19 thoughts on “Week 3 – Media and Social Change (T3)”
Edwin Lee Xian Ming
Habermas presents the concept of the public sphere and the private sphere. He defines the public sphere as an area of social life whereby societal issues can be freely identified and discussed, by which political action can be galvanised.
The state and the public sphere are also seen as confrontational parties, not overlapping each other, in fact acting as check and balances to one another.
However, I feel that contemporary society does not afford such a distinction between the state and the public sphere, and the dichotomy between the public and private spheres are blurred considerably as well. One could argue that these concepts are simply ideal forms and do not exist in real life – indeed it is dangerous to assume they are so, given the immortality of any content uploaded into the Internet.
In “Literature and Society” Richard Hoggart (1973) reminds the reader of the link between society and literature, where the latter one carries knowledge about the former one. For him, “literature illuminates society” and can be described as “raw material”, used as a tool of documentation that can tell us something about the society of a certain age. More than that, he tells us that literature offers a “form of distinctive knowledge about society” (p. 19). One may ask, how does literature carries the so-called distinctive knowledge? Hoggard (1973) refers to an intrinsic power of literature as well as the ability to create an “experimental wholeness of life” (p. 20). Here, literature is seen as art – art of its own sake without any link to profit making or success. This reminds me very much, if I am not mistaken, of Walter Benjamin´s writing of the 1930 referring to the loss of “aura” of art with the age of mechanical production. In this case, when placing art in the category of art, Hoggart´s literature carries “the Benjamian aura”. It is described as full of history, which lets the reader imagine how the life of a particular age was like.
Another thing that caught my interest is that Hoggart speaks of literature as carrying knowledge, even though it cannot be objectively measured. This can be read as a critique on the 19th century hype of science and standardization. Especially in the Natural Sciences the scientific method gained in major importance, focusing on measurement and empirical evidence. More than that, he compares poetry to mathematics, where both follow strict guidelines and rules, to clarify his view.
When referring to mass culture it becomes clear that he opposes the rather simplistic and pessimistic view of the Frankfurt School. He claims “popular and mass art is more varied” than acknowledged. For Hoggard, who writes about 40 years later than the Frankfurt School, the relationship between the producer, the audience; the producer and the material and the audiences and the material are more complex. For him literature and art in general cannot be limited or understood in terms of money making or capitalism, focusing on the modes of production (Marx, 18th century) or in terms of mass culture, where the totality of mass culture takes over and destroys our ability to view the world critically (Adorno and Horkheimer, who were greatly influenced by Marx). For Hoggart (1973) literature is complex and holds valuable knowledge. It makes the reader imagine a different time, which the reader is able to critically assess.
When reading Hoggart, I recalled a website called Nolayout.com (http://www.nolayout.com), “a digital library for art and fashion publications”. Looking at the website now, I recall topics such as layout, medium, the packaging of a medium and how this may influence my reading experience. In the end, this website can probably best linked to Roger Chartier´s “Laborers and Voyagers: From the Text to the Reader”, which I will leave up to you.
Kelyn Phua
Lynn White explains how technological creativity is not unitary though the use of various examples such as the stirrup. We realize that media would not have been possible without alphabetization and print technology. Inventions are intertwined with one another; the glorious inventions today cannot be possible without the mundane ones. Media enables the creation of public opinion and public sphere as mentioned by Habermas.
The public sphere “mediates between society and state” and creates the possibility of a democratic society. It is where opinions of common citizens can be expressed and heard, as opposed to living under the dictatorship of those in authority, and encourages participation of the people in political activities. However, I feel that in reality, the public cannot be represented entirely because it is not homogenous – different people have different wants. More affluent people who have control over means of production would have more power in decision making than those struggling with poverty. Furthermore, the issues of the society would not concern the individuals who find it difficult to keep his family properly fed. Therefore, the public sphere can be understood as the bourgeois public sphere, made up of individuals in the private realm who are not of public authority, but still hold power due to their influence, usually in the economy. The bourgeois public sphere uses media such as newspapers and journals to challenge the state and this results in the idea of a more democratic society. But more often than not, the bourgeois public sphere has strong, mutually beneficial ties with those who hold office in public authority. At the end of the day, media does not deliver the promise of democracy but instead we witness the capitalists versus workers situation that Marx proposed. But of course, with the majority of middle class having access to technology such as the Internet, it is easy for one to express his opinions online and spread it – simply by clicking “Share” on Facebook. This, however, still does not give us complete freedom because our personal opinions are often shaped by the society, through newspapers etc. And the people who control the censorship, production and circulation of news are, of course, the bourgeoisie and the state.
Thompson’s article highlights the importance of social-historical context in the production, circulation and interpretation of media. He emphasizes on the analysis of “conditions and characteristics of reception”, describing different interpretations of messages as “significance of the activity of reception”. For example, reasons for watching a television program may vary from entertainment, to having background noise, to idolizing a particular actor. The message in the drama will have a deeper impact on those who pay attention to it as compared to those watching it mindlessly. Therefore the recipient plays a big role in determining how mass media is significant in ideology. Thompson suggests that by understanding one’s participation in receiving media messages, we may be more aware of the media messages we receive and how we interpret them.
Isobel Nga
Since the age of Capitalism and Industrialization, modernity is being shaped by print technology. The spread of mass media through newspapers mainly, have indeed sparked critical commentary and ideas by the authors in the readings.
Newspapers become the mediator with state and society where private individuals assemble to form a public body, and this public sphere spurs the formation of public opinion and a step towards freedom. With accordance too habermas, newspapers have evolved into “bearers and leaders of public opinion”, “weapons of party politics”. Despite regulations, censorship and scrutiny of the previously simple task of publications of news, the newspaper still holds the key into an important realm of debate, opinions and medium for the people and the public body in their struggles to have their voice heard as well as contest the state through openness and process of rational forms of communication. In relation to our contemporary society, it seems that habermas’ ideal of public organizing itself as the bearer or public opinion that accords with the principle of the public sphere might not present itself in our constrained society where Singapore Press Holdings(SPH) is the sole institution for the regulation of mass communications of print and writing and the circulation of information. Highly guided by the state, does it still hold hands with society’s interests and intensify public discussion where topics do not coincide with the higher powers?
Reinforced by Thompson as to “mass communication as an ‘ideological apparatus’ which serves en bloc to reproduce social order”, it reveals the functions of newspapers towards its production and its audience. Agreeably, as relations of domination and power come into play and newspapers filter their intended audience to the literate and the more intellectual folks, it narrows down its social intent in society. As Thompson puts it, the ‘selective reproduction of cultural forms’. Hence is it then important to note that the availability of such messages for the ‘masses’ and ‘mass audience’ are subjected to form a meaningful construction of society whereby the targeted mass in a socio- historical context receive and conform to cultural influences through assimilation rather than the medium for the general welfare of public opinion and freedom.
Lyndon Leong
J.B. Thompson mentions that culture and mass communication should be regarded as fundamental constructs of sociology and social theory. The focus would be on revolutionary inventions such as the television and Internet as mediums, which happen to be distinctive characteristics of mass communication. The overarching theme (which could be applied to all aspects of media and societal relations) is the production, construction and reception of media messages. Symbolic interaction is the key theory in this aspect. Thompson makes good points in mentioning that the theory of hermeneutics challenges the notion of linearity in that production is not a linear process. Culture, he mentions is also a medium of ideology, which not just purely concerns domination, and that is imperative in viewing media through the sociological eye.
Habermas makes good points by explaining how change in technology or the continuous “re-invention” of technology gets interwoven into the private spheres of people’s lives and the “blurring” of boundaries between the private and public sphere becomes a highly contestable issue. The question is, with censorship and regulations present, is the public sphere entirely democratic? Perhaps not. For instance, the internet is supposed to be a platform for everyone to voice their opinions freely but there are regulations and laws enacted to enforce discipline and obedience, to a certain extent, by internet users. People are even jailed and fined for their actions, if they defy the “code of conduct” online. Perhaps it could be said that with more innovation and creativity, the possibility of misuse of technology becomes even more likely.
Lynn White’s reading focuses on how media shapes society and vice versa. It is interesting to note that intelligence plus creativity plus discovery produces the functionality of technology. It was imperative, as a reader, to note that when media is used as a tool to examine social relations, one must consider the socio-historical and cultural context of the invention or the form of technology. Determinism unequivocally forms the central theme to study the advent or reproduction of technology in a certain sphere of society or a social context.
Chua Xiu Juan
The advent of technology has changed the nature of the public sphere significantly. While coffee shop was perhaps the public sphere in its most primitive way, we are now no longer confined geographically to exchange ideas and thoughts. The public sphere has now taken a new form in the virtual world.
The Arab spring is one example of how the public sphere utilized social media to their advantage to create political and social change. Adherents to the view that social media creates a platform for the public sphere to take place online are often quick to glorify the empowering effects of social media, undermining the role of collective agency. The activists are the ones who choose the online media to organize the demonstrations; social media is merely a tool. Notably, the Twitter revolution did not gain momentum elsewhere. It failed in Iran for instance. This was due to various reasons such as the relatively low percentage of social media users then, and the focus on employment, inflation and other basic needs by the Iranians as opposed to activism.
Indeed, technology is seemingly liberating, however, not all has access to technology. The lack of access to technology these days may be equivalent to the lack of access to the public sphere.
Aware of the potentially liberating effect of social media, some states resort to censorship in a bid to curb public opinion. The infamous firewalls of China and the tight monitoring of social media in North Korea are just some examples to name. Thus, it is crucial to note the social and political context in determining how important the virtual public sphere is across different societies.
Brandon Lye
My comment centers on the article, “The Act of Invention: Causes, contexts, continuities and consequences”, by Lynn White jr. In it, he focuses extensively on how any invention, no matter how small can have long-lasting effects of huge magnitude on society, and provides many examples, such as the stirrup and coinage. He also mentions how many of such inventions are often overlooked and taken for granted.
I feel that many of his examples also touches on society and technology have a dialectic relationship. For instance, the invention of the stirrup led to increasing violence during wars, and the development of new forms of warfare. This in turn led to the requirement for new forms of technology/inventions such as more advanced weaponry and armoury, and also the phasing out of technology now rendered obsolete.
Similarly, a more recent example might be that of the printing press. The invention of print has allowed information to be recorded and transmitted with more ease than ever before, allowing for information and ideas to be circulated. For instance, newspapers, magazines, brochures carry out this function. Print can also be said to be a catalyst for many inventions today, as print allows for the transferring and circulating of information through mediums such as scholarly papers and school textbooks. Ironically, it can then be said that print has caused it’s own demise, as print has no doubt played a part in the formation of societies more and more digitally-centralized. Yet, digital/online media is now rendering more and more the different forms of print obsolete.
Tiara Robyn Chew
As I read the article, “The Act of Invention: Causes, contexts, continuities and consequences”, I felt that Lynn White Jr’s approach had more to do with innovations on a broader scale rather than media in particular, but there were certainly some interesting points raised that made me reflect on the state of technology and developments today. For instance, she discussed how some innovations in the past (eg. Alphebetization, Coinage, Crank etc) have become so commonplace in our lives that we overlook the very process of how they came about in the first place, the purposes they were intended to serve and how they continue to impact our lives today. This made me think about some other examples of innovations that we often take for granted like the development of the telephone. What began as the acoustic string telephone, that could only carry vibrations across a wire, has now evolved into this 4G contraption that is accessible by 6 out of every 7 people in the world (according to TIME online), that also offers GPS navigation, internet connection, data storage and essentially, instantaneous access to the entire world with the click of a button. And what makes this even more interesting is that this one device has changed so much more in our societies than we realise.
For instance, in J. B. Thomson’s article “Mass Communication and Modern Culture”, he raises the example of how the presence of various media forms in society has impacted the levels of readership for newspapers, which up until the 1970s were the main means of mass communication. Now with the advent of the television, computer and of course, the mobile phone, access to alternative sources of information and entertainment have been made possible, resulting in the decline of traditional news media.
Lastly, I found “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article” by Jurgen Habermas very interesting in relation to Singapore society. He talked about how “newspapers changed from mere institutions for the publication of news into bearers and leaders of public opinion”, and I realised that in Singapore, where many public platforms are heavily regulated, the forum sections in the local Straits Times or Today papers have become key in allowing members of the public to air grievances or try to effect social change. For instance, the issue of youths facing rising costs and poor job prospects after graduation was raised very recently on the 30th of January 2014 through this medium. Thus even though this article was written by Habermas in 1964, the issues he raised continue to be relevant 50 years on.
Chia Yong Siang
The reading which intrigues me the most for the week would be “The Act of Invention: Causes, Contexts, Continuities and Consequences” by Lynn White Jr. As oppose to the other two readings, the author speaks about technology as a whole instead of focusing only on the media. Though the examples brought up may not be convincing enough to be regarded as forms of “media”, I believe his article highlighted the essence of technology. I would draw the parallel with his thesis mentioned in the last sentence of his conclusion to the media today and argue that it is one that is still practical in our society.
“But if technology is defined as the systematic modification of the physical environment for human ends, it follows that a more exact understanding of technological innovation is essential to our self-knowledge”. – Lynn White Jr.
The advancement of technology in today’s society is beyond anybody’s imagination and we attest that such advancement is true for the media – from TV to the Internet to apps. However, such advancement has its social impact as well. Communication is instantaneous. Click on to Facebook today and one will be able to access to the private lives of “friends” – people whom we may have only talked to once in our life. Such development of technology has altered the definition of “friends”. “Information” is also readily available – and many a times, such “information” turned out to be a coax. Should we then still rely on the digital media for information? The case of surveillance on the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has also highlighted to us the danger of the media and the issue of privacy which draws great concern from the general public. Is there still privacy in our society today? With the integration of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and many more in our lives, we are consistently exposed to infinite information and risk which are the by-products of the essence of technology and it requires deeper understanding.
The media has the power to alter the original perspective of many things in our lives – constructing an illusion. A friend who is experiencing relationship problems who still has his Facebook status as “in a relationship” would create an imaginary impression that our friend is still happy with his love life. The information about slimming presented in the social media may be in conflict with what a doctor would recommend. However, it is impossible to eradicate and shut ourselves away from the digital media. The key to cope with such technology is to understand – exercising personal judgment to reduce the risk. Education would be a great platform to promote such understanding. It is only through understanding, one will be able to reap the benefits of the technology in today’s society.
Lim Zheng Wei
White’s article “The Act of Invention: Causes, Contexts, Continuities and Consequences” is the most curious reading of this week. It is not exactly clear how the reading is related to the course or the other two readings. After some thought, I realised that White highlights some important things. One of them is the idea that technology follows a predestined course such that every society that encounters technology will use it to its fullest extent. However, he shows that this is not the case and uses the stirrup as an example. Next, he points out that we should stop associating technological advancement to only one figure, as there are many others involved who modifies or adds to the invention. Finally, he makes it clear that even innocuous technology can have wide-ranging societal and political ramifications beyond the sphere of its use.
However, to his first point – that every society uses technology to different extent – it seems that this is most true in the medieval era because of the difficulty of communication. Some cultures did not see the benefits stirrups brought to horse-riding or mounted combat and as such, failed to develop it fully. In the modern world however, with the ease of communication, does this still hold true? We can easily find out the usage and importance of any arcane technology. The usage and importance of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the search for the Higgs Boson, for instance, can be said to be inscrutable to the casual observer. But with the Internet, scientific papers and science-focused media to help us break the science down, I dare say that any person with enough determination will be able to find its importance. In a sense, it is easier for us to have a herd mentality. If so, will technology become more determined than previously?
Koh Hui Yi
In “The Act of Invention: Causes, Contexts, Continuities and Consequences”, Lynn White explores the conception that technology causes certain social formation. He sees how technology affects or changes social relations, and this can be seen in our everyday practices as certain actions are transformed or made redundant with the invention or progression of technology and its accompanying devices.
It is interesting to note that while technology is produced with a specific intention or set of usage in mind, there are instances where the users (consumers) “misuse” the technology, such as in the case of the Internet. Hacking, cyberwarfare and piracy by illegally downloading music, movies, shows are just some activities that are examples of how users “misuse” technology. However, such actions also prove to us that even though people are bounded by the Internet laws of their countries, these “misuses” prove the freedom or the autonomous status that they have. Interestingly, the notion of cyberwarfare also shows how the Internet has transformed the nature of wars which we have understood from history as we witness countries engaging in information wars and corporations engaging in industrial espionage today. This coincide with what White argued using the example of the sequence originally connected with the crank to show us how a simple idea that has transferred out of its first context may have a vast expansion. Internet has not only transformed how we interact, socialize, communicate with one another but has also allowed for certain activities to take place as well.
In ” The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964)”, Habermas defines the public sphere with a few definitions such as “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed”, a place where access is “guaranteed to all citizens”, and “a sphere which mediates between society and state”. The last definition shows that Habermas clearly separates the public from the state, and the role of the public is to “organise itself as the bearer or public opinion”. He also noted that in the concept of social welfare state, it is very possible that a public body of private individuals can be transformed into a public body of organized private individuals to handle the dealings with the state. This suggests that the interests of the private sphere and state will both encroach on the public sphere and hence, weaken its critical function. In this case, the public sphere will be transformed into a field of competing private interests that relates individually with one another.
Seow Yi Min Eunice
Thompson’s notion of the “space of transformation”, highlights a process in which media messages undergo a process of transformations upon its reception from viewers.
Meaning is mobilized, transformed and appropriated, contributing to the creation of ideologies.
Interestingly, despite the unpredictability and indefinite outcomes of these media messages (due to possible different interpretations made by individual viewers), Thompson seeks to clarify that ultimately, the very activity of “receiving” these media messages, is a “social practice” which has its own inherent consequences on a social level.
This can be further explained in terms of the three aspects essential in the analysis of ideological character, as provided by Thompson: (1) “Production and Diffusion”, (2) “Construction of the Media Message” and (3) the “Reception and Appropriation of Media Message”.
Without the breakdown of this analysis, many would have neglected the first and third point, jumping into the argument that the “Construction of the Media Message” makes up the ideological character, thus condemning interpretations of meaning to be indefinite due to the individuality of the recipients involved.
However, what Thompson has done was to prevent such an oversight, bringing forth two other equally important points, (1) “Production and Diffusion” and (3) “Reception and Appropriation of Media Message”.
These two points I felt, were the extensions to social factors that were necessary in understanding possible ideologies created through media messages. “Production and Diffusion” brought forth conditions and codes facilitating and circumscribing the production process, of which was important in understanding the producer himself and the particular society in which the media message was being relayed to. For example, an oppressive nation-state has a higher chance of being more restrictive in terms of availability of media messages, due to the guarded prevention of possible political rebellion. Thus we can identify that the producer is of an oppressive nature (the ruling), and that the particular society has little access to different type of media messages.
“Reception and Appropriation of Media Message” on the other hand, added a social element to the recipients, whereby they are seen as collectives in terms of the particular social-historical conditions they belong to, thus mobilizing of meaning to be incorporated into their lives.
As further emphasized by Thompson, all three aspects are needed in the analytical process. Through the connections made, a more definite and clearer understanding of Power and it’s relations of domination is provided (i.e. whether the media message is used to sustain or subvert domination).
Thus, this “fuzziness” and “vague” quality mass communication relays at times to recipients, can be possibly due to only identifying one’s differing individual perspectives. However, this cannot be mistaken as fully comprising an ideological movement, as social factors are too, definitely necessary and important.
Muhammad Faisal Bin Zainal Abiden
Although written almost 40 years ago, Jurgen Habermas’ ideas on the public sphere are eerily descriptive of Singapore’s public sphere today.
Habermas defines the public sphere as a social space whereby public opinion can be formed. However, he warns that the public sphere is losing critical function as the mediator between the state and public.
The public sphere has been taken over by large organisations and is now used as a battleground for their private interests. Hence, public opinion has been mediated by these organisations which vie for public approval and prestige.
In Singapore, the organisation which largely controls the public sphere is the state itself. Although they do not exactly regulate the social spaces which public opinion can approach, Singapore’s coffee houses: the hawker centers and food courts, they severely limit the opportunities for to gather and exchange ideas. Established anti-assembly laws prevent groups from demonstrating and voicing out their opinions thus not only preventing their demands from being heard but also keeping the rest of the population oblivious to such issues. Even voicing out dissenting opinion is extremely difficult as seen in the case of the lawsuit on Chee Soon Juan, a political activist, who allegedly ‘defamed’ the ruling Lee family. The state further extends their reach into the public sphere by providing the population a social space to gather and exchange ideas. It is almost an insult to the ideals of freedom of speech when the only place to legitimise public opinion is provided by the rulers themselves. This ‘space’, located in Hong Lim Park, is monitored by CCTV’s around the clock while a police station sits conveniently beside it. Not surprisingly, it is seldom occupied.
The state also has a strong authority over the main distributor of information – the media. The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts controls all media content in Singapore. All forms of media are also regulated by laws. Furthermore, the largest media company in Singapore, Singapore Press Holdings, is closely linked to the government. Although the media in Singapore is generally not overtly pro-government, the excessive regulation makes it difficult to form legitimate dissenting opinion. This affects the way media shapes public opinion.
Although there is a ray of hope in the form of new media. Though Habermas conceived the public sphere as a physical space, the invention of the internet has made the virtual world an ideal place where the public sphere can take place. This ties in with Lyn White’s ideas where techonology and invention determines or influences change. Websites such as the Temasek Review, therealSingapore and the Online Citizen are spaces which differing ideas can be formed and shared.
Chua Pei Yi
In the article “Mass Communication and Modern Culture”, Thompson discussed mass communication as a central component of modern culture. This approach, as Thompson stated, allows us to study the relationship between the three aspects of mass communication – production/diffusion, construction, and reception/appropriation of media messages. These media messages, as meaningful symbolic constructions, call for different interpretations as they are socially situated in historically specific and institutional contexts. This brings his discussion to the analysis of ideology in mass communication, where he mentioned that the in the process of reception, the meaning embedded in the media messages gets transformed, serving to alter existing power relations.
In his article “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article”, Habermas’ concept of the public sphere is a realm within social life in which public opinion can be formed and which is accessible to all. The people engaging in the public sphere are blind to class positions and formed through a mutual will to take part in matters that have a general interest. Within this public sphere, they are able to express and share opinions, news and information, thereby influencing one another. They have a say in state activities by voicing out their opinions. Mediating between the society and the state, therefore according to Habermas, the public sphere enables democracy and political accountability. Habermus later also mentioned the “refeudalisation” of the public sphere when journalism and propaganda expanded, which as a result, the public body also expanded and lost its social exclusivity and cohesion. As social and political organizations invaded each other, it brought about a new feudalization of the public sphere.
I do wonder sometimes if the pile of information – the mass media – delivered by newspapers and the radio; but probably to a great extend received online, makes us really more aware and knowledgeable about the world surrounding us. Even, when speaking of qualitative journalism, are we, as human beings, really able to take all of the information in, which we are confronted with on a daily basis? And if so, are there mechanisms behind the distributing of so-called “free flowing” information that we may not be aware of? In the end, are these really the right question to answer when speaking of mass media?
That power and the production of knowledge are intertwined can be found in the works of one of the greatest sociologists, Michael Foucault, which I can only recommend reading, but won´t elaborate on in this blog post.
Nowadays, there is a huge amount of information circling around, free of charge and full of facts and content from all around the world. When switching between Buzzfeed.com to “TheNewYorker” back to “the Guardian” or “DieZeit” (a well known German news website) one ends up with a great variety of content. The knowledge gained may vary from fun facts to knowledge about world affairs and politics. In simplified terms but in a way envisioned by Jürgen Habermas, based on that, one should ideally be able to engage in a political debate when hanging around a coffee shop with friends. Here, one should be able to speak freely without limitations due to one´s gender or other social norms. In Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia article (1964), the famous philosopher and sociologist, who was part of the Frankfurt School, aligned with Theodor W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, explains that the public opinion that evolves out of the ability to speak freely and express one´s thoughts when debating about matters of general interests or politics, is the essence of democracy. Here, citizens have room for speaking their minds but more importantly criticize the state. When the public opinion becomes the mediator between society and the state, the public sphere would ideally become the basis for a public opinion that regulates the state and allows for democracy, as explained in Habermas.
What is rightly criticized about this idea is that he leaves out gender and social norms that still play a role today. However, Habermas critical stance on the impact of the media on the public sphere offers a valuable insight on the role of power in the distribution of knowledge. According to him, the combination of press and propaganda is very problematic. As he was writing in the post-World War II period and witnessed how the German propaganda played a major role in upholding the Nazi ideology, he offers a critical stance on the impact of the media on public opinion. Habermas points us in a direction that makes clear that if politics has a say in the media, in order to influence elections, create cohesion or order for example, the public debate is greatly impacted, limited or even manipulated. Also, if capitalism influences the information, we receive as citizens, how do we know that we are not manipulated in consuming or thinking in a certain way? So, if I ask myself again if we are more knowledgeable and aware of politics and the world we live in today, we should probably as ourselves if the information we consume is a product of certain institutions? John B. Thompson (1988) explains that “the selective reproduction of cultural forms”, takes place in the mass media we consume today. This means, that there is a selective process taking place before I start reading the news and form my opinions…
Melissa Koh
Habermas starts off his article by explaining the concept of the public sphere. The public sphere is an area in modern social life where individuals can come together to freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action. The public sphere can be seen as “a realm of social life in which public opinion can be formed” (Asen, R., 1999). Habermas also claim that the state and the public sphere do not overlap (as seen in the footnotes), rather they “confront one another as opponents”. The public sphere mediates between society and state, in which the public organises itself as the ‘bearer of public opinion’.
Habermas then delves into the history of the conception of the public sphere during a phase of bourgeois state. There is the liberal model of the public sphere which “guaranteed the society as a sphere of private autonomy and the restriction of public authority to a few functions”. The emergence of bourgeois public sphere was particularly supported by the 18th century liberal democracy making resources available to this new political class to establish a network of institutions, and newspapers and press were main tools to execute this. The key feature of this public sphere was its separation from the power of both the church and the government due to its access to a variety of resources, both economic and social.
However, there are certain critiques to this bourgeois public sphere, and as pointed out by Nancy Fraser, this public sphere was in constituted by a number of exclusions such as women and the lower ranking individuals in society, and the people in power were most likely the men of higher social standing and economic capital, and the women/lower ranking individuals were relegated to the private sphere.
Ng Shi Yao
Habermas talks abou the public sphere being the realm which public opinions could be formed and access to these information are guaranteed to society. It “guarantees freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions”. Mediums such as television, newspapers, radios etc are the media of the public sphere, responsible for transmitting information and influencing those who receive it.
The public sphere could be used and manipulated by different groups of people for their own use. In the later 18th century, we could point out that newspapers and literary mediums were used for political purposes. Since they were the bearer and leaders of public opinion. The public would then be able to receive the intended transmitted information. Newspapers and printed media is the only way, which we could participate actively in politics by keeping ourselves abreast with the news. The distribution of ideas allows us to understand the intended message which political parties intend to bring across. Media became an engine for propaganda.
In the transition from the literary journalism to the public services of mass media, the public sphere was transformed by the influx of private commercial interests. In modern times, information is less reliable and sources less trustworthy. Newspaper publishers have the tendency to sensationalize news reports without confirming that it is true. Take for example, recent articles of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who carried out a public execution of his uncle, by feeding him to a pack of starved dogs. The news was first carried by a Hong Kong agency (known for sensationalizing false reports to gain readership). The story was then caught on by reliable news agency in the west such as DailyMail UK. It is a surprise that these recognized agencies published such reports. Due to the higher level of trust towards these established newspaper publishers, many people actually believed the report. It debunked the normative claim that true information is accessible to the public. The public sphere now becomes a field for the competition of interests, whereby newspaper publishers try to outdo each other for commercial interests and profits.
Aloysius Teo
According to White, “a novel technique merely offers opportunity; it does not command,” suggesting that while technology and invention has its intended use, technology and invention and its uses have the ability to go beyond that. The stirrup, originally intended for stability subsequently went on to revolutionizing warfare. Similarly, modern gadgets like a cellphone has allowed for different ways of communication over the conventional voice communication. These changes (in technology) that we often take for granted have the potential for a large social effect. As reflected by White, various forms technologies and inventions are adopted and adapted differently across various societies depending on what is required, highlighting the importance of social-historical contexts.
Building upon this, Thompson analyzes mass communication through the production/diffusion, construction and reception/appropriation of media messages paying close attention to the specific social-historical and institutional contexts. This suggests that audience or the mass receives and interprets media messages differently, and this is contingent upon the social or society. As such, in the analysis of ideology, the receiving and interpretation of media messages by the audience is just as crucial as the production/diffusion and construction of media messages – this as Thompson argues is “ a more dynamic, contextual approach” as compared to the emphasis on only the production/diffusion and construction of media messages. This hence gives us a better understanding of power relations vis-à-vis access to information, where various groups in society are included or excluded from the access to information.
Habermas too brought forward a similar idea of distribution of information but was concerned with the public sphere. The public sphere facilitated the formulation and expression of public opinion by individuals. This allowed for the distribution of knowledge, ideas and information. The sphere as such functions to mediate the society and the state, allowing for contestations and improvements or as we know it – democracy.
In John Thompson’s article “Mass Communication and Modern Culture”, Thompson suggests that the analysis of ideology (in which media messages is mobilised in the interests of sustain relations of domination) can be approached through the analysis of 3 main aspects of mass communication. Thompson suggests these 3 aspects involve:
1) Production/diffusion: studying social historical contexts in how media is being produced and transmitted
2) Construction of media message: analysing discourse within media messages
3) Reception/appropriation: analysis of how different social-historical conditions affect the interpretation and use of media messages
I would like to suggest that, in the modern society today, the 3 aspects of mass communication that Thompson suggests should highlight a fourth aspect: the analysis of societal’s reception of media in relation to production. Ideally, this could be seen as a cycle, where production relations construct what message they would like to convey through media, which is then received by society, who then (coming to a full circle) directly/indirectly affects what media messages should be produced and transmitted. This perhaps can be portrayed with the rise in democratic views in having the right to voice out individual opinions.
This could be seen with the recent release of the 50 different movie posters of the James Bond series. It can be seen that initial movie posters of agent 007 most or always included woman/women in posers of seduction, which may reinstate the portrayal of what femininity should ideologically be. Yet, only in the recent few years had this change. The media message now seems to deflect in any way portraying women as sex symbols, where the most recent addition of the movie “Skyfall” had only the male Bond character on its poster, without a single woman included in it. This perhaps could reflect the recent charges by feminism, that seeks to highlight and change the way how man overly dominates their female counterparts.
It is thus valuable to analyse not just how the production, construction and receptivity of media messages as a unidirectional model, but take on a sociological analysis on how media messages are increasingly affected by the consumers of media itself, as the new co-producers of mass media.
Habermas presents the concept of the public sphere and the private sphere. He defines the public sphere as an area of social life whereby societal issues can be freely identified and discussed, by which political action can be galvanised.
The state and the public sphere are also seen as confrontational parties, not overlapping each other, in fact acting as check and balances to one another.
However, I feel that contemporary society does not afford such a distinction between the state and the public sphere, and the dichotomy between the public and private spheres are blurred considerably as well. One could argue that these concepts are simply ideal forms and do not exist in real life – indeed it is dangerous to assume they are so, given the immortality of any content uploaded into the Internet.
In “Literature and Society” Richard Hoggart (1973) reminds the reader of the link between society and literature, where the latter one carries knowledge about the former one. For him, “literature illuminates society” and can be described as “raw material”, used as a tool of documentation that can tell us something about the society of a certain age. More than that, he tells us that literature offers a “form of distinctive knowledge about society” (p. 19). One may ask, how does literature carries the so-called distinctive knowledge? Hoggard (1973) refers to an intrinsic power of literature as well as the ability to create an “experimental wholeness of life” (p. 20). Here, literature is seen as art – art of its own sake without any link to profit making or success. This reminds me very much, if I am not mistaken, of Walter Benjamin´s writing of the 1930 referring to the loss of “aura” of art with the age of mechanical production. In this case, when placing art in the category of art, Hoggart´s literature carries “the Benjamian aura”. It is described as full of history, which lets the reader imagine how the life of a particular age was like.
Another thing that caught my interest is that Hoggart speaks of literature as carrying knowledge, even though it cannot be objectively measured. This can be read as a critique on the 19th century hype of science and standardization. Especially in the Natural Sciences the scientific method gained in major importance, focusing on measurement and empirical evidence. More than that, he compares poetry to mathematics, where both follow strict guidelines and rules, to clarify his view.
When referring to mass culture it becomes clear that he opposes the rather simplistic and pessimistic view of the Frankfurt School. He claims “popular and mass art is more varied” than acknowledged. For Hoggard, who writes about 40 years later than the Frankfurt School, the relationship between the producer, the audience; the producer and the material and the audiences and the material are more complex. For him literature and art in general cannot be limited or understood in terms of money making or capitalism, focusing on the modes of production (Marx, 18th century) or in terms of mass culture, where the totality of mass culture takes over and destroys our ability to view the world critically (Adorno and Horkheimer, who were greatly influenced by Marx). For Hoggart (1973) literature is complex and holds valuable knowledge. It makes the reader imagine a different time, which the reader is able to critically assess.
When reading Hoggart, I recalled a website called Nolayout.com (http://www.nolayout.com), “a digital library for art and fashion publications”. Looking at the website now, I recall topics such as layout, medium, the packaging of a medium and how this may influence my reading experience. In the end, this website can probably best linked to Roger Chartier´s “Laborers and Voyagers: From the Text to the Reader”, which I will leave up to you.
Lynn White explains how technological creativity is not unitary though the use of various examples such as the stirrup. We realize that media would not have been possible without alphabetization and print technology. Inventions are intertwined with one another; the glorious inventions today cannot be possible without the mundane ones. Media enables the creation of public opinion and public sphere as mentioned by Habermas.
The public sphere “mediates between society and state” and creates the possibility of a democratic society. It is where opinions of common citizens can be expressed and heard, as opposed to living under the dictatorship of those in authority, and encourages participation of the people in political activities. However, I feel that in reality, the public cannot be represented entirely because it is not homogenous – different people have different wants. More affluent people who have control over means of production would have more power in decision making than those struggling with poverty. Furthermore, the issues of the society would not concern the individuals who find it difficult to keep his family properly fed. Therefore, the public sphere can be understood as the bourgeois public sphere, made up of individuals in the private realm who are not of public authority, but still hold power due to their influence, usually in the economy. The bourgeois public sphere uses media such as newspapers and journals to challenge the state and this results in the idea of a more democratic society. But more often than not, the bourgeois public sphere has strong, mutually beneficial ties with those who hold office in public authority. At the end of the day, media does not deliver the promise of democracy but instead we witness the capitalists versus workers situation that Marx proposed. But of course, with the majority of middle class having access to technology such as the Internet, it is easy for one to express his opinions online and spread it – simply by clicking “Share” on Facebook. This, however, still does not give us complete freedom because our personal opinions are often shaped by the society, through newspapers etc. And the people who control the censorship, production and circulation of news are, of course, the bourgeoisie and the state.
Thompson’s article highlights the importance of social-historical context in the production, circulation and interpretation of media. He emphasizes on the analysis of “conditions and characteristics of reception”, describing different interpretations of messages as “significance of the activity of reception”. For example, reasons for watching a television program may vary from entertainment, to having background noise, to idolizing a particular actor. The message in the drama will have a deeper impact on those who pay attention to it as compared to those watching it mindlessly. Therefore the recipient plays a big role in determining how mass media is significant in ideology. Thompson suggests that by understanding one’s participation in receiving media messages, we may be more aware of the media messages we receive and how we interpret them.
Since the age of Capitalism and Industrialization, modernity is being shaped by print technology. The spread of mass media through newspapers mainly, have indeed sparked critical commentary and ideas by the authors in the readings.
Newspapers become the mediator with state and society where private individuals assemble to form a public body, and this public sphere spurs the formation of public opinion and a step towards freedom. With accordance too habermas, newspapers have evolved into “bearers and leaders of public opinion”, “weapons of party politics”. Despite regulations, censorship and scrutiny of the previously simple task of publications of news, the newspaper still holds the key into an important realm of debate, opinions and medium for the people and the public body in their struggles to have their voice heard as well as contest the state through openness and process of rational forms of communication. In relation to our contemporary society, it seems that habermas’ ideal of public organizing itself as the bearer or public opinion that accords with the principle of the public sphere might not present itself in our constrained society where Singapore Press Holdings(SPH) is the sole institution for the regulation of mass communications of print and writing and the circulation of information. Highly guided by the state, does it still hold hands with society’s interests and intensify public discussion where topics do not coincide with the higher powers?
Reinforced by Thompson as to “mass communication as an ‘ideological apparatus’ which serves en bloc to reproduce social order”, it reveals the functions of newspapers towards its production and its audience. Agreeably, as relations of domination and power come into play and newspapers filter their intended audience to the literate and the more intellectual folks, it narrows down its social intent in society. As Thompson puts it, the ‘selective reproduction of cultural forms’. Hence is it then important to note that the availability of such messages for the ‘masses’ and ‘mass audience’ are subjected to form a meaningful construction of society whereby the targeted mass in a socio- historical context receive and conform to cultural influences through assimilation rather than the medium for the general welfare of public opinion and freedom.
J.B. Thompson mentions that culture and mass communication should be regarded as fundamental constructs of sociology and social theory. The focus would be on revolutionary inventions such as the television and Internet as mediums, which happen to be distinctive characteristics of mass communication. The overarching theme (which could be applied to all aspects of media and societal relations) is the production, construction and reception of media messages. Symbolic interaction is the key theory in this aspect. Thompson makes good points in mentioning that the theory of hermeneutics challenges the notion of linearity in that production is not a linear process. Culture, he mentions is also a medium of ideology, which not just purely concerns domination, and that is imperative in viewing media through the sociological eye.
Habermas makes good points by explaining how change in technology or the continuous “re-invention” of technology gets interwoven into the private spheres of people’s lives and the “blurring” of boundaries between the private and public sphere becomes a highly contestable issue. The question is, with censorship and regulations present, is the public sphere entirely democratic? Perhaps not. For instance, the internet is supposed to be a platform for everyone to voice their opinions freely but there are regulations and laws enacted to enforce discipline and obedience, to a certain extent, by internet users. People are even jailed and fined for their actions, if they defy the “code of conduct” online. Perhaps it could be said that with more innovation and creativity, the possibility of misuse of technology becomes even more likely.
Lynn White’s reading focuses on how media shapes society and vice versa. It is interesting to note that intelligence plus creativity plus discovery produces the functionality of technology. It was imperative, as a reader, to note that when media is used as a tool to examine social relations, one must consider the socio-historical and cultural context of the invention or the form of technology. Determinism unequivocally forms the central theme to study the advent or reproduction of technology in a certain sphere of society or a social context.
The advent of technology has changed the nature of the public sphere significantly. While coffee shop was perhaps the public sphere in its most primitive way, we are now no longer confined geographically to exchange ideas and thoughts. The public sphere has now taken a new form in the virtual world.
The Arab spring is one example of how the public sphere utilized social media to their advantage to create political and social change. Adherents to the view that social media creates a platform for the public sphere to take place online are often quick to glorify the empowering effects of social media, undermining the role of collective agency. The activists are the ones who choose the online media to organize the demonstrations; social media is merely a tool. Notably, the Twitter revolution did not gain momentum elsewhere. It failed in Iran for instance. This was due to various reasons such as the relatively low percentage of social media users then, and the focus on employment, inflation and other basic needs by the Iranians as opposed to activism.
Indeed, technology is seemingly liberating, however, not all has access to technology. The lack of access to technology these days may be equivalent to the lack of access to the public sphere.
Aware of the potentially liberating effect of social media, some states resort to censorship in a bid to curb public opinion. The infamous firewalls of China and the tight monitoring of social media in North Korea are just some examples to name. Thus, it is crucial to note the social and political context in determining how important the virtual public sphere is across different societies.
My comment centers on the article, “The Act of Invention: Causes, contexts, continuities and consequences”, by Lynn White jr. In it, he focuses extensively on how any invention, no matter how small can have long-lasting effects of huge magnitude on society, and provides many examples, such as the stirrup and coinage. He also mentions how many of such inventions are often overlooked and taken for granted.
I feel that many of his examples also touches on society and technology have a dialectic relationship. For instance, the invention of the stirrup led to increasing violence during wars, and the development of new forms of warfare. This in turn led to the requirement for new forms of technology/inventions such as more advanced weaponry and armoury, and also the phasing out of technology now rendered obsolete.
Similarly, a more recent example might be that of the printing press. The invention of print has allowed information to be recorded and transmitted with more ease than ever before, allowing for information and ideas to be circulated. For instance, newspapers, magazines, brochures carry out this function. Print can also be said to be a catalyst for many inventions today, as print allows for the transferring and circulating of information through mediums such as scholarly papers and school textbooks. Ironically, it can then be said that print has caused it’s own demise, as print has no doubt played a part in the formation of societies more and more digitally-centralized. Yet, digital/online media is now rendering more and more the different forms of print obsolete.
As I read the article, “The Act of Invention: Causes, contexts, continuities and consequences”, I felt that Lynn White Jr’s approach had more to do with innovations on a broader scale rather than media in particular, but there were certainly some interesting points raised that made me reflect on the state of technology and developments today. For instance, she discussed how some innovations in the past (eg. Alphebetization, Coinage, Crank etc) have become so commonplace in our lives that we overlook the very process of how they came about in the first place, the purposes they were intended to serve and how they continue to impact our lives today. This made me think about some other examples of innovations that we often take for granted like the development of the telephone. What began as the acoustic string telephone, that could only carry vibrations across a wire, has now evolved into this 4G contraption that is accessible by 6 out of every 7 people in the world (according to TIME online), that also offers GPS navigation, internet connection, data storage and essentially, instantaneous access to the entire world with the click of a button. And what makes this even more interesting is that this one device has changed so much more in our societies than we realise.
For instance, in J. B. Thomson’s article “Mass Communication and Modern Culture”, he raises the example of how the presence of various media forms in society has impacted the levels of readership for newspapers, which up until the 1970s were the main means of mass communication. Now with the advent of the television, computer and of course, the mobile phone, access to alternative sources of information and entertainment have been made possible, resulting in the decline of traditional news media.
Lastly, I found “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article” by Jurgen Habermas very interesting in relation to Singapore society. He talked about how “newspapers changed from mere institutions for the publication of news into bearers and leaders of public opinion”, and I realised that in Singapore, where many public platforms are heavily regulated, the forum sections in the local Straits Times or Today papers have become key in allowing members of the public to air grievances or try to effect social change. For instance, the issue of youths facing rising costs and poor job prospects after graduation was raised very recently on the 30th of January 2014 through this medium. Thus even though this article was written by Habermas in 1964, the issues he raised continue to be relevant 50 years on.
The reading which intrigues me the most for the week would be “The Act of Invention: Causes, Contexts, Continuities and Consequences” by Lynn White Jr. As oppose to the other two readings, the author speaks about technology as a whole instead of focusing only on the media. Though the examples brought up may not be convincing enough to be regarded as forms of “media”, I believe his article highlighted the essence of technology. I would draw the parallel with his thesis mentioned in the last sentence of his conclusion to the media today and argue that it is one that is still practical in our society.
“But if technology is defined as the systematic modification of the physical environment for human ends, it follows that a more exact understanding of technological innovation is essential to our self-knowledge”. – Lynn White Jr.
The advancement of technology in today’s society is beyond anybody’s imagination and we attest that such advancement is true for the media – from TV to the Internet to apps. However, such advancement has its social impact as well. Communication is instantaneous. Click on to Facebook today and one will be able to access to the private lives of “friends” – people whom we may have only talked to once in our life. Such development of technology has altered the definition of “friends”. “Information” is also readily available – and many a times, such “information” turned out to be a coax. Should we then still rely on the digital media for information? The case of surveillance on the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has also highlighted to us the danger of the media and the issue of privacy which draws great concern from the general public. Is there still privacy in our society today? With the integration of social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and many more in our lives, we are consistently exposed to infinite information and risk which are the by-products of the essence of technology and it requires deeper understanding.
The media has the power to alter the original perspective of many things in our lives – constructing an illusion. A friend who is experiencing relationship problems who still has his Facebook status as “in a relationship” would create an imaginary impression that our friend is still happy with his love life. The information about slimming presented in the social media may be in conflict with what a doctor would recommend. However, it is impossible to eradicate and shut ourselves away from the digital media. The key to cope with such technology is to understand – exercising personal judgment to reduce the risk. Education would be a great platform to promote such understanding. It is only through understanding, one will be able to reap the benefits of the technology in today’s society.
White’s article “The Act of Invention: Causes, Contexts, Continuities and Consequences” is the most curious reading of this week. It is not exactly clear how the reading is related to the course or the other two readings. After some thought, I realised that White highlights some important things. One of them is the idea that technology follows a predestined course such that every society that encounters technology will use it to its fullest extent. However, he shows that this is not the case and uses the stirrup as an example. Next, he points out that we should stop associating technological advancement to only one figure, as there are many others involved who modifies or adds to the invention. Finally, he makes it clear that even innocuous technology can have wide-ranging societal and political ramifications beyond the sphere of its use.
However, to his first point – that every society uses technology to different extent – it seems that this is most true in the medieval era because of the difficulty of communication. Some cultures did not see the benefits stirrups brought to horse-riding or mounted combat and as such, failed to develop it fully. In the modern world however, with the ease of communication, does this still hold true? We can easily find out the usage and importance of any arcane technology. The usage and importance of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and the search for the Higgs Boson, for instance, can be said to be inscrutable to the casual observer. But with the Internet, scientific papers and science-focused media to help us break the science down, I dare say that any person with enough determination will be able to find its importance. In a sense, it is easier for us to have a herd mentality. If so, will technology become more determined than previously?
In “The Act of Invention: Causes, Contexts, Continuities and Consequences”, Lynn White explores the conception that technology causes certain social formation. He sees how technology affects or changes social relations, and this can be seen in our everyday practices as certain actions are transformed or made redundant with the invention or progression of technology and its accompanying devices.
It is interesting to note that while technology is produced with a specific intention or set of usage in mind, there are instances where the users (consumers) “misuse” the technology, such as in the case of the Internet. Hacking, cyberwarfare and piracy by illegally downloading music, movies, shows are just some activities that are examples of how users “misuse” technology. However, such actions also prove to us that even though people are bounded by the Internet laws of their countries, these “misuses” prove the freedom or the autonomous status that they have. Interestingly, the notion of cyberwarfare also shows how the Internet has transformed the nature of wars which we have understood from history as we witness countries engaging in information wars and corporations engaging in industrial espionage today. This coincide with what White argued using the example of the sequence originally connected with the crank to show us how a simple idea that has transferred out of its first context may have a vast expansion. Internet has not only transformed how we interact, socialize, communicate with one another but has also allowed for certain activities to take place as well.
In ” The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964)”, Habermas defines the public sphere with a few definitions such as “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed”, a place where access is “guaranteed to all citizens”, and “a sphere which mediates between society and state”. The last definition shows that Habermas clearly separates the public from the state, and the role of the public is to “organise itself as the bearer or public opinion”. He also noted that in the concept of social welfare state, it is very possible that a public body of private individuals can be transformed into a public body of organized private individuals to handle the dealings with the state. This suggests that the interests of the private sphere and state will both encroach on the public sphere and hence, weaken its critical function. In this case, the public sphere will be transformed into a field of competing private interests that relates individually with one another.
Thompson’s notion of the “space of transformation”, highlights a process in which media messages undergo a process of transformations upon its reception from viewers.
Meaning is mobilized, transformed and appropriated, contributing to the creation of ideologies.
Interestingly, despite the unpredictability and indefinite outcomes of these media messages (due to possible different interpretations made by individual viewers), Thompson seeks to clarify that ultimately, the very activity of “receiving” these media messages, is a “social practice” which has its own inherent consequences on a social level.
This can be further explained in terms of the three aspects essential in the analysis of ideological character, as provided by Thompson: (1) “Production and Diffusion”, (2) “Construction of the Media Message” and (3) the “Reception and Appropriation of Media Message”.
Without the breakdown of this analysis, many would have neglected the first and third point, jumping into the argument that the “Construction of the Media Message” makes up the ideological character, thus condemning interpretations of meaning to be indefinite due to the individuality of the recipients involved.
However, what Thompson has done was to prevent such an oversight, bringing forth two other equally important points, (1) “Production and Diffusion” and (3) “Reception and Appropriation of Media Message”.
These two points I felt, were the extensions to social factors that were necessary in understanding possible ideologies created through media messages. “Production and Diffusion” brought forth conditions and codes facilitating and circumscribing the production process, of which was important in understanding the producer himself and the particular society in which the media message was being relayed to. For example, an oppressive nation-state has a higher chance of being more restrictive in terms of availability of media messages, due to the guarded prevention of possible political rebellion. Thus we can identify that the producer is of an oppressive nature (the ruling), and that the particular society has little access to different type of media messages.
“Reception and Appropriation of Media Message” on the other hand, added a social element to the recipients, whereby they are seen as collectives in terms of the particular social-historical conditions they belong to, thus mobilizing of meaning to be incorporated into their lives.
As further emphasized by Thompson, all three aspects are needed in the analytical process. Through the connections made, a more definite and clearer understanding of Power and it’s relations of domination is provided (i.e. whether the media message is used to sustain or subvert domination).
Thus, this “fuzziness” and “vague” quality mass communication relays at times to recipients, can be possibly due to only identifying one’s differing individual perspectives. However, this cannot be mistaken as fully comprising an ideological movement, as social factors are too, definitely necessary and important.
Although written almost 40 years ago, Jurgen Habermas’ ideas on the public sphere are eerily descriptive of Singapore’s public sphere today.
Habermas defines the public sphere as a social space whereby public opinion can be formed. However, he warns that the public sphere is losing critical function as the mediator between the state and public.
The public sphere has been taken over by large organisations and is now used as a battleground for their private interests. Hence, public opinion has been mediated by these organisations which vie for public approval and prestige.
In Singapore, the organisation which largely controls the public sphere is the state itself. Although they do not exactly regulate the social spaces which public opinion can approach, Singapore’s coffee houses: the hawker centers and food courts, they severely limit the opportunities for to gather and exchange ideas. Established anti-assembly laws prevent groups from demonstrating and voicing out their opinions thus not only preventing their demands from being heard but also keeping the rest of the population oblivious to such issues. Even voicing out dissenting opinion is extremely difficult as seen in the case of the lawsuit on Chee Soon Juan, a political activist, who allegedly ‘defamed’ the ruling Lee family. The state further extends their reach into the public sphere by providing the population a social space to gather and exchange ideas. It is almost an insult to the ideals of freedom of speech when the only place to legitimise public opinion is provided by the rulers themselves. This ‘space’, located in Hong Lim Park, is monitored by CCTV’s around the clock while a police station sits conveniently beside it. Not surprisingly, it is seldom occupied.
The state also has a strong authority over the main distributor of information – the media. The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts controls all media content in Singapore. All forms of media are also regulated by laws. Furthermore, the largest media company in Singapore, Singapore Press Holdings, is closely linked to the government. Although the media in Singapore is generally not overtly pro-government, the excessive regulation makes it difficult to form legitimate dissenting opinion. This affects the way media shapes public opinion.
Although there is a ray of hope in the form of new media. Though Habermas conceived the public sphere as a physical space, the invention of the internet has made the virtual world an ideal place where the public sphere can take place. This ties in with Lyn White’s ideas where techonology and invention determines or influences change. Websites such as the Temasek Review, therealSingapore and the Online Citizen are spaces which differing ideas can be formed and shared.
In the article “Mass Communication and Modern Culture”, Thompson discussed mass communication as a central component of modern culture. This approach, as Thompson stated, allows us to study the relationship between the three aspects of mass communication – production/diffusion, construction, and reception/appropriation of media messages. These media messages, as meaningful symbolic constructions, call for different interpretations as they are socially situated in historically specific and institutional contexts. This brings his discussion to the analysis of ideology in mass communication, where he mentioned that the in the process of reception, the meaning embedded in the media messages gets transformed, serving to alter existing power relations.
In his article “The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article”, Habermas’ concept of the public sphere is a realm within social life in which public opinion can be formed and which is accessible to all. The people engaging in the public sphere are blind to class positions and formed through a mutual will to take part in matters that have a general interest. Within this public sphere, they are able to express and share opinions, news and information, thereby influencing one another. They have a say in state activities by voicing out their opinions. Mediating between the society and the state, therefore according to Habermas, the public sphere enables democracy and political accountability. Habermus later also mentioned the “refeudalisation” of the public sphere when journalism and propaganda expanded, which as a result, the public body also expanded and lost its social exclusivity and cohesion. As social and political organizations invaded each other, it brought about a new feudalization of the public sphere.
I do wonder sometimes if the pile of information – the mass media – delivered by newspapers and the radio; but probably to a great extend received online, makes us really more aware and knowledgeable about the world surrounding us. Even, when speaking of qualitative journalism, are we, as human beings, really able to take all of the information in, which we are confronted with on a daily basis? And if so, are there mechanisms behind the distributing of so-called “free flowing” information that we may not be aware of? In the end, are these really the right question to answer when speaking of mass media?
That power and the production of knowledge are intertwined can be found in the works of one of the greatest sociologists, Michael Foucault, which I can only recommend reading, but won´t elaborate on in this blog post.
Nowadays, there is a huge amount of information circling around, free of charge and full of facts and content from all around the world. When switching between Buzzfeed.com to “TheNewYorker” back to “the Guardian” or “DieZeit” (a well known German news website) one ends up with a great variety of content. The knowledge gained may vary from fun facts to knowledge about world affairs and politics. In simplified terms but in a way envisioned by Jürgen Habermas, based on that, one should ideally be able to engage in a political debate when hanging around a coffee shop with friends. Here, one should be able to speak freely without limitations due to one´s gender or other social norms. In Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia article (1964), the famous philosopher and sociologist, who was part of the Frankfurt School, aligned with Theodor W. Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, explains that the public opinion that evolves out of the ability to speak freely and express one´s thoughts when debating about matters of general interests or politics, is the essence of democracy. Here, citizens have room for speaking their minds but more importantly criticize the state. When the public opinion becomes the mediator between society and the state, the public sphere would ideally become the basis for a public opinion that regulates the state and allows for democracy, as explained in Habermas.
What is rightly criticized about this idea is that he leaves out gender and social norms that still play a role today. However, Habermas critical stance on the impact of the media on the public sphere offers a valuable insight on the role of power in the distribution of knowledge. According to him, the combination of press and propaganda is very problematic. As he was writing in the post-World War II period and witnessed how the German propaganda played a major role in upholding the Nazi ideology, he offers a critical stance on the impact of the media on public opinion. Habermas points us in a direction that makes clear that if politics has a say in the media, in order to influence elections, create cohesion or order for example, the public debate is greatly impacted, limited or even manipulated. Also, if capitalism influences the information, we receive as citizens, how do we know that we are not manipulated in consuming or thinking in a certain way? So, if I ask myself again if we are more knowledgeable and aware of politics and the world we live in today, we should probably as ourselves if the information we consume is a product of certain institutions? John B. Thompson (1988) explains that “the selective reproduction of cultural forms”, takes place in the mass media we consume today. This means, that there is a selective process taking place before I start reading the news and form my opinions…
Habermas starts off his article by explaining the concept of the public sphere. The public sphere is an area in modern social life where individuals can come together to freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action. The public sphere can be seen as “a realm of social life in which public opinion can be formed” (Asen, R., 1999). Habermas also claim that the state and the public sphere do not overlap (as seen in the footnotes), rather they “confront one another as opponents”. The public sphere mediates between society and state, in which the public organises itself as the ‘bearer of public opinion’.
Habermas then delves into the history of the conception of the public sphere during a phase of bourgeois state. There is the liberal model of the public sphere which “guaranteed the society as a sphere of private autonomy and the restriction of public authority to a few functions”. The emergence of bourgeois public sphere was particularly supported by the 18th century liberal democracy making resources available to this new political class to establish a network of institutions, and newspapers and press were main tools to execute this. The key feature of this public sphere was its separation from the power of both the church and the government due to its access to a variety of resources, both economic and social.
However, there are certain critiques to this bourgeois public sphere, and as pointed out by Nancy Fraser, this public sphere was in constituted by a number of exclusions such as women and the lower ranking individuals in society, and the people in power were most likely the men of higher social standing and economic capital, and the women/lower ranking individuals were relegated to the private sphere.
Habermas talks abou the public sphere being the realm which public opinions could be formed and access to these information are guaranteed to society. It “guarantees freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions”. Mediums such as television, newspapers, radios etc are the media of the public sphere, responsible for transmitting information and influencing those who receive it.
The public sphere could be used and manipulated by different groups of people for their own use. In the later 18th century, we could point out that newspapers and literary mediums were used for political purposes. Since they were the bearer and leaders of public opinion. The public would then be able to receive the intended transmitted information. Newspapers and printed media is the only way, which we could participate actively in politics by keeping ourselves abreast with the news. The distribution of ideas allows us to understand the intended message which political parties intend to bring across. Media became an engine for propaganda.
In the transition from the literary journalism to the public services of mass media, the public sphere was transformed by the influx of private commercial interests. In modern times, information is less reliable and sources less trustworthy. Newspaper publishers have the tendency to sensationalize news reports without confirming that it is true. Take for example, recent articles of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who carried out a public execution of his uncle, by feeding him to a pack of starved dogs. The news was first carried by a Hong Kong agency (known for sensationalizing false reports to gain readership). The story was then caught on by reliable news agency in the west such as DailyMail UK. It is a surprise that these recognized agencies published such reports. Due to the higher level of trust towards these established newspaper publishers, many people actually believed the report. It debunked the normative claim that true information is accessible to the public. The public sphere now becomes a field for the competition of interests, whereby newspaper publishers try to outdo each other for commercial interests and profits.
According to White, “a novel technique merely offers opportunity; it does not command,” suggesting that while technology and invention has its intended use, technology and invention and its uses have the ability to go beyond that. The stirrup, originally intended for stability subsequently went on to revolutionizing warfare. Similarly, modern gadgets like a cellphone has allowed for different ways of communication over the conventional voice communication. These changes (in technology) that we often take for granted have the potential for a large social effect. As reflected by White, various forms technologies and inventions are adopted and adapted differently across various societies depending on what is required, highlighting the importance of social-historical contexts.
Building upon this, Thompson analyzes mass communication through the production/diffusion, construction and reception/appropriation of media messages paying close attention to the specific social-historical and institutional contexts. This suggests that audience or the mass receives and interprets media messages differently, and this is contingent upon the social or society. As such, in the analysis of ideology, the receiving and interpretation of media messages by the audience is just as crucial as the production/diffusion and construction of media messages – this as Thompson argues is “ a more dynamic, contextual approach” as compared to the emphasis on only the production/diffusion and construction of media messages. This hence gives us a better understanding of power relations vis-à-vis access to information, where various groups in society are included or excluded from the access to information.
Habermas too brought forward a similar idea of distribution of information but was concerned with the public sphere. The public sphere facilitated the formulation and expression of public opinion by individuals. This allowed for the distribution of knowledge, ideas and information. The sphere as such functions to mediate the society and the state, allowing for contestations and improvements or as we know it – democracy.
In John Thompson’s article “Mass Communication and Modern Culture”, Thompson suggests that the analysis of ideology (in which media messages is mobilised in the interests of sustain relations of domination) can be approached through the analysis of 3 main aspects of mass communication. Thompson suggests these 3 aspects involve:
1) Production/diffusion: studying social historical contexts in how media is being produced and transmitted
2) Construction of media message: analysing discourse within media messages
3) Reception/appropriation: analysis of how different social-historical conditions affect the interpretation and use of media messages
I would like to suggest that, in the modern society today, the 3 aspects of mass communication that Thompson suggests should highlight a fourth aspect: the analysis of societal’s reception of media in relation to production. Ideally, this could be seen as a cycle, where production relations construct what message they would like to convey through media, which is then received by society, who then (coming to a full circle) directly/indirectly affects what media messages should be produced and transmitted. This perhaps can be portrayed with the rise in democratic views in having the right to voice out individual opinions.
This could be seen with the recent release of the 50 different movie posters of the James Bond series. It can be seen that initial movie posters of agent 007 most or always included woman/women in posers of seduction, which may reinstate the portrayal of what femininity should ideologically be. Yet, only in the recent few years had this change. The media message now seems to deflect in any way portraying women as sex symbols, where the most recent addition of the movie “Skyfall” had only the male Bond character on its poster, without a single woman included in it. This perhaps could reflect the recent charges by feminism, that seeks to highlight and change the way how man overly dominates their female counterparts.
It is thus valuable to analyse not just how the production, construction and receptivity of media messages as a unidirectional model, but take on a sociological analysis on how media messages are increasingly affected by the consumers of media itself, as the new co-producers of mass media.