Watching the short film "Noah" in light of the week's readings, what stood out to me was the extent to which Noah was able to conduct the everyday matters of his life via one physical medium. His computer is more than just a tool for him to use to send and receive messages, it is an environment that he inhabits. Hansen points to Steiger's claim that we can understand the concept of medium by seeing it as “the inaugural coupling of the human and technics support[ing] a conceptualization of the medium as an environment for life” (Hansen 299, emphasis his). It is the “concrete actualization of the living via exteriorization in an environment, in a medium” (301). And so we see Noah involved various aspects of living of his life – maintaining (or ending) relationships, curating his persona on Facebook, being entertained, giving his life its own sound track, accessing information, meeting new people – all achieved via the medium of his computer and the digital environment that networks him to individuals and society in real time. This medium seems to be extending his senses and his consciousness (a la McLuhan) which can be overwhelming (leading him to eventually shut the computer off ... for a short while anyway).
Let's
compare Noah's activities to that of a teenager in the late 1980s
(me): I could do all of the things that Noah does in the video, but in separate
mediated environments and not simultaneously. Beyond physical encounters, my relationships with others were mediated by writing notes or letters, or using a telephone. If I
wanted to be entertained by media, I had TV, VCR, magazines or
the movie theatre, and listening to music required a ghetto blaster or walkman. To access facts, I had encyclopedias, newspapers,
or the library. To meet new people, I had to go to a party or bar. My communication was often mediated, but through separate
technologies, and usually I could only
engage with one or two media at a time for a limited length of time. Now, a computer or phone
connected to the internet and sporting various applications
(Facebook, Youtube, Skype, etc) provides a medium (or environment)
where a person can seemingly "live" endlessly and simultaneously extend relationships, create identity, connect with community and be entertained ... and perhaps even extend his or her consciousness.
I agree, Jo-Dee! Even when I first began to explore the internet in grade 8, the capabilities were quite different and limited. I have family around the world, and today talking to multiple family members in different locations, at the same time is so simple and culturally normalized. I tend to forget how different this was when I was younger. If I wanted to talk to my family in a different country I would need to ask for a calling card and request to use the landline for a period of time. Now, everyone in my family has their own phone, we can three-way call, or use the internet to make this call.
ReplyDeleteYet, I would be interested to explore if this is different for older generations who primarily depended on traditional means of technology to communicate and socialize with others. Our cohort is unique and diverse as we belong to a range of different technological eras and advancements, which brings different experiences. I know that technology may be more ingrained into my sister's consciousness and environment for life than it would be for me; I am six years older and therefore this age gap resulted in different needs and uses for digital technology. Is this the same for everyone? For instance, I talked to my mom and my sister regarding what their mobile phones mean to them. My mom said she "hates the thing" whereas my sister says "it's my life". I think this is interesting to explore!
I think you make a great point about using different, older technologies in your teenage years to still go about doing the same types of activities you do now, with newer forms of technology ex. watching videos using a vcr, or looking up information in a physical book! This can both be done online now via Netflix or Wikipedia (or hopefully a more academic source in an online journal article)
ReplyDeleteAs a TA in an elementary school a few years ago, I found it also shocking how within our own generation, there is an increasing number of ways of interacting with other people and with the world, due to the rapid introduction of new technologies and platforms. The political discourse around us has been effected by the economic structure enforced in our society. I wonder if our generation would have the most variance than those before us as online platforms, Facebook specifically, has become so ingrained in a Western communication style and mediation of our everyday lives. The infrastructure of our culture has many different social media platforms that continue to proliferate, and I wonder if this generation outperforms any others due to the massive explosion of online content and information, or if this change will continue to increase in future generations.
I find it interesting that you highlight how convergent the medium (or media considering all of the different platforms) is. Specifically you commented on how the nature of the medium can intensify pre-digital forms of social interaction to the point that they become overwhelming. What stood out for me in this regard is the intensity of isolation that such a convergent media form could potentially bring about as spending time online in digitally mediated relationships (including but not limited to the romantic type) does indeed seem to change the nature of social interaction. I suspect that the nature of this change is not necessarily limited to intensity but also in the types of relationships that are fostered or encouraged. It may be that digitally mediated interaction favours weak ties over strong… where weak ties might be considered as relationships with people whom we do not really know that may come or go from our lives… or rather people who are friends when it is convenient but not necessarily so when social support is needed (although this is not to say that strong ties cannot also be formed online). Such a tendency towards weak ties could result in a greater intensity of suffering if social support is needed but the fostering of which has been neglected due to a restriction of social interaction to the online realm. Put simply I would not want to fathom what it might be like to experience that first great romantic relationship breakup that many young people do without social support in my real and physical proximity… I would not want to be left in a room alone with a computer and my thoughts at such a time. I suppose the point that I am trying to raise (as this is meant to be only a response rather than a full post) is that I think that the increased intensity in social relationships in a digitally mediated environments will not always take the form of an intensification of normal social interaction practices but could also intensify negative experiences well beyond their regular scope. I imagine that such a notion was inherent in your argument but thought that it was worth highlighting as watching Noah provoked such a response from me.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. There are many things in the Noah video that are thought provoking. The thought of a computer as an environment where we can spend a big chunk of our lives seems to be the scariest part, for me. Being entertained or finding information quickly seem to be less troubling, but as you mention Santiago, is it a great environment for conducting serious relationships? In my life, the relationships that are best maintained via the digital environment are business relationships, or maintaining friendships that are separated by distance. I also purposely maintain distance from a couple of the toxic people in my life with whom I need to keep a relationship, and I'm very thankful that it's great for keeping boundaries in place with those people. The thought of online dating nauseates me, however!
ReplyDelete