Arsenii Khitrov

This thesis addresses the question of why and how makers of contemporary American television series obtain knowledge about social and political issues from people who have expert knowledge about these issues. I divide this question into three parts: why do TV makers need experts? Why and how do experts come to Hollywood? And how do the TV makers and the experts work together? In other words, this study seeks to answer the question of how social and political consultants, on the one hand, and the television makers, on the other, work together to translate expert knowledge into television stories. In order to answer this question, I carry out a Bourdieusian field analysis of contemporary American television series production, which allows me to identify the social conditions that make this knowledge transfer possible, and thus better to understand, in Sheila Jasanoff’s words, ‘institutionalized ways of knowing things’, and the ways in which meanings and social categories come into existence, are reproduced, challenged, and altered in that particular sector of social space where popular TV series are produced. My thesis is based on fieldwork that was carried out in Los Angeles over 10 months in 2018–2019. A total of 159 interviews were conducted with consultants, showrunners, producers, actors, and other key players in Hollywood. Through a thematic analysis of my data, I identify four major expertise providers — the state, social movements, research organisations, and independent experts — and I develop a model of expertise exchange in the field of Hollywood TV. I argue that expertise in Hollywood is a distinctive form of capital that experts and Hollywood professionals exchange for other forms of capital in several fields. Hollywood professionals exchange it for symbolic capital within the industry and in the field of power. Agents of the state, social movements, and research organisations exchange it for symbolic capital in the field of power. Finally, independent experts trade their knowledge in order to accumulate economic, social, and symbolic capital within the industry. I show how expertise transfer happens on the micro-level on set (for example, how an expert trains and assists an actor on set), on the meso-level (the interests of a small advocacy group to promote a particular image or idea), and the macro-level (financial interests and strategies of large networks). Existing studies of expertise transfer have mostly focused either on state organisations, social movements, or science communication. My study, which draws on unique data, brings these spheres together and explains the common and relational logic that underlies expertise transfer in Hollywood. These findings allow us to better understand how one of the most influential entertainment industries in the world creates meanings and ideas that then become widely accessible to global audiences. Thus, this sociological, empirical study of expertise provision tackles broader questions about the nature of knowledge production and transmission in the modern world.

Existing studies show that when Hollywood professionals develop and produce films and television series, they consult experts in social and political issues. These experts may be private individuals or representatives of various governmental, social movement, or research organisations. Drawing on ethnography and interviews, I focus on organisational experts and explore how they provide their expertise to Hollywood. I argue that these organisations form a peculiar social space surrounding Hollywood, which I refer to as ‘the relational space of organisational expertise provision’, which demonstrates some field effects like similar practices and habitus, but does not show overt competition. I argue that the provision of organisational expertise in Hollywood is undertaken by organisational boundary spanners who operate within this relational space through the enactment of expertise networks, the construction of connecting interfaces, and the trading of expertise as short-lived, or proxy, capital. These findings contribute to the Bourdieusian field analysis and sociology of expertise by elucidating how social spaces interact, how social agents gain power through the inter-field exchange of expertise, and what happens in the field of power.

This ethnographic study explores how Russian psychotherapists are navigating professional ethics and politics after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Analysing a conversation between an instructor and students at a psychotherapy training centre in Russia, the study examines how therapists negotiate neutrality, values and therapeutic approaches in a shifting sociopolitical landscape. The author identifies four approaches to delineating the boundaries between professional practice and political engagement and explores how the boundaries between therapeutic and political realms are constantly negotiated through social interaction. These processes highlight tensions within Russian therapeutic culture and offer insights into professional subjectivity formation amid political turmoil, revealing the complex interplay between individual subjectivity, professional identity and sociopolitical structures in contemporary societies. The research contributes to anthropological understandings of professional communities as mediators between individuals and states. The study also shows how cultural norms adapt to political pressures and illuminates the role of therapeutic practices in shaping societal responses to political events in authoritarian settings.

How can we make sense of numerous instances of experts in politics, law enforcement, national security, military defense, fire arms, public health, culture, and history working closely with creators of scripted television series in the USA today? Why do TV makers need them? Why and how do these experts come to Hollywood? In order to answer these questions, I carried out a Bourdieusian field analysis of contemporary American TV series production, with a focus on how knowledge about political and social issues is produced and used in the TV industry. I identify four major expertise providers—the state, social movements, research organizations, and independent experts—and build a macro model of expertise exchange in the field of Hollywood TV. I argue that expertise in Hollywood is a form of capital which Hollywood professionals exchange for symbolic capital within the industry and in the field of power; it is also a form of capital that agents of the state, social movements, and research organizations exchange for symbolic capital in the field of power; and finally, independent experts trade their knowledge to accumulate economic and symbolic capital within the industry. This model is based on the analysis of data I collected during fieldwork in Los Angeles over 10 months in 2017–2019, which includes 159 interviews, 7 observation sessions, and archival materials.

This study builds upon and expands existing research on the perceived realism of media texts. I study debates that took place across several online forums about Russia’s most famous police series Glukhar’ at a time during which police legitimacy in many countries, including Russia, was in crisis. I address the questions of how media users assess the realism of Glukhar’ online. I outline 13 means of realism evaluation that media users employ, offering a more systematic and detailed model than those proposed by existing studies. I argue that media users’ concern with realism of fictional texts signals their longing for interpretations of the social issues which they think the text refers to. I conclude that media users indeed refer to the real police when they discuss the fictional police, and I identify four patterns in these discussions. I hypothesize that the openness of digital communication might motivate media users to evaluate a media text’s realism because they might believe that collectively they will be able to do this accurately.

In this paper the author analyses the materials that were published in the American satirical magazine The Onion in the period from 2006 till 2011 and mentioned September 11 terrorist attacks. The focus of the research is the persistence of 9/11 jokes five years after the tragedy occurred and later on. The jokes are classified basing on their subject-matter and rhetorical patterns. The author concludes that most of these jokes promote respect towards collective memory about the attacks and their victims.

This article answers the question of how contemporary Russian TV series portray the police. The results derive from a single-case thematic and functionalist study of the popular Russian TV series Glukhar’ (which aired from 2008 to 2011). The show merits special attention because it was on air when the Russian police were undergoing a legitimacy crisis, which lead to the 2009 police reform. The series recognized the crisis and responded to it with a set of justifications. I analyze the show’s social and cultural contexts, its plot patterns, and the functions of its characters. I build a typology of justifications and claim that the show justifies the police through an open discussion about the reasons for and consequences of their lawlessness. The series shows that the legitimacy of the police is repeatedly questioned, but trust in the police is always restored because police officers are depicted as estranged from the state but not from the community. Thus, the show contains an interesting example of overcoming a legitimacy crisis through its recognition. The study opens the floor to further discussions about how popular culture resolves intense social debates about policing by symbolic means in a moment when police legitimacy is contested.