Page 50 - Communication Theory Media, Technology and Society

Holmes-02.qxd 2/15/2005 2:04 PM Page 33

Theories of Broadcast Media 33
we are too cool in summer. Fluorescent lights make indoors brighter than
out, night lighter than day. The distinctions between here and there dissolve.
With movies and television, today can become yesterday; and we can be
everywhere, while we are still here. In fact it is easier to be there (say on the
floor of the national political convention) when we are here (at home or in our
hotel room before our television screen) than when we are there. (231–2)

For Boorstin, broadcast technologies are servile to what he described as the
‘homogenization of experience’, in which differences between individuals
are flattened rather than expressed – leaving individualism itself as the
remainder. Nowhere is this more salient than in public opinion polls:

… the rising interest in public opinions and public opinion polls illustrates …
the rise of images and their domination over our thinking about ourselves. …
Public opinion, once the public’s expression, becomes more and more an
image into which the public fits its expression. Public opinion becomes
filled with what is already there. (239, 240)

A consequence of Boorstin’s claims is that, in the age of the image, public
opinion is no longer able to be surveyed or polled. Polling itself, a posi-
tivist gesture of research, cannot quite cope with the fact that it is attend-
ing to a thoroughly anti-positivist reality.
Debord and Boorstin’s depiction of the social function of spectacle
bespeaks striking continuities with that of Michel Foucault’s account of
14
public displays and torture in eighteenth-century Europe. J.B. Thompson
(1995) gives a good account of this in sketching the formation of modern
forms of power:

The societies of the ancient world and of the ancien régime were societies
of spectacle: the exercise of power was linked to the public manifestation
of the strength and superiority of the sovereign. It was a regime of power in
which a few were made visible to the many, and in which the visibility of the
few was used as a means of exercising power over the many – in the way,
for instance, that a public execution in the market square became a spec-
tacle in which a sovereign power took its revenge, reaffirming the glory of
the king through the destruction of the rebellious subject. (132)

Thompson argues that Foucault’s work is instructive for a theory of
the media, less in his promotion of discourse analysis than in showing
how the older spectacular forms of power became manifested in institu-
tional life in routine fashion, imbuing surveillance and disciplinary
regimes in an involutory way. That is, the ‘disciplinary society’ which
Foucault details in Discipline and Punish is one in which ‘the visibility of
the few by the many has been replaced by the visibility of the many by the
few’ (Thompson, 1995: 133). 15
Of course Adorno and Horkheimer would argue that these two forms
of recognition relation are intertwined. That is to say, the visibility of the