Critical Reflection Mass Media and Modernization – 2nd Week

In Sparks’ reading it is firstly important to identify the theoretical background on which he

grounds the development of modernity’s dominant paradigm after the Cold War. The
dominant paradigm moved away from Marx’s class struggle which puts economic
infrastructure as the central piece in establishing new ways to perceive or conceptualize the
ideology behind societal relations. Instead, the dominant paradigm was very much supported
by the Weber’s concept of modernity which was based on the diffusion of innovation (the
“modern mindset”) through a vigorous capitalist economy that could produce higher
standards of living and of income, in theory, for everyone.
On the other hand, Lerner’s reading, from my standpoint, is precisely a reflection of the
ruling paradigm at the time. Lerner, who was a very famous American scholar and one of the
top promotors of the modernization theory of communication, wrote about in his study about
the distinction between traditional and modern societies in the Middle East and how
modernity was an interactive behavioral system. This study ended up shaping the American
public minds to perceive the United States as the main model of modernity, leading to the use
of mass media to promote economic and social development in post-colonial countries. Since
the modern, literate, and industrial way was preferrable to the old, illiterate, non-participant
traditional way, the mass media played an important role in diffusing new ideas and change
people’s minds, which would then logically lead to an increase in living standards.
However, this whole process was based on a top-down state-run promotion of social change,
controlled mainly by the elites and external experts, which disregarded the actual political,
social, and economic structure producing inequal results. I believe this is what lead to the
dominant modernity paradigm’s ultimate failure in establishing a universal standard that
every nation or individual could culturally and materially relate. The collusion between the
experts and the elite’s interests lead to various problems, the main one being the masses
weren’t better informed or democratized since political change clearly threatened the ruling
class’s enterprises. Another obvious shortcoming is the assumption that western-based
modernity could appeal to everyone no matter the disparity of cultural and social
backgrounds. It is not surprising, then, Lerner’s dominant paradigm became obsolete in the
backdrop of the Cold War, with its theoretical basis questioned by the contemporary
intellectual background.
The ruling paradigm evolved with the rediscovering of social structures, particularly in Latin
American countries like Argentina. Due to the rising of a new kind of populism, typical of
less developed Latin American nations whilst more developed ones used “class politics”, the
coalition between the working and middle classes played the leading role in the integrations
of different social classes in one cohesive political movement (at this stage of modernization,
the different interests were not regarded as too greater to undermine the fighting against the
establishment). This showcases how the growth of the working and middle class during the
age of modernization increased the masses’ demands of power and income and did not
necessarily produce complacency to the oligarchies’ interests. Instead, it revealed that the
existing system was unable or unwilling to fulfill their demands leading to the increase of
political tensions. Therefore, the dominant paradigm gave away to a theory of social change
that proved the economic structure needed to precede the ideology that supported them.
Maria João Sousa, student number: 72399247