The invention of the telegraph definitely represented a new 'concept' in communication, perhaps a whole new 'concept' generally. We had never before perceived communicating with someone without being in the same physical proximity as the recipient. It's kind of amazing how we 'invented' technology to serve a particular purpose without foreseeing it's social and cultural implications, it's like technology and science fulfill an imperative which is independent somehow of the social or cultural domain. Yet it is from this very domain that the process of development and invention evolves. We are kind of in control of our destiny and kind of not at the same time. We build systems for a particular purpose then the system spits back data at us that we didn't expect or that we didn't control! This is not technological determinism but kind of like the 'scripting' embedded in objects or technology that Latour and ANT discusses. We embed the scripts and we read the scripts and we use objects like a tool, but this kind of becomes much more complex when we involve computers and electronics, we seem to be losing more control of these objects. They assist us and take away burdens but they also challenge our authority as we become less able to understand their capabilities and functions and less able to conceptualise and predict their social outcomes, thus becoming ever more dependent on them (van Oenen 2011).
In the same token, the technology of the computer for data processing and the technology of telephone communication developed in two independent streams. It was the development of the modem that joined the two and made communication between computers and networking in this sense possible. Similarly, the internet was developed by military and government for security purposes but it was the innovation of a few individuals and eventually more and more people that utilised this logic for mass communication purposes challenging the hegemony of the mass media. It's the recombining of seemingly disparate technologies and innovative use of technologies that shows our agency in this instance.
What is interesting is the apparent lure of the cyberworld and its seeming promise of freedom and escape. We imagine that online we can 'be' inside our Mind and escape our physical bodies. Yet we try to emulate this apparent freedom in the offline world. The emergence of postmodern society seems to represent an attempt to emulate cyberculture in the physical world. Perhaps cyberculture has taught popular culture how to thwart authority and government at its very root. By taking away centralised power we can all be powerful! But what are the long term political implications of such a society? Can we be democratic without democracy? For how long can we live in peace without any overarching or external governance or authority hypothetically? William Gibson likens such a notion to hallucination. What of ethics and those who want to extend the boundaries of decency infinitely? How will this effect culture and society over time?
References:
van Oenen, G 2011, 'Interpassive Agency, Engaging Actor-Network-Theory's View on the Agency of Objects', Theory and Event, Vol. 14, Iss. 2
It definetly is amazing to see how one inventions went from something so simple to what it is now and how it just keeps changing and evolving. Who would have thought back then we'd have twitter, facebook and the likes.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in your last blog, it is simply amazing to see how far technology has travelled. These advances have helped technology travel in many different ways.
ReplyDeleteThere is such a significant impact of these advances on society as a whole as well as culture. There are formations of communities online that are found online or in 'cyberspace'. This is again changing our culture.