Gerbner's cultivation theory

Cultivation theory examines the long-term effects of television. This theory states that the more time people spend 'living' in the television world, the more likely they are to believe social reality portrayed on television. In this sense, perceptions of the world are heavily influenced by the images and ideological messages transmitted through popular television media. For example, if someone were to watch heavily crime themed TV shows, then they may become far more suspicious and wary of strangers than they need to be. This is because they will have become accustomed to the fact that even the slightest unusual behaviour from something unknown means they are under threat. The term for this is 'Mean World Syndrome' which describes how people have began to expect the worse from reality, based on the television they are watching.

This displays how youths are always the victims of being involved within crime throughout various media platforms. As others watch this widely negative perception of youths on television, they begin to believe that every teenager they come across must be dangerous or a threat to them. Therefore, the representation of youth has become damaged through the now pessimistic view that is displayed upon teenagers. This is as they have automatically been given a bad name, without considering what they might actually be like. Moreover, many programmes have 'indoctrinated' the public into placing the blame onto teens as they are seen as an easy target with the negative view of them already perceived by the public. This effectively pushes out the idea that some teens may be normal and not the 'monsters' that they media make them appear to be.

Moreover, Gerbner identifies two assumptions which highlight the functionality of the Cultivation theory. The first is that 'television is fundamentally different from other forms of mass media''. This means that as television is visual and auditory, it therefore does not require for viewers to be literate. With television also being free, there are no limitations to who can watch it and therefore comprehend the contents that are being emitted. The second is that 'television shapes the way individuals within society think and relate to each other'. This means that the realities created by television are not based on real facts but on speculations. Gerbner asserts that television's major cultural function is to stabilize social patterns and to cultivate resistance to change. Therefore, Cultivation theory doesn't predict what we will do after watching a violent program, but rather harbors an innate worry and fear of a violence-filled world after being exposed to violent programming.

By looking at this theory we are able to tell that the representation of youths is closely linked to what we see on television. In this sense, people's perceptions on representations depends on what has been shown on the television. Gerbner argues this through describing how watching television doesn't cause a particular behaviour, but instead watching television over time adds to our perception of the world around us. Therefore, youth culture films victimize teenagers by always perceiving them as the 'bad guy' or 'monster'. This builds a negative image of youths in the public's mind and unconsciously makes them cautious of teenagers when they do not need to be.

Greg Philo's theory

Greg Philo argues that contemporary 'hoodie cinema' reflects middle class anxiety about the threat of the working class. His theory identifies how the increase in 'hoodie cinema' is due to the fear that the new youth culture in our society represents. For example, in previous action/horror movies the 'bad guy' would usually consist of some kind of creature/monster/murderer. While recently in cinema, we have seen the 'bad guy' of the film switch to a group of teenagers in hoodies. This may be due to the present rise in the threat of new youth culture which has been developed and shaped by the media to the stereotype teenagers as 'monsters', therefore explaining why they are being pinned as those in movies.

This shows that anyone under middle class is inserted into this 'hoodie cinema' , which basically sums up that in all films that if you are not middle class then you are a thug in a hoodie. The media has represented youths like this in order to encourage and persuade the older generation to feel threatened and afraid of teenagers as they are 'dangerous'. Moreover, this exploitation of youths in 'hoodie cinema' aid to the prejudice that they encounter throughout the media and within adult opinions of them. This is as adults are led to believe what they are shown, and so only see teenagers as the violent, destructive image they have been given instead of the good, hard-working side of youths which is not displayed by the media.

An effect is also made on working class youths, as by everyone else they would be seen as thugs and upper class people would be more threatened of them. Also, it would be harder for them to make something of their life if they believe that they will always be linked with the 'hoodie cinema' idea. In this sense, working class youths are being victimised as even if they want to focus on getting a good job/education, they will always be associated with 'hoodie cinema' and stereotyped as trouble, due to the media's preconceptions of youths. Moreover, this expresses the extremely strong influence that the media has on the public as they have completely built up a negative image of youth culture which the older generation have bought into without a second thought.

By looking at this theory, we are able to tell that the media link social classes with strong stereotypes. The middle class is shown as being the ideal person while anyone lower than this is seen as being a hooligan. Philo describes them as a long term excluded class, simply not needed, who often take control of their communities through aggression or running their alternative economy, based on things like drug-dealing or protection rackets. Furthermore, Philo also believes how the culture of violence is real, but for the British media, destructive youth culture is simply due to bad upbringing or just evil children.

Cohen's theory

Albert Cohen is known for his sub-cultural theory of delinquent urban gangs, including his influential book 'Delinquent Boys: Culture of the Gang'. Cohen wrote about delinquent gangs and suggested in his theoretical discussion how such gangs attempted to 'replace' society's common norms and values with their own sub-cultures. He achieved this through his study of the media's response to the mods and rockers riots in the 1960's.

Cohen suggests through his theory that a 'moral panic' occurred when these contrasting youth groups developed in society. This 'moral panic' is an exaggerated fear or outrage by the media over an issue that has been blown out of proportion by the media in the first place. These become issues of public concern, about the behaviour of certain groups of people who are seen as a threat to the moral order and stability in society. From this, Cohen argues that 'folk devils' emerged in society to reflect the anxieties running through people at the time. These 'folk devils' are groups targeted by a moral panic and are seen by the media as evil or deviant and a threat to the moral well being of society. In terms of the youth groups at the time, this was the 'mods' and 'rocker's.

The effect of the moral panic is to reinforce hegemony by the media making it clear what values society do not accept. This was enforced through the media exploiting and victimizing this new youth culture which they simply do not understand. With the media representing 'mods' and 'rockers' as monsters, it was believed it would make them realize how they were being rejected by society and therefore would lead to them changing their ways. This shows that when youths try to express themselves in a way that adults have not seen before they try to stop it by showing it as a negative aspect.

Therefore, this would effect the representation of youths as it shows that they are not allowed to express themselves within a different way that society does not see as acceptable. This places a more negative effect on the youths as everything they do out of the 'norm' of society, is seen as bad. From this stereotype of the new youth culture being seen as 'monstrous', the older generation are simply bypassing and dismissing any chance that the new views of teenagers could benefit them further than what society believes they should behave like. In this sense, any good from youths is rejected by the media as they want to create a violent and destructive image of teenagers rather than displaying how some of them are actually good.

By looking at this theory, we are able to see that the media places the blame onto the youths as they see them as an easy target. This causes the moral panic cycle to happen in order to stamp down hard onto anything that youths try to do that is out of the 'norm'. Therefore, the media's response and representation of the new youth's behaviour actually helps to define, communicate and portrays it as a model for outsiders to observe and adopt. So, the moral panic by society represented in the media arguably fuels further socially unacceptable behaviour.

Hebdige's theory

Dick Hebdige focuses on Britain's postwar youth subculture styles as symbolic forms of resistance and wrote the book 'Subculture: The Meaning of Style' in 1979. He draws from Marxist theorists, literary critics, French structuralists and American sociologists to present a model for analyzing youth subcultures. Hebdige argues that each subculture undergoes the same direction, while outlining the individual style differences of specific subcultures. Hebdige emphasizes the historical, class, race and social/economic conditions that surrounded the formation of each subculture.

Hebdige also argues that the representation of youth is very limited. This is due to the fact he believes that youths are either shown as 'trouble' or 'fun' with no in-between. In this sense, he is suggesting that teenagers are either the violent, drug-dealing monsters they are stereo-typically portrayed as, or simply silly, harmless youths who think they are already adults. This represents the dramatic effect on youths, due to them either being shown in the two different ways of being trouble or having fun in the media. It suggests that we never get to see the good and hard working teens of society who just fade into the background, as they are seen as boring by by the media.

In Hebdige's book, 'Subculture: Them Meaning of Style', he describes how members of the working class encounter daily hardships and alienation from the ruling hegemony. Younger generations are reluctant to suffer what their parents go through without protest and so they develop distinct styles and practices which manifest their separate identity, condition and subversion. The media discovers the subculture with a reaction that is typically moral panic. The subculture expands while in the process losing its rebellious edge either by turning into another commercial consumer product before the mainstream hegemony can return to its peaceful, un-threatened state.

By looking at this theory we are able to see that the media in society tends to ignore the good and hard working to instead focus on the 'fun' and 'trouble'. Therefore, this makes adults believe that all youths behave in this manner and confirms the stereotype already put across by the media. Furthermore, this makes it seem as though youths are either extremely bad or extremely good with no in-between for the normal teenagers that are never mentioned by the media. The media only display the violent and 'monstrous' side of youth in order to build up this view that they are to blame for issues that are actually caused by adults. Fundamentally, this means that if the media were to express how there are actually goo and normal youths, then they would be challenging their own stereotype.