LESSON 2: SOCIO-CULTURAL OUTCOMES OF MASS COMMUNICATION

OBJECTIVE/S:
Demonstrate an understanding on the concept of Philippine Popular Culture through
Mass Communication theories

Ø PRETEST 2:
List down the positive and negative effects of mass media in your life. Give at least 5 for
each then state a short explanation why they gave positive and negative effects on your
life.

Example:

Positive effect
1. (Answer)
(Short Explanation)
2. (Answer)
(Short Explanation)
3. (Answer)
(Short Explanation)
4. (Answer)
(Short Explanation)
5. (Answer)
(Short Explanation)

Do the same with the negative effects.

DISCUSSION

Mass Media and its Characteristics

One key characteristic of mass communication is its ability to overcome the physical
limitations present in face-to-face communication. The human voice can only travel so
far, and buildings and objects limit the amount of people we can communicate with at any
time.

Another key characteristic of mass communication in relation to other forms of

communication is its lack of sensory richness. In other words, mass communication draws
on fewer sensory channels than face-to-face communication. Because of this lack of
immediacy, mass media messages are also typically more impersonal than face-to-face
messages.

Last, mass media messages involve less interactivity and more delayed feedback than
other messages. The majority of messages sent through mass media channels are one
way.

1
We could send messages to the show’s producers and hope our feedback is received, or
we could yell at the television, but neither is likely to influence the people responsible for
sending the message.

Theories of Mass Communication

Theories of mass communication have changed dramatically since the early 1900s,
largely as a result of quickly changing technology and more sophisticated academic
theories and research methods. A quick overview of the state of the media in the early
1900s and in the early 2000s provides some context for how views of the media changed.
In the early 1900s, views of mass communication were formed based on people’s
observation of the popularity of media and assumptions that something that grew that
quickly and was adopted so readily must be good.
Fast forward one hundred years and newspapers are downsizing, consolidating to
survive, or closing all together; radio is struggling to stay alive in the digital age; and
magazine circulation is decreasing and becoming increasingly more focused on
microaudiences. The information function of the news has been criticized and called
“infotainment,” and rather than bringing people together, the media has been cited as
causing polarization and a decline in civility (Self, Gaylord, & Gaylord, 2009). The
extremes at each end of the twentieth century clearly show that the optimistic view of the
media changed dramatically.

Diffusion of Innovation Theory

Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain

channels over time among the members of a social system.

An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or

other unit of adoption.

Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory, developed by E.M. Rogers in 1962, is one of the
oldest social science theories. It originated in communication to explain how, over time,
an idea or product gains momentum and diffuses (or spreads) through a specific
population or social system. The end result of this diffusion is that people, as part of a
social system, adopt a new idea, behavior, or product. Adoption means that a person
does something differently than what they had previously (i.e., purchase or use a new
product, acquire and perform a new behavior, etc.). The key to adoption is that the person
must perceive the idea, behavior, or product as new or innovative. It is through this that
diffusion is possible.

It is a hypothesis outlining how new technological and other advancements spread

throughout societies and cultures, from introduction to wider-adoption. The diffusion of
innovations theory seeks to explain how and why new ideas and practices are adopted,
with timelines potentially spread out over long periods.

2
The way in which innovations are communicated to different parts of society and the
subjective opinions associated with the innovations are important factors in how quickly
diffusion—or spreading—occurs. This is important to understand when developing
market share, and this theory is frequently referred to in the marketing of new products.

Adoption of a new idea, behavior, or product (i.e., "innovation") does not happen
simultaneously in a social system; rather it is a process whereby some people are more
apt to adopt the innovation than others. Researchers have found that people who adopt
an innovation early have different characteristics than people who adopt an innovation
later.

The main people in the diffusion of innovations theory are:

Innovators: People who are open to risks and the first to try new ideas. These are people
who want to be the first to try the innovation. They are venturesome and interested in new
ideas. These people are very willing to take risks, and are often the first to develop new
ideas. Very little, if anything, needs to be done to appeal to this population.

Early adopters: People who are interested in trying new technologies and establishing
their utility in society. These are people who represent opinion leaders. They enjoy leadership
roles, and embrace change opportunities. They are already aware of the need to change and so
are very comfortable adopting new ideas. Strategies to appeal to this population include how-to
manuals and information sheets on implementation. They do not need information to convince
them to change.

Early majority: The early majority paves the way for use of an innovation within
mainstream society and are part of the general population. These people are rarely
leaders, but they do adopt new ideas before the average person. That said, they typically
need to see evidence that the innovation works before they are willing to adopt it.
Strategies to appeal to this population include success stories and evidence of the
innovation's effectiveness.

Late majority: The late majority is also part of the general population and refers to the
set of people who follow the early majority into adopting an innovation as part of their daily
life. These people are skeptical of change, and will only adopt an innovation after it has
been tried by the majority. Strategies to appeal to this population include information on
how many other people have tried the innovation and have adopted it successfully.

Laggards: As the name indicates, laggards lag the general population in adopting
innovative products and new ideas. This is primarily because they are risk-averse and set
in their ways of doing things. But the sweep of an innovation through mainstream society
makes it impossible for them to conduct their daily life (and work) without it. As a result,
they are forced to begin using it. These people are bound by tradition and very
conservative. They are very skeptical of change and are the hardest group to bring on
board. Strategies to appeal to this population include statistics, fear appeals, and
pressure from people in the other adopter groups.

3
The stages by which a person adopts an innovation, and whereby diffusion is
accomplished, include awareness of the need for an innovation, decision to adopt (or
reject) the innovation, initial use of the innovation to test it, and continued use of the
innovation. There are five main factors that influence adoption of an innovation, and
each of these factors is at play to a different extent in the five adopter categories.

1. Relative Advantage - The degree to which an innovation is seen as better than the
idea, program, or product it replaces.
2. Compatibility - How consistent the innovation is with the values, experiences, and
needs of the potential adopters.
3. Complexity - How difficult the innovation is to understand and/or use.
4. Triability - The extent to which the innovation can be tested or experimented with
before a commitment to adopt is made.
5. Observability - The extent to which the innovation provides tangible results.

Examples of the Diffusion of Innovations Theory

The diffusion of innovations theory is extensively used by marketers to promote adoption

of their products. In such cases, marketers generally find an early set of adopters
passionate about the product. These early adopters are responsible for evangelizing its
utility to mainstream audiences.

A recent example of this method is Facebook. It started off as a product targeted at

students and professionals in educational institutions. The students then spread use of
the product to mainstream society and across borders.

The diffusion of innovations theory is also used to design public health programs. Again,
a set of people are chosen as early adopters of a new technology or practice and spread
awareness about it to others. However, such programs are not always successful due to
cultural limitations.

4
Limitations of Diffusion of Innovation Theory
There are several limitations of Diffusion of Innovation Theory, which include the
following:

• Much of the evidence for this theory, including the adopter categories, did not
originate in public health and it was not developed to explicitly apply to adoption of
new behaviors or health innovations.
• It does not foster a participatory approach to adoption of a public health program.
• It works better with adoption of behaviors rather than cessation or prevention of
behaviors.
• It doesn't take into account an individual's resources or social support to adopt the
new behavior (or innovation).

This theory has been used successfully in many fields including communication,
agriculture, public health, criminal justice, social work, and marketing. In public health,
Diffusion of Innovation Theory is used to accelerate the adoption of important public
health programs that typically aim to change the behavior of a social system. For example,
an intervention to address a public health problem is developed, and the intervention is
promoted to people in a social system with the goal of adoption (based on Diffusion of
Innovation Theory). The most successful adoption of a public health program results from
understanding the target population and the factors influencing their rate of adoption.

Public Opinion and Spiral of Silence

Spiral of silence, in the study of human communication and public opinion, the theory
that people’s willingness to express their opinions on controversial public issues is
affected by their largely unconscious perception of those opinions as being either popular
or unpopular. Specifically, the perception that one’s opinion is unpopular tends to inhibit
or discourage one’s expression of it, while the perception that it is popular tends to have
the opposite effect. Developed by German survey and communication researcher
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in the 1960s and ’70s, the spiral of silence theory more
broadly attempts to describe collective opinion formation and societal decision making
regarding issues that are controversial or morally loaded.

In the context of the theory, the term public opinion refers to opinions or behaviour
that can be displayed or expressed in public without running the risk of social isolation or,
in some cases, that even must be displayed to avoid the danger of isolation. Thus, public
is not meant in a legal or political sense—as something that is freely accessible to all or
that concerns the general population or society as a whole. Instead, the concept is
interpreted from a social-psychological perspective as a state of consciousness in which
individuals are aware that their actions are “seen by all” or “heard by all,” requiring that
they constantly monitor not only their own actions but also the reactions of others in their
environment. Accordingly, Noelle-Neumann viewed public opinion as a form of social
control that ultimately applies to everyone, regardless of social class, and that is apparent
in many areas of life, ranging from controversial political issues to fashion, morals, and

5
values. Such an understanding of public opinion differs markedly from the traditional
conception, according to which most people’s opinions on public issues are influenced by
rational debate among educated elites.

It argues that public opinion did not appear first in the eighteenth century, but has
existed in all human societies for thousands of years as a force exerted on governments
and individuals, creating and maintaining the consensus necessary for society’s
functioning. The word public in the concept of “public opinion” is to be interpreted in the
sense of “public eye,” “visible to all,” and thus as social control. Opinion refers to publicly
visible and audible expressions of opinion as well as public behavior regarding value-
laden issues. Its power derives from our social nature, from the willingness of society to
threaten isolation in reaction to forbidden opinions and behaviors, and from the
individual’s fear of isolation. This fear causes individuals to register continually any
changes in society’s approval by means of a “quasi-statistical sense,” and to voice
agreement upon increase in approval and to remain silent upon decrease, thus
contributing to further decline in the popularity of the originally held opinion. The pressure
of public opinion is a source of constant conflict for governments in weighing measures
in order to win public support. Individuals also experience ongoing conflict between their
individual inclinations and convictions and the social demands to conform. This chapter
discusses the consequences of public opinion for the classical theory of democracy and
for an understanding of mass media effects. The chapter also provides hypotheses and
methods for testing them, and presents the example of public opinion concerning nuclear
energy.

Key Elements Of The Theory

According to the spiral of silence theory, most people have a natural—and mostly
unconscious—fear of social isolation that prompts them to constantly monitor the
behaviour of others for signs of approval or disapproval. People also issue their own
“threats” of isolation—mostly unconsciously—through behaviour such as criticizing
someone, turning away from someone, scowling at someone, laughing at someone, and
so on. To avoid isolation, people tend to refrain from publicly stating their views on
controversial matters when they perceive that doing so would attract criticism, scorn,
laughter, or other signs of disapproval. Conversely, those who sense that their opinions
will meet with approval tend to voice them fearlessly and at times vociferously. Indeed,
speaking out in such a way tends to enhance the threat of isolation faced by supporters
of the opposing position, reinforcing their sense of being alone. Thus a spiraling process
begins, the dominant camp becoming ever louder and more self-confident while the other
camp becomes increasingly silent.

Importantly, the spiral of silence occurs only in connection with controversial issues
that have a strong moral component. What triggers a person’s fear of isolation is the belief
that others will consider him or her not merely mistaken but morally bad. Accordingly,
issues that lack a moral component or on which there is general consensus leave no
room for a spiral of silence.

6
 As demonstrated by the 1965 German federal election and other examples, the actual
popularity of an opinion does not necessarily determine whether it will eventually
predominate over opposing views. An opinion can be dominant in public discourse even
if a majority of the population actually disagrees with it, provided that most people (falsely)
believe that the view is unpopular and refrain from expressing it for fear of being isolated.

Public opinion is limited by time and place. With few exceptions, a spiral of silence
holds sway over only a single society (a nation or cultural group) and for only a limited
period. When viewed in hindsight or from an outsider’s perspective, it is sometimes hard
to comprehend the agitation and emotional fervour that can accompany a spiral of silence.

Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’

A major insight into human behavior from pre-internet era studies of

communication is the tendency of people not to speak up about policy issues in public—
or among their family, friends, and work colleagues—when they believe their own point
of view is not widely shared. This tendency is called the “spiral of silence.”

Some social media creators and supporters have hoped that social media
platforms like Facebook and Twitter might produce different enough discussion venues
that those with minority views might feel freer to express their opinions, thus broadening
public discourse and adding new perspectives to everyday discussion of political issues.

Since its introduction by German-born Political Scientist Elizabeth Noelle-

Neumann in 1974, the Spiral of Silence theory has become one of the most-researched
communication theories that explains public opinion formation in a media environment
(McDonald, Glynn, Kim, & Ostman, 2001, p. 139). The Spiral of Silence attempts to
explain how media consumption, interaction among key groups, and opinion expression
all interact to form opinions in society. Over time, a "spiraling" effect will occur, in which a
dominant opinion becomes more visible over one or more minority opinions. When initially
proposed by Noelle-Neumann, the theory helped to explain face-to-face interactions in
the media that helped to form public opinion (Gearhart & Zhang, 2014, p. 20). However,
with the exponential growth of digital media, the theory has recently been applied to digital
interactions as well (Ho, Chen, & Sim, 2013, p. 117).
Since today's media environment is undergoing continual refinement at rapid
speeds, researchers are able to find new ways to apply the theory. Although scholars
remain divided as to whether the theory's "spiraling" effect is applicable to today's digital
media environment, the theory nonetheless remains influential because it has been
studied today more so than in previous years. The internet, particularly social media, has
opened new research avenues for scholars who want to conduct efficient and cost-
effective studies involving multiple countries. Regardless of whether the theory is applied
to traditional or digital media, communication scholars can agree that the theory makes
important contributions towards explaining individual behavior and attitudes arising from
media consumption (Scheufele & Moy, 2000, p. 8). In particular, when the theory is closely
studied, it reveals that public opinion is neither transitory nor random (Glynn & McLeod,
1984, p. 731).

7
 In today's partisan media environment, consumers are exposed to a wide variety
of different media stories. The ideological identities of these stories are just as diverse
as the way they are expressed. However, despite the differing partisan lenses on a
given issue, consumers may not be able to perceive rational arguments on each
political spectrum in an objective manner. Thus, a troubling question can arise: are
consumers missing important information that could completely change their viewpoints
on a given issue? (Kennamer, 1990, p. 39). If this question were applied to the Spiral of
Silence, the "spiraling" process could essentially be overturned, thus reversing a
deeply-embedded public opinion.

The Four Main Parts of the "Spiral of Silence"

When the theory was first proposed in 1974, Noelle-Neumann sought to explain how
one's opinion depends on the opinion of others around them (Glynn & McLeod, 1984, p.
731; Glynn, Hayes, & Shanahan, 1997, pp. 452-453; Kennamer, 1990, p. 390; Neuwirth,
Frederick, & Mayo, 2007, p. 450). Specifically, she explained the interplay behind how
trends gain public support (Kim, Kim, & Oh, 2014, p. 714). Combining Noelle-Neumann's
extensive descriptions of the theory, the Spiral of Silence key tenets can be summarized
into four propositions. These propositions are: (1) there is a "quasi-statistical" organ that
people use to monitor the prevailing opinion; (2) public opinions trigger a "spiraling"
process that reveals the majority opinion; (3) those individuals or groups who voice
minority opinions are threatened with social isolation; and (4) future opinion dictates the
likelihood of one voicing their opinion in public.

Proposition #1: The "quasi-statistical" organ.

The first proposition by Noelle-Neumann posits that each individual has a "quasi-
statistical" organ to monitor the prevailing opinion on a given issue (Noelle-Neumann,
1974, pp. 44-45; Noelle-Neumann, 1979, p. 147). Noelle-Neumann (1984) outlined how
this sense functions when she wrote, "…to read what are, and what are not, socially
acceptable views and behaviors in any given situation" (p. 179). In other words, the
easiest way to find the dominant opinion is to find it displayed in public. The "quasi-
statistical" sense tells us that social interaction is at the heart of the theory (Taylor, 1982,
p. 314). Humans are, for the most part, sensitive to the opinions of others (Lang & Lang,
2012, p. 368). Humans want to be well-liked by their peers and will tend to avoid
performing acts that will lead to peer alienation. However, it can be argued that this
dominant opinion must be displayed repetitively in the media and in real-life, as there are
isolated incidents (such as crimes) that may be displayed in isolated areas with little or
no threats of social isolation.

Proposition #2: Public opinion and the "spiraling" process.

Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann's second proposition examines the role of public opinion and
the interplay of popular opinions in the "spiraling" process. Noelle-Neumann (1974)
defined public opinion as a method of popularity when she wrote: "… public opinion is the
opinion which can be voiced in public without fear of sanctions and upon which action in
public can be based" (p. 44). On a larger scale, public opinion can be defined as the sum
of private opinions that are voiced without fear of retribution or reprisal (Taylor, 1982, p.
312). Keep in mind that these opinions are expressed and does not include the opinions

8
that are not expressed (Nekmat & Gozenbach, 2013, p. 736; Taylor, 1982, p. 316). One
of the theory's hallmarks is that it encourages individuals who hold a minority opinion to
remain silent.

Proposition # 3: Threat of isolation.

After the spiraling process has finished, the majority opinion appears, compelling people
to follow it (Noelle-Neumann, 1979, p. 144). Many researchers have found that an
individual will likely express an opinion if it has social support and vice-versa (Glynn &
McLeod, 1984, pp. 731-732; Ho, Chen, & Sim, 2013, p. 119; Kennamer, 1990, p. 395;
Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 44; Scheufele & Moy, 2000, p. 9; Taylor, 1982, p. 311). This
obligation to follow the majority opinion has been conceptualized as "social control," thus
necessitating the need for self-censorship (Gearhart & Zhang, 2014, p. 19; Malaspina,
2014, p. 7). This may not be the best conceptualization because, going back to the first
proposition, public opinion is heavily-influenced by the media. The media, of course, does
not tell people what to think, but what to think about. This is true in democracies, such as
the U.S. and Germany.

Proposition #4: The likelihood of opinion expression.

The fourth proposition states that the future opinion on an issue dictates the likelihood of
an individual exposing their opinion in public (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 45). In general,
the prevailing opinion is likely to stand as firm as it will in the future (Gozenbach &
Stevenson, 1994, p. 4; Ho, Chen, & Sim, 2013, p. 119; Lang & Lang, 2012, p. 368;
Malaspina, 2014, p. 7; Nekmat & Gozenbach, 2013, p. 737). This likely owes to the
previous proposition because, when people make a habit of advocating or condemning a
particular opinion in public, the surge of onlookers creates intense pressure to maintain
the status quo. However, a "hardcore" individual or group may express their opinion
anyways and not care about whether their opinion is lambasted by society (Gearhart &
Zhang, 2014, p. 20; Glynn & McLeod, 1984, pp. 732-733; Ho, Chen, & Sim, 2013, p. 123).
While the "hardcore" variable may suffer from an egocentric bias, there is no denying that
they will be less-affected by the Spiral of Silence (Judd & Johnson, 1981, p. 26; McDonald
et. al, 2001, p. 140). Lang & Lang (2012) have praised the "hardcore" because they think
strategically in the sense that they accomplish their goals, as opposed to becoming
distracted by social opinion (p. 376).

Cultivation Analysis Theory

Cultivation theory (aka cultivation hypothesis, cultivation analysis) was an theory

composed originally by G. Gerbner and later expanded upon by Gerbner & Gross (1976
– Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 76.), they
began research in the mid-1960s endeavoring to study media effects, specifically
whether watching television influences the audiences idea and perception of everyday
life, and if so, how. Cultivation theory states that high frequency viewers of television are
more susceptible to media messages and the belief that they are real and valid. Heavy
viewers are exposed to more violence and therefore are affected by the Mean World
Syndrome, the belief that the world is a far worse and dangerous place then it actually is.

9
The theory suggests that this cultivation of attitudes is based on attitudes already present
in our society and that the media take those attitudes which are already present and re-
present them bundled in a different packaging to their audiences. One of the main tenets
of the theory is that television and media cultivate the status quo, they do not challenge
it. Many times the viewer is unaware the extent to which they absorb media, many times
viewing themselves as moderate viewers when, in fact, they are heavy viewers.

The theory suggests that television and media possess a small but significant influence
on the attitudes and beliefs of society about society. Those who absorb more media are
those we are more influenced.

Theorists of this persuasion are best known for their study of television violence, a hotly
debated, and beaten to death topic. However, there are many studies that expand beyond
the study of violence to cover gender, demographics, cultural representations, and
political attitudes among many others.

It is one of the core theories of media effects. According to the theory, people who watch
television frequently are more likely to be influenced by the messages from the world of
television. The influence goes to such an extent that their world view and perceptions
start reflecting what they repeatedly see and hear on television. Television is, therefore,
considered to contribute independently to the way people perceive social reality.

Application of Theory

Various studies have supported the claim that those who watch television more
frequently, often display higher tendencies of being depressed and lonely, sense of
alienation, have feelings of mistrust and think that the world is a malicious place. A study
conducted in an experimental setting saw the outcome, at the end of the test period, that
students who watch more action-adventure programs during a six month period are more
likely to believe that the world was a very dangerous place. They also believe that there
is a high chance that they would be personally involved in a violent incident. This is in
stark contrast compared to the attitudes of other students who did not watch as many
action-adventure shows as the test group.

Research by L.J.Shrum has shown that people who watch television frequently are more
likely to answer questions faster as well. They also give answers that reflect the messages
or images that are the most common or repeated on television.

The cultivation theory has been widely used in the study of violence in television. The
theory has been used to explain how children who watch violent cartoons become violent
themselves. Repeated exposure to violence on television reinforces existing beliefs that
the world is a dangerous and unsafe place. Exposure to television further strengthens the
position that acts of violence are a natural response to situations of conflict. Over the
years, research in the field has diversified and today, cultivation theory is applied to
studies on health, religion, sex roles, political orientations, etc.

10
Ø ACTIVITY 2:

1. In not more than 5 sentences, research and re-tell the origin or history of the Spiral
of Silence Theory.
2. How does Spiral of Silence exist in digital media?
(Read this except below to help you synthesize your answer.)
3. Compare how cultivation theory is manifested on TV versus social media.

11
12
13
Modernization or Dominant Paradigm

The western model for development predominated in 1950s and 1960s. The
modernization paradigm arose soon after World War II, in 1949. It envisioned
development as a challenge to bring the "underdeveloped countries" out of their
conditions of poverty by mod-ernizing them and by by free-market approaches.

The origin, principles, and applications of this paradigm should be considered within the
historical context of the postwar years, also known as the Cold War period. On that tine
when world influence was polarized by two superpowers: the United States and the Soviet
Union. Their influence reached every sphere of the international sce-nario, including
development. In this context, the modernization paradigm pro-moted by political
scientists and scholars of Western countries became so strong and so pervasive in every
dimension of social life that it became also known as the "dominant paradigm."

During the 1960s, the dominant paradigm influenced and guided many national
development programs. According to Rogers (1976), the dominant paradigm of
development grew out:
• the industrial revolution in Europe and the United States;
• the colonial experience in Latin America, Africa and Asia;
• the success of the Marshall plan in Europe’s post-World War II development;
• the quantitative empiricism of North American social sciences; and
• the capitalistic philosophy of economics and politics.

The dominant paradigm, ideally, concerned itself with what is done to the people to raise
their standard of living. Thus it emphasized growth of the economy to alleviate poverty.
The essential features of the dominant paradigm were summarized by Hernandes-Ramos
and Schramm (1989) as follows:

• Industry is the prime mover of the economy. Therefore, a major part of investment
must go into industry and what is necessary to fuel it includes raw materials,
transportation and training.

14
 • Modern society requires more specialists than generalists within each field (e.g.
Industry, health).

• Public education is needed to raise the abilities of the entire workforce and
encourage their participation in government. Healthcare and family planning are
needed to increase the wellbeing of the population and curtail demand for jobs,
housing and so on.
• The profit from centrally owned and managed industry, trade and sale of
manufactured goods would be expected ‘to trickle down’ from the centre of the
system to the periphery, from industries and central markets to agricultural sector
and from cities to villages.
• In situations in which rapid development is desired, necessary information can be
diffused and persuasion can occur through the mass media with the aid of an
extension service. Adoption of promising innovations should be encouraged along
with increases in productivity.

Daniel Lerner and Wilbur Schramm (1964) supported the dominant paradigm and
advocated automation and technology for development and change. They made
significant contributions in identifying the role of communication for technological
development. The development community argued that the case of underdevelopment
in the developing countries was not due to external causes but due to internal causes
present within the nation and the individual as well as within the social structure.

Lerner and Schramm stressed that the individual was to be blamed to the extent that he
was resistant to change and modernization, whereas Rogers, Bordenave and Beltran
(1976) argued that the social structural constraints like government bureaucracy, top-
heavy land tenure system, caste, exploitative linkages, etc. were to be blamed.

Lerner pointed that since the individual was identified as the cause of
underdevelopment, he was also the starting point to bring about social change. The
modernization of the individual’s traditional values became the priority task. Rogers
pointed that no effort was made to change the social structure though it had been
identified as of the causes of underdevelopment.

Lerner identified four indices of development: industrialization, literacy, media exposure

and political participation. People have to be mobile, empathetic, and participatory for
development. Lerner (1958) suggested that media exposure, political participation and
developing psychic empathy are necessary for development. Modern society is a
participant society and it works by consensus.

Lerner’s Communication Model for Development thus, in the dominant paradigm the
communication flow was one way which was top- down vertical communication from the
authorities to the people, the mass media channels were used to mobilize the people for
development and the audience was assigned a passive role for acceptance of social
change.

15
At the cultural level, modernization advocated for a change in the mindset of individuals
in poor countries who had to abandon traditional beliefs, considered an impediment
toward modernization, and embrace attitudes and behaviors favorable to innovation and
modernity (Lerner 1958).

At the technocratic level, moderniza-tion required people with inquisitive minds who were
guided by faith in the scien-tific method and rooted in the principles of enlightenment.

At the political level, it required staunch advocates of the doctrine of liberalism based on
political freedom and the adoption of democratic systems.

Finally, at the economic level, it required blind faith in the virtues and power of the free
market, with no or minimal govern-ment intervention.

Critique of Dominant Paradigm

– The dominant paradigm saw mass communication as a powerful and direct force to
diffuse information and innovations about development issues to the masses.
– Communication Scholars thought that growth of the mass media was essential
because communication which was linear and one-way transmission would reach the
wider audience.
– The indicators of national development, such as per capita income, literacy
urbanization and industrialization have also correlated with indicators of a well-
developed media infrastructure.
– Thus, UNESCO study suggested a minimum standard for mass media availability in
the Third World ten copies of daily newspapers, five radio receivers, two television
receivers, and two cinema seats for every 100 of its inhabitants.

Added to these problems, inefficiency and corruption acted as contributing factors.

Industrialization in the Third World countries caused other problems such as reduction
of labor, increased un-employment and large-scale migration from villages to cities.

• These social changes occurred and the Third World countries were unprepared to
face the consequences.
• The failure of the model paved the way for evolving a new development paradigm

The Media communication & Modernization theory

It is argued that the diffusion of the life-style of the developed country through mass
media aggravates social inequality, because the communication and diffusion of the
modernized life-style is only among the rural and urban elites. But the consumerism
created by the mass media frustrates the poor as it does not fit in with their economic
and social reality. The communication strategies suggested are: to educate the people
about the vicious nature and the stifling dependency relationships, to mobilize national
and regional support communication channels. They argue that mass media system
in these countries is caught in the dependency relationships and at times actively
supports them. Therefore, communication strategies should serve the educational and

16
 mobilizing functions. Mass media could be employed purposefully once structural
transformation of society takes place

In the communication field, modernization theory led to the first systematic and
rigorous attempts to research communication applications in the development context.
A few scholars started to devote increasing attention to communication processes and
effects, among them Lasswell (1948), Katz and Lazarfeld (1955), and Klapper (1960),
while others, such as Lerner (1958), Rogers (1962), and Schramm (1964), became
particularly interested in studying how communication could be used to foster national
development, which at that time was conceived predomi-nantly in economic terms.

Communication in the dominant paradigm is basically associated with the linear, mass
media model aimed at transmitting information and messages from one point to
another or many others, usually in a vertical or top-down fashion. This idea was rooted
in the strong belief in the persuasive power of media, especially until the 1970s.
Development communication was associated with the use of media to per-suade
people to achieve, maintain, and strengthen development goals, and media's role was
paramount. UNESCO, for example, considered media to be a crucial means for
promoting change,' and in the 1960s.

Dependency and World Systems Theory

World-systems analysis builds upon but also differs fundamentally from dependency
theory. While accepting world inequality, the world market and imperialism as
fundamental features of historical capitalism, Wallerstein broke with orthodox
dependency theory's central proposition. For Wallerstein, core countries do not exploit
poor countries for two basic reasons.

Firstly, core capitalists exploit workers in all zones of the capitalist world economy (not
just the periphery) and therefore, the crucial redistribution between core and periphery is
surplus value, not "wealth" or "resources" abstractly conceived. Secondly, core states do
not exploit poor states, as dependency theory proposes, because capitalism is organised
around an inter-regional and transnational division of labor rather than an international
division of labour.

During the Industrial Revolution, for example, English capitalists exploited slaves (unfree
workers) in the cotton zones of the American South, a peripheral region within a
semiperipheral country, United States.

From a largely Weberian perspective, Fernando Henrique Cardoso described the main
tenets of dependency theory as follows:

There is a financial and technological penetration of the periphery and semi-periphery

countries by the developed capitalist core countries. That produces an unbalanced
economic structure within the peripheral societies and between them and the central
countries. That leads to limitations upon self-sustained growth in the periphery. That helps

17
the appearance of specific patterns of class relations. They require modifications in the
role of the state to guarantee the functioning of the economy and the political articulation
of a society, which contains, within itself, foci of inarticulateness and structural imbalance.
Dependency and world system theory propose that the poverty and backwardness of poor
countries are caused by their peripheral position in the international division of labor.
Since the capitalist world system evolved, the distinction between the central and the
peripheral states has grown and diverged. In recognizing a tripartite pattern in division of
labor, world-systems analysis criticized dependency theory with its bimodal system of
only cores and peripheries.

Immanuel Wallerstein
The best-known version of the world-systems approach was developed by Immanuel
Wallerstein.[6] Wallerstein notes that world-systems analysis calls for a unidisciplinary
historical social science and contends that the modern disciplines, products of the 19th
century, are deeply flawed because they are not separate logics, as is manifest for
example in the de facto overlap of analysis among scholars of the disciplines.

Wallerstein offers several definitions of a world-system, defining it in 1974 briefly:

• a system is defined as a unit with a single division of labor and multiple cultural
systems.

He also offered a longer definition:

...a social system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of
legitimation, and coherence. Its life is made up of the conflicting forces which hold it
together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally to remold it to its
advantage. It has the characteristics of an organism, in that it has a life-span over which
its characteristics change in some respects and remain stable in others. One can define
its structures as being at different times strong or weak in terms of the internal logic of its
functioning.

In 1987, Wallerstein again defined it:

... not the system of the world, but a system that is a world and which can be, most often
has been, located in an area less than the entire globe. World-systems analysis argues
that the units of social reality within which we operate, whose rules constrain us, are for
the most part such world-systems (other than the now extinct, small minisystems that
once existed on the earth). World-systems analysis argues that there have been thus far
only two varieties of world-systems: world-economies and world empires. A world-empire
(examples, the Roman Empire, Han China) are large bureaucratic structures with a single
political center and an axial division of labor, but multiple cultures. A world-economy is a
large axial division of labor with multiple political centers and multiple cultures. In English,
the hyphen is essential to indicate these concepts. "World system" without a hyphen
suggests that there has been only one world-system in the history of the world.

18
Wallerstein characterizes the world system as a set of mechanisms, which redistributes
surplus value from the periphery to the core. In his terminology, the core is the developed,
industrialized part of the world, and the periphery is the "underdeveloped", typically raw
materials-exporting, poor part of the world; the market being the means by which the core
exploits the periphery.

Apart from them, Wallerstein defines four temporal features of the world system. Cyclical
rhythms represent the short-term fluctuation of economy, and secular trends mean
deeper long run tendencies, such as general economic growth or decline.[1][2] The term
contradiction means a general controversy in the system, usually concerning some short
term versus long term tradeoffs. For example, the problem of underconsumption, wherein
the driving down of wages increases the profit for capitalists in the short term, but in the
long term, the decreasing of wages may have a crucially harmful effect by reducing the
demand for the product. The last temporal feature is the crisis: a crisis occurs if a
constellation of circumstances brings about the end of the system.

In Wallerstein's view, there have been three kinds of historical systems across human
history: "mini-systems" or what anthropologists call bands, tribes, and small chiefdoms,
and two types of world-systems, one that is politically unified and the other is not (single
state world empires and multi-polity world economies). World-systems are larger, and are
ethnically diverse. The modern world-system, a capitalist world-economy, is unique in
being the first and only world-system, which emerged around 1450 to 1550, to have
geographically expanded across the entire planet, by about 1900. It is defined, as a world-
economy, in having many political units tied together as an interstate system and through
its division of labor based on capitalist enterprises.

Dependency theory rejects the limited national focus of modernization theory and
emphasizes the importance of understanding the complexity of imperialism and its role in
shaping postcolonial states. Its main tenet is that the periphery of the international
economy is being economically exploited (drained) by the centre. Building on ECLA’s
perspective (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), dependency
theorists argued that colonialism recast economies in the Third World in a highly
specialized export-producing mold, creating fundamental and interrelated structural
distortions that have continued to thwart development. Once this reshaping was
accomplished, market forces worked to perpetuate the relationship of dominance and
exploitation between centre and periphery.

Ø BASIC TASK 2:
1. World-systems theory asks several key questions:
a. How is the world system affected by changes in its components (e.g.
nations, ethnic groups, social classes, etc.)?
b. How does it affect its components?
2. Choose one critique or issue on the dominant paradigm and how does is affect the
Philippines

19
 3. Does the Philippines gradually getting through the dominant paradigm or
modernization theory? Affirm or deny then explain your answer.

Ø MAJOR TASK 1: DIGITAL STORY BOOK (Refer on the Course Outline for details
and instructions

SUMMARY

The diffusion of innovations theory describes the pattern and speed at which new ideas,
practices, or products spread through a population.

In marketing, this theory is often applied to help understand and promote the adoption of
new products.

This application of the theory usually focuses on identifying and recruiting influential early
adopters to help accelerate consumer acceptance.

Cultivation theory (aka cultivation hypothesis, cultivation analysis) was an theory

composed originally by G. Gerbner and later expanded upon by Gerbner & Gross (1976
– Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 76.), they
began research in the mid-1960s endeavoring to study media effects, specifically
whether watching television influences the audiences idea and perception of everyday
life, and if so, how. Cultivation theory states that high frequency viewers of television are
more susceptible to media messages and the belief that they are real and valid. Heavy
viewers are exposed to more violence and therefore are affected by the Mean World
Syndrome, the belief that the world is a far worse and dangerous place then it actually is.

The dominant paradigm, ideally, concerned itself with what is done to the people to raise
their standard of living. Thus it emphasized growth of the economy to alleviate poverty.
The essential features of the dominant paradigm were summarized by Hernandes-Ramos
and Schramm (1989) as follows:

• Industry is the prime mover of the economy. Therefore, a major part of investment
must go into industry and what is necessary to fuel it includes raw materials,
transportation and training.
• Modern society requires more specialists than generalists within each field (e.g.
Industry, health).

• Public education is needed to raise the abilities of the entire workforce and
encourage their participation in government. Healthcare and family planning are needed
to increase the wellbeing of the population and curtail demand for jobs, housing and so
on.
• The profit from centrally owned and managed industry, trade and sale of
manufactured goods would be expected ‘to trickle down’ from the centre of the system to

20
the periphery, from industries and central markets to agricultural sector and from cities to
villages.
• In situations in which rapid development is desired, necessary information can be
diffused and persuasion can occur through the mass media with the aid of an extension
service. Adoption of promising innovations should be encouraged along with increases in
productivity.

World-systems analysis builds upon but also differs fundamentally from dependency
theory. While accepting world inequality, the world market and imperialism as
fundamental features of historical capitalism, Wallerstein broke with orthodox
dependency theory's central proposition. For Wallerstein, core countries do not exploit
poor countries for two basic reasons.

21