Mass Communication in Capitalism - Essay Example

The two who debated in this theoretical skirmish were Celeste Condit and Dana Cloud, and they basically debated the meaning of hegemony, using two examples. Cloud used the case study of Oprah Winfrey to examined hegemony in the United States, while Condit used reproductive technologies to examine the same issue. Both defined the word “hegemony” in different ways. Cloud defined it as “the process by which a social order remains stable by generating consent to its parameters through the production and distribution of ideological texts that define social reality for the majority of the people” (Cloud, 1996, p. 115), while Condit did not clearly define the term, but stated that hegemony resisted “the exclusive and narrow focus on the economic base that pervaded earlier Marxist theories” (Condit, 1994, p. 206). Condit stated that the earlier Marxist theories held that in capitalism, dominant classes imposed their capitalism ideology on the working class, and that, since capitalism flourished around the globe, while Marxism failed, the ideology had to have been spread by “coercive military force of the State proper and the leadership exerted in the civil society on behalf of the world view of the group in power” (Condit, 1994, p. 206). In other words, according to this theory, capitalism is maintained in these societies by coercion and by leadership. The leaders must have allies with whom they have active assent, while also maintaining passive assent from the governed. In this way, there is a distinction between power and leading – power is something that a person obtains, while leading is the quality the person exerts. It is this latter quality that stabilizes a society. Leading takes into account that there are a spectrum of interests in the populace, and that the leading groups interest is not the only one. If a society does not take this into account, but, rather, that the leader merely dictates his own worldview on the populace, this is dominating, as opposed to leading, and this results in “dictatorship without hegemony” (Condit, 1994, p. 207). Thus, hegemony is defined as a way to stabilize society by generating some kind of consent by the populace to the ideological bent of the leader. Condit and Cloud take slightly different tacts in illustrating the concept of hegemony, however. Condit states that hegemony in the United States is accomplished by concordance. In pre-industrial societies, hegemony was accomplished in a different way. Because these societies were more homogeneous, that is, the majority of the society represents an underfed, oppressed, ill-clothed underclass, such as that in pre World War II Italy, it was somewhat easier for a leader to find an underlying current to appeal to in order to gain hegemony and keep the society somewhat stable (Condit, 1994, p. 208). In other words, when the populace is, by and large, starving, all that the leader has to do to gain the love of the people, to where leadership is accepted and legitimized, would be to find a way to get these people fed. It is sort of along the lines of Maszlows hierarchy of needs – the primary needs are for shelter and food, and if a leader can provide this, then this leader will be beloved by the people and leading is made easier. At the same time, there is an implication that this dominant class oppresses the minority, presumably by their consent, and this is made easier because the basic needs are being met. An example of this would be Benito Mussolini, the fascist dictator who the people nevertheless by and large accepted because “he made the trains run on time” or Hitler, who rose to power in Germany because Germany was so poor at this time, and the people were starving, and Hitler brought them out of their economic woes. However, in post-industrial societies like the United States, Condit argues, the matter is a different story. In the United States, the majority, two-thirds, do not have a problem with starving or shelter. According to Condit, within the United States, “at least two-thirds of the populace is overfed, adequately housed, and relatively well-educated, with leisure time for its desired pursuits” (Condit, 1994, p. 208). Also, a good minority, one-third, spend much of their lives not as workers, but as capitalists, as they are living off of their pensions, while simultaneous living off the government, in the form of Social Security. In other words, the majority of the population is fat and happy. Therefore, the social change must concentrate on the small minority of the population, the one-third who is not so well-off, and this population is overwhelmingly minorities and women (Condit, 1994, p. 208). Condit then goes on to argue that, in such a society, there is not any one dominant class that serves to oppress this minority of people, but that an “interlocking set of minimally and moderately well to do groups amalgamated with capitalists oppress a minority” (Condit, 1994, p. 208). The leader allies with different groups that represent different stratas of people, and gains stability by getting the consent of these different groups. Even so, economic class is the common denominator across groups. From there, the leadership amalgamates enough goodwill among enough groups and classes that stability is attained - “social concord is the active or passive acceptance of a given social policy or political framework as the best that can be negotiated under the given conditions” (Condit, 1994, p. 210). In such a framework, nobody can be completely happy, yet there is enough satisfaction that society does not completely fall apart. A good example is two people who are fighting, tooth and nail, for a divorce settlement. If one party is completely happy, it means that the other party is no doubt completely unhappy. In that case, the completely unhappy party is liable to appeal, and there was quite likely some kind of injustice that was done. However, if both parties are unhappy, but not unreasonably so, but neither got everything that they wanted, this is probably a just settlement and there would be no grounds for appeal. Likewise, in a society where there are disparate groups that have their own agenda, and they are able to push for their agendas because, unlike in pre-industrial Italy, they are comfortable and fed, therefore their basic needs are met, a leader cannot possibly please everybody. In a starving society, it would be fairly easy to please everybody – make sure that everybody is fed and clothed. But in a prosperous society, those basic needs are not paramount, so other needs come to fore. Homosexuals want to be married, while religious folks want to make sure that they do not get married. Feminists want to make sure that they have equality in the workplace, while some in the dominant class want them to go back home and raise their children. Democrats want health care for all, while Republicans want the free market system to continue to govern the health care system. Etc. These societies are comprised of different groups with different agendas, and it they cannot all be pleased. So, the leader cobbles together a coalition that satisfies as many different groups as possible. This, according to Condit, is the definition of concord (Condit, 1994, p. 210). As an example of concord, Condit uses the issue of reproductive technology. The argument is a bit confusing, but apparently some feminists believe that this technology is somehow oppressive to women. For instance, Condit cites Deborah Lynn Steinberg as one feminist who believe that somehow the dominant class is imposing its will on the women by these technologies, and these women will somehow not have a choice whether or not to use them (Condit, 1994, p. 213). Condit, however, sees the issue differently. While there is some degree of oppression in Condits model, much as with Steinberg, the oppression comes from a multitude of sources, not one dominant ruling class. She points out that the media is the purveyor of information about this topic, and that the media showed all kinds of different viewpoints, criticisms and praise for the technology. The Catholic Church, who is unequivocally against all reproductive technologies are given voice, as are the doctors who perform these technologies, along with the doctors who are ambivalent or against them (Condit, 1994, p. 219). This would argue against there being a dominant class who is imposing its will, but that there are different groups who have a voice in the matter. Even so, some voices are heard more than others, due to the access of power – such as doctors who have access to legislatures. Other voices are not heard, such as poor women who cannot afford these technologies and women who do not need them (Condit, 1994, p. 225). Thus, a wide variety of voices are heard on the matter, and it is through this concordance that policy and legislation is made. Condit believes that this concordance is “less than ideal but materially tenable” (Condit, 1996, p. 382). In other words, the situation is not perfect, but is possibly the best that can be made in a complex society. Condit also believes that there is no one definition of freedom and equality, and that these terms necessarily vary according to the group to which the terms are being applied (“Clouding the Issues?”). Economic equalization, for instance, means different things to different groups. For the American Indian, it would mean that they would have “thousands of acres of land so that they might. Condit states that there are too many groups to make happy, and that if one group is happy, it necessarily means that another group is unhappy (Clouding the Issues, p. 198). If the Indians all get their thousands of acres, for instance, it would mean less land for everybody else, and this would make the rest of the country unhappy. It is kind of like “wack a mole” - once one mole is wacked, others pop up, so that one never is able to wack all the moles. In this view, there is not one oppressed, but many different groups with different needs. In Condits view, there is only one way to achieve economic equality, and that is by the dominant ideological stance, where a “dictatorial social entity prescrib[es] fundamental behaviors for members of diverse culture, against their will” (Clouding the Issues, p. 198). Furthermore, economic equality is not the only ideal that should be sought, but the respect of ones language, culture and identity are as important and real as economics (Clouding the Issues, p. 199). Cloud, on the other hand, sees hegemony differently than Condit. Cloud has more of the dominant ideology stance. Where Condit emphasized concordance, which is amalgamating groups and coalition to govern, Cloud indicates that the dominant class is alive and well and continues to subjugate the masses, and that the dominant class does not really want to share its power (Cloud, 1996, p. 118). Cloud views concordance as a kind of Utopia that can never exist, and as somewhat dangerous, as concordance rhetorics “obscure or belie material conditions of unfreedom and inequality in the everyday world of work and struggle for the poor and disenfranchised” (Cloud, 1997, p. 194). In Clouds view, there is still a great deal of injustice, racism and poverty in the United States, and a great deal of a chasm between the CEO who makes “150 times the average workers salary” and the worker who is making minimum wage, a wage that is “worth less than it was in the 1930s” (Cloud, 1996, p. 118), while blacks and women are “overrepresented among the working poor” (Cloud, 1996, p. 118). In these conditions, there cannot be a “democratic compromise” as Condit seems to state. Under this model, there still needs to be consent from the governed in order for the society to maintain stability, however, and the way that these dominant classes accomplish a stabilization of society is through tokenism, as exemplified by Oprah Winfrey. Tokenism, as explained below, achieves the stabilization of society by effectively using one singular voice to accomplish the multivocality, contradiction and rupture that would ordinarily be voiced by a group, and it is a means to show that the oppressed group is not really oppressed, therefore there does not need to be any fundamental social changes. Tokenism is using an individual who is a member of an oppressed group and holding them up as an example. For instance, Oprah Winfreys story is used by the dominant classes to try to show that racism does not exist, and that anybody can be anything they want to be if they work hard and use ingenuity (Cloud, 1996, p. 120). Oprahs story as a poor black woman who had many obstacles against her, yet made herself into a multi-billion dollar conglomerate, is the kind of rags to riches story that any black can achieve, according to the dominant ideology. The thinking goes “if she can do it, there is no excuse why the rest of you blacks cannot also do it. If you arent doing it, it is because there is something wrong with you, not that there is something wrong with society. If there was something wrong with society, then how could Oprah have made such a success of herself?” In much the same way, corporations use tokenism in hiring minorities to show that they are not discriminatory. In this case, the thinking is “hey, we hired this black guy, how can you say that we discriminate?” In this way, the dominant group, not wanting to share privilege, is able to “incorporate challenges without having to change substantially itself” (Cloud, 1996, p. 123). At the same time, the presence of an Oprah Winfrey gives the majority some sense that they are getting satisfaction and love from the minorities, while simultaneously oppressing them (Cloud, 1996, p. 130). And, tokenism somehow is expected to negate the “appropriateness of anger and collective action” (Cloud, 1996, p. 131). It is a way to silence the oppressed minority by shaming them and making them feel that there is something wrong with them individually, not that society is bad, therefore there is no need for collective action against society. You only have to look at the “man in the mirror”, to paraphrase Michael Jackson, if you want to make a change. While I feel that there is value to both arguments, the one that I identify with more strongly is that of Cloud. We have all heard a racist try to justify him or herself by stating that he or she cannot be racist, because they have a black friend. In the meantime, they are spouting racist ideologies. For instance, I have an uncle who believes strongly that blacks are inferior to all other races, citing a book that he read that states that other races evolved because they left the continent of Africa early on in human civilization, which forced them to adapt to changing climates, which, in turn, forced them to produce different technologies to combat the different climates that they endured. This streak of ingenuity favored the strong and intelligent, for these were the ones who were able to come up with ways to adapt, and the weak and unintelligent died off. In the meantime, so the theory goes, in Africa, where civilization began, there was no need for adaptation and ingenuity, therefore there was not a need for people to be more intelligent, and there was not a corresponding survival of the fittest mechanism occurring. Therefore, according to this theory, the peoples who left Africa millions of year ago evolved into a more intelligent race than those who remained on the continent of Africa. This theory is obviously racist, yet my uncle firmly uses it as a basis for stating his racist ideology that blacks are inferior to whites. Yet, he does not believe himself to be racist. He states that he has lots of black friends, and black co-workers, as well as black subordinates, all of whom he treats well, so this shows that he is not a racist. Which, of course, flies in the face of his other belief systems – that blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry, and that, if one of his daughters decided to marry a black man, said daughter would be disowned. Other examples abound. For instance, “Dog the Bounty Hunter” was caught making racial slurs. Yet he tried to claim that he was not racist because he had good black friends, and that he considered himself a “brother from another mother” to these black friends. Rush Limbaugh is famous for stating that everybody needs to “pull themselves up with their bootstraps” if they want to make it in the world, and that there is nothing wrong with America, only with the individuals who comprise America. To Rush, and others like him, Oprah is a delight, because they use this exception to prove the rule, the rule being that anybody can make it if they have enough moxie. In fact, this very notion underpins conservative thought in America. There is no racism, society is color-blind, and that if certain races have not achieved equality, it is their own damned fault, not the fault of any institutions. In this way, institutions do not have to change, power does not have to be shared, there are no obstacles to success, and that the American Dream can be achieved by everyone. In the meantime, our minorities are in failing schools. Teachers who are disengaged, overcrowded classrooms, aging facilities, no access to technology, etc. These problems plague inner-city schools, where there is generally a lack of funding and a lack of interest by the majority to change this situation. Their own children attend suburban schools that are well-funded, as schools are generally funded through property taxes, and, of course, if property values are higher, then schools are better funded. Their own children also attend posh private schools. Yet, the dominant class seems not to notice this inadequacy, and states that there is no reason why these students are failing, and there is no need to change the way that schools are funded. After all, Oprah came from just such an inner-city school, and look at her. If she can do it, everybody can do it, and there is no reason to change the system. There is also no reason for affirmative action, again because certain blacks, such as Oprah, made it without affirmative action and that all blacks should do the same. This ignores the inequalities in education that makes it difficult for children to learn in primary schools, which, in turn, make it difficult for them to achieve the same SAT scores as white children, which, in turn, makes it difficult to get into the school for their choice. To conservatives in America, and all those in the dominant ideology, these inequalities and differences do not exist, and there is not only not a reason to change the inequalities, because they do not exist, but there is also not a reason to try to rectify the situation by giving a particular race a legislated advantage in getting into school. Abolishing affirmative action would necessarily mean that all Americans start on a level playing field, and it simply is not true. But, to conservatives, if one person can make it on their merits by going to Harvard, having grown up in a failing inner-city school, then, by god, everybody can do the same. In this way, Oprah and others like her are used by these conservative ideologists to continue to oppress minorities and resist change. The reason why such tactics work is because of people who are incurious and do not question the message. There are plenty of people who do not think in a logical manner, and believe that the exception does in fact prove the rule. As a minor example, the show “The Biggest Loser,” which is a weight-loss competition where the contestants eliminate each other one by one, while competing in physical contests for immunity from being eliminate, had one girl, Tara, years ago, who was stronger than every guy there. This year, the early challenges were extremely difficult and clearly geared towards the men – such as unrolling a three ton carpet down a runway. There was considerable consternation among the female viewing audience about this, as the challenge was obviously geared towards men, and the women really did not have a chance to win. Yet there were voices that tried to silence this protest, stating that Tara beat every guy there, therefore these other girls should also be able to do the same. These voices ignored the fact that Tara was exceptional. Just because Tara was able to beat the guys in strength challenges does not mean that all women can do the same, yet, to these individuals, Taras exceptionalism meant exactly that. Therefore, The Biggest Loser does not need to make their challenges more equal to give women and men an equal chance, because Tara would have won these challenges, so must all women on the show. And this is the bottom line – there will always be exceptional people. Oprah Winfrey. Barack Obama. Bill Cosby. Maya Angelou. Condoleeza Rice. These are minorities who made it. Some had the some of the same privileges that whites did, others did not. But these are all blacks who made it big in society. And, because they made it, it is a sign that all can do the same. But the thinking seems to ignore the fact that there are truly exceptional people in the world, and that the exception does not prove the rule. Therefore, just because there are one or two exceptions does not mean that there is nothing wrong with the underlying system. There are still problems that need to be fixed, and if one looks only at the people who were able to overcome these obstacles, these problems will go unnoticed. Like a company who has a generally discriminatory policy, who tries to show that they do not because they have a black man in middle-management, therefore they do not have to change their overall culture, the country does the same thing on a much larger scale. Exceptional people make it easy to ignore the hard problems that must be fixed, by simply pretending that these problems do not exist. These problems do exist, in spite of the people who manage to overcome them, and these problems do need to be addressed. No amount of Oprah Winfreys will change the fact that our school system in unequal at its core and need to be addressed, despite the conservative thought that the individual should be able to persevere no matter what. After all, if Oprah did it, so can they!!!!! Conclusion There are different ways for a society to stabilize. According to Condit, society stabilizes by concordance, which is basically the process of making enough groups happy that there is some degree of stability, even if not all groups are happy. While this oversimplifies things, that is the gist of the thinking. For Cloud, the way that society stabilizes is by using tokens to show that there are no real problems that need to be overcome, because if the tokens can do it, anybody can. This emphasizes the role of the individual and works by shaming minorities and the poor, rather than try to help them. It is basically telling the individual that there is something wrong with them if they cannot make it in the world, rather than there being something wrong with the institutions, and, as proof, holding up one or two people to show that there is nothing wrong with the system. Of these two ideologies, the second one seems to dominate discourse in America, especially in light of the recent change in government, aided by the tea party who is the ultimate purveyors of this stance. However, just because they want to make it so, doesnt necessarily mean that it is, and there are still problems that need to be addressed. Oprah Winfrey notwithstanding. Sources Used Cloud, D. (1997). Concordance, complexity and conservatism: Rejoinder to Condit. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 14, 199-200. Cloud, D. (1996). Hegemony or concordance? The rhetoric of tokenism in “Oprah” Winfreys rags-to- riches biography. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 13, 115-137. Condit, C. (1994). Hegemony in a mass-mediated society: Concordance about reproductive technologies. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 11(3), 205-230. Condit, C. (1996). Hegemony, concordance, and capitalism: Reply to Cloud. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 13, 382-384. Condit, C. Clouding the issues? The ideal and the material in human communication. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 197-199. Read More