Page 208 - Communication Commerce and Power The Political Economy of America and the Direct Broadcast Satellite

198 Communication, Commerce and Power

directly challenged assertions that the American state functions in
ways that instrumentally serve US information-based corporations.
The DBS example underlines the often anti-competitive tendencies of
most mass-media and related industry activities. This history illus-
trates that far from being universally instrumental, the US state at
times has been dominated by some information-based corporations or
sub-sectors at the expense of others. Moreover, the state is not the
structurally or systemically homogeneous entity implied by Schiller.
Instead, the preceding chapters portray an American state that is itself
usually uncoordinated and often characterized by intra-state conflict.
Moreover, because the state exists and functions in a larger social-
economic context, state activities are directly affected but not necessa-
rily directly determined by non-state forces.
Technological convergence, its widespread application, and related
information economy developments together constitute one general
example of a historical and widespread context in which state officials
now operate. This contextual shift facilitated DBS developments in
the United States, first through challenges to the AT&T and Comsat
monopolies and later through efforts to redress the cable television
industry's anti-DBS behavior in a 'competitive' neo-liberal environ-
ment. In order to understand the role of the American state in the
development of the contemporary information economy, state struc-
tures, and the capacities held by public and private sector agents to act
in relation to established interests and emerging demands, must all be
assessed using a historically dynamic analysis.
This book has examined the role of the American state and US-
based corporations, purposely not focusing on the cultural-power
effects of US-based developments largely because the former has
been neglected by critical analysts. While this itself substantiates the
attention paid to the state in the present study, the findings of this
history directly inform evaluations of cultural-power capacities and
their relevancy in efforts to re-tool American hegemony. In recogniz-
ing the US state to be the complex mediator of international reforms
facilitating ongoing information economy developments, the concept
of US cultural imperialism remains a salient perspective despite its
many problems. But again, such an analysis requires a detailed assess-
ment of historical moments in relation to structural capacities and the
social-economic forces shaping the interests and actions of key agents.
In recognizing both the ongoing centrality of the American state in
the international political economy and the opportunities and limita-
tions furnished by its structural capacities, Schiller and others need