I Am a Camera:

The Mediated Self

Robert Cathcart and Gary Gumpert
This paper argues that an individual's self image is in large part media
dependent. The case is made for this position by first establishing George
Herbert Mead's theory of self and the role of interpersonal communication in
the formulation of self image. The concept of mediated interpersonal com-
munication is then explained and linked to Mead's position that the self can
be known only through communication, thereby expanding the crucial
function of communication to include media's role in the formulation of a self
image. Specifically, the role of the photographic media in the formulation of a
self image is analyzed and a new research paradigm for studies^ of the self is
suggested. '

KEY CONCEPTS Self, self image, self concept, generalized other, role
taking, intrapersonal communication, mediated interpersonal communica-
tion, photographic images, mass media images.

ROBERT S. CATHCART (Ph.D., Northwestern University, 1953) is Professor in the

Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, Queens College, Flushing, NY 11367. CARY
CUMPERT (Ph.D., Wayne State University, 1963) is Professor in the Department of Communi-
cation Arts and Sciences, Queens College, Flushing, NY 11367.

M
edia technology is altering the interactions of individuals and groups
(Innis, 1951; McLuhan; 1964). The telegraph, photograph, tele-
phone, newspaper, radio, television, and the computer extend and
transcend time and space permitting the establishment of and continuity of
relationships that once would have been impossible (Ong, 1977, 1982;
Mendelsohn, 1964; de Sola Pool, 1977; Turkle, 1984). While there is disagree-
ment over the extent of mass media effects on the individual, society, and
culture, there can be no denial that causal and reciprocal effects exist (Lowery
and DeFleur, 1983). I
Research has focused on the ways individuals and groups depend upon,
utilize, are gratified by, and linked by the communication media and the
infrastructure upon which they rest (Blumer and Katz, 1974). Much of that
investigation has emphasized the role of mass media in the process of
communication, but has overlooked the connection between interpersonal
communication and media where the media are utilized for non-mass
communication, such as telephone or the ordinary posted letter.^ We argued
in an earlier article (Cathcart and Gumpert, 1983), that the typology of human
communication should include mediated interpersonal communication and
that media research should focus not only on the connection of the mass

Communication QuarterlyVol. 34, No. 2, Spring 1986, Pages 89-102 i 89

media with society but should also examine any situation in which a
technological medium is interposed between two communicating parties.
Human interaction is altered not merely by the interposition of mass media
but by any medium which extends the scope of human communication. The
process of writing and sending a letter to another person and the process of
transmitting the human image instantaneously to thousands of receivers have
something in common — the desire to transcend the binding forces of nature
as we communicate and to approximate the interpersonal comunicative act.
No technological medium of communication is restricted to a mass communi-
cation function. While the broadcasting media have an intrinsic bias which
makes possible instantaneous communication with large number of individu-
als, there is no inherent limitation preventing its use as point ot point
communication. The concept of mass communication refers to relatively
immediate communication over time and space to large, heterogeneous
groups. This is a condition not a universal. It must be recognized that a
symbiotic relationship exists between any medium of communication —
mass or micro media — and interpersonal relationships. Thayer (1978) has
addressed this issue and makes these particularly cogent remarks:
A much more important distinction, theoretically, is that between a
communication network and a mass communication network. A communica-
tion network emerges from people talking to each other about matters that
make a difference to them.... A mass communication network is superim-
posed or overlaid on existing communication networks (viz., social structure)
to the extent made possible by the available technology.... What is and what
matters — indeed, all human reality, all human values — are products of
communication networks.... The basic dynamic in the phenomena of mass
communication, the pivotal mechanism out of which all else evolves, is not
the technology, awesome as that has become. Nor is it the "message," or the
implicit culture imparted in the "content" of the media. Nor is it the "effects"
which the media are purported to have. The basic mechanism inheres in the
social and personal uses to which people put the media and their fare. It is this
basic dynamic which any relevant theory of mass communication will have to
be based upon. (pp. 60-63)

We contend that not only are the media substantively altering the
relationships among individuals, but that the formulation of the individual's
self image is, in large part, media dependent. If it is true, as George Herbert
Mead's (1934) theory of self establishes, that self image is formulated through
interpersonal interaction, and if it is true that interpersonal communication is
now media related, then it follows that scholars should re-examine the
concept of self image and the role of interpersonal communication to
determine the effect of media in the development of an individual's self
image. We explore, heuristically,^ the ramifications of such a position by
examining the role of the visual media in general and still photography in
particular in the formulation of an individual's self image and suggest several
propositions which establish this link. First, we review the George Herbert
Mead theory of self and establish the importance of interpersonal communi-
cation in the formulation of self image. We then review the concept of

90 Communication Quarterly Spring 1986

mediated interpersonal communication, analyze the role of the photographic
media in the communication of and formation of a concept of self, and point
up the ways in which the visual media reinforce this interpersonal process. It is
our intent to establish new relationships and suggest a new paradigm for
research.

Self, Self Image, and Interpersonal Communication

The Self, as a philosophical or psychological term, is difficult to define.
What it is and where it is located exactly, have been and continues to be
sources of philosophical and psychological disputes (Frondizi, 1971). Despite
lack of complete agreement on the nature of the self, we knovy that each of us
is aware of ourselves as a separate entity. We know we exist |and, unless we
are psychologically disoriented, we do not confuse ourselves with other
people or objects in our environment. The self refers not to a biological status
but to the entire range of cognitive, affective, and social experiences which
form personality and our awareness of that personality. This concept of self
has been carefully elucidated in the writings of George Herbert Mead (Morris,
1962). His ideas have infused the study of interpersonal communication and
have produced a considerable body of research demonstrating the link
between self image and interpersonal communication (Blumler, 1969; Miller,
1976; Fisher, 1978).
It is generally agreed that human beings do not inherit a self, although all
humans are born with a consciousness which makes self awareness possible.
Mead claims that the self is formed in the process of social experience and it
develops in the individual as a result of that process (Morris, 1962). According
to Mead and others, we are not given a ready made self. A self irnage is worked
out in process. It is based on our daily physical and social activities. Self image
arises and takes form through communication; through the symbolic and
experiential processes which are part of human existence.
Mead explains that self emerges in three chronological phases; "play,"
"game," and "generalized other" (Morris, 1962, pp. 117-139). In the earliest
phase, the child is only vaguely aware of itself as separate from others. If the
mother cries or laughs, the child cries or laughs without knowing why. In the
"game" phase the child is better able to differentiate self through becoming
aware of multiple roles and through recognizing that others'experiences are
not the same as its own. Finally, in "the generalized other" phase, the child is
able to actively interpret its experience with others and is capable of
separating self from others and the experiences of others. Using Mead's
vyords, it becomes "necessary to rational conduct that the individual should
thus take an objective, impersonal attitude toward himself (sic)^ that he should
become an object to himself" (1962, p. 149).
The act of communication is the necessary form of behavior that enables a
person to become an object to him or her self. We learn to interpret our
experience and give meaning to our encounters with our environment

Communication Quarterly Spring 1986 91

through communication. With increased communication ability comes
increased awareness of self. The beginning formulation of a self image
corresponds with the beginnings of interpersonal communication; usually a
mother initiating and responding, making the child aware that it is separate
from the mother. The interpersonal process continues, usually with the other
parent and with siblings, making possible differentiation of roles and creating
awareness of the separation of person and object in the environment. The
early interpersonal communication process makes possible the creation of
what could be called /nfrapersonal communication; that "internal dialogue"
by means of which we are able to talk to ourselves about our experiences. To
produce this internal dialogue one must be able to recognize the duality of the
self, that is, in Mead's terms, to become aware of the " I " and the "me" (1962,
pp. 120-160).
Mead's concept of the self postulates the existence of both an " I " and a
"me" within each individual. The " I " is the portion of the self that initiates acts
and represents all the possible behavior choices available to the person. The
"me" embodies the social self and its awareness of cultural mores, social
norms, attitudes and values. The " I " initiates. The "me" observes, contem-
plates and evaluates based on the individual's perception of how others
respond to such acts. The result is an internal dialogue wherein all of us are
continually talking to ourselves about ourselves, constantly formulating and
reformulating our self image.
Self image is formed primarily through interpersonal communication, and
is constantly checked by interacting with others. That is, we continually
engage in interpersonal communication and these acts of communication
both supply our internal dialogue and check our perception of self; producing
a self concept at any given moment. Interpersonal communication is the key
to both the initial fomulation of the "me" and to the feeding of the internal
dialogue between the " I " and the "me;" the basic prerequisites of a concept
of self.
"Distance" is a necessary element in the self image process. Only when
we can create some distance between the " I " and the "me" can we become
an object to ourselves. Having a self concept means being able to see
ourselves as others see us or as we think they see us. Without intrapersonal
distance (the separation of the " I " and the "me"), without the ability to see
ourselves as objects, there would be no internal dialogue and no concept of
self.
All communicative interaction is concomitant with the formulation of self
image. Interaction with another person not only involves the mutual influence
of behavior but also the reciprocal influence of self concept. What we intend
towards another feeds our internal dialogue and the response, in turn, feeds
that dialogue. It is this dynamic complexity that makes it necessary for us to
continuously verify our self image. We are constantly checking, confirming
and altering our self concept through acts of communication. All of us spend a
great deal of time analyzing our interpersonal communication hoping to learn
what image we are projecting and wondering if it is the right one. We also

92 Communication Quarterly Spring 1986

spend a great deal of time processing the human images projected by the
media ^- comparing them with our self concept.
II
Mediated Interpersonal Communication
A medium transmits and objectifies data. The objectification or detach-
ment of data is made possible by the capability of a medium to isolate and
intensify either a sense modality or to imply continuity by fragmenting a whole
into discrete moments (Schafer, 1977). Radio, for example, with its concentra-
tion of data in the aural sensing mode, intensifies sound thereby making
possible the production of nuance, emphasis, and connotation different from
the meanings created when two or more of our senses are used to crosscheck
the source of information. A sound medium permits the perfdrmer to assume
the identity of multiple characters because the audience cannot check the
auditory input of voice with the visual mode of appearance. Most all popular
musical recordings are now made with multiple sound tracks which are
overlapped and interwoven producing sounds that could hot possibly be
heard in live performance. Movies and television, on the other hand, tend to
concentrate information in visual images which take on discrete meanings
(Ong, 1977). The famous "Psycho" shower murder scene and the television
images of the blindfolded American hostages in Iran are examples of the visual
media's ability to separate the flow of reality into discrete units which contain
meaning apart from ongoing events.^ All photography isolates and preserves
"bits of reality" which allows us to check and verify our first hand experiences
and make order out of past events (Czach, 1977).
A medium has the capacity to objectify and intensify experience. It is this
capacity which links media with Mead's concept of the importance of
objectifying the self and creating distance between the " I " and the "me." A
medium's innate objectification of events parallels the individual's objectifica-
tion of experience. Just as the individual must develop enough psychic
distance to see the self as "other," media create distance for the objectifica-
tion of reality as event. It is the nature of all media to detach the time and/or
place of an event from its source. The medium of photography in particular
enables us to stop time and movement and view the photographic image
apart from the moment of conception.
Ill
The Self and Photography
The term "image" itself is closely linked with photography and photogra-
phy as a medium plays a significant but overlooked role in the development of
an individual's self image. Persons born into the world of photography have a
different concept of self than persons who lived at a time when they were not
able to see photographic images of themselves and others.'*
For the first time a medium made possible the capture and reproduction of
people and objects without the obvious presence and intervention of a

Communication Quarterly Spring 1986 ' 93

human interpreter (Thomas, 1977). Of course the camera has to be operated
by a person, and in the early days this required a great amount of time and
technical skill, but the image on the plate or silver coated paper is an actual
rendering of the quantity and quality of light reflected by the image. From the
very first photographs had an objective or "scientific" quality because they
faithfully recorded the traces of light gathered by the camera lens irrespective
of whomever snapped the shutter.^ The lens and the plate together revealed
all there was to "see," with nothing apparently added, nothing apparently
omitted. The operator could determine what the lense looked at, with a filter
could modify light intensity slightly, and in the darkroom could take liberties
to reduce or blot out what had been recorded, but the remaining trace image
seemed to be a perfect recording of the light and shadow produced by the
object in the real world. It appeared not to be modified by the thoughts,
feelings and desires of the camera operator (Sontag, 1977, pp. 11-12).
Prior to the invention of the camera, all graphic presentations of human
images were interpretations by the artist. No matter how "life-like" they
appeared, everyone was aware the images were not actual reproductions of
the persons but were renderings created through the mind of another human.
Even mirror reflections do not provide objective images because the viewer is
interpreting his or her reflection and reforming it at the same moment as it is
viewed. The reflection in the mirror cannot be fixed as with photography, to
be seen and viewed apart from the moment of interaction. The photograph
stops and preserves a part of ongoing experience by closely replicating the
human process of visual sensing but without the apparent presence of human
interpretation and evaluation. Holding a photograph is like holding a "piece of
reality" (1977, pp. 163-65). Not only is it objective, but it reveals all there is to
see no matter who took it or who looks at it.
The permanency of the photographic image is one of its primary charac-
teristics. It does not disappear, but is there to be seen over and over by any
number of individuals and more particularly by the person whose image has
been exposed to film. Photographs are not interactive, they do not explain
themselves, they do not respond to responses, and they are generally not
dependent upon the photographer's explanation. They exist as flat two
dimentional surfaces inviting the viewer to infer, imply, and fantasize (1977, p.
23). The photograph confirms one's existence in a way that verbal interaction
with others cannot. The photograph is picked up, examined, turned over, and
scrutinized. Contrary to logic, the miniaturization of image seems to add
substance and believability to the photograph. Seldom is the close-up of the
person's face as large or larger than the actual face, and yet it is revealing,
expressive, and highly believable.
Photographs of ourselves, though believable are not always pleasing.
"What a terrible picture! I don't look like that!" That response, uttered by
almost everyone at one time or other, is significant because it implies that we
know how we appear to others as well as how we want to appear in our self
image. There is hardly anyone who does not have a photographic legacy of
images upon which to evaluate and compare present and past selves. Our
photographic images verify the existence of a unique self and establish a

94 Communication Quarterly Spring 1986

record of existence in a way that verbal or written interaction with others
cannot.
Once the photograph has caught and fixed a fleeting example of our
appearance, we are powerless to reshape it or take it back. It is the seemingly
unambiguous nature of the photograph that makes it such a powerful
comment on self image. It is there for all time for everyone to see and this in
turn forces us to view ourself as other. We must accept that )t is the way we
appear. It is the " I " caught in a moment of acting. Looking at it we become the
"me" assessing the photo of ourself with all the social and cultural norms
available to us. Sometimes we may destroy photos of ourselves but this only
verifies the duality of the " I " and the "me." j
The photograph by its nature as a physical object mal<es possible the
distance necessary to view ourselves as the " I , " the actor. Tlie photographic
image gives the "me" something substantial and performativ|e with which to
react. The "me" can determine if the image embodies those attributes that
peers and society value. The image in the photo evokes the "generalized
other."^ We eagerly seek the photographic image because it Helps give us the
psychic distance necessary to the internal dialogue through which we main-
tain our self image.
It is not easy in our daily interpersonal communication to see ourselves as
others see us because we are constantly being misled by our intentions, our
misinterpretations of verbal feedback, and our suspicions of the motives of
others. The photograph, on the other hand, belies suspicion because it is
"objective." The lens sees only what is in front of it and the film records
everything the lens sees. It is a technological extension of the eye, more
sensitive, more precise, and less inhibited. What the photographic image of
ourselves communicates is less ambiguous and less suspicious than interper-
sonal reflections of our self image. [
Every photograph is a message and photos of ourselves|are particularly
significant messages. They do not, however, function likje interpersonal
messages because photographs confuse the typical sender-receiver relation-
ship. According to anthropologist-photographer Byers: I
The sender-receiver model ... seems to imply that still photography is
hopelessly unmanageable and unsemantic as a medium of communication.
Yet photography becomes steadily more important and photographs more
numerous in our civilization. Since, the very elusiveness of '[meaning" in
photography and the diversity of overt responses to it are special characteris-
tics of the medium, we might more usefully study the behaviors of the people
who are involved in photography. (1977, p. 8) j
When analyzing a photograph as message it is necessary to realize who is
creating the message. It is not the person holding the camera. jThe message of
a photographic portrait is created primarily by the one who looks at it. Byers
explains:
The subject — anyone who sits for or is otherwise in a photograph — might
suppose that he [or she] is the originator of the message, which Emerges from
expressions, actions, and the like. But every subject soon realizes that his [or

Communication Quarterly Spring 1986 95

 her] intention is always changed, ignored, or even subverted when he [or
she] sees the photograph.... The viewer when he [or she] reports what he [or
she] sees in photographs and what they mean to him [or her], may agree with
neither the subject nor the photographer. The most important characteristic
of still photography is its susceptibility to individual control; each person
involved with the still photograph has his [or her] own hand on his [or her]
own semantic tuning-knob.... In this view the photograph is not a "message"
in the usual sense. It is, instead, the raw material for an infinite number of
messages which each viewer can construct for himself [or herself]. (1977, pp.
8-9)
The photograph invites "studying from a distance." Its quality as a
moment frozen in time leads to examination in ways not possible in the
ongoing dynamics of face to face interaction.
The still photograph holds a scene motionless for our continuous involve-
ment-in-time with a non-time representation. We see relationships frozen
that are, in life, too fleeting for our eyes. There is, therefore, more information
available to us in a still photograph of a scene than was available at that
moment at the scene itself. In the photograph we can examine the complexi-
ties of a single exposure-moment as long as we like. (Byers, 1964, p. 11)
This quality of the still photograph allows us to stand in the place of "other"
and respond to the indicators of self. The perusal of one's photographic image
requires development of a dual personality capable of looking at the photo-
graph as object while taking on the persona and vantage point of the
photographer. This photographic message-response can and does take on
the function of the human to human communciation that Mead claims is
essential to the formation of self image.
The photograph requires scrutiny. The two dimensional surface invites us
to project and interpret just as we do when we try to comprehend what's
behind the face of others. This assessing the self of our photographic face or
image can be dome more carefully and less riskly than determining self in the
dynamic context of interpersonal communication. The interpersonal dialogue
can be demanding and threatening.^ If others do not understand us or reflect
desired images, then maybe we don't understand our selves. Even when we
step back and contemplate how others are reacting to us and what this means
for our self concept, we are at risk. We might not like what we "see" of
ourselves through their behaviors. The photographic reflection of us, on the
other hand, can be less threatening. The interaction with a photograph seems
more accurate and satisfying because we do not have to discount or
reinterpret all the interpersonal factors that enter into feedback from others.
When we do not have to consider the source of message about our selves we
are more free to project whatever meaning we wish.

IV

Photographs and the Significant Other

Photographs alone, however, do not tell us how to think about them. To
know what the photograph reveals about self we must have norms (Mead's

96 Communication Quarterly Spring ^9Bb

significant others) to help us interpret whether the presented image is a
desirable one. To be happy with the self revealed in the photo we have to
know that it affirms accepted attitudes and values (Jacobs, 1981, pp. 99-
104).
As with all processes of enculturation, we learn most of our attitudes and
values from family and friends. We also learn from them how, at an early age,
to interpret our photographic images. The "right" ones are picked out to show
to friends and are carefully placed in albums or framed and displayed
prominently (Hicks, 1953, p. 4). But, that is not the only source for learning the
grammar and syntax of the photograph. Increasingly throughout childhood,
we learn from the mass media which ones are the socially desireable images.
Even before there is much social interaction outside the home we are
bombarded with photographs in children's books, magazines, and television
programs relentlessly setting forth images of what the "perfect" American
child looks like and acts like. Rieseman et al. (1953) holds tha|t
Media ask the child to see the world as 'the' child — that is, the other child
sees it.... The media have created a picture of what boyhood and girlhood are
like ... and they force children to accept or aggressively resist this picture of
themselves (pp. 120-121). ;
As we grow older we are surrounded with newspapers, magazines,
posters, electronic images, and most importantly — advertisement photogra-
phy — all acting together, either intentionally or indirectly, to teach us the
codes for "reading" photographic images (Thomas, 1986; Thomas and Calla-
han, 1982). Middle childhood and adolescence finds us increasingly involved
in the study of these images, comparing ourselves and others; selecting the
desirable ones and juxtaposing our own photographic images with them.
Americans each year engage in producing millions of snapshots of themselves
and it is the mass media which are the prime purveyors of knowledge of how
to interpret our own photographic images (Jacobs, 1981, p. 93).
The mass media of the nineteenth century were quick to realize the
potential of the newly discovered photographic process to attract the interest
of the reader and to focus attention on commercial products. Twentieth
century American mass media have become dependent on advertising and
advertisers. In turn, advertisers have become dependent on photographic
images to sell their products (Atwan, 1979; Peterson, 1964). Twentieth
century advertisers learned that photographs of products alone are not as
useful as ones which show people with products. Products became more
appealing when they were accompanied with photos of real persons who
projected an image with which the consumer wanted to identify. In other
words, as consumers, we want the persons in the advertisements to appear to
possess the characteristics we have learned to value (Ewen and Ewen, 1982,
pp. 169-182). The more they project that image, the more we see our selves
in them. The more we see ourselves in them, the more we strive to produce a
self concept which confirms that same image.
This widespread use of the photograph has produced a symbiotic relation-
ship between societal values and desirable images. All of us are surrounded
with thousands of photographic images showing us, for example, what the

Communication Quarterly Spring 1986 97

loving, caring, concerned, healthy mother and housewife looks like, how she
dresses, stands, wears her hair, reaches out, recoils in shock, etc. And, at the
same time they show us the image of the strong, adventurous, hardworking,
understanding husband and father, etc. (Ewen and Ewen, 1982, pp.1-9).
These thousands and thousands of commercial photographic images — so
ubiquitous that we are hardly aware of our daily processing of them —
provide a social context against which the "me" of the self can measure the
appearance of the " I " captured in our own photographs. We interpret
constantly with the ever present commercial and journalistic photographic
image designed to project the most pleasing, the most " i n , " the most widely
admired image that becomes in turn a community standard against which to
check our image (Ewen and Ewen, 1982, pp. 265-267). Our own photographs
become advertisements for the self (Jacobs, 1981, p. 102). There can be little
doubt that the photograph has come to play a dominant role as the "signifi-
cant other" in Mead's third phase of development of self image.

Movies, Television and Self Image

The discussion thus far has concentrated on Mead's concept of self and
the role of still photography as a communication medium playing a dominant
role in the formulation of a self image. We turn now to two related
photographic technologies; the media of cinema and television. Interest in
these two technological media have stimulated far more research on uses and
effects than had photography, but very little of it has focused specifically on
their role in the development of the individual'sconcept of self. The invention
of motion pictures and television represent the same scientific and social
interests which led ot the invention of^ photography and are the logical result
of our efforts to capture and represent reality.
Photography's early use as the "art of portrature" rapidly evolved into the
mass pastime of celebrity worship. The success in the late nineteenth century
of the mass newspaper and the general "home" magazine took photography
out of the studio and into the world of the famous and the fabulous.
Newspapers and magazines hired photgraphers to bring images of the rich,
the famous, and the seekers of wealth and fame, to the curious masses. The art
of portrature became the art of publicity. Mass photography, coupled with
mass newspapers and magazines, made possible the creation of celebrities
whose images were recognized in every household (Boorstin, 1980; Monaco,
1978). The mass media "gate keepers" selected and distributed the photo-
graphic image for their publics, subtly instructing them in the desirable and
undesirable; providing them with a standard against which to measure their
own photographic images.
The development of motion pictures, the neighborhood movie house,
and the institution of "Hollywood," furthered the photographic communica-
tion process by which individuals came to understand the meaning of "the
significant other." To the photographic image of the celebrity was added the

98 Communication Quarterly Spring 1986

cinemagraphic role of the Hollywood personality. The actor of the traditional
stage became the star of the Hollywood movie. The mass distributed movies
did not present actors playing parts as much as they projected personalities
who displayed the ideal image to compliment every aspect of American life
(Linden, 1970). Hollywood stars did not play a part in a drama, they played out
roles. Jimmy Stewart was always Jimmy Stewart just as Sylvester Stallone is
always Sylvester Stallone no matter what the film setting. The larger-than-life
movie screen and the close up lens invited the audience to see through the
portrayed part ot the "real" personality. The institution of Hollywood, with its
press agents and publicity campaigns - so compatible with mass newspapers
and magazines — manufactured the personalities which became the iconic
images for Americans to test themselves against.
The development of television technology further established the cen-
trality of the photographic image in American life. Television brought the
Hollywood stars into our homes and established the media personality as part
of our daily lives (Horton and Wohl, 1954). In electronic imaging, the star, the
personality and the role became one and the same. Carroll O'Conner is Archie
Bunker, Alan Alda is Hawkeye, just as Johnny Carson is Johnny Carson
(Monaco, 1978). Television creates a role to go with every situation - fictional
or non-fictional. If we need a successful politician then television manufac-
tures the ideal image and finds someone to fill it (Ronald Reagan for example).
Everyday, television presents the American audience with dozens of images
and invites people to find themselves in those roles. ,
What makes this media connection important, in terms of the individual's
self image, are the ways in which cinema and televisiorv have come to
supplement the role taking functions of interpersonal interaction. According
to Mead, a consistent mode of behavior in a particular situation is central to
the development of a concept of self (p. 327). A socially approved role is one
that conforms to socially proscribed norms for what a person in a given
position is supposed to do. Role-taking is the process of taking on the role of
another person in order to be seen as others see that person. To take a role we
must not only be able to observe that role over time but also establish enough
distance between the "\" and the "me" to be aware of the role we are
enacting as compared to the role to be assumed. Thus, role taking feeds the
internal dialogue between the " I " and the "me" which enables a person to
form a self image.
Role-taking begins early, usually in the childhood play stage, and goes on
throughout life. We all constantly examine the roles enacted by others around
us and we continually check out our own roles (our self concept) in practice
and imagination. For role-taking to be successful in the formulation of a self
image there must be socially approved of and desirable role models (the
significant other that Mead refers to) available as well as opportunities to try
out the roles and to receive reinforcement.
Prior to the development of movies and television, role-taking took place
primarily in face to face situations. Young children observed and took on the
roles of family members, peers, teachers, and neighbors. The print media, of
course, had long played an important part in role taking for it allowed both

Communication Quarterly Spring'{S&b 99

young and old to transcend the local community and take on both imaginative
and "generalized other" roles. With the advent of motion pictures and
television, role taking took on important added dimensions. For the first time,
millions of people were exposed to identical role portrayals at the same time
and under similar circumstances (Meyrowitz, 1985, pp. 131-135). In addition,
media roles could be observed over and over in a variety of situations and
circumstances which invited scrutiny without risk.
The film and television cameras simplify and objectify roles in ways which
remove the dynamics and the uncertainty of face to face interaction. The
camera lens focuses attention on selected attributes of role and personality,
coaching the viewer in the correct response (Meyrowitz, 1978, pp. 226-231).
The filmic and electronic media operate without the feedback loop of person
to person communication so these filmic roles cannot be probed to determine
their full dimensions. We are forced to constantly discuss mediated roles with
our friends in order to know if our perceptions of them are accurate and we
have to rely on the PR industry to tell us how the media roles arise and what
they mean. In this one sided situation we are compelled to accept these media
roles as the normative ones and to confine our role taking to the choices made
available by the mass media (1985, pp. 52-68; 150-159).
All of this, we believe, has tremendous implications for a concept of self. It
suggests that the communicative interaction which Mead and the interper-
sonal communication scholars contend is essential to the formation of self is
no longer confined primarily to face to face interaction, but includes mediated
communication. It is our contention that with the invention of photography
we embarked on a new era of self awareness in which the notion of self and
the process by which we form and develop our self image has been
dramatically altered. Further, we hold that motion pictures and television are
extensions of this imaging process and play a significant part in the role-taking
function necessary to the maintenance of a self image. We would hope that
the study of interpersonal communication would begin to incorporate the
notion of mediated images and roles into its paradigm and press for research
that would lead to new theory of self in keeping with the filmic age in which
we now live.

Notes
'See, for example, Becker (1982) and Chaffee (1982). Both argue that contemporary mass media and
public communication studies have neglected the important connection between media and interpersonal
communication. Rubin and Rubin (1985) explain the parallels between uses and gratifications and
interpersonal communication perspectives, examine the supporting theory and research, and establish a
research agenda for further investigations.
^A heuristic approach suggests paradigms where none presently exist and indicates directions for
relevant empirical research.
^Ong (1977) discusses this phenomenon pointing out; "Both visually and aurally (sound is of the
essence of television), the instrument takes a real presence from the place where it is real and present and
represents it in other localities where it is neither real nor truly present." (p. 93)
•"Ong (1977) elaborates on this point. His focus is on television but the question of interface is the same
when applied to its progenetor — photography. "Before television no human psyche had experienced
visually and aurally events actually going on in the real present but in an extraneous locale.... This intrusion
creates a new unreality of presence." (p. 93)
'Thomas (1977) states that from the earliest days of photography, "Adocumentary aesthetic ... became

100 Communication Quarterly Spring 1986

visible and worked its effects on other forms. One conventional assuption of documentary in particular —
that photographs present actuality...." (p. 22)
*Mead (1934) explains:"The very universality and impersonality of thought and reason is from the
behavioristic standpoint the result of the given individual taking the attitudes of others toward himself (sic)
and of his family crystallizing all these particular attitudes into a single attitude or standpoint which may be
called that of the 'generalized other'." (p. 90)
'Goffman (1959) has dealt extensively with the interplay between the individual's sense of self and the
self presented and he makes the following cogent observations:"We find the individual may attempt ot
induce [others] to judge him (sic) and the situation in a particular way, and he may seek judgement as and
ultimate end in itself, and yet he may not completely believe he deserves the valuation of self which he asks
for or that the impression of reality which he i^osters is valid." (p. 21) |
I

References
Atwin, R. (1979). Newspapers and the foundations of modern advertising. In J.W. Wright (Ed.), The
commercial: Advertising and the American mass media (pp. 9-23). New York: Dell.
Becker, S.L. (1982). Understanding contemporary public communication. In J.I. Sisco (Ed.), The Jensen
lectures: Contemporary communication studies (pp. 50-70). Tampa, Florida: University of South
Florida.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interaction: Perspective and method. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blumer, J.G., & E. Katz. (1974). The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on gratifications
research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Boorstin, D.J. (1980). The image. New York: Atheneum. j
Byers, P. (1964). Still photography In the systematic recording and analysis of behavioral data. Human
Organization, 33, 78-85.
Byers, P. (1977). Cameras don't take pictures. Afterimage, April, pp. 8-9.
Cathcart, R., & Gumpert, G. (1983). Mediated interpersonal communication: Toward a new typology.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 167-177. ,
Chaffee, S. (1982). Mass media and interpersonal channels: Competitive, convergent, or complementary?
In G. Gumpert and R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world
(2nd ed,) (pp, 57-77). New York: Oxford University Press.
Czach, M. (1977). At home: Reconstructing everyday life through photographs and artifacts. Afterimage, 5,
11.
deSola Pool, I. (1977). The social impact of the telephone. Cambridge, MA: M.l.J. Press,
Ewen, S., & Ewen, E. (1982). Channels of desire: Mass images and the shaping of American Consciousness.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fisher, B.A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York: Macmillan.
Frondizi, R. (1971). The nature of the self. Carbondale, II: Southern Illinois University Press.
Goffman, E, (1959), The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books,
Hicks, W, (1953), Photographs and public. Aperture, 2, 4. j
Horton, D,,& Wohl, R,R. (1954). Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observation on
intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19, 215-229, i
Innis, H, (1951), The bias of communication. Toronto, Canada: Toronto University Press.
Jacobs, D,L. (1981). Domestic snapshots: Toward a grammar of motWes. Journal of American Culture, 4,
(#1), 93-104,
Linden, G, W, (1970), Reflections on the screen. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lowery, S, and DeFleur, M,L, (1983), Milestones in mass communication research: Media effects. New
York: Longman,
McLuhan, M, (1964), Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Mead, G,H, (1934), Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Mendelsohn, H, (1964), Listening to radio. In L,A, Dexter and D,M, White (Eds,), People, society and mass
communications. Glencoe, II: Free Press,
Meyrowitz, J, (1978), Television and interpersonal behavior: Codes of perception and response. In G,
Gumpert and R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media: Interpersonal communication in a media world (2nd
ed.) (pp. 221 -24 J). New York: Oxford University Press. j
Meyrowitz. J, (1985), No sense of place. New York: Oxford University Press. i
Miller, G.R, (1976), Explorations in interpersonal communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,
Monaco, J. (1978), Celebrity. New York: Dell, j
Morris, C, (1962), The works of George Herbert Mead (Vol, 1), Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
Ong, W,J. (1977), Interfaces of the word: Studies in the evolution of conciousness and culture. Ithica, NY:
Cornell University Press.
Ong, W,J, (1982), Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen,

Communication Quarterly Spring 1986 101

Peterson, T. (1964). Magazines in the twentieth century (2nd ed.). New York: Haper and Row.
Riesman, D.,, Glazer, N., & Denny, R. (1953). The lonely crowd. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor
Books.
Rubin, A., & Rubin, R. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A research agenda.
Critical studies in mass communication, 2(1), 36-53.
Schaffer, R.M. (1977). The tuningofthe world: Toward a theory of soundscape design. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Sontaq, S. (1977). On photography. New York: Dell.
Thomas, A. (1977). Time in a frame: Photography and the nineteenth century mind. New York: Schocken
Books.
Thomas, S. (1986). Mass media and the social order. In G. Gumpert and R. Cathcart (Eds.), Inter/media:
Interpersonal communication in a media world (3rd ed.) (pp. 611-627). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Thomas, S., & Callahan, B. (1982). Allocating happiness: Television families and social class, journal of
Communication, 32, (>7-77.
Turkle, S. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon and Schuster.

102 Communication Quarterly Spring 1986