Audience—Citizens: The Media, Public Knowledge and Interpretive Practice

Books

Ramaswami Harindranath

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Acknowledgements

    A few of the chapters in this book are revised versions of essays published elsewhere. A different version of Chapter 1 was published in the journal Particip@tions, vol. 3, issue 2, 2006. A summary of the conceptual framework developed in Chapters 2, 3 and 4 was published in Dickinson, R., R. Harindranath, and O. Linne (eds) (1998) Approaches to Audiences, London: Arnold. And finally, the argument developed in Chapter 8 is an extended version of the essays in Cottle, S. (2000) Ethnic Minorities and the Media: Changing Cultural Boundaries, Buckingham: The Open University Press, and in Particip@tions, vol. 3, issue 1, 2005.

  • Concluding Comments

    This project originated as a desire to rectify two aspects of media research: first, what I considered a theoretical inadequacy in most audience researches which have investigated the connection between sociological categories and audience interpretations of various kinds of televisual texts. While concurring with their basic assumption that the socio-cultural contexts of the audience members were in some way linked to interpretive practices, I detected a lack of theoretical sophistication in these studies which rendered them unable to explain exactly how contexts affected decodings. The first part of this book is the result of my attempts at answering this problem. The empirical part of my research, designed to compare differences in interpretation by audiences in India and Britain, was originally intended to illustrate and support my conceptual interventions; while the case study does, I believe, lend its support, it does so in a way that had not been anticipated at the point when the project was initially conceived.

    The second issue is related to conceptualizations of the role of the media in democracy which, as I argued in Chapter 1, has tended to ignore the audience. Public knowledge and its contribution to democratic functioning have mostly been seen in policy or textual terms, and this book has sought to rectify that lacuna by examining the significant role of education, particularly higher education, in the interpretive practices of audiences. The documentary genre, along with other non-fictional television programmes, with its claims to truth, is recognized as one of the main contributors to the production of public knowledge—the raison d'etre of factual television. The findings in this study reveal the profound differences in interpretation of documentaries as riding on the acceptance or rejection of the genre's veridicality. Alejandro's (1993) reconceptualization of citizenship, using Gadamerian hermeneutics, is significant in this regard: ‘Citizenship, on this view, would appear as a fusion [of horizons] between past and present; as a web of different vocabularies; and as an interpretive practice against the backdrop of different and conflicting traditions’ (Alejandro 1993: 36). Citizenship, in the hermeneutic vocabulary, then becomes ‘a space where citizens can decode languages and practices’ (Alejandro 1993) including national symbols, myths and traditions.

    In order to explore the assumptions underlying research in audience decoding practices, I have identified three distinct but interlinked areas for a more comprehensive theoretical enquiry: ‘understanding’, ‘social context’ and ‘genre’. A caveat is required at the outset: while I maintain that my attempts have succeeded in drawing attention to and elucidating these terms to a certain degree, I believe that they would benefit from a closer examination. In a sense, each of the chapters in this book that deal with each of these areas has the potential of becoming a book in its own right. I shall briefly rehearse some of the arguments while indicating areas of possible future research.

    With reference to ‘understanding’, I have, using Gadamerian philosophical hermeneutics, tried to argue that the inevitable historicity (and by extension, the social embeddedness) of the individual necessarily prescribes his/her interpretive activity. While prima facie this assertion achieves nothing more than confirming what was already assumed in audience research, the presence of two related sub-arguments help clarify these assumptions. First, the Heideggerian notion which Gadamer built on—that the understanding and interpretation of texts is linked to understanding in general which is an essential feature of human existence—refers us directly to the social distribution of knowledge and its connection with the acts of understanding within particular spheres of human experience. The notion of understanding, therefore, has to be looked at with reference to the ‘prejudices’ which an individual brings to that particular sphere. Second, the concept of the ‘horizon of expectations’ formed in part by the individual's historicity, and the idea that a text is understood in the process of an ever changing part–whole dialectic, in which expectations are constantly ‘thrown forward’, anticipating the meaning of the whole, point us to the importance of the familiarity with and expectations from particular televisual genres. These aspects of familiarity and expectation are the elements which drive the interpretation of individual texts, while simultaneously these particular interpretations also have the potential to modify generic expectations. These ideas have been explored at length in relation to the interpretation of television in works such as Wilson (1993). However, they could benefit from more empirical work which could investigate in greater detail their links with specific interpretive practices.

    The first of these notions brought out by the employment of Gadamer's hermeneutics, that understanding is ineluctably circumscribed by the ‘prejudices’ which form the individual's ‘horizon’, is potentially deterministic. In an effort to counter that, while at the same time exploring the social groundedness, the ‘context’ of human experience and behaviour, I have employed Schutzian phenomenological sociology, which, through the concept of ‘multiple realities’, situates the person not in the rigid compartments of positivistic sociology, but in the intersecting spaces of various existential as well as experiential circles which make up his/her life-world. It is worth noting here that one possible way of moving between Gadamer's idea of ‘prejudice’ and Schutz's phenomenological sociology is through Habermas's conception of life-world as ‘a culturally transmitted and linguistically organized stock of interpretive patterns’, which ‘circumscribes action in the manner of a preunderstood context that, however, is not addressed’ (1987: 124, 132). Positioning the individual thus, and accepting the notion of the ‘intersubjective’ nature of these circles of relevance, make it possible for the investigator to accept individual behaviour as shaped by the social context while avoiding deterministic notions. This, and the formulation of culture, or any form of collectivity as a meaningful, intersubjective world which accords the individual the ‘pre-given’ aspect of his/her life-world, throws up a number of methodological questions with potential for further research. In the particular context of this study, for instance, the notion of intersubjectivity as created and sustained by a web of meaning suggests a conceptual framework with which to explore the notion of national identity and democratic politics, and the role of the media in maintaining and contributing to it.

    The importance of ‘genre’ in Gadamerian hermeneutics has been already discussed, but specifically pertinent to this study are the generic features of the documentary. In Chapter 5 of this book, I have explored the claims of the documentary, first, in relation to fictional films in terms of textual characteristics, and second, with regard to its claims of authentically portraying ‘reality’. After arguing that there is very little to distinguish the documentary from fiction textually—that, in other words, the documentary contains many fictive elements—I concluded that, what separates it from fiction is the ‘horizon of expectations’ which viewers bring to the text, which is determined by whether they accept or reject the genre's claims to depict historical reality the ‘way it is’. The authority of the documentary voice depends on this.

    While my case study, based on original research on the comparison of the interpretation of documentaries by audiences in India and Britain, supports my theoretical efforts, it does so in a manner I did not expect. Briefly, my finding is that while most respondents across both the cultures interpreted the films in similar ways, with a varied employment of ‘transparent’ and ‘mediated’ frames which generated readings which were at times critical of the films' arguments and representation, the one group which emerged as markedly different was that of the Indian non-graduates. The similarities between the interpretations of the Indian audiences with higher education and those of the British audiences, and equally the differences between the interpretations of these Indians and those of their compatriots without higher education are suggestive. The importance of higher education as a ‘sphere’ in a person's life-world, with the potential of creating an intersubjective world of its own, suggests the presence of a hybrid culture which bridges the gap between indigenous Indian and Western cultures. At the same time, the results of the study also underline the inadequacy of linking culture solely with geographical and political spaces. Such a conception fell into the trap of distinguishing collectivities along conventional lines, failing to acknowledge the ‘multiple realities’ that constitute a life-world. Politically as well as intellectually this was not a productive position. The outcome, however, does indicate avenues for further research into the different interpretive practices within India.

    Primarily, it calls for a more systematic analysis of the de-codings of audiences from various sections of the population. Given the sheer diversity of the Indian nation-state along the religious, cultural, linguistic, as well as social and economic lines, these categories must be taken into account and theorized upon. In that context, the possibility of a range of intersecting circles of relevance constituting a life-world is heightened, and therefore, a theory of collective and individual identity similar to the one presented here would be pertinent.

    Intrinsic to this, as suggested in Chapter 8, are debates concerning the global and the local. In the current climate of economic change, where the balance attempted in India's experiments with ‘mixed economy’ has been rapidly transformed into a market-oriented economy, issues of globalization ought to take centre stage. One of the dichotomies which immediately suggest itself is the notion of the Westernized Indian and the non-Westernized Indian. As indicated in this study, higher education appears to play an important role in establishing and maintaining this division. Allied to this is the issue of consumerism which seems to have burgeoned in proportion to the recent economic ‘reforms’ which have dovetailed the introduction of and dramatic increase in foreign cable and satellite channels.

    What do these developments mean to the cultural identity of India? What is the nature of the relationship between these economic changes and media ‘liberalization’, and between consumerism and ‘Westernization’? With the burgeoning of cable and satellite television channels and the co-presence of a multitude of news and current affairs channels and programmes interpellating audience groups in diverse ways, the time is ripe for the study of the Indian audience's interpretations of such popular non-fiction and fiction, along the lines suggested by Liebes and Katz (1990), but with a sufficiently sophisticated theory as the one indicated in this book, which would examine audience interpretations in the context of the developments sketched above. Given the current cultural-economic developments in India and the diverse ways in which citizenship is enacted in different social and geographic locations, such a task is both academically promising as well as politically overdue.

    Bibliography

    Alejandro, R.1993. Hermeneutics, Citizenship, and the Public Sphere. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    Alexander, D.1945. The Documentary Film. London: The British Film Institute.
    Allor, M.1988. ‘Relocating the Site of the Audience’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 5.
    Ang, I.1985. Watching Dallas. London: Methuen.
    Ang, I.1989. ‘Wanted: Audiences. On the Politics of Empirical Audience Studies’, in E.Seiter, H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner and E.Warth (eds), Remote Control: Television, Audiences and Cultural Power. London: Routledge.
    Ang, I.1990. ‘Culture and Communication’, European Journal of Communication, 5 (2–3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323190005002006
    Ang, I.1991. Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203321454
    Ang, I.2001. ‘Desperately Guarding Borders: Media Globalization, “Cultural Imperialism”, and the Rise of “Asia”’, in Y.Souchou (ed.), House of Glass: Culture, Modernity, and the State in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
    Apel, K. O.1984. Understanding and Explanation: A Transcendental–Pragmatic Perspective (Translated by GeorgiaWarnke). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
    Appadurai, A.1996. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Appiah, A.1994. ‘Identity, Authenticity, Survival: Multicultural Societies and Social Reproduction’, in A.Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Barker, M., J.Arthurs, and R.Harindranath. 2001. The ‘Crash’ Controversy: Censorship Campaigns and Film Reception. London: Wallflower Press.
    Barnett, C.2003. Culture and Democracy: Media, Space, and Representation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    Barnett, C.2004. ‘Media, Democracy and Representation: Disembodying the Public’, in C.Barnett and M.Low (eds), Spaces of Democracy: Geographical Perspectives on Citizenship, Participation and Representation. London: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446216309
    Barnouw, E.1983. Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film (
    Revised edition
    ). New York: Oxford University Press.
    Bauman, Z.1978. Hermeneutics and Social Science: Approaches to Understanding. London: Hutchinson.
    Bazin, A.1967. What is Cinema. Translated by HughGray. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Benhabib, S.2002. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    Bennett, T.2007. ‘Habitus Clive: Aesthetics and Politics in the Works of Pierre Bourdieu’, New Literary History, 38.
    Berger, P. and T.Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Berger, P. L., B.Berger, and H.Kellner. 1974. The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness. New York: Vintage Books.
    Beteille, A.2003. Equality and Universality: Essays in Social and Political Theory. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Bernstein, B.1973. Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 1: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of Language. St Albans: Paladin.
    Bhabha, H.1994. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
    Biltereyst, D.1995. ‘Qualitative Audience Research and Transnational Media Effects’, European Journal of Communication, 10 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323195010002005
    Bleicher, J.1980. Contemporary Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy and Critique. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Bleicher, J.1982. The Hermeneutic Imagination: Outline of a Positive Critique of Scientism and Sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Bourdieu, P.1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Bourdieu, P.1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Bourdieu, P.1989. ‘Social Space and Symbolic Power’, Sociological Theory, 17 (1).
    Brah, A.1996. Cartographies of Diaspora; Contesting Identities. London: Routledge.
    Brain, D.1994. ‘Cultural Production as “Society in the Making”: Architecture as an Example of the Social Construction of Cultural Artefacts’, in D.Crane (ed.), The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.
    Brunsdon, C. and D.Morley. 1978. Everyday Television: ‘Nationwide’. London: The British Film Institute.
    Canclini, N.2001. Consumers and Citizens: Globalization and Multicultural Conflicts. Translated by G.Yudice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Carey, J. W.1975. ‘Review Essay: Communication and Culture’, Communication Research, April.
    Carey, J. W.1989. Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
    Chakravarty, R. and N.Gooptu. 2000. ‘Imagi-nation: the Media, Nation, and Politics in Contemporary India’, in E.Hallam and B.Street (eds), Cultural Encounters: Representing ‘Otherness’. London: Routledge.
    Clifford, J.1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    Cohen, E. (ed.). 2005. News Incorporated: Corporate Media Ownership and Its Threat to Democracy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
    Collins, R.1986. ‘Seeing is Believing: The Ideology of Naturalism’, in J.Corner (ed.), Documentary and the Mass Media. London: Arnold.
    Connell, I.1985. ‘Blaming the Meeja’, in L.Masterman (ed.), Television Mythologies. London: Comedia/Routledge.
    Corner, J. (ed.). 1986. Documentary and the Mass Media. London: Edward Arnold.
    Corner, J. (ed.). 1991. ‘Meaning, Genre and Context: The Problematics of “Public Knowledge” in the New Audience Studies’, paper presented at the fourth International Television Studies Conference, London.
    Corner, J. (ed.). 1995. Television Form and Public Address. London: Edward Arnold.
    Corner, J. and K.Richardson. 1986. ‘Documentary meanings and the discourse of interpretation’, in J.Corner (ed.), Documentary and the Mass Media. London: Edward Arnold.
    Corner, J., K.Richardson, and N.Fenton. 1990. Nuclear Reactions: Form and Response in ‘Public Issue’ Television. London: John Libbey.
    Crane, D. (ed.). 1994. The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford and Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.
    Crane, D. (ed.). 1994. ‘Introduction: The Challenge of the Sociology of Culture to Sociology as a Discipline’, in D.Crane (ed.), The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Curran, J.1990. ‘The New Revisionism in Mass Communication Research: A Reappraisal’, European Journal of Communication, 5:2–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323190005002002
    Dahlgren, P.1985a. ‘The Modes of Reception: For a Hermeneutics of TV News’, in P.Drummond and R.Paterson (eds), Television in Transition. London: The British Film Institute.
    Dahlgren, P.1985b. ‘Media, Meaning and Method: A Post-rational Perspective’, The Nordicom Review, 2.
    Dahlgren, P.1988. ‘What's the Meaning of This? Viewer's Plural Sense-making of TV News’, Media, Culture and Society, 10.
    Dahlgren, P.1995. Television and the Public Sphere: Citizenship, Democracy, and the Media. London: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446250617
    Dahlgren, P.2003. ‘Reconfiguring Civic Culture in the New Media Milieu’, in J.Corner and D.Pels (eds), Media and the Restyling of Politics, pp. 151–70. London: Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446216804
    Dahlgren, P.2004. ‘Theory, Boundaries and Political Communication’, European Journal of Communication, 19 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323104040691
    Dallmayr, F. R. and T.McCarthy. 1977. Understanding and Social Inquiry. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
    Dalrymple, William. 2007. The Guardian. 24–30 August.
    Das, S. and R.Harindranath. 1996. ‘Nation-State, National Identity and the Media’, Unit for M.A., Distance Learning. Leicester: Centre for Mass Communication Research.
    Dirlik, A.1997. The Post-Colonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global Capitalism. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
    Dyer, R.1977. ‘Victim: Hermeneutic Project’, Film Form, 1:2.
    Eagleton, T.1983. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Elias, N.1978. The Civilising Process, Vol.1: The History of Manners. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Elias, N.1982. The Civilising Process, Vol.2: State Formation and Civilization. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Eliot, T.S.1970. Collected Poems. San Diego: Harcourt, Brav Jovanorich.
    Ellis, J. C.1989. The Documentary Idea: A Critical History of English-Language Documentary Film and Video. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
    Erni, J.1989. ‘Where is the Communication Audience’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019685998901300206
    Evans, W.1990. ‘The Interpretive Turn on Media Research’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15295039009360170
    Fejes, F.1984. ‘Critical Communication Research and Media Effects: The Problem of the Disappearing Audience’, Media, Culture and Society, 6 (3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344378400600303
    Fernandes, L.2000. ‘Nationalizing “the Global”: Media Images, Cultural Politics and the Middle Class in India’, Media, Culture and Society, 22 (5): 611–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344300022005005
    Feyerabend, P.1991. Three Dialogues on Knowledge. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Fish, S. E.1980. Is There a Text in This Class?: The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Fiske, J.1987. Television Culture. London: Methuen.
    Fiske, J.1991. ‘Semiological Struggles’, in J.Anderson (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 14. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    Gadamer, H-G.1975. Truth and Method. New York: Continuum.
    Gadamer, H-G.1976. Philosophical Hermeneutics (Trans. and ed. by DavidLinge). Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Garnham, N.1993. ‘The Mass Media, Cultural Identity, and the Public Sphere in the Modern World’, Public Culture, 5 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/08992363-5-2-251
    Garnham, N.2000. Emancipation, the Media, and Modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198742258.001.0001
    Geertz, C.1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
    Geertz, C.1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
    Giddens, A.1976. New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson.
    Giddens, A.1982. Sociology: A Brief but Critical Introduction. London: Macmillan.
    Giddens, A.1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Giddens, A.1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Gillespie, M.1995. Television, Ethnicity and Cultural Change. London: Routledge.
    Gillespie, M.2000. ‘Transnational Communications and Diaspora Communities’, in S.Cottle (ed.), Ethnic Minorities and the Media: Changing Cultural Boundaries. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    Gilroy, P.2000. Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color Line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    Gilroy, P.2005. Postcolonial Melancholia. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Giroux, H.1994. ‘Living Dangerously: Identity Politics and the New Racism’, in H.Giroux and P.McLaren (eds), Between Borders: Pedagogy and the Politics of Cultural Studies. New York: Routledge.
    Glasgow University Media Group. 1976. Bad News. London: Routledge.
    Goldstein, L. J.1961. ‘The Phenomenological and Naturalistic Approaches to the Social’, reprinted in M.Natanson (ed.), Philosophy of the Social Sciences: A Reader. 1963. New York: Random House.
    Goodman, Nelson. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianpolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
    Gripsrud, J.1995. The Dynasty Years: Hollywood Television and Critical Media Studies. London and New York: Comedia/Routledge.
    Grondin, J.1990. ‘Hermeneutics and Relativism’, in K.Wright (ed.), Festivals of Interpretation: Essays on Hans-Georg Gadamer's Work. New York: State University of New York.
    Grossberg, L. and C.Christians. 1981. ‘Hermeneutics and the Study of Communications’, in C.Christians (ed.), Foundations for Communication Studies. Iowa: University of Iowa, Centre for Communication Study.
    Gupta, A.2000. ‘Blurred Boundaries: the Discourse of Corruption, the Culture of Politics, and the Imagined State’, in Z.Hasan (ed.), Politics and the State in India, pp. 331–78. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
    Gurswitch, A.1970. ‘Problems of the Life World’, in M.Natanson (ed.), Phenomenology and Social Reality: Essays in Memory of Alfred Schutz. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    Habermas, J.1987. The Theory of Communicative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Habermas, J.1988. On the Logic of the Social Sciences. Translated by S. W.Nicholsen and J. E.Stark. Oxford: Polity Press.
    Habermas, J.2001. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Hackett, R. and Y.Zhao (eds). 2005. Democratizing Global Media. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Hall, S.1980. ‘Encoding/Decoding’, in S.Hall, D.Hobson, A.Lowe and P.Willis (eds), Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson.
    Hall, S.1990. ‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora’, in J.Rutherford (ed.), Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
    Hall, S.1992. ‘New ethnicities’, in D.Rattansi and J.Donald (eds), Race, Culture and Difference. Sage.
    Harindranath, R.1998. ‘Documentary Meanings and Interpretive Contexts: Observations on Indian “Repertoires”’, in R.Dickinson, R.Harindranath and O.Linne (eds), Approaches to Audiences, pp. 283–97. London: Arnold.
    Harindranath, R.2000. ‘Ethnicity, National Culture(s), and the Interpretation of Television’, in S.Cottle (ed.), Ethnic Minorities and the Media: Changing Cultural Boundaries, pp. 149–63. Buckingham: The Open University Press.
    Harindranath, R.2004. ‘Battling Over the “Truth”’, in A.Biressi and H.Nunn (eds), Mediawar, a special issue of Mediactive (issue 3).
    Harindranath, R.2006. Perspectives on Global Cultures. Maidenhead and New York: Open University Press.
    Hartley, J.1999. Uses of Television. London: Routledge.
    Hermes, J.1995. Reading Women's Magazines: An Analysis of Everyday Media Use. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Hermes, J. and PeterDahlgren. 2006. ‘Cultural Studies and Citizenship’, European Journal of Communication, 9 (3).
    Hesse, M.1954. Science and the Human Imagination: Aspects of the History and Logic of Physical Science. London: SCM Press.
    Hirsch, E. D.1967. Validity in Interpretation. London: Yale University Press.
    Hobson, D.1982. Crossroads: Drama of a Soap Opera. London: Methuen.
    Hoijer, B.1992. ‘Socio-cognitive Structures and Television Reception’, Media, Culture and Society, 14 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344392014004006
    Howard, R. J.1982. The Three Faces of Hermeneutics. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
    Hoy, D. C.1978. The Critical Circle: Literature, History and Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Hyden, G., M.Leslie, and F.Ogundimu (eds). 2002. Media and Democracy in Africa. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
    Jaffrelot, C.1999. The Hindue Nationalist Movement in India. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Jauss, H. R.1982. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Brighton: The Harvester Press.
    Jensen, K. B.1986. Making Sense of the News. Arhus: University of Arhus Press.
    Jensen, K. B.1987. ‘Qualitative Audience Research: Toward an Integrative Approach to Reception’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4.
    Jensen, K. B.1991a. ‘Humanistic Scholarship as Qualitative Science: Contributions to Mass Communication Research’, in K. B.Jensen and N. W.Jankowski (eds), A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203409800
    Jenson, K. B.1991b. ‘When is Meaning? Communication Theory, Pragmatism, and Mass Media Reception’, in J.Anderson (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 14. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    Jensen, K. B. and K.Rosengren. 1990. ‘Five Traditions in Search of an Audience’, European Journal of Communication, 5 (2–3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323190005002005
    JensenK. B. and N. W.Jankowski (eds). 1991. A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203409800
    Keane, J.1991. The Media and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    KearneyR.1984. Dialogues with Contemporary Continental Thinkers: The Phenomenological Heritage. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    Keat, R. and J.Urry. 1975. Social Theory as Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Kitley, P. (ed.). 2003. Television, Regulation and Civil Society in Asia. London: Routledge Curzon.
    Kockelmans, J. J.1967. Phenomenology: The Philosophy of Edmund Husserl and its Interpretation. Garden City, NY: Doubledays.
    Komesaroff, P. A.1986. Objectivity, Science and Society: Interpreting Nature and Society in the Age of the Crisis of Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Kumar, S.2003. ‘Is There Anything Called Global Television Studies?’, in L.Parks and S.Kumar (eds), Planet TV. New York: New York University Press.
    Lash, S. and J.Friedman. 1992. ‘Introduction: Subjectivity and Modernity's Other’, in S.Lash and J.Friedman (eds), Modernity and Identity. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Layder, D.1990. The Realist Image in Social Science. London: Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230374171
    Layder, D.1994. Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage Publications.
    Liebes, T. and E.Katz. 1986. ‘Patterns of Involvement in Television Fiction: A Comparative Analysis’, European Journal of Communication, 1 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0267323186001002004
    Liebes, T. and E.Katz. 1990. The Export of Meaning; Cross-Cultural Readings of ‘Dallas’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Lindlof, T. (ed.). 1987. Natural Audiences: Qualitative Research of Media Uses and Effects. New Jersey: Ablex.
    Lindlof, T. and T.Meyer. 1987. ‘Mediated Communication as Ways of Seeing, Acting, and Constructing Culture: The Tools and Foundations of Qualitative Research’, in R.Lindlof (ed.), Natural Audiences: Qualitative Research of Media Uses and Effects. New Jersey: Ablex.
    Livingstone, S.1993. ‘The Rise and Fall of Audience Research: An Old Story with a New Ending’, Journal of Communication, Autumn.
    Livingstone, S.1999. ‘Mediated Knowledge: Recognition of the Familiar, Discovery of the New’, in J.Gripsrud (ed.), Television and Common Knowledge, pp. 91–107. London: Routledge.
    Livingstone, S.2005. ‘On the Relation Between Audiences and Publics’, in S.Livingstone (ed.), Audiences and Publics: When Cultural Engagement Matters for the Public Sphere, pp. 7–42. Bristol: Intellect.
    Livingstone, S. M.1990. Making Sense of Television: The Psychology of Audience Interpretation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    Lowe, D.1982. History of Bourgeois Perception. Brighton: The Harvester Press.
    Ludden, D. (ed.). 1996. Making India Hindu: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Lull, J. (ed.). 1988. World Families Watch Television. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
    Madianou, M.2005. Mediating the Nation: News, Audiences and the Politics of Identity. London: UCL Press.
    Malik, K.1996. The Meaning of Race. London: Macmillan.
    Mankekar, P.1993. ‘Television Tales and a Woman's Rage: A Nationalist Recasting of Draupadi's disrobing’, Public Culture, 5 (3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/08992363-5-3-469
    Mankekar, P.1999. Screening Culture, Viewing Politics: Television, Womanhood and Nation in modern India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Minh-ha, T.1993. ‘The Totalising Quest for Meaning’, in M.Renov (ed.), Theorizing Documentary. London: Routledge.
    Mishra, V.1996. ‘The Diasporic Imaginary: Theorizing the Indian Diaspora’, Textual Practice, 10 (3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09502369608582254
    Mishra, V.2002. Bollywood Cinema: Temples of Desire. New York: Routledge.
    Moores, S.1990. ‘Texts, Readers and Contexts of Reading: Developments in the Study of Media Audiences’, Media, Culture and Society, 12 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344390012001002
    Moores, S.2005. Media/Theory: Thinking About Media and Communications. London: Routledge.
    Morawaska, E. and W.Spohn. 1994. ‘“Cultural Pluralism” in Historical Sociology: Recent Theoretical Directions’, in D.Crane (ed.), The Sociology of Culture: Emerging Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
    Morgan, M. (ed.). 2002. Against the Mainstream: The Selected Words of George Gerbner. New York: P. Lang.
    Morley, D.1976. ‘Industrial Conflict and the Mass Media’, Sociological Review, 24:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1976.tb00112.x
    Morley, D.1980. The Nationwide Audience: Structure and Decoding. London: The British Film Institute.
    Morley, D.1981. ‘The “Nationwide” Audience: A Critical Postscript’, Screen Education, 39.
    Morley, D.1986. Family Television. London: Comedia/Routledge.
    Morley, D.1989. ‘Changing Paradigms in Audience Studies’, in E.Seiter, H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner, and E.Warth (eds), Remote Control: Television, Audiences, and Cultural Power. London: Routledge.
    Morley, D.1992. Television, Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.
    Morley, D.1993. ‘Active Audience Theory: Pendulums and Pitfalls’, Journal of Communication, 2 (1).
    Morley, D.1999. ‘Finding About the World from Television News: Some Difficulties’, in J.Gripsrud (ed.), Television and Common Knowledge. London: Routledge.
    Morley, D. and R.Silverstone. 1991. ‘Communication and Context: Ethnographic Perspectives on Media Audiences’, in K. B.Jensen and N. W.Jankowski (eds), A Handbook of Qualitative Methodologies for Mass Communication Research. London: Routledge.
    Morris, M. B.1977. An Excursion into Creative Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Mouffe, C.2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
    Mueller-Vollmer, K. (ed.). 1985. The Hermeneutics Reader: Texts of the German Tradition from the Enlightenment to the Present. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    Munck, R.2002. ‘Globalization and Democracy: A New “Great Transformation”?’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 581.
    Murdock, G.1989. ‘Critical Inquiry and Audience Activity’, in B.Dervin, L.Grossberg, B.O'Keefe and E.Wartella (eds), Rethinking Communication, Vol 2. London: Sage Publications.
    Murdock, G.1999. ‘Rights and Representations: Public Discourse and Cultural Citizenship’, in J.Gripsrud (ed.), Television and Common Knowledge, pp. 7–17. London: Routledge.
    Nandy, A., S.Trivedy, S.Mayaram, and A.Yagnik. 1997. Creating a Nationality: The Ramjanmabhumi Movement and the Fear of the Self. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Natanson, M. (ed.). 1963. Philosophy of the Social Sciences: A Reader. New York: Random House.
    Natanson, M. (ed.). 1970. Phenomenology and Social Reality: Essays in Memory of Alfred Schutz. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-7523-4
    Natanson, M.1970. ‘Alfred Schutz on Social Reality and Social Science’, in M.Natanson (ed.), Phenomenology and Social Reality: Essays in Memory of Alfred Schutz. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-7523-4
    Natanson, M. (ed.). 1973. ‘Introduction’, Collected Papers, Vol. I. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    Nichols, B.1981. Ideology and the Image: Social Representation in the Cinema and Other Media. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    Nichols, B.1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    Nietzsche, F.1968. Will to Power. Translated by W.Kauffmann and R. J.Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books.
    Oommen, T. K.1992. ‘Contradictions in language policies in independent India’, Media Development, 1 (3).
    Outhwaite, W.1987. New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical Theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
    Palmer, R. E.1969. Hermeneutics: Interpretative Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    Papineau, D.1978. For Science in the Social Sciences. London: Macmillan.
    Parkin, F.1972. Class Inequality and the Political Order. London: Paladin.
    Parret, H. and J.Bouveresse (eds). 1981. Meaning and Understanding. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110839715
    Pattnayak, D. P.1981. Multilingualism and Mother-Tongue Education. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    Philo, G.1990. Seeing and Believing: The Influence of Television. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203326251
    Platts, M. de B.1979. Ways of Meaning: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Language. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Rabinow, P. and W.Sullivan. 1979. ‘Introduction: The Interpretive Turn: Emergence of an Approach’, in P.Rabinow and W.Sullivan (eds), Interpretive Social Science: A Reader. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Radway, J.1984. Reading the Romance: Feminism and the Representation of Women in Popular Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
    Rajagopal, A.2001. Politics After Television: Hindu Nationalism and the Reshaping of the Public in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489051
    Reed-Danahay, D.2005. Locating Bourdieu. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    Renov, M. (ed.). 1993. Theorizing Documentary. London: Routledge.
    Renov, M. (ed.). 1993. ‘Towards a Poetics of Documentary’, in. Theorizing Documentary, London: Routledge.
    Renov, M. (ed.). 2004. The Subject of Documentary. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    Richardson, K. and J.Corner. 1986. ‘Reading Reception: Mediation and Transparency in Viewers' Accounts of a TV Programme’, Media, Culture and Society, 8 (2).
    Ricoeur, P.1970. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation (Translated by D.Savage). New Haven: Yale.
    Ricoeur, P.1991. From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics, II (Translated by K.Blarney and J. B.Thompson). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    Risser, J.1991. ‘Reading the Text’, in K.Silverman (ed.), Gadamer and Hermeneutics: Science, Culture, Literature. New York: Routledge.
    Roche, M.1973. Phenomenology, Language and the Social Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Rorty, R.1982. Consequences of Pragmatism. Brighton: The Harvester Press.
    Rosaldo, R.1993. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. London: Routledge.
    Rosen, D.1993. ‘Document and Documentary: On the Persistence of Historic Concepts’, in M.Renov (ed.), Theorizing Documentary. London: Routledge.
    Rosenberg, J.1981. ‘On Understanding the Difficulty in Understanding Understanding’, in H.Parrett and J.Bouveresse (eds), Meaning and Understanding. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
    Rouse, R.1991/2002. ‘Mexican Migration and the Social Space of Postmodernism’, Diaspora1 (1), Spring 1991, reproduced in J. X.Inda and R.Rosaldo (eds) (2002), The Anthropology of Globalization: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
    RudolphL. and S.Rudolph. 1987. In Pursuit of Lakshmi: The Political Economy of the Indian State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Said, E.1986. ‘An Ideology of Difference’, in H.Gates (ed.), ‘Race’, Writing and Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Schutz. 1964. Collected Papers Vol. II: Studies in Social Theory. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    Schutz. 1972. The Phenomenology of the Social World (Translated by G.Wlahs and F.Lehnert). London: Heinemann.
    Schutz. 1973. Collected Papers: Vol. I: The Problem of Social Reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    Seaman, W.1992. ‘Active Audience Theory: Pointless Populism’, Media, Culture and Society, 14 (1).
    Seiter, E., H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner, and E.Warth. 1989. ‘ “Don't Treat Us Like We're So Stupid and Naive”: Toward an Ethnography of Soap Opera Viewers’, in E.Seiter, H.Borchers, G.Kreutzner, and E.Warth (eds), Remote Control: Television, Audiences and Cultural Power. London: Routledge.
    Sen, A.1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Seung, T. K.1981. Structuralism and Hermeneutics. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Seung, T. K.1982. Semiotics and Thematics in Hermeneutics. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Shapcott, R.1994. ‘Conversation and Co-existence: Gadamer and the Interpretation of International Society’, Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 23 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03058298940230010501
    Silverman, K. (ed.). 1991. Gadamer and Hermeneutics: Science, Culture, Literature. New York: Routledge.
    Silverstone, R.1981. The Message of Television: Myth and Narrative in Contemporary Culture. London: Heinemann.
    Silverstone, R.1983. ‘The Right to Speak: on a Poetic for Television Documentary’, Media, Culture and Society, 2.
    Silverstone, R.1984. ‘Narrative Strategies in Television Science: A Case Study’, Media, Culture and Society, 5 (2).
    Silverstone, R.1986. ‘The Agonistic Narratives in Television Science’, in J.Corner (ed.), Documentary and the Mass Media. London: Edward Arnold.
    Silverstone, R.1989. ‘Let Us Then Return to the Murmuring of Everyday Practices’, Media, Culture and Society, 11 (1).
    Silverstone, R.1994. Television and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.
    Silverstone, R. and E.Hirsch. (eds). 1992. Consuming Technologies. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203401491
    Sless, D.1981. Learning and Visual Communication. London: Croom Helm.
    Sontag, S.1982. A Susan Sontag Reader. New York: Penguin Books Ltd.
    Sontag, S.1982. ‘On Photography’, in. A Susan Sontag Reader. New York: Penguin Books Ltd.
    Strelitz, L.2002. ‘Media Consumption and Identity Formation: The Case of the “Homeland” Viewers’, Media, Culture and Society, 24 (2).
    Tagg, J.1988. The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. London: Macmillan.
    Taylor, C.1971. ‘Interpretations and the Sciences of Man’, reprinted in R.Beehler and A. R.Drengson (eds), The Philosophy of Society. 1978. London: Methuen.
    Thompson, J. B.1981. Critical Hermeneutics: A Study in the Thought of Paul Ricoeur And Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609176
    Thompson, J. B.1984. Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press
    Tomlinson, J.1991. Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. London: Pinter.
    Tomlinson, J.1999. Globalization and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Tsing, A. (2000/2002). ‘The Global Situation’, Cultural Anthropology, 15 (3), reproduced in J. X.Inda and R.Rosaldo (eds) (2002), The Anthropology of Globalization: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Tufte, T. (ed.). 2002. Global Encounters: Media and Cultural Transformation. Luton: University of Luton Press.
    Vaughan, D.1986. ‘Notes on the Ascent of a Fictitious Mountain’, in J.Corner (ed.), Documentary and the Mass Media. London: Edward Arnold.
    Wagner, H. R.1970. Alfred Schutz: On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Wagner, H. R.1983. Alfred Schutz—An Intellectual Biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Warnke, G.1984. ‘Introduction’, Understanding and Explanation: A Transcendental-Pragmatic perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Williams, C. (ed.). 1980. Realism and the Cinema: A Reader. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Williams, R.1981. The Sociology of Culture. New York: Schocken Books.
    Wilson, T.1993. Watching Television: Hermeneutics, Reception and Popular Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    Wimsatt, W. K. and M. C.Beardsley. 1954. The Verbal Icon. Lexington: University of Kentucky.
    Winston, B. (1978/79). ‘Documentary’, Sight and Sound, Winter.
    Winston, B.1993. ‘The Documentary Film as Scientific Inscription’, in M.Renov (ed.), Theorizing Documentary. London: Routledge.
    Winston, B.2000. Lies, Damn Lies and Documentaries. London: BFI.
    Wisdom, J. O.1987. Philosophy of the Social Sciences: 1. A Metascientific Introduction. Aldershot: Avebury.
    Wolff, J.1975. Hermeneutic Philosophy and the Sociology of Art: An Approach to some of the Epistemological Problems of the Sociology of Knowledge and the Sociology of Art and Literature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Wren-Lewis, J.1983. ‘The Encoding/Decoding Model: Criticisms and Redevelopments for Research on Decoding’, Media, Culture and Society, 5 (2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016344378300500205
    Wren-Lewis, J.1984. ‘Decoding Television News’, in P.Drummond and R.Paterson (eds), Television in Transition. London: The British Film Institute.
    Wuthnow, R., J.Hunter, A.Bergesen, and E.Kurzweil (eds). 1984. Cultural Analysis: The work of Peter Berger, Mary Douglas, Michel Foucault and Jurgen Habermas. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    Wuthnow, R.1989. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    Young, R. J. C.1995. Colonial Desires: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race. London: Routledge.
    Zhao, Y. and R.Hackett. 2005. ‘Media Globalization, Media Democratization: Challenges, Issues, and Paradoxes’, in R.Hackett and Y.Zhao (eds), Democratizing Global Media. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
    Ziff, P.1972. Understanding Understanding. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    About the Author

    Ramaswami Harindranath is Associate Professor in the Media and Communications Program at the School of Culture and Communication, The University of Melbourne, Australia. His previous publications include Transnational Lives and the Media, Perspectives on Global Cultures, The ‘Crash’ Controversy and Approaches to Audiences. He won a Commonwealth Universities Scholarship to do his PhD at the University of Leicester (1996), and has taught in several universities in India, the UK and Malaysia. He is on the editorial committees of the academic journals Participations and the Journal of Postcolonial Studies.


    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website