Blog

Exposure to the flood of information serves to narcotize rather than to energize the average reader or listener.

Introduction

Lazarsfeld and Merton came together in the year 1948 to explain a dysfunction of mass communication known as narcotizing dysfunction. In a chapter titled Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action (1948), Lazarsfeld and Merton described three functions of mass communication. Those three functions were the status-conferral function, the enforcement of social norms, and the narcotizing dysfunction.

At the time of writing, narcotizing dysfunction was not much of a popular concept. People highly believed in the power of mass media and propaganda. These arguments were mere assumptions and were not based on any empirical findings. Lazarfeld’s work in the area gave birth to the very famous concept of the two-flow theory, which emphasized the role of opinion leaders in mass communication.

Narcotizing Dysfunction

In the ever-changing world of communication, people are motivated to keep abreast of the world. The flow of information was never the same with the advent of broadcasting technologies. In other words, the media was flooded with news, and the audience was bombarded with information. In the ideal scenario, the audience is expected to react to any new information delivered and take action to bring any positive change. But, according to Merton and Lazarsfeld, a vast supply of information may elicit a superficial concern with the problem of society rather than a natural feeling of interest in addressing the issue.

When we come across any new information about an event like a war, we end up engaging ourselves in understanding the conflict itself rather than taking some organized social action. In other words, the news about an issue overwhelms audiences; they become apathetic to it, and rather than taking action, they spend most of their time thinking and knowing about an issue. With such a flood of information, an increasing share of time is devoted to reading and listening about an event. A decreasing share of time is allocated for organized action.

When coming through an event that requires some organized action, people have this natural urge to do something about it. Whenever there is a train accident or a plane crash, people should focus on justice for the people and punishment for the ones responsible. But, even after weeks of such incidents, people keep searching for the cause of train accidents rather than taking some organized action against authorities. People mistake knowing about the problems for doing something about them, which somehow keeps their social conscience clean.

The existence of narcotizing dysfunction cannot be doubted. It is more relevant today than it was at the time Lazarsfeld and Merton explained it. Still, rigorous empirical research needs to be done to measure the extent it operates.

Example

A simple real-life example of narcotizing dysfunction could be seen in how people react to news about environmental issues. Let’s say there’s extensive coverage in the media about climate change, with detailed reports, documentaries, and news segments highlighting the situation’s urgency. Some individuals might spend much time reading articles, watching videos, and sharing information about climate change on social media. They might feel like they’re contributing to the cause simply by staying informed.

However, despite their knowledge and awareness, they may not actually take any concrete actions to reduce their own carbon footprint, advocate for policy changes, or support organizations working on environmental conservation. Instead, they might feel overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem or believe someone else will handle it. In this way, the abundance of information about climate change can lead to a sense of complacency or apathy rather than inspiring meaningful action to address the issue.

References

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1971). Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action. In W. Schramm & D. F. Roberts (Eds.), The process and effects of mass communication (pp. 554–578). University of Illinois Press. (Original work published 1948)

read: models of mass communication
read: Harold Lasswell’s propaganda theory