Review

Author(s): Sidney Kraus and Dennis Giles

Review by: Sidney Kraus and Dennis Giles
Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 517-525
Published by: International Society of Political Psychology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791366
Accessed: 02-04-2015 17:22 UTC

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.

International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political
Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Vol. 10,No. 3, 1989
PoliticalPsychology,

BOOK REVIEW

Edelman.Chicago:Univer-
thePoliticalSpectacle.ByMurray
Constructing
sityof ChicagoPress,1988,137pp. $19.95cloth,$7.95 paper.

INTRODUCTION

Trueto form,MurrayEdelman,theeminent politicaltheorist,writes

provocatively on and
again politicallanguage symbolism. For fourdecades,
Edelmanhasmadesubstantial contributionsto ourunderstanding ofpoliti-
cal communication. He hasdistrustedtheutterances ofpoliticians andexa-
minedtheirand others'descriptions ofgovernmental and politicalactions.
Ratherthanaccepting publicstatements,he has penetrated surfacemean-
of
ings publicstatements, lookingbeyond the use of mere recognizable po-
liticalsymbolsinlanguage.He hasmadeitfashionable forpoliticalscientists
(indeedformanyscholars)to studylanguageand metaphor, information
and cognition, mythand ritual,as a function of thepoliticalprocessand
communication withinand aboutit (e.g., Edelman1964,1971,1977).
Throughout hiswritings,Edelmanurgesustomaintain a certain
skep-
ticismwhenwe observepoliticsin action.He has insisted thatwhatseems
apparentmaynotbe so. Often,politicalstatements arepassedoffas "ob-
jectivedefinitionsofissues,"butare"nothing morethanemotional appeals
forpublicsupport." Suchpoliticalcommunication appealstopeople'svalue
while"concealing conflictsofinterestandofintent behindwordslike'pub-
lic interest"'
(Edelman,1959,p. 96; cf. Edelman,1964,p. 137).
He has cautionedthat
The studentof politicalprocess... makesa seriouserrorif he [or she] takespolitical
perceptionsand verbaljustificationsof politicalattitudesas fixedentitiesthatpredict
futurebehaviorand attitude.(1964, p. 186)

In theliterature
ofcommunication, andpsychology
politics, (andperi-
odicallyin history
and philosophy)
manyinvestigatorspositthatan act or
eventperceived byoneindividualmaybe perceived byanother.
differently
Explanations forthesediffering are
perceptions usually attributedto per-
sons' predispositions,formulationsof beliefsand attitudesrootedin early
517
17506.00/1? 1989 InternationalSocietyof Political Psychology
0162-895X/89/0900-05

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
518 Krausand Giles

familialexperience-partof a processscholarstermsocialization. Lazars-

feldetal. (1944),forexample, concluded thatvotersinthe1940presidential
electionselectedcampaigncommunication thatreinforcedtheirpolitical
predispositions.In thissense,each of us constructsreality.
In hislatesteffort,Constructing thePoliticalSpectacle,Edelmanex-
tendshisideasaboutmeanings in politicalstatements whileexamining the
spectacle created the
bypoliticalnews, interpretations generated, and their
"implications fordemocratic theory" (p. 1). He beginswitha briefdiscus-
sionof "premises aboutpolitics,"especially thoserelatedto a conceptual
framework borneoutoftheoretical notions ofpoststructuralist
writers.Edel-
man'sconceptual framework "givespoliticalaction,talk,writing, news
and
reporting a differentimportfrom thattakenforgranted inpoliticians'
state-
mentsandinconventional socialsciencewriting." He concludes bysuggest-
ingwecanbe "emancipated fromthemystifications ofpoliticsandliberated
froma relianceon textor discourseas essentialmodesforunderstanding
realities"(p. 128).
Mostreaderswillfindthisbook exceptionally interesting.Indeed,it
shouldbe required readingforpoliticalandliterary socialscien-
theoreticians,
andphilosophers.
tists,journalists, WefeelthatMurray Edelmanhasmade
a uniqueandimportant contributiontothescholarly discussion
ofmasscom-
munication and politics,challenging someof ourbasicconceptions of the
interactions amonginstitutions, thepress,and citizensin a democracy.
WhileweregardEdelman'stheoretical beliefsaboutpoliticalcommu-
nication inAmericaas innovative andinsightful, wewoulddrawdifferently
hisbleakandoftenemphatic picture "ofthehumancondition" thatrenders
citizensunable "to protectand promotetheirown interests..." (p. 1). We
discussthesedifferent
"pictures" Edelman's
byconsidering the
constructions;
deconstruction and
itself;
question about
questions massmedia,news,and
publicopinion.

EDELMAN'S CONSTRUCTIONS

A mainthreadthroughout thisworkis thenotionthatpoliticaldis-

is onlyan "interpretation
course/spectacle ofan interpretation."
Allpolitical
languagesare"constructions ofreality."Byimplication, the"facts"areulti-
matelyinaccessible,theyarenot"objectively" giveninpoliticaloranyother
kindofdiscourse- allis language, i.e.,"constructions."
Hencetogetatmean-
ing,intents,
motives(?), itis necessary to deconstruct
thediscourse, and/or
thespectacle.Notwithstanding Edelman'sreproach of socialscientists
who
disagreewithhim(seep. 6), theymayavoidhistheoretical notionsinform-
ingoperationaldefinitions of politicalrealitywiththeargument thatsuch
a theoryput into practicedefiesagreement.

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Book Review 519

Still,despitetheinitial(and summary) claimthatthereareno objec-

tivefacts,"The veryconceptof 'fact'becomesirrelevant becauseevery
meaningful politicalobjectandpersonis an interpretation
thatreflects
and
perpetuates an ideology"(p. 10).Throughouthiselaboration
oftheory,Edel-
man,inconstant examples, contrasts
themystifications
ofthepolitical
spec-
tacleto a cited"reality"whichseemsto provetheillusory construction
of
politicallanguage"about"thatreality.For example,he statesthat
RonaldReaganhasmisledthecountry abouttheeffects
onthepoorofhistaxreduc-
tionsandhiscutsinsocialprograms,
aboutthehuman records
rights offoreign
govern-
mentshesupports, andabouthisadministration's fordeficits
responsibility andfor
unemployment. (p. 58)
Howevermuchthisstatement reflectstheconventional liberal-to-left view
of thedeceptive practice of the it is
Reaganadministration, presented, it
seems, to describea factualworld which is covered up bypolitical discourse.
Edelman's practiceinthisbookisambivalent inthatheinvokes a world
outsidethemystifying of
practice political discourse which seems intended
as a correction ofpoliticalspectacle,or an exposeofitsfalsities. Arestate-
mentsliketheReaganstatement, then,intended as "proof"of histheory,
oras briefillustrations ofthekindofanalysis thatcouldbecarried oututiliz-
inghistheory?
Attimes,he citesanalytical or historical studies(in footnotes) as sup-
of
port hisstatements, butmoreoftenhe seemsto present suchstatements
as thoughtheywereself-evident "facts."If all politicalreality is indeeda
construction oflanguage,howcan oneregardEdelman'sstatements ofap-
parently self-evidentfactsas anything otherthana further instance ofself-
interested construction?
linguistic Statements likethedescription ofthe"real-
ity"behindthemystifications of Reagan'spoliticaldiscoursecan onlybe
regarded, then,as mereopinionsoftheauthor,sincetheyareunsupported
byan extensive analysis.Edelmansaysthat"thenotionofreality construc-
tionimpliesthatsomeare validand othersnot.... It can be donewellor
badlyand be rightor wrong"(pp. 6, 121).But howcan thereaderjudge
thevalidity ofstatements suchas theoneaboutReagan?Whyis Edelman's
statement "right"whereas othersuchstatements maybe "wrong"? Although
Edelmanheredoesnotclaimto be writing a bookofextended analysis, but
ratherelaborates theory, many of the statements he makes about "reality"
remain unpersuasive sincetheyarenotaccompanied byanalytical workwhich
couldshowwhythis"opinion"is morevalidthananyother.If, according
to hisowntheory, Edelman'sstatements aboutreality arethemselves con-
structed according to thesocial/politicalposition and the "interests" of the
speaker/observer, thereis no reasonwhya critical readershouldregard them
as demystifications or deconstructions of politicaldiscourse.
In chapter6, Edelmanidentifies himself within thepoststructuralist "lin-
guisticturn"(p. 103)in philosophy, and literary
psychology, theory.However,

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
520 Krausand Giles

without evenproviding "glosses"ofthethought ofthepoststructuralistshe

invokes-MichelFoucault,JacquesDerrida,NelsonGoodman,andPaul de
Man- Edelmanextends thedeconstruction/construction
perspective about
whileavoidinga fulldiscussion
politicalreality of alternative
perspectives
(exceptas theyare dismissed as "conventionalviews").Thisis bothersome
sincelackingsuchdiscussion itis difficult
toweighhistheoretical
statements.
Thereader's acceptanceofsomeofEdelman's leaps[e.g.,from
cognitive
a poststructuralistframeofreference totheinference
thatpoliticallanguage
ismoreeffective "asagencies oflastingandsignificant thanarevoting
change"
andlobbying (p. 130)]maydependupondifferentiating deconstruction from
otherperspectives, a taskthatEdelmanassiduously avoids.

THE DECONSTRUCTION QUESTION

Theproblem withadvancing deconstruction as a toolfordiscriminat-

ingamongand within politicalmessagesis one ofpresumed dissemblance.
It pretendstotakean inaccurateorinappropriate politicalpictureapartand
putitbacktogether correctly.Oncesortedout,thepiecesofthepuzzleare
thereforposterity.Perhaps,butnondeconstructionists mayinfact"correct"
differently,and somemaynotseesomemessagesas puzzlesto beginwith.
It is necessary,
we feel,to distinguish
between, forexample,politicalslo-
gansand editorials or positionpapers.
Thetaskofdetermining "fact"or"reality"is notheremadeeasierfor
thereaderwhohas followed theprevailing discussionofdeconstruction by
literarytheorists, joltedbythediscovery
recently thatthetheory's foremost
American champion, Paul de Man,authored anti-Semiticessaysfora pro-
Nazi Belgianpublication duringtheSecondWorldWar(see,forexample,
Lehman,1988;Hartman,1988;Heller,1988).Whilewe hesitateto make
aboutthetheory
generalizations inlightofdeMan'sapparent earlier
ideolo-
gy,thefactthathisworkunderpins, in part,theargument presented,
sug-
geststhatthetheoretical framework oughtto be examinedalongwiththe
questionsraisedinitiallybyEdelman:
Thepervasiveness ofliteracy, andradiointheindustrialized
television, worldmakes
frequent ofpolitical
reports newsavailabletomostofthepopulation,
a marked
change
fromthesituation thatprevailed
untilapproximatelytheSecondWorldWar.What
consequences forideology,action,andquiescenceflowfrom withpo-
preoccupation
liticalnewsas spectacle?
Howdoesthespectacle generate Whatare
interpretations?
itsimplications fordemocratictheory? (p. 1)
Edelman'sproposition thatpoliticalspectacledeconstructs
itself(pp.
115-119)is troublingwhenplacedtowardtheendof some100pageswhich
haveattempted to demonstrate
thattheconstruction ofproblems,leaders,
and enemiesformsa self-reinforcing
systemof mystification.

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Book Review 521

Referring to Derridaand de Man (p. 115),Edelmandevelopsone of

hisbasicnotionsaboutlanguageandpolitics:Politicallanguageundermines
itselfthrough inversions ofvaluehierarchies, self-negation, andthehistori-
cal spinofmeaning. Here,Edelmanconstructs further Derrida's"trace"sug-
gesting thattheterminology ofa discoursemaybe constructed ambiguously
(intendingoneconnotative levelofmeaning whileexplicitlysignaling
another).
Thetermdeconstruction, however, refersto an activityperformed by
thecriticalanalyst;it is nota property of texts.Edelmanusesit in a way
unwarranted byprevious studies,yetneverattempts to explainhisjustifica-
tionin shifting thereceivedmeaningof thetermfromtheframeof con-
sciousperformance on thepartof a thinker to an autonomous actionof
discourse itselfwhichis exclusive ofitsreadingbyanalysts or spectators
of
thepoliticalscene.
Mostperplexing in Edelman'sattempt to viewpoliticallanguagein a
landscape filledwithconstruction/deconstruction activities
aretheroadblocks
erected toguidethepresumably unawaredriver,who, either blindedbydust
kickedup bytheheavyequipment or confusedbypostedsigns,is unable
to navigate a courseto thedesireddestination. Hence,Edelmaninsists that
"... it is not whatcan be seen thatshapes politicalaction and support,but
whatmustbe supposed,assumed,or constructed." Considering Edelman's
theoretical is
position, meaning a
really problem? Would not messages decon-
structthemselves?
If politicalspectacle/politicaldiscourse ultimatelydeconstructs itself,
exposing itsownillusionistic constructions (as Edelmanclaims),whyshould
it be "mystifying" to spectators of thepoliticalscene?Edelmanmaintains
thatspectators (thepublic)are able to "see through" politicalspectacle
enoughto recognize itas a playuponpublicfearsandreassurances thatthe
system is "undercontrol"byleaders.In short,thepublicis notfooledby
politicaldiscourse, butregards itas a gamewhichdoesnot"really" concern
theissuestheyfacein theirlife-world (Lebenswelt).One is justified, then,
inaskingthequestion, "Precisely whomdoesthepolitical spectacle mystify?"
Fromour readingof Edelman,thosewhoare caughtup in thedis-
course/spectacle, and mystified byit,arethosewhoare foolishenoughto
takethespectacleseriously-those whoareinvolvedin voting,in political
discussion groups,pluspoliticians themselves - and areconstructed bythe
languagetheyinherit (p. 112) and use, its
by assumptions, and itsrules.
Political
history hashistoricallynot"maximized well-being,"touseEdel-
man'sphrase, butis"a record ofthetriumph ofmystification" (p. 126).Those
whoworkinthepoliticalfield,Edelmanwouldargue,merely "buttress con-
ventional assumptions," and can affect no real But
change. if, as Edelman
claims,politicalspectacleis itselfdeconstructive,
thenthereis no innaterea-
son whythose who practiceand view it cannot"liberate"themselvesfrom

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
522 Kraus and Giles

anyplayof thishall of mirrors.

If politicaldiscoursedeconstructs
itself,
it is notnecessarily but
mystifying, potentiallyquitethe contrary.

ALTERNATIVE THEORETICAL "CONSTRUCTIONS"

Liketheearliestscholars oftheFrankfurt School(andunlikelateHaber-

mas),Edelman'sunapologetically "pessimistic" theory (cf.finalchapter) ul-
timately concedesthatthosewhoplaythegameof politicalconstructions
(or,as witnesses, takethespectacle seriously as a discourse about"reality")
areappropriated bythelanguage game.Theyarecondemned tobecomeboth
thesubjectandtheobjectofmystification, moreandmoreabstracted from
the actual pursuitof "well-being" (whichEdelmanleaves undefined).
Although Edelmanclaimshereto exposetheillusory natureof thegame,
he assumes,through mostofthebook,thatotherswillbe mystified bythe
political
spectacle becauseofits own authentic - often, actually "deceitful"
-
of
manipulation publichopes and fears,through language(despite thecon-
tradictory claimthatthislanguage/spectacle deconstructs itself).In thelast
chapter, Edelman appears to be arguing that the onlywayto remainunap-
propriated the
by mystification game is to reject (don'tvote,don'tengage
it
in politicalaction)in favorof "antidotes" suchas art.
Edelmanassumes(liketheearlyFrankfurt School)thatviewers/audi-
torsof thespectacle(here,thepoliticalspectacle)haveonlytwochoices-
theycanaccepttheterms (rules)ofthegameorrejectthem.Thereisnoroom
fora negotiated of
reading politicaldiscourse ortheappropriation ofpoliti-
cal "problems" byindividuals to servetheirinterests - their legitimatewell-
beingas theydefineit. In thistheory, spectators/participants arepresented
witha crudedualism:acceptit all, rejectit all.
Ignoredinthediscussion aretheso-called"cultural" studiespublished
during thepastdecade[e.g.,Hall(1980),Morely (1980,1981),Radway(1984,
1986),Fiske(1986),Giles(1986);cf.tworecent studiesnotavailabletoEdel-
man:Steiner (1988),andGiles(1989)],whichhaveextended "reception the-
ory"[e.g.,Iser(1978),Suleimanand Crosma(1980),Jauss(1982)withan
introduction byPaul de Man)]. Thismajortheoretical perspective of cul-
ture,literary, filmandtelevision studiesintheUnitedStatesandBritain re-
jectsthenotionof a universally passiveappropriation of a texton itsown
terms(politicalor otherwise) to exploretheactualpragmatics oftheactof
viewing/reading a "spectacle."These studiespresentalternatives to the
either/or stanceofEdelman.Whileassuming thatanypractice ofdiscourse
constructs itsownillusionary "world"(inNelson'sterms)andis potentially
mystifying, thesecriticsstresstheabilityand freedom of viewers/auditors
and spectators/participants to construct their"own"meanings (likeEdel-

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Book Review 523

man's).Thisdevelopingbodyoftheory andanalysispositsanddescribesthe
of
ability viewersof the to the
"spectacle" negotiate meaning of texts
- to
read and realize(Iser's term)meaningswhichoftendivergefromthe
"dominant" readingspreferredby thepoliticaland mediainstitutions.

MASS MEDIA NEWS AND PUBLIC OPINION

withmul-
WhileEdelman's"focus... is upon people and developments
tipleand changing meanings to one another"(p. 2), he devotesa chapter
to "TheAmbiguities of PoliticalNews,"asserting that,"It is chiefly news
reportsthatstimulatetheconstruction ofpoliticalspectacles" (p. 90). Edel-
man'stheoretical (moreprecisely, assumptive)connections amongspecta-
cles,massmedia,news,and people'sperceptions of politicalinformation
is summarized as he

... considersthecontributionsto ambiguityin politicalnews fromsome relatedso-

cial phenomena:the conventionsof news reporting,the effortsof interestgroups
to shape whatis reported,disparatesocial conditions,dubiousphilosophicalassump-
tionsaboutthenatureof reality,dominantideology,and somepsychological processes.
All of theseinfluencenewsinterpretation but not in the same way in
substantially,
diversesituationsor for differentpeople.
WhatNewsMatters?
The media decide what is worthreporting.Some people and organizationsare ac-
ceptedas "newssources,"and some kindsof eventsare assumedto be pregnantwith
meaningforthegeneralpublic.Thereis, in short,a stylizedviewof whatconstitutes
news: a view thatinsuresthe disseminationof manyitemsthathave littlebearing
on futuredevelopmentsor on thequalityof lifeand thatprecludedisseminationof
otherstoriesthathave a vital bearingon both. (p. 91)

One "crucial"conceptEdelmanadvancesis that"Newsreports divert

attention fromimmediate experience and helpfocusit upona constructed
reality"(p. 101).Edelmansuggests thatnewsaccountsalterpeople'sreali-
ties,andoftentheseaccounts areofthe"unexpected happening" orthe"con-
spicuouspersonality." He arguesthatsucheventsdependeitheruponan
historicalcontextfortheirappealto spectators,
oroneconjuredup byspec-
tatorsthemselves. Hereagain,Edelmanadvanceshisbeliefabouteventsbe-
ing constructed (perceivedand reportedby the press,and perceivedby
spectators) notforclarification butformystification.
("understandable"),
Together newsinstitutions
andspectators create"worlds"usinglanguagethat
may"changeradically... meanings attributed
to newsaccounts"(p. 101).
[Gans(1979)arguesthatthenewsmediaprovidepeoplewitha "common
fare"thatbrings about"sharedexperiences." He offers"thehypothesisthat
onejournalisticfunctionis to construct to putfleshon
nationand society,
theseotherwise vagueconcepts, andthustomakethemreal"(pp.296-297).]

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
524 Krausand Giles

The conceptofpublicopinion,usuallythought of as potentially

af-
fecting publicpolicyina democracy, is notdirectly
partofEdelman'sargu-
ment.He doestalkoftheeffect ofthespectacleon thepublic(e.g.,p. 35),
butdoesnotmakeclearto us theeffect ofpublicopinionon thespectacle.
Although there may be assorted ways of deducingthe "fit"of public
opinion-how these "worlds" jell to form it-implicitin the construc-
tion/deconstruction doctrine wouldbe itsimpotence in bringingaboutpo-
liticaland socialchange.If, as Edelmanargues,directactionvotingand
lobbying bringshorttermephemeral gains(p. 130),doesit followthat"in-
directaction"or publicopinionwouldbringlongtermgains?We infer
otherwise.
Perhapsmostdisheartening is Edelman's viewthatpolitical
cynical par-
ticipationis a "narrow focus" on and
politics, only reinforceswhathecriti-
cizesaboutthepolity.Hereagain,Edelmandoesnotmakeclearwhateffect
votingturnout wouldhaveon "decisivechange"wereitincreased substan-
in
tially elections. Edelman seems to be arguing politicallanguage,as
that
nowpracticed andperceived, lullsvoters withthestatusquo.
intosatisfaction
Votingdoes notchangesocietyand makeforbetterindividual well-being.
If voters(and presumably non-voters) werecognizantof the"longodds
againstsubstantial change"theywould"helpshapeeffective or
strategies"
long-term change.Thosestrategies, however, wouldbe moreeffective when
"coupledwiththerecognition thatart,science,andculture constructpoliti-
cal thought and actionratherthansimplycoexisting withthem"(p. 130).
"Reality," as Edelmanregardsit,is disguised(notdescribed) bylan-
offersa difficult
guage.He concedesthathis"... perspective analyticchallenge
becauseentitiesdo notremainstablewhileyoustudythemandsubjectsand
objectsarecontinuouslyevolving constructions ofoneanother" (p. 2). Edel-
mancautionsus tobe skeptical about,andbe "liberated" frompolitical texts
or discourse;
to lookfor"multiple andcontradictory andto exa-
realities";
mineotherdiscourse, different"socialsituationsand ... historical
contexts"
(pp. 128-129).Butimplicitinhisdiscussion is theviewthatthepubliclacks
theabilityto "read"and use a politicalspectaclein termsof theirownin-
terests.
Edelmanseesthedeception oflinguisticpractice, thefraudulent ba-
sisofpolitical whileassuming
constructions, thatallthosewhoarenotduped
bythesystem must,likehimself, rejectit.Between
necessarily thesetwopoles
liesa wholeworldof "negotiated" interaction
political which struggles for
truthwithinself-interest
- buttheterms are notmutually exclusive.
Edelmanconcludes:
Decisive changerequiresstrugglebased on hope, but evenstrugglethatdisruptses-
tablishedinstitutions,
routines,and assumptionshas notbeeneffective forlong.Ana-
lysesof the natureand consequencesof the spectacleof politicsis itselfa part of
the ongoingstruggle.

Given the conventionalviewof democratictheory,of an informedcitizen-

ry,the readerof Edelman's view of politicalcommunicationmay struggle

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Book Review 525

likethemusicalKingof Siam,who,in theprocessof learning

theEnglish
languageand Western becomesexasperated
culture, and chants:
Thereare timesI almostthinkI am not sureof whatI absolutelyknow. Veryoften
findconfusionin conclusionI concludedlong ago. In my head are so manyfacts
thatas a studentI have studiedto procure.In myhead are manyfactsof whichI
wish I was more certainI was sure ... Is a puzzlement!

REFERENCES

Edelman, M. (1959). Labor policyin a democracy.Curr. His. 36: 96-100.

Edelman, M. (1964). The SymbolicUses of Politics, Universityof Illinois Press, Urbana.
Edelman, M. (1971). Politics as SymbolicAction: Mass Arousal and Quiescence,Markham,
Chicago.
Edelman,M. (1977). PoliticalLanguage: WordsthatSucceed and Policies thatFail, Academic
Press, New York.
Fiske,J. (1986). Television:Polysemyand popularity.Crit.StudiesMass Commun.3: 391-408.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding What'sNews: A Studyof CBS EveningNews,NBC NightlyNews,
Newsweekand Time, Pantheon Books, New York.
Giles, D. (1986). Televisionreception.J. Film Vid. 38: 12-25.
Giles, D. (1989). ReadingAmerika:Questionsof Reception(CommunicationResearchCenter
Monograph),Cleveland State University,Cleveland, Ohio, In press.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding.In Hall, S., Hobson,D., Lowe, A., and Willis,P. (eds.), Cul-
ture,Media, Language, Hutchinson,London, pp. 128-138.
Hartman,G. (1988, March 7). Paul de Man, fascism,and deconstruction:Blindnessand in-
sight.New Repub. 26-31.
Heller,S. (1988, May 11). Scholarsgrapplewithliterarycritic'swritingsforpro-Naziperiodi-
cal. Chron. HigherEd. 1, 6.
Iser,W. (1978). TheAct of Reading:A Theoryof AestheticResponse,JohnsHopkinsUniver-
sityPress, Baltimore.
Jauss,H. R. (1982). Towardan Aestheticof Reception,University of MinnesotaPress, Min-
neapolis.
Lazarsfeld,P. F., Berelson,B., and Gaudet, H. (1944). The People's Choice: How the Voter
Makes Up His Mind in a PresidentialElection,Columbia University Press,New York.
Lehman,D. (1988, February15). Deconstructing de Man's life:An academicidol fallsintodis-
grace. Newsweek63.
Morely,D. (1980). The 'Nationwide'Audience:Structureand Decoding, BritishFilm Institute,
London.
Morely,D. (1981). The 'nationwide'audience: A criticalpostscript.ScreenEd. 39: 3-14.
Radway,J. (1984). ReadingtheRomance: Women,Patriarchy,and Popular Culture,Univer-
sityof NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Radway,J. (1986). Identifying ideologicalseams: Mass culture,analyticmethod,and political
practice.Communication9: 93-123.
Steiner,L. (1988). Oppositionaldecodingas an act of resistance.Crit.StudiesMass Commun.
5: 1-15.
Suleiman,S., and Crosma, I. (eds.) (1980). The Reader and the Text:Essays on Audienceand
Interpretation, PrincetonUniversityPress, Princeton,N.J.

SidneyKrausand DennisGiles
of Communication
Department
Cleveland State University
Cleveland, Ohio 44115

This content downloaded from 192.231.202.210 on Thu, 02 Apr 2015 17:22:52 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions