Core Response #3_Ann

Although the readings this week were written in different times—Gray’s in the 90s, Esposito’s in 2009, and Han’s in 2018—they do share similar concerns with race and an inquisitive lens towards television as a medium of representation and a participant of (mostly economic and institutional) hegemony. Gray’s piece, despite being the earliest text, actually gives us a detailed account of television’s shift from network to cable and how this shift reshaped the programming and packaging of race on television. Gray was very clear and conscious that this shift towards more African American programmings on television happened in an environment where “neoconservatives” assault “liberal permissiveness” on television and in popular culture (60). This consciousness allows Gray to point out the proliferation of niche black programming as a result of economic concerns, not institutional change. The networks had to make themselves more competitive in their programming to gain viewership in a post-network environment. Gray writes, “In the end, black programs and the audiences they could deliver were worth the risk because black audiences often have fewer options and therefore depend on commercial television for their primary programming choices” (68). This statement speaks directly to the institutional racism embedded in the US and how it contributed to the development of racial programming, yet at the same time, the networks turned a rather blind eye towards the actual racism in the society. This connection between monetary gain and racial programming can also be seen in Han’s article where he points out that “the increasing spending power of Asian American consumers was a major driving force behind the launch of ImaginAsian TV” (278). 

In my opinion, it is only with this consciousness about minority groups’ economic value in mind that we can move towards a negotiated discussion of television featuring people of color. Among these three authors, I feel like Esposito touches more on the discursive meanings of television by citing Stuart Hall’s theory of representation. She writes: “according to Hall, representations are constitutive, not just reflexive. Thus, representations do not just reflect already determined meanings. Instead, they help contribute to discursive understandings” (524). In some ways, this discussion brings me back to the week on Newcomb and Hirsch and Gitlin. Hall’s understanding of representation leans towards Newcomb and Hirsch’s “cultural forum” and towards his own idea of negotiated decoding. However, in the meantime, Esposito’s brilliant analysis of Ugly Betty demonstrates that representation does not equal diversity. She directs our attention to the “construct of diversity” that researchers often take for granted by writing: “we are taking for granted meanings about race and difference. Before we can declare that race either does or does not matter, we must first investigate the construct of difference and the ways it becomes structured in lived experiences and mediated texts” (532). Esposito’s writing ties nicely with the need of our current media climate where there is a (comparatively) proliferation of minority representations in the media but the audience is not encouraged to look behind their mere images on screen. Are these representations there to promote a genuine understanding of different cultures and racial struggles, or are they there simply for monetary gain and to uphold the already-in-place hegemony? 

This, again, brings me back to Gitlin and his poignant and still relevant awareness of hegemony. Of course, our discussion of race this week has exceeded the complexity of Gitlin’s piece and the time it was written. However, this kind of awareness and a call for awareness in Gitlin’s piece is still pertinent in today’s climate. Gitlin mentions, in the 70s, television “harmonizes with the industrialization of time” (255). In some way, this week’s readings are calling our attention to “the industrialization of race” which started with economic reasons (Gray’s piece) and is still confined within the dominant hegemony (Esposito’s and Han’s pieces). As pessimistic as it sounds, I do think the first step towards an understanding of, in Esposito’s terms, the “construct of diversity” lies in the realization that representation is not just an image, but a whole system of encoding and decoding. 

Lastly, on a somewhat discursive note, I’m really interested in the relationship between women of color and television programs today. This is sparked by Han’s piece and his mentioning of regional television catered towards local Asian households. I wonder how many of those programs are watched by women? We’ve been talking about white women’s (mostly housewives’) relationship with television sets but Asian women—being mostly immigrants and have to work to support their family—do not have the privilege of being at home all day. As a result, I’m highly interested in researches done on women of color and their relationship to television watching.