Breaking with tradition: Individual agency in mass communication

How do individual actors and modern day networks effect the traditional communication system? One of the traditional views of communication is expressed in the Shannon and Weaver sender-receiver model (drawn below, credit goes to Stephen Billig). 

Their 1949 model was based on radio transmission and highlighted the roles of the encoder (message originator), the message, the channel (through which the message is sent, e.g. radio or telephone), the decoder, and noise, or the risk of environmental interferences with the message. If the intended recipient successfully understands ("decodes") what the sender intended to him/her to understand, then the model is successfully realized. Amazing! 

If not, then it's a game of Telephone gone very, very wrong. For better or for worse. Right?

And maybe hilariously so. (Like Norman Rockwell depicted above, for an edition of the Saturday Evening Post.) Let's be honest here. Even with technology at our fingertips and ears--keyboards, headsets, bluetooth devices--it is rare that we successfully fulfill the Shannon and Weaver model. While we are gigabytes and exabytes ahead of Rockwell's time, our lovely human propensity for curiosity, laughter, and sense of scandal prevail. 

And, more often that not, our communications with others can get fuzzy. Though technology is increasingly used in place of face-to-face contact, it is not always the best medium for transmission of information. Skype drops out. You can't read your mother's face at the other end of the telephone when you tell her you had not one, but two hotdogs for dinner. From a cart. And the emoticons on GChat can't convey tone or accurately convey non-verbal reactions. (They're still missing an appropriate sarcasm emoticon.)

When it comes to mass media (instead of just the usual neighborhood gossip), what happens when we are part of the encoding process, and not just the decoding work? Professor Hayden highlighted this puzzle when he discussed the "the pervasiveness of mass self communication that preferences networks over nation states." This ability to mass self communicate -- via Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit -- seemingly "allows us to be reflexive consumers of information." In other words, he noted, "We also create agency over how, when and why what we consume as information, do with it, and create it."

Such thoughts are a fascinating way to frame this new era of communication and the complex issues that arise from it (including debates over fair use and copy right laws). 

The upside to all these debates is that although there are complexities that come with all of these developments, there are also benefits and exciting usage of technology that come out of the increasing role of individual agency in the mass communication process. See U.S. Ambassador to Korea Sung Kim's "Ask the Ambassador" video above. (Spoiler: I hope PSY doesn't request that he take it down because it includes snippets of "Gangnam Style".) More of Amb. Sung's videos are available here: http://www.youtube.com/user/USEmbassySeoul. 

Who assigns meaning to technology, and how?

Read about the caricature by clicking here.

Our in-class discussion and course readings by Elizabeth Hanson (“The Origins of the Information Revolution”), Daya Thussu (“The Historical Context of International Communication”), and Armand Mattelart (“The Emergence of Technical Networks”) traced the historical narrative of the field of international communications from the printing press to the telegraph to the telephone—mapping the technological communication advances of mankind all the way up until the Internet and modern day social networking platforms. Hanson and Thussu in particular pointed out the role of the nation state in facilitating the development of mass communication, while Mattelart made note of how political interests, networks, and culture had powerful effects on the actual development of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Thussu cited Reuters as a key example. History demonstrates how religious, social, and political leaders across the ages have always had a need for good information.

For many centuries, and still today in some areas of the world, literacy, information, and knowledge were reserved for the elite. The de' Medici family in Florence benefitted from learning what expensive goods lay in ships' hulls following their return from exotic trade routes--so they could better price them. Traders on both sides of the Atlantic yearn to know how the NYSE is faring; some may even risk jail terms to get insider trading tips. Amongst other points, our readings underscored how technological improvements in the delivery and exchange of up-to-date information created an appetite and hunger for more information. In reviewing the historic trajectory of international communication, the lessons learned often showcase the relationship between the information-privy and their subsequent desire for cultural, economic, and political recognition and hegemony.

(What is it about people and our love of sharing?)

In examining the historical path of the information revolution, it seems that a pattern emerges: Each technological advancement increased the power and role of the individual in society. While there were once national monopolies over the world’s telegraph lines as means of communication between cities and countries, telephony advanced and gave way to home phones and cell phones as means of communication between individuals. Over time, the information revolution became less of a technological phenomenon and more of a social phenomenon—a movement if you would have it—by today’s standards.

So, who has the privilege of assigning meaning to technology? If this question were raised one hundred years ago, the answer would most likely be nation states and the elites that led them. Today, however, the individual has a powerful hand in assigning meaning to technology. This is evident in the public’s use of Twitter and Facebook to voice opinions and launch a major socio-political movement during the recent Arab Spring. International communication is no longer a “macro” process administered by nation-states and governments. While once upon a time it was only by physically wiring far tracts of land and peoples together by the telegraph that nation-states successfully managed empires of power, wealth, and slaves--today international communication has succeeded in virtually knitting the world together in a whole new way through the Internet, the World Trade Organization, and manufacturing companies. These are just a few of the influential factors shaping our contemporary imagined community. International communication has moved from fueling the trade of raw goods for colonialism, running the engine of the industrial revolution to compacting the world through the process of globalization and raising awareness about the aftereffects.

Today, we continue to pursue an ongoing dialogue about the field in our very small, imagined community. SIS 640 is a microcosm of this community. I hope to learn more as we share and consume information by the millisecond, and as we ruminate on the importance of theories, systems, and organizations. What modes of communication are most effective in the 21st century? How can a public diplomacy practitioner adopt best practices culled from the study of international communication? How are our ideas and exchange limited by our current communication apparatuses? In her post, "The Invention of Culture," Dianna sagely notes how "Culture is the invention that [re]invents itself and the world around us constantly." In light of this thought, what is missing in our modern culture and method of information consumption, what will be reshaped and repurposed?    

As I look ahead, one of the most exciting prospects of our study is uncovering how culture and rhetoric have roles in shaping current and future dialogues across space, contexts, and individuals.