From all the insights and thoughts that this course has generated, the biggest one that I've picked up on is the 'double edged blade-ness' of digital technology. Luke's first lecture discussed the power of technology, and how different sects/different people respond to it. With the conclusion of this course, it is hard to narrow in and identify as being either this or that; Amish or Transhumanist; Luddite or Futurist. Like all things, techno-culture has many positive aspects, but it has its limitations too.
Key ideas of democracy and equality are heavily contested in regards to blogs, gatekeepers, music and even user identity. The persona that the net is given of being open and free-for-all is usually taken for granted by a lot of people (I know as I was one of them), but this is a key limitation to the internet. DVD's may seem like a boundless disc of movement and interaction, and actually do evoke participation between fans and special features, but again we can find this is restricted, and know that it is restricted because of production costs and profits. Mobile phones and Mp3 players do link various people together, but they can also produce an unsociable behavior for those who use them. Public and private spheres are becoming more blurred and the 'individual man of print' is becoming more 'tribal and common'.
Having said all this though, the value of all these pieces of technology is too numerous to mention. The information learnt and the people I have met on the internet; the long nights I have spent watching out-takes and deleted scenes on DVD's; and the fact that I have owned more than one mobile phone and reguarly use my MP3 player on the bus to and from school, all point to the hypocrisy of this post. However, the point of this post wasn't to run techno-culture down, it was to explain the 'two sided-ness' of technology that I have learnt from this paper. I can't really see myself as living in an Amish community, or going back to the industrial revolution and smashing up machines with the original Luddites, but I can see why they would want to resist technology. The power that it holds has transformed humans, society and the world since its creation, and will continue to do so well into the future.
Key ideas of democracy and equality are heavily contested in regards to blogs, gatekeepers, music and even user identity. The persona that the net is given of being open and free-for-all is usually taken for granted by a lot of people (I know as I was one of them), but this is a key limitation to the internet. DVD's may seem like a boundless disc of movement and interaction, and actually do evoke participation between fans and special features, but again we can find this is restricted, and know that it is restricted because of production costs and profits. Mobile phones and Mp3 players do link various people together, but they can also produce an unsociable behavior for those who use them. Public and private spheres are becoming more blurred and the 'individual man of print' is becoming more 'tribal and common'.
Having said all this though, the value of all these pieces of technology is too numerous to mention. The information learnt and the people I have met on the internet; the long nights I have spent watching out-takes and deleted scenes on DVD's; and the fact that I have owned more than one mobile phone and reguarly use my MP3 player on the bus to and from school, all point to the hypocrisy of this post. However, the point of this post wasn't to run techno-culture down, it was to explain the 'two sided-ness' of technology that I have learnt from this paper. I can't really see myself as living in an Amish community, or going back to the industrial revolution and smashing up machines with the original Luddites, but I can see why they would want to resist technology. The power that it holds has transformed humans, society and the world since its creation, and will continue to do so well into the future.
posted by Anonymous at 10:45 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home