Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Political communications. Lecture course. Курс лекций
.pdf
tween the wars, the most powerful channel of communication,
television, was spreading, and its role today for individual generations in countries with closed political regimes can hardly be
overestimated. Secondly, as a result of the emergence of new
democracies and the escalation of the Cold War, propaganda
and political communication technologies were given the opportunity for further practical application. Thirdly, the social
sciences themselves, including political communications began
to experience a huge influence of mathematical (C.E. Shannon, W. Weawer), cybernetic (N. Wiener, K. Deutsch), systems approaches and the functionalism (T. Parsons, D. Easton,
R. Merton, G. Almond) had a great influence on the concepts
of political communication. As a result, many specific models
of political communications are offered at the same time by different researchers.
It is believed that the first researcher who proposed a general universal model of political communications was Lasswell.
This model since 1943 is still used by many practitioners today.
Lasswell like many of his colleagues explored the role of propaganda and interpreted it as a process of managing collective
preferences by means of manipulating significant symbols.
Lasswell’s formulas was based on the following principle: “The
most appropriate way to describe a communication act is to
answer the following questions: Who says? What? To whom?
In which channel? With what effect?” In other words, the five
elements in this model were the communicator, the message,
the recipient, the communication channel, and the effect.
It was this one-sided vision of the recipient as the passive side
of the communicative process that predetermined the development of the magic bullet theories mentioned earlier (Pic. 1.1).
Within the framework of the mathematical approach
(C.E. Shannon, W. Weawer “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, 1949), the Lasswell’s model was practically reproduced with the same structure (Pic. 1.2). So, the basic elements of communication included: 1) an information source
that produces a message; 2) a transmitter that operates on the
11
message to create a signal which can be sent through a channel;
3) a channel, which is the medium over which the signal, carrying the information that composes the message, is sent; 4) a receiver, which transforms the signal back into the message intended for delivery; 5) a destination, which can be a person or
a machine, for whom or which the message is intended.
LASSWELL’S MODEL
WHO
COMMUNICATOR
SAYS
WHAT
MESSAGE
IN WHICH
CHANNEL
MEDIUM
TO
WHOM
RECEIVER
WITH
WHAT
EFFECT?
EFFECT
Pic. 1.1. Lasswell’s Model
Information
Source
Transmitter
Signal
Received
Signal
Receiver Destination
Message Message
Noise
Source
Pic. 1.2. Mathematical model of political communication
The most important milestone in the development of political communications was the results of Wilbur Schramm’s activities. In 1943 he became director of the School of Journalism
at the University of Iowa, then became director of the Institute
for Communication Research at the School of Journalism at the
University of Illinois and this was the first American doctoral
program in mass communication.
12
Message
Encoder
Interpreter
Decoder
Message
Рис. 1.3. Interactive/Circular model of communication
Decoder
Interpreter
Encoder
It is noteworthy that while working at the same time with
Laswell, Schramm does not consider communication as a oneway influence, it is an interactive process where the role of communicators and recipients is not important. The transmission,
encoding, decoding and recoding of information are presented in the Schramm’s Model as a continuous process (Pic. 1.3).
It is a dynamic model showing the development of a situation,
it does not separate the sender and the receiver, at a certain
point in time one person plays both roles. This makes both parties active participants in the interaction. For the first time,
the theory is put forward that the communication process is not
finite and linear, but circular and for the first time, emphasis
is placed on feedback. Circular allows both parties to express an
opinion. Schramm was the first to clearly show how correct and
accurate message was necessary for correct perception.
In addition to the characteristics of the actors involved
in the communication process, the features of encoding and
interpreting information, the most important area of research
in political communications at the initial stages was the study
of the role of intermediaries (mass media, opinion leaders, journalists, professionals in the field of politics and communica-
13
tions, political leaders, ...) in with what effect the interaction
is carried out. Thus, within the framework of the theory of twostage communication, the main role in the communication process belonged to mediators-opinion leaders who independently
interpret the information received from the communicator and,
based on their own understanding, transmit it to mass audiences (B. Berelson, F. Lazarsfeld, K. McPhee; H. Gaudet; A. Katz).
In other words, society was not as homogeneous as the theorists
of mass society have tried to represent, there were so-called
opinion leaders in it. During political campaigns, an increase
in the amount of political information transmitted through
communication channels did not lead to the formation of broad
layers of enlightened citizens. Opinion leaders themselves interpreted and presented information to the masses in this
way they formed an attitude to the problems and the agenda. As a refinement of two-stage communication, the concept
of three-stage communication appeared, and the idea of multi-stage communication (F. Lazarsfeld, R. Merton).
The systematic approach, which was gaining popularity
in the middle of the last century, linked the nature and degree
of development of political communications with how stable or
vulnerable the political system as a whole was. The main function (T. Parsons) or even the basis (G. Almond) of any political
system was represented by the actual communications that determined the functioning of the entire policy (“at the input”
in the form of requirements and support for the ruling regime,
in the decision-making process and at the “output” in the form
of laws, strategies, doctrines, programs, etc.) Underdevelopment of political communication was considered as one of the
reasons for the low adaptability of the political system, leading
to a loss of support from the population and political instability. However, in addition to the development of media channels,
their independence was of great importance.
Such an understanding of the place and role of political
communications made it possible to take a fresh look at the
socio-political development of countries and world regions,
14
giving the development of a new political science discipline –
a comparative approach. Taking into account the historical
events of the mid-twentieth century (the destruction of the colonial system and the redivision of the world after the Second
World War, the independence of the former colonies and their
choice of development models, the aggravation of the military,
ideological and economic confrontation between the USSR and
the USA and their struggle for world domination) prompted
Western researchers to the development of the concepts of political modernization and democratization.
Exploring and describing different types of societies, Western
researchers singled out the most developed modern society, the
main characteristics of which were availability of modern equipment for mass communications and a fairly large social group
of professionals employed in this area and a feedback. The real
embodiment of modern society was Western democracies with
an ideal – the United States. The opposite type of society were
traditional and totalitarian systems, which had such features as
unstructured communications, no professional communicators,
transmission of information along hierarchical lines, complete
dependence on the structure of social relations and on the content
of political messages (L. Pye). For those countries that were faced
with a choice (the so-called transit societies) with weak technological development of the mass media and unevenness of their penetration throughout the country, no feedback, Western theorists
have proposed ways to transition to modernity:
• an increase in information flows caused by the expansion
of the political horizon from events of a local level to events
of a national and global nature;
• wider participation of citizens in political events and
decision-making, which, in turn, requires additional channels
of communication;
• continuous training in new forms of socio-political
and professional activity, based on the use of new communication channels, distance and indirect forms of education
(W. Schramm).
15
Supporters of neo-Marxism noted the dual role of the media
(T. Adorno, M. Horkheimer, J. Habermas). The media, on the
one hand, act as a means of production and a source of enrichment for the bourgeoisie, and on the other hand, as an instrument of ideological control over the working people. A vital element for democracy is the public sphere, which includes public
media, democratic debate and public political decision-making.
Neo-Marxists proposed measures to create a public sphere: the
media, public libraries, free political campaigning, public scrutiny of trials and legislation. The public sphere was in a state
of intense struggle with the capitalist system, which was not
interested in spending resources on public policy. Thus, modern Western democracies appeared as a compromise form
of government, in which the means of communication played
a system-forming role.
Thus, the development of political communication based on
free media, education and political participation of citizens was
seen as a universal process leading eventually to the emergence
of more and more democracies
Genesis of research. Modern concepts
of political communications
The theory of political communications at the end of the
20th century developed under the influence of the theory of the
information society and media theory. The transition to a postmodern society, the increasing role of knowledge, the development of the Internet, a new technological order have led to
the enrichment of political communications studies and shifts
in the subject of research towards increased personalization
and individualization of communication actors.
The information revolution and the widespread dissemination of information technologies play a colossal role. Researchers pay attention to the social processes taking place under the
influence of the information revolution. In the most popular
theories of the second half of the 20th century, explaining mod-
16
ern social processes, the term “post-industrial society” is used.
E. Toffler argued that the media increase the demassification
of society, which entails “a huge jump in the amount of information, which people exchange with each other, and therefore the society becomes informational”. Obviously, the issues
of regulating the sphere of information became political priorities, but great difficulties arose due to the peculiarities of information resources in the modern world.
In modern world politics, information is at the same time
the most important resource, an instrument of international influence and an environment for interaction. At the same
time, information has a number of unique properties that distinguish it from material resources. First of all – inalienability:
the transfer or exchange of information in most cases does not
imply its alienation from one subject for the benefit of another. Information security implies a guarantee of preserving its
certain properties – objectivity, accessibility, integrity, confidentiality, efficiency, etc. Information resources consist of two
complementary elements – content and infrastructure. Issues
of information policy acquired particular importance in the
1990s, when the dissemination of information technologies acquired a revolutionary character. Obviously, it is impossible to
apply the same methods of regulation to information as to other resources. The problem is compounded by the fact that the
production and consumption of information is much more individual than industrial goods and other resources. The information revolution has significantly expanded the political and
economic opportunities of individuals on a global scale, which
has become one of the most difficult challenges to state sovereignty. In particular, British researchers argue that “interaction via the Internet allows citizens to independently perform
functions previously performed by the state” (J. Micklethwait,
A. Wooldridge).
Supporters of the technotronic era concept (Z. Brzezinski)
argue that the influence of computers and communications is
manifested in the emergence of a paradox: on the one hand, tra-
17
ditional relationships are destroyed, the life of individuals is
fragmented, on the other hand, a global, holistic worldview is
formed. The unfolding technotronic revolution is global in nature, and mass culture, broadcast by electronic means of communication, is becoming universal. Superiority in the global
information space is the most important potential in the modern world, and control over information flows is the most important lever of foreign policy influence. The role of the United
States in the production of communications equipment and the
creation of mass samples of culture is difficult to overestimate.
Media theory was developed by Toronto school (H. Innis,
M. McLuhan, Q. Fiore, G. Heyer).
Innis offered the periodization of human history according
to fundamental communication inventions. Thus, he distinguished three stages:
1) primitive preliterate culture with oral forms of commu-
nication and information transfer;
2) written and printed culture (“Gutenberg’s galaxy”),
which replaced naturalness and collectivism with individualism;
3) the modern stage (“global village”), reviving the natural
auditory-visual multidimensional perception of the world and
collectivity, but on a new electronic basis through the replacement of written and printed languages of communication with
radio-television and network mass communications.
McLuhan developed the idea that the means of communication had a huge impact on the behavior of both individuals and
social groups, the means of communication influenced the development of human civilization as a whole. G. Heyer is sure
that the transformation of basic information into knowledge
is a structured process. It is strongly influenced by the means
of material embodiment of information, so the means of storing
and transmitting information are not neutral. How we organize
and communicate our knowledge of the world has a profound
effect on the nature of our perception of the world and how we
perceive the world.
18
According to R. Deibert, the Internet and new information technologies have a significant impact on politics. However, this influence is not strictly determined. They contribute
to the strengthening of the political influence of certain social
groups. It is global computer networks – and especially the Internet – that have seriously changed the possibilities and strength
of transnational social movements. They made it possible to form
a global civil society, typical manifestations of which are, for example, the Anti-Globalization movement or Greenpeace.
Developing the ideas of representatives of the systemic, functional approaches of the mid-twentieth century, John
Naisbitt and Patricia Aberden also argue that new information technologies and, in particular, the Internet, contribute
to democratic processes and hinder authoritarian regimes.
The network approach to the study of politics and political
communications is receiving particular development. Therefore, M. Castells analyzes modern society through the prism
of the influence of the emerging global economy and international financial markets. “…In the information age, the historical trend leads to the fact that the dominant functions and
processes are more and more organized according to the principle of networks” (M. Castells). Modern information technologies create the necessary prerequisites not only for creating
a global financial system, but also lead to the rapid development of new forms of political communication, including those
based on the Internet. As an example of new political processes,
M. Castells speaks of various groups of social protest. A popular topic for research on political communications is also the
study of the deepening of the process of mediatization of politics (W. Schultz). In the modern world, the media have already
become an integral part of political life, they have replaced political parties, lobbying and socio-political organizations.
In order to identify the problems in the theory and research
of political communication that require study at the beginning
of the 21st century, in March 2010, at the initiative of the
Pennsylvania State University, an international symposium
19
“Transnational Relations: Challenges and Opportunities for Political Communication” was held. Taking into account the most
important trends of the 2010s: globalization and strengthening
transnational ties in all spheres of life society and the growing
importance of media technology, Scientists have tried to work
out a common position regarding a number of important issues
of content:
• Should researchers consider media communications and
political communications as transnational phenomena?
• What are the similarities and differences between the scientific schools of political communications in the United States
and other countries? How does the practice of organizing political communications differ in countries with political systems
of Western and non-Western types?
• What are the challenges and opportunities for international cooperation and international research in the field
of communication? How to integrate the theory of political
communication, developed in the USA, with concepts developed
in other countries? How to organize the exchange of results?
• How to research political communication in the context
of the prevalence of new information technologies? What kind
of aspects should prevail in research?
In this regard, over the past 20 years, the main direction
of research on political communications has been the specifics
of communications in social networks, including the discussion
and exchange of information in an environment influenced by
online relationships and the perceived expectations of those
who are in the social network, as well as the ability to level and
filter out “social noise” (H. Zimmerman).
It is encouraging that on some problematic points in the
world of communication science, agreement and conventionality has been reached, so scientists around the world consider it
necessary to investigate features of the organization and functioning of the national new media systems, the specifics of the
political structure of society and the dominant type of political
culture.
20
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]