Social History Canon - Essay Example

Media History PART A: Introduction In the life, each one of us has encounters and experiences that they classify as ‘the past’. The past can sometimes be a memory or able to be traced through remains or traces existing in the present. The same way, anything that we see, touch or encounter has a past and a history as well, be it a cloth, television set, the media, a chair or anything else. Therefore, it is crucial in studying media history to know meanings attached to the words ‘history’ as well as ‘the past’ because they are not the same, however much they seem to be much interconnected. ‘The past’ refers to events that took place long time ago that may have or lack trace in the present. On the other hand, history is denoted as a literary narration, documentation, account or evidence of the past (Jenkins &Munslow, 2013, p. 6). Through history, a historian gives meaning to past occurrences, events or and encounters in his or her own perspective. Therefore, the mention of history should not be construed as a mirror of the past in totality for various reasons, and there are various points that anyone studying history in media or any other field should be aware about when trying to unveil it’s the two meanings. One of the matters concerning history is that there are epistemological as well as philosophical assumptions that many historians make with regards to the proper way in which history should be done (Jenkins &Munslow, 2013, p. 6). One of those assumptions is where we are meant to believe that history can correspond with reality in the past by reading its contents. The misconception that history is a true reflection of the past is thus worth noting in media studies out of knowledge that the history presented to us entails many life philosophies in its construction. The other difference is in the sense that history is always made for someone and thus it has a purpose as opposed to ‘the past’, which remains just as ‘the past’. It is through this understanding that one learning media history is able to know that every historian gives an account concerning something with the chief intent that someone in later time will get to read or go through their documentation unlike the past. In addition, history is ideological and not innocent as it appears unlike ‘the past’ in that, its construction encompasses a historian’s moral judgment concerning the wrong and the good as well as depending on how they perceive the world (Jenkins &Munslow, 2013, p. 12). Therefore, what many call as a historical fact at times stands to be questioned on its viability and reliability. This is because such a historical fact is a description of things that took course and history can thus not contain an intrinsic meaning. The other thing is that history is one of construction as opposed to discovery like ‘the past’. This is to mean that history is a construction of events by use of figurative thinking, theories and even concepts unlike ‘the past’ which is an occurrence that took course and which cannot be explored but can only be discovered and scripted (Jenkins &Munslow, 2013, p. 12). . Therefore, history is always politico-cultural in nature owing to the fact that historians have to use arguments and conclusions in explaining past events. It is through using such arguments that at times historians can be so lost in moral or spiritual positions in explaining an aspect to the extent of losing the core aim of reconstructing the past objectively (Munslow, 2013, p. 253). This explains that different historians can have different accounts of the past depending on the data they amass regarding an occurrence and the manner in which the present it out. However, with utmost truth and objectivity the past could somehow be genuinely historicized through history presented. A case example is that if the past is written as a text, the later depiction of it in the television or a video cannot bear the same effect (Hunt, 2006.p.847). As a media history student, one should be aware of this fact in that if an event or art of work that were initially in text are played on a television set, the meaning may change owing to such factors as sound, music or even movement and light. In addition, words that accompany such an event may create effect that in was not intended to have. In fact, the television cannot have the same effect as a text media because they are not competing on the same terrain. This is because television history major purpose is to educate as well as entertain (Hunt, 2006, p. 847). In addition, it is crucial to realize that if television history by any means persuades the viewers to personally think about the subject in question in a bid to trigger an opinion from them, then it least achieves the purpose for which it was meant to serve, which is majorly to educate (Hunt, 2006, p. 847). This account is meant to support the connotation that history may at times not be a true depiction of the past. However, although history is an account of happenings taking course long ago, it is not to be regarded lacking to completely be lacking any reflection of ‘the past’. The two are largely intertwined in that history is taken as an authored past (Munslow, 2013, p. 268). In that regard, historians’ accounts cannot be skeptically taken as wholly false in the study of media history because of mere doubt and complexity in interpreting what a context meant in the past (Munslow, 2013, p. 268). The major concern when it comes to history is on the extent of knowledge the reader gets when it comes to the past. For that regard, although a television set may render different effects of the past through a documentary or a film; this is a great avenue through which history can be presented to the audience (Hunt, 2006, p. 849). Therefore, it is crucial to realize that without history, there probably would be no hint about the past. PART B: In the contemporary world, there exists a great necessity for more transnational, trans-disciplinary, and trans-medial histories of the media. Currently, the world is undergoing a significant experience due to the arrival of the digital paradigm that Liu, 2007 considers as a “new media encounter” for example the re-imagining of mediated narratives and textual including the discourses in which these encounters have been applied. This paper tries to outline the canon ideology in both media and culture and provides a possible suggestion of a canon that can be incorporated in a television program. In the trace of pedigree, the new media encounter can be envisioned in generous and rationally generating terms that can easily enlighten both the old and new media encounters. However, it is not appropriate to assume the abrupt progression; there are certain factors that should be investigated just as Morley contends, “… we also need to investigate the continuities, overlaps, and modes of symbiosis between old and new technologies of symbolic and material communications and the extent to which material geographies retain significance, even under changing technological conditions” (Morley, 2008, p. 115). A symbiotic relationship exists amid the owners and creators of the works of mass media and the fan communities that these works inspire. The nature of the participating fan communities ensures the possibility of the fans and authors being active agents in jointly establishing the official storyline’s validity. The interaction amid the fans and creators depicts the ideologies of the semiotic democracy (Liu, 2007, p. 25), which is the power of the media to enable its audiences get involved in the imaginative process of developing cultural symbols instead of merely serving as passive audience. Actually, canonical studies can provide a more factual picture of media history, particularly the literary part: an approach to the historic literature that is contingent and genealogical rather than reproducing constructions and divisions of the 20th century amid “low” and “high”. In addition, canonical studies can assist in the revision of literary history, for example through the interrogation of its historiography, and thus its segregations of “other” literary works. Furthermore, such studies never follow a literature into a cultural studies paradigm, although it develops upon the fundamental perceptions of power and the phonological turn. This gives it the opportunity to further develop, yet problematize, the studies of literature rather than deserting its cumulated historic perspectives that would lead to the diminishing of historic understanding (Brode& Deyneka, 2012, p.108). Additionally, a focus on historically separated literatures and probably other modal forms for example the “structural others” to each other can help ensure profound understandings of media history, aesthetics, and the cultural process of media shaping. Generally, the purpose of all canons is to discriminate. Canons tell the audience whatever they ought to know, what is of significance, and what it concerns as having sustainable value. Good canons expose their biases and their underlying rationales. A canon is implicit in any kind of choice, be it writing about a series, a programme or genre. However, TV with regards to the activities of canon creation presents several rare difficulties. Actually, TV canon operates very differently since several authors are often involved. Normally, the works that have not been officially sanctioned are often outside the canon; however whatever remains inside the canon is in most cases more unclear. Materials that have been officially licensed and novelizations are never considered as canon. Even broadcast is at times excluded from canon by a decree of Word of God (Wheatle, 2007, p.15). The key matter is for completed works (particularly with one author). Canons are descriptive while the attempts of fans to define canon for constant works are prescriptive. If a fact is considered a canon, then no one has the authority to oppose it. The canon concept is almost exclusively a creation of fandom. The authors will change, include or ignore whatever facts they feel like they can manipulate. However, this is not an implication that the authors completely do not have a sense for continuity, but it is a far much weaker notion than canon as depicted by fan communities. Authors can twist continuity rather a lot without essentially breaking it through using Broad Strokes (Holt& Perren, 2011, p.176). For the case of fan communities that are based on significantly loose communities, canon may at times reduce to the bits desired by most people. Fans will make an attempt to create any excuse that can de-canonize the facts that they individually feel are inconvenient. Wheatle (2007), asserts that one related word is deuterocanonical, which in this situation implies to those places, events, or people who are not openly publicized on-screen, but are regarded official. For canon that does not come from the material’s source but from the creator’s pronouncements. For the conflicting notion that certain things are canon only when they appear in the origin of the material (external perspectives of the creator not involved). This idea is somehow associated to the literary word used in the description of a body of work regarded as the leading in significance and quality. For instance, if an individual implies the literary canon of English-language, it is acknowledged that the individual is speaking of certain books related to English tutoring. In other words, most of the books that people read in high school are considered to be a part of the literary canon, English-language. Additionally, a canon must never be mistaken for fanon; however most people do this most of the time. With consideration to canon’s definition as a literary backdrop, one may argue that canon study of transnational media histories may be turned into some kind of “rational history”. The latter simply is a scrutiny of eventuality, which tries to study past conceptualizations and ideas without being controlled by them. Eventually, the main purpose of the historical examination is to undo the historical eventuality of all concepts. Further, canon studies need to incorporate immanent reading approaches together with a historical awareness due to particular problems of the regular broadcasting and the occurrence of the temporarily meaningful. Canon study has to deal with both the historical impulses and immanent impulses, and try to create some logic of the friction existing amid them. This friction is mostly felt during attempts to manage the vast bulk of material which is television. Actually, this becomes an absolute problem crops up immediately a viewer asks why a programme was even popular in the first place. In other words, for a perfect understanding of the term “popular” in a popular culture, an extra-textual perspective is needed. Social History Canon A possible ‘canon’ with regards to of Channel Four television programmes is the channel 4 TV (Hunt, 2006, p. 850). This canon goes to explain to us that the television is a very vital tool that entails the capacity to contend with social issues such as family, marriage or even immigration. Therefore, the television has an obligation to engage people with constructive as well as relevant topics, most of which are contained in the social history canon. For instance, “Georgian Underworld” which was a series featured in channel 4 in the year 2003, raised a bunch of questions concerning immortality rate, role played by charities in the society as well as attitudes surrounding illegitimacy. The series also went further to open up an avenue for the penal code in the 18thc as well as criminal apprenticeships following the demise of a character known as Jack Sheppard. Therefore, social history canon is majorly depicted in “Georgian Underworld”. Another channel 4 TV programme called “Big Fat Gypsy Weddings” also depicts the aspect of social history canon. For instance, it illustrates social issues such as marriage and love: issues that have received a lot of focus from the public from centuries. Due to these themes, “Big Fat Gypsy Weddings” has commanded unequaled admiration thus considered canonical by a larger section of the public. In addition, the Channel 4 programme called “Friends” (September 1994 – May 2004) was a comedy that simply revolved around a group of friends who lived in Manhattan. Actually a social canon is depicted in this movie in terms of the friendship between the characters: traditionally forming groups where people shared all their secrets and life’s (friendships or rather ‘gangs’) just like in “Friends” was given a lot of admiration hence the series “Friends” became social canon to most people. Further, the programme “Big Brother” also depicts the social canon. Actually, this programme depicts some of the social factors that come as a result of people from various backgrounds cohabiting. Since the programme comes yearly it has acted as a means of differentiating cohabitation means amid different generations. Whatever people learn from “Big Brother” has gained worldwide acceptance, thereby making them canonical. Moreover, the TV programme “The Grand National, 2013” being the 166th annual horse race whose incidence was in England, became very canonical because of the number of years it had been recorded in history by the media. Actually, it is because of the several years of being shown in TV that prompted it command global taking and admiration thereby being considered a canon. References Brode, D & Deyneka, L. 2012.Myth, Media, and Culture in Star Wars: An Anthology. Wiley-Blackwell. Holt, J & Perren, A. 2011.Media Industries: History, Theory, and Method. Wiley-Blackwell. Hunt, T. 2006. Reality, Identity and Empathy: The Changing Face of Social History Television. Journal of Social History, 39, 3, pp. 843-858. Jenkins, K. &Munslow .A. 2013. Re-thinking History. Taylor and Francis: Routledge. Print Liu, A. 2007. “Imagining the New Media Encounter”. In Ray Siemens & Susan Schreibman (eds.) A Companion to Digital Literary Studies. Blackwell. Morley, D. 2008. For a Materialist, Non–Media-centric Media Studies. Television & Media Vol 10:1, 114-116. Sage Publications. Munslow, A. 2013. “On Keith Jenkins” Rethinking History, 17, 2, pp. 253-273. Wheatle, H. 2007. Re-viewing Television History: Critical Issues in Television Historiography. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. Read More