Page 51 - Communication Theory Media, Technology and Society

Holmes-02.qxd 2/15/2005 2:04 PM Page 34

34 COMMUNICA TION THEORY
few by the many which is organized by the few is also the means by
which the few are able to control the many through economic and cultural
subordination. In an article on television, Adorno (1954) comments: ‘the
more inarticulate and diffuse the audience of mass media seems to be, the
more mass media tend to achieve their “integration”’ (220). The gaze of
the audience is sold to advertisers, at the same time as selection of the
content of media programmes is itself highly coded within dominant
ideological interests. 16
In the context of modern mass media, the institutionalization of this
commodification of the gaze is one which imposes an entire order of sym-
bolic inequality, in which the masses associate via the image and the
celebrity (for further discussion, see Chapter 6).
This inequity in the production of ‘cultural capital’ that is central to
broadcast as a system of reproduction of late capitalist societies occasion-
ally surfaces at the level of discourse. The central operation of the perfor-
mative nature of broadcast is not itself visible. We know from Althusser
that, in fact, the very operation of ‘interpellation’ and of the calling func-
tion of ideology is one that is upside-down. Althusser puts it in psycho-
analytic language – that it is conscious on the condition that it is
unconscious – but the effect is the same. For Althusser, the structures of
the system of interpellation are, by definition, impossible to examine.
However, it is possible to argue that at the level of discourse, the
structure of interpellation sometimes surfaces in narratives which, when
the analysis of what constitutes broadcast is taken into account, can be
seen to be self-referential: an abstract reflection of the medium itself but
explainable in terms of the medium. Here are three such discourses.

The discourse of ‘ordinary people’

It is only in the media cultures dominated by ‘spectacle’ that it is possible
to speak of ordinary people. The now familiar way in which individuals
who do not work for the culture industry, or are not subject to any signifi-
cant media attention, behave when interviewed by a television network
or press or radio is instructive here. A very common narrative of a person
being called on to describe their role in an event, a process or in society at
large is one which runs, ‘I am just an ordinary person doing my job.’ But
even news narratives replicate this ‘interpellation’ of the individual in
describing how ‘ordinary men and women are to be affected by this or that
government decision’. Ordinariness cannot simply be explained as some
deeply constituted residue of feudal class dynamics in which one’s posi-
tion is more or less determined by birth. The discourses of ‘ordinariness’
can be seen to closely coincide with the rise of ‘mediated publicness’.
It is only under the conditions of the polarization between celebrity and
ordinary culture that a film such as Forrest Gump could be made. An inter-
esting film from the point of view of defying any easy genre classification,