Elisaheth Klaa.\' & Barbam O'Connor

The meaning of pleasure and the pleasure of meaning:

Towards a deftnltlon of pleasure in 'reception analysis'

I On the overabundance of meaning

Within the debates' on popular culture pleasure has been consistently linked tomass culture and popular entertainment, to fiction, escapism and emotion. But ispleasure really something that only fictional productions can convey? Is thereception of nonfictional programs indeed ruled by categories such as rationality,respousibihty, civility, th,at seem so far apart from mass entertainment and merepleasure? 'Can there be genre~ in starker contrast than soaps and news? We willprobe into the seeming oppositions of popular and public, of fiction and non­fiction, of soap and news, of pleasure and ideology in our attempt to clarify thescope of the category pleasure..

Studies of popular genres have identified a variety of forms, kinds and sources ofplea...ure as factors explaining audience ac~ivity, and regulating the motivationand commitment of becoming a member of a particular audience.But what doespleasure in reception analysis and cultural theory really mean?

Plea...urc bas emerged as a multi-faceted social and cultural phenomenon thatneeds to be carefully contextualized. Genre and genre variations as well as (sub-)cultural identity on the basis of dass, gender, ethnicity or generation all seem tohe instrumental in determining the kind and variety of pleasures experienced inthe act of viewing and finding expression in the way people choose, watch andinterpret what the media has on offer. By showing the scope of audience activitythis body of research undoubtedly has contributed to a better understanding ofme complexity of what we call reception, but it is exaclly the diversity of theconcept that i." puzzling and poses a challenge to its further use.

Some of the fuzziness of the concept has to do with the facf that pleai>ure is iIl­defined. This becomes quite obvious when we list all the synonyms for pleasureappearing in the literature. Mercer calls "entertainment, comic, laughter, enjoy·

412 Eli.aneth Klaus & Barl>lITII O'COI1IlOI"

meot" the "accomplices" of pleasure to which we could add motivation, enthusi­asm and gratification. j In the pSyl.:hoanalytic tradition there is the link of pleasurewith the satisfaction of needs, the relief of tension and stimulation. For Bourdieu.Foucault and Barthcs pleasure is sensual and related to lust, desire or bliss ('jou­issance'), The large number of .~ynonyms for pleasure in the literdture corre­sponds to the rather loose use of the concept in empirical research.

Tn order 10 retrace the origins of the concept we will fir.~t hriefly highlight theattempts to arrive at a theory of pleasure undertaken by cultural theorisl<;. Theirwork has paved the way for introducing pleasure in reception analysis.ln thesecond part we will sketch the main findings of reception analysis as regards topleasure. In the third pan we will eXIX~lre the relationality between pleasure.ideology and meaning and suggest ways of bridging the gap between the 'popu­lar culture' project and the 'pu~lic knowledg~' project.

II Plea.~ure In cultural theory

The analysis of pleasure in reception studies has drawn to some degree on moregeneralised theories of pleasure which were being developed by cultural criticsthroughout the 1970s and '80s. Early on in this endeavour the difficulties oftheorizing the concept of pleasure had been acknowledged by writers such asFrith who claimed that since pleasure is a socially embedded phenomenon, itcannot therefore, 'be subsumed under a single, all-embracing theory. In his view,there cannot be a single theory of pleasure because:

"the concept refers tn too disparate a set of events, individual and collective.active and passive, defined against different situations of displeasure/pain/reality.Pleasure. in tum, is not just a psychological effect but refers to a set of experien­ces rooted in the social relations of production.""

A number of theorists have recogni:led the social nature of pleasure and havedeveloped concepts. models and theories of pleasure within the contemporarysocial formation of capitalism. Pleasure is linked here to utopian desires. Jame­son has claimed that the products of both 'high' and 'low' culture:

The MellninS of Plel\llure and the Plew;un: of Meaning 413

"have as their underlying impulse, albeit in what is often distoned and re­presired. unconscious fonn • our deepest fanta.'lies about the nature of social life.both as we live it now. and as we feel in our bones it ought to be lived ,,3

Dyer. in the context of analysing popular emertainment. suggested that the en·joyment of what is commonly regarded as entertainment is ba"cd on people'sutopian sensibilities and he developed a model of socially based pleasures in hisanalysis of the entertiinment value of musical films. He observed that mediafonns acquire their signilication 'in relation to the complex of meanings in thesocio-cultural situation ,in which they are produced' and went on 10 advance atypology of social tensions and utopian solutions appropriate to capitalist socie­ty.4 The ideals of entertainment, he suggested. imply wants that capitalism itselfpromises to meet. in other words, entertainment provides alternatives to capita­lism which will be provided by capitalism. The solutions are offered through anumber or textual practices ~nd representations. For example, he could see thescarcity/abundance problem and' solution being exprcsM:d in television ncwsthrough the technology of news gathering - satellites elc.; the doings of the rich;spectacles of pageantry and destruction; and in serials through the con.'lpicuousmaterial wealth and comfon of thc characters' existence.

Starting from a different point of view, Lefebvre expressed similar ideas aboutthe role of utopian desire in mcdia use by suggesting that popular media repre­sentations responded to a very real need for happiness with Iictitious happinessand that radio and television presentations givc the illusion of simultaneity, truthand participation. ~

A more specilic and nuanced understanding of the pleasures of particular societalgroups and subcultures has been olfered by those cultural thcorists that haveexamined the class-based pleasures of cultural consumption through an analysisof the aesthetic fonn of popular cultural products. Lovell. in an attempt to diffe­rentiate between the cognitive and extra-cognitive dimensions of art, proposedthe notion of 'structures of feeling and sensibility' a~ a starting point. She arguedthat the tenn 'structures of feeling' originally used by Williamsh should be"complemented by the notion of 'structures of sensibility' which could also beidentified and described in c1a~s tenns, and which would allow us to raise questi.ons about the historically established properties of aesthetic fonn, and how theseclass properties are eSlablished and maintained.,,7

414 EIi~llbelh Klaus & Bllfbwu O'Connor

Corrigan and Willis have commented more specifically on the media pleasuresassociated with working-class culture in Britain. They claimed thaI the pleasuresof television for the working class are related to a mentaVmanual split and arejection of the mental, which is embOO.ied in "cullural foons, activities, sym­bols. inleraclion and routinized attitude,"S, According to Corrigan and Williscertain features of popular television parallel working-class cultural foons andthese features not only appeal to the working class audience but are also recogni­fled and implemented by programme makers.

Bourdieu in a wide-ranging,theoretical and empirical investigation of contem­porary French society offerS a class based theory of aesthetic disposition whichhelps us 10 underslllnd some of the pleasures of media use. Particular culturalcompetences are acquired, in his view, through Ihe selting of the family andlorschooL The competences relating 10 Ihe consumption of artistic and culturalproducts vary' accprding to socii! class position. The bourgeoisie learn to valueform rather than substance or function while the working class ('Ies classes po<pulaires') learn to favour substance and function over the fonn of cultural pro­ducts. The bourgeois or dominant class learn to like things which are dislancedfrom the eltperiences and practices of the subordinate class, ie. from all theyperceive to be common, vulgar. popular. The denial of the inferior, coarse, natu­raj pleasures includes the affirmation of the sublime and the elevated character ofthose who find enjoyment in the sublime, sophisticated, distinguished and disin­terested pleasures. The response, according to Bourdieu, is for the dominated orworking c1a~s to reject the dominam culture of distanced contemplation and toconstruct, in opposition, an aesthetic which rejects foml at the expense of subjectand function. It refuses to judge works of art or cultural practices in their ownterrn~ but judges them according to the social and ethical values of the classethos that values participation and immediate semi-sensual gratification,Q

Sensuality is taken up by Roland Barthes in his inlluential 'The pleasure of thetext", His distinction between pleasure and bliss ('jouissance') affirms the valueof unsubJimated pleasures, 10 While mass culture - which Barthes does not equatewith the cuhure of the masses - holds the possibility of pleasure, e.g. in the aber­ram reading practices of stereotyped productions, it is a product of the petit­hourgois and cannot convey bliss. The text of bliss is linked to a hodily sensati­on, it is a-social and always surprising, it is the "teltt that imposes a state of loss,the text that discomforts, unsettles the reader's historical, cultural and physiolo<

The Meaning of P1el1liuJ'(: and the P1eusu", of Meaning 415

gicat assumptions, the consistency of his tastes, values, memories, brings to acrisis his relation to language."'!

For Banhes, this text cannot be created by the established genres, he it adverti­sement, soaps or news. As a conse4ucnce Barthes' distinction is theoreticallyinsightful, but poses severe problems when used in audience studies. 11 CeJ1ainly,Barthes like the other theorists discussed so far was centrally concerned with theissue of the pleasure of popular culture which stimulated and informed empiricalstudies of media audiences, but at the same time was not engaged in receptionanalysis as such.

III Pleasure In reception analysis

Reception analysis was characterised by the emergence of two distinct and sepa­rate paths. On the one hand the 'pubtic knowledge' project grappled with issuesof ideology and the public sphere, citizenship and the informational role ofbroadcasting. Corner described this strand of research a.~ heing "concerned pri­marily with the media as an agency of public knowledge and 'definitional' po­wer, with a focus on news and current affairs output and a direct connection withthe politics of information and the viewer as citizen."!) On the other hand the'popular culture' project explored the pleasures of fictional genres. It was prima­rily "concerned with the implications of social consciousness of the media as asource of entertainment and is thereby connected with the social problematics of'taste' and of pleasure (for instance those concerning class and gender withinindustrialized popular culture.,,14

The 'Public Knowledge' Project

The initial theoretical emphasis in British cultural studies was on the ideologicalpower and inlluence of the media rather than on media pleasures since the mem­bers of the Birmingham School were strongly influenced by Marxist and neo­Marxist theory and politics. Meanings/signification focused primarily on issuesof hegemony and the dominant ideology. These concerns can be witnessed inHall's seminal work On encoding and decoding which was to become the modelfor much subsequent empirical audience research within the cultural studies

416 EJi~ahclh Klaus & Barbllfa O'Connor

Iradition.l~ Hall's model proposed that media messages could he read in anyoneof three ways: dominant, negotiated or oppositional.

This framework informed Morley's Nalionwide audience study which was thetirst study to empirically test HaJJ's decoding model. It was a benchmark study inreception analysis as it nol only rekindled an interest in empirical reception ana­lysis but also .~et the agenda for subsequent sludic.~ of audience responses to

television news, current affairs and documentary programming.l~ Because Mor­ley worked with the idea of a 'preferred reading' and of a dominant or hegemo­nic message, he concentrated by and large on audience decodings in tenns ofacceptance or rejection of specific ideol~gical messages or, in other words, withthe more cognitive aspects of audience signification.

Since the Natioflwide study there have heen a number of suggestions for impro­ving and upgrading the docod~g model. 17 Dyer was perhaps the first to suggestits application, or at least a variation of it, to fk~tional genres and in so doingclaiming a relationship between audience pleasures (enjoyment) and the more'ideological meaning.,'. He called for an expansion of the tripartite model ofdominant. negotiated and uppositional readings following his analysis of Ihemm, ViCTim, and posited at least six possihle 'preferred readings' of the filmbased on enjoymelll in addition 10 responses to its ideology. He thought Ihat adistinction should be made between: "negative and positive readings of lhe text­that is, between those that reject it (dislike it, are bored with it, disagree with it)

and those who accept it (enjuy it, agree with it, fcel involved with iO.',lx

In a recent critique of what they term the 'Incorpuration!Resisrance Paradigm'Ahcrcrombie and Longhurst have argued that audience activities cannot be redu­ced to a s(lecific reading position, since thi., is not fixed but always depends onlhe wider conle1tt within witch it takes place. Since the different axes of powercroSS-CUI each olber, "it hecomes difficult to determine whal is hcing resisted andwhat an oppositional reading would look like. A great deal will depend on thecontext:dQ Abercrombie and Longhurst hold that audience research should aban­don social power and ideology as the central research agenda and instead focuson processes of identity fonnalion, stimulated by media-based spectacle andperformance. While we are not convinced that the "SpcctaclelPerforrnance Para­digm" holds the solution to the problem of unruly audience activities, the authorsacknowledge the weakness of a research endea.vor focusing almost exclusively

The Me3ning uf Plcw;ure and the Pleasure uf Meaning 417

on the ideological meaning of text-audience relationships. However. popularfiction was always treated differently fmm actuality texts.

The 'Popular Culture' Proj«t

The interest in understanding the pleasures of fictional genres originated prima­rily from two sources in cullural studies. One source was a reaction to the idea ofa dominant 'preferred reading' of media messages which claimed that audiencemeanings and pleasures were 'complicil' with a dominant ideology. Pleasurethen was merely a function of ideology since it implied the acceptance of theideological message of a teil. 20 Fiskro:: introduced the alternative model of 'activeaudiences' who, rather than passively accepting the 'dominant meanings' werero::ngaged in constructing meanings around media texts which were alternative,resistive or progressive?1 Media lcxts, he argued were sufficiently 'open' orpolysemous to allow for this idea of a 'semiotic democracy'. While the idea of'resistive' pleasures is a very useful one, Fiske's work ha... been widely critiquedmainly because of his lack of precision about what an 'active audience' is andthe conflation of 'active audience' with resistance.

Feminist scholars· were also interestes in media pleasures and dealt specificallywith the pleasures derived from 'women's genres' such as television st1ap opera,women's magazines and romantic fiction. Throughout the 1980s a large numberof theoretical and empirical studies were completed and a wide range of pleasu·res, textual and contextual were outlined and theorised. Ang however dealt insome length with the theoretical and historical aspects of pleasure though therewere amazingly few attempts to arrive at a general definition of the concept andsuggested that popular pleasure:

"is characterised by an immediate emotional or sensual involvement in the objectof pleasuTC. What maners is the [Klssibility of identifying oneself with it in someway or another to integrate it into everyday life. In other words, popular pleasureis first and foremost a pleasure of recognition. ,,22

Studies of soap opera highlighted the diverse sources of pleasure afforded itsrecipients by what wa.'l then called the 'women's genres'?] Conventional orgenrespeciflc pleasure is linked to the viewers' knowledge of the rules and thenarmtive style of a genre and its variations. The regularity of the showing and the

... F.H~alJelh KJuu. & Bllfbara O·Connor

viewers' familiarity with time. setting and characters is an important source ofsoap opera fans enthusiasm. Another source of pleasure is contentspecific in thatsoap operas, al least in its traditional form, validate women's family mlcs andemotional tasks. Genre conventions and contentspccific pleasures both in tumstimulate the communicative involvement of the soap opera fans. Brown andothers have shown how soap opera reception can he integrated into existingnetworks of women and then can serve as a means of interaction. of gossip andmutual reassurance.2~ Most prominently, however. fantasy and realism have beenidentified as sources of pleasure.

In her study of romance rellding Radway has identified fantasy as a driving forceof the reader's motivation. According to Radway romance reading is l:1 way forits readers to reduce tension resulting from their life as caretakers since theescape into a fantasy enables the women to symbolically gratify specific needsthat are nol met in real life.

"By participating in a fanta.\y that they are willing to admit is unrealistic in someways, the Smithton women are permitting themselves the luxury of self­indulgence while simultaneously providing themselves with the opportunity toexperience the kind of care and attention they commonly give to others. Al­though this experience i.{ vicarious, the plea.\ure it induces is nonetheless real."l~

Radway clearly brought a concern with the pleasure in fantasy to the forefront offeminist studies, but for her fantasy remained a mere illusion and she focused herinterest solely on the ideological function of pleasure. In a critique of this positi­on Ang has called for an anlysis that loosens the unidirectional link. betweenideology and pleasure and takes the pleasurableness of pleasure seriously.26 Sheheld that fantasy was something between utopia and reality. It is neither simplyillusionary nor political per se but can be a site of resistance to patriarchal de­mands since it entails a playful and enjoyable way 10 transcend reality.

Geraghty, drawing fmm Dyer's typology mentioned earlier, ha.\ elaborated onthe fanta.\ies afforded by 'women's genres' afford: Soap opera, the romanticnovel and the Hollywood women's movie all stress intensity and transparency offeeling. 27 Two studies on the pleasure of Dallas viewing confirm Geraghty'Sanalysis, but the authors phra.\ed their findings somewhat differently when theyidentified the tragic and melodramatic 'structure of feeling' as the prime source

The Meaning of Plea,ure and Ihe P1eulire of Meaniog 419

of the female viewers' plea:mre.28 Ang claimed that Dallas possesses an emotio­nal realism for its audience. The fans are familiar with the dramatic changes infeeling due to their own life experiences and can evaluate the story against thisbackground.

The realist pleasure of soap opera involves both emotional and cognitive-rationalprocesses. Viewers bring their life experience and r"tiona! reasoning to bearwhen they judge the authenticity of the stories.19 The pleasure of soap operaviewing is dependent on the plausibility of the characters, their emotions andtheir interaction, and on the possibility of the events happening in real life. As aconsequence there are few' social issues or political problems that soap operas donot address. Hobson claimed that the then prominent soap opera Crossroadscould get viewers involved in the discussion of social and political events in away that news prognlms could nolo

''The combination of the familiarity' of the characters with the unexpectedness ofthe event~ carries the ,message' more effectively than the same incidents hap­pening to someone of whom the audience knows nothing, and which is reportedand expected in a news program...30

While Hobson's phrasing can give the impression pleasure in the soap opera orother genres is alwayJ political, it is important to recognize that news and soapmay be supplementary rather than contrary genres as far as the participation ofaUQicnces in society is concerned. While fiction and non-fiction may be usefulcategories in the production of programs they become fundamentally problema­tic when their implicit dualism is applied 10 the reception process?1

Summary: The politics of pleasure unresolved

Despile lbe large number of empirical audience sludies devoted 10 women'smedia pleasures, the issue of the relationship between the plea~ure in he 'wo­men's genres' and feminist politics, and more generally between media pleasuresand ideOlogy, remains unresolved. Two main trends can be identified in the slu­dies discussed above. One is a celebratory approach to women's media pleasu­res. Here one can detect a tendency 10 posil pleasure as exclusively positive inresponse to the trivialisation and marginalisalion of 'female genres' both in po­pular and elite culture. The different sources of pleasure are then reinterpreted as

420 Elisabeth Klau. & Barblll1l O'Connor

progressive. In this way pleasure in fanta..y is seen as a utopian possibilitl2,pleasure in the conventions of the genre as potentially liberating33

, the communi­cative pleasure as resistivc,"I4, the contentspecific pleasure as politically subversi­veJ5 and the realist pleasure: as potentially feminist.:l~

Some scholars have acknowledged the complex. and contradictory relationshipbetween pleasure and ideology,J7 But even in these case... the discussion haslargely remained at a spec\J.lali.ve and abstract level and points to the need formore precise empirical investigation.

Gallagher and LivingslOnc'have both critici7.ed feminist media for largely ne­glecting the issue of social pOwer that needs to be addressed,J8 Both have optedfor a return to questions of politics by giving more attention to non-lictionalgenres. Feminist scholars. they argue by limiting their interest largely 10 the'women's genres' ,-and a concem~with pleasure. Doing this certainly entails thedanger of an essentialist reconstructioJ;l of gender and a stereotypical view on thegendering of the reception process. However, we do not consider a move towardthe 'public knowledge' project an adequate response to these pmhlems if thismeans abandoning the 'popular culture' project and the valuable insights gainedfrom this re.~earch tradition. This would in no way challenge the dualism bet­ween pleasure and ideology. emotion and cognition and their gendered .~ubtexts.

Rather, we think the task i.~ to bridge the gap between the two traditions in re­ception analysis both on the theoretical and empiricalleve!.

IV Pleasure and IdeoloR)', emotion and cognition

Within cultural studies the issues of media pleasures and media ideology have, aswe have seen, developed in distinct and separate ways, with the 'public know­ledge' strand focusing on audience readings of non-fiction media texts and pay­ing little attention to the concept of pleasure, and, alternatively, the popular cul­ture project being concerned centrally with 'tastes' and the pleasures of fictionalgenres and being less concerned with questions of ideology.

This separation of spheres wasn't arbitrary. Arguably, because lhe decodingmodel was developed with 'closed', direct-address actuwity texts it was moredifficult to apply to the relatively more 'open' fictional genres. But more im­portantly, the division was indicative of a more profound gendering of cultural

Thc MClllling of Pleasure lUId mc Plcll.~ure (If Meaning .21

analysis generally and media reception analysis in particular. Hennes ha.~ can·vincingly argued that the public knowledge project is dogged by an implicitrnasculinist bias characteristic of modernism generally and theorised most influ­entially by Habermas.39 The division which he claims between public and privatespheres, and the association of the fonner with men, production, rationality. andthe latter with women, consumption, emotion is both limiting and sexist as hasbeen argued by Frase.r and Benhabib.40

In media reception debates these divisions roughly correspond to positing men ascitizens actively interested in accessing infonnation for mtional debate in thepublic sphere whereas 'women are posited as private persons turning passively todubious fictional genres for entertainment and gossip.41 One of the fundamentalflaws of this model is the distinction made between reality and fantasy. betweencognitive rationality and emotional sensuality in the process of knowledge acqui­sition arid understanding. for example Comer has posited that fiction and non­fiction mark two distinctively communicative spheres.42 According to him, text­viewer relationships in non-fiction genres are characterised by 'kinds of know­ledge' and rational insights while those in fictional genres are characterised by'imaginative pleasure', the particular pleasures of dramatic circumstance andcharacter. While Comer is right to try to arrive at a more precise conceptualisati­on, his concept of 'knowledge' is extremely limited and does not include know­ledge which is pre-reflexive and/or extra-cognitive, though rational.43 The con·cepts also ignore the possible links between pleasure and knowledge.

AI the ~e time a~ the sludies of popular genres have revealed the realist mo­ments and cognitive dimensions in the reception process, some suggestive anduseful comments have been made on the pleasures of actuali­ly/infonnation/public knowledge. Analy7.ing the less valued news items such asstories on desaster. crime or human tragedy Langer has pointed out that this typeof news offers real pleasure to its audiences. oW On the basis of his textual analysishe argues that these pleasures are also involved in the reception of the morelegitimate news items, but are less recognized. A study on news reception byLewis confinns some of Langer's findings. but puts them into a somewhat diffe­rent perspective.43 Lewis found thai audience groups could not recall many newsitems and generally found it boring (as has been found by many other studies ofprime-time news programmes). The main reason for this. according to Lewis. isthat one of the cenlral pleasures of narrative television lies in the employment of

422 Elisabelh Kllul. & Barbara O'Connor

the hermeneutic code but that television news is an exception to the rule in ilial it

adopts instead the structure of print journalism in which the main facts of thestory are given at the outset. He compared audience response to two news storiesand found that the audience groups had a greater recall and greater understandingof the: one in which the reporter employed the hermeneutic code than in the storyin which he didn't. Similar results were obtained in a German study hy Harnmand Koller. but they in addition stressed the importance of educational level for

~ .recall and understanding.

From an ideological perspective. then. there are 'weak moments' and 'strongmoments' where the message makes either less or more sense 10 audiences andthis sense making is dependent on the aesthetic forms and codes used in produc­tion as well as on the social and cultural positioning of particular audiences. Themore television employs the codes with which people are familiar. the greater thelikelihood that they will be able to ccinstruct news repons into a story which theyunderstand and which will have a resonance for them, ie. which they will experi­ence as pleasurable.47 Dahlgren found that among a number of audience discour­ses around television news, one was associated with the pleasure of watching. ­"TV news is simply an enjoyable experience".4~According to Dahlgren:

"This goes beyond the dutiful citizen position, and actually conflicts with it,since the discourse of the dutiful citizen gains its legitimacy precisely in the ideaof social obligation rather than pleasure. Sometimes this discourse will reveal anawareness of this discrepancy and express a slight embarra,'Isment about TVnews being fun to watch' :.49

While Dahlgren himself is in danger of reconstructing the division between 'pu­blic knowledge' and 'popular pleasure', from his study we have empirical evi­dence of a link between emotion and cognition, Theoretical evidence of such alink stems from the critical analysis of news as myth.

Quile a few communication scholars have hinted at the mythic quality of news,their symbolic-ritualistic meaning and their function as "society's story-teller".-'l(JDahlgren put this in a broader perspective when he argued thaI TV news is benerunderstood as a cultural discourse rather than as information: il ha'l a ritualistic,symbolic and mythic rather than an informational manner and is characterized byextra-rational sense-making. He considers story-telling the primary link between

The Meaning of Plell"UK and the Plea.u", of Meaning 423

actuality programmes and popular culture. ''To posit a story-telling continuum,between serious and tabloid news. between fact and fiction. between journalismand popular culture, is a subversive de-differentiation and contests the claims ofjournalism to anchor itself fully in the rational domain and be something whollydistinct from, say ·entertainment·...~1 This conceptualizing entails a move awayfrom a primary interest in ideology in the tradition of the public knowledge pro­ject to a concern with sense-making and meaning construction.

Fiske intimately linked the two prototypical genres by pronouncing news a malesoap opera.52 While this contribution does question the idea of the private as thewomen's sphere and the' public as the men's legitimate place. Fiske neverthelesssuggests one way of overcoming the public knowledge/popular entertainmentdivision. His analysis shows how fruitful it can be to ellamine the non-fictionalgenres with the categories and concepts applied fonnerly only to the fictionalones and \lice' versa. This vi~w i.~ supported by a study that showed that catego­ries of conflict and topoi (themes) distilled from literary analysis can be appliedto the news items of newspapers. magazines and telcvision.~3 There is someevidence that the converse is also true. Buonanno applied news values to fictio­nal programmes and found that they predict rather well the criteria for choosing.~tory lines.-'4 These findings suggest that we can begin to move away from a soleconcern with ideology in the tradition of the popular knowledge project to aconcern with sense-making and meaning construction.

l'Jrawing from Corner's discussion~~. Hermes has defined the process of meaningconstruction as follows:

"By 'making meaningful' I mean the process of making sense of a text by reco­gnizing and comprehending it and assigning it associative signification (... ), aswell as giving it a place in onc's knowledge and views of the world, This lastlevel of meaning production consists not only of cognitive thought pnx:esses, hutalso of a reader's imaginative response and the practical and/or emotional andfantasy uses to which she or he anticipates putting the tellt."Sf> Emotion and co­gnition, entertainment and information, pleasure and idcology seem to he inti­mately linked in the process of sense-making, Pleasure directs cognitiveprocesses and detennines attention and selective awareness. It is the emotional,sensual and imaginative feeling that leads audiences to actively turn to andprocess a given content This is a prerequisite for understanding - without selec-

424 E1igubelh KhlU' & Bartlara O'Connor

live attention no cognition would be pos~iblc - and at the same time limits thescope of people's interpretative practices since pleasure is socially embedded andintimately linked to social relations of dominance and cultural hegemony.S?

Hermes ha~ suggested the idea of 'cultural citi7.enship' ,58 which she borrowsfrom Allor and Gagnon as a way of transcending the 'public knowledge' and the'popular culture' projectS.~9 By 'cultural cilzenship' Allor and Gagnon mean thatthe citizen can be seen as 'bOth lhe social subject, the sovereign subject of anation, and as the object of new forms of political power linking the distinctivetrait.. of the citizen with those of-the cultural producer and consumer·.6I

) Hermesthinks that the con<;cpl could rtin'ction as

"a crowbar to pry apan practices and identities, or as a means to mix. in issues ofplea<;ure: with issues of politics, it could help redefine the boundaries of lite pu­blic and the private in- a firm insistetl.ce on how bollt are articulated on the levelof the everday and are recipnK:ally involved in how we constitute ourselves inrelation to society.,,1'I1

Hermes, in relation to the consumption of popular media, argues that the kinds ofsubjectivity and self-knowledge produced by women's magazines, romancefiction etc, should be taken seriously rallter lItan discounted in the public sphere:.These include hopes, fanta<;ies and utopias, The concept of 'cultural citizenship'embraces both aesthetic and emotiunal aspects in addition to rational and moralargumcnw,tion and could ex.pand and revitalise critical analysis of the publicsphere:. Klaus has defined the public as that realm in which we spell out, enact,reinforce or change ideological prescription." and hegemonic meaning.bJ Thepublic then encompasses all those everyday activities and communicative eventsthrough which people confirm their common culture. reconstruct their socialidentity and rework lite norms and values regulating behavior - thus holdingsociety togellter. This occurs in parliamentary debates as well as in lite neighbor­hood chat, in the news reception as well as in the soap opera fanship network.Media offers the means for this ongoing endeavour both in its fictional and non­fictional program since social and cultural communication on all levels is mediadrenched. 'Cultural citizenship' then could integrate the more hidden aspects ofthe formation of a public since it poinL<; to the everyday activities, its cognitiveand emotional a<;pccts, by which we make sense of the world and construct a

common culture.

The Meaning of Pleasare and the Plca~arc of Meaning 425

Pleasure and ideology can be conceptualized as two aspects of this wider socialprocess of meaning construction and sense-making. Both are not inherent quali­tities of a media text, but are pnxluClS of the specific and contelttualized interac­tion of teltt and audience. As yet empirical work that bridges the gap between thepopular culture and the public knowledge projects is preliminary and fragmen­ted. The concept of culture citizenship is promising but should encourage us tomore systematically cross the boundaries drawn between the two projects.

Notes

Vgt Colin MeKer: Complkit Pleusurcs. In: Tony fknneulColin Mercer/Janet Woollacolt: PopularCullllre and Sodal R~lution" Milton Keynes, Philadelphia 19H6, p, 5U-M,

Simon Frilh: 'Mu,k for PlciI>ure'. In: Mu." Cnmmunkation Review Yearbook YoU, BeverlyHills 1982, pp. 49J·50): p. 503.

Frederic Jameson 1979: p, 147.

Richard Dyer: Enlel1ainmeill and Utopia. In: Rkl Altmann (Ed.): Genre. The Musical. A Reader,London 1981, pp, p.],

Henri Lct~bvre: Work and Lcisure in Daily Life. In: A. Manclan/S. Siegelaub (eds): Communica­tion and Class Suuggle: Vol. One. New York 1979, PI'. 135-141.

Raymond WjlJiams: Cullure and Society. Lundun 1958.

Terry Lovell: Ideology and Coronation Street. In: Richard Dyer d al.: Coronation Street. (Bfl TVMnnograph, no, 13) London 1981. pp, 40-52, p. 45.

P. Corrigan! Paul Willi,: Cultural form~ and Class Mediations. Media, Cultun: and Society. 2/3lWIO, fI.306.

Pierre Bourdieu: Thc Aristocracy of Culture. Mediil. Cultan: and Suciety, 2/3 19KO, pp.225-54. InBourdicu', analysis, lhere is the implidt dualism between the obj.,.;tive and thc subjective, the ra­tional and the sensual. echoing tu SlIme: degree the split within media debates belween the 'publicknowledge' and 'popular cultun:' projects

'" Roland Barthn: The Pleasure of the Text. Lmidoo 1991J. Cpo Stcven Connor: Aesthelics, pleasureand value. In: Stephen Regan (Ed,J: The politics 01' pleasure, Aesthetics and cultuml thwry. Buk­kinghlUJl, Philadelphia 1<J<J2, PI'. 2U] - no, p, 215,

" Ruland Barthes: The Pleu.sure of the Tnt. l.(Indon 1990. p. 14.

l' Cpo Andreas Hepp: f'emsehuneignung und Alltagsgesprllche. FemsehnUllung aus der Perspeltiveder Cullural Sludies. Opladen 199M, pp. 9\1-1 It>,

" John Comer: Meaning. Genn: and Cnntext. The Problemalics of ,Public Knowledge' in the NewAudience Studies. In: James CurranIMichllCl GUrevilCh (edS): Mass Medillllnd Society. London!New York! Melbourne! Auckland 1991. pp. 267-284, p,268.

,. John Comer: Meaning. Genre and Context 11Ie Problematics of .Public Knowledge' in the NewAudience Studies. In: James CurranlMichael Gurevilch (eds): Mass Media and Society. London!New Yorl! Melbourne! Auckland 1991, p. 2M.

426 Elis~beth Klau.• & Barbara O'COllour

1\ Stuan Hall: Ellcudins and Decoding in th.. Tdevi.ion Discourse, (. CCCS Stencilled Paper 7,University of Birmingham) Birmingham. 1973,

,. David Morley: 11IC' 'Nationwide' Audience. Londun lloll:lU.

"David Morley: 'The Nationwide Audience: - A Critical Postscript', &1«0.16/.\ l'Jl:ll, pp.6·18,J, Wren_Lewis: 'The EncodingtDecuding Model: criticisms and redevelopment. for research undecoding'. Media. Culture and Society. 5n 19K3. pp. 179-197.Juhn Comer: 'TcxlUa!ily. Communi­cation lIIId Media Power', In~ H. Davi. and P, Walton (eds). Language. Image, Media. London

1983.

,. Richard Dyer: Victim: Hermelleutic Prnj~t. Film Form, Autumn 1977, pp.3-22, p, 20.

" Nicllolao; Abcrcmmhicl Brian Longhun;t; Audiences. A Sociological Theory nf Performllllce andImaginatiun. London, Thousand Oaks. New Dellli 1998, p. 35.

;!O This binding of pleasure to the acceptance of the existing po"'er relution'ship ha< a long tradilionin critical theory. In Adomo and Ho~imer's analysis the cultural industry "'a, a plell.'iure imlu­sfry thai prevented people from ,;edng the true nature of socidy and thdr place therein; il pal."ifiedpeople inlo accepting their duminatiun.

11 John Fi,ke' Television Culture. Londun I'1K7.

11 len Ang: Watching "D~llas": SIlIIp opera ).nd file melodmmulk imagination. LondonINew York1985. p, 2C),

" E1i!illllcth Klaus: Komrnunikulionswi'senschaftliche GeSl:hlechlerform:hung. Zur Bedeulung derFTRuen in den MaS8ellmedien und im Joumlllisrnus. OpludenIWiesbaden 1998, PI', 337_346,

l-l Mary Ellen Brown: Soap Opera and Women's Talk. The P[eu.,ufe of Resistance. Thou._and OakslLondonl New Delhi 1994.

1-' Janice A. Rlldway: Reading the Romance. Women, PalrillTChy. and Popu[ar Liferalure. London!Ne'" Yurk 1<,1117 (originally 1984). p. lOn,

'"Ien Ang: feminist Desire amI Female Pleasure, On Janice Rudway's Reading lhe Ronlaoce: Wu­men. Patriarchy and Popular Lifcratun:. In: Denise Mann! Lynn Spiegel (eds): Television and theFemale Consumer. Special issue of camera obscurn, Nr. [n. 191'1K, PI" 179·190,

" Christine Geraghfy: Women and Soap Opera, A Sflldy of Prime Time Soaps, Cambridge, OxfordIWI, PI'. 107-130.

~ Barbara O'Connor:Soap and Sensibility. Audience Response to Dallas and Gll'flrot!. Radio Telei"lsEireann, Dublin 1990; len Ang: Watching "Dullas": suaI' opera lind 1M rnelodrllmatic imagination,LondonlNewYork 198~,

'" Lothar Mikos: E. "'ird dein I.eben! Familien..,rien im Femsehen und im Allwg der Zu!\Chauer,MUnsler 1994; Sunia M. Livingslone: Making Sen!lC 01' Tele~ision. The Psychology of "udienceInterprelalion. Oxfnrdl New York! Beijing 1990; Wa[traud ComeliLk:n (unter Mifarbeif von RenalI.'Engben); Kli-ehcc oder Leitbild? Ge-ehlechL..pel.itische Rezepliort "Un Frauen- und M"nnerbil­dem im Fernsehen. Op[aden 1994.

'" Dorothy Hob,,,n: Crossroads, The Drama of a Soap Opera. London 1982, pp, 122-124. p. 124.

" Elisabeth Klaus: Der Gegcnsatz von Informatiun ist Desinfonnation. der Gegensal1 von Unlerhal­tung iSI Langeweile. In: Rundlimk und Fem!l<'hen, 3/1996. S. 402--417

.'l Chrisline Geraghty: Women and SOlII' Opera. A Study of Prime Time Snap<. Cambridge, Oxford

1991.

The Meaning of Pleasure and the PlellSure uf Meaning 427

" Martha Nochimson: No End 10 Her. Soap Operu ami the Female Subject Berkeley! Lo~ Angeles!Odor<! 1992.

j. Mary Ellen Brown: Soap Opera and Women's Talk, The P1ea~ure of Re~i,tanee, Th"u~aod Oaks!London! New Delhi 1994.

II Joho Fiske: Women and Quiz Shows. Consumeri~m, Patriarchy and Resi~tinl! Pleasures, 10:

Brown, Mary Ellen (Ed.): Television and W<>Inen', Culture. The Politics of the Popular. wndon!Newbury ParkiNew Delhi 1990,pp.I34-143.

Jo Ellen Seiter et aUeds.): Remote Control: Television Audiences and Cultural Power, London 1989.

J1 E.g. Terry wvell: Ideology and Coronation SlTCet. In: Richard Dyer et al.: Coronation Street. (BATV Monograph. no. 13) London 1981; len Ang: Watching "Dalla~": soap opera and the melodra.matic imagination, LondonlNew Yurt 19R5; Janice A, Rad.....ay: Reading the Romance, Women.Patriarchy. and Popular Litel'll.ture. wndon/ New York 1987 (originally 19R4).

JI Margaret Gallagher: Women and Men in the Media. In: Communication Research Trends. 12, Jg"Nr, I. 1992. pp. 1-36: Sonia M. Livingstone: Audience Reception. TIle Role of the Viewer in Re­telling Romantic Drama. In: James Curran! Michael Gurevilch (edS): Mass Media and Soc·iety.London! New Yorki Melbourne! Auckland. 1991, pp. 285·)06.

;" Joke Hernie~:'Geooer and Mcdia Studies: no woman. no cry' in John Comer, Philip Schlesingerand Roger Silvel'!ltone (cds), Internatiopal Handbook of Media Re~ean:h. Lond,m 1997: JlIrgenHaberma.: Thcorie des kommunikativen Handeln., 1&2 FranJr.fun a.M 19111 .

.... Nancy FTluer: Widerspenstige Pmktiken. Macht, Dislur,. Geschle<:hl. Frankfurt a.M, 1'N4: SeylaBenhahih: Selhst im Konlell.l. Gender Sludies. Frllllldurt u.M. 1992 (Original: Situaring the Self).

•, IW~aheth Klau~: Ocr Gegensalz von Information ist Desinformution. der (kgen.satz von lJntemal­tung ist Langeweile. In: Rundfunk und Femsehen, 3/1996, S. 402-417,

., John Comer: Meaning, Genre and Context. The Problemalic, of .Publk Knuwledge' in the NewAudience Studies, In: James CUTTanIMichael Gurevitch (eds): Mll'is Media and Society. London!New York! Melbourne! Auckland 1991,

". John Comer: Television Fonn and Public Addre~.. Lundun and Ne..... York 1995.Comer has since recognised the need to oven:ome these divisinns .

... John Langer: Tabloid Television. Popular Journalism and the 'Other News', London! New York199K, John Langer: Troly Awful News on Televisillll. In: P"ter Dahlgren and Colin Spark~ (ed,):Journalism and Popular Culture, Lundonl Newhury Park I New Delhi 1992, pp, 113·129,

., John Lewis: The Ideoh)gical Octupus: An Exploration nf Televi~ion& Its Audience, wndon 1991,

... Ingrid Hamm! Barbara Koller: Fcmsehc:n und Wissen,venninlung, In: Winl'ried H. Schulz (Ed.):

Medienwirkungen: Einl1lh~e von Pre"e. Radio und Femsehcn auf Individuum und Gesellschaft.Weinheim 1992. pp. 223-245.

" In many ways this is similar 10 Morl"y', di~tincti,m hc:twren 'modes of addrc,s' lind 'ideologicalproblematic' but Le.....i, is posing the question.s in tenDS of plea'ure/enjoyment rather in terms ofIlCCllplllnce or rejcc!ion.

41 Peler Dahlgren: 'What'~ the Meaning of Thi,'!: Viewer', Plural Sen,e·Making of TV News'.Media, Culture and Society. 10/3 19RR, pp,2K5-301: p,2116,

•• Peter Dahlgren 'Whal', the Meuning ufThis"?: Vie.....er·s Plural Sense-Making 01" TV News'. Me·dia. Cuh~ and Society, 10/3 191\11, pp,2H~·J()I. pp.296-7.

428 F.lisllbelh Klaus & Barbara OTormor

'" Tom Koch: The News lIS Myth. Fact and Contexl in Juumalism. New York I We~lpurt. ConneticulIIAlndOl1 1990; Manfred Sl:hmit1': Mjin;hen, Mylhen und Symbole in massenmediaJer Insl.enie·rung. Zur Verllrlderung deT [nllldte politischer Kommunikalion. Ill: medium. 26. 18., Heft I. 1996.pp. 46-jO: Will Teiden: Die ausdruckslosen Bililer mOssell file jeden Text verwendbar sein. In:Frankfurter Rund'iChau. Nr. 97 v. 27.4.1987. p. 10.

" Peter Duhl,,'nm: Introduction. In: Peter Dahlgren I Colin Sparks (eds.): JOllmalism and PopularCulture, Lomlun I Newbury Park I New Delhi IW2, pp. 1.:')-16.

"John Fiske: Women lind Quiz Shows. Coo.umc:,-i.•m. Panian;hy and Resisting Plea.sures. In: MaryEllen Brown (Ed.): TelevisiOJll\lld ~olJlen's Culture. TIle Politics of the Popular. London! Newbu­ry Park/New l)clhi 1990.5.134-143.

" Hunter P. McCllf1ney: Applying Fictiun Cunflict Situations to Analysis uf News Stories, In: Jour­nalism Quarterly, Spring 19H7.pp, 163·170.

54 Milly Buonunnn: New.~·Values,and Fictiun-Values, News lIS Serial Device and Crileria for Fic­lionwonhine.~s in Italian Television Fil:tion. In: European Journal uf Cnmmunkation, 8. Jg., 1993.pp.I77-202.

" John Cnrrn:r: Meaning, Genre and Cnntext. 11Ie Problemutic' of .Puhlic Knowledge' in the NewAudience Studies. 1n: James CUrTIllllMiehael Gurevitch (ed~): Mil" Mcdill and Society. Lundmv'New York! Melbourne! Aw:khmd 1991.

'" Juke Hermes: Reading Women', Magalin~s. An Analysis tlf F.veryday Media Use. ClIlllbridge {Odord 1995, p.7.

" At this point in our di.cu..iun another issue anse,. The role of di.~pleasure and disgu", in there.:eption process a. yeL hll.~ not been systematically examined in audience sludie" (it hit-' heenaddressed by Condil (C.Cundit: The Rhetorical Limit!; nf Polysemy, Critical SUldie, in MassCornmunicalion,6.r.l 1989.) Ilnd l.ewis (Justin Lewk The Ideological Octopus: An Explnration ofTelevision & Its Audience. l..undon 1991) but wlluld merit more anemion.

.. Joke Hermes: 'Gender IUld Media Studies: no woman, no cry' in John Comer, Philip Schlesingerand Roger Silverstune (ed~), Intemationaillandbouk of Media Rese~h, Lundllll 1997.

'" M. 'Allor and M, Gagnon: l.'etat de culture. Gelleillugie discursive des polilitjue~ cullurelles, Que·becoises Montrt'a11994.

.., QuOled in Joke H.,rmc~:'Cknder and Medill StutJie\', no woman, no ~TY' in John Comer, PhilipSchlesinger and Ruger Silverslone (eth), International Handbook of Mctlill Research. London1997, p.76.

"' Joke 1Iem>c,:'Oender and Media Studies: nn woman, no cry' in Juhn Comer, Philip Schle~inger

and Ruger SilVel1<lone (oos), Internatiunal Handt>ook of Media Researcli. Londun 1997.

•, Elisabeth Klaus: Von der heimlichen Offentliclikeil der Frauen, In: Institut IUr SozialforschungFrankfurt (Ed.) (Rcdaklion·. Katharina Puhl): (i(,Sl;hlcchlerverhliltni~loCund Politik, Frankfurt II. M.1994, pp. 72-97.