« Problems with the Mayer model?... | Main | Dr. Mayer responds... »
January 6, 2004
Why a "field" metaphor...
To "theorize" something is to say how and why it works. A proper theory should then be predictive.
I have maintained that journalism is an under-theorized practice. This is not to say that we do not have some effective theories of journalism. As a complex practice, it may be classified by many discreet sets of skills, purposes, and outcomes--some of which may have separate theories already well articulated.
To search for a "field" theory of journalism is to search for a theory that explains the entire practice in all of its complexity. In this sense I'm using "field" as a metaphor indicating the kind of search currently underway to discover a theory of "everything" in physics.
I have asserted two sub-theories on Rhetorica: 1) a structural bias theory, and 2) a narrative theory. The structural bias theory asserts that the structure of journalistic practice in the socio-political context of late 20th-and early 21st-century America determines journalistic outcomes, i.e. the product produced by journalistic behavior. The narrative theory asserts that journalists apply a narrative structure to ambiguous events in order to create a coherent and causal sense of events.
The narrative theory is rather weak because we could apply it to nearly every discoursive practice. Isn't this exactly what we do when we create myths, tell lies, and woo lovers? I think it's certainly important to understand the role of story-telling in journalism, especially because so much of what goes wrong in journalism may be traced to the automatic, or uncritical, practice of telling stories.
The structural bias theory works well as a practical predictor of journalistic behavior and outcomes, but it is bound in a particular socio-political context. This theory is nearly worthless when applied to practice prior to the 20th century. In other words, biases change because contexts and values change.
And this is what has led me to think about the concept of noetic field and the role of journalism within it. As an important discoursive practice (the most important, I would argue) in our culture, journalism is both bound by, and foundational to, the current noetic field. And that means that current journalistic practice is bound by, and foundational to, the dominant rhetoric of our age.
To describe the rhetoric of journalism is, then, to describe a the noetic field and rhetoric of our culture. To change journalistic practice is, then, to change the noetic field and rhetoric of our culture.
Such change, however, does not happen by sheer human volition. In other words, we can't just will change to happen. Something has to be ripe in the culture before we can pick that fruit and take a bite.
Prior entries in this series:
Toward a field theory of journalism
Posted by acline at January 6, 2004 12:17 PM | | Spotlight