Institutionalized, Invisible: Comparing Technology & Modern Racism-Part 2

This is a continuation of my last blog. It will address the question:
Acknowledging that racism and modern media-related societal problems are caused by various factors, how can we find a perspective that simultaneously acknowledges the power of the institutionalized mindset, while also taking into account the efficacy of each individual and society as a whole?

I will first discuss this causal complexity in regards to the media, utilizing the words of McLuhan, Gitelman, and Bush. Then I will relate this to the question of establishing the cause of racial inequality.


McLuhan, although he condemns Sarnoff’s laissez faire position, does not take the complete opposite view (that of technological determinism,) but instead approaches the balanced outlook for which we are searching. He refers to media as “the extensions of man.” This in itself suggests that, although media may be a means enabling humans to do more, it is still the human mind that is in control. This hints at efficacy. But McLuhan also holds technology accountable for its impact, directly addressing Sarnoff’s point that our uses of media is what matters: “In terms of the ways in which the machine altered our relations to one another and to ourselves, it mattered not in the least whether it turned out cornflakes or Cadillacs. The restructuring of human work and association was shaped by the technique of fragmentation that is the essence of machine technology” (7-8). McLuhan notices the shift in the types of work available to people, as well as the changing ways in which humans relate. Certainly, once machines were introduced into the workplace, employees who performed certain “mechanical” tasks were no longer needed. Furthermore, people in some ways seem like act like machines, for example, by employing “divide and conquer” techniques (mirroring the fragmentation of machines).

There are even more balanced ideas. Lisa Gitelman explains, “[I]nventing new ways to write or new kinds of writing presupposes a model of what writing and reading are and can be” (4). Extending the concept of writing to all technology, Gitelman’s argument is that an invention does not just arise; instead, it is the result of a preexisting idea, which has to be generated within the socio-cultural context of the times in which the invention is formed. To echo McLuhan, the technology is merely an extension of who we as a society already are. The idea for invention, furthermore, cannot be beyond the capabilities of the time. Vannevar Bush’s example is very pertinent: “Had a Pharaoh been given detailed and explicit designs of an automobile…it would have taxed the resources of his kingdom to have fashioned the thousands of parts” (38). Society not only has to generate an idea, it has to be able to execute it. By the time an invention actually does come about, the time is ripe for it, the scene set, and it is only inevitable. To sum up these more moderate ideas, we turn to Gitelman: “Culture insinuates itself within technology at the same time that technology infiltrates culture” (7). There is a give-and-take between society and technology; it is a mutual process.

Where does the race analogy figure into all of this? Like with technology, there is a balance to how much historical oppression influences the current racial hierarchy. One cannot deny that proactivity and self-motivated action are definitely capable of bettering most bad situations. People who say that minorities are being “victims” have likely heard about some situation where some people of color did mooch off the welfare system; they do not have a view of the full picture, but their version of reality is based on something and cannot be completely discounted. On the other hand, historical oppression has caused a “restructuring of human work and association,” just as media has. The factors that led to the development of slavery still exist: the imperialist Western mindset of superiority, the capitalist greed for profit, and the constitutional tendency to justify immoral actions through technicalities. Stereotypes have been created: people of color are inferior, blacks are entertainers (good dancers) and workhorses (good at physical activities), Mexicans are good cooks and housecleaners, etc. Human interactions and impressions of others are based on these ideas. The distribution of people of color in the workplace reflects this mentality; it is not rare to see minority janitors or entry-level jobs, but seeing a minority CEO is definitely out of the ordinary. There is a “glass ceiling,” invisibly yet firmly denying opportunities to people of color. There are many other examples of institutionalized racism, but suffice to say, racial oppression did not end with slavery or with the Condoleeza Rice becoming Secretary of State. The continuing problems of racial inequality are, like media-based societal issues, based on various factors, both by oppression’s institutional residue, as well as by the attitudes of the society the oppression impacts.

Looking at media and historical racial oppression as two influences for modern social problems has shed light on the necessity to avoid extremes and has revealed that complex problems have multiple intersecting causes.

Note: This analogy can be helpful in understanding the dynamics of complex social issues, but at the same time, I feel it is necessary to point out that there are many differences between these two situations. I am not at all asserting that both social problems are caused in equal measure by the creation (media/historical oppression) and the affected (society/minorities). I personally feel that society (the affected) is more responsible than media for media-related societal problems, while I think that historical oppression (the creation) is a more influential determinant than lack of personal initiative in the current racial situation. I have several case studies on the racial aspect in case anyone is interested. I hope this blog does not offend anybody. It is meant to be theoretical. If it does offend you, please write me, because I’d love to hear reactions.

Institutionalized, Invisible: Comparing Technology & Modern Racism-Part I

“ ‘We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value’” (11). Marshall McLuhan quotes General David Sarnoff here only to mock him, believing Sarnoff “ignores the nature of the medium, of any and all media” (11). But the argument here is far from simple; it is the struggle between technological determinism and a more laissez faire, nonjudgmental approach (the latter embodied in Sarnoff). In other words, we are wondering if a subtle societal feature (its choice of media) assiduously contributes to collective problems. Sound familiar? This dynamic of media influence, although not identical by any stretch of the imagination, is reminiscent of modern, institutionalized racism in its invisibility, its ingrained nature into the fabric of society, and most importantly, its subsequent power to be a silent killer. This reading response will use this unlikely connection to explore the murky polemics surrounding media’s influence on society, focusing on how the racial history (particularly that of oppression) is like new media in that both are seen to either completely determine or, conversely, have no effect on the current social situation.
Technological determinism is one extreme. It suggests that, as we said in class, that “the invention of new technology determines the uses to which it will be put, and thus the social structures that might result from it.” In this view, technology is a scapegoat for societal problems, lifting culpability from the true perpetrators. It is not considered that human imagination and desire created technology to achieve their own ends, only in a more efficient manner. This, in some ways, is what Friedrich Kittler was trying to express in saying that “numbers and figures become (in spite of romanticism) the key to all creatures” (118). Technological determinism is very strictly defined, and its rigidity does not allow for the variety of perspectives and experiences that shape the human experience.
We can roughly equate this to the equally deterministic statement that past historical oppression of minorities has condemned these same minorities to forever experience deficiencies in their rights and ability to reach the “American dream.” Like technological determinism, this is a restricted view that, while not entirely wrong, cannot look beyond its premise to view the opportunities and progress of the present age.
At the other end of the spectrum, is Sarnoff’s dismissive laissez faire attitude that claims impunity for all technology, attributing societal problems to the uses people have created for that technology. The appropriate correlation within the question of racism is the similarly dismissive position that racial history, like technology in the past example, has no bearing on racial inequality, that it is rather the ways that people have used, or taken advantage, of that history as a “victim race” seeking to mooch off the government that leads to the current race-based stratification in the modern United States.
Clearly both technological/historical determinism and the equally ludicrous disregard for institutional influences in assessing problems, are narrow-minded and lacking in extensive consideration; through the comparison of technology and racial history, we see that the folly of absolutist thinking is a human tendency, natural yet ineffective in accurately representing a problematic situation.

The interesting (and challenging) part comes in finding a perspective that simultaneously acknowledges the power of the institutionalized mindset resulting from both new media and from historical discrimination, while also taking into account the efficacy of each individual and society as a whole. (I will discuss this at length in my next blog.)

Orality, Literacy, and Various Implications

This blog entry (like my second blog entry every week) is just an expression of various thoughts and connections that our readings have brought to my mind. I have a lot of various points this time.

First, I am curious to know if orality is the natural condition under which humans are meant to live. This is the type of society that came first, and sound is supposed to be more harmonious than vision. Additionally, when babies start out in the world, they definitely practice orality, as opposed to literacy. It is usually only through parents’ and schools’ oral reading that children experience the transition into literacy. Children’s orality is stifled in school, where reading is definitely promoted. Would it be better if we allowed ourselves to remain a talking society? Would we be more communal, more inquisitive?

On the subject of education, it is interesting to consider if the ability to write things down leads to student laziness, preventing them from remembering useful information. I find it annoying, for example, when math students use calculators for simple arithmetic; it takes away from the development of one’s own abilities and encourages dependence. On the other hand, oral culture can also be detrimental. Without written words, it is possible for children to experience “giant word” syndrome (Bereiter & Englemann 34), where sentences and phrases are said as a word and cannot be recombined to form questions from sentences and the like. It is a double-edged sword, but I tend to think a literate culture can lead to further developed minds, as long as short-cuts are minimized.

Fairy tales have always intrigued me, perhaps for how powerfully simple they are and how they really highlight various aspects of human nature. It is, therefore, interesting to consider that such traditions are the result, not of our exalted literate society, but of something more fundamentally (or primitively) human. Again, it is worth noting that this is how children start out learning. There definitely does seem to be a progression from orality to literacy, but both are necessary; we should remember our oral roots and deepest fears, desires, etc. of the human psyche as presented through fairy tales.

I now realize why listing geneology is so important in the Bible. I have sat through many a Christmas mass wondering why it was significant to hear Jesus’ whole lineage about thirteen generations back. It means his family is significant enough to be remembered, and, thus, he is an important personage.

The idea of homeostasis scares me, because it reminds me of dystopias, such as those presented in 1984, Brave New World, and Equilibrium, where (at least in one of those) past events and people are erased from history when they deviate from strict social rules. The idea of throwing out ideas that do not have to do with present society may have worked in a simpler time, but it would be extremely dangerous in the hands of powerful people now.

Along the lines of orality being a simpler form of human development and thus a reflection of degree of education, I think traces of a stronger oral culture are visible in poorer, less educated communities. Spoken word and poetry are both cheap and accessible forms of communication, as well as powerful. More people speak up in churches. When sociologists talk with children from such communities, the children are practical and use situational explanations. Like Ong’s discussion of a peasant’s bafflement when asked to describe a tree, sociologist William Labov found that one lower-class child fumbled for words when an interviewer asked him to describe a jet (Labov 1971); those types of questions are not practical nor relevant in everyday for these people. Furthermore, some children were at first very quiet, because talking, as Ong described, is often seen as confrontational to some degree in an oral community.

The differences in people’s ways of expressing themselves in oral versus literate societies exemplifies the relativity of measuring knowledge and, thus, may inspire test creators (such as those for the SAT’s) to reconsider how they quantify knowledge and, thus, determine futures.

I think it is sad how the literate world, in its very existence, isolates the individual from society. Do we realize that communal happiness is sacrificed for knowledge? I think every college student does realize this when deciding between homework and parties. I also think that such deprivation leads to more psychological problems, such as depression.

Finally, I am curious as to the implications of Ong’s work on forms of entertainment. He contends that sound is more harmonious than the visual and that “[w]ithout harmony, an interior condition, the psyche is in bad health” (72). Is it, therefore, better to listen to music than read a book? Ong states, “Knowledge is…a unifying phenomenon, a striving for harmony” (71-72). Does this mean that, with music (or forms of auditory learning), we are more likely to learn or to better relax and let our experiences combine so as to make us feel whole?

That is all for now.

Troy: Immortality in an Oral Culture

There are many differences of thinking caused by oral versus literate cultures, and one that especially struck me is the difference in views of death, longevity, and immortality. I was particularly troubled by the an oral culture’s tendency to forget: “…oral societies live very much in a present which keeps itself in equilibrium or homeostasis by sloughing off memories which no longer have present relevance” (Ong 46). By contrast, in today’s society, people seem to want to prolong every memory as long as possible—digitally remastering old movies, keeping art safe in museums, writing memoirs to keep their legacies alive, etc. Most of these forms of immortality would not be possible in an oral, technologically undeveloped society, where only stories could preserve the past.

This leads me to the movie Troy, which presents the Trojan War, largely through the eyes of Achilles (Brad Pitt). Taking place in 1193 B.C., writing, although it exists, is not very popular, and the culture is still largely oral. After Paris abducts Helen, Greece prepares for war, and Achilles’ participation is sought, as he is a highly respected, if not the most highly respected, warrior of that time. He must decide if he will go to war, effectively condemning himself to death but leaving a legacy, or lead a peaceful life that will soon be forgotten. Thetis, his mother, discusses the implications of this decision with him: “If you stay here, with me, with your family, you’ll have a long, peaceful life. You’ll marry, you’ll have children, and your children will have children. They’ll love you, and when you’re gone they’ll remember you. But when your children are dead, and their children after them, your name will be lost….If you go to Troy, no one will earn more glory than you. Men will tell stories of your victories for thousands of years. The world will remember your name” ( http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/troy_by_david_benioff.pdf, 34). This quote highlights the importance of doing something significant enough to be kept alive in the collective memory. This quest for immortality is much more costly than that of people of the present age; for Achilles, it is a life-and-death decision.

Both during the time of the Trojan War and today, immortality in terms of leaving a legacy is a large concern, and it is interesting to note just how much more difficult it was to create that legacy in the past. In either age it t is unsettling to think that one’s name will be completely forgotten. As we approach the digital age, this will take on even more meaning, because our names and images last almost too long on Internet sources.

**Because we are discussing the importance of orality and also hypermediacy, I have included a link (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Remember-lyrics-Josh-Groban/B8267ADECA7E588C48256E9D000848DC ) to the lyrics of a song featured in Troy, entitled Remember by Josh Groban. This song discusses the importance of continuing to tell a story in order to keep a person alive. Because this song discusses stories, it is a form of hypermediacy, if you consider story-telling as a form of media, which I think is a necessary consideration when dealing with an oral society, which has no other medium. Also, (if you can manage to get a hold of this song) hearing the yearning for immortality in spoken from may be helpful because “sound incorporates” and creates “harmony, a putting together” (Ong 71) that might better convey the feeling of the idea of existing only through memory. The song recreates the orality of the period, as well as the sentiments.

Education, Culture, and Remediation

I have several thoughts I would like to jot down.
First, I am interested in how remediation applies to education. Many textbooks are now accompanied by CDs or DVDs. Many have websites. It is not uncommon to find textbooks completely on-line. Pictures in books and on overheads, class projects of dioramas and collages, movies watched in class, video projects—hypermediacy is and has been everywhere in education to some degree for some time. Students also sometimes watch the news on TV in class, a form of immediacy, directly connecting them to the world about which they are learning. In all these ways, we see that remediation has direct application to more than just entertainment.
At first I tended to see remediation as the direct result of an impatient, hurried, multi-tasking, low attention span society. Yes, there is intelligence behind the creation of the necessary technology, but the application seems largely shallow. But thinking about it in terms of education, I can appreciate its importance. As we are discovering more and more about how kids learn and about how there are different learning styles, we must find appropriate teaching styles. Hypermediacy provides these various stimuli.
Second, I would like to comment on the cultural implications of remediation. As I mentioned above, remediation is, at least to some degree, driven by a society that is largely entertainment-based. Because of this, many third-world countries cannot participate as actively in this “global” revolution; they have many more pressing needs, such as providing food, housing, and healthcare to their people.
Furthermore, I think it is important to acknowledge not only historical Western European instances of remediation, but also those of other cultures, such as the Aztecs, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Persians. I cannot say that I am extremely aware of their individual contributions to the development of remediation, but I feel that it is definitely something into which one could look.
A final point on culture is that Buddhist cultures, who are very in tune with nature, seem to have a much more natural sense of immediacy and hypermediacy. In meditating, in understanding nature, one’s senses are their own medium, and experience is immediate. It is virtual reality, but actual. I suppose this undermines the whole concept of media studies, but if you get back to basics, the bodily capacities for perception and cognition are mediated through sense organs to give practically immediate awareness of situations. Our bodies are the media through which we experience the world, and I cannot help wondering that if our society was more nature/fulfillment-based, instead of technology/entertainment-based, perhaps media studies would be more about coming to terms with the physicality of the world in which we live and of which we are a part.
In conclusion, different forms of remediation reveal how the human mind works—both on the level of child mental development and in the context of various cultures.

Vanilla Sky and Simulated Reality

“I want to live a real life... I don't want to dream any longer.” So says David Aames (played by Tom Cruise) when he realizes that he has been “living” in a simulated reality, in Cameron Crowe’s science fiction/fantasy film, Vanilla Sky. In this purposefully confusing movie, the audience sees various parts of David’s life, not knowing where reality ends and the dream turned nightmare begins, only to find out in the end that he has killed himself and is living in a “lucid dream” in a cryonically suspended state of animation, which he purchased from the Life Extention Corporation.
The corporation advertises the “lucid dream” as the “cryonic union of science and entertainment.” Through this fictional futuristic technological development, viewers can see the possible far-reaching implications of the technology currently being developed in the area of virtual reality, with its “goal of unmediated visual experience” (Bolter & Grusin 4). Extending this to all senses, people would have the ability to experience simulated reality, which, as opposed to virtual reality, “would be impossible to tell apart from ‘real’ reality” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality ). Tom Cruise’s character experiences this simulated reality, which is the culmination of remediation, a process that current technology is now undergoing at a rapid rate. Remediation consists of a “double logic,” expressing how “[o]ur culture wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation” (Bolter & Grusin 5). These two facets of remediation—hypermediacy and immediacy—are “contradictory” yet “mutually dependent” (Bolter & Grusin 6). Immediacy is seen in the fictional Life Extension Corporation’s “lucid dream” creation in that David (Cruise) “feel[s] as if [he] were ‘really’ there” (Bolter & Grusin 5), not knowing for a long period of time (years?) that he is not actually physically living; the medium is invisible, the experience immediate. Ironically, it takes an innumerable amount of media to create this invisibility of media; every sense is mediated. This is hypermediacy to the utmost.
The movie ends with Edmund Ventura, a Life Extension scientist, entering David’s dream, explaining the situation to him, and giving him the option to stay in this dream or return to an uncertain reality. After musing over David’s situation, Ventura asks him a pivotal question: “It's been a brilliant journey of self-awakening. And now you've simply got to ask yourself this: What is happiness to you, David?” This is a question that society likewise has to ask of itself in an age where more and more versions of “reality” become possible. For example, Alcor Life Extension is an existing company, formed in 1972, and “[a]s of July 2005, Alcor had 765 members, and 68 patients in cryopreservation” (http://www.alcor.org/AboutAlcor/index.html). Although lucid dreams are not yet possible, life extension is. With mediated technology on the rise, Vanilla Sky does not seem like such a far-fetched fantasy anymore.
We are playing God, but without the wisdom and foresight. Do we want to create a man-made world, where death is defied but the rules are unknown? Do we want to return to a simpler time when newspapers, photographs, and music were separate entities? Or do we want something inbetween? We have to ask ourselves, “What is happiness to us?”