An analysis of Ien Ang’s interpretation of the ideology of mass culture and its opponents
Ien Ang explores the ideology of mass culture in relation to the social image of American television series “like Dallas” which often receive negative attention due to this ideology. “There are very few programmes that people will freely and plainly admit they like to watch… people seem to feel a compelling need to explain, defend and justify their viewing habits” (Alasuutari, 1992). The film Twilight (Hardwicke 2008) is an excellent example of popular mass culture which can be examined using Ang’s essay on Dallas and the ideology of mass culture as a methodological model to detail the discursive constitution of the social image of this beloved film as Ang does. “By ‘ideology of mass culture’ she means the negative image commonly given to so-called mass culture”; the thought processes which provoke negative associations with some cultural forms, mostly very popular cultural products and practices cast in an American mould, labelling them as ‘bad mass culture’ (Ang, 1998). Although she provides a wealth of insight to this discussion regarding different types of reading positions throughout her analysis, it is important to pay attention to the amount of autonomy she gives to her viewers. She seems to carelessly dismiss the practices of publicity and promotion, focusing too much upon the ideology of mass culture at the expense of other structural and institutional facets that bring the audience to the program and/or film. In Ang’s desperate search for an alternative position to the ready-made conceptions supplied by the structured ideology of mass culture, she tends to ignore significant external factors, and then, she proceeds with a fabrication of an oppositional reading position, which bears no existence among her research. She claims this reading position adopts an independent attitude toward the ideology of mass culture, when really it is yet another strategic defence mechanism, much like the others she explores, which would not exist without this ideology in which it contrasts.
“[F]ilm content is dependent on its economic marketability. Aiming at a very broad market means that the content must be reduced to universally consumable motifs” (Ang, 1985). Catherine Hardwicke’s film Twilight, released in 2008, has won numerous awards, and raked in a massive $70.5 million in its debut weekend. Meanwhile, it only cost Summit Entertainment $37 million to make it (imdb.com). The film is based on Stephenie Meyer’s series of novels. Leading up to its theatrical release, Twilight was highly promoted and publicized. According to Ang, the “familiar, institutionalized ingredients” necessary of a successful popularized cultural product include “romantic love, simple patterns of good and evil and the building up of suspense, climax and relief” (Ang, 1985). Edward romantically sweeps Bella off of her feet (metaphorically and literally), and the two young heart throbs face challenging obstacles throughout the course of the film, determined to be together. Edward and the rest of his “vegetarian” vampire family must conjoin their strengths and powers to fight off the evil, carnivorous vampires who are after Bella. Twilight obviously falls under the criterion Ien Ang has predicted, and therefore could be labelled ‘bad mass culture’ under the scrutiny of the ideology of mass culture (Ang, 1998).
A highly promoted film builds up anticipation prior to its release. A film may have a following before it is ever seen, simply through the hype of its publicity and promotion. In contrast, Ang’s essay on the ideology of mass culture suggests that certain audiences may avoid a film that is so highly publicized and commercialized, upholding the view that such a product is merely a money-making endeavour and is therefore ‘bad mass culture’, and those who subject themselves to the ‘dangers’ and ‘tricks’ of said ‘bad mass culture’ have no taste and are easily seduced by the cheap tricks of the commercial culture industry (Ang 1998). Keith Negus delves into a discussion of the ‘new petite bourgeoisie’, referring to those engaged in “occupations involving presentation and representation… providing symbolic goods and services”; “who come in-between production and consumption” (Negus, 2002). He explains that the “use of advertising imagery, marketing and promotion are central to the representations through which attempts are made to link a product, service or celebrity and a citizen” (Negus, 2002). Ang seems to stray from this significant role of structural and institutional play, in favour of concrete distinctions and conclusions concerning viewing practices. However, Twilight is the cinematic adaptation of a novel, so it may bring fans of the novel to the film, regardless of commercial attention. In contrast, fans of the novel may be deterred from seeing the film as it has become a commercialized enterprise.
“The television audience is composed of a wide variety of groups…these groups actively read television in order to produce from it meanings that connect with their social experience” (Clarke, 2000). Through an in-depth analysis of the ideology of mass culture and the conduction of qualitative research, Ang discovers three distinct reading positions of the audience, specifically in regard to ‘bad mass culture’. “The negative view of mass culture was generally accepted by all three groups she singles out” (Ang, 1998). First, let us examine those who hate Twilight. They might assert their opinions of the film based on the ideology of mass culture which would classify it as ‘bad mass culture’. “Many people find it worthless or without substance” (Ang, 1998). Popular, commercial cinema tends to be known to lack substance, originality, reality, etc., while succeeding in “fulfilling primarily economic functions” (Ang, 1998). The second position Ang explores is that of the ironical viewer. Ironical viewers enjoy Twilight while subscribing to the ideology of mass culture. This viewer “accepts the correctness of the ideology of mass culture (at least in a social context), but on the other hand ‘really’ likes Dallas [or Twilight] - which is against the rules of this ideology” (Ang, 1998). They try to distance themselves, as they are aware of the ideology, and in the midst of this confusion, they ultimately subject the text to an ironic and mocking commentary. “Positional ideologies have an intrinsically dual character: in one’s subjection-to-and-qualification-for a particular position, one becomes aware of the difference between oneself and the others” (Therborn, 1980). The third reading position is the fan. Ang delves into a challenging compilation of viewers who claim they enjoy Dallas, but are unable to articulate a positive outlook on their pleasurable experiences of the show, in light of the ideology of mass culture. “The fans quoted seem spontaneously, of their own free will, to take the ideology of mass culture into account: they come into contact with it and cannot apparently avoid it” (Ang, 1998). The real fan of Twilight does not mock the film in an attempt to distance oneself, but openly admits that they enjoy this film. However, since the fan is aware of the negative associations enveloped in the minds of the majority who are in favour of the ideology of mass culture, they feel the need to defend their position, providing explanations as to why they would enjoy such a culturally unacceptable product. Ang distinguishes three sub-categories of the fan reading position: the internalizing fan, the negotiating fan, and the fan who uses surface irony. One fan may internalize the ideology of mass culture and defend the fact that they enjoy Twilight by showing that they are aware of its ‘dangers’ and ‘tricks’; aware that it is not realistic; and therefore aware that it is ‘bad mass culture’ (Ang, 1998). Another fan might negotiate the ideology of mass culture “within the discursive space created by [it]” (Ang, 1998). A third fan may use what Ang calls ‘surface irony’, exhibiting a ‘kind of intimacy’ with a ‘detached irony’ (Ang, 1998).
Pertti Alasuutari conducted a similar research study with reference to Ang’s essay on Dallas. Alasuutari examines the “moral character of television discourse” through an unstructured interviewing process to determine “the distinction between good, acceptable art and unacceptable cultural products” (Alasuutari, 1992). Alasuutari defines five different types of discourses which differ from Ang’s three reading positions, as well as a more in-depth analysis of the reflective discourses, deriving multiple subcategories: analysis of realism, analysis of representation, psychological interpretation, and moral reference (Alasuutari, 1992). This study produces a wider spectrum of viewers and distinguishes the differences among them, rather than generalizing, and dismissing significant differences.
Ang suggests a possible fourth reading position called the populist ideology. Populists “refuse to subject themselves to the prescriptions of the ideology of mass culture or to let their preferences be determined by it” (Ang, 1998). The populist is primarily concerned with the recognition of pleasure, rather than subjecting to the dominant ideology. Ang concludes with this concept of the ‘populist viewer’, who apparently rejects the ideology of mass culture as it is oppressive and restrictive. Instead, they follow their own preferences, enjoying one’s own taste (Ang, 1998). It is important though to consider other structural and institutional facets that bring the audience to the film. Regardless of the pleasure one experiences while watching Twilight, one must not forget about the promotional television commercials, trailers and previews they had seen for months prior to attending the film. The advertising and promotional preparation leading up to the film’s release was unsurpassable. It was everywhere you looked. Furthermore, if one had still not fell victim to the persuasive promotions leading up to the release, Twilight was a hot topic of discussion long after it first hit theatres. If the producers and public relations teams hadn’t already convinced you, social word of mouth would have gotten you to attend sooner or later. All of these external factors must be considered when examining these cultural practices as they all contribute in different ways formulating an impact on audiences’ feelings about a product. Although Ang discovers and develops some interesting theories surrounding popular culture and mass culture, she focuses too much upon the ideology of mass culture in pursuit of a clear-cut distinction between this ideology and some alternative, oppositional ideology, at the expense of the other structural and institutional factors that bring audiences to the film. She is trying so hard to discover an alternative to the inescapable negative associations entailed in the ideology of mass culture and is unable to derive any such thing from her qualitative research. She provides a possible alternative position which she calls the ‘populist position’. This position eliminates any notions of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and claims to reject the ideology of mass culture completely, almost in a rebellious manner, refusing to subject one’s preferences to such an ideology. “Its influence will be mainly restricted to people’s opinions and rational consciousness” not necessarily guiding people’s cultural practices (Ang, 1998). This seems almost contradictory. Ang is saying that the ideology of mass culture may shape our opinions and rationalizations of a cultural product, such as Twilight, but it does not determine what we choose to do with it. If someone decides that their opinion of Twilight is that it is nothing but ‘bad mass culture’ as it is mass produced, highly commercialized, produced simply to make a profit, and it has no substance in terms of content, then why would that person go to see it? To rebel against that very ideology? Even if they did go, and they did enjoy it, finding pleasure in doing so, this viewer would now fall into one of the other reading positions defined by Ang (ironical viewer, internalizing fan or negotiating fan). The fact of the matter is: this ideology of mass culture is an ideology. People are aware of this train of thought which pushes negative associations to the American mould of film and television, and ultimately generates negative opinions of these cultural commodities. We are all aware of the ideology, regardless of whether or not we find pleasure in watching these films/shows. “It sells products by propagating the idea that everyone has the right to his or her own taste and has the freedom to enjoy pleasure in his or her own way” (Ang, 1998). In search for this opposing position to the dominant ideology, she dismisses it completely, while simultaneously dismissing the external contributors. The populist position still relies on the ideology of mass culture as the purpose of the populist position is to contrast this ideology. This position would not exist without the ideology in which it rebels. It is yet another “divergent strategy to come to terms with its norms” (Ang, 1998).
A critical question occurred to me as I read Ang’s essay on Dallas. In order to retrieve viewers’ responses in regard to her beloved program, Ang printed an advertisement which stated the following: “I like watching the TV serial Dallas but often get odd reactions to it” (Ang, 1998). Letter-writers proceeded to send in their responses, discussing their like or dislike for the program. Ang finds it peculiar that the fans of the show felt the need to justify or defend their admiration by addressing the ideology of mass culture as to confirm that they are aware of the negative opinions held by others in regard to the program. As Ang is unable to gather any responses which stand apart from the ideology, she conjures up the concept of the populist position as a possible alternative reading position. The flaw in Ang’s research might be traced back to the phrasing in which she originally addressed viewers: “but often get odd reactions to it”. By including this in her advertisement, she is implicitly asking viewers to respond in accordance with the odd reactions being experienced, which of course stem from the ideology of mass culture itself. Of course all of the letter-writers address the ideology. It is not the case that viewers are unable to form an independent stance on the matter, distinct from the ideology; her phrasing simply prompted them to respond this way. This alone calls the entire study and consequent theories into question. Her original question which was the basis of the entire study, all of her theories, and subsequent essay, was a biased question, swaying the letter-writers’ responses to incorporate the ideology of mass culture. This changes everything.
To conclude, Ang establishes an interesting analysis of the ideology of mass culture and the different reading positions of viewers in regard to highly marketable television. However, her determined quest to discover a positive oppositional reading which subordinates the ideology of mass culture falls short as she has sabotages her own study with a biased question, steering respondents’ answers away from any potential alternative position. Furthermore, she selectively dismisses other structural and institutional factors which bring the audience to the program, as it suits her thesis. In addition, she grants viewers too much autonomy suggesting the experience of pleasure diminishes any such ideologies which obviously prevail.
References
Alasuutari, P. (1992). "I'm ashamed to admit it but I have watched dallas": The moral hierarchy of television programmes. Media, Culture & Society, 14(4), 561-582.
Ang, I. (1996). Living Room Wars. Rethinking media audiences for a postmodern world. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ang, I. (Ed.). (1998). Dallas and the ideology of mass culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Clarke, D. (2000). The active pursuit of active viewers: Directions in audience research. Canadian Journal of Communication, 25(1), 39-59.
Collins, A. (1993). Intellectuals, power and quality television. Cultural Studies, 7(1), 28-45.
Holmes, S. (2009). 'This outlet for criticism could ginger up the whole climate in which television is watched': (re)viewing "points of view" -- audience, access and participation. Critical Studies in Television, 4(1), 4-25.
Negus, K. (2002). The work of cultural intermediaries and the enduring distance between production and consumption. Cultural Studies, 16 (4), 501-515.
Therborn, G. (1980). The Ideology of power and the power of ideology. London: Verso.
No comments:
Post a Comment