Media as cultural technologies: Where will it take us next?

Technology nowadays is increasingly embedded in our everyday lives, becoming an inseparable part of our culture. This is reflected in most major countries, where technology is regarded as an important cultural form. For example, technology is listed beside fashion, food, film and design as major cultural influences in contemporary India (Design Week, 2007). An alternate view of this is that technologies are not simply material forms that impact upon culture, but rather as themselves cultural forms’ (Flew 2005, 25).

Technology is stated by Flew (2005, 61) to become part of culture because it is a delivery method. It creates culture through participants acting on technology, while technology acts upon participants.

There are three levels through which technology interacts with culture, through physical objects, contexts of use and systems of knowledge, which indicates that technologies inevitably intersect with cultures. Similarly, as with culture, it may be understood on three levels of meaning, through aesthetics, a whole way of life, and as underlying structural systems of meaning.

A point raised by Flew (2005, 26) is that thinking about new media as cultural technologies draws attention to those social and cultural continuities that provide the contexts of operation of these new technologies. New media as cultural technologies implies that it has an immense impact upon our actions and beliefs. McPhail & Mcphail in Flew (2005, 32) concurs that ‘the impact of the communication media influences not only what we think but how we think’.

New technologies offer participants a greater democratic power in participation than ever before. We are able to access and upload any content whenever we desire, transforming us from the traditional passive audience to participating users. Top-down heirachys of one-to-many frameworks have shifted towards bottom-up many-to many frameworks. The focus is no longer on satisfying mass interests, but rather long tail, niche interests (Anderson 2004, ¶4). Also, while traditionally, content is driven by business interests, it is now controlled by user interests. The unified culture of media has diversified into multiple communities with extensive choices. For example, the online video uploading site YouTube allows for users to reach many other users, creating a portal which allows for access across a wide variety of content suited for niche or long tail users. In fact, the shift away from content targeted at large, passive audiences towards small, niche audiences are also seen in traditional media froms such as television. Television, in particular, paid or subscription television are increasingly segmented to cater to diverse interests.

In this age where we are all networked and connected, we are also given the freedom of choice, and access to content which we are interested in. Thus, I agree with Negroponte’s viewpoint that the overall social impact of new media technologies is positive. I believe that these properties of decentralisation, cultural standardisation, user empowerment presents new possiblities for enhancing individual liberty and global social harmony.

We are all exposed to an abundance of information, which is ever expanding as users create and add content to this information. The future cultural technologies brings is yet to be unfolded. For those that are willing to participate in this technoculture, the world, and all its secrets, are at their feet, to begin the journey.

References

Anderson, C. 2004. The Long Tail. Wired 12.10. http://www.wired.com/wired/
Archive/12.10/tail.html. (Accessed May 1, 2008).

Design Week. 2007. V&A exposes creative culture in India Now. Design Week. 22(35): 6.

Flew, T. 2005. Virtual Cultures in Flew, T. New media: an introduction. Melbourne: OUP.