mass-communication-theory

316 Section 4 Contemporary Mass Communication Theory
We end this chapter with a consideration of the media literacy movement,
which asserts that we should learn to assume more control over media so we can
avoid problems and make media serve our purposes. The movement draws on ideas
from many different meaning-making theories as well as from media effects theories,
and it provides a good illustration of a new trend in the discipline—translating theory
and research into action. Increasingly, media scholars, even postpositivists, see the
desirability of applying research findings so problems created by media can be
addressed and the positive influences of media can be enhanced.
SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM
symbolic
interactionism
Theory that people
give meaning
to symbols and
that those meanings
come to
control those
people
social
behaviorism
View of learning
that focuses on
the mental processes
and the social
environment
in which learning
takes place
Symbolic interactionism was one of the first social science theories to address questions
of how communication is involved with the way we learn culture and how
culture structures our everyday experience. Symbolic interaction theory developed
during the 1920s and 1930s as a reaction to and criticism of behaviorism (see
Chapter 4), and it had a variety of labels until Herbert Blumer gave it its current
name in 1969. One early name was social behaviorism. Unlike traditional behaviorists,
social behaviorists rejected simplistic conceptualizations of stimulusresponse
conditioning. They were convinced that attention must be given to the
cognitive processes mediating learning. They also believed that the social environment
in which learning takes place must be considered. Traditional behaviorists
tended to conduct laboratory experiments in which animals were exposed to certain
stimuli and conditioned to behave in specific ways. Social behaviorists judged
these experiments too simplistic. They argued that human existence was far too
complex to be understood through conditioning of animal behavior.
George Herbert Mead (1934), a University of Chicago philosopher and social
activist, provided a way of understanding social life that differed profoundly from
behaviorist notions. Rather than observe rats running through mazes, he proposed
a better way to understand how people learn to make sense of everyday life and
structure their actions. He suggested we look at how people learn to play baseball
(or any team sport). How do we learn to play these games? Surely not by reading
textbooks titled The Theory of Playing Second Base. Not simply through stimulusresponse
conditioning as we get rewarded or punished for specific actions. Mead
argued that what occurs on a playing field is a sophisticated form of mutual conditioning:
the players teach each other how to play the game while they are playing
it. Players must learn to structure their actions in very complex ways to cover their
positions effectively. But each position must be played differently, so teammates
can’t simply mimic one another. According to Mead, each player learns a social
role—the pitcher role, the catcher role, or the left fielder role. Each role is learned
by observing and modeling good players and by interacting with other team members.
As they play, team members receive encouragement and friendly criticism
from teammates and fans. If they play well, they have the satisfaction of being accepted
by others as a productive member of a social unit.
Mead saw a baseball team as a microcosm of society. Each of us learns many
different social roles through interaction with others. Our actions are subtly “conditioned”
by others, while at the same time we are affecting their actions. The goal is
not to manipulate or dominate each other but to create and sustain a productive
Copyright 2010 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.