Political Culture and the Media PDF

POLITICAL CULTURE AND THE MEDIA  Political culture (for political scientists) refers to peoples’ psychological orientation towards politics. It speaks to people’s pattern of orientation to political objects such as parties, government, and the constitution, expressed in beliefs, symbol...

POLITICAL CULTURE AND THE MEDIA  Political culture (for political scientists) refers to peoples’ psychological orientation towards politics. It speaks to people’s pattern of orientation to political objects such as parties, government, and the constitution, expressed in beliefs, symbols and values. Political Culture refers to the level of participation of members of society in politics. People’s beliefs, symbols and values structure both their attitude to the political process and, crucially, their view of the regime in which they live. Understanding political culture helps to give insight into the political behavior of individuals. Political culture is shaped by factors such as political continuity; geography, social homogeneity / heterogeneity and socio- economic structure.  APPROACHES TO POLITICAL CULTURE 1. THE CIVIC-CULTURE APPROACH TO POLITICAL CULTURE Debate about the nature of political culture has often focused on the idea of Civic Culture, usually associated with the writings of Almond and Verba (1963, 1980). Almond and Verba set out to identify the political culture that most effectively upheld democratic politics. They identified three general types of political culture. (1) A “participant” political culture: this is one in which citizens pay close attention to politics, and regard popular participation as both desirable and effective. (2) A “subject” political culture is characterized by more passivity among citizens, and the recognition that they have only a very limited capacity to influence government. (3) A “parochial” political culture is marked by the absence of a sense of citizenship, with people identifying with their locality, rather than the nation, and having neither the desire nor the ability to participate in politics.  Although Almond and Verba accepted that a participant culture came closest to the democratic ideal, they argued that the ‘civic culture’ is a blend of all three, in that it reconciles the participation of citizens in the political process with the vital necessity for government to govern. Democratic stability in their view, is underpinned by a political culture that is characterized by a blend of activity and passivity on the part of citizens, and a balance between obligation and performance on the part of government (Almond and Verba). 2. The MARXIST APPROACH TO POLITICAL CULTURE Marx’s first theory of political culture suggests that culture is essentially class-specific; if members of a class share the same experiences and have common economic interests and positions, they are likely to have broadly similar ideas, values, and beliefs. In Marx’s words, ‘it is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.’ Proletarian culture and ideas can therefore be expected to be markedly different from bourgeois ones. Marx’s second theory of culture emphasizes the degree to which the ideas of the ruling class pervade society and become the ruling ideas of the age. Therefore, political culture, or civic political culture is nothing more than bourgeois ideology - ideas and theories that serve the interests of the bourgeoisie by disguising the contradictions of capitalist society. What is important about this view is that it sees culture, values and beliefs as a form of power. The function of ideology therefore is to reconcile subordinate classes to their exploitation and oppression by propagating myths, delusions and falsehoods (false consciousness (Engles)). Later Marxists have understood this process in terms of bourgeois ‘hegemony’.  Modern Marxists have been quick to acknowledge that, in no sense, do the ‘ruling ideas’ of the bourgeoisie monopolize intellectual and cultural life in a capitalist society, excluding all rival views. Rather, they accept that cultural, ideological and political competition does exist, but stress that this competition is unequal. Quite simply, ideas and values that uphold the capitalist order have an overwhelming advantage over ideas and values that question or challenge it. Such ideological hegemony may, in fact, be successful precisely because it operates behind the illusion of free speech, open competition and political pluralism – what Herbert Marcuse termed ‘repressive tolerance’.. The most influential twentieth-century exponent of this view was Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci drew attention to the degree to which the class system is upheld not simply by unequal economic and political power, but also by bourgeois hegemony. This consists of the spiritual and cultural supremacy of the ruling class, brought about through the spread of bourgeois values and beliefs via ‘civil society’; the mass media, the churches, youth movements, trade unions, and so forth. What makes this process so insidious is that it extends beyond formal learning and education into the very common sense of the age. The significance of Gramsci’s analysis is that, in order for socialism to be achieved, a ‘battle of ideas’ has to be waged through which proletarian principles, values and theories displace, or at least challenge, bourgeois ideas.  The Marxist view of culture as ideological power rests on the distinction between subjective or felt interests (what people think they want) and objective or real interests (what people would want if they could make independent and informed choices) THE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH Conservative thinkers have long supported their own view of political culture in the form of tradition and, in particular, ‘traditional values’. These are values and beliefs that have supposedly been passed down from earlier generations and so constitute a kind of cultural bedrock. Conservative politicians regularly call for such values to be ‘strengthened’ or ‘defended’, believing that they are the key to social cohesion and political stability. Conservative politicians regularly call for such values to be ‘strengthened’ or ‘defended’, believing that they are the key to social cohesion and political stability. In the UK in the 1980s, for example, Margaret Thatcher called for the resurrection of what she called ‘Victorian values’ Typical Victorian values included family values, charity, sexual propriety/repression. Moreover, Victorian family roles were patriarchal and served to maintain the authority of fathers over the entire household. In the USA, Ronald Reagan embraced the notion of the ‘frontier ideology’, harking back to the conquest of the American West and the virtues of self-reliance, hard work and adventurousness that he believed it exemplified. Not uncommonly, such values are linked to the family, the church and the nation; that is, to long-established institutions that supposedly embody the virtues of continuity and endurance. This suggests that there is a general human disposition to favour tradition over innovation, the established over the new. To be a conservative, Oakeshott suggested, is ‘to prefer the familiar to the unknown. POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION Political culture is transmitted through the process of political socialization According to Almond and Verba (1963), political socialization is part of the continuous process of teaching/ passing on certain political behaviors to the members of a society in order to make them think in keeping with the changing political system they live in Political socialization is widely seen as the process by which individuals learn political attitudes and behaviors. It is the process by which peoples’/ society’s political culture is developed It is part of the broader socialization process whereby an individual becomes a member of a particular society and takes on the values and behaviors of that society or group Agents of political socialization include the family, school, religious institutions, social groups, political parties (governing and opposition/s), the mass media etc. Political culture can be unifying, divisive or critical in nature. Divisive political culture is strictly aligned to group identities and ideologies such as class, race, party affiliation, or even gender and can erode the unity of the political fiber by impacting / influencing system performance in their favor and tend to have a negative impact on democratic systems. Unifying / supportive / conducive political cultures need not be homogenous but where there is heterogeneity this need not be incompatible to the overarching culture that defines the political system. Conversely it is argued to have helped to support non democratic regimes in specific societies at given times Critical political culture is not necessarily as detrimental as divisive political culture, but it has the potential to hold the political system accountable, hold it up to standards of fairness, accountability, due process, inclusivity and so on (Heywood, 2002)  THE MEDIA AND POLITICS Any examination of the factors that influence people’s psychological orientation to politics, whether their long-term beliefs and values (political culture) or their short- term reaction to particular policies or problems (public opinion), must, in modern circumstances, take account of the crucial role played by the media. The media have been recognized as politically significant since the advent of mass literacy and the popular press in the late nineteenth century. However, it is widely accepted that, through a combination of social and technological changes, the media have become increasingly powerful political actors and, in some respects, more deeply enmeshed in the political process. At least two developments are particularly noteworthy. First, the impact of the so- called ‘primary’ agents of political socialization, such as the family and social class, has declined. Whereas once people acquired, in late childhood and adolescence in particular, a framework of political sympathies and leanings that adult experience tended to modify or deepen, but seldom radically transformed, this has been weakened in modern society by greater social and geographical mobility, and by the spread of individualist and consumerist values. This, in turn, widens the scope for the media’s political influence, as they are the principal mechanism through which information about issues and policies, and therefore political choices, is presented to the public.  Second, the development of a mass television audience from the 1950s onwards, and more recently the proliferation of channels and media output associated with digital media, (different forms of electronic communication made possible through digital or computer technology) has massively increased the media’s penetration of people’s everyday lives. It has been estimated that by 2021 some 1.68 billion households worldwide will have access to television, while half the world’s population had gained access to the internet by 2018. These trends, moreover, are most pronounced in the developing world, where, in the case of the internet, access doubled (to 42 per cent) between 2010 and 2017. This means that the public now relies on the media more heavily than ever before. Nevertheless, the relationship between the media and politics continues to be surrounded by debate and disagreement. These debates focus, not least, on the nature of the political biases that operate within the traditional or mass media and the extent to which the way that political processes have come to be shaped or framed by the media has changed due to the shift in usage from traditional media to digital media, and especially Social Media – (Forms of electronic communication that facilitate social interaction and the formation of online communities through the exchange of user- generated content.)  Few commentators doubt the media’s ability to shape political attitudes and values or, at least, to structure political and electoral choice by influencing public perceptions about the nature and importance of issues and problems, thereby. However, there is considerable debate about the political significance of this influence. A series of rival theories offer contrasting views of the media’s political impact. The most important of these are the Pluralist Model, the dominant-ideology model the elite-values model the market model.  THEORIES OF THE MEDIA 1. THE PLURALIST MODEL Pluralism highlights diversity and multiplicity generally. The pluralist model of the mass media portrays the media as an ideological marketplace in which a wide range of political views are debated and discussed. While not rejecting the idea that the media can affect the political views and sympathies, it suggests that its (the media) impact is essentially neutral in that it tends to reflect the balance of forces within a society at large. The pluralist view, nevertheless, portrays the media in strongly positive terms; in ensuring an informed citizenry, the mass media both enhance the quality of democracy and guarantee that government power is checked – the “watchdog” role. This ‘watchdog’ role was classically demonstrated in the 1974 Washington Post investigation into the Watergate scandal, which led to the resignation of Richard Nixon as US president. Some, moreover, argue that the advent of the digital media, and particularly the internet, has strengthened pluralism and political competition by giving protest groups, including ‘anti-capitalist’ activists, a relatively cheap and highly effective means of disseminating information and organizing campaigns.  However, the pluralist model suffers from significant deficiencies. For example, weak and unorganized groups are excluded from access to mainstream publishing and broadcasting, meaning that the media’s ideological marketplace tends to be relatively narrow and generally pro- establishment in character. In addition, private ownership and formal independence from government may not be sufficient to guarantee the media’s oppositional character in the light of the increasingly symbiotic relationship between government and journalists and broadcasters. 2. THE DOMINANT IDEOLOGY MODEL This model portrays the media as a politically conservative force that that is aligned to the interests of economic and social elites and serves to ensure compliance and passivity amongst the masses. Gramsci, a Marxist, suggests that the media propagate bourgeois ides and maintain capitalist hegemony, acting in the interest of major corporations and media moguls. Ownership of the media ultimately determines the political and other views that the mass media disseminate, and ownership in increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small number of media conglomerates. The largest include Facebook, Google (Alphabet), Comcast, News Corporation, Viacom, Disney, CBS and Bertelsmann. From this perspective, the media play an important role in promoting globalization in that their tendency to spread ideas, images and values that are compatible with Western consumerism helps to open up new markets and extend business penetration worldwide.  One of the most influential and sophisticated versions of the dominant ideology model was developed by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman in Manufacturing Consent in the form of the ‘propaganda model’. They identified five ‘filters’ through which news and political coverage are distorted by the structures of the media itself. These filters are as follows: 1. Business interests of owner companies 2. A sensitivity to the views and concerns of advertisers and sponsors 3. The sourcing of news and information from agents of power such as governments and businesses backed by think-tanks (policy/research institute)  Chomsky’s analysis emphasizes the degree to which the mass media can subvert democracy, helping, for example, to mobilize popular support in the USA for imperialist foreign policy goals. This model is, nevertheless, also subject to criticism. Objections to it include that it underestimates the extent to which the press and broadcasters, particularly public service broadcasters, pay attention to progressive social, racial and development issues. Moreover, the assumption that media output shapes political attitudes is determinist and neglects the role played by people’s own values in filtering, and possibly resisting, media messages 3. THE ELITE-VALUES MODEL The elite-values model shifts attention away from the ownership of media corporations to the mechanism through which media output is controlled. It suggests that editors, journalists and broadcasters enjoy significant political independence, and that even the most interventionist of media moguls are only able to set a broad political agenda, but not to control the day-to-day editorial decision-making. The media’s political bias therefore reflects the values of groups that are disproportionally represented amongst its senior professionals. One version of the elite-values model holds that the anti-socialist and politically conservative views of most mainstream newspapers, magazine and television stations derive from the fact that their senior professionals are well-paid and generally from middle-class backgrounds. A quite different version is sometimes advanced by conservatives, who believe that the media reflect the views of university-educated, liberal intellectuals, whose values and concerns are quite different from those of the mass of the population. In its feminist version, this model highlights the predominance of males amongst senior journalists and broadcasters, implying that this both explains the inadequate attention given to women’s views and issues by the mass media, and accounts for the confrontational style of interviewing and political discussion sometimes adopted by broadcasters and journalists. 4. THE MARKET MODEL This model is argued to be different in that it dispenses with the idea of media bias. (Media Bias occurs when journalists and news producers show bias in how they report and cover news) It holds that newspapers and television reflect rather than shape the views of the general public. This occurs because, regardless of the personal views of media owners and senior media professionals, private media outlets are, first and foremost, businesses which are concerned with profit maximization and extending market share The media therefore give people “what they want” and cannot afford to alienate existing potential viewers or readers by presenting political viewpoints with which they may disagree Note: Some broadcasters may be more insulated/protected from commercial and advertiser pressure e.g. the BBC, or NCN (largely state sponsored) IMPACT OF THE TRADITIONAL MEDIA ON GOVERNANCE (TV, radio, print, ad agencies..) 1. Enhancing or threatening democracy The existence of the free press is one of the key features of democratic governance The media is said to promote/enhance democracy in two ways; 1. By fostering public debate and political engagements, (debates of presidential and other candidates, interviews with politicians, and wider viewpoints and opinions e.g. academics, scientists, business and union leaders etc.) 2. By acting as a “public watchdog” to check and highlight abuses of power, and to ensure that public accountability takes place by scrutinizing the activities of government This/these assume/s that media professionals are “outside” politics and have no interest than to expose incompetence, corruption, or muddled thinking whenever and wherever it can be found The media as a threat to democracy The media may be a threat to democracy or undermines democracy when the content of the media is tainted by clear political biases stemming from the opinions and values of editors, journalists and broadcasters or from an alignment between the media and those of economic and social elites. 2. The media’s impact on political leadership The chief way in which the media has transformed political leadership is through growing interest in the personal lives and private conduct of senior political figures, at the expense of serious policy and ideological debate This stems from the media’s and particularly television’s obsession with image rather than issues, and personality rather than policies 3. The media’s culture of contempt The media has an impact on the political culture of citizens. It is sometimes charged with creating a climate of corrosive cynicism amongst the public, leading to growing popular disenchantment with politics generally, and lack of trust in  SOCIAL MEDIA AND POLITICS The revolution in communication technologies brought about by the spread of satellite and cable television, mobile phones, the internet, and digital technology generally, has transformed the media and society, helping to create an “information society” or a “network society.” Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Wikipedia, and Google have become part of many people’s everyday lives Advocates of the use of social media in politics argue that FB, Twitter, Instagram Tick Tock etc. offer citizens wider and easier access to information and political comment, and are privy to a quantity and quality of information that may rival that of governments Social media is also credited with having supported the development of new political and social movements, and increasing their effectiveness, and giving rise to a new style of activist politics called “new politics.” Arguably, the key advantage of social media is that it opens up new opportunities for political participation, in that participation becomes decentralized and no-hierarchical. Online movements facilitated by Facebook have been attributed to pro-democracy revolutions such as the Arab spring in 2011. “Black lives Matter” which campaigns against racism towards black people and the “MeToo” campaign against sexual harassment and assault are good examples of the demonstrate the power and influence of social media today Some criticisms of social media includes the argument that online political communities will never serve the cause of democracy as well as face-to-face human interaction alternatives. Another argument against social media posits that the Primary source Heywood, Andrew. Politics. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019 Chapter 9.