The impact of audience studies and more ethnographic approaches to cultural
studies have added new levels of complexity. These studies have discredited
simplistic assumptions that the meanings of popular culture can be understood
independently of the audience that makes sense of them. In global contexts this
argument speaks less of cultural imperialism and more of difference, polysemic
meanings and diverse patterns of identification. Yet it would seem that if these
reflections are carried to their logical conclusion they would cancel any concern
with structural and institutional levels of power and authority. In short, while many
of these studies focus attention upon the fluid practices of the audience, they tend
to displace a concern with the ‘effects’ the media might have on the sustenance of
collective identity and the impact that a political economy of culture might also
have on these levels. If our level of attention is focused upon the different interpretations
offered of popular programmes our analysis is likely to reveal how
different ethnicities, nationalities, genders, age groups and social classes interpret
a diversity of media products. Absent is the way that wider structural and
institutional changes continue to inform the ‘life-world’ contexts of the users of
mass communication. This points to an understanding of media that rethinks the
predominant arguments of neo-Marxists that the economy has causal effects on
the levels of cultural identity, and the so-called ‘new revisionists’ who assume a
more radical disjunctive between these different levels. Instead what is being insisted
upon here is that the media should be seen in terms of a wider cultural political
economy connected to levels of structure, power and identity. That is, despite the
emergence of various specialists within media theory and analysis, we need to be
open to the possibility of theoretical developments that seek to connect questions
of political economy, the semiotic complexity of the audience and new patterns of
political engagement. Here we need to look beyond arguments that oppose the
cultural meanings generated by ordinary practice of interpretation and the so-called
‘harder’ features of political economy. Again media theory has much to learn from
the post-colonial levels of analysis in this respect. That is we need to find alternative
ways of representing the past and present, which are free from monopolizing
attitudes and which recognise the diversity of ways in which different cultures and
world regions are positioned within a continual intercultural dialogue. The problem
with Schiller’s defense of media imperialism is that it neither captures the recent
developments within the capitalist economy nor the negotiated horizons of political
actors
有追加。。
增添了新的层次的复杂性。这些研究有名声扫地,
简单的假设下,大众文化的意义是可以理解的
独立的观众让它们有意义。在全球语境这
争论说更少的文化帝国主义和更多的不同、多义性
价值和多种模式的识别。但现在看来,这好像会影响他们本来
合乎逻辑的结论,他们会运用结构和制度层次的力量和权威，来取消任何关心的问题。简而言之,尽管许多
这些研究的焦点专注于流体实践的观众来说,他们往往
越来越多,有取代一个关心和所产生的效果可能会有“媒体的延续
集体认同和产生的影响,政治经济文化或许也
在这些层面。如果我们的水平的注意力聚焦的不同理解
分析了受欢迎的节目很有可能我们展示如何
不同民族、不同民族、不同性别、年龄、社会阶层的人都翻出来
有多种多样的媒体产品。缺席的方向是更广泛的结构和
制度变迁继续通知“生活世界”的语境的用户
大众传播。这两个点去理解他们的媒体和反思
主要的争论,美国经济增长已neo-Marxists因果性地影响
文化身份的水平,以及那所谓的“新的修正主义者'谁承担
这些不同更为激进的分隔之间的水平。而不是坚持到底是什么
在这里,媒体应体现在一个范围更大的文化政治条件
经济结构的连接到水平、权力和身份。也就是说,尽管
出现的各类专家在媒体理论和分析,我们需要的东西
开放理论发展的可能性,寻求连接问题
政治经济学、符号学的复杂性的本回答被提问者和网友采纳
