Submitted: 17th February 2007
Course: Introduction to Mass Communication (J201)
Ever since its emergence in 1982 (DiMaggio , Hargittai, Neuman, Robinson, 2001), the Internet has diffused into the American homes of all classes. One related media product is MSN messenger, or more commonly referred to as ‘MSN’. This essay sets out to show how J.W. Carey’s emphasis of the communication process as ritual is embodied in MSN. I believe that the ritual and transmission processes play important roles in the functioning of MSN.
First, MSN represents shared beliefs. Anyone familiar with the product will realize the magic of the ‘share files’ button, through which files of all kinds can be shared. We no longer have to buy or download our own music and video files; only one person in society needs to perform the job and send it to the masses through network after network. Arguably,, the above example seems more of a transmission than a ritual process in that information is imparted to others. However, the process is still regarded as ritual because people from different backgrounds are brought together by their common passion for a particular genre of music or video. The concept of sharing is also embedded in the casual conversations among friends through MSN. Normally, one wouldn’t think of communication as a transmission process by which information is distributed. Nothing new is learned. Yet, we chat with our friends for the pleasure of interaction as there’s a ‘dramatically satisfying’ (Carey, 1975, para. 18) aspect to it.
Second, MSN stimulates participation. Take the following case as an example. Election day is coming up and naturally, newspapers are flooded with debates and opinions about the different candidates and parties. Similarly, political debates can happen through MSN too. Not only one on one, the ‘invite others to join’ button also allows a group instead of merely two active participants to join in such debates.
In addition, this active participation may also sprout into a group of users possessing a common faith such as the domestic campaign of a particular candidate. Thus, the desire for political activism can be seen as ‘a form of culture invented by a particular class at a particular point of history’. (Carey, 1975, para. 19) Even when one does not find anything to contribute to the discussion, he or she can still ‘join a world of contending forces as an observer at play’. (Carey, 1975, para. 18) This is also one of the many reasons why we find MSN so appealing, as there’s again, a ‘dramatically satisfying’ (Carey, 1975, para. 18) aspect to being an observer alone. Given the popularity of MSN in modern culture, one would feel out-of-place without an account. (Of course, we mustn’t generalize things in saying that everyone in society feels this pressure.) A culture is invented by this generation in which MSN is viewed as a must-have technology of everyday life. People use MSN as a mean to integrate into society. Reality is not inherent (Carey, 1975) and enduring; rather, it is constructed and reconstructed overtime by the dominant forces in society.
After talking about how MSN creates reality, the following will examine how MSN associates people with one another. There are two kinds of association here. First, one need to consider the different social roles that he/she plays within the ritual view of communication. This is seen through the different groups our MSN contacts can be divided into: high school friends, college friends, family etc. Because of the different social roles that one assumes, MSN is also seen as a device for the ‘maintenance of a cultural world which can serve as a control and container for human action’ as we use different languages, tones and modes of languages (e.g. your friend may understand ‘<3 to mean love while your mother may not) when we want to converse with different audiences. By sending messages to people on different lists, one is assuming different roles in society, be it daughter, friend or colleague. The second form of association aligns with online forums. People are not only joined together by common beliefs, but also by common experiences. A while ago, one of my friends encountered problems dealing with the admission application of a particular university. After going through my list of friends on MSN, I referred a friend who was currently studying at the prospective university to her. Now, they’ve become online friends. This example also leads us to our last point – social fellowship is made possible through the sharing or passing on of experiences.
After our discussion of MSN from a ritualistic perspective, let’s move on to the transmission process it serves. MSN can largely be seen as an instrument for distributing news and knowledge. Exchanging word files that contain lectures notes is a case in point. Similarly, the aspect of shared beliefs would not be possible without the circulation of information among different groups in society. In his article, Carey says we shouldn’t overemphasize the role that modern communication plays in the control of the masses through message transmission. Yet, MSN does play a certain part in influencing our beliefs. If we take into account the numerous opinion-sharing and debates taking place through this media product, we must also realize that their primary purpose is to persuade others to take on the sender’s own point of view. As with any other media product, this is an innate characteristic of MSN.
While MSN Messenger can be seen as a symbolic process by which reality is ‘produced’, ‘maintained’ and ‘transformed’ (Carey, 1975, para.23), it must also be seen as a way or the transmission of ideas to give an account of reality – and Carey seem to have overlooked the importance of the latter process in his article. Thus, I maintain that ritual and transmission processes are intertwined in this manner and is applicable to any media product.
References
Carey, J.W (1975) Communication. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers Ltd.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W.R., Robinson, J.P. (2001) SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INTERNET [Electronic version] Annual Review of Sociology
