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.
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.
posted by KimNakho at
9:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home