Abstract
In accounts of recent technological changes in the television sector, it has become customary to refer to the decline or even death of television ‘as we know it’. The growing popularity of digital platforms, the advent of the Second Screen and the proliferation of individualised modes of consumption of television content enabled by digital technologies have led many to question the usefulness of established concepts, such as the notion of ‘flow’ and the ‘bardic’ function as the defining characteristics of television. Drawing on the study of television in Mexico and other geographic locations, and combining the methodological approaches of anthropology and cultural studies, Pertierra and Turner persuasively argue against such simplistic accounts. They urge us to move beyond mapping technological changes and assuming universal effects, and instead seek to understand the variegated forms of television as a situated social and cultural practice, embedded in diverse textures of everyday life. To advance such an understanding, they propose to think of television in terms of ‘zones of consumption’, which range from domestic and national to global spaces, and include also political, economic and geo-linguistic regions. Within each of these ‘zones’, they argue, a range of different television practices and developments need to be acknowledged. For instance, while in some environments domestic family viewing is giving way to more individualised and mobile modes of consumption, other environments may be characterised by a continued centrality of family viewing. Notwithstanding the emphasis on the diversity and locatedness of television world-wide, the authors also note a couple of shared traits: the continued relevance of television in moments of crisis and the close link between television and the multiple discourses of modernity. Together, the methodological and conceptual solutions proposed by Pertierra and Turner make considerable headway in developing an analytical approach for mapping television cultures globally. At the same time, they also open further questions. For instance, the emphasis on ‘zones’ of consumption tends to privilege the spatial dimensions of television practices, at the expense of the equally important temporal aspects of television. How can we adequately conceptualise the diverse ‘times’ of television? Furthermore, how can we explain the diverse forms of everyday television globally, and move beyond the mere description and acknowledgment of differences?