468 / 658
466
Saturday, November 12
0 9 : 0 0 – 1 0 : 3 0
PP 551
Mediatization, Communication Dynamics and Institutional Habitus in the Cultural Sector
K. Juraite
1
1
Vytautas Magnus University, Dept. of Public Communication, Kaunas, Lithuania
Changing social and cultural structures and practices lead to the reconceptualization of culture in the liquid modern society, i.e. the times of general con‑
fusion (Bauman, 2005, 2015; Kaun and Fast, 2013). In the liquid modernity, culture loses its normative prescriptions, as well as strict standards, and repro‑
duces flexible set of individual needs and freedom of choice.The relationship between the public and culture becomes more and more individualized, based
on personal likes, wants and needs, rather than institutional commitments, responsibilities and loyalties (Deuze, 2008). Instead of going to the museum, or
gallery, visiting a theatre or any other cultural event, people look for more self-expressive and more engaging activities. To understand unprecedented, fun‑
damental, even paradigmatic communication dynamics, the notion of mediatization of culture as a transformative process (Kaun, Fast, 2013) has been used.
In this global and increasingly individualized society, also marked by presipitating mediatization, the media as modus operandi affect social and cultural
institutions and practices, and encourage them to endorse and follow the new media and communication principles. As a result, the field of art and culture
is going through multifold challenges and changes, including the loss of autonomy and increasing dependence on the other sectors, eg. the new media
industries (Hjarvard, 2013; Hepp, 2013). To be able to navigate complex technological networks and engage into virtual cultural environment or cultural
e-communities, cultural institutions need to acquire specific skills, knowledge and resources. However, as a result of communication dynamics, institutional
habitus, in the form of discomfort, frustration, arrogance, ignorance and other conflicting emotions, is also playing the role.„Situations where there is a lack
of fit between habitus and field can bring habitus to the fore, causing one to feel like a fish out of water and rendering conscious what was previously taken
for granted. In such situations one becomes aware of oneself – self-conscious - precisely because one is unsure what to do and how to behave, and no longer
has a clear ‘feel for the game”(Sweetman, 2009:491). This kind of self-consciousness also applies to cultural institutions. The main questions encountered
in the paper will deal with the insitutional and individual conflicts inside cultural establishments as a result of changing role of culture and forms of cultural
participation in the liquid modern world, marked by precipitating mediatization processes. What are the new communicative strategies implemented on
the institutional level? How are they appropriated by the individuals inside and outside the cultural institutions? What are the difficulties and resistance to
the adoption of innovations in cultural communication field? The paper is based on the outcomes of the national research project„Development of cultural
institutions' communication competences in knowledge and creativity society“ (2012–2015). 14 national and local institutions have been participating
in the research aimed at identifying changing patterns and practices of communication among traditional cultural establishments, including museums,
galeries and theatres. The project is supported by the European Social Fund in Lithuania.
PP 552
Practical Theory: Chances and Challenges for Mediatization Research
P. Gentzel
1
1
Universität Leipzig, Institut für Kommunikation- und Medienwissenschaft, Leipzig, Germany
My talk focuses on the interrelations of Mediatization and the field of Practical Theory (PT). The anglo-american figuration of PT – that is bound on the ge‑
netic inquiry of Theodore Schatzki (Schatzki 1996, Schatzki et. al. 2001) as well as the meta-theoretical focussed one (e.g. Reckwitz 2003, 2008) which
outline the convergence of post-structuralisic and social-phenomenologist social theory – emphasize that neither intentions of actors nor institutions or
“logics” can fully explain social and cultural processes. Alternatively they illuminate the figurations and incorporation of tacit knowledge and highlight
the social and cultural construction of materiality. Thus Mediatization research has to look more closely into the concepts of communication (1.) and media
(2.). My remarks also contribute to the recent claims to analyse in a“non media-centric”perspective and on“various scales of communication”. 1. Commu‑
nication and tacit knowledge Besides the differences of an “institutional” (Hjarvard 2008) and a “social-constructivistic” approach of Mediatization (Krotz
2007, Hepp/Krotz 2012) we can speak of a consistent field of Mediatization research (e.g. Livingstone 2009). One reason for this consistence is the common
idea of man as “animal symbolicum” (e.g. Krotz 2007) that is bound in relations to other people, to ideas and symbolic worlds, to patterns of knowledge
and interpretation, to techniques and artefacts. PT arguments that these relations are primary constituted by tacit knowledge, which dominates the ev‑
eryday life in terms of “knowing how”or “skilful practices”. If they are correct, we have to deal with two points: 1.) The need to prove if the communicative
construction of reality incorporates these forms of knowing. Therefore I will talk about the“dialectic of knowledge”(Knoblauch 1996, 2005) as key concept
of the “social or communicative construction of reality” (Berger/Luckmann 2004; Knoblauch 1996). 2.) Differentiations of communication are bound to
the Symbolic Interactionism (e.g. Krotz 2012), which means that interpersonal, interactive and mass communication are different because the actors deal
with different media. This understanding of media as interaction counterparts is not convincing (e.g. Hybridisation processes), which is why I will comple‑
ment these interactionism logic with a more cultural, knowledge focussed one. 2. Media and boundary objects This logic of differentiation already reveals
the importance of the media-concept for Mediatization. Starting with the question how coordination is possible without cooperation, some ethnological
studies reveal that ”objects” are constituted although there never was any kind of plan, any institution or any homogenous group that worked to achieve
a defined goal. The opposite is correct: understanding entities, institutions or the media as “boundary objects” (Star/Griesemer 1989, Star 2010) means
to analyse how different people with different interests do different things - and constitute a common “object”. This analytical view does not start with
a defined object or problem (the media-centric way) but rather asks which actors and actions, which processes, decisions and artefacts, which social,
cultural, economical or political structures or frame conditions are mentioned when we talk about“the media”. It demonstrates that“objects“ are products
of different processes – and not natural or artificial entities.