Change Requires Compromise
Monroe Price, in Media and Sovereignty The Global Information Revolution and Its Challenge to State Power, understands technological and geopolitical determinism, the influence of trade, and ideology as the major factors causing the changes he describes (13). Other factors include demography and history (16) and a still later reference would require law and culture to be included as important causal agents (49, 57). Needless to say, there are a lot of potential agents, but few, if any, examples of direct causation.
This idea is further complicated because none of these elements can exclusively cause change. However, they merit attention because these factors can interact with each other in order to cause change. Price values their explanatory power when considered in relation to each other, or to employ his term, as “constellations of change” (13, 15). These factors intersect with politics. “A rhythm developed between the ideological and the actual, the motivation and the realization” (14, describing Russia).
Agency exists in Price’s account, and the most important agency resides with the most powerful entities. Price is interested in the agency of governments such as the United States and understands agency in terms of power. Those with a great deal of power are likely to possess more agency. For example, the V-chip corresponded to a demand for a V-chip like device among American politicians. These political needs led to the conception of the technology and its development (126). Political self interest can influence the development of technology.
Agency does not reside merely with the government. For example, a scholar such as Lawrence Lessig can possess agency and shape the law, especially when powerful entities, such as the Supreme Court, lack knowledge or experience with technology (151). In some ways, Lessig is an exception. Individuals and those with less power tend to have decreased agency in this account. However, the masses certainly do not lack agency. The powerful, and politicians in particular, are themselves influenced by public opinion, as seen in the information policy concerns raised by the World Trade Center attacks (177).
Furthermore, the products of agency, such as law and technology, seem to possess an interesting agency of their own. For example, Price states, “Media laws are to be evaluated not merely in terms of a relatively simplistic notion of cause and effect. Laws and their adoption have a pervasive aspect themselves, in structuring society that cannot be measured in terms of an occasional impact” (49). Price’s main point is that a law may not have its intended result, and even if it does so, the law may have unforeseen cultural implications outside of the courtroom. Likewise, technology may have a causal role. “Every new technology reorders the world around it.” (145). For example, the V-chip may block potential avenues for free speech (136).
Price discusses many variables, and the process of obtaining different results is complicated. It seems that one could change a variable and it could modify the web of relationships between these different causal factors in unforeseen ways. One could pass a law designed to promote the media and democracy only to find that the law has the opposite effect. Fortunately, Price provides some guidance. Price highlights what he sees as the most important agents. “The world is a kind of force field where blazing technologies interact with gargantuan media entities and transformed geopolitical realities. Together, these lead to new forms of social and governmental response” (228). If one wants to promote change, technology, the media, and government are of primary importance. It would help to have at least one of these factors on your side. Furthermore, Price understands most concerns to be settled through compromise. For example, self-regulation represents a compromise between media and government (104). From this perspective, those with agency (that are human) balance their interests. In order to change society, obtain a good bargain. Change is not so much about altering society as it is about reconciling competing interests.