Television
Narrative and Discourse
I. Because of television's context of production
(an economics which demands interruption and continuing series), its context
of reception (in the home, expecting distraction), and its signifying system
(a flow of seemingly "live" images), TV narratives tend to follow
particular conventions:
A. Because TV must accommodate interruptions, it
has a segmented form that disallows tight linear development. Instead, it has loosely knit narratives that
are circular and repetitive, and, across its narratives, it is organized in
terms of “flow” (more precisely, the dialectic of flow and segmentation: a sense of continuity through discontinuity,
as described by Raymond Williams).
B. To compensate for the lack of suspense, TV relies
on variety between and within segments. The
segments must be entertaining on their own, so they are relatively self-contained
(shot in "real time" through the multiple-camera system), and they
follow one another in succession rather than strict causality.
One might say that TV focuses on "clinches" rather than resolutions,
or that TV is "menu-driven" rather than "goal-driven."
C. Because of the reduction of suspense driving
us toward closure--and even more importantly, for economic reasons (to maintain
programs and audience loyalty)--development is curtailed and no problem can
ever be finally resolved (there is a limited narrative aperture to allow for
program repeatability and/or continuity).
That is, there are "mini-climaxes" and resolutions, but the
narrative problematic (the on-going dilemma) must never be closed or solved. TV deals with this in distinct ways in its distinct
narrative forms:
1. the serial:
an ever expanding middle with no beginning or end; trapped in an endless
present.
2. the series:
the same imbalance is maintained, and events are repeated with no memory.
D. This categorization of media texts into particular
genres serves both the industry (allowing for standardization, product similarity/difference,
consumer identification, and marketing) and the audience (allowing for easy
recognition and accessibility). However, by calling our attention to only certain
intertextual relations and horizons of meaning, genres have an ideological
effect: they regulate signification,
provide "pre-readings" for texts, and take the place of an interpretive
community by providing a delimited interpretive context.
Television's genre divisions, however, seem to be looser than those
of other media forms: it is common for television programs to appropriate
conventions from other genres, to reference them through strategies of television
self-reflexivity, and/or to bolster their own authority by tying themselves
to other TV forms.
E. TV, in all of its forms, provides a continual
update on a familiar state (either the constant reintegration of the family
as in the series, or the constant disintegration of the family as in the serial). This feeds into television's illusion of liveness,
immediacy, and discourse.
F. To maintain interest, TV narratives multiply
their plots and characters, proliferating storylines and narrative existents:
our interest shifts from the syntagmatic axis of suspense to the paradigmatic
axis of relationships between plots, characters, settings.
G. Thus, TV tends to focus on groups rather than
isolated individuals (on multiple rather than singular protagonists). While the form is segmented, a different kind
of continuity is provided through the repetition of a character group. This helps to establish the family as "normal":
the repetition and stability creates a sense of consensus and "ordinariness"
that again makes TV seem co-present with life itself and normalizes this social
form.
H. TV’s presentation of character works to emphasize
the TV personality: the actor’s (presumed)
personality lends substance--and familiarity--to the character role (in distinction
to cinema's star system in which the character role lends substance to the
constructed "star image").
I. This familiarism/familialism is aided by TV's
habit of breaking its own diegesis (that is, by having permeable diegetic
boundaries). There is not a sense of
a self-contained fictional world; rather, the world of the fiction, the world
of the ad, and the world of the viewer are all equated (the better to get
you to buy and the better to insinuate television into "life itself").
J. TV presents itself as discourse (acknowledging
speaker and listener) rather than as story/history (which hides the source
of enunciation so that it seems to happen all by itself), and all of its stories
are framed by its "superdiscourse" of scheduling. This discursivity mimics oral culture, yet structures
it into a rigid form. It also works
to draw us into the industry's presentation of social meanings and to present
them as a consensus. Through the device
of direct address, an illusion of actual contact is created which works in
TV's interest and promotes certain ideologies. But just as cinema only presents the illusion
of history (it does really have a source and is artificially created), TV
gives only the illusion of discourse (we don't see the real source and it
isn't real conversation).
II. The potential effects of television's narrative
and discursive forms? There are (at
least) two opposing assessments:
A. TV is naturalizing and normalizing; it promotes
a white, bourgeois family ideology and promotes itself as the way to reach
this ideal:
1. Its repetitive structures/formulas offer ritualistic
reassurance but inscribe a static view: the lack of development (particularly in the
series) reinforces the status quo and, in particular, presents the family
as unchanging.
2. TV sets up a community of address in which we
delegate our look to TV itself (we only look in on its proceedings). So TV constructs our worldview--not as an individualized,
masterful spectator (as with cinema's construction of realism), but as an
already socialized family member constituted with and through TV itself.
That is, TV may subsume its ideological problematic into its mode of
address, the better to gain our acceptance by positioning audiences as part
of the televisual family.
3. Television programs/genres draw upon or reference
other television programs/genres in a cycle of self-referentiality by which
TV maintains its own order and status in the face of any threat. Its self-reflexivity operates as self-enclosure
and self-promotion.
B. TV may allow more room for viewer negotiation
and resistance than other media (like film):
1. Because it seems co-present and blurred with
life itself, we can more easily insinuate our own lives/perspectives into
it and thus (depending on the discourses and cultural competencies we bring
to bear on the text), produce potentially resistant readings. In other words, TV narratives are not absolutely
structured, but involve a process of structuration in which we are co-producers.
2. Television's use (and modification) of genres
opens up creative possibilities (for both program producers and viewers):
a. The repetitive structure of the series allows
television to create parodies and ironic commentaries on American life and
values--including those of TV itself.
b. The continuing structure of the serial allows
TV to handle complex social issues.
c. Television texts often seem to disrupt or cross
genre lines, allowing for the historical evolution of narrative forms (for
example, the "serialization" of most television genres.
3. Television self-reflexivity may open up space
for irony, denaturalization, and/or critique, allowing viewers distance themselves
from television's illusions.
4. Our psychic fascination with the text is interrupted
so we're less drawn in to TV's way of seeing.
C. Ien Ang: both attacks on TV's totalizations and celebrations
of TV's diversity are reductive. The
"global village" is necessarily chaotic--producing and exploiting
differences--but this chaos and uncertainty does not indicate an escape from
power. To the contrary: this is precisely
how power operates in capitalist postmodernity (and its associated media forms).