Critiquing Cultivation
Cultivation theory proposes that, over time, heavy users of media/television develop or cultivate views of the world similar to what they see on television/media.
The “Anti-Authoritarian Politics of Harry Potter” video proposes that the films (or books) potentially cultivate a “skepticism of authority.” It could be argued that, conversely, shows such as The Walking Dead, which place an emphasis on the need for strong, central authority figures, potentially cultivate a pro-authoritarian world view. This is one of the interesting things about media content; sometimes it is the subtext, rather than the plot itself, which cultivates ideas about the world in which we live, how we behave in that world, and its societal norms. For example, in the “Hegemony” discussion, you touched on media content that could potentially cultivate attitudes about different social groups.
That being said, there are those who question the basic precepts of cultivation theory, as it treats the audience as nothing more than passive consumers. In other words, critical thinkers and viewers will be able to see media content for what it is, and not be so easily “swayed,” if you will.
So, for this discussion board, address the following:
How legitimate do you find cultivation theory to be?
Do you agree with its basic theorems, or do you find the assumption that the audience is “passive” to be flawed?
Explain your reasoning, and provide an example from the Harry Potter video and/or the Thought Co article in the “Cultivation” module as evidence to support your claims.
