Croteau’s “Media and Ideology” argues about the
importance of media and the ideologies surrounding it. The author first
explains that there are various definitions of ideology, including but not
limited to those used in everyday language as well as those used for academic
pursuits. In regard to the media, we are examining its depictions as a
collective, not on in individualized basis. As such, s/he asserts that we
analyze this ideology for better understanding ourselves and society as a
whole. Croteau goes on to discuss how people utilize the media for their own
purposes and thus it becomes a scapegoat when the messages it’s forced to
purport offend people’s own opinions/ideologies (or ways of thinking).
Next, the author discusses the idea of dominant
ideology, and whether or not the media is culpable in its spread. Because each
person possesses his or her own opinions, the media is viewed as controversial
and people argue that it is being used to further specific ideologies that offend others, such as (for reasons that
are still unfathomable to me) homosexuality, abortion, and capital punishment.
Ultimately, Croteau’s argument comes down to the idea that ideology normalizes
behaviors. For some, this causes fear,
because their delicate sensibilities are offended when they see two girls
kissing on television, and they are afraid that if people realize there is
nothing wrong with it, it will become a normal part of daily life (as it should.
Side note: my blog, my opinion. Deal with it).
Finally, this ties with Croteau’s argument on
hegemony and what people consider natural or unnatural. The idea of hegemony
comes from Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who claimed that ruling groups can
retain their power through force, consent, or some combination of the two, and
operates at a “common sense” level of thinking. As such, our expectations for
social life come from the things we believe are “natural.” Croutea brilliantly
debunks this notion with examples that society once believed (and in some cases
still believes) are natural: that women are better nurturers than men, that
“you can’t fight city hall,” and that “moderate” positions are more reasonable
than “extreme” positions. Ideology that is considered “natural” gains a form of
legitimacy that makes it difficult to usurp. S/he makes note that racism,
homophobia, and sexism are born from these “natural” beliefs that some people
(white heterosexual males) are better than others. Thus, what society believes is natural is the
foundation for hegemony; and, luckily, hegemony is not unchangeable.
Thus, from this I take away that although media
can be used as a tool to normalize images (for both better and worse), it can
also be utilized to make change. For example: while watching Glee, a relative of mine who previously seemed a bit uncomfortable with homosexuality
found herself ultimately rooting for “Klaine” (Kurt and Blaine, a gay couple),
something she wouldn’t have done prior to watching the show. As such, her views
have progressed to slightly less prejudiced on that subject, and I maintain
hope that this type of development will continue. Despite its many flaws, shows
like Glee can be helpful in breaching
and devilifying concepts that certain groups consider “unnatural” and
normalizing it for the masses. While it may occasionally drop the ball on
subjects that could really use better spotlighting, shows like Glee could lead the way for normalizing
things (like homosexuality) that really should already be normalized in popular
culture, because, seriously, why is this still an issue? Although it may not
have been Crouteau’s point, I am entirely in favor of tricking people into
realizing their opinions are bigoted and illogical through use of the media.
(Yes, this did turn into a very mini-rant. Certain subjects set me off. Don’t
get me started on certain government legislation on related subjects. Trust
me).
