Kristin Drogos's Seminar Blog

Not to sound parochial, but I think that the Internet would literally blow Innis’s mind. I think this for a couple reasons. First, I am not sure if he would know how to categorize the Internet as having either a space or time bias. Digitalization has revolutionized the way in which information can be seen as permanent (time bias). With the Internet, there is no stone or papyrus or permanent object on which the information is written. The information is displayed semi-permanently on a screen. However, the information for all intents and purposes, is always there. This represents a paradox in the time bias of the Internet. How can you define the Internet’s time bias when it is always available, always there, yet at the same time comes and goes on and off the screen? Additionally, the digital aspect of the information can be easily moved. Similar problems arise when trying to define the space bias of the Internet. The Internet is portable, as previously mentioned. We can get to it easily. As Wikipedia, blogs, and chat are evident, the Internet is also easily changed.

Secondly, I think that Innis would have a very difficult time trying to decide how the Internet is monopolizing knowledge. Innis seems to have a large problem with the education system noting that it is born out of the idea of a “natural state.” This natural state then influences how people learn, think, and communicate about the idea of knowledge and the idea of ideas. I am having an internal struggle as to whether or not Innis would see the Internet as liberating us from the natural state of education, or further cement us in our own thoughts.

Posted by kdrogos at 01:41 PM | Permalink

Today's Question: The Bias of Communication is known as a "classic" in the study of communication technology, but it is also described as "difficult," "nonlineal," "puzzling," and "a struggle" -- probably chiefly because the book does not build to a sustained or coherent argument. Choose one of the three essays assigned for today and read them in the manner suggested by the introduction -- as an "idea file." Identify some important concept, theory, or insight in the essay you chose and describe its importance. Please describe the idea critically as appropriate -- list drawbacks as well as praise. It may be helpful to reference earlier class readings as a point of comparison to show what is different about Innis' ideas or his disciplinary approach (economic history).

Knowing that this work has been scrutinized for its lack of linear thought, I decided to read the essays in the order in which they appealed to me. Doing this gave me a sense of deja vouz as I read “The Bias of Communication” after “A Plea for Time.” These two essays seem to be speaking to each other, but then again, they seem to be tackling two completely different ideas. One reason I felt deja voux relates to the unifying notion of a “monopoly of knowledge” that is ever present across these two essays. I felt this basic idea that was presented in “The Bias of Communication” could help to explain a lot of the ideas presented in “A Plea for Time.” The monopoly of knowledge began in religious institutions as non-secular establishments controlled the flow of knowledge. This monopoly eventually was taken over by copyists guilds which were responsible for and controlled the flow of books. This monopoly of knowledge existed as a monopoly over the written word.

“A Plea for Time” establishes a very depressing view of the written word. “Communication based on the eye in terms of printing and photography had developed a monopoly which threatened to destroy Western civilization first in war and then in peace. This monopoly emphasized individualism and in turn stability and created illusions in catchwords such as democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech” (pg. 80-81). This coupled with the notion that “as modern developments in communication have made for greater realism they have made for greater possibilities of delusion” (pg. 82) establishes the written word as a faulty mechanism which serves to dupe the masses into believing in a governmental infrastructure which seemingly fails to exist as a function of its labeling. This leads me to ask Innis, “What does exist? Wherein lays the truth?” I understand the inherent value in being cautious of the written word, and that in fact it can cause a delusion of sorts. However, in today’s information-obsessed culture, what else do we have? The greatest institutions of higher learning rely solely on the written word as points of reference and truth. Has our definition of truth truly led contemporary academics into a “sham independence of democracy?” (pg. 90) Is there a freedom to be found in the difference between education and information?

As a final sidebar thought (I truly used these chapters as idea/question files), how does the Internet play into this difference between education and information? I wonder if Innis would be appalled by the vast amount of written information/garbage that can be found on the Internet. Or rather, would he applaud the movement of pod casts, streaming video and other information that is transferred to the audience via the mechanism of the ear?

Posted by kdrogos at 02:01 PM | Permalink

Williams argues that the integration of television into contemporary society is so parallel to the evolution of the society itself that the two (television and the social evolution of society) cannot be separated. That is to say, the effects of television are so in tandem with the social evolution of contemporary society that they may be considered one in the same. Miller and Slater come to a distinctly different conclusion in identifying the evolution of the Internet in Trinidad as being particularly influenced by the unique society and culture of Trinis. This localism is highlighted in the dynamics outlined in chapter one. Miller and Slater were effectively arguing through the presentation of the dynamics, that the Internet was a medium in which the masses were reached, yet various technical differentiations and possibilities of material culture “added up to their Internet” (pg. 14).

One direct manifestation of this can be seen in the development of the Miss Universe website in 1999. As the Trinis navigated the dynamics of positioning, they were able to display their culture, professionalism, and potential for commercialism through the Miss Universe website. Miller and Slater do not outright argue that the website would have been different had it been created in a different geographical location. However, I feel they would not disagree with this statement. The Miss Universe website is an example where the infusion of Trini values and culture into the end product is clear and visible. Furthermore, the website exemplifies the Trinidadian group identity as being Wordly citizens capable of entrepreneurialism and professionalism on a global scale.

This ability to parse out the impact of the culture on the medium is in direct contrast to Williams’s argument that the two are inseparable in the case of American television. I feel that this stark difference could be traced to differences between the two technologies. When television began broadcasting, there were relatively few choices of content. It was in its essence a mass medium in that it had very little variation in message content being delivered to the masses. I will argue that the Internet’s content varies drastically (even in its earliest stages) and is less of a mass medium because of this. The Internet’s personalized structure allows for a more personalized analysis of the medium. That is to say, in having such a wide variety of content available to the mass audience, it is plausible to analyze the Internet in terms of the impact of a culture on the Internet and vice-versa. As the television environment has evolved to include hundreds of potential channels and digital recording capacity, it would be interesting to see if Williams would continue to argue that the influence of culture cannot be separated from the influence of the medium.

Posted by kdrogos at 01:29 PM | Permalink