78-5825

CHENEY, Michael Robert, 1952- THE IDEA OF IN THE OF SELECT BRITISH SCHOLARS.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1977 Mass

University Microfilms International,Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

@ Copyright by Michael Robert Cheney 1977 THE IDEA OF COMMUNICATION IN THE

WRITINGS OF SELECT BRITISH MASS COMMUNICATION SCHOLARS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Req^ Iremer.ts for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School cf The Ohio State University

By

Michael Robert Cheney B.S., M.S.

*****

The Ohio State University

1977

Reading Committee: Approved by

Prof. Robert Monaghan Prof. Robert Wagner 1/ Prof. James Golden I r" XAJL // J j. Prof. Paul Peterson 1^1

Department of Communicati/n ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Robert Monaghan, my advisor and friend, for his help, his encouragement, and his belief in not only .this study, but also my entire doctoral studies program. I would also like to thank Professors James Golden and Robert Wagner for their criticism and comments which have'helped, not forced, me to learn and grow intellectually. Further, a very important thanks gees to

Professor Paul Peterson, who helped this study to be defended and completed.

Finally, I would like to especially thank my best friend and wife, Karen, for her unending support and understanding of my entire graduate career. As I worried and pondered, she shared my frustrations and anxiety. And as I struggled to come to grips with this study, she was always ready to help and understand. Her contributions are immeasurable and in many ways this study is as much the result of her efforts, as it is of mine. VITA

January 8, 1952 .... Born - Jacksonville, North Carolina

1973 ...... B.S., University o£ Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

1973-75 ...... Teaching Assistant, Department of Radio and Television, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois * 1976 . •...... M.S., University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois

1975-77 ...... Teaching Associate, Department of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

PUBLICATION

Michael R. Cheney and Jane Broderck Anziano, "An Approach to Conflict and Its Management,” Small Group Communication: Selected , Revised Edition, ed. Victor D. Wall, Jr. (Columbus, Ohio: Collegiate Publishing, Inc., 1976).

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Mass Communication

Studies in Mass Communication Professor Robert Wagner

Studies in Methodology Professor Robert Monaghan

Studies in Professor James Golden

Studies in Communication Theory Professor Victor Wall, Jr. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... ii

VITA ...... iii-

TABLE OF CONTENTS...... iv-v

INTRODUCTION...... 1

PART I

Chapter I. THE NATURE OF THE S T U D Y ...... 5

The Need for Synthesis...... 8 The Importance of British Mass Communication Research...... 19 The Historical/Critical Approach ...... 23 Conclusion...... 27

II. THE HISTORY OF MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH IN GREAT BRITAIN...... 31

The Early Work: 1957-1963 ...... 32 The Television Research Committee:1963-1969 ‘ 47 Recent Work: 1969-1976 ...... 76 Conclusion...... 101

PART II

III. THE IDEA OF COMMUNICATION IN THEWRITINGS OF RAYMOND WILLIAMS...... 112

Williams' Life Work ...... 112 The Idea of Communication...... 127 Summary...... 139

IV. THE IDEA OF COMMUNICATION IN THE WRITINGS OF JAMES HALLORAN...... 143

The Writings of James Halloran...... 144 The Idea of Communication...... 154 Summary...... 166

iv V. THE IDEA OF COMMUNICATION IN THE WRITINGS OF DENIS MCQUAIL ...... 171

The Major Work of Denis McQuail...... 172 The Idea of Communication...... 180 Summary...... 196

PART III

VI. TOWARDS A COLLECTIVE IDEA OF COMMUNICATION IN THE WRITINGS OF SELECT BRITISH MASS COMMUNICATION SCHOLARS ...... 202

Influences and Themes ...... 202 The Idea of Communication...... 208 Conclusion...... 220

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 224

v INTRODUCTION

This is a study of three British mass communication scholars and their idea of communication. As such, this work will present an his­ torical and critical analysis of British mass communication research to articulate the basic theory or idea of communication in this research.

However, one cannot easily introduce British mass communication

♦ research with a series of simple statements. Each scholar's work has a richness and a texture that can be readily distorted and misun­ derstood without careful and somewhat more specific study. In many way it is necessary to study the work of a scholar as one would study the work of a fine painter, attempting to understand the subtleties and intricacies of the work.

Consequently, this study is divided into three major parts.

Part One will provide the broad perspective for the study in two chap­ ters. Chapter I will offer a rationale for this study by specifying why theoretical synthesis is important to the study of communication, why British mass communication scholars and their research are worthy of such a study, and how one methodologically approaches a body of research to articulate an idea of communication. Chapter II will present a history of research in mass communication in Great Britain to give the reader an understanding of the development of such research

Part Two will take a close look at three representative mass communication scholars in Great Britain. Chapter III will discuss Raymond Williams, who represents the major proponent of a cultural approach to communication; Chapter IV will analyze James Halloran, who was the major figure in the Television Research Committee's inves­ tigation of mass communication in Great Britain; and Chapter V will study Denis McQuail, who is a major figure in the "uses and gratif­

ication" approach to mass communication. In each chapter in Part Two, the individual scholar's intellectual development, as well as his idea of communication, will be articulated.

Part Three will summarize the various scholars' work, as well as

incorporate some of the work of individuals who were not discussed in

Part Two. The purpose of this synthesis in Chapter VI is to develop and clarify the basic idea of communication which informs British mass communication research.

Like much of the work in the sociology of knowledge, this study

is a mental map of an intellectual terrain, a terrain that this author has travelled for several years without the benefit of other maps or directions. This study is also the record of this author's journey through this terrain, a record which undoubtedly has its omissions and

imperfections, but a record nonetheless which is given to make other

journeys more fruitful.

No scholar's preference is exactly like another's; consequently, the tone of this study is one of sharing. As such, all that is asked of the reader is that he allow the ideas presented here to have a chance at being understood. The reader who is intrigued, may wish to pursue the point back to its source to further enrich his understanding.

Where the reader is somewhat reluctant to accept a particular point, he is once again encouraged to seek out the specific work to further understand the reasoning behind the position. Whatever the case, this study is a communication, a response to a particular state of affairs, a response to which the reader, the recipient of this commun­

ication, is encouraged to respond. PART I CHAPTER I

THE NATURE OF THE STUDY

Mass communication scholarship in Great Britain is one of the most quantitatively and qualitatively viable research traditions in the world. Quantitatively, the viability is in the number of studies, scholars and institutions involved with mass communication. In a little over twenty years the number of studies conducted in mass communication has increased ten-fold. In a little over twenty years the number of scholars in mass communication has risen from around a dozen to well over one hundred. In a little over twenty years the research which was previously carried out by a couple of colleges and universities is now carried out by over two dozen colleges and univer­ sities. Thus, in a little over twenty years, research in Great Britain has shown a strong quantitative viability.

Qualitatively, the viability of research in mass communication is based on developments and improvements made on the past work of other research traditions. Specifically, despite the increasing num­ ber of studies, research during this twenty year period continued to take an interdisciplinary approach with psychology, political science, education, sociology and literary criticism all using and interrelating each other's work. Consequently, mass communication research in Great

Britain has taken a broad, cultural approach to communication, quite in contrast to the general reductionist view of communication that characterizes the study of mass communication in the Uinted States.*

Further, unlike most research which is confined to scholarly journals and discussion, research in Great Britain has played a part in the pub» lie policy-making process. Along this line, one of the major factors in the rapid increase in mass was the need for viable research findings to guide public policy.

Overall, research in Great Britain takes a somewhat unconventional, atypical approach to mass communication. An approach which is more and

* more being recognized by various scholars as a serious challenge to existing ways of thinking and is being seen as a possible new paradigm in the study of communication.3 However, the nature of this approach is less than explicit. As one of Great Britain's leading scholars has argued, British research has been based on pressing question and while scholars have given attention to theoretical developments in those prob­ lem areas, the pressures of research have not left time for an articulation of the overall theory of communication which informs the various research studies.**

Similarly, in the United States, a number of scholars and organizations have noted the need for theoretical synthesis and expli­ cation, but for reasons which are much different from those of the

British scholars. In the United States, synthesis is usually seen as a way to unify the different, "fragmented" areas of study which chara- terize the field of mass communication.^ Still, common to both groups is the belief that theoretical synthesis and articulation provides the basis for a more holistic understanding of not only the various research studies, but also the very essence of a way of seeing, thinking and researching the phenomenon of communication.

In this discussion of theoretical synthesis and articulation, theory is not confined to a list of axioms, hypotheses and theorems.

Rather, theoretical synthesis tries to ascertain the basic assumptions made by the theory or approach about the nature of man, science and communication. Theoretical synthesis also attempts to explicate the basic elements of the theory or approach (source, message, receiver); the basic structures of the theory or approach (the source transmits the message to a receiver through a channel); and the basic functions « of communication in the theory or approach (to create meaning in the receiver). Through the articulation of those basic assumptions, as well as the elements, structures and functions of communication, the theory or approach to communication discussed becomes more available for other scholars' consideration and use, and may suggest new direc­ tions for research.

It is the purpose of this study to provide a theoretical synthesis of British mass communication research in order to articulate and perhaps clarify the basic direction of their approach and to offer to other scholars insights into this perspective. This synthesis will first take three major figures and explicate the assumptions each makes about the nature of man, science and communication, as well as the elements, structures and functions of communication in each scholar's work. Then, where possible the various scholars' work will be collec­ tively synthesized to articulate the basic idea or ideas of commun­ ication which informs British mass communication research. Before such a synthesis can be carried out, however, three

initial questions need to be more fully addressed— why is there a need for theoretical synthesis in the field of communication, why are the British scholars worthy of such study, and how does one raeth- odologically approach a body of research to articulate an idea or theory of communication? Toward these three questions the next three sections will be respectively directed.

The Need for Synthesis

In the past ten years a number of sholars, conferences, and associations have addressed what they perceived to be one of the basic problems in the area of communication— the lack of clearly articulated and explicit theories of communication. This problem emerged as the result of a less than comprehensive research strategy. At present, research in the area of communication is conducted either by indepen­ dent scholars or by media industries, both of which are affected by a number of factors which influence the types of research conducted.

Oftentimes, these types of research are more selfserving than providing a comprehensive research program. Further compounding the problem is a preoccupation with method that began in the late 1930's and reached such a dire state in the late 1950's that declared that the state of communication was dying.6 The last ten years have seen a number of organizations call for more attention to the basic theory of communication, i.e. the assumptions about the nature of man, science and communication, as well as the elements, structures and functions of communication. In the rest of this section the above prog­ ression will be more fully illustrated to show the need for synthesizing 9 communication research to develop an explicit theory or idea of communication.

In 1968, the the Association, later Speech Communication

Association, held a conference in to discuss the issues of research and instructional development in speech communication.

While the Conference report lists over forty-five different recommendations, two are of concern to this work. Specifically:

RECOMMENDATION 28: The conferees encourage speech communi­ cation scholars to undertake a program of formally defining the outlines of speech communication theories. This recommendation c’alls for an elaboration of the basic definitions of speech communication, an identification of relationships among classes of variables that characterize human, symbolic, interactive behavior in communication transactions.^

And then, a couple of recommendations’ later:

RECOMMENDATION 31: The Conferees encourage research relating speech communication theories to the theories and research of related areas of study. This recommendation reflects the conviction that speech communication theory and research are parts of the fabric of the social and behavioral sciences. Many opportunities exist for collaboration between speech communication scholars and scholars from related areas of study to solve problems where their concerns intersect. Opportunities also exist to advance speech-communication theory and research through amplification and refinement of formulations originating in other branches of the behavioral sciences and the humanities.®

Underlying these recommendations were a number of different factors. One of the more important reasons for these recommendations was discussed in a paper presented at the same conference by Malcolm

S. MacLean, Jr. In part, MacLean noted that while "many scholars in speech and journalism are working on similar problems, they appar­ ently pay very little attention to each other's work.”® This sense of theoretical isolation found articulation, around this same period 10

in a number of other works dealing with communication, e.g McGrath and Altman's critique of small group research.^®

In 1975, at the annual International Communication Association

Convention, a number of recommendations emerged along the same lines as those of the SAA Conference. Related to the above comment by

MacLean was the contention that:

There is too much trivial research. Communication researchers sometimes get too involved in their own "bag" or.highly specialized hypothesis, neglecting the wholistic situation and subsequent use of findings.H

As a way to address this ambalance, it was suggested that:

We need more synthesis kinds of papers, such as Ted Clevenger's synthesis of stage fright. We should influence our academic reward system to be more responsive to integration of theory and applications, and to synthesize existing research f i n d i n g s .

In 1977, as this study is being written, ICA President Richard

Budd, in his address to the annual convention, suggested that the discipline of communication has been beset with a number of problems.

Of particular importance to this study was his comment that there has been an "underdevelopment of the process of creative synthesis."

In response to this situation, Budd argued that there was a need "to more critically question our theories, and methods, and permit them

[^scholars and students^] the freedom to do so employing tools other than our own sanctioned theories and methods.

In conclusion, Budd strongly suggested that:

we need a new ethic of science, one that places at its force a commitment to scientific inquiry in the fullest sense of that concept, coupled with a deep and abiding dedication to the field. We need an ethic that not only rewards the glamorous pursuit of concepts through elegant research design and hypothesis, but makes also worthwhile 11

the often slower and more difficult process of empirical world obxervation, analysis, and verification of results generated from empirical research. We need an ethic in which the pursuit of our goal to better understand human communication is open to all sorts of inquiry demonstrated to be in that interest.^

This impassioned plea transcends the context and fervor of an

ICA Presidential Address. It was an attempt to offer a way to resolve what has become a growing problem in much of communication research.

The problem is a narrowing of what constitutes the field of communi­

cation and the emrgence of an increasingly fragmented and less

coordinated pattern of research. Amidst this trend there has beenaan

increased emphasis on methodological ingenuity at the expense of theo­

retical synthesis and creativity.

The emergence of a fragmented, less coordinated pattern of

research is in part the result of the general structure and pressures

in mass communication research. As noted earlier, mass communication

research is conducted by either media industries or idependent social

scientists. Media industries are usually interested in certain types

of research— namely audience surveys, research studies, etc. Such

research is generally more concerned with answering particular ques­

tions, e.g. who is the audience, than in developing a coordinated pat­

tern of research. As such, in the process of meeting the demands of

the media, industry research continues to add to the mountain of

findings, without providing much sense as to how the whole body of

research fits together.

The situation for independent social science research is similn

As C. Wright Mills has argued, research is an expensive proposition- 12

As a result, research is usually in some way affected by the sponsoring agency, i.e. what areas are important and worthy of investigation.

The social scientist, consequently, has not developed a significant body of research in substantive areas. Instead, he has "had to specialize in developing methods that could be put to work regardless of the substantive i s s u e s . "15

Further, it is becoming an ever apparent reality that the social scientist is able to develop a reputation solely by working within the confines of a specific field, producing impeccable research designs, and, as such, providing for a number of self-contained research products. Unfortunately, these same studies do not:

. . . knit together into a sequence designed to achieve real theoretical advance. And of course the manner in which universities have developed over the last few decades has encouraged many academic researchers to devote themselves to undertakings of these s o r t s . 16

The net result of such research is a fragmented, noncumulative research tradition. However, this situation is not the result solely of the general structure and pressures in mass communication noted above. It is also the result of a history of intellectual development which has produced several models and methods for communication research which have confused and confounded the field.

This history has its roots in the earliest writings on and society. In these writings, a general change in the order of man and society wi1 ■ forecast. Specifically, these scholars saw in the early 1900's.

. . . th? <»:r..r:jance and operation of the large-scale society the ; great society', 'bourgeois' society. In their perception of the movement from 'status' to 13

’contract', from Gemeinschaft ('community’) to Gesellschaft ('society'), from 'organic solidarity' to 'mechanical soli­ darity', sociologists saw modern society as impersonal, co-ordinated by actions based on expediential calculations, and highly individualistic*^

This view of the social nature of human beings and society was

coupled with a parallel view of the psychological view of man and

society. Against this backdrop, the mass media were originally

conceptualized as enormously powerful media with the power for

relatively easy persuasion. In this perspective, the masses were

simply isolated, unrestrained, atomized, possible anomic individuals « with very few social ties or traditional orientations to restrain them

from accepting a new idea.

In the late 1920’s and early 1930's, this feeling was heightened, partly because of the importance placed on propaganda in World War I

and partly because of the political gains being achieved through propaganda, e.g. the rise of Stalin in the Soviet Union and the rise

of the National Socialists in Germany.

In the late 1930's mass communication research began to challenge

the prevailing conception of the mass media as an all powerful media.

Specifically, the 'hypodermic' model of communication which construed

the media as all powerful was being replaced by the 'limited effects' model where the goal of much research was to specify the precise con­

ditions under which the media were likely to produce changes in infor­ mation levels, attitudes and behavior.*® The work of Katz and

Lazarsfeld in such areas as and primary groups

typified such efforts to better understand the intermediating factors.

Some of the most influential advances in the move to better understand the precise conditions under which the media were likely to 14 produce changes was associated with the methodology employed--specif-

ically, the controlled experiment. Along this line, the work of

Carl Hovland and his associates at Yale was indicative of the advances which were made in understanding the communication process as a result of the controlled experiment. In general, the finding of much of

Hovland's research continued to demonstrate that the mass media had a very powerful effect on the audience.

In marked contrast to this general finding of Hovland’s research was that of a number of studies conducted in the area of media effec- « tiveness by means of survey design and panel studies. In general, these studies demonstrated that in peace time conditions the mass media did not have the persuasive appeal that other, i.e. experimental, studies had found. In the late 1940’s experimental studies continued to show significant change in attitude and behavior, while survey research did not find such significance.

The situation was less than ideal. The field of mass commun­ ication was presented with opposing findings— media were effective in most experimental studies and media were not as effective in most panel studies. Carl Hovland, one of the leading proponents of the experimental method, attempted to reconcile the apparently conflicting situation. However, after analyzing and studying the two bodies of research, he found that neither group had an inconsistent or conflicting theory.^ Thus, in any attempt to understand the effectiveness of the mass media, scholars had available two different theories. While each was apparently valid, each produced different findings. 15

As might be expected from C. Wright Mills' earlier comment about the preoccupation with method, research in the area did not attempt to further explore the different theories employed, but rather sought to discover where the different methods might be in error. As a result, in the last twenty years, mass communication research was focused on refining the methodological techniques used, including both experimental and survey design. In the same period, such research has modified the potential "effect" of the mass media and has produced a number of theories.

The usefulness of such theories, as well as their soundness, however, may be questinned. C. Wright Mills argued that among some scholars, primarily those concerned with methodological development:

. . . there is a recent tendency to preface empirical studies with a chapter or two in which they summarize 'the literature of the problem.' This is a good sign. . i . But in actual practice this work is all too often done after the data are collected and 'written up.'. . . (The researcher then attempts) to surround the empirical study with 'theory' and 'to give it meaning,* or— as is frequently said— to 'get a better story out of it.'20

In the late 1950's the field of mass communication contained a number of 'stories' or ’theories.' Overall, the field appeared frag­ mented and uncoordinated, and research seemed noncumulative. In anal­ yzing this state of affairs, Bernard Berelson, in a provocative article entitled "The State of Communication Research," declared that the state of communication was dying. To support this contention, Berelson argued that the field had only had four major figures make important contributions, i.e. Lasswell, Lazarsfeld, Lewin and Hovland, and that mo3t of these contributions were made in the 1930's and 19h0’s. In more recent years, Berelson contended, these figures either died or 16 moved on to new and broader fields. Further, most of the students of these figures have either given up working in the field of communi­ cation or have not continued to make ”a systematic effort to fill in the initiator's p i c t u r e . "^l

Along with the four major approaches, Berelson argued that there had been a number of minor approaches and for each of these the term

"communication" carried different meanings and led to different prob­ lems. While advocates of each of these minor approaches expressed a great deal of optimism, the end result was less than impressive— no new approaches and no major additions to previous major approaches.^2

It was indicative of the general thinking of this time, in par­ ticular the lack of attention to theory, that most of the responses to Berelson's work did not rebuke him by arguing that there was some work which was interrelated, e.g. Lazarsfeld used some of Lewin's earlier work with small groups in developing the concept of the two-step flow and in rediscovering, as a result, the primary group. Instead, the scholars responded to Berelson by citing the increased amount of research conducted in the field of communication. 23 For these scholars, quantity served to counter the argument that the state of communication was dying. The assumption behind such a response was that mass communication research progressed and maintained its vitality through the accumulation of a number of studies of a particular phenomenon.

The end result of such a response based on this assumption was that the various scholars slighted Berelson's more poignant argument--the lack of theoretical development in the field. In the Broad context, communication research was in a chaotic state and needed serious 17 rethinking theoretically.

The state of communication research has not improved that much.

The urgent request mentioned at the beginning of this section for theoretical synthesis and development in an attempt to provide a framework, if not a comprehensive theory of communication, is a contem­ porary response to this condition of countless findings and studies and theories. In recent years there have been more substantial and productive responses to this situation. A number of journals, e.g.

Communication Research and Human Communication Research, are beginning to provide review sections in which attempts to synthesize the work of various scholars are presented.

Still, the overall response has not been that overwhelming. In the area of mass communication, one of the more visible examples of theoretical synthesis is Joseph [Clapper's The Effects of Mass

Communication. This work attempted to provide a comprehensive summary of the mass communications research which was conducted during the period 1930-1959. As such, The Effects of Mass Communication provided a number of summary propositions which were intended to give

O h some indication of the general direction of effects research.

While written in 1960, Klapper's work has continued to receive attention from academic and industry researchers. The fact that no comparable studies have been carried out in the past seventeed years is one reason for this continued attention. Such importance is unfor­ tunately an indication of the lack of viable synthesis and summary which has been carried out in mass communication research during those years.

It should be emphasized that Klapper's propositions represent important advances over earlier work in the field of effects. Still, 18 there are some dangers in theoretical synthesis. In particular, when a field is beset with methodological advances without equally progressive theoretical developments, theoretical summaries can often­ times become the basic "truths" of a field. In the case of Klapper's work, for example, the derived propositions are often taken by academic researchers as the starting position for their own research. These researchers usually make no attempt to question these "basic” propositions.

It is the contention of this study, and of this author, that one « way to reduce the dangers and limitations of any theoretical synthesis, not only Klapper's, is to encourage theoretical synthesis in a number of areas. Such work would also follow the recommendations of the SCA and ICA organizations. Specifically, theoretical synthesis would make significant gains toward formally defining the outlines of speech-com- raunication theories, by articulating the basic assumptions about man, science and communication, as well as the elements, structures and 25 functions of communication. In taking a broader approach to communi­ cation, utilizing the findings from other less recognized disciplines, theoretical synthesis could also relate speech-communication theories 26 to the theories and research of related areas of study. Further, theoretical synthesis would rectify the International Communication

Association symposium's complaint that "communication researchers some­ times get too involved in their own 'bag' or highly specialized hypo­ thesis, neglecting the wholistic situation and subsequent use of . f i n d i n g s . "27 Finally, theoretical synthesis would make the derived theories more open to discussion and debate and would, in turn, make 19

researchers more accountable in their work.

Underlying the whole argument that theoretical synthesis is

important to the field of communication is a commitment to the new

ethic that ICA President Richard Budd called for in his address— an

ethic "that places at its fore a commitment to scientific inquiry

in the fullest sense of that inquiry, coupled with a deep and abiding

dedication to the field.

The Importance of British Mass Communication Research

As noted at the outset, British mass communication research rep­

resents one of the most viable traditions of communication research in

the world. For British scholarship this viability is seen in the quan­

tity of institutions, scholars and studies involved with mass communi­

cation, as well as the qualities of a broad, interdisciplinary approach,

a concern with theory, and an ongoing research tradition which is impor­

tant to both the field and society. In this section the specifics of

this viability will be detailed to establish the importance of British

mass communication research as an area for theoretical synthesis to make an important contribution to knowledge.

In the late 1950’s, the first research studies in mass communi­

cation in Great Britain were published. At that time only a couple of

institutions were actively studying mass communication, i.e. the

London School of Economics and the British Corporation.

In the late 1950's only half a dozen scholars were seriously studying mass communication and all were affiliated with departments not prim­

arily concerned with communication or mass communication, e.g. English,

Psychology and History. At that time mass communication was a small 20

and all but insignificant part of British social science and humanities

inquiry.^9

Since that time, mass communication research has been given

strong support, beginning with a 1960 National Union of Teacher's

Conference on Popular Culture and Personal Responsibilifcy^ and

continuing with a government committee, the Television Research

Committee, which for five fruitful years studied mass communication in

Great Britain."** After that committee’s term expired, colleges and universities continued the aggressive research program the Committee % began. In 1976, twenty years after the first studies weee published,

the latest lists over 150 studies in the area of mass communication

for the 1975-76 year. In 1976, over one hundred scholars give either

primary or major importance to mass communication as an area of study.

And, in 1976, over two dozen institutions study mass communication in

some form. In short, mass communication research is a very viable

and important part of social science and humanities inquiry in Great

Britain in 1976.^

The viability extends beyond the increase of scholars, studies and

schools involved with mass communication. In several ways, British mass communication research offers important contrasts qualitatively

to the general field of mass eoramunccation which has also shown a quantitative viability. It is this author's contention that above and

beyond simply engaging in theoretical synthesis to add to the field's

knowledge, the qualities of British mass communication research offer

added incentive and importance to such synthesis. Specifically, British mass communication research shows a concern for a broad, interdisci- 21 plinary approach, as opposed to the fragmented, uncoordinated state of most mass communication research; an emphasis on theory, as opposed to a preoccupation with method; and an importance in public policy decision-making, as opposed to the "uneasy partnership” of American 33 social science research.

As shall be more evident in the next chapter, the history of mass communication research in Great Britain is in many ways different from the history of mass communication research in the United States.

Unlike most American research which has confined the study of mass * communication to departments typically within the confines of social science, British research offers a somewhat interesting contrast in the broad, interdiscplinary perspective that has been developing. In Great

Britain, mass communication research has been and is being studied by not only the more conventional scholars, i.e. sociologists, psycholo­ gists, political scientists, educators, etc., but also by scholars not usually associated with communication, i.e. historians, artists, literary critics, etc. The result of this broad range of scholarly attention has-been a very interdisciplinary approach to the study of mass communication. Thus, a reason for studying British mass communi­ cation research is that it offers a marked contrast to the generally uncoordinated, fragmented study of communication which a number of scholars claim is the state of American mass communication research.

A second reason for studying British mass communication research is that British scholars have shown an awareness of the general lack of theory in mass communication. While they have not produced a totally flawless framework or paradigm, and while their work has been less than 22 comprehensive, there still is a deep concern for more and better theoretical development. James Halloran, British mass communication

scholar, has expressed what many American scholars are only recently beginning to notice. He observed that:

one of the major difficulties we have to face is that research into the effects of television, in fact mass communication research generally, has been handicapped by lack of theory. Theory has failed to keep pace with techniques, doing has prevailed over thinking.^

British scholars, however, have not been totally successful in articulating the basis of the theory or approach used. The major « reason, Halloran contends, is that while research has been based on pressing questions and while attention has been given to theoretical development in a number of problem areas, the pressures have not left time for a full articulation of the overall theory or approach to 35 communication which informed ihe various studies. This study can make an important contribution to knowledge oy providing a full arti­ culation of the overall theory or approach to communication used by

British scholars.

A third reason for studying British mass communication research

is that the bulk of this research has been conducted during the past ten years and has played an important part in public policy decisions.

Hence, this study is not dealing with research of only historical

interest whose synthesis will have little or no importance or influence on modern scholarship. Instead, this study will hopefully have some

importance and influence on an ongoing, viable research tradition. The earlier discussed requests for articulating and synthesizing communi­ cation research, this author believes, were intended for research which 23 has an important impact on the field of mass communication and on society.

Overall, British mass communication research offers some quali­ tative contrasts to much of mass communication research. British research takes a broad, interdisciplinary approach; is concerned, as much as possible, with theoretical development; and plays an important part in the public policy decisions in Great Britain. Theoretical synthesis of British research would not only meet the call for more attention to theory that was made by the SCA and ICA organizations, but * it would also respond to Halloran's contention that British research has outpaced sorely needed full theoretical development. Exploring the assumptions about man, science and communication, as well as the elements, structures and functions of communication, would give scholars a chance to see not only what has been attempted, but also where research, by both British and other scholars, might best proceed.

The Historical/Critical Approach

Methodologically this author will use an historical/critical approach in this study. In particular, this author will first outline and summarize the history of British mass communication research, he will then synthesize the work of three representative scholars into their respective ideas of communication, and finally, this author will attempt to articulate a collective theory of communication for British mass communication scholars. The purpose of such a progression is to provide the historical context of British mass communication research, then, within that broad context, to analyze some important research in some detail, and finally, with an understanding of both 24 the history of British mass communication and the specific work of several British mass communication scholars, to develop a collective

framework in which to place both the history and individual work.

In presenting a history of British mass communication research, this study will use a number of criteria to determine what studies,

scholars and institutions are historically important. The first criterion will be whether or not a scholar receives repeated reference by other scholars working in the field. If so, then a scholar will be generally considered an important figure in the history of mass communi- « cation research. A second criterion, following from the first, will be what works of a particular scholar are most often cited by other

scholars. These works, in general, will be considered to be the major

aspects of the particular scholar’s work and will offer some insights

into the character if the individual scholar's contribution to the field.

The third criterion for what will constitute important scholars and

studies will be what non-British scholars and critics refer to and

consider important. As noted earlier, British scholarship is receiving

increased attention in other countries, e.g. the United States, and the

authors and works cited by these individuals will also be taken into

consideration as to what is historically important to British mass

communication research. Within these criteria, this author will make

some qualitative judgements as to the worth of particular scholars,

studies and institutions in an overall history of British mass communi­

cation research. In general, the history of British mass communication

research is intended to give the reader a feeling for the viability of

British mass communication research. 25

In presenting an analysis and synthesis of mass communication research, first individually, and then collectively, this author wills use a critical approach. As such, the focus of this approach will be in the idea of communication, i.e. the assumptions about the nature of man, science and communication, as well as the elements, structures and functions of communication. This author feels that simply articulating the meaning of communication in the various research studies would not capture the logic of communication that the various scholars employed.

As Leon Bramson noted: • simply because people use the same word for something is no indication that they mean the same thing; this platitude is one of those frequently ignored by sociologists.^

Further, within a body of research by one scholar, the meaning of the same word or idea may change. In the case of the British scholar,

Raymond Williams has made some important changes in his theoretical perspective on communication during the past ten years and this change needs to be more precisely ascertained and articulated than is possible by simple definition.

At the outset, this study makes no assumptions about what will constitute communication in any of the research studies. The author has no a priori model or theory which will be used to compare the various research studies against. Rather, he will work inductively from the various research studies to an articulation of the basic assumptions being made about the nature of man (is man an animal, machine, etc?); about science (is science to develop a series of laws, axioms, etc?); and about communication. In order to further articulate the assumptions about communication, the author will present the elements (source, 26 message, receiver); the structures (source transmits the message to the receiver through a channel); and the functions (to create shared meaning), as illustrated in the various scholars' research.

From the various ideas of communication on the individual scholars, this author will attempt to develop a collective idea of communication with similar assumptions, elements, structures and functions to provide other communication scholars with a better understanding of what could be termed the "British approach" to communication. In attempting to

In attempting to articulate the idea of communication used by % British mass communication scholars, this study will use the actual statements in the various research studies. The reason for this is strongly parallel to Raymond Williams argument for his work on the idea of culture. He contended that:

. . . it is not only that, by temperment and training, I find more meaning in this kind of personally verified statement than in a system of abstractions. It is also that, in a theme of this kind, I feel myself committed to the study of actual language: that is to say, to the words and sequences of words which particular men and women have used in trying to give meaning to their experience. . . . as a method of enquiry, I have not chosen to list certain topics and to assemble summaries of particular statements on them. I have, rather, with only occasional exception, concentrated on particular thinkers and their actual statements, and tried to understand and value them. The framework of the enquiry is general, but the method, in detail, is the study of actual individual statements and contributions.

This study follows along a similar path, both in purpose and method, as that of williams and of several other studies which have been concerned with the idea of communication.^ Like these latter studies, this work is intended to help other individuals better understand human communication, in this case as envisioned by British mass communication scholars 27

In summary, this historical/critical approach is not undertaken without some awareness of the delicate nature of the task. Jacques

Barzun summarized it best when he wrote that:

the history of ideas cannot be written like an invoice of standardized goods. It is a subject requiring infinite tact. On the one hand, diversity must be reduced to clear patterns for the sake of intelligibility; and on the other, the meaning of each idea must be preserved from falsification by cons­ tant reference to its place and purpose. .

So it will go.

Conclusion r ■ In the last several years a number of organizations, conferences

and scholars have noted the lack of clearly articulated and explicit

theories of communication. This study will attempt to fill this void

by synthesizing and articulating the idea of communication, i.e. the

assumptions about the nature of man, science and communication, as well

as the elements, structures and functions of communication, in the work

of British mass communicatinn scholars. Further, in articulating the

basic idea of communication which these scholars employed, this study will meet a need that these same scholars have noted~a need for a full

articulation and synthesis of their work. Finally, in developing the

idea of communication in the writings of British mass communication

scholars, this study will attempt to furnish not only the basis of a more holistic understanding of the various research studies, but also

a way of seeing, thinking and studying the phenomenon of communication. 28

Footnotes

^Richard W. Budd, "Perspectives on a Discipline: Review and Commentary,” in Communication Yearbook I, ed. Brent D. Ruben (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1977), pp. 29-36.

^The history of British mass communication research will be presented in Chapter II.

^Albert Kreiling, "Recent British Communications Research" Communication Research, January 1976, pp. 76-96.

^James Halloran, "Introduction," in The Effects of Television, ed. James Halloran (London: Panther, 1970), pp. 9-23.

■*Budd, pp. 29-36.

^Bernard Berelson, "The State of Communication Research," Quarterly, April 1959, pp. 1-6. Reprinted in Lewis Anthony Dexter and David Manning White (eds.), People, Society and Mass Communications (New York: Free Press, 1964), pp. 501-509.

7Robert J. Kibler and Larry L. Barker, Conceptual Frontiers in Speech-Communication (New York: Speech Association of America, 1969), p . 34.

8Ibid., p. 36.

9Ibid., p. 205.

^Joseph E. McGrath and Irwin Altman, Small Group Research: A Synthesis and Critique of the Field (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966).

**ICA Newsletter, Winter 1975, p. 4.

12Ibid.

*8Budd, p. 35.

14Ibid.

15C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 64.

^^Roger Brown, "Approaches to the Historical Development of Mass ," in Media Sociology, ed. Jeremy Tunstall (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970), p. 50. 29

^Edward A. Shils, "The Study of the Primary Group," in Daniel Lerner and Harold D. Lasswell (eds.), The Policy Sciences (Stanford: Press, 1951).

*8Brown, p. h7.

*®Carl Hovland, "Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived from Experimental and Survey Studies of Attitude Change," American Psychologist, 1959, pp. 8-17.

20Mills, p. 69.

23Berelson, p. 1-6.

22Ibid. 23 See Comments by Wilbur Schramm, David Riesman and Raymond Bauer to BereIson's article in Public Opinion Quarterly, April 1959, pp. 7-15. Reprinted in Dexter and White, pp. 509-520.

Joseph Klapper, The Effects of Mass Communication (New York: Free Press, 1960). oe JKibler and Barker, p. 34.

26Ibid., p. 36.

22ICA Newsletter, p. h.

28Budd, p. 35. 29 Halloran, pp. 9-23.

88National Union of Teachers, Popular Culture and Personal Responsibility (London: National Union of Teachers, 1960).

3^Television Research Committee, Problems of Television Research (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1966) and Television Research Committee, Second Progress Report and Recommendations (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1969). 32 Connie Ellis, "Current British Research on Mass Media and Mass Communication Register of Ongoing and Recently Completed Research" (Leicester: University of Leicester, 1976).

88See George Lyons, The Uneasy Partnership (Beverly Hills, Calif: Russell Sage, 1969).

Halloran, p. 20.

35Ibid. 30

^Leon Bramson, The Political Context o£ Sociology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), p. 4. 37 Raymond Williams, Culture and Society (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), p. xvii.

O Q Sheldon Lary Belman, 'The Idea of Communication in the Social Thought of the Chicago School" (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, 1975).

OQ Jacques Barzun, Romanticism and the Modern Ego (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1954), p. 15. CHAPTER II

THE HISTORY OF MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH IN GREAT BRITAIN

The purpose of this chapter is to sketch the history of mass communication research in Great Britain over the past twenty years. In brief* this history is one of little or no research prior to 1963 when the British government established the Television Research Committee to investigate the potential effects of mass communication. Then, for five years the Committee carried out a broad ranging research program.

In 1969, after the committee's term had expired, a number of scholars continued the major directions of the Committee and established several new initiatives in mass communication research.

Given this overview, this chapter is divided into three sections.

The first section will present the period from 1957 to 1963 when there was only a limited amount of research into mass communication by British scholars; the second section will discuss the period from 1963 .to 1969 when the Television Research Committee was studying communication; the third and final section will cover the period from 1969 to 1976 when old efforts were being continued and new directions were being pursued.

Throughout this chapter the emphasis will be on presenting both a chronological and substantive history of mass communication research.

This history will include not only an accounting of the various scholars, but also a brief summary of the purposes and results of a number of

31 32 major works. Within the perspective of the entire study, this chapter should provide the necessary framework oo that subsequent chapters will be able to address themselves to the specific issues and ideas which the various scholars have discussed, yet will be able to utilize the larger perspective of this chapter to locate both the issues and ideas being diccussed.

Finally, this body of research activity occurred within the con­ text is important to the follwwing study, except where specifically relevant, these outside events and developments will not be discussed. %

The Early W o r k : 1957-1963

As noted in Chapter I, mass communication research in Great

Britain was all but non-existent prior to the mid-1950's. Since then, during this period of 1957-1963, mass communication research has developed in the areas of the social sciences and the humanities. In this section, the developments in each of these qreas will be discussed.

In general, the work of British social scientists in the field of mass communication was in two categories. The first category included what was earlier termed media research, i.e. research carried out by media industries~in this case the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The second category covered what could be considered independent social science research, i.e. research usually conducted by scholars within the confines of a university or college with no explicit commitment to outside agencies, either governmental or private. This category, like the first, made important contributions to the beginnings of British mass communication research. Both of these categories, as a result, deserve further discussion. 33

When originally chartered, the British Broadcasting Company was given the dictum to "inform, educate and improve* the public."

As a number of authors have noted, this role was part of the long standing tradition of Great Britain toward her people.* It is from this role given to the BBC that some additional duties and respon­ sibilities emerged. Namely that:

the proper management of television calls for a considerable knowledge of the viewing public and of the impact of programs upon that public. Occasionally, a decision based largely upon guesswork will succeed, perhaps even brilliantly. However, in the long term, decision making by those in television, whatever their role, will be good and successful only if it is based upon facts: facts about the values, the interests and the knowledge of viewers; facts about the size of audiences and about audience opinion of programs seen; facts about success in communicating and ideas; facts about the way programs affect people. From one situation to another, the nature and the number of the facts that are needed will vary, but to act without them is to invite at least some degree of failure.

These are the words of W. A. Belson, one of the major BBC researchers during the period 1957-1963. Under the auspices of the BBC

Audience Research Department, Belson conducted two types of research— studies which attempted to answer specific questions put forth by program planners and producers, and studies which focused on the impact of the media and the general characteristics of the audience. His work constituted the most important work done by the BBC in the field of mass communication.

Belson's work with the first type of studies, those attempting to answer specific questions put forth by program planners and producers, covered a wide range of issues. Belson analyzed audience composition and reaction to women's programs which were broadcast in the afternoon;3 he studied the General Election campaign and its results as portrayed 3h on television, and he conducted effects studies on a five part program on mental illness,^ as well as effects studies on a ten part program on modern medicine.®

Belson’s work with the second type of studies, those focusing on the impact of the media and the general characteristics of the audience, were broader in scope and produced more generalizable findings that the previous studies. For example, one study, entitled 'The Public and Its Programs," was concerned with the amount of time people spent viewing television and the relationship between this time spent and their program preferences, their patronage of the different chan­ nels, their socio-economic background, their age and their tastes in other media.^ Another study Belson carried out was concerned with the impact of television on the interests and initiatives of adult

g viewers. Still another project studied the effects of television on the family in terms of the amounts of "togetherness," shared activities, 9 and visits. While many of these studies seem rather commonplace in the

1970's, in Great Britain in the 1950's these studies were important for mass communication research.

Belson's work was not limited to these studies. He also made significant contributions to developing a methodology for mass communi­ cation research. In particular, he is best known for devising a technique known as "stable correlates" which was used to select matched control groups for experimental studies.*0

In general, the BBC studies carried out by Belson were some of the first major research studies in the area of mass communication and represent some important beginnings for research. Unfortunately, most 35 of these studies were only distributed to those broadcasters with some particular interest in the project area. It has only been in recent years that these studies have become more accessible to scholars.^

During those earlier years the BBC Audience Research Department acted as a service department, trying to satisfy the various questions and problems that were being posed. This did not mean necessarily poorer research. As one scholar noted, ’'many of the studies provide very

interesting leads which, if more sytematic inquiries were possible

(using other programs for instance), could lead to the establishment % of general principles.” 12 Unfortunately, this was rarely done.

Consequently, while BBC studies were important beginnings for mass communication research, they were usually responses to pressing ques­ tions. As such, the BBC rarely took the time or gave the financial support to develop a more systematic understanding of the mass communi­ cation process.

The second category of social science research was independent social science research, i.e. research conducted by scholars within the confines of a university or college. In this category research is usually concerned with "attempts to say something about mass communication as a social process and mass media as social insti-

tutions,” in contrast to media research which is usually concerned with audience make-up and program consumption.

In Great Britain, the first attempt to provide a summary of mass communication research was made by Hilde Himmelweit in an article

entitled "A Theoretical Framework for the Consideration of the Effects

of Television: A British Report." In this article, which was pub­ 36 lished in 1962, Himmelweit recounted some of the previous work of

Belson, mentioned above, as well as discussed her work on the effects of children and television which had been carried out over the past several years.^ Besides the work of these two scholars, social science was not significantly involved with mass communication research in Great Britain.

As noted earlier, Belson's work was directly sponsored and dictated by the BBC. Himmelweit's work, however, was not far removed.

While the majority of her work was sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation, % it was only after the BBC Audience Research Department approached the

Foundation in 1954 to sponsor an inquiry into the impact of television on children and young people that the Foundation became interested in mass communication research. Himmelweit's report noted that:

at the time there were nearly three million television sets installed in the fifteen million homes in this country and their number of increasing rapidly. A good deal of concern was felt about the effect of this new medium on children and especially on very young people. Some maintained that television was on balance bad, that young people were intent on the screen when they should be out at play, that older children spent on it time that should have gone to their homework, and that adolescents were diverted from their youth clubs and their games. Some stressed the dangers arising from the passive character of television viewing, fearing that it would make young people mentally lazy. Some, on the other hand, thought that viewing could help young children, make their homes more attractive, expand their horizons, stimulate new interests, and provide a new basis of contact between the generations.^

The reason that the BBC approached the Nuffield Foundation, instead of conducting the project itself, was that:

it was felt that the proposed inquiry should be authoritative and independent and that it should be made while a large proportion of homes were still without television so that effective comparisons could be drawn between the habits of viewers and of non-viewers. During the next two years, 1955 and 1956, Himmelweit and her associated at the London Schoold of Economics and Political Science,

set out to investigate the types of effects that television might cause.

Specifically, they were interested in two major types of effects— displacement effects and content effects. In researching the first type of effect, Himmelweit and her associates were interested in what activities were either abandoned or reduced in the time given to them by the television viewing. The second major type of effect which was of concern to the scholars was content effects, especially they were

interested in what impact content had on children's knowledge and

school performances, as well as their outlooks and values. In this type of effect, the focus was on the content as perceived by the children, not as determined by .17

The Nuffield Foundation Television Inquiry, the name given to

Himmelweit's two year study, also dealt with several minor effects.

Among those effects studied were the effect of television on family life, that is to what extent did television increase or decrease the amount and quality of family contacts, and the effect of television on the pattern or children's emotional reactions, that is to what degree were their relationships with their friends, their general capacity for adjustment, etc., effected. 18

In 1958 the findings from the two year study were published as Television and the Child. While the report was far from decisive

in its conclusion, the report noted that:

the final picture of the influence of television on children's leisure, interests, knowledge, outlook, and values proves to be far less colourful and dramatic than popular opinion is 38

inclined to suppose. Effects occur in each one of the various fields, but not to such a degree that the children would have been fundamentally changed. . . . At best, tele­ vision can implant information, stimulate interests, improve tastes, and widen the range of the child's experience so that he gains some understanding of people in other walks of life; . . . At best, viewing can reduce the child's less worth-while activities (such as comic ), whilst leaving the more worth-while ones intact. . . . At worst, on the other hand, viewing can lead to a reduction in knowledge (in that it takes up time which could be spent more profitably), keep children from relatively worth-while activities (like outdoor play and book-reading), and implant or accentuate one-sided, stereotypical value judgements.19

Himmelweit continued her work on the effects of children « and television, and published additional reports in 1960 and 1962 which continued to explore this issue.20

Despite the work of Himmelweit and Belson, research in the field of mass communication was an almost insignificant part of the social science tradition in Great Britain. As one author wrote some years later:

it is not without significance that the first attempt by a social scientist to give a "3ritish Report" on one aspect of the field, namely the effects of television, appeared in an American journal. It is doubtful if at that time (1962) a British journal of comparable standing would have felt able to accept such an article.

The absence of social science research in mass communication was noticeable in other areas of British society. In 1962, the same year as Himmelweit's report, the British Government's committee on broad­ casting, the Pilkington Committee, published its report in which it listed less than a dozen references to research on mass communication in Great Britain. As if to publicly admit this absence, the report 39 noted that:

so far, there is little conclusive evidence on the effects of television on values and moral attitudes. But those who work professionally in this sphere told us that what evidence there was showed that there was an effect.^

However, a few pages later, the report acknowledged that, "the experts 23 agreed that the information available to them was far from complete.

The state of social science research was far from encouraging in

1962. Only one major synthesis or research and theory had been offered, this by Himmelweit in an American journal. Further, British govern­ ment committees found themselves .lacking in needed research to make any substantial decision. Still, these works were important begin­ nings and some progress had been made during the first several years of social science inquiry into mass communication.

The state of humanities inquiry into mass communicatio was some­ what more encouraging, in this area a sizeable body of research had been produced during these early years. Furhter, a number of humanities scholars from the United States had also been studying mass communi­ cation in Great Britain.

One such scholar was H.W.Wilson, who offered an historical account of how advances in the expansion of the British communication system were being exploited. In his Pressure Group: The Campaign for

Commercial Television, Wilson outlined how one political group, aided by several advertising and radio-equipment industries, pressured and eventually persuaded the British government to establish commercial televis ion.^

Another scholar from the United States, who wrote on British broadcasting, was Burton Paulu. Like Wilson, Paulu analyzed the history uo of broadcasting in Great Britain as it changed from a government 25 monopoly to a part-public and part-private system. His British

Broadcasting in Transition, and his more general British Broadcasting were important American contributions to British mass communication research.^®

British scholars have also been concerned with the history of the

British mass media. Two of the more important scholars in this area during this time were Francis Williams and Asa Briggs. Unlike Wilson and Paulu, who directed thier attention to British broadcasting, % Williams focused his attention on the British press. The importance of the press for Williams was that "no other product of modern civil­ ization has achieved so complete a saturation of its potential market."

In his Dangerous Estate, Williams analyzed a number of major newspapers in the country to ascertain the general character of each. Among the papers which he studied was the Daily Mirror, which Williams claimed thrived on sensationalism and took an obvious pleasure in muck-raking, and the Daily Express, which he contended was prone to smear campaigns, misrepresentations, half-truths and vicious charges in its political reporting. In terms of Williams' overall concern with market saturation, the two newspapers accounted for over ninety percent of the new readers

in Great Britain since 1937. According to Williams, this increase represented a significant trend and indicated the type of journalism which the new readers disired. Williams* concluding thought was that

it also represented a kind of journalism to be feared.

The other important and influential historian was Asa Briggs, whose work began in 1961 and continued through to the 1970's. Unlike 41 the previous historians who took a specific question or issue to follow through in recounting the history of British mass media,

Briggs often left those types of studies for other scholars. As such, he attempted to provide a definitive recording of the total series of events. In the process, Briggs emerged as the chronicler and his­ torian of the history of broadcasting in the United Kingdom.^®

While Briggs, Williams, Paulu and wilson made important contri­ butions to the study of mass communication, the two most important figures in the humanities at this time were Richard Hoggart and % Raymond Williams. Both scholars made important contributions in the late 1950's and early 1960's which continue to be major works for

British scholars in the 1970's. Both scholars explored the role of mass media in society, a central theme in much of the humanities work in mass communication. And finally, both scholars added the perspective of the literary critic to British mass communication research during this period.

Chronologically, Hoggart's work came first. One of his earliest, and still most influential, studies was The Uses of Literacy which, while published in 1957, reported the results of a study carried out from 1952 to 1956. In brief, Hoggart's work was "about changes in working-class culture during the last thirty or forty years, in par- 29 ticular as they . . . (were) being encouraged by mass publication."

Toward that end, the study was presented in two parts. Hoggart attempted in the first part of the work to clarify and abolish any misconceptions about what constituted a working class structure. His analysis touched upon such attitudes and ideas as mother, neighborhood 42 and religion, among others. In the second part of his work, Hoggart presented an analysis of the changes that had resulted from an increase in masspublications, usually more "picture tabloid" than "serious reading" publications, in the working-class culture.30

As such, Hoggart's conclusion was that:

at present the older, the more narrow but also more genuine class culture is being eroded in favour of the mass opinion, the mass recreational product and the generalised emotional response. The world of club-singing is being gradually replaced by that of typical radio dance-music and crooning, television cabaret and commercia1-radio variety. The uniform national type which the popular papers help to produce is writ even larger in the uniform international type which the film-studios of Hollywood present. The old forms of class culture are in danger of being replaced by a poorer kind of classless, . . . and this is to be regretted.3!

Hoggart's study presented a chronicle of the idea of working class culture and how it had changed over time through the impact of the mass media. This trend which he detailed was not necessarily a recent phenomenon; a number of social critics in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries had made similar claims. Hoggart, however, was one of the first to go beyond speculation to empirical explication.

While taking a somewhat different tact in Culture and Society,

Raymond Williams, the other important literary critic, addressed the same sorts of issues as Hoggart had, i.e. how culture had come to be defined and constituted. Williams, however, chose to follow the idea of culture as a number of British authors had utilized it. He began with such writers as Edmund Burke and William Corbett, progressed through Matthew Arnold and William Morris, and concluded with

D.H.Lawrence and George Orwell. In their writings Williams saw culture as a court of appeals where real values could be determined, and finally, 43

in the late 1950’s, Williams argued that culture was once again being

defined as a whole way of life. Overall, Williams saw the shifte in

meaning as the result of anumber of societal factors, e.g. economics

and politics.^

The importance of Williams' work was that he provided a definitive

account of how a major idea in society, the idea of culture, had been

constituted throughout British history. While Culture and Society was

more abstract at times than Hoggart's work, it provided an important

base for future work by Williams and others.

Williams' work continued and in 1961 The Long Revolution was

published. In this work he continued his analysis of culture, but this

time he focused on specific aspects of culture, i.e. the popular press,

the novel, the educational system, etc. Like his earlier work,

Williams traced changes in society through these specific aspects of

society.^ (The specifics of Williams’ work and his history of cul­

ture and communication will be taken up in some detail in Chapter III where Williams will be discussed as a representative scholar.)

Like Hoggart, Williams has continued to work in the field of

mass communication, developing and clarifying the ramifications of

culture and communication. As shall be seen in the rest of this chapter,

these ideas have continued to play an important part in the British

mass communication research tradition, a tradition which has to develop

into an interdisciplinary approach.

The first step toward such a tradition was the publication in

1963 of Control or Consent, the first work of a social scientific

leaning devoted to a survey of mass communication. The work, authored 44

by James Halloran, can be seen as a fitting conclusion to the early work in mass communication research by British scholars

Unlike earlier studies which had limited their scope to an

isolated area, Halloran focused on a number of various aspects in mass communication. In particular, he analyzed and summarized mass communication and social change, the issue of advertising, the mass media and their publics, the effects of mass communication, the mass media and mass culture, and the responsibilities of the public to mass media.35 * While his work was published only a year after Himmelweit's

"A British Report," Halloran was able to draw upon some research which had not been previously available to other scholars. One such study was Television and the Political Image by Joseph Trenaman and Denis

McQuail which reported on a panel study of the effects of mass media, specifically television, in changing voting behavior, polotical attitudes and information in two constituencies during the 1959 General

Election in Great Britain. In general, the study concluded that tele­ vision was shown to have produced significant increases in the political knowledge of the constituencies, but not to have had a direct effect on voting behavior or attitudes.®6

Other studies which Halloran relied upon for his survey included the proceedings of the National Union of Teachers Conference, Popular 37 Culture and Personal Responsibility, and three studies on broadcasting, one by the BBC on "Facts and Figures about Viewing and Listening,"**® 39 another by the Granada Television group entitled "What Children Watch," and a third by Leonard Smith, "Half a Decade" which was a summary of 45 research carried out for the Independent Television Authority by

Associated Rediffusion.^ While the latter three studies continued the social tradition established by Belson in media industry research in providing information about the viewing habits of the British public, the N.U.T. report showed the emergence of a more interdisciplinary approach to mass communication. The report documented an October

1960 conference at which a number of leading scholars in Great Britain presented reports or offered surveys of the growing field of mass communication research. Raymond Williams, Hilde Himmelweit, and

M. Abrams, among others, presented reports on topics ranging from trends in newspaper ownership to children and television to the effects of the mass media. The report illustrated the growing concern among a number of scholars and legislators that the mass media may have some impact on people and that, whether or not there was an impact, some systematic study needed to be undertaken. As one member of the conference, M. Abrams, noted, people who wished to rally to one position or another had often "been content to fight the battle armed with little more than irrelevant anecdotes and unwarranted assumptions." As a result, the best ideas and positions on the issues were often ignored for the want of sufficient research and an awareness of the issues and problems involved.^*

Halloran's work was an attempt to systematicaaly organize the available material from all areas of mass communication research. As such, he not only discussed print, radio and television media, but also dealt with research conducted in the area of cinema. In this area he was able to use a UNESCO publication entitled "The Influence of the Cinema on Children and Adolescents" which cited and summarized a no number of studies which had been carried out in Great Britain.

Halloran*s concern for a broad approach, as exemplified by his

summary, was motivated by a number of concerns. Specifically, he felt

that there was "a general concern about the development of the media, the part played by the media and the possible social effects of media consumption;" there was also "a concern about the way the media are being used by certain individuals and groups for financial gain, explo

tation and manipulation, without regard for any possible wider reper­ cussions and developments;" and finally, there was:

a concern about the low level of the debate on the subject, which admittedly, at this stage, in the absence of any real quantity of definitive research material, must be more or less provisional, but which need not be entirely impressionistic and could take a more rigorous, and objective f o r m .

In this last concern, Halloran echoed some of the sentiments

of Abrams at the N.U.T. Conference, who called for a less anecdotal approach to discussing the problems of mass media and society.

Halloran's concern about the low level of debate was not left unanswered. He noted that:

I have no wish to establish a case for exclusive rights of social science in this field. But there is a real danger that, in the absence of a more disciplined approach, the wrong, or at least the not-so-important, battles will be fought and will absorb all our energies. It will be maintained . . . that a disciplined study of the media and society (in studying social problems it is necessary to look at the whole of society) will help us to realize that the various parts of society are interrelated, that the media are products of society (a symptom of its sickness, if you will) and that in a manner of speaking society gets the media it deserves. It follows, then, that an attack on the media logically calls for an attack on the social-economic system; yet so many of those who are only too ready to attack the products of the media 47

are supporters of and are closely identified with the system which does so much to determine what the media will produce. There is, then, a concern with the whole question of the soundness and morality of our social-eco­ nomic system.^

While the reader may find such an approach to be more aggressive and value-laden than the normal scolarly work which one encounters in most reading, Halloran saw no contradictions between such an approach and a disciplined approach. He noted in his work that:

throughout the book (in which more questions are asked and problems posed than answers given and solutions offered) these values are implicit and judgments and interpretations are blended (judiciously I hope) with empirical data. This, to the author, motivated as he is, and bearing in mind the present state of knowledge in this field, seems to be the most suitable and useful way of dealing with the subject of mass media in society.^5

One may argue with such a personal approach, one shared by

Williams and Hoggart, but overall this approach was illustrative of a deeper growing concern in British society, a concern for an aggressive articulation, study and debate of the problem of arass media in society, a concern that would produce the Television Research Committee— the subject of the next section of this chapter.

The Television Research Committee: 1963-1969

As the preceding section illustrated, mass communication research was beginning to develop as a result of a deep concern about the relation of mass media in society. But, as one could also see, there was not, as of 1963, a body of research which could be seen as the foun­ dation for future research. The inability of the Pilkngton Committee to discuss or cite more than half a dozen research studies attests to this sparsness. The Television Research Committee would change all 48 of this; it was to be the catalyst which ignited the interest of broadcaster and scholar to together pursue the problem of mass media in society. In this section the history of this committee, the activ­ ities undertaken and the individuals involved will be presented.

While the committee dates officially from 1963, its origin was in i» conference held in late 1961. At that time, Home Secretary Lord

Butler called a conference to discuss the issue of juvenile delinquency in Great Britain. At the conference in November of that year, leaders and scholars representing religious, educational, social service and other interests, discussed the extent to which juvenile delinquency was related to conditions in society. One aspect, in particular, which received considerable discussion was the role of television in society and the possible effect it might have on people, especially your^ people.i 46 u

Following the conclusion of the conference, the Independent

Television Authority offered to finance research into the impact of the mass media, particularly television, on society with special emphasis on the effects on young people.^ As the discussion of the conference pointed out:

much was said and written about the allegedly harmful effects of television on the young; but there is little in the way of evidence to support the general statements that are made. Nor is much known about the possible influences which are exerted by television on the minds of the young.

When Home Secretary Butler announced this offer by the ITA to the

British Parliament in March 1962, the House, as well as the general public, gave it a positive reception. As mentioned earlier, the relationship of mass media and society was a broad and deep concern of 49 of the British people and aroundthis time was very much on people's minds. One newspaper, The Guardian, ran a story with the headline

"Problems of Showing Violence in a Violent World.” In the story the parliamentary correspondent for The Guardian, Norman Shrapnel, wrote that:

•problem' is surely the current word, though' stronger ones have been used. It all came to a head earlier in the week when complaints were made about brutality on the television screen in front of the children, and the Postmaster-General described a scene on the BBC in which Bill Sykes murdered Nancy as 'brutal and quite inexcusable.

The leading article in The Guardian on the same day was entitled

"Violence on TV."50

During the debate on the ITA offer in the British Commons, the general trend of the discussion was one of concern beyond just tele­ vision and violence or even television and deliquency. One member or the British Parliament, Miss Alice Bacon, went so far as to speak of

"the whole way of life depicted on television."5*

Following this debate and some preliminary discussion with the

ITA and the BBC, Home Secretary Butler organizeda conference of experts in psychology, sociology, social studies and statistics. Held in

Sunningdale, England, in May 1962, the conference recommended that any research conducted in the area "should not be primarily concerned with the direct study of the effect of television on deliquency." Instead, the conference "felt that the scope should be wider and should deal with the part that television plays, or could play, along with other influ­ ences in community knowledge and fostering illiteracy."5^ Toward such an end, the conference recommended that a committee be established to give further consideration to the issue, to initiate and coordinate 50 research in this area, and to administer the funds which the ITA had made available. In their initial offer the ITA agreed to provide h 50,000 per year for a five year period, i.e. L 250,000 for the entire term.^

Following these recommendations, the Home Secretary invited

Mr. T.A.F. Noble, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leicester, to chair the new committee, the Television Research Committee. Then,

in July 1963, the names of the other members of the Committee were announced.^ %

While the Chairman and the other members of the Committee had been appointed by the Home Secretary, the major force behind the earlier conferences, the nature of the Committee seemed to dictate that it needed needed a Secretary who was more familiar with the area of mass communi­ cation research and its various problems. Neither the Home Office, the

ITA nor the BBC was able to meet the needs for such a Secretary.

Subsequently, the Committee Chairman, T.A.F. Noble, asked a member from his own University, James D. Halloran, to serve as Secretary to the

Committee.The reader will recall that it was Halloran who authored the first survey of mass communication research by a British social scientist.

The Committee met for the first time in late July, 1963, and quickly began its work within the terms of reference drawn up by the

Home Secretary and approved by the sponsoring agency, the ITA. Spe­ cifically, the Committee was:

to initiate and coordinate research into the part which tele­ vision plays or could play, in relation to other influences, as a medium of communication and in fostering attitudes, with particular reference to the ways in which young people's moral 51

concepts and attitudes develop and on the processes of perception through which they are influenced by television and other media of communication; and to administer any funds made available to it for such research.

With, a tenure of five years, the Home Secretary originally envi­ sioned that after an initial period of discussion and negotiation with researchers, the Committee would grant contracts for various research projects and then spend a relatively quiet time awaiting the outcome of the research before making any public statement. While not required to make any final reports or recommendations, the main task being "to * coordinate and initiate research, "the Committee was expected to arrange for the publication of research reports, and, where appropriate, to comment on the findings.^

The Committee, however, did not have a relatively quiet time. As was seen in the last section, mass communication was not a research interest of very many social scientists. In fact, when the Committee surveyed the research interests and plans of the various British social scientists, it discovered that relatively few were working on research topics which were related to the terms of reference, even when they were most widely interpreted. Further, while the Committee did receive a number of proposals, only one by Professor Himmelweit was judged likely to contribute substantially to an understanding of the problem a r e a . ^ 8

What in essence happened during the first few months of the

Committee's existence was to give each member first hand experience in the basic problems which had generated the need for such a committee.

In short, while there were easy generalizations which seemed to ring true in discussions, these same generalizations were not supported by research and while there was some, it not an abundant amount of 52 research, the conclusions to be drawn from these studies were usually so limited as to preclude any significant input to the broader issue of mass media in society.

It became quickly apparent that the Committee needed to rethink the nature of the problem. While there were great expectations for the work the Television Tesearch Committee would undertake, the Committee decided that it would have to proceed slcwly. Toward that end the

Committee felt that it should first clarify by its own studies both the significance of the terms of reference and its own objectives; then, the Committee should indentify the problem areas amenable to social science research and assess the social relevance of the specific questions that could be formulated within these areas, as well as seeing what methods, skills and resources were available and could be used in attempting to answer these questions; finally, with these issues considered, the Committee Bhould establish its research priorities.^9

In deciding upon such a plan of attack, the Committee argued that its task was not simply to answer a series of questions. Instead, it felt that:

the Television Research Committee had been presented with an unusual opportunity to promote scientific research in a relatively new, fascinating and important area in which fact and objectivity were urgently required to support a spirited and continuous debate.6

Consequently, the Committee saw the decision to commission the first proposals put forth as a bit premature. Further, given the fact that the Committee included experts in sociology, psychology, criminology, philosophy, religion, education, medicine, social welfare and adminis­ tration, the Committee felt that limiting its activities to the mere 53

acceptance and rejection of research proposals was to miss the oppor­

tunity to utilize the experience and expertise to create a sound base

for future research.®*

Toward that end the Committee would direct its energies. In

general the Committee would evolve the sound base for future research

in three stages. First the Committee would survey the field of mass

communication in a systematic manner and make these results public;

second, from the results of these surveys, the difficulties, omissions

and inadequacies would be discerned and research strategies and studies

developed to address these issues; and third, the Committee, from the

results of these studies, would hopefully produce a clearer under­

standing of the mass communication process— the sound base that the

Committee was intent upon forming.62

Up until the decision to undertake a wider approach to mass

communication, the Committee had operated without a survey of any aspect

of the field of mass communication. Its knowledge was merely the pooled result of the knowledge of the people on the Committee in the area of

mass communication. The first stage of the plan to evolve a sound base

for research required surveys in a number of areas. That is, studies were needed to address such questions as what kinds of research had

been done, what research methods and designs had been used, what mis­

takes had been made in that research, what generalizations, if any,

from the research were valid, what theory or theories of mass communi­

cation existed, what lessons could be learned from this history, and

finally, what questions should be asked in studying mass communication? 54

In an attempt to provide some answers to these questions, the

Secretary of the Committee, James Halloran, prepared a working paper for the Committe in one area of mass communication. HaHoran's paper,

The Effects of Mass Communication— With Special Reference to Television, was an attempt to survey the research on the effects of mass communi­ cation. The focus of the survey was to present what research had really found, rather than what people assumed was the c a s e . 63 as Halloran later pointed out, the bulk of the references used in the preperation of the working paper were American studies and it was from this body of work that the generalizations and theoretical speculations in the 64 paper originated.

While this work will be discussed in more detail in Chapter IV, when Halloran's idea of communication will be discussed, it needs to be mentioned here that this work by Halloran relied very heavily on one American scholar, Joseph Klapper, and his work The Effects of

Television. Halloran later noted that this emphasis was unfortunate in that "the prominence given to the tentative generalizations on effects put forward by Joseph Klapper at the turn of the decade has led to a somewhat restricted view of television's potential.”®^

However, Halloran also contended that it was essential:

'in evaluating these generalizations about effects, to take into account the nature of the research from which they were derived and to bear in mind the sort of questions that were not asked and the sort of research that had not been carried out. 66

As Halloran's work verified, the research available was not always utilized or interpreted in a similar fashion; methods and designs were quite often improperly used; and, finally, most serious was the lack of 55 consistent theoretical frameworks in the various studies.

As the work continued, the Committee came to the realization that the proper use of techniques and methods, as well as giving more atten­ tion to theory, was not going to suddenly elear up the difficulties in the field of communication research, though it might make the situation somewhat less difficult. The first working paper of the Committee was the tip of the proverbial iceberg in showing the Committee that the whole relationship between viewers, in particular children, and tele­ vision was extremely complex and that what the viewer brought to the television situation was just as crucial as what the television presented to the child.

When the Committee made its fist public report, The Problems of

Television Research: A Progress Report, the tone was generally opti­ mistic. In assessing the general state of mass communication research, the report claimed that:

there are signs of improvements and refinements in methodology and of a growing awareness that more attention must be given to theoretical issues. It seems possible that mass communi­ cation research may soon move away from the plataeu on which it often is said to have rested for too long.67

Further, the Committee in its report argued that:

its deliberations over the past two years now make it possible to raise questions that are both socially relevant and scientifically feasible. Moreover, it is convinced that the questions are worth asking, that in terms of public interest the problem area is a vital one and that given time, (some of the research projects likely to be supported will take several years to complete) adequate funds and competent trained workers, research could be mounted which would contribute substantially to a better understanding of the communication process and the associative social problems.6® 56

However, to achieve a better understanding, the Committee believed that scholars needed to make changes in their basic way of conceptualizing communication. The Committee contended that:

it the past many of the questions have assumed that the audience is an undifferentiated mass and that the person who receives the message, who watches the television programme, is an individual in isolation. It is not surprising that these oversimplifications, often assuming direct effect and on one-way relationships between communicator and recipient, have failed to produce relevant answers. How could such questions yield useful information when the group structure of the audience and the many complexities of the viewing situation were not taken into account? Some recent research has shown that individuals remember those parts of a communication which they expect to find useful in future communication with other people. This means that they deal with the media in terms of its social utility to them in their group relations and their day-to-day living. It seems evident that research proposals which regard the audience in the communication process as an aggregate of completely isolated individuals wil be of limited value. The group relations on every receiver will affect the way he responds to the mass media and the way he uses what he had perceived.69

From this reasoning, the Committee concluded that in order to

"contribute substantially to a better understanding of the communication process" it needed to "at least comment on the wider situation."7® As such, the Committee made the assumption that communication was the base of" society. Therefore, it argued, the purpose and domain of the

Committee needed to be also concerned with the study of man and society.

While studies could and would be carried out on the impact of television, the Committee felt it needed to think and operate on a broader scale, one it felt was more in keeping with its terms of reference.

In short, what happened during the Committee’s first two years of existence, and what was amply documented by the first progress report, was a shift from the more traditional definitions of mass communication 57 research to a broader conceptualization. In opting to pursue this broader direction, the Committee felt that:

the emphasis on such wider aspects of the communication process reflects a welcome convergence of different traditions, different modes of thought and different research practices, but other convergences are urgently required, for the communication process is a basic social process which can only be understood by utilizing the findings and methods of all the social sciences. Clearly the task is interdisciplinary and an attempt must be made to attract the attention, interest and energies of those working in the several areas relevant to the committee's terms of reference.^

In an effort to further establish the base for this broader approach to communication, the Committee undertook a couple of surveys in other areas of mass communication which the Committee felt were important to carrying out its task as defined in the terms of reference.

Specifically the Committee sponsored two works, Attitude Formation and

Change by James Halloran and Television and Deliquency by James Halloran,

David Chaney and Roger Brown, which were published by the Television 72 Research Committee as working papers.

The first working paper, Attitude Formation and Change, was initiated on the premise, mentioned earlier, that the Committee, in order to deal adequately with its terms of reference, needed to pay attention to, and attempt to learn from, research in other areas, fields and disciplines not specifically designated mass communication.

Along this line, Halloran felt that the "most important" of these allied research areas was the area of attitude formation and change.

As noted earlier, one of the major directives given the Television

Research Committee was the study of television as a medium "in fostering attitudes with particular reference to ways in which young people's 58 moral concepts and attitudes develop."7-* Toward that end, the working paper reviewed the major approaches to attitude formation and change. As the paper noted:

most of the experimental work on attitude change is relatively easy to locate and falls neatly under accepted headings. This is not the case, however, with the work on attitude formation; for this work is often mixed up with other topics. It can be found under several subject headings and on the whole it tends to be set in a wider framework. Consequently, in the review of the work on attitude formation, studies of child development* personal influence and reference groups, as well as research on the general socialization, process have been included.

« While Halloran’s work will be studied in some detail in Chapter IV, the important theme and conclusion that flowed from the work was that attitude formation and change was not a one-way exploitation process.

Halloran noted that:

we have seen that outside the laboratory.the initiative does not rest soley with the communicator. There is selection, interaction, exchange, want satisfaction, and problem solving. Individuals can process new information as a function of their perceived relationships to future audiences, and in a sense, the audience can influence the communicator by forcing him into a certain role. It is important to stress the inadequacy of the 'one-way influence' model but in doing this and in thinking in terms of exchange and of individuals demanding something from the communicators to which they are exposed it is possible to go too far. Not all the exchanges are equitable and it seems more than likely, particularly in the early stages of socialization, that the exchange system will be weighted in favour of the media. Individuals may also demand from the media what they have been led to expect they can obtain from it.75

From this assessment, Halloran noted that:

this should serve to remind us of the sonsiderable gaps in our knowledge about the role of the media in the early stages of the socialization process. It should also remind us once again of the need to study the communication process in the wider social context and of the related needs for interdiscip­ linary research and for cooperation with researchers in allied fields particularly with those working in child development.76 59

The other working paper, Television and Delinquency, was the final working paper released by the Committee. Like the earlier papers, this work also set out to survey an allied area related to mass communi­ cation research. But, given the earlier findings and developments, this survey intended to place the relevant research in the appropriate context. Specifically, the authors examined the nature and extent of social concern in this area and reviewed the research available on the nature and cause of delinquency. The authors then looked at mass communication research, paying particular attention to research which addressed itself directly to the media-delinquency question. The second half of the study reported on research conducted in the late

1960's by the authors on the television viewing habits of adolescents who had been placed on probation by juvenile courts.77

It is important to note that this study, in many ways, reflects the direction and type of study which the Committee foresaw in the terms of reference given to it: by the Home Secretary. As such, this report exemplified the directions and purposes the Committee envisioned for mass communicationresearch. Specifically, this study provided a strong theoretical framework in which to conduct and interpret the research. This study also placed the problem area with the larger social context, a development which previous work by the Committee had noted as a major failing of most mass communication research.7®

While the study did pay more attention to theoretical undergridings and did attempt to refine the methodological tools, the authors made two provisions before presenting their conclusions. First, they noted that no survey or correlational study which merely sought to 60 establish whether delinquents and non-delinquents differ in their media behavior was in a position to offer definitive proof about the sug­ gested causal relationships between media content and deviant, i.e.

lawbreaking, behavior. Second, the authors argued that if such rela­ tionships did exist, they may well be of a more subtle sort than was commonly imagined. As they noted:

the whole weight of research and theory in the juvenile delinquent field would suggest that the mass media, except just possibly in the case of a very small number of patho­ logical individuals, are never the sole cause of delinquent behavior. At most, they may, play a contributory role, and that a minor one.™

In general, the findings of the report were that:

in so far as the delinquents studied here did differ from the members of the control sample, then it seems proper to suggest that their particular television preferences may well have been just as much a result of their drives, needs and social position as was their delinquent behavior itself: for example, they may have sought excitement both in the committing of delinquent acts and in living vicariously within the fantasy world of television. Of course, this does not mean to say that they necessarily sought excitements less often or less intensely in delinquency because they found it available on television. We must not make use of zer-sum models carelessly, and assume that individuals have a given and fixed magnitude of need for excitement which must be satisfied, and can be just as well satisfied in one way as another; nor, alternatively, need we necessarily assume that a tast for excitement feeds on itself.8®

As if to reiterate the Committee's emphasis on communication as a broad, social process, the authors concluded that:

more generally it would no doubt prove fruitful to try and place delinquents’ television behavior within the context of their whole range of media behavior and also within the context of their leisure pursuits in general.81

While these working papers represented the only officially pub­

lished studies by the Television Research Committee, other studies were conducted under the auspices of the Committee and were published in 61 independent places— journals, monographs and books. Collectively, these works are an important part, but not totally representative, of the work of the Committee. In general, these works were intended to inform the public of the Committee's progress and development. As the

Committee noted, however, this role of informing the public was seen:

as being carried out not only by the publication of results which might come from commissioned work but also by the public being informed about the problems and complexities surrounding the study of mass media in our society, and about the nature and scope of social scientific enquiry into the mass communi­ cation process.8^

« Members of the Television Research Committee played a crucial role in this regard. In particular, James Halloran, as Secretary of the Committee, made a number of contributions to BBC conferences, ITA consulations, national and international conferences of sociologists, applied psychologists, educators, mass communicators, and others. He also participated in radio and television programs and published a num­ ber of articles discussing the work of the Committee in popular magazines and newspapers. The overall purpose of this activity was to keep the public informed and to create an awareness of the need for mass communication research.83

As the terms of reference dealt with informing the public, they also mentioned coordinating, as well as initiating, research. Toward this end, the Committee sought to coordinate research, not only within the confines of the Committee's activity, but also on a much larger scale. While the Committee acknowledged that coordination within the wide field of mass communication research at the international level was all but impossible, the Committee did attempt to establish rela­ tionships with institutions and similar bodies which conducted mass 62 communication research. In this effort, the Committee established working relationships with a number of groups from the United States,

specifically the American Senate Sub-Committee on Juvenile Delinquency,

the American Joint Committee for Research on Television and Children, and the American Foundation for Character Education. The Television

Research Committee and the latter group, the American Foundation for

Character Education, jointly worked on a project in conjunction with

Oil the Prix Jeunesse International, which is headquartered in Munich.

On an individual level, the*Committee's major representative,

James Halloran, acted as a consultant and worked with a number of

committees. Of particular importance were UNESCO, the Council of

Europe, the European Broadcasting Union, the Prix Jeunesse International,

the World Association for Christian Broadcasting, the National Mass

Media Commission, the Commission on Social Communications (Vatican

Council II), Telefis Eireann, Spanish Television, Czechoslovakian

Television and Danish Radio.85

While Halloran's activities and the relationships which the

Committee had established with various institutions represented impor­

tant moves to coordinate research on mass communication, a serious

problem that still faced the Committee was in what manner the research

activities of the Committee were to be coordinated. While Halloran,

as Secretary of the Committee, was able to carry out many of the acti-

vaties, the Committee felt a wider, broader and deeper need. Speci­

fically, it noted:

the need to interest competent social scientists in the work of the Television Research Committee, the need, because of the shortage of social scientists in mass communication research, to consider the possibility of planning some type 63 of training programme, the need to provide some structure that would enable those working in the field to meet, exchange ideas and coordinate their efforts, the need in certain inquiries to have skilled workers readily available at short notice, the need to keep in touch with developments in other countries, to contribute to allied research schemes, to organize seminars and conferences, to keep the public informed of developments, to build up a specialized library, to process and catalogue research reports, to have an adequate source ofQ£ references, to act as a clearing house, to build reports.00

To address these needs, the Committee suggested the establishment of a firm organizational and institutional base to be called the Centre for Mass Communication Research. , While the question of establishing such a Centre was first discussed at the Sunningdale conference, that conference felt a Centre was a long-term objective. The Television

Research Committee, in their first report in 1965, pressed forward a case for an;

institutional base for research with terms of reference considerably wider than those of the Television Research Committee which would have as its main concern the basic communication process and would also seek to study communication as a social institution.

In suggesting the establishment of a Centre, the Committee was well aware of the need to cooperate with the media industries, but felt that any such Centre should be free from any conflicts of interest with the different media organizations. Toward that end, the Committee sug­ gested the Centre be established in a university.®®

Throughout all of the discussion on the establishment of a

Centre for Mass Communication Research, the Committee was not committed solely to one Centre. Further, the Committee, in its reports and papers, made the point repeatedly that the Committee's responsibilities and that of a Centre or Centres, should not be simply to obtain quick 64 answers to the questions implied in the Committee’s terms of reference.

As noted earlier, the theme that ran through the various research

studies of the Committee was that most of the mass communication

research in the past had suffered because it was not based on well developed theories. The first progress report stated that:

social science is not merely concerned with the collection of facts, but aims at broader generalizations. These can be developed best if research is conducted within a theo­ retical framework. Hypotheses that form the basis for major research are not derived from unorganized and unclassified data, but must stem from the total available body of organized knowledge. Theoretical developments, then, are necessary if we are ever to proceed beyond the fact-gathering stage to the stage where it will be possible to make valid gener­ alizations and predictions. Exploration, to be successful, depends on a good theory as a starting point. The all-too-com- raon distinction between fact and theory is misleading and represents a barrier to progress in this field.

With the intention of providing the institutional support for such theoretical developments, the Committee established the Centre for

Mass Communication Research at the University of Leicester in October,

1966 and arranged to support similar developments at the London School of Economics and Political Science, the institution which was responsible for the Nuffield Foundation Studies, and the Centre for 90 Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham.

Collectively these institutions were responsible for the major studies conducted during the period 1963-1969, with a couple of excep­ tions which will be discussed later. Overall, the Committee's work represented an attempt to study the broad phenomenon of mass communi­ cation, not confining research activities to television. This plan followed the Committee's belief that "the problem is broader and deeper than television alone: the whole process of communication is

involved. 65

In an effort to give a fair representation of the breadth and depth of the research conducted, the following will present summaries of a number of studies conducted by the Centre for Mass Communication

Research staff, as well as summaries of other research which the

Committee sponsored, i.e. work at the London School of Economics, the University of Aberdeen, and the Centre for Contemporary

Cultural Studies.

All totaled, the Centre for Mass Communication Research was responsible for close to two dozen studies during the first four years of its existence. These studies included:

Delinquency and Mass Media Project. This is a study of the use of the media, particularly of television, by certain categories of delinquent (and two control groups of non-delinquents) to see if there is any relationship between this media use and the factors associated with delinquency.

"Children of Revolution”. . . . This programme aimed at improving international understanding and an attempt to ascertain the degree to which this aim was achieved in terms of short-run changes in attitudes and knowledge was central to this study. . . .

"Understanding". An exploratory piece of research was carried out to test the reaction of adolescent school children to a Granada series of six programmes on sex education.

Programmes for Children and Young People. Several studies have been carried out on programmes made especially for children and young people, and other similar studies are planned. The main aims of this work are to further an understanding of the children’s comprehension of and reaction to ceratin kinds of filmed and televised material. Particular attention is given to children’s perceptions of what is real and what is fantasy, the way in which they indentify with media personalities and the role-taking opportunities ' offered by television. . . .

Film-Mediated Creative and Aggresive Play. The main aim in this research has been to find out hew children would play creatively after viewing creative and aggresive films. . . . 66

Television and the Consumption Habits and Aspirations of a Selected Sample of Adolescents. This study attempted to find out if the adolescent sons of certain categories of working-class parents were more likely to use television as a source of normative ideas for consumption behavior and the formation of life styles, than their middle-class counterparts.

Researcher-Producer Co-operation— Children’s Programmes. Arrangements were made with the European Broadcasting Union and the BBC for experiments involving the verification of producers’ 'intentions’ to be carried out in connection with a ’workshop’ held in London in 1968. This project also made it possible to carry out further work on children's reactions within the framework outline above (Programmes for Children and Young People). * 'The Nature of Prejudice". Preparations were made in co-oper­ ation with ATV to study (a) the production process; (b) the content and (c) the effects of a seven-programme series shown early in 1968 on The Nature of Prejudice. . . . This type of study makes it possible for comparisons to be made between the 'intentions' of the producer and the effects of the programmes on the viewers. The decision-making process on the production side was also examined. . . .

Media Censorship in Europe. Under the auspices of the Council of Europe (European Committee on Crime Problems), staff at the Centre undertook the analysis of questionaire data provided by European countries on their laws and policies in relation to the mass media and 'the protection of young people'. . . .

Mass Media and the Secondary School. This four-year project (1967-/1) is supported oy tne Sctiools Council. It investigates: (a) the ways in which mass media impinge upon the school situation (b) the relationship between children's use of and attitudes towards, the media on the one hand— and teachers’ attitudes towards the media (including the way these attitudes are manifested in the school situation) on the other. In terms of broad general areas of investigation this suggests a study of the media behavior (consumption, preferences, attitudes etc.) of teachers, the media behavior of pupils, the school experience of pupils, the general school situation, particularly with regard to mass media.

Local Radio and the Community. This is a 2^-year project (1967-69) started in June 1967, jointly financed by the BBC and the Joseph Rowntree Memorial Trust. The general aim of the research is to examine the impact of a new form of broadcasting— 'local radio in the public interest'— 67

in three communities. . . The main concern is with some of the claims put forward by the proponents of lacal radio. In brief, these are that local radio can create a heightened sense of community awareness, an increase in local knowledge, a higher degree of participation in local affairs, and that it can provide a valuable service for minority groups and interests.

Mass Media and Social Attitudes. This is a three-year project which is financed jointly by the Social Science Research Council and the Television Research Committee. ' The main aim of the study is to ascertain hew the mass media are used by young, white people in connection with their attitudes and behavior towards coloured people in general, and coloured immigrants in Britain in particular.

While the Centre for Mass Communication Research also planned a number of studies which were carried out in the 1970’s, given the scope of this section, these studies will be discussed in the next section.

As mentioned before, the Television Research Committee also sponsored a number of other studies at other institutions, specifically the London School of Economics, the University of Aberdeen, and the

University of Birmingham.

In 1964 the Television Research Committee awarded a grant to

Professor Himmelweit of the London School of Economics to undertake a- study which she initially proposed to the Committee in 1963. In brief, the study was to further explore the data she had already collected for the Nuffield Foundation Television Inquiries and to con­ duct a pilot study on the relationship between social and personality factors on the one hand and children's tastes in television viewing on the other. 68

In 1967, as part of the overall move to establish several bases for mass communication research, the Television Research Committee made an additional grant to Professor Himraelweit toward the cost of a research unit for Communication and Attitude Change at the London

School of Economics. In making the grant, the Committee felt that:

the Unit would succeed in attracting further funds from other sources to enable it to expand and become capable of carrying out the full programme proposed by Professor Himraelweit.

Himmelweit's proposal included a number of studies on a variety of issues. Among those suggested* were:

(1) A study of the ’fit' between the producer's intention in creating a particular programme and its reception by the audience for. which it is intended.

(5) The effect of peer group comments on the perception and impact of a programme.

(6) An experimental study of taste development in young people.

(8) The relative effectiveness of news presented to young adolescents by means of newspaper reports and television programmes.

(10) Attempts to ascertain the influence of teacher-pupil relations on children's reactions to programmes with a moral and social content.95

Overall, the Committee intended that these grants to the London

School of Economics would provide a framework within which a varied by systematically linked research programme could be established.^

In 1966 the Television Research Committee awarded a grant to

Professor Ills ley of the University of Aberdeen to cover a five-year project which was to be directed by Dr. P. Musgrav, also of Aberdeen, under Professor IIIs ley's supervision. As proposed, the project was to center on the media behavior and experience of children between the ages of twelve and sixteen. In conducting this study over a five 69 year period,the general aim was to study:

the changing place that a wide variety of media (i.e. tele­ vision, radio, newspapers, magazines, comics) take as young people move from primary into and through secondary school.97

The basic assumption of this study at the University of Aberdeen was that the media were part of the child's social context and that the use made of the media by the child was seen as one part of the whole social life of the child. As with many other studies commissioned by the Television Research Committee, this project felt that it was * essential "to study this use against the background of the children

in their homes, at school, and with their f r i e n d s . "98

The third institution to which the Television Research Committee awarded funds was the University of Birmingham's Centre for Contemporary

Cultural Studies. Unlike the earlier commissions for projects which were typically within the domain of social science, the grant to the

University of Birmingham was intended to meet the need noted earlier by the Committee to have a wide interdisciplinary approach to the problems contained within the terms of reference. Along this line, the Committee felt that the research conducted at the Centre for

Contemporary Cultural Studies, under the direction ofProfessor

Richard Hoggart, would make an important contribution to the study of mass media in society in its emphasis on the literary-critical-evalu­ ative approach.

Specifically the Committee felt that through the efforts of the

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies it would be possible "to study media content (related wherever possible to other research, say, at

Leicester or Aberdeen) by literary critical analysis and by 'social scientific* content analysis."*®® In such a research strategy, the

Committee hoped that the social scientific analysis might not only utilize the traditional forms of content analysis, but also use advances

made in the fields of psychology, information theory and .

As the Second Progress Report noted, "the two ways of reaching a

description of content— formal content analysis and literary critical

analysis— have rarely been tried together."1®* As shall be discussed

in the next section, the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies

produced a number of important fihdings which combined both types of

analysis.

When the Television Research Committee published The Second

Progress Report and Recommendations in 1969, the Committee had created

a minor flurry of research activity in Great Britain. Besides insti­

tuting or supporting four different university centres for the study

of mass communication, the Committee had sponsored over two dozen

different studies during its five year term. While such a body or work, in American standards, was relatively small, this progress, when

compared against the earlier state of mass communication research,

seems commendable. Further, qualitatively the Committee had not merely

reeled off a series of studies to answer specific questions which had

been posed, but insisted on redefining the approach to mass communi­

cation in a broader, more interdisciplinary manner to provide what was

felt to be sound base for later mass communication research.

Inspite of this progress, the major reason for the Committee was

the financial and moral support given by the ITA. In 1963, when the

Committee was established, the ITA had guaranteed a five year term. 71

In 1968, after having at least outlined the direction for mass communi­

cation research in different areas, the Committee was assumed to have

fulfilled its initial purpose. Consequently, in the spring of 1968,

after some consultation with the Home Secretary, the Television Research

Committee was reorganized after the balance of the funds was committed

to various research projects. Specifically, the Committee was recon­

stituted as a caretaker committee to operate according to more limited,

but nevertheless important terms of reference. According to these

terms, the new committee would: '

be responsible for the control and administration of the research funds allocated by the Committee, to consult with the directors of the various projects on any major changes in project or personnel, and to receive reports and make decisions about publications arising from the research.*02

The new Committee would also:

take steps, including the raising of additional funds, to ensure continued support for mass communication research in this country.

Finally, the new committee would also:

enter into consultation with the Social Science Research Council— perhaps with a view to the establishment of a special sub-committee of the Social Science Research Council--to consider possible future developments in mass communication research.

In concluding its work, the Television Research Committee made a number of recommendations to the British Home Office and to the

British’ broadcasters. Of particular importance were the recommendations

that:

(1) The Government, preferably through the Social Science Research Council and the University Grants Committee, should provide long-term financial support for the continuing develop­ ment and expansion of mass communication research in this country. 72

(2) The BBC, ITA and independent television companies, newspaper, publishing, cinema, advertising and other media interests, should provide financial support in the shape of research grants, fellowships, scholarships, etc., to enable independent research to be carried out in universities and other institutions of higher education.

(3) The resources made available by any of the bodies referred to above should not be dissipated on numerous unrelated projects. They should be used to strengthen the existing institutional developments and to maintain 'centres of excellence' at places where the Committee has already undertaken considerable investment. We recommend that a similar development should be encouraged at at least one other university. This might be at Leeds, where there is already experience of a related kind in the work carried out* on television and politics. In the immediate future, funds should be allocated either through or after consultation with the group of trustees.*^5

The Committee also recommended that professional communicators needed to take steps to allow future practitioners to become more familiar with what social science research had to say about mass communication and that universities needed to take the responsibility to give more attention to such aspects of the mass media in both research and academic courses. Finally, by way of conclusion, the

Committee suggested a number of research directions, including more studies of the professional communicator, more theoretical develop­ ments and a continued emphasis on the interdisciplinary approach to mass communication.

In changing the overall nature of mass communication research

in Great Britain, it is perhaps too soon to asses the impact of the

Television Research Committee. However, it is evident that the

Television Research Committee provided the financial support and the theoretical framework to carry out a broad, interdisciplinary study of mass communication. As shall be seen in the next section, this broad 73 approach continued and it is perhaps as a catalyst that the importance of the Television Research Committee rests.

As mentioned several times during the above discussion, a small but still important group of scholars were working on mass communicat cation research outside of the official sponsorship and control of the the Committee. These scholars included Raymond Williams, who produced a short work entitled Communications which served as a theoretical extension of his earlier works Culture and Society and The Long

Revolution. In short, Williams argued for an understanding of society which included giving some importance to the masaive networks of communication which link, influence and shape society, i.e. newspapers, television, magazines and radio.Williams also contributed works to a number of British magazines, e.g. The Listener and The New Left

Review. A full discussion of Williams* work wil be presented in

Chapter III.

Another scholar independently studying mass communicatiom'was

Asa Briggs, who continued his work on the history of the mass media.

During the period 1963-1969, Briggs completed another volume in his history of broadcasting in the United Kingdom. 107 Briggs also made a number of contributions to the New Society, a magazine intended to be 10ft a social science weekly covering all phases of social science.

Richard Hoggart also continued his work in mass communication, but within the context of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural

Studies at the University of Birmingham. As noted earlier, the Centre was a recipient of a Television Research Committee grant. However, during the period of 1963-1969, Hoggart independently published a 74 number of works, e.g. Your Sunday Paper, a collection of articles on the role of the press in society and a number of monographs.In general, these works attempted to further articulate the central notion of culture and society which he, and Raymond Williams, used as their major focus in the study of mass communication.

While these three scholars, as well as a number of other scholars mentioned in the first section, continued to develop their theories and to produce a variety of studies in mass communication, perhaps the most important centre of research activity which was not associated with the Television Research Committee was the Television Research

Centre at the University of Leeds. This Centre, established by a grant from the Granada Television system in the early 1960's, was primarily concerned with the study of the relationship of television and politics.

The earlier noted work, Television and the Political Image by

Joseph Treneman and Denis McQuail, was the first important work to come out of the Centre's activities. A later work, Communication and

Comprehension by Joseph Treneman, was published in 1967. This work reported on a number of experimental studies which were designed to compare the impact of radio and television with other media and to study the relationship of personality characteristics with learning in adults as derived from educational materials presented in the media.

Unlike other communication scholars working at this time, Treneman and

McQuail were both originally education scholars. This later work by

Treneman reflects the educational aspect of his work and demonstrates the broad approach which was typifing British mass communication research. Besides Treneman and McQuail, the other individual of major significance at the University of Leeds was Jay Blumler, Director of the Television Research Centre. Like McQuail and Treneman, Blumler was also interested in the relationship of television and the political process. In 1968 Blumler and McQuail published a work in this area,

Television in Politics: Its Uses and Influence. In many ways this work has marked parallels to the earlier study of Treneman and McQuail.

In this later study, Blumler and McQuail report the findings of a panel survey carried out during the British General Election of 196h.

The central focus of this study was to discern the uses made of tele­ vision, the effects of the mass medium on political change and the mediating role of attitude to political television in any changes which occurred. This study's results supported the contention that television did not produce any direct effects, but rather that any effects which were found were the result of different motivations by viewers for attending to the election campaign on television.

While these three individuals made an important impact on

British mass communication research, other members of the Centre for

Television Research made a number of contributions to journals, mono­ graphs and anthologies. Along with the Centre for Mass Communication

Research, the Television Research Centre was the only other insti­ tution devoted specifically to the study of mass communication. The

Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, mentioned earlier, took a somewhat broader view of what it studied and hence, did not study solely mass communication. The Centre also studied, among other things, music, literature, and social movements, most of which did not fall 76 within the rubric of mass communication.

In looking back over the two periods of research, one could argue that in 1969 there was a distinct difference in the state of mass communication research in Great Britain. The Television Research

Committee, in conjunction with the work of Williams, Briggs and Hoggart, as well as the activities of the Television Research Centre, had changed the overall field of mass communication research in Great

Britain from the state of affairs in 1963. Overall, in 1969, the institutions and individuals devoted to studying mass communication were beginning to produce a body of work not only relevant to British mass media, but also sound enough theoretically to provide a base for future studies.

But would all of this continue? Toward this question the next section will be directed.

Recent Work: 1969-1976

The overall effect of the Television Research Committee on scholarship in Great Britain was to spur on a significant amount of research on mass communication. This research, both in institutions supported by the Television Research Committee and in other insti­ tutions, was also to begin to show some major foci and directions.

While some of the work was originally suggested by the Television

Research Committee, i.e. mass communicator studies, some work emerged from studies being conducted by non-TVRC institutions. However, no institutions had exclusivity in any area and, as shall be shown, the work in the major areas was informed by a wide range of scholars and contributions. 77

In this section the major work of British scholars will be discussed in the contexts of the different research areas. Unlike previous sections which discussed a large proportion of the studies conducted during those periods, this section will need to be more selective to keep within the scope of this section. A list of studies which were considered for inclusion will be found in the bibliography at the end of this study.

While much of the research conducted during this period was empirical in nature, a couple of scholars made important contributions in works which attempted to both summarize and criticize the available body of research. The first such study during this period was Towards a Sociology of Mass Communications by Denis McQuail. Published in

1969, this work updated as well as elaborated on the major themes

James Halloran discussed in his work in 1963. Specifically, this work, like Control and Consent, stressed the need to consider the role of mass communication in a broader context and to study all aspects of mass communication as parts of an interdependent system. 115

In general, McQuail's review of mass communication research showed that two major, though inadequate, models of mass communication had dominated the field since its inception. These two models or para- llo digms were the "hypodermic" model and the "limited effects" model.

In discussing the hypodermic model, McQuail made the arguments that this model, which contended that the media had large, unchecked power, made assumptions of an ideological nature which he found ques­ tionable. Primarily this model envisioned the audience for communi­ cation as a mass, i.e. mob. This conception of the audience, McQuail 78 argued, had its origins in the ideology of the paternalistic, elitist and conservative thought of the late 1800s and early 1900s. This pattern of thought, he wrote, minimized, if not ignored, the input of the citizens into the communication process. In a democratic society, where such a process was fundamental, McQuail claimed the hypodermic model was strongly at odds with that society’s underlying political doctrines. As such, he found the model inadequate.

The second model which McQuail discussed and found equally inad­ equate was the limited effects model. In this approach, the notions of the hypodermic model were replaced by ones which envisioned a num­ ber of factors as mediating the impact of the medium on the audience.

Personal influence, selective exposure, opinion leadership, etc. were offered in this model as mediating inf luences. *

McQuail's criticism of this approach was partly methodological and partly idealogical. As was noted in the first chapter, a number of studies in mass communication produced the result of little or no effects. These studies were usually panel or survey studies. In

Towards a Sociology of Mass Communications McQuail contended that given the number of factors involved versus the number of factors studied, one could not conclude that there were no effects. Specifically, he argued, these studies generally analyzed isolated individuals and looked for individual effects, as opposed to societal or cultural effects. As such, McQuail claimed that the whole issue of effects needed to include societal, as well as individual, effects and that the limited effects model did not contain the methods capable of providing such analysis. 79 McQuail's critique of the limited effects model also discussed its ideological nature. Specifically, he claimed that research in this model was often the product of administrative requests. Along this line, media industries were concerned with their political and financial advantage and, as such, needed to counter any claims about the ill-effects of the media with research to disprove such claims.

(Recent work on television and violence which contends that the tele­ vision program has less effect on causing violence than other mediating factors, e.g. socio-economic class, family structure, mental stability, etc. is an example of research in this model. In this instance, claims that television should be restricted in the amount of violence that can be shown can be countered with arguments that more attention should be paid to the "real" causes— family structure, socio-economic problems, etc.) The result of such self-serving research, McQuail argued, was a disjointed, noncumulative research tradition.

McQuail concluded his critique by arguing that research studies needed to concern themselves more with studying the interdependence of the various areas involved in the mass communication process. As such,

McQuail argued, a more comprehensive, cumulative pattern of communi­ cation research would develop. McQuail suggested four major directions for mass communication to proceed in order to realize a more cumulative research pattern. 1 1r J

In the rest of this section, these four directions will be first outlined and then amplified by citing studies which fit these four directions. While such an organization may appear to give

McQuail's directives undue emphasis, it should be noted that subsequent 80 scholars have found his categories to typify the scope and focus of British mass communication research. II9

One direction which McQuail suggested research should pursue was in the relationship of mass media and politics. McQuail noted that

"the rise of television has affected democratic politics in numerous ways, without necessarily altering the balance between contending 120 forces." While research in this area was far from complete, the work of the Television Research Centre at the Universtiy of Leeds represented an important beginning which will be discussed shortly.

Another direction which McQuail outlined for mass communication research was the study of the mass communication organization and the professional communicator. In particular, he suggested that there was a need to examine:

the structure and type of authority, both internal and external, which determines the degree of autonomy possessed by the communicator and which affects decisions which are made about content, . . . the internal competition between departments, and between individuals in a communication organization. . . . [and) the development of professional reference groups which 'function to provide standards of judgement and conduct, as well as support for living up to those standards.

As was noted in the previous section, this direction for mass communi­ cation research was stressed by the Television Research Committee.

As shall be discussed shortly, this direction gained strength during this period in the history of British mass communication research.

A third direction for mass communication research, which McQuail suggested, was the study of the consensus or social reality which the media presented, the effects of such presentation on minority groups, and its competition with private and interpersonal channels of 81 communication. McQuail argued that:

members of these groups are in a unique position in relation to the mass media— their attention is heightened, they will become aware of the wider public’s attitude to them, they may acquire information suppressed or changed by their own specialized communication sources. The resolution of any cross-pressures and conflicts will have a bearing on the level of consensus in society, and it is in crucial situations of this kind that the true significance of mass communications in a will be nearest to the surface. 122

Research in this third direction will also be discussed in this - section.

McQuail’s fourth and final direction for mass communication research was the impact of the mass media on society in its broadest, most societal level. In particular, McQuail argued that:

the problem to be investigated about the relationship between mass culture exist at several different levels. At one level the symbolic content of the mass media can be looked at in terms of the prevailing values and structure of a society. At another, a more rigorous attempt is required to specify the needs created or accentuated by conditions typical of modern society, and which could have a bearing on the demand for particular kinds of mass media content. A set of methods and concepts for handling such questions would seem to have been made available by the 'uses and gratifications' approach to the study of the mass media audience. At a third plane of analysis there is a need to explore more systematically the connections between typical patterns of mass media provisions and the political, social and economic system of a society, preferably on a cross-societal basis. ^

While McQuail concluded that the two previous models of mass communication research were inadequate, he did not conceptualize his approach, the sociology of mass communications, simply as the result of conducting research in each of the four directions. This develop­ ment of a new approach was problematic. McQuail noted that:

despite the progress made or in prospect, the relationship between mass communications and modern society remains problematic. This is due in part to a confusion in the 82

still influential mass society theory which associates mass communications with alienation and totalitarianism.^^

Stillr the work by British scholars which fell within the four

directions noted above represented attempts to resolve the relationship

between the mass media and society and to abandon the mass society

theory for a different approach. What, specifically, they accomplished will be presented within the parameters of the four research directions.

The first direction which McQuail suggested in developing a new

approach to mass communication was . As was

shown in the earlier sections, political communication had been the

focus of several previous studies, i.e. Television and the Political

Image and Television in Politics, which had been conducted at the

Television Research Centre. In this later period of British mass

communication research, Jay Blumler, Director of the Television

Research Centre, made a number of important contributions to an under­

standing of political communication.

In 1969 Blumler published a study in the now classic anthology

The Sociology-of Mass Communicators. Blumler’s study, "Producers'

attitudes towards television coverage of an election campaign: a case

study," addressed the general question— what was the function or

functions of election television in a political democracy? Blumler

used the coverage of the 1966 British election by the BBC in a program

called 2h Hours as the basis for his study.125

While this case study placed some constraints on the generaliz-

ability of the findings, overall, Blumler found that a number of fac­

tors affected the character of election programming. In particular,

the programming was affected by the BBC's official policies for 83 election coverage, their organizational structure and the financial, technical and human resources they made available. Blumler also found that certain a priori program ideas influenced the final steps of the election programming, e.g. there were only two sides to each issue. 12 6

Blumler's work in political communication also included studies of the mass media audience for political programming. Of particular interest was his study with Denis McQuail on "The Audience for Election

Television." In brief, the purpose of this study was to develop a synthesis of past research findings to arrive at a collective image of the audience for election television. 1 2 7

In the review of the literature of political communication, the authors found two dominant images for the audience. In the first image, the audience was seen as perceiving television campaigns as simply propaganda and would simply screen off any direct effect to adopt this or that political point of view. In the second image, the audience was seen as using a protective screen to avoid any direct effect from the campaigning, yet still able to exercise free will in making their own choice without media influence. A study was conducted by the authors to test the validity of these images. Overall, the study concluded that:

the audience suggests that many citizens simply wish in a general way to keep the political scene under review, especially where developments may affect their own lives, while distinct minorities are either concerned to find sup­ port for existing loyalties or are genuinely looking for guidance in coming to their voting decisions. For a fulfillment of their requirements, many electors are inclined to turn especially to television. Television politics happens to be readily available as part of almost everyone's normal pattern of media use, and it is usually geared to the capacities of the man in the street. Tension arises, however, from lack of trust in the televised propaganda as a source 84

of the desired information. Many people are suspicious of the manipulative intentions of politicians and uneasy about their own vulnerability. Although research findings suggest that electoral resistance to persuasion is usually strong, the ordinary voter does not yet seem able to share this confidence in the impregnability of his own defense.

In later research Blumler continued to question past ways of studying political communication and to offer a broader concept- 129 ualization of the communication process m his work.

This challenge to past ways of doing research and the use of a broader conception of the communication process was exemplified in the work of other scholars during this period who studied political communication. One of the more important studies in this vein was the

Political Impact of Mass Media by Colin Seymour-Ure. This work, which was seen as an elaboration of Seymour-Ure's earlier The Press, Politics and the Public, 130 was an attempt to analyze and illustrate the various political. . "effects" of the mass media. 131

Overall, Seymour-Ure contended that the study of political

"effects" had been interpreted too narrowly in past research. In response, he presented an historical framework for the assessment of the political effects of the mass media. Then, using this framework,

Seymour-Ure reviewed a number of studies and showed that mass media had effects, not only through the content of the various program offerings, but also by vietue of their existence as institutions. As such, they effected the political elites, the political institutions, the general political climate, and the individual citizen. In conclusion,

Seymour-Ure argued that effects needed to be seen not only as changes in attitude and voting behavior, but also in a broader context, specif­ ically the effect of the mass media to legitimize various political 85 institutions and to signify the important people and events in the 132 political arena.

Blumler, McQuail and Seymour-Ure, as well as a number of other scholars, 133 offered a number of other studies, too numerous to mention, which constituted a generally more interdependent and broader approach to mass communication. As such, political communication, as a major direction for mass communication research, appeared to be making impor­ tant and much needed contributions to the state of British mass communication research.

The second major direction for mass communication research which was suggested by Denis McQuail was the study of the professional communicator. In this direction British scholars were particularly active, partly due to the emphasis given this direction by the various reports of the Television Research Committee which stressed the impor­ tance of this type of research. Like the work in political communi­ cation, British studies of the professional communicator used an interdependent approach to mass communication and developed studies which gave a broader conceptualization of the communication process.

A number of these studies will be discussed below.

As would be expected, the first studies of the professional communicator were conducted by individuals associated with the Centre for Mass Communication Research, the centre founded by the Television

Research Committee. It was not surprising, then, that the first study to be published in this area was Demonstrations and Communication: A 13ii Case Study by James Halloran, Philip Elliot and Graham Murdock. 86

In brief, the purpose of this study was to investigate the way

in which two television services and the majority of the national

newspapers selected and presented the news of an anti-Vietnam demon­

stration. In keeping with the broad and interdependent approach to mass communication research, the authors analyzed the production

process, the media content, and the reaction of the viewing and reading

public.., . 135

Overall, the study concluded that the professional communicator quite often developed a specific perspective, i.e. an ideological

mindset, and conformed the various events to that perspective. Further,

the authors found this perspective across the various media. In this

regard, the study noted that:

in all but one case the story was interpreted in terms of the same basic issue which had originally made it news. In the television bulletins this interpretation remained largely latent, in the press reports it was explicitly stated. Viewers and readers were not presented with various inter­ pretations focusing on different aspects of the same event, but with basically the same interpretation which focused on the same limited aspect— the issue of violence.

Philip Elliott, one of the authors of the above study, pursued

the idea of perspective in a study of the entire production process of

a BBC program series— The Nature of Prejudice. While confirming the

presence of an ideological perspective in this program as well, Elliott

also found that the actual production process contained certain stan­

dardized approaches and techniques which influenced the perspective which influences the program content. By and large these approaches

and techniques ignored or minimized the intentions and needs of the audience, all in keeping with the ideological perspective of the

professional communicator. 87

In evaluating the overall importance and impact of such a posture, Elliott raised serious questions about the past study of the mass media. Specifically, he wrote that:

our model of the mass communication process consists of three seperate systems, society as source, mass communicators and society as audience. Each of these systems takes from the other what is necessary for its own needs. The mass communicators draw on society for material suitable for their own purposes, the audience is left largely on its own to respond to the material put before it. Each system has its own set of interests and its own ways of bringing influence to bear on the others. This model is in direct contrast to those which link the different parts of the communication process directly, conceptualizing it as a process- of influence or communication flow.

To better understand what this research illustrated, Elliott suggested that in the above model, one substitute the term 'spectator' for ’audience.’ In the mass communication system, the Elliott suggested that the process was not so much communication as it was cultural production for a market.Other work conducted by the

Centre for Mass Communication Research tended to support the contention that the mass communicator in the mass media organization assumed an ideological stance which strongly influenced the program which was broadcast, or in the case of newspapers, the story which was printed.

As such, the audience for that product was left with little input or influence. Once again, as in the case of political communication, the basic dynamic ran counter to the underlying political assumptions of a democratic society.

Several scholars not associated with the Centre for Mass

Communication Research conducted studies on mass media communicators which verified the existence of an ideological posture toward both programming and the audience. One such scholar, Tom Burns, studied 88 mass communicators who worked for the BBC. He found that in general the mass communicators took a defensive posture toward the audience.

As such, Burns argued, the professional communicators "tend to carry with them a countervailing, and ordinarily concealed, posture of insidious hostility” toward the audience.

To adapt to such a situation, Burns found that three competing ideologies existed. In one posture the communicator could take on a responsible attitude which sought to simply uphold the BBC goals of raising the cultural standards of *the country and of supporting the national institutions. In a second stance, the individual could adopt a pragmatic posture in which the communicator merely gave the public what it wanted. In the third approach, the communicator could take a professional attitude in which the communicator's colleagues and professional standards were all that mattered. (This last posture 141 was the basic ideology which Elliot outlined in his study.)

Overall, Burns contended, each of these ideologies bred a certain relationship with the audience. In the first case the communicator took a superior attitude toward the audience; in the second case the communicator tried merely to please the audience; and in the third case the communicator ignored the institution and the audience, the major orientations of the preceding two cases, and attempted to satisfy only fellow professional communicators. Like the previous study, this study argued that the ideological stance isolated the communicator from the audience and that overall there was only a very limited meaning for communication. Instead, Elliott's argument for cultural production 1£l0 was more descriptive and insightful. * 89

Scholars' work in the area of journalism confirmed many of these same findings. One such scholar, Jeremy Tunstall, carried out a number 1U3 of studies which dealt with the practicing journalist. In one of these studies, Tunstall argued that the journalist occupied three distinct roles in his daily activities--employee, newsgatherer and competitor-colleague. In the first role, the employee, Tunstall claimed that the journalist was oriented toward the news organization and its goals. In the second role, the newsgatherer, Tunstall contended that the journalist was concerned with 'those individuals who were sources for the communicator. In the third role, competitor-colleague,

Tunstall argued that the journalist was oriented toward his fellow jour­ nalists and was more concerned with their judgment of him and his work.11***

In general terms, these three roles corresponded to the three ideological positions which the earlier research by Burn presented as typifying BBC professional communicators.

As a whole mass communication research continued the trend toward studying mass communication in a broad and interdependent manner. In the process, the scholars challenged and reformulated the model used to describe the mass communication process. Instead of the limited effects and the hypodermic needle (nodeIs, these scholars argued that mass communication, specifically as exemplified by mass communicator research, was more of a spectator event, to use Elliott’s term, and should be seen as cultural production, not mass communication.

McQuail's third direction for mass communication research, the study of the social reality portrayed by the media, was also an 90

important part of the British mass communication research tradition.

As with the preceding two directions, British scholars continued the aggressive trend of past research and further developed the notion of mass communication as a broad and interdependent process.

Along this line, one of the first studies in the area of media constructed reality was by Graham Murdock, who reanalyzed the data from the earlier Demonstrations and Communication. In this study, Murdock argued that the media content continually presented the demonstration's reality as violent, though several- instances of peaceful demonstration were present during the larger event. Murdock claimed that this gen­ eral tone of presentation arose, not out of the basic context of the demonstrations, but out of a "more general definition of the political situation which had been evolved by the political elite." According to Murdock, this definition was that all counter politics relied on violence as a means of expression.

This definition of the situation, Murdock contended, was not

necessarily a direct conspiracy by the press and politicians, but rather was the result of the way the news industry gathered and pro­ cessed events as news, as well as the assumptions upon which these activities were based. (Here the work of Elliott, Burns and Halloran

offers additional support to Murdock's contention.) Specifically in

the case of the anti-Vietnam demonstration, Murdock noted that the demonstrators were expected to be young people out to have a good time

and to provoke violence. Consequently, reporters were stationed where

the action was expected to be violent, i.e. newsworthy. The resulting coverage of the event, Murdock claimed, was simply the realization of 91 prior expectations and assumptions of the event.

Another study which followed along much the same line of

thinking was "The Structure of Foreign News" by Johan Galtung and

Mari Ruge. In general, after studying a number of foreign news oper­

ations, these scholars suggested that a number of factors determined

what constituted news. Specifically, they argued, there were two fac­

tors: Bureaucratic and ideational. The bureaucratic factor was made

up of two aspects— regularity and composition. In terms of regularity,

they contended that events were considered newsworthy only if they

fell within one period of distribution for the medium, e.g. only the

events in one day would be considered newsworthy for a daily newspaper, while the events in a week could be considered newsworthy for a weekly

periodical. The second aspect, composition, suggested that news was

also the result of a balance of different types of events, disregarding what acutally occured. Thus, x number of sports stories, x number

of business stories and x number of feature stories constituted the

news of the day or week, the authors argued. The second factor,

ideational, also contained two aspects— consonance and expectedness.

In the first aspect, consonance, an item or event was more likely to

be considered news if it fit within some prior mental set or image, usually of the newsman. Fires, traffic accidents, and robberies were

all instances of consonance. The second aspect, expectedness, consi­

dered events which would not be normally expected to happen as news­ worthy. The classic example of man bites dog represented an example

of expectedness. 92

Both Murdock's study and this last one followed the social

reality as presented by the media back to some relationship with the

newsgathering process, be it institutional pressures, or bureaucratic

and ideational factors. Studies were also done which took the social

reality and anlyzed its relationship to the reality of the audience.

One such study was Racism and the Mass Media by Paul Hartmann

and Charles Husband. In this study the authors were interested in

exploring the relationship between the coverage of race as portrayed

in the media, the media reality, and the images Britons had of various minorities, the social reality. Through a series of interviews, the

scholars tried to ascertain the images of the different minority groups and the sources for such images. In general, the authors found there were a couple of collective images, i.e. definitions of the situation

or frameworks of interpretation, which were in both the media reality and the social reality. Specifically, the two collective images were:

(1) an awareness of the discrimination and deprivation of minority groups and (2) a perception of immigrant groups as a threat and a prob­

lem. In tracing these images to the specific media content, the authors found that the different frameworks of interpretation were used in different contexts. In particular, the image of minority

groups as a threat and a problem was found in the coverage of racial

affairs overseas which stressed injustice, conflict and violence. In

contrast, the coverage of racial affairs in Great Britain took the

image of an awareness of the discrimination and deprivation of minority

groups. While the authors did not make any causal connections between

the two realities, they do make the point that the two images were 93 prominent in both realities. 111 ft

In all three studies discussed in this area, the relationship between media reality and societal reality was left in the tentative language of social science. In contrast to this tentativeness was the work of Stanley Cohen and Jock Young. These scholars, in their work on deviance and the mass media, raised questions about not only the mechanics, but also the general implications of the images that the media present. Specifically, in a collection of articles which dis­ cussed various aspects of deviance, Cohen and Young suggested that the framework of interpretation which the media presented represented a consensual paradigm— "an image of reality which holds that all reason­ able people will share the values, assumptions and codes of conduct of the dominant majority in the society.” Within such a context, they argued, deviants did not live in different cultures or realities and by different ethics and values, but lived, according to the resulting interpretation, outside any meaningful work and by no ethical or moral values. As such, the events which these individuals undertook were seen through the consensual paradigm as senseless and irrational.*^9

Further, Cohen and Young argued, the media were important in sustaining such a paradigm. Young, in another article, contended that:

the media unwittingly have set themselves up as the guardians of consensus; that as the major providers of information about actions, events, groups, and ideas they forge this information in a closed image. In short, in Peter Berger's terms, they mobilize a specifiable conceptual machinery to maintain the plausibility structures of the consensual universe.

The specifics of this process were illustrated in a number of other studies which they conducted. In one earlier work, Cohen studied the way the media portrayed two groups of working-class youths who referred to themselves as the Mods and the Rockers. In his study,

Cohen found that prior to the media's reporting of the events in­ volving these two groups, the major image of each group in the normal

Britons' reality was amorphous and, at best, vaguely defined.

Following the reporting of a gang war between the two groups, the two terms— Mods and Rockers— became dominant images in the consensual para­ digm with specific traits and attributes.^*

While Cohen\ work showed the way somewhat distant groups became identified by the consensual paradigm, Young's work focused on a top­ ical area of deviance--drug-abuse. In general, Young found that small groups of deviants involved in drug use were portrayed in the media as meaningless and irrational, following the consensual paradigm. However, the situation became problematic when the use involved a broad spectrum of society— the consensual paradigm's base of support and represen­ tation. For such a situation, Young studied the relationship between in­ creased marijuana use in Great Britain and the portrayal of such use in the media. His basic conclusion was that such "deviants" were not seen as acting irrational and senseless, but rather were depicted as being the victims of temptation and corruption by sinister agents. 152

As a body of research, the concern with the realities presented via the media received increased concern and attention during this period of 1969-1976. Within the confines of such work as Cohen and

Young, the very nature of the media output and its relationship to the nature of society was being repeatedly questioned. Like the work with professional communicators and political communication, research in media constructed realities represented an important challenge to past 95 models of research, i.e. was there one reality or numerous realities.

The political assumptions of a democratic society contended that there were a number of viewpoints, i.e. realities. The research by British mass communication scholars showed that this was not always the case in the reality constructed by the mass media.

The fourth direction McQuail suggested for mass communication research was in a broad investigation of the interrelationships of mass communication society. In discussing the previous three direc­ tions, each new direction presented another step toward this final direction, an understanding of the "relationship between mass culture and society." 153 While much of the preceding work possessed some relevance to this direction, the best summarization of this research direction was in the work of scholars in the area of cultural studies.

Within this line of study, scholars conceptualized culture, not as a series of artifacts confined to the upper class— operas, symphonies, etc.— but as:

the whole way of life of a society, its beliefs, attitudes and temper, as expressed in all kinds of structures, rituals and gestures, as well as in the traditionally-defined forms of a r t . ^

As such, the most prominent practitioners of cultural studies during this period were Richard Hoggart and Raymond Williams, two scholars who received mention in the previous two sections of this chapter.

In line with Hoggart's work in past years, his work during this period continued to focus on the various products of mass communication, most recently novels, short stories, etc. In this work, he covered such areas as McLuhan and his work on understanding the media, 96

Professor Bantock and his work on education— Education, Culture and

Emotions, Steven Marcus and the study of the sexual sub-culture in

Victorian England— The Other Victorians, and Q.D. Leavis, the wife of literary critic F.R. Leavis, and her study of Fiction and the Reading

Public. Hoggart also spent considerable time on the work of W.H. Auden and its relevance to the culture.

Overall, the best statements about Hoggart's position on mass communication's relationship with society were in a number of mono­ graphs for the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies and in a series of Reith Lectures in Great Britain. Like the writings of his counter­ part Raymond Williams, Hoggart's work can not be easily summarized by one or two select works. The best summary of his approach, while some­ what lengthy, was from his concluding lecture in the Reith series enti­ tled On Culture and Communication. In that lecture he stated that:

they £the lectures^ have been about our common life and the quality of that life, which embarrasses some people and is carelessly used by others but can't easily be done without. A culture will always produce a picture of the world and ask its people to approve that picture and the values which stem from it. So to talk about the quality of a society's life is not, as some people seem to assume, to produce a sort of slide-rule of externally verified, desirable values and measure the society against them. It is to look and listen, to ask what values are encouraged within a society, what discouraged; what the society allows in behavior and standards without a risk for the individual of being rejected or of great nervous strain; how the society's patterns of values are changing. When you are trying to understand the quality of a society's life you are listening to much more than words, than its manifest assertions. You are trying to interpret and make into a coherent whole, as the society does, its attitudes to hildren, to death, to ambition, to the old, to the individual conscience, to foreigners, to the sick, to learning, to leisure, to the arts, to the search for truth, to privacy, and so on. We never make contact in the void. By all kinds of means we express to others and to ourselves a sense of relationships with the values of our culture, our general acceptance of them, or our rejec­ tions, or our simply taking-for-granted. 97

It would be pleasant to think that all the talk about communication today reflected and respected this diversity and richness, but it rarely does. 'Communications' has become a catch-word, a kind of cult-word. Obviously, our means of passing information of one sort or another from one place to another virtually instantaneously, to hundreds of millions, all this has developed with almost unbelievable speed and effectiveness in the last couple of decades. So what then? Are we really more in touch? A great many people, some out of technical enthusiasm, some out of naivete, some bacuse they can tell a good band-wagon when they see one, assure us that modern communications will dispel all doubts. We may be inclined to ask: 'where is the knowledge we have lost in information’: but, they say, we will soon see tech­ nological marvels which are just around the corner recreate what they are likely to call 'significant contacts with one another.' But there are always new ways of squaring the circle just around the technological corner. At the centre of this group of attitudes is late-Behaviourism with a touch of the Messianic fixer, laced with an elaborate jargon comounded of some applied social psychology plus some neurology plus some technology. Pangloss is reborn in every generation.

No culture has the whole truth or a truth so particular that it will be irreparably violated by contact with others. We can connect, we have to connect: not by hand-across the sea junkets nor by the solemnities of most attempts at international understandings but by a fully-faced realising of common qualities, the ribs of universal human grammar. If we are going to respond to anything like full to cultures not our own it helps to have known, known sensitively and intelligently, our own culture. Our own culture will be a prison unless we can get above it. ^ 6

Cultural studies, for Hoggart, was getting above one’s culture, of knowing sensitively and intelligently one's culture. It was within this perspective that Hoggart continued to work in the 1970's.

Like Hoggart, Williams also continued to explore the relationship of society and mass communication through cultural studies. In the

1970's, Williams' work developed in two directions— the study of lan­ guage and technology. In his work Keywords, Williams returned to the theme which generated Culture and Society, language meaning was intrin­ sically related to the general cultural, societal development. In 98 his work, Williams analyzed 150 different words which were considered important indicators of the long revolution in British society. Like the earlier work, Williams found that politics and economics played an important part in the general meaning of words in society and how the change in meaning affected people’s concepts and how people’s concepts were once again changed by the previous changes.

Williams also focused on how institutions and cultural forms reflected the basic essence of the cultural experience in his work

Television: Technology and Cultural Form. Specifically, he demon­ strated how the present institutional arrangement of television was dictated by certain preconceived goals and directions for television in the early 20th century. 1 5 8 Like other British scholars Williams took a broad approach to the study of communication and, as Keywords and Television illustrate, the phenomenon of communication was a complex process in society.

Like the three previous directions, cultural studies took a broad and interdependent approach. Cultural studies aggressively investigated the broad relationship of mass communication and society and challenged the more conventional modes of thinking about this relationship.

Concerning this general tone in cultural studies, Hoggart wrote that:

we use large words (like 'moral') and large concepts very easily. We have a number of large social and cultural assumptions at the back of our minds. Even further back, supporting these assumptions, we have a whole picture or ] ’ " ~ ‘ ’ lace of literature |_and mass communication^ within it

Hoggart admitted, however, that the cultural approach to comuni- cation was heavily influenced by literary analysis and could benefit from interaction with the more objective manner of the social sciences. 99

Specifically, Hoggart noted, there was a need to make the literary critic more accountable to the reader in terms of the critic's findings and assumptions.^® In the field of social science, as the work of

McQuail, Halloran, Cohen and Young illustrated, the trend was to move toward some accommodation with the humanities tradition, yet keeping some aspects of the social science tradition. In general, British scholars in mass communication in the 1970's were arguing and studying mass communication research from this new middle ground, situated between the humanities and the social science disciplines.

The exact nature of this middle ground was only inferred from research conducted in the four directions suggested by McQuail. It was not until David Chaney published The Process of Mass Communication that British scholars had an updated and more theoretically developed understanding of this approach.Chaney was well suited for this task in that he had worked closely with both the Centre for Mass

Communication Research, a social science oriented centre, and the

Centre for Contemporary Studies, a humanities oriented institution. 162 °

Chaney began his review by noting that mass communication research contained two groups of research— one concerned with history, program ahalysis, etc. (a humanities tradition) and one concerned with effects, learning, information processing, etc. (a social science tradition).

As such, the mass communication research tradition often appeared to be confused and disjointed, even among British studies of mass communi­ cation. This however, was not the case and the two groupings could be readily understood within a common framework, Chaney contended. 100

Toward this end, Chaney argued that the Lasswell model of who-says-what-when-to-whom-with-what-effect was a viable framework if one considered it in two parts— the two aspects of the mass communi­ cation process, form and content. In this framework, the form of the media, which Chaney termed the objective reality, was the who-says- what-when of the Lasswell model. Here, the history of the media organ­ izations, the technical innovations, as well as the institutional organizations of media production, were instances of the objective reality of the mass communication process. The second part of

Chaney's framework was the content of the mass communication process, the subjective reality in Chaney's terms. In this part of the framework the what-when-to-who-with-what-effect aspect of the Lasswell model was applicable. Research which was concerned with learning, information processing, etc., dealt with the subjective reality of the mass communi- cation process. u

In assessing the overall framework, Chaney noted that:

both the subjective and the objective— and it might be useful to conceptualize them as standing in dialectical relationship to each other— include media content. In both perspectives the symbolic organization of media content is an essential reference point for explanation.l6^

Underlying this whole perspective on mass communication process was a movement away from more economic and social models of expla­ nation toward one of cultural explanation. In such a latter model, communication built and sustained the reality of a society. As such, reality became a coherent view of experience which was held by indi­ viduals or groups. Reality, thus, was one's version of what went on around one that made sense.166 101

Within this perspective, mass communication research took on new directions and emphasis, ones with close parallels to McQuail's.

As one author noted:

the issue then is not the effects of the media, nor the uses made of the media by the audiences, but the way communication produces definitions of situations and socially constructed realities.167

Conclusion

In the first twenty years of mass communication research in

Great Britain one can see a quantitative and qualitative improvement

in the state of communication research. In the early 1960s the num­ ber of studies conducted was small. Since then the number of studies being conducted has rapidly increased. In fact, a recent publication

lists over 180 separate studies. Qualitatively mass communication research in Great Britain began with the traditional models and

insights of the time. Since then they have increasingly questioned the directions and methods of research in the area of mass communication.

While change is not directly a qualitative improvement, the continued movement away from the hypodermic model and the limited effects model by British scholars has been founded on arguments concerning the basic relationship of mass communication in society. As such, British mass communication research has developed a broad, interdisciplinary approach.

The above history is in no way complete or totally definitve.

History, like much else, changes and the now dominant trends may be passed over for other directions and approaches. Further, even if the present directions are pursued, 1977 does not mark a logical break, but is more the result of the convenience of this study. Finally, research traditions which are content to stand still oftentimes wither away or turn into dogma. In no way does this author wish to infer of suggest that either of these will be the case. The British mass communication research tradition will hopefully grow and develop.

As such, this history is offered as an updated report of that tradition. 103

Footnotes

*See Asa Briggs, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Vol. 1-3 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961, 1965, 1970) and Burton Paulu, British Broadcasting in Transition (London: Macmillan, 1961).

^William Belson, The Impact of Television (London: Crosby- Lockwood, 1967), p. 1.

3Ibid.

UIbid.

8 Idem., "The Ideas of the Television Public About Mental Illness," Mental Illness, 1957, p. 95.

6 Idem., The Impact of Television.

7Idem., The Public and its Programmes (London: BBC, 1959).

8Idem., "Effects of Television on the Interests and Initiative of Adult Viewers in Great Britain," British Journal of Psychology, 1959, pp. 145-158. Q Idem., Television and the Family (London: B.B.C., 1959).

*®Idem., "Effects of Television on the Interests and Initiative of Adult Viewers."

*^Idera., The Impact of Television.

*3Hilde Himmelweit, "ATheoretical Framework for the Consideration of the Effects of Television— A British Report,” Journal of Social Issues, 1962, pp. 16-27.

*3James Halloran, "Introduction" in The Effects of Television, James Halloran (ed.), (London: Panther, 1970), pp. 9-23.

1Z4Himme lwe it.

^^Hilde Himmelweit, A.N. Oppenheim and P. Vince, Television and the Child (London: Oxford University Press, 1958) p.

l6 Ibid., p. 4.

l7Ibid., p. 5.

l8 Ibid., p.5-6.

l9 Ibid., p. 6 . 104

20Idem-, "Television and Radio" in Popular Culture and Personal Responsibility (London: National Union of Teachers, 1960) and "Television Revisited," New Society, No. 5, 1962, pp. 15-17.

23Halloran, p. 13.

^ Report of the Committee on Broadcasting, 1960 (Pilkington), (London: HM30, June 1962), p. UTI

2 3 Ibid., p. 25. 2h H.H. Wilson, Pressure Group (London: Seeker and Warburg, 1961).

23Burton Paulu, British Broadcasting in Transition (London: Macmillan, 1961).

2 ®Idem., British Broadcasting (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1956).

2^Francis Williams, Dangerous Estate (London: Longmans Green, 1957). 28 Briggs.

Richard Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy .(New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), ~p~. TT]

30Ibid., pp. 141-233.

31Ibid., P. 280.

Raymond Williams, Culture and Society (New York: Harper and Row, 1967). 33 Idem., The Long Revolution (London: Chatto & Windus, 1961).

3**'Halloran, Control or Consent? (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963).

36Joseph Treneman and Denis McQuail, Television and the Political Image (London: Metheun and Co., 1961).

3 ^Popular Culture and Personal Responsibility.

3®Facts and Figures About Viewing and Listening (London: B.B.C., 1961)

3 ^What Children Watch (London: Granada Television, 1961).

^^Leonard Smith, Half a Decade (London: Associated Rediffusion, 1961). 105

Abrams, 'The Effects of Mass Media, With Particular Reference to Young People," in Popular Culture and Personal Responsibility, p. 57.

UNESCO, Reports and Papers on Mass Communications, No. 31: ______The Influence of the Cinema on Children and Adolescents (Paris:

43 Halloran, pp. vii-viii.

^Ibid., pp. viii-ix.

^Ibid., pp. ix-x.

^Televis ion Research Committee, Problems of Television Research (Leicester University Press, 1966), p. 7.

^/ibid., p. 1 0 .

4 8 Ibid., p. 7.

^The Guardian, 30 March 1962.

5 0 lbid.

Silbid

^Television Research Committee, p. 10.

5 3 Ibid.

s/*Tbid.

5 5 Ibid.

5 6 Ibid.

8 7 Ibid., p. 1 1 .

58ibid. 59ibid. ^

6 0 Ibid.

6 lIbid.

®^Ibid., pp. 11-14.

James Halloran, The Effects of Mass Communication (Leicester:

Leicester University Press, 1964), p. 8 . 106

^Idem., "Introduction," p. 14.

8 8 Ibid.

6 6 Ibid.

^Television Research Committee, p. 13.

6 8 Ibid.

8 ^Ibid., pp. 13-14.

7 0 Ibid.

7 lIbid., p. 14.

7^James Halloran, Attitude Formation and Change (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1967) and James HallorarT, Roger Brown and David Chaney, Television and Delinquency (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1970).

73Television Research Committee, p. 10.

7%alloran, Attitude Formation and Change, p. 9-10.

7 5 Ibid., p. 113.

7 8 Ibid.

77Halloran, Brown and Chaney.

78Ibid.

79Ibid., p. 178.

8 0 Ibid., pp. 178-179.

8 lIbid., p. 181.

^Television Research Committee, Second Progress Report Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1969), p. TsT

8 3 Ibid.^

^Ibid., p. 16.

8 5 Ibid.

8 8 Idem., Problems of Television Research, p. 25.

87Idem., Second Progress Report, p. 16. 107

8 8 Ibid., p. 17.

QQ Idem., Problems of Television Research, p. 17.

90Idem., Second Progress Report, p. 17.

91Ibid., p. 19.

92Ibid., pp. 19-23.

9 3Ibid., p. 24.

94Ibid.

9 8 Ibid., p. 25.

"ibid.

9 2 Ibid., p. 26.

9 8 Ibid.

"ibid.* pp. 26-27.

l0 0 Ibid., p. 27.

lQllbid.

102Ibid., p. 45.

l0 3 Ibid.

l w Ibid.

l0 3 Ibid., pp. 45-46.

^"Raymond Williams, Communications (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962).

*9^Asa Briggs, The Golden Age o£ Wireless, Vol. 2 of the History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965). ~

*9 8 Idem*> New Society, 1964-1967.

^"Richard Hoggart, Your Sunday Paper (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967) and "The Literary Imagination and the Study of Society” (Occasional Paper No. 3 Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 1963).

^^Joseph Treneman, Communications and Comprehension (London: Longmans Green, 1967). 108

^Vjay Blumler and Denis McQuail Television and Politics (Chicago: Press, 1968).

**Senis McQuail, Towards a Sociology of Mass Communications (London: Collier-Ma cmi1lan, 1969).

113Ibid.

m Ibid.

115lbid.

ll6 Ibid.

*32Ibid.

ll8 Ibid., p. 92.

119See Albert Kreiling, "Recent British Communications Research" Communication Research, January 1976, pp. 76-96.

*20McQuail, p. 93.

121lbid., p. 94.

122Ibid., p. 93.

123Ibid., p. 95.

124Ibid.

blumler, "Producer's attitudes towards television coverage of an election campaign" in The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators in Sociological Review Monograph, Paul Halmos (edT), 1969.

126 Ibid.

*22jay Blumler and Denis McQuail, "The Audience for Election Television" in Media Sociology, Jeremy Tunstall (ed.) (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970).

128Ibid., pp. 477-478.

129See Denis McQuail, Jay Blumler and J.R. Brown, "The Television Audience: A Revised Perspective” in Sociology of Mass Communications, Denis McQuail (ed.) (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972).

*3^Colin Seymour-Ure, The Press, Politics and the Public (London: Metheun, 1968) and The Political Impact of Mass Media (London: Constable, 1974).

e 109

1^1 Idem,, The Political Impact of Mass Media.

132Ibid.

*33See Tunstall, pp. 411-498.

*3^James Halloran, Philip Elliott and Graham Murdock, Demonstrations and Communication (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1970).

l3 5 Ibid.

l3 6 Ibid., pp. 300-301.

33^Philip Elliott, The Making of a Television Series (London: Constable, 1972).

*3 3 Ibid., p. 164.

139Ibid.

*^Tom Burns, "Public Service and Private World," in The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators, pp. 53-73 and "Commitment and career in the BBC" in Sociology of Mass Communications, pp. 281-310.

141Ibid.

W 2 Ibid.

143Jeremy Tunstall, Journalists at Work (London: Constable, 1971) and The Westminster Lobby Correspondents (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970).

m ibid.

Murdock, "Political deviance: the press presentation of a militant mass demonstration" in The Manufacture of News, Stanley Cohen and Jock Young (eds.) (London: Constable, 1973).

lz*6Ibid.

*^Johan Galtung and Mari Ruge, "The Structure of Foreign News" in Media Sociology, pp. 259-299.

^®Paul Hartmann and Charles Husband, Racism and the Mass Media (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1974).

149Cohen and Young.

*^Jock Young, "Mass media, drugs, and deviance," in Deviance and Social Control, P. Rock and M. McIntosh (eds.) (London: Tavistock, 1974), pp. 229-259. 110

*^*Stanley Cohen, Folk Devils and Moral Panics (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1972).

*52jock Young "The amplification of drug use" in The Manufacture of News, pp. 350-359.

McQuail, Towards a Sociology of Mass Communications, p. 95.

*54Raymond Williams, Culture and Society, p. 320..

*55^£Chard Hoggart, Speaking to Each Other, Vol. 1 and 2 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).

*56idem., On Culture and Communication (New York: Oxford University Press” 1971), pp. 99-103.

*5?Rayraond williams, Keywords (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).

ICQ Idem., Television: Technology and Cultural Form (New York: Shocken Books, 1974). 159 Hoggart, "Contemporary Cultura1 Studies," (Occasional Paper No. 6 , Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 1969), p. 5.

*^Ibid., pp. 9-10.

*6*David Chaney, The Process of Mass Communication (London: Macmillan, 1972).

Ibid., p. i x . 163_. .. . c Ibid., pp. 1-5.

164Ibid.

l6 5 Ibid., p. 6 .

l6 6 Ibid.

*6 7Kreiling, p, 7 9 .

/" PART III

111 CHAPTER III

THE IDEA OF COMMUNICATION

IN THE WRITINGS OF RAYMOND WILLIAMS

If you stand, today, in Between Towns Road, you can still see either way: west to the spires and towers of the cathedral and colleges; east to the yards and sheds of the motor works. You see. different worlds, but there is no frontier between them; there *is only the movement and traffic of a single city.*

In this the opening paragraph to his novel Second Generation,

Raymond Williams offered a summary of his biographical and intel­ lectual history. A history that has gone from the son of a coal miner to one of the most respected thinkers in Great Britain and a history that has tackled with the basic dilemna of how there can be different worlds, yet one city, how there can be divisions, yet a single common humanity. This chapter will address these two different, but related histories. As such, the first section will outline Williams' pro­ gression from literary critic to social theorist, while the second sec­ tion will discuss the basic elements, structures and function of communication, as well as the assumptions about man, science and communication in his social theory.

f Williams’ Life Work^ In the thirty years since Williams first began on the intricate relations among culture, literature, communication and poli­

112 113 tics, his work can be seen, in the most fertile sense of the word, as a life work, not simply the work of a lifetime, but an oeuvre which has continued to expand and develop in its complexity and internal logic. His work has progressed from the basic strategies and methods of the literary critic to a complex and systematic theory of culture.

In the process, Williams has modified, rearranged and discarded a num­ ber of concepts, strategies and methods. And, in the process, Williams has earned himself a reputation among scholars as one of England's most provacative thinkers. It has not -necessarily been an easy development and it has had several major phases which the following will discuss

In all of Williams work there was always close attention to the relationship between culture and politics. As will be discussed in the next section, Williams often insisted that these two areas were bound up with each other in society. He first expressed this theme in the first editorial for his short lived journal Politics and Letters, which he started in 1947 (and folded in 1948). In that editorial, Williams noted that while there was a dichotomy between politics and literature, there also existed numerous cross currents between the two areas, currents that needed to be explored and plotted.3 Given his education in English at Cambridge University, Williams advocated literary criti­ cism as a method for the exploration and plotting of these currents.

He was,- however, concerned that such analysis transcended the tradi­ tional domain of literary analysis. He noted that:

if a critic of literature is genuinely interested in the contemporary and traditional work which he criticises, then he cannot fail to be concerned about much more than litera­ ture itself. He is obliged to enquire particularly into what modern literature reflects of contemporary social experience 114

and into the way in which social life influences the subject, form and language of literature. But beyond these researchers, he must accept responsibility for whatever it is that literature represents in society. In these concerns he must certainly not forget that he is primarily a literary critic, whose first function is to know for himself, intuitively and directly, with control, what a work of literature is.

Literary criticism, however, never was an agreed upon practice.

The issue was often subject to much contoversy and discussion. IXiring the early years of Williams' development, the work of F.R. Leavis and his Scrutiny project was having a significant impact on the philosophy of literary criticism in Great Britain.^ williams, in his characteris­ tic manner, offered his thoughts on literary criticism in a work

Reading and Criticism, which was published in 1950. What Williams attempted in this work was to utilize the best of what the Leavis school had to offer the field; what Williams argued was it close adher­ ence to the actual work of literature— the text, but to avoid the eli­ tism that crept into the Leavis mode of criticism.® While Reading and Criticism did make gains in providing a practice for criticism, the connection with what literature represented in society was not fully articulated in the work and never received the full explication that the editorial in Politics and Leters suggested should typify such criticism.

Williams turned to drama to address this issue. In his next two works, Drama from Ibsen to Eliot and Drama in Performance, Williams discussed what he considered one of the most social of literary forms, the drama. In Drama from Ibsen to Eliot, Williams traced the relation­ ship between playwrights and their works, and the historical period in which they were written. Here, Williams argued that the conventions 115 which the various authors used contained an important relationship to the period- In this regard he developed the term "structure of feeling" to summarize this idea. He noted that:

what I am seeking to describe is the continuity of experience from a particular work, through its particular form, to its recognition as a general form, and then the relation of this general form to a period. We can look at this continuity, first in the most general way. All that is lived and made, by a given community in a given period, is, we now commonly believe, essentially related, although in practice, and in detail, this is not always easy to see. In the study of a period, we may be able to reconstruct, with more or less accuracy, the material life, the general social organization, and, to a large extent, the dominant ideas.7

Williams extended this idea of structure of feeling in

Drama in Performance where he moved beyond the relationship between the text and the period to study the changing relationship between dramatic forms and methods of performance in the history of the English theatre. In the process he attempted to develop a type of criticism which utilized the written textual analysis of literary criticism as well as the more typical dramatic criticism, drama in performance. His result, he contended, was a full sense of dramatic criticism. He wrote that:

what I am concerned with is the written work in performance: that is to say, the dramatic structure of a work, which we may realize when we read it as literature, as this actually appears when the play is performed.8

Williams further developed this full sense of criticism in the area of film in a work he co-authored with Michael Orron entitled Preface to Film. ^

Most scholars who have assessed any aspect of Williams1 writings have agreed that his work from the shortlived Politics and Letters of

1947 to the dramatic and cinematic writings of the mid-1950's 116 represented a first phase in Williams’ work. In this phase Williams moved from the traditional literary critic, a practice he once described as an ever decreasing circle in which the texts to be studied usually had little or no connection with present day life, to that of the con­ temporary social critic, the practice of which tried to understand not just the individual work, but its relation to the larger society in which it was written and performed or read.

The problem with the work of this early period was that despite some gains in terms of technique and practice, Williams found little theory or tradition to assist him in locating his contemporary criti­ cism. In many ways which he himself admitted, this early work in aesthetic criticism was more of a reaction than a formulated response with some historical and theoretical foundation. Save for the work of

Drama from Ibsen to Eliot, which tried to attain some sense of tradition, work in the other areas did not have sufficient guidelines.

As such, Williams concluded that a more holistic understanding of the historical and theoretical foundation of society would be necessary for later criticism to be productive and useful. It was to articulate such an historical and theoretical foundation that his work from 1958 to 1968 would be directed.

Culture and Society was the first major work by Williams in this vein. Published in 1958, the purpose of Culture and Society was to continue the inquiry which the journal Politics and Letters briefly began. Specifically, the journal had attempted "to enquire into and where possible reinterpret the tradition which the word 'culture' describes in terms of the experience of our own generation." In this 117 inquiry, Williams felt that the key to this tradition was "the dis­ covery that the idea of culture, and the word itself in its general modern uses, came into English thinking in the period which we com­ monly describe as that of the Industrial Revolution." Culture and

Society was an attempt to show how and why this happened, and to fol­ low the idea through to the 1950's. Overall, the work was "an account and an interpretation fo our responses in thought and feeling to the

Q changes in English society since the late eighteenth century."

For Williams, culture before the Industrial Revolution was:

primarily the 'tending of natural growth, ' and then, by analogy, a process of human training. Following the industrial revo­ lution, culture took on a variety of different meanings. First taking a process of human training which ahd been a culture of something, was changed, in the nineteenth century, to culture as such, a thing in itself. It came to mean, first, 'a general state or habit of the mind', having close relations with the idea of human perfection. Second, it came to mean 'the gen­ eral state of intellectual development, in a society as a whole.’ Third, it came to mean 'the general body of the arts.’ Fourth, later in the century, it came to mean 'a whole way of life, material, intellectual and spiritual’.

Overall, however, Williams' major theme was that culture emerged as an abstraction and an absolute:

an emergence which. . . merges two general responses— first, the recognition of the practical separation of certain moral and intellectual activities from the driven impetus of a new kind of society; second, the emphasis of these activities, as a court of human appeal, to be set over the processes of practical r.ocial judgement and yet to offer itself as a miti­ gating and rallying alternative.^

Williams spent most of Culture and Society articulating how this meaning emerged. Theoretically, the concluding chapter marked the point at which Williams left the area of critical discussion and pro­ ceeded to offer a critical reformulation of the idea of culture. In this section Williams sought to not reiterate the meaning for culture 118 that had been developed, but to articulate how culture, as a way of

life, could more profitably be employed as a means of qualitatively assessing life and how one could then use such a conception for a gen­ eral theory of society. For Williams, culture as a way of life, was a major factor in the constitution fo society. Economics and politics were the two other major factors in Williams' general theory of

society. 1?

In the last pages of Culture and Society, Williams sought to develop how communication systems,'which included art, drama, cinema, television, etc., were involved with the whole range of culture. Cru­ cial to this discussion was Williams' argument that culture could not be seen simply through artifacts. Culture was not simply the result of what existed in the environment. Rather, the whole range of human experience, both past and present, was the essence of culture as a way of life. Williams claimed that the preoccupation with materialistic

interpretations of culture by some scholars was a failure to adequately understand the basic notion of communication. That was, that communi- cation was transmission, as well as reception and response. 13

Williams continued his discussion of experience and its relation to culture in the Long Revolution. In Culture and Society Williams had argued that any theory of communication was a theory of community. In the Lorig Revolution he expanded by the discovery of common meaning and common means of communication. He wrote that:

over and active range, the patterns created by the brain and the patterns materialized by the community continually interact. The individual creative description is part of the general process which creates conventions and institutions, through which the meanings that are valued by the community are shared and made active. 119

Communication is the process of making unique experience into common experience, and it is, above all, the claim to live; for what we basically say, in any kind of communication, is: "I am living in this way because this is my experience." The ability to live in a particular way depends ultimately, on acceptance of this experience by others, in successful communi­ cation. Thus our description of our experience come to compose a network of relationships, and all our communication systems, including the arts, are literally parts of our social organ- izat ion. ***

In the work Communications, Williams continued this theme, making the point that:

we depend on certain communication models, certain rules or conventions through which w e ‘can make contact. We can change these models when they become inadequate, or we can modify and extend them. . . . Moreover, many of our communication models become, inthemselves, social institutions. Certain attitudes to others, certain forms of address, certain tones and styles, become embodies in institutions which are then very powerful in social effect. The crisis in'modern communications has been caused by the speed in invention and by the difficulty of finding the right institutions in which these technical means are to be used. . . . We cannot examine the process of general communication in modern society without examining the shapes fo these institutions. Further, if we understand the importance of communication, in our social activities, we find that in examining the process and the institutions we are also looking at our society— at some of our characteristic relationships-- in new ways. ^

Williams used such analysis as the basic means of articulating the basic relationships of a culture. In Communications he arti- cultaed the shape of the relationships which various institutions of mass communication exhibited. He also outlined the direction which these relationships took over a number of years. Williams concluded j the final chapter of Communications optimistically. He claimed that the' changes in the relationships of the various forms of communication were part of the great process of human liberation, comparable in importance with the industrial revolution and the struggle for democracy.*6 120

Williams continued his analysis of different forms of communi­ cation and their relation to culture in his Modern Tragedy. Here,

in analyzing this dramatic form, Williams made two arguments. First, he contended that tragedy was not the property of the elite (a special and extraordinary event), but rather, in keeping with his more gen­ eral notion of culture, tragedy was part of the common texture of the way of life (mining disasters, broken careers, and car accidents were part of such tragedy). (Williams' argument here may be lost on

American readers who remember the*Willy Lomans and other natural trage­ dies of the American theatre. While somewhat an oversimplification, much of British drama was more rigidly confined to a class system where tragedy befell only upper class figures, e.g. the Kings of Shakespeare’s plays.) Williams' second argument was that human tragedy could be over­ come by men struggling to transform the conditions which fostered the tragedy, i.e. one did not have to accept the status quo. For example, miners could push for better safety conditions, automobile standards could be improved, etc. Both of Williams' arguments reverted back to the notion that culture was the whole way of life and that as such, political and economic factors had a determination in that life and were open to individual input and influence.^

TJnitl 1966, most of Williams' work discussed past events and

forms of communication. He had not offered a contemporary cultural j analysis, as such. In 1966, Williams edited a series of articles which attempted to offer such an analysis of the British social situ­ ation. In the work, entitled May Day Manifesto, Williams collected articles by political scientists, economists, and literary and cultural 121 critics- Overall, it represented a full blown cultural analysis which

not only criticized, but also suggested how the new Labor government, which was coming into power, might best proceed. The work was less

than successful as it failed to engage the interest and imagination of

the new government and very quickly passed into oblivion. 18

From 1958 to 1968, Williams developed his ideas on culture and

communication. Culture and Society, The Long Revolution, Communications

and Modern Tragedy articulated and developed the basis of his social

theory, a theory that emerged fronT Williams' reaction to not having

an historical and theoretical base on which to place his cultural

criticism. In these same writings, Williams presented a mixed tone of

endurance and help— endurance in the sense that what society or culture

presently had was the cumulation of past history and traditions and

there was no way to ignore or change this past; and hope in the sense

that individuals could create new meanings and values and could,

consequently, produce a cultural transformation which would affect

change on a cultural level to generate new manners and ideas, i.e. a

new culture.

Williams' work from 1968 to 1976 can be seen as an attempt to

return to the text, to the specific works of the culture and within

his theory developed previously, he could not only criticize, but also \ offer suggestions for new directions. In the process, Williams would

also move toward a fuller development of his theory which he outlined

in his earlier works.

The first work in this later period was The English Novel in

which Williams traced the basic structure of feeling, that is the 122 common basis of experience of the communicty, as it was manifested

in the English novel over a one hundred year period. In such anal­ ysis, Williams was careful to make the point that the society, per se, did not produce the novel. He wrote that:

society is lived, while it is being lived, the novel, these novels, are in the nerves, the bloodstream, the living fibres of its experience.19

Further, these novels should be seen, Williams stated, as creative

indicators. Within the novel was a "structure of feeling that is

lived and experienced but not yet -quite arranged as institutions and

ideas, from this common and inalienable life that . . . all art is m a d e . " 2 0

The importance of this work was.that Williams was able to use and articulate the concept of structure of feeling in a study which dealt

specifically with one area of communication. Williams, in the same analysis, was able to demonstrate how the creative process or con­

sciousness, which manifested itself in the novel, was an indicator of

the movement and change in English society. As such, this served as

an indication that cultural transformation was potentially possible and added validity to Williams overall work of the 1958 to 1968 period.

Williams continued this general trend in his short work on \ George Orwell, which was published in 1971. Here, like in The English

Novel, Williams concerned with exploring the social tradition within which the author worked, how the author's works manifested a structure

of feeling and specifically what the nature of this structure was.

The major difference between the two works was the The English Novel dealt with a broad range of authors and periods and, as such, 123

Williams was able to only discuss general trends in the works.

In George Orwell, however, Williams was able to analyze the specific dynamics of an author's work in society. As such, Williams concluded that Orwell was not a major writer in that he did not offer up a structure of feeling which was accepted and subsequently transformed the culture. Rather, Williams contended, Orwell was confined to the values, morals, and structures of feeling of the time.2*

In assessing Williams' work on Orwell, the criticism might be made that Williams confused the role of the author and the politician and that Williams should confine his analysis to Orwell’s literary worth. However, such a criticism would be truncating Williams' over­ all theory of culture, ignoring the cross currents between politics and literature, the same cross currents he argued should be studied to better understand society in the editorial in Politics and Letters.

As such, Williams' work on Orwell represented a realization of this earlier idea.

Williams continued this general trend in cultural analysis in the 1970's, but with more emphasis on language and its relations to the culture. The Country and the City, published in 1973, represented

Williams' attempt to relate two words, the country and the city, to

English literature and to the social history which that literature embodied.22

Williams’ analysis followed the meaning of city in the work of the medieval period through to the meaning of city in Dickens and his contemporaries and, finally, to the meaning of city in Orwell's work.

Much in line with his emphasis on a three part determination of society's experience, i.e. political, economic and cultural, Williams

concluded that the growing seism in the meaning for country and city

that was represented in the structure of feelings in the various works

was the result of the economic/industrial aspects of the culture. In

understanding the meaning of city in this culture, Williams argued, one

needed to consider the factor of mechanical production and its resulting

practices and institutions. He wrote that:

the division and opposition of city and country, industry and agriculture, in their modern forms, are the critical cumulation of the division and specialis*ation of labour which, though it did not begin with capitalism, was developed under it to an exraordianry degree. Other forms of the same fundamental division are the separation between mental and manual labour, between administration and operation, between politics and social life. The symptoms of the division can be found at every point in what is now our common life: in the idea and practice of social classes; in the conventional definitions of work and of education; in the physical distribution of settle­ ments; and in the temporal organization of the day, the week, the year, the lifetime. Much of the creative thinking of our time is an attempt to re-examine each of these concepts and practices.23

Williams went on to state that the deeper changes meant a

questioning of all conventional priorities. His work was seen as

‘part of the questioning of ideas--the ideas of city and country, as

well as a demonstration of the sense of experience and of ways of

changing that experience.

Williams' next work, Television: Technology and Cultural Form

was published in I97h and offered an interesting contrast to the

earlier work Communications. In Television, Williams once again took

the medium of television as a focus, but here Williams was more

concerned with an explication of the relations between the technical

and social structure of the medium and the forms of expression on the 125 medium. Specifically he discussed how the envisioned goals of technicians for the electronic medium were diverted and restated according to more economic criteria. Within this social history of the medium, Williams placed the resulting institutions historically: networks, local affiliates, advertising agencies, etc.— as well as the resulting forms of television. In this work, Williams' overriding thesis was that the social structure and system was the prime determi­ nant as to what would be done with the new medium. With this in mind,

Williams, in the concluding chapter, took a serious look at future technological developments, i.e. cassettes, cable, etc. In this anal­ ysis, Williams noted the technological capabilities of the and the social and cultural problems which were likely to grow from them. Williams' conclusion was that television could become a tool toward better education and more political participation or it could become a limiting factor in human experience in providing only a few choices for a few programming types.^

Overall, while Williams did suggest directions which the social and political involvment could take to direct the future of the new technologies toward desirable ends, this work lacked the strong poli­ tical discussion which characterized the last section of The Country and the City.

Like the work of The Country and the City and Television and

George Orwell and The English Novel, Keywords, Williams' next work, focused on language and its relation to society. Specifically what

Williams attempted in this work was to trace the history of what were considered to be the 150 keywords in the English language and to demon­ 126

strate how their meanings were gradually altered or acquired new and additional meanings. In this analysis, he also described the complex

interaction between the changing meaning of words, how these changes

affected people’s concepts or structures of feeling and how people's

concepts were once again changed by the earlier changes. In many ways

Keywords was an extension of Culture and Society, using a broader base

of terms to provide the tradition which Williams sought to establish 9 c in the earlier work.

The work of Raymond Williams' in the last several years has more

and more become an attempt to articulate specific, concrete examples

and instances of the basic theory which he developed in the period of

1958 to 1968. The reader who uses only works from this middle period

to understand the theory that Raymond Williams has developed, runs the

risk of both simplification and overemphasis. Williams has sought to

develop a tradition, both theoretically and empirically. His work can

be seen as a movement toward such a tradition, first theoretically and

then empirically. This progression in his life’s work must be under­

stood before one can approach his theory or idea of communication. For

in his theory, ommissions and confusions, where they exist, need to be

s&en as areas where he has yet to develop. He has repeatedly con-

founded critics who have tried to force him into categories or arenas

that he has not yet discussed by developing in new, and often startling,

directions. With this past record, this study now sensitively, but

aggressively, will turn to the idea of communication within his work. 127

The Idea of Communication

As the preceding section illustrated, Raymond Williams has made

major developments in his thinking and writing in trying to understand

not only communication, but all of society. As a result, a simple

explication and focus on communication would be somewhat misleading.

While communication does have an important place in his thoery, communi­

cation is not the overall focus of Williams' work, and this needs to

be acknowledged.

In this section Williams' basic theory of culture will be

presented, beginning with the concepts of base and suprastructure and

Williams’ modification of the relationship or structure between them,

then discussing the element of the structure of feeling and its

relationship with base and suprastructure, and finally, focusing on

communication within this theory.

As noted in the first section, Williams' work originally repre­

sented a response to the influential Leavis' school of criticism in

Great Britain. Williams' work also represents a significant response

to a less influential, but still viable Marxist tradition of literary

or cultural analysis in Great Britain. While Williams is not a product

of either school, per se, an understanding of both Marxist and Leavis

schools is an important beginning point to an understanding of how / Williams construes culture.

In Marxist thinking, one's social existence determines one's

consciousness. That is, one's social existence determines one’s

ideological base, i.e. consciousness. As such, this consciousness is manifested in a suprastructure which is made up of different forms of 128 consciousness, e.g. institutions, art, literature, television programs, etc. Marxist cultural theory attempts to understand a work of art or

literature by understanding the ideological base of a society, as these works are seen as mere reflections of this base. However, for the Marxist thinker, this path of analysis is not feasible, one needs,

instead, to return to the area of production and the characteristic

social relations, i.e. social existence, to gain a more specific grasp of the situation. Only then could the scholar infer the resulting

ideological base and from that interpretation analyze the reflected

suprastructure, i.e. forms of consciousness.^®

Williams contends that this formula leads to a rather mechanical

interpretation of society, relying on an economic starting point— modes of production. For if one understood the basic modes of production,

one could then understand the social existence which determines con­

sciousness which was simply reflected into various forms of con­

sciousness, e.g. works of art or literature. Williams saw the weakness

in this kind of materialistic method as a tendency to not only exclude

the notion of process, but to also minimize the notion of choice or

free will by the individual. Within the Marxist conception, the

individual's consciousness was simply what surrounded the individual

(the social existence). As such, the individual consciousness was the

collective consciousness.

As discussed in the first section, the major literary group during

Williams’ formative years was the Leavis’ school at Cambridge which,

unlike the materialistic bent of the Marxist school, was inclined to

use an ideological approach to understand, not only literary works, 129 but also society. Here, like in the middle 19th-century thinking on culture which Williams documented, a court of appeals kind of thinking was used. That is, a number of ideal categories or concepts wereaaccepted as basic and were then used to determine whether par­ ticular materials were adequately characterisitc of those ideals.

For example, tragedy and quality of life were such categories which were used as measures against which particular material entities were held up to determine whether such things as drama and living standards met the criteria.^8

In the general field of cultural analysis, this idealistic

(ala Leavis)/materialistic (ala Marxist) forces represent two polar 0 Q views in the discussion of culture. 7• What Williams has done is to take this dichotomy and given it a new conceptualization which tries to take the strengths of each view, but not the inherent weaknesses of each. The discussion will now turn to the specifics of how he trans­ formed this situation.

In Williams' theory of culture, the first element is the idea of social totality or common consciousness. In general terms this element is similar to the notion of base in Marxist theory in terms of its attributes, but not its origin. Williams construes the development of this consciousness as the result of a number of mutually, if unevenly, dependent forces. These three forces are political, economic and cul­ tural.30

As can be recalled from the earlier discussion of Williams, these three forces constituted the three major areas of inquiry in the work

Culture and Society. In that work Williams sought to follow the 130 meaning of society as it resulted from these three factors. In tracing such a history, Williams also attempted to provide a sense of the process of social change to give an understanding of where society had been and what had been the major determinants in its growth, that

is, to provide a tradition. The general character of the tradition was that:

in the first period, from about 1790 to 1870, we find the long effort to compose a general attitude toward the new forces of industrialism and democracy; it is in this period that the major analysis is undertaken and the major opinions and descriptions emerge. Then from about 1870 to 1919, there is a breakingdown into narrower fronts, marked by a particular specialism in attitudes to art, and in the general field, by a preoccupation with direct politics. After 1914 these definitions continue, but there is a growing preoccupation, approaching a climax after 1995, with the issues raised not only by the inherited but by new problems arising from the development of mass media of communication and the general growth of large-scale organizations.3*

As was apparent from the discussion in the preceding section,

Williams places most of his emphasis on the third factor in society—

culture and its products and practices. This is a crucial point in understanding Williams' theory. While he places society or the common conscience as the product of three competing factors, he spends much of his time discussing culture, ignoring or minimizing economics, and,

to a lesser extent, politics. The reason for this comes from Williams’

basic approach to his work at this time. In a later piece he wrote that he was well aware of what were the current problems and arguments

in cultural theory. He, however, made the mistake, he claims, of

assuming that in other areas in a general theory of society, i.e. eco­

nomics and political science, there was already a body of work com­

parable to his and probably more developed in those areas. Within this 131 assumption, he felt he neede to simply develop his work on culture and at some later point in time the three areas could collectively pool their information and theory. In the mid-1960's Williams discovered that this was not the case; he was working in a basically virgin area. Since then he has taken a broader approach in his theoretical discussion, but still much of his writing bears the strong emphasis on culture as a vehicle for influencing the common conscious­ ness.^^

By way of review, the first major element in Williams’ theory of culture is a social consciousness, an ideological base, which is an historical product of three competing factors— politics, economics and culture.

The second element in Williams' approach corresponds roughly to the notion of suprastucture which Marxist theorists employ. As such,

Williams envisions all cultural products and practices (novels, dramas, rituals, institutions, language, television programs, etc.), as having some relation to the base or consciousness discussed above. It must be noted that Williams does make some modification on strict Marxist thinking, which does not make the relation a causal connection. 33

Like the determinants of the nature of the common consciousness, the various manifestations or forms of consciousness which are available are related to the three major factors Williams noted earlier. Thus, any such form will be part economic, part political, and part cultural.

For example, commercial television in the United States, besides presenting an American life style, also involves an economic aspect and a political aspect. 132 Thus far, Williams’ theory of culture does not differ much from previous theories of culture. Where he makes a significant contribution

is in his alignment of the two elements. As noted earlier, Marxist thinkers see materialistic entities as determining the social con­ sciousness, while idealistic culture theorists see. the ideological make-up interpreting the reality into set categories. Both types of analysis lead to rather mechanical interpretations with no attempt at discussing process or history. (While this perhaps overstates Marx's presentation, it does cover his followers.) In contrast to these for­ mulations, Williams construes the social consciousness and the material

forms as standing in dialectical relation to each other. That is, while there is an ideological mindset’ as to how society might be construed, this ideology must interact with material reality which, in

turn, may reformulate the base or which may be changed to be more closely aligned to the base. Many aspects of society can be seen as the product of such interplay and Williams’ work in Keywords was an explication of this interplay among a number of items of language. 3U

One example which Williams has carefully outlined is radio and television- As he documented, the early years of radio were supported by set manufacturers, and later, advertisers— basically an economic

influence on the madium’s shape. In more recent times, however, there has emerged a concern that more political factors, i.e. equal access, were important and needed to be part of the medium's shape. Even more recently there has been a concern about the quality of life being presented, i.e the concern with violence, and steps have been taken to address this aspect. Overall, the media have been formed by a number 133 of factors coming forth and making some impact on the nature of the media. Further, this impact is the result of both material situations dictating certain changes in the ideological make-up, as well as the ideological make-up suggesting certain changes in the material situation. Underlying Williams’ entire argument is the assumption that in the process of self-correction and progress, society is moving toward a better world for all mankind.35

In discussing the character of the progression of culture,

Williams noted that:

the history of the idea of culture is a record of our reactions, in thought and feeling, to the changed conditions of our common life. Our meaning of culture is a response to the events which our meanings of industry and democracy must evidently define. But the conditions were created and have been modified by men. Record of the events lies else­ where, in our general history. The history of the idea of culture is a record of our meanings and our definitions, but these, in turn, are only to be understood within the context of our actions. The idea of culture is a general reaction to a general and major change in the conditions of our common life. Its basic element is its effort at total qualitative assessment. The change in the whole form of our common life, produced, as a necessary reaction, an emphasis on attention to this whole form. Particular change will modify an habitual discipline, shift an habitual action. General change, when it has worked itself clear, drives us back on our general designs, which we have to learn to look at again, and as a whole. The working-out of the idea of culture is a slow reach again for control.-^®

In materialistic conceptions of culture, in idealistic concep­

tions of culture and in Williams' conception of culture, man com­ prises the third element. In the materialistic view, man simply becomes the product of the environment— in modern parlance, you are what you eat, see, listen to, watch, etc. In this approach the assumption is made that man simply responds to the various objects he m encounters, much akin to the notions of radical behaviorists. In the idealisitc view, the idea of culture or what is cultured determines and interprets the world. Any contradictions or inconsistencies in the empirical world are seen as indicative of its imperfection, not as a failing of the ideological view of culture. Most conceptions of culture on an idealistic level come from a Romantic temperament.

Both the materialisitc view and the idealistic view place man as simply an intermediary in the cration or understanding of the meaning of culture and the world. In each ca^e the environment or the idea respectively, is the determining factor in the overall process or theory.^

Williams takes a different tack. Instead of seeing either base or suprastucture determining the understanding of the other, Williams sees the two as existing in dialectical relationship. In this view, man stands at the crucial midpoint. As such, it is man who at once interprets the environment and confirms the basic ideological base.

Further, it is the individual who controls the self-correction discussed earlier. Thus, instead of placing emphasis on either the idea or the material, Williams places emphasis on the individual experience. Theo­ retically Williams discusses this experience within the concept "struc­ ture of feeling," i.e. the mediating category between the ideal, the

* 1 Q consciousness, and the material, the suprastrucutre.

This structure of feeling, however, is not simply an individual element. Rather, it is a societal entity which is engaged by all the individuals in a community, but each in a slightly different fashion.

About this structure of feeling, Williams writes that it is not: 135

possessed in the same way by the many individuals in the communicty. But I think it is a very deep and very wide possession, in all actual communities. It does not seem to be, in any formal sense, learned. One generation may train its successor, with reasonable success, in the social character or the general cultural pattern, but the new gene­ ration will have its own structure of feeling, which will not appear to have come 'from' anywhere. For here, most distinc­ tively, the changing organization is the enacted in the organism: the new generationresponds in its own ways to the unique world it is inheriting, taking up many continuities, that can be traded, and reproducing many aspects of the organization, which can be separately described, yet feeling its whole life in certain ways differently, and shaping its creative response into a new structure of feeling. Once the carriers of such a structure die, the nearest we can get to this vital element is in the documentary cul­ ture, from poems to buildings and dress-fashions, and it is this relation that gives significance to the definition of culture in documentary t e r m s . 39

Thus, in seeking to understand a culture, from an outside posture, analysis is somewhat problematic, though not impossible. Documents become important once "the significance of an activity is understood in terms of the whole organization, of an activity, which is more than the sum of its separable parts. What we are looking for, always , is the actual life that the whole organization is there to express.”

Consequently, the structure of feeling, while discernible from various materials, is only partly understood through same. The structure of feeling also fs ideological and collectively experiential. Williams writes that:

the foundation of this approach is the belief that all human activity is an attempt to make a significant response to a particular objective situation. . . . The significant response is a particular view of the world: an organising view. And it is just this element of arganization that is, in literature, the significant fact. A correspondence of content between a writer and his world is less significant than his correspondence of organization, of structure. A relation of content may be mere reflection, but a relation of structure, often occuring where there is not apparent relation of content, can show us the organising pronciple by which a particular view 136

of the world, and from that the coherence of the social group which maintains, it, really operates in• coaciousness. uo

In Williams' cultural theory, man stands experientially between environment— the objective situation— and consciousness. Man’s

structure of feeling is the element mediating between the two. An as

noted above, all human activity is an attempt to make a significant

response to a particular situation. For Williams, this response is

communication.

In the concluding chapter to Culture and Society, Williams

defines communication as "not only transmission, but also reception

and response." That is, man confronts an objective situation and

interpretively makes a response, an organizing view of the world. Most

often we look to artists and writers to present such a response— the work of a Samuel Beckett or the work of a D.H.. Lawrence present par­

ticular views of the worlds, i.e. responses. However, these responses

can take a variety of forms, not only plays, dramas, novels, and tele­ vision programs, but also rituals, and styles of dress.

Further, one should not assume that the process of communication is simply the various forms, e.g. novels. Communication is experiential

in Williams' formulation. As such, communication needs to also engage the receiver's reception and response. Williams writes that "the minds of men are shaped by their whole experience, and the most skillful transmission of material which this experience does not confirm will

fail to communicate."^

Much of mass communication, Williams notes, fails to acknowledge this reception and response. As such, the communicator sees the simple broadcast of the program as the end of the communication process. 137

Williams argues that this approach derives in part from the formula used to interpret the audience, i.e. audience equals mass which equals mob. (Williams' analysis of language meaning meshes with the broader

notion of mass communication in this kind of thinking and helps

enrich the analysis.) While Williams does not argue that the mass

communicator needs to intimately know the audience, he does argue that

the communicator needs to offer as a response a world view that could

engage a potential audience. To support this contention, Williams

cites the work of Dickens who was able, within the limits of plot and

character, to address the new experiences of metropolitan life in

novels and the press. In short, Dickens was able to develop and arti­

culate a way of seeing the world that other individuals could relate with in terms of their own experiences. When Dickens, through the mass media, transmitted an experience which individuals living in the

city received and responded to within their lived experience, he was

able to create a community of common experience and consciousness in

the audience.^

In Williams' theory of culture, communication can become the

means for change. The process begins when one receives the transmitted

objective situation and offers up an approporiate response which

contains a view of the world. This response becomes a transmission to

a new group of individuals who can receive and, ideally, respond to

this communication by accepting this view of the world or by merging

this view with a previous view of the world to aid in interpreting the

objective situation. Throughout the process, one is attempting to

address and organize the experience of a society. 138

This line of thinking returns one to Williams' emphasis on culture as a major factor in the constitution and development of society. In this theory one can address the experience of the society to restructure and present a new world view. This view, once accepted and operationalized with appropriate changes in the material sphere, will then exert the necessary changes in the political and economic

sectors. (As in the case of Dickens where society moved to address the child labor situation.) However, as Williams has repearedly noted, one cannot see "cultural questions as practicably separable from political and economic questions, or to posit either second-order or dependent relations between them." Social change and reform must engage the experience, of the society. As Williams most recently noted, one cannot simply remove one cornerstone of a society, e.g. capitalism, and replace it with another without causing drastic realignments. In the process of change, which Williams argues for through the cultural

factor, the change must be gradual.^

A final point to consider is the overall make-up of society.

While Williams argues that three major factors determine its shape and character, within these factors are a number of groups— not only

Democrats and Republicans, but consumer groups and other interest groups. Within the economic factor there are business interests, both big and small, workers, unions, etc. Finally, within the cultural

factor there are a number of world views— the rural view, the urban view, the Western view, etc. All of these interests and forces are

intermeshed and it is precisely this interplay along with the manifest

practices and activities that communication, as a response to the 139 situation, represents.

As noted above, Williams contends that change takes place gradually. He further believes that this change takes place when there is a mutual respect and cooperation among all factors and interests. Dominance, i.e. one factor or interest dominating the others, causes an imbalance and if stressed too severly, Williams claims, there will be a rapid revolution. However, such a change usually continues to perpetuate an imbalanced and stressed relationship, only this time the forces are merely the opposite of the preceding situation. Overall, then, Williams' underlying belief and assumption of his theory of culture and society is that change must be gradual and that there must be mutual respect and cooperation between the various parties. For Williams, such a situation will provide for the liberation of the individual in the social system and will move society along the path toward a totally human entity. As such, this progress becomes part of the long revolution.*1^

Summary

The work of Raymond Williams is ongoing. While he oftentimes confuses and obscures his meaning in one instance, he turns around and clarifies it in the next. As a whole, he has taken some of the past ideas and concepts, he has changed others and he has created some new ones. While still being developed, he has outlined the basis of a cultural theory.

In brief, Williams suggests that there are three major elements in his theory of culture: an environment or objective situation, a social consciousness or ideological base, and an experience or 11*0 structure of feeling which rests between the two poles. Within this structure, Williams places communication as the major factor in reorganizing the consciousness and in contributing to the environment.

While Williams' idea of communication is not totally similar to the transactional perspective, there is a great deal of similarity. He sees the idea of communication as a continuing, ongoing exchange, between the environment and the individual. Along the same line,

Williams assumes man has the potential to change the environment and, in his construction, human consciousness. Further, Williams assumes that man, as the communicator, has the potential to create new meanings through this transaction.

Within Williams’ theory of culture and communication, science become the process which articulates these various structures of feeling, meanings, and attempts to demonstrate where a culture has been and where it is going.

While Williams' work is far from over or complete, he has taken on a broad area— culture and society— and has placed communication in a major theoretical position within that sociological area. While other scholars have moved to reduce or isolate what constitutes communi­ cation, shunning the broad ra ;Je and societal implications which

Williams attributes to it, Williams has aggressively pursued the issue in its widest, most interdisciplinary, contexts. Cultural studies are not simply academic rumblings for Williams. He sincerely believes that cultural studies are "directly connected with the struggle for human means and ends in a world that will permit no reserved areas, no safe subjects, no neutral activities."^6 Footnotes

^Raymond Williams, Second Generation (London: Penguin, 196*0, p. 9. 2 For a list of all the works consulted in this chapter the reader should check the bibliography at the end of this study.

” For Continuity in Change," Politics and Letters, 1947, pp. 3-5.

^"Culture and Crisis," Politics and Letters, 194-7-48, p. 5.

**See Terry Eagleton, "Criticism and Politics: the work of Raymond Williams," New Left Review, No. 95, 1976, pp. 5-8.

^Raymond Williams, Reading and Criticism (London: Chatto & Windus, 1950).

^Idem., Drama from Ibsen to Eliot (London: Oxford University Press, 1952), p. 17.

®Idem., Drama in Performance (London: Penguin Books, 1954), p. 1. Q Idem., Culture and Society (New. York: Harper & Row, 1967), pp. xi-xviii.

Ibid., p. xiv.

Ibid., p. xvi.

12Ibid.,_. -. pp. xi-xvm. 13 Ibid., pp. 295-338.

1Z*Idera., The Long Revolution (London: Chatto & Windus, 1961), p. 38.

^Idem., Communications (London: Penguin Books, 1962), p. 20.

l6Ibid.

^Idem., Modern Tragedy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966). 18 Idem., May-Pay Manifesto (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968).

*^Idem., The English Novel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 191-192.

20Ibid., p. 192.

22 Idem., George Orwell (New York: Viking Press, 1971). 142

23Ibid., pp. 304-305.

2i*Tdem., Television: Technology and Cultural Form (New Tork: Schocken Books, 1974).

25Idem., Keywords (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).

28Idem., ,rLiterature and Sociology" New Left Review, No. 67, 1971, pp. 3-18.

27Ibid. OQ Idem., Modern Tragedy.

2^Richard Peterson, "The Production of Culture," American Behavioral Scientist, 1976, pp. 669-684.

30W illiams, Culture and Society.

3*Ibid., pp. 296-297.

^2See Anthony Barnett, "Raymond Williams and Marxism: A Rejoinder to Terry Eagleton,” New Left Review, No. 99. 1977. pp. 47-64.

33Williams, "Communication As Cultural Science," Journal of Communication, Summer 1974, pp. 17-25.

3^Idem., Keywords.

35jdem., Television: Technology and Cultural Form.

38Idem., Culture and Society, p. 295.

ny Idem., "Literature and Sociology."

38Ibid.

39Idem., The Long Revolution, pp. 48-49.

^8Idem., 'literature and Sociology," pp. 12-13.

^Idem., "Communications As Cultural Science."

^2Idem., Culture and Society, p. 313.

**3Idem., The English Novel, pp. 28-59. 44 Idem., "Notes on Marxism in Britain since 1945," New Left Review, No. 100, pp. 81-94.

^3Idem., The Long Revolution, pp. ix-xiv. 46 Idem., "Literature and Sociology," p. 18. CHAPTER IV

THE IDEA OF COMMUNICATION

IN THE WRITING OF JAMES HALLORAN

Our thinking is confined within a narrow framework, the sort of framework which, as far as mass communication is concerned, encourages us to think within a narrow framework, the sort of framework which, as far as mass communication is concerned, encourages us to think of censorship and restriction rather than freedom and growth: a framework which discourages us from seeking solutions in the shape of fundamental changes in the system of media ownership and control, and further discourages us from questioning the morality of the social economic system, and the hierarchy of values which facilitates and perpetuates the creation of social waste, inequality, privelage and fragmentation.*

James Halloran wrote this statement in 1963 at the beginning of his work in mass communication. The general tone of such a statement, that researchers and scholars needed to see beyond the conventional ways of seeing to offer new ways of approaching mass communication, has been the theme of much of Halloran's writings. As such, Halloran has spent much of his career analyzing and calling into question the research tradition within which much of mass communication research has been conducted. During the 1960s, as was seen in Chapter II, Halloran served as Secretary to the Television Research Committee and presented the major research statements made by the Committee. More recently, as Director of the Centre for Mass Communication Research, Halloran has continued to raise the issue of the need for social science research to

143 144 carefully analyze and question the assumptions which underlie the research which a discipline or field has carried out.

In this chapter, Halloran's idea of communication will be discussed in two sections. The first section will trace his intel­

lectual history from the early 1960’s through to the 1970's. While much of the work in this history was discussed in the context of the

Television Research Committee in Chapter II, some reiteration to properly place Halloran's work in the context of his ideas seems necessary. The second section will take the idea of communication as Halloran developed it and discuss it according to its elements,

structures and functions, as well as its assumptions about man,

science and communication.

2 The Writings of James Halloran

As a scholar, James Halloran's work has developed from a broad questioning of the entire direction of mass communication theory, to a more specific analysis of the various aspects of the mass communi­ cation process and, finally, to a critique of the role of mass communi­

cation research in society, including the moral, political and eco­

nomic factors involved. In this section this progression will be discussed in some detail.

In 1963, James Halloran's Control or Consent: a study of the challenge of mass communication was published. As noted in Chapter II,

this work represented the first comprehensive survey and analysis of

the state of mass communication research by a British scholar.

Chronologically it came shortly after Hilde Himmelweit’s survey of

British research in 1962. 145

Within such an historical context, Halloran's survey was put

in a rather challenging position. As previously noted, mass communi­ cation was under serious attack by a number of officials, scholars and

groups, e.g. the National Union of Teacher’s report— Popular Culture and Personal Responsibility.^ Thus, while mass communication was an active topic, the dimensions and standards of debate were far from

defined. Halloran had to act as both surveyor and critic, creating a

tension between the author as fact giver and opinion giver, a tension which gave the work its basic dynamic.**

While there were a number of crucial issues which were discussed

in the survey, his comments on approaching a social problem set the

tone for much of his subsequent work. In this issue Halloran offered

some relevant criticism on the general character of the debate con­

cerning mass communication. As Halloran summarized, various criticism

and attacks were being directed toward the relationship of mass media

and society. Underlying this attack, however, Halloran claimed, was a

serious flaw, a basic lack of supporting research for the various

assertions and contentions. Halloran wrote that:

our general approach to social problems is coloured by many factors and our perceptions of problems is affected by social structure and social relationships. Perceptions are selective and subjective; consequently, different people in different situations and with different values and interests will come to define problems in terms of their own involvement.^

He contended that there was no easy way to assess the truth of

any such assertions without placing them within a social-scientific

framework. Along that line of thinking:

scientific method can be used to tell us something about social structure and social relationships, to help us establish how the various elements in the social structure 1*16

are related to each other, to help us ascertain what forces are holding groups and what forces are working toward their disruptions, to give us information on what institutional arrangements favour the attainment of certain given ends, and to assist us in detecting what forces are changing social life. Although social science is not concerned with commenting on the desireability of ends, it can show value-choices in their true perspective and for what they are worth in relation to achievable ends. It can also comment on the relation of means to ends, and in so doing, it can lay the foundation for informed discussion on value questions.0

Halloran was quick to admit that sociology was far from perfect,

but he argued that it could offer a more rational approach to public

decision-making than otherwise existed in society. His appraisal of mass communication and social change, of professional communicators,

of the effects of mass communications, and of mass media and mass

culture, all of which were discussed in Control or Consent, would be

given further explication in a social-scientific framework in his

later work. Nevertheless, his brief comments in Contol or Consent were intended to offer a beginning in placing these issues with such a framework.7 (The reader will recall that Chapter II discussed how

such a push for more informed research led to the formation of the

Television Research Committee. Halloran's work forshadowed the trend.)

In 1965, with the Television Research Committee less than two years old, the Committee felt a need for a more comprehensive statement on the impact or effect of mass communication. Halloran, as Secretary, wrote The Effects of Mass Communication to give the Committee such a statement. In many ways the work relied on Halloran's earlier work,

Contol or Consent, to give the proper perspective to the idea of

"effects." Specifically, Halloran spent a good portion of The Effects of Mass Communication reviewing the various available research studies, 147 e.g. the work of Himmelweit and Lazarsfeld, as well as the summary of various research studies by Klapper. In the summary, Halloran wrote that research studies in the area of "effects” fell into four major groupings— (1) viewing patterns, (2) behavioral effects (i.e. displace­ ment and stimulation), (3) reactions, and (4) effects on values, knowledge and social behavior.®

In assessing the work of such scholars and these general categories, Halloran wrote that:

the effect relationship is not a simple one, there are many who still tend .to present the issue as an oversimplified, one to one relationship. It needs stressing that the communication act is but one part of the total ongoing social interactional process within a given network of social relationships and that our attention should be directed toward this wider social setting with a view to the examination of the inter-relationships between the sender, receiver, and message within the overall system.^

In moving from criticism to suggestion, Halloran offered four points for better placing the "effects" issue, as a social problem, within a sociological perspective. He suggested that:

1. The audience must not be atomized nor the message isolated from the social process.

2. The communicator and the recipient usually have an inter­ dependent relationship.

3. Rarely is it just a question of a single communication producing a single reply. The communication should be regarded as one link in a chain of communication which extends over time. Much of the relationship between communicator and recipient is indirect and tends to proliferate through other group members.

4. All of the individuals involved, no matter how indirectly, in the communication process have a place in the social structure. As these several positions are related to one another within the social system, the communications which flow from one individual or group to another appear no longer as random or unrelated acts but as elements in a total pattern of ongoing interaction.*® 148

Within such an approach, the process of mass communication was seen as an important and integral part of the social system. For

Halloran, this perspective "represents a decisive step forward away

from the traditional approach. However, there is still much to be

done."**

What primarily needed to be done was work on the nature of the

recipient/receiver within the social system. How exactly did that

individual fit within the context of the social system, what were his

values, how did they come about? Toward these types of questions

Halloran’s next work, Attitude Formation and Change, was directed. As

Halloran pointed out in the Introduction, the concept of attitude was

not readily agreed upon by psychologists and sociologists. He noted

over a dozen different definitions and subsequent critiques that had been offered on the notion of attitude. And, while they did.offer

several contradictions, there was a good deal of conceptual overlap.

Specifically, he wrote that when one was concerned with individual

actions, an attitude could encompass:

a larger portion of the environment than the stimuli used in perceptual studies, one which will combine perceptual, cog­ nitive and affective responses to some aspects of an individual's environment, occuring over a period of time, a concept that refers to certain regularities in feelings, thoughts and pre­ dispositions to act on the part of the individual to some aspects of his environment, abstract or specific, then attitude will come near to fulfilling these needs. It has been used fruitfully in research as the inter­ vening variable between stimulus and response, as the mediator between inner demands and outer environmental pressures and it has helped us to predict behavior in relation to given stimulus objects. If we know something about an individual's social attitude, then not only do we have a brief summary of what has gone before in the individual's experience that may affect his behavior, but we may also be able to say something useful about his aspirations, his motivations, his striving towards his goals and to know some- 14-9

thing about why, along the way, he deals as he does with a great variety of social objects and v a l u e s . ^

Still, Halloran noted that attitude had some serious limitations, especially when one considered the issue of attitude change. However, some progress had been made recently, Halloran noted. Specifically, he felt that the most significant gains had been made in recognizing the motivational basis for attitudes, i.e the needs that the attitudes were satisfying. He quoted W. Phillips Davison who wrote that "all human actions and reactions, including changes in attitudes and know­ ledge, are in some way directed towards satisfaction of wants and needsWhile Halloran felt that the functional approach to attitudes was the best approach, thus far, to the study of attitudes, he contended that the approach was limited in that it was primarily psychological.

He argued that:

a full and complete understanding of the formation, development and change of attitudes in modern society, whilst depending on the type of analysis just mentioned, also requires a wider knowledge than is normally found in this type of work of the inter-relationships between attitude, personality and social system. Soundly based knowledge about the communication process depends on sociological as well as psychological advances'. ^

In Halloran’s thinking, any competent approach to communication must provide for both psychological and sociological consideration.

Toward that end, Halloran attempted in his various surveys to widen the horizons to the field of mass communication research. This did not mean, however, that problems were solved in this effort. As

Halloran noted:

the immediate prospect of taking the wider view is usually one of increased complexity and difficulty. But it is argued, here, in relation to our problem area and field of study, that this short-term complexity is a stage that must 150

be worked through, if the long-term goals are to be successfully achieved.

In overall purpose, both The Effects of Mass Communication and

Attitude Formation and Change sought to widen the horizons of communi­ cation research. In Halloran's next major work, Television and

Delinquency, he turned to an actual research design to study one area— delinquence— which was, curiously enough, the area which was the major concern in prompting the formation of the Television Research Committee.

In this study, Halloran attempted to understand the relationship between television viewing and attitudes, but within a more sociological perspective.*6

In this study, 33h probationers between the ages of ten and twenty were interviewed, as were two control groups. All of the groups were questioned about their favorite television programs, incidents and heroes, as well as the amount of time spent viewing television and the alternative uses of leisure time. One control group was matched in terms of demographic factors, while a second group was similarly matched, but with a slightly higher socio-economic background.^

In terms of overall findings, the three groups were relatively equal; however, the group of probationers did show more interest in excitement in television viewing. This same group also showed a

significant difference in the interest and recall of television inci­ dents and heroes. These two findings, the authors contended, reflected what were found in other literature to be typical sub-cultural themes— excitement and leadership worship. In these themes, the group of probationers showed more attention to the informational content of the program, i.e. how the hero walked, talked, interacted, etc., than did 151 the other two groups. Further, the same group showed usually poorer marks academically in comparison to the other two groups, though all three groups were composed of equal ability.*®

The conclusion drawn from this study was that the orientation or conception that an individual or group possessed was the crucial aspect to be considered when looking at television and its relationship to delinquency. Further, these conceptions or orientations were strongly tied to group values. That is, the different groups presented ways of looking at the world and this world view affected the way the indi­ viduals conceived the different abjective aspects of their environment, school and television being just two of these.19

In the late 1960's Halloran switched his focus from media-audience relations to mass communicator-message relations. Beginning with a

1969 introduction to The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators,

Halloran called for more attention to be paid to the activities, pro­ cesses and framework of the professional communicator. Halloran did not suggest, however, that the attention should center on lower level communicators, e.g film editors and cub reporters, but rather, that the study of the professional communicator should include "the higher levels of economic planning and policy making."20

In line with his general theme of widening horizons, Halloran argued that:

the wider and bigger questions are rarely put, and there have be been few systematic attempts to study the mass communicator as one who occupies a sensitive central position in a social netwrok, rejecting and selecting information in response to a variety of pressures all within a given social system. 152

In 1970 Halloran made his first empirical contribution toward this goal in a work entitled Demonstrations and Communications:

A Case Study. The Purpose of this study was to analyze how the British press covered a demonstration by British citizens against American

involvement in the Vietnam war. 22

While the first press coverage of the demonstration was released several weeks before the actual demonstration, Halloran found that the

initial report set the tone for subsequent reporting. In particular, the first report depicted the demonstrators as young people out for a

laugh or as "hooligans" out for trouble. Halloran noted:

from that point, onwards, presentation kept within the established framework and was governed (as were some of the expectations of the general public) by the stereotyped image which had been created by the media in the first instance.^3

But, as he also wrote, "it is important to remember that events were not so much distorted or otherwise falsified by presentation, as

selected and interpreted for their relevance to the basic and pre­ determined news issue.Halloran claimed that this type of practice while not deliberate, raised serious questions about the assumptions regarding the role of the media in a democratic society. Instead of multiple points of view through the media, the society had only 25 multiple outlets with basically the same point of view.

While published by a private printing firm, this research repre­

sented the last major work which Halloran completed for the Television

Research Committee. In retrospect, during his service to the Committee he had developed an understanding of not only the audience-media

interaction, as was seen in the delinquency study, but also of the 153 professional communicator-message relationship, as was seen in the above report.

In the 1970s, Halloran's research and writing returned to the issue of the need to examine and discard assumptions embedded in a research tradition which are either counterproductive or seriously stifling to new insights and to widen the horizons of mass communication research- In this latter aspect, Halloran suggested that the social scientist needed to seriously question some of the basic variable involved in mass communication research in education. Specifically, he suggested reconsidering the ideas of involvement (i.e. must one assume that a student was always highly involved with a television program), symbolic content (i.e. what types of relationships were being presented in content), and accessibility (i.e. does the piece use a literacy or language which is inaccessible to the viewer).^6

Like much of Halloran's other work, this kind of attack and suggestion sought to widen the horizons and utilize more complex models of communication. In the process, Halloran raised serious questions about how social science was being conducted. He noted that:

while theory has failed to keep pace with techniques, doing has prevailed over thinking; and the tendency to do research (almost like American tourists "do" Paris or London) has led to the collection of data before the problems have been adequately formulated.^

As a result, he argued, social science research had produced "useful

ideas with an increasingly firm factual base, rather than clear-cut 2o answers to major policy questions."

To move toward widening the horizons and providing more socially relevant mass communication research, Halloran suggested that: 154

in examining social problems and current issues, we do not and should not accept the prevailing or conventional definition at face value. We should insist on the right to redefine. In fact, it often seems that one of our main functions is to get people in the media and others responsible for media policy, to question their basic assumptions, to re-examine the current ’common sense’ explanations of the nature of effects of their work, to search for new definitions and understandings, and to explore genuine alternatives.^

Like the other scholars mentioned in these chapters, Halloran's work was far from over in 1976. He currently has studies underway which will no doubt add to and support his claims for alternative approaches to explain the mass communication process. As Director of the Centre for Mass Communication Research, Halloran is influencing a whole generation of scholars, several of whom have already made some important contributions to scholarship in Great Britain and have offered alternative approaches for studying the mass communication p r o c e s s . Overall, within the past fifteen years Halloran's activities have been to move the field of mass communication from the narrow confines of past research into a larger, more socially relevant sphere of inquiry. His idea of communication has emerged those activities. The nature of that idea of communication is the focus of the next section.

The Idea of Communication

As the previous section illustrated, James Halloran has not been content to operate within the parameters of the mass communication research tradition as given. While much of his effort has been directed toward widening the horizonsof mass communication research, in terms of the functions of research and in terms of what constitutes the domain of the major variables used in research, there has also been some 155 development on an idea of communication.

In this section Halloran's basic idea of communication will be presented, beginning with a basic definition and then discussing the basic elements of the process. Finally, in order to place the idea fully within the context of his work, the structures and functions of communication will be presented within the mass communication process.

In assessing his work thus far, Halloran's idea of communication

is based on two values. The first value is that:

a full understanding of the communication process . . . needs both sociological and psychological approaches. There is no room either for the purely sociological position that would rule out the use of psychological concepts and principles from sociological discourse, or for the purely psychological position that would similarly rule out sociology.

Consequently, Halloran is not content to employ a simply sociological explanation in his work. As noted in the previous section, this is the basic value which Halloran has argued for in his desire to broaden the range of discussion on mass communication and to widen the horizons of mass communication research.^

The second value on which Halloran basis his idea of communi­ cation is more related to Halloran's training as a sociologist. He writes that:

an adequate understanding of the communication process . . . demands that we study this process within the wider social setting. . . . people have friends, belong to families, have relationships, have had experiences; they hope, dream, fear, aspire, love and hate. . . . our understanding of the communi­ cation process will be severely limited unless we take these and other relevant factors into account.^

Communication, then, is a social process. At times Halloran goes to

the extent of using the terms communication and social communication

interchangeably, thereby illustrating the importance of the social 156

nature in Halloran's idea of communication.

From these two values or assumptions, Halloran conceives of

communication along the following lines:

the communication act is but one part of a total ongoing social interactional process within a given network of social relationships and our attention should be directed towards this wider setting with a view to the examination of the inter-relationships between sender, receiver and message within the overall system.-^

In the context of this delineation, then, the basic elements in

Halloran’s idea of communication are sender, message and receiver.

While these elements are the basic elements in a number of models of

communication, e.g. Shannon-Weaver's, Halloran argues for a distinct

difference from these other models in his idea of communication. He

sees these other models as primarily linear, stimulus-response models.

Halloran argues that such models place the issue of intention by the

receiver in the communication as the criteria for successful communi­

cation, i.e. "proper" reception means successful communication. As

shall be discussed in more detail later, this is not Halloran's

conception of communication. He argues that the receiver is under his/her own standards or criteria and these should be used to eval­ uate the communication process's success or failure, i.e. if one

seeks communication to provide entertainment, then that criteria,

entertainment, determines whether or not there is successful communi­

cation. 35

In terms of the basic elements of his idea of communication,

Halloran considers both sender and receiver to be social units. That

is, both sender and receiver have a number of social attributes, e.g.

different group memberships, values, experiences and relationships, as 157 well as occupying a position within a larger social structure, i.e. social position, class membership, occupational role, power struc­ ture and many other social variables have to be taken into account in considering the nature of sender and receiver as social units.^

While most social scientists would probably acknowledge this conceptualization, Halloran argues that in research techniques and methods they violate assumptions. For example, most studies take as their basic research unit the individual. However, if one believes in the sender and receiver as a sociql unit, then one needs to also employ other types of research and social units in research, e.g. groups, sub-cultures and cultures. Underlying this argument for other sample units is Halloran’s belief that both senders and receivers in communication theory, as social units, can be conceptualized along a continuum which ranges from the atomized, isolated individual all the way through to the totally interrelated community or society. Along this continuum one could also locate groups and sub-cultures. Within such a continuum, research needs to not only conceptualize, but also operationalize at the same point. Halloran, in a speech to a group of educators, argued that studies of group learning needed to be given as much attention as studies of individual learning and that both types o 7 can offer something to an understanding of the education process.

In discussing communication, Halloran argues that ’’the audience must not be atomized nor the message isolated from the social process."

Further, he notes that the communication process is reciprocal, "rarely is it just a question of a single communication producing a single reply.

The communication should be regarded as one link in a chain of communi- 158 cation which extends over time." And finally, he states that:

all of the individuals involved, no matter how indirectly, in the communication process have a place in the social structure. As these several positions are related to one another within the social system, the communication which flows from one individual or group to another appears no longer as random or unrelated acts but as elements in a total pattern of ongoing interaction.33

The importance of the message in this social system is for

Halloran something more than the simple connections or implications which the message has with the social system. Halloran does not con­ tend these do not exist or that they are less than important, he instead wishes to emphasize that:

symbolic processes allow the individual to escape from a narrow environment . . . to values and norms that are not necessarily related to immediate group situations. Man relates . . . not only in terms of past and present associ­ ations, but also in terms of aspirations, expectations, future goals and objectives, status and prestige.

Messages, then are more than simple collections of information, i.e. thay are more than simple units of content. Halloran argues that messages contain units of content occuring together in reoccuring structures and that it is through exchanging and experiencing these structures, via messages, that values and norms are located and aspirations and goals are encountered and, at least symbolically, experienced.^

Halloran has discussed these structures in a report he submitted to the Surgeon General’s Study of Violence. Here, he reported that the majority of violent detective programs have one common structure—

"villains typically commit violence by instigating the violence while heroes typically respond to someone else's use of violence."^* 159

Such statements of structure, however, arise mainly out of research in content analysis. Whether these same structures are simi­ larly interpreted by various receivers is an issue which Halloran sees as a bit more problematic. Within the social system, Halloran theo­ rizes that each act of reception by a communication is an objective- subjective reality relationship with the message and environment being the objective reality and the receiver's interpretation being the sub­ jective reality. As Halloran's work with probationers illustrated, the

"same" objective reality was given different subjective interpretations, i.e. realities, by the viewers.

As noted earlier, communication is a continuous process, an individual not only receives communication but also sends messages, i.e. places a new message into the environment— the objective reality. As such, communication becomes a movement from objective reality-sub­ jective reality-objective reality (-subjective reality-objective reality, etc.).

In construing communication along an objective-subjective- objective line of progression, Halloran has tried to merge the socio­ logical and psychological perspective together. His work in the area of mass communication research illustrates how this merger can be realized. In general, his research has focused on two relationships in the.line of progression— the subjective-objective relationship

(i.e. sending), as presented in terms of mass communicator research, and the objective-subjective relationship (i.e. receiving), as presented in terms of audience research, specifically his work on effects and delinquency. The characterisitics of these relationships are the 160 major aspects of Halloran’s idea of communication and it is by discussing first the objective-subjective relationship and then the subjective-objective relationship that this section will clarify the nature of these relationships and Halloran's idea of communication.

Halloran's approach to studying audience interaction or exchange stresses the objective-subjectvie relationship. In studying this relationship, Halloran has offered four factors which he sees as operating in this relationship. First is the factor of availability of the message to the receiver, both physical and social. Second is the factor of conception or orientation of the viewer. Third is the role of the involvement of the receiver. And fourth is the factor of reward or task in the objective-subjective relationship. Halloran contends that each of these four factors, both separately and collectively, significantly affects the relationship. As such, the specifics of each factor bear further discussion to illustrate that point.

The first factor, availability, encompasses bothaa physical availability and a social availability or accessibility. Halloran does not devote much discussion to the issue of physical availability, though he does raise the issue of whether, given the way the media are organized and controlled, the recipient is able to act intelli­ gently on a variety of issues, i.e. does he have the needed materials available. He notes the rise of monopoly newspaper situations and an increased instance of cross-ownership as cases where physical avail­ ability would come into play.^ 161

The second aspect of availability, social, involves the extent to which the individual has the necessary skills. On this aspect,

Halloran has argued that various aspects of the message, e.g. genre, context, or mode of presentation, may be beyond the social avail­ ability, i.e. literacy, of the receiver. This situation arises most frequently when viewers encounter messages designed for audiences in other countries. hh For example, Kabuki theatre, which relies on a certain type of literacy, is usually incomprehensible to the average

American viewer.

Both types of accessibility, physical and social, represent the first factor in the complex process of audience viewing for

Halloran. It represents the confrontation of physical or objective reality with the subjective skills and openess of the viewer.

The second factor, conception or orientation, is by far the most crucial to Halloran’s idea of communication. Here the experiential base of his idea of communication can be best seen. In brief, Halloran envisions conception as a social perspective. As such, it involves more than simply attitudes, though that is part of it. As noted earlier, Halloran in Attitude Formation and Change found the whole process to overly psychological in nature, even the functional approach.

Halloran’s use of orientation tries to cover much the same area, but to also include such sociological influence as group norms, pressures, etc. His work with delinquents ir. which their responses to television programs were related to subcultural themes, i.e. orientations, such as excitement and leadership identification, is an instance of where he has operationalized this notion.*1'-’ 162

Halloran's second basic factor, then, is conception or orientation. Basically he argues that while "the same images are available to all does not mean that everybody makes use of them in the same way."^6 The meanings which are made of these images are usually the result, he argues, of a shared perspective, orientation or culture.**7

The third factor which comes into play in the audience-message

interaction is the role of involvement in the communication process.

Traditionally, not only in the stimulus-response model, but also in uses and gratifications models, the viewer is perceived as being highly

involved in the communication process. The individual who has spent an evening vegetating in front of the television set or who has barely

noticed the various billboards that flash by on the highway would

immediately question this assumption. However, as Halloran notes, many of the models in communication theory assumed "high involvement, and

it might be time to give attention to the development of a low-involve- ment model. Moreover, we must not confuse involvement with social

|iQ importance." The designation of social importance is determined by the previous factor, orientation, as in the case of the juvenile delinquents. In terms of involvement, Halloran contends that low-

involvement models whould offer explanations for several kinds of phenomena, e.g. gradual change. Halloran goes on to suggest that

involvement might be best seen on a continuum and studies need to understand a social unit's position on a continuum running from no h9 involvement to high involvement. 163

The fourth factor for Halloran in the audience exchange model is that of rewards and gratifications. Here, as elsewhere, Halloran contends that functions models which focus specifically on psycho­ logical needs, tension reduction, anxiety release, etc. are not entirely applicable to communication research. Instead, Halloran contends that the notion of reward also needs to be understood within the social mileau that the individual or group occupies. In the television delinquency study, Halloran claims that the concern for masculine models and excitement in television programming was merely a reiteration of the basic dynamics of the cultural experience for these individuals and that these programs appealed to these individuals because they addressed them at this experiential base.'’®

Overall, then, Halloran's view of the objective-subjective relationship begins with the premise that the individual has certain expressive tendencies, certain ways of responding to the environment the objective reality. Halloran offers four factors to help capture the process of that interaction. First, accessibility, is the reality both physically and socially available for some interaction. Second, conception or orientation, what is the basic view of the world that is taken by the viewer in the situation. Third, involvement, or to what degree is the viewer concerned with the mass media program. And, finally, rewards and gratifications, how is the viewer gratified or what is the reward of the viewing— it may be a functional approach, e.g. a gain in information, a reduction in tension, or it may be expressive, living in a world which is enjoyable and familiar. (The last use may also be involved in the more functional aspects, but the HU- more utilitarian focus of most research would ignore its existence.)

Unlike Halloran's work with the objective-subjective rela­ tionship, Halloran's ideas about the subjective-objective relationship are somewhat limited. In large part this is due to the absence of any previous work on the mass communicator, i.e.any great body of work comparable to that in the other type of relationship.

Still,.Halloran has made some progress in this area. His major study of the professional communicator was Demonstrations and

Communication, already discussed earlier. In this work Halloran sought to provide the specifics and thus confirm his contention that the communicator, as well as the receiver, exist within a social context— a group context and a societal context. In each context, Halloran offered and had confirmed several factors which contended influenced the relationship. In both cases, however, the major theme was that the subjective reality played a strong role in what kind of message was produced. In the case of the newsman in the group context, for example, Halloran found that several factors or norms were influencing this reality. Specifically he discovered that news for the reporter had to have clarity, unambiguity, recency, an intensity of impact, a meaningfulness, an overall balance in composition, continuity and consensus. In general, these factors are fairly typical in such research. They are also fairly typical in such research. They are also fairly consistent with a number of approaches to perception and, as such, they offer a more psychological than sociological understanding.^^ 165

Halloran's second context for the mass communicator, the societal or cultural, reverses this imbalance to provide for a more sociological than psychological understanding. Halloran claimed that the mass communicator is limited in the kind of message that he/she can offer. Specifically, the communicator must keep the message and its structure within the limits of the reality of the culture or society. In his study of the newsreporters, Halloran claimed that the story had to be presented within the social context, in this instance with tow political sides, one liberal and one conservative. As such, minority groups and other non-establishment perspectives are not used because they are not a significant part of the status q u o . ^ 2

Overall, Halloran has argued the subjective reality of the mass communicator is influenced by two contexts, group and societal.

Further, he argues that this reality will limit the responses that are made by the communicator in a communication exchange to what he/she knows.

Thus far Halloran's idea of the subjective-objective relation has been limited to mass communication situations. In this case the audience, i.e. the receiver, is of a certain type. It needs to be pointed out that Halloran has not developed research or theory to any significant extent in the area of interpersonal communication. Such analysis, when available, will add to his conception of the subjective- objective relationship.

Nevertheless, Halloran has made a significant beginning on the idea of communication. He theorizes that communication involves more 166 than the simple sender-message-receiver relationship which was initially offered at the beginning of this section. Communication, for Halloran, involves two social units, be it individual, group or culture, which interact with each other. Further, both.the units and the message which is exchanged are imbedded in a social structure and system. Still further, in this idea of communication one succeeds

in communication in the extent that one engages the life world or subjective reality of the other social unit and one fails to the extent that one fails in such an aim. Finally, from this general

idea, communication is not simply a series of message exchanges, but rather is an ongoing exchange of personal realities, i.e. experiences.

Summary

Robert Friedrich noted in A Sociology of Sociology that sociology can take a number of approaches— empiricist, reflective and critical.

Of the three, Halloran's work comes closest to being critical sociology, 53 that is, he takes a situation and offers a critical response to it.

While such an approach makes the issue being discussed clearer (ideally)

it offers certain limitations to the outside reader, namely that one

is not totally sure what the basic assumptions and elements that the critic uses are. As such, Halloran's idea of communication is probably the least obvious of the three scholars to be discussed. In part this

stems from his concentration on opening up the field of mass communi­ cation. Such a mission, however, places him in an akward position.

He cannot expouse the "correct” idea of communication without damaging his other desire to open up the field to more discussion. Consequently, his work offers only a limited amount of discussion on a theory of 167 communication. However, dispite this limitation, he does offer the basis of a theory which in all probability will be more fully developed in later years.^

Overall, Halloran conceives of communication as a social process. Two social units exchange messages in his idea and each is related to an overarching social system. In this aspect,

Halloran, like Raymond Williams, takes a broad, sociological context.

In general, messages are received as they relate to the subjective reality of the individual receiver. Within this idea of communication,

Hallorhn sees man as a creature who is able to act of his own free will, but who is also a part of a social system which, to a certain extent, constrains the limits of his activities. As was the case with

Williams, Halloran's idea of communication is also transactional.

Within Halloran's idea of communication, science becomes a process of taking the sociallly relevant aspects and issues of the social system and providing critical responses, i.e. research to allow the political processes to change the society so that the problematic aspects are corrected. Such an idea necessatates an interdisciplinary approach to communication. However, there are limits to how broad an approach one can take. Halloran suggest that while the social scientist and social science, in general, possess a certain view of the world, if the limits are unrecognized, this view can be dangerous for society. Halloran writes that:

approaches can be tyranical for essentially they constitue means of perceiving, organizing, defining, analyzing and interpreting, often to the exclusion of all other ways. It is well to remember that vital though the approach is, it offers but one method from among several for seeing and interpreting the world around us.55 168

Footnotes

^James Halloran, Control or Consent? (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), p. 228.

^For a list of all the works consulted in this chapter the reader should check the bibliography at the end of this study.

^Popular Culture and Personal Responsibility (London: National Union of Teachers, 1960).

halloran.

3Ibid., p.2.

6Ibid., p. 3.

7ibid., pp. 1-17. Q James Halloran, The Effects of Mass Communication (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1964).

^Ibid., p. 36.

*^Ibid., p. 38.

11lbid. 12 James Halloran, Attitude Fromation and Change (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1967), pp\ 27-28.

13Ibid., p. 57. 1HT. Ibid.

*3Ibid., pp. 112-113

*8James16James Halloran, RoRoger Brown and David Chaney, Television Delinquency (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1970)

17Ibid.

l8Ibid.

. 19Ibid.

20James Halloran, ’’Introduction" in The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators in Sociological Review Monograph, Paul Halmos (ed.), 1969, pp. 5-22. 21 Ibid., pp. 6-7. 169

22James Halloran, Philip Elliott and Graham Murdock, Demonstrations and Communication: A Case Study (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1970). 23 James Halloran, ’The Social Effects of Television” in The Effects of Television, James Halloran (ed.) (London: Panther, 1970), p. 53. 24 Halloran, Elliott and Murdock, p. 301.

25Ibid., pp. 300-301.

James Halloran, Mass Communication Research and Adult Education (Leicester: University of Leicester, Department of Education, 1966). 27 Idem., "The Problems We Face," Journal of Communication, Winter 1975, p. 19.

28Ibid., p. 25.

29Ibid.

30See David Chaney, The Process of Mass Communication (London: Macmillan, 1972) and Philip Elliott, The Making of a Television Series (London: Constable, 1972). ^ 1 Halloran, Mass Communication Research and Adult Education, p. 2. 90 Idem., Control or Consent? and The Effects of Mass Commumeation. 33 Idem., Mass Communication Research and Adult Education, p. 3.

34Idem., The Effects of Mass Communication, p. 36.

^^Halloran, Brown and Chaney.

^Halloran, The Effects of Mass Communication, p. 37 . 37 Idem., Mass Communication Research and Adult Education, p. 43. 38 Idem., The Effects of Mass Communication, p. 38. 39 .Idem., Mass Communication Research and Adult Educat ion, p. 42.

40James Halloran and Paul Croll, "Television Programs in Great Britain: Content and Control,” in Television and Social Behavior. Vol, 1; Media Content and Control, (eds.) G.A. Comstock and E.A. Rubinstein (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972), pp. 415-492.

41Ibid., p. 485. 170 42 Halloran, Brown and Chaney. 43 Halloran, "The Problems We Face."

44Idem., Mass Communication Research and Adult Education.

45Halloran, Brown and Chaney.

46Ibid., p. 179.

47Ibid., pp. 178-181. hQ Halloran, Mass Communication Research and Adult Education, p. 62. 49 Ibid.

■^Halloran, Brown and Chaney, pp. 178-lSl.

■’^Halloran, Elliott and Murdock.

52Ibid.

■^Robert Friedrich, A Sociology of Sociology (New York: The Free Press, 1970).

5ihla lloran has a new work in progress entitled Mass Communication which should provide a more comprehensive survey of his ideas than is presently available.

-**Hlalloran, The Effects of Television, p. 37. CHAPTER V

THE IDEA OF COMMUNICATION

IN THE WRITINGS OF DENIS MCQUAIL

Military science, seeing history an immense number of examples in which the mass of an army does not correspond with its force, and in which small numbers conquer large ones, vaguely recognizes the existence of this unkown factor, and tries to find it^sometimes in some geometrical disposition of the troops, sometimes in the suDeriorrity of weapons, and most often in the genius of the leaders. But none of those factors yield results that agree with the histor­ ical facts.

Tolstoy, War and Peace

So, too, has Denis McQuil's career developed, trying to recon­ cile the factsfrom empirical research with teh supposedly operating factors in the mass coramunicationsituation. In the process of sear­ ching for the unknown factor to agree with the empirical facts,

McQuial has cast up a view of communication that is decidedly socio­ logical, yet is also different from the work of the preceeding scholars.

In general, McQuial’s work in communication began with the study of the relationship of politics and mass communication and has continued through to develop a general sociology of mass communications.

In this chapter the work of Denis McQuail, from politics and television to the sociology of mass communications, will be discussed to give a summary of his work, as well as a substantive feel for his development. In the second section of this chapter the idea of

171 172 communication which McQuail has developed and articulated will be presented in terms of the elements, structures and functions of communication, as well as the assumptions about man, science and communication.

The Major Work of Denis McQuail*

Of all the areas of study in the field of mass communication,

political communication, i.e. the relationship of politics and mass

communication, held the strongest attraction for scholars, critics and theorists who were intent upon testing and evolving ideas,

inclinations and hunches about the workings of mass communications.

Denis McQuail was no exception. In particular, he was interested in

"what consequences there are for a society when its 'basic communication

activities' are carried out by mass communication, rather than by

A alternative means of communication.The specific interest in poli­

tical communication derived from the fact that:

the political systems which are prevalent in the world have requirements which can only be met by mass media— needs for rapid intercommunication between rules and people, for an informed public, for new kinds of consensus which are expressed in the form of public opinion.^

McQuail's first work in this area of political communication was

Television and the Political Image which he coauthored with Joseph

Treneman in 1959. The significance of this study in the history of

British mass communication research should not be ignored, this was

the first work by the newly founded Television Research Centre at the

University of Leeds which, as was seen in Chapter II, was mainly

concerned with the area of political communication. As such, this

study sought to address the broad question of the consequences of mass 173

communication carrying out the basic communication activities of a

society, in this case election campaigning.^

The timing of this study was not only the result of the Television

Research Centre being established earlier that year, but also was the

result of a couple of other developments. First, the 1959 election was, as one British Sunday newspaper put it, the first "television

election.” In 1955, the year of the previous election, only thirty- eight percent of the British citizens had regular access to television.

At that time radion was still the major medium in broadcasting. By

1959, television had come into its own and, as such, the political

condidates now literally faced audiences in the tens of millions.

Second, from this change in situation a number of new political

communications developed, e.g. television debates and television

campaign coverage, as well as campaigns by individual parties and poli­

ticians through advertising of one sort or another. Consequently,

in 1959 the British electorate were confronted with a new political

situation and, as such, McQuail and Treneman were concerned with what

effect that change might have on the British electorate.^

The two scholars were even more intrigued when they discovered

that other studies of political television, most of which were American,

dealt with instances where the population had previously experienced

television politics. Consequently, their research on an heretofore

unexposed audience was a chance to make some headway in this uncharted

area.

Theoretically, the major thrust of the study was based on a

stimulus-response or limited effects model of communication. As such, m the concern in this study was in terms of what changes the messages would have on the voters- Interestingly, the findings were less than conclusive in terms of the original hypotheses, though the findings did open up new directions for study as shall be shown shortly.

Overall, the study found that roughly equal portions of the tele­ vision audience were aligned with one party or another and roughly forty-nine percent of the audience of any political telecast was from the opposition part. Further, during this period of study which ran roughly two weeks (British elections are not run over several months as is typical of American campaigns), the audience did not show a marked shange in party allegiance. The authors concluded that the television campaign had little or no effect on the average voter. The same little or no effect was also true for the attitudes of the voters toward the two parties and their leaders. Generally, citizen opinion of both parties remained stable during the intense election campaign.

Where the study did find significance was in the area of political knowledge. Here, the television campaign seemingly produced an increase in the voter's political knowledge. From this finding the authors concluded that, "it seems to us, the elector was looking immediately for concrete, specific points, on which his mind could fasten, and he was looking for a government. As such, the viewer was seen as an active agent, quite different from the static condition which the hypodermic model or the limited effects model of communi­ cation assumed. Along this line, McQuail suggested in the conclusion that more attention should be given to the electors as active agents and to their background, their temperment and how the campaign came 175 through to them.® His next work would address this issue.

In assessing the work, the important implication which was drawn by British scholars was that political television was not an irresistably powerful medium, in general there was little connection between exposure and attitude change. Hcwever, a number of questions lingered, was a one time study sufficient to conclude the medium was powerless, and was the fact that only two parties were involved in the process make any change less likely and finally, was the conception of the political viewer as an active agent a key concept in under­ standing the phenomenon of political television?

The 1964 British General Election provided an opportunity to answer these questions and toward that end McQuail and Jay Blumler directed their research efforts. Specifically, the study which resulted attempted to address these questions 'and to attempt:

an entirely new approach to the study of political broad­ casting. Its point of departure was the expectation that in the persuasive process, sheer amount of exposure to tele­ vision might matter less than the precise motives, and the different degrees of motivation, underlying the reception by viewers of political materials.^

As they contended, the central aim of their study was to discover "why people watch or avoid party broadcasts; what uses they wish to make of them; and what their preferences are between alter­ native ways of presenting politicians on television.In more sociological terms this was the uses and gratifications approach first suggested by .H

Theoretically this study was a development from the earlier study, in part the authors saw this new approach as addressing the issue of why attitude change did not result from simply exposure, as 176 they put it "the failure to distinguish between informants according to their various reasons for watching election broadcasts."^ Further, unlike the first study which expected some relationship between exposure and attitude change, the new study:

expected a division of the members of the sample, according to their different motives for following election broadcasts, either to disclose previously undetected relationships between attitude change and campaign exposure, or to strengthen faint ones appreciably.*3

In general, McQuail and Blumler found three basic areas or clusters of factors for watching political television. One factor was political motives— this cluster included reinforcement and vote-guidance

for those attentive to the media for political motives which would be useful in voting. Another factor was surveillance— this group included uses which were interested in judging what leaders are like, seeing what the parties are doing and keeping up with the issues. The third

factor was excitement— here the uses involved were concerned with

seeing which party would win and the general excitement of the race.

Of these three groups of motives or factors which the authors found, the second, surveillance of the political environment, was the dominant motive for the viewing of political telecasts by the British people.^

McQuail and Blumler, after presenting these findings, suggest that they pose serious questions for the politician and researcher.

They noted that:

all in all, it appears that the audience for political television, though large and heterogenous, can be divided in significant ways, the important distinctions relating to interests and motives which have not been given sufficient weight in the past. A fuller appreciation of the degree to which members of the viewing public do have positive expectations, needs, likes and dislikes, which 177

can and do affect their behavior, must modify any conception of the television audience as simply an undifferentiated mass.

Television and Politics did not discuss this issue much beyond the above quote. It was to be in McQuail's next major work, Towards a Sociology of Mass Communications, that this issue would be ela­ borated and discussed in some detail. Nevertheless, Television and

Politics was important in the development of McQuail's idea of communi­ cation in that the work presented him with the empirical evidence which contradicted the prevailing theory and models of communication and required scholars to make some adjustments in these conceptions in order to adequately explain the political communication situation.

Toward the end of adjusting and developing a theory, i.e. an idea of communication, to explain the mass communication process, McQuail's next two works were directed.

In the opening chapter of Towards a Sociology of Mass

Communications McQuail wrote that:

social science research on mass communications seeks an objective understanding of the institutions that fashion mass communication and the consequences of communication and persuasion for human society.1®

For McQuail the crucial aspect of this definition was the relationship between mass communication and human society. As with much of modern society, a number of particular facts supported the contention that there was a strong relationship between the two. He noted, among others, the rapid diffusion curve that followed economic development for a medium, the necessity for leisure time in a society to utilize the media products, and the ability of mass communication to fill certain tasks in advanced societies that other media would not be able 178

to fill.17

For the social scientist, McQuail argued, the theories or views

of mass communication were strongly affected and determined by the

philosophy of science which was prevalent in modern social thought.

Specifically, this was the mass society theory which was first sugges­

ted by Tonnies at the turn of the century. As a result of that theory,

McQuail claimed, mass communication theory operated on the following

assumptions— the media detached and isolated the individual, the media

debased the culture, the media provided the environment for the indi­

vidual which created a psychological illiteracy, and the media set up

a non-reciprocal agreement in which the people needed the media but the

media did not need the people.

McQuail contended that the empirical evidence available did not

support this type of view of the media. In contrast to this mass

society theory for mass communication, McQuail suggested a new line of

thinking which he termed the "sociology of mass communications."

Specifically, he contended that:

mass communications operate in conjunction with existing channels and patterns of communication, which are themselves already determined by the positions of individuals and groups in a social structure.^

For McQuail, the new direction did not lay within any one

approach. He noted that:

as with most branches of sociology, there is no unified body of theory, but rather a series of general perspectives and orientations, with a few middle-range theories and conceptualizations.20

He argued that three major approaches had been used to study the mass

communication process. They were the mass society approach, which was 179

already mentioned above, the social systems approach, which he felt was not fully utilized, and the functional analysis, as used by

Merton and as used by the "uses and gratifications" approach. He

further argued that no one approach was necessarily better than the

other and that in general they had made two major contributions,

either they had shown scholars the errors in certain ways of

thinking or they had opened up new directions for mass communication

research.^1

In conclusion, McQuail asserted that past research had merely

paid lip-service to the idea of interdependence among the various

elements of the mass communication process and had then proceeded to

study the various elements in isolation. This limitation or inade­

quacy, he contended, could be overcome by pursuing studies in a num­

ber of areas— mass communicator research, political research, the

construction of media reality research and cultural impact research. 22

(As was shown in Chapter II, these areas were the four major directions

for British research in the 1970s.)

On the idea of interdependency McQuail wrote that:

the effects of mass media on individuals, groups, social institutions, and social relationships are highly dependent on how the media are used and controlled--and these in turn depend on external conditions. Some circum­ stances associated with mass communications in their present form give them a reinforcing or conservative tendency in society— they tend to take a middle way and conform to prevailing values and norms. However, this is true of only structure of provision and one fonfigurarion of relationships between society, communicators, and audience. In other possible arrangements, influential elements in the audience could be dominant, powerholders might use the media for particular purposes or communicators and organizational interests and values could be more to the fore.^3 180

This basic multi-perspective approach to communication was continued by McQuail in his work Communication in which he offered a view of communication as a social process. In this work McQuail took the broad topic of communication, reviewed the basic dimensions of communication as exemplified by past research and structured an approach to communication out of such analysis. 2 U

Like his previous work, McQuail found that communication was not simply one theory or perspective, but that a number of theories offered satisfactory, if partial,approaches to understanding the communication process. He went further and suggested that communi­ cation reflected the distribution of power in society and between societies. As such, the theme of Communication offered a logical extension of his earlier work in Towards a Society of Mass Communications that contended that mass communication must be understood both in the sociological context and in its interdependent relationship with other channels of communication.^

In assessing McQuail's major work, one can see a progression from an attempt to understand a rather limited relationship— politics and television— to a development of a new approach--sociology of mass communications— and finally to a full articulation of communication in modern society. The essence of this explanation, i.e. McQuail's idea of communication, will be discussed in the next section.

The Idea of Communication

McQuail's idea of communication has developed out of the struggle to reconcile the facts from empirical research with the supposedly operating factors in the mass communication situation. In 181

the process a distinctively sociological idea of communication has

resulted. He contends that:

communication underlies all social activity and this university makes it at the same time very familiar and yet difficult to encompass by any definition which is not so general as to be virtually empty of meaning or inadequate to represent the great diversity of communication.26

In an effort to at once encompass this unversality, yet

adequately articulate the diversity of meaning in McQuail's idea of

communication, this section will first present a basic cefinition and

some relevant assumptions and characteristics involved in that defi­

nition, next the various elements involved in the idea of communi­

cation will be discussed and finally the structure and function of the

idea of communication in McQuail's thinking will be outlined.

As was the case with Raymond Williams and James Halloran,

Denis McQuail has used a very simple definition of communication in much of his writing. From that definition he has subsequently

elaborated a number of characteristics, as well as clarified a num­

ber of assumptions about communication. It is only with an under­

standing of this basic definition, if one will, that the various

aspects of his idea of communication can be properly understood.

For McQuail, communication is simply "the sending from one

person to another of meaningful messages." That is, the exchange of

some message that has meaning for both individuals. Such a definition

allows for a number of assumptions and characteristics. In his writing McQuail has discussed four specific aspects of this idea of

communication. One characteristic is that any communication must begin with the decision by an individual to formulate and transmit some 182

meaningful message. As will be discussed in more detail shortly,

this decision is not always fully conscious and does not always

involve a great deal of prior consideration.^

A second characteristic of McQuail's definition of communication

is that the formulated message is a separate and identifiable object.

This is not the case. McQuail construes messages as including laws,

customs, practices, building, ways of dressing, etc. Hence, messages

are not confined to a narrow symbolic code. Rather, messages refer to

any "culturally patterned way of conveying sense impressions."28

The third aspect of communication which McQuail has developed

and discusses is that there is the transmission of the message through

some means, i.e. medium or media. In this aspect, language, which is a means of communication, as well as non-verbal and mass

communication could be involved. As such, each means has its own

strengthes and weaknesses which will be elaborated upon when language

is discussed later in this section. 0 Qy

The fourth and final aspect of communication which McQuail has

elaborated is that communication involves the reception of the form­

ulated message by someone. In this aspect a variety of responses are

possible— simple effects, selective attention, different uses, no

significant effect, etc. In the last part of this section the theory

behind.this variable response will be outlined.

In short, McQuail conceptualizes communication as the intention

on the part of a sender to transmit some meaningful message, the formu­

lation of this meaning into a message, the transmission of this coded

message through some means, and the reception of and response to this 183 message by someone. As he noted, within this conception there are a numbe .* of assumptions which need to be acknowledged and clarified.

He specifically mentions three assumptions. 31

The first assumption which he discusses is that as stated, the definition and spects, i.e. the model of communication, present the communication process as a rational and purposeful decision to transmit some meaning. McQuail makes the point that many communication acts are neither conscious, nor intentional. Hence, while the defi­ nition may imply a strictly rational process, McQuail does not limit communication to this.

The second assumption which McQuail finds in his model of communication is that, as stated, the process appears to be regu­ lar and linear. He notes that F.E.X. Dance and a number of other scholars have shown that communication does not always follow patterns and, as such, McQuail is quick to acknowledge that sych may well be the case.33

The last assumption which McQuail wishes to clarify in his basic definition is that "communication always begins with a sender, and that it is the intention of the sender which defines the communi­ cation event," i.e. the sender's intention is used to determine whether the intended meaning was received "properly." McQuail contends that "in secular rational cultures we are predisposed to think of human action and of communication in these terms, and it is a predisposition which needs to be corrected.

In considering these three corrected assumptions, as well as the characteristics and basic assumption, one can summarize the basic 184 conception of communication with one of his more recent attempts to define communication. In this work hew rites that:

communication processes refer to all acts of transmitting messages, to the channels which link people, to the languages and symbolic codes which ai'e used to transmit messages, the means by which messages are received and stored and the rules, customs and conventions which define and regulate communication relationships and events.^5

From this basic conception of communication McQuail's various elements of the communication process can be described. As such, the first element in the communication process is the communicator, the source or the point of origin.* In this element, the communicator may be an individual— as when one person addresses another; the communi­ cator may also be a group— as in the case of the mass communication process where a group, e.g. a production team, produces a message. As shall be discussed in more detail shortly, the communicator is also a receiver. McQuail makes the point that "the distribution of roles or sender and receiver of messages tends to be socially regulated to the general distribution of values and power in the social context."36

For example, the television producer becomes only a receiver of mass communication messages when he/she goes home after work or, in a school situation, the teacher is seen as the sender while the students are seen as the receiver of most communication exchanges.

The second element in the communication process is the message.

Here McQuail conceives of the message in two parts— content and form.

McQuail notes that "the content of a message is the reference it con­ tains to some object in the environment of the giver and reciever of messages which is 'named' in the message. We call this the 'referant.'"

For McQuail, then, communication is 'about' something. As such, this 185 type of definition allows one to sidestep the basic information theory definition of message. McQuail notes that:

in information theory proper, communication is about the 'reduction of uncertainty’ and the information is a quanti­ fiable amount of uncertainty reduction. The concept of a message is thus ambiguous, the ambiguity deriving from the arbitrary separation of content from form and from the possible discrepancy between what is intended by the originator and what is perceived by the recipient

The second aspect of the message, then, is its form, i.e the language or code. On this aspect of the meesage McQuail ascribes four characteristics. First, following the work of Dineen, McQuail sees language as being linear or sequential "in that the sounds which compose it are produced by successive movements of the speech organs and can be represented by a linear succession of symbols paralleling the sequence of emited sound." Second, language is sytematic and governed by rules and convetions. That is, the language code is not random in the usage of particular sounds and, as such, the code has a logical consistency to it. For McQuail, the third characterisitc of language is that it is a system of differences or contrasts, i.e. language "is basically, concerned with distinguishing one object, experience, concept from another, sometimes by subtle variations of sound or oder." Finally, the fourth characteristic which McQuail ascribes to language is that language is arbitrary. He notes that

"there is no necessary or objective connection between the nature of the thing or idea and the linguistic unit which refers to it."38

Thus, McQuail characterizes language as linear, systematic, based on differences or contrasts and arbitrary. 186

However, in using this conception, McQuail cannot distinguish

between language as spoken and language as a means of communication.

To make that distinction he uses de Saussure's threefold distinction

for language— langage, parole and langue, In this distinction langue

is the language in its formal properties, as noted above— linear,

systematic, arbitrary, etc.; parole is the language as spoken; langage

is the sum of these two other elements. Following from this distinction,

McQuail further defines langage as "a deposit of signs." In his

thinking, a sign is composed of two parts— an acoustic unit or

linguistic unit and a concept, a signifier and the signified. 39

McQuail notes that while such a distinction does help one under­

stand most aspects of form of a message, a number of different

"signs" are not covered by this formulation. Specifically, he states

that for other scholars a sign takes on four different types. These

are an index, that is something which has direct relationship in fact

to what is signified (McQuail uses the example of a footprint in the

sand as showing that someone had passed), a signal, action— a

stimulus requiring some response (a stop sign is such a signal), an

icon, that is something which has a sensory likeness to what is

represented (sculture, painting, photographic images, etc.), and a

symbol, that is a "complex series of associations which are conven­

tionally understood to convey some thought or emotion or event."

McQuail contends these four types of signs offer "different reach

and power in communication than communication that is based on a

system of signifier and signified." One such difference is that the

four types of signs can communicate across language or speech 187

communities, e.g. a photograph of a person playing a drum can be

understood across communities, while the expression "stick man" would not have the same shared meaning for members of different

speech communities.***1

In McQuail's idea of communication, the various elements

are influenced by the social system. Language is no exception. For

example, McQuail contends that language is generally the property of

a clearly defined popultation with little probability of movement across

boundaries of the long-term nature of the language endowment. Further,

McQuail believes that difference in power and esteem in the social

system coincide with the differences in skill in the use of language.

And, finally, he feels that language, as presented thus far, is asso­

ciated with high availability and accessibility, i.e. there are

institutional and societal pressures toward some standardization of

langauge skills and competence in their application to reading and writing.**1

Overall, the second element in McQuail's idea of communication

is the message. McQuail divdes the message into two related parts—

the content, i.e. what the communication is about, and the form,

i.e. the language system, be it nonverbal, spoken English, etc.

And, as is the case with the other elements, this element is influ­ enced by the social system of which it is a part.

This third element in McQuail's idea of communication is the

means of communication. These means include all media of communi­

cation, oral, written, cinema, radio, sculpture, etc. McQuail

argues that all means of communication include some physical energy 188 and/or materials, i.e. the singer must spend energy to present a song, a sculpter must use some wood, stone or clay. Finally, the different means of communication vary in their accessibility, e.g. you can only see Picasso's statue "Woman” if you go to the Civic Center in Chicago, Illinois, but the World Series is easily available from a television. . station. • 1x2

The fourth element in McQuail's idea of communication is the receiver. As he notes, however, research is somewhat misleading.

Past research has given the general impression that the receiver takes a passive role, "one defined primarily in terms of reaction or response." And, as.such, the definition of the role of receiver is usually in terms of the intentions and expectations of the sender, the receiver is seen as not being an autonomous entity. McQuail, as was noted earlier, conceptualizes the receiver as an active, autonomous participant in the communication process. The receiver is "an ini­ tiator, both in the sense of originating messages in return and in the sense of initiating processes of interpretation with some degree of autonomy." Further, the receiver, McQuail, as was noted earlier, conceptualizes the receiver as an active, autonomous participant in the communication process. The receiver is "an initiator, both in the sense of originating messages in return and in the sense of initiating processes of interpretation with some degree of autonomy."

Further, the receiver, McQuail claims, makes the decision to attend to some sources and messages and not to others. This scanning of the environment, McQuail writes, "takes precedence as a human activity over the originating of messages for others." Thus, the idea of 189 communication for McQuail is not the linear process which past research and the sender-reeeiver model might imply.^

The final element in McQuail's idea of communication is what he terms "the shared environment." This is:

a social, physical and temporal space within the boundaries of which the participants are located. The essence of a shared environment in all three senses is the shared experience of the world of referents which messages are about. Messages can only have meaning if they concern matters within, or close to, the experience of both senders and receivers.^

McQuail's idea of communication, by way of review, contains a basic definition that:

communication processes refer to all acts of transmitting messages, to. the channels which link people, to the languages and symbolic codes which are used to transmit messages, the means by which messages are received and stored and the rules, customes, and conventions which define and regulate communication relationships and events.^

It also includes five basic elements— sender, message, means of communi­ cation, receiver and a shared environment. From these basic compo­ nents one should be able to fairly easily construe a model of communication with specific structures and functions for communication.

However, McQuail does not see the idea of communication quite so simply. He notes that:

the difficulty of choosing any single most appropriate and economic model to represent the social process of communication does not stem from disagreement over facts or over the range of elements which have to be taken into account. It derives, first of all, from the great diversity of social events which would have to be accounted for and second, from the fact that communication events are open to quite different conceptualisations. Social scientific views of phenomena are selective, and different perspectives produce different versions of what is going on. 190

Conscious of the selectivity of models of communication, as well as the great diversity of social events which would come under

the heading of communication, McQuail asserts that no model or theory

could explain these varied instances. Consequently, McQuail's idea

of communication is not a single model, but a series of models which

are generally organized around 'now they characterize communication.

That is, McQuail theorizes that communication, as an act, can be

characterized along a continuum ranging from passive to active,

a continuum which can accomodate the great diversity of social events

involved in communication. Along with this general framework, which will be discussed shortly, McQuail also uses three key questions

to establish the position of the various theories or models on the

continuum. These questions are: why communicate, what is the meaning of the communication situation, and what is the relationship

between the participants?^^

In general, McQuail claims that most of the theories of

social science on communication can be placed in one of four major

positions along the continuum: (1) extreme behaviorist--most passive,

(2) social-psychological— less passive, (3) social system— more

active, and (h) interactionist/phenomenological— most active. While

there are definately shades of difference between different theories

within one position, for purposes of explanation, McQuail contends

no these four positions are satisfactory in representing the field.

In an effort to understand more precisely the nature of each of

these positions, one needs to look at how McQuail suggest each of the

four positions would answer the above three key questions. 191

The first such question McQuail uses is "why communicate?"

In the first position, the extreme behaviorist, the answer would be something to the effect that communication is a response, a conditioned reaction to an external stimulus. In the second position, the social-psychological, the answer would be that communication supposes an element of conscious choice, but the 'need' to adjust or release tension is the major reason. In the third position, social system, communication is assumed to involve a choice of goals, but these are conceived of in terms br.oader than tension-management of the second position. In this position the individual could choose among those ends made available to him by the system with norms and conventions governing the communication act. In the fourth position, interactionis/phenomenological, communication is envisioned as

"a spontaneious and creative act directed to some freely chosen future state which may involve a modification of norms and conventions."^9 Overall, these four responses represent a progression from a very passive state to a very active state in terms of why one communicates.

The second question which McQuail suggests is "what is the meaning of the communication situation?" As was the case with the first question, this question produces answers which further e tablish the passive active continuum McQuail claims. In the first, least active, position, the meaning of the communication situation lies outside the control of the individual. It is, instead, defined for that person, is not open to interpretation, and, as a result, the individual responds according to past experiences and the logic 192 of the situation. In the second, less active, position, the meaning of the situation is decided by the experience of discomfort or tension by the individual. As such, the situation changes only to the extent that the individual can perceive the tension and construe ways to resolve it. In the third, more active, position, the communication situation has a complex meaning for the individual with various goals and means available for the person to choose from in meeting certain ends. McQuail notes that the meaning "suggests a situation of free choice, structured according to cultural and institutional values." In the fourth, most active, position, the situation is also characterized by free choice of goals and means, but without the cultural and institutional constraints. As such, the individual can change and restructure the environment and communication

"is not a response to the environment or an act in an environment, but an act on it."50 Like the first key question, the answers offered by these four positions to the issue of meaning in the communication, further establishes the passive-active continuum.

The third and final question, "what is the relationship between participant," rounds out the understanding of the idea of communi­ cation in terms of the passive-active continuum. In the first position, the relationship between senders and receivers is a mecha­ nistic and temporary one with little, if any, coorientation between the participants. As noted earlier, the communication act is seen here as a simple reaction to an external stimulus. In the second position, the social-psychological, there is a more holistic relationship between the participants, s imilar to balance theory, with 193 an assumption of functionality and an instrumental interdependence between the two participant. In the third position, the relation­ ship is detined institutionally, i.e. culturally and socially by the social system and structure. As such, the relationship is seen as role-complementarity. In the fourth position, interactionist/pheno- menological, the relationship is inter-subjective and open to negotiation. Thus, along this question, as with the preceeding two questions, the four major positions show a progression from passive characterization of the communication act to an active one.*^

Within this passive-active continuum, McQuail argues, a broad range of theories and phenomena can be placed. B.F. Skinner's work would be seen as extreme behaviorist, Talcott Parson's work would be more of a social system's characterization and George H. Mead’s theory would be a phenomenological/interactionist position. As anyone familiar with these bodies of research could confirm, there are a num­ ber of social events which the various theories can adequately explain.

In general, those events correspond characteristically to the general attributes of the theory or approach which McQuail outlines in his continuum. Thus, McQuail, in suggesting the notion of a continuum as a means of understanding the communication act, has provided a very accomodating idea of communication to explain the broad range of social events which can be termed communication acts.

However, as is evident from some initial comments, research needs to take a position along this continuum and, as was evident in the discussion of McQuail's work in the first section, he has taken a perspective or approach in studying communication. Consequently, in 194 presenting McQuail's idea of communication it is also necessary to

locate his work within that idea, given that idea is fairly broad and continuous.

The arly research work of McQuail, Television and the Political

Image and Television Politics, was concerned with the message- audience relationship and, theoretically, they each marked an

important step along McQuail's progress toward his "sociology of mass communication." In more recent studies McQuail has stayed within certain parameters in studying mass communication so that a closer look at the theoretical idea of communication in this work will place McQuail's work on the passive-active continuum fairly represen­ tatively.

In general, McQuail's recent work has taken three distinct views of the whole, complex process of mass communication. The

first view which McQuail has taken is that of the media organization.

In this work he studied the mass communication process as one of selecting communicators and messages with a view to meeting communi­ cation needs of a chosen audience or public. In an article on

British broadcasting, McQuail contends that the development of British broadcasting, both by the BBC and the ITA, will be the result of managing the tensions between the various ideals, ambitions and goals of the organizations and the financial realities. Theoretically,

MCQuail places the media organizations within a social systems per­

spective and argues that communication takes on a similar position with certain functional duties and responsibilities, as well as

being influenced by a number of societal and cultural factors. 52 195

The second view that McQuail's mass communication research has addressed is that of the professional communicator. In this work he studied the communication process as a matter of gaining access to means of transmission in order to reach a chosen audience. In contrast to most models of communication which see the professional communicator as a mere appendage of the mass media organization,

McQuail argues and demonstrates that the communicator has a great deal of latitude. As a result, a more linear model of communication characterizes the process, at leasj: on the surface, because of the

inability of the audience to feedback to the communicator. However, the communicator does operate according to some conventions. One of these is the term "least common denominator." Another involves the construction of internal, communicator oriented, professional standards or guidelines. In terms of these standards, the communicator uses a specific perspective to communicate with the audience, e.g. the monotone delivery of the newscaster gives the impression of objec­ tivity to the communication. As such, the communicator, although not a mere appendage of the institution, usually abides by the parameters of the professional standards. Thus, once again, McQuail sees the cpmmunicator involved within a social context which limits his choice to a certain extent, i.e. a social systems position.^3

The third area of research by McQuail in the mass communication process involves the message-audience relationship. In this view,

McQuail sees the act of communication according to the uses and gratifications perspective. This approach, McQuail contends, stresses:

first, the wide range of uses to which media content may be put by its audience; second, the fact that the same content 196

may have different uses; and third, the relative freedom of the individual audience member to interpret the experience of receiving communication. This freedom may be conceived in terms of an independent audience-content system which has as its dynamic the needs of audience members in interaction with gratifications inherent in the content.^

Within this view of the audience, then, McQuail does not see the receiver as being able to enter into a negotiable, inter- subjective relationship with the sender, i.e. an extremely active view. Rather, the sender, as already shown in the previous rer focus, and the receiver are confined to a role-complimentary relationship— one supplies and the other consumes. Thus, like the other two areas, McQuail's work tends to fall within the para­ meters of a social systems position.

Overall, McQuail's research has taken a number of views to study the mass communication process. As such, McQuail notes that:

mass communication is many things at the same time and it differs from one social setting to another and alters as historical circumstances alter. While there is something approaching an institutionalized ideal type of a mass medium system, this type embodies a diversity of uses and meaning for those involved. To say this is not to admit that the process and institutions which regulate the process are beyond analysis or that they have the character of natural phenomena which defy full explanation and cannot be altered. If we are to retain the developed forms of social organi­ zation on the world-wide basis that we have now, many of the things which mass communication how does will have to continue to be done in some way. But the same essential ends could often be achieved in fundamentally different ways.^5

Summary

Denis McQuail’s idea of communication stands as perhaps the most conservative of the three scholars discussed in this study. As such he may appear to be less insightful than the previous scholars.

However, this should not be the case. In construing the idea of 197 communication along a continuum, McQuail has tried to bridge the various theories and models which plague the field of communication.

He has tried to at once admit the limited validity of each, yet give them a proper place within a larger framework of communication which will advance, as well as organize the field.

Overall, McQuail claims communication is the sending of meaningful messages from one person to another. The various individuals involved, while to some extent located within a social context which constrains their activities, have a great deal of latitude as to how they interpret the message. Thus, within McQuail's idea of communication, man is assumed to be an active, all but autonomous being. Science, in McQuail's work, is the process of providing sound explanations of empirical evidence, be it political communication or mass communicator research.

Like the previous authors, McQuail offers a challenge to other scholars, a challenge to break away from previous ways of thinking about communication, to see communication as a social process, that is one in which small group and mass communication have a place and are interdependent.

Theory is often advanced by scholars for its own sake and theirs,

McQuail has advanced an idea of communication which has pragmatic importance as well. 198

Footnotes

Vor a list of all the works consulted in this chapteV the reader should check the bibliography at the end of this study. 2 Denis McQuail, Towards a Sociology of Mass Communications (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1969), p. 6. O 'ibid.

^Joseph Treneman and Denis McQuail, Television and the Political Image (London: Metheun, 1961).

5Ibid., p. 13.

6Ibid., pp. 227-237.

7Ibid., p. 223.

8Ibid., pp. 225-226.

9 Jay Blumler and Denis McQuail, Television in Politics (London: University of Chicago, 1968), p. 6.

10Ibid., pp. 10-11.

^*Elihu Katz, "Mass Communications Research and the Study of Culture: an Editorial Note on a Possible Future for this Journal," Studies in Public Communication, No. 2. 1959, pp. 1-6.

12Blumler and McQuail, p, 11.

l3Ibid., p. 13.

lbIbid., pp. 261-281.

l5Ibid., p. 153.

^McQuail, p. 2.

17Ibid., pp. 2-6.

18Ibid., pp. 18-35.

19Ibid., p. 58. 20_, . , Ibid., p. 81.

^*Ibid., pp. 81-91. 199

22TK-Ibid.,j pp. 92-96. 23 Ibid., pp. 95-96.

2**Denis McQuail, Con

25Ibid.

26Ibid., P- 1.

27Ibid., pp. 1-2.

28Ibid.

29Ibid.

30Ibid. 31 .. . Ibid., P- 14.

32,.iDid. . . 33 Ibid. 34 . Ibid., pp. 14-15.

35Ibid., P- 5.

36Ibid., P- 15.

37Ibid., P- 16.

38Ibid., pp., 58-59.

3^Ibid., P- 60.

40Ibid., P- 61.

41Ibid., P* 62.

42Ibid., P* 17. 43 Ibid., pp,. 17-18.

^Ibid., P- 18.

^5Ibid., P- 5.

^6Ibid., PP . 31-32.

47Ibid., PP . 34. 200

^®Ibid., p. 54.

^Ibid., pp- 53-54.

50Ibid., pp. 54-55.

5*lbid., p. 56.

CO Jay Blumler and Denis McQuail, "British Broadcasting— Its Purposes, Structure and Control," Gazette, 1964, pp. 166-191.

^Denis McQuail, 'Uncertainty About the Audience and the Organization of Mass Communications,” in The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators, Paul Halmos (ed.), The Sociological Monograph No. 13, 1969, pp. 75-32. 54 . Idem., Communication, p. 190.

55Ibid., p. 195. PART III CHAPTER VI

TOWARDS A COLLECTIVE IDEA OF COMMUNICATION

IN THE WRITINGS OF SELECT BRITISH MASS COMMUNICATION SCHOLARS

The first two parts of this work presented an historical and analytical study of British mass communication research and select

British mass communication scholars. In the course of such analysis a number of issues were raised which require further discussion before a collective idea of communication can be developed. Among those

issues were the following: to what extent are British mass communi­ cation scholars indebted to previous communication research, especially

United States research; what are the major themes or characterisitcs which the various scholars studied commonly utilize in their ideas of communication; and what would be the collective idea of communication to which the select scholars contribute? In this chapter these specific issues will be discussed to provide the basis of a collective

idea of communication.

Influences and Themes

As mentioned in Chapter II, British mass communication research did not develop until the late 1950's and early 1960's. Prior to that time, mass communication research was not a viable part of British scholarship. However, when the early British studies were conducted, great attention was paid by scholars to what prior research was playing

202 203 an influential role in their work. While an entire review of the various influences would be beyond the scope of this work, a review of the influences on the three major scholars of this study should provide and adequate overview of the influence on British mass communication research.

Raymond Williams, as noted in Chapter III, began his academic career as a literary critic and, as such, was influenced by two

factors. One influence was F.R. Leavis, noted English critic, who taught at Cambridge at the same time Williams was completing his undergraduate education at Cambrdige. As noted earlier, this factor

influenced Williams to account for the ideological force in the communi­ cation process. The other major influence in Williams' career was

Marxism, in particular the British left. But as was noted in

Chapter III, the British left was not a lasting force in British society and Williams was forced to develop his own notions concerning

Marxism, which found their way into his account of the materialistic aspects in the communication process.

Overall, Williams has been influenced by decidedly British

factors and it's as an otherwise isolated scholar that Williams' work has developed. This does not mean, however, that Williams was unaware of other scholars in other countries, it is only that in tracing the origins and influences of Williams' work, one concludes that his work is very much an individual, British effort.

James Halloran, in contrast, began his study of mass communi­ cation after having worked for a number of years as a sociologist with research interests in the area of juvenile delinquency. As 204 was noted in Chapter IV, much of Halloran's early work in mass

communication was part analysis and part synthesis of existing mass

communication research. Studies such as The Effects of Mass

Communication are almost entirely derived from United States scholar­

ship. The above study, for example, was largely based on the work of

Joseph Klapper and while these individuals were important sources

in Halloran's work, they served more for points of departure for his

own particular critical approach than they did as major influences

in his writing. As was the case with Williams, Halloran has main­

tained- an essentially British approach.

Unlike the other two scholars, Denis McQuail began his work as

a mass communication scholar. However, like the other two, McQuail

has been influenced primarily by British associates. As shown in

Chapter V, Joseph Treneman, a reknowned British educator, was the

major influence in most of McQuail’s early work. McQuail, in his

first two studies, Television and the Political Image and Television

in Politics made explicit reference to Treneman as the major

influence in his work. In later work, McQuail has included input from

a number of other sources, some British and others non-British. Still,

as a scholar McQuail continues to pursue a direction which cannot be

easily associated with any particular non-British inluence.

As a group, British mass communication scholars have displayed

a tendency to develop, to a large extent, as British scholars with no

direct influence from outside forces. However, as was mentioned above,

this is not to infer that outside individuals and works were not

known to these scholars. Rather, this study simply argues that 205

British mass communication research is decidedly British and that an important aspect of its character is this independent strain.

British mass communication research has a number of other characteristics which the above three scholars also exemplify. Such

characteristics or themes include a personal involvement with mass

communication research, a transactional perspective on the communi­ cation process, a sociological orientation in mass communication

research, a close attention to the interrelationships of communi­

cation and politics, and the utilization of an interdisciplinary % approach to communication. While the collective idea of communi­

cation includes more than these themes, they provide an important

foundation for understanding the specific idea of communication which the next section will discuss.

One of the above themes of British mass communication research

is a personal involvement with research and theory. Despite the usual

image of British as detached, pipe-smoking scholars, most of the

British mass communication scholars studied have a deep commitment

to their work and the people they try to understand. Raymond Williams

typifies this theme. In one piece, entitled Culture is Ordinary, he

made an atypical "scientific" evaluation of culture and its impor­

tance to his work. He noted that:

Where I lived is still a farming valley, though the road through it is being widened and straightened, to carry the heavy lorries to the north. Not far away, my grandfather, and so back through the generations, worked as a farm labourer until he was turned out of his cottage and, in his fifties, became a roadman. His sons went at thirteen or fourteen on to farms; his daughters into service. My father, his third son, left the farm at fifteen to be a boy porter on the railway, and later became a signalman, working in a box in this valley until he died. I went up the road to the village school, where a curtain 206

divided the two classes— Second to eight or nine, First to fourteen. At eleven I went to the local grammar school, and later to Cambridge. Culture is ordinary: that is where we must start. To grow up in that country was to see the shape of a culture, and its modes of change. I could stand on the mountains and look north to the farms and the cathedral, or south to the smoke and the flare of the blast furnace making a second sunset. To grow up in that family was to see the shaping of minds: the learning of new skills, the shifting of relationships, the emergence of different language and ideas. My grandfather, a big hard labourer, wept while he spoke, finely and excitedly, at the parish meeting, of being turned out of his cottage. My father, not long before he died, spoke quietly and happily of when he started a trade union branch and a Labour Party group in the village, and, without bitterness, of the 'kept men' of the new politics. I speak a different idiom, but I think of these same things.*

Halloran and McQuail, as well as several others who will be noted in the next section, have also presented a personal appraoch to mass communication research, an approach which can be seen as a characteristic of British mass communication research.

Another aspect of this research tradition is its transactional perspective on the communication process. In discussing Williams' idea of communication, the point was made that communication is not only transmission, it is also reception and response. Chapter III argued that this is basically a transactional perspective. Halloran's contention that communication is an exchange process is also within the realm of a transactional perspective on communication. Finally,

McQuail's conception of communication as part of an ongoing social process also places the idea within a transactional framework. Thus, all three scholars find a transactional perspective characterizing the communication process.

Still another aspect of British mass communication research is the sociological emphasis found in the three scholar's research. This 207

theme Eollows the transactional position outlined above. McQuail,

for example, by conceiving of communication as part of an ongoing

social process, makes it necessary for scholars to focus on the

sociological aspects of experience in order to study communication.

Halloran's concern for mass communication and society, also neces­

sitates a sociological emphasis. Finally, Williams, by far the most

sociological in perspective, goes further and takes more than just

a sociological interest in studying communication. He also finds

that communication can have political implications as well. This

concern with politics and communication is still another charac­

teristic of British mass communication research. As with Williams,

Halloran finds that not only mass communication, the process, but

mass communication research can have an impact in society and that

the impact is political— one can preserve, change or oppose the

status quo through the process of communication and mass communi­

cation research. This theme is by far the strongest one of Halloran's work. The third scholar, Denis McQuail, began his work studying the

influence of mass communication on politics and has not radically

changed his orientation to any great extent since that time.

Thus far, British mass communication research has been typified

as including a personal involvement by the various scholars with

mass communication research, a transactional perspective on the communi­

cation process, a sociological orientation in mass communication

research and a close attention to the interrelationships of communi­

cation and politics. Within such an eclectic and broad reaching

tradition of research, the utilization of an interdisciplinary approach 208 to studying communication seems logical. As was seen in the broad ranging theories and research of Raymond Williams, as well as in the repeated pleas and research of James Halloran to broaden the horizon of mass communication research, and finally, the con­ tinual developing sociology of mass communications of Denis McQuail,

British mass communication research is interdisciplinary, a theme that the history in Chapter II further illustrates.

Within this framework, these select British mass communication scholars have developed ideas of communication which have several more specific commonalities. To clarify these commonalities in terms of a collective idea of communication, as well as to provide further evidence of the above characteristics, the next section will present a collective idea of communication. As was the case in previous chapters, the focus of this section will be on the elements, struc­ tures and functions of communication, as well as the assumptions made about the nature of man, science, and communication.

The Idea of Communication

The Oxford English Dictionary lists as one of the meanings for

"definition" the "setting of bounds or limits." It is in this sense which is somewhat counter to the more accepted meaning of definition as "the precise conditions and requirements" for some object or concept. The result of this different meaning is a qualitative difference in debate amongst British scholars, a difference that was only touched upon in the preceeding chapters. In general, in merely setting the bounds or limits for what constitutes communication, the

British scholars have left the internal structures, functions and 209

relations open to debate. As such, they have left the idea of communi­

cation more open to discussion than many other groups of scholars who have quite narrowly and precisely defined the idea of communi­

cation. Quite often in these latter groups, discussion of communi­ cation is not one of give and take, proposal and counter-proposal,

but either an acceptance or rejection of the basic idea. Hence, while British definitions seem rather simplistic next to the more

elaborate and complex definitions, unlike those definitions, the

British see their definitions as bjit the beginnings of the idea of

communication, not the final result.

Consider the three definitions which have been discussed from

the work of the various scholars. Raymond Williams argues that communi-

9 cation is "not only transmission, but also reception and response.

The focus of this definition is on process— transmission, reception,

response. As was more thoroughly discussed in Chapter III, the

individual communicant is part of an ongoing process in which one

person's response becomes a transmission for another person, and so on.

James Halloran takes the view that communication is a social

process between two social units. As such, the sender, message and

receiver are the basic elements in this definition, as they are for the

other British scholars. Further, much like Williams, Halloran does

not construe the process in a linear fashion, but as an ongoing

process. As was noted in the previous chapters, the linear model makes

the assumption that the sender's intention is the major criteria to

determine whether or not there is successful communication. Instead,

Halloran and Williams place the focus on experience— how and to what 210 extent does the communication engage the world of the receiver and 3 what types of experience exchange result.

Along this line of thinking Denis McQuail also takes a social experiential approach to the idea of communication. As noted in Chapter V, McQuail's definition of communicationis the "sending

from one person to another of meaningful messages." As with the other two scholars, the importance is on meaningful messages which address the active, experiential base of the receiver.^

Other British scholars, not discussed in Part II, have taken a similar position toward the idea of communication. One scholar,

Richard Hoggart, sees communication as a sharing process. As such, he argues that communication involves a two-step process. In the first step the communicator "speaks honestly to oneself." That is, the communicator expresses the essence of one's experience, both personal and public. The second step is then to speak "honestly to others."

That is, the communicator makes the essence of one's experience public.

As with the above scholars, the elements of sender, message and receiver are present and the process is ongoing. Most importantly, however, communication involves experience— what does it mean to the initiator and how does the responder share in that expression.^

David Chaney, another British scholar, uses Lasswell's basic model of who-says what-when-to whom-with what effect to express the basic definition and elements of communication. However, like several of the other scholars, Chaney does not see this as a linear

idea of communication. He places the communication messages as the objective reality which various individuals, i.e. receivers, respond 211 to and interpret through their subjective realities which are experiential in composition. Thus, once again the individual experience becomes the basic criteria in that it limits and thus, defines, communication.^

While other scholars have also made various attempts to define communication, it suffices to summarize and to attempt to collectively define the idea of communication from the materials which have been presented thus far. Such a definition will, to a certain extent, differ from individual scholar's work in minor details. However, as with much else in this chapter, this represents a movement towards an idea of communication. Within this context, the idea of communication can be defined as the "exchange of experience." As Raymond Williams noted, the attempt to exchange experience is not always successful, experience may not be shared and, as such, one would not have true communication. However, for many of one's attempts there is some exchange, in some degree, and this then, becomes the limits and bounds within which the British mass communication scholars have studied and constituted communication.

As basic elements in this idea of communication the British

scholars have confined themselves to one social unit addressing another

social unit- Or, in terms of the above, one social unit exchanging experiences with another social unit through some "message." With

such an arrangment, the message takes on an important place in the idea

of communication process. Unlike most communication research which

simply accepts the message as a given, neutral entity, British

scholars have taken the message as a major point of concern. 212

Raymond Williams discusses message in very broad terms, using the term communications to designate the "message" aspect of the communi­ cation process. In his broad conception, Williams argues that communications need to be seen as more than simply codified data.

They need to be seen as practices which are "the detailed process of

langauge and gesture, in expression and interaction, and of course any general features of underlying structures and conventions." As was discussed in Chapter III, structure of feeling is the key term to understanding and explicating these underlying structures. As such,

Williams contends that these practices illustrate a way of organizing the world, i.e. mental categories and structures which interpret the social setting and world. In Williams' thinking, carrying over from the above definition, the exchange of experience is accomplished by and through practices, i.e. communications which embody a way of

organizing the world.^

Like Williams, Halloran also places the message in the social context. Halloran contends that messages and senders and receivers are all units within the larger social system and that there is an

interdependence between them. How this relationship has been expressed

in the message is discussed by Halloran when he discusses violence in

the media. Halloran claims that messages cannot be understood

strictly in terms of content, i.e. units of x or y activity. Halloran

believes that the structure and relationship between the units of content is the major aspect in understanding the message and its rela­ tionship to the larger social system. Specifically, Halloran claims,

this structure presents a world view which expresses a particular 213 orientation and experience and it is through this structure that experience is exchanged.®

Denis McQuail differs from Halloran and Williams in his conception of the message in the communication process. While he is by far the most thorough in delineating what the specific characteristics of the message are, i.e. characteristics of language, the nature of signs, etc., he does not discuss the issue of structure of message. McQuail does, however, share Halloran belief that the message must be understood in its social context, as does Halloran and Williams. McQuail however, sees this relationship to be constituted differently, i.e. he sees the basic words, techniques, etc. to be related to the different social positions of the various communicants. As such, McQuail does not deal with the issue of struc­ ture, but rather states that messages, both content and form, are reflective of the social position and power. McQuail*s thinking on

language probably comes closest to the approach of Halloran and Williams when he cits the work done by Bernstein on codes. In general,

Bernstein found that working class people tended to have a more restricted communication code, that is they confined their way of seeing and describing to one point of view— their's. In contrast,

Bernstein found that middle class people more consistently made allowances for other points of view, given substantially more detail than the other group did. Overall, McQuail attributes this difference to social structure and position. He would converge with the thin­

king of Halloran and Williams if he would turn to the question of what makes such a code meaningful for those people. This author would 214 contend that McQuail could easily argue that the code reflects a certain way of looking at the world, i.e. a certain structure of experience. For the working class member the structure of experience is a relatively closed system in which many details and assumptions are known. For the middle class member, however, the world of experiences entails a wider range of associates. While

McQuail’s initial interpretation is valid, this author would suggest that McQuail could support the same conclusions by extending his characterization of the message to^ address the issue of meaningfulness 9 via message structure.

Righard Hoggart's emphasis on message follows much the same line of thinking as Halloran and Williams. Hoggart sees the message as reflecting the experience of the community, culture or society.

To understand that social experience, Hoggart suggests that one should look at the various messages, works and practices. As such,

Hoggart contends that one reads for "the tone" and "value” of the message. Reading for tone includes noting the various uses made of language, the ommisions and repititions, the images, the ambiguities, etc. Along this line, Hoggart asserts that one should note the aesthetic aspects, i.e. the requirements or conventions of the form, the cultural aspects, i.e. the historical and societal contraints, and the psychological issues, i.e. those aspects which are also indicative of the experience. Reading for value simply means articu­ lating the basic values which are expressed. In short, Hoggart sees the message as giving a picture of society in terms of the society's beliefs and values. As such, the message presents the quality of 215

life or the experience, not only to scholars, but to other communi­ cants. 10

David Chaney, British sociologist, has taken an approach

similar to most of the above. Like Williams, he takes a process view of communication and is not content to see communication defined

in a very narrow sense of messages. Chaney sees communication messages as performances. As such, he contends that performances

"can be seen as an organization of symbolic counters that follows certain rules and conventions." Chaney argues that messages do not have meaning in isolation. Instead, some relationship needs to be offered. Either one considers the sender-message relationship or the message-receiver relationship. Within either relationship, the

symbols become the medium of exchange. Values, and their implications, are the foci of concern. Like the preceeding scholar's work on

communication. Chaney believes that the experiential base of the

individual, group or society, becomes manifest through the message,

but it is a relationship which needs to be seen in a social context.*^

Overall, then the message for British mass communication scholars

is something beyond the conventional neutral entity which charac­

terizes much of social science research. British scholars use the message, i.e. the practice or performance, to better understand the

experience being expressed, shared and exchanged. This meaning, however, is not found in isolation, but emerges from an understanding

of the social relationship.

The various scholars have been less than consistent among

themselves regarding the characterization of the relationship, i.e. 216 the role o£ the social unit in the communication process.

Consequently, seme preliminary points need to be made.

In discussing the role, of the receiver in the social process of communication, Denis McQuail suggests that one continuum along which the receiver might be places is that of the passive-active continuum. While such a continuum worked well for McQuail to locate a number of theories, McQuail also contends that the continuum characterizes psychological and sociological theories generally, i.e. psychological theories are more passive as they are concerned with behavioral responses, while sociological theories are more active as they are concerned more with meaning and interpretation. 12 Such a characterization, however, raises serious questions when one recalls that some recent psychology has been concerned with a number of inter­ pretive, active approaches, e.g. phenomenology, humanistic psychology, and especially such work as Stephenson's play theory. On the other hand, some areas of sociology have been mainly concerned with behavioral responses. Thus, McQuail's general category scheme, by including the notion of psychological and sociological orientation, while perhaps making his case for a more sociological orientation, tends to confuse the issue.

It might due well to take the basic notion of McQuail's continuum and give it somewhat different contexts. Specifically, on McQuail's passive end of the spectrum the individual could be seen as having his responses determined by the environment, the objective reality. On the other end of the spectrum, the active end, the indi­ vidual could be seen as having his responses directed by his own inner 217

motivations, directions, and conceptions— in short, his subjective

reality. Here, in essence, is not only McQuail's continuum, but also

Williams' materialistic-idealisitc positions and Halloran's objective-

subjective reality notions. Within this basic context, then, one can

locate the social unit in the communication process, according to the

thinking of the various British scholars.

Before discussing the work of the different scholars, it should

be noted that this author does not assume that this framework is

perfect and covers all aspects of the communication relationship,

nor does he assume that each author relied on such a continuum in cas­

ting up his idea of communication. Overall, this continuum is solely

this author's method of placing within some comprehensive framework,

the role and the character of response with which each scholar has

characterized the communication relationship.

Raymond Williams, as was discussed at some length in Chapter III,

takes the two poles of materialistic and idealistic and construes the

human response, i.e. the communication experience, as a dialectical

relationship 'between the two poles. He suggests that man's experience

is not solely determined by the environment. Further, he notes that

man does not simply respond according to what he/she encounters, though

that reality does limit to a certain extent what will be a possible

response. Still further, Williams claims he does not carry around

a picture of the world which is so selective as to ignore or totally

misconstrue aspects of the environment. Instead, he argues, the two

poles interact through the individual experience. Hence, within this

context, the individual is neither totally passive nor totally active. 218

In overall meaning, Williams is probably locating his notion of reception and response on the active end of the continuum, though not to the extent that he does not see that the given dynamics of the environment offer certain constraints.*^

James Halloran is somewhat more difficult, partly because of his earlier mentioned tendency to construe debate about mass communi­ cation in terms of widening the horizons of research and not to develop one specific idea of communication and, partly because of his continued use of psychological research as the beginning of inquiry, only to add that a more sociological focus needs to be considered.

Still, with what was offered in Chapter IV, Halloran can be seen as being concerned with not only a mental conception of the world, e.g. his work on television and delinquency, but also with the nature of the environment and its role in communication behavior, e.g. his work on effects. Overall, Halloran spends most of his discussion on the interdependence of the communication process, that is that the various units are all involved in the social system, an emphasis more on the objective reality. Consequently, in terms of general placement

Halloran is on an active side of the continuum, but more to the objec­ tive reality side than is Raymond Williams.*-^

Denis McQuail, in contrast, can probably be located more toward the subjective side of Raymond Williams. Such a placement comes from a consideration of how McQuail has developed his work in the "uses and gratifications" appraoch. Specifically, McQuail finds the indi­ vidual capable of using the available message to almost any purpose that the receiver deems important. While the same argument might 219

be made about Halloran, when his work on delinquency and television is used, Halloran has reverted back to his more environmental position when he argues that such a view of the world was typical, i,e,

produced by, the delinquent culture.

Richard Hoggart falls more on the materialistic side of Williams

in terms of his overall conception of the social unit in the communi­

cation process. In large part this comes from his concern with the

cultural experience and his slighting of the individual experience.

He contends, and this comes out most strongly in his argument on the

importance of cultural studies, that the cultural experience is within

the various products and messages and that one learns the cultural

experience from these e n t i t i e s . 16 one author has noted that wheras

Williams uses the term structure of feeling, which contains the dia­

lectic of idealistic-materialistic, Hoggart might best be described

complex feeling, that is the nature of the feeling, the environ­ ment is merely complex without some necessarily prominent world view.^

Still, Hoggart and Williams are often discussed as using very similar methods and occupying basically the same theoretical positions. Thus, while Hoggart can be seen as perhaps a bit more toward the environ­ mental end of the continuum, the difference is not so great between him and Williams in terms of how thay construe the communication

experience.

David Chaney, being a student of both Hoggart and Halloran,

takes up both their approaches and uses the objective-subjective

relationship to characterize the communication experience. Here, as has been discussed at some length in the above two scholar's work, 220 he is perhaps somewhat more concerned with the materialistic, i.e. environmental, side of the continuum.*® Overall, however, the difference between him and either Halloran or Hoggart or Williams is

not that great. All four can be seen as basically using the dialectical experience to characterize the communication experience.

xn general, the various British mass communication scholars place

the communication experience in an active position. Still, they all concede that the material end of the continuum has some degree of constraint and impact in the nature and shape of the overall, experience.

In part this constraint is tied to the issue of availability and accessibility which both Chaney and Halloran discuss and it is in part determined by the political and economic forces which Williams goes

to great lengths to illustrate. Overall, for these scholars, the

communication process stands between the objective reality of the environment and subjective reality of the social unit.

Conclusion

The idea of communication, then, takes on the definition of the

exchange of experience between social units through messages which

contain the indications of such experience in some symbolic structure

or code. The various units respond to this message in ways in which

their experience has been engaged. While the various experiences

addressed will in part be personal, they will also be social or communal

and from the system the background for much of the communication is

taken. Thus, the communication experience, while an active process, is

partly constrained by the environment and social system. 221

Much of the communication research cited in the various chap­ ters takes an approach to science which is not the norm in American

scholarship. Specifically, the scholars take a critical approach.

Within the idea of communication summarized above key relationships or

issues were discussed in their research. What is the nature of the experience which is received? What is the value of the social system?

How much of that value enters into the communication experience? What forms does it take and is that appropriate? All of these questions, and many others which they ask, focus on value judgments. Overall, much of American scholarship has ignored value decisions, attempting to create a value free system. British scholars have not accepted this approach. Raymond Williams summarized it best when he wrote that

"if we do not deal directly with values we have literally nothing to deal with in the study of communication."^

Finally, providing a collective idea of communication for British mass communication scholars is at once simple, the idea can be expres­ sed using a couple of definitions, elements, structures and functions with some other basic assumptions; yet it is also somewhat complicated the idea is bound up with particulars which are studied and, as such, the idea has a tendency to both develop and change as the history, values and particulars change. As a result, social tensions and dilemnas raise some points and obscure others. An idea of communication

is also complicated in that no system of social science, like

no human system, is perfect or complete. The long revolution has only

just begun in social science research. The work of British mass communication scholars is a part of this long revolustion, a part 222 which is worthy of consideration, acceptance and integration into

many an individual and collective research tradition. 223

Footnotes

"^Raymond Williams, "Culture is Ordinary," in Conviction, N. MacKenzie (ed.) (London: Faben, 1956).

2idem., Culture and Society (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), p. 313.

James Halloran, The Effects of Mass Communication (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1964). Zj. Denis McQuail, Communication (London: Longmans, 1975), p.l.

^Richard Hoggart, On Culture and Communication (New York: Oxford University Press, 197 1).

^David Chaney, The Process of. Mass Communication (London: Macmillan, 1972).

^Williams, "Communications as Cultural Science," Journal of Communication, Summer 1974, pp. 11-25.

^Halloran, Roger Brown and David Chaney, Television and Delinquency (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1970).

^McQuail.

lOnoggart.

11 Chaney. u

•^McQuail.

13Will iam Stephenson, The Play Theory of Mass Communication (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967).

Xi*Will iams, 'Literature and Sociology,” New Left Review, No. 67, 1971, pp. 3-18.

^’’Halloran and Halloran, Brown and Chaney.

16Hoggart.

^Anthony Barrett, "Raymond Williams and Marxism,” New Left Review, No. 99, pp. 47-64. 18 Chaney. 19 Williams, "Literature and Sociology." BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, Mark. "Child Audiences for Television in Great Britain." Journalism Quarterly, 1956, p. 35.

"The Effects of the Mass Media," Popular Culture and Personal Responsibility. London: National Union of Teachers, I960.

______. "The Social Effects of Television," Progress. 1961. p. 163. „

______. The Teenage Consumer. London: London Press Exchange, 1959.

______. "Who Watches the Commercials?" Financial Times, Sept. 6, 1961.

Adler, Mark. Lectures in Market Research. London: Crosby Lockwood,

1965. ______. Modern Market Research. London: Crosby Lockwood, 1956.

Advertising Research Foundation. Recommended Standards for Radio and Television Program Audience Size Measurements. New York: A.R.F., 1954.

Altick, R. The English Common Reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957.

Arnold, Matthew, Culture and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Associated Prediffusion. The Londoner— A Study in Personality and Media— Explanatory Manual. London: Associated Prediffusion, 1962.

Bakewell, Joan and Nicholas Garnham. The New Priesthood: British Television Today. London: Allen Lane, 1970.

Barnett, Anthony. "Raymond Williams and Marxism: a Rejoinder to Terry Eagleton," New Left Review, No. 99, 1976, pp. 47-64.

Bartlett, F.C. Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932.

224 225

Belson, Williams A. The British Press. London: London Press Exchange, 1959.

______. "Communication and Persuasion through Broadcasting," Business Review, 1961, p. 1.

______. "The Effects of Television on Cinema Going," Audio- Review, 1958, p. 131.

______. "The Effects of Television on the Interests and Initiative of Adult Viewrs," British Journal of Psychology, 1959, p. 145.

______. "The Effects.of Television on the Reading and the Buying of Newspapers and Magazines,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1961, p. 366.

______. "An Enquiry into the Comprehensibility of 'Topic for Tonight,"' unpublished.

______. "Group Testing in Market Research," Journal of Advertising Research, 1963, p. 39.

______. "The Ideas of the Television Public About Mental Illness," Mental Health, 1957, p. 95.

The Impact of Television. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1967.

______. "Learning and Attitude Changes Resulting from Viewing a Television Series 'Bon Voyage'," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1956, p. 31.

______. "Matching and Prediction on the Principle of Biological Classification," Applied Statistics, 1959, p. 65.

______. "Measuring the Effect of Television," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1958, p.11.

"New Developments in Audience Research Methods," American Journal of Sociology, 1958, p. 174.

______. "A Recent BBC Development in the Field of Audience Research," unpublished.

"A Reply to Parker's Note," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1963, I p7~ 321.

______. Research for Programme Planning in Television. London: Associated Television Services, 1958.

______. Respondent Memory as a Factor in Survey Research. unpublished, 1963. 226

. "Selective Perception in Viewing a Television Broadcast," Audio-Visual Communication Review, 1958, p. 23.

. Studies in Readership. London: Business Publications Limited, 1962.

. "A Technique for Studying the Effects of a Television Broadcast,” Applied Statistics, 1956, p. 195.

Television and the Family. London: B.B.C., 1959.

______. "Volunteer Bias in Test-Room Groups," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, p. 115.

______and C.R. Bell. A Bibliography of Papers Bearing on the Adequacy of Techniques Used in Survey Research. London: Market Research Society and the Oakwood Press, 1960.

Berelson, Bernard. Content Analysis in Communication Research. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952.

Berger, Peter and Thomas Luchmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1966.

Bethell, S.L. Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition. New York: Staples Press, 1948.

Blumler, Jay. G. "British Television— the outlines of a research strategy," British Journal of Sociology, 1964, p. 223.

______. "The Political Effects of Television," The Effects of Television. (ed.) James Halloran. London: Panther, 1970.

______. "Producers' Attitudes Towards Television Coverage of an Election Campaign: A Case Study," The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators, (ed.) Paul Halmos. The Sociological Review Monograph, No. 13. England: University of Keele, 1969.

______and Elihu Katz. (ed.) The Uses of Mass Communications. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1974.

______and Jack McLeod. "Communication and Voter Turnout in Britain," paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism, 1973.

______and Denis McQuail. "British Broadcasting— its purposes, structure and control," Gazette, 1965, p. 166.

______. Television in Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969. 227

Boston, Richard (ed-) The Press We Deserve. London: Rout lege and Kegan Paul, 1970.

Box, Kathleen and Louis Moss. The Cinema Audience. London: Wartime Social Survey for the Ministry of Information, 1943.

Bradbrook, M.C. Growth and Structure of Elizabethan Comedy. London: Chatto & Windus, 1955.

______. Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935.

Bramson, Leon. The Political Context of Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.

Briggs, Asa. The Birth of Broadcasting. Vol. 1 of The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961.

______. The Golden Age of Wireless. Vol. 2 of The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.

______. The War of Words. Vol. 3 of The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Mass Entertainment: the origins of a modern industry. Adelaide: University of Adelaide, 1960.

British Broadcasting Corporation Audience Research Department. Audience Research: Methods and Sources. London: BBC, 1965.

______. Britain in Decline: A Pre-Broadcast Study of the Public's Awareness and Evaluation of Changes in Britain. London: BBC, 1956.

______. British Braodcasting: A Bibliography. London: BBC, 1958.

. "Crime: A Report on Some Audience Research Enquiries Connected with the Television Series 'Crime'," unpublished.

"The Criminal's View of Crime and Punishment," unpublished, I960.

. "'The Death Penalty': The Effect of this Broadcast Upon Viewers’ Knowledge of and Attitude Towards Capital Punishment,” unpublished, 1962.

"Dick Barton and Juvenile Delinquency,’’ unpublished, 1950. 228 "An Enquiry into Some of the Effects of the Television Series 'Your Life in Their Hands'," unpublished, 1958.

. "Evolution: A Pre-Broadcast Study of the Knowledge and Attitudes of the Viewing Public," unpublished, 1958.

. Facts and Figures about Viewing and Listening. London: BBC,. 1961.

"Facts and Figures: The Comprehensibility of Two Programs in the 'Facts and Figures' Series," unpublished, 1955.

. "Facts and Figures: Knowledge of Words, Concepts and Events," unpublished, 1954.

. "The Hurt Mind," unpublished, 1957.

"Matters of Medicine: Studies of Reactions to, and the Effects of the Television Programme on Immunisation and Coronary Thrombosis," unpublished, I960.

"Mirrors— An Enquiry into the Interests, Listening and Viewing and Availability of the 5-20 year old Population of the United Kingdom," unpublished, 1954.

"Music: A Study of the Musical Tastes, Interests and Behavior of the Adult Population," unpublished, 1963.

. The People's Activities. London: BBC, 1965.

. "A Pre-Broadcast Study of the Opinions and Knowledge of the Target Audience for the Projected Television Series 'Race Relations in Africa'," unpublished, 1952.

The Public and the Programmes. London: BBC, 1959.

The Public and the Programmes 1958-61. London: BBC, 1961.

. "A Survey of Doctors' Attitudes Towards a Projected Medical Series on BBC-2," unpublished, 1964.

. "Talking of America," unpublished, 1952.

. "Television Enquiry: A Study of the Stucture of the TV Public and Their Viewing Facilities," unpublished, 1951.

. "Viewers, Viewing and Leisure," unpublished, 1955.

. "We, the British. Are We in Decline? An Enquiry into Some of the Effects of Television Broadcasts on 'Our Attitude to Work' and 'Our Moral Standard'," unp\iblished, 1956. 229

______. "What Viewers Like and Dislike about BBC and ITV," unpublished, 1961.

______and ITA Joint Committee. Children and Television Programmes. London: BBC, 1960.

The British Film Academy Journal.

The British Film Industry. London: PEP, 1952.

Browntree, Jean and Joseph Treneman. Broadcasting in Further Education. London: BBC, 1951.

Does It Make Sense Today? London:• BBC, 1950

Burns, Tom. "Commitment and Career in the BBC," Sociology of Mass Communications, (ed.) Denis J^cQuail. Harmondsworth: Penguin, "1972 .

"Public Service and Private World," The Sociology o£ Mass Media Coomunicators, (ed.) Paul Halmos, The Sociological Review Monograph, No. 13, England: University oE Keele, 1969.

Burt, Cyril. "BBC Further Education Experiment, Report on the Sixth Experimental Series 'Study of the Mind'," unpublished BBC Report, 1951.

. "The Psychology of Listeners,: BBC Quarterly, 1949, p. 7.

Cassier, Ernst. An Essay on Man. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944.

Central Office of Information. The British Press. London: COI, 1958.

Chaney, David. Process of Mass Communication. London: Macmillan, 1972 .

Cherry, Colin. On Human Communication. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1957.

Cohen, Stanley. Folk Devils and Moral Panics. London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1972"!

______and Jock Young (eds.). The Manufacture of News. London: Constable, 1973.

Contrast*T

Cox, Harvey and D. Morgan. City Politics and the Press. London: Cambridge Press, 1973. 230

Croll, Paul and Peter Golding- "The sociology of television," The Listener, 1972, p. 541.

Crozier, Mary. Broadcasting in Sound and Television. New York: Oxford University Press, 195S.

Cultural Studies.

Dalziel, M. Popular Fiction 100 Years Ago. London: Cohen and West, 1957.

DeFleur, Melvin and Sandra Ball-Rokeach. Theories oE Mass Communi­ cation 3rd. Ed. New York: David McKay Company, 1975.

Eagleton, Terry. "Criticism and Politics: the Work of Raymond Williams," New Left Review, No. 95, 1976, p. 3.

Eliot, T.S. Notes Towards the Definition of Culture. London: Faber, 1943.

Elliott, Philip. The Making of a Television Series. London: Constable, 1972.

. The Sociology of the Professions. London: Macmillan, 1972.

______. "Uses and Gratification! Research: A Critique and a Sociological Alternative,” The Uses of Mass Communications, (eds.) Jay Bluraler and Elihu Katz. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishing, 1974.

and David Chaney. "A Sociological Framework for the Study of Television Production," Sociological Review, 1969, p. 355.

______and Peter Golding. "Mass Communication and Social Change: The Imagery of Development and the Development of Imagery," Sociology and Development, (eds.) E. DeKadt and G. Williams. London: Tavistock, 1974.

Films and Filming.

Galtung, Johan and Mari Ruge. "The Structure of Foreign News, Media Sociology, (ed.) Jeremy Tunstall. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970.

Gasset, Ortega. The Pevolt of the Masses. London: Allen & Unwin, 1932.

Goldie, G. Wyndham. "The Sociology of Television," The Listener, 1972, p. 517.

"The Sociology of Television," The Listener, 1972, p. 605. 231

Gray, Barbara. "The Social Effects of the Film," Sociological Review, 1950, p. 12.

Green, Michael. "Raymond Williams and Cultural Studies," Cutlural Studies t . 19 74, p. 31.

Grossberg, L a w c.nee. "Cultural Interpretation and Mass Communication," Communication Research, 1977, p. 339.

A Guide To British Film Production. London: British Film Producers Association, 1962.

Gurevitch and Philip Elliott. "Communication technologies and the Future of the Broadcasting Professions," Communications Technology and Social Policy, (eds.) , Larry P. Gross and Williams H. Melody. New York: John Wiley, 1973.

Hall, Stuart and Paddy Whannel. The Popular Arts. New York: Random House, 1964.

Halloran, James. Attitude Formation and Change. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1970.

Control or Consent? New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963.

The Effects of Mass Communication. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1964.

(ed.) The Effects of Television. London: Panther, 1970.

. "Introduction: The Communicator in Mass Communication Research," The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators, (ed.) Paul Halmos, The Sociological Reveiw Monograph, No. 13, England: University of Keele, 1969.

. "Introduction: Studying the Effects of Television," The Effects of Television, (ed.) James Halloran. London: Panther, 1970.

. "Mass Communication in Society: The Need of Research, Educational Broadcastin Review, December 1970, p. 17.

. Mass Communication Research and Adult Education. Leicester: University of Leicester, Department of Adult Education, 1968.

"The Problems We Face," Journal of Communication, Winter 1975, p. 15. ""

. "Research in Forbidden Territory," Communications Technology and Social Policy, (eds.) George Gerbner, Larry P. Gross and William H. Melody. New York: John W/. ley. 1973. 232

______, Roger Brown and David Chaney. Television and Delinquency, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1970.

______and Paul Croll. "Television Programmes in Great Britain: Conten and Control," Television and Social Behavior, (ed.) George Comstock. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972, p. 415.

______and Philip Elliott. Television for Children and Young People. Geneva: European Union, 1970.

______, Philip Elliott and Graham Murdock. Demonstrations and Communication. Harmoridsworth: Penguin, 1970.

Halmos, Paul (ed.) The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators. The Sociological Review Monograph, No. 13. England: University of Keele, 1969.

Hartman, Paul and Charles Husband. Racism and the Mass Media. London: Davis-Poynter, 1974.

Himmelweit, Hilde. "Education and Broadcasting--A Perspective," Educational Broadcasting Review, Dec. 1971, o. 45.

______. ITEducationa 1 Television, the Educational System, and the Moral Sciences," The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators, (ed.) Paul Halmos, The Sociological Review Monograph, No. 13. England: University of Keele, 1969.

______. "Television Revisted," New Society, 1962, p. 15.

______. "A Theoretical Framework for the Consideration of the Effects of Television— A British Report," Journal of Social Issues, 1962, p. 16.

______, A.N. Oppenheim and P. Vince. Television and the Child: An Empirical Study of the Effect of Television on the Young. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Hoggart, Richard. "Contemporary Cultural Studies," Occasional Paper No. 6. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, 1969.

______. On Culture and Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.

______. "The Quality of Cultural Life in Mass Society," paper presented to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, Berlin, 1960.

______. "Speaking to Each Other," Conviction, (ed.) N. Mackenzie. London: Faber, 1956. ______. Speaking to Each Other. Vol. 1 and 2. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

The Uses of Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Home Office. Report of the Departmental Committee on Children and the Cinema. London: HMSO, 1950.

Houston, Penelope. Contemporary Cinema. London: Penguin, 1963.

Independent Television Authority. Parents, Children and Television. London: HMSO, 1958.

Jacob, Norman (ed.). Culture for the Millions. New York: Van Van Nostrand, 1961.

Jackson, Ian. The Provincial Press and the Communicty. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1971.

James, Louis. Fiction for the Working Man 1930-1850. London: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Katz, Elihu. "Mass Communication Research and the Study of Popular Culture," Studies in Public Communication, 1959, p. 3.

Keir, Gertrude. "Psychology and the Film," Penguin Film Review, 1949, p. 67.

Kinematograph Weekly.

Klapper, Joseph. The Effects of Mass Communication. New York: The Free Press, 1960.

Knights, L.C. Drama and Society in the Age of Jonson. London: Chatto & Windus, 1937.

Leavis, F.R. Education and the University. London: Chatto & Windus 1943.

______and Denys Thompson. Culture and Environment. London: Chatto & Windus, 1933.

Leavis, Q.D. Fiction and the Reading Public. London: Chatto & Windus, 1932.

Lee, Alan J. The Origins of the Popular Press In England 185 1914. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1976.

Lindgren, Ernest. The Art of the Film. London: Allen & Unwin, 1948 234

The Listener.

MacDonald, Dwight. Against the American Grain. New York: Gollancz, 1963.

McQuail, Denis. "The Audience for Television Plays,” Media Sociology, (ed.) Jeremy Tunstall. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970.

______. Communication. New York: Longmans, 1975.

(ed.). Sociology of Mass Communications. Harraondsworth: Penguin, 1972.

______. Towards a Sociology of Mass Communications. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1969.

______. 'TJncertainty About the Audience and the Organization of Mass Communications," The Sociology of Mass Media Communicators, (ed.) Paul Holmes, The Sociological Review Monograph, No. 13. England: University of Keele, 1969.

______, Jay Blumler and J.R. Brown. "The Television Audience: A Revised Perspective," Sociology of Mass Communications, (ed) Denis McQuail. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 19 72.

Manvel1, Roger. The Film and the Public. London: Pelican Books, 1955.

Market Research Society. Statistical Sources for Market Research. London: Oakwood Press, 1957.

Martin, Graham. "A Culture in Common," Universities and Left Review, 1959, p. 70.

Mayer, Jacob P. British Cinemas and their Audiences. London: Denis Dobson, Ltd., 1943.

Monthly Film Bulletin.

National Union of Teachers. Popular Culture and Personal Responsibility. London: N.U.T., 1960.

Noble,.Grant. Children in Front of the Small Screen. London: Constable, 1975.

Passeron, Jean-Claude. "Introduction to the French Edition of Uses of Literacy,” Cultural Studies No. 1.

Paulu, Burton. British Broadcasting. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. 235

British Braodcasting in Transition. London: Macmillan, T961.

Perrot, Roy. Discovering Newspapers. London: University of London Press, 1961.

Report of the Committee on Broadcasting (Pilkington Report). London: HMSO, 1962.

Report of the Departmental Committee on Children and the Cinema— 'Wheare Report ’. London: HMSO, 1950.

Research Services Ltd. What Children Watch. London: Granada TV, 1960.

Ricoeur, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1974.

______. Freud and. Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. New Haven: Yale Univeristy Press, 1970.

Screen Education Yearbook— 1963.

Seymour-Ure, Colin. The Political Impact of Mass Media. London: Constable, 1974.

The Press, Politics and the Public. London: Metheun, T968.

Sight and Sound.

Silvey, Robert. "Because it's Free," Contrast, 1963, p. 4.

"Giving the Public What It Wants,” Contemporary Review, T96l, p. 7.

______. "The Intelligibility of Broadcast Talks," Public Opinion "Quarterly, 1951, p. 299.

______. "Reflections on the Impact of Braodcasting," BBC Lunchtime Lectures, 1963.

______. "The Third Programme and its Market," BBC Quarterly, 1953, p. 164.

______. "Viewers, viewing and leisure," BBC Quarterly, 1952, p, 31.

. Who's Listening: The Story of BBC Audience Research. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1974.

and B.P. Emmett. "What Makes Television Viewers Choose?" New Society, 1963. 236

Smith, A.C.H., E. Imminzi and T. Blackwell. The Popular Press and Social Change, 1935-1965. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 1970.

Smith, Anthony. The Shadow in the Cave. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1973.

Smith, J.A. "Children and the Wireless," BBC Quarterly, 1947, p. 162.

Taylor, John. Anatomy of a Television Play. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962.

Television Audience Measurement, Ltd. The Comparisons of Audience Composition Techniques. London: T A M , 1961.

Television in Britain. London: PEP, 1958.

Television Mail.

Television Research Committee. Problems of Television Research. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1966.

______. Second Progress Report and Recommendations. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1969.

Thompson, Edward P. "The Long Revolution. Part I and II," New Left Review No. 9 and 10. p. 15 and p. 25.

Tomkins, J.M.S. The Popular Novel in England 1770-1800. London: Metheun, 1962.

Treneman, Joseph. "Books, radio and television," The Book World Today (ed.) John Hampden. London: Allen and Unwin, 1957.

Communication and Comprehension. London: Longmans Green, 1967.

Does it Make Sense Today? London: BBC, 1950.

"The Effects of Television," Twentieth Century, 1959, p. 332.

"Intelligibility of Educational Broadcasts," Nature, 1950, p. 814.

"The Length of a Talk," unpublished, 1951.

"Proceedings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science," 1950.

,fUnderstanding Radio Talks,” Adult Education, 1950, p. 176. 237

______and Denis McQuail. Television and the Political Image. London: Metheun, 1961.

Tunstall, Jeremy. Journalists at Work. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1971.

______(ed.). Media Sociology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1970.

______. The Westminister Lobby Correspondents. London: Routhledge and Kegan Paul, 1970.

UNESCO. The Influence of the Cinema on Children and Adolescents. Paris: UNESCO, 1961.

Vernon, M.D. "The Instruction of Children by Pictorial Illustration," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1954, p. 171.

______. "Perception and Understanding of Instructional Television Programmes," British Journal of Psychology, 1953, p. 116.

Vernon, P.E. "The Estimation of Difficulty of Vocabulary," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1950, p. 77.

______. "An Experiment on the Value of the Film and the Film Strip in the Instruction of Adults," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1946, p. 149.

"Intelligibility of Broadcast Talks," BBC Quarterly, 1952, p. 206.

"An Investigation into the Intelligibility of Educational ~ Broadcasts," unpublished, 1950.

______. "Occupational Norms for the 20 Minute Matrix Test," Occupational Psychology, 1949, p. 58.

Wall, Williams D. and E.M. Smith. "The Film Choices of Adolescents," British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1949, p. 121.

Ward, J.C. Children and the Cinema. London: Central Office of Information, 1949.

Webb, R.K. The British Working Class Pleader 1790-1848. London: Allen and Unwin, 1955.

Williams, Francis. Dangerous Estate. London: Longmans Green, 1957.

Williams, Raymond. "Base and Suprastructure in Marxist Cultural Theory,” New Left Review No. 82, 1973, p. 3.

Border Country. London: Chatto & Windus, 1960. 238

Communications. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966.

. Communications, 3rd Ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976.

. "Communications as Cultural Science," Journal of Communication, Summer 1974, p. 11.

. The Country and the City. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.

. "Culture and Revolution: A Comment," From Culture and Revolution (eds.) Terry Eagleton and Brian Wicker. London: Sheed and Ward, 1968.

Culture and Society: 1780-1950. New York: Harper & Row, T967.

. "Culture is Ordinary," Conviction (ed.) N. Mackenzie. London: Faber, 1956.

. "David Hume: Reasoning and Experience," The English Mind, (eds.) H.S. Davies and G. Watson. London: Penguin, 1964.

. "Developments in the Sociology of Culture," Sociologica1 Review, 1975, p. 497.

Drama in Performance. London: Penguin Books, 1954.

. Drama from Ibsen to Brecht. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968.

Drama from Ibsen to Eliot. London: Chatto & Windus, 1952.

. "Dylan Thomas' Play for Voices," Crit5,cal Quarterly, 1959, p. 18.

. The English Novel: From Dickens to Lawrence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

. The Existing Alternatives in Communication. London: The Fabian Society, 1962.

. George Orwell. New York: The Viking Press, 1971.

Keywords. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.

. "Literature and Sociology: In Memory of Lucien Goldmann," New Left Review No. 67, 1971, p. 3.

* The Long Revolution. London: Chatto & Windus, 1961. 239

. Marxism and Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.

(ed.) May-Pay Manifesto. Karmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1963.

. Modern Tragedy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966.

. "On Solzhenitsyn,” Literature and Revolution, (eds.) G.A. White and C. Newman. New York: Random House, 1972.

"Radical and/or Respectable," The Press We Deserve, (ed.) Richard Boston. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970.

Reading and Criticism. London: Chatto fa Windus, 1950.

. Second Generation. London: Penguin, 1964.

______. "Some Versions of Shakespeare on the Screen," TV as Art, (ed.) Paul Hazard. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of English Teachers, 195S.

______. "Television in Britain,” Journal of Social Issues, 1960, p. 6.

______. Television: Technology and Cultural Form. New York: Shocken Books, 1975.

"Working Class Culture," Universities and Left Review, 1957, p7"29.

______and Michael Orrom. Preface to Film. London: Penguin, 1954.

Wilson, H.H. Pressure Group: The Campaign for Commercial Television. London: Seeker and Warburg, 1961.

Wollen, Peter (ed.) Working Papers on the Cinema: Sociology and Semiology. London: The British Film Institute, 1969.

Young, Jock. "The Amplification of Drug Use," The Manufacture of News, (eds.) Stanley Cohen and Jock Young. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1973.

"Mass Media, Drugs and Deviance," Deviance and Social Control, (eds.) P. Rock and M. McIntosh. London: Tavistock, 1974.

______. "The Myth of the Drug Taker in the Mass Media Audience," The Manufacture of News, (eds.) Stanley Cohen and Jock Young. Beverly llilIs : Sage Publications, 1973.