Voice, silence and social class on television

Abstract

The question of voice is a central and timeless political issue. Who gets to speak? Who is silenced? Who is listening? One of the main arenas for voice in modern, advanced democracies is the media. Media infrastructures, technologies, institutions and organizations are a precondition for political voice in large-scale societies, but are also an important factor in distributing the possibilities for voice among different groups and sectors of the population. In this article, we take on the question of voice in relation to social class and aim to analyse how the medium of television gives voice to people from different social classes. This study operationalizes the theoretical notion of voice by asking the following questions: who has the opportunity to appear and speak on television, to whom do they speak and under what circumstances does this communication occur? Based on a content analysis of television in Sweden, the results from this study show that voice is distributed in a highly unequal manner. It also shows that the relations enacted by television appearances conform to the social hierarchy. Whereas people from the ruling class frequently speak to people from the working and middle classes, they are rarely spoken to by members of a class that is positioned below their own. Television thus constructs a social hierarchy of voice and authority that reproduces and legitimizes already existing social hierarchies.

Representasi Kelas Sosial Dalam Film Gundala (Analisis Semiotika Roland Barthes)

“…Model dua kelas ini menyiratkan hubungan antara dua kelas, karena kepentingan kapitalis (pemilik) dan pekerja (para buruh) yang berlawanan. Kekuatan yang diberikan oleh satu kelas selalu berdiri kaitannya dengan kekuasaan dari lain, kelas yang berkuasa didefinisikan sebagai orang yang memiliki peluang yang signifikan untuk mempengaruhi kondisi hidup mereka sendiri dan kondisi hidup orang lain melalui posisi mereka di dunia kerja (Jakobsson & Fredrik Stiernstedt, 2018).…”

Generative Mechanisms of Classroom Silence and the Path of Avoidance

“…It is vague and burdened with numerous communicative significances [6] . The current definitions of classroom silence can be broadly classified into two categories: phenomenal and behavioral, with the former considering classroom silence as the phenomenon of students not asking questions in classroom [7,8] and the latter considering it as the behavior of students not answering or asking questions in classroom [9,10] . These definitions are based on the student perspective, neglecting teachers as the integral part and mechanically separating teachers from students.…”

Moral compass: How a small-town newspaper used silence in a hyper-charged controversy

“…Journalism is, after all, largely celebrated as a platform from which a range of voices can be heard or listened to. Here, news media are understood not only as a 'precondition for political voice in large-scale societies, but are also an important factor in distributing the possibilities for voice among different groups and sectors of the population' (Jakobsson and Stiernstedt, 2018). The Fourth Estate is therefore seen as counteracting coercive structures of silence by ideally giving 'voice to the voiceless' in the public sphere (Hansen, 2018).…”