Advertisement

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

  • Jennifer Stromer-Galley
  • Edward Schiappa
Chapter
Part of the Rhetoric, Politics and Society book series (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.

References

  1. Allor, M. 1988. Relocating the Site of the Audience. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 5: 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Astrom, L. 1993. Generationskamrater-finns de? Om gransdragning och likriktning inom och mellan generationerna. Nord N ytt 49: 17–21.Google Scholar
  4. Bordwell, D. 1989. Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. ———. 1974. Rhetorical Criticism as Argument. Quarterly Journal of Speech 60: 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bronowski, J. 1956. Science and Human Values. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  10. Brummett, B. 1991. Rhetorical Dimensions of Popular Culture. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  11. Carter, B. 1992. Rather Pulls CBS News Back to the Assassination. New York Times, February 4, p. Cll.Google Scholar
  12. Cloud, D.L. 1992. The Limits of Interpretation: Ambivalence and the Stereotype in Spenser: For Hire. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 9: 311–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clymer, A. 1992. Bill Would Open Kennedy Death Files. New York Times, March 27, p. A17.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J.R. 1991. Intersecting and Competing Discourses in Harvey Fierstein’s Tidy Endings. Quarterly Journal of Speech 77: 196–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Condit, C.M. 1989. The Rhetorical Limits of Polysemy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 6: 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 1990. Rhetorical Criticism and Audiences: The Extremes of McGee and Leff. Western Journal of Speech Communication 54: 330–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cope, V. 1992. Senate Votes for Release of Secret JFK files. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 50: 2250.Google Scholar
  18. Coupland, D. 1991. Generation X: Tales from an Accelerated Culture. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. ———. 1989b. Understanding Popular Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallup, G. 1995. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1994. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources.Google Scholar
  24. Giuliana, B. 1993. Ramble City: Postmodernism and “Blade Runner”. In Crisis Cinema, ed. C. Sharrett, 236–249. Washington, DC: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
  25. 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
  26. ———. 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
  27. ———. 1995. The Firm, the Park, and the University: Fear and Trembling on the Postmodern Trail. Quarterly Journal of Speech 81: 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gray, H. 1995. Watching Race: Television and the Struggle for “Blackness”. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gross, A.G. 1990. The Rhetoric of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hall, S. 1978. Some Problems with the Ideology/Subject Couplet. Ideology and Consciousness 3: 115–125.Google Scholar
  31. Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. ———. 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
  34. Hugick, L. 1992. Satisfaction with U.S. at a Ten-Year Low. The Gallup Poll Monthly, March, 47–50.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Katz, E., and T. Liebes. 1990. The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Ladd, E.C. 1993. The Twentysomethings: “Generation myths” Revisited. The Public Perspective 5: 14–18.Google Scholar
  41. Lewis, J. 1991. Ideological Octopus: An Exploration of TV and its Audience. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mailloux, S. 1991. Rhetorical Hermeneutics Revisited. Text and Performance Quarterly 11: 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. ———. 1994. Rhetorically Covering Conflict: Gerald Graff as Curricular Rhetorician. In Teaching the Conflicts, ed. W.E. Cain, 79–94. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  47. Mannheim, K. 1952. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Original work published 1928.Google Scholar
  48. McGee, M.C. 1990. Text, Context, and the Fragmentation of Contemporary Culture. Western Journal of Speech Communication 54: 274–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Medhurst, M.J. 1993. The Rhetorical Structure of Oliver Stone’s JFK. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 10: 128–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moore, D.W. 1995a. Crime Legislation, Deficit Reduction Top Public’s “Wish List”. The Gallup Poll Monthly, January, 2–5.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 1995b. Public Supports New Ties with Vietnam. The Gallup Poll Monthly, July, 17–18.Google Scholar
  52. Morley, D. 1980. The “Nationwide” Audience. London: British Film Institute.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Prelli, L.J. 1989. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  55. 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
  56. ———. 1991. Women Watching Television: Gender, Class, and Generation in the American Television Experience. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  57. Radway, J. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rosteck, T. 1995. Cultural Studies and Rhetorical Studies. Quarterly Journal of Speech 81: 386–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schuman, H., and C. Rieger. 1992. Historical Analogies, Generational Effects, and Attitudes Toward War. American Sociological Review 57: 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Seiter, E., H. Borchers, G. Kreutzner, and E.-W. Warth. 1989. Remote Control: Television, Audiences, and Cultural Power. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Shenon, P. 1988. Who Killed John Kennedy? New York Times, November 18, D21.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. ———. 1994. The Meaning of Nolan Ryan. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  67. van Zoonen, L. 1994. Feminist Media Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Wall, J.M. 1993. Of Lawyers and Dinosaurs. Christian Century 110: 731–732.Google Scholar
  70. Webster, J.G., and P.F. Phalen. 1997. The Mass Audience: Rediscovering the Dominant Model. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  71. Winship, J. 1987. Inside Women’s Magazines. London: Pandora Press.Google Scholar

References to Introduction

  1. Berg, David M. 1972. Rhetoric, Reality, and Mass Media. Quarterly Journal of Speech 58: 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlin, James A. 1987. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900–1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dow, Bonnie J. 1996. Prime-Time Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the Women’s Movement Since 1970. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  4. Nelson, John S., Allan Megill, and D.N. McCloskey. 1987. The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  5. Schiappa, Edward. 2001. Second Thoughts on the Critiques of Big Rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34: 260–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 2005. The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis. Communication Monographs 72: 95–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2006. Can One TV Show Make a Difference? Will & Grace and the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis. Journal of Homosexuality 51: 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Simons, Herbert W., ed. 1990. The Rhetorical Turn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Stromer-Galley, Jennifer, and Edward Schiappa. 1998. The Argumentative Burdens of Audience Conjectures: Audience Research in Popular Culture Criticism. Communication Theory 8: 27–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Thonssen, Lester, and A. Craig Baird. 1948. Speech Criticism: The Development of Standards for Rhetorical Criticism. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer Stromer-Galley
    • 1
  • Edward Schiappa
    • 2
  1. 1.Syracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations