On the Integration between World of Politics and the World of Economy in Relation to Mass Communication

By Mohammed Khelef

An Overview

In this work, I am going to define the world of politics as the area of concern in which power is produced, distributed, exchanged and exercised; whereas the world of economics as the one that have its concern on how values of all kinds produced, distributed, exchanged and consumed (Graham, 1990).

When these two worlds are combined, in a scholarly way, the result is the study of political economy. With the intrusion of mass communication, however, then comes the need for defining mass communication, which is the movement of meanings between people through the means by which those meanings are moved. The challenge remains, then, is to show how the interaction between these two worlds does play its role in helping or restraining a process of mass communication.

As the recognized field of study, the whole thing lies on the area of political economy of mass communication, which has its most obvious roots in the concept of ‘knowledge monopolies’ as developed by Canadian economist Harold Innis (Graham, 1990). Innis coined this term to illustrate the fact that throughout history, certain privileged groups (priests, kings, bureaucrats, soldiers, scientists, etc) have enjoyed a monopoly of access to certain kinds of knowledge.

Political economy of mass communication becomes visible during the second decade of the twentieth century, when such figures as Harold Lasswell (1927, 1941) and Edward Bernays (1928, 1945) appear as significant scholars in the study of mass communication strategies. Both clearly understand the political economic implications of mass media and their attendant capabilities to change the character and functioning of societies. It is therefore very overt that, the world of politics and the world of economics together when interacting do have a very big impact on mass communication.

The purpose of this discussion is to show to what extent that interaction affects the functioning mass communication, by dealing with those worlds as both separate and intertwined entities and why we call a mass communication, as a process, functioning.

The Interaction between the World of Politics and the World of Economy

Ideas that are talking about the interaction of these two worlds throughout the history have enabled the outcome of many schools of thoughts in the world. Some of those schools are statism, postmodernism and liberalism, just to mention a few that would be used in this discussion.

Under statism, government is given absolute power over each and everything, including the process of mass communication. Statism, as a school of thought has got many faces; among them is socialism, nazism (national socialism), theocracy, (pure) democracy, communism, fascism and tribalism.

According to Capitalism, a dedicated website for capitalism, many of the above systems “differ, in theory and blood stained practice they all unite upon the same fundamental collectivist ethical principle: man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Whether those “others” are a dictator’s gang, the nation, society, the race, (the) god(s), the majority, the community, the tribe, etc., is irrelevant __ the point is that man in principle must be sacrificed to others.”

Therefore, it can be argued that statism, which is also known as etatism, is a term that is used to describe two phenomenon in one: “specific instances of state intervention in personal, social or economic matters and a form of government or economic system that involves significant state intervention in personal, social or economic matters” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism). It is here, where one finds how this phenomenon interact two worlds of politics and economy.

According to Wikipedia, “the term can be used loosely in a derogative sense to describe an instance in which a country or other political entity is more Statist than the user of the term believes is desirable (in the case of anarchists, this may include all of the world’s countries). More rigorously, a specific area of policy within a country may be described as Statist, which would allow comparison with another country in which that area of policy is completely non-Statist.” Therefore, in a country that describes herself as capitalist, for example the United States, there may be still some policies (such as the state monopoly on mail delivery) that are statist in nature and so make it necessary to describe it under the school of statism.

Postmodernism is another school of thought that shows the link between politics and economy. Though critically to the existing Western philosophies, postmodernists tend to believe that there is nothing like absolute truth. They criticized the Western world society as an outdated lifestyle disguised under impersonal and faceless bureaucracies. They debate the modernist about the Western society needing to move beyond their primitiveness of ancient traditional thought and practices.

According to All About Philosophy, a website on philosophical views, postmodernists concerns include “building and using weapons of mass destruction, encouraging an unlimited amount of consumerism thus fostering a wasteful throwaway society at the sacrifice of the earth’s resources and environment, while at the same time not serving the fair and equitable socioeconomic needs of the populace.”

They believe that the West’s claims of freedom and prosperity continue to be nothing more than empty promises and have not met the needs of humanity. They believe that truth is relative and truth is up to each individual to determine for himself. Most believe nationalism builds walls, makes enemies, and destroys “Mother Earth,” while capitalism creates a “have and have not” society, and religion causes moral friction and division among people.

Postmodernism claims to be the successor to the 17th century Enlightenment. For over four centuries, “postmodern thinkers” have promoted and defended a New Age way of conceptualizing and rationalizing human life and progress. Postmodernists are typically atheistic or agnostic while some prefer to follow eastern religion thoughts and practices. Many are naturalist including humanitarians, environmentalists, and philosophers.

They challenge the core religious and capitalistic values of the Western world and seek change for a new age of liberty within a global community. Many prefer to live under a global, non-political government without tribal or national boundaries and one that is sensitive to the socioeconomic equality for all people.

Postmodernists do not attempt to refine their thoughts about what is right or wrong, true or false, good or evil. They believe that there isn’t such a thing as absolute truth. Postmodernist views the world outside of themselves as being in error, that is, other people’s truth becomes indistinguishable from error. Therefore, no one has the authority to define truth or impose upon others his idea of moral right and wrong.

Their self-rationalization of the universe and world around them pits themselves against divine revelation versus moral relativism. Many choose to believe in naturalism and evolution rather than God and creationism. They protest Western society’s suppression of equal rights. They believe that the capitalistic economic system lacks equal distribution of goods and salary. While the few rich prosper, the mass populace becomes impoverished. Postmodernists view democratic constitutions as flawed in substance, impossible to uphold, and unfair in principle.

In Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, liberalism is defined as a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint.

It is also said that, the basics “of liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society, though it does not necessarily oppose the state’s provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.”

The Functioning Mass Communication

A question to be answered here is why and how we call a mass communication functioning? In other words, when can we say that now the process of mass communication is really working well? To answer the question, we should look at the roles played by mass communication in a certain society. These roles are the ones we call functions; and when they are performed, then we say the mass communication is functioning. Those are surveillance, interpretation, linkage, transmission of values and entertainment.

According to Perspectives on Mass Communication, surveillance is the news and information role of the media. It is only when the media is investigating and bringing news or information to the society, then this role is being accomplished and we say mass communication is functioning.

Interpretation refers the idea that mass media do not just supply facts and data only, but they also provide information on the ultimate meaning and significance of those events. When the mass media tell us not only what happened, but also why it did, they interpret to us the event. When they choose to show us only 3 minutes clip of the 30 minutes event, they interpret to us what to see and understand. There the mass communication is functioning.

Transmission of values is also known as a socialization function of the media in a sense that the mass communication to present potrayals of our society and by watching, listening and reading, we learn how people are supposed to act and what values are important. If so happens, then mass communication is functioning.

By linkage, it is meant that the mass communication is able to join different elements of society that are not directly connected. People of different background or geographically separated can be joined via mass media for their one need, for example if they are all suffering from one disease or need to buy one product. If mass communication is doing that job, then it is functioning.

Of the most obvious function of mass communication is entertainment. Many television, radio stations and newspapers are working properly in this. They do entertain their audience. And that is the functioning mass communication.

The Affects of the Interaction between the ‘Two Worlds’ to Functioning Mass Communication

So far, we have seen what do the worlds of politics and economy have in common and what is that thing called a functioning mass communication. Now I argue that, the interaction of those two worlds, as folded into three schools of thought of political economy, i.e. statism, postmodernism and liberalism, does have a great role on the functioning mass communication. So great that sometimes they make the process of mass communication to be a success and sometimes to be a mess.

Let us take statism in one hand and surveillance on the other. Since the theory implies that the government has absolute power on each and everything, then only investigating work could be done under such society should be blessed by the government. That is to say, there may be strong investigative journalism but only aimed at those things and people that are not of the government or that against the system. In Malaysia, for example, former prime minister Mahathir Mohammed had his finance minister Anwar investigated by the media, but for the purpose of stopping him from his motives to be the next premier.

Therefore, in a very a negative way, the function of surveillance can be performed under statism, but the real target to serve the mass can be missed, since undey this system the government is alpha and omega.

But, on the other side, statism is just as good as any other philosophy when it comes to the function of transmission of social values by mass communication. Nazi Germany was the best example. Itself a face of social nationalism, the German leadership during Adolf Hitler was adopting a propagandist method in transmitting the national values to German citizens, and the media was very much used. The result was that, German young people were so obedient to the authority that they were even able to sell out their parents if they suspected to be against the Nazi ideas.

Liberalism is also good to enable mass communication functioning well in almost all areas. For instance, since liberalism believes in the individual freedom and minimizes the power of government in the economic machinery, then it tends to have a society which is free to inform and be informed in all matters even the ones that are against the governments.

Scandinavian countries are best example of this type of interaction. It is easier in those countries for the media to raise or uncover issues that are against the governments and yet being supported openly by the government apparatus itself. A case of the former premier of Finland, Maria Iihtasaar, who was uncovered for his illdoings during his tenure, is mentioned. That is surveillance.

In liberalism also one can find out the function of entertainment is entertained. Absolute freedoms enjoyed by individual people make the media to have it a goal. In Tanzania, for example, since the introduction of economic liberation, which is one characteristic of liberalism, most FM Radios, ‘Udaku’ papers and music television have been established.

In postmodernism, mass communication functions well in interpretation. Since the core idea of postmodernism is criticism against the existing politico-economic superstructures of the world today, the tendency of having open air debates and discussions is very common in a community believes in postmodernism.

This is a group of professors in universities, environments in the Western countries and scholars all over the world. Programmes such as Hard Talk in BBC, The Quest in CNN, Eye to Eye in Al- Jazeera, are just examples of how postmodernism as a theory enables mass communication to function well.

It is therefore evident and overt that, in either good or bad way, the interaction between the world of politics and that of economy does affect the functioning mass communication.

References:

1. Guerrero, L. K. & Others (2001), Close Encounters: Communicating in Relationships, McGraw Hill, USA
2. Murphy, R. L (1999), Perspectives on Mass Communication, Longman UK, London
3. Graham, P (1990), Political Economy of Communication: A Critique, CRCCT, Toronto, Canada
4. http://www.capitalism.org/faq/statism.htm
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
6. http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/postmodernism.htm
7. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073017/totalitarianism
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism