An Outgrowth of a Means of Control
by Trudy A. Martinez
According to The America College Dictionary, the term technology originates from the Greek form of the word technologia which means: systematic treatment. With this logic and reasoning in mind, I intend to examine the relationship (in my series of papers (2)) between the root meaning of technology and the specific technological advancement of modern television and the outward application of systematic treatment. A historical review of technology will foreshadow progression through the modern applications. In the process, the hazards and possible ramifications of the modern application of television should parallel the historical and come into focus with a convergent force, leading to the question: are we as individuals free and in control? Or are we being controlled?
Before industry is introduced on a large-scale to society, government, the nobles, and the church fashion and maintain a systematic treatment of the populace. Imagination quails through fear. Few have the fortitude, determination, or endurance to contradict the status quo. The church functions as the mediator of facts and legitimacy. Only upon emergence of the period of history known as the scientific revolution do individuals bring forth a challenge that will relinquish, foil, and peel the ideology of the church from the face of society. As a result of the peeling of ideology, new doctrines emerge and create a new freedom that revolves around imagination.
Creative imagination becomes the forerunner of technology as we know it today. The imagination of specific individuals brings about technology which results in an industrial revolution fueled by greed in Western Europe. Expansion of industry facilitates the greed at the expense of the up and coming middle class and the lower classes. Ultimately, reaction to overwhelming greed results in revolution. After the French Revolution, it is apparent that repressive controls are in need to preserve the status of aristocrats in an industrial society.
American Historical Factors:
In the beginning, our forefathers seek to establish a governmental system of systematic treatment of equality and justice for all. In their estimation, revolution will ideally be prevented through unity. The America promise-land is established to free the people from oppression of their oppressor, England. After freedom from oppression is gained, America remains isolated: close to nature and close to God.
Even though industrialization in the United States of America is not a revolution, technology allows it to flourish. As a result, technology seems to change the emphasis of the America objective from freedom of the people to freedom of big business. This change of emphasis parallels a change in ideology.
In the beginning, American commerce flourishes under the ideology of the Enlightenment: “It assumed that history, at least modern history, was driven by the steady, cumulative, and inevitable expansion of human knowledge of power over nature” (Marx 1987, p.5). Under this assumption, the “ideas of progress” grow to “a necessary criteria” for progress to achieve “political and social liberation” (Marx 1987, p.5) as a result, “scientific knowledge and technological power are expected to [work for the benefit and] improvement in all conditions of life–social, political, moral, and intellectual as well as material” (Marx 1987, p.5). The ideology emphasizes the importance of the free individual.
Whereas, “the rhetoric of Daniel Webster . . . [and] Edward Everett . . . [produce] a new version of . . . progressive ideology”. Webster’s version of ideology emphasizes big business rights over individual rights and instrumentation value over social value. Technology comes first and the individual second (Marx 1987, p. 7-10). Big business literally takes the ball and runs with it. They identify and establish their own systematic treatment of the people of America. As history previously shows in France, a systematic treatment of the populace is necessary for control to be managed effectively, while at the same time, and still prevent revolution.
America’s industrialization follows a Civil War. The establishment of a mandatory school system to educate the masses to a specific way of thinking provides a means of a futuristic control of a government for the people, while Yellow Press Journalism works toward a more immediate end for business by directing favorable thought toward imperialistic expansion. Occasionally, fear tactics are exploited in the Yellow Press when necessary to maintain control (of the populace and the government) or expand the interest of business. European technology furnishes the examples. American technology needs only to maintain control.
There is an air of excitement in the communication industry with radio transmissions. (Yellow journalism had had only the ability to exploit the literate, whereas radio had the ability to increase the realm of influence.) The “radio transmitter” allows listeners to “hear the whack of the bat and the call of the umpire”; the listener’s imagination does the rest. Future advancements of technology are not “an idle dream”. Technology predicts the viewer will someday “see the dust raised by the sliding player’s feet”. Even though America has the technology to proceed with the production and transmission of television broadcasting as early as 1930′s, wide-spread transmission does not occur until after World War II (Mac Donald 1990, p.8).
With the technological advancement of the radio, communication control emerges. Technological advancement and government control always goes hand in hand. The reason government finds it necessary to become the protector of the people (as a force measure) is to balance the scales of justice. Radio advertising “jingles” stimulates commercial economic growth, while at the same time; programing provides entertainment which aims on educating; this eventually permits individuals to relinquish some reliance they may place upon their own individual enterprise.
With more and more progressive entertaining innovations, the industry grows. Advertisements make the programing possible. Communication enterprises and education institutions become the major controlling factors of maintaining the status quo of both government and big business. Thus, continual growth insures the satisfaction of the upcoming entrepreneurs through education and the expansion of industry through advertisement and enterprise.
The thrust of technologies modernization, in the realm of communications, brings the radio into the homes nearly all Americans. Americans listen. Americans believe. And Americans react. They utilize their active imaginations in ways never believed possible. Orson Wells’ broadcast of “The War of the Worlds” on a Halloween night proves a point: the American mind can be controlled through the innovations of technology and imagination. The broadcast brings about panic; it brings about death. Some Americans offer their lives as a sacrifice by committing suicide to avoid the awful death imagined by their unconscious perception.
Can’t you just imagine the secret back-room conversations of corporate management and the questions that might arise: What if advertisements can capture the same thrust as that of “The War of the World” broadcast? Will the consumer’s imagination be the driving force that will determine whether or not to buy the product? Advertisements on radio stimulate the imagination. Advertisements on television replace imagination with a sense of imagined reality.
Television is an outgrowth of radio. Advertisements paid the way. A struggle for control of the industry emerges. “RCA (Radio Corporation of America) controlled radio” (Mac Donald 1990, p.22). Their dream is to control the television industry by monopolizing both production and programing. In opposition to RCA’s control, fierce competition arises for jurisdiction in the up and coming television industry as it emerges. When Radio Corporation of America (RCA) seeks a controlling interest of not only production but also programming, government commission steps in and attempts to avert RCA’s influence through government intervention and controls. But when RCA forms the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), and “. . . enormous technical and financial power to programing and station ownership. . . ” it won the “governments blessings”. Even so, Zenith and Phil co provide competition for manufacturing while Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) provides competition for programing (Mac Donald 1990, p.22).
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is established by Congress to superintend the broadcasting industry of both radio and television. Its job is to protect the public and the critical aspects of the American economy. But the magnitude of its “regulatory power raised questions” from both the “political left and right” (Mac Donald 1990, p. 23). While in the arena of free business, there is a fear of “state control of capitalistic commerce and creation of centralized planned economy” (Mac Donald 1990, p. 24-25). The FCC curtails RCA’s standards and literally forces NBC (owned by RCA) to sell part of its interest. As a result, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) emerges as another competitive programming force. The FCC validates the criteria and Public Service Responsibilities of Broadcasting Licensees. The FCC role is to monitor broadcasts.
The American public reactionary comments remain somewhat unchanged. The only difference between the earlier eras of television versus the current is that the broadcasters programing has gotten progressively more presumptuous. The following comment made in reaction to a survey conducted in the 1930′s can just as easily serve to summate the public reaction today.
“In no country except the United States have consumers’ organizations expressed so much or such bitter criticism of their national broadcasting systems and programs” (Mac Donald 1990, p. 29).
The general public opinion concerning programing really hasn’t changed that much. The programing has just gotten progressively more presumptuous.
The Pros and Cons of Advertisements:
Without advertising, television will not flourish. Advertisers pay the pay checks of the communications industry. The U. S. Department of Commerce predicts that television “[will] become the nation’s leading sales tool” (Mac Donald 1990. p.51). They fulfill that prophecy. But what effect has the bombardment of advertising over the television tube had upon society?
In the perspective of my reviewers, advertisements have a negative impact upon society. For instance, Michael Parenti (1986), “. . . believes . . . advertisers not only market their products, but sell a complete way of life”. Parenti comes close to saying that commercials are hypnotic to the viewer. He suggests, even though the consumer may know that the commercial speaks untruths and may be critical of its content, the consumer is affected by the commercial through suppressed suggestions. It is important to keep the goal of the advertising campaign in mind. The advertiser wants us to buy the product. Therefore, the advertising tactics are not always straight forward. The advertisements may waiver from a direct approach in order to achieve the goal of selling the product. Viewers are taught through visual aids that “In order to live well and live properly, consumers need corporate producers to guide them . . . [they] are taught personal incompetence and dependence on mass-market producers” (Parenti 1986, p.191).
Contrary to what Parenti says concerning the advertising market, Christians, Rotzoll, and Fackler (1987, p.193) say that “the sheer volume of mass advertising dulls its message, thereby making it less effective”. But if this was so, why then does an effective campaign find consumer mocking the jingles the commercial advertising produce?
Accordingly, Christians, Rotzoll, and Fackler argue that consumers have no difficulty perceiving the intended meaning of advertisements, nor are they “manipulate” by them. In their reasoning, “advertising serves as part of our culture” and they argue that we should not “forget that we are, in part, a nation founded because of advertising” (Christians Et Al 1987, p. 194-195). When they elaborate on this aspect of advertising history, they fail to realize they contradict themselves; the observations of Daniel Booskin, they so earnestly quote, draws attention to contradictions and discrepancy:
“Never was there a more outrageous or more unscrupulous or more ill-informed advertising campaign than that by which the promoters of the American colonies brought settlers here. Brochures published in England in the seventeenth century, some even earlier, were full of hopeful overstatements, half-truths, and downright lies along with some facts . . . ” (Christians et al. 1987, p. 194).
What the pro-advertisers fail to recognize here is the fact that those people who are coerced into coming to America are manipulated by the falseness of the advertisements which ultimately results in oppression by the oppressor (the advertiser). America fights for freedom to alleviate the pretext of a false front. Americans fight to free themselves from the oppression of their oppressor.
The advertisers’ message says: when there is no clear defense, claim ignorance; this ambiguous message is loud and clear:
“Advertising’s actual effects are . . . not clearly known” . . . “We understand advertising only if we understand its complexity . . . We understand advertising only if we understand its uncertainty. . . We understand advertising only if we understand its ambiguity” (Christians, Rotzoll, and Fackler 1987, p. 193-196).
With advertising’s overwhelming systematic treatment of the consumer, how can the advertisers say: The public is not helpless to its influence? Is not ambiguity, uncertainty, and lack of understanding present a hazard to society? Does not the convergent force of the advertising messages take control of the unsuspecting?