These two case studies bring us face to face with the endless dilemma of
media/communication studies. First, in our endeavours to measure media influence and penetration,the methodological approach will often set a parameter for what can be
understood. As the authors (Dickinson et aI., 1998: xi) of a recent collection on audience research approaches suggest,
All research which takes media processes as central to its analysis sterns from an interest or concern with the consequences of the media for society, communities, publics, readers, listeners,viewers,consumers - audiences. The difference between approaches is, essentially, to do with the scale of analysis or the length of focus - micro or macro - chosen by the researcher in question.
The simple comparisons across groups in both cases potentially mask the practices of individuals whose characteristics are already identified as a way of constructing reality. This is legitimised by the very fact of Apartheid, which constructed South Africa in these terms, but which never succeeded in destroying the possibility of action outside of the prescribed framework.
Secondly, all the debates around media/communications as a central (if contested) pillar of 'the public sphere' are subjected to the process of constructing the actor (whether it is as individual, group, community or nation) in an effort to measure the efficacy of said public sphere. John Thompson's (1994) 'new publicness',based on the private consumption of media (a significant advance on Habermas' original ideas on the public sphere) remains trapped in such a measurement exercise, ultimately judged by society itself, and often through the media.We will have to tread the unruly and chaotic path so eloquently spelled out by len Ang if we wish to move beyond this problem.
Thirdly there are serious implications for targeted messaging, in these studies. With the resurgence of interest in media as a source of representations designed to modify behaviour, as in the loveLife and SoulCity campaigns currently the subject of much debate,the question
of culture comes to centre stage (see Chapter 2).Itbecomes the task of campaign designers to think themselves into the minds of the target audience. We have seen above, such thinking requires systematic surveillance of the ways in which different strata (however defmed) interface with the mass media.
Finally, while these studies are by no means representative of the interface between audiences and the mass media, two significant issues arise:
First,the question of media influence on culture. Media is itself culture (a meaningful representation) and inserts itself in many different ways into the everyday lives of consumers/receivers. As indicated above,there are many different ways in which this relation can be understood. Moreover,the significance of the mass media,'at any point, says much about how people understand the role of media (as a resource alongside other
experiential dimensions of social life). This is more than simply a matter of how much media is consumed or received: as the Disney case would seem to suggest,content is crucially significant in its association with other cultural resources. Pre-empting our discussion below, it is worth noting that loveLife, a well resourced (20 million dollars a year),multi-media campaign around HfV/AIDS,is founded on
The recognition that a major influence on post-liberation South African youth is the global youth culture of music, fashion, pop icons and commercial brands led to the positioning ofloveLife - an inspirational lifestyle brand for young South Africans (Harrison and Steinberg 2002: 3/4).
The powerful role of the mass media, particularly television, is critical to this assumption.
Secondly, as will become clearer below, mass media is a central part of the discussion about communication in/for development,if only at a very general level (as an influence on
attitudes for example). A critical approach to this general role of media in society suggests that the global context of deregulated,highly concentrated,market-driven media
increasingly feeds predispositions towards consumption, and contributes less and less towards a critical appraisal of forms of sociallife/social arrangements (Herman and McChesney 1997). In this regard,Teer-Tomaselli and Tomaselli (2001: 143) argue that,
South African media seems to have followed the international trend of creating a stronger commercial ethos,conceptualising their audiences as consumers and voters rather than primarily as citizens.
Concretely establishing the modalities of the relations between media (in all its forms, but particularly the commercial media),and society,continues to provide a monumental challenge for social scientists and communication specialists, and should not detain us for too long as we tum to communication and development.
Chapter 2
In the previous chapter we have identified how the sociological construct of the 'group' manifests itself as a reality, in its relation to the mass media. Characteristics of such constructs,as measured by simple designs, indicate some predispositions to action (or behaviour) and lend credibility to the sociology of the media as a field of institutional and organizational intervention. This is not a profound conclusion. However,there ~sno unanimity on exactly how the interface between mass media and society actually works.
(See McQuaiI1994). The field
re~~~open. ~6 ol
Turning now to 'development communication' ,it is necessary to outline briefly the way it has emerged,and identify some of its central characteristics, in order to better assess the discursive environment within which development practitioners,policy-makers and academics construct the central elements of'communication for development' .There will be, inevitably, concerns within each of the many approaches to development communication that resonate with issues discussed in the previous chapter. Itis in response to questions emerging about the mechanics of media/communication interventions that brings into relief
? ,,"orll"''' ~.('.G'\ '" "'" • "....",vtl1. /~..1. rw:~,.:.:
the notion of interface, an absent 'determinant' in the scrutiny of aggregated media t..."'\~ Il...,
If!
measurement. The interface 'between' agents (of whatever kind - individual,collective,rule - - - --! s- based or voluntarist) is the most accessible point of entry,and provides the platform for the 'media effects' tradition.