Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century
ISSN: 1064-4326
July 1998 - Volume 6, Number 1-2
|
|
|
|
Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century ISSN: 1064-4326 July 1998 - Volume 6, Number 1-2 |
|
ABSTRACT
This is a book about the evolution of digital media, from the alphabet to contemporary computer-mediated communication and education. Levinson takes an optimistic position on technology, and favors a laissez-faire approach to media regulation.
INTRODUCTION:
It is refreshing to read a book that begins with the premise that technology is natural. Critics of technology characterized by a traditionalist outlook generally argue that technology diminishes humanity by replacing the natural with the artificial. Critics who take a neo-Marxist or cultural studies approach argue that both the technological and what we believe to be the natural are in fact artificial constructs, biased in favor of those who own the means of construction. Some in the cultural studies camp, including many postmodernists, celebrate rather than denigrate the artificiality of it all, while more traditional technology boosters simply sing the song of invention's triumph over nature. Levinson's point of view, that technological development can be read as a "natural history" much the same as biological development, immediately sets his brand of technoptimism off from the fairly facile arguments of Nicholas Negroponte, George Gilder, and Marvin Minsky. Instead, Levinson follows in the tradition of Lewis Mumford, who long ago noted that bird nests, beaver dams, and bee hives are examples of a natural technology much more sophisticated than anything produced by early human beings.
In his preface Levinson identifies four authors whose work has been especially influential for him. One is Donald T. Campbell, the evolutionary theorist to whom Levinson dedicates his book. And Levinson's natural history is indeed rooted in evolutionary theory as applied to media, culture, and technology. In this, The Soft Edge continues the line of exploration opened up in Levinson's Mind At Large (1988), in a number of his essays printed in Electronic Chronicles (1992) and Learning Cyberspace (1995), and in the Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, which he edits. Levinson's theory of media evolution is identified as anthropotropic: As media evolve they move from a state of greater artificiality to one of greater naturalness, that is, a state that more closely approximates nonmediated experience. For example, movies evolve from silent to sound, and from black and white to color, the resulting experience becoming increasingly more realistic. Put another way, Levinson implies that media evolution moves in the direction of virtual reality. Rather than arguing from a perspective of technological determinism, Levinson contends that human beings wield the power of natural selection, acting as the environment to which technology must adapt. We therefore select talkies over silents because talkies seem more real to us than silent pictures. Silent movies are artificial insofar as for most people the sense of hearing is always present, we can never turn off our sense of hearing; that is why the silents become extinct shortly after the introduction of the soundtrack. This can be compared to the case of broadcasting, where television's displacement of radio parallels what happened to the motion picture. Unlike the silents, however, radio found a new niche, and continues to thrive to this day. What accounts for this difference? According to Levinson, radio is more natural than silent film, because we are capable of hearing without seeing, for example when our eyes are closed.
This explanatory power is one of the attractions of his theory, (and he has some ideas about future evolutionary directions), which he associates with a soft media determinism. It is a determinism tempered by the power of human agency. In this, Levinson incorporates the arguments of another of his key influences, the philosopher Karl Popper (previously, he edited a volume of essays on Popper, In Pursuit of Truth, 1982). In particular, Levinson emphasizes the potential of human rationalism, our capacity to review, criticize, and revise. Hence, the appearance of what he terms "remedial media," media designed to work with and overcome the inadequacies of pre-existing media. Thus, for example, while television confers many advantages, it lacks any storage capability, leaving a niche open for videotape as a remedial medium. Window shades perform the same function for the medium of the window, solving the problem of privacy while not interfering with the window's capacity to provide light and fresh air.
As much as Levinson writes with Campbell, Popper, Asimov, and McLuhan, he writes against several other authors such as Jacques Ellul and especially Neil Postman. Indeed, The Soft Edge would make for a good match with Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death for instructors looking for pro and con views on electronic media. Thus, while Postman sees the electronic media as the enemy of the book, Levinson counters that electricity has enhanced the written word in a variety of ways, from the extended reading hours provided by the lightbulb, to the speedy dissemination of written messages through the telegraph, to the more recent extensions such as word processing, e-mail, and hypertext. Levinson's enthusiasm for the information revolution is related to his personal experience with these technologies: He is the president and founder of Connected Education, a company that has pioneered graduate education through the Internet. As an academic turned entrepreneur, he has a vested interest in the new media, and he speaks with passion and conviction in their defense.
Unlike many other theorists such as Marshall McLuhan, Levinson links his philosophical position to a concrete political stance in relation to media: he is an advocate of the First Amendment. Not only does he take on the Communications Decency Act, but the regulation of broadcasting itself. From Levinson's perspective, there is no justification for treating electronic media differently than print media, and doing so has made radio and television particularly vulnerable to government manipulation. In keeping with this position, Levinson is critical of the V-chip and other government attempts to protect children from offensive television and Internet content. He even frowns on the government interference that uncovered the fact that television quiz shows were fixed during the fifties, and that brought to light the payola system in radio during the same era. He is opposed to all forms of media gatekeeping, which he sees as unfortunate but unavoidable for print media (the publisher is the gatekeeper), now become counter-Darwinian in the electronic era (anyone can be a publisher on the Web). I applaud Levinson's incorporation of the political dimension into his analysis, even though I do not agree with many of the positions he takes. I would suggest caution, however, when applying evolutionary theory to political and economic practice. The potential for misuse, for example Social Darwinism's legitimation of capitalist abuses, is frightening. In recent years, the evolutionary focus of complexity theory has been used to justify free market systems, an idea that seems consistent with Levinson's approach. The problem with this argument is that it is based on a longstanding bias that capitalism is somehow more natural than other systems. But why? Could we not understand socialism or communism as emerging naturally out of environmental pressures and evolutionary forces, much the same as the social organization of ants or bees? Does not human evolution lead to cooperation as much as it does competition? Along the same lines, why should gatekeeping or censorship be any more counter- Darwinian that the First Amendment? Aren't they all a part of humanity's natural selection of technology? And, after all, DNA has its own system of gatekeeping and censorship, editing out certain chromosomes that have become too mutated or heretical. Moreover, Levinson makes one exception to his argument for freedom of information, coming down in favor of intellectual property rights (in the form of electronic watermarks). As an author, Levinson clearly has a stake here, but how does this fit in with the rest of his Darwinian perspective? Why wouldn't charging for information be any less counter-Darwinian than gatekeeping and censorship? Again, I am glad that Levinson tried to bridge the gap between politics and philosophy, and the end-product of this effort is certainly provocative.
In conclusion, Paul Levinson is a rare bird among writers on the new media, a thoughtful technoptimist. Individuals who agree with Levinson's outlook should read his book to deepen their understanding of the advantages of the new media, to better understand how the new media came to be, and to get a handle on where they might be going in the future. Others who take a more pessimistic view of technology should read this book for the quality of its insights, and to test their perspective against a valid opposing voice. Educators wanting to learn more about new educational technologies will find this book valuable. And whatever the point of view, The Soft Edge provides a missing link in our understanding of technological evolution and the information revolution.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES
Lance Strate, Ph.D. is Associate Professor
and the Chair of the Communication and Media Studies Department
at Fordham University. He is one of the co-editors of Communication
and Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an Electronic Environment
(1996, Hampton Press) and the supervisory editor of Hampton Press's
Media Ecology Content Area Series. Currently he is working on
a book on media theory entitled Understanding Media Ecology.
Email: strate@murray.fordham.edu
|
Copyright Statement Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the 21st Century © 1998 The Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Copyright of individual articles in this publication is retained by the individual authors. Copyright of the compilation as a whole is held by AECT. It is asked that any republication of this article state that the article was first published in IPCT-J. Contributions to IPCT-J can be submitted by electronic mail in APA style to: Susan Barnes, Editor |