Overview

We don’t just live in society, we communicate it into existence. Whether it’s through a televised news report, a classroom lecture, a religious sermon, or a family dinner conversation, communication is central to how social institutions operate and maintain influence. Institutions like media, education, religion, family, and the workplace shape how we interact, what we value, and even how we see ourselves. (MLO 1)

In this chapter, we explore how communication both reflects and reinforces the norms, values, and power structures of major institutions. You’ll examine how media messages shape public opinion, how educational practices reproduce social hierarchies, and how religious and family communication sustain cultural traditions and identities. These patterns are not random; they are structured, often in ways that benefit some groups more than others. (MLO 2)

By looking critically at how institutions influence communication and how communication, in turn, upholds institutional power, you’ll develop a deeper understanding of the social forces that shape your everyday interactions. This perspective can help you become a more thoughtful and strategic communicator in both personal and public settings. (MLO 3, MLO 4)

Studying Part and Whole: How Sociologists View Social Structures

A key component of the sociological perspective is the idea that the individual and society are inseparable. It is impossible to study one without the other. German sociologist Norbert Elias called the process of simultaneously analyzing the behavior of individuals and the society that shapes that behavior figuration.

Consider religion. While people experience religion in a distinctly individual manner, religion exists in a larger social context as a social institution. For instance, an individual’s religious practice may be influenced by what the government dictates, holidays, teachers, places of worship, rituals, and so on. These influences also shape how people communicate about their faith, whether through prayer, sermons, dress, or public expressions of belief. Even silence or nonverbal rituals can carry strong communicative meaning in religious settings. In simpler terms, figuration means that as we analyze the social institutions in a society, we must also examine how individuals participate in and express themselves within those institutions. This interplay also shows up in how we communicate in social structures like media, education, and family.

Media, Education, Religion, and Family Communication

Media

Media are central to modern social life, shaping not only what we know but also how we come to know it, through stories, images, and messages that circulate widely and influence our understanding of ourselves, others, and the world around us.

A Brief History of Mass Media/Communication

“Well, how did I get here?” sings a baffled David Byrne in the Talking Heads’ song “Once in a Lifetime”—a question many media consumers might ask when confronted with today’s overwhelming media landscape. From 24-hour news channels and streaming platforms like Netflix and Hulu to social media feeds that never sleep, we are surrounded by more media choices than ever before. Television offers everything from sports to reality shows, while newspapers, though declining in print circulation, still reach millions through digital editions. The sheer variety and accessibility of content today raise a compelling question: how did we arrive at this moment? To understand where we are, we must first look back at how mass media evolved, tracing the development of newspapers, radio, television, and digital platforms that have shaped communication and society for generations.

Books and Newspapers

The invention of the printing press—originating in China with early examples like The Diamond Sutra (868 A.D.) and later revolutionized in Europe by Gutenberg—enabled the mass production of books, pamphlets, and newspapers, transforming the spread of information. As European colonists settled what would become the United States, newspapers served as vital links to their homelands and later helped shape a shared American identity. Political scientist Benedict Anderson (1983) described newspapers as fostering an “imagined community,” uniting readers through common narratives and values. By the 1830s, the rise of the penny press brought inexpensive, sensational news to the masses, shifting journalism toward entertainment and accessibility, an early step in the evolution of popular media culture.

Radio, Television, Film

In the early 20th century, film and radio emerged as powerful new forms of mass media, with radio quickly becoming a household staple due to its affordability and wide reach. By the 1920s, millions could simultaneously listen to political speeches or entertainment, helping to shape a shared national culture and fueling consumerism through targeted advertising. Television followed after World War II, spreading rapidly, from just 17,000 sets in 1946 to two-thirds of U.S. households by 1953, cementing its role as the dominant medium. For decades, just three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) shaped public opinion and entertainment, reinforcing mainstream cultural norms but also fueling dissent during events like the Vietnam War. As cable TV expanded in the 1980s and ’90s, viewers gained access to specialized content, fragmenting the media landscape. Deregulation efforts like the 1996 Telecommunications Act led to increased media consolidation, shifting control of airwaves to a handful of large corporations and transforming how Americans accessed news and entertainment.

Technological Transitions Shape Media Industries

Media technologies have continually reshaped American culture, from the telegraph and wireless radio to television and the Internet. Innovations like electricity changed daily rhythms, wireless signals collapsed geographic barriers, and the Internet transformed how people access and share information. The telegraph, patented by Samuel Morse in 1837, revolutionized communication by freeing it from physical transport, while Marconi’s wireless system laid the groundwork for radio. Photography and motion pictures, developed by inventors across the U.S. and Europe, paved the way for cinema and, eventually, television. By the 1950s, TV had entered millions of American homes, eclipsing older entertainment forms. Later, digital advances like RAM and microprocessors led to the computer age. As early as 1969, Peter Drucker (1969) predicted an “electronic appliance” that could access all school-related information, accurately forecasting the transformative role computers and the Internet would play in society. These evolving technologies merged once-separate media into a single digital ecosystem that continues to influence culture and communication today.

Mass Communication—A Definition

Mass communication is the large-scale process of creating and sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal symbols across diverse audiences. As media technologies have evolved, they’ve come to serve four key functions: entertainment, information and education, public discussion, and acting as a societal watchdog. Different media are better suited for different purposes—print may offer depth and context, while television emphasizes immediacy and visuals. Media theorist Marshall McLuhan (1964) argued that “the medium is the message,” highlighting how the form of media shapes the content and our interpretation of it. For example, television news may simplify stories for visual impact, while print allows for more nuance. The Internet blurs these distinctions by housing all media types, expanding both the speed and complexity of mass communication. Ultimately, the way we receive information influences how we think about the world, reminding us that communication is never neutral, and the medium matters as much as the message itself.

Education

Education is a powerful site of communication where knowledge, values, and social expectations are transmitted across generations, shaping not only individual futures but the structure and direction of entire societies.

Education as a Social Institution

Education is one of the most formalized ways societies communicate expectations and values. It plays a dual role: transmitting knowledge and serving as a gatekeeper for opportunity. In sociological terms, education contributes to socialization—the process through which people learn the norms, values, and skills necessary for participation in society.

Schools communicate both explicit curriculum (e.g., math, science, reading) and a hidden curriculum—unwritten norms like punctuality, obedience, and competitiveness. Sociologist Philip Jackson (1968) coined this term to describe how schools teach discipline, hierarchy, and conformity, reinforcing the social order in subtle yet powerful ways.

Language, Power, and Educational Access

The language of instruction and institutional norms often reflect dominant cultural values. For example, students who speak a dialect other than Standard American English or whose home cultures differ from school expectations may find themselves marginalized. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called this cultural capital—basically, the invisible knowledge and habits that help some students get ahead in school. Those without these forms of capital may be seen as less competent, regardless of actual ability.

Educational tracking, biased testing, and disparities in school funding also reflect how communication practices can reinforce inequality. For instance, standardized tests often privilege knowledge or language more familiar to wealthier, white students, contributing to achievement gaps.

Education and Media

Educational institutions increasingly rely on media to shape and deliver learning, from textbooks and YouTube videos to learning management systems and AI-driven tutoring platforms. These tools mediate the communication between students and teachers, raising questions about who controls knowledge production. Media literacy becomes essential, not just for students as consumers, but for educators as communicators.

Some scholars have also examined the commodification of education, where universities market themselves like businesses and students are framed as customers (Rana, 2024). This shifts communication within the institution, from collaborative learning communities to transactional relationships focused on degrees as products.

Education, Social Reproduction, and Social Change

While education can reproduce social hierarchies, it also has the potential to disrupt inequality and empower marginalized voices. Progressive education movements, inclusive pedagogy, and culturally responsive teaching models attempt to reframe communication in the classroom, centering students’ lived experiences and challenging traditional power dynamics.

Freirean pedagogy, for example, encourages a dialogical approach to education in which students and teachers co-create knowledge, resisting the “banking model” where students are passive recipients. Communication in this model is central to consciousness-raising and social transformation (Freire, 1970).

Religion

Religion communicates moral frameworks, collective beliefs, and shared rituals that give meaning to life, reinforce group identity, and influence how people interpret the world and their place within it.

Religion is more than a system of beliefs; it is a powerful social institution that uses communication to construct meaning, build community, and transmit cultural values across generations. Religious communication operates both formally, through sermons, texts, and rituals, and informally, through shared stories, symbols, and daily practices that reinforce moral and ethical worldviews. Whether through ancient scriptures or modern social media posts from religious influencers, the way messages about the divine, morality, and purpose are communicated plays a central role in how people interpret their place in the world.

Religion relies heavily on symbolic communication, often using metaphor, narrative, and ritual to express ideas that transcend the material world. From sacred texts like the Bible, Quran, Torah, and Bhagavad Gita, to physical symbols like the cross, crescent moon, or lotus flower, religious traditions use signs and symbols to convey profound meaning. These symbols don’t just represent beliefs; they actively shape the experience of belief. Emile Durkheim, one of sociology’s founders, argued that religious rituals serve to reaffirm social solidarity, uniting people through shared communication that reinforces collective identity

Religious institutions also act as gatekeepers of meaning, interpreting sacred texts and establishing what counts as “truth” within a given tradition. This interpretive authority gives religious leaders the power to shape attitudes toward social issues such as marriage, gender roles, sexuality, politics, and education. At the same time, religious communication can be a force for resistance and change, as seen in liberation theology, the civil rights movement, and feminist and queer interpretations of scripture. In these cases, faith-based communication becomes a tool for challenging dominant cultural norms and advocating for justice.

In today’s digital age, religious communication has moved online, with livestreamed services, religious apps, podcasts, and influencers extending spiritual messages far beyond traditional places of worship. This transformation brings both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, digital media makes religion more accessible; on the other, it raises concerns about authenticity, community, and the commercialization of belief. As with all forms of communication, the medium shapes the message, and in turn, the message can shape individual and collective identities.

Family Communication

Family communication forms the foundation of our earliest social experiences, teaching us how to express emotions, negotiate roles, resolve conflicts, and build relationships that reflect and reproduce broader cultural patterns.

Communication within families forms the foundation of how individuals develop identity, understand relationships, and learn the rules and roles of social life. Families are not only sites of emotional connection and support but also powerful institutions where values, expectations, and communication habits are passed from one generation to the next. Sociologists and communication scholars alike recognize that family communication patterns shape everything from emotional expression to conflict resolution, often influencing how individuals communicate in other contexts throughout their lives.

Communication Patterns and Socialization

Families are our first communication teachers. As children, we learn language, emotion regulation, gender roles, and social norms by observing and interacting with parents, siblings, and extended kin. The family is a primary agent of socialization, and communication is the means through which this occurs. Scholars have identified distinct family communication patterns, such as conversation orientation (encouraging open dialogue) and conformity orientation (emphasizing obedience and uniformity), that influence how children learn to express themselves and relate to others (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002).

These patterns have real consequences. Children raised in high conversation-oriented families may feel more confident engaging in discussions and advocating for themselves, while those from high conformity-oriented families may internalize hierarchical roles and avoid dissent. These early dynamics often echo in adult relationships, workplaces, and even political affiliations.

Family Roles, Power, and Communication

Communication within families is also shaped by the distribution of power and roles. Traditional gender norms often influence who speaks, who listens, and how decisions are made. In many heterosexual households, women continue to perform the bulk of “emotional labor,” managing family schedules, addressing children’s needs, and maintaining social connections, all forms of communication that are undervalued but essential (Hochschild & Machung, 1989). Who speaks the most, who interrupts, and whose voice is heard in family discussions reflect broader societal structures of power and inequality.

Additionally, family communication patterns differ across cultures. In some cultures, elders are respected authority figures whose decisions are rarely questioned. In other families, family members of all ages may be encouraged to speak freely and share in decision-making. Understanding these differences is vital for appreciating how communication norms are socially constructed and context-dependent.

Evolving Definitions of Family

The structure of the family itself has changed dramatically, complicating traditional narratives of family communication. Same-sex couples, single-parent families, blended families, and families formed through adoption or assisted reproduction have expanded the definition of what it means to be a “family.” These diverse structures require new forms of communication, negotiation, and identity-building. For example, stepfamilies may need to establish rules for co-parenting and navigate loyalty conflicts, while adoptive families often engage in conversations about identity, belonging, and openness.

In all these forms, communication is key. Healthy family communication can help resolve conflict, build trust, and foster resilience. Poor communication, by contrast, is associated with family stress, alienation, and dysfunction. Just like media or education, family communication is deeply embedded in larger social structures—it both reflects and reinforces cultural norms, economic conditions, and institutional values.

Workplace Communication

Workplaces are more than sites of employment; they are structured environments where communication both reflects and reinforces power dynamics. Whether in a corporate office, a hospital, a factory, or a nonprofit organization, workplace communication is shaped by hierarchies, roles, and unspoken norms about who gets to speak, how decisions are made, and what kinds of behaviors are considered “professional.” From performance reviews and staff meetings to casual hallway conversations and Slack messages, communication in the workplace serves not only to share information but to manage impressions, enforce authority, and negotiate identity.

In most organizations, communication flows both formally and informally. Formal communication includes job descriptions, policy memos, and performance evaluations—messages typically passed from upper management down the chain of command. Informal communication, by contrast, happens in more casual settings and can include everything from small talk to office gossip. These informal channels often carry important insights about power and inclusion: who is in the loop, who gets credit for ideas, and who is left out of the conversation.

Power is central to workplace communication. Supervisors have more control over when and how communication occurs, while employees may feel pressure to speak carefully or defer to authority. Communication styles often reflect larger social expectations. For example, research shows that women in the workplace may face a double bind: being seen as too assertive risks being labeled “aggressive,” while being too accommodating may be interpreted as lacking leadership. Emotional labor, the effort required to manage feelings and expressions in the service of a job, is another important factor. Sociologist Arlie Hochschild  (1983) observed that workers, especially women in service roles, are often expected to display constant warmth or patience regardless of how they feel, turning their emotional expression into a form of labor.

Workplace communication is also shaped by race, ethnicity, and social class. Code-switching, the act of adjusting language, tone, or behavior depending on the audience, is a common strategy used by workers navigating dominant expectations of speech or conduct. Communication norms about “professionalism” may reflect unspoken biases about race, gender, or language, making it harder for some workers to be perceived as competent or trustworthy based on style rather than substance.

Technology has further complicated how communication unfolds at work. Digital platforms like email, Zoom, and messaging apps can enhance collaboration but also blur boundaries between work and personal life. In many workplaces, communication technologies are now used to monitor workers, raising concerns about privacy and trust. The tone of a Slack message or the absence of an emoji can carry unintended implications in a digital environment where cues are often limited.

Ultimately, the workplace is a site where power is constantly negotiated through communication. Who gets heard, whose voices are valued, and how feedback is given all reflect broader social dynamics. Understanding how communication functions in the workplace means paying attention to both what is said and what remains unsaid, and recognizing how identity, institutional structures, and power intersect in everyday workplace interactions.

Institutional Intersectionality and Workplace Communication

Workplace communication does not exist in a vacuum; it is shaped by the intersecting logics of multiple institutions, such as capitalism, education, law, and media, that define what is considered “appropriate,” “efficient,” or “professional.” This overlap of institutional expectations, what scholars call institutional intersectionality, creates layered pressures for people who already face inequality. Institutional intersectionality means that different systems (like schools, workplaces, and media) work together, often unintentionally, to reinforce who holds power and who faces barriers. For example, a Black woman in a corporate setting may need to navigate gendered expectations of politeness, racialized assumptions about authority, and capitalist demands for constant productivity, all at once. Understanding communication through an institutional intersectional lens reveals how norms that seem neutral, like dress codes, tone of voice, or meeting etiquette, are often structured by overlapping systems of power. This makes the workplace a key site where social inequalities are both reproduced and resisted.

Consider how video meetings on platforms like Zoom illustrate institutional intersectionality in action. Employees working from home are often expected to appear in professional attire, speak in standardized English, and maintain a tidy background—norms that reflect corporate, racialized, and class-based ideas of professionalism. Yet these expectations can disadvantage those without private or quiet spaces, high-speed internet, or culturally “neutral” home environments. A working parent may need to mute frequently to manage caregiving responsibilities, while a worker from a lower-income background may feel pressure to hide signs of their living conditions. These seemingly minor choices reflect broader institutional pressures and reveal how communication technologies mediate both visibility and inequality in the workplace.

Discussion

Now that you’ve seen how communication operates within social institutions like media, education, religion, family, and the workplace, take a moment to reflect on your own experiences. Have you ever felt pressure to communicate a certain way to be accepted or understood? Have you noticed how institutional settings shape not just what we say, but how we say it, and who gets heard? In the discussion forum, consider how communication norms in these settings reflect broader power structures, reinforce or challenge social norms, and impact our sense of identity and belonging.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Social institutions shape how we communicate, and communication, in turn, sustains institutional power and norms. From the media to family dinners, institutions influence how we see ourselves, others, and the world around us. By critically analyzing how communication operates within these institutions, we can better understand the systems we’re part of and how we might change them.

Check Your Understanding

References

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Verso.

Drucker, P. F. (1969). The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. Harper & Row.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (1989). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at home. Penguin.

Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in Classrooms. Hold, Rinehart and Winston.

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Understanding family communication patterns and family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Communication Yearbook, 26(1), 37-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2002.11679010

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media. The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.

Rana, T. (2024). The commodification of education: an academic dilemma. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 37(1), 428-429. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2024-215