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.
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.
posted by Anonymous at
7:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home