my uni media essay

the roughest draft possible. very disorganised. didn't paragraph properly. though i seem to have organised via person, society, global. too much explanation of concepts/terms. not enough explanation of examples. the list goes on.
here it is though. put up here for the world to see.
i'm writing another more casual thing as well.

Reality is one individual’s perspective and experiences of what the concrete truths are that found the basis of the world we live in today. Every individual will perceive reality in a different way, and form a unique discourse as a result. However this discourse is formed via a relationship with surrounding influences, and is essentially shaped by changing levels of different types of capital. Different definitions of communications are to be introduced, as well as the concepts of field, capital, misrecognition, illusion, hexis, and habitus. How each field, habitus, and discourse shapes and guides every individual’s perception, and thus impacts on other fields and habitus’ is the question to focus on.  The amount of cultural capital within each habitus or field ultimately defines every time and place, and these amounts are governed by technology.
The specific ethical, political, and social limitations and regulations within one’s present dynamic social arena or space are known as a ‘field’, a phrase brought about by Bourdieu. Patricia Thompson writes about Bourdieu’s research ‘the social field consisted of positions occupied by social agents (people or institutions) and what happens on/in the field is consequently boundaried’ [p197 Thompson, P]. The social sphere one progressively experiences throughout a lifetime, which guides our perception of reality and our nature is known as a ‘habitus’. The habitus is a ‘partly unconscious [adoption] of rules, values and dispositions’ [p212 Schirato, T et. al]. ‘Bourdieu nominated four forms of capital: economic . . . cultural . . . social . . . and symbolic’ [p197 Thompson, P]. An example of each could be a Lamborghini, knowledge of how to use chopsticks, popularity within the music industry and the ownership of a Nobel Prize.  Communication can be a simple transmission of information, such as an emergency radio broadcast, or it can be a ritual affirmation of social and societal bonds, such as attending a Sunday family dinner, or a dinner party with work colleagues. A hexis and illusio are made up of the observable traits of a habitus, such as saying please or thank you [p213, Schirato, T et. al].When people partake in illusio, they assume a certain view according to their habitus and exclude those who don’t fit their ‘correct’ view, e.g. if a child neglects to say please they are seen as impolite and are thus excluded from a positive social interaction, when in some cultures ‘please’ is not an imperative amongst friends, the nature is more important than the word. The signs which symbolize specific meanings in each situation are known as a discourse. The meanings change relative to the situation.

Geoff Danaher et al, write about Bourdieu’s concept of the habitus explaining that it is a ‘partly unconscious [adoption] of rules, values and dispositions . . . [which] are gained from our cultural history [and are] durable and transposable’ [p.213, Schirato, T et. al]. The habitus is influenced by similar factors as those shaping the field however the field is one isolated place and time whereas the habitus is an ongoing sphere of influence, and because it is ongoing, the influences on the habitus have an enormous variety in comparison to those on the field.  This unique filtering of perception is moulded by previous habitus’ and fields that individuals have experienced. Its creation depends equally upon levels of economic, cultural, symbolic and social capital, upon discourses, and the dynamic relationship between influences upon discourses, fields and habitus’ experienced, and the nature or reality we create from these influences [p141, Carey, J]. The differing levels of every type of capital create contending forces within and between differing fields and habitus’, so between class distinctions and social group identities, or cultures.  These competing influences can be political, religious and philosophical influences; one’s position or role in society including as a specific gender, one’s relationship/family status, occupation, and socio-economic status. Patricia Thompson writes about Bourdieu’s research, ‘the social field consist(s) of positions occupied by social agents (people or institutions)’ and that within this field each individuals actions are ‘shaped by the conditions of the field’ [p197, Thompson, P]. Different political dynamics and designations, social rituals and conventions, and ethical/practical social norms and regulations affect every field. This concept is not limited to small spaces such as an office; it also includes large spaces such as Australia, or a football arena. This concept refers to the complex dynamics of each social ‘field’ and how each and every limitation and social influence guides, shapes and causes events within a social field. This idea maintains that each unique individual carries a mental map shaping their life via previous fields experienced [pp 138, 139, Carey, J, 213, Schirato, T et. al.]. Each concept overlaps the other.
James Carey continues Dewey’s research, focussing on the creative tension between definitions of communication [p135, Carey, J]. Carey explains that communication can either be ‘a process whereby messages are transmitted and distributed in space for the control of distance and people’ [p133, Carey, J], or it can be ‘the extension of messages in space [creating] the maintenance of society in time, [and] represent(ing) shared beliefs’ [p134, Carey, J]. These two models of communication differ because one aims to extend power and control through exclusion from knowledge, where the other aims to create intrinsic bonds between people via shared traditions, values, and experiences. Bourdieu discusses societal exclusions; similarly historically the western cultured world excluded the lower classes from direct access and interpretation of religious knowledge via the Latin language. The cultural literacy was out of reach because it existed in a different discourse [p188, Bourdieu, P]. Bourdieu also discusses the shared experiences communication can create [p183, Bourdieu, P], similar to Carey’s idea about how ritual communication ’is a symbolic process, whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired, and transformed’ [p137, Carey, J]. The relationship between differing models of communication and societies, institutions and people is a cycle which represents a type of communication that can then unconsciously be put into practise, making the model into a guide for behaviour [p141, Carey, J]. This relates to Bourdieu’s concept of illusio, cultural capital and field.  Using Sweden as an example, the education system is designed so that it is available to a larger component of society, which creates a standard level of knowledge and understanding, and thus a somewhat less aggressive hexis within society. ‘We first produce the world by symbolic work and then take up residence in the world we have produced’ [p140, Carey, J]. The media creates and amplifies common traditions, and experiences, spreading a societal habitus. However although the communication models followed by the educational, and journalistic institutions basically fall under the ritual label, the society created is still problematic because standards inescapably exclude those who aren’t ‘up to standard’, or who have not shared the traditional experiences, spreading a degree of illusio. However the greater equality of symbolic, economic, cultural, and social capital creates a generally more stable society. Research is published in public newspapers in an accessible way and good values are shared through classroom subjects dedicated to positive citizenship. The habitus which the Swedish society aims to create via institutions, accessible discourses and fields, is an intrinsically positive one.
Every influence in a society, whether it is political, religious, philosophical, or traditional, has infinite variety, because of the enormous variation in symbols used to represent or create similar ideals or meanings [James Carey p139]. This consequently means that infinite possibilities exist for the habitus; however variety is limited by available symbols, ‘reality is both produced and delimited by whatever sign systems we have at our disposal’ [p212, Shirato, T, et. al]. Looking at Asian languages, there are a wider variety of language symbols present, enabling a deeper and more complex filtration of the habitus compared to the English language. Carey focussed on a concept similar to Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, exploring the perception of reality. ‘Space can then be mapped, then, in different modes—utilizing lines on a page, sounds in air, movements in dance’ [p139, Carey, J]. If Bourdieu’s concepts of the habitus, field, capital, illusio and hexis, are combined with Carey’s focus on the creative tension between different modes of communication creating different ‘realities’; an example of what the abstract idea of reality is can be produced via these specific limitations. Take a horoscope; it aims to advise individuals on ethical behaviour via generalized statements according to common possible situations one may experience. Some cultures have ingrained traditional beliefs in the categorical organisation of people via the horoscope, so some individuals from these cultures would have a more open-minded filtration of the horoscope. However if the same individuals are introduced to scientific, or political fields and discourses which traditionally impart their knowledge via transmission [p135, Carey, J], the opposing knowledge and cultural based filtrations will contend for a final perception of the horoscope. The older individuals within such cultures have higher levels of cultural and social capital, where the younger individuals have more symbolic and economic capital. The younger individuals can get sucked into the dominating illusio of the transmittance view, abandoning their original traditional ritual values. The younger individuals view horoscopes with disdain, imitating much of the western society hexis. If we then extend the example to visiting a psychic, shifting the mode of communication from visual, to both aural, kinaesthetic, and visual, the relationship between opposing communication models and competing concepts changes. Depending on an individual’s unique level of exposure to each of these influences, or habitus, the added aural and kinaesthetic experience will affirm an individual’s perception of reality. This change in reception of communication is similar to how primary or secondary education is received. The transmittance approach and reception matches exclusion and disdain, whereas the ritual approach and reception tends to match greater understanding and thus appreciation. The map that filters an individual’s perception of place and time dictates the relationship between symbolising and creating ways of living in reality [p138, Carey, J].
The arrival of communication technology further extended the modes of communication and thus changed the types of habitus, field, illusio, capital, discourse, hexis, and thus reality. Globalisation spreads political, social, economic, and technological ideals however the link between all of these is communication, and communication has been intrinsically changed by technology. Those with technological cultural literacy, i.e. symbolic capital, participate in the technological field of the World Wide Web, and an illusio is developed between the literate and illiterate. A general hexis of individualism and privacy develops where less time is spent participating in traditional ritual communication, and more time is spent on individual activities which can breed suspicion. Any activity done individually without a witness is potentially suspicious, even walking down the street, or sitting at a computer, if it is at night. ‘The capacity of private thought . . . appears biographically later in the person and historically later in the species’ [p139, Thompson, P]. However an illusio doesn’t only exclude social categorical identities, it also combines people into a confusing complexity of variety of standards, social norms, and traditions. The multiple components of the determinist relationship between cultural, political, economical and social society and technology, like any other relationship, become more complex as they become more intertwined [p157, Williams, R, p136, Carey, J]. If the departure from grounded ritual physical communication towards a combination of transmittance and partly undefined, para-social ritual communication via technology is added to the complexity of the global field, the potential for communication problems increases [pp 60, Williams, R, 150, Caronia, L, 202, Thompson, P]. A departure from the limits of a specific field guiding the understanding of symbols allows for misrepresentation and misunderstanding, such as pornography compared to art. At the same time it carries the potential for positive intensification of common ethics and knowledge. Carey maintains that the ritual view of communication ‘gives us a way in which to rebuild a model ‘of’ and ‘for’ communication of some restorative value in reshaping our common culture’ [p143, Carey, J]. However the present mass existence of problems seems impossible to change because participants caught up in ‘the game’ [p197.Thompson, P] are unconsciously working within an historically grounded transmission view of communication [p135, Carey, J].  Similar to Marshall McLuhan’s example used by Carey, like a raindrop joins the ocean, people join a seemingly unlimited, flowing relationship between multiple influences relative to cultural capital [p137, Carey, J]. Because of the lack of limiting aspects via technology, once the raindrop joins the ocean, how the raindrop can then be distinguished and extracted, or reversed seems very difficult to the rain drop, or person. An ocean can change shape because of its qualities, and similarly the social, political, economic and cultural ocean that makes up the present global reality can change shape.
Reality therefore is an infinitely complex abstract idea, because it is limited and regulated by a finite amount of multiple influences. The shift in the shape of communication, being the common universal influence, has further extended, intensified, and combined the complexity of reality. The complexity itself lies in the simplicity of less limitation and regulation, ‘the purpose of representation is to express not the possible complexity of things but their simplicity’ [p139, Carey, J].