依赖理论

依赖理论

依赖理论在1960年代后期和1970年代在拉丁美洲出现,部分原因是非洲大陆的政治局势,我们对右翼专制政府的支持越来越多,部分是在受过教育的精英中认识到发展的精英,发展中国家的发展主义方法是发展的。国际沟通未能交付。The establishment, in 1976, in Mexico City of the Instituto Latinamericano de Estudios (ILET), whose principal research interest was the study of transnational media business, gave an impetus to a critique of the ‘modernization’ thesis, documenting its negative consequences in the continent. The impact of ILET was also evident in international policy debates about NWICO, particularly through the work of Juan Somavia, a member of the MacBride Commission.
尽管以新马克思主义的政治经济学方法为基础(Baran,1957; Gunder Frank,1969; Amin 1976),但旨在提供一个替代框架来分析国际交流。依赖理论的核心是,跨国公司(TNC)(最多位于北部)的跨国公司(TNC)通过将全球贸易的条款设置为占主导地位的市场,资源,生产,生产,,在其各自政府的支持下,在各自政府的支持下进行。和劳动。这些国家的发展是以一种加强发达国家的统治地位的方式,并在依赖方面保持“外围”国家的统治地位 - 换句话说,是为了制定适合“依赖发展”的条件。这种关系的最极端形式是“欠发达的发展”(Gunder Frank,1969年)。
This neo-colonial relationship in which the TNCs controlled both the terms of exchange and the structure of global markets, it was argued, had contributed to the widening and deepening of inequality in the South while the TNCs had strengthened their control over the world’s natural and human resources (Baran, 1957; Mattelart, 1979).
对媒体和文化产品的生产,分销和消费感兴趣的学者所研究的依赖理论的文化方面与国际交流研究特别相关。依赖理论家旨在展示“现代化”的话语与跨国媒体和传播公司的政策及其支持者之间的联系。
依赖理论家都从美国进行的帝国主义的文化方面受益,并为研究的研究而受益。赫伯特·席勒(Herbert Schiller)的工作最清楚地表明了文化帝国主义的想法,赫伯特·席勒(Herbert Schiller)在加利福尼亚大学(1969/92)。以及跨国业务与主要国家之间的联系。
At the heart of Schiller’s argument was the analysis of how, in pursuit of commercial interests, huge US-based transnational corporations, often in league with Western (predominantly US) military and political interests, were undermining the cultural autonomy of the countries of the South and creating a dependency on both the hardware and software of communication and media in the developing countries. Schiller defined cultural imperialism as:
将社会带入现代世界体系的过程的总和,以及如何吸引,压力,强迫,有时贿赂社会机构,使社会机构相对应,甚至促进社会机构的价值观和结构。系统的主要中心。(Schiller,1976:9)
席勒(Schiller)辩称,欧洲殖民帝国(主要是英国,法国和荷兰人)被衰落的新兴美国帝国取代,该帝国是基于美国的经济,军事和信息力量的。
根据席勒(Schiller)的说法,总部位于美国的TNC继续增长和主导全球经济。这种经济增长得到了通信知识的支持,使美国的企业和军事组织能够在基于电子的全球通信系统的发展和控制中发挥领导作用。
这种统治既具有军事和文化意义。Schiller’s seminal work, Mass Communications and American Empire (1969/1992), examined the role of the US government, a major user of communication services, in developing global electronic media systems, initially for military purposes to counter the perceived, and often exaggerated, Soviet security threat. By controlling global satellite communications, the USA had the most effective surveillance system in operation – a crucial element in the Cold War years. Such communication hardware could also be used to propagate the US model of commercial broadcasting, dominated by large networks and funded primarily by advertising revenue. Nothing less than the viability of the American industrial economy itself is involved in the movement toward international commercialisation of broadcasting. The private yet managed economy depends on advertising. Remove the excitation and the manipulation of consumer demand and industrial slowdown threatens. (Schiller, 1969: 95)
根据席勒(Schiller)的说法,对美国通信技术和投资的依赖,再加上对媒体产品的新需求,需要大规模进口美国媒体产品,尤其是电视节目。由于媒体出口最终取决于赞助商的广告,因此他们不仅努力宣传西方商品和服务,而且还促进了通过中介消费者的生活方式间接地促进资本主义的“美国生活方式”。结果是“电子入侵”,尤其是在全球南方,它威胁要破坏传统文化,并以牺牲社区价值观为代价强调消费主义。
席勒在1992年修订版中辩称,随着冷战结束,美国对全球沟通的主导地位在1990年代的统治时期以及对联合国教科文组织支持的NWICO的失败。然而,随着TNC在国际关系中扮演越来越重要的作用,将美国文化帝国主义转变为“跨国企业文化统治”,美国统治的经济基础发生了变化(Schiller,1992:39)。
在过去半个世纪的最近对美国在国际传播中的作用的评论中,席勒认为,美国国家在促进不断扩大的传播部门(美国经济的中央支柱)方面仍起着决定性的作用。In US support for the promotion of electronic-based media and communication hardware and software in the new information age of the twenty-first century, Schiller found ‘historical continuities in its quest for systemic power and control,’ of global communication (1998: 23).
其他著名的作品采用了被称为“文化帝国主义论文”的事物,研究了美国文化和媒体在好莱坞与欧洲电影市场的关系的各种方面(Guback,1969年);美国电视出口和拉丁美洲的影响(Wells,1972);迪士尼漫画在促进资本主义价值观(Dorfman and Mattelart,1975)和广告业作为意识形态工具的作用(Ewen,1976; Mattelart,1991)的作用。在国际上,一些最重要的工作是对电视节目中国际流程的无限研究研究(Nordenstreng and Varis,1974; Varis,1985)。
One prominent aspect of dependency in international communication was identified in the 1970s by Oliver Boyd-Barrett as ‘media imperialism’, examining information and media inequalities between nations and how these reflect broader issues of dependency, and analysing the hegemonic power of mainly US-dominated international media – notably news agencies, magazines, films, radio and television. Boyd-Barrett defined media imperialism as:
任何一个国家的媒体的所有权,结构,分销或内容都单独或同时受到任何其他国家或国家媒体利益的重大外部压力,而没有按比例地影响该国的影响力。(1977:117)
对于批评家而言,依赖文献“是因为缺乏对帝国主义等基本术语的明确定义,几乎完全缺乏支持论点的经验证据”(Stevenson,1988:38)。其他人则认为,它忽略了媒体形式和内容的问题以及观众的角色。Those involved in a cultural studies approach to the analysis of international communication argued that, like other cultural artefacts, media ‘texts’ could be polysemic and were amenable to different interpretations by audiences who were not merely passive consumers but ‘active’ participants in the process of negotiating meaning (Fiske, 1987). It was also pointed out that the ‘totalistic’ cultural imperialism thesis did not adequately take on board such issues as how global media texts worked in national contexts, ignoring local patterns of media consumption.
量化在世界范围内分布的美国文化产品的数量并不足够的解释,研究其影响也很重要。也有人认为,文化帝国主义论文采用了媒体效应的“皮下注射模型”,而忽略了“第三世界”文化的复杂性(Sreberny-Mohammadi,1991; 1997)。有人认为,西方学者对第三世界文化的了解不足,认为它们是同质的,并且没有充分了解种族,种族,语言,性别和阶级的地区和国内多样性。但是,对于西方媒体产品对南部受众的文化和意识形态影响,尤其是来自南部学者的观众的文化和意识形态影响,几乎没有系统的研究。
尽管受到批评的份额(Tomlinson,1991; Thompson,1995),但文化帝国主义论文在1970年代和1980年代的国际传播研究中具有很大的影响力。在1970年代在联合国教科文组织和其他国际福拉的激烈的NWICO辩论中,这一点尤其重要。However, even a critic such as John Thompson, while rejecting the main thesis, has conceded that such research is ‘probably the only systematic and moderately plausible attempt to think about the globalisation of communications and its impact on the modern world’ (Thompson, 1995: 173).
Defenders of the thesis found the 1990s’ debates criticizing cultural imperialism ‘lacking even the most elementary epistemological precaution and sometimes actually bordering on intellectual dishonesty’, arguing that the critics of this theory have often ‘taken the notion out of context, abstracting it from the concrete historical conditions that produced it: the political struggles and commitments of the 1960s and 1970s’ (Mattelart and Mattelart, 1998: 137-8).
随着关于国际交流的辩论的变化,反映了1990年代私有化和自由化的言论,媒体和文化依赖理论变得不太突出。然而,博伊德·巴雷特(Boyd-Barrett)认为,尽管媒体帝国主义理论以其最初的表述并未考虑到国内媒体关系,性别和种族问题,但它仍然是一种有用的分析工具,可以理解他的术语‘colonisation of communications space’ (Boyd- Barrett, 1998: 157).
文化和媒体帝国主义方法的局限性之一是,它没有完全考虑到民族精英的作用,尤其是在发展中国家的角色。然而,尽管其影响力逐渐减少,但挪威社会学家约翰·加尔顿(Johan Galtung)发展的结构性帝国主义理论也提供了关于国际交流在维持经济和政治权力结构中的作用的解释。

你也许也喜欢