Mediatization of Communication —= 27 6.3 Theory: how can one understand mediatization? Which theoretical approach is best suited to grasp the transformations inherent in mediatization? The contested issue among scholars is over which Driving forces (or “Antriebskriifte” as Max Weber would say) are behind the processes of mediati zation. Recent mediatization research shares an ambition to theorize this process of transformation, and also to bring the evolving understanding of mediatization into general social theory. It is, for the time being, more a matter of understanding mediatization than explaining this complex (meta) process. This research is still young, Among the contributors to this volume Friedrich Krotz (in Chapter 6), Stig Hjarvard (in Chapter 9), Nick Couldry (in Chapter 10), as well as Andreas Hepp and Uwe Hasebrink (in Chapter 11) seem to have the most explicit ambitions to contribute to general social theory. Others have a more limited, although impor tant, aim with their theory work, for example Kent Asp who (in Chapter 15) aims to rethink the question of media power. Among scholars with a cultural perspective on mediatization, social-construc: tivist or symbolic-interactionist theories are prominent in the efforts to understand the ongoing transformations (Couldry and Hepp 2013; Hepp and Hasebrink this volume), Thus the emphasis is on symbolic pracesses and the social construction of reality. This approach may be weaker on institutional aspects, which is the main focus of the institutional perspective. Stig Hjarvard, a main proponent of this perspective, refers to structuration theory and new institutionalism, as noted in 3.22 above. This take implies a general awareness of institutional logics as the rules and resources that govern a particular domain. A particular institution works according to a specific logic. The media operates according to media logic. Hjar vard considers media logic as a particular instance of institutional logics (Hjarvard, this volume). Media logic is regarded a key mechanism in mediatization processes. However, media logic may not in itself be the driving force of mediatization, In the institutional perspective, it may rather be the tension or interaction between the expanding media and other institutions with the ifferent logics that drive social and cultural change, Bogoch and Peleg, for example (this volume) use the concept of media logic versus legal logic, discuss the discrepancies between the two, and why these make the mediatization of the legal field so special. “Media logic” has primarily been contrasted to “political logic” as the term has most frequently been applied to mediatization within the political domain. ‘The authors in the handbook section on “Power, law, and politics” all build their theoretical take on the concept of media logic. The most elaborate may be the contribution by Jesper Strdmbick and Frank Esser (this volume) drawing upon many years of research on the mediatization of politics. They see media logic as a “logic of appropriateness” shaped by the combined forces of professionalism, commercialism, and media technology (cf. also Esser 2013).