Abstract
Digital and electronic media play a central role in weddings, capturing everything from the preparation to the ceremony itself and beyond. These media make specific moments of the wedding day memorable. But how do couples manage their wedding photos and videos, and what role do these media play in evoking memories of the event's religious and secular dimensions? These questions are explored within the theoretical framework of mediatisation and memory processes. This paper argues that the mediatization of weddings evokes emotions that strengthen the impact of these memories. Media shape how these events are recalled, leading to a partial homogenization of memories, where cultural and religious differences, as well as sexual orientation, become less prominent.
MethodsThis interdisciplinary qualitative-ethnographic research is based on twenty-seven semi-structured video recorded interviews conducted in Italy, Germany, and Switzerland with homo- and heterosexual married couples from different cultural-religious backgrounds. The couples shared their wedding album or video and developed their wedding narrative by looking at the photographs and videos.
ResultsTaking photos during the wedding becomes an important part of the ritual, independent of any cultural or religious background, gender and sexual orientation. The ceremony itself is emphasized in the photos and the videos. This homogenisation of the rite of passage equally occurs in the photographic representations of weddings and in turn influences how the wedding is remembered. The findings further confirm that heterosexual marriage representations reinforce gender stereotypes. The brides/wives of heterosexual couples are significantly more invested in the production and reception of wedding media, whereas homosexual couples participated in the conversation rather equally.
ConclusionsThe homogenization of representation and memory becomes part of the rite of passage’s cultural-collective memory that connects the individual couples. The mediatisation of weddings strengthens the feeling of belonging to a community that transcends cultural-religious identities.
Plain Language Summary
Digital and electronic media play a central role in contemporary weddings, be it during the preparation, the ritual itself or afterwards. Specific moments of “the most important day of one’s life” are made memorable through photographs and videos and the emotions they evoke. But how do couples manage their wedding photos and videos and what role do these media play in awakening memories of religious and secular dimensions of the event? I argue that wedding photos and videos influence how a wedding is memorized and results in a partial standardization of memories of the event, in which neither cultural nor religious differences nor sexual orientation play a crucial role.
Amendment
The state of research has been completely revised by including relevant literature about wedding photography suggested by the reviewers. The literature review focusses on how norms and values are expressed in wedding photography, and in which sense the photos and videos influence memory processes. The overview of the discussed literature is structured in the following four areas: (1) norms and values, (2) memories, (3) the ritual dimension, and (4) emotions.
The difference between the terms “mediation” and “mediatisation” has been defined and the theoretical conception of mediatisation relevant to study has been explained in detail. Both approaches to mediatisation, a cultural (social constructionist) and an institutionalist, are relevant whereas the processuality of both is crucial. Both encapsulate the whole process of how media are used to structure, communicate, and remember an event.
Pierre Nora’s concept of “lieux de mémoire” has been included in the argument. The spaces of memory of wedding photography are conceived as cultural archives that include an individual and collective dimension. At the same time the spaces present different moments during which memory is created. Accordingly, the analysis of the memory process is systematized into the four spaces of production, representation, reception and distribution (the latter two have been collated in the analysis because of their overlapping characteristics) that include certain practices. After each section the most important interim results are summarised.
The findings section (former results section) has been extended with photographs from the field work to make the argument clearer. Likewise references to the corresponding literature has been inserted in the findings section to connect the arguemnt with the theoretical discussion. The results are synthesized in the conclusion that has been completely revised. The aim was to create cross-connections between the memory spaces of the analysis.
