Media and communications effect upon ones identity

Welcome Frank,

Communications certainly affect behaviour but "self-identity" is more likely to be affected by face to face discourse or "narrowcasting" than "broadcasting". This is because self identity tends to be allied to group identity.

oh i'm not sure of that fresco, i think that not only can one affect the other (face to face affecting our ability to address a group, and vice versa) but that there must be some kind of middle ground (small group "broadcasting" like this forum? or a family even?) that would also have an effect.

tinyg,

"Small group" is "narrowcasting".....the point being that it allows for two-way or tailored communications thereby effecting negotiated convergence.

i appreciate that clarification, but i still think that any of the above can affect the style of any other.

Doesn't the television show Jackass inspire a certain amount of idiotic behavior?

Why put brand name items into movies if not to encourage the movie going public to buy Kellogg's Corn Flakes or Dove Soap or Heinz Catsup?

Writing "black" and "gay" and "Asian" role models into television soaps and sit-coms is supposed to provide minority kids with role images.

Noddy provides a very good and very relevent point to this topic. Jackass does inspire stupidity as does to certain degrees the simpsons and such the like.

Sorry, you guys, but in a democracy the concept of communications as a "force" to manipulate the "self-identity" of others is simplistic nonsense. This is not to deny that advertizing changes behavior but to point out that advertizing is aimed at already existent target markets. Advertizers will pick "role model" programmes for their vehicles in order to connect with particular targets. We are talking here of "consumerism" not "identity change" unless we are lowering the status of "self" to a mere "consumer".

In autocratic states there is certainly a case for conspiracy to manipulate "self-identity" but that assumes uniformity of political interests as opposed to diversity of commercial interests.

BTW, "consumerism" or " manipulating the need to buy" was invented by Freud's nephew who also "marketed" his uncle who was relatively unknown in the US. Subsequently, the Nazis were quick to jump on a "Jewish Conspiracy" bandwagon with by linking the origins of consumerism with the Wall St. crash and German inflation.

yeah, well that's irrelevant because most of us don't live in one, you included.

oh i love the uk, quite dearly, but don't give me any patriotic nonsense about "democracy..." you've got a slightly more intelligent version of the crap we've got, with a slightly more intelligent version of almost the same collection of problems. you must be confusing "democracy" with "voting," we make that mistake all the time!

here in the real world, media *is* a force. and in a democracy, i say it would be too. without engaging in any bigoted conspiracy theories, what the hell do you think art is? does it not change things? or do they not have art in your democracy? honestly fresco, come on!

tinyg,

This thread is about "self-identity"....lets hear you talk about that, rather than regurgitating leftist political slogans ?

fresco, quote one slogan i posted, since you can't defend* anything you said in the last post, either. i spoke for myself, thank you.

* i would have settled for mere clarification.

of course media (and art) can change self-identity in a democracy, you're simply making media out to be limp or easy for an individual to control. you underestimate it. if my views are leftist, that doesn't make them any more or less "regurgitated" than your own.

now, you're supposed to be the smart one, fresco. i rely on you. i could give up, but if i want ridiculous i'll ask an idiot. if you, on the other hand, say a thing that sounds baseless, i ask for you to clarify and i imagine you'll do it easily- not see if you can hit lower than i did.

tinyg,

The points I am trying to make are

(1) that the concept of "self-identity" goes beyond the observation of ephemeral "behaviour modification"

and

(2) In a democracy (even if only by name) free market forces tend to cancel each other by differential vectoring. i.e there is no net "force".

Point (1) has not been discussed at all and the antithesis of point (2) does imply conspiracy theories by default whether we like it or not.

thanks!

In my criminal justice courses I'm taking we are currently studying sociological theories in regards to crime, particularly why crimes are committed by people. There is a theory called the labeling theory that relates to juvenile justice in particular. The theory states that if the individual is labeled to be a criminal (conceptually bad person) then that person will think less of acting criminaly.

So are we questioning if our self-identity is dependent or independent of other people's perspectives.

Well, that depends. I'd say, if the same message get's broadcast voer and over again, during all or most of the formative years of an individual, there is a very real chance that this individual's self-identity will to an extent absorb such ideas, and adjust his/her behaviour. I think a lot of the 'impact value' of the media on the development of an identity of self is related to how many different 'venues' of information gathering/interaction exist for an individual, and what relative importance each is given.



I'm sorry. I will use the excuse of lack of brain capacity here, but could you please explain this? If I'm correct, you are implying that for every mediavenue that makes statement 'x', there is another mediavenue which makes the statement 'not x'? If so, I disagree. If not, please enlighten me.

najmelliw

1. Psychologists tend to agree that "self identity" is socially acquired within the rearing process such that a child identifies with (or conflicts with) significant others. (i.e. those who provide for the child's physical and emotional needs). The "media" cannot be construed as " a significant other" even if it serves to reinforce areas of significance already acquired.

2. In a "free market" message x is diluted by messages y and z etc.
No doubt there is some equation used by advertisers giving "inverse dilution" as a function of "cash allocated for exposure time to target audience" but that is NOT the same as blatant propaganda within a conspiratorial political situation. A target is static. Propaganda aims to shift that stasis. In advertising the the signal to noise ratio is increased by raising the "signal strength".....in propaganda it is the "noise" which is silenced.

I concur with 1. If there are any exceptions, they are probably few, and only serve as confirmation of the rule, so to speak. But while that influence may not be apparent in the developing years, can it not be said that it perhaps becomes more visible/influential in the adult years? When an identity has been formed, might not a consistent stream of indoctrination by mediavenue's serve to change, certain aspects of that identity? For instance, someone who is raised a racist could, under influence of certain tv-shows, come to the conclusion that perhaps his/her views of the existence of superior/inferior races is flawed, and needs mending. Provided, however, that there are no more 'direct' influences in this person's life enforcing this racism (such as trusted racist friends/parents).
Or can the source of this change then also be traced back to 'significant others' in life? How far does this influence go?

2. I think I see what you mean... I think. Advertisement doesn't try to supress other competitors, it just seeks to reinforce the message steering potential customers to buy from their own brand. Whereas propaganda, especially the conspiratorial kind, seeks to suppress all media issuing 'conflicting' views on current policy, thereby also reinforcing the propagated political message (since people will not be exposed to other political messages). Right?

najmelliw,

You have the gist of what I say. Your suplementary issues depend on how we try to define that nebulous concept of "self-identity". Obviously race, idiolect, wealth, and intellect are all potential factors within such a definition but in general, what the term means to a particular individual may not correspond to its operational definition for the purposes of statistical behavior modification by third parties.