Spring 2005
Book Critique #2 - Media, Gender and Identity - Running the Gauntlett
In his book Media, Gender and Identity, David Gauntlett attempts academic sleight-of-hand by theorizing without acknowledging theory. Gauntlett presents strong overviews of the work of several scholars, but by discounting media effects research in his second chapter, the author places himself in the bind of offering some of these theories without legs to stand on.
Gauntlett attacks media effects research, not only claiming that it is inconclusive, but also that it is "of little use," (p. 33) that it unintentionally "support[s] conservative and right-wing ideologies," (p. 30) and that it is served by "reckless abuse of research procedures." (p. 31) By using sweeping generalizations and cherry-picking just a few flawed studies as evidence, Gauntlett proves nothing. This causes him difficulties later in his work, where he seems to conclude that the media cannot be cited as a cause of anything negative in society.
As a sidebar (pgs. 194-195) to his discussion of women's magazines, Gauntlett touches on the question of whether these publications affect body image. First, he explains that the magazines in question had an awareness of the "unrealistic 'skinny trend'" they chronicled photographically in the 1990s. Next, Gauntlett presents a scientific study which finds that the "degree of thinness" displayed by the models in women's magazines is "both unachievable and biologically inappropriate." Gauntlett quotes this study’s conclusions that "eating disorders are caused by a complex interplay between genetics, family history, and the cultural environment," which he distorts when he writes that "[m]edia influences could not be said to directly cause eating disorders[.]"
The final thread in Gauntlett's two page aside offers Sarah Grogan's 1999 book Body Image as evidence that non-media-borne elements influence women. For Grogan, these factors include "social experiences, self-esteem and perceptions of control over one's life." Gauntlett emphasizes this final idea of "perception of control" as the crucial one, putting aside the "social experiences" which would include interacting with the media and a social circle that might have its own mediated ideas about body image.
Given these three sources, if Gauntlett were willing to admit that the media have some influence over behavior, he could discern that the "unrealistic" women's magazines were projecting a "biologically inappropriate" body image into the "cultural environment," affecting the "social experiences" of women. Because Gauntlett takes his apparent prejudice against effects research to an extreme, he does not have the capacity to come to this conclusion. Instead, the author claims that these three sources lead to the "contradictory set of findings" that while media images "are likely to have some impact" they are "definitely not the main cause" of anorexia and bulimia, and even adds that "images of thin models are 'popular' and will sell magazines." Though it might seem strange to the average reader, Gauntlett uses this light touch with women's magazines, and reserves his harshest personal criticism for what he calls the "'high art'-centered bourgeois tastes" of the Frankfurt School.
Despite Gauntlett’s apparent disdain for certain theorists, the strongest sections of his book provide good introductions to the work of otherwise fringe-dwelling scholars, including Michel Foucault. Gauntlett utilizes Foucault’s ideas about power to illustrate a criticism of binary models of humanity. Gauntlett cites authors who question theories that pose “male against female” or “dominant versus oppressed.” Gauntlett explains that for Foucault, “power is not an asset which a person can have,” (p. 117) but rather that power flows between individuals and organizations. Power can be exercised, but not held.
David Gauntlett’s biases are apparent in Media, Gender and Identity, but regardless of its faults, this text provides ample opportunity for discussion and debate. The author has posed a number of difficult questions not only regarding the content of his work, but also by way of his style. Should a writer use the first person in an academic text? Are there a minimum number of academic sources which should be cited when refuting a long-published theory? Is it necessary to provide opposing points of view in this sort of work, or does that demean long-dead scholars by dragging them into a contrived argument? These questions go unanswered in his book, but Gauntlett succeeds at causing controversy and inspiring critical thinking.