ioo

thT

alkers:

The

Lin

gu

isticP

erform

ance

of

Auctio

neers

and

ortscas

tersK

oen

raadK

uip

er

Search

of

aV

oice:K

o.ro.okeand

the

Constru

ction

of

Iden

tityin

tuiese

Am

ericaC

aseyM

anK

ong

Lu

m

nfro

ntatio

nT

alk:

Arg

um

ents,

Asy

mm

etries,and

Pow

eron

Talk

LdiOJan

Hutch

by

-eryd

ayC

om

mu

nicatio

n:

Case

Stu

dies

of

Beh

avio

rC

ontex

ten

dy

Leeds-H

urw

itz&

Stu

art

J.S

igm

an,

Serie

s

iitors

(1.

/ /2

InS

earchof

aV

oice:

Karao

ke

and

the

Co

nstru

ctio

nof

Identity

inC

hin

eseA

merica

Casey

Man

Kong

Lu

mA

deip

hi

University

IEkL

AW

RE

NC

EE

RL

BA

UM

AS

SO

CIA

TE

S,

PU

BL

ISH

ER

S

1996

Mah

wah

,N

ewJe

rsey

Inm

emo

ryo

fm

ybelo

ved

fath

er,

Ch

iK

auW

ong,C

opynght

Ci1996

byL

awrence

Eribaum

Associates,

inc.w

hose

voice

Ican

no

lon

ger

remem

ber

All

righ

tsreserved.

No

part

ofthe

bookm

aybe

reproducedin

anyform

,by

ph

oto

stat,m

icroform,

retrieval

system,

orany

oth

erm

eans,w

itho

ut

the

priorperm

issionof

thepublisher.

Law

renceE

ribau

mA

ssociates,Inc.,

Pu

blish

ers10

Industrial

Avenue

Mahw

ah,N

ewJersey

07430

Cover

designby

Mairav

Salom

on-Dekel

Lib

rary

of

Congress

Catalo

gin

g-in

-Pu

blicatio

nD

ata

Lum

,C

aseyM

anK

ongIn

searchof

avoice

:k

araok

eand

the

constructionof

iden

tityin

Chinese

Am

erica/

Casey

Man

Kong

Lum

.

p.cm

.Includes

bibliographicalreferences

andindex.

ISB

N0-8058-1911-8

(alk.paper).

—IS

BN

0-8058-1912-6(pbk.

:alk.paper)

1.C

hineseA

mericans—

Music.

2.K

araoke—S

ocialaspects—

United

States.

3.C

hineseA

mericans—

Social

lifeand

customs.

I.T

itle.M

L3560.C

5L8

1996306.4’84—

dc2O95-25506

CIP

Books

publish

edby

Law

renceE

ribaumA

ssociatesare

printedon

acid-freepaper,

andth

eirbindings

arechosen

forstren

gth

anddurability.

Printed

inthe

United

States

ofAm

erica10

98

76

54

32

1

7A

CK

NO

WL

ED

GM

EN

TS

daysat

New

York

University

inthe

late1980s,

who

haspatiently

vedas

a“sounding

board”for

many

of theideas

I addressin

thisbook.

nilarly,hisstudy

ofheavym

etal music

ascom

munication

(Gencarelli,

)3)has

beena

sourceofinspiration.

Many

peoplehave

contributedto

my

education,particularly

incu

l•e

and

technology.P

eterH

araton

ik(C

omm

unication, Hofstra

Univ

ery)

has

neverfailed

toguide

me,

firstas

my

teacher

inth

eM

ediaidies

Program

atth

eN

ewS

choolfor

Social

Research

inth

eearly

30sand

lateras

my

men

tor

when

Ibecam

ea

practitio

ner

inth

ecipline.

My

teachers

atN

ewY

orkU

niversity’sM

ediaE

cologyP

rom

,N

eilP

ostm

an,

Terence

Moran,

Christin

eN

ystrom,

andH

enryrkinson,

taught

me

thejoy

ofth

inkin

g,

writing,

andteaching

aboutas

andthe

importance

of learnin

gby

always

takin

gpeople’s

criticismiously.A

ithoughIhave

benefitedfrom

allofthese

peoplein

writin

gth

isbook,

:hdirectly

andindirectly,

anyerro

rrem

ainin

gis

entirely

mine.

It[St

alsobe

notedth

atm

yacknow

ledgment

ofthose

indiv

iduals

who

ccread

and

comm

entedon

earlierdrafts

ofth

isstu

dy

doesnot

:essarilyim

plyth

eirag

reemen

tw

iththe

opinionsand

inte

rpre

taris

Iexpress

inth

isbook.

[don’t

thin

kI

canever

sufficientlyth

ank

my

mother,

Siu

Ling

Lau,

with

out

her

life-longsacrifice

andn

urtu

re,I

would

nothave

gones

far.A

boveall,

Iw

ouldlike

todedicate

this

bookto

my

wife,

Jenny

Chia

enL

iu,w

hoselove

andfriendship

havebeen

asource

ofgreatjoy

ind

times

andenorm

ousstren

gth

thro

ugh

rainy

days;and

toour

two

is,

Xuan

min

andH

aumin,

whose

verypresence

aloneis

enoughto

keour

livesall

them

orew

orthwhile.

Casey

Man

Kong

Lum

Un

dersta

ndin

gK

araoke

asC

om

mu

nic

atio

n

The

word

karaokeis

ahybrid

termconsisting

oftwo

components:

kara,m

eanin

gem

pty,an

doke,

anab

brev

iation

ofokesutora,

anadopted

foreignw

ordin

the

Japan

esevocabulary

mean

ing

“orchestra,”T

akingth

esep

arateelem

ents

together,karao

ke

mean

s“orchestra

minus

one[the

leadvocal],”

which

refersto

prerecordedm

usicalaccom

paniments

designedfor

amateu

rsinging.’

The

word

alsodenotes

eithera

place(such

asa

baror

anightclub

with

karaokeen

tertainm

ent)

ora

machine

that

allows

usersto

singw

ithprerecorded

musical

accompanim

ents.To

thenovice,

singingkaraoke,

especiallybefore

agroup

ofstrangers,can

bea

nerve-wracking

experience.I

canvividly

remem

berhow

Ifelt

thefirst

time

Iattended

akaraoke

event.N

otunlike

many

first-timers,

Iw

entthrough

aseries

of complex

yetm

emorable

emotions

duringth

atfirst

karaokeexperience:

the

excitement,

the

anticipation,the

anxiety,the

excuses,the

self-doubt,the

urgeto

showoff,

andso

forth.M

yfirst

karaokeencounter

tookplace

inthe

summ

erof

1993at

afriend’s

barbecuep

arty

onL

ongIsland.

No

onem

entionedto

me

beforehandth

atkaraoke

was

onthe

agenda.P

erhapsit

was

notplanned

aheadof tim

e.B

utw

henthe

grillin

thebackyard

was

slowly

coolingoff,

ourhosts

Richard

and

Diane

suggestedth

atthe

sevenor

eightof us

singkaraoke

inthe

largeliving

room.

The

tho

ugh

tth

atI

might

haveto

singbefore

agroup

ofpeople, mostofw

homI

hadm

etonlya

fewhours

before,caused

anticipationas

well

asanxiety.

Ithad

neveroccurred

tom

eth

atI

was

evenrem

otelyclose

tobeing

musically

competent

enoughto

singin

public.

‘The

word

karaokehas

beentran

slatedliterally

as“em

ptyorchestra”

(e.g.,see

Feiler,1991,

p.51;

Shelley,1993,

P.159).

But

accordingto

‘ibruM

itsui,in

theoriginal

Japaneseconception

ofkaraoke,

“kara”carries

theconnotation

of“w

ithout[the

voicel”instead

ofthe

literalm

eaningof

“empty”

(personalcom

munication,

April

10,1995).

Mitsui

hasw

rittenon

thehistory

ofkaraoke

inJap

anand,

atthis

writing,

isthe

presidentof

theIn

ternatio

nalA

ssociationfor

theS

tudyofP

opularM

usic.Y

oshioT

anaka(1990)

similarly

referredto

karaokeas

soundtracks

minus

thelead

vocal.

1

1

2C

HA

PT

ER

1U

ND

ER

ST

AN

DIN

GK

AR

AO

KE

AS

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N3

Richard,

anen

trepren

eur

inhis

late30s

who

imm

igratedto

theU

nited

States

earlyin

the1980s,

tookonly

afew

mom

entsto

setup

hiskaraoke

system.

Before

long,he

was

singinga

songby

theB

eatlesin

frontofthe

restof

thegroup.

Tobe

exact,it

was

notactually

aB

eatlesrecording,

buta

laserdiscvideo

that

reproducedthe

accompanim

entof

aB

eatlessong

featurin

gfour

impersonators.

Ifeltthe

videow

askin

dof

ridiculousand

theim

personatorsb

aked

andacted

silly.B

utm

ym

indw

asso

overwhelm

edby

theanticipation

that

thehosts

might

askm

eto

singth

atI

cannoteven

remem

berw

hichB

eatlessong

itw

as.O

nlythree

fromthe

partyw

ereactive

insinging

that

evening.T

herest,

includingm

e,spent

most

ofthe

time

watching

and,perhaps,

worrying.

But

that

didnot

mean

that

we

were

leftalone.

The

hostspassed

thew

irelessm

icrophoneto

usevery

sooften—

between

songs,or

evenbetw

eentw

overses—

but therestofus

avoideditas

ifit would

burnus.

Ioffered

allkinds

ofexcuses,

bothpublicly

andin

my

own

mind,

tostay

away

fromthe

fearsome-looking

microphone.“I’m

stilldigestingm

yfood,”

Ifound

myself

sayingto

Richard

atone

point.In

my

weakest

mom

entof the

evening,I

evengave

myself the

shameless

excuseof”I’m

doingresearch

here”for

notjoiningin

thesinging.

Halfw

aythrough

theevening,

however,

Ibegan

tonotice

agradual

changein

my

reactionto

theevent,

particularlyafter

thehosts

sanga

fewsongs

that

were

familiar

tom

e—those

that

Ioften

heardover

theradio

orhum

med

inthe

shower.

Although

thefear

ofm

akinga

foolof

myself

stillstood

between

me

andthe

microphone,

theintensity

ofm

yhesitation

subsided.M

eanwhile,

Richard

andD

ianew

erebecom

ingindifferentto

thefew

ofusw

how

erenot

singing.They

didnot

askus

tosing

asoften

asbefore.

Ibegan

todevelop

asense

ofunease,

feelinga

bitout

ofplace.“I

hopethey

arenot

upsetw

ithm

e,”I

thought.M

y“m

oment”

finallycam

ew

henP

aulM

cCartney’s

“Hey

Jude”w

asfinishing

with

thoselong

“Ia..

.Ia..

.la.

..la

lala

la,la

laIa

Ia,hey

Jude”phrases.

The

hostsw

erecrooning

alongand

I,alm

ostim

percep

tibly,eased

intothe

chorus.“L

a..

.Ia..

.la.

..la

lala

la.

..

“F

eelingno

objectionfrom

thehosts

andseeing

noap

paren

tu

nu

sual

reactionfrom

theothers,

especiallym

yw

ife,I

beganto

singlouder

andlouder.

“...L

ala

lala

..

.heyJude.”

Afew

numbers

later,I

pickedD

onM

cLean’s

“Vincent”

form

ysolo

debut—a

songth

atI

havealw

aysloved

tolisten

toand

hum.

Isang

itall

bym

yself,before

allthose

people,but

ittook

me

lessth

ana

minute

torealize

that

Ireally

couldnot

singthe

song.I

was

offbya

coupleof

keys.I

ranout

ofbreath

numerous

times.

Itended

tosing

aheadofthe

lyrics,or,

attim

es,I

was

chasingafter

them.

By

them

iddleofthe

song,I

beganto

feelth

atthe

songw

asm

uchlonger

than

Ithought.

Inthe

caron

ourw

ayhom

e,I

busilyw

onderedw

hethereveryone

atthe

party

haddiscovered

howbadly

Ihad

sung.B

ut,alm

ostm

iraculously,

my

wife

toldm

ehow

verysurprised

shew

asth

atI

couldsing

so

well.

“Sow

ell?!”I

thought.I

was

puzzledby

my

wife’s

complim

entbecause

Iknew

sheactually

mean

tw

hat

shesaid.

Nonetheless,

Ibegan

tofeel

better

aboutm

ysinging.

For

severaldays

afterward,

Icould

nothelp

butth

ink

aboutthe

variousem

otionsI

hadexperienced

that

evening:from

theanxiety

tothe

longingto

bep

artofthe

group,an

dfrom

thepositive

approvalof an

otherwise

mediocre

performance

toth

willful

acceptanceof

sucha

complim

ent.. Also,

Ithought

abouthow

ualan

dinvisible

karaoa

foen

tertainm

ent

and

popularculture

adalready

become

toR

ichardan

dD

iane,as

we

ase

mi

ionsof

peoplelike

themin

variousparts

ofA

sia,in

overseasA

sianim

migrant

comm

unities,and,

increasingly,around

thew

orld.I

wanted

toknow

more.

Ibegin

thisbook

with

my

firstkaraoke

experiencenot

onlybecause

itw

asm

emorable

but,m

oreim

portantly,because

itreflects

thetypical

responsesth

at peoplehave

when

theyfirst encounter

karaoke. Although

many

peoplesh

arethese

initialem

otionalresponses,

thesignificance

theyeventually

generatethrough, or

attachto, th

eirkaraoke

experiencem

aydiffer

fromone

socialcontext

toanother.

Infact,

itis

thepurpose

ofthis

bookto

examine

howkaraoke

may

beengaged

inin

agreat variety

ofw

ays,and

howvarying

socialm

eaningscan

beconstructed

throughthe

useofkaraoke

indifferent

everydaycontexts.

This

bookis

anethnography

ofhowkaraoke

isused

inthe

expressionm

aintenance,and

(re)constructionof

socialidentity

asp

artof

thiC

hineseA

merican

experience.It

exploresthe

socialand

theoreticaiim

ph

ation

sofinteraction

between

them

ediaaudience

andkaraoke

aboth

anelectronic

comm

umcation

technologyand.a

culturalpractice

Al

such,thebook

has

itstheoretical foundations

restingo

na

nexusof threE

areasof

analysis:nam

ely,cu

ltural

adap

tation

ofcom

munication

technology

audienceinteraction

with

electronicm

edia,an

dth

roleo

fmed

iEin

theelu

tion

oftheC

hinesediaspora

inthe

United

States.

Toconstruct

ananalytical

framew

orkfor

ourdiscussion,

Ioffer

threelim

inary

theoreticalassum

ptions.F

irst,karaoke

eventscan

bestud

liedas

culturalpractices

throughan

analysisofthe

interactionam

on

thevarious

human,

circumstantial,

material,

andsym

bolicelem

ent

that

theyare

comprised

of.S

econd,because

karaokeevents

areb

natu

resocial,

participationin

akaraoke

eventhas

intendedand

unintended

socialram

ificationsfor

theparticip

ants

that

canbe

studiedb

analyzingthe

meanings

theparticip

ants

derivefrom

,or

attachto, thei:

ara

ok

eexperience.

Third,

them

eaningsth

atpeople

attachto

thei

fkaraokeexperience

canbe

studiedby

analyzinghow

theyapproach

thei:Lp articipation

inkaraoke

events.B

ecausekaraoke

eventsexist

inevery

daysocial

contexts, participants’in

terpretatio

nof th

eirkaraoke

experiences

mu

stbe

und

erstoo

din

the

contextof

their

generalsocia

experiencean

deveryday

life.

4C

HA

PT

ER

1U

ND

ER

ST

AN

DIN

GK

AR

AO

KE

AS

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N5

Inth

erest

of this

chapter,I

explainin

theo

reticalterm

show

karao

ke

anbe

analyzedas

atechnology

and

asa

cultu

ralpractice

Moreover

Iook

atth

ed

ramatu

rgical

natu

reo

fkarao

ke

and

the

roleofpeople

inth

eonstru

ction

and

main

tenan

ceof

their

iden

tityin

the

socialcontexts

ofarao

ke.

Toplace

the

theo

reticaldiscussionand

the

ensu

ing

casestu

dies

,nconcrete

histo

ricaland

socialcontexts,

chap

ter2

examines

howcaraoke

shouldan

dcan

beview

edas

part

of the

generalm

ediaex

peri

?ncein

the

Chinese

Am

ericandiaspora.

Using

the

theo

retical,historical,

andsociological

framew

orkco

nItru

ctedin

this

and

the

nex

tch

apters

asm

yguide,

chap

ters3,

4,an

d5

resent

and

analyzeth

ediv

ergen

tkarao

ke

experiencesof

three

inte

rretive

comm

unitiesoffirst-g

eneratio

nC

hineseA

merican

imm

igran

ts.rh

eseinclude

peoplein

the

Hong

Kong

Cantonese,

Taiw

anese,an

dvIalaysian

Chinese

imm

igran

tcom

munities

inth

eN

ewY

orkan

dN

ewJersey

greater

metro

politan

area.C

hap

ter6

offersa

finalan

alysis

and

lynth

esisof

the

findingsfrom

this

study.M

ethodologicalnotes

arepresented

inth

eA

ppendix.

KA

RA

OK

E:

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

AN

DC

UL

TU

RA

LP

RA

CT

ICE

Sl\

:(\j

S,.com

munication

technologyis

the

material

embodim

entof

hu

man

ideasfor

solvingcertain

pre-existing,real,

orperceived

problems

rela

ting

toin

form

ation

orhu

man

interactio

n.

Pre-ex

isting

hu

man

conditions,therefore,play

avital

rolein

theconception,

development,

andadoption

or

rejection)of a

comm

unicationtechnology.

The

technologyof

[hrexam

ple,w

asconceived

partially

asa

mean

sto

preserv

eandm

artipulate

info

rmatio

nin

aw

ayth

ath

um

anm

emory

alonew

asincapable

of doing(H

avelock,1976;

Ong,

1982).In

earlyM

odernE

urope,the

metal

movable

typep

rintin

gpress

was

inventedto

reproducein

form

ation

ona

largescale,

freeingscribes

fromth

etedious

jobof

man

ual

copying,a

processth

atfreq

uen

tlyintroduced

errors

(Eisen

stein,

1979).O

fcourse,

comm

unicationtechnology

ism

oreth

anju

sta

problemsolver.

Whereas

anew

technologyresolves

some

pre-ex

isting

com

muni

cationproblem

,it

simultan

eously

introduceschanges

intoth

esocial

ecology.It

canhelp

defineor

redefinehow

peoplerelate

among

them

selves.W

ithw

riting,

peopleno

longerhave

torely

onsolely

oral,face-to-face,

and

spontan

eous

comm

unicationsto

interact

with

eachother.

During

itsinception,

writin

gw

asin

factperceived

asa

seriouschallenge

tothe

artan

dcu

lture

oforaldiscoursean

dth

eh

um

andialectic

that

Socrates

soen

deared

and

vigorouslydefended

(seeth

eP

haedrus).T

heprin

ting

press

furth

erin

tensified

the

separatio

nor

alienatio

nbetw

eenth

esp

eakers

and

writers

andth

eiraudiences

while

help

ing

togive

riseto

anever-expanding

readin

gpublic.

By

itsvery

natu

re,as

Elizab

ethL

. Eisen

stein(1983)

suggested,“aread

ing

publicw

asnotonly

more

dispersed;it

was

alsom

oreatom

istican

dindividualistic

than

ahearin

gone”

(p.94).

At

ano

ther

level,th

enew

classof

writers

andprin

tersin

earlyM

odernE

uropehelped

democratize

information

andknow

ledgefrom

centu

riesof

controlby

the

monastic,

scribalelites

(Eisen

stein,

1979),th

us

reconfiguringth

epow

errelatio

ns

between

theproducers

andconsum

ersofinform

ation.T

hereis

anoth

erkin

dof

power

relations

embedded

intechnology:

Socially

constructedgender

rolesare

implicated

inthe

conception,developm

ent,an

duse

of comm

unicationtechnology.

Technology,

accord

ingto

Lan

aR

akow(1988), “is

asite

where

socialpracticesare

embedded

and

expressan

dextend

the

constructionof tw

oasy

mm

etricalgenders”

(p.56).

This

conceptionsuggests

that

the

genderrelatio

ns

embedded

intechnology

aresym

ptomatic

of howpeople

ofthe

two

gendersinterplay

and

neg

otiate

theconstruction,

main

tenan

ce,an

d/o

rtran

sform

ation

ofth

eirres

ectiveplace

inth

esocialorder. A

ccordingto

this

view, tech

nol

ogyis

ot gen

der

neu

trp

articularly

when

gen

der

relation

splay

arole

ind

etermm

ing

ple

’s

accessto

oruse

oftechnology.

For

example,

Sh

aun

Moores

(1993)noted

that,

in1920s

Britain

,th

efath

erin

thefam

ilyw

asoften

the

monopolizing

user

of earlyw

irelessw

henth

eradio

setin

the

householdh

adonly

oneaudio

ou

tput

thro

ugh

aheadphone.

David

Morley

(1986)docum

entedhow

men

inhis

study

dominated

theuse

ofth

etelevision

remote

controldevice;

that

is,com

manded

thechoice

of pro

gram

sd

urin

gfam

ilyview

ing.In

reviewing

these

gendereduses

ofthe

wireless

headphonesand

therem

otecontrol

devicesin

their

respectivetim

efram

esan

dsocial

spaces,M

oores(1993)

suggested

the

following:

“Inboth

instan

ces,a

newly

arrived

pieceof

technologicalh

ardw

arebecom

esa

symbolic

siteof

(principallygendered)

frictionsw

ithin

the

family

context”(p.

80).B

ut

the

factth

ata

newcom

munication

technologycan

helpto

introduceand

facilitatechanges

orbu

ttresscertain

pre-existingsocial

norms

doesnot

mean

that

suchchanges

oraffirm

ationsw

illinevitably

oruniform

lyoccur

inoth

ersocieties

where

the

same

technologyis

alsoadopted.

Inhis

fascinatin

gstu

dy

oftechnology

and

socialchange

inM

edievalE

urope,L

ynnW

hite,Jr.

(1962)observed:

As

ourunderstanding

of thehistory

oftechnology

increases,it

becomes

clear thatanew

devicem

erelyopens

adoor; itdoes

not compel one

toenter.

Th

eaccep

tance

or

rejection

of

anin

ven

tion

,or-1

he

-exten

tto

wh

ichits

implications

arerealized

if itisaccepted, depends

quiteas

much

uponthe

conditionofa

society, andupon

theim

aginationof its

leaders,as

uponthe

technologicalitem

itself.(p.

28)2

21n

making

theprevious

observation,W

hite(1962)

specificallyreferred

tohow

Charles

Martel, the

Frankish

military

leaderin

theeighth

centuryadopted

thestirru

pto

facilitatea

fightingtechnique

calledm

ountedshock

combat.

Before

it,horses

were

typicallyused

to

SC

HA

PT

ER

1U

ND

ER

ST

AN

DIN

GK

AR

AO

KE

AS

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N7

technologycan

beadopted

inw

aysas

diverseas

theneeds

and

qira

tions

ofthe

peoplein

theadopting

societies.D

ependingon

the

pecificcontexts, differentsocial uses

ofatechnology

may

yielddifferent

reven

unforeseenoutcom

es.T

herefore,to

understan

dthe

cultural

adaptationof technology,

itis

notenough

toknow

what

thetechnology

an

do.It

isim

perativeto

knowhow

andw

hythe

technologyis

usedin

itsparticu

larsocial

contextsof

adap

tation.

3It

isalso

imp

ortan

tto

look

athow

theuses

interplayw

ithother

forcesin

society,such

asecononaic

distributionsan

dgender

arr,,

g,e

nts

that, determ

inepeople’s

access

otechnology.

\A

sI

examine

inm

oredetail,

thecultural

practiceof am

ateur

partici

patry

singingin

Japan

(andelsew

here)predated

thephysical

appara

tiu

sedin

theform

ulationof

karaoketechnology.

The

basicaudio,

video,and

laserrecording,

storage,and

retrievaltechnologies

usedin

karaokew

ereoriginally

inventedin

theW

est(S

traubhaar

&L

aRose,

1996)and

subsequentlydiffused

toother

parts

ofthe

world.

Although

thesetechnologies

were

graduallyadopted

aroundthe

world,

itw

asin

thesocial

andcu

ltural

contextof post-W

orldW

arHJap

anw

here

they

were

recon

figu

redin

toa

new,hybrid

technolo

gy

formin

the

service

ofa

pre-ex

isting

cultu

ralp

racticeof co

mm

unal

singin

g.

Before

Iex

amin

eth

e

orig

inal

socialco

ntex

tsfor

the

emerg

ence

of k

araoke,

however,

Iclarify

furth

erth

enotio

nof

karao

ke

sing

ing

asa

cultu

ralpractice.

Kara

oke

as

aC

ultu

ralP

ractice

Inconceiving

karaokesinging

asa

culturalpractice,

Iuse

thew

ord

cultu

rinm

uchthe

same

way

asC

liffordG

eertz’s(1973)

vividconcep

transp

ort

warrio

rsto

thebattlefields,

where

theyw

oulddism

ount

andengage

incom

bat

onfoot.

How

ever,not

onlydid

thestirru

pallow

aw

arrior

todo

combat

onhorseback,

it

allowed

the

mounted

warrio

rto

delivera

bru

talblow

with

hislance

“with

the

combined

weight

ofh

imself

andhis

charg

ing

stallion”(W

hite,1962,

p.2)

anddoing

sow

itho

ut

the

custo

mary

fearand

frequ

ent

consequenceof

fallingoff

hishorse.

Unlike

theF

rank

s,the

Anglo-S

axonsused

thestirru

pbut

didnot

realizeits

fullm

ilitarypotential,

afact

that

they

regretted

later.A

sth

em

ostm

obileand

lethal

fightingm

achineson

horseback,th

e

stirruped

Fran

ks

tookover

thelan

ds

oncecontrolled

byth

eC

hurchand

distrib

uted

them

tov

assalsand

even

tually

became

them

astersof E

uropeand

changedth

eface

of feudalism

inthe

Middle

Ages.

3Neil

Po

stman

(1985)articu

latedth

ispoint

bym

akinga

distinctionbetw

eentechnology

andm

edium:

We

mig

ht

sayth

ata

technologyis

toa

medium

asth

eb

rainis

toth

em

ind.L

ikethe

brain,a

technologyis

aphysical

apparatus.Like

the

mind,

am

ediumis

ause

to

which

aphysicalapparatus

isput. A

technologybecom

esa

medium

asit em

ploysa

particularsym

boliccode

asit

findsits

placein

aparticular

socialsetting

asinsinuates

itselfintoeconom

icand

politicalcontexts.Atechnology,in

otherw

ords,is

merely

am

achineA

medium

isthesocial and

intellectualenvironmenta

machine

creates.(p.

84)

tualization:“B

elieving,w

ithM

axW

eber,th

atm

anis

ananim

alsu

s

pendedin

webs

of significancehe

himself h

asspun,

Itake

cultureto

be

thosew

ebs,and

theanalysis

ofit

tobe

thereforenot

anexperim

ental

sciencein

searchof

lawbut

aninterpretive’

onein

searchof

meaning”

(p5)

There

isan

intim

aterelationship

between

thisinterpretive

anthropological conceptionof culture

andthe

ritual

viewof com

munica

tion,characterized

byJam

esW

.C

arey(1988)

as“a

symbolic

process

whereby

realityis

produced, maintained, repaired, and

transformed”

(p.

23).To

studycom

munication

fromth

isperspective,

asC

areypointed

out, “isto

examine

theactual social process

wherein

significant symbolic

forms

arecreated,

apprehended,and

used”(p.

30).C

omm

unicationis

anongoing,

sense-making

experiencew

herebypeople,

byusing

shared-

symbols, negotiate

anddeterm

me

among

themselves

thelegitim

ate, the

significant,or

thesensible,

that

is,th

eirsocial

reality,the

essenceof

their

culture.T

herefore,I

take

cultureto

mean

thew

aysth

atpppe

interact through

symbolic, and/or

meam

ns

rsignificance

theyderive

fromor

attachto

such

interactio

ns

Culture

manifests,

perp

etuatei,

andtransform

sitself

thro

ug

hand

incom

munication.

Reflecting

onth

isconception

ofculture

andcom

munication,

we

can

beginto

conceptualizeculture

atthe

systemic

level;th

atis,

atthe

level

ofdefinable,

individualsystem

s.R

aymond

William

s(1965)

suggested

that

“aculture”

is

aparticular

way

of lifew

hichexpresses

certa

inm

eaningsand

valuesnot

onlyin

artand

learning,but

alsoin

institutionsand

ordinarybehaviour.

The

analysisof culture,

fromsuch

adefinition,

isthe

clarificationof the

meanings

andvalues

implicit

andexplicit

ina

particularw

ayof

life,a

particularculture.

(citedin

Hebdige,

1979,p.

6)

To

study

aparticu

larcu

lture

or

cultu

ralsy

stem,

therefo

re,is

tostu

dy

the

sym

bio

sisam

on

gth

ehum

an,

material,

symbolic,

andin

stitutio

nal

elemen

tsin

societyin

the

articulatio

nof

aparticu

larw

ayof life.

We

can

beg

into

seehow

karao

ke

singin

gcan

bean

alyzed

asa

cultu

ralpractice.

Karao

ke

embo

dies

apro

cessof

hu

man

interactio

ns

and

practices

whereb

ycertain

valu

es,m

eanin

gs,

orsocial

realitiesare

created,

main

-

tamed

,an

dtran

sform

edas

part

ofa

cultu

re—a

particu

larw

ayof

life.

By

exten

sion

,differen

tw

ays

toen

gag

ekarao

ke

represen

tth

eartic

ula

tion

sof

differen

tw

ays

oflife.

To

stud

yC

hin

eseA

merican

imm

igran

t

/kara

oke,

therefo

re,is

tostu

dy

howk

araok

eis

eng

aged

inas

anev

eryday

(p

racticem

the

con

structio

n,

articulatio

n,

and

interp

retation

ofth

ose

‘mean

ings

that

arepart

of the

Ch

inese

Am

ericanim

migrant experience.

This

leadsto

thefollow

ingquestion:

What

cultu

ralpractice

does

karaokeem

body?To

addressth

isquestion, I

examine

inthe

nextsection

the

socialo

rigin

sof k

araok

ein

Japan

.

+

8C

HA

FI’E

R1

UN

DE

RS

TA

ND

ING

KA

RA

OK

EA

SC

OM

MU

NiC

AT

ION

9

Socia

lO

rigin

sof

Karao

ke

Karaoke

asa

comm

unicationtechnology

came

intobeing

un

der

am

ostappropriate

setofsocial

conditions.B

eforem

ass-producedkaraoke

setscam

ealong,

bar

patronssin

gin

gto

thetu

nes

ofprofessionalm

usicianshad

longbeen

atrad

ition

inK

obe,a

thrivingseaport

metropolis

inW

esternJap

an.

Overlooking

Osaka

Bay,

Kobe

owes

part

ofitsglam

ourto

itslively

musical nightlife.T

heproliferation

ofcassettetape

recozd

rsalso

facilitatedan

interest

insinging

among

many

inJap

an,

chieflyam

ongm

enin

their

40san4

50s(O

gawa,

1990). The

late1960s

andearly

1970ssaw

arevival

ofenka(traditional

Japan

esesongs

ofunrequited

love)am

ongthese

middle-aged

men,

who

feltout

ofplace

with

thedom

inating,Western-tinged

popularmusic

that w

asth

encatering

tothe

youngin

Japan

(T. Mitsui,personalcom

munication,A

pril10,

1995). But

there

were

effortsto

reducethe

costofproviding

livem

usicin

drinkingor

entertain

men

testablishm

ents,w

herem

anym

iddle-agedenka

dev

otees

dran

kand

socializedafter

work.

Experim

entsw

ereattem

pted

with

severalso

un

dm

edia,such

asreel-to-reel

tapesand

jukeboxes.T

heprototype

ofcomm

ercialkaraoke

setsdid

notappear

un

til1972

At

thetim

e,en

trepren

eur

andm

usicianD

aisukeInoue

andhis

col

leaguesin

Kobe

introducedeight-track

cartridgesofth

eirow

nm

usicalperform

ancesw

ithoutany

vocalelem

ents(M

itsui,1991).

One

suchcartridge

containedfour

accompanim

entsof

two

trackseach.

Tech

ni

cally,theeight-track

loopcartridge

givesits

userseasy

accessto

thefour

accompanim

ents:T

heloop

goesback

tothe

beginningas

anyone

oftheaccom

paniments

comes

toan

end.S

pecialm

achinesw

erebuiltfor

thesetapes.

Each

karaokeset

was

builtw

ithintegrated

microphone

inputs,an

echom

echanism,and

acoin

slot.Whatw

asparticularly

uniqueabout

Inoue’stapes

andthe

machine,as

Mitsuipointed

out,was

thatthey

were

thefirst

comm

ercialaccom

paniment

tapesand

karaokesystem

sm

eant

foram

ateur

smgers

‘In

short,thevarious

experiments

toreduce

thecosts

ofprovidinglive

music

atdrin

kin

gand

entertain

men

testab

lishm

ents

where

enkareigned

setupthe

imm

ediatecontextfor

theconceptual

andtechnologi

caldevelopm

entof

karaokein

Japan

.B

ecauseenka

was

them

ostpopular

musicalgenre

atthe

drinkingor

entertain

men

testablishm

entsw

herecom

mercially

availablekaraoke

evolved,it

representedthe

ma

jorityofthe

karaokerepertoire

inits

firstdecadein

existence(T. M

itsui,personal

comm

unication,April

10,1995).

iMean

wh

ile,the

Japan

eselove

ofsinging

helpedserve

asa

fertileground

forthe

germination

andspread

ofkaraoketo

othersegm

entsin

Japan’spopulation

andforthe

developmentofm

usicalgenresotherth

anenka.

As

Boye

De

Mente

(1989)observed:

Forcenturies,

theJapanese

havebeen

raisedon

lullabiesand

folksongs

andhave

learnedhow

tosing

asa

naturalpart

of grow

ingup. E

verybodyis

expectedto

joinin

thesinging

offestivals,

and,at

partiesand

otherkinds

ofgatherings,it

iscustom

aryfor

individualsto

taketurns

singing.(p.

158)

Because

socialam

ateur

singin

gw

asa

pre

-existg

cu1tu

r4jc

ticiii,

Japan

,w

hat

karaokeas

atechnology

didfor

that

aspectof

Japan

ese:culture

was

make

musjq

jccom

pan

imen

tsm

or

adjjiy

iuhtb

leto

peoplew

henthçy

wanted

tosiii

erG

raoke

a&&

technologyis

them

aterialem

bodiment

ofa

setof

pre-existmg

cuiti,iralpractices,

arrang

emen

tsfor

hu

man

interactionin

everydaylife—

orw

hatE

rvingG

offinan(1983)

calledthe

interactionorder.

Karaoke

encap

sulate

a“w

ebofsignificance,”

aninteraction

structu

reth

at,given

itssocial

andcu

ltural

rQo

tsfosters

thebuilding

andm

aintenanceof

groupm

emb

ership

orcom

munity

throughparticipatory

smg

mg

This

partiallyhelps

explain

why

karaokesinging

has

become

apopular

culturalform

among

peopleofall

agesin

Japan

(Ban,

1991;N

unziata,1990;

Ogaw

a,1993b;

White,

1993).S

imilarly,

Deborah

Wong

(1994)suggested

thit

thelove

ofam

ateur

singingin

certainparts

ofAsia

helpsexplain

why

karaokeh

asbeen

popularin

thoseregions

(seealso”

okeis,”

1992).T

hefirst

U.

S.karaoke

barsappeared

in983

cateringto

am

ostly“A

sianclientele”

(Zim

merm

an,1991,p.

108), wh

,as

Mitsuisuggested

(personalcom

munication,

April

10,1995),

might

havebeen

pred

om

in

antly

Japan

esebusiness

peoplew

orkingitlie

United

States

andJap

anese

Am

ericans.T

oward

theend

ofth

e(

198

9s.

barscaterin

gto

am

oregeneral

Am

ericanclientele,

alongw

ithcei1

aincom

mercial

pu

bli

cists,started

touse

karaokeas

aprom

otionaLL

ool (Arm

strong,1992).

Whereas

thegeneral

populationin

theU

nitedS

tatesis

stillw

arming

4Merry

White

(personalcom

munication,

October

12,1993),

aB

ostonU

niversityso

ciologist

anda

researchfellow

atH

arvardU

niversity’sE

dwin

0.

Reischauer

Instituteof

Japan

eseS

tudies,added

yetanotherin

teresting

explanationfor w

hykaraoke

has

become

apopular

formofen

tertainm

ent

inJap

an.

She

suggestedthe

foliowing

Japan

esedon’t

invitepeople

home.

Akaraoke

baror

clubis

ahQ

me

fromhom

e,It’s

always

important

that

thereis

aplace

where

onecan

entertain

friendsH

ome

isnot

aplace

toen

tertainguests,

especiallyifthey

arenotone’s

own

family.

It’sbeen

saidth

atJapan

esedon’tinvite

friendsover

becausehouses

inJap

anare

small.B

utthat’s

notreally

it.It

isabout

asense

ofa

home,

aplace

that

isinviolable.

Itis

aprivate

spacew

hereone

canindulge

intotal

freedomw

ithouthaving

toput

onspecial

masks.

Karaoke

offersthe

Japan

esean

importan

taltern

ative

spacefor

maintaining

socialrelations

with

peoplefrom

outsidethe

family.

5Aro

un

dthe

same

time,

theconsum

erelectronics

man

ufactu

rerP

ioneerm

arketedthe

world’s

firstlaserdisc

karaokesystem

sfor

theconsum

erm

arket

(Ogaw

a,1993a).

tk.

.

:

S

10C

HA

FF

ER

IU

ND

ER

STA

ND

ING

KA

RA

OK

EA

SC

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

11

ipto

theidea

ofsinging

karaokein

bars,certain

definablecultural

racticesth

atcenter

aroundkaraoke

havealready

emerged

among

aanyin

Chinese

Am

erica.6

Much

liketh

eircousins

inA

sia,w

here:araoke

isw

idelypopular

many

Chinese

Am

ericansfrom

diversesocial,

conomic,

andethnic

backgroundsengage

ina

great

varietyofkaraoke

ctivities:self-entertainm

ent, socialgatherings, perform

ance,orfestive

vents,and

soforth

Social

networks

areform

edaround

acom

mon

riterest inkaraoke

Indeed, not onlyh

askaraoke

become

apopular

formI

entertain

men

tfor

many

Chinese

Am

ericans,som

ehave

adoptedaraoke

asa

cultu

ralpractice

centralto

their

socialexistence

How

everhow

canw

econceptualize

karaokeas

acultural

practice?low

isthe

web

of karaokeconstructed

asa

comm

unalevent

orcultural

xperience?W

hatdoes

thesocial

orsym

bolicstru

cture

of karaokelook

ike?To

addressthese

questions,the

nextsection

analyzesthe

“dram

aurgical

web

of karaoke.”

TH

ED

RA

MA

TU

RG

ICA

LW

EB

OF

KA

RA

OK

E

lecausekaraoke

embodies

hu

man

interactionsin

specificsocial

con

exts,I

useG

offman’s

(1959)dram

aturgicalm

etaphorto

conceptualizehe

web

ofkarao

ke.

7It

isim

po

rtant

tonote,

however,

that

Goffm

an’sôcus

ofanalysis

was

on“social

establishments

asrelatively

closedystem

s”(p.

239).T

heex

tent

tow

hichw

ecan

viewkaraoke

asa

closedr

opensystem

has

yetto

bedeterm

ined.T

hus,in

thissection,

Iuse

the[ram

aturgicalm

etaphoronly

asan

initial

analyticalfram

ework

toonceptualize

the

karaokew

ebas

adefm

ablesocial

environment

vhereinpeople

playvarious

rolesin

anongoing

processof

interactionm

dim

pressionm

anagement.

Inreference

tothe

conceptionofkaraoke

isa

culturalpractice,

Ifirst

lookat

theorganizational,

material,

andym

boliccom

ponentsth

athelp

constructthe

dramaturgical

siteof the

araok

escene.

6Karao

ke

isalso

popularin

many

otherA

sianA

merican

comm

unities.F

orexam

ple,V

ong(1994)

studiedthe

karaokeexperience

of certainV

ietnamese

Am

ericansin

theLos

ngelesarea

andR

obertD

rew’s

(1994)dissertation

touchedon

certainaspects

ofJapa

.ese-Am

ericankaraoke

barsin

andaround

theP

hiladelphiaarea.

But

becauseA

sianL

merica

isa

complex

sociopoliticalspace,

andbecause

karaokeas

aserious

scholarlyubject

isa

relativelyuncharted

area,I

delimit

my

discussionto

onlycertain

socialand

ulturalaspects

oftheC

hineseA

merican

karaokeexperience.

7Drew

’s(1994)

analysisof

what

hecalled

theperform

ancefram

eof

karaokein

the

ontextof

main

streamU

.S.bars

inP

hiladelphiaalso

partiallyadopts

Goffm

an’s(1959)

.ramaturgical

metaphor.

How

ever,w

edeveloped

ourrespective

studiesindependent

ofach

other,and

havegenerated

differentuses

ofGoffm

an’sw

ork.

Th

eK

ara

oke

Scene

Az-ae

scen

isan

eventw

herekaraoke

singingis

thedefin

ing

activityth

atfacilitates

interactionam

ongthe

particip

ants.

Itis

nor

mally

composed

ofa

number

ofepisodes;

that

is,sm

allerunits

of

interaction.A

sw

ithany

socialevent,

everykaraoke

sceneis

setin

a

specificsocial

occasionand

time.

The

specificsocial

occasionin

which

akaraoke

sceneoccurs

necessarilygives

directionto

what happens

there,in

much

the

same

way

that

ascript

helpsto

layout

theplot

of am

ovieor

aplay. T

heoccasion

canbe

ab

irthd

ayparty,

aform

alevening

gala,a

busin

ess

dinnera

weekly

gatheringam

ongfriends, everyday

entertain

Lm

ent

athom

e,or

thelike.

Em

beddedin

eachof

theseoccasions

are

certainexplicit

andim

plicitexpectations

ofthe

rolesth

atparticipants

playto

facilitatethe

generalprogress

of the

scene. Ata

certainlevel, the

scriptsfor

thescene

resemble

wh

atA

.E

.S

cheflen(1964,

1965,1979)

,çalle

dg

s;

that

is,“patterns

ofbehavior”

(1979,p.

10)or

“tradi

(ion

alform

atsor

templates,

learnedand

usedby

eachm

ember

ofa

hiltu

re,

that

determine

behavior”(1964,

p.317).

Every

karaokescene

islocated

ina

setting,

thephysical

context where

thescene’s

hu

man

interactiontak

esplace. T

hephysical layout and

decor

of theenvironm

ent ofthe

karaokeevent also

providesym

bolicm

eanings.S

imilarly,

propssuch

askaraoke

equipment

andcostum

essuch

asthe

clothingand

accessoriesth

atparticip

ants

wear

supportthe

progressof

thescene

andgive

asym

bolicreference

tothe

natu

reof

theoccasion.

Specifically,th

esetting,

props,and

costumes

connotethe

participants’style,

taste,social

class,or

anycom

binationof these

elements.

Areas

of

Actio

ns

What

distinguisheskaraoke

scenesfrom

most

othersocial

scenesare

the

two

distinctareas

ofaction

inw

hat

Goffm

an(1959)

referredto

asthe

“frontregion”

(p.107),

and,in

particular,how

particip

ants

move

between

thesetw

oareas

a.ndthe

dramaturgical

implication

ofthis

movem

ent.

8I

referto

theag

eare

jas

thespace

where

thekaraoke

system,

them

ostsignificant

anddE

nin

gequipm

entof

anykaraoke

scene,is

locatedand

utilizedand

where

theform

alsinging

of karaoketak

esplace.

The

physicallayout

of thestage

areavaries

fromone

scene

/to

anoth

erranging

fromthe

entertain

men

tcenter

ofsom

eone’sliving

roomto

aplatform

inan

expensivekaraoke

nightclubor

atem

porary.sp

acecreated

forK

araok

eN

ightat

abar.

8Goffm

an(1959)

distinguishedthe

frontregion

fromthe

backregion.

My

analysishere

onlyconsiders

two

aspectsof the

frontregion—

thestage

areaand

theaudience

area;it

alsoreveals

aperm

eabilityof

theboundary

between

stageand

audienceareas

not

previouslystudied

byG

offman.

The

roleof

rehearsal

andtraining—

backstageb

ehav

ior—is

discussedin

laterchapters.

12

CH

AP

TE

R1

UN

DE

RS

TA

ND

ING

KA

RA

OK

EA

SC

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

13

Facing

the

stage

areais

what

Iconsider

thetd

ien

cear,

the

spacew

herein

the

restof

the

particip

ants

witn

essth

ekarao

ke

performance

asan

audience.D

ependingon

the

socialcontextorthe

setup

of the

stage

area,th

ephysical

layout

of the

audiencearea

alsovaries

fromone

sceneto

another.In

general,sittin

garran

gem

ents

forthe

audienceare

usu

allyprovided

foran

dm

ayinclude

suchvariatio

ns

assofas

insom

eone’sliving

room,

din

ing

tables

and

chairs

ata

nightclubor

restauran

t,or

stoolsat

abar.It

isim

po

rtant

tonote

that

the

stage

areaan

dth

eaudience

areaare

notalw

aysdistin

guish

able

fromone

ano

ther

inevery

karao

ke

setting.

Inm

any

Japan

ese-style

entertain

men

testab

lishm

ents,

inboth

Japan

itselfan

doverseas

Japan

esecom

munities,

forexam

ple,long

micro

phonecables

orcordless

microphones

allowth

esinging

customers

toperform

with

out

leavingth

eirtable.

The

linebetw

eenth

estag

earea

and

the

audiencearea

ina

karao

ke

boxis

alsoblu

rred.

Akarao

ke

boxis

asm

allren

talroom

designedspecifically

forkarao

ke

singing.In

it,th

ek

araok

esystem

isplaced

atone

endof

the

roomopposite

asittin

garea,

where

the

perfo

rmer

andthe

audienceboth

congregate.

The

Dual

Role

of

Kara

oke

Partic

ipan

ts

The

uniq

uen

essof

this

spatial

arrang

emen

t(s

tageta

v&

audien

cearea)

inth

ekarao

ke

front

regionlies

inthe

factth

atit

signifiestw

odifferen

troles

forth

eparticip

ants.

Inm

ostsocial

settings,

particip

ants

need

toplay

onlyone

rolein

the

front

region,for

example,

asdin

erseatin

glu

nch

ina

restauran

tor

asaudience

mem

bersw

atchin

gaIa

yin

ath

eater.In

the

frontregion

ofa

karao

ke

scene,how

ever,th

ereis

always

achance

that

aparticip

ant

will

travel

between

the

two

areas,play

ing

two

differen

troles.

Allk

araoke

particip

ants

are,by

implication

ofth

eirbeing

presen

tat

the

scene,poten

tialperform

ersas

well

asau

dien

cem

embers

Custo

marily

performers

inan

ykarao

ke

scenecoüie

fromth

eaudience.A

sH

iroshiOgaw

a(1993a)

pu

tit,this

lackof clear-cut

separatio

nbetw

eenaudience

and

perfo

rmer

has

implications

forhow

allth

eparticip

ants

areperceived:

‘Karaoke

enclosesa

“karaokespace”

with

itsm

usicw

all.People

thereare

thoughtto

befriends

And

aperson

singingin

thepresence

of theothers

—in

spiteof shyness

isthoughtto

betrusted.B

othsharing

a“karaoke

space”and

singingin

thepresence

ofthe

othersrein

forceo

up

consciousness,(p.

2)

The

particip

ants

ina

karao

ke

eventare

there

bothto

entertain

andhe

entertaiiieib

y-o

ther-s.

This

mu

tual

entertain

men

tencourages

acertain

degreeof

bondingam

ongp

articipan

tsin

the

scenefor

asO

gawa

implied,

peoplein

thekarao

ke

scenereg

ardeach

oth

eras

friends.

How

everI

cananalyze

howth

isbonding

ism

aintain

edfrom

aslightly

differen

tperspective.

Because

there

isa

custo

mary

expectationth

at

audiencem

embers

will

take

atu

rnsinging

sooneror

laterduring

the

courseof

the

event,no

karao

ke

particip

ant

risks

den

igratin

gthe

per

formance

ofo

thers,

atleast

not

inpublic

viewor

inthe

frontregion.

Know

ingth

eym

aylater

performin

the

stage

areaand

bejudged

by

thosere-en

tering

the

audiencearea,

karao

ke

particip

ants

minim

ally

criticizeth

eperform

ancesbefore

them.

Thus

the

reciprocityin

heren

tin

the

dualroles

that

peopleare

expectedto

playhelps

regulatethe

interactio

nam

ongall

partic

ipan

1tsin

the

scene—

arim

plicitbehavioral

codeofconduct

that

canbe

calledkaraoke

decorum,,

Th

eK

ara

oke

Decoru

m

Karaoke

decoruminvolves

aset

ofconventions

form

aintainingand

judgin

gw

hat

isto

beconsidered

sociallyap

pro

priate

behaviorin

a

karao

ke

scene.O

fcourse,

anysuch

decorumalso

implies

what

isin

app

rop

riateor

sociallyunacceptable.

How

ever,specific

karao

ke

decorum

varies

fromone

karao

ke

setting

toanother.

Inadvising

hisW

estern

readers

onhow

tobehave

inJap

anese

karao

ke

bars,

Rex

Shelley

(1993suggested:

Karaoke

barscan

begreat

fun, orterribly

embarrassing, T

hem

icrophoneis

ona

longlead

andw

henit gets

toyour table, everyone

must do

hisparty

thing.D

onot

tryto

getout

ofit

bysaying

thatyou

donot

knowany

Japanesesongs. T

heyalw

ayshave

afew

popularE

nglishlanguage

songsin

thebox

toslap

down

thisexcuse.

“Yesterday”

and“M

yW

ay”seem

tobe

thep,.o

Lth

. karaokew

.esternpops

Do

your bestN

obodyw

ill reallym

indif you

can’t singprovided

thatyou

don’t singtoo

long.Y

oucannot

refuse.

(p.159)

Ogaw

a(1993a)

offeredth

reeo

ther

tacitru

lesin

the

karaokespace

oJap

an:

One

mu

stnot

singtw

osongs

insuccession,

onem

ust

notsinl

the

same

songth

atth

eoth

ershave

sung,and,

when

othersare

singingone

mu

stap

plau

dbetw

eenverses

andat

the

endin

gof the

song.H

ow

ever

although

these

rules

ofdecorum

may

seemstan

dard

tthose

familiarw

ithth

eJap

anese

karao

ke

scene,they

arenot u

niv

ersallobserved.

On

oneS

aturd

ayn

ight

inM

ay1994,

Iw

itnessed

ascene

atC

hineseA

merican

restauran

tina

busin

essarea

of Washington,D

Copem

forkarao

ke

singingin

the

lateevening.

At

onepoint

inthe

evening,tw

youngT

aiwanese

wom

ento

geth

ersan

gtw

osongs

insuccession.

Witi

the

exceptionof

their

sixfrien

ds

atone

table,

the

two

wom

enw

ersinging

toan

otherwise

indifferen

taudience

ofab

out

30people

atfou:

oth

ertables.

These

oth

erpeople

didnot

app

laud

between

versesor

a

the

endof

the

songs,but

spen

tm

ostof

the

time

talkin

gam

ongthem

14

CH

AP

TE

R1

UN

DE

RS

TA

ND

ING

KA

RA

OK

EA

SC

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

15

selves.D

espiteth

is,the

nig

ht

went

onw

ithout

anynoticeable

unease

among

the

particip

ants

inth

atkarao

ke

scene.T

hedecorum

observedin

that

Chinese

Am

ericanrestau

rantu

ndoubt

edlydiffers

fromth

eJap

anese

karao

ke

decorumth

atS

helley(1993)

and

Ogaw

a(1993a)

describedso

matter-of-factly.

Inoth

erw

ords,jrao

ke

scenean

ddecorum

,as

with

anyoth

ersocial

spaceand

cjecarum-r

arecu

lture-

orcontext-bound.

Because

eachdram

aturg

icalw

ebof

karao

ke

necessarily

reflectsth

eorganizational,

material,

andsym

bolicorien

tation

ofthe

peoplew

hobuild

and

useit, th

ew

ebm

ayalaab

esaid

tejeflectw

hat

Dick

Hebdige

(1979)defined

asth

esty

lef

that

groupof

po

p1

c.A

sI

dem

on

stratelater

inth

ebook,

altrioughkarao

ke

technologyvaries

littlefrom

onem

anu

facturer

toanother,

thediffering

socialcontexts

embodied

byth

eth

reein

terpretiv

ecom

munities

ofC

hineseA

merican

imm

igran

tsth

atI

studied

canand

dofacilitate

the

constructionan

dm

ainten

ance

ofdiv

ergen

tkarao

ke

scenesan

dcodes

ofdecorum

.B

yextension,

they

alsorep

resent

andfoster

differentkarao

ke

experiences,practices,

orstyles.

TH

ER

OL

EO

FP

EO

PL

EIN

TH

EP

RO

DU

CT

ION

OF

ME

AN

ING

SIN

KA

RA

OK

ES

CE

NE

S

Ialread

ydelin

eatedkaraoke’s

dram

aturg

icalw

ebof significance.

Inow

address

the

questio

nof how

karao

ke

particip

ants

cancreate,

main

tain,

and

transfo

rmsocial

realityin

karao

ke

scenes;th

atis,

the

importance

ofth

ekarao

ke

particip

ants

inth

econstruction

and

interp

retation

ofm

eanin

gs

inkarao

ke

scenes.I

beginth

isdiscussion

byexam

ininghow

the

roleof th

em

ediaaudience

has

traditio

nally

beenconceptualized.

Med

iaA

udie

nce

as

Reader

The

roleofth

eaudience

inth

ereception

ofmedia

content,or

texts,

has

beena

subjectof considerable

discussionin

media

andcu

ltural

studies.

9T

hediscussion

has

mostly

beenpositioned

alonga

theo

reticalco

ntin

\\uum,

with

the

media-centered

parad

igm

locatedat

oneend

ofth

e‘co

ntin

uum

and

the

audience-centeredparad

igm

atth

eother.

Each

endof

the

contin

uum

isdescribed

later.A

sa

somew

hatcrude

illustratio

nof

theex

tremes

ofm

edia-cen

teredparad

igm

,th

eso-called

magic

bullet

theo

ryconjures

upan

image

of the

mass

media

firingpow

erfulm

essagesat,

andhittin

g,

the

defenseless

9See,

forexam

ple,C

riticalStudies

inM

assC

’omm

unication’sspecialissues

on“R

eadingR

ecentR

evisionism”

(Thom

as,1990)

and“M

ediaIn

terpretatio

n”

(Thom

as,1991)

andth

e

Jou

rnal

of Com

munication’s

“The

Futu

reofth

eF

ieldII”

(Levy

1993),especially

Klau

sB

.

Jensen

(1993),S

oniaM

.L

ivingstone(1993),

andM

orley(1993).

audience.’°T

histh

eory

suggests

that

mass

media

contentis

fixed.and

has

adirect

influenceon

receivers’know

ledgean

dbehavior.

“Screen

theo

ryM

oores,

13)

offersan

alternative,bu

teq

uiv

alent,

persp

ective

onth

epow

rif-the

formof th

em

edia.Influenced

byF

rench

poststru

c

turalisttheory, an

dp

articularly

Lacan

ianpsychoanalysis, screen

theory

argues

that how

ifimaudiences

receivem

eanin

gs

isdefined

orcontrolled

byth

ecinem

aticform

orlan

guag

eem

ployedby

the

filmm

akers

(Heath,

1977—1978;M

acCabe,

1974). Again,th

edirection

of influenceis

fromth

e

medium

toth

eaudience.

From

the

perspectiveof

politicaleconom

y,critical

media

studies

scholarshipoffers

acom

parativelym

orem

acroscopicarg

um

ent

byco

n

ceptu

alizing

mass

media

institu

tions

asculture

orconsciousness

indu

s

tries(A

dorno&

Horkheim

er,1977;

Enzensberger,

1974;S

chiller,1989).

Often

with

cooperationfrom

the

state,th

esein

dustries

aresaid

to

dominate

societyw

ithom

nip

resent,

one-dimensional

media

messages.

They

limit

ordrow

nout

alternativ

evoices

inth

einform

ationen

viro

n

ment,

thereb

yhelp

ing

toim

posean

dm

aintain

ahegem

onicideology

that

favorsth

estate

andin

dustry

(Ew

en,1976;

Garnham

,1990;

Mar

cuse,1964;P

arenti,

1986; Schiller,

1973).”F

romth

isperspective, people

donot

hav

em

uchpow

erto

overcome

the

hegemony

fosteredand

sus

tained

bym

ainstream

media

andcu

ltural

establish

men

ts,unless

politi

caland

particu

larlyeconom

icchanges

allowaltern

ative

media

outlets

toflourish.In

contrast,

audience-centeredcritical

receptionscholarship

argues

that,

tovarying

degrees,th

eaudience

hasth

eability

toin

terpret

an4.

reappro

priate

mits

own

terms

media

texts

((Hall,

1980,M

orley,1980,

Radw

ay,1984).

Based

onsejzliD

ticth

eories,

vario

us

media

andcu

ltural

stud

iesscholars

argue

that{media

textpinvolve

bothaeathetic-and

social

codes(gram

mars)

andare

llerilitly

polysemic.

Atex

tis

saidto

be

po

lysem

liWln

itcan

stand

form

ultip

leconnotations

dependingon

the

audienceread

ing

(Leeds-H

urwitz,

199

3).1

2Jo

hn

Fiske

(1987)sim

ilarly

used

the

conceptofpolysem

yto

suggest th

atth

eaudience

canconstruct

‘°The

conditionin

which

this(m

agicbu

lletor

hypodermic)

theoryw

asform

ulatedor

theex

tentto

which

the

theoryhas

everbeen

formally

delin

eatedhas

receivedsom

eserious

con

sideratio

nin

recent

years.S

ee,for

example,

Bin

eham

(1988)and

Sproule

(1989).

“See

also“F

ermen

tin

the

Field”

ofthe

Jou

rnal

of Com

munication

(Gerbner,

1983)for

adiscussion

ofcritical

media

stud

iesscholarship.

For

arecen

targ

um

ent

insu

pp

ort

of

politicaleconom

y-basedan

alyses

ofmedia

andcu

lture

andsom

ecritical

responsesto

the

argu

men

t,see

aspecial

colloquyin

Critical

Studies

inM

assC

omm

unication(G

andy,

1995).12

As

opposedto

aesthetic

andsocial

codes,logical

codesare

monosem

ic,th

atis,

the

signifierstands

foronly

onesignified.

As

Leeda-H

urwitz

(1993)illu

strated,

“scienceuses

logicalcodes

becauseth

en

um

ber

4alw

aysstands

forth

esam

enum

berofitem

s, wh

ereas

my

birth

day

giftto

youof

ascarf,

aspart

ofa

socialcode,

implies

notonly

that

I

remem

beredyour

dayb

ut

equallyth

atI

know(or

donot

know)

yourpreferences

incolor

andfabric”

(p.68).

16

CH

AP

TE

R1

UN

DE

RS

TA

ND

iNG

KA

RA

OK

EA

SC

OM

MU

NiC

AT

ION

17

sociallypertin

ent

meanings

forth

emselv

esw

ithth

e“sem

ioticresources

providedby

television”(p.

65).L

indaS

teiner

(1988)contended

that

readers

ofMs.

magazine

engagein

oppositionaldecodingofv

arious

prin

tm

ediam

essages,including

wh

atthey

consideras

insu

lting

advertise

men

ts,th

us

resisting

these

messages’

preferred

readings.S

ome

recent

audiencereception

scholarshiphas

focusedm

oreon

the

constrain

tsplaced

onth

eaudience

byth

em

ediasystem

oren

viro

mnen

tat

large.T

hisw

orkrep

resents

am

idway

poin

ton

the

aforementioned

continuum.

Dan

aL

.C

loud’s(1992)

ambivalence

thesis,

forexam

ple,suggests

that

popular

texts

“offerview

ersa

multiplicitous

but

struc

tured

mean

ing

systemin

which

instan

cesof

multivocality

areco

mple

men

taryparts

ofth

esystem

’soverall

hegemonic

design”(p.

314).In

oth

erw

ords,alth

ough

audiencem

embers

canbe

seenas

activein

ter

preters

ofm

ediam

essages,they

doso

onth

ebasis

ofco

nstrain

edcu

ltural

choices.A

rnoldS.

Wolfe

(1992)arg

ued

that

“interp

retation

isa

cultu

rallydeterm

ined

practicerooted

incodes

shared

bym

essage-m

akers

and

consumers

belongingto

the

same

culture”(p. 272);

that

is,“[the]m

eanin

gof

media

texts

isenabled

andco

nstrain

edby

the

cultu

reofits

orig

inatio

nand

completed,

evenifnot

created,by

itsau

diçce”

(p.273).

More

recently,Jo

hn

M.

Sloop

(1994)offered

acase

studyof

howvario

us

hegemonic

socialforces

candiscipline

the

producersof

con

troversial

texts,

which

hecalled

the

“groundsof

interp

retation

.”In

exam

ininghow

the

rapgroup

Public

Enem

y—”a

voicefrom

the

‘margins’

ofA

merican

culture”(p.

345)—w

aspressu

redto

apologizefor

and

re-pre

sent

certainan

ti-Sem

iticstatem

ents

made

bya

ban

dm

ember,

Sloop

contendedth

at”

..

.regard

lessof

howm

uchspace

audiencem

embers

havefor

interp

retation

orevaluation,

‘criticaltexts’

andth

eirproducers

areencouraged

thro

ugh

cultu

raldiscipline

tobecom

esupportive

ofthe

dom

inan

tideology

rather

than

resistant

toit”

(p.357).

Inoth

erw

ords,th

eproduction

ofcritical

media

texts

canbe

tempered

bydom

inan

tcu

ltural

forces.It

isim

po

rtant

tonote

that

the

media

texts

studied

thu

sfar—

suchas

televisionprogram

s,popular

magazines,

androm

ancenovels—

donot

involveth

eiraudiences

inth

eprocess

whereby

their

semiotic

resourcesare

produced.If

these

media

texts

arew

hat

Sloop

(1994)called

the

groundsof

interp

retation

,th

enaudiences

arecertain

lylim

itedin

the

exten

tto

which

they

canneg

otiate

mean

ing

becauseth

eyin

terpret

onth

egro

unds

built

byothers.

Ofcourse,

not

alltrad

ition

alm

assm

ediaproducts

areclosed

texts

inth

esense

that

their

semiotic

resourcescannot

bephysically

alteredby

the

audienced

urin

gth

econsum

ptionprocess.

Toa

certainex

tent,

radiolisteners

caninjectpotentially

unforeseeninform

ationinto

call-inshow

sduring

theircalls.

Similarly,

audiencem

embers

atrock

concertsm

ayaffectthe

outcome

ofaperform

ance.T

heycan

cheerfor

theperform

ers,thus

making

thelatter

more

gratifiedand

engagedin

theirperform

ance.

They

canalso

booor

eventhrow

objectsonto

the

stage,th

us

up

setting

theprocess

of theperform

anceitself.

How

ever,although

audiencem

embers

playa

part

ininjecting

un

plannedinform

ationinto

thesem

ediaproducts, they

donot control these

products’actual

overallplanning

orproduction.

Indeed,th

eaudience’

presenceor

behaviorin

theearlier-m

entionedor

othersim

ilarm

ediaev

ents

isd

ictatedbye

events’producers,

who

hav

eevery

incentiveto

pro

tectth

ein

terestsof

their

financialor

institu

tion

alsp

onso

rs.R

adioproducers

canan

ddo

screenout

callersdeem

edp

oten

tiallydisruptive

toth

ep

redeterm

ined

flowof

their

program.

They

beepout

callers’unaccep

table

words.

Sim

ilarly,police

orsecurity

personnelare

oftenb

rou

gh

tin

torock

concertsto

prev

ent

anyreal

interferen

cew

iththe

show’s

preset

agenda.In

oth

erw

ords,the

desig

ai

constructionof

theco

nten

tof

these

media

productsis

essentially

out

of the

han

ds

oftheir

al4dience.In

short,

this

discussionhig

hlig

hts

vario

us

conceptionsof

therole

that

the

media

audienceplays

inreceiving

and

interp

reting

mass

media

messages.

But

the

discussionto

date,

particu

larlyin

criticalaudience

receptionscholarship,

tends

tofocus

onanalyzing

them

ediaaudience

asread

ers,m

assm

ediaproducts

orm

essages

astex

ts,and

audienceconsum

ptionofm

assm

ediaproducts

asa

processof read

ing

texts.S

ucha

literaryperspective

inan

alyzin

geveryday

cultu

rescan

beconfining.

As

Carey

(1995)argued:

This

isseen

most

clearlyas

culturalstudies

was

absorbedinto

modern

languagedepartm

entsand

dominated

byliterary

outlooks.For

themthe

studyof

socialphenom

enaw

asreduced

tointeractions

with

atext—

to,how

everelaborated, an

encodingand

decodingm

od

el...T

hem

ediumis

notthem

essage,noriait the

economy, butthe

complex

interplaybetw

eena

technologyand

theentire

political, economic, and

cultural infrastructurebuilt

upin

relationto

thearticulation

of aw

ayoflife.

(p.84)

Sim

ilarly,M

oores(1993)

provideda

tho

ughtfu

loverview

ofaudience

receptionscholarship

byarg

uin

gfor

the

importance

andurgency

ofstu

dyin

gaudience

csu

mptio

nof

media

pru

cts

inits

natu

ralen

vi

ronm

ent,th

atis, th

e’thn

og

raphy

of media

u)T

he

literaryperspective

onth

eaudience

asread

ersof

media

texts,

asI

dem

on

strateand

arguenext,

certainly

isin

adeq

uate

inan

alyzin

ghow

media

consumers

engagein

karao

ke

asa

cultu

ralpractice.

Itcannot

explainhow

karao

ke

partici

pan

tscan

and

doact

asactive

agen

ts’3

inindigenizing

orlocalizing

,existin

gm

ass-med

iatedproducts;

that

is,ap

pro

priate

karao

ke

technol

(ogy

andm

usicin

the

constructionof

their

perso

nal

and

socialw

ebsof

\sign

iflcance.

13

Wong’s

(1994)stu

dy

focuseson

therole

of hum

anagency

inth

eco

nstru

ction

ofkarao

ke

cultu

res.S

eealso

Lum

(1994b).

18

CH

AP

TE

R1

UN

DE

RS

TA

ND

ING

KA

RA

OK

EA

SC

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

19

Fro

mR

eadin

gto

Pro

ductio

n

Isuggestth

atw

econceptualize

thosepeople

who

participatein

karaokescenes

nju

stas

media

consumers

who

readw

hat

theybuy

fromthe

mark

et(a

rao

ke

music)

bu

tas

producersof

thein

dig

eniz

Zciiã

/products

‘(theirow

nkaraoke

episodesand

performances)

theyat

thesam

etim

econsum

e.T

heyare

producersin

two

ways.

First,they

arethe

onesw

hoplan

ororganize

thekaraoke

scenesw

herethey

arealp

theperform

ersand

aud

ience,

Inthe

karaokescenes

theyput

together,particip

ants

can(and

oftendo)

setth

eirow

nrules

orplotthe

scenesfor

their

own

purposes,fromthe

setting

andrules

ofdecorumto

thespecific

music

versionsto

beused

.’4

At

ano

ther

level,karaoke

particip

ants

arethe

producersof

theperform

ancesin

karaokescenes.

Goffm

an(1959)

referredto

perfo

rmance

as“all

theactivity

ofan

individualw

hichoccurs

duringa

periodm

arkedby

hiscontinuous

presencebefore

aparticu

larset

ofobserversjand

which

has

some

influenceon

theobservers”

(p.22).

Perform

ancesare

theactual,

livedacts,

events,and

situationsth

atare

thesubstance

\ofhuman

interaction(B

auman

&S

herzer,1q89;F

tymes,

1975)th

athelplestablish, revise,and

eventuallym

aintain

interactionalstru

cture

inthe

onte

xt

ofeveryday

life(L

eeds-Hurw

itz,S

igman,

&S

ullivan,1995).

Thus,karaoke

performers—

bothsingers

andaudience

mem

bers—

literally

produceor

createth

eirscenes

with

eachetheL

There

aretw

ocategories

ofperformance

ina

karaokescene.T

hefirst

categoryis

theparticipants’activity

while

interactin

gw

ithothers

inthe

audienceare

.T

hesecond

isthe

activityofengaging

with

karaokem

usicthe

stagearea.

Idiscussed

earlierm

ostof

thebasic

dramaturgical

elements

that

helpconstruct

karaokescenes.

Inow

turn

tothe

specificrole

ofkaraokem

usicin

constructingthe

performance

inthe

stagearea.

Inand

ofitself,

karaokem

usicor

songsare

incomplete

inth

eirco

nten

t—b

ydefinition,

anorchestra

without

thelead

vocal.K

araokeC

music

isdesigned

tobe

reprocessed,to

beinterw

ovenw

ithlive

vocals.

15

Of

course,the

karaokem

usicproducers

havealready

setup

inth

eirstudio

them

usical-teeh

ncal p

arameters

that th

eirconsum

erscan

orare

expectedto

perfo

rwith

in.

Inaddition,

many

karaokeperform

ersdo

tryto

sing“ce”

(‘orn

d,,

1994,p.

92)—

thajjita

teor

conformto

them

usical-technical-speciflcitiesofthe

Lusic.

1

14

l’or

legalorfinancialreasons,karaokem

usicproducers

normally

donotuse

them

astersound

tracksby

the

originalartists.

Instead,they

hireth

eirow

nperform

ersto

reproduceor

imitate

theoriginal

music.

As

aresult,

therecan

beas

many

versionsof

onesong

asthere

aresoftw

areproducers.

Some

peoplew

hoare

usedto

oneparticular

versionofa

songm

aynot

likeor

beable

tosing

renditionsby

otherproducing

groups.‘5O

ne

canw

atcha

music

videoon

akaraoke

laserdiscw

ithits

vocaltrack

on,but

that

isan

actof w

atchingvideo,

inm

uchthe

same

way

asone

watches

anyprerecorded

videoor

music

videoon

MT

VIt

doesnot

constitutea

karaokescene.

How

everth

atis just one

ofavariety

of ways

inw

hichpeople

approach

karaokeperform

ance.To

some

peoplesinging

karaokeis

butone

way

tocongregate

with

peoplew

hosecom

panythey

en.joy,].le.yreallY

don

Ot,

carem

uchif they

cansing

well

atall. A

sJam

es,a

youngprofessional

at

apharm

aceutical company

inN

ewJersey, told

me

at theend

ofaprivate

karaokeparty,

“Sinceall

of usare

amateu

rsand

we

will

neverbeat

the

proslike

Lau

Tak-H

wa

[apopular

singerin

Hong

Kongi, w

eshould

then

just

doour

best,be

ourselves,enjoy

ourselves.To

expressourselves

is

them

ostim

portan

tthing.”

Sim

ilarly,there

arepeople

who

forvarious

reasonsdeliberately

changethe

words

ofthe

songsthey

sing.I

observedhow

Peter,

an

employee

ofR

ichardand

Diane’s,

presentedhim

selfat

theirparty

mentioned

atthe

beginningof

this

chapter.It

was

known

among

the

couple’sem

ployeesth

atR

ichardand

Diane

heldopposing

views

of Peter;

Richard

didnot

likeP

eter,w

hereasD

ianedid.

Insinging

Elvis’

“The

Haw

aiianW

eddingSong,”

Peter

changedthe

lines“I

loveyou

with

all

my

heart”(to

“Ilove

my

bossw

ithall

my

heart”)and

“Prom

isem

eth

at

youw

illleave

me

never”(to

“Prom

isem

eth

atyou

will fire

me

never”).

All

thew

hile,P

etertu

rned

toR

ichard,w

how

assitting

comfortably

in

hiscouch,

butw

hodid

notseem

topay

much

attentio

nto

what

Peter

was

doing.In

otherw

ords,th

ereis

notelling

priorto

theperform

ancehow

karaoke’sprepackaged

music

will

eventuallysound

when

them

usicis

mixed

with

livevocals

or, forth

atm

atter, howp

articipan

tsw

ill respor4d

tothe

finaloutcom

e.E

quallyim

portant,karaoke

music

ism

eantto

be

integ

ratedas

part

ofa

largç

event. 1Itrep

resents

just

oneof the

many

audiovisua1rlements

orsem

ioticresources

that

make

upa

performance

onstag

epeople’s

costume,

makeup,

styleaud. com

petenceof p

resenta

tion,persona,

reputation,and

soforth,

areas

impo

rtant

asth

eirchoice

of music

inpackaging

their

performance

inthe

stageare

.’6

Because

the

productionof

karaokeperform

ancesinvolves

theaudience

ina

live

environment—

unlikethe

productionof

anyother

traditionalm

assm

e-i

dia—the

cultural projectsof karaoke

arebynature4ynam

ic.hybri4.and

intenselyindigenous.

Accordingly,

thein

terpretatio

nof

thesocial

and

cultu

ralsignificance

ofkaraoke’s

performances

canoften

bedifficult,

unpredictable,and

volatile.

The

Site

of

Sig

nifican

ce

Given

anu

nderstan

din

gof

then

ature

ofkaraoke’s

culturalp

rod

uc

tions—that

is,the

constructionof

andthe

performances

inkaraoke

‘61n

hisstudy

ofasam

pleof karaoke

scenesin

Taiw

an,R

ingoM

a(1994)

suggestedth

at

aperform

er’sreputation

andregional

backgroundcan

playa

rolein

determining

howthe

audiencew

illreact

tothe

performance.

20

CH

AP

TE

R1

UN

DE

RS

TA

ND

ING

KA

RA

OK

EA

SC

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

21

scenes—w

em

ust

confrontthe

questionofhow

significanceor

mean

ing

may

bederived

fromth

eseprojects.

What

arethe

groundsof

interp

retatio

n?

Toad

dress

this

question,I

utilizeS

tanley

Fish’s

(1980)m

terpre

tivecom

munities

approachas

my

conceptualfram

e,for

three

reasons.

First,

the

fieldresearch

onw

hichth

isbook

isbased

indicates

thatpeople

who

congregatein

similar

dram

aturg

icalsites

tend

tosh

aresocial,

economic,

andeth

nic

backgrounds.S

econd,people

who

congregatein

their

preferred

karao

ke

scenesten

dto

utilize

karao

ke

tosim

ilarends.

Third,

assu

ggested

earlier,people

congregatingin

karao

ke

scenesplay

anactive

rolein

the

constru

ction

and

appro

priatio

nofm

eanin

gs.

An

interp

retive

comm

unityis

the

sumofpeople

who

experiencea

text

accordingto

afram

eof

referencecom

monly

shared

among

them.

An

interp

retive

comm

unitysh

aresa

setofassum

ptio

ns

resultin

gfrom

prio

rknow

ledge,experience,v

alues,beliefs,

and

expectations(F

ish,1980). In

itsoriginal

theo

reticalcontext,th

ein

terpretiv

ecom

munities

thesis

was

positedto

shedlig

ht

onth

eactive

roleth

ata

reader

playsin

gen

erating

mean

ing

while

engaginga

literaryw

ork.A

sF

ish(1980)

argued:

Ifm

eaningis

embedded

inthe

text,the

reader’sresponsibilities

arelim

itedto

thejob

ofgetting

itout;

butif

meaning

develops,and

ifit

developsin

adynam

icrelationship

with

thereader’s

expectations,projections,

conclusions,judgm

ents,and

assumptions,

theseactivities

(thethings

thatreader

does)are

notm

erelyinstrum

ental,or

mechanical,but

essential,and

theact

ofdescriptionm

ustboth

beginand

endw

iththem

.(pp.

2—3)

Any

mean

ing

deemed

significantto

mem

bersofth

ecom

munity,

there

fore,is

nota

staticen

tityprepackaged

byth

eau

tho

rinto

the

text

itself.In

stead,

itis

the

outcome

ofanongoing

processofin

terpretatio

nofw

hat

isp

resented

inth

etex

tth

rough

the

lookingglass

ofth

ereader’s

frame

ofreference.

Presum

ably,th

en,

readers

with

differen

tfram

esof

refe

rence

will

gen

eratediv

ergen

tm

eanin

gs

fromeven

asingle

text.P

eoplew

hosh

area

similar

frame

ofreference

andsetf

interp

retations

fora

text,th

en,

constitu

tean

terp

retiv

eco

mm

unity

)B

ut

we

haveto

becautious

inusin

gF

ish’sin

t&pretiv

ecom

munities

approachto

conceptualizeth

esen

se-mak

ing

experienceof

karao

ke

particip

ants.

We

cannot

claimth

atkarao

ke

particip

ants

havesom

eso

rtof

formal

interp

retive

strategies

inth

esam

ew

ayF

ishsp

eaks

ofth

ein

terpretiv

estrateg

iesem

ployedby,

forin

stance,

Marxist,

Freu

dian

,or

Jungian

literarycritics.

Sim

ilarly,w

ecannot

equate

akarao

ke

audi

ence’sstrateg

yto

Ludw

ikFleck’s

(1979)th

ought

styleor

Thom

asS.

Kuhn’s

(1970)paradigm

,as

the

lattertw

oconcepts,

inth

eiroriginal

contexts,are

used

todescribe

the

setsof

formal

proceduresth

atscien

tistsem

ployto

frame

and

understan

dth

eirsubjects.

Fish’s

interp

retive

strategy,F

leck’sth

ought

style,an

dK

uhn’sparad

igm

areth

eresu

ltof

direct,explicit,

andsy

stematic

trainin

g.

Karaoke

particip

ants,

onthe

oth

erh

and

,do

nothave

anysuch

formal

trainin

gfor

constructingth

eirin

terpretiv

estrateg

ies.H

owever

peopledo

brin

gyears

ofexperiencein

comm

unicatingw

ithoth

ers,especially

thoselik

eth

emselv

es,to

karao

ke

scenes.T

hisis

theset

ofsocial,

economic,

political,an

dcu

ltural

conditionsth

atthey

aresocialized

into;an

dth

ecollective

asw

ellas

indiv

idual

ways

ofdoing

thin

gs

they

acquirein

response

toth

eseconditions.

Com

munication,

asW

endyL

eeds-H

urw

itz,(1989)

remin

ded

us,is

alearned

behavior.T

hroughinform

alsocialization,

orw

hat

E.

Weinstein

(1969)called

incid

ental

learnin

g,

peopleacquire

the

rules

and

skillsnecessary

forin

teracting

with

oth

ersand

inth

eprocess

become

part

ofacom

munity.

Inad

dressin

gth

erole

ofcomm

unicationin

comm

unitybuilding, Jo

hn

Dew

ey(1916)

suggested:

There

ism

orethan

averbal

tiebetw

eenthe

words

comm

on,com

munity,

andcom

munication.M

enlive

ina

comm

unityin

virtueofthe

thingsw

hichthey

havein

comm

on;and

comm

unicationis

thew

ayin

which

theycom

eto

possessthings

incom

mon.

What

theym

usthave

incom

mon.

..are

aims,

beliefs,

aspiratio

ns,

knowledge—

acom

mon

under

standing—likem

indednessas

sociologistssay.(pp.

5—6)

The

likem

inded

ness

among

peoplegives

them

the

iden

tityof

beingm

embers

ofa

comm

unity.It

isth

islik

emin

ded

ness

among

peopleth

atform

sth

eircom

mon

frame

ofreference

toco

nstru

ctand

comprehend

their

socialand

cultu

ralreality.

As

Jensen

(1990)elab

orated

onthe

interp

retive

comm

unitiesapproach:

Itshould

beem

phasizedth

atinterpretive

comm

unitiesrepresent

ananalytical

perspectivethat

complem

entsrather

thansubstitutes

forso

cioeconomic

categories.F

irst,the

word

interpretiveim

pliesthat

audi

ences,w

hilebeing

demographic

entities,

alsom

akeup

culturalform

ations,w

hoseinterpretive

strategiesin

relationto

mass

media

giverise

todifferent

constructionsofsocial

reality.T

herelationship

between

culturaland

demographic

formations

isnot

well

understood.Second,

thew

ordcom

munities

indicatesthat

audiencesm

ayalso

constitutesocial

agentsw

ithshared

interests,or

publics.(p.

130)

What

Iam

sug

gestin

gis

that,

desp

iteits

literaryroots,

the

interp

retive

comm

unitiesapproach

canbe

usedto

conceptualizehow

people’scom

mon

socialand

economic

characteristics

may

playa

rolein

their

conceiving,producing,

and

ultim

atelym

akin

gsen

seof

their

own

karao

ke

experiencesas

bothproducer

andaudience.

Therefore,

inthe

contextof

this

book,I

amrefram

ing

Fish’s

(1980)in

terpretiv

eco

mm

un

itiesapproach

asa

socialand

cultu

ralrath

erth

anas

aliterary

project.In

doingso,

Isuggest

that

Im

ust

alsolocate

karao

ke

practicesin

their

22

CH

AP

TE

R1

specificsocial

andcultural

location,w

hereseveral

interpretiveco

mm

u

nitiesofC

hineseA

merican

imm

igrantshave

spunth

eirkaraoke

dram

a

turgicalw

ebs.In

thenext

chapter,before

Ibegin

my

presentationand

analysisof

thedivergentkaraoke

experiencesofthe

three

interpretivecom

munities

offirst-generationC

hineseA

merican

imm

igrantsI

encounteredduring

fieldwork,

Iexam

inein

historicaland

sociologicalterm

show

karaoke

canbe

analyzedas

part

ofthe

overallm

ediaexperience

oftheC

hinese

diasporain

theU

nitedS

tates.T

herefore,chapter

2is

acontinuation

of

\the

discussionin

this

curren

tchapter,

where

Ihave

analyzedkaraoke

atechnologicalem

bodiment

of certaincultural

practicesofam

ateur,

cofrniunalsinging,

andthe

indispensablerole

oftheparticip

ants

inthe

constructionof

socialreality

orm

eaningsin

everydaycontexts.

The

remain

der

ofthebook

isorganized

asfollow

s.C

hapters3, 4,

and5

analyzethe

useof

karaokein

threeC

hineseA

merican

imm

igrantcom

munities,

The

analysisin

thesechapters

revealsthe

differingm

eanings

anduses

of karaoketechnology

andparticipation

acrossthe

com

munities.T

hesedivergent

meanings

anduses

arerelated

tocontrasting

lifecircum

stancesof

mem

bersof

thethree

comm

unities.C

hapter6

summ

arizesthe

data

andplaces

themw

ithina

largertheoreticalcontext

that

isconcerned

with

theim

migrant

experiencein

theU

nitedS

tates

andthe

roleof

interactivem

ediatechnology

inpeople’s

constructionof

their

socialand

culturalidentities.

2M

edia

inth

eC

hin

eseA

merican

Experien

ce:T

he

Form

atio

nan

dM

edia

/ tion

of

the

Diasp

ora

/T

hem

assm

ediaplay

anim

portan

trole

inthe

socialand

culturallife

of

imm

igrantsin

theU

nitedS

tates.A

tthe

turn

of the20th

century,such

prominent

scholarsas

Charles

Cooley

(1909),D

ewey

(1916), andR

obert

Park

(1920,1925)

beganto

reflectonthe

relationshipbetw

eenthe

press

andth

eim

migrant

experience.P

ark(1922),

forexam

ple,exam

inedthe

roleth

atthe

foreign-languagd’tressplayed

infacilitating

orinhibiting

theassim

ilationand

Am

ericanizationof im

migrants.

Most

oftheim

mi

gran

tsth

atP

ark(1922)

examined

had

beenpeasan

tsin

Europe.

These

earlyim

migrants

were

drawn

tothe

imm

igrantpressbecause

theyw

ere

notallow

edto

haveth

eirow

npress

while

athom

efor

politicalreasons.

Living

inthe

United

States,

theyacquired

thefreedom

toread

and

produceinform

ationofth

eirchoiG

e,includinginform

ationto

keepthem

intouch

with

their

homelands

orhelp

themadjust

toth

eiradopted

countryT

hew

orkby

Park

andhis

contemporaries

instudying

theim

migrant

presshelped

initiate

thediscussion

ofhowthe

mass

media

canbe

used

andanalyzed

asa

means

forthe

expression,m

aintenance,tran

sform

a

tion,or

anycom

binationof

thesetraits

ofdiasporic

culturesand

com

thunities.T

heseearly

works

canalso

helpus

conceptualizethe

roleth

at

them

ediaplay

inestablishing

avoice

forC

hineseim

migrants

inthe

United

States

andhelping

themm

aintain

alink

toth

eirold

cultures.

Indeed,the

roleof

karaokein

thearticulation

ofpart

ofC

hinese

Am

ericanim

migrant

culturehas

tobe

viewed

inthe

contextof

the

overalldevelopm

entof C

hineseA

merican

media.

This

chapterpresents

ahisto

ricaland

sociologicaldiscussion

ofhow

Chinese

Am

erican

karaokecan

andshould

beunderstood

aspart

ofthe

overallm

edia

experiencein

theC

hinesediaspora.

23

KA

RA

OK

EA

ND

Th

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

OF

IDE

NT

IY99

6karaoke

experiencesas

variousexpressions

ofpeople’sethnicity,

socialand

economic

class,and

genderedrelations.

Thereafter;

Idiscuss

some

ofth

etheoretical

implications

ofthese

findingsfor

ourunderstanding

of therelationship

between

karaoke(and

othersim

ilartechnologies

forcom

munication)

andsociety.

Kara

oke

an

dth

eC

onstru

ctio

nof

Identity

This

bookhas

beenconcerned

with

understandingthe

interactionb

etw

eenthe

media

audienceand

karaoke.Its

analysishas

focusedon

thevarious

ways

that

peoplew

ithdifferent

ethnic,social,

ecoom

ic,and

personalfram

esofreference

engagekaraoke

asa

culturalpractiç.

The

analysisis

basedon

ethnographiccase

studiesof

threeinterpretive

comm

unitiesof

first-generationC

hineseA

merican

imm

igrants,w

ithdata

focusingon

howthey

adoptkaraoke

inthe

construction,m

ainte

nance,and

transformation

ofsocialidentity.

As

part

ofthe

theoreticalfram

ework,

Idelineated

inchapter

1th

at,as

atechnology

forcom

munication,karaoke

isthe

materialem

bodiment

ofthe

culturalpractice

ofam

ateur

socialsinging.

As

White

(1962)suggested

inhis

studyoftechnology

andsocial

change,the

introductionofa

newtechnology

intoa

societym

erelyopens

adoor.

How

atechnology

isused

andw

hat

consequencesm

ayresu

ltfrom

itsuse

dependas

much

onthe

generalsocial

conditionsof

adoptionas

onthe

individualneeds

_an

daspirations

of thepeople

who

adoptit.

The

doorth

atkaraoke

opensinvolves

possibilitiesfor

theconstruction

andm

aintenanceof

socialm

emb

ership

througham

ateur

participatorysinging.

People

who

chooseto

enter

thedoor

haveto

exploreand

determine

forthem

selvesw

hatthey

want

todo

with

thesepossibilities.

How

thesepossibilities

areeventually

realizedis

theresu

ltof,

toquote

Carey

(1995)once

again,“the

complex

interplaybetw

eena

technologyand

theentire

political,econom

ic,and

culturalin

frastructu

rebuilt

upin

relationto

thearticu

lationof

aw

ayoflife”

(p.84).

The

divergentvoices

andexperiences

ofthe

threeinterpretive

com

munities

offirst-generationC

hineseA

merican

imm

igrantsanalyzed

inth

isbook

speakdirectly

tothis

complex

interplayam

ongvarious

social,econom

ic,political,

ethnic,and

technologicalforces

inthe

articulationof

culturesor

ways

of lifein

thediaspora.

Inthis

concludingchapter;

1first

brieflysum

marize

howkaraoke

isengaged

aspart

ofthe

socialexperience

ofthethree

interpretivecom

munities.

Ithen

considerthese

98

TH

RE

EV

OIC

ES

:T

HR

EE

AR

TIC

UL

AT

ION

SO

FL

IFE

INT

HE

DIA

SP

OR

A

Three

differentw

aysto

engagekaraoke

ascultural

practiceshave

emerged

fromthe

analysisof

thecase

studiesin

thepreceding

threechapters.

The

firstinterpretive

comm

unityconsists

of Hong

Kong

Can

toneseim

mig

rants

activein

New

York’s

Chinatow

nw

house

karaokeas

acultural

connection.B

utw

hilekaraoke

providesthem

with

alink

toan

oldercultural

practice,the

singingof

Cantonese

operasongs

(yut

kuk), italso

helpsto

transformhow

yutk

uk

issung

andpresented

inthe

contemporary

socialand

technologicalenvironm

ent.P

ersonalm

usicalcom

petenceis

alsoinfluenced

when

theperform

erm

akesa

shiftfrom

singingyutk

uk

with

livem

usicto

singingw

ithprepackaged

karaokem

usic.N

evertheless,people

inth

iscom

munity

usekaraoke

toexpand

their

sociallifew

orldsbeyond

thew

allsoftheiryam

ngokse

andto

cre

ate

j’

aritu

alperform

ancecontext

forth

eircom

patriotsin

theC

hinatown

neighborhoodsIn

theprocess,they

alsohelp

keeppart

of their

musical

traditio

nand

ritual

alivem

thediaspora

The

secondinterpretive

comm

unityis

composed

of Taiw

aneseim

mi

gran

tsactive

inaffluent

suburbsofN

ewJersey

who

engagekaraoke

asan

expressionof th

eirw

ealthand

socialclass.

How

theyorganize

theirprivate

karaokeclubs

andgalas

andth

eirapproach

totheir

karaokeexperiences

revealsa

conspicuousdegree

ofcorporatem

anagerialman

nerisms

anda

competitive

drive.T

hesem

ighthave

beenacquired

asp

artof the

mem

bers’professional

ascents,and

run

parallelto

thew

aythey

havebeen

assimilated

intothe

U.S

.econom

icm

ainstream.

Mem

yçb

ersof

thiscom

munity

manage

their

leisureactivity

ina

way

that

resembles

their

work

inthe

corporateenvironm

ent.T

hestructure

ofth

eirkaraoke

spacesalso

manifests

apatriarch

alsocial

andm

oralw

orldviewT

heth

irdinterpretive

comm

unityis

representedby

certainM

alaysian

Chinese

activein

theF

lushingarea

ofQ

ueensin

New

York

City

wh

oem

ploykaraoke

asan

escapem

echanism.

Multiply

marginalized

\ byth

eirrelatively

loweconom

icstatu

sand

(forsom

e)undocum

entedm

mig

rant

status,

andas

am

inorityw

ithina

minority,

peoplein

thisinterpretive

comm

unityfind

solacein

thecom

munal

webs

of karaoke.

Through

karaoke,they

constructa

voiceof

their

own

that

articulatesth

eirhum

ancondition,

their

alienation,th

eirloneliness,

andthe

ab

10

0C

HA

FrE

R6

KA

RA

OK

EA

ND

TH

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

OF

IDE

NT

flY101

senceof recognition

fromthe

larger

social environment. T

hr,u

gh

imag

i

nativeuses,

karaokeis

transformed

intoa

sortof

therap

eutic

heavenw

herethey

canfind

relieffromth

eirisolated,

hurhdrumrotijL

ne.O

ncloser

analysis,th

ereare

certainunderlying

factorsth

athelp

constructand

distinguishthese

experiencesand

voices.In

referenceto

theinitial

theoretical, historical,and

sociological discussionin

chapters1

and2,

thefollow

ingth

reesections

synthesizehow

thethree

karaokeexperiences

areexpressions

ofthe

diverseethnicities

andeconom

icexperiences,

asw

ellas

contrastinggendered

socialpractices

ofthe

comm

unitym

embers.

Ex

pre

ssion

so

fE

thn

icity

The

diversekaraoke

experiencesanalyzed

inthis

bookexpress

the

complex

ethniccom

positionof

peopleacross

theth

reeinterpretive

comm

unities.A

ccordingto

W.W

. Isajiw(1974),

apeople’s

ethnicity“is

am

atterofa

doubleboundary

aboundary

fromw

ithin, maintained

byth

esocialization

process,and

aboundary

fromw

ithoutestablished

bythe

processof intergroup

relations”(p.

122). As

minority

peoplein

multieth

nicA

merica,

thesefirst-generation

Chinese

imm

igrantshave

toco

n

stantly

neg

otiate

with

peoplein

the

dominant

societyand

oth

er

minorities

toestablish

andm

aintain

their

socialspace

andrep

re

sentation.T

heym

aintain

astrong

tiew

ithpeople

fromsim

ilarb

ackgrounds,

especiallyw

henfacing

overtand

covertracism

orracial

ignoranceand

hostilityin

thelarg

ersociety.

Meanw

hile,regionalism

playsan

importan

trole

inhow

many

Chinese

imm

igrantsdefine

orestablish

their

intragroupm

embership

andbonding.

Historically,

asI

havedocum

ented, many

Chinese

imm

igrantsm

adeth

eiradjustm

ent bystaying

closetogether

forsocial acceptance,

economic

survival,political

protection,and

cultu

ralfam

iliarity-

This

isnot

tosay

that

peoplein

theth

reeinterpretive

comm

unitiesnecessarily

gothrough

thesam

eassim

ilationprocess.

Whereas

many

Chinese

Am

ericansrem

ainin

their

social andethnic

enclaves(like

many

peoplein

Mrs.

Chung

andA

hM

aa’scom

munities), m

anyothers

acquireand

main

taina

pluralisticprofile

(likem

anypeople

inJohn’s

com

mu

nity).O

ncloser

scrutiny,how

ever,even

theextent

ofassim

ilationachieved

byJohn

andhis

compatriots

isnot

complete

orthorough.

Assim

ilation,according

toR

. T. Schaefer

(1979),is

theprocess

whereby

anim

mig

rant

orim

migrant

groupacquires

thetraits

ofthedom

inantsociety

andis

ultimately

absorbedinto

that

societyT

hereis

nodoubt

that

peoplein

John’scom

munity

haveacqm

redsom

etraits

ofthe

dominant

economic

structure,such

ascorporate

managerial

man

ner

isms, professionalism

, am

aterial lifestyle, andso

forth.But they

largelyrem

ainw

ithpeople

fromtheir

ethnicand

regionalbackground

forthe

maintenance

ofth

eirpersonal

lifew

orld.R

ecallw

hatL

ouis,the

presi

dentofaprivate

karaokeclub,said:

“Frankly,th

ereare

interactionsw

ithA

mericans

atthe

professionalor

businesslevel.

But

when

itcom

espersonal

life,it

isseldom

that

Chinese

enter

thesocial

network

of_\A

mericans,

orvice-versa.”

One

shouldnot

overgeneralizeL

ouis’experience

torepresent

theexperience

ofallfirst-generation

Chinese

imm

igrants,but

my

observ

ation

oftheir

karaokepractice

andattendance

toth

eirtestim

oniesleads

me

toconclude

that

Louis’attitu

de

isshared

bym

anypeople

inthe

threecom

munities.

They

arenot

ethnocentric,nor

we

theycenophobic—

forthey

dointeractto

varyingdegrees

with

peoplefrom

outsideoftheir

own

ethnicbaclcground

at

variouspoints,

As

first-generationim

migrants,

theysim

plydo

notshare

thesam

esocial

andlife

historyw

ithpeople

who

otherwise

grewup

inthe

dominant

societyand

thedifferentw

aysoflife

item

bodies.Therefore,itis

un

derstan

dab

leth

atcertain

first-gen

erationim

migrants

cannot,do

not,or

will

notfullyidçntify

with

peoplein

thedom

inantsociety

atthe

social(personal

life)level.

Accordingly,

there

isreaso

nto

wonder

ifassim

ilation—

inS

chaefer’s(1979)

terms—

canever

beaccom

plished.People’s

regionalbackgroundsalso

playa

rolein

their

musical

choice,w

hichcreates

boundariesof

itsow

n.F

orexam

ple,people

inM

rs.C

hung’scom

munity

usem

ostlyC

antoneseopera

andpopularsongs

fromH

ongK

ong.C

oming

froma

regionaland

linguisticbackground

inT

aiwan,

peoplein

John’scom

munity

usem

ostlyM

andarinand

Taiw

anese

songs.The

presenceofJapanese-language

orJapanese-tingedm

usic(such

asenka-style

Taiw

anesesongs)

alsoreveals

adegree

ofJapanesecultural

influencein

thelives

ofsome

ofthesepeople.

Itisa

traitlargelyabsentfrom

theother

two

comm

unities.Finally,the

karaokem

usicused

bypeople

inA

hM

aa’scom

munity

tendsto

bea

mix

ofC

antonese,M

andarin,and

Taiw

anesesongs.

Cantonese,

Mandarin,

andT

aiwanese

arep

artof

thesepeople’s

languagecom

munity

inM

alaysia;m

ediaproducts

fromH

ongK

ongand

Taiw

anencode

thesethree

Chinese

dialects.A

tthe

levelof

East—

West

cross-culturalconsum

ptionof

karaokem

usic,John’scom

munity

seems

them

ostpluralisticofthe

three.O

nthe

average,about

onesixth

toone

fifthof

thesongs

performed

atthe

large-scalekaraoke

galasare

English-language

(notablyA

merican)

songs.‘lb

thecontrary,

Irarely

hear

mem

bersofthe

othertw

ocom

mu

nitiessing

English-language

songs.O

fcourse,

thisfact

alonedoes

notsuggest

that

peoplein

thesetw

ocom

munities

cannotsing

suchsongs.

Itm

aybe

just

am

atterof their

own

musical

preference,partly

definedby

their

personaland

regionalexperience

althoughthe

nonselectionof

English

songsis

widespread

inthese

two

comm

unities.In

short,thekaraoke

practicesofthe

three

interpretivecom

munities,

includingth

eirspecific

choicesofm

usic,are

expressionsofthe

distinctethnic

andregional

backgroundsof

thepeople

asthey

constructand

I

102

CH

AP

TE

R6

KA

RA

OK

EA

ND

TH

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

OF

IDE

NT

flY103

Mrs.

Chung

ccom

munity

Low

erm

iddleto

middle

classPrivate

parties,inform

alyutkuk

practice,street

partieson

Chinese

festivaloccasions

Episodes

Parties/rehearsals:solo

andgroup

singingam

ongfriends;

festivals:solo

orduet

byyw

nngokYe

mem

bersand

mem

bersfrom

theaudience,

oftenjuxtaposed

with

human

andtraffic

noisesin

thestreet

SettingsPrivately

owned

spaces:houses

andstores;

publicvenues:

streets

Privatelyow

nedkaraoke

videocassettetape

orlaserdisc

players,television

monitors,

largespeaker

systemfor

streetparties

Mostly

Cantonese

operasongs,

some

Cantonese

popularsongs

fromH

ongK

ong

Karaoke

Courteous;

toleratesdecorum

interruptionsor

inattentionat

streetparties;

noorganizational

codesto

follow;

casualattire

Johnscom

munity

Upper

middle

toupper

classPrivate

parties,m

onthlyclub

meetings,

lessons,annual

orsem

iannualkaraoke

anddancing

galasPaitiesJrehearsals:

solosinging,

groupsinging

onlyduring

practices;galas:

well-dressed

performers

and(som

e)w

ell-rehearsedand

choreographedperform

anceson

stage,ballroom

dancinga

standardfeature

Expensive

privatehom

es(som

ew

ithspecially

designedkaraoke

facilities),sem

ipublicvenues:

fancyballroom

sat

hotelsand

restaurantsPrivately

owned

state-of-the-art

karaoketechnology,

professionalsound

andlighting

forgalas,

oneclub

hasow

nprofessional

audiovisualequipm

entonstage

Mostly

Mandarin

songs,som

eT

aiwanese

andsom

eE

nglishsongs,

afew

Japanese-tingedsongs

(e.g..enka)

Courteous;

rulesof

engagementexplicated

organizationally,partisan

applauselikely

atgalas;

casualto

semiform

alattire

atprivate

parties,sem

iformal

toform

aldress

codesfor

galas

Ah

Maa

comm

unity

Working

tolow

erm

iddleclassB

irthdayparties,

informal

gatheringsat

ethnickaraoke

clubsand

restaurants

Mostly

soloperform

ancebut

groupsinging

isnot

unusual,dram

atizedinteraction

with

littlerehearsal

Mostly

publicvenues:

localrestaurants

with

karaokeequipm

ent,sm

allkaraoke

clubsopen

tothe

public

Mostly

usem

oderatekaraoke

facilityat

restaurantsansI

publicclubs

Mostly

am

ixof

Mandarin

andC

antonesesongs,

some

Fukieneseand

some

Taiw

anesesongsC

ourteous;no

organizationalcodes

tofollow

,casual

attire

‘Based

ona

literaryan

alysis,

Victoria

Ch

en(1994)

providedan

insightfuld

iscussio

n

onhow

certainsecond-generation

Chinese

Am

ericansresolve

some

of theidentity

dilem

mas

theyface.

TAB

LE6.1

Com

parisonof

Karaoke

Scen

esA

crossT

hreeC

omm

unities

Social/eco

nomic

classO

ccasions

main

tainsocial m

embership. T

hefact th

at peoplein

thesethree

comm

unities

socializem

ostlyw

ithothers

ofa

similar

regionalbackground

isindicative

oftheim

portant roleth

at regionalismplays

inthe

constructionand

maintenance

of Chinese

identity;th

atC

hineseare

notjust

Chinese,

butC

hinesefrom

“where.”

Of

course,it

isim

portan

tto

noteth

atthe

experiencesofthese

first-generationim

mig

rmts

caInotaull h

ould

notjbe

generalizedto

represen

thow

their

offspringin

thediaspora

might

onstru

ct,m

aintain,or

negotiateth

eirethnic

identity—for

thelatter

are

lacculturatedin

adifferent

society,a

thfferet

region.’M

oreover,they

nig

ht

alsohave

views

ofth

eirparents’

homeland

orcultures

that

areèlifferent

fromw

hat

their

parentshave

inm

indor

practice.

Ex

pre

ssion

so

fC

lass

The

karaokepractices

ofthe

three

interpretivecom

munities

arealso

expressionsof the

people’sdivergent

economic

experiences,at

boththe

inter-as

well

asintracom

munity

levels.A

tthe

intercomm

urntylevel,

theth

reein

terpretiv

ecom

munities

represen

tthree

economic

exp

eriences

orclasses

inC

hineseA

merica.

People

inJohn’s

comm

unitybelong

toan

upperm

iddleto

upperclass;

theyare

economically

accomplished

andfairly

well-assim

ilatedinto

theU

.S. m

ainstream.

Mem

bersin

Mrs.

Chung’s

comm

unity,in

contrast,belong

toa

middle

tolow

erm

iddle

class,living

comfortably

butrem

ainingm

ostlyin

theeconom

icenclave

of New

York’s

Chinatow

n.F

inally,people

inA

hM

aa’scom

munity,

with

theexception

ofa

fewen

trepren

eurs,

come

froma

working-class

back

groundand

survivein

am

ostlyunderground

economy,

some

byliving

atthe

minim

um-w

agelevel.

The

economic

distinctionsand

lifestylesof

theth

reegroups

arem

anifestin

howthey

materialize

their

karaokescenes.

These

people’skaraoke

webs

of significanceare

spunand

suspendedin

threedifferent

socialspaces.

(See

Table

6.1for

acom

parisonacross

thethree

com

mu

nities’ karaokedram

aturgicalw

ebsth

athighlights

some

ofthesediffer

ences.)O

necan

easilydiscern,

forexam

ple,the

extravaganceem

bodiedin

thekaraoke

scenesin

John’scom

munity

ascom

paredto

them

aterialsim

plicityof

the

karaokescenes

where

peoplein

Ah

Maa’s

comm

unitym

ostlycongregate. T

hesew

ebsdo

not intersect,forpeople

donot readily

crossbetw

eeneach

other’skaraoke

spacesas

am

atterofcourse.

People

inthese

three

interpretivecom

munities

donot

haveany

genuine,su

stained

interciasssocial

interaction.In

certaincases, som

epeople

inthe

New

Jerseycom

munity

were

quiteunw

illingto

bein

anykaraoke

scenesth

at didnot m

atchth

eirow

n. These

Props

Music

104

CH

AP

TE

R6

peoplehave

better

karaokefacilities

athom

eth

anare

foundin

typicalC

hineserestau

rants.

One

suchm

ember

sawit

this

way:

“Those

whose

equip

men

tisnot

asgood

asth

eclubs

[thatopen

toth

epublic]

may

wan

t

togo

tothose

clubs.”A

ccordingto

this

person’sview

,the

karao

ke

facility

that

onehas

(ordoes

nothave)

becomes

aclass

symbol.

Asked

ifhe

had

goneto

karao

ke

clubsin

Flu

shin

g,

Queens,

anoth

eraffluent

clubm

ember

responded:“F

lushing?N

o,it’s

toofar

away.”

But

when

Ipressed

furth

erby

suggestin

gth

atth

erew

erea

fewkarao

ke

clubsin

New

Jerseyth

atw

ereopen

toth

epublic,

this

man

said:

Iheard

thelevel

of thepeople

goingto

thoseclubs

[apause

here].

.. I

don’t know.

..

. They

smoke

inthe

club,w

uyenchangch’i

[“full of bador

filthysm

okeand

fume”]. W

hyare

we

going[there]?

If we

want to

chat with

ourfriends,

it’scom

fortableto

doso

athom

e...

. We

haven’tbeento

anyofthose

clubs.(italicsadded)

Notice

that

this

info

rman

tpau

sedafter

hisreference

to“the

levelofth

epeople

goingto

those

clubs.”H

equickly

shiftedto

smoking

and

cigarette

fumes

ashis

reason

fornot

goingto

“thoseclubs.”

But

the

aphorismw

uyenchangch’i,

referring

tobad

smoke

andsm

ellat

the

sensorylevel,

alsois

avalu

estatem

ent

suggestinghow

aplace

isfilled

with

socialill

and

filth.T

heap

horism

might

havebeen

usedconnotatively

atboth

the

sensoryan

dth

esocial-valuative

levels.P

eoplein

Ah

Maa’s

and

Mrs.

Chung’s

comm

unitiesare

noten

tirely

imm

une

toth

iskin

dof social

self-selectivity(or

exclusivity),alth

ough

Idid

observeon

severaloccasions

that

peoplein

thelow

ereconom

icclass

seemed

tobe

receptiveto

mixing

with

peoplefrom

ahig

her

economic

class.A

tAh

Maa’s

firstkarao

ke

birthday,one

of her

friendsbro

ughth

erm

aleem

ployeran

dconspicuously

introducedhim

with

the

words

“He

isa

boss.”P

eoplew

hooverheard

the

intro

ductio

nin

variab

lytu

rned

their

head

sto

the

man.

This

intro

ductio

nand

the

reaction

itcaused

seemed

toin

dicate

adegree

of classconsciousness

among

peoplein

this

com

mu

nity, includingth

ew

oman

herself.Butpeople

atthep

artydid

notap

pear

torejectth

eboss,

although

they

initially

main

tained

some

distancefrom

him.

Itw

ashalfw

ayinto

the

nig

ht

beforehe

was

ableto

blendin

with

asm

allgroup

ofguests

activein

singingkarao

ke.

Icannot

helpb

ut

keepw

onderinghow

,with

outth

ew

oman

asa

guide,hem

ighthave

otherwise

faredw

ithth

iscrow

d,m

anyofw

homsurvived

onm

inimum

wages

fromth

eirow

nem

ployers.It

isalso

imp

ortan

tto

noteth

at,at

the

intraco

mm

unity

level,m

em

bersm

ayhav

evary

ing

economic

experiences.H

owindividuals

with

ina

comm

unityengage

karao

ke

certainly

expressesth

eireconom

icatta

in

ments

andsocial

status

asm

embers

ofth

atcom

munity.

How

ever,m

ycom

parativeanalysis

of thethree

casesindicates

that

intragroupco

mpetition

existsan

dth

atit

ism

ostpronouncedin

theaffluentinterpretive

KA

RA

OK

EA

ND

Th

EC

ON

STR

UC

TIO

NO

FID

EN

TIT

I1

05

comm

unityin

New

Jersey.A

sanalyzed

inch

apter

4,karao

ke

alongw

ithoth

ersig

nify

ing

objectssuch

ashouses

and

music

teachers

establishesone’s

status

with

inth

ecom

munity.

This

kin

dof in

tragro

up

comparison

orcom

petitiondoes

not

seemto

man

ifestitself

inth

eoth

ertw

oin

ter

pretivecom

munities.

Expre

ssions

of

Gendere

dP

ractic

e

As

suggestedin

chap

ter1,

Rakow

’s(1988)

gen

dered

interp

retation

oftechnology

enablesus

toconceptualize

technologyuse

asa

socialpra

ctice

that

reflectsgen

der

relation

s.C

ertainkarao

ke

practicesI

observedin

my

ethnograp

hy

indicate

suchgendered

practices.F

orexam

ple,a

wom

anclub

mem

beronce

observed:

Guys

tendto

likem

usicalinstruments

more.

If thehusband

doesn’twant

tobuy

[akaraoke

machine],

we

wives

just

don’thaveit.

Irarely

seea

guybuying

[akaraoke

machine]

forhis

wife

tosing.

Maybe

oneor

two,

Guys

likethe

wires,

orthings

likethat.

We

[wom

en]tend

toreject

them.

Our

friendsare

mostly

likethat.

When

we

havea

gathering,the

wom

enusually

getthe

teaand

chator

something

likethat.

When

theguys

areread

yw

iththe

setup,w

ethen

goto

sing.

It’salw

ays

the

guy

toin

itiate:

“Let’ssing

karaoke.”

Interestingly,th

isw

oman’s

experienceechoes

the

experiencesof

Tim

O’S

ullivan’s(1991)

female

info

rman

ts,whose

hu

sban

ds

tended

tobe

the

onesto

decideon

the

pu

rchase

of family

televisionsets

(citedin

Moores,

1993).M

oores(1993)

and

Morley

(1986)also

founda

tendencyof

male

dominance

in,respectively,

the

uses

ofearly

wireless

andtelevision

remote

controldevices

indom

esticen

viro

nm

ents.

Inreference

toO

’Sul

livan’sfinding,M

oores(1993)

observed:“N

odoubt,th

iscan

beexplained

by[m

en’s]control

overlarge

items

ofhousehold

expenditure,but

itis

related,

inaddition,

toth

econnections

between

mascu

linity

and

gad

getry”

(p.89).

Of

course,one

shouldbe

carefulnot

tog

en

era

lize

the

onew

oman’s

observationto

the

experienceof

alloth

erfem

alem

embers

ofth

eco

mm

un

ity.

2B

ut

the

observationdid

come

fromw

ithin

the

comm

unityand

21t

isim

portanttonote

that

thew

oman’s

statemen

tdoesnot refer

tow

hetherthe

wom

enin

her

comm

unityare

competentin

handlingtech

nical

gadgetryI

observedsom

eofthem

capablyoperating

relativelysophisticated

electronicappliances

athom

e.‘lb

acertain

extent,I

suspectth

atA

nnG

ray’s(1986,

1992)observation

ofher

subjects’“calculated

ignorance”(cited

inM

oores,1993,

p.94)

canhelp

usunderstand

thisaspect

ofthe

discussion.G

raydiscovered

that

some

ofth

ew

omen

shetalked

todid

notw

antto

learnhow

tooperate

their

family’s

videorecorder

becauseth

atalleviated

themfrom

havingan

additionalchorein

thehousehold.

More

researchw

illhaveto

bedone

todeterm

inew

hethercertain

wom

enin

theN

ewJersey

interpretivecom

munity

maintain

thiscalculated

ignorance.

06

CH

AF

FE

R6

KA

RA

OK

EA

ND

TH

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

OF

IDE

NT

flY1

07

purportedto

represen

tthe

experienceofa

largenetw

orkm

aintained

ythe

wom

an’sfam

ily.S

imilarly,m

yfield

observationsindicate

that the

aenin

theN

ewJersey

comm

unity,as

well

asthose

inthe

othertw

o

omm

unities,are

more

incontrol

of them

achine.F

orexam

ple,M

r.H

au

nd

particularlyB

ill(M

rs.C

hung’sson)

were

always

theones

toset

up

hekaraoke

yutk

uk

streetparties.

Johnhad

undisputedcontrol

ofhis

araok

eballroom

.C

alvinconceived

and

managed

theentire

technical

et-upfor

acouple

ofgalas

afterhe

became

thepresident

ofhis

club.

Jarryingover

thetechnical

rolein

hisclub

toother

karaokescenes, A

h

5ngoften

playeddisc

jockeyat

Ah

Maa’s

birthdayparties.

Other

nontechnicalactivities

alsoreveal

thegendered

natu

reof the

•hreecom

munities.

The

marriage

requirement

of privatekaraoke

clubs

nJohn’s

comm

unityessentially

assumes,

andis

putin

placeto

enforce,

raditionalfam

ilystru

cture

and,by

implication,

theheterosexual

socio

noralorder.

The

storyof

akaraoke-related

affairth

athad

beencircu

ating

among

many

peoplein

thiscom

munity

alsoem

bodiessuch

a

vorldview, w

hichis

alsoa

male-dom

inatedone. T

hem

arriedm

anin

the

-jarrativeth

atwas

toldto

me

repeatedlyw

asthe

centralcharacterw

hile

theother

wom

an(also

variouslyidentified

assim

ply“som

ew

oman”

or

‘aw

oman”)

was

portrayedon

thesideline.

The

story

neverm

entioned

vhat

might

havehappened

tothe

man’s

wife

duringor

afterthe

alleged

iffair.T

hew

omen

inthe

storyth

us

appearas

passive,subordinate

zharactersin

am

ale-centeredsocial

and

moral

theater.S

imilarly,

one

nay

recallC

alvin’sE

lvisact

onstage, with

thedancing

girlsplaying

the

up

po

rting

roles.In

contrast,the

actionof

Susan

(inA

hM

aa’scom

munity)

inthe

[ate-nightm

elodramatic

excursionin

thebasem

entof

theS

ou

theast

.sian

restauran

texpresses

ano

ther

kindof

genderedpow

errelations.

rhe

larger

socialw

orldin

which

Susan

livesis

oneof

patriarchy.B

ut

althoughS

usanw

asthe

romantic

(orsexual)

target

ofD

ennyand

Ah

Dong’s

flirtations,an

dth

us

their

perceivedor

assumed

subordinate

ulgure, shew

asnot tru

lya

passiveplayer

inth

atkaraoke

episode.If she

everw

asthe

hunted,S

usancertainly

outmaneuvered

her

male

pursu

ers.O

nem

ayeven

suggestth

atS

usanhelped

facilitatethe

episodeso

that

shecould

enjoythe

pleasureof the

men’s

pursu

itbefore

discard

ing

them.

Susan’s

actionw

asa

symbolic

gestureof

her

defianceof

thepassive,

subordinatefem

alegender

role.I

amnot

suggestingth

atm

aledom

inanceis

absentfrom

Susan’s

interp

retive

comm

unity,nor

amI

hin

ting

that

her

compatriots

enjoy

sym

metrical

genderrelations.

After

all,A

hD

ong(and

Den

ny)

initially

appearedto

haveassum

edth

eirlead

and

control.B

utS

usan’saction

in

that

karaokeepisode

doesreflect

adegree

oflooseness

inthe

social,

interactionalstru

cture

ofher

comm

unity’skaraoke

spaces.U

nlikethe

karaokew

ebsin

John’scom

munity

(theg

alas,the

music

lessons,the

monthly

clubm

eetings), which

arethem

selvesextensions

of entrenched

socialin

stitutio

ns

andnorm

s(such

asfam

ily,m

arriage,and

corporate

culture),those

inS

usan’scom

munity

are,by

then

ature

of thecom

mu

nityitself,transitory. T

heyare

temporary,

brief interactionalstructures

where

hegemonic

socialnorm

sseem

tobe

hard

erto

enforce.T

hedra

matic

elements

encodedin

karaokem

usican

dvideos

make

therules

or

pattern

sof

human

interactionin

sucha

transito

ryspace

evenm

ore

unstableand,

toa

certainextent,

unpred

ictable.

From

Malaysia,

Susan

isout of reach

of thesocial birthplace

inw

hichshe

isw

ell connectedand,

froman

oth

erperspective, constrained.A

sa

global migrant, she

candefy,

toa

certainextent,

traditionallyentrenched

genderedroles

while

trav

elingin

andthrough

transito

rysocial spaces

bothgeosocially

(Flushing,

Queens)

and

dramaturgically

(Ah

Maa’s

karaokebirthday

parties).

Itis

imp

ortan

tto

emphasize

that,

inthe

previousanalysis,

Ido

not

make

anyvaluative

judgment

of them

oralw

oridviews

of thesepeople.

Such

evaluationand

comparison

isnot

thein

tent

ofthis

book.In

this

part

ofmy

discussion,I

limit

my

analysisto

howthe

divergent karaoke

experiencesreported

inthis

bookcan

beunderstood

asexpressions

of

certaingendered

practicesand

socialrelations

within

eachinterpretive

comm

unity.In

short,the

divergentethnic,

social,econom

ic,and

genderfram

esof

referencefor

peoplein

theth

reeinterpretive

comm

unities—and

the

diversekaraoke

experiencesthey

engender—reflect the

multiplicity

and

complexity

of Chinese

Am

ericanculture.

Although

itis

much

easierfor

some

peopleto

viewC

hineseA

merica

asa

homogeneous

entity,such

a

viewconceals

much

that

isw

orthconsidering. A

tsome

level, it may

also

beeasier

andm

oreconvenient

andcom

fortingto

viewC

hineseA

meri

cans(or

Asian

Am

ericansas

aw

hole)as

asingular,

model

minority.

How

ever,such

aview

offersa

pictureof

success,achievem

ent,and

happinessin

thelives

ofsom

e,and

itshow

slittle

ofhow

many

others

mu

stconfront

hardship,neglect,

and

disappointment

asthey

struggle

inth

eireveryday

livesin

thediaspora.

TH

EIN

TE

RP

LA

YB

ET

WE

EN

SO

CIE

TY

AN

DIT

ST

EC

HN

OL

OG

Y:

TH

EK

AR

AO

KE

EX

PE

RIE

NC

E

The

karao

ke

experiencesexam

inedin

thisbook

expressthe

relativeethnicity,

socialand

economic

class,an

dcertain

genderedpractices

and

relationsof people

inthe

threeinterpretive

comm

unities.A

sw

ecom

eto

understan

dw

hatpeople

doin

engagingkaraoke

forconstructing, m

ain

taining,or

transforming

socialreality

andm

eaning,w

em

ustalso

look

athow

their

engagement

with

karaokecan

atthe

same

time

redefine

then

ature

ofth

eirsocial

experience.T

heinteraction

between

society

andits

technologyis

oneof

symbiosis;

that

is,they

defineand

change

onean

oth

eras

theyin

terplay

andevolve

overtim

e.F

romthis

persp

ec

108

CH

AP

TE

R6

KA

RA

OK

EA

ND

TH

EC

ON

STR

UC

TIO

NO

FID

EN

TIT

Y1

09

tive,th

ediv

ergen

tkarao

ke

experiencesof

the

three

interp

retive

com

mu

nities

illum

inate

anum

ber

ofin

teresting

issues.A

lthougha

lotcan

besaid

about

the

relationsh

ipbetw

eenkarao

ke

asa

comm

unication

technologyand

society, the

following

sectionlim

itsitselfto

three

issues:

namely,

the

natu

reof k

araoke

asa

publicform

of socialin

teraction,

the

literatech

aracterof k

araoke

music,

and

the

indigenizationofm

ass-me

diated

popular

cultu

reproducts.

Th

eP

ub

licN

ature

of

Kara

oke

The

majo

rityof th

epeople

inth

eth

reein

terpretiv

ecom

munities

had

no

prio

rexperience

with

amateu

rcom

munal

singingbefore

enco

unterin

g

karao

ke.

As

karao

ke

isadopted

and

incorporatedinto

their

everyday

socialexistence,

the

practicealso

grad

ually

(andto

vary

ing

degrees)

changesth

enatu

reof th

eirsocial

relations

with

others.K

araokehelps

peoplein

Mrs.

Chung’s

comm

unityto

extendth

eirvoices

beyondth

e

musical

asw

ellas

socialw

allsof

their

yamngok

Se.M

anypeople

in

John’scom

munity

stand

the

riskof

beingout

ofth

eloop

ifthey

donot

havekarao

ke

athom

e.S

ingingkarao

ke

has

become

adefining

com

mu

nal

experiencefor

many

peoplein

Ah

Maa’s

comm

unity. Across

the

three

comm

unities,singing

ingeneral

and

the

singingof

mass-m

ediated

music

inparticu

larhave

certainly

become

part

ofth

em

embers’

social

andperso

nal

livesto

anex

tent

notpreviously

enco

untered

.3

What

isequally

imp

ortan

t topoint

outisth

epublic

natu

reof k

araoke

interactio

n.

Based

onth

eexperiences

ofthe

three

interp

retive

com

mu

nities,

karao

ke

canbe

saidto

havehelped

bringsocial

interactio

n

outsidepeople’s

homes

andinto

publicspaces.

Changes

inpeople’s

technologicalen

viro

nm

ent

canredefine

the

natu

reof social

interactio

n.

The

householdfau

cet has

beenblam

edfor

destroyingpeople’s

comm

unal

lifebecause

they

nolonger

haveto

goto

the

well,

aroundw

hichth

eycan

rhat,

exchangegossip,

orotherw

isesocialize

with

their

neighbors.

Various

electronicm

edia,such

asth

etelephone,

the

radio,an

dtelev

i

(sion,

arealso

saidto

havetu

rned

socialin

teraction

inpublic

spaces

Linw

ard,to

priv

atesettin

gs

(Aronson,

1986;G

umpert,

1987;M

cLuhan,

1976;M

oores,1993).

How

ever;as

the

experiencesof

the

three

interp

retive

comm

unities

dem

onstrate,

variousk

ind

sof social

interactio

nare

createdand

main

3Chan

ges

ofthese

kinds,in

theirvarious

shapesand

forms,

areby

nom

eansconfined

topeople

inthese

threespecific

interpretivecom

munities.

Karaoke

hasbecom

ea

fixture

ina

greatm

anyA

sianA

merican

drinkingand

entertain

men

testablishments.

Singing

at

dinnersorw

eddingbanquets

inC

hineseA

merican

restauran

ts,for

instance,is

nolonger

anuncom

mon

sight.T

hepopularity

andinfluence

ofkaraoke

asa

socialpractice

also

seems

tobe

widespread

inm

anyC

hinesecom

munities

aroundthe

world

(e.g.,see

“Karaoke

ispopular..

.,“

1992).

tamed

inpublic

(andsem

ipublic)places

arou

nd

karaoke.P

ut

inan

oth

er

way, k

araok

ehelps

brin

gsocial in

teraction

backto

certainpublic

spaces.

Ifcom

munity

isindeed

“rootedin

face-to-facedialogue

between

two

or

more

peoplein

the

same

place”(G

umpert,

1987,p.

177),karaoke

encouragesth

eform

ationof com

munities

where

particip

ants

converse,

inth

esam

ephysical

space,th

rou

gh

botheveryday

speechand

musical

dialogue.M

rs.C

hungan

dher

com

patrio

tsliterally

take

part

ofth

eir

sociallife

intoth

estreet.

People

inJohn’s

comm

unitym

ovew

hat

used

tobe

living-room-based

socialg

atherin

gs

tosuch

publicspaces

as

catering

halls,

hotelballroom

s,and

evenhigh

schoolauditorium

s.

People

inA

hM

aa’scom

munity

congregateat

restauran

tsand

karaoke

clubsopen

toth

epublic

where

they

constan

tlym

inglew

ithnew

andold

acquain

tances.

Of course, not allpeople

orcu

ltures

reacttoth

issh

iftfrom

theprivate

toth

epublic

similarly.

Marsh

allM

cLuhan

(1976)once

observedth

at

“North

Am

ericansm

ayw

ell beth

eonly

peoplew

hogo

outsideto

bealone

andinside

tobe

social”(p.

46)and

“itisnot

onlyin

the

movie

andin

the

theatre

that

we

seekprivacy,

but

alsoat

restauran

tsand

innightclubs”

(p.48).

Karaoke

asa

practiceis

largelycom

munal,

hencedem

andinga

degreeof

selflessnesson

the

part

ofth

eparticip

ants.

This

may

beone

reason

why

man

yA

mericans

stillfind

itdifficult to

enter

thestage

area

ink

araok

eb

arsto

perform,

that

is,to

besingled

out,deprivatized,

and

tobecom

esocial

and

comm

unalin

publicspaces.

Drew

(1994)observed

that,

inm

anag

ing

their

initial

unease

beforean

ddu

ring

their

perfo

rm

ancein

karao

ke

bars, m

anyE

uro-Am

ericansreso

rt togettin

gh

alf dru

nk

orw

earing

dark

glasses.

The

Lite

rate

Chara

cte

rof

Karao

ke

Mu

sic

Karaoke

alsoillu

min

atesan

oth

erin

teresting

phenomenon.

Inkarao

ke,

1

literacyh

asbeen

push

edto

the

foregroundin

the

consumption

ofa(

media

form—

music—

thathas

traditio

nally

beenoral

Music

andora

l

utteran

ceshave

longbeen

imp

ortan

tm

eans

forh

um

ancom

munication

and

expressiohan

das

mnem

onicsin

societiesw

herew

riting

either

does

not

exist

oris

not

widespread.

Ofco

urse,

mass-m

ediated

popularm

usic,

includingkarao

ke

music, is

not

exactlya

prim

aryor

pred

om

inan

tlyoral

phenomenon.

Itis

part

ofw

hat

Ong

(1982)called

anew

orseco

nd

arfJ

orality

that

characterizes

“presen

tday

hig

ltechnology

cujie

”itis

(I

“sustain

edby

telephone,radio,

television,and

ótT

lrelectronic

dev

icesj

that

dependfor

their

existencean

dfunctioning

onw

riting

andprint”

(p.

11).T

henarrativ

estru

cture

andorality

offilm

andtelevision,

for

example,

isliteracy-based.

James

M.

Curtis

(1978)spoke

of the

tension

between

orality

and

literacyin

popu

larm

usic:“P

opularm

usiccom

es

frombig

busin

ess,an

dth

us

conforms

toth

estru

cture

ofoth

ertypes

of

Big

Busin

essin

Am

erica. Although

the

musician

sth

emselv

eshave

little

11

0C

HA

PT

ER

6K

AR

AO

KE

AN

DT

hE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

NO

FID

EN

TIV

i111

todo

with

literacy,th

eirlaw

yersand

recordcom

paniesem

phaticallyhave

ag

reatdeal

todo

with

literacy”(p.

163). Nonetheless,w

henpeople

consume

electronicm

assm

ediaproducts,

theynorm

allyw

atch(a

tele

visionshow

,a

movie,

ora

video)or

listen(to

music,

thedialogue,or

theradio).

They

normally

donot

read,unless

subtitlesare

part

ofthe

product’svisual

components.

But

readingtexts

(inthe

nonliterarycritical

sense)is

bynatu

rep

artofthe

karaokeconsum

ptionprocess.

Itis

true

that

when

peopleengage

akaraoke

videoor

audiotape,they

alsolook

atthepictures,listen

tothe

music, or

doboth. B

utfor thosew

hohave

yettom

emorize

thesong

lyrics,reading

thew

ordsrunning

acrossthe

bottomof

thevideo

screenor

inthe

songbookis

anim

po

rtant

part

ofthe

karaokeconsum

ptionand

performative

process.T

hem

ajorityofthe

peopleI

document in

thisbook

(andin

many

otherkaraoke

eventsnot

analyzedhere)

haveto

readthe

lyricsduring

their

karaokeperform

ance.O

fcourse,

thosepeople

who

havereh

earsedth

eirsongs

beforeth

eirform

alperform

ance,such

assom

eclub

mem

bersin

John’scom

munity

orcertain

experiencedC

antonese

operasingers

inM

rs.C

hung’scom

munity,

donot

relyon

thecaptions

asm

uchas

thosew

hohave

notpracticed

beforeperform

ingin

thestage

area.O

neofthe

implications

ofthisliterate

bia

s4

ofkaraokeis

that itlim

itsth

eparticipation

ofthose

who

cannotread.

Ah

Maa’s

experiencehas

beena

most

illuminating

example.

As

much

asshe

iseager

togo

to“the

karaoke,”A

hM

aa’sm

usical-performative

engagement

inkaraoke

scenesis

veryrestricted.

The

factth

atshe

doesnot

readhas

confmed

her

toonly

afew

karaokesongs.

Sim

ilarto

theunaccom

paniedsong

her

hu

sban

dw

rotefor

her,these

fewkaraoke

songsare

mem

orizedaurally

andnot in

theim

ageofw

rittenor

printedw

ords.This

isthe

reasonw

hy,w

henI

was

singingw

ithher, A

hM

aahad

totake

aural

cuesby

listeningin

tently

tom

ew

henevershe

forgotthe

upcoming

word

s.5

The

riseofkaraoke

asa

cultural practiceshould

encourageintensified

examination

ofthe

changingnatu

reof

ourhum

an,as

well

asm

edia,ecology

Inparticular,

althoughthe

paradigms

ofthem

ediaaudience

asreceivers

orread

ersare

valuableconceptual

andanalytical

tools,they

arelim

itedin

explainingthe

roleof

theaudience

ofinteractive

media

forms.

As

we

beginto

understan

dthe

activityofkaraoke

consumers

inhybridizing

orindigenizing

mass-m

ediatedpopular

culture,w

eshould

alsolook

athow

peopleengage

insim

ilarlyincom

pletem

edia.S

uch

4juse

thew

ordbias

inthis

analysisin

much

thesam

ew

ayas

Harold

A.

Innis(1951)

didto

explainthe

intrinsicspatial

andtem

poral

inclin

ation

ofco

mm

unicatio

nm

edia.51n

recentfollow

-upconversations

(inJu

ne

1995),A

hM

aatold

me

shehas

alreadyforgotten

thesong

herhusband

wrote

forher.

The

experienceofA

nne,the

former

cabaretsinger,

offersa

similar

example.

Nonliterate

inC

hinese,she

mem

orizedsongs

inC

hinesedialects

suchas

Cantonese

andM

andarinby

listeningto

audioand

videotapesim

portedfrom

Hong

Kong

andT

aiwan

soth

atshe

couldperform

themat

thenightclubs.

media

areinteractive

andth

eirsem

ioticresources,

texts,or

contentsrequire

thedirect

interventionof hum

anusers.

How

doesone

conceptualize

thecontents

of suchm

ediaas

thetelephone, electronic

mail, virtual

reality,the

camcorder

desktoppublishing,

hypertext,and

soforth,

without

consideringhum

anagency

andcreativity?

What

arethe

con

tents

ofsuch

media

forms

ifth

eirconsum

ersor

audiencesare

notalso

seenas

producers?W

hatdoes

presenceof

hybridizedcontent

tellus

aboutth

eirproducers,

their

cultures,and

thesocial

conditionsin

which

theylive?

Inother

words,

itis

essentialto

studypeople’s

creativeand

culturalinvolvem

entw

iththese

media

forms

asthey

setabout

con

structin

gth

eirpersonal

asw

ellas

sociallives.

More

researchis

alsoneeded

beforethe

natu

reof karaoke

asa

formof

publicsocial

interactioncan

beb

etterunderstood.

As

theearlier

analysissuggests,

peoplew

ithdifferent

socialfram

esofreference

reactto

karaokeas

aform

of social interactionin

divergent ways.

How

peoplein

culturesw

hereindividualism

andprivacy

arep

art ofthegroup

psychem

anageth

eirinteraction

with

othersin

thecontext of karaoke

(orother

suchpublic

comm

unalrituals)

isan

interestin

gcross-

orintercultural

analysis.C

omparative

analysisof w

hetherand

howkaraoke

isadopted

(orrejected)

incultures

aroundthe

world

will

offerinsights

tothis

imp

ortan

tarea

ofinvestigation.

Such

analysisof

thecross-cultural

adaptationof

comm

unicationtechnologies

isim

mensely

valuablenot

onlyto

scholars,but

alsoto

socialpolicym

akers—particularly

when

thepace

ofglobal

migration

quickens,the

rateof

intern

ational

transfer

ofm

ediaform

sincreases,

andthe

levelof

culturaland

ethnicconscious

nessheightens.

At

anotherlevel,

thekaraoke

experiencealso

bringsour

attentionto

theliteracy-privileging

featureofsom

eofthe

latest developments

inour

electronicm

ediaenvironm

ent.K

araokeis

part

of thelatest

evolutionof

electronicm

edia,including

thecom

puterand

teletext,of w

hichliteracy

skillsare

anessential

part.

Various

forms

ofvirtu

alcom

munities

areform

edin

cyberspace(Jones,

1994;S

trate,Jacobson,

&G

ibson,1996),

andinteractions

andth

eirform

sofdiscourse

inthese

comm

unitiesare

sustainedm

ostlyby

literacy.T

hosew

hoare

oralor

nonliterateare

mostly

cutofffrom

thesekinds

of encounters.O

f course,as

thekaraoke

experiencesanalyzed

inth

isbook

indicate,people’s

economic

resourcesalso

determine

thenatu

reand

extentof

their

accessto

these,or

anyother

kindsof, com

munication

technologies.In

anage

when

theso-called

information

superhighway

isbecom

ingan

integralp

artofthe

world’s

infrastru

cture

forall

sortsof interaction

andtransaction,

andat

apoint

inhistory

when

computer-based

telecomm

unications

areincreasingly

providinga

forumfor

politicalparticipation

(e.g.,A

bramson,

Arterton,

&O

rren,1988),

thedivide

between

theoral

andthe

literate,as

well

asthe

dividebetw

eenthe

technologicalhaves

4..

112

CH

AP

TE

R6

KA

RA

OK

EA

ND

TH

EC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

OF

IDE

NT

I1Y1

13

andhave-nots,m

ayhave

anunsettling

impacton

ourhum

an,especially,dem

ocraticconditions.

The

Indig

eniz

atio

nof

Popula

rC

ultu

reP

rod

ucts

The

experiencesof

thethree

interpretivecom

munities

supportand

return

usto

acentral

thesisof

thisbook.

The

thesisargues

that

them

ediaaudiences

of karaokeare

notpassivereceivers

ofinformation,nor

areth

eysim

plyreaders

ofmedia

texts.Instead,

theyare

activeagents

who,

byem

ployinga

wide

varietyof

social,m

aterial,and

symbolic

resourcesavailable

inth

eirenvironm

ent,indigenize

mass-m

ediatedtexts

asp

artof

their

everydayproduction

ofsocial

experiencesand

meanings.K

araokeas

aculturalpractice

istherefore

inherentlyhybrid.H

ybrid

iJj

zation,S

imon

During

(1993)suggested,is

theprocess

whereby

“particu

larindividuals

andcom

munities

canactively

createnew

meanings

from1sig

ns

andcu

ltural

productsw

hichcom

efrom

afar”(p.

7).T

hehybrid

natu

reofkaraoke

comes

inpart

fromthe

medium

’sdeliberate

srr’iotic

incompleteness

(music

minus

thelead

vocal)in

which

codesa.re4esignedto

in&

irrte

drre

ct

Tium

anvocal

andperform

ativeintervention

The

hy

brrd

iiatmriT

hatkaraoke

practicesencapsulate

isone

ofem

po

wer

ment,

inw

hichh

um

anagency

isat

theforeground

inthe

productionof

everydaycultures.

The

factth

atm

ostkaraoke

particip

ants

aresim

ul

taneouslyproducer

andaudience

alsofosters

dynamism

inhow

peoplein

teractam

ongthem

selvesin

thesocial

contextsofkaraoke.

Inshort,

sucha

hybridand

empow

eringcultural

practiceas

karaokeallow

speople

aconspicuous

degreeofcontrolin

definingth

eirow

nsocial

worlds.

Karaoke

providesthe

socialand

symbolic

structu

refor

peopleto

create,m

aintain

,and

transformsocial

realitiesand

meanings

that

aretru

eand

significantto

them.

Karaoke

isby

natu

reintensely

ind

ige

nousbecause

theunique

blendof

interpretivefram

eof

reference,eth

nicity,m

aterialexpression,

andgender

arrang

emen

tth

atpeople

bringto

eachand

everyperform

ancedefines

thedram

aturgicalcharacter,

asw

ellas

thesocial

andcultural

experience,in

thescene.

ON

EF

INA

LN

OT

E

The

karaokeexperiences

ofthethree

first-generationC

hineseA

merican

interp

retive

comm

unitiestell

thestory

ofhow

peoplenurtu

revarious

ways

oflife

inenvironm

entsnot

entirelyfam

iliarto

them

.6

For

people

oftheobservation

inthis

finalsectionb

enefIts

fromcom

ments

byW

illiamStarosta

(Com

munication,

How

ardU

niversity)on

some

ofthe

dataas

presentedin

aconference

paper(L

um,

1995).

who

haveno

priorexperience

insocial

singing,participating

ina

karaokescene

represen

tsa

newchallenge,

oneth

atoften

invokesan

enormous

senseof

un

certainty

andanxiety.

How

everthe

frame

ofreference

theybring

with

them—

theirp

astexperiences,

their

aspira

tions—allow

sthem

notonly

toadopt

tothe

newenvironm

ents,but

alsoredefine

andshape

them.

Inthe

process,they

buildcom

munities,

theyconstruct

identitiesin

relationto

others,and

theyestablish

avoice

ofth

eirow

n.T

hesam

eis

true

forthose

comm

unitym

embers

with

priorsocialsinging

experiences; theytoo

modify

their

backgroundsto

contem

porarycircum

stances,and

inthe

processcreate

newcom

munication

forms

andsocial

networks.

-

Toa

certainextent, these

people’skaraoke

experiencessm

bo

Iizepofth

eA

merican

imm

igrant experienceF

orm

anynew

imm

igrantsin

allages,

coming

tothe

United

States

isan

experienceth

atis

asuncert

andanxiety-provoking

asit

isfull

ofpossibilitiesand

excitement.

The

haveto

adju

stto

many

explicitas

well

asim

plicitrules

preexisting

in

thesocial

environment

that

theyare

newp

articipan

tsof

They

haveto

confrontthelikelihood

of humiliation, defeat,or

evenabuse.

But as

theyad

apt

toand

become

apart

ofthe

newenvironm

ent,they

alsochange

some

of therules

that

oncerestricted

themT

heirdeterm

ination,inge

nuity,and

hard

work

allowthem

tobuild

comm

unities,to

constructdistinct

identities,and

toestablish

comniunicationa

that

were

onceunknow

norignored

This

isthe

Am

ericanim

migrant spirit

The

United

States

isindeed

anation

ofimrn

jgrts,

with

peoplefrom

all shoresand

everycorner

ofthew

orld,and

theiniiuigrant

exp

erienceis

ajintegral

part

oftheA

merican

experienceF

romthis

perspective,w

em

aybegin

toregard

theA

merican

experienceas

anorchestra

ofcultures, onew

hereeach

cultureplays

adistinct

notein

thechorus

ofthe

collectivesocial

existenceand

where,

asin

karaokescenes, people’s

individual voicescan

befound

andheard.