BLOG POST: WEEK 7

Now that we are familiar with how audiences choose their content, this week's content focuses on semiotics concerning audience member's choice and activity with the media they engage in. Since semiotics is “the study of significant signs in society” (Sullivan, Chapter 6), it “explores how individuals come to understand their reality through the creation and uses and signs” (Sullivan, Chapter 6).

When it comes to audience members and interpretation, it is important to understand semiotics seeing that “we use signs to help us achieve understanding with one another” (Sullivan, Ch. 6). Semiotics also “studies the way such ‘signs’ communicate and the rules that govern their use” (Seiter, 1992, p. 23; Sullivan, Ch. 6).

It is safe to say that the human species would not have survived this long if it wasn’t for our ability to communicate. Communication is an everyday occurrence which has allowed us to become the most progressive species on Earth. Not only have we been able to progress as a species, we have been able to develop multiple forms of technologies that can save lives, entertain us, and also help us interact and communicate with other people all over the world. It was said by Saussure that “the process of human communication is dependent upon the creation of signs--words, images, objects and acts” (Sullivan, Ch. 6). This was explained by saying that “without the transmission of signs from one person to the next, no communication is possible” (Sullivan, Ch. 6).

Seeing how important communication is as audience members, it is no surprise that people in power will try their hardest to use this to their advantage. When it comes to semiotics, "those in power will inevitably attempt to assign specific meanings to signs and to identify these meanings as "common sense"--this is the function of ideology" (Sullivan, Ch. 6).

I believe that this is a very prominent thing that I witness daily as an audience member. The most recent examples that I can think of having to do with the idea of luxury designer items and consumer culture, especially with Christmas approaching quickly. When it comes to items and branding, those in power have made a point of increasing demand for luxurious designer items. Although many designer items have the same or worse quality than no-name items, it is thought that someone is more than others if they have such items. These companies have assigned a specific meaning to their products that have worked for decades. I am a victim of these meanings that they have created. As an audience member that sees many influencers wearing designer brands daily, this concept has impacted me more than I have previously thought. For the most part, I notice that I like outfits a lot more when they have noticeable luxury brand name items and accessories incorporated into them. It is hard to describe my mental process behind this, but I believe that this preference comes from a place of accepting the meaning that these designers have normalized (that these luxurious items are better than other items solely because they have a brand name logo). It has gotten to the point that outfits with designer items look better to me. I am not sure if anyone else can relate, but the outfits and items that include the designer items and logos look "heavier" to me like they are better than other items with the same quality that do not have the brand name logos.

As I am working on this I am watching television with my mom who just proved this point even further. A woman on television walked into the room and my mom noticed her red Hermes bag and said "Is that an Hermes bag?" This just goes to show that designers have assigned a specific meaning to their items. I can guarantee you that if the red Hermes bag hadn't had the golden H logo on it, that my mom wouldn't have mentioned it. Since the purse is a brand name purse, she pointed it out and said that she liked it. This goes to show how those in power can define what is “luxurious,” “good enough,” a symbol of “success,” what products will make us “happy,” and why we need their products. Below I have attached a 4:26 minute video which speaks on how luxury brands are essentially brainwashing us by creating a hype/demand for their "luxury goods." This video also encourages people to shop second hand, which is a cause that is dear to my heart.

According to Althusser, when it comes to upholding specific meanings and ideas, "traditional state apparatuses such as the police, army, courts, and prisons all work to uphold the status quo through the "functions of violence" (Sullivan, Ch. 6). This relates to media and experience because as audience members our sense of reality "is essentially controlled via the "imaginary unitary," and viewers are subsequently unable to separate themselves from the film's reality because it becomes invisible and normalized" (Sullivan, Ch. 6). When it comes to any communication exchange, Hall stated that there are two "determining moments" (encoding and decoding). Hall's encoding system can be understood quite literally. Experiences are "essentially translated into a specific code (language, for example) and format (speech, visual, images, sounds, etc.) such that they could be understood by others" (Sullivan, Ch. 6). When it comes to audience members and decoding specific messages, audiences "react to both the denotative level of meaning--the literal, "near universal," or common sense meaning of the sign--and the connotative level of meaning--or contextualized understandings of signs" (Sullivan, Ch. 6). Below I have attached an image that will help you understand Hall's encoding/decoding model at a simple glance.

When it comes to texts, they “have fluid boundaries that are defined only by the specific audiences who create them in the process of consuming media” (Sullivan, Ch. 6) therefore, this “takes the locus of interpretive power away from the media itself and situates it firmly in the hands of the audience” (Sullivan, Ch. 6). When it comes to media and its meaning, it is also said that “television texts become “activated” whenever audiences receive and interpret them and begin the creative process of associating meanings with the information on the screen” (Sullivan, Ch. 6). It is said that this creative process is “pleasurable for the audience and serves as the source of television’s enduring popularity” (Sullivan, Ch. 6).

With this being said, it is important to note why audience members choose specific types of media, and how they interact and interpret such media. As seen within the “Decoding “The Code”: Reception Theory and Moral Judgment of Dexter” reading by S. Granelli, the study within the article touches on viewers' interpretations and morals when it comes to the show “Dexter.” This study resulted in four modes of audience reception: 1) Transparent, 2) Referential, 3) Mediated, and 4) Discursive. When it came to audience interpretation and justification of Dexter's actions, the four factors found were: 1) Justified Vigilante, 2) Psychological Puzzle, 3) Gratuitous Murder and 4) Deviant Escapism.

Audience members were fit into one of the different modes depending on how they interpreted and reacted to the show. While in my live lecture for my Audience Studies class, my professor (Prof. Good) expressed how she fits into the “Gratuitous Murder” type, seeing as she was turned off by the show and thought it was grotesque. This made it very clear to me that while choosing content we wish to watch and engage with, audience members need to choose content that aligns with their morals. Seeing that Professor Good fits into the “Gratuitous Murder” type for the television show “Dexter,” it is clear that this is a show that may go against her morals.

This is a situation to which I can relate to. On multiple occasions, I have stopped consuming media from certain creators because they are problematic and conduct themselves in such a way that does not align with my morals. The most recent example that I can think of is both Kat Von D and Jeffree Star. It is said that Kat Von D is homophobic and an anti-vaxxer. Seeing as my younger brother is gay, and I have many family and friends that are apart of the LGBTQ+ community, this immediately turned me off from every consuming her content and allowing her to profit off of my views as an audience member. The fact that she is an anti-vaxxer was also extremely alarming to me seeing that many people rely on others getting their vaccines to protect themselves from getting sick and even dying. For example, babies cannot get vaccinated and therefore cannot be exposed to people who have not been vaccinated because they will be put at risk.

Jeffree Star is another example of when I choose not to consume someone's content/media. Although Jeffree is a part of the LGBTQ+ community, he has been involved in several racism scandals. There has even been a video of him screaming the N-word at a white woman, which is extremely unacceptable. Below I have attached a Tweet containing accusations against Jeffree star. They were all proven true via other sources.

This week's content highlighted the importance of semiotics throughout the media and its relation to its audience members. Aspects within semiotics incorporated people in power, allowing me to demonstrate multiple experiences that I have had with this power relationship. Dexter was able to provide an excellent example of how many audience members interpret television shows differently depending on where their morals lay, and if they can see past the violent content or not enough to enjoy the show. Through similar moral concepts, I was able to demonstrate an understanding of textbook concepts and studies by relating them to some personal experiences as an audience member.

I encourage everyone reading this to take a step back and look at the content in which they consume. Do these television shows or YouTube videos align with your morals as a human and audience member? I look forward to chatting with everyone about this week's concepts, and their personal experiences as an audience member.