2. Name: Justin Ooi (26260611) Monash University
Subject: Contemporary Media Theory (AMU2450)
Essay title: Major Essay
Due Date: 9/10/15
Word Count: 2093
1
The liberal-democratic approach and the Althusserian approach both conceptualize the
notion of the individual and its relationship to the media in contrasting ways. This paper will
analyse the fundamental outlooks of both these approaches and how they differ in their
theorization of the notion of the individual and its relationship with the media. It will start by
exploring this notion through the liberal-democratic approach, and will proceed to Althusserian
approach respectively.
Firstly, before discussing the liberal-democratic theorization of the individual and the
media, this paper will look at the origins of the liberal-democratic concept of the individual.
The individual, according to this approach, is seen as an autonomous and rational being. In the
western-society context, the origins of this notion stems from within the Greco-Christian
doctrine in which the individual, or in this case the Christian believer, is an ‘independent moral
entity’ who is ‘self-governed’. Moreover, the Reformation, which resulted in Christian
sectarian movements, supplemented the notion of the individual by linking its identity with
‘self-consciousness’, which established the concept of ‘unmediated relation between person
and God’. In having such attributes, the individual is, thus, responsible only for his or her own
actions and is not subjected to anyone except God. Hence, the liberal-democratic approach
extends this assumption of the individual as autonomous and rational to the modern-day
concept of person (Hirst & Woolley, 1982, p. 119).
However, despite the notion of ‘individual autonomy’, the liberal-democratic approach
theorize that the individual is not an ‘isolated personality but is also a member of various
groups’ to which he or she is part of (Bennett, 1982, p. 35). It sees mass society as
‘heterogeneous’, made up of groups comprising of individuals who are of different
backgrounds, traits, and world-views. This is construed as a positive thing as liberal-democratic
theorist Edward Shils argues that this ‘hotch-potch of differing regional, ethnic, religious and
economic primary groupings’ allowed the ‘dissolution of non-rational forms of social
attachment, the weakening of traditional ties and obligations, and the attenuation of the power
of established hierarchies’ (cited in Bennett, 1982, pp. 35-36).
This notion of individuals in groups that make up mass society along with its
relationship with mass media, is construed as a good thing by the liberal-democratic approach
in that mass media assists individuals to become active participants in the exercising of their
autonomy and rationale whether in choosing elites for government or in choosing media
content for information and/or personal entertainment. This argument is in direct contrast to
Justin
O
oiM
onash
U
niversity
3. Name: Justin Ooi (26260611) Monash University
Subject: Contemporary Media Theory (AMU2450)
Essay title: Major Essay
Due Date: 9/10/15
Word Count: 2093
2
materialist schools of thought who critique mass media for its all-powerful nature over mass
society who, according to the ‘transmission model’, also known as the hypodermic needle
theory of mass communication, are passive and vulnerable recipients of its messages, rather
than autonomous, rational, and ‘not subjected to subversion by a few powerful or wealthy
manipulators’ as contended by the liberal-democratic approach (McQuail, 1994, pp. 44-45).
The liberal-democratic approach does not deny the existence of elitist rule in society as
its critics have contended. However, it posits that, individuals in mass society are vested with
the rights to determine who is to govern them through the use of their votes. In other words,
the liberal-democratic approach contends that it is not the elitists who have the power over the
individuals in society, but vice-versa. Moreover, democracy in motion within a heterogeneous
mass society works because the wide range of ‘competing groups’ in society enables a checks
and balances system which limits the ‘position of preponderance’ of one group over the others
(Bennett, 1982, pp. 35-36).
In democratic systems, the mass media’s role in society, according to the liberal-
democratic approach, is seen as a tool that works at the service of mass society. This is in
contrast to the Frankfurt school’s view of media as an ‘all-powerful’ and ‘omnipotent’ agent
of control on mass society of which governments use to dictate the masses. Through the works
of empirical research by social scientist such as Joseph Klapper (1968) and Paul Lazarsfeld
(cited in Klapper, 1968), liberal-democratic theorists argue that the media does not only play a
crucial role in ‘shaping the opinions, attitudes, and behaviour’, but also enables ‘media choice’
of the individual in mass society (McQuail, 1994, p. 329). In addition, the media is seen to
serve mass society in that it interacts with it, for example, with significant social movements
such as environmental preservation, minority rights, and peace protests among other things
(McQuail, 1994, p. 332).
This argument of ‘media choice’ of the audience by the empirical research tradition is
supported by the tradition’s research methods which gather data of audiences’ viewership of
media. In a classic study by Lazarsfeld and his fellow researches in the mid-nineteenth century,
it was discovered that audiences undergo certain selective processes in their viewing and
consumption of media. These selective processes of the audience suggest that viewers choose
what they want to watch; have tendencies to uphold certain attitudes against media content
through his or her ‘predisposition’; and are prone to subscribe to the influence of ‘opinion
leaders’ in a ‘phenomenon’ known as the ‘two step flow of communication’ (Klapper, 1968,
Justin
O
oiM
onash
U
niversity
4. Name: Justin Ooi (26260611) Monash University
Subject: Contemporary Media Theory (AMU2450)
Essay title: Major Essay
Due Date: 9/10/15
Word Count: 2093
3
pp. 82-85). Thus, despite the liberal-democratic view of media as a powerful entity and ‘agents
of reinforcement’, they take on the idea that the individual has the autonomy to select, oppose,
and consume freely the information from the media and, therefore, is not subjected to control
of the media as contented by the Frankfurt school and other materialism theorists.
The use of media by the individual is also explored by the liberal-democratic approach
through the ‘uses and gratifications approach’ which contend that individuals use media not
only to consume information, but to satisfy needs such as ‘personal guidance, relaxation,
security, shared topics of conversation, and a structure to the daily routine’ (McQuail, 1997, p.
70). Thus, this ‘autonomy’ of individuals in society affects how the media ‘shape content
before delivering it to the audience’ which suggests that the media does not simply disseminate
information, but tailors it according to the interests of the people and their ‘social reality’
(McQuail, 1994, p. 331; McQuail, 1997, p. 71). Hence, this positions the individual in his or
her relationship with the media as ‘consumers’ (1994, p. 257), accentuating the notion of the
individual in the liberal-democratic approach as autonomous and rational.
The Althusserian approaches’ theorization of the individual, on the other hand, differs
significantly compared to the liberal-democratic tradition. The approach, which is based on the
writings of French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, argues primarily that the individual is
a subject that is hailed and interpellated into being through the work of ideology (Barker, 2012,
p. 64).
Ideology, as Althusser (1999) argues, comes in two forms. The first form ‘represents
the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence’ (p. 317). Put
simply, this form of ideology constitutes the world views and perceptions of people groups
which reflects the ‘reality’ that is in existence. However, he argues these ‘realities’ are
‘imaginary representations’ of ideologies that men use to make sense of their existence and
their world such as religious, political, and ethical ideology (pp. 317-318). The second form of
ideology has a material existence, which Althusser argues, comes in the form of ‘Ideological
State Apparatuses’ (ISAs) that transmit ideologies to individuals. By ISAs, he means to
describe the institutions, such as the nuclear family, education systems, law institutions, and
mass media that are in place in society to interpellate individuals through ideological
transmission and makes him or her into what he constitutes as a ‘subject’ (Barker, 2012, pp.
64-65).
Justin
O
oiM
onash
U
niversity
5. Name: Justin Ooi (26260611) Monash University
Subject: Contemporary Media Theory (AMU2450)
Essay title: Major Essay
Due Date: 9/10/15
Word Count: 2093
4
Althusser (1999) contends that the individual becomes a ‘subject’ even before birth. At
this point of the individual’s life, he or she is interpellated into being through ‘familial
ideological configuration’ of which he or she is identified as either boy or girl, thus, pre-
appointing the role of the newly-born individual. Consequently, Althusser argues, the
individual then learns how to ‘find’ his or her ‘place’ from within the family. As the individual
progresses in age, he or she is then socialized into society through educational systems and law
institutions that teach him or her how to function in a way that is regarded as ‘normal’ in society
(p. 321). Simply put, the ISAs that are in place in society hail or interpellate the individual into
roles that is predestined for him or her. However, if for some reason, should the individual fail
to internalize the ideologies imparted by the ISAs, will the ‘repressive state apparatuses’
(RSAs) be called to take action. RSAs are coercive institutions such as the army, prison
systems, and the police that are in place in society to be deployed whenever there is a need to
punish non-conforming individuals. Thus, the ISAs and the RSAs, regardless of the
individual’s receptiveness to the ‘dominant ideology’, are in place to ensure that there is
conformity (O'Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2002, p. 113).
The term ‘dominant ideology’ or ‘ruling ideology, as Althusser puts it, refers to the
kind that is deployed by the ruling class. He contends, that in capitalistic societies, these
ideologies are ‘myths’ created by the ‘bourgeoisie’ in favour of their capitalistic rule (cited in
O'Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2002, p. 214). Thus, through the state apparatuses, the ruling class
convinces the rest of society to obtain these ideologies to the extent that it becomes a normality
to them, living these ideologies ‘not as a form of consciousness…, but as… their [the
individual’s] ‘world’ itself’ (p. 214), and as a result, strengthening ‘hegemonic’ rule in society
(Thwaites, Davis, & Mules, 2002, p. 169). In other words, individuals are interpellated through
ideologies that offer ‘roles’ that position them to accept these ideologies as their reality. So
much so, individuals who are imbued with these ‘hegemonic’ ideologies, come to a point of
desiring none other than these ‘realities’ offered in ‘hegemonic’ systems (p. 169). Hence, the
individual in this view is not seen as primarily ‘autonomous’ but as ‘subjects’ to bigger
‘subjects’ - the members of the ruling class in society.
In the Althusserian approach, the media is seen as an ISA that is a powerful ‘hailing
system’ that works to augment this hegemony in society and the ‘dominant ideology’
(O'Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2002, pp. 204,216). O’Shaughnessy and Stadler (2002) contend
that the media does this by producing programs or broadcasts that uphold the ideological values
of the ruling classes by hailing social groups under a ‘unifying label’. Although most of these
Justin
O
oiM
onash
U
niversity
6. Name: Justin Ooi (26260611) Monash University
Subject: Contemporary Media Theory (AMU2450)
Essay title: Major Essay
Due Date: 9/10/15
Word Count: 2093
5
labels such as ‘family members’, ‘Australians’ / ‘Malaysians’, and ‘members of public’ are not
wrong, the media suggest that these interpellated groups share similarities in goals, needs,
wants, and desires (p. 217). In the bigger picture, the media works in a way that gives
individuals a sense of ‘identity’ and ‘subjectivity’ through being hailed and interpellated. In
this sense, the individuals’ ‘identities’ are predetermined and their ‘subjectivity’ is of ‘someone
to something’, or to someone else (p. 208).
Furthermore, the media as ISAs, transmit ideology through its portrayal of certain
groups as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in their programs. For example, in police dramas, criminal characters
are often portrayed as deviant individuals who succumb to criminal activities as a result of his
or her ‘disorders’ or ‘psychological problems’. Such representations tend to portray this
‘criminal as typical of a certain group’. Similarly, the tendency is also in place to portray the
hero as typical of another group (p. 218). Thus, this ideological representation which typifies
certain groups serves as a way of reminding the population what is considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’
behaviour in society.
The theorizations of the notion of the individual and its relationship to the media of
both the liberal-democratic approach and the Althusserian approach are complex and differs
significantly. On one hand, the liberal-democratic approach, sees the individual as ‘rational’
and ‘autonomous’, having almost an equal balance of power in relation to the media in the way
that he or she selects information and content. On the other hand, the Althusserian approach
argues that the individual is, on the contrary, a subject that has been imparted with a ‘dominant
ideology’ that has become his or her ‘reality’ through the hailing and interpellating activities
of ISAs of which the media is part of. The Althusserian approach, thus, sees media together
with other ISAs as placing the individual in a position of subjectivity to other bigger subjects
such as members of the ruling class – the elites. Thus, the liberal-democratic and the
Althusserian approaches present to us meaningful insights of the individual and its relationship
with the media, enabling us to further understand the powers at play within society.
Justin
O
oiM
onash
U
niversity
7. Bibliography
Althusser, L. (1999). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. In J. Evans, & S. Hall (Eds.), Visual
Culture: The Reader (pp. 317-323). London: Sage.
Barker, C. (2012). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice (4th ed.). London: Sage.
Bennett, T. (1982). Theories of the Media and Society. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J.
Woollaccot (Eds.), Culture, Society and the Media. Methuen.
Hirst, P. Q., & Woolley, P. (1982). Concepts of Person and Repertoires of Conduct. In Social Relations
and Human Attributes (pp. 118-121). London: Tavistock Publications.
Klapper, J. (1968). Communication, Mass: Effects. In D. E. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the
social sciences (pp. 81-89). New York: Macmillian and Free Press.
McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction. London: Sage.
McQuail, D. (1997). A Functionalist Model: The Uses and Gratifications Approach. In Audience
Analysis (pp. 69-75). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
O'Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J. (2002). Where is Ideology Found? In Media and Society: An
Introduction (2nd ed., pp. 196-221). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Thwaites, T., Davis, L., & Mules, W. (2002). Ideology. In Introducing Cultural and Media Studies: A
Semiotic Approach (pp. 158-170). Hampshire: Palgrave.
Justin
O
oiM
onash
U
niversity
