{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01804511278195489, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004511278195488722, 'mean_word_length': 5.556650246305419, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Communication and Nation Building

This article compares two models of communication and nation building developed in the US. Daniel Lerner's model of communication and modernization, created in political and academic centers of the US from the 1960s onward, mirrors the thinking about communication and ethnic assimilation developed by Robert Park in the early part of the 20th-century US. Both models say an increase in shared characteristics among social groups and an increasing social homogeneity are a key to nation building. Both models require erasure of differences (in ethnicity, cognitive orientations, patterns of social interactions, etc.) for the creation of a cohesive, productive, just and affluent society. In both models various communication media assume an important role in providing information that facilitates key transformations in individuals and communities. By making this comparison, I want to reinforce the idea that ethnic minorities in the US and `Third World' populations assume similar positions in the thinking of western (white) nations and consider how, why and with what consequences certain types of knowledge created in one specific geopolitical and historical context are normalized and then deemed appropriate to explain phenomena in and create policy for different geopolitical contexts.