CRDM 701
Blog #1 - Kelly
[I liked Jon's idea of entitling the blog entries by number so we can keep track of them easily as the weeks pass.]
I thought it was interesting that Peters (1999) claims that the message of his book is "harsh" and that "communication is not a matter of improved wiring or freer self-disclosure but involves a permanent kink in the human condition" (p. 29). Though I can see how the statement alone is inherently "harsh", Peters ends his introduction with a very optimistic tone pointing out that we might like each other less the more we understand one another (p.30) and that, "The ultimate futility of our attempts to 'communicate' is not lamentable; it is a handsome condition" (p. 31). He renounces the dream of communication for "splendid otherness". Peters describes the intertwined visions of the 1920s as a result of whatever function the theorist hoped communication would serve. From what I understand, Peters sees the function of communication as acknowledging another's ideas instead of complete understanding.
And even while renouncing the dream of communication, Peters mentions that "communication" is more fundamentally a political and ethical problem than a semantic one (p. 30). However, a couple paragraphs later he insinuates that "politics?" are really blessings instead of obstacles. Since this is the "intro" to his book I believe he will address what he means further but I thought that was an interesting way to look at the politics in the remaining articles. When reading Winner's (1986) article I didn't stop to think if the politics involved in his examples could be seen as blessings unless they promoted a democratic environment. In a way I was rooting for the automobile assembly teams in Sweden (p. 35) (I think an automatic reaction after my last critical organizational communication class). Reexamining Winner's (1986) article I see that he doesn't really make a case for politics as an obstacle or a blessing, just that in many instances, --to say that some technologies are inherently political is to say that certain widely accepted reasons of practical necessity "have tended to eclipse other sorts of moral and political reasoning" (p. 36). The politics are not a blessing or obstacle--just practical necessity. If inherently political technology (and the need for smoothly running mechanisms) eclipses moral and political reasoning then the question becomes are we shaping technology or are we being shaped by technology?
The Marshack (1991), Schmandt-Besserat (1986), & Innis (1950) articles provide us with some specific examples to examine this question. One of the most drastic examples is when the Egyptian shift from stone to papyrus coincided with "a shift from absolute monarchy to a more democratic organization" (p.16). However, this more "democratic" organization never became flexible enough to withstand attack because of religious monopoly of knowledge due to the complex system of writing. (p. 22). Here you can make the case that the competition of papyrus with stone began to shape the Egyptian empire but the control exerted by priests actually had more power over the technology because the hieroglyphics remained complicated in their use.
In the case of the tokens, Schamandt-Besserat (1986) says that it is "presumable that the development of the token system reflects the development of authority" (p. 269). She seems to make the case that the tokens did not shape the civilization but that the civilization shaped the technology because she refers to the token system as "reflection" and also "bureaucratic tool". I think it's interesting too that the tokens eventually became viewed as trash.
Marshack (1991) makes the amazing claim that although "we do not have a history" of the Ice Age but that we are "able to state that the intelligence involved in the development and use of these images and symbols for cultural purposes in the same as we have today" (p. 19). If this is the case then can we compare the Ice Age technologies to the internet to determine who is shaping who? This blog entry could be a novel. Peters (1999) makes that same statement in the beginning of his intro--"the past lives selectively in the present" (p. 3). So, in my opinion, in the case of Ice Age Man and all these specific examples, really the technology is shaping us. Winner touches on the idea that when these technologies are first created there is not much thought about the ethics or how the final result will affect the social structure until after the technology has been created and then it is too late to turn back. Initially, we have shaped the technology but the influence it has ultimately shapes us.
I'm thinking about researching digital media and progress in art and design but have to narrow this down but I think the idea of Ice Age Man creating art is really interesting and will be relevant to my research. It is amazing this kind of energy was put into objects that were not always useful--but maybe they have to be seen as useful from a religious point of view?
Posted at 11:30AM Aug 27, 2007 by klnorris in Kelly | Comments[43]