Com 314: Mass Communication Theory

Updated:  11/22/2002

Cultural Theories

Baran is primary source for this information  

(These could also be considered meaning construction theories --on a macro scale?)

 Earlier in the semester we discussed different categories of theories:

            Individual effects theories:  { Social learning, is an example}

            Institutional effects theories:   {Agenda Setting/Building}

            Interinsitutitional effects:         {Functionalism}

            Cultural Effects:           Which had two categories--

·         traditional social science effects  (Social expectations theories would fit here)

·         critical studies approach

That's where we are now. These theories rely much less on traditional measurable effects, and frequently rely on qualitative   methods.  Proof of a theory's power is seen in its ability to attract  and keep supporters and to answer its critics. Widely criticized by "empiricists".

 See text (Baran and Davis) for thorough discussion of the background and development of these theories. 

[Be sure to note the explanation of differences between Cultural Analysis (American) and Critical Studies (British). ]

 CULTURAL ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL STUDIES:

BOTH: Media can play an important role in shaping culture

·         culture itself is important in shaping the social world

·         media have become primary means by which people learn about their world/culture and participate in it

Differences between the two categories:

Cultural Analysis: 

·         Micro theory focusing on 

o        focuses on how people make sense of the world

o        impact of media on individuals and that sense-making process

o        not political or policy-related

 Critical Studies:

·         MACRO focusing on 

o        how media is used to maintain the status quo

o        Hegemony

o        ideology in media

o        very political--move for social changes

§         specific agendas

§         specific values

§         Marxist, Feminist, etc.

CULTURAL THEORIES COME FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE than traditional media theories:

TRANSMISSIONAL PERSPECTIVE:   Other theories assume that mass com is a means of transmitting     information/message over distance for the purpose of achieving some end (usually control).

·         persuasion, behavioral change, socialization, etc.

·         commercials, election campaigns

[I have a problem with this:  How does Carey define the controlling purpose of entertainment programming?  Does he assume there's more intended there than entertainment?  Always?]

Some might connect this to the INFORMATIONAL perspective we discussed earlier with regard to U&G theory.

RITUAL PERSPECTIVE:  looks as mass media not as just transfer of messages through space, but [according to Newcomb] "the maintenance of society in time; not the act of imparting information, but the representation of shared beliefs." (Baran 294)

A commercial, then sells more than transportation.  Special K sells more than cereal.

As with literary criticism, even people who have not read a book, may be effected as their culture is effected, by people who have.  Uncle Tom's Cabin is an example of a book which shaped a culture.

 "Thus, the ritual perspective presumes a grand-scale interaction between the culture, the media used to convent that culture, and the individual content consumers of that culture." p. 285                           

The roots of cultural theories, then go all the way back to SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONALISM (George. Herbert Meade, 1934)  We've spent a good deal of time talking about it already when we discussed semiotics.  See Baran  for further background and discussion.

Emphasis on symbols/signs and our attachment of meaning to them.  (Do you see that semiotics, then is really a meaning construction theory?)   SO, we use these signs in our construction of social reality.

This is also an ACTIVE AUDIENCE theory -- because people take messages and actively do something       to them --interpret them, reshape and store them!

 Another theory (p. 291) SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY, approaches semiotics from another perspective.    Instead of constructing and internalizing signs ourselves, the culture does it, and we recognized typologies or categories....

 HOW the sign is established isn't really the important element here.  The fact is, we DO use signs and symbols to make sense of our world and attach meaning to it.

Add that concept to the cognition theories, and the concepts of schema.. and you get 

FRAMING OR FRAME ANALYSIS:

 Human beings develop expectations which are

            1.         based on previous experience (media or otherwise)

            2.         hard to change

            3.         associated with strong emotions (love, fear, hate)

            4.         not always associated with our conscious state of awareness

 We are always scanning our environment and making sense of it (using schema, signs, and our expectations) but usually we aren't thinking about that process.

            That doesn't mean it's not happening!

 Erving GOFFMAN (1974) introduced the concept of Frame Analysis to show how that process works.

·         How is it that we make the same mistakes over and over again?

·         We know the world is changing constantly but don't recognize the changes? Don't recognized boundaries have been crossed?

·         When we do, it is because we've picked up on SOCIAL CUES

·         How do we learn those?

·         Through daily socialization:  (Young Teenagers do dumb stuff because they have not yet learned the social cues)

·         Through media: Certain expectations then are developed associated with certain CUES.  

Goffman calls the set of expectations we use to make sense of situations FRAMES:

We have frames for serious things and trivial things. They overlap in their applicability.

In play, a child "practices" what to do in certain adult situations, so the play frame has  applications for the real world frame in the similar situation. Baran cites the example of a "play" fight; skills learned there --CUES learned there applied to a real situation.

Goffman (p. 300 in Baran) makes the connection between media advertisements and social cues.  Expectations about how women are supposed to look, act, and even think could be learned from commercials in which seductive, flirtatious, non-serious, attractive women are used as attention-getters and -holders.

·         Buy the car; get the girl.

·         Beautiful women are fun loving in LOTS of ways

Lots of different messages for different products, but what is the dominant message made about women after years of this type of repetitive representation? Is it any wonder that attractive women are not perceived to be intelligent?  That women in the work place have to de=emphasize their femininity?                                        (Washington, DC Uniform vs. Senator's wife uniform)

 

Framing assumes that life is constantly changing. We have the capacity to deal with that change/reframe our experience moment to moment.  However because we seek stability, we commit ourselves to experience what GOFFMAN calls  PRIMARY OR DOMINANT REALITY.

·         a real world in which certain rules and expectations are met

·         a world of consistency and predictability

·         a world which is comfortable and secure because we know what's going on. We like this world so much that we constantly reframe our experience to fit it:

·         Sometimes we "literally see and hear things that aren't there."  [but should because of the expectations we have of the world we have internalized.]

·         Baran cites the example of date rape on campuses. 

·         Women frame the dating situation one way.

·         Men frame the situation another.

·         Each then is reading signs and symbols incorrectly, making schematic associations according to expectations based on a comfortable, secure situation.

·         BUT The expectations DON'T MEET!

·         She may send signals that he reads in a way she didn't intend.

·         He may send signals that SHE reads in a way he doesn't intend.

 

            Baran writes:  "From Goffman's viewpoint, we are virtual prisoners of primary reality.

                        We permit ourself only brief and socially acceptable escapes into clearly

                        demarcated alternative realities that we experience as fantasy worlds....when

                        we make mistakes......the results can be devastating."

 CULTIVATION ANALYSIS:

This is a hybrid theory which represents both micro and macro effects. George Gerbner. This is also meaning construction theory, because it has to do with how television impacts

                        our perception of reality.....

 

On p. 302-3 of the first edition of the book, Baran cites some interesting statistics:                                                 

 

Real World

TV World

Chance of being involved in Crime

Less than 1/200

64/100

% of Males Working in Law Enforcement

1%

12%

% of Crimes which are violent

10%

77%

Gerbner's theory: CULTIVATION theory, does more than say that people will give TV answers to real world questions, it means that...(especially for heavy viewers)

 TELEVISION'S REPRESENTATION OF REALITY ACTUALLY MOVES PERCEPTION OF REALITY  to the TV NORM and subsequently,  it effects behavior when decisions and actions are based on that norm.        I would add that when that happens,  it can even move the REAL world to the TV NORM.

Gerbner began his work in the 60's and 70's in response to two important government  research projects:

                        1.         National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (1968-9)

                        2.         Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social

                                                Behavior (1972)

His job was to do a content analysis and determine the levels of violence in television programming.

Result: Yearly VIOLENCE INDEX.   Sample Week each year.  Counted violence in programs.

·        Criticism based on methods, operationalization.

·        Began looking at only prime time, now examine children, cable, films.

For years, without fail, the study continued. Found that the degree of violence on TV MUCH higher   than in real world.  Baran says the single largest criticism, "SO WHAT?" remained unanswered.

So, in 1973, Gerbner and Gross expanded the project beyond just violence and called it the CULTURAL INDICATORS project.  Looked at MORE than just violence.

5         assumptions:

1.      Television is essentially and fundamentally different from other forms of mass media.

·        it's free

·        requires no skill

·        multi-sensory input

·        no mobility required

·        applicable to all ages

2.      Television is the central cultural arm of American Society.

·        chief creator of information/entertainment patterns

·        serves the largest group ever served by individual medium

3.       The Substance of the consciousness created by TV is not so much specific --attitudes and opinions as more basic assumptions about "facts of life" and standards of judgment on which conclusions are based.

4.   Television’s major cultural function is to stabilize social patterns, to cultivate

·        resistance to change.  (Hegemony)

·        repetitive nature

·        common symbolic environment created by TV

·        we live by the stories we tell and television tells stories everywhere (entertainment, news, advertising)

       5.  The observable, measurable, independent contributions of television to the culture are relatively small.

ICE AGE ANALOGY:  temp shift of a few degrees can make ice age or melt a polar ice cap, so nearly imperceptible changes of influence can make cultural changes.

·        The measurable, observable, and independent effect of tv might be small, but …

·        The IMPACT could be very much present and VERY significant.

MUCH CONTROVERSY

Gerbner dismissed much of the previous limited effects research -- essentially said it was wrong.   That they were shopping in the wrong store, and so they had to defend themselves by attacking him.  (They had sought to measure change in attitude, behavior, etc. and come away with miniscule results which they said weren't important.  HE said that result might be miniscule, but they WERE important)

Others attacked him because CULTIVATION theory is NOT an active audience theory!  Humanists in particular don't like to see people as passive, helpless consumers controlled by outside sources beyond their control.

Horace Newcomb was one of the first to criticize him on this front:

·        Television's ideas and symbols are not created on television --but rather in the viewer.

·        Cultural indicators project ignored how widely different the representations of these ideas were on television. -- Many different types of violence: cartoon, serious, verbal, funny, playful, etc.

·        No opportunity for individual members of audience to apply their own meanings to what they see on television (Symbolic interaction)

 Gerbner and Gross responded…..

·        The symbols had to be learned SOMEWHERE...

·        They also believed television content was primarily "assembly line" in nature, and not works of unique artistic endeavor.

·        They argued that however the messages are assembled,  HEAVY VIEWERS OVERESTIMATE THEIR CHANCES OF INVOLVEMENT IN VIOLENCE AND THEIR GENERAL VULNERABILITY/

  Other critics questioned methodology:

§         operationalization of terms and concepts

§         sample selection

§         selective reporting of results

§         developing explanations which were not consistent with initial hypotheses

Some of this got really nasty!!

What exactly did Gerbner and Gross report that caused so much conflict?

Methods: Four step process:

            1.         message system analysis:  detailed content analysis

            2.         formulation of questions about viewer's social realities

            3.         survey the audience  (ask questions from step 2 and ask about media consumption)

            4.         compare social realities of heavy and light viewers.

 

Result: believe television's major contribution is CULTIVATION:  wherein people develop general concepts and understand about "the way things are" from exposure to television programming content as a whole rather than exposure to specific programs or individual selections.

Cultivation occurs in two ways:  

1.         MAINSTREAMING:  (especially for heavy viewers) television's symbols monopolize and dominate other sources of information about the world, so people tend to believe the  representation of reality presented by TV rather than that which is actual or real.    (Perception over reality)

2.         RESONANCE: when people see things on television, and those things agree with experiences they have had in the real world, so they connect with the television content in stronger ways.  Get a "double dose" of cultivation because it is reinforced in their own experience.     TV violence, reinforced by violence in own neighborhood.

One of the most widely reported elements of the cultivation research is the MEAN WORLD INDEX:

see p. 309.

·        People asked questions about the nature of the world, whether people are trustworthy, mean or not.                        

·        Question: Would light and heavy viewers have the same responses?  NO!

·        Heavy viewers saw world a much meaner place than light viewers.

·        Heavy viewers mainstreamed the perception of the world as mean place.

  Cultivation applies to more than violence.

 

Gerber's 3 B's to describe the nature of cultivation:

1.         The blurring of traditional distinctions of people's views of their world

2.         The blending of their realities into television's cultural mainstream

3.         The bending of that mainstream to the institutional interests of television and its sponsors.   (Tis may be more significant with convergence of ownership over the last few years.)

 

CHAPTER 13 (Baran)  CRITICAL CULTURAL STUDIES

 Critical Studies Theories explore ALTERNATE ways of looking at the role of mass media in society.

 There are four characteristics that differentiate CRITICAL THEORIES from others in our field:

1.         They assume that social theories should be based on a set of values. (Empirical theories are ideally value-free.  Remember U&G--"Don't judge how people use media; just record how they use it)

2.         The Goal of such theories to guide and change societal institutions so they reflect those values (whatever ones the theorist hold to be important).

3.         Critical theory does this by examining specific problems, how the institution contributes to the problem, and suggesting how to fix it.

4.         The theorists themselves are often part of social movements or ideologies and are advocating those ideologies through the theory; furthermore, they frequently want to advance the popularity of their movement or ideology through the institution they are trying to change.

Mass media have been linked to a multitude of social problems: 

What are some of those?

DISCUSS:   Violence in society, sexual promiscuity, the dumbing down of of the public, the compromising of our language,  lack of respect for others, demeaning of elders, minorities, women, etc.

When you discuss these things and try to explain how media impact them, you are making a crude attempt at critical theory.

European social scientists didn't think too highly of the limited effects paradigm,  Rather, they focused on MACRO effects throughout much of this century, both in examination of social realities and media. 

One of those theories was MARXISM.  (See p. 317-8 for review of the theory)

Marx believed the problems in society were due to a social hierarchy in which the masses   were forced to do things not in their best interest by an elite group which controlled all production in society.  The only way this could be changed was if the masses overthrew the elites and took the base from them.   Other structures in the society might contribute to the control elites had, but change in them would not be enough.

Most of theories which apply to mass com. are NEO-MARXIST THEORIEs. They focus on change in the superstructures (those other elements of society) rather than change in the base. Violent revolution is not necessary in these theories.

HUMANISTIC THEORIES:

These focus on the elevation of mankind through art and culture.  Primary concept is that the civilizing influences of art and literature make us more civilized.  Focus is then on evaluating art of all kinds and determining whether it is "high" culture or 'low" or popular culture.   Goal is to help people select and understand the good stuff by analyzing it and teaching others how to appreciate it.

Many critical theories are hybrids of these Neomarxist and Humanistic theories.

FRANKFURT SCHOOL:  Gr. 20th cent.  Believed that mass media ought to stay out of high culture.

Presenting symphony or play on radio or television made it a different and LESSER experience than it would have been live and in person.

·        Effectively prostituted the artistic experience by putting it on mass media

·        Also kept high culture out of the hands of the ordinary person.  (If you can't go to the Louvre, you can't see the Mona Lisa. )

Contemporary NeoMarxist Theory:

British Cultural Studies:    Stresses elite cultural control over art, at the expense of minority or popular artistic forms or styles.  Value placed on popular culture, accusing the criteria for high art as being elitists, artificial and solely based on the preferences of the ruling class.

Stuart Hall is one of the contemporary leaders in the field.  Characterized mass media as PUBLIC FORUM in which different views of cultural reality are being negotiated.  Elites have control to the effect that the status quo/majority     view is the most likely to be expressed.  Hegemony is a key concept here.  

In the U.S., FEMINISM has been a big area of critical studies research.  But others include minority groups, racial and ethnic groups, age-based groups, etc.

An important perspective from these theories (aside from the fact that they frequently make me mad.....) is their combination of content analysis and audience analysis.   

On page 323, Baran and Davis discuss the research of Janice Radway on Romance Novel readers.  The content analysis seemed to indicate the novels portray life from a sexist point of view.  The audience analysis found that readers were NOT seeing them in that way, and were reading frequently to escape from traditional feminine roles.

This phenomenon of a message presented one way but READ or USED in an oppositional way is called OPPOSITIONAL DECODING.

·        Another example is viewers of All in the Family  who thought Archie was a neat guy who should run for president!

Political Economy Theory:

Examines how elites control economic structures (banks, stock mkt) and looks at how this control effects other institutions, including media.

FOCUS here is on production and distribution.  (WHY AND HOW does what gets on TV GET THERE?--What the public wants?  Remember your first tutorial?)     Assumption of this neo-Marxist theory is that the economy leads to culture; not the other   way around as in NeoMarxist Cultural studies. Truth probably lies in some combination of both.

MARSHALL McLUHAN:             "The medium is the message."

·        Roots of McLuhan's theory are with Harold Innis, who discusses how the TYPE of communication system available to the elites of a society determine the extent of their control in the society/the control the society has in the world.

·        Early cultures were conversation-based.  Limited geog. limits.

·        Later, (ROME< GREECE< EGYPT) were paper based:  paper/ink made information,  ideas durable and portable.  EXPANDED limits of control.

·        Now, telephone, telegraph and mass media: even bigger  

·        Dominance by a society was not so dependent upon military skill as ability to communicate with armies and executives.

  McLuhan took that concept and expanded it: New media would change word-based thought which is linear with non-linear thought.

·        New forms of media alter the way we think, (and ultimately perceive the world and act in it)

·        He said "THE MEDIUM IS THE MESSAGE (and the message).

·        By that he meant that the medium of communication may be MORE IMPORTANT than the content of the message.

DISCUSS: Are these ideas consistent with what other theories?  Those of you who have Com 310 should consider how Postman’s work fits into this…..

Some other important McLuhan concepts:

Global Village:  New world order made possible by new info. technologies.

·        Cites African villages with TV's

·        Media are extensions of man:  They allow us to extend our vision and experience beyond our normal physical range.  Not situated in time or space.

·        Meyerowitz wrote in an excellent book in 1985, pointing out that to be everywhere is to lose something very important: One's Sense of Place.

·        What are the applications of this concept to the internet?

 Hot Media:  Print media is hot. 

·         Very specific.

·         Does the work for us. 

·         We don't have to provide very much to understand it.  (Visual pictures perhaps, but not on an emotional level.)  

·        Print is logical.

  Cool Media:  Television is cool because it presents us with vague, shadowy images. 

·         We have to fill in a lot about what we see

·        That makes us very involved in what goes on.

·        Same concept as is discussed in lighting: diffusion theory -- the more shadowy the picture, the more emotionally involved the viewer becomes.  Dim Lights for romantic setting, for example.

·        McLuhan said John Kennedy won the election because he had a cool image--a TV image.  Nixon did not.

 CRITICS:

Literary Critics: 

·        Found his dismissal of linear thought astounding and insulting.

·        Found him illogical and foolish.  (Of course their livelihood was dependent   upon the written word.)

  Empirical Scientists:

·         Remember the limited effects paradigm was dominant in the late 60's.

·        Those scientists his ideas unmeasurable and ludicrous.

  Neomarxists didn't like him because he predicted TECHNOLOGY not politics would change the world.

  As the communications world has changed over the last two or three years, I think McLuhan's work bears examination.  He has obviously influenced Neil Postman in his work, "Amusing Selves To Death" which those of you taking 310 next semester will discover.

 While Meyerwitz may be more on the mark with "No Sense of Place," McLuhan and Innis ease of the dominating influence of MEDIUM vs. content have definite bearing on our society   today.  APPLY what's happening in the politics: IMAGE over substance.

            Advertising:

            Religion:

            Education:

            NEWS!

Cultural Commodity Theory (Media as Culture Industries)

Means that media are in the business of producing culture. (Can you say that "FRIENDS" has changed the culture/cultural capital of young adults in this country?)

·        Media produce and distribute CULTURAL COMMODITIES

·        Their products are CULTURAL products

·        People consume them so they can be part of the culture.

·        (Kids and Harry Potter stuff this season….)

All of the principles of marketing are applied to the development of these products:

·        Appeal to broad consumer base

o       take attractive bits of folk culture

o       broaden appeal

·        Market new product to substitute for old folk culture

·        Earn profits by doing that.

Jeremy Tunstall in The Media are American discusses how modern mass media modeled its marketing techniques after TIN PAN ALLEY.

·        take the classical stuff which is complex and sophisticated but which the average person doesn't have the time and understanding to appreciate

·        simplify it/take the strongest stuff and make it easy to understand

·        market it as "popular" music.

            See discussion in Baran on p. 331

CONSEQUENCES of Cultural Commodities (OF TAKING BITS OF EVERYDAY CULTURE, REPACKAGING IT, MARKETING IT TO MASS AUDIENCE?)

·        Only a limited range of the culture is chosen and good stuff is ignored or eliminated from the public option

·        Those things which are chosen are "heightened" or dramatized, so that anything which might be boring, controversial or offensive is removed or made more palatable.

·        Marketing makes sure the products INTRUDE upon everyday life; you can't ignore them.

§         It intrudes and disrupts.

§         (How many times have you gone to a movie or watched a television show when you should have done something else?  There are several films I’d like to see right now, and I’d like to read the newest Left Behind  book, there won't be prudent time to see it until after I get done with finals.....If I DO go before then, my life will have been disrupted.  Several years ago, when my children were young, if I didn’t take the time to take them to a new movie all their friends were seeing,my life was still disrupted every time I saw commercial for it or my kids saw the commercial.  I then had to deal with WHEN to see the movie.)

 

·        Elites who market these products don't know the consequences the products have (and probably don't care)  Much like Cigarette manufacturers don't want to deal with the problems their products cause; alcohol; four wheelers, etc.

·        Disruption takes place in many ways, some of them very subtle.   We don't know what we've missed because we've missed it.

Baran and Davis examine some specific areas:

ADVERTISING: Advertising is seen as the ultimate cultural commodity.  The message is YOU ARE WHAT YOU                                          BY.  It is designed to connect culture and products.

NEWS PRODUCTION:

Lance Bennett (1988) presents four ways in which news practices lead to bias or distortion in content.  (See Baran p. 334)

1.         Personalized News:  because people relate more to people than issues.              So stories are related to people.  Problem: world can turn into a big soap opera

2.         Dramatized News:  products need to be packaged in an attractive way. Story's then must have a dramatic element, beginning, middle, end.   Good guy, bad guy. etc.   But this is limiting, and the real world doesn't fit into a TV Format.  Restricts what is and can be told.

3.         Fragmented News: We see impressions, bits and pieces, and very rarely background information or perspective.

4.         Normalized News:  People have a need for security, so news must show that things will go back to normal -- "Will be okay".  Problems will be solved.  Elites are trustworthy, in control will fix the problem.

 5.        Objectivity Rituals: practices used my news personnel to to insure objectivity, actually produce bias.  Leaders of minority movements never allowed to stand alone- - other side is always presented. Frequently an "out there" minority spokesperson will be chosen and contrasted with a more conventional elite spokesperson.   Status quo is preserved.

POLITICS: 

Media Intrusion Theory:   Television has subverted political parties by weakening the control of the party over the election process. Some candidates by-pass parties almost altogether. Rely on media consultants to package them for public consumption.

WHAT's the PROBLEM WITH THIS?

                                    [Candidates don't associate with ideology or party position, but

                                    package themselves to be attractive to voters.  What's best for

                                    country becomes second to getting elected.]  

Journalists deny this, but consider McLuhan's position here?  How have politics been changed by the MEDIUM?

"Line of the Day."   -- The one sound bite that will be repeated over and over again during a day, so that media are sure to pick THAT thing up and get it on the news.  

Chapter 14: Conclusions.

Interesting chapter which sums up where we are today in the field.  May have more application for you in grad school.  However, some key points:

            Suggested areas of our field:

COMMUNICATION SCIENCE:

Seeks to understand the production, processing, and effects of symbol and signal  systems by developing testable theories, containing lawful generalizations, that explain phenomena associated with production, processing and effects." (Berger and Chaffee)

Investigation of communication across four levels:

·        Intra personal

·        Interpersonal

·        Organizational

·        Macroscopic

  Other organization of the field suggested:

·        antecedents (how it gets there)

·        consequences (what happens when it does)         CULTURE-CENTERED THEORY/RESEARCH: the alternative.

In this Chapter, Davis provides a way the two might be joined.  Don't worry about it. I don't think it will happen.

One thing you might want to note:   Culture-centered theorists are largely Humanists.  What is humanism?  The definition of Communication Science purported by the Davis is humanistic in nature.  That's the unifying principle that binds Com. Science and Cultural Studies together for him.

Do you find humanism consistent with your religious beliefs?  If you haven't thought about that you should.

If humanism is antithetical to your religious philosophy, then is there a need for another theory?  For all of the tolerance that is supposed to exist in higher ed, few if any scholars have begun to approach critical studies or other mass com research from a traditionalist world view.  Why?  Because the modernist/humanist assumption prevails and who would publish such research? The question is that if we are to have scientific integrity we must ask where is the the room in cultural studies for that cultural perspective? 

What type of information might such a spiritually based perspective offer?

§         Christian

§         Jewish

§         Moslem

§         Buddhist

 Resources:  Baran and Davis.  See syllabus for full citation.

 

Copyright, 2002

Dr. Janet McMullen

jmcmulle@unanov.una.edu