1
Investigating the Relation between Media System and Social
System
By Denis McQuail
Moscow Readings, November 14-15, 2013, Faculty of
Journalism, Moscow University.
(Provisional text of lecture)
A question of effect, but in which direction?
Since early days, the study of (mass) media has centred on this
very large issue. The seeming transformation of society in the
emerging modern world of the 19-20th century was accompanied
by a fascination with the rapidly changing character of ‘media
systems’ – from virtual non-existence to the mass popular press,
then to ever newer forms. The media-centric view tended to frame
the link as a question of long-term effects of the media on society.
Less consideration was given to the extent to which emerging
public forms of communication were themselves primarily a
creation of new forms of society, in other words, a case of effects,
but in the reverse direction. The larger, ‘socio-centric’, view of the
conditions created by social change in the ‘developing’ world of the
later nineteenth century could recognise the creation of a ‘mass
public’, with some literacy, some freedom and leisure and
collective needs for information and entertainment, needs to which
2
the ‘mass media’ of press, cinema and later broadcasting
responded. At the same time, the purposes and requirements of
government, economy and political systems were also helping to
shape the forms and the emerging organisational arrangements of
public communication. The issue seems too general and abstract
for empirical research, but its revival reflects large changes in
media and society as well as a sharper focus on detailed aspects
of the case. The aim of this short paper is to consider the general
problem, the obstacles to investigation and what possibilities there
might be for progress in either theory or research.
Why reopen the issue?
Certain major transitions in forms of media seem to call for a
revision of initial interpretations. The two most significant shifts in
media history in modern times were the transition from print-based
to audio-visual forms and, subsequently, the digitisation of all
forms and the rise of entirely new means of on-line transmission.
Many good reasons and much scattered evidence could and still
can be found for linking various changes in society with changes in
mass media. The topic cannot be simply ignored, but nor does it
lend itself to very satisfactory inquiry by way of current theory and
methodology.
3
Identifying the obstacles is the easy part. For one, the two
elements to be related, society and media, are of entirely uneven
in weight, the latter only one feature of a complex reality. For
another, we lack clear conceptual definitions of what is to be
studied, starting with ‘social system’ and its component elements,
but also of ‘media system’. There is similarly no certain guide for
the choice of variables that also need to be defined before any
measure or value can be made or given. The volume of data that
might be needed for testing any hypothesis is essentially unlimited.
Not least problematic for this kind of analysis is the fact, as pointed
out by Hallin and Mancini (2004), that two separate features of any
given society may be related to each other by having common
historical roots, thus another independent cause or point of origin.
The interaction of ‘culture’ and structure
Despite these uncomfortable truths, the issue ts too important
to dismiss. As an initial step, it is worth looking back at Karl Erik
Rosengren’s (1981) general formulation of the relation between
social structure and culture, as it relates to mass media. For this
purpose, ‘mass media’ was identified as a key element of the
culture of a modern society, essentially an aspect of its
‘superstructure’. (This designation may be doubtful if we are talking
about media system, rather than typical content and uses).
4
ROSENGREN’S TYPOLOGY OF STRUCTURE-CULTURE
RELATIONSHIPS
Social Structure
Influences culture
YES
NO
Culture influences: YES Interdependence
Idealism
Social structure
NO
Materialism
Autonomy
Rosengren (1981) offered a simple four-fold typology in which two
main propositions were cross-classified – ‘Social Structure
influences Culture’ (Yes or No) and ‘Culture influences Social
Structure’ (Yes or No). The resulting four possibilities are labelled
as “Interdependence” (Both Yes); Autonomy (Both No),
Materialism (Yes/No); and “Idealism” (No/Yes). The first type
(Interdependence) describes a situation of mutual influence in both
directions, with difficulty in distinguishing any predominant
direction of effect The second type (Autonomy) reflects the
possibility of the Social system being largely unaffected by Mass
Media, because of the strength of other, material factors and the
Mass Media being independent and self-driven. The ‘Idealist’ type
5
of relation attributes a strong possibility for mass media to
influence society by way of the dissemination of ideas, opinions,
stories and information.
This scheme is too general to produce empirical cases to match
its hypothetical categories, but it is a useful guide to the many and
divergent possibilities of the relationship we wish to investigate.
Before leaving it, it can be observed that a media system does in
fact have structural as well as cultural aspects that can mirror the
same kind of pattern, with typical media content and culture
sometimes being affected by the form of media organisation,
sometimes independent of it.
Questions of definition
Definition cannot be avoided and summary, basic, definitions of
the two main concepts as used in this paper are as follows:
DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL SYSTEM AND MEDIA SYSTEM
Social System refers to a set of interrelated provisions and
activities necessary to achieve all primary needs of society. The
existence and identity of a social system is observable from the
continuity of relevant features within the boundaries of a state or
other extensive community. Social systems will be characterised
by variable positions on a set of empirical or normative dimensions
6
that are widely recognisable. Different ‘types’ of social system may
be signalled by certain patterns of linked characteristics.
Media System refers to a set of arrangements and activities for
public communication, with certain distinct patterns of features to
be observed, in a similar way. Four main empirical components of
a system are involved: infrastructure; organisation (including
finance and regulation); personnel; typical contents. A range of
dimensions of variation can be established.
It has to be admitted that the concept of system as used here
is weak and imprecise, due primarily to the great diversity of
conditions affecting media development and operation. There
seem to be few examples of planned or integrated media
arrangements in any society, although there have been some
attempts at this. There are many cases where an array of media
organisations operate in a basically similar way, according to more
or less shared logic principles. There are also cases where
different media within the same national ‘system’ appear to have
quite different types of relationship with their society.
The contribution of Hallin and Mancini
The typology of media-society relations developed by Hallin and
Mancini (2004) provides evidence on these matters. For instance,
some ‘media systems’ are dominated by a commercial logic, some
7
by one of ‘public interest’ or ‘public service’. Most are mixed
variants, with other logics adding to diversity, including one of
partisan allegiance, another of media professional or creative
purpose or driven by technological developments well ahead of
market demands. It is not a requirement of identity as a system
that a bounded set of media arrangements, with certain shared
conditions of operation need to have the same logic.
The clearest example of success in investigating the
relationship at issue is offered by their work on the linkages
between political systems (an aspect of Social Structure) and
Media System, with other contributions from the growing number
of cross-country comparative research projects, especially into
news and journalism. On the whole, the design of Hallin and
Mancini’s work is consistent with the logic of Rosengren’s overview
scheme and offers a practical way of proceeding towards the
identification of different types of relationship in the chosen
problem area.
Their research process involves identifying the key
differentiating factors on both sides of the equation and assigning
values to these as variables. To illustrate, the most relevant
variable features of political systems in the cases they studied
were found to include:
8
MAIN VARIABLE DIMENSIONS OF POLITICAL SYSTEMS
- A fundamental distinction in relation of state to society between
liberal and welfare democracy. The former allots a minImal role to
the state, the second tends towards interventions for the ‘general
good’.
- The extent to which a system exhibits either consensual or
majoritarian forms of government and processes of choosing them.
The former is linked with coalition and cooperation, the latter with
greater conflict and other features as noted below.
- Individual versus organized pluralism, this being characterised
as ‘corporatist’, with diversity reflecting separate sectors of society,
often with competing interests.
- Degree of rational-legalism in political arrangements. A high
level is associated with professionalism, a neutral bureaucracy and
strict adherence to rules, the alternative with clientilism and
‘instrumentalisation’ or control by outside interests.
- Moderate versus polarized pluralism, this showing up in a high
degree of political ‘parallelism’ in many social arrangements.
The authors also provide a guide to the main variables of media
systems that will be relevant to these political system features.
These are:
VARIABLES OF MEDIA SYSTEM RELEVANT TO EFFECTS
9
- Development of the mass newspaper press;
- Professionalization of media;
- Role of the state (degree and kind of intervention)
- Political parallelism of media structure.
The collection and analysis of evidence from a set of
politically similar nations led to the identification of three main
‘ideal types’ of relations between media and political systems.
Amongst the caveats to applying this approach to the larger issue
of effect on society posed above, is that on neither ‘side’, is there
an attempt to characterise a whole ‘social system,’ or ‘media
system’, only a limited institutional sector. There is also no claim or
attempt to deal with the question of cause and effect. The types of
relationship identified are only correlations and compatibilities.
Even so, the broad logic of the inquiry can serve a larger purpose,
suitably adopted. The authors (2012) say their work was ‘oriented
towards theory-building rather than hypothesis testing’, and that is
also true of this paper.
History of thinking about media-society interaction
Looked at in a certain way, the history of thinking about mass
media and public life has been a continuous reflection on the
intersection between distinctive features of society and of media,
10
framed by a variety of successive or conflicting theories. There is
no shortage of attempts, often convincing in their own terms, to
characterise both ‘sides’ of the relationship, beginning with the
links made between ‘mass society’ and ‘mass communication’.
Such correspondences are at least a fruitful source of ideas
relevant to the present purpose. Limiting attention mainly to the
‘media system’ side of the equation and to potential effects on
society by the media, we can note the following key ideas.
A media system that is strongly geared to a model of ‘mass
communication’ (large audiences, popular content) will foster
practical conditions for centralised control and supervision, relative
uniformity of outlook, consensus maintenance, mobilisation of the
many, but also privatised life-styles, low levels of ‘social capital’,
and psychological dependence.
‘Modernization’ theory in its early form at least, tended to stress
an individualizing and personally motivating effect from
(exogenous) mass media, encouraging the expression of opinion,
weakening traditional social and cultural ties. These ideas were
typical in relation to commercial (largely imported) mass media
with no ulterior purpose, but a version of the same thinking about
media as an engine of progress lay behind official efforts at
11
applying communication to the purposes of economic and social
change.
The critical ‘political economic’ ,post-marxist, perspective
adapted some basic orientations of mass society theory, attributing
a first cause to the capitalist form of ownership, but foreseeing
much the same consequences from the way the media system
would ‘deliver’ audiences to agencies of hegemony and defuse
any latent resistance.
Amongst the various media/social theories, a place needs to be
found for a relatively new variant of thinking about the working of
mass media, perhaps best labelled as ‘Organizational media
theory’. This draws especially on the concepts of ‘media logic’ and
‘mediatization’, but it can also relate to certain aspects of media
technological determination that, otherwise, have no home. As a
whole we are referring to a ‘media-centric’ body of theory. The
core element is that modern media systems, as they expanded
and gained more independence in the ‘television age’, developed
their own standards of production practice and value, often related
to audience appeal, but also to professional preferences and
perceptions of intrinsic media properties, relating primarily to the
technologies employed for production and dissemination. The
broad result has been, according to evidence as well as theory,
12
that the content of much public communication is filtered through
the media system’s own priorities and values. The increasing
centrality and rising status of media as an institution for ‘mediating
public knowledge’ has increased media power relative to other
social actors, leading society, even at ‘command’ levels, to adapt
their strategies of public communication to the preference of the
‘mediators’. These adaptations are partially related to the
guidelines and maxims of advertising, but also shaped by the
organizational requirements of production (e.g. making and
shaping of news).
Alternative media theory, a heading that covers all kinds of small
scale, grass roots or community media, plus oppositional and
underground publications flourishes in certain social conditions. It
is also made possible by the development of many forms of media
transmission that are not ‘massive’, nor seek to be so. The scope
of potential influence has been much enlarged by the spread of
individual online devices and networks. The most promoted ideas
concern potential change, resistance, opposition and innovation in
societies.
The media system changes implied by more recent developments
have origins partly in society, partly in technology.
13
In mainstream thinking, a body of new media theory focuses on
the system and social effects of the whole range of wireless media
and services that are challenging the established structures of
media provision everywhere, without a very clear pattern settling
down. Ideas about consequences have been speculative and
diverse. There is a basic uncertainty about whether the new
technologies available will transform media systems or in some
ways result in an adaptation that leaves essentially the same
purposes and consequences of society-wide communication in
much the same state as before.
Leaving this debate aside, it looks as if a fundamental
differentiating feature of current and future media systems will be
the extent to which they depend on on-line or mobile transmission,
as opposed to use of traditional platforms of print, physical display,
live performance, etc. Following an axiomatic rule of thumb from
earlier times, it seems that the form of finance (advertising and or
sales) and structure of ownership (probably large corporate) will
determine more of the nature of media systems that the intrinsic
possibilities that have been widely welcomed for their beneficial
social effects. These relate primarily to the freeing up of access for
many different voices and the possibilities of interactive exchange
14
between citizens, leading to more participative and better informed
societies.
SUCCESSIVE THEORIES OF MEDIA EFFECTS ON SOCIETY
MASS COMMUNICATION PROMOTES CONFORMITY AND
COHESION
MODERNIZATION: PROMOTES CHANGE AND INDIVIDUALISM
POLITICAL-ECONOMIC THEORY PREDICTS HEGEMONIC
CONTROL BY OWNING/RULING CLASS
MEDIATIZATION INCREASES POWER OF INFLUENCE OF
MEDIA THEMSELVES
ALTERNATIVE MEDIA FACILITATE DISSENT AND SOCIAL
MOVEMENTS
NEW (DIGITAL) MEDIA HAVE LIBERATING AND
DIVERSIFYING EFFECTS, PLUS UNKNOWNS
Research tradition concerned with media structure and
performance
In this summary catalogue of media system features and
tendencies of social influence, attention is also merited by the long
tradition of research and thinking about the relation between media
15
structure and performance. The driving force has always been a
critical perspective on media performance, sometimes from a
media professional, sometimes from a ‘public interest’, view.
Central to the tradition has been the belief that ‘quality’ of
performance can be defined and in some degree measured, and
that also, to some extent variations in quality as measured can be
related to structured features (especially of ownership and
purposes). There are possibilities for finding elements of media
systems/structures that could be reformed or influenced.
Democratic norms permit certain interventions in structural
matters, but little affecting content directly. Amongst the yield of
this tradition has been guidance on the criteria that have, at a
given period and place, been considered as pertaining to a ‘good’
media system – one that promotes ‘good’ performance, as
reflected in a number of recurring criteria, especially the following:
Diversity - of media types (and technologies), forms and of
control/ownership;
Local relevance , in the widest sense area served;
Freedom of action and expression for communicators;
Professionalism and associated responsibility and accountability.
Informativenes, especially as applied to news and journalism;
16
Social activism , especially a critical role on behalf of the public, in
the face of abuse or scandal at higher levels (also mainly applying
to journalism).
Causal influences of media structure on performance
In addition to developing criteria of good performance, the
research tradition has also deployed a number of variables of
media structure that could be influential on performance and also
open to manipulation or intervention ‘in the public interest.’
The main structural variables that are relevant to these purposes
comprise: form of ownership - private or public, profit or non-profit;
degree of organizational/professional autonomy;
scale and intended reach – local, national; international;
barriers to access for would-be sources and voices – whether high
or low; dependence or independence in international media
markets;
Related to this, with the arrival of on-line media, new structural
principles have been added to the above, mainly relating to the
degree of system control of output/transmission and degree of
interactivity between senders and receivers.
It is clear that the way in which most media systems have been
formed has been initially strongly influenced by the culture and
structure of the society in which they are located. However, further
17
consequences for society are likely to stem from the particular
configuration of communication that flows from the media as a
result of their system features. The range of potential influences is
summarized in the following Table.
RELEVANT (CAUSAL) MEDIA SYSTEM FEATURES
CONCENTRATION AND MONOPOLY;
DIVERSITY OF CHANNELS, MEDIA TYPES AND CONTENT ;
ACCESS TO CHANNELS (for senders and receivers);
SELF-REGULATORY PROCESSES;
FORMS OF OWNERSHIP/FINANCE;
SCALE AND REACH;
DEGREE OF (IN)DEPENDENCE IN GLOBAL MEDIA MARKET;
DEGREE OF INTERACTIVITY IN USE;
Features of social systems most susceptible (or liable) to
influence from media systems
The long and very mixed theorising alluded to earlier has at
least one other yield to offer in the way of guidance for pursuing
the matter of media system influence. This consists of ideas about
the features of social structures that are most plausibly susceptible
18
to influence as a consequence of some the specific features of
media systems indicated. Certain items recur in this connection,
especially:
- The type and quality of social relations that exist or develop
between individuals and thus underlie the formation of groups and
the potential for combined social action.
- The typical non-coercive control processes of society that can
range from the more hierarchical to the negotiated and truly
democratic, from the open to the covert.
- Some features of ideology and belief systems, such as their
diversity, strength, stability, etc. This relates also to fundamental
values, such as attachment to freedom or equality, tolerance.
- The awareness of collective identity as nation or culture, its
strength and distribution in a population.
- The distribution of knowledge (in matters of public relevance and
significance) in society, its relative equality and inequality, plus its
adequacy.
- Some aspects of the distribution of power and social esteem, that
partly depend on individually formed social attitudes
These can be summarised as:
- SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND NETWORK
19
- NON-COERCIVE CONGTROL PROCESSES
- IDEOLOGY AND BELIEF SYSTEMS
- COLLECTIVE OR GROUP IDENTITIES
- DISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE
- DISTRIBUTION OF ‘SOFT POWER’
Pathways of influence
An additional yield from the history of ideas reviewed is an
indication of the various pathways by which media system
influence can operate. These are summarised as follows:
- BY ADAPTATION TO THE PREVAILING MEDIA
PRACTICES
- BY THE MEDIA’S CHOICE (OR ASSIGNMENT) OF ITS
ROLE IN SOCIETY
- VIA RELATIVE PRIORITY GIVEN TO MEDIA GOALS OF
PROFIT OR PURPOSE
- VIA POWER AND CONTROL PROCESES WITHIN MEDIA
- VIA EXTERNAL ACCESS TO MEDIA (CLIENTILISM)
The normative dimension of media systems and social systems
A conclusion that has occurred to me in the course of this
journey is the extent to which the framing of definitions, concepts
20
and hypotheses is very dependent on normative criteria, thus not
fully objective and open to measurement. This applies both to the
characterisation of social structure features as well as those of
media systems. Even where there are elements to that can be
observed objectively and empirically (for instance the level of
conflict/consensus in political systems, or the degree of
concentration of media markets), the priority given to one feature
over another (e.g. of freedom over accuracy of information)
depends on an evaluative choice. The whole large body of
theorising about media and society has always been about
opposing values as much as about evidence of any influence.
This reflection is not meant as discouragement, but it means
that in one way or another the influence of alternative values
relating to society and to media respectively needs to be
recognised. One step to assist formal analysis would be to treat
society and media as each having a cultural and a structural
dimension and construct variables for analysis that pertain to one
or the other sphere. Rosengren’s simple typology can be useful
here, although it becomes rather complex.
In conclusion
This has been an exploration of possibilities for re-opening
long standing issues of overall influences of media practice,
21
content and organisations (systems, thus) on aspects of society,
encouraged by the success of Hallin and Mancini in opening up a
part of the terrain. The task of investigating in this area of inquiry
seems to become more intractable when the different approaches
and many variables are assembled in any general overview, as I
have tried to do. At the same time, the topic only increases in
potential interest and relevance at a time of large upheavals in
media systems (however conceptualised). Much thought has
already been given to many aspects of the problem area and there
are many fruitful lines of inquiry that could still be followed,
especially by way of comparative research. New sources of
relevant evidence are emerging from studies of public opinion on
media e.g. degree of trust, perception of relative value and utility,
media uses and satisfactions. Research on attitudes of key actors,
especially journalists and editors also makes an increasing
contribution to judgment in these matters.
For the reasons given it will be important to pay careful
attention to the underlying normative dimensions of the problem
that cannot be by-passed, but have to be accounted for in an open
way. It will also be necessary to restrain global ambitions and
concentrate on specific, demarcated areas of the life of societies
22
that are in a significant degree institutionalised and stable. None of
this easy, but it seems worth the attempt.
Denis McQuail,
Faculty of Journalism
Moscow University, November 14, 2013..
References:
Hallin, D.C. and Mancini, P. (2004). Comparative Media Systems.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hallin, D.C. and Mancini, P. (2012). Comparing Media Systems:
Beyond the Western World. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rosengren, Karl Erik (1981). ‘Mass media and social change:
some current approaches’, in E. Katz and T. Szecsko, eds., Mass
Media and Social Change, pp. 247-63. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.