15 the rediscovery of ideology return of the repressed in media studiesWord下载.docx

15 the rediscovery of ideology return of the repressed in media studiesWord下载.docx

《15 the rediscovery of ideology return of the repressed in media studiesWord下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《15 the rediscovery of ideology return of the repressed in media studiesWord下载.docx（27页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

@#@TheRediscoveryof“Ideology”;@#@ReturnoftheRepressedinMediaStudies@#@StuartHall@#@Masscommunicationsresearchhashad,toputitmildly,asomewhatchequeredcareer.Sinceitsinceptionasaspecialistareaofscientificinquiryandresearch—roughly,theearlydecadesofthetwentiethcentury—wecanidentifyatleastthreedistinctphases.Themostdramaticbreakisthatwhichoccurredbetweenthesecondandthirdphases.Thismarksoffthemassiveperiodofresearchconductedwithinthesociologicalapproachesof“mainstream”Americanbehaviouralscience,beginninginthe1940sandcommandingthefieldthroughintothe1950sand1960s,fromtheperiodofitsdeclineandtheemergenceofanalternative,“critical’paradigm.Thispaperattemptstochartthismajorparadigmshiftinbroadoutlineandtoidentifysomeofthetheoreticalelementswhichhavebeenassembledinthecourseoftheformationofthe“critical”approach.Twobasicpointsaboutthisbreakshouldbemadeatthisstageintheargument.First,thoughthedifferencesbetweenthe“mainstream”andthe“critical”approachesmightappear,atfirstsight,tobeprincipallymethodologicalandprocedural,thisappearanceis,inourview,afalseone.Profounddifferencesintheoreticalperspectiveandinpoliticalcalculationdifferentiatetheonefromtheother.Thesedifferencesfirstappearinrelationtomediaanalysis.But,behindthisimmediateobjectofattention,thereliebroaderdifferencesintermsofhowsocietiesorsocialformationsingeneralaretobeanalysed.Second,thesimplestwaytocharacterizetheshiftfrom“mainstream”to“critical"@#@perspectivesisintermsofthemovementfrom,essentially,abehaviouraltoanideologicalperspective.@#@“DreamComeTrue"@#@;@#@Pluralism,theMediaandtheMythofIntegration@#@The“mainstream”approachwasbehaviouralintwosenses.ThecentralquestionthatconcernedAmericanmediasociologistsduringthisperiodwasthequestionofthemediaseffects.Theseeffects—itwasassumed—couldbestbeidentifiedandanalysedintermsofthechangeswhichthemediaweresaidtohaveeffectedinthebehaviourofindividualsexposedtotheirinfluence.Theapproachwasalso“behavioural”inamoremethodologicalsense.Speculationaboutmediaeffectshadtobesubjecttothekindsofempiricaltestwhichcharacterizedpositivisticsocialscience.ThisapproachwasinstalledasthedominantoneinthefloweringofmediaresearchintheUnitedStatesinthe1940s.ItsascendancyparalleledtheinstitutionalhegemonyofAmericanbehaviouralscienceonaworldscaleinthehey-dayofthe1950sandearly1960s.Itsdeclineparalleledthatoftheparadigmsonwhichthatintellectualhegemonyhadbeenfounded.Thoughtheoreticalandmethodologicalquestionswereofcentralimportanceinthischangeofdirection,theycertainlycannotbeisolatedfromtheirhistoricalandpoliticalcontexts.Thisisoneofthereasonswhytheshiftsbetweenthedifferentphasesofresearchcan,withouttoomuchsimplification,alsobecharacterizedasasortofoscillationbetweentheAmericanandtheEuropeanpolesofintellectualinfluence.@#@Tounderstandthenatureofmediaresearchintheperiodofthebehaviouralmainstreamhegemony,anditsconcernwithacertainsetofeffects,wemustunderstandthewayitrelated,inturn,tothefirstphaseofmediaresearch.For,behindthisconcern’withbehaviouraleffectslayalonger,lessscientificandempiricaltraditionofthought,whichoffered,inaspeculativemode,asetofchallengingthesesabouttheimpactofthemodemmediaonmodemindustrialsocieties.BasicallyEuropeaninfocus,thislargerdebateassumedaverypowerful,largelyunmediatedsetofeffectsattributabletothemedia.Thepremiseofthisworkwastheassumptionthat,somewhereintheperiodoflaterindustrialcapitalistdevelopment,modernsocietieshadbecome“masssocieties.Themassmediawereseenbothasinstrumentsinthisevolution,andassymptomaticofitsmosttroublingtendencies.The“masssociety/massculture”debatereallygoesbackasfar,atleast,astheeighteenthcentury.Itstermswerefirstdefinedintheperiodoftheriseofanurbancommercialculture,interpretedatthetimeasposingathreat,becauseofitsdirectdependenceonculturalproductionforamarket,totraditionalculturalvalues.Butthedebatewasrevivedinapeculiarlyintenseformattheendofthenineteenthcentury.Itiscommon,nowadays—andweagreewiththisview—largelytodiscountthetermsinwhichtheseculturalandsocialproblemsassociatedwiththedevelopmentofindustrialcapitalismweredebated.Nonetheless,themassculturedebatedidindeedidentifyadeepandqualitativeshiftinsocialrelationswhichoccurredinmanyadvancedindustrialcapitalistsocietiesinthisperiod.Althoughthenatureofthesehistoricaltransformationscouldnotbeadequatelygrasped