Nusrat Azeema

Assignment

At

AIOU

Q: 1 what are the characteristics of mass society? How did the concept of mass society emerge? Explain how the theory of mass society influenced mass communication theory and research?

Mass Society:Mass society is any society of the modern era that possesses a mass culture and large-scale, impersonal, social institutions. A mass society is a society in which prosperity and bureaucracy have weakened traditional social ties." Basically it is the type of society we have in western countries. Large scale official Institutions have (to a great extend) replaced traditional systems - like a village Committee or clan structures with the clan leader having all the power). You have mass culture - and mass media (basically everyone everywhere sees the same in TV and listens to the same music).

A society whose members are characterized by having segmentalized,impersonal relations, a high degree of physical and social mobility, aspectator relation to events, and a pronounced tendency to conform toexternal popular norms. As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time studying the history and cultural evolution of the United States, I'm constantly in awe of the speed with which digital technology has changed American lives. The internet, for example, has opened new channels for expression and communication that, only a short time ago would have been considered science fiction by most people.

Mass society is a description associated with society in the modern, industrial era. Mass society first came about in the late 19th century during and after the Second Industrial Revolution. Mass society as an ideology can be accounted for by attending to the term most often used as the polar opposite of mass, namely elite. A form of society theoretically identified as dominated by a small number of interconnected elites who control the conditions of life of the many, often by means of persuasion and manipulation. This indicates the politics of mass society theorists; they are advocates of various kinds of cultural elite who should be privileged and promoted over the masses, claiming for themselves both exemption from and leadership of the misguided masses.

There are those, however, who feel as though such technological and cultural advances have led Western societies towards greater disconnection and dysfunction. Regardless of how you feel about technology, the fear that such rapid social change could weaken society is, at least in some part due to the fact that it's happened before!

In a cultural or social context, a society that consists largely of disconnected groups and is controlled by large impersonal institutions is known as a mass society. Although the term is broad and without a clear and comprehensive definition, mass societies tend to be characterized by a lack of cultural diversity, a strong commitment to capitalism or industry, and fragile or non-existent social ties between groups.

The concept of the mass society emerged from the considerable social and cultural upheaval brought on by the Industrial Revolution, which was occurring throughout the 19th century in the United States and Europe. From the perspective of cultural critics, the Industrial Revolution encouraged an unhealthy emphasis on capitalism and wealth, which tended to result in exploitation of laborers.

Mass Society Theory’s Main Characteristics:The main characteristics of the mass society in Europe at this time can be associated with the Second Industrial Revolution, but other important features included a vastly improved urban environment, new patterns of social structure, gender issues, and mass leisure. The Second Industrial Revolution gave rise to new patterns of industrial production, mass consumption, and working-class organization. New patters of industrial production were seen in the many new materials and markets that were created by the Second Industrial Revolution. Such materials were steel instead of iron and better chemicals were being used. Electricity was also rediscovered, making for many improvements in other areas. Mass consumption obviously went along with this, because as new products came out, it was natural that the general public would want and need them. Working-class organization came out in the form of trade unions. Most trade unions were unsuccessful because they were decentralized, but those in England and Germany were exemplars of how unions should work.

A vastly improved urban environment was due to the need for more sanitary living conditions in cities because the population had grown so much. One of the ways living conditions were improved was the Public Health Act of 1875, which overall set regulations on housing to make it more sanitary. Cities were also redesigned. One of the best examples of this was Paris under the rule of Napoleon III.

Paris used to have a confusing layout and narrow streets, but Napoleon III made it much more geometrical. He widened the streets for military reasons, but also added parks, town halls, gardens, and fountains, making the city cleaner and more likeable.New patterns of social structure also came about because of the rise in population. The classes below the elite were seen to be intruding on the elite by those in the upper classes. The masses, or lower classes, were doing and wearing things that used to be only for the elite, but now anyone could do what the elite could do, because of revolutions in transportation and an economic boost. This was seen in the leisure of the masses.

Gender issues came about over the role of women. It was much debated in this time period whether women should continue their traditional role of staying at home with the children, or joining the workforce. May women chose to join the workforce. This proved to be a good idea for some, because there were many jobs to fill because of the Second Industrial Revolution.

1- Homogeneous in nature: The basic components of mass society are homogeneous. This doesn’t mean that internal conflict or opposition is absent but all units are concerned largely reveal the same characteristics and social structure.

2- Extended in scale: The mass society is marked by scale extension. Corporations, governments and other organizations grow larger and larger and they become bureaucracies.

3- Collectivities: The basic components of mass society are large household and extended families.

4- Local community space: The scope of mass society became local the organization of its basic components is tied to particular places and communications is still overwhelmingly local. The mass society is an assembly and connection of relatively homogenous separate local places.

5- Face to Face communication: In general speaking face to face communication is much more important than mediated communication in mass society.

6- Broadcast mass media: In every unit of community has access to only one or perhaps a few of each type of mass media such as local newspaper or few radio and television channels. So the numbers of channels are relatively low then current standards.

Mass Society Emergence:Mass Society → Emerged with (Industrial capitalization and Labor)

(Education and Leisure)

(Women’s right)

(Social Structure)

Mass Society Emergence in Labor and Industry While the Industrial Revolution did produce considerable wealth for a small number of people, critics were not entirely wrong in their claims of exploitation. For example, in the United States, the mechanization of labor throughout the 19th century meant that in the nation's two biggest industries (manufacturing and agriculture), jobs no longer required the technical skills and physical strength that they had in the past. This opened up job opportunities for many Americans, but it also created considerable competition for employment, in which employers would often exploit women and minorities who would work for lower wages.

These circumstances put Americans in direct competition with one another, which weakened the bond between neighbors and co-workers, who were living under the constant threat of unemployment. Because of these technological advances and rising demand for goods, the American economic system developed into laissez-faire capitalism, which is a business model that has few restrictions and is allowed to develop without interference from the government. In this system, laborers tended to work long hours in dangerous environments, often for low wages. The American industrial era is a good example of how a mass society develops because, before it was reeled in by government regulations, it awarded a considerable amount of power to a small number of business owners, who often oppressed and exploited laborers.

Mass Society Emergence in Education and Leisure  

Universal education was the result of the mass societies of the late 19th and early 20th century. New types of jobs required higher levels of education the ability to work in white-collar jobs forced people to improve themselves universal education created a large demand for teachers who were mostly women and paid less than men. Once the literacy expanded, a mass media developed newspapers sprang up to appeal to this new reading

public new forms of leisure included amusement parks, dance halls, and organized sports teams

Mass Society Emergence in Women's Rights

Modern feminism had its beginning during the Enlightenment, when some women advocated for equal rights based on the doctorate of natural rights. During this time, women began arguing for equal rights against their husbands, to divorce and own their own property. Some upper and upper-middle class women fought for and gained access to universities, while others fought to enter professions and occupations dominated by men. Florence Nightingale was the most famous British nurse and transformed nursing into a profession of trained, middle-class "women in white". Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women's Society and Political Union in 1903 that called to women's demands by publicity stunts.

Mass Society Emergence in Social   Structure By the late 1800's, the standard of living had improved for many people. There are the three classes in this society; The New Elite, The Middle Class and The Working Class.

The New Elite: The elite did better than other classes and made up 5% of the population, but controlled 30-40% of the wealth. The most successful industrialists, bankers, and merchants joined an aristocracy to from the new elite. They began to replace people and became leaders in the government and military. Members of the aristocracy began to marry the new capitalists

The Middle Class: The upper middle class included lawyers, doctors and engineers. The lower middle class primarily consisted of small shopkeepers, traders and farmers. The white-collar workers included salespeople, bookkeepers, and secretaries. All the middle classes shared a certain lifestyle with values that dominated 19th century society. The middle-class believed in hard work, going to church, and proper behavior

The Working Class: Below the middle class were the working classes, which was 80% of Europe's population. These people consisted of peasants and unskilled workers. After 1870, urban workers began to live more comfortably. Reformers had created better housing and cleaner streets. Because workers went on strikes, they won a 10-hour workday, with a Saturday off

Mass society Theory:The major contributors to mass society theory, including Alexis de Tocqueville, Emile Durkheim, Emil Lederer, José Ortega y Gasset, Robert Nisbet, Hannah Arendt, Herbert Blumer, William Kornhauser, Ferdinand Tonnies, and Karl Mannheim, will be described. The main criticisms of mass society theory, namely the limited effects model, will be discussed.

Mass society theory is an interdisciplinary critique of the collective identity that results from the mass commodification of culture and the mass media's manipulation of society. Mass society theory invokes a vision of society characterized by alienation, absence of individuality, amorality, lack of religion, weak relationships, and political apathy. Mass society theory

developed at the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century in response to the rise of the media industry and the socio-political changes created by industrialization, urbanization, and the fall of established political regimes. Major contributors to mass society theory include Alexis de Tocqueville, Emile Durkheim, Emil Lederer, José Ortega y Gasset, Robert Nisbet, Hannah Arendt, Herbert Blumer, William Kornhauser, Ferdinand Tönnies, and Karl Mannheim.

Early mass society theory asserted that the new urban masses, comprising uprooted and isolated individuals, were vulnerable to new forms of demagoguery and manipulation by the media (Hamilton, 2001). While popular media existed in the nineteenth century, mass media, as a discrete concept, did not develop until the early twentieth century with the advent of national circulation newspapers and national media networks like nationwide radio. To mass society theorists, the media represents and promotes the worst problems of modernity. Early proponents of the theory believed that mass society is characterized by a collective identity and low-brow cultural interests. Because of these characteristics, they believed that dictatorships and bureaucracies can easily and quickly manipulate mass societies, making them vulnerable to extremist politics and the rise of disenfranchised .

Mass society theory belongs to the larger body of interdisciplinary work called social movement theory. Social movement theory refers to the study of social mobilization, including its social, cultural, and political manifestations and consequences. Social movement scholarship is often motivated by a desire for social change and, consequently, integrates scholarship and activism. The field took shape during the late nineteenth century and has since come to comprise six main areas of study: mass society theory, relative deprivation theory, resource mobilization theory, structural-strain theory, value-added theory, and new social movement theory. At its score, social movement theory holds that social movements are, in many instances, created through the use and manipulation of frames, or cognitive structures which guide an individual's or group's perception of reality. Social movements influence and control their members through tactics such as mobilizing fear, engaging in frame appropriation, social constructionism, and counterframing. Sociologists analyze social movements in two distinct ways: social constructionist perspective and frame analysis (Benford & Snow 2000).

Mass society theory emerged as a discrete field of interest at the turn of the century, in part as a result of the changes that scholars saw occurring in society as effects of industrialization, urbanization, and political change (Mackie, 1978). During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the rise of industrialization and urbanization changed society. The industrial era in Europe and America, which approximately spanned from 1750 to 1900, was a time characterized by the replacement of manual labor with industrialized and mechanized labor, as well as by the adoption of the factory system of production. The industrial era included the period of the industrial revolution and the resulting rise of capitalism. The industrial revolution refers to the technical, cultural, and social changes that occurred in the Western world during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The period saw a major increase in the mechanization of agriculture,

manufacturing, and transportation (Ahmad, 1997). The industrial revolution—which brought with it new types and conceptions of employment, time, scale, landscape, property, and social relationships—caused great social change. The nineteenth century saw major transformations in gender and class hierarchies, family units, gender relations, immigrants' roles in society, and childhood. The industrial revolution, with its increased need for workers, created a new working, middle, and consumer classes. The family unit and gender roles changed, too, during the period, largely as because of the factory system which employed both men and women and removed the workplace from the home (Abelson, 1995). Mass society theory suggests that all these social changes created politically and psychologically unmoored masses. According to the theory, demagogues, or political leaders who achieve power by preying on people's emotions or prejudices, could easily manipulate these emerging mass.

The rise of the media industry in the twentieth century provided a formal means of communication that was accessible to almost everyone in a society. Early theorists and the ruling classes quickly came to see it as being largely responsible for publicizing and disseminating the changes, unrest, and discontent which typified the period. They blamed the mass media (like the penny press newspapers that were popular during the 1830s) for giving credence to and perpetuating the industrial era's discontent, alienation, and decline in community (Hamilton, 2001). As a result, it came to be seen as a symbol of all that was wrong with society. Mass society theory grew out of these concerns. It holds that the mass media has the power to change cultural norms and power relations, and can thus contribute to and change the social order. As such, it can work to shape people's perceptions of the world.

Mass society theory tends to emphasize the breakdown of the primary groups in society such as the family and neighborhood. The theory does not apply to all modern societies, but rather to the most fragmented and decentralized political economies. These societies are most vulnerable to becoming mass societies because they contain vacuums created by declining participation in religious organizations, unions, political parties, and voluntary associations. In the absence of such communal associations, the mass media, which provides both communication and entertainment, steps in to fill the void (Kreisler, 2002). Mass society theory is less prevalent today than it was during the early to mid twentieth century. That said, mass society theorists continue to critique the relationship between society and the mass media, and have renewed their efforts by incorporating new media such as the Internet.

The structure of mass societyLarge populations do not by themselves produce mass relations, although mass relations are less likely among small populations. In the past, large societies were divided into many segments with relatively clear boundaries separating each segment from the other. Even though a society contained thousands of villages, all of them much alike, it was not a mass society because human relations centered on the village and supported the integrity of the village as a social unit.

Unlike the village-based society, the mass society does not help to sustain spontaneously evolving and durable social units. “Mass” in its simplest sense means an aggregate of people without distinction of groups or individuals. In mass production, for example, workers are organized according to the logic of specialization and control rather than as members of social groups or as distinct persons, and production is geared to a market of similarly undifferentiated people. Mass production, of course, involves a highly structured mass, by virtue of the division of labor and administrative organization, and it is therefore to be distinguished from the unstructured mass represented, for example, by the aggregate of unemployed workers. Moreover, some industries have more of a mass character than others: the assembly-line system of automo-bile factories is much more conducive to the emergence of the mass than is the craft-based system of printing (Blauner 1964). Nevertheless, the mass character of the market is a decisive factor in the organization of most manufacturing industries.

It is not so much the large size of the population as it is the large scale of activities that favors mass relations. Where the scale of activity is very great, it is more likely that the social relations which individuals bring with them or develop will be easily ignored or transformed by the dictates of technical efficiency or effective control. Thus, mass relations are likely to emerge where large-scale activities predominate, as in nationwide organizations, markets, audiences, and electorates.

The decline of community. Large-scale activities favor the emergence of the mass because they tend to develop at the expense of communal relations. The local community comes to provide for fewer of its members’ needs and therefore cannot maintain their allegiance. The rural community no longer is isolated and self-sufficient. As it becomes dependent on the city, and particularly on national markets and organizations, the rural community loses its significance and cohesion. The city does not develop the communal life that was formerly provided by the rural community. The individual who migrates to the city does not enter the community as a whole, nor is he likely to enter a sub-community of the city. The urban subcommunity loses its coherence as a result of the increasing scale and specialization of common activities. Instead of affiliation with a community, the urban resident frequently experiences considerable social isolation and personal anonymity.

Ethnic and religious groups also tend to lose their coherence as their members are drawn into large-scale organizations and arenas. Individuals derive less of their social identity, style of life, and social values from their ethnic and religious back-ground. As ethnic cultures come in contact with mass culture, they cease to preserve their unique qualities. Religious groups tend to de-emphasize their theological and liturgical differences. The particular religious affiliation loses its significance for both religious and secular beliefs and conduct. Even if people continue to associate primarily with coreligionists, this has little influence on the quality of their lives or on the manner of their participation in the larger society.

Like local, ethnic, and religious communities, class-based communities tend to lose their importance and coherence where the whole population is incorporated into large-scale activities. Social classes weaken as sources of distinctive values, styles of life, and social identity; and they increasingly resemble one another in the beliefs, values, and interests of their members. Class

distinctions are leveled, and class boundaries are blurred. Class consciousness and class solidarity dissolve into mass consciousness and mass solidarity. The lower classes are increasingly brought into arenas of communication, politics, and consumption previously limited to the higher classes. Class differences in opportunities and modes of participation that remain are no longer believed to be desirable or permanent. Common symbols of the good life and of rights and obligations replace class-differentiated concepts. Classes remain as categories of people who differentially share in common ways of life rather than as self-conscious groups with distinctive ways of life. Status strivings and anxieties abound, but this testifies to the ambiguity of status where fixed social hierarchies no longer exist.

THE ERA OF MASS SOCIETY AND MASS CULTUREOur description of the eras of mass communication theory begins with a review of some of the earliest thinking about media. These ideas were initially developed in the latter half of the nineteenth century, at a time when rapid development of large factories in urban areas was drawing more and more people from rural areas to cities. At the same time, ever more powerful printing presses allowed the creation of newspapers that could be sold at declining prices to rapidly growing populations of readers. Although some theorists were optimistic about the future that would be created by industrialization, urban expansion, and the rise of print media, many were extremely pessimistic (Brantlinger, 1983). They blamed industrialization for disrupting peaceful, rural communities and forcing people to live in urban areas merely to serve as a convenient workforce in large factories, mines, or bureaucracies. These theorists were fearful of cities because of their crime, cultural diversity, and unstable political systems. For these social thinkers, mass media symbolized everything that was wrong with nineteenth-century urban life. They singled out media for virulent criticism and accused them of pandering to lower-class tastes, fomenting political unrest, and subverting important cultural norms. Most theorists were educated elites who feared what they couldn’t understand. The old social order was crumbling, and so were its culture and politics. Were media responsible for this, or did they simply accelerate or aggravate these changes?The dominant perspective on media and society that emerged during this period has come to be referred to as mass society theory. It is an inherently contradictory theory rooted in nostalgia for a “golden age” of rural community life that never existed, and it anticipates a nightmare future where we all lose our individuality and become servants to the machines.

Some version of mass society theory seems to recur in every generation as we try to reassess where we are and where we are going as individuals and as a nation wedded to technology as the means of improving the quality of our lives. Each new version of mass society theory has its criticisms of contemporary media. It is surprising that the Internet has not yet become the focus of a new version of mass society theory. These criticisms do exist, but they have not yet become popular in the way that complaints about television, radio, movies, newspapers, even comic books, came to dominate public discourse in previous eras. Perhaps this is a sign that mass society notions have ceased to be relevant. Or more likely, the Internet is still relatively new and its threats to social order are still too ambiguous to be taken seriously by elites.

Thus, mass society theory can be regarded as a collection of conflicting notions developed to make sense of what was happening as industrialization allowed big cities to spring up and expand. Mass society notions came from both ends of the political spectrum. Some were developed by people who wanted to maintain the old political order, and others were created by revolutionaries who wanted to impose radical changes.

But these ideological foes often shared at least one assumption—mass media were troublesome if not downright dangerous. In general, mass society ideas held strong appeal for any social elite whose power was threatened by change. Media industries, such as the penny press in the 1830s or yellow journalism in the 1890s, were easy targets for elites’ criticisms. They catered to readers in the working and other lower social classes using simple, often sensational content. These industries were easily attacked as symptomatic of a sick society— a society needing to either return to traditional, fundamental values or be forced to adopt a set of totally new values fostered by media. Many intense political conflicts strongly affected thinking about the mass media, and these conflicts shaped the development of mass society theory.

An essential argument of mass society theory is that media subvert and disrupt the existing social order. But media are also seen as a potential solution to the chaos they engender. They can serve as a powerful tool that can be used to either restore the old order or institute a new one. But who should be trusted to use this tool? Should established authorities be trusted to control media—to produce or censor media content? Should media be freely operated by private entrepreneurs whose primary goal is to make money? Should radical, revolutionary groups be given control over media so they can pursue their dreams of creating an ideal social order? At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, fierce debate erupted over these questions. This conflict often pitted traditional elites, whose power was based on an agrarian society, against urban elites, whose power was increasingly based on industrialization and urbanization.

Among these elites, the most powerful were those who controlled the factories and other forms of industrialization. They have come to be referred to as capitalists, because their power was based on the profits they generated and then reinvested. In time, these urban elites gained enormous influence over social change. They strongly favored all forms of technological development, including mass media. In their view, technology was inherently good because it facilitated control over the physical environment, expanded human productivity, and generated new forms of material wealth. They argued that technology would bring an end to social problems and lead to the development of an ideal social world. Newspapers would create an informed electorate that would choose the best political leaders; the telegraph would bind together diverse, contentious communities into a strong and stable union; and the telephone would improve the efficiency of business so that everyone would benefit. But in the short term, industrialization brought with it enormous problems— exploitation of workers, pollution, and social unrest. 

Today, the fallacies of both the critics and advocates of technology are readily apparent. Mass society notions greatly exaggerated the ability of media to quickly undermine social order, just as media advocates exaggerated their ability to create an ideal social order. These ideas failed to

consider that media’s power ultimately resides in the freely chosen uses that audiences make of it. All mass society thinkers were unduly paternalistic and elitist in their views of average people and the ability of media to have powerful effects on them. Those who feared media exaggerated their power to manipulate the masses and the likelihood they would bring inevitable social and cultural ruin. Technology advocates were also misguided and failed to acknowledge the many unnecessary, damaging consequences that resulted from applying technology without adequately anticipating its impact.

Mass equalitarianism

Pervading all kinds of mass relations is a common normative orientation of equalitarianism. All members of mass society are equally valued as voters, buyers, and spectators. Numerical superiority therefore tends to be the decisive criterion of success. In the political realm this means the number of votes; in the economic realm it is the number of sales; and in the cultural realm it is the size of the audience. Mass equalitarianism is strengthened by the attenuation of the social bases of inequality, notably membership in ethnic and religious groups and especially in social classes. In contrast to the equalitarianism of small numbers, as in friendships, mass equalitarianism emphasizes the similarities of individuals rather than the uniqueness of persons.

Mass equalitarianism is also linked to the bureaucratization of organization. Mass organization simultaneously encourages the bureaucratic centralization of governing powers and the leveling of social differences among the governed (Weber 1906-1924). The incorporation of all sections of the population into large-scale activities summons centralized organization for coordination and control. Mass bureaucracies favor the leveling of social differences in the interest of efficiency. By treating everyone alike, according to functionally rational rules and procedures, mass bureaucracies foster equalitarianism. However, bureaucratic recruitment on the basis of professional competence raises new hierarchies. To be sure, careers open to talent are in greater harmony with equalitarian beliefs than is selection according to family and property. But professional elites are nevertheless elites and thereby introduce new social distinctions. This is a source of strain in modern society; in the political realm, for example, there is a tension between planning by experts and participation by mass electorates.

Mass equalitarianism is expressed in the populist character of mass society. Whatever is believed to express the popular will or to meet the most widely shared expectations is considered legitimate (Shils 1956). Political regimes strive to be popular regimes, whether they are dictatorial or constitutional. While this popular legitimating of authority centers in the polity, it pervades all kinds of social institutions. Populism places a premium on the capacity of leaders to create and placate popular opinion. Those who are effective in mobilizing large numbers of people have great power, and this generally means the leaders of mass parties. The mass leader seeks to embody and reflect popular desires; masses, not elites, are the ultimate sources of legitimating in mass society. This leads elites to make themselves readily accessible to popular pressures: that is, they are forced to be responsive not only to periodic expressions of public

opinion through regular channels such as elections, but also to momentary and ad hoc representations of whatever is claimed to be popular.

Leaders, of course, do not seek merely to respond to mass opinion. They also try to control it. Since they lack firm bases of independent authority, their control tends to take the form of manipulation and mobilization rather than command. The very presence of large numbers of only loosely organized and committed people summons efforts of leaders to manipulate and mobilize them. For if elites are highly accessible to mass pressures, so are masses readily available for mobilization by elites. People are receptive to direct appeals from remote elites, because they are poorly attached to proximate symbols and relationships and increasingly caught up in distant events and activities (Kornhauser 1959).

Mass Society’s Impact on Industrialization, Public Behaviors and 20 th Century:Together, political and cultural centralization and uniformity were interpreted as evidence of the creation of a “mass society.” Tocqueville had warned that individuals lacking strong intermediate institutions with which to identify would become atomized and in their anonymity and powerlessness might look to the protection of strong men and strong governments.The public and crowd should be distinguished from the “mass.” Members of a mass exhibit similar behaviour, simultaneously, but with a minimum of interaction. Masses include a wide range of groups. They include, for instance, people simultaneously reading the newspaper advertisement for a department store sale and simultaneously converging on the store with similar objects in mind.In the United States, there began to be both greater social mobility and fewer blatant class differences as expressed in clothes, behaviour, and speech. A “mass society” began to share mass pleasures. Apparent homogeneity, both vertically within societies and horizontally between them, was accelerated by the cinema, radio, and television, each offering attractive role models to be.

Mass movements

As mass society develops, there is a growing cleavage between those who continue to be integrated in local groups and those who have already been incorporated into mass relations. In part this is a difference between the old classes and the new classes—craftsmen versus industrial workers, independent entrepreneurs versus industrial managers, free professionals versus members of professional staffs, and so forth. Increasingly isolated from the larger society, members of the declining classes readily come to believe that they are the victims of it. More generally, the locally attached, in their resentment of the ascendancy of big cities, big government, big business, and big labor, become receptive to the appeals of mass movements directed against the forces of mass society.

Then there is the growing number of people who have been detached from communal relations but who are not, or not yet, incorporated into mass relations. It is likely to include, among others,

new migrants to the cities, new workers in the factories, and, generally, the younger and newly mobile members of the society. In the absence of strong group ties, they are less constrained and more restless than those who continue to be rooted in communal groups or those who have been fully incorporated into mass relations. These poorly attached and unintegrated people are readily available for activistic modes of intervention in political life and for participation in mass movements that promise them full membership in the national society.

Thus, modern mass movements are characteristically composed of people who either seek entry into mass society or seek to reverse the processes of mass society. Like mass organizations, mass movements do not build on existing social relations but instead construct direct ties between participants and leaders. When a mass society has successfully incorporated most sections of the population into its central institutions, mass movements may become less widespread. In a highly developed mass society, mass participation is institutionalized in the form of mass organizations, especially mass parties, but also mass unions and similar associations, universal suffrage, extensive publicity of political men and events, and the official symbolism of popular government.

The Theory of Mass Society Influenced Mass Communication Theory:

Mass society theory is a complex, multifaceted perspective. As applied to social movements, however, the basic idea is that people who are socially isolated are especially vulnerable to the appeals of extremist movements. Different researchers concur that “virtually all of the major claims of the theory have been controverter by an overwhelming body of evidence” (Hamilton 2001: 12). Despite its largely discredited status among academics, literary and journalistic proponents of this perspective enjoy a much wider and perhaps more credulous audience. As a result, “mass society theory proves well-nigh indestructible” (Hamilton 2001: 12) despite its logical flaws and empirical shortcomings.

Mass Society → seems as granted and centralized

Centralized Media → no realized aim in local groups in media

↓

Narrow Public sphere

↓

One-way transmission

↓

Changing people’s mind and controlling them

Mass movements pursue remote, extreme objectives and mobilize uprooted, atomized people (Kornhauser 1959: 47). Thus, “[m]ass movements mobilize people who are alienated from the going system, who do not believe in the legitimacy of the established order, and who therefore are ready to engage in efforts to destroy it. The greatest number of people available to mass movements will be found in those sections of society that have the fewest ties to the social order…” (212).This description of mass movements reflects the collective behavior depiction of mass behavior with a remote focus of attention, a declining sense of reality and responsibility, and a highly unstable, shifting focus of attention and intensity of response (Kornhauser 1959: 43–46). This depiction thus links the politics of collective behavior with unreasoning and extremist threats to social order.Theories of mass society are sometimes said to be prophecies of despair (Bell 1960; Shils 1962). But they need not be so construed. That the mass analyst tends to be a pathologist of contemporary society in no way denies the existence in that society of creative and value-sustaining social forces. Properly incorporated into social science, the concepts of mass society invite analysis of the conditions under which mass processes are strong or weak. Thus, mass analysis may take on new significance in alerting students of non-Western societies to certain pathologies of social development. Perhaps more important for social thought than any particular proposition of mass society is the concern this perspective represents for assessing the quality of culture and social institutions. If social science is to pursue this kind of inquiry, however, it will have to renew its communication with the humanities. For if the idea of mass society has greatly influenced social science, its formulation and developments have been to a considerable extent the work of philosophy, history, and literature.

Influenced of Mass Society Theory in the Arts:

Luis Bunuel, the Spanish film-maker (sometimes referred to as a surrealist) once referred to a “zombie-like” trance that audiences enter after entering a theater.

In The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Kundera uses the concept of kitsch to describe his take on mass society theory: “It follows, then, that the aesthetic ideal of the categorical agreement with being is a world in which shit is denied and everyone acts as though it did not exist. This aesthetic ideal is called kitsch . . . kitsch is the absolute denial of shit, in both the literal and the figurative sense of the world; kitsch excludes everything from its purview which is essentially unacceptable in human existence.

Benefits of mass society

The ability to create a vast infrastructure that serves the needs of the majority of the population.

A vast increase in living standards for the majority since the creation of large cities and the eventual shift from the industrial revolution to the information age.

Diversification of races and religions as people are forced to work and communicate with those who have differing beliefs to the values they have been brought up with. This has led to a number of people comparing their beliefs with those of others and cherry-picking those which are still compatible in a multicultural space and thus shifting away from dated and immoral ideas like misogyny and homophobia.

Mass society has enabled the creation of large laboratories as humans collaborate on a previously unparalleled scale and try to tackle some of the world's largest problems.

Drawbacks of mass society

Although mass society often serves the needs of the majority, too many people disappear amidst the ever increasing bureaucracy of a growing metropolis as the poor and homeless become disenfranchised both politically and economically.

Metropolises built for mass society will usually 'suck dry' all of their surrounding resources, forcefully assimilating areas into their ravenous ecosystems.

Resources are eventually dominated by small elite, whose insatiable appetites see them hoard a large portion of a metropolis' resources.

Living in such large areas forces a wide degree of homogenization of culture as languages and identities are lost amidst the drive to unite people under a broad, hollow identity.

Critiques of Mass Society Theory: The Frankfurt view of the audience is monolithic, giving little or no attention to the

potential for audience diversity of readings or resistance to media text (Boyd-Barrett, 1995). They believed in a ‘magic bullet’ theory of media effects, which assume the direct impact of a media message.

The Frankfurt school deliberately avoids empirical research because of their view that positivistic science is a symptom of capitalist techno-rationality.

Attributes excessive power to media and underrates the importance of social contexts of media consumption.