Mass media together comprise a new social institution, concerned with the production and distribution of knowledge in the widest sense of the word, and have a number of salient characteristics, including the use of relatively advanced technology for the (mass) production and dissemination of messages; the systematic organization and social regulation of this work; and the direction of messages at potentially large audiences who are unknown to the sender and free to attend or not. The mass media institution is essentially open, operating in the public sphere to provide regular channels of communication for messages of a kind determined by what is culturally and technically possible, socially permitted and in demand by a large enough number of individuals.
It is usual to date the beginnings of mass media from the first recognizably modern newspaper, in the early seventeenth century, which in turn was a new application of the technology of printing, already in use for over 150 years for the multiple reproduction of book manuscripts. The audiovisual forms which have subsequently been developed, mainly since the end of the nineteenth century, have caused existing media to adapt and have enlarged the total reach of media, as well as extended the diversity of their social functions.
This history of media development is, nevertheless, more than a record of technical advance and of increasing scale of operation. It was a social innovation as much as a technological invention, and turning points in media history are marked, if not caused, by major social changes. The history of the newspaper, still the archetypal as well as the first, mass medium, illustrates the point very well. Its development is linked to the emergence to power of the bourgeois (urban-business-professional) class, which it served in cultural, political and commercial activities. It became an essential instrument in subsequent economic and political struggles, a necessary condition for economic liberalism, constitutional democracy and, perhaps, also, revolution and bureaucratic centralism. Its development thus reflects not only political and economic forces but also major social and cultural changes. The latter include urbanization; rising living standards and the growth of leisure; and the emergence of forms of society which are, variously, democratic, highly organized, bureaucratic, nationalistic and committed to gradual change. Consideration of newer media, especially film, radio and television, would not greatly modify this assessment, and these media have not greatly widened the range of functions already performed by the newspaper as advertiser, entertainer and forum for the expression of opinion and culture.
Early social science views of mass media reflect some of these historical circumstances. Commentators were struck by the immense popular appeal of the new media and by the power which they might exert in society. Beyond that, views divided sharply on whether to welcome or regret the new instruments of culture and information, and a division between pessimists and optimists has been an enduring feature of assessments of mass media, starting to fade only as the inevitability and complexity of the media are accepted. The pessimistic view stems partly from the pejorative connotations of the term ‘mass’, which includes the notions of vast scale, anonymity, impersonality, uniformity, lack of regulation and mindlessness. At the extreme, the media were regarded, sometimes by conservative and radical critics alike, as instruments for manipulation, a threat to existing cultural and spiritual values and to democracy. But optimists saw the mass media as a powerful means of disseminating information, education and culture to the previously excluded classes and of making feasible a genuine participatory democracy. By the 1930s some circumstantial evidence and enough theory supported both sides, but there was little systematic investigation.
The first period of scientific investigation of mass media undertaken between the mid-1930s and the late 1950s resulted in a much more modest estimate of media effects than was previously assumed, even a new myth of media powerlessness. The earlier stimulus-response model of influence was replaced by a model of indirect influence, according to which the media were seen to be subject to mechanisms of selective attention, perception and response, such that any effects would be more likely to reinforce existing tendencies than to cause any major change. Further, the working of media was seen to be subordinate to the existing patterns of social and personal influence and thus not well conceived of as an external influence. While the evidence reassured many critics and discom-fited prophets of doom, it seemed to lead to no slackening of efforts to use media, in ever more subtle ways, for political and commercial ends. Since the 1960s there has been further development in the assessment of mass media effects in the direction of a renewed belief in their potency.
The earlier research, despite its reassuring message, left open the possibility that media effects could be considerable under certain conditions: first, where there exists a monopoly or uniformity of message content; second, where the messages seem to concern matters beyond immediate experience or direct relevance; and third, where there is a cumulation over a long period of time of similar messages. Research attention has thus shifted from the search for direct, short-time effects on individuals and towards the following: structures of ownership and control of media; patterns of ideology or culture in messages and texts; professional and organizational contexts in which media knowledge is manufactured. Experts assessing the influence of mass media emphasize what people learn from the media, thus cognitive effects in the widest sense. We may learn from the media what is normal or approved, what is right or wrong, what to expect as an individual, group or class, and how we should view other groups or nations. Aside from the nature and magnitude of media effects on people, it is impossible to doubt the enormous dependence of individuals, institutions and society as a whole on mass media for a wide range of information and cultural services.
If the mass media play an essential part in mediating a wide range of relationships within societies, they have also come to be seen as playing a comparable part in mediating relations between nation-states and world blocs. The flow of information and culture by way of mass media does much to establish and confirm patterns of perception, of hostility and attraction and also the relations of economic dependence and latent conflict between the different worlds of east and west, north and south. While mass media still largely consist of separate national systems, the increasing internationalization of networks and content is now interesting researchers.
The history of mass media has so far been fairly short and very eventful, but it already seems on the point of a new and significant departure which may change the essential character of mass communication. The most important developments are of smaller-scale, point-to-point and potentially interactive media, employing cable, satellite or computer technology. It is likely that there will be a move away from centralized and uniform media of distribution towards a more abundant and functionally diversified provision of messages based on receiver demand. The boundaries between mass communication and the emerging new forms of information transfer are likely to become even more blurred in what is being hailed as an emerging ‘information society’. Nevertheless, the issues which shaped early debates about mass media are still somewhat relevant in the new conditions, especially those which concern the contribution of mass communication to equality or inequality, order or change, unity or fragmentation. Because of their public functions, nationally and internationally, mass media are unlikely to be replaced by the new media, although the balance of use and significance will change.
Denis McQuail
University of Amsterdam
Further reading
Curran, J. and Gurevitch, M. (eds) (1991) Mass Media and Society, London.
McQuail, D. (1994) Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction, London.
