“The clock has decided to take time into its own hands”

Society’s greatest flaw is that it truly believes it has control over the non-existent concept of time. We try to materialize it through clocks, calendars and alarms. We want to have some sort of unity over the perception of time but it’s impossible. The day will pass slower for one and quicker for the other, regardless of when the clock hits twelve. Now John Hartley further perpetuates the notion that time is tangible through the theory of “high frequency” and “low frequency” in the media.

 

He explains timeless words such as “Egyptian inscription[s]” have low time frequency, whilst daily news bulletins have high time frequencies. Don’t we create the hype and emphasis placed on these words? Everything is nothing until we make it what we want it to be. So how can Hartley say that “messing with the news [is] tantamount to messing with time itself”? We created both news and the perception of time and now we have instilled within them the power of society and wait for them to lead us.

 

We study time from afar and speculate over how it makes us sit down to eat at a certain interval and creates a basis of sleeping and working. We have created our OWN basis of sleeping, working, eating and then placed it within our constructed idea of time. It seems like society is struggling very hard to maintain control over life and create unity amongst people through media and time. Both entities created in our conscious and agreed upon through the compliance to such things as timetables, meal time and sleeping time. 

Bibliography

Hartley; J. (2004). “The Frequencies of Public Writing: Tomb, Tone and Time” In Jenkins, H. And Thorburn, D. (Eds)Democracy and New Media. MIT Press, USA, pp 247-269


Week Two: Domestication

Perhaps beyond the disheveled ideas and unbelievably fragmented sentences the text held a valuable point however, I gained less from the entire reading then I did from the break I took between it. My study intermission was prompted by my mother calling me on my mobile from the kitchen; I was two rooms down, to ask me if I was eating dinner at home. Could this have been an example of what Roger Silverstone was trying to convey when he referred to “various private spaces of suburban…dwellings, enabling local and personal bedroom cultures to develop”?

I can’t quiet be sure, but if so he has captured today’s family life and “fractured…households” perfectly. My life is in my room; I talk on my phone, listen to music, do all my work and watch movies there. Who has time for family dinners when you have four blogs due every Friday? From observation all my friends conduct their life in a similar way. Dinner is eaten at the computer, Facebook is considered a study break and Wii Fit is exercise.

Luckily I did not have to completely digest all of Silverstons writing, along with all the tangents he went on, because as I looked over the lecture notes I found it all summarized perfectly in one slide,

“We live and move in private shells…While our behaviour is clearly regulated by a broader social order, we experience it from within the shell … dehumanised …”

Domestication refers to not just literally our homes but rather how we as social and family creatures function in the world and what happens when it is all reflected on our family life. As well as this, it also looks at how family life affects the revolution of media and its progression, “Television wasn’t simply just promoted- We had to be shown how to incorporate it into our everyday lives through ads and magazines” Our family is our key influence, whilst media is encroaching on being our key influence, hence must reflect or at least yield to family life is some shape, way or form to steal its position in a subtle way.

Bibliography

1. Silverstone, Roger. “Domesticating Domestication. Reflections on the Life and of a Concept” In Berker, Thomas, Et al, eds.

Domestication of Media and Technology. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press, 2006, 229-248

1. Scott Shaner lecture slides, 16/03/09

The Familiar is no Longer the Familiar and There is no Known

Due to my predisposition towards the notion of media ruling the world, I began reading the text in a way that links everything into this theory. I did not even start to think that my interpretation was stubborn until I reached the quote, “media claims to have a function…not for [it’s] truth but for [its] effect.” In all my limited studies of media I had never come across a theory that challenged the impression we have that media rules us.

 

This point lead to me to question what instilled the idea within us that media is so powerful in the first place? Was it us or was it media? If it was the media then the oblige behind it is much easier to analyse. It would have initiated this idea to in-fact have the power. However, if it was society that convinced itself of media’s almighty ruling, the psychology stems much deeper. We begin to question our need for a “collective effervescence” and a social centre.

 

This idea continues as the text mentions how “incompatible histories intersect” through means of “people’s clothes”, “bodily style” and “language.” I was slowly beginning to question myself on how I believed media could have worked as a social centre in such a time where everything is so spread, assorted and tainted by history.

 

I did not have long to ponder this thought as  I was thrown off track once again when I discovered that the real point being made, well at least what I concluded was the real point, was that media was a paradox. It does in fact bring society to a centre “among a spatially dispersed and culturally diverse population.”

 

What this theory on the paradoxical nature of media arouses is a need to “Understand…media rituals [to] allow us to see the world without them.” We are trapped within the paradigm and find it impossible to think outside of ourselves and our social setting to see what role media really plays on our social society. There are so many aspects that the text divided the effects of media into, “positive, “negative” and “mediated reality” sections at the end. Through all of these complex ideas and intertwining theories all I was left with was the feeling that perhaps we are looking in the wrong places to analyse and understand media. I feel like I have been approaching it from and entirely wrong perspective. I want to figure out how to read the media in a more passive way. 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.