Place, Elective Belonging, and the Diffused Audience
Place, Elective Belonging, and the Diffused Audience
The changing nature of social and cultural life requires a new understanding of interconnections among types of audience experience, simple, mass, and diffused.1 In turn, this necessitates attention to relationships among narcissism, spectacle, performance, and imagination in the flow of everyday life in a media-saturated world. This is encapsulated in the idea of a spectacle/performance paradigm (SPP).
This is not the place to outline in detail the argument for this approach.2 However, to contextualize, we introduce key points, which provide our starting ground in this paper. Audience research should begin from the localities where people live. Such “roots” are important despite the ways people travel for various reasons. Further, many media-based experiences are still dependent on place, despite new worlds opened by broadcast, cable, and satellite television. Research could develop ideas of scene (see Bennett & Peterson 2004) to examine the interaction around a range of media conditioned by the experience of particular localities. Furthermore, this focus entails attention to the role of media in the constitution and reconstitution of identity in everyday life. This point has been made in the study of media, but often in generalist and generalizing terms. More attention to ordinary identity processes, as parents, neighbors, workers, and so on, should benefit the understanding of social life and audience processes (see also Lembo 2000). Debates on trust and social capital are important to those writing on the media in the context of globalizing social change. Again, somewhat paradoxically, large claims for the significance of media are often made by such writers (e.g. Putnam 2000) without attention to the specific points made by those who research the media (Savage, Bagnall, & Longhurst 2005: 153–57). Finally, a fuller understanding of contemporary sociation is therefore needed. While, for example, the “uses and gratifications” approach sought a more social understanding of audience processes, it has many limitations (see Barker & Brooks 1998).
Work on audiences should consider the detail of audience responses to a range of media (not just TV, which has been by far the dominant form studied) in the context of attention to processes of everyday life that takes cognizance of new forms of cultural theory that emphasize the conditionality of identity, community, and performativity, while not losing sight of the ordinariness of everyday life as involving shopping, going on holiday, looking after children, keeping in touch with parents by telephone, and so on. In recent work, we deploy the concept of “elective belonging” to examine attachment of people to places where they have decided to live (Savage, Bagnall, & Longhurst 2005). Such attachment to place should move debate around issues of globalization and attachment away from dichotomies like locals/incomers to consider how people locate themselves in places though parenting, shopping, working, and engaging with media and so on. This chapter considers audience experiences against the backdrop of “elective belonging” to show how media processes contribute to subtle processes of ordinary living in places, with due attention to identity, imagination, and performance.3 Specifically, we show how attention to cinema facilitates consideration of the relation between the mass and diffused audience processes and how discussion of theater permits examination of that between simple and diffused processes. We comment on the implications of this discussion for the idea of an audience continuum. We also explore imagination, spectacle, identity, and performance.
First, we briefly introduce the project from which the data discussed arise (for more detail, see Savage, Bagnall, & Longhurst et al. 2005). This is followed by consideration of findings with respect to attachment to cinema and theater. These more descriptive sections lead to consideration of implications of these data for the approach and concepts summarized in this paper.
The Project
In accord with the strategy of the SPP, we took four contrasting locations near Manchester, in the Northwest of England, as the site for between forty and fifty in-depth interviews.4 In each location we took the electoral register as our sampling frame, took a one-in-three sample of particular streets, and arranged interviews. Our research was based in particular locales but not predicated on the existence of bounded living. Rather, the places were sites to investigate people’s connectivity and its relationship to everyday life and experience.
Central to our interest in understanding the significance of social and cultural practices in their contexts was the need to be able to relate people’s narratives to work, residence, and leisure. Our interview schedule asked people about their daily routines around work, household, kin, friends, and leisure so that we could ascertain both the kinds of spatial ranges of such practices and the extent to which people’s narratives spontaneously invoked other kinds of issue as they talked.
The four areas were as follows:
Wilmslow—a town twelve miles south of Manchester, which is in a desirable suburban belt. We expected to find high-status, affluent, middle-class residents and interviewed in areas of detached housing, where properties were valued in 1997 at between £250,000 ($415,000) and £750,000 ($1,245,000) (see Savage, Bagnall, & Longhurst 2004). We chose Wilmslow as a location where those with relatively large amounts of economic capital were located.
Ramsbottom—an old Lancashire mill town twelve miles north of Manchester, which had been subject to considerable new building and had become a popular commuter belt location. We interviewed in large older terraced and newer semidetached housing, which sold for between £50,000 ($83,000) and £150,000 ($249,000). We expected to find residents with reasonable amounts of economic and cultural capital.
Chorlton—an area of urban gentrification close to the center of Manchester, with new cafes, wine bars, restaurants, and specialist shops. We expected to find large numbers of academically well-qualified public-sector workers, and interviewed in “desirable” streets where properties ranged in price from £50,000 ($83,000) for small terraces to £200,000 ($332,000) for the largest terraced houses. We expected to find respondents with high levels of cultural capital.
Cheadle—an interwar suburban estate of three-bedroom semidetached housing. In 1997–1998 houses were valued at between £50,000 ($83,000) and £65,000 ($107,900), and we expected to find large numbers of intermediate-class white-collar workers.
TABLE 9.1.
Key Features of Achieved Sample
|
||||
Dimensions |
Cheadle |
Chorlton |
Ramsbottom |
Wilmslow |
Av Household income |
£23K |
£$30K |
£36K |
£68K |
|
($38k) |
($50k) |
($60k) |
($113k) |
% Graduates |
14 |
60 |
19 |
45 |
% Upper service class |
3 |
18 |
26 |
42 |
% Service class |
24 |
60 |
62 |
63 |
Interviews |
43 |
47 |
47 |
45 |
Response rates |
29% |
39% |
30% |
41% |
|
||||
TABLE 9.2.
Number of References to Attendance at Cinema and Theatre
|
||||
|
Cheadle |
Chorlton |
Ramsbottom |
Wilmslow |
Cinema |
20 |
36 |
25 |
24 |
Theatre |
9 |
33 |
16 |
28 |
Total asked |
40 |
46 |
41 |
41 |
Missing |
3 |
1 |
6 |
4 |
Total Sample |
43 |
47 |
47 |
45 |
|
||||
Patterns of Involvement with Cinema and Theater
Patterns of cinema and theater attendance were differentially spread over the areas (see table 9.2).
Table 9.2 shows whether the respondent had attended cinema or the theater within a two-year period. Cinema is a popular form of media consumption. Fifty percent or more of the sample in each area attend. Chorltonians were much more likely to be heavy cinemagoers than those resident in the other areas. In all areas, most cinema going is to nearby multiplexes, located in suburban or out-of-town shopping complexes (though the multiplex in nearby Salford Quays—a dockside area of gentrification—was also popular with Chorltonians). For Ramsbottom residents, the only multiplex that was ever mentioned was on the motorway, approximately five miles away. Respondents in the other areas had some choice, and this was normally made in terms of the convenience of a particular site or complex. Chorltonians were the only group likely to visit a “mainstream” cinema in the center of Manchester, where for some this added to the “event” as it felt more like a night out than a visit to the suburbs. Chorltonians were the only people (with one or two exceptions of those from other areas) likely to visit the Corner House, Manchester’s Art Cinema complex, located in the city center, close to Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan Universities. It is also close to the bars and clubs that form Manchester’s night-time economy.
There were some people (again overwhelmingly in Chorlton) who are enthusiastic about cinema and who go regularly. For the others, it is something done irregularly, mainly to see the latest Hollywood “blockbuster” (at the time of our research, especially Titanic) or a popular British film of particular contemporary relevance (again, at the time of our research, The Full Monty). These films were “water-cooler” cinema, as people would often mention them, even if they had not seen them, or indeed expressly did not want to see them—which might be something that required explanation, as it was perceived that one should be seeing this film. However, even with these films, the question about cinema virtually never produced anything that might count as even the most rudimentary textual analysis.
Theater attendance was more skewed than cinema going. Few Cheadle residents ever attend, and when they do their attendance tends to be very irregular and involve a musical or “show” (see below on such fluidity of meaning). This pattern is pretty much repeated in Ramsbottom, though there were some who attended more regularly. In these cases, attendance was to a theater in Manchester and to the Octagon in nearby Bolton. There were also a small number of people who would attend local amateur theater. Wilmslow residents were the only group to attend the theater more than the cinema. They attended in Manchester in the main, but also visited a number of other regional theaters. There were a number of people who visited Stratford-upon-Avon for Shakespeare on a regular basis, perhaps for a weekend. Wilmslow is distinctive in this sense. There are also a significant number of people who attend the theater as part of an organized group. Again, this is something that is most talked about in Wilmslow. Chorltonians also tend to visit the theater, mostly in Manchester at the Royal Exchange Theatre in the center of town.
The Meanings of Cinema and Theater: Simple, Mass, and Diffused Audiences
Having considered the broad patterns of engagement with cinema and theater, we examine the meanings of these patterns in the context of the SPP. Due to space limitations, we have not included quotations from our respondents in this paper. Globalization and Belonging and our other papers may be consulted for the voices of our respondents on a range of issues. Four contextual points require brief consideration. First, research on audiences for cinema and theater has been thin compared to that on television. There is some excellent work on cinema. However, the best of it has tended to take a historical perspective (for example, Kuhn 2002; Stacey 1994; Staiger 1992) and to be concerned with the memories of fans. More contemporary analysis has also offered a range of insights. For example, Barker and Brooks (1998) comprehensively consider Judge Dredd and responses to the movie, but focus on this film and offer little analysis of what they term “low investors” in the film and cinema in general (1998: 232–33). Attention here is precisely one of our intentions and a strength of the SPP. Audience studies of the theater are rarer and have tended not to make great use of the current trends in audience analysis and, again, not to address the differential impact of the theater (Bennett 1997, Hayes 2002 and her ongoing Ph.D. work at Salford University).
Second, there are definitional issues with both cinema and the theater. While it may appear that these are bounded forms and experiences, respondents offered a range of interpretations of them. Thus, a question about cinema might quickly lead to consideration of films on TV, or how a video would substitute for seeing the film at the cinema. Likewise, a question about theater might provoke a discussion of the enjoyment of “shows” of the “mega musical” type, attendance at musical gigs, or attendance at comedy clubs. In this sense “theater” has a fluid meaning.
Third, the key characteristics of the simple, mass, and diffused audiences should be noted (see figure 9.1).
FIGURE 9.1.
Modes of Audience Experience
|
|||
|
Simple |
Mass |
Diffused |
Communication |
Direct |
Mediated |
Fused |
Local/Global |
Local |
Global |
Universal |
Ceremony |
High |
Medium |
Low |
Public/Private |
Public |
Private |
Public and Private |
Distance |
High |
Very High |
Low |
Attention |
High |
Variable |
Civil inattention |
|
|||
Source: Abercrombie and Longhurst (1998: 44) |
|||
Here we concentrate on consideration of these modes of audience experience in the context of the data on cinema and theater.
Finally, a contrast can be drawn between respondents’ initial responses to questions about television and music and those to questions about cinema and theater. As discussed by Savage, Bagnall, & Longhurst (see especially 2005: 157–70), responses to questions about television produced in the main extreme defensiveness. Despite its centrality to their lives, respondents played down the amount of TV that they watched. Responses to inquiries about music were different. People often emphasized the broad range of their musical tastes in what we termed an “omnivoric refrain,” derived from the omnivore thesis (e.g. Peterson & Kern 1996; Peterson & Anand 2004). They tended not to exhibit defensiveness. Cinema and theater provoked neither of these initial responses to any degree. While a number of people expressed a desire to go to the cinema and theater more often (see further below), they did not invest as strongly in either form—that is, the denial of TV or the desire to foreground varied musical taste. People were initially more indifferent to both cinema and theater, though as will be suggested below, traces of the desire to foreground taste can be found. Having addressed these contextualizing points, we consider the main domains of the response to the questions about cinema and theater: place, space, sociation (in particular the family), and enthusiasm.
Place figured strongly in different ways in responses to the cinema and theater. While prompted at times by the way the questions about these forms and experiences were asked, in general the discussion went in this direction rapidly. Place occurred in different ways. First, it figured with respect to the characterization of the actual locality of residence itself. Thus, a question about cinema could lead to a lament about the area in question no longer having a local cinema. While this was mentioned at least once in each area, it was very strong in Wilmslow. The loss of the Rex (the name itself is emblematic of a particular era of the cinema in Britain) was commented upon without prompt in no less than eight of the discussions of cinema with the Wilmslow residents, so that it informed their general perception of the place. Some of the more established residents of Wilmslow lament the loss of the village nature of the place as it has changed to a suburb like many others with out-of-town shopping. The decline of Wilmslow as a “village” can be seen in the loss of the high street cinema as much as in the transformation of the varied shops of the high street as café bars and bistros have moved in (see further Savage, Bagnall, & Longhurst 2004). The absence of a cinema is thus a way to capture the nature of a locale, as is the presence of some kind of local theater activity. While again, this was a minority response, some of the Ramsbottom residents discussed the local theater group and the local theater in the town positively, suggesting that their narration of elective belonging to the place was reinforced by this local phenomenon. It did not matter that none of the Ramsbottom residents who mentioned the existence of the local theater had actually attended it; rather, it mattered that this imagined possibility was a way of characterizing the nature of the place and their attachment to it.
Place figured in a second and related sense, as the nature and locality of the multiplex was an indication of the suburban or distinctive nature of the place itself and its connections to facilities of different types. Thus a possible story about why a place is a good locale to which to elect to belong mobilizes its convenience for a range of services—or consumer experiences—of which cinema is one like others. The multiplexes that serve this function are increasingly in the same sites as shops and chains of restaurants like Pizza Hut and McDonalds. So while the multiplex sums up a lack of local identity for some of those who have been longer-term residents of a place, for many others it captures the appeal of a place because it is convenient. There is no investment in the multiplex itself—there was relatively little positive comment on them, though they were seen as more comfortable than the Corner House by some Chorlton residents—they are “there” as part of the landscape of consumption. However, this should not suggest that they are unimportant or subjected to a fundamentalist critique; rather, they are one of the “pathways” through which dimensions of elective belonging can be mobilized.
Third, Manchester figured as site of cinema attendance. This was overwhelmingly true for the residents of Chorlton who as well as using multiplexes would also attend the multiscreen Odeon in the center of town, or in one case a multiscreen at one of the two central stations (a cinema since closed). They were also the only people to attend the art cinema complex—the Corner House. In itself this provoked some mixed feelings. While it enabled the viewing of a greater range of films and could offer more “enthusiast” pleasures, it was sometimes criticized as lacking comfort and having an obscured view. Thus, in a pained manner, the possibilities that it offered for a more cosmopolitan experience came up against its lack of consumer comfort—where the multiplexes scored. Lack and expense of parking were also sometimes used to compare the city center cinemas with suburban multiplexes. This is significant as it offers a sense of the contradictions between texts and places. For this group, art cinema texts (and indeed other cinema texts) should best be enjoyed in the art cinema space; however, the actual relatively poor consumer experience of that space overrode such concerns. While there are clear connections between places and texts, in that theaters are known for putting on specific types of plays and mainstream films play in multiplexes, it would be useful to explore how texts shift in meaning and audience response in different environments, especially when they are “out of place.” For example, how does it affect audience response and meaning to see the same film in a multiplex as opposed to an art cinema? However, further exploration of these matters for our perspective would require additional data.
Manchester city center was a key site of theater attendance. Nearly all those who attended the theater used the city center theaters (in particular the Royal Exchange). Some of those who attend theater had (or had in the past) season tickets for the Royal Exchange. However, despite this there was little attachment to this theater as a place. This is of significance as other research with theatergoers suggests attachment to a theater because of its local nature and its architecture (Hayes 2002 and ongoing). As mentioned above, some people attend Shakespeare productions in Stratford-upon-Avon and may indeed have season tickets for this. Even among this group, there was little discussion of the plays and pleasures that they had seen in the past or were going to see in the future. Other places that were mentioned as sites of theater attendance include the Octagon in Bolton, just north of Manchester and Mold in North Wales, which is convenient for some Wilmslow residents. Sometimes the theater going in other cities was used as a point of comparison with Manchester. Cities and other places become partly described via media experiences and potential. The place that scored in these terms—though it was not discussed that often—is Edinburgh, which is seen by many to be a significant site of cultural experience that could not be matched by Manchester. London was sometimes mentioned as a place to see theater, but without any sense of investment in it. There was some comment that part of the appeal of Manchester is its cinemas and theaters and aspects of this were something to take some pride in, but this was in no sense dominant.
The final sense of place that emerged concerns “northernness.” Mention (discussion would be too strong a term) of The Full Monty often occurred in terms of a vague consideration of being northern. While the experiences of many of our respondents were removed from those of the film’s male victims of deindustrialization, who turn to stripping, the fact that this was northern (and hence somewhat local) carried much resonance, as offering a reason why this film could be talked about and a desire to see it could be expressed.
Space in a more generalized sense also figured significantly in the meaning of cinema and theater. Cinemas were compared by convenience, as discussed above, but also by comfort. The literature on cinema audiences cited above draws attention to different dimensions of the cinema-going experience in these terms. We found this also to be a key in the orientation to cinema. Thus, some would prefer the multiplexes because of the better view, the more comfortable seats, and so on. Others would criticize the cinematic experience because of the noise made by others and in one memorable case because it is impossible to read a newspaper while watching a film at the cinema.
The experience as an audience member for cinema and theater is bound up concretely with a number of meanings of place and space, such as where a car can be parked, and with respect to the imagination of what places are and can be (Urry 1990)—from the “idea” of Ramsbottom as a site of local theater to the condensations of Edinburgh as a city of culture. As we found with respect to Manchester, cities are compared through the spectacle of the cultural experience and as consumption sites. This fuels some of the dilemmas of elective belonging, in that the place of residence may suffer by comparison with the imagined possibilities of other places.
Before addressing further the conceptual issues involved, we consider the other most significant dimension of the meaning of cinema and theater—its implication in patterns of sociation. While television has been much studied as a domestic form, entailing interactions among household and family members, other media forms have been less discussed in such contexts. Different dimensions of this came through in the meanings of cinema and theater. Often, asking a question about these forms would provoke a comparison with the respondent’s partner. Comment was made on the pleasures of engaging with these media with a partner, or that they never went because the partner does not like the form, or that the respondent only went alone as the partner was not interested. In these ways, media are crucially part of a relationship. Moreover, cinema (and less often theater) is attended with children. A significant number of people only attend with children. It is one of the consumption experiences that are part of such aspects of family life. Children also figure in narratives about cinema and theater in other ways. People talked of how their cinema attendance was affected by the problems of securing a babysitter for young children. Pretty obviously, the ability of people to attend forms outside the home is affected by such domestic responsibilities. This seems a fairly mundane (if relatively neglected) point, but it is significant that it connects to the performance of what it is to be a parent, and to the imagination of what other experiences might be possible if children were not there. Some older respondents also talked about cinema/theater and their grandchildren in ways like parents taking their children to these forms—as something to do.
Cinema and theater are aspects of patterns of friendship and organized groups. Many people talked of the forms as things that they do with friends, either in a group or with a close friend (for some of the older respondents). The media forms are part of the ongoing constitution and reconstitution of patterns of sociability and friendship. Cinema is sometimes seen as “something to do” as part of the weekend activity and occurred in this way when we asked our respondents to describe a typical week or weekend. Media are part of the detail and management of the interactions of everyday life.
Finally, there were a small number of enthusiasts or fans of cinema and theater. The sorts of responses that we have detailed so far vastly outnumbered such attachments. However, we did interview someone who talked enthusiastically of Spanish cinema, a Star Wars fan, and several people who talked of their love of cinema or theater. Those who expressed most passion for cinema mainly lived in Chorlton. They talked about the way in which attendance at the Corner House allowed them to access a wider range of films and especially foreign films. This is part of the imagined cosmopolitanism of this group (see Savage et al. 2005). In this way cinema attendance fueled a more “globalized” attachment, which was signaled for them in other ways as well. In their minds, Chorlton is liked because it has these characteristics. Significant attachment to theater was most common in Wilmslow. This was rather like residents’ tastes in radio (Longhurst, Bagnall, & Savage 2001) and music (Savage, Bagnall, & Longhurst 2005) as they like “mainstream” theater, but not experimental works. The enthusiasm might include trips to Stratford for Shakespeare. In some interviews this led to a longer interchange concerning this form. The places in which they lived facilitated these attachments for Chorltonians and Wilmslo-vians, but in ways similar to those in which the places worked for those who were not enthusiastic. It is possible to speculate on the paradoxes of how home and mobile media facilitate fandom of particular types through repeat consumption and so on, whereas attendance at cinema and theater is in some sense more consumer-like, while it has often been thought to involve more conscious choice. However, consideration of these issues in detail would again require further research.
This evidence shows the interaction of the different forms of audience experience outlined above. Thus, the audience in a theater, which is a good example of a simple audience, is contextualized or framed by the diffused audience processes of everyday life. Neither of these experiences can be fully understood without reference to the other. Analysis can begin from either the experience of the theater audience member, thereby being very likely to raise wider issues of sociability and so on, or from the wider processes. Overall, one mode of analysis is likely to suffer without the other. Similar points can be made about mass and diffused audiencing of cinema. This is not about classifying the audience, but shows the analytical power of an approach that attempts to deal with issues of audiencing on interconnected levels. We conclude with other implications of our discussion.
Conclusions
Our data provide evidence for the analytic power of the simple, mass, diffused characterizations. We wish to conclude by emphasizing the connections between recent social and cultural theory and our approach and data. We remain concerned that arguments about spectacle, performance, imagination, narrativity, and so on might be more likely to be connected to cultural practices that are themselves exceptional or spectacular in the more extreme sense. In itself this is not to deny the significance of such theoretical innovation or where it has been “applied”; it is to argue that this cannot then be used as a general or wider conclusion. Likewise, as is commonly recognized, points about fans or enthusiasts cannot be made straightforwardly to characterize those with little investment in the practices or attachment to the objects of fandom. There is an audience continuum that is defined across the positions of consumer, fan, cultist, enthusiast, and petty producer. Most of the people discussed in this paper can be seen as consumers (which does not carry pejorative connotations) and some were fans, in that they had attachments to programs (or films and plays) but were not in contact with others who had that interest. It is significant that those who commented on their attachment to a film (e.g. Star Wars) usually sought to distance themselves from those who had, in their minds, “pathological” attachments to such media texts.
We seek to connect contemporary cultural theory to the “mundane” practices of everyday life (see also, for television specifically, Lembo 2000). One of the concerns about such a move might be that it undercuts the theoretical (and disciplinary) concerns of media and cultural studies, as it might suggest an inattention to the texts of cinema and theater and so on. We reject such a position. However, it does mean that analyses that begin with texts and audience responses to them need to recognize that such analyses can only have wider application with caution and in specific ways. Fandom is not significant in its generality, but as indicating aspects of everyday performance and imagination that are informing mundane practices. This chapter argues for the social and cultural significance of the media considered (and other media more widely). Thus, performance, imagination, and spectacle are embroiled in practices of attachment and identity in everyday life of media-drenched societies at many levels and any social and cultural analysis that does not pay them detailed attention will be deficient. This is not to rest with generalizations about media power or experience but to show the implication of those processes in the substance of ordinary life. Thus power needs to be theorized in the context of media interaction in different ways. Too many studies of the audience are affected by versions of power and ideology that were critiqued by poststructuralist writers and in books like The Dominant Ideology Thesis (Abercrombie, Hill, & Turner 1980). Power, in the Foucauldian sense, is part of ordinary relations and audiencing processes—it is diffused and layered, like modes of audience experience. It resides in the powers of parents and children, as well as with those who decide the news. To foreground this point we seek a shift in understandings and an analysis of the relativities of power, recognizing that power is critical and dispersed and not sovereign.
The place of media power (e.g. Couldry 2000) is important, as is the way in which sociation is fueled and fed by media to become increasingly audienced. Media are critically significant. Our concept of elective belonging captures aspects of this process. People make choices about where they live. Belonging to an area is not simply about being born there, or a matter of conforming to local tradition. We recognize that not all people can afford to live in the places that we researched. Elective belonging (and audiencing) takes place in unequal and divided societies (for class, see for example Devine 2004; Devine et al. 2004; Savage 2000). Such divisions are not only structural, but cultural through and through. It is to exploring the way in which different modes of audience experience and process contribute to modes of belonging that this chapter has been devoted.
1. Thanks to Sylvia Hayes for comments on an earlier draft.
2. See Abercrombie and Longhurst 1998; Longhurst, Bagnall, & Savage 2004; and for commentary and development e.g. Couldry 2000; Crawford 2002, 2003; Hills 2002; Jewkes 2002; Laughey 2006; Sandvoss 2003, 2005a.
3. Some discussion of these processes can be found in Globalization and Belonging, where chapter 7 considers television, music, and reading in some detail, and much more briefly some aspects of cinema and theater, in pointing out how media are “incorporated into narratives of elective belonging” (179). Radio is discussed in Longhurst, Bagnall, & Savage 2001.
4. We are very pleased to acknowledge the support of the ESRC (Reference No. R000236929).