CRD701: History and Theory of Communication Technology

Summaries of the readings

Manovich defines the 5 components of new media and discusses how the individualization allowed by new media is similar to post industrial society rather than the mass production of industrial society. Jacob already described those five components, and David has already explained the shift away from the industrial era. Instead I will try to briefly summarize transcoding, the component Manovich says might be the "most substantial consequence of media's computerization" (63, my page numbers might not be the same). Manovich defines transcoding as translating one thing into another format, which can seriously affect our communication structure. He writes that "New media can be thought of as generally consisting of two distinct layers: the 'cultural layer' and the 'computer layer'" (63). These two layers combine to form something new: "a blend of human and computer meanings, of traditional ways human culture modeled the world and computer's own ways to represent it" (64).

Enzenberger sees new media as a mobilizing political force with the potential to empower the disempowered. He believes that the Left has been unwilling to harness the power of new media, and it has hurt their movement and made it feeble. He believes that media, by its nature, is inherently democratizing, and that it is currently being controlled by the dominant classes. If media is liberated, it is "destined" (not the right word, but I think fairly close) to lead to socialism and egalitarianism. He believes this is accomplished by the reversibility potential of new media. The dominant groups in charge of media have reduced it to a one-way form (e.g. television, radio shows), but the media can be changed into a more reciprocal form of communication that allows for conversation back and forth. He envisions a world where everyone becomes a produces of his/her own media, which will be a democratizing force in the fight for the New Left.

Baudrillard disagrees with Enzenberger. He believes that the entire communication structure is the problem, and allowing everyone to participate in that communication structure and "reversing the circuits" will not lead to the changes Enzenberger envisions. Enzenberger argues that new media can turn everyone into a consumer, but Baudrillard argues that for media to truly be considered new it has to rid itself of the entire idea of producer and consumer. He instead embraces a new system of genuine interaction that embraces the theory of signification, which allows for a true "simultaneous response," no "transmitter or receiver on both sides of the message; nor, for that matter, is there any longer any 'message'" (287).

Rather than defining new media or discussing its potentials, Ulricchio discusses how best to study forms of new media. He uses the discipline of film as an example, arguing that to understand new media, scholars should understand the background behind the media. The field of film study was changed when scholars began to examine history, going back before film was even invented to understand how history shaped the medium. He also points out that many oppressed voices are lost in history. Scholars should not simply accept the record that remains without attempting to fill in the gaps and examine the voices that might have been lost. He ties this idea in with the arguments of Herodotus, the Greek historian who argued that history can never be condensed into one overriding "correct" perspective. We always have to remember that we "cannot extract ourselves form the cultures into which we have been historically embedded" (35), and we must search for "that which hasn't been said."

Bolter examines the divide in the academic world between theory and practice. He discusses how the humanities treat that divide differently than the more "applied" arts. In computer science fields, for example, "theory always affirms practice, and practice justifies theory" (16). In the humanities, on the other hand, critics do "not seek to affirm practice but rather to critique practice or deconstruct it altogether" (17). Bolter believes that new media gives critics the chance to be producers, so, unlike film critics who would never be given the money to make a film, scholars in the humanities now have the opportunity to practice what they theorize about. He also examines how scholars who study the potentialities of new media still publish their findings in old media forms, unwilling or unable to break out of the academic publishing structure that confines scholarship.

Thoughts on the readings

Even after reading these articles, I go back to something Dan said in class. It was something along the lines of "new media is like pornography. I can't define it, but I can tell it when I see it." These articles, especially Manovich's excellent description of the components of new media, certainly helped me understand what we are talking about when we discuss new media. I agree with Manovich when he says that understanding new media as simply media on a computer is too limiting. I also agree with Enzenberger that new media has the potential to affect great social change. The way I think of new media is a combination of Enzenberger's discussion of the potential of new media and Manovich's more technical discussion of the components of new media. New media has to be something new (digital, transcoding etc.), but it also has to do something new. The Associated Press can start allowing comments on articles, but is that new media? The Washington Post can start publishing articles using Blogger, but if the same journalists are publishing the same stories just in a different way, is that new media?

I am not arguing against Manovich's idea that new media will make us think differently. I do think we are inextricably intertwined with the technologies we use, and our "culture layer" has become fused with the "computer layer." In our learning environment we absorb a great deal of our culture through new media and controlled forms of computer code, so I don't see how any other conclusion is possible; however, it is important to focus on more than just the structure of the media we use. We should focus on how we use it. I don't think something as simple as being able to read the NY Times online rather than in print changes who we are as a society or culture. I do think that reading the NY Times online, commenting on it, using hypertextual techniques (discussed in greater detail in Bolter) to get background on the story, and then emailing the story to interested friends, has the potential to change things greatly.

While I agree with Enzenberger that new media has the potential to democratize communication, I do not agree with him when he says "the new media are egalitarian in structure" (265). I think that some forms of new media may be egalitarian, but there is no automatic structure to new media. As discussed by Lessig, code controls everything; media, like the Internet, is not by its nature free. Code defines its structure, and code can be changed. Unless the code of new media (by code I mean more than computer code: I mean computer code, architecture, law, social norms), is egalitarian then new media is not egalitarian. The idea that new media will automatically "do away with 'intellectual property' and liquidate the 'heritage' of non material capital," is not true. It will do what the code allows it to do, and the code is controlled by humans, often the dominant class.

I also agree with Baudrillard that simply making everyone a producer will not solve the world's problems. Quite frankly, I don't think most people care about serious issues on the level that Enzenberger seems to think they do. Most people are content to use new media to do the things that interest them, and most people are simply not interested in being on the front lines of a class warfare. New media makes opportunity more accessible, but how many people took advantage of the protest or political opportunities made available by old media? Not nearly as many as could have. Maybe if someone figures out a way to harness new media to incite people Enzenberger's vision will come true. I don't think it will be accomplished simply by making people producers.

I had the most trouble with Baudrillard's article. I don't have a strong background in communication theory, so I don't think I fully grasped his discussion of symbolic interaction. I understand that he wants to smash the existing communication structure, but he didn't explain (at least not clearly enough for me), what would replace that structure. Revolutions are easy; governing after the revolution is hard. I don't understand what kind of structure he envisions to govern our communication, and I thought the graffiti example was weak. The graffiti example seems especially weak now that graffiti has assumed a place as a "respected" art form, being exhibited in museums like the Smithsonian Museum of American Art and the Tate Modern. Once graffiti gets placed in a museum it no longer "responds there, on the spot" (287). It becomes like other forms of art, and reenters the transmitter-message-decoder structure as we stand in hallways examining it as a traveling exhibit.

The article I found most interesting was Bolter's examination of the divide between theory and practice in Humanities departments. In the past, it made perfect sense for scholars to embrace the divide between theory and practice because scholars often did not possess the means to engage in practice. For example, a critic of pop culture television cannot be expected, nor should she be encouraged, to go out and write a primetime sitcom. The means simply were not there to do it. Now, with the advent of new forms of media and an increasing ability to engage in media production, the same constraints do not exist. New media has the potential to bridge a gap that has only widened in academic departments by being used as a tool to elucidate theory. Bolter discusses how hypertext "creates an almost embarrassingly literal embodiment" of both Barthes' concept of texts and Derrida's emphasis on decentering. This is an important example of where humanities theory, too often striving to be disassociated from actual practice, affects the actual practice of a form of new media.

While reading the article, I was also struck by a thought that occurred to me the first time I ever read a journal article on blogging. I thought it was strange that scholars analyze blogging, or hypertext and then go publish their findings in traditional forms of media. If private industries have embraced the powers of new media (go look at the annoying ads on facebook), why have the people who analyze and critique this new media remained so far outside the fray? Bolter discusses how professors who have embraced new media as a teaching tool have been reluctant to use new media for critical research (29). He then calls for a new media form that "combines the critical stance of cultural theory with the constructivist attitude of a visual designer" (29), but I wonder how possible this will be in the current academic environment. There are so many institutional hurdles such as the power of journals and the entire tenure process. I hope these hurdles are overcome because the potential for new research forms and new democratized publishing is great, but as yet, vastly underutilized. I see the academic publishing structure that Bolter briefly addresses as an example of the problem with Enzenberger's argument. The potential is there for professors to harness this new media, but the 'code' of their profession is holding them back. Anyone who is interested in an attempt to transcend the structure of academic research/publishing should check out University of Minnesota's interesting series Into the Blogosphere.

Ulricchio's article also dealt with new media research, but rather than discuss specific types of new media and how they can be used in research, Ulricchio discussed how best to analyze new media. He used film as an example of study, and explained the history of the study of film. His arguments that history is dominated by the voices that have power is spot on, and his example of the film projector works fairly well with different types of new media. I think that the Internet makes the historical record of the less dominant voices more accessible though. One can argue whether blogging really gives someone power, but at least it does provide a record for researchers to examine. For example, if some historian 50 years from now were to examine the birth of a current technology, there would likely be a record (all this is assuming that the Internet archives remain accessible) of what people from different subsets of society think of that technology (I recognize that the truly poor don't blog). Regardless though, Ulricchio makes a good point, and history will continue to be dominated by dominant voices. I just think that the more mundane voices will be more available for future historians.