'the creative cooking course coupled with heavenly hydro' The Anarchives Volume 3 Issue 9 The Anarchives Published By The Anarchives The Anarchy Organization The Anarchives tao@lglobal.com Send your e-mail address to get on the list Spread The Word Pass This On... --/\-- Innis, McLuhan / / \ \ Chomsky, Postman ---|--/----\--|--- \/ \/ an exam for all... /\______/\ by jesse hirsh -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ This was my take home exam. Free for use on any other exams ;) 1A) Brother Innis Harold Innis is one of the most influential figures in communications theory. His work in developing the field transcends contemporaries, as his words still hold true and offer insight almost half a decade after his death. Reading and studying Innis is a timeless experience. Unlike the large majority of modern and post-modern communication theorists, Innis embraced the historical context, presenting a view of communications that was not limited to space or time. Marshall McLuhan often referred to himself and his work as merely a 'footnote' to the work of Innis. One might almost say that Innis wrote the word, and all writers since that point are just trying to clarify what Innis wrote. Although on the other hand communications is the institution that is explicitly responsible for human development throughout what we call history. In this sense as communication theorists, we are but mouthpieces of our time and space, much like McLuhan's conception of the artist: antennae to receive, interpret, and translate our collective (and mediated) reality. It was the emphasis and reliance upon history that enabled Innis to conceptualize and develop his communications theory. Studying the relations of empire, and the dynamics of the colony, Innis' was led to the underlying archetype of the empire itself: communications. His examination of trade and the staple thesis was itself arguably early communications theory. However it was when he replaced the medium of fur or timber, with the medium of information that Innis realized the full implications of his work. The concept of 'information as staple' is really 1950 lingo for the medium is the message. Communications theory is inherently related to linguistics, semiotics, and other studies concerned with language. Language is clearly the basis for, well, reality, as well as the large majority of study in communication. McLuhan's later work, explicitly his emphasis on the tetrad, was solely concerned with the role of logos, the metaphor, and language within communications. McLuhan's tetrad, as well as much of the basis of his media analysis has its origins in Innis' emphasis on time and space. Innis argues that the bias of communication unfolds within two areas: time and space. Within the context of historical imperial development, Innis argues that each new media affect either political organization (space) or religious organization (time). Combined, both biases contribute to order and stability, and thus the further development of empire. Decline of empire, often results from an imbalance between these biases, an over-extension perhaps, by one 'sense' over another, resulting in instability and disorder. Innis also notes that when an imbalance does occur, new media are often (inherently) introduced to return the balance, and thus ensure order. In his book 'The Bias of Communication', Innis makes 'A Plea for Time'. He makes this plea at a key turning point in 'Western' history. For Innis represents the death of Western Man. As he immersed himself in communications theory for the last few years of his life, the world around Innis was undergoing dramatic and transformative change. Historical empires had been uprooted by the second world war, and this instability could certainly be considered part of a process of religious change. The second world war, championed by the secular American state, was primarily based upon space and the redefinition of empire. After the war, the world was unstable, and empire uncertain. Religion was being redefined both in the west (post-war capitalism) and in the east (demagogic communism/facism/stalinism). Innis pleaded for a balancing bias of time, and he received this after his death with the new religion of television, which balanced the biases, and enabled the emergence of Amerikkkan hegemony. It is from this point that Marshall McLuhan steps in as the holy sage of the new age. 1b) Brother McLuhan While Innis represents the death of Western Man, McLuhan represents the birth of Electric Man. Throughout his work, McLuhan describes the synthesis of time and space, and the reinvigoration/reinvention of empire, via explorations of the transformations within language. The concept of 'the medium is the message' was a hub or conduit, in which McLuhan's explorations could be grounded. It represents the redefinition of sense ratios with the introduction of new media. McLuhan was not a fortune teller, nor did he comment in any way on the future. Rather McLuhan described the process of change that was under way during his lifetime. He placed in juxtaposition the historical literate bias with the emerging electric bias. He examined the differences between the visual bias of literate/Western culture, and the new oral/audio/tactile bias of the emerging electric culture. McLuhan derived this comparative analysis directly from Innis' concepts of time and space: time representing the ear (electric), and the eye (literate) representing space. However while adopting this part of Innis' analysis of communications, McLuhan does not adopt the historical, political, or economic basis in which Innis grounds his own communications theory. This is the most significant fault within McLuhan's analysis of communications. While Innis began communications study in the context of holistic understanding of communications, McLuhan distorts the development of communications theory by neglecting the political economic context. The largest consequence of McLuhan's neglect, is the current perpetuation of the myth of decentralization in the electronic age. While McLuhan is correct in identifying a decentralizing bias in electric media, he neglects the role of many biases in balancing our sense ratios and enabling order and empire. As a result of the acoustic bias in electric media, decentralization, in a comparative context, does occur. With the printed word, the individual extends themselves, explicitly their eyes, onto the printed page in order to receive the information contained therein. However with electric media, information is transferred to the recipient, where the ear becomes the receiver of an extended message. The printed word offered an eye for an ear, and the electric word offers an ear for an eye. When using the eye we extend ourselves outward, whether towards the printed page, or towards the external ruling elite/empire. In the literate culture, the centre is external, something we have to extend towards. When using the ear however, information extends into us, whether radio, tv, or email, as we are the centre in which the information is directed. In the electric culture the centre is internal, empire implodes, and thought control becomes the only method of ensuring imperial order. Led by the eye, literate culture created the objective individual. Led by the ear, electric culture creates the subjective tribal community. Now while by definition this describes a process of decentralization, in that the single external centre is now an infinite internal centre, it ignores the role of other media, acting in combination to balance the media environment. Multi-media inherently fulfil the balance of biases described by Innis. The new media of electronic delivery enable the decentralized accessibility of information, but the reliance on old media such as the printed word and visual content of television enforce traditional reliance on an authority. Centralized ownership of the media ensure that although proliferation of media may be decentralized, the content of the media will remain dependent upon authoritative sources. The medium is the message, and the message is electric as the centre dissolves into the whole. The content of the medium is the historical visual bias. It is via the interplay and interdependence of these two biases that empire thrives today. Corporate concentration has increased to such a phenomenal level, that arguably it has surpassed individual human comprehension. The tribes of the new order are more often than not products of niche marketing, advertising, and the commodification of every aspect of our existence. The empire has conquered space with the global market, and will soon conquer time with the full implementation of artificial intelligence and the neural network. At that point the empire is omnipresent as we achieve the total 'unified field of experience'. Innis' plea for time has been met. Religion has become paramount, and the market is god. Meditating in front of radioactive tele-screens has made the world a sage. McLuhan attended mass every morning, an indication of the weight this knowledge subconsciously put upon his shoulders. One idea that runs through my head is: in a tribal society, the McLuhan/media minds are the shaman and witch doctors of the tribe. Presently I am exploring a combination of the tao te ching and existential philosophy. Both religions are subjective and rely on 'ground' based models of analysis. In this sense they lend significant insight into the emerging and growing electronic media environment. 3) Brother Chomsky As McLuhan shed the 'political economy' of communications, Noam Chomsky revolutionized the field of linguistics, which itself had reverberating effects throughout the communications field. Chomsky's approach to communications was almost in direct contrast with McLuhan's, the only common ground being the emphasis on language. Chomsky maintained the political economic context as the underlying context of all his communication work. However as these two brilliant thinkers took two separate paths, they were still describing a common phenomena, that when combined depict a vision of the future that causes every hard-core revolutionary to pee-their-pants. Chomsky in an indirect manner returns the tradition of Innis to the work of McLuhan. One of Chomsky's most revealing analysis is the use of 'filters', by mainstream media and vested power interests in controlling the media environment itself. More explicitly these 'filters' are used for the domination and control of language, itself the basis of our social structure. There are 5 main filters described by brother Chomsky: 1) Corporate Control. The media environment has been deemed 'proprietary' and subject to ownership. Hence it is itself owned by a conglomeration of global corporations. These owners are determined to create an environment that is conducive to their needs and desires for growth, stability, and profit. The only language that is allowed into the environment is that which contributes to this process of domination, exploitation, and appropriation. Power itself is the filter, as all that pass into its real are shaped in its image. 2) Advertising. Corporate control and ownership of the media is enabled, and supported by a technical propaganda class. Often referred to as the 'industries of thought control', Advertisers are the leaches that jockey for corporate cash, fulfilling the dreams and wishes of the ruling class, in order that both benefit. Advertising as an institution has an inherent interest in maintaining hegemonic thought within the media environment, as they act as the organizational and psychological basis for continued development of the empire. Similar to the previous filter, the purpose of advertising is to transform any and all into its own context, and thus its own image. Advertising is the be all and end all of the media environment. 3) Official and Authoritative Sources. Any information that enters the media environment, must be 'accountable' and traceable to official and/or authoritative sources. This filter is a by-product of the objectivity myth, and the doublespeak of 'facts'. The media environment is no longer literate, and subject to objective/comparative analysis within its own context. Rather information is transferred via a stream or flow of constant images, sounds, and effects. The filter of 'sources' are used to maintain hegemonic control of what is designated 'fact', 'truth', or 'official response'. There is a monopoly on the word, in that only the monopoly can give the official word. This filter is much like the first two, in that it's purpose is self-perpetuation, and the translation of all information into itself, and the confines of its own control system. 4) Flak and the Thought Control Police. If by chance the first three filters fail to stop an offending bit of information from entering the environment, there exists an entire fleet of 'watchdog' and 'advocacy' groups who vigilantly enforce the media monopoly. They are the ones to quickly yell out 'blasphemy' when something slips through the hegemony. Set up by various interests of power, these 'watch dogs' protect the private interest, masquerading as impartial third parties, funded by the same capital centres as those who fund the advertising and broadcasting. They are the organizations funded to act as private 'thought control police', defending the interests of power, and ensuring that the media environment remains stable and conducive to growth. 5) Communism, the Left, and Satan. With the market as god, anything that remotely contains anti-market sentiment is immediately classified as blasphemy. If anything this filter is most indicative of the religious bias of the ruling hegemony. Unlike the other filters, this one does not translate information into itself, but rather converts it into a pre-ordained opposite, which results in a physical and total rejection of the information from the media environment. While other filters serve to integrate, this one serves to create animosity, polarization, and increased conflict between the hegemony, and anything that opposes it. This filter is the hell-maker. It inherently creates 'satanic' figures to be roasted over the hegemonic fire. While these filters are not the sole basis for the control of language, and the maintenance of the hegemonic mind, they do play a major role in eliminating 'systemic dysfunctions' from the media environment. The consequences of these filters are substantial, if not catastrophic to freedom. Whether it be the loss of voice and expression, or even the explicit control of minds, the media filters described by Chomsky are in part the basis of the empire itself. Coupled with the work of other communication theorists like McLuhan, Chomsky's analysis depicts a world on the brink of total if not fascist control. This is my motivational factor. I am a full time (media) revolutionary, for the simple reason that I do not want fascism in my present or future. 8) Brother Postman Neil Postman is the specialized version of the non-specialist McLuhan. Similar to a large number of post-McLuhan communication theorists, Postman attempts to take an inherently non-specialist theory found within 'the medium is the message' and explore one aspect, explicitly the comparison between literate culture (book) and electric culture (tv). Postman is an English teacher, and self-proclaimed luddite (which I should make clear is perhaps an admirable thing). His analysis of the media is limited to his specialist perspective based upon his reliance upon the book and printed word. 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' is a literate analysis of the non-literate medium of television. In so doing his analysis is limited to paraphrasing the work of McLuhan. Like many others, Postman tries to elaborate on McLuhan, perhaps trying to make it more accessible to a wider and different audience. His analysis stems from the contrast of the television 'flow' and the literate, mechanical, objective nature of the book. Postman describes television as 'lacking a because', and a continual process of 'this happened and then this and then this and then.. etc.' Television is a continual stream of information, a single plane that inherently is its own context, and is unable to adopt any other except that of the flow itself. This continuous stream of events, that keeps the viewers waiting for the next event in the flow amidst commercials, is in stark contrast to the method in which information is transferred using the printed word. The printed word enabled objectivity and room for debate, whereas television does not. As an extension of the eye, the printed word was separate from the recipient, and hence created the construct of the individual. The individual, as a separate entity from the information was able to achieve an objective or detached perspective, and hence engage in an analysis that allows some degree of impartiality. Television turns our eyes into ears as it bombards our brains with millions of electrons each second we are exposed to it. This process of information transfer kills the individual, ends objectivity, and with these the notions of context and history are inherently related and limited to the medium itself. There are no alternatives, television just is; quality is a non-issue. Television is the dominating force that causes our conscious and sub-conscious to submit to power and the hegemony. Television replaces the individual with the corporate identity, as our identity is determined by external images which are injected into our skulls. We define ourselves within the group in processing information that is shared collectively. It is from this process that the act of tribalization is enacted. However tribalization is but a pretty word for the corporate commodification of our psyche. Television redefines the concept of knowledge, transforming it from a basis on historical experience and wisdom, to a spontaneous characteristic defined by the moment and the spontaneous reaction to an electronic environment of the 'unified field of experience'. The purpose of propaganda in a technological society is to integrate. In this sense television is the digestive tract of the empire. The more we watch, the further we enter Hollywood's virtual reality. A construction for the new empire in which we lose all relations to what was once material reality. If we assume that the world is a stage, then television is the leading and perhaps only actor. As the audience we are limited to a state of reaction. Bombarded with information, we can only hope to react in the face of an endless continuos onslaught. My reaction is to turn the bloody thing off. As I've decide to save my mind! (Although I would make television if I had the opportunity. It would be a learning experience) jesse -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ The TAO Media Collective http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -=~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMVCdcOKx8nGMX3VRAQFzugL+P9I6vvyR3hsE3S2/Q44VE/klJqD7GEXb W8wjyW9DcyauTsqW1ilBX9Mdr/6c4BWCtCtr0Ve93CZDnMbJktSjgsf2ZdT30zqe q53DzpiDuv0EBoXTxAH/c203UPBC9M6Z =xszN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------- To receive the Anarchives via email send a note to Majordomo@lglobal.com with the message in the body: subscribe anarchives To get off the list, send to the same address but write: unsubscribe anarchives Also check out: http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/