Download AC640--Public Sphere

AC640: Public Sphere
Week 2
Communication and Society--Contemporary Issues
Foucault, hooks, Chomsky
(actual Foucault action figure on right from David
Gauntlett’s theory.org.uk site)
key concepts
Foucault:
• power/knowledge
• poststructuralism
• will to power
• negative and positive models of power
• panopticon (all-seeing space)
hooks:
• reformist and revolutionary feminism
Chomsky
• the propaganda model (the five filters)
introducing “communication and society:
contemporary issues”
• this week’s material is offered as a brief review of contemporary
theorists of relevance to the understanding of political communication
• the theorists are:
 the late philosopher Michel Foucault,
 the African-American feminist theorist bell hooks,
 the linguist and political activist, Noam Chomsky
• this week’s authors update and complement themes that were
introduced by the ancient and historical authors offered last week:
 the nature of power in the modern world (Foucault)
 identity and politics (hooks)
 communication and social change (Chomsky)
order of appearance
(1)
•
•
•
•
Foucault
discourse: what is it and why it matters
the connection with Nietzsche
the nature of power in the modern world (with example of nationalism)
podcast
(2)
•
Hooks
feminism and social change
(3)
•
Chomsky
the propaganda model
(4)
•
Unit notes overview
podcast
1. Who is Michel Foucault?
(1926-1984)
•
Foucault is identified with an intellectual
movement called “post-structuralism,” which
follows structuralism (semiotics) and rejects
many of its assumptions; he is also identified
with postmodern perspectives, though he is
too complex to be easily categorized
•
Foucault was greatly influenced by Louis
Althusser, who was his lifelong friend, and
was
also
influenced
by
Marxism,
phenomenology, and the work of Friedrich
Nietzsche
•
during the 1970s and early 1980s, Foucault’s
many books (including The History of
Sexuality, Madness and Civilization, and
Discipline and Punish) were being read and
discussed around the world
•
Foucault is probably the most influential
philosopher, and one of the most influential
thinkers in general, in second half of the 20th
century
Foucault and discourse:
definitions in support of Foucault’s view of discourse
•
“A discourse can be thought of as a way of describing, defining, classifying, and thinking about
people, things, and even knowledge and abstract systems of thought.”
Philip Smith, Cultural Theory: An Introduction
•
“A discourse is a group of statements which provide a language for talking about a particular kind of
knowledge about a topic. When statements about a topic are made within a particular discourse, the
discourse makes it possible to construct the topic in a certain way. It also limits the other ways in
which the topic can be constructed.”
Stuart Hall, “The West and the Rest: Discourse and Power”
•
“A discourse is a socially produced way of talking or thinking about a topic. It is defined by reference
to the area of social experience that it makes sense of, to the social location from which that sense is
made, and to the linguistic or signifying system by which that sense is both made and circulated.... A
discourse is then a socially located way of making sense of an important area of social experience.”
John Fiske's essay, “British Cultural Studies and Television”
What does discourse mean to Foucault?
•
discourses are not simple words or phrases, but the larger pattern by which we
talk about a given subject, e.g., the discourse of education, the discourse of
sexuality, the discourse of politics
•
when we thus make a statement, e.g., make a speech in class, our thoughts and
words enter into that pre-existing discourse, and we shape them and are
interpreted in turn in light of that larger established pattern
•
we we don’t speak “discourse”; rather, discourses speak through us
•
in keeping with its origins in structuralism and poststructuralism, the concept
of “discourse” suggests that the act of communicating at the general level of
society – the way a society talks about something, such as sex, war, gender,
etc. – literally creates or brings that “something” into being
•
the concept of “discourse” makes room -- in a way that the concept of
ideology does not -- for the role of language in maintaining “frameworks” for
reality
What are the features of discourse as Foucault sees it?
• a discourse does not begin with a single speaker, but is the
product of many kinds of communication and many speakers
over time
• discourses “position” individuals (i.e., to use Althusser’s
term, they “interpellate” speakers) and “speak” us, rather than
us speaking them
• discourses are not closed systems, but draw on other
discourses, binding them within a network of meanings
• discourses transcend the interests of a given group or class,
though they do act to structure the world in a particular way
and have a particular relationship to power
• discourses are neither true nor false; the real issue is whether
they are effective in influencing our thoughts, feelings and
behaviour
power/knowledge:
its inspiration in the Nietzschean idea of power
•
•
•
•
•
Foucault inherits his concept of power
from the late 19th century philosopher,
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900; see
image on left)
Nietzsche argued that what he termed
the “will to power” was the basis of
human society
we normally see power in “negative”
terms: that is, we think of power as
something that negates, represses,
destroys, etc.
Nietzsche argued that power is
“positive” too, insofar as power creates
new categories or phenomena in culture
example of the creation of a “terrorist”
through endless words, pictures, etc. in
our culture today
discourse and power as Foucault sees it:
the power/knowledge thesis
•
according to Foucault, power does not originate in a single person, a class, or the state,
but is rather a general and diffuse phenomenon circulating through society
•
knowledge is not linked to truth, as the Enlightenment promised, but to power
•
Foucault calls this “power/knowledge,” and it’s his way of explaining how power
expresses itself through discourse
•
we learn about things, or create knowledge, not just to understand them, but rather also
in order to control those things
•
discourses represent knowledge about the subject under consideration, e.g., credit
agencies and banks collect information about our credit worthiness; spy agencies use
satellites to survey in great detail what is happening on ground
•
the power/knowledge problem is strongly identified with surveillance and how we
become accustomed to living in a society where surveillance is everywhere
•
example of power/knowledge in history: Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt (see next
slide and podcast)
Napoleon in Egypt: “power/knowledge” (1798)
medieval power vs. modern power
•
in the medieval, social control was exerted in an extremely public and overt way, i.e.
through public execution, drawing and quartering, and even back as far as ancient
Romans, to throwing people to the lions
•
in the modern world, however, power was exerted in quiet, private, and subtle ways, and
with the massive assistance of communication technologies; here we see the perversion
of reason
•
the panopticon represents the new face of power in the modern -- and one can readily
argue -- the contemporary “postmodern” world
Canadian nationalism:
exercise in Foucaultian analysis
Watch the famous Molson’s ad:
I am Canadian
1. What is nationalism and how does
it constitute a discourse?
2. How does it “interpellate” us?
3. What other discourses does it draw
upon?
4. How does it influence how we see
and articulate ourselves?
5. How does the cultural phenomenon
it creates represent the positive
model of power?
Power/knowledge?
2. Who is bell hooks?
•
•
•
•
•
•
African-American feminist born
Gloria Watkind (1952-); hooks is
her professional name
prolific author and cultural critic;
primary concern to address gender
and race in American culture
she is one of the most visible and
well-known American feminist
authors
she is a critic of colour-blind and
class-insensitive nature of women’s
movement
author of books like Teaching to
Transgress, Outlaw Culture, and
Feminism is for Everybody
Wikipedia reference for hooks
summary of points in excerpt from Feminism
is for Everybody - 1
•
•
•
this is a brief excerpt from hooks’ book, Feminism is for Everybody:
Passionate Politics
hooks begins by defining feminism in a way that doesn’t put the burden of
action exclusively on women or the blame for the problem on men: feminism
is “a movement to end sexism”
this expands the meaning of feminism in a wa:
 that doesn’t blame men exclusively for sexism
 that sees it as a systemic problem (rather than deriving from the individual
behaviour of men or women acting in a sexist way)
 allows that women may also be sexist also
 we misunderstand feminism because we typically learn about it as interpreted
through what hooks defines as a “patriarchal mass media”
summary of points in excerpt from Feminism
is for Everybody - 2
•
•
(i)
•
(i)
•
•
acknowledging that media treatment of feminism has problems, hooks then
seeks to revise our understanding of feminism
hooks argues that there are two distinct feminisms:
reformist feminism: this feminism seeks to achieve the equality of women
with men within contemporary society as it is currently
this is the form of feminism that gets significant media attention because,
while it brings positive changes, it doesn’t challenge society’s sexist
foundation
revolutionary feminism: this feminism seeks to change contemporary
society’s sexist structure, insofar as reform feminism doesn’t substantially
affect the patriarchal nature of society
this is the form of feminism highly favoured in academic scholarship, but
that is rarely communicated to the larger public
hooks argues that feminism needs to find its focus again, and return to its
“simple yet powerful message that feminism is a movement to end sexist
oppression”
hooks quote:
Rockwell’s “Rosie the Riveter” painting below
(1943)
“Feminist politics is
losing momentum
because the feminist
movement has lost
clear definition. We
have those definitions.
Let’s reclaim them.”
Hooks, Feminism is
for Everybody
3. Chomsky and the propaganda model
•
•
•
•
•
born in 1928 in Philadelphia
Studied linguistics at the University
of Pennsylvania, and has been a
professor at MIT since 1955
revolutionized our understanding of
linguistics through his
“transformational grammar”
is better known in communication
studies for his work on politics and
media, notably his “propaganda
model” of media
very prolific; especially active as a
critic of American government and
foreign policy, and takes a view of
things from the political left
the propaganda model: the basic argument
•
•
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
this is an excerpt from Chomsky’s famous 1988 book, Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (co-written with
Edward Herman)
Chomsky’s thesis is this:
we believe that the Western media system is free, democratic, and diverse
with respect to the range of opinion and ideology there
however, there is embedded in this media system a sophisticated five-part
mechanism -- what Chomsky calls the “propaganda model” -- by which the
media’s range is significantly narrowed
the propaganda model transforms the substantial output of Western media
into “propaganda” insofar as this actual narrow range of opinion serves to
support dominant ideological views of society, while excluding dissident
opinions and information
this propaganda model works despite the best intentions of journalists to do
their work well; in that sense, it represents a systemic bias, rather than being
the product of journalists or producers with a personal bias as to the nature
of reality
the five filters
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Media ownership
Advertising
Expert commentary
Attacks by media think tanks,
pundits, etc. (flak)
(5) Anti-communism (now “antiterrorism”, which serves the
same function as did
communism in American
culture in 1988 when
Chomsky first published the
book)
•
Chomsky’s excerpt here
addresses only the media
ownership filter in detail
quote from Chomsky’s more recent book on media,
Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of
Propaganda (2002, second ed.)
• “The point of public relations
slogans like ‘Support our
troops’ is that they don't mean
anything... That's the whole
point of good propaganda. You
want to create a slogan that
nobody's going to be against,
and everybody's going to be for.
Nobody knows what it means,
because it doesn't mean
anything. Its crucial value is
that it diverts your attention
from a question that does mean
something: Do you support our
policy? That's the one you're
not allowed to talk about.”
“manufacturing consent”:
the action of the five filters
•
•
•
•
•
the five filters function as a means to the manufacture of “consent” -- that is,
the public’s willing support of this narrow range of opinion and information
the term “manufacturing consent” comes from the work of early 20th century
conservative critic, Walter Lippmann, who first used the phrase in his book,
Public Opinion (see Ewen chapter in 640 course package)
Chomsky has given us a realistic and detailed description of how ideology is
created, and how what he believes to be the illusion of a free and plural media
system is sustained
the media is typically described by conservatives as a “liberal” media;
Chomsky argues that this acts as a check on the media’s critical ability, as it
makes media fearful of seeming too liberal in outlook
critics of the propaganda model that it simplies the news production process,
underrepresents the ideological diversity of media, and suggests a
conspiratorial view of how media works
questions for discussion
(based on readings and unit notes)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Foucault’s ideas are complex and abstract. That said, what does he
have to teach us about the real world of political communication?
What do we have to learn from him?
Hooks in interested, as her writing indicates, to bring feminist ideas
into the mainstream of society. What does feminism mean today,
and how might feminists better communicate their ideas in light of
what hooks describes as the patriarchal nature of the media?
Is Chomsky’s propaganda model persuasive as a means to explain
how our media culture is constructed?
Homer-Dixon’s “ingenuity gap” argument suggests that the world
has become too complex to be understood. How do we simplify the
systems by which we live, and the media through which we explain
that world, while still accommodating the actual complexity of
reality?