Serious Japanization

This weeks reading on “Taking ‘Japanization’ Seriously,” highlights the rise of Japanese cultural exports and how this may influence Japan’s cultural power in the world. Iwabuchi states that although Japanese technology such as walkmans are widely used in America, these exports are “culturally neutral” technologies and the “country of origin has nothing to do with ‘the way [that they work] and the satisfaction [that a consumer] obtains from usage.” These products are “culturally odorless” and do not produce the image of a “Japanese way of life” by the user.

Iwabuchi further details how Japanese animators incorporate cultural odorlessness by creating their anime characters with non-Japanese features such as big blue eyes or blonde hair. This shows how a Western-dominated cultural hierarchy influences transnational cultural flows in the world. This point particularly resonated with me as I used to teach English in Japan and witnessed this first-hand in my classroom. My elementary and junior high students would show me their latest manga (comic books) and to my surprise, the characters had blonde hair and blue eyes, which looked nothing like their jet Black hair and dark eyes. I would ask my students, why do these characters look European if they are supposed to be Japanese? My students would respond that the characters are drawn to look “kawaii” (cute) and they could not possibly be “kawaii” if they had Asian features. The first time I heard this, I was truly shocked and wasted a lot of time trying to explain to the children that their features were just as beautiful as European features. No matter how hard I tried to teach them an appreciation for their features, they still insisted that European features were cuter. I found this Western-dominated cultural hierarchy particularly ironic and frustrating. Why does something such as manga, which is distinctly Japanese, need to use characters with European features to sell? I do not think Japanese animators and cartoonist do this unconsciously, but rather it is done intentionally in order to sell their products to an international audience.

The other point I found interesting in Iwabuchi’s article was his discussion of the “shift from a Western gaze to a decentered global gaze,” in regards to transnationally circulated images and commodities. These images and commodities become odorless through a transculturation process, which transforms an existing cultural artifact into something new to fit the consuming culture. I witnessed this in Japan during a discussion I had with one of my junior high school students. The conversation went as follows:

Student: Zainabu, have you ever been to Disney World?

Zainabu: Yes. When I was about 8 years old, I went with my family.

Student: (Student looks shocked) Oh so you came to Japan when you were 8 years old?

Zainabu: No. I went to the Disney World in America, not the one in Japan.

Student: (Student looks super shocked) There is a Disney World in America???

The conversation continued for about 20 minutes with me trying to convince the student that (1) there is indeed a Disney World in America, (2) Disney actually originated in America, and (3) Mickey Mouse can speak English. Thinking this was just the ignorance of one student, I interviewed several other students to find out if they knew that Disney was an American company. To my surprise, the majority of my students did not know this and thought Disney was a Japanese invention. In the world of my students, Disney was culturally odorless.

Transculturation ultimately helps conglomerates carry out globalization because if countries are able to transform products to make them appear more indigenous, they are more likely to be accepted by its citizens.

T.V. Shows: Do they influence our lives?

This week in “Reading Television: Television as text and viewers as decoders”, by Katz and Liebes, I thought they made a very interesting point: that research before, instead of analyzing the effects a certain T.V. shows had on the community in a specific country, they just assumed everyone who saw the same program understood the message the producers were trying to transmit. This is a very naïve assumption. Knowing that people in a same country experience things differently, have different values and morals, and different ethnic backgrounds, how can we assume that people will react and understand the same thing? We cannot assume that people will react and interpret things in the same way, especially if it is a foreign product. For exam[le: American T.V. shows in foreign countries, we can’t expect them to react the same way American viewers react to the programs.

Katz and Liebes take as an example the show “Dallas”. Dallas was a combination of soap operas and prime time television. It was an international phenomenon! Dallas was seen in many countries including: Germany, Denmark, Algeria, and Israel to mention a few. Depending on the culture and values of each country, the viewers had different reasons of either relating to the show or simple watching it for fun. Some did not view the show as close to reality, because the further apart the viewing country is from the country that produced the show, in terms of culture, values, and traditions, the less a person sees it as a reality. Katz and Liebes tell us that domestic productions are subject to more criticism in terms of relating to the reality of the viewing community, because it should somewhat represent the country’s actual reality. On the other hand, foreign productions, although it may not be the true reality of the producing country, the fact that the program is from a foreign country it gives it an excuse to be less like reality.

Dallas had a hidden family drama in its text. Family dramas in general have been researched to see if the values the show presents affects family life of the people who view it. We can take examples like Full House and 7^th Heaven that presented wholesome family values, unity, trust, and that family is the most important thing in life. On the contrary, shows lie Desperate Housewives present a world of betrayal, a dysfunctional family, adultery, and looking out for oneself. How do these T.V. shows affect or to what extent do they form our perception of right and wrong, good or bad? It has been said that exposure to negative situations like deaths, rapes, homicides for example on cop shows make us immune to the grotesque factor of it all. Since we see things like adultery, fights, people killing each other, betrayal, for some people it becomes something normal in life that just happens and it stops being unexpected.

I think T.V. shows influence do our lives, the characters become role models for the viewers. The effects differ in each country, the same show might not have the same reaction or interpretation in foreign countries as it does in the domestic one. The concept of reality is relative in a T.V. show and it depends on the viewer’s perception according to their own values, morals, and culture.

From a Faraway Land, We Bring You...Dallas?

So what is our role? Iwabuchi’s article paints us as fascinated consumers of exotic international culture, Katz & Liebes argue between identifying us as dazed viewers or active “de-coders”, and Deuze declares a new hybrid role of producer/consumer.

I had strong reactions to each article. Iwabuchi reminded me of my childhood fascination with Japan (and my love of my Walkman - although I didn’t actually know then that the Walkman was one of its products.) Katz & Liebes reinforced the fact that when I (rarely) watch TV, it is to escape. Finally, Deuze made me think about how often I resent the new expectation to serve as a producer of media.

To start with Japan, it was interesting that the bulk of cultural examples given were media products aimed at children. Although anime and other forms of entertainment are enjoyed by a variety of ages, there is a sense that the young, popular culture is that which is most easily imported – not the traditional high arts (Kubuki, etc.). After rendering these popular arts odorless, are they still really Japanese – and can we say that we really are experiencing “Japanization”?

Likewise, are we to believe that watching Dallas “inspire(s) the masses to examine their own interpersonal relations”? I found myself agreeing with the earlier analysis of television viewing that Katz and Liebes were working to debunk, that which acknowledges that most viewers turn to TV merely to escape. A more depressing realization was that after all the promise of the positive power broadcasting and satellite TV provided, what we ended up with was the ability to transmit Dallas around the world. (Let’s be honest about the intentions of satellite broadcasting: we’re not “saving” the third world with soap operas. On the other hand, is “saving” what TV is trying to do anyway?)

However, I did latch on to another conclusion that Katz and Liebes highlighted in their analysis: Dallas allowed viewers to experience strong emotions such as love and hate in a neutral setting. Who hasn’t watched Grey’s Anatomy (you certainly don’t need to know what has been happening this season) just to get in a good cry? Additionally, they noted that “heavy viewers learn the television message ritualistically and hegemonically, not by negotiation.” This brought to mind an earlier article from Dewey that compared the “transmission” and “ritual” view of communication. As Katz and Liebes noted, news and family dramas are the most frequently studied types of programs. Perhaps it is because they seemingly provide such good examples of these two types of communication? Overall, their article seemed to leave us with the somewhat unsatisfying conclusion that TV is a lot of things to a lot of people, and we still aren’t really sure how to analyze its effects.

Finally, Deuze’s article made me wonder if anyone else ever gets the sense that media corporations are asking us to do their job. (Having worked in marketing and PR, I’m appreciative for every patron that forwarded one of my e-mail advertisements or recommended a concert to a friend. Working for a non-profit, every bit of customer support was appreciated.) Amazon falls somewhere in the middle for me: while I personally resist completing a product review after every online purchase, I appreciate others that do, since I place faith (too much?) in their comments. But helping a car company help promote its wares? Somehow I think we haven’t noticed we’ve been duped. Am I complaining about a role others (including the un-paid workers at Bluffton Today) seem all too happy to take on, or is it time to re-evaluate our roles as consumers in this shifting global economy?

The Dallas Phenomenon and Global TV Culture

Among this week's readings, I thought Elihu Katz and Tamar Liebes' article, "Reading Television: Television as Text and Viewers as Decoders" particularly interesting. I remembered hearing my parents talk about watching Dallas back in the 1980s, especially how the question "Who shot J.R.?" buzzed around America throughout the summer of 1980. What I didn't know until reading this article was that Dallas was not just an American but an international sensation, and also that its format was revolutionary at the time. The authors' exploration of the implications of the show's reach was quite relevant to our discussions of global media culture.

To a majority of the world's population, watching television shows is a purely entertainment-centered action. However, the values and culture taken from TV shows can influence existing cultures in countries and regions around the world. According to the authors, in the case of Dallas this influence comes in the form of "kinship relations" (373) within the Ewing family and between the Ewings and other dynasties, as well as "the permeability of the institution of the family to the norms of business, and vice versa" (374). The show presented a different interpretation of familial relations than most other prime-time shows of the time; perhaps this contributed to its very loyal following, first in the United States and then overseas.

Katz and Liebes stress the need for "audience decoding" (376) both in the States and abroad in order to more completely understand the effects of American TV's exportation. Dallas, as a worldwide smash, offered a perfect avenue to do so. The authors give examples of selected countries' response to the show filtered through the prism of each culture. In Germany, for instance, viewers responded to the show in terms of a "repressed patriarchal structure," a reflection of that country's relatively conservative society. To them, the show was a form of escapism. In Holland, on the other hand, Dallas was not viewed as escapism but rather as an expression of various real-life emotions such as joy, sadness and love. (377) Perhaps the most telling example, though, is that of Algeria. For its citizens, the show represented "a reminder of the reality they [were] fast losing" (378), that of a traditional patriarchal family where various generations live in the same place.

Another view mentioned in the article by Stolz states that "it [Dallas] contributes...to the erosion of traditional cultures by changing the leisure-time agenda" (378), but I don't quite see it that way. Yes, the show took time away from a local program that could have been produced and broadcast in its place. But in their own analysis of various cultural responses, Katz and Liebes show that people are not blindly accepting the American culture of the show but synthesizing it with their own. While some may argue this has problems of its own, I don't think traditional cultures are totally disappearing because of it.

There hasn't really been another show like Dallas since. To be sure there are plenty of nighttime soap operas, most set in a) police stations; b) law practices; or c) hospitals. But none of them have inspired the massive international following of Dallas. Why is this? Grey's Anatomy, for example, is plenty soapy enough, with good-looking cast members and high drama to be had every week. But it's hardly a worldwide phenomenon. Maybe it's because of the advent of Hulu, YouTube and their ilk; people don't have to wait as long to see their favorite shows, so there isn't as much building suspense each week. Or could it be because local content is slowly beginning to challenge the iron grip of U.S. media production? Perhaps it's a combination of both. Whatever the reason, the lack of a 21st-century Dallas-like media production shows how quickly the global media landscape has changed.

Analysis Question #2--Global Governance and Media Conglomerates

The current world economic situation has called into question the way that global media is governed and how it disseminates content. With the global economy in crisis, the gulf between rich and poor--both nation-states and individuals--seems to have widened. Concurrently, a few international media corporations are continuing to increase their influence across the globe: a majority of the media content, both news and entertainment, the world sees is controlled by a small number of Western-based conglomerates: the News Corporation, TimeWarner, and Disney. Some argue that through glocalization, more regional and local opinions are being expressed through media--but this isn't entirely true. While more local sources of media are indeed emerging, they are still affiliated with, still filtered through, the prism of these large multi-national corporations. In order to more accurately represent local media content, I think nation-states certainly need to revisit the issue of global governance.

The trend over the past few decades in government media regulation has been, well, a significant lack of it. Privatization and liberalization in the industry has definitely contributed to the rise of the conglomerates, as have the skyrocketing development of ICTs and convergence--the combination of different technologies and industries that creates new cultural products and ways of distributing them. The huge networks that these conglomerates create, along with the huge amounts of capital and the economies of scale that come with them, have made it hard for smaller media companies to break into the market, according to Sean Siorchu et. al's "Introduction to National Media Regulation." However, with the current economic situation, the media industry, like many others, has lost money--for example, here in the United States, many newspapers have folded after decades of publication. For nation-states, this economic climate is perhaps an indication that they need to play a larger role in their governance of media. There's little doubt that the large conglomerates will continue their dominance, but for the sake of individual cultures, especially those in developing countries, nation-states need to actively assert their role as global governors.

Although, as Daya Kishan Thussu states in "Mapping Media Flow and Contra-Flow," Southern media content does make its way to the developed North more than it used to (films from the Indian Bollywood, for example), it's not enough. Glocalization is much more common: "...media content and services [are] tailored to specific cultural consumers, not so much as because of any particular regard for national cultures but as a commercial imperative." That phenomenon supports the fact that media as defined by Western ideals is all about profit margins, ad revenue, and of course the spread of democratic thought. The free-market economy imperative of global media means that local and regional interests are not always accurately portrayed or represented, and this is where individual nation-states can really inject their influence on behalf of smaller media companies. Whether they would be successful remains to be seen, but I think they owe it to their citizens to advocate on their behalf and push for stricter government media regulation.

Analysis #2 - Corporations take on Global Governance

This is a particularly relevant time to talk about the difficulties facing global journalism. While the topic of global governance is a relevant and pressing issue regardless of the economic climate, media outlets are facing increasing challenges in remaining afloat during the current economic crisis. Many blame this pressure on journalism, of course, on the growth and challenges of online media. Coincidentally, today marked the opening of a World Media Summit in Beijing, organized by China’s Xinhau News Agency and attended by major global media players such as News Corporation, the BBC, and Google. (Is it any surprise that Rupert Murdoch was invited to give a keynote speech?)

A key part of this analysis question is being discussed this weekend: how do we handle media ownership and rights of information and communication on a global scale? Interestingly, this Summit is distinguishing itself from previous attempts at defining global governance (through the UN and others) in that it is being hosted and attending by the media corporations themselves. (As we’ve read, many of these corporations have budgets that are bigger than the GDP of many countries, so it seems fitting that they’re staking a claim in the global governance debate.) Not surprisingly, a focus has been on securing payment for use of content, particularly from websites and blogs. Murdoch gave a fiery speech demanding payment for content and expressed interest in returning to older subscription models. He was challenged, however, by a media critic and journalism professor who called for a new model of governance that reacts to the new media climate – both its opportunities and challenges alike. “(Jeff) Jarvis said aggregators, bloggers and people who use Twitter to share news stories give content creators free distribution and that companies should find ways to capitalize on that, instead of trying to police it.” (New York Times article)

While we must address older concerns, I agree with Jarvis that it must be done within a new framework. To encourage both continued and increased diversity of coverage of topics from culture to conflict, journalists need both the support of media organizations and the freedom to convey their varied stories.

I-report, U-Report, We all Report?

I have noticed a theme throughout class regarding the trend towards consumers becoming producers within media industry. We have discussed blogging, the ability to leave comments on news websites, and the proliferation of independent (or pundit, if you prefer) citizen journalists. The class has always moved to this discussion each week in various ways, and the essay in the IC Reader by Mark Deuze, "Convergence Culture in the Creative Industries" really elaborated what we have been focusing on in class.
Deuze states (as defined by Jenkins) that convergence culture is "both a top-down corporate driven process and a bottom up consumer-driven process". He then summarizes the two different approaches to this new form of convergence culture. First, this new form of media consumption allows us, the consumers, to exercise direct control over what we watch, what we tune out, and what we absorb from the media. As an example, I prefer to watch Fox News over CNN. Also within Fox News, I pay specific attention to certain journalists or hosts over others - but when a commenter is on that I do not agree with or can tolerate listening too, I aptly mute the discussion. In this way, I am exercising complete control over what I consume through the media. The second approach Deuze analyzes is the "collaborative media", in which we each participate in media production and consumption. A prime example of this is blogging - even for this class. We are creating our own media products and we enable our peers to in a sense, be co-producers with us - we allow their comments (or criticisms) and may edit our post to reflect others ideas. This form of collaborative media is prevalent in even today's major news outlets - Fox News and CNN.
IReport.com brands itself as "unedited, unfiltered, news". On this website, citizen journalists can post their own stories. These reports are unedited (the site claims "that means the stories submitted by users are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post") stories to appear on CNN, they must be fully vetted and fact checked by CNN employees. Last month, 724 and last month over 378, 547 were posted. IReport.com was picked up by CNN. However, CNN exercises final editorial control over the posts by citizen journalists, bringing to light questions about how involved the author is in the final process and if it is really collaborative media. For IReportIReport stories appeared on CNN. As always though, there is fine print to be read. Before submitting an IReport story to CNN, the user must read and agree to the terms of use and in there is a hidden provision: "CNN has the right to edit and/or alter any submission. CNN reserves the right not to use the material you submit at all and/or as little of the material as it chooses...you hereby grant to CNN and its affiliates a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide license to edit, telecast, rerun, reproduce, use, syndicate, license, print, sublicense, distribute and otherwise exhibit the materials you submit, or any portion thereof, as incorporated in any of their programming or the promotion thereof, in any manner and in any medium or forum, whether now known or hereafter devised". In summary, you hand over all rights to your personal work to CNN.
Fox News has a similar form of citizen journalism - UReport. Users can upload pictures and videos for submission to Fox News. UReports terms of use are similar to CNN's "The Site may provide you with the chance to upload or provide messages, photos, videos, clips, ideas, feedback, comments or other content (“Content”). You understand and agree that FOX has the right in its sole discretion, but not the obligation, to monitor, edit, and remove any posted Content, and assumes no liability for any such Content". However, when it comes to posting comments on stories Fox does not assume editorial content, "However, FOX accepts no responsibility whatsoever in connection with or arising from such Messages".
Both IReport and UReport have dramatically increased the impact of citizen journalism. Without these forms of media interaction, video from places such as Iran and other state controlled media outlets may not be seen around the world. The original submission of these writings, pictures, and videos is citizen journalism in its truest form. But before these can be published by CNN or Fox News, the news outlets exercise complete content control - vetting, fact checking, and editing the submissions. Is this then true collaborative media if an outsider has control over the final content? Deuze does an excellent job of summarizing these tensions by explaining, "the same communication technologies that enable interactivity and participation are wielded to foster the entrenchment and growth of a global corporate media system that can be said to be anything but transparent, interactive, or participatory".