Considering the last century, we see that experts and scholars from various fields such as communication, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology are interested on media and communication studies. Several movements like positivism, interpretivism, interactionism, Marxism and neo-Marxism has shaped the way scholars pointed out their theories.

1. Yiğit Kalafatoğlu
Ph.D 2023 – İstanbul Bilgi University
Rethinking Media and Cultural Studies:
A Journey through Paradigms and Turns
Introduction
Everyone who studied in the field of communication felt itself at home.
As Klyukanov cited in his book “Communication: A house seen from everywhere” In the first place,
though, communication researchers should make themselves at home with themselves. (Klyukanov: 16)
That’s why the main analogy of this reaction paper is should be “a brick house” in which some scholars
have established the foundation of the construction yard, while some built solid brick walls and
surrounded the house, some crafted the roof and some of them has suggested to deal with the interior
design which they thought it’s also very important as much as the architectural exterior design is. That’s
why its fortunate for us to underline that this house has no address nor location and everybody feels at
home.
Considering the last century, we see that experts and scholars from various fields such as communication,
philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology are interested on media and communication studies.
Several movements like positivism, interpretivism, interactionism, Marxism and neo-Marxism has shaped
the way scholars pointed out their theories.
Basically, the rise has been accelerated with the formation of modern society; the World War two, the
October revolution, and urbanization in the 20th century. Those were basically the main environment
where the house is being located. Surrounded the walls of society with all of modernity.
A very good example to this complexity is defined in Pooley’s article "Communication Theory and the
Discipline," Pooley addresses the relationship between communication research and other disciplines and
states that communication as a field has been historically shaped by its interdisciplinary nature, which
enabled the development of different perspectives and created challenges in consolidating a unified
theoretical framework.
“Communication theory—the discipline’s big-picture subfield—has welcomed the contributions
of a range of other fields ever since. But only some of these outsiders have truly registered in our
traditions. The line dividing influence from indifference, in other words, has remained strikingly
arbitrary. The organization of media scholarship has always, if unevenly, reflected the media
landscape itself.” (Pooley: 15)
Doubtlessly, this also provided scholars to remain reflexive and open to dialogue with other disciplines in
which I agree. Hence some can argue that the gap between different perspectives and methodologies can
ruin the interdisciplinary dialogue and complicate collaboration.
But anyway, we must accept that the house we are all living in has a very long dining table. And all
disciplines have a large seat and variety of meals to dine together. And as social scientist we should be at

2. peace about accepting the new opportunities, innovations, and even new disciplines to be involved to the
field.
Guest with a bullet...
The first guest of the house was of course Laswell and the magic bullet theory. Basically, we can
summarize the theory in the light of the woks of Laswell and his collogues as they proposed there were a
community of people which were ready to be influenced and directed and could be hypnotized through
the media messages directly. That was a real milestone. The theory had a rise in the era of propaganda
and considering the historical background. It is so okey to be very effective theory for its time.
In retrospect, what theory were arguing was the mass media had a direct and powerful influence on public
opinion and could be used as a tool of social control if needed. This belief was around 1930’s and
continued until 1950’s. The years world was facing the World War II and most of the nations were under
the influence of Nazi propaganda already. That’s why the theory itself were missing out that people were
not dummies who being influenced directly by incoming messages but also interpret those media
messages in the context of their own experiences, values, and beliefs.
And this is the first moment, the house accepts its second guest. The clashes and compromises between
positivism and interpretivism starts at this point.
According to Neuman, in his book "The Meanings of Methodology" on Chapter 4; positivism is a
philosophical approach based on natural science that emphasizes objectivity, empirical evidence, and the
application of quantitative techniques to identify general laws and patterns. Conversely, interpretivism is
rooted in social sciences, and it prioritizes the comprehension of subjective meanings and interpretations
of individuals, utilizing qualitative methodologies to delve deeper into the topic. (Neuman: 33)
I believe that Hall's main point was that it's not okay to see humans as passive creatures who simply
accept whatever messages they're given without question. This assumption that people automatically
accept messages without considering their surroundings, emotions, thoughts, language, religion, race, and
culture is problematic and goes against the idea that humans are complex beings with unique perspectives.
Therefore, Hall's initial principle, which rejects the concept of 'direct influence,' represents a departure
from positivist beliefs and a shift towards an interpretive view of the media. Rather than viewing the
media as a straightforward cause-and-effect tool, Hall's model acknowledges the complex ways in which
media operates ideologically and is influenced by social and cultural circumstances while simultaneously
shaping them.
The interior design...
The interactionist turn in communication studies challenges the previously held notion of the audience as
a passive and homogeneous entity that receives and accepts media messages uniformly. Instead, it
recognizes that individuals actively engage with media content, interpreting and making sense of it in
diverse and often unpredictable ways.
Symbolic interactionism emphasizes how individuals assign meanings to media messages based on their
own unique experiences and social contexts, which can ultimately shape their attitudes and behavior. This
perspective highlights the active agency of individuals in the communication process, rather than viewing
them as passive recipients of media messages.

3. In the light of the thoughts and works headed by George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer, O'Boyle in
his book “Communication Theory for Humans: Communicators in a Mediated World” states that
individuals actively engage with and interpret information, challenging the view that they are passive
receivers of messages. To develop more nuanced and context-sensitive theories of communication,
researchers must consider the social, cultural, and historical contexts in which communication occurs.
(O’Boyle: 27-56)
It is also essential for researchers to engage in reflexivity, critically examining their own assumptions,
values, and biases in the research process. This self-awareness can help researchers avoid
oversimplification or reductionism in their work, ultimately leading to a more sophisticated understanding
of the complexities of communication. The transition towards an interactionist perspective underscores
the importance of understanding the interdependent relationship between media creators, content, and
viewers as a fluid and dynamic process. This represents a shift away from a singular focus on either the
message or the receiver.
In that manner Herbert Blumer's book "Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method" is a
foundational work in the development of the symbolic interactionist perspective. He argues the social
interaction and the construction of social reality. The nature of meaning-making basically. The concept of
self is both an object and an active agent in the process of meaning-making, and individuals develop their
sense of self through social interaction and reflection on their actions.
Hall's second and third tenet reflect this transition by emphasizing the need to move beyond the notion of
media texts as straightforward transmitters of meaning. Instead, Hall advocates for an analytical approach
that centers on the linguistic and ideological structures of media texts. This approach facilitates a more
nuanced analysis of how both producers and audiences encode and decode meanings, leading to a more
House needs a cuisine, not a kitchen...
Symbolic forms, which include language, images, and other means of expression, enable individuals to
share meanings and experiences, and contribute to the development of shared cultural understandings.
This approach recognizes that communication is not merely the transmission of information but also a
process through which individuals construct and negotiate their understanding of the world.
Of course, this acceptance necessitates new methods in the field of research, including ethnography, focus
groups, and interviews those allow researchers to explore the audience's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
and how media content is received and interpreted by different individuals. These methods are basically a
move away from traditional survey-based research and instead adopt a qualitative approach that
recognizes the diversity of the audience and allows for a deeper exploration of their perspectives and
experiences.
Kitchen is a cold and sterile word that defines only a physical space in the house while cuisine is a vast
and complex concept that describes the culture of a cooking literature.
Shared beliefs and cultural practices are essential flavors in understanding the role of communication in
constructing and sustaining culture. The importance of symbolic forms in the communication are central
to understanding how culture is created and maintained through communication.

4. Who manufactures the furniture?
Marxism had a significant impact on mass communication research, with scholars in this field analyzing
media within the broader social, economic, and political structures, examining how media ownership,
production, and distribution are influenced by capitalism and serve the interests of the ruling class. It
focuses on issues like media concentration, commercialization, and the commodification of audiences.
Also, another important dimension in media studies as a critical examination of power dynamics, social
inequalities, and how the media perpetuates or challenges dominant ideologies.
Scholars of communication who draw from the works of Marx, Engels, and Gramsci examine how media
texts reflect and reproduce the dominant ideology and hegemonic power relations present in society. This
involves analyzing how media content serves to maintain the status quo, perpetuate social inequalities,
and normalize dominant values and beliefs.
The fourth principle put forth by Hall raises doubts about how the media upholds dominant ideological
definitions, emphasizing the possibility for critical media studies to explore these matters. Critical media
studies expose how certain ideas are privileged while others are marginalized, revealing the power
dynamics that influence media representations and the wider social context in which they exist.
The Frankfurt School, specifically Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, made significant contributions
to communication research through their development of the concept of the culture industry. Their work
has motivated scholars to critically analyze how the media produces standardized and commodified
cultural products, which are used to manipulate and control the masses.
They introduced the term "culture industry" to describe the mass production and standardization of
cultural products such as film, radio, and television. Adorno and Horkheimer claimed that this industry
aims to manipulate and control the masses by spreading a false sense of cultural diversity, despite
producing homogenous and standardized content.
“In our drafts we spoke of ‘mass culture’. We replaced that expression with ‘culture industry in
order to exclude from the outset the interpretation agreeable to its advocates: that it is a matter
of something like a culture that arises spontaneously from the masses themselves, the
contemporary form of popular art.” (Adorno: 98)
Adorno and Horkheimer underlined that the culture industry, which operates under the principles of
capitalism, creates a false sense of cultural diversity that makes people believe they have choices, but
their choices are restricted by the standardized and commodified nature of the products. This false
consciousness leads to a loss of critical thinking and authentic individuality among the masses.
They believe that the culture industry serves to preserve the current state of capitalist society and prevent
any challenge to its power by suppressing revolutionary or critical thought. This is achieved by the
standardization and commodification of culture, resulting in a population that is passive and uncritical and
therefore easier to manipulate and control. As a result, mass media and communication in that term
becomes an instrument to serve to dominant ideology.
While the Frankfurt School focused on critical theory and the social conditions of modernity, the
Birmingham School was more concerned with the relationship between cultural practices and power
relations in contemporary society.

5. What placed Hall in a unique position in the fields of cultural studies and communication
studies was his strong criticism of the dominant behaviorist approaches in the field. The
critical framework proposed by Hall, as an alternative to mainstream approaches,
represented not only a theoretical and methodological shift but also a political stance.
According to Hall, the choice was between mainstream cultural/communication studies,
which focused only on observable behavior and behavior changes, and critical analyses
that focused on existing power, domination, and exploitation relations and ideological
structures. (Özçetin)
Stuart Hall basically merged the Marxist theory with other critical approaches to establish cultural studies,
which scrutinizes media practices and texts in the wider context of culture, history, and politics. This
approach draws attention to power dynamics, representation, and resistance. Marxism is essential in
examining media as sites where dominant and subordinate social groups contest. The ideological turn
reflects the increased focus on how media texts are influenced by and add to broader systems of meaning
and values.
For Hall, ideology was the problem of how different ideas are adopted by the masses and become
"material forces". This is precisely why there is a need for an understanding of ideology that can respond
to the complexity of social and cultural life. In other words, as Özçetin mentions; Hall believed that the
concept of ideology was crucial for understanding how ideas become dominant and shape the world we
live in.
Media plays a significant role in shaping and challenging dominant ideologies. Hall’s framework
emphasizes the importance of analyzing the linguistic and ideological structures of media texts to
understand how they reproduce and contest power structures. By unpacking these representations,
scholars can identify the potential for alternative or oppositional readings that challenge dominant
ideologies.
Is it a shelter or a residence?
Over the past century, the field of media and cultural studies has undergone significant transformations,
influenced by different movements such as positivism, interpretivism, interactionism, Marxism, and neo-
Marxism. These various movements have shaped the field and contributed to its complexity and
development, with scholars laying the groundwork for the field, expanding theories and perspectives, and
proposing innovative approaches to studying communication processes.
Communication is a dynamic process that is shaped by social, cultural, and historical contexts, and that
the meaning-making process is complex and multi-layered. As such, the field continue to evolve with
contemporary theories and technology as scholars remain open to new opportunities and interdisciplinary
dialogues.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Klyukanov, Igoe E (2022) Communication: A House Seen from Everywhere.
Pooley, Jefferson D (2016) Communication Theory and the Disciplines
Neuman, W. Lawrance (1994) Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
O’Boyle, NEİL (2022) Communication Theories for Humans

6. Blumer, Herbert (1969) Symbolic Interactionism
Adorno, Theodor. (2005) The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture
Özçetin, Burak (2021) Kitle İletişim Kuramları: Kavramlar, Okulla , Modeller