Stuart Hall argues that media products can be interpreted differently by different audiences, depending on their cultural capital. To what extent do you agree with this statement?
 |
| Another point, not made here, is that the original Swedish version of Humans is rather less mainstream has significantly more sex, violence and explicit politics than the British version, which perhaps challenges the idea that the British version is targeting a niche audience! Seriously, watch the Swedish version. It's 1000x better! |
Cultural capital refers to the social assets of a person, for example their education, their tastes, their way of dressing. Stuart Hall argues that audiences can completely interpret products differently depending on their cultural upbringing. In this essay, I shall argue that the audience's interpretation of Humans is completely dependant on their level of education. I shall argue that Humans targets a niche audience with a high level of cultural capital. In order to analyse this idea, I shall be making reference to Humans, a British. American co production science TV show which targets a niche and middle class audience.
One way in which Humans targets a niche audience with a high level of cultural capital is through its highly atypical and even controversial advertising campaign. The advertising campaign to Humans is highly postmodern. It is constructed in a way which is deliberately misleading and difficult to understand, to both challenge the target audience, and to increase the likelihood of word of mouth advertising. The advertising campaign for Humans is deliberately atypical. Rather than advertising the show itself and what time it is on, the persona Synthetics trailer instead advertises the fictional robot or 'synth' from the TV show itself. The advert not only does not mention the TV show, but also includes a convincing and professional on screen graphic/logo, a link to a professional spoof website, and the overall tone of a high end electronic product. Beyond merely being confusing, the advert also contains a number of themes introduced in the TV series. For example, there is a sinister shot in low key lighting of a synth leading a young boy upstairs which may be connotative of using technology to distract children. The theme of technology and how we use it is a key theme in Humans. This complicated and adult theme clearly appeals more to an audience with a high cultural capital, as it reflects dangerous and problematic real world issues.
Another way in which Humans appeals to the assumed cultural capital of the target audience is through the representation of the Hawkins Family. While in the original Swedish version, the main family are stereotypically middle class and Swedish, the Hawkins family are stereotypically middle class and British. For example, the Hawkins are a stereotypical nuclear family with '2.4' children. This representation of a stereotypical middle class family allows the audience to fully relate to them. Their middle class status is emphasised through the MES of their large and spacious house, and their well furnished kitchen. Their privilege is further emphasised through the fact they are all together in the morning. However, the family are actually by something that is arguably trivial: a sit down breakfast. This luxury would therefore be desirable to the target middle class audience. Yet most of all, the most desirable aspect of this scene is Anita herself. In both versions of the show, Anita/Mimi is played by an East Asian actor. The significance of this casting is based on a stereotype of East Asian women in particular being cast in roles where they provide services to white main characters. Clearly here, Humans is making a comparison between technology and lower class and ethnic minority workers. This challenging and controversial idea is linked to the concept of commodity fetishism. This difficult to understand concept will doubtless be more successful with audiences with a higher level of cultural capital.
However, there are many aspects of Humans that be enjoyed and interpreted even by audiences that lack cultural capital. For example, the narrative of the show is actually rather straightforward, and focuses on one man (Leo) trying to track down his robot friends. In the scene where Leo is introduced, he is represented through a scruffy working class costume, and uses an aggressive mode of address in order to interrogate the antagonist. Additionally, Leo is motivated through his desire to track down 'the princess'. which is a highly cliched story arc. In this sense, Humans is not only a controversial science show, but a straightforward and exciting soap opera, that will stereotypically appeal to working class audiences. Additionally, many of the cast are clearly hegemonically sexually attractive, which emphasise the potential sexual gratification pf the TV show, using sex to sell the TV show. Finally, by including science fiction conventions, Humans is actually using the conventions of a mainstream and extremely popular genre that not only targets niche audiences, but also targets mainstream audiences with a lower cultural capital.
However, ultimately, Humans predominantly is targeting a middle class audience...