Brief notes
on: Buckingham, D. (1991) 'What Are Words
Worth? Interpreting Children's Talk About
Television'. Cultural Studies 5
(2):228-44
Dave Harris
47 primary school children were studied in groups
of four or five. They were allowed to talk
about television programmes. It was found
that they were able to be critical, for example of
advertisements, especially those relating to adult
goods. It was also clear that they were
influenced by their families, by adult critical
discourse, and they often found themselves in a
situation where criticisms might be
expected. As a result, they came to see
offering criticisms as a way of presenting
themselves as an adult (231). This is not
dissembling. Instead, it shows the results
of possessing discursive repertoires.
Obviously, it can affect audience research,
however. Thus for example the classic
studied by Morley on the Nationwide
audience could really be showing a response by
black FE students to him. The same situation
arises in his Family Television where the
different responses, say of males and females,
must be seen as responses made in the presence of
each other and of Morley.
In this way, 'non - television meanings' can
'swamp' those offered on television (233),
particularly with group viewing [another criticism
of Morley's work arises from the fact that the
groups he interviewed were allowed to interrelate
among themselves in complex ways, while Morley
just assumed they were representative].
Decoding television is a social process as well as
the product of other social processes,
particularly when it is done collectively (as it
often is).
So when developing discussions of racism on TV,
one child's discourse was able to function
'rhetorically', to demonstrate his sincerity to
the other kids (235). As the conversation of
other kids develops, so interpretations of the TV
programme changed. It is again important to
insist this is not inconsistency, merely different
functions of discourse. Discursive
repertoires might well be linked to class, but
Morley's suggestion is still too
mechanistic. Socialization is a much more
active process and more of a struggle.
Another example turns on the discussions of gender
and the representation of different genders in
cartoons. Again the girls' criticisms could
be seen as part of a wider concern, including the
need to be seen to be taking a principled stand,
and again 'each individual contribution builds on
the preceding one', a clear illustration of the
active construction of group solidarity along
gender lines. Age is also important, and
kids feel a need to define themselves as mature
and sophisticated. Class also intervened
[but as a matter of distinction]—a middle class
child was 'not too popular', and her comments were
used to marginalize her still further: her
preferred programmes were condemned by the group.
Not all the boys had learned the 'right on'
line. The older ones were able to police the
younger ones.
Television programmes are not the major cause of
sexist attitudes. Concern emerged within the
group [as a kind of visible reading
formation]. Programmes to provide a material
input for further discursive activity,
however. Nevertheless, there is a clear
'danger in exaggerating the degree of power or
freedom that audiences possess' (244).
back to education
studies page
|
|