Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Denise D Bielby, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
C Lee Harrington, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract
The sociological study of television has not kept pace with the new media environments that have developed from emerging
digital-interactive technologies. As a result, sociologys theoretical approaches to understanding the cultures of television
production, distribution, and consumption lag in their ability to account for the transformations that have taken place. To
address this gap we discuss foundational work and recent developments on topics that are central to the study of television
media technologies and social life, audiences, production, and globalization. For each, we draw upon research from the elds
of communication and media that are relevant to sociological concerns alongside scholarship by sociologists to understand
the video cultures of contemporary television.
Introduction
Television was introduced as an experimental technology in the
1920s and 1930s in Europe, Asia, the former Soviet Union, and
the Americas, and following the Second World War it rapidly
became a widely accepted form of mass communication
around the globe under a variety of national regulatory
arrangements. Among early postwar adopters were France, who
kept the production, distribution and broadcasting of television programs as a state monopoly in 1945; England, as
a subsidized public service in 1946; the United States, as
a commercial medium in 1948; Canada, as national system in
1952; Japan, in 1953; as dual public and commercial networks;
and Australia, as a free and governmentally regulated broadcast
service in 1956. Although televisions long-term business
cycle its innovation and diffusion as a novel technology,
establishment and system growth as a communications
industry, maturation and popularity, and specialization and
diversication took decades to unfold (Cunningham, 2000),
its widespread adoption as an important source of news,
information, and entertainment quickly led to a multifaceted
approach to its study. Initially, scholarly analysis focused on
television in several denitive ways as a cultural form, an
industry, a technology, and as a medium shaped by national
policy and this eventually expanded to encompass its study as
a global inuence and its audience(s). Early attention by social
scientists, especially among those in the United states, brought
focus to this comprehensive vision by paying particular attention to televisions social impact (see, for example, Bogart,
1956). (Bogart (1956) covered televisions history, appeal,
content, and consumption, effect on other media, relationship
with advertisers, and inuence on politics and youth.)
However, as Grindstaff and Turow (2006) have observed,
since the 1950s, sociologys dominant conceptual approaches
to the study of television have fallen short in two key ways. One
is their inability to account for video cultures the new media
environments that develop from the continually emerging sets
of multifaceted digital-interactive technologies (p. 103) that
have grown around contemporary televisions production,
distribution, and consumption. The other is the inadequacy of
sociologys theoretical approaches to the study of television
the political economy perspective that largely attends to
80
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 25
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.10451-9
81
82
Audiences
The audience is crucial to the existence of television, not only as
a market that creates demand for the shows advertisers subsidize through commercials, but also as the locus of interpretative activity that contributes to making the content of television
programs culturally signicant. As an industry, television is in
the business of creating and selling programs, but from the
industrys standpoint its real business is the creating and selling
of audiences as consumers who will buy what they see
advertised, and as commodities to be marketed to advertisers
who sponsor the shows. Interpretative activity is shaped by the
audiences social activities and cultural identities as it seeks out
and consumes particular programs. These two views of the
relevance of the audience to television have created separate
lines of scholarship from different disciplinary perspectives
and only recently, through the study of fandom, are they in
potential dialog with one other.
The measurement of the television audience that the
industry relies upon to understand its market grew directly out
of measurement techniques used in radio; these included the
systematic measurement of audience size that yielded information about a potential market, and the measurement of
program ratings that indexed a shows popularity (see, for
example, Lasswell, 1948; Lazarsfeld, 1940). Because the
concept of reaching the largest possible audience of potential
consumers is pivotal to the success of commercial television,
early research by sociologists on audiences focused on the
concept of the mass audience, the broad reach that advertisers
desired and that networks needed to establish themselves.
Production
Guided by the production of culture perspective (Peterson
and Anand, 2004), the sociological study of television as
a system of industrial organization has yielded considerable
insight into how television, as a culture industry, fabricates
expressive-symbolic elements. In conjunction with the
concepts of the art world (Becker, 1982), the culture world
(Crane, 1992), and the ction complex (Griswold, 2000), the
production of culture perspective captures the organizational
complexity of the television industry and its myriad institutional participants, such as policy makers who determine
availability of content or products from other sources,
professional critics who appraise product quality, and audiences whose taste preferences inuence producers and shape
product trends. Early work inuenced by the production of
culture approach focused primarily on elaborating the structure and dynamics of televisions industrial systems per se
(see, for example, Muriel Cantors 1971 study of the television
producer and Intintolis 1984 ethnography of the production
of soap operas). However, over time, scholars incorporated
analysis of other pivotal aspects of the industry such as
industry boundary spanners and gatekeepers who serve as
intermediaries that link the industrys loosely coupled
components, target innovation, and move products along
(Hirsch, 1972), and industry executives use of symbolic or
ritualistic practices to manage the extreme uncertainty, risk,
and ambiguity in audience preferences (Bielby and Bielby,
1994). As a whole, this body of work reveals that television
83
Televisions Globalization
Why has sociology lagged as an equal contributor to the
analysis of these industry developments? In this section we
discuss one last development in the television industry, its
globalization. (Use of the term globalization here is in the
sociological sense of the increasing interconnectedness of
different parts of the world. Our use here refers specically to
cultural globalization, which Crane (2002: p. 1) denes as the
transmission or diffusion across national borders of various
forms of media and the arts. See also Giddens (1990). We
recognize the debates among globalization scholars about the
adequacy of their own conceptualizations of culture and
84
shows or the ownership of conglomerates, although interesting and obvious, also locks us into assumptions and
narrows our explanations and understanding of the global
market. Important questions are missed when one focuses
only on the broad picture of television trade ows or
industry consolidation, especially in such an unpredictable
market (Cantor and Cantor, 1986). For instance, although
national industries have developed many business strategies
that include coproductions and the selling of formats
(TV show concepts that are repackaged to suit particular
(national) markets and tastes (Freedman, 2003)) in an
attempt to systematize revenue from abroad, even these
arrangements are subject to the vagaries of potential buyers
who must be responsive to cultural proscriptions and policies, as well as to audience preferences (Esser, 2010). Also left
undetermined is why specic programs are marketed, adopted, or rejected by distributors. Even larger questions loom
about how television programs are transformed at the local
level in diverse international contexts of reception and
interpretation.
This theoretical gap directs us to so-called middle-range
approaches that bridge micro- and macroconcerns and target
mesolevel conceptualization, evidence, and analysis (Sinclair
et al., 1996). Mesolevel analysis attends to the concrete operational and cultural logics of global television markets:
the features and operations of the marketplace rather than the
market per se; the cyclicality of the forms and practices of the
business of the industry rather than a presumed teleological
development; industry participants who are located at all levels
of organizational settings rather than just industry leaders or
other highly visible decision makers; and the possibility that
television series are malleable cultural products rather than
immutable texts with inherent meanings (Bielby and Moloney,
2008). In short, it is necessary to study not only the production
of television/video cultures, but also their distribution, and the
contexts and mechanisms of their distribution, at many
concrete levels (Bielby and Harrington, 2008). In sum, if
a small number of huge media corporations now dominate the
majority of media industry markets, this is a useful starting
point for investigation of global television ownership and
control and its consequences. But research must move beyond
this important starting point. A useful research focus would be
seeking understanding of the institutional logics of the organizations that make up the global marketplace for television
and its video cultures, and targeting its mechanisms for
managing market uncertainty in its business transactions, and,
how local cultures affect these arrangements/solutions. This
conceptual vantage point invites attention to organizations,
participants, market features, discourses, locations, and properties of the cultural products produced (which pose a challenging management issue because they are so culturally/
symbolically laden and their success or failure is so difcult to
predict). More importantly, it would call for concerted attention to the locally specic ways in which such mechanisms are
culturally understood, practiced, and engaged, (see Chung and
Hamilton, 2001; Wherry, 2012). Finally, it would pay close
attention to the consistency of ndings that indicate reception
by audiences is a crucial middle-range factor in this market
(Gray, 2007; Kraidy, 2009; McMillin and Fisherkeller, 2009;
Sanson, 2011).
Conclusion
The research reviewed here provides several challenges for
future sociological research on televisions video cultures. The
theoretical gap noted by Grindstaff and Turow (2006) that
consists of the distance between the now dominant approaches
to the study of television the political economy perspective
and the cultural perspective calls for concerted attention by
scholars of culture industries. Such efforts call for a bolder
approach to reading across disciplinary boundaries and
attending to scholarly developments in cognate elds, while at
the same time not losing sight of what is inherently sociological
in that quest. For those still interested in macrolevel debates,
a useful starting point might be the nuanced, encyclopedic
synthesis and review of the vast body of evidence that is used to
invoke notions of cultural imperialism and cultural globalization (Hesmondhalgh, 2007; Mirrlees, 2013). For those
interested in the fertile opportunities for expanding conceptualization of the middle range of televisions video cultures
related to globalization and cultural production, there is useful
work by cultural geographers who study regional/urban
agglomerations of cultural production and distribution (see
Scott, 2005, for example). There is also useful work by media
studies scholars who examine how the institutional logics of
politics and markets of other countries thwart television
distribution (Curtin, 2005). For those interested in closing the
theoretical gap in other ways lies the opportunity to explore the
vastly overlooked topic of the properties of television as
a cultural form (Bielby and Harrington, 2004; Mittell, 2004),
the embeddedness of its form in everyday life (Lembo, 2000),
and its critical appraisal and analysis (Bielby et al., 2005).
Together, these topics made up an important part of early
scholarship on television (see Boddy, 1990), which has,
regrettably, been all but abandoned and yet remains pivotal to
understanding televisions ubiquity, popularity, societal penetration, and global presence. In conclusion, regardless of how
or where one enters the gap, what is essential is building out
from more established lines of thought and traditions and
nding new challenges and opportunities for empirically
grounded insights.
Bibliography
Alter, A., June 14, 2012. The weird world of fan ction. Wall Street Journal. Available
at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303734204577464411825
970488.html.
Bacon-Smith, C., 1992. Enterprising Women. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Becker, H., 1982. Art Worlds. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Bielby, D., 2010. Globalization and cultural production. In: Hall, J., Grindstaff, L.,
Lo, M-C. (Eds.), Handbook of Cultural Sociology. Routledge, New York, NY,
pp. 588597.
85
Bielby, D., Harrington, C.L., 2004. Managing culture matters: genre, aesthetic
elements, and the international market for exported television. Poetics 32 (1),
7398.
Bielby, D., Harrington, C.L., 2008. Global TV: Exporting Television and Culture in the
World Market. New York University Press, New York, NY.
Bielby, D., Moloney, M., 2008. Considering global media: sociological contributions. In:
Rice, R. (Ed.), Media Ownership: Research and Regulation. Hampton Press,
Cresskill, NJ, pp. 269287.
Bielby, D., Moloney, M., Ngo, B., 2005. Aesthetics of television criticism: mapping
critics reviews in an era of industry transformation. In: Jones, C., Thornton, P.
(Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations: Transformations in Cultural
Industries. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 143.
Bielby, W., Bielby, D., 1994. All hits are ukes: institutionalized decision-making and
the rhetoric of network prime-time program development. American Journal of
Sociology 99, 12871313.
Block, A.B., February 20, 2013. Nielsen agrees to expand denition of TV viewing.
Hollywood Reporter. Available at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nielsenagrees-expand-denition-tv-422795.
Boddy, W., 1990. Fifties Television: The Industry and Its Critics. University of Illinois
Press, Urbana, IL.
Bogart, L., 1956. The Age of Television. Frederick Unger Publishing Company, New
York, NY.
Bond, P., March 4, 2013. Les Moonves Declares DVR Viewing Should Be Counted
Equally in Ratings Measurements. Available at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.
com/news/les-moonves-declares-dvr-viewing-425980.
Caldwell, J., 2008. Production Culture. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
Cantor, M., 1971. The Hollywood TV Producer: His Work and His Audience. Basic
Books, New York, NY.
Cantor, M., Cantor, J., 1986. American television in the international marketplace.
Communication Research 13 (3), 509520.
Chmielewski, D., 2013. Binge-viewing transforms TV. Los Angeles Times. A1, A10.
Chung, W-K., Hamilton, G., 2001. Social logic as business logic: guanxi, trustworthiness, and the embeddedness of Chinese business practices. In: Appelbaum, R.,
Felstiner, W., Gessner, V. (Eds.), Rules and Networks: The Legal Culture of Global
Business Transactions. Hart, Oxford, England, pp. 325346.
Couldry, N., 2010. Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism. Sage,
London, England.
Crane, D., 1992. The Production of Culture: Media and the Urban Arts. Sage, Newbury
Park, CA.
Crane, D., 2002. Culture and globalization: theoretical models and emerging trends. In:
Crane, D., Kawashima, N., Kawasaki, K. (Eds.), Global Cultures. Routledge, New
York, NY, pp. 125.
Cunningham, S., 2000. History, context, politics, policy. In: Turner, G., Cunningham, S.
(Eds.), The Australian TV Book. Allen & Unwin, St. Leonards, NSW, Australia,
pp. 1332.
Curtin, M., 2005. Murdochs dilemma, or Whats the price of TV in China?. Media,
Culture, and Society 27 (2), 155175.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W.R., Robinson, J., 2001. Social implications of
the internet. In: Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 27. Annual Reviews Press, Palo
Alto, CA, pp. 307336.
Djelic, M-L., Ainamo, A., 2005. The telecom industry as cultural industry? The
transposition of fashion: logics into the eld of mobile telephony. In: Jones, C.,
Thornton, P. (Eds.), Transformation in Cultural Industries. Elsevier, Ltd, Oxford,
England, pp. 4580.
Esser, A., 2010. Television formats: primetime staple, global market. Popular
Communication 8 (4), 273292.
Fiske, J., 1987. Television Culture. Methuen, London, England.
Flint, J., October 29, 2012. Higher DVR usage becomes a mixed blessing for TV
industry. Los Angeles Times. A1, A9.
Flint, J., March 9, 2013. Teens still tune in on TV sets. Los Angeles Times. B1, B3.
Freedman, D., 2003. Who wants to be a millionaire? The politics of television exports.
Information, Communication, and Society 6 (1), 2441.
Freese, J., Rivas, S., Hargittai, E., 2006. Cognitive ability and internet use among older
adults. Poetics 34, 236249.
Gatson, S., Reid, R., 2011. Race and ethnicity in fandom. Transformative Works and
Cultures 8. Accessed online at: http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.
php/twc.
Gerbner, G., 1993. Learning productive aging as a social role: the lessons of television.
In: Bass, S., Caro, F., Chen, Y. (Eds.), Achieving a Productive Aging Society.
Auburn House. Westport, CT, pp. 207219.
Giddens, A., 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA.
Gitlin, T., 2001. Media Unlimited. Metropolitan Books, New York, NY.
86
Gray, J., 2008. Television pre-views and the meaning of hype. International Journal of
Cultural Studies 11 (1), 3349.
Gray, J., 2007. Imagining America: the Simpsons go global. Popular Communication 5
(2), 129148.
Gray, J., Sandvoss, C., Harrington, C.L., 2007. Fandom: Identities and Communities in
a Mediated World. New York University Press, New York, NY.
Grindstaff, L., Turow, J., 2006. Video cultures: television sociology in the new TV
age. Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 32 Annual Reviews Press, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 103125.
Griswold, W., 2000. Bearing Witness: Readers, Writers, and the Novel in Nigeria.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Harrington, C.L., Bielby, D., 1995a. Soap Fans. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Harrington, C.L., Bielby, D., 1995b. Where did you hear that? Technology and the
social organization of gossip. The Sociological Quarterly 36 (3), 607628.
Harrington, C.L., Bielby, D., 2010. A life course perspective on fandom. International
Journal of Cultural Studies 13 (5), 429450.
Harrington, C.L., Bielby, D., Bardo, A., 2011. Life course transitions and the future of
fandom. International Journal of Cultural Studies 14 (6), 567590.
Harrington, C.L., Brothers, D., 2010. Constructing the older audience: age and aging
on soaps. In: De Kosnik, A., Ford, S., Harrington, C.L. (Eds.), The Survival of Soap
Operas: Strategies for a New Media Era. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson,
MS, pp. 300314.
Havens, T., 2006. Global Television Marketplace. BFI, London, England.
Herman, E., McChesney, R., 1997. The Global Media: The New Missionaries of
Corporate Capitalism. Cassell, London, England.
Hesmondhalgh, D., 2007. The Cultural Industries, second ed. Sage, Los Angeles, CA.
Hesmondhalgh, D., Baker, S., 2011. Creative Labor: Media Work in Three Cultural
Industries. Routledge, London, England.
Hirsch, P., 1972. Processing fads and fashions: an organization set analysis of culture
industry systems. American Journal of Sociology 77 (4), 639659.
Intintoli, J., 1984. Taking Soaps Seriously: The World of Guiding Light. Praeger, New
York, NY.
Jenkins, H., 1992. Textual Poachers. Routledge, New York, NY.
Jenkins, H., 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York
University Press, New York, NY.
Jensen, J., 1992. Fandom as pathology: the consequence of characterization. In:
Lewis, L. (Ed.), The Adoring Audience. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 929.
Jurgensen, J., April 26, 2013. Can we please stop talking about TV? Wall Street
Journal, D1D2.
Katz, E., 1977. Social Research on Broadcasting: Proposals for Further Development.
BBC, London, England.
Khatchatourian, M., July 31, 2013. The memory of Cory Monteith lives on (and on) via
social media. Variety. Available at: http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/thememory-of-cory-monteith-lives-on-and-on-on-social-media-1200569547/.
Kraidy, M., 2009. Reality television, gender, and authenticity in Saudi Arabia. Journal
of Communication 59, 345366.
Lang, K., 1957. Mass appeal and minority tastes. In: Rosenberg, B., White, D.M. (Eds.),
Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America. Free Press, Glencoe, IL, pp. 379387.
Lasswell, H., 1948. The structure and function of communication in society. In:
Bryson, L. (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas. Institute for Religious and Social
Studies, New York, NY, pp. 3751.
Lazarsfeld, P., 1940. Radio and the Printed Page. Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New
York, NY.
Leaver, T., 2013. Joss Whedon, Dr. Horrible, and the future of web media. Popular
Communication 11 (2), 160173.
Lembo, R., 2000. Thinking through Television. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Livingstone, S., 2009. On the mediation of everything: ICA presidential address 2008.
Journal of Communication 59 (1), 118.
Lotz, A., 2007. The Television Will Be Revolutionized. New York University Press, New
York, NY.
Lotz, A., 2013. Television 2013. Cinema Journal 52 (3), 190197.
Lupton, E., 1993. Mechanical Brides: Women and Machines from Home to Ofce.
Cooper-Hewitt National Museum of Design. Smithsonian Institution, and Princeton
Architectural Press, New York, New York.
May, R.A.B., 1999. Tavern culture and television viewing: the inuence of local viewing
culture on patrons reception of television programs. Journal of Contemporary
Ethnography 28, 6999.
McCarthy, A., 2001. Ambient Television: Visual Culture and Public Space. Duke
University Press, Durham, NC.
McChesney, R., 2004. The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the
21st Century. Monthly Review Press, New York.
McMillin, D., Fisherkeller, J., 2009. Local identities in globalized regions: teens,
everyday life, and television. Popular Communication 7 (4), 237251.
McNamara, M., January 15, 2012. The pros and cons of binge TV viewing. Los
Angeles Times. D1, D27.
McNamara, M., June 27, 2013. Brett Martin and Alan Sepinwall look at the TV
revolution. Los Angeles Times. E1, E10.
Miller, T., Govil, N., McMurria, J., Maxwell, R., 2001. Global Hollywood 2. British Film
Institute, London, England.
Milner, R., 2009. Working for the text: fan labor and the new organization. International
Journal of Cultural Studies 12 (5), 491508.
Mirrlees, T., 2013. Global Entertainment Media: Between Cultural Imperialism and
Cultural Globalization. Routledge, New York, NY.
Mittell, J., 2004. Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American
Culture. Routledge, New York: NY.
Neuman, W.R., 1991. The Future of the Mass Audience. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, England.
Nordenstreng, K., Varis, T., 1974. Television Trafc a One Way Street? Reports and
Papers on Mass Communication No. 70. UNESCO, Paris.
OConnell, M., December 17, 2012. Nielsen and Twitter partner for social media TV
ratings. Hollywood Reporter. Available at: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/livefeed/nielsen-twitter-partner-social-media-403360.
Pearson, R., 2010. Fandom in the digital era. Popular Communication 8 (1),
8495.
Peterson, R., Anand, N., 2004. The production of culture perspective. Annual Review
of Sociology. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA.
Roe, K., 2000. Socioeconomic status and childrens television use. Communications:
The European Journal of Communication Research 25 (2), 318.
Rosenberg, B., White, D., 1957. Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America. The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Ross, S., 2011. Introduction: In focus: writing and producing TV in the post-network
era. Cinema Journal 50 (2), 128131.
Sanson, K., 2011. We dont want your must-see TV: transatlantic television and the
failed Coupling format. Popular Communication 9 (1), 3954.
Schiller, H., 1976. Communication and Cultural Domination. International Arts and
Sciences Press, White Plains, NY.
Scott, A.J., 2005. On Hollywood. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Sinclair, J., Jacka, E., Cunningham, S., 1996. New Patterns in Global Television:
Peripheral Vision. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
Spigel, L., 1992. Make Room for TV: Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar
America. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Spigel, L., Olsson, J., 2004. Television after TV: Essays on a Medium in Transition.
Duke University Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Tunstall, J., 1994. The Media Are American, second ed. Constable, London,
England.
Turow, J., 2011. Media Today: An Introduction to Mass Media, fourth ed. Routledge,
New York, NY.
Turow, J., 1997. Breaking Up America: Advertisers and the New Media World.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
van Eijck, K., van Rees, K., 2000. Media orientation and media use: television viewing
behavior of specic reader types from 1975 to 1995. Communication Research 27
(5), 574616.
van Rees, K., van Eijck, K., 2003. Media repertoires of selective audiences. Poetics 31
(5), 465490.
Varis, T., 1984. The international ow of television programs. Journal of Communication 34 (1), 143152.
Villarreal, Y., January 30, 2013. Look, I really did meet.. Los Angeles Times.
A1, A11.
Wherry, F., 2012. The Culture of Markets. Polity Press, Cambridge, England.