As the title of Allens (1995) work indicates, soaps have gone global.They are probably the most widespread fictional television genre aroundthe world, and theirs future is bright. This didn’t go unnoticed by theacademy. Soaps were scrutinized. The theoretical paradigms dictated theresearch agenda. We’ve seen quantitative content analysises (Cantor &Pingree, 1983, pp. 69-112), and the political economy of the making ofsoap operas (Allen, 1985 and 1987; Gripsrud, 1995, pp. 21-70). French structuralismtaught us to analyse the narrative structures of soaps (Allen, 1985) andfeminist critiques suggested that soaps should be interpreted as a ‘femininegenre’(Brown, 1994; Modleski, 1982; Gledhil, 1997, amongst others).The discovery of the ‘active audience’ generated a whole body of work onpleasure, meaning making and interpretation (Harrington & Bielby, 1995;Ang, 1982; Livingstone, 1990), and we’ve read some psycho-analytic accountsof soap as well (Livingstone & Liebes, 1995). And yet another articleon soaps?

Actually, contrary to what the title suggests this article isn’t aboutsoaps. They are the pretext, the instrument for analysing the second partof the title: cultural identity. Indeed, as soaps conquered the world andmediascapes (Appadurai, 1990, pp. 298-299) were being transported aroundthe globe we saw an emerging interest in questions of travelling textsand cultural identities. Studies of this kind can be roughly divided intwo groups. The first group focuses on the flow of texts around the worldand the importance of cultural differences in interpreting foreign soapoperas. The much cited Liebes and Katz (1990) study is an example of thiskind of research, conducted in the aftermath of - and reaction against- Schiller’s cultural imperialism thesis (Schiller, 1976). Active meaningmaking was emphasized, and the importance of negotiated and/or translatedmeanings was highlighted. The second type of research didn’t focus on thecross-cultural traffic of texts around the world, but thought of them asrevealing something about the culture in which they originated. Since cultureand meaning are intimately intertwined (Hall, 1997, p. 2), and texts somehowseem to ‘contain’ or ‘carry’ meaning, this tradition analyses the soapas a ‘bearer of cultural identity’. But this approach is a precarious one,given the current - mostly decontructionist -‘discursive explosion’ (Hall,1996, p. 1) around the concept of cultural identity. The dangers of essentialism,textualism and arrogance of the analist (who sees ‘the’ meaning of thetext, while audiences don’t) loom large. Yet I will argue for a modifiedand humble purely ‘textual approach’ and its relevance in questions ofcultural identity.
 
 

1. Soaps and cultural identity

Schiller’s cultural imperialism-thesis was the starting point of muchof the research conducted in the field of cultural identity. Concepts suchas ‘Americanisation’ and ‘McDonaldization’lead scholars to the cross-culturalcomparison of American and British soaps, since the latter country hada firm tradition of ‘authentic’ television making and was part of the threatenedEuropean culture. Though interpretations and evaluations occasionally differed,a consensus was reached that British soaps such as Coronation Street andEastEnders had their own distinctive ‘version’ of the soap opera format,which originated in the US (Allen, 1987, p. 144). All research pointedto the fact that British soaps articulated with the existing ‘social realism’tradition, which ‘involves a heavy emphasis upon social class, everydaymundane reality, the so called "kitchen sink" drama, and an ideal of earthyauthenticity’ (Liebes & Livingstone, 1992, p. 115). This contrastswith the American daytime serials which emphasize romance, melodrama andentertainment value. Thus, contrary to their American counterparts, charactersin British soaps are mainly working class, a working class which is a specificgroup with its own way of life, and ‘the audience is invited tointerprete the narrative from that perspective’ (Geraghty, 1995, p. 67).Moral panic ebbed away after these reassuring findings, and the time hadcome to investigate soap in all its cultural forms. What appeared was avast range of telenovelas (Martin-Barbero, 1995; Lopez, 1995), Aussisoaps (Crofts, 1995) and community soaps, dynastic soaps and dyadicsoaps (Liebes & Livingstone, 1998), each with its own narrative characteristicsand thematical preoccupations.

One of the problems concerning most comparative textual analyses isthe fact that two completely separate ‘entities’ are being compared, withthe aim of finding differences in themes and portrayals. This is a problem,because in spite of the fact that differences can be found, there is noreason to conclude that they are related to ‘American’ or ‘British culture’:they could also be related to political-economical issues. A programmelike Coronation Street, for instance, was develloped by a public televisioncompany, while American soaps are produced within a commercial system.In such a case differences can't necessarily be attributed to culture.They are related to different corporate structures and legislative contexts.In other words, it is difficult to identify differences as being culturaldifferences. Of course, as Liebes and Livingstone (1992, p. 114) remark,broadcasting structures have their own goals and corresponding televisualnorms - in short, their own culture - but it is useful to make atleast an analytical difference between the forces which mould the textsas they appear on television.
 
 

2. Set-up and methodology

One of the most popular Flemish soaps, Wittekerke, is based on an Australianserial, E-street. The adaption is however entirely under Flemish control:the scripts are rewritten by a Flemish author, the shooting of the serialtakes place in Flanders with a Flemish cast and crew, etc... The only rulethat must be followed is that the adaptation should stay as close to theAustralian story line as possible, although this is not always done verystrictly (cf. infra). Seen in the light of cultural identity, both serialsprovide us with an excellent tool to look for cultural differences. Wehave an ‘original’ and its ‘translation’, which means that the differencesbetween E-street and Wittekerke should reveil something about the culturein which they were respectively originated and adapted. Furthermore, aninterview with the Flemish scenario-writer was intended in order to separatetextual differences inspired by a political-economical logic from differenceswhich were inspired by cultural motivations (for an example, see 3.c).This is therefore not a comparison between two completely separate entities(for instance Dynasty and Coronation Street); the point of departure consistedof two closely related programmes with many similarities, and, more importantly,a number of very interesting differences. Furthermore, the interview withthe scenario-writer provides us with a way to separate political-economicaldifferences from differences inspired by cultural motivations.

The actual study consisted of two parts: on the one hand a character& setting analysis, through which the diegetic world was examined (startingpoint of the serial, setting, characters, etc...); and on the other handa scene-per-scene analysis, which analyzes the differences between E-streetand Wittekerke scene-per-scene. Special attention was given to 1. differencesbetween actions, 2. differences between the argumentation or discoursescharacters used, 3. differences between narrative structures, functionsand composition, and 4. differences in the way certain themes were emphasized.The remaining structure of this paper will therefore be as follows: insection 3 we will examine the ‘micro-differences’. These are differences,which surfaced during the scene-per-scene analysis, and which turned outto be classifiable. In sections 4, 5 and 6 we will examine the ideologicaldimensions of all these differences with regard to such concepts as theindividual, the community and the family. Finally, it should be pointedout that the complete study was much more extensive, and that the completetext (which includes a more elaborate theoretical and methodological framework,and in which all the results are discussed in detail) can be found in Teurlings(1997).
 
 

3. Small things make a difference:micro-differences

A scene-per-scene analysis between Wittekerke and E-street quickly revealsthat the changes display a pattern. These minor differences can be dividedinto three large groups: conflict, embedding and history, gossiping andsocial control. Before actually discussing them in full detail, I wouldlike to point out that we are dealing with ‘objective’ differences, i.e.smalldifferences which were clearly introduced or omitted in a scene, and whichhave not yet been interpreted. The ideological dimensions of these minordifferences will be discussed in sections 4, 5 and 6.

3.a Conflict

One of the most striking differences between E-street and Wittekerkecan be found in the way the characters interact, particularly in the degreeof conflict. In this case conflict includes all kinds of human friction:people who react irritably, someone who bursts out and walks off in anger,etc... The analysis shows us that in 32 cases a conflict was ‘added’ toWittekerke, whereas the reverse (a scene in E-street containing more conflictthat its equivalent in Wittekerke) only occured 14 times. Therefore, generallyspeaking, it can be concluded that Wittekerke contains more conflict thanE-street. Furthermore, the cases in which E-street contains more conflictshow a pattern: almost all of these scenes have a narrative base. Thiswill be illustrated by an example from one of the analyzed episodes. Thereis a story line in both series which announces the arrival in Westside/Wittekerkeof Nicky/Nikky, the young niece of the local chief of police, George/Georges.She and her little brother will come and live with their aunt and uncle,because they were abandonned by their mother. At first the relationshipbetween the rebellious teenager and the old-fashioned policeman is farfrom perfect, which is illustrated in a number of scenes. It is very noticeablethat in the Australian serial this conflict between the generations ismore explicit. In other words, the narrative function of these scenes isto depict this underlying conflict between the generations, and it is strikingthat in the Australian serial the conflict is activated more often by thenarrative.

Now, if we examine the14 cases in which E-street has a higher degreeof conflict than Wittekerke, it turns out that 9 of them have a narrativebase. In other words, in E-street conflict is more probabale at ‘dramaticmoments’, the ‘pivoting points’ in the story. When relations brake up,when intrigues surfaces, Australians turn out to be rather quick-tempered(at least in their serials). In Wittekerke, though, conflict is much moreuniversal, it is not limited to dramatic moments: it is a part of everydaylife. Though slightly exaggerated, it could be said that in the Flemishserial people are constantly angry with each other, while the Australianpersonae only clash when they narratively have to. Once the story-lineends, the Australian characters appear to suffer from acute loss of memory,and subsequently everybody can return to the normal order of the day, voidof conflict. This characteristic of Australian soap can also be found inthe literature: in Crofts' opinion the community in Neighbours consistsof ‘feelgood, Walt Disney-like characters’, and he goes on to write: ‘Crisesare solved quickly, usually amicably’ (1995, pp. 100-101), which refersto the forgetfulness of the Australian characters.

3.b Embedding and history

A second difference involves what scriptwriters call ‘a fictive biography’(cf. Field, 1994, pp. 44-50). What is meant is the fact that charactersdo not suddenly appear out of thin air, they have lived a fictive life.In Wittekerke, for example, Nikky is Koen's sister, she lives with theiraunt and uncle, there is a complete story to her past life,... in short,she has a fictive biography, which may or may not have been part of earlierepisodes. If we now take a closer look at Wittekerke and E-street, it isvery conspicuous that the past of Flemish characters is very often activatedby the narrative. Let us compare for example E188.10 W143.12, an everydaybreakfast scene between David/Frank and Claire/Klaartje, his daughter.
 

E-street: David is cookingpancakes for breakfast, while Claire stands by. Claire: Didn't think you were going to come this morning. David: Well, maybe it had something to do with the small voiceon the other end of the telephone at 6 a.m. saying ‘Dady, wake up!’ Claire giggles. David: Paul said to tell you he's gratefull though. You savedhim from being late for work at the marina. Elly enters to set the table.

Wittekerke: Frank is cookingpancakes for breakfast. Klaartje is watching. Klaartje: I didn’t think you were going to come this morning. Frank: Well, it quite definitely had something to do withthat little voice this morning... around 6 o'clock.... a little voice thatsaid it was time to get up! Klaartje laughs. Frank: But Geert also was happy. He would have been late forwork. Klaartje: Work? I thought he wasn't a policeman anymore. Frank: No, he works on a boat now.  Klaartje: On a boat? Frank: Yeah. Mr. Thijssen's boat... His son drowned recently... Klaartje: Tanja’s boyfriend? Frank: Yes... Nellie enters.

 

This is a very good scene to illustrate the difference between E-streetand Wittekerke: characters are put into perspective. Both their past (‘Geertused to be a policeman’), and their relation to other characters (‘Mr.Thijssen is the father of Tanja's boyfriend’) are mentioned. Similar differencesbetween both serials occur quite frequently: the analysis shows that inno less than 25 cases a history was added in the transition from E-streetto Wittekerke, whereas the opposite only occured twice. This Flemish emphasison history, and the way characters are consistently embedded in the frameworkof relations, have an interesting result: Wittekerke turns into a villagein which everybody is or was connected to everybody. In Westside, though,characters appear to be living in some kind of everlasting now, in whichpersonal history or interconnectedness is not important. This also explainswhy there is more conflict in Wittekerke: when the Australian story-linerequires conflict, it will emerge, but once it has passed the cause ofthe conflict will be forgotten. In Wittekerke, however, the past is oftenraked up, and characters are often put into perspective in order to illustratetheir position in the community, with the result that people don't forget.They remember what has happened in the past, which becomes a source ofmany conflicts, which linger on inside.
 
 

3.c Gossiping and social control

A third and last difference between Wittekerke and E-street is the numberof characters that participate in a scene. The analysis showed that inthe Flemish soap opera scenes systematically have less people in them.However, at this point I would like to point out that there is a flaw inthe line of reasoning that has been adopted so far. Not every differencebetween E-street and Wittekerke can be explained by cultural logic: political-economicalaspects of soap opera also play a part in the translation. The interviewwith the Flemish script writer revealed that a number of characters systematicallyhad to be written out of the Flemish serial, because of Belgian labourlegislation: under age actors are only allowed a limited number of hoursper month in which to perform. The Australians, however had no such limitations.In other words, the political-economical system in which Wittekerke andE-street are develloped, has its influence on the script, and thereforenot every change is culturally inspired.

However, it remains a fact that Wittekerke has a tendency towards conversationswith limited amounts of people in them. It is for instance very commonto have a scene with a certain number of characters, in which two peoplehave a private conversation, apart from the others. In E-street, however,conversations are public, people have few or no secrets for each other.This leads us to the conclusion that there is more ‘gossiping’ in Wittekerke.Gossiping, however, is not equal to backbiting, it is simplytalking about someone else who is not present. This fits in with our previousconclusion: Flemish characters are more often embedded in the social structureand also in their own personal history. Gossiping provides the means forthis embedding, because it puts characters into perspective.

This last conclusion - Flemish characters do a lot of gossiping, butit is no more than a specific kind of embedding - could lead to the ideathat this gossiping is a trick of the Flemish scenario-writer to give charactersa bit more depth and history. Although the gossiping is not equal to backbiting,a closer examination reveals that it can't simply be interpreted as aninnocent activity. In order to understand this, we must first take a closerlook at one last difference between Wittekerke and E-street, namely thedegree of social control. The analysis of both serials shows thatsocial control is much stronger in Wittekerke. This will be illustratedby a number of examples. One of the major story lines in the analyzed episodesconcerns Bob, who is in love with Nellie, but who faces growing competitionfrom Nellie's ex-husband, who has launched a serious offensive to reconquerher heart. Bob feels powerless to do anything about this and starts drinkingheavily to get over his defeat. The analysis shows that in E-street Bob'sdrinking problem does get some communal attention, but certainly not asmuch as in Wittekerke, where it gets extra attention in 4 scenes. In fact,in the Australian series Bob repeatedly drinks alcohol without this beingactivated by the narrative. This is a good illustration of the fact thatin Westside there is less social pressure than in Wittekerke, where everycharacter is surrounded by a caring environment, but also an environmentwhich exerts social pressure. Another example of this more explicit socialcontrol can be found in the Flemish serial can be found in the argumentationthe Flemish Georges comes up with when he tells Nikky to turn down hermusic:
 

George: You are notthe only person living in this house

Georges: What a noise.This is not a disco. What will the neighbours say?

This single line clearly illustrates the difference between Westsideand Wittekerke as narrative communities: the Australian George says thatNicky is disturbing the other members of the family, whereas the FlemishGeorges fears the reaction of the neighbours, which means that he is affraidof disapproval by community members. And this is why gossiping should notbe interpreted as being entirely innocent: social pressure and social disapproval,which are feared by everybody (and which occur frequently), can only existthrough gossip. Simply put, if nothing is known, then there is nothingto talk about and nothing to disapprove of. This also explains why thedegree of conflict in the Flemish serial is higher: social disaproval andsocial control lead to conflict within the community.

So let us resume. The three micro-differences - conflict, embeddingand history, gossiping and social pressure - create a logical and coherenttextual world. There is an internal coherence, in which it is impossibleto identify the ‘starting principle’ or cause; it is rather the articulationof conflict, embedding and social control which makes that each serialcreates its own textual world, a world with its own (cultural) logic. Itshould, however, not be forgotten that every representation is intrinsiclylinked to power (Hall, 1997, p. 42), which means that power and ideologyare an integral part of the textual world. It is therefore necessary totake a closer look at this ideological dimension. First we will examinethe Australian individualism-ethos, followed by the difference in the rolesof the community and the family in both serials.
 
 

4. The Australian individualism-ethos

One of the most striking ideological differences between E-street andWittekerke is the individualistic discourse of the Australian characters,which is not found in the Flemish serial. Let us compare the followingdialogue from episode 183 of E-street (episode 142 of Wittekerke). Thisis what happened before: Bob is in love with Elly/Nellie, but he facesgrowing competition from her ex-husband (David/Frank). He has just learnedthat his rival spent the night with Nellie, which provokes a violent outburst.His son Harley/Bart comes in to talk to him.
 

Harley: Listen, maybeit's none of my business... Bob: No, maybe not mate. Harley: ...but once you told me to fight for Toni and it worked.Now you should do the same with Elly. Bob: (Laughs) You want me to go a few rounds with David, doyou? Harley: Not literally. Just get over there and let her know thatDavid's not the only one on the horizon. Bob: It's her choice, mate. Harley: Well, what sort of choice is it if you just lie down andplay dead. Bob: This isn't playing, Harley. This is real life. You win some,you lose some. Harley: But you haven't even tried winning, Rev. You've given upbefore you've even started. Bob: So suddenly you're the expert. It's a lot more involved thanyou and Toni, mate. Harley: All the more reason to fight. Bob: I know what I'm doing, allright? Harley: Well, I just hate seeing you moping round like this. I mean,all the stuffing's been knocked right out of you. Bob: Is that the end of the sermon, eh? Bob heads inside, bashing the car as he goes. Harley: You know, I thought it was worth a shot.

Bart: It may be noneof my business, but this thing with Nellie... Bob: (Interrupts him) No, that's none of your business. Bart: (Continues) Do you remember that time with Veerle, whenshe was dating Max, you told me to fight for her then... Bob: (Laughs) You want me to go a few rounds with David doyou? Nellie would think I'm pathetic... Bart: That's not what I meant . I'm only saying that you shouldn'tgive up... You shouldn't hide. Get out there at least. Bob: (Shakes his head) No. Bart: And why not? Bart: Because. Bart: That's no answer. That's stupid. Bob: So? Bart: Bob, this isn't you. To let someone walk over you like that...(Shakes his head) I don't know you like this. Bob: Then take a closer look. Bart: Come on, what's wrong with you? What kind of an example areyou setting for me here? Is this how you want me to behave? Bob: Do whatever you want, but leave me alone. Bart: No, I won't leave you alone. Why don't you take a good lookin the mirror. You're only a shadow of the person you used to be. Bob: (After a short pause, silently) Get out. Bart: No. Bob: (After a pause) Then I'm leaving. Bob goes off angrily, Bart stays behind.

When we examine this dialogue between father and son, we notice thatHarley, in E-street, comes up with one argument: don't give up, fight foryour relationship.The argumentation of the Flemish Bart is twofold: Bobshould fight, but he should also pull himself together because he is settinga bad example for Bart, his son. In other words, Bob uses a social argumentto convince Bob: if you won't do it for yourself, then do it for me . TheAustralian individualism is also very noticeable in Bob's answer to Harley'sremark that he should show Elly that David is not the only one on the horizon:‘It's her choice, mate’. The Flemish Bob only answers ‘no’, an answer withno further explanation. A typical characteristic of the Flemish soap isthe fact that Bob does not want to ‘have a few rounds with David’ becauseNellie would think he's pathetic: another indication that what others thinkis more important in the Flemish serial (cf. social control above). InE-street we can observe a predominant feeling of ‘personal responsability’.The reactions of other members of the society or community are less important.This is also clearly illustrated by Harley's reaction when Bob walks off:‘At least it was worth a shot’. In other words, Harley has tried his best,but now it is up to Bob; Harley is not to blame. The Flemish Bart, however,doesn't give up, and consequently Bob walks off angrily.

The best illustration of these ‘it's your own responsability’-ethicscan be found in one of the following scenes, in which Harley literallystates that it will be Bob's own responsability if he gets nowhere withElly: there will be no one else to blame. In Wittekerke the discourse isdifferent: Bob has to fight, he has to show (to the people) who he reallyis. There's no mention of personal responsability. This one-sided stressupon personal responsability and with it on fighting spirit, is very characteristicof the Australian serial. In Wittekerke we can also find examples of this,but definitely not as many. In The Flemish serial the argumentation isoften connected to social control: the use of social pressure to make someonechange his mind.
 
 

5. The community

The stress on personal responsability in E-street, and its Flemish counterpart(embedding and social control) is also illustrated by the meaning of thecommunity. In the literature on soaps the community is very important:since the genre is not so much about individuals (who is the main characterin Wittekerke?), the real ‘star’ of soap is the community (Geraghty, 1991,pp. 60-106). It is important to note that this is a main characteristicof the genre. In other words, the fact that the community has the leadpart is a direct result of the form and the narrative structures of soapopera. However, it would be wrong to conclude that ‘community’ is a universalconcept, which carries the same meaning everywhere in the world. The conceptof community carries a vast range of cultural connotations, which differfrom culture to culture. In my study the question was therefore: what isthe definition of the community in E-street and Wittekerke, and are thereany differences? In other words, what is the meaning of the community?

The titles of both serials provide us with a first clue. Wittekerkeis set in a fictional coastal village, while E-street is set inWestside, a neighbourhood of Ballina, a small town in Australia(E-street is - what else could it be - the main street of this neighbourhood).It is however remarkable that in the Australian serial Ballina is nevermentioned: I learned this by reading the working documents of the Flemishscript writer; in E-street people always refer to Westside. Let us comparefor example a statement by Alice/Katrien, a member of the community inthe days of the fight over the guardianship of a child from the community:
 

Alice: Aunty Vi, theBromley's haven't got a chance. You've got to come back and fight them.All they've got to fight with is money, but you've got love, and not onlyyours and Mr. P's, you've got the whole of Westside behind you. We alllove Rachel, and that's why she should stay here, where she belongs.

Katrien: Aunty Jos,there's no reason to panic... The Megancks won't get her. There's no reasonto lie down before someone has actually fired a shot... The Megancks mayhave a lot of power, but this time they won't succeed. And you know why?Because they don't know who they are dealing with. With you... and withme. Because I'm behind you. And I'm convinced that you've got basicallythe whole of Wittekerke behind you.

In other words, the boundaries of both communities are not thesame. In Wittekerke the community coincides with the village, in the Australianserial however, the community is a neighbourhood. But there is more. Wehave already made a number of observations concerning the different definitionsof the word ‘community’ in both series.

We have already established that Wittekerke contains more conflict,and that there is more historic and social embedding of characters. Inother words, In Wittekerke people don't forget. We have also establishedthat the degree of social control is higher: social pressure is used tomake people change their minds, which lead to more conflict. In E-street,however, conflict is not so widespread, because of two reasons: 1. individualisticethics keep people from imposing their will (everybody has their own, personalresponsability), and 2. once a dramatic climax is over, people forget quickly,which can be called ‘collective amnesia’. The Australian community turnsout to be completely positive. It is a warm, open place where ‘free individuals’meet and speak freely of their feelings. There's no fear of public exposurein E-street: why should anything be kept a secret when the community ispopulated by ‘feelgood, Walt Disney-like characters’, which, in addition,immediately forget their past conflicts.

The role of the individualistic ethics in such a completely positivecommunity is important: individualism turns the community into somethingopen. The key word in the Australian community is therefore expectation:it is completely positive because nothing is expected from it, it has noobligation towards its members, because those members are responsable fortheir own actions, they determine their own fate. A community like thiscan only be positive: everybody can speak freely, it is a sounding boardwhere people can unburden their hearts, but it imposes no limitations.

The community in Wittekerke has a very different nature. Conflicts arevery frequent, due to more social and historical embedding, which leadsto more and tighter social control. The community in Wittekerke is nota sounding board, free of obligation: there are a number of negative sidesto the community, like the obligation for social conformity. ‘Free individuals’who determine their own fate do not exist: all characters are stronglyembedded in the social web, which considerably limits their personal freedom.However, this community also has a positive side to it (cf. infra): peoplein need get support. The community in the Flemish serial can thereforebest be described as being ambivalent: on the one hand a source of socialcontrol - limiting personal freedom -, on the other hand a ‘warm’ community,in which people can count on each other in difficult times. This ambivalencecan also be found in statements like ‘What will the neighbours say?’. TheAustralian characters do not appear to expect anything from their community,while their Flemish counterparts do. And this expectancy is a double edgedsword, which leads to both actual support and social control.

We will now take a look at two examples which illustrate the differencesbetween the communities in E-street and Wittekerke. The first is a dialoguebetween Martha/Magda and Bob. This is what happened before: Bob is in lovewith Nellie, with whom he has been friends for many years. Gradually friendschipchanged into love, and Bob has just declared his love to Nellie, but shehas reacted rather hesitantly (but has not rejected him). Bob talks aboutit with Magda, a good friend of Nellie's.
 

Martha and Bob sit at the kitchentable. Martha: You're doing a great job. Mind you, so is David. I'mamazed, really. I mean, no ulterior motives, no power games. He's justhere to do the best for Elly. I'd never have credited it. Bob: No, neither would I. Martha: Bob... I know it's none of my business - but I thinkit's great that you've finally told Elly everything.  Bob: What she tell you? Martha: (Nodding) Mm. Bob: Well, I guess there's no point in keeping it a secretnow, is there?

Magda joins Bob Magda: I must say, you're doing a great job. I can tell... Bob: I just wish she wasn't so impatient. Magda: (Clears her throat) By the way, have you had a chancetotalk to each other? Bob: (Interrupts her) Not really... (After a short pause)She had something to tell me, but... Magda: But? Bob: But then Frank came in.

Martha: (Laughing)Was there really ever one? Martha stands to go, Bob grabs her arm. Bob: Um, Martha, what else did she say? I mean, how did she seemto feel about it? Martha: She hasn't talked to you yet? Bob: No, not really. Just to say she needs time to get used to theidea. Martha crosses the kitchen and returns to the table with a cup. Martha: Well, she's got a lot. It'll all work out, I'm sure. Bob: I hope so.

Magda: As usual. Bob: (Smiles) Yes... and then she kept silent. Magda: And you didn't ask? Bob: No... Magda: (Shakes her head) I don't think I know many peoplewho can make it so difficult for each other. Bob: Maybe we're just being carefull. Magda: You can also be too careful... so nothing ever happens.

What is so remarkable about this dialogue is the fact that the AustralianBob is asking a member of the community for advice about his relationshipwith Elly. In other words, the relationship is public property, and Bobdoesn't seem to mind that the community knows all about his love life.In Wittekerke, however, it is Magda who asks the questions: apparentlythe community isn’t informed about the most recent developments, but itwants to find out as much as possible and ask questions accordingly. Furthermore,Magda comes up with a piece of ‘advice’ (don't be too careful), which nicelyillustrates the meddlesome nature of the Flemish characters. The AustralianMartha on the other hand limits herself to a reasuring ‘It'll all workout, I'm sure’, without giving any advice or giving her opinion on anyadvisable strategy. The essence of the Australian community then lies inMagda's answer to Bob's remark about there being no point in keeping thingssecret: ‘Was there really ever one?’. This is exactly what the Australiancommunity is all about: it's an open space in which nobody has any secretsfrom the others and in which social dissaproval is rare. The communityis undoubtedly positive: it is a warm nest where everybody is nice to theothers in a series of everlasting nows. Wittekerke as a narrative communitycarries much more ambivalence: it is a safe nest, but at the same timealso a source of social control and conflict, which is the reason why individualsdesperately try to keep their private and public lives separate.

The second example illustrates that the Flemish community is not freeof obligation (and therefore imposes limitations), and that at the sametime it can be supportive. This time we will not be dealing with a simplechange within a scene, like in the previous examples, but with an actualchange in the story line. This is a rather radical adjustment from theprogramme makers' point of view: changing the story line requires the adjustmentof the whole structure and build-up of several episodes, which means quitesome extra work for the Flemish scenario-writer. This is why these changesare rather rare (6 in the analyzed episodes), and most of the time theyhave political-economical reasons (for example Belgian labour legislation,or too many expensive outdoor shots).
 
 

This particular change in the story line is about Michael's/Alex' shipwreckand his return. In E-street this happens as follows. Michael Sturgess,a rich man, takes his girlfriend, Lisa, on a sailing trip, and the boatis lost in a storm. Lisa is quickly rescued, but Michael remains missingfor days. After a few days Michael's sister Sheridan, who is notoriouslyevil, invites Lisa for a ‘get together’. Lisa looks forward to this meeting,because she expects a night out in fashionable circles, but once she getsthere with her friend Alice, the whole thing turns out to be an unofficialfarewell ceremony for Michael. This is of course quite an emotional shockfor Lisa, who was after all expecting a night amongst high society. Completelydevastated, she returns to her appartement, where... Michael is waitingfor her. Apparently he survived the shipwreck and was picked up by a fishingboat. The problem is that he can't remember anything, not even his name.He only remembers Lisa's address, but he has no clue as to who she is,or in what way they are related. Lisa, a good soul, calls Sheridan, whoimmediately comes over and takes Michael home. Lisa and Alice stay behind,speechless, trying to come to terms with Michael's loss of memory. Aftershe gets over her surprise, Lisa decides to go and visit Michael, but shefinds Sheridan in her way, who claims that Michael is sleeping, and accordingto the doctor Lisa may not tell him that she is his girlfriend: his memoryloss should be allowed to dissappear by itself, it should not be rushed,because this could cause psychological problems. Disappointed, Lisa slinksoff. A bit later Michael visits Lisa. He saw her from the window, and hefelt that there was some kind of connection between them. He asks her questionsabout the nature of their relationship, but Lisa, remembering Sheridan's‘advice’, answers evasively. This continues for a number of scenes, butthen Lisa can contain herself no longer, and she tells Michael that theywere lovers. This is followed by a dramatic reconcillation.

In Wittekerke the story makes a different turn. Alex and Tanja are bothshipwrecked, and Tanja is quickly rescued, while Alex remains missing fordays. After a full week Alex' body has still not beel found, and Camilla(the Flemish Sheridan) unwillingly invites Tanja to a goodbye ceremonywith Katrien, a friend of hers, but when they arrive, Camilla tells themthat the ceremony has been cancelled because (so she claims) her fatheris not feeling well. Katrien and Tanja go back home, but Katrien suspectssomething. She feels that something is wrong, and returns to Camilla'svilla. Cunningly she learns that Alex has been found, and that Camillawas hoping to keep this a secret from Tanja. Katrien is overjoyed and takesAlex with her to the appartement she shares with Tanja, but Alex' reactionis rather cold (Camilla made him believe that Tanja doesn't love him anymore).Camilla comes by to take Alex home ‘because the doctor wants him to rest’,and a little bit later she tells Tanja that Alex doesn't love her anymore.This is followed by quite a number of scenes which are based on this misunderstanding:both Alex and Tanja believe that the other is not interested anymore. Inthe end they find out the truth, which is followed by an emotional reconciliation.

One of the first things identifiable characteristics of this changein story line is that the same elements (a shipwreck, a goodbye ceremony,loss of memory,...) are used to produce an entirely different story. Whenwe examine the basic conflict in E-street, we notice that it occurs ona human versus nature-level: Michael has to overcome his memory loss (‘naturalcondition’) in order to be reunited with Lisa. The attempt by Sheridanto prevent this intensifies the basic conflict, but it does not changeits foundation. In Wittekerke the basic conflict is on a human versus human-level:there is nobody else but Camilla who stands in the way of a reconciliationbetween Alex and Tanja. Her intrigue is the bases of the conflict thatfuels the narrative, and both lovers only have to overcome her lies tobe reunited. And this is where we return to the difference in the meaningof the community: in E-street Michael has to overcome himself, whereasTanja and Alex have to overcome Camilla's web of intrigue, and it is Katrien,a member of the community, who uncovers the truth. In other words thisstory line is a perfect illustration of the Australian individualism (Michaeldoes not need anybody to overcome the basic conflict) and also the importanceof the community in the Flemish serial: there is real support when neededmost.
 
 

6. The family

The meaning of the family is yet another identifiable variation in thetwo soap operas. In the introduction, it has already been mentioned thatthere are many national and cultural differences in this regard. In Americansoaps, for instance, ‘mothering’ tends to be the territory of biologicalmothers, whereas in British soaps this is done by mother figures, who arenot necessarily (biologically) related to the object of their maternallove (Liebes & Livingstone, 1992, 99-102)

With reference to Wittekerke and E-street, it must be pointed out thatthe actions of the characters are alike. ‘Mothering’ or taking care ofis not only the responsibility of close relatives. On the contrary, inthe analyzed episodes there are a number of examples of children who arebeing taken care of by people who are not their biological father or mother.Zac/Koen and Nicky/Nikky, for instance, were abandoned by their motherand live with their uncle and aunt. But there are other examples: Toni/Veerlelives with Elly/Nellie, the ex of her father who disappeared from the seriallong ago. Elly/Nellie treats her lovingly and raises her as if she wereher own daughter. Apparently both the Australian and the Flemish serialresemble the British model when it comes to the meaning of the family.

There are, however, also differences, not as much in the actions ofthe characters, but in the discourse they use. Let us compare, forexample, the following scene in which Toni/Veerle tells Harley/Bart thatDavid/Frank spent the previous night with Elly/Nellie (Frank is Nellie'sex-husband, and he's trying to win her back). Veerle en Bart discuss ifand how they will tell Bob now that it appears that David/Frank and Elly/Nellieare getting back together (Bob is in love with Nellie).
 

Harley opens the door and enters,followed by Toni and Claire. He sighs. Harley: Is all this secret stuff really necessary? I meanthe Rev’s feeling on the outer enough as it is. Toni: Well, he’s going to feel even worse. Harley: Why? Toni: It looks like that Elly and David might be getting backtogether. Harley: Toni, don't be stupid. Toni: Tell him Claire. Claire: Daddy stayed the night with her. Harley: What, you mean he spent the night in the flat? Sowhat? Claire: In the bedroom. On her bed. He was still there thismorning. Harley: You're kidding. Claire shakes her head, very seriously. Harley: (Sighs) I'll punch his lights out. Toni: I knew you'd have the answer, Harley. Claire: You can’t do that. He's my dad. Harley: Hey, hang on, the Rev's my dad too. Toni: Look, look, we're not sure what actually happened. Claire: They were being really nice to each other. Harley: Well, what do you want me to do about it? Toni: Well, don’t you think Bob ought to know? Harley: Well, yeah.	Bart and Veerle enter Bart: What's with all this secrecy? Is this really necessary?You know how touchy Bob is lately. Veerle: Just wait... He's about to get even touchier. Bart: What do you mean? Veerle: (Sits down on Bart's bed) It looks like Frank andNellie... That they... (Tries to find the right words). Bart: What? Veerle: That they're back together again. Bart: You're kidding me! Veerle: It's true... Frank just stayed the night with her.He was sitting on her bed when I came in with breakfast. Bart: You're not serious! Veerle: (Nods) When I came in they pretended nothing was goingon, but then Nellie tried to explain and that's when I knew. Bart: What if Bob finds out? Veerle: What are we going to do? Bart: What can we do? Nellie's old enough to know what she'sdoing... Veerle: No, that's not what I meant... I mean: shouldn't wetell him? Bart: I wouldn't like to be the one to tell him. Veerle: But wouldn't it be better if he heard it from us? Bart: I don't know... He's been rather nervous lately.
Toni: Look, we all knowBob loves Elly. Claire: So does Daddy. Toni: Exactly. So that's why Bob has to know where he stands. Harley: Hang on a minute. I'm being a little bit confused here.Whodo you want as a Dad? Claire: Well, I've already got a real Dad. I don't know. I love themboth. Harley: Right.	Veerle: Yes, but whatif he finds out from someone at the bar... Bart: That would be disastrous. Veerle: Exactly. Bart: (Sighs) So it's up to us to tell him then. (Scratcheshis head). Veerle: How? Bart: (Nods) How? They stare at each other, not knowing what to do.
Toni: Harley, somebodyhas to tell Bob. Harley: Sure. Claire and then point at Harley. Harley: Now... hang on a minute. Claire: He's your Dad. Toni: We figured it was a family responsibility. Harley: Great. You two have just made my day.

 

This scene clearly illustrates the fact that in the Australian serialfamily is considered to be a direct family-tie, a blood-tie so to speak.In their discussion Claire and Harley are wondering who should be loyalto whom. Claire repeats no less than three times that David is her father.Furthermore, the third time she calls him her ‘real father’, although inreality he is of not much use to her: he doesn't live with her and shehardly ever sees him. In fact, it is Bob who has been taking care of her(being a good friend of Nellie's, he came round frequently). Apparentlyfatherhood is a biological matter. The end of the scene says it all: ‘It'sa family responsibility’, and only a blood-tie can be regarded as realfamily. In Wittekerke the discussion is completely different. The word‘family’ is never used, and both Bart and Veerle have only one concern:how are they (not only Bart) supposed to tell Bob. And again we find anexample of the fact that in Flemish soap operas the contrast between theprivate and the public domain is sharper: the worst thing that could happenis Bob finding out ‘from someone at the bar’. Family is important in Wittekerke,since it is the domain of the private sphere, but blood-ties or biologyare not all-important here like in the Australian serial: family tendsto be described or implicitely assumed as a praxis.

A second observation concerns the degree of conflict that can be foundin the family. We have already established that the conflict of the generationsbetween Nicky/Nikky and George/Georges is more explicit in E-street. Ithas also been pointed out that this is an exception of the general ‘conflict-rule’.But this Australian stress on conflict within the family is also foundon an intra-generational level, for instance in the relationship betweenbrother and sister. An example of this can be found in a scene betweenSheridan/Camilla and Michael/Alex, brother and sister, in which Sheridansays that Michael has always been her father's favourite, while she nevergot any attention. In Wittekerke Camilla does not attack Alex, but Tanja(Tanja is Alex' girlfriend, and Camilla cannot stand her because she islower class): from the moment Alex met Tanja he has not been himself. Therivalry between brother and sister is much less important in the Flemishserial, but the Australian serial puts extra emphasis on it. This exampleis yet another illustration of the Australian individualism and the Flemishemphasis on social aspects: the Australian Sheridan blames nobody elsebut Michael, while the Flemish Camilla considers Alex to be a victim ofTanja.

This does not mean, however, that none of the Flemish families haveany conflicts: it has already been pointed out that Bart refers to thebad example Bob is setting as a father to make him change his behaviour(cf. part 4). Conflicts do occur in Wittekerke's families, but they shouldbe interpreted as a special kind of social control, and generally speakingthis social control is stronger in Wittekerke. It would be therefore fairto say that in Wittekerke the position of the family is more ‘positive’than its Australian counterpart: indeed, it belongs almost exclusivelyto the private domain, it is a haven where people can lick the wounds theysuffered in the public domain. The Australian family, though, is more ambivalent:conflict is (relatively) more frequent, but this is compensated by a ‘familyis and remains family’-moral: people bounded by blood-ties will remainloyal to each other. And that is the reason why Sheridan gets so angrywith Michael: he ‘leaves’ the family, brings dishonour to it through hisrelationship with a lower-class girl, which is unacceptable behaviour.In spite of its numerous internal conflicts, the Australian family is everlasting,unchangeable. No matter what happens, it will always be there for its members.

That is why in the scene above between Claire and Harley the centralissue is the question who will tell Bob that David stayed the night, andlogically this will have to be Harley, because he is Bob's biological son.It's also striking that, although Harley sighs, he does what has to bedone (unwillingly, but still). In Wittekerke the characters face a differentproblem: Bart feels that he should tell Bob that Frank stayed the night,not because he is his biological son, but because otherwise Bob might hearit in the pub, which would be disastrous. In this case there is no ethicsof ‘family is family and will always remain so’; rather, it is the spaceof the private sphere which needs protection. In short, the Australianfamily is biological and untouchable (in spite of its numerous internalconflicts), while its Flemish counterpart is a praxis, which belongs tothe private domain. The Australian community is completely positive whilethe Flemish community is more ambiguous. However, the opposite can be saidabout the family: the Flemish family is more positive than the Australian.
 
 

7. Conclusion

The objective of this research project was to compare the Australianoriginal E-street and its Flemish translation, in order to account forcultural differences. This was done through a textual analysis of Wittekerkeand E-street. We have tried to unravel the dominant discourses concerningthe individual, the family and the community, and it has been establishedthat, although these two serials are based on the same structure, thereis a significant number of differences between them in relation to thesethree subjects. Both series create their own, unique textual world, whichproves to be coherent, and which functions according to its own, uniquelogic.

It would be tempting now to posit that I have found ‘the’ Flemish andAustralian meaning of community, individual and family, which would leadus directly into the territory of essentialism. The jump from text to cultureis however not trouble-free. One way to grasp this relationship is to conceiveof culture as a ‘river of discourses’ (Fiske, 1994, p. 7), which makespossible a textual analysis based upon different and often competing meaningsand discourses. In other words, this article and the method that it usedis not capable of solving the critical sociological questions: howdo different Australian groups interprete the textual world created byE-street, and do they all share these notions of community, family or theindividual? How does this legitimize or or favour a certain social group?Furthermore, neither texts are fully coherent: as the account ofthe meanings of the family demonstrated, Australian characters may usea biological discourse, but they don’t behave accordingly. In short, discourseand praxis differ, and this is exactly why a text can be ‘polysemic’ andviewers can be ‘interpretative’. People can watch the same series but seedifferent ones. Or put into Saussurian terms, we may share the same signifiersbut ‘have’ different signifieds. Yet at the same time there are limitsto our interpretations (Eco, 1990), and popular television texts indeedtry to tell a coherent story. They structure or limit the possible meaningsin them, and it is the task of Cultural Studies to unravel this delicateshifting of meaning in text and subject. Put to its theoretical extreme,this research project unveiled nothing but ‘a’ preferred meaning (Hall,1980, p. 134), be it an argued one with some textual warranties. But scholarsare after all human beings, which means they are by definition interpretativeand reflexive towards texts and the people that watch them. Hence my callfor a moderate and humble textual analysis, since this research act searchesfor the limits of meaning. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
 

Notes
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

References
 
 
 
 

Allen, Robert C. (1985) Speaking of Soap Operas.London: University of North Carolina Press.

Allen, Robert C. (1987) The Guiding Light:soap opera as economic product and cultural document, in Horace Newcomb(ed.), Television: the Critical View. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, pp. 141-163.

Allen, Robert C. (ed.) (1995) To Be Continued...Soap Operas Around the World. London: Routledge.

Ang, Ien (1982) Het geval Dallas: populaire cultuur,ideologie en plezier. Amsterdam : SUA.

Appadurai, Arjun (1990) Disjuncture and differencein the global cultural economy, in Mike Featherstone (ed.), Global Culture,Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity. London/New York: Sage, pp.295-310.

Brown, Mary E. (1994) Soap Opera and Women's Talk:the Pleasure of Resistance. London: Sage.

Cantor, Muriel G. & Pingree, Suzanne (1983) TheSoap Opera. London: Sage.

Crofts, Stephen (1995) Global neighbours?, in RobertC. Allen (ed) op. cit. London: Routledge: pp. 98-121.

Eco, Umberto (1990). The Limits of Interpretation.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Field, S. (1994) Screenplay: the Foundations ofScreenwriting. New York: Dell Trade.

Fiske, John (1994) Media Matters: Everyday Cultureand Political Change. London: University of Minnesota Press.

Geraghty, Christine (1991) Women and Soap Opera:a Study of Prime Time Soaps. Cambridge: Polity.

Geraghty, Christine (1995) Social issues and realistsoaps: a study of British soaps in the 1980/1990s, in Robert C. Allen (ed)op. cit., pp. 66-80.

Gledhill, Christine (1997) Genre and gender: thecase of soap opera, in Stuart Hall (ed.), Representation: Cultural Representationsand Signifying Practices. Milton Keynes/London: Open University/Sage,pp. 337-84

Gripsrud, Jostein (1995) The Dynasty years: HollywoodTelevision and Critical Media Studies. London: Routledge.

Hall, Stuart (1980) Encoding/decoding, in StuartHall et al. (eds.), Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in CS,1972-1979. London: Hutchinson, pp.128-138.

Hall, Stuart (1996) Introduction: who needs 'identity'?,in Stuart Hall & Paul du Gay (eds.) Questions of Cultural Identity.London: Sage, pp.1-17.

Hall, Stuart (1997) Introduction, in Stuart Hall(ed.) Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.Milton Keynes/London: Open University/Sage, pp. 1-11.

Harrington, C. Lee & Bielby, Denise D. (1995)Soap Fans: Pursuing Pleasure and Making Meaning in Everyday Life. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.

Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1963) StructuralAnthropology. New York: Anchor.

Liebes, Tamar & Katz, Elihu (1990). The Exportof Meaning: Cross Cultural Readings of "Dallas". New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Liebes, Tamar & Livingstone, Sonia M (1992) Mothersand lovers: managing women's role conflicts in American and British soapoperas, in Jay G. Blumler, Jack M. McLeod and Karl E. Rosengren (eds.)Comparatively Speaking: Communication and Culture across Space and Time.London: Sage, pp.94-120.

Liebes, Tamar & Livingstone Sonia M. (1995) Wherehave all the mothers gone? Soap opera's replaying of the Oedipal story,Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12 (1), pp.155-175.

Liebes, Tamar & Livingstone, Sonia M. (1998)European soap operas: the diversification of a genre, European Journalof Communication 13 (2), pp. 147-180.

Livingstone, Sonia M. (1990) Interpreting a televisionnarrative: how different viewers see a story, Journal of Communication40 (1), pp. 72-85.

Lopez, Ana M. (1995) Our welcomed guests: telenovelasin Latin America, in Robert C. Allen (ed.) op. cit., pp. 256-275.

Martín Barbero, Jesús (1995) Memoryand form in the Latin American soap opera, in Robert C. Allen (ed.)op.cit, pp. 276-284.

Modleski, T. (1982) Loving with a Vengeance: MassProduced Fantasies for Women. London: Methuen.

Schiller, Herbert (1976) Communication and culturaldomination. New York: Pantheon Books.

Teurlings, J. (1997) Televisie binnen grenzen:een tekstueel onderzoek naar de Vlaamse culturele identiteit in Wittekerkeen Thuis (Television Without Frontiers: a Textual Analysis of Wittekerkeand Thuis). Brussels: unpublished licentiates thesis VUB (promotor: H.Verstraeten).
 
 

Work:

Pleinlaan 2, 5B418

1050 Brussel

Belgium

Tel: +32 2 629.24.33

E-mail: jan.teurlings@vub.ac.be
 
 
 
 
 
 

Home:

Brouwerijstraat 70

1050 Brussel

Belgium

Tel: + 32 2 642.93.10