Deep Structures: Polpop Culture on Primetime Television

  • Allen McBride
  • Robert K. Toburen
Chapter

Abstract

McBride and Toburen investigate the ways that supposedly nonpolitical television programs, such as sit-coms and night-time dramas, manifest political cultural values. Using a scientific method known as content analysis, the authors rely on several “coders”—people trained to interpret television programming and identify events, actions, and themes according to a preestablished set of criteria. They focus on the way these programs handle authority, conflict, and conflict resolution. For example, coders examine whether authority figures are present and how they are treated by other characters (do other characters defer to authority, challenge it, etc.). Coders also focused on the degree to which conflicts are depicted, the end or goal of these conflicts, and how conflicts are resolved.

Keywords

Deep Structure Political Culture Individualistic Culture Voter Turnout Authority Figure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, W C, et al. 1985. The power of the right stuff: A quasi-experimental field test of the docudrama hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly 49: 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball-Rokeach, S. J., J. Grube, and M. Rokeach. 1981. Roots: The next generation—Who watched and with what effect? Public Opinion Quarterly 45: 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Block, E, et al., eds. 1987. The mean season. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  4. Carey, J. 1988. Communication as culture: Essays on media and society. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  5. Combs, J. 1984. Polpop: Politics and popular culture in America. Bowling Green, KY: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.Google Scholar
  6. Easton, D. 1981. The political system: An inquiry into the state of political Science. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Elazar, D. 1984. American federalism. 3d ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  8. Elwood, D. T. 1988. Poor support: Poverty in the American family. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Feldman, S., and L. Sigelman. 1985. The political impact of primetime television: The Day After. Journal of Politics 47: 556–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerbner, G. 1977. Comparative cultural indicators. In Mass media policies in changing cultures, edited by G. Gerbner. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  11. Gerbner, G., et al. 1986. Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In Perspectives on media effects, edited by J. Bryant and D. Zillman. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  12. ———., et al. 1990. Charting the mainstream: Television’s contributions to political orientations. In Media power in politics, edited by D. Graber. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  13. Habermas, J. 1976. Problems of legitimation of late capitalism. In Critical sociology, edited by P. Conner-ton. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  14. Hamilton, L. 1990. Modem data analysis: A first course in applied statistics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Katz, M. B. 1989. The undeserving poor. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  15. Lenart, S., and K. McGraw. 1989. America watches Amerika: Television docudrama and political attitudes. Journal of Politics 51: 697–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McGerr, M. 1986. The decline of popular politics. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  17. Merelman, R. 1989. On culture and politics in America: A perspective from structural anthropology. British Journal of Political Science 19: 465–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morgan, M., and J. Shanahan. 1991. Television and the cultivation of political attitudes in Argentina. Journal of Communication 41 (1): 88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Morrow, L. 1992. Folklore in a box. Time. September 21: 50–51.Google Scholar
  20. Reiner, R. 1981. Keystone to Kojak: The Hollywood cop. In Cinema, politics, and society in America, edited by P. Davis and B. Neve. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  21. Robinson, M. J. 1976. Public affairs television and the growth of political malaise: The case of the “selling of the President.” American Political Science Review 70: 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rubin, A. M. 1986. Uses, gratifications, and media effects research. In Perspectives on media effects, edited by J. Bryant and D. Zillman. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  23. Schiltz, T., and R. L. Rainey. 1978. The geographic distribution of Elazar’s political subcultures among the mass population: A research note. Western Political Quarterly 31: 410–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schultze, W. 1988. State and local politics: A political economy approach. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
  25. Sigelman, L., and C. K. Sigelman. 1973–74. The politics of popular culture: Campaign cynicism and The Candidate. Sociology and Social Research 58: 272–77.Google Scholar
  26. Thompson, M., R. Ellis, and A. Wildavsky. 1991. Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  27. Wildavsky, A. 1987. Choosing preferences by constructing institutions: A cultural theory of preference formation. American Political Science Review 81: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Lane Crothers and Charles Lockhart 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen McBride
  • Robert K. Toburen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations