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.
No comments:
Post a Comment