Ferment  in the Field? Review  Essay

REVIEWED BY LES SWITZER
Communication  as a field of study has been virtually  transformed in the  past
25  years  by  the work of various  scholars emanating  mainly  from  Europe and
parts of Asia and  Latin America.  Much of this work  has been a critique of the
media of communication in capitalist  and colonialist  societies  and it has  been
influenced  directly or indirectly by the tradition of historical  materialism.
Many  of  these  scholars  have  been  trained  in disciplines  other 
than
communication  per se and very  few are media  professionals.

Until  recently they have had  very  little  impact on researchers in the  United
States  where the teaching  and  study of communication  was  inextricably  linked
with  the desire  to provide  communication  skills  programmes  in  journalism,
speech, broadcasting  and  film,  and eventually in public  relations,  advertising
and  in corporate  and community  organizations. 
From  the  beginning,
professional  training  provided a substantive  rationale for  researach as well
as  teaching. 
Communication  was  perceived as a skill  to- be  learned  and the
study  of communication  was essentially a functional  exercise  to  evaluate,
improve and/or develop communication  skills.

Communication  as an academic  discipline was developed in the  United  States by
scholars  in  the social  sciences  (1).  They were  primarily  concerned  with
developing  models  and methodologies  to study the  causes  and effects of
specific  acts of communication. 
Few were prepared to first  locate and  then
study  the communication  process within the framework of a given  society or to
analyze the media of communication as part of the historical  process.

Even  fewer  were  prepared  to offer a critical  assessment  of the role of
communications  media  in Western  societies. 
followers  of the  Frankfurt  School  in the United  States  between the  1930s and
the  1960s  —  remained  essentially  outside the mainstream  of  communication
research.  In a fundamental  sense, these scholars  could  not be homogenized or
integrated  into the discipline as it was then perceived. 
They were  generally
ignored  by those who controlled  teaching  and research  in  communication in
United  States colleges  and universities  and they played a marginal  role  only
in the development of the discipline.

Those who did  —  such  as  the

In the past  10 years or so, 
however,  the  'critical' tradition of communica-
tion research,  as it is dubbed by many American  scholars, has penetrated  some
of the citadels of the communication  teaching  and  research  establishment.  In
a  special  issue  (summer  1983) of the Journal of Communication,  a prestigious
and  slightly  left of mainstream  publication  produced by the Annenberg  School
of  Communications  at the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  41  "internationally
prominent"  scholars  from  the United  States  and nine  other  countries (all
European) were given the opportunity to express  ther  feelings  about the  status
of  communication  research  and  the role of  communications  in  comtemporary
society.

The  issue  was entitled  "Ferment in the Field" -- perhaps a typical  response
from American  scholars who would  have regarded  what was new to them as new to
everyone  else. 
There  is certainly a 'critical' tradition in  communication
research  that has challenged  the American  academic  establishment,  but it is
hardly  a  'ferment  in the field' outside America. 
What  we have  in  this
symposium,  in fact,  is a series of responses to the  'critical' tradition by
scholars  working  within  and in varying degree outside of the  mainstream US
functional  empirical  tradition in communication  research.

Clltical toiti, Vol 3 No 3  I9S5

57

EUROPEAN  APPROACHES

the  least  interesting  essays  were  w r i t t e n, 

enough,  fcv
Some  of 
Europeans  who  were  presumably  representative  of 
t r a d i t i o n.
Tamas  Szecsko's  essay  on the  s t a te  of  the  a rt  in  Hungary  is  perhaps  a  c l a s s ic
s o c i a l i st
example  of  just  how puerile  communication  research  can become  in  a 
communicaiic1"
democracy. 
research  was  well  w r i t t e n,  e f f e c t i v e ly  addressing  t he  issues  posed  Dy 
t ie
editors  of  the  j o u r n a l.

In  contrast,  Roberto  Grandi's  piece  on 

i r o n i c a l ly 
' c r i t i c a l' 

I t a l i an 

t he 

to  the  French  government: 

about  Francis  Balle  and 

H a t t e l a rt  chose  to  summarize  a  report 

Armand Mattelart's  a r t i c le  on  communication  research  and  p o l i cy  in  France  was
in  view  of  the  a u t h o r 's  deserved  r e p u t a t i on  as  a
especially  disappointing 
critic  of  media  imperialism. 
tie  had
sent 
it  said  something  about  t he  d e f i c i e n c i es  cf
mediated  reality  in  France  but  v i r t u a l ly  nothing  about  recent  c o n t r i b u t i o ns  cf
French  academics  to  c r i t i c al  communication  reseach. 
said 
contemporary  trends  in  communication  research  in  France. 
so  far  as it  revealed  the  extent  to  which  French 
theoretically 
with  the  impression  that  French  scholars  on  t he  ' l e f t'  as  w e ll  as  t ie 
had  sought  to  analyse  mass  media  as  an  independent  v a r i a b le  apart 
society.  There  was  l i t t le  evidence  from  t h is  a r t i c l e,  at  l e a s t, 
research 
in  terms  of  methodology 
functional  models  c u l t i v a t ed  more  e f f e c t i v e ly  and more  assiduously 

The  same  t h i ng  could  be
en
:r
researchers  had  departec
l e ft
' r i g h t1

from  American  models  since  World  War  II  but  one was  s t i ll 

t i at  Frencn
from 
the
in  America.

in  r e a l i ty  was a ll  t h at  d i f f e r e nt 

I d a l i na  Cappe  de  B a i l l o n 's 

It  was  reasonable 

a r t i c le 

from  French

Elizabeth  Noelle-Neumann's  essay  was  a  rehash  of  media  e f f e c ts 
research
(mainly  American  and German)  over  the  past  60  years. 
It  seemed  a  r a t h er  sad
conmentary  on  the  extent  to  which  German  communication  t h e o r i s ts 
have  been
clones  of  the American  empirical 
Equally
disappointing  were 
the  essays  by  Jeremy  T u n s t a l l,  Jay  Blumler  and  even  Jim
Halloran  — a ll  of  whom  are h i g h ly  regarded  by  the  mainstream  United  States
conmunicatioin  research  establishment.

t r a d i t i on  since  World  War 

I I. 

in  f a c t, 

' c r i t i c a l' 

t r a d i t i on  as  being  a h i s t o r i c a l. 

There were,  however, 
several  exceptions.  Cees  Hamelink  (Holland)  c r i t i c i z ed
the  distinction  often  made  by  communication  scholars  (he  c i t ed  Everett  Rogers1
of  an  'empirical'  and 
The  foun-
employed  t h is  method  to  defend
ders  of  modern  empirical  research, 
their  critical  political  positions.  Hamelink  also  pointed  out 
the
empirical-critical  distinction 
the  empirical  method  used  by  many
researchers  in  the  ' c r i t i c a l'  t r a d i t i o n.  He  viewed  both  traditions  as  a r t i f i-
epistemological
cial  creations  but  he  did  suggest  they  reflected 
positions"  offering  "fundamentally  different  value  assumptions" 
contra
Rogers  "cannot  easily  and  even  should  not  be  reconciled".  Hamelink  called  for
a  nen scientific  paradigm  "as  a  tool  for  emancipation"  but  questioned  whether
i ts
it 
intellectually  colonized 
the
rational-empirical  code":

"and 
"indoctrinated  with 

could  be  developed  by  scholars 

t e r r i t o r i e s"  who  were 

the  Western  world 

" d i s t i n ct 

ignored 

that 

that 

from 

We need to  recognize  that  our  f i e ld  of  inquiry  has  moved 
relatively  marginal  interest  to  the  very  center  of  today's  societies,
and  information  technology  is  increasingly  becoming 
the  underlying
infrastructure  for  many  economies...With  new  information  technologies
creating  new  dependencies,  strengthening  established  powers,  and
bringing  about  new  social  discrepancies...

from

CtiUcal  fJiti  Vol  3  No  3  7915 

58

In this context,  name]ink  suggested  that  communication  research  would  have to
demonstrate  "whose  side  It Is on".  The perennial  problem of  "the  distribution
and execution of  power  In social  systems" would  be crucial  for  the  communica-
tion  scholar of the future. 
It would  have to be examined  "in  such a way  that
the forces at work  can be exposed,  understood,  and  changed".

NARROW  FOCUS

Karl  Erik  Rosengren  (Sweden) offered  a typology of  four  research  paradigms
based  on a model  by  sociologists  Gibson Burrell  and Gareth Morgan  (2).  His
concept  of a paradigm  was too narrowly  focused  and  his subsequent  description
of  the ways  In which  the dominant  'functional' paradigm could  respond  to  the
criticisms  of the three  'dissident'  paradigms  was grossly  reductionist  (3).
Given the way  in which  Rosengren defines the alternative  paradigms outlined  in
his  typology,  the  reader  is not  surprised  when  he is told  that  in  the  end
these dissident  opinions will  be harmonized  with the  'dominant'  paradigm.

British  scholar Robert  A.  White offered  a much more coherent  summary  of  the
debate  in  his  article  discussing  the  links  between
functional-radical 
He begins by offering  four reference  points  in
communication  and  culture. 
seeking 
these
relationships:

and  methodologies 

studying 

appropriate 

theories 

for 

* Does  one  begin  with  the cultural  context  in  analyzing  the  links
between media and culture.  Do the media directly  influence culture or  do they
"simply mirror and  amplify  cultural  development  by picking up cultural  themes,
reformulating  them,  and  reflecting  them back to an agreeing  public".

* What  are the precise relationships  between the material  base  (which
non-material
What  is the role of  the

White 
superstructure  (which White suggests  is cultural). 
mass media  in the base-superstructure  nexus.

suggests  Is  both  political  and  economic)  and  the 

* Do the new communication  technologies  directly  influence culture  or is

the influence of technologies  mediated  through  social  structures.

* Does  one conceive of the mass media primarily as an agency of  social

control  and of  "socialization  into a dominant  culture" or  is the role of mass
media  to be seen  In promoting  "sociocultural  diversity and  change".

White  summarized  the ways  in which  the dominant  functional  or empirical  para-
digm  tried  to resolve  these questions  in the past  two generations  and  then
focused  on  the strengths and weaknesses of five  contemporary  communication
researchers who were deemed  to be major  influences  in the media-culture  debate
-- Marshall  McLuhan,  George Gerbner,  Stuart Hall,  James Carey  and  Michael
Real.

White  concludes  that  both theory  and methodology must move beyond  "commnica-
tions as social  control  to  its role  in sociocultural  change".  What  is  needed,
he  suggests,  is a theory that can account  "for the  interaction  of change  in
social  structure,  change in communication  patterns  (including  reorganization
of mass media),  and change  in culture". 
He offers  four new reference  points
in conceptualizing  a framework  for analyzing  the relationship  between  communi-
cation and culture:

CUticat  Alts  Vol 5 No 5  I9S5 

59

*  The  emergence  of  more  entrenched  and  more  elaborately  hierarchical

-;»
power  elites  suggests 
to  determine 
subordinate  groups  establish  alternative  patterns  of  communication  and 
ic»
they "seek  new forms  of  control  over  their  information,  and  make  better  use  :*
Die available  information".

that  new  efforts  must  be  made 

*  The  success  or  failure  of  alternative  communication  networks  depends

in  part  on  how  effectively  subordinate  groups 
symbols...in 
terms  of  their  own  identity  and  interests  to  provide 
for  projecting  a new meaning  of  the  group  to  the  larger  society". 
overarching  symbols" 
z*
com»inication...that  cuts  through  barriers  of  social  class,  age,  and  e t ^ ic
and religions  identities".

the  organsz:';
tas: s

tne 
These  "'<?<•

'language 

"redefine 

a 

new 

form 

"the 

basis 

for 

*  Researchers  need to  evaluate  the  extent  to  which  sociocultural  dissent

technology.  White  believes 

f i at
ideologies  and

could  trigger  changes 
technology  can  respond 
activities.

in  communication 
in  positive  ways 

to  alternative 

*  Finally,  more  research  is  needed  on  how  these  innovative  or  alternative
what  are  the
social  movements are  institutionalized  within  a  given  society: 
the  new  levels  of  public  access  and
new  forms  of  ownership  and control, 
influence  over  media  policy  and  administration,  and  the  new  norms  of  what
constitutes  "valid  information"  and  "valid  tastes  for  entertainment".

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

the  symposium
The  most impressive  contribution  by  a  non-American  scholar  at 
reminder 
that
was  by  Nicholas  Garnham.  Garnham  begins  with  the 
timely 
information
communication  scholars  have  a  "social  responsibility"  in  the  new 
society that  depends  for  fulfillment  not  on  how  well  "communication  per  se 
.s
analyzed but on  "those  wider  social  developments  for  which  communication  is  a
fashionable and misleading  label". 
In  other  words,  " if  we  wish  tc  understand
the  media we must  not  (my  emphasis)  look  at  the  media".  Rather  we  nust  look
at  those  "central  concerns"  of  society  that  have  been  the  subject  of 
by  social  scientists 
sociologists  and economists). 
for  studying media  of  communication.

inquiry
(he  singles  out  historians,
This  is  the  only  proper  context,he  suggests,

in  every  discipline 

to 

the  United  States,  British  media  studies  emerged 

In  contrast 
f r o*  a
literary  cultural  framework  (the  'founding  fathers'  were  men  like  F.R.  Leavis.
Richard  Hoggart  and  Raymond Williams)  "that  was  c r i t i c al  of  capitalism  and
that  saw  the  mass  media  as  part  of  a  specific  and  concrete  historical
development  of  British  social  and  cultural 
The  second  major
Influence  (from the  1960s)  were  the  neo-Harxists  who  detailed  "the  nature  and
function of  ideology  in  late  capitalist  societies".

relations". 

British  media  studies  was  an  amalgam  of  these  two  currents  of  opinion  arx)
consequently  media  researchers  were  primarily  concerned  "with  the  nature  of
culture  in  a capitalist  social  formation".  Garnham  suggests  that  the  strength
of  the  British  media  studies  tradition  from  the  beginning  was  its  opposition
to  the  role  of 
in  education  and  media  of  mass
Its  weakness  was  in  overemphasizing  textual  analysis  ( 'media
communication. 
effects' 
"exaggerated

in  the  United  States  functional  tradition)  and  in 

the  dominant  alliance 

i ts 

Ciiticat  KluU  Vol  3  No  3  1985 

60

concern with  Ideology conceptualized  in a highly  idealist  form".

Garnham  summarizes  the  treatment  of  ideology  in British media  studies  and
calls  for a return  to  the  "tradition of historical  materialism". 
A return  to
the centrality  of  the mode of production  and  to the questions  that  arise  from
this  problematic: 
how  the mode of  production  reproduces  itself  ("crisis"),
how 
"the  resulting  unequal  distribution  of  the  surplus  is  legitimized"
("revolution") and  how economic  and  ideological  levels  interact.

In  a sentence,  ideology  has been  severed  from  its  economic  base. 
Garnham
tries  to  demonstrate  that  Marxist  models  in  the  British  media  studies
tradition  and  functional  models  In the United  States  "empirical  mass  media
sociology"  tradition  are remarkably  similar: 
Both  rely on  an  asocial  and
ahlstorlcal  "ideological  Idealism"  in  analyzing  the  effect  of  media  on
audiences.

Garnham poses  two specific  problems  for the social  scientist  --  including  the
researcher  studying  communication  and culture:

•  How  does  a  given  social  formation  «  characterized  by 

its

placement  In  a national  and  international  economy  and by a vastly  increased
and  increasing division  of  labor  --  ensure  "that  there are the right number of
producers  of the right  type  in the right place at the right  time  to  produce
the necessary  mix of  commodities  to ensure  social  survival  and continuance?"

*  Given  the gross  inequalities  In the distributioin  of the  surplus

product...and  given  the apparent  collapse of traditional  sources  of  central
moral  and  political  authority  (and)...an  apparent decline  in the use by  the
dominant  class of overt  political  coercion  ...  how can  social  breakdown  due to
class conflict  be avoided?"

To respond to these problems effectively,  Garnham  urges  that  scholars  working
within  the framework  of historical  materialism  return  to  its roots:

My position does not  imply,  obviously,  a wholesale rejection of  the
often  valuable  Insights of  ideological  analysis. 
It does,  however,
entail  a major  shift  in perspective and emphasis,  in order,  1  would
argue, 
the
ideological 
formations  so  analysed  and  thereby  to  explain  how
producers  and consumers of  ideology  are positioned,  not  by  ideology
Itself  ...  but  by their material  conditions of existence.

to  understand  the  social  conditions  for 

properly 

The rest of the article  is a well-articulated  defense of  this  position.

AMERICAN  APPROACHES

However  incomplete,  this  attempt  to summarize  the  contributions  of  the
European  contingent  provides us with  a reference point  from  which  to  evaluate
the  contributions  by  United States scholars to the  'ferment  in  the  field1.
From  the perspective of those who control  the Journal  of  Coimunication,  the
Europeans  represented  a carefully  selected  spectrum  of  'foreign'  scholarly
opinion  that  presumably  would  advocate  in  varying  degree  the  'critical'
framework. 
In fact,  only a minority  of these  scholars  have done so.  If one
employs  the functional-critical  dichotomy  to discern  the direction of  bias  in
these  articles,  at  least 60 per cent  by this reader's  reckoning  are  in  the

Clitical Anti Voi 3 No  3  1985 

61

functional mold.

to  debate 

*en  one  considers  the  enormous  range  of  communication  journals 
and  the  difficulty  of  gaining  access  to  any  of  them  if  one  happens 
within the  tradition  of  historical  materialism, 
the  journal 
tradition  — can only  be  regarded  as  commendable. 
The  overwhelming  ma;cnty
of  United  States  communication  scholars  are  overtly  or  covertly  opposed  tc  t!~e
critical 
undoubtedly
Maintain ideological  control  for  many  years  to  come. 
Thus  when  one  considers
the  contributions  of  American  scholars  in  this  symposium  who  subscribe  tc  tKe
tradition,  one  is  actually  considering  most  of  the  explonents  of
'critical' 
this  tradition  — at  least  those  who  publish  -- 

„ . ;.
t:  wcr«
the  efforts  by  the  editors  c-
' c n t i c a '.

tradition  — a dominant  intellectual  alliance  that  w i ll 

the  topic  —  however  one  defines 

in  the  United  States.

in  :-e 

the 

institutions  as  well), 

(I  group  the  two  together  because  the  c r i t i c al 

the  contributions  by  the  United  States-Canadian  contingent  are
frameworks

Nevertheless, 
very  impresive. 
employed  by  many Canadian  researchers  has  had  some  impact  on  united  Slates
scholars  and the  two  groups  often  collaborate  on  projects).
Articles  worth  reading  include  William  Melody  and  Robin  Hansell's  piece  on
critical  versus  what  they  call  administrative  research  --  a  North  American
The  team  from  Simon  Fraser  university
code  name  for  functional  research. 
condemn  the  enpiricists  for  excluding  from  analysis  "issues  relating  to 
the
structure  of  economic  and political  institutions  (and  sometimes  social  ani
cultural 
the
characteristics  of  dominant-depoendent  relations  and  the  incentives  of  vested
interests".  The  critical  researchers  who  focus  on  these  topics 
"contradict
and fundamentally  threaten  the  administrative  t r a d i t i o n ".  Melody  and  Mansell
supported by Stuart  Ewen,  Timothy  Haight,  Vincent  Hosco,  Herb  Schiller  gc  or
to  suggest  that  problems  in  communication  do  not  rest  with 
the  empirical
evidence  but  rather  "with  the  decisions  as  to  what  evidence  w i ll  be  sought,
how  it  will  be gathered,  and to  what  use  it  w i ll  be  put...the  context  of 
its
interpretation".  They  maintain  that  the  "real  basis"  for  the  positions  taken
by  adherents  of 
the
in  existing
allegiance  of 
political  and economic  institutionalized  power  relations 
They  are  not  merely
theoretical  disputes  that  can  be  resolved  through  scholarly  debate".

the  status  quo  versus  changes 

the  administrative  and  c r i t i c al 

the  centralization 

researchers 

traditions 

power. 

"lies 

of 

to 

in 

I  shall  concentrate  on  two  articles. 

To  gain  the  measure  of  quality  in  the  c r i t i c al  research  undertaken  by  North
The  f i r st  one  is  by
American scholars, 
Dallas  Smythe,  a  'founding  father1  of  c r i t i c al  communications  scholarship 
in
North  America  and  a member  of  the  c r i t i c al  studies  group  at  Simon  Fraser
University,  and Tran  Van  Dinh  of  the  Pan African  Studies  Department  at  Tenple
University 
versus
admini strati ve 
"the
ideological  orientation  of  the  researcher".

They  are  also  concerned  with  c r i t i c al 
the 

in  Philadelphia. 

their  concern 

research  but 

focus  of 

is  with 

ADMINISTRATIVE  PROBLEM

in 

the  above  context  —"how  to  make  an  organization's 

Smythe and Van Diinh"s  definition  of  an  administrative  problem  is
instructive 
more  efficient"  —  as 
reshape  or 
social  community". 
"applications  of  neopositivist,  behavioural  theory  to  the  end  of 

actions
to
relevant
In  terms  of  methodology,  they  see  a  dichotemy  between  the
divining

invent  institutions  to  meet  the  collective  needs  of  the 

their  definition  of  a  c r i t i c al 

problem 

--  "how 

Citiiail 

A>Ui  Vol  3  No  3  1985 

62

effects  on  Individuals  versus  "historical,  materialist  analysis  of  the
contradictory  process  in the real world".  And  in terms of  ideology:

ideology, 

'administrative' 

By 
linking
of  admlnlstratlve-type  problems  and tools, with  interpretation
of results  that  supports, or does not seriously  disturb,  the
status quo.  By  'critical'  ideology, we refer  to the  linking
of  'critical' researchable  problems and critical  tools with
Interpretations  that  involve  radical  changes  in the  established
order.

mean 

we 

the 

To  this  reviewer.  Dalles  and  Smythe offered  the  best  definition  of  the
functional-critical  dichotomy  that was given  in the  symposium.

The  authors  go  on to explore the different  types  of  administrative
research  and conclude:

After half a century of such repetitive,  noncombinable
'communications  research1,  it should  be evident  to all
that no  large theory can emerge  from  it.  In addition
to providing  academic  careers  for its practitioners,  it
Is also a fertile base for market  research.  It is
undeniably  'administrative'  in the interest  of the
ongoing  polItical-economic  order.

The authors also consider,  albeit  briefly, a type of  'institutional'  adminis-
trative  research  in  North  America  that appears  to  be  "independent  and
critical"  while 
and
nondialectically  materialist". 
These are the would-be  'radical' scholars, of
which  there  are many  in the United  States,  who try  to  formalize  critical
research  frameworks  which  at best  are reformist  and continue  to adhere to the
assumption 
for
Institutional  problems".

that  'market  forces'  constitute  "a  universal 

in  reality  it  is  "methodologically 

ahistorical 

solvent 

research  of  how  communication  scholars  have 

Research  on  the  'information  age'  provides the  most  recent  example  in
administrative 
celebrated
America's  continuing  love  affair with technology  as the  cure-all  for  the
world's problems:  "this  literature obscures the real  processes  of change with
a  technical  determinism  that  serves  the core area's  industrial  institutions
well".

MARXIST  SCHOLARSHIP

Smythe  and Van Dtnh offered one of the few articles  in the symposium  that was
In any way systematic  In its exposure of the whole of the American  functional
tradition. 
The  authors were equally critical,  however,  of the  'critical'
tradition,  which,  as  they  defined  it,  did  not  preclude  a  non-Marxist
Nevertheless,  the article  is concerned  mainly with  the  Marxist
perspective. 
tradition  in  critical  scholarship  as  it has evolved  in  North  America 
~
especially  since the Vietnam War.

Smythe  and  Van  Dinh pointed  out that "Marxist  scholarship"  in  the  United
States  was "characterized  by fragmentation  and  a lack  of  coherence". 
They
added that there was  "virtually  no ongoing contact  between  the Marxist  work  in
the  social  sciences  and critical/Marxist  work  in  communications". 
This

A/lta Vol 3 No 3  1985

reviewer  was  surprised  to  learn  that  there  were  "several  dozen"  journals  m
the  U.S.  offering  a  forum  for  Marxist  scholars  but  "communications  theory  and
research  are  conspicuously  neglected":

Critical/Marxist  work  in  communications  must  make  i ts  own  way. 
Marxist 
friends 
bureaucratically 
too  culture-bound  to  provide  much  help.

inward-looking  with  t h e ir  d i s c i p l i n a ry 

science  d i s c i p l i n es 

the  social 

p o l i t i cs 

are 

in 

Us

too
or

The  authors  cited  several  American  commnication  scholars  who  have  made
significant  contributions  in  c r i t i c al  communications  research,  but  much  of 
has  been  in  the  international  rather  than  the  intranational  arena:

it

The  problems  selected 
to 
institutional  aspects  of  developed  countries  as  they  c o l l i de  with 
real  needs  and  situations  of  peoples  in  dependent  countries  -- 
Third  World  and  to  some  extent  in  the  developed  areas.

in  the  past  two  decades  have  related 

in 

the
the
the

Smythe  and  Van  Dinh  suggest  that  the  time  is  ripe  f or 
c*
critical  studies  on  national  and  international  communication  --  as  evidenced
to  e s t a t l i sn  a
by  the  acceleration  in  the  nuclear  arms  race  and  the  e f f o rt 
worldwide 
They  conclude  that  c r i t i c al 
communications
research  in  future  must  strive  to  analyze  the  e f f o r ts  to  r e s i st  domination  and
highlight  the  strategies  of  resistance  being  undertaken  at  the 
i n t e r n a t i o n a l,
national  and  —  a  neglected  area  in  c r i t i c al  communication  studies  --  at 
t^e
conmunity-neighbourhood  level.

information  society. 

i n t e g r a t i on 

the 

1YOUNG TURKS'

The last  article  to  be  considered  in  t h is  review  essay  is  by  two  'young  Turks'
Their
of  critical  communications  research  —  Jennifer  Slack  and  Martin  A l l o r. 
central  concern 
to
r e l a t i o n s h ip
communications 
between critical  and  mainstream  " l i b e r a l / p l u r a l i s t" 
f u n c t i o n a l / c r i t i c a l)
approaches.

research  in  the  United  States  and  to  c l a r i fy 

the  origins  of  c r i t i c al 

to  demystify 

approaches 

(read 

the 

is 

the 

c r i t i c al 

in  the  two 

The  authors  focus  on  the  problems  of  causality 
begin  with  an  analysis  of  how  mainstream  researchers  have  misinterpreted 
w i th 
Lazarsf  i e l d' s
dynamics  of 
school  —  beginning 
They  demonstrate  tvyu
characterization  of  the  Frankfurt  School  in  the  1940s. 
the  dichotomy  between  the  'administrative'  and 
cane
about,  how both  traditions  were  appropriated  by  mainstream  researchers  and  hew
i n e v i t a b ly
these  scholars  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  two  schools  would 
converge.  This 
very
significant  because 
the
symposium i t s e lf  —  in  other  words,  to  t ry  and  harmonize  the  two  t r a d i t i o n s.

it  undermines  one  of  the  major  premises  behind 

however  abbreviated, 

review  of  the 

t r a d i t i o n s. 

l i t e r a t u r e, 

t r a d i t i o ns 

' c r i t i c a l' 

They
the

is 

then  show  how  every  model 

communications
Slack  and  Allor 
research  since  the  1950s  —  including  the  'hypodermic', 
two-step  and  m u l t i p l e-
step  flow,  gatekeeping,  uses  and  g r a t i f i c a t i o n s,  a t t i t u de  and  c o g n i t i ve  models
— have  been  but  variations  of  a  single  linear  model:

in  mainstream 

mainstream  mass  communication  research  has,  despite 
increasing
sophistication,  retained  a  commitment  to  a  conception  of  communication
as  a  contextless  process. 
Sender,  message,  receiver,  and  e f f e ct  are

i ts 

OUXical  kcti  Vol  3  No  3  1985 

64

all  isolatable phenomena,  related  to one  another  in single and  direct
relationships  ...  Conceptualising  context  in this way  ...  seriously
limits the ways  in which  social  context  can be seen as determining  the
nature of  communication.

The  alternative  critical  studies  tradition  hinges  "consideration  of  social
context  on a redefinition  of the nature of the communication  process".  As the
authors emphasize, the  "apparent  diversity  (my  italics) of critical  approaches
derives  from  the  different  ways  in which  they fracture  the  linear  causal
model".

The  authors consider  some of these critical  approaches  —  including  political
economy,  the Frankfukrt  School, Marxist  sociology,  dependency  theory,  cultural
studies  and  what they call  continental  philosophy. 
Again,  these  are  not
mutually  exclusive categories  and they do not all necessarily  stem  from  the
tradition  of  historical  materialism. 
But all  focus on causality  in  social
context.

SOCIAL  POWER

The last section of this very  important  article  is devoted  to the notion  that
causality  alone  is  not enough  in critical  communications  research: 
"the
political  question of social  power,  linked with  the epistemological  question
of  causality,  is what ultimately  distinguishes  the critical  approach". 
The
major  issue is the role of communication  in the exercise  of social  power.

As structuralists,  Slack and Allor  are adamant  that  "power  is exercised  in and
by social  processes  and institutions". 
Individuals  also exercise  power  "but
exercise of power by individuals  is always conceived  within  the constraints  of
structural  determinations". 
Hence  "control  of knowledge"  —  the focal  point
of  concern in critical  studies  —  "is fundamental  to the exercise  of  social
power".

Thus  a nonlinear model  of causality  (in other words,  one  framed  in a  social
context)  is  inextricably  linked  to the way one poses the question  of  power.
The  communication  process,  then,  is the study of power  relationships  (the
control  of  knowledge)  embedded  in the  institutionalized  structures  of  the
social  formation.  Marxists  pose power  in terms of hegemony  which  "necessarily
leads to redefinition  of the power of the media  to define  reality.

Slack  and  Allor's article  is a good  example  of  how  sophisticated  critical
communication  studies  is becoming  in the U.S.  One can only hope that  scholars
in  this  tradition  will  find  a more receptive  audience  than they  have  in  the
past. 
The  symposium  offered  by the Journal  of Communication  is certainly  a
move  in the right direction. 
Unfortunately,  it is not the beginning  of a new
era.

NOTES AND  REFERENCES

1.  Wilbur Schramm cites four  'founding  fathers':  political  scientist  Harold
Lssswell,  sociologist  Paul  Lazersfield,  and  social  psychologists  Kurt
Lewin and Carl  Hovland.

2. 

Sociological  Paradigms and Organizational  Analysis. 
1979.

Heinemann,  London

Cnlticat Alii Vol 3 No 3  1985 

65