Public and Political Spheres, Media - Essay Example

? Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Public Sphere The public sphere is an area in social life where individuals gather and discuss freely societal problems thus influencing political action (Hauser, 1998). It is based on the belief that the public sphere can steer political action hence legitimate the government and success depends on engagement of citizens in enlightened debate. The public sphere theory is based on Jurgen Habermas idea on structural transformation of the public sphere. There public sphere has undergone various transformations as technology advances and economy transforms. The big question is how the cultural economy has transformed the public sphere. According to Habermas, during the feudal economic system, matters of concern were handled by the church and the state and private individuals remained dominant. However, industrialisation and transformation of the feudal economy brought about the emergence of bourgeoisies. These individuals were subordinates to the proletariat and ruling class and had no say in running of the government. Enlightenment brought about by availability of cultural products such as newspapers and journals. The public sphere was a regulatory institution against the authority of state and entailed discursive relations rather than market relations associated with an economic system. It thus entailed political participation through medium of talk such as the coffee houses, societies and salons. It was free of class or race divisions, the issues discussed were the common good of all. One may tend to think that since the public sphere entailed discussions by the bourgeoisies, the medial had no role to play. However, media in form of publications was very crucial in providing information that served as basis for the discussions and consequently political action (Hauser, 1998). The public sphere mediated between the private sphere and state authority and was independent of state, churches and economic power. Advancement of cultural products available to the bourgeoisie to enable them form a public opinion and consequently political action transformed the public sphere. According to Habermas (1989), the public sphere was replaced by the media in the 20th century. One may ask, “If the media was vital in enhancing public debate, how is it that it replaced the public sphere?” Mediums such as newspapers provided information to bourgeoisies that became subject of debate. However, advancements in the media overturned this rational-critical debate by private individuals. In the 1950s, the TV was the mostly used form of public sphere. The TV is informative to the consumers in regards to most of political and economic issues. However, the TV as a form of public sphere is not interactive; the viewers become consumers of information rather than participants. Moreover, unlike the coffee houses, salons and public assemblies the individuals consume the information in privacy of their homes thus no debate takes place. Besides, the media does not seek the opinions of the views. The privatisation of individual interests has the effect of disintegrating the society. Social gatherings where public opinions are formed and discussed are eroded thus undermining democracy and encouraging the emergence of totalitarian states associated with the capitalist economy (Herbamas, 1989). The media rather than providing information on economic and political issues are used as medium of advertising thus encouraging consumerism and capitalist economies. However, this view is often criticized since there are other forms of media or cultural products that enhance interactions among users hence public sphere is viewed as still in existence. For instance, growth of the internet has led to information explosion and increased interactions between individuals through social networks such as face book and twitter. These allow for participation by individuals in discussion of matters of concern hence contributing to public sphere (Fraser, 1990). For example, during the Arab spring the social media enabled opponents of authoritarian regimes to express their views, register solidarity and co-ordinate actions leading to a revolution. Social network thus acts as catalyst for social change (The Economist, 2011). Adorno’s Critique of Mass Culture Enlightenment is the basis of a democratic society able to act independently and exploit its potential through creativity. As noted earlier by Habermas, enlightenment in form of cultural products provided individuals with information needed thus enhancing the public sphere (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002). The culture industry is crucial in generating such cultural products which can shape the society. For instance, folk songs composed by individuals had meanings that were shared by the society leading to unification. Though enlightenment or modernity has advantages to the society and economy as a whole, it also has its misgivings. Modernity and improved technology has led to emergence of mass culture. Unlike in the past where it took a long process for a piece of art to be transmitted to a large audience and gain popularity, nowadays the reproduction of art work is fast and can reach masses in an instant (Witkin, 2003). The piece of work that reached the audience before modernity was original and transmitted by the artist or performer. However, in recent times an original piece of work can be reproduced many times and distributed to masses. This has been made possible through use of modern technology which emphasizes standardized techniques. How does mass culture impact on the society and economy? The mass culture institutions (culture industry) has monopolised culture thus eliminating autonomy of traditional culture. Since the culture industry is able to reproduce art and distribute to masses in order to earn profit it has devalued creative production by artists (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002). Just like in capitalist economies where labourers are alienated from the product of their labour, the artists through the cultural industry no longer control their products or production process; they are alienated from their piece of art. Instead of enlightening the masses, mass culture is used as a tool of deception aimed at enhancing capitalism ideals and undermining liberal society. According to Adorno and Horkheimer, mass culture is used to dominate the society. It leads to division of people into classes according to their social and economic backgrounds as content is designed to serve various consumer interests. Mass culture was merely a commodity to be sold, its technique designed solely to manipulate consumers through pre-digested formulas and calculated effects rather than any concern for artistic form or truth content (Durham, 2003). These are characteristics of capitalist economy whereby companies advertise products turning the society into passivity no matter the economic circumstances. The limitation of this theory is that it fails to recognize the contribution of mass culture in the society (Durham, 2003). The messages put forward by the media producers through the piece of art may enlighten the masses about various issues affecting them. This message can be spread quickly due to mass production and distribution hence uniting the society. It may not necessary be used to promote capitalism or totalitarian regimes. Furthermore, culture is self-determining and people enjoy it. Cultures of Production The production of culture theory indicates how cultural elements of culture are shaped by systems within which they are produced, marketed, and sold in an increasingly global economy (Peterson & Anand, 2004). Cultural products include news, TV programmes, films and advertisements among others. The culture of production theory is based on the meanings that cultural production has for those involved in the process. The main theme to be discussed in this section is establishing the relationship between the cultural economy and political economy to help identify changes in the media and their relationship with society and economy. Adorno and Horkheimer in their critique of mass culture indicated that cultural production is dominated by media corporations who use standardized techniques rather than original work by artists. These corporations just like the production of goods and services in a capitalist economy, use the same procedures in production of culture. They are engaged in production, marketing and advertising. The products undergo various stages before they are transformed into a finished product and at each stage; the product and practice involved in making it is given new meaning. According to Gay (1998) cultural products are the result of human creativity and that consumption and creative activity are not independent of production. Organisations that produce culture products tailor their products depending on the organization structure, culture and strategy. The organisations culture in place describes how things are done and what is valued and the final product reflect those values. Culture is mostly influenced by founders of those institutions. When producing cultural products such as Apple iPod, the institution gives the product meaning which it transmits to its audience (Turow, 1992). This is due the fact that at each stage, those involved in the process give the product new meaning to make it appealing to customers. As such, production and consumption are linked. Creativity in production is the result of cooperative effort of those involved in the production process. The organisation routine determines what final meaning would be given to the product. The organisation structure is also crucial s it determines the marketing of such products. Synergy and branding strategies result in products of distinctive cultural fields such as books and videos being produced (Peterson & Anand, 2004). The economic activities carried out in media corporations determine the culture of production which impacts on society as it gives meanings to products consumed by the society. For example, the Sony walkman is a cultural artefact that has different meanings among consumers and those involved in production process. The limitation to this theory is that it ignores the role of consumers in shaping the content of cultural symbols. Though the processes undertaken in producing a cultural product give meaning to the item depending on what its producers intend it to be for, the consumers also attach different meanings to objects and may make use of them in different ways. If consumers have a negative view regarding the product, the society may oppose it hence their views matter. Spaces of Creativity Enlightenment and modernity are aimed at enhancing human creativity by providing them with autonomy and information to make crucial decisions. The culture of production theory indicates that routine procedures are used in the production process thus attaching meaning to a product. However, according to this theory, routine thought and patterns of behaviour limit the creative potential of individuals. The theory thus will try to explain the role of creativity industry in the context of a rapidly growing global economy. The economy is influenced by changes in technology, consumer demand, regulation, globalisation and cultural markets thus is under pressure to innovate so as to compete in the global market. Innovation can only result from creative individuals whose skills have to be harnessed. Creativity in the media industry has gained relevance over the years. Creativity industry (Howkins, 2001 p. 88) entails economic activities concerned with exploitation of knowledge and information. The growth of the American economy can be attributed to Americanisation enabling flow of information and knowledge as well as culture globally. In this sense, America is able to gain a huge market share in the global economy through cultural export. For instance, the Hollywood movies dominate the world market. According to this theory therefore, culture and creativity are the ultimate economic resources (Florida, 2002). Media production companies are the creative industries in the economy that help to turn creativity into products and services of economic value. These products include: fashion, computer games, museums, music, and film among others. Innovations are recognized by issuance of copyright or intellectual property rights (Hesmondhalgh, 2002). In the 21st century, the creative industry generates on knowledge through creativity and innovation. The creativity industry is crucial in the economy. Media corporations make use of individual creativity to boost the economy by creating jobs for a high population in the UK and the rest of the world especially advanced economies (DCMS, 2001). It is the idea business where personal ideas are transformed to public ideas or products and services thus exchange of finance for intellectual property rights. Besides being a major employer, it leads to increased output or GDP in the economy thus improving the living standards of the members of society. It also enhances cross-border cooperation. Though creative industries are crucial for economic prosperity, in recent years the emergence of networked corporations has replaced traditional industries. The emergence of digital media enabling information to be processed through networks is undermining the role of society and contributing to income inequalities (Howkins, 2001). The economic activity has been dematerialised thus economic value rather than being in physical form, it is now in computer software. It has also led to cross border operations through the network. For example, anyone can play the same computer game at any location. Digital Media and the Network Society Digital media has revolutionised how society is organised and how economic activities are arranged. A network society according to Castells (2006) is a society where the key social structures and activities are organized around electronically processed information networks. It entails social, political, economic and cultural changes. These changes are a result of the spread of a networked digital information and communication technology. Digital media shapes the power relationships in the society. According to Castells (2006) the one with power is the one who shapes the institutions and organization of society. As we noted earlier in the public sphere and Adorno’s critique of mass culture, advancements in the media through use of internet has led to erosion of the public sphere and alienation of individuals from the products of their work. Further, the use of digital media results in domination of the society by those who wield power or the capitalists. However, we cannot fail to note the positive aspects brought about by the digital media. The world is able to connect and share issues on matters of concern. Information is thus processed and managed through electronic based technologies (Castells, 2006). Digitization enables individuals to come together to communicate, trade, and interact with each other thus forming new communities of fragmented individuals. Through face book, twitter, Wikipedia and other sites, people are able to connect and form a networked society. This society can form lobby groups and mobilize other followers to pressure the state to relinquish its immense power and install democracy. It can thus lead to revolution of the capitalist political economy. Though, modern societies have embraced technology it is not purely the technology that defines modern societies, but also cultural, economic and political factors that make up the network society (Hassan, 2004). The network society is also shaped in various ways by factors such as religion, cultural upbringing, political organizations, and social status. These influences can either raise or hinder these societies. Digital media though advantageous poses some challenges to the effective organisation of network society. First, the information that circulates through such a medium may not be trustworthy or may be inaccurate (Hassan, 2004). Some individuals’ feedback the information to the system as new story hence unmerited gains. The democratic media culture may act in opposition to traditional mass media. There is also a lot of competition with old media for audiences (Castell, 2006). Some form of media such as newspapers have lost relevance as individuals result to other forms of digital information. They are thus forced to compete with these forms to gain revenue. The society is thus transformed and become consumerist of information. Globalisation: Economics versus Culture Globalisation is the integration of markets, industries and culture. It has led to shrinking of the world into a global village by eliminating boundaries and enhancing cooperation among nations. It also leads to intensified social relations that link nations. Dependency among nations is evident as events that happen in one country are shaped by events outside their control from other nations (Pieterse, 2009). It has been argued that globalisation has led to homogenization of culture. The theory will thus discuss the effect of globalisation on global media product and effects to society and national economies. American is one of the culprits often accused of cultural imperialism or Americanisation of the world. It has penetrated all parts of the world with its media products such as the soap operas, movies, films, and music as well as the restaurant industry. Multinational companies dealing with broadcasting such as CNN are apparent in almost all parts of the world. Pop culture is transmitted through use of music, language and symbols. Talks about celebrities such as Michael Jackson and Britney spears helps to transmit the ideals of pop culture in other countries. Its culture has thus been incorporated in almost all nations (Griswold, 2008). The big question that needs answering is whether these media products are homogenised localised or hybridizes and impact on society. Homogenization is whereby the recipient countries adopt the culture of the dominant country such that the whole world’s culture becomes similar in most ways. For example, soap operas are watched all over the world hence spread the culture to those nations watching its contents. Though cultural imperialism is evident as western countries culture dominates the poor countries, it does not mean that culture becomes homogenized. In some countries, especially the Arab world, media products are adopted to local conditions (Cowen, 2002). The culture of some nations may not permit consumption of certain products without being modified to accommodate local culture. It also depends on the meanings attached to such media products. Linguistics play a crucial role in interpreting meanings hence consumption of global media content does lead to homogenization. Besides, some less industrialised countries also transmit their culture to the developed nations. For example, Al-Jazeera TV is almost present in all nations hence it is not only the industrialized nations that dominate cultural spheres. Another aspect of globalisation of media products is hybridization. There is where local and international culture combines to generate a new form of cultural identity (Griswold, 2008). The marketing and production of contemporary media is not much aimed at cultural homogenization but it is for economic purposes. The media corporations distribute their materials all over the world for economic gains. It has been enhance by removal of economic barriers through organisations such as GATs, WTO and facilitated by global financing through the World Bank and IMF. The effect is felt on the society which is reorganized (Cowen, 2002). Some aspects of societal culture are changed through consumption of global media products. Capitalism ideals are also spread through media globalisation. References Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. 2002. Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford University Press. Castells, M., 2006. The theory of the network society. GB: MPG Books. Cowen, T. 2002. Creative Destruction: How Globalization is changing the World’s Cultures. Princeton: Princeton University Press DCMS. 2001. Creative industry mapping document 2001. 2nd ed. UK: Department of Culture, Media, and Sport. Durham, P. 2003. The sublety of Horkheimer and Adorno. Cambridge: Polity press. Fraser, N. 1990. “Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy”. Social text, 25( 26): 56-80 Gay P.D. 1998. Production of culture/cultures of production. London: Sage Griswold, W. 2008. Cultures and Societies in Changing World. 3ed. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press Habermas, J. 1989. Transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeoisie society. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Hassan, R. 2004. Media, politics, and the network society. UK: Bell & Bain. Hauser, G. 1998.”Vernacular dialogue and rhetoricality of public opinion,” communication monographs, 65 (2): 83-107 Howkins, J. 2001. The creative economy: how people make money from ideas. London: Penguin. Pieterse, J. 2009. Globalization and Culture: Global Melange. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. Peterson, R.A.and Anand, N. 2004. The production of culture perspective. London Business School. Scannell, P. 2007. Media and communication. London: Sage Turow, J. 1992. Media systems in society. New York: Longman. Witkin, R.W. 2003. Adorno on popular culture. London: Routledge Read More