Technological Determinism & The Digital Divide
Good evening!
Tonight I would like to briefly comment on the lecture given by Dr John Banks on Wednesday night and The technological apparatus of new media cultures reading by David Marshall. What I found interesting about the reading was that Marshall, like Henry Jenkins examines the blurring boundaries of new participatory cultures that are emerging out of new media technologies. In the lecture, Dr John Banks suggested that these new media technologies shape social and cultural outcomes like the participatory culture movement, but do not determine them. Banks’ ideas are reflected in the Marshall reading, who also cites the flaws in the notion of ‘technological determinism’, developed by Marshall McLuhan. Basically this term refers to the idea that technological change will directly determine and forever change the way in which society will operate. The two “principal weaknesses” Marshall (2004, 31) cites in McLuhan’s technological determinist ideology concern:
1) “First of all in McLuhan’s case, it sets up the communication form as all powerful in its capacity to transform the social world. Like his precursor, Harold Adam Innis, who wrote about the rise and fall of empires within the context of dominant technologies of communication (Innis, 1950, 1951), McLuhan places too much importance on one factor in shaping the society”; and
2) “Second, and this is related to the first weakness, McLuhan’s overemphasis on the medium allows him to overlook political and economic forces that have allowed the emergence for particular ends of specific media technologies” (Marshall. 2004, 32).
I think the two weaknesses that Marshall points out in the technological determinist theory are valid, particularly because of Galloway’s (2004) suggestions that technology is inherently political and is never neutral. Therefore, as Marshall (2004, 35) suggests, the networked communities which have been created by the new media technologies like the Internet have created a “digital divide” globally between those who have access to the Internet and those who don’t. For example, Marshall (2004, 25) states: “The technological apparatus thus must be seen as modalized around exclusion as much as access and inclusion.” And as John said in the lecture, although the idea of networked communities and participatory cultures may be a reality in Western cultures, less than 10% of the world’s population has access to the Internet. Unfortunately, I think this alarming figure is a direct result of globalisation – and the desire for the world’s richest, most educated countries like Australia, Japan and America to be more technologically advanced than others. I think this idea from Marshall is poignant regarding the adverse effect globalisation is having in regards to new media technologies: “The globalisation that new media represents also excludes from participation large sectors of the contemporary world” (2004, 25). It is horrible that huge countries like India and Africa are being excluded from such exciting technological developments like the World Wide Web because they are lacking in resources and the necessary infrastructure. Hopefully in the future, such countries will be given access to new media technologies so that networked communities can be extended on a large global scale. However, as Marshall (2004, 35) comments “the experience of new media culture in the way that we have described it is fundamentally banded and branded with this socio-economic divide.”
I hope that you enjoyed reading this! I really enjoyed Marshall’s take on the idea of emerging media technologies and the real effect they are having in shaping the real social and cultural world. I hope you have a great night and I’ll post again soon!
Em x
References
Galloway, A. 2004. 'Institutionalization', in Protocol. How control exists after decentralization. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Marshall, D. 2004. 'The technological apparatus of new media cultures', in New Media Cultures. London: Arnold.
Tonight I would like to briefly comment on the lecture given by Dr John Banks on Wednesday night and The technological apparatus of new media cultures reading by David Marshall. What I found interesting about the reading was that Marshall, like Henry Jenkins examines the blurring boundaries of new participatory cultures that are emerging out of new media technologies. In the lecture, Dr John Banks suggested that these new media technologies shape social and cultural outcomes like the participatory culture movement, but do not determine them. Banks’ ideas are reflected in the Marshall reading, who also cites the flaws in the notion of ‘technological determinism’, developed by Marshall McLuhan. Basically this term refers to the idea that technological change will directly determine and forever change the way in which society will operate. The two “principal weaknesses” Marshall (2004, 31) cites in McLuhan’s technological determinist ideology concern:
1) “First of all in McLuhan’s case, it sets up the communication form as all powerful in its capacity to transform the social world. Like his precursor, Harold Adam Innis, who wrote about the rise and fall of empires within the context of dominant technologies of communication (Innis, 1950, 1951), McLuhan places too much importance on one factor in shaping the society”; and
2) “Second, and this is related to the first weakness, McLuhan’s overemphasis on the medium allows him to overlook political and economic forces that have allowed the emergence for particular ends of specific media technologies” (Marshall. 2004, 32).
I think the two weaknesses that Marshall points out in the technological determinist theory are valid, particularly because of Galloway’s (2004) suggestions that technology is inherently political and is never neutral. Therefore, as Marshall (2004, 35) suggests, the networked communities which have been created by the new media technologies like the Internet have created a “digital divide” globally between those who have access to the Internet and those who don’t. For example, Marshall (2004, 25) states: “The technological apparatus thus must be seen as modalized around exclusion as much as access and inclusion.” And as John said in the lecture, although the idea of networked communities and participatory cultures may be a reality in Western cultures, less than 10% of the world’s population has access to the Internet. Unfortunately, I think this alarming figure is a direct result of globalisation – and the desire for the world’s richest, most educated countries like Australia, Japan and America to be more technologically advanced than others. I think this idea from Marshall is poignant regarding the adverse effect globalisation is having in regards to new media technologies: “The globalisation that new media represents also excludes from participation large sectors of the contemporary world” (2004, 25). It is horrible that huge countries like India and Africa are being excluded from such exciting technological developments like the World Wide Web because they are lacking in resources and the necessary infrastructure. Hopefully in the future, such countries will be given access to new media technologies so that networked communities can be extended on a large global scale. However, as Marshall (2004, 35) comments “the experience of new media culture in the way that we have described it is fundamentally banded and branded with this socio-economic divide.”
I hope that you enjoyed reading this! I really enjoyed Marshall’s take on the idea of emerging media technologies and the real effect they are having in shaping the real social and cultural world. I hope you have a great night and I’ll post again soon!
Em x
References
Galloway, A. 2004. 'Institutionalization', in Protocol. How control exists after decentralization. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Marshall, D. 2004. 'The technological apparatus of new media cultures', in New Media Cultures. London: Arnold.
posted by emilie at
1:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home