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
GENERATIONS will help you with that — they make some fairly specific observations/predictions about, in effect, the dominant rhetoric of various eras.
Typically wild tangent: The Columbia disaster report, which I read cover-to-cover a couple of times after it came out in late August, impressed me greatly as an inadvertent illustration of the difference between American culture and rhetoric in ~1973 (when the Shuttle program was approved) and today. And of what happens when a bureaucracy tries to make the world stand still. I’ve gotta blog about that eventually …
And speaking of 1973: “What did the knower know, and when did he know it?” Heh.
Jay…I’ve been thinking the same thing. I need to check into the generational make-up of a few significant eras in rhetoric. I wonder what I’ll find
Oh, yeah: it’s “sheer,” not “shear,” unless you’re, like, really tearing into something.
Ooops. Good catch!
I’m going to sound like an idiot here, but what do you mean by “noetic” field?
I could look it up, but your explanation would doubtless be more informative.
Great read, btw.
Bryan…
I defined it in the first installment, although I should remember to keep defining it as I go. It’s an obscure term.
A noetic field (as defined by James A. Berlin in Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges) is a “closed system defining what can, and cannot, be known; the nature of the knower; the nature of the relationship between the knower, the known, and the audience; and the nature of language.” Berlin concludes from this (and I agree) that rhetoric “is thus ultimately implicated in all a society attempts. It is at the center of a culture’s activities.”
Blogging a noetic theory
Andrew Cline is putting together a scholarly book on his blog, well, at least pieces of it. It’s worth a read if you’re interested in serious discussion of journalism theory. Today’s installment is about the relationship among the journalist, the…