James Curran’s article entitled “Communications, power and social order” attempts to assess the impact of communications on the power structures of society by comparing and contrasting the uses and effects of various modes of communications during the papacy’s imperialistic and apostolic times and during the era of Britain’s ‘Press Barons’. This post will firstly summarize the main elements of Curran’s summary of the Papal dynasty and the connection of various modes of communications including the Bible, other forms of printed material as well as various religious symbols. Following I will focus on the similarities between the papacy and the British ‘Press Barons.’ Finally I will attempt to examine the newly emerged modes of communications, social networks systems or SNS for short, and try to see if there are any similarities or differences in how they are affecting existing power structures and future implications.
During the middle ages the papal government was able to maintain immense centralized power over almost the entire continent of Europe. How was such a small area of Rome, Italy able to ascend to the summit of the Church in such a relatively quick and dominant fashion? The precursor to dominance as well as the ultimate act that sealed its dominion lay in the interpretation of the Bible. During the 4th century the papacy claimed leadership of the church on the basis of a scriptural passage in the Gospel of Matthew that referred to St. Peter as the metaphorical rock of the church. According to Kantorowicz the answer lies in what he termed in 1957 ‘the monopolization of the Bible’ –the selective interpretation of the Bible in a way that constituted not only a compelling way to view the world but one in which formed the ideological backbone of the papacy: first that all power derived from God; and second that the Church was indivisible.
It was through the total monopoly and control of the Bible itself that allowed the church to maintain power for so long. However, as time went by and the Bible was produced on a larger scale, the Bible became more and more disseminated naturally breaking the iron grasp of the Church upon it. Ironically, as we shall see, it will be the Bible, and how the words inside are printed that will lead to the demise of the Church in terms of absolute power. But first, it is important to recognize other reasons for the extreme power of the church; the role of non-verbal communication and symbolism being foremost. The Church’s pretended unlimited ability to magically forgive and pardon, through various sacraments, benedictions, tithes, absolutions etc… as well as the physical institutions of worship (i.e. the grandiose and overbearing Gothic cathedrals, painted glass, statues and relics) all served to solidify the church as a container of magical power.
This all allowed the church to maintain close control over all aspects of citizens lives; from the spiritual, ideological, academic, secular and most importantly cultural problems. Although there are many instances, for example, that the church wasn’t able to absolutely and unequivocally dominate all areas of culture, the Churches dual domination over the institutions of mental production and mass communication are indisputable claims. The first being that the Church was able to gain increased authority and power at the expense of it’s adversaries with its seemingly unlimited resources. A perfect example is found in the German monarch, Henry IV, around 1075. This monarch was excommunicated by the papacy, or to view it from the eye of the times: a king, who was only king by the grace of God, was removed from office by God’s supreme agent, the Church. Having no recourse to historical documents to prove his case, for the church maintained the monopoly over not just history records, but the writing of such records and was thus able to selectively control what was written about it, he was eventually relegated, despite his status as the most powerful ruler in the west, to crawl on hand and knee to Italy as a penitent to seek the pope’s absolution. In summary the churches domination and manipulation of the elites and mass media to spread its ideological perspective of the world solidified its domination of elite knowledge and thus power.
Despite such power, such as that exemplified through the case of Henry IV, there were obviously those, particularly elites in various countries, who opposed the Churches monopoly of power but had no recourse other then total submission. As mentioned prior, the dissemination of the Bible changed that. It is well established that when new channels of communication are provided, bypassing established mediating agencies; the new media tend to pose serious threats to stable, hierarchical control of social knowledge. According to Curran the best example is the rise of the book in late medieval and early modern Europe. The change from parchment to paper made the total cost, preparation and process unimaginably simpler, quicker and cheaper. For example, according to Eisenstein after the introduction of movable type in 1450 output per capita involved in printing increased over one-hundred fold. This increase in output, drop in cost and increase in literacy led to a drastic increase in consumption of books.
The expansion of book production was most important in terms of the mass dissemination of the Bible in many vernacular languages. Particularly Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible into German from Latin as well as his 95 theses played a major role in undermining the traditional power structure of the papacy. Initially this change weakened the churches power structure by removing its importance as the almighty interpreter and intermediary of the word of God by placing that word in every citizens hands. This coupled with the fact that the church could no longer control the means of production regarding printing, meant that it could no longer control centralized elite knowledge and that knowledge was thus transmitted by those who chose to print to those who chose to read it. According to Wilks and Ullmann this improved medium of print helped foster new political thought and ideas, none being more important in the context of the churches power structure than the separation of church and state. In short, while after many still chose to believe in the theological doctrines of the church, the church itself lost its imperialistic control, falling from the ranks of a state or continental religion and all of the political power likewise associated with it to merely one religion out of many.
If the continental imperialistic power of the church was shattered an important question arises; where did the power go? As we can see from history, power apparently shifts temporarily to the mode of communication itself and those who utilize it until a new power group asserts their authority over that mode of communication. It is important to bear in mind the main tenant regarding mass communication that “mass media legitimizes the social systems of which they are part of.” In Curran’s article the reader jumps between the Church and the press barons, but it leaves out one crucial time period, the era of divine monarchs. It’s essential to view the era following the continental religion of the church as the rise of state religions centered around the monarchs of those various European countries that absorbed the dispersed power of the weakened church and the press to increase its own power structure. Here, Curran’s example of the increase in power of the press becomes explicitly analogous to the increase of book production during the peak of the Church.
The book displaced power from the Church onto the various monarchs. There thus became a power struggle, since book production was not easily controlled, between the monarchs and print leading to the monarch eventually being relabeled a constitutional monarch. The move toward freedom and democratic forms of government is crucial to understand the importance of the newspaper as an antagonist to the older monarchy and as the form of mass communication reinforces the state religion of democracy. It is indisputable that when the first newspaper was introduced in 1622 in Britain monarchical government was the state religion of most European countries. As Curran points out, newspapers were not respectable outlets of discourse let alone communication. However, they gradually attracted viewers, and as the newspaper stamp act of 1712 during the waning years of the War for Spanish Succession, it is plausible the government wanted to control a medium that despite its relatively unpopularity in the nobility could have very easily served as a vehicle for rival political parties such as the Tories to vent their frustration at the immense cost of what they deemed to be a worthless war.
This attempted suppression of the newspaper through stamp acts is very similar to the direct censorship that the Church employed in that the act itself is designed to limit the number of people who consume certain knowledge. However, as Curran mentioned during the nineteenth century the prestige and influence of press proprietors increased with an increased measure of ‘political autonomy.’ This increase in political weight, he continues, was reflected in the substantial legal immunities awarded the press between 1868-1898 and was introduced as the fourth estate or branch of government. In other words, in terming it the nominal fourth branch of government, a government that was democratic, is saying that the newspaper is the form of mass media that legitimized the state religion of democracy. A recent article in the British The Independent aptly titled, “Democracy Can’t Exist Without Newspapers”, reinforces this point further. In it the writer says, “Wherever you take your starting point, it is impossible to identify a society in which the scrutiny of a free and diverse newspaper press has not been vital to the development and success of representative democracy. They are so inextricably linked it is alarming to contemplate the possibility of one trying to function without the other.” (The Independent)
As Curran mentions, the newspaper maintained initially the fragile relationship of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie in parliament and also furnished the moral framework that legitimized the British capitalist system, the heart of the modern state religion of democracy. By doing so, the press opened itself up to being a commodity to be used for advertising and thus something whose ownership can be transferred to the wealthiest capital entrepreneur who then controls the press. Nowadays ownership has become more concentrated in the hands of a few multi-national corporations ameliorating the control system institutionalized by the free market. This point is essential to understanding how the current power structure may control and limit certain knowledge through the media. As Graham Murdock explains in his article “Large corporations and the control of the communications industries,” he refers to the above mentioned trend towards conglomeration and growth of institutional development where media enterprises such as the press are increasingly linked to companies operating in socially and politically contentious areas such as oil and military technology. This leads to the increase of potential “no go” areas for critical reporting and presentation, as corporations seek to use their media enterprises to promote a favorable image of their other activities.
While Curran focused on the original British Press Barons in control of a majority of the press from the mid-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, the previous quote from Murdock leads the reader into contemporary times and the arguments regarding concentration, conglomeration and capital in the media at large. However, I will not enter this area as I feel Murdock does a great job analyzing and highlighting the specifics of this intricate, ideological debate. I will now briefly try to draw light onto the new social mode of communication, SNS’s, and try to examine how the traditional power structure of the democratic state and its free market heart are responding and dealing with the rapid changes posed by SNS’s. I will briefly use the case of Twitter and its controversial role in the previous Iranian political election.
The most important change in communication has been the advent of instantaneous SNS such as Facebook and Twitter allowing individuals to contact one another at anytime regarding anything and the increase in smart-phones have made this process even quicker. During the 2009 Presidential elections held in Iran, many have singled out Twitter, including many within the government in Washington DC, as having played a key role in the controversial elections even going as far to label it a ‘Twitter Revolution.’ However, a very interesting article that appeared on the Korean Blotter.net written by “Vision Designer” asks the simple question of, “Really?” According to him, if you follow the well documented time-line of the elections and records of the ‘Tweets’ coupled with the knowledge that the language used during the election was the native language of Farsi not English, it becomes apparent that there is a large difference in the expectations of outsiders mainly in the West regarding the role of Twitter and its actual effect on the elections. In other words, Twitter may have served an important role in allowing foreigners to find out what was happening with the country, but if one is conscious of the fact that the Iranian government fully implemented censorship programs and attacks on dissidents within the country the real effect of Twitter becomes apparent. (Blotter.net, Vision Designer)
Now if you consider the relationship between Silicon Valley and Washington the problem really gets complicated. Following the “Twitter Revolution” it was revealed that a censorship evasion program labeled ‘Haystack’ had been created by a San Francisco programmer in his 20’s to help resist the movement by the Iranian government to step up it’s control over internet censorship leading up to the elections. For a time Austin Himmun became a media hero. However, Evgeny Morozov of Foreign Policy pointed out the actual accomplishments of ‘Haystack’ hadn’t been published nor had the technology itself been officially verified before the Department of defense had decided to ignore its own trade sanctions on Iran and have the technology exported to Iran. With such apprehensions, Morozov was able to utilize some connections to reveal that in fact the story surrounding ‘Haystack’ itself had been intentionally spread by the media and that within Iran due to serious problems surrounding ‘Haystack’ users have been warned not to use the program as it exposes them to more danger. On top of this Hilary Clinton had positively praised Twitter as being an example of how social media is leading democratization around the world as one part of America’s 21st Century Statecraft.
There is no miraculous solution to help bring about such a democratization movement, so why then did such an event as ‘Haystack’ occur? Vision Designer purports that this has close links between Washington and Silicon Valley and their desire to export the ‘diplomatic good’ of the freedom of information. Briefly touching upon the current example of Google's actions towards China. Although there are 40 countries around the world that censor the Internet, why did Google single out China? Also, did this decision have anything to do with the fact that the former strategic planner of the US Department of Defense is now a part of Google’s “Google Idea” think-tank? The only things that can be proven by these events are that there is a deepening of relations between Washington and Silicon Valley. The motive of such a relationship is as of yet indeterminable. Is it for their proposed “Information democratization” or “To make a better world?” Regardless, the danger of such a close relationship is exemplified through the Iranian election where if social media had actually caused a revolution it would have been for the benefit of those behind the scenes. In conclusion it is important to move beyond questions regarding whom is behind furthering social change through social media and look critically at potential answers to who this change is for and who it will benefit.
