One Mtv Discourse example essay topic

Somewhat perversely, it might be expedient to begin by pointing out that this paper is not about the music video per se. There will be no close textual analysis of individual clips. Eminent pop philosopher Elvis Costello once said that 'writing about music is like dancing about architecture. It's a really stupid thing to want to do' (quoted in Goodwin, 1993: 1). Conscious that 'accidents can happen', this paper is concerned with the institutional as opposed to the purely textual; with the processes of production and reception (although it should be noted that it is perhaps inevitable that such a consideration will touch upon the channel - if not the videos themselves - as 'text' in its most socially-engaged sense). The focus here, then, is on those organisations which broadcast music videos, on Music Television (MTV) in particular, and on the possible impact of what has become a truly global phenomenon.

There is a common perception that American products dominate the world's markets. Coke and Pepsi slug it out across continents. It would appear that there is no place on earth where one cannot purchase a Big Mac. In his book Super culture, Christopher Bigsby offers this assessment of America's global dominance: American corporations shape the physical and mental environment, influence the eating habits, define the leisure pursuits, produce TV programmes and movies: devise, in other words, the fact and fantasy of the late twentieth century (Bigsby, 1975: 4). The perceived threat of globalization has prompted fears and resentments not dissimilar in temper and tone to those by-now familiar reactions to the threat of Americanisation. Globalisation is sometimes seen as a force that will erode or, worse still, dissolve cultural difference and variety.

Yet, the presence and pervasiveness of American-made goods does not necessarily signal the death of the local, regional or national. As Frederic Jameson notes, late modern or postmodern capitalism has led to a more disorganised set of relationships between trading nations. Thus, it is one of the characteristics of the dreaded 'P'-concept - postmodernism or, perhaps more accurately, postmodernity - that it leads to uncertainty and paradox, as opposed to certainty and confidence. As a kind of postmodern capitalism, globalization reflects this.

For with it, the act of cultural transfer becomes more problematic, the flow of goods and ideas so much more difficult to 'police'. Economically, globalization refers to a shift in capitalist practice. Today's multi- nationals talk of 'global marketing strategies' and securing a 'global market share' - corporate- speak which alludes to a kind of capitalism sans frontiers. Economically, there can be no doubting the level of control exerted by predominantly western multi-nationals over the flow of goods and information. At an empirical level, the issue of ownership is not really open to debate. Despite challenges from Japanese giants like Sony or Matsushita, it is companies of the West - and of the United States in particular - which continue to play a leading role and hold a controlling interest in trans-national capitalism.

Looked at this way, we could continue to argue for the existence of a form of Western economic imperialism today. In cultural terms too, the world-wide dissemination of Western-made products - together with the ideological values these are often said to carry - is seen by many to pose a very real threat to the identity and autonomy of certain of local, regional and national cultures. It is perhaps the logic of globalization that it pushes towards standardization and homogenization of markets, goods and tastes, seeking a 'one size fits all' approach to cultural production and consumption. In this one can hear echoes of Marshall Berman's oft-quoted statement concerning the effects of modernity: Modern environments and experiences cut across all boundaries of geography, ethnicity, of class and nationality, of religion and ideology: in this sense, modernity can be said to unite all mankind (Berman, 1983: 15) 1.

At the forefront of globalization are giant multi-national media empires like Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. Such corporations possess not only the means of production, but also the means of distribution. Quite obviously, multi-nationals are key players in the globalization process. Moreover, it is argued that they have the power to restructure space and with it our subjective experience of that space.

We might, for example, interpret computer giant IBM's 'boast' as proud recognition of this ability to render borders irrelevant: For our purposes... the boundaries that separate one nation from another are no more real than the Equator... They do not define business requirements or consumer trends (quoted in Morley and Robins, 1995: 10). Yet we have to ask whether the presence of such corporations necessarily signals the death of indigenous cultural identities, as is suggested in so many worst-case scenarios. Whilst the issue of who holds the economic reigns is often clear enough, what is less clear is exactly what effect this might have. One World, One Image, One Channel... Rock'n'Roll enters Iranian homes at a rate of 50 TVs every working hour.

Estimated satellite dishes being installed daily in Iran: 400. Homes reached by MTV Europe: 65 million ('Digitations', 1994: 10). In 1981 MTV began a journey into the minds of American youth (Station brochure, 1995). One of MTV's most famous slogans from the mid-1980's - 'ONE WORLD: ONE IMAGE: ONE CHANNEL' - would seem to lend support to its critics' direst warnings about the station's Orwellian intentions to lobotomize the world's youth. However, this paper sets out to challenge the still widely-held premise that MTV's now global reach makes for a kind of Invasion of the Body Snatchers-scenario; to challenge views which see MTV as both carrier of and symbol for global youth brain-rot. In so doing, it will sketch some possible strategies for 'reading' MTV against the critical grain.

Following its American launch in 1981, MTV quickly built up a sizeable audience. In 1987 a sister company was set up in Europe. By 1994, MTV Europe (MTVE) had overtaken its American sibling in terms of households reached, to become officially the biggest TV channel on earth. In its various guises - as MTVE, MTV Australia, MTV Japan, MTV South America - MTV spans five continents, is beamed into over one hundred countries, and has potential access to more than a quarter of a billion homes worldwide. It is owned by Viacom - one of the planet's largest media conglomerates.

The very model of a modern multi-national, Viacom own - or at the very least hold majority shares in - Paramount Pictures, the British video rental outlet Blockbuster Videos, the TV channel Nickle odeon, and Simon & Shuster (the world's leading publishing house). They also command the distribution rights to programmes like The Cosby Show and Roseanne. Clearly, if one is looking for an archetypal 'anti-Christ' of Americanisation, one could do worse than to look to Viacom. Yet, in an interesting and perhaps unexpected twist, Viacom's 'buy-out' of MTV in the mid-80's signalled a widening of musical scope and saw no change in what is general recognised as the channel's vaguely oppositional liberal-left political agenda. Of course, the channel's strategy has always been to reflect the attitudes and concerns of its core 16-34 year old viewers.

Sound financial sense must have played its part in dictating any policy change. In its world-wide context, MTV has triggered debates in which the fear of possible cultural imperialism mixes with concerns over the debasement of culture and the merits and de-merits of mass or popular culture. For there is an on-going narrative of suspicion, hysteria, prejudice, envy, paranoia and genuine concern - told and re-told by critics of all political colours - that would see MTV as the latest in a long line of pop cultural imports threatening to destroy the very fabric of 'small-but-perfectly-formed' cultures worldwide. MTV is an unashamedly capitalist enterprise. In fact, what could be more beautifully and so completely capitalistic than a whole channel that programmes commercials between the commercials? The bottom line is that music videos are advertisements for an artist's - and by extension a record company's - CDs, tapes, and records.

It is also a fact that MTV is a highly successful, truly global corporation in all its glorious plumage. Here is an example that simultaneously attests to MTV's global conquest and to the dire consequences of such victories: The battering ram of progress is proving unstoppable ['progress' in this context is of course invariably perceived as a violent and destructive force]... In 1989, a paved road brought the once-isolated hamlet to within 90 minutes of the regional airport at Loja [Ecuador]. Along the new artery flow electricity, processed food and back-packers. Fruit juice, homegrown rice and herbal remedies have been swapped for cans of Coca-Cola, packets of Uncle Ben's [rice] and Tylenol. The silence is shattered by buses and motorcycles that pelt along the Avenue of Eternal Youth.

Many young Vilcabambans would now rather watch MTV and eat hamburgers in Quito than live to be a hundred in a mountain idyll (Honore, 1994: 20). Even allowing for the journalist's projection of romanticism on to the scene, it is possible to see how MTV is conflated as being both a symbol for and playing its literal part in the disappearance of a native culture. However, by way of prefacing this paper's later discussion of how resistance might not be as 'useless' as the sheer weight of evidence perhaps suggests, it is worth pointing out that cultures are rarely static beasts, but rather dynamic and hybrid. In assessing the impact and effect of popular cultural forms like MTV, it is important to acknowledge the extent to which, rather than having them imposed upon us, we may instead appropriate or assimilate parts, whilst choosing to reject or ignore the rest. This, of course, has the consumer or viewer acting (or perhaps more accurately interacting) as opposed to simply passively receiving. One way in which some critics have attempted to interpret MTV is to see it as an archetypal postmodern text.

They cite - what they see as - its fragmented but undifferentiated 'flow' and its apparent abandonment of any social or political engagement as concrete proof of this. As previously noted, this paper does not seek to examine music videos as 'text' or 'style'. Its concerns are with the social and political implications of MTV the institution. Thus, it steers clear of postmodern theorising. 2 Of far greater significance is MTV's possible impact on people's lives - an issue of which often seems unimportant and irrelevant to many involved in analyzing culture. If we must dabble in p-words, then perhaps we might draw a tentative distinction between postmodernism - a bundle of theories - and postmodernity - a one-word description of the material conditions of contemporary living.

Thus, one could argue that MTV is archetypal; that it is the apotheosis of postmodernity - a global, multi-national, post-For dist success story; but by the same token uncertain and provisional in its effects. Contrary to the claims of many of its critics, MTV does not abandon social or political engagement for a pessimistic or nihilistic outlook on the world. For postmodernism's enthusiastic camp-followers, MTV is resolutely a historical, asocial, apolitical, and amoral. As David Tetzlaff typically puts it, 'there aren't any problems on MTV' (quoted in Goodwin, 1993: 149). Yet, this is patently not the case.

In a more conciliatory vein, Andrew Goodwin argues that: there are 2 Mtv. One MTV discourse... is the nihilistic, essentially pointless playfulness [so beloved of our postmodern friends]... The other is responsible, socially consciousness, satire and parody-based, vaguely liberal... and almost invisible in academic accounts (Goodwin, 1993: 150, my italics). The second level of MTV-discourse is perhaps most visibly manifested in the channel's various pro-social campaigns, which over the years have seen it back issued-oriented drives against racism and environmental pollution, and promote AIDS awareness and political responsibility.

By way of an example of the latter, this report appeared in the British Times newspaper in 1994: Jacques Delors... is to appear on MTV... as part of a campaign to lure first-time voters into the pooling booths for June's European elections. MTV Europe's project mirrors the 'Rock the Vote' campaign by its sister company in America during the 1992 presidential elections, which played a key part in mobilizing much of the youth vote in favour of Bill Clinton ('Delors to go on MTV', 1994: 2). Whilst not wishing to make any grand claims for the station's lofty Reith ian ideals, it does appear to have a 'line' - a line which, even if only at best 'vaguely liberal', is more or less ignored by the postmodernists, one suspects because it undermines their theorising. 3 In many ways, this is perhaps to be expected from a youth-oriented channel which has consistently been editorially outspoken on issues such as censorship, and which - through programmes like Beavis & Butt-Head - has irreverently lampooned other conservative excesses and hysteria. 4 Yet, all the evidence which points to the apparent oppositional stance adopted by MTV on certain issues should be counter-balanced by the knowledge that the channel is a hugely profitable component part of a multi-national media organisation. Therefore, the obvious question to ask is exactly how radical or oppositional can it be?

Is it possible to reconcile the promotion of dissent - albeit of a liberal-reformist type - with the parent company's primary objective which is to perpetuate capitalism and, by extension, the status quo? One answer to this can perhaps be found in Gramsci's theory of the hegemonic. However for now, it is worth noting that, whilst throwing up a number of problems, these two apparently contradictory functions are not necessarily mutually exclusive.