DEPENDENCY THEORY

media depends on the social context

(or: Media System Dependency Theory)
History and Orientation
Dependency theory was originally proposed by Sandra Ball-Rokeach and Melvin DeFleur (1976). This theory
merged out of the communication discipline.
Dependency theory integrates several perspectives: first, it combines perspectives from psychology with
ingredients from social categories theory. Second, it integrates systems perspectives with elements from more
causal approaches. Third, it combines elements of uses and gratifications research with those of media effects
traditions, although its primary focus is less on effects per se than on rationales for why media effects typically
are limited. Finally, a contextualist philosophy is incorporated into the theory, which also features traditional
concerns with the content of media messages and their effects on audiences. Research generated by this
model had tends to be more descriptive than explanatory or predictive.
 
Core Assumptions and Statements
Dependency theory proposes an integral relationship among audiences, media and the larger social system.
This theory predicts that you depend on media information to meet certain needs and achieve certain goals,
like uses-and-gratifications theory. But you do not depend on all media equally. Two factors influence the
degree of media dependence. First, you will become more dependent on media that meet a number of your
needs than on media that provide just a few. The second source of dependency is social stability. When social
change and conflict are high, established institutions, beliefs, and practices are challenged, forcing you to
reevaluate and make new choices. At such times your reliance on the media for information will increase. At
other, more stable times your dependency on media may go way down.
One’s needs are not always strictly personal but may be shaped by the culture or by various social conditions.
In other words, individuals’ needs, motives, and uses of media are contingent on outside factors that may not
be in the individuals’ control. These outside factors act as constraints on what and how media can be used and
on the availability of other non-media alternatives. Furthermore, the more alternatives and individual had for
gratifying needs, the less dependent he or she will become on any single medium. The number of functional
alternatives, however, is not just a matter of individual choice or even of psychological traits but is limited also
by factors such as availability of certain media.
 
MODERNIZATION THEORY
effects of the modernization process on human communication
History and Orientation
A macro-theory with a historical and sociological inspiration. Developed in large-scale historical research
investigating the effects of the modernization process on human communication. Modernization means the
appearance of ‘modes of social life or organization which emerged in Europe from about the seventeenth
century onwards and which subsequently became more or less worldwide in their influence’(Giddens, 1991).
Modernization theories explain the changing ways of communication and media use in traditional and
(post)modern societies.
Core Assumptions and Statements
Modernization theory has evolved in three waves. The first wave appeared in the 1950s and 1960s. One made
the attempt to explain the diffusion of Western styles of living, technological innovations and individualist types
of communication (highly selective, addressing only particular persons) as the superiority of secular, materialist,
Western, individualist culture and of individual motivation and achievement (Lerner, 1958), Schramm, 1964).
This first wave of theory produced three variants (McQuail, 2000: 84):
1.Economic development: mass media promote the global diffusion of many
technical and social innovations that are essential to modernization (Rogers,
1962). See Diffusion of Innovations theory.
2.Literacy and cultural development: mass media can teach literacy and other
essential skills and techniques. They encourage a ‘state of mind’ favorable to
modernity, e.g. the imagination of an alternative way of life beyond the traditional
way.
 3.National identity development: mass media could support national identities in new
nations (colonies) and support attention to democratic policies (elections).
   Most of these theories have been discredited because of their pro-Western bias.
The second wave of modernization theory is a part of the critical theory that was popular in the 1970s and
1980s. It does not support but criticize the influence of Western modernization. This is held to be a case of
Western cultural and economic imperialism or dominance (Schiller, 1976).
One of the theories concerned is media dependency theory. Peripheral (developing) countries are assumed to
be dependant on mass media in the core (the Western world).
The third wave of modernization theory rising in the 1990s is the theory of late-, high- or post modernity. It tries
to be more neutral, being not in favor or against Western modernization. Rather it attempts to unearth the
contradictions in the modernization process and to explain the consequences of modernity for individuals in
contemporary society (Giddens, 1991a, 1991b). Giddens showed that modern society is characterized by time-
space distantiation and disembedding mechanisms. Traditional society is based on direct interaction between
people living close to each other. Modern societies stretch further and further across space and time using
mass media and interactive media. Disembedding mechanisms such as money, symbolic means, English as
the lingua franca and the Internet help to lift out and activities in an abstract or online form that were once
embedded in particular material goods and in places.
Benjamin Barber tried to explain the clash of Western and non-Western cultures of the world in his Jihad
versus McWorld: How the Planet is both Falling Apart and Coming Together (1996).
This theme of the combination of unification and fragmentation in society and in media use also is present in
the work of Meyrowitz (1993) – See Medium Theory- and van Dijk (1993, 1991/1999). Van Dijk tries to explain
the rise of the new media such as computer networks and mobile telephony as important tools for modern life.
They enable scale reduction and scale extension, a unitary and a fragmented world and, finally, a world that is
both social and individualized (network individualism).
Conceptual Model
At the same time, both Modernization and Dependency theories underline that the relationships between
developed and developing countries is unequal and there exist a kind of dependence of developing
countries on developed ones, though the views on this dependence vary considerably. Nevertheless, both
theories underline the dominant position of Western countries in the modern world and leave little room
for the alternative ways of the development but the western one, which is viewed as the only way of the
development of the future world in the context of the global economy.
It is worthy of mention that both theories are ethnocentric in a way because they practically ignore the
possibility of the alternative development of developing countries but, instead they insist that the
development of western countries will be the example developing countries, willingly or not, will follow,
while, at the same time, they do not really admit the alternative ways of development of countries of the
Third world (Preston, 137). However, it is worthy of mention the example of China which economy is
progressing rapidly but its way of development differs considerably from the dominant western way, but
this country does not meet to the basic assumptions of either of the theories.

Difference between Modernization theory and Dependency theory

In spite of existing similarities between Modernization theory and Dependency theory, differences
between them are much more substantial and it is even possible to estimate that these theories are
antagonistic in their views on the development of the world and international relationships, especially on
the relationship between developed and developing countries. In fact, differences between Modernization
theory and Dependency theory result from the origin of Dependency theory which, as it has been already
mentioned above, was developed in response to Modernization theory.
On analyzing existing differences between the two theories, first of all, it is necessary to underline that
Modernization theory views the development of the world and relationships between developed and
developing countries as the relationships of potentially equal countries which are just at a different stage
of development at the moment. To put it more precisely, Modernization theory stands on the ground that
western countries are well-developed and western way of development is viewed as the most successful
and perspective while there is practically no other alternatives to this way of the development. This is
why the supporters of this theory insist on the necessity to develop the cooperation between developed
and developing countries in order to make the latter closer to the former. What is meant here is the fact
that Modernization theory underlines the necessity of borrowing the experience of western countries by
developing countries of the Third world (Scott 196). Basically, developing countries should follow blindly
the example of more developed western countries and this will bring them economic, social, and cultural
prosperity.
Naturally, to achieve this goal, developing countries should develop their cooperation in all spheres of life,
including economy, politics, culture, education, and social relations, with western countries, while the
latter, being more advanced compared to developing countries should help them achieve the highest
level of development through education, technological assistance and consulting of countries of the Third
world. In such a way, this theory views modernization of socio-economic and political life of developing
countries on the basis of the example of western countries as the only possible solution of the problem of
backwardness of poor countries since western way of development is, according to Modernization theory,
is the only correct way to prosperity.
In stark contrast to Modernization theory, Dependency theory underlines that relationships between
developing and developed countries are based not on the growing cooperation between them but rather
on the dependence of developing countries on developed ones. To put it more precisely, supporters of
Dependency theory stand on the ground that western countries are really more advanced than
developing countries but the latter follow their example not just because they are willing to do so nor
because they really believe that western way of development is really better but, in contrast, they are
forced to choose the same way of development as western countries have already made in order to
become a part of the world community and avoid the isolation of the country or, what is more, even the
intervention of western countries in their policy. In this respect, it is necessary to underline that
supporters of Dependency theory argue that western countries impose their politics and their rules to
developing countries forcing them to accept western standards and norms, while any disobedience from
the part of developing countries threatens by economic sanctions or even military intervention from the
part of developed countries (Schelkle, 231).
In such a way, unlike Modernization theory, Dependency theory does not view the choice in favor of
western way of development as the panacea from all problems or as a conscious choice that is really
supported by the population and elite of developing countries but such westernization of developing
countries is viewed as a violent interference of developed countries in the life of the Third world.
Naturally, such a policy leads to the growing dependence of developing countries on developed ones and,
therefore, makes the socio-economic breakthrough impossible. In contrast, Modernization theory believes
in its possibility due to the modernization of socio-economic and political life of developing countries and
their closer cooperation with developed countries, which is supposed to be a conscious and willing act of
developing countries looking for ways to prosperity.

Conclusion
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that Modernization theory and
Dependency theory are similar in their views on the modern world. To put it more precisely, both theories
admit the leadership of western countries and their currently dominant position in the modern world,
while undeveloped countries are characterized by socio-economic and political backwardness. At the
same time, the two theories agree that the cooperation between western countries and developing
countries is constantly growing and leads to their integration.
However, it is necessary to underline that Modernization theory views such cooperation and integration
as a conscious and voluntary act from the part of developing countries, for which modernization in the
western style is the only way to overcome the existing backwardness, while supporters of Dependency
theory argue that such cooperation and integration is imposed to developing countries by more advanced
western countries, which simply attempt to benefit from their cooperation with developing countries and
their westernization becomes a way of the establishment of control over and growing dependence of
developing countries on developed ones.
Regardless, the existing differences, both theories still raise a very important problem of relationships
between developed and developing countries and the dominance of western countries and western
civilization in the modern world.