Mediatization of Communication

Knut Lundby

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9783110393453
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This handbook on Mediatization of Communication uncovers the interrelation between media changes and changes in culture and society. This is essential to understand contemporary trends and transformations.

"Mediatization" characterizes changes in practices, cultures and institutions in media-saturated societies, thus denoting transformations of these societies themselves.

This volume offers 31 contributions by leading media and communication scholars from the humanities and social sciences, with different approaches to mediatization of communication. The chapters span from how mediatization meets climate change and contribute to globalization to questions on life and death in mediatized settings. The book deals with mass media as well as communication with networked, digital media.

The topic of this volume makes a valuable contribution to the understanding of contemporary processes of social, cultural and political changes. The handbook provides the reader with the most current state of mediatization research.

VI. Power, law and politics

Kent Asp

15 Mediatization: rethinking the question of media power

Abstract: This chapter presents mediatization of politics as a process of media-induced societal change that goes beyond the visible face of media power. Three questions are central to my attempt to rethink the question of media power: the nature of mediatization, its causes, and effects. Five key elements make up the core of my account of the mediatization theory: (1) adaptation as a process of social learning to a changing media environment, (2) the media as constraints on actions; the emergence of powerful and independent media institutions, and (3) the increased media dependency as causes of mediatization, and (4) shifts of power as an effect, and (5) social change as a consequence. The age of television was the background for my original account, relevant first and foremost for the systems world. Today, my conclusion is that the news media have become an integral part of the political institutions, whereupon the mediatization of politics should have reached a final phase. But whereas the process of mediatization may have peaked on the systems level, the mediatization of the lifeworld has only just begun. Consequently, mediatization theory should also today – in the age of the Internet – be a most relevant tool for approaching and rethinking the question of media power.

Keywords: mediatization, conceptualization of mediatization, media power, mediatization of politics, political communication, societal change, media logic, new institutionalism, media dependency, exchange theory.

Mediatization is new as a concept, but not as a social phenomenon. Ancient empires and civilizations were also transformed by existing media technologies (Innis 1951), and within media and communication studies the question of how the media act as drivers of societal change is classical (Katz and Szecskö 1981).

When I used the concept of mediatization in my dissertation Mäktiga massmedier (Powerful Mass Media, 1986), the aim was to approach the question of how the media influenced politics and affected the distribution of societal power.⁵⁴ It was a conscious attempt to introduce a concept that in the same way as “Americanization” is self-explanatory in nature.⁵⁵ The hope was also that the concept would find its way into the national Swedish debate on the media, which happened.⁵⁶ Therefore, the introduction of the concept⁵⁷ itself can be seen as an example of the mediatization of science.⁵⁸

1 Two faces of media power

The empirical data in my dissertation showed – at least in my view – that the media are powerful in two ways: by influencing the audience’s perceptions and beliefs, and by exercising a considerable amount of discretionary power over the content that influences the audience. In the final chapter I wished to look ahead and see beyond the visible face of the power of the media. In my view, the media also exert a more latent form of power, where the power mechanism is the adaptation of individuals and societal institutions to the media. My thesis was that this invisible face of media power is of even greater importance for the distribution of societal power than the manifest power of the media.

When the concept of mediatization was first utilized, the consequences of the process were said to be a political system that is highly influenced by and adapted to the terms imposed by the media (Asp 1986: 359). Thus, the premise for the process of mediatization is the Janus face of media power. In my view, the impact power of the media is a prerequisite for the adaptation power of the media (cf. Schrott 2009: 46),⁵⁹ and my conceptualization was therefore an attempt to “rethink the question of media power” (Livingstone 2009: 3). In brief, this is the origin of my hypothesis on the mediatization of politics (Asp 1990).

1.1 Key elements: conceptualization

The theory was originally presented as follows. The mediatization of politics is a process of change in which politicians tend to adapt to various constraints imposed by the media. The adaptation of politicians is caused by the emergence of powerful and independent media, and an increased dependency on the media. The media dependency increases the power of the media, which leads to shifts of power that in a fundamental way change both the political system and the distribution of societal power (Asp 1986: 357–361).

Consequently, five key elements are at the core of the original thesis: (1) adaptation to a changing media environment, (2) media as constraints, (3) increased media power and media dependency as causes of mediatization, (4) shifts of power as effect, and (5) societal change as a consequence of mediatization.

The sections below will explicate and discuss the five elements that are fundamental to the theory of mediatization. Three themes are central: the nature of mediatization, its causes, and its effects.

As my attempts to rethink the question of media power had their point of departure in the Swedish context, I will, in this chapter, also discuss the main conclusions that can be drawn from analyses of the existing empirical data.⁶⁰

Five hypotheses will be examined: (1) the hypothesis of the five phases of mediatization; the adaptation of politicians to a changing media environment, (2) the hypothesis of formative moments; the emergence of media as a powerful and independent institution as a cause of mediatization, (3) the hypothesis of media dependency as an underlying cause of mediatization, (4) the power shifts hypothesis; increased media power as an effect of mediatization, and (5) the audience democracy hypothesis as a societal consequence of mediatization.

I will also suggest some new theoretical directions for the field. Whereas the original theory was concerned with the transformations of the systems world during the age of television, a question that today needs to be asked is whether the conceptualization is also relevant to the mediatization of the lifeworld in the age of the Internet.

2 Adaptation to a changing media environment

The driving forces behind mediatization are the dynamics of the media environment and the continuous adaptation of individuals and societal institutions to this environment. Thus, adaptation is the first key element in the theory of mediatization.⁶¹

Although it would not come first in a model of causality (processes of adaptation must be conceived of in relation to the contexts in which they come into play), the adaptation of actors outside of the media is nevertheless what triggers the process of mediatization.

Consequently, the casual mechanism in the process of mediatization is adaptation. Following this, the strength of mediatization is directly related to the degree to which actors outside of the media adapt to the media. This basic point of departure is really the first premise of the overall theory of mediatization. The second premise stems from the belief that the processes of adaptation reflect actual shifts of power. In other words, the more individuals and institutions adapt to the media, the more powerful the media are assumed to be. In this way, the concept of mediatization is more theoretically distinct than the concept of mediation (Couldry 2008; Strömbäck 2008a; Livingstone 2009; Bennett and Entman 2001).

Furthermore, the relation between actors and the media must be explicated in two respects. Firstly, a distinction should be made between actors with different logics of action. The adaptation to the media can be assumed to differ for actors on the systems level (where money and power are the steering media and rationality and strategic action form the basis for the logic of action) and actors in the lifeworld (where participation, communication, and consensus are steering media and the construction of identity, deliberation, and rational reflection form the basis for the logic of action [Habermas 1987]). If the challenge is to develop a theory that encompasses both the mediatization of the systems world in the age of television and the mediatization of the lifeworld in the age of the Internet, this distinction is vital.

Following the first premise, a second distinction should be made between different degrees of adaptation. In contrast to other scholars of mediatization, I am however not certain about the fruitfulness of distinguishing between different kinds of mediatization (Schulz 2004: 98; Hjarvard 2004, 2008: 114–115; Strömbäck 2008a; Hepp 2009: 142–143). The reason is that this would imply the risk of reducing the distinctiveness of the concept. Consequently, mediatization should be considered a one-dimensional concept.⁶²

The conclusion is therefore twofold: Whereas a distinction will be made between actors that are marked by different logics, a distinction will not be made between different dimensions. Regardless of what medium is being discussed, the adaptation of individuals and societal institutions to the media environment is a one-dimensional process of social learning.

Essentially, this learning process occurs in two subsequent steps; a sense-making process (including recognition and acclimatization to the useful/powerful media) and a process of accommodation (including adjustment, adoption, and integration of the ideology and the logic of the useful/powerful media).

The following will discuss the different degrees of adaptation more thoroughly.

2.1 Five phases of mediatization

As a historical process, mediatization can be conceived of as a number of different phases. Essentially, this approach underlies my previous account of the three phases of mediatization (Asp and Esaiasson 1996; cf. Blumler and Kavanagh 1999; Hjarvard 2008; Djerf-Pierre and Weibull 2008; Østbye and Aalberg 2008). Later on, the three phases were further elaborated by Strömbäck (2008).

Today, however, the process of mediatization has reached even further. Consequently, I would here like to expand the time perspective and supplement the previous analyses. Based on the interaction between the two driving forces of mediatization – the emergence of the news media as a powerful and independent institution, and the adaptation of the politicians to the changing media environment – five phases of mediatization can be identified (Asp 2011: 152–154).

The first phase of mediatization took-off when television and the news media became the predominant channel for political communication. In Sweden, this occurred in the early 1960s. Whereas the media at this stage had acquired power over their audiences, their content was still highly influenced by the political parties. However, as television became increasingly important, the politicians gradually understood the importance of the media. Consequently, recognition of the influential media can be said to be the first degree of adaptation.

The second phase emerged as journalists increasingly started to act independently; in Sweden, this phase began in the early 1970s. In contrast to the earlier period, when the media were powerful only in relation to their audiences, the media were now also powerful in relation to the content. Consequently, acclimatization to the independent media is considered the second degree of adaptation.

The third phase of mediatization began in Sweden in the mid-1980s as politicians increasingly started to adjust to the powerful media and their modus operandi. By copying the media, the politicians’ understanding of media logic gradually improved. Therefore, adjustment to the powerful media is the third degree of adaptation.

The fourth phase of mediatization took in Sweden place in the 1990s as the independent power of the media continued to increase. Political actors and institutions now accommodated to the media rather customarily; over time, they increasingly incorporated what they had learned. Consequently, adoption of the media logic is the fourth degree of adaptation.

Finally, in the beginning of the 2000s, the fifth phase of mediatization began to evolve. During this phase, the Swedish (news) media institutions increasingly became an integral part of the political institutions. Therefore, integration with the media institutions emerges as the fifth degree of adaptation.

Together, the five aforementioned phases lead to a hypothesis on how the two driving forces behind mediatization have interacted and evolved during the last fifty years.

All in all, the hypothesis suggesting five phases of mediatization has gained empirical support in the series of Swedish Media Election Studies (SMES). Although differences will emerge if the developments in different countries are compared, it is my belief that the overall developments should be quite comparable.

The following two sections will discuss the causes of mediatization more thoroughly.

3 Media as constraints: emerging independent institutions

The media as constraints on actions is the second key element in the theory of mediatization. As constraints, the media can be conceived of in a number of different ways: as technology, as societal institutions, as organizations, and as text structures.

Regarding the question of what it is that individual and institutional actors adapt to, there is no unitary view among mediatization scholars. Basically, two groups can be identified: researchers who focus on how action is constrained by communicative forms, technology, and text structure, and researchers who adhere to an institutional perspective. Generally, those who share a form perspective (e.g. Couldry 2008; Lundby 2009c; Hepp 2009; Rothenbuhler 2009) place great emphasis on the production and construction of messages. As a general rule, a range of different media is being considered (not least digital), and often in relation to everyday life (Lundby 2008). Most importantly, researchers within this group tend to conceive of the media itself as the genesis of mediatization.

In comparison, amongst researchers who conceive of the media as an institution and organization, stress is often placed on media logic as constraints on action; those who adhere to an institutional perspective tend to study news media and politics (Mazzoleni and Schulz 1999; Meyer 2002; Schulz 2004; Schrott 2009; Kepplinger 2002; Strömbäck 2008a; Strömbäck and Esser 2009). Although the difference must not be exaggerated, researchers with an institutional perspective tend to conceive of the actors’ adaptation to the media as the genesis of mediatization.⁶³

Then, how should one understand the notion of media as constraints – from either a form or institutional perspective? Since the media appear in different guises, the term “media” is itself quite ambiguous. Here, however, I have chosen to utilize an institutional perspective when conceiving of the media as constraints on action. The reason is that adaptation to the media as “form” can be considered an adaptation to a set of rules.⁶⁴ Consequently, when discussing the media as an institution, what I have in mind is the norms and routines, principles, and values...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface to Handbooks of Communication Science series
• Acknowledgements
• I. Introduction
• II. Global changes
• III. The long history
• IV. Media in society
• V. Movement and interaction
• VI. Power, law and politics
• VII. Art and the popular
• VIII. Faith and knowledge
• IX. To be or not to be
• X. Critical afterthought
• Biographical sketches
• Index