Carey further argued that culture-centered theories are tied to the ritual perspective - the view that mass communication is not directed toward the extension of messages in space but the maintenance of society in time; not the act of imparting information but the representation of shared beliefs. In other words, communication is a symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired, and transformed. Carey traced the origin of the ritual view to textual analysis and literary criticism (Baran and Davis 284-285).
Lastly, proponents of culture-centered theories believe in powerful media effects and ask us to accept their view of media influence using logic, argument, and our own powers of observation rather than presenting us with scientific evidence. Others offer empirical evidence for their belief in powerful media, but they use innovative research methods, and so their work is held suspicion. Communication science views culture-centered theories as too speculative and argue that empirical research generated from this research has been loosely structured (Baran and Davis 279-280).
Synthesis or Convergence is Possible
Before Berger and Chafee, Robert Merton said that synthesis or convergence in media theory is not possible:
Some sociologists still write as though they expect, here and now, formulation of the general sociological theory broad enough to encompass the vast ranges of precisely observed details of social behavior, organization, and change and fruitful enough to direct the attention of research workers to a flow of problems for empirical research. This I take to be a premature and apocalyptic belief. We are not ready. Not enough preparatory work has been done (qtd. in Baran and Davis 163).
Merton found his model for social science in physics. He further argued as follows:
What characterizes physics is an array of special theories of greater or lesser scope, coupled with the historically grounded hope that these will continue to be brought together into families of theory… If the science of physics, with its centuries of enlarged theoretical generalizations, has not managed to develop an all-encompassing theoretical system, then a fortiori the science of sociology, which has only begun to accumulate empirically grounded theoretical generalizations of modest scope, would seem well advised to moderate its aspirations for such system (qtd. in Baran and Davis 163).
However, he was never correct with his proposition. In the 1980s, empirical researchers in the field of communication who developed the limited effects perspective were unified under one banner - the communication science perspective. And though other theorists said that cultural analysis and critical cultural studies theories are more fragmented that that of the limited effects paradigm, today, they are working toward one common perspective - culture-centered paradigm.
It is at this juncture that I say that synthesis is possible because communication science and culture-centered paradigm are not that distinct with each other because they both identified important social roles for media, emphasized that individuals make active use of media, permitted cautious optimism about the ways that media might contribute to improving the quality of our lives in the future, and recognized that media operate within an essentially competitive social environment where the power of the media is challenged and constrained by other social institutions. (Baran and Davis 349).
It is also worthy to mention that a number of efforts are currently underway to restructure and reconceptualize the field of communication. During the fall and summer of 1993, the Journal of Communication devoted two issues to essays by 48 scholars on the “future of the field.” The essays graphically illustrate the wide range of views now held in the discipline. In general, the essays are optimistic. They reflect the view that as a field, communication has important advantages over more traditional academic disciplines (Baran and Davis 348).
The synthesis or convergence between communication science and culture-centered paradigm is possible. It was demonstrated by Larry Gross and George Gerbner when they developed cultivation analysis. Horace Newcomb in 1978 even wrote that more than any other research effort in the area of television studies the work of Gross and Gerbner and their associates sits squarely at the juncture of the humanities and the social sciences. This was also demonstrated by Theodor Adorno when he and his colleagues in Frankfurt School collaborated with American social researchers employed empirical research methods (Baran and Davis 306, 320).
Borrowing from Murdock, the two approaches, which differ in their research methods and their academic disciplines, must not compete but rather cooperate to formulate a unified approach to Media research. With this position, I am winding up my essay by quoting Klaus Krippendorf:
I am suggesting that the strands of scholarship mentioned above could be woven into a radically new and virtuous synthesis, seeing human first as cognitively autonomous beings: second, as reflexive practitioners of communication with others (and this includes social scientists in the process of their inquires); and third, as morally responsible interveners in, is not creators of, the very social realities in which they end up living. To embrace this news epistemology, let me end this essay by suggesting that communication scholars recognize the social constructability of reality, with all of its consequences (qtd. in Baran and Davis 367).
