CULTURAL STUDIES

Cultural studies has become an increasingly difficult field of communication scholarship and political activism to define, mostly owing to the attempts of its adherents to transcend the confines of academic boundaries. As a result of this disciplinary and institutional resistance, cultural studies often is described in terms of the intellectual biographies of some of its leading scholarly figures (e.g., Raymond Williams and Stuart Hall in the United Kingdom, James Carey, Hanno Hardt, and Lawrence Grossberg in the United States, and Australians John Fiske, who now teaches in the United States, and John Hartley), as well as in terms of the geographical locations of cultural studies (e.g., the Birmingham School and the Glasgow School, both of British cultural studies; U.S. cultural studies at the University of Illinois and the University of Iowa; and cultural studies in Canada, including the work of Donald Theall and John Fekete). Dozens of spin-offs, reamalgamations, and reconfigurations of many disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, from postcolonial theory to queer theory, have become part of the landscape of cultural studies.

One mass communication theory text brackets cultural studies within a cultural turn as part of the last of five broad theoretical bases discussed, thus pointing out by its relation to other media theories the marginality of cultural studies (Baran and Davis, 1999). In a chapter on "critical cultural studies," British cultural studies is identified as one of the "contemporary schools of neo-Marxist theory." Cultural studies becomes a subtheory of "critical cultural studies," along with Marxist theory, textual analysis and literary criticism, the Frankfurt School, political economy theory, the media theories of Canadians Marshall McLuhan and Harold Innis, popular culture research, media as culture industries, and advertising as a cultural commodity, among others.

In resisting categories, cultural studies attempts to remain an open field, defying method and tradition. For example, Cary Nelson, Paula Treichler, and Lawrence Grossberg (1992) discuss cultural studies as defying research domains, methodologies, and an intellectual legacy of a tradition and language. They suggest that cultural studies averts being a traditional discipline and is even antidisciplinary. Cultural studies crosses domains, or disciplines, from Marxism and feminism to psychoanalysis and postmodernism. Cultural studies also has no identifiable methodology, best described as a "bricolage" of textual analysis, semiotics, deconstruction, ethnography, content analysis, survey research, and other methods. But while approaches may be methodologically diverse, it must be recognized that every method is applied self-reflexively and in context.

Despite the difficulties, Nelson, Treichler, and Grossberg attempt a general definition of cultural studies to include these elements of domain and methodology. Cultural studies is inter-, trans-, and counter-disciplinary, maintaining a tension between broad, anthropological concepts and narrow, humanistic concepts of culture. It studies primarily modern industrial societies, insists on treating high and popular culture as equals of cultural production, and compares these cultural products to other social and historical forms. It is "committed to the study of the entire range of a society's beliefs, institutions, and communicative practices." Culture itself is both conceptualized as a way of life and a set of cultural practices, the former including "ideas, attitudes, languages, practices, institutions and structures of power," and the latter including "artistic forms, texts, canons, architecture, mass-produced commodities" and so forth. In terms of its traditions, cultural studies has political aims, studying cultural change with the intent of intervening in it, although these aims differ in the British and U.S. versions. A frequent frame of analysis for cultural studies is race, gender, and class as culture and power are studied in tandem.

Searching for a definition of cultural studies, Hartley (1992) identifies the institutional and the genealogical levels of its identity. First, he finds cultural studies to be an "intellectual enterprise of the left" of the 1960s that was transformed, for the worse, into an "academic subject increasingly of the center" in the 1980s and 1990s. Second, cultural studies becomes a list of names of "prodigal parents" who begat a field that detests orthodoxy, avoids authority, and is committed to interdisciplinary work, but "it has no unified theory, textual canon, disciplinary truths, agreed methodology, common syllabus, examinable content or professional body."

Scholars Steven Best and Douglas Kellner (1991) situate cultural studies within their call for a multiperspective and multidimensional critical theory of the media and society, one that relates all dimensions of society, from the cultural to the social, political, and economic, to each other and to the dominant mode of social organization. Advertising, for example, not only would be studied under capitalism and its economic effects, but also as it adapts cultural forms and affects cultural life and as it has changed politics. Stressing multiple perspectives, Best and Kellner advocate using many approaches, theories, and disciplines, such as Marxism and feminism, critical theory and postmodernism, or economics, sociology, and philosophy. By multiple dimensions, Best and Kellner mean that each dimension of society is treated as relatively autonomous, thus inviting analysis from many disciplines or perspectives.

Given this whirlpool of contemporary versions of cultural studies and their instability, cultural studies might best be approached historically as part of a much wider cultural and critical turn in communication research after World War II. Reflecting on the divergent history of administrative and critical research in North America, the University of Iowa's Hanno Hardt (1992) groups U.S. cultural studies and critical theory together. Approaching communication as environments is one of the ideas of communication systems that is included in the cultural studies approach, where culture is the social context for creating meaning. In the longer history of U.S. mass communication research, critical theory and cultural studies are considered a radical branch.

Administrative Versus Critical Theory

The historical ground of the debate between mainstream administrative theory, or American empiricism, and critical theory, which is European theory, began as the two strains attempted a cross-fertilization in 1938. Paul Lazarsfeld brought Frankfurt School critical theorist Theodor Adorno to Princeton University's radio project (Slack and Allor, 1983). Lazarsfeld defined administrative research as carried out in the service of an administrative agency. He posed critical research as the study of the general role of media in the social system. His early attempts at convergence of these two approaches failed because he did not adequately appreciate the political and epistemological differences between the two. Adorno felt that administrative research was inherently narrow in scope and precluded the analysis of the system itself, and its cultural, social, and economic premises. He argued that the rift was more than a difference of theory and methods. Adorno wanted to study the process of communication critically. Administrative research was unable to confront the political and epistemological bases of the social order and its role in that order.

Slack and Allor contend that more recent attempts to accommodate the critical and administrative approaches have duplicated the same pitfalls that befell Lazarsfeld. They argue against casting administrative versus critical research in either (for the former) simple empirical, quantitative, functional, positivist, and effects-oriented dichotomies or (for the latter) qualitative, Marxist, structuralist, and owner/control-oriented dichotomies. They also argue against mainstream research adopting some critical theory aspects, such as communication context, ethical aspects, and multimethod approach. This convergence, critics say, amounts to co-optation of critical theory. Searching for the deeper boundaries separating administrative and critical approaches, Slack and Allor find that many models of communication developed in the administrative camp since the 1950s adhere to the basic linear causality reflected in the earliest sender-message-receiver model. Administrative research still treats communication as a process without context in which each element can be isolated. Adding bits of social context only adds a layer of sophistication to the simple linear terms.

The two authors view critical theory as encompassing a range of developing alternative approaches in such areas as international communication, new technologies, political economy, radical sociology, and cultural studies. The common thread is a critical perspective on the role of communication in the exercise of social power, a premise that leaves critical theory in opposition to liberal social theory. Critical approaches share a rejection of the linear causal model, adopting positions ranging from Marxist sociology to dependency theory and the Frankfurt School.

Slack and Allor argue that all critical approaches view media institutions and mass communication as intertwined with other social institutions, such as the family, the state, and the economy. Individuals are viewed as members of social groups defined by class, gender, race, and subculture. For example, Marxist studies looks at the complex and often contradictory interrelationships between politics, economics, and culture. This approach looks at the struggle over social meaning between dominant and oppressed groups. Using a structural approach, political economy studies look at the institutions involved in the production and distribution of communication. Cultural studies measures power in terms of hegemony, which is the idea of rule by consent. Hegemony describes the process by which oppressed classes come to experience the world in terms created by the ruling class. The authors see all these approaches to critical theory as offering an opportunity for communication research by redefining old research questions and opening new areas of inquiry. The challenge to the field is confronting the role of power and epistemology in communication institutions and research itself.

Canadian critical scholar Dallas Smythe and Tran Van Dinh (1983) assert that the ideological orientation of the researcher is inescapably linked to the choice of problems and methods. They argue that all researchers have a predisposition to either try to change the existing political-economic order or to preserve the status quo; value-free scientific inquiry is a myth. The two camps uneasily coexist in sharp, irreconcilable contrast as they define each approach in terms of problems, methods, and ideological perspective.

Administrative research focuses on how to make organizations more efficient—example, how to innovate word processors within a corporation, they argue. Administrative methods comprise neopositivist, behavioral theory applied to individuals. Administrative ideology means linking these problems and tools with results that either support or do not disturb the status quo. Conversely, critical theory researches problems of how to reshape or create institutions to meet the needs and achieve the values of the community. The critical method is historical, materialist analysis of the contradictory, dialectical processes of the real world. And critical ideology links these problems and methods with results that involve radical changes in the established order.

Smythe and Van Dinh stress the transdiscipli-nary scope of critical theory, including humanities, the arts, and social sciences. It must include criticism of the contradictory aspects of phenomena in systemic context, whether it is Marxist or not. The authors note that Marxist work was repressed in the United States until the 1960s, when research, teaching, and publishing spread rapidly.

On their agenda as objectives of critical research are the demystification of science and technology; the decentralization and democratization of media institutions; the formulation of praxis, where theory and practice intersect; and mass mobilization for action. Sketching needs for future critical research, Smythe and Van Dinh suggest researchers should study the communication theories and practices of independence, liberation, and revolutionary movements, the actions of multinational corporations, and Third World alternatives for horizontal media. Community research could involve projects to help people resist imposed communications systems. Researchers would work with labor, feminist, religious, and environmental groups as well as political parties.

Culture and media historian and sociologist Gaye Tuchman (1983) takes more of a middle ground in the critical versus administrative theory debate. Tuchman argues that theoretically and empirically sound studies of the "production of culture" can be done without adhering to a linear causality model. In other words, Tuchman's approach tries to accommodate the empirical demands of administrative research with the dialectics of critical research. Tuchman writes that the social movements of the 1960s made American media researchers expose themselves to ideas familiar to Europeans who looked at media as the study of the formation of consciousness. Tuchman's concern with consciousness forces consideration of dominant ideologies, the maintenance of power, the control and integration of social change, and the praxis for resistance to media hegemony. The circular model implicit in this perspective is that production influences content, which influences social behavior and structure, which influence production processes.

Hegemony and Ideology

False consciousness is the desired end product of the process of hegemony, which U.S. cultural historian Todd Gitlin (1980) and Williams (1977) both applied in relation to the mass media, as does the tradition of British cultural studies extended by Stuart Hall. According to Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, hegemony is the ruling class's domination through ideology and the shaping of popular consent. Hegemony unites persuasion from above with consent from below. The concept helps Gitlin's work and other cultural studies scholars explain the strength and endurance of advanced capitalism. In his study of the news media, Gitlin suggests that hegemony is secured when those who control the dominant institutions impress their definitions upon the ruled. The dominant class controls ideological space and limits what is thinkable in society. Dominated classes participate in their domination, as hegemony enters into everything people do and think of as natural, or the product of common sense—including what is news, as well as playing, working, believing, and knowing, Gitlin argues. Hegemonic ideology permeates the common sense that people use to understand the world and tries to become that common sense.

In capitalist society, the media and other institutions formulate the dominant ideology, Gitlin believes. The media also incorporate popular opposing messages into the dominant ideology, redistributing them through journalistic practices. Gitlin focuses on the struggle between the media, which uphold the dominant ideology, and groups out of power, which contest the ideology. The hegemonic ideology is reproduced in the media through media practices that stem from the ways journalists are socialized from childhood and then trained, edited, and promoted by media. Although journalists do not consciously consider ideology when they make news decisions, they tend to serve the political and economic elite's ideology by doing their jobs. Gitlin suggests the media remain free as long as they do not violate the essential hegemonic values or become too sympathetic to radical critiques. Opposition groups can exploit the contradictions in hegemonic ideology when elites conflict, but opposition groups and autonomous media will be muffled if the challenge to the hegemonic ideology is critical.

Gitlin contends that the media are controlled by corporate and political elites who bring media professionals into their social spheres. The ruling elites depend on the culture industry to advance their unity and limit competing ideologies. The media frame the ideological field within which the dominated classes live and understand their domination in order to perpetuate the hegemony of the elites. The elite economic class, however, does not produce and distribute ideology directly. Media workers do this within the culture industry, but only the media owners are directly linked to corporate and political leaders.

Gitlin suggests indirect control of the hegemonic ideology is difficult because liberal capitalism contains contradictions. The economic system generates ideologies that challenge and alter its own rationale. The hegemonic framework narrows the range of worldviews, preferring its version. To do this, the internal structures of the framework have to be continually re-created and defended, as well as challenged and adjusted superficially. The dominant ideology seems natural to media workers, who reproduce and defend it unconsciously. Gitlin says the media owners and managers reflect the ruling class's interest in private property, capital, the national security state, and individual success within the bureaucratic system.

The media also reproduce the discontinuity and detachment that characterize capitalism, Gitlin adds. Natural life rhythms are replaced by the artificial time of the workplace. Reading the newspaper or watching television reproduces the rhythms of capitalist production. The media reflect the production system's interchangeable time segments, such as the thirty-minute television show and the three-minute rock record. The fleeting images and abrupt changes of television socialize viewers into the discontinuity of the system. "Revolution" is co-opted in the changing of commodities, fashions, and lifestyles in a cycle that reflects the economic system. Individually, perpetual adaptation becomes the goal of comfort and status. The fast pace of consumer goods and advertising fuels the growth of new technologies and capital. This process culminates in a "tradition of the new."

The cultural-commodity process allows minor changes in the hegemonic ideology and may even require it, Gitlin argues. Contradictions within the ideology make it flexible enough to bend with the times and make opposition profitable. Opposition movements may be directed into other channels, from politics into culture and lifestyles, for example. The media balance, absorb, marginalize, and exclude to manage opposition or turn it into a commodity. The media may intensify change, but as long as the political economy provides goods that most people define as essential, the hegemonic system will prevail.

In Gitlin's analysis, ruling elites control media to spread a blanket of false consciousness over dominated classes, who are left with no room systemically for change. By contrast, Williams builds a hegemonic model that leaves more room for the emergence of a counterhegemony. Gitlin draws his concept of hegemony from Williams, who allows for the seeds of liberation and oppositional hegemony to grow. He identifies hegemony as a process rather than a system or structure. This approach to hegemony lets the process shape individual perceptions as a lived system of meanings and values that permeates all aspects of life. Hegemony defines reality for most people in the culture and sets the limit of reality beyond which it is difficult to think or move. However, as a complex process, hegemony does not passively exist as a form of dominance. It continually has to be renewed, defended, and adjusted. Because it is not absolute, hegemony is always resisted, challenged, and changed by counterhegemonies and alternative hegemonies that are produced by emergent social classes. A new class is always a source of emergent cultural practice, but as a subordinate class its practice is sporadic and partial. If the new class opposes the dominant social order, the new practice must survive attempts to co-opt it into the hegemonic ideology. As an example, Williams gives the emergence and successful incorporation, or co-optation, of the radical popular press in nineteenth-century England.

For Williams, the chink in the armor of the dominant ideology is that no hegemonic order includes or exhausts all human practice. Hegemonic ideology is selected from the full range of human practice, leaving the rest as the personal or private, natural or metaphysical. The danger of advanced capitalism is the media's seizure of these reserved areas of human practice. The dominant culture now reaches much further with mass media. Williams calls for resistance to the seizure of these private, personal human practices. He provides no program for resistance other than the study of the ownership and control of the capitalist media tied with wider analyses of capitalist structures. Williams helped create the strong commitment of cultural studies to a Marxist position as the only position that offers the potential of creating a new society. He also advocated the cultural studies assumption that culture is ideological.

Media Texts and Active Audiences

Cultural studies author John Fiske (1987) rejects "false consciousness" in the Marxist sense because the term implies a true consciousness. Fiske considers twentieth-century history as evidence that a society without ideology is impossible. He also argues that truth is a product of language and other cultural meaning systems, so truth is always a product of culture, society, and history. Fiske borrows neo-Marxist scholar Louis Althusser's concept of ideology as a process that is always reproduced in the way that people think, act, and understand themselves and society. Althusser contends that the relatively autonomous superstructure of the family, schools, media, political system, and other institutions shape norms of thought and action. The norms, however, are developed in the interests of the dominant groups who try to naturalize them as common sense. Social norms are ideological and accepted as natural even by classes whose interests are opposed by the norms. The institutions producing the dominant ideology share some characteristics, Fiske notes. They are patriarchal and concerned with wealth and possessions. They assert individualism and competition, yet they present themselves as neutral regarding class and interested in equality and fairness, despite their serving the white, male, middle class.

Fiske says cultural studies distinguishes between the individual, as a product of nature, and the subject, as a product of culture. Studying the subject-in-ideology is the best way of "explaining who (we think) we are." Social norms construct the subject's sense of self, society, and the world. According to this theory, a biological female can have a masculine subjectivity by adopting a patriarchal ideology; a black can have a white subjectivity; and a lower-class subject can have a middle-class subjectivity. Two more of Althusser's concepts, "hailing" and "interpellation," are used by cultural studies to describe the media's work. The media get a subject's attention by "hailing." This includes a social position for the subject to occupy. Interpellation is the larger process of providing social positions for all communicating parties. Fiske offers the television show The A-Team as interpellating the viewer as masculine, desiring power, and a team member.

Fiske argues that cultural studies should combine these concepts with Gramsci's theory of hegemony. The constant process of the dominant social groups constructing people as subjects-in-ideology is studied in the larger context of a constant process of struggle of the dominators to extend their power and the dominated to resist. Fiske reports that earlier cultural studies showed how the dominant ideology reproduced itself in popular television, but Stuart Hall's work introduced the idea that media texts are open to various interpretations. Hall also introduces the idea of the active audience that can interpret or read media texts in various ways. Hall's theory of "preferred reading" was developed to account for the correlation of various social meanings with social positions. Fiske summarizes Hall's three reading strategies: the dominant reading, the negotiated reading, and the oppositional reading. In the dominant reading, the viewer receives the intended ideological message in the social position of the dominant ideology. In the negotiated reading, the viewer may alter the media message to fit his or her social position. The third reading, the oppositional reading, is taken by those out of power and at odds with the dominant ideology.

Fiske offers two methodologies for use in cultural studies. He studies reading strategies about television and popular culture figures, such as the singer Madonna, through ethnography of fans' or viewers' responses, and semiotic and structuralist text analysis to analyze the signifiers in the text and the signifieds in the ideology of culture. Cultural studies has evolved to accommodate criticism of Hall's categories of reading as simplistic. French postmodernist Michel Foucault's discourse theory may be applied as a source for a media analysis model, treating discourse as a socially located way of making sense of a topic, according to Fiske. The media texts are discourses, and the consciousness of the audience is a discourse. The moment of reading takes place when these discourses meet, giving the audience's discourse equal weight in making meaning. The process involves the constant dynamic of agreement with the dominant ideology and resistance against it.

Fiske argues that the media audience is made up of diverse groups who actively read media to produce meanings that agree with their social experience. The television, and other media, text is capable of a variety of meanings, and is, in Fiske's word, "polysemic." The relationships between the television medium and content that comprise these polysemic messages are formed by three codes. First are the social codes of reality, including appearance, speech, and expression. Second, the technical codes of representation, including camera, lighting, editing, music and sound, transmit the conventional representational codes of, for example, narrative, conflict, character, action, and dialogue. Third, according to Fiske, ideological codes include individualism, patriarchy, race, class, materialism, and capitalism.

Culture, Society, and Postmodernism

U.S. cultural studies leading scholar James Carey (1989), who spent much of his academic career at the University of Illinois and has shaped the distinctively American and non-Marxist brand of cultural studies through his teaching and writing, suggests that mass communication research in America has erroneously overlooked the question at the heart of the mass culture debate of the 1950s: What is the relationship between popular art and other social forms, including the scientific, aesthetic, and religious, that popular art influences? American scholars generally have not, Carey suggests, examined the relationship between cultural, expressive forms, particularly art, and the social order. European scholars focus on this relationship. Culture is, in British sociology, the meaning people find in their experience through art, religion, and other expressive forms. Carey writes that culture must be regarded as "a set of practices, a mode of human activity, a process whereby reality is created, maintained, and transformed, however much it may subsequently become reified into a force independent of human action." One of his central contributions to the shift from the mainstream "effects" school of mass communication research in the United States to the cultural school is his development of a ritual model of communication, as opposed to a transportation model. In ritual communication, an entire sphere of cultural activity centers on the task of building community.

Cultural studies also may be seen as a linking bridge to postmodernist thinking, but its relationships to postmodernism are probably as varied as its approaches to cultural studies itself. However, a number of themes that are central to postmodern theory can be identified in reviewing the writing of cultural studies theorists about postmodernism. British sociologist Nick Stevenson (1995) contrasts the postmodern theories of French philosopher Jean Baudrillard, whose "rejection of ideology, truth, representation, seriousness, and the emancipation of the subject" embrace many issues of postmodernism, to the postmodern theories of U.S. cultural theorist Fredric Jameson (1991), whom Stevenson finds to be the "most sophisticated" postmodernist. In general, Jameson calls postmodernism the "cultural expression" or "logic" of "late capitalism." Fine and popular arts have been merged as the economic sector takes over the cultural sphere. Modernist culture has lost its subversiveness and contemporary cultural forms, like punk rock, are co-opted by the capitalist economic system.

For Jameson, the main themes of postmodernism include the absence of context and the uncertainty of interpretation; a growing concern with discourses; the end of the notion of individual style or the "death of the subject"; and a fragmentation of social meanings yielding "discursive heterogeneity" that best represents modern culture by parody or "pastiche," which Jameson calls a "blank parody" because the fragmenting of cultural styles has eroded social norms. The themes of postmodernism identified by Jameson and some other themes that rise among a group of cultural studies scholars include: the death of individualism, as well as the end of Enlightenment thinking; fragmentation leading to parody and beyond to pastiche, with the loss of text and context and, more positively, the gaining of intertextuality; the focus on discourse and codes; the retrieval in postmodern thought of premodernism; the pointlessness of political action; and the concept of the "other."

Cultural studies absorption with issues of its own identities has helped lead not only to reevaluations of communication theory in the Journal of Communication, but also to a special 1997 issue of the University of Iowa's Journal of Communication Inquiry. Scholars debated the past, present, and future of cultural studies from a variety of perspectives, including calls for reclaiming its political activism and Marxist roots by Hardt. British scholar John Storey urges pursuing cultural studies as an academic discipline rather than as a political party. And still others contend that cultural critiques from the Third and Fourth Worlds centering on postcolonialism, multiculturalism, and globalization should be the focus of a reinvigorated cultural studies of the future that transcends the debate of its co-optation by academic institutions.

See also:Culture Industries, Media as; Innis, Harold Adams; Journalism, Professionalization of; Lazarsfeld, Paul F.; McLuhan, Herbert Marshall; Models of Communication; News Production Theories; Political Economy; Schramm, Wilbur; Semiotics; Social Change and the Media; Williams, Raymond.

Bibliography

Ang, Ien. (1996). Living Room Wars: Rethinking Media Audiences for a Postmodern World. London: Rout-ledge.

Baran, Stanley J., and Davis, Dennis K. (1999). Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 2nd edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baudrillard, Jean. (1983). Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).

Best, Steven, and Kellner, Douglas. (1991). Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations. New York: Guilford.

Carey, James. (1989). Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Fiske, John. (1987). Television Culture. London:Methuen.

Gitlin, Todd. (1980). The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hardt, Hanno. (1992). Critical Communication Studies: Communication, History, and Theory in America. London: Routledge.

Hartley, John. (1992). The Politics of Pictures: The Creation of the Public in the Age of Popular Media. London: Routledge.

Jameson, Fredric. (1991). Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso.

Morley, David, and Chen, Kuan-Hsing, eds. (1996). Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.

Nelson, Cary; Treichler, Paula A.; and Grossberg, Lawrence. (1992). "Cultural Studies: A User's Guide to This Book." In Cultural Studies, eds. Lawrence Grossberg, Cary Nelson, and Paula Treichler. New York: Routledge.

"Revisiting the Culture of Cultural Studies." (1997). Journal of Communication Inquiry 21(2), special issue.

Sardar, Ziauddin, and Van Loon, Borin. (1997). Introducing Cultural Studies. New York: Totem Books.

Silverstone, Roger. (1994). Television and Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

Slack, Jennifer Daryl, and Allor, Martin. (1983). "The Political and Epistemological Constituents of Critical Communication Research." Journal of Communication 33(3):208-218.

Smythe, Dallas, and Van Dinh, Tran. (1983). "On Critical and Administrative Analysis: A New Critical Analysis." Journal of Communication 33(3):117-127.

Stevenson, Nick. (1995). Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass Communication. London: Sage Publications.

Thompson, John B. (1990). Ideology and Modern Culture. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tuchman, Gaye. (1983). "Consciousness Industries and the Production of Culture." Journal of Communication 33(3):330-341.

Turner, Grame. (1990). British Cultural Studies: An Introduction. Boston: Unwin Hyman.

Williams, Raymond. (1962). Communications. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin.

Williams, Raymond. (1977). Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williams, Raymond. (1992). Television: Technology and Cultural Form. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.

Paul Grosswiler