Paradigm Shudders

Reviewed by:

Lee Artz

 Purdue University Calumet

Michael G. Elasmar. The impact of international television: A paradigm shift. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003. 213 pages.  $22.00 (paper; $49.95 (cloth).

The jacket of Michael Elasmar’s edited book asserts that “cultural imperialism has been the dominant paradigm for conceptualizing, labeling, predicting, and explaining the effects of international television”—an indication of the indictment and approach taken in this lively and useful, if somewhat exasperating collection of essays.

The primary problem is that Elasmar miscasts critiques of imported television programming as the dominant paradigm in all studies of international television, even as he notes that cultural imperialism was only the “second most frequently used theoretical framework in empirical studies about foreign TV influence” (my emphasis) (p. 160).  Indeed, a review of college texts and college curriculum indicates that most programs send up “free flow of ideas” perspectives that accept marketing, advertising, and political pluralism tenets (e.g., Gershon, 1997).

Elasmar and several other contributors also seem to misread cultivation theory, omitting both nuances (mainstreaming and resonance) and primary assumptions (lack of alternative sources and heavy viewing). More disturbing, given the text’s avowed goal of critiquing the theory of cultural imperialism, Elasmar takes the lead in demoting observations about cultural imperialism to the paranoia of conspiracy theorists. In his critique, he even collapses the two theoretical traditions—one inspired by Gerbner’s findings on the effect of heavy media use with little alternative information source (e.g., Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorelli, 1980), the other based on observations by Herb Schiller (1976) and other authors about U.S. cultural dominance in developing countries. While these perspectives may appear compatible and complementary in their descriptions of media effects, the passing critique of one does not automatically devalue the other. A convincing double criticism needs a thorough discussion of actual or potential connections between the two approaches, and, more importantly, evidence that either depends on or incorporates fully the claims of the other. Finally, configuring attempts to protect national cultural institutions from extinction as simply “legislation to protect indigenous cultures from influence through foreign television” (p. 160) mocks the legitimate concern domestic filmmakers, musicians, artists, other cultural workers, and citizens in general have for cultural integrity and continuity. The intent of the text is to shift paradigms, but shaking a theory is an insufficient means for replacing a theory.

While almost any critique of the shortcomings of the cultural imperialism paradigm has merit (due to the perspective’s admitted limited case study track record), Elasmar’s characterizations of the paradigm prevent a solid appraisal, while permitting an easy dismissal of a misconstrued interpretive reading. Unnamed scholars concerned about the consequences of US cultural influence on other national and indigenous cultures are said to argue that the “simple presence of US television programs” should be automatically “equated with cultural influence” (p. 12). This reductionist version of cultural imperialism theory relies primarily on critics of the perspective, rather than advocates of the perspective (with the exception of a brief definition by Luis Beltran that is actually quite nuanced compared to Elasmar’s characterization). In addition to the elementary unfairness of leaving the explanation of a theory to opponents rather than advocates, such an approach short-circuits the insights and distorts the weaknesses of any theoretical claim, undermining understanding, assessment, critique, and ultimately, if necessary, a legitimate paradigm shift.

Elasmar believes that those who recognize cultural imperialism as a verifiable process in international communication see the “main motivation” of US media (p. 9) is to export programming with a “deliberate intent to corrode traditional culture” (p. 12). This claim spurs at least two responses. First, this distorts the more measured observations of Herb Schiller (1969, 1976, 1991), Luis Beltran and Elizabeth Fox (1980), Armand Mattelart (1983), and others (see Thussu, 2000) identified with cultural imperialism theory, who begin with a political economic appraisal of media institutions, information flow, socio-cultural practices, and human agency. Secondly, Elasmar’s interpretation shuffles the recognition of efforts to extend product influence and increase sales with the consequential effect on values and practices. Undoubtedly, cultural imperialism has greater or lesser effects in different contexts, but that is a question of strong or muted effects, not evidence of no consequence at all. Whether one looks at music production and airplay in Ghana, movie production and distribution in Nigeria, or game show trends on every continent, it is virtually undeniable that US culture appears everywhere. Even the lack of popularity for specific US programs does not rip the claims of Schiller, et al. Indeed, recent studies have indicated corporate media influence is in the media model, its commercial presumptions, and professional practices rather than any particular program or strict content (e.g., see Crabtree and Malhotra, 2003, on television in India).

Fortunately, most contributions move past the criticisms in the introduction to share insights from reviews or studies of actual conditions and cross-culture media practices—adjusting the theory on the ground, so to speak. A vivid case in point, is the essay by Thimious Zharapoulos. Based on a limited study of Greek adolescent TV viewing, Zharapoulos details some of the complexities of the relationship between imports and domestic programming. He does not dispute dominance, but argues “this does not necessarily signal influence”(p. 43). He finds that “television does play a small role in cultivating a view of reality that is U.S.-influenced, but other variables play a larger role . . .” and, although he finds “elements of cultivation at work,” socio-political cultural identity, amount of TV viewing, and other determinants are present (p. 53).

Ironically, none of the contributors, save the editor, seem bent on undermining the thrust of cultural imperialism theory.

            Most authors in this collection seek to improve or modify what they see as an insufficiently developed explanation for the highly complex process of cross-cultural communication. Some have even more limited aspirations. David Payne, for example, considers cultivation theory by simply reviewing some previous primary research on cognitive and affective responses towards the US by television viewers in Iceland, Minnesota, and Quebec. Although Payne feels current frameworks for understanding international communication are insufficient, his selection of studies do not dispute either the presence or influence of US media in developing cultures and their values and practices. Likewise, Mary Beadle’s research on the media habits and information consequences of business people in Argentina recognizes that media may cultivate political perspectives, although “education, family, friends, travel, religion, gender, and age” influence media choice, “which in turn contribute to the development of perceptions and interpretations” (p. 76). Her findings, although tilted towards elite media use, do not undermine either cultivation theory or deny cultural influence by the US. Indeed, if anything, her findings indicate US cultural practices and perspectives ingratiate themselves into domestic cultures through diverse channels, although mitigated by social class.

            One of the strengths of this text is the diversity of studies and their insights into the concretes of cross-cultural media exchange. Joe Straubhaar’s contribution on Brazilian media demonstrates further that even domestic production does not guarantee cultural integrity or insularity. The producers and exporters of Brazilian media—compradors of international corporate media models—serve as transmission belts for cultural influences of dominant models in hybridized television genre such as soaps, in music productions, and other media. Such hybridization of cultural practice does not prove the absence of the globalization of cultural dominance. Rather, it indicates the flexibility and resoluteness of the commodified form of media and culture. Linda Lee Davis affirms that past evidence of preference for locally produced programming in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela remains true for Ecuador. Given a choice, viewers prefer their own indigenous or national culture over US products. Unfortunately, for Ecuadoran viewers, as for viewers in most developing countries, the local network “imports programming from the United States . . . in greater quantities than it produces” (p. 129). In other words, choice does not resolve dominance in imported or broadcasted programming: “the economies of television production, the size of the country, the limited talent pool, and the inexperience in producing and marketing” make television programming difficult (p. 129)—and the US or other major media producers fill the void. Such dominance may not be “imposed,” nor does it prove influence, but neither does Davis’ work deny U.S. cultural power. Other contributors make similar observations, many of which might even be considered qualified disputations of Elasmar’s fairly strident assessment of a belief in cultural imperialism.

Elasmar is author of both the least valuable and most valuable contributions. The “meta-analysis” conducted with John Hunter seeks to quantify the impact of television viewing on values, attitudes, beliefs, and other cultural markers. Besides questioning its off-hand dismissal of much work on cultural imperialism being “tirades or diatribes” (without citation or example) (p. 134), one must challenge a critique of cultural imperialism that relies solely on empirical studies of television effects—some 89% of which neither purported to defend or challenge the claims of cultural imperialism. Not only does this approach “consider all measures [of media exposure] as being approximations of one another” (p. 143), it also attempts to quantify a qualitative appraisal—a difficult task at best. How do you quantify love, attraction, appreciation, happiness? Yet, few dispute their existence and influence. Less interpersonally, do we doubt the reality of diplomatic power, social respect, persuasive appeal, or political dominance real because we have no quantifiable measure? Moreover, Schiller, Mattelart, and Beltran, among others, are not so concerned with whether a particular product or television program is popular, but rather they would draw our attention to larger socio-cultural values such as individualism, consumerism, community, solidarity, and social responsibility and their frequent contradictory tensions. In short, cultural imperialism perspectives focus on the drifting seduction of US culture on the rest of the world. 

Insisting that only more empirical studies of television effects will demonstrate cultural imperialism and cultivation theory shrivels the insights about cultural effects to one particular medium detached from its lived context—a claim neither advocates of cultural imperialism theory (e.g., Beltran & Fox, 1980) nor other contributors to this volume would propose or defend. Perhaps Elasmar’s argument is not with the critique of cultural imperialism per se, but with media effects approaches in general, from the positivist assumptions of advertising campaigns to Rogers’(1983) “diffusion of innovations” and McCombs and Shaw’s (1972) “agenda-setting”—all of which have rich tradition of illustrating limited, but verifiable media effects.

While the strength of this text is how it underscores the paucity of analytical case studies in cultural imperialism by providing case study examples, its weakness echoes the central note of the cultural imperialism perspective—most of the writings emphasize individual consumption of media products, either assuming or disregarding the historically shifting structural context of deregulation, privatization, commercialization, and globalization. For example, Elasmar’s “cultures influencing other cultures without conspiracy” (pp. 173-176) emphasizes individual actions and disregards institutional practices, societal norms, and historical conditions. Diffusion of the Phoenician alphabet (pp. 173-175) can be equated with the diffusion of English as the global language only if historical conditions are ignored and social power denied. Can one seriously equate the folkloric tradition of Grimm’s fairy tales with the marketing of Disney’s “Lion King”? Does the diffusion of pita bread compare to the global expansion of McDonald’s (pp. 175-176).  Would we deny that Disney, McDonald’s, O Globo, or other cultural fast-fooders promote their products for corporate goals, not for cross-cultural enhancement? Because they are not always successful does not reverse the trend to corporate dominance in international communication. In other words, contrary to Elasmar, the paradigm choice here is not between diffusion and conspiracy; it is between diffusion through the free market place of ideas (from Schramm, 1964, to Stevenson, 1994) and diffusion through information subsidy (as suggested by Gandy, 1982). Power and resource affects media production and distribution, as most of the contributions to this volume reveal.

A more useful approach to shifting paradigms, and ultimately a major part of the value of this text’s critique, is also finally offered by Elasmar in the penultimate chapter, where he delineates a model called “Susceptibility to Imported Media” (p. 170) and a process labeled “Media-Accelerated Cultural Diffusion,” (p. 176)—although even here, criticism postpones contribution. Differences in findings in studies of media effects are cited as further evidence of the failure of the cultural imperialism perspective. (Cannot differences in studies may be simply differences in studies? Equating the failure to identify SARS with the absence of SARS cost lives and prolonged the epidemic, when the failure to identify was primarily a failure to investigate variables, not evidence of the non-existence of the disease.) Elasmar finally rewards those enduring the relentless assault on the inadequacies of cultural imperialism theory with a superb and succinct suggestion for understanding the complexities of international cultural exchange, a cross-cultural communication model called “Susceptibility to Imported Media” (SIM). With SIM, Elasmar provides a useful list of variables that help predict selective attention and retention of imported TV programming, including pre-existing values, attitudes, knowledge, beliefs, and involvement with the content and source of programming (pp. 169-170). In his discussion, Elasmar further observes that media distribution accelerates communication flow and impact. This is a solid contribution that summarizes various material and historical conditions that provide the context for all communication, including cross-culture media programming. I suspect that even the unnamed scholars and researchers in cultural imperialism theory that Elasmar so derides will be accepting and appreciative of his SIM model. Most already recognize that the existence and strength of cultural influence from exposure to television (and other Western media) depends on interrelationships between multiple antecedent factors (p. 177). A contention, of course, will remain over the source and character of various “antecedents,” themselves products and processes of prior material relations of colonialism and domination, including language, ethnicity, class, trade, education, and accompanying values and practices, including what Bourdieu (1977) termed “habitus” and “cultural capital.” Hopefully, future conversations over those contentions and other paradigmatic disputes will be presented by their advocates with all of their nuances, shortcomings, and insights presented clearly.

References

Beltran, L. R., & Fox, E.  (1980). Comunicacion dominada. Mexico, D.F., Mexico: Editorial Nueva Imagen.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Crabtree, R. & Malhotra, S. (2003). In L. Artz & Y. Kamaliour, (Eds.), The globalization of corporate media hegemony (pp. ). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Gandy, O. H. (1982). Beyond agenda setting. Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorelli, N. (1980). The “mainstreaming” of America”: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication, 30, 10-29.

Gershon, R. A. (1997). The transnational media corporation:Global messages and free market competition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mattelart, A. (1983). Transnationals and the Third World: The struggle for culture. (D. Buxton, Trans.).South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey.

McCombs, & Shaw

Schiller, H. (1969). Mass communication and the American empire. New York: Augustus Kelley.

Rogers, E.  (1983). Diffusion of innovations. 3^rd Ed. New York: Free Press.

Schiller, H. (1976). Communication and cultural domination. Armonk, NJ: International Arts and Sciences Press.

Schiller, H. (1991). Not yet the post-imperialist era. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 13-28.

Schramm, W. (1964). Mass media and national development: The role of information in developing countries. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Stevenson, R. L. (1994). Global communication in the Twenty-first Century. New York: Longman.

Thussu, D. K. (2000). International communication: Continuity and change. New York: Oxford University Press.

Return to Book Review List | Return to Top of Review