![12 Theory of global communication
strands that fill in part of the picture, such as the classic research anchored in socio-
logical communication theory,though this is geared essentially towards small groups.
In symbolic interactionism,George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer underlined
that the meanings of the world arise through mutual interactions (Mead 1934).
Here, interaction with oneself plays as important a role as social interaction (dia-
logue). Blumer describes the fundamentals of symbolic interactionism as follows:
It [symbolic interactionism] does not regard meaning as emanating from the
intrinsic makeup of the thing that has meaning, nor does it see meaning as
arising through a coalescence of psychological elements in the person.Instead,
it sees meaning as arising in the process of interaction between people.The
meaning of a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which other persons
act toward the person with regard to that thing.
(1986, p. 4)
This interactionist perspective differs from the co-
orientation approach, which
describes communicative processes through a three-
step procedure. If several actors
(“a” and “b”, and so on for Newcomb) are oriented towards a certain symbol (“x”
for Newcomb), they are considered to be “co-
oriented”, their respective interpret-
ations of meaning can be compared and the degree of “agreement”can be measured.
The next step is to determine to what extent the actors themselves assume that
their interpretation of meaning corresponds to that of the others, which allows us
to establish the degree of “congruency”.Finally,“agreement”and“congruency”are
compared in terms of their “accuracy” (Newcomb 1953).
Direct social interaction differs from social co-
orientation, which is based on
observations in everyday life or may occur through media. Both objects in the
environment and media may be viewed as x-
objects to which people (a and b, and
so on) are oriented.In contrast to the interpretation of the observable environment,
media provide a kind of observation of observation, such that we gain access to
the observation of others.We might also refer to direct and indirect observation.
Here, media are resources for negotiating the world.They may create knowledge,
but interpretations of meaning must be constantly renegotiated interactively, even
within a collective framework,in order to ensure the stability of society.Both forms
of observation are also significant to the process of global communication.
Direct observation of the world occurs through the physical process of individ-
uals crossing borders (in the context of tourism,diplomacy,and so on).A perception
of the world co-
oriented towards media also imparts knowledge, and occasionally
even cosmopolitan sentiments. But the direct interaction of people –whether in
the private lifeworld or in the case of individuals performing specific roles in polit-
ical and social systems –is an additional meaningful phenomenon that is important
to the emotional cementing of the global community. Hence, simultaneity through
observation and through mass media (as well as universal human orientations and
cosmopolitan values) are important prerequisites for understanding the world. But
in themselves they do not constitute understanding, because these communication](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/24373376-250509204309-f7bf193a/85/Foundations-Of-Global-Communication-A-Conceptual-Handbook-Kai-Hafez-35-320.jpg)
![Theory of global communication 13
processes still do not impart a stable awareness of global commonality (Axford 2013,
p. 32), which can only arise through direct interaction and experiential knowledge.
Successful co-
orientation through mass media is a necessary prerequisite for inte-
gration into a global community, but it is not sufficient as long as re-
negotiation or
further processing takes place exclusively in separate social systems and lifeworlds
(Hafez 2002a, vol. 1, p. 171ff.; Grüne 2016, p. 421ff.).
It is tempting at this point to apply to the global community the famous meta-
phor of the orchestra, as used by Alfred Schütz to illuminate symbolic interaction.
Schütz contends that in order to play good music, you not only have to be able to
read the right notes, but always have to pay attention to how your colleagues play
as well (1951, p. 94ff.). If you see the world as an orchestra, then it is not enough
to co-
orient yourself within a global framework, and synchronize yourself with the
world, through observation and with the help of the media.You also have to enter
into direct communication with the world.Cosmopolitanism as a value is good,but
global communication as a practice is better.
Discursive global society/
dialogic global community: theories of
communication
In contrast to global society, a global community entails more than the devel-
opment of a common ethics, such as human rights and cosmopolitanism (Albert
et al. 1996, p. 19, see also Etzioni 2004).These ethics can only arise through inter-
active action at every level, making the transition from global society to global
community an intrinsically communication-and dialogue-
based project.To quote
Emanuel Richter:
[This project] finds expression in those ideas that may be classified as a ‘com-
municative’model of global unity.This model elevates the near-
revolutionary
spread of communicative exchange processes within every area of life to the
status of new, determining element of the global context … Expressed at the
highest level of abstraction, this global community appears as a kind of ‘cog-
nitive global society’, which glimpses nothing less than a new form of global
unity in the universalization of communication.This system-
theoretical take
on notions of global unity thus throws into sharp relief that aspect of global
society relating to the globalization of processes of communicative exchange.
(1990, p. 277)
Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Richard Rorty, Jürgen Habermas and Nancy
Fraser have all articulated visions of a dialogic global community (see Linklater
1998, p. 85ff.). But the associated concepts have never been fleshed out with theor-
etical precision, not least because of the fragmentation of the humanities and social
sciences (Albert 2009). In addition to theorists of social communication, inter-
national relations and political philosophy, media philosophers also offer valuable
insights, as do theorists of communication and networks who seek to illuminate](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/24373376-250509204309-f7bf193a/85/Foundations-Of-Global-Communication-A-Conceptual-Handbook-Kai-Hafez-36-320.jpg)
![Theory of global communication 19
of Norbert Elias:“[F]
ollowing Elias, in thinking about globalization, it is important
that we privilege process over structure (just as we have privileged flows over
barriers)” (2010, p. 25).
We certainly foreground communicative processes in this book, but we pay
attention to systems and lifeworlds as well. Networks are relationships within or
between social systems (Endruweit 2004, p. 26), but they are not social systems
themselves, which must therefore be taken into account. Our perspective is neither
that of Latour’s actor-
network theory nor that of Castells’s network theory but can
best be described as a system-lifeworld-network approach.This is similar to the per-
spective introduced by Roger Silverstone and developed further by Nick Couldry
at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).Here the network
metaphor is regarded as too theoretically unsophisticated for social theory, since it
ignores actors’ interpretations of networks (Couldry 2006, p. 104). Couldry rightly
refers to a “problematic functionalism”, to “acting as if media were the social and
natural channels of social life and social debate, rather than a highly specific and
institutionally focused means of representing social life” (ibid., p. 104). He rejects
the “myth of the mediatized centre” and criticizes the tendency in communication
studies to equate media with society (ibid., p. 105). German communication the-
orist Manfred Rühl articulates similar views:
Global communicative systems are embedded in psychological, organic,
chemical, physical, in short, in non-
communicative environments that ...
contribute to the realization of communication without being part of it.
Communicative systems must be clearly delimited, but not separated, from
their environment.
(2006, p. 362)
The structural-
functionalist systems theory rooted in the work of Talcott Parsons
relates fast-
moving functional processes to stable structures,on the“assumption of a
system-
immanent need for self-
preservation, that is, for integration and continuity”
(Kunczik and Zipfel 2001, p. 69). Even Niklas Luhmann does not ultimately deny
the existence of such structures, though his “functional-
structural systems theory”
emphasizes the dynamism of processes and moves away from a Parsonian approach
(Kneer and Nassehi 1997, p. 116). In the work of Parsons in particular, then, actors
do not dissolve into networks, but remain recognizable as autonomous structures,
even if they adapt functionally and can be influenced by (communicative) processes.
Sociologist and Luhmann interpreter Armin Nassehi also takes his lead from a
similar basic idea when he emphasizes the astonishing tenacity of social structures
but also recognizes the growing complexity of modern (digital) communication,
explicitly leaving open the question of changes in social structure resulting from
such communication (2019). Network theorists, in contrast, assert the primacy of
“relationism” over “substantialism” (Nexon 1999); they contend that processes are
structures.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/24373376-250509204309-f7bf193a/85/Foundations-Of-Global-Communication-A-Conceptual-Handbook-Kai-Hafez-42-320.jpg)
Foundations Of Global Communication A Conceptual Handbook Kai Hafez
- 1. Foundations Of Global Communication A Conceptual Handbook Kai Hafez download https://ebookbell.com/product/foundations-of-global- communication-a-conceptual-handbook-kai-hafez-48746752 Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com
- 2. Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be interested in. You can click the link to download. Foundations Of Global Health An Interdisciplinary Reader 1st Edition Peter J Brown https://ebookbell.com/product/foundations-of-global-health-an- interdisciplinary-reader-1st-edition-peter-j-brown-32860956 Foundations Of Global Genetic Optimization 1st Edition Professor Robert Schaefer Auth https://ebookbell.com/product/foundations-of-global-genetic- optimization-1st-edition-professor-robert-schaefer-auth-4192098 Foundations Of Global Health Human Rights 1st Edition Lawrence O Gostin Editor https://ebookbell.com/product/foundations-of-global-health-human- rights-1st-edition-lawrence-o-gostin-editor-42278602 The Origins Of Informality Why The Legal Foundations Of Global Governance Are Shifting And Why It Matters Charles B Roger https://ebookbell.com/product/the-origins-of-informality-why-the- legal-foundations-of-global-governance-are-shifting-and-why-it- matters-charles-b-roger-17771712
- 3. Zizek And Communist Strategy On The Disavowed Foundations Of Global Capitalism Chris Mcmillan https://ebookbell.com/product/zizek-and-communist-strategy-on-the- disavowed-foundations-of-global-capitalism-chris-mcmillan-51973236 International Business Strategy Rethinking The Foundations Of Global Corporate Success 1st Edition Alain Verbeke https://ebookbell.com/product/international-business-strategy- rethinking-the-foundations-of-global-corporate-success-1st-edition- alain-verbeke-1393396 International Business Strategy Rethinking The Foundations Of Global Corporate Success Alain Verbeke https://ebookbell.com/product/international-business-strategy- rethinking-the-foundations-of-global-corporate-success-alain- verbeke-1936028 Human Dignity And World Order The Holistic Foundations Of Global Democracy Glen T Martin https://ebookbell.com/product/human-dignity-and-world-order-the- holistic-foundations-of-global-democracy-glen-t-martin-230171718 Coviability Of Social And Ecological Systems Reconnecting Mankind To The Biosphere In An Era Of Global Change Vol1 The Foundations Of A New Paradigm 1st Ed Olivier Barrire https://ebookbell.com/product/coviability-of-social-and-ecological- systems-reconnecting-mankind-to-the-biosphere-in-an-era-of-global- change-vol1-the-foundations-of-a-new-paradigm-1st-ed-olivier- barrire-9960322
- 6. “In this breakthrough investigation,Kai Hafez and Anne Grüne place globalization, one of the most popular keywords of our times,under renewed critical scrutiny.In a powerful conceptual language,they develop an original account of the asymmetries and tensions of our interconnected world and offer a novel understanding of how its various communicative actors and their systemic relations, at once, bind us together and keep up apart.The outcome is a compelling narrative that sheds light on some of the most urgent challenges of our time, including the rise of global fundamentalisms and illiberal populisms.A must-read.” Prof. Lilie Chouliaraki, London School of Economics and Political Science “This is a wide-ranging, sophisticated yet critical discussion of the globalization of communication.Telescoping from the systemic to the individual,and encompassing politics,commercial networks and media systems,the book provides a multi-faceted assessment of the potential and limitations of global communications.” Prof. HermanWasserman, University of CapeTown, South Africa “Hafez and Grüne’s book offers much needed insight into the challenges of today’s diversity of globalized interconnections. It is an excellent source for scholars and students alike when aiming to assess globalized communication in its concrete current formations.Through combining conceptual debates and empirical insights, the book is a key read to understand the multifacted interactions of our digital world.” Prof. IngridVolkmer, University of Melbourne,Australia «Von der Erforschung vielschichtiger Interdependenzen (...) bis zur nötigen Verantwortung der Global Player ist hier anspruchsvoll nachzulesen. M.E. alternativlos.» “The deep structure (of the handbook) enables users targeted entries. Readers receive complex and sophisticated information about multi-layered interdependencies (nation state vs. transnationalization, global elites vs. local majorities, role of the media) and the relevant responsibilty of global players.There is not alternative to this book.” Annette Rugen, ekz.bibliotheksservice (https://www.ekz-group.com) «Hafez und Grüne gelingt es mit ihrem Handbuch, die Kommunikationstheorie prominent zu platzieren. (...) (Sie) tragen zu einer soliden Fundierung und fruchtbaren Diskussion zur Globalisierungsdebatte aus kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Sicht bei. (...) Nehmen Sie dieses Handbuch auch wirklich physisch oder virtuell „in die Hand”. Das Lesen ist ein Gewinn.» “Hafez und Grüne successfully and prominently position communication theory in the globalization debate. (...) They contribute to a solid foundation and fruitful discussion of globalization from the perspective of communication studies. (...) Make sure that you take this handbook really “into your hands”.You will definitely profit from reading it.” (own translation) Prof. Dr.Thomas Herdin, Univ. of Salzburg, Publizistik 2021
- 7. “This extremely useful and timely translation of the original German publication by Hafez and Grüne is a great resource for students and researchers alike,as it deeply enriches – both theoretically and methodologically – the burgeoning literature on global communication.” Prof. DayaThussu, Baptist University, Hong Kong
- 8. FOUNDATIONS OF GLOBAL COMMUNICATION This book provides a wide- ranging theoretical and empirical overview of the disparate achievements and shortcomings of global communication. This exceptionally ambitious and systematic project takes a critical perspective on the globalization of communication. Uniquely, it sets media globalization alongside a plethora of other globalized forms of communication,ranging from the individual to groups, civil society groupings, commercial enterprises and political formations. The result is a sophisticated and impressive overview of globalized communication across various facets, assessing the phenomena for the extent to which they live up to the much- hyped claims of globalization’s potential to create a globally interdependent society.The setbacks of globalization, such as right- wing populism and religious fundamentalism,can only be understood if the shortcomings of global communication are taken more seriously. Covering all types of cross- border global communication in media, political and economic systems, civil societies, social media and lifeworlds of the individual, this unique book is invaluable for students and researchers in media, communication, globalization and related areas. Kai Hafez is a Chair Professor of International and Comparative Media and Communication Studies at the University of Erfurt, Germany. His research specializations are global and political communication, media and democracy and Islamic– Western relations. He is the author of The Myth of Media Globalization (2007). Anne Grüne is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Media and Communication Studies at the University of Erfurt, Germany. Her research specializations are globalization and social communication, comparative communication cultures and global popular culture. She is the author of Formatted World Culture? On the Theory and Practice of Global EntertainmentTelevision (in German) (2016).
- 10. FOUNDATIONS OF GLOBAL COMMUNICATION A Conceptual Handbook Kai Hafez and Anne Grüne TRANSLATED BY ALEX SKINNER
- 11. Cover image: Getty Images First published 2022 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park,Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, NewYork, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of theTaylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Kai Hafez and Anne Grüne The right of Kai Hafez and Anne Grüne to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Translated by Alex Skinner All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Published in German by UVKVerlag 2021 British Library Cataloguing- in- Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Names: Hafez, Kai, 1964– author. | Grüne,Anne, author. | Skinner,Alex, translator. Title: Foundations of global communication / Kai Hafez and Anne Grüne; translated by Alex Skinner. Other titles: Grundlagen der globalen Kommunikation. English. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; NewYork, NY : Routledge, 2022. | Translation of: Grundlagen der globalen Kommunikation : Medien - Systeme - Lebenswelten. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021054912 (print) | LCCN 2021054913 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032185781 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032185828 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003255239 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Communication, International. Classification: LCC P96.I5 H26 2022 (print) | LCC P96.I5 (ebook) | DDC 302.2–dc23/eng/20220225 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021054912 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021054913 ISBN: 978-1-032-18578-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-18582-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-25523-9 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003255239 Typeset in Bembo by Newgen Publishing UK
- 12. CONTENTS List of figures xv Note on translation xvi Acknowledgements xvii Introduction 1 Two-speed globalization 1 Media, systems and lifeworlds in global communication 3 Phases of globalization research 5 1 Theory of global communication 8 1.1 General modes of global communication 8 Global public sphere and global community: synchronization and integration 8 Perception of distance and cosmopolitanism 10 Interaction, co- orientation and global synchrony 11 Discursive global society/ dialogic global community: theories of communication 13 Integrationist systems theories 15 Dialogue between “cultures” in an extended lifeworld 17 1.2 Communicative systems, lifeworlds and their transformation 17 Systems and lifeworlds 17 System-lifeworld-network approach 18 Global centres and peripheries 20 Taking stock: globally communicating social systems and lifeworlds 21 Media, politics and economy as (trans)national systems 21 Global civil society and large communities 23 Global lifeworlds: a desideratum for “intercultural communication” 24
- 13. viii Contents Glocalization and hybridization of everyday action 25 Old and new global “elites” within systems and lifeworlds 26 1.3 Specific modes of communication (system connections) of systems and lifeworlds 27 Actors’ modes of global communication: a continuum 27 Global interactivity beyond the mass media? 29 Synchronization of the global public sphere: the problem of the mass media 29 Local- global multi- level media- based public sphere(s) 31 Global organizational communication between discourse and interaction 31 Informality and mediatization of organizational communication 33 Global internal and external hybridity 34 Potential for global interaction of non- organized social systems 35 Global lifeworlds and group communication 37 Mobility, expanded space of interaction and the role problem 37 Social media and global monologue/ dialogue 38 Global society, global community and global communication as a multiple phenomenon 39 1.4 System dependencies and lifeworld relations 39 Communication and inter- state relations 39 Media and national/ international systemic relations 40 Relationships between mass media, systems of action and lifeworlds 43 Conclusion: horizontal and vertical interdependencies in the dominant and accidental mode 46 2 Mass media and the global public sphere 48 2.1 Systems and system change 50 A basic model of global mass communication 50 (Trans)national media ethics and professionalism 53 (G)local media production 54 The global reception gap: informational masses and elites 55 The environmental system of politics: the hegemony of the nation state 56 The environmental system of the economy: the limits of transnationalization 57 Non- traditional mass media: extended hypermediality 59 Interdependence gaps and two- speed globalization 60 2.2 Communicative system connections 61 2.2.1 Discourse analysis 61 Fundamentals: interdiscursivity, convergence and the domestication of media discourses 61 A fragmented news agenda: the tip of the globalization iceberg 62 Global framing or domesticated discourses? 64 Visual globalization and stereotypes 67 Transnational media: contraflows without cosmopolitanism 67 Incomplete synchronization of global media discourses 68 2.2.2 Public sphere theory 69 Theoretical perspectives on the “global public sphere” 69
- 14. Contents ix The role of the global public sphere in global society 70 Alternative theories of the public sphere: dialogic, constructive and cosmopolitan journalism 71 Global public sphere and global governance: the case of Europe 72 Conclusion: global public sphere, global society and lagging structural change of the mass media 74 3 Politics: the state’s global communication 75 3.1 Systems and system change 76 Actors, target audiences and “third spaces” of global communication 76 Diplomacy: realism versus constructivism 77 Second- track diplomacy and global governance 78 Target audiences of public diplomacy 80 New communicator roles in foreign policy 81 Inconsistent shifts towards a “global domestic policy” 81 3.2 Communicative system connections 82 3.2.1 Interaction and dialogue 82 Interests, values and communication 82 Diplomatic process stages and metacommunication 83 Agenda- setting and framing in political negotiations 84 Diplomatic mediation: from interaction to dialogue 85 Signalling as non- verbal global communication 86 Global governance as a diplomatic “hotline”? 87 3.2.2 Interaction and organizational communication 88 Informality at the relational level of global communication 88 Trends in informality: networks of associated states rather than cultural boundaries 89 Diplomatic protocol as global symbolic communication 90 Cyber- diplomacy: new dynamics, old substance 91 Global spaces of interpretation through the text- speech relationship 92 Continuities within changing global diplomatic communication 93 3.2.3 Observation and diffusion 93 The state’s communicative multi- competence 93 Ambassadors and secret services as information gatherers 94 Media monitoring as the global observation of observation 94 Knowledge management between rationality and power politics 95 3.2.4 Discursive (external) communication 96 The non- transparency of action systems 96 Public diplomacy/propaganda 96 “Understanding”-based persuasion 97 Foreign cultural policy:“dialogue” between “cultures”? 99 War communication: the return of global disinformation 101 State international broadcasting: more than persuasion? 102 Public diplomacy 2.0 104 Conclusion: the state’s global communication between integration and isolation 104
- 15. x Contents 4 Economy: global corporate communication 106 4.1 Systems and system change 107 Shift of perspective: global institutionalism 107 Power and communication in global companies 108 Technological gaps and cosmopolitan lifeworld capital 110 A critique of essentialism in the discipline of economics 111 The ethical unpredictability of global capitalism 112 4.2 Communicative system connections 112 4.2.1 Interaction and dialogue 113 New dialogic action and negotiation in global enterprises 113 Corporate culture and global storytelling 114 Of “chains” and “stars”: network structures as communicative channels 116 Global teams as reconfigured global communities 117 Is the network the global message? 118 The dimensions of global economic interaction 119 4.2.2 Interaction and organizational communication 119 Informality as a research desideratum 119 Oral communication and global language skills 121 Mediatization of global economic communication 121 Face- to- face communication in global virtual teams 123 “Global cities” rather than “the death of distance” 124 4.2.3 Observation and diffusion 124 Economic knowledge gaps 124 Global knowledge diffusion and local adaptation 124 Limits to global circulation and global observation 125 Knowledge capitalism rather than a global knowledge society 126 “Semi- modernity” amid the global flow of knowledge 128 4.2.4 Discursive (external) communication 128 Direct marketing as global micro- contact 128 Advertising and PR: dominant culturalism 129 “Glocal marketing” without cosmopolitan codes 130 Conclusion: capitalists are (not) internationalists after all 131 5 Civil society and global movement communication 133 5.1 Systems and system change 134 International NGOs: grassroots or self- interest? 134 Social movements: the politics of information and mobilization 135 A crisis of global movements? 136 Tenuous ideology, fragmentation and global networks 136 North–South divide and sociospatial ties 137 Weak ties and low risk in global civil society 138 5.2 Communicative system connections 139 5.2.1 Interaction and dialogue 139 INGOs and global interaction 139 Face- to- face communication in social movements 140 Boomerang effects and domestication 141
- 16. Contents xi Interaction and global scale shifts 141 Networks and North–South elites 142 Mass media as internal system environment 144 A hybrid interaction- media system 146 5.2.2 Interaction and organizational communication 147 The Internet: mediatization as resource 147 The Internet is increasing weak ties involving meagre interaction 148 New forms of activism, old (North–South) rifts 149 Global text- conversation cycles? 150 Informality as incivility: who is a member of global civil society? 151 Weak- tie globalization through digitization 152 5.2.3 Observation and diffusion 152 Alternative information policy 152 INGO expertise versus symbolic TAN resources? 153 Informational quality and circulatory limits 154 New global knowledge elites 155 5.2.4 Discursive (external) communication 155 Professionalization of public relations 155 Cosmopolitan PR? 156 Conclusion: civil society as an expanded global public sphere 158 6 Large communities: global online communication 160 6.1 Systems and system change 161 Community and society 161 Virtual community and the constructivism of placelessness 161 Structuralist social co- presence and “re- tribalization” 162 The reciprocity model of the global online community 164 Global social capital: cosmopolitanism or cultural battle between communities? 166 Global community or global society? 167 6.2 Communicative system connections 168 6.2.1 Interaction and dialogue 168 The cascade model of global online communication 168 Connectivity: Internet geography and online territories 169 Digital divides and the multilingualization of the Internet 170 Relationality: asynchrony and community density 172 Dialogicity 1: global echo chambers 173 Dialogicity 2: pop cosmopolitanism, gaming and “global metropolis” 175 Dialogicity 3: digital (trans)cultural salons 176 Discursive community through media use 178 Interactive global community? 179 6.2.2 Observation and diffusion 180 Global wiki- knowledge community? 180 Wikipedia: Eurocentrism of worldview 180 Separation and quality of knowledge 181 A global knowledge community? 182
- 17. xii Contents 6.2.3 Discursive (external) communication 183 Intercultural dialogue versus online global war 183 Antinomy between internal and external capital 184 Conclusion: social networks as global communities, plural 186 7 Small groups: global lifeworldly communication I 187 7.1 Lifeworldly structures of global group communication 188 Neglected research on groups 188 Global action contexts of stationary groups 189 The geopolitical positioning of urbanity 190 Mobile horizons of action 191 Digital spatial shifts in group structures 192 Temporal structures of global group communication 193 Contact as a symbolic resource of group communication 194 Transformation and persistence of the small group in a globalizing world 195 7.2 Communicative connections in the lifeworld 195 7.2.1 Interaction and dialogue 195 Transnational connectivity of the lifeworld 195 The interaction paradox of global group communication 197 A theoretical fallacy in intercultural communication research 198 Interaction patterns of global group communication: three case analyses 200 Interactivity 1: circular interaction –the dialogic model of the global community 200 Global education and “intimate tourism” 201 Family/ peer communication and circular global community 202 Interactivity 2: reciprocal interaction –the hegemonic model of the global community 204 Migration and tourism communication 204 Interactivity 3: reciprocal discourses –the discursive model of an imagined global community 207 Interactive group communication and participatory global community 208 7.2.2 Observation 208 Collective observation and medial keyhole 208 Local small groups and the media’s conception of other countries 211 Self- referentiality and we- identity through media observation 212 Integration through the culture- connecting interpretation of global media events 214 Conclusion: the small group as norm or disruptive element in global communication? 215 8 The individual: global lifeworldly communication II 216 8.1 Lifeworldly structures of individual global communication 216 Individualization as a meta- tendency of globalization? 216 Cosmopolitans and the paradox of knowledge 217 Cosmopolitanism as social capital 218 Levels of action of cosmopolitanism 220
- 18. Contents xiii Stereotypes and individual relationships to the world 221 Conditions for stereotype change 222 Global socialization through family and education 224 Individual lifeworlds’ ambivalent relations to the world 226 8.2 Communicative connections in the lifeworld 226 8.2.1 Interaction and dialogue 227 Interpersonal dialogue and global community/ society 227 Dynamics and imponderables of global dialogue 228 Structural variants of global dialogue 230 Overlap between observation and dialogue 232 Influences of digital media 233 The power and impotence of individual interaction 233 8.2.2 Observation and diffusion 234 The individual’s discursive global knowledge processing 234 A critical worldview through media appropriation? 235 Filters for the processing of global knowledge (or ignorance) 236 Ignorance as a risk in global society 238 The individual en route to global knowledge optimization 239 8.2.3 Discursive (external) communication and global actions 239 Cosmopolitan action and role adaptation 239 Synchronizing “internal” and “external” globalization 240 Conclusion: the global individual between “genius” and “madness” 240 9 Interdependencies of systems and lifeworlds 242 9.1 Foundations of interdependence 242 The research primacy of local (inter)dependence 242 Dimensions and levels of interdependence 243 9.2 Global horizontal interdependence 245 Global communication as a necessary condition 245 Global regulatory coupling as a sufficient condition 247 9.3 Global and local vertical interdependence 248 Politics, media and the public sphere: globally extended indexing 248 Civil society, media and politics: the inversion of dependence 251 Lifeworlds, media and politics: decolonization through globalization? 254 Conclusion: interdependence –diverse but incomplete and reversible 255 Conclusion and future prospects 257 Overall assessment 257 Future prospects 260 Bibliography 265 Index 313
- 20. FIGURES 1.1 Global communication: public spheres and interactions 10 1.2 Actor- specific modes of communication 28 1.3 Local- global multilevel media- based public sphere(s) 32 1.4 Global communicative interdependencies 47 2.1 Dimensions of global mass communication 52 3.1 Actors and target audiences of international political communication 76 4.1 Dimensions of global economic interaction in transnational companies 120 5.1 Discursive and interactive arenas of transnational social movements 146 6.1 The cascade model of interaction in the global online community 169 6.2 Diasporic digital networks 177 7.1 Variants of global inter-and intragroup communication 209
- 21. NOTE ON TRANSLATION All direct quotes from German texts appearing in the bibliography of this book have been translated by Alex Skinner.
- 22. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank a number of people without whom this book would never have seen the light of day. A debt of gratitude is owed to those involved in the production of the original German book and this English edition, especially Alex Skinner (translation),Dan Lohmeyer (final editing),Uta Preimesser andTina Kaiser (at our German publisher UVK/ UTB), Natalie Foster, Jennifer Vennall, Thara Kanaga and Susan Dunsmore (at our English publisher Routledge),Annett Psurek, Kirsten Wünsche, Antonia Hafner and Maximilian Einhaus (literature acquisition and graphic support). Colleagues such as Joachim Höflich, Sven Jöckel (University of Erfurt) and Christian Stegbauer (University of Frankfurt) helped clarify certain issues.We discussed aspects of this book at a workshop featuring Friedrich Krotz, Hubert Knoblauch, Carola Richter, Christine Horz, Sabrina Schmidt and others. Our thanks also to those who invited us to give keynote addresses and lectures on the topic of globalization over the past years and decades. In Kai Hafez’s case, these included the Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen, the Federal Foreign Office, the Federal Office of Administration, Netzwerk Recherche, the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research (Honolulu), the Goethe- Institut Karachi and the universities of Oxford,Westminster, Oslo, Kalmar, Pelita Harapan (Jakarta), the London School of Economics and Political Science and expert bodies including the International Association of Media and Communication Research,the German Communication Association, the International Communication Association, the Global Communication Association and the German Sociological Association. Anne Grüne spoke at the International Association of Media and Communication Research,the German CommunicationAssociation and the Global Communication Association. We would also like to thank the international Working Group of German Communication Studies Scholars, of which we are members, which seeks to foster the “deep internationalization” of communication research in Germany.The other
- 23. xviii Acknowledgements members of the group are Hanan Badr, Markus Behmer, Susanne Fengler, Anke Fiedler, Oliver Hahn, Kefa Hamidi, Thomas Hanitzsch, Christine Horz, Beate Illg,Anna Litvinenko, Martin Löffelholz, Melanie Radue, Carola Richter, Barbara Thomaß and Florian Töpfl. We warmly acknowledge all our students at the University of Erfurt, whether they are taking the bachelor’s degree in communication studies or the English- lan- guage master’s degree in “Global Communication: Politics and Society”, which we founded (together with Patrick Rössler). For many years, our students, from almost every continent,have been our interlocutors on all issues of global communication. Colleagues from all over the world provided us with support when we established the master’s degree course,particularly Lilie Chouliaraki (London School of Economics and Political Science), Daniel Hallin (University of California, San Diego),Yahya Kamalipour (North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro), Deddy Mulyana (Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung), Daya Thussu (Baptist University, Hong Kong), Stephen Reese (University ofTexas at Austin), Karina Horsti (Academy of Finland, Helsinki) and Naila Hamdy (American University in Cairo).Without our lecturers Sabrina Schmidt, Regina Cazzamatta, Sarah Elmaghraby, Danny Schmidt, Anja Wollenberg, Imad Mustafa, our colleague Alexander Thumfart, with whom Kai Hafez taught a joint seminar on globalization, and our Indonesian university cooperation partner Subekti Priyadharma, our efforts to synthesize research and teaching would surely have been less successful. A signal contribution has also been made by the once again international team of doctoral students with whom we have been working intensively for many years on topics in international and comparative media and communication studies –such as foreign coverage, media ethics, and migration and media –and in the fields of media systems and media conflict. Many of these former students are now lecturers and professors at universities. We would like to express our sincere thanks to the German Academic Exchange Service and the International Office of the University of Erfurt –as represented not least by Ms Manuela Linde –for their wonderful, long- standing support. newgenprepdf
- 24. DOI: 10.4324/9781003255239-1 INTRODUCTION In today’s market of ideas, globalization has few rivals. Like no other phenomenon, it shapes our thinking and engenders a vision of simultaneity, connectedness and even togetherness uniting all of humanity. Beyond the horizon of globalization only the stars await, though as yet we can make no sociological statements about them. On this planet, however, all significant visions of progress are connected to globalization because all other social formations –from the family through the village to the nation state –already exist.While localization is in some sense the antithesis of globalization,it has no great significance as a notion of human progress. Globalization has thus taken on a unique intellectual appeal, although it still seems unfinished and is projected into the future, which explains why it has become a tendentious political term. Political rifts have opened up between advocates and opponents of globalization.After the euphoria surrounding globalization came dis- illusionment, triggering opposition.Vision, chimera, chameleon –globalization is all these things. Two-speed globalization For these reasons, over the last few decades the term globalization has become one of the leading explanatory models in the academy, one with considerable social relevance. It refers to nothing less than a fundamental reordering of political, economic and social relations with a view to eliminating or overcoming existing national and cultural- linguistic boundaries.But despite this widely shared quotidian understanding of globalization, there is no clear definition of the term, even within the bounds of scholarly discourse. The concept of globalization, as used in this book, does not simply mean “uni- versality”, the idea that people around the world now live within similar forms of modernity (in terms of technology,for example),a modernity that has mysteriously
- 25. 2 Introduction spread across the globe. Instead, we understand globalization explicitly as “con- nectivity” (Axford 2013, p. 22).The key question here is how media, systems and lifeworld actors cross borders through diverse types of human communication, and whether, and, if so, how, this communicative dissolution of boundaries across the world relates to new forms of an integrative global and epistemic community and society. In a sense, globalization has remained a myth in the fullest sense of the term, not because it has not been realized at all, but because the phenomena associated with it remain ambivalent. We find setbacks to globalization and countervailing trends at every turn. German sociologist Richard Münch has clearly identified the challenges posed by globalization.He assumes that,often,the growing interdepend- ence between states is not immediately understood by national populations, that political,economic and social elites find themselves in a mediating role,on the basis of which they open the nation state to the outside world, while at the same time having to appeal for trust in this policy domestically (1998, p. 350ff.). Münch refers to a split between the “avant- garde” of a “modernizing elite that thinks in global terms and the masses, who insist on national solidarity all the more vehemently” (ibid., p. 352). He sees the creation of a community of global citizens as the crucial task for the present era. While the concepts of the “elite” and the “masses” make us a little uneasy, Münch’s analysis recalls earlier distinctions, such as that put forward by Richard K. Merton between “cosmopolitans” and “locals” (1968, p. 441ff.) and the con- cept of the “globalization of the two velocities” proposed by Kai Hafez (2010a, p.6ff.).The non- simultaneity of globalization affects not only social groups,but also organized social systems such as the mass media, which has undergone a “tectonic shift” in the past few decades because technological and economic aspects of media globalization have often progressed more rapidly than content and because, in the supposed age of globalization, reports about other parts of the world are neither greater in number nor more varied than before (Hafez 1999). On the contrary, there are now fewer resources available for journalism with an international focus, meaning that (structural) political and economic interdependencies between states have increased but societies’dialogic and discursive understanding has not automat- ically grown in tandem with this process, giving rise to hackneyed visions of “the enemy” and fuelling conflicts both within countries and internationally (ibid.; see also Stone and Rizova 2014). The internal development of the purported global elites is similarly uneven. Even the liberal sector of society often thinks and acts in an anything but cosmo- politan manner and remains deeply rooted in the national habitus (Müller 2019a, 2019b). With their ambivalent attitude towards globalization, political and eco- nomic systems contribute to the hostility to globalization displayed by certain pol- itical currents, even if these systems’ rate of globalization is higher overall than that of most people’s lifeworlds. At the very least, upon close examination, the “globalization of everyday life”, as experienced by individuals, groups and com- munities, though heterogeneous, appears to be more sluggish than that of politics
- 26. Introduction 3 and the economy.Despite numerous“global injections”through goods,mass media and occasional global mobility in people’s private worlds, these are still strongly localized. The “globalization of the two velocities”, the “gap between the avant- garde and the masses”,a“tectonic shift”or“ambivalences”:these are all more or less apt terms describing the heterogeneous position of systems and lifeworlds within the process of globalization. We can fairly interpret the renaissance of far- right politics worldwide, whose symptoms include the election of Donald Trump in the United States, Brexit in the United Kingdom and right- wing populist governments in countries as diverse as Hungary, Poland, Brazil and India –not to mention Islamism –as an anti- glo- balist rebellion.The fact that right- wing populists have managed to win elections is clear evidence of how out of synch with globalization the world’s societies are and demonstrates that much of the internationalization that has occurred in recent decades has been superficial and culturally undigested, amounting to little more than the circulation of goods. Even a global and, as one might have thought, unifying event such as the COVID- 19 pandemic that began in early 2020 has featured global discrepancies in perception.Views of this global health crisis seem to depend on the form taken by the communication about it at the local level.By no means do the associated media and public constructions automatically generate global narratives of solidarity.Local clichés about different countries have been reheated, racist responses have intensi- fied and globalization has been interpreted as a high- risk venture.The overemphasis on the negative in distant places is not a new or unusual phenomenon, but a well- known accompaniment to global modernity.Within and through their communi- cative mediation,“far- off lands” remain distant indeed. Media, systems and lifeworlds in global communication Contemporary debates have featured numerous attempts to analyse the reasons for the populist backlash: racism and cultural overload, social deprivation or a combin- ation of these factors (Geiselberger 2017). So far, however, no approach has sought to identify who or what might be responsible for communicative shortcomings, that is, for the failure of the “feats of mediation” that Münch describes as vital. But the idea that we can presuppose global communication as a more or less fixed variable, while all other motives for global social action fluctuate, is fundamentally wrong.Worldwide connectivity is also a heterogeneous phenomenon –one that this book seeks to take stock of. Till now, no text has dealt in a truly comprehensive way with the cross- border communication processes within, or between, social systems and lifeworlds.Yet it seems obvious that the organized systems of politics, economy and society, that is, the state, businesses, organizations and social movements, are better placed to engage in global communication than many citizens.Global communication entails dealing with spatial distance and also involves cross- border contacts. To interact with high intensity and on an enduring basis, and to follow local discourses in
- 27. 4 Introduction other parts of the world in different languages, can be a costly undertaking for which many organizations and the global avant- garde of civil society are better equipped than most private individuals,despite mass tourism and cultural exchange programmes.If we also take into account the prosperity gap between industrialized, emerging and developing countries, it becomes clear that global tourism is in fact only possible for a small part of humanity. From a statistical point of view, even migration does little to change this fact, because only around 3 per cent of people worldwide live outside the country in which they were born (IOM UN Migration 2018, p. 18). On the other hand, global social movements and international online communities show the fascinating speed with which at least some sections of the population can overcome vast distances communicatively.Global“understanding of the other” and a “global civil society” are no longer pipe dreams –but this does not make them an all- encompassing reality. This book sets out to provide a theoretical and empirical overview of the disparate achievements and shortcomings of global communication. For a study of such communication, our decision to organize chapters on the basis of social actors (mass media, the state, businesses, civil society, large communities, small groups and individuals) rather than communication processes (such as interactions, discourses and observations) might seem to require some explanation. First of all, communication processes are obviously co- present in that they shape the internal arrangement of the individual chapters. But the deeper reason for the book’s core structure lies in our conceptual framework, which seeks to tread a middle path between the structuralist and constructivist perspectives. In our theoretical introduction we present a system- lifeworld- network approach, which works on the assumption that communication is no free- floating epiphenomenon and can only be understood if we reflect upon communicators’ specific prerequisites and capacities. The authors of this book agree that today’s globalization research is bedevilled by a “lack of actor-and practice- centred studies” (Schmitt and Vonderau 2014, p. 11) and that the acting subject must be reintegrated into our analyses if we are to produce convincing theories (Hay and Marsh 2000, p. 13). To mention one example: the ego- centred global network of an individual is completely different from a corporate network,such that the prominent concept of global“networking” (Castells 2010, among others) becomes meaningful only if we include consider- ation of the specific way it is used within social theory. In other words, we can grasp global communication only if we combine the process theories offered by the discipline of communication studies with social scientific theories of struc- ture. In the present work, at the level of process, we deploy theories of discourse, interaction, organizational communication and diffusion, approaches centred on intergroup, intragroup and interpersonal communication, and stereotype theory. At the structural level we draw on media systems research, theories of the public sphere, general theories of systems, organizations and civil society, concepts of the lifeworld and action theory. Since there is no unified globalization theory currently available, we have tried to fit the different approaches in modular theory building
- 28. Introduction 5 into an analytical framework that is as rigorous as possible, one that explains global communication in a holistic way. Despite the breadth of our overview of different parts of society, there are some gaps in this book due to the exclusion of certain areas.We have not, for example, dedicated chapters either to the global system of scholarship nor to the art and culture sector in the narrower sense. In the social systems we have examined, we have scrutinized the state rather than parties and organizations in the field of politics, transnational companies rather than trade within the economy, and non- governmental organizations (NGOs) and social movements in civil society rather than associations or organizations. Our account of large communities is limited to online communities and in reflecting on the small group, we have not taken every single type into account. But we believe this book provides a systematic overview of most of the key fields of global communication, from the mass media through organized systems of action to crucial areas of the lifeworld, and, per- haps for the first time, brings these elements together to paint an overall picture. Nonetheless, we regard the present text as part of a long- term project in the field of communication- oriented globalization research, which should be followed by further studies. Phases of globalization research Globalization, understood as a theory centred on the crossing of national borders, is one of the most significant scholarly concepts, though it has been beset by con- ceptual crisis in the twenty- first century. The “strange death of ‘globalization’” (Rosenberg 2005) has left many of the main protagonists in the globalization debate at a loss. How did perhaps the most scintillating intellectual paradigm of the present era undergo such rapid decline? One reason was surely that the early “hyperglobalism”of authors such as Anthony Giddens (2000),Ulrich Beck (2000), David Held and Anthony McGrew (2000, 2002), and Manuel Castells (2010), a perspective informed by the idea of globalization as a virtually all- powerful phenomenon, had simply been too audacious to be empirically tenable. The end of the nation state, the transnationalization of the economy and the com- plete deterritorialization of social relations were visions too extensive and too demanding to be realizable. A sceptical “second wave” of globalization research soon emerged to challenge this rampant normativism. As befits any revisionism worth its salt, this turned the basic assumptions of the field upside down (Martell 2007). From the perspective of critics such as Paul Hirst and Graham Thompson (1999), Colin Hay and David Marsh (2000),Terry Flew (2007) and Kai Hafez (2007a), the nation state was alive and kicking, economic globalization was of limited scope and, in particular, the notion of the comprehensive networking of the world through media and commu- nication was largely a myth. But there is reason to believe that the “post- mortem” (Rosenberg 2005) on the globalization approach is as premature as the old hyperglobalism and that we are now
- 29. 6 Introduction experiencing a more realistic “third wave” of globalization theory (Martell 2007). Strangely enough,it is the former weaknesses of globalization research that are now ensuring its survival.The reality is that globalization has always been a catchphrase that,while invoking a new spatial concept for scholars,has never become a coherent social scientific theory.If classical approaches such as neo- institutionalism,function- alism or even actor- network theory seem so vital today (see Chapter 1, Section 1.2), it is partly because globalization theory has failed to exhaust its potential. The transformation of older concepts generated by social theory, such as “nation”, “society”, “public sphere”, “organization” or “community” has rarely been truly successful in the globalization debate. Key terms such as “transnationalization”, “global public sphere”, “global society”, the “virtual community” or the “global village” (McLuhan 1962) imply the straightforward deterritorialization of familiar social concepts without really taking into account that a condition of spacelessness changes things substantially. At the global level, what used to be “society” is no longer a society, just as the public sphere or community do not operate according to familiar rules.This, however, implies pushing scholars well beyond their current capabilities, because it requires a shift away from the compartmentalizing of aca- demic subjects and theories (Axford 2013, p. 3) and an interdisciplinary approach that has yet to be realized. One of the main reasons for the stagnation described above may be that the pioneering thinkers never really took communication processes into account in a consistent way. The sociologists and philosophers who dominated the debate relegated the discipline of communication studies, which ought to have played a leading role in it, to the status of an auxiliary field, one whose processual logics were often obscured by nebulous terms such as “networking”. For leading intellectuals such as Giddens or Held, the acceleration and deterritorialization of technology- based communication became the unquestioned premise of a research that subsequently considered only when the nation state would fall victim to the pressures of cross- border communication (Hafez 2007a, p. 57ff.). The marginalization of communication theory pushed one of the three great resources of theory building –power, capital and communication –to the per- iphery, for decades guaranteeing the primacy of the other two (and that of the associated academic disciplines). We can only speculate about the reasons for this marginalization of communi- cation theory.Was it due to “technophilia”, an excessive fascination with the new possibilities opened up by digital technology? Similar to earlier theoretical debates between modernization and dependency theorists, the fixation on digital tech- nology and the undervaluation of social communication have always been partly an expression of Eurocentrism. It is not surprising, then, that the globalization debate originated primarily in the Anglo- American countries –and also came to grief there. Still, the discipline of communication studies is certainly guilty of a form of self- marginalization as well: at present, comprehensive macro- theories seem less important in the field than partial theorems developed by media researchers or limited ideas focused on interpersonal communication.A subject that borrows the
- 30. Introduction 7 macro- theory of the public sphere or systems theory (Habermas, Luhmann, and so on) from other social sciences and humanities disciplines or fails entirely to reflect on them is in no position to complain about its marginal contribution to major intellectual issues. The fact that one of this book’s authors (Hafez) expressed views sceptical of globalization at an early stage does not mean that the analysis we present here can simply be considered part of the second wave of the globalization debate.Numerous revisionist facts and arguments certainly flow into this book and above all into our attempt to take empirical stock of global communication as it currently exists.At the same time, however, on the basis of a well- founded communication theory, what we attempt to do here is in fact associated with the“third wave”of research on globalization.Although this strand of scholarship no longer assumes a general, all- pervasive and all- transforming species of globalization,it recognizes global“patterns of stratification across and within societies involving some becoming enmeshed and some marginalised” (Martell 2007, p. 189). On the basis of a sceptical, revisionist view of things, then, we simultaneously highlight transformative potential pointing to a genuinely new quality of globalization, though its effects on the world are still far from clear.This book can thus be viewed as a realist’s attempt to“ride”the“third wave” of globalization research.
- 31. DOI: 10.4324/9781003255239-2 1 THEORY OF GLOBAL COMMUNICATION The following theoretical outline begins with an introduction to basic modes of communication in Section 1.1, which is necessary because the present book is not only about global mass media communication, but also takes into account the processes of political and social communication of various kinds.In Section 1.2,we then present the actors involved in communication –organized and non- organized social systems and lifeworlds –and consider their relationship to modes of com- munication.This is followed in Section 1.3 by an introductory look at the specific forms of communication characteristic of social systems and lifeworlds within the global realm.The final section, Section 1.4, provides a basic overview of the global exchanges and interdependencies between actors’ various ways of communicating. 1.1 General modes of global communication Global public sphere and global community: synchronization and integration A variety of concepts are of significance when it comes to global and cross- border communication. The best known is probably that of the “global public sphere” (Sparks 1998;Volkmer 2014). In the case of the mass media, we are used to asking whether a global public sphere in fact exists.Are discourses and thus topics, frames, concepts, symbols and images dealt with at the same time in different national media systems or even transnationally, that is, through media that operate in several media systems? We can call this a question of synchronization or even co- orienta- tion and express it in simple terms as follows. Do people across the globe observe the world, with the help of media, in a similar way? Does journalistic self- observa- tion really lead to the “synchronization of global society” (Blöbaum 1994, p. 261) by providing us with similar knowledge? While the concept of the “public sphere”
- 32. Theory of global communication 9 is widely known, sociological concepts such as the “global society” or the “global community” (Richter 1990; Beck 2000) play virtually no role in communication research. Historically, the term “society” has been closely linked with the emer- gence of a media- based public sphere. In a society, people observe their environ- ment with the help of media (Kunczik and Zipfel 2001, p. 47ff.).The concept of a “global community”, meanwhile, is problematic for communication research. It evokes a problem different from that of synchronization, namely the interaction problem, which is also a problem of integration. While direct interaction is not absolutely necessary in societies, and observation through the use of mass media is of central importance, communities are created when people interact with one another rather than merely communicating or learning about others. For a com- munity, especially a local and relatively static one, interpersonal dialogue is virtually indispensable.Through dialogue, we optimize our knowledge and create a shared sense of togetherness as a key value. We have thus established two basic definitions: (1) networking as interpretive information processing without interaction is observation; and (2) networking as cooperative and integrative information processing is interaction or dialogue. Both forms of communication are important in human life. It is true that it is difficult to draw a clear defining line between society and community,given that“nations”(in contrast to the state) are also surrogate commu- nities in the form of large groups, which can develop a sense of unity even if there is no direct interaction between all the members of the community.Here we might introduce the term“discursive communities”,which are not held together by direct interaction, but rather by a broadly synchronized public sphere: language, history and culture are hegemonically defined via storage media, and this may determine prevailing notions of communality. But like “virtual communities” (Rheingold 2000), national communities are not fully developed ones characterized by intense interaction, a pronounced sense of togetherness and clear horizons of action. If a strong sense of unity prevails, as is often the case with nations (patriotism, nation- alism), then this usually implies a fusion of a discursive and an interactive com- munity. Identification is inculcated through direct contact with a small number of community members,but is otherwise based on the shared experiences of a discur- sive community (one facilitated by the media).The concept of the“global commu- nity”can also be imagined as a combination of this kind.Cosmopolitanism,in other words, a worldview that goes beyond the concept of the “nation” to encompass humanity as a whole, arises through (1) direct cross- border interactions between human beings; (2) (representative) direct interaction between certain social systems across borders (such as with politics and diplomacy); and (3) globally synchronized knowledge, values and perspectives conveyed by the mass media. The key proposition expounded in this book is that mass media alone can at most generate a “global public sphere”, but not a “global community”. The latter emerges, if at all, only with the help of other social systems and in people’s lifeworlds.As we shall see, in its current state, global mass communication is quite unable to synchronize public spheres and knowledge of the world,because national
- 33. 10 Theory of global communication media systems are still largely isolated from one another. Furthermore, due to the monologic structure of the media –one- to- many rather than face- to- face, person- to- person or group- to- group –global mass communication is fundamen- tally incapable of generating community- building dialogues. Figure 1.1 illustrates the observational and public sphere- generating structure of the media system, as well as the interactive and community- generating character of other social systems and lifeworlds. Perception of distance and cosmopolitanism Why do we need an expanded conceptual model? Why do we emphasize the aspects of interaction, dialogue and the participatory community? There are, of course, instances in which the media and the public sphere generate empathy and a sense of togetherness. Media- based discursive communities may, under special conditions, create a feeling of solidarity and connectedness among people that goes far beyond the usual social coexistence within the nation and the coexist- ence of parallel lifeworlds. Particularly in situations of war and crisis, however, these feelings clash with an underlying patriotism. In this context, media discourses help to separate countries and populations from one another by disseminating simplistic concepts of the enemy (Hafez 2007a, p. 46ff.). Positive facets of the global public sphere –such as media- induced cosmopolitan solidarity with refugees –are extremely unstable in nature. Lilie Chouliaraki has shown that media narratives about “distant” suffering are most successful in helping build a consciousness of community (cosmopolitanism) when they humanize and individualize suffering and create a sense of closeness by highlighting shared responsibilities and opportunities for action (2006).How unstable such phenomena social systems and lifeworlds public spheres communicative global society interactions communicative global community/-ies social systems and lifeworlds social systems and lifeworlds social systems and lifeworlds global dialogues national public sphere national public sphere national public sphere national public sphere events and themes FIGURE 1.1 Global communication: public spheres and interactions
- 34. Theory of global communication 11 are, however, was apparent in European reporting on refugees and German public opinion on this topic in 2015– 16 (Hafez 2016; Georgiou and Zaborowski 2017). Public discourses are fleeting, fickle and erratic. If we adapt the co- orientation approaches focused on interpersonal communi- cation to the media, we come to understand that observation is a complex process in which misinterpretations quickly arise, such as so- called “pluralistic ignor- ance”, which is generated by assumptions about how others interpret a given phe- nomenon (Hafez 2002a, vol. 1, p. 171ff., vol. 2, p. 253ff.). What do non- Muslim Germans believe,based on media information,regarding what Muslims think about terror? And are they correct? Chouliaraki has been interpreted to the effect that, even under the conditions of international media reportage, as a rule, the state of tension between a universal consciousness and people’s specific (local) involvements impedes global communality, with the self- assignment to a particular community (nation, “cultural area” or religion) remaining unaffected (Yilmaz and Trandafoiu 2014, p. 7f.). Transcultural, long- distance communication through media- based observation is, therefore, not community- building or is so only to a limited extent. Interaction, co- orientation and global synchrony Hence, the question is: is there a need for the observation and synchronization performed by national public spheres to be joined by a true cross- border dialogue, one that better integrates national systems and allows the individual to act beyond the local level? It is true that traditional societies, the highly interactive tribes and clans that dominated social life in earlier times, were highly racist and xenophobic and that their propensity for war was quite similar to that of modern societies (Diamond 2013, p. 142ff.).The question we have to ask, then, is: why should we favour more interaction,if it is modern society,with its institutions such as the state, media and the public sphere, that has created rules for the enduring survival of human beings in the territories of other groups? The answer is that it is the cross- border interaction that began in the modern age –interaction with out- groups rather than only the in- group as in the past –that has advanced the networking of the world. It is not so much observation by the media as direct interaction between states that, to remain with the above example, has created a system of rights of residence and citizenship under international law. Like exchange at other levels of society, direct interaction between political systems and states must therefore be an indispensable part of any survey of global communicative relationships. Certainly, not every form of interaction leads to a positive, cosmopolitan sense of together- ness, because a variety of motives may play a role in any interaction and divisions may come to light.At the same time, however, in line with the claims of symbolic interactionism, it is only through direct interaction that there is any chance at all of establishing a feeling of togetherness in the form of individual, experience- based knowledge. As yet, there is no even remotely coherent theory of the international commu- nity that also foregrounds issues of communication. However, there are numerous
- 35. 12 Theory of global communication strands that fill in part of the picture, such as the classic research anchored in socio- logical communication theory,though this is geared essentially towards small groups. In symbolic interactionism,George Herbert Mead and Herbert Blumer underlined that the meanings of the world arise through mutual interactions (Mead 1934). Here, interaction with oneself plays as important a role as social interaction (dia- logue). Blumer describes the fundamentals of symbolic interactionism as follows: It [symbolic interactionism] does not regard meaning as emanating from the intrinsic makeup of the thing that has meaning, nor does it see meaning as arising through a coalescence of psychological elements in the person.Instead, it sees meaning as arising in the process of interaction between people.The meaning of a thing for a person grows out of the ways in which other persons act toward the person with regard to that thing. (1986, p. 4) This interactionist perspective differs from the co- orientation approach, which describes communicative processes through a three- step procedure. If several actors (“a” and “b”, and so on for Newcomb) are oriented towards a certain symbol (“x” for Newcomb), they are considered to be “co- oriented”, their respective interpret- ations of meaning can be compared and the degree of “agreement”can be measured. The next step is to determine to what extent the actors themselves assume that their interpretation of meaning corresponds to that of the others, which allows us to establish the degree of “congruency”.Finally,“agreement”and“congruency”are compared in terms of their “accuracy” (Newcomb 1953). Direct social interaction differs from social co- orientation, which is based on observations in everyday life or may occur through media. Both objects in the environment and media may be viewed as x- objects to which people (a and b, and so on) are oriented.In contrast to the interpretation of the observable environment, media provide a kind of observation of observation, such that we gain access to the observation of others.We might also refer to direct and indirect observation. Here, media are resources for negotiating the world.They may create knowledge, but interpretations of meaning must be constantly renegotiated interactively, even within a collective framework,in order to ensure the stability of society.Both forms of observation are also significant to the process of global communication. Direct observation of the world occurs through the physical process of individ- uals crossing borders (in the context of tourism,diplomacy,and so on).A perception of the world co- oriented towards media also imparts knowledge, and occasionally even cosmopolitan sentiments. But the direct interaction of people –whether in the private lifeworld or in the case of individuals performing specific roles in polit- ical and social systems –is an additional meaningful phenomenon that is important to the emotional cementing of the global community. Hence, simultaneity through observation and through mass media (as well as universal human orientations and cosmopolitan values) are important prerequisites for understanding the world. But in themselves they do not constitute understanding, because these communication
- 36. Theory of global communication 13 processes still do not impart a stable awareness of global commonality (Axford 2013, p. 32), which can only arise through direct interaction and experiential knowledge. Successful co- orientation through mass media is a necessary prerequisite for inte- gration into a global community, but it is not sufficient as long as re- negotiation or further processing takes place exclusively in separate social systems and lifeworlds (Hafez 2002a, vol. 1, p. 171ff.; Grüne 2016, p. 421ff.). It is tempting at this point to apply to the global community the famous meta- phor of the orchestra, as used by Alfred Schütz to illuminate symbolic interaction. Schütz contends that in order to play good music, you not only have to be able to read the right notes, but always have to pay attention to how your colleagues play as well (1951, p. 94ff.). If you see the world as an orchestra, then it is not enough to co- orient yourself within a global framework, and synchronize yourself with the world, through observation and with the help of the media.You also have to enter into direct communication with the world.Cosmopolitanism as a value is good,but global communication as a practice is better. Discursive global society/ dialogic global community: theories of communication In contrast to global society, a global community entails more than the devel- opment of a common ethics, such as human rights and cosmopolitanism (Albert et al. 1996, p. 19, see also Etzioni 2004).These ethics can only arise through inter- active action at every level, making the transition from global society to global community an intrinsically communication-and dialogue- based project.To quote Emanuel Richter: [This project] finds expression in those ideas that may be classified as a ‘com- municative’model of global unity.This model elevates the near- revolutionary spread of communicative exchange processes within every area of life to the status of new, determining element of the global context … Expressed at the highest level of abstraction, this global community appears as a kind of ‘cog- nitive global society’, which glimpses nothing less than a new form of global unity in the universalization of communication.This system- theoretical take on notions of global unity thus throws into sharp relief that aspect of global society relating to the globalization of processes of communicative exchange. (1990, p. 277) Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Richard Rorty, Jürgen Habermas and Nancy Fraser have all articulated visions of a dialogic global community (see Linklater 1998, p. 85ff.). But the associated concepts have never been fleshed out with theor- etical precision, not least because of the fragmentation of the humanities and social sciences (Albert 2009). In addition to theorists of social communication, inter- national relations and political philosophy, media philosophers also offer valuable insights, as do theorists of communication and networks who seek to illuminate
- 37. 14 Theory of global communication the modern information and communication society,although they too have rarely referred to global conditions. One of the best- known media philosophers isVilém Flusser, whose cardinal distinction between discursive and dialogic communication lies at the root of our own theory building, which separates observation and inter- action in a similar way: To produce information,people exchange various existing pieces of informa- tion in the hope of synthesizing new information out of this exchange.This is the dialogic form of communication.To preserve information, people dis- tribute existing pieces of information in the hope that the information thus distributed will be better able to resist the entropic effect of nature.This is the discursive form of communication. (2000, p. 16) Jürgen Habermas too takes his lead from this fundamental distinction between interaction (or “communicative action”) and discourse, ascribing to interaction direct consequences for action, while discourse is a system of “possibly existing facts” in which the individual can understand and interpret information without any direct social consequences (1971, p. 21f.). In his media theory, Flusser described the existing imbalance in the modes of communication characteristic of modernity and called for an end to the primacy of text- based discursive communication.What human beings need, he contended, is a “communicative revolution”, the “shielding of humanity’s interests from the discourses that programme it” (ibid., p. 47).The spread of literacy in the modern era, the development of the printing press, the emergence of linear historiography and the great ideological narratives, including modern ideas of the nation state and modern wars, are closely connected in Flusser’s work (ibid., p. 56). In this process, the population becomes the “masses”, while the lifeworld is colonized.We might think Flusser’s language a little melodramatic and his emphasis on the repressive character of media discourses contradictory, given the indispensability, which he himself affirmed, of dialogue and discourse (ibid., p. 16). But the dualism of discur- sive and dialogic communication, as the basis of a theory of social communication, is evident in the work of numerous authors. Michael Giesecke is one of the most interesting scholars developing this intellec- tual agenda by tackling questions of media,dialogues,communication processes and communitization. Giesecke’s thinking is fundamentally anchored in the concept of communicative ecology as the interplay of different forms of communication (2002). Human communication is based on observation that is made possible by media as well as on direct interaction in the lifeworld. Disturbances and patholo- gies arise from imbalances that cause the interaction between the various types of communication to go awry (ibid., p. 35). His “myths of book culture” are a well- known case in point. Giesecke describes the modern culture of the West and the Enlightenment as overly text-and observation- centred. Had Columbus relied on the prevailing discourse of his time, Giesecke states, he would never have set off
- 38. Theory of global communication 15 in search of new worlds. Only direct observation –of the dead bodies of indi- genous North Americans and bamboo stems washed up on the coast of Western Europe –and interaction with like- minded people encouraged him to embark on his adventures (ibid., p. 114ff.). Giesecke sees the Internet in particular as an opportunity for a new vision of the information society, one that can restore the balance in the ecology of com- munication destroyed by monologic book and press cultures. This is not just a matter of reviving interpersonal dialogue, but above all of revitalizing group and multi- person dialogues. However, if we think through Giesecke’s proposal, it is open to question what the theoretical position of the group discussion ought to be, given the dichotomy of discourse and dialogue. Is group dialogue essentially an instance of the “repressive” distribution of medial knowledge that disseminates media agendas and discourses? Or does it facilitate creative appropriation and the interactive- dialogic interpretation of meaning? What is particularly interesting about Giesecke is that he includes the long- distance intercultural relationship in his analysis (ibid., p. 145ff.). He affirms that, in intercultural communication, the communicative mode of media observation has dominated for centuries, in other words, writing about and visualizing “others” rather than interacting with them. Observation rather than dialogic exchange was, of course,also the predominant mode in the colonial era,whose repercussions con- tinue to be felt today.According to Giesecke, in the Enlightenment we established a culture of curiosity but without real dialogue. By contrast, he describes dialogue as a medium capable of bringing out that which is “common to humankind”, and he considers the new digital media an effective remedy for our communicative failings, though he adds: Whatever the global village is supposed to be, it is not based solely on the Internet.We are connected not just by cables but by other media as well.The “global village” requires a range of media of interaction, cooperation and communication if it is to hold together and function. (ibid., p. 376) Integrationist systems theories There is comparatively little literature dealing specifically with international com- munication and communitization.A number of pioneers have,however,investigated the effects of world- spanning interaction on global communitization. The key authors here are those categorized by Howard Frederick as “integrationist systems theorists”, such as Karl W. Deutsch, Claudio Cioffi- Revilla, Richard L. Merritt, Francis A. Beer, Philip E. Jacob and JamesV.Toscano (1993, p. 202ff.).The focus of their studies, some of which were published as early as the 1960s, are the dynamics highlighted by the orchestra metaphor. International integration theory primarily measures the extent of interactions between units such as states and relates this to the volume of communication within society.The empirical basis for these early
- 39. 16 Theory of global communication investigations is usually the exchange of letters and contact by telephone, along with data on cultural exchange, as in the case of periods of study abroad. The hypotheses associated with this highly quantitative form of research are variations on the basic assumption that only an interactive rather than merely co- oriented and observing world can provide a stable framework for a world community. Karl W. Deutsch argues that the absence of communication between states does not necessarily lead to conflicts, but that the means of social communication must keep pace with the requirements of political, economic and social transactions in other fields (1970, p. 58). In other words, a lack of cross- border interaction does not automatically lead to conflicts (see also Rosecrance 1973, p. 136ff.; Beer 1981, p. 133) but Deutsch considers integration into larger communities, for example within the frame- work of the European Union or other international security- based communities unthinkable under such conditions of non- interaction. Deutsch is emphatic that political or economic integration of any kind will only be accepted if people experience this integration themselves; this is the only way to create a we- feeling (1970, p. 36). He underlines that such experiences are significant with respect to both political elites and society as a whole (he refers to a “favorite societal climate”, 1964a, p. 51). Integration theorists emphasize the connection between the image of another country conveyed by the media and human relationships between countries arising from interactions, such as the exchange of letters and telephone calls –today we would include the Internet and novel forms of travel (ibid., p. 54, 1964b, p. 75ff.). The integrationist systems theorists recognized early on that it is mostly wishful thinking to imagine that there is congruence between international political and economic relationships, on the one hand, and social interactions, on the other.To quote the work of one of the present authors, they acknowledged that “tectonic shifts”(Hafez 1999,p.54ff.) between relational levels are the norm: “Human relations are ... far more nationally bounded than movements of goods” (Deutsch 1964b, p. 84).We can understand secession, as with the end of British rule in the American colonies and the emergence of the United States in the eighteenth century, partly in light of communicative connections. Initially, the postal traffic between Great Britain and the individual colonies predominated.A few decades later, the picture had changed.The colonies were communicating more intensively with each other and social contacts with Britain were becoming increasingly sparse; the American Revolutionary War broke out shortly afterwards (Deutsch 1964a, p. 51).The inte- grationist systems theorists were also able to show that the multinational merger of European states after the Second World War increased the quantity of postal traffic and other interactions between countries, which in turn allowed the European idea to take its place at the heart of societies and enabled the elites to become increasingly integrated (Clark and Merritt 1987, p. 230ff.). Up to the present day, despite increased criticism of the European Union and the rise of neonationalist movements and right- wing populism, the European idea still commands majority support, even in Europe. Hypothetically, we could ask whether possible tendencies
- 40. Theory of global communication 17 towards disengagement or withdrawal from the EU might partly be due to the fact that there is still too little cross- border communication between certain areas (Northern and Southern Europe or Eastern and Western Europe) –quite apart from the lack of a shared European media- based public sphere. Dialogue between “cultures” in an extended lifeworld Regardless of whether we can always relate to the quantitative methods of earlier research (is the quality of some interactions not more important than the sheer number of letters, phone calls and e- mails?) or whether we wish to expand systems theory into a theory of action in the lifeworld, as in this book (see Section 1.2), the school of integrative systems theorists points us in the right direction.The fact that ideas about global integration emerged in social research of a political science hue shows that it is not so much the mass media as other social systems in politics, economy and society, as well as individuals and groups within lifeworlds, that are responsible for dialogic relations.The assumption that social communication is as important as political and economic exchange entails a revolutionary theoretical interpretation that makes communication a central resource of social science theory building on a par with economic relationships and power relations. Subsequent research in communication studies, such as that concerned with the “dialogue of cultures” or “Islamic- Western dialogue”, has focused chiefly on global media communication, notions of the enemy and images –strands of research that are undoubtedly legitimate in light of Flusser’s division of communicative modes into discourse and dialogue, but that tend to consider interactions at the margins (Quandt and Gast 1998; Hafez 2003b). Recent works of political philosophy on the global community do use the term“dialogue”in an interactive sense but ignore those dimensions of the problem identified by communication studies (Linklater 1998; Etzioni 2004). What we want to underscore explicitly at this point is that the “dialogue of cultures” has never been a satisfactory notion in theoretical terms because the synthesis of analyses of society and communication, as originally found in the work of systems theorists such as Deutsch, has been lost. 1.2 Communicative systems, lifeworlds and their transformation Systems and lifeworlds Having established a dual model –informed by theories of communication –of both an observing global public sphere and an interactive global community, we now ask which actors within international relations might serve as communicators. Before going into more detail about types of actor, however, we need to make a number of metatheoretical observations in order to prevent misunderstandings in the course of theory building. James N. Rosenau has described it as the task of glo- balization theory to keep in mind the micro-and macro- interactions of individuals
- 41. 18 Theory of global communication or states and organizations (2007). Saskia Sassen goes a step further and considers overlapping and reciprocal processes between actors to be crucial (2007). Not all theorists are so open to different actors, systems and the variety of interactions between them. There are, for example, radical theories of action such as that of Bruno Latour, who starts from the premise that the global is always local, since no matter where you are, you act locally, and we can portray even long- distance journeys as the sum of local stages, whose reconstruction he describes as the task of his specific form of actor- network theory (2014; see also Gerstenberger and Glasman 2016).Here the influence of observational systems,such as the mass media or other social systems, as mediating agents of (supposed) knowledge of the world that shape our actions,takes a back seat.From this perspective,then,global commu- nication is nothing but interaction between acting individuals. Such ideas recall the old dispute between systems and action theorists, though in this book we try to resolve this through an integrative perspective akin to that of Rosenau or Sassen, which takes account of different systemic logics and actors’ logics in systems and lifeworlds. The individual is never completely dominated by systems, even if their life requires them to take on roles that structure their life, but which they constantly breach or interpret independently, at both the formal and informal levels. Systems also influence people’s lifeworlds, yet they are influenced by them as well; or both these actors’ spaces may remain unconnected. In our analysis, we take into account the basic concepts of social theory, such as social action/ interaction, norms, roles, structures and systems (for an introduc- tion, see Bahrdt 1997). Finally, Habermas’s dualism of system and lifeworld is important here (1995), though one would have to clarify who is “colonizing” whom. In our view, however, a nuanced view of the communicative modes of systems and individuals (see Section 1.3) and their interdependencies (see Section 1.4) is indispensable. System-lifeworld-network approach A second preliminary remark is necessary. The concept of system used here is not a strictly functionalist one. While we confidently introduce communication processes as elements of theory building, we eschew a purely process- oriented form of theory building that turns actors, as communicators, into mere “objects” of abstract phenomena such as “networking”, “connectivities” and “communication flows”. Modern network theory tends to shift the emphasis from social actors to networks, with the internal logic of systems (such as organizations and businesses, but also individuals’ psychological systems) or lifeworlds receiving less attention than the networks and exchange relations that exist between systems or lifeworlds. The internal structures collapse, as it were, under the weight of networking. To quote Jan van Dijk: “Traditional internal structures of organizations are crum- bling and external structures of communication are added to them” (2012, p. 33). George Ritzer makes similar observations with reference to the process sociology
- 42. Theory of global communication 19 of Norbert Elias:“[F] ollowing Elias, in thinking about globalization, it is important that we privilege process over structure (just as we have privileged flows over barriers)” (2010, p. 25). We certainly foreground communicative processes in this book, but we pay attention to systems and lifeworlds as well. Networks are relationships within or between social systems (Endruweit 2004, p. 26), but they are not social systems themselves, which must therefore be taken into account. Our perspective is neither that of Latour’s actor- network theory nor that of Castells’s network theory but can best be described as a system-lifeworld-network approach.This is similar to the per- spective introduced by Roger Silverstone and developed further by Nick Couldry at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).Here the network metaphor is regarded as too theoretically unsophisticated for social theory, since it ignores actors’ interpretations of networks (Couldry 2006, p. 104). Couldry rightly refers to a “problematic functionalism”, to “acting as if media were the social and natural channels of social life and social debate, rather than a highly specific and institutionally focused means of representing social life” (ibid., p. 104). He rejects the “myth of the mediatized centre” and criticizes the tendency in communication studies to equate media with society (ibid., p. 105). German communication the- orist Manfred Rühl articulates similar views: Global communicative systems are embedded in psychological, organic, chemical, physical, in short, in non- communicative environments that ... contribute to the realization of communication without being part of it. Communicative systems must be clearly delimited, but not separated, from their environment. (2006, p. 362) The structural- functionalist systems theory rooted in the work of Talcott Parsons relates fast- moving functional processes to stable structures,on the“assumption of a system- immanent need for self- preservation, that is, for integration and continuity” (Kunczik and Zipfel 2001, p. 69). Even Niklas Luhmann does not ultimately deny the existence of such structures, though his “functional- structural systems theory” emphasizes the dynamism of processes and moves away from a Parsonian approach (Kneer and Nassehi 1997, p. 116). In the work of Parsons in particular, then, actors do not dissolve into networks, but remain recognizable as autonomous structures, even if they adapt functionally and can be influenced by (communicative) processes. Sociologist and Luhmann interpreter Armin Nassehi also takes his lead from a similar basic idea when he emphasizes the astonishing tenacity of social structures but also recognizes the growing complexity of modern (digital) communication, explicitly leaving open the question of changes in social structure resulting from such communication (2019). Network theorists, in contrast, assert the primacy of “relationism” over “substantialism” (Nexon 1999); they contend that processes are structures.
- 43. 20 Theory of global communication By contrast, we take the view that a meaningful analysis should assume the co- presence of systemic and lifeworld structures, on the one hand, and processes of communication, on the other, but must also be open to: • the possible interleaving of systemic and lifeworld structures (informal lifeworlds are also found in organizations, just as systems may be influential in lifeworlds) (Kneer and Nassehi 1997, p. 142f.); • the possibly dominant influence of structures with regard to processes of com- munication (strategic action); • the possibly dominant influence of processes of communication with respect to structures (communicative action). This whole debate is reminiscent of the dispute in the theory of international relations between neo- institutionalists (such as Robert O. Keohane and Joseph Nye) and functionalists (such as David Mitrany). Our system- lifeworld- network approach aims to drop the dualism of actors and functions in favour of a prag- matic perspective that leaves room for the possibility that functional (including technological) aspects of global mediatization processes may exercise a major influ- ence, while remaining alive to the possibility that systems and lifeworlds, as the two poles of global discourses and dialogues, may make a constitutive impact. Hence, the system- lifeworld- network conception chimes with our approach to a greater degree than pure neo- institutionalism or functionalism. Crucially, network theory can be combined with other theories,such as systems or lifeworld theory (Häußling 2005, p. 269ff.).We consider this form of “modular theory” a useful way of dealing creatively with the contradiction between structuralism and functionalism. Global centres and peripheries We need to make one final preliminary remark concerning postcolonialism. Anyone who emphasizes structures in their analysis must inevitably deal with the question of whether these structures require yet further differentiation,with regard, for example, to the relationship between industrialized and developing countries or between formerly colonized and colonizing states. Johan Galtung’s idea of a structural imperialism characteristic of global society, which forms (power) centres and (power) peripheries (1973), functions as a latent perspective in this book, for example, when it comes to the forms taken by discursive and dialogic structures in the context of specific formations, such as the OECD, the European Union, or geolinguistic entities, such as the Spanish- speaking or Arabic- speaking world. Nevertheless, we believe that such structural variables ought to be interpreted as universal rather than particular and certainly not as culture- specific. Both the internal communicative processes in systems and lifeworlds and the relations of interdependence between systems and/ or lifeworlds as environments (see p. 39ff.) reveal striking global similarities across the boundaries of political and cul- tural systems, whenever cross- cultural structural constructs such as nation states,
- 44. Theory of global communication 21 transnational companies,social movements,communities and lifeworlds are present. On this one point, then, we are on the same page as the proponents of relationism. Global structural differences reflect real disparities of power. But they are not abso- lute cultural differences: they are in fact subject to constant change as a result of the processes of global observation and interaction. Taking stock: globally communicating social systems and lifeworlds Following these preliminary remarks,we now seek to take stock of the actors engaged in global communication. Before attempting to describe complex lifeworlds, we can discern a variety of systemic entities: individuals as psychological systems as well as organized and non- organized social systems. Cross- border communication can arise between equal as well as unequal poles, that is, between political systems or between individuals and organized social systems,and so on.Depending on their specific modes of communication, such communication may primarily take the form of observation or interaction.Alternatively, and this will be of signal import- ance when we seek to define functions more precisely, cross- border communica- tion may engender hybrid forms, since very few systems and actors only observe or interact.There are, however, system- specific logics, the elaboration of which is one of this book’s key objectives. To provide a more detailed definition of actor- specific global modes of commu- nication, it is important to distinguish between individuals and both organized and non- organized social systems. Organized social systems not only have an organiza- tional idea,but also an organizational structure (Hauriou 1965),which distinguishes them from non- organized systems. Non- organized social systems are, for example, “communities” that feature an idea but no structure or organization (organizations can develop out of communities, but then we can no longer view them solely as communities, but also as organizations). Conversely, organizations always feature a notion of community,an informing template and an identity.In addition,organized social systems are action- oriented. Politics, as the dominant supersystem of society (Gerhards and Neidhardt 1990), is primarily responsible for establishing security and order, the economy is meant to secure material resources, while the media is tasked with the autonomous observation of all other systems, and so on. Media, politics and economy as (trans)national systems As a result of the specific logics of the individual systems, however, they form secondary transnational systems in very different ways (the United Nations, trans- national firms, transnational media, and so on), whose rules of communication differ from the border- crossing of national systems. Mass media tend to act as national (local) media systems that use“other countries”as an information resource, while the information processing takes place within a local media system that is equipped with its own organizational structures, staff and resources. The com- municative border- crossing of such national mass media is referred to as “foreign
- 45. 22 Theory of global communication coverage” (Hafez 2002a). So- called “international broadcasting” also consists of national media, but they reverse the flow of communication. BBC World, RT, Voice of America and many other such broadcasters produce content specifically for foreign audiences (which threatens their autonomy and often makes them a de facto part of the political system). In contrast, the media have developed transnational structures only to a very meagre extent. Most broadcasters regarded as international are actually national products with global ambitions (such as CNN) (Hafez 2007a, p. 12f.).This applies even to broadcasters like Arab television network Al- Jazeera,which have established themselves across borders in large geolinguistic regions such as the Arab world. International news agencies are still the most transnational entities because they provide information from and for most of the world’s countries. But because their input is subject to postproduction by the media, they should be viewed more as a media subsystem than as an independent media system. In the field of mass media, commercial structures may well be interwoven transnationally –but once the final stage of journalistic production has been reached,it is the nation state or at least the national language that predominates. As far as the contours of the political system are concerned, we must distinguish between two levels: the transnational system (the UN, the EU, and so on), which exists in rudimentary form, and the nation state. In the political sphere, the state communicates within the framework of transnational organizations,but it also has a history of diplomacy,of exchange between states,that goes back thousands of years, and this form of internationality and foreign policy is still dominant in international relations today. In response to the world wars, transnationalization advanced in the twentieth century, for example, in the form of the United Nations and collective security alliances such as NATO. In the present day, interactions take place within these transnational organizations as well as directly between independent states, both bilaterally and multilaterally. The dissolution of the nation state and the transnationalization of politics, as often anticipated in the early days of the globalization debate,did not occur,despite the existence of a number of multinational alliances (such as the EU) and inter- national governance regimes (such as the Kyoto Protocol in the environmental field) (Frei 1985; Brand et al. 2000).The nation state is still the primary locus of global politics. Because of this, we are chiefly concerned with foreign policy com- munication in this book. It is important to understand diplomacy as a process of communication in which interaction and dialogue play a key role in negotiations, and in some cases we can refer to trilogue, given the role of mediators.Acts of vio- lence or threatened acts of violence can also be a form of international communi- cation –but such acts tend to be monologic and unilateral.In addition,the political system is a core component of public communication. It observes, is observed by other systems and in lifeworlds, and influences the synchrony of the mediatized global public sphere. Much the same applies to the economic system. Here, too, incipient transnationalization has occurred, for example, in the form of major economic
- 46. Theory of global communication 23 institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, and international financial and trade agreements.There is also a well- advanced trend towards the establishment of trans- national corporations (TNCs), which are commonly referred to as “global players”. The second wave of globalization researchers, however, disputed the dominance of this development and the pre- eminence of the transnational in the economic system (Hirst and Thompson 1999). It would thus be wrong to view politics or the economy as purely cross- border forces.We should instead refer to simultaneous trends of global homogenization (in the sense of the global governance of the transnationalization of economic areas or companies) and national heterogenization (national politics and protectionism). Existing transnational company structures, however, open up a field of research in its own right. In contrast to the general picture within the field of politics, the key phenomenon here is not communication between systems, but internal communi- cation in cross- border systems, which proceeds according to special rules, since in principle the organizational goals and programmes no longer have to be negotiated and membership of a cross- border institution seems to be a settled matter. Here, the global integration that theorists such as Karl W. Deutsch sought to promote in the field of politics has already taken place.This might open up new horizons for multicultural communication and the idea of communality. Global civil society and large communities Beyond the political and economic systems, there are numerous organized social systems in society that may be globally networked. Global civil society has been much discussed since the 1990s (Anheier et al.2001;Kaldor 2003).The main actors in the debate were initially international non- governmental organizations (INGOs) such asAmnesty International,Greenpeace,and so on,in other words,organizations with roots in civil society that had developed into global network organizations: a parallel to transnationalization in the political and economic spheres.With the mass spread of the Internet, a second basic type of global actor emerged in the realm of civil society, namely social movements, such as the anti- globalization movement. Social movements are not member organizations,but hybrids of organized and non- organized social systems with an organized core –the so- called “social movement organizations” (SMOs) –and a loose community structure that is formed around a central idea and symbols (della Porta and Diani 2006).As we shall see,this structural distinction has consequences for modes of communication. NGOs and SMOs, for example,have different preferences when making use of mass media or social media. However, beyond their organized cores, social movements must be viewed as non- organized social systems/ communities.They consist of voluntary sympathizers, are fundamentally weak in organizational terms, and are thus based all the more on a central idea and a strong sense of unity among members.The idea of intellectual and emotional connectedness is usually more pronounced in social movements than in organizations. Their action orientation and function, however, are often unclear. Communities exist on a variety of levels, with a distinction typically being
- 47. 24 Theory of global communication made between traditional communities,such as the family or the village,into which one is born, and new instances of communitization (nation, associations, groups of friends, and so on). Communities function not just locally but also virtually,digitally,as online com- munities, ethnic communities, communities of solidarity, global communities, and so on. Large communities without an organization are primarily discursive com- munities and only to a very limited extent interactive ones. Not only do media help unify large communities by furnishing them with discursive resources, but there are also specific online communities whose (apparent or actual) interaction is becoming more and more dynamic.Thanks to the Internet, there is in fact a trend towards neo- communitization. Some commentators have referred, for example, to diaspora groups on the Internet, and every conceivable social difference can find expression in online communities.Virtual communities enable the individual to engage in the group dialogues highlighted by Giesecke (Rheingold 2000).Yet as we shall see, communicative behaviour in online communities should not be equated thoughtlessly with “dialogic interaction”, since behaviour in global spaces is radic- ally different than in the case of cross- border communication by individuals and in real-world groups. Global lifeworlds: a desideratum for “intercultural communication” To the systemic actors outlined above we must add actors and complex communi- cative processes in lifeworlds. Individuals and small groups too observe and interact across borders, even if they do not do so in the context of specific communities or organizations, but informally, and thus in a “real” space.The concept of the com- munity is thus complemented by that of the small group, since the group members’ personal contacts are absolutely necessary and –in contrast to the large commu- nity –identificatory and imagined assignations, chosen by oneself or others, do not determine membership. In the lifeworld, wherever we refer to “social life”, encounters in non- community groups are in fact typical (at the cinema, on the street, at the supermarket, and so on).We can clearly separate large communities from communal or non- communal small groups in as much as large communities, apart from special situations such as online communities or certain forms of com- munication between assemblages of individuals,cannot be interactive communities, which small groups generally are. With regard to the lifeworld contexts of individual,group-or community- based communication, the question we have to ask is whether a shift is taking place away from national/ local to global, that is, inter-or transnational lifeworlds. In light of the arguments we have developed so far, one crucial prerequisite for the emer- gence of “global lifeworlds” –beyond the individual observation of the world, for example, through media offerings –is the presence of a range of “intercultural communicative situations” in everyday social worlds. Due to conceptual disagreements, the research field of “intercultural communi- cation”, which might have seemed predestined to answer this question, has not yet
- 48. Theory of global communication 25 provided us with reliable findings.This is because the idea of the individual as the bearer of a particular, objectified “culture” remains a widespread paradigm in this field (see,for example,Maletzke 1996;Hofstede et al.2010).This,however,is highly problematic, as it allows the individual no room for independent feats of com- munication and affirms essentialist ideas about cultural areas, according to which individuals within a national or even supranational social order have identical sets of interpretations of the world and scarcely differ in their behavioural patterns. It is true that individuals in groups and communities share certain local experiential contexts that mould their action, and they may well be co- oriented as a result of their shared observation of national media discourses.But to straightforwardly iden- tify fundamentally different, nationally determined forms of communication with various parts of the world is empirically and theoretically untenable in view of the diversity of human lifeways.In line with the integrationist ideas discussed above,it is in fact politically dangerous if we inadvertently adopt a problem- oriented perspec- tive on cross- border understanding and assume that there are differences,sometimes of an insurmountable nature, hampering communication (Hansen 2011, pp. 179ff., 251ff., see also Chapter 7. Section 7.2.1). It is surely clear in principle that individ- uals with different cultural, social and geolinguistic socialization experiences can overcome differences in the context of global interaction.The question is, under what conditions,in what form and in association with which possible manifestations of change might this occur in everyday cross- border communication? But even if the concept of the “cultural” is sometimes a source of misunderstandings, it should not and cannot be abandoned entirely.We deal with cultural influences at many points in this book, for example, when considering stereotypical media images, public diplomacy or the interplay of global interaction, media and prejudices about groups. But we examine “culture” not as detached from the actor or from the communicative construction of culture, but through our system- lifeworld- network approach.Our understanding of culture is essentially consonant with that of the discipline of cultural studies and centres on concrete problems entailed in the assignment of meaning and in systems of symbolic clas- sification, as well as their everyday appropriation, production and deconstruction by specific social actors (Hall 1980). But these actors have to be reassessed in the context of global communicative relations in everyday life. Crucially, we will be distinguishing individuals with experience of global communication from those who lack it.This experience may in turn vary in many ways, in line with our clas- sificatory scheme of communicative modes, such that it has variable consequences for processes of change in local lifeworlds. Glocalization and hybridization of everyday action In the field of cultural theory, the dynamics of cultural change under conditions of globalization –as a phenomenon complementary to systemic change –have been described as “glocalization” or “hybridization” (see, for example, Hall 1992a; Nederveen Pieterse 1994, Robertson 1995; 1998; Appadurai 1998; Kraidy 2005;
- 49. 26 Theory of global communication García Canclini 2005).While these authors adopt a range of perspectives within sociology, anthropology and cultural studies and their arguments vary, all highlight the fundamental heterogeneity of processes of cultural change under the influ- ence of global developments. If people, ideas, symbols and goods can now circulate more and more easily at the global level, this does not imply a one- dimensional logic of change towards cultural alignment (homogenization) or a return to cultural traditions (heterogenization).These processes may well occur simultaneously. Rather than the adoption or rejection of cultural practices, hybrid forms often arise as cultural actors appropriate aspects of global offerings, displaying creative autonomy as they develop new variants.These hybrid practices have been discussed chiefly with reference to local responses to global popular culture. In the tradition of cultural studies,the key question is what the power- dependent options for action are, that is, how free local individuals actually are in their appropriation of global offerings –against the background,for example,of postcolonial power relations that can influence the extent and direction of their dissemination or in connection with the role of hegemonic local and global interpretive models, which may determine modes of representation and thus circumscribe opportunities for individual engage- ment and positioning. Research on cultural globalization, then, has clearly highlighted the everyday world of individuals, but it has not yet systematically explained their processes of communication. The appropriation of global media offerings describes just one, namely indirect or mediate, form of cross- border observation. Even if we some- times allow ourselves to be influenced by global trends in our everyday actions, this results at most in the synchronization of lifestyles,but not in cross- border dialogues. Media coverage of distant worlds, entertainment programmes with a similar format around the world, and global pop culture only provide us with some initial starting points for a selective knowledge of the world. Individuals may also interact globally in their lifeworld, for example, during private or professional trips or in the multi- cultural contexts of modern societies. The form taken by these communicative situations depends in turn on whether individuals have these experiences alone or in groups, for example, with family, friends or colleagues, in which commu- nity context experiential knowledge is embedded and how enduring the global contacts are. It makes a difference whether global knowledge remains within an individual’s professional role, as expert knowledge, or becomes an object of negoti- ation in a local community.What matters, therefore, is not just the roles entailed in, and the parameters of, individuals’ global interactions, but also the local processing of global knowledge that arises from a variety of contact situations and may be essentially explicit (as in the case of factual knowledge) or implicit (as with experi- ential knowledge). Old and new global “elites” within systems and lifeworlds All of this culminates in the question of the role of today’s global elites.An analysis of global communication must be about more than just identifying strategic elites
- 50. Theory of global communication 27 (within organized social systems) who help shape global developments through the interactions of social systems (as in early integrationist systems theory; see p. 15ff.). We must also explore which social elites shape lifeworlds today. If we include in this category those who have had experience of global contact, then this has implications for the conventional understanding of elites. This is because “global capital”, in the sense of knowledge that goes beyond the experience of reality within local lifeworlds, is a characteristic of groups and individuals who are rarely recognized as social opinion leaders. One example is migrants.While they are still exposed to social marginalization in the societies to which they immigrate,in prin- ciple, they have privileged experiences of border- crossing.“Old” and “new” elites must therefore be redefined under the conditions of global communication. As we proceed through the present book, our examination of global communication within the lifeworld will always include discussion of the positions of elites and “masses”. It is the individual, group and community- based global experiences of global elites, both old and new, that influence the development of societies and it is the communicative negotiation of global experiences that determines their social role and relevance. 1.3 Specific modes of communication (system connections) of systems and lifeworlds Actors’ modes of global communication: a continuum If we ask what forms of global communication are typical of actors, the first thing we will notice is that all relevant actors use a number of channels or media of com- munication simultaneously, including: • mass media communication • face-to-face communication • assembly and group communication • interpersonal mediatized communication. Characteristically, however, at each of these levels the key communicative diffe- rence, discussed above, between observation and interaction/ dialogue, is present to varying degrees.Subsystems and individuals within societies communicate in a var- iety of ways, but their capacity to observe and interact is more or less pronounced, as the continuum shown in Figure 1.2 attempts to illustrate. With the help of the continuum set out above, we can now determine, with reference to the basic modes of communication,specific primary and secondary commu- nicative modes characteristic of individual actors engaged in global communication, which are described in more detail in the course of this chapter. Mass media are good at observing, archiving and systematizing, and they are among the leading media engaged in the storing of collective memory. But they practise a monologic, one- to- many form of communication and are essentially non- interactive, even if
- 51. 28 Theory of global communication individual elements of mass media communication (research interviews,talk shows) are interactive in character –though this can be classified as a secondary mode of communication. At the other end of the continuum are individuals and small groups, and to a limited extent also large communities (especially in the form of interactive online communities), which are good at interacting and at dialogue, but not as good at observation as organized social systems because they lack the resources for it.They are,however,primed for“genuine”dialogues and shared interpretations of meaning in the course of face- to- face interaction.For example,the potential for direct obser- vation is limited during international travel: expert knowledge about the country a person is travelling in is generally only available with the help of social systems that provide systematized knowledge about the region through media and books. Conversely, despite language barriers there are opportunities for direct interaction without high transaction costs, and these opportunities are easier to realize than in the social systems that enable observation, such as the mass media, in which interaction is at best an element in the production of a journalistic text, but then gives way to a monologic form of communication as a result of the unambiguous producer- consumer relationship into which the text ultimately enters. Other organized social systems, such as the political sphere, the economy and NGOs/ social movements, are characterized by a high degree of hybridity with respect to their basic modes of communication. They have resources and com- petencies for world observation akin to those of the mass media. It makes sense that the ambassadorial system within the world of diplomacy and the system system of the mass media organized social system of politics (the state, and so on) organized social system of the economy (businesses, and so on) organized civil society (NGOs) non-organized civil society (social movements) large communities (online communities, and so on) small groups individuals interaction observation FIGURE 1.2 Actor- specific modes of communication
- 52. Theory of global communication 29 of correspondents within the world of journalism are structurally similar. Both institutions serve to obtain global information. International NGOs (INGOs) such as Amnesty International also produce reports around the world (for example, on the state of human rights). Furthermore, these social systems likewise engage in direct cross- border interaction as dedicated systems of action that not only observe but also seek to influence (diplomacy, foreign trade communication, and corporate and organizational communication in TNCs and INGOs). Global interactivity beyond the mass media? Overall, it is clear that among all actors observation and interaction are present in different forms, which can be traced back to the actors’ specific functions and objectives. Of course, our list of systems is not complete and can certainly be expanded to include, for example, the subsystem of science with its unique mix of global discourses and interactions.The diverse interactions between individuals and social systems, which represent “environments” for one another, will by no means be ignored and will in fact be the subject of a further step in our theory building on interdependence (see Section 1.4).In the first instance,however,we put forward the following working hypothesis.When we refer to the formation of global commu- nities (global communality) in today’s world, what we have in mind is not so much the mass media, whose primary task is to create a discursive global public sphere, as other interactive social systems, as well as individuals and their lifeworlds, in which interactive communality may in principle come into effect. It is probably no exaggeration to claim that,so far,globalization research has chiefly sought to analyse discourses, namely communication in the public sphere and media, while the analysis of interaction, especially when it comes to non- public communication in systems and lifeworlds, has rarely been the focus of theoret- ical or empirical studies.The fundamental question of whether social interaction can “migrate” within the process of globalization as discursive communication can thus remains unanswered.This means that the community dimension has also been ignored completely. A comprehensive assessment of globalization, however, must pay attention to all fields of communication. Synchronization of the global public sphere: the problem of the mass media How might we describe more precisely the processes of global communication char- acteristic of the three main types or dimensions of actors –mass media, organized social systems and lifeworlds? The main task of the mass media is to create non- interactive discourses.There are of course exceptions, such as talk shows, corporate media blogs, and so on, but the core function of the mass media is still to structure topics and organize discourse, otherwise journalism would mutate into public/ civic journalism, that is, into media (co- )designed by citizens (Merritt 1998; Rosen 1999), which tends to be the preserve of social media and online communities
- 53. 30 Theory of global communication (Forster 2006). Furthermore, as Tanjev Schultz has rightly stated with reference to Germany, major talk shows focused on specifically global topics account for a neg- ligible proportion of media production, such that interactive formats are of minor importance in the context of foreign coverage as elsewhere (2006, p. 169). In mass media, the production of texts functions more discursively than dialogically due to the limited selection of propositions about society, some but not all of which are considered in relation to one another.This is inevitable, since the mere reproduc- tion of the talk of billions of people across the world would result in a vast, unman- ageable cacophony, such that so- called “gatekeeping” and selectivity are among the basic principles of editorial work.The media are not an arena in which everyone talks to everyone else. Instead, a small number of individuals observe a vastly larger number and communicate by means of and about texts. In creating discourses, the mass media –at least under democratic parameters – pursues an autonomous agenda informed by a combination of media ethics and publishing programmes or broadcasting mandates.The roles ascribed to the media vary depending on whether, for example, we privilege democratic objectives (such as the creation of a deliberative, rational public sphere) or make functionalist assumptions (with respect, for example, to the structuring of themes, including through entertainment) (Hafez 2010b). The main task of the media, following Niklas Luhmann, is to create a difference between oneself and one’s environment, which we might describe as the intrinsic function of a system (Hafez 2002a, vol. 1, p. 124ff.).At first sight, the autonomy of the mass media makes it look like a self- contained system that observes the world in an independent manner.Of course,the autonomy of the mass media does not mean autarky. Media are influenced at the micro- , meso-and macro- levels and by the political, economic and cultural envir- onment (ibid.).They are embedded in a complex web of environmental influences and exist in a state of “dynamic equilibrium” in relation to their environment (Kunczik 1984, p. 205ff., 212ff.; Hafez 2002a, vol. 1, p. 124ff.), which repeatedly compels them to adapt,as we will be discussing later (see Section 1.4).First,though, this section scrutinizes the autonomous role of the media. If autonomous observation is the primary mode of the mass media, then the key issue on a global scale is the “synchronization” of its feats of observation.The transnationalization of the media system must be the ultimate expression of a rational global public sphere that seeks to co- orient the world’s citizens, a global public sphere whose participants are supposed to be provided with knowledge about the world. Luhmann’s idea of autonomous systems between which we can differentiate related to social systems such as politics or the economy, not to other media in other countries.The mass media has to be independent of politics and the economy; but it does not necessarily have to come to different conclusions than other media in other countries.In principle,it seems to make sense to see the world as other people in the world and their media see it –the rational reconciliation of all meaningful frames and discourses is the hallmark of the “global village” thesis, which highlights intimate knowledge of the world. In fact, in the spirit of the first wave of globalization theory and the radical idea of a global public sphere, we must
- 54. Theory of global communication 31 in principle be able to view the mass media of this world as a single system that no longer stops at national borders. Yet this points us to the core problem of global media communication. Is it capable of a high degree of synchronization and globalization? In the second wave of globalization research, a number of scholars, including one of the authors of this book (Hafez), questioned whether discourses were being homogenized due to enhanced observation by the mass media.They pointed out that, even with respect to the same event, the attention paid to it and the journalistic treatment it receives often differ fundamentally in the individual national media systems, as we will examine in more detail later in this book.These scholars emphasized the prevailing domestication of foreign coverage across the world (Hafez 2002a, vol. 1, p. 24ff., 2007a; Flew 2007; Stanton 2007; Ulrich 2016; see also Williams 2011, p. 21ff.). In contrast, some studies have underlined synchrony as a result of medial border- crossing (Fraser 2014; Volkmer 2014). Local- global multi- level media- based public sphere(s) To avoid succumbing to the unproductive dogmatism often engendered by rival schools of thought, we now attempt to establish a transformative concept of local- global public sphere(s).The primary focus here remains on national foreign coverage, with its tendency towards domestication.Yet this foreign coverage within particular nations does feature a certain, albeit limited, degree of calibration with global discourses, an effect that has been described elsewhere as a tip- of- the- ice- berg phenomenon (Hafez 2011, p. 484).This is still far from the ideal of the total synchronization of all discourses, topics and frames of the kind that might typify a world shaped by truly transnational media (Wessler et al. 2008, p. 15f.; Splichal 2012, p. 149). In addition, an initial form of cross- border transnationalization of production contexts may occur in homogeneous linguistic areas (as exemplified by Al- Jazeera for many years now in the Arab world). Recently, technological access to foreign and foreign- language media has enabled consumers, above all, a multilingual infor- mational elite, to enjoy comparative access to different national media systems, which allows the simulation problem to persist at the production level but solves it at the recipient level (see Figure 1.3).In Chapter 2 on mass media,we will examine the various levels of global mass communication in order to shed meaningful light on the synchrony of global media observation. Global organizational communication between discourse and interaction Communication processes in other organized and non- organized social systems must be investigated using different theories than in the case of the media. The theoretical challenges mount in tandem with the diversity of actors because there is no single theory capable of grasping their communicative action. In principle,
- 55. Random documents with unrelated content Scribd suggests to you:
- 56. "It draws the space into an uncommon narrow nutshell. When Bede Greatorex leaves at half-past seven, Ollivera is alive and well--as he and Jones's nephew both testify to--and, according to the evidence of the surgeon, and the negative testimony of the oil in the lamp, he is dead by eight. If he did not draw the pistol on himself, somebody came in and shot him. "Did he draw it on himself? I say Yes. Coroner and jury say Yes. The public say Yes. Alletha Rye and the Reverend Ollivera say No. If we are all wrong--and I don't say but that there's just a loophole of possibility of it--and them two are right, why then it was murder. And done with uncommon craftiness. Let's look at the writing. "Those high-class lawyers are not good for much in criminal cases, can't see an inch beyond their noses; they don't practise at the Old Bailey, they don't," remarked Mr. Butterby, as he took from the papers before him the unfinished note found on Mr. Ollivera's table, the loan of which he had begged from Frank Greatorex. "The idea of their proposing to destroy this, because 'they couldn't bear to look at it!' Kene, too; and Bede Greatorex! they might have known better. I'll take care of it now." Holding it close to one of the candles, the detective scanned it long and intently, comparing the concluding words, uneven, blotted, as if written with an agitated hand, with the plain collected characters of the lines that were undoubtedly Mr. Ollivera's. When he did arrive at a conclusion it was a summary one, and he put down the paper with an emphatic thump. "May I be shot myself if I believe the two writings is by the same hand!" Mr. Butterby's surprise may plead excuse for his grammar. He had never, until this moment, doubted that the writing was all done by one person.
- 57. "I'll show this to an expert. People don't write the same at all times; they'll make their capitals quite different in the same day, as anybody with any experience knows. But they don't often make their small letters different--neither do men study to alter their usual formation of letters when about to shoot themselves; the pen does its work then, spontaneous; naturally. These small letters are different, several of them, the r, the p, the e, the o, the d; all them are as opposite as light and dark, and I don't think the last was written by Mr. Ollivera." It was a grave conclusion to come to; partially startling even him, who was too much at home with crime and criminals to be startled easily. "Let's assume that it is so for a bit, and see how it works that way," resumed the officer. "We've all been mistaken, let's say; Ollivera, did not shoot himself, someone goes in and shoots him. Was it man or woman; was it an inmate of the house, or not an inmate? How came it to be done? what was the leading cause? Was the pistol (lying convenient on the table) took up incidental in the course of talking and fired by misadventure?--Or did they get to quarrelling and the other shot him of malice?--Or was it a planned, deliberate murder, one stealing in to do it in cold blood? Halt a bit here, Jonas Butterby. The first--done in misadventure? No: if any honest man had so shot another, he'd be the first to run out and get a doctor to him. No. Disposed of. The second--done in malice during a quarrel? Yes; might have been. The third--done in planned deliberation? That would be the most likely of all, but for the fact (very curious fact in the supposition) of the pistol's having been Mr. Ollivera's, and put (so to say) ready there to hand. Looking at it in either of these two views, there's mystery. The last in regard to the point now mentioned; the other in regard to the secrecy with which the intruder must have got in. If that dratted girl had been at her post indoors, as she ought to have been, with the chain of the door up, it might never have happened," concluded Mr. Butterby, with acrimony.
- 58. "Between half-past seven and eight? Needn't look much before or much beyond that hour. Girl says nobody went into the house at all, except Jones's nephew and Jones's sister-in-law. Jones's nephew did not stay; he got his book and went off again at half-past seven, close on the heels of Bede Greatorex, Mr. Ollivera being then alive. Presently, nearer eight, Alletha Rye goes in, for a pattern, she says, and she stays upstairs, according to the girl's statement, a quarter of an hour." Mr. Butterby came to a sudden pause. He faced the fire now, and sat staring into it as if he were searching for what he could not see. "It does not take a quarter of an hour to get a pattern. I should say not. And there was her queer dream, too. Leastways, the queer assertion that she had a dream. Dreams, indeed!--moonshine. Did she invent that dream as an excuse for having gone into the room to find him? And then look at her persistence from the first that it was not a suicide! And her queer state of mind and manners since! Dicky Jones told me last night when I met him by the hop-market, that she says she's haunted by Mr. Ollivera's spirit. Why should she be, I wonder? I mean, why should she fancy it? It's odd; very odd. The young woman, up to now, has always shown out sensible, in the short while this city has known her. "That Godfrey Pitman," resumed the speaker. "The way that man's name got brought up by the servant-girl was sudden. I should like to know who he is, and what his business might have been. He was in hiding; that's what he was. Stopping indoors for a cold and relaxed throat! No doubt! But it does not follow that because he might have been in some trouble of his own, he had anything to do with the other business; and, in fact, he couldn't have had, leaving by the five o'clock train for Birmingham. So we'll dismiss him. "And now for the result?" concluded Mr. Butterby, with great deliberation. "The result is that I feel inclined to think the young parson may be right in saying it was not a suicide. What it was, I
- 59. can't yet make my mind up to give an opinion upon. Suppose I inquire into things a bit in a quiet manner?--and, to begin with, I'll make a friendly call on Dicky Jones and madam. She won't answer anything that it does not please her to, and it never pleases her to be questioned; on the other hand, what she does choose to say is to be relied upon, for she'd not tell a lie to save herself from hanging. As to Dicky--with that long tongue of his, he can be pumped dry." Mr. Butterby locked up his papers, changed his ornamental coat for a black one, flattened down the coal on his fire, blew out the candles, took his hat, and went away.
- 60. CHAPTER VI. GODFREY PITMAN. Mrs. Jones was in her parlour, doing nothing: with the exception of dropping a tart observation from her lips occasionally. As the intelligent reader cannot have failed to observe, tartness in regard to tongue was essentially an element of Mrs. Jones's nature; when anything occurred to annoy her, its signs increased four-fold; and something had just happened to annoy her very exceedingly. The parlour was not large, but convenient, and well fitted-up. A good fire burnt in the grate, throwing its ruddy light on the bright colours of the crimson carpet and hearthrug; on the small sideboard, with its array of glass; on the horsehair chairs, on the crimson cloth covering the centre table, and finally on Mrs. Jones herself and on her sister. Mrs. Jones sat at the table, some work before her, in the shape of sundry packages of hosiery, brought in from the shop to be examined, sorted, and put to rights. But she was not doing it. Miss Rye sat on the other side the table, stitching the seams of a gown- body by the light of the moderator lamp. The shop was just closed. It had happened that Dicky Jones, about tea-time that evening, had strayed into his next-door neighbour's to get a chat: of which light interludes to business Dicky Jones was uncommonly fond. The bent of the conversation fell, naturally enough, on the recent calamity in Mr. Jones's house: in fact, Mr. Jones found his neighbour devouring
- 61. the full account of it in the Friday evening weekly newspaper, just damp from the press. A few minutes, and back went Dicky to his own parlour, his mouth full of news: the purport of which was that the lodger, Godfrey Pitman, who had been supposed to leave the house at half-past four, to take the Birmingham train, did not really quit it until some two or three hours later. It had not been Mrs. Jones if she had refrained from telling her husband to hold his tongue for a fool; and of asking furthermore whether he had been drinking or dreaming. Upon which Dicky gave his authority for what he said. Their neighbour, Thomas Cause, had watched the lodger go away later, with his own eyes. Mr. Cause, a quiet tradesman getting in years, was fetched in, and a skirmish ensued. He asserted that he had seen the lodger come out of the house and go up the street by lamplight, carrying his blue bag; and he persisted in the assertion, in spite of Mrs. Jones's tongue. She declared he had not seen anything of the sort; that either his spectacles or the street lights had deceived him. And neither of them would give in to the other. Leaving matters in this unsatisfactory state, the neighbour went out again. Mrs. Jones exploded a little, and then had leisure to look at her sister, who had sat still and silent during the discussion. Still and silent she remained; but her face had turned white, and her eyes wore a wild, frightened expression. "What on earth's the matter with you?" demanded Mrs. Jones. "Nothing," said Miss Rye, catching hold of her work with nervous, trembling fingers. "Only I can't bear to hear it spoken of." "If Mr. Pitman didn't go away till later, that accounts for the tallow- grease in his room," suddenly interposed Susan Marks, who, passing into the parlour, caught the thread of the matter in dispute. Mrs. Jones turned upon her. "Tallow-grease!"
- 62. "I didn't see it till this afternoon," explained the girl. "With all the commotion there has been in the house, I never as much as opened the room-door till today since Mr. Pitman went out of it. The first thing I see was the carpet covered in drops of tallow-grease; a whole colony of them: and I know they were not there on the Monday afternoon. They be there still." Mrs. Jones went upstairs at once, the maid following her. Sure enough the grease drops were there. Some lay on the square piece of carpet, some on the boarded floor; but all were very near together. The candlestick and candle, from which they had no doubt dropped, stood on the wash-hand-stand at Mrs. Jones's elbow, as she wrathfully gazed. "He must have been lighting of his candle sideways," remarked the girl to her mistress; "or else have held it askew while hunting for something on the floor. If he stopped as late as old Cause says, why in course he'd need a candle." Mrs. Jones went down again, her temper by no means improved. She did not like to be deceived or treated as though she were nobody; neither did she choose that her house should be played with. If the lodger missed his train (as she now supposed he might have done) and came back to wait for a later one, his duty was to have announced himself, and asked leave to stay. In spite, however, of the tallow and of Mr. Cause, she put but little faith in the matter. Shortly after this there came a ring at the side-door, and Mr. Butterby's voice was heard in the passage. "Don't say anything to him about it," said Miss Rye hastily, in a low tone. "About what?" demanded Mrs. Jones, aloud. "About that young man's not going away as soon as we thought he did. It's nothing to Butterby."
- 63. There was no time for more. Mr. Butterby was shown in and came forward with a small present for Mrs. Jones. It was only a bunch of violets; but Mrs. Jones, in spite of her tartness, was fond of flowers, and received them graciously: calling to Susan to bring a wine-glass of water. "I passed a chap at the top of High Street with a basketfull; he said he'd sold but two bunches all the evening, so I took a bunch," explained Mr. Butterby. "It was that gardener's man, Reed, who met with the accident and has been unfit for work since. Knowing you liked violets, Mrs. Jones, I thought I'd just call in with them." He sat down in the chair, offered him, by the fire, putting his hat in the corner behind. Miss Rye, after saluting him, had resumed work, and sat with her face turned to the table, partially away from his view; Mrs. Jones, at the other side of the table, faced him. "Where's Jones?" asked Mr. Butterby. "Jones is off, as usual," replied Jones's wife. "No good to ask where he is after the shop's shut; often not before it." It was an unlucky question, bringing back all the acrimony which the violets had partially soothed away. Mr. Butterby coughed, and began talking of recent events in a sociable, friendly manner, just as if he had been Mrs. Jones's brother, and never in his life heard of so rare an animal as a detective. "It's an uncommon annoying thing to have had happen in your house, Mrs. Jones! As if it couldn't as well have took place in anybody else's! There's enough barristers lodging in the town at assize time, I hope. But there! luck's everything. I'd have given five shillings out of my pocket to have stopped it." "So would I; for his sake as well as for mine," was Mrs. Jones's answer. And she seized one of the parcels of stockings and jerked off the string.
- 64. "Have you had any more dreams, Miss Rye?" "No," replied Miss Rye, holding her stitching closer to the light for a moment. "That one was enough." "Dreams is curious things; not to be despised," observed crafty Mr. Butterby; than whom there was not a man living despised dreams, as well as those who professed to have them, more than he. "But I've knowed so-called dreams to be nothing in the world but waking thoughts. Are you sure that one of yours was a dream, Miss Rye?" "I would rather not talk of it, if you please," she said. "Talking cannot bring Mr. Ollivera back to life." "What makes you persist in thinking he did not kill himself?" Mr. Butterby had gradually edged his chair forward on the hearthrug, so as to obtain a side view of Miss Rye's face. Perhaps he was surprised, perhaps not, to see it suddenly flush, and then become deadly pale. "Just look here, Miss Rye. If he did not do it, somebody else did. And I should like to glean a little insight as to whether or not there are grounds for that new light, if there's any to be gleaned." "Why, what on earth! are you taking up that crotchet, Butterby?" The interruption came from Mrs. Jones. That goes without telling, as the French say. Mr. Butterby turned to warm his hands at the blaze, speaking mildly enough to disarm an enemy. "Not I. I should like to show your sister that her suspicions are wrong: she'll worrit herself into a skeleton, else. See here: whatever happened, and however it happened, it must have been between half-past seven and eight. You were in the place part of that half- hour, Miss Rye, and heard nobody."
- 65. "I have already said so." "Shut up in your room at the top of the house; looking for--what was it?--a parcel?" "A pattern--a pattern of a sleeve. But I had to open parcels, for I could not find it, and stayed searching. It had slipped between one drawer and another at the back." "It must have took you some time," remarked Mr. Butterby, keeping his face on the genial fire and his eyes on Miss Rye. "I suppose it did. Susan says I was upstairs a quarter of an hour, but I don't think it was so long as that. Eight o'clock struck after I got back to Mrs. Wilson's." Mr. Butterby paused. Miss Rye resumed after a minute. "I don't think any one could have come in legitimately without my hearing them on the stairs. My room is not at the top of the house, it is on the same floor as Mrs. Jones's; the back room immediately over the bedroom that was occupied by Mr. Ollivera. My door was open, and the drawers in which I was searching stood close to it. If any----" "What d'ye mean by legitimate?" interrupted Mr. Butterby, turning to take a full look at the speaker. "Openly; with the noise one usually makes in coming upstairs. But if any one crept up secretly, of course I should not have heard it. Susan persists in declaring she never lost sight of the front door at all; I don't believe her." "Nobody does believe her," snapped Mrs. Jones, with a fling at the socks. "She confesses now that she ran in twice or thrice to look at the fires."
- 66. "Oh! she does, does she," cried Mr. Butterby. "Leaving the door open, I suppose?" "Leaving it to take care of itself. She says she shut it; I say I know she didn't. Put it at the best, it was not fastened; and anybody might have opened it and walked in that had a mind to and robbed the house." The visitor, sitting so unobtrusively by the fire, thought he discerned a little glimmer of possibility breaking in amidst the utter darkness. "But, as the house was not robbed, why we must conclude nobody did come in," he observed. "As to the verdict--I don't see yet any reason for Miss Rye's disputing it. Mr. Ollivera was a favourite, I suppose." The remark did not please Miss Rye. Her cheek flushed, her work fell, and she rose from her seat to turn on Mr. Butterby. "The verdict was a wrong verdict. Mr. Ollivera was a good and brave and just man. Never a better went out of the world." "If I don't believe you were in love with him!" cried Mr. Butterby. "Perhaps I was," came the unexpected answer; but the speaker seemed to be in too much agitation to heed greatly what she said. "It would not have hurt either him or me." Gathering her work, cotton, scissors in her hands, she went out of the room. At the same moment there arrived an influx of female visitors, come, without ceremony, to get an hour's chat with Mrs. Jones. Catching up his hat, Mr. Butterby dexterously slipped out and disappeared. The street was tolerably empty. He took up his position at the edge of the facing pavement, and surveyed the house critically. As if he did not know all its aspects by heart! Some few yards higher up, the
- 67. dwellings of Mr. Cause and the linendraper alone intervening, there was a side opening, bearing the euphonious title of Bear Entry, which led right into an obscure part of the town. By taking this, and executing a few turnings and windings, the railway station might be approached without touching on the more public streets. "Yes," said the police agent to himself, calculating possibilities, "that's how it might have been done. Not that it was, though: I'm only putting it. A fellow might have slipped out of the door while that girl was in at her fires, cut down Bear Entry, double back again along Goose Lane, and so gain the rail." Turning up the street with a brisk step, Mr. Butterby found himself face to face with Thomas Cause, who was standing within the shade of his side door. Exceedingly affable when it suited him to be so, he stopped to say a good evening. "How d'ye do Cause? A fine night, isn't it?" "Lovely weather; shall pay for it later. Has she recovered her temper yet?" continued Mr. Cause. "I saw you come out." Which was decidedly a rather mysterious addition to the answer. Mr. Butterby naturally inquired what it might mean, and had his ears gratified with the story of Godfrey Pitman's later departure, and of Mrs. Jones's angry disbelief in it. Never had those ears listened more keenly. "Are you sure it was the man?" he asked cautiously. "If it wasn't him it was his ghost," said Mr. Cause. "I was standing here on the Monday night, just a step or two for'arder on the pavement, little thinking that a poor gentleman was shooting himself within a few yards of me, and saw a man come out of Jones's side door. When he was close up, I knew him in a moment for the same traveller, with the same blue bag in his hand, that I saw go in with Miss Rye on the Sunday week previous. He came out of the house
- 68. cautiously, his head pushed forward first, looking up the street and down the street, and then turned out sharp, whisked past me as hard as he could walk, and went down Bear Entry. It seemed to me that he didn't care to be seen." But that detectives' hearts are too hard for emotion, this one's might have beaten a little faster as he listened. It was so exactly what he had been fancifully tracing to himself as the imaginary course of a guilty man. Stealing out of the house down Bear Entry, and so up to the railway station! "What time was it?" "What time is it now?" returned Mr. Cause: and the other took out his watch. "Five-and-thirty minutes past seven." "Then it was as nigh the same time on Monday night, as nigh as nigh can be. I shut up my shop at the usual hour, and I'd stood here afterwards just about as long as I've stood here now. I like to take a breath of fresh air, Mr. Butterby, when the labours of the day are over." "Fresh air's good for all of us--that can get it," said Mr. Butterby, with a sniff at the air around him. "What sort of a looking man was this Godfrey Pitman?" "A well-grown, straight man; got a lot of black hair about his face; whiskers, and beard, and moustachios." "Young?" "Thirty. Perhaps not so much. In reading the account in the Herald this evening, I saw Jones's folks gave evidence that he had left at half-past four to catch the Birmingham train. I told Jones it was a mistake, and he told his wife; and didn't she fly out! As if she need
- 69. have put herself in a tantrum over that! 'twas a matter of no consequence." In common with the rest of the town, not a gleam of suspicion that the death was otherwise than the verdict pronounced it to be, had been admitted by Mr. Cause. He went on enlarging on the grievance of Mrs. Jones's attack upon him. "She'd not hear a word: Jones fetched me in there. She told me to my face that, between spectacles and the deceitful rays of street lamps, one, come to my age, was unable to distinguish black from white, round from square. She said I must have mistaken the gentleman, Mr. Greatorex, for Godfrey Pitman or else Jones's nephew, both of them having gone out about the same time. I couldn't get in a word edgeways, I assure you Mr. Butterby, and Dicky Jones can bear me out that I couldn't. Let it go, 'tis of no moment; I don't care to quarrel with my neighbours' wives." Mr. Butterby thought it was of a great deal of moment. He changed the conversation to something else with apparent carelessness, and then took a leisurely departure. Turning off at the top of High Street, he increased his pace, and went direct to the railway station. The most intelligent porter employed there was a man named Hall. It was his duty to be on the platform when trains were starting and, as the detective had previous cause to know, few of those who departed by them escaped his observation. The eight o'clock train for London was on the point of departure. Mr. Butterby waited under some sheds until it had gone. Now for Hall, thought he. As if to echo the words the first person to approach the sheds was Hall himself. In a diplomatic way, Mr. Butterby, when he had made known his presence, began putting inquiries about a matter totally foreign to the one he had come upon.
- 70. "By the way, Hall," he suddenly said, when the man thought he was done with, "there was a friend of mine went away last Monday evening, but I'm not sure by which train. I wonder if you happened to see him here? A well-grown, straight man, with black beard and whiskers--about thirty." Hall considered, and shook his head. "I've no recollection of any one of that description, sir." "Got a blue bag in his hand. He might have went by the five o'clock train, or later. At eight most likely; this hour, you know." "Was he going to London, or the other way, sir?" "Can't tell you. Try and recollect." "Monday?--Monday?" cried Hall, endeavouring to recal what he could. "I ought to remember that night, sir, the one of the calamity in High Street; but the fact is, one day is so much like another here, it's hard to single out any in particular." "Were you on duty last Sunday week, in the afternoon?" "Yes, sir; it was my Sunday on." "The man I speak of arrived by train that afternoon, then. You must have seen him." "So I did," said the porter, suddenly. "Just the man you describe, sir; and I remember that it struck me I had seen his face somewhere before. It might have been only fancy; I had not much of a look at him; he got mixed with the other passengers, and went away quickly. I recollect the blue bag." "Just so; all right. Now then, Hall: did you see him leave last Monday evening?"
- 71. "I never saw him, to my recollection, since the time of his arrival. Stop a bit. A blue bag? Why, it was a blue bag that--And that was Monday evening. Wait an instant, sir. I'll fetch Bill." Leaving the detective to make the most of these detached sentences, Hall hurried off before he could be stopped. Mr. Butterby turned his face to the wall, and read the placards there. When Hall came back he had a lad with him. And possibly it might have been well for that lad's equanimity, that he was unconscious the spare man, studying the advertisements, was the city's renowned detective, Jonas Butterby. "Now then," said Hall, "you tell this gentleman about your getting that there ticket, Bill." "'Twas last Monday evening," began the boy, thus enjoined, "and we was waiting to start the eight o'clock train. In that there dark corner, I comes upon a gentleman set down upon the bench; which he called to me, he did, and says, says he, 'This bag's heavy,' says he, 'and I don't care to carry it further nor I can help, nor yet to leave it,' says he, 'for it's got val'able papers in it,' says he; 'if you'll go and get my ticket for me,' says he, 'third class to Oxford,' says he, 'I'll give you sixpence,' says he: which I did, and took it to him," concluded the speaker; "and he gave me the sixpence." "Did he leave by the train?" "Why in course he did," was the reply. "He got into the last third class at the tail o' the train, him and his bag; which were blue, it were." "An old gentleman, with white hair, was it?" asked Mr. Butterby, carelessly. The boy's round eyes opened. "White hair! Why, 'twas black as ink. And his beard, too. He warn't old; he warn't."
- 72. Mr. Butterby walked home, ruminating; stirred up his fire when he arrived, lighted his candles, for he had a habit of waiting on himself, and sat down, ruminating still. Sundry notes and bits of folded paper had been delivered for him from his confrères at the police-station-- if Mr. Butterby will not be offended at our classing them with him as such--but he pushed them from him, never opening one. He did not even change his coat for the elegant green-tailed habit, economically adopted for home attire, and he was rather particular in doing so in general. No: Mr. Butterby's mind was ill at ease: not in the sense, be it understood, as applied to ordinary mortals; but things were puzzling him. To give Mr. Butterby his due, he was sufficiently keen of judgment; though he had made mistakes occasionally. Taking the surface of things only, he might have jumped to the conclusion that a certain evil deed had been committed by Godfrey Pitman; diving into them, and turning them about in his practised mind, he saw enough to cause him to doubt and hesitate. "The man's name's as much Pitman as mine is," quoth he, as he sat looking into the fire, a hand on each knee. "He arrives here on a Sunday, accosts a stranger he meets accidentally in turning out of the station, which happened to be Alletha Rye, and gets her to accommodate him with a week's private lodgings. Thought, she says, the house she was standing at was hers: and it's likely he did. The man was afraid of being seen, was flying from pursuit, and dare not risk the publicity of an inn. Stays in the house nine days, and never stirs out all the mortal time. Makes an excuse of a cold and relaxed throat for stopping in; which was an excuse," emphatically repeated the speaker. "Takes leave on the Monday at half-past four, and goes out to catch the Birmingham train. Is seen to go out. What brought him back?" The question was not, apparently, easy to solve, for Mr. Butterby was a long while pondering it.
- 73. "He couldn't get back into the house up through the windows or down through the chimneys; not in anyway but through the door. And the chances were that he might have been seen going in and coming out. No: don't think he went back to harm Mr. Ollivera. Rather inclined to say his announced intention of starting by the five o'clock train to Birmingham was a blind: he meant to go by the one at eight t'other way, and went back to wait for it, afeared of hanging about the station itself or loitering in the streets. It don't quite wash, neither, that; chances were he might have been seen coming back," debated Mr. Butterby. "Wonder if he has anything to do with that little affair that has just turned up in Birmingham?" resumed the speaker, deviating to another thought. "Young man's wanted for that, George Winter: might have been this very selfsame Godfrey Pitman; and of course might not. Let's get on. "It don't stand to reason that he'd come in any such way into a town and stop a whole week at the top of a house for the purpose of harming Mr. Ollivera. Why 'twas not till the Tuesday after Pitman was in, that the Joneses got the barrister's letter saying he was coming and would occupy his old rooms if they were vacant. No," decided Mr. Butterby; "Pitman was in trouble on his own score, and his mysterious movements had reference to that: as I'm inclined to think." One prominent quality in Mr. Butterby was pertinacity. Let him take up an idea of his own accord, however faint, and it took a vast deal to get it out of him. An obstinate man was he in his self-conceit. Anybody who knew Mr. Butterby well, and could have seen his thoughts as in a glass, might have known he would be slow to take up the doubts against Godfrey Pitman, because he had already them up against another. "I don't like it," he presently resumed. "Look at it in the best light, she knows something of the matter; more than she likes to be
- 74. questioned about. Put the case, Jonas Butterby. Here's a sober, sensible, steady young woman, superior to half the women going, thinking only of her regular duties, nothing to conceal, open and cheerful as the day. That's how she was till this happened. And now? Goes home on the Monday night at nigh eleven o'clock (not to speak yet of what passed up to that hour), sits over the parlour-fire after other folks had went to bed, 'thinking,' as she puts it. Goes up later; can't sleep; drops asleep towards morning, and dreams that Mr. Ollivera's dead. Gets flurried at inquest (I saw it, though others mightn't); tramps to see him buried, stands on the fresh grave, and tells the public he did not commit suicide. How does she know he didn't? Come. Mrs. Jones is ten times sharper-sighted, and she has no doubt. Says, next, to her sister in confidence (and Dicky repeats it to me as a choice bit of gossip) that she's haunted by Ollivera's spirit. "I don't like that," pursued Mr. Butterby, after a revolving pause. "When folks are haunted by dead men's spirits--leastways, fancy they are--it bodes a conscience not at rest in regard to the dead. To- night her face was pale and red by turns; her fingers shook so they had to clutch her work; she won't talk of it; she left the room to avoid me. And," continued Mr. Butterby, "she was the only one, so far as can be yet seen, that was for any length of time in the house between half-past seven and eight on Monday evening. A quarter of an hour finding a sleeve-pattern! "I don't say it was her; I've not got as far as that yet, by a long way. I don't yet say it was not as the jury brought it in. But she was in the house for that quarter of an hour, unaccounting for her stay in accordance with any probability; and I'm inclined to think that Godfrey Pitman must have been out of it before the harm was done. Nevertheless, appearances is deceitful, deductions sometimes wrong, and while I keep a sharp eye on the lady, I shall look you up, Mr. Godfrey Pitman."
- 75. One drawback against the "looking up" was--and Mr. Butterby felt slightly conscious of it as he rose from his seat before the fire--that he had never seen Godfrey Pitman in his life; and did not know whence he came or whither he might have gone. END OF THE PROLOGUE. PART THE SECOND. The Story. CHAPTER VII. IN THE OFFICE. The morning sun was shining on the house of Greatorex and Greatorex. It was a busy day in April. London was filling; people
- 76. were flocking to town; the season was fairly inaugurated, the law courts were full of life. The front door stood open; the inner door, closed, could be pushed back at will. It bore a brass plate with the inscription, "Greatorex and Greatorex, Solicitors," and it had a habit, this inner door, of swinging-to upon clients' heels as they went out, for the spring was sharp. In the passage which the door closed in, was a room on either hand. The one on the left was inscribed outside, "Clerks' Office "; that on the right, "Mr. Bede Greatorex." Mr. Bede Greatorex was in his room today: not his private room; that lay beyond. It was a moderate-sized apartment, the door in the middle, the fireplace opposite to it. On the right, between the door and the near window, was the desk of Mr. Brown; opposite to it, between the fireplace and far window, stood Mr. Bede Greatorex's desk; two longer desks ran along the walls towards the lower part of the room. At the one, in a line with that of Mr. Bede Greatorex, the fireplace being between them, sat Mr. Hurst, a gentleman who had entered the house for improvement; at the one on the other side the door, in a line with Mr. Brown's, sat little Jenner, a paid clerk. Sundry stools and chairs stood about; a huge map hung above the fireplace; a stone bottle of ink, some letter-scales, and various other articles more useful than ornamental, were on the mantel-shelf: altogether, the room was about as bare and dull as such offices usually are. The door at the end, marked "Private," opened direct to the private room of Mr. Bede Greatorex, where he held consultations with clients. And he generally sat there also. It was not very often that he came to his desk in the front office: but he chose to be there on occasions, and this was one. This side of the house was understood to comprise the department of Mr. Bede Greatorex; some of the clients of the firm were his exclusively; that is, when they came they saw him, not his father; and Mr. Brown was head-clerk and manager under him.
- 77. Bede Greatorex (called generally in the office, "Mr. Bede," in contradistinction to his father, Mr. Greatorex) sat looking over some papers taken out of his locked desk. Four years have gone by since you saw him last, reader; for that prologue to the story with its sad event, was not enacted lately. And the four years have aged him. His father was wont to tell him that he had not got over the shock and grief of John Ollivera's death; Bede's private opinion was that he never should get over it. They had been as close friends, as dear brothers; and Bede had been a changed man since. Apart from this grief and regret and the effect it might have left upon him, suspicions had also arisen latterly that Bede Greatorex's health was failing; in short there were indications, fancied or real, that the inward complaint of which his mother died, might, unless great care were used, creep upon him. Bede had seen a physician, who would pronounce no very positive opinion, but believed on the whole that the fears were without foundation, certainly they were premature. Another cause that tended to worry Mr. Bede Greatorex, lay in his domestic life. More than three years ago now, he had married Miss Joliffe; and the world, given you know to put itself into everybody's business and whisper scandal of the best of us, said that in marrying her, Bede Greatorex had got his pill. She was wilful as the wind; spent his money right and left; ran him in debt; plunged into gaiety, show, whirl, all of which her husband hated: she was in fact a perfect, grave exemplification of that undesirable but expressive term that threatens to become a household word in our once sober land--"fast." Three parts of Bede's life--the life that lay apart from his profession, his routine of office duties--was spent in striving to keep from his father the extravagance of his wife, and the sums of money he had to draw for personal expenditure. Bede had chivalric ideas upon the point; he had made her his wife, and would jealously have guarded her failings from all: he would have denied, had he been questioned, that she had any. So far as he was able he would indulge her whims and wishes; but there was one of them that he could not and did not: and that related to their place of dwelling. Bede had brought his wife to the home that had been his mother's,
- 78. to be its sole mistress in his late mother's place. It was a large, convenient, handsome residence (as was previously seen), replete with every comfort; but after a time Mrs. Bede Greatorex grew discontented. She wanted to be in a more fashionable quarter; Hyde Park, Belgrave Square; anywhere amidst the great world. After their marriage Bede had taken her abroad; and they remained so long there that Mr. Greatorex began to indulge a private opinion that Bede was never coming back again. They sojourned in Paris, in Switzerland, in Germany; and though, when they at length did return, Bede laughingly said he could not get Louisa home, he had in point of fact been as ready to linger away from it as she was. The Bedford Square house had been done up beautifully, and for two years Mrs. Bede found no fault with it; she had taken to do that lately, and it seemed to grow upon her like a mania. Upstairs now, now at this very moment, when her husband is poring over his law-puzzles with bent brow, she is studying the advertisements of desirable houses in the Times, almost inclined to go out and take one on her own account. A charming one (to judge by the description) was to be had in Park Lane, rent only six hundred a-year, unfurnished. Money was as plentiful as sand in the idea of Mrs. Bede Greatorex. You can go and see her. Through the passages and the intervening door to the other house; or else go out into the street and make a call of state at the private entrance. Up the wide staircase to the handsome landing-place already told of, with its rich green carpet, its painted windows, its miniature conservatory, and its statues; on all of which the sun is shining as brightly as it was that other day four years ago, when Bede Greatorex came home, fresh from the unhappy scenes connected with the death of Mr. Ollivera. Not into the dining-room; there's no one in it; there's no one in the large and beautiful drawing-room; enter, first of all, a small apartment on the side that they call the study.
- 79. At the table sat Jane Greatorex, grown into a damsel of twelve, but exceedingly little and childlike in appearance. She was writing French dictation. By her side, speaking the words in a slow, distinct tone, with a good and pure accent, sat a young lady, her face one of the sweetest it was ever man's lot to look upon. The hazel eyes were deep, honest, steady; the auburn hair lay lightly away from delicate and well-carved features; the complexion was pure and bright. A slender girl of middle height, and gentle, winning manners, whose simple morning dress of light cashmere sat well upon her. Surely that modest, good, thoughtful young woman could not be Mrs. Bede Greatorex! No: you must wait yet an instant for introduction to her. That is only Miss Jane's governess, a young lady who has but recently entered on her duties as such, and is striving to perform them conscientiously. She is very patient, although the little girl is excessively tiresome, with a strong will of her own, and a decided objection to lessons of all kinds. She is the more patient because she remembers what a tiresome child she was herself, at that age, and the vast amount of trouble she gave wilfully to her sister-governess. "No, Jane; it is not facture; it is facteur. We are speaking of a postman, you know. The two words are essentially different; different in meaning, in spelling, and in sound. I explained this to you yesterday." "I don't like doing dictation, Miss Channing," came the answering response. "Go on, please. Le facteur, qui----" "I'm tired to death. I know I've done a whole page." "You have done three lines. One of these days I will give you a whole page to do, and then you'll know what a whole page is. Le facteur, qui arrive----"
- 80. Miss Jane Greatorex suddenly took a large penful of ink, and shook it deliberately on the copy-book. Leaving them to the contest, in which be you very sure the governess would conquer, for she was calm, kind, and firm, we will go to an opposite room, one that Mrs. Bede called her boudoir. A beautiful room, its paper and panelling of white and gold, its velvet carpet of delicate tints, its silk curtains of a soft rose-colour. But neither Mrs. Bede Greatorex, who sat there, nor her attire was in accordance with the room. And, to say the truth, she had only come down from her chamber to get something left in it the night before: it was her favourite morning room, but Mrs. Bede was not wont to take up her position in it until made up for the day. And that was not yet accomplished. Her dark hair was untidy, her face pale and pasty, her dressing- gown, of a dull red with gold sprigs on it, sat loose. Seeing the Times on the table, she had caught it up, and thrown herself back in a reclining chair of satin-wood and pink velvet, while she looked over the advertisements. Mrs. Bede Greatorex was tall and showy, and there her beauty ended. As Louisa Joliffe, she had exercised a charm of manner that fascinated many, but she kept it for rare occasions now; and, they, always public ones. She had no children, and her whole life and being were wrapt in fashion, frivolity, and heartlessness. The graver duties of existence were wholly neglected by Louisa Greatorex: she seemed to live in ignorance that such things were. She never so much as glanced at the solemn thought that there must come a life after this life; she never for a moment strove to work on for it, or to help another on the pilgrimage: had she chosen to search her memory, it could not have returned to her the satisfaction of having ever performed a kind action. One little specimen of her selfishness, her utter disregard for the claims and feelings of others, shall be given, for it occurred opportunely. As she sat, newspaper in hand, a young woman opened the door, and asked leave to speak to her. She was the lady's-maid, and, as Mrs. Bede looked at her, knitting her brow at the request, she saw tears stealing down from the petitioning eyes.
- 81. "Could you please let me go out, madam? A messenger has come to say that my mother is taken suddenly worse: they think she is dying." "You can go when I am dressed," replied Mrs. Bede Greatorex. "Oh, madam, if you could please to let me go at once! I may not be in time to see her. Eliz a says she will take my place this morning, if you will allow her." "You can go when I am dressed," was the reiterated, cold, and decisive answer. "You hear me, Tallet. Shut the door." And the maid withdrew, her face working with its vain yearning. "She's always wanting to go out to her mother," harshly spoke Mrs. Bede Greatorex, as she settled herself to the newspaper again. "One; two; three; four; five. Five houses that seem desirable. Bede may say what he chooses: in this miserable old house, with its professional varnish, we don't stay. I'll write at once for particulars," she added, going to her writing-table, a costly piece of furniture inlaid with mother-of-pearl. The writing for particulars took her some little time, three-quarters of an hour about, and then she went up to be dressed; which ceremony occupied nearly an hour longer. Tallet might depart then. And thus you have a specimen of the goodness of heart of Louisa Greatorex. But this has been a digression from the morning's business, and we must return to the husband, whose wish and will she would have liked to defy, and to the office where he sat. The room was very quiet; nothing to be heard in it but the scratching of three pens; Mr. Brown's, Mr. Hurst's, and Mr. Jenner's. This room was not entered indiscriminately by callers; the opposite door inscribed "Clerks' Office," was on the swing perpetually. This room was a very sedate one: as a matter of course so in the presence of Mr. Bede Greatorex;
- 82. and the head of it in his absence, Mr. Brown, allowed no opportunity for discursive gossip. He was as efficient a clerk as Greatorex and Greatorex had ever possessed; young yet: a tall, slender, silent man, devoted to his business; about three years, or so, with them now. He wore a wig of reddish brown, and his whiskers and the hair on his chin were sandy. Bede Greatorex shut some papers into his desk with a click, and began opening another parchment. "Did you get an answer yesterday, from Garnett's people, Mr. Hurst?" he suddenly asked. "No, sir. I could not see them." "Their clerk came in last evening to say we should hear from them today," interposed Mr. Brown, looking up from his writing to speak. It was in these moments--when the clerk's eyes unexpectedly met those of Mr. Bede Greatorex--that the latter would feel a kind of disagreeable sensation shoot through him. Over and over again had it occurred: the first time when Mr. Brown had been in the office but a day. They were standing talking together on that occasion, when a sudden fancy took Bede that he had seen the man somewhere before. It was not to be called a recognition; but a kind of semi- recognition, vague, indefinite, uncertain, and accompanied by a disagreeable feeling, which had its rise perhaps in the very uncertainty. "Have we ever met before?" Mr. Bede Greatorex had questioned; but Mr. Brown shook his head, and could not say. A hundred times since then, when he met the steady gaze of those remarkably light grey eyes (nearly always bent on their work), had Bede stealthily continued to study the man; but the puzzle was always there. Mr. Brown's eyes and face were bent on his desk again today. His master, holding a sheet of parchment up before him, as if to study the writing better, suffered his gaze to wander over its top and fix
- 83. itself on Mr. Brown. The clerk, happening to glance up unguardedly, caught it. He was one of the most observant men living, quiet though he seemed, and could not fail to be aware that he was thus occasionally subjected to the scrutiny of his master--but he never appeared to see it. "Did you speak, sir?" he asked, as if he had looked up to put the question. "I was about to speak," said Mr. Bede Greatorex. "There's a new clerk coming in today to replace Parkinson. Nine o'clock was the hour fixed, and now it is half-past ten. If this is a specimen of his habits of punctuality, I fear he'll not do much good. You will place him at Mr. Hurst's desk." "Very good, sir," replied Mr. Brown, making no comment. The out- going clerk, Parkinson, had been at Jenner's desk. "I am going over to Westminster," continued Mr. Bede Greatorex, gathering some papers in his hand. "If Garnett's people come in, they must wait for me. By the way, what about that deed----" The words were cut short by a clatter. A clatter and bustle of feet and doors; someone was dashing in from the street in a desperate hurry, with a vast deal of unnecessary noise. First the swing-door gave a bang, then the clerks' door opened and banged; now this one was sent back with a breeze; and a tall fine-looking young man came bustling in, head foremost--Mr. Roland Yorke. Not so very young, either. For more than seven years have elapsed since he was of age, and went careering off on a certain hopeful voyage of his to Port Natal, told of in history. He is changed since then. The overgrown young fellow of twenty-one, angular and awkward, has become quite a noble-looking man in his great strength and height. The face is a fine one, good-nature the
- 84. predominant expression of the somewhat rough features, which are pale and clear and healthy: the indecision that might once have been detected in his countenance, has given place to earnestness now. Of regular beauty in his face, as many people count beauty, there is none; but you would scarcely pass him in the street without turning to look at him. In manner he is nearly as much of a boy as a grown man can be, just as he ever was, hasty, thoughtless, and impulsive. "I know I'm late," he began. "How d'ye do, Mr. Greatorex?" "Yes, you are late, Mr. Yorke," was the response of Mr. Bede Greatorex, submitting to the hearty handshake offered. "Nine was the hour named." "It was the boat's fault," returned Roland, speaking with loud independence, just as he might had he been a ten thousand a-year client of the house. "I went down to see Carrick off at eight o'clock, and if you'll believe me, the vessel never got away before ten. They were putting horses on board. Carrick says they'll lose their tide over yonder; but he didn't complain, he's as easy as an old shoe. Since then I've had a pitch out of a hansom cab." "Indeed!" "I told the fellow to drive like mad; which he did; and down went the horse, and I out atop of him, and the man atop-faced of me. There was no damage, only it all served to hinder. But I'm ready for work now, Mr. Greatorex. Which is to be my place?" To witness a new clerk announce himself in this loud, familiar kind of way, to see him grasp and shake the hand of Mr. Bede Greatorex: above all to hear him speak unceremoniously of the Earl of Carrick, one of the house's noble clients, as if the two were hail-fellow-well- met, caused the whole office to look up, even work-absorbed Mr. Brown. Bede Greatorex indicated the appointed desk.
- 85. "This is where you will be, by the side of Mr. Hurst, a gentleman who is with us for improvement. Mr. Brown, the manager in this room"-- pointing out the clerk with the end of his pen--"will assign you your work. Mr. Hurst, Mr. Roland Yorke." Roland took his seat at once, and turned up his coat-cuffs as a preliminary step to industry. Mr. Bede Greatorex, saying no more, passed through to his private room, and after a minute was heard to go out. "What's to do?" asked Roland. Mr. Brown was already giving him something; a deed to be copied. He spoke a few instructions in a concise, quiet tone, and Roland Yorke set to work. "What ink d'ye call this?" began Roland. "It is the proper ink," said Mr. Brown. "It's uncommon bad." "Have you ever been used to the kind of work, Mr. Yorke?" inquired the manager, wondering whether the new comer might be a qualified solicitor, brought to grief, or a gentleman-embryo just entering on his noviciate. "Oh, haven't I!" returned Mr. Yorke; "I was in a proctor's office once, where I was worked to death." "Then you'll soon find that to be good ink." "I had all the care of the office on my shoulders," resumed Roland, holding the pen in the air, and sitting back on his stool while he addressed Mr. Brown. "There were three of us in the place altogether, not counting the old proctor himself, and we had enough work for six. Well, circumstances occurred to take the other two out
- 86. Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world, offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth. That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to self-development guides and children's books. More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and personal growth every day! ebookbell.com