In modernity
where society is fragmented into different function systems, the fundamental
question of how a certain level of integration is at all possible comes into
the spotlight. In other words, if the left hand is totally oblivious of the
right hand’s doings, why has modern society not disintegrated into a chaotic
anarchy of social spheres? Modernity, of course, counters such a tendency with
a clever mechanism—the phenomena of structural coupling.
In its simplest
operationalisation, structural coupling is when the decisions of one function
system become the environment of the other. What one system releases, the other
system cognitises based on its own codes. Function systems couple with one
another because it allows them to solve complexity better. To provide a case,
the structural coupling of mass media and politics can be highlighted. Politics
serves the function of making collectively binding decisions. Media facilitates
such a function by providing politics a link with the collective public who political
decisions affect; either primarily through public engagement and subsequently
through dissemination of political decisions.
On the other hand, politics facilitates the function of media by
providing them with news stories and content. Together, they are able to
function more efficiently to solve society’s complexities better.
Structural
coupling is only possible in a modern society, where functional differentiation
is of primacy. It follows a fairly simple logic; a sphere can only couple with
another sphere if they are differentiated from each other. If they are not duly
differentiated and operationally closed, they are but one sphere, not a
coupling of two independent spheres. In fact, pathologies arise because of a
coupling that makes function systems lose their autonomy—the domination of one
sphere of another. Structural coupling presupposes sharp lines of functional
differentiation. Therefore, domination is highly characteristic of transitional
societies lacking such a line. In the Philippines, a society caught in the
transition to modernity, domination is rampant; none more apparent, perhaps, is
the domination of media in Philippine politics.
Philippine politics is arguably perception
driven. It is a show where plots are strategically produced, speeches are
thoughtfully scripted and actions are carefully staged. The public simply
watches in awe, concerned with aesthetics and oblivious of content. Media has
infused into politics its mechanisms; it has produced a politics that is not
based on genuine state and civil society interaction, but on an interaction
mediated by images. As a result, political decisions are no longer made with
the public in mind, although it is staged in that way. The public is reduced to
a passive spectator. Political truths are how they are resolved in media. How
many politicians have escaped the public eye by simply not showing up to media?
How many media people have won political offices from their crafted images as
expositors of failures in politics? How many public outrages have pacified
because of spin tactics such as clever language, convincing delivery and
carefully scripted plots? The domination of mass media in politics has
dangerous and terrifying implications.
In the miracle
of the century, however, the rise of social media compels the decoupling of
mass media and politics. Where the internet constituency orients itself more
with critical worded information that they themselves are now able to produce,
the authoritarian spectacle of images loses its power. It tears politics out of
the hold of media and returns it back to the domain of the public. However, in
a Philippine society where a large number of its population is marred by
constrictive socioeconomic conditions, is the escape from the spectacle fully possible? One can only wonder how the large part of the Philippine population,
who have no access to the internet and still rely on traditional forms of media
such as the television, are still caught in awe of the carefully crafted
aesthetics in politics. It seems that the show, as they say, must and will go
on.
