The contradiction arises from the opposing interpretation of these two videos, particularly 'Material Girl', which is that Madonna is in fact endorsing materialism, something for which she was originally criticised for doing by the media. According to Schwichtenberg (1993) "the discourses activated by the text of the Material Girl video are complex and contradictory", paralleling Kellner's opinion. Although the video depicts a strong, independent woman who places no value on wealth and who displays a tongue-in-cheek attitude to such a lifestyle, she is manipulated by the male character into thinking he is the opposite of what he appears to be. So, on one hand Madonna appears to be anti-materialist and upholding feminism views of being self-sufficient, whilst on the other hand she acquires both the man and his wealth without having actively sought them. In such a way, Madonna is cleverly seen not to be endorsing bourgeois ideology whilst acquiring both wealth and love. Cleverly, Madonna created videos that attracted attention to her imagery through the use of fashion and her sexual appeal that could be read on different levels depending upon the individual viewpoint.
The interpretation of how consumers read meaning into Madonna’s work is looked at by Kellner (1995) and John Fiske (1987 and 1989), who each suggest an alternative view. Kellner is suggesting Madonna's work can be read on multiple levels allowing consumers to receive and interpret her representations in very different ways. In this way Madonna is able to employ "highly successful marketing moves that endeared her to large and varied youth audiences" (Kellner 1995). Kellner is inferring that the audience cannot be viewed as 'cultural dopes' whereby the audience is "manipulated at will and against their own interests by the moguls of the culture industry" (Fiske 1987) which is explained by Michael Real (Exploring Media Culture 1996), who says "Madonna's text is appropriated by the reader/viewer/listener as a meaningful discourse and is meaningfully decoded". Kellner acknowledges the importance of the audience being active in terms of their individual schema which allows a person to equate their own personal experiences and therefore to find them mirrored in Madonna's work. For example, young women are empowered by Madonna to be in control of their own destiny and being able to 'have it all' in terms of love and money, whilst she also invites the possibility of interracial relationships and therefore appeals to an wider audience than just the white community. Fiske (1987), in contrast, argues that people can be expected to react in certain ways and that these responses are predictable based upon general assumptions about their group. In such a way Madonna is able to 'hail' (attract) certain types of people with certain messages and images. For example, Madonna is able to attract males who would not otherwise be interested in her work by presenting herself as a sexually overt female, whereas she 'hails' young women because of her continually changing image in terms of new fashion, which calls into question whether Madonna is in fact an “agent of patriarchal hegemony” (Fiske 1987). In his In 1989 Fiske wrote again on the subject of Madonna in his book ‘Reading the Popular’ stating that he sees Madonna as a "site of semiotic struggle between the forces of patriarchal control and feminine resistance, of capitalism and the subordinate, of the adult and the young". Therefore, it can been seen that both Kellner and Fiske are supporting the idea that Madonna is counter-hegemonic but at the same time offers contradictions in regard to the interpretation of her work.
In his article Kellner writes that Madonna has "helped bring marginal groups and concerns into the mainstream" but that there have been strong arguments against this, notably by bell hooks a black feminist who writes in her article ‘Madonna: Plantation Mistress or Soul Sister’ () "… the image Madonna most exploits is that of the quintessential "white girl." To maintain that image she must always position herself as an outsider in relation to black culture. It is that position of outsider that enables her to colonise and appropriate black experience for her own opportunistic ends even as she attempts to mask her acts of racist aggression as affirmation." hooks is implying that Madonna favours the "blonde look" over her natural dark hair and is therefore using black culture to further her own ambitions rather than attacking racial issues. In 'Deconstructing Madonna' (Lloyd 1993) Andrew O'Hagan discusses one of Madonna's most controversial videos, 'Like a Prayer' which "fuses religion and eroticism" (Kellner 1995) showing Madonna dancing very provocatively in front of burning crucifixes and involving images of the Ku Klux Klan. O’Hagan points out that this resulted in Madonna being paid five million dollars by Pepsi to reproduce her work in advertisement form, which in turn helped in making her single to the Number One spot in the pop charts. In this vein, it could be argued that whilst 'Like a Prayer' is promoting and empowering black people in popular culture, it is more the case that Madonna is mixing together race, religion and sexuality in order to achieve her own ends in maintaining her icon status. Equally, Madonna has been criticised for her 'Vogue' video where she appropriates a form of dancing found in gay clubbing scenes. The question is whether Madonna is promoting open acceptance of the gay lifestyle in homophobic America, or using it to sell more of her music?
Kellner also looks at the meaning behind the 1989 'Express Yourself' video, writing that Madonna "produces a highly complex modernist text that plays with issues of gender, sexuality, and class". Based upon Fritz Lang's Metropolis this video uses a futuristic setting with a blonde Madonna appears to be observing the world, and contrasts the "differences between capital and labor, and men and women" (Kellner 1995). Kellner notes that this video holds many representations of women from a patriarchal stance producing offensive images, particularly to the feminist quarter, most notable being the scene in which Madonna is in bondage and being observed by a man in power wearing a monocle. Schwichtenberg (1993) comments that this video "would suggest vulnerability and victimization" yet "she appears to be enjoying herself" on the basis that she looks directly into the camera. Therefore, is can be argued that Madonna, who is depicting a scene in which she is the subject of voyeurism, is in fact showing her enjoyment and pleasure at being looked at and therefore is not a victim but instead is very much in control, suggesting that women are free to enjoy a diverse range of sexual practices. The problem with this being, from a patriarchal viewpoint, that women are in fact in control of their sexuality and if they are controlling the situation then this is an attack on male dominance. At another stage in the video, Madonna herself dons a male suit, sports a monocle and is seen to be grabbing her crotch (a la Michael Jackson). The interpretation being gender is a social construction, and therefore "puts on display the artificiality of images of gender and that individuals can choose their own images and self-constructions". Kellner goes on to say that Madonna undercuts "her own feminism by displaying herself in traditional fetishized images of women…” However, based upon the alternative reading of 'Express Yourself' Kellner maybe missing the point and that in fact Madonna is manipulating sexual fantasy whilst saying that women can be in control and powerful even when appearing to be subordinated.
In conclusion, Kellner's offers article a comprehensive look at the Madonna phenomenon, looking at different interpretations into the meaning of Madonna's work from alternative angles. As well as the above, Kellner raises several times this subject of a marketing strategy and whether Madonna is to be seen as a revolutionary icon who drives forward a counter-hegemonic position, or whether she is to be categorised as a clever business woman who draws on subcultures to further her own ambitions. In a comment made by Robert Hughes in 1997 in Time magazine () asks whether Madonna "explodes the established order of power, undermines capitalist constructions and rejects core bourgeois epistemes … would certainly be news to my own employers at Time/Warner who recently paid Madonna $60,000,000 for the rights to her work. Some rejection". Clearly a very strong statement in regard to whether she is a leader in terms of attacking dominant groups and prejudices, or if she should in fact be seen as a highly successful pop star who cleverly manipulates her own image and sexual appeal in order to maintain her fan base. In line with Kellner’s article, the Madonna phenomenon is clearly a site of great controversy and of many contradictions and one which remains open to much interest and debate.
References:
Fiske on Madonna at … (accessed 17 November 2003)
Newitz, A., Madonna's Revenge Bad Subjects website at (accessed 19 November 2003)
hooks, b., Madonna: Plantation Mistress or Soul Sister. Accessed via on 17 November 2003
Fiske, J., (1987) "British Cultural Studies". In Allen, R., (ed.), Channels of Discourse. Methuen & Co. Ltd, London.
Fiske, J., (1989) Reading the Popular. Routledge, London/New York.
Kellner, D., (1995) Media Culture Routledge London.
Lloyd, F., (1993) Deconstructing Madonna. B.T. Batsford Ltd, London.
O'Hagan, A., (1993) "Blonde Ambition and the American Way". In Lloyd, F., (ed.) Deconstructing Madonna. B.T. Batsford Ltd, London.
Real, M., R. (1996) Exploring Media Culture Sage Publications, Inc. California United States of America.
Schwichtenberg, C., (1993) The Madonna Connections. Westview Press, Inc. United States of America.
? Add - is Madonna a revolutionary transgressor of social control or merely a overtly sexual women who cleverly manipulates her audience on the basis of her depicting what can be obtained through hard work and …
Move to definition of cultural dopes
