Context is Key!

For those of us who are COMM 210 instructors, this past week meant that we taught our students about the SMCR model of communication.  This model explains that communication is a process and there is a Source, Message, Channel, and Receiver.  It also explains that there are different types of noise that can interfere with the communication, but perhaps most importantly for the purposes of this post, it explains that all communication occurs within a context. Throughout the Kellner and Durham article, the prevailing theme was the importance of context.

In their discussion of ideology, Kellner and Durham assert that ideologies force readers to perceive cultural texts as having biases, interests, and embedded values as well as reproduce the perspectives of the producers, which often reinforce the values of the dominant social groups (p. 6).  As communication scholars, we must recognize the ideologies that we hold.  In doing so, we must realize that the analyses that we study throughout the course of the semester will be shaped not only by the ideologies of the author, but that our understanding of them will be shaped by our ideologies.  In doing so, we can recognize the context in which our own understanding originates.  This will allow us to deconstruct our awareness, examine the pieces in light of new or different ideologies, and then rebuild our perception into one that is more complete. 

Kellner and Durham explain that critical theorists assert “to properly understand any specific form of media or culture, one must understand how it is produced and distributed in a given society, and how it is situated in relation to the dominant social structure” (p. 9).  Like the student who only hears part of the teacher’s instructions, studying cultural artifacts without an understanding of the context in which it is situated, is going to result in an incomplete analysis.  Ignoring the context also bypasses potential messages and meanings that only surface with the contextual understanding.

Looking at cultural artifacts from a political economy standpoint not only answers the questions of who, what, where, when, why, and how, but also looks at the system of culture in which the artifacts are produced and distributed (p. 19).  Whereas critical theorists look at the artifact first, and investigate the context to broaden their understanding of the artifact, political economists look at how the context produced the artifact.  While these two approaches seem to be in direct opposition, Kellner and Durham suggest that the divide that exists is an artificial one, and the two approaches can be complimentary. 

Overall, this reading has provided us, the scholars of COMM 614, the context in which our class fits.  Through discussion of the history of media and cultural studies, we know where scholars have been, some of the different perspectives taken, and a foundation upon which we will build our own scholarly work.  While we work to find our academic voice, regardless of the theories and perspectives that resonate within us, one thing is absolutely certain.  Context is key.