Page 209 - Critical Political Economy of the Media

188 Critical investigations in political economy

subsequent policy debate and action (Starr 2004; Galperin 2004). Another
approach, actor–network theory (ANT), provides conceptual resources for a
radical pluralist analysis of the interaction of diverse sets of actors in efforts to
shape and influence policy. ANT is closer to Foucaultian approaches to power than
Marxist ones. It proposes a ‘flat ontology’ (Latour 2005) that rejects a pre-ordering
of power in contrast to Marxian and CPE efforts to understand how power
structures and the economic influence conditions for exercising agency.
CPE has looked to revisions in social theory to break out of the problems of
structure and agency. Mosco, drawing on the work of Anthony Giddens,
proposes structuration as offering a more dynamic and integrated approach. In
Mosco’s formulation ‘social action takes place within the constraints and the
opportunities provided by the structures within which action happens’ (2009: 16).
Going further, Jessop (2008: 41) proposes a ‘strategic-relational’ account that
dialectically relativises both analytical categories:

social structure can be studied in ‘strategic-relational’ terms as involving
structurally inscribed strategic selectivity; and action can likewise be analysed
in terms of its performance by agents with strategically calculating structural
orientation. The former term signifies that structural constraints always
operate selectively; they are not absolute and unconditional but are always
temporally, spatially, agency- and strategy-specific. The latter term implies that
agents are reflexive, capable of reformulating within limits of their own
identities and interests, and able to engage in strategic calculation about
their current situation.

Structure here is conceived in relational rather than reified terms, ‘structural
constraints comprise those elements in a situation that cannot be altered by
agent(s) in a given time period and will vary according to the strategic location of
agents in the overall matrix of the formation’ (Jessop 2008: 44). This hardly
reduces the challenges for analysis in identifying what is structural within particular
practices but it does provide grounds for more productive engagement. For
media political economy analysis it invites attention to what serve as structural
constraints in a given situation. The interweaving of critical political economy,
sociology and critical cultural theory has produced synthesising ‘radical pluralist’
accounts that are more open and less deterministic, while sharing a focus on the
nature and effects of power imbalances in communication resources. CPE
approaches have moved towards more dynamic accounts of structuration but
accounting for political and economic structures remains a defining feature,
distinguishing CPE from varieties of voluntarist actor theories, whether liberal or
postmodernist.
For CPE scholars communications policy must be situated in the broader
context of the regulation of the economy and connected policy areas, notably
information, trade and culture. There have been valuable efforts to counter the
compartmentalisation of a media-centric policy perspective. Leys (2001)