To refer to this article use this url: http://www.quotidian.nl/vol01/nr01/a04
Theoretical framework
Ethnicity is not measured in official Belgian statistics, but about fifteen percent of the population is of foreign origin and many of those are European (data for 2004 in Algemene Directie Werkgelegenheid en Arbeidsmarkt 2008). Many non-European ethnic minority members are second-generation children of labour migrants. For long, at least their parents have thought about their migration as a temporary state, which partly explains their limited integration into Belgian society. Of course, part of the story is also the ethnocentrism and latent racism in Belgian society, which overall was less than welcoming towards non-European immigrants, despite the official politics of multiculturalism (Loobuyck and Jacobs 2006). The Moroccan and Turkish communities are mostly singled out as problem groups in terms of social and economic integration: they form strong, geographically concentrated communities with high unemployment and poverty. Culturally and religiously, since 9/11 the Islam is also perceived as a divisive force, although the international events have also had a positive effect in drastically pulling attention to the problems of ethnic minorities.
During the past decade, ethnic minority media use has been increasingly studied in the ‘Low Countries’, Belgium and the Netherlands. For instance, Devroe, Driesen and Saeys (2005) studied media ownership and use among youngsters of Moroccan and Turkish descent, the largest non-European ethnic groups in Belgium.[1] They concluded that these have equal access to television as Flemish youth, so media ownership is not a factor of social inequality between ethnic majority and minorities. Devroe et al. (ibid.) did note differences between both ethnic minority groups, e.g. the Turkish more often preferring their ‘own’ (Turkish) media, but overall other socio-demographic variables such as gender and level of education have a larger impact than cultural differences. d’Haenens et al. (2004) also found differences between Dutch and Flemish youngsters of Turkish and Moroccan descent, distinguishing between ‘homelanders’, ‘adapters’ and ‘omnivores’, depending on the preference for Turkish/Moroccan media, Dutch-language media, or both. For television viewing, they found that a majority (61%) of Turkish youngsters are omnivores, whereas Moroccans are often adapters (47%). Finally, Sinardet and Mortelmans (2006) conducted a large-scale survey on the media use of ethnic minority (Turkish and Moroccan) youth, concluding that the level and type of education was more influential than ethnicity towards channel preference. Overall, they found little interest in ‘ethnic’ media, with the exception – again – of Turkish viewers.
While laudable in its attention to an important factor of social division, this quantitative research on ethnic minorities illustrates a number of problems within the field. Most frequently, research only considers the largest groups of non-European migrants (Turkish and/or Moroccan), which reduces the spectrum of ethnic diversity. Moreover, although most research finds differences between viewers of Turkish and Moroccan descent, there is a tendency to lump them together under the overarching term ‘allochthonous’. Finally, the division in ethnic groups assumes a homogeneity within these groups, which tends to essentialise ethnicity and cultural identity. In her qualitative interview-based research on Turkish media use in the Netherlands, Ogan (2001) warns against this tendency, noting how diasporic identities are varied and in constant flux.
Protest against strong boundaries between fixed and unified communities is also the general tendency in recent international research on ethnic minority and diasporic media use. The belief in primordial ethnicity is criticised as a new form of racism (Cottle 2000, 5) and a model of ‘intersectionality’ (Lind 2004a) of multiple subject positions and complex, multi-layered reading positions is proposed (Cottle 2000, 26; see also Harindranath 2000; Tufte 2001). Researchers comment on the diversity of diasporic experiences and the fluidity of ethnic identities (Ross and Playdon 2001), warning against reification of ethnic communities and considering ethnicity not as a property but as a process (Tsagarousianou 2001). Most recent research starts from the assumption of multiple axes of identification, among others ethnicity, which can be activated in certain contexts (Gillespie 2007). The challenge for empirical research, then, is to study ethnic diversity while not fixing or essentialising it, thus replicating or even magnifying existing binary oppositions.
Another drawback of current Flemish research is the limited attention to TV entertainment, in particular fiction, even though this is a key genre in the everyday media use of audiences. While there is some interest in representations of ethnicity in fiction (see below), audience responses of different ethnic groups are hardly studied. Internationally, this field gets more attention, for instance in the literature on the cross-cultural reception of TV fiction. In their seminal study on Dallas, using focus groups representing different ethnicities Liebes and Katz (1990) did find different readings– although, with Harindranath (2005) we can question the assumed homogeneity and fixity within these ethnic groups. Gillespie’s (1995) in-depth ethnographic study among young Punjabi Londoners is more attuned to the subtleties of ethnic identity formation and hybridity. Even though she avoids ethnic determinism, she has to conclude that ethnicity is a key factor in these young peoples’ engagement with popular media texts such as Neighbours. While these studies focus on differences linked to ethnicity, it is important also to note similarities. For instance, across nations and ethnic groups, audiences share ‘global’ (often American) popular culture. For young audiences, this is often an important shared point of reference, more so than any local culture, as found among immigrants in Israel (Elias and Lemish 2008), Denmark (Tufte 2001) and Belgium (Dhoest 2009).
While imported fiction is often a shared point of reference, domestic fiction is generally more popular, certainly for ethnic majority audiences. Straubhaar (1991, 2007) introduced the notion of ‘cultural proximity’ as a factor explaining the preference for television that is ‘nearer’ to one’s own everyday world, be that local, national, regional or cultural-linguistic. American fiction is generally a shared second, but at least across Europe domestic fiction generally performs much better (Silj 1988; Biltereyst 1992; Buonanno 2008). Comparing the reception of American and Flemish fiction, Biltereyst (1991) found a stronger referential involvement of Flemish viewers with domestic fiction, which they more strongly linked to their own world and thus became more personally involved with. Extending the analysis to include race and ethnicity, in South-Africa Larry Strelitz (2002) found a higher preference for local drama among black students as opposed to white students who preferred imported fiction. This makes one wonder how ethnic minority viewers in Flanders would look upon the generally preferred ‘domestic’ material.
Internationally, some research has been done in this area, mostly with young viewers. The overall claim of this research concerns the importance of TV fiction, in particular soaps, in the formation of identities. Soaps constitute a frame of reference for the active formation of complex, hybrid identities. At the same time, ethnic minority youngsters are generally dissatisfied with the representation of their ethnic groups in domestic fiction, commenting above all on their marginal and racialised roles (Barker 1999, 118-30; Ross 2001; de Bruin 2005; de Leeuw 2005). Bauwens (1996) studied the reception of a Flemish sitcom by Turkish women and found they primarily read it referentially, comparing it to their own world. They often distanced themselves from it, but they could also identify with fundamental commonalities. This finding, again, cautions against one-sided attention to differences in reading between ethnic communities.
While in Europe, ethnic minority viewers generally do not have access to their ‘own’ mainstream media, in the US popular culture is more mixed, TV fiction offering many black characters and even all-black series. Research shows that black viewers tend to prefer these programs, searching characters which support their social identity (Edwards 2001; Abrams and Giles 2007). In line with the abovementioned model of multiple intersectional identities becoming salient in certain contexts, black identity becomes more salient in the confrontation with representations of blacks, also making these viewers more alert to and critical of negative portrayals (Fujioka 2005). Similarly, Lind (2004b) comments on the importance of ‘relevance’ in the interpretation of images resonating with the cultural and racial experiences of audiences. As indicated by social psychologist Simon (2004, 101), members of minorities are generally more likely to base their self-interpretation on minority membership, which becomes more easily salient.
Building on these insights, this article hopes to make a relevant contribution to the field in two crucial respects. First, by questioning ethnic essentialism and using a model of multiple intersectional identities, this paper hopes to enrich the current insights into Flemish ethnic minority media use and reception. Second, by studying fiction (both domestic and imported) and by looking at its reception by both ethnic majority and minority viewers, this paper hopes to contribute to Flemish studies on media and ethnicity, also entering into dialogue with the international insights mentioned above, in particular Straubhaar’s notion of cultural proximity.