 | This articlehas an unclearcitation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style ofcitation andfootnoting.(August 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Mass society is a concept that describes modern society as a monolithic force and yet a disaggregate collection of individuals. The term is often used pejoratively[1] to refer to a society in whichbureaucracy and impersonal institutions have replaced some notion oftraditional society, leading tosocial alienation.
In a sense, all societies are mass societies, but the term typically refers todeveloped countries that possess amass culture and large-scale social, political and economic institutions which structure daily life for the majority of people.[2] In modern times the term has taken on more importance and broader scope with the advent ofmass media and theinternet.
 | This sectionis missing information about dates. History needs dates. Please expand the section to include this information. Further details may exist on thetalk page.(May 2024) |
Descriptions of society as a "mass" took form in the 19th century, referring to the leveling tendencies in the period of theIndustrial Revolution that undermined traditional andaristocratic values, and replacedmonarchy with various forms ofliberal democracy.Political theorists such asAlexis de Tocqueville analyzed mass society and pinpointed its beginning in theFrench Revolution.
Variousconservative theorists developed concepts of mass society in which it replaces aristocracies with the "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule" andJosé Ortega y Gasset, for instance, lamented the decline ofhigh culture.Marxist accounts, such as those of theFrankfurt School, critiqued the prevailing forms of mass society as one dominated by aculture industry that served the interests ofcapitalism. However,Marxism-Leninism created its own form of mass society calledbureaucratic collectivism by its critics. The idea of historic processes being driven exclusively by "laws of dialectics" highlighted the role of masses as the main field of social change, as opposed to individuals whose role is always negligible.
Mass society as anideology can be seen as dominated by a small number of interconnected elites who control the conditions of life of the many, often by means of persuasion and manipulation.[3] This indicates the politics of mass society theorists – they are advocates of various kinds of cultural elite who should be privileged and promoted over the masses, claiming for themselves both exemption from and leadership of the misguided masses.[4]
"As technological innovation allowed government to expand, the centralized state grew in size and importance." "Since then, government has assumed responsibility for more and more areas of social life: schooling, regulating wages and working conditions, establishing standards for products of all sorts, and providing financial assistance to the elderly, the ill, and the unemployed." "In a mass society, power resides in large bureaucracies, leaving people in local communities with little control over their lives. For example, state officials mandate that local schools must meeteducational standards, local products must be government-certified, and every citizen must maintain extensivetax records. Although such regulations may protect and enhance social equality, they also force individuals to deal increasingly with nameless officials in distant and often unresponsive bureaucracies, and they undermine theautonomy of families and local communities."[5]
Mass society theory has been active in a wide range ofmedia studies, where it tends to produce ideal visions of what themass media such as television and cinema are doing to the masses. Therefore, the mass media are necessary instruments for achieving and maintaining mass societies. "The mass media give rise to national culture that washes over the traditional differences that used to set off one region from another." "Mass-society theorists fear that the transformation of people of various backgrounds into a generic mass may end up dehumanizing everyone."[6]
SociologistC. Wright Mills made a distinction between a society of "masses" and "public".[when?]
He states: "In a public, as we may understand the term,
In a mass,
InThe End of the Modern World (1957), theologianRomano Guardini wrote: "to either a greater or lesser degree mass man is convinced that his conformity [with mass society] is both reasonable and just".[8]
.svg)
