I have to write a paper about hegemonic messages but I don't fully understand what they are. The paper has to be about tv and hegemonic messages through tv programs, but when I google the definition of hegemony I don't fully understand what it means in the context of tv programs. Anyone help me out?
Maybe talk about the hegemony the three major news networks and a few key newspapers/magazines had for the second half of the 20th century, and contrast that with how media has now splintered off into a vast array of different view points? Or maybe by "hegemonic messages," the instructor wants you to think about the one-way system of communication inherent in television and printed media, where the user has messages thrown at him with no real way to interact with the message (other than fast forwarding/flipping the channel/writing a letter to the editor). Contrast this with interactive media like blogs, where commenting and creating links from your own blog allow a two-way path of communication. Those are my guesses. I've never heard the term before.
It's not a joke. The Cosby Show is as good of an example of dominant cultural hegemony being channeled through a minority sub-culture group, via the TV medium, as any over the past 25 years.
I don't see how the major news networks are advancing hegemony, though. Fictional shows are a much better example, IMO. I already mentioned Cosby, but I'm sure there are other examples. The 1950s was the real era of TV hegemony, but I don't know how relevant that is to the discussion today. Hell, Leave It to Beaver is another example of pushing a hegemonic cultural message.
I'll add the you wouldn't see The Cosby Show written the same way today. As other mediums became important, messages from TV programs became less relevant.
After spending a few minutes googling, it looks like I was off. "Hegemonic messages" appear to be messages that reinforce stereotyping that benefit (and sometimes flatter by contrast) a dominant group by degrading subordinate groups. Here's an interesting interpretation from "The Office": http://spencersfavoriteclass.blogspot.com/2007/03/hegemonic-messages-in-office.html
That's not completely correct. A hegemonic message doesn't necessarily mean degrading a subordinate group. It's more about asserting dominance (social, financial, cultural, etc.) over that group. Again, think about The Cosby Show. The Huxtables weren't at all degraded, but what was the actual message in the show, and how realistic was it?
Interesting to think about. Reminds me of a class I had in college so many years ago about semiotics. I think if you were to talk to Bill Cosby, he'd completely disagree with you. He'd probably say that instead of his show being a way for yuppies to assert dominance over black culture, it was about creating a symbol of aspiration within black culture, and to demonstrate black people aren't that much different from white people to the dominant culture. He probably viewed it as empowering and bridging, not hegemonic.
I'm sure that Cosby wanted to portray a black family that others would look at as an example; that Cosby's message has the same perceived values as the dominant "white" culture at the time may have been coincidental, but it did reinforce a certain hegemonic view on "normal" American family life, regardless of Cosby's intent. If you couldn't already tell, I have a minor in sociology and have continued to study it as an adult. I love watching social groups and how they impact both their membership as well as those outside the group. I can sit in a bar, by myself, and have a great time watching the various social interactions that develop. That's one of the reasons I lurked on this board and other boards (where I still lurk).
This is what my teacher said.... Hegemony refers to power and location. So hegemonic messages refer to who has the power to create the messages and how is it controlling what we read/view/see? ... and as a result, learn.
Fox has a tiny viewship compared to, say, NBC in the 1980s. Murdoch may be trying to advance his world view, but he's doing it largely to a fractured (and willing, for that matter) audience. In the "old days", there simply weren't many choices on TV, and it was easier to control a hegemonic message, Take the Cosby Show. For much of America, that was the only black family that they, 'knew', and thusly, that is how black people should act (according to the white culture). Today, a person can watch BET, or CW, or many other channels to get different takes on "black" culture. Relating this to your post, Fox exists for people on the right to get what they perceive to be reality, and MSNBC exists for people on the left to get what they perceive to be reality. Rather, it is feeding the beast. Rather than spreading hegemony, I'd argue that MSNBC and Fox are really just catering to a specific audience that wants their world view to be validated. The hegemonic relationship is inverse, in those instances. Giving people what they want (or think they want) isn't controlling a message. Rather, it seems to be feeding the beast.
6 of one, half dozen of the other. Being dominated = degrading, IMO. The Huxtables were degraded in the eyes of many blacks, as they represented a sort of "Oreo" black family, far detatched from the lives most blacks live in. It was the network telling black people "this is how we want you to behave".
What's Fox's hegemonic message? That dogs talking is a part of dominant culture, and cartoons rule the world? That superspies save the world in 24 hours? Or, did you have another point? I didn't understand your suggestion to dpc; feel free to expand on it, if you can.
What you're doing is called critical discourse analysis. Maybe if you do some research on what that is, it will lead you in the right direction in terms of methodology. I've written graduate papers focusing on similar topics.
Well, I agree with that, but Bill Cosby wanted that image to be portrayed as well, and has talked about it over the years.
My read on Bill Cosby is that he has no great interest in cultures or subcultures...he saw it as a practical matter. Whites in the US are more successful than blacks on average, in terms of wealth (which, while he'd probably acknowledge the influence of racism in that, he'd also view as a matter of habits and practices). Therefore, emulating the more successful makes sense.
