The Sociology of Mass Media

An introduction to the neo-Marxist perspective

Neo-Marxism reviewed…

• A late-modern interpretation/adaptation of traditional Marxism

• Cultural superstructure still loosely based on the “guiding string” (Williams, R. 1961) of economic infrastructure (base)

(left) traditional Marxism’s infrastructure-superstructure model of economy and culture

.

• Chance (randomness), and individual autonomy (freedom

of action) mean there much in the superstructure

doesn’t correspond to individual/groups’

market position or economic class

see Williams, R. (1961) quote p735

.- Social class/identity as not solely, directly based on economic

capital; cultural capital associated with the lifestyle habitus of social groups makes things more complex (Bourdieu, P. 1984)

.

• much overlap between cultures, and

alternatives to the dominant ideology (Williams, R. 1961)

.• Individuals often deliberately counter the dominant

ideologies…(although even this can be viewed sociologically as having a pro-capitalist function) (Willis, P. 1986)

.• Individuals do experience a false consciousness- they are

blinded to the reality of their own experience by a ruling-class dominated cultural superstructure and dominant ideology…but they also semi-aware of this reality, and

sometimes choose whether to live by it or not…dual consciousness Gramsci, A.

(1971)

.

• Alongside its less structuralist outlook, less based on some

idea of a deliberate, ingenious and secretive scheme of the ruling classes; rather the unfair, exploitative reality as largely unplanned inevitable result of free individual actions in the capitalist marketplace

(Left) Ne0-Marxism avoids “conspiracy-based” grand-plan theory

.

Neo-Marxism and the Mass MediaThe Glasgow

University Media Group

.Neo-Marxism: less emphasis on a deliberate, planned “logic of capitalism” in explaining content and effect

Rather, dominant ideology is reproduced naturally; the pursuit of economic interests

.

The G. U. M. G. influenced by Frankfurt scholars e.g. Adorno, who referred to the culture industry as the automatic result of capitalism

.

.

.

Cultural hegemony of the ruling groups is maintained

(below) White, middle-class, male: cultural hegemony

The culture industry reflects the interests of the dominant groups; and largely ignores less empowered groups

.

The masses are being duped by white, middle-class male advertisers, journalists, editors, producers etc …. But this is to maximize audiences and revenues; not at the request of governments

.• The GUMG point out that the 2006 Sutton Trust report found that journalists, editors and advertising chiefs were +50% privately educated…

• …in a country where only 7% are

• Of the “top 100” journalists, 54% privately educated (up from 49% in

1986)

.• GUMG ask: is this healthy for

society?

• Journalists and broadcasters tend to hold centre-right/centre-left views; unthreatening to the status quo (but still interesting enough to sell)

.• Those who hold further-left/right views seen as “extremists” and given as much airtime/column inches

• That which is broadcast is often criticized or ridiculed

.Journalistic consensus and

agenda setting

Inoffensive value consensus of journs. and broadcasters dictates which issues to address and avoid

The GUMG says this creates a too-narrow field of discussion; ignoring the “real issues” or clouding our vision of them

Viewers more likely to be made angry by events in a soap opera or football match than about poverty or exploitation

Declining role of public service broadcasting

• GUMG argue that state-owned media e.g. BBC is lowering its standards; more commercialized and populist

• Largest audiences achieved by finding the lowest common denominator in terms on content

• This means more soap operas, reality Tvand sport…less hard-hitting documentaries and case studies