DOCSLIB.ORG

Representation of Impoliteness in Television Sitcom Exploring Social Meaning Through Negative Judgements and Their Situational Contexts in All in the Family

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Representation of Impoliteness in Television Sitcom Exploring Social Meaning Through Negative Judgements and Their Situational Contexts in All in the Family Representation of Impoliteness in Television Sitcom Exploring Social Meaning through Negative Judgements and their Situational Contexts in All in the Family Jukke Kaaronen Master’s Thesis English philology Faculty of Arts University of Helsinki November 2018 Tiedekunta/Osasto – Fakultet/Sektion – Faculty Laitos – Institution – Department Faculty of Arts Department of Modern Languages Tekijä – Författare – Author Jukke Kaaronen Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title Representation of Impoliteness in Television Sitcom: Exploring Social Meaning through Negative Judgements and their Situational Contexts in All in the Family Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject English philology Työn laji – Arbetets art – Level Aika – Datum – Month and Sivumäärä– Sidoantal – Number of pages Pro gradu year 93 s. + 62 liitesivua November 2018 Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract Pro gradu -tutkielman tavoite on kehittää metodologia, joka yhdistää tilannekomedioissa esiintyvää sosiolingvististä epäkohteliaisuutta ja sen tilanteellista kontekstia ohjelmissa representoitujen käytänteiden pohjalta. Tavoitetta lähestytään soveltamalla toisiaan täydentävien alojen teoriamalleja 1970-luvun amerikkalaisessa tilannekomediassa Perhe on pahin (All in the Family) esiintyviin puheakteihin, joissa tuotetaan negatiivisia arviointeja perheenjäsenien kesken. Tärkeimmiksi teoriamalleiksi muodostuvat epäkohteliaisuuden käsitteellistämistä koskevat mallit (impoliteness), diskurssianalyysistä sovelletut ihmisten arviointiin liittyvät mallit (negative judgements) sekä käytäntöyhteisöjen rakennetta ja toimintaa soveltavat mallit (community of practice). Nämä yhdistetään tutkielmassa laajempaan kulttuuristen affordanssien (cultural affordances), televisiodiskurssin sekä sosiaalisen merkityksellisyyden rakentumisen ja indeksikaalisuuden kontekstiin. Tutkielman premissiksi muodostuu oletus, että henkilöhahmojen väliset negatiiviset arvioinnit sekä niissä ilmenevät kvalitatiiviset ja kvantitatiiviset eroavaisuudet sisältävät representaatioita yhteiskunnan makro-sosiaalisista diskursseista. Täten ne tarjoavat myös mahdollisuuden tutkia ajallista sosiaalista muutosta televisio-ohjelmien representaatioissa. Tutkimus perustuu Perhe on pahin -sarjan ensimmäiseen tuotantokauteen. Tutkimusmateriaali on kerätty sarjan jaksoja katsomalla ja litteroimalla. Se koostuu kahdesta erillisestä aineistosta: Ensimmäinen aineisto koostuu havainnoista, joissa hahmojen toisiinsa kohdistuneet negatiiviset arvioinnit aiheuttavat negatiivisia reaktioita arvioinnin kohteesssa. Toinen aineisto koostuu havainnoista, jotka perustuvat henkilöhahmojen representoituihin toimintoihin. Edellä mainitut aineistot yhdistetään tutkimuksessa synteesiksi, jossa henkilöhahmojen representoitu toiminta käsitteellistetään negatiivisten arviointien tilanteelliseksi kontekstiksi. Tutkimuksen analyysissä tuodaan esille tuloksissa esiintyviä mielenkiintoisia eroavaisuuksia, jotka yhdistetään 1970-luvun Yhdysvaltojen makro-sosiaalisiin diskursseihin, kuten rotu- ja sukupuolitasa-arvoon sekä seksuaaliseen vapauteen. Tuloksia tarkastellaan sekä negatiivisten arviointien kvalitatiivis-kvantitaativisella analyysillä että esimerkkianalyysillä. Tutkimuksen merkittävimmät tulokset nousevat esille henkilöhahmodyadeissa esiintyvien negatiivisten arviointien eroavaisuuksien laadullisessa sekä määrällisessä distribuutiossa. Tarkastelemalla näitä representoitujen toimintojen yhteydessä saadaan empiiristen havaintojen tukema kuvaus makro-sosiaalisten diskurssien, kuten sukupuolittuneen työnjaon, representaatiosta negativiisissa arvioinneissa. Tutkimuksessa kehitetty metodologia osoittautuu toimivaksi ja luo pohjan mahdolliselle jatkotutkimukselle. Avainsanat – Nyckelord – Keywords Impoliteness, television discourse, sitcom, appraisal, community of practice, judgement, evaluation, All in the Family, cultural affordance Säilytyspaikka – Förvaringställe – Where deposited E-Thesis Muita tietoja – Övriga uppgifter – Additional information 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Motivation for the Thesis ................................................................................................................... 3 1.2. Objective and Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................ 4 2. Background ................................................................................................................................................ 4 2.1. Impoliteness ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.1. Face and Emotion ........................................................................................................................ 5 2.1.2. Conventionalized and non-conventionalized impoliteness......................................................... 8 2.2. Judgements as Evaluative Functions .................................................................................................. 9 2.3. Communities of Practice................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1. Practices as Cultural Affordances .............................................................................................. 14 2.4. Television Discourse and the Representation of Social Meaning .................................................... 15 2.5. Indexicality of Practices and Impoliteness ....................................................................................... 18 3. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1. Material ............................................................................................................................................ 20 3.2. Data collection .................................................................................................................................. 20 3.2.1. Instances of Impoliteness .......................................................................................................... 21 3.2.2. Represented Practices ............................................................................................................... 27 3.3. Data analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.1. Process of Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................... 30 3.3.2. Variables for Utterances ............................................................................................................ 31 4. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 4.1. Instances of Negative Judgements ................................................................................................... 34 4.2. Practices ............................................................................................................................................ 35 4.2.1. Labor .......................................................................................................................................... 36 4.2.2. Institution .................................................................................................................................. 36 4.2.3. Relation ...................................................................................................................................... 37 4.3. Practices and Negative Judgements ................................................................................................. 38 4.4. Impact ............................................................................................................................................... 39 5. Analysis and Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 41 5.1. The AM Dyad .................................................................................................................................... 42 5.1.1. AM Labor ................................................................................................................................... 43 5.1.2. AM institution ............................................................................................................................ 47 5.1.3. AM Relation ............................................................................................................................... 55 2 5.2. The AE Dyad ...................................................................................................................................... 58 5.2.1. AE Labor ..................................................................................................................................... 59 5.2.2. AE Institution ............................................................................................................................. 63 5.2.3. AE relation ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Norman Conquest: the Style and Legacy of All in the Family
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Boston University Institutional Repository (OpenBU) Boston University OpenBU http://open.bu.edu Theses & Dissertations Boston University Theses & Dissertations 2016 The Norman conquest: the style and legacy of All in the Family https://hdl.handle.net/2144/17119 Boston University BOSTON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION Thesis THE NORMAN CONQUEST: THE STYLE AND LEGACY OF ALL IN THE FAMILY by BAILEY FRANCES LIZOTTE B.A., Emerson College, 2013 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Fine Arts 2016 © 2016 by BAILEY FRANCES LIZOTTE All rights reserved Approved by First Reader ___________________________________________________ Deborah L. Jaramillo, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Film and Television Second Reader ___________________________________________________ Michael Loman Professor of Television DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated to Jean Lizotte, Nicholas Clark, and Alvin Delpino. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I’m exceedingly thankful for the guidance and patience of my thesis advisor, Dr. Deborah Jaramillo, whose investment and dedication to this project allowed me to explore a topic close to my heart. I am also grateful for the guidance of my second reader, Michael Loman, whose professional experience and insight proved invaluable to my work. Additionally, I am indebted to all of the professors in the Film and Television Studies program who have facilitated my growth as a viewer and a scholar, especially Ray Carney, Charles Warren, Roy Grundmann, and John Bernstein. Thank you to David Kociemba, whose advice and encouragement has been greatly appreciated throughout this entire process. A special thank you to my fellow graduate students, especially Sarah Crane, Dani Franco, Jess Lajoie, Victoria Quamme, and Sophie Summergrad.
    [Show full text]
  • Theorizing Conservative Egalitarianism by Erin Baribeau a Disserta
    Taxpayers and Homeowners, Forgotten Men, and Citizen-Workers: Theorizing Conservative Egalitarianism by Erin Baribeau A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Political Science) in the University of Michigan 2014 Doctoral Committee: Professor Lisa J. Disch (Chair) Professor Pamela Brandwein Professor Robert Mickey Professor Matthew D. Lassiter Copyright Erin Baribeau 2014 Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank Lisa Disch for her inspiration and unflagging support and guidance, both throughout my graduate career and at every step in the writing of this dissertation. I would also like to express my deep gratitude to Pamela Brandwein and Robert Mickey, both of whom have played a tremendous role in sparking my research interests, and in pushing me to be more precise when developing and articulating my ideas and arguments. Matthew Lassiter has provided great clarity and much needed historical insight for the framing of this project, and to him I am greatly indebted. The process of developing, clarifying, and revising this dissertation was truly a collective effort. For their help, I thank Danielle LaVaque-Manty, Scott Beal at the Sweetland Center for Writing, my friends and colleagues in the Political Theory Workshop at Michigan, my Fall 2013 Sweetland Dissertation Writing Group, and participants at the "Theory in Black and White" panel at the 2014 Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, and the "Race in North America" panel at the 2014 Meeting of the Western Political Science Association. For their generous financial support for research and travel, I also thank the Department of Political Science at Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • "Introduction: Survey of Literature of "All in The
    6 "INTRODUCTION: SURVEY OF LITERATURE OF "ALL IN THE FAMILY" Mike Porter On the night of January 12, 1971 a group of men sat watching a monitor in the CBS executive suite in New York. Some were optjmistic but all were nervous as careers lay on the line. Meanwhile, a continent away, another gentleman was "pacing the floor of a viewing room in Television City, 1 Hollywood, like an expectant father." It was too late for anyone to change their minds--the point of no return had been reached. At 10:30 p.m. EST, these men looked on as a new mid-season replacement program was fed down the lines to awaiting and warned affiliates nationwide. Meanwhile, in every major television market, extra operators hired by the network prepared themselves for the expected tempest of an enraged American public. As was later recalled, these men "kind of sneaked it on 2 one night with no advance advertising or anything." As the show began with its now familiar theme song--American entered into what was later described as "a new era of candor. The name of the program was "All in the Family." Without a doubt, "All in the Family" is one of the most controversial yet successful series in the history The show about Archie Bunker, his wife Edith, his daughter Gloria and his son-in-law the "Meathead," became what one 7 4 observer called "instant American folklore." Indeed that observation became true since in 1978 Archie Bunker's famous chair was installed as an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institution.
    [Show full text]
  • Civic Participation Within Postwar Suburban Sitcoms, 1952-1972
    Sitcom Citizenship: Civic Participation within Postwar Suburban Sitcoms, 1952-1972 A Dissertation SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Michael Cheyne IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Kevin Murphy and Laurie Ouellette May 2014 © Michael Cheyne 2014 i Acknowledgements This project would not have been possible without the invaluable assistance of my advisers at the University of Minnesota, Kevin Murphy and Laurie Ouellette, as well as the other members of my thesis committee, Tracey Deutsch and Elaine Tyler May. Through the years of researching and writing, they gave me feedback, guidance, and above all, encouragement. In particular, I thank Kevin, who, as my initial graduate adviser, helped shepherd me through life as a doctoral candidate. I also acknowledge the very helpful feedback provided by my peers in the dissertation writing group led by Kevin Murphy and Regina Kunzel during the 2011- 2013 academic years. Their varied suggestions, praise, and criticism were especially helpful during the formative years of turning years of research into a workable thesis. My fellow graduate students within the American Studies program were unfailing in their personal and professional support. My colleagues at the University of Minnesota-Morris, particularly within the history discipline, were extremely supportive to me during my final two years working on this project. They provided time and funding to assist my research and the presentation of my work. I am particularly thankful for their cheerful willingness to support a colleague during a year of teaching and writing. Finally, I thank my family, friends, and church family, who provided years of love and support while I finished this project.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction Beginning in the Early 1970S, a Shift Occurred in the World
    1 Introduction Beginning in the early 1970s, a shift occurred in the world of television comedy. New network executives came in and decided to change the content that was being put on the air. The popular TV shows of the 1960s were based in fantasy and did not address any relevant issues. Programs like Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, Green Acres and Petticoat Junction were some of the highest rated shows of the decade. The reasons for these show’s success are many. One being they appealed to audiences young and old. Television had become cheap enough to be nearly ubiquitous in the U.S. and therefore a family activity. Also, commercial sponsors were and continue to be the loudest voice in determining a program’s content, and wanted to attract the largest audience possible. “And let’s face it, if you’re a salesman and your goal is to sell as many cans of dog food or tubes of toothpaste as you possibly can, the last thing you want to do is offend any potential customers.” 1 After the Communist threat or “red scare” became a lesser issue in the late 1960s, networks felt as though they could depart from traditional, antiquated values and address real societal issues. However, producers and network executives felt as though the best way to portray these issues was through the situation comedy genre. Early sitcoms like The Mary Tyler Moore Show, All in the Family, Maude and Soap all tackled issues that were extremely relevant in the lives of many Americans as well as in the greater American culture.
    [Show full text]
  • In the History of American Primetime Television, Very Few Programs, If Any
    “T HOSE WERE THE DAYS …”: ALL IN THE FAMILY AND THE ‘P RIMETIMING ’ OF U.S. DIVERSITY AND COUNTERCULTURE Dennis TREDY Université Paris III – Sorbonne Nouvelle In the history of American primetime television, very few programs, if any, have had as startling and as permanent effect on the television landscape or have broken as many barriers as Norman Lear’s All in the Family . The program, along with the spin-offs and lookalikes spurred by it throughout the early 1970’s, brought long overdue change to the American identity that network television chose to reflect, finally bringing civil strife and intergenerational conflicts regarding race, equal rights for women and minorities, anti-war sentiment and youth culture into America’s living rooms and thereby into the forefront of public discourse. Lear’s go-for-the-jugular approach to dealing with the most divisive and politically incorrect social issues is indeed legendary, as he cleverly used the Trojan horse of laughter to deliver hard truths, and as he understood that America’s deep-seated problems had to be dealt with head-on if they were ever to be overcome—so as to root out the evil, as it were, so that the country could heal. In order to appreciate the true impact that this ground-breaking CBS sitcom had on the television landscape, it is essential to first understand just how “out of touch” the television landscape of the late 1960’s was, the laughably meager steps that had been taken to touch on themes of diversity and counterculture, and the confluence of circumstances that made such a radical change even imaginable, let alone possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Swinger: “Yeah, What Do You Call It?” Archi
    by Caroline Woodruff for the University of Minnesta First-Year Writing Program under the Department of Writing Studies Open Minds and How to Swing It Archie: “Swinging? Is that what you call it?” Swinger: “Yeah, what do you call it?” Archie: “Communism.” And so Archie Bunker has just realized that a couple that his wife Edith naïvely responded to after finding their ad in the Swingers section of a magazine on the subway, is in their living room right now fully expecting an evening of wife-swapping. This All in the Family series episode, “The Bunkers and the Swingers,” aired in the fall of 1972 when the so-called “free love” movement was in full swing. Narrated by a comical character who represents bigotry, All in the Family was creator Norman Lear’s groundbreaking show that took a straight forward, unflinching, yet humorous look at American socio-political issues of the 1960s and 1970s. Racism, women’s liberation, homosexuality, privacy rights, abortion, religion, rape, sexual mores, Watergate, and the Vietnam War were issues exposed and then explored for the first time in a weekly half-hour television program. Conversation and debate around the subject matter of the latest episodes ultimately influenced the country by opening minds and hearts. Exploring current socio-political issues helped in overcoming our fears about them. “The Bunkers and the Swingers” opens with Edith Bunker (called Dingbat by Archie) talking with daughter Gloria about a married couple she’s met through a friendship magazine. It becomes obvious to Gloria that her innocent mother doesn’t understand that the husband and wife have made a date with the Bunkers to swing.
    [Show full text]
  • Audience Members Who Are Open-Minded (As Tested)Find Archie *Likeable* While Disagreeing with His Opinions
    UMENT RESUME CS 500 -317 The Evaluation of Dogmatic Television Charactersby Dogmatic Viewers: *Is, Archie,Bunkera Credible Source?* PUB DATE Apr 73 --_ NOTE 20p.; Paper presented at the Annual Conference' of the International Communication Association- (Montreal, April 25-29, 1973), EDRS PRICE 24E17- so. 65 11C-$3.29 DESCRIPTORS *Attitudes; Beliefs; Bias; Broadcast Industry; Broadcast Television; Commercial Television; *Dogmatism; Evaluation; Mass Media; MediaResearch; Opinions; *Programing (Broadcast); *Racism; Response Style (Tests) ; Social Discrimination; Television; Television Research; *Teleirision Viewing IDENTIFIERS = *Bunker (Archie) The highly rated television,progran series,All in theFamily,* was used totest the relationship between attitudes espoused by televised characters and attitudes held by viewers of this'typeof television programing.Onthe basis of survey questionnaires, it was condluded that people who fold dogmatic and, especially, racist beliefs find reinforcement of their opinions in the program's-character Archie Bunker (an espouser of dogmatic, racist ideas). Conversely,audience members who are open-minded (as tested)find Archie *likeable* while disagreeing with his opinions. The female characters in the program serieselicitrelatively neutral responses. ( FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE tOPY U S.DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH. EDUCATION ItrolLIPARE NATIONAL ;INSTITUTE as EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN- REPRO [WEED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON 0111 ORGANiZATION OR IGIN ATMS a POINTS OR VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY *ERRE SENTOFFaCIAL NATIONAL iNSTiTHTE EDUCATION POSITION OR - THE EVALUATION OF-DOGMATIC-TELEVISION CHARACTERS-BY DOGMATIC=VIEWERSt tISARCHIE-BUNKERA-CREDIBLE_SOURCE?' by _ -foNAISSION-TO REPROODCE THIS COPY- Stuart H. -Surlin IREHTED Mita& HAS BEEN GRANTED SY -Stuart11._Surlin School of Journalism _TO: ERIC ARO- ORGANIZATIONS OPERATLYG-_- UNDER AGREEMENTS MITH THE NATIONAL IN- University of Georgia swum OF EDUCATION.
    [Show full text]
  • Archie Bunker Ja Konservatismi Sarjassa Perhe on Pahin
    10 sLÄHIKUVA s1/2016 /SCAR7INBERG &- Oscar Winberg (ISTORIA ±BO!KADEMI 4EKSTINKËËNTËNYTENGLANNISTA SUOMEKSI2AMI-ËHKË ARCHIE BUNKER JA KONSERVATISMI SARJASSA PERHE ON PAHIN Perhe on pahin -sarjan päähenkilöstä Archie Bunkerista tuli poliitinen ikoni ja konservatiivisuuden edustaja 1970-luvun alun Yhdysvalloissa. Tässä artik- kelissa tarkastellaan politiikkaa 1960-jälkipuoliskon televisiossa ja osoitetaan, etä Archie Bunkerin poliitiset mielipiteet ovat liian ambivalenteja tullakseen ymmärretyiksi yksiseliteisesti konservatiivisuutena. Sen sijaan Richard Nixonin yritykset vähentää talouspolitiikan painoarvoa julkisessa keskustelus- sa ja luoda näin konservatiivinen enemmistö selitävät Bunkerin mieltymistä uuden konservatiivisen enemmistön ruumiillistumaksi. Graffiti julisti New Yorkin maanalaisessa 1970-luvun alussa: ”Archie Bunker for President”. Seinäkirjoitus tiivistää, kuinka nopeasti uuden satiirisen ti- lannekomedian Perhe on Pahin (All in the Family, CBS 1971–1979) päähenkilö Archie Bunkerista (Carroll O’Connor) oli muodostunut poliittinen ikoni. Graffiti saattoi olla satiirinen tai sitten graffititaiteilija kuului suureen joukkoon amerikkalaisia, joille Archie oli poliittinen liittolainen, joka puhui jokamiehen suulla. Joka tapauksessa ei kulunut aikaakaan, kun joku toinen teki kirjoituk- seen lisäyksen: ”He is” – hänhän on presidentti (Castleman & Podrazik 2010, 211). Ilmaisukyvyltään rajoittuneen kiihkoilija Archien ja presidentti Richard Nixonin suora rinnastaminen on ehkä epäreilua, mutta on kuitenkin selvää, että Archie alettiin
    [Show full text]
  • Archie Bunker As Working-Class Icon
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works Publications and Research John Jay College of Criminal Justice 2012 Citizen Bunker: Archie Bunker as Working-Class Icon. Kathleen Collins CUNY John Jay College How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/jj_pubs/125 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] Citizen Bunker: Archie Bunker as Working-Class Icon Kathleen Collins In 1968, American television producer Norman Lear read a Variety review of the British sitcom Till Death Do Us Part, which featured a bigoted working-class man and his family living in London’s East End. The show’s concept—especially the notion of a father and son-in-law in constant political and ideological conflict—struck a chord with Lear, and he went about getting the rights to produce an American rendition in the U.S. The result was one of the most popular television programs in U.S. history, All in the Family (1971–1979 CBS). Elemental to any study of All in the Family is a survey of the time period in which it aired and which it conveyed. Working class representation on television was meager in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and Lear’s project loudly broke the silence. The show provided opportunities for discourse about class, race, gender, ethnicity, and stereotypes of all stripes. It was a show about a working class man who—paradoxically or not— viewers saw only in the context of his family and who was ambiguously proffered as a hero and anti-hero.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Viewer Agreement with Opinionated Television Characters
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 106 884 CS 501 063 AUTHOR Tate, Eugene D.;'Surlin, Stuart H. TITLE A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Viewer Agreement with Opinionated Television Characters. PUB DATE Apr 75 NOTE 12p.; Paper presented at , the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association (Chicago, Illinois, April 1975) EDRS PRICE, MF-S0.76 HC-S1.58 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS Adults; *Audiences; *Cross Cultural Studies; *Dogmatism; *Racial Attitudes; Racial Discrimination; Social Values; *Television Research IDENTIFIERS *All in the Family; Archie Bunker; Canada ABSTRACT This study was conducted to test the relationship between dogmatism and agteement with the television character Archie Bunker among adult Canadians. It was hypothesized that highly dogmatic Canadians would demonstrate the same identification with Archie Bunker that highly dogmatic viewers from the U. S. demonstrate, and it vas also hypothesized that Canadians would not view "All in the Family,' as being true to life, as U. S. viewers do, since the program is not in a Canadian setting. Two random samples were drawn from adults in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and Athens, Georgia--both university communities. Both hypotheses were confirmed. (RB) A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Viewer Agreement with Opinionated Television Characters by Dr. Eugene D. Tate St. Thomas More College University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Canada and Ur. Stuart H. Surlin School of Journalism University of Georgia Athens, Georgia International Communication Association Intercultural Communications Division Chicago, Illinois April, 1975 Problem and Conceptual Base Since its beginning in 1971, the television program "All In The Family" has been at the center of controversy. While the producer and the supporters of the show argue that the show helps to destroy prejudice by allowing people to laugh at their foibles (Lear, 1971), a host of critics have argued that the show reinforces prejudice by giving the bigot someone who agrees with him (Hobson, 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • What're Youse Lookin' At, Meathead?: Locating
    A Critical Forum on Television and Media Culture HOME ABOUT FLOW CONTRIBUTE CREDITS FLOW CONFERENCE 2016 WHAT’RE YOUSE LOOKIN’ AT, MEATHEAD?: LOCATING ARCHIE BUNKER ACROSS ARCHIVES KIMBERLY SPRINGER / WILLIAMS COLLEGE Kimberly Springer / Williams College Leave a comment The Bunkers’ Chair With Archie and Edith Bunker’s living room chairs are permanently housed in the Smithsonian, alongside one of the Fonz’s leather jackets, All in the Family (1971-1979), is considered integral to television heritage and notions of classic TV. In his book Rerun Nation, Derek Kompare calls the 1970s the “beginning of television’s historicity, that is, its articulation into discourses of history and memory.”1 Marking the ways in which television memories and broader postwar memories unite to create a common television heritage, “past television is now protected and exploited as both private and public property, through copyright and continued cultural recirculation.”2 The proliferation of media formats and outlets in the past twenty-years recontextualize Lear’s most popular sitcom, All in the Family, and reconfigure the icon that is his most famous character, Archie Bunker. Lear brought civil rights, gay rights, black nationalist, and women’s liberation issues into American living rooms through humor as opposed to newscasts. The Bunkers didn’t shy away from commenting on bigotry, unemployment, Watergate, sexual assault, environmental degradation, and a host of other topics confronting a nation a bit stunned in the aftermath of 1960s turbulence. In offering this commentary, Lear sought to balance Archie’s conservative and often bigoted views with his son-in- law, Mike, and daughter, Gloria, whose perspectives were at the opposite end of the spectrum.
    [Show full text]