This essay examines a dispute over the history of mass communication research by focusing on different accounts of the hypodermic model in mass communicationOfirst observation, seems to be a somewhat curious concern: the field's history. In simple terms the argument considers the extent to which the field's received or assumed history is accurate. Advocates for the received view assert that research and theorizing about mass communication have progressed from the powerful mediadirect effects model to a limited effects model that emphasizes intervening variables such as cultural background and personal characteristics. Those who view the media as forces which shape the very ways in which we think and act often appeal to some rendition of the direct effects model as support for their position. From the limited effects perspective evolved the now popular view that the media are but one among many influential forces in contemporary society. Those who dispute this received view argue that the direct effects, or hypodermic, model was never endorsed by early mass communication research, but that it was a theoretical foil invented by those who articulated a limited effects perspective.This essay examines this battle for the past as a rhetorical confrontation. It sees the argument, in other words, as an effort to define history. At issue then, in some sense, is what it means to study mass communication. The field's typical disputes have considered issues such as how and to what extent the media change people, the nature of that change, the institutional constraints upon media content, and how and to what extent the media hegemonically support the status quo. Participants in such disputes may or may not marshal historical evidence to support their positions, but particular histories are presumed as bases for the different perspectives. The current concern with history itself is, therefore, a significant one.The importance of this concern, however, is not evident within those essays that deal with the issue. Why scholars bother to examine and "correct" the received history of research in mass communication is strangely unclear. At issue is how to interpret the field's evolution. The interpretation a scholar accepts influences how that scholar thinks about and studies mass communication. This essay's primary concern, then, is to explore different conceptions of the history of mass communicaJeffery L.
This essay examines how the use of team sports metaphors in politics calls for ethical commitments both from those to whom the metaphors are applied and from the public. The essay describes the kinds of subjects and audiences created by the use of team sports metaphors. Discourse surrounding David Stockman's offer to resign as President Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget is shown to illustrate the influence of team sports metaphors in politics.•A recurring theme in recent articles refutes the classical rhetorical principle that audiences, or subjects, are autonomous. Articles by Charland (1987), Blair and Cooper (1987), Chen (1987), and Mumby (1987) demonstrate how subjects themselves are created rhetorically. This work extends Black's principle of the second persona: that discourses "imply an auditor" who can be linked to an ideology, and that this ideological persona exemplifies the kind of audience called for by the discourse. Black (1970) illustrates this principle by examining how the "cancer of communism" metaphor projects ari auditor, or persona, with particular characteristics.My concern in this paper is with how team sports metaphors in political discourse constitute subjects with a particular ethical disposition. This essay examines how team sports metaphors call for a set of allegiances and actions in political settings. My contention is that team sports metaphors establish a hierarchy and imply the necessity of commitment to that hierarchy. When an administration or other political organization utilizes team sports metaphors it calls for a particular type of audience-a sports/ spectator audience-and it calls for its members to act as team sports players. To argue this position I discuss three issues. First, I discuss briefly how metaphors in general call for ethical commitments. Second, I examine the particular kinds of commitments team sports metaphors constitute among subjects. And third, I provide a specific critical example of how team sports metaphors have functioned in a political "crisis." THE CALL OF MFTAPHORKenneth Burke (1962;1965) has argued at length that the languages people use construct hierarchical systems through which people can •Jeffery L. Bineham is an Assistant Professor in the
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.