Silvio Waisbord’s article highlights an interesting discussion on the current interaction between media and nationalism. I see media enhancing nationalism by drawing attention to it. In this respect, I suggest changing the wording of Waisbord’s title from Reinvention (which implies a change from a previous form) to Rediscovery (which implies a closer examination of something already established).
This rediscovery involves nationalism becoming more defined when societies come in closer contact with different nations. This interaction, which has been intensified by advances in transportation and media technology, allows us to see more clearly what makes our nation unique (including symbols, history, values, rituals) and further bind us to it.
Weaver discussed this in his reflections at Aoyama Gakuin University in 2007. He says, “Increasingly we become more aware of other cultures and our own. As a result our own culture becomes more important to us.” (Weaver, p11) He also gives the example of Fela Kuti from Nigeria who said he did not know what it meant to be African until he left Africa.
These examples support the idea that interactions with other nations help us more clearly define our own sense of nationalism. Media has increased the speed and volume of these interactions making the world smaller and putting nations in closer communication that ever before.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Analysis Question: Political-economy and IC
Political-economy concerns form the basis of international communication mediums. Since the initial design of railroads, intended to transport goods over broad regions for extended trade routes, communication has been politically and economically driven. Initially, communication was brought to the developing world to spread democracy and globalization, while supporting the political agenda of superpowers. While other factors, such as education, socialization, religion, and culture are substantial reasons for increased IC, the political-economy aspects that initially pioneered IC remain the driving reasons behind research and advocacy.
It seems that even social reforms, such as aid to developing countries, are part of a superpower’s desire to develop the country’s economic and political stability, with future trade access benefits. In addition, a developing country aided by the American government is more likely to adapt democratic and other politically important restructuring techniques that positively affect America. Thus, it appears that even social reforms, intended to benefit the developing country, have political and economic components that assist the superpower.
Furthermore, the political regime’s economic dynamic influences modes of communication. As scholar Dan Schiller admits, “in our era, in turn, capital’s demands predominate in redefining the social purposes and institutional functions of world communications”(IC reader, 122). As he suggests, social reforms and others are motivated by economic conditions, such as capitalism.
Thus, the political-economy concerns that initially drove the IC debate remain present today; the early ideas of communication (spreading the practices of an empire) persist. However, other concerns, such as education and culture, are vital factors in developing a country, and may become more important as conflict regions begin to restructure themselves. But until then, our democracy-driven, political-economic reforms, seem inevitable.
It seems that even social reforms, such as aid to developing countries, are part of a superpower’s desire to develop the country’s economic and political stability, with future trade access benefits. In addition, a developing country aided by the American government is more likely to adapt democratic and other politically important restructuring techniques that positively affect America. Thus, it appears that even social reforms, intended to benefit the developing country, have political and economic components that assist the superpower.
Furthermore, the political regime’s economic dynamic influences modes of communication. As scholar Dan Schiller admits, “in our era, in turn, capital’s demands predominate in redefining the social purposes and institutional functions of world communications”(IC reader, 122). As he suggests, social reforms and others are motivated by economic conditions, such as capitalism.
Thus, the political-economy concerns that initially drove the IC debate remain present today; the early ideas of communication (spreading the practices of an empire) persist. However, other concerns, such as education and culture, are vital factors in developing a country, and may become more important as conflict regions begin to restructure themselves. But until then, our democracy-driven, political-economic reforms, seem inevitable.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Analysis Question 1: Driving IC Research
The "political-economy" concerns that have driven the debate in IC research up to this point are still relevant but that does not mean that other types of concerns, such as educational, psychological, religious or other social factors, should not also be impetuses for new IC research. However, I do think that the driving force behind IC research will remain political and economic concerns mainly because these issues are of utmost importance to policy-makers. Thus, most funding for IC research will be channeled into projects that focus on these concerns.
If you consider how much social science research funding in the U.S. comes from U.S. government agencies, the logical next step is to think that most of this funding goes to research issues of importance to the U.S. government. As Thussu states, the role of communication in "the growth of capitalism and empire" has been at the core of communication's usefulness for Western governments since the Industrial Revolution (Approaches 40). Although these political and economic concerns have been emphasized in IC research, I think that within the U.S. government there has always been an understanding of IC's influence as a method for "creating and maintaining shared values and meanings," a more cultural application of IC (Approach 41).
The U.S. has always had a love-hate relationship with this application of IC. One could say that the cultural area of IC research can be viewed negatively as researching ways to impose American values, moral and ethics on non-American populations, even as a form of propaganda research. In a society based on democratic ideals, such as freedom of thought, this is a hard pill to swallow. Also, I think the main reason why the focus in the U.S. in IC research hasn't been on the cultural aspects is because Americans find it very difficult to define what culture is and how it can be defined in terms of an American culture. The fact that there is no consensus on what American culture is stems from the historical fact that the U.S. is made up of people with ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse backgrounds. In addition, one ideal that has permeated American society is the idea of independence, which I believe has attributed to a lack of common identity. Ironically, even though American culture is difficult for Americans to define, most Americans believe that the democratic, puritanical ideals on which the U.S. was founded speak for themselves and that other peoples and countries should just be able to plainly recognize how high-minded and altruistic America is.
In sum, I think that the political and economic concerns that have driven IC research up until this point, especially in the U.S., will continue to remain the focus of research in this area. However, with the growing understanding of current global issues and the forces that shape these issues, I think that more research will focus on the role of social factors in international communications. One of the strengths of the IC field has always been its interdisciplinary nature and its openness to using multiple research methods and often hybridizing and combining methods from many academic disciplines. I believe that this aspect of IC will serve to strengthen future research in the field.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Communication IS culture
The article by Carey intrigued me, and I zeroed in on maintaining "mental notes" of the comparison between transmission and ritual communication. According to Carey, transmission communication focuses on using communication as a means of transmitting messages over distances to people for the purpose of control. The ritual view of communication is directed toward community and commonalities; it is used to maintain society over time. At first I attritbuted the ritual view of communication to religious practices, thereby, associating this communication view with the early found of the New World and the arrival of the Puritans to what is now the U.S. However, Carey caused my thinking to shift because he stated that America has more often than not resorted and basically adopted the transmission view. Then he gives his reasoning which was even more interesting.
We as Americans use the transmission view because our idea of culture is weak and lacking! Very interesting...we are an individualistic society, that separates culture and science (many times applauding our advancements and contributing it to "our culture) and use the word to simply describe various economic classes. However, I would like to just simply look at the transmission view of communication as American culture, or is that not possible? I like how Carey ends the article by stating that a more ritualistic use of communication by enforcing the significance of education and exchanging ideas and experiences.
I also attempted to draw a parallel between the biases of communication with transmission communication. Space-biased communication is associated with territorial societies. Carey used the example of distributing newspapers, which according to Innis in "The Bias of Communication & Monopolies of Power" is space-biased. Within transmission societies, newspapers would be used to transport information very quickly and over a vast area. I also feel that ritual communication views agree with time-biased media more simply because it is durable and encourages media with sacred and moral associations. The ritual view would distribute newspapers in order to maintain and confirm its views.
We as Americans use the transmission view because our idea of culture is weak and lacking! Very interesting...we are an individualistic society, that separates culture and science (many times applauding our advancements and contributing it to "our culture) and use the word to simply describe various economic classes. However, I would like to just simply look at the transmission view of communication as American culture, or is that not possible? I like how Carey ends the article by stating that a more ritualistic use of communication by enforcing the significance of education and exchanging ideas and experiences.
I also attempted to draw a parallel between the biases of communication with transmission communication. Space-biased communication is associated with territorial societies. Carey used the example of distributing newspapers, which according to Innis in "The Bias of Communication & Monopolies of Power" is space-biased. Within transmission societies, newspapers would be used to transport information very quickly and over a vast area. I also feel that ritual communication views agree with time-biased media more simply because it is durable and encourages media with sacred and moral associations. The ritual view would distribute newspapers in order to maintain and confirm its views.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Control Room
Throughout this week’s readings, I was struck by how all of these theories focused on different aspects of communications control. Modernization Theory noted that control of communications was the answer to helping countries develop. Dependency Theory said communication control was just another way to keep developing countries submissive to the developed world. Structural Imperialists were interested in the controlled flow of news and its filters. Hegemony looked at controlling consent through ideological reinforcement and communications while Critical Theorists studied the control over production of the cultural industry. In addition, Globalization is seen as control over the standardization of communication networks to homogenize and "McDonaldize" society.
Innis' perspective said that control of the monopolies of knowledge led to an unequal balance between time-biased and space-biased media. A society could not be stable if both medias weren’t in balance.
Carey took a different stance with communication theory and control. He noted “there is no such thing as communication to be revealed in nature through some objective method free from the corruption of culture.” (Carey, p31) Communication creates culture and reality in almost a Catch-22. He thought society would never reach a ritual form of communications until it stopped promoting a controlled transmission form.
This controlled transmission form of communications is what permeates current communication theory and use. Weaver discusses how even radical theories such as Huntington’s fear-filled separatist arguments get disseminated through the White House because governments realize the importance of staying on top of communications ideas. Control of communications equals power. Thussu points out that governments are losing control of communications to transnational corporations (TNC's) who are taking over more of the communication outlets and ultimately the control. These huge corporations spend billions of dollars trying to reach new consumers around the globe so it is in their best interests to control all aspects of the market.
For the time being, Carey’s ideal of a ritual form of communication seems a long way off. This transformation is unlikely until societies decide to step out of the control room and focus on finding a way to “rebuild a model of and for communication of some restorative value in reshaping our common culture.” (Carey, p35)
Innis' perspective said that control of the monopolies of knowledge led to an unequal balance between time-biased and space-biased media. A society could not be stable if both medias weren’t in balance.
Carey took a different stance with communication theory and control. He noted “there is no such thing as communication to be revealed in nature through some objective method free from the corruption of culture.” (Carey, p31) Communication creates culture and reality in almost a Catch-22. He thought society would never reach a ritual form of communications until it stopped promoting a controlled transmission form.
This controlled transmission form of communications is what permeates current communication theory and use. Weaver discusses how even radical theories such as Huntington’s fear-filled separatist arguments get disseminated through the White House because governments realize the importance of staying on top of communications ideas. Control of communications equals power. Thussu points out that governments are losing control of communications to transnational corporations (TNC's) who are taking over more of the communication outlets and ultimately the control. These huge corporations spend billions of dollars trying to reach new consumers around the globe so it is in their best interests to control all aspects of the market.
For the time being, Carey’s ideal of a ritual form of communication seems a long way off. This transformation is unlikely until societies decide to step out of the control room and focus on finding a way to “rebuild a model of and for communication of some restorative value in reshaping our common culture.” (Carey, p35)
Communication as Persuasion
After reflecting upon this week’s readings, I noticed a strong correlation between the suggestions in both the Weaver and Carey articles. Both authors imply that communication was, and still is primarily a facilitator of persuasion. While both Weaver and Carey consider the original and present theories of international communication, both authors agree that communication is used mainly as a tool to change or strengthen desired ideas or behaviors.
Weaver demonstrates this by noting that early tactics of IC relied on using the media to influence people and spread Western ideology, rather than to facilitate cooperation or aid developing countries through spreading technology. He says that early forms included communicating “Western ideas to people” in the third world, rather learning how to communicate “with them.” This quotation reminds the reader how Western powers often exploit third world nations by using communication as a medium to manipulate their behaviors and beliefs. It also may provide a reason for the slow growth of communication mediums in the third world.
In addition to Weaver’s assumptions, Carey also mentions the correlation between communication and persuasion. When describing two prominent views, she argues that transmission communication conveys messages and symbols for the purpose of control. Thus, communication is spread in order to persuade the receivers to change or strengthen attitudes, while promoting specific ideas and practices.
This inability of the West to communicate impartially with other civilizations contributed to the spread of Westernization, and perhaps the destruction of other cultures. I believe that the third world never fully developed strong communication mediums because they relied on information transmitted by the West, and used Western models to shape their media. In addition, the spread of primarily Western ideas through the media may relate to the often politically controlled and government biased media broadcasted in the third world.
In conclusion, from both Weaver’s and Carey’s articles, I recognized that communication is a stronger vehicle of persuasion than I had previously thought, especially in the third world. Initially concerned with spreading propaganda during WWII, not much has changed in 50 years. The art of international communication continues to alter social behaviors and beliefs 50 years later, and maintains an ethnocentric tendency, as Weaver noted about early forms of IC. The ability to exploit a weak nation through communication was a primary factor in the spread of Westernization, and remains a dominant force in today’s world.
Weaver demonstrates this by noting that early tactics of IC relied on using the media to influence people and spread Western ideology, rather than to facilitate cooperation or aid developing countries through spreading technology. He says that early forms included communicating “Western ideas to people” in the third world, rather learning how to communicate “with them.” This quotation reminds the reader how Western powers often exploit third world nations by using communication as a medium to manipulate their behaviors and beliefs. It also may provide a reason for the slow growth of communication mediums in the third world.
In addition to Weaver’s assumptions, Carey also mentions the correlation between communication and persuasion. When describing two prominent views, she argues that transmission communication conveys messages and symbols for the purpose of control. Thus, communication is spread in order to persuade the receivers to change or strengthen attitudes, while promoting specific ideas and practices.
This inability of the West to communicate impartially with other civilizations contributed to the spread of Westernization, and perhaps the destruction of other cultures. I believe that the third world never fully developed strong communication mediums because they relied on information transmitted by the West, and used Western models to shape their media. In addition, the spread of primarily Western ideas through the media may relate to the often politically controlled and government biased media broadcasted in the third world.
In conclusion, from both Weaver’s and Carey’s articles, I recognized that communication is a stronger vehicle of persuasion than I had previously thought, especially in the third world. Initially concerned with spreading propaganda during WWII, not much has changed in 50 years. The art of international communication continues to alter social behaviors and beliefs 50 years later, and maintains an ethnocentric tendency, as Weaver noted about early forms of IC. The ability to exploit a weak nation through communication was a primary factor in the spread of Westernization, and remains a dominant force in today’s world.
Friday, September 4, 2009
A Common Thread
One subject that all of the readings touched on this week is the interdisciplinary nature of the international communications field. From theories of IC developing out of Marxism to the basis of modern communications theory coming from applied physics, the multi-discipline nature of IC makes it a very unique academic field. It also puts a lot of responsibility on IC scholars to be well versed in many subjects and to understand the interconnections between those fields of study and IC.
In this era, academia and thus academics- as Weaver says- are viewed as living in their ivory towers. We think of them as being removed from the real world, above the fray, an impartial entity, which can be trusted to give the general population an honest and unbiased position on a certain topic. What I found particularly interesting in the Thussu chapter were the assumptions and conflicts of interests held by some post-WWII IC theorists. The idea that modernization was based solely on the definition of development from the industrialized West and thus that traditional lifestyles and modernization were mutually exclusive seems extremely narrow-minded. Also, the revelation that some modernization research was politically motivated is particularly disappointing. By understanding the Cold War context in which the development of modernization theory took place, one can plainly see the benefit for the West in using this take on modernization to bring the third world under its capitalist umbrella.
In the Weaver selection, he narrates the development of the IC field throughout his lifetime, connecting IC to international relations, international economics, anthropology, sociology, physics and other academic fields. Weaver's main conclusion from much of the early IC research is that it dealt with "how to communicate Western ideas TO people in the third world, rather than how to communicate WITH people in the third world," focusing on the ethnocentric bias of IC research at this time (Weaver 2007).
All four readings this week gave different perspectives on the development of IC as an academic discipline and how this theoretical development has influenced the debate on "best (global) practice" for the field of IC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)