Surrealism was officially launched as a movement with the publication of poet André Breton's first Manifesto of Surrealism in 1924. The Surrealists did not rely on reasoned analysis or sober calculation; on the contrary, they saw the forces of reason blocking the access routes to the imagination. Their efforts to tap the creative powers of the unconscious set Breton and his companions on a path that carried them through the territory of dreams, intoxication, chance, sexual ecstasy, and madness. The images obtained by such means, whether visual or literary, were prized precisely to the degree that they captured these moments of psychic intensity in provocative forms of unrestrained, convulsive beauty.
Photography came to occupy a central role in Surrealist activity. In the works of Man Ray (2005.100.141) and Maurice Tabard (1987.1100.141), the use of such procedures as double exposure, combination printing, montage, and solarization dramatically evoked the union of dream and reality. Other photographers used techniques such as rotation (1987.1100.49) or distortion (1987.1100.321) to render their images uncanny. Hans Bellmer (1987.1100.15) obsessively photographed the mechanical dolls he fabricated himself, creating strangely sexualized images, while the painter René Magritte (1987.1100.157) used the camera to create photographic equivalents of his paintings. In her close-up photograph of a baby armadillo suspended in formaldehyde, Dora Maar performs a typical Surrealist inversion, making an ugly, or even repulsive subject compelling and bizarrely appealing (2005.100.443).
But the Surrealist understanding of photography turned on more than the medium's facility in fabricating uncanny images. Just as important was another discovery: even the most prosaic photograph, filtered through the prism of Surrealist sensibility, might easily be dislodged from its usual context and irreverently assigned a new role. Anthropological photographs, ordinary snapshots, movie stills, medical and police photographs—all of these appeared in Surrealist journals like La Révolution Surréaliste and Minotaure, radically divorced from their original purposes.
This impulse to uncover latent Surrealist affinities in popular imagery accounts, in part, for the enthusiasm with which Surrealists embraced Eugène Atget's photographs of Paris. Published in La Révolution Surréaliste in 1926 at the suggestion of his neighbor, Man Ray, Atget's images of vanished Paris were understood not as the work of a competent professional or a self-conscious artist but as the spontaneous visions of an urban primitive—the Henri Rousseau of the camera. In Atget's photographs of the deserted streets of old Paris and of shop windows haunted by elegant mannequins, the Surrealists recognized their own vision of the city as a "dream capital," an urban labyrinth of memory and desire.
Department of Photographs, The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Citation for this page:
Department of Photographs. "Photography and Surrealism". In Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. (October 2004)
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/phsr/hd_phsr.htm
Friday, January 25, 2008
Baudrillard: A New McLuhan? Douglas Kellner
Homepage: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/kellner.html
Curriculum Vitae: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/DK97CV.htm
During the 1980s, Jean Baudrillard has been promoted in certain circles as the new McLuhan, as the most advanced theorist of the media and society in the so-called postmodern era.[1] His theory of a new, postmodern society rests on a key assumption that the media, simulations, and what he calls "cyberblitz" constitute a new realm of experience and a new stage of history and type of society. To a large extent, Baudrillard's work consists in rethinking radical social theory and politics in the light of developments of the consumer, media, information, and technological society. Baudrillard's earlier works focus on the construction of the consumer society and how it provides a new world of values, meaning, and activity, and thus inhabit the terrain of Marxism and political economy. From the mid-1970s on, however, reflections on political economy and the consumer society disappear almost completely from his texts, and henceforth simulations and simulacra, media and information, science and new technologies, and implosion and hyperreality become the constituents of a new postmodern world which -- in his theorizing -- obliterate all the boundaries, categories, and values of the previous forms of industrial society while establishing new forms of social organization, thought, and experience.
Among Baudrillard's most provocative theses are his reflections on the role of the media in constituting the postmodern world. Indeed, he provides paradigmatic models of the media as all-powerful and autonomous social forces which produce a wide range of effects.[2] To explicate the development and contours of his positions on the media, I shall follow his reflections from the late 1960s to the present, and sort out what I consider to be his contributions and limitations. I shall also be concerned to delineate the political implications of his media theory and to point to alternative theoretical and political perspectives on the media.
Baudrillard's Postmodern Media Theory
In 1967, Baudrillard wrote a review of Marshall McLuhan's _Understanding Media_ in which he claimed that McLuhan's dictum that the "medium is the message" is "the very formula of alienation in a technical society," and he criticized McLuhan for naturalizing that alienation.[3] At this time, he shared the neo-Marxian critique of McLuhan as a technological reductionist and determinist. By the 1970s and 1980s, however, McLuhan's formula eventually became the guiding principle of his own thought.
Baudrillard begins developing his theory of the media in an article "Requiem for the Media" in _Toward a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign_ (1972). The title is somewhat ironic for Baudrillard is really only beginning to develop a social theory in which the media will play crucial roles in constituting a new postmodernity. Thus Baudrillard is really writing a requiem here for a 'Marxist theory of the media' arguing: "McLuhan has said, with his usual Canadian-Texan brutalness, that Marx, the spiritual contemporary of the steam engine and railroads, was already obsolete in his lifetime with the appearance of the telegraph. In his candid fashion, he is saying that Marx, in his materialist analysis of production, had virtually circumscribed productive forces as a privileged domain from which language, signs and communication in general found themselves excluded" (CPES, p. 164). Baudrillard's critique of Marx here begins a radical interrogation of and eventual break with Marxism which would culminate in _The Mirror of Production_ (1973). Baudrillard begins distancing himself from Marxism in "Requiem for the Media," and in particular attacks Marx's alleged economic reductionism, or "productivism," and the alleged inability of the Marxian theory to conceptualize language, signs, and communication (Habermas at the time was developing a parallel position within Critical Theory).[4]
As an example of the failure of Marxian categories to provide an adequate theory of the media, Baudrillard criticizes the German activist and writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger's media theory and his attempts to develop a socialist strategy for the media.[5] Baudrillard dismisses this effort as a typical Marxian attempt to liberate productive forces from the fetters of productive relations that fails to see that in their very form the mass media of communication "are anti-mediatory and intransitive. They fabricate non communication -- this is what characterizes them, if one agrees to define communication as an exchange, as a reciprocal space of a speech and a response, and thus of a responsibility (not a psychological or moral responsibility, but a personal, mutual correlation in exchange) .... they are what always prevents response, making all processes of exchange impossible (except in the various forms of response simulation, themselves integrated in the transmission process, thus leaving the unilateral nature of the communication intact). This is the real abstraction of the media. And the system of social control and power is rooted in it" (CPES, pp. 169-170).
It is curious that Baudrillard, interpreted by many of his followers as an avant-garde, postmodern media theorist, manifests in this passage both technophobia and a nostalgia for face-to-face conversation which he privileges (as authentic communication) over debased and abstract media communication. Such a position creates a binary dichotomy between "good" face-to-face communication and "bad" media communication, and thus occludes the fact that interpersonal communication can be just as manipulative, distorted, reified, and son on, as media communication (as Ionesco and Habermas, among others, were aware), while ruling out in advance the possibility of "responsible" or "emancipatory" media communication -- a point that I shall return to in conclusion.
In another study in the _Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign_, Baudrillard noted how the "TV Object" was becoming the center of the household and was serving an essential "proof function" that the owner was a genuine member of the consumer society (CPRES, pp. 53ff.). The accelerating role of the media in contemporary society is for Baudrillard equivalent to THE FALL into the postmodern society of simulations from the modern universe of production. Modernity for Baudrillard is thus the era of production characterized by the rise of industrial capitalism and the hegemony of the bourgeoisie while postmodern society is an era of simulation dominated by signs, codes, and models. Modernity thus centered on the production of things -commodities and products -- while postmodernity is characterized by radical semiurgy, by a proliferation of signs. Furthermore, following McLuhan, Baudrillard interprets modernity as a process of explosion of commodification, mechanization, technology, and market relations, while postmodern society is the site of an implosion of all boundaries, regions, and distinctions between high and low culture, appearence and reality, and just about every other binary opposition maintained by traditional philosophy and social theory. Furthermore, while modernity could be characterized as a process of increasing differentiation of spheres of life (Max Weber as interpreted by Habermas), postmodernity could be interpreted as a process of de-differentiation and attendent implosion.[6]
The rise of the broadcast media, especially television, is an important constituent of postmodernity for Baudrillard, along with the rapid dissemination of signs and simulacra in every realm of social and everyday life. By the late 1970s, Baudrillard interprets the media as key simulation machines which reproduce images, signs, and codes which constitute an autonomous realm of (hyper)reality and which come to play a key role in everyday life and the obliteration of the social.[7] Baudrillard's analyses of simulations and hyperreality probably constitute his most important contributions to social theory and media critique. During an era when movie actors simulate politics and charlatans simulate TV-religion the category of simulation provides an essential instrument of radical social critique, while the concept of hyperreality is also an extremely useful instrument of social analysis for a media, cybernetic, and information society.
Baudrillard's analyses point to a significant reversal of the relation between representation and reality. Previously, the media were believed to mirror, reflect, or represent reality, whereas now the media are coming to constitute a (hyper)reality, a new media reality -- "more real than real" -- where "the real" is subordinate to representation leading to an ultimate dissolving of the real. In addition, in "The Implosion of Meaning in the Media," Baudrillard claims that the proliferation of signs and information in the media obliterates meaning through neutralizing and dissolving all content -- a process which leads both to a collapse of meaning and the destruction of distinctions between media and reality. In a society supposedly saturated with media messages, information and meaning "implode," collapsing into meaningless "noise," pure effect without content or meaning. Thus, for Baudrillard: "information is directly destructive of meaning and signification, or neutralizes it. The loss of meaning is directly linked to the dissolving and dissuasive action of information, the media, and the mass media.... Information devours its own contents; it devours communication and the social.... information dissolves meaning and the social into a sort of nebulous state leading not at all to a surfeit of innovation but to the very contrary, to total entropy" (SSM, pp. 96-100).
Baudrillard uses here a model of the media as a black hole of signs and information which absorb all contents into cybernetic noise which no longer communicates meaningful messages in a process of implosion where all content implodes into form. We thus see here how Baudrillard eventually adopts McLuhan's media theory as his own, claiming that: "the medium is the message signifies not only the end of the message, but also the end of the medium. There are no longer media in the literal sense of the term (I am talking above all about the electronic mass media) -- that is to say, a power mediating between one reality and another, between one state of the real and another -- neither in content nor in form. Strictly speaking this is what implosion signifies: the absorption of one pole into another, the short-circuit between poles of every differential system of meaning, the effacement of terms and of distinct oppositions, and thus that of the medium and the real. Hence the impossibility of any mediation, of any dialectical intervention between the two or from one to the other, circularity of all media effects. Hence the impossibility of a sense (meaning), in the literal sense of a unilateral vector which leads from one pole to another. This critical -- but original -- situation must be thought through to the very end; it is the only one we are left with. It is useless to dream of a revolution through content or through form, since the medium and the real are now in a single nebulous state whose truth is undecipherable" (SSM, pp. 102-103).
In effect, Baudrillard is suggesting that the very project of developing a radical theory of the media is impossible because there really are no "media" in the sense of institutions and cultural machines mediating between dominant political and economic powers and the population below. He claims that the media and "reality" implode such that it is impossible to distinguish between media representations and the "reality" which they supposedly represent. Baudrillard also suggests that the media intensify massification by producing mass audiences and massification of ideas and experience. On the other hand, he claims that the masses absorb all media content, neutralize, or even resist, meaning, and demand and obtain more spectacle and entertainment, thus further eroding the boundary between media and "the real." In this sense, the media implode into the masses to an extent that it is unknowable what effects the media have on the masses and how the masses process the media.
Consequently, on this view, the media pander to the masses, reproducing their taste, their interest in spectacle and entertainment, their fantasies and way of life, producing an implosion between mass consciousness and media phantasmagoria. In this way, Baudrillard shortcircuits the manipulation theory which sees media manipulation imposed from above producing mass consciousness, yet he seems to share the contempt for the masses in standard manipulation theory claiming that they want nothing more than spectacle, diversion, entertainment and escape, and are incapable of, or uninterested in, producing meaning.
In any case, since the media and the masses liquidate meaning, it is meaningless to carry out ideological critiques of media messages since the "medium is the message" in the sense that media communication has no significant referents except its own images and noise which ceaselessly refer back and forth to other media images and spectacles. In _On Seduction_ (1979), Baudrillard utilizes McLuhan's distinction between "hot" and "cool" media to describe the ways that media devour information and exterminate meaning. According to Baudrillard, the media take "hot" events like sports, wars, political turmoil, catastrophes, etc. and transform them into "cool" media events, which he interprets as altogether another kind of event and experience. Concerning the difference between a televised and attended sports event, Baudrillard writes: "Do not believe that it is a matter of the same game: one is hot, the other is cool -- one is a contest where affect, challenge, mise en scene, and spectacle are present, whereas the other is tactile, modulated (visions in flash-back, replays, close-ups or overhead views, various angles, etc.): a televised sports event is above all a televised event, just as _Holocaust_ or the Vietnam war are televised events of which one can hardly make distinctions" (SED, p. 217).
For Baudrillard, eventually, all the dominant media become "cool," erasing McLuhan's (problematical) distinction between hot and cool media. That is, for Baudrillard all the media of information and communication neutralize meaning and involve the audience in a flat, one-dimensional media experience which he defines in terms of a passive absorption of images, or a resistance of meaning, rather than the active processing or production of meaning. The electronic media therefore on this account have nothing to do with myth, image, history, or the construction of meaning (or ideology). Television is interpreted instead as a media "which suggests nothing, which magnetises, which is only a screen, or is rather a miniaturized terminal which in fact is found immediately in your head -- you are the screen and the television is watching you. Television transistorizes all neurons and operates as a magnetic tape -- a tape not an image" (SED, p. 220).
Baudrillard, McLuhan and the Ecstasy of Communication
We see here how Baudrillard out-McLuhans McLuhan in interpreting television, and all other media, simply as technological forms, as machines which produce primarily technological effects in which content and messages, or social uses, are deemed irrelevant and unimportant. We also see how, like McLuhan, he anthropomorphizes the media ("the television is watching you"), a form of technological mysticism (or to be more nasty, mystification) as extreme as McLuhan. Like McLuhan, Baudrillard also globalizes media effects making the media demiurges of a new type of society and new type of experience.
Baudrillard also practices McLuhan's method of probes and mosaic constellations of images and concepts which take on an experimental and provisional nature. Consequently, whereas he sets forth theoretically articulated theses about the media in "Requiem," in his studies of simulations and later writings he tends to cluster images, concepts, and descriptive analyses, within which media often play a key role, rather than systematically articulating a well-defined theoretical position, thus adopting a key McLuhanite literary strategy.
Yet we might contrast here McLuhan's ecumenical Catholicism with Baudrillard's somewhat puritanical Protestantism.[8] McLuhan fantasized a new type of global community and even a new universal (media) consciousness and experience through the dissemination of a global media system, the global village. McLuhan also believed that the media could overcome alienation produced by the abstract rationality of book culture which was being replaced by a new synaesthesia and harmonizing of the mind and body, the senses and technologies. Baudrillard by contrast sees the media as external demigods, or idols of the mind -- to continue the Protestant metaphor --, which seduce and fascinate the subject and which enter subjectivity to produce a reified consciousness and privatized and fragmented life-style (Sartre's seriality). Thus while McLuhan ascribes a generally benign social destiny to the media, for Baudrillard the function of TV and mass media is to prevent response, to isolate and privatize individuals, and to trap them into a universe of simulacra where it is impossible to distinguish between the spectacle and the real, and where individuals come to prefer spectacle over "reality" (which both loses interest for the masses and its privileged status in philosophy and social theory).
The mass media are thus instruments for Baudrillard of a "cold seduction" whose narcissistic charm consists of a manipulative self-seduction in which we enjoy the play of lights, shadows, dots, and events in our own mind as we change channels or media and plug into the variety of networks -- media, computer, information -- that surround us and that allow us to become modulators and controllers of an overwhelming panoply of sights, sounds, information, and events. In this sense, media have a chilling effect (which is why Baudrillard allows McLuhan's "cool" to become downright "cold") which freeze individuals into functioning as terminals of media and communication networks who become involved as part and parcel of the very apparatus of communication. The subject, then, becomes transformed into an object as part of a nexus of information and communication networks.
The interiorization of media transmissions within the screen of our mind obliterates, he claims, the distinction between public and private, interior and exterior space -- both of which are replaced by media space. Here Baudrillard inverts McLuhan's thesis concerning the media as extensions of the human, as exteriorizations of human powers, and argues instead that humans internalize media and thus becomes terminals within media systems -- a new theoretical anti-humanism that might amuse Louis Althusser. The eye and the brain, on this model, replaces both the other sense organs and the hand as key instruments of human practice, as information processing replaces human practice and techne and poesis alike.[9]
In "The Ecstasy of Communication" Baudrillard describes the media as instruments of obscenity, transparency, and ecstasy -- in special sense of these terms.[10] He claims that in the postmodern mediascape, the domestic scene -- or the private sphere per se -- with its rules, rituals, and privacy is exteriorized, or made explicit and transparent, "in a sort of obscenity where the most intimate processes of our life become the virtual feeding ground of the media (the Loud family in the United States, the innumerable slices of peasant or patriarchal life on French television). Inversely, the entire universe comes to unfold arbitrarily on your domestic screen (all the useless information that comes to you from the entire world, like a microscopic pornography of the universe, useless, excessive, just like the sexual close-up in a porno film): all this explodes the scene formerly preserved by the minimal separation of public and private, the scene that was played out in a restricted space" (p. 130).
In addition, the spectacles of the consumer society and the dramas of the public sphere are also being replaced by media events that replace public life and scenes with a screen that shows us everything instantaneously and without scruple or hesitation: "Obscenity begins precisely when there is no more spectacle, no more scene, when all becomes transparence and immediate visibility, when everything is exposed to the harsh and inexorable light of information and communication" (p. 130). The ecstasy of communication: everything is explicit, ecstatic (out of or beyond itself), and obscene in its transparency, detail, and visibility: "It is no longer the traditional obscenity of what is hidden, repressed, forbidden or obscure; on the contrary, it is the obscenity of the visible, of the all-too-visible, of the more-visible-than-visible. It is the obscenity of what no longer has any secret, of what dissolves completely in information and communication" (p. 131). One thinks here of such 1987 media obscenity concerning the trials and tribulations of Gary Hart and Donna Rice, of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, of Ron and Nancy Reagans' cancer operations and astrology games, or the dirty business deals of his associates, and the dirty political deals of Iran/Contra -- all of which have been exposed to the glaring scrutiny of the media in which what used to be private, hidden, and invisible suddenly becomes (almost) fully explicit and visible.
In the ecstasy of communication everything becomes transparent, and there are no more secrets, scenes, privacy, depth or hidden meaning. Instead a promiscuity of information and communication unfolds in which the media circulate and disseminate a teeming network of cool, seductive and fascinating sights and sounds to be played on one's own screen and terminal. With the disappearence of exciting scenes (in the home, in the public sphere), passion evaporates in personal and social relations, yet a new fascination emerges ("the scene excites us, the obscene fascinates us") with the very universe of media and communication. In this universe we enter a new form of subjectivity where we become saturated with information, images, events, and ecstasies. Without defense or distance, we become "a pure screen, a switching center for all the networks of influence" (p. 133). In the media society, the era of interiority, subjectivity, meaning, privacy, and the inner life is over; a new era of obscenity, fascination, vertigo, instantaneity, transparency and overexposure begins: Welcome to the postmodern world!
In his more recent 1980 writings which I have not examined here -- and which tend to recycle (i.e. simulate) his earlier positions -- Baudrillard continues to call attention to McLuhan as the great media theorist of our epoch and continues to subscribe to the postions that I explicated above, though occasionally he notes that one should even go further than he has so far in denying that the media are producers of meaning, or that media content or apparatus is important.[11]
Three Subordinations
Undoubtedly, the media are playing an ever greater role in our personal and social lives, and have dramatically transformed our economy, polity, and society in ways that we are only now becoming aware of. Living within a great transformation, perhaps as significant as the transformation from feudalism to industrial capitalism, we are engaged in a process of dramatic mutation, which we are barely beginning to understand, as we enter the brave new world of media saturation, computerization, new technologies, and new discourses. Baudrillard's contribution lies in his calling attention to these novelties and transformations and providing new concepts and theories to understand them.
Yet doubts remain as to whether the media are having quite the impact that Baudrillard ascribes to them and whether his theory provides adequate concepts to analyze the complex interactions between media, culture, and society today. In this section, I shall suggest that Baudrillard's media theory is vitiated by three subordinations which undermine its theoretical and political usefulness and which raise questions as well about the status of postmodern social theory. I shall suggest that the limitations in Baudrillard's theory can be related to his uncritical assumption of certain positions within McLuhan's media theory and that therefore earlier critiques of McLuhan can accurately and usefully be applied to Baudrillard. This critique will suggest that indeed Baudrillard is a "new McLuhan" who has repackaged McLuhan into new postmodern cultural capital.
First, in what might be called a formalist subordination, Baudrillard, like McLuhan, privileges the form of media technology over what might be called the media apparatus, and thus subordinates content, meaning, and the use of media to its purely formal structure and effects. Baudrillard -- much more so than McLuhan who at least gives some media history and analysis of the media environment -- tends to abstract media form and effects from the media environment and thus erases political economy, media production, and media environment (i.e. society as large) from his theory. Against abstracting media form and effects from context, I would argue that the use and effects of media should be carefully examined and evaluated in terms of specific contexts. Distinctions between context and use, form and content, media and reality, all dissolve, however, in Baudrillard's one-dimensional theory where global theses and glib pronouncements replace careful analysis and critique.
Baudrillard might retort that it is the media themselves which abstract from the concreteness of everyday, social, and political life and provide abstract simulacra of actual events which themselves become more real than "the real" which they supposedly represent. Yet even if this is so, media analysis should attempt to recontextualize media images and simulacra rather than merely focusing on the surface of media form. Furthermore, instead of operating with a model of (formal) media effects, I would argue that it is preferable to operate with a dialectical perspective which posits multiple roles and functions to television and other media.
Another problem is that Baudrillard's formalism vitates the project of ideology critique, and against his claims that media content are irrelevant and unimportant, I would propose grasping the dialectic of form and content in media communication, seeing how media forms constitute content and how content is always formed or structured, while forms themselves can be ideological, as when the situation comedy form of conflict/resolution projects an ideological vision which shows all problems easily capable of being resolved within the existing society, or when action-adventure series formats of violent conflict as the essence of reality project a conservative view of human life as a battleground where only the fittest survive and prosper.[12] For a dialectical theory of the media, television would have multiple functions (and potential decodings) where sometimes the ideological effects may be predominant while at other times time functions a medium like television functions as mere noise or through the merely formal effects which Baudrillard puts at the center of his analysis.
Consequently, there is no real theory or practice of cultural interpretation in Baudrillard's media (increasingly anti-)theory, which also emanates an anti-hermeneutical bias that denies the importance of content and is against interpretation.[13] This brings us to a second subordination in Baudrillard's theory in which a more dialectical position is subordinated to media essentialism and technological determinism. For -- according to Baudrillard -- it is the technology of, say, television that determines its effects (one-way transmission, semiurgy, implosion, extermination of meaning and the social) rather than any particular content or message (i.e. for both Baudrillard and McLuhan "the media is the message"), or its construction or use within specific social systems. For Baudrillard, media technology and semiurgy are the demiurges of media practices and effects, separated from their uses by specific economic and political interests, individuals and groups, and the social systems within which they function. Baudrillard thus abstracts media from social systems and essentializes media technology as dominant social forces. Yet against Baudrillard, one could argue that capital continues to be a primary determinant of media form and content in neo-capitalist societies just as state socialism helps determine the form, nature, and effects of technologies in certain state socialist societies.
Baudrillard, like McLuhan, often makes essentializing distinctions between media like television or film, ascribing a particular essence to one, and an opposed essence to the other. Yet it seems highly problematical to reduce apparatuses as complex, contradictory, and many-sided as television (or film or any mass medium) to its formal properties and effects, or to a technological essence. It is therefore preferable, for theories of media in the capitalist societies, to see the media as syntheses of technology and capital, as technologies which serve specific interests and which have specific political and economic effects (rather than merely technological ones). It is also preferable to see the dialectic between media and society in specific historical conjunctures, to see how social content, trends, and imperatives help constitute the media which in turn influence social developments and help constitute social reality.
For Baudrillard, by contrast, the media today simply constitute a simulated, hyperreal, and obscene (in his technical sense) world(view), and a dialectic of media and society is shortcircuited in a new version of technological determinism. The political implications of this analysis are that constituting alternative media, or alternative uses or forms of existing media, is useless or worse because media in their very essence for him militate against emancipatory politics or any project of social transformation. Such cynical views, however, primarily benefit conservative interests who presently control the media in their own interests -- a point to which I shall soon return.
Thirdly, there is a subordination of cultural interpretation and politics in Baudrillard to what might very loosely be called "theory" -- thus constituting a theoricist subordination in Baudrillard. In other words, just as Louis Althusser subordinated concrete empirical and historical analysis to what he called "theoretical practice" -- and thus was criticized for "theoreticism," -- Baudrillard also rarely engages in close analysis or readings of media texts, and instead simply engages in rather abstract theoretical ruminations. Here, his arm-chair or TV screen theorizing might be compared with Foucault's archival theorizing, or to more detailed and systematic media theory and critique, much to, I'm afraid, Baudrillard's detriment.
Baudrillard also rigorously avoids the messy but important terrain of cultural and media politics. There is nothing concerning alternative media practices, for instance, in his theorizing, which he seems to rule out in advance because on his view all media are mere producers of noise, non-communication, the extermination of meaning, implosion, and so on. In "Requiem for the Media," Baudrillard explicitly argues that all mass media communication falls prey to "mass mediatization," that is "the imposition of models": "In fact, the essential Medium is the Model. What is mediatized is not what comes off the daily press, out of the tube, or on the radio: it is what is reinterpreted by the sign form, articulated into models, and administered by the code (just as the commodity is not what is produced industrially, but what is mediatized by the exchange value system of abstraction)" (CPES, pp. 175-176).
All "subversive communication," then, for Baudrillard has to surpass the codes and models of media communication -- and thus of the mass media themselves which invariably translate all contents and messages into their codes. Consequently, not only general elections but general strikes have "become a schematic reducing agent" (CPES, p. 176). In this (original) situation: "The real revolutionary media during May {1968} were the walls and their speech, the silk-screen posters and the hand-painted notices, the street where speech began and was exchanged -everything that was an immediate inscription, given and returned, spoken and answered, mobile in the same space and time, reciprocal and antagonistic. The street is, in this sense, the alternative and subversive form of the mass media, since it isn't, like the latter, an objectified support for answerless messages, a transmission system at a distance. It is the frayed space of the symbolic exchange of speech -- ephemeral, mortal: a speech that is not reflected on the Platonic screen of the media. Institutionalized by reproduction, reduced to a spectacle, this speech is expiring" (CPES, pp. 176-177).
In this text, Baudrillard conflates all previously revolutionary strategies and models of "subversive communication" to "schematic reducing agents" and manifests here once again a nostalgia for direct, unmediated, and reciprocal speech ("symbolic exchange") which is denied in the media society. Haunted by a disappearing metaphysics of presence, Baudrillard valorizes immediate communication over mediated communication thus forgetting that all communication is mediated (through language, through signs, through codes, etc.). Furthermore, he romanticizes a certain form of communication (speech in the streets) as the only genuinely subversive or revolutionary communication and media. Consistently with this theory, he thus calls for a (neo-Luddite) "deconstruction" of the media "as systems of non-communication," and thus for the "liquidation of the existing functional and technical structure of the media" (CPES, p. 177).
Against Baudrillard's utopia of immediate speech -- which he himself abandons in his 1980s writings--, I would defend the project of structural and technical refunctioning of the media as suggested earlier by Brecht, Benjamin, and Enzensberger. Baudrillard, by contrast, not only attacks all form of media communication as non-revolutionary, but eventually, by the late 1970s, he surrenders his commitment to revolutionary theory and drops the notion of revolutionary communication or subversive cultural practices altogether.[14] Moreover, Baudrillard becomes a bit testy and even nasty in his later writing when considering alternative media. In a symptomatic passage in "The Ecstasy of Communication," Baudrillard writes:
the promiscuity {note the moralizing coding here -- D.K.} that reigns over the communication networks is one of superficial saturation, of an incessant solicitation, of an extermination of interstitial and protective spaces. I pick up my telephone receiver and it's all there; the whole marginal network catches and harasses me with the insupportable good faith of everything that wants and claims to communicate. Free radio: it speaks, it sings, it expresses itself. Very well, it is the sympathetic obscenity of its content. In terms a little different for each medium, this is the result: a space, that of the FM band, is found to be saturated,... Speech is free perhaps, but I am less free than before: I no longer succeed in knowing what I want, the space is so saturated, the pressure so great from all who want to make themselves heard.
I fall into the negative ecstasy of the radio (pp. 131-132).
Against this snide and glib put-down of alternative media, I would argue that alternative television-radio-film provide the possibility of another type of media with different forms, content, goals, and effects from mainstream media.[15] A radical media project would thus attempt to transform both the form and the content of the media, as well as their organization and social functions. In a socialist society, mass media would be part of a communal public sphere and alternative media would be made accessible to all groups and individuals who wished to participate in media communication. This would presuppose dramatic expansion of media access and thus of media systems which would require more channels, technology, and a social commitment to democratic communication.
To preserve its autonomy, such systems should be state funded but not controlled -- much like television in several European countries.[16] It would also have to function as the better local public access systems now do in the United States in which a certain number of channels are put aside for public use and available to everyone on a non-discriminatory basis. In Austin, Texas, for instance, we now have a multi-channel access system with two channels reserved for city government, one city educational channel for use by the Austin school system, one for regularly scheduled weekly access shows by groups committed to public access television, and two channels open to anyone for any use whatsover (these two channels are currently dominated by religious, musical, and sports programming). So far this system has proved functional, allowing just about any individual or group the opportunity to make and broadcast their own programming and statements.
An alternative media system would thus provide the possibility for oppositional, counterhegemonic subcultures and groups to produce programs expressing their own views, oppositions, and struggles that resist the massification, homogenization, and passivity that Baudrillard and others attribute to the media. Alternative media allow marginal and oppositional voices to contest the view of the world, values, and life-styles of the mainstream, and make possible the circulation and growth of alternative subcultures and communities. Baudrillard's theoreticism, however, completely eschews cultural practice and becomes more and more divorced from the political struggles and issues of the day -- though the question of Baudrillard's politics would take another long and very tortured paper to deal with. Reflecting briefly on Baudrillard's media theory leads me to three provisional conclusions:
1) Postmodern media theory is rather impoverished qua media theory and reproduces the limitations of McLuhan's media theory: formalism, technological determinism, and essentialism. John Fekete's critique of McLuhan might profitably be applied to Baudrillard, as might some of the other criticisms of McLuhan once in fashion which may need to be recycled a second time for the new McLuhan(cy).[17] The theory of autonomous media also return with Baudrillard; thus the critiques of autonomous technology can usefully and relevantly be applied to Baudrillard, and, more generally to postmodern social theory.[18]
2) The very weakness of postmodern media theory raises fundamental questions about the status of postmodern social theory itself. The question arises as to whether an implosive theory -like Baudrillard's -- that denies all the boundaries of previous social theory is in a position to carefully and rigorously work out the complex relations and contradictions between the media, economy, state, culture and society, or whether -- as I believe -- neo-Marxian theories of dialectics and mediations are preferable.
3) So I conclude that more sustained critical focus on Baudrillard's theory of the media (as well as all of his other theories) is necessary -- as opposed to the celebatory adultation which has so far -- at least in some circles -surrounded the emergence of a New Master Discourse. If the Baudrillardian postmodern theory is inadequate, then we need new theories to illuminate the multi-faceted and significant roles of the media in contemporary capitalist societies. No such theory exists -- which is part of the attraction of Baudrillard who at least tries to offer a new media theory adequate to its object -and the production of one is perhaps Baudrillard's real challenge to us.
Notes
1. This polemic draws on material from my forthcoming book _Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond_ (Polity Press, 1989). I am grateful to Arthur Kroker for penetrating critical remarks on an earlier version of this text, to Steve Best for incisive critiques of several versions of the text, and to Peter Bruck who proposed expansion of the political implications of my critique. In this paper, I shall use the following abbreviations in the text for Baudrillard's work: CPES=_Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign_ (St. Louis: Telos Press, 1978); SSM=_In the Shadows of the Silent Majorities_ (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983); SIM= _Simulations_ (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983); and SED=_De la seduction_ (Paris: Galilee, 1979).
2. Baudrillard presents a rather extreme variant of a negative model of the media which sees mass media and culture simply as instruments of domination, manipulation, and social control in which radical intervention and radical media or cultural politics are impossible. Baudrillard thus shares a certain theoretical terrain on theories of the media with the Frankfurt school, many Althusserians and other French radicals, and those who see electronic media, broadcasting, and mass culture simply as a terrain of domination. For my critique of the Frankfurt school media theory, see _Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989).
3. Baudrillard, Review of _Understanding Media_ in _L'Homme et la Societe_, Nr. 5 (1967), pp. 227ff.
4. See Jurgen Habermas, _Theory and Practice_ (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), and the critique in Rick Roderick, _Habermas and the Foundations of Critical Theory_ (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986).
5. Hans Magnus Enzensberger, "Constituents of a Theory of the Media," in _The Consciousness Industry_ _New York: Seabury_, 1974.
6. See Marshall McLuhan, _Understanding Media_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984). Scott Lash proposes use of the term "de-differentiation" in "Discourse or Figure? Postmodernism as a 'Regime of Signification,'" _Theory, Culture & Society_, Vol. 5, Nrs. 2-3 (June 1988).
7. Douglas Kellner, "Boundaries and Borderlines: Reflections on Baudrillard and Critical Theory," _Current Perspectives in Social Theory_ (forthcoming 1988).
8. On McLuhan's catholicism, see John Fekete, "McLuhancy: Counterrevolution in Cultural Theory" (Telos 15, Spring 1973), pp. 75 123 and Arthur Kroker, _Technology and the Canadian Mind_ (Montreal: New World Press, 1984).
9. Fekete, ibid, pp. 100ff.
10. Jean Baudrillard, "The Ecstasy of Communication," in Hal Foster, editor, _The Anti-Aesthetic_ (Port Washington, N.Y.: 1983). Page references from this source will be inserted in the text.
11. Kellner, _Jean Baudrillard_, Ibid.
12. For further elaboration, see Douglas Kellner, "TV, Ideology and Emancipatory Popular Culture," _Socialist Review_ 42 (Nov-Dec 1979), pp. 13-53 and "Television Images, Codes, and Messages," _Televisions_, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1980), pp. 2-19.
13. See Steven Best and Douglas Kellner "(Re)Watching Television: Notes Toward a Political Criticism," _Diacritics_ (Summer 1987), pp. 97-113 for elaboration of the project of developing a political hermeneutics against postmodernist (mostly formalist and anti-hermeneutical) modes of criticism.
14. Kellner, _Jean Baudrillard_, Ibid.
15. This argument is elaborated in Douglas Kellner, "Public Access Television: _Alternative Views_," _Radical Science Journal_ 16, _Making Waves_ (1985), pp. 79-92, and Steve Best and Douglas Kellner, "Watching Television: The Limitations of Post-Modernism," _Science as Culture_ 4 (forthcoming 1988). I point to some of the limitations in Baudrillard's media theory for analysis of contemporary politics in "Baudrillard, Semiurgy and Death" _Theory, Culture & Society_, Vol. IV (1987), pp. 125-146.
16. I shall develop this position in my forthcoming book _Television, Politics and Society: Towards a Critical Theory of Television_ (forthcoming Westview Press).
17. Fekete, Ibid.
18. See Langdon Winner, _Autonomous Technology_ (Cambridge, Mass: The M.I.T. Press, 1977).
above copied from: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell26.htm
Curriculum Vitae: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/DK97CV.htm
During the 1980s, Jean Baudrillard has been promoted in certain circles as the new McLuhan, as the most advanced theorist of the media and society in the so-called postmodern era.[1] His theory of a new, postmodern society rests on a key assumption that the media, simulations, and what he calls "cyberblitz" constitute a new realm of experience and a new stage of history and type of society. To a large extent, Baudrillard's work consists in rethinking radical social theory and politics in the light of developments of the consumer, media, information, and technological society. Baudrillard's earlier works focus on the construction of the consumer society and how it provides a new world of values, meaning, and activity, and thus inhabit the terrain of Marxism and political economy. From the mid-1970s on, however, reflections on political economy and the consumer society disappear almost completely from his texts, and henceforth simulations and simulacra, media and information, science and new technologies, and implosion and hyperreality become the constituents of a new postmodern world which -- in his theorizing -- obliterate all the boundaries, categories, and values of the previous forms of industrial society while establishing new forms of social organization, thought, and experience.
Among Baudrillard's most provocative theses are his reflections on the role of the media in constituting the postmodern world. Indeed, he provides paradigmatic models of the media as all-powerful and autonomous social forces which produce a wide range of effects.[2] To explicate the development and contours of his positions on the media, I shall follow his reflections from the late 1960s to the present, and sort out what I consider to be his contributions and limitations. I shall also be concerned to delineate the political implications of his media theory and to point to alternative theoretical and political perspectives on the media.
Baudrillard's Postmodern Media Theory
In 1967, Baudrillard wrote a review of Marshall McLuhan's _Understanding Media_ in which he claimed that McLuhan's dictum that the "medium is the message" is "the very formula of alienation in a technical society," and he criticized McLuhan for naturalizing that alienation.[3] At this time, he shared the neo-Marxian critique of McLuhan as a technological reductionist and determinist. By the 1970s and 1980s, however, McLuhan's formula eventually became the guiding principle of his own thought.
Baudrillard begins developing his theory of the media in an article "Requiem for the Media" in _Toward a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign_ (1972). The title is somewhat ironic for Baudrillard is really only beginning to develop a social theory in which the media will play crucial roles in constituting a new postmodernity. Thus Baudrillard is really writing a requiem here for a 'Marxist theory of the media' arguing: "McLuhan has said, with his usual Canadian-Texan brutalness, that Marx, the spiritual contemporary of the steam engine and railroads, was already obsolete in his lifetime with the appearance of the telegraph. In his candid fashion, he is saying that Marx, in his materialist analysis of production, had virtually circumscribed productive forces as a privileged domain from which language, signs and communication in general found themselves excluded" (CPES, p. 164). Baudrillard's critique of Marx here begins a radical interrogation of and eventual break with Marxism which would culminate in _The Mirror of Production_ (1973). Baudrillard begins distancing himself from Marxism in "Requiem for the Media," and in particular attacks Marx's alleged economic reductionism, or "productivism," and the alleged inability of the Marxian theory to conceptualize language, signs, and communication (Habermas at the time was developing a parallel position within Critical Theory).[4]
As an example of the failure of Marxian categories to provide an adequate theory of the media, Baudrillard criticizes the German activist and writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger's media theory and his attempts to develop a socialist strategy for the media.[5] Baudrillard dismisses this effort as a typical Marxian attempt to liberate productive forces from the fetters of productive relations that fails to see that in their very form the mass media of communication "are anti-mediatory and intransitive. They fabricate non communication -- this is what characterizes them, if one agrees to define communication as an exchange, as a reciprocal space of a speech and a response, and thus of a responsibility (not a psychological or moral responsibility, but a personal, mutual correlation in exchange) .... they are what always prevents response, making all processes of exchange impossible (except in the various forms of response simulation, themselves integrated in the transmission process, thus leaving the unilateral nature of the communication intact). This is the real abstraction of the media. And the system of social control and power is rooted in it" (CPES, pp. 169-170).
It is curious that Baudrillard, interpreted by many of his followers as an avant-garde, postmodern media theorist, manifests in this passage both technophobia and a nostalgia for face-to-face conversation which he privileges (as authentic communication) over debased and abstract media communication. Such a position creates a binary dichotomy between "good" face-to-face communication and "bad" media communication, and thus occludes the fact that interpersonal communication can be just as manipulative, distorted, reified, and son on, as media communication (as Ionesco and Habermas, among others, were aware), while ruling out in advance the possibility of "responsible" or "emancipatory" media communication -- a point that I shall return to in conclusion.
In another study in the _Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign_, Baudrillard noted how the "TV Object" was becoming the center of the household and was serving an essential "proof function" that the owner was a genuine member of the consumer society (CPRES, pp. 53ff.). The accelerating role of the media in contemporary society is for Baudrillard equivalent to THE FALL into the postmodern society of simulations from the modern universe of production. Modernity for Baudrillard is thus the era of production characterized by the rise of industrial capitalism and the hegemony of the bourgeoisie while postmodern society is an era of simulation dominated by signs, codes, and models. Modernity thus centered on the production of things -commodities and products -- while postmodernity is characterized by radical semiurgy, by a proliferation of signs. Furthermore, following McLuhan, Baudrillard interprets modernity as a process of explosion of commodification, mechanization, technology, and market relations, while postmodern society is the site of an implosion of all boundaries, regions, and distinctions between high and low culture, appearence and reality, and just about every other binary opposition maintained by traditional philosophy and social theory. Furthermore, while modernity could be characterized as a process of increasing differentiation of spheres of life (Max Weber as interpreted by Habermas), postmodernity could be interpreted as a process of de-differentiation and attendent implosion.[6]
The rise of the broadcast media, especially television, is an important constituent of postmodernity for Baudrillard, along with the rapid dissemination of signs and simulacra in every realm of social and everyday life. By the late 1970s, Baudrillard interprets the media as key simulation machines which reproduce images, signs, and codes which constitute an autonomous realm of (hyper)reality and which come to play a key role in everyday life and the obliteration of the social.[7] Baudrillard's analyses of simulations and hyperreality probably constitute his most important contributions to social theory and media critique. During an era when movie actors simulate politics and charlatans simulate TV-religion the category of simulation provides an essential instrument of radical social critique, while the concept of hyperreality is also an extremely useful instrument of social analysis for a media, cybernetic, and information society.
Baudrillard's analyses point to a significant reversal of the relation between representation and reality. Previously, the media were believed to mirror, reflect, or represent reality, whereas now the media are coming to constitute a (hyper)reality, a new media reality -- "more real than real" -- where "the real" is subordinate to representation leading to an ultimate dissolving of the real. In addition, in "The Implosion of Meaning in the Media," Baudrillard claims that the proliferation of signs and information in the media obliterates meaning through neutralizing and dissolving all content -- a process which leads both to a collapse of meaning and the destruction of distinctions between media and reality. In a society supposedly saturated with media messages, information and meaning "implode," collapsing into meaningless "noise," pure effect without content or meaning. Thus, for Baudrillard: "information is directly destructive of meaning and signification, or neutralizes it. The loss of meaning is directly linked to the dissolving and dissuasive action of information, the media, and the mass media.... Information devours its own contents; it devours communication and the social.... information dissolves meaning and the social into a sort of nebulous state leading not at all to a surfeit of innovation but to the very contrary, to total entropy" (SSM, pp. 96-100).
Baudrillard uses here a model of the media as a black hole of signs and information which absorb all contents into cybernetic noise which no longer communicates meaningful messages in a process of implosion where all content implodes into form. We thus see here how Baudrillard eventually adopts McLuhan's media theory as his own, claiming that: "the medium is the message signifies not only the end of the message, but also the end of the medium. There are no longer media in the literal sense of the term (I am talking above all about the electronic mass media) -- that is to say, a power mediating between one reality and another, between one state of the real and another -- neither in content nor in form. Strictly speaking this is what implosion signifies: the absorption of one pole into another, the short-circuit between poles of every differential system of meaning, the effacement of terms and of distinct oppositions, and thus that of the medium and the real. Hence the impossibility of any mediation, of any dialectical intervention between the two or from one to the other, circularity of all media effects. Hence the impossibility of a sense (meaning), in the literal sense of a unilateral vector which leads from one pole to another. This critical -- but original -- situation must be thought through to the very end; it is the only one we are left with. It is useless to dream of a revolution through content or through form, since the medium and the real are now in a single nebulous state whose truth is undecipherable" (SSM, pp. 102-103).
In effect, Baudrillard is suggesting that the very project of developing a radical theory of the media is impossible because there really are no "media" in the sense of institutions and cultural machines mediating between dominant political and economic powers and the population below. He claims that the media and "reality" implode such that it is impossible to distinguish between media representations and the "reality" which they supposedly represent. Baudrillard also suggests that the media intensify massification by producing mass audiences and massification of ideas and experience. On the other hand, he claims that the masses absorb all media content, neutralize, or even resist, meaning, and demand and obtain more spectacle and entertainment, thus further eroding the boundary between media and "the real." In this sense, the media implode into the masses to an extent that it is unknowable what effects the media have on the masses and how the masses process the media.
Consequently, on this view, the media pander to the masses, reproducing their taste, their interest in spectacle and entertainment, their fantasies and way of life, producing an implosion between mass consciousness and media phantasmagoria. In this way, Baudrillard shortcircuits the manipulation theory which sees media manipulation imposed from above producing mass consciousness, yet he seems to share the contempt for the masses in standard manipulation theory claiming that they want nothing more than spectacle, diversion, entertainment and escape, and are incapable of, or uninterested in, producing meaning.
In any case, since the media and the masses liquidate meaning, it is meaningless to carry out ideological critiques of media messages since the "medium is the message" in the sense that media communication has no significant referents except its own images and noise which ceaselessly refer back and forth to other media images and spectacles. In _On Seduction_ (1979), Baudrillard utilizes McLuhan's distinction between "hot" and "cool" media to describe the ways that media devour information and exterminate meaning. According to Baudrillard, the media take "hot" events like sports, wars, political turmoil, catastrophes, etc. and transform them into "cool" media events, which he interprets as altogether another kind of event and experience. Concerning the difference between a televised and attended sports event, Baudrillard writes: "Do not believe that it is a matter of the same game: one is hot, the other is cool -- one is a contest where affect, challenge, mise en scene, and spectacle are present, whereas the other is tactile, modulated (visions in flash-back, replays, close-ups or overhead views, various angles, etc.): a televised sports event is above all a televised event, just as _Holocaust_ or the Vietnam war are televised events of which one can hardly make distinctions" (SED, p. 217).
For Baudrillard, eventually, all the dominant media become "cool," erasing McLuhan's (problematical) distinction between hot and cool media. That is, for Baudrillard all the media of information and communication neutralize meaning and involve the audience in a flat, one-dimensional media experience which he defines in terms of a passive absorption of images, or a resistance of meaning, rather than the active processing or production of meaning. The electronic media therefore on this account have nothing to do with myth, image, history, or the construction of meaning (or ideology). Television is interpreted instead as a media "which suggests nothing, which magnetises, which is only a screen, or is rather a miniaturized terminal which in fact is found immediately in your head -- you are the screen and the television is watching you. Television transistorizes all neurons and operates as a magnetic tape -- a tape not an image" (SED, p. 220).
Baudrillard, McLuhan and the Ecstasy of Communication
We see here how Baudrillard out-McLuhans McLuhan in interpreting television, and all other media, simply as technological forms, as machines which produce primarily technological effects in which content and messages, or social uses, are deemed irrelevant and unimportant. We also see how, like McLuhan, he anthropomorphizes the media ("the television is watching you"), a form of technological mysticism (or to be more nasty, mystification) as extreme as McLuhan. Like McLuhan, Baudrillard also globalizes media effects making the media demiurges of a new type of society and new type of experience.
Baudrillard also practices McLuhan's method of probes and mosaic constellations of images and concepts which take on an experimental and provisional nature. Consequently, whereas he sets forth theoretically articulated theses about the media in "Requiem," in his studies of simulations and later writings he tends to cluster images, concepts, and descriptive analyses, within which media often play a key role, rather than systematically articulating a well-defined theoretical position, thus adopting a key McLuhanite literary strategy.
Yet we might contrast here McLuhan's ecumenical Catholicism with Baudrillard's somewhat puritanical Protestantism.[8] McLuhan fantasized a new type of global community and even a new universal (media) consciousness and experience through the dissemination of a global media system, the global village. McLuhan also believed that the media could overcome alienation produced by the abstract rationality of book culture which was being replaced by a new synaesthesia and harmonizing of the mind and body, the senses and technologies. Baudrillard by contrast sees the media as external demigods, or idols of the mind -- to continue the Protestant metaphor --, which seduce and fascinate the subject and which enter subjectivity to produce a reified consciousness and privatized and fragmented life-style (Sartre's seriality). Thus while McLuhan ascribes a generally benign social destiny to the media, for Baudrillard the function of TV and mass media is to prevent response, to isolate and privatize individuals, and to trap them into a universe of simulacra where it is impossible to distinguish between the spectacle and the real, and where individuals come to prefer spectacle over "reality" (which both loses interest for the masses and its privileged status in philosophy and social theory).
The mass media are thus instruments for Baudrillard of a "cold seduction" whose narcissistic charm consists of a manipulative self-seduction in which we enjoy the play of lights, shadows, dots, and events in our own mind as we change channels or media and plug into the variety of networks -- media, computer, information -- that surround us and that allow us to become modulators and controllers of an overwhelming panoply of sights, sounds, information, and events. In this sense, media have a chilling effect (which is why Baudrillard allows McLuhan's "cool" to become downright "cold") which freeze individuals into functioning as terminals of media and communication networks who become involved as part and parcel of the very apparatus of communication. The subject, then, becomes transformed into an object as part of a nexus of information and communication networks.
The interiorization of media transmissions within the screen of our mind obliterates, he claims, the distinction between public and private, interior and exterior space -- both of which are replaced by media space. Here Baudrillard inverts McLuhan's thesis concerning the media as extensions of the human, as exteriorizations of human powers, and argues instead that humans internalize media and thus becomes terminals within media systems -- a new theoretical anti-humanism that might amuse Louis Althusser. The eye and the brain, on this model, replaces both the other sense organs and the hand as key instruments of human practice, as information processing replaces human practice and techne and poesis alike.[9]
In "The Ecstasy of Communication" Baudrillard describes the media as instruments of obscenity, transparency, and ecstasy -- in special sense of these terms.[10] He claims that in the postmodern mediascape, the domestic scene -- or the private sphere per se -- with its rules, rituals, and privacy is exteriorized, or made explicit and transparent, "in a sort of obscenity where the most intimate processes of our life become the virtual feeding ground of the media (the Loud family in the United States, the innumerable slices of peasant or patriarchal life on French television). Inversely, the entire universe comes to unfold arbitrarily on your domestic screen (all the useless information that comes to you from the entire world, like a microscopic pornography of the universe, useless, excessive, just like the sexual close-up in a porno film): all this explodes the scene formerly preserved by the minimal separation of public and private, the scene that was played out in a restricted space" (p. 130).
In addition, the spectacles of the consumer society and the dramas of the public sphere are also being replaced by media events that replace public life and scenes with a screen that shows us everything instantaneously and without scruple or hesitation: "Obscenity begins precisely when there is no more spectacle, no more scene, when all becomes transparence and immediate visibility, when everything is exposed to the harsh and inexorable light of information and communication" (p. 130). The ecstasy of communication: everything is explicit, ecstatic (out of or beyond itself), and obscene in its transparency, detail, and visibility: "It is no longer the traditional obscenity of what is hidden, repressed, forbidden or obscure; on the contrary, it is the obscenity of the visible, of the all-too-visible, of the more-visible-than-visible. It is the obscenity of what no longer has any secret, of what dissolves completely in information and communication" (p. 131). One thinks here of such 1987 media obscenity concerning the trials and tribulations of Gary Hart and Donna Rice, of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, of Ron and Nancy Reagans' cancer operations and astrology games, or the dirty business deals of his associates, and the dirty political deals of Iran/Contra -- all of which have been exposed to the glaring scrutiny of the media in which what used to be private, hidden, and invisible suddenly becomes (almost) fully explicit and visible.
In the ecstasy of communication everything becomes transparent, and there are no more secrets, scenes, privacy, depth or hidden meaning. Instead a promiscuity of information and communication unfolds in which the media circulate and disseminate a teeming network of cool, seductive and fascinating sights and sounds to be played on one's own screen and terminal. With the disappearence of exciting scenes (in the home, in the public sphere), passion evaporates in personal and social relations, yet a new fascination emerges ("the scene excites us, the obscene fascinates us") with the very universe of media and communication. In this universe we enter a new form of subjectivity where we become saturated with information, images, events, and ecstasies. Without defense or distance, we become "a pure screen, a switching center for all the networks of influence" (p. 133). In the media society, the era of interiority, subjectivity, meaning, privacy, and the inner life is over; a new era of obscenity, fascination, vertigo, instantaneity, transparency and overexposure begins: Welcome to the postmodern world!
In his more recent 1980 writings which I have not examined here -- and which tend to recycle (i.e. simulate) his earlier positions -- Baudrillard continues to call attention to McLuhan as the great media theorist of our epoch and continues to subscribe to the postions that I explicated above, though occasionally he notes that one should even go further than he has so far in denying that the media are producers of meaning, or that media content or apparatus is important.[11]
Three Subordinations
Undoubtedly, the media are playing an ever greater role in our personal and social lives, and have dramatically transformed our economy, polity, and society in ways that we are only now becoming aware of. Living within a great transformation, perhaps as significant as the transformation from feudalism to industrial capitalism, we are engaged in a process of dramatic mutation, which we are barely beginning to understand, as we enter the brave new world of media saturation, computerization, new technologies, and new discourses. Baudrillard's contribution lies in his calling attention to these novelties and transformations and providing new concepts and theories to understand them.
Yet doubts remain as to whether the media are having quite the impact that Baudrillard ascribes to them and whether his theory provides adequate concepts to analyze the complex interactions between media, culture, and society today. In this section, I shall suggest that Baudrillard's media theory is vitiated by three subordinations which undermine its theoretical and political usefulness and which raise questions as well about the status of postmodern social theory. I shall suggest that the limitations in Baudrillard's theory can be related to his uncritical assumption of certain positions within McLuhan's media theory and that therefore earlier critiques of McLuhan can accurately and usefully be applied to Baudrillard. This critique will suggest that indeed Baudrillard is a "new McLuhan" who has repackaged McLuhan into new postmodern cultural capital.
First, in what might be called a formalist subordination, Baudrillard, like McLuhan, privileges the form of media technology over what might be called the media apparatus, and thus subordinates content, meaning, and the use of media to its purely formal structure and effects. Baudrillard -- much more so than McLuhan who at least gives some media history and analysis of the media environment -- tends to abstract media form and effects from the media environment and thus erases political economy, media production, and media environment (i.e. society as large) from his theory. Against abstracting media form and effects from context, I would argue that the use and effects of media should be carefully examined and evaluated in terms of specific contexts. Distinctions between context and use, form and content, media and reality, all dissolve, however, in Baudrillard's one-dimensional theory where global theses and glib pronouncements replace careful analysis and critique.
Baudrillard might retort that it is the media themselves which abstract from the concreteness of everyday, social, and political life and provide abstract simulacra of actual events which themselves become more real than "the real" which they supposedly represent. Yet even if this is so, media analysis should attempt to recontextualize media images and simulacra rather than merely focusing on the surface of media form. Furthermore, instead of operating with a model of (formal) media effects, I would argue that it is preferable to operate with a dialectical perspective which posits multiple roles and functions to television and other media.
Another problem is that Baudrillard's formalism vitates the project of ideology critique, and against his claims that media content are irrelevant and unimportant, I would propose grasping the dialectic of form and content in media communication, seeing how media forms constitute content and how content is always formed or structured, while forms themselves can be ideological, as when the situation comedy form of conflict/resolution projects an ideological vision which shows all problems easily capable of being resolved within the existing society, or when action-adventure series formats of violent conflict as the essence of reality project a conservative view of human life as a battleground where only the fittest survive and prosper.[12] For a dialectical theory of the media, television would have multiple functions (and potential decodings) where sometimes the ideological effects may be predominant while at other times time functions a medium like television functions as mere noise or through the merely formal effects which Baudrillard puts at the center of his analysis.
Consequently, there is no real theory or practice of cultural interpretation in Baudrillard's media (increasingly anti-)theory, which also emanates an anti-hermeneutical bias that denies the importance of content and is against interpretation.[13] This brings us to a second subordination in Baudrillard's theory in which a more dialectical position is subordinated to media essentialism and technological determinism. For -- according to Baudrillard -- it is the technology of, say, television that determines its effects (one-way transmission, semiurgy, implosion, extermination of meaning and the social) rather than any particular content or message (i.e. for both Baudrillard and McLuhan "the media is the message"), or its construction or use within specific social systems. For Baudrillard, media technology and semiurgy are the demiurges of media practices and effects, separated from their uses by specific economic and political interests, individuals and groups, and the social systems within which they function. Baudrillard thus abstracts media from social systems and essentializes media technology as dominant social forces. Yet against Baudrillard, one could argue that capital continues to be a primary determinant of media form and content in neo-capitalist societies just as state socialism helps determine the form, nature, and effects of technologies in certain state socialist societies.
Baudrillard, like McLuhan, often makes essentializing distinctions between media like television or film, ascribing a particular essence to one, and an opposed essence to the other. Yet it seems highly problematical to reduce apparatuses as complex, contradictory, and many-sided as television (or film or any mass medium) to its formal properties and effects, or to a technological essence. It is therefore preferable, for theories of media in the capitalist societies, to see the media as syntheses of technology and capital, as technologies which serve specific interests and which have specific political and economic effects (rather than merely technological ones). It is also preferable to see the dialectic between media and society in specific historical conjunctures, to see how social content, trends, and imperatives help constitute the media which in turn influence social developments and help constitute social reality.
For Baudrillard, by contrast, the media today simply constitute a simulated, hyperreal, and obscene (in his technical sense) world(view), and a dialectic of media and society is shortcircuited in a new version of technological determinism. The political implications of this analysis are that constituting alternative media, or alternative uses or forms of existing media, is useless or worse because media in their very essence for him militate against emancipatory politics or any project of social transformation. Such cynical views, however, primarily benefit conservative interests who presently control the media in their own interests -- a point to which I shall soon return.
Thirdly, there is a subordination of cultural interpretation and politics in Baudrillard to what might very loosely be called "theory" -- thus constituting a theoricist subordination in Baudrillard. In other words, just as Louis Althusser subordinated concrete empirical and historical analysis to what he called "theoretical practice" -- and thus was criticized for "theoreticism," -- Baudrillard also rarely engages in close analysis or readings of media texts, and instead simply engages in rather abstract theoretical ruminations. Here, his arm-chair or TV screen theorizing might be compared with Foucault's archival theorizing, or to more detailed and systematic media theory and critique, much to, I'm afraid, Baudrillard's detriment.
Baudrillard also rigorously avoids the messy but important terrain of cultural and media politics. There is nothing concerning alternative media practices, for instance, in his theorizing, which he seems to rule out in advance because on his view all media are mere producers of noise, non-communication, the extermination of meaning, implosion, and so on. In "Requiem for the Media," Baudrillard explicitly argues that all mass media communication falls prey to "mass mediatization," that is "the imposition of models": "In fact, the essential Medium is the Model. What is mediatized is not what comes off the daily press, out of the tube, or on the radio: it is what is reinterpreted by the sign form, articulated into models, and administered by the code (just as the commodity is not what is produced industrially, but what is mediatized by the exchange value system of abstraction)" (CPES, pp. 175-176).
All "subversive communication," then, for Baudrillard has to surpass the codes and models of media communication -- and thus of the mass media themselves which invariably translate all contents and messages into their codes. Consequently, not only general elections but general strikes have "become a schematic reducing agent" (CPES, p. 176). In this (original) situation: "The real revolutionary media during May {1968} were the walls and their speech, the silk-screen posters and the hand-painted notices, the street where speech began and was exchanged -everything that was an immediate inscription, given and returned, spoken and answered, mobile in the same space and time, reciprocal and antagonistic. The street is, in this sense, the alternative and subversive form of the mass media, since it isn't, like the latter, an objectified support for answerless messages, a transmission system at a distance. It is the frayed space of the symbolic exchange of speech -- ephemeral, mortal: a speech that is not reflected on the Platonic screen of the media. Institutionalized by reproduction, reduced to a spectacle, this speech is expiring" (CPES, pp. 176-177).
In this text, Baudrillard conflates all previously revolutionary strategies and models of "subversive communication" to "schematic reducing agents" and manifests here once again a nostalgia for direct, unmediated, and reciprocal speech ("symbolic exchange") which is denied in the media society. Haunted by a disappearing metaphysics of presence, Baudrillard valorizes immediate communication over mediated communication thus forgetting that all communication is mediated (through language, through signs, through codes, etc.). Furthermore, he romanticizes a certain form of communication (speech in the streets) as the only genuinely subversive or revolutionary communication and media. Consistently with this theory, he thus calls for a (neo-Luddite) "deconstruction" of the media "as systems of non-communication," and thus for the "liquidation of the existing functional and technical structure of the media" (CPES, p. 177).
Against Baudrillard's utopia of immediate speech -- which he himself abandons in his 1980s writings--, I would defend the project of structural and technical refunctioning of the media as suggested earlier by Brecht, Benjamin, and Enzensberger. Baudrillard, by contrast, not only attacks all form of media communication as non-revolutionary, but eventually, by the late 1970s, he surrenders his commitment to revolutionary theory and drops the notion of revolutionary communication or subversive cultural practices altogether.[14] Moreover, Baudrillard becomes a bit testy and even nasty in his later writing when considering alternative media. In a symptomatic passage in "The Ecstasy of Communication," Baudrillard writes:
the promiscuity {note the moralizing coding here -- D.K.} that reigns over the communication networks is one of superficial saturation, of an incessant solicitation, of an extermination of interstitial and protective spaces. I pick up my telephone receiver and it's all there; the whole marginal network catches and harasses me with the insupportable good faith of everything that wants and claims to communicate. Free radio: it speaks, it sings, it expresses itself. Very well, it is the sympathetic obscenity of its content. In terms a little different for each medium, this is the result: a space, that of the FM band, is found to be saturated,... Speech is free perhaps, but I am less free than before: I no longer succeed in knowing what I want, the space is so saturated, the pressure so great from all who want to make themselves heard.
I fall into the negative ecstasy of the radio (pp. 131-132).
Against this snide and glib put-down of alternative media, I would argue that alternative television-radio-film provide the possibility of another type of media with different forms, content, goals, and effects from mainstream media.[15] A radical media project would thus attempt to transform both the form and the content of the media, as well as their organization and social functions. In a socialist society, mass media would be part of a communal public sphere and alternative media would be made accessible to all groups and individuals who wished to participate in media communication. This would presuppose dramatic expansion of media access and thus of media systems which would require more channels, technology, and a social commitment to democratic communication.
To preserve its autonomy, such systems should be state funded but not controlled -- much like television in several European countries.[16] It would also have to function as the better local public access systems now do in the United States in which a certain number of channels are put aside for public use and available to everyone on a non-discriminatory basis. In Austin, Texas, for instance, we now have a multi-channel access system with two channels reserved for city government, one city educational channel for use by the Austin school system, one for regularly scheduled weekly access shows by groups committed to public access television, and two channels open to anyone for any use whatsover (these two channels are currently dominated by religious, musical, and sports programming). So far this system has proved functional, allowing just about any individual or group the opportunity to make and broadcast their own programming and statements.
An alternative media system would thus provide the possibility for oppositional, counterhegemonic subcultures and groups to produce programs expressing their own views, oppositions, and struggles that resist the massification, homogenization, and passivity that Baudrillard and others attribute to the media. Alternative media allow marginal and oppositional voices to contest the view of the world, values, and life-styles of the mainstream, and make possible the circulation and growth of alternative subcultures and communities. Baudrillard's theoreticism, however, completely eschews cultural practice and becomes more and more divorced from the political struggles and issues of the day -- though the question of Baudrillard's politics would take another long and very tortured paper to deal with. Reflecting briefly on Baudrillard's media theory leads me to three provisional conclusions:
1) Postmodern media theory is rather impoverished qua media theory and reproduces the limitations of McLuhan's media theory: formalism, technological determinism, and essentialism. John Fekete's critique of McLuhan might profitably be applied to Baudrillard, as might some of the other criticisms of McLuhan once in fashion which may need to be recycled a second time for the new McLuhan(cy).[17] The theory of autonomous media also return with Baudrillard; thus the critiques of autonomous technology can usefully and relevantly be applied to Baudrillard, and, more generally to postmodern social theory.[18]
2) The very weakness of postmodern media theory raises fundamental questions about the status of postmodern social theory itself. The question arises as to whether an implosive theory -like Baudrillard's -- that denies all the boundaries of previous social theory is in a position to carefully and rigorously work out the complex relations and contradictions between the media, economy, state, culture and society, or whether -- as I believe -- neo-Marxian theories of dialectics and mediations are preferable.
3) So I conclude that more sustained critical focus on Baudrillard's theory of the media (as well as all of his other theories) is necessary -- as opposed to the celebatory adultation which has so far -- at least in some circles -surrounded the emergence of a New Master Discourse. If the Baudrillardian postmodern theory is inadequate, then we need new theories to illuminate the multi-faceted and significant roles of the media in contemporary capitalist societies. No such theory exists -- which is part of the attraction of Baudrillard who at least tries to offer a new media theory adequate to its object -and the production of one is perhaps Baudrillard's real challenge to us.
Notes
1. This polemic draws on material from my forthcoming book _Jean Baudrillard: From Marxism to Postmodernism and Beyond_ (Polity Press, 1989). I am grateful to Arthur Kroker for penetrating critical remarks on an earlier version of this text, to Steve Best for incisive critiques of several versions of the text, and to Peter Bruck who proposed expansion of the political implications of my critique. In this paper, I shall use the following abbreviations in the text for Baudrillard's work: CPES=_Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign_ (St. Louis: Telos Press, 1978); SSM=_In the Shadows of the Silent Majorities_ (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983); SIM= _Simulations_ (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983); and SED=_De la seduction_ (Paris: Galilee, 1979).
2. Baudrillard presents a rather extreme variant of a negative model of the media which sees mass media and culture simply as instruments of domination, manipulation, and social control in which radical intervention and radical media or cultural politics are impossible. Baudrillard thus shares a certain theoretical terrain on theories of the media with the Frankfurt school, many Althusserians and other French radicals, and those who see electronic media, broadcasting, and mass culture simply as a terrain of domination. For my critique of the Frankfurt school media theory, see _Critical Theory, Marxism, and Modernity_ (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989).
3. Baudrillard, Review of _Understanding Media_ in _L'Homme et la Societe_, Nr. 5 (1967), pp. 227ff.
4. See Jurgen Habermas, _Theory and Practice_ (Boston: Beacon Press, 1973), and the critique in Rick Roderick, _Habermas and the Foundations of Critical Theory_ (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1986).
5. Hans Magnus Enzensberger, "Constituents of a Theory of the Media," in _The Consciousness Industry_ _New York: Seabury_, 1974.
6. See Marshall McLuhan, _Understanding Media_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984). Scott Lash proposes use of the term "de-differentiation" in "Discourse or Figure? Postmodernism as a 'Regime of Signification,'" _Theory, Culture & Society_, Vol. 5, Nrs. 2-3 (June 1988).
7. Douglas Kellner, "Boundaries and Borderlines: Reflections on Baudrillard and Critical Theory," _Current Perspectives in Social Theory_ (forthcoming 1988).
8. On McLuhan's catholicism, see John Fekete, "McLuhancy: Counterrevolution in Cultural Theory" (Telos 15, Spring 1973), pp. 75 123 and Arthur Kroker, _Technology and the Canadian Mind_ (Montreal: New World Press, 1984).
9. Fekete, ibid, pp. 100ff.
10. Jean Baudrillard, "The Ecstasy of Communication," in Hal Foster, editor, _The Anti-Aesthetic_ (Port Washington, N.Y.: 1983). Page references from this source will be inserted in the text.
11. Kellner, _Jean Baudrillard_, Ibid.
12. For further elaboration, see Douglas Kellner, "TV, Ideology and Emancipatory Popular Culture," _Socialist Review_ 42 (Nov-Dec 1979), pp. 13-53 and "Television Images, Codes, and Messages," _Televisions_, Vol. 7, No. 4 (1980), pp. 2-19.
13. See Steven Best and Douglas Kellner "(Re)Watching Television: Notes Toward a Political Criticism," _Diacritics_ (Summer 1987), pp. 97-113 for elaboration of the project of developing a political hermeneutics against postmodernist (mostly formalist and anti-hermeneutical) modes of criticism.
14. Kellner, _Jean Baudrillard_, Ibid.
15. This argument is elaborated in Douglas Kellner, "Public Access Television: _Alternative Views_," _Radical Science Journal_ 16, _Making Waves_ (1985), pp. 79-92, and Steve Best and Douglas Kellner, "Watching Television: The Limitations of Post-Modernism," _Science as Culture_ 4 (forthcoming 1988). I point to some of the limitations in Baudrillard's media theory for analysis of contemporary politics in "Baudrillard, Semiurgy and Death" _Theory, Culture & Society_, Vol. IV (1987), pp. 125-146.
16. I shall develop this position in my forthcoming book _Television, Politics and Society: Towards a Critical Theory of Television_ (forthcoming Westview Press).
17. Fekete, Ibid.
18. See Langdon Winner, _Autonomous Technology_ (Cambridge, Mass: The M.I.T. Press, 1977).
above copied from: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell26.htm
Thursday, January 24, 2008
What is Interactivity
What is Interactivity and is it Always Such a Good Thing?
Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness Abstract Most perceptions of interactivity are that it is an inherently good thing, that it will change marketing and advertising as we know it. However, though there are obvious and intuitive advantages to interactivity, it may pose a disadvantage for marketing and advertising under some conditions. In this article, we explore the nature of interactivity and its underlying processes to determine the conditions under which interactivity may be both useful and detrimental in an advertising context. We first discuss the multidimensional nature of the interactivity construct as it has appeared in the literature. We then provide a concrete conceptualization and definition of interactivity that encompasses these various dimensions. We argue that inconsistencies between the definitions and operationalizations found in previous studies make it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the role of interactivity but that these inconsistencies can be at least partly explained by a focus on the different dimensions of interactivity. Finally, drawing on theory and research in cognitive, social, and personality psychology, we suggest that the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness may be a function of both the person and the situation. We offer a program of research, in the form of testable propositions, to explore these boundary conditions and discuss implications for Internet advertising strategy. 3
What is Interactivity and is it Always Such a Good Thing?
Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness Everyone seems excited about the "interactive revolution" that is apparently upon us. In its May 31, 1993, issue, Newsweek proclaimed the virtues of an "interactive life" and explained how interactivity would change the way we "shop, play, and learn" (Jensen 1998, p. 185). Colleges and universities are on the fast track to providing the latest in interactive courses, and academic researchers are similarly anxious to explore the nuances of interactivity. Moreover, nary a negative word can be heard about interactivity, or at least so it seems.
Yet, in reading across the rapidly growing literature in both the academic and lay press, it is unclear that anyone really knows what interactivity is. Or, perhaps better put, everyone has their own idea about what interactivity is, but these ideas seldom appear to be consistent across people. There are at least two relatively innocuous and interrelated reasons for these inconsistencies. First, the word is a fairly common one that has taken on a technical definition. Second, the construct is a complex and (we argue) multidimensional one. Consequently, the inconsistencies across definitions may result from two people simply talking about different aspects of interactivity. In other words, both may be accurate.
Yet, in reading across the rapidly growing literature in both the academic and lay press, it is unclear that anyone really knows what interactivity is. Or, perhaps better put, everyone has their own idea about what interactivity is, but these ideas seldom appear to be consistent across people. There are at least two relatively innocuous and interrelated reasons for these inconsistencies. First, the word is a fairly common one that has taken on a technical definition. Second, the construct is a complex and (we argue) multidimensional one. Consequently, the inconsistencies across definitions may result from two people simply talking about different aspects of interactivity. In other words, both may be accurate.
In this article, we argue that a thorough understanding of the complexities of interactivity and a precise, concrete conceptualization and definition of the construct is crucial to advancing research in the area. In the first portion of the paper, we make this argument by reviewing the many definitions of interactivity that have appeared in the literature. We then integrate this literature into a precise but multidimensional definition of interactivity. We conclude the first portion of the paper with a review of selected research on interactivity effects and the implications of our definition of interactivity for reconciling disparate findings. In the second portion of the paper, we address the consequences of our conceptualization of interactivity for the effectiveness of Internet advertising. In particular, we explore the processes that likely underlie interactivity and show that these processes have implications for both enhancing and inhibiting the effectiveness of persuasive communications. In doing so, we offer a 4
program of research in the form of a series of testable propositions.
What Is Interactivity?
Interactivity has been defined in many ways. For example, Blattberg and Deighton (1991) define interactivity as the facility for persons and organizations to communicate directly with one another regardless of distance or time. Deighton (1996) considers interactivity to have two primary features: the ability to address a person and to gather and remember the response of that person. Steuer (1992, p.84) suggests that interactivity is "the extent to which users can participate in modifying the format and content of a mediated environment in real time."
On closer examination, these different definitions can be classified by whether they focus on userÐmachine interaction, userÐuser interaction, or userÐmessage interaction (Cho and Leckenby 1997). UserÐmachine interaction was the focus of early definitions of interactivity, in which the emphasis was on human interaction with computers. To be interactive, a computer system must be responsive to users' actions. However, although userÐmachine interaction is an important aspect of interactivity, it alone is not adequate to capture the concept of interactivity since the emergence of more advanced technology such as the Internet. As a result, researchers have turned to two other types of interaction: userÐuser interaction and userÐmessage interaction.
UserÐuser interaction is most often discussed from an interpersonal communication perspective. The more that communication in a computer-mediated environment resembles interpersonal communication, the more interactive the communication is (Ha and James 1998). However, one problem with looking at interactivity from the angle of interpersonal communication is that it ignores the ability of a medium such as the Internet to break the boundaries of traditional interpersonal communication. Not only do people no longer need to be at the same place, they do not even need to be communicating at the same time. With online translation service, people also do not need to understand each otherÕs language to be able to communicate. Furthermore, research has shown that computer-mediated communication and face-to-face communication are not functional 5
alternatives (Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin 1998).
From a userÐmessage interaction perspective, interactivity is defined as the ability of the user to control and modify messages (Steuer 1992). Whereas people have little control over messages in traditional media, the Internet gives users much more freedom in controlling the messages they receive and allows users to customize messages according to their own needs.
Although attempts to define interactivity abound, research on the effects of interactivity has been sparse and relatively inconclusive. Some researchers have found interactivity to have a positive impact on user attitudes (Cho and Leckenby 1999; Wu 1999), whereas others have concluded that it has no significant effect on customer satisfaction (Shankar, Smith, and Rangaswamy 2000) and that it may even be detrimental to advertising effectiveness (Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci 1998). These conflicting results may be partly due to the lack of a clear definition of interactivity and the resulting very different operationalizations of the construct. To advance our understanding of the new media and how marketing communications should evolve in the new environment, a clarification of the construct and formal programmatic research on its influence is needed.
Defining Interactivity
Although each of the three aspects of interaction just mentioned (userÐmachine, userÐuser, userÐmessage) is an important component of interactivity, few definitions have incorporated all of them. Here we propose a three-dimensional construct of interactivity that captures all three types of interaction. The emphasis of the current definition is on providing a concrete picture of consumers' online experiences. In doing so, we can identify the potential benefits and limitations of interactivity in online communication.
We define interactivity as follows:
the degree to which two or more communication parties can act on each other, on the communication medium, and on the messages and the degree to which such influences are synchronized. 6
In addition, we specify three dimensions of interactivity: active control, two-way communication and synchronicity.
Active Control. Active control is characterized by voluntary and instrumental action that directly influences the controller's experience. The Internet features a network of linked contents (Hoffman and Novak 1996), which is a parallel, nonlinear structure. In controlling such a nonlinear structure, users are able to customize the information flow and jump from one location in the network to another. In contrast, the linearity of a medium such as television makes it possible for a person to watch television without taking any action except to switch channels once in a while. Although he or she still has some control, the control is not absolutely necessary and does not effectively change his or her viewing experience.
And thatThe control an Internet user exerts is voluntary. While surfing the Internet, the user acts according to his or her own goals and wills. This is best illustrated by looking at banner advertising versus advertising on television. Because television commercials forcibly interrupt viewing, viewers must involuntarily switch channels to avoid commercials. Even for magazine advertising, where readers have more control over whether they read an ad or not, most times readers still must turn an ad page to go to the content they want to read. This behavior is totally different from banner advertising. Because banner ads are put on the same page, Web surfers do not need to do anything to avoid advertising. If surfers are interested in an ad, they can click on the ad to obtain more information. If not, they can simply ignore the ad without doing anything special. Therefore, Web surfers control their experience on the basis of their own preferences and volition.
Two-Way Communication. Two-way communication refers to the ability for reciprocal communication between companies and users and users and users. Traditional media are somewhat effective in transmitting company messages to consumers but can hardly pass on messages in the other direction, from consumers to companies (Hoffman and Novak 1996). To gather information from consumers, a company must rely on other tools. The Internet changes this old way of marketing 7
communication and makes instant feedback possible. Consumers can now give instant feedback to companies implicitly or explicitly while on the Internet. Implicit feedback is facilitated by techniques that track consumers' online behavior. By recording a banner ad's click-through rate or tracking the time a visitor stays at a Web site, companies can effectively gauge consumers' interest in their messages and products. Consumers can also provide explicit feedback to a company by sending an e-mail or filling out a form on the company's Web site. Internet technology makes both giving and collecting feedback very easy, which further encourages two-way communication.
Another important aspect of two-way communication is the ability to make transactions directly online. Although they have long been used to sell products, none of the traditional media can fulfill transactions alone. Consumers must either mail or telephone in their orders. The Internet is the only medium that can be used for transactions without the help of other tools. Necessary activities in a transaction, such as product display, order placing, and payment, can all be done on the Web. For digital products, even delivery can be made online. The ability to conduct transactions online greatly enhances the two-way communication between companies and consumers and makes it easier for companies to understand consumer purchase behavior.
Synchronicity. Synchronicity refers to the degree to which usersÕ input into a communication and the response they receive from the communication are simultaneous. Traditional media provide few channels for audience input. Even when they do (e.g., through readers' letters or telephone calls), the time elapsed between sending the input and receiving a response is usually quite long. In contrast, the Internet is able to make the communication much more synchronized. It takes only seconds from inputting a piece of information on the Internet (such as typing in a search keyword on a search engine) to getting a response (such as the search results based on the keyword). Many Web sites also allow users to customize pages. Users can indicate what content and layout they like and immediately be able to see the page exactly as they want it.
System responsiveness is essential to this dimension of interactivity. To achieve synchronicity, 8
the system, whether it is a Web site or an e-mail server, must be able to respond to user actions and requests in a timely matter. Because of technology limitations and the pitfalls of human fulfillment of technology, there are occasions when synchronicity cannot be achieved even on the Internet. For example, a user may click on a link and receive nothing more than a "Page Not Found" error message. Another example would be a significant delay in e-mail communication because of a server error. Therefore, maintaining a responsive system is important to create a synchronous and interactive online experience.
Structural Versus Experiential Aspects of Interactivity
In defining interactivity, it is necessary to distinguish between structural and experiential aspects of the construct. The structural aspect of interactivity refers to the hardwired opportunity of interactivity provided during an interaction, whereas the experiential aspect of interactivity is the interactivity of the communication process as perceived by the communication parties. For example, from a structural perspective, synchronicity may involve maintaining appropriate server structure, providing adequate bandwidth, and ensuring correct linkage between documents. Felt synchronicity, in contrast, is how synchronized users feel the communication is. This may be influenced by the speed of the usersÕ Internet connection or the usersÕ expectations, which cannot be controlled by the company.
Similar distinctions exist for active control and two-way communication. On one hand, companies can offer consumers more control opportunities by making the structure of their Web sites more flexible and avoiding annoying pop-up ads; on the other hand, consumers may not always be motivated to exert control efforts and thus do not feel a higher level of control. Similarly, not all consumers will take advantage of online feedback mechanisms made available to them. This may be because they do not feel the need to communicate with the companies or because they are concerned about privacy. By distinguishing between the two aspects of interactivity, companies can better utilize the controllable elements of interactivity and understand the uncontrollable elements, which may produce effects different from company expectations. 9
Applying the Definition of Interactivity to Theory and Practice
Although important, merely providing a definition of interactivity is limited in its contribution to knowledge. In the following sections, we demonstrate the usefulness of our conceptualization of interactivity by relating it to current practice. In the first section, we provide a comparison of different Internet marketing tools in terms of the degree to which they differ on the three dimensions of interactivity we have proposed. In the second section, we review selected scholarly research on the effects of interactivity, with an eye toward studies that appear to produce conflicting findings. We then use the different dimensions of interactivity to attempt to reconcile these findings by showing how the various studies differ in their focus on the interactivity dimensions.
Comparing Popular Online Marketing Tools on Interactivity
Not only is interactivity a fundamental difference between traditional media and online media, but the various online tools also differ in their degree of interactivity. To illustrate the dimensions of interactivity better, we compare the seven most popular forms of online marketing tools on their degree of interactivity as defined by the three dimensions. These seven most popular tools are Internet presence sites (company Web sites), Web communities (Web sites that serve as a channel for information exchange between people with similar interests or beliefs), online stores, banner ads, pop-up ads, e-mail newsletters, and unsolicited e-mails (spam). Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the seven tools on the three dimensions of interactivity.
Active Control. Web sites, including Internet presence sites (IPSÕs), online stores, and Web communities, feature the highest levels of active control. Users choose to go to a Web site in which they are interested, and while surfing the site, they are constantly controlling their experiences. Among different Web sites, online stores offer the most active control. Compared with merely surfing a Web 10
site, shopping tends to be more focused and demanding. Users need to pay closer attention and make comparisons and choices all the time. E-mail newsletters also provide users with some degree of active control, though not as much as that offered by Web sites. A major advantage of e-mail newsletters is that users decide whether to subscribe. Those who subscribe are usually interested in the company's products and services. Banner or pop-up ads, in contrast, use forced exposure. Worse yet, pop-up ads directly interfere with usersÕ online activities. To avoid a pop-up ad, users must manually close the pop-up window. Therefore, from an active control point of view, pop-up ads are less interactive than are banner ads. Finally, unsolicited e-mail provides the least amount of active control and is probably the most unwelcome type of online marketing, as users have little control over such junk e-mails.
Two-Way Communication. On the two-way communication dimension, Web communities rank the highest. An essential property of Web communities is interaction (Kozinets 1999). Community members can interact with one other through chat rooms and discussion groups. Although such communication often occurs among customers, it offers companies great insight into their customers' attitudes and preferences. Other types of Web sites can also foster two-way communication, as they carry customer feedback forms, company contact information, or a customer satisfaction survey. With the ease of use of these feedback tools, two-way communication tends to be encouraged. The emergence of Web tracking techniques further enables companies to gather implicit feedback from site visitors.
Similar tracking techniques can also be used with banner and pop-up ads. By recording click-throughs, companies can obtain information on customer interests. However, banner and pop-up ads usually need to be combined with Web sites to respond to usersÕ actions, making them rank lower on the two-way communication dimension than do Web sites. E-mail newsletters offer similar levels of two-way communication as banner and pop-up ads. Companies can track user responses to these promotional e-mails by embedding links in the messages, and users can offer explicit feedback by choosing the kind of newsletters to which they want to subscribe. Conversely, unsolicited e-mails offer 11
virtually no two-way communication, as the recipient can rarely have input through such devices.
Synchronicity. As for synchronicity, e-mail newsletters do not perform as well as Web sites and online ads because of the delay inherent in e-mail communication. Banner and pop-up ads are also less synchronous than Web sites, as users must click on a banner ad to obtain detailed information. Well-designed and maintained Web sites, however, offer seamless communication with users. Although the company usually puts the materials on a Web site onto the Web well in advance, by designing a responsive system, the company can promote a sense of real-time communication.
Implications for Research and Practice
As should be clear from the previous discussion and Figure 1, Web sites can differ drastically not only in terms of the level of interactivity they offer (i.e., quantity of features), but also in the nature of the interactivity (i.e., quality of features as a function of the different dimensions of interactivity). The distinction is an important one. For example, in terms of trying to improve "interactivity" (however defined), a company might focus on simply adding more features. However, some features may be more interactive than others or may at least be perceived as such by the user. Moreover, among features perceived to be equal in interactivity, some features may be valued more highly than others. Consequently, it is important for companies to determine which features are more highly valued and which are perceived as dispensable.
This is also true in terms of research on the effects of interactivity. As we discuss in more detail in the next section, it is tempting to operationalize the degree of interactivity of a stimulus Web site as the presence or absence of particular features or the quantity of features present. However, without valid manipulation checks, it is impossible to determine what the participants in the study actually think. It may be that certain dimensions of interactivity are weighted more heavily than others, and thus, the features associated with these dimensions may be perceived as not only more interactive, but also more useful. Without an understanding of how participants perceive the actual interactive features, researchers run the risk of creating an invalid operationalization of interactivity. 12
Examining Conflicting Research Findings
To date, research findings on the effects of interactivity on various measures of marketing and advertising effectiveness (e.g., attitudes, purchase behavior, recall) have been remarkable for their lack of consistency across studies. As always, there are several possible explanations for these inconsistencies. However, we focus on the key independent variable, interactivity, and examine how different conceptualizations of the construct, particularly within the scope of the three dimensions of interactivity that we have described, may contribute to the disparate findings. In addition, we note how the structural and experiential aspects within each dimension have produced differences in research findings.
Active Control. The active control dimension of interactivity has received by far the most attention among the three dimensions. Researchers have studied the effects of active control on end variables such as attitudes and decision-making accuracy (e.g., Ariely 2000; Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci 1998), as well as intermediary variables such as telepresence (e.g., Coyle and Thorson 2001; see also Shih 1998). In experimental studies, active control has been manipulated mainly in two ways. The first method creates high control by allowing study participants to choose the path they take when going through the information, whereas the second method manipulates control by offering more or less choice availability in the form of the number of clickable links.
ArielyÕs (2000) work clearly falls into the first category. The author used a computer simulation of an interactive home shopping experience for a camera to approximate the online experience and manipulated the control that participants had over the information to which they had access. In the low control condition, participants had no freedom in determining the sequence of the information they received; in the high control condition, they had complete freedom to choose which information to access. The task for the participants was to rate the quality of a set of cameras. Over five experiments, Ariely (2000) observed that greater control of information was generally associated with better memory and learning. However, this advantage disappeared (and in fact was reversed), at 13
least initially, when demands on processing resources were high (e.g., a novel or difficult task).
Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci (1998) investigated interactivity by manipulating whether participants had control over the ads they viewed ("interactive," by clicking on icons, which simulated a Web site) or did not have control ("linear," simulating advertising through traditional media such as television). The results showed that interactivity actually had a detrimental effect. Those in the interactive condition spent less time viewing the ads and indicated less of an intention to purchase the advertised product than did those in the linear condition.
At first glance, it would appear that the Ariely (2000) and Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci (1998) studies provide conflicting results on the dimension of active control. However, there is an important difference between the two studies. Whereas participants in ArielyÕs (2000) experiments were clearly informed prior to accessing product information that they would be making decisions about the cameras, participants in Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and IacobucciÕs (1998) study were merely asked to go through the information provided and then rate their attitudes and purchase intention. Thus, the two studies likely differed in goal orientation. Not unexpectedly, active control does not work independently of other variables.
Sundar, Brown, and KalyanaramanÕs (1999) study is an example of the second method of control manipulation. They manipulated interactivity as the type of interactive feature: no extra links (low interactivity), a Òmore informationÓ link (moderate interactivity), and two additional information links that were "layered" (i.e., the participant could only get to the second link via the first one). Only partial support for the benefits of interactivity was found. Results showed that participants in the moderate interactivity condition judged the political candidate to be more caring and more qualified than did participants in the low interactivity condition but that those in the high interactivity condition judged the candidate as less caring and less qualified than did those in either the moderate or low interactivity condition. This may be due to the extra effort needed to navigate too many layers of information without the actual benefit of obtaining more information. No significant differences were 14
found for judgments of charisma or appeal.
Coyle and Thorson (2001) also manipulated interactivity by varying the number of clickable links on the first page of a Web site. Although interactivity led to a heightened sense of telepresence, it had no impact on attitude toward the site. The lack of support for interactivity effects in this second method of control manipulation suggests that different ways of implementing active control may have different effects on users. Although active control can satisfy heterogeneity in information needs (Ariely 2000), it may be contingent on the usersÕ goals and the extra effort sometimes needed to manage the enhanced control.
Two-Way Communication. Although two-way communication is frequently mentioned as a component of interactivity, research focusing on its effects has been surprisingly sparse. The only research that has explicitly studied the effect of two-way communication is Sundar et al.Õs (1998). They conducted their study on the effects of interactivity in the context of attitudes toward a political candidate. They manipulated two-way communication through the presence or absence of an e-mail link. No overall effect of two-way communication was found. However, when the effects of interactivity were considered as a function of participant apathy, a different pattern emerged. Apathetic participants were positively affected by level of two-way communication, but nonapathetic participants were either not or somewhat negatively affected. The authors posit that interactivity serves as a peripheral cue and, as such, has an effect only on those who are relatively less involved.
Two questions are relevant for further research on two-way communication. First, what techniques will users perceive as facilitating two-way communication? Obviously, the mere presence of an e-mail link is not enough, though from a structural perspective, an e-mail link provides more opportunities for two-way communication. This calls for the extrication of experiential interactivity from the mere opportunity of interaction and an accurate measure of two-way communication (or interactivity in general) as perceived by the user. Second, what are the conditions in which users are likely to utilize the two-way communication opportunities provided to them? This may include usersÕ 15
privacy concerns and technical fluency at using the two-way communication tools.
Synchronicity. Research on synchronicity has been less ambiguous compared with the other two dimensions. Sears, Jacko, and Borella (1997) simulated Internet delay by a trace-driven simulation technique. In the short-delay condition, downloading was delayed for an average of 575 milliseconds; and in the long-delay condition, the delay averaged 6750 milliseconds. They found that, for documents with both text and graphics, a longer delay resulted in less favorable attitudes. For text-only documents, however, a longer delay generated more positive attitudes toward the document. The authors attributed this finding to usersÕ appreciation of the use of plain text when substantial delay is involved. Because most Web sites now have graphics, the negative influence of delays is probably more relevant to companies. However, when significant delay is unavoidable because of a speed bottleneck at the usersÕ end, using plain text may be helpful.
Dellaert and Kahn (1999) also investigated the effect of synchronicity by adding a waiting time to information downloading. In four experiments, participants viewed and evaluated an Internet magazine. The results are particularly revealing of the difference between actual synchronicity and perceived synchronicity. For participants not informed of possible delays, delay had a negative influence on their evaluation of their experience. For participants told in advance of the possible delays, however, waiting had a less salient effect. Moreover, negative affect generated from the waiting was transferred to the evaluation of the magazine itself, but only for participants who were not informed of possible delays. In the informed-delay condition, participants had expectations of delay. Therefore, the actual lack of synchronicity became less salient perceptually, in contrast with the uncertainty uninformed participants felt.
Experiential Interactivity. Several researchers have looked at the effects of interactivity purely from an experiential point of view. In these studies, interactivity is usually measured rather than manipulated. For example, Wu (1999) measured participantsÕ attitudes toward and their perceived interactivity of particular Web sites. Results showed a strong correlation between the two (r = .64 and 16
.73 for two different sites). Similarly, Cho and Leckenby (1999) measured participants' intention to interact with a target (banner) ad and found positive relations (correlation coefficients ranged between .30 and .75) between intention to interact with the ad and attitudes toward the ad, attitudes toward the brand, and purchase intention. Yoo and Stout (2001) also observed this general pattern of results. Although this body of research has shown encouraging signs of the usefulness of perceived interactivity, the results should be treated with caution, because the studies all used different measures of interactivity and the measures tended to be confounded with affect or behavioral intentions. It seems likely that a better understanding of the nature of perceived interactivity, and thus what interactivity means to users, might be accomplished through qualitative research methods that investigate the userÕs point of view.
Integrating the Results. Is there a discernable pattern to the results just discussed? One of our stated goals for this review was to reconcile apparent conflicting findings in terms of the three dimensions of interactivity that we have proposed. Some conclusions, however tentative, can be reached. On the one hand, active control seems to be useful, but only in certain conditions such as goal-directed searches (Ariely 2000) and not while surfing for pleasure (Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci 1998). Moreover, there seems to be a limit to the positive effects of active control. Sundar et al. (1998) found that moderate levels of interactivity (in the form of the active control dimension) were more effective than either low or high levels. On the other hand, synchronicity seems generally to enhance usersÕ experiences with such things as downloading, but forewarning can lessen this advantage (Dellaert and Kahn 1999). Finally, it seems clear that, regardless of how researchers manipulate interactivity in an objective way, the perception of increased interactivity (whatever that may mean to users) has a positive effect on usersÕ attitudes and behavior (cf. Cho and Leckenby 1999; Wu 1999; Yoo and Stout 2001).
Is Interactivity Always a Good Thing?
As a central characteristic of online media, interactivity has important implications for Internet 17
users' behavior. It is usually assumed that interactivity is a good thing to have, it can make surfing a more satisfying experience to users and the more of it the better. As we argue in the following discussion (and as is suggested by the reviewed studies), though this may often be true, there are exceptions to this notion. These exceptions represent boundary conditions that involve aspects of the person (user) and the situation.
As a central characteristic of online media, interactivity has important implications for Internet 17
users' behavior. It is usually assumed that interactivity is a good thing to have, it can make surfing a more satisfying experience to users and the more of it the better. As we argue in the following discussion (and as is suggested by the reviewed studies), though this may often be true, there are exceptions to this notion. These exceptions represent boundary conditions that involve aspects of the person (user) and the situation.
We consider the effects of interactivity and these boundary conditions by examining the individual dimensions of interactivity we previously proposed. As we show, whereas some of the dimensions may have a positive influence on a particular variable, other dimensions may have no relationship with the variable at all. This is a potentially important concept that has implications for the measurement, operationalization, and interpretation of interactivity. For example, if interactivity is treated as a sum of the three dimensions, important relations between a variable and a particular dimension may be obscured simply because the other two dimensions showed no relation with that variable. Similarly, when effects are noted, they may be attributed to a global concept of interactivity when only one or two dimensions of interactivity are driving the relations. For these reasons, it is important to isolate and investigate the effects of individual dimensions of interactivity.
In the following section, we present a framework of interactivity effects that is derived from theory and research in cognitive, social, and personality psychology. As shown in Figure 2, the framework deals with processes that occur during the interaction and consequences resulting from the interaction. In particular, we consider one process variable (cognitive involvement) and two outcome variables (user learning and satisfaction). Although there are other aspects of the interaction that may be influenced by interactivity, we chose these three variables because of their importance in the communication process. Not only do these variables represent the essential process of a communication, they also play a pivotal role in persuasion and attitude formation (Eagly and Chaiken 1993; MacKenzie and Lutz 1989; Petty, Wegener, and Fabrigar 1997). Furthermore, these variables have been largely ignored in previous interactivity effects research. 18
--------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
--------------------------------
User Cognitive Involvement
The term ÒinvolvementÓ has been given diverse meanings in psychological and consumer behavior research and has often caused confusion (Cohen 1983). Therefore, it is necessary to clarify first what we mean by cognitive involvement in the present context. For our purposes, cognitive involvement refers to the extent of cognitive elaboration that occurs in a communication process. It is different from the enduring involvement people have with an object, which is the popular concept of product involvement. Rather, it is a situational construct that starts and ends with the communication process and is more in line with Batra and Ray's (1985) conceptualization of involvement as an elaboration process.
Interactivity creates cognitively involving experiences through active control and two-way communication. Active control requires users to be cognitively active and make choices. A highly interactive online experience requires users' closer attention and more cognitive processing than is needed for traditional media or low interactive online experiences. Furthermore, two-way, synchronized communication is potentially more engaging than one-way, unsynchronized communication. On the one hand, in traditional media, the communicator encodes the message and sends the encoded message to the audience. The audience then receives and decodes the message. In this one-way communication, the audience consists of passive message receivers. The Internet, on the other hand, engages the audience in the communication process. Internet users are not only message receivers, but also active message creators. By engaging users in an active dialog, higher interactivity should lead to higher user involvement. This leads to our first two propositions:
P1: Active control is positively related to user cognitive involvement.
P2: Two-way communication is positively related to user cognitive involvement. 19
User Learning
A direct result of the more cognitively involving experience induced by higher interactivity is better user learning. It invites users to engage in deeper cognitive processing. Through such deeper cognitive processing, messages are likely to be better understood and remembered. Furthermore, being in control enables users to obtain information in a way most suitable to them. This satisfies heterogeneity in information needs across consumers and across time, making information acquisition more effective for a consumer (Ariely 2000). Finally, higher interactivity can lead to better learning by enhancing users' self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is an important motivational factor in learning and has been found to contribute to better learning performance (Mitchell et al. 1994; Zimmerman 2000). The active control dimension of interactivity enables users to control their own communication experiences, which potentially leads to higher self-efficacy beliefs (Gist and Mitchell 1992; Tafarodi, Milne, and Smith 1999). With increased self-efficacy beliefs, users will be more likely to be confident in themselves and more motivated to learn, which will result in better learning. These provide the basis for the following propositions:
Proposition 3: Active control is positively related to user learning.
P3a: The relationship between active control and user learning is at least partially mediated by cognitive involvement.
P3b: The relationship between active control and user learning is at least partially mediated by self-efficacy.
User Satisfaction
Interactivity can enhance user satisfaction through active control. Controllability, or the feeling of being in control, has been considered a desirable psychological state. The feeling of being in control has been found to lead to increased self-efficacy beliefs (Gist and Mitchell 1992; Tafarodi, Milne, and Smith 1999), less stress (Amirkhan 1998) and higher satisfaction (Judge, Bono, and Locke 2000). Lack of control, however, produces stress and lower perceived competency (Amirkhan 1998; Judge, 20
Bono, and Locke 2000). By giving users the power to control their online experiences actively, interactivity can enhance users' self-efficacy beliefs and lead to higher satisfaction. Thus, our next two propositions are as follows:
P4: Active control is positively related to user satisfaction.
P4a: The relationship between active control and user satisfaction is at least partially mediated by self-efficacy.
In addition to the benefits provided by active control, two-way communication and synchronicity can result in higher user satisfaction (Dellaert and Kahn 1999). A highly interactive online experience responds quickly to users' actions and requests, treats users as active participants in the communication, and ensures that their opinions are heard. This reduces the frustration associated with waiting and feeling ignored and manipulated by the company, potentially resulting in a more satisfying communication experience. This leads to the next two propositions:
P5: Two-way communication is positively related to user satisfaction.
P6: Synchronicity is positively related to user satisfaction.
Interactivity May Not Always Be Good
The first six propositions suggest advantages for interactivity. However, there are aspects of both the person and the situation that may circumscribe these advantages.
Personal Factors
The relationship between interactivity and user satisfaction is likely to be constrained by user idiosyncratic characteristics. In other words, not all users will prefer high levels of interactivity. It is impossible to exhaust all factors that can play a role in this process. Here, we focus on two enduring personal variables that reflect a personÕs motivation and affective state in communication, which are important moderators of communication effectiveness.
One relevant motivational factor is a user's desire for control (Burger and Cooper 1979). 21
Desire for control refers to Òthe extent to which people generally are motivated to see themselves in control of the events in their livesÓ (Burger 1992, p. 6). People with high desire for control often ask themselves how much control they have over a situation. They attend to control-relevant information closely, process the information in great detail, and tend to seek to obtain control actively during an interaction (Burger 1993). When unable to control their life events, people with high desire for control are likely to feel depressed (Burger 1984). As a result, the active control dimension of interactivity is likely to have a significant effect on these people's communication experiences and on their satisfaction. Conversely, people with low desire for control do not attend to and process control-relevant information as diligently as people with high desire for control (Burger 1993), and thus, active control is not likely to make such a salient difference. They may even feel uncomfortable with exerting too much control. This interaction between desire for control and active control forms our next proposition:
P7: Higher active control will produce more satisfaction for people with high desire-for-control than for people with low desire-for-control.
Computer-mediated communication apprehension (CMCA) is another relevant user variable that may moderate the relationship between interactivity and satisfaction. It refers to the level of anxiety associated with communicating with others via a computer (Clarke 1991). People with high levels of CMCA can be novice computer users who are anxious about using computers, or they may simply have high levels of general communication anxiety (Flaherty, Pearce, and Rubin 1998). These people tend to avoid interaction in a computer-mediated environment and are less likely to enjoy the two-way communication on the Internet (Clarke 1991). Therefore, people with high levels of CMCA may be less satisfied with highly interactive online experiences that involve a lot of two-way communication than will people with low levels of CMCA, and they may be more likely to enjoy less interactive online experiences than their counterparts. This reasoning suggests an interaction between two-way 22
communication and CMCA that forms the basis of our eighth proposition:
P8: More two-way communication will produce more satisfaction for people with low levels of computer-mediated communication apprehension than for people with high levels of computer-mediated communication apprehension.
Situational Factors
The purpose for which a user is surfing the Internet is a situational factor that can influence the userÕs preference for interactivity. We can broadly categorize browsing purposes into two types: for information and for pleasure. When users browse for information, they usually have a very clear utilitarian purpose in mind, such as obtaining information on a product they are planning to buy (Hoffman and Novak 1996). With such information needs, the ability to control the way they obtain information becomes important. The active control offered by interactivity can satisfy heterogeneity in information needs both across users and within users over time, thereby helping them better fulfill their purpose (Ariely 2000). Other cosmetic features of a Web site, however, will not be as attractive. Sometimes such cosmetic features may even be distracting to users. Consider GoogleÕs Web site, for example. Compared with other Web sites, Google features a seemingly too simplistic user interface. However, it still draws heavy traffic because users go to Google to search for specific information. The users presumably appreciate the ease of control and ability to fulfill their goals on Google.
When users browse merely for pleasure or for wasting time, however, they tend to seek hedonic benefits and experiential surfing experiences (Hoffman and Novak 1996). Under such conditions, the ability to look around and experience the features of a Web site may be important, much as people derive excitement from window shopping. Interactions facilitated by two-way communication can increase the fun and excitement during this process. Users browsing for pleasure are more likely to experience and enjoy such fun to a fuller degree than when they surf the Web for utilitarian reasons. As a result, they are likely to derive more satisfaction from a highly interactive surfing experience that facilitates two-way communication than from one that has less two-way 23
communication. This suggests an interaction between interactivity and motivation for Web site use:
P9: Higher active control will produce more satisfaction when a user browses a Web site for information than when the user browses for pleasure.
P10: More two-way communication will produce more satisfaction when a user browses a Web site for pleasure than when the user browses for information.
Conclusion
In this paper, we argue that a clear definition of interactivity is crucial to valid operationalizations of the construct. We provide a multidimensional definition of interactivity and attempt to demonstrate its utility by reviewing previous work on interactivity effects within a marketing context. We argue that at least one important explanation for the disparate results regarding interactivity effects can be traced directly to how the construct is defined and operationalized.
We also propose a research program that makes use of the concepts we delineate in the first portion of the paper. In particular, we were interested in understanding both the benefits and the limitations of using interactivity in a marketing and advertising context. We admit, however, that this proposed program of research is a limited one and by no means encompasses any more than a small portion of potential areas of investigation. As just one example, we propose two individual difference variables (desire for control and CMCA). Clearly, there are many other potential individual difference moderators of interactivity effects. In fact, two of the studies we reviewed included such individual difference moderators (visual versus verbal style of processing, Bezjian-Avery, Calder, and Iacobucci 1998; apathy, Sundar et al. 1998). Likewise, there are likely many other situational variables that might moderate interactivity effects.
In conclusion, we reiterate our initial claim that the rush to implement interactivity features into a marketing situation must be tempered, or at least mediated, by consideration and understanding of precisely what interactivity is, what it can do well, and, just as important, what it cannot do. Such consideration is often absent from marketing strategies, as companies rush ahead for fear of being left 24 behind. This situation reminds us of a television ad that appeared a few years ago. We share this ad to illustrate our point about rushing blindly toward the latest technological fad without understanding both its advantages and limitations. In the ad, two executives are shown talking to each other about company strategy, and one says to the other, "We have to get a company Web site." The other asks "Why?", at which point the first says, "I don't know." 25
References
Amirkhan, James H. (1998), "Attributions as Predictors of Coping and Distress," Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (September), 1006-1018.
Ariely, Dan (2000), "Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers' Decision-Making and Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September), 233-248.
Batra, Rajeev and Michael L. Ray (1985), "How Advertising Works at Contact," in Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects, Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 13-43.
Bezjian-Avery, Alexa, Bobby Calder, and Dawn Iacobucci (1998), "New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (July/August), 23-32.
Blattberg, Robert and John Deighton (1991), "Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of Addressability," Sloan Management Review, 33 (1), 5-14.
Burger, Jerry M. (1984), "Desire for Control, Locus of Control, and Proneness to Depression," Journal of Personality, 52 (March), 71-89.
------------ (1992), Desire for Control: Personality, Social and Clinical Perspectives, New York: Plenum.
------------ and Harris M. Cooper (1979), "The Desirability of Control," Motivation and Emotion, 3 (December), 381-393.
Cho, Chang-Hoan and John D. Leckenby (1997), "Internet-Related Programming Technology and Advertising," in Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, M. Carole Macklin, ed., Cincinnati, OH: American Academy of Advertising, 69.
------ and ------ (1999), "Interactivity as a Measure of Advertising Effectiveness: Antecedents and Consequences of Interactivity in Web Advertising," in Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Marilyn S. Roberts, ed., Gainesville, FL: American 26
Academy of Advertising, 162-179.
Clarke, C. T. (1991), "Rationale and Development of a Scale to Measure Computer-Mediated Communication Apprehension" (doctoral dissertation, Kent State University), Dissertation Abstract International, 52-04, A1129.
Cohen, Joel B. (1983), "Involvement and You: 1000 Great Ideas," in Advances in Consumer Research, Richard Bagozzi and Alice Tybout, eds., Vol. 10, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 325-328.
Coyle, James E. and Esther Thorson (2001), ÒThe Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites,Ó Journal of Advertising, 30 (Fall), 65-77.
Deighton, John (1996), "The Future of Interactive Marketing," Harvard Business Review, 74 (6), 151-162.
Dellaert, Benedict G. C. and Barbara E. Kahn (1999), ÒHow Tolerable is Delay?: ConsumersÕ Evaluation of Internet Web sites after Waiting,Ó Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13 (Winter), 41-54.
Eagly, Alice H. Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Flaherty, Lisa M., Kevin J. Pearce, and Rebecca B. Rubin (1998), "Internet and Face-to-Face Communication: Not Functional Alternatives," Communication Quarterly, 46 (3), 250-268.
Gist, Marilyn E. and Terence R. Mitchell (1992), "Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability," Academy of Management Review, 17 (April), 183-211.
Ha, Louisa and E. Lincoln James (1998), "Interactivity Reexamined: A Baseline Analysis of Early Business Web sites," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42 (Fall), 457-474.
Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), "Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations," Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 50-68.
Jensen, Jens F. (1998), "Interactivity: Tracing a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies," 27
Nordicom Review, 19 (1), 185-204.
Judge, Timothy A., Joyce E. Bono, and Edwin A. Locke (2000), "Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (April), 237-249.
Kozinets, Robert V. (1999), ÒE-Tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption,Ó European Management Journal, 17 (June), 252-264.
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.
Mitchell, Terence R., Heidi Hopper, Denise Daniels, and Jane George-Falvy (1994), "Predicting Self-Efficacy and Performance During Skill Acquisition," Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (August), 506-517.
Petty, Richard E., Duane T. Wegener, and Leandre R. Fabrigar (1997), ÒAttitudes and Attitude Change,Ó Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609-647.
Sears, Andrew, Julie A. Jacko, and Michael S. Borella (1997), ÒInternet Delay Effects: How Users Perceive Quality, Organization, and Ease of Use of Information,Ó in CHI97: Late-Breaking/Short Talks, Steven Pemberton, ed., New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 353-354.
Shankar, Venkatesh, Amy K. Smith, and Arvind Rangaswamy (2000), "Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in Online and Offline Environments," eBusiness Research Center Working Paper 02-2000, Penn State University.
Shih, Chuan-Fong (1998), ÒConceptualizing Consumer Experiences in Cyberspace,Ó European Journal of Marketing, 32 (7/8), 655-663.
Steuer, Jonathan (1992), "Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence," Journal of Communication, 42 (4), 73-93.
Sundar, Shyam S., Justin Brown, and Sriram Kalyanaraman (1999), "Reactivity vs. Interactivity," 28
paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
------, Kenneth M. Hesser, Sriram Kalyanaraman, and Justin Brown (1998), "The Effect of Web site Interactivity on Political Persuasion," paper presented at the meeting of the International Association for Media and Communication Research, Glasgow, UK.
Tafarodi, Romin W., Alan B. Milne, and Alyson J. Smith (1999), "The Confidence of Choice: Evidence for an Augmentation Effect on Self-Perceived Performance," Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (November), 1405-1416.
Wu, Guohua (1999), "Perceived Interactivity and Attitude Toward Web sites," in Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of The American Academy of Advertising, Marilyn S. Roberts, ed., Gainesville, FL: American Academy of Advertising, 254-262.
Yoo, Chan Y. and Patricia A. Stout (2001), "Factors Affecting Users' Interactivity with the Web site and the Consequences of Users' Interactivity," in Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Charles R. Taylor, ed., Villanova, PA: American Academy of Advertising, 53-61.
Zimmerman, Barry J. (2000), "Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn," Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (January), 82-91.29
Amirkhan, James H. (1998), "Attributions as Predictors of Coping and Distress," Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (September), 1006-1018.
Ariely, Dan (2000), "Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers' Decision-Making and Preferences," Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September), 233-248.
Batra, Rajeev and Michael L. Ray (1985), "How Advertising Works at Contact," in Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects, Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 13-43.
Bezjian-Avery, Alexa, Bobby Calder, and Dawn Iacobucci (1998), "New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (July/August), 23-32.
Blattberg, Robert and John Deighton (1991), "Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of Addressability," Sloan Management Review, 33 (1), 5-14.
Burger, Jerry M. (1984), "Desire for Control, Locus of Control, and Proneness to Depression," Journal of Personality, 52 (March), 71-89.
------------ (1992), Desire for Control: Personality, Social and Clinical Perspectives, New York: Plenum.
------------ and Harris M. Cooper (1979), "The Desirability of Control," Motivation and Emotion, 3 (December), 381-393.
Cho, Chang-Hoan and John D. Leckenby (1997), "Internet-Related Programming Technology and Advertising," in Proceedings of the 1997 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, M. Carole Macklin, ed., Cincinnati, OH: American Academy of Advertising, 69.
------ and ------ (1999), "Interactivity as a Measure of Advertising Effectiveness: Antecedents and Consequences of Interactivity in Web Advertising," in Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Marilyn S. Roberts, ed., Gainesville, FL: American 26
Academy of Advertising, 162-179.
Clarke, C. T. (1991), "Rationale and Development of a Scale to Measure Computer-Mediated Communication Apprehension" (doctoral dissertation, Kent State University), Dissertation Abstract International, 52-04, A1129.
Cohen, Joel B. (1983), "Involvement and You: 1000 Great Ideas," in Advances in Consumer Research, Richard Bagozzi and Alice Tybout, eds., Vol. 10, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 325-328.
Coyle, James E. and Esther Thorson (2001), ÒThe Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in Web Marketing Sites,Ó Journal of Advertising, 30 (Fall), 65-77.
Deighton, John (1996), "The Future of Interactive Marketing," Harvard Business Review, 74 (6), 151-162.
Dellaert, Benedict G. C. and Barbara E. Kahn (1999), ÒHow Tolerable is Delay?: ConsumersÕ Evaluation of Internet Web sites after Waiting,Ó Journal of Interactive Marketing, 13 (Winter), 41-54.
Eagly, Alice H. Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Flaherty, Lisa M., Kevin J. Pearce, and Rebecca B. Rubin (1998), "Internet and Face-to-Face Communication: Not Functional Alternatives," Communication Quarterly, 46 (3), 250-268.
Gist, Marilyn E. and Terence R. Mitchell (1992), "Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability," Academy of Management Review, 17 (April), 183-211.
Ha, Louisa and E. Lincoln James (1998), "Interactivity Reexamined: A Baseline Analysis of Early Business Web sites," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42 (Fall), 457-474.
Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), "Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations," Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 50-68.
Jensen, Jens F. (1998), "Interactivity: Tracing a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies," 27
Nordicom Review, 19 (1), 185-204.
Judge, Timothy A., Joyce E. Bono, and Edwin A. Locke (2000), "Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics," Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (April), 237-249.
Kozinets, Robert V. (1999), ÒE-Tribalized Marketing?: The Strategic Implications of Virtual Communities of Consumption,Ó European Management Journal, 17 (June), 252-264.
MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), "An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context," Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.
Mitchell, Terence R., Heidi Hopper, Denise Daniels, and Jane George-Falvy (1994), "Predicting Self-Efficacy and Performance During Skill Acquisition," Journal of Applied Psychology, 79 (August), 506-517.
Petty, Richard E., Duane T. Wegener, and Leandre R. Fabrigar (1997), ÒAttitudes and Attitude Change,Ó Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609-647.
Sears, Andrew, Julie A. Jacko, and Michael S. Borella (1997), ÒInternet Delay Effects: How Users Perceive Quality, Organization, and Ease of Use of Information,Ó in CHI97: Late-Breaking/Short Talks, Steven Pemberton, ed., New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 353-354.
Shankar, Venkatesh, Amy K. Smith, and Arvind Rangaswamy (2000), "Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty in Online and Offline Environments," eBusiness Research Center Working Paper 02-2000, Penn State University.
Shih, Chuan-Fong (1998), ÒConceptualizing Consumer Experiences in Cyberspace,Ó European Journal of Marketing, 32 (7/8), 655-663.
Steuer, Jonathan (1992), "Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence," Journal of Communication, 42 (4), 73-93.
Sundar, Shyam S., Justin Brown, and Sriram Kalyanaraman (1999), "Reactivity vs. Interactivity," 28
paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
------, Kenneth M. Hesser, Sriram Kalyanaraman, and Justin Brown (1998), "The Effect of Web site Interactivity on Political Persuasion," paper presented at the meeting of the International Association for Media and Communication Research, Glasgow, UK.
Tafarodi, Romin W., Alan B. Milne, and Alyson J. Smith (1999), "The Confidence of Choice: Evidence for an Augmentation Effect on Self-Perceived Performance," Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (November), 1405-1416.
Wu, Guohua (1999), "Perceived Interactivity and Attitude Toward Web sites," in Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of The American Academy of Advertising, Marilyn S. Roberts, ed., Gainesville, FL: American Academy of Advertising, 254-262.
Yoo, Chan Y. and Patricia A. Stout (2001), "Factors Affecting Users' Interactivity with the Web site and the Consequences of Users' Interactivity," in Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Charles R. Taylor, ed., Villanova, PA: American Academy of Advertising, 53-61.
Zimmerman, Barry J. (2000), "Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn," Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (January), 82-91.29
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
