CC BY
14Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 7 (2012 5) 958-969
УДК 60.021
Integrated Model of Media Space
Sergey I. Shelonaev*
Russian Pedagogical University, S.Petersburg 48Moika, S.-Petersburg, 191186Russia 1
Received 31.12.2011, received in revised form 7.01.2012, accepted 25.01.2012
The article presents the results of a sociological analysis of the concept «media space». Media space is regarded as a special part of the social space. Analysis is based on the theory of social space P. Bourdieu. Shown that the media space can be described as complex of fields with their own rules and schemes of domination. Media agents are owners of various forms of capital, which is used to strengthen its position in the media space. Presents the integrated model of media space. Identified the following fields of media space: field ofproduction information, field of economy, field ofjournalism, field of information consumers.
Keywords: Media space;media-agents; topological map; multidimensional social space
The "paradigmatic shift" is taking place in sociology, as well as in other social sciences currently. It's, in a sense, a preparation for the change of fundamental suppositions, forming for scientific community the picture of the world (paradigm). The scientific paradigm is a common system of viewpoints, the frame identifying rules helping to investigate the study object. The historian Th. Kuhn named the period of paradigm change the scientific revolution, that is the non-cumulative stage of scientific development during which the old paradigm is replaced by a new one incompatible with an old one.
The change of paradigms is also complicated by the fact, that the society being the object of study undergone cardinal changes during recent 30-40 years. Currently, one cannot deny that the human society has entered the phase of nonlinear crisis development, which
* Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected]
1 © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
cannot any more be described traditionally as a linear process in the terms of Laplace determinism, primitive cumulative effects and system striving for balanced condition. The multiple growth of human population being a part of unified public system, hypertrophied development of information technologies and mass media insuring inner links of the system, globalization, deepening of division of labour, transformation of the society to phenomenon impacting globally the planet and the ecosystems, all these allow us to talk about growth of principal complication of the society and its proceeding to functioning on the basis of "stable dynamic disbalance" principle. (Knyazeva, Kurdyumov, 1994).
From the point of view of the common theory of systems, the modern society can be described as a complicated self-regulating system, functioning non-linear, unbalanced and
occasionally unstable (bifurcation point). Being in that point the system "chooses" unique way of it's further progress influenced by very weak impacts, that is demonstrates non-linear crisis development (leap, catastrophe). At the same time, the bifurcation point can form as a result of increase if spontaneous auto oscillation and as a result of impact on the system of outer forces (Artyukhov, 2009). It demands new methodological approaches to description and study of social reality.
One can assume, that the specificity of the current period of "paradigm change" in sociology is the joint influence of two factor groups: 1) accumulation of empiric facts conflicting with traditional structural-functioning paradigm for the description of the society and 2) change of the study object - cardinal complication of the society with its increase of system elements and also increase of the connections between elements. This is how we can explain "paradigmatic" character of contemporary sociology, that means synchronous being of different ways to describe and learn the society (Ritzer, 2002, Ivanov, 2005).
We can easily find this situation in theory and practice of sociological study of mass media.
Mass media, traditionally known as the mediator and as the channel of transmission of information between the source of information and mass audience, nowadays has turned into the global media sphere (Vattimo, 2002) -symbolic space that can be characterize as self-sufficient (Bauman, 2005) and it doesn't have any other connections with elements of social reality (Baudrillard, 2000). Practically we have the phenomenon of the social reality and the description of it doesn't correspond to its complexity. But now we can also meet the works which describe mass communication in "mechanistic" paradigm (Sokolov, 2002).
J. Bryant and S. Thompson say "...the model sender\recipient is very easy for description of the large number of nowadays communication processes by the use of media. This model means that communication is coordinated linear succession of events - suggestion that doesn't already suits the situation with information technologies now. So the new theories are necessary in order to explain using of the new technologies" (Bryant, Thompson, 2004).
In our opinion the adequate answer on the "methodological call" and the necessity of searching new concept foundations for sociological study of the mass media can be "social typology" of the French sociologist P. Bourdieu. Bourdieu suggests to learn the society as the space of specific type - social space. Bourdieu named his theory "social typology" as the society has the characteristic of continuity. The continuity is realized as the form of connection and it is an important characteristics of typological space.
The social space has a field structure and shows a multidimentional ensemble of relatively autonomous fields (economic, political, cultural, etc). Social agents (in terminology of Bourdieu) can be positioned in different fields at the same time and so provide the connection between fields and social space. Different fields are described as the fields that are lying in different parts of the space inside common multidimentional space. The fields are different in size and strength which show its hierarchy and subordination. Some fields are the sub-fields of others. For example, the fields of literature and science are the fields of the symbolical reproduction.
Differences and borders between social fields are determined by the measure of connection. It is important to say that borders of the field are the parts of low social interaction.
A competition for the resources provides internal connection and dynamics of the field
that are the most important in this field. So the competition provides the intensive social interaction.
Other important categories if the "social typology" are "capital" and "habitus". So we can say that there is the competition for the capital . The capital has a value as the position of an agents is determined by it. The main forms of the capital are 1. economic capital (material objects); 2. cultural capital (education, for example); 3. social capital; 4. symbolical capital (for example, reputation).
Another important thing in the "social typology" is habitus. Habitus is the integral system of dispositions of perception, evaluation, classification and actions. Habitus means the mental representation of individual's social reality and his position in it. It is formed by the social practice of individual. Also it is system of common social attitudes and stereotypes that helps to orientate spontaneously in social space. The habitus can be individual and collective. We can say that "capital" and "habitus" add each other.
Nowadays we live in society that is full of mass median and information. Many scientists say that the main feature of society is the development of the fourth information sector of economy which follows agriculture, industry and service. In this sector mass media has its priority.
In our times "the media space" is actively learned by sociology. One of the common descriptions is: "a media space" is the specific reality that is the part of social space and it organizes social practice and ideas of agents which are involved in system of production and consumption of information (Yudina, 2008).
We should define that social practice influences on social space making the structure of it according to values, dispositions, images, preferences and other things of social agents that live in the space of media. It is really true as the
main function of mass media is to influence on the audience and agents of the social fields that are not involved in media space.
According to Bourdieu we can expose the following relationships between media space and physical and social space.
1. A media space as the part of social space projects social constructions on physical space.
2. A media space as a part of social space represents and interprets this space
3. A media space as the specific part of social space projects social constructions on other subspaces and fields of social space.
So we can propose the following description. A media space is relatively autonomous multidimentional part of social space which organizes social practice and ideas of agents that are involved in system of production and consumption of mass information. A media space is structured by social space and represents it.
This description present the following special features: 1. The media space is totality of social fields of different nature. 2. The media space has a relative autonomy in social spaces it has common objective of involved fields - production and consumption mass of information. 3. The connection between fields and parts of fields that are in media space higher than between them and fields that are not in media space. 4. The social agents represented in media space are active an have specific capital and habitus. So that media-agents realize specific social practices peculiar to media space and translate them outside this media space making the structure of social and physical spaces.
We may face with difficulties trying to define exactly the external borders of media space. One thing we can admit definitely that the border of media space lies between the fields of limited and mass information production, which may be considered as unique parts of symbolic
amenities production. Uncertainty of borders in media space is determined by the number of circumstances.
Firstly, it's a "fuzziness" of the border between the fields of limited and mass production. We have indicated that Bourdieu introduces a special coordinate of social fields: autonomy -heteronomy. "The field of production is obliged by its structure to the opposition between, on the one hand, to the field of limited production as a system manufacturing symbolic amenities, which are objectively intended for the circle of manufacturers; on the other hand, to the field of mass production of symbolic amenities intended for general public. In contradistinction from the mass production field, which is attempted to the law of competitive struggle for the larger market invasion, the field of limited production strives to create its production norms and criteria of evaluation of its production itself" (Bourdieu, 1993). As we see, the fields of limited and mass information production principally differ by the specificity of functioning, social practice, composition of capital, rules of regulation.
In the paper "The market of symbolic production" French scientist researches relationship between these two fields in detail. Particularly Bourdieu injects the term «fields of recognition institution». The main function of these institutes is legitimization. "The instances of cultural conservation and recognition guarding the cultural orthodoxy, i.e. defending the sphere of legally sound culture from the competitive ideas manufactured by the field of limited production as the field of mass production as well, which may cause protest and dissent reactions among different categories of public..." (Bourdieu,1993). Then Bourdieu says about the "communication rupture" and the necessity of code conversion of information from the legitimate language of limited production to the language of mass production field. Thus, there is a zone of weak
connectivity between the fields of limited and mass production, where code conversion takes place, and recognition instances carry out the agreement between the information created in different fields.
And if the legitimization may be realized inside the fields of production, the function of code conversion of information for the purpose of mass production and consumption becomes the function of agents handling social practice which are peculiar to the media space. That is to say, it is a part of media space positioned as "grey zone" of weak connectivity between the fields of limited and mass production.
Secondly, the production of mass information is considerably influenced by the means of material and technical provision of media activity. In concordance with the famous Herbert M. McLuhan's aphorism "the mean of communication is the message", material form of symbolic information created in media space has a important sense for the implementation of media aims. We may talk about that fact the features of technical means influence the arrangement of information and included in information as particular symbols of itself. On the other hand, the media agents' needs transform technical means of information translation and define the progress in this sphere. Thereby, the peculiarities of technology define the structure of media, and modern variety of means of content producing and delivery defines uncertainty of media space borders.
Thirdly, media agents may importantly go out of the borders of their social fields in their social practice themselves. For example, research journalism, where the journalist uses for his professional purposes the means traditionally attached by law-enforcement agencies (Tertychnyi, 2002). Nevertheless, even such specific activity is performed for achievement of journalist's professional aims. So, media agent
field of consumers of media products
Ihe governing
outline of media space
sctence ,,„ __ art
of journalism
"XtfX-.....
fltld of CO ns inn tri or media product:
W r
Fig. 1. Integrated model of media space
demonstrating not characteristic for him social practice stays the part of media space.
Aforesaid allows us to conclude that the media space is not restricted only by mass information production, but it's slightly wider then it and has a border of a different compactness and certainty in different parts.
As we see in the Fig. 1, the topological structure of media space includes the aggregate of fields of symbolic production in that part, where these fields are able to implement the production of mass information; a field of journalism; governing contour outline represented by the field of economics and a field of consumers of media products, which becomes an object of media influence. Meanwhile, only fields of journalism and consumers are included in the media space entirely.
Totality of fields of symbolic production includes the following essential fields: politics, art, jurisprudence, advertising and PR (integrated marketing communications), science and religion. All of these fields represent the groups of fields of
lower level, coherence of which is stronger than above, in virtue of the habituses and structures of capital of agents of the fields are close. F. ex., the great number of fields of certain sciences and groups of sciences (humanitarian and natural sciences) are included in the field of science, and it doesn't prevent to keep the integrity of practice. Let's make a concrete example. Sociology born in XIX century as a natural science (social physics) has passed a great way of development. Today is already hard to answer the question, is sociology a humanitarian or natural science, unambiguously, but there is no doubt that it's a science. At the same time, if to concede that the social development is aught determined by God's will, this sociology loses legitimating as a science and moves to the religion field.
The majority of above-mentioned fields are sufficiently minutely described in the papers of Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 2005). De minimis he described the field of advertizing and PR. However, detailed research of this field is represented in the paper of French sociologist J. Baudrillard
(Baudrillard, 2006). It's very important for our analysis, that all of the fields of symbolic production have autonomous and heteronomous zone and they are included in media space only by their heteronomous part. Moreover, the part of these fields directly "whips" to the field of journalism, making almost invisible the border between the journalist and an expert representing one of the fields of symbolic production.
Famous French sociologist L. Pinto called them "mediatic intellectuals" in the article "Intellectual doxa". In his opinion, the main peculiarity of these "media-intellectuals" is their desire for the "newness", meaning only sensationalism de facto. One of features pulling together all of these doxa producers is their interest to "newness", or, leastwise, to something that easily identified with such a way of plugging. Intellectualization of journalistic discourse correlate with the introducing to the universe the ideas of sensationalism. The most intellectual of these new producers of "knowledge" find sudden opportunity in the origination of "newness" to become déclassé the most authorized intellectuals whose authority threatened them for a long time (L. Pinto, 1996). On the scientist's opinion, there is a symbolic exchange between the journalists and media-intellectuals: journalists legitimize their interpretation of social facts with the help of intellectuals; intellectuals receive from the journalists audience and the evidence of meaningfulness, which goes out the circle of specialists. By that the effect of "accumulation of relatively dissimilar capitals" is achieved. Bourdieu calls the mediatic intellectuals "fast-thinkers" who "thinks faster than their own shadow" and "offers the cultural fast-food" (Bourdieu, 2002).
The other proof of including heterotomous part of fields of symbolic production in the field of journalism is the fact that a number of famous journalists become positioning themselves as
historians, economists, political scientists, etc. in media space. In terms of conception of social capital it's explainable easily. Journalists and experts have different structure of capital and in they tend to build up their own capital at the expense of other media agents' capital the fighting for the position in media space.
The field of journalism takes a central place in topological scheme of media space represented on the Fig. 1. Let's note that this place is occupied by the journalism not only because this field has the most influential capital, but, first of all, because the coordination of all agents' activity included in media space is implemented exactly through this field. As the other fields, the field of journalism contains autonomic and heteronomis zone. The last one includes journalists carrying out public actions in media space and operating as personified media agents: announcers, commentators, media analysts, observers etc. We may refer to this group mediatic intellectuals as well. It's right to include to this cohort personified bloggers. Autonomic zone includes journalists not carrying on public media activity, but realizing social practice of journalism: editors, script writers, copywriters etc. We may single out an intermediate zone of media agents putting into practice public activity anonymously. These persons are most brightly represented in the Internet. In terms of sociology the difference between the members of these zones of field of journalism is in the individual narrative as a mechanism of control of social practice of these media agents and the way of providing of audience's trust. In the case of personified media agent the production of mass information, on the one hand, restricts him, but, on the other hand, gives different possibilities. Anonymous media agent has different collection of possibilities and restrictions. We may interpret it in the terms of social capital.
Personified media agent arouses trust, because he may legitimately rely on his capital
accumulated during all social life. In return, anonymous is more free in construction of social capital, because he creates a "virtual personality". However, this media agent may use only incorporated status of capital (his abilities and reproduced behavior dispositions) creating individual narrative as a social mythology. To understand a real place of field of journalism in the media space structure it's necessary to define the objective of journalism.
There is an idea according to which the essential characteristics of means of mass communication is an introduction to the mass consciousness of definite system of meanings, values etc. which are advantageous for some social groups, because it provides their existence. Nowadays, this idea is formed more and clearer in the sociology of means of mass communication. "Satisfying the information needs of mass audience the subjects of mass communication are satisfying their own needs in the influence on this audience" (Gostenina, Kiselev, 2009). The philosopher T. Naumenko analyzed the functions represented in modern papers on theory ofjournalism in details and came to conclusion, that "the journalism is a system of introduction into the mass consciousness of social assessment of current activity, i.e. assessment of urgent results of practice from the point of interests these or that social groups. ... The urgency of these or that events is defined by the subject itself bringing in the mass consciousness its assessments" (Naumenko, 2000). It becomes possible because means of mass media satisfy the necessity of getting information for orientation in the environment, which is typical for mass audience. Meanwhile, the other social groups of media space satisfy quiet different necessities as creative, economic or regulatory necessities. On the Fig. 1 we can see the implementation of objective of influence of mass consciousness, which is indexed by the
arrow directed at the field of consumers of media production.
Conducted analysis allows us to conclude that in the topological model of media space the field of journalism is the field of symbolic production itself and carries out the functions of interpretation (translating information into the codes of mass information production) and coordination of other fields of media space.
The field of consumers of media production is an object of other's fields' influence. In modern world an adequate socialization, adaptation and current orientation in society is unthinkable without interaction of the human and means of mass communication. Any member of modern society is included in media space as an object of influence. The differences appear only in the degree of involvement and a degree of adherence to these or that fields of symbolic production. Really, you may be not involved in the information streams, the source of which is not a political field, the field of science or religion, but it's hard to understand the member of modern society who is not involved in field of advertising and mass art at all. The involvement in juridical field represented in media space is an interpretation of, f.ex., changes in labor, pencionary or tax legislation. And it is necessary too, because it directly influences on the urgent practice of social agents.
At we see on the Fig. 1, the field of consumers of media production goes out the borders of field of mass production, but it is absolutely included in the media space. It indexes the possibility of including the individual into the media space not through the interaction with means of mass communication, but indirectly, through the "opinion leaders".
The governing outline of media space is organized through the influence of field of economics on the fields of symbolic production.
Simplified point of view on the interaction of economics and media is the next. The field of economics transmits into the media space social practice and the habitus of economical agents typical for market economy. "Market system is an economic system controlled and regulated only by markets; an order of production and sharing of items must be absolutely provided by this self-regulating mechanism". . "Self-regulation means: all produced is for sale in the market and the source of all the profit is the similar acts of sale. So, there are markets for all factors of industrial production, i.e. not only for items (we bear in mind services too), but for labor, land, money; their prices are called commodity prices, salary, rent and percent respectively" (Polanyi, 2002). Indeed, from the point of agents of field of economics, media space is only one of the fields of commercialization functioning on the general principles of free market and competition. So, on the Fig. 1. the field of economics goes out not only the borders of media space, but the borders the field of the symbolic production. But media space cannot be considered exclusively as a part of economic space. Eypgbe notices: "Economic competition between the TV channels or printed matters for watchers or readers or, in the other words, for the market shares, is realized in the competition between the journalists. This competition has its special rates: professional reputation, exclusive information, etc. It's not felt as a specific economic competition for profits, it is subordinated to the conditions connected with the position of this organ in economic, power and symbolic relations" (Bourdieu, 2002).
So, the interaction of economic field with the other fields of media space cannot be described as a sum of economic practices. In our opinion the coherence with the field of economics in media space is provided by the relations of dominating and subordination (the relations of power).On the Fig. 1 these relations are indexed by the arrow
painted in economic field and directed to the field of journalism, which is considered here as a coordinating instance of media space.
M. Weber defined power as a probability of actor's being in position to realize his social will contrary to the resistance irrespective of the base of this probability. In this definition some features of power are accentuated:
1) the power is not an accessory of individuals, but exists between them;
2) the power must be defined in terms of probability, possibility;
3) any things, qualities, relations may be the base of the power;
4) the power presupposes compulsion to do something in defiance of the others side's interest.
Sociological tradition (Lasswell, Kaplan, Cartwright, Lukes, Giddens etc.) considers the power as a non-central relations and "the relations of null scope". R. Dahl defines power in the terms of "control over the conduct": "A" has a power over "B" thus much as it may force "B" to do something he wouldn't do in the other situation. In Lukes's opinion, the sphere of power is not limited by the behavior, but includes the control over beliefs and values. Lukes considers that the subject has a power over the object not only when forcing the object to do something he doesn't want, but when forming his desire. The last statement is the most correct in point of agents of media space.
We should appeal to the papers of French philosopher M. Foucault to find out how the economic power realizes in the media space. On the basis of detailed analysis of the history of such social institutes as hospitals, barracks, educational institutions and manufactories in XVIII-XIX centuries the scientist comes to a conclusion that the power regulation of deviant behavior (crime, mental disease, non-fulfilment of the orders, disciplinary breach) is transformed
into the indirect, interiorized violence in this period. M. Foucault thinks that the social nature of punishment itself is changed, and, as a result, the power, which is in the middle of XVIII century was too cruel, became more humane up to the second half of the XIX century. Actually, then the new "technology of power" was invented: the body stops to be the subject of deviant behavior and the soul becomes it. Foucault called this new technology "panoptism", the main feature of which is the transformation of direct violence into the "invisible" power (Foucault, 1999).
The model, where this technology of power is the most brightly represented, as Foucault supposes, is the project of Jeremy Bentham "The Panopticon". Bentham invented the prison of new type: all the cells of ring-shaped prison are illuminated in such way that they were viewed only from the central tower where the only guard could be. The main idea of this prison is: the prisoners don't know when they are watched and become self-regulated. So, one governs the others staying invisible and depersonalized. The object of control in panoptic is included in the "situation of power" in such way, that the external power becomes interiorized. M. Foucault connects it directly with the appearance the class of bourgeois on the social arena. In addition, the appersonification of power has lead to the appearance of managers as a specific social group realizing the economic power impersonally (Gray, 2008). In our opinion, economic power in media space is realized exactly in this way. Economic violence here has a form of indirect, not personified power (the threat of violence). From the point of topology of media space, the relations of power providing the connection with the field of economics are realized in the next way.
As the other fields, the field of economics has its autonomic and heteronomic parts. In the autonomic part the agents not included
in the media space act, they use it as one of the ways of commercialization. For example, such agents as banks may be the beneficiaries of economic activity in media space. There are agents of economic fields interacting with media space directly and included in it as a heteronomic part of the field; in our opinion, such agents are the share-holders of media and the clients of advertising and PR-campaigns in media. These agents transmit and partially recode the demand of economic field into the media space. Then this demand with the part of power authorities are given to the management of media and to the journalists positioned in the autonomic part of journalism: chief editors, members of editorial board, etc. The matter of these agents is the subsequent recoding from the language of economics and management to the language of journalism (for example in the form of "editorial politics") and the providing of the influence on the agents working at the public part of media space. We refer public journalists and mediatic intellectuals here. As far as the power is realized on the principles of "panoptism", the successful journalists and media-intellectuals form a definite skill represented as a necessary part of habitus which is peculiar to the agent working in the field of mass information production.
As we pointed earlier, the power is always defined in the terms of probability and possibility. In the other words, the public media person may state a position different from the editorial politics. But, in the conditions of "invisible" power, such behavior may be estimated as deviant and, undoubtedly, it may cause organizational consequences from the blocking of the material by the editor to the closing of the project, withdrawal from the air and dismissial. Let's note finally, that the topological model of media space elaborated by us is based on the concept of "social topology" of P. Bourdieu and includes not only this thinker's
views, but it was complemented by theoretical ideas of M. Foucault about the essence of powerin modern society and conceptual ideas about the peculiarities of social practice and the role of mediatic intellectuals in the mass information production introduced by L. Pinto. We suppose, this model allows to look at the functioning of means of mass media in the information society in a new way.
Conclusions
1. Presents the integrated model of media space. The topological model of media space elaborated by us is based on the concept of "social topology" of P. Bourdieu and includes not only this thinker's views, but it was complemented by theoretical ideas of M. Foucault about the essence of powerin modern society and conceptual ideas about the peculiarities of social practice and the role of mediatic intellectuals in the mass information production introduced by L. Pinto.
2. Identified the following fields of media space: field of production information, field of
economy, field of journalism, field of information consumers.
3. Media agents are owners of various forms of capital, which is used to strengthen its position in the media space. The field of journalism takes a central place in topological scheme of media space represented on the picture, because the coordination of all agents' activity included in media space is implemented exactly through this field.
4. The media space is totality of social fields of different nature. 2. The media space has a relative autonomy in social spaces it has common objective of involved fields - production and consumption mass of information. 5. The connection between fields and parts of fields that are in media space higher than between them and fields that are not in media space. The social agents represented in media space are active and have specific capital and habitus. So that media-agents realize specific social practices peculiar to media space and translate them outside this media space making the structure of social and physical spaces.
References
V.V. Artyukhov, General Systems Theory: Self-organization, sustainability, diversity, crises. (Moscow, LIBROKOM, 2009) - 224 p. in Russian.
Z. Bauman, The Individualized Society. (Moscow, Logos, 2005) - 390 p. in Russian.
J. Baudrillard, Consumer society. Its myths and the structures. (Moscow, Republic, 2006) - 269 p. in Russian.
J. Baudrillard, Symbolic Exchange and Death. (Moscow, Dobrosvet, 2000) - 387 p. in Russian.
P. Bourdieu, About television and journalism. (Moscow, FNI "Pragmatics of Culture", 2002) -160 p., in Russian.
P. Bourdieu, The market of symbolic production. Sociological studies, 1/2, 1993, 49-62, 5, 1994, 50-62, in Russian.
P. Bourdieu, Social space: a fields and practice. (S.-Petersburg, Aleteya, 2005) - 576 p., in Russian.
P. Bourdieu, Sociology of politics. (Moscow, 1993) - 336 p., in Russian.
D. Bryant, S. Thompson, Fundamentals of media effects. (Moscow, Williams, 2004). - 432 p. in Russian.
V.I. Gostenina, A.G. Kiselev, Sociology of Mass Communication. (Moscow, Alfa-M, INFRA-M, 2009). - 352 p. in Russian.
C. Gray, The organizations. Theories, conflicts and managers. (Kharkov, Humanitarian Center, 2008). - 196 p. in Russian.
V.I. Dobrenkov, A.I. Kravchenko, History of foreign sociology. (Moscow, Academic, 2005). -704 p. in Russian.
D.V. Ivanov, Paradigms in sociology. (Omsk, Publishing house of Omsk State University, 2005). -72 p. in Russian.
E.N. Knyazeva, S.P. Kurdyumov, The laws of evolution and complex systems of self-organization (Moscow, Nauka, 1994) - 236 p. in Russian.
T.V. Naumenko, The function of journalism and media functions, CREDO NEW, 2 ,2000. in Russian.
L. Pinto. Intellectual doxa // Socio-Logos'96. almanac of The Russian-French center of sociological researches of Institute of sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences— Moscow, Socio-Logos, 1996. - P. 32-38, in Russian.
K. P. Polanyi The Great Transformation: political and economic origins of our time (S.-Petersburg, Aleteya, 2002). - 320 p., in Russian
J. Ritzer, Modern sociological theories. (S.-Petersburg, Piter, 2002). - 688 p., in Russian
M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. (Moscow, Ad Marginem, 1999). -480 p. in Russian
N.A. Shmatko, "Habitus" in the structure of sociological theory / Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 1, №2, 1998, P. 60-70., in Russian.
A.V. Sokolov, The general theory of social communication. (S.-Petersburg, Mikhailov V.A., 2002). - 461 p.
A.A. Tertychnyi, Investigative journalism. (Moscow, Aspekt Press, 2002). - 384 p. in Russian.
G. Vattimo, Transparent society. (Moscow, Logos, 2002) - 128 p. in Russian.
E.N. Yudina, Media space as a new sociological category. Teacher ХХI. 2, 2008, Moscow. -P. 151-154 in Russian.
Интегративная модель медиапространства
С.И. Шелонаев
РГПУ им. Герцена Россия 191186, Санкт-Петербург, Набережная реки Мойки, 48
В статье представлены результаты социологического анализа концепта «медиапространство». Медиапространство рассматривается как особая часть социального пространства. Анализ проводился на основе теории социального пространства П. Бурдье. Медиапространство описывается как совокупность социальных полей различной природы со своими правилами и схемами власти. Медиаагенты есть владельцы различных форм капитала, который используется для усиления своей позиции в медиапространстве. Представлена интегративная топологическая модель медиапространства. В структуру медиапространства входят следующие поля медиапространства: поле производства информации, поле экономики, поле журналистики, поле потребителей медиапродукции.
Ключевые слова: медиапространство; медиаагенты; топологическая карта; многомерное социальное пространство.
