Communication Arts 451– Television Criticism

Fall 2001: Ron Becker

Office Hours: W 2:25 & R 2:25 and by appointment, Vilas 6053

rpbecker@students.wisc.edu

263-3997

Over the last two decades, television has emerged as an increasingly important object of study for scholars working in a wide range of Humanities-based disciplines. In fact, television studies is beginning to emerge as an independent academic field with its own journals, conferences, textbooks, and anthologies. Such work (which we can call contemporary television criticism) emerged in the 1970s and 1980s and differed significantly from the well-established social scientific studies of television that used quantitative research methods to measure the medium’s effects on viewers. In contrast, contemporary TV critics drew inspiration from a variety of Humanities-based theories and methodologies—most notably narrative theory, semiotics, structuralism, Marxist criticism, British cultural studies, ethnography, and feminism. As we will see, these theories offered scholars productive ways of studying television. In this course, we will examine these various theoretical approaches, their relationships with each other, and their historical development. In order to make often abstract theories tangible, we will also read scholarly articles which demonstrate the various ways these theories and methods are being applied to help elucidate television programs and practices. Overall, the course has two main goals: 1. To familiarize you with some of the key theories that have shaped contemporary television criticism and in doing so help you become a more critical television viewer. 2. To help you hone your analytical skills through assignments that ask you to carefully read and summarize scholarly articles.

Course Schedule

Week 1:

9/5 What is the Television of Television Criticism?

Week 2

9/10 Introduction to Contemporary Television Criticism

Readings: Horace Newcomb, “Television and the Present Climate of Criticism” (TTCV,

1-11); *Charles McGrath, “The Triumph of the Prime-Time Novel (TTCV, 242-252);

Charlotte Brunsdon “What Is the ‘Television’ of Television Studies?” (TTCV, 609-628)

Screening: The West Wing

9/12 Narrative

Week 3

9/17 Narrative

Readings: Richard A. Blum, “Dramatic Elements and Act Structure” (RP, 1-4); John

Ellis, “Broadcast TV Narration” (RP, 5-12)

9/19 Narrative

Readings: *Caren J. Deming “Hill Street Blues as Narrative” (RP, 13-23)

Week 4

9/24 Genre Theory

Readings: Daniel Dayan and Elihu Katz, “Defining Media Events: High Holidays of

Mass Communication” (TTCV, 401-420)

Screening: Cagney & Lacey

9/26 Genre Theory

Readings: *Joe Bellon, “The Strange Discourse of The X-Files: What It Is, What It

Does, and What Is at Stake” (RP, 34); Julie D’Acci, “A Woman’ Program” (RP, 35-59)

Week 5

10/1 Semiotics, Structuralism and Television Criticism

Readings: “Some television, some topics, and some terminology” (RP, 61-67)

10/3 Semiotics, Structuralism and Television Criticism

Readings: Michael Real, “Structuralist Analysis 1: Bill Cosby and Recoding Ethnicity”

(RP, 69-71)

Week 6

10/8 Marxism, Ideology, and Hegemony

Readings: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, “The Ruling Class and the Ruling Ideas”

(RP, 72-74)

Screening: Buffy, the Vampire Slayer or Star Trek: The Next Generation

10/10 Marxism, Ideology, and Hegemony

Readings: *Todd Gitlin, “Prime Time Ideology: The Hegemonic Process in Television

Entertainment” (TTCV, 574-594)

Week 7

10/15 Ideological Criticism

Readings: *Steven F Collins, “‘For the Greater Good’: Trilateralism and Hegemony in Star Trek: The Next Generation” (RP, 75-85); A Susan Owen, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Vampires, Postmodernity, and Postfeminism” (RP, 87-94)

10/17 Ideological Criticism and the Politics of Representation

Readings: *Herman Gray, “Television, Black Americans, and the

American Dream” (RP, 95-100); *Julie D’Acci “Women Characters and Real World

Femininity” (TTCV, 100-103)

Week 8

10/22 Poststructuralism, Foucault, and Discourse

Readings: John Fiske, “Introduction” and “Murphy Brown, Dan Quayle, and the Family

Row of the Year” (RP, 101-108)

10/24 Discourse Analysis

Readings: *Jason Mittell, “The Cultural Power of an Anti-Television Metaphor” (RP,

109-120); *Steve Bailey “‘Professional Television’: Three (Super)Texts of a

(Super)Genre” (RP, 121-137); Herman Gray, “The Politics of Representation in

Network Television” (TTCV, 282-305)

Week 9

10/29 Political Economy

Readings: Jack Banks, “Constructing Video Dreams: Music Video in a Commercial

Culture” (RP, 141-150)

10/31 Political Economy: In-class Screening

Week 10

11/5 Political Economy

Readings: Robert W McChesney, “The Global Struggle for Democaratic

Communication” (RP, 151-161); William Boddy, “Alternative Television in the United

States” (RP, 163-167); *Carolyn Bronstein, “Mission Accomplished? Profits

and Programming at the Network for Women” (RP, 169-183)

11/7 Production Studies

Readings: David Barker, “Television Production Techniques as Communication”

(TTCV, 169-182); *Elana Levine, “Toward a Paradigm for Media Production Research

Behind the Scenes at General Hospital” (RP, 185-193)

Week 11

11/12 Spectators, Readers, and Audiences

Readings: John Fiske, “British Cultural Studies and Television” (RP195-216); Mary

Beth Haralovich and Lauren Rabinovitz, “Introduction” (RP, 217-221)

Screening: TBA

11/14 Spectators, Readers, and Audiences

Readings: John Fiske, “Ethnosemiotics: Some Personal and Theoretical Reflections”

(RP, 223-230); Celeste Michelle Condit, “The Rhetorical Limits of Polysemy”

(RP, 231-241)

Week 12

11/19 Reception/Audience Case Studies

Readings: *Ellen Seiter and Karen Riggs, “TV among Fundamentalist Christians:

From the Secular to the Satanic” (RP, 243-255); *Alexander Doty “There’s Something

Queer Here” & “I Love Laverne and Shirley: Lesbian Narratives, Queer Pleasures, and

Television Sitcoms” (RP, 257-272)

11/21 Thanksgiving Break

Week 13

11/26 Reception/Audience Case Studies

Readings: *Henry Jenkins III, “Star Trek Rerun, Reread, Rewritten: Fan Writing as

Textual Poaching (TTVC, 470-494); *Kim Bjarkman, “To Have and To Hold: The Video

Collector’s Relationship with an Ethereal Medium” (RP, 273-296)

11/28 Putting It Together: The Integrated Approach

Readings: *Julie D’Acci “Nobody’s Woman? Honey West and the New Sexuality,”

(RP, 297-307); Eileen R. Meehan, “Conceptualizing Culture as Commodity: The

Problem of Television (RP, 309-314); James Hay, “Afterword” (RP, 315-330)

Week 14

12/3 Applying the Integrated Approach

Readings: Ron Becker, “Prime-Time Television in the Gay Nineties: Network

Television, Quality Audiences, and Gay Politics” (RP, 331-342); Bonnie J. Dow, “Ellen,

Television, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian Visibility” (RP, 343-352)

12/5 Sex and 70s TV

Week 15

12/10 Final Topics: The Past and the Global, Multimedia Future

Readings: Lynn Spiegel and Michael Curtin “Introduction” (RP, 353-361)

12/12 Final Topics: Media Literacy

Readings: Joshua Meyrowitz, “Multiple Media Literacy” (TTCV, 425-438); Justin

Lewis and Sut Jhally, “The Struggle over Media Literacy” (TTCV, 439-450)

Required Readings – 2 texts

1. CA 451 Reading Packet ($ 37.60) Available at The Den Copy Center, 555 State Street, 251-3401 (in the basement of The Den). A copy of the reading packet is on 3-hour reserve at Helen C. White. [Note: In the interest of keeping costs to a minimum, some articles were shrunk. If you find the print too small, the original versions of many of the readings can easily be found in journals archived in Memorial Library. Ask me for help.]

2. Horace Newcomb (Ed.). Television: The Critical View 6^th edition. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) ($39.95) Available at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative, 426 W. Gilman St., 257-6050. Between State St. & University Ave. (near Amy’s Café). A copy has been placed on 3-hour reserve at Helen C. White.

Assignments (All Must Be Typed!):

Attendance and Participation 15%

Reading Summaries 50%

Take-Home Final Exam 35%

In order to pass the course, all work must be completed.

Attendance Policy:

Attendance will be taken at each class meeting. Students are granted three absences without penalty. These are not “freebies,” but are designed to allow for illness or unforeseen circumstances. For every absence in excess of three, the class participation/attendance grade will be lowered by 1/2 grade (e.g. A to AB); any student with more than 6 absences will be given an automatic failing grade for the course. Every three days that a student is late will count as one absence. University excused absences – such as for religious holidays or university sanctioned events – are not counted toward these two days if the instructor is notified in writing before the absence. Students are required to make up any missed work for all absences, excused or unexcused.

Screenings:

There are four out-of-class screenings scheduled (5:00-6:00 p.m. on 9/10, 9/24, 10/8, 11/12). The screening section component was mistakenly not included in the original timetable listing for the course. Therefore, you are not required to attend these screening sessions. However, you are required to see the programs before the next class meeting. If you take your student ID, you can watch them in the Media Center (3160 Vilas). [Note: the tapes cannot be checked out of the Media Center.] If you can attend the scheduled screenings, I ask that you do. I will provide enticements to encourage you to come.

Reading Summaries:

All students are required to complete 12 reading summary assignments throughout the semester. You can decide to write a summary on any 12 of the 16 articles preceded by an [*] on the syllabus. However, your 2 lowest graded summaries will not be counted toward your final grade. Thus, of the 16 asterisk-ed articles, you must hand in a summary for any 12, of which the 10 best will be counted for your final grade. Each summary must be handed in on or before the day that article is scheduled to be read. You will not receive credit for handing in reading summaries after the day on which the article was assigned. I strongly urge you not to let the summaries slide until the end. Please pace these responses throughout the semester. If you fall behind, be sure to talk to me immediately.

Don’t think of these assignments as traditional papers. They are relatively short reading summaries. The goal: to demonstrate that you have carefully read and engaged with that article and that you can clearly and succinctly communicate its most important points. Each of your summaries should:

1. Succinctly summarize the article’s main argument and key points. This task is essential. Try to distill the essence of the article down by zeroing in on its overall goal(s).

2. Identify the article’s methodology. In other words, how does the author go about making his or her argument? What kind of research does she do? Did he simply look at TV shows carefully? Did she interview people? Do they argue from their own experience or values? The importance of the methodology to your discussion will vary widely, depending on the type of article you are dealing with.

3. Relate the article’s argument and method to the specific theory, concepts, or methodological issues discussed in class during that unit. Thus, when summarizing Herman Gray’s article, you should discuss how the article demonstrates an ideological approach to television criticism. Thus, taking careful notes and being sure to understand lecture material will be important.

4. Demonstrate your own engagement with the article and its ideas. In other words, you should assess the article’s argument or methodology (state why it is or isn’t useful in furthering our understanding of television, for example); mention a specific point that you found particularly interesting and why; and/or specify terms, concepts, or elements of the article that you didn’t understand or that confused you.

Your grade will be determined by the extent to which you successfully accomplish these four goals in a clear and well-written manner. Although these aren’t traditional papers, they must be typed and double-spaced. Further, writing style is important, so be sure to take time to edit and proofread any responses before handing them in. In general, I suspect that these summaries will be between one and two pages. Note, you can feel free to quote the article to help make your points, but give page numbers, use direct quotes sparingly and only include as evidence of a point you make in your own words. In other words, don’t just string quotes together.

The Reading Process:

Remember that the summaries are essentially a way to demonstrate that you have carefully read and engaged with the article. By succinctly summarizing the article’s argument and methodology, you will hone your analytical reading and writing skills. Thus, instead of thinking of the assignment as a traditional paper, think of it as an extension of the reading process. One of the most valuable lessons you can learn is that close and productive reading (whether it is for a class or job) doesn’t mean simply reading through the information. To really get at the information, especially when it is more complex than your average newspaper article, you must interact with it. To that end, I’d urge you to follow these steps in reading all of the articles for this class, not just those for which you have to do summaries.

1. Read through the article for a first time.

a. As you go, underline or highlight key sentences where the author seems to be making his/her main points.

b. Identify its methodology.

c. Circle terms you don’t understand or are uncertain about. Look them up in a dictionary. It is amazing how much this helps.

d. Put a question mark in the margins where you get confused by the argument.

2. Read through the essay again.

a. With a notebook at your side, write down the main argument, the main supporting points, and its methodology.

b. If the article is well written, it should have a strong method of organization. Try to uncover what it is. Ask yourself what the goal of this section is (or this paragraph). Doing so often helps understand the way the author is constructing his/her argument.

c. Write down in the notebook the points that you found most insightful and those that still confuse you.

If you do these steps, writing your summary will be easy. Simply go over your notes, the passages you have highlighted/underlined in the text, and your margin comments.

Example summary:

Charlotte Brunsdon, “What Is the ‘Television’ of Television Studies

In “What Is the ‘Television’ of Television Studies,” Charlotte Brunsdon traces the multiple origins and shifting definitions of “television” that have helped to determine the kind of work scholars in the emerging field of television studies have pursued and the kind of work they have neglected. Brunsdon argues that the field’s object of study is far from an uncontested given, but rather is “a production of the complex interplay of different histories” (p. 609). “Television, as an object of study,” she states, “has been produced differently by different scholars and interest groups” (p. 624). By looking and significant anthologies on television (and relying on what one can assume to be a personal involvement in the field), Brunsdon highlights what she believes to be key influences—namely journalistic commentary (strong voice of critic and attention to TV form), literary criticism (with its slow shift from a literary emphasis on authors and plays to a television-oriented emphasis on programs and popular genres), social scientific work (with its focus on issues of production, ownership, Marxist frameworks, and patterns of dominance), and feminism (which paid attention to soap operas and domestic viewing). Emerging out of and at times in opposition to these various traditions, Brunsdon argues, the television as conceptualized by television studies has encouraged work that focuses on defining the television text (i.e. William’s planned flow, Ellis’s segment, Browne’s super-text, and Newcomb’s viewing segment); analyzing the ways TV programs represent the “social world (i.e. D’Acci’s work on Cagney and Lacey, Jhally and Lewis’s work on The Cosby Show, and other work on whiteness); and studies audiences’ interactions with television (i.e. social scientific empirical studies, literary and film studies work on readers and subjects, and British cultural studies theories about oppositional agency). At the end of her article, Brunsdon warns that the way television studies scholars have tended to conceptualize television could close off valuable questions and paths of research—most notably issues of political economy, attention to production and writers, and the use of quantitative research methods.

Brunsdon’s article reinforces the points we explored on the first day of lecture—namely that when we study television we are dealing with a wide range of issues and that what we mean when we say that we are studying television isn’t necessarily self-evident. Our in-class exercise underscored that to study television is to study everything from a program’s narrative structure and lighting scheme to political debates in contemporary society, from systems of corporate ownership and advertising to audience viewing practices and interpretations. Brunsdon’s article helps point out that these different questions are often linked to different disciplinary histories, different theories, and different definitions of TV. Her call in the end for a continued hybridity and an effort to keep asking questions we aren’t currently asking seems to dovetail well with the Integrated Approach model. While Brunsdon’s main point was useful, I found her brief discussion of the discipline’s need to legitimate television as an object of academic investigation intriguing. Although I enjoy watching television, my own attitudes about the medium make me question the importance of studying it, and I look forward to discovering how television scholars have answered its critics on this point. On the other hand, I didn’t entirely understand what Brunsdon’s meant when she said that the discipline of television studies favored ideology over aesthetics. Finally, her tendency to refer to numerous scholars and books became confusing, since I haven’t read any of them.