McLuhan begins by categorizing media as either 'hot' or 'cold'. A hot medium puts one sense in "high definition", requires low participation, user can be passive to the point of 'hypnosis', and is generally one way communication. A cool medium is generally low definition, requiring the user to fill in the missing details, therefore it can be considered high participation, sometimes hyperactive to the point of 'hallucination'.
Examples:
HOT COOL
hieroglyphic characters phonetic alphabet
paper for writing stone tablets for writing
lecture seminar
book dialogue
photograph cartoon
radio telephone
movie TV
McLuhan goes on to describe the disruptive nature of hot technologies. When hot mediums of "the mechanical, uniform, and repetitive kind" (i.e. tools) are introduced to a society, they cause a collapse ('detribalization') in the structure of that civilization. Examples of this 'specialist' technology could be money or writing - anything that speeds up exchange and information. But, a larger speed-up, a 'nonspecialist' technology, like electricity, that allows instantaneous information, will retribalize a society.
In studying media and its affects, we must look at the big picture over and over again, holistically, as is necessary in order to gain insight. It is understood that no medium has its meaning alone, but rather in relation to other media. I think this may also be related to technological convergence, and how each media is playing off another, and each media's significance is determined in comparison to how it interacts with or amplifies other media. McLuhan may also be pointing to a trends toward more of a total systems analysis when evaluating media, which ironically, is a "relearning" in our culture; in oral cultures, it is standard practice to look at things holistically from a point of total systems awareness. For the same reason that oral cultures haven't experienced the fragmentation from some hot specialized technologies, they are more fully capable of understanding electric technology in a comprehensive, 'total' fashion.
A quote is presented by Margaret Mead, where she gives her opinion about social change being able to happen in backward countries by sufficiently hotting them up - what I'll call a "critical mass convergence":
"There are too many complaints about society having to move too fast to keep up with the machine. There is great advantage in moving fast if you move completely, if social, educational, and recreational changes keep pace. You must change the whole pattern at once and the whole group together - and the people themselves must decide to move."
Cities are also described as hot or cool. Hot cities are highly developed and structured, offering low opportunities of participation, with high specialist fragmentation. Cool cities on the other hand are more casually structured, and offer higher participation and a more democratic way of life, and more opportunities for expression. It more or less states that high levels of structure lead to stagnation; innovation and creativity levels drop in hot mediums.
It is possible to manipulate societies if the effects of hot/cool media on hot/cool cultures are understood. For instance, a hot medium used in a cool culture can have a violent effect, just as a cool medium in a hot culture can be equally upsetting. At the same time, there is a saturation point, where a culture has reached a sensory overload or "sensory peak", and the medium is no longer effective. Perhaps there is a diminishing effectiveness of hot film media like documentaries, which are supposed to spur you to social change.... perhaps we need a cool medium like participatory media/social media to make change happen.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Reflection: Orality, Literacy, and Modern Media
Ong explores oral culture, and the differences between the formulation and transmission of information via sound verse the written word. He looks at sound in terms of its relation to time and interiority, and then evaluates the new orality that has been brought about in today's society by electronic technology.
We start by comparing the impermanence of sound to the permanence of the written word, and what that means. Sounds are events in time, and so indicate motion. They can only be experienced as they pass out of existence. The spoken word is dynamic, alive. And so language is a kind of action, and therefore indicates power. Alternately, the written word is interpreted visually. It is stationary, available for scrutiny and analysis. It is static, dead.
Sound is unique because it is the only one of the senses that registers interiority, It is experienced 'in stereo', all around us, and so puts us in a state of inclusion and immersion with what we hear. Sound is the channel for experiencing presence. It's no coincidence that in the yoga tradition, sound is one of the most powerful forms of meditation to reach Being/presence/conscious awareness. Sound is like a metaphor for life: we resign to the fact that sound is fluid and transient, that it does not allow for examination, and so we simply remain in the eternal present with what IS. Sound is harmonious with awareness. Through sound, we find stillness. Sound also somehow conveys 'essence' in a way the written word cannot. Spoken words resonate vibrational energy, and give the sense that there exists a deeper meaning to what we hear beyond just the words themselves.
In modern society, a "secondary orality" has emerged, which simulates but does not fully recreate the primary orality. A disconnect had occurred when the written word came about, replacing communal forms of information exchange with the solitary acts of reading and writing. Radio, television, and other communication technologies have reintroduced the sense of community and connectivity to a group that was key in the oral culture. Because of technology's ubiquity, the groups can be much larger in size and scale, even global. The difference is that the new orality is purposeful, in a way that was not possible originally. Primary orality had no alternatives. The new orality exists within the framework of our literacy. Our way of thinking is rational. It's influenced by a culture based in written words, in labels, compartmentalizations, and descriptions. As a result, our attempts at a new oral tradition are well-crafted imitations of a lost orality. Something about the essence or qualia of the spoken word in an oral culture just can't be duplicated through method.
We start by comparing the impermanence of sound to the permanence of the written word, and what that means. Sounds are events in time, and so indicate motion. They can only be experienced as they pass out of existence. The spoken word is dynamic, alive. And so language is a kind of action, and therefore indicates power. Alternately, the written word is interpreted visually. It is stationary, available for scrutiny and analysis. It is static, dead.
Sound is unique because it is the only one of the senses that registers interiority, It is experienced 'in stereo', all around us, and so puts us in a state of inclusion and immersion with what we hear. Sound is the channel for experiencing presence. It's no coincidence that in the yoga tradition, sound is one of the most powerful forms of meditation to reach Being/presence/conscious awareness. Sound is like a metaphor for life: we resign to the fact that sound is fluid and transient, that it does not allow for examination, and so we simply remain in the eternal present with what IS. Sound is harmonious with awareness. Through sound, we find stillness. Sound also somehow conveys 'essence' in a way the written word cannot. Spoken words resonate vibrational energy, and give the sense that there exists a deeper meaning to what we hear beyond just the words themselves.
In modern society, a "secondary orality" has emerged, which simulates but does not fully recreate the primary orality. A disconnect had occurred when the written word came about, replacing communal forms of information exchange with the solitary acts of reading and writing. Radio, television, and other communication technologies have reintroduced the sense of community and connectivity to a group that was key in the oral culture. Because of technology's ubiquity, the groups can be much larger in size and scale, even global. The difference is that the new orality is purposeful, in a way that was not possible originally. Primary orality had no alternatives. The new orality exists within the framework of our literacy. Our way of thinking is rational. It's influenced by a culture based in written words, in labels, compartmentalizations, and descriptions. As a result, our attempts at a new oral tradition are well-crafted imitations of a lost orality. Something about the essence or qualia of the spoken word in an oral culture just can't be duplicated through method.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Commentary: The Consequences of Literacy
When widespread literacy is gained in a society, what is culturally lost? In an oral culture, the transmission of information was a group experience, immersive; the process itself a piece of the cultural tradition. When the written word came along, it allowed for a richness and complexity of language and words that was impossible (and impractical) with the oral tradition. But by doing so, an individual could no longer 'know' a cultural tradition in the same way anymore. There becomes too much information to ever digest or comprehend, and so society can only know a small portion of what there is, just a piece of the whole. This results in a kind of loss of unification among a people, as their understanding of and adaptation to information/change no longer happens homogeneously. The adoption rate is sporadic, happening in spurts by groups not easily defined. These disjointed groups are another consequence of increasingly diverse information within specific (specialized) subject areas: socio-economic class alone ceases to be an accurate indicator of the cohesion of a social group. Individuals have choice in the depth of their understanding of an area or topic, unlike in the oral tradition when cultural transmission was straightforward and homogeneous.
The method of cultural transmission also causes different types of conflict. In the literate society, individuals can simply choose not to read or write. By isolating themselves from the information, they choose not to participate in culture. Conversely, the written word cancels out the need for a community experience or participatory culture in order to receive information. One can comfortably read or write in solitude. In the non-literate society, that isolation would have meant a separation from culture and the social experience.
There is a similarity here between the affects of literacy as 'something lost' to the ideas posed in The Concept of Enlightenment. The organization of written language creates a mechanicality of thought not unlike the scientific method - it limits the ability to experience and conceptualize things when thoughts are limited to words. Thought is not meant to be so definitive, so stale, so cut and dry. The mind loses its fluidity, becomes rigid. Thoughts need to stay lubricated by abstraction and imagination. Some things don't belong to the world of literacy, and can't be rationalized. The social experience of culture has intrinsic value, as it allows the individual to be a part of the whole, without the necessity of compartmentalizing and describing and defining the experience as a thing that exists in space-time. Time is an illusion anyway, and past and future don't really exist. All we have is the eternal present.
One part of the paper reads: "...it is still evident that the literate individual has in practice so large a field of personal selection from the total cultural repertoire that the odds are strongly against his experiencing the cultural tradition as any sort of patterned whole." My question in response to that statement is, "Is there even a "whole" anymore at all?" What does it look like? Would we recognize it if we saw/experienced it? Do we need it? Isn't reality an individual experience shaped by our perceptions, our beliefs and memes hand-picked as we see fit to create a version of reality that fits our schema? With so many layers of the cultural tradition from which to choose, does it really matter if a 'whole' exists? Is it possible to tease out meaning in such depth of complexity? What would it teach us?
But I think salvation may still be found in the literate society. Though something may have been lost in the transition to a literate society, modern technologies and modes of communication may bring us back around full circle. This line by Durkheim presents a silver lining:
"...The state of anomie is impossible whenever interdependent organs are sufficiently in contact and sufficiently extensive. If they are close to each other, they are readily aware, in every situation, of the need which they have of one-another, and consequently they have an active and permanent feeling of mutual dependence."
For me, this statement hasn't been more appropriate or relevant than it is today. We're living in an increasingly networked world, where people can connect instantaneously in ways never before possible. As we enter a knowledge era, enabled by web 2.0, the fabric of society and culture is being ripped and reshaped, and the ways we perceive ourselves and our relations to others is fundamentally changing. It's true that we're experiencing accelerating change, and we'll continue to be affected by disruptive technologies that will force us to reconsider how to operate within the changing framework of the world. Things will move in fits and starts. It will be painful sometimes, especially when handled with inflexibility and resistance verse adaptation and innovation. The advantage is that the world is flattening, and we don't have to be individually isolated islands unto ourselves. We don't have to experience a state of anomie. We can face the changes in unity, with mass collaboration and transparency highlighting our triumph as a global human society. The modes of communication enabled by the internet will continue to break down the barriers to cultural transmission in a literate society. Reading and writing no longer have to be isolated activites that are either accepted or ignored. Online real-time communities, viral videos/machinima, and collaborative environments like virtual worlds and 3D spaces will bring back some of the conceptual learning that took place in protoliterate societies.
The way we use the internet and interact goes beyond humans using tools. The technologies are extensions of ourselves, and are being integrated into our definition of culture. The system is an intelligence amplification feedback loop. The more we build the network and social graph, the 'smarter' it gets, and in turn, the smarter we get, and so on. The next stage of the web will be semantic, and information will become more easily searchable and meaningful. We're on the path to building a global brain, where patterns and connections become apparent, and data becomes information. Perhaps we'll realize Goody's hope of "experiencing the cultural tradition as...a patterned whole" after all.
----------------------------------------------
word of the day: anomie
an emerging state of social deregulation; social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values
quote of the day:
God has not been so sparing to men to make them barely two-legged creatures, and left it to Aristotle to make them rational.
- John Locke
The method of cultural transmission also causes different types of conflict. In the literate society, individuals can simply choose not to read or write. By isolating themselves from the information, they choose not to participate in culture. Conversely, the written word cancels out the need for a community experience or participatory culture in order to receive information. One can comfortably read or write in solitude. In the non-literate society, that isolation would have meant a separation from culture and the social experience.
There is a similarity here between the affects of literacy as 'something lost' to the ideas posed in The Concept of Enlightenment. The organization of written language creates a mechanicality of thought not unlike the scientific method - it limits the ability to experience and conceptualize things when thoughts are limited to words. Thought is not meant to be so definitive, so stale, so cut and dry. The mind loses its fluidity, becomes rigid. Thoughts need to stay lubricated by abstraction and imagination. Some things don't belong to the world of literacy, and can't be rationalized. The social experience of culture has intrinsic value, as it allows the individual to be a part of the whole, without the necessity of compartmentalizing and describing and defining the experience as a thing that exists in space-time. Time is an illusion anyway, and past and future don't really exist. All we have is the eternal present.
One part of the paper reads: "...it is still evident that the literate individual has in practice so large a field of personal selection from the total cultural repertoire that the odds are strongly against his experiencing the cultural tradition as any sort of patterned whole." My question in response to that statement is, "Is there even a "whole" anymore at all?" What does it look like? Would we recognize it if we saw/experienced it? Do we need it? Isn't reality an individual experience shaped by our perceptions, our beliefs and memes hand-picked as we see fit to create a version of reality that fits our schema? With so many layers of the cultural tradition from which to choose, does it really matter if a 'whole' exists? Is it possible to tease out meaning in such depth of complexity? What would it teach us?
But I think salvation may still be found in the literate society. Though something may have been lost in the transition to a literate society, modern technologies and modes of communication may bring us back around full circle. This line by Durkheim presents a silver lining:
"...The state of anomie is impossible whenever interdependent organs are sufficiently in contact and sufficiently extensive. If they are close to each other, they are readily aware, in every situation, of the need which they have of one-another, and consequently they have an active and permanent feeling of mutual dependence."
For me, this statement hasn't been more appropriate or relevant than it is today. We're living in an increasingly networked world, where people can connect instantaneously in ways never before possible. As we enter a knowledge era, enabled by web 2.0, the fabric of society and culture is being ripped and reshaped, and the ways we perceive ourselves and our relations to others is fundamentally changing. It's true that we're experiencing accelerating change, and we'll continue to be affected by disruptive technologies that will force us to reconsider how to operate within the changing framework of the world. Things will move in fits and starts. It will be painful sometimes, especially when handled with inflexibility and resistance verse adaptation and innovation. The advantage is that the world is flattening, and we don't have to be individually isolated islands unto ourselves. We don't have to experience a state of anomie. We can face the changes in unity, with mass collaboration and transparency highlighting our triumph as a global human society. The modes of communication enabled by the internet will continue to break down the barriers to cultural transmission in a literate society. Reading and writing no longer have to be isolated activites that are either accepted or ignored. Online real-time communities, viral videos/machinima, and collaborative environments like virtual worlds and 3D spaces will bring back some of the conceptual learning that took place in protoliterate societies.
The way we use the internet and interact goes beyond humans using tools. The technologies are extensions of ourselves, and are being integrated into our definition of culture. The system is an intelligence amplification feedback loop. The more we build the network and social graph, the 'smarter' it gets, and in turn, the smarter we get, and so on. The next stage of the web will be semantic, and information will become more easily searchable and meaningful. We're on the path to building a global brain, where patterns and connections become apparent, and data becomes information. Perhaps we'll realize Goody's hope of "experiencing the cultural tradition as...a patterned whole" after all.
------------------------------
word of the day: anomie
an emerging state of social deregulation; social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values
quote of the day:
God has not been so sparing to men to make them barely two-legged creatures, and left it to Aristotle to make them rational.
- John Locke
Reflection: The Concept of Enlightenment
Dialectic of Enlightenment: The Concept of Enlightenment
Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer
My takeaway was "the machine is using us". The goal of the enlightenment was to free our minds, by favoring 'rationality' over myth and mysticism. Nature became something that was to be controlled by us, quantified, compartmentalized, labeled, manipulated. But, this new scientific way of looking at things changed the way we THINK... or perhaps limited our ability to think at all. Instead of looking for greater 'Truth' or deeper meaning in things, identifying the essence of a thing, giving it 'value', it becomes a mere definition. The framework of thoughts are based in a soul-deadening logic and mechanicality. Everything that can be named and described and explained away can be somehow controlled, and there's a power in that, but at the same time, something sacred is lost.
The belief in positivism seems as irrational to me as mythology must have been for those that started the enlightenment movement. To place utmost value in what the senses can perceive, and call it Truth, is ridiculous. I think we're finally coming around full circle, not to a return to mysticism, but at least allowing ourselves to say that there's more to life than meets the eye. In some ways, science itself has pointed out its fallibility. The more we dive into quantum mechanics, the more incongruities and incompatabilities we find with what we think we know and what is. Perhaps there really is an unknowable universal. Is it really such a horrible thing to have a sense of awe of the world around us??
We become like slaves in invisible chains, our minds shaped into the pattern of a machine: efficient, mechanical, repetitive, causal, our thoughts on the conveyor belt of an assembly line - there are no alternative paths for them to take. This machine-like way of thinking is tied directly to the division of labor - the mechanized process of thinking is merely a function of material production and the "all-encompassing economic apparatus". By abandoning the cumbersomeness of formulating actual thoughts in favor of following a predetermined reified path, the greater machine/system of society can operate smoothly. At the same time, the smooth operation leads to a distillation of society, a loss of culture.
By treating nature as something outside of oneself, something that needs to be manipulated and controlled verse something with which to be in harmony, humans become isolated and estranged. Both the lowly worker and the ones in charge are victims - the dominated are resigned sheep, and the dominators are equally immobilized by their distance from the experience, the self imposed detachment and repression of novelty in favor of utility in order to 'better' perform their role of power.
Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer
My takeaway was "the machine is using us". The goal of the enlightenment was to free our minds, by favoring 'rationality' over myth and mysticism. Nature became something that was to be controlled by us, quantified, compartmentalized, labeled, manipulated. But, this new scientific way of looking at things changed the way we THINK... or perhaps limited our ability to think at all. Instead of looking for greater 'Truth' or deeper meaning in things, identifying the essence of a thing, giving it 'value', it becomes a mere definition. The framework of thoughts are based in a soul-deadening logic and mechanicality. Everything that can be named and described and explained away can be somehow controlled, and there's a power in that, but at the same time, something sacred is lost.
The belief in positivism seems as irrational to me as mythology must have been for those that started the enlightenment movement. To place utmost value in what the senses can perceive, and call it Truth, is ridiculous. I think we're finally coming around full circle, not to a return to mysticism, but at least allowing ourselves to say that there's more to life than meets the eye. In some ways, science itself has pointed out its fallibility. The more we dive into quantum mechanics, the more incongruities and incompatabilities we find with what we think we know and what is. Perhaps there really is an unknowable universal. Is it really such a horrible thing to have a sense of awe of the world around us??
We become like slaves in invisible chains, our minds shaped into the pattern of a machine: efficient, mechanical, repetitive, causal, our thoughts on the conveyor belt of an assembly line - there are no alternative paths for them to take. This machine-like way of thinking is tied directly to the division of labor - the mechanized process of thinking is merely a function of material production and the "all-encompassing economic apparatus". By abandoning the cumbersomeness of formulating actual thoughts in favor of following a predetermined reified path, the greater machine/system of society can operate smoothly. At the same time, the smooth operation leads to a distillation of society, a loss of culture.
By treating nature as something outside of oneself, something that needs to be manipulated and controlled verse something with which to be in harmony, humans become isolated and estranged. Both the lowly worker and the ones in charge are victims - the dominated are resigned sheep, and the dominators are equally immobilized by their distance from the experience, the self imposed detachment and repression of novelty in favor of utility in order to 'better' perform their role of power.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Reflection: The Medium is the Message
Here we begin to understand that 'the medium' (new technologies) introduces a new complexity/depth in our human affairs that creates social consequences. The content of a medium usually points to another medium, so rather than getting lost in the content/end product, focus should be directed on the medium itself as the source of meaningful information. Basically, pay attention to the character and social implications of the medium, not just the physical output of what it creates.
The 'medium is the message' seems to be a kind of equivalent to the spiritual insight 'it's the journey, not the destination'. The first phrase indicates that there is more involved than simple causality - it's not just 'this causes that', or 'first this, then that'. Rather, the process between A and B is where our attention should be focused. In the same way, we're given life lessons by being instructed to look at the journey, the process, the things that happen in between the concept/plan and the result. The sweetness of life and grist for growth and pondering lies in the patterns and changes in the middle.
McLuhan goes on to point on that General David Sarnoff is an idiot who doesn't "get" the nature of the medium at all, because he had claimed that technologies are neither good or bad in themselves, but it is the way in which they are used that determine their value. That statement is in direct opposition to McLuhan's point about the 'content' of the medium being irrelevant, and rather the implications of the medium on society as the important question to ask. McLuhan's point is that the technology doesn't merely become an addition to a currently existing toolset, it actually reshapes and reforms the entire operation of the system.
The awareness that "the medium is the message" is becoming more apparent as technologies grant us access to instantaneous information, canceling out the necessity to view and interpret things as they were previously presented to us: sequentially. The sequence itself is an illusion, as the message lies in holistic awareness. By breaking things down into a series of parts and analyzing them individually, they can never be understood in the same way as looking at the whole. But when viewed wholly, or simultaneously, the medium takes on a life of its own, as a living system, not one that 'results in' something or 'does' something, but one that merges with, shapes, and recreates that with which it interacts. (i.e. us, individually and societally). An example of this is given later in reference to "detribalization by literacy". The technology doesn't just lead to something else, but actually transforms the very fabric of the society, and the individual's role within it.
It's also pointed out that how we react to or respond to the medium is inconsequential to its effect upon us. Claiming that one is immune to the effects of a pervasive technology in society is simply ignorance. The medium doesn't have to be "accepted", or even understood - because of its integrated position within our culture and memeplex, it is subconsciously (or unconsciously) influential.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
word of the day: somnambulism
Technological Somnambulism is a concept used when talking about the philosophy of technology. The term was used by Langdon Winner in his essay Technology as forms of life. Winner puts forth the idea that we are simply in a state of sleepwalking in our mediations with technology. This sleepwalking is caused by a number of factors. One of the primary causes is the way we view technology as tools, something that can be put down and picked up again. Because of this view of objects as something we can easily separate ourselves from we fail to look at the long term implications of using that object. A second factor is separation of those who make the technology and those who use the technology. This division causes there to be little thought and research going into the effects of using/developing that technology. The third and most important idea is the way in which technology seems to create new worlds in which we live. These worlds are created by the restructuring of the common and seemingly everyday things around us. In most situations the changes take place with little attention or care from us because we are more focused on the menial aspects of the technology (winner 105-107).
favorite quote:
It is not an exaggeration to say that the future of modern society and the stability of its inner life depend in large part on the maintenance of an equilibrium between the strength of the techniques of communication and the capacity of the individual's own reaction.
notes to self:
Is there not charms
By which the property of youth and maidhood
May be abus'd?
a shakespearean commentary on new media? i guess this can be interpreted as the media's ability to make us create false expectations or standards for ourselves - for what youth and beauty are supposed to look like, how you're supposed to act, the sought after hyperrealistic illusions of fashion magazines, reality shows, music videos, and pop culture in general; being tricked into superficiality; transforming what the essence of youth means in today's society
'Medium is the Message'
- the "message" of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs
ex. machine automation
- machine technology = fragmentary, centralist, superficial in its patterning of human relationships
- automation technology = integral and decentralist in depth
ex. railway
- didn't introduce transportation, it accelerated/enlarged the scale of previous human functions; new kinds of cities/work/leisure
ex. airplane
- didn't introduce travel, it accelerating the rate of transportation
"content" of any medium is another medium
- content of print => the written word
- content of the telegraph => print
- content of speech => the process of thought
- content of electric light => night baseball
- content of railway => coal, produce, etc.
The 'medium is the message' seems to be a kind of equivalent to the spiritual insight 'it's the journey, not the destination'. The first phrase indicates that there is more involved than simple causality - it's not just 'this causes that', or 'first this, then that'. Rather, the process between A and B is where our attention should be focused. In the same way, we're given life lessons by being instructed to look at the journey, the process, the things that happen in between the concept/plan and the result. The sweetness of life and grist for growth and pondering lies in the patterns and changes in the middle.
McLuhan goes on to point on that General David Sarnoff is an idiot who doesn't "get" the nature of the medium at all, because he had claimed that technologies are neither good or bad in themselves, but it is the way in which they are used that determine their value. That statement is in direct opposition to McLuhan's point about the 'content' of the medium being irrelevant, and rather the implications of the medium on society as the important question to ask. McLuhan's point is that the technology doesn't merely become an addition to a currently existing toolset, it actually reshapes and reforms the entire operation of the system.
The awareness that "the medium is the message" is becoming more apparent as technologies grant us access to instantaneous information, canceling out the necessity to view and interpret things as they were previously presented to us: sequentially. The sequence itself is an illusion, as the message lies in holistic awareness. By breaking things down into a series of parts and analyzing them individually, they can never be understood in the same way as looking at the whole. But when viewed wholly, or simultaneously, the medium takes on a life of its own, as a living system, not one that 'results in' something or 'does' something, but one that merges with, shapes, and recreates that with which it interacts. (i.e. us, individually and societally). An example of this is given later in reference to "detribalization by literacy". The technology doesn't just lead to something else, but actually transforms the very fabric of the society, and the individual's role within it.
It's also pointed out that how we react to or respond to the medium is inconsequential to its effect upon us. Claiming that one is immune to the effects of a pervasive technology in society is simply ignorance. The medium doesn't have to be "accepted", or even understood - because of its integrated position within our culture and memeplex, it is subconsciously (or unconsciously) influential.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
word of the day: somnambulism
Technological Somnambulism is a concept used when talking about the philosophy of technology. The term was used by Langdon Winner in his essay Technology as forms of life. Winner puts forth the idea that we are simply in a state of sleepwalking in our mediations with technology. This sleepwalking is caused by a number of factors. One of the primary causes is the way we view technology as tools, something that can be put down and picked up again. Because of this view of objects as something we can easily separate ourselves from we fail to look at the long term implications of using that object. A second factor is separation of those who make the technology and those who use the technology. This division causes there to be little thought and research going into the effects of using/developing that technology. The third and most important idea is the way in which technology seems to create new worlds in which we live. These worlds are created by the restructuring of the common and seemingly everyday things around us. In most situations the changes take place with little attention or care from us because we are more focused on the menial aspects of the technology (winner 105-107).
favorite quote:
It is not an exaggeration to say that the future of modern society and the stability of its inner life depend in large part on the maintenance of an equilibrium between the strength of the techniques of communication and the capacity of the individual's own reaction.
notes to self:
Is there not charms
By which the property of youth and maidhood
May be abus'd?
a shakespearean commentary on new media? i guess this can be interpreted as the media's ability to make us create false expectations or standards for ourselves - for what youth and beauty are supposed to look like, how you're supposed to act, the sought after hyperrealistic illusions of fashion magazines, reality shows, music videos, and pop culture in general; being tricked into superficiality; transforming what the essence of youth means in today's society
'Medium is the Message'
- the "message" of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs
ex. machine automation
- machine technology = fragmentary, centralist, superficial in its patterning of human relationships
- automation technology = integral and decentralist in depth
ex. railway
- didn't introduce transportation, it accelerated/enlarged the scale of previous human functions; new kinds of cities/work/leisure
ex. airplane
- didn't introduce travel, it accelerating the rate of transportation
"content" of any medium is another medium
- content of print => the written word
- content of the telegraph => print
- content of speech => the process of thought
- content of electric light => night baseball
- content of railway => coal, produce, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
