Reaction Paper 3

Dependency theory, originating from Latin America during the 1960s, came as a critique of the modernization theory and aimed at demonstrating the theory’s faults and the negative consequences of its practice in the countries of the region, with the United States as the main political antagonist of the region at the time due to its support of authoritative regimes.

Dependency theory argues that TransNational Corporations (TNCs), which are overwhelmingly from the West, use the practices of “modernization” to keep full control over developing countries by making their development dependent on them. These corporations make the rules for everything that has to do with the market, the distribution of resources, the production and the labor, leaving developing countries little choice in how and on what terms they might want to develop. TNCs also undermine the individual cultures of the developing countries by creating a dependency on U.S. technologies and U.S. imports of media, including entertainment programs, creating a sort of “cultural imperialism”. This latter term came to use because of Western efforts to undermine the cultural autonomy of developing countries by imposing technologies that shape their social reality, their values and their ideas according to those of the dominant country, under the pretext of simply offering them technologies that would help them join the “modern” world.

The reasons for this discourse as proposed by dependency theory is that the West, and especially the U.S., seeks to continue a form of neo-colonialism for political and military interests as well as for commercial gain.

Dependency theory in my opinion nicely encompassed everything that was wrong with modernization theory. The monopoly of the West over communication technologies and any tools for the development of a country only increased inequalities between them and the Third World, despite offering the use of those technologies. It comes at a heavy economic price at the expense of the developing countries, and makes it hard for them to develop their own technologies, which I think in the long term would sink them further in under-development.

However, I think dependency theory has many faults. Its critique of “modernization”, while justified in my opinion, is too simplistic, focuses only on the faults of another theory and fails to provide a legitimate and viable framework for international communication. Dependency theory also assumed that U.S. imports of media being consumed by Third World audiences would suffice to establish new capitalist ideas and to completely undermine local cultures, which I think is too far-reached and greatly underestimates the ability of audiences to be anything other than passive. Although media consumption is definitely a good way of effectively exerting influence on populations, I do believe that strong cultural beliefs and practices, especially those established throughout centuries, can trump any new ideologies being spread at the end of the day.

All in all, I believe that dependency theory is right in its analysis of the negative intentions behind the West’s efforts to modernize other countries. I think the cultural imperialism notion is very legitimate as well, but I think the theory fails in the fact that it completely disregards local authorities and influences, as well as overestimating the cultural impact of the West over developing countries.

Reaction Paper 2

The second chapter of the textbook is all about the theories of communication, which first appeared in response to the Industrial Revolution in Europe, and what it brought when it comes to social and economic changes. This is because communication had a huge impact on provoking these changes.

Theories of international communication became prominent during the Cold War. One of the first concepts that was greatly debated was the concept of “free flow of information”. This concept was on par with Western ideas on what the role of media should be, following their view of international communication as a tool for promoting democracy and liberal markets. It was, on the contrary, the complete opposite of what the Soviet wanted, which was regulations imposed by sovereign states.

Free flow of information essentially means that media proprietors are able to “sell wherever and whatever they wished”. This reasoning, for the West and especially for the United States, is ideal for avoiding the censorship and propaganda that would come from the states regulations that the Soviet Union was promoting.

Because the West was more technologically advanced, free flow of information was also beneficial from an economic point of view, since media proprietors were concentrated there and thus contributed more to the enrichment of their governments and their businesses. Politically, this concentration of media production allowed them to also dominate ideologically, by overpowering the diffusion of Soviet doctrine with their own.

I think the concept of “free flow of information” itself seems like it would be the most compatible with democracy and freedom of expression, but in reality it only serves to stifle the freedom of expression of others, which is completely the opposite of what the true meaning of democracy is.

It is clear from the very reasons why the West was in favor of this concept being applied to international communication. They wanted it so that they could maintain their dominance and suppress the spread of the Soviet ideology as much as possible. This in itself is censorship.

Their dominance in media ownership and production also meant that only Western ideas, lifestyles and opinions were presented in the international scene. As capitalism being the main Western ideology, it was applied to international communication as well.

Capitalism is, in my opinion, a genius system when you are a rich person trying to get richer, but a cruel system when you are a poor person being exploited for minimum gain. In the same way, capitalist ideas being applied in international communication is only a way for the West to remain the hegemonic power and to impose their ideas while preventing others to have any say, which is again a form of censorship.

Of course, this a pessimistic way of viewing things, but in any case, the concept of free flow of information, while not necessarily a more evil alternative to state regulations, might achieve freedom, but does not achieve equality. 

Reaction Paper 1 - The historical context of international communication

In Chapter 1 of “International Communication: Continuity and Change”, titled “The historical context of international communication”, the author, Daya Kishan Thussu, argues that international communication was particularly impacted historically by the events of the Cold War, which opposed the capitalist ideals of the United States and its allies (the Western states), against the communist ideas of the Soviet Union. One of the tools that both states used was the radio, setting up multiple transmission stations around the world to spread their ideologies. The idea behind the set-up of these radio stations was that it was a fast and relatively affordable way to influence public opinion to their advantage, and that could reach massive scales of people. In other terms, the radio transmissions around the world were used as tools for propaganda. This was very important to these states, as public opinion and approval was, and remains, crucial in determining the power and legitimacy of political regimes.

Outside of the cold war, this technique was also used by the Nazi regime and Mussolini’s regime in Italy, among others, to gain favorable public opinion on political actions such as their efforts to conquer other lands.

These states, particularly Western states, were able to have a certain monopoly on worldwide radio broadcasting, mostly due to the “first come first served” system at the time, which meant that states with the most affluence and the more advanced technological means were able to gain control of the wavelengths.

I think that the use of radio stations was indeed a crucial tool in the survival, or attempt at survival, of the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

In the end, the Soviet Union was dismantled in the 1990s, as communist beliefs began to have a more and more negative image around the world, and support became less and less apparent. Of course, from an international relations perspective, it cannot be said that radio and forms of communication in general were the only factors in this dismantlement; but it did play an undeniable role in shaping worldwide public opinion, which is crucial in the survival of a regime. The monopoly of Western states over radio stations, and other mediums, can be seen as an integral part of communism’s decrease in popularity in my opinion.  

I believe the use of international mediums, including radio stations, to impact political influence is still existent today. The United States particularly continues these practices, an obvious example being the existence of Radio Sawa, a radio station financed by the United States that is aimed at promoting American ideas to young Arabs. Calling it outright propaganda is debatable, but it is clear that it is part of the efforts of the US to keep public opinion favorable towards them. Overall, the historical impact that media has had on promoting Western ideas to the rest of the world can still be felt today, and has actually increased tremendously in my opinion.