+1 914 979 2828
+1 914 979 2828

Phillis Wheatley vs Frederick Douglass on slavery

How would you compare Phillis Wheatley’s views on slavery to Frederick Douglass views on slavery?

Sample Solution

Opinions on Slavery

The concept of slavery has been of serious interest to scholars and academicians lately. According to Phillis Wheatley vs Frederick Douglass on slavery, the concept has been popular in explaining media influence on varied phenomena, yet very little attempts have been made to find its conclusive definition.  It is only in recent times that scholars have pondered to really wonder what this concept really implies.

The first application of the term mediatization was by Asp (1986) who, in the context of politics defined it as a situation when “a political system to a high degree is influenced by and adjusted to the demands of the mass media in their coverage of politics” (Asp, 1986:359). Other scholars later suggested that world communication is “media-twisted” to mean that every aspect of life is mediatised. This scholars basing mostly on politics insinuate that the media monopolizes the creation of political agenda as well as control of information to the masses. Krotz (2009) posits that mediatization is a gradual yet steady emergence and institutionalization of media in an ongoing, historical and long term process. It is a process that makes communication dependent and referring to media such that the media becomes a central player in individuals’ construction society, daily life and culture in general. Important to note is the fact that Phillis Wheatley vs Frederick Douglass concept on slavery has always revolved around the explanation of media impact on education, politics and culture as well as consumer culture, marketing and  research.

Phillis Wheatley vs Frederick Douglass on slavery

Although a new perspective, the mediatization of crises and disasters according to Hjarvard (2008) has been used to explain a myriad of phenomenon in the society is a new paradigm in the study of this concept. Again, in this process, Couldry (2008) notes an often neglected yet important confusion between mediatization and mediation. The comprehension of this confusion is pragmatically raised by Couldry (2008) on Phillis Wheatley vs Frederick Douglass discourse on slavery. He notes that in spite of the preference of the term mediation over mediatization among the Anglo-Saxon media scholars, the two terms must be understood as distinct from each other. Mediation ought to be comprehended as an impartial process of message transmission through the media. Far from mediatization, mediation does not entail the extent to which media influences perception and thus process related to the social, political or cultural happening at hand. However, Hjavard (2009) notes that the mediation of politics, disasters or crises is obviously a prerequisite of the mediatization of the process.

Slavery, in the case of crisis, defines the direction of public, government and international responses towards the crisis. Actually, the experience of crises, disasters and issues and the important facets of these situations in the current society are constructed by and propagated through the media – referred in the scholarly paradigms as the mediatization of crises. In addition, the mediatized communication logic (media logic) impacts on how the public comprehend through communication and experience the disaster as victims, victimizers, bystanders or witnesses. Jones (2011) notes that the media often creates impressions that end up either neglecting the victim while focusing too much on the victimizers and vice versa making the focused the [point of discussion of any public and individual comprehensions of the crises. In fact, Altheide (2009) notes that if it were not for mediatization, crises would never taken political dimensions in states but an objective and collective solution-seeking perspective.

Phillis Wheatley on Slavery

The concept of slavery has seen many theoretical approaches. Many researchers have related the concept to the modernity theory. According to Altheide (2009) the advent of the media is a central facet of the modern society development. The introduction of the print media (books, magazines, newspapers etc) in the 19th century gradually institutionalized the media as an authoritative means of passing messages and influencing the masses. This made the advent of other media such as audio, audio-visual and social media ready acceptable and respected as “the societal mirror.” These new mediated media have, in the perspective of this school of thought, accentuated the process of modernization and resulted in a near global amalgamation of culture – what other call “globalization.” This theoretical approach explains the rising use of mediatization in evaluating the role of the media social and cultural change.

Hjarvard (2008) notes that the media alters human communication in three ways: Firstly, the media extends communication abilities in both space and time; secondly, it replaces activities that earlier required the physical presence of the transacting individuals; thirdly, the media initiates a process of activities amalgamation (mediated media, face-to-face and media); and finally, different societal entities change in a bid to accommodate the media.

The mediatization theory has also been related to the medium theory posited by Hjarvard (2008). Both of these theories choose to give the reporting in the media an in-depth perspective other than the content and the news therein. Actually, Couldry (2008) even notes that the mediatisation the theory is a continuation of the media theory. However, Cottle (2005) contradicts this arguing that the medium theory and the mediatisation theories although related differ in scope and the level of critical consideration. Nevertheless, they both take note of the varied forms of media presentation and their impact on the societal interpersonal communication. Krotz (2009) warns about this correlation saying that it might result in de-contextualizing the mediatisation theory. He then proceeds that medium theory tends to believe that the new technologies such as TV and the print media are outright responsible for a new culture. It thus focuses in the mingling of culture and the social paradigms with technological advancements in the communication sector. Mediatization on the contrary should particularly committed to empirical analysis including the critical review of the mediatisation process amongst varied sub-populace within the world population (Hjavard, 2009). Substitution, extension, accommodation and amalgamation are thus central processes in a mediatisation regime and the sociological, cultural and historical analyses are only used for validation reasons.

 Frederick Douglass on slavery

Other researchers have also approached the mediatisation theory from the perspective of postmodernism.  These scholars (Cottle, 2005; Hjavard, 2009) view mediatization as the  face of the postmodern situation where media instigates the augmentation of a novel consciousness and cultural order. In his analysis of the art in the postmodern era, Krotz (2009) notes that mediatisation establishes a system that compels a new artistic media hierarchy and assign novel properties of self-reflection to these hierarchies. Baudrillard (1994) probably gives the most far-reaching connection between postmodernism and mediatization. He perceives the media signs and symbols (sounds, images, advertisement etc) to create a simulacra facade of reality that seems more real that the social and physical reality and eventually replaces this reality. To clarify it, Baudrillard (1994) compares it to a map that suddenly becomes more vivid and real that the globe it was built to represent.

The most radical linkage between mediatization and postmodernism is found in the work of, who perceives the symbols or signs of media culture – images, sound, advertisements, etc. – to form simulacra, semblance of reality that not only seem more real than the physical and social reality, but also replace it. It is like a map of the world that has become so vivid, so detailed and comprehensive that it appears more real than the world it was created to represent. The media is thus a literal representation of a “hyperreality.” In his own words,