Using French Social Thought for Media Criticism By Steve Hoenisch Last updated on November 21, 2005 Copyright

1996-2005 www.Criti ism.Com

Table of Contents
1 MED ! CU"TU#E 1.1 ! "ord about #$edia% $ THE THE%# ES 2.1 !&thusser and 'deo&ogy 2.1.1 !&thusser(s )trengths and "ea*nesses 2.2 +o&and ,arthes(s )emio&ogy 2.2.1 !dvantages and -isadvantages o. )emio&ogy 2./ 0ou au&t1 ! Lover(s -is ourse 2./.1 2ros and Cons o. a 2ostmodern !pproa h & THE '%(E# %F THE E)'"!*!T %* + *%TES , '#%'%S!" !*D %UT" *E F%# TH S ESS!5.1 2roposa& ,ib&iography . #elated 1 MED ! CU"TU#E 'n an era when the media have grown to be one o. the most dominant .orms o. u&ture in North !meri an3so dominant, in .a t, that the they an now be seen as the pinna &e o. ommer ia& u&ture3an e4p&anatory theory o. the media be omes paramount. 5et onsidering the intimate re&ationship between so iety and media and that, .or many, the media have be ome their u&ture 3produ ing a media u&ture3a theory that views the media outside the onte4t o. u&ture wi&& be a..&i ted with myopia. 6hus, .or omp&eteness, a theory o. the media re7uires a .irm onne tion to u&ture in its every step. "hi&e an ade7uate theory o. media u&ture, in our era, is o. deep signi.i an e, it wou&d neverthe&ess &a * a .undamenta& onne tion to more pro.ound aspe ts o. &i.e that, .or me, go beyond &ibera&ism3.reedom .rom oppression, 8usti e, e7ua&ity, and genera& we&.are3without being tied to the po&iti a& system that shou&d aim to ensure su h &iberties. "hi&e *eeping su h &iberties in view, a so ia& theory, when dire ted toward the mass media, shou&d a ount .or at &east the .o&&owing predominant .a ts, whi h hara teri9e the interse tion o. u&ture and media in !meri an so iety1 the treatment o. po&iti s as entertainment or sport: the .o us o. image over substan e: the uni.ormity o. perspe tive .rom whi h the mass media over the news: the media(s seeming&y vast po&iti a& power, espe ia&&y in &ight o. its pro &amation o. ob8e tivity: the histori a& basis .or the .ormu&ation o. a media u&ture and the history behind the media(s a 7uisition o. power over the po&iti a& system. 6here are a&so re&ationships, &i*e those o. agen y, that a theory o. the media shou&d be ab&e to e4p&ain1 ;ow an an individua& in.&uen e the mass media, and how are individua&s( ideo&ogies in.&uen ed by the media. ;ow is resistan e possib&e, either as a passive viewer or as an a tive produ er, in the &imate o. near-monopo&y ownership o. the <.). media by about 10 orporations1, sin e, as +o&and ,arthes says, #a&& domination begins by prohibiting &anguage.%2 6he monopo&y ownership o. the media a&&ows orporations to do 8ust that in the area where .or e.u& oppositiona& dis ourse is most desperate&y needed. !nd there are 7uestions o. meaning that must be answered1 -oes a media arti.a t ontain singu&ar or mu&tip&e meanings= ;ow do viewers draw meaning .rom media te4ts and images= Can not viewers pro8e t their own meaning into media arti.a ts= "ho onstru ts meaning, the individua& or the institution= 6he &ist goes on. !nd .ina&&y1 "hy do so many peop&e, in &uding myse&., wat h so mu h bad te&evision and onsume so mu h rotten media, even when we *now it is bad.

!&& these issues annot be addressed here, but with them in mind, this essay e4amines the app&i ation o. three strains o. 0ren h so ia& thought3stru tura& $ar4ism, semio&ogy, and postmodernism3to ana&y9ing the mass media and their re&ations to u&ture and so iety. <&timate&y, ' see* to assess the e4p&anatory power o. !&thusser(s stru tura& $ar4ism, ,arthes(s semio&ogy, and 0ou au&t(s postmodernism when app&ied to the mass media. 6here are, o. ourse, severa& representatives o. stru tura& $ar4ism, semio&ogy and postmodernism, and ea h o. the s hoo&s has been .orma&&y app&ied to the media. )pa e, however, .orbids an ana&ysis o. a&& three s hoo&s( representatives. 't a&so .orbids an e4amination o. .orma& mass media mode&s bui&t upon the wor* o. the s hoo&s( primary theorists. 6hus, my .o us wi&& be on the theoreti a& .ounders o. ea h s hoo&, and primari&y on on&y one representative .rom ea h. ' wi&& e4amine Louis !&thusser(s stru tura& $ar4ism: +o&and ,arthes(s semio&ogy, omp&emented at the margins by ,audri&&ard(s theory: and $i he& 0ou au&t(s postmodernism, with some re.eren es to >a 7ues -errida(s views. "ith a .o us on these authors, this essay wi&& broad&y de&ineate the theoreti a& approa hes o. the three s hoo&s in e4p&aining the ro&e o. the mass media in so iety. !s ' pro eed, ' wi&& a&so enumerate severa& strengths and wea*nesses o. ea h theory and ma*e some omparisons among them. 6he &ast se tion o. the essay wi&& as* whi h theory, in sum, best a ounts .or some o. the important hara teristi s o. the mass media in re&ation to u&ture and the so ia& and po&iti a& system. ,e.ore pro eeding, ' wou&d &i*e to ma*e a genera& dis &aimer1 6his essay, with the goa&s set out above, ou&d easi&y onstitute a boo*. 6hus, .or the sa*e o. brevity, many possib&e ang&es, perspe tives, 7uestions and answers3in &uding some o. those mentioned above3wi&& not be addressed or pursued. 1/1 ! (ord about 0Media1 6he term #mass media% in &udes te&evision, .i&m, radio, the 'nternet, newspapers, boo*s, advertising, musi , a&& .orms o. news, the overs o. ompa t dis*s, the ba *s o. erea& bo4es. ' o.ten use the word #media% as shorthand .or mass media. ;owever, the term #media,% used a&one, arries a wider meaning .or me, in &uding not on&y a&& .orms o. mass media and te&e ommuni ations but a&so any image or ob8e t given the weight o. meaning in so iety. 6hus, under #media% ' wou&d subsume su h obvious .orms as .ashion but su h &ess obvious .orms as the pa *aging o. ordinary produ ts and the &oo* o. automobi&es and other sty&i9ed produ ts. 6hat is, #media% in &udes any medium or object used to ommuni ate a message or a meaning. To2 $ THE THE%# ES 6his se tion de.ines and out&ines in broad stro*es the theoreti a& approa hes o. !&thusser(s stru tura& $ar4ism, ,arthes(s semio&ogy, and 0ou au&t(s postmodernism to e4p&aining the ro&e o. the mass media in so iety. 'n my view, !&thusser(s theori9ing is the most omp&e4, and thus ' wi&& attempt to render it most simp&y. ,arthes and 0ou au&t(s theories wi&& re eive a more p&ay.u&, &ess methodi a& des ription. "hen it omes to 0ou au&t(s postmodernism espe ia&&y, the bounds o. interpretation are, in my view, more &enient. $/1 !lthusser and deology 'n re&ation to the mass media, two o. the *ey on epts o. stru tura& $ar4ism are !&thusser(s re8e tion o. the &assi a& base-superstru ture mode& and his brea* with viewing the media stri t&y as a means o. produ tion that reates .a&se ons iousness. 5et, when his theory is used to ana&y9e the mass media, it rests on the notion o. ideo&ogy, in &uding the view that an individua& is onstituted by su h pre-given stru tures as &anguage and, in !meri a espe ia&&y, media u&ture.

!s su h, !&thusser(s $ar4ism is stru tura& be ause it re8e ts the ;ege&-inspired essentia&ism that &ed on the one hand to viewing e onomi re&ations as the essen e o. so iety and on the other hand to seeing so ia& deve&opments as e4pressive o. human nature. )imi&ar&y, ea h individua&(s sub8e tivity, in !&thusser(s view, is onstituted by ideo&ogy, the mediating .a tor between the individua& and the wor&d. 'n this way, a stru tura&ist &ine runs through mu h o. !&thusser(s thought: peop&e and ategories, in &uding e onomi ones, e4ist in a #?pre-given( omp&e4 stru tured who&e.%/ ,e&ow ' e4pand on these on epts and their p&a e within !&thusser(s thought as we&& as their re&ation to an ana&ysis o. the mass media. 'n &assi a& $ar4ism, the e onomi base o. so iety determines the superstru ture: that is, e onomi re&ations determine a&& so ia&, u&tura& and po&iti a& phenomena, whi h in &udes everything .rom ideo&ogy and po&iti a& ons iousness to media u&ture. !&thusser(s stru tura& $ar4ism, however, brea*s .rom this stri t base-superstru ture mode& by arguing .or #the re&ative autonomy o. the superstru ture with respe t to the base ... @andA the re ipro a& a tion o. the superstru ture on the base.%B )u h a view, then, brea*s .rom &assi a& $ar4ist view that the e onomi base o. ommer ia& media organi9ations primari&y determines the ontent o. the materia& they produ e. 'nstead, !&thusser points the way to on eptua&i9ing ideo&ogi a& pra ti es &i*e the media as re&ative&y autonomous .rom e onomi determination, thereby a ounting .or the possibi&ity o. diverse va&ues and viewpoints in the ommer ia& media and .or oppositiona& readings by their audien es. )ome s hoo&s o. $ar4ism a&so see the media stri t&y as a means o. produ tion, the .un tion o. whi h is to produ e #.a&se ons iousness% in the wor*ing &ass. $a4 ;or*heimer and 6heodor ". !dorno, .or instan e, sees the mass media as a # u&ture industry% produ ing #mass de eption.%5 )u h a hara teri9ation o. the media an in turn &ead to on eiving o. media produ ts as e4pressions o. ru&ing- &ass va&ues, a view that ignores the diversity o. va&ues within both the ru&ing &ass and the media. 'n the <nited )tates, .or e4amp&e, the right maintains the mass media are overwhe&ming&y &ibera&, whereas the &e.t ontends that they are onservative. ,oth o. these views e4ist side by side in the ru&ing &ass o. main&ine repub&i ans and demo rats. Con eiving o. the media mere&y as produ ers o. .a&se ons iousness a&so disa&&ows the audien e(s potentia& to read media arti.a ts oppositiona&&y, .or media arti.a ts, on at &east one theorist(s view, ne essari&y ontain representations o. a&& oppositiona& tenden ies within so iety.6 !&thusser, however, re8e ts the notion o. .a&se ons iousness, emphasi9ing instead that peop&e intera t with the wor&d through ideo&ogy, whi h an itse&. be as mu h a determining .or e as the e onomi base. 'deo&ogy is #the ?&ived( re&ation between men and their wor&d.%C 0or !&thusser, then, the mass media are ideo&ogy. !&thusser goes on to distinguish ideo&ogy .rom s ien e through *now&edge1 'n s ien e, *now&edge predominates, whereas the #pra iti o-so ia& predominates% in ideo&ogy.D ,y emphasi9ing ideo&ogy over means o. produ tion, !&thusser a&&ows .or oppositiona& readings o. the mass media as we&& as opening the way .or a diversity o. viewpoints in the media. #!s $ar4 says,% !&thusser writes, #it is in ideo&ogy that men ?be ome ons ious( o. their &ass on.&i t and ?.ight it out.(%9 !s su h, it an be through reading and viewing the media that peop&e be ome ons ious o. their &ass status. !nd through produ tion o. media, peop&e may .ight the dominant apita&ist &ass, though it remains un &ear in !&thusser(s view how they an do this in the <nited )tates when near&y a&& the ommer ia& media out&ets are own by a sma&& number o. &arge orporations. !t any rate, the .o us on ideo&ogy &ies not on&y at the enter o. !&thusser(s theory as dire ted toward the mass media, but a&so stands as one its strong points. 'deo&ogy a&so .un tions to onstitute individua&s as sub8e ts. 'ndividua&s get their so ia& identities primari&y through su h #ideo&ogi a& state apparatuses% as the mass media.10 'ndeed, a ording to +obert Laps&ey and $i hae& "est&a*e(s 19DD boo* 0i&m 6heory1 !n 'ntrodu tion, it is through su h apparatuses as the mass media that peop&e obtain not on&y a sense o. identity but a&so an understanding o. rea&ity. 6hat is, ideo&ogy, even though it has re&ative autonomy, serves to re ast peop&e as sub8e ts, &eading them to view themse&ves as se&.-determining agents when they are in .a t shaped by pre-given ideo&ogi a& pro esses.

2.1.1 Althussers Strengths and Weaknesses )ome strengths and wea*nesses o. !&thusser(s stru tura& $ar4ism as app&ied to the media, beyond those mentioned above, in &ude the .o&&owing1 E't dis ounts the .ree agen y o. individua&s both in and outside the media industries to e4p&i it&y and dire t&y in.&uen e the ontent o. the mass media. E)in e ideo&ogi a& .orms su h as the media ontribute to reprodu ing the e4isting system, !&thusser(s theory bumps up against .un tiona&ism, opening itse&. up to many the riti isms that have been aimed at that theory. E'n !&thusser(s theory, mass media te4ts, a&ong with other ideo&ogi a& apparatuses, &ead peop&e to deve&op not on&y a sense o. persona& rea&ity but a&so an understanding o. rea&ity. 6he prob&em here, however, is that su h a view .ai&s to a ount .or the possibi&ity o. an individua& pro8e ting his or her own meaning into a media te4t. 6his wea*ness oe4ists with what ' see as another1 !&thusser(s anti-humanism. ;e seems to re8e t that the individua& is a se&.- ons ious, autonomous being whose a tions ou&d be e4p&ained in terms o. persona& be&ie.s or intentions. !s su h, !&thusser(s theory .ai&s to e4p&ain how an individua& an appropriate media te4ts and images .or his or her own ends independent o. in.&uen es by the dominant ideo&ogy. Fn the other hand, a entra& strength o. !&thusser(s theory, espe ia&&y in ontrast to &assi a& $ar4ism, is summed up by )tewart ;a&&. )tru tura& $ar4ism dodges a #genera& and wide-ranging riti ism advan ed against &assi a& mar4ism itse&.1 its rigid stru tura& determina y, its redu tionism o. two varieties3 &ass and e onomi : its way o. on eptua&i9ing the so ia& .ormation itse&.. $ar4(s mode& o. ideo&ogy has been riti i9ed be ause it did not on eptua&i9e the so ia& .ormation as a determinate omp&e4 .ormation, omposed o. di..erent pra ti es, but as a simp&e Gor, as !&thusser a&&ed it in 0or $ar4 and +eading Capita&, an ?e4pressive(H stru ture. ,y this !&thusser meant that one pra ti e -- ?the e onomi (3determines in a dire t manner a&& others, and ea h e..e t is simp&y and simu&taneous&y reprodu ed orresponding&y Gi.e., ?e4pressed(H on a&& other &eve&s.%11 ;owever, the &a * o. emphasis on e onomi determination may a&so &ead to a wea*ness when !&thusser(s theory is app&ied to the &imate o. media u&ture in the <nited )tates, where near&y a&& the mass media are owned by a .ew ong&omerates. 6his media monopo&y reates a uni.ormity o. perspe tive that ontains .ew moments o. diversity outside those imposed by the oppositiona& readings o. individua&s. C&assi a& $ar4ism(s emphasis on the e onomi base, whi h high&ights ownership and ontro& o. the media, perhaps better e4p&ains the urrent status o. the mass media in the <nited )tates3or at &east he&ps .o us an ana&yst on a ru ia& issue. $/$ #oland Barthes3s Semiology +o&and ,arthes(s semio&ogy .inds it .oundation in the stru tura& &inguisti theory o. 0erdinand de )aussure, who posited an abstra t notion *nown as langue to e4p&ain the system o. &anguage. Centra& to )aussure(s theory is the sign, whi h is in &angue. 6he sign emerges at the on8un tion o. the signi.ied and the signi.ier, both o. whi h are in parole, or a &anguage(s on rete properties. 'n )aussurean &inguisti s, the signi.ier is the spee h sound, and the signi.ied is the on ept or idea in the mind o. the spea*er. 6he sign is the entity that brings the two together, and it gains its meaning on&y in re&ation or opposition to other signs in the system. ;en e the meaning o. any sign is not on&y a so ia& onvention but a&so an arbitrary onstru tion. ,arthes e4pands )aussure(s theory to the domain o. u&ture, ana&y9ing how ob8e ts and media .un tion as signs in the so ia& system. ,arthes is parti u&ar&y interested in the onnotation, as opposed to denotation, o. so ia& signs: that is, their se ondary meaning. ;is ana&yses o. ob8e ts, media and other signs o.ten see* to debun* the myths, or .a&se representations, that surround them and appear natura&. )u h myths are used to onstru t an i&&usory so ia& rea&ity that distorts so iety(s a tua& stru tures o. power and rein.or es the apita&ist ideo&ogy. ,arthes(s semio&ogy, then, see*s to e4pose these myths .or what they are by ana&y9ing the sign and its re&ation to other signs in the so ia& system.

0or ,arthes, #a photograph wi&& be a *ind o. spee h .or us in the same way as a newspaper arti &e: even ob8e ts wi&& be ome spee h, i. they mean something.%12 6he e4pansion o. )aussure(s &inguisti theory to the domain o. u&ture enters on ,arthes(s notion that there are, in e..e t, two semio&ogi a& systems. 6he .irst, a&&ed by ,arthes the &anguageob8e t, is the system o. &anguage, image, or other modes o. representation: in themse&ves, they an ontain myths. 6he se ond, a&&ed the meta&anguage, is a &ayer o. myth behind the .irst #in whi h one spea*s about the .irst% &eve& and on&y needs #to *now its tota& term, or g&oba& sign, and on&y inasmu h as this term &ends itse&. to myth.%1/ $yth, that is, is a #se ond-order semio&ogi a& system%1B that ontains, &i*e the .irst system, the tri-dimensiona& pattern o. signi.ier, signi.ied, and sign. ,arthes provides an e4amp&e. ! photograph shows a b&a * man in a 0ren h uni.orm sa&uting what ,arthes says is probab&y the 0ren h .&ag. 6his is the .irst-&eve& meaning o. the pi ture, what an be seen as its denotation. 6he se ond-&eve& meaning o. the pi ture is its onnotation, whi h ontains a myth1 #6hat 0ran e is a great Impire, that a&& her sons, without any o&our dis rimination, .aith.u&&y serve under her .&ag, and that there is no better answer to the detra tors o. an a&&eged o&onia&ism than the 9ea& shown by this Negro in serving his so- a&&ed oppressors.%15 ,arthes(s e4amp&e is important be ause it is ta*en .rom a maga9ine, Paris-Match. 6hus ,arthes(s semio&ogy has a power.u& re&ation to the media: it is, in .a t, a theory onstru ted .or ana&y9ing the media and the produ ts o. a apita&isti so iety. 2.2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Semiology 6hus, semio&ogy is, in essen e, a theory o. media and other signs with u&tura& meaning. 't is, more than anything e&se, a theory o. how produ ts, ob8e ts, images and te4ts, whether &iterary or popu&ar, derive their meanings. Fne o. the great strengths o. the semio&ogi a& approa h, then, in ontrast to !&thusser(s theory, is that it provides a dire t, e4p&i it method .or de oding the images, ob8e ts, and words that appear in the media. Fther strengths o. ,arthes(s semio&ogy stem .rom his use o. )aussurean &inguisti s. 0or instan e, the meanings o. su h u&tura& signs as media images, seen as #natura&% by viewers, are revea&ed as so ia& onventions, as arbitrary onstru tions, whi h are o.ten .abri ated by one &ass3the bourgeoisie in $ytho&ogies3to dominate or de eive another. ,e ause these meanings appear to be natura&, ,arthes says, #the myth onsumer ta*es the signi.i ation .or a system o. .a ts1 myth is read as a .a tua& system, whereas it is but a semio&ogi a& system.%16 5et the same grounding in )aussurean &inguisti s that gives ,arthes(s semio&ogy its power to revea& seeming&y natura& meanings as so ia&&y onstru ted myths by viewing them as signs in a syn hroni , or stati , system a&so produ es a ma8or wea*ness1 't may .orego ta*ing into a ount important histori a&, or dia hroni , aspe ts o. u&tura& signs in their so ia& systems, whi h have been onstru ted historically. 'n other words, semio&ogy, when app&ied to su h u&tura& arti.a ts as the media, .ai&s to ade7uate&y ta*e history into a ount. 6his wea*ness stands in star* ontrast to the strengths o. a histori a&&y grounded theory, &i*e !&thusser(s $ar4ism. !nother strength in ,arthes(s writings is that he has an e4p&anation .or a be.udd&ing re urren e1 "hy so many peop&e wat h so mu h bad te&evision even when they *now it is aw.u&. ,arthes(s answer1 p&easure. ;e e&aborates thus1 #'. ' 8udge a te4t a ording to p&easure, ' annot go on to say1 this one is good, that bad. No awards, no ? riti7ue,% .or this a&ways imp&ies a ta ti a& aim, a so ia& usage, and .re7uent&y an e4tenuating image-reservoir.%1C !nd, more poignant&y1 #it is intermitten e, as psy hoana&ysis has so right&y stated, whi h is eroti 1 the intermitten e @.or e4amp&eA o. s*in .&ashing between two arti &es o. &othing Gtrousers and sweaterH, between two edges Gthe open-ne *ed shirt, the g&ove and the s&eeveH: it is this .&ash itse&. whi h sedu es, or rather1 the stage o. an appearan e-as-disappearan e.%1D

<n.ortunate&y, however, semio&ogi a& ana&ysis is stained by a number o. disadvantages, espe ia&&y when dire ted away .rom the media and onto other .eatures o. the wor&d1 E't genera&i9es3and at times overgenera&i9es3about a&& media(s ontent, and perhaps about a&& o. so iety(s, too. E't is a redu tionist approa h that subsumes everything under the sign, on ea&ing .or instan e the ro&e o. su h a tors and .ree agents as 8ourna&ists, editors, and managers in produ ing media. ECombining both o. the above ob8e tions, semio&ogy o.ten attempts to assign a singu&ar, overar hing meaning to a sign, a pra ti e that -errida re8e ts through his notion o. di..(ran e. ,arthes writes, as noted above, that the semio&ogist on&y needs #to *now its tota& term, or g&oba& sign, and on&y inasmu h as this term &ends itse&. to myth.% ,ut how an one *now that there is a sing&e meaning or a #g&oba& sign% instead o. many meanings &ur*ing behind the .irst-order representations. Li*ewise with the notion o. myth1 "ho is to say what onstitutes the myth= ,arthes writes, a&so as noted above, that #even ob8e ts wi&& be ome spee h, i. they mean something.% ,ut who is to say if they mean something, or what they mean .or that matter. !n ob8e t an easi&y ome to have meanings that hange with the sub8e t viewing it, a possibi&ity whi h &ashes with ,arthes(s be&ie. that behind the .irst-order representation &ies a myth in the .orm o. a #tota& term% or #g&oba& sign.% 6he theory rumb&es into sub8e tivity. 5et ,arthes, to his redit, rea&i9es this, and moves to a&& it not sub8e tivity but individua&ity1 "henever ' attempt to ?ana&y9e( a te4t whi h has given me p&easure, it is not my ?sub8e tivity( ' en ounter but my ?individua&ity,( the given whi h ma*es my body separate .rom other bodies and appropriates its su..ering or its p&easure1 it is my body o. b&iss ' en ounter. !nd this body o. b&iss is a&so my histori a& sub8e t: .or it is at the on &usion o. a very omp&e4 pro ess o. biographi a&, histori a&, so io&ogi a&, neuroti e&ements ... that ' ontro& the ontradi tory interp&ay o. G u&tura&H p&easure and Gnon u&tura&H b&iss, and that ' write myse&. as a sub8e t ...%19 6his e4 ept, however, is a&so important on another &eve&1 ,y emphasi9ing both individua& sub8e t and author it distinguishes ,arthes(s theory .rom onvi tions e4pounded by 0ou au&t, toward whose postmodern theory ,arthes dri.ts ever &oser in 6he 2&easure o. the 6e4t as he uses, .or instan e, more 7uotations .rom Niet9s he than in some o. his ear&ier wor*s. E)emio&ogy a&so abstra ts images and te4ts into the rea&m o. langue, thereby removing them .rom the on rete wor&d and, some argue, the rea&m o. ob8e tive s ien e. E)imi&ar&y, it &o *s the semio&ogist into a te hni a& .rame o. ana&ysis that an at times ma*e the method a substitute .or rea&ity. Fr worse1 )ome semioti ana&yses are presented as i. they are #s ienti.i % a ounts o. meaning rather than sub8e tive ones. E!nd, perhaps worst o. a&&, semio&ogy, in ontrast to other .orms o. stru tura&ism, does not a&&ow .or ontent hidden behind the signs o. the media. ,arthes, in $ytho&ogies, writes that #however parado4i a& it may seem, myth hides nothing: its .un tion is to distort, not to ma*e disappear.%20 'n ontrast to psy hoana&yti theories o. meaning, #there is no &aten y o. the on ept in re&ation to .orm1 there is no need o. an un ons ious in order to e4p&ain myth.%21 6his is a di..i u&t position to 8usti.y, however, espe ia&&y in &ight o. )aussure(s initia& insight that #the sign a&ways to some e4tent e&udes ontro& by the wi&&, whether o. the individua& or o. so iety1 that is its essentia& nature.%22 )aussure meant not on&y &inguisti signs but so ia& ones, too1 ommon ob8e ts, produ ts, things. )aussure, that is, be&ieved there ou&d be un ons ious or unmotivated meanings behind signs. ,arthes(s theory seems to trap him into assuming that there is a&ways intention or agen y behind a sign(s myth. $/& Foucault4 ! "over3s Discourse +o&and ,arthes, writing in the ear&y 19C0s, begins 6he 2&easure o. the 6e4t with these words1

#'magine someone ... who abo&ishes within himse&. a&& barriers, a&& &asses, a&& e4 &usions, not by syn retism but by simp&e dis ard o. that o&d spe ter1 &ogi a& ontradi tion: who mi4es every &anguage, even those said to be in ompatib&e: who si&ent&y a epts every harge o. i&&ogi a&ity, o. in ongruity: who remains passive in the .a e o. )o rati irony G&eading the inter&o utor to the supreme disgra e1 se&.- ontradi tionH and &ega& terrorism Ghow mu h pena& eviden e is based on a psy ho&ogy o. onsisten yJH. )u h a man wou&d be the mo *ery o. our so iety1 ourt, s hoo&, asy&um, po&ite onversation wou&d ast him out1 who endures ontradi tion without shame= Now this anti-hero e4ists1 he is the reader o. the te4t at the moment he ta*es his p&easure.%2/ "ith but a .ew minor revisions and reservations, this e4 ept ou&d be used to des ribe $i he& 0ou au&t. ,arthes, o. ourse, was not e4p&i it&y writing o. 0ou au&t, but ' .ind it hard to .athom that he ou&d not have made the onne tion, at &east .&eeting&y, as he was omposing the passage. Fr, more dramati a&&y, perhaps ,arthes had 8ust been reading 0ou au&t, ta*ing his p&easure, when he had the thought o. an anti-hero reading the anti-hero. 0or it is 0ou au&t who rises above the Cartesian Weltanschauung to show us what &ies beyond its arbitrary stru tures, .or it is 0ou au&t who reverses the paradigm, ma*ing a mo *ery o. ourt in -is ip&ine and 2unish and o. asy&um in $adness and Civi&i9ation. 6a*ing ,arthes(s passage in turn, it is 0ou au&t who abo&ishes the e4 &usions o. the past and dis ards the arbitrary onstraints o. reason, 0ou au&t who ree4amines and re onne ts aspe ts o. &anguage said to have been irre on i&ab&e, 0ou au&t who revea&s the u&timate phi&osophi a& irony1 truth o.ten &ies not so mu h in s ienti.i method, with its birth perhaps in the )o rati method, but in dis ourse. 6ruth, that is, no &onger .a&&s within the logical on.ines o. the )o rati method but within the dis ourse o. it, within an ana&ysis o. estab&ished ategories o. &anguage, thought, and history. ,ut even though the &ines o. 6he 2&easure o. the 6e4t e4 erpted above an be interpreted as ,arthes(s &ate- areer homage to 0ou au&t(s postmodernism, 0ou au&t wou&d dispute the abi&ity o. semio&ogi a& ana&ysis to dete t a singu&ar, over-ar hing meaning or myth under the &oa* o. signi.ier and signi.ied, as ,arthes and ,audri&&ard o.ten attempt to do. 'n $ytho&ogies, .or e4amp&e, ,arthes writes1 #"hat wrest&ing is above a&& meant to portray is a pure&y mora& on ept1 that o. 8usti e.%2B 'n another essay in $ytho&ogies, ,arthes a *now&edges the #7ui *- hange artistry o. p&asti % but then goes on to say that #p&asti is, a&& to&d, a spe ta &e to be de iphered1 the very spe ta &e o. its end-produ ts%25 Gwith spe ta &e being a somewhat te hni a& term meaning #the interp&ay o. a tion, representation and a&ienation in man and in so iety%26H. 0or ,arthes, p&asti be omes the u&timate sign o. transmutation1 #2&asti , sub&imated as movement, hard&y e4ists as substan e.%2C 'n .a t1 #6he hierar hy o. substan es is abo&ished1 a sing&e one rep&a es them a&&1 the who&e wor&d an be p&asti i9ed, and even &i.e itse&. sin e, we are to&d, they are beginning to ma*e p&asti aortas.%2D 6he media are a bit &i*e p&asti themse&ves1 6hey are, in $a4 ;or*heimer and 6heodor ". !dorno(s words, #an ever- hanging sameness.% !nd, a&so &i*e p&asti , the who&e wor&d, &i.e itse&., is being turned into media. ,arthes(s p&ay.u&ness notwithstanding, however, no sign, no word, ontains a singu&ar interpretation .or 0ou au&t, even perhaps as metaphor. Not even p&asti , though the word is o. ourse used here by 0ou au&t in its materia& sense1 #,etween word and image, between what is depi ted by &anguage and what is uttered by p&asti .orm, the unity begins to disso&ve: a sing&e and identi a& meaning is not immediate&y ommon to them. !nd i. it is true that the image sti&& has the .un tion o. spea*ing, o. transmitting something onsubstantia& with &anguage, we must re ogni9e that it a&ready no &onger says the same thing ...%29 0ou au&t is spea*ing o. painting, but the same might be said about the mass media, not on&y o. their images but a&so o. their signs, their representations, their re.eren es1 their &anguage. "hy= ! &iberation .rom reason, an un.o&ding into madness. ! &iberation that #derives .rom a pro&i.eration o. meaning, .rom a se&.-mu&tip&i ation o. signi.i an e, weaving re&ationships so numerous, so intertwined, so ri h, that they an no &onger be de iphered e4 ept in the esoterism o. *now&edge. 6hings themse&ves be ome so burdened with attributes, signs,

a&&usions that they .ina&&y &ose their own .orm. $eaning is no &onger read in an immediate per eption, the .igure no &onger spea*s .or itse&.: between the *now&edge whi h animates it and the .orm into whi h it is transposed, a gap widens.%/0 6his e4 ept aptures 7uite pre ise&y the app&i ation o. 0ou au&t(s postmodernism to media ana&ysis. +endered thus, 0ou au&t(s theory bears a dire t simi&arity to -errida(s notion o. di..(ran e1 there is at on e the di..eren e, or ontrast, o. signs in a stru tura& system that produ es meaning and the end&ess de.erra& o. meaning. 6hat is, there is no #.ina& or .i4ed point or privi&eged, meaning-determining re&ationship with the e4tra&inguisti wor&d.%/1 ;en e1 there is not mu h to ana&y9e, .or meaning is .&eeting, perspe tiva&, perhaps even se&.indu&gent, though even that is somewhat ontradi tory sin e there is no sub8e t. !na&ysis itse&., espe ia&&y o. the *ind steeped in reason, be omes irre&evant, an ana hronism. 2ostmodernism, then, be omes not so mu h an e4p&anation o. media ontent as an a *now&edgement that there are myriad e4p&anations behind any parti u&ar sign or image1 #)o many diverse meanings are estab&ished beneath the sur.a e o. the image that it presents on&y an enigmati .a e.%/2 ,ut perhaps '(m onstruing 0ou au&t(s postmodernism too broad&y. 0or there is a dis8un tion o. sorts between 0ou au&t(s own theory and the methodo&ogy that he uses to ana&y9e histories and te4ts. 6hus, a better indi ator o. how 0ou au&t(s thought ou&d be used to ana&y9e the mass media and their re&ations to so iety may &ie more in his methodo&ogy than in his theory1 a 7uestioning and ana&ysis o. ategori9ation and its re&ations to power, .or both are present in abundan e in the mass media, in &uding su h ategories as ob8e tivity as truth. ;ow, spe i.i a&&y, does 0ou au&t deve&op his ana&yses= 0irst, it is a genea&ogy o. sorts, and a 7uestioning o. the e4terna& onditions o. produ tion. 6he rest o. the answer omes .rom 0ou au&t in $adness and Civi&i9ation. 'n this e4 erpt the word #media% ou&d be substituted .or the .irst instan e o. the word #madness%1 #6o write the history o. madness thus wi&& mean the e4e ution o. a stru tura& study o. an histori a& ensemb&e3notions, institutions, 8uridi a& and po&i e measures, s ienti.i on epts3whi h ho&ds aptive a madness whose wi&d state an never in itse&. be restored.%// 2.3.1 Pros and Cons of a Postmodern Approa h $any aspe ts o. 0ou au&t(s theory, and o. postmodernism in genera&, are app&i ab&e to deve&oping a theory o. the mass media. 0or e4amp&e, and important&y .or an ana&ysis o. the media, 0ou au&t sees meaning as so ia&&y onstru ted by institutions, in &uding su h institutions as te&evisions networ*s, pub&ishing houses and newspapers hains. Fther high&y app&i ab&e on epts in &ude the .o&&owing1 E6he notion, .o&&owing .rom the death o. the sub8e t, that the ondition o. authorship has been disso&ved, &eaving on&y an author position that p&a es an emphasis on what is said. 6his vision an be parti u&ar&y power.u& in ana&y9ing the ontent o. the mass media, espe ia&&y te&evision, where it is unimportant who says what: in .a t, on te&evision the #author,% in &uding the an hors o. the networ*s( news, is o.ten an a tor. ;owever, the disso&ution o. authorship is doub&e-edged, ontaining a wea*ness that mat hes its strength. ,e ause o. the death o. the sub8e t and the disso&ution o. the author, there does not seem to be mu h room .or an individua& to pro8e t his or her own meaning into a media arti.a t, as +o&and ,arthes, i. nothing e&se, has proven that he an do. 0urther1 't &eads &itt&e room .or the onstru tion o. resistan e by an individua& a ting a&one, espe ia&&y i. that individua& de ides to resist through the produ tion o. his or her own dis ourse in the media. -oes individua& resistan e die with the death o. the sub8e t= 'ndeed, this &eads me to a ma8or riti ism o. 0ou au&t(s postmodernism when app&ied to the media. '. the on&y way in whi h po&iti a& a tion be omes possib&e within postmodernism is through produ ing an a&ternative dis ourse, how is po&iti a& a tion or resistan e possib&e in the <.). media when near&y a&& o. them are owned by a sma&& number o. &arge orporations intent on perpetuating the dominant dis ourse=

E! re8e tion o. the notion o. truth in .avor o. an unbro*en hain o. signi.iers. )u h a position be omes power.u& when ombined with the postmodern emphasis on te4t over spee h, espe ia&&y i. images an be substituted .or the notion o. te4t. "ho says what does not matter, nor what is said. I4amp&e1 'n his boo* ,rea*ing the News1 ;ow the $edia <ndermine !meri an -emo ra y, >ames 0a&&ows gives an e4amp&e o. how 6K images smother spee h with an ane dote about a C,) reporter doing a story on 2resident +ona&d +eagan in 19DB. 6he reporter, Les&ey )tah&, had do umented the ontradi tion between what +eagan said and what he did by showing him spea*ing at the )pe ia& F&ympi s and at a nursing home whi&e pointing out that he had ut .unding to hi&dren with disabi&ities and opposed .unding .or pub&i hea&th. !.ter )tah&(s pie e was broad ast, she got a a&& .rom a "hite ;ouse o..i ia&, who praised her pie e. )urprised by the omp&iments, she as*ed the "hite ;ouse o..i ia& why he wasn(t upset, pointing out that her pie e had nai&ed the president. 6he o..i ia& rep&ied1 #5ou te&evision peop&e sti&& don(t get it. No one heard what you said. -on(t you peop&e rea&i9e that the pi ture is a&& that ounts. ! power.u& pi ture drowns out the words.%/B 2erhaps this statement aptures postmodern po&iti s in a tion. Fn&y postmodernism, then, seems ab&e to e4p&ain why a&& that matters is the unbro*en hain o. signi.iers, spe i.i a&&y here in the .orm o. te&evision .ootage. Fn te&evision, it no &onger matters who is spea*ing3or what is being said. 'n this way, and a&so in a more dire t manner by p&a ing an emphasis on dominant dis ourse, postmodernism a ounts .or the &ose power re&ationship between po&iti s and the news. E2ostmodernism a&so ontains a strength .or media ana&ysis in its e4hortation that those e&ements repressed by the dominant dis ourse must be addressed. >ust as mu h importan e is p&a ed on what is not said as on what is said. 5et in this e4hortation a&so &ies a wea*ness1 )ure&y some o. what is not said, some o. the dis ourse repressed by the dominant dis ourse, is .as ist or otherwise evi& and inhuman. Neverthe&ess, a .o us on margina& dis ourses in the onte4t o. the dis ourse o. power that ta*e p&a e regu&ar&y in the mass media may &ead to va&uab&e insights. To2 & THE '%(E# %F THE E)'"!*!T %* 'n this se tion ' wi&& on &ude my essay by arguing not .or the superiority o. one o. the theories over the others .or ana&y9ing the mass media but rather .or the use o. a&& three theories, and others, as appropriate to the media in 7uestion. !s ea h has its strengths and wea*nesses, none o. the three theories set out above stands out de.initive&y above the others in its e4p&anatory power when it omes to a ounting .or the mass media(s ro&e in !meri an so iety. 0ou au&t(s ana&ysis o. the ategories that the media use, a&ong with his emphasis on dis ourse, is a power.u& too&, but it &a *s a on rete e4p&anation o. how individua& a tion an in.&uen e the media. 'n addition, it &a *s a strong po&iti a& omponent3whi h is a ne essary perspe tive .rom whi h to diagnose a media as po&iti i9ed as the <nited )tates(. ,arthes(s semio&ogy is at on e use.u& and sedu tive, but ontains, in the end, too many short omings. !nd whi&e !&thusser(s $ar4ism provides a better onte4t with whi h to view the intri ate stru tura& wor*ings and in.&uen es o. the media on ideo&ogy than &assi a& $ar4ism, it at the same time sets itse&. up, through its very granting o. re&ative autonomy to ideo&ogi a& apparatuses, to dis ounting the power.u& ro&e p&ayed by !meri a(s media ong&omerates. ,audri&&ard(s mi4ing o. semio&ogy and postmodernism in his boo* !meri a be omes an e4amp&e o. how theories an be ombined to a hieve a greater degree o. e4p&anatory power than i. one view is used to the e4 &usion o. others. $ore e4p&i it&y, -oug&as Le&&ner, in his boo* $edia Cu&ture1 Cu&tura& )tudies, 'dentity and 2o&iti s ,etween the $odern and the 2ostmodern, on eives o. theories as #instruments, as providing

too&s in a too&*it%/5 that an be used depending on onte4t and one(s purpose, a strategy he attributes to 0ou au&t but one that an be tra ed ba * to Niet9s he(s radi a& perspe tivism. 'n .a t, 0ou au&t(s method o. ana&ysis, espe ia&&y as used in $adness and Civi&i9ation, seems to bear this out, produ ing pro.ound and power.u& riti7ues o. so iety(s estab&ished ategories, and thus the too&s-in-a-too&bo4 approa h &eads to the superiority o. 0ou au&t(s theory in genera& and perhaps as dire ted toward the media as we&&. 6he too&s-in-a-too&*it approa h3 ombined with 0ou au&t(s power.u& method o. ar haeo&ogi a& e4 avation and his use o. poststru tura& ana&yses o. the signs in a so ia& system, a&ong with the more genera& aspe ts o. postmodernism that seem to .it the mass media so we&&3gives 0ou au&t(s theory more e4p&anatory power than the others. 'n .a t, postmodernism an be seen as a theory that has arisen in response to and as part o. the media and te hno&ogi a& age, as part o. an age when u&ture is de.ined as mu h by media, espe ia&&y te&evision, as by su h &ongerstanding u&tura& .orms as &iterature, art, and musi . 2ostmodernism(s &a * o. e4p&i it po&iti a& ontent, however, remains .or me prob&emati , as does its de entering o. the sub8e t and its approa h to po&iti a& a tion. 'n postmodernism, po&iti a& a tion &ies in the .ormation o. a ounter dis ourse within e4isting dis ourse, an enterprise whi h seems parti u&ar&y di..i u&t i. not impossib&e in !meri a, onsidering that the <.). media are owned and ontro&&ed by a sma&& number o. orporations. To2 + *%TES ,en ,agdi*ian, 6he $edia $onopo&y, Bth Idition G,oston1 ,ea on 2ress, 1992H, p. i4. +o&and ,arthes, )MN, trans. +i hard $i&&er GNew 5or*1 ;i&& and "ang, 19CBH, p. 6D. Louis !&thusser, For Marx, trans. ,en ,rewster GNew 5or*1 Kerso, 1996H, p. 19/. !&thusser, 7uoted by +obert Laps&ey and $i hae& "est&a*e, 0i&m 6heory1 !n 'ntrodu tion G$an hester, Ing&and1 $an hester <niversity 2ress, 19DDH, p. 5. 5. $a4 ;or*heimer and 6heodor ". !dorno, -ia&e ti o. In&ightenment, trans. >ohn Cumming GNew 5or*1 Continuum, 1995H, p. 120 ... 6. -oug&as Le&&ner, $edia Cu&ture1 Cu&tura& )tudies, 'dentity and 2o&iti s ,etween the $odern and the 2ostmodern GLondon1 +out&edge, 1995H, throughout the boo*. C. Louis !&thusser, 0or $ar4, p. 252. 6rans&ator(s g&ossary. D. 'bid. p. 252. 6rans&ator(s g&ossary. 9. Louis !&thusser, 0or $ar4, p. 11. 10.-anie& Chand&er, #$ar4ist $edia 6heory,% pub&ished on the "or&d "ide "eb at http1MMwww.aber.a .u*MOdg Mmar4ism.htm&, 199B. Chand&er is a pro.essor o. media studies and mass ommuni ation at a university in Preat ,ritain. 11.)tuart ;a&&, #6he 2rob&em o. 'deo&ogy1 $ar4ism without Puarantees,% p. 29. 'ta&i s in origina&. 12.+o&and ,arthes, $ytho&ogies, trans. !nnette Lavers GNew 5or*1 ;i&& and "ang, 19C2H, p. 111. 1/.'bid. p. 115. 1B.'bid. p. 11B. 15.'bid. p. 116. 16.'bid. p. 1/1. 1C.+o&and ,arthes, 6he 2&easure o. the 6e4t, trans. +i hard $i&&er GNew 5or*1 ;i&& and "ang, 19C5H, p. 1/. 1D.'bid. p. 10. 19.'bid. p. 62. 'ta&i s in origina&. 20.+o&and ,arthes, $ytho&ogies, p. 121. 'ta&i s in origina&. 21.'bid. p. 121. 22.0erdinand de )aussure, Course in Penera& Linguisti s, trans. +oy ;arris GLa )a&&e, '&&.1 Fpen Court, 19D/H, p. 16. 2/.+o&and ,arthes, 6he 2&easure o. the 6e4t, p. /. 'ta&i s in origina&. 2B.+o&and ,arthes, $ytho&ogies, p. 21. 1. 2. /. B.

25.'bid. p. 9C. 26.'bid. p. C. 6rans&ator(s Note. 2C.'bid. p. 9D. 2D.'bid. p. 99. 29.$i he& 0ou au&t, $adness and Civi&i9ation1 ! ;istory o. 'nsanity in the !ge o. +eason, trans. +i hard ;oward GNew 5or*1 +andom ;ouse, 1965H, p. 1D. 'ta&i s in origina&. /0.'bid. pp. 1D-19. /1.)imon ,&a *burn, 6he F4.ord -i tionary o. 2hi&osophy GF4.ord, <.L.1 F4.ord <niversity 2ress, 1996H, p. 105. /2.$i he& 0ou au&t, $adness and Civi&i9ation, p. 20. //.0ou au&t, 7uoted by >a 7ues -errida, "riting and -i..eren e, trans. !&an ,ass GChi ago1 <niversity o. Chi ago 2ress, 19CDH, p. BB. /B.>ames 0a&&ows, ,rea*ing the News1 ;ow the $edia <ndermine !meri an -emo ra y GNew 5or*1 2antheon, 1996H, p. 62. /5.-oug&as Le&&ner, $edia Cu&ture, p. 2B. 6op , '#%'%S!" !*D %UT" *E F%# TH S ESS!' propose to write an essay that e4amines the app&i ation o. three strains o. 0ren h so ia& thought 3stru tura& $ar4ism, semio&ogy, and postmodernism3to ana&y9ing the mass media. 'n genera&, the essay wi&& see* to e4amine the perspe tives o. these three s hoo&s toward the mass media and its re&ation to u&ture, so iety, and the po&iti a& and e onomi order. 6he .irst se tion o. the essay wi&& de&ineate the theoreti a& approa hes o. the three s hoo&s to e4p&aining the ro&e o. the mass media in so iety. !s needed, ' wi&& e4trapo&ate e4tensions o. the theories in an attempt to a ount .or and e4p&ain hara teristi s o. the mass media. 6he se ond se tion o. the essay wi&& ompare and ontrast the strengths and wea*nesses o. the three theories in e4p&aining the mass media and its re&ationship to the stru ture o. a apita&ist so iety. ' wi&& do this by app&ying the three 0ren h theories to .eatures o. urrent <.). media u&ture. 'n the third se tion, ' wi&& argue .or the superiority o. one o. the theories over the others, grounding my argument in the power o. the theory to ade7uate&y e4p&ain severa& important hara teristi s o. the mass media in re&ation to so iety and the so ia& system. 'n the .ina& se tion o. the essay, ' wi&& e4amine the views o. one o. the three s hoo&s3the one that ' argued was superior in se tion three3on the re&ationship between the media and resistan e. ;ow, .or e4amp&e, have 0ren h s ho&ars operating within the s hoo& seen the media as either undermining or .ostering resistan e to the dominant so ia& order= 6o .o&&ow up on se tion two(s app&i ation o. the theory to <.). media u&ture, ' wi&& investigate how the theory a&&ows .or resistan e, through the media, against domination by orporate apita&ism, a parti u&ar&y important 7uestion onsidering the near-monopo&y ownership o. most o. the ountry(s media by 11 orporations.1 1. ,en ,agdi*ian, 6he $edia $onopo&y, Bth Idition G,oston1 ,ea on 2ress, 1992H, p. i4. ,/1 'ro2osal Bibliogra2hy )tru tura& $ar4ism !&thusser 0or $ar4 !&thusser et a& +eading Capita& Fthers as needed. )emio&ogy +. ,arthes

$ytho&ogies

+. ,arthes +. ,arthes +. ,arthes ,audri&&ard ,audri&&ard ,audri&&ard

"riting -egree Nero )MN 6he 2&easures o. the 6e4t

6he $irror o. 2rodu tion )e&e ted "ritings 0or a Criti7ue o. the 2o&iti a& I onomy o. the )ign ,audri&&ard #6he I stasy o. Communi ation,% in ;a& 0oster ed., !nti-!estheti ,audri&&ard !meri a 2ostmodernism -errida "riting and -i..eren e -e&eu9e 0ou au&t 0ou au&t Language, Countermemory and 2ower 0ou au&t 6his is Not a 2ipe 0ou au&t 6he Frder o. 6hings 0ou au&t $adness and Civi&i9ation )tru tura&ism ,ourdieu #)tru tura&ism and the 6heory o. the )o io&ogy o. Lnow&edge% Levi-)trauss 6he )avage $ind Levi-)trauss )tru tura& !nthropo&ogy )aussure Course in Penera& Linguisti s