Monday, September 30, 2013
The Deep 2
Read the handout from the book Deep Ecology. Now apply the questions it asks of technology to screen -- TV, laptops, portables, etc. Based on Postman's analysis in Amusing Ourselves. . . and your own experience, do screen media meet the criteria for a "fully informed, appropriate technology"? Please post your comments by 4 p.m., Wednesday, Oct 2.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
There is little “vital” about screen technology, especially when taking in how modern American culture has reshaped the screen to be pure entertainment. While screen media does aid in scientific and academic research, much of American culture is merely dependent on screens as a resource for entertainment—television as nightly shows, laptops and smartphones as social media. And while these uses of screens are “fun,” nothing about modern usage is inherently vital to human survival, but, rather, screen technology has become almost detrimental in imposing, as the handout says, “a permanent, rigid, irreversible imprint” on American culture. Screen technology has become something of an authority. To keep up with culture, one must buy a smartphone, be able to stay in contact with others over Facebook or through email, keep up with the latest television show the masses have deemed “relevant.” Screen technology is a modernization of Althusser's notion of ideological state apparatuses as the majority of Americans have allowed and deemed television shows to be of ideological importance. Following television shows is a way of life. Shows such as “Breaking Bad” have a cult following hindering on religious. To choose to not be apart of such an ideology is detrimental to an individual's social development.
Screen media, then, definitively and inherently discourages “a deep ecology way of life” by encouraging a mob mentality of needing the newest and best version of the iPhone. There is little thought as to what goes into technological creation and more thought put into an anthropocentric view of the world, where all that is important is what goes in to the ability to keep up technologically. Even further, screen media is detrimental to individuality. As it has become an ideological state apparatus, screen technology allows for a bureaucratic hierarchical society, where high value is put into companies that release the newest smartphone or a better model television. The majority of American people allows these companies to shape their ways of life and ideological values in acting on the desire for the newest and best. This mob-like mentality is heightened since screen media has become a more regular part of every day American culture. In relation to question seven on the handout, individuality becomes mass mechanical thought. People begin to view the world as how it would be interesting to others on Facebook or Instagram: Would this moment make a funny Facebook status? Would this image look good through a sepia filter online? Can I shorten this thought to a 140 character for Twitter?
The points Postman makes in his books includes inappropriate topics becoming merely entertainment. Politicians sponsor commercials with no real value; education is based on brightly colored television programs; religion becomes an almost laughable show to view at home. News has turned from serious topics to celebrity life and throwaway stories, such as the “Onion”-ized bear-in-yard story. Laptops are used less for vital subjects and more for keeping up with what friends are doing on the web, and smartphones are for playing games and taking photographs of everything every day. Screen media may have had the possibility to become “fully informed, appropriate technology,” but it has become an entertaining commodity in modern American culture. It is neither informed or appropriate when put in relation to Postman's information-action ratio, where information is given without proper relevant information. Screen media is concerned more with keeping people occupied, thus gaining attention to sell or promote, rather than help inform.
Based on Postman’s analysis in Amusing Ourselves to Death and my own experience with the various types of screen, I don’t believe that screen media meets the criteria for a “fully informed, appropriate technology.” When looking at the questions, each one could be answered in a variety of different ways for the different mediums. I think that alone shows that it doesn’t exactly meet the criteria. These screens are used for so many different things; depending on what you use your smartphone for or what you use your computer for makes all the difference. My dad, for instance, only uses his phone to communicate with his friends and family across the country. With me being away at school, my brother living in his own apartment, and my grandma recently moving to Florida, this piece of technology is incredibly important. I, on the other hand, rarely even use my phone to make actual phone calls. I spend most of my time texting, checking Twitter, sending emails, and using it basically as an extension of my own body. This isn’t healthy and to answer question number three, it definitely has imposed a permanent, rigid, irreversible imprint on me and many other people my age. We’re so accustomed to having these pieces of technology that it seems almost impossible to live without them. In the end, though, none of these pieces of technology are actually vital to our survival. If we got rid of all the computers, tablets, televisions, smartphones, etc., we’d still be here. Things would be much different, but we’d survive. Maybe then we’d actually adhere to the principles of deep ecology and realize that the nature around us isn’t actually there for us. In order to understand deep ecology and experience the true beauty of nature, we’d all have to put our smartphones down, step away from the computer, and turn off the television. It’s like we were talking about in class – Sometimes we all just need to stop, look around, and realize where we are.
Postman talks a lot about how the media, which ultimately boils down to these screen medias, take it upon themselves to make entertaining their main focus. Therefore they’re not really “informed” pieces of technology. They’re main function is no longer to inform us of anything. They’re simply there to entertain. When I find myself bored, I turn on the TV or go on my laptop or check my phone. It’s just the natural thing for me to do. What’s even worse is, I’m already on a computer a majority of the time, so when I’m bored with that? I’ll switch to another screen media for entertainment. It’s a vicious cycle that definitely has us all in a loop. And yet, just like Klosterman said in his essay, we're not going to stop. We’re too hooked and too caught up on all of these forms of media that we no longer control them. They control us.
Throughout the course of this class and our focus on Amusing Ourselves to Death, I think it is quite obvious that screen technology such as laptops, smart phones, tablets etc. does not give our population adequate, accurate information and knowledge. The entire thesis of the book pertains to technology and media and how its main purpose is to entertain us, if we are no longer entertained than we aren’t going to care about the information sent out to us. This aspect of entertainment embedded in the information that we seek out by no means meets the criteria for a fully informed and appropriate technology. I guess I would be a pretty good example of why technology only entertains and rarely fully informs us. I own a smart phone, a laptop, an ipod and an ipad and I will be the first to admit that it is entirely unnecessary but it is fueling my need for entertainment. I find myself getting bored on my phone and switching over to my laptop, when that gets boring Ill take out my Ipad. This is the first time I’ve truly noticed that each one of these medias are exactly the same and accomplish the same things I want out of technology. I also find myself using my phone for only entertainment, I check social media sites constantly or I’m texting. To be honest, I am hardly using my technology for anything other than sole entertainment; as soon as I get bored I hop right over to my next medium.
Another aspect of technology that I find interesting is that we all feel like it is something we can’t live without. I find myself getting nervous when my phone is about to die, but for what reason? I might miss a text? I might miss the newest tweet from one of my friends I will most likely see within the day? It really doesn’t make any sense because we have the feeling like we NEED technology but in reality we do not need it for survival. If there wasn’t technology the world would still be turning, nature would still be thriving and we would all continue on with our lives. However, keeping up with technology has become a social norm in our culture. It has become a cultural phenomenon to get the latest version of every piece of technology and if someone wishes to refrain from this movement, they well definitely be out casted within society. For example, I had a friend that didn’t have a smart phone up until about a month ago and she was definitely out of the loop. Our friends would talk about instagram pictures, tweets, youtube video etc. and she would have no idea what is going on. She was definitely out casted a little, which is why I think technology is only essential to our survival on a social level.
1) While many seem to consider the social connections made constant by technology to be vital, it is possible to live without them. The screen isn’t needed for sleep or sustenance.
2) Non-experts will initially have difficulty understanding screen-technology. It took me three class periods this semester to figure out how to turn on a Mac computer and much longer to check my voicemail on my first smartphone.
3) There is no longer a high degree of flexibility because of the way the screen has become ubiquitous in our culture. Television has spoiled our minds into a needing constant entertainment that we feel dissonant without. Smartphones and computers have only made this worse by serving as interactive media that compensate for lack of social interaction that comes with over indulging in screen technology. We cannot abandon the technology as a society because it is now a standard for living to have a screen in our pockets. Even the homeless seem to value them over shelter because they hold the key to financial opportunity.
4) Centralized authority rests with the corporations that own all the other corporations. Time Warner, Disney and a handful of businesses dictate what entertainment we receive, and our dependency on it makes us helpless to refuse. There is no autonomy in interactive media, despite popular belief. There is only expression within the capacity given to you by the medium.
5) Sunsets become pixels and any sense of respect for the world disappears when our sense of being is recognized as a digital entity more than a physical one. People constantly lose their surroundings for their time in the screen; hence all of the car-crashes.
6) Individuality can only be expressed within the given capacity of the medium and if it is not done so, one loses many opportunities for social nods that drop one to the lowest caste of the digitized hierarchy.
7) People do think like machines more now. If one does not know something, the information is retrieved. There is no more exploration. There is only Google maps. Our language has essentially become binary thanks to instant messaging becoming more instant through th elimin of lttrs.
The criteria for a fully informed, appropriate technology have not been met. The technology seems to use us more than we use it.
In my opinion, I think that screen media does not provide the audience with fully informed and appropriate technology. I've come to learn that little one sees on the news on the television or your laptop or whatever is really what is says. Little is actually 100% true or what really happened. A lot of the media we see on television and in other forms of media are put there by people that want to push a subject. So it is difficult to be fully informed with the screen media that we have come across in this day and age. Nothing about screen media is vital to the survival of human. We can move on without seeing the evening news or checking our laptops for news. Although phones can be useful for the fact that people need to keep in touch with loved ones and family members, they also pose some detrimental habits as well. One's phone is the home for everything a person needs from every form of social media you can think of, to playing the music you want. People get so caught up in their phones it is unhealthy and I think the parody video we watched in class is no exaggeration. This is a problem with people not understanding deep ecology. People think that nature is for us and they take it for granted. The vast majority of people are too busy taking pictures and using their smartphones to realize the true beauty of nature and to really appreciate it.
Let me begin with a quote from Postman, “In any case, the point I am trying to make is that only through a deep and unfailing awareness of the structure and effects on information, through a demystification of media, is there any hope of our gaining some measure of control over television, or the computer, or any other medium.” I think the answer is no. And this also applies - through my experience asking if the media meets the criteria for a “fully informed, appropriate technology.”, no. This is a problem. Especially when applied to the concepts of Deep Ecology. Technology does not enhance nature nor does it bring us together, it does the complete opposite. I am going to answer the seven questions “Questioning Technology” and apply it through my smart phone for example.
1. Does this technological device serve vital needs? I like to think it does. I like many of its functions, like the telephone part.
2. Is this device or system of the sort that can be immediately understood by nonexperts? Well my Grandma refuses to have anything to do with my smart phone. I guess she is “antiprogressive”. But she texts, which I think is pretty cool and funny. LOL (lots of love)
3. Does it have a high degree of flexibility and mutability or does it impose a permanent, rigid, irreversible imprint on the lives of citizens? Yes it does have flexibility and mutability because there is a new Apple product frequently. Yes there is a permanent imprint on our lives; my phone is forever attached to my hip.
4. Does this technological device or system foster greater autonomy of local communities or greater dependency on some centralized “authority”? I would like to think it helps me stay connected, but maybe it is because I am just helping the federal government paint a better picture of myself.
5. Is this device or system ecologically destructive or conductive to a deep ecology way of life? YES. We live in a “throw-away society” my phone is made to be discarded; I gotta keep playing the “game” in order to be the cool kid on the block.
6. Does this device or system enhance the individuality of persons or does it lead to bureaucratic hierarchies? My phone does not enhance me as an individual, my phone shows me how happy I should be, which sometimes makes me feel shitty. I am only a reflection of what I see through media.
7. Does this device or system encourage people to behave and think like machines? It is confirmed when I accidently bump into someone when walking and texting. Didn’t even see the toilet paper trailing from my shoe.
I believe that if this were a survey conducted through the consumers of our screen culture, I predict that the results would be troubling because it will appear that no one is well informed with our current politics, religions, education, etc. Frankly people were more tuned into the season finale of Breaking Bad, than tuning in about the current shut down of our own government. Oops I guess no one cares about experiencing nature at National Parks anyway. That is because technology neutralizes, it no longer impacts. We as humans are not worthy of the sacred fruit Mother Earth has given us. Shame on us.
“Screen media,” including computers, smartphones, televisions and other devices, are seen as the answer to every problem. Whenever a teacher needs to demonstrate a subject in a classroom, now they have the internet at their fingertips and project the screen to the class. Even though this increased amount of accessibility to information can be helpful, especially in a classroom-like setting, I do not think this media meets the criteria Bill Devall and George Sessions have for a “fully informed, appropriate technology.”
In Deep Ecology, Devall and Sessions say this is “a meeting ground of ethics, politics, mechanical understanding and deep ecological consciousness.” In reality, screen media is not there to inform us, but rather to entertain us, as Postman points out multiple times.
Using my smartphone as a screen media example, there may be some ethics and politics on the internet that I have access to via my phone, but the first thing I do when I pick up my phone is check Facebook, not try to learn more about the environment. Even though I am considered the “recycle queen” in my residence hall, screen technology has not pushed me to stay constantly informed as much as to stay constantly connected. Screen media does not meet the criteria presented for Deep Ecology’s “fully informed, appropriate technology.” It does not serve vital needs and it does not foster local communities, but rather creates a greater dependency on some centralized authority (i.e. Disney).
Based on Postman’s analysis in Amusing Ourselves and my own experience, screen media (such as televisions, computers, smart phones, tablets, etc.) do not meet the criteria for a “fully informed, appropriate technology”. According to Devall and Sessions, we need technology that’s “compatible with the growth of autonomous, self-determining individuals in nonhierarchical communities”. However, the technology we have in the form of screen media does not foster the growth of autonomous individuals as no one questions it (very little of what the public is told in the media is 100% real, yet everyone believes it anyway).
Devall and Sessions, in urging the public to question media, also put forth a set of questions that should be asked of any “technological device or system”, one being “does this technological device serve vital needs?” (the screen media clearly do not). Another one of the questions is “does this device or system encourage people to behave and think like machines?”. I thoroughly believe the screen media is encouraging this; After all, look at how many people text while out with friends, family, etc. People can’t even have real relationship with another person without bridging the connection with an smart phone and people are constantly getting their phones out to take pictures of wherever they are instead of just basking in the moment.
"Screen media" or technology on screens such as portables devices, laptops, and televisions have not aided in a fully informed society. While these technologies, if used properly can be helpful in many ways, the average person uses them merely for entertainment. I own a smartphone, laptop, and iPad and I’m not sure if I use any of them to their fullest potential or as they were designed to be used. The fact the technology is so readily available to any person of any age means that there are more and more people improperly using it for means of just entertainment rather than of information gathering or education. The fact that people are constantly connected to some type of electronic media and losing touch with the outside world is what both “Deep Ecology” and Postman’s book are trying to point out. I believe that if we continue on this track we could potentially one day be the ones being controlled rather than us doing the controlling. Screen media has become such a part of our daily lives that we would not even notice the slow (and current) progression into losing total control of ourselves as human beings.
After reading Postman and taking into account my personal experience with screen technology -how it affects myself, my peers, the human race in general, and more importantly the ecology of intertwined species on this planet- my answer (for screen technology) to all of the Deep Ecology and ethical questions posed in the reading is: NO.
The proliferation of screen technology was never essential or ecologically sound.(We are just spreading Prometheus's fire all around until were completely engulfed in flames.) Also, the media saturation that screen culture provides hinders true autonomy by building ostensibly wider content, but actually thinner, narrowing margins of thought and possibility. In our hyper-capitalist society, the economics of the internet and television are too susceptible to the vices of human nature (amusing ourselves to death) which drive content. For the sake of profit media owners give people what people want (or are persuaded to think they want), but not what they need. We start to think in terms of only what is provided; We don't think out side of the box(or the new paper-thin HD for that matter). Nowadays, the pressure to keep up with exponentially more complex tech causes perpetual consumption.We maybe warm for now but eventually we will start to feel the burns.
It's difficult to opt out of being wired-in. Last year I deleted my Facebook account for a large number reasons, but mainly because (this may sound strange but its how I feel) I only want to be me where I am, here, in the present. I am not a facebook page. I have too much of a fluctuating personality and set of ideas at 22 years old and Id rather not have this rigid unrealistic representation of me for people to digest at all hours online. I like to be mostly anonymous and autonomous unless I share my presence and identity with people in real life. Call it what you will.
This summer I had to recreate a Facebook page in order to promote a benefit concert. The name is not my real name and I tried to keep it as simple and low key as possible. This has proved to be extremely difficult as friends and others find me, tag me in pictures- they've already provided just enough content for Facebook's complex algorithms to know where I live and what I do.
I think Postman would agree with me when I saw that the portable screens we are surrounded with every day to not meet the criteria for “fully informed, appropriate technology,” as outlined in the Deep Ecology piece. As stated in the piece, this idea of “technology will solve all problems,” is definitely an issue Postman addresses when concluding that modern day technology is itself a problem cloaked in the appearance of being a solution, that in turn only makes the problem greater. That concept further emphasizes how television and computers now, and our dependency on screens, is not as necessary as we believe. While on the surface one would agree that these questions are applicable to our relationship with technology, it is clear they are not, especially after reading Postman.
The first question they propose is that the technology up for discussion might serve vital need. As far as I’m concerned, vital means life, and in no way does our technology provide us with information that, if it became obsolete, would be detrimental to our lives or ability to live. Second, I’m the first to admit that these “devices” we use are not easily understood by non experts, a.k.a me. I find learning how to operate machines of any sort nauseating, and if something is so “vital” to our lives, it shouldn’t be so difficult to understand. Thirdly, does it have a high degree of flexibility or is it permanent or rigid, providing an irreversible imprint on the lives of citizens? I think modern technology attempts to have both, leave a lasting impression while being flexible while making an impact. Does it achieve this? I think that depends on your view of what flexibility is and how valuable it is, but I would say technology’s ability to be flexible does not aid in in providing a lasting impact, which I believe is what the information technology should convey, should do. Fourthly, our screen culture does in no way foster a greater autonomy of local community. If anything, I think it promotes separation within communities and encourages people to notice and emphasize their differences from one another. In the same way, I would not say current technology is conducive to a deep ecology way of life, for the one thing it does promote over everything else is consumerism, allowing us to forget our relationship with others or our world and only focus on the “relationship” one has with their machines, being to many, what they are experiencing through these machines is the real world. In the same vein as the last two points, a certain hierarchy is created because of this, promoting niches of particular people through use of technology that claims to bring us together. And number seven, does this device encourage people to behave and think like machines? I think it does, just because the information these machines provide are the only places people are obtaining their information and values, so people have no other choice than to regurgitate what the machines are telling them.
I don’t think that screen media meet the criteria for a fully informed, appropriate technology because screen media is fueled by ads, funding, and public interest (ratings). My interpretation of the term “fully informed, appropriate technology” is media that is fully researched, reviewed, and sound, important and beneficial, with the public’s best interest in mind. Screens, whether it be TV or computers, are loaded with advertisements through commercials and “pay per click” ads. Many blogs are filled with ads as well as social media sites, email accounts, and online newspapers. And as far as TV, mostly every channel is some sort of entertainment.
I think part of the reason why media is becoming more and more entertainment based rather than informative is because time seems to be moving faster (which can be blamed partly on the media). Digital media, both on computers and television moves fast and is focused on keeping attention but also keeping up with the attention span of its audience. Computer ads rotate. TV has commercials every 8 to 10 minutes. Everything is segmented, as Postman explains. And honestly, I believe that the general attitude of the media is that they cannot accomplish anything in segments. So they entertain. Entertainment pays the bills and wins awards and goes down in history.
Screen media can never be fully informed, appropriate technology because of the current status quo. Time is moving too fast.
I believe screen media as it exists now does not fit the criteria of creating an informed society that is autonomous of hierarchies. It is becoming apparent that we have gotten so good at technological development that it increases far faster than our social maturity. We get more technology than we can efficiently and properly use. This holds true when we notice that some of the greatest humanitarian discoveries have occurred as mistakes when developing a product which was supposed to be used for entertainment. I do believe this screen technology could have some very necessary uses to make society function better, we just haven't grown quite enough to understand the social responsibility attached to these devices and lifestyles. Currently though this technology has been bastardized by the climate surrounding the exchange of information and facilitation of communication.
1. No. Democratic societies have been able to function (arguably better) without screen technology. Screens certainly make information more accessible and plentiful, but the quantity increase is met with a decrease in quality. In typographic cultures, discourse is more serious because it has the space and time to be serious.
2. No. Anyone with a family member over 40 knows that screen technology is not easily understood by people who have not grown up with it. And even people who have probably couldn’t tell you how the technology technically works.
3. There is almost no flexibility. Screen technology is the status quo for media consumption, and as a result this “dumbed down” technology has a permanent and negative effect on society (quality of public discourse, differentiating between entertainment and serious, etc.).
4. Screen technology fosters a greater dependence on a centralized authority (see: News Corporation). I get most of my news from the New York Times, a newspaper 200 miles away from my home. I don’t have a well-informed view of New Paltz or the town I live in.
5. Ecologically destructive. You pretty much summed it up: consumerism. Everything seems to be an advertisement, and it is increasingly intrusive. Information tracking has made it possible for businesses to selectively target people more likely to buy their product. Attention spans are becoming shorter and people are less interested in human-to-human interaction as well.
6. Bureaucratic hierarchies result from an oligarchy in media. The flow of all media is controlled by a relatively small amount of people.
7. Screen technology encourages people to behave and think like machines. We don’t really learn and remember anymore—all that stuff’s online, far off in “the cloud.”
Just in its nature, screen media consisting of phones, televisions and computers, falls far short of being a form of technology that is fully informed. While they may give the pretense of creating an informed public, Postman repeatedly points out that their true purpose is to entertain. Sure, they have some functions that do inform, but this informative nature is hidden far beneath the designed entertainment functions. As Postman highlights numerous times, entertainment drives our society and economy. So, as a marketed good, any form of screen media is designed to entertain first, and needs to be like this simply to ensure that the public will continue to buy the product.
I can see this as I use my tablet that I purchased to make school work easier. Sure, I can download PowerPoint presentations, articles, and other educational tools such as the blackboard app. However, the temptation is always there to open the candycrush app, or some other game, that always seems to make their way onto the screen. My point is that even though I purchased this technology with educational uses in mind, I also avoided models that did not allow me to easily use the tablet for entertainment uses. It is this reason that shows tablets, and almost all other screen media of the like, cannot be considered a “fully informed” technology as defined by Devall and Sessions.
There is nothing vital about screen technology that couldn't be replaced by a non-alienating print version. It has permeated its way into the medical profession, replaced law clerks, and "streamlined" technological processes. The cost has been a dumbing down of those professions, increasing the amount of knowledge we store externally. A fully informed technology would benefit those that it served, not hinder them. If anything, screen technology is counter to deep ecology's belief in living with the world instead of off of it. The rare-earth metals dug up for smartphones are becoming as valuable as gold, and we are destroying the earth, stripmining the land to get at them.
Post a Comment