![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Nicholas Abercrombie & Brian Longhurst, Audiences: A Sociological Theory of Performance and Imagination: The book begins with an overview separating audience studies into three periods: effects (addressing the question of how media affect behavior of various groups); incorporation/resistance (addressing how audiences react to media presentations, whether resisting, negotiating, or accepting), and finally spectacle/performance (addressing questions the rest of the book sets forth). This is definitely in the nature of a manifesto, proposing a theoretical orientation rather than investigating anything specific, though the authors do refer to fan studies as helping change from an incorporation/resistance focus to one more grounded in the pleasures of the text. They emphasize the “disorder of actual audience response – a disorder of unpredictability not of resistance.” In part, this is because modern audiences have more media skills than previous generations, having grown up in a media-saturated environment. With all the texts surrounding us, finding coherence in production and in interpretation is increasingly hard work, for producers and audiences alike.
The book invokes the concept of narcissism as the organizing principle of modern selfhood, defined not in the standard pejorative way but as a sense of being on stage, performing one’s self for an imagined audience, in every aspect of life. Think of the ads encouraging you to choose “the soundtrack of your life.” Thus, being a performer and one’s own audience in a reflexive project of self-definition (and being an audience to others, though this is a somewhat underexplored aspect that doesn’t seem intuitively part of “narcissism”) is increasingly a part of a person’s identity, embedded in a mediascape rather than necessarily referencing particular texts. Relatedly, they argue that more people are follower-like than fan-like today, in that they regularly watch and enjoy media productions but claim no social identity on the basis of consumption. This is an extremely debatable empirical proposition – of course, I have no evidence either, but I’d sure like to see some.
The authors draw on prior accounts of performance as having elements of ceremony, ritual and the extraordinary, which posit a distance between performer and audience. But they include listening to music while doing the dishes as audiencing a performance, which reduces all interactions with humans and human creations to performance. This seems trivial if true – and, as they concede later, it doesn’t seem clearly to be a feature of modernity. What they really mean, I think, is that awareness of performance is a feature of modern technological media culture, though I imagine even that is debatable. Oscar Wilde knew he was performing himself – pace![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cesperanza, but he was an unusual figure of his time; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that now every ordinary person is expected to recognize herself as performing. “Be your own brand,” as they say in the business-jargon world.
As with any organizing theory, there are bits to quibble with – the theory is in particular hostage to the technological arrangements prevalent when the authors wrote. The authors describe listening to music in private as drawing on elements of ritual because of the competence required to operate the complex machinery – the turntable, in their example, apparently from their own lives. Well, my machinery is not that complex; I just launch iTunes. For goodness’ sake, my mom uses email and Word, which just two years ago seemed to me as unlikely as her learning to drive. If by “ritual” all you mean is organized and repetitive behavior, I’m not sure what insight that’s supposed to give me. Likewise, the authors state that television provides a sense of security by marking time, establishing a schedule. Authors, meet TiVo. TiVo, authors. The only reason I know what time Smallville is on is that my friendslist goes dark during; I have no idea when my other shows are on.
As for people seeing themselves as performers, that’s a spectrum too. My fannish identity has been revolutionized by LJ – I do see myself as performing “Rivka,” which of course is a name only fans call me. I didn’t see myself that way when I was writing stories that only appeared on mailing lists and websites. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, or something like that.
Side note on the book -- File under ironic: Listening to Mandy Moore’s “In My Pocket” while reading this: “[Adorno argues that] pop music is a part of the everyday background of contemporary social life.... [T]he pleasure derived from popular music is superficial and false. Thus the listener may be what Adorno calls ‘rhythmically obedient’. He or she is a ‘slave to the rhythm’, following the standardized beat of the song and becoming overpowered by it. For Adorno, individuals who enjoy these pleasures are corrupted by immersion and are open to the domination of the industrialized, capitalist system.”
The book invokes the concept of narcissism as the organizing principle of modern selfhood, defined not in the standard pejorative way but as a sense of being on stage, performing one’s self for an imagined audience, in every aspect of life. Think of the ads encouraging you to choose “the soundtrack of your life.” Thus, being a performer and one’s own audience in a reflexive project of self-definition (and being an audience to others, though this is a somewhat underexplored aspect that doesn’t seem intuitively part of “narcissism”) is increasingly a part of a person’s identity, embedded in a mediascape rather than necessarily referencing particular texts. Relatedly, they argue that more people are follower-like than fan-like today, in that they regularly watch and enjoy media productions but claim no social identity on the basis of consumption. This is an extremely debatable empirical proposition – of course, I have no evidence either, but I’d sure like to see some.
The authors draw on prior accounts of performance as having elements of ceremony, ritual and the extraordinary, which posit a distance between performer and audience. But they include listening to music while doing the dishes as audiencing a performance, which reduces all interactions with humans and human creations to performance. This seems trivial if true – and, as they concede later, it doesn’t seem clearly to be a feature of modernity. What they really mean, I think, is that awareness of performance is a feature of modern technological media culture, though I imagine even that is debatable. Oscar Wilde knew he was performing himself – pace
cesperanza, but he was an unusual figure of his time; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that now every ordinary person is expected to recognize herself as performing. “Be your own brand,” as they say in the business-jargon world.As with any organizing theory, there are bits to quibble with – the theory is in particular hostage to the technological arrangements prevalent when the authors wrote. The authors describe listening to music in private as drawing on elements of ritual because of the competence required to operate the complex machinery – the turntable, in their example, apparently from their own lives. Well, my machinery is not that complex; I just launch iTunes. For goodness’ sake, my mom uses email and Word, which just two years ago seemed to me as unlikely as her learning to drive. If by “ritual” all you mean is organized and repetitive behavior, I’m not sure what insight that’s supposed to give me. Likewise, the authors state that television provides a sense of security by marking time, establishing a schedule. Authors, meet TiVo. TiVo, authors. The only reason I know what time Smallville is on is that my friendslist goes dark during; I have no idea when my other shows are on.
As for people seeing themselves as performers, that’s a spectrum too. My fannish identity has been revolutionized by LJ – I do see myself as performing “Rivka,” which of course is a name only fans call me. I didn’t see myself that way when I was writing stories that only appeared on mailing lists and websites. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, or something like that.
Side note on the book -- File under ironic: Listening to Mandy Moore’s “In My Pocket” while reading this: “[Adorno argues that] pop music is a part of the everyday background of contemporary social life.... [T]he pleasure derived from popular music is superficial and false. Thus the listener may be what Adorno calls ‘rhythmically obedient’. He or she is a ‘slave to the rhythm’, following the standardized beat of the song and becoming overpowered by it. For Adorno, individuals who enjoy these pleasures are corrupted by immersion and are open to the domination of the industrialized, capitalist system.”
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Before I forget
From:
Re: Before I forget