Reflections on Representations

Throughout the course the concept of representation was part of our discussions. Whether in context with language, semiotics, stereotypes, music on screen, or fashion, the questions of how something is depicted in the media, and moreover, how this depiction alters meanings, creates new symbols and understandings of different issues, were omnipresent. To me it was very interesting to connect the discussions on media representations to self-representation: in what way do we represent ourselves – and are these representations real? Admittedly, this questions falls more under aspects of psychology, which is why I found Lisa Blackman’s text very interesting. However, when talking about societies and cultures it is impossible not to talk about psychological or philosophical issues. Recently, I started to learn about meditation, and one important aspect of it is to find and recognise your true self. By actively stopping to think for short amounts of time, it is possible to find an inner balance, and to feel at peace with oneself. Especially in connection with the fact that we are constantly surrounded by media representations of all sorts of things, such as views on beauty, ways of living, ideas of success (and how it is supposed to look/feel like), it is difficult to figure out, what one’s own ideas and opinions are. That is why I think media studies and discussions on the concept of representations should be integral parts of education – we have to learn that media only offers us one tiny window into other worlds, cultures, people and events.

In his work, Stuart Hall unravels the different notions of Representation. He points out that the term itself has two meanings: “to present, to image, to depict” and, at the other hand, to “stand in for” something (Hall, 2006, minute 3f.). Media therefore not only depicts different people, groups or events, but the representation carries meaning, and whatever is represented stands in for a supposedly true meaning. Herein lies the danger of media and cultural representations: whatever we see or hear about a person, event or thing is given a new meaning, one image can become engrained in our minds, and suddenly stands for the ‘whole’ issue. There are a million examples for that, but I had to think of images of city skylines that represent the whole city, and often those images do not match reality and leave tourists disappointed when they finally arrive in, lets say New York City, and walk through crowded, dirty or rundown areas, instead of seeing the vibrant and exciting places they expected.

The system of representation is crucial in order to make sense of the world around us. Saussure’s linguistic/semiotic approach to representation shows how our language and communication is completely dependant on signs, symbols or signifiers. We have ‘mental representations’ of objects and are able to imagine and express them (Hall, 1997, p.17). Whereas this is easy to comprehend in terms of objects, it is hard to describe when talking about ‘concepts of rather obscure and abstract things’ such as success, beauty or love (ibid.). And this is where (especially visual) media comes into play nowadays. As the first picture more or less ironically indicates is that we often have given concepts of what is beautiful or not on our minds – and it becomes very obvious when looking at different fashion styles emerging over time across countries or even internationally. It is this part of the system of representation where I started wondering about the concept of the self that we have. If everything we know is based upon representations, and if we take meaning from mere representations, but never the ‘real’ – where does that leave the ‘me’? When I look in the mirror or see a picture of myself, do I see the real me, or am I bound to be distorted due to images and concepts that where ingrained in my mind via media representations? This is obviously a very complex and philosophical question, and no room at this point in time to aim to answer it, yet this is one of the many directions in which this course caused me to think...

References

Hall, Stuart. 2006. Representation and the Media. In: Challenging Media Lectures [YouTube Video]. URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTzMsPqssOY

Hall, Stuart. 1997. ‘The work of representation’ in: Stuart Hall (ed.), Representations: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, pp.13-74.

I know what I want and what I need. Maybe. Do I?

I want to pick up on the idea of the autonomous self in relation to media and our contemporary society. Matthias’ presentation (week 11) was very thought provoking and made me wonder about ‘identity/individuality’, media caused ‘desires’ and how the human mind is able to trick itself.

In its definition autonomous means that one is not controlled by others or by outside forces, but an independent individual. Deriving from Greek, the word suggests that the autonomous self is living under one’s own laws (auto – self + nomos – law). This notion causes a few problems when talking about our globalised society: for one, established rules are meant to regulate our interactions, and enforce peaceful living conditions – so there are certain laws in our society that everyone should oblige, and they are not necessarily the laws oneself would establish. Furthermore, I wonder in how far true autonomy would be really desirable. Humans are “gregarious animals” (G. Lichtenberg), we grow up independent from others and we most likely stay that way, always looking for a sense of belonging, for approval and security within relationships with other humans. The psychologist Abraham Maslow proposed his theory of the hierarchy of the human needs in 1943 in order to explain human motivation, why we behave the way we do. In this theory, the most important need after all physical needs are met is Security, followed by Love and Belonging (Maslow, 1954, see image).

When looking at the pyramid I find it quite interesting that most ‘human needs’ to me are a given, and I therefore do not really strive for them. In some way one could argue that this is the fact for most people in western societies, who have job or at least receive financial support in some way or the other and not have to worry about the most basic needs such as food and a general sense of security. So our needs transform into desires, and I think it would be possible to add another ‘need’ to the pyramid: Abundance. Looking, for example, at magazines, we can see a trend towards a thinking that puts desires on one level with human needs, creating a belief that we ‘need’ a new car, dress or haircut. This is only possible when all other needs are satisfied, and when we live with a sense of abundance, a subconscious knowledge that we have enough. (However, I am aware that this is only true for very few people...)

Furthermore, what becomes apparent in this hierarchy, whether in large or small social groups, we are always interconnected and want to belong. As discussed earlier in the semester this is one of the main reasons for the emergence of so-called subcultures (yet, the term and concept of ‘subcultures’ is problematic and not adequate to describe the group and identity forming processes. I found a really interesting article on the issue, discussing the term especially with regard to youth studies and popular music. Hesmondhalgh criticises also other suggested terms that came up in order to substitute ‘subcultures’, such as ‘scenes’ or ‘tribes’ (2005, p.22). As mentioned in another journal entry, I am thinking of these phenomena rather as social and/or cultural networks...).

At the same time, we are all individuals, and want to be recognised as such. Especially advertisement and mass media is often utilising this fact, telling us to “be yourself”.

Saussure argues that language is only possibly through and marked by difference. The same goes for humans, trying to find their own identity, going through a process of expression. Yet, we are all interconnected, want to belong and be accepted, and most of all, have the same needs. It is very hard to figure out, what we truly need and what we are subconsciously told that we need. I think we can be autonomous only by realising that we are not. Every person will always be an individual, with a unique identity. At the same time, we will always connect with each other and learn from another, (re)creating new ideas, needs and desires.

Resources

Hesmondhalgh, David. 2005. Subcultures, Scenes or Tribes? None of the Above. In: Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp.22-40. Available online: http://www.academia.edu/1534935/Subcultures_Scenes_or_Tribes_None_of_the_Above

Maslow, Abraham. 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper and Row New York, New York.

Source of the image of Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs’: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs.svg&page=1

Infotainment: Societies’ sensationalism and synoptical processes

Since the rise of journalism as a profession there have been many shifts and changes in what is perceived as ‘human interest’. Initially newspapers would report on political issues and address only a small part of society. Carrabine (2008) argues that journalism in the late 19^th Century laid the foundations of modern (or rather: contemporary) news reporting, moving “towards a more sensational mode of address” (p.102). Looking at most popular news shows and considering the success of tabloids over ‘serious’ newspapers, it becomes clear how sensationalism wins over the need to be informed objectively (although I am aware that there is no such thing as pure objectivity, though I believe it is possible to strive for it, by offering and allowing different perspectives and opinions). Speaking only of the societies that I know and have lived in: do we really want to be entertained rather than informed? How does our sensationalism affect the need to see and to be seen – in other words: are we a synoptical society?

In the Dictionary of Mass Communication and Media Research Demers describes infotainment as "information-based media content or programming that also includes entertainment content in an effort to enhance popularity with audiences and consumers" (Demers, 2005, p.143). While one has to keep in mind that any news stories and event reports are always representations of reality, and therefore inevitably distorted, the element of entertainment reduces the factual accuracy further.

When I first came to Australia it struck me how different TV channels would advertise their news shows with promises such as “We show it first”, offering their viewers the opportunity to see events ‘live’ and ‘first-hand’. I grew up watching only news shows that were shown on the public-sector broadcaster (comparable to abc or sbs in Australia), where the news programs are not advertised but rather simply announced. At first this fact made me downgrade Australian TV news to a certain extend; sensationalism in this context equals to me in a severe loss of sincerity and credibility. However, I now realise that infotainment and sensationalism are neither an Australian phenomenon, nor are they limited to TV news programs.

I feel that the need to be entertained results from different aspects of our contemporary society: for one, we are constantly bombarded with information, advertisement, moving and non-moving images, sounds, stories and ‘breaking news’. This causes an overload, and thus our brains try to filter out the ‘unimportant’, creating an apparent need to make media even more attracting, more colourful and louder. Secondly, a lot of the perceived information, especially news reports, is negative. Infotainment offers us a possibility to detach ourselves from the reality of the negative, while still feeling informed and knowing. In both aspects, infotainment acts as a form of self-protection.

Simultaneously, infotainment and sensationalism show how media is more and more controlling our society, or rather, our life and perceptions of how we should live it. In his work, Mathiesen (1997) argues that Foucault’s concept of panopticism, where the few see and thus control the many, has in some way been replaced with synoptical processes: “The mass media, and especially television, which today bring the many — literally hundreds of millions of people at the same time — with great force to see and admire the few. In contrast to Foucault's panoptical process, the latter process is referred to as synoptical” (p.215). I find it especially interesting how he develops his argument towards a society that is no longer controlled by physical punishment, but rather by psychological impacts. While this type of surveillance seems more humane at first, it is also more dangerous and extensive. “Gone are the days of open brutality and the uncontrolled infliction of physical pain; instead, there is a carefully developed system of rules regulating life in full and complete detail” (Mathiesen, 1997, p.216). The dangerous part about this system, in my eyes, is the fact that most people are unaware of it, despite the fact that they are not only the receiving part of it, but moreover an acting entity. We all want to believe that we can free ourselves of some of ‘society’s expectations’, that we are independent individuals who choose how to live freely.

In this context, a discussion about the ‘autonomous self’ (e.g. Blackman, 2006), or rather the fiction or non-existence of the same would be very useful and insightful, yet I have to limit myself to referring to the idea at this point.

This discussion and findings are as much inconclusive as they are incomplete and open-ended. The term infotainment has a very negative connotation, however, I showed that it can be seen as a form of self-protection in this crazy world we live in, where we are controlled by technology and invisible mind doctors who shape our thinking and steal our autonomy while making us believe we are all self-empowered and independent...... 

References

Carrabine, Eamonn. 2008. Entertaining the Nation. Course Reader, Week 10. 

Demers, David. 2005. Dictionary of Mass Communication and Media Research: a guide for students, scholars and professionals. Marquette, p.143.

Mathiesen, Thomas. 1997. ‘The Viewer Society: Michel Foucault’s “Panopticon Revisited”’. In: Theoretical Criminology, pp. 215–234. Available online: http://tcr.sagepub.com/content/1/2/215.abstract