Mediated Society In-Class Notes December 02, Review of Kuhn 2.A look at Two Schools/Paradigms Effects versus Process 3.Discussing Gauntlet and Gerbner 4.A brief look at McLuhan 5.The Frankfurt School Briefly

The Question About Kuhn: "How is paradigm and normal science and crisis and revolution related to Communication Studies?" A good place to start is the Tuchman reading If you look at Gauntlet and Gerbner from this week you will see that there are still 2 active viewpoints This suggests that there is not one dominant paradigm Therefore, Kuhn is helpful but not a perfect fit to explain developments in communication studies

Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn's Terms: Paradigms Pre-science Normal science Scientific discoveries Anomaly Crises Scientific revolution Paradigm shift

What is a Paradigm? From Students: Framework “Law” or a “Certain Rule” Position – a base of your thought A certain “value” that is accepted or not accepted within a time frame of a society A focus (attention) is there

What is Gestalt? A perception What we see This may vary based on positioning This positioning might be historical (time) or physical location or set of thoughts

About Gestalt Imagine the following experiment: Students enter a darkened room. A researcher in a lab coat says: “We are studying perception” There is a light bulb attached to what looks like a track. The researcher then says: “Tell us if the light bulb moves and, if it does, how much.” All the students tell the researcher that the bulb moves – often saying it has moved very far In fact, the light bulb doesn’t move at all. It can’t because it is attached to the “track” and is immovable.

About Gestalt The point of this research was to study beliefs; to look at assumptions In French, “idee fixee” Gestalt research tells us that things will happen based on the beliefs that flow from a system of thought and influence how and what we “see” and also then, how we behave.

About Paradigm Similar to Gestalt But it is deeper An organized system of beliefs And the “certain laws” or rules that follow from that A good example of this is gravity, which comes out of a system of thought about the earth’s placement in and relationship to other planets in a system, whose movements around a sun exert certain physical effects that we can explain in a comprehensive system of relationships.

Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn's Key Ideas Science goes through stages From “Pre-science” through “Normal science” through “Crisis” to Revolution” Science is organized around key ideas called “Paradigms” When there are challenges to the key paradigm, and crisis results, often we get a “paradigm shift” Example: Ptolomy Return to the original question: How are paradigm and normal science and crisis and revolution related to Communication Studies?

A Question from Carol “Is it possible that Communication Studies is still in the Pre-Science stage?” Recall that pre-science is unorganized; A paradigm is an idea that organizes research activity Relating this to Tuchman There are two groups: the “American School” and the “British School” The American School was dominant between the 1920s and the 1960s The British School rose up in the 1950s and ran into the early 1980s. Note that there are Geographic and Temporal dimensions in this discussion

In Short: Reading Tuchman there are 2 Paradigms “Effects” was the first paradigm This gave rise to Normal Science, but also over time “anomalies” arise Anomalies –Trying to explain why the rule doesn’t fit –If that does not work you need a new paradigm An example of the Paradigm-Anomaly case in communication studies would be how the Two-Step Flow would fail to explain voters being influenced by a politician’s ads in one election but not in another

In Short: Reading Tuchman there are 2 Paradigms The second paradigm resulted from the crisis in explanation regarding Effects Is called “Process”/”Meaning”

The Movement from Paradigm 1 to Paradigm 2 Was strong in the 1980s and 1990s Supported by “cultural studies” However, it never fully replaced “effects” In places like America effects research is still very active It is possible that Effects is returning as a powerful paradigm.

Talking about Competing Paradigms Unlike Kuhn’s Description, the crisis in communication studies exists because two conditions of “Normal Science” are existing together Example: A “Doctrine of Minimal Effects” at the same time that McLuhan was saying that Media are All-powerful An example of this power was his expression of “Global Village”

What is a “Global Village”? This is a contradiction in terms – isn’t it? “Village” means a small geographic unit; “global” means a geographic totality “Global” began in the consciousness of theorists in the 1850s, with the discussion of things like economic and transport systems 1850s: Marx/Engels, J.S. Mill Their view was that the world was becoming compressed Time and space were narrowing McLuhen 1967 began using the term “global village” He focused on technology and its ability to compress time and space He saw this as a powerful media “effect” An example discussed in class was the way that technology has increased the speed of warfare, thereby decreasing the opportunity for diplomacy. –In other words, technological development is not always beneficial

Gauntlet: an anti-effect view Ten Things Wrong with the Research: 1. The effects model tackles social problems “backwards” If you are going to look at effect you have to look the other way. Not Media to Message Receiver Rather looking at the Receiver and his world Example: Delinquency and TV violence/game soft Do violent people actually consume violent media? This approach looks at the users of the media and sees if you can draw a linkage between their activities and media content.

The Counter-evidence Violence following a boxing match much research in the U.S. has shown that domestic violence cases rise following televised boxing matches… Is this evidence of a media effect? How would we measure that to make sure, following the points of Gauntlet’s critique?

The Meaning School and the focus on audiences Gauntlet: The effects model assumes superiority to the masses Treating all people as part of a group without actually talking to the individuals within the group Assumes that the medium you are studying affects all people the same way The aim here is to “get more micro”; to get inside the context and study media in people’s lives

Gerbner: Another view "People think of television as programs, but television is more than that; television is a mythology highly organically connected Question: what does organic mean? Gerbner: repeated every day so that the themes that run through all programming and news have the effect of cultivating conceptions of reality.

Television as a System Ms. Aoki: Comment About how children wake up and begin watching TV as if this is a natural part of their lives Holden Response: People “practice” watching television It becomes integrated into their everyday life as a habit Because it is a habit we are more susceptible to its power We are less able to resist its messages and its ideology and its seductive power over our actions This is similar to the argument by the Frankfurt School

Television as a System Mr. Watanabe talks about choice People decide what media to consume Holden Response: The Frankfurt school would/did say that there is a capitalist commercial system of information production They called it the “Culture Industries” The aim is to commercialize culture – selling it to consumers who will pay money to process it However, without money to pay, people can’t consume (so choice is limited to those with money) Also, it is the media corporations which decide what programs to broadcast/provide to the public So choice is also limited in that way.

Gitlin – truck driver/policeman Let’s start here next week. What is the point of this story? Do you think that this is a good story in explaining media and its operation in the contemporary world?