The Influence of Television as a Social Force
P.J. Worsfold, 11/28/2006
Over the years, critics, scholars, industry representatives, politicians and parents have offered a range of opinions on television's social impact. Many suggest that TV is responsible for the 'dumbing down' of society, while others argue in favour of television's contribution to a shared culture, which transcends geographic and ethnic boundaries. Another interesting subject of debate deals with television's influential role in transforming our society from one dominated by print to one dominated by the image. There are compelling arguments that champion television's educational influence and others still that suggest TV's biggest impact has been in simply affecting social change. However, the overwhelming prevalence of phrases such as 'moral decay', 'encourages violence', 'promotes sexual and racial stereotyping', and 'stimulates consumerism', that one comes across in television impact studies suggests that overall; critics believe TV has a generally negative influence on society.
In terms of specific programs or genres, such negative opinions may be well deserved. However, to assume TV's effect on society to be wholly negative demonstrates a narrow view of television's influence. Evidence can be found both in television's past and present landscape to support or counter practically any argument on the medium's social effect. From beginning to end, television is an ever-changing process of interpreting, encoding, decoding, and reinterpreting. To suggest that television's influence on society is specifically one thing or another risks taking for granted the fact that every time programming is produced or consumed, its effect can be different. To appreciate television's influence on society, it is necessary to take as broad and rudimentary a perspective as possible. It is my contention that television's greatest influence on society is simply its capacity to communicate the values of those who produce it. I fully acknowledge that these values can be negative or positive and that on receiving these values, audiences may react in any number of ways. My argument is rooted in the combined effects of television's pervasive nature and society's lacking awareness of the medium's value-laden bias; this essay will explore each of these ideas in more detail.
Before entering into a deeper discussion, it is important to clarify two points. First, I must define exactly what I mean when I say 'television'. Some studies use the word television, in a more accurate sense, to describe the technology or hardware that is television, when I use the word, I am referring to the content that is delivered through the technology. Secondly, while television's impact on society is indeed global, for the purposes of this discussion, I will consider television's social impact from a primarily western perspective.
To point out television's pervasive reach into today's society and to complain about how dependent most of us have become on the medium is to state the obvious. Yet when considering its influence on our lives, many of us tend to downplay television's potential. I am in agreement with James when she argues, that because many of us fear television's "power (and are) unable to grapple with its irresistible allure, (we) deny its impact" (James 41). Thus, it is necessary to reiterate society's commitment to television.
Although TV has lost some popularity to the internet, by most accounts, it remains society's most widely consumed media. The television is as common to our environment as a bed or a kitchen table, so much so, that I must admit to looking upon those who manage to live without a TV as distinctly odd. Canadians consume television at a staggering rate, the average adult male watches 20.9 hours of television a week, while the average female watches 25.6 hours of television a week (Statistics Canada). Not only do we readily consume TV, we trust it. Pungente and O'Malley observe, "polls consistently report that people regard television as their most trustworthy source of news" (Pungente and O'Malley 2). Because of television's prevalence in our environment and our consumption and trust of its content, as a society, we are devoted to television and are therefore largely responsible for its powerful influence over us.
As we lie immersed in television's relentless wash, we often take comfort in the thought that, although we invite TV into our homes, we are still free to make up our own minds on its meaning. Although I strongly believe that individual interpretation is a key variable in determining television's social influence, we must first acknowledge that everything we see on television is the result of an earlier process of selection. The notion that we are free to make up our minds on a particular matter implies that we are given all available perspectives, with regards to television, this is certainly not the case. The product that we view on our screens is shaped by countless production decisions, which determine everything from what stories should get airtime on the evening news to the colour of our favourite sitcom character's t-shirt. Each of these decisions is an articulation of a group's or an individual's values. As audiences consume and are influenced by what they see on the screen, they are simultaneously consuming and being influenced by a particular set of values. Compounding the potential for television's social influence is the fact that audiences are largely unaware of television's selective bias.
Pungente and O'Malley are correct when they suggest, "all television shows are value-laden" (94). Those involved in television production can express their values in obvious ways such as through dialogue and subject matter and in less obvious ways such as in set design and product placement. The values expressed through television could suggest anything from an overt political bias, to subtle race discrimination, to simple innocuous preferences. The point here is not to consider what messages television is sending, but rather to understand that every image we see on television represents a choice that was guided by a set of values and is thus inherently a communication of those values.
Television's influence on society is facilitated by both the nature of the medium and the nature of the audience. As a medium, television takes the values and concerns of the few and amplifies them. In return, audiences, which are heavily dependent on TV and not nearly critical enough of what they see, accept television's offerings and begin building them into some sort of meaning. Once reinterpreted and set into motion by the audience, the values of television producers lay the foundation for the "images, sounds and spectacles (that) help to weave the fabric of daily life" (Vorraber Costa 179). As a value-laden staple of society, television is not only responsible for influencing society; it is responsible for defining society.
Works Cited
James, Caryn. "Deep Impact." New York Times Magazine 148.51286 (1998): 40-42.
Pungente, John J., and Martin O'Malley. More Than Meets the Eye: Watching Television Watching Us. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Inc., 1999.
Statistics Canada. 2004. Television Viewing, by Age and Sex, by Province. 28 November 2006 http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/arts23.htm.
Vorraber Costa, Marisa. "Teaching to Divide The World: The Perverse Curriculum of a Television Program." The Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies 26 (2004): 175-191.