As I ploughed through the various and highly different ideas in this week’s readings on the functions of media ecology and how the media ecology functions itself, the same question continued to pop into my mind.
At its simplest I was informed “media ecology can be defined as ‘the study of media environments, the idea that technology and techniques, modes of information and codes of communication play a leading role in human affairs’” (Strate 1999). So the media ecology is the interactions and connections of media outlets, forms and content and their impact on us as humans, contemplated and analysed in the form of an environment/ecology. To me thinking of machinations of media in this way allows us to better grasp the (often very difficult to understand) concepts raised.
But this definition also served to raise my big question: where is the impact of humans on the ecology? Should we just be considering the media ecology as the impacts of media on us and our interaction with it? Or should we be asking how do human decisions, relationships and (most vitally in the present day) networks shape the media and the ecology it operates within?
In his definition of media ecology, Neil Postman writes media ecology “tries to find the roles the media force us to play, how media structures what we are seeing, why media makes us feel and act the way we do” (Postman 1970) But an analysis of these factors cannot be achieved without first contemplating the role of people in shaping the media itself. Not simply content, but media forms and methods of production and publication. This isn’t a case of the chicken or the egg, but rather it is people’s impact on the media environment first that in plays a large role in determining how it then affects us as individuals and a society.
The examples raised in the Paul Levinson are perfect at highlighting the humanistic drive behind the media ecology. He discusses the development of writing as form of media. He considers the Egyptian system of hieroglyphics and the creation of the phonetic alphabet and its role in representing different things including the “unrepresentable” (i.e. a monotheistic god). He writes of the “monopolies of knowledge” held by ancient Egyptian priests through their position as the few people who were able to write and understand the complex system of hieroglyphics. They were the prime influences on the media form of their time. Using this control they were able to ignore the orders of their Pharaoh to begin developing hieroglyphics to record the details of a new religion structure and maintain a system that most suited them. In this context, hieroglyphics, as a form of media, played a vital role in influencing and structuring both the present and future Egyptian populations. But it was humanistic elements including a desire for power and control on the behalf of the priests that influenced the structure and operation of the media ecology itself.
This example, of course, is a fairly simplistic (and primitive) example of cyclical nature of the media ecology. That is – people shape the media who in turn shape people. But it is a clear reminder of the importance of considering human relationships and networks and how they both directly and indirectly shape the media ecology which in turn shapes us.
REFERENCES
Wikipedia. “Media Ecology”. (2011) [Online, accessed 12/03/2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology]
Neil Postman. “The Reformed English Curriculum.” in A.C. Eurich, ed., High School 1980: The Shape of the Future in American Secondary Education (1970).
- Taken from: Media Ecology Association. “What is Media Ecology” (2009) [Online, accessed 12/03/2011, http://www.media-ecology.org/media_ecology/]
Levinson, Paul. “The First Digital Medium” in Soft Edge; a natural history and future of the information revolution (1997). London: Routledge.Pgs 11-15
Strate, L 1999, “Understanding MEA” , In Medias Res, vol. 1, no. 1, Fall, p. 1.
Tags: ARTS3091, Seminar: Thurs 2-4
March 30, 2011 at 11:56 pm |
[...] Reading Greyson’s overview of the capabilities and future potentialities of what he calls augmented reality technology elucidates anticipation but also raises some difficult social and ethical questions; especially following previous consideration of media ecologies. [...]
June 2, 2011 at 4:51 pm |
[...] we have seen the impacts of the growing social network. As I identified in my post Human Network > Media Ecology, human relationships, brought together on a large scale through networks is changing the way in [...]