Читать книгу Media Effects - James Shanahan - Страница 17

Ideological strains of thinking about media begin with reactions to Marx. To simplify greatly, Marxism – which itself adopted the mantle of science – had predicted that proletarian revolutions would come as workers would realize the injustice of the inequality of their situation in relation to capital. Although some of these revolutions did occur, first and most notably in Russia, they were not as widespread as would have been necessary to confirm the hypotheses of Marxism. From this came the work of follow-on theorists, many on the European left, who sought ways to extend the basic ideas of Marxism in light of the actual progression of history. Oftentimes this involved a view of the media as a sort of narcotic that distracts people from true class consciousness. If people were not reacting in ways that Marxist social theory predicted, it might have been because media served as a cultural “opiate” (Marx had also identified religion as such an opiate, and modern mass media was beginning to take on some of the trappings of religion as well).

Early proponents of this view were from the so-called Frankfurt School, who first brought European ideas about media and culture into contact with American perspectives in the World War II period. Their work was, and has continued to be, highly influential. The role of media in these analyses is as a corrupting force that dilutes genuine cultural expression and makes it into something more suitable for a culture “industry.” The powers (the “effects”) of this industry are assumed from the start, and are quite massive when compared to the effects that were studied by the social scientists. Major early figures in the Frankfurt School movement were Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, who argued:

Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part. Even the aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system. The decorative industrial management buildings and exhibition centers in authoritarian countries are much the same as anywhere else. The huge gleaming towers that shoot up everywhere are outward signs of the ingenious planning of international concerns, toward which the unleashed entrepreneurial system (whose monuments are a mass of gloomy houses and business premises in grimy, spiritless cities) was already hastening. (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002; During, 1993, p. 32)

Media is just another standardized product in the output of bourgeois capitalism, and serves the same functions and needs (Kellner, 1989). A related idea, that of cultural “hegemony,” was also offered. Theorists such as Gramsci (1971) noted that cultural production, dominated by ruling classes, is suited to and creates acceptance of the status quo. Cultural institutions can work through ideology rather than through more forceful means to engineer acceptance. Again, the view here is tied to a very strong media effects position. Media have the ideological power to manufacture consent to the dominant worldview.

How are these ideas related to media effects research? First, early critical theorists were often in contact with and even collaborating with some of the empirical researchers. They sometimes defined themselves in relation to each other. Critical theorists viewed those doing effects research as starting from assumptions that were tied to the dominant economic and social paradigm. They were seen as functionaries of a media system doing “administrative” tasks designed to further the effectiveness of the system (for a recent discussion, see Katz & Katz, 2016). The critics often asserted that the focus on effects was itself misguided, and positioned themselves as involved in a higher-level philosophical endeavor. So we often tend to see critical theorists as opposed to a strong view of media effects. But that view can be misleading:

There is a major flaw in thinking that administrative research is focused on effect, while critical research is not. It is true that administrative research looks at the causal chain of “who says what to whom with what effect.” But the effect is short run. But it is altogether wrong to overlook the giant effects [emphasis added] aimed for by the Frankfurt School – the production of consciousness, false and true, and ultimately on society. More than that, the ostensible reluctance of the Frankfurters to use the term effect is itself a giant statement that society continues at an uninterruptable standstill, and that the media serve to reinforce the status quo. In other words, “no change” is their major effect. (Katz & Katz, 2016, p. 9)

The idea that a media effect could be conceptualized as a maintenance of the status quo becomes important a little later in our story. Still, the perceptual dichotomy that opposes critical to effects research has been durable. They may differ on an informational/ideological axis, but both are concerned with effects. A question that we will pose throughout this volume is whether there is a synthesis that can bring together this dichotomy, to the extent that it is false and not a useful way to continue proceeding.⁴