Electric Media and Tribalization

The reading assignment for today was a bit confusing. We had readings scheduled for both 3/11 and 3/18, even though 3/18 is spring break.

So I have decided to pick and choose what to read. I am beginning with McLuhan. I was introduced to McLuhan nearly two years ago by Dr. Whithaus. And it was good. McLuhan resonates with me for some reason. Perhaps it is this:

In a culture like ours, long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control, it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message (203).

The idea that contemporary artifacts, not just art were worthy of study is important to me (as it is to many post-modern rhetoricians). And if McLuhan did not originate that idea with his "idea that advertisements have artistic merits" (193), he certainly contributed to its popularity.

I like McLuhan's term "electric" media. It does not invite the multiplicity of meanings that "new" media does (the most obvious, "new in relation to what?"). If the media uses electricity, it is electric. Thus television (and I suppose radio), digital media, second life, etc. are all in a single category. But where it has simplicity and elegance in the definition, can we really throw all those pieces together in one box? Is television really the same as an interactive game, where you buy accessories for your avatar with US dollars?

McLuhan, though, does see changes in society being based upon (or determined by) changes in technology. I.e., the printing press causes literacy, which caused societal changes, etc.

Raymond Williams, in "The Technology and Society" presents a different picture. As far as the television changing society, he says that the society and the social conditions of that society led to the invention of television (295). In a similar way, perhaps the growth of literacy allowed the printing press to become so integral. Without growing literacy rates, the invention of movable type could have come and gone without anyone noticing.

There are, of course, limits. Currently, I would hazard to guess, sufficient market exists for a Star Trek type transporter. We are a very mobile society. We would like, generally, to eliminate the "wasted" time at airports. So we could really buy into a teleportation device. But, as of now, the platform for that technology to be built does not exist (this is a vast oversimplification of Williams' argument, which he presents on pages 295-97).

Deleuze & Guattari-- Well, I liked the rhizome metaphor. I am not quite sure what it means, but it liked it. Which is more than I can say about the rest of the article.