Role of Media as an agent of Social Change

Prof. Swapna Mukherjee Memorial Lecture

Women’s College, Kolkata

29th November, 2011

The subject, assigned to me, deliberately affirms the contemporary media operation toward a definite social change. The referent or external area of the subject i.e. ‘social’ or precisely ‘social change’ assures multi-dimensional emergence of facets in our ‘social’ lives caused chiefly by the media operation or at least defined in such a manner. If we watch the revolutionary upsurge in Egypt and other neighbouring West Asian nations, a very popular note still reigns in popular psyche almost a ruling that the Facebook posts of someone Asma Mahfooz initiated the upsurge. Whatever the actual base would be, this very popular notion hits the global attention quite easily through popular mediation. So what we see here that the notion mediated becomes more catchy attractive and reduced than the actual upsurge and many such parallel reasons or connotations. And this very catchy, attractive and reduced notion becomes a slogan in popular media, which beyond proper reasoning have made it a ‘public opinion’. It now makes you believe that the Facebook posts by Lady Mahfooz created the upsurge that ended the 30 years of tyranny and dictatorship in Egypt. It appears like a headline of a news story which often in most cases comes down to be arbitrarily produced by the journalists according to his/her house policy than readers’ choice. Here my point is by any means not to establish the absurd ‘readers’ choice’, but the journalists’ policy that is not also one of readers’ very own. So making of social or social change happens and you expect me to tell you the story of how assuredly media do this change. I will tell you the story accordingly.

Before moving into details of the stories let me ask you a very old and unpopular question; what do media do to its people? Denis McQuail has quite interestingly identified some categories of functioning that media perpetrate for its audience. These are:

(i) media exert power and inequality;

(ii) national integration;

(iii) social change;

(iv) controlling mass;

You can now safely remove the tag of ‘national integration’ from all global media houses operating in India. Gone are those days of public service broadcasting with Akashbani and Doordarshan and ‘Mile Sur Mera Tumhara’. Media at that time at least for a decade until 1990 never worked as an ‘agent’ but its being was well acclaimed as a developmental tool for Indian people.

Media as an agent…

Do we really have an idea of our media to be acting as an agent? What does an agent do specially to its society or social? Does this ‘agent identity of media’ mean everything but responsibility? Commonly a human or an institutional agent looks after everything professionally without having any emotional, ideological, or cultural attachment to the society or institution. Cultural Anthropology defines ‘agent’ as a concept related mostly to the power…deployed between individual and social structures…act for power. 

Did we mean such a functioning of media? Your subject then clearly suggests that mass media perpetrates the social change as just an agent not as a pillar of democracy or your very own and old friend as fourth estate or watch dog. Why the media is to be treated as a confirmed agent of social change…for its affirmed freedom? 

As and when we try to build an appropriate understanding with media in terms of its operation in our region or national territory, it always becomes our sacred duty to affirm the freedom of media, educating value of media, as an instrument of making public opinion, our agenda-setter, and our cultivator. Do we have any space remaining to accept media in other way as our very own? Do we nevertheless see media from public sphere? 

We do always better to portray our past relationship with media which commonly describes a very social relationship with our own mass media, sometimes as a family member. But difficulty arises when it comes to the contemporary media operation. If media acts as an agent, we have a functional relationship with it, may be a needful relationship. Now for a needful and empowered media it is subsequently very easy to organize any form of social change as it anyway appears to be more powerful, authoritative, and maker of popular opinion. Objectivity of news is now an index of not just mere social credibility but a commercial credential of every media house for simply to sustain as a corporate identity to its political and corporate authority. 

It is however very difficult to judge whether media or popular media act as a social agent although a mass consent would affirm every media house as an empowered corporate body that produces news story and other contents for its targeted audience or consumers to earn and maximize profit. Some quotes may however endorse my point:

(i) We have no obligation to make history. We have no obligation to make art. We have no obligation to make a statement. To make money is our only objective.

— Michael Eisner, CEO, The Walt Disney Co., (Internal Memo). Quoted from Mickey Mouse Monopoly-Disney, Childhood & Corporate Power

(ii) We are here to serve advertisers. That is our raison d'etre.

— the C.E.O. of Westinghouse(CBS), Advertising Age, February 3, 97

I can also recall a very interesting quote a media representative on a television channel during 2006 Cricket World Cup: We don’t serve people; we only have a professional relationship with the advertisers to run the programme for revenue.

You may safely differ and rule out my opinion. You may even conform to the notion that media do much to us as an agent and we do not expect media doing something more than this. This is the way to initiate critical media studies and debate on operational philosophy of the contemporary media.

Social Change…

Now what do we mean by social change? Is it something related to the social transformation? In media and cultural studies, we have two types of social change:

(i) major or macro social change that often appears to be revolutionary, as earlier seen in socialist revolutions; but recently in 

(a) Egypt and other West Asian nations including newly born South Sudan;

(b) Obama’s win over many traditional rifts and questions within US territory;

(c) significant socio-political change in many Latin American countries, like, Brazil, Nicaragua, Uruguay;

(d) demolition of Iraq and Afghanistan in the name and tag-line of liberation; and 

(e) live telecast of Gulf War;

(f) massive religious upsurge;

(g) ethnic and subaltern political outbursts as seen in UP and many other Indian states etc. 

(h) information revolution through social networking sites and media; complete dissolution of information, its institutional base, and the notion of public opinion; as we can count people voting on an opinion and hardly sustain.

(ii) minor or micro social change that appears to be quite subtle but can exert enough power to change the existing social order. Minor social changes often deal with ethnicity, individuality, social and cultural categories like, languages, emotions, conventions, rituals, hierarchies, deliberate praxis, exterior and interior behavioural expressions, milestones, traffic signals and all possible mundane exercises that affect life.

Mass media through programmes like mega soap operas, reality shows, news bulletins put a control over the above minor but significant categories that subtly cause a social change. Media were however also directly involved in disclosure of Watergate scam in late 70s, Jessica Lall murder case some years back and many such issues of investigation.

How do media perpetrate social change…

It is now quite interesting to watch that media mostly deal with all minor categories of social change to influence its audience except in some regional cases where media are seen quite polarized to a specific political stance. 

In all repetitive contents, like, news bulletins, mega soap operas, newer reality shows media while reiterating selective social categories cultivate its audience to change the behaviour in the long run. Noted communication theorist George Gerbner stated that “television acts as a ‘socializing agent’ that educates viewers on a separate version of reality. The concrete base behind the cultivation theory states that viewers tend to have more faith in the television version of reality the more they watch television. ‘Television world dramatically overemphasizes the prevalence of law enforcement jobs in the real world (Chandler).

So if now the cultivation power of media is instrumental to how media perpetrate social change, it involves certain procedural aspects or features media usually perform. It should also be noted at the same time that now we are not talking about the traditional developing agenda of mass media as a state machinery or organ. We are now in a situation where media conglomerates control the global media operation from phone tapping to providing necessary political backing. In such a situation all pervasive media operation leaves a very scant space for people’s participation in public sphere.

From the initial phase of global media operation with the collapse of Soviet Union people had an opportunity to observe the live media operation in the first Gulf War in 1990. Noted media theorist Douglas Kellner rediscovered the whole story behind the war declaration. US’s foremost official channel CNN publicizing two satellite photographs claimed that an ‘amass of 100,000 Iraqi soldiers gathered at the Qatar border. President George Bush in no further delay declared the deadliest war against Iraq. Later within two months it was further discovered that the yellow stretch was actually a line of sand bags and other materials delimitating the Iraq-Qatar border. An unprecedented social change comprising not only the destruction of a nation and huge public property but an afresh reach of global media through it also.

Media however, as analyzed so far, perform certain chronologically structured functions for every genre of its contents or programmes. US media theorists though found media audience very much willing to accept all media operations, have nevertheless restructured all aspects of media effect toward both major and minor social change. These are: 

(i) Priming: propagating before context;

(ii) Framing: how to prepare the message capsule;

(iii) Agenda Setting: short term media effect on both individual and mass audience; media set people’s agenda;

(iv) Media Cultivate: media in the long run change audience’s behaviour and ideology;

And in this manner media perform its duty to change the socio-political or socio-economic order.

Media spectacle and package…

But things are gradually becoming very complicated in the contemporary global mediation. With the growth of mediation and the globalization of media mass consumption of media contents is becoming the social order that has outlined the traditional notion of development. Today’s world and region receive mediational development much before territorial development. They receive advertisement of a product much before the produced one. Most of our population even does not have that opportunity to see the product for buying although they have enough exposure through popular media. But all industrial attentions converge to the centre of capital accumulation thus marginalizing peripheries and thus creating a havoc social change in favour of affordability and affluent exposure.

Media contents, i.e. advertisements, news, reality shows, mega soaps have gradually become distinct packages that broadcast everything but the truth of the product-message. A massive fictionalization of all above contents moves beyond the common head and judgements. Noted French theorist Jean Baudrillard comments interestingly: media practices have rearranged our senses of place and time. Television is the real world; television is dissolved into life and life is dissolved into television. The fiction is realized and the real becomes fiction…no freedom beyond this activity. We are proletariatized regardless of class, a function of the spectacle.

Establishment vs. Opposition Platforms: In search of ideology among common mass

Abir Chattopadhyay

Does this headline stink too much specially in West Bengal? or enough cliché anyway? Whatever it smells people of this state, otherwise, have to sit with this debate for at least coming one and half year, even if anyone ignores imminent 2012 debacle as accorded by some demanding astrologers!!! If it still looks enough viscid please let me introduce that categories like ‘political’, ‘commercial’, ‘social’ are going to be permeated within next one or two years into a complete mutation of the individual meaning of them. Through the postcommercial development of mass media toward becoming a ‘package’ ahead of a ‘message’ all categories of ‘individual and mass’ life are going to hover close to the end of existence. But the most interesting issue is that people of India including this state also largely are quite unaware of such mutation of all earlier meanings and categories as they by the reason of severe economic inequalities, cultural hierarchies, and bourgeois political domination face lots of struggle while in their mundane life. So mass media can easily maneuver such packages of understanding beyond common, traditional understandings of life which are mostly binary oppositional, staying between good or bad, yes or no, we or they, hero or villain etc. etc. The headline represents such a binary oppositional topic of discussion of the hour that often reduces natural plurality of political, social, cultural issues and leads to a simple ‘uneven’ concentration of power specially political and economic power in some bourgeois hierarchical strata. That not only baffles the common mass away from the mainstream political notions but makes them eternal consumer of mediated political packages.

Binarity between two prime categories

In between the above two categories ‘Establishment’ and ‘Opposition’ the leading debate exists between the mediated package and the traditional binary notions of life. Mass media everyday perpetrate an absolute detailing of establishment and opposition as well, as they create every moment of that and people are always eager to reduce the same into any friendly category of life, say government, local politics, village politics, market price,  2009, 2011, alliance, CPM, Trinamool, Congress etc. Therefore in this equation bourgeois media naturally have a tendency to maneuver such reductionist issues toward making of a mass understanding of it by creating pseudo often fabricated public opinion, as suited commercially. Media try thus to realign its audience reorienting their notions into a homogeneous one like ‘this time Mamata’ from 2001 since the birth of Trinamool congress, and Now 2011 etc.

What establishment and what opposition? An oversimplification altogether

Nevertheless people of West Bengal have to participate in this debate between mediated package and common opinion toward identifying establishment and the opposition. So let us better clarify what is establishment? And what indeed the opposition is? Common understanding often says ‘establishment’ is the government that rules, if further reduced, CPM government and opposition is ‘Mamata’ in any sensibility whatever or ‘no’. But extending such ordinary notion we will find various other categories that also rule common psyche and many such deviant or defiant voices on the other hand that do not rule but oppose ruling. Government ruling is often presupposedly taken as absorbing common individuated and oppositional desires. Common sense of ‘opposition’ therefore often comes out to be simply opposing such ruling. But beyond such oversimplified and near obsessive sense there are many other forms of establishment that also participate in ruling the common mass or psyche. 

Opposition dissolves: emergence of new ruling

After Singur and Nandigram fiasco the emergence of new individuals in the name of civil society have taken a self proclaimed ruling stance staunchly standing by the political opposition and have left no stone unturned to rule the mass. These people not disclosing membership of any particular political wing have created a new ruling over the common mass and public opinion straightway to the Trinamool Congress. Being hugely fed by bourgeois mass media the new ruling-power groups have been unceasingly rewarded in every kind possible. The sacred role of the common mass is, if at all needed, to just switch their TV set on or newspaper open and be an unimposing consumer. The unimposing consumer even media disseminate the fabricated death figure of 1500 people on 14th March, 2007 in Nandigram. If bourgeois media even compete among them on the fabrication of the number of death. Media thus create another establishment creating regular newer talk-shows with people who often try to be the opinion leaders of the common mass. The so called opposition platforms have consequently taken the safe shelter behind these opinions of newer individuals. A new binarity is at the same time been created. Opinion leaders on the other hand are to be shown politically independent and saviour of the bourgeois political parties which operate behind them. Binarity is the ‘others’ who are marked by their political identities. So ‘opportunism’ precisely ‘political opportunism’ is another ‘establishment’ that rules common psyche in the guise of so called marked opposition. Please note that this newer establishment is too costly as the members are to be heavily financially fed by another establishment, here it called the ‘Ministry of Railways’ which largely feeds the bourgeoisie with huge public money simply in the name of another establishment called ‘heritage’. Therefore ‘opposition’ here is mutated to become a form of more powerful counter establishment leaving mass distress of poverty, hunger, political killing, price hike, food inflation away from the spotlight. This is also a spectacle that evades ideological plurality.

32 years of left front government: still ‘establishment (!!!) in making’

Another inconsistent and anomalous (category) presupposition is the 32 years of left front ruling which is another ‘establishment in making’ beyond natural plurality of democracy. If democratic naturalism is the frequent change of the government, as often accorded by many social theorists, how then left front have won seven consecutive assembly elections since 1977. Is it beyond democracy!!! Wisely ‘no’. Here natural plurality supports the left front coalition that has ruled the state beyond ruling. This is important. It is not a package because capitalist democracy can’t generate that possibility in its procedural format. Opposition parties since 1982 have been trying to organize people against the left front. They were not totally unsuccessful in this process as they have also earned democratic space among people. But since 2001, opposition again was dissolved and oppositional content had been reduced to a mediated homogeneous ruling “This time or never”. Public however rejected this ultimatum. Same result spilled over in 2006, public again rejected such ‘ruling’. After winning considerably in Parliament election in 2009 and some municipal elections opposition parties have completely forgotten their agenda. The slogan is even further reduced to “Now 2011”. Gone is the oppositional identity, a new ruling emerges not as alternative but a mere consolidation that only desires power against proclaimed “32 years” of establishment. Dear reader, this is a pre-election scenario!!! Naturally opposition here is only the emergence of newer power bloc or consolidation.

Public reaction: backlash or vandalism

Recently a Kolkata based hospital was quite brutally ransacked by a violent mob alleging the hospital for not admitting some accident patients. But the attack was so planned and organized that vandals turned the hospital into a heap of rubble within hours. Is this a notion of opposition? Let us not confine our discussion within the Advertisements given by the hospital authority in almost all newspapers of the very next day that ‘this is a blow to the whole of hospital industry’. The state government has announced a departmental inquiry. But still the binarity remains in between the performance of hospital industry on the one side and the organized vandalism on the other. The deceased members of our society and the rubble of our property mutually symbolize the dissolution of both establishment and opposition toward making of a more powerful establishment structure that only exploits common people. Most importantly the remaining is the uneven power concentration in both sides of the coin where neither government nor any people’s ‘ideology’ have a legitimate entry. These concentrations not only provide a new ruling but destroy all kinds of welfare approaches of common life. State inquiry may throw a new light on it, but will then be anyone there to recognize what has happened really? This is suitably a question that hardly allows even the victims and their families.

People of not only this state but of the country have earlier seen many such incidents in the name of ‘public reaction’ or backlash etc. We have seen the demolition of Babri Mosque, Gujarat genocide, Maoist extremism, ransacking West Bengal state legislative Assembly by handful members of the state opposition and the list is endless. On the other side we have seen 2/3rd of total population of the state for seven consecutive times have supported a political coalition. Is it too non-commercial or chimera? Isn’t it a public reaction and at least better than killing common innocent mass?

In Nandigram since 2007 amongst all categories of events occurred during the year long massacre, the only neglected and impoverished category what have had a least amount of public attention was of those four thousand people being thrown away from their land. These people remained always ousted not only from their land but from the spectacle also. The whole of East Midnapore gradually came under a family ruling. Isn’t it an establishment that gathers only power to engulf the mass in an encircled impasse? Let us still not accept any binarity that declares the earlier regime in East Midnapore innocent. They have accepted public penance in exchange of every wrong stepping.

2011

This four digit combination nowadays acts beyond all its traditional meaning and gradually becomes a symbol many false connotations that somewhere scares people, gives a message of something historic beyond all democratic norms where people only have to perform and make a history of their own what they have done since last three decades. Therefore this was never a continuous process where they had chosen seven distinctly separate governments in West Bengal. 2011 is exactly like 2006, 2001, 1996, 1991, 1987, 1982, 1977 and even 1972 where people used to express their individual grievance, ideology, struggle, gratification, discontent, anger, deprivation. This individuality and a sense of independence keep them united which often wrongly defined as ‘polarization’. The other side of this stream is sheer domination which transcends even governmental ruling toward an emergence of unholy power over the common mass.