Abstract
In Digital Media Influence: A Cultivation Approach, author Andy Ruddock revisits cultivation theory, offering possibilities for its application in understanding and explaining digital media influence. Broadly, cultivation theory is conceptualized as media’s power to “define social reality,” affecting “how we act in the social world” (p. xiv). Ruddock connects cultivation to mediatization, or “the condition of living with digital media” (Hjarvard, 2013, as cited in Ruddock, 2020: xii). Scholars also live with media, meaning their social realities are likely influenced or “conditioned” by media to some extent (even if we may refuse to admit it). In particular, those who control the funding and publishing of media research remain influential figures in scholarly output. As such, Ruddock ultimately argues that the people, institutions, and powers that create, fund, and disseminate knowledge should be evaluated in tandem with that knowledge. By centering this narrative around George Gerbner, the scholar generally credited with postulating cultivation theory, Ruddock posits an unorthodox, yet effective theoretical argument. Instead of a dense, theoretical manual, this book is akin to the “great person” genre of historical writing (p. xiii). Effectively, Ruddock narrativizes Gerbner’s career and positions this narrative as vital for understanding critical interpretations and applications of cultivation theory in digital media research.
In support of the critical use of cultivation theory, Ruddock cites a variety of the expected source material, such as Gerbner’s long list of publications and other studies utilizing the theory. Ruddock also conducted several interviews with Gerbner’s former colleagues to fill in narrative gaps, such as with Larry Gross and Nancy Signorielli. However, the most enlightening source of information used in this book was the archive of unpublished work, personal and professional letters, and notes compiled from Gerbner’s 25-year run as dean of the Annenberg School of Communication (ASC) at the University of Pennsylvania. This archive also included material from Gerbner’s long tenure as editor of the flagship Journal of Communication (1974–1991) and from his time spent as personal confidant of Walter Annenberg, the media mogul and patron namesake of ASC. In other words, Ruddock draws on historical evidence to present an alternative portrait of Gerbner, specifically one of a burgeoning, quasi-critical cultural scholar, who was limited (and at times strong-armed) by the institutional, financial, and academic norms of his unique environment.
Ruddock then compares this historical evidence with Gerbner’s published works to both provide novel ways to utilize cultivation theory as well as to heavily criticize Gerbner’s connectedness to money and power in the media industry. Beginning with the former, for example, Ruddock examines mean world syndrome, Gerbner’s decades-old cultivation hypothesis that mass media perpetuate fear and cynicism (p. 21). Through a rather informal textual analysis, Ruddock demonstrates how mass shootings have become full-scale media events accompanied by these long-standing rhetorical scripts that convey fear and cynicism. Although quantitative content analysis was generally the methodology of choice for Gerbner, Ruddock was able to successfully utilize cultivation in a more qualitative manner. Ruddock continues this approach throughout the remainder of the book, using Gerbner’s work on hostile political rhetoric in analyzing former President Trump’s anger management issues and self-victimizing discourse online, for example. Other chapters investigate the mainstreaming of extremism in media, as well as the issues of representation that often coincide with this sort of polarizing content in the digital age.
However, Ruddock remains critical of Gerbner, arguing that the bulk of his formative research on cultivation was inseparable from the influence of Annenberg and the ASC. Most telling in this regard is Ruddock’s account of Gerbner’s epistemological shift after he stepped down as dean at ASC. Free from the restraints of Annenberg (including the copious amounts of funding that guided his scholarship), Gerbner was able to launch the Cultural Environment Movement (CEM). This sought to partner with media institutions to build an “inclusive media culture” (p. 87) and to “improve media literacy and motivate public interest in regulation” (p. 97), a decidedly critical venture. However, the project failed, providing a “cautionary tale on the political limits of industry-partnered critical research” (p. 87). It appears that Gerbner’s time in the academic spotlight was over when his funding and support were gone. Through this narrative, Ruddock shows that a history of cultivation theory is not only useful in describing ways of analyzing digital media influence, but also in its emphasis on studying the precarious nature of the “institutional guarantees that need to be in place to make for effective critical media work” (p. 113). Given the historic disparity in funding between critical cultural and social scientific communication research in many Western institutions, I cannot help but to agree with Ruddock in that effective critical work should be as free as possible from the various pressures and powers that influenced George Gerbner throughout his career.
In sum, Digital Media Influence includes a series of critical arguments in support of using cultivation theory for digital media research without ignoring the historically quantitative applications of the theory. As such, this book could introduce cultivation theory to a variety of scholars interested in the sociocultural influences of digital media. In particular, the diverse use of current examples strengthened this book’s argument. If the book was solely limited to a narrative of George Gerbner, it would have fallen short of its goal of inspiring cultivation’s use in digital media research. In addition, the historical approach used in this book to deconstruct cultivation theory also acts as a rough blueprint for revisiting other evergreen media effect theories in alternative methodological contexts. Another possible case study, for example, could be to pick apart the evolution of Albert Bandura’s “social cognitive theory” (Bandura, 1971, 1986), wherein one could investigate the funding that supported the theory, the institutional effects on and because of the theory, and any possible alternative methodological contexts in the application of the theory in digital media research. By drawing upon the arguments made in this book, readers may be better equipped to address a wider range of important issues relating to digital media influence.
