Core Response #1

 Todd Gitlin’s essay feels incredibly disjointed in its argumentative structure. His introduction and conclusion are concretely focused on the capitalistic production of hegemonic ideologies but his analysis of formula, characters, slant, genre, and solution serves as a disruption, or perhaps distraction, to his thesis. To be clear, I think each component of the essay is well articulated but what is lacking is a sustained analysis of the broader sociopolitical implications of the hegemonic structure that cohesively links each component to one another and to his main argument. I think his argument is so grandiose and complicated that it becomes undone in his attempt to prove every part of it as a viable truth, if not an absolute one. Gitlin, in his endeavor to reveal the foreboding capitalistic monstrosity of hegemony, actually entraps himself within the very matrix he is so eager to expose. His analysis is helplessly repetitive, constantly coming back to the same claim, reference, or time period over and over to achieve very little in terms of furthering his argument. 

It is interesting, actually, to see his criticism unfold in the very manner of the thing he is criticizing (the relentlessly repetitive, cyclical process of television to retain an audience). I felt as though his argument could have been strengthened by incorporating and sustaining a more fruitful analysis of the historical and political events he references. For instance, how does the political environment of the 1950s influence the production of film and television? He says that when the minds of writers, producers, directors, etc change then there is a deviation from the standardization of production. But he only contextualizes that in the context of “slant” in character ideologies/development. I think he has a microscopic view in this case. He misses the opportunity, in my opinion, to not just look at the individuals working in Hollywood, but the massive political and cultural events that influence them to influence TV. How does one discuss 1950s television and film but do not have a parallel discussion or even mention of the Hays Code? Especially when the aim of the essay is to demonstrate hegemonic power within an economic, political, and historical context. I can understand perhaps the point of the paper was to focus on the process of the production of hegemonic ideologies, to explore the actual mechanics of the system. Ultimately, I would agree with Gitlin on many of his assertions, and would even go so far as to say these hegemonic productions have become more pertinent with the rise of social media. While he concedes that the hegemonic system is not definitive (264), I think he lacks a cohesive analysis of how the system is influenced as much as it influences.