Accordingly, there is danger in having an all-powerful state because personal freedoms are lost. More so, there is power in having knowledge that others do not possess because it is a gateway for the government to control the public if scientific and technological advances are been made. As mentioned before, governments prosper when there is stability and commodification is way of the government achieving that although it does alter human behavior. On the other hand, some would argue that modern society is based on democracy and a controlled state as depicted in Brave New World is impossible to occur but there are indicators in society today that serve as a resemblance. Brave New World emphasizes that the dangers of an all-powerful state, power of knowledge, and commodification are detrimental to modern society.
As Dennis Lewis put it, “We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” Propaganda is evil, but not evil in the way of taking over the world or something. It’s more evil in the way of causing you to purchase a product you don’t exactly need or want. Corporations are just as guilty of using propaganda as governments are; they even use it in the same way. All they have to do is simply flash their logo or bash their competitor and they have subconsciously made you want their product. This is one of the most basic forms of propaganda; they are influencing you without your knowledge.
While Capitalism might first be seen as a positive influence on free and open access to information, in fact, it can also have a detrimental impact. Inaccurate news stories, sensationalized material, and manipulation through the media are all repercussions of the effects of capitalism. Capitalism’s influence in the media skews content in favour of the market, preventing the public from access to democratic, objective news content. Too often, capitalist influence dominates the media market through conglomerate control, structured by the ever-growing desire to gain capital, treating the audience as a commodity regardless of the negative repercussions that ensue. As opposed to presenting balanced, unbiased issues that are relevant and open to the interpretation of the media consumers in order to best meet the needs of society, the result is a cycle of information that does not broaden public democratic discourse, but channels it with bias.
The issue of the relationship between the mass media and the popular culture has always been a controversial issue in social sciences. The political economists insist on the role of the media industry in the creation of this phenomenon of the twentieth century. Though, advocates such as John Fiske, argue that popular culture is actually the creation of the populous itself, and is independent of the capitalist production process of the communication sector. Basing his argument on the immense interpretive power of the people, Fiske believes that the audience is able to break all the indented meanings within a media message. He also believes- by giving new meanings to that specific message they can oppose the power block that is trying to impose its ideology to the public.
This move made the public sphere to be dominated by the co-operate world and the administration resulting to decline of democracy, individuality and various forms of freedom. This is from the fact that unlike the bourgeois time when public sphere was of good interest to the whole society since they participated in making the decision, with time, the growth of rational and universalistic politics grew. This was as a result of the state using the press for impression rather for passing the information to the public. The public was therefore infuriated by the state of affairs and the reason for the growth of the public sphere, (Habermas, 1989).The growth of the capitalistic economy led to the uneven distribution of resource, and the public were not happy about this as it widened he economic polarity. Public sphere therefore brought up a new form of the public press which was able to listen to the ordinary people and listen to their cries as much as criticizing the governing, (Hauser, 2008).
The extent of the influence mass media has on our society is the cause of much debate. Both legislature and media executives combine efforts and produce reports showing that mass media is not responsible for shaping society. Sociologists and educators debate these findings and provide a more grounded, less financially influenced theory. Sociologists have three perspectives on the role of mass media in modern culture. The first, limited-effects theory, is based on the premise that people will choose what to watch based on their current beliefs.
If there was a disruption in one of these institutions then it could affect the stability of society as a whole. Functionalists believe that if something didn’t serve a purpose then it would not exist. The pluralist view of the mass media is based on this simple belief. Pluralists believe that the reason some newspapers or other forms of media seem biased is because they “simply respond to demand.” The public has the buying power and the media are simply trying to appeal to this. If they begin to put forward their own opinions or beliefs about certain issues, then they are only appealing to the people who share these ideas.
This paper seeks to address on the different views held by these prominent people during this time of historical transformations. The view on the wealthy in the society was different from one person to another and this actually led to publications and criticisms one after another. Actually the discovery of new economic opportunities made United States to be viewed as a land of economic glory and prosperity. This in turn attracted more people from different parts of the world. Ironically, some of the optimistic immigrants got overly involved relentless poverty and had to struggle for cont... ... middle of paper ... ...at George Henry, like many other reformers of the time believed that efforts to create a balance in the society should not compromise or interfere with any individual or a particular class in the society (Johnson).
One will be able to see the difference between what happened, what was said to have happened at that time, and what actually happened. When looking at mass media it is important to look at it as a timeline; separating the different types of media. The first to boom was printing press, which allowed newspapers to spread. This allowed people all over to know what was going on across that certain region of publication; then came radio, television, and now the Internet. By each innovation, more people were reached by the message,
Advertisements and other methods of getting images out there require money to produce and get out to public. When a product is wanted by the public it then is consumed and helps the upper-class and more powerful people to gain wealth to continue to flood our mind with consumerism. With this money and social control over the mass population there is control by institutions. With constant pressure to buy certain products Debord states “the spectacle is a permanent opium war waged to make it impossible to distinguish goods from commodities.”(44) When people don’t know why they are purchasing a certain product for its social status they are under the spell of consumerism and will do as they are encouraged to do by the power t... ... middle of paper ... ...e are a consumer society and we are driven by images. I think it is a problem the way higher class people use this to improve their fortunes and slowly killing our economy.