15 thoughts on “Week 3 – Media and Social Change (T1)”
M Priyanka Nair
White not only focuses on various examples to illustrate his point on the need to look at the socio-cultural history that leads up to the success of an invention, but also talks about alphabetization. I think this is an interesting example to examine, which White unfortunately didn’t get into the details of. Alphabetization, if we think about it, is one of the first ways of categorizing sounds that allowed Man to translate speech into text. Though it can be argued that certain written languages that may have existed far earlier than alphabets had their own system of recording sounds and images, such as Sanskrit and certain Chinese languages, alphabetization took on so much faster and spread so much further. Alphabetization allowed for immense possibilities of recording sound textually and this allowed for any other development of text thereafter, though to credit every other media development to alphabetization would be highly romanticized. To code and categorize sounds is really difficult and we, as people who live far, far after the time, and thus find it difficult to imagine, where speech was the only medium, know this from learning phonics- trying to recreate sounds that we make through alphabets is hard enough when we already have set letters, what more creating the entire alphabet itself. This is paralleled in McLuhan’s writing on how other mediums can be contained in media itself: that the content of writing is speech. Alphabetization allowed for writing, which contains the medium of language and language contains the medium of speech. Though it sounds like a lot of layers, alphabetization allowed for the condensation and remediation of speech to text, which was and still is easier to spread further in a shorter period of time and withstand erosion of time, unlike oral traditions of relying on speech.
Kaede Lim
White brings forth the reminder the inventions of various forms of media and devices are always a part of a larger web of chain reactions, spanning across multiple other inventions. In this sense, he argues against the genius theory of associating a successful invention or discovery to a single person or situation. Although it is not difficult to agree with, it is a much enlightening perspective for the people now whose scopes only reach as far as the use of a device itself. This is a fundamental perspective that has the potential to further improve, develop and remediate current devices and media with calculation, research, prediction and innovation. White’s argument parallels McLuhan’s idea that all forms of media are containers of other forms of media. He reminds the reader of the same kind of interconnectivity, complexity and interdependency between various inventions and discoveries.
Habermas writes on the public sphere, taking an egalitarian standpoint to convey the democratic traits of the public sphere. There is the idea of the newspaper’s role as the public voice or the representation of the masses. Habermas notes the agency that is attached to the idea of the public sphere and newspapers. At this time, the closest thing to an ideal public sphere seems to have developed into the internet and yet as Thompson highlights, distribution has been instituitionalised and then corporatised and in reference to newspapers, their control has fallen into the hands of corporation and more importantly politically interested instituitions. The internet itself is a panoptic platform in which freedom of opinion and discussion remain to an extent, an illusion under the crafted surveillance of states.
Goh Xi Hsien
White offers a historical perspective to inventions, as she mentions that we are now too focused on the “genius”, the inventor of a certain item. Different inventions have different purposes according to the social and historical context of a place, which in turn affects our lives in some way. Similar to White, Thompson states that in the process of decoding a message, one should also consider the social and historical context – messages are not just a top-down approach in which there is only one message to be transmitted and interpreted, we do have autonomy.
White also states that the ability to transmit the messages for decoding lies with the ones in power, similar to Habermas. However, according to Habermas, the public sphere could act as a bridge between the ones in power (state) and the ones without power (people). A public sphere refers to”a sphere which mediates between society and state in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with the principle of the public sphere. This is evident today through the use of the Internet. While politicians use social media sites (ministers and facebook) to connect with the people, there are sites for people to voice their opinions as well. However, these sites are not entirely free to publish their own content, as seen when MDA rolled out licensing schemes for sites with high traffic in 2013, which many viewed as a form of censorship.
Rachel Ng
In Thompson’s reading, he says that the development of institutions which have a certain power in the distribution and circulation of ideas and information gives them legitimacy. When these institutions are brought and developed too far, they become corporate institutions with their own interests at heart, enabling media to become a tool to communicate and transmit certain messages. The idea of mass means an extended audience, and mass communication becomes a medium of ideological apparatus. This potentially threatens the state’s autonomy and capacity in the implementation of decisions and policies which restricts their power.
The theme of power is prevalent as capitalism is divides society into classes and allows individuals access to resources based on their classes. With the amount of access individuals have to resources depending on their socioeconomic status and such, power is an important theme in how media affects society.
Elysia Lee
Mass media is undeniably integrated into our lives today. There are many significant innovations in which people do not understand the entirety of it. It just happens and “all we can do is to observe the fact of it and hope that eventually we may grasp the meaning of it” (White). Just like how coinage was an innovation that was transmitted in to society rapidly that people do not exactly understand how the occasion started, mass media seems to be somewhat similar. Media technology is vast and hastily progressing. The history of media technology is crucial for interpreting the cultural phenomena and the meanings behind it.
For instance, when television and film was innovated, it brings about audio-visual constructs, endowing media messages with permanence (Thompson). It led to a new kind of information storage mechanisms, as compared to the old way of exchanging messages directly. As media technology improves, there are new meanings attached as there are social changes. Understanding and analyzing media allows us to also navigate and decode the cultural phenomena. In my personal opinion, critically seeing mass media as a commodity and a cultural object allows us to take control over media, especially in our world today where people may blindly follow media messages as they rely so much on mass media today.
Habermas also mentions the public sphere in relation to mass media. Mass media can create a new form of public sphere. However, there is a question to whether or not this public sphere is exactly a true avenue of conveying messages. As mass media is prevalent in society today, it also changes the way communication is made. For instance, messages may be incorporated to products sold, and may be insincere as messages are constructed. Perhaps mass media allows more people to voice out their opinions, however these messages may be highly regulated as there are other controls placed over these mediums such as sanctions.
Mass media has great aspects to it and we may not have seen the greatest impact out of it yet. As White talks about the history of innovations, “if we dare to go this far, we may venture even further”.
Tham E-lyn
What stood out for me from Thompson’s reading was a particular sentence – “Media messages are not received and interpreted in isolation; the very activity of receiving them is a social practice which may have its ow significance for recipients.”. (Page 378) This, I feel, embodies the very essence of mass media.
Mass media is so prevalent nowadays that we scarcely recognise how the many facets of it have surrounded and assimilated into nearly every aspect of our daily routines. We tend to take mass media for granted, subconsciously relying on it as our gateway to the world’s events, never once considering what the world would be like should mass media should not exist. We have grown comfortably accustomed to the ever reliable existence of such mass media around us, perpetuated by the advent of technology, fuelled by the advancement of globalisation. In Singapore, it is nary an uncommon sight to see eyes glued to the glowing screens of Ipads on buses and trains, nor heads buried in their smartphones even whilst walking. In this we are granted insight into the evolution of mass media -how it has evolved from newspapers to simple electronic screens. Many of us have different perceptions of mass media, differing perceptions on its impacts and relevance. Yet, I feel that many of us do sometimes fail to acknowledge the ubiquity of mass media, and as Thompson suggests, neglect the correlation it has to the cultivation of culture.
Thompson highlights four conceptions whereby culture can be analysed, namely the classical, the descriptive, the symbolic, and the structural conceptions. In the context of mass media, the classical conception would outline how media impacts an individual’s spiritual or intellectual development.
Towards the end of his article, Thompson gives an example of a how the simple activity of watching a soap opera in a family household may enable a woman to “distance herself from domestic demands” or to “experience vicariously a form of pleasure or control which is absent from her ordinary life”. This aspect of mass media hence provided a channel through which the woman could obtain some form of respite from the mundanity of her daily routine, tending to her otherwise unfulfilled “needs and desires”.
The descriptive conception caters to how a society itself is manifested; outlining its practices, values, beliefs and ideologies. Mass media in the form of popular pop songs and hollywood movies have infested the world with American culture, resulting in a phenomenon known as Westernization. Through the avenues made possible by the advent of mass media, the rest of the world is made privy to American culture and beliefs, some societies even choosing to model themselves after them. This, I feel, constitutes a rather pertinent example of how mass media, in a global context, can have an impact on culture.
The symbolic conception refers to how certain things or events are in fact “meaningful actions producing meaningful objects”. This highlights how meaning is attached to every object or action, even if it may not seem so. This brought to mind the dialectic relationship between “space” and “place”. For example, take an empty room. This empty room is a place, an area of land situated at a particular location. Yet, what the space at this place is used for attaches meaning to the place. If tables and chairs are placed at this empty space, educational meaning is allotted to the place. If mirrors are installed and the floors polished, the place could instead be used as a dance studio. So saying, our actions attach meaning to any place or space. Similarly, meaning is attached to any object or action in the way that we conduct ourselves. Take the example of twerking – such a dance move has been present for at least a few years. Yet, the world remained oblivious to this particular dance move until Miley Cyrus popularised it in one of her music videos, which was disseminated through mass media. Suddenly the world became aware of such a dance move, despite it existing for a few years. This highlighted to me the extent of power that mass media has on culture in society today.
I also found the part where he highlighted how much of the mass media that is made available to us today is in fact a product of certain institutions rather interesting, these institutions more often than not being those that possess authority (eg the government). They act as filters, controlling the content of media disseminated to the public. This brought to mind the example of Glee, a popular American series, where its homosexual scenes were omitted when played on Singaporean screens. In a way, the government is subtly controlling what they want their people to watch, and how they want their people to be influenced. That, I feel, is another extensive topic of discussion altogether. This is further substantiated by Habermas’ article, where he draws a distinction between the public sphere and the political sphere, and how they are in “contrast”.
Lee Cheong Khi
In his article, Habermas was particularly interested in the public sphere. For him, public sphere is a realm where all individuals have access to the formation and expression of public opinions, often concerning “matters of general interest.” The emergence of the public sphere gave rise to the accepting and distribution of ideas and opinions and creates accountability. For him, the public information is made available which allows for the development of democracy. For instance, many people today have the ability to voice out and share their opinions in the public sphere and demands have been made for governments and institutions to be more transparent and open about their operations and works.
Thompson has a rather similar idea of the dissemination and circulation of information as Habermas. He was interested in how information is distributed and looked at the power relations involved, studying about who gets access and who does not. He was interested in the study of meanings and how it maintains the “relations of domination.” The study of ideology would highlight the “interrelations of meaning and power.” As such, he was concerned with the role of power in mass communication, how it excludes, includes and determines the relationship among different people.
White’s article is trying to provide an understanding of past inventions, the motivations as well as the spread of the inventions across countries. For her, the history of inventions were often left aside and little has been known about how these some of the world’s most frequently used inventions came about, which includes alphabetization. She feels that people have neglected the seemingly mundane inventions that have contributed to larger and more important inventions today. She is interested in providing some background knowledge and study how ideas can be transferred from one invention to the other, although these inventions can be largely unrelated. She finds that humans are capable of introducing innovations and also extending these innovations. She concludes the article by stating that human creativity “may well be a lot of things and not one thing”, and that the belief that “technological creativity is unitary” should not hold true.
#GOH TIFFANY#
The apparent similarity between Habermas’s and Thompson’s readings is the issue of power relations. Both give mention to the existence of “relations of dominations” (Thompson, 371) which serve to create inequalities. The “public sphere” is defined by Habermas as a realm within social life where public opinion can be formed and is accessible to all. It is thus, a product of democracy. He charts the changing relations between the public and private sphere from the past to the present. In medieval times, he notes that there were no distinctions between the aforementioned spheres due to the feudal system. However, rulers increasingly took advantage of their positions of power to lord over the lower classes instead of ruling for their people. In the late 18th century then, democracy became an ideal and the “public” sphere became a platform where power-hungry rulers could exercise legitimate power over the masses. In contemporary society, Habermas observes that public and private spheres have collapsed into each other and that the “public” now constitutes an organized people who institutionally exert their influence over the masses. This is far from democratic. In fact the people in power, usually the elites, establish hegemony over the people and rule with vested interests.
This is possible because of what Thompson mentions in his article: “ideology”. He furthers Habermas’s argument by explaining the 4 modes in which relations of domination can be sustained through ideology. They are: legitimation, dissimulation, fragmentation and reification. Weber’s theory of legitimate domination I’m sure is not unfamiliar to us. It entails the belief in validity of the right to dominate and the corresponding element of obedience. The mode of dissimulation is the selecting positive representations to the masses in order to make it seem like they are benefitting from the elite’s rule. Groups and individuals oppose one another and those in power use this to mobilize meaning. (An example I can think of is probably how the US has portrayed Muslim terrorists as the common enemy globally). The last mode is reification which which operates in a “transitory, historical state of affairs as if it were permanent, natural, outside of time”.
These theories of power relations are prevalent in media and society. If we were to go down the Frankfurt School of thought, the Culture Industry is one which reveals an “obedience to the social hierarchy” (Horkheimer & Theodor). We are made into unthinking, manufacturing machines and our individual thoughts are overshadowed by the very mechanisms that propel modernity. Unlike the Frankfurt School’s pessimistic views that the Culture industry is oppressive and controls the way we consume, Thompson believes that there is a “space (for) transformation” (Thompson, 380). Recipients of the media messages possess agency for interpretation. This is in line with Stuart Hall’s stand that people are reflexive and respond to the hegemonic culture industry in different ways. We are decoding and this is an active process.
Frances Tan Wei Ting
Thompson points out that social theorists have not given adequate attention to the study of mass communication in modern societies. Mass communication had been generally conceived as an “institutionalized mechanism for the diffusion of collective values and beliefs… [and help] sustain existing social relations”. As such, he calls for greater attention to the study of mass communication as both a cultural phenomenon and a medium of ideology. First he distinguishes 4 basic usages of culture: “classical”, “descriptive”, “symbolic” and “structural”. For cultural phenomenon to exist, they need channels for diffusion or transmission. These channels (media) reproduce selectively the cultural forms. Then he points out characteristics of mass communication that distinguishes them from everyday interaction (face-to-face): 1) Indeterminacy from the instituted break between production and reception, 2) As information storage mechanisms, 3) Containing commodified and reproducible messages, and 4) For a mass audience, who creatively interprets and who are socially differentiated. Next, he introduces the framework of “depth hermeneutics”, with three phases (social-historical analysis, formal or discursive analysis, and interpretation) to understand mass communication as cultural phenomenon (or symbolic constructions). Then he tries to use this approach to look at ideology (for sustaining the relations of domination). He distinguishes 3 aspects of mass communication and how one might research them: 1) the process of production and diffusion, 2) construction of the media message, and 3) reception and appropriation of media messages. Finally, he compares this approach to others.
White suggests in her article that we approach the study of technology and its relations to society by looking at specific instances of their development rather than throw out generalizations. We should prune, rather than add “facts”, to our knowledge base. This would highlight new insights such the tendency for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which we attribute causation to an occurrence that may be only correlational in nature, and thus becoming overly technologically deterministic.
Habermas questions what is the public sphere. Essentially, it is “a realm of social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed”, and “a sphere which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with the principle of the public sphere”. He goes on to examine what public opinion is, the development of the public sphere and the medium of public discussion via literary journalism, the press and propaganda. He shows that the medium can make an impact on the structure of society, polarizing into the public and private sphere (or the state v.s. society), which then gain functions that encroach and overlap. Even the values change, such as the push for transparency, that proceedings be made public, instead of the principle of supervision (that is, sole regulation by the state). The medium and the principles underlying their use are not passive, they, too, transform society.
Since we believe that media does induce social change to some extent, and is in turn influenced by social change, what are the ways in which we can begin to think about this relationship? The articles presented this week appear to be trying to answer this. Mass communication is a more heavily laden term that originally meets the eye. The various approaches attest to this.
Ong Yan Ting
Lynn White’s article gives me the idea that technological innovations come about from the need of such inventions to solve a problem in their daily living. However, the rate of adoption by others would depend on their own societal context. An example found in the article would be the Portuguese button, which was invented due to a need, was found to be adopted by the Japanese and not the Chinese. Continuity of technological inventions would depend on the applicability of the technology in current societies. A pager was useful before the invention of cellphones, but no longer needed after cellphones allowed others to instantly contact the user.
John Thompson highlights the differences between mass communication and the exchange of messages in everyday life, in terms of there being an ‘instituted break between production and reception’ for mass communication, the nature of such messages and how they have a permanent existence as compared to the transient nature of the exchange of messages in everyday life. As such, the ability to store such information allows it to be commodified and thus ‘potentially available to an extended audience’.
Khrisha Chatterji
I think that the commonality shared between all the authors is that there is more to media/technology than meets the eye. It is not merely an invention or tool. Rather, it mediates the way society works – how people think and act.
White offers a historical perspective to technology, specifically inventions. She claims that inventions have differing purposes in different geographical contexts but we are not aware of its differing purposes as we have been exposed and introduced to only one such purpose. Furthermore, when we think about an invention, we usually just think about what it serves to do and the direct effects of using it without going into detail about its historical background or its beginnings – why it was invented in the first place and how it has created an evolution in the way society works – the way people do things, how inventions spur newer inventions and make obsolete older inventions, etc.
While White focused on the contexts of inventions and how these have histories, causes and consequences given where the people are and what the people need, Habermas and Thompson seek to understand media as a platform for the spread of ideology. It is an arena in which power relations are sorted out to decide who gets to control the dissemination of information and likewise who receives it and what type of information they receive.
Habermas thinks of the public sphere as a mediator between the state and the society. It also serves as an access point to information and rights. When society changed the way it functioned, no longer a feudal society, power relations changed and this affected public discussion. Thus, power relations determine who gets what sort of information and who controls the spread of the information.
In this sense, it is similar to what Thompson has suggested. He mentioned that the way information is created is crafted with agenda, an agenda to maintain the relations of domination. What gets released is controlled and carefully tweaked to ensure that power relations do not change. How his work is different from that of Habermas’ is that he discusses the interpretation of the messages received through media which Habermas failed to touch upon I think. Thompson said that how we receive information is different because of subjective interpretations. These subjectivities are based on our varying social contexts. Who we are based on social-historical circumstances and the way the messages were crafted, leads us to interpret messages differently.
Tan Yuan Ting
Author’s Note:
For a readings response, I’m presenting my true blue, slightly censored opinion and response for Habermas’s reading. For a blog post, this is sure as h*** formal. But of course, if that is required here, please forgive my lack of formality, complexity and abstract vocabulary for this post. (It’s my virgin experience, you know.) Prof, you’ll let me know how formal we’ll need to be right? Before I digress any further, let’s get moving. (Figuratively of course.)
Habermas’s The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964) presented a, what some would say, an overview of the idea/concept of this Public Sphere. Skipping definitions, (cause I know you guys already know what it means),and the History (cause admit it, History though interesting, can be really boring) throughout the readings, I find myself intrigued at the part of public discussion.
Habermas mentioned, “public discussions about the exercise of political power … grew out of a specific phase of the bourgeois society and could enter into the order of the bourgeois constitutional state only as a result of a particular constellation of interests.”
I found myself associating this whole definition and idea of public discussion towards the situation in the Singapore context. Of course, in this case, I refer the bourgeoisie as the current ruling party People’s Action Party (PAP). When Habermas’s brings up the “constellation of interests”, I think it’s a safe bet to say that these interests mentioned, are/ have to be interests that, to some large extent, are of similarity and relevance the PAP. (If i’m wrong, do correct me, that’s as per my understanding, which right now is thoroughly confused.)
You see, the phrase, “discussion about the exercise of political power”, isn’t something that really happens here in Singapore. Of course, politics isn’t something that we have been taught in schools, saying that teaching us morality and instilling values are more important than of teaching politics. (and then, turning the cheek and calling us apathetic, oh the irony. All this was back in 2012. ) – although Law Minister K Shanmugam suggested “political education” be introduced into the schools, along with other ministers saying we should set up a “code of conduct” for netizens due to “negative” online political expression. (really, this kind of thing also want.)
imposes, though not explicitly, but a sort-of self-regulation upon the reporters of these websites.
Taking the idea that the public sphere is a sphere which mediates between society and state, where the public is the bearer or public opinion, if highly regulated by the state, does it not mean that the public sphere is tightly controlled? Nevermind about the strict rules and regulations, but with such self-regulations, wouldn’t people tend to censor their thinking and toning it down much, making it less effective or rather, tuning it towards the interests/what is accepted/suitable/politically correct in hopes that it can be voiced out?
I’m not sure if I’m digressing, but I’m more fixated on the idea of the public sphere and public opinion. Although I do have to know if the public sphere, in some ways, does it constitute civil society?
Further on, we have the Liberal Model of the Public Sphere which brought up Newspaper, citing a transformation as a bearer of news into bearers and leaders of public opinion. I think rather than a 180 degree change, to some extent it still does a bit on both ends of bearing news and public opinion. Perhaps we could narrowly define it such that the Forum or Voices section of newspapers (you know those sections where it’s just really lengthy stuff about a certain thing.), and news of the daily happenings of the world. What I found interesting was the usage of the phrase, “daily political newspaper”, which (perhaps I am really not exposed enough), that newspaper is political in nature, but the only thing I can think of is that the newspaper more or less carries the propaganda of the ruling state.
Of course, the newspapers in Singapore, esp, The Straits Times is managed by the Singapore Press Holdings (which by the way, owns Paragon and Clementi Mall.), but you know, it’s like every damm piece of news you pick up, magazines and newspapers, it can always be traced back to the SPH. It’s like, we only have 1 press holding! (I didn’t just realise it today ok, I knew it long ago. Must save some face.) Wouldn’t the economic pragmatism ideology of “more business, more money!” prompt any normal thinking person to open maybe another press holding or something? But nah, media in Singapore is not only highly censored, but also highly regulated so kudos for trying, but nope. Not happening.
Ok, the more I write, the more I think I’m getting nowhere since all I do is go in circles. In any case, Habermas’s reading is about the whole concept of Public and Private sphere and how it transformed over the years (oh, history, history.), where medieval representative public sphere is different from the bourgeois public sphere, the transformation of fedual estates. (sort of). He then mentioned the liberal model of the public sphere, on what I came to understand as the changing roles of mass media in some sense and then the social welfare state (which is still confusing).
And well, guys, going back to the definition of the public sphere: a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed, where access is guaranteed to all citizens. In what forms does this realm appear to society?
Annabel Su
Habermas speaks of the public sphere as a platform in which public opinion can be created and accessed by the masses. He distinguishes the state authority from the public sphere but also notes that the public sphere is one that ‘mediates between society and state.’ Hence, it is not a mere collection of all members of society. In essence, the concept of public opinion emerges ‘when a reasoning public is presupposed’ and debates on the use of political power are carried out and influenced.
Habermas also goes on to examine the history of the public sphere and posits that due to the existence of the feudal pyramid, there was no clear demarcation between public and private realms. Instead, political power was retained at the highest level and the person with the authority was himself the embodiment -and not a representative- of the power. When the feudal authorities disintegrated in the Eighteenth century, this power gave way to public authority, which in turn became fully autonomous and ‘came into being with national and territorial states.’ As Habermas writes, the public sphere now held ‘legal exertion of authority.’
‘The bourgeois public sphere’ revolutionized the newspaper industry by utilizing newspapers as ‘weapons of party politics.’ Private interests attained a unique prominence in mass media and were influential in spreading ideological content. Thus, the public sphere turned into a ‘field for the competition of interests, competitions which assume the form of violent conflict.’ In addition, this blurring of lines between the private and public realms also brought about a new kind of feudalization of the public sphere where hidden agendas of private individuals entered the public realm and was propagated as a collective understanding. Hence, Habermas asserts that the public sphere is no longer a ‘public body of private individuals who relate individually to each other.’ Instead, it is now a collective of organized people who assert their influence on the public and in doing so, subject the public sphere to a threat of structural disintegration.
It is interesting to see how Habermas’ argument plays out in contemporary times where the Internet holds a vital role in society as the main communicative channel. Although the masses are able to access information at their fingertips, making communication seem more free and open, political motivations still limit public knowledge. For example, the Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore restricts certain websites that propagate information that is not aligned with the State’s doctrines. Hence, despite being more accessible, the Internet is still guarded and watched by some form of authority.
Thompson began his introduction by analysing mass communication within the broader context of the analysis of culture. Societies are made up of various social institutions and these institutions form the base or the framework in which media messages are transmitted.
Thompson distinguished communication into two categories of “communication in our day-to-day interactions” vs “mass communication”, which I felt was certainly helpful for readers who are new to this field. He explained how the sources of feedback are less immediate and direct and how products of mass communication are designed with the intent to reach out to the extended audience. One example he gave was how films were catered to the international audience so that they can be distributed on a global market.
Thompson went on to describe the impact media had on society and the social changes that occurred chronologically. He did this by establishing the link between the power of the written word and people becoming more literate, which led to the rise of the newspaper industry and how over time the television and cable came to dominate older forms of media.
His analysis, I felt, was more of a conflict paradigm in which the various institutions of mass communication are embedded in a broader social context in which there is on-going struggle for power and access to resources. He went on to discuss about how the state institutions sought to exercise control over the media by filtering content that might threaten the state’s hold on power.
He was careful to take into account the taken for granted processes of production, transmission and finally received by individuals who interpret them in relation to their specific social context. The article went in depth into these various processes that shape the meaningful symbolic constructions of cultural objects. I find the space of transformation, within which the meanings mobilized by media messages are transformed until being received by the audience, to be the most valid point and overall, I think that this was an interesting read.
Lucy ab Molloy
Lynn White is heavily critical of earlier attempts to define technology. She accuses her predecessors of over generalising and disregards the concept of making specific ‘moratoriums’ about technology because the very nature of technology means that it is constantly evolving and therefore such laws would be rendered useless before they had been fully established and understood. White advises using caution when making assertions about technology.
White contemplates how knowledge is accumulated and shared amongst humans, particularly in regards to innovation and invention. Citing the Chumas tribes’ revolutionary ‘plank boats’ she explains how without the context of how these boats were developed it is impossible to understand the process by which they were first engineered. Therefore, we can appreciate them and only hope one day we might understand how they came into existence. (This thesis is quite similar to some theological explanations of creation etc.) She cites the lack of knowledge humans have of the alphabet and currency- which are arguably the fundamental basis we have of technology. JR advocates that gaps that exist in human knowledge prompt more humility about technology than we currently display.
White then expands on prominent inventions in human history. Her concluding thesis is that, the development of technology is not necessarily unitary. Despite the vast developments that have occurred in technology in the past 10 centuries, humans have yet to fully comprehend the process that lies behind innovations. White sees an understanding of this process as integral to humanity’s self-knowledge.
I feel White’s critique is rather long winded, but her argument is valid. Humans may have achieved an extensive amount but we still understand relatively little about the environment in which we live in. It is true that arrogance on the part of humans in terms of what we feel to be our ‘superior knowledge’ of the world does little to help our development. In regards to gaining greater understanding of our evolution, I feel this is important but there are more pressing issues at play- such as how to sustain the modern lifestyle which is increasingly enjoyed by developed and developing nations at the expense of the environment. A more humble approach to our surroundings, investment in renewable technology and conservation is integral for our survival.
White not only focuses on various examples to illustrate his point on the need to look at the socio-cultural history that leads up to the success of an invention, but also talks about alphabetization. I think this is an interesting example to examine, which White unfortunately didn’t get into the details of. Alphabetization, if we think about it, is one of the first ways of categorizing sounds that allowed Man to translate speech into text. Though it can be argued that certain written languages that may have existed far earlier than alphabets had their own system of recording sounds and images, such as Sanskrit and certain Chinese languages, alphabetization took on so much faster and spread so much further. Alphabetization allowed for immense possibilities of recording sound textually and this allowed for any other development of text thereafter, though to credit every other media development to alphabetization would be highly romanticized. To code and categorize sounds is really difficult and we, as people who live far, far after the time, and thus find it difficult to imagine, where speech was the only medium, know this from learning phonics- trying to recreate sounds that we make through alphabets is hard enough when we already have set letters, what more creating the entire alphabet itself. This is paralleled in McLuhan’s writing on how other mediums can be contained in media itself: that the content of writing is speech. Alphabetization allowed for writing, which contains the medium of language and language contains the medium of speech. Though it sounds like a lot of layers, alphabetization allowed for the condensation and remediation of speech to text, which was and still is easier to spread further in a shorter period of time and withstand erosion of time, unlike oral traditions of relying on speech.
White brings forth the reminder the inventions of various forms of media and devices are always a part of a larger web of chain reactions, spanning across multiple other inventions. In this sense, he argues against the genius theory of associating a successful invention or discovery to a single person or situation. Although it is not difficult to agree with, it is a much enlightening perspective for the people now whose scopes only reach as far as the use of a device itself. This is a fundamental perspective that has the potential to further improve, develop and remediate current devices and media with calculation, research, prediction and innovation. White’s argument parallels McLuhan’s idea that all forms of media are containers of other forms of media. He reminds the reader of the same kind of interconnectivity, complexity and interdependency between various inventions and discoveries.
Habermas writes on the public sphere, taking an egalitarian standpoint to convey the democratic traits of the public sphere. There is the idea of the newspaper’s role as the public voice or the representation of the masses. Habermas notes the agency that is attached to the idea of the public sphere and newspapers. At this time, the closest thing to an ideal public sphere seems to have developed into the internet and yet as Thompson highlights, distribution has been instituitionalised and then corporatised and in reference to newspapers, their control has fallen into the hands of corporation and more importantly politically interested instituitions. The internet itself is a panoptic platform in which freedom of opinion and discussion remain to an extent, an illusion under the crafted surveillance of states.
White offers a historical perspective to inventions, as she mentions that we are now too focused on the “genius”, the inventor of a certain item. Different inventions have different purposes according to the social and historical context of a place, which in turn affects our lives in some way. Similar to White, Thompson states that in the process of decoding a message, one should also consider the social and historical context – messages are not just a top-down approach in which there is only one message to be transmitted and interpreted, we do have autonomy.
White also states that the ability to transmit the messages for decoding lies with the ones in power, similar to Habermas. However, according to Habermas, the public sphere could act as a bridge between the ones in power (state) and the ones without power (people). A public sphere refers to”a sphere which mediates between society and state in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with the principle of the public sphere. This is evident today through the use of the Internet. While politicians use social media sites (ministers and facebook) to connect with the people, there are sites for people to voice their opinions as well. However, these sites are not entirely free to publish their own content, as seen when MDA rolled out licensing schemes for sites with high traffic in 2013, which many viewed as a form of censorship.
In Thompson’s reading, he says that the development of institutions which have a certain power in the distribution and circulation of ideas and information gives them legitimacy. When these institutions are brought and developed too far, they become corporate institutions with their own interests at heart, enabling media to become a tool to communicate and transmit certain messages. The idea of mass means an extended audience, and mass communication becomes a medium of ideological apparatus. This potentially threatens the state’s autonomy and capacity in the implementation of decisions and policies which restricts their power.
The theme of power is prevalent as capitalism is divides society into classes and allows individuals access to resources based on their classes. With the amount of access individuals have to resources depending on their socioeconomic status and such, power is an important theme in how media affects society.
Mass media is undeniably integrated into our lives today. There are many significant innovations in which people do not understand the entirety of it. It just happens and “all we can do is to observe the fact of it and hope that eventually we may grasp the meaning of it” (White). Just like how coinage was an innovation that was transmitted in to society rapidly that people do not exactly understand how the occasion started, mass media seems to be somewhat similar. Media technology is vast and hastily progressing. The history of media technology is crucial for interpreting the cultural phenomena and the meanings behind it.
For instance, when television and film was innovated, it brings about audio-visual constructs, endowing media messages with permanence (Thompson). It led to a new kind of information storage mechanisms, as compared to the old way of exchanging messages directly. As media technology improves, there are new meanings attached as there are social changes. Understanding and analyzing media allows us to also navigate and decode the cultural phenomena. In my personal opinion, critically seeing mass media as a commodity and a cultural object allows us to take control over media, especially in our world today where people may blindly follow media messages as they rely so much on mass media today.
Habermas also mentions the public sphere in relation to mass media. Mass media can create a new form of public sphere. However, there is a question to whether or not this public sphere is exactly a true avenue of conveying messages. As mass media is prevalent in society today, it also changes the way communication is made. For instance, messages may be incorporated to products sold, and may be insincere as messages are constructed. Perhaps mass media allows more people to voice out their opinions, however these messages may be highly regulated as there are other controls placed over these mediums such as sanctions.
Mass media has great aspects to it and we may not have seen the greatest impact out of it yet. As White talks about the history of innovations, “if we dare to go this far, we may venture even further”.
What stood out for me from Thompson’s reading was a particular sentence – “Media messages are not received and interpreted in isolation; the very activity of receiving them is a social practice which may have its ow significance for recipients.”. (Page 378) This, I feel, embodies the very essence of mass media.
Mass media is so prevalent nowadays that we scarcely recognise how the many facets of it have surrounded and assimilated into nearly every aspect of our daily routines. We tend to take mass media for granted, subconsciously relying on it as our gateway to the world’s events, never once considering what the world would be like should mass media should not exist. We have grown comfortably accustomed to the ever reliable existence of such mass media around us, perpetuated by the advent of technology, fuelled by the advancement of globalisation. In Singapore, it is nary an uncommon sight to see eyes glued to the glowing screens of Ipads on buses and trains, nor heads buried in their smartphones even whilst walking. In this we are granted insight into the evolution of mass media -how it has evolved from newspapers to simple electronic screens. Many of us have different perceptions of mass media, differing perceptions on its impacts and relevance. Yet, I feel that many of us do sometimes fail to acknowledge the ubiquity of mass media, and as Thompson suggests, neglect the correlation it has to the cultivation of culture.
Thompson highlights four conceptions whereby culture can be analysed, namely the classical, the descriptive, the symbolic, and the structural conceptions. In the context of mass media, the classical conception would outline how media impacts an individual’s spiritual or intellectual development.
Towards the end of his article, Thompson gives an example of a how the simple activity of watching a soap opera in a family household may enable a woman to “distance herself from domestic demands” or to “experience vicariously a form of pleasure or control which is absent from her ordinary life”. This aspect of mass media hence provided a channel through which the woman could obtain some form of respite from the mundanity of her daily routine, tending to her otherwise unfulfilled “needs and desires”.
The descriptive conception caters to how a society itself is manifested; outlining its practices, values, beliefs and ideologies. Mass media in the form of popular pop songs and hollywood movies have infested the world with American culture, resulting in a phenomenon known as Westernization. Through the avenues made possible by the advent of mass media, the rest of the world is made privy to American culture and beliefs, some societies even choosing to model themselves after them. This, I feel, constitutes a rather pertinent example of how mass media, in a global context, can have an impact on culture.
The symbolic conception refers to how certain things or events are in fact “meaningful actions producing meaningful objects”. This highlights how meaning is attached to every object or action, even if it may not seem so. This brought to mind the dialectic relationship between “space” and “place”. For example, take an empty room. This empty room is a place, an area of land situated at a particular location. Yet, what the space at this place is used for attaches meaning to the place. If tables and chairs are placed at this empty space, educational meaning is allotted to the place. If mirrors are installed and the floors polished, the place could instead be used as a dance studio. So saying, our actions attach meaning to any place or space. Similarly, meaning is attached to any object or action in the way that we conduct ourselves. Take the example of twerking – such a dance move has been present for at least a few years. Yet, the world remained oblivious to this particular dance move until Miley Cyrus popularised it in one of her music videos, which was disseminated through mass media. Suddenly the world became aware of such a dance move, despite it existing for a few years. This highlighted to me the extent of power that mass media has on culture in society today.
I also found the part where he highlighted how much of the mass media that is made available to us today is in fact a product of certain institutions rather interesting, these institutions more often than not being those that possess authority (eg the government). They act as filters, controlling the content of media disseminated to the public. This brought to mind the example of Glee, a popular American series, where its homosexual scenes were omitted when played on Singaporean screens. In a way, the government is subtly controlling what they want their people to watch, and how they want their people to be influenced. That, I feel, is another extensive topic of discussion altogether. This is further substantiated by Habermas’ article, where he draws a distinction between the public sphere and the political sphere, and how they are in “contrast”.
In his article, Habermas was particularly interested in the public sphere. For him, public sphere is a realm where all individuals have access to the formation and expression of public opinions, often concerning “matters of general interest.” The emergence of the public sphere gave rise to the accepting and distribution of ideas and opinions and creates accountability. For him, the public information is made available which allows for the development of democracy. For instance, many people today have the ability to voice out and share their opinions in the public sphere and demands have been made for governments and institutions to be more transparent and open about their operations and works.
Thompson has a rather similar idea of the dissemination and circulation of information as Habermas. He was interested in how information is distributed and looked at the power relations involved, studying about who gets access and who does not. He was interested in the study of meanings and how it maintains the “relations of domination.” The study of ideology would highlight the “interrelations of meaning and power.” As such, he was concerned with the role of power in mass communication, how it excludes, includes and determines the relationship among different people.
White’s article is trying to provide an understanding of past inventions, the motivations as well as the spread of the inventions across countries. For her, the history of inventions were often left aside and little has been known about how these some of the world’s most frequently used inventions came about, which includes alphabetization. She feels that people have neglected the seemingly mundane inventions that have contributed to larger and more important inventions today. She is interested in providing some background knowledge and study how ideas can be transferred from one invention to the other, although these inventions can be largely unrelated. She finds that humans are capable of introducing innovations and also extending these innovations. She concludes the article by stating that human creativity “may well be a lot of things and not one thing”, and that the belief that “technological creativity is unitary” should not hold true.
The apparent similarity between Habermas’s and Thompson’s readings is the issue of power relations. Both give mention to the existence of “relations of dominations” (Thompson, 371) which serve to create inequalities. The “public sphere” is defined by Habermas as a realm within social life where public opinion can be formed and is accessible to all. It is thus, a product of democracy. He charts the changing relations between the public and private sphere from the past to the present. In medieval times, he notes that there were no distinctions between the aforementioned spheres due to the feudal system. However, rulers increasingly took advantage of their positions of power to lord over the lower classes instead of ruling for their people. In the late 18th century then, democracy became an ideal and the “public” sphere became a platform where power-hungry rulers could exercise legitimate power over the masses. In contemporary society, Habermas observes that public and private spheres have collapsed into each other and that the “public” now constitutes an organized people who institutionally exert their influence over the masses. This is far from democratic. In fact the people in power, usually the elites, establish hegemony over the people and rule with vested interests.
This is possible because of what Thompson mentions in his article: “ideology”. He furthers Habermas’s argument by explaining the 4 modes in which relations of domination can be sustained through ideology. They are: legitimation, dissimulation, fragmentation and reification. Weber’s theory of legitimate domination I’m sure is not unfamiliar to us. It entails the belief in validity of the right to dominate and the corresponding element of obedience. The mode of dissimulation is the selecting positive representations to the masses in order to make it seem like they are benefitting from the elite’s rule. Groups and individuals oppose one another and those in power use this to mobilize meaning. (An example I can think of is probably how the US has portrayed Muslim terrorists as the common enemy globally). The last mode is reification which which operates in a “transitory, historical state of affairs as if it were permanent, natural, outside of time”.
These theories of power relations are prevalent in media and society. If we were to go down the Frankfurt School of thought, the Culture Industry is one which reveals an “obedience to the social hierarchy” (Horkheimer & Theodor). We are made into unthinking, manufacturing machines and our individual thoughts are overshadowed by the very mechanisms that propel modernity. Unlike the Frankfurt School’s pessimistic views that the Culture industry is oppressive and controls the way we consume, Thompson believes that there is a “space (for) transformation” (Thompson, 380). Recipients of the media messages possess agency for interpretation. This is in line with Stuart Hall’s stand that people are reflexive and respond to the hegemonic culture industry in different ways. We are decoding and this is an active process.
Thompson points out that social theorists have not given adequate attention to the study of mass communication in modern societies. Mass communication had been generally conceived as an “institutionalized mechanism for the diffusion of collective values and beliefs… [and help] sustain existing social relations”. As such, he calls for greater attention to the study of mass communication as both a cultural phenomenon and a medium of ideology. First he distinguishes 4 basic usages of culture: “classical”, “descriptive”, “symbolic” and “structural”. For cultural phenomenon to exist, they need channels for diffusion or transmission. These channels (media) reproduce selectively the cultural forms. Then he points out characteristics of mass communication that distinguishes them from everyday interaction (face-to-face): 1) Indeterminacy from the instituted break between production and reception, 2) As information storage mechanisms, 3) Containing commodified and reproducible messages, and 4) For a mass audience, who creatively interprets and who are socially differentiated. Next, he introduces the framework of “depth hermeneutics”, with three phases (social-historical analysis, formal or discursive analysis, and interpretation) to understand mass communication as cultural phenomenon (or symbolic constructions). Then he tries to use this approach to look at ideology (for sustaining the relations of domination). He distinguishes 3 aspects of mass communication and how one might research them: 1) the process of production and diffusion, 2) construction of the media message, and 3) reception and appropriation of media messages. Finally, he compares this approach to others.
White suggests in her article that we approach the study of technology and its relations to society by looking at specific instances of their development rather than throw out generalizations. We should prune, rather than add “facts”, to our knowledge base. This would highlight new insights such the tendency for the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, in which we attribute causation to an occurrence that may be only correlational in nature, and thus becoming overly technologically deterministic.
Habermas questions what is the public sphere. Essentially, it is “a realm of social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed”, and “a sphere which mediates between society and state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion, accords with the principle of the public sphere”. He goes on to examine what public opinion is, the development of the public sphere and the medium of public discussion via literary journalism, the press and propaganda. He shows that the medium can make an impact on the structure of society, polarizing into the public and private sphere (or the state v.s. society), which then gain functions that encroach and overlap. Even the values change, such as the push for transparency, that proceedings be made public, instead of the principle of supervision (that is, sole regulation by the state). The medium and the principles underlying their use are not passive, they, too, transform society.
Since we believe that media does induce social change to some extent, and is in turn influenced by social change, what are the ways in which we can begin to think about this relationship? The articles presented this week appear to be trying to answer this. Mass communication is a more heavily laden term that originally meets the eye. The various approaches attest to this.
Lynn White’s article gives me the idea that technological innovations come about from the need of such inventions to solve a problem in their daily living. However, the rate of adoption by others would depend on their own societal context. An example found in the article would be the Portuguese button, which was invented due to a need, was found to be adopted by the Japanese and not the Chinese. Continuity of technological inventions would depend on the applicability of the technology in current societies. A pager was useful before the invention of cellphones, but no longer needed after cellphones allowed others to instantly contact the user.
John Thompson highlights the differences between mass communication and the exchange of messages in everyday life, in terms of there being an ‘instituted break between production and reception’ for mass communication, the nature of such messages and how they have a permanent existence as compared to the transient nature of the exchange of messages in everyday life. As such, the ability to store such information allows it to be commodified and thus ‘potentially available to an extended audience’.
I think that the commonality shared between all the authors is that there is more to media/technology than meets the eye. It is not merely an invention or tool. Rather, it mediates the way society works – how people think and act.
White offers a historical perspective to technology, specifically inventions. She claims that inventions have differing purposes in different geographical contexts but we are not aware of its differing purposes as we have been exposed and introduced to only one such purpose. Furthermore, when we think about an invention, we usually just think about what it serves to do and the direct effects of using it without going into detail about its historical background or its beginnings – why it was invented in the first place and how it has created an evolution in the way society works – the way people do things, how inventions spur newer inventions and make obsolete older inventions, etc.
While White focused on the contexts of inventions and how these have histories, causes and consequences given where the people are and what the people need, Habermas and Thompson seek to understand media as a platform for the spread of ideology. It is an arena in which power relations are sorted out to decide who gets to control the dissemination of information and likewise who receives it and what type of information they receive.
Habermas thinks of the public sphere as a mediator between the state and the society. It also serves as an access point to information and rights. When society changed the way it functioned, no longer a feudal society, power relations changed and this affected public discussion. Thus, power relations determine who gets what sort of information and who controls the spread of the information.
In this sense, it is similar to what Thompson has suggested. He mentioned that the way information is created is crafted with agenda, an agenda to maintain the relations of domination. What gets released is controlled and carefully tweaked to ensure that power relations do not change. How his work is different from that of Habermas’ is that he discusses the interpretation of the messages received through media which Habermas failed to touch upon I think. Thompson said that how we receive information is different because of subjective interpretations. These subjectivities are based on our varying social contexts. Who we are based on social-historical circumstances and the way the messages were crafted, leads us to interpret messages differently.
Author’s Note:
For a readings response, I’m presenting my true blue, slightly censored opinion and response for Habermas’s reading. For a blog post, this is sure as h*** formal. But of course, if that is required here, please forgive my lack of formality, complexity and abstract vocabulary for this post. (It’s my virgin experience, you know.) Prof, you’ll let me know how formal we’ll need to be right? Before I digress any further, let’s get moving. (Figuratively of course.)
Habermas’s The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964) presented a, what some would say, an overview of the idea/concept of this Public Sphere. Skipping definitions, (cause I know you guys already know what it means),and the History (cause admit it, History though interesting, can be really boring) throughout the readings, I find myself intrigued at the part of public discussion.
Habermas mentioned, “public discussions about the exercise of political power … grew out of a specific phase of the bourgeois society and could enter into the order of the bourgeois constitutional state only as a result of a particular constellation of interests.”
I found myself associating this whole definition and idea of public discussion towards the situation in the Singapore context. Of course, in this case, I refer the bourgeoisie as the current ruling party People’s Action Party (PAP). When Habermas’s brings up the “constellation of interests”, I think it’s a safe bet to say that these interests mentioned, are/ have to be interests that, to some large extent, are of similarity and relevance the PAP. (If i’m wrong, do correct me, that’s as per my understanding, which right now is thoroughly confused.)
You see, the phrase, “discussion about the exercise of political power”, isn’t something that really happens here in Singapore. Of course, politics isn’t something that we have been taught in schools, saying that teaching us morality and instilling values are more important than of teaching politics. (and then, turning the cheek and calling us apathetic, oh the irony. All this was back in 2012. ) – although Law Minister K Shanmugam suggested “political education” be introduced into the schools, along with other ministers saying we should set up a “code of conduct” for netizens due to “negative” online political expression. (really, this kind of thing also want.)
Ok, I may be digressing. But though some may disagree with me, while we do have certain agencies towards have public discussions about political powers, I still think that these discussions are still highly censored or prevented in terms of media. The new rule imposed on Internet news websites; for more info: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324412604578512571774044716?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324412604578512571774044716.html
imposes, though not explicitly, but a sort-of self-regulation upon the reporters of these websites.
Taking the idea that the public sphere is a sphere which mediates between society and state, where the public is the bearer or public opinion, if highly regulated by the state, does it not mean that the public sphere is tightly controlled? Nevermind about the strict rules and regulations, but with such self-regulations, wouldn’t people tend to censor their thinking and toning it down much, making it less effective or rather, tuning it towards the interests/what is accepted/suitable/politically correct in hopes that it can be voiced out?
I’m not sure if I’m digressing, but I’m more fixated on the idea of the public sphere and public opinion. Although I do have to know if the public sphere, in some ways, does it constitute civil society?
Further on, we have the Liberal Model of the Public Sphere which brought up Newspaper, citing a transformation as a bearer of news into bearers and leaders of public opinion. I think rather than a 180 degree change, to some extent it still does a bit on both ends of bearing news and public opinion. Perhaps we could narrowly define it such that the Forum or Voices section of newspapers (you know those sections where it’s just really lengthy stuff about a certain thing.), and news of the daily happenings of the world. What I found interesting was the usage of the phrase, “daily political newspaper”, which (perhaps I am really not exposed enough), that newspaper is political in nature, but the only thing I can think of is that the newspaper more or less carries the propaganda of the ruling state.
Of course, the newspapers in Singapore, esp, The Straits Times is managed by the Singapore Press Holdings (which by the way, owns Paragon and Clementi Mall.), but you know, it’s like every damm piece of news you pick up, magazines and newspapers, it can always be traced back to the SPH. It’s like, we only have 1 press holding! (I didn’t just realise it today ok, I knew it long ago. Must save some face.) Wouldn’t the economic pragmatism ideology of “more business, more money!” prompt any normal thinking person to open maybe another press holding or something? But nah, media in Singapore is not only highly censored, but also highly regulated so kudos for trying, but nope. Not happening.
Ok, the more I write, the more I think I’m getting nowhere since all I do is go in circles. In any case, Habermas’s reading is about the whole concept of Public and Private sphere and how it transformed over the years (oh, history, history.), where medieval representative public sphere is different from the bourgeois public sphere, the transformation of fedual estates. (sort of). He then mentioned the liberal model of the public sphere, on what I came to understand as the changing roles of mass media in some sense and then the social welfare state (which is still confusing).
And well, guys, going back to the definition of the public sphere: a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed, where access is guaranteed to all citizens. In what forms does this realm appear to society?
Habermas speaks of the public sphere as a platform in which public opinion can be created and accessed by the masses. He distinguishes the state authority from the public sphere but also notes that the public sphere is one that ‘mediates between society and state.’ Hence, it is not a mere collection of all members of society. In essence, the concept of public opinion emerges ‘when a reasoning public is presupposed’ and debates on the use of political power are carried out and influenced.
Habermas also goes on to examine the history of the public sphere and posits that due to the existence of the feudal pyramid, there was no clear demarcation between public and private realms. Instead, political power was retained at the highest level and the person with the authority was himself the embodiment -and not a representative- of the power. When the feudal authorities disintegrated in the Eighteenth century, this power gave way to public authority, which in turn became fully autonomous and ‘came into being with national and territorial states.’ As Habermas writes, the public sphere now held ‘legal exertion of authority.’
‘The bourgeois public sphere’ revolutionized the newspaper industry by utilizing newspapers as ‘weapons of party politics.’ Private interests attained a unique prominence in mass media and were influential in spreading ideological content. Thus, the public sphere turned into a ‘field for the competition of interests, competitions which assume the form of violent conflict.’ In addition, this blurring of lines between the private and public realms also brought about a new kind of feudalization of the public sphere where hidden agendas of private individuals entered the public realm and was propagated as a collective understanding. Hence, Habermas asserts that the public sphere is no longer a ‘public body of private individuals who relate individually to each other.’ Instead, it is now a collective of organized people who assert their influence on the public and in doing so, subject the public sphere to a threat of structural disintegration.
It is interesting to see how Habermas’ argument plays out in contemporary times where the Internet holds a vital role in society as the main communicative channel. Although the masses are able to access information at their fingertips, making communication seem more free and open, political motivations still limit public knowledge. For example, the Media Development Authority (MDA) of Singapore restricts certain websites that propagate information that is not aligned with the State’s doctrines. Hence, despite being more accessible, the Internet is still guarded and watched by some form of authority.
Thompson began his introduction by analysing mass communication within the broader context of the analysis of culture. Societies are made up of various social institutions and these institutions form the base or the framework in which media messages are transmitted.
Thompson distinguished communication into two categories of “communication in our day-to-day interactions” vs “mass communication”, which I felt was certainly helpful for readers who are new to this field. He explained how the sources of feedback are less immediate and direct and how products of mass communication are designed with the intent to reach out to the extended audience. One example he gave was how films were catered to the international audience so that they can be distributed on a global market.
Thompson went on to describe the impact media had on society and the social changes that occurred chronologically. He did this by establishing the link between the power of the written word and people becoming more literate, which led to the rise of the newspaper industry and how over time the television and cable came to dominate older forms of media.
His analysis, I felt, was more of a conflict paradigm in which the various institutions of mass communication are embedded in a broader social context in which there is on-going struggle for power and access to resources. He went on to discuss about how the state institutions sought to exercise control over the media by filtering content that might threaten the state’s hold on power.
He was careful to take into account the taken for granted processes of production, transmission and finally received by individuals who interpret them in relation to their specific social context. The article went in depth into these various processes that shape the meaningful symbolic constructions of cultural objects. I find the space of transformation, within which the meanings mobilized by media messages are transformed until being received by the audience, to be the most valid point and overall, I think that this was an interesting read.
Lynn White is heavily critical of earlier attempts to define technology. She accuses her predecessors of over generalising and disregards the concept of making specific ‘moratoriums’ about technology because the very nature of technology means that it is constantly evolving and therefore such laws would be rendered useless before they had been fully established and understood. White advises using caution when making assertions about technology.
White contemplates how knowledge is accumulated and shared amongst humans, particularly in regards to innovation and invention. Citing the Chumas tribes’ revolutionary ‘plank boats’ she explains how without the context of how these boats were developed it is impossible to understand the process by which they were first engineered. Therefore, we can appreciate them and only hope one day we might understand how they came into existence. (This thesis is quite similar to some theological explanations of creation etc.) She cites the lack of knowledge humans have of the alphabet and currency- which are arguably the fundamental basis we have of technology. JR advocates that gaps that exist in human knowledge prompt more humility about technology than we currently display.
White then expands on prominent inventions in human history. Her concluding thesis is that, the development of technology is not necessarily unitary. Despite the vast developments that have occurred in technology in the past 10 centuries, humans have yet to fully comprehend the process that lies behind innovations. White sees an understanding of this process as integral to humanity’s self-knowledge.
I feel White’s critique is rather long winded, but her argument is valid. Humans may have achieved an extensive amount but we still understand relatively little about the environment in which we live in. It is true that arrogance on the part of humans in terms of what we feel to be our ‘superior knowledge’ of the world does little to help our development. In regards to gaining greater understanding of our evolution, I feel this is important but there are more pressing issues at play- such as how to sustain the modern lifestyle which is increasingly enjoyed by developed and developing nations at the expense of the environment. A more humble approach to our surroundings, investment in renewable technology and conservation is integral for our survival.