September 2014 archive
This week’s text by Andrew Murphie and John Potts revolves around the different perspectives of how the technology affects culture. To set my view in context, here’s the background you need to know:
- ‘Technological determinism refers to the belief that technology is the agent of social change.
- Technological determinism tends to consider technology as an independent factor, with its own properties, its own course of development, and its own consequences.
- Technical innovation will generate a new type of society’
I find it very surprising that anyone could assume an entirely technologically determinist view when it excludes so many factors that can contribute to cultural change.
It should first be made aware that technological innovation is usually firstly instigated by a demand and/or desire from society, or as inspired by something that already exists. When you think about it, each new technology that we use today is basically a ‘new and improved’ derivative of something that is pre-existing and used. If a product or it’s particular features prove to be successful amongst the public, this in itself indicates to innovators that a market already exists for the idea. Innovators would surely then undertake extensive market research in order to predict if their proposed product has the potential to take off. They must assess what features and trends are successful on other platforms and consider the wants, needs and changing relationships that consumers have with technology.
With this is mind, it is already clear that society and culture essentially drive the innovation of new technology. Whilst I don’t deny that once products can have an influence over a culture once they become available, it is important to note that technological development is fuelled by their behaviour in the first place. I feel like this factor pretty much rules out the technologically determinist view all together, as you can always trace the evolution technology back to society. Technological determinists seriously need to consider the fact that technology is not just changing us, but we are changing technology.
It is no secret that individual privacy is not what it used to be. Whilst intrusions into personal space and physical belongings remain as issues in today’s society, modern digital technology has opened a multitude of doors to make privacy invasion even easier. As Evan points out, our privacy is no longer protected even when on the commute, as public mobile phone conversations can reveal personal information to nearby eavesdroppers. Is reasonable, however, to consider situations such as these as an invasion of privacy when the information is made public by the ‘stalkee’ themselves?
Social media is probably the greatest and most controversial factor in this area. Users may post or feature in content that, dependent on their given privacy settings, may unintentionally become available to the wider public’s eye. It should also be noted that once content is out there, you can not always trust and rely on the delete button. Just because you’ve erased something from your site, does not mean it has been eliminated from the Internet all together, OR from a strangers hard drive, for that matter (creepy I know, but it can happen).
Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter make it extraordinarily easy for anyone to access your content. In my personal instance, being no ‘Smith’ and having a unique surname makes me even more identifiable on the net. Being merely one of two Laura Doguet’s of Facebook, I must be extremely wary of what I post as future employers, or anyone else on a mission out to sus me out, don’t have to go to much effort to track me down. Therefore, I must be mindful of any material that could potentially be detrimental to me socially and/or professionally later down the track. In saying this, the same applies to anyone, regardless of the commonness of his or her second name.
I want to stress that I’m not saying you must curl up in the ball in the corner and stay away from the Internet all together, but we simply need to be careful. We must all be mindful about how we represent ourselves online – both in a visual and literary format – as you can never be sure what might come back and bite you later on. We can not blame others for invading our privacy when it is our own actions that have lead to the content becoming visible to their eye. So the next time you think about posting a racey photo on Facebook, an abusive subtweet on Twitter or paying a bill over the telephone whilst on a train, for your own good, I’d advise you to think again!
I know I’m not the only one who’s a sucker for reality TV shows. Something about them is frustratingly addicting, whether it be the characters you love to hate, the over-dramatisation of EVERYTHING or the desire to know who will be eliminated and who will win. Right now in fact I’m trying excruciatingly hard to sit down and blog instead of succumbing to the realms of X Factor, my not so guilty pleasure of the moment.
…Oops, I gave into temptation. X Factor just finished but I am back! Reigan Derry for the win guys!
Back on topic. So recently I tuned into the ABC’s Reality Check, which gives viewers an insight into what really goes down in the production of reality TV. Host Tom Ballard and a panel of industry experts analyse current and past programs and the reveal the secrets of their make up. The show really appealed to me as being a fan of the genre myself, it was interesting to gain insight into the perspectives of those involved in the production process.
One of the topics of discussion of last week’s episode was the representation of culture on Australian’s TV screens. In this case, the panel discussed the tendency of producers to either undermine or exploit the multiculturalism that exists within our nation. Whilst shows like X Factor and The Voice tend to feature competitors of a range of ethnic backgrounds, others such as The Block have a track record of an exclusively Ango-centric cast. In what appears to be an attempt to solve the issue noted by many, it is likely that their culturally rich Sydney couple Chris and Jenna intend to challenge the stereotype. Reality Check showed a controversial clip from The Block introducing the mixed-race couple, in which the pair were literally labelled (can’t find a visual, but it involved on-screen text and arrows) with their cultural background.
Way not to be subtle, Channel Nine! I respect that they are branching out and attempting to showcase a more realistic sample of our multicultural society, but I’m not sure if this was the right way to go about it. The debate is never ending however as there seems to be a fine line between cultural diversity and racism on our screens.
Nonetheless, Reality Check is definitely worth a watch. Check it out on ABC iview here.
For weeks now we have been exploring the theory and practice of hypertext: its origin, evolution, affordances and limitations. This week’s reading by Jane Yellowlees Douglas raises yet another new aspect of the medium to consider – that is, hypertext fiction.
As we have established in previous lectures and readings, traditional print texts contain a sequential, linear narrative, encompassing a defined beginning, middle and end, and generally the author intends for the story to be interpreted in one single way. Conversely, hypertext narratives, according to Douglas, consist of discrete segments of text (in the form of pages, sites or windows) which are associated by links. The ‘reader’ is active in that they have control over which path to take, and much of their understanding comes from the relationship between the segments of text they have chosen. No user experience is the same, and up to hundreds of possible versions of the text are inevitably created.
Interestingly, the text was written in 2000 and revolves around Douglas queries’ about the usage rates of print and hypertext fiction in the future. The way hypertext fiction was discussed about made it seem as though it was the next ‘big thing,’ not necessarily ruling books out of the picture, but certainly increasing in popularity. This left me a bit confused however, as I don’t think I had ever ‘read’ a traditional hypertext fiction myself. Thus, I deemed it necessary to jump on that bandwagon, and experience the unknown in order to give me a better understanding. I attempted to find the renowned ‘afternoon, a story,’ by Michael Joyce, but failed to find a version compatible with my computer. I branched out in searching for a hypertext fiction of any kind, but again didn’t have much luck. Instead, I came across the following article:
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/04/return_of_hypertext/
Author, Paul La Farge, discusses how and why the hypertext fiction did not find it’s place in society, with the last piece to be found have being published back in 2001. Perhaps it was ‘born into a world that wasn’t quite ready for it,’ or maybe it was found to be too difficult for authors to compose.
Assuming this information is accurate (however I’m sure Adrian will correct me if misinformed), many of Douglas’s interactive narrative based theories are now outdated. Whilst it sounded like an scheme with serious potential, it is interesting to see how some ideas seem to fail to launch. This is not to say however that hypertext in other forms was unsuccessful – I am purely considering it with this style of hypertext fiction in mind. No hate!
Although not directly related to the presented question, Adrian’s venture into the shape and form of hypertext was particularly memorable. This point took me back to good ol’ symposium two – yes, that one with that frustratingly slow yet effective book example. At that time, I found the concept of the Internet as a medium without beginnings and ends somewhat unclear. The issue here was that I was not considering the Internet as a hypertext system, and instead was more so focused on the content that it contains. My understanding however has since changed after the multitude of lectures and readings revolving around this previously foreign notion.
I often start on a webpage of one kind, end up somewhere completely new and wonder how I got there. This, is the power of hypertext.
Hypertext forms the structure of the world wide web as we know it, enabling users to click from one hyperlink to the next as they ‘surf’ the net. The underlying complexity of the system allows for an interactive user experience, offering users the choice of which online path to take out of billions of possibilities. There is no formulaic approach saying that you must start on Google and end up on Wikipedia; no standardised beginnings and endings. Contrastingly to the static form of print literacy, the user of hypertext is free to make it up entirely for themselves as no page numbers exist to guide their journey. As Adrian put it, media online has no edges or endings. As I like the put it, the hypertext is metaphorically a ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ book on steroids.
Keeping it short, sweet and straight to the point.
