The Individual and the Media - A Comparison of the Liberal Democratic and Althusserian Approaches

Justin Ooi Monash University

Name: Justin Ooi (26260611) Monash University

Subject: Contemporary Media Theory (AMU2450)

Essay title: Major Essay

Due Date: 9/10/15

Word Count: 2093

1

The liberal-democratic approach and the Althusserian approach both conceptualize the

notion of the individual and its relationship to the media in contrasting ways. This paper will

analyse the fundamental outlooks of both these approaches and how they differ in their

theorization of the notion of the individual and its relationship with the media. It will start by

exploring this notion through the liberal-democratic approach, and will proceed to Althusserian

approach respectively.

Firstly, before discussing the liberal-democratic theorization of the individual and the

media, this paper will look at the origins of the liberal-democratic concept of the individual.

The individual, according to this approach, is seen as an autonomous and rational being. In the

western-society context, the origins of this notion stems from within the Greco-Christian

doctrine in which the individual, or in this case the Christian believer, is an ‘independent moral

entity’ who is ‘self-governed’. Moreover, the Reformation, which resulted in Christian

sectarian movements, supplemented the notion of the individual by linking its identity with

‘self-consciousness’, which established the concept of ‘unmediated relation between person

and God’. In having such attributes, the individual is, thus, responsible only for his or her own

actions and is not subjected to anyone except God. Hence, the liberal-democratic approach

extends this assumption of the individual as autonomous and rational to the modern-day

concept of person (Hirst & Woolley, 1982, p. 119).

However, despite the notion of ‘individual autonomy’, the liberal-democratic approach

theorize that the individual is not an ‘isolated personality but is also a member of various

groups’ to which he or she is part of (Bennett, 1982, p. 35). It sees mass society as

‘heterogeneous’, made up of groups comprising of individuals who are of different

backgrounds, traits, and world-views. This is construed as a positive thing as liberal-democratic

theorist Edward Shils argues that this ‘hotch-potch of differing regional, ethnic, religious and

economic primary groupings’ allowed the ‘dissolution of non-rational forms of social

attachment, the weakening of traditional ties and obligations, and the attenuation of the power

of established hierarchies’ (cited in Bennett, 1982, pp. 35-36).

This notion of individuals in groups that make up mass society along with its

relationship with mass media, is construed as a good thing by the liberal-democratic approach

in that mass media assists individuals to become active participants in the exercising of their

autonomy and rationale whether in choosing elites for government or in choosing media

content for information and/or personal entertainment. This argument is in direct contrast to





Due Date: 9/10/15

Word Count: 2093

2

materialist schools of thought who critique mass media for its all-powerful nature over mass

society who, according to the ‘transmission model’, also known as the hypodermic needle

theory of mass communication, are passive and vulnerable recipients of its messages, rather

than autonomous, rational, and ‘not subjected to subversion by a few powerful or wealthy

manipulators’ as contended by the liberal-democratic approach (McQuail, 1994, pp. 44-45).

The liberal-democratic approach does not deny the existence of elitist rule in society as

its critics have contended. However, it posits that, individuals in mass society are vested with

the rights to determine who is to govern them through the use of their votes. In other words,

the liberal-democratic approach contends that it is not the elitists who have the power over the

individuals in society, but vice-versa. Moreover, democracy in motion within a heterogeneous

mass society works because the wide range of ‘competing groups’ in society enables a checks

and balances system which limits the ‘position of preponderance’ of one group over the others

(Bennett, 1982, pp. 35-36).

In democratic systems, the mass media’s role in society, according to the liberal-

democratic approach, is seen as a tool that works at the service of mass society. This is in

contrast to the Frankfurt school’s view of media as an ‘all-powerful’ and ‘omnipotent’ agent

of control on mass society of which governments use to dictate the masses. Through the works

of empirical research by social scientist such as Joseph Klapper (1968) and Paul Lazarsfeld

(cited in Klapper, 1968), liberal-democratic theorists argue that the media does not only play a

crucial role in ‘shaping the opinions, attitudes, and behaviour’, but also enables ‘media choice’

of the individual in mass society (McQuail, 1994, p. 329). In addition, the media is seen to

serve mass society in that it interacts with it, for example, with significant social movements

such as environmental preservation, minority rights, and peace protests among other things

(McQuail, 1994, p. 332).

This argument of ‘media choice’ of the audience by the empirical research tradition is

supported by the tradition’s research methods which gather data of audiences’ viewership of

media. In a classic study by Lazarsfeld and his fellow researches in the mid-nineteenth century,

it was discovered that audiences undergo certain selective processes in their viewing and

consumption of media. These selective processes of the audience suggest that viewers choose

what they want to watch; have tendencies to uphold certain attitudes against media content

through his or her ‘predisposition’; and are prone to subscribe to the influence of ‘opinion

leaders’ in a ‘phenomenon’ known as the ‘two step flow of communication’ (Klapper, 1968,





Due Date: 9/10/15

Word Count: 2093

3

pp. 82-85). Thus, despite the liberal-democratic view of media as a powerful entity and ‘agents

of reinforcement’, they take on the idea that the individual has the autonomy to select, oppose,

and consume freely the information from the media and, therefore, is not subjected to control

of the media as contented by the Frankfurt school and other materialism theorists.

The use of media by the individual is also explored by the liberal-democratic approach

through the ‘uses and gratifications approach’ which contend that individuals use media not

only to consume information, but to satisfy needs such as ‘personal guidance, relaxation,

security, shared topics of conversation, and a structure to the daily routine’ (McQuail, 1997, p.

70). Thus, this ‘autonomy’ of individuals in society affects how the media ‘shape content

before delivering it to the audience’ which suggests that the media does not simply disseminate

information, but tailors it according to the interests of the people and their ‘social reality’

(McQuail, 1994, p. 331; McQuail, 1997, p. 71). Hence, this positions the individual in his or

her relationship with the media as ‘consumers’ (1994, p. 257), accentuating the notion of the

individual in the liberal-democratic approach as autonomous and rational.

The Althusserian approaches’ theorization of the individual, on the other hand, differs

significantly compared to the liberal-democratic tradition. The approach, which is based on the

writings of French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, argues primarily that the individual is

a subject that is hailed and interpellated into being through the work of ideology (Barker, 2012,

p. 64).

Ideology, as Althusser (1999) argues, comes in two forms. The first form ‘represents

the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence’ (p. 317). Put

simply, this form of ideology constitutes the world views and perceptions of people groups

which reflects the ‘reality’ that is in existence. However, he argues these ‘realities’ are

‘imaginary representations’ of ideologies that men use to make sense of their existence and

their world such as religious, political, and ethical ideology (pp. 317-318). The second form of

ideology has a material existence, which Althusser argues, comes in the form of ‘Ideological

State Apparatuses’ (ISAs) that transmit ideologies to individuals. By ISAs, he means to

describe the institutions, such as the nuclear family, education systems, law institutions, and

mass media that are in place in society to interpellate individuals through ideological

transmission and makes him or her into what he constitutes as a ‘subject’ (Barker, 2012, pp.

64-65).





Due Date: 9/10/15

Word Count: 2093

4

Althusser (1999) contends that the individual becomes a ‘subject’ even before birth. At

this point of the individual’s life, he or she is interpellated into being through ‘familial

ideological configuration’ of which he or she is identified as either boy or girl, thus, pre-

appointing the role of the newly-born individual. Consequently, Althusser argues, the

individual then learns how to ‘find’ his or her ‘place’ from within the family. As the individual

progresses in age, he or she is then socialized into society through educational systems and law

institutions that teach him or her how to function in a way that is regarded as ‘normal’ in society

(p. 321). Simply put, the ISAs that are in place in society hail or interpellate the individual into

roles that is predestined for him or her. However, if for some reason, should the individual fail

to internalize the ideologies imparted by the ISAs, will the ‘repressive state apparatuses’

(RSAs) be called to take action. RSAs are coercive institutions such as the army, prison

systems, and the police that are in place in society to be deployed whenever there is a need to

punish non-conforming individuals. Thus, the ISAs and the RSAs, regardless of the

individual’s receptiveness to the ‘dominant ideology’, are in place to ensure that there is

conformity (O'Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2002, p. 113).

The term ‘dominant ideology’ or ‘ruling ideology, as Althusser puts it, refers to the

kind that is deployed by the ruling class. He contends, that in capitalistic societies, these

ideologies are ‘myths’ created by the ‘bourgeoisie’ in favour of their capitalistic rule (cited in

O'Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2002, p. 214). Thus, through the state apparatuses, the ruling class

convinces the rest of society to obtain these ideologies to the extent that it becomes a normality

to them, living these ideologies ‘not as a form of consciousness…, but as… their [the

individual’s] ‘world’ itself’ (p. 214), and as a result, strengthening ‘hegemonic’ rule in society

(Thwaites, Davis, & Mules, 2002, p. 169). In other words, individuals are interpellated through

ideologies that offer ‘roles’ that position them to accept these ideologies as their reality. So

much so, individuals who are imbued with these ‘hegemonic’ ideologies, come to a point of

desiring none other than these ‘realities’ offered in ‘hegemonic’ systems (p. 169). Hence, the

individual in this view is not seen as primarily ‘autonomous’ but as ‘subjects’ to bigger

‘subjects’ - the members of the ruling class in society.

In the Althusserian approach, the media is seen as an ISA that is a powerful ‘hailing

system’ that works to augment this hegemony in society and the ‘dominant ideology’

(O'Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2002, pp. 204,216). O’Shaughnessy and Stadler (2002) contend

that the media does this by producing programs or broadcasts that uphold the ideological values

of the ruling classes by hailing social groups under a ‘unifying label’. Although most of these





Due Date: 9/10/15

Word Count: 2093

5

labels such as ‘family members’, ‘Australians’ / ‘Malaysians’, and ‘members of public’ are not

wrong, the media suggest that these interpellated groups share similarities in goals, needs,

wants, and desires (p. 217). In the bigger picture, the media works in a way that gives

individuals a sense of ‘identity’ and ‘subjectivity’ through being hailed and interpellated. In

this sense, the individuals’ ‘identities’ are predetermined and their ‘subjectivity’ is of ‘someone

to something’, or to someone else (p. 208).

Furthermore, the media as ISAs, transmit ideology through its portrayal of certain

groups as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in their programs. For example, in police dramas, criminal characters

are often portrayed as deviant individuals who succumb to criminal activities as a result of his

or her ‘disorders’ or ‘psychological problems’. Such representations tend to portray this

‘criminal as typical of a certain group’. Similarly, the tendency is also in place to portray the

hero as typical of another group (p. 218). Thus, this ideological representation which typifies

certain groups serves as a way of reminding the population what is considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’

behaviour in society.

The theorizations of the notion of the individual and its relationship to the media of

both the liberal-democratic approach and the Althusserian approach are complex and differs

significantly. On one hand, the liberal-democratic approach, sees the individual as ‘rational’

and ‘autonomous’, having almost an equal balance of power in relation to the media in the way

that he or she selects information and content. On the other hand, the Althusserian approach

argues that the individual is, on the contrary, a subject that has been imparted with a ‘dominant

ideology’ that has become his or her ‘reality’ through the hailing and interpellating activities

of ISAs of which the media is part of. The Althusserian approach, thus, sees media together

with other ISAs as placing the individual in a position of subjectivity to other bigger subjects

such as members of the ruling class – the elites. Thus, the liberal-democratic and the

Althusserian approaches present to us meaningful insights of the individual and its relationship

with the media, enabling us to further understand the powers at play within society.


Bibliography Althusser, L. (1999). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. In J. Evans, & S. Hall (Eds.), Visual

Culture: The Reader (pp. 317-323). London: Sage.

Barker, C. (2012). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice (4th ed.). London: Sage.

Bennett, T. (1982). Theories of the Media and Society. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J.

Woollaccot (Eds.), Culture, Society and the Media. Methuen.

Hirst, P. Q., & Woolley, P. (1982). Concepts of Person and Repertoires of Conduct. In Social Relations

and Human Attributes (pp. 118-121). London: Tavistock Publications.

Klapper, J. (1968). Communication, Mass: Effects. In D. E. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the

social sciences (pp. 81-89). New York: Macmillian and Free Press.

McQuail, D. (1994). Mass Communication Theory: An Introduction. London: Sage.

McQuail, D. (1997). A Functionalist Model: The Uses and Gratifications Approach. In Audience

Analysis (pp. 69-75). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

O'Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J. (2002). Where is Ideology Found? In Media and Society: An

Introduction (2nd ed., pp. 196-221). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Thwaites, T., Davis, L., & Mules, W. (2002). Ideology. In Introducing Cultural and Media Studies: A

Semiotic Approach (pp. 158-170). Hampshire: Palgrave.


Documents

The Individual and the Media - A Comparison of the Liberal Democratic and Althusserian Approaches