“The second position we would identify is that of the negotiated code or position. Majority audiences probably understand quite adequately what has been dominantly defined and professionally signified…they take ‘large views’ of issues.” (Hall, 1992 pp.137)
What Hall is stating here is that the interpretation of the media is a subconscious, uncontrollable process which, not only large social groups, but individuals are susceptible to. The process of communication is not one involving the simple model of ‘sender/message/receiver,’ but in Hall’s model it is one involving production, circulation, consumption and reproduction. Where Hall and Marx have in common in theory is that they both understand that the media is a complex structure in dominance where each level is relatively self-sufficient or ‘autonomous’. This is perhaps where the Marxist-based model of media communication excels, in that it seeks to highlight the individuality of the consumer that the pluralist model places in broader categories and groupings.
In the pluralist model of the media, society is classified as a congregation of individuals, sharing similar beliefs, but ultimately not governed by pre-determined intricate models, as they have the freedom to choose. In a parallel with this, the media market is considered neutral and ungoverned, and therefore also free to regulate or publish whatever they desire. Power is not held by the individual, but by a social grouping of individuals, meaning there is no elitism in society like the Marxist model. Media groups are in continuous competition with each other, but the competition is consented, and those groups who tend to succeed are those who change or evolve to serve the public in a new and different way. At the level of production, there is a selection of laws that restrict some forms of human expression, but in liberal principal, there is still a large element of free speech, and any outcomes are in the public interest. However, involved in this liberal pluralist model are many problems stemming from the fact that it tends to ignore the economic reality of media production, as James Curran states, “Anyone is free to start a daily national newspaper, but few can afford even to contemplate the prospect” (Curran, 1997, pp.288). Even in knowledge of this, the development of a programme or product in the media industry is not just about expenses, but about skills and man-power.
The trend that occurs with this kind of ‘free’ competition is that of monopolisation. The largest companies become those who not only change their produce continuously, or are the best at what they do, but are those companies that earn enough money to buy-out or merge with other businesses to form a much larger corporation with a much greater range of diversification. A recent example of such a monopoly is the AOL Time Warner corporation, where three of the biggest names in media production and facilitation combined together to form a company with some of the most influential forms of media at their disposal, including the internet, television, film and publications to name but a few. With this kind of market power, the AOL Time Warner company can shadow most corporations in similar industries, and can also prevent the majority of small businesses from growing in the trade, or even from simply beginning.
In the Marxist-based model of the media, there exist two main kinds of class, those of the ‘Bourgeoisie,’ and those of the ‘Proletariat.’ The Bourgeoisie are the capitalists who own the means of social production and are the employers of wage labour. The Proletariat are the wage-labourers, who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to make a living. The first theorists to take Marx’s ideas and relate them to theories of mass media in advanced capitalist societies were Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. They realised that the role of ideology in society, especially in terms of social control, had been significantly altered by the arrival of mass communications. They saw the mass media in a very pessimistic light, as a completely dominating consciousness, thus extinguishing the possibility of change or revolution, as can be seen when they say:
“The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises…the promise, which is actually all the spectacle consists of, is illusionary: all that it actually confirms is that the real point will never be reached, that the diner must be satisfied with the menu…the culture industry does not sublimate; it represses.” (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1993, pp.38)
Adorno and Horkheimer are part of the group of Marxist theorists originally based in Frankfurt, known as the ‘Frankfurt School’. The Frankfurt school coined the term ‘culture industries’ to describe the way in which they saw the press, entertainment and radio industries becoming capitalist institutions based on profit making and audience massification. The Marxist-based model of the media describes the disappearance of high art, or ‘pure’ entertainment, and the rise of mass media, bringing with it low standards, exploitation and an unskilled workforce. Whereas the pluralist model is based on the principles of free society and unified corporations all at the same level or liberalism, the Marxist-based model describes mass media and indeed the advancement of technology as tools of domination over the public. Whereas in the pluralist model, the public are free to choose what they buy, listen to or watch on television, in the eyes of the Frankfurt school, the media provides a ‘retro-active need’ for the consumer, in that it continuously plies the public with a range of products so that they end up feeling that they require them in order to live a full life. This, along with the supposition that private broadcasters have little power in such a large Bourgeoisie-driven industry, leaves the consumer and indeed the Proletariat with little or no freedom. This is the ultimate difference between the liberal pluralist and the Marxist-based models of the media; the latter feels that mass media and increased range automatically means imitation and standardisation, thus limiting the individual and decreasing their freedom, whereas the former supposes that with the onset of mass media and more diverse range comes greater choice, greater variety, and ultimately a greater amount of freedom.
Both the Marxist-based and pluralist models of the media remain relevant today, and still maintain a great source of debate for the culture industry. Although they both differ on many ideas and opinions, I feel that parts can be taken from both analyses of the media in order that greater understanding of the relatively new mass media culture may be reached. Both theories have their faults. The liberal pluralist model’s faults are its somewhat vague assumptions that all parts in the cycle of the media deserve equal merit, and perhaps its ignorance concerning the onset of economical issues surrounding mass media and large conglomerate organisations in the industry. The Marxist-based theory of the media is to some extent better explored as an argument, but it tends, especially in the case of the Frankfurt School, to be very pessimistic regarding all aspects of mass media, and thus ignores the positive aspects such as greater choice for the individual and consumers using popular culture in a contributing way to society. The media is one of the ways in society in which, in the form of power can both dominate and be dominated, and with the constantly changing forms of the media, and ever-advancing technology at the industry’s disposal, theories must advance too. With both the Marxist-based and pluralist models of the media, despite their differences, there is a great deal of freedom to advance and expand on the theories now and into the future.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adorno, Theodor and Horkheimer, Max (1993) ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’ in Simon During (ed) the Cultural Studies Reader : Routledge, London
Curran, James (1997) ‘The Liberal Theory of Press Freedom’, in James Curran and Jane Seaton (eds) Power Without Responsibility : Routledge, London
Hall, Stuart (1992) ‘Encoding/Decoding’ in Stuart Hall, Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe and Paul Willis (eds) Culture, Media, Language : Routledge, London
Marx, Karl (1848) The Communist Manifesto
