscript.

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:143127–144RethinkingtheDigitalAge143Appiah,K.A.(1997)‘Themulticulturalistmisunderstanding’,NewYorkReviewofBooks44(15):30–6.Bennett,T.andBlundell,V.(1995)‘Firstpeoples’,CulturalStudies9:1–24.Brooks,J.(2004)‘DigitalponyexpresslinksupCambodia’,NewYorkTimes,27January,p.E1.Castells,M.(1996)TheRiseoftheNetworkSociety.London:Blackwell.Castells,M.(1997)ThePowerofIdentity:theInformationAge.London:Blackwell.Castells,M.(2003)TheInternetGalaxy:ReflectionsontheInternet,Business,andSociety.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Christen,K.(2005)‘Gonedigital:aboriginalremixintheculturalcommons’,InternationalJournalofCulturalProperty12:315–44.Curran,J.andPark,Myung-Jin(eds)(2000)DewesternizingMediaStudies.NewYork:Routledge.Danaja,P.andGarde,M.(1997)‘Fromadistance’,inC.E.SmithandH.Burke(eds)‘1997FulbrightSymposium:IndigenousCulturesinanInterconnectedWorld’(pre-circulatedpapers).Fabian,J.(1983)TimeandtheOther.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.‘Fromthedigitaldividetotheneedforaworldwidesolidaritymovement’(2005)DigitalSolidarityFund,http://www.dsf-fsn.org/en/02–en.htm(accessed12October2007).Ginsburg,F.(2005a)‘RethinkingtheDigitalAge’,Flow:aCriticalForumonTelevisionandFilm1(8),http://flowtv.org/?p=651(accessed12October2007).Ginsburg,F.(2005b)‘Moveover,MarshallMcLuhan!LivefromtheArctic!’Flow:aCriticalForumonTelevisionandFilm2(4),http://flowtv.org/?p=447(accessed12October2007).Ginsburg,F.(2005c)‘10,000yearsofmediaflow’,Flow:aCriticalForumonTelevisionandFilm1(4),http://flowtv.org/?p=673(accessed12October2007).Ginsburg,F.,AbuLughod,L.andLarkin,B.(2002)‘Introduction’,MediaWorlds:AnthropologyonNewTerrain.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.‘IndigenouspositionpaperfortheWorldSummitontheInformationSociety’(2003)IndigenouspeoplesandtheInformationSociety,draftversion.Geneva,http://www.un-ngls.org/WSIS%20-%20Indigenous-PositionPaper-EN.rtf(accessed12October2007).Klineneberg,E.andBenzecry,C.(2005)‘Introduction:culturalproductioninaDigitalAge’,AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience,specialissue,597(1):6–18.Landzelius,K.(ed.)(2006)GoingNativeontheNet:IndigenousCyber-activismandVirtualDiasporasovertheWorldWideWeb.London:Routledge.Latukefu,A.(2006)‘RemoteindigenouscommunitiesinAustralia:questionsofaccess,information,andself-determination’,inK.Landzelius(ed.)GoingNativeontheNet:IndigenousCyber-activismandVirtualDiasporasovertheWorldWideWeb.London:Routledge.Markoff,J.(2005)‘TakingthepulseoftechnologyatDavos’,NewYorkTimes,31January,http://cel.media.mit.edu/press/mirrors/NYT100DollarPC.html(accessed12October2007).Massing,M.(2005)‘Theendofnews?’NewYorkReviewofBooks,52(19),1December,http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18516(accessed12October2007).

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch08.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:144127–144144FayeGinsburgMcLuhan,M.(1964/1994)UnderstandingMedia:theExtensionsofMan.BostonMA:MITPress.Norris,P.,Bennett,W.L.andEntman,R.(2001)DigitalDivide:CivicEngagement,InformationPoverty,andtheInternetWorldwide.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Prins,Harald(2001)‘Digitalrevolution:indigenouspeoplesinCyberia’,inW.A.Haviland(ed.)CulturalAnthropology,10thedn.FortWorthTX:Harcourt.Prins,H.(2002)‘Visualmediaandtheprimitivistperplex:colonialfantasies,indigenousimagination,andadvocacyinNorthAmerica’,inF.Ginsburg,L.Abu-LughodandB.Larkin(eds)MediaWorlds:AnthropologyonNewTerrain.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Rickard,J.(1999)‘FirstNationterritoryincyberspacedeclared:notreatiesneeded’,CyberPowWow:anAboriginallyDeterminedTerritoryinCyberspace,http://www.cyberpowwow.net/nation2nation/jolenework.html(accessed12October2007).Shirky,C.(2002)‘Sorry,wrongnumber’,Wired10(10),10October,http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.10/view.html?pg=2(accessed12October2007).‘Technologyanddevelopment’(2005)TheEconomist,10March,http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_PSQNRTS(accessed12October2007).Verhovic,S.(2000)‘BillGatesturnsskepticalondigitalsolution’sscope’,NewYorkTimes,3November,pp.A1–A18.Wilson,R.andDissanayake,W.(1996)‘Introduction’,inR.WilsonandW.Dissanayake(eds)Global/Local:CulturalProductionandtheTransnationalImaginary.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:145145–1589MediaandmobilityinatransnationalworldPurnimaMankekarMyobjectiveinthischapteristosketchthecontoursofatheoreti-calframeworkthatexplorestherelationshipbetweenmedia,mobility,andtransnationality.Forseveraldecadesnow,transnationalconnectionsbetweendifferentpartsoftheworldhavebeenstrengthenedbytherelativeeaseofinternationaltravel,theglobalisationofcapitalandlabour,andthetransnationalproliferationofcommunicationtechnologies(Appadurai1996;AppaduraiandBreckenridge1988;GlickSchilleretal.1994;GuptaandFerguson1997;Hannerz1996;Harvey1989;MorleyandRobins1995;Ong1999).Inmyongoingresearch,Iconstructafeministethnographyofhowtransnationalpublicculturesmediatethesocialrelationships,imaginations,anddesiresofgenderedsubjectsattwonodesinaglobalcircuitofimages,texts,andcommodities,NewDelhiandtheSanFranciscoBayArea.Buildingonfeministscholarshiponspace,migration,travel,andlocation,aswellasonfeministmediastudiesontherelationshipbetweenmediaandsubjectivity,Iexaminetheroleoftransnationalpublicculturesinthediscursive(re)production,transformation,andgenderedmediationof‘India’and‘Indianculture’inthesedifferent,butinterconnected,sites.BytransnationalpublicculturesIrefertomassmediathattraversenationalandgeographicborders(popularfilm,television,andprintmedia),aswellaspublicexpressionsofcommunitysuchasprotests,culturalfestivals,andethnicgrocerystores.Myobjectiveinthislargerprojectistoformulateatransnationalanalytics(Grewaletal.1999)thatgoesbeyondtheconceptualisationofhomeanddiasporaasdiscretesitesbyexaminingtherelationshipbetweenmedia,placement,anddisplacement.Forinstance,anumberofHindifilmshavefocusedonIndiansinthediaspora.Howdodiscoursesofgenderandsexualityshapetheseportrayalsand,additionally,howdotheymediatethedynamicconstitutionofIndiannessandnationalbelongingbothwithinIndiaanditsdiasporas?Whatdotheserepresentationstellusaboutchangingexperiencesofnationhoodandidentityinatransnationalworld?Iengage‘India’asanopticratherthanasapre-givenpoliticalandculturalfact:Iaminterestedintracinghowmodesoflongingand

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:146145–158146PurnimaMankekarbelonging,affiliationanddisaffiliation,andidentificationandalienationmightexceedand,onoccasion,subverttheinterpellatoryclaimsofthecontemporaryIndiannation-statebothwithinIndiaandamongdiasporiccommunities.Asseveralscholarshavepointedout,transnationalismdoesnot,inanyway,rendernationalorregionalculturesobsolete(forinstance,Appadurai1996;GuptaandFerguson1997;Ong1999):transnationalculturalformationsarefrequentlyaccompaniedbytheemergenceorconsolidationofparochial,regional,andnationalidentities.Iamconcernedwithhowtransnationalpubliccultures,andmobilemediainparticular,notonlylinkbut,moreimportant,helpdiscursivelyconstructthehomelandanddiaspora.Texts-in-motionMobility,feministtheoriststeachus,isathoroughlysocialprocess.Ahmedetal.insistthatnotonlyaretheformsandconditionsofmovementhighlydivergent,theyalsonecessarilyexistinrelationtosimilarlydivergentconfigurationsofplacementandoffeeling‘athome’(2003:1).Furthermore,itseemsegregiouslypresentisttoassumethatmobilityisuniquetothepresentmoment:whileitisobviousthattheeaseoftravelhasresultedinanaccelerationofthephysicalmobilityofsomeindividualsandcommunities,theimpositionofborderpatrols,immigrationchecks,indeedthebirthofthemodernnation-statemightwellhavecircumscribedtheabilityofpeopletomove.Finally,mobilitycannotbeconceivedasseparatefromlocation.Inherdiscussionoflocationandtravel,CarenKaplanpositsthat‘transnationalsubjectsareproducedthroughlocationaswellasmobility,certainly,asnationaleconomiesdictatewhomovestoobtainworkandwhostaysput’(2003:220).Justasthemobilityofpeoplesisshapedbytheirlocationalongaxesofdifferenceandinequality,suchas,gender,race,class,andsexuality,sotooistheculturalworkofmobilemediarefractedbytheirembeddednessinlargerlandscapesofaffect,desire,andconsumption.Atthesametime,mediacreateandparticipateinsocialfieldsthatshape,circumscribeand,inmanyways,constitutethemobilityofpeoples,texts,andcommodities.Fundamentally,mediafunctionthroughaswellasenablethecirculationofsigns.Further,totheextentthatcultureisformed,atleastinpart,throughsemiosis,mediaplayacentralroleintheconstructionofcultureitself:hence,tospeakofthe‘culturalcontext’ofmassmediaistofallbackonasubstantialistnotionofculturethatisostensiblyunmediatedbysemiosisoroutsidethereachofmedia.Mediaspurmobilityinallitsforms,rangingfromphysicalmobilitytoimaginativetravelandvirtualmigration.Inmyresearch,IhaveworkedwithheterogeneouscommunitiesofpeoplewhomovedfromIndiatotheUnitedStates:theserangedfromnewimmigrantsandmembersoflong-establisheddiasporastotemporaryworkersonspecialworkpermitssuchasH1Bvisasand‘undocumented’

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:147145–158Mediaandmobilityinatransnationalworld147menandwomen.Atthesametime,IhavealsobeenconcernedwiththerelationshipbetweenmediaandthemobilityofpeoplewithinIndia:theseincludepeoplewhohavebeendisplacedbecauseofreligiousviolenceorpersecution;workersinanewsectoroftheIndianeconomy,thebusinessprocessingoutsourcing(BPO)industry,chieflycallcentreemployeeswhoperformedwhatsociologistA.Aneeshhastermed‘virtualmigration’(2006)throughtheirinteractionwithclientsabroad;andlast,butnotleast,withwomenandmenwhodonotphysicallymovebut,throughtheirconsumptionoftransnationalpubliccultures,engageinformsofimaginativetravel.Itakeasmyfoundationalpremisethatmassmediaarethemselvesconstitutedthroughmobility.Indeed,mobilityisanintrinsiccharacteristicofmassmediawhich,bydefinition,circulateacrossspaceandovertime:afterall,itisthroughcirculationthatmediaacquiresocialsignificance.Itisnotsurprising,then,thatmuchofmediatheoryispredicatedonimplicit,albeitfrequentlyunexamined,assumptionsaboutcirculation,circuits,and‘flows’ofmedia.Fromsomeoftheearliestparadigmsdominatingmediatheory,suchastheso-calledhypodermicmodelofmediaeffects,tomorenuancedmodelsthatexplainthesocialsignificanceofmedia(forinstance,StuartHall’sencodinganddecodingparadigm)circulationandcircuitryemergeascrucialpremises.Recenttheoriesaboutglobalisationandtransnationalmediasimilarlydependonthenotionofthe‘flow’ofmediafrompointsofproductiontopointsofreception.Notionsofflowseemtometobemisleadingbecause,evidently,transnationalmassmediadonotallflowuninterruptedfromonepartoftheworldtoanother.Ratherthanconceptualisethetrafficinmediaasmechanistic‘flows’fromoneculturetoanother,itseemsmoreaccuratetoanalysemediaintermsoftheirbumpyanduneventrajectoryasemergingfrom,convergingwith,andevenbypassingmultiplesitesacrosstheworld.BrianMassumihassuggestedthatsocialanalysismustacknowledgetheprimacyofmovementasawaytotheoriseprocessesofidentityformationandsocialchange(2002).DrawingonMassumi’sinsightsthat(1)allmovementoccursintime,and(2)movementisacrucialcomponentoftemporality,Iwouldliketobeginbyexaminingtherelationshipbetweenmedia,mobility,andtemporality.Twoobviousbutundertheorisedaspectsofmediaarethatmediaexistinandthroughmobility,andthattheworkofmediaoccursnotjustacrossspacebut,equallyimportant,intime.Examiningtheculturalworkofmedia,therefore,impliestracingnotonlytheirspatialdimensions(asinAppadurai’s1996notionofscapes;seealsoMankekarandSchein2004)butalsotheirtemporaldimensions.Whileforegroundingthematerialityofmedia,thediverseformsthroughwhichtheyfunction,theirtextualityandmodesofenunciation,itisalsoimportanttoremindourselvesthatmediaworkwithinandthroughhistoricalcontext.Tobeginwith,mediaarenotjustreflectiveofparticularsocio-historicalformationsbutareconstitutiveofthem.Forinstance,duringthelate1980s

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:148145–158148PurnimaMankekarandearly1990s,state-runIndiantelevisionplayedacriticalroleintheproductionofmiddle-classsubjectivity,theformulationofdiscoursesofIndianwomanhood,andintheconsolidationofHindunationalismasapoliticalformation;atthesametime,viewers’interpretationsofwhattheywatchedontelevisionwererefractedbythespecificsocio-historicalconjunctureinwhichtheyweresituated,aswellasbytheirpositionsalongaxesofclass,gender,andreligiousaffiliation(Mankekar1999).Mediaandtemporalityareintimatelyconnectedinotherwaysaswell.Ourveryexperienceoftimecanbestructuredthroughourconsumptionofmedia.Forinstance,inmypreviousresearchwithlowermiddle-classandupwardlymobilemenandwomeninNewDelhi,itbecamecleartomethatmyinformantsstructuredtheirhouseholdroutinesaroundtheirfavouritetelevisionshows,sothatviewingtelevisionliterallypunctuatedtheeverydayrhythmsoftheirfamilylives.Myinformantswouldplantheirmealtimes,rushhomefromworkorsocialevents,andorganisetheirdailylivesaroundthetelecastoftheirfavouritetelevisionprogrammes.Thiscontinuestobethecasenowthatcableandsatellitetelevisionhaveintroducedaplethoraofchannelsintopeople’shomesandlives:therhythmsoffamilylife,indeedofdomesticity,functionintandemwithhabitsofviewingandconsumption.Finally,mediashapehowpeopleexperiencethepassageoftime–howtheyremember(orforget)aspectsofthepast,howtheyinterpretandliveinthepresent,andhowtheyimaginethefuture.Infact,ratherthanconceptualisethepast,present,orfutureasaprioriorautonomousrealmsofexperience,itmakessenseforustothinkofthewaysinwhichmediaenabletheveryconstitutionofpast,present,andfuturethrough,forinstance,themediationofmemory,contemporaneity,andfuturity.Thishascomeupformetimeandagaininmycurrentwork.MyinformantsintheSanFranciscoBayArea,forexample,sometimesexperienceIndiaasa‘homeland’thatbelongsinthepast,filteredthroughmemoriesoftheirlivesthere.Thesememoriesareoftensoakedwithaffect–whetherthatofnostalgia,ambivalence,orantagonism.1Frequently,theseaffect-ladenmemoriesofthepastarerefractedthroughtheconsumptionofmassmedialikeBollywoodfilms,includingfilmsthatrepresentanauthentic,albeitphantasmic,‘Indianculture’as‘vanishing’inthefaceofanallegedlyinvasivemodernity(Ivy1995).Thesefilmsparticipateinthecreationofasenseoftemporalrupturefordiasporicsubjects,especiallynewimmigrants,forwhomthehomelandbecomesaplace‘leftbehind’inthepast.However,mediaparticipateinthecreationofaphantasmicpastintheso-calledhomelandaswell.FormanyofmyinformantsinIndia,spectacularrenditionsofHindureligiousserialsliketheRamayanaandtheMahabharatontelevisionformanarchiveofcollectivememory:theseserials,theRamayanainparticular,depict‘thenationalpast’intermsofthe‘GoldenAge’ofHinduism.Theserepresentationsshapetheconstructionnotonlyofthenationalpastbutalsoofcontemporaneity

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:149145–158Mediaandmobilityinatransnationalworld149andfuturity.Thephantasmicpastrepresentedintheseserialsfunctionsasafoilforrepresentationsofthepresentascontaminatedbywest-ernisation,modernity,or,mostperniciouslyinthediscoursesofHindunationalism,Islam.ThesedepictionsofthegloriousIndianpastarealsodeployedasablueprintfortheformationofthenationofthefuture.Theseconstructionsoftemporality–intermsofthecollectivenationalpast,present,andfuture–havehaddevastatingpoliticalimplications.Accomplishingaslippagebetween(upper-caste)HinduandIndianculture,theyhavefacilitatedthegrowinghegemonyofHindunationalistdiscoursesofculturalpuritypredicatedonthemarginalisation,ifnotdemonisation,ofIslamandChristianity,andtheexclusionoflower-castestrugglesforsocialjustice.Mediaandworld-makingIhavefocusedsofarontherelationshipbetweenmedia,mobility,andtemporality.InthissectionI’dliketoanalysethewaysinwhich,inatransnationalworld,mediaparticipateinworld-makingthroughtheproductionofaffectanddesire.Iturnnowtohowtheaffectiveconnectionscreatedbymobilemediaenablethereterritorialisationofspace.DrawingonMassumi(2002),othertheoristsofaffect(forinstance,DeleuzeandGuattari1987;Ahmed2004),andonmyownpreviousresearchontheroleofstate-runtelevisionintheproductionofnationalistaffect(2000),Idonotconceiveofaffectaslocatedwithinthedomainofthepsychic,thecognitive,orthesubjective;itisnot,therefore,tiedtotropesofinteriority.Massumi(2002)arguesthataffectisdistinctfromfeeling(thedomainofindividualsubjectivity)andemotion(thedomainofthesocialandthelinguistic).DrawingontheworkofC.S.Peirce,affectcanbedescribedintermsofabduction–asenseofintensitythatexistspriortoitscapturebylanguage.Mediacreateintersectionalitiesofaffectandsocialstructurationbyenablingthecirculationofaffectwithinandacrosscommunities.Insuchinstances,affectisgeneratedandmobilisedbytransnationalmediatoproducewebsofrelationalitybetweensubjects(seeAhmed2004:119forasimilardiscussion).Putanotherway,affectiveeconomies(toborrowthetermfromAhmed2004)generatedbymassmediaenablethesuturingofindividualsintointerpretivecommunities.Atthesametime,asweknow,theseinterpretivecommunitiesareneitherhomogeneousnormonolithicandare,instead,oftenrifewithinternalhierarchiesanddifferencesbasedonsocio-economicstatus,gender,sexualorientation(tonameafew).AsIwillarguebelow,anyanalysisofmedia-generatedformsofaffectmust,hence,tracehowaffectiveeconomiesarticulatewithprevailingsocialformationsandaxesofpower.Ahmedetal.pointoutthat‘Theaffectivityofhomeisboundupwiththetemporalityofhome,withthepast,thepresent,andthefuture.Ittakes

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:150145–158150PurnimaMankekartimetofeelathome.Forthosewhohavelefttheirhomes,anostalgicrelationtoboththepastandhomemightbecomepartofthelivedrealityinthepresent’(2003:9).Bygeneratingandcirculatingarangeofaffectiveeconomies,mobilemediafrequentlyblurtheboundariesbetweenlocationandmigration,stasisandmovement,homelandanddiaspora.2MedialikeBollywoodcinemaandsatellitetelevisionenablethereterritorialisationofspacethroughtheconstructionofaphantasmicIndiawhichcannot,ultimately,belocatedinaspecificplace.Asanextra-geographicentity,thisphantasmicconstructionofIndiaisinscribedwithparticularkindsofaffect.Bollywoodcinema,forinstance,participatesintheconstitutionofhomelandanddiasporabygeneratingarangeofaffectspanningnostalgiaandlonging,aswellasdisaffection,alienation,and,attimes,antagonism–asinthecaseofminoritiesplacedatthemarginsofIndiannation-state.Forinstance,afamilyofSikhswithwhomIworkedcloselyduringmyfieldworkinNewDelhiwereunequivocalabouthowalienatedtheyfeltfromsomeofBollywood’sportrayalsof‘Indiantradition’.Speaking,inparticular,ofthe1990sblockbusterHumAapkeHainKaun(dir.SoorajBarjatya,1994),asagaofanupper-classfamilyoforthodoxHindus,theyinsistedthatBollywoodcinemaparticipatedintheconflationofIndianandHinduculturebyrepresentingHindutraditions,rituals,andcustomsasquintessentiallyIndian.FilmslikeHumAapkeHainKaunindexedtothemtheirlocationatthemarginsoftheHindu/Indiannation,andreinforcedtheirsenseofalienationanddisaffection.Hereagainweseetherelationshipbetweenmobilemediaandthelocationofparticularsocialsubjects.SeveralofmyinformantsintheSanFranciscoBayArea,includingthosewhofeltextremelyantagonistictowardstheIndiannation-state,describedhowwatchingIndiantelevisionprogrammesonsatellitetelevisionenabledthemtofeelconnectedwithIndia.Watchingtheseprogrammesproducedmemoriesof‘thehomeland’shotthroughwithacomplexrangeofaffectthatwas,inturn,shapedbytheirsociallocations.Insomecases,watchingsatellitetelevisionwassuffusedwithlonging;forinstance,onewomanclaimedthatshesubscribedtosatellitetelevisionbecause‘itbringsIndiaintomyhomeinCalifornia’.However,incontextswherememoriesofIndiawerepainful,asinthecaseofanotherwomanwholeftIndiainordertofleethehomophobiaofherfamilyandcommunity,satellitetelevisionenabledhertofeelanentirelydifferentkindofaffectiveconnection–thistime,ofambivalenceshotthroughwithrelief–withtheIndiashehad‘leftbehind’.Theaffectiveeconomiescreatedbysatellitetelevisioninflectedthesediasporicsubjects’experiencesoftemporalityintermsofhowtheyrememberedthepast,livedinthepresent,andimaginedthefutureand,insodoing,forgedlinksbetweenthepast,contemporaneity,andfuturity.Mediaplayacriticalroleinprocessesofemplacement.Mediareworkplacethroughaffectand,tothisextent,makespacesintoparticularkindsofplaces(cf.GuptaandFerguson1997;seealsoMassey1993).

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:151145–158Mediaandmobilityinatransnationalworld151Muchhasbeenwrittenabouthowmediarepresentthehomelandtodiasporicsubjects.However,Iamequallyinterestedinhowmediarepresentand,tothisextent,constitute‘theforeign’asaparticularkindofplaceforviewersresidinginIndia.Iturn,onceagain,totheexampleofBollywood.ThereisalongtraditionofrepresentingtheforeigninBollywoodfilms–eitherasmise-en-scèneforromanticfantasyorasthesettingforstoriesaboutthelivesofIndianssettledabroad.IntheBollywoodimaginary,Londonhasoftenbeenrepresentedasthelocusoftheforeignand,morespecifically,ofvilayat.Thus,althoughSwitzerland,France,theUnitedStatesandnow,increasingly,AustraliaandNewZealandhavebecomesettingsforthe‘picturisation’ofromanticsongs,LondonhashistoricallybeenthelocationofchoiceforstoriesaboutthelivesofexpatriateIndians.Inmanyofthesefilms,LondonisusuallyrepresentedasaplacepeopledbyotherIndians.But,perhapsmoreimportant,itistheplacewheretheclashbetween‘Indian’and‘Western’culture(symbolisingtraditionandmodernityrespectively)isstaged.Inrecentfilms,however,Londonhasbeendepictednotonlyasthestageforthebattlebetweentraditionandmodernity,EastandWest,buthasalsobecomeaplacewhereIndianscan(anddo)livewiththesupremeconfidenceofthosewhoarenolongerbystandersbutareparticipantsinthenewglobalisedeconomy.Hence,inBollywoodfilmsaboutIndianslivingin‘theWest’,Londonand,morerecently,NewYorkbecomespecifickindsofplaces.Thisisparticularlythecaseinfilmsmadeaftertheearly1990s,whentheIndianeconomywas‘liberalised’.Thesepost-1990sfilmsarenoteworthyinhowtheyrepresenttherelationshipbetweentravelandmobility,ontheonehand,andcultureandnationalidentityontheother.Inyearspast,IndianswholivedabroadweredepictedinBollywoodfilmassomehowlessauthentic,lessIndianthanthoselivinginIndia;theywererepresentedeitherintermsof‘braindrain’orabetrayaloftheirhomeland.Afterthe1990s,whentheIndianstateconstructedanewcategoryofidentityforupper-classIndianssettledabroad,thatoftheNon-ResidentIndian,orNRI,Bollywoodcinema’sportrayalsofexpatriateIndianschangedsubtlybutprofoundly.Insteadofbeingculturallyimpureorinauthentic,theNRIsofmanyofthesefilmsweredepictedasmoreauthentic,moreIndianthaneventheircompatriotsinIndia.ThefilmthatspearheadedthischangeintheportrayalofNRIswasDilwaleDulhaniyaLeJayenge,orDDLJ,asitisknownamongEnglish-speakingIndians(Mankekar1999).InDDLJ,asinmanyothersuchfilms,NRIsweredepictedasmaleandupper-class,withthecapitaltoinvestinIndia.Notonlydothesefilmsrepresenttheexperiencesofthosewhotravelbut,inamoreprofoundway,theyconstitutetheexperienceoftravelthroughtheirdepictionofthelivesof(selectsegmentsof)IndiansresidingintheWest.Itisalsoimportanttonotethatthesefilmshaveanenormousmarketamongaudiencesallovertheworld–inmanywaystheyrepresentthediasporatoitself.But,asmyinterviewswithseveralyoungmenandwomen

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:152145–158152PurnimaMankekarintheSanFranciscoBayAreaindicate,thesefilmsalsoconstitutetheexperienceofbeingindiasporabyprovidingtheseviewerswithalanguage,adiscourse,amodeofrepresentingtheirownstruggles,aspirations,andidentities.Thus,forinstance,inthewordsofoneSouthAsianfanofBollywoodcinemathatIinterviewed,DDLJenabledherto‘see,clearly,howasanimmigrantIhavetocopewithintergenerationalconflict’.ThisyoungwomanwasnotaloneinarticulatinghowBollywoodfilmslikeDDLJliterallyproduceaparticularvisionoftheirsubjectpositionsassecond-generationimmigrantsintheUnitedStates.Assuggestedbythesediscourses,filmslikeDDLJenabledthemtoexperiencebeingindiasporalargelyintermsofintergenerationalconflict(ratherthanbytheirpositionalitiesalongaxesofclass,race,gender,orsexuality).Moreover,thetextsofmobilemediathemselvesbecomespacesofintimatehabitationformanypeoplewhodonotphysicallymove.Insuchinstances,mobilemediaforgepracticesofimaginativetraveland,thereby,participateinprocessesofworld-makingbyenablingviewersandspectatorstoinhabitworldsthatare,atonce,phantasmicandintimate.Thus,forexample,despitethefactthattheyhadneversetfootoutsideIndia,severalofmyinformantsinNewDelhicouldimaginativelynavigatethestreetsofLondon(or,forthatmatter,NewYorkCity)throughtheirconsumptionoffilmsaboutIndiansabroad.Totheextentthattheyenablesubjectstoinhabitotherworldsandexperienceotherformsofexistence,theseformsofimaginativetravelareneithermarginalnorepiphenomenaltotheconstitutionofsubjectivity.FormanyyoungmenandwomenthatIworkedwithinNewDelhi,mediaalsoplayedacrucialroleinincitingthedesiretotravel.Transnationalmassmedia,suchastelevisionshowsproducedinIndiaandabroad,films,advertisements,andtheinternetgeneratedarangeoffantasiesabout‘lifeintheWest’,andplayedacrucialroleinproducingintheseyoungmenandwomenthedesiretotrytogoabroadinsearchofabetterlife,upwardmobility,financialsecurity,oramorecosmopolitanlifestyle.Someofmylowermiddle-classandmiddle-classinformantswishedtomoveoverseastomakealifeforthemselves,inlargepartbecausetheyweredrivenbytheirdesiretoacquirethecommoditiestheysawflashingontheirtelevisionscreens,onbillboardsalloverthenewlyconfiguredlandscapesofNewDelhi,andinfilms.For,eventhoughcommoditieshadbeguntofloodtheIndianmarketaftertheliberalisationoftheIndianeconomy,mostofmyinformantsbelievedthatthecommoditiestheysoferventlydesiredwouldbemorereadilyaccessibleintheWest:intheirfantasiesofupwardmobilitythroughtravel,thesecommoditiesbecameiconsof(aneasier,happier,moresuccessfuland,attimes,moreglamorous)lifeintheWest.AsAppaduraipointsout,‘theimages,scripts,models,andnarrativesthatcomethroughmassmediation(initsrealisticandfictionalmodes)makethedifferencebetweenmigrationtodayandinthepast.Thosewhowishtomove,thosewhohavemoved,thosewhowishtoreturn,andthosewhochooseto

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:153145–158Mediaandmobilityinatransnationalworld153stayrarelyformulatetheirplansoutsidethesphereofradioandtelevision,cassettesandvideos,newsprintandtelephone’(1996:6).MobilityandthepoliticsofmobilityAsDoreenMassey(1994)andseveralotherfeministscholarshavepointedout,mobilitythroughspaceisshapedbylargersocialfields.3Forone,thephysicalmobilityofindividualsandcommunitiesismediatedbytheirlocationsalongaxesofclass,gender,sexuality,race,nationaloriginand,nowinthepost-9/11world,religiousaffiliation.Furthermore,statesremaincrucialregulatorsofthemobilityofpeoples,commoditiesand,perhapstoalesserextent,ofcapital.Additionally,asweknow,evenwhensocialandpoliticalfactorsareproductiveofmobility,theyarenotalwayssoinwaysthatareempoweringorliberatorybut,instead,mightevenbeviolentorcoercive–asinthecaseofeconomicrefugeesfleeingthestructuralviolenceofpovertyandinequality,politicalrefugeesandasylumseekerswhosemobilityisproducedbythecoercivepowerofstates,aswellasthosefleeingmoreintimateformsofviolencesuchasdomesticviolence,homophobia,orsexualassault.Insuchinstances,themobilityofindividualsandcommunitiesisameasurenotoftheirempowermentbutoftheirdislocationordisplacement(Clifford1997;Mankekar1994).Theimaginativetravelengenderedbymediaisalsoinflectedbyrelationsofpower.Ourcapacitytoimagine,eventofantasise,isshapedbyourstructurallocationsinsocialfields.AlthoughIremainscepticalofthesuggestionthatthesocialroleoftheimaginationisuniquetothecontemporaryera,IdrawhereonArjunAppadurai’sground-breakingconceptualisationoftheimaginationasasocialpractice.Appaduraipointsoutthat‘theimaginationhasbecomeanorganisedfieldofsocialpractices,aformofwork(inthesenseofbothlaborandculturallyorganisedpractice),andaformofnegotiationbetweensitesofagency(individuals)andgloballydefinedfieldsofpossibility…’(1996:31).Therefore,againstthenotionoftheunfetteredimagination,Ilocateitfirmlywithinthesocius:howandwhatweimagineisshapedbyourstructurallocationswhich,inturn,refractthediscursivehorizonsofourimagination.Herewesee,onceagain,thattheculturalworkofmobilemediaisrefractedbyourlocationsinparticularsocialfields.4Mediahavealsoenabledanewformofmigrationforsomerecententrantsintotheglobaleconomy.PreliminaryresearchconductedbyAkhilGuptaandmyselfwithyoungmenandwomenemployedintheinformationtechnologyindustryinIndiasuggestthemyriadwaysinwhichmediaplayacentralroleinthecreationofnewkindsoflabouring(andfantasising)subjects.Theseyoungmenandwomen,whohaillargelyfrommiddle-classfamiliesincitiesandsmalltowns,frequentlyworkformultinationalcompaniesthatoutsourcetheircustomercaredepartmentstocallcentresandbusinessprocessingoutsourcingindustries(BPOs)

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:154145–158154PurnimaMankekarinIndia.TheseworkersaretrainedtoactasiftheyliveandworkintheWest–ostensibly,sotheycanbetterservetheirWesternclients.Hollywoodfilms,televisionshows,andothermediaproducedintheWestarecentralcomponentsoftheir‘training’astheyaretaughttotakeonnotonlyWesternnames–sothatNanditamightbecomeNancy,andAbhijitbecomesAlex–but,equallyimportant,toadoptWestern(usuallyAmerican)accentsandwaysofspeaking.(TheseimpersonationsofNancysandAlexesareprimarilydesignedtostaveoffconcernsamongclientslivingintheWestaboutthesupposedlynegativeeffectsofoutsourcingonthenationaleconomiesoftheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKingdom.)Inthesecontexts,mediaenableanewformoftraveltermed‘virtualmigration’(Aneesh2006).Thecirculationofsignsenabledbymediaplaysacriticalroleinnotjustproducingbutalsoconstrainingmobility.Intheaftermathofthetragiceventsthatwenowmemorialiseas‘11September2001’,mediahavebeencentrallyimplicatedintheproliferationofthesemioticsoffearandhatethroughthetransnationalcirculationofthesemioticchainMuslim/Islamicfundamentalist/jehadi.ThesemioticslippagefromMuslimtomilitantjehadihasbecomeubiquitousthroughitstravelsbackandforthacrosstheworld.ThischainofsignifiershastakenonalifeofitsownasitcirculatesviatransnationalmediabetweenIndia,wherethemilitantjehadiismaterialisedintheformoftheKashmirimilitantortheMuslimfundamentalist,andtheUnitedStates,inthepersonoftheAlQuaidaterrorist.ThetransnationalcirculationofthisclusterofsignshasfacilitatedtheimmobilityofMuslims(andthoseperceivedtobeMuslim)inmanypartsofthenon-Muslimworld–rangingfromdeportationsandincarcerationsandrestrictionsontravelbyso-calledrandomchecksatairportstotheconstraintsexperiencedbymostofMuslims,Sikhs,andothersperceivedasMuslimwhonowfeelimprisonedbythethreatofracialandxenophobicviolence.Conclusion:theorisingmediainaworldofmovementIwouldliketosumupbyreflectingonhowwemaytheorisemediainaworldofmovement.AsInoteabove,theorisingmediaentailsunpackingtherelationshipbetweenmobiletexts,ontheonehand,andsocio-politicalprocessesofemplacementanddisplacementontheother.Ihavebeenconcernedwithhowmediaparticipateinourexperienceoftimeaswellasspace,place-makinganddisplacement,andinshapingfantasiesaswellasitinerariesoftravel.Althoughglobalinterconnectionsareneithernewnorunprecedented,thespeedatwhichimages,texts,capital,andpeoplecurrentlytravelrepresentsshiftsthatarequantitativeaswellasqualitative.Oneimportantqualitativeshiftstemsfromtheubiquityanddensitycharacterisingthecirculationofmass-mediatedtextsandimagesaroundtheworld(Appadurai1996;

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:155145–158Mediaandmobilityinatransnationalworld155Hannerz1996).Atthesametime,inmanycontextscapital,texts,andimagesmovefasterthanpeople,thushighlightingtheunevenspeedatwhichglobaltrafficoccurs(Grewaletal.1999:655).Asarguedabove,transnationalmediasuchasfilm,video,andtheinternetplayacrucialroleinnotjustrepresentingbutinconstitutingtheexperienceoftravel,migra-tion,and‘dwelling-in-travel’(Clifford1997)–bothforthosewhomove,aswellasforthosewhodonot.Grewaletal.arguethat‘Transnationalismcannotbechartedinaunitaryanddefinitivefashion’(1999:653).Byfocusingonthecirculationoftelevisionprogrammes,films,commodities,images,andtextsbetweenIndiaandtheUnitedStatesIreversedominantnotionsofthetransnational,accordingtowhichcommodities,texts,andimages‘flow’fromtheWesttotherestoftheworld.Thus,Indiaemergesnotasa‘local’siteforthereceptionofmassmedia,butasanodewheretransnationalpublicculturesarebothproducedandconsumed.Furthermore,mobilemediaconstitutehomelandanddiasporanotasbinaryoppositesbutasmutuallyimbricated.Diasporaissometimesconceivedastransgressingorexceedingtheboundariesofthenation-stateand,tothisextent,problematisingconceptionsofnationalbelonging.Yet,wheretransnationalmediagenerateandcirculatelongingandnostalgiaasnationalistaffect,theymay,forsomediasporicsubjects,reinscribethenationasphantasmicfetish:asseveraldiasporicnationalismshaveshownus,nationalistaffectisparticularlypotentwhenexperiencedataphysicaldistancefromimagined/imaginaryhomelands.Hence,thewebsofaffectgeneratedbytransnationalmediasuggestthatdiasporaisneitherinevitably‘post-national’nordoesitnecessarilyunderminehegemonicconceptionsofthesingularityofnationalistidentity.Engagingtherelationshipbetweenmediaandmobilityentailsnotonlyunpackingthebinaryofhomelandversusdiasporabut,also,arethinkingoftherelationshipbetweenmovementandstasis,mobilityandlocation.I’vebeeninterestedintheroleofmediainshaping,ifnotproducing,differentformsofmobility:thephysicalmovementofindividualswithinandacrossnationalborders;themovementofcommodities,texts,images,andcapital;theimpersonationsand‘virtualmigration’ofyoungmenandwomeninNewDelhiastheyinteractwithclientsabroad;andtheimaginativetravelofthosewho,ostensibly,‘stayput’butareabletoinhabitmilieuxandworldsatadistance.Furthermore,asnotedabove,mediaalsoparticipateintheconstrainingofmovement.Inthepost-9/11era,transnationalmediahaveparticipatedintheproliferationofthesemioticsoffearbyfacilitatingthecirculationofthesignoftheterrorist,resultinginthephysicalandsymbolicincarcerationformanycommunities.SeveralSikhs,Muslims,andthoseperceivedasMuslim/MiddleEasternhavebeenhamperedintheirmobilitybecauseofthehostilitygeneratedthroughmedia-generatedspectaclesofterror.Thecontainmentoftheirmobilityhasbeenenacted,inlargepart,bythecirculationofsignsthathavebeengenerativeofspecifickindsofaffectsuchasfearandhate.

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:156145–158156PurnimaMankekarDespiteallthehyperboleaboutthehypermobilityofmodernandpostmodernsubjects,whilesomeformsofmovementhavebeenaccelerated,othersmayhavebecomeincreasinglycircumscribed.For,iftransnationalityisaboutthetransgressionofnationalbordersandsovereignties,itisalsoaboutthereinstatementofotherkindsofboundariesandgovernmentalities.Andiftransnationalityisaboutthedizzyingcircuitsconstitutedbythemovementofcapital,texts,andcommodities,itisalsoabouttheformationofcertainkindsofsubjectswhoareresolutelylocatedinaparticularplaceandaparticulartime.Astheyparticipateintheconstructionofdesireandidentityinthefaceofparticularregimesofpower,themostmobileofmediaareembeddedincontextsofbothlocationanddislocation,anddisplacementandemplacement.Notes1Iwillelaborateontherelationshipbetweenmediaandaffectshortly.2Althoughtheydonotdirectlyaddressaffect,theworkofGopinath,Naficy,Niranjana,andShuklamayalsobeminedforinsightsintotheaffectiveconnectionsformedthroughmedia.3Studiesofmobilitymust,necessarily,beconnectedwiththefraughthistoriesoftravel(andlocationanddisplacement)incontextsofcolonialismandimperialism(see,forinstance,theworkofKaplan1996andGrewal1996).4Similarly,psychoanalytictheorists,rangingfromFreud,toLacan,toLaplancheandPontalisandŽižek,alsostressthesociopyschicbasesoffantasy:farfrombeingunanchoredinthesocial,ourfantasiesareshapedbysociallogics.AsAnneAllisonpointsout,‘fantasyisnotmereorrandomescapistfantasy,asthetermisoftenusedcolloquially,butratherisconstitutedinrelationshiptothespecificmilieusinwhichpeopleliveandtowhichtheyreferevenwhenconstructingimaginaryworlds…’(2000:124–5).Hence,ratherthanspeakofmass-mediatedfantasyastranscendingthesocial,itmakesmoresensetoconceiveoffantasyasprovidingthoroughlysocialmodesoflivingandexperiencingtheworld.BibliographyPrintAllison,Anne(2000)PermittedandProhibitedDesires:Mothers,Comics,andCensorshipinJapan.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Allison,Anne(2002)PermittedandProhibitedDesires:Mothers,Comics,CensorshipinJapan.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Ahmed,Sara(2004)‘Affectiveeconomies’,SocialText79,22(2):117–39.Ahmed,SaraClaudiaCastaneda,Fortier,Anne-MarieandSheller,Mimi(eds)(2003)‘Introduction:uprootings/regroundings:questionsofhomeandmigration’,inSaraAhmed,ClaudiaCastaneda,Anne-MarieFortier,andMimiSheller(eds)Uprootings/Regroundings:QuestionsofHomeandMigration.London:Berg.Aneesh,A.(2006)VirtualMigration:theProgrammingofGlobalization.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:157145–158Mediaandmobilityinatransnationalworld157Appadurai,Arjun(1996)ModernityatLarge:CulturalDimensionsofGlobalization.MinneapolisMN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Appadurai,ArjunandBreckenridge,Carol(1988)‘Whypublicculture?’PublicCulture1(1):5–9.Clifford,James(1997)Routes:TravelandTranslationinthelateTwentiethCentury.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.Deleuze,GillesandGuattari,Felix(1987)AThousandPlateaus:CapitalismandSchizophrenia,trans.BrianMassumi.MinneapolisMN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Ghosh,Amitav(1992)InanAntiqueLand.London:GrantaBooks.GlickSchiller,Nina,Basch,LindaandSzantonBlanc,Cristina(1994)NationsUnbound:TrasnationalProjects,PostcolonialPredicaments,andDeterritorializedNation-states.NewYork:Gordon&Breach.Grewal,Inderpal(1996)HomeandHarem:Nation,Gender,EmpireandCulturesofTravel.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.Grewal,Inderpal,Gupta,AkhilandOng,Aihwa(1999)‘Introduction:Asiantransnationalities:media,markets,andmigration’,Positions7(3):653–66.Gupta,AkhilandFerguson,James(1997)Culture,Power,Place:ExplorationsinCriticalAnthropology.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.Hall,Stuart(2000)‘Encoding/Decoding’,inPaulMorrisandSueThornton(eds)MediaStudies:aReader.NewYork:WashingtonSquarePress.Hannerz,Ulf(1996)TransnationalConnections:Culture,People,Places.London:Routledge.Harvey,David(1989)TheConditionsofPostmodernity:anEnquiryintotheOriginsofCulturalChange.Oxford:Blackwell.Ivy,Marilyn(1995)DiscoursesoftheVanishing:Modernity,Phantasm,Japan.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Kaplan,Caren(1996)QuestionsofTravel:PostmodernDiscoursesofDisplacement.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.Kaplan,Caren(2003)‘Transportingthesubject:technologiesofmobilityandlocationinaneraofglobalization’,inSaraAhmed,ClaudiaCastaneda,Anne-MarieFortier,andMimiSheller(eds)Uprootings/Regroundings:QuestionsofHomeandMigration.London:Berg.Mankekar,Purnima(1994)‘Reflectionsondiasporicidentities:aprolegomenontoananalysisofpoliticalbifocality’,Diaspora3(3):349–71.Mankekar,Purnima(1999)‘Brideswhotravel:gender,transnationalism,andnationalisminHindifilm’,Positions7(3):731–61.Mankekar,Purnima(2000)ScreeningCulture,ViewingPolitics:anEthnographyofTelevision,Womanhood,andNationinPostcolonialIndia.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.Mankekar,PurnimaandSchein,Louisa(2004)‘Introduction:mediatedtransnationalismandsocialerotics’,JournalofAsianStudies63(2):357–65.Massey,Doreen(1993)‘Powergeometryandaprogressivesenseofplace’,inJonBirdetal.(eds)MappingtheFutures:LocalCultures,GlobalChange.London:Routledge.Massey,Doreen(1994)Space,Place,andGender.MinneapolisMN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

[12:099/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch09.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:158145–158158PurnimaMankekarMassey,Doreen(1999)‘Imaginingglobalization:power-geometriesoftime-space’,inAvtarBrahetal.(eds)GlobalFutures:Migration,Environment,andGlobalization.London:Macmillan.Massumi,Brian(2002)ParablesfortheVirtual:Movement,Affect,Sensation.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.Morley,DavidandRobins,Kevin(1995)SpacesofIdentity:GlobalMedia,ElectronicLandscapesandCulturalBoundaries.NewYork:Routledge.Naficy,Hamid(1993)TheMakingofExileCultures:IranianTelevisioninLosAngeles.MinneapolisMN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Ong,Aihwa(1999)FlexibleCitizenship:theCulturalLogicsofTransnationality.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.FilmDilwaleDulhaniyaLeJayenge(1995)AdityaChopra,director.YashrajFilms.HumAapkeHainKaun(1994)SoorajR.Barjatya,director.RajshriProductions.

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:159159–176PartIIISpectacleandtheself

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:160159–176

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:161159–17610FormandpowerinanageofcontinuousspectacleNickCouldryTherewasatimewhenitwasimpossibletosayanythingsubstantiveinmediaresearchwithoutlaunchingintoanexhaustivediscussiononAlthusserorLacan.Thattimeofcompulsorytheorisingisover,tothereliefofmany,butthatdoesnotmeanmediaresearch’srelationtotheoryisnowhealthy.Onthecontrary,contemporarymediaresearchtendseithertooperateinatheory-freezoneorinisolatedcapsulesoftheorysaturation–Deleuzian,Manovichian,andsoon–unconnectedeithertoeachotherortoanywiderspaceofdebate.Tochangemetaphors,welurchedinthelate1990sfromanall-nightpartyoftheoreticalexcesstofindourselvesatdawnina‘post-theory’desertwhereeventheeffortofaskingwhyweneedtheory,andhowwemightcomparetherelativemeritsofcompetingtheories,seemedbeyondus.Luckilythisbook’seditorsaredeterminedtoprodusbackintoalertness.Thestakes–bothformediaresearchandforwidersocialtheory–arehigh,indeedtheyhaverarelybeenhigher.Itmatterswhatcountsas‘good’mediatheoryinanerawhenmedialogicsareevermorecloselyembeddedintheeverydaystuffofpoliticsandwheneverydaypoliticsseemsevermorecloselydependentonthestrategicuseofspectaclebymanyactors(notonlystates)inaglobalsphereofconflictwhoseinstabilitiesthreatenusall.Thepoint,however,isnottoconstructlarge-scaletheoreticalsystemsinParsonianstyleortoconjureuptotalitiesandtreatthemasiftheywererealasinHardtandNegri’sprovocativebutultimatelyunhelpfulworkEmpire(2001).AsPierreBourdieuandStuartHallhavebothargued,1theoryisusefulonlyifthroughitsrelativegeneralityitenablesustoengagebetterwiththeparticular,thatis,forbettertoolswithwhichtopractiseoursuspiciontowardstotalisingclaims,whetherbyacademics,politicians,ormediaexecutives.Itishere–inourchoiceoftheoreticaltools–thatsomedifficultchoicesmustbemade,whenweconsidertheentanglementoftoday’smediaformswithpower.ThemainchoiceIwanttodiscussisbetweenActorNetworkTheory(ANT)andritualanalysesofmedia,usingFoucault’saccountof‘theorderofdiscourse’,briefly,asabridgebetweenthem.ActorNetworkTheory–andthe‘associology’thathasrecentlyemergedfromit–forallitspotential

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:162159–176162NickCouldryinsightintomediaprocesses,lacks,Iwillargue,aninterestinquestionsofsocialandmediaform,andsofailstodeliveronDorothySmith’sambition(1987:8–9)forasociologythat‘willlookbackandtalkback’tothedeterminantsofeverydaylife.Mypointwillbenottodefendmyowntheoryofmedia’sritualdimen-sionsindetail–forthatreaderscanlookatmypreviouswork(Couldry2003a)–buttodefendthetypeoftheoreticalchoiceitrepresentsinanswertoourtaskofunderstandingmediapower.Atthis‘metatheoretical’levelIwantalsotomakemoreexplicitsomephilosophicalunderpinningsoftheantipathytowardscertainrhetoricsof‘thesocial’thatrunsthroughmyworkonmediarituals.Thatwillleadmebacktobroadersocialtheory,andtothreeformsofscepticismaboutthenotionof‘society’–thoseofLatourandLaclauandthescepticismIfind,againstthegrain,inthecriticalrealismofRoyBhaskar.Iwillargueforpreferringthethirdoverthefirsttwo.Inconclusion,Irecalltheglobalpoliticalcontextinwhichourchoicesabouttheorycometomatter.Letmesayawordabouttheword‘spectacle’inmytitle.Iuseittorefertothosethingswhichincontemporarysocietiesweareencouragedtoviewinlargenumbersandinviewingparticipateinanactofrepresentativesignificance.Everyerahashaditsdistinctivespectaclesbutmodernmediamakeadecisivebreakinthehistoryofspectacle(Thompson1995:134):whereasthespectacleoftheoldroyalcourtswas‘representative’onlybyvirtueofthehighstatusofitsperformersandimmediateaudience,therepresentativenessofcontemporaryspectacleisinseparablefromitsdisseminationtolargeanddistantmediaaudiences.‘Continuousspectacle’inmytitlepointstotheintertextualandtemporalintensitybywhichcontemporarymediaspectaclecreates,orappearstocreate,a‘mediaworld’forourattention.ThisisnottodenyNicholasMirzoeff’spointthatwealsoliveinanageof‘anti-spectacle’whichonpainfultopicssuchaswarandprisons‘dictatesthatthereisnothingtosee,andthatinsteadonemustkeepmoving,keepcirculatingandkeepconsuming’(Mirzoeff2005:16).Wecan,however,restateMirzoeff’spointbyadaptingJonathanCrary’s(1999)terminology:alongwithnew‘regimesofattention’comenew‘regimesofinattention’,therelationsbetweenthetwobeingimportant.Noneofthiscontradictsthemorebasicpointthatmediacontributecruciallytopowerinanageofcontinuousspectacle;indeed,thestructuredrelationsbetweenregimesofattention/inattentionsuggestthatfromourinvolvementswithspectacleemergesocialformsofconsiderablesignificance.IwillreturntothispointwhenIdiscussritual,butfirstIwanttolookatthingsfromaverydifferentangle,thatofnetworks.ThelimitsofActorNetworkTheoryMyquestionissimple:howbesttotheorise–makebroadercausal,notincidental,senseof–howmediaactinandontheworld.Thereare,

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:163159–176Formandpowerinanageofcontinuousspectacle163ofcourse,mediaspecialistsinterestedinmediatextsfortheirownsakebutthatapproachisorientedbyverydifferentepistemologicalconcerns.Wearediscussinghereonlymediaresearchforwhichsocialtheoryisatleastinprinciplesalient.Approachestomediaformedwithintheparadigmofliterarycriticismarenotrelevant.IbeginwithANT,partlybecauseitwasimportanttomewhenIwasstartingdownthepathofmediatheoryinthemid-1990s.AtthetimeIjustcouldn’tseehowtheclassicelementsofmediaresearch–thestudyofmediatexts,mediainstitutionsandtheinterpretationswemakeofthosetexts(vitalthoughtheyallare)–couldtogetherbeenoughtoexplaintheplaceofmediaincontemporarysocieties.Wehadalsosurelytoconfrontthequestionofbelief.Mediainstitutionshaveastheirmainassetsymbolicpower:aconcentrationofsymbolicresources–crudely,thepowertotellandcirculatestoriesabouttheworld–thatishistoricallyunprecedented.Butthatsymbolicpower,howevermuchitsinfrastructuredependsonconcentrationsofeconomicand/orstatepower,isnotreducibletothem.Itissustainedinpartthroughbelief,throughlegitimacy.Howcanthatlegitimacybereproducedexceptthroughastretched-outprocessthatencompassesnotjustceremonialmomentsbutthefullexpanseofdailylife?ThatwasthestartingpointofThePlaceofMediaPower(Couldry2000).And,althoughIdrewonvariousinspirations–thelateRogerSilverstone’s(1981)workonmythandtelevision,StuartHall’s(1973,1977)earlyworkonmedia–therewasoneessaywhichfreedthingsupformemorethananyother:MichelCallonandBrunoLatour’s‘UnscrewingthebigLeviathan’(1980).Theretheyshowedthatwecanunderstandaparticularnodeofpower–andsothesalienceofthegeneralaccountsoftheworldmadethroughit–notbyimaginingthatnode’spowertobeliterally‘big’(whichwouldbesimplytorepeatitsownrhetoric)butbytracingallthelocallinkagesthattogether,overtimeandunderparticularconditions,havegeneratedthesitefromwhichsuchclaimscancirculateonalargescale.Scale,CallonandLatoursay,isnotanaturalpropertyofsocialspace,butsomethingproducedbyparticularactors(using‘actors’,ofcourse,inthebroadsensecharacteristicofANTtoincludenon-humanactors).CallonandLatourweren’tthinkingofmediadirectlybackin1980,butthatdoesnotdiminishtherelevanceoftheirinsightsforunderstandingmedia’ssymbolicpower.Howbettertograsptheemergenceinthetwentiethcenturyoflegitimatemediainstitutionswhichderivesuchbroadauthoritytorepresenttheworldfromveryparticularandlocalprocessesofproductionanddecisionmaking?CallonandLatour’strackingofhowcertain‘obligatorypassingpoints’,astheyputit(1981:287),become‘black-boxed’openedupformeanewdemystifiedwayofthinkingaboutmediapower.ThisisjustthefirstofANT’smanyadvantagesformediaresearch.Newresearchonthelocaltelevisionnewsroom(Hemmingway2007),

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:164159–176164NickCouldryonlinepoker(AustrinandFarnsworth2006)andthetreatmentofaudienceparticipantsingameshowssuchasBlindDate(Teurlings2004)isopeningupimportantinsightsbybuildingonANT’sinterrogationofhownetworksarebuilt,andhowclaimsabouttheworldcometobe‘hard-wired’intoeverydaypractice.Ratherthandiscussthatnewwork,Iwant(schematically)tomakesomemoregeneralpointsaboutANT’susefulnessformediaresearch.First,ANT’sgeneralsuspiciontowards‘thesocial’encouragesustobeequallysuspiciousaboutmediainstitutions’claimstorepresent,orbeproxyfor,‘thesocial’:moreonthislater.Second,Latour’sanalysisofnetworks’relationtotheterritoriestheycovercapturesbeautifullywhythecomplexissuesofrepresentationraisedbymediaarealwaysmorethan‘textual’.For,asLatourputsitinWehaveNeverbeenModern,talkingabouttechnologicalnetworksgenerally:‘[they]arenetsthrownoverspaces,andretainonlyafewscatteredelementsofthosespaces.Theyareconnectedlines,notsurfaces’(1993:118).Somediatexts,thoughtheyoftenseemto‘cover’aterritoryintheirclaims,retainonly‘afewscatteredelements’ofthespacetheyrepresent:thisinsightisfundamentalforchallengingfunctionalistclaimsabouthowmediatextsrelateto‘society’.Theideathatmediamakeselectionsisofcoursefamiliar(asintheoriesofagendasettingorframing)butthemisleadingrelationshipbetweentheapparentcompletenessorsaturationofmediadiscourseandtheobjectsandworldswhichmediadescribesorshowsisperfectlyexpressedbyLatour’saphorism:mediadiscoursecrowdsoutthemoreparticularperspectivesfromwhichitstotalisingnaturecanbegraspedforwhatitis,justasanetappearsto‘cover’completelytheterritoryoverwhichitisstretched.Third,ANThighlightstheasymmetriesofrepresentationbuiltintonetworks,andthedifficultyofuncoveringandrenegotiatingthoseasymmetries.AsLatourandWoolgarputitinLaboratoryLife,‘theresultoftheconstructionofafactisthatitappearsunconstructedbyanyone’(1979:240,addedemphasis).Thisremainsavitalinsightintotheroleofconstructionsindailylife,evenifLatoursharplydistinguishesitfromsocialconstructionism(2005:90–1):luckilywedonotneedtopursuethatpointhere.Inalltheseways,ANTisaveryusefultoolforthinkingabout‘thefundamentalasymmetrybetweenshapersofeventsandconsumersofevents’(Hall1973:11)–anasymmetryofsymbolicpowerthatmediadonotsomuchcreate(ithaslonghistoricalroots)asdeepen,entrench,naturalise.ActorNetworkTheoryhelpsusthinkabouthowparticularasymmetriescomeintoexistence,andhowtheycometoremainlegitimateand(relatively)unchallenged.ActorNetworkTheoryisequallyusefulforthinkingabouthownewspacesofmediatedstory-tellingarebeinggenerated,perhapshard-wiredinto,everydaypracticebecauseofthenetworksofcirculationandattentiononwhichtheyrely:ANTaccountsforsuchspacesinawaythatdoesnotpresupposemedia’severydayworkings

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:165159–176Formandpowerinanageofcontinuousspectacle165mergeseamlesslyinto‘thesocial’.IfevernewphenomenaneededANTtodemystifyclaimsabout‘social’impactmadeonitsbehalfitisMySpaceandFacebook.But,likeanysetoftools,ANThaslimitations.First,whileitshareswithBourdieuanintensescepticismtowardsgeneralisednotionsofsocialspace,itislessablethanBourdieutomapoutthestableifcomplexrelationsbetweentherelativelyautonomousspacesofmaterialanddiscursiveproductionthatBourdieucalls‘fields’:seeCouldry(2003b)fordetail.Second,whileANTmayhelpusinthinkingabouthownewpracticesemergeinthenewsroom,ornewmediatedspacesonlineacquirethefeaturesofa‘territory’,ANTislessequipped,byitsveryinterestsandpreferences,tohelpusunderstandtheconsequencesoftherepresentationsthatmediagenerate–howtheywork,andareputintoeverydayuse.Thelatterproblemmayseemtrivial,givenhowmuchwehavealreadylearnedfromANT,butitisoffundamentalimportance.ThisbecomesclearwhenweconsiderLatour’shighlyrhetoricaldefenceofANTinReassemblingtheSocial(2005).LatourismoreinsistentherethanelsewherethatANTisacompletenewwayofdoingsociology(a‘sociologyofassociations’or‘associology’)whichinsomewaysreplacestheold‘sociologyof“thesocial”’–atleastinrelationtothemoreinterestingthingsgoingonintheworld.Latourconcedesold-stylesociologymightstillbeabletomakesenseoftheboringstuff,comparingittophysicsbeforerelativitytheory!TheproblemwiththesegranderclaimsisthattheyconflictwithANT’sradicallyreducedontology.InANTtherearethings,personsconceivedratherlikethings,andassociations.That’sit!ActorNetworkTheorylooks,veryacutely,athowassociationsareformedbetweenpersonsandthings(and,atabasiclevel,sustained)buthaslittleornothingtosayabouthowactorsinterpretorthinkaboutthepersistenceofsuchassociationsandtheinstitutionswhichresult,orhowactorsreflectontheirmutualrelationshipswitheachotherandthewiderspaceofnetworks.Theresultisthat,whenLatourdoescometodealwithinterpretationsinonesense–thetotalisinginterpretationsofthesocialworldhecalls‘panoramas’(somearetheoreticallikeBourdieu’sfieldtheory,buthealsomeanstheclaimsofmedia,politicians,andsoon)–hehaslittlesubstantialtosayaboutthem(2005:183–9).Hepointsout,followingANT’susualargument,thatsuchtotalisingclaimsabouttheworldareonlylocalconstructions–weneed,inmediaresearch,toholdontoANT’sradicalismhere–butoffersnowayofsortingoutgoodtotalisingconstructionsfrombadones,avitaltask,wemightthink,inanageofcontinuousmediaspectacle.‘Panoramas’forLatourareallinonesensewrong(becausetotalising)butallinanothersensepotentiallypositive,sincetheycontribute,hesays,toourpossibilitiesofthinkingonagenerallevelabouttheworld.Itishere,unwittingly(sincethebook’sconclusionshowsLatourwantstoguardagainstthischarge),that

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:166159–176166NickCouldryANT’spoliticalconservatismisrevealed.Letmequoteonepassageatlength:[panoramas’]rolemaybecomecentralsincetheyallowspectators,listenersandreaderstobeequippedwithadesireforwholenessandcentrality.Itisfromthesepowerfulstoriesthatwegetourmetaphorsforwhat‘bindsustogether’,thepassionswearesupposedtoshare,thegeneraloutlineofsociety’sarchitecture,themasternarrativeswithwhichwearedisciplined…so,nomatterhowmuchtheytrickus,[thesepanoramas]prepareusforthepoliticaltaskahead.(2005:189)What‘politicaltask’isthis?Theendofthebookrevealsittobenothingmorespecificthanlivingbettertogetherandkeepingoureyesopenforassociationsinandbetweenunexpectedplaces.Thisisfortunate,since,asLatour’sdiscussionofpanoramasreveals,ANThasnotoolstohelpustoseparategoodrepresentationsof‘society’or‘worldorder’frombadones,notoolstograsphowcertainrepresentationsandclaimsaboutourworldhaveaparticularrhetoricalandemotionalholdonus.Whynot?BecauseANTisatheoryofassociations,notatheoryofrepresentation.ActorNetworkTheoryisthereforeagnosticonmanyofthekeyissuesraisedbycontemporarymedia,butbydefault,andthisisadisablingpoliticalquietismthatisnolessfrustratingforbeingbuilt‘frombelow’ratherthanimposed(likeNiklasLuhmann’s)fromabove.2Theconsequenceisimmediate:sincemediaarepracticesofrepresentation,ANTcannoteveninprincipleofferacompleteaccountofwhatmediadointheworld.ActorNetworkTheorycannotgroundafullsociologyofmedia,howeverusefulandilluminatingits‘associology’.WhileLatourmaynotcareaboutthis,weasmediaresearchersmust.Aretherealternatives?Luckily,therearealternativepathsforusingsocialtheoryinmediaresearchnotconstrainedbytheself-imposedlimitsof‘associology’.Iwillspendmostofthissectionreflectingonwhatisatstakeinthe‘ritual’approachtomediadevelopedinmyworkandothers.FoucaultFirst,however,itisworthrecallingbrieflytheFoucauldianrootsofANT,whichhavebeenneglectedasaresourceforthinkingaboutmedia.Foucaultisimportantbecausehetakesusbacktothepropertiesofdiscourse–notignoringitsmaterialbaseinassociationsandinteractionswithobjects,butinananalysisnotrestrictedtothemerefactofthoseassociations.Foucaultwasnot,anymorethanCallonandLatour,focusingonmedia,butin

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:167159–176Formandpowerinanageofcontinuousspectacle167‘TheOrderofDiscourse’(1980)–his1970inaugurallectureattheCollègedeFrance–hediscussessomeverygeneral‘procedures’which‘permitthecontrolofdiscourse’.ItisamatterofbuildingontheprinciplesFoucaultestablishes.Hetalks,forexample,ofthe‘rarefactionofspeakingsubjects’(1980:61).Someformsofthisprinciplearelesscommon(theintenseritualisationofcertainspeechsettings,certainrestricted‘societiesofdiscourse’).ButFoucaultarguesthat,eveninanapparenteraofopendiscourse,therearehiddenrestrictionsbuiltintodiscourse’sinstitutionalisation.InonesenseFoucault’sinsightshavealreadybeenadoptedbyawholegenerationofdiscourseanalysis(forexample,Fairclough1995)butthereisstillsomethingexhilaratinginFoucault’sinsistenceonamaterialistanalysisofdiscourse,thatundercutstherhetoricofdiscoursesthemselvesandexplorestheconstraintsbuiltintovariousmediadiscourses.Bytherarefactionofspeakingsubjects,Foucaultmakesclear,hemeansnotjusttheliteralexclu-sionofparticularpeoplefromspeakingbutalso‘thegestures,behaviour,circumstances,andthewholesetofsignswhichmustaccompanydiscourse’(1980:62).Thereismorethanenoughheretoprovideaprovocativestartingpointforanalysingthegesturaluniverseofcelebrityculture.Andcrucially(unlikeANT)Foucaultdevelopshismaterialismintocloseattentiontothepatternsofdiscourseitself.‘Discourseanalysisunderstoodlikethis,’hewrites,‘doesnotrevealtheuniversalityofameaning,butbringstolighttheactionofimposedscarcity’(1980:73,addedemphasis):thatis,thescarcities,orlimitingrules,thatstructurethesurfaceofdiscourse.Suchscarcity,workingatthelevelofthecategoriesandexclusionsfromwhichauniversalisingdiscourseisbuilt,canbeuncoverednotbyagenerousreadingofthetext,butonlybyaninvestigationofitsconditionsofpossibility.Whatbetteradvicefordeconstructingthemediatedrhetoricsofnation,society,community,‘thefreeworld’,andsoon?RitualanalysisHavingbrieflyrecalledhowmuch(contraANT)wecanlearnaboutpower’sworkingswithindiscourse,Iwanttoreturntothequestionofsocialformraisedearlierviaworkonmedia’sritualdimensionswhichdrawsonDurkheim’saccountofthesocialoriginsofreligion.Thismovemightseemparadoxicalinthiscontext,sinceLatouratleastmakesitveryclearthatthesociologicaltraditionhewantstogetdistancefromispreciselytheDurkheimian(2005:8–9).Latour,however,ignoresthecostofthismove,whichistoputtoonesidethebeliefquestionsthatmediaraise,andtheirlinkstothelegitimacyofmediapower.Ritualanalysisenablesustoexplorethecultural‘thickenings’(Löfgren2001)aroundmediathataresoimportanttoitsauthority–‘thickenings’thatANT,asatheoryofassociation,notrepresentation,islesswellplacedtograsp.

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:168159–176168NickCouldryItisimportanttoemphasiserightawaythatritualanalysisisquitedifferentfromold-styleideologicalanalysis,foritispreciselythesimplenotionof‘belief’implicitinclassicMarxistideologicalanalysis(statementsexplicitlybelievedbypeople,yetfalse)thatanotionofritualpracticemovesbeyond.Ritualsworknotsomuchthroughthearticulation,evenimplicitly,ofbeliefs,asthroughtheorganisationandformalisationofbehaviourthat,byencodingcategoriesofthought,naturalisethem.AsPhilipElliottputit:‘totreatritualperformanceassimplystandingforpoliticalparadigmsistooversimplifyit.[Ritualperformance]alsoexpressesandsymbolisessocialrelationshipsandso,quiteliterally,mystifiesthem’(1982:168).Whilethismightsoundlikeclassic1980sideologicaldeconstruction,ElliotthereturnsbackfromcompleterelianceonStevenLukes’s(1975)deconstructionofpoliticalritualaspureideologyandacknowledgestheforceofDurkheim’stheoryofhowsocialorderismaintainedthroughtheembodimentsofritualpractice.AsElliottandmanyotherwritersfromDayanandKatztoMichelMaffesolihaveargued,thereremainssomethingverysuggestiveaboutDurkheim’saccountoftotemicceremoniesforunderstandingcontemporarypoliticalandmediarhetoric.ItisnotaquestionhereofrelyingonthehistoricalaccuracyofDurkheim’s(1995)accountoftotemicritual,orofacceptinghisclaimsabouttheoriginsofreligion.TheinteresttodayofDurkheim’sworkliesinseeinghowhisproto-structuralistanalysisof‘sacred’and‘profane’capturesageneralisablepatternwhichlinks(1)thosemomentswhenweare,orappeartobe,addressedasacollectivityand(2)certaincategoriesofthoughtwhichhaveanorganisingforceineverydayaction.Itisinthislimited–butIhopeprecise–sensethatIhaveborrowedfromDurkheimtobuildatheoryoftheritualdimensionsofmedia(Couldry2003a).Fromthisperspective,Durkheimcanstillteachusalotabouthowtointerpretthegeneralisedclaimsthatmediamakeaboutthesocialworld.Butfromthatrecognitionwecanheadoffintwoverydifferentdirections.Thefirstroute(the‘neo-Durkheimian’)arguesthatcontemporarymediareinstitute,throughelectronicmeans,theunityofthetotemicceremony(forexample,DayanandKatz1992).Thesecondapproach–morecompatibleperhapswithtoday’sgreaterscepticismtowardstotalisingrhetoricsof‘thesocial’–usesDurkheimmerelyasanentrypointtoapracticeofdeconstruction.AcceptingthatDurkheimdrawsourattentiontotheconstructionsencodedinritual–theclaimofmediatoinvokesocialorder,tostandinfor,andgiveusprivilegedaccessto,asocialtotality–thissecondapproachaimstodismantlethoseconstructions,drawingonanthropologicalinsightsabouttheorganisingroleofritualcategories,thenormativeforceofritualboundariesandtheexpressiveresonanceofritualpractice,whilerejectinganyassumptionthatritualreallyisthebasisofsocialorder.Indeed,thissecondapproachrejectstheverynotionof‘socialorder’asanormativeornecessarycategorywhileexaminingmorecloselythenaturalisationofcertainclaimstosocial

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:169159–176Formandpowerinanageofcontinuousspectacle169orderincontemporarysocieties.ThesecondapproachisdistinctbothfromANTandfromneo-Durkheimianfunctionalism:acknowledging(unlikeANT)thosemediarepresentationswhichmobiliselargeemotionsandencodelargeclaimsabout‘thesocial’throughtheirorganisationandformalpatterningbutontheotherhand(likeANT)refusingtotakesuchmediaformsatfacevalueandalwaysrememberingthematerialasymmetrieswhichmakethempossible.SensitisedtothepotencyofritualformbyDurkheim,butinspiredbyadeconstructivespiritclosertoFoucault,BourdieuorLaclau,thisapproachtomediapowerlookstomediarituals’formaldetailsasimportantsiteswherecontemporarypowerisencodedandnaturalised.AsMauriceBlochonceputit,ritualis‘theuseofformforpower’(1989:45).Becauseitfocusesondetailsofform,ritualanalysisdoneproperly(thatis,withasubstantiveratherthanpurelynominalconceptofritualaction)3givesusthetoolstotracepatternsnotjustinmediadiscoursebutalsoineverydayactionsorientedtowardsmedia.Itisvitaltoexplorethelinkagesbetweenthe‘specialmoments’ofmediarituals(thefinalnightofBigBrotheroraperson’sentryontothestageofJerrySpringer)andthewiderhinterlandofpracticeCatherineBell(1992)calls‘ritualisation’(forexample,practicesasbanalasflickingthroughacelebritymagazinewhileyouwaittogetyourhaircut).Therearemanytermsinplayinmediaritualisation:notjustcelebrity,buttheconstructedcategoriesof‘media’/‘ordinary’people,things,places,times(andsoon),andthecategoryof‘liveness’(whichindirectlyaffirmsthepriorityofdirectconnectionthoughmediatosocial‘reality’).Thisapproachismotivatednotbyaspecialinterestinritualorceremonyperse–thereisnoclaimherethatmediaritualsareemergentformsofsecularreligion!–butinsteadbyaconcernwiththewaysinwhichcertainclaimsof/tosocialorder(Wrong1994)arenaturalisedindiscourseandaction.Thesubtleeffectivenessofmediapower–theextraordinaryfactthatextremeconcentrationsofsymbolicresourcesinparticularinstitutionshaveremainedlegitimateforsolong–requirestheoreticaltoolsofsomesubtletyforitsanalysis.Ritualand,justasimportant,ritualisationarejusttwoofthosetools.Morebroadly,ritualanalysisprovidesanaccountofwhatBourdieucalled‘theproductionofbelief’thatlinksusbackintothelocalanddetailedprocessesfromwhicheventhelargestandgrandestmappingsofthesocialworldderive(rememberANT)whiledrawingusoutwardstoexplaintherepresentationsandformalisationsonwhichmuchpoliticalandculturalstagingrelies.ConsidertheLive8concertsinearlyJuly2005.Inthoseeventsquasi-politicalactors(currentandex-musicstars)orchestratedaprocessinwhichcitizenscouldplausiblyactoutparticipationinpoliticaldecisionmaking–somethingverydifferentfromthepoliticalspectacleMurrayEdelmandeconstructedtwodecadesago(1988)asideologicalrhetoricperformedatadistancefromaudiences.ThemoreparticipativeLive8eventsbringouthowritualanalysis–anattentionto‘subjunctive’

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:170159–176170NickCouldryor‘asif’languagethatisdrawnupon,howeverelliptically,inaction–cansupplementideologicalanalysis(importantthoughthelatterremainsofcourseinuncoveringtheexplicitdiscursivecontradictionsaroundsuchevents).OnlytheformercanexplainhowsomeoftheLive8marchers(asquotedbymedia)sawthemselvesasbeing‘partofthemessage’giventogovernmentsandasameansto‘force’changeintheverysamepoliticalestablishmentthat(intheUnitedKingdomatleast)hadalreadyendorsedthespectacleinwhichtheyacted!WereturnheretothedialecticbetweenattentionandinattentionthatInotedearlier.Atthispoint,givenourwideraimofexplainingsocialtheory’sroleinmediaanalysis,itisworthreflectingonwhatthetheoreticalterm‘ritual’addstothedescriptiveterm‘spectacle’.ThisemergesinmyonesmalldisagreementwithDougKellner’sexcellentandcourageousbookMediaSpectacles.Earlyoninthebook,whenintroducinghistopic,Kellnerwritesthat‘mediaspectaclesarethosephenomenaofmediaculturethatembodycontemporarysociety’sbasicvalues,servetoinitiateindividualsintoitswayoflife’(2003:2,addedemphasis).Butisthistrue?WhataretheseidealsandvaluesKellnertalksabout,andwhereistheevidencetheyaresosimplyacceptedandinternalisedbythoseoutsidemediaindustries?ThisisclearlyarhetoricalconcessionbyKellner,butwhyconcedeeventhatmuch?ThissmallpointlimitsKellner’scritiqueofcontemporaryspectacles:sinceKellner’sargumentstartsbytakingthenormativeforceofspectaclesforgranted,theonlypossibilityofpoliticalresistanceinoureramustbeformsofcounter-spectacle.ButIwouldwanttogofurtherandacknowledgeformsofresistancethatquestionthebasicprinciplesandpreconditionsofmediaspectacle,andtheinequalitiesandtotalisingrhetoricsonwhichthatproductionisbased.Buttodothisweneedamoredetailedtheorisationofhowexactlyspectacleworkstoencodecategoriesofthoughtandaction:inotherwords,atheoryofmediarituals–notforourownedification,buttodeconstructmorefullyboththecontentsandtheformofmedia’sclaimstorepresentthe‘truth’ofpopulations.Somerightandwrongwaystodeconstruct‘society’Ihavearguedthat,ifwetakemediarepresentationsseriously,weneedalsotoaddressthesocialformsconstitutedbyandfocusedonthoserepresentations.Analysingmediaritualsandritualisationisonewayofdoingthis,providinginsightsnotavailabletoANT.Butwithinritualapproachesthereis,Iargued,afundamentalchoicebetweendeconstructiveandreconstructive(orneo-Durkheimian)approaches.Iwillargueinconclusionforthepoliticalvaluetodayofthatdeconstructiveapproach.First,however,andinthespiritofmakingtransparentthetheoreticalchoicesinvolved,Iwanttoexploresomephilosophicalunderpinningsofthisdeconstruction.Whilemyapproachtomediaritualsseeksto

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:171159–176Formandpowerinanageofcontinuousspectacle171dismantlecertaindiscoursesabout‘thesocial’andsociety–mostobviously,functionalistdiscoursesintheParsonianorneo-Durkheimiantradition–surelytherearelanguagesofthesocialthatweneedtokeepintact?Ofthevariousdeconstructionsof‘thesocial’and‘society’onofferincontemporarytheory(fromLatourtoLaclautoBhaskar)whicharemoreusefulandwhicharelessuseful?Mypreviouscritiqueofthe‘mythofthe(mediated)centre’(Couldry2003a,2006)wasinspiredinitiallybyEdwardSaid,butitsharessomethingimportantwithLaclauandMouffe’sbroadernotionofhegemonywhereby‘aparticularsocialforceassumestherepresentationofatotalitythatisradi-callyincommensurablewithit’(LaclauandMouffe2001:x).4WhatLaclauandMouffemeanby‘contaminateduniversality’–aconsistentconfusionoftheparticularfortheuniversal(2001:xiii)–isverysimilartowhatImeanttocapturebythenotionof‘myth’.Mediaareparticularinstitutionsthatbenefitfromaspecificconcentrationofsymbolicresources,evenifonethatishugeinscale:yettheyrepresenttheirroleasarelationshipto/foratotality(‘society’,‘thenation’,andsoon).Mediadiscourseisalwayscontaminatedbysuchclaimstotheuniversal(sotooisgovernmentdiscourse,whichincessantlyspeaksforthetotalityofthenation).Whatevertherealpressuresthatexisttowardscentralisationincontemporarysocieties,theideathatsuchtotalisingrhetoricsarefullyexplained,letalonemade‘functional’,byaparticularcentreofvalueisadelusion:asLaclauandMouffewrite,‘themereideaofacentreofthesocialhasnomeaningatall’(2001:139).Icallthisdelusion‘themythofthecentre’,ontowhichmediabuildtheirownmythofprivilegedaccesstothatcentre(‘themythofthemediatedcentre’).AndyetpreciselysuchamythwasinstalledinthestructuralfunctionalismofEdwardShils(1975)andothersinthemid-1970sandcanbetracedeventodayindiscourseaboutmedia’srelationtosociety.LaclauandMouffe’sdeconstructionofhegemonyanduniversalityseemsevenmoreusefulforanalysingmediaritualsandmediapowerwhenwenoticeitshistoricaldimension.AsLaclauputsitinapassageIquoteatthestartofMediaRituals,contemporarysocieties‘arerequiredbytheirverydynamicstobecomeincreasinglymythical’(1990:67).ThesamepointismadeatgreaterlengthbyLaclauandMouffeelsewhere:advancedindustrialsocieties…areconstitutedaroundafundamentalasymmetry…theasymmetryexistingbetweenagrowingproliferationofdifferences–asurplusofmeaningof‘thesocial’–andthedifficultiesencounteredbyanydiscourseattemptingtofixthosedifferencesasmomentsofastablearticulatorystructure.(2001:96)LaclauandMouffesurelycapturesomethingherethathelpsexplainthestampedebymediaindustriesinthepastdecadetowardstheapparentlytautologicalaimofre-presentingtoaudiencestheir‘ordinary’‘reality’.

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:172159–176172NickCouldryThemorecloselyIlookatLaclauandMouffe’sbroaderargumentsaboutpoliticsand‘society’,however,themoreuneasyIbecome.Anypossibilityofclass-basedidentitiesisdismissed,notongroundsofhistoricalcontingency,butabsolutely,becauseitisonlya‘naturalistprejudice’thattheeconomicunderliesthecultural(2001:67).‘Unfixity’,wearetold,‘hasbecometheconditionofeverysocialidentity’,yetmythsofsocietyaredeludedbecausethey‘suture’an‘originallack’;thatlack,itseems,isendemictothesocialitself–‘thereisnosuturedspacepeculiarto“society”,sincethesocialitselfhasnoessence’(2001:85,88n.1,96,addedemphases).AtworkhereinLaclauandMouffe’sargumentisanabsolutismofdenial(aninverteduniversalism)whichweshouldquestion.First,becauseitunderminestheirhistoricalinsightintotheincreasinglymythicalnatureofcontemporarysocieties;forifthemythicalnatureofdiscourseabout‘society’derivesfromtheabsolutegapbetweenanydiscourseandwhattheycallthe‘fieldofdiscursivity’,thenitisdifficulttoseehowcontemporarysocietiescanbeanymoremythicalthanallthosethatprecededthem.5And,second,becauseif‘thesocialhasnoessence’,thenthereisnostablebasisforconstitutingadisciplinearoundit.ThisisexactlythepositionofLatour,aswesaw,yetthepoliticalaimsandargumentativepremisesofLaclauandMouffeseemverydifferent.WhileLatourabsolutelyprioritisesnetworks(insomesense)overthingsandpeople(orindeedrepresentations),LaclauandMouffeabsolutelyprioritisediscourse(insomesense)overthingsorpeople.LaclauandMouffe’sprioritisationofdiscourseentailsthateverything,including‘thesocial’,issubjecttotheconditionsofdiscourseandinparticulartoonecondition,discourse’s‘openness’andnon-totalisability.SoLaclauandMouffetellusthatthe‘partial’characterofarticulation‘proceedsfromtheopennessofthesocial,asaresult,initsturn,oftheconstantoverflowingofeverydiscoursebytheinfinitudeofthefieldofdiscursivity’andthatobjectscannot‘constitutethemselvesasobjectsoutsideanydiscursiveconditionsofemergence’;asaresult,‘“society”isnotavalidobjectofdiscourse’(2001:113,108,111,addedemphasis).Yetifthegeneralterms‘society’and‘social’–andnotjustthevalue-loadednotionofasocial‘centre’–aretobeabandonedentirely,theideaofmediaresearchdrawingonsocialtheoryispureparadox,exactlyasLatourwouldhaveusbelieve.Attheveryleast,weareforcedtomakeclearinwhatprecisesensewedrawonnotionsof‘society’and‘thesocial’whenclaimingthatmediaresearch–whetheronmediaritualsoranythingelse–maycontributesomethingto‘socialtheory’.Here,Ithink,itisusefultodrawonthe‘criticalrealist’philosopherofscienceRoyBhaskar,whosework,6forallitsformidabledifficultyoflanguage,wouldseemtoofferanuancedpositionbetweenLatourandLaclau,andbetweenpostmodernismandcrudepositivism.Verybriefly,Bhaskar’sontologicalstartingpointforthesocialsciencesisthattheirsubjectmatterincludes‘bothsocialobjects(includingbeliefs)

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:173159–176Formandpowerinanageofcontinuousspectacle173andbeliefsaboutthoseobjects’(1989:101).Bhaskarisconcernedtodefendtheimportanceinthesocialworldofinterpretationswithoutlapsingintoconstructionism,andofconceptswithoutfallingintoa‘conceptualabsolutisationorreductionism(thatconceptsarenotonlynecessaryfor,butexhaustiveof,sociallife)’(1989:185).BhaskarrejectstheabsolutisationofdiscourseonwhichLaclauandMouffe’sargumentspreciselyrelyas‘thelinguisticfallacy’,‘thedefinitionofbeingintermsof…languageordiscourse’(1989:180).WhileBhaskar’sinsistencethat‘societiesarereal’(1989:69)appearstobeanaivepositivism,itisfarfromthat.ForBhaskarrejectstheprioritisingofeitherindividualsorsocialgroupsinexplanation–sorulingoutbothutilitarianliberalismandDurkheim’scollectivistconceptionofsociety(1989:73).TheobjectsofsocialscienceforBhaskarareaboveall‘thepersistentrelationsbetweenindividuals(andgroups)and…therelationsbetweenthoserelations’(1989:71).Whilesocietyexists,societyisnotforBhaskarasimplefunctionaltotality,but‘acomplextotality’,‘anensembleofstructures,practicesandconventionsthatindividualsreproduceortransform’(1989:78,76).WhatmattershereisthatBhaskarinsistsonthe‘causalirreducibilityofsocialformsinthegenesisofhumanaction’(1989:91).Andso,Isuggest,shouldwe–painfulthoughitistodeclareone’sontologicalcommitmentsatsuchahighlevelofabstraction!Thealternativesatthelevelofontology–Latour’sassociationism(whichrunstheriskofturningintoastrangevitalismofconnections)andLaclauandMouffe’sdiscursivism–arehardlysatisfactory.NoristhereanycontradictionbetweenadeconstructivespirittowardsmediaritualsandcriticalrealismasadvocatedbyBhaskar.Onthecontrary,itisdifficulttoseewhatotherphilosophicalframeworkcouldprovidethefrictionthatagenuinelycriticalanddeconstructiveprojectneeds.ConclusionWehaveneverneededthatdeconstructiveprojectmorethannow.Weliveinanintenselyconnectedglobalmediaspacewheremedia’scapacitytosaturateeverydaylifeisgreaterthanever.Elementsofdecentralisation–thedecentringofsometransnationalmediaflows,theintensifiedcompetitionfacedbynationalmediasources–onlymakemediaspectacleamoreimportantresourceforallmediaactors,bothpoliticalandnon-political.Addinaconflict-riddenglobalpoliticsandwecanexpecttheresourcesofmediatedritualisationtobecontinuallydrawnuponbypolitical,corporateandotheractors,producingdangerousexclusionswithinthesphereofvisibility(Butler2004).Thereissomethingpoliticalatstakeinachievingatheoreticalgraspofhowlarge-scalemediaformsworkandaspiretothestatusofnaturalisedsocialforms.TheRetortCollective(2005)arguethatpoliticalpowerisinseparablefrommedia(symbolic)powerinaworldofspectaclefarmoredangerous

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:174159–176174NickCouldrythanGuyDebordeverenvisaged(seealsoGiroux2006).Ifso,itfollowsthatanychallengetopoliticalpowermustinvolvecontestingmediapower:thatis(followingbothANTandritualisationtheory),questioningnotjustmedia’sinstitutionalpowerbutourwholewayoforganisinglifeandthoughtaroundandthroughmedia.(Hereonlineresourceswillsurelybecruciallonger-term,whateverthedangersofbelievingthemythsthatcurrentlycirculateabouttheinternet.)TheRetortCollective,fromoutsidemediaresearch–theyaresociolo-gists,geographers,historians–settwoverydifferentchallengesformediaresearch.First,alongsidepayingattentiontothemajormediaspectaclesofourtime,wemustanalysealsothecountlesspracticesof‘mediation’thatfalloutsidemedia’sdominantflowsandrhetorics,whichsilentlychallengethembyheadinginadifferentdirectionandonadifferentscale:hencetheimportanceoftheexpandingresearchintoalternativemedia.Rejectingtotalitiesmeansanalysingnewanddifferentparticularitiesandinsitesbeyond,orobscuredby,thescopeofthoserhetorics.Adifferentchallenge,implicitinthefirst,istomaintain,inthefaceofmedia’suniversalising‘panoramas’,adeconstructiveintentandacontinualsuspicion.Itisofcoursetemptingtoargue–witnessSimonCottle’s(2006)attempttosavemediaritualsfromwhathecalls‘neo-Marxian’politicalcritique–that,evenifmediaeventsorritualsaresocialconstructions,theyarenonetheworseforthat:whatsocietycanlivewithoutmyths?Surelyweshouldbracketoutourusualquestions(Whattypeofmyths?Whosemyths?Mythsconstructedonwhatterms?),because,intheend,wehavenochoicebuttoacceptmedia’sroleinfocusingourworld’smythicalproduction?The‘endofhistory’,perhaps,forcriticalmediaresearch?Thereisapragmaticweighttosucharguments,yetitisvitaltoresistsuchtemptation.Foritinvitesus,adaptingSørenKierkegaard,7tomaketheoneerrorthat,asmediaresearchers,wehadachanceofavoiding.Notes1BourdieuandWacquant(1992);Hall(1996).2SeeLuhmann(1999).3Notallusesofthetermritualarehelpful.ForwhatIbelieveisanunhelpfulusageseeCottle(2006)on‘mediatisedrituals’andtheresponseinCouldryandRothenbuhler(2007).4ThankstoMarkHobartforsuggestingthatIlookmorecloselyattheparallelsbetweenmypositionandLaclauandMouffe’s.5ButlermakesasimilarcriticismdirectlyofDerrida(1997:150).6Bhaskarhasgenerallybeenneglectedinmediaresearch,sofarasIcantell.ForararediscussionseeDeaconetal.(1999).7SørenKierkegaardwrote(1958:167):‘Nottoventureisshrewd.Andyet,bynotventuring,itissodreadfullyeasytolosethatwhichitwouldbedifficulttoloseineventhemostventuresomeventure,andinanycaseneversoeasily,socompletelyasifitwerenothing…one’sself.’Comparetheunreferencedquotationfrom

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:175159–176Formandpowerinanageofcontinuousspectacle175KafkainLaing(1971:78):‘youcanholdyourselfbackfromthesufferingsoftheworld…butperhapspreciselythisholdingbackistheonlysufferingthatyoumightbeabletoavoid’.KierkegaardandKafkaarewritingabouttheindividualself,buttheirlogicissurelytransposabletocollectiveenterprisessuchasresearch.BibliographyAustrin,TerryandFarnsworth,John(2006)‘FreshConnections:IlluminatingMediaNetworksthroughEthnographyandActorNetworkTheoryintheCaseofMediatedPoker’,paperpresentedtotheCRESCconferenceon‘MediaChangeandSocialtheory’,StHugh’sCollege,Oxford,September.Bell,Catherine(1992)RitualTheory,RitualPractice.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Bhaskar,Roy(1989)ReclaimingReality.London:Verso.Bloch,Maurice(1989)RitualHistoryandPower.London:AthlonePress.Bourdieu,PierreandWacquant,Loic(1992)InvitationtoReflexiveSociology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Butler,Judith(1997)ExcitableSpeech.London:Routledge.Butler,Judith(2004)PrecariousLife.London:Verso.Callon,MichelandLatour,Bruno(1981)‘UnscrewingthebigLeviathan:howactorsmacro-structurerealityandhowsociologistshelpthemdoso’inK.Knorr-CetinaandA.Cicourel(eds)AdvancesinSocialtheoryandMethodology.London:Routledge.Cottle,Simon(2006)‘Mediatizedrituals:beyondmanufacturingconsent’,MediaCultureandSociety28(3):411–32.Couldry,Nick(2000)ThePlaceofMediaPower.London:Routledge.Couldry,Nick(2003a)MediaRituals:aCriticalApproach.London:Routledge.Couldry,Nick(2003b)‘Mediameta-capital:extendingtherangeofBourdieu’sfieldtheory’,TheoryandSociety32(5/6):653–77.Couldry,Nick(2006)ListeningbeyondtheEchoes:Media,Ethics,andAgencyinanUncertainWorld.BoulderCO:ParadigmPress.Couldry,NickandRothenbuhler,Eric(2007)‘SimonCottleon“mediatisedrituals”:aresponse’,MediaCultureandSociety29(4):711–15.Crary,Jonathan(1999)SuspensionsofPerception.CambridgeMA:MITPress.Dayan,DanielandKatz,Elihu(1992)MediaEvents:theLiveBroadcastingofHistory.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.Deacon,David,Pickering,Michael,Golding,PeterandMurdock,Graham(1999)ResearchingCommunications.London:Arnold.Durkheim,Emile(1995[1912])TheElementaryFormsofReligiousLife,trans.K.Fields.GlencoeIL:FreePress.Edelman,Maurice(1988)ConstructingthePoliticalSpectacle.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Elliott,Phillip(1982)‘Pressperformanceaspoliticalritual’inH.Christian(ed.)TheSociologyofJournalismandthePress.Keele:UniversityofKeele.Fairclough,Norman(1995)MediaDiscourse.London:Arnold.Foucault,Michel(1980)‘Theorderofdiscourse’inR.Young(ed.)UntyingtheText.London:Routledge.Giroux,Henry(2006)BeyondtheSpectacleofTerrorism.BoulderCO:ParadigmPress.

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch10.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:176159–176176NickCouldryHall,Stuart(1973)‘The“StructuredCommunicationofEvents”’,stencilledOccasionalPaperNo.5,Birmingham:CentreforContemporaryCulturalStudies.Hall,Stuart(1977)‘Culture,mediaandthe“ideologicaleffect”’,inJ.Curran,M.GurevitchandJ.Woollacott(eds)MassCommunicationsandSociety.London:Arnold.Hall,Stuart(1996)‘Introduction:whoneedsidentity?’inS.HallandP.DuGay(eds)QuestionsofIdentity.London:Sage.Hardt,MichaelandNegri,Toni(2001)Empire.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.Hemmingway,Emma(2007)IntotheNewsroom:ExploringtheDigitalProductionofRegionalTelevisionNews.London:Routledge.Kellner,Douglas(2003)MediaSpectacles.London:Routledge.Kierkegaard,Søren(1958)FearandLoathingandtheSicknessuntoDeath.NewYork:Doubleday.Laclau,Ernesto(1990)NewReflectionsontheRevolutionofourTime.London:Verso.Laclau,ErnestoandMouffe,Chantal(2001)HegemonyandSocialistStrategy,2ndedn.London:Verso.Laing,R.D.(1971)TheDividedSelf.Harmondsworth:Penguin.Latour,Bruno(1993)WehaveNeverbeenModern.London:PrenticeHall.Latour,Bruno(2005)ReassemblingtheSocial.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Latour,BrunoandWoolgar,Steve(1979)LaboratoryLife.PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Löfgren,Orvar(2001)‘Thenationashomeormotel?Metaphorsofmediaandbelonging’,SosiologiskÅrbok1–34.Luhmann,Niklas(1999)TheRealityoftheMassMedia.Cambridge:PolityPress.Lukes,Steven(1975)‘Politicalritualandsocialintegration’,Sociology29:289–305.Mirzoeff,Nichlas(2005)WatchingBabylon.London:Routledge.RetortCollective(2005)AfflictedPowers:CapitalandSpectacleinanAgeofWar.London:Verso.Shils,Edward(1975)CenterandPeriphery.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Silverstone,Roger(1981)TheMessageofTelevision.London:Methuen.Smith,Dorothy(1987)TheEverydayWorldasProblematic.EvanstonIL:NorthwesternUniversityPress.Teurlings,Jan(2004)‘DatingShowsandtheProductionofIdentities:InstitutionalPracticesandPowerinTelevisionProduction’.Ph.D.thesis,Brussels:VrijeUniversiteitBrussel.Thompson,John(1995)TheMediaandModernity.Cambridge:PolityPress.Wrong,Dennis(1994)TheProblemofOrder.NewYork:FreePress.

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:177177–19311Spectacularmorality‘Reality’television,individualisationandtheremakingoftheworkingclassHelenWoodandBevSkeggsClassthemeshauntmanyofthedebatesabout‘reality’televisionprogramming.Inshowswheremediaprofessionalsarereplacedwith‘socialactors’(Nichols1991)discoursesofclassoperateatanumberoflevels.First,‘reality’televisionisregularlyspokenofas‘trash’television,locatingparticipantsandviewersatthebottomofahierarchyoftasteclassification.1Second,‘reality’televisionisseentorepresentacrisisincivicpublicculturebecausepublicandprivatesphereshavebeeninvertedandthe‘ordinary’hasbeenmadecentral.AsRogerBromley(2000)notes,‘ordinary’isoneofthemanyeuphemismstoemerge,afterthirtyyearsofpoliticalrhetoricandacademictheoryclaimingthedemiseofclass,asasubstitutefortheterm‘working-class’.Locatingdramaatthesiteofthe‘ordinary’alsosuggestsagreaterpurchaseonthe‘authentic’–arouteinformedbysocial-realistcritiqueindocumentaryandfilm–whichisoftenproblematicallyassociatedwiththeworkingclass.Third,thereisoverrepresentationoftheworkingclasson‘reality’television,preciselybecauseoftheirculturalandeconomicsituation:MimiWhite(2006)inheranalysisoftheAmerican‘reality’programmeCheaters,aprogrammesetuptocatchpartnersinactsofinfidelity,admitsthatthe$500paymentskewstheclassprofiledecisively,somuchsothat‘Thereisclearlyalevelofclassexploitationatwork’(p.229).Thissimplefactisoftenminimisedbyanoptimisticrenderingofthedemocratisingpotentialof‘reality’television,whichunderplayswhytheworkingclassesmakesuchgoodentertainmentinthefirstplace(paidorunpaid).Fourth,andconnectedly,classraisesitsheadbecausetheaccessofferedtotelevisioninthesearchforparticipantsreinventsthemythologiesofsocialmobilitypromotedbyneoliberalpoliticalculture(BiressiandNunn2005),despitethefactthatthegapbetweenrichandpoorwidens,andsocialmobilityratesremainstagnant(Aldridge2004).Finally,manyoftheprogrammesarestructuredthroughclassrelationswheretheworkingclassareexposedasinadequateandinneedoftraininginmiddleorupper-classculture(amutationofthePygmalionnarrative,e.g.LadettetoLady,ordifferentiatedwithintheworkingclassbythetraditionaltropeofroughversusrespectable,e.g.HolidayShowdown,WifeSwap).Andyet,notwithstandingtheentryof‘reality’televisioninto

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:178177–193178HelenWoodandBevSkeggstheheartoftheseglaringclass-basedrealities,discoursesandsensibilities,ithasbeenpossibleforsomeauthorsintelevisionandmediastudiestowriteabout‘reality’televisionwithoutanadequatetheoryofclassrelations.Thischapterarguesforgreaterawarenessofhowclassisbeingmadeandreproducedontelevision,drawingattentiontonewsociologicaltheoriesofclass.‘Reality’televisionprogrammeshavearemarkableresonancewithdevelopmentsininequalityandinjusticeunderneoliberalgovernments,pri-marilythroughthepromotionofself-managementasaformofpedagogy,madespectacularviamelodrama.Wedetailhowmelodramatictechniqueson‘reality’televisionvisualiseemotionalengagementthroughblendingverisimilitudeoftheordinarywithsurfacedramaticintensity,makingparticularclass-basedhistoriesandvaluesappearaseitherpathologicaloruniversal.AlthoughthechapterisbasedonresearchaboutUKtelevisionandtheBritishclimate,2itshouldhavesignificanceforothersimilarpoliticalregimes.Individualisationorindividualisedclassrelations?Itisnowratherbanaltocitehowtheexplosionof‘first-personpro-gramming’,astyleoftelevisionrelyingonnon-actorsinvariouscontrivedsituations,hasmanagedtopadouttheschedulesofthemulti-channeltelevisionera.3Criticshavecommenteduponhowthedemandsofamarketeconomywithinthetelevisionindustryfuelthisexplosion(seeRaphael2004).Alongsidetheexpansionoftelevisionchannelschedulesneedingtobefilled,wealsoseethedevelopmentofparticulartypesofprogrammethatparallelneoliberalformsofgovernance:LaurieOuellette(2004)describeshowJudgeJudy,ashowinwhichparticipantssubmittestimoniesofpersonaldisputestotheauthorityofatelevisionjudge,offerslessonsinself-governmentagainstthebackdropofincreasingwelfarecutsintheUnitedStates.Thefocusuponlegalself-managementaccompaniestheexplosionofprogrammesoneating,dressing,lookingafteryourfinances,health,sex,etc.,wheretelevisionbecomesanewgovernmentalmedium,offeringtoacculturateusintoself-surveillancewhilstdeliveringustothemarketundertheguiseofmodelcitizenship(Andrejevik2004;Palmer2003).4Theexpansionofthetelevisionmarketeconomyandthemoregeneral‘turn’togovernmentality(Rose1989)generatesarangeofpossibilitiesforapplyingtelevisiontechniques,e.g.make-over,passing,competition,transformation,toanyintimateareaofhumanlife.Wehaveclothesandbodytransformations(WhatnottoWear,TenYearsYounger),dietprogrammes(YouareWhatyouEat),familypsychologyinterventions(FamilyForensics,Honey,We’reKillingtheKids),parentingprogrammes(Supernanny,Nanny911),financialadvice(BankofMumandDad),programmesonimprovingsexlives(SexInspectors),oneswhichfocusonhealthandhygiene(HowCleanisyourHouse?TooPoshtoWash,Spa

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:179177–193Spectacularmorality179ofEmbarrassingIllnesses)andevendogbehaviour(It’sMeortheDog!).Theseprogrammesfocusontheintimaciesandintricaciesofindividualexperienceandrelationshipswhereworkonpartsoftheselfoffersthepossibilitytochangeone’swholelife.Indeed,therearerelativelyfewplacesleftfor‘reality’televisiontopenetrateasitpursueseachnewtwistontriedandtestedformulas.SocialtheoristslikeUlrichBeck(1992)andAnthonyGiddens(1991)suggestthatinapost-industrialsocietytheindividualisnowcompelledtomakeher/himselfthecentreofher/hisownlifeplanandconduct.ForBeckthisisevidencedbythefactthateveryoneisnowforcedtoconsidertheirworthinrelationtothelabourmarket,whichrearrangestheirrelationshiptotheclassstructuresofindustrialsocietyandthrowsintotensiontraditionalroleswithintheindustrialnuclearfamily.Theincreasingandencroachingformsofemotionallabourrequiredforself-managementon‘reality’televisionandelsewhere(education,thewelfarestate)becomepartofourreflexiveproductionofselfhoodinlinewiththeparticularneedsofthemarket(seeCouldryforthcoming).ForGiddensandBecktheemergenceof‘lifepolitics’uprootsrelationswithstructuralinequalitiessuchasthoseofclassandgender,thenarrativeofselfhoodtakesovertraditionalaffiliations,andclassasasignificantcategorydisappears.Henceitispossibletoseewhy,whendiscussionsof‘reality’televisionareonlyspokenthroughdiscoursesofneoliberalism,classmightbereplacedbylife-politics,choiceorreflexivity.Inthissense‘reality’televisionanditsexplorationoftheanxietiesofthemodernage,suchasrelationships,parenting,weightandsex,areemblematicofconditionsofontologicalinsecurityinwhichoursensesofidentityandbelongingarethrownintoquestion,forcingtheindividualtostruggletoconstantlyreorientthemselvesinrelationtothepersonalriskrelationswithwhichtheyarefaced.Itisnosurprise,then,thattheconstantreappearanceofthe‘firstperson’ontelevisionisregisteredas‘spectacularsubjectivity’(Dovey2000)inlinewithbroaderargumentsaboutcontemporarysociallifethatsuggest‘compulsoryindividuality’(Strathern1992)or‘intimatecitizenship’(Berlant2000).Yetthereisnoreasonwhyconditionsofinsecurityshouldautomaticallyproducethedisembeddingordeclineofclassorotherstructuralrelations.StephLawler(2006)andRogerBromley(2000)pointtoalongUStraditionof‘cultureofpoverty’debateswhereby,onceclassisremovedasastructuralcategory,individualscanbeblamedfortheinequalitiesandinjusticestheyexperience:whatBromleycalls‘causalitytransference’.Inthiswayacademicdescriptionsoftheprocessesofindividualisationmightmakeclasshardertosee,butnolesspresent.Theproblemsofaclasssocietybecomeidentifiedastheproblemsofworking-classpeople,andwemightsaythewayinwhich‘reality’televisionfetishisesvarioussocialproblemsandlocatesthemfirmlyastheresponsibilityoftheindividualisemblematicofabroadersocialchange.

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:180177–193180HelenWoodandBevSkeggsForinstance,ChrisHaylett(2001)remindsushowdiscoursesfromtheNewLabourgovernmentinthe1990s,viatheestablishmentoftheSocialExclusionUnit,suggeststhatinequalityresultsfrom‘badculture’and‘badchoices’.Currentpoliticalrhetoriccontinuestoreframeclassawayfromaneconomic,andhencestructural,classificationtoacultural-moralsiteinwhichconduct,behavioursandtastebecomecentraltothewayclassisknownandrecognised.IntheUnitedKingdomthisisapparentinASBOsandABCs(AntisocialBehaviourOrdersandAcceptableBehaviourContractsundertheCrimeandDisorderAct1998)whichperhapsnotsurprisinglyhaveprovidedgoodfodderfor‘reality’entertainment:forexample,AsboFever,AsboNightandFromAsboTeentoBeautyQueen.Thishasbeentakenastagefurtherrecentlywiththegovernment’sownlaunchof‘ASBOTV’,a£12millionprojectfundedbytheOfficeoftheDeputyPrimeMinister,inwhichresidentsinoneareaofeastLondonwillbeoffereddigitaltelevisionwithhigh-speedinternetbroadbandcompletewithalocalCC-TVchannelinwhichtheywillbeencouragedtocomparecharacterstheyseebehavingsuspiciouslywithanon-screenrogues’galleryoflocalrecipientsofASBOS.Thisisundertakenunderthegovernment’s‘NewDealforCommunities’,establishedtoregeneratepoordistricts(seeSwinfold2006).Morebroadly,thesetrendsspeaktoaconsiderableshiftinmodesofcitizenshipunderneoliberalism.ConsidertheUKgovernment’s‘RespectAgenda’5inwhichacultureofrightsbecomesacultureofresponsibilitiesthroughthemonitoringofbehaviourandmanners.Inthisclimatetelevisionprogrammeswhichmayoncehavehadacollectivesocialemphasisnowinstancetheparticular:‘Thusastorywhichmightoncehaveraisedcivillibertyissuesnowfindsitselfinterpretedasoneofriskmanagement’(Palmer2003:16).Butthispoliticalshiftisnot‘just’restrictedtocrimeandmanners,forexamplethegovernmentlaunchedtheNationalParentingAcademyaspartofthebroaderattackonantisocialbehaviour–‘asingleagencyistobecreatedwithwhateverpowersitneedstodealwithproblemfamilies’.6ValGillies(2005)chartshowinmanyofthegovernment’sWhitePapersoneducationandparentingcharacteristicsassociatedwithchildren’sfailureandachievementarereducedtothepsychological,detachedfromanysocialcontext.Theplethoraofparentingprogrammingon‘reality’televisiondemonstratesasimilardecontextualisedandpsychologisedpolit-icalshift(e.g.Supernanny,HouseofTinyTearaways,Nanny911,MissBeckles),aswewillproceedtodemonstrate.Atthetimeofwritingthereisnoforeseeablebrakeonthevelocitywithwhich‘reality’formsaremultiplying.Thedesiretowatchandbewatchedcanbeseenaspartoftheendlesspursuitoftheconfirmationofselfhoodamongthelossofothermorecertainlifetrajectories:Isee/Iamseen,there-foreIam.WatchingandbeingwatchedwitnessesashiftfromFoucault’s(1979)panopticon(wherethefewseethemany)toMathiesen’s(1997)synopticon(wherethemanywatchthemany).However,formsofselfhood,

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:181177–193Spectacularmorality181self-tellingandself-displayhavehistoricallybeenintricatelywovenintoclassprocesses.Theautobiographywastraditionallyatechniqueoftellingavailableonlytoaristocraticmen,justasnarratingone’slifethroughalegalinterlocutorinordertoreceivewelfarewasasubjectiveformatfortheworkingclass(Steedman2000).EvenBeck(1992)notesthatthenarrativesofchoicethataboundinconsumerculturearenotopentoeveryoneequally.‘[Choice]is,associologistsofclassknow,alearnedabilitywhichdependsuponspecialsocialandfamilybackgrounds’(p.98).BeckevenreferstoBasilBernstein’s(1971)discussionofmiddle-classelaboratedandworking-classrestrictedspeakingcodestoacknowledgethatonemustmovetoanelaboratedcodeforself-expression.Self-reflexivity,therefore,evenwithintheindividualisationthesis,isacknowledgedasatechniquetowhichnotallhaveaccess.Allthenewtheoriesofmobility,reflexivity,prostheticculture,choice,etc.,concedethatcertainculturalresourcesarerequiredfortheiractualisation.Self-responsibilityandself-management,thefeaturesidentifiedbyGiddensasnecessaryforthemakingofthe‘new’reflexiveself,hencebecomethemechanismsnotbywhichclassisreplaced‘butpreciselybywhichclassinequalityisproduced’(Skeggs2004:60).If‘reality’televisionforegroundsthedisplayofself-performanceitmustalsoofferastageforthedramatisingofcontemporaryclassrelations,anditistotheseprocessesthatwenowturn.Spectacularmelodrama:thedramaofthemomentIntermsthatechosomeofthelargersocio-politicalshiftsoutlinedabove,commentatorshavebeenconcernedwiththeoveralltransformationofdocumentarytelevisioninto‘stagingthereal’(Kilborn2003)ina‘post-documentaryculture’(Corner2002)inwhich‘thereal’isconstitutedthroughacontrivedsetofscenariosproducedforentertainment,ratherthananysociallyrealistargumentationofbenefittopublicculture.BillNichols(1991)suggestsprogrammingthatfocusesonthepersonalandspectacularrenderstheminertassocio-politicalphenomena:‘Spectacleismoreproperlyanabortedorforeclosedformofidentificationwhereemotionalengagementdoesnotextendasfarasconcernbutremainsarrestedatthelevelofsensation’(p.234).Thecharacteristicmotifsofdepthless‘spectaclesofparticularity’inNichols’spresumption,however,failtoaccountforhowpoliticalprocessesworkatthelevelofsensationandemotion(seeDeleuze2003;Ahmed2004),aprocesshighlyevidentinouraudienceresponses.Butherewewanttoconsiderhowtheoperationofspectaclein‘reality’televisiongeneratesemotionalengagementthroughmelodramatictechniques.Bytellingintimatestories‘reality’televisiondrawsontraditionsofmelodrama,aswellasdocumentary.DavidSinger(2001)definesmelo-dramaasa‘clusterconcept’withdifferentconfigurationsofconstitutive

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:182177–193182HelenWoodandBevSkeggsfactors,includingpathos;overwroughtemotion;dramaticintensitywith-outthepathos(allcharactersexpressinganger,frustration,resentment,disappointmentetc.)moralpolarisation;non-classicalnarrativestructureandsensationalism.Ourtextualanalysissuggeststhatdramaticintensityisregularlyproducedthroughwhatwehavecalled‘thejudgementshot’,where,aftercrisisandchaos,expertadviceisgivenornegativevoice-overcommentaryprovidedandtheparticipantisheldinfacialclose-up.Oftenthisisfollowedbyapoignantsymbolicimagewithironicmusic,ortherepeatingandreselectingofvariousmontageshotssothatthedramaticsignificanceisintensified.Thelong-heldclose-upisthemodernequivalentofthetheatricalmelodramatictableau–wherethestillnessandthesilenceoftheactorsenablethesuspensionofactionandallattentionisgiventocontemplationofthedramapreviouslyenacted.Oncewestartedexaminingourmaterialindetailfor‘melodramaticmoments’webecameawareoftheubiquityoftheuseofthe‘judgementshot’toproducedramatictension.Inthissense‘reality’television’srelationto‘reality’isoftenmorecloselylinkedwith‘emotionalrealism’(Ang1985)whereparticipantstakepartinwhatHelenPiper(2004)usefullycallsanewcategoryof‘improviseddrama’moretypicallyalliedwiththefictivetraditionsofmelodramathandocumentary.Theuseofmelodramatictechniquestoproducesensationshouldnotsurpriseus;itisatriedandtestedmethodformakingthedomesticandeverydaymoreinteresting.PeterBrooksmaintainsthat:themelodramasthatmattermostconvinceusthatthedramaturgyofexcessandoverstatementcorrespondstoandevokesconfrontationsandchoicesthatareofheightenedimportance,becauseinthemweputourlives–howevertrivialandconstricted–ontheline.(1995:ix)Thesetechniquesfollowalongtraditionof‘women’stelevision’,asRachelMoseley(2000)notes:Makeovershowsasktheaudiencetodrawonourrepertoireofpersonalskills,ourabilitytosearchfacesanddiscernreactions(facilitatedbytheclose-up)fromthesmallestdetails–thetwitchofamuscle,anexpressionintheeye–acompetencesuggestedbyTaniaModleskiaskeytothepleasureofsoapopera’smelodramaticform.Theseprogrammesshowcasethethreateningexcessivenessoftheordinary…Theseare,precisely,instancesofpowerfulspectacular‘über-ordinariness’:anexcessoftheordinary.(p.314)Thustheformsofexcessandheighteneddrama,whichaccordingtoNichols(1991)indocumentaryformsgenerateadistancingeffect,limiting

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:183177–193Spectacularmorality183modesofengagement,insteadon‘reality’televisionofferresonancewithourownintimatelives.Bringingtogetherrealismwithmelodrama,ChristineGledhill(1987,2000)maintains,enablesthetechniquesoffilmandtelevisiontoincreasinglyintervenein‘private’lifeforthemoralgoodofthenation.As‘reality’televisionusesdocumentarytechniquestoopenout‘real’relationships,intimacy,anddomesticity,itdrawsuponmelodramatictraditionsthatgivesignificancetoandmakedailylivessensationalandintense,hencepotentiallymoreinterestingtowatch.ThomasElsaesser(1987)notesinrelationtothesetraditions,‘Evenifthesituationsandsentimentsdefiedallcategoriesofverisimilitudeandweretotallyunlikeanythinginreallife,thestructurehadatruthandlifeofitsown’(p.64).Historicallytheheroesandheroinesofmelodramawerenotexceptionalsubjectsbutcharactersoperatingwithinsocialnorms,makingvisibleandsensationalthedifferencesbetweengoodandevil.Theiconofthe‘goodhome’,forinstance,haslongbeenusedtoestablishthe‘spaceofinnocence’anditsvirtuousvictims.Melodramawas,and,weassert,stillis,oneofthemaindramaticdevicesformakingmoralvaluesvisibleacrossmanydomainsofsociallife.ForBrooks(1995)itrepresentsthe‘reaffirmationofsociety’of‘decentpeople’.LindaWilliams(2001)proposesthatmelodramahasbeeninsufficientlyunderstoodasamajorforceofmoralreasoningthatisnotjustlimitedtowomen’sfilmsorthedomesticspherebutstructuresourunderstandingsofthepowerofthenationmoregenerally,generatinga‘moralstructureoffeeling’(p.26).Inparticular,andcentraltoourargument,thereductionofmoralitytoanindividualdramaticperformanceenablessocialrelationstobevisualisedandknownthroughthepsychologisationofcharacter.IanGoode(2003)arguesthatitisthe‘proximityto,andobservationofbehaviorandcharacter…thatdrivestheperformativeformatsof“reality”television’(p.108).Inparticulartheconstructionoftimeon‘reality’televisiongeneratesasenseof‘actuality’,itsreconstructionoftimeasanontologicalclaimto‘nowness’andpossiblyalso‘hereness’,ratherthananepistemologicalclaimtotruth(KavkaandWest2004).Thisimmediacyispartoftheahistoricalemphasisthatmanycriticsof‘reality’televisiondescribe,itsdepthlessnessapparentlygivingitnopurchaseon‘real’socialissues.However,wewouldarguethatitisexactlythelackofsociologicalunderstandingthatrepeatshowtheworkingclasshavebeencontinuallydecontextualised,reroutingsocialproblemstotheleveloftheindividual/psyche.Therearetwoimportantstructuralfeaturesof‘reality’televisionwhicharecentraltothewayinwhichselfformationnowappearsontelevision.First,bybringingtogethermelodramaandrealism,‘reality’televisionworkswithanaestheticsofdepthbelowthesurface(avariantofrealism)whereunderlyingforcesgovernsurfacephenomenawhichthecharacterswillreveal:thingshappentopeoplewhicharebeyondtheirowncontrol.Therealismexpressedisaformof‘weareallgovernedbyforcesof

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:184177–193184HelenWoodandBevSkeggshappenstance’,whichrelatesinparticular,Elsaesser(1987)argues,toworking-classlife.Yetatthesametimewehavenoticedashiftinthesubjectpositionsofferedtoparticipants.Elsaesser’scharactersinmelodramaaresubjecttoforcesbeyondtheircontrol.Butin‘reality’television,whilstparticipantsarealsosubjecttotheunknowable,theyaresimultaneouslyfacedwiththeimpossibletaskofaccountingfor‘happenstance’(throughthereiterationofreflexivetalktocamera)andheldresponsibleforthesocialpositionstheyoccupy.‘Reality’televisionthusretainsastructuralmodicumofmelodramaticfatalismwhilstalsoeffectingashiftintotheindividualisedresponsibleself.Inthisvein,manyofthedramatictechniquesusedon‘reality’televisionrelyonplacingpeopleinsituationsthatareunfamiliar,inwhichtheyarelikelytolackcontrol,suchastransformationsthrough:swaps(wife,house,village,etc.),‘newlivesinstrangeplaces’(GetANewLife,NoGoingBack),‘new’relationships(WhatTheButlerSaw),‘new’jobs(FakingIt,TheApprentice),‘new’clothes(WhatNottoWear),‘new’culture(LadettetoLady,ASBOTeentoBeautyQueen),alldesignedtogenerateinsecurity,discomfortandhumourfordramaticeffectaswewatchhowtheparticipantcopes.CeliaLury(1998)identifiesthesetechniquesinconsumerculturemorebroadlyasevidenceof‘prosthetic’culture,inwhichtwocentralprocesses–indifferentiation(thedisappearanceofthedistancebetweencauseandeffect)andoutcontextualisation(wherecontextsaremultipliedandrenderedamatterofchoice)encourageexperimentalindividualism,inwhichthesubjectisincreasinglyaskedtolayclaimtofeaturesofthecontextorenvironmentasiftheyweretheoutcomeofthetestingofhisorherpersonalcapacities.‘Reality’televisionvisualisestheimpossibilityofanontologicalcontradiction:wearerarelyabletocompletelycontrolevents,butweareexpectedtodosoasameasureofself-worth.Thesecondkeystructuralfeatureto‘reality’televisionmakesthiscontradictionevenmoreintense,notjustbythedecontextualisedimma-nentnatureofmuchofthedrama,butalsobythewaythatthetemporalversionof‘everydaylife’presenteddoesnotallowspaceforthetypeofmodernself-reflexivitythatTonyBennett(2003)arguesisnecessaryforthedemonstrationofdepthandmoralunderstanding.IndiscussingtheliteraryconstructionofeverydaylifeBennettidentifiestwodifferentarchitecturesoftheself,first,thosewhoaresaidtolivespontaneouslyatthelevelofeverydaylife,‘reproducingitshabitualroutinesthroughformsofconsciousnessandbehaviourthatremainres-olutelysingle-levelled’(p.3)andthosewhohavepsychologicalandreflexivedepth.Theworkingclass,henotes,haveconsistentlybeenassociatedwiththeformer,representedasincapableofacquiringthepsychologicaldepthneededforself-governance,hencetheirassociationwiththe‘mass’.If‘reality’televisionreliesuponproducingdramatictensionthroughimmediacyandhappenstancethatoutcontextualiseand‘test’anindividual’sself-management,weneedtoask:uponwhatresources

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:185177–193Spectacularmorality185canaparticipantdrawtocopewiththeunexpectedsituationsthatdevelop?Letusdothisbycomparingdifferentprogrammes:NoGoingBackwithWifeSwap.NoGoingBackisadocumentaryseriesmadebyChannel4aboutcouplesthatdecidetoleavethe‘ratrace’andmoveabroadinpursuitoftheir‘dream’.Inoneepisodeofthe2003series(firsttransmitted5November)MirandaandWilliamTaxisbuyaTuscanfarmhouseinneedofrenovation.Overtheone-hourdocumentaryweseetwoyearsoftheirlives,theirstruggles,theirfinancialhardships,theirchildrengoingtoanewschool,theircommunityrelationshipwithlocals,andoverandagaintheirreflexiveto-cameramomentsofexasperation,despairorjoy.Weseethemworkingindifferentenvironments,makingtheircaseatItalianplanningcourts,evenchallengingthemayoroveraproposedairport.Inshortwelearnwheretheyhavecomefromandwheretheyaregoing;ontheChannel4websitewecanseewheretheyhaveended–withanextensivecomplexofTuscanholidayrentals.Inmanysensesthefocusinthisseriesisstillontheparticular,inNichols’s(1991)sense:eachepisodeconsistsofonecouple’snarrativeofpersonaltoil,ratherthananysocio-politicalcommentaryonwhattheyareleavingbehind,orwhythenarrativesofescapemightrelatetoanypossibleeconomicorculturalclimate.Butthewayinwhichtheycanself-reflexivelyevolverendersthisdocumentaryashavingacloserlinkwithBennett’smorecomplete‘architectureoftheself’thanisavailablein,say,WifeSwap.BycomparisonWifeSwap’srelianceuponmelodramatictechniquescallsonfamiliesto‘improvisedrama’inrelationtoeachother.Theswaptakesplaceovertwoweeksandweenterthedramaimmediatelyasthewivestalkabouthowtheyfeelabouttheensuingset-up.Inthatsensetheirexistenceappearsfortheshowandnotdespiteit,thereforenotacommentaryontheir‘everydaylife’inwhichtheycanperiodicallydemonstratetheyareincontrol.InaWifeSwapfromthesameyear(firstbroadcast22January2003)TracyswapswithKate;bothareworking-classmothers,theirdifferencegeneratedbyTracy’saspirationtosocialmobility.Thedramathatunfoldsisverymuch‘inthemoment’:thewomenarecalledtoperformtheirdifferencesfromtheoutset.Tracydedicatesherselftohercareerand‘nicethings’whilstKate,astay-at-homemum,dedicatesherselftohersixchildren.Howthewomenhavecometothosepositionsisnotpartofthenarrative;theirdifferencesspeakonlytohowtheycanimmediatelymakegooddrama.Mostofthedramaunfoldsinhome-basedinteractionsandnotonlocationwithoutsideothers.Theirreflexivemomentstocameraareimmediatereactionstothebehaviourofothersorthedramaofthedayratherthanconsciousrenderingsoftheirlocationwithaparticularnarrativeorhistory.The‘reality’isgeneratedthroughtheverisimilitudeofthelocations–thekitchens,diningtables,bathrooms,includingtheminutiaeoftheireverydaylives,includingeating,cleaning,parenting–whichallhavethefamiliarity

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:186177–193186HelenWoodandBevSkeggsofmostpeople’sdomesticsettings.Therelationshipsaresimultaneouslyfamiliar–asasubjectpositionof‘wife’,‘husband’,‘child’–andtotallyunfamiliar,astheyaredetachedandattachedtoothers.Thedramaisgeneratedthroughconflictanddifference,editedandcondensedintodirectandimmediateemotionalstatements:‘Howcanyoutreatmelikethis!’Commentsareoftenacriticismoftherelationshipoftheotherwife–‘Howcanshelethimbehavelikethis?’‘Whydoesshedoallthework?’‘Howcanshestandthis?’etc.–detachedfromtheir‘lifenarrative’ortheirpoliticsofalife,insteadgeneratedasasituationalresponse:‘I’mnotyourwife,’‘Ican’tbearit.’Theonlysubstantivecontextisthedomesticsetting,whichalthoughrecognisablyfamiliartotheviewerisdesignedtodestabiliseandtestthechoicesandcapacitiesoftheswappedparticipant.Thepointisthatinmanymodesof‘reality’televisionthefocusislessonadocumentaryportrayalofadeveloping,contextualised,interestinglifethanonimmediatesituationalmelodramaticdemonstrationofdomesticandrelationshipconflictandfailure,wherelifeislivedatthesurface.Thefullstory,then,isnotthepoint,butthemundanedecontextualisedplacesoffailurebecomethespectacularfocusandovercomingtheminthetransformativeprogrammestyleisthekeytoabetterlife.‘Reality’televisionparticipantsthereforedisplayclassthroughaccesstoorlackoftheculturalandemotionalresourcesrequiredtomoveeasilyaroundthesocialspacesofunfamiliarity,offeringinsteadpeoplesubjecttoforcesbeyondtheircontrol,detachedfromthecomfortoftheirsocialposition.Culturaldifferenceisplayedoutasdramaticpathologyinthepresent,occludingallthestructures,capitals,entitlementsandexclusionsthatshapeclassrelationsfromboththepastandthepresent.Forensicformats:metonymicmoralityOneofthemostobviouswaysinwhichtheseattemptsoperatetomodifybehaviourviaresponsibilityon‘reality’televisionisthroughquestionsoftaste.InChangingRooms,HouseInvaders,WhatNottoWearandWouldLiketoMeetparticipantsaretaughthowtodevelopwhattheprogrammepresentersdefineastaste,style,designandetiquette,allcloselyassociatedwithlongtraditionsofmiddle-classculture.InWhatNottoWearthetransformationoftheselfiscompleteonlyifthesubjectsconformtotherightkindof(bourgeois)femininity,thatis,clothingthatexcludesanyformofexcess(sexual,colour,frills,bodilyexposure).Forexample,inoneepisode(firstbroadcaston29September2004)the‘experts’makeoverMichalina.Thecamerafocusesonherbright,brashclothing,droopybreasts,garishjewelleryandheavymake-upwhilsta‘humorous’derisory-tonevoice-overmakessuretheaudienceunderstandtheperspectivefromwhichtojudgethemarkersofclassedbadtaste.Similarly,LisaTaylordocumentshow,inthegardeningmakeover

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:187177–193Spectacularmorality187programme,vulgarworking-classtastessuchascolourfulbizzy-lizzyplantsareuprootedtothehorroroftheowners,leadingTaylortosuggestthat‘thedepthofpersonal[working-class]meaningmustbesacrificedtothecleansingagencyofdesignaesthetics’(2005:119).TheseactsoftransformationareexamplesofBourdieu’s(1979)‘symbolicviolence’instantiatedbylegitimatingmiddle-classtasteinthenameof‘lifestyle’andimprovement.Itiscurious,then,that‘lifestyling’isoftenmootedasoneoftheindicatorsofthedemiseofclass,whenitisinfactoneoftherhetoricaltechniquesusedtodevalueworking-classtasteandculture(Palmer,2004).Working-classtaste,cultureandvaluesareeclipsedbytheemphasisintheseprogrammesonself-transformation–abetterlifeismadethroughanindividual’scorrectrelationshipwithmaterialgoods.Middle-classtasteisnotparticularisedbutinsteaduniversalisedandnormalisedas‘good’taste.EveninQueerEyefortheStraightGuythequeereyeisamiddle-classone(Lewis2007).Thisuniversalisingofmiddle-classtaste,behaviour,andculturevia‘experts’,andthefuturetransformationthatisprojectedintheseprogrammes,echoalargersocialshiftinthelatetwentiethcenturywherebydeindustrialisation,theeradicationofapprenticeshipsandthedeclineoftradeunionsandthelabourmovementsidelinedtheworkingclassasacentralreferencepointincontemporarypopularculture.AccordingtoSavage:themiddleclassthencolonisedtheresultingemptysocialandculturalspace,withtheresultthatithasbecometheparticularuniversalclass.Thatistosay,althoughitwasinfactaparticularclasswithaspecifichistory,nonethelessithasbecometheclassaroundwhichanincreasingrangeofpracticesareregardedasuniversally‘normal’,‘good’and‘appropriate’.(2003:536,emphasisadded)Buttheuniversalisationofmiddle-classvaluesin‘reality’televisiondoesnotstopattaste–itisalsoregisteredinthemonitoringofmodesofbehaviourwhereworking-classwaysoflifeareconstructedasblockagestoappropriationoftherightsymbolsofvalueandprogressivewaysoflife.Forexample,inTenYearsYoungersmoking,sunworshippingandunhealthyeatingaretheerrantbehavioursidentifiedasblamefulandshameful(DoyleandKarl2007).Modesofeverydaylifeareoftenturnedintospectaclesofshame.IntheprogrammeHoney,We’reKillingtheKidsshame(notchoice)operatesasthecatalyst.Atthebeginning,working-classparentsstandinawhiteroominfrontofalargescreen.Imagesoftheirchildrenappearastheyarenowandthenagedbycomputergraphicstotheageofforty.Thevisualimagesofthechildrenmetamorphoseintothoseoftheirparents,accompaniedbyavoice-overwhichincreasinglyandmelodramaticallymimeshorrorasthechildrenvisuallybecometheirparents,symbolisingtheirfuturethrough

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:188177–193188HelenWoodandBevSkeggsthevisualimageofthealreadyfailed.Lookingoldandunhealthy(astheparentsinvariablydo)aresymptomsoflifefailure,offeringadramaticvisualisationofaspectacleofshame.Lookingbackattheparentsaretheimagesofthemselves:theyaretheproblemhereinthepresent.Afamilypsychologist,KrisMurrin,isonhandtoshowthem‘corrective’formsofbehaviour,whichfocusonapparentlyneutralissuessuchasdietandhealthyliving,butalsofrequentlystrayintogettingmotivatedandgettingajobtobeagoodrolemodelforyourchildren.Herlistof‘goldenrules’includes:healthyfood,dailyroutine,structuredactivities,respect,one-on-onetime,stopsmoking,‘you’time,givechildrenresponsibilities,familyactivities,children’slearning,adultlearning,challengeyourselfandyourkids,getkidsmotivated.7Again,althoughclassisglaringlyobviousasabroadersocialandeconomicsetofcircumstances,theissuesaredealtwithintermsofpersonalbehaviourandpsychology.ThisprovidesevidencetosupportValerieWalkerdine’s(2003)broaderobservationabouthowintheuniversalisingofmiddle-classlifestylesagrammarofpsychologyreplacesthegrammarofexploitation.Pseudo-psychologicalexpertsaboundin‘reality’televisionprogrammes,whereevenchangingone’sdietisthekeytoahappierlifeandthe‘newyou’.Failureispersonalisedatthelevelofthepsychological,aresultoflackofself-caredetachedfromanyeconomic,politicalorculturaldifferencesandinequalities.Motheringinparticularemergesasoneofthemainsitesofworking-classfailure,repeatingthelongtraditionofpathologisingworking-classmothers(Lawler2000).Jo,the‘expert’onSupernanny,entersparticipants’homestooutlinethefailuresoftheparentsindiscipliningtheirchildrenand(usually)controllingchildren’ssugaryfoodintake.Thefocusondisciplineiscondensedontothe‘naughtystep’asoneofthemanyformsofadvice,presentedas‘usefultips’.Adviceisalsoaccompaniedbyinstructionsinspeaking.Ahowtotalktochildren,toexplain,toelaborate,andmostdefinitelynottoshout:amorethoroughdemonstrationoftheconventionalmiddle-classelaborated-codestandardofspeechwouldbehardtofind.AsDeborahCameronnotesinabroaderculturalshifttoidealsofindividualisation,communicationisprizedasarouteimprovement:‘Goodcommunicationissaidtobethekeytoabetterandhappierlife;improvingcommunication“wouldimproveeverythingelse”’(Cameron2000:1).‘Goodcommunication’asatropeappearsinotherways,too.Themundanesignificanceofthedining-roomtableisanothermotifbywhichbehaviourismodified.Psychologistsoftenintroducethediningtableintofamilylivesasawayofbringingthefamilytogethertotalk.Talkingandcommunicatingareseenasoneofthemostobviousroutestoparentalresponsibility,whichstandsagainsttheimagesoftheworkingclasswhoeat‘TVdinners’as‘couchpotatoes’anddonoteffectivelyinteract.Thetelevisionsetinparticularisrepresentativeofmoralcrime.InoneepisodeofHoney,We’reKillingtheKidsafamilyareforcedintoopeningup

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:189177–193Spectacularmorality189theirdiningroom,savedfor‘best’,totheeverydayeatinghabitsoftheirhousehold.Itwascleartoseehowdistressingthisactofsymbolicviolencewastothemotherwhose‘fancy’diningroomwasamatterofprideandrespectability.InFamilyForensicspartsofthehomethatareseen(bythe‘expert’psychologist)asdiversionsfromamoremodern,communicativeandhealthywayoflifeareactuallycordonedoffwithcrime-scenetape.Theoverrepresentationoftheworkingclassesintheseprogrammesmakethemintoreifiedabjectobjectsforspectacularentertainment,justastheyareinHomeOfficeWhitePapers,whereparentingpracticesbecome‘methods’(orFoucauldiantechniquesinthecareoftheself)thatmustbetaughtforthepublicgood(Gillies2005).Whatparentsareactuallybeingtaughtistheaspirationtoandvalueofclassmobilitythroughthepsychologisingofclassdistinctions;asHoney,We’reKillingtheKidsvisualised,failuretochangeisafailureofmobilitymimickingeducationpolicywhereby‘theworkingclassesaredestinedtotransferdisadvantagetotheirchildreninacycleofdeprivation’(Gillies2005).‘Reality’televisionprogrammesarethereforefindingnewforcethroughasub-genrethatfetishisesbehaviourmodification–socialworktelevision–wheremoralfailurecanbelocatedinmanyintimatespacesofpersonalbehaviour,makingstartlingparallelswiththemanygovernmentbehaviourmodificationinitiatives.Presentedthroughtheauspicesoflifestyleandpsychology,seeminglyunquestionableanduniversalidealsarestandardisedforthebenefitofthenation’shealth.Theuncomfortablepresenceofshamealertsustothefallacyofdiscoursesof‘choice’:inYouareWhatyouEatcamerastaketheopening-outofintimatebehaviourtoanewlevel,focusingonfaecesasthevisibleevidenceofabadlifestyle.Thateatingtake-awayfoodmighthaveabroadersocialandeconomicexplanationasaworking-classformofpleasureoraproductoftimenecessityisnotconsidered.Badlystyledfurnitureinmake-overprogrammesisasignoflackofprogress,wrinklesarethesymptomsofthemorallyillicitpleasuresofpackagehol-idays,raisingyourvoiceisasignoflackofcontrolandself-management.Inshort,eachformofbehaviourisgivenanegativevaluesothateachpartmetonymicallyrepresentsthe‘whole’badperson:culturaldifferencesvisualisedthroughthemundaneandintimatedetailsofeverydaylifethatarepresentedasmorallyperverse,pathologicalandmadespectacular.ConclusionInSocietyoftheSpectacleGuyDebord(1931/1994)suggeststhatinsocietieswheremodernconditionsofproductionprevail,throughtheautocraticreignofthemarketeconomy,spectacleismorethanacollectionofimages,itissocialrelationsamongpeople,mediatedbyimages.Thefactthatcontemporary‘reality’programmingrepresentsanahistoricalandspectacularapproachtosociallifedoesnotmeanthatclassisnotpresent

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:190177–193190HelenWoodandBevSkeggsbutitispreciselybecauseclasshasideologicallyshiftedontoquestionsofmoralvisibilityandindividualityinpoliticalculturethatmakesitsoeasytosee.Bydenigratingthetraditionsofemotionandsensation8generatedthroughmelodramaon‘reality’televisionsomecriticshavefailedtoregisterpreciselythemechanismsbywhichclassisbeingremadeinthepresent.Thisisnottosaythatclassisnotmadebyotherfactors(economic,forinstance)andacrossothersites(inpoliticalrhetoricandpolicy,aswehaveseen),rather‘reality’televisionisoneofthesiteswhereitsmakingismadespectacular,reducedtopsychologisationandshowntobeloadedwithmoralvalue.Inaneoliberalsocietywhereaperson’ssocialworthisdemonstratedbythecapacitytoself-manage,‘reality’televisionputspeopleinsituationsinwhichtheycanbeonlyoutofcontrol,makingthemappearascompletelyincapableandinadequate;butratherthanlocatingtheforcesthatputthemoutofcontrolassocial,copingbecomesinsteadatestofaperson’sindividualcapacity,andismarkedonthebody,dispositions,thehouse,thespeech,thefaeces,etc.,throughmetonymicmorality,whereeachpartcarriesthevalueofthewhole.Responsibilityconvertseachmistakeintoafault,whichisthephilosophicalprincipleforattributingliability.IfWilliams(2001)iscorrecttosuggestthatmelodramacarriesanation’smoralvaluesmoregenerally,wesuggestthat‘reality’televisionisoneofthemostvisiblepresentpoliticalformsofgeneratinginequalitiesinthemoraleconomyofpersonhood.Notes1SeetheMcTaggartLecturebyLordJohnBirt,ex-BBCDirector,attheEdinburghFestival,26August2005.2ThechapterdrawsonresearchconductedfortheUKEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil,entitled‘MakingClassandSelfthroughTelevisedEthicalScenarios’(RES148-25-0040),whichtrackedtheenormousexplosionof‘reality’televisionacrosspublicandcommercialchannels.Weselectedtenprogrammeseriesfromaninitialselectionofforty-twoself-transformationprogrammes(ratherthanpsychologicalexperimentandeventtypeprogrammes,e.g.BigBrotherorTheXFactor)fortextualanalysis.Empiricalaudienceresearchwasalsoconductedwithfortywomenofdifferentgenerations,middleandworking-class,white,blackandAsian,settledandrecentmigrants,fromfourareasofsouthLondon.3InoneweekinNovember2005wecountedninety-twodifferent‘reality’televisionprogrammesfromUKterrestrialandfree-viewtelevisionpackages.(Thenumberwouldpossiblybedoubledifwewereabletoaccountfortheentireavailabilityacrosssatelliteandcableprovision.)4SeediscussionsinFlow,anonlinejournalanddiscussiongroupfortelevi-sionstudies,on‘Governmentalityandcitizenship’,http://flowtv.org(accessed21October2006).5Seehttp://www.gov.org/respect(accessed20October2006).6TheScotsman,‘Blairtounveil“parentingacademy”’,http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=41952006(accessed10January2006).

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:191177–193Spectacularmorality1917FromHoney,We’reKillingtheKidswebsite,http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/tv_and_radio/honey/(accessed13May2007).8InSkeggsetal.(2008)weshowhowaffectistranslatedintomoraljudgement.BibliographyAhmed,S.(2004)TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion,Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.Aldridge,S.(2004)LifeChancesandSocialMobility:anOverviewoftheEvidence.PrimeMinister’sStrategyUnit,London:HMSO;http://www.strategy.gov.uk/files/pdf/lifechances_socialmobility.pdf.Andrejevik,M.(2004)RealityTV:theWorkofbeingWatched.LanhamMD:RowmanandLittlefield.Ang,I.(1985)WatchingDallas:SoapOperaandtheMelodramaticImagination.London:Methuen.Beck,U.(1992)RiskSociety:TowardsaNewModernity.London:Sage.Bennett,T.(2003)‘Theinventionofthemodernculturalfact:towardacritiqueoftheCritiqueofEverydayLife’,inE.B.Silva,andT.Bennett(eds)ContemporaryCultureandEverydayLife.DurhamNC:SociologyPress.Berlant,L.(2000)‘Thesubjectoftruefeeling:pain,privacy,politics’,inS.Ahmed,J.Kilby,C.Lury,M.McNeilandB.Skeggs(eds)Transformations:ThinkingthroughFeminism.London:Routledge.Bernstein,B.(1971)Class,CodesandControlI.London:Paladin.Biressi,A.andNunn,H.(2005)RealityTV:RealismandRevelation.London:WallflowerPress.Bourdieu,P.(1979)‘Symbolicpower’,CritiqueofAnthropology4:77–85.Bromley,R.(2000)‘Thethemethatdarenotspeakitsname:classandrecentBritishfilm’,inS.Munt(ed.)CulturalStudiesandtheWorkingClass.London:Continuum.Brooks,P.(1976/1995)TheMelodramaticImagination:Balzac,HenryJames,MelodramaandtheModeofExcess.NewHavenCTandLondon:YaleUniversityPress.Cameron,D.(2000)GoodtoTalk?LivingandWorkinginaCommunicationCulture.London:Sage.Corner,J.(2002)‘Performingthereal’,TelevisionandNewMedia3(3):255–70.Couldry,N.(forthcoming)‘RealityTV,or,Thesecrettheatreofneoliberalism’,ReviewofEducationPedagogyandCulturalStudies.Debord,G.(1931/1994)SocietyoftheSpectacle.London:Verso.Deleuze,G.(2003)FrancisBacon:theLogicofSensation.LondonandNewYork:Continuum.Dovey,Jon(2000)FreakShow:First-personMediaandFactualTelevision.London:PlutoPress.Doyle,J.andKarl,I.(2007)‘“Shameonyou”:discoursesofhealth,classandgenderinthepromotionofcosmeticsurgerywithinpopularmedia’,TheBigRevealconference,Salford,May.Elsaesser,T.(1987)‘Talesofsoundandfury:observationsonthefamilymelodrama’,inC.Gledhill(ed.)HomeisWheretheHeartIs:StudiesinMelodramaandtheWomen’sFilm,London:BFIBooks.pp43–70.

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:192177–193192HelenWoodandBevSkeggsFoucault,M.(1979)DisciplineandPunish:theBirthofthePrison.NewYork:VintageBooks.Foucault,M.(1990)TheWilltoKnowledge:theHistoryofSexuality.NewYork:VintageBooks.Giddens,A.(1991)ModernityandSelf-identity.London:Sage.Gillies,V.(2005)‘Raisingthe“meritocracy”:parentingandtheindividualisationofsocialclass’,Sociology39(5):835–53.Gledhill,C.(1987)HomeiswheretheHeartis:StudiesinMelodramaandtheWomen’sFilm.London:BFIBooks.Gledhill,C.(2000)‘Rethinkinggenre’,inC.GledhillandL.Williams(eds)ReinventingFilmStudies.London:Arnold.Goode,Ian(2003)‘Valueandtelevisionaesthetics’,Screen44(1):106–9.Haylett,C.(2001)‘Illegitimatesubjects?Abjectwhites,neoliberalmodernisationandmiddle-classmulticulturalism’,EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace19:351–70.Kavka,M.andWest,A.(2004)‘Temporalitiesofthereal:conceptualisingtimeon“reality”TV’,inS.HolmesandD.Jermyn(eds)Understanding‘Reality’Television.London:Routledge.Kilborn,R.(2003)StagingtheReal:FactualTVprogrammingintheAgeofBigBrother.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Lawler,S.(2000)MotheringtheSelf:Mothers,Daughters,Subjects.London:Routledge.Lawler,S.(2006)Introductiontospecialissue‘Class,CultureandIdentity’,Sociology39(5):797–807.Lewis,T.(2007)‘“Heneedstofacehisfearswiththesefivequeers!”QueerEyefortheStraightGuy:makeoverTVandthelifestyleexpert’,TelevisionandNewMedia8(4):285–311.Lury,C.(1998)ProstheticCulture:Photography,MemoryandIdentity.London:Routledge.Mathiesen,T.(1997)‘Theviewersociety:MichelFoucault’s“panopticon”revisited’,TheoreticalCriminology,1(2):215–34.Moseley,R.(2000)‘MakeovertakeoveronBritishtelevision’,Screen41(3):299–314.Nichols,B.(1991)RepresentingReality,BloomingtonIL:UniversityofIndianaPress.Ouellette,L.(2004)‘Takeresponsibilityforyourself!JudgeJudyandtheneoliberalcitizen’,inS.MurrayandL.Ouellette(eds)RealityTV:RemakingTelevisionCulture.NewYorkandLondon:NewYorkUniversityPress.Palmer,G.(2003)DisciplineandLiberty:TelevisionandGovernance.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.Palmer,G.(2004)‘Thenewyou:classandtransformationonlifestyletelevision’,inS.HolmesandD.Jermyn(eds)UnderstandingRealityTelevision.London:Routledge.Piper,H.(2004)‘RealityTV,WifeSwap,andthedramaofbanality’,Screen45(4):273–86.Raphael,C.(2004)‘Thepoliticaleconomicoriginsofreali-TV’,inS.MurrayandL.Ouellette(eds)RealityTV:RemakingTelevisionCulture.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.

[12:109/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch11.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:193177–193Spectacularmorality193Rose,N.(1989)GoverningtheSoul:theShapingofthePrivateSelf.London:Routledge.Savage,M.(2003)‘Anewclassparadigm?’BritishJournalofSociologyofEducation24(4):535–41.Singer,D.(2001)MelodramaandModernity:EarlySensationalCinemaanditsContext.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Skeggs,B.(2004)Class,Self,Culture.London:Routledge.Skeggs,B.,Thumim,N.andWood,H.(2008)‘“Oh,goodness,Iamwatching‘reality’TV”:howmethodsmakeclassinaudienceresearch’,EuropeanJournalofCulturalStudies11(1):5–24.Steedman,C.(2000)‘Enforcednarratives:storiesofanotherself’,inT.Cosslett,C.LuryandP.Summerfield(eds)FeminismandAuto/Biography.London:Routledge.Strathern,M.(1992)AfterNature:EnglishKinshipinthelateTwentiethCentury.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Swinfold,S.(2006)‘ASBOTVhelpsresidentswatchout’,SundayTimes,8January,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article/786225.ece.Taylor,L.(2005)‘“Itwasbeautifulbeforeyouchangeditall”:classandthetransformativeaestheticsofthegardenlifestylemedia’,inD.BellandJ.Hollows(eds)OrdinaryLifestyles:PopularMedia,ConsumptionandTaste.Maidenhead:OpenUniversityPress.Walkerdine,V.(2003)‘Reclassifyingupwardmobility:femininityandtheneoliberalsubject’,GenderandEducation15(3):237–48.White,M.(2006)‘InvestigationCheaters’,CommunicationReview9:221–40.Williams,L.(2001)PlayingtheRaceCard:MelodramasofBlackandWhitefromUncleTomtoO.J.Simpson.PrincetonNJandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress.Wood,H.,Skeggs,B.andThumim,N.(forthcoming)‘“It’sjustsad”:themediationofintimacyandemotionallabourin“reality”TVviewing’,inJ.HollowsandS.Gillis(ed.)Homefires:Domesticity,FeminismandPopularCulture.London:Routledge.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:194194–21012VariationsonthebrandedselfTheme,invention,improvisationandinventoryAlisonHearn…wearrivedspectacular,tenderingourownbodiesintodreamery,asmeat,asmask,asburden…DionneBrand,InventoryThereflexiveprojectofthe‘self’,identifiedbyAnthonyGiddensasahallmarkofmodernity,hasbecomeadistinctkindoflabourunderpost-Fordistcapitalintheformof‘self-branding’.Self-brandinginvolvestheconstructionofameta-narrativeandmeta-imageofselfthroughtheuseofculturalmeaningsandimagesdrawnfromthenarrativeandvisualcodesofthemainstreamculturalindustries.Thefunctionofthebrandedselfispurelyrhetorical;itsgoalistoproduceprofit.Differentinflectionsofself-brandingcanbetracedacrossseveralmediatedculturalformsthatdirectlyaddresstheconstitutionandcelebrationofthe‘self’assuch.Thepracticeofself-brandingisclearlyexpressedanddelineatedincurrentmanagementliteratureasanecessarystrategyforsuccessinanincreasinglycomplexcorporateworld.Manyrealitytelevisionshowsinventnarrativesofself-brandingand,simultaneously,producebrandedpersonae.Websiteslike2night.comanduniversityparty.caimproviseonthethemeofself-brandingbytakingphotographsofyoungpeopleatclubsandlinkingthemtoadvertisementsonline,blurringthedistinctionbetweenprivateselfandinstrumentalassociativeobject,whilesocialnetworkwebsiteslikeMySpaceandFacebookofferinventoriesofvariousselves.TheunderstandingoftheselfatworkinthischaptertakesseriouslyMichelFoucault’sinsightthat‘nothinginman–notevenhisbody–issufficientlystabletoserveasabasisforself-recognitionorforunder-standingothermen’(Foucault1990:153).Heretheselfisunderstoodassomethingmadeorproducedandconditionedbydominantnotionsofthe‘body’and‘being’.Psychoanalyticconcernsaboutunconsciousidentityformationare,forthemostpart,lefttothesidehere,asareanyclaimsaboutessentialhumannature.Indeed,thischapterassumesadearthoforientingtemplatesfromwhichtoproduceastableidentity,arguinginstead

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:195194–210Variationsonthebrandedself195thatcurrentinflectionsofself-brandingaretheproductofaneconomyandcultureintheWestintentonconstantinnovationandflexibility.Thischapterhopestoexplorethevariouskindsofworkinvolvedincreatingadetachable,saleableimageornarrativeofself,whicheffectivelycirculatesculturalmeanings.Thisbrandedselfeitherconsciouslypositionsitself,orispositionedbyitscontextanduse,asasitefortheextractionofvalue.Ifweseetheselfasbothaproductandareflexivelyconstitutedbrandsubjecttotransactionandexchange,weseeanotionofselfdeeplymarkedbythediscoursesandpracticesofpost-Fordistmodesofcapitalistproduction.Theideaoftheselfasacommodity,orformofpropertysubjecttomarketexchange,isnotnew;itwasenvisionedbyJohnLockeinTheSecondTreatiseonCivilGovernment.MorerecentlyAnthonyGiddensoffersaviewofself-commodificationasmarkedby‘thepossessionofdesiredgoodsandthepursuitofartificiallyframedstylesoflife’(Giddens1991:196)andwritesof‘self-actualisation…packagedanddistributedaccordingtomarketcriteria’(Giddens1991:198).Butwhatdoesitmeantosuggestthattheselfhasbecomeabrand?Brandingisadistinctformofmarketingpractice,intendedtolinkproductsandserviceswithresonantculturalmeaningsthroughtheuseofnarrativesandimages.Inrecentyearsthepracticesofbrandinghavemovedfromattemptingtodisciplineconsumertastedirectlytoworkingmoreindirectlytoinstalldefiniteandhighlycircumscribed‘setsofrelationsbetweenproductsandservices’(Lury2004:1)andtheconsumerswhousethem.Brandingdoesthisbyconstructingaparticularambience,comprisedofsensibilitiesandvalues,whichmaythenconditionconsumerbehaviour.Abrandrefersnolongertoasimplecommoditybuttoanentire‘virtualcontext’forconsumption;it‘standsforaspecificwayofusingtheobject,apropertiedformoflifetoberealisedinconsumption’(Arvidson2005:244).Inaworldmarkedbyincreasingflexibilityandflux,brandingworkstofix,albeittemporarilyandtentatively,culturalmeaningsaroundconsumption,producingaestheticisedmodesofjustificationforlifeundercapital(GoldmanandPapson2006).Thematerialformofthebrandasanimage,logo,ortrademarkisthefirstlineofanymarketingstrategy.Thebrandorlogo,dispersedviaavarietyofmediaforms,comestostandasthefaceofacorporation,good,orserviceandfunctionsasacentralpointofmediationbetweenthebranderandconsumer.Whiletheobjectofthelogoortrademarkwasinitiallyintendedtoguaranteequality,ithasnowbecomethesignofadefinitetypeofsocialidentity,whichsummonsconsumersintorelationshipwithit.Thematerialbrandistheultimateimage-commodity:afetishobjectparexcellence,pursuedandpaidforbyconsumerswhowishtobecomeapartofitsfabricatedworldofpurloinedculturalmeanings.Branders,astheapotheosisofBarthes’sbourgeoismythmakers,‘areaddictedtoborrowedequity;frombabiestobreasts,fromheart-wrenchingmelodies

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:196194–210196AlisonHearntolamejokes,fromleafyroadstograndiloquentclichésaboutthe“roadoflife”’(GoldmanandPapson2006:329);theystealimages,stories,andlanguagetoconstitutebrandidentities.Thisleadstoanotherinflectionofthebrandasaspecificculturalresourcethroughwhichindividualsandcommunitiesdefinethemselves.Brands,bothastrademarkedimage-objectsandassetsofrelationsandcontextsforlife,becomethegroundandcomprisethetoolsforthecreationofselfandcommunity(Arvidson2005;Holt2002).Athirdinflectionoftheterm‘brand’definesitasavalue-generatingformofpropertyinitsownright.Abrandisrecognisedassuchbytrademarklicensinglawand,sincethe1980s,bycorporateaccountingpractices,whichconsiderthebrandasadistinct,albeitintangible,commercialasset.Brandsgeneratevaluefortheircorporatefathersinandthroughthepracticesdescribedabove,essentiallymonetisingthesymbolicmeaning-makingactivitiesofconsumers.AgenciessuchasInterbrandarededicatedtodeterminingbrandvalue(Lury2004:120)andmeasurebrandequitybytheextenttowhichconsumersrecognise,use,andlivethroughthebrand:‘theautonomousimmaterialproductivityofconsumersissimplycommodifiedasitunfolds“naturally”’(Arvidson2005:249).Thepracticesofbrandingcomprisearigorouslyinstrumentalsetofcommercialactivitieslinkedtothehegemonyofpost-Fordistcorporatecapital.InhisbookPromotionalCulture,AndrewWernickarguesthatallmannerofcommunicationunderthecontemporaryculturalconditionsofpromotionalismhaveastheirfunction‘somekindofself-advantagingexchange’(Wernick1991:181).So,whilecurrentbrandingtechniquesmaynolongerattempttopersuadeconsumersdirectly,theirfunctionremainsfundamentallypersuasive;theyworktocolonisethelivedexperienceofconsumersintheinterestsofcapitalaccumulation.Indeed,thefinelycali-bratedpracticesofcorporatebrandingexpresstheself-advantagingvaluesofcapitalmostpointedly,inscribingthesevaluesdirectlyintobrandedexperience.As‘managerialpowerbecomesanimmanentcomponentoftheveryenvironmentinwhichconsumersact’(Arvidson2005:248)weareall,insomesense,‘branded’bytheinstrumentallogicsofcorporatecapitalistculture.AndrewWernick’sworkonpromotionalcultureprovidesausefulstartingpointfortheexplorationofself-branding.Promotionalism,Wernickargues,isadominantcontemporaryculturalcondition.Apromotionalmessageisa‘complexofsignificationswhichatoncerepresents(movesinplaceof),advocates(movesonbehalfof),andanticipates(movesaheadof)thecirculatingentity…towhichitrefers’(Wernick1991:182).Promotionentailsarearrangementoftherelationbetweensignandreferent;thesigncomestodisplacethematerialobjecttowhichitrefersand,inthisway,acquiresakindofagency.ForWernickpromotion‘isamodeofcommunication,aspeciesofrhetoric.Itisdefinednotbywhatitsaysbutbywhatitdoes’(Wernick1991:184).Aculturemarkedbythe

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:197194–210Variationsonthebrandedself197ubiquityofpromotionaldiscourseisatrulypostmodernone,signalledbyalackoftrustinlanguage.Herewhatmattersmostisnot‘meaning’perse,or‘truth’or‘reason’(forthesetermshavebeenstrippedoftheirreferentsandindenturedintorhetoricalservice)but‘winning’–attention,emotionalallegiance,andmarketshare.Goods,corporations,andpeopleareallimplicatedinpromotionalism;notonlyaretheycommodified,buttheymustalsogeneratetheirownrhetoricallypersuasivemeanings.Theymustbecome‘commoditysigns’,which‘functionincirculationbothas…object(s)-to-be-soldandasthebearer(s)ofapromotionalmessage’(Wernick1991:16).Thebrandedselfisacommoditysign;itisanentitythatworksand,atthesametime,pointstoitselfworking,strivingtoembodythevaluesofitsworkingenvironment.Hereweseetheselfasacommodityforsaleinthelabourmarketwhichmustgenerateitsownrhetoricallypersuasivepackaging,itsownpromotionalmessage,withintheconfinesofthedomi-nantcorporateimaginary.Assuchthebrandedselfmustbeunderstoodasadistinctkindoflabour,involvinganouter-directedprocessofhighlystylisedself-construction,directlytiedtothepromotionalmechanismsofthepost-Fordistmarket.Withinpromotionalculture,thebrandedselfmaybeseenasthe‘significativesupplement’(Wernick1991:190)ofthecommodity-self,transformingwhatitdoublesandextends,producingaversionofselfthatblursdistinctionsbetweenoutsideandinside,surfaceanddepth.This‘personaproducedforpublicconsumption’reflectsa‘self,whichcontinuallyproducesitselfforcompetitivecirculation’(Wernick1991:192)andpositionsitselfasasitefortheextractionofvalue.Thebrandedselfsitsatthenexusofdiscoursesofneoliberalism,flexibleaccumulation,radicalindividualism,andspectacularpromotionalism.ThemeSelf-promotionisnotnew.Onecouldarguethatithasbeenaroundaslongastherehavebeenpersonaladvertisementsinnewspapers,sinceadsformail-orderbridesinthe1800s(Coupland1996).Self-improvementbooks,suchasDaleCarnegie’sHowtoWinFriendsandInfluencePeople,havealsobeenpopularformanydecades.Theculturalforcesanddiscoursesthathavegivenrisetotheovertpracticesofself-brandingasexpressedinpersonalbrandingmanagementliteraturearerelativelyrecent,however,andhavetheirrootintheriseofthenetworkedorganisationandtheentrepreneurialworkplace.Thephenomenonofself-brandinghasdevelopedagainstthebackdropofjust-in-timepost-FordistindustrialproductionprocessesandtheriseofwhatDavidHarveyandothershavetermed‘flexibleaccumulation’:amodeofproductionbasedonstrategiesofpermanentinnovation,mobilityandchange,subcontracting,andjust-in-time,decentralisedproduction(Harvey1990).Flexibleaccumulationisheavilydependentoncommunication

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:198194–210198AlisonHearnnetworksandonlateralflowsofinformationandproduction,asopposedtohierarchicalones.Corporationsincreasinglyactthrough‘theagencyofsmall,independentproductionunits,employingskilledworkteams…andrelyingonrelativelyspontaneousformsofcooperationwithothersuchteamstomeetrapidlychangingmarketdemandsatlowcostandhighspeed’(Holmes2006:5).Asaresultofinstantaneouscommunicativecapacities,newtechnologiesandmediatisation,thecreationanddeploymentofephemeralimagescomestoplayalargerroleincapitalaccumulation:‘investmentinimage-building…becomesasimportantasinvestmentinnewplantandmachinery’(Harvey1990:288).Flexibleaccumulation,then,reliesheavilyontheproductionandconsumptionofknowledgeandsymbolicproducts,emphasisingpackaging,image,design,andmarketingoverconcretematerialproduction(GoldmanandPapson2006;Harvey1990).Herebranding,asan‘institutionalisedmethodofpracticallymaterialisingthepoliticaleconomyofsigns’(GoldmanandPapson2006:328),becomes‘acoreactivityofcapitalism’(Holt2006:300).Brandingsimultane-ouslyproducessetsofimagesandimmaterialsymbolicvaluesinandthroughwhichindividualsnegotiatetheworld.Itworkstocontainanddirecttheexpressive,meaning-makingcapacitiesofsocialactorsindefiniteself-advantagingways,shapingmarketsandcontrollingcompe-tition.Withincurrentbrandingpractices,consumerbehaviourandlivedexperiencebecome‘boththeobjectandthemediumofbrandactivity’(Moor2003:42).LucBoltanski’sandEveChiapello’sresearchintothemanagementliteratureofthe1960sand1990ssupporttheclaimsofDavidHarveyandothersabouttheemergenceofanewregimeofcapitalistaccumulation,althoughfromaverydifferent,Weberianperspective.BoltanskiandChiapelloarguethat,inresponsetotheeconomicandlegitimationcrisesofthe1960sandearly1970s,capitalismhasreconstitutedits‘spirit’intheformofanetworkedorganisation,markedbyflexibility,subcontracting,casualisation,segmentation,speed-up,workintensity,andincreasedjobcompetitionorprecariousness.Thisneworganisationisaccompaniedbynewvaluesystemsandnewregimesofjustification.Inthecontemporarynetworkedorganisation,activitybecomesthestandardofvalueforpersonalsuccess:Whatisrelevantistobealwayspursuingsomesortofactivity,nevertobewithoutaproject,withoutideas,tobealwayslookingforwardto,andpreparingfor,something…(BoltanskiandChiapello2002:9–10)Perpetualactivityonthepartofworkersishighlydependentontheirflexibilityandadaptabilitytochange.Themotivationforthisactivitymustcomefromwithinandreflectpersonalinnovationandautonomy.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:199194–210Variationsonthebrandedself199BoltanskiandChiapelloarguethatthenetworkedorganisationanditsattendantvaluesofflexibility,communicativecompetence,andcreativityaretheresultofcapital’sfun-housemirrorrecuperationofformsofculturalcriticismfromthe1960s,whichattackcapital’svariousmodesofsocialandindividualalienation.AsBrianHolmeswrites,‘thenetworkedorganisationgivesbacktotheemployee…thepropertyofhimselforherselfthatthetraditionalfirmhadsoughttopurchaseasthecommodityoflaborpower’(Holmes2006:6).Crucially,however,anyattempttoovercomeindividualalienationintheworkplacestillhappensintheworkplace,onthegroundofcapitalistrelationsofdomination(Virno1996:27).Whileindividualsareexpectedtoinvesttheirsoulintheirworkandtobecome‘themanageroftheirownself-gratifyingactivity’thismayhappenonlyso‘longastheactivityturnsintoprofit-producingactivity’(Holmes2006:6).Intrueneoliberalfashion,theresponsibil-ityforself-fulfilmentandmeaningfulcommunityisdownloadedontotheindividualworker,astheworldofalienatedlabourisostensiblyovercome.Asaresult,wehaveseentheriseofwhatPaulduGayandothershavecalledan‘enterpriseculture’intheworkplace,whichregards‘certainenter-prisingqualities–suchasself-reliance,personalresponsibility,boldnessandawillingnesstotakerisks…ashumanvirtuesandpromote[sthem]assuch’(duGay1996:60).Workersareexpectedtobe‘entrepreneursoftheself’(duGay1996:70),engagedinthe‘continuousbusinessoflivingtomakeadequateprovisionforthepreservation,reproduction,andreconstructionof(their)ownhumancapital’(Gordon1991:44).Theworkplace,nowpresumablyfullofnon-alienatedandself-directedworkers,stillrequirescontainmentandcontrolbymanagement,however.Distinctmanagementstrategies,suchasteamorfamilyconceptsandtotalqualitymanagementcircles,arespecifically‘concernedwiththeproductionandregulationofparticularwork-basedsubjectivities’(duGay1996:59).Theyaimtokeepworkersinvestedincorporatefunctioningbyaddressingeachworker’ssubjectivesenseofselfandidentity,solicitingthemtoexpresstheiruniquenessandtyingthattocorporateobjectives.Therecanbenodoubtthatthe‘selves’thatemergefromthesemanage-mentprocessesaredeeplyconditionedandconstrainedbythemanagementprocessesthatproducedthem.Participativemanagementprogrammesremainauthoritarian;‘onehastoexpressoneself,onehastospeak,communicate,cooperate…[t]hetoneisthatofthepeoplewhoareinexecutivecommand’(Lazzarato1996:135).AsDavidHarveywrites,thesouloftheworkermustbeculturallylegible,arguablyintheformofaresonantimageorbrand,inordertobeeffective:‘theacquisitionofanimage…becomesasingularlyimportantelementinthepresentationofselfinlabourmarkets’(Harvey1990:288).Thecentralityofbrandingtocapitalistaccumulationoccursatthesametimeasthedrivetowardactivityinanyguise‘overcomestheoppositions

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:200194–210200AlisonHearnbetweenworkandnowork,steadyandunsteady,paidandunpaid,profit-sharingandvolunteerwork’(BoltanskiandChiapello2002:9).AutonomistMarxistcriticshavereferredtotheseconditionsasthe‘socialfactory’,inwhichthehumancreativecapacityor‘speciesbeing’issubsumedtothelogicofcapitalandmodesofcapitalistaccumulationextendwellbeyondtheconfinesofthefactoryintoallactivitiesofhumanlife(HardtandNegri2000;Lazzarato1996).Wemightcharacteriseallindividualsatthishistoricalmoment,then,notasworkers,ontheonehand,orasautonomousindividualsontheother,butas‘creative,nature-transformingagentsonwhoseco-operativeactivitycapitaldependsforthecreationofsurplusvalue’(Dyer-Witheford2001:164).Brandingpracticesextractvaluefromus,conditionedasweare‘bythelogicsoftheworldmarket,and…socialisedtobe‘subjectivelyreconciled’tothesituation,acceptingitasifitwerevoluntarilychosen’(Dyer-Witheford2001:166).NickDyer-Withefordhasnamedus‘globalvaluesubjects’.Againstthisbackdropofneoliberalism,flexibleaccumulation,andtheriseofacultureofpromotionalismwiththepostmodernbrandaslife-definingresource,thepersonalbrandingmovementinmanagementliteraturearoseinthelate1990s.Claimingtoprovidea‘communicativeresponsetoeconomicuncertainty’(Lairetal.2005:309),gurusofpersonalbranding,suchasStedmanGraham,TomPeters,andPeterMontoya,offerwaystocompeteandgainpowerinthevolatileworkworldofflexiblecapital.Inthisliterature,successisdependent,notuponspecificskillsormotivation,butontheglossypackagingoftheselfandtheunrelentingpursuitofattention.Hereanimprovedselfisnotjustapleasantoutcomeoffulfillingworkwithinacorporatesettingbutisexplicitlydefinedasapromotionalvehicledesignedtosell:onethatanticipatesthedesiresofatargetmarket.Themostimportantworkisworkontheself.AsTomPeterswrites:You’renota‘staffer’atGeneralMills,you’renota‘worker’atGeneralElectricora‘humanresource’atGeneralDynamics…Youdon’t‘belongto’anycompanyforlife,andyourchiefaffiliationisn’ttoanyparticular‘function’…Startingtodayyouareabrand.(Peters1997:83)Unlikepersonalads,whicharehighlycircumscribedandformulaictypesofself-promotion,thepracticesofpersonalbrandingareongoingandinvolveawholewayoflife.AsMontoyawrites:‘apersonalbrand[is]builtontheperson’struecharacter,values,strengthsandflaws’(Montoya2002:16).Workersareencouragedtodistiltheirtoptenqualitiesintoafewoutstandingattributes,or‘braggables’,thatmighthelpthemachieve‘topofmind’statusintheirtargetaudience.AsChuckPettiswrites,‘Youarea“product”withfeaturesandbenefits,certainskillsandspecialtalents…IncreatingyourPersonalBrand,MeInc….

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:201194–210Variationsonthebrandedself201youwanttousethoseskillsandtalentsthatarehighlyvaluedbyyour“customer”’(Pettis2003).Thoseinquestofapersonalbrandareencouragedtoexposetheirbraggablesineveryvenueavailabletothembylaunchingafull-on‘personalvisibilitycampaign’:‘Whenyou’repromotingbrandyou,everythingyoudo–andeverythingyouchoosenottodo–communicatesthevalueandcharacterofyourbrand’(Peters1997:83).Carefullycraftedappearanceandmaximumimageexposure,suchaswritinginnewslettersorappearingontelevision,arecrucial.Personalbrandersmustalsoremainincontroloftheirmessageatalltimes,eveninprivate.Ultimatelyyourpersonalbrandisnotonlyaprettyveneer;itisintendedtobearhetoricallypersuasiveversionofyourself.Likeallbrandingpractices,youarehopingtocoloniseapieceofrealestateinthemindofyourconsumer,asYouInc.:‘PersonalBrandingisabouttakingcontroloftheprocessesthataffecthowothersperceiveyou,andmanagingthoseprocessesstrategicallytohelpyouachieveyourgoals’(Montoya2002:7).Gurusofself-brandingarecarefultodressupthepracticeintherhetoricofself-care.AsStedmanGrahamwrites,‘buildingalifebrandisnotaboutachievingstatus,wealthorfame.It’sabouttakingresponsibilityforyourownhappinessandfulfillment.It’saboutcreatingalifeofvaluebyputtingyourgiftstotheirhighestuse’(Graham2001:22).Thepracticesofpersonalbrandingcanhelpineveryareaoflife.ChuckPettisdescribeshisclient,Will,whoappliedthestepsofpersonalbrandingtohismarriagebyattemptingtoembodythedesirableslistedbyhistargetaudience,hiswife.Heseeshispersonalbrandasa‘valueadded’tohisrelationship:‘NowIpickupmyclothes,’Willstates.‘Mywifeisthemostimportantpersonintheworldtome.Becausesheisthenumber-onecustomerinmyorganisation,Ihavetomakesureshe’s100percentsatisfiedandhappywiththeproduct’(Pettis2003).Gurusofpersonalbrandingsimultaneouslyclaimthatapersonalbrand‘isnotyou;it’sthepublicprojectionofyourpersonalityandabilities’(Lairetal.2005:325)andthatitisawaytoimproveyourselfandserveothers,ameansforachievinga‘transcendentself’(Graham2001:24).Aspersonalbrandingliteraturecelebratesthefreedomandradicalindividualempowermentinvolvedincreatingthepersonalbrand,itsnumerousedictsandrules,anditsrelentlessmarketdiscourseseriouslydelimitthefieldofpossibilitieswithinwhichanyimagined‘authenticself’mightbeperformed,reducingtheselftoasetofpurelyinstrumentalbehavioursandcircumscribingitsmeaningswithinmarketdiscourse.ThesepracticesaretheepitomeofaprocessNormanFaircloughhascalled‘syntheticpersonalisation’(Fairclough1993).Whatisactuallybeingsoldinthisliterature,then,isexpertiseincraftingapotentimageofautonomoussubjectivity.AscriticsDanielLair,KateSullivan,andGeorgeCheneywrite,‘aprofessionalworkworldwherepersonalbrandingpredominateswould…beonewithfewenduringbondsandlittletrustbutagreat

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:202194–210202AlisonHearndealofpoliticalmaneuvering,competition,andcynicism’(Lairetal.2005:335–6).InventionItisnocoincidencethatthisdescriptionsoundsjustlikeanepisodeofSurvivor(CBS,2000)orTheApprentice(NBC,2004).AsIhavearguedelsewhere,realitytelevisionprogrammesinventnarrativesabouthowtobecomeanotableselforcelebrityatthesametimeastheyofferameanstoachieveabrandedpersona(Hearn2006).Herethediscoursesofentrepreneurialself-brandingandpromotionalismareexplicitlytiedtotheimageeconomyofthecultureindustries.Realityprogramsenticeindividualswiththe‘dreamery’ofthetelevisionindustryandaskthemtosharetheiruniquevirtuositywiththecamerasforverylittle,ifany,financialremuneration.AutonomistMarxistcriticPaoloVirnodefinesindividualvirtuosityasacapacityforimprovisedperformance,linguisticandcommunicativeinnovation,whichinevitablyrequiresthepresenceofothers.Heseesvirtuosityasacorecomponentofimmateriallabour,definedbyMaurizioLazzaratoas‘thelaborthatproducestheinformationalandculturalcontentofthecommodity’(Lazzarato1996:133).Similarly,Lazzaratoarguesthatthecentralcomponentofimmateriallabourissubjectivity,markedbycommunicativecapacity,perpetualflexibility,innovation,andthecontinualself-(re)creationofsubjectsatworkandthroughconsumption.Asthecultureindustriesare,initially,where‘thevirtuosobeginstopunchatimecard’(Virno2004:56),underpost-Fordismthepracticesofthecultureindustrieshavebecome‘generalisedandelevatedtotherankofcanon’(Virno2004:58).Insofaras‘productivelabour,initstotality,appropriatesthespecialcharacteristicsoftheperformingartist’(Virno2004:54–5),LazzaratoandVirnobotharguethat‘subjectivityceasestobeonlyaninstrumentofsocialcontrol…andbecomesdirectlyproductive’(Lazzarato1996:142).Thecultureindustries,then,worktoprovidetemplatesforeffectiveperformance,communicative,andimageskills,allrequisitefortheproductionoftheentrepreneurialbrandedself.RealitytelevisionshowssuchasAmericanIdol(Fox,2002)andAmerica’sNextTopModel(UPN,2003)havethestoryofself-brandingasthecentralthemeoftheirnarrativesandincludeexplicitinstructiononhowtomanagethedemandsoffameandeffectivelyperformone’sowncelebritybrand.ThebodymakeovershowsaretheliteralenactmentofGoffman’s‘facework’,involvingthematerialconstructionofthebodyaccordingtothedictatesofcelebrityculture,illustratedinshowslikeIWantaFamousFace(MTV,2004)andTheSwan(Fox,2004).Transformationshows,suchasExtremeMakeoverHomeEdition(ABC,2004)orWhatnottoWear(theLearningChannel,2003),offerinstructiononhowtoachievetheappropriatewardrobeorhometogainattentionandsuccessonthe

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:203194–210Variationsonthebrandedself203moregeneralmarketinsocialstatus.AsonepleasedcontestantonWhatnottoWearstates,‘Ishouldalwaysliveasthoughthereweretelevisioncamerasoutsidemyhouse!’Towhichthehostsreply,‘Notabadidea!’Heretheeyeofthetelevisionindustry,notthecorporateboardroom,istheultimateauthorisingforce,thepowerbehindthebrand.Inthiscultureofpromotionalism,or‘phantasmagoriccapital’,asErnestSternberghascalledit,notorietyservesasa‘proxyindicator’ofpersonalability,andthe‘capacityforcalculatedposing’,ortheconstructionofaclearbrandidentity,isoftenmoreimportantthanpossessinganyspecificskillset(Sternberg1998).Itcanbearguedthatrealitytelevisionprovidesaquickwayforindividualstobrandtheirownpersonaeandgetfame,whichcanbeexchangedforcashdowntheline.Americancourtshaverecognisedfameasacommoditysince1953,whenthe‘righttopublicity’lawwasfirstintroduced.Thelawrecognisesthefactthatacelebrityimagecan‘enhancethecommercialvaluetocommoditiesorserviceswithwhichtheyareassociated’(Madow1993:128)andthereforetreatsthepublicpersonaorbrandasasaleablecommodityinitsownright,ultimatelyalienableanddescendiblefromthebodythatproducedit(Madow1993).Perhapsthebest-knownexampleofacelebritybrandfunctioningdirectlyasaprofit-producing,symbolicculturalresourceontheopenmarketisDavidBowie’s1997offerof‘Bowiebonds’.HereBowietradesonhisreputationdirectly,askinginvestorstobankonhisbrandequity,basedonthepastandfutureroyaltiesofhismusic(Kadlec2004).Whiletherighttopublicityappliesonlytothoseconsidered‘celebrities’,initwecantracetherootsofself-brandingasaculturalpractice.Herecelebritynotonlyfunctionsasculturalresourceinandthroughwhichindividualsconstructtheiridentities,itbecomesageneralisablemodelofprofitableself-productionforallindividuals.Participantsonrealitytelevision,then,functionbothasimageentrepreneurs,astheyworktoproducebrandedversionsofthemselves,andasunpaidlabourersforthenetworks,whichreapfinancialrewardsasaresultofloweredproductioncosts.Theimmateriallabourinvolvedintheconstructionofapersonalimagebrandissimultaneouslyenactedinrealitytelevision’snarrativesandontheirshopfloors.Thenotablethingaboutthekindsofpersonalbrandsgeneratedonrealitytelevisionisthattheyarenottiedtoanyparticularkindofworkorspecificskillset.Insteadtheyareimagesofvarioustypesofeverydayselves,generatedinsidethestructurallimitssetbyrealitytelevision’sproducers.Justasinthepersonalbrandingliterature,thepersonaedevelopedonrealitytelevisionareoftenstrategicchoicesmadebythecontestants,intendedtopersuadethecamera,theproducers,andtheaudienceofthepersonalbrand’sviability.Wemightalsoseethesecharactertypesasrenderedfromindividuals’virtuosity;theyaretheresultofcommunicativeimprovisation,whichtakesplaceinsideatightlycontrolledcorporatecontext.Inaddition,

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:204194–210204AlisonHearnandagain,justasthepersonalbrandingliteraturedictates,theimage-brandsproducedareconsistentwiththedemandsofthecultureindustries;theyare‘synthetic,believable,passive,vivid,simplified,andambiguous’(Boorstin1961:185).Thesehighlystructurednarrativesandthe‘real’storyofself-brandingthatunderliethemsimultaneouslyfunctionastrainingforlifeunderneoliberalism.ImprovisationWebsiteslike2night.comanduniversityparty.caactivelycapitaliseontheimprovisationalcommunicativecompetencesofpartyingyoungpeople,miningthethemeofpersonalbrandingnarrativisedsoinventivelybyrealityprogramming.Thesesiteshirephotographersandsendthemouttoclubsinvariouscitiesaroundtheworld.Thephotographersactaspaparazziandtakepicturesofthepartiers.Thephotographsarepostedonlinethenextday,whereanyonecandownloadthemforfree.Workingwithinthegenreofcelebritypaparazzicandidshots,thetaglineof2night.comis‘Wheretheworldseesyou’.Asthepartiersgotothesitetoseethemselvespackagedinacelebrityformat,thesitecapitalisesontheirattention,sellingittoadvertisers.Onthewebsitethelinesbetweentheclubs,theadvertisers,andtheindividualsareblurred,astheyarealllinkedtogetherinonepromotionalpackage.Muchlikethecurrenttrendincorporateadvertisingthatencourages‘regular’(readunpaid)peopletocreatetheirownads,siteslike2night.comextractvaluefromtheuniquevirtuosityofpartyingmenandwomenbypackaging,brandingthem,andsellingthembacktothemselves.Thesesitesworktoblurthedistinctionbetweenproductandconsumer,privateselfandinstrumentalassociativeobject,and,inthissense,areprimeindicatorsoftheextensionofpromotionalandbrandingpracticesintoallrealmsofexperience.Individualscapturedonthesesitesareapartofapracticecalled‘ambientmarketing’,whichinvolvesrecruitingspaces,bodies,andexperienceintorhetoricalservice.AsmarketerAdamLurycontends,‘everythingisunpaidmediaifyouwanttouseitinthatkindofway’(Moor2003:45).Ambientmarketing‘seekstoachieveamuchmoreproximalrelationshipbetweenconsumerbodiesandbrands’(Moor2003:45),attemptingtoforegroundthebrandasthesourceofenrichinglifeexperiences.Inthiswaytheyoungpeopleonthesewebsitescontribute,throughthesimpleactofsocialising,tothebottomlineoftheexperienceeconomy(PineandGilmore1999).Thesewebsitesalsopointtotheextensionofimagecapitalintoallareasoflifeandtoanembodiedinvestmentinitsvisualaesthetics.Thefascinationwiththepaparazziformatandthespecificwayofbeingseenthatthisformatsignifiesreinforcestheargumentthatfameandattentionarenowsignificantculturalvalues,whichbringtheirownstrictvisual

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:205194–210Variationsonthebrandedself205templateswiththem.Thesewebsitestradeonthisrecognition,and,insodoing,worktoconstitutethebrandedselfasatransactionalobject,creatingastrangenewformofcurrencyoutofthisdominantregimeofexclusion,whichIhaveelsewherecalled‘thewilltoimage’(Hearn2004).InventoryThebrandedselfisinflecteddifferentlyagaininthepracticesofsocialnetworksiteslikeMyspace.comandFacebook.com.WithMySpaceaccountingfor10percentofalladvertisementsviewedonline(Hempel2005)andFacebookreceivingapproximately250millionhitsaday(Bugeja2006),itcurrentlyappearsasthoughsocialnetworksitesarethecentreofbothcommunityandcommerceinthevirtualworld.Bothsitesallowpeopletocreatetheirownuniquevirtualspace.Usersspendtimecraftingtheirpublicprofiles,postingpicturesandinformationaboutthemselvesandconnectingwithothersdoingthesame.AsMaxValiquette,headofthemarketingfirmYouthography,notes,‘everybody’sgotsomething,andthatsomethingneedsvirtualrepresentation’(Halpern2006).Inaquestionnaireformatfocusingprimarilyonpopularculturelikesanddislikes,theprofilepagesofthesesitesencourageuserstorevealintimatedetailsoftheirconsumertastes.Theyalsoencouragethepostingofasmanypersonalimagesaspossible.ChristineRosenhascalledtheseprofilingpractices‘egocasting’(Bugeja2006).Participationonthesesitesalsoinvolvestheformationofgroupsaroundsharedinterestsandconnections.Collectingoracquiringasmanyfriendsaspossibleseemstobeacentralgoal.Asoneofmystudentstoldme,‘Facebookisaddictive.It’sagiantpopularitycontesttoseehowmanyfriendsyoucanaccumulate.Ihavetwohundredandsixty-one.’Ofcourse,theprofilesthatindividualscreateonFacebookorMySpaceareclearlyconstrainedbythestructuralfeaturesofthesites,mostnotablybythequestionnaireformats,whichfocusonconsumertastesandactivities.So,whileauserbecomesa‘digitisedcharacteractor’(Alexander2007),carefullyproducingpersonalprofilesandsnapshotsoftheirbusysociallives,heorshealsobecomesapromotionalobjectcomprisedof‘aninextricablemixtureofwhatitsauthor/objecthastooffer,thesignsbywhichthismightberecognised,andthesymbolicappealthisisgiveninordertoenhancetheadvantageswhichcanbeobtainedfromitstrade’(Wernick1991:193).UsersbecomeFacebookers.Arguablythesesitesproduceinventoriesofbrandedselves;theirlogicencouragesuserstoseethemselvesandothersascommoditysigns,tobecollectedandconsumedinthesocialmarketplace.Howelsetounderstandtheaccumulationofhundredsofvirtual‘friends’(usuallypeopleonebarelyknows)andtheviewthatthisconstitutes‘popularity’thanasthechannellingofage-oldhumandesiresintothehollow,promotionaltermsofpost-Fordistcapitalistacquisition?

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:206194–210206AlisonHearnBeyondthesetheoreticalclaims,thereisanother,moreconcrete,inflec-tionofself-brandingatworkhere.FacebookandMySpacearecovetedsitesforwebadvertising,notonlybecausetheyattractayouthdemographicbutbecausetheyarevery‘sticky’.Userstendtovisitoften(Malik2005).Giventhat‘millionsofconsumers,andespeciallyyoungones,nowfindonlinepals’content–beitphotos,messages,orrandommusings–morecompellingthatthatof‘professionals’(Fine2006),corporateinterestsseeawaytoembedtheirbrandsinthemindsofhard-to-reachteensbytalkingtothemin‘theironlinevernacular’(Hempel2005).MySpaceispracticallysynonymouswithself-promotion;everyonefromParisHiltontoyournext-doorneighbourhasaMySpacesiteandisworkingtodrawattentiontotheir‘specialsomething’.Suchisthepowerofthesesitestoattractattentionandprofitthat‘parasites’,suchasFakemyspace.com,havearisen,whichallowausertobuygood-lookingfriendswhowillpostonyourwalltwiceamonthforasetfee.BigHollywoodhasfoundawayontoMySpaceaswell.CharactersfromHollywoodfilmsareregularlyassignedMySpacesitesandinteractwithotherusersasthoughtheywererealpeople.ThecharacterJohnnyKnoxvilleplayedinthefilmTheRingergarnered11,000friendsinthetimethespacewasup,eventhoughtherewasneveranyguaranteethatJohnnyKnoxvillehimselfwasmanningthesite(Halpern2006).KevinSmithpromotedhisfilmClerks2byaskingMySpaceuserstoaddhimtotheirlistoftopeightfriends.Thefirst10,000userstodosowereguaranteedafreeDVDofthefilmandtheirnameinthecredits.MarkZuckerberg,Facebook’screator,hasallowedcorporationstotrawlthesitefororganicallygeneratedgroupswhomightserveasunpaidmarketersfortheirparticularbrands.AppleComputers,Victoria’sSecretandElectronicArtsallsponsorgroupsonFacebook,usingthesitetopromoteproductsandcultivatepotentialviralmarketersor‘influencers’(Hempel2005).Indeed,therearenowsponsoredFacebookgroupsforeverythingfromlocalradiostationstoBurgerKing:‘[m]arketerspayfortheabilitytoadvertisetheirgroupsin“newsfeeds”alongsideuserupdatesonwhat’sgoingonwiththeirfriends’(McArthur2007:B3).Recognisingitsabilitytogeneratevastamountsofsocialcapital,Facebookhasextendeditsownbrandbyinvitinguserstosubmitnewplatformsandadd-onstothesite(Sun2007).Justaswith2night.comanduniversityparty.ca,participantsworktoaugmentthemarketvalueofthebrandthroughtheirsocialinteractions.Themeldingofegocastingwithviralpromotionaltacticsandambientmarketingproducesanothervariationofthebrandedself.Onsiteslikethesethelinesbetweenprivateidentityandpublicpersona,corporatesponsorsandindividualusers,producersandconsumersarehopelesslyblurred.InauniversewhereafictionalHollywoodcharactercanbeyour‘friend’andtheofferofafreeburgerisconsideredassignificantasarelative’swedding,anymeaningfuldistinctionbetweennotionsofthe

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:207194–210Variationsonthebrandedself207selfandcapitalistprocessesofproductionandconsumptionhasfinallycollapsed.Recentlytheassiduouslycraftedglossofprivacyonthesesiteshasbeenshatteredasuniversityadministratorshaveloggedinandbustedstudentsforeverythingfromdrinkingtocheating.Facebookinparticularhasengendereditsownmoralpanic,aspupilsinTorontowererecentlydisciplinedforwritingderogatorycommentsaboutteachersontheirprofilepages(ElAkkadandMcArthur2007:A1).Inthiseraofhypervigilance,employershavebegunusingsocialnetworkssitesasaquickandeasywaytojudgejobcandidatesandrunbackgroundchecks.Whileemployerscan’taskpersonalorpoliticalquestionsinformalinterviews,‘ifit’sontheweb,they’reentitledtomakedecisionsbasedonit’(Medintz2006).So,whileindividualsonMySpaceandFacebookarebusyacquiringfriendsandjoininggroups,exposingtheireverytasteformarketerstoexploit,potentialemployersarebusywatchingandassessingthem.Intheend,andnotsurprisingly,itallcomesbacktothesmoothfunctioningofcapitalistaccumulationandtotheeffectivereproductionofitslabourpower,nomatterhowsociallydispersedorimmaterialitmightbe.ConclusionThephenomenonofself-brandingcanbeunderstoodaslabourinitssimplestsenseas‘theprocessbywhichpeopletransformnatureintoobjectsoftheirimagination’(Burawoy1979:15).Indeed,theproductionofselfmustalwaysinvolvesomeformoflabourinordertocreateapublicpersonathatmightbeofpracticalandrelationaluse.WarrenSussmanassertsthatproceduresofself-productionhavealwaysreflectedthedominanteconomicandculturalinterestsofthetime.Invariably‘changesinculturedomeanchangesinmodaltypesofcharacter’(Sussman1984:285).Wemightarguethatmodalitiesofselfhoodhaveshiftedfrompreoccupationwith‘character’inthenineteenthcenturyto‘personality’inthetwentieth.Now,inthiseraofflexibleaccumulation,wehaveseentheriseofwhatBrianHolmeshascalled‘theflexiblepersonality’:perpetuallyactive,willingtoinnovateandchangepersonalaffiliationsonadime.AsPaoloVirnohaswritten,intheprecariousdog-eat-dogworldoftheflexibleentrepreneurialworkplacewenolongertrustinanyoverarchingsystemofvalues.Inordertohedgeagainstour‘stableinstability’(Virno1996:17)welooktoexploiteveryopportunityandgrowincreasinglycynicalaswerecognisethatworkisagameandthatitsrulesdonotrequirerespect,butonlyadaptation.Alongwiththiscomes‘disenchantment’aswerealisethattherearenolongeranyidentitysystemsworthbelievinginand‘nosecureprocessesofcollectiveinterpretation’(Holmes2006:10)inwhichtoinvest.Thebrandedselfisoneofthemorecynicalproductsoftheeraoftheflexiblepersonality:aformofouter-directedself-presentationwhich

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:208194–210208AlisonHearntradesontheverystuffoflivedexperienceintheserviceofpromotionandprofit.Heretheselfisvaluableonlyinrelationtoitsflexibility,visibility,potentialprofitability,andabilitytoexpressandcirculateresonantculturalmeanings.EvenwhenitmightbearguedthatFacebookersandpartierson2night.comarenotconsciouslyself-branding,theyremain(aswealldo)globalvaluesubjects.Theyareproduct,producer,andconsumer,buttheydonotcontrolthemeansoftheirowndistribution.Theyremaincaptivetoandconditionedbythecontrollinginterestsofglobalflexiblecapital.Thischapterhastracedvariationsonthethemeofthebrandedselfacrossseveralmediatedforms.Ithasconsideredtheselfasastrategiclifebrandintendedtorhetoricallypersuadeemployersofitscompetitiveviability,asacarefullycraftedimageinventiondesignedtogarnerfameandprofit,asaninstrumentalassociativeobjectexploitedtoselladsevenasitisinthethrallofitsownimage,andasaselfbrandedthroughlistsandinventories,whichissoldandsurveyedevenasitattemptstoformcommunityandfriendship.Asanexplicitlynarrativised,image-based,andcynicalformoflabourthevariationsofthebrandedselfdescribedhereconfirmthattheconstructionoftheselfis‘notsomesideshowtothemaineventofglobaleconomicrestructuring;ratheritisanessentialelementintheveryprocessofrestructuringitself’(duGay1996:69).Itisnoaccidentthatthediscoursesofbrandingborrowheavilyfromthelanguageofradicalindividualism:the‘face’or‘identity’ofabrandworkstoestablisha‘relationship’withtheconsumer,corporationsasktobetreatedasthoughtheyare‘citizens’underthelawandinthepublicmind.Aswehaveseen,thedegreetowhichabrandisabletoembodyhumanattributesisdependentonthedegreetowhichitisabletoinsinuateitselfintothelivesofconsumersinprofoundways.Self-brandingillustrateshowflexiblecorporatecapitalhassubsumedallareasofhumanlife,includingtheveryconceptofaprivateself,soconvenientlycelebratedassacrosanctbytheideologiesofneoliberalism.Simplyput,asthecorporatebrandbecomesacommodityfetish,theselfbecomesreified,viewedasabrandinandforitself,athoroughlypromotionalobject,asimplemeanstoaprofit-producingend.BibliographyAlexander,Kevin(2007)‘FasttimesatMake-believeHigh’,BostonMagazine,January.Arvidson,Adam(2005)‘Brands:acriticalperspective’,JournalofConsumerCulture5(2):325–58.Boltanski,LucandChiapello,Eve(2002)‘Thenewspiritofcapitalism’,chaptergivenatConferenceofEuropeanists,Chicago,14–16March.Boorstin,Daniel(1961)TheImage.London:Weidenfeld&Nicolson.Bugeja,MichaelJ.(2006)‘FacingtheFacebook’,ChronicleofHigherEducation52(21):1.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:209194–210Variationsonthebrandedself209Burawoy,Michael(1979)ManufacturingConsent:ChangesintheLaborProcessunderMonopolyCapitalism.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Coupland,Justine(1996)‘Datingadvertisements:discoursesofthecommodifiedself’,DiscourseandSociety7(2):187–207.duGay,Paul(1996)ConsumptionandIdentityatWork.London,ThousandOaksCAandNewDelhi:Sage.Dyer-Witheford,Nick(2001)‘Thenewcombinations:revoltoftheglobalvaluesubjects’,CR:theNewCentennialReview1(3):155–200.ElAkkad,OmarandMcArthur,Kevin(2007)‘ThehazardsofFacebook’ssocialexperiment’,GlobeandMail(Toronto),1May,p.A1.Fairclough,Norman(1993)‘Criticaldiscourseanalysisandthemarketizationofpublicdiscourse:theuniversities’,DiscourseandSociety4(2):133–68.Fine,Jon(2006)‘AOL:MySpaceinvader’,BusinessWeek3969:24.Foucault,Michel(1990)Language,Counter-Memory,Practice:SelectedEssaysandInterviews,ed.DonaldBouchard.IthacaNY:CornellUniversityPress.Giddens,Anthony(1991)ModernityandSelf-identity:SelfandSocietyinthelateModernAge.Cambridge:PolityPress.Goldman,RobertandPapson,Stephen(2006)‘Capital’sbrandscapes’,JournalofConsumerCulture6(3):327–53.Gordon,Colin(1991)‘Governmentalrationality:anintroduction’,inGrahamBurchell,ColinGordonandPeterMiller(eds)TheFoucaultEffect:StudiesinGovernmentality.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.Graham,Stedman(2001)BuildyourownLifeBrand!APowerfulStrategytomaximizeyourPotentialandenhanceyourValueforUltimateAchievement.NewYork:FreePress.Halpern,Michelle(2006)‘Massconnection’,Marketing111(3):1.Hardt,MichaelandNegri,Antonio(2000)Empire.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.Harvey,David(1990)TheConditionofPostmodernity.Oxford:Blackwell.Hearn,Alison(2004)‘HumiliatingImages’.London,Ont.:UniversityofWesternOntario.Hearn,Alison(2006)‘“John,atwenty-year-oldBostonnativewithagreatsenseofhumour”:onthespectacularizationofthe“self”andtheincorporationofidentityintheageofrealitytelevision’,InternationalJournalofMediaandCulturalPolitics2(2):131–47.Hempel,Jessi(2005)‘TheMySpacegeneration’,BusinessWeek3963:86.Holmes,Brian(2006)‘Theflexiblepersonality:foranewculturalcritique’,Transversal,<http://transform.eipcp.net/transversal/1106/holmes/en>,accessed11November2006.Holt,Douglas(2002)‘Whydobrandscausetrouble?Adialecticaltheoryofconsumercultureandbranding’,JournalofConsumerResearch29:70–90.Holt,Douglas(2006)‘Towardasociologyofbranding’,JournalofConsumerCulture6(3):299–302.Kadlec,Daniel(2004)‘Bankingonthestars’,Time.com,<http://www.time.com/time/innovators/business/profile_pullman.html>(accessed25May2005).Lair,DanielJ.,Sullivan,KatieandCheney,George(2005)‘Marketizationandtherecastingoftheprofessionalself:therhetoricandethicsofpersonalbranding’,ManagementCommunicationQuarterly18(3):307–43.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch12.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:210194–210210AlisonHearnLazzarato,Maurizio(1996)‘Immateriallabor’,inPaoloVirnoandMichaelHardt(eds)RadicalThoughtinItaly:aPotentialPolitics.MinneapolisMNandLondon:UniversityofMinneasotaPress.Lury,Celia(2004)Brands:theLogosoftheGlobalEconomy.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Madow,Michael(1993)‘Privateownershipofpublicimage:popularcultureandpublicityrights’,CaliforniaLawReview81(1):127–240.Malik,Om(2005)‘Thereturnofmonetizedeyeballsforhighlytraffickedwebsites:bubble-erabuyoutsareback’,Business2.06(11):55.McArthur,Kevin(2007)‘Forbigbrandsadifferentkindoffacetime’,GlobeandMail(Toronto),28April,sec.ReportonBusiness,p.B3.Medintz,Scott(2006)‘Talkin’’boutMySpacegeneration’,Money35(2):1.Montoya,Peter(2002)ThePersonalBrandingPhenomenon:realizegreaterinfluence,explosiveincomegrowthandrapidcareeradvancementbyapplyingthebrandingtechniquesofOprah,MarthaandMichael.SantaAnaCA:PersonalBrandingPress.Moor,Elizabeth(2003)‘Brandedspaces:thescopeofnewmarketing’,JournalofConsumerCulture3(1):39–60.Peters,Tom(1997)TheBrandCalledYou,NewYork:FastCompany.Pettis,Chuck(2003)‘Buildingapersonalbrandidentity:thecaseofWillandLydia’,http://www.brand.com/frame9.htm(accessed28July2005).Pine,JosephandGilmore,James(1999)TheExperienceEconomy.BostonMA:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.Sternberg,Ernest(1998)‘Phantasmagoriclabor:Theneweconomicsofself-presentation’,Futures30(1):3–21.Sun,Albert(2007)‘Facebookaskusersfornextbigidea’,DailyPennsylvanian,5April.Sussman,Warren(1984):CultureasHistory:theTransformationofAmericanSocietyintheTwentiethCentury.NewYork:Pantheon.Virno,Paolo(1996)‘Theambivalenceofdisenchantment’,inPaoloVirnoandMichaelHardt(eds)RadicalThoughtinItaly:aPotentialPolitics.MinneapolisMNandLondon:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Virno,Paolo(2004)AGrammaroftheMultitude.NewYork:Semiotexte.Wernick,Andrew(1991)PromotionalCulture.London,ThousandOaksCAandNewDelhi:Sage.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:211211–230PartIVMedialabourandproduction

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:212211–230

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:213211–23013‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’MediaStudies3.0TobyMiller1Willthisgetmeajob?2Aregamesbadforyou?3Howdowegetthatshowbackon?QuestionsposedbyundergraduatemajorsMygoalinthischapteristointerveneinmediastudiesaspractisedinBritain,theUnitedStates,andthewhite-settlercolonies–Israel,Australia,Canada,andAotearoa/NewZealand–andcallforadifferentwayofgoingaboutthings.1Oftenpoliticallyisolationistandprofessionallyintramural,mediastudiesinthesecountrieshasbeentheprovenanceofAnglo-dominant,nativistsocialscientistsand/ordeeplyimpressionistic,olympianhumanists.Itistimethatmediascholarsbecomemoreinterdisciplinaryandinternational.Theabilitytoinnovateasresearcherswilleludethoseweddedtomonolingualismanddisciplinarity.Thestudyofmediacanbeofvaluetothesocialworldonlyifweengage,acrossdisciplinaryandnationalcontexts,thekeyinterrelationshipsthatmakeourculturalconditionatthenexusofmoney,law,policy,production,subjectivity,content,distribution,exhibition,andreception.Inthecontextofabookonmediaandsocialtheory,thisistoargueforabroaderarrayoftopicsandtechniquesthanthenorm.Ifocusinparticularontwoissues:internationalismandlabour.TheinternationalemphasisisanattempttodecolonisemediastudiesbydrawingonideasandexamplesthatderivefrombeyondtheusualsourcesintheUnitedStatesandBritain.Thelabouremphasis,bycontrast,directsusbacktotheveryoriginsofsocialtheory:AdamSmith’sethnographyofwork,JohnStuartMill’saccountoftheliberalindividual,KarlMarx’sobservationsonthefetishisationofcommodities,andW.E.B.duBois,RabindranathTagore,andJoséMartíwrestlingwithsubjectivitiessplitbetweenproduction,consumption,andcitizenship.Therewouldbenoculture,nomedia,withoutlabour(Wayne2003:33).Labouriscentraltohumanity,butabsentfrommediastudies.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:214211–230214TobyMillerThereisalsoapoliticalpointtobemadehere.Sincethe1980smanyoppositionalformationshavesplintered:thecollapseofdictatorshipinLatinAmericaandofstatesocialisminEurope,andtheemergenceofcapitalisminChina,compromisedactuallyexistingfascismandleftism,andexplanationsofthem;Marxistswerecriticisedbyfeminists,ThirdWorldists,andotherswhoquestionedclasspositionastheprincipalaxisofsocialsufferingandcriticalagency;andfeministswhopositedauniformfemaleexperienceconfrontedcritiquesfromwomenofcolour,lesbians,theThirdWorld,andtheworkingclass,whopointedtodifferentiatedgenderrelations,strategicallianceswithsubjugatedmen,andmulti-perspectivalnotionsofoppression.Paradoxically,theseemphasesondifferenceemergedjustastwonewtotalising,difference-crushingmachinesachievedhegemony:citizenshipandconsumption.Inhisdiscussionofthesequestions,theeminentbiologistStevenRosearguesthatthe‘psychocivilisedsociety’promisedbyneuroscientificcom-merceisaparadoxicalblendofindividuationandcontrol,withcon-sumerismandgovernmentstandingtogetheragainstsociality(2006:266).Thequestionsbeggedarethese:Whatwoulditmeantostandforsociality?Whatpartmightthemediaplayinanewformation?Couldweexperiencelifeasaworkofart,tobeenjoyedinawaythatisnottiedtoincome,anddoesnotembroilusincommodityorreligiousrelations?ThatwouldreturnustoImmanuelKant’scallforself-knowledgeasanautotelicdriveratherthananinstrument,asanendinitselfratherthanameanstowardssomeendlesslydeferredorrecurringachievement(Manninen2006).Suchself-knowledgecouldproduceawisdomthattranscendedmarketingviafocusgroupsorcreativeconsultanciesbyculturalstudies.ItwouldbewhatKantenvisagedas‘man’semergencefromhisself-incurredimmaturity’,independentofreligious,governmental,orcommercialdirection(1991:54).Inordertoprovidetheconditionsofexistenceforthisworkofarttocomeintobeingweneedtoaccountforthepost-industrialstandingofmediaworkers(Rossiter2006:26–7)andrejectaneoliberalembraceofcasualisedlabour(Banks2006).ThemotivationformycritiquecomesfromquestionsIoftenhearinclassrooms,posedbythenovitiate–newstudentswhohaveanintuitivesensethatsomethingiswrongintheirsocietyandthatthemediahavesomethingtodowithit,evenastheyfollowconsumeristnormsintheireverydaylives.IntheUnitedStatesthesetwenty-somethingsboowhenHealthMaintenanceOrganisationsarementionedinmovies;theydon’tlikethefactthatclothestheyweardisplayingtheircollegelogosweremadeindomesticandforeignsweatshops;theycontesttherepresentationoftheirgenderorraceontelevision;theyreceivelettersfromlawyersonbehalfofcopyrightholdersenjoiningthemtoceaseanddesistfrombuildingwebsitesabouttheirfavouritemusicgroupandreceivelettersfromadvertisingagenciesforthosesamecopyrightholdersurgingthemtocontinuewhatisseenasviralmarketing;andwhenworkingeighteen–hour

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:215211–230‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’215daysasvolunteerinternsonamovieshoottheyarebeingtoldto‘stepawayfromthecroissant’whentheirhungryeldersareonset.Itissometimessaidthattheseyoungpeoplestandataboldnewdawnofmeaning.Cybertariantechnophiles,struckbythe‘digitalsublime’,attributemagicalpropertiestocontemporarycommunicationsandculturaltechnolo-giesthatobliterategeography,sovereignty,andhierarchyinanalchemyoftruthandbeauty.Aderegulated,individuatedmediaworldsupposedlymakesconsumersintoproducers,freesthedisabledfromconfinement,encouragesnewsubjectivities,rewardsintellectandcompetitiveness,linkspeopleacrosscultures,andallowsbillionsofflowerstobloominapost-politicalcornucopia.It’sakindofMarxist/Godardianwetdream,wherepeoplefish,hunt,film,andwritechequesfrommorningtomidnight.InhissurveyofthisworkVincentMoscorightlyarguesthatsuch‘mythsareimportantbothforwhattheyreveal(includingagenuinedesireforcom-munityanddemocracy)andforwhattheyconceal(includingthegrowingconcentrationofcommunicationpowerinahandfuloftransnationalmediabusinesses)’(2004).Yet,onreadingscholarlyworkpublishedinmediastudies,studentsroutinelyask,‘What’sthisgottodowithme?’Whatcanmediastudiesofferyoungpeople?Ithasbeendominatedbythreeimportanttopics:ownershipandcontrol;content;andaudi-ences.ApproachestoownershipandcontrolvarybetweenneoliberalendorsementsoflimitedregulationbythestatetofacilitatemarketentrybynewcompetitorsandMarxistcritiquesofthebourgeoismediaforcontrollingthesocio-politicalagenda.Approachestocontentvarybetweenhermeneutics,whichunearthsthemeaningofindividualtextsandlinksthemtobroadersocialformationsandproblems,andcontentanalysis,whichestablishespatternsacrosssignificantnumbersofsimilartexts,ratherthanclosereadingsofindividualones.Andapproachestoaudiencesvarybetweensocial-psychologicalattemptstocorrelateaudio-visualcon-sumptionandsocialconduct,andculturalistcritiquesofimportedaudio-visualmaterialthreateningnationalandregionalautonomy.Thesethreecomponents,fracturedbypolitics,nation,discipline,theory,andmethod,areembodiedintwovarietals,whichIamcallingMediaStudies1.0andMediaStudies2.0.2Bothareultimatelytodowithaudiences.MediaStudies1.0panicsaboutcitizensandconsumersasaudiences,whereasMediaStudies2.0celebratesthem.Iinvestigatethesehistorieshereandmakeacaseforanon-panicky,non-celebratory,andmoreinternationalistMediaStudies3.0,takingelectronicgamingandtheinternationalprecariatmovementasconcludingexamplesofhowwemightdosowithalabourfocus.MediaStudies1.0SowhatisMediaStudies1.0?Itderivedfromthespreadofnewmediatechnologiesoverthepasttwocenturiesintothelivesofurbanising

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:216211–230216TobyMillerpopulations,andthepolicingquestionsthatposedtobothstateandcapital.Whatwouldbetheeffectonculturalpublicsofthesedevelopments,andhowwoulditvarybetweenthosewithastakeinthesocialorderversusthoseseekingtotransformit?Bytheearlytwentiethcentury,academicexpertshaddecreedmediaaudiencestobepassiveconsumers,thankstothemissionsofliterarycriticism(distinguishingtheaestheticallycultivatedfromothers)andpsychology(distinguishingthesociallycompetentfromothers)(Butsch2000:3).Theoriginsofsocialpsychologycanbetracedtoanxietiesabout‘thecrowd’inasuddenlyurbanisedandeducatedWesternEuropethatraisedtheprospectofalong-feared‘ochlocracy’of‘theworthlessmob’(Pufendorf2000:144)abletosharepopulartexts.InthewakeoftheFrenchrevolution,EdmundBurkewasanimatedbytheneedtolimitpopularexuberancevia‘restraintupon…passions’(1994:122).Elitetheoristsemergedfrombothrightandlefttoarguethatnewlyliteratepublicswerevulnerabletomanipulationbydemagogues.Thefounderofthe‘AmericanDream’saw‘[t]hemobmentalityofthecitycrowd’as‘oneofthemenacestomoderncivilisation’,andhedisparaged‘theprostitutionofthemoving-pictureindustry’(Adams1941:404,413).Thesecriticswerefrightenedofsocialism;theywerefrightenedofdemocracy;andtheywerefrightenedofpopularreason(Wallas1967:137).Withcivilsocietygrowingrestive,theemergenceofradicalpoliticswasexplainedawayinsocial-psychologicaltermsratherthanpolitical-economicones,asthepsy-functionwarmeditselfbycampusfires.IntheUnitedStates,Harvardtookchargeofthetheory,Chicagotheethnography,andColumbiathestatisticalmanipulationofthegreatunwashed(Staiger2005:21–2).ThefamousUSPayneFundstudiesofthe1930sinvestigatedtheimpactoffilmsonwhatagaggleofsociologistslabelled‘“superior”adults’(thisexpressionreferredto‘youngcollegeprofessors,graduatestudentsandtheirwives’)versuschildrenfromjuvenilecentres.Researcherswantedtoknow‘Whateffectdomotionpictureshaveuponchildrenofdifferentages?’especiallyonwhatwereknownasthe‘retarded’.Thesepioneeringscholarsboldlysetouttodiscoverwhether‘theonsetofpubertyisorisnotaffectedbymotionpictures’,specificallybywhattheycalled‘TheBigThree’narrativethemes:love,crime,andsex(soundfamiliar?).Theygaugedreactionsthrough‘autobiographicalcasestudies’thataskedquestionslikewhether‘All/Most/Many/Some/Few/NoChinesearecunningandunderhand’.Andtheypondered‘demonstrationsofsatisfyinglovetechniques’toseewhether‘[s]exualpassionsarearousedandamateurprostitution…aggravated’bythescreen.Thisresearchwasundertaken,interalia,byassessing‘skinresponse’throughtheuseofsuchsensationalmachineryasthepsychogalvanometer,attachedtopeopleincinemas,andhypnographsandpolygraphs,wiredtothemintheirbeds(Charters1933).ThePayneFundstudiesbirthedwhatisnowknownassymbolicinteractionism.Theyalsoinauguratedsevendecadesofobsessivesocial-scientificattemptstocorrelateyouthfulconsumptionofpopularculture

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:217211–230‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’217withantisocialconduct,emphasisingaudiencecompositionandreactionstoaudio-visualentertainment:wheretheycamefrom,howmanytherewere,andwhattheydidasaconsequenceofbeingpresent.AsBobDylanputit,recallingthe1960sinGreenwichVillage,‘sociologistsweresayingthattelevisionhaddeadlyintentionsandwasdestroyingthemindsandimaginationsoftheyoung–thattheirattentionspanwasbeingdraggeddown’.TheotherdominantsiteofknowledgethatDylanencounteredwasthe‘psychologyprofessor,agoodperformer,butoriginalitynothislongsuit’(2004:55,67).Suchpurveyorsofnormalsciencecontinuetocastashadowacrossthatvillage,andmanyothers.Thepatternisthat,whenculturaltechnologiesemerge,youngpeopleareidentifiedasbothpioneersandvictims,simultaneouslyendowedbymanufacturersandcriticswithpowerandvulnerability.Theyareheldtobethefirsttoknowandthelasttounderstandthemedia–thegrandparadoxofyouth,latterlyondisplayinthedigitalsublimeoftechnologicaldeterminism,asalwayswiththesuperaddedvalenceofafuturecitizenshipinperil.Eachtechnologyandgenrehasbroughtwithitaraftofmarketingtechniques,evenasconcernsaboutsupposedlyunprecedentedandunholynewrisksfromthemediarecur:cheapnovelsduringthe1900s,silentthensoundfilmduringtheteensand1920s,radiointhe1930s,comicbooksofthe1940sand1950s,popmusicandtelevisionfromthe1950sand1960s,satanicrockasperthe1970sand1980s,video-cassetterecordersinthe1980s,andrapmusic,videogames,andtheinternetsincethe1990s.ThesatiricalpaperTheOnioncleverlymockedtheseinterdependentphenomenaofmoralpanicandcommodificationviaafaux2005studyoftheimpactonUSyouthofseeingJanetJackson’sbreastinaSuperbowlbroadcasttheyearbefore(‘USchildren…’,2006).Effectsstudiessufferallthedisadvantagesofideal-typicalpsychologicalreasoning.Theyrelyonmethodologicalindividualism,failingtoaccountforculturalnorms,letalonethearcsofhistorythatestablishpatternsoftextandresponseinsidepolitics,war,ideology,anddiscourse.Eachmassivelycostlylaboratorytestofmediaeffects,basedon,astherefraingoes,‘alargeuniversityintheMid-West’(oftheUnitedStates),iscounteredbyasimilarexperiment,withconflictingresults.Aspoliticians,grantgivers,andjeremiad-wieldingpunditscallformoreandmoreresearchtoprovethatthemediamakeyoustupid,violent,andapathetic–ortheopposite–academicslineupatthetroughtoindulgetheircontemptforpopularcultureandordinarylife,andtheirrent-seekingurgeforpublicmoney.MediaStudies1.0rarelyinterrogatesitsownconditionsofexistence–namelythatgovernments,religiousgroups,andthemediathemselvesuseittoaccountforsocialproblemsbydivertingblameontopopularculture.Andittakeseverynewmediumandgenreasanopportunitytounveilitsomniscience.ConsiderDorothyG.SingerandJeromeL.Singer’sfebriletwenty-first-centurycallforcentringmediaeffectswithinthestudyofchilddevelopment:‘Canweignoretheimpactonchildrenoftheir

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:218211–230218TobyMillerexposurethroughtelevisionandfilmsor,morerecently,tocomputergamesandarcadevideogamesthatinvolvevastamountsofviolentactions?’(2001:xv).Inadditiontoeffectsstudies,manyassumptionsofMediaStudies1.0informtheanti-mediapolemicsofpoliticaleconomy,whichfocusonownershipandcontrolratherthanaudienceresponse,butalsoworkfromthenostrumthatthemediaareall-powerful.Theaudio-visualsectorissaidtorepresentaturnawayfrompreciousartisticandsocialtracesofauthenticintersubjectivity,andtowardscontrolofindividualconsciousness.Becausedemandisdispersedandsupplycentralised,themediaaresaidtooperateviaadministrativelogic.Farfromreflectingalreadyestablishedandrevealedpreferencesofconsumersinreactiontotastesanddesires,theymanipulateaudiencesfromtheeconomicapexofproduction.Coercionismistakenforfreewill,andculturebecomesonemoreindustrialprocesssubordinatedtodominanteconomicforceswithinsocietyseekingstandardisation.Theonlyelementthatmightstandagainstthislevellingsamenessissaidtobeindividualconsciousness.Butthatconsciousnesshasitselfbeencustomisedtotherequirementsoftheeconomyandmediaproduction(AdornoandHorkheimer1977).Therearesignificanttiesbetweenthecritical-theorytraditionandpoliticaleconomy.Thefirstismorephilosophicalandaestheticinitsdesiretodevelopmodernismandtheavant-garde,thesecondmorepolicy-orientedandpoliticalinitsfocusoninstitutionalpower.ButtheybeganasonewithAdorno’swork,whichlamentedthelossofaself-criticalphilosophicaladdressatthesametimeasitlamentedtheindustrialisationofculturalproduction.Thetwoapproachescontinuetobelinkedviapoliticaleconomy’sdistasteforwhatisstilloftenregardedasmassculture.Weareallfamiliarwiththisaccount,thankstothelatter-dayFrankfurterswhocontinuetoofferittous,andtheirscornfulcriticsfromMediaStudies2.0,whocontinuetodenounceitspessimismandsnobberyinthenameofpopulism.MediaStudies2.0SowhataboutMediaStudies2.0?Forsomeoptimistic1960smass-societytheorists,andmanyofusinculturalstudies,popularculturerepresentstheapexofmodernity.Farfrombeingsupremelyalienating,itembodiestheexpansionofcivilsociety,thefirstmomentinhistorywhencentralpoliticalandcommercialorgansandagendasbecamereceptiveto,andpartof,thepopularclasses;whenthegeneralpopulationcountedaspartofthesocial,ratherthanbeingexcludedfrompolitical-economiccalculations.Atthesametime,therewasalesseningofauthority,thepromulgationofindividualrightsandrespect,andthedevelopmentofintensebutlarge-scalehumaninteraction(Shils1966;Hartley2003).ThisperspectivehasofferedawayintoresearchofmediaaudiencesthatdiffersfromMediaStudies1.0anditsfaithintheall-powerfulagencyof

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:219211–230‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’219themedia.ForinMediaStudies2.0theall-powerfulagentistheaudience.MediaStudies2.0claimsthatthepublicissocleverandablethatitmakesitsownmeanings,outwittinginstitutionsofthestate,academia,andcapitalismthatseektomeasureandcontrolit.Inthecaseofchildrenandthemedia,anxietiesfromMediaStudies1.0aboutturningEdenicinnocentsintorabidmonstersorcapitalistdupeshavebeenchallengedbyanewculturalistperspective.Thisformationhas,forexample,animatedresearchintohowchildrendistinguishbetweenfactandfiction;theparticulargenericfeaturesandintertextsofchildren’snews,drama,action-adventure,education,cartooning,andplay;andhowtalkingaboutthemediamakesforsocialinteraction(Buckingham2000).Sometimesfaithintheactiveaudiencereachescosmicproportions.IthasbeenadonnéeofMediaStudies2.0thatthemediaarenotresponsiblefor–well,anything.Thispositionisavirtualnostruminsomeresearchintofansoftelevision,whoarethoughttoconstructconnectionswithcelebritiesandactantsinwaysthatmimicfriendship,makesenseofhumaninteraction,andigniteculturalpolitics.Thecritiquecommonlyattacksopponentsofcommercialcultureforfailingtoallotthepeople’smachineitsdueasapopulistapparatusthatsubvertspatriarchy,capitalism,andotherformsofoppression.Thepopularisheldtohaveprogressiveeffects,becauseitisdecodedbypeopleinkeepingwiththeirsocialsituations.Theactiveaudienceissaidtobeweakatthelevelofculturalproductionbutstrongasaninterpretativecommunity.Allthisissupposedlyevidenttoscholarsfromtheirperusalofaudienceconventions,webpages,discussiongroups,quizzes,andrankings,orbywatchingtelevisionwiththeirchildren(Fiske1989:98–9).ConsumptionisthekeytoMediaStudies2.0–withproductiondiscounted,labourforgotten,consumerssovereign,andgovernmentstheretoprotectthem.TheReader’sLiberationMovementisinthehouse(Eagleton1982).ConsiderthejunctureofMediaStudies1.0and2.0ingamesstudies.Apowerfulbinarysituatesatoneantinomy(MediaStudies1.0)anomniscient,omnipotentgroupoftechnocratsplottingtocontroltheemotionsandthoughtsofyoungpeoplearoundtheworldandturnthemintomalleableconsumers,workers,andkillers;andattheother(MediaStudies2.0)all-powerfuldesiringmachinescalledplayers,whosewishesaremetbyproducers(Tobin2004).Inthelattergroup,new-mediasavantsarefondofinvokingpre-capitalistphilosophers,therebydodgingquestionsoflabourexploitationthroughwagesbyheadinginsteadforaesthetics.Highaestheticsandhightechnologyarebrokeredthroughhighneoliberalism.Thedominantdiscoursesongamingfailtoexplain,forexample,thatthefirstelectronicgame,TennisforTwo,wasproducedattheUSDepartmentofNuclearEnergy(Consalvo2006).Andthefantasythatinnovationcomesfromsupplyanddemandmechanicsismisleading.Thestate–specificallythemilitarywing–isatthecore.MediaStudies2.0referstoludology(butignorestheworkofprofessionalassociationssuchastheAssociationforthe

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:220211–230220TobyMillerStudyofPlayortheNorthAmericanSocietyfortheSociologyofSport)andnarratology,returningtothenon-materialist,non-medium-specificworkofliterarystudies(butignoringthecriticalworkparlayedbytheInternationalAssociationforMediaandCommunicationResearchortheUnionforDemocraticCommunication).Drawingonthepossessiveindividualismofneoclassicaleconomics,thesereactionarygameanalystsstudyvirtualenvironmentsaswaysofunderstanding‘wholesocietiesundercontrolledconditions’(Castronova2006),ignoringorcaricaturingthediscoursesofhistoryandethnographyintheprocess.ThefundamentaldilemmaforthepoliticalclaimsofMediaStudies2.0isthis:canfansbesaidtoengagewithlabourexploitation,patriarchy,racism,andneo-imperialism,orinsomespecifiablewaymakeadifferencetopoliticsbeyondtheirownselves,whentheyinterprettextsunusuallyorchataboutromanticfrustrations?HavewegonetoofarinsupplantingthepanickyWoodyAllennebbishnessofMediaStudies1.0withthePanglossianPollyannanerdinessofMediaStudies2.0?3VirginiaPostrel,theneditorofthelibertarianReasonmagazine,andlateraNewYorkTimeseconomicsjournalist,wroteaWallStreetJournalop-ed,welcomingMediaStudies2.0as‘deeplythreateningtotraditionalleftistviewsofcommerce…lendingsupporttothecorporateenemyandeventraininggraduatestudentswhowindupdoingmarketresearch’(1999).Ouch.RichardHoggart,crownedbymanyMediaStudies2.0truebelieversasthefounderofculturalstudiesinBritain,hasrenouncedsuchtendencies(2004).Awayahead?WeneedmorefrottagebetweenMediaStudies1.0and2.0,breakingdownthebinarybetweenthem.WeneedMediaStudies1.0toregisterstruggleandMediaStudies2.0toregisterstructure.MediaStudies1.0drawsourattentiontoaudienceinoculationandcorporatecontrol,butitleavesoutproductivelabour–thekeyplacewherevalueismade.MediaStudies2.0drawsourattentiontopatternsofuptakeandresponsebut,again,marginaliseslabour.MediaStudies1.0missesmomentsofcrisisandhope,presentingasubject-freepicturewithstructurebutnoagency,otherthanpsychologicalresponse,shareholdermaximisation,andmanagerialrationality.MediaStudies2.0missesformsofdominationandexploitation,presentinganinstitution-freepicturewithagencybutnostructure,otherthanfancreativityandreaderimagination.BothMediaStudies1.0andMediaStudies2.0aredoggedlytiedtonativistepistemologiesthatmustbetranscended.ThenativismisespeciallypowerfulintheUnitedStatesandBritain,whereeffortlessextrapolationsaremadefromverylimitedexperiencetosupporttotalisingtheoriesandnorms,duetotheunfortunatehegemonyoftheEnglishlanguage,bothdomesticallyandabroad,anditslong-termlinkstothewarfare,welfare,andculturalbureaucracies

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:221211–230‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’221(Calhoun2002;Simpson1996;Hunter1988).Totranscendthesepitfalls,weneedMediaStudies3.0.MediaStudies3.0mustblendethnographic,political-economic,andaestheticanalysesinaglobalandlocalway,establishinglinksbetweenthekeyareasofculturalproductionaroundtheworld(Africa,theAmericas,Asia,Europe,andtheMiddleEast)anddiasporic/dispossessedcommunitiesengagedintheirownculturalproduction(Nativepeoples,AfricanandAsiandiasporas,Latin@s,4andMiddleEasternpeoples).MediaStudies3.0needstobeamedia-centredversionofareastudies,withdiasporasasimportantasregions.Itmustbeanimatedbycollectiveidentityandpower,byhowhumansubjectsareformedandhowtheyexperienceculturalandsocialspace.Takingitsagendafromsocialmovementsaswellasintellectualones,anditsmethodsfromeconomics,politics,communications,sociology,literature,law,science,medicine,anthropology,history,andart,itshouldfeatureaparticularfocusongender,race,class,andsexualityineverydaylifeacrossnationallines.Wecangainsometipsonhowtodothisfromthehistoryoftheorisingculture.Culturehasusuallybeenstudiedintworegisters,viathesocialsciencesandthehumanities–truthversusbeauty.Ithasbeenamarkerofdifferencesandsimilaritiesintasteandstatuswithingroups,asexploredinterpretativelyormethodically.Inthehumanities,culturaltextswerejudgedbycriteriaofquality,aspractisedcriticallyandhistorically.Fortheirpart,thesocialsciencesfocusedonthereligions,customs,times,andspacesofdifferentgroups,asexploredethnographicallyorstatistically.Sowhereasthehumanitiesarticulateddifferencesthroughsymbolicnorms(forexample,whichclasshadtheculturalcapitaltoappreciatehighculture,andwhichdidnot)thesocialsciencesarticulateddifferencesthroughsocialnorms(forexample,whichpeoplecultivatedagricultureinkeepingwithspirituality,andwhichdidnot)(Benhabib2002;Wallerstein1989).ThisdistinctionfedintotheCartesiandualismseparatingthoughtfromwork,whichpresumedthattheintelligentandthecorporealnaturearedistinct,withonefocusedonlifeasaction,andtheotheronreason.Thatbinaryhasplayedoutthroughoutthestudyofthemediaandculture,forexamplethroughanoppositiondrawnbetweensocietyandeconomyversusaudienceandmeaningthathauntsMediaStudies1.0and2.0.Butthisbinaryoppositionhaslongbeenunstable.EightyyearsagoThorsteinVeblendescribeduniversitiesas‘competitorsfortrafficinmerchantableinstruction’,recognisingtheimportanceofthe‘industrialarts’(citedinPietrykowski2001).Knowledgeandculturewerebracketedtogetherinawaythatcompromisedthisdualism.Andthecanonsofjudge-mentandanalysisthatonceflowedfromthehumanities/social–sciencesbifurcationoverapproachestoculture(andkeptaesthetictropessomewhatdistinctfromsocialnorms)havecollapsedinoneachother.InAdorno’swords,‘Whoeverspeaksofculturespeaksofadministration’(1996).Artandcustomhavebecomeresourcesformarketsandnations–reactions

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:222211–230222TobyMillertothecrisisofbelonging,andtoeconomicnecessity.Asaconsequence,themediaaremorethantextualsignsoreverydaypractices,morethanaudienceeffectsorinterpretations.Whereasrightstoculturedidnotappearinmanyoftheworld’sconstitutionsuntilwellintothetwentiethcentury,contemporaryonesroutinelyemphasisethetopic.Culturalprovisionsarestandardinpost-dictatorshipcharters,forexamplethoseofMexico,SouthAfrica,Brazil,Portugal,Guatemala,Nicaragua,Paraguay,Perú,andSpain.Themeaningisgenerallyadoubleone,blendingartistryandethnicity.Concernswithlanguage,heritage,religion,andidentityareresponsestohistoriesstructuredindominancethroughculturalpowerandthepostcolonialincorporationoftheperipheryintoaninternationalsystemof‘free’labour(dePedro1991,1999).MinistersofCulturedelivermessagesofculturalmaintenancethatareabouteconomicdevelopmentandthepreservationofidentity–meanstogrowthandcitizenship,basedonthesharedvalueplacedondifferentculturalbackgrounds,andtheEuropeanCommissionseekstouseculturetorecognisedifference,makemoney,andexercisediplomacy(2007).ThisiswhatGeorgeYúdice(2003)referstowhenhedescribescultureasaresource,andRickMaxwell(2001)whenhetalksaboutbeinginthecultureworks.Ofcourse,thereisnoteleologicallyunfurlingtaleofprogresstowardssocialintegration,withcultureamagicelixirthatproducesharmony.Rather,culturehasbeenasiteofcontestation,asperthecivilrightsmovement,oppositiontotheAmericanwarinVietnam,youthrebellion,China’sCulturalRevolution,andThirdWorldresistancetomultina-tionalcorporations(Schiller2007).Themediaarecrucialcomponentsofthismosaic,asindicesandgeneratorsofculturalstasisandchange.ThisiswhereMediaStudies3.0candrawonthevenerableinterna-tionalismofpoliticaleconomyasoneofitstouchstones.Suchcrit-icsofculturalimperialismandcolonialismasAiméCésaire,AmilcarCabral,FrantzFanon,MichèleMattelart,HerbertI.Schiller,andHamidMowlanahaveanimatedbothinternationalpoliticaleconomyandculturalstudies.Followingtheirexample,IsuggestthatMediaStudies1.0and2.0’sbifurcationandsubsequentsilencingoflabourandculture,foralltheirstickyoriginsinCartesianism,cannothold:hencethecapacityoflabourtoofferthesecondtouchstone.Historically,thebestcriticalpoliticaleconomyandthebestculturalstudieshaveworkedthroughtheimbricationofpowerandsignificationatallpointsontheculturalcontinuum.Blendingthetwoapproachescanhealthefissurebetweenfactandinterpretation,betweenthesocialsciencesandthehumanities,betweentruthandbeauty,underthesignofaprincipledapproachtoculturaldemocracy.Tothatend,LarryGrossbergrecommends‘politicisingtheoryandtheorisingpolitics’,combiningabstractionandgroundedanalysis.Thisrequiresafocusonthecontradictionsoforganisationalstructures,theirarticulationswitheverydaylivingandtextuality,andtheirintricationwiththepolityand

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:223211–230‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’223economy,refusinganybifurcationthatopposesthestudyofproductionandconsumption,orfailstoaddressaxesofsocialstratification(1997).Forinstance,ArvindRajagopalnotesthatbecausetelevision,thetele-phone,theinternet,andtheneoliberalareallnewtoIndia,‘marketsandmediageneratenewkindsofrightsandnewkindsofimagination…novelwaysofexercisingcitizenshiprightsandconceivingpolitics’(2001).ForRosalíaWinocur,women’stalk-backradioinLatinAmericasincethefallofUS-backeddictatorshipshasofferedasimultaneouslyindividualandsocialforumfornewexpressionsofcitizenship,inthecontextofdecentredpolitics,emergentidentities,minorityrights,andgenderissues–apublicspacethattranscendsthesubordinationofdifferenceandtheprivilegingofeliteexperience(2002).AndMoscostartsfromthepowerofculturalmyths,then‘buildsabridgetopoliticaleconomy’inhisinvestigationofneoliberaldoxaaboutempowerment,insistingon‘themutuallyconstitutiverelationshipbetweenpoliticaleconomyandculturalstudies’aseachmounts‘acritiqueoftheother’(2004).WecanseesimilarintentanimatingsuchinnovationsasSarai(sarai.net),theFreeSoftwareFoundation(fsf.org),andtheAlternativeLawForum(altlawforum.org).TheseareexemplaryinstancesofaMediaStudies3.0thatisinformation.Theyblendinternationalism,politicaleconomy,ethnography,andtextualanalysis,andresistthebinarismofMediaStudies1.0and2.0.Tounderstandtheinfrastructureofthemedia,wemustaddresstech-nologicalinnovation,regulation,labour,andownership,utilisingethno-graphic,political-economic,andpublic-policyresearchtoestablishhowthemediacametobeastheyare.Tounderstandoutput,wemustaddressproductionandundertakebothcontentandtextualanalysis,combiningstatisticalandhermeneuticmethodstoestablishpatternsofmeaning.Tounderstandaudiences,wemustaddressratings,uses-and-gratifications,effects,active-audience,ethnographic,andpsychoanalytictraditions,combiningquantitativeandqualitativemeasurestoestablishtheaudience’scompositionandconductinthewakeofmediaconsumption.Thisincarnatesasimultaneouslytop-downandbottom-upapproach,undertakenalwayswithaneyetolabourissues.Letmeofferanexampleofalabourfocus,fromthehistoryofthecorporationElectronicArts(EA).BasedinLosAngeles,EAmakesTheSimsandtheJohnMadden‘football’games.ElectronicArtswasfoundedin1982byTripHawkins.HeboughtintoMediaStudies1.0and2.0simultaneously,dismissingbroadcasttelevisionas‘brain-deadening’,andembracing‘interactivemedia’asadevelopment‘thatwouldconnectpeopleandhelpthemgrow’(quotedinFleming2007).Hawkins’spassionforcomplexboardgamesmeldedwithhisexcitementatthepotentialofthemicroprocessor.Thecompany’snamederivedfromadesiretoemphasiseartandtechnologyunderthesignofpublishing,withdevelopersinitiallypromotedasauthors.Itsfirstgames,suchasM.U.L.E.andMurderontheZinderneuf,weremarketedwithdesigners’names–ratherlikerockalbums

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:224211–230224TobyMilleroftheday.Theseshiningyoungwhitedesigngeekswerecelebratedinafamous1983advertisementcalled‘Weseefarther’.Butgeekauthorshipwassoonsupplanted;bythemid-1980s,the‘authors’ofkeygameswerenolongerdweebsinblackpolonecksbutDoctorJ.andLarryBird,basketballcelebritiesbroughtinasendorsersandfauxdesigners.Creatorslosttheirmomentoffameasauthors.Astreamofsportsstoriesdrewonpromotionsunderwrittenbyothers’creativityandmoney,displacingwhatwereregardedastheesotericpursuitsofthefirstinnovators.ThelabourprocessbecamefetishisedasEAboughtdevelopmentstudiosandsetupdesignteamsonanindustrialmodel.Atthesametime,thecorporationsoughttounderminetheexistingpoliticaleconomyoftheindustrybycuttingthediscountgiventodistributorsofsoftware,therebybuildinguprevenues.Itsnextmovewastodealdirectwithretailers,writinggamesforbothpersonalcomputersandconsolesandbecomingadistributoritself.Inadditiontocontinuingwithconsoleoptions,itenteredvirtualworldsinthelate1990s,andawakenedtofemaleconsumers,buyingadvertisingspaceandtimeacrossfashionperiodicalsandgirlytelevision(Fleming2007).In2004thecompanybecameapublicby-wordfortheworstlabourpracticesacrossthesectorwhenthebloggerea_spousepseudonymouslypostedavibrantaccountoftheexploitationexperiencedbyherfiancéandothersatEA,eloquentlyrippingbacktheveneerofjoyouscybertarianismfromgamesdevelopment.Assheputit,EA’sclaimtoblendaestheticsandtechnology,aspertheirnameandcorporatetrademark,‘Challengeevery-thing’,beliedbothitstreatmentofworkersanditsproducts.Relabour,shewrote:‘ToanyEAexecutivethathappenstoreadthis,Ihaveagoodchallengeforyou:howaboutsafeandsanelabourpracticesforthepeopleonwhosebacksyouwalkforyourmillions?’Retexts:‘Churningoutonelicensedfootballgameafteranotherdoesn’tsoundlikechallengingmuchofanythingtome;itsoundslikeamoneyfarm.’Thenshedetailedtheexploitation:aputativelylimited‘pre-crunch’isannouncedintheperiodpriortoreleaseofanewgame,suchthatforty-eight-hourweeksarerequired,withthealibithatmonthsofthiswillobviatetheneedforareal‘crunch’attheconclusionofdevelopment;thepre-crunchgoesonbeyonditsdeadline;seventy-two-hourworkweeksaremandated;thatcrunchpassesitspromisedend;illnessandirritabilitystrike;andanewcrunchisannounced,wherebyeveryonemustworkbetweeneighty-fiveandninety-one-hourweeks,9.00a.m.to10.00p.m.,MondaytoSundayinclusive,withtheonly(occasional)eveningoffbeingaSaturday,after6.30.Thereisnoovertimeorleaveinreturnforthismassiveexpenditureoftalentandtime.Theworkersdiscernnomeasurablebenefitfromthecrunch.Somanyerrorsaremadefromfatiguethattimeisneededtocorrectthem.InthemiddleofthiscrisisFortunemagazinerankedEAamongthe‘100bestcompaniestoworkfor’.ItisNo.91amongcorporationsthat

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:225211–230‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’225‘tryhardtodorightbytheirstaff’asmeasuredbytheGreatPlacetoWork®InstituteinSanFrancisco.ElectronicArtscallsitself‘aone-classsociety’,anditsVice-PresidentofHumanResources,RustyRueff,operateswiththefollowing(astonishing)dictum:‘Mostcreativitycomesatoneoftwotimes:Whenyourbackisupagainstthewallorinatimeofcalm.’Incasereadersfindthisfiring-squadanalogyalarming,Fortunereassuresthemthatworkerscan‘refreshtheirenergywithfreeespressoorbyplayingvolleyballandbasketball’.Today,afterthecontroversybegataclass-actionlawsuit,thefirmranksNo.62inthemagazine’s‘ListofIndustryStars’(Leveringetal.2003).ea_spouse’sbraveintervention(aswesayinculturalstudies)oroutburst(astheysayelsewhere)generatedfebrileandsubstantialresponses,suchascallsforunionisation,appealstofederalandstatelabourmachinery,confirmationthatEAwashorrendousbutbynomeansaberrant,frustrationthatthebourgeoispresswasdisinclinedtoinvestigateorevenreportthesituation,denunciationsofasininemanagerialismandprivate-sectorbureaucracy(forexample,‘Theaveragegamecompanymanagerisquitepossiblytheworstqualifiedleaderofpeopleintheworld’),andrecognitionofhowintellectualpropertyrightsmakelabourdisposable(‘I’mbeginningtothinkthatEAisreallynothingmorethanalicensingwarehouse.[T]hey’llalwaysbeabletorecruitnaivetalenttoslaveaway…alienatingtalentisnotabigproblemforthem’).ea_spousenowrunsawebsitethatisbom-bardedwithhorrorstoriesbyangryformeridealistsfromallovertheglobewhothoughttheyweredoing‘coolstuff’untiltheyexperiencedweb-shophorror.Doyoureadaboutsuchmattersinyourfriendlyneighbourhoodmediastudiesjournalortextbook?Idoubtit.Aresuchmattersofinteresttoyoungproto-cybertarianswhothinkworkingforagamescompanywouldbethegreatestthingsincethesimultaneousorgasm?Ithinkso.Weinhabitaworldwhereflexibilityisthemega-signofaffluence,andprecariousnessitsflipside;whereoneperson’scalculatedriskisanother’sburdenoflabour;whereinequalityisrepresentedasamoraltest;andyouthissupposedtorespondtoacalculatedinsecurityasanopportunityratherthanaconstraint.ButnoteveryonesuccumbstoMediaStudies1.0’ssenseofhelplessnessorMediaStudies2.0’srhetoricofempowerment.Considerthedevelopingdiscourseofcasualisedworkers,flexiblelabouramongculturalworkerssegmentedthroughderegulationandnewtechnology(PaulandKleingartner1994;DahlströmandHermelin2007).InWesternEuropethisgroupisrenamingitself.Theprecariat/précaires/precarias/precarigounderthesignsof‘SanPrecario’and‘OurLadyofthePrecariat’,whoguardthespiritofthe‘flashinglightsoflife’.Themovementembodiesanewstyle,anewidentity,formedfromyoung,female,mobile,internationalworkersinthecultureindustries,services,andtheknowledgesector,strugglingforsecurityagainsttheimpactofneoliberalism(Foti2005).Since2001theEuromaydayNetworkhasorganisedPrecariatParadesintwentyEuropeancitiesthatfeature‘contortionistsofflexibility…high-wireartists

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:226211–230226TobyMillerofmobility…jugglersofcredit’,alongwithapparitionsbySanPrecariotoprotecthischildrenagainstevilbosses(‘Signthecall!’2006).In2005SanPrecarioappearedintheformofaworkeruniformedandsupplicantonhisknees,withaneonsignonhishead.Participantsnotetheinstabilityofworkinglifetoday,andhaleanewclassofsexworkers,domesticservants,andmediacreatorsatmaydaysur.org.Theirmanifestoreads:Somosprecariosyprecarias,atípicos,temporales,móviles,flexibles.Somoslagentequeestáenlacuerdafloja,enequilibrioinestable.Somoslagentedeslocalizadayreconvertida.Wearetheprecariat,atypical,temporary,mobile,flexible.Wearethepeopleonthehighwire,inunstableequilibrium.Wearethepeopledisplacedandmadeover.(QuotedbyRaunig2004)Theprecariatsuggestsacomplexconnectionbetween‘eslóganesdelosmovimientossociales,reapropiadosporelneoliberalismo’,socialmovementslogansreappropriatedforneoliberalism.Itrecognisesthatconceptslikediversity,culture,andsustainabilitycreatespectacles,manageworkers,andenablegentrification(Raunig2004).Similarly,Espaienblanc‘afirmaquevivimosenlasociedaddelconocimientoyencambionoexistenideas’,affirmsthatweliveinasocietyofknowledgeandchangewhereideasdon’texist(espaienblanc.net).Adbustersandculturaljamming(adbusters.org)workincognateways.Whentheprecariatandculturejammersdeclareanew‘phenomenologyoflabour’,a‘worldhorizonofproduction’(HardtandNegri2000:364),theyarereoccupyingandresignifyingthespaceofcorporate-drivendivi-sionsoflabourinwaysthatMediaStudies1.0and2.0havesimplyignored.AntonioNegrireferstothisinterestinggroupasthecognitariat.Theyarecomprisedoftheverystudentsweteach–peoplewithhighlevelsofeducationalattainmentandgreatfacilitywithculturalandcommunicationstechnologiesandgenres.Theyarethenewbreedofproductiveworkers,whoplaykeyrolesintheproductionandcirculationofgoodsandservicesthroughbothcreationandco-ordination.Theyformanewproletariat–nolongeronethatisdefinedintermsoffactoriesandmanufacturesversusamiddleorrulingclassofforceandideology.Thisproletariatisformedfromthosewhoseforebears,withsimilarorlesserculturalcapital,werethesalariat,andoperatedwithinsystemsofsecuredhealthcareandretirementincome.Thenewgrouplacksboththeorganisationofthetraditionalworkingclassandthepoliticalentréeoftheoldmiddleclass(Negri2007:264–5).Itoperateswithinaculturalisationofproduction(Wayne2003:21)thatbothenablesintellectuals,byplacingthematthecentreofworldeconomies,anddisablesthem,bydoingsounderconditionsofflexibleproductionandideologiesof‘freedom’.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:227211–230‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’227Suchdevelopmentshavespecialmeaningforwomen,whotraditionallyoccupymostservice-sectoremploymentbuthavebeenedgedoutbymenasthesectorhasaddedinprestigeandcentralitywiththedeclineofFirstWorldemploymentinprimaryandsecondaryindustries(Martin2002).Therearewiderpublicpolicyimplicationsthanlabouritself.ThescandalthatengulfedBritishtelevisionin2007becauseofthewaythattheBBCaswellasovertlycapitalisticenterprisesdeceivedviewerstocutcostsandincreaseexcitement,soonturnedintoarecognitionofwhathappenstotheethosofpublicservicewhenprogrammesaremadeonaprojectbasisbybusinesseswithoutanycommitmenttoanythingbutprofitandemployeeslackinganyformofsecurityorasenseofpublicpurpose(Dyke2007;‘Belief’2007).ThetelevisionexecutiveDawnAirey(2007)(onceauthorofatelevisionbusinessplanorchestratedaround‘films,football,andfucking’)isnowwarningagainst‘thecasualisationoftheindustry’.SimilardebateshaveemergedovertheexploitationofchildworkersinUSrealitytelevisionatthehandsofsubcontractors–whoagainescheworganisedlabour(Fernandez2007,alsoseeTahiro2002).Tosummarise,MediaStudies1.0ismisleadinglyfunctionalistonitseffectsandpolitical-economyside,andMediaStudies2.0ismisleadinglyconflictualonitsactive-audienceside.Workdoneonpoliticaleconomyandeffectshasneglectedstruggle,dissonance,andconflict,infavourofatotalisingnarrativeinwhichthemediadominateeverydaylife.Workdoneontheactiveaudiencehasoveremphasisedstruggle,dissonance,andconflict,infavourofatotalisingnarrativeinwhichreadersandaudiencesdominateeverydaylife.WeneedMediaStudies3.0tosynthesiseandimprovewhathasalreadybeenachieved.OtherwisethequestionswithwhichIbeganwilllieunanswered,leadingtoagroupofangryyoungalumniandprofoundlyexploitednew-mediaworkers.Returningtothosequeries,herearesomecontingentreplies:1Ifyouknowwhoownsandregulatesthemedia,you’llknowhowtoapplytoworkthere,andminimisepowerimbalancesonceyou’vemadeit.2Thequestionofmediaeffectsdependsonwhowantstoknowandwhy;theimpactofgamesonthosewhomakethemisnegative,becauseofexploitativeworkpractices.3Ifyouknowhowaudiencesaredefinedandcounted,andhowgenrefunctions,you’llbeabletolobbyforretentionofyourfavouriteprogrammes.Notes1Manythankstotheeditorsfortheirsupportiveandperspicaciouscomments.2Thesetermsarealsousedattheory.org.uk.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:228211–230228TobyMiller3Theeditorshaveaskedmetoexplaintheseterms.Nebbishnessreferstoanunfortunate,solitaryfigure.ItisderivedfromYiddish.PanglossreferstotheoptimisticphilosopherinVoltaire’sCandide,andPollyannatoaclassicofchildren’sliteratureaboutasimilarlysunnyperson.4ThisisthetermincreasinglyusedinLatinAmericaandtheUnitedStatesinordertoavoidgenderedimplications.BibliographyAdams,J.T.(1941).TheEpicofAmerica.NewYork:TriangleBooks.Adorno,T.(1996)TheCultureIndustry:SelectedEssaysonMassCulture,trans.G.Finlayson,N.Walker,A.G.Rabinach,W.Blomster,andT.Y.Levin,ed.J.M.Bernstein.London:Routledge.Adorno,T.andHorkheimer,M.(1977)‘Thecultureindustry:enlightenmentasmassdeception’,inCurran,J.,Gurevitch,M.andWoollacott,J.(eds)MassCommunicationandSociety.London:Arnold.Airey,D.(2007)‘IstheBBCahealthyinstitution…orfundamentallysickatheart?’Independent,20July,p.3.Banks,M.(2006)‘Moraleconomyandculturalwork’,Sociology40(3):455–72.‘BeliefintheBBC’(2007)FinancialTimes,20July,10.Benhabib,S.(2002)TheClaimsofCulture:EqualityandDiversityintheGlobalEra.PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Buckingham,D.(2000)AftertheDeathofChildhood:GrowingupintheAgeofElectronicMedia.Cambridge:PolityPress.Burke,E.(1994).‘Therestraintsonmenareamongtheirrights’,inP.Clarke(ed.)Citizenship.London:PlutoPress.Butsch,R.(2000)TheMakingofAmericanAudiences:fromStagetoTelevision,1750–1990.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Calhoun,C.(2002)‘TheFutureofSociology:InterdisciplinarityandInternational-ization’,paperdeliveredtotheDepartmentofSociology,UniversityofMinnesota,atitscentennialcelebration,29–30March.Castronova,E.(2006)‘Ontheresearchvalueoflargegames:naturalexperimentsinNorrathandCamelot’,GamesandCulture:aJournalofInteractiveMedia1(2):163–86.Charters,W.(1933)MotionPicturesandYouth:aSummary.NewYork:Macmillan.Consalvo,M.(2006)‘Consolevideogamesandglobalcorporations:creatingahybridculture’,NewMediaandSociety8(1):117–37.Dahlström,M.andHermelin,B.(2007)‘Creativeindustries,spatialityandflexibility:theexampleoffilmproduction’,NorskGeografiskTiddskrift–NorwegianJournalofGeography61(3):111–21.Dyke,G.(2007)‘Thisisthefaultofpoliticians,notbroadcasters’,Independent,20July,p.2.Dylan,B.(2004)ChroniclesI.NewYork:Simon&Schuster.Eagleton,T.(1982)‘Therevoltofthereader’,NewLiteraryHistory13(3):449–52.ea_spouse.(2004)‘EA:thehumanstory’,LiveJournal,11November,ea-spouse.livejournal.com/274.html.EuropeanCommission(2007)AEuropeanAgendaforCultureinaGlobalizingWorld.Communication,Brussels.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:229211–230‘Stepawayfromthecroissant’229Fernandez,M.E.(2007)‘KidNationputsHollywoodlabourtensionintosharpfocus’,LosAngelesTimes,29August,pp.A1,A14.Fiske,J.(1989)ReadingthePopular.NewYork:Routledge.Fleming,J.(2007)‘Weseefarther:ahistoryofelectronicarts’,Gamasutra:theArtandBusinessofMakingGames,16February.Foti,A.(2005).‘Mayday,Mayday:Euroflexworkers,timetogetamoveon!’Republicart.net,4.Grossberg,L.(1997)BringingitallBackHome:EssaysonCulturalStudies.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.Hardt,M.andNegri,A.(2000)Empire.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.Hartley,J.(2003)AShortHistoryofCulturalStudies.London:Sage.Hoggart,R.(2004)MassMediainaMassSociety:MythandReality.London:Continuum.Hunter,I.(1988)CultureandGovernment.London:Macmillan.Kant,I.(1991)PoliticalWritings,trans.H.B.Nisbet,ed.H.Reiss,2ndedn.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Levering,R.,Moskowitz,M.,Harrington,A.andTzacyk,C.(2003)‘100bestcompaniestoworkfor’,Fortune,20January.Manninen,B.A.(2006)‘Medicatingthemind:aKantiananalysisofoverprescribingpsychoactivedrugs’,JournalofMedicalEthics32:100–5.Martin,S.(2002)‘Thepoliticaleconomyofwomen’semploymentintheinformationsector’,inE.MeehanandE.Riordan(eds)SexandMoney:FeminismandPoliticalEconomyintheMedia.MinneapolisMN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Maxwell,R.(ed.)(2001)CultureWorks.MinneapolisMN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.Mosco,V.(2004)TheDigitalSublime:Myth,Power,andCyberspace.CambridgeMA:MITPress.Negri,A.(2007)Goodbye,MisterSocialism:entretiensavecRafValvolaScelsi,trans.P.Bertilotti.Paris:Seuil.Paul,A.andKleingartner,A.(1994)‘Flexibleproductionandthetransformationofindustrialrelationsinthemotionpictureandtelevisionindustry’,IndustrialandLabourRelationsReview47(4):663–78.dePedro,J.P.(1991)‘Conceptoyotrosaspectosdelpatrimonioculturalenlaconstitución’,Estudiossobrelaconstituciónespañola:homenajealprofesorEduardoGarciadeEnterria.Madrid:EditorialCivitas.dePedro,J.P.(1999)‘DemocracyandculturaldifferenceintheSpanishconstitutionof1978’,inC.J.GreenhousewithR.Kheshti(eds)DemocracyandEthnography:ConstructingIdentitiesinMulticulturalLiberalStates.AlbanyNY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Pietrykowski,B.(2001)‘Informationtechnologyandcommercializationofknowledge:corporateuniversitiesandclassdynamicsinaneraoftechnologicalrestructuring’,JournalofEconomicIssues35(2):299–306.Postrel,V.(1999)‘Thepleasuresofpersuasion’,WallStreetJournal,2August.Pufendorf,S.(2000)OntheDutyofManandCitizenaccordingtoNaturalLaw,trans.M.Silverthorne,ed.J.Tully.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Rajagopal,A.(2001)PoliticsafterTelevision:ReligiousNationalismandtheReshapingoftheIndianPublic.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

[12:119/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch13.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:230211–230230TobyMillerRaunig,Gerald(2004).‘Lainseguridadvencerá:activismocontralaprecariedadyMayDayparades’,trans.M.Expósito,Republicart.net6.Rose,S.(2006)TheTwenty-firstCenturyBrain:Explaining,MendingandManipulatingtheMind.London:Vintage.Rossiter,N.(2006)OrganizedNetworks:MediaTheory,CreativeLabour,NewInstitutions.Rotterdam:NAiPublishers.Schiller,D.(2007)HowtoThinkaboutInformation.UrbanaIL:UniversityofIllinoisPress.Shils,E.(1966)‘Masssocietyanditsculture’,inB.BerelsonandM.Janowitz(eds)ReaderinPublicOpinionandCommunication,2ndedn.NewYork:FreePress.‘Signthecall!’.(2006)EuroMayday.org.Simpson,C.(1996)ScienceofCoercion:CommunicationResearchandPsycholog-icalWarfare,1945–1960.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Singer,D.G.andSinger,J.L.(2001)‘Introduction:whyahandbookonchildrenandthemedia?’inD.G.SingerandJ.L.Singer(eds)HandbookofChildrenandtheMedia.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.Staiger,J.(2005)MediaReceptionStudies.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.Tahiro,C.S.(2002)‘TheTwilightZoneofcontemporaryHollywoodproduction’,CinemaJournal41(3):27–37.Tobin,J.(2004)‘Introduction’,inJ.Tobin(ed.)Pikachu’sGlobalAdventure.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.‘USchildrenstilltraumatizedoneyearafterseeingpartiallyexposedbreastonTV’(2006)TheOnion,26January.Wallas,G.(1967)TheGreatSociety:aPsychologicalAnalysis.LincolnNE:UniversityofNebraskaPress.Wallerstein,I.(1989)‘Cultureastheideologicalbattlegroundofthemodernworld-system’,HitotsubashiJournalofSocialStudies21(1):5–22.Wayne,M.(2003)MarxismandMediaStudies:KeyConceptsandContemporaryTrends.London:PlutoPress.Winocur,R.(2002)Ciudadanosmediaticos.Barcelona:EditorialGedisa.Yúdice,G.(2003)Losrecursosdelacultura.Barcelona:EditorialGedisa.

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:231231–24714SexanddrugsandbaitandswitchRockumentaryandthenewmodelworkerMattStahlWhoeverdoesnotadapthismanneroflifetotheconditionsofcapitalisticsuccessmustgounder,oratleastcannotrise.(MaxWeber)It’smorethananadventure,it’sajob.(IndiemusicianMelanieDeGiovanni,reversingtheUSarmy’s1980srecruitingslogantodescribetouringwitharockband)INon-fictionnarrativesofculturalproductionandproducersareundergoingaconsiderableexpansioninavarietyofmedia.Thischapterproposesasocial-theoreticalframeworkfortheanalysisofthisefflorescencethroughanexaminationofthedocumentaryrepresentationofpopularmusicalcareers,againstthebackdropofrecentanalysesoforganisationalchangeinneoliberalworkregimes.Thedevelopinginteractionsofneoliberalpolitical-economicchange,thesocialdivisionoflabour,andthelabourprocessareofincreasinginteresttosocialscientistsandtheorists(e.g.BoltanskiandChiapello2005;Sennett1998,2006;Reich2001);thischapterfocusesonthefigureofthecreativeworkerasagentandpedagogueofsuchchange.Therhetoricalworkofdocumentary,arguesNichols(1991:140),istogainassenttostatementsaboutandorientationsforactioninthesocialworld.Growingnumbersofanalystsfromvariousquarterssuggestthatentertainmentfirmspresentmodelsofflexibilityandriskmanagement–neoliberalreorganisationavantlalettre1–andthattheworkingconditionsandcareertrajectoriesofcreativeworkersareatthecuttingedgeofthisshift.Iarguethatwhilecontemporaryrockumentaryexhortsustoattendtoandvalueavisionofautonomousfreeholdersthatappearstoofferaradicalchallengetothenormofalienatedwork,themodelofworkthatemergestendstofollowalongthelinesofthatnowfavouredbytheneoliberalisingstateandprivatesector.Thetaskhereistodraw

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:232231–247232MattStahlattentiontorockumentary’snarrativesofworkinthecontemporarypoliticaleconomy,toitsproductiverelationshipwithformsofeconomicsubjectivityconsonantwithongoingprocessesofneoliberalisation.Culturalconceptionsofworkandtheworkingsubjectareanessen-tialcomponentinanypolitical-economicregime(Biernacki1995;Read2003:98),androckumentariessuchas2004’sDig!areconsent-seekingvehiclesofsuchculturalconceptions.Weber’sProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism(1958)andMacpherson’sPoliticalTheoryofPossessiveIndividualism(1962)analysethechangesinconceptionsofethicsandhumannaturethatattendedtheemergenceoffullyfledgedcapitalism.Butchangeswithincapitalismcontinuetopromiseanddependonsig-nificantsocio-culturalchange.Onafinerscalethanthetwomagisterialworkscitedabove,WarrenSusmanarguesthattheshiftfromanineteenth-centuryproducersocietytoatwentieth-centuryconsumersocietydependedinlargepartonashiftfromanunderstandingoftheselfintermsof‘character’tooneframedintermsof‘personality’.Theconceptionoftheselfasexpressionof‘character’,heargues,setupself-sacrifice,inthenameof‘duty,honour,[and]integrity’,asachiefvalue.Thenewvisionoftheselfas‘personality’requiredthosehopingtosucceedinthenewregime‘tobeunique,bedistinctive,follow[their]ownfeelings,make[themselves]standoutfromthecrowd,andatthesametime,appeal–byfascination,magnetism,attractiveness–toit’(1984:280).Thepromulgationofthisnewconceptionoftheselftookplace,Susmanshows,notonlythroughtheadvicemanualsthatformhismainbodyofevidence,butalsothroughrepresentationsinthemassmediaandtheembodimentof‘personality’bymediafiguressuchasDouglasFairbanks(p.283).Myhypothesisisthattheculturalproduceriscurrentlyplayinganimportantroleintheproductionofsignificantrefinementsinthecontem-poraryunderstandingofworkandtheworkingsubject.Thisistakingplaceontwointerrelatedlevels.First,withtheongoingexpansionofcommunicationchannelsofallkinds,thedemandforculturalproductshasgrownsubstantiallyandthenumberofproducersandamountofproductionhavefollowedsuit,generatingnewformsofculturallabour,workopportunities,andspacesofpositions.Second,atthesametime,theamountofmediadevotedtotherepresentationofculturalproducersengagedintheworkofculturalproductionhasundergoneacommensurateincrease.Thislatterlevelisthefocushere.Thegrowingaccumulationandpopularityofmediaconcerningculturalproductionandproducerscanbeunderstoodtoillustrate‘thecentralplaceofsymbolcreatorsinfantasiesandbeliefsaboutwhat“goodwork”mightinvolveinmoderncapitalism’(Hesmondhalgh2002:71).Indeed,studiesofjobsatisfactionandofperceivedprestigeinvariousoccupa-tionsdemonstratethatautonomyofthekindenjoyedbyrecognisedandrecognisable‘symbolcreators’inarangeofculturalindustriesisthemostdesirableandhighlyesteemed(Sennett2006:111–12;FoleyandPolanyi

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:233231–247Sexanddrugsandbaitandswitch2332006:179).AsPierre-MichelMengerwrites,‘[a]rtisticcareers…seemtosituatethemselvesatthetopoftheladderofprofessions,inregardtoalmosteachofthedeterminantswhicharetraditionallyconsideredinpsycho-socialstudiesofjobsatisfaction….Freedomtoorganiseone’swork,’hecontinues,‘isn’tthat,afterall,theconditionparexcellenceofauthenticartisticaccomplishment?’(2002:52).Ofallthearenasofprofessionalsymbolcreationsusceptibletomedianarrativisation,however,popularmusicappearstobeofmostinteresttoproducersandaudiences.Books,movies,andtelevisionshowsthatfocusexplicitlyonthelabourprocessesandcareersofmusicmakersareallaccumulatingrapidly.Thereareseveralfactorsatworkhere.Popularmusicincreasinglysaturatessocialandmediaworlds;moreover,lowbarrierstoentryrendermusicmakingincreasinglycomprehensibletoandpracticablebygrowingpublics.Theapparentcapacityofmanymusicmakerstoresistalienation–theirapparentachievementofsignificantdegreesofself-actualisation,self-determination,personalauthenticityandautonomyintheirwork–setspopularmusicmakingapartasanexampleof‘goodwork’towhich,becauseofloweredbarrierstoentry,virtuallyanyonemayaspire.Ihavearguedelsewherethatthetop-ratedUStelevisionshowAmericanIdol(Stahl2004)operatesaggressivelyinthisconnection.ButwhereAmericanIdol’sisamassivepopularaudience,andwhereithasengenderedaninstitutionalisedentertainmentindustrytreadmill(withtensofthou-sandsofaspirantsshowinguptoauditionforeachseason),contemporaryrockumentaryappealstoamorerarefiedaudience,ofteninvokinganindividualised,aspiring-elitesubjectinresponsetoamoresocialnetwork-centred(ratherthaninstitution-centred,asinthecaseofAmericanIdol)careernarrative.Thesubjectoftherockumentary,infact,mayoftenbemoreproperlyunderstoodascomprisingboththemusicalactandthefilmmaker,soimportantaretheytoeachotherandtothetrajectoriesofprofessionalisation,upwardmobility,innovation,andreputationtheyrepresent.Thus,atthesametimethatAmericanIdolcultivatesareservearmyofinstitutionallyorientedproletarianpeddlersofentertainmentlabourpowerontheabsurdlyremotepromiseofstratosphericstardom,mediadevotedtotheworkadayworldofautonomousprofessionalculturalproducersengagedinextra-orquasi-institutionalculturalproductioncanbeseenasappealingmorerationallytotheinterestsofthosewhothem-selvesareaimingabitlower,forlessinstitutionalised,moreautonomous,moderatelyelitestatus(suchasthatenjoyedbytheeliteconsultantsstudiedbyBarleyandKunda2004).RichardSennettdistinguishesbetweenthepositionsofeliteandmassworkersintheneweconomypreciselyalongtheselines.‘Thenewelite,’hewrites,‘haslessneedoftheethicofdelayedgratification,asthicknetworksprovidecontactsandasenseofbelonging,nomatterwhatfirmororganisationoneworksfor.Themass,however,hasathinnernetworkof

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:234231–247234MattStahlinformalcontactandsupport,andsoremainsmoreinstitution-dependent’(2006:80).This‘newelite’canberecognisedalsointhepopulationlabouranalystRobertReichoncelabelled‘symbolicanalysts’butwhomhenowpreferstocall‘creativeworkers’,who,heargues,comprisethe‘thehighestpaid25percent’ofAmericanworkers(2001:69).Rockmusicmakersare‘creativeworkers’parexcellence;itisonthebasisofwhattheyshareanddon’tsharewithgrowingnumbersofprofessionalsthatthesocialdimensionsofrockumentary’scontemporaryproliferation(as,amongotherthings,advicemanuals)canbestbeunderstood.Perhapsmostsignificantforanunderstandingofrockumentary’sroleinthepropagationofnewculturalconceptsofworkandtheworkingsubject,then,isthenotionthatstoriesofmusicmakers–asopposedtonarrativesofculturalproductioninothersectors–offerprofoundlylegiblesocialscriptsforthenavigationoftheneweconomy’supperquarter.Incontrast,forexample,tothoseoffilmortelevisionproduction,popularmusic’sproductionprocessesareincreasinglyfamiliarandeasierto‘read’intermsofManicheansocialrelations,makingrockumentaryanidealmediumforthepromulgationofnewconceptionsofworkandtheworkingsubject.Ifitisimperativeforneoliberalisationthatworkersatallstrataincreasinglyunderstandthemselvesinthesametermsashaveartistsforgenerations,andthatfirmslooktotheculturalindustriesfornewmodelsofflexibleorganisation,thenstoriesofcreativeworkersthatsimplifyandhighlightessentialsofthesocialrelationsintheworldofculturalproductionwillbeofgreatinterest.Inrockumentarythestrugglesbetween‘artist’and‘impresario’,‘artist’and‘producer’or‘artist’and‘recordlabel’areneverthematicallyorrhetoricallyfarfromthosebetween‘labour’and‘capital’,‘worker’and‘manager’,or‘resistance’and‘control’.Atthecoreofmoststoriesofpopularmusicmaking–fictionalaswellasnon-fictional–istheproblemofautonomy.Bothfictionalandnon-fictionalnarrativestendtoemphasisepopularmusicperformers’humbleorigins;theytendtoimply,whentheydon’tsayoutright,‘Youcandoittoo!’totheviewer.(Muchnon-fictionhip-hopfilm,infact,isexplicitly‘howto’media.)Mostimportant,however,virtuallyallofthememployaframewhichimplicitlyorexplicitlydefinesperformersinoppositiontobusinesspeople,aframethatKeirKeightley(2003)hastracedtotherock‘n’rollmoviesofthe1950sand1960s.Thisframeiscruciallyimportant.Keightley(2001:131–41,2003)denotesitwiththetermauthenticity,aconceptfamiliartopopularmusicscholars.Toynbee’sworkonthesubjectsuggeststhatculturalconceptsofauthenticityinmusicalworkhavepolitical-economicrepercussions–itistheexpectationoffansthatartistsexpressthemselvesintheirownways,ontheirownterms,thatfortifiesproducerautonomy.AccordingtoToynbee,‘popularmusictakesonadiminishedcommodityformjustbecausepeopleinsistonanauthenticrelationtoit.Suchadiscourse…helpstopushbackindustrialcontrol

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:235231–247Sexanddrugsandbaitandswitch235overmusicactivity’(2000:6),therebyexpandingmusicianautonomyinmeaningfulways.Alsoofconsequencearethreeadditionalsocialaspectsoftheprofessionalmusic-makingoccupationwhichwillbeexploredfurtherbelow.First,asHirsch(1972)pointedout,entertainmentindustriesdependonasteadystreamofmarginalinnovationforcontinuedprofits.Second,formanymusicmakers,autonomyisaby-productofthebargainingpowerthatderivesnotjustfromfanexpectationsbutalsofrombeingamonopolysupplierofwhateconomistscall‘imperfectlysubstitutable’talentsforparticularkindsofinnovation.Third,copyrightlawpreservesstatutoryauthorsfromthekindofappropriationtowhichvirtuallyallotherworkingpeoplearesubject:authorsowntheproductoftheirlabour(Rose1993;Fisk2003:Ellerman1992).2Rockumentarytypicallyconcernsaparticularkindofworkrelationinwhichtheworkerexperiences,incombination,significantandrealdegreesofautonomy,self-actualisation,andde-alienatingcontrolovertheprocessandproduceoflabour,anextremelyprivilegedpositionforwhich,remarkably,noprofessionalcredentialorinheritedprivilegeisrequired,andtowhich,withprofoundlydemocraticresonance,almostanyonecanreasonablyaspire.InsectionIIIwillarguethat,initspresentationofthequotidianlivesofrockmusicians,contemporaryrockumentary–hererepresentedby2004’sDig!–proposesamodelofprofessionalworkthatpromisestofosterautonomy,self-actualisationandde-alienationinthecontemporarypoliticaleconomy.InsectionIIIIwillcontrastwhatthefilmpurportstosayabouthowtoliveandworkwithmyownanalysisofthefilm,againstthebackdropofarecentanalysisoftheanticipatoryroleoftheartistintheneweconomy.IIIntheearly1990s,justoutofcollege,filmmakerOndiTimonermovedtoLosAngelestomakeherwayintothefilmindustry,bringingwithheradocumentaryaboutawomaninaConnecticutprisonshe’dmadewhileafilmstudentatYale.Herhopewastoshopherstudentfilmforproductionasafull-lengthfeature,butallshefoundwereindustrysharksofferingFaustianbargains.Reflectingontheseencounters,Timoner,alsoanamateurmusician,conceivedaprojectthatwouldfocusonindierockmusicinorderanalogicallyandallegoricallytoexplore,shesaid,‘whathappenswhenartandindustrymeet’(McConvey2004).Duringamid-1990striptoSanFranciscoshewasintroducedtoAntonNewcombe,thesongwriterandleadsingeroftheBrianJonestownMassacre.He,inturn,introducedhertohisfavouriteband,theDandyWarhols,ofPortland,Oregon.Bothbandsagreedtoletherfilmthem.Onandoff,overthecourseofsevenyears,she,herbrother,andherhusband(partnersinherInterloperFilms)shotsome2,000hoursoffilmfromwhichDig!wasproduced.Dig!premieredatthe

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:236231–247236MattStahlSundancefilmfestival,whereitgarneredatopprizeandsetTimonerapartasanup-and-comingyoungdirector.Dig!concernsthedivergingfortunesofthetwobands,whomweencounteratthestartofthefilmasfriendsandsocio-musicalequals.(TheDandyWarholshadjustsignedtoamajorlabel,anditappearsthattheBrianJonestownMassacreisclosebehind.)TheirtrajectoriessplitasNewcombe’sunpredictabletempercausestheBrianJonestownMassacretomisscrucialopportunities,andastheDandyWarholsfindsuccessandrockstardominEurope,largelyastheresultofaEuropeancellphonecompany’schoiceofoneoftheirsongsforuseinatelevisioncommercial.Towardtheendofthefilm,NewcombebeginsstalkingtheDandys,whoseemlessandlessinclinedtoindulgehiminaBeatles/StonesorOasis/Blur-stylerivalry,friendlyorotherwise.ThelastscenesofthefilmfeaturetheDandyWarholscannilyspendingtheirvideobudgetonbuildingamulti-purposeperformance/recordingspacefortheirownuseandtorent,andNewcombebeinghauledawayinapolicecarfollowinganattackonanaudiencememberatanLAgig.ManyoftherecentcropofrockumentariesfromwhichIhaveselectedDig!dependtoagreatextentfortheirclaimsof‘representingreality’(Nichols1991)onextensiveuseoffilmmakingtechniquesfirstpioneeredunderthebannerof‘directcinema’–thenamechosenbyitsfoundersforalate1950s/early1960sdocumentarymovement,mostoftenreferredtoas‘Americancinemaverité’.Itwaspreciselythesefilmmakers–AlbertandDavidMaysles,DonnA.Pennebaker,andRichardLeacock–whoproducedseveralofthefirstmajorUSrockdocumentaries,includingtheMaysles’TheBeatles’FirstUSVisit(1964)andGimmeShelter(1970),andPennebaker’sDontLookBack(sic)(1967),andMontereyPop(1969).Citingthestatementsofthesecollaborators,AllenandGomeryarguethatdirectcinemawasessentiallyaliberal-democratic,reformistmedium.AccordingtoLeacock,heandPennebakerandtheMayslesbrothersformulatedanapproachthat‘presentedyouwithdatatotrytofigureoutwhatthehellwasreallygoingon’,lettingself-evident‘facts’‘speakforthemselves’(AllenandGomery1985:233).Tothisend,recalledLeacock,theysubjectedthemselves‘toaratherrigidsetofrules.Ifwemissedsomething,neveraskanyonetorepeatit.Neveraskanyquestions.Neverinterview’(Levin1971:196).Theconvictionheldbythesefilmmakersthatthe‘truth’ofagivensituationcouldbediscoveredandrecordedbyasensitivecamera-wieldingobserverrevealsthebasicassumptionbehinddirectcinema’sreformism:presentedwith‘factual’representationsoftheworld,viewerscouldandwouldmakerationaljudgementsandparticipateinpubliclifeonthatbasis.Indeed,documentaryscholarBillNicholsarguesthatdocumentaryconstitutesargumentsabouttheworldthatcallonustorespondaffirmatively.The‘voiceofthedocumentary,’hewrites,‘isapropositionabouthowtheworldis–whatexistswithinit,whatourrelationstothesethingsare,whatalternativestheremightbe–thatinvites

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:237231–247Sexanddrugsandbaitandswitch237consent’(1991:140);thelatterisgivenasweincorporatedocumentary’struthsintoourstancestowardthesocialworld.WhileTimonerdidnotrigorouslyfollowtherulesdevelopedbythesefilmmakers,Dig!sharestheirreformistbent.Inthefilm,forexample,Timoneremploystheform’sconventionalcritical-journalisticstancetowardsocialinstitutions.Thefilmclandestinelypursuesitssubjectsintoconver-sationsanddealingswithmusicindustryexecutives,exposing,asdidtheAmericanveritépioneers,privatespacesandprivatedealings.Timonerrepeatedlymakesitplainthatsheunderstandsherselftobeworkinginthistradition.InapaneldiscussiononrockumentaryattheLondonFilmFestival,forexample,Timonerinvokesthefootage-to-finishedfilmratioofDig!ascharacteristicoffilm:‘Wewerearoundsomuchandthere’snearly2,000hoursoffootage,soit’strueverité,youknow?’(LondonFilmFestival2004).Americanveritéofthe1960sfocusedtoagreatdegreeonculturalworkers;contemporaryrockumentaryhewscloselytothatmodel,tellingstoriesaboutinstitutions,labourprocessesandcareersinthepopularmusicindustry.Takenasagenre,contemporaryrockumentaryisaformofdocumentarythatfocusesonthesubjectiveexperienceofaparticularformofworkinandatthemarginsofcontemporarycapitalistculturalindustries.3Timonersetouttomakeafilmthatwouldthrowintoreliefcreators’strugglesoverauthenticityandautonomyattheboundaryoftherecordingindustry.Herstatementthatwiththisfilmshehopedto‘inspireotherpeopletoexploretheirowncreativityandtheirhearts,toseeiftheyarefollowingtheirlivesright’(Bunbury2005)suggeststhedegreetowhichmodesoforganisationandconceptsofworkandtheworkingselfrootedintheculturalindustriesandtheexperiencesofcreativeworkerscanbeunderstoodpopularlytobequiterelevanttoamuchbroaderrangeofworkingpeople.Timoner’sconvictionwithrespecttoinspiringpeoplewithhermicro-scopicexaminationofthesetwowest-coastbandsisespeciallyappropriateinthecontextofcontemporaryrockumentary.Keightleyarguesthatrockinthepost-1960sand1970serahasundergoneaprocessof‘miniaturisation’.‘Rock,’Keightleywrites‘nolongeroccupiesthecentreofpopularmusic,nolongercommandsthesingularattentionandrespectitoncedid…thescaleofitsambitionsandaudiences[hasbeen]reduced’(2001:140).Contemporaryrockumentaryparticipatesinthisminiaturisation.TheepicconcertfilmsofPennebakerandtheMayslesbrothers,aswellastheirmoreintimateportrayalsofDylanandtheBeatles,ontheotherhand,participatedinspectacularisationandmyth-making.TheempiricistethosofAmericanveritépresentedtheheroicstatusoftheBeatles,theRollingStones,BobDylan,andotherstautologically.Rock’sminiaturisationhastakenplacealongsidewhatNichols(1991:56)callsanincreasein‘reflexivity’indocumentarypractice,aretreatfromAmericanverité’sconceitof‘unmediated’presentationof‘thefacts’towardsagreater

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:238231–247238MattStahlacknowledgementofinteractionbetweensubjectsandfilmmaker(s),amoreconsciousconsiderationoftheroleofthefilmmakerinshapingtheproceedings,aswellasamorecriticalconsiderationoftheethicsofrepresentation.4Theevolutionoftherockumentaryinthiscontextisunmistakable:whatismostofinteresttoaudiences,itassumes,isanexhaustive,oftenmaudlin,ruminationonintimatedetailsoftheworkingandpersonallivesofmusicians,intheoftenmanifestpresenceofsympatheticparticipant-observer.AstrikingexampleoftheminiaturisationoftherockumentarygazeisSinofskyandBerlinger’s2004filmMetallica:SomeKindofMonster(madeinfactbytwofilmmakerswhohadapprenticedtoAlbertMayslesforacombinedtotaloftwentyyears)inwhichthethrashmetalbandisdepictedspendingmonthsinmeetingswithatherapist.Together,groupandtherapistworkthroughthecommunicationandpersonalityconflictsthat,whiletheyonceyieldedproductivetension,hadbeguntohinderthegroup’sproductivity.AccordingtoJasonNewstead,formerMetallicabassist,thegroupbeganhavingtroublewritingtheirnextalbumaroundthetimefilmingbegan.Asinterpersonaldifficultiesbegantohinderthecreative(or‘innovation’)process,herecalled,‘themanagerssuggestedthatwehaveapsychotherapistcomein,amanthatmeetswithproballteams,big-ego,big-dollarguysthatcan’tgetalongbuthavetomakesomekindofentityflow,soeverybodyelsecanmakethemoney’(SinofskyandBerlinger2004).Thisconcernwithproductivitydeepensthecomplexityoftherocku-mentary’spresentationoftheself-actualising,de-alienatingfantasyofrockandthe‘goodwork’fantasyofcreativeworkandreturnsustoapointtowhichIalludedearlier,thatis,thecompositenatureofthesubjectoftherockumentary.Therockumentarysubjectincreasinglycomprisesboththefilmmakerandtheband/musician;consideringbothaspectsofthiscom-positewillbringintoreliefthewaysinwhichrockumentaryrhetoricandpedagogyoperatewithrespecttoprofessionalworkintheneweconomy.Inincorporatingmanyoftheelementsofpost-veritédocumentarythatNicholscharacterisesasreflexive,Dig!canbeunderstoodtobeasmuch‘about’thefilmmakerasitis‘about’thetwosubjectbands.Thefilmconcernsthefortunesnotoftwogroupsofculturalproducersbutofthree.Allthreecometogetherinthemid-1990sundertheauspicesofarelativelydenseconstellationofsharedculturaldimensionsofhabitus:1960smusicandfashion,youthfulurbanmisbehaviour,‘resistant’indieculturalproduction.Thedivergencethattakesplaceisnot,asissuggestedbythefilm’sreviews,betweentwobandsoverdifferentattitudestowardsthemusicbusiness.Itis,rather,betweentwogroupsofculturalproducersdrawntohomologousformsofindieculturalproductionbutcharacterisedbynon-overlappingorientations,expectations,andresources,beyondtheirsharedinterests.Acommonvalueof‘hold[ing]ontotheirintegrityinthefaceofcommodifyingtheirart’(Timoner2004)mayhavesuffusedtheir

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:239231–247Sexanddrugsandbaitandswitch239initialmomentsofculturalcamaraderie,butthesetwogroups–Newcombeandhisbandmatesontheoneside,andtheDandyWarholsandTimonerontheother–puttheseculturalsignifiersandpracticestoworkindifferentwaysandtodifferentpurposes.Inmanyplacesinthefilmanditsspecialfeatures,DandyWarholsleaderCourtneyTaylorandOndiTimonerassertthatTaylorandtheDandyWarholsprovideNewcombewitha‘foil’ofcommercialsuccessagainstwhichthelattercouldunderstandhimselfasmusicallyandethicallypure.Morecanbelearnedfromthisfilmbyreversingthatframework.Withoutreducingthetangleofissueshereeithertopurelypsychologicalortopurelysociologicalarguments,IsuggestthatNewcombe’sapparentmadnessprovidestheDandyswithanirrationalOtherwhoseflagrantself-sacrificeonthealtarofauthenticityreciprocallymakesplainthesoundnessandreasonablenessoftheDandys’moderateapproach,andallowsTimonertoavoiddealingwiththepossiblythornierproblemoftryingtoreconcileherinitialcriticalandconventionalveritéstancewithalessdramaticallyexcitingbutperhapsmorenarrativelyandethicallychallengingstoryofsuccessfulratherthanfailed,frustrated,illstarredorself-sabotagedcollab-orationwithcapital.Thismakespossiblethepresentationofapedagogical,evendisciplinary,modelorientationtoworkandtheeconomythatsubtlyreinforcesthetiesbetweenauthenticity-inflectedculturalproductionandneoliberal/entrepreneurialsubjectpositions.Timonerbefriendsbothbandsandfilmsthemrelaxing,fighting,playinggigs,ontouranddealingwithbusinesspeople.Shepracticallybecomesabandmemberherself,wieldinghercameraon-stage,sharingdrugsatbandparties.TrajectoriesdivergeasNewcombe’svolatile,occasionallyviolent,characterbecomesmoreandmoreofaproblemfortheBrianJonestownMassacreandthefilmmakerandastheDandyWarhols’self-proclaimedstatusas‘themostwelladjustedbandinAmerica’addstotherapidlydeepeningcontrastbetweenthetwobands.Thethemebeginstoshiftmarkedlyfrom‘whathappenswhenartandindustrymeet’to‘whathappenswhenanartistwithapersonalitydisorderfixatesonaparticularlyrigidconstructionofauthenticity,alienatesfriendsandcollaboratorsanddestroysbusinessrelationships’.Newcombeisincreasinglythefocusofdramaticamateurpsychologicalanalysis,colourfuldiagnosis,andpseudo-clinicalportraiture,whileTaylorandtheDandyWarholsare,incomparison,normalisedandflattenedwithrespecttotheirownorigins,personallives,andcareerandsocialtrajectories.Foranexample,letuslookathowNewcombe’sdruguseisportrayedincontrasttothatoftheDandysandthefilmmakers.AccordingtoNinaRitter,oneoftheA&Rrepswhoappearsinthefilmasanauthorityonmusicandthemusicindustry,‘Youwalk[ed]into[Newcombe’shomestudio]anditjustfeltlikedeathwaseverywhere.Itwasjustasmack-house.Itwasreekingofdeath.’AccordingtoTimoner,‘Antoncultivatesacertainedge,hedeniesahome,hedeniesself-comforts,heself-medicates,

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:240231–247240MattStahlhedenieshimselfpsychotropicdrugswhichmayhelphimstabilisebecausehecultivatesandmaintainsthatedge’(Timoner2004).Newcombe’sdruguseispathologised.TheDandys’druguse,conversely,isasubjectofwonderandadmirationforthefilmmakers.EarlyinthefilmweareintroducedtoZiaMcCabe,theDandyWarhols’keyboardist,assheisdrivingthefilmmakersaroundduringaninterview.Voiced-overcommentaryofDavidandOndiTimonerprovidedintheDig!DVDspecialfeaturesaccompaniesthismoment:OndiTimoner.WewerecrashingwithZia…DavidTimoner.Yeah.Ondi….whowascuttingupvariousdrugsforusintheevening.David(chuckles).Buttheywerethemostfunctionalpeoplewhoalsocutupdrugs,itwasreallytogether.Ondi.Itwasincredible,yeah,like,warmbreakfastinthemorningbutecstasyatnight,youknow?(Timoner2004)ThisadmirationbetraysasharedproductivistorientationbetweenTimonerandtheDandysthatactsnot(ornotsimply)asamoderatorofexcessbutratherasacomponentofexcess.Thereisanundercurrentthroughoutthisfilmthatsuggeststhatthereisdestructiverockexcessandthereisproductiverockexcess;theexcessofNewcombeandhisbandmatesiscontrastedtothatoftheDandyWarholsandtheirnewdocumentaristfriends.Inthecontemporarypoliticaleconomy,theformerderailsanddisturbs,thelatteralignsandsmoothestheway.Destructiveexcessispathological,afailingstrategy.Productiveexcess,Dig!suggests,playsanimportantroleinformingthekindsofprofessionalnetworksthatarecrucialforthesuccessandupwardmobilityofpromisingyoungculturalproducersand,increasingly,aspirantsinarangeoffields(Sennett2006:80;Reich2001:142).TheBrianJonestownMassacreisportrayedasadoomed‘heroinband’,wantonlydestroyingsupportsystemsandresources;theDandyWarhols,arguedbyonecritictoexemplify‘gener-ationYindustriousness’(Sinagra2004:60),areaturbo-charged‘ecstasyband’,productivelycementingfriendshipsandexpandingnetworks,inpartthroughintense‘partying’.Thefilm’sshifttowardthepathologisationofNewcombforestallsquestionsthataremorepertinentwithregardtotheinterestsofaspiringorupwardlymobile‘creativeworkers’concerningthedisavowedbuthoped-foroutcome:‘whatishappeningwhenartandindustrymeetandgetalongreallywell’.Whatisgoingonwhenself-actualisation,de-alienation,resistance,authenticity,andsoon–including,inthiscase,sexanddrugsandrockandroll–slothappilyintoindustrialstructures?Theshiftawayfromanaccountofadjustmentandprofittowardoneofpathologyanddissolutionhappens,Ibelieve,fortworeasons.First,Newcombe’s

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:241231–247Sexanddrugsandbaitandswitch241behaviourandpronouncementsdomakeextremelycompellingcinema.Thesecondreason,ofinteresthere,isthatporingoverthestrugglesofmusicmakerswhileeschewingthepoliticaleconomicnitty-grittyoftheirsocialpracticesandrelationsallowsdocumentariststomakeapparentlyinstructive,evencritical,filmsthatelidethewaysinwhichthe‘goodwork’ofculturalproductionreproducesaspectsofthe‘badwork’towhichitiscontrasted,thatsupportwidespreadperceptionsofcreativeworkassomehowessentiallyexceptionaltotherunofworkincapitalism.5IIIPierre-MichelMenger,inhisPortraitdel’artisteentravailleur:métamor-phosesducapitalisme,arguesthat:[f]arfromtheromantic,contentiousorsubversiveportrayalsoftheartist,fromnowonthecreatormustbeseenasamodelfigureofthenewworker,afigurethroughwhichareseentransformationsasdecisiveasthebreak-upofthesalariedworld,thegrowthofautonomousprofessionals,themagnitudeandundercurrentsofcon-temporarydisparities,[and]theindividualizationofworkrelationships.(2002:8)Dig!anditsgenre-mateshaveacuriousrelationshipwiththedynamicMengerexplains.IfTimoner’sstatements,aswellasthoseofreviewersofherfilm(butalsothepronouncementsofSinofskyandBerlingerandreviewersofMetallica),aretobetakenatfacevalue,documentaryexplorationsoftheworldsofrockmusicianshavemuchtoofferaverageviewerswithrespectto‘followingtheirlivesright’.ButbeyondthefocusonNewcombe,whatanswersdoesthefilmactuallyoffer?Dig!teachesthatcreativeworkers’excessivecommitmenttoauthenticityandautonomyisafailing–indeed,insane–position,butitavoidslayingouthowexactly–withamoderate,negotiatedcommitmenttoauthenticityandautonomy–successcanbeachieved.Timonerandthebandsexpressedaninitialcommitmenttoautonomyandauthenticity.TheDandysandTimoneraccustomedthemselvestothenegotiationsrequiredbycapitalastheyestablishedthemselvesaspromising(i.e.profitable,worthyofinvestment)playersintheLosAngelesentertainmentscene,construingthatsuccessashavingbeenachieved‘ontheirownterms’.BothentitiesallyinframingtheBrianJonestownMassacre’sfailure,andnotthemechanicsoftheirsuccess,asthetopicofthefilm.LetusturntoMenger’sanalysistohelpelucidatethenatureandconditionsoftheDandys’andTimoner’ssuccessinthecontextoftheculturalconstellationofwhichDig!formstheheart.RecallHirsch’sseminal(1972)argumentabouttheculturalindus-tries’needforcontinuousmarginalinnovation.Lately,Hirsch(2000),

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:242231–247242MattStahlReich(2001),Menger(2002),aswellasanalystsinotherfieldshavestressedtheexpandingimportanceofinnovationacrossindustrialandservicesectors.Artistsarewidelyunderstoodbydefinitiontobeinnovators,andinthatcapacity(aswellasmanyothers,asMengerpointsout)canbeusefullyunderstoodasnewmodelworkers,particularlyofReich’s‘creative’sort.Mengerarguesthatonewayofunderstandingthemannerinwhichworkersareincreasinglyinterpellatedbyemployershopingtoenjoythebenefitsofcreativeworkerinnovationinthecontextofculturalindustry-styleflexibilityistoconceiveofadualprocessofsegmentationonperpendicularaxes.Ononeaxissegmentationoccurshorizontally;eachpersonisseparatedfromhisorherneighboursas,forexample,abearerofauniquesetof‘competences’.Ontheotheraxisthesegmentationisvertical;eachpersonissubjecttoincrementalrankingsofqualityandvalue.Bothsegmentationprocesseshavelongbeenexemplifiedintherelationsofcreativeproduction;whenappliedasamodeltoworkingeneral,however,theyproduceadevastatingcombination.Thefirst,horizontal,iscommonlyunderstoodamonganalystsoftheculturalindustriesashavingtodowith‘productdifferentiation’.Inthebroaderworkworld,itcanbeunderstoodastheindividualisationofwork,skillsets,andcareertrajectoriessuchthat,forexample,solidarityseemscounterproductive.Itiswithverticalsegmentation,however,thathorizontalsegmentationrevealsthepotentiallyperilousdepthsofitspromise.‘[O]ntheoceanofthisinfinitedifferentiationofworkandtalent,’writesMenger,‘comparisonsoperateindefinitelytoevaluate,rank,sort,orientpreferences’(p.31).Itisonthisverticalaxis,whereminutedistinctionsinqualitybecomemagnifiedtoformincreasinglyunbridgeablegaps,thatDig!indicates(albeitthroughaglassdarkly)someoftheprocessesatwork.TherearemanyproblematicdynamicsthataccompanytheexportationofformsofrankingcharacteristicoftheworldofartisticproductiontothegeneralworldofworkthatDig!obliquelycommunicates.Mengerarguesthatoneoftheexportedmechanismsthroughwhichdisparitiesaremagnifiediswhathecallsthe‘matchingup’oftalentsatsimilarlevels:Thetalentedarematchedamongthemselveswithinprojectsorwithinorganizationsthatexpecttodrawadvantagesfromthegroupingofthosewhowithineachone’sspecialtybelongtogroupsofequivalentreputation,inordertoincreasetheproductivityofthecompetenciesofeachmemberoftheteamandtoincreasethechancesofsuccessandprofit.(p.44)Whatwedon’tseetakingplacebetweenscenesshotoverthecourseofsevenyearsistheprocessofprofessionalisationTimonerandherpartnersareundergoingastheydeveloptheirbusiness.Dig!didnotjustcomeoutofnowheretowinaprizeatSundance;foryearsInterloperFilmshad

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:243231–247Sexanddrugsandbaitandswitch243beenproducingcommercials,musicvideos,andotherworkforarangeofclients.TimonerexplainstoAmericanCinematographerthatthefilm’suseofmultipleformats(Super-8to16mmto35mm,withverydifferentassociatedcosts)reflectedtheincreasingsuccessoftheDandyWarhols(Pizello2004:28).Thisitnodoubtdid,butatthesametimeitreflectsthechangingfortunesofthisyoungfilmmakerandhercrew.Perhapsmoretellingly,thismatch-upappearstohaveevolved‘organi-cally’,‘naturally’,asthetwogroupsofproducersincreasinglyacceptedeachotherasprofessionalequalsonrelated,indeedlinked,trajectories.Itis,inpart,themechanicsofthismatch-upthatareobscuredasthenarrativecentresmoreandmoreontheBrianJonestownMassacre’sdissolutionandshiesawayfromamorereflexiveconsideration(moreconsonantwithcontemporarytrendsindocumentary,thatis)oftheDandys’andTimoner’sownprofessionaltrajectories.Despitethisskewedfocus,however,Timonerunderstandsherselftohaveproducedafilmthatwillhelppeople‘followtheirlivesright’.Surelyshe’snotsuggestingthatadrugandalcohol-fuelleddescentintomentalillnessandisolationistheanswer,butthatisthefocusofthree-quartersofthefilm.IfyouwantactuallytolearnsomethingabouthowfollowingyourcreativityandyourheartcanbringmaterialsuccessaccordingtoDig!’sunderlyingdoctrine,however,learntothinkliketherisk-embracing,productivity-maximisingculturalentrepreneursobscuredbythesmokescreenofNewcombe’scrash-and-burn(seealsoReich2001andSennett2006).IVIntheworldsofartandculturalproduction,autonomyandriskhavelongbeentwosidesofthesamecoin,acceptabletocreativeworkersasadualrealitybecauseofthekindsofmonetaryandnon-monetaryrewardsonoffer.Contemporaryrockumentarynarratesthetrajectoriesofentrantsinthefieldsofpopularmusic,promulgatingculturalconceptsofworkandtheworkingsubjectasessentiallyautonomous.Dig!,Metallica,andotherfilmsoffersocialscriptsfortheadaptationof‘manner[s]oflife’,touseWeber’s(1958:72)phrase,inaccordancewiththeproliferationofautonomyasadesideratumintheorganisationofworkandasascendantaspectoftheworkingsubject.Theriskembracedbyrockersisframedaschosenvoluntarily,itispartofthepackageofpossibleoutcomesofwhichsome–stardom,forexample–appearextraordinarilydesirable.Thecombinationofautonomyandriskembracedbyartisticworkers,however,isquitedifferentfromthatincreasinglyimposedonworkersinothersectors.Autonomywasonceassociatedwiththechoiceofwhetherornottoenterintoemployment:achoicemadepossibleformanypeople,priortotheemergenceoffullyfledgedcapitalismandtheconsumersociety,throughtheiraccesstoalternativemeansofself-provisioning

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:244231–247244MattStahl(i.e.,productiveproperty,fromvegetablegardensandaccesstocommonland,torentandprofit-producingcapitalenterprises)(Perelman2000).MostpeopleinthemodernAnglo-Americanworlddonothaveaccesstothesortofproductivepropertyonwhichsuchautonomycouldbebased.However,anewkindofworkerautonomyisofincreasingvaluetocapital(BarleyandKunda1992;Kraft1999;Honneth2004;Stahl2006),usefulinelicitingconsentandlegitimatingtheredistributionofcorporateriskwhilethecorporationitselfmaintainspossessionofthematerialmeansofmakingaliving.Inthiscontexttheincreasingautonomyofworkatthecuttingedgeiscoupledwithincreasingriskofvulnerabilitytoexploitationandsocialexclusion(Beck2000).FollowingMarx,mostworkingpeople–nomatterhowinnovative,nomatterhowautonomous–stillhavenothingtosellbuttheirskins.Thesameisnottrueforthosepopularmusicmakerswhocanclaimthemantleofauthorship:theyaretherecognisableownersofpotentiallyproductivepropertyintheformoftheirsongsandperformances.Theirautonomousworkinthecontextofriskcharacteristicofartworldsisthusnotanalogoustothatofthepreferrednewworker.Theautonomousworkofrock‘n’rollauthors,whileitmaynotproduceimmediateincome,doesproduceuniqueintellectualproperties.Thesepropertiesconstituteapotentialbasisforentryintotheclassofrentiers,thosewhomakemoneyfrompropertyandinvestment.6ThusDig!’sbait-and-switch:firstthebait,consistinginthelureofrealautonomy,themakingofrockmusicpresentedasanidealformofwork;thentheswitch,thatistosay,thesubstitutionofaformofautonomywhichistheobverseofthatrepresentedinthecontemporaryrockumentary’stypicalcareernarrative.Whatformusiciansandculturalproducersisthechallengingandfulfillingexperienceofcreativityforotherworkersturnsouttobetheexhaustingdemonstrationofcontinualinnovationandvalue-adding.Hencetheflipsideoforiginal,uniqueself-expressionisconsequentialindividualisation,horizontalsegmentationandverticalranking–‘flexibility’asconsignmenttoradicalinsecurity.NotesTheauthorwishestothankJaneStahl,JasonToynbee,DavidHesmondhalgh,KeirKeightley,HeideSolbrig,SophiaSnow,MichaelMascuch,andWillStrawfortheirassistance.1E.g.Keightley(personalcommunication2007);LashandUrry(1994:123);Hirsch(2000);Lampeletal.(2000).2Theproprietarynatureofauthorshipisabaseassumptionofthischapter.Letmeclarifyherethat,whilemanymusicmakersgrantexclusivelicenceoftheirworkstorecordcompanies–cedingvirtuallyallrights–inUSlawthatperiodislimitedtothirty-fiveyears,afterwhichanauthor–nomatterwhatthelicensingcontractsays–mayexerciseaninalienablerighttoa‘secondbiteattheapple’throughtherightof‘terminationoftransfers’(Hull2005:301).

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:245231–247Sexanddrugsandbaitandswitch2453Otherexamplesofcontemporaryrockumentaryinclude:IAmTryingtoBreakYourHeart(featuringthebandWilco,2002),EndoftheCentury(Ramones,2004),MeetingPeopleisEasy(Radiohead,1999),DriveWell,SleepCarefully(DeathCabforCutie,2004),ShaneMcGowan:IfIshouldFallfromGrace(2003),TheFlamingLips,theFearlessFreaks(2005),StrongEnoughtoBreak(Hanson,2006),ShutUpandSing(theDixieChicks,2006).Thelistlengthensconstantly.4Whilemyanalysistouchesonethicalissuesindocumentaryrepresentation,thisisnotmyanalyticalperspectivehere.ForatrenchantconsiderationoftheseissuesseeColes(1997).5Thismodeoffilmmakingwouldalsoappeartosuitcontemporaryrockmusiciansbecauseitsatisfiesontheonehandaneedtomaintaincloserrelationstothesmalleraudiencescharacteristicinaneraofminiaturisedcareers,andontheotheradesiretoshowhowadeptrockmusiciansareatremaining‘authentic’andautonomousinthefaceofsweepingpolitical-economicchange.6InGrantGee’sMeetingPeopleisEasy(1999)amemberofRadioheadremarksthatthey‘arecomingupwithbandsnowthatownhotelsand,youknow…haveinvestmentcompaniesandmorebusinesses.There’sthisdocumentarydonerecentlyaboutPinkFloyd,andwhenitwasshowntoPinkFloydtheyrefusedtohaveitreleasedbecauseitbasicallyshowedthemgoinginandoutofbusinessmeetingsandboardroomsanddiscussingmovingmoneyaround.’BibliographyAllen,R.C.andGomery.D.(1985)FilmHistory:TheoryandPractice.NewYork:Knopf.Barley,S.R.andKundaG.(1992)‘Designanddevotion:surgesofrationalandnormativeideologiesofcontrolinmanagerialdiscourse’,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly37:363–99.Barley,S.R.andKunda,G.(1992/2004)Gurus,HiredGuns,andWarmBodies:ItinerantExpertsinaKnowlegeEconomy.PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.Beck,U.(2000)BraveNewWorldofWork.MaldenMA:PolityPress.Biernacki,R.(1995)TheFabricationofLabor:GermanyandBritain,1640–1914.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Boltanski,L.andChiapelloE.(2005)TheNewSpiritofCapitalism,trans.GregoryElliot.NewYork:Verso.Bunbury,S.(2005)‘Rockgonewild’,TheAge,10April,http://www.theage.com.au/news/Film/Rock-gone-wild/2005/04/07/1112815672469.html(accessed2/05/06).Coles,R.(1997)DoingDocumentaryWork.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.Ellerman,D.P.(1992)PropertyandContractinEconomics:thecaseforEconomicDemocracy.CambridgeMA:Blackwell.Fisk,C.(2003)‘Authorsatwork:theoriginsofthework-for-hiredoctrine’,YaleJournalofLawandtheHumanities15(1):1–70.Foley,J.andPolanyi,M.(2006)‘Workplacedemocracy:whybother?’EconomicandIndustrialDemocracy27(1):173–91.Hesmondhalgh,D.(2002)TheCulturalIndustries.London:Sage.Hirsch,P.(1972)‘Processingfadsandfashions:anorganization-setanalysisofculturalindustrysystems’,AmericanJournalofSociology77:639–59.

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:246231–247246MattStahlHirsch,P.(2000)‘Culturalindustriesrevisited’,OrganizationScience11(3):356–63.Honneth,A.(2004)‘Organizedself-realization:someparadoxesofindividualiza-tion’,EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory7(4):463–78.Hull,G.(2005)‘Terminationrightsandtherealsongwriters’,VanderbiltJournalofEntertainmentLawandPractice7(2):301–21.Keightley,K.(2001)‘Reconsideringrock’,inS.Frith,W.StrawandJ.Street(eds)TheCambridgeCompaniontoPopandRock.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Keightley,K.(2003)‘Manufacturingauthenticity:imaginingthemusicindustryinAnglo-Americancinema,1956–1962’,inK.Dickinson(ed.)MovieMusic,theFilmReader.NewYork:Routledge.Kraft,P.(1999)‘Tocontrolandinspire:USmanagementintheAgeofComputerInformationSystemsandGlobalProduction’,inMarkL.Wardell,ThomasL.SteigerandPeterMeiksins(eds)RethinkingtheLabourProcess.NewYork:SUNYPress.Lampel,J.,Lant,T.andShamsie,J.(2000)‘Balancingact:learningfromorganizingpracticesinculturalindustries’,OrganizationScience11(3):263–9.Lash,S.andUrry,J.(1994)EconomiesofSignsandSpace.London:Sage.Levin,G.R.(1971)DocumentaryExplorations:FifteenInterviewswithFilmMakers.GardenCityNY:Doubleday.LondonFilmFestival(2004)‘Rockumentarydebateliveonline’,http://www.lff.org.uk/news_details.php?NewsID=39(accessed2June2006).Macpherson,C.B.(1962)ThePoliticalTheoryofPossessiveIndividualism:HobbestoLocke.Oxford:ClarendonPress.McConvey,J.(2004)‘Thegood,theband,andtheugly’,http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_10.07.04/film/dig.php(accessed2June2006).Menger,P-M.(2002)Portraitdel’artisteentravailleur:métamorphosesducapitalisme.Paris:ÉditionsduSeuiletlaRépubliquedesIdées(trans.JaneStahl).Nichols,B.(1991)RepresentingReality:IssuesandConceptsinDocumentary.BloomingtonIN:IndianaUniversityPress.Perelman,M.(2000)TheInventionofCapitalism:ClassicalPoliticalEconomyandtheSecretHistoryofPrimitiveAccumulation.DurhamNC:DukeUniversityPress.Pizello,C.(2004)‘Productionslate:sexfiendsandrock‘n’rollrivals:battleofthebands’,AmericanCinematographer85(10):26,28–30.Read,J.(2003)TheMicro-politicsofCapital:MarxandthePrehistoryofthePresent.AlbanyNY:SUNYPress.Reich,R.(2001)TheFutureofSuccess.NewYork:Knopf.Rose,M.(1993)AuthorsandOwners:theInventionofCopyright.CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress.Sennett,R.(1998)TheCorrosionofCharacter:thePersonalConsequencesofWorkintheNewCapitalism.NewYork:Norton.Sennett,R.(2006)TheCultureoftheNewCapitalism.NewHavenCT:YaleUniversityPress.Sinagra,L.(2004)‘Almostfamous:twoindiebandsstruggletosurvivetheindustryandeachother’,VillageVoice(NewYorkNY),Tuesday5October2004,p.60.Sinofsky,B.andBerlinger,J.(2004)Metallica:SomeKindofMonster.YorktownHeightsNY:ThirdEyeMotionPictureCompany.

[12:129/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch14.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:247231–247Sexanddrugsandbaitandswitch247Stahl,M.(2004)‘“Amomentlikethis”:AmericanIdolandnarrativesofmeritocracy’,inChrisWashburneandMaikenDerno(eds)BadMusic:theMusicweLovetoHate.NewYork:Routledge.Stahl,M.(2006)‘Non-proprietaryauthorshipandtheusesofautonomy:artisticlaborinAmericanfilmanimation,1900–2004’,Labor:StudiesinWorkingClassHistoryoftheAmericas2(4):87–105.Susman,W.(1984)CultureasHistory:theTransformationofAmericanSocietyintheTwentiethCentury.NewYork:Pantheon.Timoner,O.(2004)Dig!LosAngeles:InterloperFilms.Toynbee,J.(2000)MakingPopularMusic:Musicians,CreativityandInstitutions.London:Arnold.Weber,M.(1958)TheProtestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalism,trans.TalcottParsons.NewYork:Scribner.

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:248248–26415JournalismExpertise,authority,andpowerindemocraticlifeChristopherAndersonAmericanjournalism,itissafetosay,entersthetwenty-firstcenturybesetonallsides.Journalists’tenuousroleasexpertsindetermining‘allthenewsthat’sfittoprint’isunderfire.Atthesametime,bloggers,onlinejournalists,andotherordinarycitizensandwritersareattackingtheveryideathatthereisanysortofjournalisticexpertiseatall.Astheeditorsnoteinthewinter2005issueofNeimanReports,‘withthearrivaloftheinternet,theabilityofnon-journaliststopublishtheirwordsandlinkthemwiththoseofotherlike-mindedscribeshasforeveralteredthebalanceofpowerbetweenthosewhocontrolthemeanstopublishandthosewhobelievetheyhavesomethingimportanttosay’(NeimanReports2005).Empoweredbynewdigitaltechnologies,andemboldenedbytheinternet,theveryideathattheremightbeanoccupationalmonopolyon‘tellingthenews’seems,tomanyobservers,dubiousatbest.Iwouldarguethatmanyofthesedebatesregardingtheoccupationalidentityandpublicrelevanceofthejournalismprofession–Arebloggersjournalists?Doonlinejournalistspractisetraditionalformsofjournalism?Ifnot,whatarethekeydifferencesbetweenolderandnewjournalisticpractices?(NeimanReports2003,2005)–canbehelpfullyreframedasaseriesofquestionsregardingjournalisticexpertise.Withinvariousacademicdisciplinestherehasbeenagrowinginterestinquestionsofexpertise,aninterestbuildingupon,thoughnotentirelydisplacing,earlierscholarshipinthesociologiesofknowledge,theprofessions,anddiscourseanalysis(Eyal2002).Additionally,agrowingscholarlydebateseekstoanalyseanormativerelationshipbetweenexpertiseanddemocracy(Dzur2004;CollinsandEvans2002).Applyingthisperspectivetojournalism,then,wemightwonder:doesjournalisticexpertiseexist?Ifso,whatisit?Whohasitandwhereisitfound?Whyisjournalisticexpertise,alongwithothersystemsofexpertise,undersuchconcertedassaulttoday,andwhataretheconsequencesofthisassaultforthenormativevaluesofdemocracy,publiclife,andsocialjustice?Todate,verylittlehasbeenwrittenabouttheproblemofjournalisticexpertiseineitherthecommunicationsorsociologicalliterature.Whilequantitativeliteratureoverviewscanoftenobscureasmuchastheyreveal,

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:249248–264Journalism:expertise,authority,andpower249inthisparticularcase,thediscrepancyislargeenoughtobetelling:asearchoftheWebofSciencejournalarchiveforarticleson‘scientificexpertise’uncovers120articles,whileasimilarsearchfor‘journalisticexpertise’findsnone.ThedifferenceisevenmorestarkifweutiliseGoogleScholar:7,240entriesonscientificexpertisecanbecomparedtofifty-fiveonjournalism.ThesituationissimilartotheonediscussedbyEkstrominhisoverviewoftheepistemologyoftelevisionnews;although‘journalism,initsvariousforms,isclearlyamongthemostinfluentialknowledge-producinginstitutionsofourtime…[it]hasnotreceivedmuchattentionwithinthesociologyofknowledge.Studiesfocusingonscientificinstitutionsareconsiderablymorecommon’(Ekstrom2002:259).Despitethiscomparativeneglecttherehavebeenanumberofstudies,manyofthemwrittenunderthebroadrubricofthesociologyofculture,thathaveanalysedjournalismasaprofession,aformof‘sacredknowledge’,andadiscursivepractice.Ifoneofthemajorfoundationsofthesociologyofexpertiseisitsattempttosynthesisethesevariousfields–thesociologyoftheprofessions,thesociologyofknowledge,andmoreFoucauldian,discursiveperspectives,allofwhichhavecontributedtotheacademicstudyofjournalism–thanitwouldseempossibletopiecetogetherananalysisofjournalisticexpertisebyconstructingasimilarscaffold.Oneoftheprimarygoalsofthischapter,then,isto‘stockmyanalyticaltoolbox’,bothwiththeaimofdevelopingalargermetatheoryofjournalisticexpertise,andwiththehopeofclearingapathforfutureresearchontheinstitutionsandpracticesoftwenty-first-centuryjournalism.Thischapterbeginswithanoverviewofthreemajorthreadsofjournalismscholarship,beginningwiththecriticalstudiesofthe1970sandearly1980s,continuingthroughthegreateremphasisoncultureanddiscursiveconstructionintheearly1990s,andfinishingwithanoverviewofcurrent‘fieldapproaches’tojournalismresearch.Allthreeoftheseapproacheshave,indifferentways,investigatedtherelationshipbetweenjournalisticobjectivity,professionalism,discourse,andexpertise.Thesectionafternextmoreexplicitlyposesthequestionofjournalisticexpertiseanddrawsthethreeresearchperspectivesalreadyoutlinedintoadiscussionaroundthiscentralproblematic.Thefinalsectionbrieflyrevisitsthenormativequestionposedabove–whyisjournalisticexpertise,alongwithothersystemsofexpertise,undersuchconcertedassaulttoday?–drawingontheproposedframeworkinordertosketchoutaresponse.Threestrandsofjournalismstudies:professions,discourse,andfieldsThischapter,then,hasbothatheoreticalandapracticalfocus.Iuseonestrandofsocialtheory–thesociologiesoftheprofessionsandknowledge,alongwithvarioustheoriesofculturalauthority–tounderstandhowtechnologicaldevelopmentsarechallengingourunderstandingofwhat

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:250248–264250ChristopherAndersonjournalismisandhowitoperates.InthepagesthatfollowIdissectjournalisticauthority,i.e.,thepowerpossessedbyjournalistsandjour-nalisticorganisationsthatallowsthemtopresenttheirinterpretationsofrealityasaccurate,truthful,andofpoliticalimportance.By‘authority’Irefertoaculturalformofpower,thatis,toaformofdominationconsideredlargelylegitimatebythosewhobothexerciseandaresubjecttoit(Starr1984).ThesourceofthisjournalisticauthorityprimarilystemsfromtheexpertpositionofjournalistsandjournalisticorganisationswithinwhatBourdieuhascalled‘thefieldofculturalproduction’.Inmostadvancedcapitalistdemocraciesjournalistspositionsaredueinlargeparttotheoutcomeofanoccupationalstrugglethatsociologistshavelabelledtheprofessionalproject.Occupationsengagedintheprofessionalprojectstruggletogainandmaintainalegitimatejurisdictionovercertaindiscur-sively,culturally,andepistemologicallyconstructedformsofexpertise.Byanalysingthepositionofvarioussocialactorswithinthejournalisticfield,theprofessionalstrugglesbetweenthem,andtheconstructionofvariousformsofjournalisticexpertise,Ibelievewecangainadeeperinsightintothemaintenanceof,andchallengesto,journalisticauthority.EachofthestrandsofjournalismstudiesIdiscussbelowaddressessome,thoughnotall,ofthesemultiplecomponentsofjournalisticauthority.Therefore,anoverviewandsynthesisisinorder.Thefirststrandofjournalismstudies:organisationalanalysis,objectivity,andtheprofessionsJournalismisaninstitutionandsocialpracticethatproudlyclaimstopossessspecialinsightintotheshapeandmeaningoftheendlesstorrentofeventsthatconstituteourliveduniverse.Thefirstresearchthreadanalysingjournalisticknowledgeinthissense–asaprocessbywhichknowledgeabouttheoutsideworldisproduced–crestedinthelate1970s,partofbroadercritical(andlargelynon-Marxist)tendencieswithinjournalismscholarship.ResearchinthisveinbeganwithEpstein’sanalysisoftelevisionnews(1973),continuedonthroughCarey’soverviewofjournalism’s‘whiggishhistory’(1974),andculminatedwithTuchman’sdescriptionofjournalisticobjectivityasastrategicritual(1978);Gans’sdetailedanalysisofthedailyprocessesbywhichnewsdecisionsweremade(2004);Schudson’ssocialhistoryofnineteenth-centurynewspapers(1978);andGitlin’scritiqueoftheprocessbywhichthenationalmediashapedtheimageandsocialbehaviourofthe‘newleft’(1980).Themajordevelopmentinjournalismscholarshipinthe1970scanbeseenasthedeconstructionoftheidealisedimageofthejournalistthatsawhimorherasthetransparentrelayofexternalevents.Indeed,contrarytotheusualtendencyofscholarstolocatethisclutchofanalysisindifferentcommunications‘sub-disciplines’,Iarguethattheywouldbebetteranalysedtogether,unitedastheyareintheirscepticalattitudetoward

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:251248–264Journalism:expertise,authority,andpower251theepistemologiesofjournalismandtheirdesiretolinktheseknowledge-producingpracticestobroaderprofessionalsystems.InthiscontextIfollowEkstrom’sdefinitionofepistemology,lookingatit‘notasaphilosophicalinquiryintothenatureoftrueknowledgebuttothestudyofknowledgeproducingpracticesandthecommunicationofknowledgeclaims’(Ekstrom2002:259).Breathingthesameconstructivistairthatwouldproduce,aroundthesametime,asimilarcritiqueofscienceandthescientificestablishment(Feyerabend1975;Collins1975),thesecriticalsociologistsdirectedtheirattackatatargetfarmorehelplessandexposedthanthenaturalsciences.BensonhasconvincinglypointedtotheindebtednessofmanyofthesescholarstotheworkofGoffman,Garfinkel,andAlfredSchutz(Benson1999);andTuchmanherselfwrites,inachapterentitled‘Newsasaconstructedreality’,that‘newsworktransformseverydayoccurrencesintonewsevents…allof[my]conceptsstressthatmenandwomenactivelyconstructsocialmeanings’(Tuchman1978:184).AlthoughGans’stheoreticalpositionislessconstructionistthanTuchman’s,hisdetailedstudyofthewaystoryselectionis‘centeredontheunwrittenrulesjournalistsapply…andtherolesthatinformationsources,audiences,andpeoplewhoexertpressuretocensornewsplayinthetotalprocess’(Gans2004:73)canbeseenasanin-depthanalysisofaprocessofsymbolicgoodsproductionwhichinevitablyselects,omits,andignoresvariousaspectsofreality.SchudsonandCarey,bycallingthe‘naturalhistory’ofobjectivityintoquestion,challengetheideaofjournalistictransparencyonabroaderhistoricallevel,andGitlin,inhisexplicitdiscussionoftheskewedmannerinwhichthenationalmediaframedtheNewLeft,producedamodelofcontentanalysiswhichhascomeintocommonuseamongmediascholarsandactivistsalike.Ofcourse,apartfromTuchman,theseauthorsmayhavenotseentheepistemologicalcritiqueofjournalismastheirmaingoal;GitlininparticularhasexpressedhisviewthatTheWholeWorldisWatchingisprimarily‘notabookabouthowthemediadistortedthereputationofasocialmovement,butratherabookaboutthedancebetweenthemediaandthemovement,aboutacomplicatedrelationshipofmutualdependenceandaboutapoliticalconsequence’(Reese1994,emphasisadded).Nevertheless,inanyoverviewofsociologicalscholarshiponthemediafromthelate1970stheepistemologicalcritiqueisunavoidableand,insomeways,allthemorepowerfulduetoitsassumed,taken-for-grantedstatus.Thecriticalstudiesofthelate1970ssoughttodomorethansimplydissectthejournalist’sconstructionofreality,however;theywerealsopartofwhatThomasHaskellhascalledthe‘relentlesscritiqueofprofessionalsandprofessionalism’(Haskell1998).Schudson’soriginaldissertation,entitledOriginsoftheIdealofObjectivityintheProfession:AmericanJournalismandLaw,1830–1940,wasthemostexplicitinthisregard,althoughsomeoftheoriginalsociologicalfocuswasmutedwiththelater

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:252248–264252ChristopherAndersonrevisionofwhatbecameDiscoveringtheNews.GansnotesthatDecidingWhat’sNewswaswritten‘duringtheemergenceofapervasivecritiqueofprofessionalism’,andthat‘thebookisastudyofanationalprofession,andwhatIhavetosay…mayprovidecluesabouthowothernationalprofessionsfunction’(Gans2004:xiv).AlthoughTheWholeWorldisWatchingneverformallyaddressesissuesofprofessionalism,Gitlin’sbookcancertainlybeseenasanexemplarofthesortofpervasivecritiquementionedbyHaskellandGans.Tuchman,forherpart,explicitlyplacesherprojectintheborderzonebetweenthesociologyoftheprofessionsandthesociologyofknowledge(Tuchman1978:5).Ifthecritiqueofjournalism’sconstructionofrealityparalleled,perhapsunwittingly,othercritiquesofscienceandscientificknowledge,journalismstudies’turntowardsthe‘professionalisationframe’foundresonancewithdevelopmentsinsociologymoregenerally.Bythelate1970sthesociologyoftheprofessionswasenjoyingsomethingofarenaissanceasscholarsbegantoturnawayfromtheprevailingneo-structuralist,Parsonianunderstandingsoftheprofessions,adoptingamoreWeberianorMarxistcritiqueofprofessionalpower.TakingtheircuefromEverettC.Hughes,manyofthesesociologists‘passedfromthefalsequestion“Isthisoccupationaprofession?”tothemorefundamentalone“Whatarethecircumstancesinwhichpeopleinanoccupationattempttoturnitintoaprofessionandthemselvesintoprofessionalpeople?”’(Hughes1963:655).Themajormomentofdivisioncameinthe1970sandearly1980sasstudyoftheprofessionasanidealisedstructural-functionalistcategorywasreplacedbythemoreWeberianstudyofprofessionalisationandthe‘professionalproject’(Larson1977).Byemphasisingjournalism’sattempttotranslatethatepistemologicalexpertise(‘specialknowledgeandskills’,inLarson’sterminology)intopoliticalauthorityandeconomicrewards(the‘professionalproject’),alongwithitsdailyconstructionofknowledgeabouttheworld,thesociologicalstudiesofthelate1970semphasisedjournalisticexpertiseasbothanepistemologicalandorganisationalprocessbywhichthejournalistconstructsthepublic’sknowledgeofrealityandastructuralclaimofprofessionalpowerinwhichjournalistsmarkedtheirstatusasexpertswhopossessedanauthoritativeinsightintotheshapeandmeaningofpubliclife.Andyetitisunclearastothedegreetowhichthisanalyticallinkagesucceeds.Ontheonehand,thebasicideacontainedinthecriticalnewsstudiesliterature–thatnewsis‘constructed’ratherthan‘areflectionoftheworldoutside’–isnowsocommonplacewithinjournalismscholarshipthatSchudson,by2005,couldlabelthebattleeffectivelyoverand,indeed,arguethatthenew‘radical’positionmightbeonethatadmittedthatjournalisticreportingactuallyboresomerelationshiptoreality(Schudson2005).Ontheotherhand,thesociologistsseemedlesssuccessfulintheirattemptstotracethesocialprocessbywhichclaimstojournalisticexpertisebecomeinstitutionalisedwithinpoliticalandsociallife.Schudson,drawingmost

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:253248–264Journalism:expertise,authority,andpower253explicitlyonthesociologyoftheprofessions,andaidedbythehistoricalnatureofhisenquiry,wasperhapsthemostsuccessfulinlinkinglarge-scaleeconomicandpoliticaldevelopmentstojournalisticauthority(althoughhismodelprovideslittleguideforthosedoinglesshistoricalwork).Withtheirprimaryemphasisonthebureaucraticconstraintsimposedonjournalistsbytheiremployers,andtheirtendencytolimittheirresearchtoindividualmediaorganisations,GansandTuchmanfallvictimtothemoregeneralcritiquemountedagainstorganisationalstudies–thattheysubstitutetheelaborationofthespecificforananalysisoflargerstructures.Gitlin,whoseuseofthetheoreticalconceptofhegemonywasperhapsthemostdirectsociologicalattempttotranscendtheorganisationalstudiesperspectiveandlinkjournalisticprocesseswithlargersystemsofpoliticalandeconomicpower,hassinceadmittedthat‘IcouldhavedonetheanalysisinWholeWorldwithouteverusingtheword‘hegemony’(Reese1994)andhasexpressedgeneraldissatisfactionwiththehegemonyconcept.Insum,withthepossibleexceptionofSchudson,whatIhavecalledthefirstthreadinjournalismstudiesisfarmoresuccessfulindocumentingtheorganisationalprocessesbywhichjournalistsconstructrealitythanitisatanalysingandexplainingthesocialandpoliticalauthoritywhichaccruestojournaliststhroughtheknowledgeclaimwhichtheymake.Whatseemstometobethefundamentalproblem–howjournaliststranslateoneorderofscarceresources(theirexpertiseinconstructingthenews)intoanother(socialandpoliticalpower)–goesunanswered,despitethefirstthread’sprovocativeallusionstoprofessionalsystems,politicalculture,andhegemony.Asasecondthreadofjournalismscholarshipemergedintheearly1990stheanalysisofthesourcesandfoundationsofjournalisticauthoritywouldbecomemuchmoreexplicit.Thesecondstrandofjournalismstudies:culture,narrative,anddiscursivecommunitiesHow,BarbieZelizerasksinCoveringtheBody,do‘half-jumbledwispsofconversationbecomefullblownnewsstories…toldwithaknowingandcertainvoice?’(Zelizer1992:vii).Whatfactorsgivejournaliststhepowertopresenttheirversionsofrealityasaccurateandauthoritative?Zelizer’sresearchprogrammeseekstoanalysetheunderlyingmainspringsofjournalisticauthority–‘theability[ofjournalists]topromotethemselvesasauthoritativeandcrediblespokespersonsof“reallife”events’(Zelizer1992:viii)–discountingtheusefulnessofthe‘professionalismlens’inanalysingthisauthorityandseeing,rather,journalisticpowerasgroundedprimarilyinadiscursiveandculturalframework.Ifthefirststrandofjournalismstudiesseekstodemonstratetheconstructednatureofrealityinjournalism,andlinkthistotheprofessionalpowerofjournalists,thesecondstrand,consistingofmoreculturalistapproaches,attemptstodemonstrate

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:254248–264254ChristopherAndersontheconstructednatureofjournaliststhemselvesandtheirrelationshiptosystemsofsocialauthority.ForZelizer,thenotionoftheconstructionofthejournalistbeginswithanattackonwhatshelabelsthejournalistic‘professionalisationparadigm’.Communicationscholars,sheargues,musteitherviewjournalismasa‘failedprofession’orabandontheprofessionalisationnotionentirely:Unlikeclassicallydefinedprofessions,suchasmedicineorlaw,journal-ismhasnotrequiredthetrappingsofprofessionalism:manyjournalistsdonotreadilyreadjournalismhandbooks,attendjournalismschools,orenrollintrainingprograms.Codesofjournalisticbehaviorarenotwrittendown,codesofethicsremainlargelynonexistent,andmostjournalistsroutinelyrejectlicensingprocedures.Journalistsarealsoindifferenttoprofessionalassociations.(Zelizer1992:6)Zelizerthuspreferstospeakofjournalistsasan‘interpretivecommunity’whoseauthoritystemsfromcultural,symbolic,andnarrativesourcesinsideandoutsideprofessionalspace.Whilepractisingjournalistsmayseethemselvesasprofessionals,sheargueselsewhere,thisself-conceptionisnotonesharedbymostoftheacademiccommunityengagedintheanalysisofjournalism;‘manyquartersoftheacademyhavelongdismissedprofessionalismasafertilewayofthinkingaboutjournalisticauthority’(Zelizer2004:78).InhercasestudyofmediacoverageoftheJohnF.KennedyassassinationZelizerlooksathowonegroupofpreviouslydisparagedjournalists(televisionreporters)insertedthemselvesintothejournalisticprofessionviaboththeircoverageofthekillingand,moreimportant,thestoriestheylatertoldeachotheraboutthekilling.‘Journalistsusenarrativestomaintaintheirpositionandstatureasanauthoritativeinterpretivecommunity,’Zelizerargues.‘Theyfunctionasacommunitythatauthenticatesitselfthroughitsnarratives,andwhoseauthorityhasculturaldimensionsdesignedtoconsolidatejournalistsintoacohesivegroup’(Zelizer1992:197).Thefundamentallinkbetweenjournalisticexpertiseandjournalisticpower,Zelizermaintains,isdiscursiveboundaryconstruction(Zelizer1992:196).CoveringtheBodythusmarksamajorstepforwardinunderstandingtheconnectionbetweenjournalism’sauthorityanditsexpertise;indeed,thediscursiveperspectiveisremarkablyconducivetotheanalysisofnewer,moredigitalformsofjournalism,asZelizerherselfnotes(Zelizer2004:178).Notcontenttosimplydemonstratethemalleabilityofjour-nalisticstandardsofobjectivityorthediscrepanciesbetweentheimageoftheKennedyassassinationpresentedbythemediaandthe‘actualeventsthemselves’,ZelizermovesquicklyontowhatIhaveidentifiedasthemoreinterestingquestion:howjournalisticexpertiseisbothcodifiedandpubliclylegitimated.

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:255248–264Journalism:expertise,authority,andpower255Nevertheless,IfeelthereareatleasttwoproblemswithZelizer’sperspectiveasarticulatedinCoveringtheBodyandinhersubsequentwork.First,shefailstolinkthediscursiveconstructionofjournalisticexpertisewiththemorepoliticallyandeconomicallybasedpositioningofthejournalistasoccupationalexpert.Sheignores,inshort,formsofpowernotgroundedinnarrative.Second,Zelizerunconvincingly(and,inmyopinion,unnecessarily)distancesherselffromthe‘professionalproject’perspectiveadvancedbyLarsonandothers(seep.252above),andespeciallyAndrewAbbott.Indeed,themodificationoftheanalysisofprofessionsthatbeganwithLarsonandotherswouldaccelerateadecadelaterintheworkofAbbott,whosebookSystemoftheProfessions:anEssayontheDivisionofExpertLabor(1988)waspublishedseveralyearspriortoCoveringtheBody.PerhapsAbbott’smostimportantadvanceishisargumentthatstudyoftheprofessionsmustbeginwithafocusonprofessionalworkratherthantheoccupationalgroupasadistinctobjectofanalysis.Thekeyaspectofprofessionalbehaviourcanthusbeseenasthelinkbetweenknowledgeandwork,alinkAbbottreferstoasjurisdiction(Abbott1988:19).ContinuingalongthepathoutlinedbyHughes,Abbottviewstheprofessionalfieldasaterrainofstruggle,thoughinthisinstanceasastruggleoverjurisdictionratherthanthestructuralemblemsofprofessionalism.Claimingjurisdiction,aprofessionaskssocietytorecogniseitscognitivestructurethroughexclusiverights;‘jurisdictionhasnotonlyaculture,butalsoasocialstructure’(Abbott1988:59).FollowingAbbot,then,CoveringtheBodycanbereadastheanalysisofaspecifictypeofprofessionalproject–asanattemptbynetworktelevisionreporterstogainforthemselvesprofessionalstatureandauthorityandtonegotiateaspecialpositionwithinthehierarchyofmodernjournalism.Thefactthatthisstruggleonthepartoftelevisionjournalistswas,byZelizer’saccount,primarilywagedthroughnarrative(or,asAbbot1988wouldhaveit,through‘culturalwork’)linksCoveringtheBodytoparticularanalysesofprofessionalism,ratherthanthereverse.Thatsaid,itisthelackofconsiderationofauthority-affectingfactorsotherthannarrativethatformsthebasisforasecondcritiqueofZelizer.Cultural/narrativeexplorationsofjournalisticexpertise,inadditiontotheirfocusontherelationshipbetweenauthorityanddiscourse,needtofocusmorespecificallyonvariousothertypesofpower.WhileZelizer,andthoseengagedinsimilarwork,rightlydrawourattentiontothediscursiveaspectsofauthority(stories,symbols,self-descriptions),theyhavelesstosayaboutotherfactorsthatmightcontributetothereality-shapingabilitiesofjournalists:statepower,questionsofhegemony,concentrationsofeconomiccapital,ethnicandclass-basedexclusions,andlegaldecisions.Culturalnarrativesareimportantaspectsofjournalisticlegitimationandcontestation.Buttheyarenottheonlyones.Athirdandmostrecentstrandofjournalismstudiesattemptstocorrectthisoveremphasisontheculturalaspectsofjournalismbygroundingitsanalysisoftheprofession

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:256248–264256ChristopherAndersoninthetraditionof‘fieldresearch’pioneeredbyFrenchsociologistPierreBourdieu.Thethirdstrandofjournalismstudies:thejournalisticfieldInthepastfewyearsagrowingscholarlyconcernwiththeanalysisofthejournalistic‘field’hasmarkedthereturnofanexplicitlysociologicaltakeonjournalism,incontrasttothemore‘culturalogical’approachesofZelizerandothers.InspiredinpartbyBourdieuandFerguson’spolemicalOnTelevision(1999),butdrawinggreaterintellectualsustenancefromtheworkofBourdieu’sstudents(Champagne2005),a‘fieldapproach’tojournalismstudiesattemptstobridgethegapbetweenmicro-level,organisationalanalysisofthenewsroomandmoremacro-sociologicaloverviewsoftherelationshipbetweenjournalismandsociety(Benson1999),revampingourunderstandingoftheprofessionsbyafocusonworkratherthanformalorganisationalmembership.Intermsofthespecificproblemsofexpertiseraisedabove,afieldapproachcanhelpusbetterformulatethemodelofsocialspaceinwhichtheprofessionalstruggleoverjournalismoccursandcanserveasalimitingframeworkforZelizer’stheoryofdiscourseandnarrative.MuchconfusionsurroundstheBourdieueanconceptofthefield,andIwouldliketoclarifymyownuseoftheterminthepagesthatfollow.Myconceptionisthatthefieldservesasananalyticalmodelofsocialspaceinwhichactionandsocialstrugglearestructured.AsBourdieuwrites:Tothinkintermsofafieldistothinkrelationally…IcouldtwistHegel’sfamousformulaandsaythattherealisrelational:whatexistsinthesocialworldarerelations–notinteractionsbetweenagentsorintersubjectivetiesbetweenindividuals.Inanalyticterms,afieldmaybedefinedasanetwork,oraconfig-uration,ofobjectiverelationsbetweenpositions.Thesepositionsareobjectivelydefined,intheirexistenceandinthedeterminationstheyimposeontheiroccupants,agents,orinstitutions,bytheirpresentandpotentialsituationinthestructureanddistributionofspeciesofpower(orcapital)whosepossessioncommandsaccesstospecificprofitsthatareatstakeinthefield,aswellasbytheirrelationtootherpositions.(BourdieuandWacquant1992:96)ItisnotmygoalheretojudgetheapplicabilityofBourdieu’sfieldconcepttotheentiretyofsociallife(thoughBourdieucertainlyfeelsthatsuchanapplicationispossible).Lessstillisitmygoaltoconvertthehumanworldintoan‘obduratesocialstructure’(Gitlin2004)whoseunthinking‘fieldofforces’resolves,onceandforall,pressingsociologicalquestionsofstructureandagency.Idomaintain,however,thatthefieldconceptisusefulifwe

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:257248–264Journalism:expertise,authority,andpower257wanttoplacetheprofessionalstruggleovervariousformsofoccupationalexpertisewithinaspecificsocialspaces,includingthesocialspaceofjournalism.WehavealreadycritiquedboththeclassicorganisationalstudiesofjournalismandZelizer’sdiscursivemodelforignoringtheseveryquestions.Where,afterall,doesthe‘struggleoverjurisdiction’describedbyAbbottoccur?ForAbbottthekeyspatialmetaphoristhatofthesystem,or‘occupationalecology’(Abbott1988).Amoreusefulmodel,Icontend,mightbethatofthefield.Justasthefieldapproachtojournalismhelpsmitigatesomeofthethornierissuesrelatingtothestructuralcomponentsoftheprofessional-isationproject,soAbbott’sanalysiscanhelpanswersomeofthequestionsoftenposedtoBourdieu,atleastwithregardtotheprofessionalandculture-producingfields(ofwhichjournalismisone).CriticsoftenaskBourdieuanscholars:howdofieldscomeintobeing?Abbott’sanswer,whichIbelievewouldbeapplicabletoBourdieu,seemstobethataprofessionalfieldbeginswhenanoccupationalgrouporgroupsattempttoseizejurisdictionoveraformofexpertiseviaculturalwork.Thejournalisticfieldemerges,inthisinstance,whenanoccupationalgroup(‘journalists’)attempttoclaimforthemselvesamonopolyontheprovisionofeverydaypublicknowledge,laterredefinedasjournalisticexpertise.Likewise,asecondcriticalquestiondirectedatBourdieuaskswheredofields‘begin’and‘end’.Abbott’sanswer,atleastwithregardtotheprofessions,isthatsuchaquestionmustbeposedintermsof‘whoisdoingtheprofessionalwork’.‘Thecentralphenomenonofprofessionallifeisthusthelinkbetweenaprofessionanditswork…toanalyseprofessionaldevelopmentistoanalysehowthislinkiscreatedinwork,howitisanchoredinformalandinformalstructure’(Abbott1988:20).Thusthejournalisticfieldincludesallthoseindividualsandorganisationsengagedinthe‘workofjournalism’andnotsimplythoseformallycertifiedasdoingso.AfusionoftheBourdieueanfieldperspectiveandtheprofessionalisationperspectiveadvancedbyLarsonandAbbottthusresolvesanumberofdifficultieswithregardtothepositioningofjournalisticexpertsinsocialspace.BourdieustructuralisesLarson,whileAbbottdirectsourattentiontoBourdieu’soft-neglectedtheoriesofagency.Wecannowstepbackandexaminethethreestrandsofjournalismstudies,theirrelationshiptolargerquestionsofjournalisticauthorityandexpertise,andwaysinwhichtheycanbesynthesised.OfexpertsandexpertiseIhave,atvariouspoints,referredinpassingtothedistinctionbetweenexpertsandexpertise.AsEyalnotes:Oneshoulddistinguishbetweenthegroupofexperts,ontheonehand,andexpertise,ontheother.Theyrequiretwodifferentmodesof

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:258248–264258ChristopherAndersonanalysis.Gouldnerandthesociologyofprofessionshavefocusedonthegroupofexperts.Theyanalyzed‘professionalization’astheprocesswherebyagroupofexpertslaysclaimtojurisdictionoveracertainareaofhumanexperienceandlegitimatesthisclaimbymeansofsomeformofrationalknowledge.Theemergenceofaformofexpertise,ontheotherhand,requiresananalysisofdiscourse.(Eyal2002:657)Applyingthisdistinctiontojournalism,wecansynthesisethemajortheoreticalargumentsofthethreethreadsabovebypositingthatexpertprofessionals–inthiscase,journalists–seek,viaprofessionalstruggle,tomonopoliseaformofjournalisticexpertise,whichisitselfdiscursivelyconstructedoutofvariousjournalisticpracticesandnarratives.Iftheprimaryobjectofouranalysisisjournalisticauthority,thesourceofthisauthorityshouldbeconceptualisedasarisingfromthepositionofjournalistsandjournalisticorganisationswithinthefieldofculturalproduction.Thisposition,inturn,mustbeanalysedastheoutcomeofanoccupationalstruggle–theprofessionalproject.Occupationsengagedintheprofessionalprojectattempttoacquireandmaintainalegitimatejurisdictionoverdiscursivelyandepistemologicallyconstructedvarietiesofexpertise.Allthreeofthedominantmodesofjournalismanalysissincethe1970shaveemphasisedorde-emphasisedparticularaspectsofthisbasicparadigm.Whilethecriticalsociologistsexaminedjournalisticpracticesonanorganisationallevel–practicesthathelped,inpart,definethenatureandcontentofjournalisticexpertise–theypaidlessattentiontothediscursivefoundationsofthatexpertiseandfailedtoadequatelyaddresswelltherelationshipofthesepracticestothelargermacro-structuresinwhichjournalists’professionalauthorityoperated.Zelizer,ontheotherhand,devotedmostofherattentiontodiscourse,primarilythewaysinwhichrhetoricandnarrativeservetodrawexpertboundaries(Gieryn1983),althoughshefailedtodistinguishbetweenjournalisticexpertsandjour-nalisticexpertise,andpaidevenlessattentiontolargersocietalstructuresthanthefirststrandofjournalismstudies.Mostrecently,fieldanalysisdeservespraiseforitsfusionofthemicro-levelofjournalisticpractice(asknowledgeproducingbehaviour)andlargerpoliticalandeconomicstructures;nevertheless,thisperspectivehasalimitedunderstandingoftheprofessionalproject(alegacyofBourdieueanstructuralism)andmostlikelyshares,withtheprofessionalisationperspective,aunitaryconceptionofjournalisticexpertise.Bringingtogetherthethreethreadsabove,drawingontheirstrengthswhileavoidingtheirweaknesses,wemightsummarisethejurisdictionalstruggleoverjournalismasfollows:journalism–asasystemofknowledgeproduction,astructuralclaimtoexpertstatus,andstatementofculturalauthority–mustbeseenasanoutwardlydirectedassertionoflegitimate

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:259248–264Journalism:expertise,authority,andpower259controloverthenews-gatheringprocess.Professionaljournalistsshouldthusbeenvisionedasattemptingtoestablishajurisdictionoverjournalisticexpertise,allthewhileattemptingtocontroltheculturaldiscoursethatbothdefinestheminrelationtoothersanddefinestheverynatureoftheirexpertise.Theconflictwiththebloggers,inthisinstance,couldbeexplainedasaconflictoverjournalisticjurisdiction,aconflictsimilartotheonebetweenprofessionaljournalismandthepublicrelationsindustryearlyinthetwentiethcentury(Abbot1988:224;Schudson1978:133).Withinthisnarrative,professionaljournalistscouldbeseenasengaginginanattempttosharplydelimittheboundariesoftheirjurisdiction,battlingbloggersforoccupationalcontrolofnews-gatheringandredefiningthecoreoftheirabstract‘journalisticknowledge’inanattempttosolidifytheircontrolovertheproductionofnews.Fromthistheoreticalperspectiveallchangestotheknowledge-producingpracticesofjournalism,aswellastoitsculturalclaims,wouldbesubsumedintoazero-sumstruggleoverthejurisdictionofnews-gathering.Thereis,nonetheless,aproblemwiththisnarrative:itdoesnotentirelyjibewithreality.Orrather,ittellsonlypartofthestory,failingtoengagewiththefullhistoricalcomplexityofvariousjournalisticboundarydisputes.Forinfact,journalism’soccupationalidentityisgroundedasmuchinoppositiontotheprofessionalprojectasitisinthetypeofcompetitivestrugglediscussedbyAbbottandLarson.1Withinmuchofthejournalisticprofessionthereremainsadeepculturaloppositiontotheentirenotionofthe‘journalismschool’,forexample,andmanyofthemostcelebratedjournalistshaveenteredthenewsprofessionasoutsiders.Onasociologicallevel,thecurrentconnectionbetweenjournalistsandbloggersmightbeseenasacontradictoryanduneasypartnershipinadditiontooralongsideamorecompetitiverelationship.Thesefactsdonotdemonstratethatthepathwaytowardsjournalisticstatusisasopenasthemythologyofjournalismclaims;wehaveseen,historicallyandmorerecently,veryrealstrugglesovertheboundariesofthejournalisticprofession.However,theydopointtothefactthatjournalismis,ananomalousprofession.Byusingsocialtheorytomapoutanidealtheoreticalparadigmthroughwhichtodescribethecompetitionoverculturalauthoritythatprofessionalismprovides,ashasbeendoneinthepagesabove,weareinabetterpositiontograpplewiththetensionsandcomplexitiesofthespecificcaseofjournalism(AndersonandSchudson2008).Professionalism,expertise,anddemocracyDeepconflictsabouttheauthorityofexpertprofessionalsinademocracyarenothingnew;indeed,asHallinpointsoutinthisvolume,radicalsocialmovementsofthe1960sand1970smountedsomeofthesharpestchallengestonotionsofprofessionalautonomy,achallengethatimpacted

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:260248–264260ChristopherAndersonbothjournalismandotherexpertdomains(alsoseeHoffman1989).Onlyinrecentyears,however,hasthestatusofexpertisebecomethesubjectofmajortheoreticaldebate.CollinsandEvansarguethatthetimehascomeforsociologistsofscienceto‘developanormativetheoryofexpertise’(CollinsandEvans2002:237).DrawingonTocquevilleandDewey,Dzurcontendsthatweneedtodevelopatheoryof‘democraticexpertise’,notingthat‘withtechnocraticratherthandemocraticprofessionalsademocraticpolityisweaker,citizensarelessengagedandcompetent,andprofessionsthemselvesarevulnerable’(Dzur2004:11).Schudson,incontrast,hasinveighedagainstthetendencytoseeexpertiseasa‘permanentembarrassmenttodemocracy’,arguinginsteadthat‘democratsshouldincorporateamoreforgivingviewoftheroleofexpertise’(Schudson2006:491).Whyisexpertisebeingsowidelychallengedtoday?Whataretheconsequencesofthischallengeforthenormativevaluesofdemocracy,publiclife,andsocialjustice?Oneofthemoreironicdevelopmentssincethe1960shasbeenthegradual‘de-ideologisation’ofthepopulistcritiqueofprofessionalpower.Whenitcomestocriticismofprofessionaljournalism,disgustwiththemainstreammediaisnowasmuchatropeoftheAmericanrightasitisatalkingpointofleft.‘Thepopulistpersuasion’,ofcourse,doesnotcorrespondneatlytodivisionsbetweentraditionalpoliticalcategories(Kazin1989);hatredofthe‘MainstreamMedia’(‘MSM’)byactivistsoftherightusuallystemsfromacritiqueoftheliberalattitudesofindividualjournalistsandaclaimthatmediainstitutionstakealiberalpositiononsocialissues.Thiskindofbipartisancritique,ofcourse,furtherfeedsintoprofessionaljournalism’sself-conceptionasanobjective,reasonableentityunderassaultfromextremistsofbothsides.Theunspokenarroganceofsuchaviewonlyinflamesthepartisansfurther.Asecondrecentdevelopment,morestructuralthanideological,hasbeenthegeneraldeclineintheautonomyofnumerousprofessionalgroupsunderpressurefromthemarketand,inrecentyears,fromthestate.Thisis,ofcourse,aBourdieueanpoint(BourdieuandFerguson1999),opentoitsowncriticismsonbothnormativeandempiricalgrounds.Nevertheless,thereislittledoubtthatintheUnitedStates(atleast)economic,political,andlegalpressuresareconspiringtounderminethealreadytenuousautonomyofprofessionaljournalists.Thecollapseofthenewspaperindustryandtheconsequentdiminishingoftheemploymentprospectsofentry-levelandveteranjournalists;theexistenceofsystematicandwidelyappliednewspropagandaprojectscarriedoutatthehighestlevelsofgovernment;andcourtdecisionsreaffirmingthelackofajournalistic‘professionalprivilege’haveallservedasconcreteblowstotheautonomyofthereporter.Whatabouttechnology’sroleinchallengestoconcentratedformsofprofessionalpower?Althoughthisisnottheplacetorevisittheendless(andendlesslyexasperating)debatebetween‘technologicaldeterminists’and‘socialconstructionists’,itmaynotbetoomuchtoarguethatthe

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:261248–264Journalism:expertise,authority,andpower261decentralisednatureoftheinternetcarrieswithinitdeepanti-authoritarianaffordances(Graves2007).‘Web2.0’challengestocentraliseddomainsofculturalauthorityhavenotonlyrockedthefoundationsofjournalismbutalsoauthoritiesinacademicknowledgecollection(Lih2004),medicine(BoulosandWheeler2006),andevenpatentlaw(Noveck2008).Combinedwiththepoliticalandstructuralattacksonexpertisealreadydiscussed,digitalinnovationmaybeonlythelatest,andmostpotentiallyfar-reaching,blowtotraditionalnotionsofspecialisedexpertise–includingtheexpertiseoftheprofessionaljournalist.Arethesewide-rangingattacksbybloggers,politicians,andvarioussocialmovementorganisationsonprofessionalexpertiseandconcentratednetworksofculturalauthoritysomethingtobecelebratedorfeared?Dotheyheraldthepromiseofnewformsofcitizens’democracyorrepresentthefinaloverthrowofestablishedsystemsofrationaltruthseekingandhierarchicalcontrol?Thereisn’tthespaceheretoconductafull-scalenormativeevaluationofthesociologicaltrendsjustsketched,soIwillcontentmyselfwithfourbriefremarks.Tobeginwith,itshouldbeclearthattheoncebrighthopesoftheradicalleft–thatattacksonunequalsystemsofculturalauthoritywouldleadtoacorresponding‘flattening’ofunequalconcentrationsofpoliticalandeconomicpower–areunfounded.Anti-professionalismisnotthesoleprovinceofeithertheleftortheright;attacksonelitescanbeusedforprogressivepurposes,orintheserviceofreactionarygoals,orboth.Thisisnortoargue,ofcourse,thatculturalanti-authoritarianismhasnopoliticalconsequences;itissimplytostatetheobviousfactthattheanti-authoritarianmovementofthepastfiftyyearsaffectstheworldinwaysthatdonoteasilymapontotraditionalpoliticalconcerns.Morespecifically,thedegreetowhichweshouldpraisethe‘populistinsurgency’clamouringatthegatesoftraditionaljournalisticstructuresisheavilydependentontheactualcontentofjournalisticexpertiseitself.Inshort:isjournalisticknowledgean‘expert’domainofknowledgeatall?Isit,inotherwords,hardtobeajournalist?Verylittlehasbeenwrittenabout‘whatjournalistsknowandhowtheyknowit’withinthejournalisticstudiesliterature.Anunderstandingofexactlywhatitisjournalistsknow,andwhatitistheythinktheyknow,isessentialforadeeperunderstandingofattacksonjournalisticprofessionalism.Onamorestructurallevel,muchofourevaluationofthepopulistpenetrationofwhatmightbecalledthe‘journalisticfield’turnsonthedegreetowhichwevaluetheautonomyofsuchfieldsinthefirstplace.Shouldjournalismbeautonomous?Isjournalismautonomous?Tothedegreethatitisnot(orshouldnotbe),wearethenfacedwithasecondquestion:isdemocraticpenetrationofjournalisticsystemstobelessfearedthanmarketorstatepenetration?ThereislittledoubtthatthemarketisdeeplyembeddedintheAmericansystemofculturalnewsproductionandthat,atleasttraditionally,socialdemocraticEuropeansystemshave

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:262248–264262ChristopherAndersonseenthestateexerciseadegreeofcontroloverjournalism.Istheentryofso-called‘citizenmediamakers’intothejournalisticspheresimplyareflectionofthemarket?Orthestate?Orneither?Towhatdegreecanitbalancetheseforces?Towhatdegreeisitsimplycomplicitinthem?Finally,weshouldbeopentothepossibilitythatwhatwearewitnessingatthedawnofthetwenty-firstcenturyisatransformationofthebasesofculturalauthorityratherthananeliminationofthatauthorityaltogether.Atleasttheoretically,theinternetopensupspaceforthegenerationofnewsystemsofnetworkedauthority,asevidencedbycollaborativeprojectslikeWikipediaandtheCommunityPeerReviewPatentProject.This,ofcourse,raisesupanentirelynewseriesofquestionsconcerningtheactualcontentofauthority,thedegreetowhichitcanbedecentralised,andthemannerinwhichitcanorshouldbemadecompatiblewithdemocraticnorms.Thereislittledoubtthatempiricalinvestigationsintothenatureofculturalauthorityshouldbehighontheagendaofmediaresearchersintheyearstocome.Hopefully,thetheoreticalspadeworkdoneinthischapterwillhelpframethisempiricalresearch,andwillenrichourunderstandingofjournalism–oneofthekeyknowledge-producinginstitutionsofthemodernera.Note1IthankMichaelSchudsonforhiscleararticulationofthispoint.BibliographyAbbott,A.D.(1988)TheSystemofProfessions:anEssayontheDivisionofExpertLabor.ChicagoIL:UniversityofChicagoPress.Anderson,C.andSchudson,M.(2008)‘Objectivity,professionalism,andtruth-seeking’,inT.HanitzschandK.Wahl-Jorgensen(eds)TheHandbookofJournalismStudies.MahwahNJ:Erlbaum.Benson,R.D.(1999)‘Fieldtheoryincomparativecontext:anewparadigmformediastudies’,TheoryandSociety28:463–98.Boulos,P.,Maramba,I.andWheeler,S.(2006)‘Debate:Wikis,blogs,andpodcasts:anewgenerationofweb-basedtoolsforvirtualcollaborativeclinicalpracticeandevaluation’,BMCMedicalEducation6:1–8.Bourdieu,P.andWacquant,L.J.D.(1992)AnInvitationtoReflexiveSociology.ChicagoIL:UniversityofChicagoPress.Bourdieu,P.andFerguson,P.P.(1999)OnTelevision.NewYorkNY:NewPress.Carey,J.(1974)‘Theproblemofjournalismhistory’,JournalismHistory1:3–5,27.Champagne,P.(2005)‘Thedoubledependency:thejournalisticfieldbetweenpoliticsandmarkets’,inR.BensonandE.Neveu(eds)BourdieuandtheJournalisticField.NewYorkNY:PolityPress.Collins,H.M.(1975)‘Thesevensexes:astudyinthesociologyofaphenomenon,orthereplicationofexperimentsinphysics’,Sociology9:205–24.Collins,H.M.andEvans,Robert(2002)‘Thethirdwaveofsciencestudies:studiesofexpertiseandexperience’,SocialStudiesofScience32:235–96.

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:263248–264Journalism:expertise,authority,andpower263Dzur,A.W.(2004)‘Democraticauthorityandprofessionalism:sharingauthorityinciviclife’,TheGoodSociety13:6–14.Ekstrom,M.(2002)‘EpistemologiesofTVjournalism:atheoreticalframework’,Journalism3:259–82.Epstein,E.J.(1973)NewsfromNowhere:TelevisionandtheNews,NewYorkNY:IvanR.Day.Eyal,G.(2002)‘DangerousliaisonsbetweenmilitaryintelligenceandMiddleEasternstudiesinIsrael’,TheoryandSociety31:653–93.Feyerabend,P.(1975)AgainstMethod:OutlineofanAnarchisticTheoryofScience.London:NewLeftBooks.Gans,H.J.(2004)DecidingWhat’sNews:aStudyofCBSEveningNews,NBCNightlyNews,Newsweek,andTime.NewYork:Pantheon.Gieryn,T.(1983)‘Boundaryworkandthedemarcationofsciencefromnon-science:strainsandinterestsinprofessionalideologiesofscientists’,AmericanSociologicalReview48:781–95.Gitlin,T.(1980)TheWholeWorldisWatching:MediaintheMakingandUnmakingoftheNewLeft.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Gitlin,T.(2004)‘ReplytoRodneyBenson’,PoliticalCommunication21:309–10.Graves,L.(2007)‘EmergenceorAffordance?BloggingCultureandtheQuestionofTechnologicalEffects’,paperpresentedattheInternationalCommunicationsAssociationconference,SanFranciscoCA.Haskell,Thomas(1998)ObjectivityisnotNeutrality.BaltimoreMD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.Hoffman,L.(1989)ThePoliticsofKnowledge:ActivistMovementsinMedicineandPlanning.AlbanyNY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.Hughes,E.C.(1963)‘Professions’,Daedalus92:655–8.Kazin,M.(1989)ThePopulistPersuasion:anAmericanHistory.IthacaNY:CornellUniversityPress.Larson,M.S.(1977)TheRiseofProfessionalism:aSociologicalAnalysis.BerkeleyCA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Lih,A.(2004)‘WikipediaasParticipatoryJournalism’,paperpresentedattheOnlineJournalismConference2004,AustinTX.NeimanReports(2003)‘Weblogsandjournalism’,fromNeimanReports57(3).NeimanReports(2005)‘Editor’sintroduction’,fromNeimanReports59(4).Noveck,B.(2008)‘Wiki-Government’,DemocracyJournal7(Winter2008).Reese,S.(1994)‘ToddGitlinonTheWholeWorldisWatching’,http://courses.communication.utexas.edu/jou/reese.s/todd_gitlin.doc(retrieved3May2006).Schudson,M.(1978)DiscoveringtheNews:aSocialHistoryofAmericanNewspapers.NewYorkNY:BasicBooks.Schudson,M.(2005)‘Fourapproachestothesociologyofnews’,inM.GurevitchandJ.Curran,MassMediaandSociety.London:Arnold.Schudson,M.(2006)‘Thetroublewithexperts–andwhydemocraciesneedthem’,TheoryandSociety35:491–506.Starr,P.(1984)TheSocialTransformationofAmericanMedicine.NewYorkNY:BasicBooks.Tuchman,G.(1978)MakingNews:aStudyintheConstructionofSocialReality.NewYorkNY:FreePress.

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch15.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:264248–264264ChristopherAndersonZelizer,B.(1992)CoveringtheBody:theKennedyAssassination,theMedia,andtheShapingofCollectiveMemory.ChicagoIL:UniversityofChicagoPress.Zelizer,B.(2000)‘WhatisJournalismStudies?’,Journalism1(1):9–60.Zelizer,B.(2004)TakingJournalismSeriously:NewsandtheAcademy.ThousandOaksCA:Sage.

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:265265–27916MediamakingandsocialrealityJasonToynbeeConsiderthelong-runningargumentinmediascholarshipaboutthecomparativeimportanceofthetwo‘moments’ofcommunication:receptionandproduction.Weknowthateachpositionhasadistincttheoreticalapproach.So,broadlyspeaking,audienceresearch(locatedinculturalstudies)ispremisedonrelativismandconstructionism,whereasworkonproduction(thepoliticaleconomytradition)drawsonamaterialistviewoftheworld.Theseintellectualapproachesarenotonlyintellectual,ofcourse.Behindthemisadivisionoflaboursuchthatacademicsinthefieldtendtoworkonjustonemoment.Asaresultintellectualpartisanshipandprofessionalself-interestreinforceeachother,andpositionsbecomeembedded.Nowinonesensethisisjustanotherstoryofspecialismintheacademy.Butwhatmarksoutmediastudiesisthatevenastheyoccupytheir‘own’moment,specialistsfrequentlyclaimitasthemoment,thatittrumpstheotherinsignificance,andencompassesthefullestmeaningofthemedia.Inotherwords,thereisakindofhegemonicthrustineachofthesetwobranches.1IsaythisattheoutsetbecauseItakeapartisanpositionmyselfinthischapter.2Ibeginbyarguingfortheprecedenceofproduction,andthenexaminewhatthatprecedencemeansformediamaking.InputtingthecaseIdrawonideasfromcriticalrealistphilosophyandsocialtheory,abodyofworkwhichhashardlybeentakenupinmediastudies.3Whatcriticalrealismbringstothisundertakingisexplanatorypower,ametatheoreticalsettingofthemediainsocietythathelpstoclarifythepremisesofrivalapproachesinmediastudiesaswellasdifferencesandconvergencesamongthem.Morethanthat,realismcontributestounderstandinghowthemediaareimplicatedinhumanoppression,anditsconverse,thestruggleforemancipation.Ithasapoliticaldimensioninotherwords.CriticalrealismandtheprecedenceofproductionRealistsasserttheexistenceofthingsindependentlyofthemeansofknowingthem.Behindthisbaldstatement,however,lurkseveralphilo-sophicaltendenciesand,associatedwiththem,distinctrealistontologies,

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:266265–279266JasonToynbeeortheoriesofexistence.InwhatfollowsIwilldrawonthecriticalrealism(CR)ofRoyBhaskarandothers,which,apartfromitscogency,canberecommendedbecauseitdealsdirectlywiththeproblemsofsocialrealism(seeBhaskar1998).Oneofthekeyissueshereisthatsocietyis‘concept-dependent’,asBhaskarputsit(1998:38,45,49).Inotherwordsitinvolvesdiscourse.Whatwethinkandsay(and,critically,whatthemediarepresenttous)contributetotheconstitutionofthesocial.4InthissenseCR,justlikeculturalstudies,hasaculturalconstructionistconceptionofhumanlife.WhatradicallydemarcatesCRfromculturalstudies,however,isthatitpositsasocialexistencewhichextendsbeyonddiscourseandexperiencetoincludecausesandpowerswecannotdirectlyapprehend,andmostoftendonotconsider.Let’sseewhatthismightmeanforunderstandingthesignificanceofthemediamoments.Aculturalstudiesapproachtotheaudiencebeginsandendswithlivedexperience.Lookatthegrowingbodyofethnographicworkinaudiencestudies.Muchofitsuggeststhatahighdegreeofconsciousactivityisinvolvedinwatchingtelevision.Suchconditionsalsoseemtoapplytonewmedia.(SeeLivingstone2004forasurveyanddiscussionoftheliterature.)Thisisundoubtedlyanimportantandcompellingstrandofresearch.InCR,however,theexperienceofactorsisonlyapartofsocialbeing.Underneath,asitwere,arerealstructural-causalfactorswhichmaynotbedirectlyexperienced.Thatbeingthecaseitissurelybettertostartwithaprocedurewhichcantapthosefactorsthanwithamethodlikeethnographywhosescopeisnecessarilylimitedtotheexperiential.CRhasjustsuchaprocedure–thetranscendentalargument.Atranscendentalargumentisoneinwhichthefollowingquestionisasked.‘Whatarethepre-conditionsforthepossibilityofx,wherexisamoreorlesswidelyacceptedphenomenon?’Ifwetakethemediaasx,thenitquicklybecomesapparentthatthepresenceoftheaudience,justasmuchasproduction,isanecessaryconditionformediatobepossible.Removeeitherofthemomentsandwenolongerhaveanythingthatwouldqualifyasthemedia.Lookingmoreclosely,itbecomesclearthatwhatisatstakeherearerelationsbetweenmoments.Inotherwords,productionandreceptionacquiretheirconstitutivecharacterasmediamomentsthroughtheirmutualorientation.However,totakethenextstep,andmakethecasefortheprecedenceofproduction,involvesmoreconcreteanalysisthantherelativelyabstractquestionoftheexistenceofmediamoments.IntakingthatstepIwouldsuggestthatwecrossalinefromthelevelofmetatheorytothatofsubstantivesociologicalenquiry.(ForausefuldiscussionofthisdistinctionseeSibeon2004:12–23.)Ifthisissothenatranscendentalargumentwillhavelesspurchase.Quitesimply,toexamineaphenomenonconcretelyistoshowitsmanyaspects(Lawson1998a:170),andthustoposeamultiplicityofpreconditionsforitsexistence.Thatmakesithardertopinpointwhichonesaredecisive.Whattodothen?Howshouldwe

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:267265–279Mediamakingandsocialreality267approachtheproblemofassessingthesignificanceofproductionagainsttheothermediamoments?Theresponseofempiricism–thedominanttraditioninthesocialsciences–wouldbetoseekeventregularitiesofthesort‘whenxhappensthenyhappens’,andinthiswaydemonstratealawgoverningaparticularsocialprocessorevent.Butcriticalrealismisscepticalaboutthismethod.Forinthe‘opensystems’whichconstitutesocialrealityonecannotproduceclosedexperimentalconditionslikethosecreatedinthenaturalsciences.Andwithoutisolationofvariablestherecanbenosatisfactorytestingoftheircorrelation.Anyway,asRoyBhaskarsuggests,empiricismdoesnoteventrytoexplainwhatitdemonstrates.Topresentcorrelationsistodolittlemorethanpositwhatmaywellbecontingentregularitieswhileignoringthereallyimportantissueofthecauseswhichgenerateobservableevents(Bhaskar1998:45–6).Therehasofcoursebeenanempiricistcasemadeforthepriorityofproduction,namelyinso-called‘effects’research.Initsmostpoliticallysignificant(andpernicious)strand,regularitiesareposedbetweenthebroadcastingofviolenttelevisionprogrammesandviolentbehaviouramongviewers.Thelatterissaidtobeaneffectoftheformer.Nowmysensewouldbethatmanyreadersofthisbookwillbeunsympathetictosuchaposition.Critiqueofcrassempiricismofthesortinvolvedineffectsresearchisquiteextensiveinmediastudies,andistakenupinpoliticaleconomyaswellasinculturalstudies.ButIthinkitisstillworthsketchingaspecificallyCRcritiqueof‘effects’,bothbecauseitinterrogatesempiricismquiterigorouslyandbecauseitsuggestsanalternativeapproachtounderstandingthesignificanceofproduction.What’swrongwitheffectsresearchisthatitdoesnotacknowledgetheopennessofmediainsociety,consideredasasystem.Thereissimplynowayofisolatingthewatchingofmediaviolenceamongacomplexofputativecausesofviolentbehaviouramongresearchsubjects.Thusanycorrelationshownbetweenthetwo(mediaandviolence)maybecontingent.Morethanthis,evenifoneweretoacceptacausallink,therearenomeanstoestablishthedirectionofcausalitybetweencorrelates.Inastudyclaimedasthefirsttoshowlong-termeffectsfromchildhoodwatchingtoviolentbehaviourinadulthood,theauthorscansayonlythat‘itismoreplausiblethatexposuretotelevisionviolenceincreasesaggressionthanthataggressionincreasestelevision-violenceviewing’(Huesmannetal.2003:216).Plausibility,ofcourse,dependsonsomeconceptionofsocialcausalityoutsidetheeventregularitythatissupposedtodotheexplanatorywork.Asanaccountoftheprimacyofproduction,then,empiricismfails.Buttheappealtoplausibility,justmentioned,doesatleastpointawayforward.What’sneededissomenotionofthesalienceofsocialcauses.Evenifonecannotprovethecrowningsignificanceofaparticularfactoramongmany,itmightbepossibletobegintounderstandhowsocialphenomena

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:268265–279268JasonToynbeeexistthroughilluminatingcontrast.ThisistheproposalofTonyLawson.Hesuggeststhatsocialscience:aimstoidentifysinglesetsofcausalmechanismsandstructures.Andtheseareindicatedwhereoutcomesorfeaturesofdifferentgroupsaresuchthat,giventherespectivecausalhistoriesandconditionsofthesegroups,theirobservedrelationisotherthanmighthavebeenexpected.(1998b:150–1)Lawsoncallsthesetypesofindicativesocialphenomena‘contrastivedemi-regularities’,or‘demi-regs’forshort(1998b:151–62).Demi-regsaregoodenoughregularitiesthroughwhichonecanplausiblyinferthatsignificantcausesareatwork.Thepointaboutthecontrastivedimensionisthenthatitgesturestowardsexplanationthroughalternatives.Inotherwordsitraisesthequestion‘Whatfactorsareatworkinthiscaseratherthanthatone?’Thiswouldseemtobeanapproachwellsuitedtoconsideringthesalienceofmediaproduction,justbecausedifferentkindsofproducerrolesareatstakeindifferentkindsofcommunication.Fortunately,thereisalreadyacontrastiveanalysisofcommunicationwecandrawon,namelyJohnThompson’sdiscussionof‘face-to-faceinteraction’,‘mediatedinteraction’and‘mediatedquasi-interaction’(1995:81–118).Thefirsttype(everydaytalk)isfundamentallydialogical.Thesecond(telephoneconversations,exchangesoflettersandthelike)isdialogicalbutalsomediated.Inthethirdcategory(massmedia)therearetwodistinguishingfactors.First,‘symbolicformsareproducedforanindefiniterangeofpotentialrecipients’ratherthanspecificothers.Second,communicationisgenerallyone-way.‘Thereaderofabook,forinstance,isprimarilytherecipientofasymbolicformwhoseproducerdoesnotrequire(andgenerallydoesnotreceive)adirectandimmediateresponse’(p.84).Ofcourse,asThompsongoesontoargue,indirectresponsestomediadooccur.Indeed,theyarecentraltotheverynatureofthemediaasasocialphenomenon(pp.98–118).Still,forourpurposeshistypologyestablishesgoodenoughdemi-regs.Incontrastingthethreetypesofcommunicationwecansaythatwhatdistinguishesthemassmediafromotherformsofsymboliccommunicationisthetemporalprimacyofproduction,premisedonmonologuefromonetomany.Thismayseemlaboured.ButImaketheargumentcarefullybecauseItakeseriouslytheobjectionfromculturalstudiestowhatseemstobeimpliedbytheconclusionjustreached.Broadly,culturalstudieshasitthattheaudiencemakesuseofmediatextsinsucharichvarietyofwaysthattheprimafaciecasefortheprecedenceofproductionisnegated.Audiencesmaketextstheirown.Thisisastrongsuit.Buttherealistresponsewouldbesimplythat,unlikeinthecaseofdialogue,howeverbroadanddeeptheinterpretationis,itisaninterpretationbasedonagiven–thetextasproduced–andtherearenodirectmeansofshapingthenexttext

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:269265–279Mediamakingandsocialreality269fromproducers.5Inotherwords,mediaproducerscanmakedecisionsaboutthenatureofcommunicationwithoutrecoursetotheopinionsofthosewhoattend.Further,thefactthatmediamonologueisorganisedonaone-to-manybasisimplieshierarchicalproducer–audiencerelations:aprivilegedfewhavethecapacitytospeakandshowtothemany.Mediastructure/socialstructureIf,asIhavejustbeenarguing,producershaveprecedencetotheextentthattheycontroltheformandcontentofthemediamonologue,perhapsthefirstquestionstoaskare,howisproductionorganisedandwhatshapesitsoutput.ToaddressthemwecanturntoCRsocialtheory,attheheartofwhichisaviewofsocietybasedonstructureandagency.Wewilldealwithagencyinthenextsection.Herethefocuswillbeonstructure.AsDouglasPorpora(1998)putsit,socialstructuresexistas‘systemsofhumanrelationsamongsocialpositions’.AMarxistconception,wheresystemismodeofproductionandsocialpositionsareclasses,wouldfitthisbill.Sowouldsystemsofpatriarchyandracialexclusion;theyalldependonpositionsinsociallysignificantrelation(1998:343).Crucially,structuresarecasualmechanisms.Thatis,theyarenotmerelyheuristicdevices,ormeansofunderstandingtheworld,rathertheybelongtotheworld,andhaverealcausalpowers.6Thusworkersworkandcapitalistsexploittheirworkersbydintofthecapital–labourrelation.Similarly,televisionproducersmakeprogrammesandpeoplewatchthemasaconsequenceofthemediarelationsthatweexaminedintheprevioussection.Itisworthreflectingonwhatthismediastructuredoesanddoesnotentail.Aswesaw,producerscancontroltheformandcontentofmediatextswithoutrecoursetotheaudience.Further,mediaareorganisedonaone-to-manybasis.Togetherthesefactorswouldseemtoofferproducerslargeamountsofpoweroveraudiences.Certainly,muchoftheworkonmediaproduction(aswellasthefirstwaveofstudiesoftheaudienceinthe1930sand1940s)hasendorsedastrongviewofmediapower.Butthequestionis,doesmonologicalmediastructure,consideredpurelyonitsownterms,justifythestrongview?Inthefirstplace,producersdohavethefacilitytotrytopersuadeaudiencesofthings–thisisimpliedinthemonologicalstructureofthemedia.Wecanusefullyrefertospeechacttheoryinordertoteaseoutwhatsuchafacilityinvolves.J.L.Austincalls‘perlocutionary’thoseutterancesinordinarylanguagewhichareintendedto‘producecertainconsequentialeffects’amongtheaudience(1975:101).Effectively,allutteranceshaveaperlocutionarydimension,andbyextensionsodomediatexts.Journalistswanttheiraudiencetobeinformed,rockmusicianswanttheirstobetransfixed,andsoonandsoforth.Immediately,though,weneedtomakesomequalifications.AsAustinpointsout,perlocutioncan‘misfire’,leadingtounintendedconsequences,

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:270265–279270JasonToynbeeoritcanjustfailtoachieveanyeffectsatall.Infacttherearemanyandcomplexvariationsonthesethemes(pp.103–32).Theimplicationformediaproductionisthatpowerovertheaudienceisrelativelyweak.Mediatedinteractionthenfurtherweakensthispower.Quitesimply,itishardtogetfeedbackaboutwhateffectsyouarehavingonaudiencemembers,owingtoyourspatial/temporaldislocationfromthem.7Thatmakesitdifficulttoadjustproductionandsoreducemisfires.Andthereissomethingelse:themonologicalandperlocutionarystructureofthemediaexplainsnothingaboutinterestandcontent,inotherwordswhatmightinfluenceproducerstomakespecifictextswithaviewtogettingaudiencestothink,ordoparticularthings.Thesepointsareabsolutelycrucial.Mediaproducersquaproducershaverelativelylittlepoweroveraudiences,andnoparticularinterestinpersuadingthemofanything,exceptperhapsthatthemediaaretobetrusted.Eveninthislastcaseitisdifficulttoinferverymuchwithoutsomenotionofthesocialanimusofthemedia.Toderivesuchanotion,weneedanaccountofthecomplexofsocialstructureswhichimpactsonmediaproduction,andwhichinturnmediaproductionactsbackupon.InCRsocialrealityisstratified.Atthetopareexperiences(theempiricaldomain),whichformasubsetofalltheeventsthatoccuryetmaynotnecessarilybeexperienced(theactualdomain).Bothcategoriesareinturntheproductofcausalmechanismswhichinsociety,aswehaveseen,taketheformofsocialstructures.(Thisisthedomainofthereal.)(Collier1994:42–5;Sayer2000:11–12.)Butstratificationdoesnotendwiththesethreenesteddomainsoftheempirical,actualandreal.Structuresthemselvesmayprovidethebasisforotherstructures.ThenotionofbasisiscrucialinCR.Itindicatesa‘withoutwhichnot’conditionsuchthat,forinstance,thecommercialmediacouldnotexistwithoutacapitalistmodeofproduction.Theparochialsocialrelationsofmediamakingdependonthismaterialbase–forexample,thestructureofcompetitionforstatusamongsymbolmakerswhichBourdieu(1996)identifiesinthe‘fieldofliteraryproduction’innineteenth-centuryFrance.Butwecanalsonoteahighereconomiclevel,namelyspecificmediasectorswiththeirownparticularorganisationandimperatives.Theseofcoursedependonthecapitalistmodeofproductiontoo.Abovethesocialandeconomicwehavesemioticstructures,throughwhicharegeneratedactualmediapracticesandtexts.Semioticstructuresdependonthekindsofsocialstructurejustmentioned,butalsoonbiologicalandphysicalmechanismslowerdowninstratifiedreality–forinstancetheseeing,hearing,touching,motorandcognitivemechanismsofhumanbeings.Upwardcausalityisnotmonolithic,however.Inotherwords,lower-levelstructuresconstrain,enableandinfluencehigherones,buttheydonotfullydeterminethem.CRexplainsthisthrough‘emergence’,wherebyhigher-levelstratahaveacertainautonomyinrelationtolowerones(Bhaskar1998:97–9).Thusthesocialdependsonthebiologicalembodimentof

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:271265–279Mediamakingandsocialreality271humanbeingsyetexistsasadistinctlevelofrealitywithitsowntendencies.Thekeypointisthat,inallinstancesofemergence,twoormoreelementsfromalowerlevelarereconfigured,sothatanewentityisformedatahigherlevelwithpowersthatarepropertoit(Elder-Vass2005).Frequently,emergenceisassociatedwiththeactingbackofhigheruponlowerlevels.Forexample,inthecaseofspeaking,psychosemioticmechanisms,emergentfromtheneurologicalprocessesofthebrain,directthelarynxandtonguetoproducemeaningfulsound.Critically,emergenceenablesadepthontologybutwithoutreductionism,thatis,theexplanationofhigherlevelspurelyintermsoflowerandmorefundamentalones.Againstreduction,emergenceoffersanunderstandingofrealityinwhichthefutureresonateswithpossibilities.What’smore,inthecontextofthischapter,itenablesustotreatmediamakingasarelativelyautonomousstructureandpractice,thoughonethatisalwaysshapedandconstrainedbythepowersofothermechanismsbelowandaboveit.Sofarwehavebeenexaminingtheverticalstratificationofreality.But,asisalreadystartingtobecomeclear,shapingandconstrainingarealsotheproductofthe‘horizontal’conjunctionofgenerativestructuresatanylevel.Insomecasesthepowersofaparticularstructurewillcancelout,orpredominateover,thepowersofanother.Inothercasesmechanismswillworkconjointlyinapositiveway.Itfollowsthatwemustrefertoaparticularhistoricalconjunctureofstructuresatdifferentlevels–somenegative,otherspositiveintheireffect–inordertoexplaintheactualproductionofmedia,atthelevelofevents.Todothatworkweneedtoshiftanalyticalgearagain,frommetatheorytosubstantivesociologicalanalysis.HereIwouldsimplyargueforaclass/race/gendermodel,suchthatthecapital–labourstructurehasgreatsalience,butsodosex-genderandracialisedidentityrelations.Thesearethebigthreestructureswhichhaveamajorimpactonmediamaking.Nevertheless,bearinginmindthemultiplehorizontalandverticalcausalitywehavebeendiscussing,weknowthatoutcomeswillbeproducedincomplexandrelativelyinconsistentways:demi-regsratherthanlaw-governedpatterns.And,ofcourse,thelargestructuresdonotexhaustcausality.Othersignificantstructuresinteractwiththebigthree.Somearepoliticallycharged(justlikeclass,sex-genderandrace),thatis,theyarestructuresofdominationwhichworkagainstthepossibilityofhumanemancipation(seeBhaskar1991).Inothercases,forinstancethestructureofthemediathemselves,structuralrelationsinvolvelittleornopoliticsperse,inwhichcasethepoliticalwillbemoreorlesscompletelyoverdeterminedbytheconjunctionofothermechanismsinwhichpoliticalinterestsareatstake.Theconcretequestionofhow,inaparticularhistoricalconjuncture,themediathentakeonapoliticalcomplexionandrepresent,orsometimesresist,dominantinterestsbringsusbacktothemorefamiliarterrainofcriticalmediastudies.Herewecanidentifyacontinuum,Ithink.

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:272265–279272JasonToynbeeAtoneendispoliticaleconomy,whichexaminesrelativelyspecificformsofcausality,namelyfromthestructureofthemediasectorwithinthecapitalisteconomytothedecisionsmadebymediaproducers.Attheotherendisideologycritique,whichisconcernedtoshowatameta-levelhowthewholeensembleofpowerrelationsdeterminesthebroadideologicallandscape,includingmediarepresentation.Inthelate1970sPeterGoldingandGrahamMurdock(1979)arguedpersuasivelythatanalysisofthemediabasedonideology–theemergingculturalstudiestraditionofStuartHallandothers–failedtotakeaccountoftheconcretelinkagesbetweenmodeofproduction,sectoralorganisationofthemediaandprofessionalcodesofmediamakers.Intheabsenceofsuchafocus,theideologicalapproachhadtorelysolelyoninferencefromtextualanalysisforitsaccountofhowpowerrelationsbecomeinscribedinmediaoutput.Thiswasineffect‘circumstantialevidence’aboutmediapower(p.224).Mypointwouldbethat,viaaCRsocialontologywhichbringstogetherstructures(andnotonlyeconomicstructures),ontologicaldepthandhorizontalconjunctionweavoidhavingtochoosebetweenmacro-andmicro-causality,betweeninferencefromtextandfromcausallinkage.Insteadwecanusebothapproaches.Indeed,weoughttousebothbecausethecomplexityofmedia–societyrelationsandthefallibilityofknowledgecallformultipleperspectives(Sayer2000:51–5).Agency,intentionandautonomyTheargumentofthelastsectionwasthatmediamakinghasaperlocu-tionarydimensionwhich,ofitself,isbothweakandempty.Theneedwasthentoestablishhowintheircomplexconjunctionsocialstructuresoverdeterminemediamaking.Butthisstillleavesoutthecriticalissueofthewaymediaproductionemergesfromsociety,howitspracticesarerelativelyautonomous.Inapproachingthatproblemweneedtoconsidertheagencyofproducers.RoyBhaskarhasatheoryofstructureandagencywhichcanhelpwiththis.Hedevelopsitthroughacritiqueofclassicalsociology(1998:31–7).InthefirstplaceheagreeswithDurkheimthatsocialstructurepre-existstheindividual,being‘alwaysalreadymade’.However,healsoacceptsWeber’sproposalthatsocietyexistsonlythroughtheactivityofindividuals.PeterBergerhadarguedthatthesetwoviewscouldbereconciled;individualandsocietyaresimplymomentsinasingle‘dialectical’process.ButforBhaskarthisisan‘illicitidentification’.Forifoneacceptsthe‘alwaysalreadymade’condition‘itisnolongertruetosaythatmencreatesociety.Ratheronemustsay:theyreproduceortransformit’(1998:33–4).ThisisthebasisofBhaskar’s‘transformationalmodelofsocialactivity’(TMSA).Activityandsocialstructurearemutuallyconstitutiveyetontologicallydistinct.Ononeside,socialstructureconsistsinrelationsbetweenpeople,anddependsontheiractivities,activitieswhichreproduceor(lessoften)

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:273265–279Mediamakingandsocialreality273transformit.Ontheotherside,humanpracticedependsonsociety,suchthattherecanbenomeaningfulactionwithoutsocialstructure.Akeypointfollows.Structureenablesandimposeslimitsonwhatpeoplecando,yetbythesametokenitneverfullydeterminesactions.Agencyisemergentfromstructure–andviceversa.Bhaskargoesontoarticulatethisstructure–agencyduality,showingthateachsideconsistsinasecondduality.‘Societyisboththeever-presentcondition(materialcause)andthecontinuallyproducedoutcomeofhumanagency.Andpraxisisbothwork,thatis,consciousproduction,and(normallyunconscious)reproductionoftheconditionsofproduction,thatissociety’(pp.34–5).Howdoesthisdoubledualitymapontothemakingofmedia?Sofarwehavebeenconsideringmediastructureasasetofrelationsbetweenproducersandaudience.Inordertounderstandhowmediatextsgetmadeweneedtomoveincloserandconsiderproductionitself.Let’staketheexampleofsituationcomedy.Onthestructureside,relationsbetweengenreconventions,aswellasthedivisionoflabour,enablesitcomstobemade(condition).Yetthesesamerelationsexistonlythroughtheircontinuedpracticebyscriptwriters,actors,directorsandsoon(outcome).Overontheactionside,theproductionteamputtogethershowsfortheirownreasons,suchasthedesiretomakepeoplelaugh(production).Buttoproduceasitcomalsoinvolvesreiteratingthegenrestructureanddivisionoflabour(reproduction).Clearly,structurecanbetransformedaswellasreproduced.Weknowthattransformationisextremelydifficultinthebigsocialstructureslikecapitalismandpatriarchy.Theinterestsofthepowerfulinpreservingthestatusquobecomedeeplyembedded.However,insituationcomedy,andmediamakingmoregenerally,transformationhappensallthetime.Oneofthemostilluminatingstrandsofmediastudiesresearchinthelasttwentyyearshasbeenconcernedwiththatproblem;thehybridisationofgenres,changingnarrativeconventions,emergingstylesinpopularmusicandsoon.TheTMSAhelpstomakesenseofthisprocessalongthefollowinglines:achangeinproductionyieldsanewoutcomewhichthenbecomesaconditionforthenextmomentofproduction,whichyieldsanewoutcome…andsoitgoes.Ineffect,transformationinthestructureofagenreisachievedthroughmanycyclesoftheTMSA,eachyieldinganincrementalshiftinstructuralrelations.8Whetherornotproducersreflectonsuchprocessesofgenericchange,theyclearlyhaveintentionswhentheywork.Howfarareintentionseffi-cacious,though?Bhaskar’sresponseisunambiguous.Anytheoryofagencyworththenamemustposereasonsasthecauseofaction(1998:90–7).Peoplethinktheyactintentionallyandforreasons,andthereiseveryreasontoconcludethattheyareright.Reasonsincludebeliefsanddesires,aswellascalculationsabouttheconsequencesofactions.Nevertheless,intentionissometimesthwartedby‘sourcesofopacityinsociallife’whichmakereasonedactionlesseffective,namelyunconscious

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:274265–279274JasonToynbeemotivation,tacitskills,unacknowledgedconditionsandunintendedcon-sequences(1991:75).Itseemstomethatthisformulationofagencyasintentional,yetalsolimitedbytheopacityofsocialbeing,isincrediblyusefulinunderstandingmediaproduction.Forthereisamajorcontradictionaboutit.Ontheonehand,productiontendstowardsakindofinstitutionalautonomy(inthisconnectionseeMattStahl’sanalysisofrockmusicinthepresentvolume).Thatis,theagencyofproducersisrecognisedandenshrinedbythemediaindustriesforthefunctionalreasonthatsymbolmakingishighlyvariable,intuitiveandthereforenotamenabletodetailedadministration.9Ontheotherhand,anumberofstrategiesareusedtopullproducersbackunderthedisciplineofthemarketandideologicalcontrol,fromthe‘soft’supervisionofculturalbrokerstothebrutaluseofshort-termcontractsandthelureofdeferredpayment.Inthisdifficultsituationcopingdiscoursestendtodevelop.Atoneendofthespectrum–amongrockmusicians,forexample–romanticnotionsariseoftheartistembattledagainstcommerce.Thisisarefusalofthenatureofculturallabour.Attheotherend–amongtelevisionjournalists,forinstance–arecodesofmediaprofessionalismwhichconferintegrityonproducersdespitetheirco-optationbyindustry(seeDanielHallin’schapterinthisbook).Alltheseinvolvesomekindofdenialofthestructuralconditionsofmediamaking,orelseashyingawayfromtheconsequencesofproductionpractice,namelythatyoualwaysembedexternalinfluencesin‘yourown’creativeartefacts.Sothereisapeculiarcombinationofstrongagency,structuralconstraintandhighopacityamongmediapractitioners.Thisiskeyinexplaininghowmediamakingcanbeinstrumental,inotherwordssubjecttomarketcontrolormorebroadlyinfluencedbypowerfulsocialforces,andyetatthesametimecanexistasazoneofrelativeautonomyandcounter-intuitiveexpression.Itispreciselysuchacontradiction,andtheambiguitywhichfollowsfromit,thatlegitimatemediapowerincapitalistformaldemocracies.Totheextentthatthemediaaretrustedandgrantedperlocutionary‘rights’byaudiencesitisbecausetheydon’tseeproducersasmerepuppetsofadvertisersortherulingclass.Andatleastsometimes,ortosomeextent,theyarerightaboutthis.ProductionisabouttheworldNoneoftheabovetellsuswhatmediamakingisaboutthough.Tosaythatproductionisperlocutionaryandhasanideologicalcomponent(servingtheinterestsofpower)istostopshortoftheproblemofreference.Generally,outsideofcriticalworkonpoliticalcommunication,mediastudieshastendedtoavoidthisissue.Itisnotanoversight,ofcourse,butratherpartofapoliticalproject.Thewholethrustoftextualanalysishasbeenawayfromunderstandingmediaintermsoftheirreferencetothings,andtowards

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:275265–279Mediamakingandsocialreality275thenotionthatmediaconstructdiscourses,images,waysofthinking.10Certainly,thereisprogressiveintenthere:mediamakersandaudiencesshouldbefreedfromthetyrannyofreductionism.Or,toputthisviewinitsstrongestform:sayingthatmediatextsareabouttheworldistoconnivewiththepowerfulwhowanttofixthingsastheyare,anddenythecreativeimaginationofthepeople.Actually,theanti-referencetendencyextendswellbeyondmediastudies.Itis,forexample,stronglyrepresentedinBourdieu’sworkonliteraryproduction.Inanessayon‘Flaubert’spointofview’Bourdieuarguesthatthekeytounderstandingitistoappreciatehowthenovelistplacedhimselfbetweenrealistauthorsandwritersofgenreliterature.Atstakehereisastrategybasedonpositiontakinginthefield:notthisstyle,notthatformofwords,notthosethemes(Bourdieu1996:87–91).AsBourdieugoesontosay,whatmakesFlaubert’sworksooriginal‘isthatitmakescontact,atleastnegatively,withthetotalityoftheliteraryuniverseinwhichitisinscribed’(1996:98).Butthisissurelytoturnculturalproductionintosomethingcompletelyself-referential.Formandthemearesignificantonlytotheextentthattheycanberelatedhomologicallytothestructureofthefield.Imaginecarryingthehomologicalmethodacrossto,say,popularmusic.Wewouldhavenowayofunderstandingsongsintermsoftheirreferencetopeople,places,emotions,relationships…evenpower;noinklingthatvocalstylemighthavesignificancebecauseofitssensuousperformanceofthehumanbody.Therejectionofreferenceismistaken,then.More,Iwouldsuggestitispoliticallydangerous,becauseweloseanysenseofthetruthoradequacytorealityofmediatexts.Inordertoreinstatetheproblemofreferencewecanturnonceagaintoanargumentaboutthenatureandconsequencesofmediastructure.Itisthis:justasperlocutionisentailedbyproducer–audiencerelations,referenceisentailedbyproducer–worldrelations.11Mediamakerstendtobeobjective,becausetheirworkisorientedoutwards,inthedirectionofpeopleandthings.Agameshowisaboutagamebetweencontestants;thenewsisaboutcurrenteventsofacertainkind;afeaturefilmhasafictionalstoryaboutpeopleinrecognisablesocialandgeographicallocations.Inhisessay‘Indefenceofobjectivity’AndrewColliermakesacaseforthe‘essentialother-directednessofhumanmentalactsandprocesses’(2003:138).Butifthisistrueofexperienceingeneral,itisemphaticallysowiththemedia,whichareofferedtousjustasmeansofshowingandtellingabouttheworldbeyondmerehearsay.Indeed,theobjectivityofmediaisasignificantpublicvalue,enshrinedincodesofmediapractice,andembeddedintheeverydayhermeneuticswhichpeopleintheaudiencebringtobearonmediatexts.Ofcourse,criticalresearchershaverightlybeensuspiciousabouttheeasewithwhichmediaproducerscanunderminetheobjectivitythatisposedbymedia–worldrelations.AndIentirelyagreethattheinfluenceofsystemic

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:276265–279276JasonToynbeesocialpowerisconstantlydirectedtowardssubvertingthemedia’switnessintheinterestsofthepowerful.What’smore,thatinfluencefrequentlyprevails.Butinthiscontexttodenythepossibilityofreferenceisbothmistakeninfact,andanactofpoliticalconservatism.Forwithoutatleastsomeunderstandingoftheworldviathemediawesurelycannothopetotransformitsiniquitousstructuresofpower.Thepointhereisnotthatthemediacouldeverprovideuswithcertainknowledge.Thiswouldbethecaseeveninahypotheticalworldwheretherewasnosystemicpressureonmediaproducerstodistortobjectiveaccountsoftheworld.Forallwaysofknowing(CRsocialtheoryasmuchasmediaartefacts)aresociallyproducedandhistoricallychanging.InCR,then,epistemologicalrelativismisanecessaryconsequenceofarealistontology.Yetthatrelativismdoesnotmeanallwaysofknowingshouldbeequallygood.Forwheneverweencounterknowledgeorreferencetotheworldwehavetomakeadecisionaboutitsadequacy.Thusjudgementalrationalityisthenecessarycounterparttothefallibilityofknowledge(Bhaskar1991:153–4).Andthatinturnmeansweneedtoholdmediamakersandownerstoaccountforwhattextsgetmade.Apoliticallyengagedmediastudiesmustbeconcernedwithhowfarandhowadequatelythemediarefertotheworld–notonlyinnewsandcurrentaffairs,butinmusic,drama,evenrealitytelevision.AsIstartedtothinkthroughwhatarealisttakeonmediatextsmightinvolveacoupleofyearsagoIfearedthatsomedourlyseriousandreductiveanalyticalworkwouldbecalledfor.ButIshouldn’thaveworried.Forrealityiscomplexandalwayschanging,whilethemedia’sreferencetoitisnecessarilyprovisional,giventhefallible,perspectivalnatureofknowledge.Realisttextualanalysisthushasthecharacterofbeingseriousaslifeitself,whileatthesametimebeingpreoccupiedwiththecamp,thepiteous,thepolemical,satirical,absurd,fantastic….Thelistofobjectivequalitiesyoumightneedtoconsiderisalongone.ConclusionIbeganbyannouncinganargumentfortheprecedenceofproduction.ThroughbringingtobearCRsocialtheory,thechapterwouldexaminetheimplicationsofthatprecedenceformediamaking.NowIthinkweareinapositiontodrawsomeconclusions.Therearefourofthem.1Precedencemeansthatproductioncomesfirstintimeinthatwellknownseriesofproducer–text–audience.Tomakeatextistolimitthetermsandconditionsofitsmeaningattime1sothatwhenthetextisinterpretedbytheaudienceattime2itwillbewithsomeofitsperlocutionarymeaningintact.Thelogicofthisisbothinexorableandfuzzy;inexorablebecause,oncecomposed,mediatextsareobjectswithrealcausalpowers.Thefuzzinessarisesbecausethese

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:277265–279Mediamakingandsocialreality277causalpowersareopaquetosomeextent–unintendedmeaningsmayarisebothatproductionand,particularly,atreception.Whatsuchfuzzylogicsuggestsformediastudiesisthatweoughttorecognisethetemporal/causalchain,inotherwordsthatthingsstartwithproductionlocatedwithinaspecificconjunctureofsocialrelations.Yetthatprecedenceofproductiondoesnotmeanthatitismoreimportantasaresearchtopicthantheaudience.Howcoulditbeso?Theperlocutionarystructureofthemediaposesnotonlycausesbutalsoeffects,namelytheaudienceinterpretingtexts.Itfollowsthatspecialisationwithinmediastudiesislegitimateonlyforthepracticalreasonthatthereisalimittothenumberofthingsyoucanknowaboutinanydepth.Ingeneral,mediaresearchersoughttobeconsideringthecriticalproblemofmedia-in-society,evenandespeciallywhentheyarefocusingontheir‘own’mediamoment.2Themonological(one-way)andhierarchical(fewtomany)structureofthemediadoesnotnecessarilyentailpowerfulmedia.Misfiresandfailuresensurethatmeaningsoftendonotgetthrough,andmediaorganisationsfindithardtomeasuretheperlocutionaryhitrateamongtheaudience.Asforthehierarchicalaspect,thiscanbeunderstoodonlyinthecontextofpowerrelationsinsociety:themediaarelocatedinacomplexnexusofsocialstructureswhichexertandreproducepower,thoughnever,giventheopennessofthesocialsystem,inpredictableandregularways.Insum,powerfulinterestsinfluenceandinflectmediamaking,andthisisthecentralproblemweneedtoaddresswhenweconsiderthequestionofmediapower.3Theagencyofproducers,andthespecialautonomytheyhaveasculturalworkersincapitalistformaldemocracies,producesacontra-diction.Ontheonehandautonomymerelylegitimatestheauthorityofthemediaamongtheaudience.Ontheotherhanditissubstantive,andmeansthatproducersaresometimesandtosomeextentabletomaketextsindependentlyofmarketpressuresorotherformsofexternalinfluence.Moregenerally,autonomyconstitutesaformofemergenceonwhichispremisedthepossibilityofallkindsofstructuraltransformation.Whilegenrestructuresfrequentlychange(CR’stransformationalmodelofsocialactivitycanhelptoshowushow),socialstructuresaredifficulttotransform.Still,thepossibilityofandneedforradicalsocialchangepersist,andcriticalmediastudiesshouldthereforekeepaconstanteyeonhowmediaproducersmakeadifferencetoourunderstandingofthatpossibilityandthatneed.4Producer–worldrelationsposetheessentiallyobjectivecharacterofthemedia.However,ifproducerstreatthingsintheworld,thenbythesametokentheycanmakefalselyobjectivetexts.Thismaybeinadvertentor,morerarely,intentional(i.e.someformofdeception).Ineithercaseitisoftentheresultoftheinfluenceofpowerfulinterests.Becauseofthiscapacityofthemediatobothrepresentanddistort

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:278265–279278JasonToynbeerealitythereisaneedfortextualanalysiswhichwillitselfbedrivenbyanethicofobjectivity.Noneoftheabovepointsarenew,ofcourse.Theyhaveallbeenmadebeforeinmediastudies.However,IthinkthatCRgivesthemamorerigorousstanding–andperhapsenablesasynthesisofpositionswhichcantakeusbeyondthewarofthemediamomentstoanewkindofcriticalmediastudies.Inanyevent,thatsurelyhastobethegoalasrealitybites,andjoltseventhoseamonguswhostilldreamthatinmedia,asinlifeitself,wesimplydream.Notes1Ihavenotmentionedtextualanalysis,whichformsathirdwould-behegemonicpositioninmediastudies.Thereisnospacetodiscussitproperlyasapositionhere,althoughtherecertainlywillbediscussionoftextsandtextuality.2ManythankstoDavidHesmondhalghforhelpwiththischapter,bothindiscussionbeforehandandineditingasIclawedmywaytoafinalversion.3However,seeRaymondLau’simportantarticle(2004)onnewsproductionforapioneeringexample.4Thismeansthattherealistclaimfortheexistenceoftheworldindependentlyofmeansofknowingitneedstobemodifiedinthecaseofthesocial,asopposedtothenatural,world.Ontheonehand,societyindeedhasadimensionof‘existentialintransitivity’,thatis,itexistsasanobjectofenquiry(andbecomesmanifestlyintransitiveasweexamineitinthepast;noamountofreinterpretationchangeswhatwentbefore).Ontheotherhand,knowledgeproductionhasconsequencesfortheconstitutionofsociety,andviceversa,hencethereis‘causalinterdependency’betweendiscourseandthesocial(Bhaskar1998:47–8;seealsoSayer2000:10–11).5Marketapologistsarguethatthemarketandmarketresearchfeedbacktheopinionsoftheaudiencetoproductionunits.Still,evenifonegrantsthemarketwithsuchafeedbackeffect(andtherearemanyreasonstodoubtitsefficacy),thisisinnowaycomparabletothecommunicativeconditionsofdialogue.6Ifthissoundsworryinglymetaphysical,then,asAndrewSayersuggests,wecanfindreassuranceinthefactthat‘manymechanismareordinary,oftenbeingidentifiedinordinarylanguagebytransitiveverbs,asin“theybuiltupanetworkofpoliticalconnections”’(2000:14).7Arelatedissueistheevent–regularitiesprobleminempiricistresearchwhichwediscussedearlier.Media-commissionedaudienceresearchsuffersfromthisasmuchasacademicempiricistwork.8Foradiscussionofstylisticchangeinreggaemusic,andtheroleofBobMarleyinit,whichusestheTMSAseeToynbee(2007).9Ofcourse,thistendencyvariesenormouslyindegreeandkindacrossthemediaindustries.Therearealsoeconomicfactorsatplaytodowithoffloadingriskontoproducers.10TobinNellhaus(1998)pointstothebasisofthistrendinculturaltheory’swholesaleadoptionofSaussuriansemiology.Saussure’s‘signified’hasnoobject.Conversely,referenceiscentraltoPierce’ssemiotics(pp.2–3).NellhausgoesontodevelopacompellingsynthesisofCRsocialontologyandthePierciansystemofsemioticsinthisarticle.11Thetwoarelinkedinthatreferenceistheaimofperlocution.Audiencesshouldgettosee,hear,feelandunderstandthingsintheworld.

[12:139/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Ch16.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:279265–279Mediamakingandsocialreality279BibliographyAustin,J.(1975)HowtodoThingswithWords,2ndedn.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Bhaskar,R.(1991)PhilosophyandtheIdeaofFreedom.Oxford:Blackwell.Bhaskar,R.(1998)ThePossibilityofNaturalism:aPhilosophicalCritiqueoftheContemporaryHumanSciences,3rdedn.London:Routledge.Bourdieu,P.(1996)TheRulesofArt:GenesisandStructureoftheLiteraryField.Cambridge:PolityPress.Collier,A.(1994)CriticalRealism:anIntroductiontoRoyBhaskar’sPhilosophy.London:Verso.Collier,A.(2003)InDefenceofObjectivityandotherEssays:onRealism,ExistentialismandPolitics.London:Routledge.Elder-Vass,D.(2005)‘Emergenceandtherealistaccountofcause’,JournalofCriticalRealism4:315–38.Golding,P.andMurdock,G.(1979)‘Ideologyandthemassmedia:thequestionofdetermination’,inM.Barrett,P.Corrigan,A.KuhnandJ.Wolff(eds)IdeologyandCulturalProduction.London:CroomHelm.Huesmann,R.,Moise-Titus,J.,Podolski,C-L.andEron,L.(2003)‘Longitudinalrelationsbetweenchildren’sexposuretoTVviolenceandtheiraggressiveandviolentbehaviourinyoungadulthood,1977–1992’,DevelopmentalPsychology39(2):201–23.Lau,R.(2004)‘Criticalrealismandnewsproduction’,Media,CultureandSociety26(5):693–711.Lawson,T.(1998a)‘Abstraction’,inM.Archer,R.Bhaskar,A.Collier,T.LawsonandA.Norrie(eds)CriticalRealism:EssentialReadings.London:Routledge.Lawson,T.(1998b)‘Economicsciencewithoutexperimentation’,inM.Archer,R.Bhaskar,A.Collier,T.LawsonandA.Norrie(eds)CriticalRealism:EssentialReadings.London:Routledge.Livingstone,S.(2004)‘Thechallengeofchangingaudiences,or,WhatistheaudienceresearchertodointheAgeoftheInternet?’,EuropeanJournalofCommunication19(1):75–86.Nellhaus,T.(1998)‘Signs,socialontologyandcriticalrealism’,JournalfortheTheoryofSocialBehaviour28(1):1–24.Porpora,D.(1998)‘Fourconceptsofsocialstructure’,inM.Archer,R.Bhaskar,A.Collier,T.LawsonandA.Norrie(eds)CriticalRealism:EssentialReadings.London:Routledge.Sayer,A.(2000)RealismandSocialScience.London:Sage.Sibeon,R.(2004)RethinkingSocialTheory.London:Sage.Thompson,J.(1995)TheMediaandModernity.Cambridge:PolityPress.Toynbee,J.(2007)BobMarley:HeraldofaPostcolonialWorld?Cambridge:Polity.

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:280280–298IndexAbbott,Andrew255,257ABC(AustralianBroadcastingCorporation)136aboriginalcommunities:Australia16,128,133,136–7;Canada133,134–5,137–8AboriginalPeoplesTelevisionNetwork,Canada134,138AcceptableBehaviourContracts180accumulationbydispossession16,97,105–6,107,108activism15,52,72,132;cultural16,139ActorNetworkTheory(ANT)17–18,161–6,167,169,174Adams,Evan138Adams,J.T.216Adorno,Theodor7,218,221affect146,149–50,155affirmativestrategies69,70Afghanistan53,95,123agency12,21,272–4,277agency-structurebinary4,11–12Ahmadi-Nejad,President123;lettertoGeorgeW.Bush16,112,113,114,116,117–20,121,122,123Ahmed,Sara146,149–50Airey,Dawn227Aksoy,Asu81alArabiyya120Albright,Madeleine117alienation146,150,199alJazeera120Allen,R.C.236AlternativeLawForum223Althusser,Louis7,112,116,123AmericanAssistanceforCambodiagroup130Americancinemaverité236,237AmericanIdol(TVprogramme)19,202,233AmericanSocietyofNewspaperEditors45America’sNextTopModel(TVprogramme)202Anderson,Benedict78Anderson,Christopher20–1,248–64Anderson,Perry6Aneesh,A.147,154animation,digital133,137–8Ansari,A.122anthropology2anti-authoritarianmovement261anti-essentialism13,27anti-foundationalism30Appadurai,Arjun147,152–3AppleComputers206TheApprentice(TVprogramme)19,202Arabicmediachannels120Archer,Margaret6Arendt,Hannah105Argentina54,99Arrerntecommunities133,136–7Arrighi,Giovanni106Arte87Arvidson,Adam195,196ASBOTV180ASBOs(AntisocialBehaviourOrders)180AsiaTimes119AssociationfortheStudyofPlay219–20‘associology’161,165,166Atanarjuat,theFastRunner(film)134attention/inattention162,170

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:281280–298Index281audiences6,7,215,216–19,223,265,266;active219,227;aspassiveconsumers216;useofmediatexts268Austin,J.L.269Australia,aboriginalcommunities16,128,133,136–7AustralianFilmCommission136the‘authentic’177authenticity,andcreativework234–5,241authorityseeculturalauthorityautonomy21,243–4,274,277;andcreativework232–3,234,235,241,244;professional259–60,261–2Barthes,Roland104,195base-superstructure67Bauer,Otto77–8,79–80,84Bauman,Zygmunt37,38BBC227Beatles236,237TheBeatles’firstUSVisit(rockdocumentary)236Beck,Ulrich15,19,47,84–5,179,181Beck-Gernsheim,Elisabeth47Beeman,W.122Belgarde,Pam138belief163,167,168,169Bell,Catherine169belonging,national145,146,155Benhabib,Seyla6Bennett,Tony184,185Benson,R.D.251Berger,Peter272Berlinger,J.238,241Berlusconi,Silvio88Bernstein,Basil181BeyondSorry(documentary)136Bhaskar,Roy18,162,172–3,266,267,272–3Billig,Michael78–9Bloch,Maurice169blogs/bloggers21,51,132,248,259,261Bobbio,N.30Boisot,Max77Bollywood148,150,151–2Boltanski,Luc19,198–9,200Born,Georgina13,23,31,45Bourdieu,Pierre5,60,73n.1,161,169,187;fieldtheory44,45,165,250,256,257,270;onideology73n.1Bowie,David203Boyle,James106Braithwaite,John103Brand,Dionne194branding195–6,198;self-19,194–5,197,200–8Brazil54BrianJonestownMassacre20,235,236,239,240,241,243broadcasting101;commercial46–7;publicserviceobligations46,47;satellite79;andstate44,46,101;trusteeshipmodel46,47Bromley,Roger177,179Brooks,James130Brooks,Peter182,183Brown,Wendy14,52Brubaker,Rogers81Burawoy,Michael70Burke,Edmund216BushBikes(documentary)136Bush,GeorgeW.95;seealsoAhmadi-Nejad,President,lettertoGeorgeW.Bushbusinessprocessingoutsourcing(BPO)industry147,153–4Butler,Judith2,5Cabral,Amilcar222Calhoun,Craig6callcentreemployees147,153–4Callinicos,Alex6Callon,Michel163Cambodia130Cameron,Deborah188Canada,indigenouscommunities16,133,134–5,137–8capital:mobilityof153,155,156;over-accumulationof16,97,99,100capitalism16,97,98–9,105–6,108,232;andthenetworkedorganisation198–9capitalistaccumulation198–200capitalistimperialism15,98,100,104–5,106–7Carey,J.250,251Carnegie,Dale197Castells,Manuel16,60,83,86,131–2causation,causality1,3,5,11–12,21,266,267–8,269,270–1,272,276–7celebrity202,203,204Césaire,Aimé222Cheaters(TVprogramme)177

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:282280–298282IndexChiapello,Eve19,198–9,200children216,217–18,219,227Chile53,54,99ChinaDaily119choice31,36,37–8citizenship36,75,83–4,87,180,214class19,179,180,181,214,271;andmobilityofpeoples146,153;andrealitytelevision18,177–8,179,187–9,190classdomination67Clerks2(film)206Clifford,James2–3CNN53cognitariat226Cohen,Lizabeth52Cohn,Norman135ColdWar48Collier,Andrew275Collins,Allan137Collins,H.M.260ColumbiaJournalismReview45,46commercialisation14,46–7,55commons:cultural107,108;rightstothe105,106communication:contrastiveanalysisof268;seealsocommunicativespace(s);letters;socialcommunicationtheorycommunicativerationality8communicativespace(s):EuropeanUnionand76–7,79–89;globalisationand75;nation-statesas15,75,76–81competition37–8consensus,rational27,32,33,34constitutionalism,EuropeanUnionand82–3constructionism1,4,5,7,265consumerism48,51–2consumption64,65,146,214,219contemporaneity148–9,150content/contentanalysis215contrastivedemi-regularities268copyright15–16,96,97,100–5,106,107,128,235Corner,John14,59,60,72–3cosmopolitanperspectives15,75,76;EuropeanUnionand82–6;institutional82–4;post-institutional84–6Cottle,Simon174Couldry,Nick17–18,161–76Craib,Ian2,6Crary,Jonathan162creativeeconomy101creativelabourseecultural/creativelabourcriticalprofessionalism49–50,52,55criticalrealism(CR)12,13,21,162,172–3,265–76,277,278criticaltheory5–6,7,13,20,60,63,64,66,218Croall,Heather137Crocker,Ryan123Crozier,M.J.50culturalactivism16,139culturalauthority262;ofjournalism250,252,253,254,255,258,261culturalcommons107,108culturalimperialism15,16,95,96,97–8,101,107,108,222culturalneoliberalism102culturalproductionseecultural/creativelabourculturalstudies4,7–9,11,222,223,265,266,268,272culturalvalue29cultural/creativelabour20,107,231–44,274;authenticityand234–5,241;autonomyand232–3,234,235,241,244;riskand243,244;segmentationprocesses242culture(s)221–2;circuitof6;commodificationof107,108;constructionof146;andimperialism97,102–3,104,107–9;national75,77–8,79;andneoliberaldiscourse97,101;ownershipof106,107–8CyberPowWowproject127DandyWarhols20,235,236,239,240,241,243Debord,Guy174,189deconstruction170–3,174Degiovanni,Melanie231Delanty,Gerard3,85deliberativedemocracy27,28,31–2,33,40,71democracy13,29,30–2,56;deliberative27,28,31–2,33,40,71;andexpertise248,259–62;liberal14,28,30,33,52;neoliberalismand52–5;radical-pluralist27–8,29,33–4,36–7,40;semiotic36,37deregulation47,51,100

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:283280–298Index283Derrida,Jacques16,112,113,115,116,123desire146,149,152,156DeSwaan,Abram80Deutsch,Karl77,78,86developingcountries,intellectualpropertyrightsand102,103,108dialogue268diaspora155,221;Indian17,145,146–7,148,150,151–2DîezMedrano,Juan86–7difference13,35,36,214;politicsof27,29,30Dig!(rockdocumentary)20,232,235–6,237–43,244DigitalAgediscourse16–17,129–32,139,141DigitalDividediscourse17,130,131,132digitaltechnologies:accessto130–2;indigenouscommunitiesuseof16–17,127–9,130,133–41;transformativepowerof131;seealsointernetDilwaleDulhaniyaLeJayange,DDLJ(film)151–2DiMaggio,Paul68directcinema236discourse4,5,11,161,166–7,172;journalismand20,21,253,254,255,258displacement145,154,156Dissanayake,Wimal140diversity27,29–30,31,35,40Djerf-Pierre,Monika49,51documentarygenre18,19,20,236–7;indigenouscommunitiesand136;realitytelevisionand181,182–3,186;seealsorockdocumentariesdomination,relationsof61,62–3,67DontLookBack(rockdocumentary)236Downey,John14–15,59–74Drahos,Peter103Dryzek,J.S.39DuBois,W.E.B.23duGay,Paul199,208DurhamPeters,John112,114,125Durkheim,Emile22n.2,167,168,173,272Dyer-Witheford,Nick200Dylan,Bob217,237Dzur,A.W.260Eagleton,Terry59economiccycles98–9TheEconomist87,132Edelman,Murray169educationsystems78effectsseemediaeffectsegocasting205,206Ekstrom,M.249,251electronicgaming215,219–20;industry223–5ElectronicsArts(EA)223–5Elias,Norbert86Elliott,Philip168Elsaesser,Thomas183,184emancipation70,71–2emotion18,34,149,181,190empiricism2,3,4–5,7,21,267emplacement150–1enclosure106encoding/decoding6,147enterpriseculture199LaÉpoca54Epstein,E.J.250equality64Erbe,Jessica87Eriksen,ThomasHylland81essentialism11;seealsoanti-essentialismethics10–11,62–6;journalistic45ethnography2–3,221,223,266Euro-networking86EuromaydayNetwork225Euronews87Europeanintegration86–7Europeanintelligentsia80EuropeanUnion15,76,101,103;citizenship87;communicativespace76–7,79–89;constitutionaldebate15,82–3,87;andideaofconstitutionalpatriotism82,86,87;cosmopolitanpotential82–6;enlargement81;languageand80;migrantgroupsand80–1;nationalculturesand80;newsmediaand86–8;religiousheritage81,82Europeanisation87,88–9Europeanness15,84,86–9TheEuropean88l’Européen88Evans,Robert260Excélsior49exclusion28,37experience2–3,5

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:284280–298284Indexexpertise248,257–8;anddemocracy248,259–62;journalistic21,248–9,250,252–3,254,257,258–9experts257–8explanation2–3,66–8ExtremeMakeoverHomeEdition(TVprogramme)202Eyal,G.257–8Fabian,Johannes131Facebook19,165,194,205–6,207Fairclough,Norman201Fakemyspace.com206falseconsciousness68FamilyForensics(TVprogramme)178,189Fanon,Frantz222fear,semioticsof154,155feminism8,214fieldtheory44,45,165,250,270;journalismand20,21,249,256–7,258films:Indian17,145,148,150,151–2;indigenouscommunities134,135,136,137–8;effectsstudies216;seealsodocumentarygenrefinancialderegulation100FinancialTimes87Flaubert,Gustav275flexibleaccumulation197–8,200‘flows’ofmedia147FolhadeSãoPaolo54theforeign,representationsof151Fortunemagazine224–5Foucault,Michel4,9–10,11,17,32,161,166–7,169,180,194FoxNews53FrankfurtSchool7,60,68Fraser,Nancy6,9–10,35,39,60,63,65,69–70FreeSoftwareFoundation223freetrade95,99,100freedomofspeech29,30Freud,Sigmund67Frow,John106functionalism171functionalist-interactionistdispute11Fust,Johann44futurity148,149,150gamingseeelectronicgamingGans,H.J.45,250,251,252,253GarcíaCanclini,N.52Garnham,Nicholas39Gates,Bill131–2Gellner,Ernest78gender/genderrelations67,145,146,153,214,271Giddens,Anthony5,11–12,19,179,181,194,195Gillies,Val180Gilroy,Paul11GimmeShelter(rockdocumentary)236Ginsburg,Faye16–17,127–41Gitlin,T.250,251,252,253,256Gledhill,Christine183globalisation1,15,75,79,95–6,101,108,109n.2,121,147Golding,Peter272Goldman,Robert195–6,198Gomery,D.236Goode,Ian183Graham,Stedman200,201Gramsci,Antonio7Grewal,Inderpal155Gripsrud,Jostein6Grossberg,Lawrence20,222Gupta,Akhil153Gutenberg,Johannes44Habermas,Jürgen13,14,39,62,63,64,84;discourseethics62;onEuropeanconstitution15,82;notionofpublicsphere1,8,31,32,34,36,44,60,75,76,82–3Hall,Stuart6,7,116,147,161,163,272Hallin,Daniel14,43–58,259Hardt,Michael95,113,161,226Hartley,John36Harvey,David6,15–16,19,43,96,97,105–7,199;notionofaccumulationbyculturaldispossession105–6,108;oncapitalover-accumulation16,99;onflexibleaccumulation197,198;onimperialismasaterm98Haskell,Thomas251,252hate,semioticsof154,155Hawkins,Trip223Haylett,Chris180Hearn,Alison18,194–210Hegel,G.W.F.63,64,66hegemony113–14,116,121,171,253Held,David83–4Hesmondhalgh,David1–24,95–111Hinduculture148,149,150

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:285280–298Index285Hirsch,P.235,241–2historicalcontext147–8history11Hoggart,Richard220Holmes,Brian198,199,207Holocaust85home/homeland17,146,148,149–50,155Honey,We’reKillingtheKids(TVprogramme)178,187–9Honig,Bonnie29,34Honneth,Axel6,10,14,60,63–5,68,69,70,71Horkheimer,Max218Horwitz,R.B.51Hughes,EverettC.252HumAapkeHainKaun(film)150humanities221Huntington,Samuel49–50,113IWantaFamousFace(TVprogramme)202identity4,6,13,36,147;contestationof34;national79,146;regional146identityformation4,34,64,194–5;unconscious194identitypolitics8,29,35,39,69,70ideology2,8,14–15,59–74,272;modesofoperation61,62,66IgloolikIsuma133,134–5Ignatieff,Michael95imagination,asasocialpractice153imaginativetravel146,152–3,155IMF(InternationalMonetaryFund)99,100immateriallabour202imperialism95–6,105;capitalist15,98,100,104–5,106–7;cultural15,16,95,96,97–8,101,107,108,222;andculture97,102–3,104,107–9India145–6,148–9,223;films17,145,148,150,151–2;television148–9,150Indiandiaspora17,145,146–7,148,150,151–2indigenouspeoples16–17,127–9,133–41individualisation47–8,55,56,179–81information97,101informationandcommunicationstechnology79,83;seealsodigitaltechnologies;internetinformationsociety101Ingelhart,Ronald50innovation202,235,241–2institutionalanalysis68intellectualproperty97,100–5,106,107–9,128,129,244intention273–4InternationalAssociationforMediaandCommunicationResearch220InternationalHeraldTribune87InternationalIntellectualPropertyAlliance(IIPA)103internationalism213,223internet1,16,47,79,248,262;andAhmadi-NejadlettertoBush119–20,121;indigenouscommunitiesuseof127–8,130,133–6;andjournalisticexpertise248,261;migrantgroupsuseof81;asopeningforcreativeactivity132;andpoliticalactivism132;andpublicopinion119–20;seealsoblogs/bloggers;websitesinterpellation16,112–13,116,121,123,124interpretiveapproaches2–3interpretivecommunities149;journalistsas20,254Inuits,CanadianArctic16,133,134–5Iran113,121;asnuclearpower121;andUSrelations112,113,121,122–3,124Iranian.com118Iraq122,123Iraqwar53,56n.2,95Islam149Islamicfundamentalists154Jacka,Elizabeth29,36James,Simon137–8jobsatisfaction232–3Jönssen,Christer85–6Joseph,Robert138journalism20–1;autonomyof260,261–2;criticalprofessionalismin49–50,55;criticalstudiesapproaches249,250–3;culturalist/narrativestudies253–6;discursivemodelof20,21,253,254,255,258;ethics45;Europe-focused15,87–8;fieldapproachesto20,21,249,256–7,258;andknowledge249,251,258,261;organisationalstudiesof20,21,249,250–3,258

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:286280–298286Indexjournalisticauthority250,252,253,254,255,258,261journalisticexpertise21,248–9,250,252–3,254,257,258–9journalisticobjectivity249,250,251,254journalisticprofessionalism14,45–6,49–50,56,251–2,254,255,258,274TheJournalsofKnudRasmussen(film)134Joyner,Chris137JudgeJudy(TVprogramme)178justice,pluraltheoryof64,66Kafka,Franz175n.7Kant,Immanual214Kaplan,Caren146Kaplan,Fred118Karppinen,Kari13–14,18,27–42Keane,John29Keightley,Keir234,237Kellner,Doug170Kennedy,John,F.254Kierkegaard,S.174Kissinger,Henry117Klentz,Chris138knowledge3,5,97,101;journalismand249,251,258,261;ownershipandcontrolof106,107–8,128,129;rationalityof3–4;self-214knowledgeeconomy101Koller,Andreas44,48Koopmans,Ruud87Krisher,Bernard130Kunuk,Zacharias134labour20,213,214,220,222,223–7;flexible/casualized225–6;immaterial202;neoliberalismand231–2,234;seealsocultural/creativelabourLacan,J.16,67,112,113,115,123Laclau,E.18,113,116,162,169,171–2,173LadettetoLady(TVprogramme)177Laing,Dave103Lair,Daniel,J.201–2Landzelius,Kyra133language(s)4,63,77–8,80Larson,M.S.255,257LatinAmerica47,49,53–4,214,222,223;seealsoArgentina;Chile;MexicoLatour,Bruno17,162,163,164,165–6,167,172,173Latukefu,Alopi128,129law64Lawler,Steph179Lawson,Tony268Layder,Derek3,6Lazzarato,Maurizio19,202Leacock,Richard236Lee,Nancy51legitimacy/legitimation61,163Lenin,V.I.105letters:asformofcommunication112,114;seealsoAhmadi-Nejad,President,lettertoGeorgeW.Bush;Poe,EdgarAllan,ThePurloinedLetterliberaldemocracy14,28,30,33,52liberalism45lifepolitics179Limbaugh,David118Live8events(2005)169–70locationandmobility146,155,156Locke,John195Luhmann,Niklas166Lukes,Steven168Lury,Adam204Lury,Celia184,195,196Luxemburg,Rosa105Lyotard,Jean-François32M.U.L.E223McCabe,Zia240McChesney,Robert72McLean,Danielle137McLennan,Gregor27,28,30,35Macpherson,C.B.232McQuail,Denis6Mahabharat148managementstrategies19,199Manakekar,Purnima17,145–58Mancini,Paolo47Marcil-Lacoste,Louise30marketing:ambient204,206;viral206,214markets/marketisation14,43,44–7,53,54,55,56,100–1Martí,José213Marx,Karl22n.2,45,62,67,70,97,105,106,108,213Marxism2,7,8,59,67Massey,Doreen153Massumi,Brian147,149Mathiesen,T.180

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:287280–298Index287Mattelart,Michèle222Maxwell,Rick222May,Chistopher102Maysles,AlbertandDavid236,237Mead,G.H.64mediaeffects19–20,216–18,227,267,269–70;hypodermicmodelof147mediapolicy8,28,29,35,39–40,55mediatheory6–9;parochialismof7,8;teachingof6–7medicalcare51–2melodrama,andrealitytelevision18,178,181–6,190memory148Menger,Pierre-Michel233,241,242merit64–5Metallica:SomeKindofMonster(rockdocumentary)238,241,243Mexico49,54,100,222Meyer,Christoph88middleclass187Middlemass,Keith86migrantcommunities17,146–7;EuropeanUnion81;seealsodiasporamigration,virtual146,147,154,155Mill,JohnStuart30,213Miller,Toby19–20,213–30mind-bodyduality20,221Mirzoeff,Nicholas162mobility145–56;ofcapital153,155,156;ofcommodities146,153,155,156;constraintson154,155;andlocation146,155,156;ofmedia17,147,154–5;ofpeople17,146–7,153–4,155;politicsof153–4;social177;oftexts146,154–5,156monism(s)28,30monologicalstructure268–9,270,277MontereyPop(rockdocumentary)236Montesquieu,C.L.deS.120Montoya,Peter200,201Moor,Elizabeth204moralpanic217Mosco,Vincent215,223Moseley,Rachel182Motomanproject130Mouffe,Chantal13,14,18,28,31,33–4,37,39,116,171–2,173Mowlana,Hamid222MurderontheZinderneuf223Murdock,Graham272Murrin,Kris188musicseepopularmusicmakingMuslims,immobilityof154,155MySpace19,165,194,205,206myth171,172,174narrative,journalismand254,255,258nation-state,andcommunicativespace15,75,76–81nationalbelonging145,146,155nationalidentity79,146NationalParentingAcademy180nationalism77,78–9nationality77NederveenPieterse,Jan95Negri,Antonio95,113,161,226Negroponte,Nicholas131NeimanReports248neo-institutionalanalysis68neoconservatism53neoliberalism14,18,19,43–56,97,99–101,178,180,200;cultural102;anddemocracy52–5;historicalcontext44–51;andintellectualpropertyrights102–3,104–5;andlabourprocesses231–2,234networkedorganisation197,198–9networking:Euro-86;seealsosocialnetworkingwebsitesNeveu,Catherine86NewDealforCommunities180newsocialmovements14,50–1,52–3,53–4,55NewYorkTimes130NewYorkTimesmagazine95Newcombe,Anton235,236,239–41newsmedia:andEuropeanUnion86–8;seealsonewspapers;televisionnewsnewspapers:commercial45,46,48;mass-production44;party46Newstead,Jason238Nichols,Bill181,185,231,236,237Nielsen,H.K.29Nixon,Richard52NoGoingBack(TVprogramme)185non-imposition,principleof63normativity9,10,12,13norms1NorthAmericaFreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA)101NorthAmericanSocietyfortheSociologyofSport220nostalgia148,150,155

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:288280–298288IndexNunavut(TVprogramme)134Nussbaum,Martha11objectivity5,21,275–6,277–8;journalistic249,250,251,254OgloolikIsuma133oligopoly99,100Olsson,Tom48OmnibusTradeandCompetitivenessAct(1988),US103TheOnion217the‘ordinary’177,182orientalism120Ouellette,Laurie178OurMedia/NuestrosMediosnetwork72OutbackDigitalNetwork128outsourcingindustries147,153–4over-accumulation16,97,99,100ownershipandcontrol215,218;ofknowledge106,107–8,128,129Paginal/1254panopticon17,180panoramas165–6Papson,Stephen195–6,198parenting180,188–9Parsons,Talcott46particularism4,30,171patriotism,constitutional82,86,87PayneFundstudies216–17Peirce,C.S.149Pennebaker,Donn,A.236,237Perkovich,George117–18perlocution270–1,274,275personality232Peters,Tom200,201Pettis,Chuck200–1PEWResearchCenter119PhilipsDavidson,W.119Phillips,Anne29Piper,Helen182placement/displacement145,154,156pluralism10,27–40;ambiguityof27,28–30;liberal30–1,33,35,37;naive28,35–7,40;andthepublicsphere30–3,34;radicaloragonistic13–14,28,33–5,36–7,39,40Poe,EdgarAllan,ThePurloinedLetter16,112,114–16,123,125policyseemediapolicypoliticaleconomy7–9,11,20,218,221,222,223,227,265,272politicalparties14,44,47,48–9;newspapers46politicalpraxis68–70,72popularculture20,216–17,218popularmusicmaking:authenticityand234–5,241;autonomyand234,235,241,244;as‘goodwork’233;seealsorockdocumentariespopulism50–1,55,56Porpora,Douglas269post-materialistvalues50post-structuralism4,8postmodernism4,10Postrel,Virginia220Powell,Walter68power37,40,162,163,169,171,173–4,277;concentrationof55;legitimationof4;political173–4;inpublicsphere28,38;symbolic163,164,169,173;andvisibility17pragmatism64precariat,international20,215,225–6press:andthemarket44,45–6;seealsonewspaperspresscouncils45primitiveaccumulation97,105Prins,Harald133privateenterprise99privatepropertyrights101–2,105,106private/publicboundaries34,55,124privatisation100–1Proceso54production6,7,8,64,65,273–6;culturalseecultural/creativelabour;flexible197–8,225,226;precedenceof21,265–9,276productiveexcess240professionalism:critical49–50,52;journalistic14,45–6,49–50,56,251–2,254,255,258,274professions,sociologyof251–2,255promotionalism19,196–7,200,206psychoanalysis64,67–8publicdomain104,110n.12,128publicinterest27,29publicopinion,global119–20publicsphere(s)1,8,14,27–8,34,36,44,60,75;commonalityand31,33;cosmopolitanperspectives76;European76,77,80,81,82–3,85,86;exclusionin28;globalisationand75;pluralismand30–3,34;plurality

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:289280–298Index289of27,32–3;powerin28,38;statistperspectives76,79;unitary29publicity,rightto203ThePurloinedLetter(Poe)16,112,114–16,123,125quality27,29QueerEyefortheStraightGuy(TVprogramme)187Qumi,HassanKazemi123race67,146,153,271radical-pluralistdemocracy27–8,29,33–4,36–7,40Rajagopal,Arvind223Ramayana148rationalconsensus27,32,33,34Raunig,Gerald226RavenTales(animatedfilm)133,137–8RealUtopiasproject71realism,critical(CR)12,13,21,162,172–3,265–76,277,278reality,stratificationof270–1‘reality’television18–19,177–93;childworkers227;classand18,177–8,179,187–9,190;documentarygenreand181,182–3,186;melodramaand18,178,181–6,190;self-brandingand19,194,202–4;shameand187–8;taste,definitionsofand186–7reception265,266recognition10,11,14,39,63–6,68,69,70–1,72;mutual63–4,71reference21,274–6refugees153regulation6,38;liberalpluralismand30–1Reich,Robert234,242reification61relativism9,265religion81,82,167,168representation6,8,11,12,18,19,164,165,166RespectAgenda180responsibility,self-179,181,199RetortCollective173–4Rice,Condoleeza123Rickard,Jolene127,128–9risk,andcreativework243,244Ritter,Nina239ritualanalysis18,161,162,167–70,171,173,174Robertson,Roland119Robins,Kevin81rockdocumentaries20,231–2,233,234,235–43,244RollingStones237Rose,Nikolas43Rose,Steven214Rosen,Christine205Rueff,Rusty225Rumford,Chris85Said,Edward120,171Sarai223Savage,M.187Sayer,Andrew6,10–11Schiller,Herbert98,222Schlesinger,Philip15,75–92Schudson,Michael50,250,251,252–3,260Scott,John4secularisation47,56self:ascharacter232;asacommodity195,197;aspersonality232self-branding19,194–5,197,200–8selfhood19,179,180–1,207self-knowledge214self-management18,178,179,181,184self-reflexivity18,181,184self-responsibility179,181,199semiosis146semioticdemocracy36,37Sennett,Richard233–4sensation18,54,181,182,190sexuality67,145,146,153shame187–8Shils,Edward171Sila.nu134–5Silverstone,Roger163Singer,David181–2Singer,Dorothy,G.andSinger,Jerome,L.217Sinofsky,B.238,241Skeggs,Bev18–19,177–93Smith,Adam105,213Smith,Dorothy162Smith,Kevin206socialcommunicationtheory15,76–81,85–6SocialExclusionUnit180socialgroups,organised14,44–5,47,48–9socialmobility177

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:290280–298290Indexsocialnetworkingwebsites19,194,205–6,207socialorder168–9socialpsychology67,215,216socialsciences8,221socialtheory,principlesanddominantpositions2–6socialisation3,4,64Soukup,Katarina135SouthAustralianFilmCorporation136spectacle17,18–19,161,162,170,181,189–90speechacttheory269Spivak,Gayatri11Splichal,S.38Sreberny,Annabelle16,98,112–26Stahl,Matt20,231–47standpoint4,10state44;broadcastingand44,46,101;seealsonation-stateStatham,Paul87statism15,76status64,65,221Sternberg,Ernest203structuralfunctionalism171structurationtheory11–12structure12,21,269–73;monological268–9,270;perlocutionary269–70,277structure-agencybinary4,11–12subjectivism21subjectivity5,202Supernanny(TVprogramme)178,180,188Sussman,Warren207,232TheSwan(TVprogramme)202symbolicanalysis68symbolicinteractionism216symbolicorder115,116symbolicpower163,164,169,173synopticon180Tagore,Rabindranath213talkshows48,51taste177,180,186–7,221Taylor,Courtney239Taylor,L.187telecommunications101Televisa54television46,47,48–9,219;diasporiccommunitiesand150;Indian148–9,150;indigenouscommunitiesand134,136–7;satellite150;andsocio-historicalformations148–9;viewinghabits148;seealso‘reality’televisiontelevisionnews46,50,54Telstra136temporality147–9,150TenYearsYounger(TVprogramme)187texts6,7,8,21;audienceuseof268;causalpowerof276–7;formandcontent,producerscontrolof268–9;mobilityof146,154–5,156;perlocutionarydimensionof269–70Thompson,John14,17,59–62,66–7,69,122,268Timoner,David240Timoner,Ondi235–6,237,238,239–40,241,242–3Tomlinson,John96totemicritual168Toynbee,Jason1–24,104,234–5,265–79tradeunions14,44,45transcendentalargument266transformationalmodelofsocialactivity(TMSA)272–3,277transformativestrategies69–70transnationality87–8,145–56travel151–2;easeof146;imaginative146,152,153,155;andlocation146Trespass(documentary)136TRIPS(TradeRelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights)agreement102–5Tuchman,G.250,251,252,253Turkey81TVNorthernCanada1342night.com19,204,206UnionforDemocraticCommunication220UnitedNations,‘DigitalSolidarityFund’127UnitedStates49–50,52–3,99,121;broadcasting46–7;deregulation47,51;hegemonyof100,113,116,122;andintellectualpropertyrights102–3,104–5;andIranrelations112,113,121,122–3,124;press44,45,46universalisation11universalism9,10universalism/particularism4,171

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:291280–298Index291universityparty.ca204,206UsMobproject133,136–7Vadiveloo,David136,137Vaidhyanathan,Siva103Valiquette,Max205value,cultural29VanDijk,Teun59Veblen,Thorsten221VietnamWar50,52,53,56n.2,222viralmarketing206,214Virno,Paolo202,207virtualmigration146,147,154,155virtuosity,individual202visibility17Waisbord,Silvio47,54Walkerdine,Valerie188Weber,Max22n.2,65,231,232,243,272websites:andself-branding194,204–7;socialnetworking19,194,205–6,207welfarestate48,64Wernick,Andrew19,196–7,205WhatNottoWear(TVprogramme)178,186,202–3White,Mimi177WifeSwap(TVprogramme)177,185–6Williams,Kevin6Williams,Linda183Williams,Raymond12Wilson,Rob140Winocur,Rosalía223Wood,Helen18–19,177–93Woolgar,Steve164workseelabourworkers:creativeseecultural/creativelabour;responsibilityforself-fulfilment19,199working-class177,184,214;realitytelevisionand18,177,179,187–9WorldBank100WorldEconomicForum129,131–2WorldSummitontheInformationSociety(2003)127,128,139WorldTradeOrganisation(WTO)101,102Wright,ErikOlin71YouareWhatyouEat(TVprogramme)178,189Young,IrisMarion32Yúdice,George222Yugoslavia81Zelizer,Barbie20,253,254–5,256Zizek,Slavoj67,115,116Zuckerberg,Mark206

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:293280–298

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:294280–298

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:295280–298

[16:2410/4/20085145-Hesmondhalgh-Index.tex]JobNo:5145Hesmondhalgh:TheMediaandSocialTheoryPage:296280–298

Thisistheauthor’sversionofaworkthatwassubmitted/acceptedforpub-licationinthefollowingsource:O’Connor,Justin(2010)Theculturalandcreativeindustries:aliteraturereview[2nded.].Creativity,CultureandEducationSeries.Creativity,CultureandEduction,London.Thisfilewasdownloadedfrom:❤♣✿✴✴❡♣✐♥✳✉✳❡❞✉✳❛✉✴✹✸✽✸✺✴cCopyright2010Creativity,CultureandEducationNotice:Changesintroducedasaresultofpublishingprocessessuchascopy-editingandformattingmaynotbereflectedinthisdocument.Foradefinitiveversionofthiswork,pleaserefertothepublishedsource:http://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/data/files/cce-lit-review-creative-cultural-industries-257.pdf

Creativity, Culture and Education SeriesThe cultural andcreativeindustries: a literature review 2nd Edition Justin OÕConnor

Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE) Literature ReviewsThese reports have been commissioned to introduce readers to the mainprinciples, theories, research and debates in the field. They aim to introducethe major themes and writing pertaining to each area of study and to outlinekey trends and arguments.About the authorDr. Justin OÕConnor is Professor in the Creative Industries Faculty,Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Between 2006-8he was Professor of Cultural Industries at the School of Performance andCultural Industries, University of Leeds, where he led an MA in Culture,Creativity and Entrepreneurship. Previously he was Director of ManchesterInstitute for Popular Culture, Manchester Metropolitan University, chair ofManchester’s Creative Industries Development Service and lead AcademicAdviser to the Urbis Museum, Manchester. AcknowledgmentsThanks to all those who have given advice and encouragement: Kate Oakley,Dave Hesmondhalgh, Calvin Taylor, Roberta Comunian, Jo Burns, BeateBecker, David Lee, Steve Redhead and Gu Xin. Thanks also to the School ofPerformance and Cultural Industries, University of Leeds, and to the CreativeIndustries Faculty at Queensland University of Technology for the time towrite and the opportunity to revise. November 2010Creativity, Culture and EducationGreat North House, Sandyford Road,Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8NDPhone: 0844 811 2145Registered Charity no. 1125841You can get this publication in Braille, in large print, on audio CD and inelectronic formats. Please contact us if you need any of these formats. We are committed to being open and accessible. We welcome allcomments on our work. Please send these to the Communications Director,Creativity, Culture and Education.To download this publication, go tohttp://www.creativitycultureeducation.org/research-impact/literature-reviews/Printed by HPM www.hpm.uk.comDesigned by Tangerine www.tangerinelimited.comOriginally published by Arts Council England, November 2007Original ISBN 978-0-7287-1353-6ISBN 978-1-907264-05-4© CCE November 2010

ContentsAbout the Creativity, Culture and Education (CCE) Literature Review Series04Foreword07Introduction091The culture industry as kulturkritic111.1 Adorno, modern culture and modernist aesthetics111.2 Cultural commodities121.3 The autonomy of art151.4 The masses and industrial culture182Cultural industries: political economy and cultural politics212.1 New critiques of culture212.2 British cultural studies222.3 The political economy of culture222.4 From culture industry to cultural industries policy262.5 Cultural policy: politics and aesthetics283From cultural to creative industries313.1 From cultural to local economic policy313.2 From market to markets333.3 Fordism, post-fordism and the Ôspatial turnÕ333.4 The rise of small and medium sized enterprises353.5 Culture and economics363.6 New work cultures374Creative cities414.1 The rediscovery of the city414.2 A new urbanity?424.3 Networking and the innovative milieu455Creative industries495.1 New Labour, new spirit495.2 Only a name?505.3 The specificity of culture535.4 Definitions566Final thoughts696.1 A whole different ball game?696.2 Tensions in the cultural industries696.3 Global flows and collective identities716.4 Cultural policy, autonomy and opposition727References77

About the Creativity, Culture andEducation Literature Review SeriesCreativity, Culture and Education (CCE) is a national charity with a vision forall children, regardless of their background, to experience and access thediverse range of cultural activities in England because these opportunitiescan enhance their aspirations, achievements and skills. We promote thevalue and impact of creative learning and cultural opportunities through ourstrong evidence base and policy analysis, stimulating debate among policymakers and opinion formers, and delivering front line, high qualityprogrammes. Through our research and evaluation programme, we promote a systemicapproach to creative and cultural initiatives and one which builds on theexcellent practice which already exists to make opportunity consistent, toensure that all children and young people are included and to place quality atthe core of any creative or cultural experience.CCEÕs work includes: ¥Creative Partnerships- EnglandÕs flagship creative learning programme fosters long-term partnerships between schools and creativeprofessionals to inspire, open minds and harness the potential of creativelearning. The programme has worked with just under 1 million children,and over 90,000 teachers in more than 8,000 projects in England.www.creative-partnerships.com¥Find Your Talent – how we can help children and young people to access arts and culture: www.findyourtalent.org Fostering creativity is fundamentally important because creativity brings withit the ability to question, make connections, innovate, problem solve,communicate, collaborate and to reflect critically. These are all skillsdemanded by contemporary employers and will be vital for young people toplay their part in a rapidly changing world.Our programmes can have maximum impact if teachers, parents, children,young people and practitioners themselves learn from the experience andactivities delivered through the programmes. For this reason, one of themost significant legacies will be the product of our research and evaluationand how that is effectively communicated to stakeholders. 04

However, because Creativity, Culture and Education works by creatingpartnerships drawn from the widest fields of endeavour, the differentstakeholders recognise that there is often a Ôknowledge gapÕ betweenreflection, analysis, and learning. In addition, the wide focus of approach Ðwhich is fundamental to the nature of creativity Ð means that people areoften working at the limit of their disciplines. For these reasons we have commissioned a series of literature reviewsexploring the key issues in current literature and summarising the historyand latest developments in each subject. Each review is written by anexperienced and respected author in their field. They aim to be accessible,clearly referenced and to act as Ôstepping-stoneÕ resources to underpin theresearch conducted by and for Creativity, Culture and Education.05

06

ForewordThis report surveys the literature focusing on the history and theory of thecultural and creative industries. It was originally published three years ago,by the Creative Partnerships team at the Arts Council. The programme andteam have since been transferred to a new organisation, Creativity, Cultureand Education (CCE) and, the report is now being republished in the newCCE format and circulated to new partners and participants in itsprogrammes. In this second edition, Professor OÕConnor has taken thisopportunity to write a new conclusion reflecting on how changes in web 2.0and mobile communication technologies have affected the debates aroundthe creative industries and our understanding of art, culture and economy.The main body of the literature review explores both the history of the idea ofthe cultural industries and how this has changed and developed our currentinterest in the creative economy. It focuses on the conceptual ideas behindthinking in this area and lays out the reasons behind the shifts in terminologyand policy. It is especially relevant to the broader ambitions for CCE for tworeasons. First, as research conducted by BOP Consulting in 2006 showed,the Creative Partnerships programme can in some ways claim to be thelargest single investment in artists and the arts sector Ð in terms ofprofessional development Ð ever undertaken in the UK (BOP Consulting,2006). Working with the cultural and creative sectors is key to CCEÕs successand ambitions and this report sheds light on some of the assumptions andaspirations behind those ambitions. Secondly, CCE is substantively interestedin the kind of creative education that is in tune with some of the speculationsabout the shift to a creative economy. Again this report shows the historicaland theoretical complexities underlying this direction. We hope that the report will be useful for those interested in cultural andcreative industries. It offers a serious and sophisticated review of theconcept of the cultural and creative industries and should be of use to allthose with ambitions to act in this arena. A key part of CCEÕs futuredevelopment will be shaped by an engagement with the challengesProfessor OÕConnor lays out here. David Parker, Creativity, Culture and EducationJulian Sefton-Green07

This account takes a sixty yeartrip from ÔThe Culture IndustryÕ,through the Ôcultural industriesÕ,ending at the Ôcreative industriesÕ.Its main theme is the tensionbetween culture and economicswhich lies at the heart of thisterminology. 08

This account takes a sixty year trip from ÔThe Culture IndustryÕ, through theÔcultural industriesÕ, ending at the Ôcreative industriesÕ. Its main theme is thetension between culture and economics which lies at the heart of thisterminology. This is not simply a question of ÔartÕ and Ôthe marketÕ; this is part ofit, but the market in Ôcultural commoditiesÕ has a long history and ÔartistsÕ havelong been at home with it. In the last century the production of culturalcommodities has accelerated with the development of technologies ofreproduction Ð digitalisation following in the treads of Gutenberg; and thisproduction has become increasingly capitalised. Commodity production is notthe same as capitalism; the former has an ancient history, the latter began 500years ago in Europe. Capitalism is animated by the principle of unlimitedaccumulation at the expense of all other values. ÔArtÕ or ÔcultureÕ has alwaysbeen one of the limits on, or protests against, this principle. But it did so whilstat the same time being a commodity increasingly subject to the laws of capital.Section One begins with Adorno, who thought that these laws of industrialcapitalism had finally abolished any kind of critical or authentic culture. In SectionTwo we look at those writers in the 1970s who felt that the cultural appeal ofcultural commodities was central to their economic success and thus could notbe rigidly planned or predicted. People wanted to buy things that genuinelyappealed to them. This new attitude to the cultural industries produced a newkind of cultural policy, exemplified by the Greater London Council. In Section Three we chart the emergence of new economic discourses whichargued for the end of mass production and a rise in cultural consumption. Thisnew production foregrounded small businesses, networks, risk-taking, creativityand constant innovation in a way that set the cultural industries as exemplars fora new kind of economy and central to our future economic growth.In Section Four we look at how this was reflected in new thinking about citiesand urban economies. Parallel to the rise of cultural industries was the growingimportance of culture for city image and place making, cultural tourism andurban regeneration. They form part of the talk of creative cities and creativeclass which are with us today.In Section Five we look at the creative industries, as launched by the NewLabour government in 1998, suggesting some problems with the terminologyitself and the policy agenda to which it gave rise. At the end we put forwardsome thoughts on the connections and contradictions between cultural andeconomic policy. 09Introduction

The Culture Industry found its fullpurpose when it became integratedinto the new system of monopolycapitalism, which was predicatedon total control of the masses.Here Adorno equates the AmericanCulture Industry with EuropeanFascism (Huyssen, 1986).10

1The culture industry askulturkritic1.1 Adorno, modern culture and modernist aestheticsDiscussions of the cultural industries usually start from Theodor Adorno, who,with his colleague Max Horkheimer, first coined the term in 1947 with theessay ÔThe Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass DeceptionÕ (chapter 3 inAdorno and Horkheimer, 1979). AdornoÕs subsequent writings – on film, radio,newspapers and (most notoriously) jazz and popular music Ð all re-affirmedthe message that under monopoly capitalism, art and culture had nowbecome thoroughly absorbed by the economy (Huyssen, 1986; Adorno 1991). However, Adorno is not to be equated with those conservative cultural criticsof Ômass societyÕ who held the combination of modern communicationtechnologies, mass democracy and mass industrial organisation responsiblefor a universal cultural collapse, with the European arts tradition as a lastrefuge from general barbarism. Nor can he be associated with those who sawmodernist art as the last great incarnation of that tradition, thus to beprotected and supported against the forces of industrialised culture (cf.Greenberg, 1961). AdornoÕs post-war writings on the Culture Industry ranparallel to the founding of the different national arts and cultural ministries andfoundations across Europe, and indeed to the emergence of a distinctdiscourse of cultural policy per se. The new Culture Industry sought the surface effects associated with bothpopular culture and Ôhigh artÕ Ð means of attraction and seduction, ofstimulating desire without reflection, providing distraction at the expense ofthought. Glittering novelty masked endless repetition and endlessdisappointment. As such the Culture Industry was a direct extension of thenew industries of mass reproduction and distribution which had begun at theturn of the 19th century Ð film, sound recording, mass circulation dailies,popular prints and later, radio broadcasting. But it also grew out of the arttradition on whose surface techniques it also drew but whose intrinsicmeaning it abandoned (Adorno, 1981, 1992). It was in this context that avant-garde modernism began its great aesthetic renunciations, its retreat intodifficult and occult formal procedures. The Culture Industry found its full purpose when it became integrated into thenew system of monopoly capitalism, which was predicated on total control ofthe masses. Here Adorno equates the American Culture Industry withEuropean Fascism (Huyssen, 1986). The modern worker has been completely11

integrated into the industrial machine, a controlled automaton he now has hisleisure time and his interiority programmed and controlled by modernindustrial techniques. The Fordist factory system now moved into the realmof culture used as a powerful ideological tool. The techniques of the CultureIndustry Ð the use of predictable effects, the controlled manipulation ofaudience response, and the endlessly deferred gratification of stimulateddesire Ð which had been developed under the pressure of commodification,were now used by monopoly capitalism itself. The Culture Industry mogulswere servants of the latter Ð they were answerable to oil, steel and electricity.Like GoebbelsÕ subservience to Hitler, the Culture Industry was ultimately atool of the ruling class and the State. As we shall see, there are some real problems with this position, but beforethis let us look at certain aspects of this argument and try to put AdornoÕsconcerns into some historical perspective. 1.2 Cultural commodities1.2.1 Technological reproductionThe ÔindustrialisationÕ of culture is often associated with modern technologicalreproducibility, but in fact the cultural commodity has an ancient history.Walter Benjamin, a colleague of Adorno, talked about the ÔauraÕ of the artobject (and its erosion in contemporary culture) suggesting its origins in culticand ritual practices (Benjamin, 1970). These unique ÔartisticÕ products alwayshad great sacred, symbolic and/or prestige value; but they could also be givenor traded for other objects or services or money. Technological reproductionextended this commodity market in quite ancient times. Metal casting was anearly form of mass reproduction (including minting coins), and productivitygains through efficient division of labour could be found in classical Chineseporcelain production. But it was with the invention of printing thattechnological reproducibility became linked to profound changes in thedynamics of cultural production and consumption.Mass reproduction allows the initial investment in materials, skills and time tobe recouped by volume sales of the copies – the cheaper the copy the morethe potential profit. With each new technological improvement of the printingpress the time and effort involved in reproduction fell (Briggs and Burke,12

2005). Along with moveable type came improvements in wood block printingand then etching, producing a new market in prints. With photography, copiesof artworks improved still further, and gradually images of the real worldbecame art objects in their own right. The early 20th century saw the captureof moving images and the elusive world of sound on wax discs. At the end ofthat century, digital technology opened up possibilities which we are still onlybeginning to grasp. 1.2.2 Commodity productionTechnological reproduction is necessary but not sufficient to explain theexpansion of cultural commodity production. In Capital Marx traces thecomplex historical process by which a fairly limited sphere of commodityproduction (common to all but the most primitive societies) becomes thedominant form of economic production, and by which the whole economicand social structure becomes reconfigured around the need of capital toproduce, distribute and sell commodities at a profit (Marx, 1976). In Europe for example, printing arrived in parallel with an emergent marketeconomy controlled by an increasingly powerful urban merchant class; part ofa wider political context of a fragmented or ÔgranularÕ power structure whereno single State was able to completely impose its authority, either across theregion or within its own boundaries. Books had been sacred, copied by hand,singular objects of great value. The printing press changed all this Ð but howwas the production and distribution of these multiple copies to be organised?Who paid who, and for what exactly? How did Gutenberg recoup his money?On what basis was the writer to be paid? What was Ôintellectual propertyÕ (IP)Ð a god-given right possessed by all authors or something bought for a fee bya publisher to do with as he wished? These were difficult legal questions, at atime when ÔpropertyÕ itself was hardly well defined. But it reflected a wideruncertainty about what such commodities actually were. Did value reflect thepaper and the ink and the time taken to make and set the presses, or thecreative work of the author? If it was the former, then what about bad books;if the latter, then how exactly was this to be measured? In the meantime acultural commodity economy began to grow by trial and error, wrapped up indifferent customs, legalities and practices. Publishers, authors, andbooksellers emerged who knew how to play the system (though of coursethere were many that didnÕt!). 13

1.2.3 Media and communicationThe emergence of an extended commodity economy involved profoundcultural transformations, as the fundamental structures of personal andcollective meaning were overturned. Crucially, the very symbolic means bywhich these conflicting meanings were circulated, contested and extrapolatedwithin this changing society were themselves becoming commodities. Again,this was by no means a straightforward or uncontested process Ð indeed, it isthe main subject of this review.The invention of printing is not primarily seen as epoch-making because itgave rise to the cultural commodity but because it radically transformed thesphere of media or communications. It replaced the age-old domination of the(mostly religious) visual image by the printed word. The circulation of thesacred text was restricted by its limited number and the illiteracy of thepopulation (why learn when there was nothing to read?). The massreproduction of books was a direct challenge to established religious andpolitical authority. The vernacular Bible, followed by a whole series of scientificand humanistic tracts, took knowledge and information outside of the carefullyregulated sphere of royal and religious authority. The mass reproduction ofbooks was associated with the emergence of new radical political andreligious movements, and ultimately with the emergence of the moderndemocratic nation-state. Important for us is that though sovereign and religious authorities constantlystrove to regulate them, the new print media were organised mainly aroundthe market and a new range of private and civic institutions which grew upwith it Ð newspapers, political and religious groups (and their presses),scientific and humanistic societies, salons and coffee houses etc. In short, theprint media became the basis of a new Ôpublic sphereÕ between the State andindividual, and made up of a range of institutions under the control of ÔpublicopinionÕ. It was this public sphere Ð classically outlined by Habermas (1989), apupil of Adorno Ð which formed the basis for the contestation and legitimationof political and socio-economic power over the last 250 years. AdornoÕs Culture Industry was thus not primarily about the commodification ofculture; it was about the organisation of cultural commodity production on amass industrial scale. As such the complex play between art as commodityand as autonomous form collapsed as the independent artist gave way to theculture factory.14

151.3 The autonomy of art1.3.1 Aesthetics The invention of aesthetics is usually attributed to the German writerAlexander Baumgarten, in the mid-18th century, and its more systematicelaboration to Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Judgement(Caygil, 1990;Bowie, 2003). In very general terms it suggests that the sensual world asmanifested in art has a distinct status from that of pure sense perception andfrom pure rational understanding. In German romantic and critical philosophy,the aesthetic came to stand for a way of knowing the world through itssensuous particularity rather than the abstract universals of scientific-rationalknowledge. In this way it also came to be seen as a response to or rejectionof the market and the industrial-bureaucratic society that reduced everythingto interchangeable commodities and administered objects. The autonomyclaimed by Ôaesthetic artÕ (Ranciere 2004; 2009) related then to both itsrefusal of certain tendencies in modernity and its promise of a reconciledfuture life Ð what Adorno called the Ôutopian promiseÕ of art. FollowingBourdieu (1984) this autonomy has frequently been reduced to a strategy bywhich the emergent bourgeoisie attempted to represent its particular taste asuniversal taste. Similarly KantÕs idea that art be ÔdisinterestedÕ is equated withan exclusion of those lower classes driven by need and an (over) emphasison the higher faculties at the expense of ÔvulgarÕ bodily pleasures. In this wayÔhigh aestheticsÕ is reduced to an ideological assault on the ÔlowÕ pleasures ofpopular culture (Carey, 2005; McKee, 2006; Ð and more intelligentlyStallybrass and White, 1986; Eagleton, 1990). This reduction ignores thecrucial role of aesthetics in shaping ideas of modern subjectivity and therelationship between individual and society, the particular and the universalthat is at the heart of debates around the cultural and creative industries. 1.3.2 Autonomous art: production and consumptionHowever autonomy is interpreted, from the 18th century onwards (thoughsome time before that in literature) the main mediator between artist andpublic became the market; and it was a market that extended beyond thelocal, beyond the national, onto a European and international scale. The workof art increasingly became a commodity that could generate unprecedented

16wealth at the top end. This is something artists both resisted and exploited;on the one hand it reduced something with intrinsic, ÔsacredÕ value to aninterchangeable exchange value; but on the other, it freed the artist fromdirect dependence on a patron, giving them the social and financial space(and incentive) to pursue their artistic development (cf. Williams, 1981). At the same time the moment of composition and the moment ofconsumption became separated in time and space, and both acts themselvesdispersed across different social times and spaces. Thus one aspect of thisÔautonomyÕ was that artists (and this category gained common currencyacross the 18th century) found direct communication with an audience or apublic increasingly opaque. This was the social context in which artistsuncovered a space in which to develop the intrinsic possibilities of theirmaterial, to an extent that marked European art off from that of other greatcontemporary cultures. It introduced a concern with formal innovation intothe work of even the most ÔconservativeÕ of artists Ð Bach and Mozart orWatteau and Gainsborough. Each looked to the development of these formalpossibilities in ways that could and did disrupt communication from time totime. In Beethoven, Delacroix, Courbet or Flaubert this impulse became morepronounced, reaching an explicit ideology in avant-garde modernism. Here isthe space of social critique that Adorno invoked. 1.3.3 Art, utility and the marketThe supposed 19th century opposition between pure art and the sordid worldof commerce and industry is a clichŽ that animates much talk aboutcontemporary arts and cultural industries policy. This opposition is much moreambiguous when examined in historical detail. As cultural consumption beganto extend from relatively small circles to those new social groups involved inthe mercantilist expansion of economies and empires (Bayly, 2004), thicklayers of chintz hid the commercial basis of art markets; but its reality was afact of life for any aspiring artist, musician or man of letters. By the middle ofthe 19th century, with industrialisation in full spate, this growing culturalcommodification, as Adorno indicates, provoked a resistance in the form of arange of artistic and (to use an anachronistic term) ÔlifestyleÕ strategies. Theformer would include Ôart for artÕs sakeÕ, a radical engagement with left-wingpolitics, or a more ambiguous stroll through the dark side of modernity; the

17latter might produce the aesthete, the Ôman of the peopleÕ, the bohemian orthe fl‰neur. But the art-market nexus is much more complex than the art-utility separationallows. The account of Pierre Bourdieu (1996) portrays a complex structure ofstate and party political organisations, educational institutions and academies,private publishing houses and galleries, philanthropists, subscribers, thepress, salons, journals, bohemian cafŽs, theatres, and concert halls Ð thewhole panoply of that Ôpublic sphereÕ across which artistic value was createdand realised. The production of cultural commodities was not simplyorganised around volume sales (Ôthe marketÕ) but on a complex and volatilevalidation through the intricate play of fine art academies, journals andopposing salons. Indeed, this Ôcreative fieldÕ allowed the emergence of aÔrestrictedÕ economy of artistic products that explicitly rejected marketsuccess yet gained high prestige (cultural capital) Ð which, in turn, couldtranslate into economic success.1.3.4 Cultural policy against the marketAdornoÕs notion of the Culture Industry went in parallel with an emergentpost-war cultural policy discourse which attempted to intervene against themarket in order to secure culture from the miasma of commerciality. Thiswas not simply a case of what we now call Ômarket failureÕ, where the Statesteps in to do what the market cannot; it was a positive intervention toreduce or regulate the role of the market in that public sphere through whichcultural valuation and validation took place. In doing so it reduced the ÔcreativefieldÕ through which culture was produced and circulated to an opposition ofÔmarketÕ and ÔculturalÕ value – cultural policy springing to the defence of thelatter in the face of the former. The ways in which, for example, the ArtsCouncil of Great Britain drew lines between what should and should not befunded based around the extent of commercialisation present is welldocumented (Hewison, 1997; Lewis, 1991). This should not be interpretedsimply as the acquisition by Žlite taste groups of the public fundingmechanism (though it certainly was this) but also of a wider renegotiation ofthe relationship between the State and culture. The roots of this are deep, going back to early modernity. But the ÔcivilisingprocessÕ of the 19th century is increasingly linked to the legitimation of the

Nation-State in mass democracy Ð the invention of tradition, the promotion ofnational heritage sites, archives, museums and a musical and literary canon(Hobsbawn and Ranger, 1983; Anderson, 1983; Bennett, 1998). But there isalso a strong social-democratic element to be found emerging in the 1920sand 1930s (expressed in more forthright terms in the Soviet Union) andemerging with great vigour after 1945, when the masses were to be givenaccess to their birthright, and the inherited culture of the nation and humanity,which as a whole had been previously restricted by a lack of education andleisure, as well as by the private property rights of the rich and the disgraced(in mainland Europe at least) aristocracy. The nationalisation of culture thusentailed an element of democratic collectivisation. 1.4 The masses and industrial cultureAs we noted above, the roots of post-war cultural policy are long, going backto strong traditions of the transformative power of the arts, while also havinga more prosaic role in the civilisation of the masses. Accompanying thebuilding of galleries and museums in London, Leeds and Manchester, inMarseilles and Lille, in Boston and St Louis and in cities across the face ofthe industrialising world were grandiose claims about the historical mission ofthese new urban civilisations – the New Athens, the New Florence etc. (Hunt,2004). Along with these came the more pragmatic claim that only in this waycould the dangerous classes be brought out of ignorance and anarchy. Theother side, of course, was a fear of the dilution of this culture as it wasspread across a semi-literate mass. This was a classic ambiguity played outacross a range of optimistic and pessimistic approaches to the forthcomingÔrise of the massesÕ.The turn of the twentieth century saw mass education, along with growingspending power and disposable leisure time, combine with a range oftechnological and business innovations to produce a new wave of culturalproduction and consumption. As Adorno notes, this growingcommercialisation affected not just Ômiddle browÕ or working class culture;much of this new consumption took its model precisely from high art. Filmlooked to theatre (and the piano players to the Great Masters), popular musicto opera and the symphony concert, ÔpulpÕ writing to the great literary stylists,photography to fine art and so on (Frith, 1998). But equally, Ôhigh artÕ also was18

19drawn into the new dynamics of commercial culture. For example, therecorded music industry transformed the field of classical music (indeedhelped coin the term). It made stars out of Caruso, Chaliapin, Toscanini andcomposers such as Stravinsky. It restructured orchestral playing and singingstyles; and opened up new possibilities of home and private listening(Eisenberg, 2005). Similar arguments could be made about cinema and thetheatre (including opera and ballet). More conservative critics such as T.S. Eliot or D.H. Lawrence saw themasses as impervious, even antithetical to culture Ð and John Carey (1992)has traced such views. Others were more concerned about the impact ofnew forms of culture on traditional left wing culture. Edmund WilsonÕsending in 1940 of his To the Finland Station(2004) points the way, wherebaseball and football take over from left wing politics, introducing the themeof mass apolitical consumerism which was to follow in the 1950s. J.B.Priestley (1934) writes about the cinemaÕs impact on the popularimagination, eroding local cultures, and providing them with dreams withlittle to do with their real lives. He sees soullessness at the NottinghamGoose Fair, where the mechanical rides exhilarate but somehow empty theold communal experience of the fair. The impact of ÔAmericanÕ commercialculture on both the indigenous Ôfolk traditionsÕ and Ð especially in the UK Ðon older working class communities is a theme that persists into thetradition of Richard Hoggart (1957) and others, forming the basis of anengagement with these themes through ÔBritish Cultural StudiesÕ (Bennett,1990; Frow, 1995; Turner, 2002).

The rediscovery of the tradition ofmodernist radicalism by the post-1968 counter-culture brought withit a new articulation of anti-capitalist critique aroundalienation, restriction of freedom,and the need for authenticity Ð allgiven powerful voice by very activebohemian and artistic traditions(Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005; Binkley, 2007).20

2Cultural industries: politicaleconomy and cultural politics2.1 New critiques of cultureAdornoÕs account of the Culture Industry resonated with post-war anxietiesabout mass, industrial or ÔAmericanisedÕ culture, and the debates around acultural policy concerned to protect a European cultural tradition againstthese threats. AdornoÕs crucial contribution of a theory of modernistaesthetics and politics, emphasising the connection between art and societyat the level of formal logics and contradictions, made its way along verydifferent intellectual pathways. The rebellions of the Ôcounter-cultureÕ and May Õ68 involved a challenge toestablished cultural hierarchies. This challenge saw a rediscovery of themodernist and avant-garde debates of the interwar period and their concernwith politics and form. (Jameson, 1971; Adorno et al, 1977). These radicalformal questions had been outlawed by Nazi and then Soviet ÔrealistÕaesthetics. But so too was post-war democratic cultural policy (whereuniversal access would ensure a common participation in a national, andsometimes European, heritage) increasingly challenged by the discovery of astrong radical intent embodied in much of that modernist/avant-gardetradition consigned to the outer rooms of the great European culturalnarrative. More generally the Left, faced with the evident success ofcapitalism, were drawn to cultural accounts of its persistence and of newerforms of opposition to it. In this context AdornoÕs Culture Industry, ascultural collapse or as total system, was subjected to increased scrutiny. Onthe one hand the Culture Industry had grown enormously in scope andvisibility since his first writing, but on the other, it was clear that his accountof it was simply not adequate.In the UK we can find two distinct bodies of work in which AdornoÕs accountwas interrogated: British Cultural Studies and the political economy school1. 211For reasons of space I omit the US based ÔProduction of CultureÕ school. cf. Peterson, 1976, 1982, 1990; DiMaggio,1977; DiMaggio and Useem, 1978; Becker, 1984; also discussions in Wolff (1981) and Hesmondhalgh (2007)

2.2 British cultural studiesThere is extensive literature on this, but we can identify three aspects orphases which are useful for our theme. First were those community studiesof working class life and traditions which attempted to assert their culturalvalidity in the face of the more dominant, ÔofficialÕ culture (e.g. Hoggart,1957). This went hand in hand with Raymond WilliamsÕ work on this officialculture, trying to both historicise the notion of art and culture, and to give it amore sociological (and ÔprogressiveÕ) grounding than those official (andconservative) accounts of culture established by writers such as T.S. Eliotand F.R. Leavis before the Second World War (Williams, 1958; 1961). Williams was never naive about the institutional entrenchment of dominantvalues and the relationship of symbolic products to these. The newer groupsorganised in the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studiestookthis further using theory brought in from Italy (Gramsci especially) andFrance (most notably Althusser). Taking up the challenge of WilliamsÕÔculture is ordinaryÕ, they rejected older ideas of commercial Ômass cultureÕbeing a threat to a working class Ôway of lifeÕ and saw, in subculturesespecially, new forms of popular culture Ð around music, leisure spaces,clothes, consumer objects Ð not as passive consumption but as active formsof symbolic resistance to the dominant social order (cf. Hall and Jefferson,1976; Gilroy, 1992).A third phase, from the late 1970s onwards, extended this examination ofsymbolic domination and resistance, as ThatcherÕs new conservative agendabegan to roll over the political, social and cultural landscape of Britain. Thiscriticism became more pronounced as new (post)structuralist tools werebrought in to help with the task of reading/de-coding popular symbolicproducts. On the one hand critics saw an abandonment of real economicanalysis in favour of textual analysis (Garnham, 1990); on the other Ð andmore worryingly – they felt that this emphasis brought a much moreambiguous cultural politics (McGuigan, 1992). 2.3 The political economy of culture TheÕ political economy of cultureÕ school was fiercely opposed to theemphasis on the ideological effects of cultural objects conceived exclusively22

as ÔtextsÕ rather than as commodities. In Britain the key work was done byNicholas Garnham, who had worked with Graham Murdock, James Curranand others to develop a critical approach to political communication andbroadcasting policy (Garnham, 1990; Curran and Seaton, 1991; Murdoch andGolding, 1973). In part sparked by their work, from the late 1970s, Williamsalso made a significant contribution, attempting to link the political economywriting with insights from cultural studies (1981). The Ôpolitical economy schoolÕ grew out of a more scholarly engagementwith MarxÕs work, begun in the 1960s and 1970s, and in particular thosequestions of base and superstructure, economy and culture, capital andstate which seemed to have re-emerged with new force. Previousassertions of a ÔmaterialistÕ basis for art and culture Ð that they reflectedinterests or stages of evolution elsewhere in the economic base Ð wereseen as far too simplistic. Garnham (1990) along with Williams (1981) arguedthat this ÔmaterialismÕ tended to be both too much and not enough. Toomaterialist in the sense that culture was seen to be completely reducible tothe needs of ÔcapitalÕ or the Ôruling classÕ; not materialist enough in thesense that, once stated, there was no examination of how this culture gotproduced, by whom and under what conditions. The central contention ofthe political economy school was that under capitalism culture wasincreasingly produced as a commodity, and thus subject to the logic and thecontradictions of this system of production. This approach thus identified 4 areas where AdornoÕs thesis seemed lacking.2.3.1 Cultural use valueAgainst AdornoÕs total system of pre-programmed cultural commodities,they argued that Ôuse valueÕ had to satisfy some fundamental human needfor meaning or enjoyment. There was a clear need for new and differentproducts, to see these products as the work of a creative individual or team,and to feel a certain authenticity of meaning and enjoyment. There is thus anunderlying tension between exchange and use value at the heart of thecultural commodity. Cultural commodities are expensive to produce butcheap to reproduce Ð the more copies sold the greater the return on theoriginal investment. But there are limits on this reproduction; people are notcontent to consume the same, they want new and different products. For23

this reason cultural commodities are prone to a short shelf life, and incomehas to be maximised before it hits the sell-by date. 2.3.2 Prediction and pre-programmingThe second charge was that the prediction and Ôpre-programmingÕ ofaudience response was simply not possible. Indeed, as many writersstressed, it was often hard to know if a product would sell at all! PetersonÕs(1990) account of the emergence of rockÔnÕroll could stand as a classicexample here, but a whole list of examples from books, films, music andbroadcasting illustrated the volatility and unpredictability of demand forcultural products. Taken together, the need for new and appealing productcoupled with the unpredictability of demand meant that the Culture Industrywas faced with a difficult business model Ð though whether this is a difficultbusiness problematic (Caves, 2000) or a fundamental contradiction (Ryan,1992) is a matter of debate.2.3.3 Multiple culture industries The third charge against Adorno was that his totalising concept of the CultureIndustry failed to register the distinctions between the different kinds ofcultural commodities that were derived from the mechanism wherebyexchange value was collected. Miege (1979; 1987; 1989) was mostsystematic in his taxonomies. In general there were three different models ofrealising exchange value. First, physical objects carrying cultural content weresold as commodities to individuals Ð books, records, videos etc. Second,television and radio broadcasting were (apart from what was then a limitedsubscription audience) available free to consumers and made money out ofadvertising and sponsorship. Here there were strong interventions by theState, often taking broadcasting completely out of private ownership andproviding it as a public service financed by taxation. In most States some mixof public service and commercial stations was in place. Newspapers andmagazines occupied an intermediary position, where individual copies werepaid for but advertising brought in the bulk of the revenue. Thirdly, thoseforms associated with public performance Ð music, theatre, and especiallycinema – depended on restricted viewing and charging an admission fee. As24

such, the concept of the Culture Industry gave way to that of the culturalindustries, each sub-sector with different ways of realising exchange value,different ways of managing demand and creative labour, and different levelsof capital investment and corporate control.2.3.4 The independent artistThe fourth area of critique was the status of creative labour in the culturalindustries. Given the centrality of the radically free creative genius to thewestern art tradition since the 18th century, the absorption of the artist intothe Culture Industry was, as we have seen, a key index of culturalcatastrophe. Though Adorno predicted this total absorption, he recognisedthat many areas of the Culture Industry still operated on an artisan basis,with the creators remaining ÔfreeÕ – if only to starve. The political economyschool argued that this ÔartisanÕ basis not only persisted but did not look likedisappearing. Williams (1981) attempted to give an historical account of the status of thecultural producer as they moved out of patronage into production for themarket. We move from direct artisanalproduction for the market to a post-artisanal phase in which at first, cultural products are distributed by a marketintermediary. Gradually this market intermediary becomes more productive,investing in the purchase of work for the purpose of profit Ð and thus it isthe intermediary rather than the artists who has direct relations with themarket. In the 19th century a more complex process sees the artist workingas market professional,becoming much more directly involved in themarketing process, and through copyright and royalties he has a direct sharein the profits. The next stage is thecorporate professional, where largecultural producers directly employ full-time salaried workers. Williams seesthis at its most extensive in the Ônew mediaÕ sector Ð cinema, radio, andtelevision Ð where high levels of capitalisation and technology are involved.Though this seemed likely to Williams in the early 1980s this turned out notto be the whole case; as we shall see, Ôcreative labourÕ remained very muchabout freelancers, short term contracts and flexible working (see alsoOakley, 2009a).25

2.4 From culture industry to cultural industries policyHesmondhalgh (2007) underlines the importance of the change interminology from ÔCulture IndustryÕ to Ôcultural industriesÕ. It involved aconceptual shift that by the early 1980s had given rise to a more empiricallybased understanding of the complex structure and variable dynamics atwork in the production of culture. It allowed an understanding of theconnections between technologies of production and distribution, changingbusiness models, the emergent connections between symbolic andinformational goods, and between culture and communications systems. Itmade more clear the connections and contradictions between theproduction and circulation of culture and the wider ideological needs of theState; and it focused attention on the ambiguous status of creative labourwithin the whole system. But it was not just a research agenda or critique -it opened up AdornoÕs total system to the possibility of a new kind of culturalpolitics.Given the above, it was clear that the cultural industries could no longer becharacterised simply as the ÔotherÕ to authentic art; and both would benefitfrom a more neutral sociological approach as the production and circulationof symbolic forms or texts. It also suggested that the cultural industriesthemselves could be brought within the orbit of cultural policy Ð but how? In France for example, renewed US pressure for a de-regulation of (andaccess to new markets for) cultural trade in the late 1970s around theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) talks, had met with a newsense that the cultural industries needed to be protected as part of anational cultural policy. Building on the work of Miege and others, some inthe French Ministry of Culture argued that as the vast majority of culturalproducts consumed were produced by the commercial sector these couldnot be simply left to fend for themselves whilst the (minority) arts absorbedall the attention (Girard, 1982). The experiments in France and elsewhere were part of a wider re-think ofcultural policy Ð away from the unitary notion of the Nation-State and itsheritage to something more diverse and complex. But it was also about amore active and democratic involvement in cultural policy-making andcultural production (Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993). Williams (1981) hadnoted that technology was becoming cheaper and more generally available.26

Electronic sound production and mixing, cassette recorders, video recordersand cameras, photocopying, printing, photography Ð these weretransforming the production and circulation of text, image and sound, with amassive proliferation of both commodified and non-commodified activity.These came with a revival of those debates from the 1920s about thetransformative power of technology in the hands of the masses (Benjamin,1970). This level of activity was increasingly counter-posed to the dead handof corporate control. It was a sensibility that had exploded in Punk and Post-Punk, and the history of the Greater London CouncilÕs (GLC) culturalindustries strategy is unthinkable without it (Savage, 1992; Reynolds, 2005;Haslam, 2005). The GLCÕs work between 1979 and 1986 has rightly been credited with thefirst cultural industries strategy at a local level but it is more than this Ð itwas a series of sketches for a contemporary democratic cultural policy.Bianchini (1987) identified the influence of Italian cultural policies Ð therevived Communist Parties trying to engage the younger, more urban andmore radicalised cultures which had emerged out of the contestations of the1970s. GarnhamÕs 1983 paper for the GLC is often taken as an account oftheir activity (Garnham 1990).The crucial point made by Garnham is that art and the market are notinimical to each other Ð the market is a relatively efficient way of allocatingresources and reflecting choice. Public policy can and should use the marketas a way to distribute cultural goods and services Ð and to do so in a waythat follows audience demand rather than the ambitions of the producersthemselves. GarnhamÕs focus was not on local economic productionstrategy but on developing a democratic cultural policy based on aneducated and informed audience demand to which publicly-owneddistribution companies and cultural producers alike could respond. It wasexplicitly not about that support for local cultural producers with which theGLC is most identified and which he associates with encouraging a supplyfor which there is no audience. There are three key points here.First, his emphasis on audience research, efficient marketing and respondingto demand, whilst making an important point about the responsibilities ofpublicly funded culture, failed to take any account of the processes of27

innovation, of reinvention, of counter factual imagination that come preciselyfrom the disjunction between what the artist wants to produce and what thepublic wants to receive, or between the aspirations to the new and the factsof revealed preference. Second, Garnham said that access to cultural production is necessarilyrestricted if a Ôreserve army of the unemployedÕ is to be avoided. ItÕs notclear just how this restriction might be effected given the growingaspirations to active cultural production which the GLC vision reflected; nor,despite the training for under-represented minorities, how long-standingcultural and economic exclusions from cultural production might beaddressed. Third, GarnhamÕs was a very partial account of the GLCÕs cultural industriesstrategy Ðhardly given the time to develop in reality. The impact onsubsequent local economic and cultural strategies was however very high. Itrepresented an attempt to break out of a cultural policy centred on the ÔartsÕÐ and on subsidies to artists and producing institutions as the foundation ofthat policy. The strategies began to address the conditions of thecommercial production of culture using economic and statistical tools (e.g.value-chains, employment mapping), focusing on how the sector as a wholeworked Ð including those crucial ancillary and non-creative activities. As suchit represented an industrial approach to cultural policy, using economicmeans to achieve cultural (and economic) objectives.2.5 Cultural policy: politics and aesthetics The increasing insertion of cultural industries into a new kind of democraticcultural policy raises some fundamental issues around economics andculture, but also culture and politics. The political economy school tended tolook more to the political and ideological implications of ownership andcontrol, of concentration and monopoly, of the fraught lines between publicand private, especially in the dominant broadcast media sphere. This thrustbecame increasingly pronounced as de-regulation strategies grew apace inthe 1980s and 90s (Hesmondhalgh, 2007). AdornoÕs modernist aesthetics saw the space of social critique residing verymuch in the formal qualities of the work of art; but such ÔformalismÕ was still28

rather avant-garde in the 1970s. The traditional left saw the critical functionof art residing in its techniques of representation, of it generating a realistaccount of the world (Jameson, 1977). Though never stated directly, there isa sense in the political economy school that this representational function ispolitically the most central and within this the word (written and spoken) isparamount (Garnham, 2000). Cultural Studies, on the other hand, looked todifferent qualities residing in the specific formal and semiotic structures ofthe text.This is not just a difference over modernist formalism, but over a widersense of the role of ÔartÕ in contemporary society. What was that space ofautonomy whose loss Adorno saw as a catastrophe? Williams, for example,was clear that art was not a ÔsacredÕ transhistorical category, but it didrepresent a fundamental human need (Williams, 1981). In its search for anintrinsic value as ÔartÕ it represented a site of contestation with capitalism Ðnot simply as a site of ideological and political struggle of representation butas a symbolic assertion of an ÔauthenticÕ meaning that should be, though forWilliams was not, part of everyday, ordinary culture. We saw that thisformed a crucial part of the notion of aesthetic theory; that art should beseparate from the everyday (and thus critical of it) yet always carry thepromise that it might one day be an authentic part of it. For others in culturalstudies the aesthetic tradition, as a form of bourgeois ideology, is simply anillusion to be overcome, a trap to be avoided (Wolff, 1983; Bennett, 1990;Frow, 1995).On the other hand, this ÔartisticÕ or Ôcultural oppositionÕ to capitalism, thepromise to Ôchange lifeÕ, as Rimbaud said, had very real social and politicalconsequences, not least from the 1960s onwards. The rediscovery of thetradition of modernist radicalism by the post-1968 counter-culture broughtwith it a new articulation of anti-capitalist critique around alienation,restriction of freedom, and the need for authenticity Ð all given powerfulvoice by very active bohemian and artistic traditions (Boltanski and Chiapello,2005; Binkley, 2007). In many respects indeed, this aesthetic promise wasseen to reside also in forms of popular culture (Frith, 1998). However muchthese impulses have subsequently been held to lead to new forms of post-material consumption (see below), they cannot be easily dismissed asmerely post-Kantian illusions (Ranciere, 2004; 2009).29

30ÔCultureÕ, previously seen as amarginal and mainly decorative orprestige expenditure, began tomove much closer to the centre ofpolicy-making as a potentialeconomic resource.

3From cultural to creativeindustries31The abolition of the GLC in 1986 took place against the backdrop of theremoval by the Conservative Government of a number of internal politicaloppositions, not least the National Union of Mineworkers whose strikecollapsed in March 1985. The cultural industries policy agenda did notdisappear, but moved beyond London to a number of the other metropolitanauthorities and residual bodies which had been abolished in the sameprocess. These bodies lacked the profile, ambition and resources (political,financial and intellectual) of the GLC initiative, which contributed in part tothe increased emphasis on the specific economic dimensions of the culturalindustries agenda. 3.1 From cultural to local economic policyIn many ways this shift had a pragmatic basis and its elaboration into aworkable body of policy knowledge happened outside academia, outsidenational government circles, and usually on the periphery of localgovernment where economic development agencies, struggling to come toterms with an expanded agenda and reduced resources, intersected withthe arts funding agencies. ThatcherÕs struggle against the (mainly Labour)local authorities in the 1980s saw a massive restriction in their powers ofplanning and local taxation. At the same time they were being asked todeliver an economic development agenda based on the belief thatmanufacturing was finished and that the only room for manoeuvre was toprovide a business-friendly environment and relevant local skills. Economicdevelopment departments were fairly new to British local government, andthey struggled to develop an agenda that would work with nationalgovernment imperatives and a more local Labour Party political base. Afterthe national elections of 1987 the large metropolitan areas transformed theirvision for the future around making this agenda work for their cities. Butlocal economic development became, not just a necessity, but also a site inwhich a new urban vision was forged; for some this was a betrayal of anolder politics, for others it was an attempt to seize the initiative in a changingworld (Hall and Jacques, 1989; Hirst, 1989; Thompson, 2002; Finlayson,2003). In the process ÔcultureÕ, previously seen as a marginal and mainlydecorative or prestige expenditure, began to move much closer to thecentre of policy-making as a potential economic resource.

The arts sector began to develop arguments about managerial efficiency andeconomic benefits in terms of employment, tourism and imageenhancement. John Myerscough (1988) developed a model for measuringthe impact of spending on the arts; not just direct spending on employment(how many jobs per pound ÔinvestedÕ, as the new terminology had it) butattendance at arts events generated spending in cafŽs, restaurants andother local amenities. Myerscough was able to use a Ômultiplier effectÕwhich gave a figure for the additional employment and local spendgenerated by public investment in the arts. MyerscoughÕs work foregrounded the localeconomic impact of the arts.Local authorities in fact spent significant amounts of money on the arts, andthey too were keen to assert the economic benefits of this spend. But,given the difficult economic circumstances facing the old industrial townsand cities, this spend was now linked with an agenda of developing newvisitor attractions. Visitors would spend locally and these new facilitieswould also have an image enhancement effect: they would announce a newforward-looking image of the city to the wider world. In addition, thedevelopment of new cultural facilities was Ð following an emergent USmodel Ð increasingly linked to other leisure, retail and office developments.After museums came the cultural quarters and with that, a discourse ofculture-led urban renaissance which is still with us (Bianchini and Parkinson,1993; Landry, 2000; Bell and Jayne, 2004; Evans and Foord, 2005;Roodhouse, 2006; Montgomery, 2007).These kinds of arguments were in the main developed between the localarts funding agencies and local economic development agencies through theintermediation of cultural consultants. In this period Ôarts and culturalpoliciesÕ became much more about the management of the cultural sectoras a complex whole, and its integration with the general strategic vision ofthe City; it demanded new analytical tools and knowledge from outsidetraditional arts policy making. A new kind of professional was needed toelaborate this knowledge within local policy fields. This was not availablewithin academia; it was elaborated at the level of a small community ofcultural consultants, the most well-known of which, Comedia, came directlyout of the GLC experience. It was from within this emergent field also thatNew LabourÕs creative industries policies began to take shape. Oftenportrayed as purely opportunist, or indeed philistine (Ôthe value of nothingÕetc.) this generation of cultural policy vision in fact responded to some far-32

33reaching transformations in the economic and cultural landscape, which weneed to understand. 3.2 From market to marketsThe GLCÕs Ôalternative economic strategyÕ resonated with a wider Europeanleft-wing concern to assert a distinctly new agenda in the face of both thefailures of Soviet-style top down planning, and the neo-liberal vision of thederegulation of capital and labour markets at national and international levels.New left thinking was focused on public economic and urban interventionswhich reflected the general distrust of large scale top-down planning andnew kinds of personal and political aspirations. This had emerged quite earlyat the level of local city planning (Jacobs, 1961).In this process the market itself was subjected to re-evaluation. Theanalytical tools used to understand value chains in the cultural industries andwhere intervention might be most effective had involved a new engagementwith the market mechanism. This was less driven by GarnhamÕs overallanalysis than by other activists from within community arts and politics.Charles Landry, a founder of Comedia, led a team of distinguished writers inWhat a Way to Run a Railroad(Landry et al, 1985). This was a harsh critiqueof the way in which ÔalternativeÕ community businesses were run. What wasoften dressed up as romantic bohemian idealism was in fact incompetence.There was no reason, they argued, that arts and community businessesshould not be run professionally and with an understanding of the market.But what kind of market?3.3 Fordism, post-fordism and the Ôspatial turnÕIn the later 1980s political economists and economic geographers began totalk of a shift from mass production to Ôflexible specialisationÕ and ÔPost-fordismÕ (Lash and Urry, 1987; 1994; Scott, 1988; Harvey, 1989; Lipietz,1992; Amin, 1994). This was an argument about the increasingfragmentation and volatility of consumer markets. Predictable patterns ofmass consumption had given way to smaller niche markets and theproliferation of goods and services which had a higher ÔsymbolicÕ content

34and could appeal to new ways of constructing social identity away from theÔmainstreamÕ. Responses to these new consumer markets demanded fasterand more detailed flows of information back to the producer and an ability torespond to quickly changing demand through a more flexible productionprocess. A crucial outcome of this in the developed Western countries was thegrowth of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). This wasaccompanied by a focus on regions with strong SME networks. Likemarkets, these networks were place-specific and grew out of establishedsocial and cultural traditions (Granovetter, 1973; 1983; 1985; Markusen,1996). In opposition to the abstracting categories of modernist economicgeography, the late 1980s saw an increased emphasis on social space as acrucial factor in economic understanding – an emphasis which ran in closeparallel to the Ôcultural turnÕ in this and indeed many other social scientificdisciplines (Soja, 1989; Crang, 1997). In terms of an emerging culturalindustries policy field we can see three consequences of this approach. First, the Ôspatial turnÕ moved away from the unified national economicspace of modernity towards more fluid and multi-layered spatial levels. Thisin itself reflected the increased awareness of a new dynamic, and theintensity of global (and this itself was a new kind of scale) mobility Ð ofcapital, people, knowledge and things. Manuel CastellsÕ hugely influentialbook The Rise of the Network Society(1996) pointed to a new global scaleof exchanges built around interlocking networks. Second, the emphasis on spatial proximity and local SME networkssuggested that not all economic transactions are based on immediate,ÔrationalÕ calculations of profit and loss. ÔClusteringÕ produced a range ofeconomic benefits Ð pools of common knowledge and skills, flexible humanresources, relations of trust and a sense of common goals – which were ashared effect of these networks themselves and acted as ÔuntradedexternalitiesÕ (Porter, 1998a; 1998b; Cooke and Morgan, 1998; Gordon andMcCann, 2000; Martin and Sunley, 2003; Wolff and Gertler, 2004).Third, these Ôuntraded externalitiesÕ, bonds of trust and common goals, werecomplemented by shared local knowledge which was rooted in local socialstructures, institutions and cultures. Local companies participated in theproduction and exploitation of this knowledge, which was mostly tacit Ð it

35gave competitive advantage because it could not be easily transferred orreplicated outside of these local conditions (Maskell and Malmberg, 1999;Maskell, 2001; Simmie, 2003; 2004; Bathelt, Malmberg and Maskell, 2004;Gertler, 2003).3.4 The rise of small and medium sized enterprises This new attitude to markets, a more fluid economic and social space alongwith recognition of locally embedded clusters and SME networks, and of thespecific social, political and cultural context in which they operated, had veryobvious implications for the cultural industries. One element that theÔcultural industriesÕ perspective shared with that of Adorno was the focus onthe large corporations involved in cultural production and distribution, who, ifnot coterminous with the whole of cultural production, certainly seemed tooccupy its commanding heights. Whilst freelancers and independentbusinesses persisted even at the heart of the corporate sector, they were anartisanal survival related to older, less capitalised cultural forms; or linked toState subsidy; or kept on as a form of (self-) exploitation through flexiblecontracts, a reserve army of labour keeping wages low and paymentthrough royalties rather than for actual work done. However, it wasbecoming clear that freelancers and small, often micro-businesses were anextremely significant part of overall employment in the sector Ð and weregrowing fast (OÕBrien and Feist, 1995; 1997; Pratt, 1997; Creigh-Tyte andThomas, 2001).The schematic outline of the local value chain Ð pioneered for the culturalindustries by the GLC and extended throughout the UK by Comedia andother consultancies (now joined by a few academics) Ð formed the basis ofincreasingly detailed mapping. Such mapping exercises suggested fourthings. First, that the different sub-sectors (music, performance, visual art,TV etc.) were highly networked at the local level and that they operatedsomehow as ÔclustersÕ. Second, these clusters were generally centred onthe larger metropolitan areas, acting as the locus for urban networks and asservice hubs for more dispersed sectors (such as crafts or manufacture),suggesting that the City or urbanity itself offered something crucial to thecultural industries sector. Third, that the line between commercial andsubsidised sectors, between primarily economic and primarily cultural

activities, or indeed between motives of ÔartÕ and motives of profit was byno means clear-cut at this local level (Jeffcut, 2004; Pratt, 2004a). Finally, one of the key consequences of this growth in mapping work wasthe creation of the cultural industries as an object of policy. In the 1970s thecultural industries had been taken into cultural policy at national level (or byagencies such as UNESCO which aimed to defend threatened nationalcultures). From the GLC period on, it became an essential component of alllocal cultural strategies, codified as such in the UK after the creation of theDepartment of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in 1997. As aconsequence, one key objective of cultural industries policies in the late1990s was to get the sector to recognise itself precisely as a sector(OÕConnor and Gu, 2010). 3.5 Culture and economicsThe emergence of the cultural industries as a viable policy object needs tobe understood against a larger backdrop of a new narrative of the breakingdown of boundaries between economics and culture. For many, especially inthe arts sector, this was a benign narrative of a misplaced alliance, one inwhich both sides could now recognise the values they had so long missedin the other. Organisations such as Arts and Business, established to try andmaximise business investment in the arts sector at a time of savage publicfunding cuts, were not alone in making the case that these two could benatural allies not sworn enemies. In a crucial intervention, the Marxist geographer David Harvey (1989)surveyed the whole postmodern scene in the late 1980s and linked this withthe discussions about post-fordism, flexible specialisation, globalisation andthe collapse of the post-war socio-political settlement. A new economic andsocial order was emerging, organised around consumer markets forsymbolic goods in turn related to new forms of social distinction and identity.This was capitalÕs Ôcultural fixÕ. Harvey saw this Ôcultural fixÕ workingparticularly at the level of the City, where spectacles, festivals, shoppingexperiences and ethnic quarters had transformed the derelict industrial citiesof the developed world into centres of up-market cultural consumption.36

37Lash and Urry (1994) stressed more the role of symbolic consumption andÔaesthetic reflexivityÕ as central to the process of identity construction. Therewas great (self) awareness and investment in such symbolic consumptionand this had a profound effect on the organisation of production andcirculation. To CastellsÕ flows of people, money, goods and information wasadded a vast range of symbolic objects Ð texts, images, sounds, andexperiences. More crucially, it changed the position of the cultural industriesvis-ˆ-vis the rest of the economy. We saw above that the specific nature ofthe cultural commodity presented a number of problems for the realisationof profit; whether fundamental contradiction between use and exchangevalue, or a difficult business model. But the growth of symbolic consumptionmeant that the tensions and difficulties of producing for such a market hadbecome central to many different businesses. As a result, the culturalindustries were no longer seen as a strange remnant of an older productionsystem, but became the cutting edge, a template for the others to followinto a new economy of Ôsigns and spaceÕ. (Lash and Urry, 1994).3.6 New work culturesFor Lash and Urry (1987; 1994) the vertical disintegration of the bigcorporate structures to be found in the mainstream economy wasaccelerated within the cultural industries. It was not simply that sectors suchas television, music, design, film etc. were increasingly organised aroundclusters of SMEs and freelancers but that notions of aesthetic reflexivityand, in this sense, a more intuitive engagement with the eddies and tugs ofcultural currents, came into play as a central part of business operations.Cultural workers were no longer to be characterised as creatives crushed bythe wheels of a corporate sector whose values they resisted as best theycould; it was precisely these people who were in possession of the meansto operate most effectively. Here various factors tended to intersect. First, was the idea of creativity as a crucial resource for contemporaryeconomic development and personal growth Ð indeed these two werelinked in new ways. The literature on creativity is large, so I will point towhat I consider to be its salient points only here (Negus and Pickering, 2004;Banaji et al, 2007). First, it relates to innovation, increasingly seen as the keyto economic competitiveness. It tries to isolate the specific qualities that

give rise to new thinking, new ideas upon which innovation can build. Muchwriting therefore looks to right/left brain models, feminine/masculine modesof thought and other such Ôhard-wiredÕ neurological structures to beaccessed; others focus on types of education or cultural values that mayenhance or restrict these kinds of thinking. Though these often refer to theimportance of social environment, they tend to ignore the socio-historicalcontext in which notions like ÔcreativityÕ come to the fore. ÔInventivenessÕhad of course been a quality long established as vital for economic growth;but then ÔcreativityÕ as an essential attribute of the human came into focusat the very beginnings of modernity through the renaissance Ôdivine sparkÕ.Man became the measure, and soon the active producer, of all things. Aswe shall see, ÔcreativityÕ in the more recent sense draws on a specificÔartisticÕ quality, something deemed to be intuitive rather than calculative.Indeed, at a time when many in cultural studies were rejecting theÔaestheticÕ, its specific ways of understanding or representing the worldwere being mobilised as a new source of economic competitiveness.However, this ÔcreativityÕ tends to draw on a specifically modernist aestheticÐ the shock of the new, the disruptive, the counter-intuitive, the rebelliousand the risk-taker. These are qualities to be found only sparingly in mosttraditional notions of art: skill, craftsmanship, balance, harmony, the goldenmean, the middle way Ð all qualities which tend to be excluded from thisnew use of creativity (OÕConnor, 2006). This borrowing from an artistic discourse can be traced back through thechanging management literature of the 1970s and 1980s (Kelly, 1998; DuGay, 1996; 1997; Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005; Bilton, 2007). As wesuggested above, it linked to wider changes in the construction of socialvalues since the 1960s Ð echoing the shift traced by Beck (1992), from asense of social duty and finding oneÕs place to one of uncovering the self,and of expressing the self. ÔGetting looseÕ (Binkley, 2007) was also a processof self-discovery and it drew on the values of the bohemian and artistictraditions associated with modernism since the 19th century (Martin, 1981;Wilson, 2000; Lloyd, 2006). By the 1990s ÔcreativityÕ had emerged as aprime contemporary value, and a resource to be mobilised by business(Leadbeater, 1999; Rifkin, 2000; Howkins, 2001; Tepper, 2002).The second intersection was with the notion of the enterprising self (Heelasand Morris, 1992; Heelas, 2002). This of course was a key image promoted38

by ThatcherÕs attempt to re-introduce ÔVictorian valuesÕ – with the Ôself-mademanÕ, small businesses and the spirit of enterprise as its backbone. But aswith many initiatives by Thatcher it was taken up by those who did notnecessarily share her values. The Ôenterprising selfÕ chimed not just withsmall corner shops in Grantham but Ð as we have seen with respect to there-evaluation of the market Ð with many who had been marked by thecounter-cultureÕs rejection of the Ôorganisation manÕ and the public andprivate bureaucracies of the post-war period. Against this they asserted a do-it-yourself, work-for-yourself attitude that represented a powerful feeling ofliberation (OÕConnor and Wynne, 1996; McRobbie, 1999; Boltanski andChiapello, 2005). This notion of autonomous, meaningful work representedby freelancers and micro-businesses was to become a very powerful currentin New LabourÕs version of Ôcreative industriesÕ.The third intersection was with those accounts of the Ôculturalisation of theeconomyÕ, which stressed the centrality of culture in organisational change(Du Gay and Pryke, 2002). Responding to the challenges of the neweconomy meant not just abandoning the organisational structures of Fordism;it required a new organisational culture. Indeed, it was felt that without aculture change involving all the workers, a company could not flexiblycompete and respond to economic changes. The cultural industriesrepresented a classic case, where employees were expected to participate inthe ethos of the company and its goals, giving rise to the new managementstyle identified by Andrew Ross (2003) in No Collar. All these suggested thatculture and creativity were to be central to a new post-fordist economy.39

40Cities were now the neweconomic powerhouses, built onthe ability to process knowledgeand manipulate symbols.

4.1 The rediscovery of the cityWe saw above how academic writing around regional clusters and embeddednetworks had been taken up in the emergent policy discourse around culturalindustries and local economic development, suggesting close connectionsbetween the clustering of cultural industries and urbanity itself. These connections were an intrinsic part of that ÔrediscoveryÕ of the City whichtook place in the 1980s and 1990s. The Ônetwork societyÕ was predicated onthe growth of key nodal points which controlled and directed global flows(Castells 1996). Cities were now the new economic powerhouses, built on theability to process knowledge and manipulate symbols. A literature on global orworld cities followed, marking the re-emergence of the usual suspects Ð NewYork, London, Paris, Los Angeles, Hong Kong Ð plus a few new ones andleaving space for a range of second and third tier cities plugged into the newglobal infrastructure of flows (Sassen,1991; Philo and Kearnes, 1993). These different currents flowed together to generate a current of reform andtransformation of city life. This certainly applies to those developing a culturalindustries policy discourse; most cultural consultants were deeply concernedwith Ôthe art of city makingÕ (Mulgan and Walpole, 1986; Landry, 2000; 2006)and involved in projects around cultural venues and quarters, street markets,alternative retail, new forms of public art and signage, urban landscaping,architectural and larger scale regeneration projects, and campaigns such as theÔ24 hour cityÕ. This represented a coalition for urban transformation that drewon a European tradition rather than the real-estate driven model coming fromthe US (Bianchini and Parkinson, 1993). It stressed public space Ð in its widestsense Ð and how urban design as democratic planning and contemporaryaesthetics might provide the basis for a new popular urban vision. It looked toBarcelona rather than Boston, Montpellier rather than Philadelphia. From ourpoint of view however it needs to be emphasised that the cultural industriesthemselves were also part of this (very loose) urban coalition and their links tothe City are not just economic but cultural Ð and to an extent not frequentlyrecognised – ethical and political (Drake, 2003; Shorthose, 2004; OÕConnor,2004; Banks, 2007; OÕConnor and Gu, 2010). The connections between small-scale cultural producers and the City werefirst made in two books trying to make sense of the urban scene of the1970s. RabanÕs Soft City (1974), identified a new metropolitan middle classwho had broken with the consumption patterns of established class cultures414Creative cities

and introduced a dizzying array of styles and symbolic identifiers whichsuggested to the author the mystifying complexities of MayhewÕs London2.But, unlike MayhewÕs account of the lower depths of the 19th century poor,these puzzling new patterns were to be found in the realm of consumptionrather than production. The other book, Sharon ZukinÕs Loft Living, published in 1982 but very muchconcerned with events in the 1970s, took this production of urban life into anew kind of urban dynamic in which culture generated economic valuesrecouped, in the main, by the real estate, retail and leisure industries. Thestory of how artists in SoHo won their battle against the developers Ð whowanted to knock down this old industrial area and destroy the lofts which hadbecome home to many of New YorkÕs leading artists Ð only then to lose itagain as rental and property values went sky high, is well known. Zukin usedBourdieuÕs (1986) notion of cultural and economic capital to great effect as sheshowed how artists had transformed the image, the atmosphere of SoHo tocreate a trendy, bohemian urban village feel which was becoming verypopular. This model was subsequently generalised (Zukin 1991; 1995).This scenario of cultural gentrification is now fairly common, although moreoften intoned than actually examined. However we want to interpret theseclaims, two things at least are clear. First, that ÔcultureÕ has a direct impact onthe value of urban real estate, becoming a key element of culture-led urbanregeneration strategies. This impact can come from the large flagshipdevelopments Ð an art gallery, concert hall or museum Ð andfrom micro-activities associated with small scale cultural entrepreneurs and urban activists(Solnit, 2000; Lange, 2005; Pratt, 2009). Second, that the urbanity of city life isa crucial resource for all kinds of cultural activities which move between thecommercial and the non-commercial, the subsidised and the entrepreneurialwith great fluidity.4.2 A new urbanity?The proliferation of freelancers and micro-businesses in the cultural industriesacross the 1980s and 1990s cannot be understood without some reference tothese wider socio-cultural aspects. The ideas of breaking the 9-5, doing it foroneself, charting your own life course, of looking to express yourself, cannot422 London Labour and the London Poor (1851) is a work of Victorian journalism by Henry Mayhew. In the 1840s and1850s he observed, documented and described the state of working people in London for a series of articles in anewspaper, the Morning Chronicle, that were later compiled into book form

be put down simply to the Ôenterprise cultureÕ per se. Part of it was a takingback of control of cultural production in the face of corporate control. WhatWilliams had identified at the end of Culture(1981)- where technologies ofreproduction seemed ever more accessible to the everyday person -happened at the same time as the Ôpunk ethosÕ precisely stressed the Ôdo ityourselfÕ impulse (Savage, 1992; OÕConnor and Wynne, 1996; Reynolds,2005). Its later manifestation in Ôrave cultureÕ also used technologies in thisway (Redhead, 1990; Collin, 1997; Reynolds, 1998). In different ways theywere about contesting established culture and making the technologies ofreproduction work for you. The take-up of ThatcherÕs Ôenterprise allowanceschemeÕ was famously highest amongst cultural businesses; and ÔThatcherÕschildrenÕ were those forced to become entrepreneurs because there were noother options. Or rather, there were other options and they chose a culturalone (McRobbie, 1999; 2002; Haslam, 2005). This attempt to take some controlover cultural production was also linked to the wider transformation of the city;cultural entrepreneurs often linked their cultural and business aspirations toÔurban regenerationÕ, with strong social and local-political overtones (Haslam,2005; OÕConnor and Gu, 2010).The specific role of the urban milieu in the activities of the cultural industriesbecame an increasing concern of researchers, consultants and policy-makersin the later 1990s. One seminal work in this direction was Howard BeckerÕsArt Worlds(1982). In the tradition of the Ôproduction of cultureÕ school, itmoved away from an artist-centred account of the workings of the New Yorkart scene to include a range of intermediaries, impresarios, agents, galleryowners, lawyers, craftspeople, technicians and specialist material suppliers.Becker (and later, Diana CraneÕs The Production of Culture(1992)) attemptedthe sectoral approach to localised cultural production that we saw with theGLC and later value-chain analysis. In the later 1990s, economic geography(itself undergoing a Ôcultural turnÕ) began to link research around networks andclusters, innovative milieux and the competitive advantage of place to thespecific question of the cultural industries. In so doing, they were forced tograpple with the connections between the cultural qualities of place and theireconomic performance. Alfred MarshallÕs (1890) notion of the ÔatmosphereÕ ofa place giving it competitive advantage, translated usually as locally embeddedtacit knowledge, became linked to more explicitly cultural dimensions whentransferred to the field of cultural industries. Castells and Hall (1994), writingabout innovative milieux, certainly emphasised the rich institutional depth of43

the City Ð with universities, research and development institutions andcompanies, government agencies, availability of skills and know-how Ð buttheir focus on ÔtechnopolesÕ and science parks did not directly fit with themilieux of cultural industries. The work of Alan Scott, Andy Pratt and others began to push theseconnections. In ScottÕs The Cultural Economy of Cities (2000) and later articles(2001; 2002; 2004; 2006) he attempts to link the economic geographyliterature with empirical investigation of the cultural industries. He calls thisÔcultural commodity productionÕ which necessarily involves high levels ofhuman input, organised as clusters of small companies working on a projectbasis, where teams, partnerships and alliances dissolve and re-form constantly(cf. Bilton, 2007). They rely on dense flows of information, goods and services,and benefit from economies of scale in skills-sourcing and know-how. Theselocal clusters involve complex divisions of labour Ð driven especially by newICT developments Ð all of which work to tie people to places. Andy PrattÕsinvestigations of San Francisco and other Ôcool placesÕ also work within theseideas (2000; 2002; 2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2006). Indeed, researchers withinhuman geography have begun to provide much needed empirical investigationof networking and clustering in different locations and sub-sectors of thecultural industries. Others came at this from the perspective of the entrepreneurs themselves.Work conducted by the Manchester Institute for Popular Culture (MIPC)(Redhead, 1990; OÕConnor and Wynne, 1996; 1998) presented a more positiveinterpretation of contemporary urbanism and the role of cultural entrepreneursand intermediaries within it than Zukin (1995). It suggested that the linebetween ÔculturalÕ and ÔeconomicÕ activities in the sector was fluid, not justbetween the subsidised and non-subsidised ends of the spectrum but withincultural entrepreneurs and businesses. The difficult business model of thecultural industries – one whereby the economic value of any product waslinked to an uncertain future cultural value, and in which such product ideashad to operate in a collaboration with a number of other freelancers or smallbusinesses, or indeed with a few very big businesses Ð meant that networkshelped actors manage the inherent riskiness of their business (Banks et al,2000; Raffo et al,2000; Shorthose, 2004; Bilton, 2007). 44

4.3 Networking and the innovative milieu Networking in the cultural industries has provided a rich research vein inrecent years (Crewe, 1996; Coe, 2000; 2001; Grabher, 2001; 2002; 2004;Wittel, 2001; Ettlinger, 2003; Jeffcutt, 2004; Sturgeon, 2003; Nachum andKeeble, 2003; Neff, 2004; Mossig, 2004; Kong, 2005; Lange, 2005; Johns,2006). This reflects a much wider concern with the subject, suggesting tosome a complete new organisation and ÔspiritÕ of capitalism itself (Boltanskiand Chiapello, 2005). In particular it suggests the new forms of self-organisation of SME networks, and indeed, the replication of networkedorganisation within the structures of large, global companies (Amin andCohendet, 1999; Grabher, 2001; 2004). Grabher (2001) sees the cultural industries as organised in two sorts ofnetworks, those within the global corporation (or group of companies) andthose within localities (the ÔvillageÕ) Ð both are ÔheterarchiesÕ, self-regulatingsystems that allow not simply learning or adaptation but future-orientatedÔadaptabilityÕ. At the corporate level, there are instituted forums of debate andcommunication and a general aim to break up established understandings andpractices. At the local ÔvillageÕ level it is the communal context of skills,biographies and cultural orientations, often strongly tied to a sense of place,which acts as a kind of self-regulating ecosystem, an extremely adaptiveheterarchy. Grabher argues that collaboration in projects is often about short-term relationships Ð in that sense networks are not necessarily about relationsof personal trust Ð but that on dissolution they persist as latent networks readyto be re-activated. He argues further that if projects are about learning, this isremembered not by the individual participants but in the networks themselves,thus embedded in place (2004). Wittel (2001) argued that the loose social ties of the urban cultural milieu wereused by freelancers and businesses as a way of gaining knowledge andcontacts in a quite instrumental manner. Indeed, it represented a new form ofÔnetwork socialityÕ in which Ôcatch upÕ and quite rapid exchanges ofinformation was replacing the longer established connections of a ÔnarrativebasedÕ community sociality Ð one that built up a common mutualunderstanding over some time. This instrumentalisation of networks is echoedby McRobbie, 2002). But other work suggests that the use (or abuse) of suchpersonal connections takes place within certain limits set by the culture, orregulative eco-system, of these local networks which work to establish trust45

(Kong, 2005). Equally, there are many gradations of networking and manyforms of inclusion/exclusion which act to negotiate the personal/professionalambiguities involved. Banks (2007) wants to stress that cultural industrynetworks are embedded within a local Ômoral economyÕ that limits the abusesof network sociality by reputation and other social sanctions. There has certainly been increasing emphasis on that indefinableÔatmosphereÕ, the buzz, the scene, the genius loci, which make up a ÔcreativemilieuÕ (Hall, 1998; 2000). Research suggested that freelancers and microbusinesses Ð what Leadbeater and Oakley (1999) called Ôthe independentsÕ Ðoften began as part of a localised ÔsceneÕ, they were Ôactive consumersÕ, Ônearto the streetÕ, and this gave them an insiderÕs knowledge of the volatile andlocalised logic of cultural consumption Ð potentially a highly valued andessential skill (OÕConnor and Wynne, 1996; Crewe and Beaverstock, 1998;Shorthose, 2004; Lloyd, 2006). These informal networks were often asimportant as more formal institutional and business networks (Currid, 2007),As a result, independent producers were able to construct a new sense ofcultural identity and purpose, using the mix of cultural and commercialknowledge which this new form of cultural production necessarily involved.The term ÕhabitusÕ describes this mix of emotional investment and calculation,of creativity and routinisation, of making money and making meaning, ofoperating in a volatile, risky environment, using networks of trust and ofinformation which has to be learned by these producers. As Leadbeater andOakley wrote of these ÔindependentsÕ: They thrive on easy access to local, tacit know-how Ð a style, a look, asound Ð which is not accessible globally. Thus the cultural industries basedon local know-how and skills show how cities can negotiate a newaccommodation with the global market, in which cultural producers sellinto much larger markets but rely on a distinctive and defensible local bias(1999:14). Scott (2004a) also links cultural commodity production strongly to the City.Cities have those facilities, institutions, embedded knowledge and practiceswhich are crucial to creative urban milieux; as he puts it, cities areÔcollectivities of human activity and interest that continually create streams ofpublic goods that sustain the workings of the creative fieldÕ (Scott, 2001:3).Cities, in fact, are urban ecosystems within which cultural innovation thrives;they are not a globalising juggernaut but thrive across a range of diverseproduction locales. Cultural production and consumption transform the city46

through its Ôshopping malls, restaurants and cafŽs, clubs, theatres, galleries,boutiquesÕ (ibid: 7). This Ôrevitalisation of the symbolic contentÕ of cities drawsin city governments, linking these transformations with Ôambitious publicefforts of urban rehabilitation in the attempt to enhance local prestige, increaseproperty values and attract new investments and jobsÕ (ibid: 7). Here the cultural industry agenda is joined explicitly with that of culture-ledurban regeneration. Richard FloridaÕs (2002) idea of the Ôcreative classÕ, wherean ÕagglomerationÕ of Ôcreative professionsÕ is deemed to be attracted first andforemost by the quality of life, tolerance or creative feel of a city, captured thislink for many cities willing to pay his fees. Though thick with statistics FloridaÕsbook is marked by an absence of any empirical investigation into what is, infact, only very circumstantial evidence It conflates ÔcreativeÕ occupations in away similar to the Ôcreative economyÕ of Howkins Ð lawyers, scientists,managerial and business professionals as well as ÔculturalÕ creatives. It alsosuggests that they can be attracted by a consumption strategy hard todistinguish from classic gentrification and unlikely to benefit artists. (Healy,2002b; Peck, 2005; Montgomery, 2005; Nathan, 2005; Markusen, 2006;Oakley, 2009b). It is also clear that developers have become increasinglyaware of the symbolic value of Ônew economyÕ and creative industrybusinesses for real estate value (Guy and Hennebury, 2002; Guy et al, 2005;Nevarez, 2003; OÕConnor and Gu, 2010).Such Ôcreative classÕ strategies partly overlap with those of cultural clusters.These tend to be government planned or directed with a mix of subsidisedand commercial activities. Building partly on PorterÕs work (1989a; 1989b) andthat of economic geography (see 3.3 above), but also coming from a traditionof cultural precincts or quarters, clusters were closely liked to urbanregeneration initiatives Ð with mixed results (Mommaas, 2004; 2009). Morerecently they seem to be linked to interventions concerned to protect fromtheeffects of gentrification, or at least to manage the process in ways that doesnot stifle the small creative businesses that started the process (Evans andFoord, 2005; Lehtovuori and Hasik, 2009). In many respects, creative spacestrategies are coming closer to cultural policy, or at least trying to find ways ofattenuating the dysfunctions of ÔregenerationÕ. This echoes growing concernaway from the competitive city to the Ôgood cityÕ (Amin, 2006).47

48As the DCMS definition had it, thecreative industries were thoseÔwhich have their origin inindividual creativity, skill andtalent and which have a potentialfor wealth and job creationthrough the generation andexploitation of intellectualpropertyÕ (DCMS, 1998:3).

495.1 New Labour, new spiritIn 1997 when New Labour were elected, the Department of NationalHeritagebecame the Department of Culture, Media and Sport(DCMS). Itsnew head, Chris Smith – now with ministerial status (i.e. part of the Cabinet)- had long been associated with New LabourÕs cultural policies, havingpublished a book very much associated with the partyÕs new take on thisissue (Smith, 1998). This marked a new status for cultural policy and thecultural industries in particular. The renaming of these as Ôcreative industriesÕand the setting up of a Ôcreative industries task forceÕ involving many bignames from the film, music, fashion and games sectors seemed part of thecelebratory optimism and the political hype around ÔCool BritanniaÕ that wasassociated with New Labour. Whilst this was certainly the case Ð and theywere also caught up in the inevitable backlash against BlairÕs supposed PR-led policy-making style Ð there were much deeper issues at stake.The new profile of the DCMS, along with the publication of a glossyÔmapping documentÕ, firmly established the cultural industries as a legitimateobject of policy (DCMS, 1998). Backed by some rather optimistic statistics ofemployment and wealth creation, a handy definition and a list of 13 sub-sectors with clear links to statistical sources, the document allowed localauthorities, development agencies, arts organisations and consultanciesacross the UK to place cultural industry strategies at the heart of local andregional cultural and economic strategies (DCMS 2000; 2004; Taylor, 2006).After long neglect, creative industries were now also linked to nationalcultural and economic policy. The smallest and newest department begantalking to the very large and well established Department of Trade andIndustry in a way unthinkable a few years before. The cultural industries,previously ignored or lumped with Ôthe ArtsÕ, were to become central to anew contemporary image for Britain and high-profile exemplars of thecreativity and innovation that were to remake Britain for the 21st century.Indeed, the Creative Industries Mapping Documentitself became a leadexport, as governments and cities in Europe (especially the new or aspirantEC member countries), in Latin America and particularly in the Far East sawa new idea for the dynamic association of culture, economics and a newwave of modernisation (Wang, 2004; OÕConnor, 2006; Kong, et al, 2006).5Creative industries

This was not simply a re-assertion of social justice against the hard headedeconomics of Thatcherism, something popular culture articulated throughoutthe 1980s to little political effect. During the 1990s these popularoppositional currents were articulating a new attitude to the market and toentrepreneurialism, one that could link to a contemporary sense of socialjustice, ÔauthenticÕ culture and economic viability. New Labour built oncurrents of oppositional popular culture articulated in the form of theemergent discourse around cultural industries, creativity and sociallyresponsible entrepreneurialism (Redhead, 2004). Visions of a new economicorder centred on more fluid patterns of work and career; a life coursedemanding more individual responsibility in exchange for autonomy, aneconomy based not on cut-throat competition but on the more opencollaborations of projects and networks, rewards for individual creativity andinnovation away from the fixed hierarchies of class and corporation Ð thesewere the sort of arguments which meant New Labour and the culturalindustries were natural partners. The sort of economic and culturalconjunction made in the 1980s in France (Rigby, 1991) happened Ð if indifferent ways and through different paths Ð in Britain in the 1990s.The embarrassment of ÔCool BritanniaÕ (Harris, 2003), taking its place next toMichael FootÕs donkey jacket in a pantheon of political clichŽs, was notsimply a PR stunt (and it echoed the earlier experiences of Jack Lang in theMitterrand Government in France). It represented a symbolic rapprochementwith post-1960s popular culture Ð with its transgressions, enthusiasms,rebellions and anti-structures (Martin, 1981). It was a reconciliation with thatdecade, the ÔsixtiesÕ, which Thatcher had considered the root of BritainÕsdecline. Now, it was to be the basis of the countryÕs future success. 5.2 Only a name?The most striking innovation of the new DCMS was a change of terminology- no longer culturalindustries but creativeindustries. The shift has led tomuch debate around definitions, which it is common to dismiss as Ôone forthe academicsÕ. In fact the terminological confusions and slippages areamongst the most important aspects of the question, because they bringinto play a whole range of correspondences and tensions around the issuesof culture, technology and economics (Hesmondhalgh, 2007).50

Chris Smith presented it as a purely pragmatic move in order to get somekey spending plans past the Treasury, where the word ÔcultureÕ had to beavoided as too reminiscent of Ôthe artsÕ, and thus not about economics at all(Cunningham, 2002; Redhead, 2004; Hesmondhalgh and Pratt, 2005;Selwood, 2006). Pragmatic or not, the change of terminology was notneutral; it served to uncouple the Ôcreative industriesÕ from Ôarts and culturalÕpolicy, yet hoping at the same time to recoup (some of) the benefits forthose very arts and cultural policy agencies. Crucial to this political trick wasthe identification of the creative industries with a Ônew economyÕ driven byÔdigitalÕ technologies and closely related to the ÔinformationÕ or ÔknowledgeÕeconomy. It was the exploitation of intellectual property (IP) rights that wasseen to provide the crucial link between these agendas Ð positioning thecreative industries at the forefront of economic competitiveness. As theDCMS definition had it, the creative industries were those Ôwhich have theirorigin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have a potential forwealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation ofintellectual propertyÕ (DCMS, 1998:3).This connection to the ÔinformationÕ or Ôknowledge economyÕ was at theheart of the important critique of the DCMS strategy by Garnham (2005),where he too presented the ÔcreativeÕ shift as pragmatic – one, indeed, thatscooped up ÔsoftwareÕ employment to make the statistics look even moreimpressive to the Treasury. Garnham pointed to the over-inflated claims forthis new economy (something the Ôdot-comÕ boom underlined) and this wasa common line of criticism (cf. Pratt 2005). In particular he argued that theknowledge or information involved in science and R&D, business-to-business services and creative industries were very different from eachother. This point was also made by Healy (2002b). He targeted JohnHowkinÕs (2001) notion of the Ôcreative economyÕ, which included all thoseactivities covered by intellectual property in some form Ð design, trademark,copyright and patents. Healy suggested this lumps together a whole rangeof activities and businesses which, underneath the hype, was not useful andoften confusing.Garnham, building on the central insights of the political economy school Ðof which many currently working in the creative industries field are simplyignorant Ð suggests also that the new concern with IP rights is an attempt toovercome one of the key restrictions on profitability in the cultural industriesÐ the tendency of cultural goods to become public goods (Garnham, 2005).51

Strengthened IP regulations help keep cultural goods as commodities, justas new rounds of mergers and convergence allow the new mediacompanies to keep a control over distribution. These raise important issuesfor smaller cultural producers, and for the public sphere as a whole. Debatesaround IP are now one of the central political questions of thecultural/creative industries (cf. Hesmondhalgh, 2007)I suggested above that the GLCÕs policy had emphasised, not the individualartist, but the ÔsectorÕ- the value-chain, the range of creative and ancillaryfunctions and inputs that make the production of culture possible. TheDCMS definition used ÔcreativeÕ as a quality that could be exploited byindividuals as individuals Ð or at least those possessed of Ôindividualcreativity, skill and talentÕ. The industrial sector disappeared into a host ofentrepreneurial creatives generating intellectual property rights. The immediate problem was that the DCMS definition simply did notdescribe the complex structure of the creative industries sector, nor theemployment and remuneration arrangements of the majority of those withinit. The definition thus encouraged a deeper delusion, that policies to supportand encourage such creative entrepreneurialism would suffice as anindustrial strategy. It became a small business strategy which, whatever themerits of its particular implementations, found it difficult to addressstructural sectoral questions – value-chains, missing skills and professions,access to space and technology, development of and entry into newmarkets, linkage to the manufacturing/materials sectors Ð and moreseriously, to do anything about it when it did identify problems (Pratt, 2005).In part this was related to the lack of sectoral or sub-sectoral organisationswhich could act as representational industry bodies at policy level (thoughthese are much more common now); but it also related to the lack ofresources given to such an industry strategy and the absence of any realintelligence about it. The ÔCultural ObservatoriesÕ, set up as part of the newRegional Development Agencies and Regional Cultural Consortia, around2002-3, were massively under-funded and had to service (sometimes withonly one or two employees) the research and intelligence requirements ofthe whole cultural sector Ð which included Ôthe arts and cultureÕ, heritage,libraries, museums and archives, tourism, sport, entertainment and leisure. This emphasis on a universal quality of creativity had two furtherconsequences. First, it suggested that with a bit of intelligence and will-power52

any city, town or rural area could develop the creative industries as part of itseconomic regeneration; as a universal attribute creativity was available to all.Yet all the statistics clearly indicate that the creative industries areconcentrated in one very big (London) and a few smaller metropolitan centres(Oakley, 2004; 2007). Second, if using the word ÔcreativeÕ allowed the culturalindustries to link with the wider innovation and competitiveness agenda, it alsobrought with it that distinct charge of artistic ÔflairÕ strongly associated withpopular culture. As we have seen, this was essential to New LabourÕscommand of the modernising agenda. Creativity could thus be mobilisedwithin Ôsocially excluded groupsÕ, in particular ethnic minorities and inner urbanareas subject to schemes for ÔregenerationÕ. Creative entrepreneurialismprovided for an economic and social agenda delivered through cultural policy.But such policies ignored real contradictions between the different agendas,and it was often unclear as to which one it was supposed to be addressing(Oakley, 2006; 2007; Evans and Shaw, 2004). 5.3 The specificity of cultureThe price paid for the re-branding of the creative industries was a lack ofclarity as to their specificity and distinctiveness. What did they do differentlyto science, or business services, or indeed the service sector generally;were they part of economic or cultural policy, and how did those twodimensions relate? Did their distinctiveness consist in them having a uniqueand perhaps difficult business model, or were their inputs and outputssomething that went beyond economic measurement and indicators?The problem was that it was hard to distinguish between what wasconsidered ÔcreativeÕ in this sector and in others, such as science, withoutsome reference to a specific ÔculturalÕ or ÔartisticÕ dimension; but this alwaystended to undermine its hard edged economic credentials. Although noddingto the far flung reaches of the creative economy, the DCMS definition (1998)Ð unlike HowkinsÕ (2001) Ð results in a fairly conventional list. It includes ÔtheartsÕ, and the classic cultural industries sector Ð adding design, fashion and,more controversially, ÔsoftwareÕ to these. It set these firmly within a robusteconomic agenda, but with few guidelines as to how exactly this was to bedifferentiated from more traditional cultural policy. 53

This ambiguous situation provoked some criticism. The first, and most vocal,concerned the status of Ôthe artsÕ. In part a continuation of the complaintsabout bureaucracy, targets, managerialism and general ÔphilistinismÕ thatbegan under the Conservatives, it ran into the new ÔimpactsÕ agenda set bythe DCMS Ð for social inclusion, urban regeneration and economic growth(Reeves, 2002; Selwood, 1999, 2002; 2004). Increased funding for theDCMS involved the delivery of wider social and economic objectives; andmany cultural institutions and individual artists resented the consequentbureaucracy. But, as pragmatic as this may have been, it also reflected anexisting commitment by publicly funded cultural institutions to the efficientuse of resources and the effective engagement with the needs and desiresof their publics. Part of the debate concerned the techniques and politics of measurementitself. Selwood (2002; 2004) argued that measurement tends to be ad hocand incoherent, possessing little scientific status. On the other hand, evenif done correctly Ôevidence based policyÕ is more about politics thanevidence Ð the latter often simply ignored. But the problem might lie withthe notion of Ôevidence based policyÕ itself. Rather than search forindisputable objective impacts, ultimately the question would needaddressing at the level of political values (Oakley, 2006; Oakley et al, 2006).Tessa JowellÕs intervention as Secretary of State at the DCMS suggestedas much (Jowell, 2004). She did not resist measurement or wider socialand economic effects per se but tried to identify a distinct and relativelyautonomous sphere of activity for ÔcultureÕ. This concern to identify adistinct role for culture continued in the growing use of the concept ofÔpublic valueÕ, which suggested that the different values associated withculture could be justified as public values in themselves without externalÔimpactsÕ, and put forward a public policy framework within which thesecould be legitimised (Holden 2004; Keaney, 2006).These concerns with Ôthe artsÕ Ð often descending into political point scoringas charges of ÔelitismÕ and Ôdumbing downÕ were slung across the floor Ðcould often seem of marginal concern, but were in fact at the heart of thecreative industries debate. On the one hand the arts could be positioned asminority and elitist. Despite the talk of economic and social agendas, it wasstill the traditional arts institutions that accounted for the vast majority ofnational and local government spending in this sphere (Feist, 2001). Surveyscontinue to emphasise the consumption of arts along familiar class lines54

(Gayo-Cal et al, 2006).For the arts agencies this was a crisis of legitimacy;not only did ÔexcellenceÕ in the arts run up against the universality ofcreativity (Garnham, 2005; Selwood, 2009) but it suggested that ÔmarketfailureÕ, rather than a justification for subsidy, might in fact be a democraticjudgement on artÕs historical redundancy. In these circumstances, apartfrom a retreat to heritage (or Ôcultural infrastructureÕ) more pragmaticjustifications of the arts as either ÔR&DÕ and ÔinputsÕ into the creativeindustries (Holden, 2007) or via metrics of public preference (Bakhshi et al,2009) come to the fore. It is clear some new public policy justification isrequired (Holden, 2008).On the other hand, if Ôthe artsÕ were merely one (expensive, subsidised)preference amongst all other consumer preferences, then where did thatleave the discourses of aesthetic critique and cultural policy that had beenextended from the arts to the wider field of the cultural industries, andindeed been part of the wider socio-cultural transformations associated withtheir growth? Hartley (2005), for example, sees the marginalisation of ÔartÕ asone with the universalisation of creativity; its demise is both a victory fordemocracy and heralds the end of that art-industry divide inaugurated byaesthetics and cultural policy. Now popular culture was as valid as ÔartÕ,creative-citizenship an outcome of producer-consumers constructingindividual lifestyles, and creative entrepreneurship a possibility for all. Suchan account simply wipes out the contradictions of the cultural commodityand the need for cultural policy (other than Ôdigital literacyÕ) at a stroke. Aswe shall see, this articulation of creative industries is symptomatic of somedeep-seated shifts, but fails to grasp what is at stake.Hesmondhalgh (2007) – in agreeing with Pratt that the concept of ÔcreativityÕfails to adequately distinguish Ôthe creative industriesÕ – holds to the termÔcultural industriesÕ as the production and circulation of symbolic texts. Heexcludes Ôthe artsÕ as non-industrial, and fashion and design as about theapplication of the ÔculturalÕ or ÔsymbolicÕ to primarily functional goods. In sodoing he gives full weight to the socio-political issues around mediarepresentation (the distorting effects of markets and monopoly etc.) thatHartley so signally ignores (Garnham, 2003).But, I would suggest, on the onehand this tends to play down those aesthetic contradictions Ð of intrinsicmeaning/accumulation, sensuous particularity/universal (exchange)equivalence Ð that have also been central to cultural industries debates. Onthe other it fails to register the full significance of the extension of ÔculturalÕ55

inputs into the wider economy of goods and services Ð and how it situatesthese aesthetic contradictions in a new register. This can be seen in debatesover definition.5.4 DefinitionsDefinitional questions have been central to cultural and creative industrydebates for a number of reasons. They guide the statistical ÔmappingÕ of thesectorÕs size and distribution and have been crucial for policy-makers andlobby groups who need to show how economically important they are andthus worthy of government support and intervention. As we saw, forexample, the (rather dubious) inclusion of ÔsoftwareÕ in the DCMS definitionwas very important to its positioning of the sector as the industry of thefuture. Definitional debates frequently relate to the intrinsic difficulties ofidentifying new occupations and businesses within a statistical structure stillbased on an old agriculture-industry-service framework. This was not only anumbers game however; how to distinguish the sector and to articulate it asa manageable policy object demanded some real conceptual work.5.4.1 David ThrosbyDavid Throsby, coming from a background of arts economics, gives us atraditional concentric circle model of the cultural industries, and it is a widelyused model in creative and cultural policy consultancy.Core creative arts:Literature; Music; Performing arts; Visual arts.Other core cultural industries:Film; Museums and libraries.Wider cultural industries:Heritage services; Publishing; Sound recording;Television and Radio;Video and computer gamesRelated industries:Advertising; Architecture; Design; Fashion (Throsby,2001; 2007)Throsby arranges the cultural industries as a hierarchy in which ÔcreativityÕseems to reside in its purest form in the traditional art forms. This is a re-working of standard cultural policy distinctions between high and low basedon the potential for commercial mass reproduction. Art is the creative bit;56

industry is ÔappliedÕ. Hence ÔliteratureÕ and ÔmusicÕ are Ôcore creativeÕ whilstpublishing and sound recording are placed outside in Ôwider culturalindustriesÕ. Those functional industries incorporating ÔcreativityÕ Ðarchitecture, fashion etc. Ð are merely ÔrelatedÕ.The problem here is partly statistical, these clearly being suggested as a wayof counting employment based on standard occupational/industrial codes. Atthe same time, as with many such policies, it does have historical baggageÐ the arts do exist and for the time being at least, need funding and to taketheir place in a wider cultural policy model. Nevertheless, it tends to repeat aclassic cultural policy tautology: the arts are most ÔpurelyÕ creative becausenot commercialised, but they are distinguished as a specific ÔartsÕ sectorprecisely on the grounds of their not being part of a commercial ÔindustryÕ.Translated into everyday cultural policy; if you are commercially viable you donot qualify for subsidy, and if you do qualify you must by definition be morepurely creative. It is a repeat of that mistake both Williams (1981) and Miege(1987; 1989) identified, where artistic creation is clearly distinguished fromits subsequent reproduction and commercialisation. This sort of model,which sees Ôthe artsÕ either as pure creativity and/or providing the rawmaterial subsequently ÔcommercialisedÕ by the cultural industries, fails togive an adequate account of the real processes at work in the sector, andevades some of the real tensions between creative labour and theconditions in which it is put to work. It also posits a kind of ÔindividualgeniusÕ or auteurapproach that fails to address the collaborative nature ofcreative production or the way in which the ÔindustryÕ actively constitutesthe ÔartisticÕ or generative creative product. There are two further consequences. First, it can make no sense ofÔcreativityÕ in design or fashion, these lying at the outer reaches of thecreative economy; it leaves them as primarily ÔindustrialÕ or functional.Second, as in standard cultural policy models, grounding creativity primarilyon Ôthe artsÕ and thus justifying their continued subsidy, it leaves the rest ofthe creative industries to the purview of economic policy. The arts needprotection; commercial and popular culture can look after itself. 57

5.4.2 KEA ModelThis model was more or less reproduced in a 2006 European Commissionreport (KEA, 2006), and more explicitly distinguishes Ôcore artsÕ, ÔculturalindustriesÕ and Ôcreative industriesÕ (Fig.1: KEA, 2006)Figure 1 (KEA, 2006)EU Cultural and Creative SectorThe distinction of arts/ cultural industries is here made on the grounds ofreproduction and, to a lesser extent, the exercise of copyright; that is, interms of its ÔindustrialisationÕ. Creative industries are now Ônon-culturalÕ butemploy creative people, by which they mean Ôpeople É trained in the artsÕ.Again, culture, creativity and Ôthe artsÕ are synonymous; as the key ÔinputÕthey justify subsidy – and as they are only peripheral to the ÔcreativeindustriesÕ these latter therefore must be Ônon-culturalÕ. Many of the pointsmade in respect of Throsby apply here; but we might also ask, after fiftyyears of cultural studies, in what ways are fashion and design, architectureand advertising Ônon-culturalÕ? On this model they are excluded by reason ofnot being Ôthe artsÕ. Again, this might be useful for the task of arrangingemployment statistics but it does not work as a definition.58Circles Sectors Sub-sectors CharacteristicsCore Arts FieldsVisual ArtsCraftsNon industrial activitiesPerforming ArtsPaintingCopyright may apply butHeritageSculptureis not always exercisedPhotographyCultural IndustriesFilm & VideoRecorded & live music,Industrial Sectors aimedTV & Radiocollecting societiesat massive reproductionVideogamesBook & magazineCopyright importantMusicpublishingBooks & PressCreative IndustriesDesignFashion designSectors described asand activitiesArchitectureGraphic DesignÔnon culturalÕ althoughAdvertisingInterior Designthey employ creativeProduct designskills and creative peoplei.e. people who have been trained in the arts

5.4.3 The Work FoundationRecently The Work Foundation (WF) (2007), working with the DCMS, hasproposed a model that also draws on Throsby (Fig. 2). At the centre is aÔcreative coreÕ; this is not now defined as Ôthe artsÕ but includes all forms ofÔoriginal productÕ Ð popular culture certainly but also certain computerprogrammes. Next are the Ôcultural industriesÕ Ð the ÔclassicÕ list includingfilm, TV, radio, music industries, computer games etc. Ð which attempt tocommercialise these creative products. Finally we have the ÔcreativeindustriesÕ which include original product but mix it with a certainfunctionality Ð buildings have to stand up, advertising has to sell, clotheshave to be worn, design has to work. Beyond these are wider parts of theeconomy which use creative input Ð design led- manufacture such as Dysonor service brands such as Virgin, selling an ÔexperienceÕ which depends oncreative inputs.Though the WF report still uses Ôcreative industriesÕ in its title, it is anattempt to avoid the problems of using ÔcreativeÕ to characterise the sector.First it distinguishes the Ôcreative industriesÕ from the knowledge economyas a whole, positioning them as a sub-sector within it. Second, the reportdoes not use ÔcreativeÕ as the quality distinguishing the particular products ofthis sector Ð creativity as common to all acts of origination and innovation inscience, business etc. Ð but instead uses the notion of Ôexpressive valueÕ.This value is most undiluted at the creative core, and more mixed withfunctionality as we move to the periphery. 59

Figure 2 (Work Foundation, 2007: 5) This is certainly a more coherent model than that previously presented bythe DCMS, and it re-inserts the specificity of ÔcultureÕ into creativity. UnlikeThrosby and KEA, the creative core is not exclusively the domain of ÔtheartsÕ. The concentric circles thus do not construct a hierarchy based on pureand applied art Ð with the historic baggage this carries Ð but simply rangeproducts along a continuum of ÔexpressiveÕ and functional value.60

Key to this shift is the replacement of ÔcreativeÕ by ÔexpressiveÕ value. Whyexpressive rather than symbolic? Maybe the latter word is somewhatacademic, or sounds rather ÔculturalÕ when run past the hard-nosedeconomic ministries. The WF report defines expressive value as Ôeverydimension whichÉenlarges cultural meaning and understandingÕ (2007:96).Whilst ÔexpressiveÕ has some connections to ÔcreativityÕ it is clearly situatedon the ground of culture as meaning system(s). Thus the report endorsesThrosbyÕs list of different values associated with culture Ð aesthetic, spiritual,social, historic, symbolic, and authentic. These are also the same terms thatHolden (2004) used to define the different dimensions of the Ôpublic valueÕfor culture. That is to say, this ÔexpressiveÕ value Ð now clearly the basis for awhole range of major industrial activities – involves cultural values, the samecultural values at stake in contemporary cultural policy. A clear connection isimplied between economic and cultural policy; these cultural values havevery real economic impacts but they are also valuable and legitimate in theirown rights. To an extent, this is a return to the policy connections sketched by the GLC,but is not at all explicit. The Ôcreative industriesÕ are of economic importance- and Ôpublicly funded cultureÕ (the arts) is, for Holden (2007) a crucial inputinto these. This is a pragmatic justification and echoes Throsby and KEA. Butthe ÔcultureÕ involved in expressive value, though presumably deeplyinformed by Ôthe artsÕ, is not co-terminous with it but extends into theanthropological Ôeveryday cultureÕ associated with WilliamsÕ Ôculture as away of lifeÕ (1975). The issue this throws up for critical cultural theory andpolicy is not that of the industrialisation of Ôthe artsÕ but the industrialisationof everyday culture. For these are the terms on which the cultural industriesbecame the creative industries Ð the new industry of the future.FeatherstoneÕs (1996) Ôaesthetisisation of everyday lifeÕ and Lash and UrryÕs(1994) Ôculturalisation of the economyÕ register some of the consequencesof RimbaudÕs Ôchange lifeÕ, of the Ôartistic critique of capitalismÕ as it filteredthrough both cultures of consumption and Ð we have suggested in ourdiscussion of local creative entrepreneurs Ð production. This does not, asHartley (2005) suggests, mean an end to the arts-industry separation, but itstransposition to a new register.61

5.4.4 Excluding the artsAs we suggested (pp 37 Ð 38 above), in choosing to leave out the artsHesmondhalgh (2007) sets aside a sector with a very high prestige function,commanding huge levels of public investment (from education throughurban regeneration/re-imaging to arts funding) and highly commercialised incertain areas (contemporary art exhibitions; fine art auctions; opera; populartheatre, music theatre, etc.). It excludes a sector that does have many inputsand spill-overs into Ôcultural industriesÕ. Not only does the Ôproduction andcirculation of symbolic textsÕ inevitably have multiple connections to ÔtheartsÕ (as Adorno made clear) but it is hard to conceive of a Ôcreative cityÕ orÔinnovativeÕ milieu without the varied activities associated with these arts.But I would also suggest that his exclusion works in tandem with that otherexclusion of Ôprimarily functionalÕ goods and services Ð fashion, design,architecture etc. I suggested above that the emphasis on Ôsymbolic textsÕmight over-emphasise the representational and cognitive function of thecultural industries. The continued pre-eminence of the media as the centralcultural industry certainly needs underlining in the face or predictions of itsimminent irrelevance (see also Garnham, 2000) but it also underplays thecrucial importance of aesthetic critiques and debates. Leaving out the artsleaves out these aesthetic debates; leaving out the Ôcreative industriesÕignores how these debates have migrated to the Ôaesthetisisation ofeveryday lifeÕ and the Ôculturalisation of the economyÕ. 5.4.5 Cultural commodity production That there is some distinction between the ÔculturalÕ and ÔcreativeÕindustries, or that there has been some kind of shift in the centre of gravityof cultural economies – one that the DCMS definition clearly ÔfudgedÕ – iswidely felt, though inadequately theorised. Alan Scott (2004) tries to avoidsome of the problems of taxonomy by calling the sector Ôcultural commodityproductionÕ. However he uses a service/manufacture distinction to separatetwo different kinds of commodity. First, service outputs focused onÔentertainment, edification, and informationÕ (e.g., motion pictures, recordedmusic, print, media, or museums) and second, manufactured productsthrough which consumers construct distinctive forms of individuality, self-affirmation, and social display. This is hardly sustainable; not only do62

ÔservicesÕ get embodied in a variety of manufactured objects (what Lash andLurry (2007) call the Ôthingification of the mediaÕ) but objects themselves aresaturated with ÔserviceÕ Ð i.e. ÔcreativeÕ, ÔartisticÕ or ÔdesignÕÐ input. Theservice/manufacture distinction is unhelpful, especially when the latter areequated with identity construction and social display Ð as if this is notinvolved in the consumption of music or print, for example.5.4.6 ÔEmbedded creativesÕThe notion of Ôcreative industriesÕ, if inadequately explained by ÔcreativityÕ,does point to a proliferation of ÔsymbolicÕ or ÔculturalÕ or ÔartisticÕ input into arange of goods and services that cannot be identified within ÔclassicÕ culturalindustries. This is registered by the work of Cunningham and others onÔembedded creativesÕ (Higgs et al, 2008). They put forward statistical evidencethat indicates more people with creative occupations working outside the(more or less DCMS defined) creative industries than inside them. ForCunningham this suggests that ÔcreativityÕ is now an input right across theeconomy (2006); for KEA (2006) on the other hand, it suggests the input ofpeople Ôtrained as artistsÕ. For others the methodology is erroneous. At thisstage it is hard to say who these people are, how they identify themselvesand what skills they might have or need. Do they see themselves as artistsworking in ÔindustryÕ, as was noted already by Wolff 25 years ago (1981) andre-emphasised recently by Oakleyet al(2008)? Or are there new kinds ofidentity formations? Design, for example, may be emerging as a term capableof re-configuring the artist-centric pure-applied model – as engagement with arange of social, political and environmental tasks picks up and transformsmany of the key socio-political concerns of modernism.5.4.7 Creativity, innovation and noveltyIn any respect, it is clear that the function of artistic, creative, or ÔimmaterialÕlabour is now not confined to traditional questions of creatives inindustrialised culture industries, but is a part of a much wider group ofactivities. It is for this reason that debates around creative labour havebecome so central Ð these extensively covered by Kate Oakley in thisliterature review series (2009b). In the light of this proliferation, two further63

definitional moves might be discussed here. The first (Fig. 3: NESTA 2006) isa pragmatic attempt to capture the diverse nature of cultural production anddifferent ways in which this product is ÔmonetisedÕ. It also suggests howtheir complex overlap might be seen as a Ôcreative ecosystemÕ. In theseways it avoids the model of Ôcreative inputsÕ that are subsequentlyindustrialised and attempts to ground a taxonomy on the specificorganisation of production (Pratt and Jeffcut, 2009).Figure 3 (NESTA, 2006: 55).64

A second definitional move avoids taxonomy altogether by suggesting thatthe creative industries are not an ÔindustryÕ at all, but part of the innovationsystem of the economy (Potts et al, 2008; Hartley, 2008). This model of thecreative industries wants to connect Schumpeterian evolutionary economics,the revolutionary rhetoric of web 2.0 and a particular Ôactive audienceÕ strandof cultural studies. It tries to answer one of the problems posed to neo-classical economics by the creative industries. Markets are ideally supposedto work on perfect information, assigning price to known use-values. But thecreative industries deal in novelty, unknown value, so how can marketsassign price? They do so through the value placed on them by others,through interaction across social networks. ÔSocial network marketsÕ thenare about assigning value to novel things. This value is not necessarilyeconomic (fan cultures begin and often remain purely social) but it is alwayspotentially so as they begin to accumulate ÔattentionÕ (Lanham, 2006).Novelty Ð ÔinnovationÕ Ð therefore enters the economic system via socialnetwork markets; as those dealing above all with the production ofÔunknown valuesÕ, the creative industries are therefore synonymous with theinnovation system.But, like ÔcreativityÕ, ÔnoveltyÕ covers a huge spectrum; Potts et alidentifynanotechnology, 19thcentury bicycles and 20th century mass tourism asbeing creative industries in their emergent stages. On the same basis ÔtheartsÕ, being known values, are not creative industries at all. There is a basicconfusion at work here. As we have seen, the difficult business model ofthe cultural industries was identified not just by Ôneo-classicalÕ economistslike Caves (2000) but also the Marxist political economy school (Garnham,(2000) discusses novelty in detail). But though these industries do produceÔnoveltyÕ this does not exhaust what they do. As Potts et al. suggest later,these social networks are producing economic and ÔsymbolicÕvalue (p. 169).Symbolic value, novel or otherwise, works within wider, complex systems ofsignification that we might call ÔculturalÕ. Novelty is produced within asignifying system; in fact ÔnoveltyÕ is better described in relational terms asÔdifferenceÕ. Social network markets work with values that therefore need tobe understood within wider cultural systems Ð as well as within social,spatial, and political contexts.This model also purports to overturn the linear value-chain triad of (active)producer Ð distribution/content Ð and (passive) audience they associate withthe cultural industries. The creative industries, they argue, reconfigure this65

triad as active audience/agents, networks and enterprises Ð Ôengaged in themutual enterprise of creating values, bothsymbolic and economicÕ (p.169).Are we to assume there are no more largecorporations but merely ÔenterprisesÕ; does ÔnetworkÕ refer to socialnetworks or the hugely expensive infrastructures on which the Internetrelies, or logistical chains associated with Amazon, or the global franchisesof Hollywood theatre distribution; does Ômutual enterpriseÕ mean an equalshare in value? In short, calling it a Ôcomplex open systemÕ rather than anindustry suggests an emancipatory redistribution of power, ownership andcontrol that is never discussed in any detail, except through the figure of theÔactive consumerÕ, seemingly now in the driving seat. The active citizen-consumer constructs her own identity not within thehierarchical cultural narratives of the nation-state (the ÔconsciousnessindustryÕ) but from the symbolic resources of global creative industries. Thearrival of web 2.0 technologies with their potential for co-created valueseems to imply for this model the redundancy of Ôpolitical economyÕquestions Ð around control, access, exploitation, ideology Ð and equallythose cultural policy concerns about what kinds of symbolic value are beingproduced and under what conditions. That social and political identity can beexclusively and unproblematically founded on such symbolic consumption,or that this provides adequate resources for collective cohesion is, to say theleast, debatable. HartleyÕs suggestion that global brands such asMacDonaldÕs and Benetton provide the resources for such collective identityand that this is more liberating than traditional cultural policy is equallyproblematic (Hartley, 1999).66

67

68That cultural policy should look toprovide merely the means foreconomic growth to the exclusionof concern for the means tofacilitate the creation of commonvalues is neither feasible nordesirable. Éthe means to promotecultural industries are preciselycultural; to tie these to primarilyeconomic outputs is to abusethese cultural means.

696Final thoughts6.1 A whole different ball game?Revising this report in early 2010, I was struck by the rapidity by which theimplications of the internet (especially web 2.0) and mobile communicationtechnologies had transformed debates on the creative industries. Theyseemed to underline a radical shift in our understanding of art, culture andeconomy. In the light of this I wanted to revisit the conclusion from the firstedition to draw upon some of these new debates.6.2 Tensions in the cultural industriesWhen discussing tensions within the cultural industries, Adorno set up anopposition of the sensuous particularity of the art object with its intrinsicformal logic to that of the homogenised industrialised mass culture industry.I have suggested in Section One many ways in which this model was neverentirely tenable, ignoring the real forms in which cultural commodityproduction took place, and some of the social, cultural and politicalpossibilities with which cultural commodity production and consumptioncould be invested. If culture sets a certain limit on capitalismÕs drive toaccumulation, then there are always going to be difficulties in makingcultural policy in conjunction with economic policy. Conflicts are inevitable;and AdornoÕs tension persisted, between the intrinsic aesthetic or political-critical values, and the commodity form and the industrial structures withinwhich they were produced. Hence there is a certain naivety in thinking thatadequate intelligence in and of itself can manage a complex creative cluster.In fact this only works if a certain set of values are being shared. This iswhat gives the UK situation a particular colouration, as opposed to Germany,or Canada, or China. In attempting to mobilise culture for economic development public policyhas been forced to engage with specifically cultural meanings and ambitionsthat have collective socio-political as well as economic value. Frequentlypresented as win-win Ð whatÕs good for culture is good for the economy Ðhas led to policymakers demanding discriminations as to what kinds ofcultural industries, what kinds of growth and for whom.These issues remain, but things are changing. In trying to pursue a culturalpolicy through industrial intervention, the cultural industries agenda

represented a break with the more traditional focus on de-commodification,identifying certain cultural goods as having public value which should thus beprovided for by state subsidy. The permeation of the economy by culturalproduction forms has called for new kinds of (difficult to manage) skills andbusiness models previously restricted to the cultural industries. Indeed, theterm Ôcreative industriesÕ expresses this as generalised ÔcreativityÕ. HoweverI also suggest that these developments have been compounded by thegrowth of the Internet on a number of levels. The first of these entails a shift in emphasis from analogue/physical todigital/virtual. The implications for established cultural industries are far-reaching, digitalisation presenting enormous problems for the monetisationof their products. But, more fundamentally, the growing emphasis on trust,emotional identification and privileged communication as crucial to buildingan audience/consumer base attempts to reconfigure relationships previouslyassociated with intimate social networks and the heightened communionassociated with the live arts (Terranova, 2004).Similarly, the socio-technical possibilities opened by web 2.0 allow levels ofaudience interaction and co-creation which seem to realise the dreams ofLeft modernism – overcoming of the division between artists and audience.On the other hand, this dream of recapturing a direct relation with audience(lost in modernity) can be set against its extreme fragmentation in post-broadcast media and increased management by mechanical computation.Direct input into the production process does not just come from creativefeedback but also in the form of the aggregation of mouse clicks.Companies like Amazon, Google, and eBay use the information from millionsof dispersed clicks to personalise each computer screen. ÒWelcome, Justin,we have some new suggestions just for youÓ. The internet brings newpossibilities for ÔauthenticÕ interaction, and at the same time for new kinds ofaudience manipulation. It also changes the terms of opposition and critique. Lash and Lurry (2007)point to the shift from the homogenising project of the Ôculture industryÕ tothe production of difference by the Ôglobal culture industryÕ. For them,difference is now a source not of opposition but of new economic value.The avant-garde search for radical heterogeneity and irreducible particularityhas now been annexed by a global culture industry based on theproliferation of niches, the quotidian ubiquity of cultural product and the70

consumer search for unceasing differentiation. They suggest that difference isnot now about the singular creative act but is created across social networks;value arises from creative consumption as much as creative production.Drawing on the swell of literature on the independent life of objects, (Lee andMunroe, 2001; Thrift, 2008) we can find these objects (that is, culturalproducts) circulating through these social networks, morphing and evolving inways not anticipated by their creators. The ability to intuit and monitor (usingprofessional Ôcool-huntingÕ and computer analysis) and amplify thesetransformations is now a central skill of the global culture industry (OÕConnor2004). The unprecedented access to tools of cultural production, of socialcommunication and collaboration hold great emancipatory potential; but thesehave to be seen in relation to other tendencies: ÔWe are dealing not just withinvention but power: the power of global and imperial capitalÕ (Lash and Lurry,2007: 182). 6.3 Global flows and collective identitiesThe digital flows of the Internet intertwine with the proliferation of objects asmarkets do their work. Not only do objects get designed and assembled acrossthese networks, their distribution is organised by computer-driven logistical andtransport networks. Their presence in our lives is linked to the virtual icon-brands of which they are the partial but never complete incarnation. Objects arenow more than objects; they embody the idea of the brand, which we cannever own, no matter how much we buy. Such a proliferation, combined withthe complexity and unpredictability of the global creation of value, seems todefy conceptualisation in ways akin to the 18th century ÔsublimeÕ3. Like thetrillions and trillions of transactions of the global financial system, the vastcomplex circulation of objects now leaves us dumbfounded. For many, thissheer excess has now become an unknowable ÔmassÕ; and mass consumptionis no longer the consumption of the same but the creative proliferation ofexcessive heterogeneity (Lee and Munroe, 2000). Such paralysing awe mightnot always be an option. The global financial crisis shows how such systemsdemand analysis and intervention; so too the much more complexenvironmental system which is also demanding such attention. Both of thesesuggest that our consumption of creative objects cannot go on indefinitely. 713 This term was used by writers such as Burke and Kant to suggest something beyond our understanding, to whichwe respond in Ôshock and aweÕ.

This rapid acceleration of the global flows of objects and symbols is oftencelebrated as the ending of the nation-state and opening new possibilitiesfor global cosmopolitanism. However, at the same time as ÔDIY citizenshipÕ(Hartley, 1999) and the proliferation of individual consumer choice come tothe fore, so too does a new concern with the collective. Writers as differentas Leadbeater (2008) and Hardt and Negri (2004) are concerned with themasses no longer corralled by the nation-state Ð the former seeing them aseconomically productive, the other as potentially revolutionary. Suchcelebrations need sober assessment. Cultural studies has long beenconcerned to assert the claims of Ôcommon cultureÕ within the nation-state;as Couldry (2006) argues, without such commonality there can be no claimsto justice. The nation-state is still a primary source of symbolic identification;the global culture industry remains systematically incapable of fixingcollective symbolic meaning in any significant form but that of the brand. 6.4 Cultural policy, autonomy and oppositionThe QUT (Queensland University of Technology) group characterise culturalpolicy as a form of regulation and social control. To some extent this is true;but as Tony Bennett (1998) argues, such regulation and control is alsoproductive, and not simply repressive, as Hartley suggests (2005). Inparticular, cultural policy has an evolving role in the assertion of public value.This is of course wrapped up in power and social distinction; but over thecourse of the last 40 years cultural policy has moved beyond a concern withthe arts, just as it is no longer about de-commodification. As the experiencewith the BBC illustrates, contemporary cultural policy concerns a complexset of issues at the intersection of culture and economics (Hesmondhalgh,2005; 2007a). And to ignore this or to argue for a purely economic policy asthe QUT group often do is rather contradictory for both cultural andeconomic reasons. A cultural industries policy is about both; it is not aboutcontrolling content but about providing the space in which content that wevalue might still be produced – hopefully with a beneficial economicoutcome. Not having an explicit cultural policy, is of course, also a culturalpolicy, as is quite clear in the US.72

That cultural policy should look to provide merely the means for economicgrowth to the exclusion of concern for the means to facilitate the creation ofcommon values is neither feasible nor desirable. I have already suggestedthat the means to promote cultural industries are precisely cultural; to tiethese to primarily economic outputs is to abuse these cultural means. This isthat transposition of the concerns of aesthetics mentioned above. If theaesthetic concern for radical heterogeneity has now become a sort ofmachine for producing difference, niche products for discerning consumers,then many also see an increasing rationalisation of creative labour. Theautonomy of creative labour was always pragmatically linked to both itsdifficult management (Ôherding catsÕ) and its over-supply (Ôfreedom to starveÕ)(e.g. see Oakley 2009a); but there also was an argument that the intrinsicvalue of what it produced demanded that autonomy. These claims have haddifferent social, cultural and political elementsÐ but they are all concernedwith the collective value of symbolic production and the need to accord adegree of autonomy to production. In a general way, the reduction of theautonomy of creative labour is of a part with the reduction of the autonomyof culture itself.As it overturns traditional cultural business models, the Internet has alsochallenged many of the justifications for creative autonomy. For everyaccount of exploited insecure creative labour there is rejoicing that anotherjob-for-life producer cartel has been over-thrown in favour of consumer co-creation. Change there will be, but the direction of change is yet to bedecided; pitting producers against citizen-consumers is a recipe for disaster. Creative autonomy refers to those spaces in which symbolic production cangive adequate weight to the demands of their material Ð be it artistic,creative, or craft Ð and to be in some control of the economic uses of thatmaterial. This can apply to creative producers in a large company, but also tothose dispersed communities of practice that are the place-based networksof creative entrepreneurs discussed above in section 3.3. Is there space forthem to create and make a living; to operate within sustainable local marketswithout having to pursue unlimited growth; to not be excluded from theurban cultural fruits of their activities by highly capitalised brandedconsumption? These quite basic questions are situated right at the heart ofcontemporary concerns about the principles of unlimited accumulation, theopposition to which was one of the most basic tenets of the aesthetic (andsocial) opposition to capitalism. 73

It is almost commonplace to seek the roots of modern consumption in thecounter-culture, underlined by the rise of the Ôbourgeois-bohemiansÕ (Frank,1997; Brooks, 2000). We should see them as real aspirations diverted,bought-off, buried (Binkley, 2007). The imperative to Ôchange lifeÕ remains.The increased profile of design as a distinct set of skills and socio-politicalresponsibilities is certainly one area in which the accommodation ofaesthetics and consumption is being both exploited and challenged. Ratherthan (re)package products for consumption, wider social, political andenvironmental issues are made ever more explicit. How we might livebetter together is a central trope of left modernism which is also in theprocess of re-asserting itself (Hatherley, 2008). Cultural policy cannot simply help re-tool a creative workforce. The elision ofart and industry, culture and economics in much creative industriesdiscourse is a false unity. Modernity is divided, at conflict with itself. Art andculture share in this world where Ôall that is solid melts into airÕ; they try tomake sense of it, though they often contribute to its uncertainties. To foldthem into a smooth reconciliation with economic growth is both undesirableand, if we look all around us, unfeasible.Modernity has held out possibilities of change; but who the winners andlosers are in those changes is one of the key political questions ofmodernity. The rapid acceleration of change and capitalÕs mobilisation of allaspects of life as fuel for this has been increasingly disruptive. More thanever it cuts against the attempts of individuals and communities to fix aplace, give it significance, give it value as thislife. Culture has been both acentral stake and a tool in these struggles. It remains so, if we can only grabit back.74

75

76

Adorno, T. (1991) The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture.London: Routledge.Adorno, T., Benjamin, W., Bloch, E., Lukacs, G. (1977) Aesthetics and Politics.London: Verso.Adorno, T., and Horkheimer, M. (1979) The Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans.John Cumming. London: Verso Allen, P. M. (1997) Cities and regions as Self-Organising Systems: Models ofComplexity. Reading: Gordon and Breach.Amin, A. (Ed. (1994) Post-Fordism. A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.Amin, A. (2006) ÔThe Good CityÕ, Urban Studies, 43, (5-6), pp.1009-1023Amin, A. and Graham, S. (1997) ÔThe Ordinary CityÕ in Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers22, pp. 411-429Amin, A. and Cohendet, P. (1999) ÔLearning and adaptation in decentralisedbusiness networksÕ, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 17,pp.87-104Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins andSpread of Nationalism. London: Verso.Anderson, P. (1984) ÔModernity and revolutionÕ, New Left Review, 144, pp.96-113Appadurai, A. (1990) ÔDisjunction and Difference in the Global CulturalEconomyÕ, Theory, Culture and Society, 7, pp. 295-310Bakhshi, H., Freeman, A., and Hitchen, G. (2009) Measuring Intrinsic Value:Or how to stop worrying and love economicswww.missionmoneymeaning.org.uk/u/measuring_intrinsic_value.pdf(accessed 30/11/09)Banaji, S., and Burn, A. with Buckingham, D. (2007)The Rhetorics ofCreativity: A Review of the Literature. London: Creative PartnershipsBanks, M. (2006) ÔMoral economy and cultural workÕ, Sociology, 40 (3) pp.455-47277References

Banks, M. (2007) The Politics of Cultural Work, London: Palgrave MacmillanBanks, M., Lovatt, A., OÕConnor, J. and Raffo, C. (2000) ÔRisk and Trust in theCultural IndustriesÕ, Geoforum, 31(4), pp.453-464Bathelt, M., Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. (2004) ÔClusters and knowledge:local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creationÕ, Progressin Human Geography, 28 (1), pp.31-56Bayley, C.A. (2004) The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914: Globalconnections and comparisons. Oxford: Blackwell.Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity.Trans. Mark Ritter.New Delhi: Sage. Becker, H. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley and London: University of CaliforniaPress.Belfiorie, E., and Bennett, O. (2006) Re-thinking the Social Impact of the Arts.A Critical and Historical Review. Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, Universityof Warwick, Research Paper No.9Bell, D. (1974) The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in SocialForecasting. London: Heinemann. Bell, D. (1976) The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: BasicBooks.Bell, D. and Jayne, M., (eds.) (2004) City of Quarters: Urban Villages in theContemporary City. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing LtdBenjamin, W. (1970), Illuminations: Essays and Reflections.Trans. HarryZohn.London: Fontana.Bennett, T. (1990) Outside Literature. London: RoutledgeBennett, T. (1998) Culture: A ReformerÕs Science. London: Sage.Bennett, T. (2000) ‘Intellectuals, Culture, Policy: the technical, the practicaland the critical’,Pavis Papers in Social and Cultural Research ,No. 2, PavisCentre for Social and Cultural Research, Milton Keynes, The Open University.78

Bennett, T. (2001) Differing Diversities: Cultural Policy and Cultural Diversity.Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Berman, M. (1983) All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience ofModernity. London: Verso.Bianchini, F. (1987) ÔGLC R.I.P. 1981-1986Õ, New Formations, 1, pp. 103-117Bianchini, F. and Parkinson, M. (1993) Cultural Policy and Urban Regeneration:The West European Experience. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Bilton, C. (2007) Management and Creativity: From Creative Industries toCreative Management. Oxford: Blackwell.Binkley, S. (2007) Getting Loose: Lifestyle Consumption in the 1970s.Durham and London: Duke University Press Boltanski, L. and Chiapello, E. (2005) The New Spirit of Capitalism. Trans.Gregory Elliott. London: Verso.Bourdieu, P. (1986) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.London: Routledge.Bourdieu, P. (1996) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the LiteraryField. Trans. Susan Emanuel. London: Polity.Bourriauld, N. (2002) Postproduction: Culture as Screenplay: How ArtReprograms the World. New York: Lukas and SternbergBowie, A. (2003) Aesthetics and Subjectivity: From Nietzsche to Kant.Manchester: Manchester University Press (2nd Edition)Briggs, A., and Burke, P. (2005) A Social History of the Media: FromGutenberg to the Internet. 2nd Edition.Cambridge: PolityBrooks, D. (2000) Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How theygot There.New York: TouchstoneBuck-Morss, S. (1977) The Origins of Negative Dialectics, Theodore W.Adorno, Walter Benjamin, and the Frankfurt Institute. New York: The FreePress.79

Buck-Morss, S. (1990) The Dialectics of Seeing: Walter Benjamin and theArcades Project.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.BOP Consulting. (2006). Study of the impact of Creative Partnerships on thecultural and creative economy. London: BOP Consulting.Carey, J. (1992) The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice amongthe Literary Intelligentsia 1880-1939. London: Faber and Faber.Carey, J. (2005) What Good Are The Arts?London: Faber and Faber.Castells, M. (1983) The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-Cultural Theory ofUrban Social Movements. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress. Castells, M. (1989) The Informational City: Information Technology, EconomicRestructuring, and the Urban-Regional Process. Oxford: Blackwell.Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Castells, M., and Hall, P. (1994) Technopoles of the World: the Making of 21stCentury Industrial Complexes. London: Routledge.Caves, R. (2000) Creative Industries: Contracts Between Art and Commerce.Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Caygill, H. (1990) The Art of Judgement.Oxford: BlackwellCerteau, M de (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life,Trans. M Randell,Berkeley: University of California Press. Collin, M. (1997) Altered State: The Story of Ecstasy Culture and Acid House.London: SerpentÕs Tail. Coe, N. M. (2000) ÔThe view from out West: embeddedness, inter-personalrelations and the development of an indigenous film industry in VancouverÕ,Geoforum, 31 (4), pp. 391-407.Coe, N. M. (2001) ÔA Hybrid Agglomeration? The Development of a Satellite-Marshallian Industrial District in Vancouver’s Film IndustryÕ, Urban Studies, 38(10), pp. 1753-177580

Collins, J. (1989) Uncommon Cultures: Popular Culture and Postmodernism.London: Routledge.Cooke, P., and Morgan, K. (1998) The Associational Economy: Firms, Regionsand Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Couldry, N. (2006) Listening Beyond the Echoes: Media, Ethics and Agency inan Uncertain World. London: Paradigm BooksCrane, D. (1992) The Production of Culture. Media and the Urban Arts.London: Sage.Crang, P. (1997) ÔCultural turns and the (re)constitution of economicgeographyÕ, in R. Lee & J. Wills (Eds.), Geographies of Economies, pp. 3-15.London: Arnold.Crewe, L. (1996) ÔMaterial Culture: Embedded Firms, OrganizationalNetworks and the Local Economic Development of a Fashion Quarter,Regional StudiesÕ, The Journal of the Regional Studies Association, 30 (3), pp.257-272.Crewe, L. and Beaverstock, J., 1998, ÔFashioning the City: Cultures ofConsumption in Contemporary Urban SpacesÕ, Geoforum, Vol.29 (3), pp.287-308Creigh-Tyte, A. and B. Thomas (2001). ÔEmploymentÕ in The UK CulturalSector, Profile and Policy Issues.Ed. S. Selwood. London: Policy StudiesInstitute.Cunningham, S. (2002) ÔFrom cultural to creative industries: theory, industry,and policy implicationsÕ, Media International Australia, 102: pp. 54-65Cunningham, S. (2004) ÔThe Creative Industries After Cultural Policy: AGenealogy and Some Possible Preferred FuturesÕ, International Journal ofCultural Studies,7 (1), pp.105-115Cunningham, S., 2006. What Price a Creative Economy?Strawberry Hills,NSW: Currency House.Curran, J. and Seaton, J. (1991) Power Without Responsibility: The Press andBroadcasting in Britain. London: Routledge.81

Currid, E. 2007. The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art, and Music DriveNew York City.New York: Princeton University Press.Danius, S. (2002) The Senses of Modernism: Technology, Perception andAesthetics. Cornell University Press.DCMS (1998)Creative Industries Mapping Document.London: DCMS.Revised 2001. DCMS (2000) Creative Industries Ð The Regional Dimension. London: DCMSDCMS (2002) Regional Cultural Data Framework, a report by PositiveSolutions, Business Strategies, Burns Owens Partnership and Andy Pratt,London: DCMS.DCMS (2004a) Culture at the Heart of Regeneration: Consultation Paper 631.London: DCMSDCMS (2004b) DCMS Ð Evidence Toolkit. London: DCMSDCMS (2004c) Government and the Value of Culture. London: DCMSDCMS (2007)Creative Economy Programme.http://www.cep.culture.gov.ukDiMaggio, P. (1977) ÔMarket structure, the creative process and popularculture: toward an organisational reinterpretation of mass-culture theoryÕ,Journal of Popular Culture, 11 (2) pp. 436-52DiMaggio, P., and Useem, M. (1978) ÔSocial class and arts consumption: Theorigins and consequences of class difference in exposure to the arts inAmericaÕ. Theory and Society 5(2), pp.141-61Drake, G. (2003) ÔÓThis place gives me spaceÓ: place and creativity in thecreative industriesÕ, Geoforum, 34 (4), 511-524Du Gay, P. (1996) ÔOrganizing Identity: Entrepreneurial Governance and PublicManagementÕ pp 151 Ð 169 in (eds) S. Hall and P. Du Gay, Questions ofCultural Identity. London: Sage.Du Gay, P. (1997) ÔOrganising Identity: Making Up People at WorkÕ pp 285 Ð344 in Du Gay (1997)82

Du Gay, P (ed.) (1997) Production of Culture/ Cultures of Production. MiltonKeynes: Open University Press.Du Gay, M. and Pryke, M. (2002) ÔCultural Economy: an IntroductionÕ pp 1 Ð20 in Du Gay, P. and Pryke, M. (2002)Du Gay, P. and Pryke, M. (eds) (2002) Cultural Economy: Cultural Analysis andCommercial Life.London: Sage.Dunlop, S. and Galloway, S. (2007)ÔA Critique of Definitions of the Culturaland Creative Industries in Public PolicyÕ, International Journal of CulturalPolicy. 13 (1) pp.17-31During, S. (1999). The Cultural Studies Reader.Second Edition.London:Routledge.Dyos, H.J., and Wolff, M. (1973) The Victorian City: Images and Realities.London: Routledge.Eagleton, T. (1990). The Ideology of the Aesthetic.Oxford: Blackwell.Eisenberg, E. (2005) The Recording Angel: Music, Records and Culture fromAristotle to Zappa. Second Edition.Yale: Yale University Press.Ettlinger, N. (2003) ÔCultural economic geography and a relational andmicrospace approach to trusts, rationalities, networks, and change incollaborative workplacesÕ. Journal of Economic Geography, 3 (2), pp. 145-172.Evans, G. and Shaw, P. (2004) The Contribution of Culture to Regeneration inThe UK: A Review of Evidence, London: DCMSEvans, G. and Foord, J. (2005)Strategies for Creative Spaces Ð Phase 1Report. Report Commissioned by London Development Agency Ð CreativeLondon, City of Toronto, Ontario Ministry of Economic Development & Tradeand Ministry of Culture.Featherstone, M. (1996) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London:SageFeist, A. (2001) ÔThe relationship between the subsidised and the widercultural sectorÕ, page numbers??? inSelwood, S. (2001)83

Finlayson, A. (2003) Making Sense of New Labour.London: Lawrence andWishartFlew, T. (2002) ÔBeyond ad hocery: defining creative industriesÕ. Presented atCultural Sites, Cultural Theory, Cultural Policy, 2nd International Conferenceon Cultural Policy Research, Wellington: Queensland University ofTechnology. Florida, R.(2002)The Rise of the Creative Class: and how itÕs transformingwork, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books, New York.Frank, T. (1997) The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counter-Culture,and the Rise of Hip Consumerism.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Frith, S. (1998) Performing Rites: Evaluating Popular Music.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press. Frow, J. (1995) Cultural Studies and Cultural Value.Oxford: Clarendon.Garnham, N. (1990) Capitalism and Communication: Global Culture and theEconomics of Information. London: Sage.Garnham, N. (2000) Emancipation, the Media, and Modernity. Argumentsabout the Media and Social Theory.Oxford: Oxford University PressGarnham, N. (2003).ÒA Response to Elizabeth JackaÕs Democracy asDefeatÓ.Television and New Media 4 (2): 193-200Garnham, N. (2005) ÔFrom cultural to creative industries: An analysis of theimplications of the Ôcreative industriesÕ approach to arts and media policymaking in the United KingdomÕ, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11 (1),pp.15-29Gayo-Cal, M., Savage, M. and Warde, A. (2006) ÔA cultural map of the UnitedKingdom: 2003Õ, Cultural Trends, 15 (2/3) pp. 213-237Gertler, M. S. (2003) ÔTacit knowledge and the economic geography ofcontext, or the undefinable essence of being (there)Õ, Journal of EconomicGeography, 3 (1), pp. 75-99Gibson, C. (2003) ÔCultures at work: why ‘culture’ matters in research on theÔculturalÕ industriesÕ, Social and Cultural Geography, 4 (2), pp. 201-215.84

Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. London: Polity.Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the LateModern Age. London: Polity.Gilroy, P. (1992) The Empire Strikes Back: Race and Racism in 1970s Britain.London: Routledge. Girard, A. (1982) ÔCultural industries: a handicap or a new opportunity forcultural development?Õ in UNESCO (1982) Cultural Industries: A Challenge forthe Future of Culture.Paris: UNESCO.Gordon, I. R. and McCann, P. (2000) ÔIndustrial clusters: complexes,agglomeration and/ or social networks?Õ Urban Studies, 37, pp. 513-532Grabher, G. (2001) ÔEcologies of creativity: the Village, the Group, and theheterarchic organisation of the British advertising industryÕ, Environment andPlanning A, 33 (2), pp.351-374Grabher, G. (2002) ÔCool Projects, Boring Institutions: Temporary Collaboration inSocial ContextÕ, Regional Studies, 36 (3), pp. 205 – 214.Grabher, G. (2004) ÔLearning in projects, remembering in networks?Communality, sociality and connectivity in project ecologiesÕ, European Urbanand Regional Studies,11 (2), pp.103-123Granovetter, M. (1973) ÔThe strength of weak tiesÕ, American Journal ofSociology,78/6, pp.1360-1380Granovetter, M. (1983) ÔThe strength of weak ties: a network theory revisitedÕ,in Sociological Theory1, pp 201-233Granovetter, M. (1985) ÔEconomic Action and Social Structure: The Problem ofEmbeddednessÕ, American Journal of Sociology,91 (3), pp. 481-510Greenberg, C. (1961) Art and Culture: Critical Essays.Boston: Beacon Press.Groth, J. and Corijn, E. (2005) ÔReclaiming Urbanity: Indeterminate Spaces,Informal Actors and Urban Agenda SettingÕ, Urban Studies,42 (3), pp. 503-526.Guy, S. and Henneberry, J (eds.) (2002) Development and Developers:Perspectives on Property.Oxford, Blackwell.85

Guy, S., Henneberry, J. and Bramley, G. (2005) ‘Urban Properties: Spaces,Places and the Property Business’, in Turok, I., Gordon, I., Harding, A. andBuck, N. (eds) Changing Cities: Rethinking Urban Competitiveness, Cohesionand Governance.Palgrave, pp. 223-241) Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: AnInquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society.Cambridge: Polity PressHall, P. (1998)Cities in Civilisation: Culture, Technology and Urban Order.London: Weidenfield and Nicolson.Hall, P. (2000) ÔCreative Cities and Economic DevelopmentÕ, Urban Studies,37 (4), pp.639-649.Hall, S. and Jefferson, T. (1976) (eds.) Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Sub-Cultures in Post-War Britain. London: Hutchinson in association with theCentre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, University of Birmingham.Hall, S. (1997) Representation: Cultural Representations and SignifyingPractices.London: SageHall, S and Jacques, M. (1989) New Times: The Changing Face of Politics inthe 1990s.London: Lawrence and Wishart. Hardt, M. and Negri, T. (2004) Multitude: War and democracy in the Age ofEmpire. London: PenguinHarvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwells.Harris, J. (2003) The Last Party: Britpop, Blair and the Demise of EnglishRock. London: Fourth Estate.Hartley, J., 1999. Uses of Television.London: Routledge.,Hartley, J.(2005)ÔCreative IndustriesÕ in Hartley, J (ed.) Creative Industries.Oxford: Blackwell, 1Ð40.Hartley, J. (2008)ÔFrom the consciousness industry to creative industries:consumer-created content,social network markets and the growth ofknowledgeÕ in Holt, J. andPerren, A.(eds) Media Industries: history, theoryand methods. Oxford: Blackwell, 231Ð244.86

Haslam, D. (1999) Manchester, England: the Story of the Pop Cult City.London: Fourth Estate.Haslam, D. (2005) Not Abba: The Real Story of the 1970s.London: FourthEstate. Hatherley, O. (2008) Militant Modernism. Winchester: O BooksHealy, K. (2002a) ÔSurvey article: digital technology and cultural goodsÕ,Journal of Political Philosophy, 10 (4), pp. 478-500Healy, K (2002b) ÔWhatÕs new for culture in the new economy?Õ, Journal ofArts Management, Law and Society, 32 (2), pp. 86-103Heelas, P. and Morris, P. (eds) (1992) The Values of the Enterprise Culture:The Moral Debate.London: Routledge.Heelas, P. (2002) ÔWork Ethics, Soft Capitalism and the ÒTurn to LifeÓÕ pp 78 Ð96 in P. Du Gay and M. Pryke (2002) Hewison, R. (1997) Culture and Consensus. London: Methuen.Hesmondhalgh, D. (2005) ÔMedia and cultural policy as public policyÕ,International Journal of Cultural Policy,11 (1), pp. 95-109Hesmondhalgh, D. (2007) The Cultural Industries. Second Edition.London:SageHesmondhalgh, D. and Pratt, A. (2005) ÔCultural industries and cultural policyÕ,International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11 (1), pp. 1-13Higgs, P., Cunningham, S., and Bakhshi, H. (2008) Beyond the creativeindustries: mapping the creative economy in the United Kingdom. London:NESTA.Hirst, P. (1989) After Thatcher. London: Harper Collins.Hobsbawm, E.J., and Ranger, T. (Eds.) (1983) The Invention of Tradition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hoggart, R. (1957) The Uses of Literacy.London: Chatto and Windus.87

Holden, J. (2004) Capturing Public Value: How Culture has Become a Tool ofGovernment Policy. London: Demos.Holden, J. (2007) Publicly Funded Culture and the Creative Industries. London:DemosHolden, J. (2008) Democratic Culture: Opening up the arts to everyone.London: DemosHunt, T. (2004) Building Jerusalem: The Rise and Fall of the Victorian City.London: Phoenix.Howkins, J. (2001) The Creative Economy: How People Make Money fromIdeas. London: Allen Lane.Huyssen, A. (1986) After The Great Divide: Modernism, Mass Culture andPostmodernism. London: Macmillan.Jacobs, J (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities.London:Jonathan CapeJameson, F. (1971) Marxism and Form: Twentieth Century Dialectic theories ofLiterature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Jameson, F. (1977) ÔReflections in conclusionÕ, pp 196-213 in Adorno et al(1977)Jameson, F. (1990) Late Marxism: Adorno or the Persistence of the Dialectic.London: Verso.Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.London: Verso.Jay, M. (1973) The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt Schooland the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950. Boston: Little, Brown.Jeffcutt, P. (2004) ÔKnowledge relationships and transactions in a culturaleconomy: analysing the creative industries ecosystemÕ, Media InternationalAustralia 2004 (112), pp. 67-82.Johns, J. (2006) ÔVideo games production networks: value capture, powerrelations and embeddednessÕ, Journal of Economic Geography, 6 (2), pp. 151 -18088

Jowell, T. (2004) Government and the Value of Culture. London: DCMS.KEA (2006) The Economy of Culture in Europe. Report prepared for theEuropean Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, Brussels.Keaney, E. (2006) Public Value and the Arts: Literature Review.London: ArtsCouncil of England.Kelly, K., 1998. New Rules for the New Economy: 10 Radical Strategies for aConnected World.Fourth Estate, London.Knox, H., Savage, M., and Harvey, P. (2005) ÔSocial networks and spatialrelations: network as method, metaphor and formÕ, CRESC, Centre forResearch on Socio-Cultural Change, Working Paper 1. The University ofManchester and The Open UniversityKong, L. (2005) ÔThe sociality of cultural industriesÕ, International Journal ofCultural Policy, 11 (1), pp. 61-76.Kong, L. and OÕConnor, J. (2009) Creative Economies, Creative Cities: Asian-European Perspectives. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer PressKong, L., Gibson, C., Khoo, L-M. andSemple, A-L. (2006) ÔKnowledges of thecreative economy: towards a relational geography of diffusion and adaptation inAsiaÕ, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 47 (2) pp. 173-194Lacroix, J-G. and Tremblay, G. (1997) ÔThe Ôinformation societyÕ and CulturalIndustries TheoryÕ, Current Sociology, 45, 4Landry, C., Morley, D., Southwood, R. and Wright, P. (1985) What a Way to Runa Railroad: An Analysis of Radical Failure. London: Comedia.Landry C. (2000) The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators.London:Earthscan.Landry C. (2006) The Art of City Making.London: Earthscan. Landry, C. and Bianchini, F. (1995) The Creative City, Demos, London.Lange, B. (2005) ÔSocio-spatial strategies of culturepreneurs. The example ofBerlin and its new professional scenesÕ, Zeitschrift fur Wirtschaftsgeographie,49, pp. 79-96.89

Lanham, R., 2006. The Economics of Attention: style and substance in theage of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lash, S. and Urry J. (1987) The End of Organised Capitalism. Cambridge:Polity Press.Lash, S. and Urry J. (1994) Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.Lash, S. (1990) Sociology of Postmodernism. London: Routledge. Lash,S and Lurry, C. (2007) Global Culture Industry. Cambridge: PolityLawrence, T and Phillips, N. (2002). ÔUnderstanding Cultural IndustriesÕ,Journal of Management Inquiry, 11, 4, pp. 430-441.Leadbeater, C. (1999) Living on Thin Air: The New Economy. London:Penguin GroupLeadbeater, C. and Oakley, K. (1999) The Independents: BritainÕs NewCultural Entrepreneurs. London: Demos.Leadbeater, C. (2008)We-Think: Mass innovation not Mass productivity. ThePower of Mass Creativity.London: Profile BooksLee, N. and Munroe, R. (eds) (2001) The Consumption of Mass.Oxford:Blackwell.Lehtovuori, P. and Havik, K. (2009) ÔAlternative Politics in Urban InnovationÕ inKong, L. and OÕConnor, J (2009) pp. 207-228Lewis, J. (1990) Art, Culture and Enterprise: The Politics of Art and theCultural Industries.London: Routledge.Lewis, J., and Miller, T. (Eds.) (2002) Critical Cultural Policy Studies: A Reader.Oxford: Blackwell.Lipietz, A. (1992) Towards a New Economic Order. Postfordism, Ecology andDemocracy. London: Polity.Lloyd, R. (2006) Neo-Bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustrial City.New York: Routledge.90

Looseley, D. (1995) The Politics of Fun: Cultural Policy and Debate inContemporary France. Berg: Oxford/ Washington DC.Markusen, A. (1996) ÔSticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrialdistrictsÕ, Economic Geography, Vo. 72, No.3, pp.293-313Markusen, A. (2004) ÔThe distinctive city: evidence from artists andoccupational profilesÕ, University of Minnesota: Project on Regional andIndustrial economics, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Markusen A (2006) ÔUrban development and the politics of a creative class:evidence from a study of artistsÕ, Environment and Planning A 38(10) 1921 Ð1940 Markusen, A. (2006b) Cultural Planning and the Creative City, PaperPresented at Texas, Fort Worth.Marshall, A. (1890) Principles of Economics.London: Macmillan.Martin, B. (1981) A Sociology of Contemporary Cultural Change.Oxford:Blackwell.Martin, R. and Sunley, P. (2003) ÔDeconstructing clusters: chaotic concept orpolicy panacea?Õ, Journal of Economic Geography, 3, pp.5-35Marx, K. (1976) Capital Volume One, London: Pelican BooksMaskell,P. (2001) ÔTowards a knowledge-based theory of the geographicalclusterÕ Industrial and Corporate Change10 (4): pp. 919-941. Maskell, P. and Malmberg, A. (1999) ÔLocalised learning and industrialcompetitivenessÕ, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, pp. 167-185Massey, D. (1994) Space, Place and Gender.Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota Press. Mayhew, H. (1851) London Labour & London Poor.Oxford: Oxford UniversityMcGuigan, J. (1992) Cultural Populism. London: RoutledgeMcKee, A. (ed.) (2006) Beautiful Things in Popular Culture.Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 91

McRobbie, A. (1999) In the Culture Society: Art, Fashion and Popular Music.London: Routledge.McRobbie, A. (2002) ÔClubs to companies: Notes on the decline of politicalculture in speeded up creative worldsÕ, Cultural Studies, 16, 4, pp.516-531.McRobbie, A. (2005) The Uses of Cultural Studies. a textbook.London: Sage.Miege, B. (1979) ÔThe cultural commodityÕ, Media, Culture and Society,1, pp.297-311.Miege, B. (1987) ÔThe logics at work in the new cultural industriesÕ, Media,Culture and Society, 9 pp. 273-89.Miege, B. (1989) The Capitalisation of Cultural Production. New York:International General. Mollenkopf, J. H. and Castells, M. (1991) Dual City: Restructuring New York.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Mommaas, H. (2004) ÔCultural clusters and the post-industrial city: towards there-mapping of urban cultural policyÕ, Urban Studies, Vol.41, No. 3, pp.507-532.Mommaas, H. (2009) ÔSpaces of Culture and Economy: Mapping the cultural-creative cluster landscapeÕ in Kong, L. and OÕConnor, J (2009) pp. 45-60Montgomery, J. (2005) ÔBeware ‘the Creative Class’. Creativity and WealthCreation RevisitedÕ, Local Economy, 20, pp. 337 Ð 343.Montgomery, J. (2007) The New Wealth of Cities: City Dynamics and the FifthWave. Aldershot: AshgateMossig, I. (2004) ÔThe networks producing television programmes in theCologne Media Cluster: New Firm Foundation, Flexible Specialization andEfficient Decision-making StructuresÕ, European Planning Studies, 12, pp. part2, 155-172.Mulgan, G and Worpole, K. (1986) Saturday Night or Sunday Morning? FromArts to Industry, New Forms of Cultural Policy. London: Comedia.Murdock, G. and Golding, P. (1973) ÔFor a political economy of masscommunicationsÕ, Socialist Register10, pp. 205-234.92

Mulgan, G. (1989) ÔAfter the MassesÕ in Hall, S and Jacques, M, New Times.(1989), London: Lawrence and Wishart.Murdoch, G. and Golding, P. (1979)ÕCapitalism, communication and classrelationsÕ, in Curran, J. Gurevitch, M. and Wollacott, J. (eds), MassCommunication and Society.(1977) Sage.Myerscough, J. (1988) The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain.London:Policy Studies Institute.Nachum, L., and Keeble, D. (October 2003) ÔNeo-Marshallian clusters and globalnetworks: the linkages of media firms in central LondonÕ, Long Range Planning,36, 5, pp. 459-480Nathan, M. (2005) ÔThe wrong stuff, creative class theory, diversity and cityperformanceÕ, IPPR Centre for Cities Discussion Paper No 1. RetrievedDecember 1st, 2005 from Institute for Public Policy Research Websitewww.ippr.org/centreforcities.Neff, G. (2005) ÔThe Changing Place of Cultural Production: The Location ofSocial Networks in a Digital Media IndustryÕ, Annals, AAPSS, 597, 1 pp. 134 -152Negus, K. and Pickering, M. (2004). Creativity, Communication and CulturalValue.London: Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.NESTA (2006) Creating Growth: How can the UK develop world class creativebusinesses.NESTA Research report. London: NESTANevarez, L. (2003)New Money, Nice Town: How Capital Works in the NewUrban Economy, London: Routledge.OÕBrien, J. and A. Feist (1995).Employment in the Arts and Cultural Industries:An Analysis of the 1991 Census. ACE Research report no. 2, London: ArtsCouncil of England.OÕBrien, J. and A. Feist (1997). Employment in the Arts and Cultural Industries:An Analysis of the Labour Force Survey and Other Sources. London: ArtsCouncil of England.Oakley, K. (2004) ÔNot so cool Britannia: the role of creative industries ineconomic developmentÕ, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7,1 pp. 67-77.93

Oakley, K. (2006) ÔInclude us out Ð Economic Development and Social Policyin the Creative IndustriesÕ, Cultural Trends,15, 4, pp. 255-273Oakley, K. (2007) ÔFitted Up, evidence and ideology in creative industriespolicyÕ, in Anderson, L. and Oakley, K. Making Money, Making Meaning, NewDirections for the Arts in the Creative Age.Cambridge. Cambridge ScholarsPress.Oakley, K. (2009a). ÔArt WorksÕ Ð Cultural Labour Markets: A Review of theLiterature. London: Creativity, Culture and Education. Oakley, K (2009b) ÔGetting Out of Place: The Mobile Creative Class takes onthe Local. A UK perspective on the creative classÕ in Kong and OÕConnor(2009) pp.121-134Oakley, K., Naylor, R. and Lee, D. (2006) ÔGiving them what they want: theconstruction of ÔpublicÕ in public valueÕ, paper presented at Media and SocialChange, conference organised by ESRC Centre for Research on Socio-cultural Change.http://www.bop.co.uk/pdfs/060921_BOP_Public_Value_and_Broadcasting_Paper.pdfOakley, K., Sperry, B., and Pratt, A. (2008) The Art of Innovation: How FineArts graduates Contribute to Innovation. London: NESTAOÕConnor, J (1999a) Cultural Production in Manchester: Mapping andStrategy, Manchester Institute for Popular Culture, Manchester MetropolitanUniversity. Online. Available HTTP www.mmu.ac.uk/h-ss/mipc/icissOÕConnor, J. (1999) ‘Popular Culture, Reflexivity and Urban Change’ inVerwijnen, J. and Lehtovuori, P. (eds.) Creative Cities: Cultural Industries,Urban Development and the Information Society.Helsinki: University of Artand Design. OÕConnor, J (2002) ÔPublic and Private in the Cultural IndustriesÕ in (eds.)Johansson, T and Sernhede, O. Lifestyle, Desire and Politics: ContemporaryIdentities,Gothenburg, Sweden: Daidalos, pp.15-33OÕConnor, J. (2004) ÔÒA Special Kind of City KnowledgeÓ: Innovative clusters,tacit knowledge and the ÒCreative CityÓÕ, Media International Australia,No.112, pp.131-14994

OÕConnor, J. (2006) ÔArt, Popular Culture and Cultural Policy: Variations on atheme of John CareyÕ, Critical Quarterly48 (4), pp. 49-104OÕConnor, J. (2009) ÔCreative Industries: A New Direction?Õ, InternationalJournal of Cultural Policy, Special Issue: Creative Industries Ten years After,eds. Mark Banks and Justin OÕConnor. Vol. 15. 4, pp. 387-402OÕConnor, J. and Gu, X. (2006) ÔA new modernity? The arrival of ÒCreativeIndustriesÓ in ChinaÕ, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(3) pp. 271-283OÕConnor, J. and Gu, X. (2010) ÔDeveloping a Creative Cluster in a Post-industrial city: CIDS and ManchesterÕ, The Information Society, Vol. 26, No. 2,(Forthcoming) OÕConnor, J. and Wynne, D. (1996) ‘Left Loafing: Cultural Consumption andProduction in the Postmodern City’ in (eds.) O’Connor, J. and D. Wynne Fromthe Margins to the Centre: Cultural Production and Consumption in the Post-Industrial City. Aldershot: AshgateOÕConnor, J. and Wynne, D. (1998) ÔConsumption and the Postmodern CityÕ,Urban Studies, 35, 5-6, pp. 841 Ð 64.OÕConnor, J., Lovatt, A. and Banks, M., Raffo, C., (2000) ÔAttitudes to formalbusiness training and learning amongst entrepreneurs in the culturalindustries: situated business learning through Òdoing with othersÓÕ, BritishJournal of Education and Work, 13, pp. 215-230Peck, J. (2005) ÔStruggling with the Creative ClassÕ, International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research,29, pp. 740-70Peterson, R. (1976) The Production of Culture. London: Sage.Peterson, R. (1982) ÕFive Constraints on the Production of Culture: Law,Technology, Market, Organisational Structure and Occupational CareersÕ,Journal of Popular Culture, 16(2) pp.143-53Peterson, R. (1990) ÔWhy 1955? Explaining the Advent of Rock MusicÕ,Popular Music, 9,1, pp. 97-116Philo, C. and Kearns, G. (eds.) (1993) Selling Places. The City as CulturalCapital, Past and Present. Oxford: Pergamon Press.95

Pine, J. and Gilmore, J. (1999) The Experience Economy: Work is theatre andEvery Business a Stage. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.Piore, M.J. and Sabel, C.F. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilitiesfor Prosperity,New York: Basic Books. Porter, M. E. (1998a) On Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.Porter, M.E. (1998b) ÔClusters and the new economics of competitivenessÕ,Harvard Business Review, 76, pp-77-90.Porter, M.E. (2000) ÔLocation, competition and economic development: localclusters in a global economyÕ, Economic Development Quarterly,14(1) pp.15-34.Poster, M. (ed) (1988) Jean Baudrillard, Selected Writings. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.Potts, J., Cunningham, S., Hartley, J. and Ormerod, P. (2008)ÔSocial NetworkMarkets: a new definitionof the creative industriesÕ. Journal of CulturalEconomics, 32, pp. 167Ð185.Power, D. and Scott, A. (2004) Cultural Industries and the Production ofCulture,Routledge, London.Pratt, A. (1997) ÔThe Cultural Industries Sector: its definition and characterfrom secondary sources on employment and trade, Britain 1984-91Õ.Research Papers on Environmental and Spatial Analysis,41, London Schoolof Economics.Pratt, A. (2000) ÔNew Media, the New Economy and New SpacesÕ,Geoforum, 31 (4), pp.425-436Pratt, A. (2002) ÔHot Jobs in Cool Places. The Material Cultures of New MediaProduct Spaces: the Case of South of the Market, San FranciscoÕ.Information, Communication and Society, 5 (1), pp.27-50.Pratt, A. (2004a) ÔCreative clusters: towards the governance of the creativeindustries production system?Õ Media International Australia incorporatingCulture and Policy, pp.50-66.96

Pratt, A. (2004b) ÔThe cultural economy, a call for spatialised Òproduction ofcultureÓ perspectivesÕ, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(1) pp.117-128.Pratt, A. (2004c) ÔMapping the cultural industries: regionalisation; the exampleof South East EnglandÕ, in Scott, A. (ed)The Cultural Industries and theProduction of Culture (2004), Routledge: London. Pratt, A. (2005) Cultural Industries and Public Policy: An oxymoron?International Journal of Cultural Policy, 11(1) pp. 31-44.Pratt, A. (2006) ÔAdvertising and creativity, a governance approach: a casestudy of creative agencies in LondonÕ, Environment and Planning A, 38(10)pp. 1883-1889.Pratt, A. (2009) Urban Regeneration: From the Arts `Feel Good’ Factor to theCultural Economy: A Case Study of Hoxton, London, Urban Studies, 46. 5-6pp. 1041-1061Pratt, A and Jeffcut, P. (2009) ÔCreativity, Innovation and the CulturalEconomy: Snake oil for the 21st Century?Õ in Pratt, A. and Jeffcut, P.Creativity, Innovation and the CulturalEconomy. London: Routledge: 1-19Priestley, J.B. (1934) English Journey. London: Harper & brothers.Raban, J. (1974) Soft City.London: Hamish Hamilton.Raffo, C., Banks, M., Lovatt, A. and OÕConnor, J. (2000) ÔAttitudes to formalbusiness training and learning amongst entrepreneurs in the culturalindustries: situated business learning through Òdoing with othersÓÕ, BritishJournal of Education and Work, 13, pp. 215-230Ranciere, J. (2004) The Politics of Aesthetics. London: ContinuumRanciere, J. (2009) Aesthetics and Its Discontents. Cambridge: PolityRay, L. and Sayer, A. (eds.) (1999) Culture and Economy After the CulturalTurn, London: Sage. Redhead, S. (1990) The End of the Century Party: Youth and Pop Towards2000. Manchester: Manchester University Press.97

Redhead, S. (2004) ÔCreative Modernity: The new Cultural StateÕ, MediaInternational Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, 112, pp. 9-27.Reeves, M. (2002) Measuring the Social and Economic Impact of the Arts.London: Arts Council of England.Reynolds, S. (1998) Energy Flash.London: Picador.Reynolds, S. (2005) Rip It Up And Start Again. Post-punk 1978-1984. London:Faber and Faber.Rigby, B. (1991) Popular Culture in Modern France: A study of CulturalDiscourse. London: Routledge.Rifkin, J. (2001) The Age of Access: How the Shift From Ownership toAccess is Transforming Modern Life. London: Penguin.Roodhouse, S (2006) Cultural Quarters: Principles and Practice, Bristol:IntellectRose, G. (1978) The Melancholy Science. London: Macmillan.Ross, A. (2003) No Collar: the humane workplace and its hidden costs. NewYork: Basic Books.Ryan, B. (1992) Making Capital From Culture: the corporate form of capitalistcultural production, Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Sassen, S. (1991) The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton (N.J.):Oxford: Princeton University Press. Saunders, P. (1981) Social theory and the urban question. London:Hutchinson.Savage, J. (1991) EnglandÕs Dreaming. Anarchy, Sex Pistols, Punk Rock andBeyond.London: St. MartinÕs Press.Savage, M., Ward, K. and Warde, A. (2003) Urban Sociology, Capitalism andModernity. 2nd. Edition.London: Faber.Saxenian, A. (1994) Regional advantage: culture and competition in SiliconValley and route 128. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press.98

Scott, A. J. (1988) ÔFlexible production systems and regional development:the rise of new industrial spaces in North America and Western EuropeÕ,International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 12, pp. 171-186Scott, A. J. (2000) The Cultural Economy of Cities.London: Sage.Scott, A. J. (2001) ÔCapitalism, Cities and the Production of Symbolic FormsÕ,Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,26 pp. 11-23Scott, A.J. (2002) ÔA new map of Hollywood: The Production and distributionof American motion picturesÕ,Regional Studies, 36 (9) pp.957-975Scott, A.J. (2004) ÔCultural products industries and urban economicdevelopment: Prospects for growth and market contestation in globalcontextÕ, Urban Affairs Review, 39(4) pp.461-490Scott, A.J. (2006) ÔEntrepreneurship, innovation and industrial development:geography and the creative field revisitedÕ, Small Business Economics, 26 (1)pp.1-24Selwood, S (1999) ÔAccess, efficiency and excellence: measuring non-economic performance in the English subsidized cultural sectorÕ, CulturalTrends, 9(35) pp. 87-141Selwood, S. (ed.) (2001) The UK Cultural Sector, Profile and Policy Issues.London: Policy Studies Institute.Selwood, S (2002) ÔMeasuring CultureÕ, www.spiked-online.comSelwood, S. (2004) ÔThe politics of data collection: gathering, analysing andusing data in the subsidised sector in EnglandÕ, Cultural Trends, 47, pp. 14-84Selwood, S. (2009) ÔCreativity and Innovation in the Cultural Economy:Museums, Galleries and the Visual ArtsÕ in Pratt and Jeffcut (2009) pp.219-240Sennett, R. (2006) The Culture of the New Capitalism,New Haven, Conn;London: Yale University PressShorthose, J. (2004) ÒNottinghamÕs de facto Cultural Quarter: The LaceMarket, Independents and a Convivial EcologyÓ, Bell and Jayne, (2004): 149-16299

Simmie, J. (2003) ÔInnovation and urban regions as national and internationalnodes for the transfer and sharing of knowledgeÕ, Regional Studies, Vol. 37,6&7, pp.607-620.Simmie, J. (2004) ÔInnovation and clustering in the globalised internationaleconomyÕ, Urban Studies, 41(5/6) pp.1095-1112Smith, C. (1998) Creative Britain. London: Faber and Faber.Soja, E. W. (1989) Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space inCritical Social Theory. London: Verso.Solnit, R. (2000) Hollow City: The Siege of San Francisco and the Crisis ofAmerican Urbanism.London; New York: VersoStalleybrass, P. and White, A. (1986) The Politics and Poetics of Transgression.London: RoutledgeStorper, M. (1997) The Regional World: territorial development in a globaleconomy. New York: Guildford Press.Sturgeon, T. J. (2003) ÔWhat really goes on in Silicon Valley? Spatial clusteringand dispersal in modular production networksÕ, Journal of EconomicGeography, 3, pp. 199 – 225.Taylor, C.F. (2006). ÔBeyond Advocacy: Developing an Evidence Base forregional Creative Industry StrategiesÕ in Cultural Trends, 15(57) pp. 3-18.Tepper, S. J. (2002) ÔCreative assets and the changing economyÕ,Journal ofArts Management, Law and Society, 32 (2) pp.159-168 Terranova, T (2004) Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London:PlutoThrift, N. (2005) Knowing Capitalism.London: Sage.Thrift, N. (2008) ÔThe Material Practices of GlamourÕ in Journal of CulturalEconomy.1.1.9-23Throsby, D. (2001) Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.100

Throsby, D. (2007) ÔModelling the creative/ cultural industriesÕ, paper at NewDirections in Research: Substance, Method and Critique, ESRC/AHRBCultural Industries Seminar Network, Royal Society of Edinburgh, Scotland,11Ð12 Januaryhttp://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/geographyAndEnvironment/research/Currentresearchprojects/CI%20Presentation%20Prof.%20Throsby.docThompson, N. (2002) Left in the Wilderness. The Political Economy of BritishDemocratic Socialism since 1979.London: Acumen.Turner, Graeme (2002) British Culture Studies: An Introduction, London:Routledge.Turok, I. (2003) ÔCities, Clusters and Creative Industries: the Case of Film andTelevision in ScotlandÕ, European Planning Studies, 11(5) pp. 549-565.Urban Policy Project (2005) The Century of the City. City Republics and GridCities.White Paper, Brussels: Ministry of the Flemish Community. Wang, J. (2004) ÔThe global reach of a new discourse: how far can ÔCreativeIndustriesÕ travel?Õ, International Journal of Cultural Studies,Vol. 7(1) pp. 9-19.Warde, A. (2002) ÔProduction, consumption and Ôcultural economyÕÕ, in DuGay, P. and Pryke, M. (eds) (2002) Cultural Economy: cultural analysis andcommercial life, London: Sage.Williams, R. (1958)Culture and Society,London: Chatto and Windus.Williams, R. (1961) The Long Revolution,London: Chatto and Windus.Williams, R. (1975) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London:FontanaWilliams, R. (1981) Culture. London: Fontana.Williams, R. (1989) The Politics of Modernism: Against the New Conformists.London: Verso.Willis, P. (1990) Common Culture.Symbolic Culture at Work in the EverydayLife of Young People.Buckingham: Open University Press101

Wilson, E. (2004) To The Finland Station: A Study in the Writing and Acting ofHistory, New Edition.London: Phoenix. Wilson, E. (2000) Bohemians: The Glamorous Outcasts.London and NewYork: I.B. Tauris.Wittel, A. (2001) ÔTowards a network socialityÕ, Theory, Culture and Society,18, pp.51-76.Wolfe, D. A. and Gertler, M. S. (2004) ÔClusters from the inside out: localdynamics and global linkagesÕ, Urban Studies, 41(5/6) pp. 1071-1093.Wolff, J. (1981) The Social production of Art. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Wolff, J. (1983) Aesthetics and the Sociology of Art.Basingstoke: Macmillan.Work Foundation, (2007) Staying Ahead. The Economic Performance of theUKÕs Creative Industries.London; The Work FoundationZukin, S. (1982) Loft-living: Culture and Capital in Urban Change,London: TheJohn Hopkins Press Ltd.Zukin, S. (1991) Landscapes of Power: from Detroit to Disney World.Berkeley; Oxford: University of California Press. Zukin, S. (1995) The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge, Mass; Oxford: Blackwell.102

 

Other titles in the series:Teachers: formation, training and identity (Ian Menter, Glasgow University Ð2010) provides an overview of how teachers have been trained since the late 19thcentury up to the present day, and con

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.