Mediated Communication

1.

If we accept functionalists' understanding of community, community should be understood in terms of ‘network.’ As the term ‘network’ signifies, then, what is indispensable to the maintenance of community is ‘communication.’ Community and what gives life to community, i.e., communication, are the ever-present speculation of Chicago sociology. Herein, while this might sound like a truism, human communication requires certain tools, i.e., media. The most fundamental tool for this is language, and face-to-face communication becomes more effective with the help of language (and gestures.) In a sense that all human communication necessitates tools for it, it is always ‘mediated’ in a strict sense. (The term ‘mediated communication’ might be illogical in this sense, as a type of a tautology) With the advent of mass communication, however, a new form of communication other than face-to-face relationship comes into being. I would like to call it ‘technology-mediated communication,’ and this specifically refers to communication that is mediated by mass communication (TV, radio and newspapers).

2.

By mediated communication, naturally, mediated social relationship occurs. Horton and Whol consider the mediated social relationship as ‘para-social.’ The suffix ‘para’ symbolizes their understanding of this new form of social relationship. It is close, and yet it is incomplete because para-social relationship is maintained by fabricative apparatuses of the ‘persona.’ Mediated communication, especially when it is communication about mass events, is vulnerable to dramatization, i.e., “structuring” (Lang & Lang, 335). In other words, “an amorphous, episodic, somewhat dull event” (Katz and Dayan, 123) can be amazingly embellished by the perspectives of encoders. Lang & Lang find here the possibility of mass propaganda (or manipulation) which targets vulnerable citizens. Overall, Lang and Horton investigate the ‘bias’ and pseudo-characters of mediated communication focusing on fabricative and biased operation of mass media. In a more extreme form, Harold Innis and Mashall McLuhan explore the formative power of media focusing on the nature of media. To them, the media, not the contents of the media, is the message: the outcomes of mediated relationship are determined by the bias which is intrinsic to the media. By focusing on the inherently formative power of media, Innis and McLuhan not only explain the outcomes of mediated relationship, but they expand their perspectives to the comprehension of the bias of civilization. Innis investigates the bias of media in terms of time(duration) and space(expansion). McLuhan explores how the bias of media (media hot and cool) significantly affects sense-balance of human beings, so that human behaviors and civilization. To be sure, both Innis and McLuhan exactly display the same stance in understanding media in a sense that they firmly believe media scholars should “pay attention to the ways in which the tools we shape work to reshape us” (Meyrowitz, 209): in their views, the modality of mediated communication is already determined by the nature of media and technology.

3.

The bias of media operation (encoding bias) and the bias of media itself – we can perhaps presume that these two biases over a long period will to some extent determine the outcomes of mediated communication. If we add one more dimension, i.e., the bias of decoders (audience research), the nature of mediated communication can be more fully understood. I believe delving into these three biases constitutes almost the whole focus of communication studies.

Week 11: Media as active agents...

This week's readings deals with the 'mediating function' of media. In short, they are the some of the first accounts that media acts not only as a carrier, but as an active moderator in the communication process. Also, it brings new light that the pattern of how people make sense of the mediated contents is an important factor. While Katz & Lazarsfeld emphasized the importance of how the mass-communicated meanings are (out)balanced by the interpersonal communication, Lang & Lang, McLuhan, Innis and others are more emphasizing the interaction between the media and the audience.

Lang & Lang's study is a fine and pioneering example of such. Their account of how TV actively constructed an unifying message into the televised content is a classic framework of semiotic media analysis. However, they do not touch on what the roles of each player involved was: What parts of the outcomes can be attributed to the event planners, journalists, the media characteristics of TV itself, and the cultural contexts of the audience. Regarding such, McLuhan explains about the mechanisms and functions of each medium can be different according to their 'technological' characteristics. Beyond considering the notion of written vs oral communication in Innis' footsteps , he starts to talk about how technology of media can bring about changes in the social aspects of people's lives. In his view, new media technologies bring the world in a closer tie, while decentralizing hierarchies and empowering audience participation (and his 'new media' was not even the Internet, but TV !). Some of the views are also expressed by Horton & Wohl, in their argument that the 'new' mass media brings the audience more close to the performer, bringing forth an intimate relationship and a para-social role model.

It is interesting to think that most of the thoughts on the TV the 'new media' has strong resonance with talks about the Internet. The new media with its superior mediation technologies are thought to bring people more closely together, and it could result in a global village or maybe easy faschism. Well, we know by now that it isn't that simple or decisive. It is rather how such media characteristics are utilized in the context of the ever complex becoming society. Therefore the key point that I think important is the notion that media is not communication per se, but a key actor that calls communication its own specialty. It applies to both the media instituion AND the media technology.

Thus it is important to conceptually separate between the agent and the function, and at the same time keep in mind that those two functions go always closely together in real world. With our overall theme of communication as the crucial element of integrating a community/association/society in mind, the thoughts in this week's readings raise the need for looking into the laws, rules and technologies that govern the process of media-mediated communication. It is the question of how the possible dysfunctions of 'mass-mediated' communication can be bettered out or transferred to alternative forms of media (or media institutions), to satisfy the original democratic ambitions. One overarching theme we should always come back to is how to make our media environment less 'massive', to more closely meet each of the social layers that people in this modern era are living through, and even fill the cognitive gaps between them to strengthen integrated social lives.

Week 11-

In the search to understand media effects, the media’s form and the experience that it generates are as important as the content. Media effects are the result of the interaction of the audience with media, individually and as a group. On an individual level, the media shapes or frames perceptions or “patterns of expectations” and also builds a relationship, as in a parasocial interaction, by creating an impression of intimacy. On a broader level, Innis and McLuhan saw major social and cultural changes revolving around the dominant communication technology. The key word is “revolving,” which implies a relationship between the media form and how society elects to use this communication tool at that point of time in history. McLuhans’s famous or infamous saying, the medium is the message reemphasized form over content. He took it a step further and said that there is an interaction between media, with previous media influencing a new, emerging media. For example just as writing reduced the effect of the spoken word, the Internet is now reducing the effect of newspapers.

The audience takes on an active, rather than a passive role, both as a recipient and a conveyor of the message. According to Horton and Wohl, audience participation takes on an added dimension through the parasocial interaction with the media persona. The form of the media and the different aspects that the persona presents “give the illusion of face-to face relationship.” However, as Handelman points out in his critique of parasocial interaction, there is certain self-awareness among media users about their role in this interaction with the media. McLuhan said that the new media enables people to participate in ones’ own audience participation and as a result many expect to have their “15 minutes of fame.” It would be interesting to see if as people become more sophisticated users and more familiar with a media if that mitigates the media’s ability to shape perception and public opinion. Certainly television viewers today would have had a different perception and interpretation of a media event like the MacArthur Parade, than viewers did in the 1950s did.

Media research needs to look beyond the direct effect of media on an individual since as the Langs said, “influence occurs in one person’s communication to others” and as a result of that experience the message can take on a different meaning. The Langs looked at what happens in the community by combining the public sphere, public space and the media’s role and suggested that the media are custodians of the public sphere and must reproduce reality and not shape public opinion. However, Katz and Dayan rightfully ask, “Must media reproduce reality?” and “What is reality?” When one looks at the history of communication, the dominant communication form at any point in time, whether oral or print, has always tried to shape perceptions or reality by providing an interpretative framework using the forms of media available for greatest effect.

Throughout history, media has been essentially “an apparatus that provides for the interface of mind and matter.” While certainly major social and cultural changes have revolved around the emergence of a new communication technology, these changes were “engineered and affected by society’s strategies and choices” (Blondheim, pp. 170-171). Media is a “technological artifact” that must be viewed and studied within the network that it exists. With the emergence of the internet and an even greater array of electronic communications, McLuhans’ argument that each communication media taps into different senses and generates its own forms of thinking and communicating resonates today. The Internet provides audio, visual and print interface choices for the user and as a result the traditional, linear approach to media research doesn’t work as effectively. McLuhan’s probing approach to media research, which needs to be developed and systemized for scholarly integrity, and his idea that research look at changes in the nature of change should also be considered.

The concern that mass media gives the impression of intimacy continues to concern people today. Horton and Wohl called it a false sense of intimacy and McLuhan said that although the new media creates a global understanding, people don’t know their neighbor. At the same time, no matter how powerful or far-reaching a new communication tool is, people will still seek out face-to-face contact to validate what they see, hear, think and feel. As Katz and Dayan concluded, the revolution still happens in the street.

The institutions of news

1. The term ‘mass society’ is both quantitative and qualitative: the size or scale of society is massive, and the constituents of the society are inchoate. Since the term encompasses both quantitative and qualitative aspects, it is ambiguous and lenient, though it is inclusive. It seems that the term ‘mass society’ expresses the feeling and experience of modern men in society full of new, strange and unfamiliar things: strictly speaking, the term is not a concept, but a feeling. I believe it is not that beneficial to seek the value of the term in light of conceptual rigorousness. Whereas ‘mass society’ brings about some kind of bad feeling, another term that depicts society gives much more positive sense: free society. This term is strictly qualitative and, importantly, normative. It seems that this explains why Hutchins Commission adopts the term ‘free society’ instead of ‘mass society’ in giving the five demands of the news media. Since society is understood in terms of ‘norms,’ what gives meanings to the elements of society – citizens, economy, press, etc. – is also norms. For this reason, the meaning of press in ‘free society’ should be sought in following the five norms of the press.(The Requirements)

2. The ideals of ‘free society,’ not mass society, still resonates at community level. (Janowitz) Though society has grown into mass society, it has had room for free society. Janowitz argues: “the growth of large-scale organization has been accompanied by a proliferation of intermediate haphazard-like social arrangements and communication patterns.” (p.116) Those individuals in community are not rootless contrary to the concerns of mass society theorists. Community, according to Janowitz, evolves around individuals, their primary-group contacts. However, the shadow of mass society still haunts community, the ideal unit of ‘free society.’ In many ways, the community at observation is that of “limited liability.”(p.124) In other words, the likelihood of individuals’ being atomized is still in existence.

3. Community press plays a role as “intermediate haphazard-like” communication tools. “The community press […] stands intermediate between the individual and the major institutions of the metropolis.” (Janowitz, p.116) Though the community newspaper “seeks to present appropriate symbols of respectability and morality to those who have such motives,” (p.120) it has created undemocratic standards because of its “parochialism.”(p.122) However, according to Kaniss, local newspapers concentrate on the problems, events, and politics of cities. Here is a contradiction of local press: it is parochial, but its coverages focus on cities. Kaniss explains the contradiction of local press as follows: “The continued focus on the city has been maintained because the city is the only source of symbolism capable of drawing together the fragmented suburban market. However ironic, the city that many suburbanites rarely venture into is often the only thing they have in common. (p.66-67)”

4. If it does not carry ‘germs of mass society,’ suburbanization can be viewed as multiplication of community. However, multiplication of community (i.e., suburbanization) is ‘fragmentation of media markets’ to news institutions. According to Kaniss, institutions of news established cities as a common symbol and cultural hubs as a way to overcome the fragmentation. As seen here, the perspective of news institutions that views cities as a common symbol seems quite odd and ungrounded. It seems that in order for institutions of news to be a backbone of free society, there has to be more norms other than five norms or requirements suggested by Hutchins Commission.

Week9. What makes news in local media...

In the course of this class, we have been talking about the media functioning as a kind of cement that bonds community together. This week's reading deals with 'how', and what kinds of real-life challenges take place in its application: the instituiton of news-making. By looking into how news is produced in the local media and what such can do to the community in return, we take a glimpse into the overall dynamics of media and society.

While previous week's readings have been largely focusing on a society where the public were brought together into a bigger and bigger 'mass', Janovitz talks about an era when the cities have moved into the next phase: suburbanization. He talks about people "not living in a mass society in which they are directly linked to the major agencies of concentrated social and political power". Which means that while the symbolic life and the larger contexts of societal relationships are in the larger mass-level such as the metropolis, the private life has moved to a smaller community level, causing a gap between and coexistence of those levels.

The five norms of journalism that the Hutchinson committee has put forward which emphasizes truthful, discussional, representative, goal-presenting, and full-fledged information, in turn means that such values are all in jeopardy when such gap is great. In such context, Kaniss explores what the elements are that make the local news that cover urban policies. Those are economic imperative, professional values of the journalist, the role of local officials as sources; and also adds on the potential influences that the 'other' local media than the news papers have. Because of the ambivalence between the mass society of the city and the suburban life, such result in news coverage that do not fully correspond to their actual needs.

The problem that has been bugging me is, how the media can manage to communicate useful news in such a context of such multiple levels. HOW can local media sustain itself to stay true to its local community? It is the objective of papers to become influential. People select news that sound impacting one's life more profoundly. Though it may be of importance in everyday life that Mrs Jones next door has a new daughter, one cannot but think that the statewide tax policy is 'more important'. It is a problem which Ohmynews.com is encountering now, that it tends to lay more focus on the upper levels of the 'umbrella' focusing more and more on the nationwide level news. What economic or other priviledges are possible that can motivate the local media to stay local? Janovitz talks about the residents having the need for lacal news, but are those needs materialized enough to function as the motivation?

Week 10-Institution of News

There is a complex relationship between the community and the news media in which the locus of control shifts depending upon economic imperatives, the players – media owners, journalists and local officials -- and their respective skills and motivations. There is a delicate interplay between the face-to-face communication of community leaders with the community and media representatives and the communication product of news institutions. Just as Janowitz’s study found that local leaders used personal communication skills to try to forge common agreement and avoid conflict in a community, Kaniss illustrated how the news media also seek consensus by linking their audience in a “common bond of local identity.” Local leadership, which is primarily successful because it seeks to build consensus one-on-one, tries to maintain nonpartisanship, while the media tries to project the appearance of objectivity.

Metropolitan media content, according to Kaniss, is influenced by a complex web of factors which include the location and profile of the target market or audience; professional journalists’ values, physical constraints, abilities and motivations; and “available and suitable” sources, primarily public officials, and their media skills and agenda. Janowitz also identified the complex interaction between the community press and the “local elite.” As he explained,” the community press is but one institution that stands intermediate between the individual and the major institutions of the metropolis: and the publisher is but one of the members of the intermediate elite.” It is not simply the media’s economic or budgetary needs or a journalist’s professional values that color the coverage of new local policies, but also the actions of local officials as well.

Janowitz’s notion of a community of “limited liability” in which an individual 1) demands more from the community than is willing to invest and 2) when the community fails to serve his or her needs, withdraws by ceasing to be involved or leaves, suggests a reason for today’s “apathetic” or “disinterested” public. Many, such as the Hutchins Commission(1947), either directly blame or place the responsibility on the media for failing to provide the public with “current intelligence,” the forum, the means or the way to reach every member of society. In addition, Janowitz and Kaniss suggest that the location and profile of the community that the media serves, combined with the media skills, motivation and abilities of their primary sources, and the local leadership, come together to shape both news content and public deliberations.

Janowitz presented an interesting hypothesis that people who “display high local identifications” are more likely to not only display higher political competence, but were also associated with high community-newspaper readership. People with high political competence share a mutual goal with the community press to see that policies and programs that would benefit the community are implemented and as a result become “reliable sources.” As Kaniss points out, public officials and community leaders observe the media to learn how to use it effectively and to build upon that relationship, which raises the question, “Who influences whom?”

Communication technologies and urban areas have changed dramatically since Kaniss wrote Making Local News. As a result, the “local elite,” local identity or community, and the producers of local news are being redefined. Kaniss agreed with Durkheim that as the new urban and suburban centers continue to evolve, there is a need for new “intermediate associations,” which are smaller than the political entity of the state, but larger than the parochial village or community. Kaniss sees the local media’s efforts to create a region-wide identity as helping to create these intermediate associations. As new communication technologies and new “news institutions” emerge, will the nature of community change or does community shape communication institutions based upon these new information tools? Finally, what will these new communication institutions look like?

Week8. Of what is within the mass society...

When we talked about how the concept of the 'mass' has arisen in week 6, it is only natural that we look into how the society that consists of this mass functions. This week's readings deal with how scholars of post WW2 have viewed the mass society, which was not a course which the society was headed any more, but already a status quo. Conformity, consumption and uniformity were the seeming trend of the era, and scholars were looking for ways how to keep a democratic society where the traditional notion of a democratic 'public' has kind of disappeared.

There are more pessimistic views and less pessimistic views, but all they have in common was that the mass media plays a significant role in making such a society possible. Lazarsfeld and Merton argue that the mass media has three main functions, which are status conferral, enforcement of social norms, and narcotizing dysfunction. However, for the mass media to become actually tools of effective propaganda, more conditions such as monopolization, canalization and supplementation have to be met. It is also the viewpoint of Gans, who walks about the suburban life which has its own subdimension of ethnic and class based communities. Looking deep into the lives of the Leavittowners ethnographically, the 'mass' in fact consists of smaller communities that are bound by cultural commonalities. He notes that for the Levittowners the "most enduring - and certainly the most frequent - tie to the national culture is through the mass media"(p190). However the messages are filtered through personal dispositions, thus instead of being dominated they use mass media rather as a escape tool. Is it a narcotyzing dysfunction as termed by Merton & Lazarsfeld? In some parts yes, but in some parts no because political communication does still occur in the community level, which is not dominated by mass media.

As Bell says, the pessimistic theories on mass society has blamed mass communication for carrying out a uniformizing of tastes and cultures on the society as a whole, making critical standards of the educated elite powerless. And they go on romantizing the past, where authentic ('great') communities existed. However he continues to argue that communities still exist even in a mass society. What it implies for us in this even more massed mass society is the question of how such sub dimensions and the bigger dimensions of a society can be connected, constituting a large 'mass'. How to balance between the various layers of social dimensions in our life, to make democratic processes possible in each and all of them. To achieve this, we should not look for a community that consists entirely as a community per se, but the strains of communication between the communities within and the bigger mass society as a whole.

Mass Society

1. Readings of this week mainly focus on the followings points: 1) Critique on mass society. 2) Critique on ‘critique on mass society.’ 3) Critique on mass media in the age of mass society. 4) Snapshots of mass society at the specific community level.

2. According to Harold Innis, control over time and space that is related to the duration and expansion of civilization determines life or death of any civilization. Means of communication play a crucial role in controlling over time and space. In modern mass society where printing press occupies the main mean of communication, specialization and excess, constant changes in technology increase the difficulties of “recognizing balance” in society. (p.279) These “anti-homeostatic factors” (Wiener) are indirectly reflected on the fixed and not-communicative strata of modern American society (Mill): “The top of modern American society is increasingly unified […] At the top there has emerged an elite of power. The middle levels are a drifting set of stalemated, balancing forces. The middle does not link the bottom with the top. The bottom of this society is politically fragmented, and even as a passive fact, increasingly powerless.” (p.400) The problems of mass society are mirrored on mass culture. Mass culture as kitsch (which originally means trash in German), according to Macdonald, “exploits the cultural needs of the masses in order to make a profit and/or to maintain their class rule.” (p.344) In addition, the production process of Hollywood movie industry displays magical form of thinking seeking breaks, i.e., the mindset of Hollywood moviemakers are no more than that of gamblers. (Powdermaker, p.291) However, this type of critique on mass society, being imbued with romanticism, lacks theoretical rigorousness, and the term “mass” is used arbitrarily depending on perspectives of each thinker. (Bell) In addition, “atomized society,” a key phrase of mass society critiques, does not fit to the American society, “a nation of joiners” where at least 200,000 voluntary organizations exist. (Bell, p.370)

3. The critique on mass society brought about growing concerns on mass media which leads to the systematic speculations on the role of media in mass society. According to Lazarsfeld and Merton, the role (function) of mass media is summarized into the following: The status conferral function, the enforcement of social norms, the narcotizing dysfunction. The status conferral function is revealed in “reverse content check” in which selection-exclusion processes are covertly operating. (Breed) The enforcement of social norms are well observed in Riesman’s article in which mass communication is identified with “character-forming agencies” (p.301)
The various arguments regarding mass society are products of a specific epistemological perspective: attempting to understand objects as a whole. A different level of analysis might not need the term ‘mass’ and would produce a different interpretation on society. At a different level of analysis, society may not be seen as inchoate and atomized, and Gans’ article clearly shows this. Tow towns in Gans article, Westend and Levittown, do not clearly display the symptoms of mass society as described in mass society theory. According to Gans, those suburbs are not rootless and hold community strength in terms of culture and networks. In this way, when a community is viewed in light of ‘network,’ isolated and atomized characters of mass society are not clearly observed in small size communities.

4. However, as shown in Gans’ articles, "sparseness of citizen communication and participation" in the realm of political communication in the Levittown signifies the problem of mass society. (p.307) And ‘mass’ media imposed from above has inherent limitations in encouriging communication and participation, i.e., networking those towners. For example, political communication between decision makers and citizens was superficial, and the problem could not be solved by the system of mass media which was based on “mutual obligation between reporter and decision maker.” (p.323)

Generally speaking, the symptoms of mass society are not totally observed in those two towns, and yet the problems of mass media in mass society are clearly detected there. Then, a different form of media (not from the above, but from the below) which facilitates communication at all levels (not only political level) and contribute to networking those citizens is needed.

Conclusion - What I learned from the readings! (too many things...but mainly, )

At different level of analysis, the theory of mass society might not be valid.

It seems that 'mass' communication started its operation in Westend and Levittown even before those two towns were tranformed into mass society.

If so, mass communication might not be a product of mass society.

Mass media plays a various role but 'networking citizens.'

Thus, if we mean to network people, a different form of media is needed.

Mass Society & Mass Communication

This week we examine the transformation of the ideal version of a cohesive public, in which public opinion is formed through the ebb and flow of discussion, to mass society, which consists of separate, detached, and anonymous individuals who are also provided with more options and a plurality of norms and standards to embrace. This evolution is a result of the change in the dominant mode of communication from interpersonal, rational, and critical discussion in communities that interlink, to a communication structure which, as Mills says, creates more receivers of opinions rather than receivers; provides no opportunities for the public to answer back; and creates a public that knows, but doesn’t act and that is insulated by media’s existence from interpersonal discussion. This has weakened the concept of public by redefining it as a media market and making public opinion reactionary. In addition, the elite which shaped and guided the development of consensus and public opinion, has now been replaced by powerful, institutional elite which has grown more sophisticated and aggressive in the use of mass media to manipulate public opinion.

As Powdermacher illustrated so well, the artifact reflects the social organization of the production. It is argued by MacDonald and others that the very characteristics or organizational structure of mass media has shaped and influenced the emergence of mass society. According to Lazarsfeld and Merton, mass media in and of itself doesn’t sustain a movement, but it’s characteristics -- monopolization, canalization, tapping into preexisting attitudes and behaviors, and supplementary personal contact -- do contribute to the conditions of successful propaganda, or the manipulation of mass publics. MacDonald, who shares David Riesman’s view that mass man is “a solitary atom, uniform with and undifferentiated” from others and part of the “lonely crowd,” believes that this is the result of the way that mass culture is produced and delivered. The cultural elite has become an institution and community creativity is no longer nourished by the “rich combination of individualism and communalism.” Today’s institutional cultural elite seeks to reach the widest number of people, treats the public as an object, and panders to the lowest level of taste and ideas.

From the emergence of mass society, to fashion fads, to the movement of Italian-Americans to the suburbs, change is seen as the constant. While change is recognized as inevitable and fast-paced, there is an uneasiness about what is driving change and its impact. The centralization of political decision-making and the consolidation of corporate and political power has and continues today to have a long- term effect on mass society. Writers like Mills predicted a “political malaise,” and Bell saw the United States vulnerable to the “politics of disaffection” as a result of the emergence of the “elite of power.” Mills said it well, “The effective units of power are now the huge corporation, the inaccessible government, the grim military establishment. Between these, on the one hand, and the family and the small community on the other, we find no intermediate associations in which men feel secure and with which they feel powerful.”

The voluntary individual associations that worked in the building of democracies in the past, can no longer compete with the current centralized organizations of power. In recent years, there was a hope that the Internet and other new communication technologies would return the feeling of power and control to the public and enable people to build these intermediate associations. Blogs were a communication tool which showed promise in building affiliations of people with mutual interests, to providing a way to talk or answer back, and to again create more senders of opinion, rather than receivers. It turns out that the power elite continues to try to shape and control even that form of communication and opinion-shaping. It was reported in the New York Times on March 7, 2006, that Walmart has sought to influence public opinion on legislation forcing them to provide health care insurance coverage for its employees by “influencing” certain key political bloggers.

Week7: On Influences and Communication...

Whereas last week's reading dealt with the emergence of the 'mass' and the public, this week's theme rather centers on how people in those kinds of grouped whole can actually get along to form a democratic society. And again, the key is communication, or even 'mass' communication. However, we are beginning to look into a more subtle balance between the Gemeinschaft features of the public and the Gesellschaft features of the mass, indicating a hint at what role communities can play.

Wirth describes mass societies as a creation of the division of labor, of mass communication and a more or less democratically archived consensus(p2). But if we look into these elements, we can notice that the division of labor can be sustained only through systematic communication among the labor functions. Moreover, consensus building and archiving as well are functions of communication. So it is only natural that when describing the seven charactieristics of the mass (aggregate of great number, dispersed, heterogeneous, anonymous, non-organized, no common customs and unattached) Wirth notes that the 'detached' masses are held together by mass media communication. Modern society consists on one hand of organized groups, and on the other hand of those masses.

But are people in a mass society really that 'detached'? Katz & Lazarsfeld's answer would be "no". They argued that interpersonal influence matters, and the effects are no less significant, even kind of similar in process to those of mass media ( "...Behind the design of this study was the idea that persons, and especially opinion leaders, could be looked upon as another medium of mass communication, similar to magazines, newspapers, and radio." p.11. personally, I really like this view ). Two main ingredients are active in this process, namely group anchorage of opinions/attitudes, and person-to-person communication. Interpersonal relations again have two functions, which are relay and reinforcement(p82). As such, group structures, climates and situations play an important role in carrying out the communication.

However, can public (many times used as equivalent for rather "macro-political") consensus-making be regarded as such down-to-earth treats that is not much different from customer choices between two kinds of soap? Todd Gitlin made a strong critic about it, to which Schudson's piece is the counter argument. In Schudson's view, the overt separation of customer and the citizen is unfair. In his words, consumer choices can be political, political choices can be cunsumer-like, and moreover, citizen/consumer distinction itself may be damaging to public life. It is a notion that everyday life with its private and interpersonal relationships can and should meet with the public and larger political stances of democratic societies.

Looking into the notions of those arguments, we could feel the need to go back to Dewey's notion of the 'great community'. But it is not a matter of simply going back to the community structures of the past, which would be unrealistic in this huge and complex modern society. Rather, it is a matter of implementing mid-range communication structures. Namely, communication structures that have the characteristics of the close personal relationships, but can lead to more than private talks. Where news and influence always meet the real everyday connections that is within one's grasp. It calls for communities as a mid-range communication practice.

News, influence, community.

1. As John Dewey pointed out, there were too many publics, but there was no genuine public on a national scale in the mass society of the US during the early 20th century. Great thinkers began to tackle this problem, and Louis Wirth looked for the solution from the generating ‘consensus’ – the ideal result of communication - among heterogeneous members of society.

2. According to Wirth, the US then was mass society where “unattached individuals” without recognized leadership constitute “an inert lump” (p.3). Mass societies are “the product of the division of labor, of mass communication and a more or less democratically achieved consensus” (p.2) In this situation, “the analysis of consensus rightly constitutes the focus of sociological investigation” (p.2). Here, “ in addition to force and authority, leadership and personal prestige, ideas and ideals and the symbols,” “public opinion” makes up the core basis of consensus (p.7). There can be various ways to achieve this consensus, and Wirth regards mass communication as one possible instrument to achieve the consensus. Though mass communication can be “infinite possibilities” for evil (p.14), it can be also possibilities for good since “the media of mass communication, like all the technological instruments that men has invented, are themselves neutral” (p.14). In this way, Wirth believes that mass communication, if human beings utilize the ‘value-neutral instrument’ in a good way, can make direct influence on citizens.

3. However, according to Elihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld, this kind of belief is naïve one. Citizens are neither directly influenced by mass communication, nor they accept the messages unconditionally. There is another variable in this mass communication process, i.e., “personal influence” which deeply involved in the decoding of mass communication messages. Messages from media are filtered through the interaction among neighbors, and the filtering process greatly varies in terms of group structure, group climate and situation. In addition, media messages are greatly refracted before it reaches to the audience because of the role of “strategic points,” i.e., the origin, the relay points, the terminal points of communication (p.98) in groups.

3. According to Robert Coleman who created the notion of social capital, in an open structure like (a), since there exists no social relationship between social actors D and E (or, organizations D and E), social consensus are not fully realized under this structure. In contrast, in a structure with ‘closure’ (b), the likelihood of social consensus's being generated is greater than an open structure (a). In short, a structure with closure is more effective in generating and augmenting social consensus, a form of social capital.


D E A



B C
B C
A

(a) (b)

FIG.1. – Network without (a) and with (b) closure


If so, it might be too idealistic to expect social consensus in mass society which mainly consists of networks without closure. However, as seen in the ‘agenda setting function’ of mass media, a form of social consensus among heterogeneous members of society can be created by mass media as Wirth expected. Nevertheless, the power of media is inevitably attenuated because of the variable of “personal influence,” as Katz and Lazarsfeld argued. All these make the issue of ‘social consensus’ more complex. But it does not necessarily mean these complex situations undermine the value and necessity of ‘consensus’ on which the effectiveness of modern democratic system based.

Week7-News, Influence and Community

This week’s readings examine the processes of interpersonal and mass communication and how the two intersect and interact to transmit ideas and to change or form attitudes and behaviors which build consensus within a democratic society. Communication is both the product and the means to consensus both within interpersonal relationships and in the mass communications process. Public opinion is a byproduct of consensus, but can also be an influencer. A democratic mass society is dependent upon public opinion even if it is not stable or always reliable. Consensus in a society states Wirth, “is the capacity to understand one another and to act in concert toward common objectives and under common norms” and this should be the role of mass communication. Katz and Lazarsfeld’s research showed that the role of personal influencers is to build consensus in this manner through their communication skills.

Katz and Lazarsfeld examined how people form opinions about consumer goods and public affairs by using sociometric methods to examine the patterns of individual relationships in order to understand the interpersonal communication process. The three key communication roles or relay points of personal influencers or opinion leaders were as initiators, transmitters, and influencers. The role that the opinion leader takes on depends upon the situational needs of the group at a certain point in time, the social and also physical structure of the group, and on the group’s cultural profile. Just as personal influencers can act as both a communicator and a relay point in the network of mass communication, mass media can and does take on the roles of initiator, transmitter and influencer depending upon the situation, structure and prevailing cultural climate. The shaping and delivery of the message by the opinion leader and mass media have a complex, interactive effect in shaping consensus that is still not understood today.

Schudson makes a good point that while the decision process that goes into making political and consumer choices my differ, they are not mutually exclusive, nor is one choice of greater value than the other. There is an intermingling between the issues (public affairs) and self-interest (consumerism) and by isolating the study of the two, one can fail to get a full understanding of consensus and public opinion.
There is, as Rothebuhler points out, a lack of understanding of the concepts of mass and consensus. According to Wirth, consensus is the process of communication “that allows a society of diverse citizens to be governed liberally and not an agreement of values. Today, consensus seems to be defined as an agreement of values. For example, if you don’t support the invasion of Iraq, then you aren’t an American patriot. This essentially shuts down the “discussion, debate, negotiation and compromise” that Wirth saw as needed for consensus. Wirth’s seven-point description, saw mass as heterogeneous, yet aggregates of individual and as people who belong to many groups, but are not organized. The focus today is on what do people want, what do they think and where do their self-interests lie? Without understanding the context within which individual opinions are formed we miss the complexity of “mass” in society and communication.

The global scope of the reaction, particularly from the Muslim community, to the Danish cartoons highlights the problems of global consensus, and the underlying communications structure, that need to be understood. Although the cartoons were published in an obscure Danish newspaper in September 2005, it has only been within recent months that members of the Muslim world community reacted strongly and at time violently to the cartoon’s content. It is doubtful that many of the protestors had actually seen the cartoons, so one wonders what the communication structure of both personal influencers and mass media that’s in place which moved this information or “news” worldwide in such a way as to generate this form of social action. It demonstrates the strength of symbols and how public opinion can be based more on perception, rather than knowledge.