Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Argumentative Burdens of Audience Conjectures: Audience Research in Popular Culture Criticism (Reprint)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric

Part of the book series: Rhetoric, Politics and Society ((RPS))

Abstract

This chapter is a reprint with a new introduction of a classic 1998 text on claims about specific effects on audiences or claims describing the determinate meaning of a text for audiences. The chapter notes that these ‘audience conjectures’ are being advanced by rhetorical critics of popular culture texts without adequate evidence. The thesis is that if critics make claims concerning the determinate meanings of the text or the effects those texts have on audiences, then the critic should support such claims with audience research. The chapter concludes with three theoretical notions: that wording in scholarly writing matters, that the lines between social scientific and humanistic research should be blurred, and that audience research enhances the connections between rhetorical and cultural studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Note also that the text encountered was far from randomly selected. Cagney and Lacey was a show with a self-conscious ideological perspective (van Zoonen 1994, 43–46), and the episode Condit (1989) studied concerned the volatile issue of abortion. How meanings are contested with such texts could be quite different than with the many programs that try to avoid being ‘political’. Only with further audience research can we learn how typical or generalizable Condit’s findings are.

  2. 2.

    We limit ourselves to rhetorical criticism of popular culture texts in order to offer a more precise and example-driven case for audience research to support audience conjectures; clearly the scope of our rationale could be expanded to apply to rhetorical criticism involving audience conjectures in general.

  3. 3.

    Among the assumptions that require investigation is whether or not so-called expert critics are as immune to the ideological workings of popular culture criticism as some textual analysis implies. Van Zoonen describes this as the ‘unsatisfactory politics hidden in the textual politics’, namely, the assumption that critics can ‘recognize the hegemonic thrust of media output and are able to resist its devastating effects, while the audience is still lured by its attractions and temptations’ (1994, 106).

  4. 4.

    Matthew 13:13: ‘That is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand’.

  5. 5.

    As a result of our conversations with Goodnight concerning an earlier draft of this essay, we are convinced that he reads his essay both as opening up interpretive possibilities (creative-mediational) and as a critical commentary on the texts’ complicity with postmodern skepticism (corrective). Accordingly, we discuss both ways of reading the essay.

  6. 6.

    The notion that attitudes and behavior differ among generations because of different formative experiences originates with Karl Mannheim’s essay, ‘The Problem of Generations’ (1952/1928, 276–322) and is still a point of disagreement among sociologists. Some studies clearly document age-related differences in opinion on some issues (Moore 1995b; Newport 1995), but Ladd and others have argued that such differences may simply reflect the different needs and interests of people going through various stages of their life, rather than on a particularly distinctive generational identity: ‘Neither the boomers nor the thirteeners are “profoundly different” generations’ (Ladd 1993, 15). Other studies suggest that on many specific issues, age or generational affiliation, are not particularly relevant to political outlook (see, e.g., Moore 1995a, 5) or suggest that class, race, and gender are at least as important (Astrom 1993). A study on attitudes toward US involvement in the Persian Gulf War found that one’s generation correlated with which historical analogies one tended to see (Vietnam versus World War II) but did not have significant bearing on whether one supported or opposed the war (Schuman and Rieger 1992). Noting that hypothesized general differences are ‘weak in most areas of social and political outlook’, Ladd concludes ‘there just aren’t any large patterned differences involving mood, confidence, and satisfaction among the various age strata’ (1993, 16). At most the concerns of Generation Xers are the same as any generation in their twenties: ‘The twentysomethings are just young men and women, not a generation in any substantial social and political sense’ (Ladd 1993, 18).

  7. 7.

    We owe this observation to David Zarefsky.

References

  • Allor, M. 1988. Relocating the Site of the Audience. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 5: 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.A. 1996. The Pragmatics of Audience in Research and Theory. In The Audience and Its Landscape, ed. J. Hay, L. Grossberg, and E. Wartella, 75–96. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astrom, L. 1993. Generationskamrater-finns de? Om gransdragning och likriktning inom och mellan generationerna. Nord N ytt 49: 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordwell, D. 1989. Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J.W. 1968. The Pre-scientific Function of Rhetorical Criticism. In Essays on Rhetorical Criticism, ed. T.R. Nilsen, 126–145. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, B.L., R.L. Scott, and J.W. Chesebro. 1990. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism. 3rd ed. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockriede, W. 1971. Toward a Blending of Criticism and Science. In The Prospect of Rhetoric, ed. Lloyd F. Bitzer and Edwin Black, 123–139. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HJ.II.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1974. Rhetorical Criticism as Argument. Quarterly Journal of Speech 60: 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronowski, J. 1956. Science and Human Values. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brummett, B. 1991. Rhetorical Dimensions of Popular Culture. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, B. 1992. Rather Pulls CBS News Back to the Assassination. New York Times, February 4, p. Cll.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloud, D.L. 1992. The Limits of Interpretation: Ambivalence and the Stereotype in Spenser: For Hire. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 9: 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clymer, A. 1992. Bill Would Open Kennedy Death Files. New York Times, March 27, p. A17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J.R. 1991. Intersecting and Competing Discourses in Harvey Fierstein’s Tidy Endings. Quarterly Journal of Speech 77: 196–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condit, C.M. 1989. The Rhetorical Limits of Polysemy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 6: 103–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Rhetorical Criticism and Audiences: The Extremes of McGee and Leff. Western Journal of Speech Communication 54: 330–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cope, V. 1992. Senate Votes for Release of Secret JFK files. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 50: 2250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coupland, D. 1991. Generation X: Tales from an Accelerated Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, G.C. 1996. Presidential Rhetoric: What Difference Does It Make? In Beyond the Rhetorical Presidency, ed. M.J. Medhurst, 242–263. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, J. 1989a. Moments of Television: Neither the Text Nor the Audience. In Remote Control: Television, Audiences, and Cultural Power, ed. E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, and E.-W. Warth, 56–78. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1989b. Understanding Popular Culture. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, S.K., and K.A. Foss. 1994. The Construction of Feminine Spectatorship in Garrison Keillor’s Radio Monologues. Quarterly Journal of Speech 40: 410–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup, G. 1995. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1994. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliana, B. 1993. Ramble City: Postmodernism and “Blade Runner”. In Crisis Cinema, ed. C. Sharrett, 236–249. Washington, DC: Maisonneuve.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnight, G.T. 1982. The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into the Art of Public Deliberation. Journal of the American Forensics Association 18: 214–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Argumentation, Criticism, and Rhetoric: A Comparison of Modern and Post Modern Stances in Humanistic Inquiry. In Argument and Critical Practices, ed. Joseph W. Wenzel, 61–67. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. The Firm, the Park, and the University: Fear and Trembling on the Postmodern Trail. Quarterly Journal of Speech 81: 267–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, H. 1995. Watching Race: Television and the Struggle for “Blackness”. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, A.G. 1990. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. 1978. Some Problems with the Ideology/Subject Couplet. Ideology and Consciousness 3: 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, D. 1989. Soap Operas at Work. In Remote Control: Television, Audiences, and Cultural Power, ed. E. Seiter, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, and E.-W. Warth, 150–167. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Women, Audiences, and the Workplace. In Television and Women’s Culture: The Politics of the Popular, ed. M.E. Brown, 61–74. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugick, L. 1992. Satisfaction with U.S. at a Ten-Year Low. The Gallup Poll Monthly, March, 47–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugick, L., and L. McAneny. 1992. A Gloomy America Sees a Nation in Decline, No Easy Solutions Ahead. The Gallup Poll Monthly, September, 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jhally, S., and J. Lewis. 1992. Enlightened Racism: The Cosby Show, Audiences, and the Myth of the American Dream. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, E., and T. Liebes. 1990. The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodny, A. 1985. Dancing Through the Minefield: Some Observations on the Theory, Practice, and Politics of a Feminist Literary Criticism. In The New Feminist Criticism, ed. E. Showalter, 144–167. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, E.C. 1993. The Twentysomethings: “Generation myths” Revisited. The Public Perspective 5: 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. 1991. Ideological Octopus: An Exploration of TV and its Audience. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebes, T., and E. Katz. 1989. On the Critical Abilities of Television Viewers. In Remote Control: Television, Audiences, and Cultural Power, ed. E. Seitei, H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, and E.-W. Warth, 204–222. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, S. 1991. Audience Reception: The Role of the Viewer in Retelling Romantic Drama. In Mass Media and Society, ed. J. Curran and M. Gurevitch. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingstone, Sonia M. 1993. The Rise and Fall of Audience Research: An Old Story With a New Ending. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mailloux, S. 1991. Rhetorical Hermeneutics Revisited. Text and Performance Quarterly 11: 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994. Rhetorically Covering Conflict: Gerald Graff as Curricular Rhetorician. In Teaching the Conflicts, ed. W.E. Cain, 79–94. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannheim, K. 1952. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Original work published 1928.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, M.C. 1990. Text, Context, and the Fragmentation of Contemporary Culture. Western Journal of Speech Communication 54: 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medhurst, M.J. 1993. The Rhetorical Structure of Oliver Stone’s JFK. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 10: 128–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D.W. 1995a. Crime Legislation, Deficit Reduction Top Public’s “Wish List”. The Gallup Poll Monthly, January, 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995b. Public Supports New Ties with Vietnam. The Gallup Poll Monthly, July, 17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morley, D. 1980. The “Nationwide” Audience. London: British Film Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newport, F. 1995. Majority Still Approve Use of Atom Bombs on Japan in World War II. The Gallup Poll Monthly, August, 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prelli, L.J. 1989. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Press, A.L. 1990. Class, Gender, and the Female Viewer: Women’s Responses to Dynasty. In Television and Women’s Culture: The Politics of the Popular, ed. Mary Ellen Brown, 158–182. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. Women Watching Television: Gender, Class, and Generation in the American Television Experience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radway, J. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rarick, D.L., M.B. Duncan, D.G. Lee, and L.W. Porter. 1977. The Carter Persona: An Empirical Analysis of the Rhetorical Visions of Campaign ‘76. Quarterly Journal of Speech 63: 258–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosteck, T. 1995. Cultural Studies and Rhetorical Studies. Quarterly Journal of Speech 81: 386–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuman, H., and C. Rieger. 1992. Historical Analogies, Generational Effects, and Attitudes Toward War. American Sociological Review 57: 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiter, E., H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, and E.-W. Warth. 1989. Remote Control: Television, Audiences, and Cultural Power. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenon, P. 1988. Who Killed John Kennedy? New York Times, November 18, D21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloan, T.O. 1971. Report of the Committee on the Advancement and Refinement of Rhetorical Criticism. In The Prospect of Rhetoric, ed. L.F. Bitzer and E. Black, 220–227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trujillo, N. 1991. Hegemonic Masculinity on the Mound: Media Representations of Nolan Ryan and American Sports Culture. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8: 290–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1994. The Meaning of Nolan Ryan. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zoonen, L. 1994. Feminist Media Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walkerdine, V. 1986. Video Replay: Families, Films, and Fantasy. In Formations of Fantasy, ed. V. Burgin, J. Donald, and C. Kaplan, 167–199. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wall, J.M. 1993. Of Lawyers and Dinosaurs. Christian Century 110: 731–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J.G., and P.F. Phalen. 1997. The Mass Audience: Rediscovering the Dominant Model. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winship, J. 1987. Inside Women’s Magazines. London: Pandora Press.

    Google Scholar 

References to Introduction

  • Berg, David M. 1972. Rhetoric, Reality, and Mass Media. Quarterly Journal of Speech 58: 255–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, James A. 1987. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900–1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, Bonnie J. 1996. Prime-Time Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the Women’s Movement Since 1970. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, John S., Allan Megill, and D.N. McCloskey. 1987. The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, Edward. 2001. Second Thoughts on the Critiques of Big Rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34: 260–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, Edward, Peter B. Gregg, and Dean E. Hewes. 2004. Can a Television Series Change Attitudes About Death? A Study of College Students and Six Feet Under. Death Studies 28: 459–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis. Communication Monographs 72: 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Can One TV Show Make a Difference? Will & Grace and the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis. Journal of Homosexuality 51: 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa, Edward, Robert L. Scott, Alan G. Gross, and Raymie McKerrow. 2002. Rhetorical Studies as Reduction or Redescription? A Response to Cherwitz and Hikins. Quarterly Journal of Speech 88: 112–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, Herbert W., ed. 1990. The Rhetorical Turn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stromer-Galley, Jennifer, and Edward Schiappa. 1998. The Argumentative Burdens of Audience Conjectures: Audience Research in Popular Culture Criticism. Communication Theory 8: 27–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thonssen, Lester, and A. Craig Baird. 1948. Speech Criticism: The Development of Standards for Rhetorical Criticism. New York: Ronald Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Jennifer Stromer-Galley

  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Edward Schiappa

Authors
  1. Jennifer Stromer-Galley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward Schiappa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Jens E. Kjeldsen

Appendix: Schedule of Questions

Appendix: Schedule of Questions

  1. 1.

    (Go around the room) Say your name and tell us which movies (or both) have you seen and which one did you like better?

  2. 2.

    Could you describe the plot of Jurassic Park?

  3. 3.

    I have heard some interesting points. What do you think Jurassic Park is saying about the institution of science/scientists?

  4. 4.

    What are your attitudes toward the institution of science/scientists?

  5. 5.

    What do you think is the attitude Malcolm (the chaos theorist) has toward the institution of science/scientists?

  6. 6.

    How many of you read the book and saw the movie Jurassic Park?

  7. 7.

    What do you think the moral of the story is in Jurassic Park?

  8. 8.

    Could you describe the plot of The Firm?

  9. 9.

    A number of things have been mentioned. What do you think the Firm is saying about the legal profession/lawyers?

  10. 10.

    What are your attitudes toward the legal institution?

  11. 11.

    What do you think is McDeere’s (the main character) attitude toward the legal institution/lawyers in the book?

  12. 12.

    How many of you read the book and saw the movie The Firm?

  13. 13.

    Is McDeere’s attitude toward the legal institution and lawyers different in the book than in the movie?

  14. 14.

    What do you think the moral of the story in The Firm is?

  15. 15.

    In either Jurassic Park or The Firm, whom did you identify with, if anyone?

  16. 16.

    What do you think about McDeere?

  17. 17.

    What do you think about Ian Malcolm, the chaos theorist?

  18. 18.

    What positive messages do you see, if any, portrayed in Jurassic Park?

  19. 19.

    What negative messages do you see, if any, portrayed in Jurassic Park?

  20. 20.

    What negative messages do you see, if any, portrayed in The Firm?

  21. 21.

    What positive messages do you see, if any, portrayed in The Firm?

  22. 22.

    Have we missed anything? Or is there anything you would like to add about Jurassic Park and The Firm?

  23. 23.

    Summarize participants’ interpretations of and reactions to the texts and ask if they agree with our summary. Ask participants to compare their interpretation(s) with audience conjectures.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stromer-Galley, J., Schiappa, E. (2018). The Argumentative Burdens of Audience Conjectures: Audience Research in Popular Culture Criticism (Reprint). In: Kjeldsen, J. (eds) Rhetorical Audience Studies and Reception of Rhetoric. Rhetoric, Politics and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61618-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation