Posts Tagged: commodification of culture

In the pre-Internet era, politicians used to personally meet with their potential constituents, kiss babies, and have backyard visits to discuss the topics of the day. While this hasn’t changed, the Internet has allowed politicians to engage with people in unprecedented ways. Through social media and other devices, the gap between leaders and followers is smaller than ever. Or so it would seem…

Obama’s innovative feature www.mybarackobama.com harnessed the power of social networking to rally and mobilize users to aid the campaign surely contributed to the campaign’s success. With the site, users felt like they were directly contributed to the cause, and personally assisting their Barack Obama. They could converse with him over tweets, follow blogs, and participate in whatever other social media jargon seems be #trending these days.

For the first time in history, a national election was heavily determined through widespread interactive technologies. Rather than construct passive narratives that were pushed upon individual regions, Obama and McCain had to create dynamic personas that people of all backgrounds connect to. Whereas the candidates would’ve normally created various TV spots and campaign strategies unique to particular areas and demographics, nearly every part of their campaign was viewed on a national level thanks to the Internet.

This access and exposure, while supposedly making politicians more “transparent,” arguably lessened the credibility of both campaigns. While fudging your image to appeal to various demographics isn’t particularly noble, what developed was even worse: mass commodification  of politics. Citizens were no longer electing leaders, they were electing brands.

When Facebook users can “like” politician in the same way they would their favorite band or restaurant, something is miss. Maybe its just the way social networks operate, but a person liking “Barack Obama,” “Vampire Weekend,” “Panera” and “I hate that Sunday night feeling when you know you have school tomorrow!!” all on the same Facebook update says less about that person’s interests and more about the decline of political integrity.

Rather than understand the candidates as people, national campaigns run through social media tend to transform these candidates into mascots. Slogans like “Yes We Can” may be catchy and memorable, but what does it really add to the political discourse? Maybe its because we live in a country that depends on convenience and simplicity, but treating a political campaign like a fast food chain does not seem the right way to go.

Democracy already is an interactive medium. That’s what defines it as form of government. But the packaging and branding of national politics devalues an already low-value enterprise. The art of politics is notoriously slimy and murky. So I remind myself: “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” While I approve of (most of) Obama’s political decisions, the Obama brand does not add credibility. Social media brings tremendous influence to the political spectrum, but when used as a marketing tool instead of an outreach device, politicians only further the stereotype of corruptible power.

Lilleker/Jackson explain: “So rather than merely amplifying the party brand, they can create their own, so that voters may vote for them as a personal brand… Web 2.0 interactivity can encourage a break-down of the rigid-party system, and move towards a more individualistic system.” Individual for the politician maybe, but not for the voter. While the distinction of a candidate as separate from the party brand is a step in the right direction, continuing to view politicians as “brands” subverts the democratic system. This may be just how politics work, but I’m still dreaming of a better way.

Understanding communication theories from both the past and the present can help us analyze and comprehend the media in our society today.  In my previous posts, I posed questions about studying communication theories.

In my first question, I asked how we can learn from theories that have been proven false.  For example, the Bullet Theory, or Hypodermic Needle Theory, is no longer accepted as an accurate portrayal of the relationship between media and audiences.  The Bullet Theory states that the media inject ideas into an audience and the audience then immediately takes on that belief.  This theory, however, does not take into account the fact that audiences actively take in and process what they see and hear in the media.  Today, when audiences have more and more ways to be active pursuers and participants in media, this theory not valid.  Even so, I believe it is important to be aware of this theory, and others like it, because it tells us about how our thought on communication has evolved through the years.  Understanding why something is no longer true is just as valuable a piece of information as understanding the latest theories.

In my next question, I asked how the schema theory could be applied to entertainment, or another faction of the media other than journalism.  First, let me pose a scenario.  Suppose someone is watching an episode of Glee– a show about misfit kids, cheerleaders, and jocks who all join a glee club, become friends, and tackle the challenges of adolescence together.  The viewer will take into account their own high school experience and judge the validity of the actions of the the characters based on those experiences.  In this example the schema theory can most certainly analyze entertainment.  People judge all sorts of things that they receive from the media based on their experience in order to understand and feel more secure in the world.

Lastly, I asked if the commodification of culture is still relevant in our digital age when media companies are constantly trying to produce something that stands out from the competition.  As I pondered this question, I came to the realization that this attempt to be unique is part of the commodification metaphor.  Commodities need to evolve and be innovative to competitive in the marketplace,  just as media and culture change to better compete to serve society.  So, competition does not falsify the Commodification of Culture Theory, but solidifies it.

Why is it when we learn that marketing was viral, some almost feel cheated by the company who created it? Does word of mouth marketing only work if it comes from somebody we trust or is it just another form of propaganda?

Popular media seems to be replacing thought-provoking works of literature, music, art, movies.Is the Commodification of Culture making us, on the whole, less intelligent?

Looking at McLuahan’s Technological Determinism Theory, even as we become more easily and globally connected, are we as a society becoming more detached due to our lack of physical involvement or more attached because we can learn more information and become more personal with a person or a cause, even if it’s halfway around the world?

1. Chapter 5 discusses many early research findings in mass communication.  Some of them can still be applied to mass communication today, but others of them are outdated, or have been proved false.  What do these theories, although falsified, say about communication and our society that makes them still important to understand today?
2. The schema theory states that when information becomes available, a person uses past experience to process the new information as a way to make sense of the complex world.  I can easily see how this would make sense with news and journalism in the media.  How can this theory be applied to other forms of media, for example entertainment?
3. In Schiller’s commodification of culture theory, he states that viewing information as something to be “sold” can explain the simplistic and similar “products” in the media.  I have noticed in the past few years, many media outlets are trying to be more innovative in order to stand out from the competition.  In the modern age, is the commodification of culture still relevant with all of the variety available to consumers?