Habermas Criticism to Livingstone and Lunt Approach to Infotainment - Essay Example

Habermas Criticism to Livingstone and Lunt Approach to Infotainment of Affiliate Code] [Date of Submission] The concept of communication has long been a subject of social research mostly because it is the primary form in which human beings within communities and societies relate with one another. According to Aristotle, communication involved the numerous dimensions in which human beings could communicate with each other in a given community. The concept of communication further received varied perspectives with philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas outlining that Christianity involved the recognition that God communicates to men through nature in a variety of ways. These realizations led to the postulations that communication had two dimensions with one dimension covering the overall communication of human beings and the other dimension covering the characteristics of communications that result from dynamics that influence communication at a given time and space (Outhwaite 2006, p.98). Therefore, communication is not a new concept. The current approaches to communication involve the works of Jurgen Habermas who approached communication using post-modernism and argued from a philosophical perspective. Herbamas concept of communication is that it should involve a deliberate action between the communicating parties to create harmony through a process known as rationalization. In essence, communication involves actors who take it upon themselves to create harmony and to solve problems through the process of communication. In essence, communication seized to be just an avenue for people to exchange ideas but an active tool that can be used to solve the problems outlined by the English Philosopher Thomas Hobbes (Outhwaite, Habermas: a critical introduction 2009, p.70). Habermas outlines that communicative action is not just communication but that it uses the tools of communication (Outhwaite, Habermas: a critical introduction, 2009). In essence, Habermas implies that for communicative action to take place both parties have to be active participants. A central postulation to Habermas analysis of communication is that communication has to be rational. The concept of rationality is not new in the field of philosopher and sociology dating back from the times of philosophers like Plato and Rene Descartes. Although rationality is also still surrounded by controversy in terms of definition, the paper will approach rationality as concerning sound mind and reasoning. Communication in the contemporary world has taken a dynamic dimension beginning with the mass production of print media and cable television which has been the major forms of information dissemination. Just like outlined earlier, Aristotle and Aquinas perceived communication to involve multiplicity of dimensions and approaches. According to Tren (2011, p.76), print and television media promote one way communication where information is disseminated to the audience and the audience are seldom given a chance to reply. Evidently, this observations go against the basic concepts of Habermas communicative action. In communicative action, both participants must be active participants not by choice but by the virtue that communication is an action that requires both parties to be active placyer. The concept of one way commumuncation has been used as a weapon by politicians to brainwash citizens and as a result undermine good governance and democracy. Tabloids and television also seem to often fall short of rationality as far as the information disseminated is concerned (Croteau, 2000). The way print and television media constructs information disseminated to the audience does not involve rationality but is used as a way of imposing ideas in the audience. In the contemporary communication arena talk shows have taken preference as the new form of communication favored by many audiences. Perhaps the increasing preference in talk shows indicates that the postulations of Habermas concerning communicative action seem to be taking route in the television media. On the other hand print media is still primarily one way communications owing to social, economic and physical barriers that make it impossible for print media to adopt a communicative approach. According to Livingstone and Lunt, as outlined by Ungerer (2009, p.219), is that the mandate of talk shows is both to entertain and inform he audience. Plato in his dialogue the republic categorizes entertainment as seeking to satisfy the flesh and Plato gives this attribute to the commoners who have little to worry about. On the other hand Plato accords rationlity to rulers who have matters of the state to worry about and therefore constantly seek to satisfy their quest for knowledge (Plato 2009, p.32). Therefore, the aspects of entertaining tha audience does not reall conform to Habermas postulation of applying rationality during communication. In essence, the talk shows only seek to satisfy the flesh desires of the audience without seeking to empower them in any way to think rationally regarding important issues in the society. The concept of infotainment proposed by Livingstone and Lunt neither promote rationality nor do they involve rational thinking. By claiming to inform the audience, Livingstone and Lunt profess that talk shows should continue to encourage one way communication which Haberman greatly criticizes because it does not involve deliberate communicative action by both parties. Habermas insists that communicative action should also be accompanied by the need to find solutions to problems. However, infortainment only stresses in two aspects that appear to be less serious and do not show any deliberate objectives to engage in the audience in debates that can lead to solutions to societal issues or at least shed more light to the issues. Entertainment has long been conceived as a necessary part of human existence perhaps due to its aesthetic and relaxing role it plays in the psycho-cognitive aspect of human beings. Entertainment is a basic product of the mass media especially the television (Orum 2008, p.361). However, in providing entertainment mass media has not been able to effectively strike a balance between the quality and value of entertainment provided to the audience. There seems to be a general tendency of players in the mass media to continuously sacrifice value on the altar of quality with regard to entertainment. For instance, it would be difficult to pinpoint the nature of value within some of the soap operas shown but one would easily recognize that they are of high quality depending on aspects such as picture resolution and contrast. Mass media is continuously investing in technology to improve on the quality of entertainment and as a result promote aesthetics. However, the mass media has also forgotten that it plays has an important moral obligation of promoting cultural and moral values. According to Low (2008, p.73), mass media has the capacity to promote positive social symbols that can help the society to deal with contenmporary social problems and as a result create value in communities. For instance, most people have made it a ritual to watch certain programs or news and such opportunities can be used to improve the society from a social and political perspective. However, mass media has been so commercialized that it concentrates in marketing to the audience products through numerous commercials (Low 2008, p.110). In addition, the mass media has decided to go the opposite direction evident in aspects such as tabloids and televisions dedicating significant spaces and time respectively to destructive venture such as celebrity gossip. Such approaches send the wrong message to the audience and nurture destructive social tendencies on the public. In essence, instead of the media creating values through its powerful social tools the media has allowed itself to be drawn to commercial benefits and popular culture. The general realization is that the mass media has invested a lot in creation of quality other than nurturing of values. The current mass media has significantly developed from the technological advancements that have enabled mass media to improve on the entertainment quality. Digital televisions have enabled viewers to enjoy a wide variety of programs at their own convenience without having to follow the schedules dictated to them by media houses. For instance, it is now possible for viewers to watch one program while at the same time recording other programs that they will watch later (Low 2008, p.98). Mass media has also improved their geographical area of coverage with viewers being able to watch happenings in remote areas of the world. The improvements in the quality of mass media have ensured that audiences can enjoy high quality entertainment at the comfort of their own living rooms. Pictures have become sharper and with high resolutions, there has been the introduction of 3D viewing of films. All these developments have improved the quality of entertainment. The general realization is that as the quality of entertainment seems to be improving courtesy of technological advancements, there seems to be a declining trend in the value of entertainment. Parasocial interaction is a concept that was coined by Horton and Wohl in the 1950s. Although parasocial interaction has become more evident in emerging ways of communication such as social media and chat rooms the concept had been conceived long ago. Parasocial interaction is based on the idea that communication does not necessarily have to take place in the conventional human to human approach where all the parties take deliberate and active role, but that communication can take place in an anticipatory manner (Konijn 2008, p.177). Parasocial interaction has been significant in improving human interaction and political communication in the society. Parasocial interaction is based on the concept that in the society there exist certain symbols that is nurtured over time that make it possible for individuals to communicate as if they were face to face even when they have never met. The theory of symbolic interactions within the family and consumer science best explains how symbols make it possible for communication to take place (Reynolds 2008, p.23). Parasocial interaction makes it possible for the television presenter to communicate directly with a person in their living room. Although the interaction cannot attain the degree of exchange of information as is evident in face to face communication, it allows for the presenter to anticipate the needs of the viewer and for the viewer to respond appropriately. Parasocial communication has allowed media houses to structure their programs to meet the needs for the viewers without necessarily having to conduct expensive surveys or having to visit all their viewers and find out their expectations. Therefore, parasocial interactions create the opportunity for media houses to interact with their audiences even when they are not able to physically meet the audiences. Parasocial interactions allow for mass media to mould social environments to fit within the perception of the viewer even in instances where this is not the reality. Parasocial interactions are all about perceptions created in the psyche as a result of symbols of communication in operation within a given environment. For instance, the mass media can decide to popularize a given fashion trend by creating the notion that a given code of dressing is popular with celebrities or influential people in the society (Konijn 2008, p.76). The response from most of the viewers will be to adopt the fashion trend regardless of whether it represents their actual tastes in fashion. This ability has been used significantly by companies that seek to popularize their products. The companies will just pay a celebrity to appear on television or Tabloid with product a couple of times and consumers will get the message that the product is on fashion. Parasocial interaction is applicable in situations where it is difficult for mass media to obtain feedback from viewers. For instance, in tabloids it is tedious and costly to conduct constant surveys to establish the kind of coverage that will elicit positive results from consumers. Such tabloids can depend on mediators of communication to establish the kind of news favorable with the consumers. Parasocial interactions have also promoted communication between media personalities and their viewers. As a result of watching the media personality for extended periods of time, the viewer develops a one sided relationship between the media personality and the viewer to the extent that it might even advance to friendship. The viewer learns how the personality dresses, how they talk, they likes and hates and even gets to know the subtle aspects of the personality to the extent that they feel very close to the personality without the knowledge of the personality. According to Goericke (2004, p.25), the emergence of reality Tv shows have even opened up new avenues for parasocial interactions although studies still need to be done on the nature of the parasocial interactions involved. However, parasocial interactions only provide a vague image of what Habermas meant when he used the term communicative action. Parasocial interactions can in no way replace communicative action because parasocial action is abstract and not tangible enough to address societal issues. Refeudalization was a term use by Habermas to criticize the current state of communication and how those on power had used the state to establish dominion over the masses. In his mentioning of rationality, Habermas intended to bring out the idea that rationality was not an aspect that could be attained by a few in powers making decisions and imposing them on the masses but through public debates like the ones that were once popularized by Plato. Lack of freedom of speech and expression are just one of the many ways in which those in power are attempting to take civilization back to times of feudal system. For instance, Habermas outlined that the current state of publicity is depressing because it operates under the watchful eye of those in power. Publicity is one the ways in which rationality can be promoted because through publicity public debates are promoted and the masses are educated. Habermas observes that the current publicity has been corrupted to a form that does not allow for debate but only gives the masses the option of agreeing blindly (Rutherford 2008, p.20). For instance, those in power have taken time to nurture symbols in the society that dictate that we should not respond or critic but only agree. In essence, the public through manipulations have been robbed of its right to take part in communicative action but has been reduced to mere audiences. The public on the other hand has allowed itself to be robbed of its rights and only a handful in the name of journalists seems to fighting for rights such the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. The current state of media communication and journalism deserves the criticism it has received from Habermas. The role of the media is not just information and entertainment as Livingstone & Lunt attempt to explain. The media plays the important role of creating communication symbols and directions that promote democracy and as a result rationality as outlined by Habermas. The media instead has concentrated on promoting quality of abstract and apparently secondary considerations such as quality while values in the society are diminishing and disappearing by the day. Instead of playing the guiding role to the public, the media has joined the public in gossip and popular culture. Some scholars claim that parasocial interaction is the best option but Habermas’ communicative action still provides a logic approach because it gives communication a new and even stronger dimension of guiding the society and critiquing opponents of freedom of the press. Habermas use of the term refeudalization brings into perspective the way the public has been denied of rational thinking only being allowed to become spectators as the few in power take advantage. Publicity which used to provide a platform for people to argue through rationality is non-existent and has been replaced by a new kind of publicity where the symbols have already been created and the only role the public has been left with is to respond to the symbols. Reference List Croteau, D., 2000, Media/society: industries, images, and audiences. Michigan: Pine Forge Press. Goericke, S. P., 2004, Semi-real communication with semi-real people. Kansas: University of Kansas. Konijn, E., 2008, Mediated interpersonal communication. New York: Routledge. Low, L., 2008, Economics of information technology and the media. California: World Scientific. Orum, A. M., 2008, Changing societies: essential sociology for our times. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Outhwaite, W., 2009, Habermas: a critical introduction. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Outhwaite, W., 2006, The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Victoria: Blackwell. Plato., 2009, The Republic. London: Label Books. Reynolds, L. T., 2008, Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism. Massachusetts: Rowman Altamira. Rutherford, P., 2008, Endless propaganda: the advertising of public goods. London: University of Toronto. Tren, J. S. , 2011, Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. London: Rowman & Littlefield. Ungerer, F., 2009, English media texts, past and present: language and textual structure. New York: John Benjamins. Read More