Advertisement

Mediatization as Structural Couplings: Adapting to Media Logic(s)

  • Mikkel Fugl Eskjær
Chapter
Part of the Transforming Communications – Studies in Cross-Media Research book series (TCSCMR)

Abstract

The integration of media logic in mediatization studies has been fiercely debated. First of all, the applicability of the concept has been contested on the grounds that media logic is advancing a linear conceptualisation of mediatization. In addition, discussions of how social systems adapt to media logic have resulted in rather ambivalent notions of autonomy and functional differentiation. Consequently, mediatization studies have been divided in two opposite views regarding the relevance and applicability of media logic in studying processes of mediatization; one camp generally rejects the notion, while another has accepted the concept cautiously. This paper intends to overcome this division by acknowledging both the pitfalls and potentials of the concept of media logic. For such an endeavor to succeed a major re-interpretation of the concept of media logic is required. The paper suggests that the systems theoretical notion of structural coupling offers such a starting point. It describes how social systems are increasingly becoming structurally tied to the media system while upholding their operational autonomy. Thus mediatization designates a process of structural adaptation to the logic of the media systems, which is always context and systems specific, determined by the self-sustained structures of a given social system. The argument proceeds by discussing both the resemblances and differences between mediatization and media logic as well as looking into some of the critique raised against the use of media logic in mediatization studies. Following this review, the paper proposes an alternative approach to studying media logic based on the systems theoretical notion of structural coupling. The paper then goes on to show how such a model implies a fundamental change in our perspectives on media logic, from a simple conceptualization of media adaptation as a zero-sum game to a more complex notion of structural interaction. It also implies an analytical re-orientation away from questions of power and dominance towards questions of co-evolution. Finally, the paper demonstrates that the notion of mediatization as structural coupling allows for a plurality of media logics, opening up for an understanding of media logic as a more diverse concept, which nevertheless maintains a systematic description of mediatization. In the final section, this mainly theoretical argument will be illustrated by a case study of organizational adaptation to mediatization, which also serves to demonstrate the analytical potential of the isomorphic vocabulary of systems thinking.

References

  1. Altheide, D. L. (2004). Media logic and political communication. Political Communication, 21(3), 293–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. B. (1979). Media logic. Sage library of social research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Asp, K. & Esaiasson, P. (1996). The modernization of Swedish campaigns: Individualization, professionalization, and medialization. In P. Mancini & D. L. Swanson (Eds.), Politics, media and modern democracy. An iIternational study of innovations in electoral campaigning and their consequences, (pp. 73–90). Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Cambridge studies in contentious politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1998). On television and journalism. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  6. Capra, F., & Luisi, P. L. (2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castells, M. (2000a). Materials for an exploratory theory of network society. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castells, M. (2000b). The rise of the network society (2nd ed. Vol 1. 3 vols). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  11. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Contexts, traditions, Arguments. Communication Theory, 23(3), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deacon, D., & Stanyer, J. (2014). Mediatization: Key concept or conceptual bandwagon? Media, Culture and Society, 36(7), 1032–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dijck, J. V. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Donges, P. & Jarren, O. (2014). Mediatization of political organizations: Changing parties and interest groups? In F. Esser & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of Politics. Understanding the Transformation of Western Democracies, (pp. 181–199). Houndmills: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Eskjær, M. F. (2016). Medialisering af Frivillige Organisationer. In S. Hjarvard (Ed.), Medialisering. Mediernes Rolle i Social og Kulturel Forandring, (pp. 241–270). København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  16. Eskjær, M. F., Hjarvard, S. & Mortensen, M. (Eds.). (2015). The Dynamics of Mediatized Conflicts (vol. 3). Global Crises and the Media. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  17. Fahlenbrach, K., Sivertsen, E. & Werenskjold, R. (Eds.) (2014). Media and Revolt: Strategies and Performances from the 1960s to the Presentt. Protest, Culture and Society, 11. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
  18. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems. Three models of media and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hepp, A. (2012). Mediatization and the ‘molding Force’ of the media. Communications, 37, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hjarvard, S. (2008). The Mediatization of Society. A Theory of the Media as Agents of Social and Cultural Change. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 105–134.Google Scholar
  24. Hjarvard, S. (2010). The views of the news: The role of political newspapers in a changing media landscape. Northern Lights, 8, 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hjarvard, S. (2013). The mediatizaiton of culture and society. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hjarvard, S. (2014). Mediatization and cultural and social change: An institutional perspective. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communication (pp. 199–226). Berlin: De Groyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  27. Hjarvard, S., & Löwheim, M. (2012). Mediatization and religion. Nordic perspectives. Göteborg: Nordicom.Google Scholar
  28. Ihlen, Ø. & Pallas, J. (2014). Mediatization of Corporations. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of Communication, (pp. 423–441). Berlin and Boston: De Groyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  29. Jensen, K. B. (2013). Definitive and sensitizing conceptualizations of mediatization: Definitive and sensitizing conceptualizations. Communication Theory, 23(3), 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kepplinger, H. M. (2002). Mediatization of politics: Theory and data. Journal of Communication, 52, 972–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kneer, G. & Nassehi, A. (1997). Niklas Luhmann. Introduktion Til Teorien Om Sociale Systemer. Trans. Nils Mortensen. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  32. Krotz, F. (2007). The meta-process of ‘mediatization’ as a conceptual frame. Global Media and Communication, 3(3), 256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Livingstone, S. & Lunt, P. (2014). Mediatization: An emerging paradigm for media and communication research? In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of Communication, (pp. 703–723). Berlin and Boston: De Groyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  34. Luhmann, N. (1996). Die Realität der Massenmedien. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Luhmann, N. (1997). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  36. Luhmann, N. (2000). Sociale Systemer. Grundrids Til En Almen Teori. København: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  37. Luhmann, N. (2002). Einführung in die Systemtheorie. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Lundby, K. (2009a). Media logic: Looking for social interaction. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization. Concept, change, consequences, (pp. 101–119). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  39. Lundby, K. (2009b). Mediatization. Concept, change, consequences. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  40. Lundby, K. (2014). Mediatization of communication. In K. Ludnby (Ed.), Meditization of Communication, (pp. 3–35). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  41. Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living 42. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  42. Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). Mediatization’ of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pallas, J., & Fredriksson, M. (2013). Corporate media work and micro-dynamics of mediatization. European Journal of Communication, 28(4), 420–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schillemans, T. (2012). Mediatization of public services. How organiations adapt to news media. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  46. Silverstone, R. (2007). Media and Morality. On the Rise of the Mediapolis. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  47. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strömbäck, J., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2011). Mediatization and media interventionism: A comparative analysis of Sweden and the United States. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(1), 30–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thorbjornsrud, K., Figenshou, T., & Ihlen, Ø. (2014). Mediatization in public bureaucracies: A typology. Communications—The European Journal of Communication Research, 39(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  50. Tilly, C. (2007). Contentious Politics. Boulder, Colo: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  51. Vestergaard, A. (2014). Mediatized humanitarianism: Trust and legitimacy in the age of suspicion. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Waisbord, S. (2011). Can NGOs change the news? International Journal of Communication, 5, 142–165.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations