At the start of the semester, we studied the highly stylized and performative oral tradition of the ancient Greeks. This oral tradition served several purposes in society. It provided entertainment (and social commentary) for (male) audiences. It distributed information from one generation to the next. And it preserved and transmitted the history of the society as it was “recorded” by orators. The invention of the alphabet - and consequently, writing - revolutionized the way information was distributed. With writing, stories and information could be recorded, and this had important implications:
- Information was less subject to decay over time if it was written down.
- Government could begin to document laws, policies, legal proceedings, etc.
- Poetry and plays could be memorialized in writing (even if they were still being interpreted and performed in the oral tradition).
Additionally, writing gave individuals who were not orators a voice. This is not to say that everyone could read and write. However, writing allowed the customs, ideas, and experiences of society in a particular moment in time to be represented for both the current generation and those to come after.
If writing revolutionized what information was captured, then printing revolutionized access to that information. Once printing became readily available (both technologically and financially) then countless opportunities became available in many different industries. Governments (and religious groups) could produce and distribute propaganda. Educators could ensure that students were learning from the same text. Average consumers could borrow or buy books to read for entertainment. Printing also allowed for Anderson’s imagined communities to form, which spurred nationalism in ways heretofore unseen.
As we learned from Carey, the telegraph allowed for the separation of communication from transportation. Imagine how liberating it must have been to have a message telegraphed to someone (or to yourself) for the first time! Like printing, once the telegraph became widespread, its impact was profound. Local markets became national markets, subject to fluctuations in price, supply, and demand that were no longer fixed by geographic constraints. For perhaps the first time, the potential powers of technologically captured the imaginations of the masses, who talked about the telegraph in biblical terms, such was their awe.
No communications technology has been quite as profound as the television. To quote a colleague of mine, “Everyone’s an expert in television.” Television has characteristics of both the printing press and the telegraph. Like printing, the television opened up a whole world of information and entertainment to countless people. And like the telegraph, the television had immeasurable impacts on economic forces, though in very different ways. Advertisers, singers, writers, actors, producers, directors, hardware manufacturers and telecommunications giants sought the financial gains of the new industry. Behind the scenes, advertisers, producers, and members of the government did a careful dance with the American public in which either a) culture was put forth from the TV or b) the TV reflected existing culture back onto the public.
The Internet is the great communications frontier that we are currently exploring. We can identify important traits of this new technology:
- It is, in some ways, less subject to the whims of advertisers and governments.
- It is open to the production and consumption of content from amateur content producers.
- It is interactive.
- It is time-less, not subject to a scheduling grid.
Looking at how technology has woven itself through communications history, two themes emerge for me. First, communications technology has always been used as a way to control the public. Second, women are not represented in this history.
On Control
Are humans psychologically susceptible to manipulation? Are government officials, business gurus, and media magnates utilizing communications technology to further their own agendas? Or is it both? I think about Barnouw’s Tube of Plenty and Gitlin’s analysis of the television medium. We can extract from both of these texts questions that can help us to better understand the social dynamic that happens around these technologies.
Are people passive consumers of what is essentially propaganda spewed to/on them from the few people who control media programming? Are we conditioned to be acculturated in a particular way that is communicated to us through different media (television, radio, magazines, advertisements, etc.)? Or are we complicit in creating what is disseminated? Is media really just a mirror that lets us see more palatable versions of the “we” that already exists?
We watched All in the Family, and in an offline conversation with Frank, we discussed several interpretations of it. One is that the presentation of diversity essentially absolves liberals from confronting any real societal problems. After all, they showed the coming together of different groups in a popular way that reached - and was accepted by - millions of viewers. Another interpretation is that it reinforces racist thoughts and behaviors by projecting accepted forms of those thoughts and behaviors back to viewers. I think both interpretations are right, and that’s why both Barnouw’s and Gitlin’s texts are so important. It isn’t either/or. It’s both. Culture is disseminated to us via communications technologies. But our own culture is also often simply reflected back to us.
In this process of dissemination and reflection, we embody Marcuse's notion of one-dimensionality. "Private space has been whittled down by technological reality. Mass production and mass distribution claim the entire individual." (page 10) What is a consumer to do in the face of these assertions/realities? We can't just throw our hands up and walk away from all communications technology. But we can - and should - be aware of the ways in which they infiltrate and permeate our lives, so that we have the presence of mind to step away occasionally.
On Women
I would be remiss if I didn’t briefly mention in closing an issue about which I’ve written in several of my blog posts this semester. I am saddened, but not surprised, to learn how glaringly absent women are from the development of communications technologies. Nothing I write can remedy that. However, there are two areas of communication that women carved out for themselves in a way that men didn’t - simply because men didn’t have to.
First, women used letter writing as a major form of communication as far back as the 1600s. Letters were used for economic reasons (how to manage a house) as well as social reasons (reinforcing familial and friendship bonds across distances). Like other communications technologies, letter-writing began as an activity for the elite. With the rise of literacy, more women could participate in the medium. Of course, men also wrote letters. But in looking for the impact of women on communications - and vice versa - letter-writing strikes me as one of the most important places to start.
More recently women have participated in the creation of ‘zines (self-published magazines distributed throughout a community). The 1990s, in particular, saw a wave of feminist activity known as the riot grrrl movement. Women who identified with this group, and similar groups, used ‘zines to create and spread a culture of awareness around punk music and gender equity.
Letters in the 17th century allowed women to connect to each other. ‘Zines in the 20th century allowed women to connect to larger communities.
* * *
The bottom line is that the development of communications is a journey. We can document our history, and chart our course for the future. No one can say for sure exactly where we are going, only that we are traveling collectively, marching toward the next new technology that will be even greater than the last.
No comments:
Post a Comment