I do believe that this third draft is my strongest draft, but I will be so glad when it is completed.
According to Kate Lacey’s new book,
Listening Publics: The Politics and
Experience of Listening in the Media Age, listening has become a forgotten
area of study in the field of communications. And for Lacey, this lapsed in understanding
of listening has had far reaching consequences, not only in the field of communications,
but the realm of politics as well.
Lacey’s central argument is that listening
is currently viewed as a passive activity by the communications field. What is
key to understanding Lacey’s argument is her definition of passive listening. This
can be difficult, as she does not clearly state her definition forthright. But
for Lacey, characteristics of passive listening include: little concentration, lack
of involvement, and does not move an individual to some sort of action. The
evidence she gathers to support her conclusions come primarily through
historical research. In fact the majority of the text focuses on the
development of privatized listening habits over the last century and a half, and
only somewhat on the correlation between listening and politics.
What her analysis shows, however,
is that as new technologies developed, society began creating new ways to use
the technology to communicate with one another. New techniques pertaining to
these devices were created, and demand increased. Hence they became more
commonplace and affordable.
As technology became more
affordable, it began to be marketed more for private use in the home. By doing
this, listening began to be viewed as more of a “private” activity, where an
individual would be in control over what she or he listened to. Lacey states
“…the dominant trend through this history was towards the privatization and
individualization of the listening public via the technological and textual
inscription of an idealized and domesticated listener…” (p. 132) Previously
listening was viewed as more of a public activity, where individuals would have
little control over what they heard, but where more openly engaged in the
politics and activities of the community.
As technology grew, society began
to see it as the great class equalizer, which would be able to assist poorer
classes reach new heights of success and education. According to Lacey, as
broadcasters began to conduct market research and ratings polling, they noticed
that the more “intellectual/educational” programming was not receiving the
listenership broadcasters had hoped for. Hence they began to replace these
programs with shows that would have more of a mass appeal. This shift in
programming focus had a fundamental effect. “During the formative years of
broadcasting, this passivity was understood by some as being imposed on the
listener by the mass address that spoke to no-one as someone, and everyone as
anyone, denying the possibility of active engagement, personal development or
equality of response.” (p. 114)
But why is passive listening so
important to Lacey? And how does it tie into the political realm? If you are
active, then you are engaged in the world, according to Lacey. “Listening is at
the heart of what it means to be in
the world, to be active, to be political.” (p. 163) This individualization that
had occurred began to take the individual out of the world. They were no longer
engaged. And the culture of listening as a passive activity took prominence. To
reverse this trend, Lacey concludes that the communications field needs to
review its standpoint on listening. “The politics of listening is an important
corrective to conceptualizations of public participating that are restricted to
notions of speech, dialogue, and text… theories and practices of media
communication and public life miss too much if they don’t give the politics and
experience of listening a fair hearing.” (p. 199)
Listening
Publics: The Politics and Experience of Listening in the Media Age, raises
many thought provoking questions, and presents ideas/ theories that the communications
field should study more. Portions of her argument on the interconnectedness
between listening and politics are especially intriguing. Lacey’s research
gives credence and support to the statement: “To state simply – without a
listener, speech is nothing, but noise in the ether.” (p. 166)
However this book leaves many
questions unanswered. Lacey’s identification of a lack of understanding of
listening is provided. But then what? What can the communications field do to
improve this lack of understanding, other than more research? She ties the
societal concerns into her argument, but then discusses how to alleviate the societal
concerns. Is passivity the only explanation? How does an individual’s attention
span play into how she or he listens? Additionally the historical research does
weigh the text down. It would have been helpful to have additionally insights and
descriptions on how listening effects politics.
