CRDM 701

Week 11 - Christin

America has always touted our belief in freedom ? the freedom of expression, the freedom of thought, the freedom of the press, and so forth.  Does the move to a security society necessarily equate to the abolition of freedom?  I certainly hope not, but it appears to seem that at least somewhat this is holding true.  For a very long time the second amendment was believed to be crucial for the freedom of US citizens.  Yet, in this society where our government is engaging in ?homeland security? more and more, controlling our daily lives more and more, Americans in droves have begun to oppose in some form the second amendment.  Did the events of September 11 trigger such a fear in Americans that many are now willing to give up certain (if not all) freedoms in order to feel safer, regardless of if they are or not?  Almost my entire extended family lives about an hour north of New York City, and almost all of them seem to feel that way.  They?re afraid because the space they inhabit lies so close to the City that they?re at risk ? even though the towns they live in hold less people than even the smallest town in Wake County.

Packer states on page 383 that, ?One element of the model of the control society is the management of access to space.?  Space, for Packer here, literally means geographic physical, ?real-world? space.  But an analogy could be drawn here to another type of space.  Innis discusses how those who have had control over knowledge throughout history have had the power in society.  Knowledge has now begun to be disseminated literally through space (Wi-Fi, Cellular telephones, Satellite TV, etc.).  I wonder how many cars of the future will have wi-fi capabilities that the government can conveniently connect to, giving them more power over the virtual space (both in it?s embodiment as bits of data traveling through the air and the information it contains) as well. 

I haven?t really discussed lately the connections my readings have had to my paper, but this week?s readings kind of made it impossible not to.  Carey writes, ?Innis believed that the unstated presupposition of democratic life was the existence of a public sphere, of an oral tradition, of a tradition of public discourse as a necessary counterweight to printing.? (165)  He later states that ?The strength of the oral tradition in Innis?s view was that it could not easily be monopolized.? (166)  If Innis were alive today, I wonder what he would think of YouTube?s effect on democracy?  I would argue that YouTube is monopolizing a small subset of our oral tradition (and making a nice profit in doing so).  It is changing, slowly, what is needed and what it means to participate in a democratic society.  If you miss a debate on TV, you can watch it online over and over again until you understand exactly what each candidate stands for (or claims to stand for).  No longer must we read what happened in a debate in a newspaper if we missed it. 

Posted at 05:54PM Nov 07, 2007 by caphelps in General  |  Comments[0]