Negotiating the Body: Between Expression and Control

2025-09-27 stuti2 20 Comments

Our group presented our analysis and explication through a podcast: https://on.soundcloud.com/mqPJiyJwTVvtSuQgM4

Our perceptions of the human body evolve across time periods and diversify across cultures. As technology advances, artificial intelligence and the ability to have multiple online personas complexify our view of the body as a mode for self-expression. Some even theorize the body will be replaced by “computational or other machinic embodiment”; this could appear as “brain layers” being transferred to “hard drives” in order to streamline knowledge exchange (Wegenstein 27). In these times of “disembodiment”, we must critically examine the importance of the tangible human body as a mode of communication (27). At first, our group was confused by the concept of being detached from the body; this prediction by Wegenstein and several theorists felt dystopian and unrealistic. However, we later realized this is exactly what Wegenstein aims to convey; she hopes to demonstrate the “frightening”, “posthuman’”, and “antihumanist” nature of this prediction (27).

Connections with other Critical Terms

After watching other groups’ presentations, I found our chapter connected to the presentation on Chapter 12: New Media. The presenters noted that all media is in a sense “new”, as media of all ages has always had moments of “newness”. Although our chapter heavily focuses on defining the body as a medium, I believe the body can also constitute “new media”, as it is always being reinvented due to cultural precedents. Here, Hansen’s emphasis on affect and bodily experience of computation in “New Media” underwrites Wegenstein’s claim that the body is not post-media but in media. Because of the heavily politicized nature in which bodies have existed through centuries, our chapter also connects to the “Law” chapter which emphasizes how legal codes inscribe and regulate bodies i.e determining which bodies are visible, legitimate, or deviant. Hence, we see the connection that the media produces bodies as aw policies. A striking example of this is cosmetic surgery–a regulated practice (with you can cut what is allowed and malpractice frameworks). Here we see the interplay of law and bodies as mediums of production.

Podcast Brief

Through this podcast, we explore the discussion of ‘The Body’ chapter through summary, analysis, and drawing connection to our experiences and other media. We seek to answer the following questions:

If the body is always already mediated, is there such a thing as an “authentic” body at all?
How does the body influence culture and how does culture influence the body?
If the body is our first medium, what is one way you consciously use your body to communicate or express identity?

Our exploration of Wegenstein’s Body highlights how embodiment is never static but continually shaped by technology, culture, and law. Although it initially felt dystopian to explore the idea of disembodiment and machinic embodiment, we now see how it becomes predictive once we recognize it as a provocation to think critically about what makes the body meaningful. By situating the body alongside “new media” and legal frameworks, we see it not only as a vessel of self expression but also as a contested site of regulation, reinvention, and power.

Podcast link: https://on.soundcloud.com/mqPJiyJwTVvtSuQgM4

Contributors: Stuti Sharma, Dea Yu, Emily Shin, Kimchi Tran

Works Cited

Wegenstein, Bernadette. “Body.” Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W.J.T. Mitchell and Mark B.N. Hansen, U of Chicago P, 2010, pp. 19-34.

StrawberryJello. “A Cold but Warm Winter ~Snow World~.”, SoundCloud, no. 8, 2016, https://soundcloud.com/strawberryjello/008-snow-world-yume-nikki-ost.

Other

The Ambiguity of Language

2025-09-25 mkingsle 15 Comments

Introduction

When one thinks about one of the many human languages, it may be easy to look at words as fixed in their meaning, regardless of what tongue is being spoken. Words can be translated and retain their meaning, so why not assume that they can each be neatly defined once and for all? Critical Terms for Media Studies and its chapter concerning language challenges this notion as it spotlights various theorists that emphasize the importance of context that supports language. They assert that meaning does not exist inside words themselves, rather it emerges through the contexts in which words are used. Whether it is a colloquialism shifting over time, systems of communication shaping interpretation, or theories that emphasize the instability of meaning – there exists a strong argument that language only makes sense when placed in relation to a wider social, and perhaps psychological frame. Theorists like Saussure, Luhmann, Derida, and Bateson each highlight this principle with different beliefs, reasoning, and specifications. In this blog post, we will delve into their ideas and examine the significance of context in the realm of language.

Saussure

While Cary Wolfe–our chapter’s author–cites many theorists, he describes Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics as “arguably the most important [linguistic text] of the twentieth century”(233). Saussure’s describes language as comprised of “two fundamental dimensions: the abstract system of rules that constitutes any language system at a given moment in time (langue), and the heterogeneous utterances and speech acts in which individual speakers engage (parole)”(Wolfe, 234). Additionally, Saussure explains how language systems are developed over time, existing solely through the instances of their use while only remaining meaningful because of the context of rules in which they are situated (Wolfe 234).

This philosophy of language arguably mirrors John Locke’s two-headed approach to communication studies (Communication Presentation, Slide 4). The social aspect of intentionally exchanging ideas that partially defines communication is largely made possible through instances of parole, while the ideas that this communication embodies would not be properly transmittable without the structural understanding of langue. Essentially, Saussure’s two dimensions of language coexist with Locke’s dimensions of communication.

The relationship between language structures and their use is reciprocal. Without parole there would be no use for langue, and without langue there would be no basis for parole. This relationship makes differentiating between the individual and social aspects of language difficult. To do so, Saussure emphasizes the importance of langue, as it is “the norm of all other manifestations of speech” and consequently attributes order to systems that are otherwise relatively ambiguous (Wolfe 234). He objects to an object-centred approach to language–which views words as “derived from their referents”–arguing that if words were to stand for pre-existing concepts, they would directly translate across different languages (Wolfe 234). Instead he proposes a “relational understanding” of language–viewing it as established and dictated by social conventions–and theorizing that language is not complete in, or determined by, any one speaker (Wolfe 234).

A prime example of this social approach to understanding language is the everchanging meanings of words in slang dialects and colloquialisms. The efficacy of slang lies in the extent to which it is adopted in parole. Our society emphasizes langue, setting semi-stagnant definitions and uses for its words and rules. As such, if only some people are using words intending to mean something outside of their understandings in langue, others will not understand their potential alternate meanings in parole. In this way, the developments of colloquialisms and slang perfectly encapsulate both the functions of langue in everyday life, and Saussure’s idea that language is not complete in any one speaker, but instead a collective effort to reinterpret the meanings of words.

Ultimately, Saussure highlights the ambiguity of language through his breakdown of its dimensions. By defining language systems through their occurrence in parole, he delineates these systems by the contexts in which they are used. A sentence could mean one thing according to langue, yet have its meaning completely altered in a different instance of parole.

Derrida

Derrida, too, subscribes to the idea of signifiers or “concepts” being referred only as a system of signs, in which it “refers to one another,” hence, being a “chain” of sorts (1982, 11). This, in relation to context, provides evidence for how the necessary context of the chain of concepts is required for the referential nature of language. Unlike Saussure, Derrida insists on the inseparable and “unmediated” existence of “consciousness” and “conceptuality,” largely rejecting the purely psychic perspective of language. For Derrida, the context arguably cannot be taken out of the signified itself. In such discussions regarding the mediation of “psychological” and “communicational” aspects of language, examining Luhmann’s theories will support our exploration of language in its necessary context.

Infographic created by Christine Choi (made on Canva)

Luhmann’s Theory on Systems of Communication

When examining Cary Wolfe’s chapter on Language, an overarching argument emerges:

meaning is inherently tied to context; hence, language does not exist in isolation but is shaped by surrounding systems. Language is regulated by the structures in which it operates. Wolfe analyzes the work of Nikolas Luhmann, a German sociologist who developed a theory on systems of communication. Luhmann distinguishes between two systems: the psychic system and the social system. The psychic system is a self regulating system that reproduces itself through perceptions and consciousness. The social system reproduces itself through communication with language serving as its primary medium. He argues that both systems are closed off, meaning that the mind cannot directly transfer thoughts into society, and society cannot directly communicate meaning into one’s consciousness. Within his framework, language does not transmit ideas within a system but works as a medium that makes communication possible through context.

These ideas are further developed in Bruce Clarke’s chapter on Communication, which

was touched upon during the presentations. Clarke expands on the connection between Luhmann’s system theory and language. Luhmann claims that “Communication… takes place only when a difference of utterance and information is first understood. This distinguishes it from a mere perception of others’ behavior.”(Luhmann 2002, 157). In other words, communication does not depend on the transmission of perceptions but on shared ideas of meaning and the context surrounding them. Meaning is seen as a form in which“the actual and the possible can appear simultaneously.”( Luhmann 1995, 63). He argues that language operates through codes, differences, and context that allow humans to have a sense of understanding. For language to function as a medium of communication, humans must depend on the codes that provide the system with meaning.

Luhmann’s work helps reiterate that context provides meaning to language. His work

states that the psychic system and social system are closed off, which means humans are unable to transfer ideas. Due to this, meaning cannot simply exist in words or be communicated directly. It has to be interpreted within context, which Luhmann refers to as codes and distinctions that are utilized by each system. Luhmann’s argument raises important questions surrounding the media. If these systems are closed off, then the media cannot assure the transmission of an artist’s internal thoughts or intentions. This challenges the idea that the media allows the audience to perceive an artist’s intentionality. It suggests that the media functions more as a medium, similarly to language, having the ability to shape communication, but never fully bridging the gap between internal and external systems. This leaves us with the question: when we create media, are we truly able to express our perceptions, or will these internal thoughts always be reshaped by the context in which they are received?

Bateson (/Kac)

This brings us back to a broader point: what theorists like Bateson remind us is that language only exists through context, and contemporary artworks like Eduardo Kac’s Genesis make that insight visible in surprising ways. Gregory Bateson defines context as essential by referring to communication via language as “the difference that makes a difference” (Bateson 235). Essentially, he explains that a word or sign only really carries meaning when placed within a specific frame of context that allows humans to interpret it. For example, a phrase that is spoken ironically will communicate something entirely different than the same phrase spoken earnestly. Bateson reminds us that language does not exist in a vacuum – it is always dependent on the situation that surrounds it. Eduardo Kac’s artwork Genesis is a great representation of this idea. Kac began with a biblical verse, translated it into Morse code, then converted it again into genetic code and implanted it into living bacteria. Visitors online could then manipulate the bacteria, which in result, altered the biblical text itself. What began as a scripture became a coded message, then a biological sequence, then an interactive artwork. Its meaning shifted at every stage because of the context in which it appeared. Genesis embodies the central argument that language, whether in everyday conversation or in art form, can only be truly understood within the context it exists in.

Citations

Bateson, Gregory. “Language”, Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp 235.

Clarke, Bruce. “Communciation”, Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp 132-144.

Wolfe, Cary. “Language”, Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by W.J.T Mitchell and Mark, B.N. Hansen, The University of Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 233-248.

Written by: Molly Kingsley, Lea Lavalley, Christine Choi, Aminata Chipembere

Featured Graphic created by Molly Kingsley

Critical Concept Explication

Mass Media is Never Neutral

2025-09-21 Maryam 18 Comments

What does it really mean to speak to the masses? From kings carving words into stone to TikTok clips spreading across the globe, people have always tried to push their voices further than the moment in front of them.

Mass media, as John Durham Peters explains in Critical Terms for Media Studies (Mitchell & Hansen, 2010), is part of this long history of communication across distance and time. In our group’s presentation, we looked at how mass media reshape communication, power, and culture. Peters (2010) explains this through a triad: the message (content), the means (delivery), and the agents (authors and audiences). Together, these form an ecosystem of media.

Mass Media has transformed from speaking face-to-face, to broadcasting for unknown audiences in three main features:

Generalization, where the content is made for public standards and interests rather than tailor for specific individual needs.
Spatiotemporal Reach, which enables communication across space and time.
Elective Participation, related to the targeted audiences’ availability in time and the method of access.

Classic Theorists on Media & Power

These three aspects allow the media to become “mass” by expanding its audience while addressing them as strangers.

Classic theorists like McLuhan and Innis deepen this argument.

“The Medium is the Message”, one of Marshall McLuhan’s famous phrases, on how the form of media covers more meaningful information than the content it carries.
Harold Innis shows a different perspective on power and different media forms, proved by the space-binding media like images, prints and audios serve better in Commerce, while time-binding media like oral traditions and scripture sustain Religious and Cultural authorities.

These key arguments of the chapter highlight why media matters while showing how mass media has always been tied to structures of power while still leaving room for audiences to interpret and resist.

Media’s Reach & The Power of Audiences

Our chapter on Mass Media looks at media through a general lens that broadly covers concepts about its development and reception. It begins by discussing how “any form of communication has potential for spillage,” meaning that any form of communication, but most significantly word of mouth/face-to-face communication, may not be limited to being understood by the target audience. For example, a conversation, a speech, or a broadcast always has the potential to be overheard by an external audience that the content is not intended for.

The second point, which the chapter elaborates on most extensively, is crucial to understanding the presence and efficacy of mass media: the Spatiotemporal Range. This basically refers to the presence of a media object across time and space, and how it maintains permanence through this.

The spoken word is a temporary form of communication. It addresses only a finite audience. Even though it can address large audiences at once, it cannot be passed on across cities or countries or years in the exact same way. In these terms, writing has a better spatiotemporal range. With the printing press, the written word could be replicated multiple times, which gives it permanence and the ability to be transported across landscapes. This becomes even easier with the internet and, in today’s age, social media. Now, ideas can be communicated instantly, reach an indefinitely large audience, and be preserved over decades effortlessly.

Lastly, the writer addresses the fact that interaction isn’t always two-sided. The way a piece of media is interpreted, and by whom, lies mainly in the hands of the audience/ consumers. Creators, authors, and speakers can curate their content to address a specific group of people and ensure it is understood in a certain way. However, the actual engagement with that content can always differ from the intended outcome.

These sections lead us to understand the place of mass media in culture and through its evolution, eventually guiding us to a main argument, which, according to Peters is that “power is perhaps the ultimate mass medium.” Keeping this in mind, we think that the most crucial point that the readers can latch onto is that, despite Mass Media being centered around institutions of power, ultimately, the power to choose what influences people resides with us as audiences and consumers of media. Or in simple words: audiences have agency.

This chapter is especially important and relevant now, when every individual has the ability to create independently, as well as easy access to any form of media through the internet. In such a digital environment, people of power can spread messages farther than ever. At the same time, this amplification of the spatiotemporal range, also amplifies the ability for audiences to reinterpret, resist, boycott, or support these messages and spread their own individual ideas. The vastness and accessibility of the internet allow the audience to do more than just accept or reject dominant ideas, which adds fragility to power.

Connecting the Dots: Finding Common Ground in Media Theory

While this chapter looks at mass media through a broad lens, we found that other groups’ presentations had many overlapping themes with ours and were able to dive deeper into certain concepts to provide further insight into areas of media.

For instance, though our presentation used the term ‘communication’ loosely, the group that presented on communication further explained how it works and the systems within it. They compared two models of communication: the transmission model, which focuses on the one-way transfer of information, and the constitutive model, which views communication as a dynamic, reflexive process. The latter describes how meanings are not fixed and are instead created during interaction, as the decoding of a message by a receiver heavily relies on social and contextual factors. We found that the constitutive model is similar to our chapter’s discussion of mass media’s indefinite form of address, in which it is explained that different audiences outside of the target group can interpret the same piece of information differently and thus change the original meaning.

Furthermore, we emphasised the significance of power in mass media, which is a theme that runs through many other chapter presentations. The presentation on image talked about how we as humans heavily rely on images to act as tangible representations of concepts, which is why religious imagery, such as paintings, has such a strong influence on audience perceptions. The group that covered writing detailed different forms of writing such as recordkeeping or numerical notion for trade, and how the ability to write distinguishes those who have access to knowledge, and therefore power and control. Thus, image, writing, religion and art are some of the many chapters that relate back to our chapter’s argument that media is always tied to institutions of power, which makes mass media a tool of global influence.

Reflective Conclusion

Looking back on our presentation, we think there are a few things we could have done differently. One main thing we wish we had included was more examples, both from the author’s text and from our own media experiences. The chapter itself is filled with vivid illustrations from medieval manuscripts to modern broadcasting, and bringing more of those into the presentation might have made the theory feel less abstract. Even more importantly, connecting the ideas directly to examples familiar to us as BMS students, maybe like current events, pop culture or how we consume global media. We think this could have made it more interactive and relatable for our audience.

What we found challenging about this chapter was its sheer scope. The author moves from ancient kings and religious sermons to radio and television, and at first it was difficult to pin down what exactly he meant by “mass media.” Was it a modern invention or a timeless human practice? Eventually, we came to see that his answer is both: the urge to reach the many, to preserve messages across space and time, has always been central to communication. Even face-to-face speech, the author argues, carries the potential for mass communication because words inevitably spill beyond their intended audience. That realization reshaped how we think about communication itself, it is never fully contained.

Preparing this presentation also taught us something valuable that we think matters for the rest of the class: the importance of studying media historically and critically. It’s easy to treat mass media as something that began with the printing press or exploded with radio, television, and the Internet. Still, the author shows us that the logic of mass communication is much older. Religious texts, oral performances, decrees, even monuments, all functioned as forms of mass media long before the digital era. For us, that was a crucial takeaway. Mass media is always entangled with institutions of power but it has also always been reshaped by the audiences who interpret and respond to it.

If we had to summarize our own takeaway, it’s that mass media is never neutral. It carries with it histories of power, control, and institutions, yet it is never completely one-sided. Audiences always bring their own interpretations and agency, whether that’s through critique, resistance, or creative re-use. That tension, between institutional influence and human response, is what makes studying media so relevant to us today. In a world where media can both oppress and liberate, the responsibility falls on us to recognize its power, challenge its narratives and imagine new possibilities for how stories are told.

Contributors: Maryam Abusamak, Adela Lynge, Minh Ha Nguyen (Eira), Kenisha Sukhwal

Reference: Peters, J. D. (2010). Mass media. In W. J. T. Mitchell & M. B. Hansen (Eds.), Critical terms for media studies (pp. 267–280). University of Chicago Press.

Critical Concept Explication

How Does Law Govern and Control Media?

2025-09-21 xilon 14 Comments

Context and Summary of Presentation (Naomi)

Peter Goodrich’s essay Law falls within the “Society” section of Critical Terms for Media Studies. A professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, Goodrich is a scholar of critical legal theory. Accordingly, his contribution to Critical Terms opens with a kind of contradiction or dialectic about the nature of “free speech”. There seems to be a legal guarantee to free speech embedded within the United States’ Constitution; in fact, it is embedded in the First Amendment. However, the presence of licensing, censorship, and regulation are also well-known factors of public broadcasting– and the general public knows this. We believe this chapter is important for the class to understand, because it pertains to current events and is a part of the social framework we exist in as media-makers. How does the law work as a system which mediates the kinds of speech we can air on public channels? Goodrich’s argument begins by convincing readers that the law mediates our very self-perceptions and behaviour, in order to then answer this question.

In our presentation on September 10, our group sought to structure the arc of Goodrich’s essay by working from the most abstract and yet “frontal” part of the argument: the image of the law. As our peers who presented on Image reminded us, there is deep power in promulgating and controlling icons and symbols, which then become normalized to the point of representing an institution in the public eye. The image of the law is Your Honour; it is cloaked and robed, and built into the architecture of court buildings (Critical Terms, 250-252). A comprehensive understanding of the law is gate-kept from the everyday person, making use of esoteric language which both obscures meaning and contributes to the “theatrical” nature of courtroom behaviour and ritual.

We then attempted to explain the aspect of nomos: how the law is able to evolve and be re-interpreted by officials with “blind” judgement. “The judge is the bearer of the oracles, the custodian of an antique and continuing prior knowledge or precedent, not merely the rule but the nomos of law. This nomos, to borrow from early Greek sources, refers to a method, a melody or rhythm that precedes positive law and makes it possible” (Critical Terms, 252). In a way, this might explain how we accept the malleability and ever-specifying/ ever-overturning nature of the law to be able to restrict our speech in certain cases.

Expanding on Juridification (Celeste)

Law seeps into our lives every day. From the second we are born, we are made one with the law. Through birth certificates, social security numbers, passports, identification cards, they are all legal documents that “prove” our existence, and without them we are considered illegal, and have difficulty accessing things like healthcare, education, travel, employment, housing, marriage, and voting. Without legality, humans are left with nothing in today’s society. We can think about Homo juridicus, the reminder that law doesn’t just regulate us but constitutes us, the way we live, and how we act. In our daily lives, law exists and rules us there too. In our workspaces, our employers set our hours, pay, protections, and benefits, while workplace law like anti-discrimination, safety law, and unions, set what’s acceptable for you. In public spaces, traffic laws keep us in check while walking and driving. You stop at red lights, yield at yellow, wait for the walk sign or go to a designated intersection to cross the road. In your family, marriage, child custody, divorce, inheritance, all regulated by legal frameworks. Whether or not you have interacted with what we think of as law- eg, a court case, jail, lawyers, suing, jury duty- you are consistently governed, mediated, and controlled by the law.

Juridification absorbs us in other aspects than personally as well. It controls licensing, surveillance, control over the image of justice, regulation of speech and decency, historical censorship, and more. Goodrich covers this and more in his chapter about Law as a critical media term, and we covered it in our presentation. Licensing and censorship is a large part of our world today and its fully ruling media by law. Through laws like The Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934, licenses were restricted to only those with appropriate character, public interest, citizenship, and morality. Citizenship is an important part of these acts and the presentation of licensing, as it is a direct connection to how law can control everything that we do in our day to day lives. Law controls and mediates everyone, but access to law and the ways it is upheld is exclusive to a select few.

Relevance of Theory Today (Bridghet)

To further explore the exclusivity of law and the methods of which it is upheld, conducted an interview with Phillip Duguay. Duguay is the former Vice-President of Grid United who is a registered lobbyist that has worked with many advocacy groups for the renewable energy legislation. While conducting the interview, I noticed Duguay redefining the Image of Law in the present media and highlighted some of the extreme lengths that the judiciary system is reinforcing its power.

“The law is being diluted by the media which is fracturing traditional media and is becoming an antiquated beast; the entering effect of American politics/Western World.” Duguay stated. With an extreme expansion of accessible information channels, information has changed from rigid and transparent to malleable and targeted. This change of information distribution has resulted in formerly strong institutions’ respect to be watered down which leads to retaliation by those institutions with more extreme methods. Duguay gave a local and timely example of this kind of retaliation with the case of Doug Ford. The Premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, has continuously discounted the prestige of electoral platforms by his polarizing use of social media. Ford uses his public platform to target the electoral system of which he is trying to gain trust.

In another macro-example of the reimaging of law, Donald Trump has continuously used the media to dilute his authority and then used legislation to punish his critics. The most recent instance of this would be Trump’s involvement in Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension by ABC after he commented on right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk’s death. Deemed insensitive by the right-community, Kimmel’s speech resulted in the chairman of the Federal Communications Committee, who was appointed by Trump, making a serious legal case against him. Many colleagues and supporters have rallied for Kimmel and state that this suspension is a clear example of censorship and a violation of his right to free speech. Currently, the judiciary system of North America is attacking itself, which has led to a division within their respective societies.

Philip Duguay reiterates why the development of the internet and social media has caused these rifts by stating, “Hate speech in the media, by the alternative right wing and extreme left wing creates an environment of fear and mistrust in media and elected officials, laws, judiciary. The system is delegitimized and leads to polarization. This polarization makes it increasingly harder to be a moderate.”

Ultimately Duguay concludes the interview by approaching some solutions. Though the media and legislative focus has drifted away from renewable energy, Duguay is still adamant on its importance and states that based on Canadians’ voting habits, people long for a more united government. He concluded his remarks by wondering , “if there could be a more proactive response by the government. Canadians want an interregional powergrid; shouldn’t the government be tackling it?” It is becoming seemingly more apparent that the judiciary system is becoming a battle for authority. Will law continue to be an untouchable symbol in society’s iconography, or will someone be the sole authoritarian?

Further Connections (Xelena)

Overall, the arguments we made in our presentation and that Duguay presented in his interview all relate back to the rest of the critical terms presented in class–specifically how these systems govern our media yet are also mediated by it. In our case, law governs media through the ever-present threat of litigation and censorship, yet is influenced by the media through its authority on the legal image. This dialectical relationship between systems and media is apparent throughout time, history, and differing institutions. Writing governs media by controlling how we communicate and disseminate information, yet the media also has the ability to transform and change the medium itself through digital and technological developments. The same goes for the image, which governs our perception of reality and the media landscape, yet is mediated by mass production and mass replication, and, lastly, mass media itself, which governs public communication but is mediated by how much the public audience is able to understand. As one can see, systems pertaining to law, writing, image, and mass media–to say the least–are all controlled by media institutions who then hold and garner power, control, and influence over the public landscape.

However, I found that the presentation for materiality made an extremely relevant case in regards to this power–they state that the hegemony of the digital age is now calling into question all pre-existing forms of media. Technology is rapidly improving and growing, yet the fact remains that it is still dependent on humans on public opinions. Thus, we circle back to what Duguay expressed with the polarization between the public and the media institutions in power. This struggle for authority in this modern era is a prevalent theme throughout all the chapter presentations we have seen thus far. As society becomes more intangible, more digitally connected, more publicly and quantifiably powerful, we see these long-standing institutions and systems challenged–perhaps, rightfully so. Therefore, as media-makers, it is imperative that we understand these social frameworks so that we understand how it affects our daily lives through current events, the evolving media landscape, and through the content we consume and produce.