In ‘’The Mass Society’’, Charles Wright Mills discusses the differences between a public and a mass. He considers that these two concepts are on opposite sides of the spectrum and that, to begin to understand how they diverge, four distinctions must be considered (p.302).
In the first place, Mills notes that the ratio of people who voice their opinion versus those who receive them differs greatly (p.302). Moreover, the public and the mass don’t have the same power " […] of answering back an opinion without internal or external reprisals being taken" (p.302). By this, Mills means that, people, depending on where they find themselves on the scale of public to mass, might not be allowed to respond to the giver of information because leaders or organization might prevent them from doing so (p.303). Furthermore, publics’ and masses’ opinions don’t have the same capacity to initiate social actions (p.303). Finally, another …show more content…
People are encouraged to share their opinions (p.304). Compared to the community of mass, if mass media are present, they only aim to make primary publics come together in order to lead to bigger and more diverse discussions (p.304). This type of society is characterized by, first, a high ratio of speakers to receivers of opinions (p.302). Indeed, the same number of people can voice their opinions and listen to those of others (p.303). Second, communications are organized as to allow everyone to answer back and contest, or agree with, someone’s opinion (p.302-303). Third, Mills considers that the opinions of the public can lead social actions to take place. The public is even encouraged to take such actions, even if they go against the desires of the authority in place (p.303-304). Ultimately, a community of publics is democratic (p.304). This entails that the population is not penetrated by those in change in a way that could damage their autonomy
In the first place, Mills notes that the ratio of people who voice their opinion versus those who receive them differs greatly (p.302). Moreover, the public and the mass don’t have the same power " […] of answering back an opinion without internal or external reprisals being taken" (p.302). By this, Mills means that, people, depending on where they find themselves on the scale of public to mass, might not be allowed to respond to the giver of information because leaders or organization might prevent them from doing so (p.303). Furthermore, publics’ and masses’ opinions don’t have the same capacity to initiate social actions (p.303). Finally, another …show more content…
People are encouraged to share their opinions (p.304). Compared to the community of mass, if mass media are present, they only aim to make primary publics come together in order to lead to bigger and more diverse discussions (p.304). This type of society is characterized by, first, a high ratio of speakers to receivers of opinions (p.302). Indeed, the same number of people can voice their opinions and listen to those of others (p.303). Second, communications are organized as to allow everyone to answer back and contest, or agree with, someone’s opinion (p.302-303). Third, Mills considers that the opinions of the public can lead social actions to take place. The public is even encouraged to take such actions, even if they go against the desires of the authority in place (p.303-304). Ultimately, a community of publics is democratic (p.304). This entails that the population is not penetrated by those in change in a way that could damage their autonomy