What does this MEAN??!! : Critical Theories for Analyzing Media

Semiotic:
I like this theoretical approach because it allows multiple interpretations within a single theory. The whole idea of symbols and culture is very true to life as one can see when studying color connotations. Red, for example, can mean passion, anger, or authority depending upon the cultural lens one places between the color and their interpreting eye. The whole theory is based upon how meaning is created rather than what the meaning is. I find myself leaning towards this approach to most of the texts I teach in class because I ask my students to spend more time on their explanations of an assigned meaning than the meaning itself. I put little stock in the end result if my students are not aware, themselves, of how they got there in the first place. One way in which I teach this to my students is to present them with vague pictures that, I feel, have some sort of a connection to what we will be/are studying. Without any priming, I have the students jot down any thoughts they have about the image components and then hypothesize as to why this particular image is in class. As we go around the room, each student tells the class how they arrived at their conclusion. The different answers that result seem to run along cultural lines, which I find fascinating.

Feminist:
I’ve also been a long time fan of feminist readings of various media. The whole idea of gender roles interests me because despite our society’s grandstanding about how far we’ve come, most media portrayals would suggest otherwise. Using a feminist lens to view media makes this much more obvious. In recent years, there has been a boost of strong women characters in action movies. In many cases, these women are incredibly independent, which is a positive step, but they also still cling to an idealized form of beauty often achieved with editing techniques and makeup. Also, Beach’s discussion of wrestling and the Coors commercials suggests that media still clings to antiquated ideas of what males should be as well. The beer drinking, football loving, slightly overweight men depicted as fans of these things constantly lust, often successfully, after the idealized women. Another, more recent example, exists in the Swiffer commercials where a woman is the target of a, seemingly male, mop’s attempt at winning her back through romantic gestures. In each case, the woman rejects the advances of the cleaning tools, which suggests strength, but at the same time it is always a woman in charge of the cleaning, and the tools are always depicted as males; and rather stupid ones at that. It seems that the feminist lens is a very effective way to break down the fantasy land that media often thrusts upon us.

Post Colonial:
Post Colonial readings of texts seem geared to best deal with stereotypes placed upon non westerners. Traditionally, non European minorities have been depicted as exotic and primitive beings; usually people from Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Post Colonial theory looks at these regions and people in a way that takes into account the western influences placed on them. In class, just the other day, we were looking at an old “Frito Bandito” commercial as a way to build discussion of stereotypes. My students were quick to point out the dress (poncho, sombrero, bandoliers, and guns), outrageous accent, and physical features (short, insane mustache, beady eyes) of the cartoon character meant to be a typical Hispanic man. In breaking down the stereotype, we commented on how it reminded all of us of the Mexican cowboy image from western movies. At one point in the conversation, an Hispanic student whom had been to Mexico many times to visit family commented that the only people that ever wore sombreros in Mexico were American tourists and men that made a living catering to them in a mariachi band. He went on to say that they dress just like all of us unless they’re trying to get money from Americans because they know what Americans “expect” of them. Shortly after this comment, another student spoke up saying, “you know, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Hispanic person eat Fritos before. Like, ever!” We wrapped up the conversation by talking about the different ways both cultures influenced each other to perpetuate the stereotype depicted by the Frito Bandito. Best part: this all happened in an eighth grade classroom!

Rhetorical/Audience:
Since the September 11 attacks, this type of text reading seems more important than most. I believe it was Theodore Roosevelt that expressed an extreme hatred of “armchair parlor jingoes” because of their blind and often ignorant patriotism; especially when they did nothing to back up what they said. Since 2001, the media has done a good job at creating a forced sense of patriotism in many who before the attacks seemed rather ambivalent about the whole idea. Commercials, movies, and television shows started using more red, white, and blue in their images; touting American values; and even suggesting certain things that might be ‘anti-American’ with little or no evidence to support them. My favorite ploy was when the government came out and said (paraphrased, of course) that we should go out and spend our money, do our shopping so that the terrorists couldn’t have the satisfaction of having scared us. Soon after this, stores began running sales with patriotic themes offering incentives to buy large ticket items en masse. The media had effectively turned shopping into a patriotic exercise. I also like to watch the local Fox News station for good examples of stories that attempt to force a way of thinking for an audience. In a very informal way, I noticed a few winters ago how in every Fox newscast, there was a story about a fire, a “dangerous” everyday use product, and an over sensationalized version of the upcoming weather. Basically, scariest newscast imaginable every single night. It is apparently in Fox’s best interest to keep the public scared about something. What that something is doesn’t really matter.

Critical Discourse Analysis:
I find this one to have a lot of real world applications and, without mentioning the actual title of it, find myself dishing out CDA in my classroom most of the time. The suggestion that a particular discourse is greatly responsible in assigning identity rings true in almost any situation. Lawyers root their identities in the discourse of the law, different classes root their identities in a common language and behavior sets as do races and age groups. In addition to forming identities, these different discourses can come together to help create meaning. I was having a discussion with a former student the other day about his current legal trouble. He came out of a store and saw somebody scratching the paint on his truck. He approached the vandal and broke his nose by smashing his head against the truck and then holding him there until the police arrived. He was mystified as to why he ended up in trouble as well as the vandal. He claimed he “had the right to retaliate” in this situation. He was operating under the discourse of his stereotypical white, southern male culture in which retaliation equates with physical violence; something I saw quite often while teaching in the Shenandoah Valley. The problem was that he was actually operating in a legal discourse in which one’s rights are described in great detail. What he did, did not qualify. Without the proper discourse, he could not effectively assign the correct meaning to the actions that occurred and therefore did not understand why he was being held accountable for anything at all. I think it is important for us as educators to hit CDA theory well with our students so that they understand the importance of code switching and when it is appropriate to use one set of discourse rules over another depending upon the situation or text presented to them.