Göran Bolin 306 tenable distinction from the start. By analogy, one could argue, that the separation made in mediatization theory between “the media” and “society” is a false one, and that the media were in- deed always already an integral part of society. One could even argue that communication and the technologies of communica- tion are actually constitutive of society. Thus, if communication is already an integral part of society, the means of communication – the media technologies – are as well. We have always since the first oral cultures had such means for communicating: mnemonic technologies such as rhymes, metric, etc., or cave paintings, such as the example given by Marcondes (2022). These means have shifted over hu- man history, and have extended their ways of operating, which of course have had an impact on the quality and character of so- ciety. So, the question whether we have been mediatized or not will depend on how one defines media, and which media one includes in the definition. While the institutional approach mainly discusses or- ganized mass media, the cultural or anthropological approach includes all forms of communication. A consequence of this ar- gument with its very long historical perspective – “the longer the better” as Verón (2014a: 2) writes – is that we have always been mediatized. But if we have always been mediatized, have we then really ever been mediatized? When, one could well ask, were we not mediatized? If we, as argued, have always been reliant on various forms of means of communication, would we not need a very specific concept of mediatization – one that focussed on the quality of the impact of the media rather than on the quantity? Furthermore, against this anthropological approach to mediatization, one could also ask how the study of mediatiza- tion differs from the study of “the role of media in culture and society”, as the definition of Media & Communication Studies is defined in Sweden and several other places. Arguably, the role of media and communication technologies for social and cultural processes are fundamental. But the nature, quality, etc., of their impact remains for empirical re- search to lay bare. It is then not so much a question of “more” or “deeper” mediatization, or of specific “phases” of mediatization,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz