My impression of the two modes of criticism was that one approaches the text from the perspective of how the writer constructed it, and the other from the perspective of how the reader (specifically the critic) might deconstruct it. This is subtly different from your impression, and the only reason I can think of for not including readings of prejudice is as part of some post-ideological perspective (which is mainly bollocks).
Interestingly, I think the second method is more relevant to your purpose of removing racist messages in the media. I must admit to a certain postmodern view on this; in that context, I think the author's intention is irrelevant compared to the reader's impression (hence "the author is dead, long live the critic"). A racist message which doesn't reach anyone is less harmful than an innocent message perceived as racial vilification.
Unfortunately, I don't believe in censorship, even if it is framed in terms of "positive action", and beyond that, criticism has no power to change mass-media content.
Obviously, you're more than welcome to criticise, I just don't see that it serves a progressive agenda. If you go and see a movie, for example, and come away thinking "That film was pretty sexist, but on the whole I liked it" and you then buy the film on DVD as a result, the production company doesn't hear "This film was okay, but make the next one less sexist", they just hear "That film sold well, make more exactly the same". Sadly, not buying the film on DVD will cause the producers to mimic the last film that sold well instead, so you can't win that way either. I feel like going into a whole postmodern rant about simulacra, but I won't. :P
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Interestingly, I think the second method is more relevant to your purpose of removing racist messages in the media. I must admit to a certain postmodern view on this; in that context, I think the author's intention is irrelevant compared to the reader's impression (hence "the author is dead, long live the critic"). A racist message which doesn't reach anyone is less harmful than an innocent message perceived as racial vilification.
Unfortunately, I don't believe in censorship, even if it is framed in terms of "positive action", and beyond that, criticism has no power to change mass-media content.
Obviously, you're more than welcome to criticise, I just don't see that it serves a progressive agenda. If you go and see a movie, for example, and come away thinking "That film was pretty sexist, but on the whole I liked it" and you then buy the film on DVD as a result, the production company doesn't hear "This film was okay, but make the next one less sexist", they just hear "That film sold well, make more exactly the same". Sadly, not buying the film on DVD will cause the producers to mimic the last film that sold well instead, so you can't win that way either. I feel like going into a whole postmodern rant about simulacra, but I won't. :P