Communication Theory

"CALL FOR BOOK CHAPTERS: "MAPPING THE ALTERNATIVE MEDIA IN TURKEY"

Editors: Barış Çoban & Bora Ataman

Extended Deadline for abstracts:
January 1st 2013

http://alternativemediamap.net/

We aim to map the alternative media in Turkey, which is varied in form, structure and working styles such as “cracks”, “rhizomes” and “fronts”. Similarly to what has occurred with the mainstream media, both large and small examples of the alternative media, alongside their widespread prevalence inside the country, have also already transcended the national borders. We argue that mapping the alternative media, embracing newspapers, radio and television channels, cinemas, blogs, forums and platforms, essentially the full range of conventional and new media organs and vehicles, is one of the most useful research approaches to comprehending the nature of alternative politics in Turkey.

The alternative media works as a source of memory and an archive helping to understand the historical and current structure of alternative politics in Turkey. IT also gives voice to alternative ideologies and politics and makes their political activities visible. In addition, the alternative media, which mainly represents the “otherised”, oppressed and marginalised groups, forms the vanguard of struggle against the hegemony and barbarism of the oppressive, globalized neo-liberal society.

Alternative media, as an umbrella term, applies to those media organs which are typically bottom up organisations. In principle, their organizational structures and decision making processes are democratic, participatory, polyphonic and dialogic. Their opposition to the mainstream media finds its roots, in its form and content, in social and political struggles and is based in radical ideologies such as anarchism, radical democracy and Marxism. The existence of alternative media indicates the struggle to construct a truly democratic and free sphere of communication from a number of broad perspectives, varying from the idea of simply being independent from either the state or capital, to being completely opposed to them. In this context, it is also possible to claim that every organ of the alternative media, as a centre of subaltern resistance, is part of a greater alternative communication network.

This so-called alternative network (or networks) is/are the voice of different political or social groups, communities, minorities or even individuals at the grassroots level. Thus, they open the way for these groups to actively participate in political and social life, as either real “agents” or as “spectacles” in the field of symbolic struggle. Therefore, individuals or groups can find opportunities to get involved in both real and symbolic struggles for hegemony, not only as consumers, but also as producers; as active agents.

Therefore, alternative media institutions either on the micro- or macro-scale cannot be considered as combatants solely at the informational level. In addition to their struggle to gather, record and spread news and ideas concerning local, national and transnational problems, they also provide a response to the establishment through real political actions. It is not unusual to see their active participation in protests, or even note that they hold the leadership positions in the organisation of some of these dissident political actions. Therefore, their active struggle with the hegemonic powers can also be considered as an effort to create alternative political forms. More commonly however, alternative media operate as the symbolic production centre of alternative politics and as an incubation ground for the intellectual and ideological constructs of social movements.

Alternative media, along with other dissident institutions, are seen as paving the way for a brighter and more just future by being the voice of the voiceless and contributing to the imagining of a different world. Threatening so-called representative democracy by supporting participatory social, cultural and political activities is also deemed useful to this end. By engaging in such activities, they may be able to cause the transformation of political culture in general. More importantly, however, the ways in which subordinate constituents of the society interpret politics and their own means of participation could change in a positive manner. Moreover, such efforts may also lead to the construction of efficient counter-public spheres alongside the more common examples of alternative spaces.
Diverse anti-systemic, reformist and revolutionary ideological orientations, varied political discourses and different modes of action constituting the alternative media landscape mostly open up an opportunity for the “oppressed” to actively participate in these alternative political spaces that are, to a certain extent, diverse, colourful, vivid and, most importantly, innately dialogic.
In this context, we argue that the “duty” of academia should be to understand these alternatives without stigmatizing them as the source of conflicts within the prevailing social system. After all, we as editors, would like to study these initiatives since the imagining of an alternative world may only be possible by embracing the oppressed and their voice, even though the world around us is not particularly welcoming.

Abstracts of papers are sought on topics such as:
• Radical- militant media (affiliated with revolutionary organizations)
• Radical media (Struggling within legal parameters to push the limits of the existing system
• Identity and rights-based media (Human rights, labour and trade-union rights, gender, environment, ethnicity, struggles based on faith or denomination
• Transnational and diaspora-based alternative media
• Independent, objective, opposition media
• Dissident voices, “cracks” in the mainstream media

However, it should be noted that the categories above do not refer to independent categories with clear differences. It is possible to say that; most examples of the alternative media operating in Turkey can be included under more than one of the rubrics mentioned above. Nevertheless, the alternative media organs in Turkey, despite a degree of permeability in the boundaries that separate them, may be seen as belonging more to one or another of the above-mentioned classifications, therefore, these categories will constitute the book’s chapters.

Furthermore, we are mainly interested in the case studies (comparative if possible) and empirical research possessing theoretical and methodological clarity, and focusing on at least one of three basic dimensions of media studies; such as “Production”, “Text”, or “Audience”, without missing the multi-layered and intertwined relationships between these dimensions.

Abstracts of a maximum of 250 words in Turkish and English outlining the topic, theoretical and methodological approach as well as the research question, should be submitted to either Barış Çoban (bcoban@dogus.edu.tr) or Bora Ataman (bataman@dogus.edu.tr) until January1st 2013.

Announcement of the abstracts selected will be made by February 1 2013.

The deadline for full paper submissions is August 1, 2013

The editors are planning to publish book in Turkish and English and have made an agreement with Yordam, to publish in January 2014.

After the evaluation of the abstracts, negotiations with foreign publishing houses will begin for the English version.
Barış Çoban & Bora Ataman (Eds.)
Extended Deadline for Research Proposals: January 1st, 2013"

"Punishment is a topic of increasing importance for citizens and policy makers. Why should we punish criminals? Which theory of punishment is most compelling? Is the death penalty ever justified? These questions and many others are addressed in this highly engaging guide.

Punishment is a critical introduction to the philosophy of punishment, offering a new and refreshing approach that will benefit readers of all backgrounds and interests. The first critical guide to examine all leading contemporary theories of punishment, this book explores – among others – the communicative theory of punishment, restorative justice, and the unified theory of punishment. Thom Brooks examines several case studies in detail, including capital punishment, juvenile offending, and domestic abuse. Punishment highlights the problems and prospects of different approaches in order to argue for a more pluralistic and compelling perspective that is novel and groundbreaking.

Preface. Introduction. Part I: General Theories 1. Retributivism 2. Deterrence 3. Rehabilitation 4. Restorative Justice Part II: Hybrid Theories 5. Rawls, Hart, and the ‘Mixed Theory’ 6. Expressivism 7. Unified Theory Part III: Case Studies 8. Capital Punishment 9. Juvenile Offenders 10. Domestic Abuse 11. Sexual Crimes. Conclusion. Bibliography. Index"

The article first describes characteristics of major infrastructure projects. Second, it documents a much neglected topic in economics: that ex ante estimates of costs and benefits are often very different from actual ex post costs and benefits. For large infrastructure projects the consequences are cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and the systematic underestimation of risks. Third, implications for cost–benefit analysis are described, including that such analysis is not to be trusted for major infrastructure projects. Fourth, the article uncovers the causes of this state of affairs in terms of perverse incentives that encourage promoters to underestimate costs and overestimate benefits in the business cases for their projects. But the projects that are made to look best on paper are the projects that amass the highest cost overruns and benefit shortfalls in reality. The article depicts this situation as ‘survival of the unfittest’. Fifth, the article sets out to explain how the problem may be solved, with a view to arriving at more efficient and more democratic projects, and avoiding the scandals that often accompany major infrastructure investments. Finally, the article identifies current trends in major infrastructure development. It is argued that a rapid increase in stimulus spending, combined with more investments in emerging economies, combined with more spending on information technology is catapulting infrastructure investment from the frying pan into the fire.

I set out a possible framework for a designerly theory of knowing, called gramma/topology, a framework that is simultaneously a framing action in real time; it is a means towards an end. However, this model-of-knowing-and-exploring, projected onto the world, becomes a unique construction that may look the same (to an observer), but differs in use from person to person like fingerprints. The main part deals with the theoretical and philosophical inputs that provide the core of what can become gramma/topology, an argumentative theory in search of both epistemological and ontological ways of knowing. After a short summation, and as an example of my own gramma/topological reasoning I discuss the structure of a cybernetic design conversation, including Heidegger’s notion of the ontology of equipment, and end with Aristotle’s defense of arguing to first principles.

"El presente trabajo, el cual es parte de una investigación más amplia, es un primer trazado de la forma en que la semiótica ha sido utilizada en el campo de la comunicación a través de la bibliografía producida en el campo académico de la comunicación, contrastando además dos visiones diferentes: la primera se centra en la forma en que la semiótica ha conceptualizado a la comunicación, mientras que la segunda indaga la forma en que el campo de a comunicación ha utilizado al campo semiótico. Este trabajo representa un primer acercamiento epistemológico de la semiótica como fuente histórica y científica del campo de la comunicación y, por ende, de una comunicología posible.

REFERENCIA:

VIDALES, Carlos (2008). “Semiótica y comunicología. Recorrido histórico y conceptual de la semiótica como fuente científico histórica de la comunicación” en GALINDO, Jesús y Marta RIZO. Historia de la Comunicología Posible. Las fuentes de un pensamiento en construcción. México: UIA-Puebla, UIA-León, pp. 375-424.
"

""In this paper we seek to outline some aspects evidencing imaginary’s
communicational dimension. This means we need to pay attention to the way
collective imagining shapes social reality and how publicity contributes to this
process. Suggesting a close link between imaginary, society and publicity, we
name “public imaginal” to the dynamic, symbolic and complex set of diverse and
heterogeneous imaginaries that permeate societies.
Keywords: Imaginary; Imaginal; Publicity; Communication; Mediatization""

News production is becoming a continuous, quotidian activity of millions of users who publicly present their private preferences in limited networks. In a convergent news environment, journalistic practices of news selection, presentation and distribution are now as much part of an audience’s involvement with media content as they remain a routine of professionals. These processes of disintermediation characterize the logic of the network, which not only provides a new flexibility of social relations but also reinstates new social hierarchies of connectivity. When media practices of journalists and ‘media-oriented practices’ ( C ouldry) of former audiences make use of the network as a common resource, this represents a historically new situation of public communication. The paper proposes an analytic framework to accommodate both of these forms of cultural production as practices, accentuating the stabilizing dimension of practices through the continuous (re-)combination of new resources with cultural schemas. The critical vocabulary for such an analysis of practices is based on the works of Raymond Williams, Pierre Bourdieu and Nick Couldry.

This essay examines gender, sexuality, and society through the lens of apocryphal sexual acts, specifically the Donkey Punch, the Cleveland Steamer, and the Houdini. Although these acts are so disgusting, degrading, dangerous, or even deadly that they seem to exist in name only, such imagined acts serve a normative function, providing limits on not only sexuality, but also on the kinds of individuals worthy of such acts.

Niklas Luhmann has been hailed one of the most fascinating social theorists of the 20th century. His theorising encompasses a broad range of disciplines such as sociology, law, mass media, religion, love, administration, and several others. Most of his approximately 400 journal publications and 50 books have not yet been translated from German into English. Although his work has been discussed extensively by key German-speaking sociologists, his theorising has only recently been applied in other social scientific fields, such as organisational communication, philosophy, and journalism. While the central debate in communication theory has revolved around communication theory not yet being a unified field (Craig 1999; 2007; Russill 2005), Luhmann (1981; 2002) shifts the focus towards the definition of communication itself. Yet his theory of social autopoiesis with communication at its core has not yet been discussed even by the leading communication theorists such as Craig (1999; 2007), Griffin (2011), or Littlejohn and Foss (2011). It may not be surprising that communication scholars seem to ignore Luhmann’s theorising when he makes a statement such as: “Human beings cannot communicate; not even their brains can communicate: not even their conscious minds can communicate. Only communication can communicate” (Luhmann 2002:169). This paper presents a brief introduction to and interpretation of Luhmann’s theorising about communication in attempt to clarify some of the confusion that seems to surround his work. It provides a short overview of his intellectual background and focuses on two particular theoretical challenges in his theorising: 1) that communication systems are completely closed, and 2) that only communication can communicate.

"Evidence shows that computer-mediated communication has the potential to be used in ways that are important for relationship initiation, development, and maintenance. We
know less about the communication practices that individuals use within various mediated channels. This article describes a series of studies addressing mediated forms of immediacy. Specifically, the research examines the various ways that individuals can foster psychological closeness via computer-mediated communication and older communication channels, and the relationship of those activities to outcomes in educational settings. Implications of this research are discussed for mediated communication practices as well as theory development."

"As a teacher, I have been enjoying both respect and affection from my students. I always keep ‘asymmetrical but full of sahridayata‘ relationship with the students. My view on the teacher-student communication in the classroom is geared by the belief that it is the site and situation, at least, in the cultural contexts of Nepal and India, where prevails asymmetrical relationship between the communicating parties (the teacher and the student), but with the experience of sahridayata. Only two incidents had gone contrary to my belief: the case with Preeti was the first one. However, her case has been subjected to reinterpretation very recently. And, at this juncture, it has contributed for strengthening my belief.
"

"Communications scholars have been challenging the universality of Eurocentric scholarship, which they argue to be a form of intellectual imperialism imposing its provincial ideals and masquerading these as universal. As an answer to Eurocentricity, Asiacentricity proposes to place Asian values and ideals at the center of inquiry to see Asian phenomena from the standpoint of Asians as subjects and agents. This article critiques this Asiacentric agenda and critically examines the implications and premises of this paradigm. It suggests instead that a culture-centric paradigm be adopted to avoid an Asian version of the Eurocentricity crisis. The article advocates the adoption of a more harmonious perspective in light of the convergence of global cultures and calls for approaching research deficiencies as a global community of communication scholars rather than one divided along ethnic fault lines. The culture-centric approach is proposed
as a meta-theory that is non-polarizing by nature through its placement of culture at the center of inquiry. To avoid the creation of polarity, culture-centricity seeks to encompass the contradictions and ambivalences as well as other diverse cultural representations. This article argues for a non-polarizing approach so that communication scholars can theorize without ideological bias or artificial boundaries created by arbitrary definitions of what constitutes East or West."