MASS COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE

CULTURE

The word ‘culture’ is an English version of the German word ‘kultur’ which in turn is derived from the Latin  noun ‘cultura’, the Latin verb of which is ‘colere’ meaning to cultivate. To cultivate something is to handle it or work upon it in such a way that something valuable results. Thus ‘culture’ stands for something that has been worked upon. Culture in evident in ‘Things’, ‘People’, and ‘Human Practices’.

As defined by B. Malinowski in the year 1969:

“Culture is an integral composed of partly autonomous, partly coordinated institutions. It is integrated on a series of principles such as the community of blood through procreation; the specialization in activities; and last but not least, the use of power in political organization. Each culture owes its completeness and self sufficiency to the fact that it satisfies the whole range of basic, instrumental and integrative needs.”

C. Geertz defines Culture as:

“Culture denotes an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge about and attitudes towards life.”

The term ‘Culture’ entered into English usage with the publication of E.B.Tylor’s text “ Primitive Culture” in 1871. The following definition was given in this classic text:

INFORMATION SOCIETY THEORY

Since the end of the Cold War, a new world order has begun to emerge. It is based on international capitalism and the unrestricted cross-border flow of capital and information. This flow is not only essential to the successful operation of multinational companies, but it also permits development of many other multinational organizations. This new order is being imposed through a quiet revolution that is widely referred to as Globalization.

Marshall McLuhan’s observations concerning the Global Village and the role of electronic media in it proved to be prophetic. As per his envision, the significant developments made in Information Technology is now offering every individual the access to immense stores of information. The Global Village isn’t situated in space or time. It is all encompassing universal social structure of which each citizen of this world regardless of his gender, race, creed, age, nationality, religion, and culture is a member.  

W.H. Melody described Information Society as simply a society that has become dependent upon complex electronic information networks and which allocates a major portion of its resources to information and communication activities.

But Van Dijk, a prominent author prefers to use the term ’Network Society’ instead of ‘Information Society”. He suggests that modern society is in a process of becoming a ‘Network Society’ ; a form of society increasingly organizing its relationships in media networks which are gradually replacing or complementing the social networks of face to face communication.

New Media Technology leads to an Information Society, which is characterized by:

·                     Accelerating flow of high volume of Information

·                     High growth in communication networking

·                     Dependence on complex information/electronic systems

·                     Depoliticization

·                     High Rate of Globalization

·                     Privacy Violation

·                     Information Overloads

·                     Predominance of Information Work

·                     Integration and Convergence of Activities

·                     Reduced Constraints of Time and Space

MEDIA TECHNOLOGY DETERMINISM

Harold Innis, a Canadian Political Economist, was one of the first scholars to systematically speculate at length about the possible linkages between communications media and the various forms of social structure found at certain points in history. He argued that the early empires of Egypt, Greece, and Rome were based on elite control of the written word.

He contrasted these empires with earlier social orders dependent on the spoken word. With the invention of paper and pen, small centrally located elites were able to gain control over and govern vast regions. New communications media made it possible to create empires. The creation of new technologies like the telephone and the telegraph permitted even more effective control by groups of elites over larger geographic areas. Thus, the development of media technology has gradually given centralized elites increased power over space and time.

Marshall McLuhan, a Canadian literary scholar, who gained worldwide prominence as someone who had a profound understanding of electronic media and its impact on both culture and society had stated that:

“changes in communication technology inevitably produce profound changes in both culture and social order”

Fascinated by the transformative power of technology, as propagated by Innis, McLuhan argued that all social, political, economic, and cultural change is inevitably based on the development and diffusion of technology. He outlined his vision of the changes that were taking place as a result of the spread of radio and television.

He proclaimed that the Medium is the Message (and the Massage), In other words, new forms of media transform (massage) our experience of ourselves and our society, and this influence is ultimately more important than the content that is transmitted in its specific messages.

McLuhan also suggested the term Global Village to refer to the new form of social organization that would inevitably emerge as instantaneous, electronic media tied the entire world into one great social, political, and cultural system.

He also proclaimed media to be the Extensions of Man and argued that media quite literally extend sight, hearing, and touch through time and space. Electronic media would open up new vistas for average people and enable us to be everywhere, instantaneously.

McLuhan also classified media into hot and cool media. He stated that the television was a cool media because it presented the viewers with vague, shadowy images (reception in 1960s was bad and the television sets were black & white), so to make sense of these electronic images, people had to work hard to fill in missing sensory information; they had to literally participate in creating fully formed images for themselves. Print, on the other hand was a hot media, as it supplied the readers with all the information they needed to make sense of things. It did the work for the readers, offering predigested descriptions of the social world, thus eliminating the participation of the reader in creating meaning. His statement given in 1960s: “hot media are out and the cool media are in”  proved accurate.

A. Gouldner, the renowned sociologist after having interpreted the key changes in modern political history in terms of communication technology connected the rise of ‘ideology’ defined as a special form of rational discourse, to printing and the newspaper on the grounds that in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, these stimulated a supply of interpretation and ideas (ideology).

He then portrays the later media of radio, film and television as having led to a decline of ideology because of the shift from ‘conceptual to iconic symbolism’ revealing a split between the ‘cultural apparatus’ which produces ideology, and the ‘consciousness industry’ which controls the new mass public. This anticipates a continuing decline in ideology as a result of the new computer based networks of information.  

SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM

Social Construction refers to the processes by which events, persons, values, and ideas are first defined or interpreted in a certain way and given value and priority, largely by mass media, leading to the personal construction of larger pictures of reality. Here, the ideas of ‘framing’ and ‘schemata’ play their part. This concept is at the very center of thinking about processes of media influence. The unthinking, but increasing, promotion by media of nationalism, patriotism, social conformity and religion could all be interpreted as examples of social construction. The emphasis is on the media as a reproducer of a selective and biased view of reality.

As per Berger and Luckman, the notion of society as an objective reality pressing on individuals is countered with the alternative (and more liberating) view that the structures, forces, and ideas of society are created by human beings, continually recreated or reproduced and also open to challenge and change. There is a general emphasis on the possibilities for action and also for choices in the understanding of ‘reality’ . Social Reality has to be made and given meaning (interpreted) by human actors.

POLITICAL ECONOMY THEORY

The Political Economy Theory provides focus on how media are structured and controlled. It offers empirical investigation of media finances, and finally seeks for links between media content production and media finances.

The Political Economy Theorists study elite control of economic institutions such as banks and stock markets and then try to show how this control affects many other social institutions, including the mass media. In certain respects, they accept the classic Marxist assumption that the base (the media industry) dominates the superstructure (the culture of a society).

They investigate the means of production by looking at economic institutions, then expect to find that these institutions will shape media to suit their interests and purposes. They have examined how economic constraints limit or bias the forms of mass culture that are produced and distributed through the media.

With their macroscopic focus on economic institutions and their assumptions that economic dominance leads to or perpetuates cultural dominance, political economists were slow to acknowledge that cultural changes can affect economic institutions. Nor do they recognize the diversity of popular culture or the variety of ways in which people make sense of cultural content.

The Political Economy Theorist have remained centrally concerned with the larger social order and elites’ ownership of media. They criticize the growing privatization of media in Europe and the increasing centralization of media ownership around the world.

FUNCTIONALIST THEORY

In order to understand how functionalism relates to mass communication, it is necessary to draw a distinction between functions (the consequences of routinely carrying out communication activities) and the effects of those activities. As already stated earlier media have specific functions to perform and as such they are essential to the society. Referred to as the classic functions of the media, the five functions of the media are:

Information:         Also referred to as the Surveillance Function, it indicates the collection/dissemination of information,

cautioning/warning the public, besides facilitating innovation, adaptation, and progress.

Correlation:         Also referred to as the Interpretation Function, it is the explaining, interpreting, and commenting on the

meaning of events and information, in addition to consensus building, setting orders of priority and signaling relative status.

Continuity:           Also referred to as the Lineage/Linkage Function, it is forging and maintaining commonality of values,

establishing a bond between cultures/societies and communities.

Entertainment: It is the function of providing amusement, diversion, and the means of relaxation, thus

reducing tension.

Mobilization:    It is the function of campaigning for societal objectives in the sphere of politics, war, economic

development, work and sometimes religion.

MARXIST THEORY

Developed by Karl Marx during the latter half of 1800, the Marxist Theory argues that the hierarchical class system is at the root of all social problems and that it must be ended by a revolution of the proletariat. Karl Marx believed that elites dominated society primarily through their direct control over the means of production (labour, factories, and land) which he referred to as the base of the society.

He also argued that the elites also maintained themselves in power through their control over culture, or the superstructure of society(culture of a society). He saw culture as something that elites freely manipulated to mislead average people and encourage them to act against their own interest. He used the term ‘ideology’ to refer to these forms of culture.

The Marxist Theory based on Karl Marx’s Social Theory concludes that the Mass Media (the means of producing information) are owned and controlled by the bourgeois class, which manipulates the media for propaganda and for exploiting the working class.

MASS SOCIETY THEORY

The Mass Society Theory which emerged during the latter half of 1800,  as a dominant perspective on Western industrial society attributes an influential but often a negative role to media. It was simply a collection of contradictory notions – some quite radical and others quite reactionary . The radical notions were forwarded by revolutionaries who wanted to impose radical changes in the society, whereas the reactionary motions were forwarded by the elites (monarchists) who wanted to maintain the old political and social order. 

Early Mass Society Theorists argued that media are malignant forces that have the power to directly reach, transform, and corrupt the minds of individuals so that their lives are ruined and vast social problems are created. Through media influence, people are atomized, cut off from the civilizing influence of other people or high culture. Totalitarianism inevitably results as ruthless, power-hungry dictators seize control of media to promote their ideology.

Over the years, media have been continually accused of breaking down folk societies (Gemeinschaft) , and encouraging the development of amoral, weak social institutions (Gesselschaft).

Initially, mass society theory gained wide acceptance. But in time people questioned its unqualified assertions about the media’s power to corrupt and debase individuals. Although mass society theory has very little support among contemporary mass communication researchers and theorists, its basic assumptions of a corrupting media and helpless audience have never been completely disappeared. Attacks on the pervasive, dysfunctional power of media have persisted and will persist as long as dominant elites find their power challenged by media. 

MEDIA-SOCIETY THEORY

Features of Mass Media Institutions

*           Mass Media Institutions are segmented and classified on the bases of the technologies they utilize

(e.g. print media, broadcast media, transit media, outdoor media, electronic media, film media, etc.)

*           Mass Media Institutions are professional organizations which are normally bureaucratic in form

*           Mass Media Institutions are mainly engaged in the production and distribution of symbolic content

*           The participation of the Sender and Receiver in the Communication Process is voluntary

*           Mass Media Institutions differ from country to country/region to region

*           Mass Media Institutions are an integral component of the society, as such they need to operate in the public sphere, and are accordingly regulated by the society

*           Mass Media are normally free and powerless in nature

COMMUNICATION SCIENCE

As defined by Charles Berger and Stephen Chaffee:

“Communication Science seeks to understand the production, processing, and effects of symbol and signal systems by developing testable theories containing lawful generalizations, that explain phenomena associated with production, processing, and effects.”

Communication Science is a perspective that integrates all research approaches grounded in quantitative, empirical, behaviour, research methods. In joining limited effects, ideas, active audience theories and research on interpersonal communication, Communication Science includes most forms of quantitative, empirical research and theories it supports. It does, however exclude cultural, critical, and political economic theories.

In the year 1987, Chaffee and Berger offered a restructuring of the scientific study of Communication Science based not only on the usual narrow interest in specific aspects of the communication process as applied in individual circumstances or settings but, rather, based on the four levels at which communication phenomena occur:

1.             Intra-individual:                                   The analysis of communication that occurs within the individual.

Dialogue taking place within one’s self or an internal communication (the individual’s ability to think, to visualize, to perceive, to learn, to form attitudes, and to express ideas).

2.             Interpersonal:                                     The analysis of communication relationships between two or small

groups of people. Communication between couples or friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc.

3.             Network or Organizational:             The analysis of larger groups of people and the contexts of their

continuing relationships. Communication between two or more organizations, and between an organization and its stakeholders.

4.             Macroscopic Societal:                      The analysis of the communication characteristics and activities of

large social systems. Communication directed towards the public, society or towards a mass audience.

Based on the above structure, Denis McQuail developed a Pyramid of Communications illustrating the various levels and types of communication network that exist in the society.