McQuail’s Mass 
     Communication 
          Theory
                                          4
                        Theory of Media 
                              and Society
                  Media, society and culture: connections and confl icts  80
             Mass communication as a society-wide process: the mediation of 
                            social relations and experience  82
                 A frame of reference for connecting media with society  85
                             Theme I: power and inequality  87
                         Theme II: social integration and identity  89
                       Theme III: social change and development  91
                               Theme IV: space and time  93
                        Media–society theory I: the mass society  94
                Media–society theory II: Marxism and political economy  95
                         Media–society theory III: functionalism  98
                     Media–society theory IV: social constructionism 100
            Media–society theory V: communication technology determinism 101
                    Media–society theory VI: the information society 104
                                      Conclusion 107
              80  Theories
                  In this chapter, we look more closely at ideas about the relation between mass media 
                  and society, reserving the cultural implications for Chapter 5, even though society and 
                  culture are inseparable and the one cannot exist without the other. Treating society first 
                  also implies a primacy for society that is questionable, since the media and what they 
                  produce can also be considered as part of ‘culture’. In fact most media theory relates 
                  to both ‘society’ and ‘culture’ together and has to be explained in relation to both. For 
                  present purposes, the domain of ‘society’ refers to the material base (economic and 
                  political resources and power), to social relationships (in national societies, communi-
                  ties, families, etc.) and to social roles and occupations that are socially regulated (for-
                  mally or informally). The domain of ‘culture’ refers primarily to other essential aspects 
                  of social life, especially to symbolic expression, meanings and practices (social customs, 
                  institutional ways of doing things and also personal habits).
                    Most of the chapter is concerned with explaining the main theories or theoretical 
                  perspectives that have been developed for understanding the way media work and 
                  accounting for the typical cultural production that they engage in. Most of these theo-
                  ries do make the assumption that material and social circumstances are a primary 
                  determinant, but there is also scope for recognizing the independent influence that 
                  ideas and culture can have in their turn on material conditions. Before the theories of 
                  media and society are considered, the main issues or broad themes that have framed 
                  inquiry into mass communication are described. A general frame of reference for look-
                  ing at the connections between media and society is also proposed. First of all, we 
                  return in more detail to the conundrum of the relation between culture and society.
           Media, Society and Culture:  
           Connections and Conflicts
                  Mass communication can be considered as both a ‘societal’ and a ‘cultural’ phenom-
                  enon. The mass media institution is part of the structure of society, and its techno-
                  logical infrastructure is part of the economic and power base, while the ideas, images 
                  and information disseminated by the media are evidently an important aspect of our 
                  culture (in the sense defined above).
                    In discussing this problem, Rosengren (1981b) offered a simple typology which 
                  cross-tabulates two opposed propositions: ‘social structure influences culture’; and 
                  its reverse, ‘culture influences social structure’. This yields four main options that 
                  are available for describing the relation between mass media and society, as shown 
                  in Figure 4.1.
                    If we consider mass media as an aspect of society (base or structure), then the 
                  option of materialism is presented. There is a considerable body of theory that views 
                  culture as dependent on the economic and power structure of a society. It is assumed 
                  that whoever owns or controls the media can choose, or set limits to, what they do. 
                  This is the essence of the Marxist position.
                    If we consider the media primarily in the light of their contents (thus more as 
                  culture), then the option of idealism is indicated. The media are assumed to have a 
                                                                                                                         81
                                                                                 Theory of Media and Society
                                                                           Social structure
                                                                          influences culture
                                                                       Yes                No
                                                                 Interdependence        Idealism
                                                          Yes        (two-way        (strong media
                                                                    influence)         influence)
                                         Culture influences
                                          social structure
                                                                   Materialism         Autonomy
                                                           No       (media are         (no casual
                                                                   dependent)         connection)
                          Figure 4.1    Four types of relation between culture (media content) and society
                          potential for significant influence, but it is the particular ideas and values conveyed 
                          by the media (in their content) which are seen as the primary causes of social change, 
                          irrespective of who owns and controls. The influence is thought to work through indi-
                          vidual motivations and actions. This view leads to a strong belief in various potential 
                          media effects for good or ill. Examples include the promotion by the media of peace 
                          and international understanding (or having the opposite effect), of pro- or antisocial 
                          values and behaviour, and of enlightenment or the secularization and modernization 
                          of traditional societies. A form of idealism or ‘mentalism’ concerning media also lies 
                          behind the view that changes in media forms and technology can change our way of 
                          gaining experience in essential ways and even our relations with others (as in the 
                          theories of McLuhan 1962, 1964).
                               The two options remaining – of interdependence and of autonomy – have found less 
                          distinctive theoretical development, although there is a good deal of support in common 
                          sense and in evidence for both. Interdependence implies that mass media and society are 
                          continually interacting and influencing each other (as are society and culture). The media 
                          (as cultural industries) respond to the demand from society for information and enter-
                          tainment and, at the same time, stimulate innovation and contribute to a changing social-
                          cultural climate, which sets off new demands for communication. The French sociologist 
                          Gabriel Tarde, writing about 1900, envisaged a constant interweaving of influences: 
                          ‘technological developments made newspapers possible, newspapers promote the for-
                          mation of broader publics, and they, by broadening the loyalties of their members, cre-
                          ate an extensive network of overlapping and shifting groupings’ (Clark, 1969). Today, the 
                          various influences are so bound together that neither mass communication nor modern 
                          society is conceivable without the other, and each is a necessary, though not a sufficient, 
                          condition for the other. From this point of view we have to conclude that the media may 
                          equally be considered to mould or to mirror society and social changes.