Communications technologies throughout history
Harold Innis' essay "Minerva's Owl" in The Bias of Communication attempts to show the central role of communication technologies in guiding the development of civilization, and the civilization’s important role in the development of communication technologies. Innis argues that the way certain media types formed in a particular place directly influenced the form of governance, the power of the church, and the relationship of class structures within that society. He points to differences between societies having a strong oral tradition and others incorporating particular forms of writing using papyrus, paper, and the press. He quotes Mark Pattison, saying “Writers are apt to flatter themselves that they are not, like the men of action, the slaves of circumstance. […] But this is not so. Whatever we may think and scheme, as soon as we seek to produce our thoughts or schemes to our fellow-men, we are involved in the same necessities of compromise, the same grooves of motion, the same liabilities to failure or half-measures, as we are in life and action” (29).
Innis' main argument seems to be that writing and the development of written language created channels of human communication that limited the expanse of human thought. As he states, "Writing with a simplified alphabet checked the power of custom of an oral tradition but implied a decline in the power of expression and the creation of grooves which determined the channels of thought of readers and later writers" (11). In some cases, the use of a new form of written medium also limited, or 'checked' the power of tyranny within a society.
This argument is important to consider, since communication technologies have had an essential role in framing the development of societies through their methods of communication. However, Innis seems to overgeneralize and oversimplify his description of the particular ancient societies he discusses, and does not mention much historical data to back up his statements. What allowed certain forms of media to ‘check’ a particular power structure? How did that form of written communication develop to such an extent that it was powerful enough to fundamentally change social structures, and what is inherent within that technology that motivates publics to challenge authority? He needs to discuss these more substantially.