“Each medium, like language itself, makes possible a unique mode of discourse by providing a new orientation for thought, for expression, for sensibility.”
“A person who reads a book or who watches television or who glances at his watch is not usually interested in how his mind is organized and controlled by these events, still less in what idea of the world is suggested by a book, television, or a watch” – AOD pgs. 10-11.
Like Walter Ong and Marshall McLuhan before him and Nicholas Carr well after him, Postman suggests that the mediums with which we interact restructure the way we think (though, in fairness, it isn't a necessary point for him; see pg. 27). Furthermore, those things we encounter daily present a picture about reality or a worldview which is rarely met with critical engagement. So to bring up the example from my last post: what idea of the world, or less generally, what idea of American political theory is presented when policy is discussed in 140-word Tweet? I think that our President’s Twitter presence is meant to communicate more about our President than it is to disseminate information, but what is the communicative effect on the millions of followers who read political theory accommodated for the Twitter-verse?[1]
[1] It should go without saying that I am in no way appraising the politics of our President. He is a product of our culture and found himself in a technological turning point that almost demanded he broadcast himself on YouTube and have a Twitter account. At this point I’m still just interested in the form/content discussion.
This brings to mind the quest of the President to have his campaign Blackberry accompany him into the White House. ("Obama gets to keep his BlackBerry", MSNBC, Jan 22, 2009) The high-profile nature of this security issue communicated as much as the President's use of Twitter does about his personal profile as an always-on Commander in Chief.
ReplyDelete