Lewis A. Friedland, Dhavan V. Shah, Michael W. Wagner, Katherine J. Cramer, Chris Wells, and Jon Pevehouse. Battleground: Asymmetric Communication Ecologies and the Erosion of Civil Society in Wisconsin

Abstract

In Battleground: Asymmetric Communication Ecologies and the Erosion of Civil Society in Wisconsin, Friedland et al. provide an ambitious exploration of the myriad components—and the interactions between them—that comprise the communicative environment in Wisconsin. The authors’ central argument is that in order to ascertain a (more) complete understanding of communication’s role in democratic society, it is necessary that both macro-level communication flows and highly localized communication dynamics and individual lived experiences are simultaneously accounted for. Doing so, the authors argue, not only provides a more complete picture of the multitude of messages being communicated and the actors conveying them, but also provides critical insights regarding how actors within communication networks influence and respond to one another, as well as how all these messages interact to shape individual public opinion. While the book’s substantive findings, overviewed below, make important contributions to multiple literatures, perhaps its most important contribution comes in the form of the theoretical framework it advances in Chapter 2. As part of Cambridge University Press’s “Elements” series, the book is short at a mere ninety-two pages (not counting references and numerous online appendices). Yet, despite its condensed length, Battleground packs considerable theoretical heft. Building on the systems perspective (e.g., Chadwick 2017), the theory takes seriously the notion of “political communication ecology,” which the authors conceptualize as “made up of the institutions and spaces that foster communication, from the intimacy of personal friend and familial networks to the breadth of news and social media,” political variables such as parties, elites, and partisanship, and citizens’ ordinary everyday experiences and interactions within their social networks (p. 5). The authors are plainly aware that their theory’s many layers and components equate to a relatively high degree of complexity, but necessarily so, they argue, in order to “ask the same questions others are asking” but answer “them in a more expansive way, accounting for a wider set of relationships and interactions” (p. 6).