User:Alfred0892/sandbox: Difference between revisions
Alfred0892 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Alfred0892 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Furthermore, competing scholars suggest that Smythe, in the midst of relieving the audience of any power or control, fails to mention that there are many struggles and '[[Class conflict|class conflict]]' between capital, producers, and consumers of media, nor discuss any of the various forms of product boycotts, wage struggles, or consumer mediation that would reflect some form of audience subjectivity. <ref name="murdock">{{cite journal|last1=Murdock|first1=Graham|title=Blindspots about Western Marxism: A Reply to Dallas Smythe|journal=CTheory|date=1978|volume=2|issue=2|pages=109-115}}</ref> |
Furthermore, competing scholars suggest that Smythe, in the midst of relieving the audience of any power or control, fails to mention that there are many struggles and '[[Class conflict|class conflict]]' between capital, producers, and consumers of media, nor discuss any of the various forms of product boycotts, wage struggles, or consumer mediation that would reflect some form of audience subjectivity. <ref name="murdock">{{cite journal|last1=Murdock|first1=Graham|title=Blindspots about Western Marxism: A Reply to Dallas Smythe|journal=CTheory|date=1978|volume=2|issue=2|pages=109-115}}</ref> |
||
==User Agency and Resistance Against the Audience Commodity: Contemporary Mass Media & Advertising== |
==User Agency and Resistance Against the Audience Commodity: |
||
Contemporary Mass Media & Advertising== |
|||
⚫ | As the primary foundation for the audience commodity imposes a lack of [[Free will|agency]], [[Choice|subjectivity]], and ownership among audience members, there is evidence to support the prevalence of resistance and agency among audience members against being subjected to degradation and capitalist control through media and advertising. |
||
⚫ | As the primary foundation for the audience commodity imposes a lack of [[Free will|agency]], [[Choice|subjectivity]], and ownership among audience members, there is evidence to support the prevalence of resistance and agency among audience members against being subjected to degradation and capitalist control through media and advertising. Modern advancements in media platforms and their technologies have given rise to more flexible and personal audience power that was once not accessible to them. |
||
New media platforms give rise to a shift in power from the capitalist advertisers to the audience. As new technologies become more highly advanced and readily available the freedom of viewing choices and interaction with control processes begins to favor the viewer. The viewers can also use these improved media technologies to control content through buying/boycotting products or giving input through consumer panels. <ref name="vandijck">{{cite journal|last1=Van Dijck|first1=Jose|title=User Like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content|journal=Media, Culture, and SOciety|date=2009|volume=31|issue=1|page=41}}</ref> |
|||
=References= |
=References= |
Revision as of 04:45, 4 December 2016
Audience Commodity Theory
The theory of the audience commodity was first proposed by Dallas Walker Smythe, claiming that the principle product of the commercial mass media in monopoly capitalism was audience power. This audience power is used to accomplish the economic and political tasks which are the reason for the existence of the commercial mass media.[1]
Smythe argues that audience power is produced, sold, purchased and consumed, which ultimately defines it as a commodity as it is valuable to the mass media and boasts a price. Furthermore, like any other labor power, audience power involves work, which under capitalism is defined as an action for which one receives payment. The difference in this instance is that the payment the audience receives is not in the monetary form, but in entertainment form through the program that they consume by watching as an audience. [1]
Under this theory the audience works to create the demand for advertised goods which is the intention of capitalist advertisers; the advertisers expectations are achieved through these outcomes that gratify the demand management system. This degrades the audience into a submissive form of value for the mass media. [1]
Karl Marx | |
---|---|
Born | May 5, 1818 |
Died | March 14, 1883 |
Nationality | German, Stateless |
Occupation(s) | Philosopher, Economist, Sociologist, Journalist |
Notable work | Labor Theory of Value, Surplus Value, Alienation in Labor |
Relationship with Traditional Marxism
Smythe's approach to to communication studies and the audience as a commodity is considered to be a study of Karl Marx and Marxist ideologies, which merges theoretical, ethical, and empirical media/communication analysis. [2]
Smythe incorporates eight core categories of the Marxist political economy of communications. These categories include materiality, monopoly capitalism, audience commodification in advertising, media communication as part of capitalism, labour power, technological determinism, consciousness, arts, and learning. [2]
Based on a Liberal outlook, Smythe and Marx's theories share relationships with exchange value of the audience/laborer, as well as capital markets and class struggle between capitalism and the audience/consumer. [2]
Marx defines capitalism with an analysis of exchanged commodities. They are measured by their exchange value, its use value, and the labor associated with it. [2]
During the industrial working era, capitalist exploitation, similar to Smythe's audience exploitation, occurred in the form of exploitation of worker's hours and wages; workers would be underpaid the smallest amount of money possible in order to generate the largest amounts of profit for the capitalist factory owner. They would not be paid for extra labor and would not be paid the equal value of the commodity they were helping to produce. This would generate surplus value for the factory owner and further exploit the workers through their labor. [1][2]
Where Marx focuses on exploitation of the physical laborer within a capitalist society, Smythe references the same concepts within a traditional context and applies them to media audiences as exploitation of their leisure time and viewership. Both arguments rely on the fundamental act of capitalism generating surplus value from taking advantage of the work, paid or unpaid, that is controlled by capitalism. [1][3]
Contemporary Ideas of the Audience Commodity
According to Smythe's implementation of his theories within today's advancing society, modern forms of audience commodification are based upon media (television, radio, internet) that use advertising as a way of exchanging viewers as if they are a product to be traded between networks and advertisers; capitalist media degrades humans to the form of 'consumers of advertisements', as well as forming a type of culture around the commodification of both the audience as a consumer and as a laborer. [1][2]
Audiences consume newspapers, magazines, DVDs, music, television shows, and movies, all through their televisions and computers, also, they consume online media such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Google, all without paying for those services. In return, the audience commodity theory suggests that the audience's personal usage data and advertising viewership is sold to advertisers as a commodity, therefore, audiences are seen by capitalist media as means for economic profit and control. [2]
This ideology works towards merging capital and commodity culture into human subjectivity; human actions and thoughts are restricted and solely pertain to capitalist benefit, and therefore perpetuate capitalism without question of the system. Ultimately these strategies create human audiences that contain no form of subjectivity outside of capitalist interests and further reinforce capitalist domination and exploitation. [2]
Modern scholarly work has agreed with Smythe's arguments towards the audience as a commodity in stating that the increasing growth of privatizated, advertisement-based media has reinforced the notion of commercial digital and social media becoming 'workers' and ultimately being exploited. [2]
This exploitation is argued by Smythe and his supporters as a combination of viewers providing free labor in the form of their leisure media consumption tied in with advertising, as well as a lack of user subjectivity and resistance towards this capitalist control. This implies that there is no form of class struggle between consumers and advertisers, and that the consumer is completely controlled by capitalism to the point of being reduced to a physical commodity being sold to advertisers in a degraded cultural state. [1][2]
Arguments Against the Audience Commodity
There are many scholars and theorists that disagree with Smythe's arguments and theories regarding the audience as a submissive commodity.
One of the leading critics of Smythe's work, Brett Caraway, points out the limitations of Smythe's interpretations and argues that Smythe's theory represents a 'one-sided class analysis' which minimalizes working-class subjectivity; the surplus value generated by advertisers for the media owners disputes the notion that audiences are working for the advertisers. Capitalism does not directly control audience activities and the use value produced by the audience labor is not alienated from them. [3]
Caraway argues that these qualities are required under the Marxist mode of capitalist labor and are lacking within the audience commodity model, which means that the audience is not under the submissive control of capitalists in the form that the audience commodity places them under. [3]
Many other criticisms supporting Caraway argue based upon similar guidelines. Some suggest that network executives and advertisers discuss the buying and selling of audiences, which means that what is being sold is 'time', which from this perspective the audience does not exist as a commodity because no one can 'own' them. Also, in terms of advertising, critics argue that television audiences are not obliged to watch; they are formally free not to watch at all. Furthering this, critics state that, as individuals, we don't feel commodification as we consume media as an audience, and therefore we are not acting towards its production.[4][5][6]
Furthermore, competing scholars suggest that Smythe, in the midst of relieving the audience of any power or control, fails to mention that there are many struggles and 'class conflict' between capital, producers, and consumers of media, nor discuss any of the various forms of product boycotts, wage struggles, or consumer mediation that would reflect some form of audience subjectivity. [7]
==User Agency and Resistance Against the Audience Commodity: Contemporary Mass Media & Advertising==
As the primary foundation for the audience commodity imposes a lack of agency, subjectivity, and ownership among audience members, there is evidence to support the prevalence of resistance and agency among audience members against being subjected to degradation and capitalist control through media and advertising. Modern advancements in media platforms and their technologies have given rise to more flexible and personal audience power that was once not accessible to them.
New media platforms give rise to a shift in power from the capitalist advertisers to the audience. As new technologies become more highly advanced and readily available the freedom of viewing choices and interaction with control processes begins to favor the viewer. The viewers can also use these improved media technologies to control content through buying/boycotting products or giving input through consumer panels. [8]
References
- ^ a b c d e f g Smythe, Dallas (1981). "On the audience commodity and its work". Media and cultural studies: 230–256.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Fuchs, Christian (2014). "Dallas Smythe Reloaded: Critical Media and Communication Studies Today". The Audience Commodity in a Digital Age: Revisiting Critical Theory of Commercial Media: 267–288.
- ^ a b c Caraway, Brett (2011). "Audience labor in the new media environment: A Marxiam revisiting of the audience commodity". Media, Culture & Society. 33 (5): 693–708.
- ^ Jhally, Sut (1982). "Probing the blindspot: The audience commodity". CTheory. 6 (1–2): 204–210.
- ^ Livant, Bill (1892). "Working at watching: A reply to Sut Jhally". CTheory. 6 (1–2): 211–217.
- ^ Maxwell, Rick (1991). "The image is gold: Value, the audience commodity, and fetishism". Journal of Film and Video: 29–45.
- ^ Murdock, Graham (1978). "Blindspots about Western Marxism: A Reply to Dallas Smythe". CTheory. 2 (2): 109–115.
- ^ Van Dijck, Jose (2009). "User Like You? Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content". Media, Culture, and SOciety. 31 (1): 41.