“Marxism is no longer relevant in a society alive with plural messages and mediums”
Marxism and pluralism are two opposing theories; however in today’s society it is almost impossible to completely dismiss parts of Karl Marx theory. Karl Marx theory could easily be connected with the hypodermic needle model; this is because the media creates ideologies that the consumer has ‘injected’ in to their heads, thus changing the beliefs of the consumer. This is very similar to a Marxist theory of being in a state of ‘false consciousness’ in that the consumer just accepts that what they are being fed with is the status quo.
Karl Marx acknowledged the importance of ideas, beliefs and values with regard to class struggle in society. Marx was concerned with the fact that the ruling class in society, the bourgeoisie and capitalists, could control such ideas, beliefs and values. In the ‘German Ideology’ Marx writes:
‘The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e. the class, which is the ruling material force of the society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production…’
The ruling class controls not only the means of material production but also the means of mental production; this means that the ruling class also controls the mass media and the institutions of civil society in general.
One example of Marxism within the media is the belief that the media will ‘dumb down’ its output to achieve a larger audience. The popular ITV television programme The X Factor, available to view on several platforms, takes on the everyday person which Marx considers a proletariat and they then face a panel of judges which arguably could be considered as the bourgeoisie. The live shows allow the general public to cast votes as to which contestant they would like to remain in the competition in order to win a record contract. As the public are allowed to democratically vote this suits the needs of the viewers which distracts them whilst the media slowly feeds them ideologies, this arguably acts as a distraction as the final decision deciding who remains in the competition still remains with the judges. The viewer’s accept the judges’ final decision as if it is just the way things are, much like in Marx theory of domination that oppressed and low paid workers accept that it is the natural order of things.
In contrast with this theory is Pluralism, this theory suggests that media societies are seen as independent from the state, the theory views society as a system of varying groups and interests such as ethnicity and sexual orientation none of which are predominant.
Pluralists see society as a complex of competing groups and interests, none of which are predominant all the time. Media organisations are seen as bounded organisational systems, enjoying an important degree of autonomy from the state, political parties and institutionalised pressure groups. Control of the media is said to be in the hands of an autonomous managerial elite who allow a considerable degree of flexibility to media professionals. A basic symmetry is seen to exist between media institutions and their audiences, since in McQuail’s words the ‘relationship is generally entered into voluntarily and on apparently equal terms’… and audiences are seen as capable of manipulating the media in an infinite variety of ways according to their prior needs and dispositions and as having access to what Halloran calls ‘the plural values of society’ enabling them to ‘conform, accommodate or reject’. (Gurevitch et al. 1982: 1)
Within todays’ society with the introduction of new digital media technology where on websites such as the BBC the audience are able to vote on polls for what they want to see and write feedback society is much more alive with plural messages and mediums. The audience are those who decide according to a pluralist view, if they don’t like what they see on television or read in print products, and then ratings and circulation figures fall and the media organisations respond by catering for the needs of the audience. On the subject of the media displaying political bias then it stems not from the media itself, but from the consumers, in any case the plurality of different viewpoints guarantees that there is no overall bias. For example if a person doesn’t like the ‘pro-Tory’ line of The Times, then there are other options such as The Guardian.
The pluralist theory accentuates that society is made up of several interacting but competing sections, which have more of less, equal access to resources and influence. Pluralists produce plenty of evidence which in today’s society makes Marxism appear irrelevant, such as the media do not occupy the power as governments hold legislations against media owners having too much power ruling out such trends in ownership as vertical integration. Vertical integration is considered as unfair as it not only denies competition the chance to survive as smaller companies can’t compete with the lower prices, secondly it reduces the choice of its consumer as one person or groups views or products can become too dominant, a prime example of the argument surrounding Rupert Murdock and his dominant media empire.
The sociologist Habermas came up with the theory of ‘The Public Sphere’, this arguably ties in with democratic pluralism as within his theory he describes the public sphere as ‘a discursive space in which individuals and groups congregate to discuss matters of mutual interest and, where possible, to reach a common judgement’. The public sphere introduces the idea that through social interaction people are able to communicate amongst each other in order to reach a judgement, this denies the Marxist belief that audiences are controlled by people more powerful to them as different social classes could congregate and discuss anything of interest, thus making their own verdict and not being forced to believe the opinion of others.
