The Future of Scholarship: A Second Iteration

This is the second entry in a working document that will form my portion of a panel discussion on the future of scholarship. Our division of topics has changed a bit so this version of my portion of the presentation is also a bit different.

Our panel discussion will take place on April 30 as a part of Alfred University’s Bergren Forum series. I will be joined by two of AU’s librarians–Ellen Bahr and Mark Smith. I am open to any comments and suggestions as we prepare our presentation.

How do we know what we know?

This question is a fundamental and complex one. More importantly, any answer correlates with the ways we exchange information and as such must be viewed dynamically since that process will be, at different times and to varying degrees, altered by changes in culture, governance, and technology. To some extent, our discussion will touch on all three of these areas but our primary focus will be on the potential impact of emerging channels of communication (e.g. online journals, scholarly networks, multimedia repositories etc.) and the ways that these channels are being adopted and used by scholars from various disciplines.

The Internet has affected all industries and organizations whose primary product is information. And for most, the impact has been unsettling to say the least. For example, the music industry has been forced to adapt by adopting new business models like iTunes. Traditional print newspapers are failing across the country and these failures threaten the continued existence of the very journalistic practices that found them. There is much that we can learn from the challenges that these popular media have encountered. So far, resistance to technological changes and the ways that these new technologies have been adopted and used seems futile. Instead, embracing and molding these technologies to the purposes that suit the larger enterprise seem like a surer paths to future successes.

Our approach to this discussion is oriented around three primary topic areas presented by three different people: (1) I will talk about the definition of scholarship and its associated practices; (2) Mark will discuss the challenges new scholarly forms present to traditional publishing practices and access; (3) Ellen will close our presentation by discussing the challenges that these new scholarly forms present to both peer review processes and the evaluations performed by promotion and tenure committees. We will conclude by opening the floor for a brief discussion.

In order to engage in a discussion about where we are, or should be, going we must begin by looking backward. I’d like to set the table for this conversation by talking to you about the history and definition of scholarship. The definition we apply to this term affects all who immerse themselves in academic communities.

Richard Kennedy and his colleagues at the University of Arkansas define scholarship as:

“The creation, discovery, advancement, or transformation of knowledge. The fruits of such efforts are evidenced only when that knowledge is assessed for quality by peer review and made public. Thus, the defining elements of scholarship are originality, creativity, peer review and communication.”

At Alfred, our definition of scholarship is not nearly as specific. The Faculty Handbook at AU defines scholarship as “a consistent, sustained, and successful record of peer-reviewed activity, as appropriate to their School, College, or Library.”

One element is common to both definitions and that is the association of scholarship with peer-review, or put differently, scholarship’s governing process. In this light, we must recognize that we cannot separate scholarly oversight from scholarly outcomes. This inability also means that any definition scholarship is confined by the accepted definition of peer review.

Wikipedia (the source of all knowledge) says:

“Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field.”

This begs the question of how and when peer review processes actually occur. We usually think about the peer review process as a pre-publication practice even though peer review is really an evolutionary process involving pre-publication and post-publication stages. Historically promotion and tenure committees have focused on the pre-publication stage because capturing the post-publication commentary was highly selective and either impossible or extremely slow. However, today we can actually capture more of the post-publication level of review if we construct the channels in the proper ways (something we can readily accomplish) while maintaining the appropriate controls (a far stickier wicket).

Peer review has always been, and always will be, enveloped in a debate about control. On the one hand, it can be argued that high levels of control are necessary to maintain scholarly integrity. On the other, it can be argued that scholarly practice is, and should be, about spreading information widely and freely in order to provide a more diverse set of ideas for consideration and discussion. In the past, it has been easier to strike a balance between these two positions because the available channels for dissemination were fewer and more limited in terms of accessibility. As a result, these channels could be more easily controlled. But today, as you shall see, this is no longer the case.

A more accessible and open system begs the following question. What is the appropriate response to this degradation of channel control?

Mark recently attended a conference where the acceptability of new channels of scholarly communication was discussed. He recounted a statement made by a director of research at a major campus who said that he refuses to sit on editorial boards of online journals. The director says he fears that he will “lose the confidence and support and credibility of his faculty” if he goes down that road.

I’m not sold on the idea that refusing to acknowledge a channel of communication is the appropriate response. Refusals like this director’s are subversive efforts at maintaining control, but these responses will likely result in less control. As Ellen will mention later, one highly respected journal publisher–Nature–is embracing a tiered system of open access. By embracing some level of open access, Nature is more likely to maintain greater control of its information in the future. And, they will accomplish this by choosing to become part of the burgeoning system rather than lobbing criticisms from the sidelines or simply ignoring the changing technological landscape.

My main point is that all channels of communication possess scholarly potential and embracing these potentials is the surest way to institute the proper controls. Embrace, not disregard, will allow us preserve the most appropriate systemic components and processes that we have developed over time.

Do differences between channels mean that one channel is necessarily superior to another? The answer is simply no. What it does mean though is that every channel is different; therefore, contributors and readers need different skill sets to create and evaluate the messages that are contained within them.

Part of the problem in accepting an expansion of scholarly channels involves a predisposition to the printed and physically published word. Historically speaking, the printed word has a longer history and we tend to compare all new channels to established channels. Of course, books and journals provide some opportunities that audio and video do not, but the reverse is also true.

Steven Johnson explains our cultural bias toward the printed word by flipping the script and hypothetically wondering what we would say about books if videogames had come first. Johnson writes:

“Reading books chronically understimulates the senses. Unlike the longstanding tradition of gameplaying—which engages the child in a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images and soundscapes, navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements—books are simply a barren string of words on the page. Only a small portion of the brain devoted to processing written language is activated during reading, while games engage the full range of the sensory and motor cortices…

Books are tragically isolating…

These new ‘libraries’ that have arisen in recent years to facilitate reading activities are a frightening sight: dozens of young children, normally so vivacious and socially interactive, sitting alone in cubicles, reading silently, oblivious to their peers…

But perhaps the most dangerous property of these books is the fact that they follow a fixed linear path…For those of us raised on interactive narratives, this property may seem astonishing.

This risks instilling a general passivity in our children, making them feel as though they’re powerless to change their circumstances. Reading is not an active, participatory process; it’s a submissive one.” (excerpted from Johnson’s Everything Bad is Good For You p. 19-20)

Please realize that Johnson is not saying that the book is a lesser form than the videogame. In fact, this passage initially was delivered in book form. Instead, Johnson simply says these channels are different and possess different benefits and detriments. “Bad” channels do not exist; only bad messages do.

Transition: With this in mind, lets take a look at Catherine Braun and Kenneth Gilbert’s video entitled “This is Scholarship.” This video illustrates a number of new scholarly activities and should provide a solid foundation for Mark’s discussion.

The Future of Scholarship

The piece presented below is a working document that will form my portion of a panel discussion on the future of scholarship. The panel will take place in late-April as a part of Alfred University’s Bergren Forum series. I will be joined by two of AU’s librarians–Ellen Bahr and Mark Smith. I am open to any comments and suggestions as we prepare our presentation.

I would like to begin today with a broad claim.

All channels of communication possess scholarly potential.

The term channel is a basic component of any model of communication. In the simplest sense, communication involves the transmission of a message from a sender to receiver. The channel carries the message from the sender to receiver.

For example, right now I am using my voice as my primary channel of communication but within this presentation the voice will be supplemented with other mediated channels, like print, video, and audio.

Within our society, we tend to hold some channels in higher esteem than others. The legitimacy of a given channel is usually based its history and our perceptions of who controls the channel (e.g. professional versus amateurs).

For example, as a channel of communication printed academic journals have historically relied on the peer review process. Within this process, aspiring and established scholars compete for space within the journal by having a panel of other scholars (i.e. professionals) judge which pieces are most relevant and most groundbreaking. It is understood that almost everything between the covers of an academic journal is scholarly. The professional control of the journal establishes this fact.

In contrast, a channel of communication like YouTube is generally considered non-scholarly (i.e. amateur). Control of this channel is minimal and there are almost no barriers to having your work appear here. However, does this mean that YouTube does not house scholarly work?

The answer to this question is simple. No YouTube does, in fact, house scholarly materials.

Let’s take a quick look at this video by Kansas State anthropology professor Mike Wesch. Wesch describes his video this way, “This video explores the changes in the way we find, store, create, critique, and share information. This video was created as a conversation starter, and works especially well when brainstorming with people about the near future and the skills needed in order to harness, evaluate, and create information effectively.”

Dr. Wesch was honored as professor of the year for his innovative efforts. Of course, Wesch makes his work available through numerous channels and has not abandoned traditional forms of scholarship. Accepting new forms of scholarship does not suggest that traditional forms of scholarship should be abandoned. Instead, what I am suggesting is expanding the accepted forms of scholarship.

Part of the problem in accepting this proposed expansion involves a predisposition to the printed and physically published word. Historically speaking, the printed word has a longer history and we tend to compare all new channels to established channels. Of course, books and journals provide some opportunities that audio and video do not, but the reverse is also true.

Steven Johnson explains our cultural bias toward the printed word by flipping the script and hypothetically wondering what we would say about books if videogames had come first. Johnson writes:

“Reading books chronically understimulates the senses. Unlike the longstanding tradition of gameplaying—which engages the child in a vivid, three-dimensional world filled with moving images and soundscapes, navigated and controlled with complex muscular movements—books are simply a barren string of words on the page. Only a small portion of the brain devoted to processing written language is activated during reading, while games engage the full range of the sensory and motor cortices…

Books are tragically isolating…

These new ‘libraries’ that have arisen in recent years to facilitate reading activities are a frightening sight: dozens of young children, normally so vivacious and socially interactive, sitting alone in cubicles, reading silently, oblivious to their peers…

But perhaps the most dangerous property of these books is the fact that they follow a fixed linear path…For those of us raised on interactive narratives, this property may seem astonishing.

This risks instilling a general passivity in our children, making them feel as though they’re powerless to change their circumstances. Reading is not an active, participatory process; it’s a submissive one.” (excerpted from Johnson’s Everything Bad is Good For You p. 19-20)

Please realize that Johnson is not saying that the book is a lesser form than videogames. Instead, Johnson simply says they are different.

So what, you may ask?

Different channels possess different challenges and different opportunities. Because of this, different channels require different manners of evaluation and consideration. Learning to read words is not enough. We must learn to read channels. As Marshall McLuhan famously said, “The medium is the message.”

Do these differences mean that one channel is necessarily superior to another? Once again, the answer is simply no. It means that they are different and contributors and readers need different skill sets to create and evaluate the messages that are contained within these more open, or lesser controlled, channels.

This claim brings me back to the beginning and I’d like to briefly address control. As scholars, we are often criticized for existing within impenetrable Ivory Towers. We have controlled dissemination of and access to the knowledge that we possess. Knowledge is presumably our product and we shouldn’t just give it away—or should we?

In his book Here Comes Everybody Clay Shirky writes, “Professional self-conception and self-defense, so valuable in ordinary times, become a disadvantage in revolutionary ones, because professionals are always concerned with threats to the profession” (69).

It is my belief that the loss of control of knowledge should be embraced rather than feared. In its most basic sense, we should be in the business of spreading knowledge rather than controlling it. The opportunities presented by new forms of scholarship undoubtedly represent some loss of control, but they also offer new opportunities for scholars. For example, some of the potential advantages to web-based scholarly efforts include:

• The ability for scholars to communicate to larger and more diverse populations.
• The ability for larger and more diverse populations to communicate directly with scholars.
• Multiple access and entry points to our work.
• The ability to discuss timely issues in a more timely fashion.
• If properly archived, then this work is better preserved.
• Boundary-less collaborative opportunities (e.g. peer-to-peer review, wikis, collaborative blogs etc.).
• The opportunity to include multimedia elements when appropriate.
• The reduction of monetary costs often associated with producing and accessing academic knowledge.
• The ability to directly connect our work to the works of other scholars via hypertext linking, and for other scholars to connect their work to ours.
• An enhanced opportunity to promote the work that we do through tagging and RSS feeds.
• Individual scholarly works can exist dynamically rather than statically.

I realize that several of these “advantages” will present real challenges for promotion & tenure committees. However, it is in this environment that the communal pool of knowledge can grow exponentially deeper while spreading further and faster, but first we must fill that pool. In order to do this, we need to consider expanding the acceptable forms of scholarship.

Captain Kirk Mashup

A worthy expense of a few minutes.

A Portal to Media Literacy

An interesting take on the current state and future of education.

The problems we have in education are very similar to the problems that are plaguing other industries. Old models are simply not working in a “new” world.

Why teach our kids rote memorization skills when information is so readily at our fingertips? Why not teach more participation and less memorization?

Don’t get me wrong some level of memorization will always be necessary, but when most kids get precious little instruction on how to use the tools available to them then the gap in abilities grows wider and wider.

Now I’m biased as a media scholar, but we spend far too little time teaching kids to explore and critique the messages that they interact with most. If we embraced the technology available to us, instead of dismissed it as unimportant (e.g. TV, videogames, the web), then the lack of books and other materials would quickly become a non-issue because the content is already there just waiting to be tapped into with the proper connection and skill set.

FCC Opens Up Bandwidth–What Does This Mean?

The FCC announced last week that it will open up bandwidth in the current broadcast spectrum for Wi-Fi development and use.

Why does this matter? What does it mean?

Well, I have been kicking around the idea of adding an iPhone to my collection of gadgets. Ultimately, I decided not to do this. My decision was based largely on cost. Once I added everything up, my cable, Internet, home phone, and cell service combined could buy a modest home in some parts of the country. Now, let me begin by saying that because of the exclusive contract that Apple has with AT&T this FCC decision may not impact this particular device in the very near future. However, the FCC’s decision, which you can read about on ZDNet, will likely create more competition and more powerful wireless Internet service options. The reasons for this are largely detailed in the “Winners” and “Losers” section of the report that I’ve referenced above.

In the end, I like this decision by the FCC and look forward to better options that are more affordable. This decision also seems to support some of the contentions that have been circulating over the past decade. Many have predicted the death of desktop computing and the recent decision is a step in that direction because these mobile technologies that are likely to appear will provide an opportunity for a re-evauluation of the interface design, of which the IPhone is already deeply engaged. Simpler and more intuitive interfaces combined with users’ experimentation with these interfaces is likely to result in a variety of new appearances and uses. Take a look at this lengthy video from Google (one of ZDNet’s Winners in this decision):

I doubt that desktop and application-based computing will die anytime soon, but it is fair to say that all media shift toward portability as they develop. Books went to paperback styles that fit in pockets; radio added the transisitor and moved into cars; portable DVD players and handheld videogame devices made long car trips with the kids enjoyable; and the Internet is already in the hands of many users. In the end, I’m suggesting that folks sit back and see what happens next. The ripple effect of this decision, combined with technological development, adoption practices, and industrial strategies should make the next few years an exciting time to live, participate, and observe.

Remix Videos

Students in my Tech & Comm class at AU recently submitted their midterm projects. I asked the class to make use of some basic audio and video editing software (iMovie and Garageband) to create a remix video. Since the purpose of this project was to have the students familiarize themselves with these tools, they had quite a bit of leeway in respect to what they produced. The three submissions below illustrate the range of the students’ work (I’ve included a music video, a movie trailer, and short film with a social conscience).

I hope you enjoy their work. I did!

Video #1 – I Am Become Death by Lee Consolo, Katie Orchard & Trever Perkins

Video #2 – A Little Bit On Violence by Jason Vogel, Isaac Austin & Shiho Mizuno

Video #3 – The Dark Knight (1943) by Tom Fleming, Jeremy Juhasz & Nathan Weiser

Death on Facebook

Today, I became curious about what happens to accounts when Facebook members die. While I was trying to answer this question I happened across this video on YouTube:

Let me begin by suggesting that the choices made in video construction are often motivated by generic conventions and as such an understanding of the genre that the work is a part of is necessary to properly interpret the work.

In that respect, the creator of this work has successfully emulated the documentary style. The use of voice-over narration combined the moving still images that are so closely associated with Ken Burns’ work helps to create the “true story” aura that the piece relies on to be successful.

From here, the construction of the opening lines help establish another component that is present in most documentaries–the narrator quickly frames himself as an objective expert or insider. In this case, the narrator implicitly and explicitly claims to be both. He opens this piece by delivering some objective expert information (e.g. he knows the number of Facebook users who dies each day and what Facebook’s policy is when this occurs). From here, the video progresses and the now objective and capable narrator carries the viewers inside the story. We know he is an insider because he is able to guess his deceased friend’s password. By moving us to other side of Dan’s account and eventually into his house, we are shown the work that Anonymous has done to determine that his friend’s death was not accidental and was in fact the result of a femme fatale.

It is at this point that story takes its unexpected turn. Unlike most objective documentaries, this story takes a shift to the subjective. Here, we begin to sense that this is not just a story about what happens to a Facebook account when someone dies. Now the issue has become personal and only revenge will suffice. In other words, the cloak of the non-narrative style is lifted and narrative beneath is laid bare. In a sense, this is The Blair Witch Project for a YouTube generation.

In closing, I just thought this was interesting piece and in its simplicity it is beautiful–assuming that it’s not true. Have a Happy Halloween folks!

Update on Fair Use

I thought the readers of this blog might also be interested in this piece from the Center for Social Media.

I believe the contents of this article, particularly Point #5, pertain to my railing against the DMCA and NBC/Universal in the post below. Moreover, this article outlines the importance of limiting the power of copyright law while preserving the rights of the creators of these artworks. The fact of the matter is that the types of usage that I have engaged in and that other critics should  and do engage in generally enhance the market for the artworks we criticize. The blogosphere operates within the Law of Increasing Returns whereby the more frequently (potential) readers and viewers encounter an item the more familiar with that item these viewers become and this familiarity breeds acceptance. This is basically the business model the Grateful Dead used to become the most successful touring band of all time. In short, if free expression is not a good enough reason to open the gates a bit, then maybe recognizing the financial incentive for doing so will help.

The Chilling Effect of NBC, the DMCA, and YouTube

Let me begin this post by saying that I’m a little aggravated this week. Every week throughout this semester students in my TV Criticism class have engaged in blog-based discussions. Basically, I have emulated the In Media Res aspect of MediaCommons’ website in my class concept. This process gives students opportunities outside of the classroom to discuss scenes of programs we have watched in the classroom. In order to do this, each week a different student is charged with choosing a segment from the assigned episode, then I upload that segment to YouTube and import it into the blog space. The students gain an opportunity to learn through discussion and by emulating their peers’ approaches to analysis.

This past week, we watched an episode of House, M.D. called “Occam’s Razor” as part of a discussion of TV genre. As I have argued in another post, I believe House is basically a cleverly disguised detective show. In any event, I uploaded the short segment that my student had chosen and received the following email within hours of the upload (based on the YouTube copyright designated at the bottom of the message who knows if I’ll be charged with a copyright violation for posting this message, but I’ll take the risk):

Dear YouTube Member:

NBC Universal has claimed some or all visual content in your video House, M.D. – Occam’s Razor. This claim was made as part of the YouTube Content Identification program.

Your video is no longer available because NBC Universal has chosen to block it.

Claim Details:
Copyright owner: NBC Universal
Content claimed: Some or all of the visual content
Policy: Block this content.

Applies to these locations:
Everywhere

NBC Universal claimed this content as a part of the YouTube Content Identification program. YouTube allows partners to review YouTube videos for content to which they own the rights. Partners may use our automated video / audio matching system to identify their content, or they may manually review videos.

If you believe that this claim was made in error, or that you are otherwise authorized to use the content at issue, you can dispute this claim with NBC Universal and view other options in the Video ID Matches section of your YouTube account. Please note that YouTube does not mediate copyright disputes between YouTube owners. Learn more about video identification disputes.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Content Identification Team
Copyright © 2008 YouTube, Inc.

The problem that I have with this claim made by NBC Universal involves the purpose for which this clip was used. According to Stanford University’s Copyright & Fair Use description the following constitutes Fair Use of copyrighted material:

“If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work–for instance, writing a book review — fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

* quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
* summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
* copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
* copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. Additional examples of commentary or criticism are provided in the examples of fair use cases.”

Whenever, I upload copyrighted material to YouTube, which I have done on a semi-frequent basis, I always include the following disclaimer:

“This clip is being used for an academic critique and should fall under the fair use provisions of copyright law. Feel free to read the blog entry that uses this clip at aucommstudies.wordpress.com”

In essence, I believe based on the short period of time that elapsed between the upload of the file and its subsequent removal that I was captured in the web of an automated bot that searches YouTube in order to protect NBC’s ownership of property. It is practices like this that infringe upon the “fair” and proper uses of copyrighted material. As a society, our freedoms to engage in comment and criticism are more frequently hindered than you may expect. I encourage readers of this blog to take an active stance in any negotiation regarding the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and to recognize the ways that members of corporate America are attempting to control both the culture that they help to construct and corresponding discussions and critiques of that culture.

As for me, I have filed a counter request against NBC Universal and hope that the decision comes in my favor soon. In the meantime, this component of my course has been canceled for this week and my students’ voices have been summarily silenced, at least when it comes to House, M.D.

The problem that I have is a fundamental one because I firmly believe that knowledge should be freely and openly shared. To say that education must take place in private environments without the opportunity for external involvement seriously hinders the development of locales of collective intelligence and shared knowledge. We have become so litigious and so involved in attempting to control ideas and access to them that we are inadvertently hampering the development of new, and potentially important, ideas–even if they are about what some consider to be seemingly mundane topics. And, I find this a real shame. As Lawrence Lessig notes in his wonderful book Free Culture, we are quickly becoming a permission culture rather than a free culture and when we are compelled to ask permission to participate this hurts everyone. With this in mind Lessig writes, “The transaction costs buried within a permission culture are enough to bury a wide range of creativity” (193). Beyond creativity comes an even more disturbing result of the heavy-handed enforcement of copyright laws and that is the chilling effect that these laws are bringing to what should be free and open discussions, and in my case the ability to compel my students to participate within the blooming online media environment. I can argue my case for fair use, but this does not protect me or anyone else that big business deems a violator because as Lessig notes, “Fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend your write to create” (187). You see, copyright law is not a criminal, but is instead a civil law, which means that monetary damages could be sought and defending yourself in the face of these cases can be quite expensive. In essence, those with the cash understand the rules of the game and they are willing to spend us into submission. The system is broken and its flaws deserve close scrutiny. More importantly, awareness needs to be raised and we, as a society, must not allow these demands to go unchallenged.

Negotiating Laughter: Two and a Half Men and the Negotiation of Masculinity

As the show’s title and theme song state explicitly, Two and a Half Men (T&HM) is primarily about men and masculinity. T&HM negotiates masculinity against several, and sometimes conflicting, backdrops. These backdrops include the show’s largely conventional style, the spectrum of masculinity created by the two lead characters and the actors who portray them, the oppositions created between the male and female characters, and the simultaneous acceptance of and rejection of homosexuality. Like any television program, T&HM plays this negotiation out against the larger backdrop that is American culture and, in my humble opinion, this culture is one that has undergone several dramatic shifts in recent years. Through this program we can recognize America’s discursive past, present, and future, which on the surface might appear to be nothing more than another male dominated sitcom. After all, this show does bare a striking resemblance to the 1970s sitcom success The Odd Couple. However, The Odd Couple was forced to perform some levels of its negotiation within the confines of a metaphorical closet whereas T&HM is able to centralize many its questions. Before undertaking a close analysis of the program’s key questions it seems prudent to first identify the televisual landscape in which these questions are negotiated.

T&HM appears, on the surface, to be nothing more than a conventional domestic sitcom. After all, the program is shot in multi-camera mode and incorporates the ever-present laugh track for a conventional sound styling. These stylistic choices occur at a time when the sitcom genre has shifted toward a preference for a more flexible, and arguably complex, style based on the single-camera mode of production. For example, shows like My Name is Earl, Malcolm in the Middle, The Office, and Scrubs have all violated generic convention by choosing not to use laugh tracks and choosing to rely on videographic techniques that exemplify the single-camera mode of production; T&HM is not one of this new breed of sitcoms.

In addition to T&HM sounding and appearing like sitcoms of the past, the show also relies on viewers’ acceptances of the discursive norms presented throughout the history of the genre (i.e. the male-dominated family unit). Despite the use of conventional style and the program’s reliance on seemingly dominant discourses, the show still raises some serious questions for viewers. In much the same way that Will & Grace asked viewers to question what it meant to be a gay, middle-aged, white man in America, T&HM begs viewers to question what it means to be a heterosexual one. In short, the program asks viewers to draw distinctions within the social class that historically has embodied the group recognized as the dominant class in American culture. As such, this class and its singular definition of acceptability have often been viewed through a lens of normalcy. The adoption of a conventional style reaffirms this sense of normalcy; if it looks and sounds normal, then it must be normal, right? However, T&HM recognizes that even the white, heterosexual male is a nuanced cultural construction. With this in mind, the program asks viewers to question the acceptance and construction of this norm. The program begs this question primarily through its construction of the show’s five familial characters (Charlie, Alan, Jake, Judith, and Evelyn).

T&HM aired its pilot episode in September of 2003. In the pilot, viewers are introduced to the primary characters and their backstories. The show opens with Charlie about engage in intercourse with a beautiful and scantily clad young woman. The phone rings and interrupts his sexual progress. The call is answered by his machine and we hear a woman ranting about Charlie’s piggish behavior. This call tells viewers from the beginning that Charlie is a womanizer. This notion is reinforced further by the viewers’ foreknowledge of the actor, Charlie Sheen, who has experienced very public bouts with both substances and women. The lines between the historical (real) and televisual (fictionalized) worlds are further blurred by the character and actor sharing a first name. After Charlie explains away the first phone call, the phone rings a second time. This time it is Charlie’s brother, Alan. Alan tells Charlie that he and his wife have separated and he needs a place to stay. Charlie agrees to provide Alan with a room. The sibling relationship of these two characters prompts viewers to assume that some similarities will exist between the two characters; however, no assumption could be more inaccurate.

Alan, unlike Charlie, has been a devoted husband and is the father to one son, Jake. In short, Alan is a family man. Alan is also nerdy (he is a chiropractor after all), hen-pecked, effeminate, emotional, hardworking, penny-pinching, anal-retentive, and played by the diminutive actor Jon Cryer. Ultimately, the characters these actors portray represent opposite ends of the masculinity continuum. Charlie is the alpha male and Alan is the Hansian and Franzian “girly man” (see 1990s SNL). The center of this continuum is where Jake, Alan’s son, is situated. In the pilot episode, viewers learn that Jake will spend considerable time in Charlie’s house with his father and uncle. In this house, Jake will see his father struggle to cope with his life’s failures or perceived shortcomings, but he will also see his father consistently and positively reinforce the importance of some characteristics that many Americans would consider to be feminine, like family devotion. In this house, Jake will also see his uncle treat everything around him as if it were placed there simply for his pleasure. In addition to being a womanizer, the character of Charlie is a gambler, drinker, partier, composer of knock-off ad jingles, and ultimately the pure embodiment of the privileged, white male. Everything comes too easily and too readily for Charlie (including the hangovers). Jake is the impressionable boy. He is Alan’s only child. Jake is not academically-gifted, but he is far more aware than his father gives him credit for being. Viewers are positioned by the pilot to observe which lessons Jake learns from each of his male role models. Whether or not Jake will become a man is not one of this program’s overarching questions, because undoubtedly the boy will grow into a man. Instead, the question that should be asked about this program is: What kind of man will Jake become?

Feminist criticism has taught us that there is a distinction to be made between sex and gender. Sex is physiological; it is largely defined by what does or does not hang between your legs. In contrast, gender is understood as a cultural construction. Gender begs questions like: How should a man behave? Are “girly men” real men? To reference Seinfeld, can a man be neat and single and not gay? Questions of sex are largely uninteresting, but questions of gender require cultural awareness, personal reflection and inspection, and an understanding that nothing is ever truly “normal.” In other words, some things are so common in our worlds that they appear normal, but in fact this normalcy is illusory. T&HM centralizes questions concerning the normalcy of manliness.

It would be remiss to undertake this discussion without acknowledging at least two of T&HM’s female characters in more detail: Judith and Evelyn. In the pilot, Judith has left Alan to explore her sexual identity. Judith’s questioning of her sexuality tells viewers that the creators of this program are fully aware of the ideological negotiation that they are undertaking through this program. Judith’s introspective question of sexual identity should be read as a cue for viewers to ask the same question of the other characters in the show. And in various episodes, this question is explicitly asked of almost every character, with Jake a as notable exception. The creators of this male dominated sitcom do not shy away from questions of sexual orientation and this topic becomes part of the negotiation of masculinity and femininity, although there is no indication that sexual preference is necessarily a defining characteristic of a masculine man or a feminine woman. In this respect, homosexuality is normalized within T&HM even though viewers are asked to question the normalization of gendered identities.

One of the ways that the program asks viewers to understand masculinity is to develop a keen awareness of non-stereotypical woman. In this respect, Judith’s character is constructed with several stereotypically masculine traits. She is characterized as dominating, demanding, overbearing, vocal, and generally inflexible; she is the boss of her household and has obviously displaced Alan from that stereotypically male familial position. In order to re-emphasize these traits, Judith eventually returns to her heterosexual roots and becomes engaged to another man, which illustrates for viewers that Judith’s dominance is not relegated only to her relationship with Alan since she also occupies the alpha position in this new relationship. This domination is exemplified in a fourth season episode entitled “Don’t Worry, Speed Racer.” In this episode, Jake endures the unfortunate problem of overhearing his mother and her fiancé having sex. Apparently, Jake has been unable to sleep due to the volume at which Judith provides her lover step-by-step instructions to help maximize her pleasure. For viewers, this characterization reinforces the ideas that Jake has witnessed his father’s emasculation and domination by his mother during his most formative years. So unlike Charlie’s overt conquests of women, Alan has been ruled by the opposite sex. Arguably, Alan is the most stereotypically feminine character in the show. This characterization is further reinforced by the presence of Evelyn, Charlie and Alan’s mother.

Evelyn shows viewers that both of her sons had experienced female domination in their lives. It seems logical to assume that Charlie in the mirror image of his mother, while it is likely that Alan depicts his deceased father’s role in life. Charlie has become his mother, while Alan simply married her image. Despite their apparent similarities, or maybe because of them, Charlie and Evelyn often express an open disdain and lack of respect for one another. In many respects, Charlie and Evelyn are constantly battling to control the alpha position in the show; a battle Evelyn generally wins. In contrast to Charlie’s relationship with his mother, Alan represents the more dutiful son. He is always, although begrudgingly, there when his mother calls, which is rare. Yet, Evelyn seems to respect Charlie and considers Alan weak. Of course, this is another set of relationships that Jake is in prime position to witness. Moreover, this is another set of relationships that viewers are in a prime position to witness. Developing an awareness of the negotiation that is occurring before them will likely add another level of viewing enjoyment to the program.

In the end, T&HM provides no clear definition of a real man. More importantly, the program should not provide this definition because a proper definition does not exist. The pleasure of this program involves the negotiation itself and the questions are far more interesting than the answers. The negotiation of the white, heterosexual man in T&HM shows viewers that these men are prone to stereotypes and overgeneralizations, but because this group has occupied a privileged position in American society for so long a singular understanding of masculinity seems normal. T&HM provides an open window into the world of men by recognizing that trying to determine whom the “manly men” are is not a simple question with a singular answer. More importantly, our understandings of men are directly influenced by our understandings of women. In an age of ass kicking women on television (e.g. Battlestar Galactica’s Starbuck or Bionic Woman’s Jamie Sommers among others), T&HM recognizes that more and more frequently men are learning to become men by observing and interacting with women. In this respect, this program has as much to do with developing a recognition and acceptance of powerful women as it does with determining and defining the characteristics of “Men, Men, Men, Men, Manly Men, Men, Men.”