Cultural Studies Mini Zusammenfassung PDF

**Buchzusammenfassung zum Lernen** **Michael Butter: From Panem to the Pandemic: An Introduction to Cultural Studies** Introduction ------------ **1.1 What is Culture?** ***Broad definition of culture:*** Culture is everything that humans do and produce, this is derived from the original meanin...

**Buchzusammenfassung zum Lernen** **Michael Butter: From Panem to the Pandemic: An Introduction to Cultural Studies** Introduction ------------ **1.1 What is Culture?** ***Broad definition of culture:*** Culture is everything that humans do and produce, this is derived from the original meaning of the English word *culture* (\[t\]he action or practice of cultivating the soil, what the word agriculture means today). Culture, then, is everything that nature is not; it is the opposite of nature. ***Binary opposition:*** Nature and culture thus form what Cultural Studies scholars call a binary opposition. Which suggests that two entities (nature and culture) are entirely different from each other and that our language simply reflects this divide. In reality, however, by using different terms like "nature and culture," we create this divide. ***Nature and Culture:*** But nature and culture cannot be that easily separated from each other. Everything that we do and produce is, from a certain perspective, part of nature as well. Bruno Latour, a historian of science, has shown (1993), the binary opposition of nature and culture, the clear divide between the two, is a relatively new invention and only a few centuries old. It is one of the most important characteristics of what historians and sociologists call modernity, because before the beginning of the modern age around 1500, humans did not think of themselves as separated from nature. This distinction only emerged in what we call the western world. ***Narrow definition of Culture:*** If everything that humans do and produce is culture, then everything is -- on some level at least -- equally valuable. That there must be distinctions between the different things that humans do and produce, and that we should reserve the term "culture" for those things that possess a certain quality is the younger - narrow definition of culture. The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that it first appeared in the late 17th century and according to this definition, only human products and actions that meet a certain standard are part of culture. ***Matthew Arnold:*** In its most extreme form, this narrow definition was propagated by the poet Matthew Arnold, who lived in 19th-century England (Victorian Age) and in the preface to his most important work Culture and Anarchy (1869), he famously defined culture as "the best which has been thought and said in the world". For Arnold, then, not even every poem or work of philosophy deserves the label "culture." Only the best poems and works of philosophy do. ***How is High Culture even defined?:*** Matthew Arnold's position is extreme but in its milder versions is still around, and until recently it was even fairly widespread. There are still people who think that [only] those human ideas and products that meet a certain quality standard are worth engaging with and studying. The ideas and products deemed worthy are then referred to as high culture. Those that are deemed unworthy are correspondingly labeled mass culture, or popular culture. ***The Cultural Field (A change in worthiness):*** It is not that simple to distinguish between high and popular culture. Take Shakespeare, for example. For a long time, his plays and poems have been the epitome of high culture. But initially his plays and poems were part of the everyday culture of his time, and performances of his plays were attended by people from all classes and ways of life. It was only in later centuries that his works were put on the pedestal on which many people still see them today. ***The distinction between high culture and popular culture:*** The distinction between high culture and popular culture or mass culture is problematic. The criteria that people use to determine what they value highly and what they don't are arbitrary, and they change over time. What people value highly and what they devalue is closely tied to the social class they belong to. Claiming that the cultural products one likes are superior to others usually functions to elevate the own group over others. ***Culture is everything we do and produce:*** Attempts to distinguish between "good" and "bad" culture, then, are problematic. The only useful and reasonable answer to the question "What is culture?" therefore is indeed: Culture is everything that humans do and produce; it's the opposite of nature. ***Culture is about shared meanings:*** Raymond Williams writes that culture means "a whole way of life," he adds, in order to explain this, "the common meanings". What he means by "common" is that culture is ordinary, that it exists not only in the seemingly detached realm of the arts but that it is everywhere and everything. What he means by "meanings" is that everything that humans do and produce means something. But "common" means not only "ordinary," but also "shared.", so culture is not only about the meanings of ordinary things but also about shared meanings. This is exactly how Stuart Hall, another important figure in Cultural Studies, defines culture in the introduction to his book Representation: "To put it simply, culture is about 'shared meanings'". What he means by that is that being part of a culture means to understand the meanings of what people do and produce. ***Language:*** Since meanings are predominantly shared by way of language, [to be part of a culture means to speak a specific language]. You belong to a culture or understand it really well if you know its language, codes, and rituals. ***Academic Culture:*** If you are newly enrolled at a university, you are right now being introduced to a new culture: academic culture. You have begun to learn the language of this particular culture, but you haven't really mastered it yet. ***Cultures in Plural:*** We can and indeed have to distinguish between different cultures after all. Not in the evaluative and hierarchical way in which people have tried to separate high culture from low culture or elite culture from popular culture. But in an entirely descriptive and non-evaluative way. There are many cultures, because people do many things very differently and many things mean different things to different people, depending on where they live, how old they are, how much money they have, which ethnicity and gender they belong to, and a whole lot of other factors. Cultures can be specific to certain regions, countries, groups, or religions. At the end of the day, it only makes sense to speak of cultures in the plural. There are always many cultures. **1.2 What is Cultural Studies?** ***The study of shared meanings:*** In order to understand a specific culture or a part of it, we need to understand what things mean in this culture, and how and why they come to mean what they mean. The best way to do this is to study how these meanings are shared (and produced). This is why Cultural Studies is interested in representations: in texts and images of all kinds. Because culture and identity are closely connected, studying the meanings of what people do and produce also helps us understand who they are. This is a important aspect of Cultural Studies, which is the scholarly exploration of the shared meanings of a specific culture or a part of that culture. ***Everything can be the subject:*** Since everything humans do is part of culture, truly everything can be the subject of a Cultural Studies analysis. In theory, nothing is beyond or beneath it. In reality, however, Cultural Studies is not equally concerned with every aspect of culture. ***Landeskunde replaced by Cultural Studies:*** Landeskunde was focused on facts and not on the interpretation of phenomena and practices. But ten years later, Landeskunde had almost completely disappeared from English degree programs and been replaced by Cultural Studies. There are interrelated reasons for this major overhaul of the curriculum, like the insight that phenomena should be studied with less focus on the facts and more on interpretation, on their meanings and what one could learn. This is why by now almost every B.A. program in English at German universities features an introduction to Cultural Studies in one form or another and this is also why it is best to consider Cultural Studies a field -- and not a discipline like English or Sociology. ***Literary and Cultural Studies:*** Cultural Studies exists in close vicinity to Literary Studies. In theory, of course, Literary Studies could and maybe even should be a part of Cultural Studies. After all, literature is a part of culture. But Literary Studies, as its name implies, is concerned with literature in the narrow sense, with novels, short stories, poems, and plays. Cultural Studies does the rest. At German universities, the separation is often to a large degree a bureaucratic one. ***Popular fiction:*** Importantly, as porous and artificial as the border between Literary Studies and Cultural Studies might be, it nevertheless exists. It constitutes a problem when it comes to popular fiction: Popular fiction that is less successful often still flies completely under the radar of academia. Literary Studies scholars ignore it because it is not part of the canon. Cultural Studies scholars ignore it because it is literature, and what often drew them to Cultural Studies. ***A strong presentist bias:*** Popular fiction is by no means the only topic that Cultural Studies tends to neglect. There is also quite a strong presentist bias in the field, meaning that most of the work done deals with contemporary culture. Scholars in all fields and disciplines have the tendency to focus on what they enjoy or even love, but this tendency appears to be particularly pronounced in Cultural Studies, because most Cultural Studies scholars enjoy contemporary culture more than older variants. Russell West-Pavlov once described Cultural Studies scholars in a lecture as middle-class, leftist, snobbish, and driven by a desire to be young. ***Our own positionality:*** In recent years this has changed to a certain degree, and some scholars have written on topics that they see critically. Cultural Studies should be all about understanding people and phenomena, however strange and even repulsive they may appear to us at first sight. Even if complete neutrality is neither possible nor desirable, we should nevertheless strive to be as balanced and nuanced as possible in the scholarly work we do. What we work on should be determined by the relevance of the phenomenon, not by our opinion of it; and our feelings should not be a shortcut to our eventual evaluation. **1.3 How do we do Cultural Studies?** ***Concepts:*** Learning to do Cultural Studies is like learning a new language. You may be familiar with some of its vocabulary already, as terms like narrative, identity, or gender are also part of everyday language by now, but you are not yet familiar with the scholarly meaning of these and other terms and thus also not with the concepts they designate. ***Intersubjective Understandability:*** Unlike the natural sciences, scholars in the humanities, including Cultural Studies scholars interpret phenomena of all kinds, seeking to understand them. Interpretation is more complex, and also less exact. It is therefore more difficult for others to check if a specific interpretation is a good interpretation. The most important criterion to determine the quality of an interpretation in the humanities is therefore intersubjective understandability, which means that others need to be able to trace the different steps that we have taken in an interpretation to evaluate if these steps make sense and are free of contradictions. ***Theories:*** Theories create clarity and facilitate meaningful exchange. They have a specific topic or area that they cover -- for example, what representation is and does. They provide clear definitions of a number of concepts -- in this case, for example, mental representation, linguistic representation, or code. They spell out how these different concepts are related to each other in a systematic and unambiguous manner -- stating, for example, that the code ties a mental representation to a linguistic one. They provide us with a coherent language to talk about and understand different phenomena, for example, representation. Theories thus not only enable us to approach and understand different phenomena in a scholarly fashion; they also allow us to make our assumptions explicit and to share them with others, permitting them to understand how we approached the phenomenon. ***No analysis without a theory:*** There is no interpretation or analysis that is not informed by a theory. Being aware that one is drawing on a specific theory to understand a phenomenon and being explicit about this, is a strength, not a weakness. It is an important step to achieve the intersubjective understandability we are striving for. ***Competing Theories:*** There are of course theories that differ from each other because they address different phenomena, for example, popular culture and material culture. But there are also theories that are interested in the same phenomenon but make very different assumptions and therefore arrive at very different conclusions. Such disagreement is a strength, not a weakness. It is good that there are competing theories about the same phenomena, because there are competing theories, it's even more important to be explicit about which theory one is drawing on in a particular analysis. And the existence of competing theories also shows that theories are both enabling and restricting at the same time. They make us see certain things, but also make us miss others. They are like glasses that bring certain things into focus but keep others out of it. ***Cultural Studies as a specific field of study:*** Cultural Studies is not a real discipline and usually not located in departments of its own. One consequence of this is that there are hardly any theories that are specific to Cultural Studies. Instead, Cultural Studies borrows from a large number of disciplines. The theories that Cultural Studies scholars use function like a lingua franca. They allow scholars originally from different disciplines to talk to each other, and to scholars from those disciplines from which the theories have been poached. ***Methods:*** Theories are and need to be abstract. In order to apply them to cultural phenomena, we need more. We need methods. Methods translate theories into specific approaches that we can take to study the phenomena we are interested in. Cultural Studies is, as with the theories it draws on, quite syncretistic when it comes to methods, and that it mostly draws on methods from the disciplines that it also borrows its theories from. ***Models:*** Models are visual representations of specific theories or methods. They focus on specific aspects of a theory or method and highlight them, while leaving out others. Stuart Hall\'s Circuit of Culture explained by Kalyani Vallath ***The circuit of culture:*** The model of the circuit of culture highlights that cultural phenomena are complex. It understands cultural processes as embedded into the logic of capitalism since production and consumption are concepts from economy. But the model also rejects any straightforward economic reductionism, that is, it does not say that the economy determines everything else, while nevertheless acknowledging its importance. In other words, production has an influence on representation, but does not determine it. It is just one of several factors that need to be considered. The model understands culture as a complex, multi-faceted process, as dynamic and not at all static. It also holds that we can only properly understand specific representations if we situate them in multiple contexts. Only studying the representations in isolation won't do. **1.4 The Promises and Pitfalls of Cultural Studies** ***Cultural Studies is challenging:*** B.A. students have to take three different introductions: to Literary Studies, to Linguistics, and to Cultural Studies. Introduction to Cultural Studies is the most challenging one. Students usually already have an idea what Literary Studies is. Linguistics, by contrast, is entirely new for most of them. But Linguistics is rather self-enclosed. Cultural Studies is a different matter, because it is familiar and new at the same time. ***familiar terms:*** Cultural Studies is about who we are and how we live our lives. You may or may not care about literature or linguistics, but -- since it is so encompassing -- it is impossible that you do not care about the things that Cultural Studies is concerned with. Representation and Semiotics ---------------------------- **[GUIDING QUESTIONS -- WEEK 2: Representation and Semiotics]** 1. iconic signs: resemble the referent\ drawing, photographs etc. symbolic signs: arbitrary relationship to the referent\ words indexical signs: cause-effect relationship to the referent\ smoke as a sign of fire; siren as a sign of a fire engine 2. **The Intentional Approach** claims that words and other signs mean what their authors want them to mean. But communication \[...\] depends on shared linguistic conventions and shared codes. **The Reflective Approach** sees representations as a kind of transparent mirror on reality, language simply mirrors the world. While there is some truth to it when it comes to iconic signs, even understanding images is governed by conventions. Obviously fails when it comes to symbolic signs\ word for a thing is determined by the code, not by the thing itself. **The Constructionist Approach** claims that if meaning is not determined by the speakers' intentions or the things themselves, it must come from the systems of representation. It is not the material world which conveys meaning: it is the language system or whatever system we are using to represent our concepts. Meaning is produced by the practice, the 'work', of representation. Language does not simply mirror the world but determines how we experience the world. Thus speakers of different languages understand and experience the world differently linguistic determinism 3. Denotation: simple, basic, descriptive level, where consensus is wide Connotation: broader themes and meanings, not just individual associations, shared in a culture - **connotations are NOT just individual associations, they are shared within a culture** **[Other Questions for Learning:]** ***Name the two systems of representation?*** Mental representation and linguistic representation ***Who was the father of modern linguistics and semiotics?*** Ferdinand de Saussure ***What are the five elements of the circuit of culture?*** Representation, identity, production, consumption, regulation **\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--** ***political representation*** *Representation* sits at the top of the circuit of culture. It is the most important concept in that model. But what is representation? Example: Representive Democracy -\> Politicians represent the People/Voters ***signs*** By contrast, the kind of representation explored in this chapter is concerned with signs, with words, and images standing for concepts and ideas. Cultural Studies is the scholarly exploration of the shared meanings of a culture. We therefore need to understand how these meanings come into existence and how they are shared. As we will see, representation is the answer to both of these questions. ***meaning is constructed*** Stuart Hall has written an important book chapter in which he develops a theory of representation. His central claim, is that meaning is not determined by the things in the world and merely reflected by representations. Meaning is also not determined by the intentions of the people who use representations when they speak, write, draw, take pictures, and so on. Instead, meaning is constructed by the systems of representation, i.e., words, images, and the like, and their relationships to each other. ***constructions have real effects*** That meaning is constructed does not mean that meaning is not really real. It has very real effects. The binary opposition of nature and culture means that meaning is not a natural, but a cultural phenomenon. This goes just as much for other phenomena that we might take for granted such as gender, sexuality, or race. In fact, the insight that meaning on all levels -- from single words to the memory of whole nations -- is constructed, is at the heart of Cultural Studies. ***Semiotics*** Many things function -- to a certain degree at least -- like language also functions as signs. In a broader, more metaphorical sense, we can therefore speak of the language of fashion or the language of food. **Signs** You don't have to see an image of a pig or a pig in order to think and talk about what pigs are and do. ***mental representations*** There are "two systems of representation" involved at the same time when we speak about things. First, what Hall calls "mental representations". These mental representations are, as the term implies, in our heads. They are the concepts that correspond to the objects, events, people, and animals in the real word (called referents in linguistics). Without these mental representations or concepts, we couldn't think about the world or anything in it, and we couldn't navigate our way through it. But since the concepts are in our minds, we have no idea what they look like. ***conceptual map*** These mental representations are organized in our minds in clusters and classes, for example the concepts for animals are clustered together. This is why Hall speaks of "a system of representation" and even a "conceptual map". ***Signs*** But the mental representations are in our minds and can't get out. We need another system of representation that allows us to communicate our ideas. We need language. Or better languages in the plural, as we can use spoken words, written words, or images to express our thoughts. On a more abstract level, they all have something in common: they are signs. As Hall explains: "These signs stand for or represent the concepts and the conceptual relations between them which we carry around in our heads and together they make up the meaning-systems of our culture". Signs are also arranged in clusters and classes. This is obvious with spoken and written words, which can be assigned to different grammatical classes like nouns, verbs, and adjectives. ***iconic signs*** Images -- drawn, photographed, or filmed -- are iconic signs. This means that these signs resemble what they represent. A picture of a pig looks like a pig. ***indexical signs*** Indexical signs signs are connected to the referents through a cause-effect relationship. Smoke, for example, is an indexical sign for fire, as fire causes smoke. ***symbolic signs*** By contrast, written and spoken words are what scholars call symbolic signs. The word "pig," both as a spoken combination of sounds and a written combination of letters, does not resemble the referent, the animal out there in the real world. Their relationship is arbitrary. ***code*** The code, as Hall explains, "sets up the correlation between our conceptual system and our language system in such a way that, every time we think of a \[pig\], the code tells us to use the English word \['pig\]". The relationship between a word and a concept is completely arbitrary. That means that it is completely random. But everybody who speaks English knows that the correct word is "pig" because the relationship between concept and word has been fixed by the code. The code ties the system of mental representations, the concepts, to the different systems of signs like a contract. ***culture as shared meanings*** Being part of a culture or at least understanding that culture means to know that culture's conceptual map, its language, and the code. ***intentional approach*** These preliminary insights (conceptual map, its language, and the code ) allow us to evaluate the three major theories about representation that exist in western culture. The first of these theories is what Hall calls the "intentional approach". This theory claims that words mean what those who use them want them to mean. With this approach, Communication would be impossible, and communication is the whole point of language. Of course, whenever we speak, write, or draw, we communicate our ideas and often also our intentions, but we must do this in a way that others can understand us. As the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out, we cannot have a private language. Language is by definition a social phenomenon, as it is all about sharing meanings. The whole point of language is that we can also talk to people who are not around us all the time and who we may have never met before. And for this to happen, language cannot be private or individual. ***reflective approach*** The second theory of representation that Hall discusses, is the "reflective approach". According to this approach, we know which word to use because the word copies -- in other words: reflects -- some of the qualities of the referent it represents. This idea that signs imitate the object they stand for makes some sense with regard to iconic signs, but quickly reaches its limits even there. For symbolic signs it does not make sense at all. Neither written words nor spoken sounds resemble what they represent in any way. ***essentialism*** The reflective approach to representation is an essentialist theory. It claims that the meaning of things, people, and events somehow resides inside of them and is then merely reflected by language. But essentialism is by no means restricted to this theory of representation, it is a much larger phenomenon. That behavior merely reflects the inner essence. Cultural Studies is extremely critical about such essentialist approaches and rejects them. ***constructionist approach*** The theory of representation that Cultural Studies favors is what Hall calls the "constructionist approach". In a way, this approach is the logical consequence of the recognition that meaning is neither inherent in the things themselves nor determined by the users of language. If meaning doesn't come from any of these sources, it must come from the systems of representation themselves. It is created by these systems; it is constructed. This does not mean that the world out there does not exist. The natural world -- humans, animals, and plants -- and the things produced by humans are real, but they do not mean anything by themselves. Nothing in the world has meaning outside of representation because it is representation that creates the meaning, that constructs it. That's why Hall eventually defines representation as the "production of meaning through language". ***traffic lights*** Importantly, that meaning is constructed in the process of representation does not mean that it isn't real, and that it doesn't have real effects. German traffic lights consist of three different light sources: red means stop, and green means go. But there is nothing inherent in the color red that means stop, and nothing inherent in the color green that means go. They are symbolic signs. ***naturalization*** Accordingly, "Red and Green work in the language of traffic lights because 'Stop' and 'Go' are the meanings which have been assigned to them in our culture by the code or conventions governing this culture". But traffic lights have existed for more than 150 years in western culture, and from the very beginning, they have been using the colors red and green to signal stop and go. Accordingly, the meaning has by now been entirely naturalized for us; it appears to us as if red and green naturally and automatically mean stop and go, and this meaning has even been transferred to many other contexts. Naturalization is a very common cultural process. ***difference*** Of course, because the meanings of red and green have been so firmly established in our culture, we couldn't change them overnight. But in theory, we could use any other two colors instead of red and green: "This is because what signifies is not the colours themselves but (a) the fact that they are different and can be distinguished from one another; and (b) the fact that they are organized into a particular sequence". What Hall highlights here are the two key factors that make representation work: difference and combination. As he explains a moment later, "What signifies, what carries meaning \[...\] is not each color in itself nor even the concept or word for it. It is the difference between Red and Green which signifies". Meaning -- produced by representation through language -- depends on difference and this is true beyond language and concerns all kinds of phenomena. ***combination*** But the meaning of signs also depends on their combination. In German traffic lights, this is particularly apparent with the color yellow which is lit for a few seconds when the lights change from red to green, or from green to red. Depending on which color precedes it and which color follows it, the meaning of yellow changes. And this is true for all signs in all kinds of languages. Their meaning is determined not only by their link to a mental concept (fixed by the code) or them being different from each other; it also depends on the relationship of a specific sign to the signs used in combination with it. As Hall puts it, „Meaning \[...\] is 'relational'". ***real effects*** The example of traffic lights also illustrates nicely that meanings have very real effects, even though they are constructed. It is "just" a convention that we stop at red lights, but if we don't the consequences can be fatal. ***Ferdinand de Saussure*** Saussure's theory of representation is arguably the most influential one of all times, and therefore you need to know his terms and ideas. In fact, Hall only develops his own theory to help us understand Saussure's. ***conceptual and material side*** In order to explain how representation works -- how mental representations are tied by way of a code to signs -- it makes a lot of sense, as Hall does, to talk about two systems of representation. As Saussure pointed out long ago, in reality these two systems cannot be separated from each other. The material side -- what Hall calls the sign -- immediately evokes the idea -- what Hall calls the concept -- and the other way around. You cannot hear the word "pig," read it, or see a picture of a pig without immediately thinking of the concept "pig." And you cannot think of a pig without the word or a visual image of a pig coming to your mind. ***signifier and signified*** Saussure therefore thinks of the sign as comprising both the material side and the conceptual one. He calls the material side -- written and spoken words or images -- the signifier, and the conceptual side -- the idea or the concept that words and images refer to -- the signified. Together, a signifier and a signified form a sign. You can imagine signifier and signified like two sides of the same coin or a sheet of paper. Saussure's concept of the sign is thus larger than Hall's. It comprises what Hall calls the sign and what he calls the concept. ***selection and combination*** Saussure was also the first one to point out that signs form a system, that meaning depends on difference, or that it's the relationship between different signs that is important, and that it is therefore the selection (based on difference) and combination of signs that produces meaning. Hall stresses difference more than selection, Saussure stressed selection more, but both mean the same thing. Signs do not mean anything in themselves but only because they are different from other signs. Therefore, we select them from the system of signs (and combine them with other signs) to produce a specific meaning. ***paradigms and syntagms*** Saussure argued that signs (comprising, as we have established, signifier and signified) were organized into different paradigms -- according to sound, spelling, grammatical class, word family, meaning, and so on. According to Saussure, when people speak or write they select items from paradigms -- for example, an article, a noun, and a verb -- and combine them to syntagms (phrases or sentences like "The pig snorts"). **The Implications of the Constructionist Approach** ***no meaning without representation*** The implications of the constructionist approach to representation and meaning are far-reaching and almost impossible to overstate. First of all, there is no meaning without representation. External reality exists independently of representation, but it does not mean anything without it. Everything only becomes meaningful through language. Accordingly, representations link us to the world, enabling us to make sense of it and communicate about it, but they also separate us from the world because they impose a filter between us and the world. ***linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism*** Secondly, if language does not simply mirror reality, as the reflective approach wrongly claims, then not only has nothing in the world meaning without representation, language also determines how we perceive the world. Speakers of different languages perceive the world differently. Linguists refer to this phenomenon as linguistic determinism because it is our language that determines how we perceive the world, or as linguistic relativism because our perception of the world is never absolute and only ever relative, depending on the language that mediates our perception of it. Interestingly, there are two basic terms for the color blue in the Russian language, opposed to only one in German (or English). It shows that different languages make different distinctions that -- remember that meaning depends on difference -- influence how we perceive the world. ***differences between languages*** English and German because both are Germanic languages, which means that they have developed from the same older language and are therefore very similar in many ways. What is more, both the English- and the German-speaking countries are part of what is often called the western world, and their cultures therefore share many characteristics. But if we compare languages from more different cultures or even the historical development of a single language, much bigger differences emerge. ***Spanish and German*** *Take, for example, certain differences between Spanish, a Romance language, and German. The Spanish word for key is "la llave." A key is of course an object, but the word's grammatical gender in Spanish is feminine. The German word for key is "der Schlüssel"; its grammatical gender is masculine.* *Interestingly, this difference has an impact on what speakers of Spanish and German associate with keys. Speakers of Spanish associate with keys characteristics that are traditionally considered feminine such as smallness and loveliness, whereas speakers of German tend to think of keys as hard, heavy, or useful, thus associating the concept of key with characteristics traditionally perceived as masculine (Boroditsky et al.). Speakers of Spanish and German really perceive keys differently.* ***western and non-western cultures*** And if we compare western and non-western cultures and their languages the differences become even more significant. For example, speakers of German (and other western languages, for that matter) have an egocentric spatial grid. German and English provide for making sense of spatial relations: left, right, behind me, in front of me etc. Thus, the system of representation that their speakers have available makes them make sense of the space around them by placing people and objects in relation to their own position. ***Guugu Yimidhirr*** By contrast, speakers of Guugu Yimidhirr, a language spoken by an Indigenous community in northeastern Australia, have a geocentric spatial grid. They do not think of spatial relations in terms of left or right, or behind or ahead, but in terms of north, south, east, and west because these are the categories that their language provides for them. Because of this, speakers of Guugu Yimidhirr have a superior sense of spatial orientation compared to speakers of other languages (Levinson). ***two different terms for uncle*** Speakers of different languages sometimes perceive physical reality differently. Let me turn to a good example of how speakers of medieval and contemporary German perceive(d) social reality differently. Like English, modern German has one word for uncle: "Onkel." It doesn't matter if you are referring to your father's brother or your mother's. Both are your "Onkel." Medieval German, however, had two different terms for uncle. The bro‐ ther of the father was called "veter"; the brother of the mother was called "œheim." This distinction was necessary for a society in which family ties were far more important than in modern societies. The relationship between nephew or niece and the brothers of their mother was supposed to be particularly close and affectionate and thus qualitatively different from that to the brothers of the father. If the parents died, an "œheim" was the natural choice for guardian. To medieval audiences, this must have appeared logical and particularly meaningful. On modern audiences, by contrast, this point is usually lost unless a footnote alerts them to it. Because of their language, they perceive of the world differently than Germans living in the Middle Ages. ***Languages are everchanging*** Since languages are usually very economic, one of the words disappeared, too, as it was no longer needed and only survived for a while in regional dialects. This shows something that you are of course aware of but that I have not addressed so far: Languages are ever-changing. The conceptual map is constantly redrawn, and the words of the language reflect this change. Sometimes a new concept emerges and a term for it is needed. ***the term "homosexuality*** Sometimes, however, something has existed for a very long time but has not been given a name. It is therefore -- to a certain degree at least -- unspeakable. Moreover, since nothing, as we have established, carries meaning without representation, this "something" is also not really graspable. Remember Saussure's point that signifier and signified are inextricably tied together. If we do not have a word for something, we also do not have a concept of it. Here's just one example: Same-sex sexual activity has doubtlessly existed throughout the ages, but the term "homosexuality" only entered the English language in the 1890s, as a search for the term in the Oxford English Dictionary shows. This example, too, shows that the words and concepts that are available in a given language determine a specific take on reality. That's the implication of the constructionist approach to representation that you need to take to heart. **Semiotics** ***the linguistic turn*** As a linguist, Saussure was mostly interested in studying language in the narrow sense. But not only spoken or written words are signs. Saussure was well aware of this and even anticipated a general study of signs, which he called "semiology." But he never developed this idea any further. Other scholars, however, picked up on his suggestion and systematically explored how different cultural phenomena function as signs and how culture as such can be understood as a language. This development is often referred to as the linguistic turn in the humanities and social sciences, and the umbrella term for this approach to culture is quite similar to the one Saussure originally proposed: it's semiotics. ***culture as a text*** Since Cultural Studies is, unlike Literary Studies, not only interested in written texts, but in all cultural phenomena, the semiotic approach is extremely important for it because it makes it possible to treat these phenomena and indeed culture as a text. That's why we can speak of the language of film, the language of food, or the language of fashion. That's also why Cultural Studies scholars often refer to these and other cultural phenomena as texts: because they can be "read," that is, they can be analyzed and interpreted as combinations of signs that carry meaning just as a text in the literal sense can be analyzed and interpreted. ***language of fashion*** The clothes that we are wearing are not only functional objects but signs that mean something. We use them to express who we are, and we often dress for an occasion. Obviously, selection and combination are as important here as with language in the narrow sense. We select certain items of clothing and not others from our wardrobe in the morning, and we combine them in specific ways. In the terminology of Saussure, we select from different paradigmatic classes -- underwear, socks, shirts, pants, skirts etc. -- and combine the selected items to a syntagmatic sequence. Our selection of items is guided by our unconscious or conscious knowledge of what certain items of clothing mean in our culture (and this meaning hinges on them being different from other items). A tie, for example, signifies -- it's time that I use this verb -- formality; an evening gown signifies elegance, and a pair of jeans (usually) casualness. However, as with the color yellow on the traffic lights, context and combination are important. A pair of jeans means one thing when worn with an old t-shirt and sneakers, and quite a different thing when worn with a white shirt, a tie, and black leather shoes. ***meaning depends on many factors*** Importantly, as once again Hall highlights, "not everybody reads fashion in the same way. There are differences of gender, age, class, 'race'" and other identity categories. Based on identity categories, people belong to different cultures and thus their codes for fashion and other things differ to smaller or larger degrees. When we are reading cultural phenomena, things very quickly get quite complicated. There are many factors that we need to pay attention to. We cannot just talk about the meaning of jeans, for example, but we must also take into account, for example, which social group we are talking about and various other contextual factors. ***the foundation of the semiotic approach*** Let's return to the foundation of the semiotic approach. The language of fashion, and that is that when I said that a tie signifies formality and an evening gown signifies elegance, we are talking about a level of meaning that is different from what we talked about with regard to the meaning of the word "pig" or an image of a pig. This becomes even clearer if we are not dealing with the things themselves (a real tie, or a real evening gown) but with the words "tie" or "evening gown," or images of a tie or an evening gown. The meaning of the words and images is first of all the concepts: an accessory usually worn by men and a special kind of dress usually worn by women. That the one signifies formality, and the other elegance is a different meaning, located at a higher, more cultural level. It is on that level that different groups might disagree about the meaning, but not on the more basic level below. It is therefore important to keep these two levels apart. ***denotation and connotation*** Cultural Studies scholars refer to the basic level of meaning -- where an image of a tie signifies a tie -- as denotation, and to the higher level of meaning -- where an image of a tie (or the tie itself) signifies formality -- as connotation. As Hall explains, denotation means "the simple, basic, descriptive level, where consensus is wide and most people would agree on the meaning"; whereas connotation refers to the "broader themes and meanings \[...\] the general beliefs, conceptual frameworks and value systems of society". Whereas the denotation of a piece of clothing or any other cultural phenomenon usually remains rather stable across space and time, the connotation often differs -- and often considerably -- from culture to culture. But connotations are nevertheless shared, cultural meanings. They need to be distinguished from personal associations. Medium and Discourse -------------------- **[GUIDING QUESTIONS -- WEEK 3: Medium and Discourse ]** **1. Define "medium."** Merriam-Webster defines the "medium" as "a particular form or system of communication (such as newspapers, radio, or television)"\ a specific language or system of representation characterized by specific material-technological conditions ***"The medium is the message."*** *Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, 1964.* -\> characteristics and rules of the medium have an impact on the content **3. Define "discourse" and "discursive formation."** *A group of statements across a range of texts which provide a language for talking/thinking about -- a way of representing knowledge about -- a particular topic at a particular historical moment* everything that has been said/written about a specific topic in a specific place and time\ operates on the level of a culture as a whole, or at least a part of a culture\ goes beyond individual representation determines what is "sayable,"i.e. what you are allowed to say\ determines what is "thinkable," i.e. how you think about a certain topic\ "rules in' certain ways of talking" and "'rules out' others\ texts on a topic that follow the same rules belong to the same "discursive formation" - includes discursive practices\ it goes beyond language proper, medium, narrative, genre - if a group of texts follows other rules than that of the dominant discourse on the topic, they form a "counter-discourse" - one cannot step out of discourse, only from one into another one - nothing has meaning outside of discourse **4. How is discourse related to power?** - not everybody who participates in a discourse has the same power - those with a lot of power can -- to a degree -- shape a discourse - nobody is without power - it "circulates. It is never monopolized by one centre" (Hall) **5. Foucault says 1) that power is productive and 2) that power is knowledge. Explain.** **1)** It makes people talk about things, do things, produce things. - The students in a lecture have to read texts, they ask questions in class, discuss the topics of the lecture in their tutorials, and they have to take a written exam. They are thus quite productive because otherwise they won't receive credit for the class. **2)** Those who have a lot of power can decide what is considered true and what isn't. - Since power is all-pervasive, knowledge and truth are just as affected by it as anything else. And since power is productive, it also produces truth and knowledge. **\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--** ***factors beyond the difference between languages*** Systems of representation construct meaning and do not merely reflect it, and the selection and combination of different signs is a key processes in the construction of meaning. ***medium*** *The concept of medium:* Different media can be conceived of as different systems of representation. The medium has a considerable impact on the construction of meaning. Generally speaking, it makes a difference if we tell a story with words or images or a combination of both. It is never quite the same story; its meaning changes because of the medium we use. ***Discourse*** What Michel Foucault, a French philosopher and historian says about discourse and truth is basically what Stuart Hall, drawing on Ferdinand de Saussure, says about representation and meaning. Just as there is no meaning without representation, there is, as Foucault has shown, no truth outside of discourse. ***effects of representation on our lives*** Why do we then need the concept of discourse? Because there are two important differences between Foucault's theory of discourse and Hall's (that is, Saussure's) theory of representation. First, Foucault's theory of discourse concerns not only texts but also practices. Second, as Hall himself explains Foucault's theory of discourse allows us to understand the positive but also negative effects of representation on our lives. **Medium** ***medium*** Broadly speaking, we can define a medium, as Merriam Webster, an important American dictionary, does, as "The Medium is a particular form or system of communication (such as newspapers, radio, or television)." The Medium is a specific system of representation. From a certain perspective, language in the narrow sense is a medium, and so are all other systems of signs, not only the ones that rely on elaborate technology like the ones that the dictionary mentions. ***"The medium is the message"*** Important to remember is that systems of representation do not merely reflect meaning but produce meaning. By the same token, media do not merely transmit a preexisting meaning from sender to receiver. This is taken to the extreme in the example of the séance. The dead don't speak through the medium, but the medium makes up what they are allegedly telling her. In this case, it's really true what Marshall McLuhan, one of the most important figures in Media Studies, once said about media in general: "The medium is the message". However, when it comes to the media Cultural Studies is interested in, we shouldn't take McLu han's famous sentence literally. He didn't mean that a medium completely determines the meaning of whatever message it is transmitting. Rather, he meant that a medium has a significant impact on the message. In other words, a medium shapes but does not completely determine meaning. ***The medium influences the meaning*** It makes a difference if you convey a message to somebody by talking to them directly, calling them, writing them an email... Thus, even if the meaning you wish to convey is fairly trivial and straightforward, it will change at least slightly when you employ different media to convey it. The medium influences the meaning. ***point of view*** Written texts, especially when they tell fictional stories, that is, stories that have been made up, are often really good at letting their readers experience the events through the eyes of one or more characters. In The Hunger Games novels, Katniss is not only the protagonist but also the narrator. It is her voice that tells us the story, and we perceive everything that happens from her point of view -- both literally in that we see what she sees and metaphorically in that we share her thoughts and feelings. As the two paragraphs show already, what's going on in Katniss's mind is at least as important as what's happening in the world that she lives in. As readers we thus learn immediately that the mother's life must have taken a turn for the worse at some point, and later we find out that this happened when Katniss's father died. ***conventions of storytelling in film*** All this information cannot be conveyed in the film because the film cannot move into Katniss's mind as the novel can. She has to talk to somebody for the audience to learn what she thinks or feels, because we do not see things from her perspective. ***impact on the meaning of the story*** Films therefore tell their stories differently, and this has an impact on the meaning of the story. In the novel, Katniss is a far more complex character than in the film. The readers learn a lot about the traumatic loss of her father and how it is still haunting her. In the film, by contrast, most parts of her backstory are missing, and she appears more determined than haunted. These differences exist although the filmmakers tried to stay fairly close to the novel and employed specifically filmic means to achieve effects similar, but by no means identical to those achieved by the novel. There are, for example, more dialogues in the film than in the novel to allow Katniss to articulate her thoughts and feelings. ***Twitter*** Another example. Twitter. Currently, users who pay for the privilege can write very long tweets, but until recently -- and for users who don't pay this hasn't changed -- a single tweet could not exceed 280 characters. Obviously, these restrictions that the medium imposes on its users have an impact on their messages and thus on the meaning of these messages. Tweets have to be straightforward and simple. There is no space for extensive arguments or nuances, but only for a few short sentences. One area where this has had a palpable effect is the realm of conspiracy theories, of claims that suspect a secret plot behind the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and many other events. ***Conspiracy theories*** Conspiracy theories are nothing new; in their modern form, they can be traced back to the first decades of the 16th century. And throughout the centuries the conspiracist style of explaining what is allegedly going on has remained relatively stable. Conspiracy theorists usually go to great lengths to prove their claims. They analyze sources and secret communication, draw on eyewitness reports and make inferences, and are obsessed with details. ***the new conspiracism*** On Twitter, however, an entirely new way of voicing conspiracy theories has emerged in recent years. Whereas the old conspiracism depended on evidence, the new one, they argue, thrives on repetition. An accusation is repeated over and over again, but no attempt is made to prove it. What they overlook is that this is not a development that affects conspiracy theories in general, as they claim, but only on Twitter. It is the specific condition of the medium -- most importantly, of course, the strict character limit -- that affects the form that conspiracist allegations take. Muirhead and Rosenblum even speak of "conspiracy without the theory" and for what is happe ning on Twitter this is right on point. However, on YouTube and in the many books that conspiracy theorists write even in the 21st century, the old style of conspiracy theorizing remains unchallenged. ***impact of the medium on the content*** But we do not even have to go to such extremes as conspiracy theories to see how the specific conditions of Twitter affect the content that is spread on it. Just think about the many times during the pandemic that tweets by politicians or scientists caused confusion or even irritation because they simplified or even twisted complex matters. The message is more than the medium, but the medium has a considerable impact on the message. **Discourse** ***Foucault's theory of discourse*** Medium could not be further removed from discourse, but they both operate on the same level. They are concerned with how systems of representation construct meaning. In fact, discourse is best understood as a specific theory of representation that shifts the focus from signs and the system of representation to questions of truth, knowledge, power, and historical change. ***meaning across a large number of texts*** Discourse, Hall writes, quoting Foucault, is "'a group of statements which provide a language for talking about -- a way of representing knowledge about -- a particular topic at a particular historical moment'". Let's begin with the first part of this sentence which stresses that discourse is about "a group of statements." Hall later adds, in his own words, that "the same discourse will appear across a range of texts". A single statement or text constructs meaning, but it cannot constitute a discourse. We need several statements (or texts) on the same topic to be able to speak of a discourse. What Foucault's theory of discourse is concerned with, then, is the construction of meaning across a large number of texts. ***the coronavirus pandemic*** For example, everything that has been said and written on the coronavirus pandemic constitutes the discourse on the pandemic. But we can also speak of discourse with regard to a specific time and place. This is what Foucault means by "particular historical moment," and this is what he, as a historian, was particularly interested in. Or we can single out a specific part of society and describe its discourse. ***discourse analysis*** In any case, discourse analysis is always concerned with a large number of texts, and this poses a methodological challenge to researchers. Doing a proper discourse analysis thus means for them to really read a large number of texts on the same topic and to identify the underlying rules that they follow in representing their subject. ***discursive practices*** For Foucault, discourse is "not purely a 'linguistic' concept. It is about language and practice. It tries to overcome the traditional distinction between what one says (language) and what one does (practice)" (Hall). ***discursive formations*** These discursive practices are all part of the discourse on the pandemic, but they belong to two different discursive formations, and it is these discursive formations that Foucault and those practicing discourse analysis in his steps are usually really interested in. The texts and practices that belong to the same discursive formation do not only have the same subject but also represent this subject in the same way. They do that because they follow the same rules. And it is usually the goal of a discourse analysis to bring to the fore these rules, as they determine the meanings that a specific discourse constructs. ***dominant discourse and counter discourse*** There are different levels of prominence. One can thus be considered the dominant discourse, whereas the second one only emerged in reaction to it, challenging its rules and assumptions. The second discourse therefore is a counter-discourse or, to be perfectly precise, a counter-discursive formation. ***the discourse on abortion in the United States*** There are, however, also cases where it is not really clear which discourse (or discursive formation) is dominant and which one is the counter-discourse (or counter-discursive formation). ***rules that govern discourses*** It is time to return to Hall's quote of Foucault. Discourses (or discursive formations), Foucault says, "'provide a language for talking about -- a way of representing knowledge about -- a particular topic'". In other words, there are rules that govern discourses and these rules determine what is sayable within a specific discourse. As Hall puts it, discourse "governs the way that a topic can be meaningfully talked about and reasoned". ***discourse regulates what is thinkable*** But the implications of Foucault's theory of discourse are more far-reaching than the insight that there are actors who keep watch over what can be said within a given discourse. Discourse also regulates what is thinkable, not only what is sayable. It does not merely reflect ideas that exist independently of it, but it "constructs the topic". In the dominant discourse on the pandemic, the pandemic exists. The idea that it doesn't can only be thought of as a false claim of the counter-discourse. ***no meaning outside of discourse*** Just as there is no meaning without representation, because meaning is constructed in the act of representation, "nothing which is meaningful exists outside discourse" (Hall). Foucault does not deny that the material world exists, but he maintains that nothing in it has any meaning in itself. It only becomes meaningful within a discourse. A person coughing, two stripes on a Covid test, a newly developed vaccination, an obligation to wear a facemask, or the temporary closure of schools and other places mean certain things in the dominant discourse on the pandemic and very different things in the counter-discourse. ***no truth out side of discourse*** Moreover, just as we can never escape representation and enjoy an immediate access to reality, we can never step outside of discourse, but only ever from one discourse into another one. There is no extra-discursive point that we can reach to objectively perceive what's "really" the case. This has a radical but entirely logical consequence that should not come as a surprise at this point: There is no truth outside of discourse. Nothing is true as such, but only ever within a specific discourse. Just as there is no meaning without representation and different systems of representation lead to different meanings, there is not truth without discourse, and different discourses construct different truths. ***discursive shifts*** This goes not only for opposing discourses on the same topic such as the pandemic that exist as dominant and counter-discourse at the same time. It also goes for what Foucault calls discursive shifts, that is, changes in the dominant discourse on a specific topic over time. A good example of such a shift is the transition from the one-sex model to the two-sex model, which the historian Thomas Laqueur has traced in his book Making Sex (1994). Very quickly, as Laqueur demonstrates, the two-sex model established itself, and men and women were now thought to be very different, and their sexual organs were no longer perceived as corresponding to each other. A new discourse had replaced the previous one. ***real effects and consequences*** But just as meaning is not less real because it is constructed by representation, truth is not less real because it is constructed by discourse. It has real effects and consequences. We all experience this in our daily lives, but often are relatively unaware of it. However, we all became extremely aware of it during the pandemic, especially those who didn't think that there really was a pandemic. Like everybody else they were subjected to the restrictions and regulations that arose from the dominant discourse. ***relations of power*** Foucault was very much aware of the fact that there are always some actors and in stitutions that have more power than others and that are thus in the position to influence or even control the discourses they participate in. In fact, over the course of time, the issue of power became central to his writings, he later became more and more interested in how the construction of truth and knowledge -- a concept he also increasingly focused on -- is always tied up in relations of power. ***power circulates*** For his investigations, Foucault developed a theory of power. First of all, Foucault argues that power "circulates. It is never monopolized by one centre" (Hall). This insight has two implications: Power is not restricted to any specific place and does not operate simply in a top-down manner, as popular accounts often imagine. Thus, there is no area of human life that is untouched by power relations. Power operates not only where we would expect it, but extends to every part of our private lives. Moreover, nobody is completely without power. While some people have much more power than others, none of us except for the most extreme situations maybe -- is entirely without power. ***nobody is entirely without power*** The Chinese government imposed very strict restrictions on its citizens at the beginning of the pandemic and upheld them long after similar measures had been abandoned in the rest of the world. But when the protests by citizens got out of hand late in 2022, the government suddenly reversed its policy and terminated all restrictions within weeks. This shows that even the citizens in an authoritarian state are not entirely without power. Outside of authoritarianism, but also in any classroom, power is also unequally distributed. The teacher has the most power. But they are not the only one who exerts power in the class. The tutors have power, and so do the students. They could protest against the inclusion of a certain topic in the final exam. If there was massive resistance against being examined on Foucault's theory of power, a theacher might give in eventually. Kinda like the Chinese government. ***power is productive*** Foucault also breaks with the common understanding of power as merely repressive. He does not deny that power is often exerted to keep people from doing certain things -- talking in class, driving through a red traffic light, killing people -- but he stresses that power "is also productive" (Hall). It makes people talk about things, do things, produce things. ***"Power is knowledge"*** Foucault's theory of power has important implications for the construction of truth and knowledge. The saying "Knowledge is power," means that superior knowledge gives you an edge over other people. Foucault turns this proposition around and effectively argues that "Power is knowledge." Since power is all-pervasive, knowledge and truth are just as affected by it as anything else. And since power is productive, it also produces truth and knowledge. As Hall puts it, "Knowledge, linked to power, not only assumes the authority of 'the truth', but has the power to make itself true" (Hall). What he means by that is that a position of power allows an institution, a group of people, or an individual to define what counts as true and what doesn't. ***Truth is a thing of this world*** Let me quote Foucault directly for once to sum up what we have found out, and to introduce another important concept. *The important thing here, I believe, is that truth isn't outside power, or lacking in power: contrary to a myth whose history and functions would repay further study, truth isn't the reward of free spirits, the child of protracted solitude, nor the privilege of those who have succeeded in liberating themselves. Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its 'general politics' of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true; the mechanisms and instances which enable one to distinguish true and false statements, the means by which each is sanctioned; the techniques and proce dures accorded value in the acquisition of truth; the status of those who are charged with saying what counts as true. (Foucault)* ***regime of truth*** "Truth is a thing of this world" and "regime of truth." The first phrase sums up nicely the idea that truth does not exist outside of discourse and that it changes from one discourse to another. The second phrase captures Foucault's entire argument about the role of power in the construction of knowledge and thus also truth in a nutshell. The term "regime" immediately evokes ideas of power and authority, and just as regimes can change, so can truth. It is thus never absolute, but always only the truth within a certain discourse. ***The Social Construction of Scientific Facts*** One task for Cultural Studies scholars and those working in related disciplines can therefore be to investigate the regime of truth in a specific culture at a specific historical moment and to analyze how what counts as truth is produced in that culture. Of course, the naïve view of what scientists do is that they do not produce truth but discover it. But that's not true. Scientific findings depend as much on interpretation as those of the humanities and social sciences do. Drawing on Foucault's theories and their own close observations, Latour and Woolgar demonstrate that scientists do not simply detect the truth and not even facts, but that they produce them instead, following discursive practices that they learn during their scientific training and that can appear fairly arbitrary and even irrational to outsiders. ***the implications of Foucault's theories*** The implications of Foucault's theories about discourse and the relationship between power and knowledge are far-reaching. If there is no truth outside of discourse, then there is no such thing as absolute truth and no neutral vantage point to evaluate competing and contradictory claims about the pandemic, climate change, or other controversial topics. Accordingly, there is also no continuous historical progress that gets us ever closer to the truth. There can only be progress within a specific discursive formation, but once a discursive shift occurs, the game begins anew. Both the dominant and the counter-discourse on the pandemic have progressed over the past years, and on a much longer scale the same could be said about the more general scientific discourse that emerged with modernity. But if we take Foucault seriously, this scientific discourse does not constitute a progress over other forms of explaining the world that existed before (and may exist when or if it comes to an end). ***not really any progress*** Thus, from a Foucauldian position, we do not know more about the world or ourselves than a few hundred years ago. There is not really any progress. ***need to embrace certain contradictions*** One way to deal with this is learning to live with and in fact embrace certain contradictions. The Foucauldian in me knows that there is no truth outside of discourse, the other part of me firmly believes in the superiority of science and modern medicine. After all, that we cannot step outside of discourse means that Foucault's analysis is also firmly rooted within a specific discourse, in this case a western scholarly discourse. Thus, its truth claim is only valid within that discourse. Genre and Narrative ------------------- **[GUIDING QUESTIONS -- WEEK 4: Genre and Narrative]** 1. **Why do texts PARTICIPATE in a genre or genres rather than belong to it/them? Explain in your own words.** When a number of texts share the same characteristics and are organized based on their similarities they create genres. Individual texts thus have an agency in shaping genres. It therefore makes sense to talk about texts participating in genres as this acknowledges their active role in the creation of genres. 2. **What do we call it when a text participates in more than one genre?** Generic hybridity 3. **What is the most basic definition of narrative?** A narrative is a representation of a sequence of events that are causally connected. 4. **What assumption is at the basis of the narrative turn in the humanities and Social Sciences (compare to the linguistic turn)?** Narratives are ubiquitous and their construction is an important way for humans to make sense of the world and ascribe meaning to events. 5. **The textbook speaks about the gendering of genres. Consider: is there also a gendering of narratives? Think about examples.** One could argue that there is a gendering of narratives. Narratives often build upon existing ideas of gender and contribute to it. The narrative of the princess waiting in the tower for a prince to come and save her conveys ideas about women's supposed passivity. This particular narrative also tends to be applied to women. Moreover, the narrative of rags to riches only really applies to white American men. It is thus not really a template that women can use to stress a particular point (we talked about this in the lecture. Kamala Harris cannot employ this narrative as she is not a white man -- and she also would not lie like Donald Trump...). **\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--** ***transmedial concepts*** Both genre and narrative are transmedial concepts, which means that they occur in different media. What they have in common with discourse and medium is that they shape meaning. It makes a difference if I tell a story as a comedy or a tragedy or if my account of a poor woman marrying a rich man follows the model of the Cinderella or the gold-digger story (two different narrative templates). Genres exist beyond literature in the narrow sense. And they can have a huge impact on how texts (in the broader sense of fashion, food, and film as texts) produce meaning, and also on how audiences approach and consume texts of all kinds. Much the same goes for the concept of narrative. Narratives do not only occur in novels, plays, and films, but also in places where you might not expect them. Moreover, over the past decades, more and more academic disciplines have recognized that constructing narratives is an important way for humans to make sense of the world. In that, they often follow preexisting narrative patterns, grafting their experiences onto culturally available templates. As a consequence, these patterns determine to a certain degree how humans perceive the world and their own lives. **Genre** ***genre*** According to the dictionary Merriam Webster, genre is "a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content." This definition is good because it acknowledges that genre operates both on the level of content and on the level of form and style. A genre can be defined by a set of characters -- for example, the princess, the dragon, and the knight -- or by the setting-- "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." -- , or by a specific use of camera angles, editing, and music -- as in horror movies. Usually, it's all of these things together. ***factual and fictional genres*** However, the dictionary definition is problematic because it suggests that genres only exist in the realm of the arts: literature, music, film etc. This, however, is clearly wrong. Genres are an integral part of our daily lives. They exist in the realm of the factual just as much as in the realm of the fictional. Just think about recipes, assembly instructions, newspaper articles, or term papers. ***the term paper*** The specific rules and conventions of the term paper have an impact on the meaning of the text that you write. There are things that you can say in a term paper and things that you can't, and that's true of all genres. The conventions of any genre thus have an impact on how meaning is produced in any text that "belongs" to this genre. ***impact on how we approach texts*** However, genre does not only influence how meaning is produced; it also has a considerable impact on how we approach all kinds of texts. In any case, our knowledge about genre automatically generates certain expectations. Even if the show you are watching begins in the Berlin of our world and not in Middle Earth or Westeros, you will look out for supernatural occurrences or be prepared for a sudden change of setting because you are watching a "fantasy" show. But if, in your show, nothing supernatural has happened by the end of episode 2 and the setting is still Berlin, you might decide that what you are watching is a thriller and not a fantasy show and your reception of it will change. *Genre, we might say, is a set of conventional and highly organised constraints on the production and interpretation of meaning. In using the word 'constraint' I don't mean to say that genre is simply a restriction. Rather, its structuring effects are productive of meaning; they shape and guide, in the way that a builder's form gives shape to a pour of concrete, or a sculptor's mould shapes and gives structure to its materials. Generic structure both enables and restricts meaning, and is a basic condition for meaning to take place. (Frow 10)* ***genres restrict and guide*** The most important point that Frow makes is that genres are not only restricting but also provide guidance. Just think back to the example of the term paper. Of course, having to write a term paper means that you have to do certain things in a certain way. But knowing what to do is also extremely helpful. The rules of genre guide us along. ***genres cut across different systems of representation or media*** Genre functions like the different systems of representation discussed in the previous chapters because it shapes meaning, but it differs from them in that it operates at a lower level. A system of representation or medium like language or film comprises many genres. At the same time, genres cut across different systems of representation or media: A western can be a novel (that is, language), a film, a comic strip, or a musical. In this case, some elements -- for example, the characters and the setting -- will remain rather stable, whereas others -- for example, the style and other formal elements -- will change depending on which medium we are dealing with. ***genres do not exist in dependently of the texts that make up a genre*** Genres do not exist independently of the texts that make up a genre. They are not boxes that we cannot see but that are still there. Instead, we need to think of texts and genres as being in a dynamic relationship. Genres are abstractions that come into being if there is a certain amount of texts that share a certain number of characteristics. It is the lumping together of texts that are perceived as similar that then creates the box. Genres are culturally constructed, and this has three implications. First, genres change over time; some develop, others disappear, and new ones emerge. Second, it is wrong to say that a text "belongs" to a genre, as this would imply that the genre exists first and then texts come into existence. It makes much more sense to say, as the philosopher Jacques Derrida has suggested, that a text "participates" in a genre. Third, a text can participate in more than one genre: it can "belong" into more than one box at the same time. ***generic hybridity*** In fact, it is the rule rather than the exception that an individual text participates in more than one genre. In such cases, scholars speak of generic hybridity. Sometimes, different genres are of different importance at different points in the story. In other cases, a text participates predominantly in one genre, but others have left their traces on it, nevertheless. ***The Hunger Games*** The Hunger Games also participates in different genres. The various genres are of differing importance in the novel and the film version of the first part. The novel participates in the genre of young adult fiction, which is aimed predominantly at teenagers and those slightly older. But Katniss's process of growing up takes place in a dystopian future society, and the novel thus also participates in the genre of dystopian fiction. And, finally, the novel also is a satireof TV reality shows like Survivor, which are clearly alluded to and satirically exaggerated in the cruel competition Katniss has to participate in. ***genres are gendered*** Like many other cultural phenomena, genres are gendered, and so are, to a lesser degree, media. This means that many genres are associated with a predominantly female or male audience. The assumptions of producers often have some grounding in reality, but just as often they merely reflect problematic stereotypes. It is assumed that Boys and young men are into action, whereas love stories and coming-of-age stories are consumed by girls and young women. Genre affects the meaning of the film. Genre matters. **Narrative** ***Narrative*** Narrative has much in common with genre. It also operates at a level below the systems of representation; it is also transmedial; and it also has an influence on the meaning. According to most narratologists, that is, scholars of literature and culture that specialize in studying the forms and functions of narratives, a narrative is, at the most basic level, the representation of a sequence of events that are causally connected. More than one thing happens in a narrative, and the things that happen are linked as cause and effect. ***narrative turn*** Terms like "story" or "plot" might suggest that narratives are predominantly, and maybe even exclusively, found in the realm of fiction. But just as genres exist in the realm of the factual, too, so do narratives, like autobiography and a diary entry are narratives. In other words, narratives are ubiquitous, and for several decades now, they have been studied not only by those interested in novels, films, and TV shows, but also by scholars from Psychology, Anthropology, Sociology, or Political Science. In analogy to the linguistic turn -- the insight that many cultural phenomena function like language and can be studied accordingly-- one therefore also speaks of a narrative turn in the humanities and social sciences. ***the narrtive construction of reality*** An important insight of the narrative turn is what the psychologist Jerome Bruner has called "The Narrative Construction of Reality". Bruner, and many others have argued that the world does not come to us in the form of narratives but that the construction of narratives is an important way for humans to make sense of the world and ascribe meaning to events. The meaning is not simply out there in the world and merely reflected by representation or narrative, but it is constructed in the process of representation, and constructing a narrative is one way of doing this. ***the specific historical cultural context*** Different narratives construct different meanings. The narrative construction of reality occurs in all existing cultures around the world, but it is very often the specific historical cultural context that determines how a specific series of events will be narrated and thus understood. ***cultural narratives*** As the example also shows, narrative operates at the level of the individual text and as larger cultural narratives. Like genres, these cultural narratives do not exist independently of their concrete manifestations in individual texts. In a way, they are abstractions that we distill out of a large number of individual texts that follow the same pattern and thus tell -- on one level at least -- the same story. We can therefore also use narrative as an overarching concept to describe what we find across a large number of different texts. We just need to make clear whether we are talking about an individual text as a narrative, or about a larger cultural narrative that manifests itself in many different texts. We could say that an individual text as narrative participates in a larger cultural narrative. And just as genres do not exist independently of the texts that participate in these genres, cultural narratives do not exist independently of the individual texts in which these narratives manifest themselves. ***narrative templates*** Just as the specific system of representation determines the construction of meaning in the act of representation (because certain signs and thus certain processes of selection and combination are possible and others aren't), human beings are not entirely free in which narratives they choose to tell. They can only draw on the narrative templates, that is, the narrative patterns that are available in their culture to make sense of experiences and events. And which narrative templates are available in a culture at a given moment and which one is chosen, has a considerable impact on how reality and thus meaning are constructed. ***from rags to riches*** Here are just three examples of narrative templates that are popular in the western world: The "from rags to riches" template is usually employed to make sense of why somebody who was poor became rich and successful. Importantly, this narrative pattern does not locate the reasons for a person's success and upward social mobility in factors beyond that person's control like luck, fate, or even divine intervention. Instead, the template highlights the hard work, diligence, and determination of the person, which in most stories that follow that template is still a man. As such, the template draws on and at the same time confirms a very western logic of individualism. ***narratives are unconsciously and consciously constructed*** People often fall back on certain narrative templates unconsciously because they are so deeply ingrained in their culture. In fact, they very often are not even aware of thefact that they are constructing a narrative about certain events or experiences, thinking that they are merely articulating the meaning inherent in them (just as we are usually unaware that we are constructing meaning and not merely transmitting it when we are using language and other systems of representation). But narratives can of course also be consciously constructed to achieve certain effects. As with discourses, there are certain narratives that each of us regards as reflecting the truth and others that we regard as false and fabricated. ***discourse and narrative*** At this point you might wonder if discourse and narrative are not the same thing after all. But discourse is a much larger concept than narrative. It does not only comprise statements or texts but also practices. And not every statement is a narrative, and the same goes for images, maps, or other forms of representation that are nevertheless always part of one or more discourses. ***the jeremiad*** Originally, the jeremiad was a religious narrative popular among the Puritan settlers of New England. It was "designed to join social criticism to spiritual renewal," as Sacvan Bercovitch, one of the most important scholars of Puritanism has put it. The Puritan settlers thought that god punished them by striking them with disease, enemy attacks, and internal conflicts whenever their religiosity declined, fewer people attended church, and more people sinned. However, the Puritans also believed that god's punishments "were corrective, not destructive". God did not want to annihilate them but make them mend their ways because he cared about them. Over the next centuries, this religious dimension was mostly lost. The new secular version of the jeremiad held that the United States occasionally needed a moral renewal to become again the greatest nation on Earth. This narrative exists until today, and Trump's campaign promised a staunchly conservative agenda and a new foreign policy to bring about this renewal and to return the country to what Trump and many Americans regard as its rightful place. This is why the narrative resonated with many Americans and won Trump, who also used the "from rags to riches" narrative to present himself as a successful businessman, the White House. ***strategic use of narratives*** ***...*** ***struggle for narrative control*** Their act of defiance at the end of the movie, however, creates new problems for Peeta and especially Katniss, who was the driving force behind the suicide threat. The Capitol wants to tell the story of a political rebellion. By contrast, Katniss's ally Cinna no longer wants to present her as "the girl on fire," that is, as an aggressive fighter. Now he wants to present her as more of a child than an adult. Trying to garner sympathy. ***narrative as an instrument of human cognition*** We cannot avoid narrative. Of course, narratives can be constructed as conscious manipulation to give a specific spin to events. But narrative is an instrument of human cognition that we all constantly draw on, whether we want it or not. Just as there is no meaning without representation, there is no escaping narrative to make sense of any slightly more complex event. When there are competing narratives, we usually consider one of them more appropriate, correct, and even factual than the other. But this does not change the fact that both of them are narratives and as such construct meaning and do not merely reflect it. Individual and Collective Identity ---------------------------------- **[GUIDING QUESTIONS -- WEEK 5: Chapter 5 --Individual and Collective Identity]** 1. **What are two major ways in which identities are produced?** Identities are produced internally and externally. 2. **Michel Foucault (by the way, which important concept did he develop - remember Ch. 3?!) dealt a lot with identities, but used a different term. Which one and why?** Foucault uses the terms 'subjects' and 'subject positions'. The term carries the connotation of being subjected to something and thus stresses the workings of power in externally produced identities. 3. **In which ways is the construction of identity similar to the construction of meaning through language?** We are born into language, this shapes how we see the world. Similarly, we are born into a culture that offers numerous models for identity. Therefore, even our internally produced identity is shaped by the models of identity that already exist in our culture. We cannot identify as something that does not already exist within our culture. (This can also be seen when it comes to a lesbian identity. For a long time, this identity did not exist as there was no concept or name for it in society. Even though, feelings/desires and thoughts were present in individuals in the past, as the concept did not exist in society, they could not identify as lesbians.) 4. **Why are representation, narration, and consumption important to identity construction?** We cannot construct identities without emulating existing models -- whether that happens consciously or unconsciously. Representations inform individuals about these models, which is why parents are often anxious about what media their children are consuming. Consumption thus matters both in terms of consuming media but also goods. The consumption of certain object enables us to express and perform an identity (take fandom and the buying and wearing of merch as an example). Narratives are also important in the construction of identity. By adopting a certain narrative template for instance, we can construct our identity to have a certain meaning. Narratives are particularly important when it comes to the differentiation of your present self from your past self. A rags to riches narrative would for instance allow you to contrast those two identities and cement your current identity as a rich person that has worked hard to move up in society. While we possess a certain agency over which narratives to use, we are limited by what our culture has to offer us. This again highlights that the construction of identity cannot happen outside of culture and is deeply influenced by it. 5. **What is othering, and how is it relevant to identity?** Othering happens by constructing an identity by distinguishing it from another. This is particularly present in collective identities. The binary opposition "us" vs. "them" is constructed in the formation of a collective identity. Differences between these two groups are exaggerated or even invented. An example would be the collective identities of nations. Germans highlight their punctual and organized nature in comparison to Italians for instance. **\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--** ***markers of identity*** Identity is always contingent (abhängig) and never complete. We pick and link a few characteristics, which then become the markers of identity, our own or that of others. Selection and combination are thus not only crucial processes of representation, but also of identity formation. ***identity is constructed*** Most importantly identity is on all levels -- from the individual via the group and the nation to transnational communities-- not simply a given but constructed. Our identity is not merely a reflection of some inner core or essence, but to a large degree produced by the culture around us and enacted in what we say and do. But just as we usually forget in our daily lives that meaning, truth, and knowledge are all constructed, we are most of the time -- and some people, all of the time -- unaware that our identities are also constructed. Just as meaning, truth, and knowledge are usually naturalized, as we saw, for example, in our discussion of the traffic lights, so are identities. **Individual Identity** ***identity as externally produced*** Since the early modern period, when states as we know them today began to emerge, these states have been interested in knowing who their citizens are and fixing their identities, for example, as (potential) tax-payers. Our identity, then, is in parts externally produced. It is imposed on us from the outside. Through ID cards, passports, fingerprints, DNA analysis, and other mechanisms, we are individualized, and our identity is stabilized. Our tax ID numbers will remain the same until we die of old age, no matter how much and in which directions they will develop in the coming decades. ***a double-edged sword*** As Aleida Assmann, a scholar of English literature points out, this external production and fixation of our identities is a double-edged sword. One the one hand, it "guarantees a degree of security as well as certain civil rights." For example, our ID cards or passports allow us to vote or enable us to travel. On the other hand, fixing our identity from the outside can be a means of control and oppression. ***palpable consequences*** Identities are imposed on us from the outside not exclusively by the state. There are other powerful actors and organizations that have the power to define who we are, some of which are closely aligned with the state, while others are further removed from it. The individual -- who we are for ourselves -- and collective identity -- the different groups that we are part of -- are entangled. Also the external production of identity has palpable material consequences. If you are considered to be suffering from high blood pressure, your health insurance fee might rise, and your doctor, your spouse, or maybe even your mother may recommend you make changes to your lifestyle and eating habits. ***subject positions*** Foucault, however, didn't like the term identity, he preferred to speak of subjects and specific subject positions. That's because the term "subject" carries the connotation of being "subjected to some thing" and thus evokes the link to power that was so important to Foucault. To speak of subjects thus highlights the workings of power in the external production of identities. Identities and their construction are always entangled in power relations. ***identities produced by the pandemic*** By the same token, the pandemic also produced a number of subject positions or identities. Just think of categories like healthy, recovered, infected, tested, or vaccinated. It turned waiters and others into gatekeepers because they suddenly had the power but also the obligation to check the status of guests since, for quite a while, only certain people -- the recovered, the tested, and the vaccinated -- were allowed to enter restaurants and other places. Privileges, restrictions, and obligations were thus tied to specific identities. ***culture influences identity*** Beyond these rather concrete workings of power, it is of course the culture that we are part of that has a big influence on our identity. After all we are all born into a language, or languages in the plural that make(s) us see the world in certain ways and provide(s) us with specific categories and concepts to make sense of ourselves and our experiences: "We all learn to see and feel and think from our culture in certain ways. We all acquire an internal identity from outside ourselves. What we are inside ourselves is shaped in part by what is outside of us" (Ryan). ***identity as internally produced*** However, it would be a big mistake to assume that identity is only externally produced and imposed on us. As Foucault also highlighted, none of us is entirely without power and agency. In most cases there are options that we can choose from. Accordingly, then, our identity is not only externally but also internally produced. Often, there is a complex interplay between the two. ***identification and disidentification*** One way we produce our identity internally is by way of identification and disidentification. If there are two strips on your Covid test, you can identify as infected, or you can reject this imposition of identity, for example, if you believe that the disease does not really exist. If you do the former, you most probably isolate yourself in order not to spread the infection; if you do the latter, you probably just ignore the test results and take no precautionary measures. Importantly, there is no possibility of no identity. Even disidentification with an externally suggested or imposed identity always necessarily involves some sort of other identification. If you ignore your positive Covid test, you identify as what in Germany is called a Covid denier, somebody who does not believe that there really was a pandemic and who thinks that there is no dangerous disease caused by the coronavirus. ***inclusive and exclusive identities*** The identities constructed through identification and disidentification are often referred to as inclusive and exclusive identities respectively. An inclusive identity is characterized by conforming to rules and expectations. It is, in other words, the result of an act of opting in. By contrast, an exclusive identity is characterized by not conforming to rules and expectations. It is, in other words, the result of an act of opting out. Traditionally, cultures valued almost only inclusive identities, but with the advent of modernity exclusive identities have become more acceptable because they are often considered particularly authentic and individualistic. ***differentiation*** People want to be different and differentiation is as important for identity construction as identification. There are two major ways of constructing our individual identity, and both revolve around establishing distinctions: We can either establish a difference between ourselves and others or between our current self and former versions of it. ***the difference between self and other*** We as individuals constantly compare ourselves to others and try to distinguish us from them to establish our identity. What goes for the construction of meaning thus also goes for the construction of identity: it hinges on difference -- albeit, in this case not the difference between signs but the difference between self and other. ***representations matter*** But just as we cannot opt out of identity completely, we cannot construct our identities out of thin air. We all have models that we emulate consciously or unconsciously. Students may deliberately ignore what their teachers suggest but behave as they see others behave who they accept as their role models. Such role models, though, do not necessarily need to be living human beings. Thus, representations matter greatly for the construction of identity. This is why parents and educators often worry so much about the films, novels, and games that children and adolescents watch, read, and play. ***the narrative construction of identity*** The second important way to construct our identity also depends on establishing a difference, but not between self and other, but between our current self and a past version. Comparing who we are now to who we were in the past (and