Why, I'm an old maid with red hair! (Stubbs, 104)
?This tune is going out to Marconi
To all corners of the globe
There ain't no hut in the Serengeti
Where my wavelengths do not probe ?
~~~Joe Strummer and the Mescaleros
The history of new communication technologies has interested me for a long time. One of the more interesting things I?ve read about new technologies was a dissertation proposal from an Economics PhD student at George Mason University (GMU). He posited that government as we know it did not exist before the rise of railroads and later the rise of the telegraph and telephone.
His argument, at least in the proposal, smacked of a little too much technological determinism, but his hypothesis was interesting. Before people were able to communicate and travel over long distances, the kind of governmental control we now have was not possible. No doubt there have always been oppressive governments, but those governments ruled by loose proxy or solely by threat. They did not affect the lives of average people. Lets go back to our Hobbes discussion in 702. Though the people Hobbes discussed were under absolute rule by monarchy, their lives were less affected by government than ours are. It was simply too difficult to be involved in subjects? every day lives. Communication technology and transportation technology changed that and changed the shape of government. It was then possible to redistribute production and redistribute wealth. The world became smaller; government?s reach became larger. I don?t know if that student has finished his dissertation, and I?ll have to ask my ex girlfriend to send me a copy. I?ll get around to it eventually, but it?s definitely not something I?m looking forward to.
The discussion of government brings me to an interesting thought I had about the US?s rise to super power status while reading Briggs and Burke. Typically, we think of WWII as the major catalyst of our rise. Europe crashed and burned while we showed our industrial power . The US and the Soviet Union rose from Europe?s ashes. I don?t doubt WWII played the major role in our rise, but I don?t think it?s a coincidence that nearly every communication technology Briggs and Burke discuss was shaped in one way or another by the United States. Whether it be radio, telegraph, the steam engine, the telephone etc., the US was a major player. The US shaped itself from a lesser nation into a superpower because it dominated technology, whether it be manufacturing technology or communication technology. I think this is an important point for our future. It?s clear the US is now lagging behind other nations when it comes to things like mobility technologies. We rose to prominence by dominating the technological landscape, as Briggs and Burke?s chapter showed. Do you think it?s significant that a significant number of mobility technological breakthroughs are happening elsewhere?
On an unrelated note, Marvin?s article on every single example of electric light as spectacle in the history of the world (does she have an editor?) was interesting and illuminating (haha). As I was reading the article I was preparing my presentation on books, and electric light struck me as sharing some similarities to the book. Lights have become so commonplace that we don?t even notice them, just like the book. Unlike the book, electricity was transformed into a mundane use (indoor lighting), whereas the book is still pretty much the same book with the same uses.
The idea of people being so intrigued as to travel for miles to see a simple light show intrigued me until I thought of a time I travelled for miles to see a light show. Well, travelled for miles doesn?t mean quite what it used to. I actually jumped on the metro and caught a bus across the Key bridge, but it still counts. The light show was the absolutely fantastic reimagining of the National Cathedral through a light show. Here?s a link to a brief article that links to more info. Check it out. It was a real spectacle, and what is interesting is that light has not completely lost its ability to amaze. Now it just has to be projected onto one of the more fantastic buildings our nation has to retain its interest.
The image in Marvin?s article of people writing images in the sky for other towns to see was cool as well; it?s called the bat signal.
Also, while we have abandoned the idea of writing messages across the sky, I think it would still be a spectacle even now.
Touching on another historical vein, it amazes me how perception of a medium can change so thoroughly over time. I?ve travelled fairly extensively by train throughout Europe and the modern perception of train travel stands in stark contrast to the perception of 19th century individuals. In the 19th century, train travel was velocity; it removed the viewer from the countryside. This perspective rose in comparison to the slower forms of travel that preceeded train travel. To the modern traveler, train travel is the exact opposite. Train travel in Europe, as compared with highways in the US or easyjet or ryanair in Europe, is the leisurely form of travel through the country side. Staring out the window of a train forces the traveler to be in touch with the countryside in a way that air travel or the interstate does not. The way we see view our technologies (communication or otherwise) is shaped so absolutely by what we have to compare them to. For the 19th century traveler, trains were a way to skip over the country side; for the 21st century traveler, trains are a way to be absorbed in the country side. I think we can apply this idea to other forms of technologies. Our minds and perceptions often work by comparisons. When we have different sources to draw our comparison from, our perceptions change.
Stubbs? article was definitely my favorite. I agree with the argument that the anonymity of the telegraph can teach us a great deal about the anonymity of the Internet. On the Internet, we have probably all pretended to be someone who we are not. We have also probably said things online that we would not say if we are not anonymous. Both these situations are similar to what telegraph operators were facing. Anonymity does something to us. It makes us act in a certain way, not always good, and it lets us reconstruct ourselves. While we certainly have capabilities telegraph operators did not have, the core idea is the same. It brings up an important question: does anonymity let us be our true self, or does anonymity remove us from the social situation in which we shape our idea of self?