AMITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION MJMC 1 st SEM INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNICATION

1. AMITY SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION MJMC 1st SEM INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNICATION Ms. PRACHI CHANDOLA

2. Four Eras of Mass Communications

3. Era of mass society theory (1850-1940) Era of scientific perspective on mass media (1940-1950) Era of limited effects (1950-60s) Era of cultural criticism (1960s-1980s) Four eras in mass communication theories

4. Mass Communication theories begins with a review of some of the earliest notions about media. These ideas were initially developed in the later half of the 19th century as new media technologies were invented and popularized. Although some theorists were optimistic about new technology, most were extremely pessimistic (Brantlinger, 1983). They blamed new industrial technology for disrupting peaceful, rural communities and forcing people to live in urban areas merely to serve as a convenient workforce in large factories, mines or bureaucracies. Era of mass society theory 1850-1940

5. Theorists were fearful of cities because of their crime, cultural diversity, and unstable political systems. For many social thinkers, mass media symbolized everything that was wrong with the 19th century urban life. The dominant perspective that emerged during this period is referred to as mass society theory. It began as a collection of contradictory notions – some quite radical, others quite reactionary.

6. In general mass society ideas held strong appeal for any social elites whose power was threatened by change. Media industries such as ‘penny press’ were a convenient for elites’ criticism. The media of the time were easily attacked as symptomatic of a sick society – a society that needed to either return to old values or be forced to adopt a set of totally new values.

7. In time, the leaders of the Industrial Revolution gained enormous influence over social change. They strongly favored all forms of Technological Development, including mass media. In their view technology was inherently good as it facilitated control over the physical environment, expanded human productivity and generated new forms of material wealth. New technology would bring an end to social problems and lead to the development of an Ideal social world. But in the short term, industrialization brought with it enormous problems – exploitation of workers, pollution and social unrest.

8. Today, the fallacies of both the critics of technology and its advocates are readily apparent. Mass society notions greatly exaggerated the ability of media to quickly undermine social order. These ideas failed to consider that media’s power ultimately resides in the freely chosen uses that audiences make of it. Technology advocates were also misguided and failed to acknowledge the many unnecessary, damaging consequences that resulted from applying technology without adequately considering the impact.

9. During the 1930’s, world events seemed to continually confirm the truth of mass society ideas. In Europe, reactionary and revolutionary political movements used media in their struggles for political power. German Nazis introduced propaganda techniques that ruthlessly exploited the power of new media technology like motion pictures and radio. All across Europe, totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini rose to political power and were able to exercise seemingly total control over vast populations. Era of scientific perspective on mass media (1940-1950)

10. Private ownership of media, especially broadcast media, was replaced by direct government control in most European nations. The purpose was to use media for the service of the society. But the unintended outcome in most cases was to place enormous power in the hands of ruthless leaders who were convinced that they personally embodied what was best for all their citizens. Exception was BBC, an independent public corporation.

11. At the very peak of their popularity, mass society notions came under attack from Lazarsfeld,(1941), an Austrian researcher and scientist. He argued that it wasn’t enough to merely speculate about the influence of media on society. Instead he proposed conducting carefully designed, elaborate field experiments in which he would be able to observe media influence and measure its magnitude.

12. It was not enough to assume that political propaganda is powerful – hard evidence was needed to prove the existence of such effects (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet, 1944). Lazersfeld’s most famous efforts, the “Voter Studies”, actually began as an attempt to demonstrate the media’s power, yet they proved, at least to him and his colleagues, just the opposite.

13. By the early 1950s, Lazerfeld’s work had generated an enormous amount of data based on which he concluded that media were not nearly as powerful as had been previously imagined. Instead, he found that people had numerous ways of resisting media influence and were influenced by many competing factors. Rather than serving as a disruptive social force, media seemed to reinforce existing social trends and strengthen the status quo.

14. He found little evidence to support the worst fears of mass society theorists. Though Lazarsfeld never labeled his theory, it is now referred to as the Limited-effects perspective. These views media as playing a very limited role in the lives of individuals and larger society.

15. During the 1950s, limited-effects notions about media continued to gain acceptance within academia. Several important clashes occurred between their adherents and those who supported mass society ideas (Bauer and Bauer, 1960). In 1960, several classic studies of media effects provided apparently definitive support for the limited-effects notions. Era of limited effects (1950-60s)

16. By 1961, V.O. Key had published Public Opinion and American Democracy, a theoretical and methodological tour de force that integrated limited-effects notions with social and political theory to create a perspective that is now known as elite pluralism.This theory views society as a number of interlocking pluralistic groups led by opinion leaders who rely on media for information about politics and social world. Advocates of mass society notions came under increasing attack as “unscientific” or “irrational” because they questioned “hard scientific findings”.

17. By the mid-1960s, the debate between mass society and limited -effects notions appeared to be over – at least within the mass communication research community. The body of empirical research findings continued to grow, and almost all these findings were consistent with the latter view. Little or empirical research supported mass society theory. This was not surprising because most empirical researchers trained at this time were warned against its fallacies.

18. Era of cultural criticism (1960s-1980s)Though most mass communication researchers in the United States found limited-effects notions and empirical research findings on which they were based persuasive, researchers in other parts of the world were less convinced.Mass society notions continued to flourish in Europe, where both left-wing and right-wing concerns about the power of media were deeply rooted in World War II experiences with propaganda. Europeans were also skeptical about the power of scientific, quantitative social research methods to verify and develop social theory (they saw them as reductionist – reducing complex communication processes and social phenomena to little more than narrow propositions generated from small-scale investigations). This reductionism was widely viewed as a distinctly American fetish. Some European academics were resentful of the influence enjoyed by American after World War II.They argued that American empiricism was both simplistic and intellectually sterile. Although some European academics welcomed and championed American ideas, other strongly resisted them and argued for maintaining approaches considered less biased or more traditionally European.

19. One group of European social theorists who vehemently resisted postwar U.S. influence was the neo-Marxists (Hall,1982).These left-wing social theorists believe that media enable dominant social elites to maintain their power. Media provide the elite with a convenient, subtle, yet highly effective means of promoting worldviews favorable to their interests. Mass media can be viewed, they argue as a public arena in which cultural battles are fought and a dominant or hegemonic culture is forged. Elites dominate these struggles because they start with important advantages. Opposition is marginalized, and the status quo is presented as the only logical, rational way of structuring society. Within neo-Marxist theory, efforts to examine media institutions and interpret media content came to have high priority.

20. During the 1970s, questions about the possibility of powerful media effects were again raised within U.S. universities.Initially, these questions were often advanced by scholars in the humanities who were unrestrained by the limited effects perspective and untrained in the scientific method. Their arguments were routinely ignored and marginalized by social scientists because they were unsupported by “scientific evidence.” Some of these scholars were attracted to European-style cultural criticism. Others attempted to create an “authentic” American school of cultural studies – though they drew heavily on Canadian scholars like Harold Innis and Marshall McLuhan (Carey, 1977).This cultural criticism, although initially greeted with considerable skepticism by “mainstream” effects researchers, gradually established itself as a credible and valuable alternative to limited-effects notions.