publiczna dusza prywatna

As will become appa­rent, the „domi­nant para­digm” of the period pro­ved to be in sub­stan­tial part a para­digm of domi­nance, in which the apro­pria­te­ness and ine­vi­ta­bi­lity of elite con­trol of com­mu­ni­ca­tion was taken as a given. As a prac­ti­cal mat­ter, the key aca­de­mic jour­nals of the day demon­stra­ted only a secon­dary inte­rest in what com­mu­ni­ca­tion „is”. Instead, they con­cen­tra­ted on how modern tech­no­logy could be used by eli­tes to manage social change, extract poli­ti­cal con­ces­sions, or win pur­cha­sing deci­sions from tar­ge­ted audien­ces. Their stu­dies empha­si­zed those aspects of com­mu­ni­ca­tion that were of gre­atest prac­ti­cal inte­rest to the public and pri­vate agen­cies that were underw­ri­ting most of the rese­arch. This orien­ta­tion redu­ced the extra­or­di­na­rily com­plex, inhe­ren­tly com­mu­nal social pro­cess of com­mu­ni­ca­tion to sim­ple models based on the dyna­mic of trans­mis­sion of per­su­asive — and in the final ana­ly­sis, coer­cive — mes­sa­ges.
 — Chri­stop­ther Simp­son „Science Of Coer­cion: Com­mu­ni­ca­tion Rese­arch And Psy­cho­lo­gi­cal War­fare, 1945–1960″, Oxford Uni­ver­sity Press, NY, 1994, p. 61.

moar