Media Sociology: The Dominant Paradigm, Assessment Example

Overview

In this article, author Todd Gitlin of the University of California at Berkeley provides one basic argument related to what he calls the “dominant paradigm” within the mass media in 1978–that because of the power of “received knowledge” as it relates to influence in media sociology, the mass media which includes television, radio, and print, is unable to define “normal and abnormal social and political activity.” In other words, the dominant paradigm has blurred the lines between what is politically and socially real and legitimate and has “highlighted the recalcitrance (i.e., the ability to resist authority or control) of audiences,” all in the name of “effects” related to programming (1978, p. 206). Overall, this situation has created a number of problems related to conducting research on the mass media, such as devising solid theories that can be accurately measured.

Major Theories

Gitlin then proceeds to discuss one major theory related to media sociology and his “dominant paradigm” approach. This is the so-called “Hypodermic Theory” or model which stresses that mass communications “injects ideas, attitudes, and dispositions towards behavior into passive, atomized, extremely vulnerable individuals” which in turn negatively affects society (1978, p. 210). Perhaps the most important result of this is that it forces the audience to “know something about situations they barely knew existed the day before,” such as issues about war and peace, international relations, and economic policy as they relate to the United States (1978, p. 217).

Methods

For the most part, there is no methodology section in this article. However, Gitlin does examine in-depth a questionnaire designed by researchers Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz in 1970 concerning the mass media and its audience via marketing, fashions, public affairs, and movie-going. Some of the questions includes 1), as to marketing, “During the last month or so, have you bought any new product or brand that you usually don’t buy?” 2), as to fashion, “Have you recently changed anything about your hairdo, types of clothing, cosmetics, or made any other change to something more fashionable?” 3), as to public affairs, the questions were based on a poll related to whether the participants had recently changed their minds about important social and political issues; and 4), as to movie-going, the participants (all of whom were women) were asked to name the title of the last movie they saw. This question was based on their readership which tended to be rumor-mongering publications like True Confessions and cheap detective pulps, such as True Detective Mysteries (1978, p. 214).

These questions were intended to be used as measuring tools in order to determine “changes in consumer behavior, consumer choice, and changes in the opinions expressed” concerning marketing, fashion, public affairs, and movie-going; changes in opinion or attitude change was utilized as the dependent variable.

Literature Review

Overall, there is no literature review in this article. However, Gitlin does cite quite often an important research work known as Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications by Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld and originally published in 1955. This ground-breaking book serves as the foundation for Gitlin’s arguments related to his “dominant paradigm” approach; in fact, it occupies more than thirty pages of text. In his “Notes” section, Gitlin provides all of the sources he used for his essay, being at least ninety. Out of this number, Gitlin includes within the body of his essay additional research by Katz and Lazarsfeld, along with other research studies with Lazarsfeld as co-author.

Findings, Conclusion, and Future Research

In this extremely academic essay, Gitlin’s basic finding and/or conclusion is founded upon the research of historiographer Stuart Ewen who traced the rise of mass media in America beginning in the early 1920’s just after World War I. According to Ewen, “The rise of advertising and consumerism in the twenties was part of a broader change” related to the mass media and capitalist society. Thus, mass advertising and “commercial propaganda,” especially via the advent of television in the late 1940’s, “raised the banner of consumable social democracy” which allowed American corporations like the major commercial networks to “eclipse and redefine” alternatives to Gitlin’s “dominant paradigm” (1978, p. 245).

As to future research, since 1978, a huge amount of research has been conducted on the mass media and how it negatively and positively affects American audiences. Some of the questions asked by Gitlin in relation to the influence and power of the mass media are clearly still relevant today, such as “Which institutional configurations have been generated because of mass broadcasting?” and “Which institutions, such as family, schooling, and sports, have been altered in structure. . . and social meaning?”

Opinions

This extensive and often difficult to comprehend essay by Gitlin was apparently written with Ph.D. students and academic mass media researchers in mind. The most resonating thing about this essay is Gitlin’s vast knowledge on the mass media; however, Gitlin leaves plenty of room for some very intriguing questions.

References

Gitlin, T. (1978). Media sociology: The dominant paradigm. Theory and Society 6: 205-253

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Netherlands.