1. The document discusses the emergence and characteristics of mass society. Mass society first emerged in the late 19th century during the Second Industrial Revolution as large impersonal institutions replaced traditional social structures. 2. Key characteristics of mass society include homogeneity, extended scale of organizations, collectivities like families becoming more localized, and reliance on local face-to-face communication over mediated communication. 3. Mass society emerged alongside industrialization, which led to exploitation of laborers, as well as developments in education, leisure, women's rights, and changes to social structures. Universal education and expanded literacy contributed to the growth of mass media and new forms of leisure.

1. Nusrat Azeema
Assignment
At
AIOU
Q: 1 what are the characteristics of mass society?How did the concept of mass societyemerge?
Explainhow the theory of mass societyinfluencedmasscommunicationtheory and research?
Mass Society:
Mass society is any society of the modern era that possesses a mass culture and large-scale,
impersonal, social institutions. A mass society is a society in which prosperity and bureaucracy
have weakened traditional social ties." Basically it is the type of society we have in western
countries. Large scale official Institutions have (to a great extend) replaced traditional systems -
like a village Committee or clan structures with the clan leader having all the power). You have
mass culture - and mass media (basically everyone everywhere sees the same in TV and listens
to the same music).
A society whose members are characterized by having segmentalized,impersonal relations, a hig
h degree of physical and social mobility, aspectator relation to events, and a pronounced tendenc
y to conform toexternal popular norms. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of
time studying the history and cultural evolution of the United States, I'm constantly in awe of the
speed with which digital technology has changed American lives. The internet, for example, has
opened new channels for expression and communication that, only a short time ago would have
been considered science fiction by most people.
Mass society is a description associated with society in the modern, industrial era. Mass society
first came about in the late 19th century during and after the Second Industrial Revolution. Mass
society as an ideology can be accounted for by attending to the term most often used as the polar
opposite of mass, namely elite. A form of society theoretically identified as dominated by a small
number of interconnected elites who control the conditions of life of the many, often by means of
persuasion and manipulation. This indicates the politics of mass society theorists; they are
advocates of various kinds of cultural elite who should be privileged and promoted over the
masses, claiming for themselves both exemption from and leadership of the misguided masses.
There are those, however, who feel as though such technological and cultural advances have led
Western societies towards greater disconnection and dysfunction. Regardless of how you feel
about technology, the fear that such rapid social change could weaken society is, at least in some
part due to the fact that it's happened before!
In a cultural or social context, a society that consists largely of disconnected groups and is
controlled by large impersonal institutions is known as a mass society. Although the term is
broad and without a clear and comprehensive definition, mass societies tend to be characterized
by a lack of cultural diversity, a strong commitment to capitalism or industry, and fragile or non-
existent social ties between groups.

2. The concept of the mass society emerged from the considerable social and cultural upheaval
brought on by the Industrial Revolution, which was occurring throughout the 19th century in the
United States and Europe. From the perspective of cultural critics, the Industrial Revolution
encouraged an unhealthy emphasis on capitalism and wealth, which tended to result in
exploitation of laborers.
Mass Society Theory’s Main Characteristics:
The main characteristics of the mass society in Europe at this time can be associated with the
Second Industrial Revolution, but other important features included a vastly improved urban
environment, new patterns of social structure, gender issues, and mass leisure. The Second
Industrial Revolution gave rise to new patterns of industrial production, mass consumption, and
working-class organization. New patters of industrial production were seen in the many new
materials and markets that were created by the Second Industrial Revolution. Such materials
were steel instead of iron and better chemicals were being used. Electricity was also
rediscovered, making for many improvements in other areas. Mass consumption obviously went
along with this, because as new products came out, it was natural that the general public would
want and need them. Working-class organization came out in the form of trade unions. Most
trade unions were unsuccessful because they were decentralized, but those in England and
Germany were exemplars of how unions should work.
A vastly improved urban environment was due to the need for more sanitary living conditions in
cities because the population had grown so much. One of the ways living conditions were
improved was the Public Health Act of 1875, which overall set regulations on housing to make it
more sanitary. Cities were also redesigned. One of the best examples of this was Paris under the
rule of Napoleon III.
Paris used to have a confusing layout and narrow streets, but Napoleon III made it much more
geometrical. He widened the streets for military reasons, but also added parks, town halls,
gardens, and fountains, making the city cleaner and more likeable.
New patterns of social structure also came about because of the rise in population. The classes
below the elite were seen to be intruding on the elite by those in the upper classes. The masses,
or lower classes, were doing and wearing things that used to be only for the elite, but now
anyone could do what the elite could do, because of revolutions in transportation and an
economic boost. This was seen in the leisure of the masses.
Gender issues came about over the role of women. It was much debated in this time period
whether women should continue their traditional role of staying at home with the children, or
joining the workforce. May women chose to join the workforce. This proved to be a good idea
for some, because there were many jobs to fill because of the Second Industrial Revolution.
1- Homogeneous in nature: The basic components of mass society are homogeneous. This
doesn’t mean that internal conflict or opposition is absent but all units are concerned
largely reveal the same characteristics and social structure.
2- Extended in scale: The mass society is marked by scale extension. Corporations,
governments and other organizations grow larger and larger and they become
bureaucracies.

3. 3- Collectivities: The basic components of mass society are large household and extended
families.
4- Local community space: The scope of mass society became local the organization of its
basic components is tied to particular places and communications is still overwhelmingly
local. The mass society is an assembly and connection of relatively homogenous separate
local places.
5- Face to Face communication: In general speaking face to face communication is much
more important than mediated communication in mass society.
6- Broadcast mass media: In every unit of community has access to only one or perhaps a
few of each type of mass media such as local newspaper or few radio and television
channels. So the numbers of channels are relatively low then current standards.
Mass Society Emergence:
Mass Society → Emerged with (Industrial capitalization and Labor)
(Education and Leisure)
(Women’s right)
(Social Structure)
 Mass Society Emergence in Labor and Industry
While the Industrial Revolution did produce considerable wealth for a small number of
people, critics were not entirely wrong in their claims of exploitation. For example, in the
United States, the mechanization of labor throughout the 19th century meant that in the
nation's two biggest industries (manufacturing and agriculture), jobs no longer required the
technical skills and physical strength that they had in the past. This opened up job
opportunities for many Americans, but it also created considerable competition for
employment, in which employers would often exploit women and minorities who would
work for lower wages.
These circumstances put Americans in direct competition with one another, which weakened
the bond between neighbors and co-workers, who were living under the constant threat of
unemployment. Because of these technological advances and rising demand for goods, the
American economic system developed into laissez-faire capitalism, which is a business
model that has few restrictions and is allowed to develop without interference from the
government. In this system, laborers tended to work long hours in dangerous environments,
often for low wages. The American industrial era is a good example of how a mass society
develops because, before it was reeled in by government regulations, it awarded a
considerable amount of power to a small number of business owners, who often oppressed
and exploited laborers.
 Mass Society Emergence in Education and Leisure
Universal education was the result of the mass societies of the late 19th and early 20th
century. New types of jobs required higher levels of education the ability to work in white-
collar jobs forced people to improve themselves universal education created a
large demand for teachers who were mostly women and paid less than men. Once the literacy
expanded, a mass media developed newspapers sprang up to appeal to this new reading

4. public new forms of leisure included amusement parks, dance halls, and organized sports
teams
 Mass Society Emergence in Women's Rights
Modern feminism had its beginning during the Enlightenment, when some women advocated
for equal rights based on the doctorate of natural rights. During this time, women began
arguing for equal rights against their husbands, to divorce and own their own property. Some
upper and upper-middle class women fought for and gained access to universities, while
others fought to enter professions and occupations dominated by men. Florence Nightingale
was the most famous British nurse and transformed nursing into a profession of trained,
middle-class "women in white". Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women's Society and
Political Union in 1903 that called to women's demands by publicity stunts.
 Mass Society Emergence in Social Structure
By the late 1800's, the standard of living had improved for many people. There are the three
classes in this society; The New Elite, The Middle Class and The Working Class.
 The New Elite: The elite did better than other classes and made up 5% of the population,
but controlled 30-40% of the wealth. The most successful industrialists, bankers,
and merchants joined an aristocracy to from the new elite. They began to replace people
and became leaders in the government and military. Members of the aristocracy began to
marry the new capitalists
 The Middle Class: The upper middle class included lawyers, doctors and engineers. The
lower middle class primarily consisted of small shopkeepers, traders and farmers. The
white-collar workers included salespeople, bookkeepers, and secretaries. All the middle
classes shared a certain lifestyle with values that dominated 19th century society. The
middle-class believed in hard work, going to church, and proper behavior
 The Working Class: Below the middle class were the working classes, which was 80% of
Europe's population. These people consisted of peasants and unskilled workers. After
1870, urban workers began to live more comfortably. Reformers had created better
housing and cleaner streets. Because workers went on strikes, they won a 10-hour
workday, with a Saturday off
Mass society Theory:
The major contributors to mass society theory, including Alexis de Tocqueville, Emile
Durkheim, Emil Lederer, José Ortega y Gasset, Robert Nisbet, Hannah Arendt, Herbert Blumer,
William Kornhauser, Ferdinand Tonnies, and Karl Mannheim, will be described. The main
criticisms of mass society theory, namely the limited effects model, will be discussed.
Mass society theory is an interdisciplinary critique of the collective identity that results from the
mass commodification of culture and the mass media's manipulation of society. Mass society
theory invokes a vision of society characterized by alienation, absence of individuality,
amorality, lack of religion, weak relationships, and political apathy. Mass society theory

5. developed at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century in response
to the rise of the media industry and the socio-political changes created by industrialization,
urbanization, and the fall of established political regimes. Major contributors to mass society
theory include Alexis de Tocqueville, Emile Durkheim, Emil Lederer, José Ortega y Gasset,
Robert Nisbet, Hannah Arendt, Herbert Blumer, William Kornhauser, Ferdinand Tönnies, and
Karl Mannheim.
Early mass society theory asserted that the new urban masses, comprising uprooted and isolated
individuals, were vulnerable to new forms of demagoguery and manipulation by the media
(Hamilton, 2001). While popular media existed in the nineteenth century, mass media, as a
discrete concept, did not develop until the early twentieth century with the advent of national
circulation newspapers and national media networks like nationwide radio. To mass society
theorists, the media represents and promotes the worst problems of modernity. Early proponents
of the theory believed that mass society is characterized by a collective identity and low-brow
cultural interests. Because of these characteristics, they believed that dictatorships and
bureaucracies can easily and quickly manipulate mass societies, making them vulnerable to
extremist politics and the rise of disenfranchised .
Mass society theory belongs to the larger body of interdisciplinary work called social movement
theory. Social movement theory refers to the study of social mobilization, including its social,
cultural, and political manifestations and consequences. Social movement scholarship is often
motivated by a desire for social change and, consequently, integrates scholarship and activism.
The field took shape during the late nineteenth century and has since come to comprise six main
areas of study: mass society theory, relative deprivation theory, resource mobilization theory,
structural-strain theory, value-added theory, and new social movement theory. At its score, social
movement theory holds that social movements are, in many instances, created through the use
and manipulation of frames, or cognitive structures which guide an individual's or group's
perception of reality. Social movements influence and control their members through tactics such
as mobilizing fear, engaging in frame appropriation, social constructionism, and counterframing.
Sociologists analyze social movements in two distinct ways: social constructionist perspective
and frame analysis (Benford & Snow 2000).
Mass society theory emerged as a discrete field of interest at the turn of the century, in part as a
result of the changes that scholars saw occurring in society as effects of industrialization,
urbanization, and political change (Mackie, 1978). During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the
rise of industrialization and urbanization changed society. The industrial era in Europe and
America, which approximately spanned from 1750 to 1900, was a time characterized by the
replacement of manual labor with industrialized and mechanized labor, as well as by the
adoption of the factory system of production. The industrial era included the period of the
industrial revolution and the resulting rise of capitalism. The industrial revolution refers to the
technical, cultural, and social changes that occurred in the Western world during the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries. The period saw a major increase in the mechanization of agriculture,

6. manufacturing, and transportation (Ahmad, 1997). The industrial revolution—which brought
with it new types and conceptions of employment, time, scale, landscape, property, and social
relationships—caused great social change. The nineteenth century saw major transformations in
gender and class hierarchies, family units, gender relations, immigrants' roles in society, and
childhood. The industrial revolution, with its increased need for workers, created a new working,
middle, and consumer classes. The family unit and gender roles changed, too, during the period,
largely as because of the factory system which employed both men and women and removed the
workplace from the home (Abelson, 1995). Mass society theory suggests that all these social
changes created politically and psychologically unmoored masses. According to the theory,
demagogues, or political leaders who achieve power by preying on people's emotions or
prejudices, could easily manipulate these emerging mass.
The rise of the media industry in the twentieth century provided a formal means of
communication that was accessible to almost everyone in a society. Early theorists and the ruling
classes quickly came to see it as being largely responsible for publicizing and disseminating the
changes, unrest, and discontent which typified the period. They blamed the mass media (like the
penny press newspapers that were popular during the 1830s) for giving credence to and
perpetuating the industrial era's discontent, alienation, and decline in community (Hamilton,
2001). As a result, it came to be seen as a symbol of all that was wrong with society. Mass
society theory grew out of these concerns. It holds that the mass media has the power to change
cultural norms and power relations, and can thus contribute to and change the social order. As
such, it can work to shape people's perceptions of the world.
Mass society theory tends to emphasize the breakdown of the primary groups in society such as
the family and neighborhood. The theory does not apply to all modern societies, but rather to the
most fragmented and decentralized political economies. These societies are most vulnerable to
becoming mass societies because they contain vacuums created by declining participation in
religious organizations, unions, political parties, and voluntary associations. In the absence of
such communal associations, the mass media, which provides both communication and
entertainment, steps in to fill the void (Kreisler, 2002). Mass society theory is less prevalent
today than it was during the early to mid twentieth century. That said, mass society theorists
continue to critique the relationship between society and the mass media, and have renewed their
efforts by incorporating new media such as the Internet.
The structure of mass society
Large populations do not by themselves produce mass relations, although mass relations are less
likely among small populations. In the past, large societies were divided into many segments
with relatively clear boundaries separating each segment from the other. Even though a society
contained thousands of villages, all of them much alike, it was not a mass society because human
relations centered on the village and supported the integrity of the village as a social unit.

7. Unlike the village-based society, the mass society does not help to sustain spontaneously
evolving and durable social units. “Mass” in its simplest sense means an aggregate of people
without distinction of groups or individuals. In mass production, for example, workers are
organized according to the logic of specialization and control rather than as members of social
groups or as distinct persons, and production is geared to a market of similarly undifferentiated
people. Mass production, of course, involves a highly structured mass, by virtue of the division
of labor and administrative organization, and it is therefore to be distinguished from the
unstructured mass represented, for example, by the aggregate of unemployed workers. Moreover,
some industries have more of a mass character than others: the assembly-line system of automo-
bile factories is much more conducive to the emergence of the mass than is the craft-based
system of printing (Blauner 1964). Nevertheless, the mass character of the market is a decisive
factor in the organization of most manufacturing industries.
It is not so much the large size of the population as it is the large scale of activities that favors
mass relations. Where the scale of activity is very great, it is more likely that the social relations
which individuals bring with them or develop will be easily ignored or transformed by the
dictates of technical efficiency or effective control. Thus, mass relations are likely to emerge
where large-scale activities predominate, as in nationwide organizations, markets, audiences, and
electorates.
The decline of community. Large-scale activities favor the emergence of the mass because they
tend to develop at the expense of communal relations. The local community comes to provide for
fewer of its members’ needs and therefore cannot maintain their allegiance. The rural community
no longer is isolated and self-sufficient. As it becomes dependent on the city, and particularly on
national markets and organizations, the rural community loses its significance and cohesion. The
city does not develop the communal life that was formerly provided by the rural community. The
individual who migrates to the city does not enter the community as a whole, nor is he likely to
enter a sub-community of the city. The urban subcommunity loses its coherence as a result of the
increasing scale and specialization of common activities. Instead of affiliation with a community,
the urban resident frequently experiences considerable social isolation and personal anonymity.
Ethnic and religious groups also tend to lose their coherence as their members are drawn into
large-scale organizations and arenas. Individuals derive less of their social identity, style of life,
and social values from their ethnic and religious back-ground. As ethnic cultures come in contact
with mass culture, they cease to preserve their unique qualities. Religious groups tend to de-
emphasize their theological and liturgical differences. The particular religious affiliation loses its
significance for both religious and secular beliefs and conduct. Even if people continue to
associate primarily with coreligionists, this has little influence on the quality of their lives or on
the manner of their participation in the larger society.
Like local, ethnic, and religious communities, class-based communities tend to lose their
importance and coherence where the whole population is incorporated into large-scale activities.
Social classes weaken as sources of distinctive values, styles of life, and social identity; and they
increasingly resemble one another in the beliefs, values, and interests of their members. Class

8. distinctions are leveled, and class boundaries are blurred. Class consciousness and class
solidarity dissolve into mass consciousness and mass solidarity. The lower classes are
increasingly brought into arenas of communication, politics, and consumption previously limited
to the higher classes. Class differences in opportunities and modes of participation that remain
are no longer believed to be desirable or permanent. Common symbols of the good life and of
rights and obligations replace class-differentiated concepts. Classes remain as categories of
people who differentially share in common ways of life rather than as self-conscious groups with
distinctive ways of life. Status strivings and anxieties abound, but this testifies to the ambiguity
of status where fixed social hierarchies no longer exist.
THE ERA OF MASS SOCIETY AND MASS CULTURE
Our description of the eras of mass communication theory begins with a review of some of the
earliest thinking about media. These ideas were initially developed in the latter half of the
nineteenth century, at a time when rapid development of large factories in urban areas was
drawing more and more people from rural areas to cities. At the same time, ever more powerful
printing presses allowed the creation of newspapers that could be sold at declining prices to
rapidly growing populations of readers. Although some theorists were optimistic about the future
that would be created by industrialization, urban expansion, and the rise of print media, many
were extremely pessimistic (Brantlinger, 1983).
They blamed industrialization for disrupting peaceful, rural communities and forcing people to
live in urban areas merely to serve as a convenient workforce in large factories, mines, or
bureaucracies. These theorists were fearful of cities because of their crime, cultural diversity, and
unstable political systems. For these social thinkers, mass media symbolized everything that was
wrong with nineteenth-century urban life. They singled out media for virulent criticism and
accused them of pandering to lower-class tastes, fomenting political unrest, and subverting
important cultural norms. Most theorists were educated elites who feared what they couldn’t
understand. The old social order was crumbling, and so were its culture and politics. Were media
responsible for this, or did they simply accelerate or aggravate these changes?
The dominant perspective on media and society that emerged during this period has come to be
referred to as mass society theory. It is an inherently contradictory theory rooted in nostalgia for
a “golden age” of rural community life that never existed, and it anticipates a nightmare future
where we all lose our individuality and become servants to the machines.
Some version of mass society theory seems to recur in every generation as we try to reassess
where we are and where we are going as individuals and as a nation wedded to technology as the
means of improving the quality of our lives. Each new version of mass society theory has its
criticisms of contemporary media. It is surprising that the Internet has not yet become the focus
of a new version of mass society theory. These criticisms do exist, but they have not yet become
popular in the way that complaints about television, radio, movies, newspapers, even comic
books, came to dominate public discourse in previous eras. Perhaps this is a sign that mass
society notions have ceased to be relevant. Or more likely, the Internet is still relatively new and
its threats to social order are still too ambiguous to be taken seriously by elites.

9. Thus, mass society theory can be regarded as a collection of conflicting notions developed to
make sense of what was happening as industrialization allowed big cities to spring up and
expand. Mass society notions came from both ends of the political spectrum. Some were
developed by people who wanted to maintain the old political order, and others were created by
revolutionaries who wanted to impose radical changes.
But these ideological foes often shared at least one assumption—mass media were troublesome
if not downright dangerous. In general, mass society ideas held strong appeal for any social elite
whose power was threatened by change. Media industries, such as the penny press in the 1830s
or yellow journalism in the 1890s, were easy targets for elites’ criticisms. They catered to readers
in the working and other lower social classes using simple, often sensational content. These
industries were easily attacked as symptomatic of a sick society— a society needing to either
return to traditional, fundamental values or be forced to adopt a set of totally new values fostered
by media. Many intense political conflicts strongly affected thinking about the mass media, and
these conflicts shaped the development of mass society theory.
An essential argument of mass society theory is that media subvert and disrupt the existing social
order. But media are also seen as a potential solution to the chaos they engender. They can serve
as a powerful tool that can be used to either restore the old order or institute a new one. But who
should be trusted to use this tool? Should established authorities be trusted to control media—to
produce or censor media content? Should media be freely operated by private entrepreneurs
whose primary goal is to make money? Should radical, revolutionary groups be given control
over media so they can pursue their dreams of creating an ideal social order? At the end of the
nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, fierce debate erupted over these
questions. This conflict often pitted traditional elites, whose power was based on an agrarian
society, against urban elites, whose power was increasingly based on industrialization and
urbanization.
Among these elites, the most powerful were those who controlled the factories and other forms
of industrialization. They have come to be referred to as capitalists, because their power was
based on the profits they generated and then reinvested. In time, these urban elites gained
enormous influence over social change. They strongly favored all forms of technological
development, including mass media. In their view, technology was inherently good because it
facilitated control over the physical environment, expanded human productivity, and generated
new forms of material wealth. They argued that technology would bring an end to social
problems and lead to the development of an ideal social world. Newspapers would create an
informed electorate that would choose the best political leaders; the telegraph would bind
together diverse, contentious communities into a strong and stable union; and the telephone
would improve the efficiency of business so that everyone would benefit. But in the short term,
industrialization brought with it enormous problems— exploitation of workers, pollution, and
social unrest.
Today, the fallacies of both the critics and advocates of technology are readily apparent. Mass
society notions greatly exaggerated the ability of media to quickly undermine social order, just as
media advocates exaggerated their ability to create an ideal social order. These ideas failed to

10. consider that media’s power ultimately resides in the freely chosen uses that audiences make of
it. All mass society thinkers were unduly paternalistic and elitist in their views of average people
and the ability of media to have powerful effects on them. Those who feared media exaggerated
their power to manipulate the masses and the likelihood they would bring inevitable social and
cultural ruin. Technology advocates were also misguided and failed to acknowledge the many
unnecessary, damaging consequences that resulted from applying technology without adequately
anticipating its impact.
Mass equalitarianism
Pervading all kinds of mass relations is a common normative orientation of equalitarianism. All
members of mass society are equally valued as voters, buyers, and spectators. Numerical
superiority therefore tends to be the decisive criterion of success. In the political realm this
means the number of votes; in the economic realm it is the number of sales; and in the cultural
realm it is the size of the audience. Mass equalitarianism is strengthened by the attenuation of the
social bases of inequality, notably membership in ethnic and religious groups and especially in
social classes. In contrast to the equalitarianism of small numbers, as in friendships, mass
equalitarianism emphasizes the similarities of individuals rather than the uniqueness of persons.
Mass equalitarianism is also linked to the bureaucratization of organization. Mass organization
simultaneously encourages the bureaucratic centralization of governing powers and the leveling
of social differences among the governed (Weber 1906-1924). The incorporation of all sections
of the population into large-scale activities summons centralized organization for coordination
and control. Mass bureaucracies favor the leveling of social differences in the interest of
efficiency. By treating everyone alike, according to functionally rational rules and procedures,
mass bureaucracies foster equalitarianism. However, bureaucratic recruitment on the basis of
professional competence raises new hierarchies. To be sure, careers open to talent are in greater
harmony with equalitarian beliefs than is selection according to family and property. But
professional elites are nevertheless elites and thereby introduce new social distinctions. This is a
source of strain in modern society; in the political realm, for example, there is a tension between
planning by experts and participation by mass electorates.
Mass equalitarianism is expressed in the populist character of mass society. Whatever is believed
to express the popular will or to meet the most widely shared expectations is considered
legitimate (Shils 1956). Political regimes strive to be popular regimes, whether they are
dictatorial or constitutional. While this popular legitimating of authority centers in the polity, it
pervades all kinds of social institutions. Populism places a premium on the capacity of leaders to
create and placate popular opinion. Those who are effective in mobilizing large numbers of
people have great power, and this generally means the leaders of mass parties. The mass leader
seeks to embody and reflect popular desires; masses, not elites, are the ultimate sources of
legitimating in mass society. This leads elites to make themselves readily accessible to popular
pressures: that is, they are forced to be responsive not only to periodic expressions of public

11. opinion through regular channels such as elections, but also to momentary and ad hoc
representations of whatever is claimed to be popular.
Leaders, of course, do not seek merely to respond to mass opinion. They also try to control it.
Since they lack firm bases of independent authority, their control tends to take the form of
manipulation and mobilization rather than command. The very presence of large numbers of only
loosely organized and committed people summons efforts of leaders to manipulate and mobilize
them. For if elites are highly accessible to mass pressures, so are masses readily available for
mobilization by elites. People are receptive to direct appeals from remote elites, because they are
poorly attached to proximate symbols and relationships and increasingly caught up in distant
events and activities (Kornhauser 1959).
Mass Society’s Impact on Industrialization, Public Behaviors and 20th Century:
Together, political and cultural centralization and uniformity were interpreted as evidence of the
creation of a “mass society.” Tocqueville had warned that individuals lacking strong
intermediate institutions with which to identify would become atomized and in their anonymity
and powerlessness might look to the protection of strong men and strong governments.
The public and crowd should be distinguished from the “mass.” Members of a mass exhibit
similar behaviour, simultaneously, but with a minimum of interaction. Masses include a wide
range of groups. They include, for instance, people simultaneously reading the newspaper
advertisement for a department store sale and simultaneously converging on the store with
similar objects in mind.
In the United States, there began to be both greater social mobility and fewer blatant class
differences as expressed in clothes, behaviour, and speech. A “mass society” began to share mass
pleasures. Apparent homogeneity, both vertically within societies and horizontally between
them, was accelerated by the cinema, radio, and television, each offering attractive role models
to be.
Mass movements
As mass society develops, there is a growing cleavage between those who continue to be
integrated in local groups and those who have already been incorporated into mass relations. In
part this is a difference between the old classes and the new classes—craftsmen versus industrial
workers, independent entrepreneurs versus industrial managers, free professionals versus
members of professional staffs, and so forth. Increasingly isolated from the larger society,
members of the declining classes readily come to believe that they are the victims of it. More
generally, the locally attached, in their resentment of the ascendancy of big cities, big
government, big business, and big labor, become receptive to the appeals of mass movements
directed against the forces of mass society.
Then there is the growing number of people who have been detached from communal relations
but who are not, or not yet, incorporated into mass relations. It is likely to include, among others,
new migrants to the cities, new workers in the factories, and, generally, the younger and newly

12. mobile members of the society. In the absence of strong group ties, they are less constrained and
more restless than those who continue to be rooted in communal groups or those who have been
fully incorporated into mass relations. These poorly attached and unintegrated people are readily
available for activistic modes of intervention in political life and for participation in mass
movements that promise them full membership in the national society.
Thus, modern mass movements are characteristically composed of people who either seek entry
into mass society or seek to reverse the processes of mass society. Like mass organizations, mass
movements do not build on existing social relations but instead construct direct ties between
participants and leaders. When a mass society has successfully incorporated most sections of the
population into its central institutions, mass movements may become less widespread. In a
highly developed mass society, mass participation is institutionalized in the form of mass
organizations, especially mass parties, but also mass unions and similar associations, universal
suffrage, extensive publicity of political men and events, and the official symbolism of popular
government.
The Theory of Mass Society Influenced Mass Communication Theory:
Mass society theory is a complex, multifaceted perspective. As applied to social movements,
however, the basic idea is that people who are socially isolated are especially vulnerable to the
appeals of extremist movements. Different researchers concur that “virtually all of the major
claims of the theory have been controverter by an overwhelming body of evidence”
(Hamilton 2001: 12). Despite its largely discredited status among academics, literary and
journalistic proponents of this perspective enjoy a much wider and perhaps more credulous
audience. As a result, “mass society theory proves well-nigh indestructible” (Hamilton 2001: 12)
despite its logical flaws and empirical shortcomings.
Mass Society → seems as granted and centralized
Centralized Media → no realized aim in local groups in media
↓
Narrow Public sphere
↓
One-way transmission
↓
Changing people’s mind and controlling them
Mass movements pursue remote, extreme objectives and mobilize uprooted, atomized people
(Kornhauser 1959: 47). Thus, “[m]ass movements mobilize people who are alienated from the

13. going system, who do not believe in the legitimacy of the established order, and who therefore
are ready to engage in efforts to destroy it. The greatest number of people available to mass
movements will be found in those sections of society that have the fewest ties to the social
order…” (212).
This description of mass movements reflects the collective behavior depiction of mass behavior
with a remote focus of attention, a declining sense of reality and responsibility, and a highly
unstable, shifting focus of attention and intensity of response (Kornhauser 1959: 43–46). This
depiction thus links the politics of collective behavior with unreasoning and extremist threats to
social order.
Theories of mass society are sometimes said to be prophecies of despair (Bell 1960; Shils 1962).
But they need not be so construed. That the mass analyst tends to be a pathologist of
contemporary society in no way denies the existence in that society of creative and value-
sustaining social forces. Properly incorporated into social science, the concepts of mass society
invite analysis of the conditions under which mass processes are strong or weak. Thus, mass
analysis may take on new significance in alerting students of non-Western societies to certain
pathologies of social development. Perhaps more important for social thought than any particular
proposition of mass society is the concern this perspective represents for assessing the quality of
culture and social institutions. If social science is to pursue this kind of inquiry, however, it will
have to renew its communication with the humanities. For if the idea of mass society has greatly
influenced social science, its formulation and developments have been to a considerable extent
the work of philosophy, history, and literature.
Influenced of Mass Society Theory in the Arts:
Luis Bunuel, the Spanish film-maker (sometimes referred to as a surrealist) once referred to a
“zombie-like” trance that audiences enter after entering a theater.
In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Kundera uses the concept of kitsch to describe his take
on mass society theory: “It follows, then, that the aesthetic ideal of the categorical agreement
with being is a world in which shit is denied and everyone acts as though it did not exist. This
aesthetic ideal is called kitsch . . . kitsch is the absolute denial of shit, in both the literal and the
figurative sense of the world; kitsch excludes everything from its purview which is essentially
unacceptable in human existence.
Benefits of mass society
 The ability to create a vast infrastructure that serves the needs of the majority of the
population.
 A vast increase in living standards for the majority since the creation of large cities and
the eventual shift from the industrial revolution to the information age.

14.  Diversification of races and religions as people are forced to work and communicate
with those who have differing beliefs to the values they have been brought up with.
This has led to a number of people comparing their beliefs with those of others and
cherry-picking those which are still compatible in a multicultural space and thus
shifting away from dated and immoral ideas like misogyny and homophobia.
 Mass society has enabled the creation of large laboratories as humans collaborate on a
previously unparalleled scale and try to tackle some of the world's largest problems.
Drawbacks of mass society
 Although mass society often serves the needs of the majority, too many people
disappear amidst the ever increasing bureaucracy of a growing metropolis as the poor
and homeless become disenfranchised both politically and economically.
 Metropolises built for mass society will usually 'suck dry' all of their surrounding
resources, forcefully assimilating areas into their ravenous ecosystems.
 Resources are eventually dominated by small elite, whose insatiable appetites see them
hoard a large portion of a metropolis' resources.
 Living in such large areas forces a wide degree of homogenization of culture as
languages and identities are lost amidst the drive to unite people under a broad, hollow
identity.
Critiquesof MassSocietyTheory:
 The Frankfurt view of the audience is monolithic, giving little or no attention to the
potential for audience diversity of readings or resistance to media text (Boyd-
Barrett, 1995). They believed in a ‘magic bullet’ theory of media effects, which
assume the direct impact of a media message.
 The Frankfurt school deliberately avoids empirical research because of their view
that positivistic science is a symptom of capitalist techno-rationality.
 Attributes excessive power to media and underrates the importance of social
contexts of media consumption.