American Academy of Political and Social Science

The Dialectic of Time and Television

Author(s): Paddy Scannell
Source: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 625, The End of
Television? Its Impact on the World (So Far) (Sep., 2009), pp. 219-235
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of Political and
Social Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40375917
Accessed: 03-04-2015 13:46 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40375917?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. and American Academy of Political and Social Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Dialectic
ofTimeand
Television

The articlereviewsthe keyquestionof the effectsof

televisionas proposedbyElihu Katzin hisintroduction
to
and the variousresponsesto it in the contributions
thisvolume. It arguesthatthe questionis a proper
concernofsociology,
engagedas itis withthepoliticsof
effects.The
the presentand immediate,short-term
effects,however,is beyondthe
questionof long-term
concernedwith
scope ofa socialsciencemethodology
the impactof the new. Long-termeffectsonlyshow
up withthe passingof time and are the concernof
historicalstudies.As televisionbeginsto have a history,it beginsto be possibleto examineits historical
recordto tryto tease out itslong-term
impacton the
world- so far!
Keywords: shortterm;longterm;television;effects;
history

I
PADDY SCANNELL

For nothingis more important,

nothingcomes
closerto thecruxofsocialrealitythanthisliving,
intimate,
infinitely
repeatedoppositionbetween
the instantof time and thattimewhichflows
onlyslowly.Whetherit is a questionof the past
orofthepresent,a clearawarenessofthispluralityofsocialtimeis indispensableto thecommuofthehumansciences.(Braudel
nalmethodology
1980,26)

Fernand
In thelate1950s,Frenchhistorian
betweentwodifferBraudeldrewa distinction
entordersoftime:theshortandthelongterm.
The formerhe called histoireevenementielle
andthelatterthelongueduree.The shortterm
is thetimeofeveryday
life,thelifeandtimesof
fullofnoiseandbustle,movement
thepresent,
Faddy Scannellis a professorin the Departmentof
Studiesat the University
Communication
ofMichigan,
whichhejoined infall 2006. Beforethat,he workedat
The Polytechnic
(whichlaterbecamethe University
of
editorofMedia.Culture&
He is a founding
Westminster).
andauthor(withDavidCardiff)
ofA SocialHistory
Society
of BritishBroadcasting,1923-1939(Blackwell1991),
Radio, Televisionand Modern Life (Blackwell1996),
and Media and Communication
(Sage 2007).
DOI: 10.1177/0002716209339153

ANNALS,AAPSS,625, September2009

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

219

220

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

and activity.
The longtermis thepast,recedingback,further
into
and further,
inaccessible
In
with
the
time.
contrast
remote,
prehistoric
sharp
noisy,changand fathmotionless,
silent,unchanging,
ingpresent,it becomesincreasingly
omless.How are thetwoconnected?It is ratherlikethesurfaceand depthsof
restless
isinperpetual,
thesea. The surface,
ruffled
endlessly
bywindandweather,
motion.
Butbeneath
itliesthedeep,andthemoreyoudescendintoit,themoreyou
thelonguedureewasthe
encounter
itsdarkandmotionless
silence.Braudelthought
evenemenHe dismissively
comparedhistoire
properobjectofhistorical
enquiry.
minds
of
fills
the
tiellewitha candleflamewhose"delusivesmoke,
contemporaries"butthatquicklyflickers
and dies,leavingno lastingtrace(Braudel1980,
time
theeventful
ofthepastcentury,
27). For Braudel,as formanyintellectuals
historiThe
andideology.
ofeveryday
lifewas thesphereofillusion,
deception,
determistructural
ans properconcernwas withthe unchanging,
underlying,
nants of the everyday,
for these were what shaped and definedit. This
atthetime.In France
tohistorians
"structuralist
turn"wasbyno meansconfined
and elsewhere,
structuralism
was becomingthenewbigidea in thehumanities
andsocialsciencesofthe1960sand 1970s.
BraudePserawas a longtimeago,and thetidehas goneouton themoment
thequesofstructuralism.
Butthedistinction
Braudeldrewhelpsus understand
andclarifies
tionaddressedbythiscollection
ofessayson "theend"oftelevision
- thequestionof"effects."
as validthedistincitscentralproblematic
Accepting
onetothe
tionbetweentheshortandthelongtermis nota matter
ofpreferring
The
other.Rather,
itis a questionofhowthetwoareinextricably
interconnected.
is thedialectic
endlessinterplay
betweenpastandpresent,
understood,
properly
ofhistory:
theplayofthepastas itactsuponthepresentandofthepresentas it
actsuponthepastin orderto bringon thefuture.
is indeed"made"in
History
thepresent(whereelse?)butis notvisibleas suchto thosewhodwellin it,the
as it
ofthelivinginanypresenttime.History
generations
onlyappearsas history
exitsfromtherestless,
and
enters
the
silent
and
noisypresent
unchanging
past.
The present,
in whichwe live,is indeedthetimeand place ofaction,in which
decisionsaremadeandcoursesofactioncommitted
towithfateful
consequences
fora future
madepossibleonlybywhatis doneinthehereandnow.Butwe,who
are caughtup in thepresent,
can neverforesee,in spiteofourbestefforts,
the
actuallong-term
with
of
what
we
do.
These
become
consequences
only
apparent
thewisdomofhindsight,
whichis theeffect
ofthepassingoftimefromthepresentintothepast.The owlofMinervatakesflight
at dusk.
Academicengagement
withmediahasalwaysbeenconcerned
withtheshock
ofthenew;successivegenerations
havegrappledwiththeimpactofnewmedia
in theirtimes.In theUnitedStatesin the 1930sand 1940s,thethenverynew
mediumof radioprovokedhighanxiety.
It could stimulate
widespreadpanic
(Cantril,Gaudet,and Herzog 1941); persuadethe massesto partwiththeir
money(Merton[1946] 2004); and was, as someoneput it at a conference
attendedbyPaul Lazarsfeld,
"as powerful
as theatomicbomb"(Lazarsfeld
and
Merton[1948] 2004). Fortyyearsago, whenthe new mediumof television
becamethefocusofstudyforan emergent
"mediastudies,"
ittoowasseenas a

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALECTIC OF TIME AND TELEVISION

221

powerful"ideologicalstate apparatus."Nowadays,radio and televisionare

of by thosewho pursuetodays"newmedia"as "old"or "traditional"
thought
withshinynewthings
liketheInternet,
cellphones,iPods,Facebook,
compared
In allthreemoments,
academicengagement
withthenew
YouTube,andso forth.
mediaofthedayhasbeen absorbedin andbythepoliticsofthepresent,
which
eventsin thecontemporary
worldandto upcoming
alwaysattendsto significant
as theyemergein thehereandnow.
phenomena
unavoidable
the
The recurring,
questionofthepresentconcernstheeffect,
or the
impactof the new;and whetherwe are talkingaboutradio,television,
thatquestionhastwoparts:whatis thenewthingdoingtous,andwhat
Internet,
the so-called
are we doingwithit? In the sociologyof masscommunication,
theinitialquestionaddressedwasradios impacton themasses.
effects
tradition,
in thelightofthe
effectseemedself-evident
Thatit had a directand powerful
- OrsonWelless spoofHalloweenradioplaybased
"mediaevent"
notorious
first
a millionor so listenon WaroftheWorldsbyH. G. Wells.If,as wasestimated,
the
broadcast
on
October
was
erswereseriously
31,
1938,itseffect
frightened
by
concernedwhatmadesomelisteners
susobvious.The questionto investigate
ceptibleand othersnotto thepowerofthenewmedium.The studyof media
withtheshortterm,withtheimmediate
concerned
is necessarily
effects
impact
It musttreatthisas a matter
forempirical
on
its
audiences.
ofbroadcast
output
to findouthowrealpeople,one wayor another,
respond
investigation
bytrying
ofmasscomto mediaandhowtheyuse them.Mediastudiesandthesociology
evenementhepoliticsofthepresent,theplayofhistoire
confront
munication
in
the
historical
tielle(of "mediaevents")whilebeingthemselves
caughtup
to
lineaments
whose
theystruggle perceive.
process
effectis anyButhowcan thisbe done?How do we knowthata short-term
effect
is
no
more
than
if
a
short-term
And
than
that?
more
that,then
thing
The questionofthe
no lastingsignificance.
indeedit has,as Braudelthought,
longtermhas to be posed as thesolutionto the studyofthe shorttermifits
But
relevanceand significance.
researchis to haveanyclaimto anylong-lasting
has no history
howis thelongtermavailableforstudy?The new,bydefinition,
Whatis it?
as itentersintothelifeofthepresent.Itsnewnessis itsstrangeness.
ofnewmediacan onlybe a matterofconeffects
Whocan say?The long-term
fortheir
presentanditspolitics,
jecture,forallofus caughtup intheimmediate
has
media
studies
The
to
come.
are
effects
produced
onlyprophet
yet
long-term
of
becamefamousforhisdivinations
thusfaris MarshallMcLuhan,whoquickly
era andwas equallyquicklyassignedto oblivion(Meyrowitz
thenewelectronic
Giddens(1991) putit,
2003). Bythe1980s,McLuhanhadbecome,as Anthony
electronic
of
the
"theforgotten
globalvillage."Not untilthe 1990s,
prophet
hailed
as the one trueprophetof the
McLuhan
was
his
after
death,
years
ahead
ofhistime,thefullpotential
decades
who
had
the
one
foreseen,
Internet,
infrastructure
thatundertelecommunications
of
the
global
emerging
impact
we
inhabit
today.
pinstheworld
ofmediaand comisolatedfigurein thehistory
McLuhanremainsa quirky,
the
future
could
to read
munication
studies;his attempts
onlybe confirmed

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

222

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

as thefuture
enteredintothepresentand movedon to become
retrospectively
thepast.Long-term
whicharisein thepresent,onlybecomevisibleas
effects,
suchin thejourneyintothedarknessand silenceof thetongueduree.In this
the
foritcontains
is disclosed,
transitional
passageoftime,theessenceofhistory
How
andshort-term
dialecticoflong-term
change.
temporal
continuity
temporal
- moreexactly,
whendoes thepresentbecomethe
thendoes thisprocesswork
orderof timein whichthe longtermbeginsto
past?Whatis the transitional
The answerto thisquestionis in oneway
present?
appearoutoftheshort-term
at understanding
effort
tothiscollective
oranotherin manyofthecontributions
Let us callitgenerational
oftelevision.
theeffect
time,thetimeofgenerations,
workofregeneration
inwhichthefundamental
historical
(ofchangeandrenewal
fromone generation
to thenext)is enacted.
a ceremony
A Kenyanfriendonce toldme thatthe Kikuyuperform
every
to the
twenty-five
yearsor so in whichthe eldershand overtheirauthority
whotakeoverandbecometheelders.Herewe see thewise
younger
generation,
maderitutimeandtheworkofregeneration
ofgenerational
acknowledgement
whichhaveuncoupledthepresentfrom
allyexplicit.But formodernsocieties,
of24/7
thepast,generational
timeis invisiblefromtheshort-term
perspective
The questionofeffects
a pastorfuture.
time,a perpetualhereandnowwithout
What
theliving:
belongsto thepresent.It is perhapsthequestionthatconfronts
be as we
Willtheiroutcomes
willbe theeffects
ofouractions?
andconsequences
answersto the
hoped?Willtheybe good?Willtheylast?Or not?Long-term
is observable,
in
it
the
of
become
the
Thus,
past.
questions
presentonly
apparent
thatit tooka generation
ofworkin thesociology
withthewisdomofhindsight,
ofmasscommunication
to answeritsinitialquestionandhypothesis
concerning
Thiswas
individuals.
vulnerable
thedirecteffect
ofpowerful
mediaonpowerless,
increin
it
the
1930s.
the"original
of
the
field
as
Gradually,
position"
gotgoing
Personal
when
the
it
to
be
turned
around.
mid-1950s,
By
mentally, began
was eventually
Influence
published,themediawerefoundto have,at best,an
totheperon individuals
indirect
effect
whoweremoreimmediately
responsive
life
networks
of everyday
of otherpeople in theinterpersonal
sonalinfluence
we
the
or
see
so,
(KatzandLazarsfeld
1955).Overa spanoftwenty
regenyears
inthe
erativeworking
ofgenerational
timeandsocietalchange.America
through
sciin
Social
mid1930s.
mid-1950s
America
the
wasa verydifferent
from
place
and
thepresent,
ence,alwayssituatedin and confronting
adjusts
imperceptibly
to changetaking
only
readjusts
place at thetime.Thatchange,withinsociology,
becombecomesapparent
as thediscipline
itself
thereby
beginstohavea history,
intheworking
ofitsowninstitutional
time.
inghistorical
through

ii
intheparticular
Thesegeneralconsiderations
areimplicated
questionoftelevisionaddressedbyourcollective
that"television"
efforts.
We can note,fora start,
- nota very
hasbeenpartoftheworldlongenoughtohaveaccumulated
a history

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALECTIC OF TIME AND TELEVISION

223

evidentandmappableas severalofourconlongone,ofcourse,butincreasingly
is notmuchmorethansixty
show.The timespanunderdiscussion
tributors
years,
Menahem
andTamarLiebesallpertias
William
Uricchio,
Blondheim,
although,
has a longerbackstorythatreacheswellintothe
nentlyremindus, television
as we knowitis a social,political,
andcultural
Television
nineteenth
century.
phetakenas thepointof
nomenon
ofthepostwar
world,andthe1950sis commonly
oftelevision,
sincein the1950speoplebegan
forourvariednarratives
departure
likeradio,is a time-based
medium.
Timeis
tohavetimefortelevision.
Television,
s studyoftimebudgets(whatpeople
whatitconsumes(eatsup). JohnRobinson
to understanding
thebasictemporal
contribution
do withtime)is a fundamental
thesupplyanddemandsidesoftelevision
thatunderpin
considerations
(Robinson
needstohavebasic
2009[thisissue]).On thesupplyside,theindustry
andMartin,
aboutwhois availableforviewingat anytimeand whois not(and
information
withpotential
to correspond
to
usage.On thedemand
why) adjustprogramming
side,whatviewersfindwhentheyturnon the TV set had betterbe broadly
whicharealwaysinpartdetermined
totheirmoodsandrequirements,
attuned
by
of
the
week
and
the
timeofdayand thedayitselfwithinthetemporal
rhythms
in thefallis collegefootball
timein America
afternoon
seasons.Thus,Saturday
of
turnson in theexpectation
and soccertimeeverywhere
else,wheneveryone
in
that
of
television
the
times
the
But
presuppose people large
watching game.
numbers
do,in fact,havetimeforit;thosesocialand economicconditions
only
inthe1950s,inNorthern
andBritain
availableinNorthAmerica
becamegenerally
inthe1970s,andtoday
Europeandelsewhere
Europeinthe1960s,in Southern
of
thatgivethepossibility
in IndiaandChina.The preconditions
mostevidently
do notyetexistinlargepartsofAfrica.
TV ownership
mustbe theTV set,whose
abouttelevision
The starting
pointforthinking
of
a
surplus disposableincomeand timeon the
purchasepresupposes marginal
in
conditions
economic
Those
of
onlybecameprevalent
general
part purchasers.
theadvancedeconomiesofNorthAmericaand EuropeaftertheSecondWorld
of
indexofan emerging
War.The TV setinthe1950sis one significant
economy
lifetowhichitgivesrise(Scannell2008).It
abundanceanda cultureofeveryday
is inseparable
fromthethings
is a newkindofdomesticappliancewhoseutility
as
thecondition
the
wired
household
which
all
of
thataccompany
it,
presuppose
has"freetime"as itsessentialprecondition,
oftheirusage.The use oftelevision
television.
Butwithoutall the
timeforwatching
timefreedfromotherthings,
in
the
home
vacuum
othertime-and labor-saving
cleaners,cookappliances
is no
machines
television
clothes
and
dish
freezers,
ers,fridges,
wash-and-dry
time"takesit
use forthereis no timeforit.A majornewstudyof"discretionary
richand
We maybe materially
freedom.
measureofindividual
as a fundamental
to
our
material
hours
sustain
to
work
if
we
have
still
lifestyle
long
yet "time-poor"
childcare,andso on.In theirremarkable
orifourtimeis takenup byhousework,
inAustralia,
andhouseholds
on individuals
oftimepressures
Europe,and
survey
theUnitedStatestoday,RobertGoodinand hiscolleaguescalibratehowmuch
control
peoplehaveovertheirtimeandhowmuchtheycouldhaveunderalternativewelfare,gender,or householdarrangements
(Goodinet al. 2008). The

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

224

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

ofa significant
amountoffreetime,timeat thepersonaldisposalof
availability
is
the
ofa societyorientedtowardleisure.It is notfor
individuals,
precondition
that
television
became,as Robinsons(2009,thisissue)data show,the
nothing
inthe1950sandremains
forthemajority
ofAmericans
majorleisure-time
activity
so to thisday.
lifebackinthe1950shasbeenwonderThe entry
oftheTV setintoeveryday
fullyexamined
byLynnSpigel(1992).It was fromthestarta sourceofpleasure
andanxiety.
It wasa newwayofrelaxing
andofsharing
time,"butwasit
"family
(2009,thisissue) showshowthat
good forchildrenor not?Sonia Livingstone
an
inthe1950sandhasremained
questionbecamean academicobjectofinquiry
issue eversince.Worriesaboutthe youngpointto a moregeneral
important
thatwatching
television
is a wasteoftimeforgrown-ups,
too,who,like
anxiety
Robert
theirtimeonbetterthings.
theirchildren,
could(andshould)be spending
Putnamblamestelevision
forthedeclineinsocialcapital.People,inhisview,are
in
theircivicresponsibilities.
shirking
Theyoughtto spendmoretimeinvolved
inwatching
television
theircommunities
andlesstimeinvolved
(Putnam2000).In
TV is a solitary,
thiswidespread,
commonsense
view,watching
(and misleading)
withoutdoors
socialandcommunal
activity.
passive,indoorsthingincontrast
heads- the
Whatwe gettowatchwhenwe turnon thesetare mainly
talking
facesofpeopleas theyfaceus andaddressus directly
(innewsandstudio-based
talkshowsofvariouskinds)andas theyinteract
witheachotheroncamera.What
inpartbythe
we getto see, Paul Frosh(2009,thisissue)argues,is determined
formofthetechnology.
TV is goodforshowing
faces,butnotmuchmore.It is
notwhenit gotgoing
nota richly
likethemovies,or,rather,
visualexperience,
backinthe1950s.Froshreminds
us howtheTV sethaschangedovertheyears.
In itsbeginning
itwas a bulkyboxwitha squarishscreenthatlitup to produce
low-definition
imagesinvariousshadesofgray.Today,thebulkyboxhas
moving
been displacedbylarger,
screenswiththesameaspectratioas
flat,rectangular
wide-screen
cinemaand a high-definition
movingimagein fullcolor.But the
functions
ofthetechnology
it is a deviceforthedisplayof
remainunchanged:
audiovisual
material
liveandin realtimeorrecorded(orboth),andwe stillface
itas itfacesus.
In Froshs essay,and manyothers,televisionconfronts
us as technology.
on television
Almostall contributors
notetheimpactofchanging
technologies
as wellas thechangingtechnologies
of
The
television.
of
question technology
is at theheartofanyeffort
to thinkaboutTV,althoughsomeofus feelmoved
to add disclaimers
ofthesin
thatin dealingwiththequestion,we arenotguilty
of technologicaldeterminism.
As RobertHeilbronerhas argued,however,
technologiesin generaldo make history:theyarise in definitehistorical
enter
momentsas sought-for
solutionsto generalsocialproblemsand thereby
intothehistorical
the
life
of
the
societies
that
material
process,
producedthem
- ofcoursetheydo. Wouldany
(Heilbroner1994).Machinesmakea difference
ofus willingly
thatfreedus fromdomesforgothenewpostwarelectricutilities
tictoil(washingclothesbyhand)and time-consuming
dailyactivities
(lighting
coal fires;goingon footeach dayto different
for
thingsand
shops different

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALECTIC OF TIME AND TELEVISION

225

themback)and in so doingfreedup timeforotherthingsthattelevicarrying

filled?Whatis muchharderto saywithanyprecisionis just
sionconveniently
whatdifference
effectsof television
theymake,whatthe real and particular
mightbe and at whatlevelofanalysis.
of visibility.
One generaleffectof televisionhas been the transformation
showsus things.How it does so and withwhatconsequencesis the
Television
tothiscollection.
themeofseveralcontributions
hasinfluentially
Joshua
Meyrowitz
the social geographiesof
and persuasively
arguedthattelevisiontransforms
andinpublic(Meyrowitz
lifeinprivate
tothistheme
1985).He returns
everyday
the"televations"
oftelevision:
thewaysinwhich,by
forthiscollection,
reviewing
wasunseenandprivate,
television
elevatestheexpevisiblewhathitherto
making
thestatusofcertainclassesofpeoplein the
and transforms
rienceofwatching
intheeyesofwomenandchildren)
andmen,forinstance,
eyesofothers(parents
The
of
television
on publiclifeis mostevithis
2009,
issue).
impact
(Meyrowitz
ofvisibility
has become,as Meyrowitz
wherethemanagement
dentin politics,
ofincreasing
concernforpoliticalleaderssincethe1950s.
shows,a matter
For Daniel Dayan (2009, thisissue),classictelevision(the televisionthat
of a givennation-state)
producesa
speaksfromthe centerto the periphery
viewedby millionsand thus
to an outputsimultaneously
focusedattentiveness
- thesharedexperience
ofeventsas definedand
characterized
by"sharedness"
of
collective
attentions
is whathe
The
work
die
center.
distributed
focusing
by
Butthe"solid"mediaofthecenterare nowsurrounded
meansbymonstration.
on theperiphery,
that
"liquid"digitalmedia:themediaatthemargins,
bynewer,
no longerconstrained
are linkedto each otherin complexnetworks
ideas,
by
and
interests,
opinions,and eventsgeneratedand definedfromsociocultural
media
reof
the
center
If
television
centers.
demonstrates,
peripheral
political
meansto showagain,a secondshowing
he argues.Re-monstration
monstrate,
themonthatservesas a reproachand critiqueofwhatis firstshownthrough
oftheblogosphere.
ofthecenter.Suchis thefunction
ofthetelevision
strations
on politicsis proposed
fortheevolving
A similarargument
impactoftelevision
and
in thearticleby MichaelGurevitch,
Blumler,
StephenColeman.They
Jay
had far-reaching
thatclassictelevision
concurwithMeyrowitz
consequencesfor
on and off
and conductofpoliticsand politicalperformances
themanagement
continueto be thepoliticians,
ofpoliticalreality
definers
camera.The primary
ofprint,
media(thenewsreporters
oftraditional
subjectto theintensescrutiny
been
has
This
and
television).
radio,
relationship increasingly chalsymbiotic
is a difnew
media
and newpublics.The Internet
of
the
emergence
lengedby
news
and
The
traditional
comment.
constituted
to
that
ferent
by
publicsphere
and
not
and
critical
chorus
vociferous
is
an
commentary
blogosphere ever-ready
well.
the
center
as
media
of
but
the
the
center
of
the
on
politics
only
The mediumtheoryapproach,as definedby Meyrowitzhere (and in
has a determinate
1994),assumesthatthe formof the technology
Meyrowitz
is
which
it
can
be
One
use oftelevision
the
uses
to
its
content
and
on
effect
put.
of
as
a
the
formonitoring environment,technology surveillance, Meyrowitz
As such,it exists
ofcommunication.
is a technology
shows.Broadcasttelevision

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

226

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

in relation
to thosethatprecedeit (thetelegraph,
to other,similar
technologies:
andLeibes[2009,this
or
andwirelesstelephony radio,as Blondheim
telephone,
can becomeobsolater.
issue]remindus) and to thosethatcome
Technologies
was made
nineteenth
of the late
lete. The typewriter
(a technology
century)
audioand
more
laterbythewordprocessorand,
a century
redundant
recently,
Is
broadcast
DVDs.
havebeen replacedby CDs and
videocassette
recordings
Has itpasseditsprime?
television
becomingredundant?
Suchquestions
begantobe posedindie 1990swhenitseemedas if(1) theend
and(2) theriseof
andcableservices
aboutbysatellite
ofchannelscarcity
brought
The first
television
theInternet
superfluous.
mightcombineto renderbroadcast
delivered
eraoftelevision
wasone inwhicha smallnumberofcontent
providers
in whichtheyweresituated.
thecountry
schedulethroughout
a dailyprogram
television
This"national-popular"
beganto fadein the 1980sand was arguably
Lotzprovides
TV services.
decadebynew"on-demand"
eclipsedinthefollowing
that
the1950stothepresent
from
television
an authoritative
accountofAmerican
and
era
to
the
from
the
network
the
transition
shows
present
postnetwork
clearly
withinand
innovation
and affected
how changewas effected
by technological
a morecritical
offers
itself(see Lotz2007).Uricchio
outsidetheindustry
interprebut
confirms
state
as
an
television
tationofnational
apparatus
ideological
popular
and forceofLotzs account.Butwhatwas theessenceof
thegeneraltrajectory
fromlatertelevisions?
andhowis itdifferent
broadcast
television,
had a dualfunction;
industries
The earlyradioandtelevision
theyprovideda
intothe
delivered
and
content
that
commissioned)
(or
theyproduced
program
and
sets.Thisdualprocessofproduction
households
oftheownersofreceiving
itwas liveand itwas broadcast(as
had twocrucialcharacteristics:
transmission
ofallthe
is thecrucialfeature
distinct
fromnarrowcast).
Instantliveconnectivity
and
wired
with
that
started
new electronic
telegraphy developed
technologies
radioin
intowiredand thenwirelesstelephony
(calledthewirelessin Britain,
and
In allthesetechnologies,
distant
television.
America)andlastly
places
people
now- thenow
areconnected
toeachotherintheimmediate,
enunciatory
living,
of the speech act,the nowof the event.Wiredtechnologiesafforded
pointor
receivers
connection
betweentwoplacesand twosignaltransmitter
to-point
scatter.
broadcast
indiscriminate
afforded
an
Wireless
speakers.
technologies
Anyonewithinrangeofreceptionandwithan adequatereceiverhad accessto
initsprewhatwastransmitted.
ofwireless
wasinitially
The scatter
problematic
and
the
fronts
for
contact
between
broadcast
HQ in
fighting
usage point-to-point
to avoid
wereencrypted
therearduringthewarof1914to 1918.Transmissions
was
vitalinformation
to an eavesdropping
enemy.Broadcasttransmission
giving
a
ofthetechnology
anda wayofcreating
discovered
afterthewaras a by-product
market
forthesale ofradiosets.Broadcasting,
first
on radio,thenon television,
wereservedbythe
createda newkindofgeneralpublicwhosegeneralinterests
a mixedsupof
a
of
varied
on
the
same
content
channel,
provision range
program
allwatched
of
a
whose
members
news
and
entertainment
for
audience
ply
large
ofthe
thesamethingatthesametime.Thisformation
was,inlargepart,an effect
initsearlystages.
constraints
and theaffordances
ofthetechnology

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALECTIC OF TIME AND TELEVISION

227

innovations
Twokeytechnological
weredevelopedto overcomesomeofthe
of earlytelevision.First,and crucially,recordingtechnologies
constraints
and relievedtheinitialpressures
ofcontinuous
live-to-air
transcomplemented
were developedthatovercamethe twin
mission.Then new deliverysystems
ofspectrum
anditsregulation
andcontrol
for
scarcity
bygovernments
problems
Fromthe 1970sonward,satelliteand cable
purposesotherthanbroadcasting.
servicesbeganto putan end to channelscarcity;
today,viewersin Europeand
ofchannelsfromaroundtheworld.
NorthAmericahaveaccessto hundreds
wereintrinsic
tothetechnology
from
thestart.
Thesedevelopments
Electronic
of oldertransport
constraints
and
mediain principleovercomethetime-space
inhishistorical
thatHaroldInnishadencountered
studcommunication
systems
ThiswasMcLuhans keyinsight,
onethatwastaken
iesoftheCanadianeconomy.
in
of
an
the
and
theory postmodernity lasttwodecades
by emerging
explored
up
in telecommunications
as
overcame
of the twentieth
century rapidinnovation
information
flows
to
the
of
on
constraints
produce globalconnectivity
time-space
in
an
immediate
now
a commonworldforever
caughtup
never-ending (Harvey
1989;Giddens1991).The 1980s,thepivotaldecadein which"new"televisions
was one of those momentsthat
beginto appear alongside"old" television,
in newtimes.The NewTimesof
if
were
as
to
the
dwelling
living they
appeared
inthecapitalso itseemedtotheBritish
the1980sweremarked,
Left,bya shift
to plenty,
whichtheycharacterized
as the
fromscarcity
istmodeofproduction,
In
and
Fordism
from
Fordism
to
(Hall
1989).
(the
Jacques
post-Fordism
change
in
1920s
the
auto
classic mode of mass-production
industry
developedby
demand.You couldhaveanycolorFordyouliked,
America),
supplydominates
seemed
so theoldjokewent,as longas itwasblack.In the1980s,thissuddenly
andincreasingly
diversepost-Fordist
conto havechanged,and an accelerating
Williams
hadremarked
on thirty
whatRaymond
sumercultureat lastconfirmed
- namely,
theend ofthemassesand massculture(Williams[1958]
yearsearlier
thebalancetippedfromthesupplysideto
twentieth
In
the
late
1962).
century,
assertive.
On-demand
thedemandside,andconsumer
powerseemedincreasingly
to an economyofabundance,
is butone instanceofthefulltransition
television
inthematerial
culture
unlimited
choiceanddiversity
characterized
byseemingly
in
Northern
which
of the late twentieth
Europe and
century,
began postwar
Americain the1950s.
thecultureofthemasseswas suppliedby
For mostofthetwentieth
century,
andin conThe supplysideseemeddominant,
thecultureindustries.
powerful,
of culture,whiletherewas no demandside to speakof.
trolof the definition
consumers
ofmasscultureappeared,tocontheearly-twentieth-century
Rather,
victimsof a fraudperpevulnerable
as
individuals,
critics, isolated,
temporary
tratedon themfromabovebythecultureindustries
(Adornoand Horkheimer
this
had
all
twentieth
the
late
[1946] 1986). By
changedas newtechcentury,
mix
and
and variously
to
individuals
put
increasingly pick
nologiesenabled
identities.
On-demand
theirownsocialandcultural
television,
partofa
together
relations
at thetime,emergedinthe1990sas an
insupply-demand
generalshift
newdistribution
oftworelatedtechnological
effect
(cable
systems
developments:

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

228

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

and satellite)and newtime-shifting

thatbeganwithvideocassette
technologies
in
(DVD
technologies
recording the 1980s,nowdisplacedbydigitalrecording
andTiVo).In Britain,
itson-demand
servicesundertheslogan,
BSkyBmarketed
ofthebroadcast
"Saygoodbyeto theschedules."Liberatedfromtheconstraints
could createtheirown timetableand watchwhatthey
schedules,individuals
wantedwhentheywantedit.
These developments
provokedalarmin the "old" televisionindustrythe
in
in the UnitedStates,thepublicservicebroadcasters Europe.The
networks
is oftentakenas theoriginalmodelofpublic
BritishBroadcasting
Corporation
tracesthefadingofitsmoraland
servicebroadcasting
(PSB). David Morrison
the1980s,a declinethatwas
in Britain
fromthe1950sthrough
cultural
authority
exercisedby the British
confidently
partof a widererosionof powerhitherto
blamedon
Thismoraldeclinewascertainly
establishment.
politicalandreligious
a
suchas MaryWhitehouse,
in the 1960sby religiousconservatives
television
andthornin
whoprovedto be, fora time,a formidable
schoolteacher,
lobbyist
thefleshofseniorBBC management,
promotblasphemy,
accusingitofreligious
cause
or
the
Was
television
the
and
sexual
young.
promiscuity, corrupting
ing
moresimplythe conduitof socialchangein the 1960sand 1970s?Morrison
ofnationalaudiencesfromthe1980s
pointsoutthattheso-calledfragmentation
to
thetechnology
oftechnology;
onwardwasnotan effect
rather,
gaveexpression
of
new
channels
it
in
and
allowed
and
difference
diversity
society
alreadyexisting
cultural
moral
and
of
a
he
was
at
the
But
this,
unity
expense
argues,
recognition.
andcoherencethattheold eliteshadheldinplace.
leavesoff.Lunt
PeterLunts (2009,thisissue)paperpicksup whereMorrison
culturaland
of
the
of
the
end
as
fact
the
the
erosion,
pastcentury,
accepts
by
the
He
service
tradition.
of a top-down
moralauthority
however,
sees,
public
own
of
ones
the
a
concern
with
of
new
ethic
of
the
a
quality
emergence
personal:
lifeandwhatis goodforones selfandthosewithwhomonelives- parents,
part- an ethicsofpersonalandinterpersonal
care.Andthishe findsin
ners,children
whichhe discussesin relationto an
of reality
thedespisedcategory
television,
TV shows,
of
American
and British
the
example
genre.Expertsappearin reality
voices(as intheolderPSB dispensation)
butlessas authoritative
andprescriptive
and moreas life-support
systems
providing
practicaltherapyforpeople with
Is
Lunt
it,
wonders,
problems.
negatively,
yetanothersoftformofsocialregulaandthe
tionand controlor,morepositively,
a signofthepoliticsofrecognition
careoftheself?
ofeveryday
andindividualization
RealityTV pointsto theincreasing
diversity
lifetodayinwhichpeopletailortheirowncultural
and
preferences pickandmix
television
theirownviewing
schedules.Does thisnotimplytheendofbroadcast
rise
anditsfixedschedules?Whoneedsitanymore?
Andwhatoftheirresistible
oftheInternet?
Moretimespentin theonlineworldmeanslesstimeintheofflineworldoftelevision
andotherthings.
We arestillverymuchcaughtup inthe
of
unavoidablebusinessofworking
out the implications
and working
through
theseinnovations
thatare stillpartofthepoliticsofpresenttimes.The Internet
tosay
forithasyetto recedeintothepast.It is impossible
has,as yet,no history,

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALECTIC OF TIME AND TELEVISION

229

at thispointin timewhetherFacebookand YouTube,forinstance,

are passing
or
uses
and
furnished
the
virtual
fads long-term
world.Butone
by
gratifications
do, as McLuhannoted,is to shedlighton theuses and
thingthatinnovations
whenit was new,bothimpactedon
ofexisting
things.Television,
gratifications
and illuminated,
of the essenceof
by its difference,
cinema-going
something
is illuminated
cinemaandthecinematic
Todaysoldtelevision
experience.
bynew
and the newpostnetwork
of communication
screen-based
televitechnologies
ofthelatetwentieth
do notdissionsofthe1990s.The newtelevisions
century
of the mid-twentieth
of the oldertelevision
but
century,
place the functions
them.Takentogether,
indicative
of long-term
theyare formally
complement
thetwentieth
andinparticular
ofthe
historical
through
century
working
processes
thestructural
to postmodernity,
transformation
ofthe
frommodernity
transition
oftheSecondWorldWar.
worldthatemergedfromtheruinandcatastrophe

in
was to be concernedwiththe silent,
The historians
task,Braudelthought,
while
thesociologist
attended
tothenoise
of
slow
movement
time,
imperceptible
The studyoftelevision,
inthemaking,
thelifeandtimesofthepresent.
ofhistory
andofmediain general,requiresthatwe attendto both,butitis onlynowthat
is becoming
oftelevision
thehistorical
possible,foronlynowdo we beginto
study
ofgenerational
timeinits
intothepastandtheworking
see itsrecession
through
1950s
to
the
of
the
from
Press's
narrative,
present, changingrelations
output.
to sexand gender,showsthismost
betweenwomenand men,ofnewattitudes
thatgrewup inandwasradicalized
The generation
bythe1960s(inreacclearly.
to
tiontotheirparentcultureofthe1950s)intimebecametheparentgeneration
betweenolderandyounger
bornin the1980s.The relationship
children
genera- thepoliticsof re-generaand daughters
mothers
tions,parentsand children,
feminism
ofthe
tion- is vividly
apparentin thetensionsbetweensecond-wave
ofthe 1990s.Andthisis seamor postfeminism
feminism
1970sandthird-wave
and rightly
output,whichis naturally
lesslydisplayedin televisionsfictional
resourceforthe
studiesas a keyhistorical
television
treatedbycriticalfeminist
withinand betweenthesexes(Douglas
socialrelations
ofchanging
exploration
becomepossible.Alltheprograms
has
work
Such
Lotz
2006).
1994;
onlyrecently
were
this
Press
discussed
(2009, issue)
producedinandfortheirowntimewith
by
in whichtheywouldbecomethepast.Onlyas theprofora future
no thought
do theyenterintothepast,becoming
from
theschedules
gramsoftodaydisappear
thatpreserve
themas
record
the
historical
of
recording
technologies
through
part
such.Seasonbyseason,yearbyyear,todaysoutputbeginstosettleas sedimentary
on theoceanfloorofthelongue
timestratasilently
beddingdown,layerbylayer,
build
these
as
duree.Only
deposits
up canwe beginto see thelongsedimentary
showsofthe1990stakefor
Television
the
of
of
the
termeffects
present.
politics
for.Theyalsoforget
that
had
to
of
an
earlier
whatwomen
fight
generation
granted
in
of
the
of
the
the
whattheyareabletopresumeis thegift
present
past.
politics

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

230

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Whatthendoes theemerging
tellus about
historical
recordthatis television
itselfand abouthistory?
the
of output;
the
record
is
First, emerging
totality
shows,quiz programs,
sports,and so
everythingnews,documentaries,
reality
on. Noneofthesegenreshaveanyprivileged
statusovertheothers.It is notthat,
be morehistorical
ofthe1960swillnecessarily
(tell
say,a documentary
program
us more,be morerevealing
ofthattime)thana soapopera.JohnEllis(2009,this
forsincereselfissue)findsevidenceofan emerging
requirement
performative
and
a
of
fromactorson television
across range genresin fictional
presentation
a
a
nonfictional
whether
it is news,a gameshow, documentary,police
settings:
mustprovethemseries,ora soapopera,he arguesthatactors(realandfictional)
in
to be thegenuinearticle.His discusselves, theirspeechandbodylanguage,
makesitclearthat
sionofthefirst
television
commercial
gameshowon British
no one,including
theshowshost,HughieGreen,quiteknewhowto do it- how
toperform
thata newsociolIt is nota coincidence
"beingoneselfontelevision.
relations
ogyofinterpersonal
emergedinthe1950satthesametimeas television
becamepartofeveryone's
lifeintheUnitedStates.ThePresentation
of
everyday
havebeenwritten
([1959]1971)might
Selfin Everyday
LifebyErvingGoffman
as a self-help
One thingthatall ofus know
guideforpeoplenewto television.
todayis howtoperform
beinga persononTV,sinceallofus havespentourtime
sinceearliestchildhoodwatchingand closelyscrutinizing
otherpeoples selfthusfurenactments
on television.
The historical
recordthatis nowemerging
nishesevidenceofsocialchangein theveryporesofhistory,
makesavailablefor
- micro-histories
invisible
oflooksandgestures
(Bremerand
studyhitherto
things
andsilence(Burke1993),andoftalkinallits
1993),ofconversation
Roodenberg
varieties
theinterthosecreatedbybroadcasting
thecommentary,
itself:
including
Tolson
view,orthepaneldiscussion
2007;
2006).
2006;
(Hutchby
Montgomery
willtreatradioandtelevision
Futuregenerations
sourcesof
as primehistorical
thetwentieth
andafter.
willstudythisorthattelevised
record
Historians
century
ofthe
archives
tolearnsomething
at,say,French,Danish,orJapanesetelevision
historical
of
their
own
a
national
countries.
But
television
was
not
past
primarily
thingfromthestart,eventhoughat firstit seemedto be. Whatall ofus have
- notBritish,
written
aboutis "television"
American,
Israeli,oranyothernational
televisions
as iftheywereunique,butas instances
in thesingular,
oftelevision
understood
as
the
it
are not
universal
that
is.
tacitly
Technologies
phenomenon
likelanguages.
WhenI aminFrance,Denmark,
orJapan,I encounter
difficulties
becauseI do notknowthelanguages
ofthesecountries.
ButI do nothavesimilar
difficulties
withthematerialenvironment
I am
in thesecountries
or wherever
in theworld.A TV set,a car,a fridge,
a washingmachineis thesame- worksin
- all overtheworldand,indeed,necessarily
thesameway,doesthesamethings
so ifthereis to be a commonworldin whichall ofus can be and act,no matterwherewe are.Thus,theessenceoftelevision
is to be foundnotso muchin
the television
industries
of different
countries
and theirlinguistically
encoded
but
in
the
universal
form
the
of
and
its
communicative
conoutputs,
technology
straints
andaffordances.
The technology,
ofcourse,is notsomestaticthing.Nor
is itimposedon history
fromabovebytheinvisible
handofGod or themarket.

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALECTIC OF TIME AND TELEVISION

231

but is historical
It is nevera transcendent
and
supervening
necessity
through
of
on
The history television-as-technology
is, one hand,as Frosh(2009)
through.
in thedesignofreceiving
ofinnovation
haspointedout,thehistory
sets;on the
innovation
indistribution
otherhand,therehasbeencontinuous
industry-driven
and television
cameradesign(threecrucial
recording
equipment,
technologies,
andneglected
aspectsofmediastudies),andthesehavehadimmediate,
soughton thescopeandscaleofprogram
for,andlastingeffects
making.
haveconsistently
takenthelead intechnoTwoareasoftelevision
production
newsandsport.Bothoperateinthehereandnowanddepend
logicalinnovation:
oftelevision.
Bothare,in different
on andexploittheliveimmediacy
ways,contelevisednewsand sport,as much
cernedwithworldly
events,anditis through
thatwe arelivingin a comthatall ofus nowknowandunderstand
as anything,
monworldinwhichall ourlivesare interconnected.
GarryWhannel(2009,this
intowhatitis today:
issue)showshowsporthas been transformed
bytelevision
withkeyeventsin premiersportsdrawinghuge
a trulyglobalphenomenon,
- fromlocalandamateur
toglobal
audiences.Andthistransformation
worldwide
in transmission,
aboutbysought-for
innovations
andprofessionalwasbrought
inseenbutunnoticed
toimprove,
andcoveragethatcombined
distribution,
ways,
eventsforaudiencesnotpresentat theeventitself.
ofsporting
theexperience
ofimmediacy,
drivenin similar
Newswaspowerfully
waysbytheimperatives
into
the
ofitstechnological
andthehiddenhistory
development
globalthingthat
in sportstransmission
it is todayhas muchin commonwiththatofinnovations
evidentthattelevision
and coverage.In bothcases it has becomeincreasingly
and presenter
ofliveevents(a mereonlooker
as an observer
does notfunction
ofthe
buthasbecomepartofthestructure
onwhatis happening)
withno effect
in
which
are
on
the
eventsthemselves,
ways
they managedbythose
impacting
international
bodies
the
national
and
for
them:
governing
responsible
ultimately
and politicalleadersin timesofwar.The "CNN
ofvarioussportsand military
and politicalauthorities
thatthe Americanmilitary
becamesomething
effect"
theirstrategy
accordhadtotakeintoaccountintheGulfWarof1991,adjusting
news
on
of
the
of
broadcast
recent
instance
one
This
is
but
impact
politics
ingly.
as MonroePrice(2009,thisissue)makesclear.
anddiplomacy,

IV
triedto assessthehistorical
WhenElizabethEisenstein
impactoftheprinted
five
of
hundred
a
time
over
back
looked
she
book,
years(Eisenstein1979;
span
see Baron,lindquist,and Shevlin[2007]fora reviewoftheimpacton scholarto evaluatetheeffectof
s pioneering
study).As we struggle
shipof Eisenstein
witha spanof seventy
on theworldso far,we are working
television
yearsat
in
all
their
the
of
efforts
most.Asourcollective
show, outputs television,
diversity,
historical
enteredintothehistorical
haveonlyrecently
record,
thereby
becoming
and analyzableas such.We can nowbeginto lookat television
and retrievable
buton a comparative
or
ofthepastfifty moreyears,notonlycountry
bycountry

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

232

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

transnational
basisto see whatthe outputdisclosesabouttheworld-historical
inplay
character
ofsocialandcultural
liferoutinely
life,thepoliticsofeveryday
in day-to-day
whole
Television
is
now
the
revealed,through
rangeof
output.
of
itscontent,
as a primehistorical
recordand a primehistorical
agent thelate
theplayof
to
disclose
The
of
television
twentieth
outputbegins
century. study
in
of
thehistorical
the
work
the
renewal,
continuity,
process,
present generational
in all itsparts
as theoutputoftelevision,
and change.It can do so onlyinsofar
and as a whole,can be takenand trustedas a trueand reliablerecordofwhat
was goingon in theworldat thetime.We haveyetto beginto engagewiththe
sinceso farmostof
issuesat stakein suchan assumption
crucialmethodological
notthepast.
hasbeentreatedas partofthepresent,
theoutputoftelevision
ofHistory"
The subtitle
ofMediaEventswas"TheLiveBroadcasting
(Dayan
andKatz1992).Mostdiscussion
ofthiscanonictexthasfocusedonitsceremonial
- theritualcharacter
of
of mediaeventssituatedwithintheframework
aspects
character
Durkheimian
Less attention
has beenpaidto thehistorical
sociology.
- Braudels histoireevenementielle.
But the connectionbetween
of events
- no events,no history.
lifeis
The uneventful
eventsandhistory
is fundamental
- thereis nothing
to be saidofit.In thefallof2008 an eventtook
unhistorical
theelectionofBarackObamaas
place thattodaysmediaarehailingas historic:
thenextpresident
oftheUnitedStates.Electionnight,November
4, 2008,was
instanceof
andwillbe remembered
as a classic"mediaevent,"an unforgettable
ofthishistoric
"thelivebroadcasting
ofhistory."
The meaningand significance
moment
liesinthefuture
andis,atpresent,
beyondconjecture
despitethenews
willimpactAmerican
andworld
channels'attempts.
HowtheObamapresidency
now.
will
from
and
can
become
several
Today
history
only
generations
apparent
we talkandhope,butwe cannotreallysay.
ofhistory,
To focusonmediaeventsis indeedtoattendtothelivebroadcasting
in
in
and
now.
It
does not,
the
the
vivid
of
the
here
history
making,
immediacy
into
the
media
as
such.
That
historicalness
of
however,
yieldinsights
question
inwhichthefocusshifts
aboutmediaeffects
requiresa different
wayofthinking
fromthehistorical
lifeofhumanbeingsto thehistorical
lifeofhumanly
made
What
connects
the
the
of
the
of
with
things.
question
impactof
impact printing
television?
It is surelyto do withtheeffect
ofnewlyinvented
the
things, things
thatconstitute
thematerial
cultureofthematerial
world,inwhich,as Madonna
reminded
us,youknowthatwe alllive.Ifwe askwhatprint,
radio,and
succinctly
- theyaretechtelevision
havein common,
we mightsaytwothings
aboutthem
and record.They broadcast(disseminate,
scatter)
nologiesof dissemination
humanknowledge
andunderstanding
inthewidestsense.Theyalsopreserve,
for
therecord,
thehistorically
and
situated
and
produced
knowledge understandings
thattheycontain.Ifone definition
oftheunhistorical
itsother
is theuneventful,
definition
is theunrecorded.
with
events
but
becomes
hisHistory
begins
only
toricalas it is recorded.We readbooksandwatchtelevision
fortheircontents,
whosemeaningand significance
havea never-ending
fascination
thatwe endin
discuss
and
out
of
academia.
But
of
the
of
or
lessly
questions
impact printing
oftelevision
an
different
the
of
focus
on
the
require entirely
materiality
things
thatprovidethecontents
theydiscloseandthewayswe engagewiththem.

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALECTIC OF TIME AND TELEVISION

233

Ourcollective
abouttelevision
hasconsidered
itas suchandin relathinking
ofcommunication,
tionto otherelectronic
withsimilarand differtechnologies
entaffordances,
thatcomebeforeandafterit.Materialthings
cannotbe thought
of in isolationfromthe otherthingswithwhichtheycoexistand withwhich
worldin whichwe live.WhenRaymond
theycombineto endowtheeveryday
Williamstried,in the early1970s,to considerthe materialcultureof which
television
wasa thenverynewcomponent
part,he lookedbackfifty
yearstothe
consumercultureoftheinterwar
theradioset
period.He identified
emergent
indicesofa newwayoflifecharacterized
caras significant
andthesmallfamily
In Television:
what
he
called
"mobile
and Cultural
privatization."
Technology
by
Form (1974), Williamstriedto hold togethertwo distinctwaysof thinking
and as culturalform.Whenhe addressed,in
as technology
abouttelevision:
he did so within
thequestionoftelevision-as-technology,
theopeningchapters,
- television
as theterminus
ad quernofinnovations
in
framework
a long-term
a
hundred
or
more.
When
back
he
addressed
electronic
years
going
technologies
he triedto capturethe
as a culturalformin thefollowing
television
chapters,
in thepresentandin termsoftheirindustry-defined
formsoftelevision
genres
andreception
as a continuandso on),theirdistribution
(news,documentaries,
ingflow.He thenproceededto the questionoftheimpactand effectofteleof communication
with
visionunderbothaspects,as a distinctive
technology
the
television
What
he
and
uses
distinctive
industry.
developedby
applications
both
was
a
balance
between
in
retrieve
tried
to
considering
proper
crucially
structures
anda humanintentionalbetweendeterminate
andagency,
structure
in them.
ityinscribed
of the development
of electronic
Williamsremindsus thatin the history
thatprecededitsculit was alwaysthetechnology
mediaofcommunication,
- itsapplications
and uses. It is simplyingenuousto thinkofteleturalforms
It wouldbe so onlyifit had not,sinceits
visiontodayas an "old"technology.
innovation
and changebothas a technology
undergonecontinuing
inception,
and in itsappliedusage.Of courseit is notwhatit was sixdecades ago, and
betweentheshortand the
has been to distinguish
ourtask,in thiscollection,
in
the
read
the
and
and
to
term
present,thepresentin thepast,
past
try
long
I thinkwe can assumethatfivehundred
in thethusfarshortlifeoftelevision.
five
justas nowwe havelivedthrough
yearsfromnowtherewillbe television,
Televisionis as basic as thebook,whichit has no
hundredyearsofprinting.
thanthe Internetis likelyto destroyit,or the book forthat
moredestroyed
The challenge,whichwe havetriedto address,is to thinkoftelevision
matter.
withwhichit coexistsbutas a cennotto theexclusionofothertechnologies
ofa globallyconnected,communicatively
tralcomponent
joined-upworldthat
worldwidetelevision
disclosedto all of us as suchthrough
is todayroutinely
output.As foritsimpactand effect whilethisis experiencedand responded
to
it
to in the present, onlybegins become apparentin the past.This basic
and culturalformmostbasihistorical
truthis whattelevisionas a technology
callydiscloses.

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

234

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

References
London:Verso.
Adorno,T., and M. Horkheimer.
[194611986.Dialecticofenlightenment.
Baron,S. A., E. N. Iindquist, and E. E. Shevlin.2007. Agentof change;printculturestudiesafter
Press.
ElizabethL. Eisenstein.Amherst:University
of Massachusetts
Blondheim,Menahem,and TamarLiebes. 2009. "Televisionnewsandthenation:The end?"Annalsofthe
AmericanAcademcti
ofPoliticaland Social Science.625:182-195.
Braudel,F. 1980. On history.London,UK: Weidenfeldand Nicolson.
BremenT.,and H. Roodenberg.1993.A culturalhistoryofgesture.Cambridge,UK: Polity.
Burke,P. 1993. Theartofconversation.
Cambridge,UK: Polity.
Cantril,H., H. Gaudet,and H. Herzog.1940.TheinvasionfromMars:A studyin thepsychology
ofpanic.
Press.
Princeton,
NJ:PrincetonUniversity
AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademy
Dayan,Daniel. 2009. "Sharingand showing:Televisionas monstration."
ofPoliticaland Social Science.625:19-31.
Press.
Dayan,D., and E. Katz. 1992.Media events.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity
Douglas,S. 1994. Wherethegirisare: Growingupfemalewiththemassmedia.New York:TimesBooks.
and culturaltransformaEisenstein,E. 1979. Theprinting
pressas an agentofchange:Communications
Press.
tionsin earlymodernEurope.2 vols.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
on televisionof sincerelyfeltemotion."Annalsof the American
Ellis, John.2009. "The performance
AcademyofPoliticaland Social Science,625:103-115.
Frosh,Paul. 2009. "The face of television."Annalsof the AmericanAcademyof Politicaland Social
Science,625:87-102.
Giddens,A. 1991. Theconsequencesofmodernity.
Cambridge,UK: Polity.
UK: Pelican.
E. [1959] 1971. Thepresentation
Goffman,
ofselfin everydaylife.Harmondsworth,
time.Cambridge:Cambridge
Goodin, R., Rice, M., Parpo, A., and Eriksson,L. 2008. Discretionary
Press.
University
Hall, S., and M. Jacques.1989.New times.London:Lawrenceand Wishart.
Oxford,UK: Blackwell.
Harvey,D. 1989. Theconditionofpostmodernity.
In Does technology
drivehistory?The dilemmasof
Heilbroner,R. L. 1994. Do machinesmakehistory?
technological
determinism,
ed. M. R. Smithand L. Marx.Cambridge.MA: MIT Press.
Hutchby,I. 2006. Media talk:Conversation
analysisand thestudyofbroadcasting.MiltonKeynes,PA:
Press.
Open University
ofTorontoPress.
Innis,H. 1962. Thefurtradein Canada. Toronto:University
Thepartplayedby peoplein theflowofmasscomKatz,E., and P. Lazarsfeld.1955. Personalinfluence.
munications.
Glencoe,IL: Free Press.
Lazarsfeld,P., and R. K. Merton.1948/2004.Mass communication,
populartasteand organizedsocial
action.In Mass communication
and Americansocialthought,
ed. J.D. Petersand P. Simonson,230-41.
Lanham,MD: Rowman& Littlefield.
Sonia.2009. "Halfa century
oftelevision
in thelivesofourchildren."
AnnalsoftheAmerican
Livingstone,
AcademyofPoliticaland Social Science,625:151-163.
of
women:Televisionafterthenetworkera. Urbana-Champagne:
Lotz, A. 2006. Redesigning
University
IllinoisPress.
and publicservice:Fromvalueconsensusto thepoliLunt,Peter.2009. "Television,
publicparticipation,
ticsofidentity."
AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademuofPoliticaland Social Science.625:128-138.
. 2007. Thetelevision
willbe revolutionized.
New York:New YorkUniversity
Press.
P.
New York:
Simonson.
Merton,R. K. [1946]2004. Mass persuasion.Editedand withan Introduction
by
HowardFertig.
mediaon socialbehavior.New York:Oxford
Meyrowitz,
J.1985.No senseofplace: Theimpactofelectronic
Press.
University
. 1994. Medium theory.In Communication
theorytoday, ed. D. Crowleyand D. Mitchell.
Cambridge,UK: Polity.
. 2003. Canonic anti-text:
MarshallMcLuhans Understanding
media. In Canonictextsin media
research,ed. E. Katz , J.D. Paters,T. Liebes and A. Orloff.Cambridge,UK: Polity.

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE DIALECTIC OF TIME AND TELEVISION

235

of the surveillancesociety."Annalsof the

. 2009. "We likedto watch:Televisionas progenitor
AmericanAcademyofPoliticaland Social Science,625:32-48.
M. 2007. Thediscourseofbroadcastnews.London:Routledge.
Montgomery,
s goldenage and beyond."
Press,Andrea.2009. "The end of television:Genderand familyin television
AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticaland Social Science,625:139-150.
and foreign
Price,MonroeE. 2009."End oftelevision
policy."AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPolitical
and Social Science,625:196-204.
New York:Simon
Putnam,R. D. 2000. Bowlingalone: The collapseand revivalofAmericancommunity.
& Schuster.
AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyof
Robinson,JohnP and StevenMartin.2009. "Oftimeand television."
Politicaland Social Science,625:74-86.
In Narratingmedia history,
ed. M. Bailey.London:
Scannell,Paddy.2008. The questionof technology.

Routledge.
Spigel, L. 1992. Make roomfor TV: Televisionand thefamilyideal in post-warAmerica.Chicago:
ofChicagoPress.
University
Press.
Tolson,A. 2006. Media talk.Edinburgh,UK: EdinburghUniversity
of sport."AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyof
Whannel,Garry.2009. "Televisionand the transformation
Politicaland Social Science,625:205-218.
UK: Pelican.
Williams,R. [1958] 1962. Cultureand society.Harmondsworth,
and cultural
. 1974. Television:
form.London:Fontana.
Technology

This content downloaded from 130.235.22.54 on Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:46:13 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions