"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing." -Raymond Williams
Both _Media Access_ and _Society Online_ have proved capable of introducing readers to key concepts of the information society while also fostering critical sensibilities. Both books conclude by summarizing that their contents represent a wide range of perspectives on access to technology. The perspectives the books represent range from psychological perspectives on users abilities, in terms of individual differences in cognition, attitudes, motivations, etc., to sociological perspectives that investigate users’ gender, ethnicity, cultural capital, and so on. The books tackle what they construct as the “problem” of access to media that is predicated on technology use. Most of the articles in both texts take the starting position that “full” access and use of information technology is a good thing in terms of fostering or strengthening social and political engagement and individual agency.
My focus throughout these readings has more or less been on the underlying, economic base for the use and diffusion of new technologies and new media. That is, I suppose, I have been most concerned with the economies of various institutions-radio, film, P2P, internet, etc. -and describing how they support capitalist forays. The many chapters from these two books that emphasize psychological effects or sociological impediments to access seem administrative in nature; that is, they seem to start with the assumption that increasing access, even in culturally sensitive ways, is good and, therefore, let’s figure out how to get everyone to jump on board, go online, pay for access, etc. in order to open new markets for these institutions, regardless of the damage it may do by erasing or eclipsing local/indigenous communications, knowledge, landscapes, economy, and ways of being.
Moreover, I have attempted, through my perspective, to identify how social relations are sometimes organized around power and industry’s ability to control people, processes, and things sometimes, even in the face of resistance. This would lead the political economist, as Vincent Mosco describes in _The Political Economy of Mass Communications_ and has himself practiced, to “look at shifting forms of control along the production, distribution, and consumption circuit" (p. 25). Only the most vulgar Marxists would deny that the entire economic base is in a functional relation with the social superstructure (which would include things like media and technology artifacts), determining, but also being determined at any given time. Admitting that this dialectical exchange between base and superstructure exists has enabled me, and I’m sure many others, to avoid a politics of despair. It is this exchange that has allowed dissident, pro-democracy groups in Burma, for example, to harness the tools of mainstream media (superstructure) to cultivate international support and aid (base). This exchange is also what is allowing, New Orleans diaspora communities to use digital media (superstructure) to rebuild and revitalize (base) New Orleans. It is also what allow the distribution of dissident films (superstructure) that critique the economic base, such as _Fahrenheit 9/11_, _Syriana_, _The Last King of Scotland_, etc. in commercial movie theatres. The list of examples goes on and on. But so too does the list of defeats of technology use and diffusion under the reign of capital, what I would call hegemony. This list includes a widening “knowledge gap,” widening class disparity in the U.S. and between first- and third-world nations, the brain drain, and proposals such as the one laptop per child in Africa, etc. It is my hope that by exposing the underlying economic structures and behaviors of media and technology institutions that effective, public interest informed policy and informed personal decisions can be made possible about when, where, and how to effectively and ethically “diffuse” (oftentimes used as a euphemism for opening new markets in this literature) and use these artifacts - at least as much, if not more so, than psycho-social effects approach to media studies.
1 comment:
"To be truly radical is to make hope possible rather than despair convincing."
-Raymond Williams
Both _Media Access_ and _Society Online_ have proved capable of introducing readers to key concepts of the information society while also fostering critical sensibilities. Both books conclude by summarizing that their contents represent a wide range of perspectives on access to technology. The perspectives the books represent range from psychological perspectives on users abilities, in terms of individual differences in cognition, attitudes, motivations, etc., to sociological perspectives that investigate users’ gender, ethnicity, cultural capital, and so on. The books tackle what they construct as the “problem” of access to media that is predicated on technology use. Most of the articles in both texts take the starting position that “full” access and use of information technology is a good thing in terms of fostering or strengthening social and political engagement and individual agency.
My focus throughout these readings has more or less been on the underlying, economic base for the use and diffusion of new technologies and new media. That is, I suppose, I have been most concerned with the economies of various institutions-radio, film, P2P, internet, etc. -and describing how they support capitalist forays.
The many chapters from these two books that emphasize psychological effects or sociological impediments to access seem administrative in nature; that is, they seem to start with the assumption that increasing access, even in culturally sensitive ways, is good and, therefore, let’s figure out how to get everyone to jump on board, go online, pay for access, etc. in order to open new markets for these institutions, regardless of the damage it may do by erasing or eclipsing local/indigenous communications, knowledge, landscapes, economy, and ways of being.
Moreover, I have attempted, through my perspective, to identify how social relations are sometimes organized around power and industry’s ability to control people, processes, and things sometimes, even in the face of resistance. This would lead the political economist, as Vincent Mosco describes in _The Political Economy of Mass Communications_ and has himself practiced, to “look at shifting forms of control along the production, distribution, and consumption circuit" (p. 25). Only the most vulgar Marxists would deny that the entire economic base is in a functional relation with the social superstructure (which would include things like media and technology artifacts), determining, but also being determined at any given time. Admitting that this dialectical exchange between base and superstructure exists has enabled me, and I’m sure many others, to avoid a politics of despair. It is this exchange that has allowed dissident, pro-democracy groups in Burma, for example, to harness the tools of mainstream media (superstructure) to cultivate international support and aid (base). This exchange is also what is allowing, New Orleans diaspora communities to use digital media (superstructure) to rebuild and revitalize (base) New Orleans. It is also what allow the distribution of dissident films (superstructure) that critique the economic base, such as _Fahrenheit 9/11_, _Syriana_, _The Last King of Scotland_, etc. in commercial movie theatres. The list of examples goes on and on. But so too does the list of defeats of technology use and diffusion under the reign of capital, what I would call hegemony. This list includes a widening “knowledge gap,” widening class disparity in the U.S. and between first- and third-world nations, the brain drain, and proposals such as the one laptop per child in Africa, etc. It is my hope that by exposing the underlying economic structures and behaviors of media and technology institutions that effective, public interest informed policy and informed personal decisions can be made possible about when, where, and how to effectively and ethically “diffuse” (oftentimes used as a euphemism for opening new markets in this literature) and use these artifacts - at least as much, if not more so, than psycho-social effects approach to media studies.
Post a Comment