.......And so to my comments on Arthur Asa Berger's take on the viewers of Smackdown! Recently, to inspire and re-familiarise myself with the general debate over 'media effects', I have been reading some undergraduate overviews of the media and its role in society. One of my favorite books on this topic has been Media & Society: a critical perspective. (Berger: 2003) The text provides lots of introductory tip bits for a whole range of media and behaviour related theory and arguments, from within the context of a 'chatty' and 'easy to read' discourse, and is the perfect read when you've burnt out a bit on journals.
However, in chapter 4 - Audiences:1 Categories, Berger discusses how we might categorise audiences through their membership of different political cultures, drawing on some unpublished work from Aaron Wildavsky. Berger cites Wildavsky's explanation for his four different political cultures that he believes comprise a democratic society, suggesting that pluralist democracy by definition demands more than one type of cultural group. Wildavsky proposed that the groups are separated by boundaries and prescriptions, those being obstacles to group membership, and behavioural norms that must be adhered to.
The four groups are as follows:
1. Fatalists - many prescriptions, boundaries weak.
2. Individualists - few prescriptions, boundaries weak.
3. Elitists - prescriptions numerous, boundaries strong.
4. Egalitarians - few prescriptions, boundaries strong.
Berger suggests fatalists are apolitical and feel victimised, individualists believe in limited government and free competition, elitists believe in the stratification of society, but feel obliged to 'take care' of those below them, and that egalitarians want to take care of everyone. Berger also suggests that each of these groups has a different pattern of mass media consumption, one that seeks to avoid cognitive dissonance and reinforce their particular values and beliefs.
So where does Smackdown! fit in? Berger suggests that the audience that consumes Smackdown! broadcasts are in the fatalist group - and berger goes further to suggest some other types of media that the fatalist smackdown audience might like to consume:
books: 1984
Film: Rambo
Music: Anarchy in the UK
Sport: Roller derby
Games: Russian Roulette
.....eh? OK, Rambo I understand - for its action sequences and even its ideology as the lone hero struggles against an unjust system, using violence to solve his problems - this is often mirrored in wrestling storylines. But Rambo is fighting a much more hopeless fight than is normal with the Smackdown! storylines, normally the hero in wrestling is motivated, upbeat and fighting for a something that will bring about real positive change for him and his followers. Wrestling is more like Rambo II and III, or maybe Commando, but I find it hard to equate Smackdown to 1984, maybe the Mr. McMahon character (the evil boss and chairman of the board of WWE) who watches over and dominates all the wrestlers is a little similar, but he is often ridiculed and reduced to nothing by the wrestlers in the course of a storyline to help the good guy win out in the end.
I think what we can take from Berger's categorisation of Smackdown! is that he feels the average Smackdown! viewer has been trampled into the ground by the state and capitalism, and is as a result generally disaffected with their lot. But as I think of my contemporaries who watch Smackdown! (of which there are many) I cant find any who really fit that category , or indeed consume the other texts mentioned by Berger. From my experience the people who watch smackdown! are generally happy, possibly apolitical (but that seems to be a trait throughout all pop culture), interested in other sports, spend large amounts of money on the product, and above all are looking to better themselves, just like the hero's on screen.
From my position, Smackdown! would seem to fit better with the individualists - but the most important point that seems to come out of this brief discussion is that a much more detailed study is required to truly categorise (if it is at all possible) the viewers of Smackdown!
However, in chapter 4 - Audiences:1 Categories, Berger discusses how we might categorise audiences through their membership of different political cultures, drawing on some unpublished work from Aaron Wildavsky. Berger cites Wildavsky's explanation for his four different political cultures that he believes comprise a democratic society, suggesting that pluralist democracy by definition demands more than one type of cultural group. Wildavsky proposed that the groups are separated by boundaries and prescriptions, those being obstacles to group membership, and behavioural norms that must be adhered to.
The four groups are as follows:
1. Fatalists - many prescriptions, boundaries weak.
2. Individualists - few prescriptions, boundaries weak.
3. Elitists - prescriptions numerous, boundaries strong.
4. Egalitarians - few prescriptions, boundaries strong.
Berger suggests fatalists are apolitical and feel victimised, individualists believe in limited government and free competition, elitists believe in the stratification of society, but feel obliged to 'take care' of those below them, and that egalitarians want to take care of everyone. Berger also suggests that each of these groups has a different pattern of mass media consumption, one that seeks to avoid cognitive dissonance and reinforce their particular values and beliefs.
So where does Smackdown! fit in? Berger suggests that the audience that consumes Smackdown! broadcasts are in the fatalist group - and berger goes further to suggest some other types of media that the fatalist smackdown audience might like to consume:
books: 1984
Film: Rambo
Music: Anarchy in the UK
Sport: Roller derby
Games: Russian Roulette
.....eh? OK, Rambo I understand - for its action sequences and even its ideology as the lone hero struggles against an unjust system, using violence to solve his problems - this is often mirrored in wrestling storylines. But Rambo is fighting a much more hopeless fight than is normal with the Smackdown! storylines, normally the hero in wrestling is motivated, upbeat and fighting for a something that will bring about real positive change for him and his followers. Wrestling is more like Rambo II and III, or maybe Commando, but I find it hard to equate Smackdown to 1984, maybe the Mr. McMahon character (the evil boss and chairman of the board of WWE) who watches over and dominates all the wrestlers is a little similar, but he is often ridiculed and reduced to nothing by the wrestlers in the course of a storyline to help the good guy win out in the end.
I think what we can take from Berger's categorisation of Smackdown! is that he feels the average Smackdown! viewer has been trampled into the ground by the state and capitalism, and is as a result generally disaffected with their lot. But as I think of my contemporaries who watch Smackdown! (of which there are many) I cant find any who really fit that category , or indeed consume the other texts mentioned by Berger. From my experience the people who watch smackdown! are generally happy, possibly apolitical (but that seems to be a trait throughout all pop culture), interested in other sports, spend large amounts of money on the product, and above all are looking to better themselves, just like the hero's on screen.
From my position, Smackdown! would seem to fit better with the individualists - but the most important point that seems to come out of this brief discussion is that a much more detailed study is required to truly categorise (if it is at all possible) the viewers of Smackdown!
No comments:
Post a Comment