Mirror or Expediator

THE MAIN ISSUE in defining social and cultural change is that the word ‘change’ itself is broad in sense. There are a number of factors that influence change in society and culture e.g. economy, values, technology, education, environment, and the like but to focus more on the power of media to drive or retard changes, it can be asserted that mass communication possess one of the key roles to influence and mold a social structure. Mass media is a compelling agent of social change and stability—yet in both and different ways.

            In order to have a clearer understanding on the role of mass media as a propeller or hindrance to as what can be defined as transformations of societal patterns, media’s function in socialization should underline that it’s role is to be an ‘instrument’ of the general public, which mere reflects the society. As a mere reflector of society, the culprit then of why media can be either an influence or a barrier towards these changes is that change really depends on society itself and are only promoted by the media.  Although a negating premise may arise here since the presence of media filters should be considered. However, at the end of the day, it is the general public that makes up society and everyone should, more often than not, rely on a careful judgment of credibility.

            On the affirmative note, media acquires the power to influence social and cultural changes because as a dominant agent it can impose to the audience a new life pattern in which either will improve or corrupt a society’s foundation. To prove this, one needs to unravel the message content that media presents. In the controversy on whether or not tolerate the use of artificial contraceptives in the Philippines; media can be opinionated, say correlation as function of media get involved. As of this, if the content that media presents to its audience is to favor the propagation of contraceptive use in the country and considering that media is a powerful force to change or give insights of what ‘reality’ is in the public, chances are the audience may develop a mindset that can on that aspect be purely shaped by media. In this case, if media imposes that artificial contraceptive use is better compared from any natural forms and presents viable information to the people that it is now very timely to switch from traditional to a more improved method, all the more people will be encouraged to prefer the change media favors.

            Indeed, a very important element of media influence is its content. Similar applies with the notion on the kind of media that retards change. If the message conveys an opposition to change there is a high chance to influence the public to resist it as well taking into account communication’s authority towards them.

            Moreover, through the communication’s ritual perspective, media has the power to create a reality—a kind of society in which the ritual of the mass is imposed. This ritual function of communication enables the preservation of socialization and in that aspect can deprive society from modifications.            For example, the transfer of community ideals from one generation to another and expecting them to respond positively from this status quo can be achieved when communication persists to feed this notion to the public understandings. Then, tradition is preserved, by not allowing change to penetrate and affect the existing conditions of a society.

            To reiterate, mass media can be either an influence or an impediment for social and cultural changes this is so because media is a mere instrument of society and therefore only works as its reflector. What society and its culture encompass is what, as well, media represents. In lieu of mass media as an agent or not an agent of change, a number of premises exist.  One is that media may primarily reinforce existing views that society holds. Another, it may bring radical or evolutionary changes in society resulting to short term or long term change. However, the most important one to bear in mind is the fact that communication works for people and is a mere agent that can provide or modify perspectives for its audience. It can be a culprit of change or it can be the otherwise but what and should function always is the own perception of society to embrace change or not. The own rationality and judgment of people prevails at the end of the day.

            If it happens that media embarks a light of change people should not expect that media will bring about major or rapid changes in public attitudes since personal choice exists. While in terms of retarding these social and cultural changes, media can also be a primary factor however, again, it cannot undermine the existence of personal judgment and that knowledge over time helps to change people's attitudes or view towards the subject.

            All these should be taken into consideration; that media can work either way, as an agent of both preservation and modification of culture and society. Quoting Rosengren(1981) statement, “The question whether the mass media are agents of change or as reinforces of status quo cannot be answered in a general way.”, both can be the answer.

From a Deviant Perspective

DEVIANCE in a universal definition pertains to a person who diverges from usual or accepted social standards or who violates the accepted norms of a society. It can be analyzed that this meaning of deviance persisted in almost everyone’s vocabulary that it will be difficult for one to examine further what lies beneath that so called “label”. However, there can be another way to look at the word’s definition and not merely confine it to the common statement: deviance as seen from a Cultural Relativist perspective.

            According to Cultural Relativism, there is no such thing as universal truth in ethics because there are only various cultural codes; it challenges the belief in objectivity and universality (Rachels J. & Rachels R., 2010). The following claims, according to Rachels J. & Rachels R., 2010, have all been made by cultural relativists: (1)Different societies have different moral codes (2) The moral code of society determines what is right within that society; that is if moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right at least within that society (3) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one society’s code as better than another’s. (4) The moral code of one’s own society has no special status; it is but one among many. Lastly; (5) It is mere arrogance to judge the conduct of other people and everyone should adopt an attitude of tolerance towards other cultures.   

            From these arguments three main points can be interpreted—societies have varying cultures, a particular society judges what is wrong or right at least in that society only, and cultural differences must be tolerated. Nevertheless, if these claims indeed persist, how can then deviance be defined in such perspective?

            In defining deviance, considering these main points, it is, as well, relative. There is such a thing as deviance and exists within a particular subgroup—that is to say the connotation of deviance varies from a group to another which also have dissimilar cultures. The view of what is wrong and right depends in the society having a common belief and the opinion of other groups is not deemed significant in judging a deviant in their society. Therefore only that society in which a violation is observed can have the power to label its member/s as deviant/s. For example, in cultural relativity, the point of view of Callatians must be tolerated by the Greeks and not judge it by any means as inferior or superior. This is respect for other culture, also when it comes to the idea of deviance, it is but similar. Greeks cannot have the command to give the idea of what is wrong or right for the Callatians and can never therefore brand a member of it as conforming or non-conforming because only a Callatian distinguishes the violation of his fellowmen in their accepted social norms. Considering the belief that no universal moral codes exists, a Callatian deviant is for Callatian society and a Greek deviant is for the Greeks.

            A person only becomes a deviant when he disobeys the norms in the society he belongs to, however, that violator is not necessarily a deviant for other cultures. This is possible when a person belongs to not only a single group, but in two or more.  For example, a homosexual man in the world of normal genders sets a trend in fashion that is uniquely his own or in specific term “cross dress”. Identifying first the homosexual man’s groups, it is apparent that he as well belongs to the world of normal genders simply because he has a gender. He is a male. However, since he also belongs to another type of group (being homosexual) which is different from his group (being a male), he may commit a deviant act by being a cross dresser for the first group he belongs to but for the latter, it is at all, normal. A male will look at him as a violator of their gender’s fashion, but for fellow homosexuals it is accepted.

            Now, a possible question may arise from this claim: Where is now the tolerance of other society’s culture? Recalling the second argument of Rachels J. & Rachels R., it states that the moral code of society determines what is right within that society; that is if moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right at least within that society. Cultural relativism claims that the moral codes of a society determines what is right and ,therefore, what is wrong at least within that society. The second claim does not underline that if the perspective determines what is right it also concludes what is wrong for a society.  Although cultural relativism teaches respect of other’s culture, it does not necessarily tolerate negating behavior of a person belonging in a society—that is to say his member’s do not necessarily accept it. This is because they belong in a common group which is binded by common beliefs. As a “member” a person should conform within his society just like with his co-members in the group. If the person does not follow their social norms, his fellow men can label him as a deviant but at the same time presents no culture intolerance because the person he views as violator is a member of “their group” and not of the other. Hence he is not necessarily negating a Cultural Relativist belief because the violation happened within the group itself, having a common moral code, and not a deviant in basis from culture to culture.

            Culture varies in different social groups and should be tolerated. However this does not mean that deviance cannot materialize in a society. This happens when a person has a number of groups in which he belongs to and the norms of each overlap. Also, when the judgment comes from the members of his society and not from the other, these members have the rights to label the person as deviant for they belong in the same group having common moral code, not from a completely different society having dissimilar moral codes. The deviant commits what is conceived to be wrong in that one society he appropriates himself but for his another society it is completely natural. There is no cultural intolerance since the deviant violated the social norms of his society in which he is a ‘member’ as compared to a Callatian whom is not a member of the Greeks but for the latter he is a deviant. Then here comes intolerance.