A reading response to Raymond Williams' "Communications as Cultural Science"
Raymond Williams' article published in 1974 "Communications as Cultural Science" stresses the interdisciplinary nature of Communication Studies. From a previous lecture with Prof. John Corner, I became aware that the subject lent itself to different academic perspectives but after reading this article, I was also reminded to bear in mind that in addressing certain issues, these separate disciplines hardly tend to agree with each other.
This is a valid point.
Take for instance in the textual analysis of film, could we say the popularity of this film is attributed mainly to
technological factors such as editing, or
psychological factors such as how an audience relates to characters, or even
artistic factors such as framing?
In the context of this article, Williams approaches Communication Studies largely through a cultural analysts perspective, commending the subject as being a suitable means of exploring human culture. He acknowledges the assumption from scholars in more traditional subjects such as medical sciences and business courses that Communications Studies is still a widely contested area of academic study. In refuting this belief, he draws to the many opportunities of
cultural insight that could be gained through studying communication practices.
He asserts that, in comparison to other scholarly work, accumulated surveys conducted by the institution of practitioners in advertising has resulted in a detailed database for information regarding consumer behavior. This is a great credit to Communications Studies;
the abundance of resources at our disposal aids our investigations into the developments and effects of the media. I believe that search result survey analysis holds a similar regard. Many corporations benefit from site traffic analysis as they illustrate changes in consumer trends over time.
Williams indicates that there was a common misconception that the 'mass audience' is essentially passive in their reception of the media they consume and therefore easily influenced. Considering that this article was published in 1974, it assures me to see that someone has recognised this error in judgement. This assumption not only degrades the intelligence of the audience but the media institutions charged with the corruption of these individuals, thus shoving the media as a whole under a negative light.
In this modern age, perhaps it is apparent to see why I would agree with Williams:
The ways in which we choose to engage with the media differ from person to person.
People may choose to simply be a passive user of the media (simply watching films, listening to the radio or surfing the web) or they may choose to become an active producer (writing blogs, producing their own films or managing their own forums). Most commonly, we are the mix of both. Therefore it would be too reductionist to uphold the idea of a 'mass audience', when we are both part user and part producer.
Along with this, the growing number of students taking Communications Studies is proof in itself of a more critical and analytical audience, who are ready to challenge and look beyond what is presented to them on the surface.
