ly of mass communication can only make sense in che context of a theory of ible to suggest several ience tradition that ig from the lopment of media theory. the concept f the public nd ‘freedom of the’ press distinction bptween these iters' work, rafher media theory the ment about the exte the historical develop- hhas varied, There is also ple, functionalism is often ing about the media and sin the-historical development of the actats and the particular eon trary but itis possible 10 dominant or where a field. Such struggles hillisation of the role of ia. By wacing the rise and fall ofthe different perspectives We can understand hove thinking about the media has evolved. Unapter Une MASS SOCIETY AND LJ MODERNITY: EARLY MEDIA THEORY Sustained research in the field of mass communication anel media studies developed in the Unived States from the 1930s onwards (Corner «fal, 1998: 2). This was some 40 years afer the birth of modern media, which happened between 1890 and 1920 with the expan- sion of mass circulation newspapers, the rapid rise of the cinema and the development of radio (see Williams, 1998; Curran and Seaton, 1997), During these formative years ‘the ‘mass media existed without mass communications research as we know it today" (Brown, 1970). While « number of isolated studies of particular aspects of the media were com- ducted, systematic consideration was limited. However, the prevailing concerns and per- spectives of this period have shaped much of our thinking about the media, and any discussion of media theory needs to begin by describing some of the views developed at this time. These views were by and large pessimistic, dominated by a set of notions, often, contradictory, later referred to as ‘mass society theory’ and part of a wider debate about the impact of ‘modernity’ MODERNITY AND THE BEGINNINGS OF MEDIA THEORY The birth of the mass media coincided with the culmination of widespread, large-scale duange in western societies seen by many as representing the arrival of ‘modernity’ Modernity isa dilfcule concept (see Grossberg «al, 1998: 49-57). There is disagreement sot only over what itis but also when the ‘modern age’ began. Some argue it was as early 2 the late fileenth century with the onset of the Reformation and Renaissance, while ‘thers identify the arrival ofthe Enlightenment in the eighteenth century. However, i was inthe middle of the nineteenth century with the expansion of industrial capitalism, the advancement of science, the vse of mass democracy, usbansatio, colonialism, mass ed- cation and public communication that westem societies were seen as entering into a period of profound change. By the last decade ofthe century it was clear these changes and trans- formations had resulted in the ‘search for the new, the turning away from tadition’ (Grossberg «al, 1998: 51 ‘The consequences of modernity were ~ and still are ~ a mater of much debate and dis agreement, As the nineteenth century progressed social elites, religious and political Jeaders as well as leading intellectuals, in North America and Europe were expressing their 23Understanding Media Theory fears about its disruptive impact (see Carey, 1992), They were pessimistic about the breakdown of traditional society, and preoccupied with the rise ofthe ‘masses, which they saw as a real or potential threat to the stability ofthe social order. The potential for social isintegration was perhaps frst articulated by Alexis de Toequeville who, writing in che 1840s, complained modem society was governed "by an all pervasive egalitarianism which breeds individualism, materialism and social instability’ (quoted in Swingewood, 1977: 3). He believed that mass democracy was bringing about a levelling-down of culture and society and erosion of the influence of the social elite, which traditionally had guaranteed social order. In Britain, Matthew Arnold expressed concer about the debasement of ‘culture in his influential Cutere and Anarely published in 1869. Arnold argued that only by ‘maintaining and raising cultural standards could class tensions be alleviated and the threat of revolt from the unthinking, unruly and potentially violent masses be prevented. Te German philosopher, Friedrich Nietasche, was more stark in his warning that ‘everywhere the mediocre are combining in order to make themselves master, which would end in tae ‘eyranny of the least and the dumbest” (quoted in Carey, 1992: 4), Such views typified the position of many intellectuals at the end of the nineteenth century (see Carey, 1982). ‘Modernity was subverting the ‘normal order’ breaking down established traditional com: ‘munities in which people had a sense of belonging and a sense of their place in the overall scheme of things. Traditional communities were being replaced by a new society in which people were simply a mass of individuals isolated from one another and from the socal ties that bound them together ~ this society is labelled ‘mass society’. The severing of tr ditional socal ties and orientations, it was argued, rendered the individual mote isolated, ‘with the effect that he or she was more vulnerable and more susceptible to the most bise and trivial instincts and emotions being peddled by, amongst others, the new mass poli cal movements and media. ‘The coincidence of the rise of the media and the fears of the impact of modernity was important for the initial thinking about the media. The history of mass communication is in one sense a history of the fear of the masses ~ or those ‘dirty people of no name’ as the historian Clarendon called them ~ who became increasingly visible with the growth of the ‘media and communication industries (see Williams, 1998: Chapter 1). Sorlin (1994) points out that when added to other words the word ‘mass’ provides a pejorative nuance. ‘Thus mass circulation newspapers are full of trivia and gossip, mass art is cheap and lacking refinement, and mass culeure is aimed at satisfying the lowest common denomi: nator. The silent movies, the mass circulation newspapers of Northeliffe and Hearst in Britain and America, and cheap novels were the main vehicles for the mass culture so despised by the intellectual and political elites. While proprietors such as Northeliffe pro- ‘moted their enterprises by encouraging their newspapers to ‘deal with the interests of the ‘mass of the people’ by ‘giving the public what it wants’ (quoted in Carey, 1992: 6), critics such as Nietzsche were ‘contemptuous of every kind of culuure that is compatible with reading, not to speak of waiting for, newspapers’ (quoted in Garey, 1992: 7). ‘Thus the initial thinking about the media was contextualised and concerns at ainment’ (quote ver, such Fears andl ¢ wve exercised t0 a gre ciety ever since. These Comte, Paret which keeps Rokeach, 19 sore is one in which personal rela 3s, impersona jduals are seen as rootless, not created or valued? On the basis of their inv ties but bound together by needs rather than tradition. As Tonnies put it everyoody is by himself [sic] and isolated, and there exists a condtic tension against all others ... everybody refuses to everyone else cont with and admittance to his sahere ie. intrusions are regarded as hostt its disruptive impact (see Carey, 1992). They were pessimistic about the 1 of traditional society, and preoccupied with the rise ofthe ‘masses, which they ‘al or potential threat to the stabilcy of the socal order. The potential for social tion was perhaps first articulated by Alexis writing in the iis arin ha everywbere oak theses master, whith wuld cd in he oviows ied the Care, 1982) anal om Jer and from the socal “The severing oft acial tes ividual more isolated, 1e growth of the Sorlin (1994) vthat jorative nuance. ss circ wivia and gossip, masg art is cheap and sineme! a ‘common denomi- ce silent lovies, je and Hearst in he mass culture so as Northeltfe pro enterprises by encouraging their newspape re people’ by “giving the public what it wants ‘Carey, 1992: 6), erties Jietasche were ‘contemptuous of every kind of that is compatible with rot to speak of writing for, newspapers’ (quoted in Carey, 1992: 7). Thus the spon rte ie nr intial chinking abour the media was contextualised by fears and concerns about their role inthe breakdown of social order and cultural decline. ‘These fears and concerns were reflected in popular debate at the time about the influence ‘f the media on human behaviour: Children and women were seen as highly susceptible tw the ‘power’ ofthe silent ns blamed for growing juvenile delinquency and rising youth ‘ime. One contemporary observer commented these films were ‘a direct incentive «© ‘rime, demonstrating, for instance, how a theft could be perpetuated” while The Tines ewspaper opined dhat ‘all ose who care for the moral weltbeing and education of the child will set their face like fline against this form of entertainment’ (quoted in Pearson, 1983: 6: enquiry see up by the National Council for Public Morals in 1917, which found there was 0 conclusive evidence either way about the rule of the cinema in the growth of youth ime and delinquency (Eldridge al, 1997: 17). However, such fears and concerns were ‘organised into a loose theory whose assumptions have exercised to a greater or lesser extent a hold over thinking about the media and society ever since, These assumptions I-powerfal’ media that have a negative and/or disruptive 4). One of the first attempts to explore such common-sense views was the centred on the notion of an * ‘npaet on people and society THE RISE AND FALL OF MASS SOCIETY THEORY “MLass society’ a a perspective on mass communication was not systematically developed at the time when the great classical thinkers of the nineveenth century were musing over the ‘consequences of modernity. Rather it was worked up into a theory much later, drawing, together the work of a number of classical social cheorists and behavioural scientists who came to prominence in the 1980s and 1940s with their view that human behaviour could be conceived as. responseto stimuli the outside world. The intial development of the theory ust be seen in conjunction with the birth of modern sociology: Echoes of che mass society resonate in the work of the pioneers of social theory including Comte, Pareto, Mannheim, Durkheim and Tinnies. The contribution ofthe liter wwo is crucial. ‘The German sociolo: st, Ferdinand ‘Tonnies, used the concepts of Goncinclgft and Geellalaf co distinguish between traditional and modern society. Tonnies argued the former society was one in. which people were bound together by personal, traditional and communal ies which char- seterise social relations that are ‘reciprocal, binding sentiment... which keeps human beings together as members ofa tality” (quoted in De Heur and Ball-Rokeach, 1989: 153). The latter society is one in which personal relations are anonymous, impersonal and isolaed, Individuals are seen as rootless, not teated or valued on the basis oftheir individual quali ties bue bound together by needs rather than tradition. As Tonnies put it everybody is by himself [sic] and isolated, and there exists a condition of tension against all others ... everybody refuses to everyone else contact with and admittance to his sphere i.e. intrusions are regarded as hostile acts 25Understanding Media Theory _ nobody wants ta grant and produce anything for another individual, nor will he be inclined to give ungrudginaly to another individual (Quoted in De Fleur and Ball-Rokeach, 1989: 154) Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, developed Tonnies’ distinction but with a different interpretation. He was interested in understanding how social stability, or soldary, is ‘maintained, in particular the part that individuals and organisations play in its formation and maintenance. He had a less romantic notion of traditional ~ or folk ~ society in which he saw individuals forced to perform certain roles whether they wanted to or no: He referred co this as ‘mechanical solidarity”. By contrast, in modem society people have more freedom. Durkheim emphasised the differences between people as well as their capacity to work together. He argued that in spite of the vast array of individual ideas and beliefs there are certain ways of acting, feeling and thinking that are expected and required from people if society isto operate in harmony ~ what he called ‘social facts These social facts are the established, expected or conventional ways of behaving laid down in custom, law and precedent. Individuals accept these obligations to ensure that stability is maintained. ‘Durkheim sees a ‘collective conscience’ underlying the acceptance of these obligatiors. He ‘used the label ‘organic solidarity’ to describe modern social relations. In this sense he was ‘more optimistic than Tonnies, secing new forms of socal relations as an improvement on the old ways of doing things. He did, however, wam of dangers in his eoneept of ‘anomie’ ‘when individual needs, aspirations and desires get out of hand and are no longer com tained by society in other words, the collapse of the collective conscience. In the works of these two sociologists emerge a number of assumptions about the relationship between, the individual and society chat have underpinned the application of mass society theory ‘to mass communication, Individuals are regarded as isolated from one another, their inter setions are impersonal, and their social obligations and bonds are informal and a matter of choice (De eur and BallRokeach, 1989: 159). Such analysis presents people as rela tively helpless and open to suggestion Support for mass society theory developed beeween 1930 and 1960 as events conspired 10 ‘provide some form of support for is main contentions. Crucial was the tise of fascism and {otaitarianism in Europe. The rise of Hitler was partly explained by the collapse of the old social values and their exploitation by a skilled demagogue making use of the new, modern, ‘means of mass communication to influence ordinary Germans to support his policies. The {impotence of the individual and the power of the media were reinforced by the Nazis use of the mass media, mass rallies and mass bureaucracies to promote their ideology and develop allegiance to the state. Nazi Germany ~ as well a Stalin's Soviet Union — were identified as ‘mass societies and in the years after the war questions were asked in the United States as to ‘whether mass culture inevitably resulted in totalitarian societies (Grossberg eal, 1998: 29). Such questions were motivated by the rapid development of mass communications in MASS SOCIETY AND MODERNITY: EARLY M ica was not vu) Scars the I! the uncritical of as C. Wright Mills (19: d range of groupsin the polit the ‘military industrial com ia and other soil institution ey ty questions at tie political level level. In Britain between the to wor! theit arguments against the ways in v ‘mass taste. Th text, Ma against pola el, which in appeal to the lowest common dene 1 the importatio ‘euleual p perback novels a cg, into the U ema involved ‘surrender, dude: condi heapest emotional sppeas (quoted in Beatson, 1989: 9 the cheap, de vulgar and the material ~ (1958) and has served bout the increase of American ‘I group found apport for thei ed States. One of the intefesting aspects of mass socie tals Of both Whe Left aud\Right. [eayis’s moralst a jimtenance of cultural st s echoed by the F iat adil, Let fluenced intel mdf Mortcime Benjamin who led from ied that mits popular pping creative 1g individilldom ‘td pybmoting fal fib consumeris 1982). Whildieavis and hi@blleagues were hi theorists or cultura’ tribution to mass society theory made in America was less spective 2 Cal Twas condaced by sociologists who sought to et the central tenes empirical investigation and examination Bennet, 1982: 39) ‘The Frankfurt Schoo! ‘The leading scholars of the Frankfurt School were Ma and Theodor Adorno. After fleeing Germany for the Uay wants’ rant and produce anything for another individual, nor ¢ inclined to give ungrudgingly to another individual. that are expected led “social facts Th ‘behaving laid down as an improvement on ‘of dangeis in his concept of ‘anomie’ sal needs and are no longer con- ey -in collective conscience. In the works ociologiiemerge anim tions about te relaonship between he application of mass ster thery isolated fog one another inter ppersorial dons and bonds ae informal and a matter Fleur Such anys present pope a oa: and Pape : ideology and develop ition — were identified as as were motivated by the rapid development of mass communications in America. The conclusion identtied by many was that America was not vuineraole because ofthe diversity ofits culture. However, the advent of the ‘Red Scare’ inthe 1950s, the role of the meta in the rise of Senator Joe McCarthy and the uncritical reporting of his ‘witch hunt? raised doubts (see Aronson, 1970). Critics such as C, Wright Mills (1957) did not see ‘American democracy as encompassing a broad range of groups inthe political proces, but rather as controlled by a small elite representing the ‘military industrial complex: This elite ‘was able co exerts control through the media and other social institutions, including the ‘education system. Mills was concerned with why the average American citizen felt apathetic ‘and powerless, nd chose to remain uninformed about democracy. If Mills was concerned with mass society questions at the political level, others engaged with them at the social and cultural level. In Britain between the two world wars, defend: ers of high culture were marshalling their arguments against the ways in which the media and other social institutions were pandering to popular or mass taste. ‘The most influen- tial voice was that of the literary critic, FR. Leavis, who in his text, Mass Ciaisation and _Minoriy Cultwe, published in 1980, railed against popular culture, which he saw as simply ‘motivated by che lust for profit and an appeal to the lowest common denominator. Leavis was particularly concerned about the importation of American cultural products, such as Hollywood films, cheap thriller paperback novels and comics, into the United Kingdom, He believed, for example, thar cinema involved ‘surrender, under conditions of hypnotic receptivity, tothe cheapest emotional appeals’ (quoted in Pearson, 1983: 93). Leavis's fear of ‘Americanisation’~ that is, of the cheap, the vulgar and the material ~ was taken up in the 1950s by other cultural rites such as Hoggart (1958) and has served as the basis for continual concerns at the global level about the increase of American TV programmes throughout the world. Leavis and his Soutiy group found support for their defence of elite culture in the United States. One of the interesting aspects of mass society theory is that it attracted intellectuals of both the Lefe and Right. Leavis’s moralist and conservative angunient for the maintenance of cultural standards was echoed by the Frankfurt School, ‘group of loosely affliated radical, Leftleaning, Marxisinfluenced intellectual émignés ~ including Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin and Marcuse ~ who fled from Nazi Germany to America and believed that mass popular culture was sapping creative thinking, reduc- ing individual freedom and promoting false wanes through consumerism (sce Bennett, 1982), While Leavis and his colleagues were literary theorists or cultural critics, the com- tribution to mass society theory made in America was less speculative and more empiri cal. [was conducted by sociologists who sought to test the central tenets of the theory by cempitical investigation and examination (Bennett, 1982: 39). ‘The Frankfurt School ‘The leading scholars of the Frankfurt School were Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. After fleeing Germany for the United States 27Understanding Media Theory they were prolific in the 1930s and 1940s but largely ignored. [twas ‘ot until the 1960s that their work and ideas became mare widely lisseminated. In their writing they identified with various forms of high culture such as classical symphony music, high art and literature, which they viewed as having innate value. They were critical of mass culture and much of their writings focused on the role of the mass media in the reproduction of high culture. They were sceptical that high culture could be reproduced by the mass media, ‘Adorno argued neither radia nor records could reproduce the authentic sound and experience of hearing alive orchestra. Similarly ‘magazines and the serialisation af novels were Inadequate substitutes {or literature and diverted people from seeking out the ‘real thing! Horkheimer wrote ‘the strugale against mass culture can consist only in pointing out its connection with the persistence of social injustice’ (quoted in Inalis, 1990: 39). They emphasised the role of mass culture as shaping the individual in mass society and coined the term ‘cultural industries’, which became an important term in the vocabulary of cultural studies in the postwar period. Their rediscovery centred on the most detached member of the group, Herert Marcuse, who became a leading icon of the student protests af the 1960s. His book One Dimensional Man brought together the arguments af the School that capitalism was responsible for the creation of false needs, false consciousness and mass culture, wh ch enslaved working people. The main works of the School relevant for media scholars are Adorno and Horkhelmer (1973) and Benjamin (2970), whieh are reproduced in Curran etal. (1977). Source: adapted from Baran and Davies, 1905 Mass society theory ~ as derived from speculation about human nature rather than ‘empirical observation based on research ~ has encouraged a view of the effects of the ‘media on people’s lives and behaviour as straightforward and unambiguous. This per spective has been labelled as the ‘hypodermic needle’ or ‘magic bullet” model, and assumes there is a direct correlation between what people see, hear and read ané how they behave, The stimuliresponse model was reinforced in the carly decades of the twentieth century by the tise in the School of behaviourism in psychology, which saw human action a8 a conditioned response to events that happened in an individual's ‘environment. Individual personality did not count as behaviourists rejected the view that conscious thought and reflection determines how an individual acts. Behaviourism provided strong support for believing that social action was triggered by external stimuli as opposed to personal choice based on individual beliefs and knowledge. This MASS SOCIETY AND MODERNITY: KARLY ot 1930s. Mass society theory, wit vidual, exlga readily anil dirt forces 2. wn dosia Mie pout sry ta _ © behaviour of ordinary peonle. a beapie are vulnerable to te payer of yas eat manipulation. 4, The soa changes brought aba ‘ass media will result in the advent of more authortay centrally éontrolled societies. oe also bring abot jatng trivial and iled behaviour. OPINION ymmunication as pat developed that specifically focused on the content Of the media and thei related to ‘propaganda’ and the techniques deployed to persuade million general public, of particular points of view or opinion, Interest in propay ulated by the First World War ~ according to one leading scholar ofthey were prolific in the 1930s and 1940s but largely ignored. It was rot until the 1960s that thelr work and ideas became mare widely disseminated. [n their writing they idghtified with various forms of high culture such as classical symahany-music, high art and ng iterature and dive Horkneimer wrote ‘he Stagale against mass culture c pointing out its eed together the le for the ulture, which relevant for d Benjamin ost iguous, "This per lle’ model, and vades of the which saw in individual's sted the view Behaviousism by external edge. ‘This helped many to account for the effectiveness of the Nazis’ use of the media in the 1930s. Mass society theory, with its notions of the helpless, isolated and passive indi viduals, easily and readily manipulated by messages from an all-powerful media, exer cised considerable influence over early media theory. Its popularity, however, decreased from the late 1950s and early 1960s onwards as some of its inherent flaws became apparent and the fear of totalitarianism receded. While debates about mass culsure endure, mass society theory in its classic Form has virwally disappeared from academic theory. However, as Glover (1984: 4) notes, ‘where this sort of thinking does survive isin public discussions about the media which are often haunted by the ghost of theo ries that have long since passed away’. For example, much of the tabloid press report ing of the child killers of James Bulger (Liverpool, UK, 1993) attributed their act (0 watching too much violence on television and video. 1. Mass media are a negative and disruptive force in society and should be controlled. 2, Mass media have the power to directly influence the attitudes and behaviour of ordinary people. 3. People are vulnerable to the power of mass media because they have become isolated and alienated from traditional social institutions that have protected them from propaganda and ‘manipulation. 4, The social changes brought about by the disruptive influence of mass media will result in the advent of more authoritarian and centrally controlled societies. 5, Mass media also bring about the decline in cultural standards and values by promoting trivial and demeaning ideas and activities that ‘threaten civilised behaviour Source; adaote from Baran and Davis, 1998: 41-50 PROPAGANDA ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC OPINION Mass society theory treated the media and mass communication as part of a range of disruptive forces in society. t was not a theory of the media but considered the media as pare of an overall process of social change. During the inter-war years a set of theories developed that specifically Focused on the contents of the media and their impact. These related to ‘propaganda’ and the techniques deployed to persuade millions of people, the general public of particular points of view or opinion. Interest in propaganda was stim- lated by the First World War ~ according to one leading scholar of the period the 29