Production of
media and culture scholars focus on how cultural objects are shaped, created, distributed,
and sustained (Peterson & Anand 2004).
These cultural scholars ask questions about how objects are made, who
makes them, and the ways meaning and symbolism are ascribed to these artifacts
(Griswold 2012). According to Peterson and Anand (2004), there are six facets
of production: technology, law and regulation, industry structure,
organization structure, occupational careers, and market.
Durkheim’s work on religion brought scholarly attention to the production of culture (Griswold 2012), as did Bourdieu’s analysis of cultural intermediaries (Childress 2012). Cultural intermediaries, such as individuals in advertising, marketing, fashion design, and media production (television, radio, print and online), create cultural products and ascribe the meanings and values attached to them (Childress 2012). Griswold (2012) identifies four contemporary approaches to the analysis of the production of culture: symbolic interactionism, the study of subcultures, cultural changes, and foundations of creative innovations.
Childress (2014) offers a bridge between analysis of cultural consumption and analysis of production of culture by suggesting three arenas cultural production scholars can learn from consumption scholars: 1) why we know little about the media industry, as identified in Bielby and Bielby’s (1994) seminal research “all hits are flukes”; 2) how the demographic attributes of producers of culture are related to the output; and 3) the interconnections between agency, meaning making, and production processes.
Gitlin’s (2000) analysis of how political and cultural contexts influence how prime-time shows are picked up and remain on the air is one example of scholarly work on the production of culture. Dowd (2004) looked at the mainstream recording market from 1940-1990. Another example is Milkie’s (2002) research of how those within cultural institutions, such as editors at national girls' magazines, define and produce images of femininity.
REFERENCES
Bielby, William T., and Denise D. Bielby. 1994. “‘All Hits Are Flukes’: Institutionalized Decision Making and the Rhetoric of Network Prime-Time Program Development.” American Journal of Sociology 99:1287-1313.
Dowd, Timothy J. 2004. “Concentration and Diversity Revisited: Production Logics and the U.S. Mainstream Recording Market, 1940-1990.” Social Forces 82: 1411-55.
Childress, C. Clayton 2014. “What Production Studies can Learn from Consumption Studies.” Consumed: Newsletter of the American Sociological Association Consumers & Consumption Section 1:8-10;15.
Childress, C. Clayton. 2012. “Decision making, market logic, and the rating mindset: negotiating BookScan in the field of U.S. trade publishing,” European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15:604-20.
Gitlin, Todd. 2000. Inside Prime Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Griswold, Wendy. 2012. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. SAGE Publications.
Milkie, Melissa A. 2002. “Contested Images of Femininity An Analysis of Cultural Gatekeepers’ Struggles with the ‘Real Girl’ Critique.” Gender & Society 16:839-59.
Peterson, Richard A., and N. Anand. 2004. “The Production of Culture Perspective.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:311-34.
Durkheim’s work on religion brought scholarly attention to the production of culture (Griswold 2012), as did Bourdieu’s analysis of cultural intermediaries (Childress 2012). Cultural intermediaries, such as individuals in advertising, marketing, fashion design, and media production (television, radio, print and online), create cultural products and ascribe the meanings and values attached to them (Childress 2012). Griswold (2012) identifies four contemporary approaches to the analysis of the production of culture: symbolic interactionism, the study of subcultures, cultural changes, and foundations of creative innovations.
Childress (2014) offers a bridge between analysis of cultural consumption and analysis of production of culture by suggesting three arenas cultural production scholars can learn from consumption scholars: 1) why we know little about the media industry, as identified in Bielby and Bielby’s (1994) seminal research “all hits are flukes”; 2) how the demographic attributes of producers of culture are related to the output; and 3) the interconnections between agency, meaning making, and production processes.
Gitlin’s (2000) analysis of how political and cultural contexts influence how prime-time shows are picked up and remain on the air is one example of scholarly work on the production of culture. Dowd (2004) looked at the mainstream recording market from 1940-1990. Another example is Milkie’s (2002) research of how those within cultural institutions, such as editors at national girls' magazines, define and produce images of femininity.
REFERENCES
Bielby, William T., and Denise D. Bielby. 1994. “‘All Hits Are Flukes’: Institutionalized Decision Making and the Rhetoric of Network Prime-Time Program Development.” American Journal of Sociology 99:1287-1313.
Dowd, Timothy J. 2004. “Concentration and Diversity Revisited: Production Logics and the U.S. Mainstream Recording Market, 1940-1990.” Social Forces 82: 1411-55.
Childress, C. Clayton 2014. “What Production Studies can Learn from Consumption Studies.” Consumed: Newsletter of the American Sociological Association Consumers & Consumption Section 1:8-10;15.
Childress, C. Clayton. 2012. “Decision making, market logic, and the rating mindset: negotiating BookScan in the field of U.S. trade publishing,” European Journal of Cultural Studies, 15:604-20.
Gitlin, Todd. 2000. Inside Prime Time. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Griswold, Wendy. 2012. Cultures and Societies in a Changing World. SAGE Publications.
Milkie, Melissa A. 2002. “Contested Images of Femininity An Analysis of Cultural Gatekeepers’ Struggles with the ‘Real Girl’ Critique.” Gender & Society 16:839-59.
Peterson, Richard A., and N. Anand. 2004. “The Production of Culture Perspective.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:311-34.
