El análisis sociológico de la comunicación: De la Escuela de Chicago a la Mediatización Digital // The sociological analysis of communication: From School of Chicago to digital mediatization

• Lina Medina Muñoz Universidad de los Andes

Palabras clave: Sociología de la comunicación, medios de comunicación, medios y opinión pública, tecnologías de la información, mediatización, Sociology of communication, mass media, media and public opinion, technology of information, mediatization

Resumen

Resumen

Este ensayo se fundamenta en la premisa de que el análisis sociológico ha realizado importantes y valiosas contribuciones a la conceptualización de los aspectos culturales, morales e institucionales de la comunicación. En la actualidad, sin embargo, los aportes de esta disciplina parecen escasamente representados dentro de un campo de estudios que comúnmente pasa por alto el hecho de que la comunicación digital está inextricablemente vinculada a los espacios sociales y materiales a través de los cuales actúan e interactúan los seres humanos. Teniendo en cuenta que este desconocimiento puede generar una comprensión necesariamente limitada del fenómeno comunicativo, el objetivo de este trabajo es explorar las aproximaciones planteadas por cinco escuelas de pensamiento con respecto a la sociología de la comunicación. En primera instancia, se revisan los principales trabajos producidos por la Escuela de Chicago, la Escuela de Columbia, la Escuela de Frankfurt, la Escuela de Toronto y la Escuela de Birmingham, para tratar de elucidar las bases conceptuales de sus postulados y entender las críticas que recibieron por parte de otros estudiosos del campo. Posteriormente, se describen los cambios históricos del programa de investigación disciplinar y los enfoques mediante los cuales los investigadores sociales están tratando de reconocer e interpretar los complejos ensamblajes sociotécnicos que caracterizan la comunicación contemporánea. Finalmente, se argumenta que la perspectiva sociológica continúa siendo sustancial para desarrollar una comprensión crítica del impacto social, político y económico de la mediatización digital.

Abstract

This essay starts from the premise that sociological analysis has made important and valuable contributions to the conceptualization of the cultural, moral, and institutional aspects of communication. At present, however, the contributions of the sociology seem poorly represented within the field of communicative studies because these commonly overlook the fact that digital communication is inextricably linked to the social and material spaces which humans act and interact. Considering that it can generate a necessarily limited understanding of the communicative phenomenon, the objective of this work is to explore the approaches proposed by five schools of thought regarding the sociology of communication. Firstly, this paper reviews the main works produced by the Chicago School, the Columbia School, the Frankfurt School, the Toronto School and the Birmingham School to try to elucidate the conceptual bases of their postulates and to understand the criticisms they received from other scholars in the field. Subsequently, it describes the historical changes of the disciplinary research program and the approaches through which social researchers are trying to recognize and to understand the complex sociotechnical assemblages that characterize contemporary communication. Finally, it argues that the sociological perspective continues to be substantial in developing a critical comprehension of the social, political, and economic impact of digital mediatization.

Citas

Adorno, T. (1954) “How to look at television”. The Quarterly of Film Radio and Television. Volumen 8, Nro. 3, 213-235. El análisis sociológico de la comunicación: De la Escuela de Chicago a la Mediatización Digital.

Benjamin, W. (2003) La obra de arte en la época de la reproductividad técnica. Madrid: Editorial Ithaca.

BRYNJOLFSSON, E.; MCAFEE, A. (2014) The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. London: W. W. Norton.

CHADWICK, A. (2017) The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford: University Press. Second edition.

COULDRY, N.; HEPP, A. (2018) The mediated construction of reality. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

COULDRY, N.; HEPP, A. . (2013) “Conceptualizing Mediatization: Contexts, Traditions, Arguments”. Communication Theory. Nro. 23, 191-202.

De Kerckhove, D. (1989) “McLuhan and the Toronto School of Communication”. Canadian Journal of Communication. Volumen 14, Nro. 4, 73-79.

De Kerckhove, D. (1999) Inteligencias en conexión: hacia una sociedad de la web. Barcelona: Editorial Gedisa.

De Kerckhove, D. (1999) La piel de la cultura: Investigando la nueva realidad electrónica. Barcelona: Editorial Gedisa.

De Kerckhove, D. (2014) The point of being. Cambridge: Scholars Publishing Press.

Dewey, J. (1958) El público y sus problemas. Buenos Aires: Editorial Ágora.

DJELIC, M. (2013) “Limited liability and its moral hazard implications: the systemic inscription of instability in contemporary capitalism”. Theory and Society. Volumen 42, Nro. 6, 589-615

DRORI, G. (2016) “Global and Comparative Studies of Organization and Management: Moving from “Sameness or Difference” to “Glocalization and Orientation” en CZANIAWSKA, B. (coordinadora) A Research Agenda for Management and Organization Studies. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Elesh, D.; Dowdall, G. (2006) “CITASA: “The Contemporary Picture”. Social Science Computer Review. Volumen 24, Nro. 2, 165-171.

GILLESPIE, T. (2016) “Algorithm” en PETERS, B. (coordinador) Digital Keywords: A Vocabulary of Information Society and Culture. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

GILLESPIE, T. (2014) “The relevance of algorithms”. Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Nro. 167: 1-32.

Gitlin, T. (1978) “Media Sociology: The Dominant Paradigm”. Theory and Society. Nro. 6, 205-253.

Habermas, J. (1982) Conocimiento e interés. Madrid: Editorial Taurus.

Haraway, D. (1997) Modest witness@second millennium: femaleman meets oncomouse: feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge Press.

Herbert, B. (1933) Movies and conduct. New York: The McMillan Company.

Hohendahl, P.; Russian, P. (1974) “Jürgen Habermas: The Public Sphere”. New German Critique. Nro. 3, 45-48.

Horkheimer, M; Adorno, T. (2006) Dialéctica de la Ilustración. Madrid: Editorial Trotta.

Janowitz, M. (1968-1969) “Harold D. Lasswell’s contribution to content analysis”. The Public Opinion Quarterly. Volumen 32, Nro. 4, 646-653.

Jasanoff, S. (2006) “The Idiom of co-production” en JASANOFF, S. (coordinador) States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York: Routledge Press.

Katz, E.; Lazarsfeld, P. (2009) Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

KNOBLAUCH, H.; TUMA, R.; JACOBS, M. (2014) Culture, Communication, and Creativity: Reframing the Relations of Media, Knowledge, and Innovation in Society. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

KROZT, F. (2009) “Mediatization: A concept with which to grasp media and societal change” en LUNDBY, K. (coordinador) Mediatization: Concept, Changes, Consequences. New York: Lang.

KROZT, F.; HASEBRINK, U. (2001) “Who Are the New Media Users?” en LIVINGSTONE, S; BOVILL, M. (2013) Children and Their Changing Media Environment. A European Comparative Study. New York: Routledge.

Lang, K; Lang, G. (1968) Politics and Television. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.

LASSWELL, H. (1971) Propaganda technique in the World War. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. El análisis sociológico de la comunicación: De la Escuela de Chicago a la Mediatización Digital.

Lazarsfeld, P.; Merton, R. (1943) “Studies in radio and film propaganda”. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences. Volumen 6, Nro. 2, 58-79.

Lazarsfeld, P.; Merton, R. (1948) “Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action” en BRYSON, L. (coordinador) The communication of ideas: a series of addresses. New York: Harper.

Lowenthal, L. (1957) Literature and the image of man: studies of the European drama and novel, 1600-1900. Boston: Beacon Press.

Lowenthal, L. (1987) False prophets: studies on authoritarianism. New York: Transaction Books.

MacKenzie, D.; Wajcman, J. (1999) “Introducción” en MACKENZIE, D. y WAJCMAN, J. (coordinadores) The Social Shaping of Technology. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

MADIANUO, M. (2015) “Polymedia and Ethnography: Understanding the Social in Social Media”. Social Media + Society. Abril - Junio: 1-3.

Marcus, G. (1998) Ethnography through thick and thin. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

McCarthy, T. (1987) Teoría de Crítica de Hurgen Habermas. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos.

Munson, E.; Warren, C. (1997) James Carey: A critical reader. Minnesota: University of Minneapolis Press.

Park, R. (1996) “La masa y el público: una investigación metodológica y sociológica”. Reis. Nro. 74, 361-423.

Paul, C. (2008) Taxi-Dance Hall: A sociological study in commercialized recreation and city life. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Peter, S. (2010) “Merton’s sociology of rhetoric” en CALHOUN, C. (coordinador) Robert K. Merton: Sociology of Science and Sociology as science. New York: Columbia University Press.

ORLIKOWSKY, W. (2008) “Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization”. Annals of the Academy of Management. Volumen 2, Nro. 1, 433-474.

ORLIKOWSKY, W. (2007) “Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work”. Organization studies. Volumen 28, Nro. 9, 1435-1448

Robinson, G. (2006) “The Katz-Lowenthal Encounter: An Episode in the Creation of Personal Influence”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Nro. 608, 76-96.

Schneider, G. (2011) “La biografía como literatura de la cultura de la cultura de masas: los análisis de Leo Lowenthal sobre la industria cultura”. Constelaciones: Revista de Teoría Crítica. Nro. 3, 179-192.

SCOTT, S.; ZACHARIADI, M. (2014) The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT): Cooperative governance for network innovation, standards, and community. London: Routledge.

Shibutani, T. (1966) Improvised news: A sociological study of rumor. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Spender, D. (1988) Man made language. London: Pandora Press.

Stuart, H. (2006) “Estudios Culturales: dos paradigmas”. Revista Colombiana de Sociología. Nro. 27, 233-254.

Turner, S.; Turner, J. (1990) The impossible science: an institutional analysis of American sociology. New York: Sage Publications.

VAN DIJCK, J. (2014) “Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: big databetween scientific paradigm and ideology”. Surveillance & Society. Volumen 12, Nro. 2, 197–208.

Wajcman, J.; Jones, P. (2012) “Border communication: media sociology and STS”. Media, Culture and Society. Volumen 34, Nro. 6, 673-690.

Welman, B. (2014) Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Welman, B. (2002) The internet in everyday life. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Company.

Willey, M. (1939) “Propaganda Technique in the World War by Harold D. Lasswell”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Nro. 204, 195-196.

ZIEWITZ, M. (2015) “Governing Algorithms: Myth, Mess, and Methods”. Science, Technology & Human Values. Volumen 41, Nro. 1, 3-16.