Dahlgren begins Media and Political Engagement by setting the premises on which he bases the remainder of his book, namely that “the character of democracy is changing because its basic preconditions are in evolution” (6). Mass media has helped negotiate the relationship between public and government since the seventeenth century, but new media is changing the dynamics of audience interaction with mass media, mostly to their detriment. Economism, which Dahlgren refers to as a “reductionist mode of rationality” (20), has caused collectivity throughout the layers of modern society, notably through the convergence of modern media, both in content and form. As a result, mass media has trivialized itself in the eyes of their audience by lowering the quality of their service, while at the same time their established (but weakening) power over their audience has been piggybacked by societies foundational institutions like politics, and religion. Citizen’s identity, their understanding of their role in contemporary society, has been bombarded to the point that it has been dulled so that many people don’t understand their role in modern democracy, or have been dissuaded from believing they have a role at all. Unfortunately the only way to truly understand ones’ civic role is to participate and: “develop the requisite virtues, skills, and identities for effective civic competence” (Dahlgren 72). The Internet by its very nature promotes engagement, but where it has increased the inundation of information exponentially, it has also allowed for what Dahlgren refers to as “thin” trust, a condition of loose relationship forming that is a feature of online networks. Participation necessitates engagement, but participation is dangerously low, so how does a citizenry become reengaged? Dahlgren suggests reigniting passions as the first step, as it will motivate action as well as a sense of community with others of a similar persuasion. The key then is to use casual forums and affiliations as foundations for political action. The “thin “ connections based on similar interests, along with the multiple opportunities to engage oneself online can foster the community, and a motivated citizenry can adjust existing online behaviors and skill-sets to benefit the democratic process. Before working towards Dahlgren’s vision of civic engagement, it is important to understand his premise for the foundation of its decline, primarily the economist influences on contemporary society.The free market and its’ associated value system has built our world into its current state, for better and worse. Though the benefits are tangible and numerous, capitalism has been mostly detrimental to civic culture. In explaining economism, Dahlgren wrote its’: “Definitive characteristic is to assert the priority of economic criteria over all other values or mode of reasoning. Corporate values such as winning, efficiency, calculability, and profitability are supplanting democratic values in ways that erode civic vitality.” (20) Economist values have co-opted democratic ones, they are often considered one and the same despite the fact the two sides are often completely incongruent. Contemporary societies’ emphasis on the virtues of capitalism, propelled forward by a fourth estate that has also succumb to corporate culture, have narrowed the citizens vision of themselves to the extent that: “the notion of the citizen as a social role becomes marginalized by that of the consumer, where people understandably can find more freedom and pleasure” (21). As corporations half-heartedly align themselves with political movements (eg. Environmental responsibility), the notion of the political power of purchasing becomes more plausible. Unfortunately consumerism does quite the opposite: by satisfying one’s political urge through the purchasing of products, not only are they not engaging in an activity that is even remotely civically meaningful, the money spent is largely going directly to the same corporations and institutions who continue to support the decline of democratic principles. “Television and the rest of the media mellieu position us as consumers: … It is in the domain of consumption where we are to be empowered, where we make choices, where we create ourselves.” (Dahlgren 147) Mass media’s role in the decline has been that of facilitator, but now they too are succumbing to the same economist forces they built their legacies on. Mass media news content is extremely expensive to produce, and the audience fragmentation that has come from their desire for multiple revenue streams, along with the perpetual motion of new media, is forcing mass media to lie down in a bed of their making. It starts with the quality of programming; convergence of mass media companies brought the convergence of content and form, as newspapers, radio stations as well as local and national television stations shared ownership and an emphasis on efficiency brought a lower scope and depth of reporting. Corporate interests have consumed the fourth estate, causing a homogenization of content in order to appeal to the largest possible audience. Dahlgren wrote: “Media industries’ economic response to journalism’s difficulties has to a considerable extent taken the form of increased tabloidization… news values lead to a focus on scandals, entertainment, and sports, and little on traditionally important areas such as society, politics, and economics… news is given a reduced position within an overall media mix.” (45-46) Finding examples of this proposition is not difficult. Non-urgent political news falls at best along the same lines as sports, popular culture, traffic conditions, and the weather forecast. The positioning of the political on an even plane with the remaining milieu of media noise causes a condition Dahlgren describes as: “Indifference… an ‘alienation’ that can psychologically treat politics as irrelevant, at least in its representations in the media. It becomes a topic or an activity on par with, say, ‘sports,’ ‘music,’ or other forms of free-time pursuit… citizenship implicitly becomes reduced to one of many possible lifestyle choices.” (82) Referring to citizenship as a “lifestyle choice” is a scathing but accurate indictment of the current political malaise. Furthermore, while mass media marginalizes the news content that is essential for the public to negotiate its civic identity, it also expands the audience’s worldview. And while this can build affinity between individuals who feel more connected to a world they can only see, it also causes an expansion of what is considered political, and as the constitutive definition of the political expands, it encourages further stupor from an audience who feels more connected but less in control. Even within mass media content citizens are positioned separate from civic action. “Citizens are represented as responding to issues and situations, but are almost never portrayed as offering political suggestions or other constructive thoughts” (Dahlgren 131). This is a reflection the nature of mass media, which has always been one-way in nature. To oppose this downward cycle, Dahlgren hopes that the inclusive and participatory nature of new media is the best hope to change behaviors and encourage civic engagement.
Even the most basic online activity involves some awareness, familiarity, and a basic skill set, much like fundamental civic involvement. The participatory nature of online activity has worked to its benefit as the Internet has flattened the hierarchy of information dissemination that journalism has been perched upon for a couple of centuries. Now “professional communications mediators” and average citizens are competing on the same comparative level for audience attention, and the audience is less and less concerned about the source of their content. In fact, online participants relish their newfound roles in the news making process, to the extent that now, as Dahlgren wrote, news editors understand: “It is important to go beyond ‘birds-eye perspectives’, and get detailed information about fast-breaking stories, all news organizations today invite their audiences to send in materials” (175). Increased participation and production by those online encourages more of the same, and Dahlgren’s hope was that ultimately the political would find a place among people’s other online interests and activities. At the moment though he admits: “the use of the net in daily life for political purposes is far overshadowed by other uses, such as general social contacts, entertainment, chatting, shopping, gaming, nonpolitical information, not to mention pornography” (170). This is not exactly a revelation, but the majority of these “other uses” are primarily controlled by the same corporations and interests that are responsible for the economist reduction of mass media Dahlgren attributes earlier as contributing to the decline of civic engagement to begin with. The Internet’s current profit scheme is largely based on data commodification, which is the epitome of “corporate values such as winning, efficiency, calculability, and profitability” (20). It is during his exploration of television in Chapter 6 that Dahlgren begins to espouse the virtues of entertainment as the route to civic engagement, writing that: “popular culture can process and communicate collective experience, emotion, and even knowledge; it offers opportunities for negotiating views and opinions on contested values as well as explicit political issues” (138). The observation that popular culture allows one to navigate the social world, though absolutely correct, works to elevate celebrity news, music, and sports to the level of politics, a point of contention in Chapter 4. Dahlgren’s argument can be considered enthusiastically ambitious about the Internet’s potential for widespread civic engagement, but his belief in the old adage of the personal being political may have more resonance in effectively engaging public participation in civic life.
Individuals face a myriad of issues and challenges of varying degrees on a daily basis, drawing those issues and challenges into the realm of the political offers an opportunity for meaningful engagement by citizens. Dahlgren wrote: “While the media are very much entwined with their life experiences, most political experiences take place in the life zones beyond the media, and the civic self hovers largely at the margins of these people’s identities” (p.120). The personal is indeed political, especially when the chips are down, as in times of economic hardship. Global thinking has drawn the focus away from communities, whose ties have weakened as a result. Refocusing on one’s community, where many of the issues reside, and where the tangible effects of political action are visible can re-empower individuals civically. A return to the grassroots can build a foundation for engagement that can be fostered and developed. Education is key, developing an understanding of specifically how individuals’ “collective action frames” can be called upon as a component of remedial teaching, by drawing on their sense of injustice, identity, and illuminating avenues for agency as part of basic curriculum; much like environmentalism is now. Mass media can even get in on the action. By investing more resources into local, community-based reporting, they can reconnect with their fragmented audiences while rebuilding their reputation and re-establishing their position and prestige as the Fourth Estate. The Internet has an essential role in any contemporary grassroots movement, as it certainly possesses the attributes to assist in civic engagement. Cyberspace offers new links between people, new ways of linking and sharing with people, and different versions of communities. But bridging the gap between issues, problems, and crises takes an engaged citizenry, and becoming engaged does not happen merely by participating in online activities. Dahlgren’s vision in Media and Political Engagement is dependent on the political acclimatizing to current leisure-based web behaviors, which is less likely to achieve the level of engagement he desires. Instead, understanding real life implications to civic action (or inaction) elevates the political above the remaining media milieu while allowing media technologies to be used as tools instead of sources by a citizenry rather than an audience.
Works Cited:
Dahlgren, Peter. Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Note: This is a book review done for COMS 627 - Identity and Politics in the New Media age.
No comments:
Post a Comment