With the ubiquity of technological innovation and reformation, modern media are far from simple. Even the most straightforward medium contains in its form layers of remediations of other (older or newer) media. This same straightforward medium also contains layers of cultural, historical, and political mediations in its content, purpose, and effect. Because media can appear unadulterated, direct, and immediate despite their complex relationship to other media, and because they can be packed so densely with complex messages and employ myriad rhetorical strategies, they make excellent conduits for political, social, and cultural messages. Indeed, this oft-veiled complexity has resulted in a plethora of public relations professionals, ‘spin doctors,’ and ‘media consultants’ (Webster 190). Although the availability of “new” and advanced media has intensified this tendency, it is not a uniquely contemporary phenomenon. Effective spin doctors existed even in seventeenth century New England , particularly during the Salem Witch Trials of the late 1690s. Cotton Mather’s The Wonders of the Invisible World is an “account” of these trials, and in its title page alone, its form, content, and purpose have both overt and covert political and social implications.
Although its explicit purpose is to educate an already-knowledgeable Puritan public, this piece of information functions on another level as a multi-layered rhetorical appeal to a particular type of public for a very particular effect. Mather deems it an “Account;” refers to “Observations upon the Nature, the Number, and the Operations of the Devils;” suggests the need for a course of action, and concludes by introducing “a brief Discourse” (Mather Title page). This language presupposes an audience receptive to forthright information rather than sensationalism, a public interested in facts. As members of a public sphere, the audience appears to fit with Jurgen Habermas’ ideal. He explains that, with the development of a capitalist, bourgeois class, the public sphere became and should be “a sphere of private people come together as a public” to address their common interests through “the public use of their reason” (Habermas 27). Habermas sees enlightened society as contingent upon a knowledgeable public participating in rational discourse, and this type of public cannot exist without sufficient information. Mather aims to remedy a dearth of information by using a traditional medium (a plain, un-illustrated cover page comprised of a title, an outline of the information, and publication information), and this will ostensibly facilitate rational discourse.
In addition to the medium’s appearance, Mather relies heavily on linguistic strategies, employing what Jay Bolter and Richard Grusin define as “remediation.” They explain that “The goal of remediation is to refashion or rehabilitate other media” (56), and in his effort to appear as though he is working with a rational public capable of rational discourse, Mather relies on rational language. Specifically, he remediates scientific language, incorporating it into a non-scientific public document, to lend credibility to his assertions. He would have no need to do this if his audience was not assumed to be information-savvy. The Puritan public was indeed literate; they had access to certain types of information so they could knowledgeably practice spiritual self-assessment, a bulwark of their faith. However, Mather does not intend merely to inform the public and instigate discourse; rather, he intends quite the opposite. By incorporating one medium into another, Mather’s remediation of language “can be understood as a process of reforming reality as well” (Bolter and Grusin 56). He elevates his non-secular opinion by conveying it through a “factual” medium, shaping rather than stimulating public discourse, which in turn, shapes social reality.
If the discourses of the public sphere can be shaped by remediation, then it follows that rational public discourse can be obstructed at the expense of Habermas’ ideal, enlightened public. Habermas addresses this, calling it “Manufactured Publicity” (211). Specifically, he explains that “the ‘opinion leader(s) in public affairs’ are usually wealthier, better educated, and have a better social position than the groups influenced by them” (213), and therefore, the former are more able to shape public opinion according to their political agendas. Webster refers to this as “information management” or “the spread of the means, and of the consciousness of purpose, of persuading people” (190). He cites Howard Tumber’s analysis that this use of “‘information has become paramount for governments in their attempts to manipulate public opinion and maintain social control’” (qtd. in Webster 190).
Looking at the social and political context of Mather’s book, as situated in late-seventeenth century New England, information management is just as pervasive as it would come to be centuries later. After the final execution in 1692, the Puritan public began to doubt the validity of their government’s actions. Mather was requisitioned by the governing body to explain the situation to the public in order to smooth over the burgeoning dissent (Hovey and Jackson 509). The implications of Mather’s strategic use of language can be characterized by what Habermas refers to as a shift from public opinion to mass opinion. He defines public opinion as a heteroglossia and free exchange of rational ideas, as opposed to mass opinion, which entails “far fewer people express(ing) opinions than receiving them” (Habermas 249). In effect, it is “a shift … towards an acceptance of the massage and manipulation of public opinion by the technicians of public relations” (Webster 191). The disingenuousness of the political maneuvering we see today which creates an information-saturated but knowledge-poor society is painfully evidenced by this single, “simple” medium. With a history like this, it is no surprise public discourse has consistently, and in some ways progressively, fallen short of Habermas’ ideal.
Works Cited
Bolter, David J. and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge
MIT, 2000. Print.
Habermas, Jurgen. Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of
Bourgeois Society. 1962. Trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge
Hovey, Kenneth A. and Gregory S. Jackson. Introduction. “Cotton Mather 1663-1728.” Heath
Anthology of American Literature. 5th ed. Vol. A. Gen. ed. Paul Lauter. Boston
Houghton Mifflin, 2006. 507-9. Print.
Mather, Cotton. Title page. The Wonders of the Invisible World. New England , 1693. Google
Images. Web. 25 September 2012
Webster, Frank. Theories of the Information Society. 3rd Ed. Routledge: London
No comments:
Post a Comment