{ chrislip.com/matthew : blog }
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
13 December 2006
{ Progress, part 2 }
“The term communication can be defined in a wide and in a strict sense. The wide sense is: a process by which a system is changed by another system. The strict sense is: a process by which a system is changed by another system in such a way that the sum of information is greater at the end of the process than at its beginning.”Approaching the topic more narrowly—from the standpoint of traditional information flow—Flusser distinguishes codes of communication according to two structures (or “dynamics”): “In one, messages flow from a sender toward a receiver, and this is called ‘discourse.’ In the other, messages oscillate between various participants in the process, and this is called ‘dialogue.’” As with historical and prehistorical consciousness, the duality of these two structures is established on their characteristics as linear and circular models, respectively.
Discursive communication, based on a linear flow of information, involves a single emitter (or source of emission), and either one or many receivers. Implied within this structure is a hierarchy of participants: the emitter holds an authoritative position to which the receiver is subordinate.
Discourse is visible in a variety of forms. With respect to government systems, a discursive model would be most apparent in a totalitarian regime, where an authoritarian dictator transmits information to citizens in the form of decrees, laws, and law enforcement, and citizens have no opportunity to transmit feedback. (Even if citizens attempt to communicate with the dictator in indirect ways, such as through demonstrations or “civil disobedience,” the innate hierarchical structure of the system prevents true dialogue.) Discourse also characterizes the scientific realm, where information is acquired and synthesized by an elite group of specialists and transmitted through complex codes to a larger, uneducated public.
Flusser suggests that the mass media, ranging from film and television programming to books and newspapers, represent an extreme form of discursive communication whose presence dominates contemporary culture:
“[The mass media] are constructed so that very few senders emit messages toward enormously numerous receivers who are totally incapable of dialoguing with the senders… A culture in which most participants have no access to the origin of information, therefore, tends to become totalitarian. A culture in which very few emit information, and therefore tend to manipulate society. A culture in which to participate means to receive discourse, and a highly unified discourse, therefore tends to become massified.”
The prevalence of gigantic media conglomerates is just one indication of the acute relevance of this observation (made some 20 years ago). AOL Time Warner, Viacom, and the Walt Disney Company boast frightening holds on news programming and entertainment, spanning nearly every possible medium and remaining relatively impenetrable to feedback. Other international mega-brands have contributed in their own right to an increasingly “massified” culture, with companies such as Coca-Cola and Nike emitting streams of market-driven messages and manipulating their receivers through ubiquitous commercial advertisements and sponsorships.
Dialogic communication is based on a circular flow of information and can involve any number of participants. Whereas discourse is characterized by a pronounced hierarchy, dialogue implies an equality among all participants.
Pure dialogic forms may exist only in theoretical terms, but many systems bear a close resemblance to—and are largely modeled after—this ideal. In contrast to the narrow discourse of totalitarianism, democracies are designed with the intent of providing equal representation of (and communication among) all citizens, the cumulative effect of which is a self-discerning and self-governing society. (Here again, even the most ambitious democracy finds itself unable to realize this ideal; popularly elected government officials may not always represent their constituency’s interests fully, and the wealthy and educated classes tend to retain the greatest persuasive power.) Dialogue also falls within the realm of language development. Even in France, where the Académie has tried for centuries to mitigate the deterioration of traditional structures and prevent the introduction of English terminology, an active (though somewhat unconscious) dialogue among all classes and subcultures contributes to the continual evolution of the French language.
The appearance of dialogic models of communication in the media began relatively recently, accompanying the growth of the Internet as a platform for public interaction. Previously, attempts made by the media to solicit feedback from an audience—Flusser cites “‘letters to the editor’ in newspapers, and TV programs that ask receivers to call them back”—were merely “pretenses at dialogue, destined to create a false feeling of participation.” Widespread, egalitarian dialogue has found a more suitable home online. In a very literal sense, Wikipedia is a live record of all public knowledge and popular experience, flying in the face of the elitism of traditional encyclopedias. Google’s YouTube, meanwhile, lumps commercially produced videos together with amateurish parodies and inane home videos, where they are free to communicate and collide. (Countless blogs and web surveys also provide opportunities for public dialogue, though the majority seem to foster nothing more than the “false feeling of participation” for which Flusser criticized their predecessors.)
to be continued...
[ posted by Matthew Chrislip at 02:29 :
]/////////////////////////////
recent posts
: Progress, part 1
: Apercevoir
: Discourse, dialogue, and a Casio F-91W
: Retrospect : 8 May 2006
: Retrospect : 21 August 2004
: Cologne : May 5–7
: Cologne : May 4
: Cologne : May 3 (nacht)
: Cologne : May 1–3
: Ellen's redemption
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home