Barbara Cagle is a Highly qualified, certified teacher for English. Barbara has had websites up and running for over 10 years and uses websites in the classroom to bring students highly relevant and up to day information. If you want to learn about building websites there is a FREE resource you can access from one of her sites. Click Here to visit the site now.
Mass Hypnosis : The Cultivation of a Global Mind In his book Waking Up, Dr. Charles Tart stated, “If it is not in the media…it did not happen. If it did not happen, but it is in the media, we believe it happened” (Kellogg, n.d.). George Gerbner spoke of the “cultivation of collective conscious” and that “Hostility of the Universe appears to be a common cultural belief” (Communication, 2003). The International Communication Association held a panel session in 2004 in which the issue of Cultivation Research was discussed. This discussion looked at the “cultivation hypothesis as an established sub discipline of mass communication research with its own schools, proponents and opponents” (International, 2004). While still considered a hypothesis, perhaps it is time we take a step forward and consider cultivation as a real condition of today’s projected media in regards to the effects on the viewers. Cultivation Hypothesis, according to the Fundamentals of Media Effects textbook, developed in a desire to explain the overall influence of television on heavy viewers, especially with respects to violence and reactions to violence. This hypothesis grew out of the Cultural Indicators Project that was begun by George Gerbner in the 1960’s (Bryant, 2001). Problems soon became apparent as researchers began to look for causality between heavy television viewing and violence, both physical and emotional or mental. The inability to eliminate other possible causes was of paramount concern and to the detriment of the development of a recognized theory, thus leaving us with only the hypothesis. In order to understand the ideology we must first look at some definitions. Exposure, according to Dr. Slater, is in principle straightforward. It would measure the extent to which subjects encounter specific media content, especially specific messages or classes of content, such as violence (Slater, 2004). But then, how strictly do we define violence? From physical force to intensities of feelings, the term has broad connotations. Causality, must consider the inclusion of variables that may or may not be defined. For example, perhaps a person had previous life experiences with which they connected a particular violent episode viewed in media. These variables are difficult to define and categorize in relation to the studies of cultivation by media. Other variables might include demographic values, and the validity of “impersonal impact hypothesis” (Shrum, Mainstreaming, 2001). What exactly is a ‘world view’ anyway? Heylighen puts forth the following: · That a model of the world allows us to understand a world of functions and structures including who we are. · That a world view allows us to look for answers to questions such as why the world is the way it is, where does it all come from, and where do we come from. · That it allows us to consider choices for the future while looking at different possibilities or probabilities · That it allows us to include morality or ethics, asking what is good or evil and allowing us a sense of purpose and goals to guide our actions and responses · That it offers “praxiology (theory of action)” to guide how we act and solve problems. · That is compels us to seek knowledge to determine what is true or false · And that it gives us “building blocks”, a starting point with fragments of a world view (Heylighen, 2000). In essence then, a world view includes several components that when dissected seem innocuous, but when added to the equation result in a myriad of variables that color any qualitative or quantitative research results. While we may attempt to define, classify, and eliminate any or all of these precursor impressions which are brought into a study by the participants, as well as any preconceptions by the researchers, we cannot fully qualify such factors resulting from media exposure to those resulting from prior personal perceptions and experiences. Should we consider perhaps, that the absence of measurable evidence is not evidence of the absence of effects in regards to the Cultivation Hypothesis? If we accept the statement that “Television is the source of the most broadly shared images and messages in history”…and that “The repetitive pattern of television’s mass-produced messages and images forms the mainstream of a common symbolic environment” as put forth by Gerbner and associates (Gerbner, 1986), perhaps we should also begin to recognize the subtlety of power the media may possess. Does repeated and prolonged exposure to mass media result in a view of a hostile world? Does our ever growing dependence on media promise the realization of what Charles Tart called the Consensus Trance (Kellogg, n.d.)? Various studies linked to the Cultural Indicators Research Project have advanced the view that heavy viewing of television’s imagery shapes a viewer’s perceptions. Since Gerbner first put forth the Cultivation Hypothesis in the mid 1960’s, the scientific community has obsessed over countless research studies. Longitudinal studies abound. Historical analysis appears to offer a perception that the Cultivation Hypothesis is a valid explanation for some findings. For example, there is a growing support for “punitive crime policy: in “what David Garland (2000) calls a new “collective cultural experience of crime” (p.147)” (Eschholz, 2003). This study upholds the consensus that media, specifically television, is in part responsible for the current view of the world as a violent place. Other factors, however, must be considered when considering the Cultivation Hypothesis. In Shrum’s article, Processing strategy moderated the cultivation effect (2001); we are given evidence that “the cognitive process may potentially be involved in producing the cultivation effect”. In this article a model is presented that presumes several assumptions, “some defined and some conceptual”. Shrum looks at several propositions to conclude that “the cultivation effect can be explained in part by the fact that people simply don’t give a lot of thought to their answers…. They process heuristically, and the output…. Must be inferior.” (Shrum; Processing, 2001). However, isn’t it true that in the course of each day people make many decisions, inferences, and suppositions with little or no in depth thought? Being a relatively new hypothesis, cultivation can be demonstrated historically, in my opinion. If we consider mass communication at the base level, we can look to history for examples of cultivated ideologies. For example, Frederick Douglass is said to have had a profound influence on Americans. Wikipedia states that, “Douglass was one of the most prominent figures of African American history during his time and one of the most influential lecturers and authors in American history” (Wikipedia, 2007). Throughout history we can easily turn to examples of people or agencies that utilized various methodologies to ‘cultivate’ a specific perception. While the scientific community continues to search for evidence of cultivation through television and other media, the general public may well find that there is some form of cultivation which actively influences perceptions on a daily basis. Perhaps a wider study is required. Advertising, for example, appears to depend on cultivation to ‘sell’ products, which is especially evident if we look at such methodologies as building brand awareness. Another example of cultivation might be seen in the more recent ‘Gay Rights Movement’. It was not long ago that a vast majority of the population ‘suffered’ from homophobia. Today, however, not only is homophobia a cultural taboo, it is somewhat effectively inhibited by legislation. Society has become anesthetized to media portrayals of gay and lesbian relationships and personalities. While privately people may still ‘suffer’ homophobia, our culture ostracizes such views and thus results in acceptance. Is there a sort of hypnosis that permeates the consciousness of heavy television viewers that alters their perceptions of the world, not only in regards to violence, but extending to other aspects of the world as well? Have we become the children of media, relying on it for entertainment, escape, information, direction, and fulfillment? We seem to be moving rapidly toward Consensus Trance, as put forth by Charles Tart, “a deep hypnotic conditioning imposed on humans by society” (Kellogg, n.d.). It is widely accepted that nurture, the social and cultural influences on the persona, appear to outweigh the nature, or inherent tendencies or humanity. We learn how to think, behave, and respond within the confines of our societies. What was once taught by parents, neighbors, church and school, is now entering the realm of mass mediated communication which outweighs these almost archaic forms if in nothing more than the volume of imagery and messages that it relays to those exposed to its various forms. We are effectively conditioned, from birth, to ‘cultivate’ accepted ideas and embrace them as the norm, adjusting our preconceptions to fit the perceived world view that we experience through the media.
References Bryant,
Jennings,
Thompson, Susan. (2002) Fundamentals of
Media Effects. Communication Initiative, The. (July 29, 1003). Change Theories: Cultivation Theory of Mass Media. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from: http://www.comminit.com/changetheories/ctheories/changetheories-24/html Eschholz, Sarah, Chiricos, Ted, Marc, Gertz. (2003). Social Problems: Television and Fear of Crime: Program Types, Audience Traits, and the Mediating Effect of Perceived Neighborhood Racial Composition. Criminal Justice Periodicals: August 2003; 50 (3), pg. 395. Gerbner,
G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds),
Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17-40). Hilldale,
Heylighen, F. (April 17, 2000 modified from December 9, 1996). “What is a ‘World View’” in F. Heylighen, C.Joslyn, and V. Turchin (editors): Principea Cybernetica Web (Principia Cybernetica, Brussels). Retrieved from http://www.pespmcl.vub.ac.be/WORLDVIEW.html International Communication Association. Mass Communication Panel Session, (May 28, 2004). Forwards, Sidewards or Backwards: New Directions for Cultivation Research. Abstract retrieved February 23, 2007 from http://convention.allacademic.com/ica2004.session_info.html . Kellogg
III, Shrum, L. J. (2001). Human Communicaiton Research. Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Oxford: Jan 2001.27 (1) pg. 94. Retrieved 20 February, 2007 from ProQuest at http://proquest.umi.com.dax.lib.unf.edu/pqdlink?dod=67889986&Fmt=4&clientid=16748&RQT=309&VName=PQD . Shrum, L. J., Bischak, Valerie Darmanin. (2001). Human Communications research. Mainstreaming, resonance, and impersonal impact. Oxford: April 2001. 27 (2) pg. 187. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from http://proquest.umi.com.dax.lib.unf.edu/pqdlink?dod=72240566&Fmt=4&clientid=16748&RQT=309&VName=PQD . Slater, Michael D. (2004). Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. Operationalizing and Analyzing Exposure: the Foundation of Media Effects Research. Colombia: Spring 2004. 81 (1) pg. 168. Retrieved February 15, 2007 from http://proquest.umi.com.dax.lib.unf.edu/pqdlink?dod=649160831&Fmt=4&clientid=16748&RQT=309&VName=PQD . Wikipedia, (2007). Cultivation Theory. Retrieved February 20, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivation_theory |
