Mediatization Empirical Perspectives An Introducti

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/265317561
Mediatization Empirical perspectives: An introduction to a special issue
Article in Communications · September 2010

DOI: 10.1515/comm.2010.012
CITATIONS READS
109 1,695
3 authors, including:
Andreas Hepp Stig Hjarvard

Universität Bremen University of Copenhagen
419 PUBLICATIONS 6,436 CITATIONS 116 PUBLICATIONS 4,166 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
#TogetherApart: Mediatization, (Inter)subjectivity and Sociality at a Time of Pandemic View project
PIONEER COMMUNITIES: The Quantified Self and Maker Movements as Collective Actors of Deep Mediatization View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Andreas Hepp on 05 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mediatization ⴚ Empirical perspectives:
An introduction to a special issue
ANDREAS HEPP, STIG HJARVARD and KNUT LUNDBY

E-Mail: Andreas.Hepp@uni-bremen.de; stig@hum.ku.dk; knut.lundby@media.uio.no
Introduction
In general, the concept of mediatization tries to capture long-term inter-
relation processes between media change on the one hand and social and
cultural change on the other. As institutionalized and technological
means of communication, media have become integral to very different
contexts of human life. The media are not just neutral instances of medi-
ation: Media like television, radio, newspaper, the web or the mobile
phone are in themselves mediators of social and cultural change.
Within media and communication studies two strands of research,
medium theory and effect research, have in very different ways addressed
this ‘influence’ of media on processes of social and cultural change. Me-
dium theory describes socio-cultural change as deeply structured by the
advent of a new leading medium, and constructs human history as the
succession of oral, scribal, print and electronic cultures (cf. for example,
Meyrowitz, 1995). Approaches of media effect research analyze the
rather short-term impact of certain media content on the social world
(cf. for example, Rosengren, 1994). Both kinds of approaches have con-
tributed to the understanding of the relationship between media, culture
and society, but they clearly have some shortcomings. Medium theory
conceptualizes the relation between one medium and its socio-cultural
influence too directly and neglects questions of media content. Effect
research theorizes the influence of certain media contents too directly
and neglects questions of media specificity and cultural context. Further-
more, these approaches have not been able to conceptualize a key feature
of contemporary culture and society: Media are no longer ‘outside’ soci-
ety exerting a specific influence or effect on culture and therefore on
individuals. In our present media-saturated society media are inside soci-
ety, part of the very fabric of culture; they have become ‘the cultural air
Communications 35 (2010), 223⫺228 03412059/2010/035⫺0223

DOI 10.1515/COMM.2010.012 쑕 Walter de Gruyter
224 Andreas Hepp, Stig Hjarvard and Knut Lundby
we breathe’ in an even more profound way than Richard Hoggart (1976)

suggested by this phrase, and the conceptual framework to consider me-
dia’s present influence must be able to reflect this new social condition.
Mediatization theory is an attempt to consider this new situation and
to address some of the shortcomings of previous research in a con-
structive manner (cf. Jansson, 2002; Kepplinger, 2002; Hjarvard, 2004;
Schulz, 2004; Krotz, 2008; Mazzoleni, 2008). Across the various ways of
theorizing mediatization we can see the shared trajectory of thinking
about the influence of media in a more complex manner that reflects
both the (institutionalized as well as technologically composed) specific-
ity of different media and their contents as moments of influence on
other ‘fields’ or ‘systems’ of culture and society. The metaphor mostly
used to describe this is that of the ‘media logic(s)’, pervading other socio-
cultural ‘fields’ or ‘systems’.
How to capture mediatization?

From such an initial starting point there has recently been an intensified
discussion about how to capture mediatization (see Lundby, 2009b for
an overview for this). A number of important arguments have been
made. Sonia Livingstone (2009), for example, emphasized that we should
contextualize mediatization research by reflecting that as a result of digi-
talization media increasingly transgress the whole culture and society:
everything gets mediated. Friedrich Krotz (2009) contextualized mediati-
zation further, arguing that mediatization should be seen as a ‘meta
process’ in a long-term historical perspective related to how technical
based media spread across different social and cultural spheres. Nick
Couldry (2008) asked whether there might be one ⫺ singular ⫺ logic of
the media. We proposed theorizing the institutional dimension of media-
tization (Hjarvard, 2008), for grounding mediatization research in social
interaction analyses (Lundby, 2009a) or for reflecting the ‘moulding
forces’ of the media in various cultural fields in a dialectic and contextu-
alized way (Hepp, 2009).
This special issue on “Mediatization ⫺ Empirical perspectives” takes
the discussion on the concept of mediatization outlined above as a start-
ing point to examine the present up-to-date empirical investigations of
mediatization. The contributions offer empirically based critical answers
on the dynamics of media change within the concept of mediatization.
Which new insights may this particular volume of empirical studies pro-
duce concerning existing mediatization studies? From our perspective
the different articles highlight three points, in particular.
Mediatization ⫺ Empirical perspectives 225
Mediatization and globalization

The process of mediatization is in various areas closely connected to ⫺
and intertwined with ⫺ processes of globalization, and this holds true
for both traditional mass media (fiction, news) as well as newer media
such as online news and blogs. Rawolle and Lingard’s study reports how
the growing importance of global fields of both journalism and policy
come to influence national reporting and policy making with respect to
the discourse on the knowledge economy in Australia. Petersen’s recep-
tion study of mediatized religion shows that American television series
with supernatural narratives are competent and salient informers of
Danish teenagers’ religious imaginations. Michailidou and Trenz demon-
strate that despite the general tendency of media reporting on the Euro-
pean Union to stay within a national perspective, online forums play
an important role during debates about EU legitimacy during election
campaigns and not only provide a new source of news, but also views
on the EU from otherwise silent actors, the citizens. As such, mediatiza-
tion and globalization are in many contexts mutually constitutive in
terms of how and in what ways they enable social and cultural change.
Empirical studies play back into theory

Mediatization as a social process is not least about the reciprocal influ-
ences between media and other social fields. Thus, by necessity the study
of mediatization involves cross-disciplinary work, to go beyond the safe
boundaries of a particular academic field and engage in the interrelation-
ships between e. g. media and politics or media and religion. Doing this,
the particular empirical studies of mediatization draw upon a range of
theoretical traditions, including theories of the public sphere (Michaili-
dou and Trenz). The empirically based requests for interdisciplinary the-
orization demonstrate the need for an open theory of mediatization.
Some of the empirical studies in this issue address explicitly the possible
contribution to mediatization theory from related theoretical conceptu-
alizations.
Driessens et al. suggest that practice theory may provide a fruitful
path for mediatization studies. Through the lenses of practice theory
they reformulate the traditional question concerning the mediatization
of politics ⫺ “how and to what extent politics is changed by and through
media?” ⫺ into the question: “how and to what extent do media anchor,
control, and/or organize political practices?”. The influence of media,
they argue, may lie in the ability of media to anchor social practices
through their symbolic powers in different social fields.
Rawolle and Lingard present an empirical account of mediatization
from the perspective of Bourdieu’s theory of social fields. Hence, they
relate mediatization to sets of practices and interrelationships by agents

in media and other social fields. They suggest that mediatization can be
understood in relation to the “cross-field effects” of journalism on other
fields of social activity.
Mediatization as it varies within and between socio-cultural fields

Mediatization does not affect different social fields to the same extent.
Also, within a specific field the degree and character of mediatization
may vary. Rödder and Schäfer conclude that mediatization in the realm
of science is much less pronounced than in other parts of society like
sports or politics. However, certain scientific topics and controversies ⫺
particularly those research areas that may be linked to everyday life ⫺
may become mediatized, at least during specific periods, and this may
influence the media orientation of scientific actors. As Driessens et al
report, the degree and form of personalization that political actors find
acceptable in the present media saturated political public sphere are also
variable, and may relate to power status and gender, for instance.
Furthermore, national and cultural context plays an important role in
the ways that processes of mediatization come to influence a particular
field. Reunanen et al. demonstrate how the Finnish political tradition of
a small, cohesive elite and a consensus driven culture of decision-making
shapes mediatization. Similarly, as Petersen’s analysis shows, the percep-
tion and negotiation of religious meanings among Danish teenagers is
clearly molded by the existing secular youth culture even when the
youngsters enthusiastically embrace American fiction as devoted fans.
Conclusion
Based on these three main arguments articulated by the articles within
this special issue, we can conclude that it is becoming more and more
important to capture the diversity of mediatization in a theoretically
appropriate way instead of suggesting a singular line of development, as
was the case in early stages of mediatization research. Generally speak-
ing, our theorizing of mediatization should acknowledge that the satura-
tion of media in and their related influence on other socio-cultural fields
does not entail that there is a common developmental path across social
fields or for society as a whole. As Michailidou and Trenz conclude when
referring to Hjarvard (2008) “mediatization simultaneously facilitates
centrifugal, centripetal, homogenizing and differentiating processes”.
Just as the concepts of globalization and individualization suggest some
overall processes at work, but do not entail a common or particular
outcome of these processes in particular social and cultural contexts,
Mediatization ⫺ Empirical perspectives 227
neither does mediatization as a concept suggest a singular line of devel-

opment. Mediatization implies the increased importance and in some
cases even dominance of media in late modern societies, but the ways
this importance and dominance are spelled out in the muddy realities of
different social fields are up to empirical analysis to investigate, as this
collection of articles demonstrates.
Bionotes
Andreas Hepp is Professor at the IMKI Institute for Media, Communica-
tion and Information, University of Bremen, Germany.
Stig Hjarvard is Professor at the Department of Media, Cognition and
Communication, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Knut Lundby is Professor at the Department of Media and Communica-
tion, University of Oslo, Norway.
References
Couldry, N. (2008). Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the
emergent space of digital storytelling. New Media and Society, 10(3), 373⫺391.
Hepp, A. (2009). Differentiation: Mediatization and Cultural Change. In K. Lundby
(Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, Changes, Consequences (pp. 135⫺154). New York:
Peter Lang.
Hjarvard, S. (2008). The Mediatization of Society. A Theory of the Media as Agents
of Social and Cultural Change. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 105⫺134.
Hjarvard, S. (2004). From Bricks to Bytes: The Mediatization of a Global Toy Indus-
try. In I. Bondebjerg & P. Golding (Eds.), European Culture and the Media.
(pp. 43⫺63). Bristol: Intellect.
Hoggart, R. (1976). Foreword. In: Glasgow University Media Group (Eds.), Bad News
(pp. ix⫺xiii), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Jansson, A. (2002). The Mediatization of Consumption: Towards an Analytical
Framework of Image Culture. Journal of Consumer Culture, 2(1), 5⫺31.
Kepplinger, H. M. (2002). Mediatization of Politics. Theory and Data. Journal of
Communication, 2002, 972⫺986.
Krotz, F. (2008). Media Connectivity. Concepts, Conditions, and Consequences. In
A. Hepp, F. Krotz, S. Moores, & C. Winter (Eds.), Network, Connectivity and
Flow. Conceptualising Contemporary Communications (pp. 13⫺31). New York u. a.:
Hampton Press.
Krotz, F. (2009). Mediatization: A Concept With Which to Grasp Media and Societal
Change. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, Changes, Consequences
(pp. 19⫺38). New York: Peter Lang.
Livingstone, S. M. (2009). On the mediation of everything. Journal of Communication,
59(1), 1⫺18.
Lundby, K. (2009a). Media logic: Looking for social interaction. In K. Lundby (Ed.),
Mediatization: Concept, Changes, Consequences (pp. 101⫺119). New York: Peter
Lang.
Lundby, K. (Ed.) (2009b). Mediatization: Concept, Changes, Consequences. New York:
Peter Lang.
Mazzoleni, G. (2008). Mediatization of Society. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The Interna-
tional Encyclopedia of Communication, vol VII (pp. 3052⫺3055).
Meyrowitz, J. (1995). Medium Theory. In D. J. Crowley, & D. Mitchell (Eds.), Com-
munication Theory Today (pp. 50⫺77). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rosengren, K. E. (Ed.) (1994). Media Effects and Beyond: Culture, Socialization, and
Lifestyles. London: Routledge.
Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing Mediatization as an Analytical Concept. European
Journal of Communication, 19(1), 87⫺101.
View publication stats

Mediatization Empirical Perspectives An Introducti

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mediatization Empirical Perspectives An Introducti

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Mediatization Empirical perspectives: An introduction to a special issue

Article in Communications · September 2010

Andreas Hepp Stig Hjarvard

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

#TogetherApart: Mediatization, (Inter)subjectivity and Sociality at a Time of Pandemic View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ANDREAS HEPP, STIG HJARVARD and KNUT LUNDBY

Communications 35 (2010), 223⫺228 03412059/2010/035⫺0223

we breathe’ in an even more profound way than Richard Hoggart (1976)

How to capture mediatization?

Mediatization and globalization

Empirical studies play back into theory

relate mediatization to sets of practices and interrelationships by agents

Mediatization as it varies within and between socio-cultural fields

neither does mediatization as a concept suggest a singular line of devel-

View publication stats

You might also like