In Mediatization,
Knut Lundby is editor for a series of essays that discuss the dynamic concept
of mediatization. The term has roughly come to mean the process and resulting
state of communication media influencing societal change while simultaneously
being a vehicle for it.
Lundby notes that high-modern (or
postmodern?) societies are media-saturated and people are shaped as they relate
to their media environments. “As the concept emphasizes interaction and
transaction processes in a dynamic perspective, mediatization goes beyond a
simple causal logic dividing the world into dependent and independent
variables. Thus, mediatization as a concept both transcends and includes media
effects” (11).
Krotz
discusses how mediatization is a valuable tool for measuring the ways in societies
change. “What we need is a social theory of media and media changes, and the
label mediatization can make it clear
that we are concerned with a development of culture and society that by
importance, impact, and meaning for culture and society should be treated in a
similar way as globalization, individualization, and similar meta-processes”
(26). He differentiates this from medium theory, which works with fixed
socio-cultural states resulting from technologically given media logics.
Mediatization, on the other hand, is a social and cultural approach that is
more concerned with developments made by human beings and NOT as a consequence
of technology (media logic, not technological determinism?). However, they both
refer to the basic idea that the content transported by media is not relevant
for ongoing changes of culture and society, but rather the changing
communication practices of the people who refer to media (28).
Schrott
sets out to develop an analytical concept of mediatization that can be adopted
within a wide thematic range of communication studies (41). For her, mediatization is a social
process of media-induced social change that functions by a specific mechanism.
Said mechanism is the institutionalization (both a condition and a process) of
media logic within social spheres that were previously considered to be
separate from the mass media. She posits five dimensions of mediatization: 1) causes
and rational criteria (defining the structuring idea of the
institutionalization process); 2) context (limiting factor of media logic in
the sphere of public communication); 3) control (power to exert sanctions); 4)
contingencies (how do public actors handle deviation from media logic, or how
are unintended consequences of mediatization actions processed); and 5) competition
(what other institutions are in conflict with the actor’s behavior). The media
have become a central institution for the socialization of society.
Friesen
and Hug discuss how pedagogy can work with media, citing Jenkins’ work on
participatory culture, and McLuhan’s assertion that youth notice a gap between
their TV environment world and cold, fixed classroom world.
Clark
defines, delineates, compares, and contrasts the important voices (Postman,
McLuhan, Ong, Meyrowitz, Innis, etc.) in the fields of media studies, media
ecology, cultural studies, and communication studies. Interesting topics were
humans as cyborgs (techno/human hubrid), positive and negative feedback (all
change is the product of positive feedback? 95), the viability of technological
determinism (Williams said technologies can become meaningful and useful only
when social practices exist before them 92), speed brings uncertainty (Paul
Virilio?). The telegraph shaped future imaginings of telephone and radio, and
“this recursive approach to studying the interactions at the nexus of the
actor-network seems a good model for the kind of scholarship that can take
place in the study of mediatization as a process that explores media ecology’s
interest in communication technology and change is ‘soft’ rather than ‘hard’ in
its determinism” (97).
Lundby
notes that is not viable to speak of an overall media logic but instead specify
how various media capabilities are applied in various patters of social
interactions. Social interaction always involves communication, and to paint it
with a broad brush obscures the patters of interaction.
Hoover
looks at how mediatization of and within religious culture is complex, nuanced,
and layered. This is because media and religion have been integrated all along
(128). Mediatization does not flow in a single direction. It can support and
encourage traditional religious sensibilities and behaviors then oppose others
(125).
Hepp
reiterates the idea that mediatization of certain cultural fields must be
investigated carefully and cannot assume a singular media logic. There are
certain molding forces in society that bring about change. We can investigate
mediatization along three dimensions: the social dimension of individualization,
the spatial dimension of deterritorialization, and the temporal dimension of
the coming of an intermediacy (rapid delivery and ubiquitous
availability)(154).
Hjarvard
discusses “soft individualism” and the media as it changes social character.
Soft individualism depends on weak social ties. “A paradoxical combination of
individualism and sensibility towards the outside world has gained ground. At
the same time, strong social ties towards family, school, and the workplace
experience increased competition from weaker social ties enabled through media
network.” (160). Weak social ties mean less responsibility but more knowledge
of the outside world. There are various levels of recognition that humans
search for (love, self-confidence, respect, self-respect, esteem, and
self-esteem), and the media have created a series of new interactional spaces
and forms through which recognition may be exercised, and boundaries between
them blurred (173).
Skjulstad
discusses contemporary, dynamic Web interfaces as culturally framed texts that
mediate fashion (180). Various fashion brands are embracing unique Web
interfaces that allow for a variety of potential meanings that can occur
through processes of individual actions, albeit in common spaces.
Mediatization
is defined, once again, as an inherently process-oriented concept, focused on
how media influence has increased in a number of different respects. Stromback
and Esser look at media logic vs. political logic and the dimensions wherein
each one is dominant. They note media logic is gaining ground (219) and
demonstrate the 4 dimensions of interactivity (216). They also discuss “media
interventionism”.
Hartmann suggests that “the
engagement with the media that is expressed in the idea of domestication (engagement
meaning the whole range of possible encounters from nonuse to fandom, from
imagination to conversion) is necessary fro mediatization processes” (235).
Mediatized domestication vs. domesticated mediatization is part of Harmann’s discussion,
and the conclusion seems to be simply that everyday mediated activities are a
good nexus for studying where phenomenology and mediated communication theory
meet.
Jansson examines the triangular
relationship between mobility, mediatization, and belonging. Cultural praxis
(our activity with people/places/products that are familiar to us) and cultural
capital (the aspects of our identity we carry with us—education, taste, skills,
attitude, etc.) are woven together in a cultural-materialist perspective and,
once again, analysis of mediatization can find a bridge between
phenomenological studies of mediatized spaces of belonging and structural
studies of global geometries of communication (including both media and
mobility) (259).
Rothenbuhler offers some observations
about mediatization. Everything is changing and yet stays the same. We are
tempted to see mediatization in terms of theoretical and historical continuity,
as another example of communication in general and the long steady growth of
social structures in size and complexity; yet, the concept does seem to
organize our attention to a phenomenon that appears genuinely new and seems to
work differently in its different settings. (290) Communication is
self-propagating, and media is a catalyst.
Lundby, K. (2009). Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences. New York: Peter Lang.
No comments:
Post a Comment