Page 31 - Communication Commerce and Power The Political Economy of America and the Direct Broadcast Satellite

US Foreign Communication Policy 19

'needs' and to have been naturally interested in expanding their mar-
kets overseas.
As Schiller explained in 1991, there were three 'essential assump-
tions undergirding' his thesis. First, he assumed that cultural imperia-
lism was a significant sub-set of a more comprehensive American
imperialism. His second assumption was that because corporate secur-
ity or expansion efforts require the presence of at least some con-
sumerist values, 'the cultural and economic spheres are indivisible.'
And third, Schiller cited empirical evidence indicating that the histor-
ical growth of the mass-media sector had accompanied the growth of
other US exports. This, he believed, indicated that 'the corporate
economy is increasingly dependent on the media-cultural sector.' 5
While elite theory informs much of his work, Schiller suggests that
6
the structural dynamics of the US political economy constitutes the
primary force underlying the perpetuation of cultural imperialism. In
essence, this theorization is an elaboration of the warnings made by
President Eisenhower regarding America's military-industrial com-
plex. Schiller makes the point that the 'fixed costs' mobilized in this
complex, involving communication corporations that both receive
substantial military research and development funds and hold signific-
ant mass media interests (such as the RCA Corporation), constitute
an 'inertial force, repulsing ... efforts at change.' Schiller adds that
7
the mechanics are simple and automatic. Control of [military-
related] research enjoys an already-privileged position that is
powerful enough to secure the research appropriations in the first
place. The fruits of discovery further strengthen the existing power
structure and, when applied practically, the material investment
becomes a new obstacle to further change and flexibility .... The
mutual reinforcement that the military and the communications
industry power concentrates offer each other is strengthened
additionally by their deep penetration into the highest levels of
governmental bureaucracy. 8

While this elite theory-structural perspective impels him to address
important issues, Schiller and others interested in constructing a
critical approach to US foreign communication policy have failed to
develop this paradigm in an appropriately nuanced way. While in
Mass Communications and American Empire Schiller provides an intri-
guing survey of interlocking public and private sector agents, for the
most part he assumes these relationships to be largely unproblematic.