television 4975

state of our youth or state of our civil society
moral panics. The DEM is embodied in the
US media theatrics that ensue after mass school
shootings, questioning the role of violent
images (not hyper Protestantism, straight white
masculinity, a risk society, or easy access to
firearms) in creating violent people. The
DEM also finds expression in content analysis,
which has been put to a variety of sociological
purposes. For example, a violence index has
been created to compare the frequency and
type of depictions of violence on US TV news
and drama with actual crime statistics, and
content analysis has also been applied to repre
sentations of gender and race.
The second means of constituting dopes is
a global effects model, or GEM. The GEM,
primarily utilized in non US discourse, is spa
tially specific and social. Whereas the DEM
focuses on the cognition and emotion of indi
vidual human subjects, via observation and
experimentation, the GEM looks to the knowl
edge of custom and patriotic feeling exhibited
by populations, the grout of national culture.
In place of psychology, it is concerned with
politics. Television does not make you a well
educated or an ill educated person, a wild or a
self controlled one. Rather, it makes you a
knowledgeable and loyal national subject, or a
naf who is ignorant of local tradition and his
tory. Cultural belonging, not psychic wholeness,
is the touchstone of the global effects model.
Instead of measuring audience responses electro
nically or behaviorally, as its domestic counter
part does, the GEM interrogates the geopolitical
origin of televisual texts and the themes and
styles they embody, with particular attention
to the putatively nation building genres of
drama, news, sport, and current affairs. GEM
adherents hold that local citizens should control
TV, because their loyalty can be counted on
in the event of war, while in the case of fic
tion, only locally sensitized producers will make
narratives that are true to tradition and cus
tom. The model is found in the discourses of
cultural imperialism, everyday talk, broadcast
and telecommunications policy, unions, inter
national organizations, newspapers, heritage,
cultural diplomacy, and post industrial ser
vice sector planning. In its manifestation as
textual analysis, it interprets programs in ideo
logical terms.
Both models have fundamental flaws. The
DEM betrays all the disadvantages of ideal
typical psychological reasoning. It relies on
methodological individualism, thereby failing
to account for cultural norms and politics, let
alone the arcs of history and shifts in space that
establish patterns of imagery and response
inside TV coverage of politics, war, ideology,
and discourse. Each massively costly test of
media effects, based on, as the refrain goes, a
large university in the [US] mid West, is
countered by a similar experiment, with con
flicting results. As politicians, grant givers, and
jeremiad wielding pundits call for more and
more research to prove that TV makes you
stupid, violent, and apathetic (or the opposite),
sociologists and others line up to indulge their
contempt for popular culture and ordinary life
and their rent seeking urge for grant money.
The DEM never interrogates its own condi
tions of existence; namely, that governments
and the media use it to account for social pro
blems, and that TVs capacity for private view
ing troubles those authorities who desire
surveillance of popular culture. As for the
GEM, its concentration on national culture
denies the potentially liberatory and pleasurable
nature of different forms of television, forgets
the internal differentiation of publics, valorizes
frequently oppressive and/or unrepresentative
local bourgeoisies in the name of maintaining
and developing national televisual culture, and
ignores the demographic realities of its own
terrain.
Nevertheless, the DEM and the GEM con
tinue unabated. From one side, Singer and
Singer (2001: xv) argue that psychophysio
logical and behavioral empirical studies begin
ning in the 1960s have pointed . . . to aggression
as a learned response. From the other side,
Garca Canclni (2001: 1) notes that Latin
Americans became citizens through our rela
tionship to Europe, while warning that links
to the US may reduce us to consumers.
In contradistinction to the DEM/GEM, a
third tendency in sociology picks up on Gar
finkels cultural dope insight. Endorsing the
audience as active rather than passive, it con
structs two other model audiences:

1 All powerful consumers (invented and
loved by neoliberal policymakers, desired