电影流派理论genre theory-cultural approach

© 2001 by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819 Cinema Journal 40, No. 3, Spring 2001 3 A Cultural Approach to Television Genre Theory by Jason Mittell This essay argues that genres are cultural categories that surpass the boundaries of media texts and operate within industry, audience, and cultural practices as well. Offering a television-specific approach, the article explores media genres by incor- porating contemporary cultural theory and exemplifying its discursive approach with a brief case study. Every aspect of television exhibits a reliance on genre. Most texts have some ge- neric identity, fitting into well-entrenched generic categories or incorporating genre mixing (as in “dramedies,” such as Ally McBeal, or blends, such as Make Me Laugh, a comedy/game show). Industries rely on genres in producing programs, as well as in other central practices such as self-definition (channels such as ESPN or Car- toon Network) and scheduling (locating genres within time slots, as in daytime soap operas). Audiences use genres to organize fan practices (generically deter- mined organizations, conferences, and Websites), personal preferences, and ev- eryday conversations and viewing practices. Likewise, academics use generic distinctions to delineate research projects and to organize special topic courses, while journalistic critics locate programs within common frameworks. Even video stores and TV Guide reveal that genre is the primary way to classify television’s vast array of textual options. But despite this virtual omnipresence of genre within TV, little theoretical research has explained the role of genres specifically in the context of television. A number of factors explain this lack of theoretical exploration. Some scholars may view the vast body of genre theory produced within literary and film studies as sufficient, able to explain genre in any medium. Much literary and film genre theory, however, does not account for some of the industry and audience practices unique to television, as well as for the mixture of fictional and nonfictional pro- gramming that constitutes the lineup on nearly every TV channel. Importing genre theories into television studies without significant revision creates many difficul- ties when accounting for the specifics of the medium. The greatest obstacle to the development of television-specific genre theory stems from the assumptions of traditional approaches. Most genre theory has fo- cused on issues that may seem outdated to some media scholars. Formal and aes- thetic approaches to texts or structuralist theories of generic meanings, for example, Jason Mittell is an assistant professor in the Film/Video and Moving Image Studies program in the Department of Communication at Georgia State University. He has published articles in Film History, Television and New Media, the Velvet Light Trap, and a number of antholo- gies. This article is part of a larger project about television genre theory and analysis. 4 Cinema Journal 40, No. 3, Spring 2001 may seem incompatible with contemporary methods. In particular, the central questions motivating many media scholars today—how do television programs fit into historically specific systems of cultural power and politics—appear distant from those that typify genre theory.1 Thus, a return to genre theory might imply theoretical backtracking, either to structuralism, aesthetics, or ritual theories, all of which take a back seat to current cultural studies paradigms within television studies. Even the most comprehensive discussion of television genre theory, Jane Feuer’s essay in Channels of Discourse, ultimately concludes that genre analysis does not work as well as a paradigm for television as it has for film or literature.2 So what’s a media scholar to do? The answers so far have not been fully satisfying. Many television genre schol- ars seem content to take genres at face value, using the labels that are culturally commonplace without giving much consideration to the meanings or usefulness of those labels. Television scholars who do “stop to smell the theory” have been quick to employ film and literary theories, often (though not always) with brief disclaim- ers in which they note the flaws inherent in these paradigms, while adding the now-ubiquitous phrase “more work in this area is needed.” This essay is a first step toward undertaking “more work in this area.” It proposes an alternative approach that better accounts for the cultural operations of television genre than traditional approaches. This theoretical offering is admittedly brief and does not put this theory into detailed practice, which is the ultimate goal.3 Despite these caveats, this essay may at least put the topic of television genre theory more squarely on the aca- demic agenda and provide some ideas for further discussion. In examining the assumptions of genre theory and putting forward a cultural approach to television genres, two aspects of the argument require clarification. First, while a television-specific approach to genre is proffered here, many of the theoretical points are applicable to (and derive from) work in other media, espe- cially cinema studies. The conceptual basis for this argument could be applied to any medium and is not dependent on any essential qualities of television. The focus on television examples provides both a more detailed account of genre than a transmedia approach could offer and avoids the tendency toward generalization and abstraction that typifies some genre theory. Second, although I may appear critical of other methods of analysis, I do not wish to suggest that my approach is the only “correct” way to examine genres. I embrace methodological eclecticism, ac- knowledging that neither my approach nor any other could possibly answer every question about every generic example. At the same time, it is important to note that traditional approaches to genre have relied on a number of assumptions that should be examined and reappraised in light of contemporary theoretical paradigms. Traditional Genre Analysis and the Textualist Assumption. Media schol- ars have traditionally looked at genre as a component of the text, using a variety of guiding questions and theoretical paradigms. One tradition poses questions of defi- nition, looking to identify the core elements that constitute a given genre by exam- ining texts so as to delimit the formal mechanisms constituting the essence of that Cinema Journal 40, No. 3, Spring 2001 5 genre.4 Another approach, probably the most common in media studies, raises questions of interpretation by exploring the textual meanings of genres and situat- ing them within larger social contexts.5 Within this approach, a number of specific theoretical orientations have emerged—ritual, ideological, structuralist, psycho- analytic, and cultural studies, to list some central (and potentially overlapping) paradigms.6 A third (and less developed) form of genre analysis poses questions of history to emphasize the evolutionary dynamics of genres. Here the central issue is how changing cultural circumstances bring about generic shifts.7 Despite this variety of methods and paradigms, most examples of genre analy- sis consider genre primarily as a textual attribute. We might characterize this cen- tral notion as the “textualist assumption,” a position that takes many forms. Some scholars (more common in literary theory) make explicit claims that genre is an intrinsic property of texts.8 Media scholars more frequently imply that genre is a component of a text through a number of practices—situating a genre within larger discussions of texts (as opposed to industries, audiences, or culture),9 mapping an internal/external distinction onto texts versus “other factors,”10 or methodologi- cally examining a genre primarily through textual analysis.11 This textualist assump- tion seems to have contributed to the decline in genre analysis; as cultural media scholars have moved away from textual analysis, genre has been left behind with topics like narrative and style as perceived relics of extinct methodologies. So what is wrong with the textualist assumption? Aren’t genres just categories of texts? Certainly genres do categorize texts. We might consider that genres cat- egorize industrial practices (such as the self-definition of the Sci-Fi Channel) or audience members (such as sci-fi fans), but in these instances the textual category precedes the industry’s and the audiences’ use of the term—science-fiction pro- grams are the implied unifying factor within both the industry and the audience categories. This is not to suggest that genres are not primarily categories of texts, but there is a crucial difference between conceiving of genre as a textual category and treating it as a component of a text, a distinction most genre studies elide. The members of any given category do not create, define, or constitute the category itself. A category primarily links discrete elements together under a label for cultural convenience. Although the members of a given category may all possess some inherent trait that binds them together, there is nothing intrinsic about the category itself. Think of our contemporary understanding of racial differences— while people who are categorized under the label of “black” might have dark skin (although certainly this is not always true), there is nothing inherent about dark skin that makes it a racial category. Eye color or hair color have no categorical equiva- lents to skin color; although these are all defining physical characteristics of human bodies, only some are considered culturally salient categories. We can accept the distinction between a biological trait (like skin color) and the cultural category that activates it into a system of differentiation (namely race)—these are related, but not identical, physical and conceptual elements. If we shifted the same biological bod- ies into another cultural system of difference, other physical traits could become activated as operative categories of differentiation (such as height). The physical 6 Cinema Journal 40, No. 3, Spring 2001 elements do not change, but the category does, suggesting that the category itself emerges from the relationship between the elements it groups together and the cultural context in which it operates. The same distinction holds for media texts. We do not generally differentiate between shows that take place in Boston and those that take place in Chicago, but we do differentiate between programs set in hospitals and those set in police sta- tions. Texts have many different components, but only some are used to define their generic properties. As many genre scholars have noted, there are no uniform criteria for genre delimitation—some are defined by setting (westerns), some by actions (crime shows), some by audience effect (comedy), and some by narrative form (mysteries).12 This diversity of attributes suggests that there is nothing inter- nal mandating how texts should be generically categorized. In fact, some scholars have pointed to instances where the same text became “regenrified” as cultural contexts shifted.13 If the same text is open enough to be categorized under various genres, then it follows that it is problematic to look for generic definitions solely within the confines of the text. Genres are not found within one isolated text; Wheel of Fortune is not a genre in and of itself but a member of the generic category “game show.” Genres emerge only from the intertextual relations between multiple texts, resulting in a common category. But how do these texts interrelate to form a genre? Texts cannot interact on their own; they come together only through cultural practices such as produc- tion and reception. Audiences link programs together all the time (“This show is just a clone of that one”), as do industrial personnel (“Imagine Friends meets The X-Files”). Texts themselves do not actively link together without this cultural activ- ity. Even when one text explicitly references another (as in the case of allusions, parodies, spin-offs, and crossovers), these instances become activated only through processes of production or reception. If we watch The Jeffersons without knowing that it was spun off from All in the Family—as surely many audience members have—then we cannot usefully claim that intertextuality is relevant or active at that moment of reception. Thus, if genre is dependent on intertextuality, it cannot be an inherently textual component. Most genre scholarship has analyzed texts because they are the most immi- nent and material objects of media. Logic authorizes this analytic mode as well; if we want to understand the biological taxonomic family of frogs, we need to look at the members of that category (frogs). Traditionally, we do the same for genres: if we want to understand music videos, we watch as many as we can.14 But, unlike frogs, music videos do not reproduce on their own. We cannot understand why Unsolved Mysteries followed America’s Most Wanted just by watching the shows; there is no causal mechanism or active process of generic continuity in the pro- grams themselves. Processes of genre reproduction, such as creating new sitcoms and news magazine shows, occur only through the actions of industries and audi- ences, not through any action of the texts themselves.15 Likewise, there is no in- herent genetic code that forbids cross-genre mating; whereas a biological imperative maintains a natural distinction between frogs and tulips, nothing genetic prevented the creation of the generically mixed music video/police drama Cop Rock. But the Cinema Journal 40, No. 3, Spring 2001 7 creation of Cop Rock did not stem from texts themselves—Hill St. Blues and Like a Virgin did not create their own sordid offspring. The mixing of genres is a cul- tural process enacted by industry personnel, often in response to audience view- ing practices. While we may want to study frogs to understand their biological category, texts themselves are insufficient to understand how genres are created, merge, evolve, or disappear. We need to look outside the texts to locate the range of sites in which genres operate, change, proliferate, and die out. Instead of biological taxonomy, a better parallel for genre analysis might be brands of automobiles. Most people would locate the difference between Chevrolets and Toyotas in the internal mechanics of the two brands, noting their different designs, machinery, and engine systems. While these distinctions may be important, they are not necessarily the primary ways the two brands differ. Many differences in automobile brands are established through industrial practices—manufacturing styles, labels, marketing, corporate reputation, and nationality—and cultural cir- culation—driver preferences, press accounts, consumer ratings, and advertising. In some extreme cases, the two brands may contain identical parts, be assembled in the same plant, and utilize indistinguishable internal mechanics; for instance, car experts Tom and Ray Magliozzi of Car Talk fame wrote in 1993 that “Chevy and Toyota build a car together in California. At Toyota dealers, they call it a Co- rolla, and at Chevy dealers, it’s called the Geo Prizm.”16 In this case, the differ- ences are completely cultural, not mechanical, but cars are always cultural products, accruing meanings and associations through their widespread production and use, links that are not guaranteed by their mechanical essence or internal design. Auto- mobiles are also clearly historical—few would argue that the essence of a Chevy is the same today as it was in 1920. Mechanical designs, corporate structure, con- sumer use, and cultural associations have all shifted dramatically, yet some schol- ars treat genres as timeless essences defined by an inner core rather than constituted by changing cultural practices. Thus, genres are not intrinsic to texts; they are constituted by the processes that some scholars have labeled “external” elements, such as industrial and audience practices. But we cannot simply replace an intrinsic textual approach to genre with an extrinsic contextual theory. The dualities between text and context, internal and external, are artificial and arbitrary.17 We need to look beyond the text as the locus for genre and instead locate genres within the complex interrelations among texts, industries, audiences, and historical contexts.18 The boundaries between texts and the cultural practices that constitute them (primarily production and reception) are too shifting and fluid to be reified. Texts exist only through their production and reception, so we cannot make the boundary between texts and their material cul- tural contexts absolute. Genres transect these boundaries, with production, distri- bution, promotion, and reception practices all working to categorize media texts into genres. Emphasizing the boundaries between elements “internal” and “exter- nal” to genres only obscures how genres transect these fluid borders. To summarize, genres have traditionally been treated as textual components. Although genres are categories of texts, texts themselves do not determine, con- tain, or produce their own categorization. Generic categories are intertextual and 8 Cinema Journal 40, No. 3, Spring 2001 hence operate more broadly than within the bounded realm of a media text. Even though texts certainly bear marks that are typical of genres, these textual conven- tions are not what define the genre. Genres exist only through the creation, circu- lation, and reception of texts within cultural contexts. Textual analysis cannot examine media genres as they operate at the categorical level—there are texts that are categorized by genres, but their textual sum does not equal the whole of the genre. Instead, we must separate the practice of analyzing generically labeled texts from analyzing genre as a cultural category. Analyses of generic texts are certainly worthwhile, but they do not explain how genres themselves operate as categories. We thus need to rethink genres in different terms and propose their analysis using different methods. But what is this new approach?19 Discursive Practices and Generic Clusters. Decentering the text within genre analysis might cause some methodological hesitation. If genres are components of texts, there is a clear site of analysis on which to focus our critical attention. But if genres are not properties of texts, where exactly might we find and analyze them? While there are certainly many theoretical approaches that we might adopt to explain how a category becomes culturally salient, it is more useful to conceive of genres as discursive practices. By regarding genres as a property and function of discourse, we are able to examine the ways in which various forms of communica- tion work to constitute generic definitions and meanings. This discursive approach emerges out of contemporary poststructuralist theo- ries, as genre seems to fit perfectly into the account of discursive formations of- fered by Michel Foucault.20 For Foucault, discursive formations are historically specific systems of thought, conceptual categories that work to define cultural ex- periences within larger systems of power. He notes that discursive formations do not emerge from a centralized structure or from a single site of power but are built bottom up from disparate micro-instances. Even though discursive formations are often marked by discontinuities and irregularities, they follow an overall regularity and fit into a specific cultural context’s larger “regime of truth.” Discursive forma- tions often appear to be “natural” or internal properties of beings, such as humans or texts, but they are actually culturally constituted and mutable. Like Fouc