“The march of science and technology does not imply growing intellectual complexity in the lives of most people. It often means the opposite.” - Thomas Sowell: American economist, social theorist, political philosopher and author.
Despite the big applause worldwide, many have been stepping
forward to pin point some dangers of technologies. This includes McLuhan, who
defines an amputation as the consequence people do not consider from these
extensions. He suggests that in an amputation, people’s receptions are being
structured without them noticing. It clearly relates to how people
subconsciously do not realise they are culturally influenced. Let’s evaluate
the media here to illustrate a better picture.
According
to popular beliefs, the media has pulled the world closer, extending its cables
and communication mechanisms. However, have you ever wondered why are we
frequently hearing news of and from the mainstreamed nations? It
surprises no one when newspapers report Obama’s views on the China-Japan
island dispute, but you will never get to watch an interview with North Korea’s
president on TV. Because of media’s bias emphasis, some opinions get more
attention than others in the world. Unknowingly, our knowledge of the globe has
been tinted to a huge extent.
Brooker’s (2003) two step flow model suggests that meanings
and messages are filtered to the point where messages
can be deemed as opinions of certain groups rather than sheer truth. As ‘ideas
often flow from radio and print to the opinion leaders and from them to the
less active sections of the population’ (Brooker, 2003:14). Instead of
extending our international data base, the media has limited or even distant
our reach to less favoured parts of the world.
On the micro level, society is gradually amputating a purpose which
certain new technologies were primarily invented for. Smart phones were created
to facilitate communication between people, make our lives easier by bringing
us greater convenience and saving us time. It allows us to be connected
everywhere. We can keep in touch with family and friends and be updated with
the latest news wherever we are, yet we are unable to disconnect. Increasingly, the line
between our social lives and our work lives are blurring. We use our smart
phones for both. Which means to say, there is technically no cut-off point when we leave the
office at the end of the day.
Due to bosses’ expectations of prompt email
checking and picking up of calls on their mobile after work, stress on the job
is VIRTUAL-ly made permanent!
Then again, we can’t blame the world for going “gaga” over
these extensions that have been infesting our lives for decades. To McLuhan, amputation
could mean losing of archery skills with the development of gunpowder and
firearms. The need to be accurate with the highly advanced guns made the
practice of archery obsolete. On the other hand, the telephone extends the voice but
removes the art of penmanship. -– However, I would not consider these as
amputations in its purest form, since their traditional counterparts were merely
simplified modes of technological inventions. Guns or arrows are both weapons
to attack with and telephone or letter writing share properties of communication. So
by zooming out to the bigger picture, we realize that technology is in fact a
matter of improvements rather than elimination.
Furthermore, the word amputation itself indicates absolute removal
without a choice. To what extend then is this true? The invention of
automobiles did not strip off our ability to walk; neither has walking less
distorted our genes to produce incompetent feet. Apparently McLuhan has
overlooked society’s choices. New machines do not take away old ones; they just
allow people to enjoy a wider range of technologies nowadays. Whether a not one
chooses to utilize them is a separate issue. Thus it is up to an individual if
he wants to hone the traditional skill of archery or use a gun for more
accuracy.
Eventually, we need to ask ourselves in return, would we
ever want these technologies to be taken away from our lives? Is anyone willing
to sacrifice sophistication for complete self-sufficiency? This boils down to
the judgement of whether we have gained or lost more thus far, and if such a
phenomenon is likely to prevail in the future.
Personally, I believe that most would opt for retention. McLuhan
may be right to a certain extent, but he might have forgotten about the reality
of imperfections. Nothing is healthy in excess; the world should strive to keep
a balance between the nomadic and advanced way of life.
-------------------------------------------------- End -----------------------------------------------------
Brooker, W. (2003) The audience studies reader.
London: Routledge
No comments:
Post a Comment