As this very blog exemplifies, the ideas behind "mass culture" and "mass society" are drastically changing during the internet age. In his essay "On/Against Mass Culture Theories", Peter Gibbian describes the traditional views of the public. He says, "Mass society was defined and described by culture critics such as Ortega and Gasset as a society in which the heedless many use the creativity of the few: his 'mass man' does not invent, but merely uses other people's inventions" (Gibbian, pg 14). In other words, the work and ideas of the famous represented the viewpoints of the many.In explaining this theory, Gibian paraphrases the writings of theorist Frederic Jameson, who explores important ideas of media through looking at the movie Jaws. Together they essentially explain that public reaction to the shark (and therefore sharks in general), that it is something to be feared, results directly from how the three main characters in the film react to it (page 22). In this example, Gibian would argue that the three characters represent the "few" described by Ortega and Gasset. Their opinions (demonstrated through dialogue, as well as through body language and actions) influence the audience of the film. These people then go on to play a role buying scary shark posters, inspiring shark attack reports on television, and generally spreading a negative sentiment and fear of sharks. Ultimately the widespread hysteria and creation of programming such as Shark Week on Discovery Channel, all stems from the opinions of three scared, albeit fictional, men on a boat.
I, on the other hand, would be likely to argue that this idea is not essentially the case anymore, as a result of the widespread adoption of the internet. Now, when a celebrity or created personality says something, it is almost instantly evaluated and contradicted by thousands of people on the web. Through blogs or websites, ordinary people can express their thoughts and opinions in a widely accesible place, and as a result, people are more often receiving news and opinions from what would have been considered the "heedless many" by Ortega and Gasset. So as a result of the internet, a web documenting the flow of opinion and information is much more tangled and interrelated now than it would have been twenty years ago.
What are the social ramifications of the increased outlets for polyvocality? Is this polyvocality necessarily a more democratic process? Does it imply a cultural movement toward greater equality?
ReplyDeleteI would say that, from a social standpoint, the new polyvocality of the so-called internet age is a predominantly positive thing. Not only is the media now able to the news faster than ever before and to a wider audience, it also allows common people to report their experiences and opinions. The result of this is often quite democratizing, allowing expression and connection between people in a way that would not have been possible a decade and a half ago. A great example of this can be seen with the Iranian presidential election over the summer, where people used twitter and social media cites in order to circumvent blocks on traditional reporting, allowing them to inform the rest of the world of a situation and injustices facing an entire populations. Its worth noting that this increased democratization in not always a good thing, for example it has the potential to spread harmful information (ie: racism in online videogames, blogs dedicated to making weapons, etc), and can occasionally result in the spreading of incorrect or false facts.
ReplyDelete