Social theory, the civic imagination and documentary film : a past-modern critique of the 'Bloody Bosnia' season's The Roots of War

Rob Stones

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    12 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The major part of this article is taken up with an analysis of the television documentary The Roots of War, which played a pivotal role in the Channel 4 `Bloody Bosnia' season, screened in the summer of 1993. The analysis involves a critique of the programme's mode of argumentation in which a single, ostensibly authoritative account is given of deep-rooted ethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia while failing to provide adequate substantiation and evidence. This fairly typical `serious' documentary is contrasted unfavourably with an ideal type of critical social theory. The latter is self-reflexive about its modes of reasoning, aware of multiple perspectives and ontological complexity, and scrupulous about its use of evidence and explanatory procedure (past-modern). The article leads up to the detailed critique of The Roots of War through prior reference to recent reflections on the quality of the public sphere and citizens' faculties of reasoning, empathy and moral deliberation in relation to distant and different others. This creates a frame for a brief survey of some generalized critiques of television's overall contribution to the public sphere in late modernity. A case is then made that generalized critiques need to be supplemented by the rigorous critical purchase that social theory can provide in detailed engagements with particular documentary films and current affairs programmes.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)355-376
    Number of pages22
    JournalSociology
    Volume36
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2002

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Social theory, the civic imagination and documentary film : a past-modern critique of the 'Bloody Bosnia' season's The Roots of War'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this