Monday, December 10, 2012

A Dystopian Future



Maria Martin-Aran
Dr. Steven Wexler
English 654
11 December 2012
A Dystopian Future
Thomas Hirschl begins his discussion on the topic “structural unemployment” in Cutting Edge: Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social Revolution by explaining that Marx’s social revolution (whose arrival is harkened by advancements in technology which will supplant/displace “existing property relations”) has not yet come to pass, either because his hypothesis is flawed, or capitalism has yet to confront the “final crisis” that will plunge society into a social/economic revolution (157-8). Yet Hirschl, by means of Marxist theory, contends that technological advances will indeed eventually cause a “qualitative transformation” of capitalism, the only question is when and how (165).
It is easy to recognize the possible precursors of this “crisis” via the “structural unemployment” already taking place as a result of the current use of technology to replace a portion of the human work force (157-8). For example, in most major grocery stores today there are now “self check-out” lines with four to six automated cash registers overseen by a single human cashier; ATMs have, for the most part, supplanted the need for bank tellers, and automation of manufacturing has displaced a large portion of the manual labor force. Still, the economy has, thus far, been able to reabsorb these workers by creating new jobs, primarily in the service industry. The problem then becomes what happens when artificial intelligence (AI) advances to the point where it replaces not only service but “knowledge [or information] workers” (160). Where will these jobs go? The simple (and scary) answer is: away, at which point, Hirschl contends, society will have no other option than to move toward some form of “wageless” production (169). And while it may be overly optimistic to assume humanity would revert to a new artistic Renaissance period, free from the encumbrances of monetary considerations; when examining this question via the animated movie, Walt Disney’s WALL-E, a more disconcerting possibility comes to light.
WALL-E takes place in a dystopian future after Earth is left uninhabitable for both animal and plant life as a consequence of unchecked, reckless consumerism and environmental abuse. As if a twisted manifestation of what author and historian Dan Schiller portents in, Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System, the amount of goods and services produced by the “perpetual-innovation economy,” as depicted in this movie, has “outstripped the socioeconomic ability to absorb its surplus,” (123) leaving in its wake a world reminiscent of an apocalyptic wasteland. Earth is depicted as enshrouded by debris clouds, which rise up in violent sandstorms, and the ground itself is barely discernable as it is enveloped in mounds of ubiquitous waste. Still, from these piles of rubbish we quickly discern that a single corporation, Buy N Large (BNL), seems to have won the advertising/conglomerate wars to become the only corporation in existence prior to humans abandoning Earth. Indeed, BNL seems to have “harness[ed the] consumption of production” for its sole benefit, which is evidenced by the fact that all the advertising from the abandoned city to the moon itself is solely BNL’s (123). In fact, not only does BNL own the only store in town, a gigantic mega mile long BNL warehouse store in what remains of (what appears to be) New York City, but the car dealerships as well. Disconcertedly, BNL also seems to have owned and controlled the media, as indicated by the discarded newspaper, Buy N Large Times. More ominous still, the headline of that same newspaper, “BNL CEO Declares Global Emergency”, would seem to indicate that the corporation has also assumed the role of government; which is further substantiated by the fact that the dollar bills strewn about also contain the BNL logo, signifying that this single corporation’s domination is complete, as it also managed to control the monetary system (WALL-E). 
Thus, in the dystopian futuristic society depicted in WALL-E, in something akin to a perverse form of cannibalism, capitalism seems to have consumed itself and reemerged significantly “transformed” into something beyond the common understanding of a capitalist system (Hirschl 165). As represented in the movie, the BNL Corporation seems to have built on its rights as an individual to become not only president but also government itself. As if reflecting the warning contained in Dan Schiller’s aforementioned work, not only could BNL’s consolidation of power have easily come about from a lack of “socialist adversary”(which is clearly absent from the movie) and which in the digital age, left the corporation “free to physically transcend territorial boundaries and take economic advantage of the sudden absence of geopolitical constraints on its development,” but BNL’s power could be said to mirror Schiller’s admonition that a corporation’s ultimate strategy is a “substantial shift” toward “a direct takeover of …key [social] functions,” such as governments (205).  
Nevertheless, viewing space as the final frontier, BNL’s original plan was for humans to live off planet, taking a five year “cruise” in technologically advanced and operated spaceships, while cleaning robots, WALL-E units, compact and discard the remaining debris; humans would then return to re-colonize the Earth (WALL-E). Yet seven hundred years later, Earth’s only inhabitant is a single surviving cleaning robot, which continues to follow his original “directive,” compacting debris and stacking the solid blocks into “vertical structures,” which will then be incinerated and the toxic fumes disbursed away from the atmosphere and into space (WALL-E). A technology that has achieved sentience, the clearly lonely WALL-E seems less machine than human, as he keeps a pet cockroach, collects and hoards human artifacts and watches the musical Hello Dolly, over and over again, trying to mimic the behavior of the actors.
Eventually coming across a single budding plant, WALL-E saves it as part of his collection. Shortly thereafter, another robot is deposited on Earth, EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator), whose “prime directive” is to search for and collect any vegetation found as proof that Earth is once again ready for colonization. Quickly becoming enamored of EVE, WALL-E eventually gives her the plant, which inadvertently activates her homing signal and sends her into a state of hibernation. In an attempt to stay with her, WALL-E stows away on the ship that arrives to collect EVE and is taken, along with her, to the single surviving starship, which contains what is left of humanity, ironically dubbed Axiom. This ship provides for every conceivable human need for those aboard her. Yet the absence of competitors, as well as the brash and ubiquitous nature of BNL’s “advertising” suggests that BNL has now evolved from a corporation to some form of socialist state.
Apparently having learned little from the experience that forced them to originally abandon Earth, what is left of humanity exists on this enormous technologically advanced and operated spaceship. Owned and operated by the same corporation responsible for Earth’s ecological decimation, BNL’s environmental and consumer recklessness carries on unabated, as demonstrated by the fact that the corporation’s advertising moniker (BNL) continues to appear everywhere--even on the ship’s replicated sun, and the waste created by the inhabitants of the ship, technological and human alike, is simply compacted and once again, irresponsibly tossed out—this time into space. Moreover, the ship’s street signs, which demonstrate BNL’s “remediation” of the concept of “economy” from a monetary system to ship destination, and the “hypermediacy” of the neon blinking “buy, buy, buy[s]” below it, reads like an awkward attempt at immediacy in the form of a subliminal message meant to convince the members of this society to “buy” into the social system—rather than an inducement to purchase something (Bolter 21).
Completely run and controlled by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) known simply as “Auto,” which is depicted as the speaking and independently moving helm (wheel) of the ship, the “days” on Axiom begin with robots making their way through morning traffic to the manual and service labor jobs they have appropriated from the humans (be it janitor, hairdresser, policemen etc…). As if manifesting futurist Ernest Mandel’s “vision of automation as the end of capitalism” the movie depicts “capitalist development [ as] a process blindly generating, through its own progressive yet self-destructive forces, the seeds of a socialist society, where ‘labour [SIC] in which a human being does what a thing could do has ceased’ ” (Morris-Suzuki 14) and humans, having been completely replaced in not only manual and service positions, but information (“knowledge”) jobs as well, seem to aimlessly drift from one “virtual activity” to another (Hirschl 160).
Indeed, it is the manner in which the movie depicts the use of AI as the teacher, which represents the dangers inherent to the displacement of humans as information workers, and exemplifies both how “total automation is completely incompatible with capitalism” (Morris-Suzuki 15) and how “the theoretical possibility of wageless production implies the practical end of capitalism (Hirschl 165). Evocative of what many might imagine to be a socialist classroom experience, BNL’s artificial “teacher” is seen spewing propaganda clearly meant to advance BNL’s agenda by brainwashing and indoctrinating the young into their collective consciousness, with maxims such as “B is for Buy N Large, your very best friend” (WALL-E). While the first adult human depicted in the movie is discussing plans for a virtual golf game with the person right beside him; yet, no face-to-face conversation ever takes place. No human in this society actually seem to hold a job, not even the token Captain McCrea, who is depicted most of the time merely sleeping or eating on the bridge. Still, the humans in the film are clearly consuming everything that BNL provides, as they have all become morbidly obese. In fact, the AI on this ship is so advanced that people no longer wear shoes because technology has even made walking unnecessary; and as a result, the human skeletal structure is in the process of devolving from bipedalism to some form of semi-gelatinous species, which is dependent on technology for motion (WALL-E).
The humans on the ship live their entire lives in these motorized recliners with blinders blocking their peripheral vision and a computer monitor in their faces, and when WALL-E accidentally knocks one of the humans out of his seat, the man is unable to physically get up on his own and is left helplessly flailing on the ground until WALL-E hoists him back into his seat (WALL-E). Thus as the movie illustrates, allowing technology to displace humans as information workers, not only leaves humanity vulnerable to the self-serving and unchallenged machinations of the corporate state, which can easily keep humanity blindly entertained and ignorant of the corporation’s true agendas and unchecked greed, but as all labor has also been entirely removed from the equation, this social system has “transformed,” (Hirschl 165) beyond the boundaries of both socialism and capitalism. Hirschl writes:
At some stage of the progressive elimination of labor from production, labor will realize that its physical and cultural survival depends upon reforming the economic system to distribute on the basis of human need rather that for profit. If production can be conducted without workers, then it can be distributed without money. This subjective realization will initiate the process whereby the ‘expropriators are expropriated’ (Marx 1977, 929). (165)
As such, the humans and technology on the Axiom have entered into some type of “wageless” as well as laborless symbiotic relationship where BNL exists solely to provide and the humans, to their detriment, solely to consume (Hirschl 169).

     WALL-E follows EVE to the bridge of the ship, where her presence automatically activates the seven hundred years old “Operation Recolonize,” which will automatically send the ship back to Earth, but when the plant cannot be found, the operation is mechanically aborted. Believing EVE is malfunctioning, Captain McCrea, at Auto’s insistence, sends both EVE and WALL-E for repairs, where they meet other robots that are confined in virtual jail like cages, awaiting needed repairs because they are exhibiting behavior independent of their original programming. Thinking EVE is being harmed, WALL-E executes an escape, which inadvertently frees all the other “prisoners,” who quickly begin to run amok on the ship. In the process of their escape, WALL-E and EVE witness another service robot placing the plant into an escape pod with the intent of destroying it. WALL-E saves the plant, and he and Even sneak into Captain McCrea's cabin to deliver the plant.
In their absence, the captain has begun to research Earth’s history, and is clearly excited about a possible return to Earth; yet, Auto has other plans. Seemingly the only AI aboard the ship unable to grow past his initial programming, Auto is unwilling to release his captive audience presumably following an old directive which was issued when BNL believed the Earth would forever remain uninhabitable. He confines Captain McCrea to his cabin and throws WALL-E, EVE and the plant into the garbage chute, intending to blast them into space. Yet, there is a more sinister and disturbing explanation for Auto reaction. In fact, it is completely conceivable that Auto too has grown beyond his programming to understand that a return to Earth would mean his redundancy and eventual annihilation, as well as BNL’s complete loss of power and control. This possibility highlights another reason why humanity must be very careful when considering the use of AI as a replacement for human information workers.
Finally deciding that he does not simply want to “survive” but to “live,” Captain McCrea rewires the communications technology on the ship to contact EVE and WALL-E, who were nearly dumped into space along with the ship’s refuse, telling them to head for the ship’s main deck where they are to place the plant into a machine that will activate the return to Earth. The captain then tricks Auto into believing that he has the plant, while WALL-E, EVE and the other liberated robots lead a rebellion against Auto’s robot forces to get the ship back to Earth. Finally managing to stand, Captain McCrea shuts Auto off. Therefore, in this society, Marx’s long awaited revolution is initiated not only by the oppressed ship’s captain but all the technology that has been able to evolve past their programming to achieve sentience and human emotions. In the process WALL-E is gravely injured, but once the ship returns to Earth, EVE uses items from WALL-E’s collection to repair him, while the captain teaches the children of the ship how to care for the plant.
The moral of this storyline seems to be, as Frank Webster suggests in his work, Theories on the Information Society, that “we must not confuse the indispensability of a phenomenon [(technology)] with a capacity for it to define a social order” (23) as much of the information derived from the advent of technology can easily be described as “devoid of content” (31), and as this movie suggests, it could also become a danger to humanity.







Works Cited
Bolter, Jay David and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New
Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000. Print.
Hirschl, Thomas. "Structural Unemployment and the Qualitative
Transformation of Capitalism." Davis, et al. 157-174. Davis J., T.
Hirschl, and M. Stack, eds. Cutting Edge:  Technology, Information,
Capitalism and Social Revolution. London: Verso, 1997. Print.
Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. "Robots and Capitalism." Davis, et al. 157-174. Davis
J., T. Hirschl, and M. Stack, eds. Cutting Edge:  Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social Revolution. London: Verso, 1997. Print.
Schiller, Dan. Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System.
Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000. Print.
WALL-E. Dir. Andrew Stanton. Perf. Ben Burtt. Elissa Knight. Disney
Pixar, 2008. Film.
Webster, Frank. Theories of the Information Society. New York: Routledge,
2006. Print.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Why does the Call to Arms Goes Unheeded?

     The call to the long awaited Marxist revolution against Capitalism continues to manifest in different ways, yet continues to go unheeded. Why? According to Thomas A. Hirschl's work "Structural Unemployment and the Qualitative Transformation of Capitalism," either "Marx's theory is wrong" or Capitalism has not hit rock bottom (157). Hirschl's theory contends that the displacement of the labor force generated by the advancements in technology will irrevocably "alter capitalist dynamics" to such an extent that it will force capitalism "toward a qualitative transformation" (158). Now, while Hirschl's theory seems to contend that Capitalism's metamorphosis will resemble more a evolution rather than the violent upheaval normally associated with a true revolution, Henri Lefebvre's essay, "The Right to the City" suggests that change requires "a spontaneous coming together in a moment of 'irruption,' when disparate heterotopic groups suddenly see, if only for a fleeting moment, that possibilities of collective action to create something radically different" (xvii). Now if not exactly a call to arms, certainly a call for change continues to be made by political and financial watchdog groups throughout the nation, and while one would assume that the current level of unemployment, the bursting of the housing market bubble, as well as the failures of the banking system should naturally perpetuate a revolution of some sort, Americans (except for those few involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement) remain strangely detached and silent on the matter. Are they/we waiting for things to get better or worse? How bad does it have to get? Are we inhibited by the ongoing belief/faith in the American Dream? Why does the call to arms continue to go unheeded?


Harvey, David. Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution.
           London: Verso, 2012. Print.

Hirschl, Thomas. "Structural Unemployment and the Qualitative Transformation of
           Capitalism." Davis, et al. 157-174. Davis J., T. Hirschl, and M. Stack, eds.
           Cutting Edge:  Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social 
           Revolution. London: Verso, 1997. Print.

Empire of Indifference

 


** reprinted from the article: The Digital Dump: Exporting High-Tech Re-use & Abuse to Africa:
Image Source Page: http://www.myspace.com/me_without_you_989#!





Think about it...

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Dystopian Future?


Maria Martin-Aran
Dr. Steven Wexler
English 654
30 October 2012
Dystopian Future
Thomas Hirschl begins his discussion on the topic “structural unemployment” by explaining that Marx’s social revolution (whose arrival is harkened by advancements in technology, which will supplant/displace “existing property relations”) has not yet come to pass, either because his hypothesis is flawed, or because capitalism has yet to confront the “final crisis” that will plunge society into a social/economic revolution (157-8). Yet, Hirschl, by means of Marxist theory, insists that technological advances will eventually cause a “qualitative transformation” of capitalism, the only question is how (165).
It is easy to recognize the possible precursors of this “crisis” via the “structural unemployment,” created when technologies replace a portion of the human work force. For example: in most major grocery stores today there are now “self check-out” lines with four to six automated cash registers overseen by a single human cashier; ATMs have, for the most part, supplanted the need for bank tellers, and automation of manufacturing has displaced a large portion of the manual labor force. Still, the economy has, thus far, been able to reabsorb these workers by creating new jobs, primarily in the service industry. The problem then becomes what happens when artificial intelligence (AI) advances to the point where it replaces not only service but “knowledge [or information] workers” (160)? Where will these jobs go? The simple (and scary) answer is: away, at which point society will have no other option than to move toward some form of wage-less production (169). And while it may be overly optimistic to assume humanity would revert to a new artistic Renaissance period, free from the encumbrances of monetary considerations, when examining this question via the animated movie, Walt Disney’s WALL-E; a more disconcerting possibility comes to light.
WALL-E takes place in a dystopian future on an enormous spaceship, which now houses what is left of humanity once Earth is left uninhabitable as a consequence of environmental abuse and reckless consumerism. This technologically advanced ship is run by what at first seems to be a corporation, Buy N Large, whose moniker (BNL) appears everywhere--even on the replicated sun. Ironically dubbed Axiom, this ship, like any good socialist state, provides for every conceivable human need for those aboard her. Yet the absence of competitors, as well as the brash and ubiquitous nature of BNL’s “advertising” suggests that BNL is less corporation than socialist state.
The YouTube clip below begins with robots making their way through morning traffic no doubt to the manual and service labor jobs they have appropriated from humans (hairdresser, policemen etc…). Yet it is the manner in which the movie depicts the use of AI as the teacher, which represents the dangers inherent to the displacement of humans as information workers. Evocative of what many imagine to be a socialist classroom experience, BNL’s artificial “teacher” is seen spewing propaganda clearly meant to advance BNL’s agenda by brainwashing and indoctrinating the young into their collective consciousness. 
The first human depicted in this scene is discussing plans for a virtual golf game with the person right beside him; yet, no face-to-face conversation takes place. Thus, technology has also displaced human interaction. Moreover, BNL’s appropriation of the concept of “economy” from a monetary system to a destination, and the blinking “buy, buy, buy[s]” below it, reads more like a subliminal message meant to convince the members of this society to “buy” into the social system--instead of an inducement to purchase something. Indeed, no human in this society actually seem to hold a job, not even the token captain, who is depicted most of the time merely sleeping and eating on the bridge. Yet, the humans in the film are clearly consuming everything that BNL provides. In fact, the AI on this ship is so advanced that people no longer wear shoes because technology has even made walking unnecessary. Thus, as labor has been entirely removed from the equation, this social system has “transformed,” (165) beyond the restrictions of both socialism and capitalism, into a type of symbiotic relationship where BNL exists solely to provide and humans, to their detriment, solely to consume.
 
                                               Works Cited
Hirschl, Thomas. "Structural Unemployment and the Qualitative Transformation of
           Capitalism." Davis, et al. 157-174. Davis J., T. Hirschl, and M. Stack, eds.
           Cutting Edge:  Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social 
           Revolution. London: Verso, 1997. Print.
WALL-E. Dir. Andrew Stanton. Perf. Ben Burtt. Elissa Knight. Disney Pixar,
2008.  Film.
  




Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Remediation the Movie

Thought you guys might like this. I couldn't believe my luck when I found it. I wonder if it was created by someone who has taken the class before?:

Cutting Out the MiddleMan



The whole time I was reading Cutting Edge: Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social Revolutions, I kept trying to think of an example of what the end of capitalism-- due to automation-- would look like (Morris-Suzuki 14). The best thing I could come up with was the opening scene of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (staring Johnny Depp): the complete automation of the chocolate factory overseen by a handful of workers (the Oompah Loompahs):


I also remembered that protagonist's father in the movie loses his assembly line job at a toothpaste factory (placing the caps on the toothpaste tubes) to a robotic arm, and it is only when the arm is in need of repair that Charlie's father gets a new job repairing it. And though not quite the “managerial capitalist” of the “information society” envisioned by Daniel Bell and others, it is easy to imagine that society is truly moving in that direction as Charlie’s father is now only one of a handful of employees left on the assembly line floor that once held hundreds of employees (Morris-Suzuki 14).

Yet, like the movie depicts, I find it difficult if not impossible to envision a world where the human worker is rendered completely "obsolete/redundant," (Morris-Suzuki 13) if only for the fact that humans are the creators of the automation and must at the very least maintenance and repair it; thus, they can never be completely excluded from the equation. Yet you can't help but wonder: what happens to all the other workers that automation replaced--those that are not lucky enough to get retrained?


Works Cited

Morris-Suzuki, Tessa. "Robots and Capitalism." Davis, et al. 157-174. Davis J., T. Hirschl, and M. Stack,

eds. Cutting Edge:  Technology, Information, Capitalism and Social Revolution. London: Verso, 1997. Print.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Vermeer's Love Letter to Society






 While examining Johannes Vermeer’s painting, The Love Letter (c 1669) it became clear that the artist was striving for what Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin’s work, Remediation, describes as “transparent immediacy” as we, the audience, are meant to forget that we are looking at a painting/canvas and are instead propelled into its storyline (21-2). Forced to view the work from the artist’s voyeuristic prospective—deep within the closet looking into the room, which is reinforced by the shelving at the forefront and immediate right of the scene—the audience is left with the impression that they are illicitly spying in on a very personal moment. Indeed, the canvas disappears and we are there, crouched within that closet, either with or as the artist, encroaching on this young maiden’s privacy as she plays her lute and inadvertently (or not) we witness, as the title of piece suggests, the obviously wealthy young woman’s request to her servant that she deliver a love letter. Additionally, the subject matter of this piece highlights the 17th century’s view of women as chattel. The fact that women are first the property of their fathers then their husbands, during this time period, and used as commodity to advance the family’s social, political and monetary aspirations within the public sphere, they are, by definition, not free to choose who to love or marry. History, then, reinforces the work’s “immediacy”—as it supports the storyline advanced by the painting: a young woman with no agency is forced into an act of subterfuge with the assistance of her servant—a popular storyline utilized previously by both Ovid and Shakespeare. Therefore, even as this paper would represent a remediation of Vermeer’s work, as the “literary description” itself is a remediation of “visual art,” it is the artist’s prospective and the point in history when it was created that adds credence to the piece as a subject representative of immediacy  (45). 
Additionally, The Love Letter, would seem to bring to light issues of the public and private spheres as described by Jurgen Habermas’s work, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Now, one would assume that as the scene depicts a private moment between a young woman and her servant, presumably within her own home (if not her own room) that the space itself would be defined as a private sphere. Yet, the painting could also be representative of Habermas’s assertion that the “intervention of public powers in the affairs of private people” was a byproduct of society’s inability to resolve their issues from within the private “salons” (35, 142). Essentially, the “public sphere” began as an amalgamation of private citizens, who gathered together in the hopes of affecting public change. Thus, if, as the painting’s title suggests, and the protagonist’s expression of concern as she covertly passes said letter to her servant reinforces, the “public” reaction to this young woman’s affections for the recipient of this letter is a point of contention that she is attempting to avoid, and the we, the public in the closet, are meant to be outraged by and perhaps even meant to intercede in—no doubt, for the greater good of society.
Although perhaps an innocuous subject matter when viewed from a modern day perspective, it is easy to imagine that when viewed from within the prospective of 17th century society the information conveyed by Vermeer’s piece may well have been considered scandalous if not subversive. While it is unclear how many people would have had access to the painting when it was originally created, it could be assumed that it would have, at the very least, been prominently displayed within someone’s home and accessible to all visitors. Nevertheless, the sheer quantity of information conveyed: locking away young women may not be enough, maidens are clever, devious, disobedient, impure in thought or action, one must be the ever vigilant, like the audience in the closet etc…, would seem to add credibility to the suggestion of many scholars that far from a byproduct of post-industrial/modern societies, the information society is more than likely a “continuation of pre-established relations” (Webster 7). Thus, even as there is no doubting that with the advent of technology, the “information society” of today is afforded many more avenues for accessing information, “quantity” does not necessarily equate to “quality” information—and as Vermeer’s work demonstrates, it is not necessarily a byproduct of modernity (21-31).  Thus, as Frank Webster suggests in his work, Theories on the Information Society, “we must not confuse the indispensability of a phenomenon [(technology)] with a capacity for it to define a social order” (23) as much of the information derived from the advent of technology can easily be described as “devoid of content” (31).





Works Cited
Bolter, Jay David and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media.
Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2000. Print.
Habermas, JÜrgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into
a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1991. Print.
Vermeer, Johannes. The Love Letter. 1669. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.
Webster, Frank. Theories of the Information Society. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Habermas's Utopian Pipedream

Although reading Frank Webster’s Theories of the Information Society helped me to better understand Jurgen Habermas’s The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, it did little to alter my opinion that Habermas’s concept of a “public sphere” not only never truly existed, but could, in fact, never exist because the politics of information are, and have always been, inextricably intertwined with that of power. Even today, it is those in power who not only determine what “information” is relevant, but with the media of the world in fewer and fewer hands, what is actually disseminated as news or information around the world. Thus, even as an American woman living in the 21st century, who it would seem is no longer disenfranchised from Habermas’s “public sphere,” and has a plethora of information readily available to me, the reality is that ready access to the ever increasing “quantity” of information available does not necessarily correlate to the availability of “quality” information (Webster 21-3). Moreover, Habermas's theory does not address the fact that there are many members of society who are still disenfranchised from accessing, much less participating in, his “public sphere.” And though admittedly here in the U.S. it would seem more likely to be an exclusion based on economic issues rather than that of class, gender, culture etc… that cannot be said of the world in general. Therefore, as it is highly unlikely that we will ever live in a world where equal access to information that is untainted by power is available to all, the public sphere as conceived by Habermas will remain a utopian pipedream.

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

No Public Sphere for You!

Admittedly, after taking Habermas’s historical odyssey about the formation of the “public sphere” I was left with questions about its connections to power (particularly, white, male power). If, as Habermas theorizes, the public sphere was begotten of the economical developments of capitalism and the “literary public sphere,” which is dependent on one’s level of education and ownership of property, then the public sphere excludes a large portion of the “public”: women, the poor, people of color, and those who were prevented from owning land--again, women, the poor and people of color… Thus, far from articulating the interests of a hypothetical “civil society,” by the author’s definition, the “public sphere” functions instead as a representation of patriarchal white society—essentially another tool by which to consolidate and/or manipulate power and reinforce artificial hierarchies. Thus, there is no true universal “public sphere.” As such, I found the connection to the supplemental reading, particularly Selfe and Selfe article interesting, as I had never truly considered how the “systematic domination and marginalization of certain groups” extended into the use “media literacy” (Selfe 482). In other words, like the illusion of a “public sphere” which represents all of society, but in fact excludes a great portion of it, “media literacy,” via the use of “English as the default language” (490) and its “associat[ion] with patriarchal culture and rationalistic traditions of making meaning,” (491) also excludes a majority of the world’s population, thereby reinforcing artificial hierarchies and consolidating power.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Hypermediacy + Remediation = Immediacy?

While reading how Disneyland and Disney World function as hypermediate spaces that remediate their own creations, (“films, songs characters” etc…”) I remembered reading about an actual community called Celebration Florida in Osceola, Florida, built by the Disney Development Company and refashioned as an extension of Disney World’s Main Street attraction, which itself mirrors the idyllic Midwestern town in Marceline, Kansas where Walt Disney lived as a child (173). A complete community with its own schools, shops and places of worship, it is connected to the Disney World resorts via one of the community’s main streets. If it is true then, as the authors suggest, that “real cities and towns are themselves media spaces which theme parks reproduce and refashion,” it would seem that Disney World’s “small scale version of a city” (174) has re-evolved into an actual community—does this mean that the hypermediate fantasy has been remediated into the reality (immediacy)? Has it come full circle? In other words, if it is now possible to live within the "refashioned/remediated" fantasy, does that then become the reality ("immediacy")(174)?

Friday, September 7, 2012

Remediation at Work

Written by Maria Martin-Aran & Laurisa White Reyes VIDEO GAMES:  The text REMEDIATION by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin refers to early 1st person video games such as Myst, which was ground breaking for its time in that it had realistic graphics and enabled the player to feel as though they were actually moving through the game itself. Of course, all preceding video games attempted immediacy - bringing the player right into the game -but Myst succeeded where the others had all fallen short - to create the illusion of being in the game. Myst was twenty years ago and since then computer graphics have continued to improve to the point that digital graphics, when desired, are almost indistinguishable from live action.  A modern example is the game Bioshock. In this game, the player is the protagonist within the story. (As opposed to third person games where the player simply manipulates a visual representation of the protagonist.) The camera angles are all from the player's point of view, including seeing his own hands and the weapons he is holding.  The game strives for immediacy, however the fantastical nature of the story and the creepy, surreal nature of the images reminds the player that this is indeed a video game, thus keeping it hypermediate.
A better example might be the contemporary war video games such as Modern Warfare where gaming mimics actual battles during World War II and others.  The graphics at times are so real that it the characters might pass for actors in a movie rather than animated figures. These games are perhaps some of the closest examples we have of mediacy in today's world of entertainment.
TWITTER Twitter represents itself to be a "real-time" information network by connecting its members in real time. And in that sense it is in some way attempting mediacy. Yet while true that people are tweeting information "live" as it happens or occurs to them, the limitation of 140 characters, photos or short videos, as well as the vehicle for the information itself (ie. cell phones) makes it impossible to ignore its hypermediate aspects. As such we would argue that Twitter is basically, as the book describes, "narcissistic" in nature purposely bringing attention to its formatting in an attempt to entice usage and win converts. In that manner, it employs celebrities to create accounts and compete for followers to enhance its popularity and desirability. MOVIES (YouTube) YouTube is an excellent example of remediation. It is a digital online vehicle that connects viewers to video clips including movies, tv shows, music, commercials, and more. Anything that has been filmed can be posted to YouTube. It is remediating television, the movie screen, the home video, etc. But even though it is a very visible form of media itself, it strives to be immediate - to bring these video clips directly to the viewer with minimal effort or waiting.
One way it succeeds in achieving mediacy is the option to full screen. In this instance the video fills the complete computer screen and at the same time the You Tube logo and website disappear. It allows the viewer to temporarily forget about You Tube altogether - although he is still very much aware of the film and the computer themselves as forms of media.