using french social thought for media criticism

8/13/2019 Using French Social Thought for Media Criticism

1/12

Using French Social Thought for Media CriticismBy Steve HoenischLast updated on November 21, 2005Copyright 1996-2005 www.Critiism.Com

Table of Contents1MED! CU"TU#E

1.1! "ord about #$edia%$THE THE%#ES

2.1!&thusser and 'deo&ogy2.1.1!&thusser(s )trengths and "ea*nesses

2.2 +o&and arthes(s )emio&ogy2.2.1!dvantages and isadvantages o )emio&ogy

2./ ouau&t ! Lover(s isourse2./.1ros and Cons o a ostmodern !pproah

&THE '%(E# %F THE E)'"!*!T%*+*%TES,'#%'%S!" !*D %UT"*E F%# THS ESS!-

5.1 roposa& ib&iography.#elated

1 MED! CU"TU#E'n an era when the media have grown to be one o the most dominant orms o u&ture in North!merian3so dominant, in at, that the they an now be seen as the pinna&e o ommeria&u&ture3an e4p&anatory theory o the media beomes paramount. et onsidering the intimatere&ationship between soiety and media and that, or many, the media have beome their u&ture3produing a media u&ture3a theory that views the media outside the onte4t o u&ture wi&& bea&ited with myopia. hus, or omp&eteness, a theory o the media re7uires a irm onnetion tou&ture in its every step.

"hi&e an ade7uate theory o media u&ture, in our era, is o deep signiiane, it wou&dneverthe&ess &a* a undamenta& onnetion to more proound aspets o &ie that, or me, gobeyond &ibera&ism3reedom rom oppression, 8ustie, e7ua&ity, and genera& we&are3withoutbeing tied to the po&itia& system that shou&d aim to ensure suh &iberties.

"hi&e *eeping suh &iberties in view, a soia& theory, when direted toward the mass media,shou&d aount or at &east the o&&owing predominant ats, whih haraterie the intersetion ou&ture and media in !merian soiety the treatment o po&itis as entertainment or sport: theous o image over substane: the uniormity o perspetive rom whih the mass media overthe news: the media(s seeming&y vast po&itia& power, espeia&&y in &ight o its pro&amation oob8etivity: the historia& basis or the ormu&ation o a media u&ture and the history behind themedia(s a7uisition o power over the po&itia& system.

here are a&so re&ationships, &i*e those o ageny, that a theory o the media shou&d be ab&e toe4p&ain ;ow an an individua& in&uene the mass media, and how are individua&s( ideo&ogiesin&uened by the media. ;ow is resistane possib&e, either as a passive viewer or as an ativeproduer, in the &imate o near-monopo&y ownership o the


2/12

!&& these issues annot be addressed here, but with them in mind, this essay e4amines theapp&iation o three strains o renh soia& thought3strutura& $ar4ism, semio&ogy, andpostmodernism3to ana&ying the mass media and their re&ations to u&ture and soiety.


3/12

!s suh, !&thusser(s $ar4ism is strutura& beause it re8ets the ;ege&-inspired essentia&ism that&ed on the one hand to viewing eonomi re&ations as the essene o soiety and on the otherhand to seeing soia& deve&opments as e4pressive o human nature. )imi&ar&y, eah individua&(ssub8etivity, in !&thusser(s view, is onstituted by ideo&ogy, the mediating ator between theindividua& and the wor&d. 'n this way, a strutura&ist &ine runs through muh o !&thusser(s thought:peop&e and ategories, in&uding eonomi ones, e4ist in a #?pre-given( omp&e4 struturedwho&e.%/ e&ow ' e4pand on these onepts and their p&ae within !&thusser(s thought as we&& astheir re&ation to an ana&ysis o the mass media.

'n &assia& $ar4ism, the eonomi base o soiety determines the superstruture: that is,eonomi re&ations determine a&& soia&, u&tura& and po&itia& phenomena, whih in&udeseverything rom ideo&ogy and po&itia& onsiousness to media u&ture.

!&thusser(s strutura& $ar4ism, however, brea*s rom this strit base-superstruture mode& byarguing or #the re&ative autonomy o the superstruture with respet to the base ... @andA thereiproa& ation o the superstruture on the base.%B )uh a view, then, brea*s rom &assia&$ar4ist view that the eonomi base o ommeria& media organiations primari&y determines theontent o the materia& they produe. 'nstead, !&thusser points the way to oneptua&iingideo&ogia& praties &i*e the media as re&ative&y autonomous rom eonomi determination,thereby aounting or the possibi&ity o diverse va&ues and viewpoints in the ommeria& mediaand or oppositiona& readings by their audienes.

)ome shoo&s o $ar4ism a&so see the media strit&y as a means o prodution, the untion owhih is to produe #a&se onsiousness% in the wor*ing &ass. $a4 ;or*heimer and heodor ".

!dorno, or instane, sees the mass media as a #u&ture industry% produing #mass deeption.%5)uh a harateriation o the media an in turn &ead to oneiving o media produts ase4pressions o ru&ing-&ass va&ues, a view that ignores the diversity o va&ues within both the ru&ing&ass and the media. 'n the


4/12

2.1.1 Althussers Strengths and Weaknesses

)ome strengths and wea*nesses o !&thusser(s strutura& $ar4ism as app&ied to the media,beyond those mentioned above, in&ude the o&&owing

E't disounts the ree ageny o individua&s both in and outside the media industries to e4p&iit&yand diret&y in&uene the ontent o the mass media.

E)ine ideo&ogia& orms suh as the media ontribute to reproduing the e4isting system,!&thusser(s theory bumps up against untiona&ism, opening itse& up to many the ritiisms thathave been aimed at that theory.

E'n !&thusser(s theory, mass media te4ts, a&ong with other ideo&ogia& apparatuses, &ead peop&e todeve&op not on&y a sense o persona& rea&ity but a&so an understanding o rea&ity. he prob&emhere, however, is that suh a view ai&s to aount or the possibi&ity o an individua& pro8eting hisor her own meaning into a media te4t.

his wea*ness oe4ists with what ' see as another !&thusser(s anti-humanism. ;e seems tore8et that the individua& is a se&-onsious, autonomous being whose ations ou&d be e4p&ainedin terms o persona& be&ies or intentions. !s suh, !&thusser(s theory ai&s to e4p&ain how anindividua& an appropriate media te4ts and images or his or her own ends independent oin&uenes by the dominant ideo&ogy.

Fn the other hand, a entra& strength o !&thusser(s theory, espeia&&y in ontrast to &assia&$ar4ism, is summed up by )tewart ;a&&. )trutura& $ar4ism dodges a

#genera& and wide-ranging ritiism advaned against &assia& mar4ism itse& its rigid strutura&determinay, its redutionism o two varieties3&ass and eonomi: its way o oneptua&iingthe soia& ormation itse&. $ar4(s mode& o ideo&ogy has been ritiied beause it did notoneptua&ie the soia& ormation as a determinate omp&e4 ormation, omposed o dierentpraties, but as a simp&e Gor, as !&thusser a&&ed it in or $ar4 and +eading Capita&, an?e4pressive(H struture. y this !&thusser meant that one pratie -- ?the eonomi(3determines ina diret manner a&& others, and eah eet is simp&y and simu&taneous&y reproduedorresponding&y Gi.e., ?e4pressed(H on a&& other &eve&s.%11

;owever, the &a* o emphasis on eonomi determination may a&so &ead to a wea*ness when!&thusser(s theory is app&ied to the &imate o media u&ture in the


5/12

or arthes, #a photograph wi&& be a *ind o speeh or us in the same way as a newspaperarti&e: even ob8ets wi&& beome speeh, i they mean something.%12

he e4pansion o )aussure(s &inguisti theory to the domain o u&ture enters on arthes(s notionthat there are, in eet, two semio&ogia& systems. he irst, a&&ed by arthes the &anguage-ob8et, is the system o &anguage, image, or other modes o representation: in themse&ves, theyan ontain myths. he seond, a&&ed the meta&anguage, is a &ayer o myth behind the irst #in

whih one spea*s about the irst% &eve& and on&y needs #to *now its tota& term, or g&oba& sign, andon&y inasmuh as this term &ends itse& to myth.%1/ $yth, that is, is a #seond-order semio&ogia&system%1B that ontains, &i*e the irst system, the tri-dimensiona& pattern o signiier, signiied, andsign.

arthes provides an e4amp&e. ! photograph shows a b&a* man in a renh uniorm sa&utingwhat arthes says is probab&y the renh &ag. his is the irst-&eve& meaning o the piture, whatan be seen as its denotation. he seond-&eve& meaning o the piture is its onnotation, whihontains a myth #hat rane is a great Impire, that a&& her sons, without any o&ourdisrimination, aithu&&y serve under her &ag, and that there is no better answer to the detratorso an a&&eged o&onia&ism than the ea& shown by this Negro in serving his so-a&&edoppressors.%15

arthes(s e4amp&e is important beause it is ta*en rom a magaine, Paris-Match. hus arthes(s

semio&ogy has a poweru& re&ation to the media: it is, in at, a theory onstruted or ana&ying themedia and the produts o a apita&isti soiety.

2.2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Semiology

hus, semio&ogy is, in essene, a theory o media and other signs with u&tura& meaning. 't is,more than anything e&se, a theory o how produts, ob8ets, images and te4ts, whether &iterary orpopu&ar, derive their meanings. Fne o the great strengths o the semio&ogia& approah, then, inontrast to !&thusser(s theory, is that it provides a diret, e4p&iit method or deoding the images,ob8ets, and words that appear in the media.

Fther strengths o arthes(s semio&ogy stem rom his use o )aussurean &inguistis. or instane,the meanings o suh u&tura& signs as media images, seen as #natura&% by viewers, are revea&edas soia& onventions, as arbitrary onstrutions, whih are oten abriated by one &ass3thebourgeoisie in $ytho&ogies3to dominate or deeive another. eause these meanings appear tobe natura&, arthes says, #the myth onsumer ta*es the signiiation or a system o ats myth isread as a atua& system, whereas it is but a semio&ogia& system.%16

et the same grounding in )aussurean &inguistis that gives arthes(s semio&ogy its power torevea& seeming&y natura& meanings as soia&&y onstruted myths by viewing them as signs in asynhroni, or stati, system a&so produes a ma8or wea*ness 't may orego ta*ing into aountimportant historia&, or diahroni, aspets o u&tura& signs in their soia& systems, whih havebeen onstruted historically.'n other words, semio&ogy, when app&ied to suh u&tura& artiats asthe media, ai&s to ade7uate&y ta*e history into aount. his wea*ness stands in star* ontrast tothe strengths o a historia&&y grounded theory, &i*e !&thusser(s $ar4ism.

!nother strength in arthes(s writings is that he has an e4p&anation or a beudd&ing reurrene"hy so many peop&e wath so muh bad te&evision even when they *now it is awu&. arthes(sanswer p&easure. ;e e&aborates thus

#' ' 8udge a te4t aording to p&easure, ' annot go on to say this one is good, that bad. Noawards, no ?riti7ue,% or this a&ways imp&ies a tatia& aim, a soia& usage, and re7uent&y ane4tenuating image-reservoir.%1

!nd, more poignant&y

#it is intermittene, as psyhoana&ysis has so right&y stated, whih is eroti the intermittene @ore4amp&eA o s*in &ashing between two arti&es o &othing Gtrousers and sweaterH, between twoedges Gthe open-ne*ed shirt, the g&ove and the s&eeveH: it is this &ash itse& whih sedues, orrather the stage o an appearane-as-disappearane.%1D


6/12


7/12

#'magine someone ... who abo&ishes within himse& a&& barriers, a&& &asses, a&& e4&usions, not bysynretism but by simp&e disard o that o&d speter &ogia& ontradition: who mi4es every&anguage, even those said to be inompatib&e: who si&ent&y aepts every harge o i&&ogia&ity, oinongruity: who remains passive in the ae o )orati irony G&eading the inter&outor to thesupreme disgrae se&-ontraditionH and &ega& terrorism Ghow muh pena& evidene is based ona psyho&ogy o onsistenyJH. )uh a man wou&d be the mo*ery o our soiety ourt, shoo&,asy&um, po&ite onversation wou&d ast him out who endures ontradition without shame= Nowthis anti-hero e4ists he is the reader o the te4t at the moment he ta*es his p&easure.%2/

"ith but a ew minor revisions and reservations, this e4ept ou&d be used to desribe $ihe&ouau&t. arthes, o ourse, was not e4p&iit&y writing o ouau&t, but ' ind it hard to athom thathe ou&d not have made the onnetion, at &east &eeting&y, as he was omposing the passage.Fr, more dramatia&&y, perhaps arthes had 8ust been reading ouau&t, ta*ing his p&easure,when he had the thought o an anti-hero reading the anti-hero. or it is ouau&t who rises abovethe Cartesian Weltanschauungto show us what &ies beyond its arbitrary strutures, or it isouau&t who reverses the paradigm, ma*ing a mo*ery o ourt in isip&ine and unish and oasy&um in $adness and Civi&iation. a*ing arthes(s passage in turn, it is ouau&t whoabo&ishes the e4&usions o the past and disards the arbitrary onstraints o reason, ouau&twho ree4amines and reonnets aspets o &anguage said to have been irreoni&ab&e, ouau&twho revea&s the u&timate phi&osophia& irony truth oten &ies not so muh in sientii method, with

its birth perhaps in the )orati method, but in disourse. ruth, that is, no &onger a&&s within thelogicalonines o the )orati method but within the disourse o it, within an ana&ysis oestab&ished ategories o &anguage, thought, and history.

ut even though the &ines o he &easure o the e4t e4erpted above an be interpreted asarthes(s &ate-areer homage to ouau&t(s postmodernism, ouau&t wou&d dispute the abi&ity osemio&ogia& ana&ysis to detet a singu&ar, over-arhing meaning or myth under the &oa* osigniier and signiied, as arthes and audri&&ard oten attempt to do. 'n $ytho&ogies, ore4amp&e, arthes writes #"hat wrest&ing is above a&& meant to portray is a pure&y mora& oneptthat o 8ustie.%2B 'n another essay in $ytho&ogies, arthes a*now&edges the #7ui*-hangeartistry o p&asti% but then goes on to say that #p&asti is, a&& to&d, a speta&e to be deipheredthe very speta&e o its end-produts%25 Gwith speta&e being a somewhat tehnia& termmeaning #the interp&ay o ation, representation and a&ienation in man and in soiety%26H. orarthes, p&asti beomes the u&timate sign o transmutation #&asti, sub&imated as movement,

hard&y e4ists as substane.%2 'n at

#he hierarhy o substanes is abo&ished a sing&e one rep&aes them a&& the who&e wor&d an bep&astiied, and even &ie itse& sine, we are to&d, they are beginning to ma*e p&asti aortas.%2D

he media are a bit &i*e p&asti themse&ves hey are, in $a4 ;or*heimer and heodor ".!dorno(s words, #an ever-hanging sameness.% !nd, a&so &i*e p&asti, the who&e wor&d, &ie itse&,is being turned into media.

arthes(s p&ayu&ness notwithstanding, however, no sign, no word, ontains a singu&arinterpretation or ouau&t, even perhaps as metaphor. Not even p&asti, though the word is oourse used here by ouau&t in its materia& sense

#etween word and image, between what is depited by &anguage and what is uttered by p&astiorm, the unity begins to disso&ve: a sing&e and identia& meaning is not immediate&y ommon to

them. !nd i it is true that the image sti&& has the untion o spea*ing, o transmitting somethingonsubstantia& with &anguage, we must reognie that it a&ready no &onger says the samething ...%29

ouau&t is spea*ing o painting, but the same might be said about the mass media, not on&y otheir images but a&so o their signs, their representations, their reerenes their &anguage. "hy=

! &iberation rom reason, an uno&ding into madness. ! &iberation that

#derives rom a pro&ieration o meaning, rom a se&-mu&tip&iation o signiiane, weavingre&ationships so numerous, so intertwined, so rih, that they an no &onger be deiphered e4eptin the esoterism o *now&edge. hings themse&ves beome so burdened with attributes, signs,


8/12

a&&usions that they ina&&y &ose their own orm. $eaning is no &onger read in an immediatepereption, the igure no &onger spea*s or itse&: between the *now&edge whih animates it andthe orm into whih it is transposed, a gap widens.%/0

his e4ept aptures 7uite preise&y the app&iation o ouau&t(s postmodernism to mediaana&ysis. +endered thus, ouau&t(s theory bears a diret simi&arity to errida(s notion odi(rane there is at one the dierene, or ontrast, o signs in a strutura& system that produes

meaning and the end&ess deerra& o meaning. hat is, there is no #ina& or i4ed point orprivi&eged, meaning-determining re&ationship with the e4tra&inguisti wor&d.%/1

;ene there is not muh to ana&ye, or meaning is &eeting, perspetiva&, perhaps even se&-indu&gent, though even that is somewhat ontraditory sine there is no sub8et. !na&ysis itse&,espeia&&y o the *ind steeped in reason, beomes irre&evant, an anahronism. ostmodernism,then, beomes not so muh an e4p&anation o media ontent as an a*now&edgement that thereare myriad e4p&anations behind any partiu&ar sign or image #)o many diverse meanings areestab&ished beneath the surae o the image that it presents on&y an enigmati ae.%/2

ut perhaps '(m onstruing ouau&t(s postmodernism too broad&y. or there is a dis8untion osorts between ouau&t(s own theory and the methodo&ogy that he uses to ana&ye histories andte4ts. hus, a better indiator o how ouau&t(s thought ou&d be used to ana&ye the massmedia and their re&ations to soiety may &ie more in his methodo&ogy than in his theory a

7uestioning and ana&ysis o ategoriation and its re&ations to power, or both are present inabundane in the mass media, in&uding suh ategories as ob8etivity as truth.

;ow, speiia&&y, does ouau&t deve&op his ana&yses= irst, it is a genea&ogy o sorts, and a7uestioning o the e4terna& onditions o prodution. he rest o the answer omes rom ouau&tin $adness and Civi&iation. 'n this e4erpt the word #media% ou&d be substituted or the irstinstane o the word #madness%

#o write the history o madness thus wi&& mean the e4eution o a strutura& study o an historia&ensemb&e3notions, institutions, 8uridia& and po&ie measures, sientii onepts3whih ho&dsaptive a madness whose wi&d state an never in itse& be restored.%//

2.3.1 Pros and Cons of a Postmodern Approah

$any aspets o ouau&t(s theory, and o postmodernism in genera&, are app&iab&e to

deve&oping a theory o the mass media. or e4amp&e, and important&y or an ana&ysis o themedia, ouau&t sees meaning as soia&&y onstruted by institutions, in&uding suh institutionsas te&evisions networ*s, pub&ishing houses and newspapers hains.

Fther high&y app&iab&e onepts in&ude the o&&owing Ehe notion, o&&owing rom the death othe sub8et, that the ondition o authorship has been disso&ved, &eaving on&y an author positionthat p&aes an emphasis on what is said. his vision an be partiu&ar&y poweru& in ana&ying theontent o the mass media, espeia&&y te&evision, where it is unimportant who says what: in at,on te&evision the #author,% in&uding the anhors o the networ*s( news, is oten an ator.

;owever, the disso&ution o authorship is doub&e-edged, ontaining a wea*ness that mathes itsstrength. eause o the death o the sub8et and the disso&ution o the author, there does notseem to be muh room or an individua& to pro8et his or her own meaning into a media artiat, as+o&and arthes, i nothing e&se, has proven that he an do. urther 't &eads &itt&e room or the

onstrution o resistane by an individua& ating a&one, espeia&&y i that individua& deides toresist through the prodution o his or her own disourse in the media. oes individua& resistanedie with the death o the sub8et=

'ndeed, this &eads me to a ma8or ritiism o ouau&t(s postmodernism when app&ied to themedia. ' the on&y way in whih po&itia& ation beomes possib&e within postmodernism is throughproduing an a&ternative disourse, how is po&itia& ation or resistane possib&e in the


9/12

E! re8etion o the notion o truth in avor o an unbro*en hain o signiiers. )uh a positionbeomes poweru& when ombined with the postmodern emphasis on te4t over speeh, espeia&&yi images an be substituted or the notion o te4t. "ho says what does not matter, nor what issaid.

I4amp&e 'n his boo* rea*ing the News ;ow the $edia ames a&&ows gives an e4amp&e o how K images smother speeh with an anedote about a

C) reporter doing a story on resident +ona&d +eagan in 19DB. he reporter, Les&ey )tah&, haddoumented the ontradition between what +eagan said and what he did by showing himspea*ing at the )peia& F&ympis and at a nursing home whi&e pointing out that he had utunding to hi&dren with disabi&ities and opposed unding or pub&i hea&th. !ter )tah&(s piee wasbroadast, she got a a&& rom a "hite ;ouse oiia&, who praised her piee. )urprised by theomp&iments, she as*ed the "hite ;ouse oiia& why he wasn(t upset, pointing out that her pieehad nai&ed the president. he oiia& rep&ied

#ou te&evision peop&e sti&& don(t get it. No one heard what you said. on(t you peop&e rea&ie thatthe piture is a&& that ounts. ! poweru& piture drowns out the words.%/B

erhaps this statement aptures postmodern po&itis in ation. Fn&y postmodernism, then, seemsab&e to e4p&ain why a&& that matters is the unbro*en hain o signiiers, speiia&&y here in the ormo te&evision ootage. Fn te&evision, it no &onger matters who is spea*ing3or what is being said.

'n this way, and a&so in a more diret manner by p&aing an emphasis on dominant disourse,postmodernism aounts or the &ose power re&ationship between po&itis and the news.

Eostmodernism a&so ontains a strength or media ana&ysis in its e4hortation that those e&ementsrepressed by the dominant disourse must be addressed. >ust as muh importane is p&aed onwhat is not said as on what is said. et in this e4hortation a&so &ies a wea*ness )ure&y some owhat is not said, some o the disourse repressed by the dominant disourse, is asist orotherwise evi& and inhuman.

Neverthe&ess, a ous on margina& disourses in the onte4t o the disourse o power that ta*ep&ae regu&ar&y in the mass media may &ead to va&uab&e insights.

To2

& THE '%(E# %F THE E)'"!*!T%*

'n this setion ' wi&& on&ude my essay by arguing not or the superiority o one o the theoriesover the others or ana&ying the mass media but rather or the use o a&& three theories, andothers, as appropriate to the media in 7uestion.

!s eah has its strengths and wea*nesses, none o the three theories set out above stands outdeinitive&y above the others in its e4p&anatory power when it omes to aounting or the massmedia(s ro&e in !merian soiety. ouau&t(s ana&ysis o the ategories that the media use, a&ongwith his emphasis on disourse, is a poweru& too&, but it &a*s a onrete e4p&anation o howindividua& ation an in&uene the media. 'n addition, it &a*s a strong po&itia& omponent3whihis a neessary perspetive rom whih to diagnose a media as po&itiied as the


10/12

too&s in a too&*it%/5 that an be used depending on onte4t and one(s purpose, a strategy heattributes to ouau&t but one that an be traed ba* to Nietshe(s radia& perspetivism.

'n at, ouau&t(s method o ana&ysis, espeia&&y as used in $adness and Civi&iation, seems tobear this out, produing proound and poweru& riti7ues o soiety(s estab&ished ategories, andthus the too&s-in-a-too&bo4 approah &eads to the superiority o ouau&t(s theory in genera& andperhaps as direted toward the media as we&&.

he too&s-in-a-too&*it approah3ombined with ouau&t(s poweru& method o arhaeo&ogia&e4avation and his use o poststrutura& ana&yses o the signs in a soia& system, a&ong with themore genera& aspets o postmodernism that seem to it the mass media so we&&3givesouau&t(s theory more e4p&anatory power than the others. 'n at, postmodernism an be seenas a theory that has arisen in response to and as part o the media and tehno&ogia& age, as parto an age when u&ture is deined as muh by media, espeia&&y te&evision, as by suh &onger-standing u&tura& orms as &iterature, art, and musi.

ostmodernism(s &a* o e4p&iit po&itia& ontent, however, remains or me prob&emati, as doesits deentering o the sub8et and its approah to po&itia& ation. 'n postmodernism, po&itia&ation &ies in the ormation o a ounter disourse within e4isting disourse, an enterprise whihseems partiu&ar&y diiu&t i not impossib&e in !meria, onsidering that the


11/12

25.'bid. p. 9.26.'bid. p. . rans&ator(s Note.2.'bid. p. 9D.2D.'bid. p. 99.29.$ihe& ouau&t, $adness and Civi&iation ! ;istory o 'nsanity in the !ge o +eason, trans.

+ihard ;oward GNew or* +andom ;ouse, 1965H, p. 1D. 'ta&is in origina&./0.'bid. pp. 1D-19./1.)imon &a*burn, he F4ord itionary o hi&osophy GF4ord,


12/12

+. arthes "riting egree ero+. arthes )M+. arthes he &easures o the e4t

audri&&ard he $irror o rodutionaudri&&ard )e&eted "ritingsaudri&&ard or a Criti7ue o the o&itia&

Ionomy o the )ignaudri&&ard #he Istasy o Communiation,%

in ;a& oster ed., !nti-!esthetiaudri&&ard !meria

ostmodernismerrida "riting and ierenee&eue ouau&touau&t Language, Countermemory and owerouau&t his is Not a ipeouau&t he Frder o hingsouau&t $adness and Civi&iation

)trutura&ismourdieu #)trutura&ism and the heory

o the )oio&ogy o now&edge%Levi-)trauss he )avage $indLevi-)trauss )trutura& !nthropo&ogy)aussure Course in Penera& Linguistis

using french social thought for media criticism

Documents