The politics of language and creativity in a globalized world

Due to the rapid increase in the process of globalization as well as in the influence of
modern technology, the rate of ideas proliferation through different mediums of communication
has also augmented. The most prominent themes apparent in these globalized discourses are
mostly based on humanitarian values, especially the question of agency. Agency refers to having
the capabilities and resources to act independently and exercise free will (Barker, 2005). This
notion of agency is also directly linked with power. In every dimension of human life and their
identity, like being a citizen, a woman, a transgender or an individual from a minority group, the
interplay between structural power and individual agency determines one’s control over his or
her own life. This phenomenon also extends to media, as it is the key medium of our interaction
with the world. Ultimately, various humanitarian discourses are aimed at determining the nature
of our virtual connectivity with others. Since, the media content is believed to be highly
politicized. Within this context, politicization of media denotes the struggle of different social
groups and institutions to communicate or dominate their own views and beliefs (Hann, 2017).
An American media scholar Henry Jenkins sees this struggle of sharing views and beliefs in a
positive light because of the prevalence of convergence culture, a culture formed through a two-
way flow of media content. According to this perspective, the current media is a mode of
empowerment for the general public. Since, they also partake in determining the course of media
content. However, this is a controversial topic. So, this essay will further focus on some of the
debatable issues in Jenkins’s theories.
Jenkins (2006) advocates for the empowering quality of media in his article,
“Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide”. He believes that media pessimists
who promotes the notion of victimization of public through media ignore their participation in
the production of media content. In his article, Jenkins, in my opinion, downplays the evidences
put forward by media critics by categorizing them as the “exaggeration of pessimists”. This is
primarily Jenkins attempt to strengthen his argument by invalidating the arguments of his critics.
I believe, through this approach, Jenkins, consequently, also blinds the readers to the negative
impacts of media. Furthermore, I also maintain that if we ignore the negative influences of any
phenomenon and take it at the face-value while disregarding the intentionality or politicization
behind it, we would become more prone to its manipulations and seduction. Similarly, in terms
of media, the tendency of Jenkins as well as most millennials to assess media environment
through an optimistic lens makes them more susceptible to its charms and media dependence.
Sandra Ball-Rokeach and Melvin DeFleur (1976) proposed that the need for information,
affectivity and connectivity has made us dependent on media. As, the information, advices and
opinions, communicated through media, are deemed legitimate; people reconsider their own
opinions based on the newly attained information, especially during strong social change,
conflicts, riot or elections. This media dependence is not an organic phenomenon. It is created
and embedded in the designs of media platforms in order to retain and increase viewership.
Political campaigns, during elections, take full advantage of this dependence by connecting
directly with voters to change their opinions through tailored messaging corresponding to the
characteristics of public demographics (Murse, 2019). A prominent example of targeted political
campaign via social media tools is of Donald Trump election campaign. So, it can be said that
due to media dependence, media is not a source of empowerment for people.
Jenkins positive attitude towards media is also due to the adhocratic structure of social
media. The absence of hierarchical power based on social statuses and social classes lead to a
culture based on equality rather than status quo. Jenkins believes that such a culture promotes
actions of common good, like Wikipedia, and gives equal worth to media content without any
discrimination based on the characteristics of a person. Although this view of Jenkins holds some
degree of truth, I believe that it does not reflects the essence of the framework of social media.
Since, the content put forward by political figures or celebrities is considered more legitimate
than those put forward by some unknown media activist. Granting, the adhocratic structure of
media, as introduced by Jenkins, ensures innovativeness, creativity, non-permanence and
spontaneity in media environment. It would be an oversight to exclude some of the rigid and
hierarchical elements that overtly dominates the media landscape. The most basic example of
such an element is social media advertisements. These advertisements are creatively and
strategically placed all over Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc., that people have no choice but to
passively consume it. And through their economic resources, different corporations regenerate
status quo in virtual spheres by occupying more web space than their content is worth. So, unlike
public, the media content of those with money is not solely dependent upon the quality and
creativity of the media text and graphics to guarantee high viewership. This example reflects
how social media favors some groups over others. Hence, it is problematic to say that the virtual
culture or “popular culture” produced through social convergence of corporations and general
public is primarily reflective of the preferences, beliefs, views and ideologies of the latter or both
and not the former.
Nevertheless, the strongest justification of Jenkins, supporting his argument of media
empowerment through convergence culture, is the collective bargaining power of public. He
firmly holds that, due to interrelations between consumption communities and economic interests
of media conglomerates, media companies will change their practices to conform to the needs
and demands of general public. In other words, Jenkins believes that the economic dependence
of for-profit companies, on the demands of consumers, gives consumers a bargaining power over
these companies and their actions. However, regardless of the truth embedded within this power
dynamics, the art of persuasion as employed by the media conglomerates as well as other public
and private institutions should not be undermined. Within this context, the concept of persuasion,
introduced by Aristotle as a tool of manipulation, based on ethos, logos and pathos holds
significant importance (Hann, 2017). I believe that the information accumulated by the media
companies like Google through its search engine gives them in-depth insight into the thought and
behavior processes of the consumers. Thereby, these concentrated media companies gain a
distinct advantage in determining what factors will appeal to the mind and hearts of the
consumers, and eventually how these factors can be manipulated to serve their own goals and
visions. This aspect is most visible in the dynamics of marketing research companies. Hence, it
can be said that through the art of persuasion used on consumer communities, their bargaining
power is significantly lessened.
Although, there is substantial justification in Jenkins claims about social media as an
empowering platform for the public. And this empowering quality is easily visible in social
mobilization for UN sustainable goals worldwide through these media networks. But it is still
essential to acknowledge that while it has some empowering potentials; it is still largely
politicized by certain groups who have more social, economic and political influence. These
influential groups employ different marketing techniques to operate textual language as well as
graphical creativity in their favor. And due to our media dependence, we have no choice but to
consume and succumb to this implicit form of manipulation. Thus, we are still more passive
consumers than active participants in forming convergence culture. This phenomenon of
controlling the perceptions, decisions and behaviors of the public is a threat to the agency people
have in their daily lives. Here, we also have to question that within the dynamics of popular
culture formed through convergence, whose needs and demands are more valued, the institutions
and corporations with strong budgets essential for the financial stability of media companies or
the public which do not even have to pay at all to partake in social media activity except for the
internet services and technological devices. This is not to say that in the upcoming future, people
will still be as disempowered as they are now. As, Jenkins said, “the convergence culture is
throwing media into a flux”. So, it is highly probable that public would become more conscious
of various manipulative techniques used by corporations for increasing profits and corporate
institutions starts practicing more conscious capitalism and focus on a higher purpose behind
their objectives. Only in this manner, the media can be used as a empowering platform for
grassroots groups.

References
Barker, C. (2005). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. London: Sage, pp. 448
Ball-Rokeach, S., & DeFleur, M. (1976). A Dependency Model of Mass-Media Effects.
Communication Research, 3(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1177/009365027600300101
Hann, D. (2017). The politics of language and creativity in a globalised world. The Open
University, 3, 17-56.
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, New York and
London, New York University Press, pp. 258–66.
Murse, T. (2019). Social Media in Politics - Twitter and Facebook as Campaigns Tools.
Retrieved 21 October 2019, from https://www.thoughtco.com/how-social-media-has-
changed-politics-3367534