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 In addition, the elite which shaped and guided the development of consensus and public opinion, has now been replaced by powerful, institutional elite which has grown more sophisticated and aggressive in the use of mass media to manipulate public opinion.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.
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.
posted by Vicky Hildebrandt at
4:49 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home