Citation - Lembo, R. (2000). Thinking through television. Cambridge University Press.
Keyword -
我想做的，形象地說，是進入人們的頭腦，以便確定人們在使用媒體的過程中形成的思維自覺性，並且進一步理解這種思維自覺性在電視使用文化中的儀式性意義(ritual significance)。在此過程中，我試圖更好地理解電視及其日常節目所富含的廣泛而深刻的意義在影響和形成人們的思維自覺性過程中發揮的結構性作用。我試圖了解電視收視如何真正地成為人們日常的習慣性實踐，並且了解參與這種實踐與使用其他媒介相比，從長遠看對人們到底意味著什麼。(p.1)
與隨意的觀察和普遍的觀點相反，電視使用事實上是一種非常複雜的文化活動–不管是參與其中還是研究該種活動。如果要考慮那些能綜合成為一種文化活動的電視使用的種種模式，那種對電視的持續性使用模式，那種在收看電視時同時開始、停止以及發生某類活動的模式，可能是所有模式中最複雜的現象。由於這種複雜性，同時由於其他因素，電視持續使用的社會事實在與電視相關的學術研究中，如果不能說是被忽視了，起碼可以說沒有得到充分重視，甚至乾脆就被忽略了。本書的主要目的，就是要糾正這種傾向，填補電視研究中經驗與理論的空白，並在此過程中，給那些普通勞動者一個說話的機會，擴展學術圈聲稱的關於收視文化認識的框架。(p.10-11)
「因此，我並不是個冷漠的研究者，外在地研究電視，研究電視的收視或我訪談的並與之收看電視的人們。但作為研究者，我重新建構了我的訪談對象關於電視的體驗，這些體驗並不能作為我自己的東西。這一點已經被證明為社會研究過程中保證客觀性、啟發性的環節。」「最後我想澄清的是，我論述的有效性建立在這樣的事實基礎上，即達至這種研究的客觀性與這樣的認識是協同發展的：在我的主體性與我的訪談對象的主體性之間存在著密不可分的關係。」(p.10)
Herbert Blumer
通過使用統計調查與實驗方法，獲得個體成員的態度與觀點，對形成媒體使用的數據資料而言是至關重要的。但他說，這種數據離開人們觀看電影的實際生活太遠，離開電影給人們造成的影響太遠，因此不能提供一幅精確地描繪人們使用媒體的真正意義的畫面。
社會科學只能以一種二手方式應對社會體驗問題，把人的整體性降低到一系列對前置信息反應的層次上。 (p.56)
Merton & Lazarsfeld 1948 “Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action”(大眾傳播、流行品味及其組織化的社會行動)
對Merton & Lazarsfeld 而言，大眾媒體本質上是作為“社會控制的結構”而發生作用的，他能把個體整合進產業資本主義的文化之中。怎麼整合呢? 通過擴展法人(corporate)市場經濟，同時，把政治與經濟精英的利益直接滲透到普通人的社會心理體驗中去。它們認為大眾媒體已經承擔起自己的責任，使大眾“與社會和經濟現況相一致”。
For Lazarsfeld and Merton, the mass media works first and foremost as a “structure of social control,” serving to integrate individuals into the culture of industrial capitalism. How? By extending the corporate market economy, and, along with it, the interests of political and economic elites, directly into the social psychological experience of ordinary people (Lazarsfeld and Merton, 1977). The mass media, they say, has taken on the job of rendering the mass public “conformative to the social and economic status quo” (1977: 558).
麻醉負功能
作為菁英利益代表的媒體所具有的價值與規範的模式化作用，他們也談論過這些價值與規範如何成為一種符號系統，向人們提供用今天的話來說是「話語」的東西，使人們的社會體驗具有意義，包括人們在宏觀文化中如何發現自己位置的種種方式。他們認為，做到這一點的方式是，媒體通過賦予社會成員、地點、群體與事件以行為；通過接受信息以代替政治行動–即媒體的「麻醉性負作用(1977:565-566)」。
當人們聽收音機、看電影電視、或閱讀報紙雜誌時，他們遭遇的是一個標準化的媒體圖像世界，他們無可避面地被帶入這個世界，結果他們的思想和情感體驗也標準化了。(p.25)
電視，阿多諾認為權力同時發生於不同層面。第一層是「多重故事結構」，作為文化工業操作觀眾的技術手段，電視用故事描繪的社會與生活方式，讓觀眾依照他們想要的方式理解人們與社會行為。第二層，收視者接受內容前的已經知道電視敘事的公式化結構，因此可安全的預期故事展開。
When it comes to television, Adorno sees its power working at multiple levels simultaneously. At one level, what he terms “the multi-layered story structure,” television serves as a “technological means” for the culture industry to “handle” the audience, because, Adorno says, the way in which the story depicts people and their social actions becomes the way in which the viewer understands people and their social actions (1957: 222). At a second level of analysis, Adorno sees the formulaic structure of the television narrative as pre-establishing “the attitudinal pattern of the spectator before he is presented with any specific content” (1957: 226). Because of the repetitions of formula, the viewer, according to Adorno, can “feel on safe ground all the time,” and, as a result, he or she can always anticipate how the story will unfold (1957: 224). At both levels, Adorno conceives of television’s power as working through standardized and repetitive depictions of social life to constitute fully what he refers to as the psychodynamic responses of the people who watch. This is the power of ideology in action.
由於內容與方法的原因，有限效果典範不強調權力與媒體使用，轉而研究傳播過程，更精確地說，是研究誘導性傳播(persuasive communication)。(p.39)
批評
跨領域整合：有限效果研究與其他領域中科學家有相似的發現。受到有關人類行為的知識進步的影響：
發展與轉變
早期誘導理論研究中被視為被動的觀眾，可使被理解為傳播過程中積極的要素。誘導權力不再被認為可以單一地、單維地發生作用，而資訊內容也不再被簡單、直接地等同於效應。正是在這個意義上，大眾傳媒的權力效應被認為是有限的。
Merton 1946 “Mass Persuasion” Katz & Lazarsfeld 1955 “Personal Influence” 二級傳播
衍生
George Gerbner's cultivation theory, 1986, 1982, 1980, 1977
Gerbner 關心電視產生意識形態的制度性權力。他認為電視是由菁英控制的，能滿足不同大眾市場需求的機構之後，並[電視]將操作性的定義為節目的「資訊系統」：標準化圖像的擴大漣漪(1986)。[電視系統]是不斷重複的圖像流，而非某個節目提供社會權力樣本資料的訊息 。透過經年累月研究所累積的節目資料，Gerbner 發現了電視權力存在的事實證據：一種限制人們表達範圍的權力，以及限制用來理解自己所處社會的權力。(p.50)
Gerbner’s primary analytical concern is the institutional power of television to generate ideology. After first analyzing television as an elite controlled corporate institution with distinctive massmarketing requirements, he operationally defines its ideological workings as the “message system” of programming: a widening circle of standardized images that cut across the widest variety of programs (1986). For Gerbner, it is the overall flow of imagery with its repetitions, rather than the messages of specific shows that provides the most compelling data of social power. By counting instances of, say, violence, across random samples of programming, and charting variations in such depictions over years of study, Gerbner uncovers facts that provide evidence of television’s power: a power to limit the range of representations that people have access to and which they can use in making sense of their own social worlds. (p.42)
電視新聞多數是情節與生動的，這提供了制度權力運作的證據。
The predominance of episodic and vivid depictions is data that provide evidence of this institutional power working as ideology in the object itself.
媒體的制度性權力、意識形態及其衝突、霸權過程
Todd Gitlin, 1978
大眾傳播的制度權力。包括媒體給予某種意識形態的特殊偏好，對公共議題的影響，調動社會網絡以支持某個政黨或國家的政策，以及更一般地說，動員社會資源以支持這類制度性安排。
Todd Gitlin (1978) focuses attention on something called the institutional power of the mass media. This includes, he says, the preference given by the media to particular ideologies, the shaping of public agendas, the mobilization of support networks for the policies of political parties and the state, and, in a more general sense, the conditioning of public support for these kinds of institutional arrangements.
[大眾]媒體重複的「理念結構」源自於菁英的利益與偏好，也就是所謂「意識形態」，並能夠轉化一般人觀點與態度，以及面對新情境的反應與解釋。
According to Gitlin, the repetition of certain “ideational structures” is indicative of the media’s preference for ideas and values that harmonize with elite interests. Most importantly perhaps, Gitlin sees these structuresworking to solidify ordinary people’s opinions and attitudes into more enduring configurations of consciousness – what he calls ideology. Once in place, ideologies shape how people will respond to and interpret media messages in new situations. Dominant ideologies are the most fundamental of symbolic structures in the mass media because they represent most directly the interests and world view of elites.
[大眾]媒體不是一種靜態結構，而是一種過程。挑戰性的理念也能進入[大眾]媒體，代價是鈍化批判性與對立性。被馴服、同化、標準化、最終與菁英同路。
But Gitlin does not see the media as some sort of static, or monolithic, ideological structure. Rather, he understands it as something processual, as so many sites of “ideological work.” What this means is that, while challenging ideas can and often do find their way into the media, they are usually framed in a way that blunts their critical, or oppositional qualities. They are tamed, co-opted, normalized, and ultimately they become, for Gitlin, compatible with elite interests. This is why he sees the institutional power of the mass media not so much as a social fact, but, on the contrary, as something continuously negotiated. This is understood, following Gramsci, as a hegemonic process. It is this perspective regarding the media’s power that informs Gitlin’s later analyses of the framing process in news and the mainstream coverage of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society), the decision-making process in network television, and the ideological structuring of entertainment programming (1983, 1980, 1979).
收視電視的社會情境與功能 (基本上是第六章 方法論與投身電視)
將一般人每天的電視收視行為順序分為三個階段
3 Patterns of turning to TV (p.151-187)
投身電視的原因
我所訪談的人們似乎要利用電視，去為他們自己創造一種心靈空間，在這片心靈空間中，它們不必像白天(或黑夜)上班時那樣，必須慎重思考，或必須為他們的思想與行為承擔責任。這一點對我訪談的那些婦女來說尤其是這樣，他們在做飯、清潔衛生方面承擔了更多的責任，因此在某種意義上可以說經歷了工作的某種延續，即使他們離開工作岡位好長時間之後也是如此。這些人的確體驗到了電視的權力效應。但是同樣重要的是，人們在使用電視時能夠使這種活動轉化為他們的優勢，因為他們創造了心靈與情感的空間，在這樣的空間中他們是自由的，即使是暫時的，他們擺脫了平常強加在他們身上的種種要求。他們在投身電視過程中形成了社會性，這種社會性並不一定就意味著是對權力的對性性的話語活動。(p.187)
同時收視的功能：
1. 重新掌握自己對活動節奏的掌握
在我的研究中，為了在下班之後創造一種情境，在這種情境中人們無須對他們所參與的各種客體使宗保持高度的思維自覺性，同時收視的人會做出各種選擇。
Simultaneous users of television in my study made certain choices in order to set up situations in which they did not need to maintain a high degree of mindful attention toward any one object that they became involved with after work.
不管是做飯、清潔、交談、收看電視節目，還是其他活動，這些活動都不要求它們專心致志。通過同時從事其他活動的電視使用方法，人們事實上創造了一種新的活動，在這種活動中，人們來回往復於電視的收看、收聽和做其他事情之間，這不僅能使他們轉換注意力的焦點，而且從思維自覺性角度上講，也改變了活動的基礎，接受性的對活動節奏不可控制的活動(電視收視)，轉化為那些要求積極主動參與的，能控制其節奏的活動(做飯、清潔、交談、閱讀)。對活動的積極主動參與以及對活動節奏的控制會不斷地收到干擾，並發生逆轉現象。正是種這對思維自覺性參與活動的干擾和逆轉說明了同時收視的特點。
Whether it was cooking, cleaning, talking, television shows, or other things, none of the activities required close attention. By using television while simultaneously doing other things, people have, in effect, created a new activity, one in which the continual movements back and forth between watching, or listening, and doing other things allow them not only to shift the focus of their attention but also to shift ground, mindfully speaking, between an activity (television viewing) which is generally receptive in nature, with no control over the pace, to other activities (cooking, cleaning, conversation, reading, etc.) that tend to require more active participation and allow for control over the pace. Active participation and the control over pace is continually interrupted and then reversed. It is this interruption and reversal of their mindful involvement that comes to define the continuity of simultaneous viewing.
2. 協助由工作到家庭生活的轉換
同時收視活動具有一種獨特的社會性，這種社會性似乎特別適合於幫助人們完成從工作到家庭生活的轉換。在工作上，人們的頭腦一班都必須關注它們自身之外的事物，而在家庭生活中，他們就有機會使心靈與情感體驗重新取向於自己或他們與家人及同住者之間的關係上。(p.200)
Simultaneous viewing carries with it, then, a distinctive sociality, one that seems well suited to assisting people as they make the transition from work, where their minds usually have had to be focused on particular things outside themselves, to home life, where they have the opportunity to reorient their mindful and emotional experience back to themselves or their relationships with family and housemates. (P.164)
工作與家庭的轉換需要一定的時間與空間。在這種時空之中，人們的心靈與情感體驗能夠發現新的不同寄託，能使它們重新建立對自己生活的控制。(p.200)
… shifting one’s gears between work and home requires a certain space and time in which people’s mindful and emotional experience can find a new and different grounding, one that enables them to re-establish control in their own lives.
人們下班回到家裡以後，它們依然面臨種獲那種的工作責任(通常是做飯和清潔)。通過向人們提供業已製作的但又不斷變化的人們能夠隨意進出的想像空間，電視在某種意義能使人們在這些持續性的責任中獲得解放，因此他們不必在任何一種活動中始終保持高度集中的思維自覺性。(p.200)
… most people continue to be faced with work responsibilities of one sort or another (usually cooking and cleaning) when they arrive home from work. By providing people with a ready-made but constantly changing imaginary space that they can move in and out of at will, television in some sense frees people from these continued responsibilities, and, more generally, from having to sustain a more focused kind of mindful involvement in any particular activity.
同時收視活動的社會邏輯並不是習慣化，而是人們為了方便從工作到家庭生活轉化而採取的對電視的一種功能性使用。特別是當這種轉化涉及到這種獲那種工作形式的延續時，情況就更是如此。(p.200)
… the social logic of simultaneous viewing less as habituation than as a functional use that people make of television in order to ease this transition from work to home life, especially when it involves the continuation of work in one way or another.
為了這種目的而使用電視，人們似乎是要質疑這樣一種需要，即通過有效利用時間而使宗保持生產效率的需要，這種需要在我們的文化中是如此盛行。對於收視者來說，這裡的功能性，是指通過電視收視而打破這種生產效率性活動的規範性。(p.200-1)
In using television for this purpose, people seem to be calling into question the need, so prevalent in our culture, to remain constantly productive by using their time efficiently, with clear goals or outcomes in mind. What is functional for them, at this time, is to disrupt the normalcy of productive activity.
3. 家中成員互動的緩衝與迴避
[就如同做飯或其他照料其他家務一樣，下班之後的交談與社會互動也被視為另一種活動。]在這個意義上，那些我與之交談的人並不真的想在思維自覺性上過多地投入到這種交談和互動中去。由於工作的嚴格要求，它們常常在心靈與情感兩方面都感到精疲力盡，因此他們根本就沒有精力專注地參與任何活動了，更不用說交談和思維自覺的互動了。在這種時候，電視就可以起到它的作用，他可以把人們的心智從這種交談與互動中轉移出來，取而代之的，使人們以一種悠閒的方式投入到它的圖像世界中來。(p.202)
… conversation or social interaction in the after-work period was looked upon as just another activity, like preparing dinner or taking care of household responsibilities. In this sense, those I talked to did not really want to become too mindfully engaged in talk and interaction. They often felt mindfully and emotionally drained by the demands of their work day, and they simply did not have the energy for attentive participation in any activity, let alone conversation and meaningful interaction. At times like these, television came into play by taking their minds off such talk and interaction and substituting in its place the possibility for a more disengaged kind of involvement in its image worlds.
人們在做其他事情的同時收看電視時，節目並不是吸引他們注意力的唯一東西。同樣可以理解的是，當人們以這種方式收看電視時，心不在焉的心理傾向就會出現，並且作為一種有影響力的模式會持續下去。人們知道電視並不要求他們全部的注意力，他們可以在任何時候選擇脫離對節目的參與。 (p.252)
在某些時候，人們不那麼連貫地參與電視節目，他們大部分的注意力都在別的事物上。一個節目的全部片段–因此也是所有的節目–都被忽略了，或在他們面前經過而不曾被他們留意。人們在訪談時企圖證明他們這麼做的合理性。它們告訴我他們是如何地熟悉電視的形成和[公式]，在那些同時收視期內，他們特別了解電視上的節目，而且，他們說他們知道接下來會發生什麼。(p.254)
他們似乎滿足於「把握」碎片式的意義，或者它們會利用前面提到的對節目的那種熟悉，去「填充」節目意義的剩餘部分，或者，乾脆他們就去從事其他活動。結果，敘事傳統在同時收視中永遠不能取得在敘事收視中能夠取得的那種集中化傾向，所以，敘事傳統的話語權也得到了不同的脈絡化。(p.255)
.
file link - Google Schloar, XXC