Name: Jonathon Hutchinson

Student Number: 3044956

School: Applied Communications

Program: Media (Honors)

Subject: Communication Revolutions

Topic: Essay 2

Tutor: Dr Peter Williams

Due Date: 5th June 2009

“Social and cultural power was about the ‘power to define the rules of the

game’ and to determine what was ‘deviant’ behaviour, as well as the

capacity to define social reality through processes of representation,

which were never simply the reflections of events, but the active

production of meaning” (Flew 2007:7 Commenting on Stuart Hall 1982)

In each stage of technological development, particularly within communication

technology, there is a grander impact upon cultural relationships that spreads

across multiple disciplines – social, economical and political. Within this

relationship between these cultural characteristics it is often hard to establish the

sequence of their occurrence, or if they indeed occur simultaneously. When

considering this, the Andy Warhol quote “the perineal [cultural] question: Does art

imitate life, or does life imitate art?” (Irwin and Gracia 2006) has much relevance

to the temporal relationship to the technology coming first, or if the cultural need

or desire is present to inform the development of this technology. The same

could certainly be said about the impact that this type of technological

development relationship has politically, and ultimately culturally. This poses the

question, does the communication technology come first, or does a change in the

political state occur to instigate the transformation of these communication

technologies and their techniques?

This paper investigates that relationship of communication technologies and

2
norms and values, and explores the notion that social media practices are

impacting upon the current political state. As the current digital communication

revolution takes place, if that is indeed what it is, there are sublime possibilities

that will impact upon these cultural practices and disciplines. It is argued that the

government may indeed hinder this type of development (Burchell 2003:12),

while there is the utopian argument that these new digital communications allow

a new form of enlightenment (Goggin 2003:5), and “if you think this is utopian,

then I ask you to consider why it is utopian” (Brecht 1978/9:24). It is true that

there is scope for a new form of life and order of things, particularly if the French

Revolution and the lessons of history are anything to go by, but to what level is

this practice and rhetoric possible? Additionally, how does this differ to the recent

communication revolutions made possible through broadcast technologies such

as radio and television?

To begin to answer these questions, an understanding of the two major terms

‘communication’ and ‘revolution’ must be addressed. In its most basic sense,

communication can be fundamentally explained as sender – message- receiver

where one party or organization has an utterance or idea that needs to be

expressed to another party or organization. David Morley suggests “the most

common modern sense of communication…. refers to the activity of imparting, or

transmitting messages containing, information, ideas, or knowledge” (Morley

2005:48). He further goes on to explain a deeper interaction of communication to

be “a process of making common to many a particular set of ideas or

3
experiences. This sense has some part of its roots in the religious idea of

‘communion’ as a participatory process” (Morley 2005:48). In this second

definition, Morley suggests that communication is somewhat an interactive

process, where the ‘receiver’ is also the ‘sender’, and the idea is not simply

transmitted and understood, but more so interacted upon by all parties

concerned with the transaction. It could be argued a form of conversation, which

was previously limited with traditional forms of media, but is now being exploited

with new digital forms.

This exploitation could be the underpinning notion that is leading to the idea of

what is referred to as a ‘revolution’. The Oxford Dictionary has two definitions of

revolution as “1 a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of

a new system. 2 a dramatic and far-reaching change.” The core meaning in itself

seems to have political connotations, even in its explanatory definition, and most

certainly challenges the order of things. If this definition is then coupled with

Raymond Williams’ explanation of revolution being linked historically to the term

‘revolt’, “ from the point of view of any established authority, a revolt is an attempt

to turn over, to turn upside down, to make topsy-turvy, a normal political order:

the low putting themselves against and in that sense above the high” (Williams

1983:271), there is a political undertow that is intrinsically linked to this term. It

would be acknowledged that there is an authority in place, recognition of classes,

and a clear and present desire to disrupt the roles of the high with the low.

Revolution is then a term that is heavily weighted with historical, political and

4
cultural factors relating to a class dichotomy amongst the people and the desire

for change in this structure. When this term is coupled with ‘communication’, in

placed within our current temporal context, it would appear that there is more at

play than merely “the humdrum reality of chat rooms, discussion boards, and

group email lists” (Burchell 2003:13).

Clearly both of these terms have literal meanings that appear quite obvious on

the face value, yet, contain compounding meanings with highly rhizomic

background sets when critically analysed. Considering this, how does this

revolution rhetoric sit with the other discourse of communication, particularly

within our current ‘democratic’ time? Is this current communication revolution a

direct result of the formed communication technologies that are present within

the developed broadcast media? Or is it prominent because of the digital

communication possibilities that are currently available?

This answer partially lies historically through the development and

implementation of communication technologies, particularly within the 20th

century, starting with the introduction of broadcast media. This medium is

recognised as beginning with radio, which was the evolution of the ‘on or off’

signalling telegraph system, “taking its name from the 18th century practice of

sowing seeds by scattering widely rather than by placing [them] in drills or rows.”

(Given 2001:2). Even in its name it is thereby instigating the idea that there is

one message that is for everyone. Lesley Johnson notes that “radio as a cultural

5
technology was conceived as a one way transmitter, directed at the individual in

the private home; its potential for community participation, or even the

possibilities for its consumption in a community context were ignored” (Johnson

1981:12). Additionally the audience had to be formed, and it certainly wasn’t

waiting for this new technology to come. An example of this formation was

demonstrated through the conditioning of the advertising commercial interrupting

the normal programming of speech and music, something that was initially not

accepted as a norm. Jock Given sums this process up with a quote from an

article in the Scientific American from June 1922: “Broadcasting is a new art. It is

little more than a year old, and like any young art it is full of that rare interest

which exists in any art until it has simmered down to an established basis” (Given

2001:2).

This “established basis” is conventionalised and practiced through the infiltration

of the family and their household. When it was realised that radio could be

listened to in the background and not only in a way that included huddling around

the piece of furniture that was bringing much delight to the Australian family

during the depression period (Johnson 1981:169), an impacting era in

broadcasting had begun. “The most concerted attack on patterns of domestic life

was mobilized when it was recognized that listeners could and were using radio

in this form” (Johnson 1981:169), as demonstrated through the programming

techniques that were aimed at the housewife during the daytime. No longer was

this type of broadcasting a form of entertainment but it sees it take on a powerful

6
form of constituting social structures and norms through the assumed

passiveness of the audience. However this formation was not accidental as there

was much policy being developed in conjunction with the technology to govern

how broadcasting could be administered.

Australia was a unique example of early broadcasting as it was decided that a

dual licensing system would be implemented to satisfy both the private and

public sectors that were developing. An ‘A’ class license was used to establish

the government run side of broadcasting (which would later become known as

the Australian Broadcasting Commission) while the ‘B’ class was developed to

fulfil the commercial or private aspect of this technology. Not only was this

establishing a laissez-faire principal within broadcasting but it also constituted a

separation of classes within this broadcasting system. Distinctions between

‘classical music’ and ‘slapstick comedy’ are prime examples of the divide

between content that might be distinguished between a high brow and a low

brow audience. Although this is present, it is arguable that the listener always

had a complete democratic approach to the content being broadcast as they

could always simply turn the knob to another channel.

There were other factors present that helped shape the formation of radio

broadcasting, particularly as a one to many model. Why was it, considering it was

technically possible, that radio was set up as a model where the listener has no

or very little input into the content being programmed? Brecht suggests “at a

7
certain point in time technology was far enough advanced to produce radio while

society was not sufficiently advanced to take it up.” (Brecht 1978/9:24). If we

place the development temporally, radio was established during a time of socio-

economic depression, with hyperinflation and unemployment, and yet at the

same time there is the introduction of the “radio in its first phase as a substitute”

(Brecht 1978/9:24) for additional forms of media. Unfortunately, perhaps, it was

a time of social unrest with a piece of technology that allows everything to be

said to everybody. But what is to be said and who is everybody?

Reflecting on this system being a one-way transmission, it could be argued that

this is a reaction of a technological determinist development. Believing that the

technology really only has the capability to facilitate a one-way conversation, is to

therefore insinuate that there only is a need for this conversation to in fact

happen in this way. The form of the message that is going one way is what’s

important, or to quote Marshall McLuhan “the medium is the message”(McLuhan

2001:9). This is one way, albeit very naïve, in looking at the conundrum of the

instigation of broadcasting policies. Another way of approaching it is to

acknowledge that it was set up to benefit those that are already quite powerful

and wealthy within our European empirically driven western societies.

Just as the introduction of the wireless transmitter as a piece of technology

allowed business possibilities that were similar to those experienced by GE with

electricity domineering, so to is the introduction of content within this

8
broadcasting model. If one has an agenda to provide a good or service, and has

access to a communication tool that has a potential nation as an audience, is

there not a commercialisation benefit present to the particular party? What if it is

not just commercial benefit that can be gained through mass audiences, but the

dissemination of ideas and policies that have grand outcomes on the formation of

communities/states/nations? Access to this type of technology is, as Brecht

suggests, something that can be misused and construed for the benefit of those

already wealthy and or in positions of power (Brecht 1978/9:3). This is certainly

something that challenges the nature of democracy of this type of communication

technology.

To counter this theory of institutions shaping ideology within the medium of radio,

talkback radio is a very useful form of discussion for democracy within the

practice. By using populist forms of communication, that is raising issues by the

people for the people, it is a way of disseminating ideas that are current and have

weight behind them. In America for example, to speak on talkback radio gives

you an audience over 500 stations nation wide with an audience of up to 300

million people. That is considered a mass audience to discuss current affairs and

issues that are relevant to the people of that specific geographic location.

However one could question the relevance of both the issues and the democracy

of this type of public forum.

Media in this format runs in a cyclic form; that is morning radio discusses the

9
headlines of the newspapers, this informs the discussion of the talkback radio

topics, this may in turn inform the current affairs and news of the evening, and

this will inform the headlines of the following morning. This is a system similar to

a feedback type loop of information that may or may not have any relevance to

current issues of the people. This is also coupled with the fact that callers are

screened before they are allowed to talk over the air, in a sense censoring what

issues are raised. This is further squashed by a popular technique of ‘shock

jocks’ talking over callers or even ending a call when the conversation isn’t going

a particular way. “Other countries have maintained a stronger regulatory

requirement for the broadly ‘balanced’ discussion of current affairs, so that the

ability of ‘jocks’ to shock is more circumscribed. Nevertheless, the controversial

radio talk show host is now an established feature of the global radio

environment, and the spread of a trivialized political discourse may be its

corollary” (Hendy 2000:211). In its purist form, it would seem that talkback radio

is somewhat democratic, however the realism of this is very much construed by

both institutions and individuals with particular agendas.

Here we see the significance of the impact of inscriptions, whether it be written,

spoken, or demonstrated, as quite relevant to the impact upon societies. What

might be written in a newspaper, or spoken on talkback radio, or programmed

into a household or nation has massive consequences. That could be as

subliminal as suggesting that the type of programming that is relevant during the

daytime is appropriate for housewives, or could be as powerful to insight a

10
massacre in Rwanda through morning radio (Hendy 2000:203). It is also clear

that there are class structures present within the one to many styles of

broadcasting, which reflect upon social class structures. It is becoming evident

through this investigation that this is all entwined with political discourse, which

raises many questions surrounding the nature of ‘democracy’ within our

societies. There are further arguments involved when considering the conception

of digital communication and its applications by certain groups and users.

It is often said that when new communication technologies arrive, they supersede

older forms and replace them entirely. However it is more accurate to say that

newer forms generally merge with older formats, and these older mediums

generally adjust to accommodate the new (Jenkins 2006:13). Imagine the

Internet without text, or the television without sound for that matter – clear

examples of newer communication technologies embracing the mediums that

they were supposedly expected to replace. These newer forms of communication

not only impact upon technologies, but can also be harnessed as tools for

individuals, groups, and institutions. The roles that these communication

technologies play within these groups will be outlined in the following.

“Moments of media transitions are periods in which the perceptual and semiotic

patterns, the technological forms, social practices, economic structures, and legal

constructions later defining a particular medium within a dominant media system

remain unsettled and under negotiation” (Gitelman 2004:200). We are currently

11
within this negotiation period in digital communication where new lines are being

drawn and old legislations are being challenged. Or that is to say we have not

allowed this type of medium to become a norm as yet, with even the form still

going through evolutionary changes. Why is it that the Internet, or the library of

libraries, is the technology that has been so widely adapted? Could this explain

why we are seeing the mobile forms of communication and technology receiving

such a well-accepted form of use and application? Although there are areas of

digital communication that are very much established, they are still somewhat

transient and developmental in both their nature and impact upon social roles

and ideologies.

The disappearance of geography is one of the key factors surrounding the

emergence of new communication technologies that is synonymous with the

ideology behind globalisation. The disappearance of space goes inequitably with

the significant loss of all temporal measures. Thus, giving this communication

tool the basis that we are all living in what McLuhan dubbed “one global village”,

existing on the same time continuum. It is fair to say that this takes “the principal

means through which people worldwide are informed and entertained, and

develop an understanding of their local, national, and global social and cultural

environments” (Flew 2007:1) as a communication rule of thumb. These factors

are indeed the basics for globalized modern communication techniques, yet they

pose an entire new form of rules of engagement of production, consumption, and

their resulting impacts that they have upon cultural, social, and political

12
ideologies.

The relationship that exists between media and culture is a strong bond in the

deepest of the sense. As outlined earlier it is difficult to determine if the media is

reflecting the culture or vice versa, and this in itself has massive outcomes as to

how existence is carried out. “Theories of global media need to engage with how

media power shape, and is shaped by, the capacity to engage in purposive social

action in order to further one’s aims and interests” (Flew 2007:3), and the

concept that global media not only brings a form of global entertainment with it,

but also entertains the idea that it is inherently interweaved with the notion of

global power.

Looking at this situation from a privileged, western point of view, it could be

argued that this is the more dominant form of assimilation that is common with

the post modern format of globalisation. Not only is this kind of non-nuance,

liberal-democratic engulfing movement taking over less dominant countries as

the more user friendly version of existence, but it is more so prominent within

global organizations that facilitate the order of things through the dissemination of

information.

Take for example organizations such as the World Trade Organization, the G20,

the United Nations, or the World Health Organization. All of these are

predominately part of the European Imperialistic approach and have their roots

13
embedded into the cultural foundations of these geographical locations. Are they

not a movement that basically disseminates this type of liberalistic discourse onto

‘others’ that are not them? And within this type of assimilation, is there any room

for local idiosyncrasies or cultural discourses? Or are they merely lost in the

surge of Western cultural ‘democratic’, imperialistic globalisation?

The counter libertarian argument suggests that through the sheer pace of this

new digital communication, there are counter culture movements that are present

that allow mobilisation of masses for a range of purposes. A recent case of a

student that was arrested whilst covering an anti government protest in Egypt is a

case in point. After his arrest, he used a one word micro-blog post or Twitter to

obtain his freedom, “The message only had one word. ‘Arrested’.” (Simon 2009)

This resulted in another friend following his updates and blogging about it

himself, spreading the word about the situation in real time amongst a network of

concerned ‘netizens’.

As refreshing and as utopian as this might sound in its conception of a

communication revolution, it has within it a fundamental floor that is similar to the

issues that are present with those within globalisation. The most common issue

with digital communication technologies is that that surrounds the idea of digital

divides. As these new forms of communication technologies emerge a certain

amount of education is required to speak these new vernaculars. If this type of

education isn’t present for those that are utilising these devices, then they are

14
easily left behind (Thomas 2001:160). This type of situation is present within

developing countries, where communication is not the most obvious concern,

and as these forms of communication are constantly evolving it is evident that

information relating to issues covered in both social contexts, and political arenas

could easily be missed. If that is something that is relating to the importance of

the latest episode of American Idol, than that is significant in cultural terms,

however not as impacting as something which has power connotations such as a

trade embargo. Cultural harmonisation, or globalisation?

By drawing on these examples, and using the lessons of history, it might be

easier to imagine where this communication revolution is going. It is possible to

imagine new human faculties developing – a collective conscience. However as

Elizabeth Eisenstein suggests about theorising the printing cultures: “attempts to

encapsulate the effects of printing in a single formula or thesis statement are

always misleading” (Eisenstein 1980:53), which may mean only time will tell the

complete impacts of this somewhat illusive development. There are also many

arguments that suggest we shouldn’t become too involved with the utopian

outlook, as this is quite juvenile in its approach to engaging its influences. That

said, it is not unconceivable to entertain the true democratic nature that this

fundamental social practice has.

If we side with Burchell and his position on enlightenment and acknowledge that

the professionals that are doing all the talking at the moment aren’t clear on the

15
vernacular of this technology, anything is of course possible. This includes our

political state and the apparent legislative trumping of technological

advancements. What if it is allowed to play out in its own arena, would social

capital have a more positive bond for civilisation? Would “we have highly norms-

driven conceptions of the value of networks”? (Burchell 2003:19) Does this result

in a certain amount of self-government amongst the people regarding

“demeanour, one’s habits, one’s passions, one’s tongue, one’s temper”? (Rose

2005:151)

“New communication technologies provide comparatively decentralized and open

environments that appear to promote rights to freedom of expression,

information, and communication.” (Thomas 2001:159) If the government are

supportive of this type of instigation through legislative support inspired by

individuals or networks of individuals, and if awareness of digital divides is

addressed at a global level, an absolute liberal democracy is certainly

achievable. This is the formation of the new audience that has demonstrated that

it is indeed ready for this type of technology. Self-governing norms and values

only add to this type of governance, and by utilising the wealth and power of

networks to distribute this type of message, globalisation shall embrace cultural

harmonisation in its truest sense - a practice that can be played out at any local,

national, regional or global scale.

16
17