Sociology of the Arts. Victoria D. Alexander
The accuracy of the shaping metaphor, as with the reflection idea, is undermined by two facts: art is not monolithic and the audience is not homogenous. These two statements alone remind us that there can be no simple, unproblematic mechanism by which art shapes society. There are, in addition, three main criticisms of the shaping approach. First, there are serious methodological problems in trying to measure the effects of the arts on society. Second, not only are audiences multifaceted, they are made up of thinking human beings, not drugged automatons. Third, the cultural critique is seen by some to be itself a product of elitism.
Methodological Issues
As with reflection theorists, many shaping theorists have started—and stopped—with art. These authors do not convincingly link the content of the objects they study with the society where the effects are said to occur, as they do not present any data. They merely assert the effect. Adorno and the Frankfurt School are notable in this failing. Other studies have tried to make the link empirically; however, it is extraordinarily complicated to measure media effects. Lab experiments control many variables, but can only measure short‐term effects in artificial settings. Long term changes are virtually impossible to demonstrate, due to the number of factors involved. For instance, consider the reported fall in undershirt sales in the 1930s. Did sales decline because men realized, after seeing Clark Gable’s chest, that they did not need to wear undershirts? Or because women saw Gable’s chest and wanted their men to be like that? Or perhaps men had already stopped wearing undershirts as a rule and the movie reflected this trend, rather than shaped it? Or perhaps the movie had no effect, and undershirt sales fell because during the Depression, people were buying fewer undershirts simply because they had less money?6
Audiences
Shaping approaches often present effects on society without considering that cultural products are consumed by thinking individuals. This way of thinking is called the “injection model” or the “hypodermic needle model” because it suggests that ideas from the arts are injected directly into people.7 It views the audience as passive and uncritical, as made up of cultural dopes. (Or, sometimes, the term is cultural dupe, suggesting that individuals are fooled by culture, rather than made stupid by it.)
In contrast to this is the idea of the “active audience” where adults who consume culture are seen as competent: able to make decisions for themselves, to distinguish truth from fiction, and to interpret cultural objects (see Chapter 9). Indeed, some authors suggest that children are also active, competent consumers of the popular arts (e.g. Hodge and Tripp, 1994). In addition, not only are audience members competent individuals, they are also embedded in social structure. Thus, their reactions to the popular arts are mediated by those around them. Children, for instance, may learn to fight out disagreements from television, but when they apply that lesson to life, by hitting a friend or sibling, their parents, teachers or others are likely to sort them out quickly.
Elitism
Other writers reject the critique of popular arts because they reject the elitist purveyors of the theories. They believe that the cultural critique is merely a moral panic—the situation that arises when elites worry about other people, couching it in terms of the degradation of the popular arts and therefore society (Cohen, 1972). The cultural critique, in this view, is a form of submerged class conflict. Ross (1989) links the cultural critique to the waning of the cultural authority of America intellectuals. No one likes to lose power or authority, and so they look for something to blame, and in so doing they reassert their lost authority. In the cultural critique, intellectuals pin the responsibility on popular culture, arguing that it erodes society, and then claim status based on their superior abilities to “see” that society’s problems are caused by popular culture.
Others point out that the cultural critiques of the past are forgotten, and so, in the future, will today’s concerns. In the 1930s, for instance, parents worried about the ill effects of children reading too many novels (Starr, 2004). Today, parents worry about too much screen time, while reading books is seen not only as unharmful, but as positively beneficial.
Conclusion
The debate over the shaping approach is often reduced to the question of whether or not art affects society. Shaping theorists, who may be placed on one extreme of this argument, subscribe (if implicitly) to an injection model of the relationship. It is easy to reject their ideas, as I have suggested above. On the other extreme are theorists who believe that art has no effect whatsoever on either individuals or society. To them, the popular arts are merely entertainment, and the audience comprised of competent people able to make up their own minds. Although it is true that people are capable, it is difficult to imagine that the arts really have no influence on people or society at all. After all, we live in an arts‐rich society where the fine and popular arts are important aspects of culture. Since people use ideas from culture to create “tool kits” for daily living (Swidler, 1986), it may make more sense to think of the question as “How much and in what ways does art influence individuals and groups in society?” Just as we have rejected a simple reflection model, but not the idea of a complex relationship between art and society, we cannot reject more nuanced perspectives on shaping, either.
Case Study 3.1 Violence in Popular Arts
Points for Discussion
1 What are the arguments in the case supporting the idea that violent media causes violence in society? What are the arguments against it? What factors beyond popular arts consumption might contribute to violence in society?
2 Why are children given special consideration when it comes to media violence?
3 In your opinion, is there more to be concerned with when it comes to violence on television (broadcast or Internet TV), in movies (in cinemas or streamed), or in popular music lyrics and music videos?
4 Do you think violence in popular arts causes violence in society? On what do you base your conclusions? What should be done about media violence?
Case
As Chapter 3 indicated, concerns about the effects of consuming popular arts have been longstanding. Many researchers and concerned citizens are particularly worried about violent media begetting violent behavior. News reports often draw a connection between shocking acts of violence and violent content. For instance, after the tragic shooting of a teacher and students at Columbine High School in 1999, blame was directed toward the musician Marilyn Manson and his band. The teenagers‐turned‐killers were fans of Manson’s music which was said to be dark and satanic. When it emerged that the perpetrators were fans of the film Natural Born Killers (1994), which included graphic violence, the film was also named as a cause of the massacre (see Illustration 3.2). Sensational effects like these resulting from exposure to specific cultural products are rare (or possibly non‐existent).1 However, parents, policy makers, and scholars remain anxious about the potential effects of music, film, and television violence. Concerns arise over the possibility that consuming violent fare can lead individuals (especially children) to act aggressively. A related concern is that fictional violence might induce a tolerance of violence at the societal level, regardless of whether or not it directly spurs individuals to behave more violently.
A classic, often‐cited study of the effects of televised violence was reported by the psychologists Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963). In a