Family Television Viewing is on the Rise - Essay Example

Family television viewing is on the rise (Ofcom . What might this phenomenon indicate in terms of the significance of television for the construction of collective identities? By Student Name Course Institution Date Introduction In transnational interactions it is usually assumed that those involved in the interaction share a common identity on some level. On the other hand, collective identities are ‘negotiated within social worlds’ spanning several places (Vertovec, 2001, p. 573). Advances in communication technologies, specifically, satellite technologies enable the transmission of media communications from one point to another across several borders (Volkmer, 2008, p. 232). This is important because media communications, especially trans-border media communications do not merely represent specific identities, but rather they ‘act as agents through which identities are formed, reproduced and reformed’ (Karanfil, 2009, p. 887). Television is especially significant since it is a daily fixture in the lives of many, providing information whether right or wrong, it is also a source of entertainment and evokes a range of human emotions. Television is also has a daily persistence in the lives of many (Silverstone, 1993, p. 575). Oxcom (2013) reports that 90% of all viewing for 2012 occurred watching television live. Moreover, television viewing increased during 2012 indicating a growing significance of television in the lives of families (Oxcom, 2013). This paper examines significance of the rise in family television viewing on the construction of collective identities. This paper is therefore divided into three main parts. The first part of this paper analyses the construction of collective identities. The second part of the paper analyses the role of television in the construction of collective identities. The third part of the paper examines trends in television viewing and considers what those trends may mean for the construction of collective identities. The Construction of Collective Identities Eisenstadt (1998) identified three elements of collective identities. The first element is the assumption that identity construction occurs in much the same way as power and economic transaction: autonomously and by choice. Secondly, identity constructions have been taking place throughout history and ‘in all human societies’ (Eisenstadt, 1998, p. 229). Thirdly, collective identities are constructed from a ‘basic’ but ‘continually changing building block’ or code or theme, particularly sacred, civil or primordial codes or themes (Eisenstadt, 1998, p. 229). In other words, collective identities are constructed from a basic foundation which is not static and unchanging. The question for consideration however, is how collective identities are formed and how they evolve. Eisenstadt (1998A) offers a further explanation. According to Eisenstadt (1998A), collective identities are not formed ‘naturally’, but rather they are formed ‘socially’ (p. 138). The social construction of collective identities are: …the intentional or unintentional consequence of interactions which on their turn are socially patterned and structured (Eisenstadt, 1998A, p. 138). In the social construction of collective identities, what occurs is a distinction that creates a sameness among one group that distinguishes it from another (Eisenstadt, 1998A). King (2000) argues that collective identities on the basis of race, nation, class, regional and so on are no longer as important as they were in the past. The importance of technology in the daily rituals of individuals have changed how collective identities are formed (King, 2000). Moreover, globalization has contributed to the reduction of national influences and an increase in multinational influences. To this end, the term ‘foreign’ is losing traction in the construction of collective identities (King, 2000, p. 15). Bokser-Liwerant (2002) argues however, that while globalization has given rise to a new ‘global identity’, globalization has also heightened the significance of national, religious, and ethnic identities in the ‘shaping and re-ordering of global, regional, national and local spaces’ (p. 243). Kinnvall (2004) also argues that with the globalization of ‘economics, politics, and human affairs’ people and groups have become more ‘ontologically insecure and existentially uncertain’ (p. 741). In other words, globalization has given rise to insecurity about one’s roots and identity. In response to this ontological insecurity, people have looked inward and at home for ‘re-affirmation’ of their roots and identity (Kinnvall, 2004, p. 741). This response is more obvious in the Islamic Middle East, where globalization is perceived as an external threat to national, cultural and religious identity and nationalism themes have been fortified (Halliday, 2005). Tsagarousianou (2004) argues however, that globalization together with advances in technology have created a greater degree of diasporas in that populations are increasingly spread out all over the world. Diasporic populations and diasporic media and information technologies have increase interactions and ‘connectivity’ to a point where there is a systematic breakdown of walls and boundaries between nations and cultures (Tsagarousianou, 2004, p. 52). In other words, globalization and modern technology have facilitated greater mobility of individuals across borders and the movement of goods and commerce across borders. Thus, it is conceivable that individuals are forming connections that breakdown the differentiation dimensions of collective identities. The idea that one group is distinguished from others or that there is a foreign group is becoming less obvious. Ultimately, there are two opposing views on the impact of globalization on the construction of collective identities. On one the one hand it is argued that globalization has served to create a sameness among populations who come into contact with each other more frequently than ever before. Advances in technologies have also combined with globalization to facilitate this new perception of the construction of collective identities. Collective identities have converged into more a global identity. On the other hand, it is argued that due to ontological insecurity over a global identity, populations are inclined toward re-affirming their identities so as to distinguish themselves from a collective global identity. Since technologies tend to contribute to convergence and responses to convergence, and since 90% of viewing takes place via television viewing, the question for consideration is whether or not television plays a role in the construction of collective identities. Television and the Construction of Collective Identities Media and communications technologies have significantly changed the manner in which collective identities are formed, changed and sustained. It is no longer necessary for collective identities to be formed, changed or sustained in a physical space. Collective identities are now formed in the mind, often influenced by media and communications technologies such as in cyberspace (Cerulo, 1997, p. 386). Albizu (2007) argues that with the ‘creation’ of global markets and global audiences, ‘traditional spaces’ have been superseded by ‘global television’ (p. 239). Albizu (2007) suggests however, that global television is a phenomenon spearheaded by the more powerful countries, especially Western countries, which penetrate borders and can be viewed as a form of ‘cultural imperialism’ (p. 239). According to Albizu (2007) there are two changes occurring in the construction of collective identities which are facilitated by television. On the one hand, diasporic populations are watching television in their own language and in doing so are maintaining their identities derived from their countries of origins. This contributes to pluralism or multiculturalism in the host or receiving state. On the other hand, individuals and families are watching television at home in which they come into contact with cultures and identities that are quite different from the culture or identities of their own state (Albuzu, 2007). In other words, the reach of television is such that individuals in one place are not limited to viewing television broadcasts of the host state or the state in which television is viewed. As Georgiou (2012) explains: Television’s transnationalization presents a new challenge in understanding the relations between television, global risks, and audiences’ sense of security. Transnational television, now available across millions of households in the world due to satellite and digital technologies has challenged the boundedness of spaces of identity as contained in the nation-state (p. 305). Transnational television is especially significant for diasporic populations and immigrants who maintain connections to individuals across borders. Many of these people have anxieties over developments in the receiving state and those in their countries of origins. Television is the main source by which these individuals keep abreast of those developments. Thus television is a ‘powerful tool for transnational subjects’ attempt to find ontological security’ (Georgiou, 2012, p. 305). Essentially, television emerges as an instrument for sustaining or changing collective identities. As Georgiou (2012) explains, television is a source of ‘ontological security’ because it is an ‘cultural system that reinforces a sense of homeliness’, is a daily ‘companion providing’ constant ‘reassurance’ and it is a ‘supporter of efforts to manage transnational anxieties’ (Georgiou, 2012, p. 305). At the same time, it is an incontrovertible fact that television is an instantaneous and simultaneous source of information which necessarily redefines representative spaces in terms of ‘belonging beyond geographical boundaries’ (Georgiou, 2012, p. 308). In this regard, television can reinforce collective identities derived from the country of origin, or it might reinforce the collective identities of the host state or it might reinforce a global identity. Thus collective identities are formed in pursuit of the need to maintain an ordering of one’s life and in doing so, to avoid as far as possible, conflict. Individuals therefore require some degree of ontological security. Ontological security is often achieved via the identification and maintenance of ties to family, the home, communities, states and neighborhoods. These identities are under attack by a ‘social and technological changes’ (Silverstone, 1993, p. 573). Television is a significant tool for the maintenance of those ties because television is a constant in the daily lives of many or perhaps a majority of individuals. As Silverstone (1993) argues, television is with the individual at the start of the day and at the end of the day and quite often in between. Televisions are on in bars and is therefore a constant companion. Individuals watch television to escape the harsh realities of life or at times to come into contact with those realities. Moreover, television ‘provides us with opportunities to be social or solitary’ (Silverstone, 1993, p. 575). In general individuals usually form identities through social interactions and through interactions within the outside world. Television has increasingly emerged as a mediator between the television viewer and the outside world and thus aids significantly in the construction of collective identities (Silverstone, 2012). This is because television has a persistent presence and comes across with a sense of familiarity so that the messages embedded in television communications are trusted (Silverstone, 2012). Karanfil (2009) also sees television as a powerful tool in the construction of collective identities in relation to diasporic populations. Television services to re-connect ‘cultures to places’ and by ‘fulfilling the desire for memory, myth, nostalgia and self-identification’ (Karanfil. 2009, p. 888). Claims that globalization results in a global identity and erodes the notion of collective identities embedded in the concept of the nation state are compromised by the existence of transnational television. Individuals can reinforce their national identities regardless of where they are in the world (Karanfil, 2009). At the same time it can be argued that collective identities can be abandoned and new collective identities formed on the basis of television viewing. If television is a constant and persistent companion to individuals and television does not provide a link to or information or images capable of relinking diasporic populations with the collective identity of their country of origin, they might be influenced by images or information about a new collective identity. This is especially true since collective identity refers to ‘shared values’ such as ‘traditions, culture, morality, religious beliefs and so on’ (Kantner, 2006, p. 506). Collective identities can also be formed at home that are inconsistent with the collective identity at home. Exposure to a foreign collective identity on television might influence the television audience to re-think and reform their collective identities. Maxwell (1996) argue that television can often transmit and convey messages that are in conflict with the collective identities of its audiences. The social and economic realities of globalization may interact with the messages conveyed on television to influence a rethinking of the viewer’s collective identities (Maxwell, 1996). Although collective identities are formed on the basis of basic patterns of belief and behavior, they are constructed and modified on the basis of ritual. Since television is a ritualistic tool, collective identities may be changed rather than maintained. Thus far it has been established that diasporic and migration populations often rely on television to keep them connected to their collective identities. Thus television reinforces the collective identities of diasporic and immigrant populations abroad. This is because television is a constant and persuasive tool in the daily lives of individuals. What is largely ignored in the literature however, is the possibility that exposure to television can reconstruct collective identities. Even so, regardless of how exposure television influences collective identities, it is clear that television exposure plays a significant role in the construction of collective identities. The Rise of Television Viewing and What it Means for the Construction of Collective Identities Karanfil (2009) informs that Turkish-Australians have access to 12 Turkish television channels provided by satellite. These channels include Religious channels as well as the Turkish Public Broadcasting Service and reaches roughly 20,000 Turkish-Australian families (Karanfil, 2009). This is a significant development as it is indicative of the fact that despite resettling abroad, Turkish immigrants are able to take their collective identities with them and can continuously connect with their collective identities from a remote location. At the same time, it can also be argued that if television permits a connection to a collective identity from a remote location, it can also influence change in terms of one’s collective identity. The availability of transnational television can go both ways. In other words, transnational television can reinforce connections to a collective identity for diasporic populations and at the same time might weaken those links and reinforce a connection with a different collective identity in others. As Albizu (2007) informs there are 13,570 televisions stations that broadcast via satellite. It would therefore appear that regardless of where one settles, there are opportunities for reconnecting with one’s country of origin and therefore the collective identity of one’s country of origin. However, the large number of transnational television sites also means that it is equally possible to establish a connection with a foreign collective identity. In other words, just as television access can enable a reconnection with or reinforcement of one’s original collective identity, television may also aid in the reconstruction of one’s collective identity. Diasporic populations might not always be able to watch television from their country of origins and might be exposed to television from another country or television from the receiving state. As Bartels (1993) argues, repetitious exposure to television messages can and often does have persuasive influences and can persuade a viewer to change a previously held opinion or value along social and/or political lines. This is particularly important for diasporic, immigrant and indigenous populations in the UK. According to Oxcom (2013) not only is television the main source of viewing in the UK, but the average family watches more than 4 hours of television daily. All indications are therefore that, there are opportunities for repeated exposure to messages and thus the opportunities to be persuaded to change a social or political value or to adhere to a current one. Similar trends are also observed globally. According to Oxcom (2013) television revenues increased worldwide since 2008, despite the global financial crisis of 2008. Therefore, television maintains a constant presence in the daily lives of individuals regardless of where they may be situated and has the potential to have a persuasive influence on the construction of their collective identities. It can therefore be argued that if an individual is exposed to television messages persistently, whether at home or abroad, the individual can change his or her political or social opinions or values and thus construct a new collective identity. The dynamics of globalization inform that geographical space is not important as borders have now been removed in an increasingly interconnected world. Regardless the opportunities to remain connected to one’s original collective identity, despite leaving that country and migrating elsewhere are enhanced by the presence of transnational television. Arab audiences for instance, are dispersed all over the world and are persistently exposed to Arabic television. Arab immigrants are persistent television viewers. For all populations, are amenable to television since it does not require special skills or the ability to read for successfully operating a television and for understanding its messages (Georgiou, 2012). Despite its ease of use, the manner in which television interacts with the national environment to influence the collective identity of the viewer is another factor that might dictate who chooses to watch television and how influential its messages is. For example, a particularly social individual, who watches television for a significant number of hours a day, may not be as influenced by television messages as an individual who is not social and watches less television than his or her social cohort. In other words, although it is assumed that television plays a role in the construction of collective identities due to its reach and constant consumption, these assumptions are anecdotal in nature and there is still a number of variables that are unaccounted for. Conclusion There is no doubt that television is a part of the daily lives of families and individuals alike. There is also no doubt that collective identities are formed through social rituals and globalization have changed the way that social rituals occur. It is no longer necessary for face-to-face socialization to occur in order for social rituals to be effective. It is therefore assumed that increased exposure to television facilitates the requisite social rituals for the construction or maintenance of collective identities. Since this assumption is for the most part purely academic in that it is not usually supported by empirical evidence, it can be argued that television can both reinforce and/or alter one’s collective identities. The best that can be said of the role of television in the construction of collective identities is that diasporic and migrant populations can connect with their collective identities from a remote location. Whether or not this connection has an influence on the maintenance or reframing of collective identities is not altogether clear. Works Cited Albizu, J.A. (2007). “Geolinguistic Regions and Diasporas in the Age of Satellite Television.” The International Communication Gazette, Vol. 69(3): 239-261. Bartels, L.M. (June 1993). “Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure.” American Political Science Review, Vol. 87(2): 267-285. Bokser-Liwerant, J. (June 2002). “Globalization and Collective Identities.” Social Compass, Vol. 49(2): 253-271. Cerulo, K.A. (1997). “identity Construction: New Issues, New Directions.” Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 23: 385-409. Eisenstadt, S.N. (November 1998). “The Construction of Collective Identities: Some Analytical and Comparative Indications.” European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 1(2): 229-254. Eisenstadt, S.N. (1998A). “Modernity and the Construction of Collective Identities.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 39(1): 138-158. Georgiou, M. (2012). “Seeking Ontological Security Beyond the Nation: The Role of Transnational Television.” Television & New Media, Vol. 14(4): 304-321. Halliday, F. (2005). The Middle East in International Relations: Power, Politics and Ideology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Kantner, C. (2006). “Collective Identity as Shared Ethical Self-Understanding: The Case of the Emerging European Identity.” European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 9: 501-523. Karanfil, G. (2009). “Pseudo-Exiles and Reluctant Transnationals: Disrupted Nostalgia on Turkish Satellite Broadcasts.” Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 31(6): 887-899. King, A. (2000). “Introduction: Spaces of Culture, Spaces of Knowledge.” In King, A. (Ed.) Culture, globalization, and the World System. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1-18. Kinnvall, C. (October 2004). “Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity, and the Search for Ontological Security.” Political Psychology, Vol. 25(5): 741-767. Maxwell, R. (March 1996). “Model for European TV and National Identity: Assembly Instructions Not Included.” Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, 89-95. Oxcom. (2013). “The Communications Market 2013 (August).” Oxcom. http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/market-data-research/market-data/communications-market-reports/cmr13/ (Retrieved 20 April, 2014). Silverstone, R. (1993). “Television, Ontological Security and the Transitional Object.” Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 15: 573-598. Tsagarousianou, R. (2004). “Rethinking the Concept of Diaspora: Mobility, Connectivity and Communication in a Globalized World.” Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture. Vol.1(1): 52-63. Vertovec, S. (October 2001). “Transnationalism and Identity.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 27(4): 573-582. Volkmer, I. (2008). “Satellite Culture in Europe: Between National Spheres and a Globalized Space.” Global Media and Communication, Vol. 4: 231-244. Read More