‘Mean world’ syndromeA B C D E F G H IJKL M N O P R S T U VXYZWTh ere is a ready tendency to consider words
as the actual embodiment of the meaning they
attempt to describe; in fact, they are approxima-
tions. Just as paper money has no intrinsic value,
words have no intrinsic meaning: rather they are
accredited with value or meaning by common
consent. Like currency, word-meanings are
subject to devaluation and manipulation. Ulti-
mately you can paper the walls with debased
currency; debased language becomes a weapon
against meaning.
A prevalent assumption is that an act or work
of communication has to mean something. Th us
a bemused spectator in front of, say, a work of
abstract art, might declare, ‘But what does it
mean?’ Th e short answer is that our spectator is
unfamiliar with (or resistant to) the nature of the
discourse that has, in the fi rst instance, taken
place between the artist, his/her medium and
his/her environment (in place and time). Unless
the spectator can ‘tune into’ the codes operated
by the artist, unless the spectator can recognize
that a discourse is actually taking place, then the
art he/she witnesses – for him or her, not neces-
sarily anyone else – is meaningless.
On the other hand, the spectator might
instinctively warm to a work of art, be attracted
by its colour, shape, texture, and still be at a
loss to grasp its meaning. In this case, common
ground between artist, work of art and spectator
has been found. Communication has begun, and
so, arguably, has meaning.
Meaning, obviously, has to be worked at. Th e
codes or practices of specific communicative
discourses have to be recognized and eventually
understood, the relationship between speaker/
writer/artist/musician actor/dancer, etc. and the
forms and conventions of the chosen medium of
communication responded to, preferably sympa-
thetically and with empathy.
Meaning can be said to be in a perpetual state
of reworking or renegotiation. Th e artist’s mean-
ing may never be the spectator’s meaning; but
meaning is the property of neither. Indeed, to
regard meaning as something universally deter-
minable and fi xed is to create myth and to deal
in propaganda. See deconstruction; deep
structure; paradigm; polysemy; semiol-
ogy/semiotics.
Meaning systems See dominant, subordi-
nate, radical.
‘Mean world’ syndrome It has been argued
by commentators such as the American media
analyst George Gerbner that the more people
watch television, the more likely they will
consider that out there is a ‘mean world’. OnIn his book Th e Clash of Civilizations and the
Remaking of World Order (Simon & Schuster,
1997), Samuel P. Huntington, whilst acknowledg-
ing the tensions between Muslim and Western
nations, presents a more nuanced view of the
fault-lines between cultures or civilizations. He
defi nes a civilization as ‘a culture writ large’ and
argues that ‘the post-Cold War world is a world
of seven or eight major civilizations. Cultural
commonalities and diff erences shape the inter-
ests, antagonisms, and associations of states.
Th e most important countries in the world come
overwhelmingly from different civilizations’.
Th us ‘global politics has become multipolar and
multicivilizational’.
Huntington identifi es the following contem-
porary civilizations: Sinic (China, and Chinese
communities in Southeast Asia and other
locations outside of China, as well as Vietnam
and Korea); Japanese; Hindu (mainly in India);
Islamic (whose subcivilizations include Arab,
Turkic, Persian and Malay); Orthodox (located
mainly in Russia); Western (located mainly
in Europe, North America, Australia and
New Zealand); Latin American; and African
(although North Africa belongs to the Islamic
civilization, and much of the continent has been
subjected to Western influences). He further
argues that ‘religion is a central defi ning char-
acteristic of civilizations’, noting that four of the
fi ve major world religions are linked to the major
civilizations: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and
Confucianism; the exception is Buddhism.
Huntington questions the view that popular
culture and consumerism are necessarily
signifi cant factors in relationships between civi-
lizations, arguing that ‘the essence of Western
civilization is the Magna Carta not the Magna
Mac. Th e fact that non-Westerners may bite into
the latter has no implications for their accepting
the former’.
Meaning In communication terms, a dynamic
interaction between reader/viewer/listener,
etc. and the message. As John Fiske puts it in
Introducing Communication Studies (Methuen,
1982; see also 3rd edition, Routledge, 2010), ‘A
reader is constituted by his socio-cultural expe-
rience and thus he is the channel through which
message and culture interact. Th is is meaning.’
When we say something is ‘a question of
semantics’, we are referring to the hazardous
nature of actually pinning down, with any
exactitude, the meaning of what a person has
communicated. The word ‘freedom’ on some
lips has quite a diff erent connotation than if
expressed by others.