Television transcends media platforms when we see websites such as MediaCorp’s Xinmsn.com that allows viewers to rewatch episodes whenever they want. There are also seemingly-television dramas that are not aired on actual TV, but showed online as a web series. Rather than the television being a producer and viewers as strictly consumers, in today’s society, viewers often have agency over the television through systems/functions such as videos-on-demand on cable channels, and certain programmes allowing viewers to vote online or through social media for their desired outcome in the shows. This gives viewers a sense of control over the results/storylines of the television programmes that they’re watching, and in a sense they are the producers as well.
Gareth Nah
Raymond Williams posits that the history of various media forms, in a social context, is an important area of study, as the development of each medium is usually associated with and influenced by related collective historical developments over time. Taking the example of the ubiquitous smartphone of today, we observe that such a device or medium was certainly not created from scratch, out of the blue, but instead is a result of years of development and refinement. Tracing the history of the mobile phone is indeed no mean feat. Even taking a highly simplified perspective, one must consider the advent of mobile communications, and then later the introduction of computing functions into mobile phones. With the rise of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, the smartphone has arguably undergone further transformations in form and function. It is now, for instance, widely viewed as a tool, via Facebook, to delve into the personal lives of contacts. As can be seen, the smartphone of today did not derive its meaning or logic through a manufacturer-dictated top down approach put in place through its creation, but through consumer agency exercised through its use and consumption.
Besides viewing the television set as a commodity, or a piece of furniture in a place of dwelling, Anna McCarthy argues that it is also a “way of looking at commodities”. It is a “window to an imaged elsewhere”, and it is this capability of beaming images from all over the world to a particular location that gives it a “force of placelessness”. Indeed, the television is powerful in that one only has to switch it on and browse through channels to gain insights into happenings all over the world. It may be seen as a liberating force and one that has tremendous emancipatory potential. Interestingly, despite being physically place-bound, or site-specific, the television set is capable of binding spaces together, as described above.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the tremendous pervasion of the television today has ascribed to it a lubricating role, especially visible in social contexts. This takes place as watching television does not demand full concentration, as well as the fact that it is ubiquitous in numerous social settings. One may note that television has gradually receded into our subconsciousness, as we often take the presence of a television set for granted, viewing it as a given and nothing noteworthy. The increased accessibility to television has arguably caused it to undergo a process of “massification” and rendered it unremarkable.
James Ang
Technology and Society by Raymond Williams mainly focuses on how society guides the shaping of technology. This reading thus deviates from McLuhan‘s view that technology shapes society. Williams thus avoids to from being a technological determinist in his interpretation of television effects on society. He also avoids the view of symptomatic technology, whereby technology is seen as a byproduct of social processes. Hence, in this view, it believes that technology is used to manipulate the masses.
He thus proposes that technology should be view as an intentional process of research and development guided by social needs, purposes and practices whereby technology is central in this view.
In the social history of television as a technology, he thus identifies that the need for television depended on the social situation. This supports Williams view that society determines technology.
In his view of the social history of the uses of television technology, Williams highlighted that the technology of television derived from the needs of the military and commercial systems. I found this section interesting as there seems to be an element of power relations involved in the development of television. The idea that the technology of television only developed to fulfil the needs of the decision-making groups, needs which are defined by the groups in power, thus highlight the political aspects of a computer. In fact, it can be inferred from the reading that the development of technology as a whole, not just of the television, has been tailored to suit the needs of those in powers. Since Williams stated that the masses are not involved in the shaping of the technology of television, I question if Williams’s argument of how society shapes technology should actually be interpreted as how those in power shapes and guide technology.
Lee Wei Jie
From the reading assignments that we had to do this week, I found Raymond Williams’ narrative pleasing, as it took on a more palatable view to the famous notion of McLuhan’s: where the invention of technology has altered our world.
In McLuhan’s view, the intrusion of technology would undeniably affect society. But Williams’ suggest that instead of a causative and deterministic view to technology and society, it is more viable to view the relations of technology and society in 2 main categorical ways:
(1) Technological Determinism (Technology is Accidental) – if television had not been invented, social and cultural changes in society would not have occurred
(2) Symptomatic Technology (Technology is Accidental, but lies in its Uses) –technology is being used by a particular group to manipulate others to fulfil their agenda; if television had not been invented, social and cultural changes would still be effected, albeit by another means
Williams argues that technology should be viewed as an intentional process of scientific research and development that serves to fulfil social needs, purposes and practices. This was explicated through the phenomenon of broadcasting, which brought about what Williams’ terms as a centralized transmission and privatized reception, which had allowed a change in family units and domestication.
In retrospect, perhaps the broadcasting model of ‘centralized transmission and privatized reception’ might not be entirely relevant today. With the rise of social media, seemingly ‘democratic’ viewpoints are aired across media platforms, diversifying the very notion of centralized transmission; people now are able to broadcast their views to a bigger platform. At the same time, the role of the audience in reception do have the autonomy of encoding and decoding media messages. Increasingly, with greater emphasis on the ideological manipulation in press media today, even what is seen on television goes through a process of encoding and decoding by the receiver. Maybe perhaps, television might still be controlled by power holders within the culture industry, where only certain information are being offered to be broadcasted, but one should still not neglect the autonomy of the audience to decide what is fact and what is fictitious.
Television transcends media platforms when we see websites such as MediaCorp’s Xinmsn.com that allows viewers to rewatch episodes whenever they want. There are also seemingly-television dramas that are not aired on actual TV, but showed online as a web series. Rather than the television being a producer and viewers as strictly consumers, in today’s society, viewers often have agency over the television through systems/functions such as videos-on-demand on cable channels, and certain programmes allowing viewers to vote online or through social media for their desired outcome in the shows. This gives viewers a sense of control over the results/storylines of the television programmes that they’re watching, and in a sense they are the producers as well.
Raymond Williams posits that the history of various media forms, in a social context, is an important area of study, as the development of each medium is usually associated with and influenced by related collective historical developments over time. Taking the example of the ubiquitous smartphone of today, we observe that such a device or medium was certainly not created from scratch, out of the blue, but instead is a result of years of development and refinement. Tracing the history of the mobile phone is indeed no mean feat. Even taking a highly simplified perspective, one must consider the advent of mobile communications, and then later the introduction of computing functions into mobile phones. With the rise of social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, the smartphone has arguably undergone further transformations in form and function. It is now, for instance, widely viewed as a tool, via Facebook, to delve into the personal lives of contacts. As can be seen, the smartphone of today did not derive its meaning or logic through a manufacturer-dictated top down approach put in place through its creation, but through consumer agency exercised through its use and consumption.
Besides viewing the television set as a commodity, or a piece of furniture in a place of dwelling, Anna McCarthy argues that it is also a “way of looking at commodities”. It is a “window to an imaged elsewhere”, and it is this capability of beaming images from all over the world to a particular location that gives it a “force of placelessness”. Indeed, the television is powerful in that one only has to switch it on and browse through channels to gain insights into happenings all over the world. It may be seen as a liberating force and one that has tremendous emancipatory potential. Interestingly, despite being physically place-bound, or site-specific, the television set is capable of binding spaces together, as described above.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the tremendous pervasion of the television today has ascribed to it a lubricating role, especially visible in social contexts. This takes place as watching television does not demand full concentration, as well as the fact that it is ubiquitous in numerous social settings. One may note that television has gradually receded into our subconsciousness, as we often take the presence of a television set for granted, viewing it as a given and nothing noteworthy. The increased accessibility to television has arguably caused it to undergo a process of “massification” and rendered it unremarkable.
Technology and Society by Raymond Williams mainly focuses on how society guides the shaping of technology. This reading thus deviates from McLuhan‘s view that technology shapes society. Williams thus avoids to from being a technological determinist in his interpretation of television effects on society. He also avoids the view of symptomatic technology, whereby technology is seen as a byproduct of social processes. Hence, in this view, it believes that technology is used to manipulate the masses.
He thus proposes that technology should be view as an intentional process of research and development guided by social needs, purposes and practices whereby technology is central in this view.
In the social history of television as a technology, he thus identifies that the need for television depended on the social situation. This supports Williams view that society determines technology.
In his view of the social history of the uses of television technology, Williams highlighted that the technology of television derived from the needs of the military and commercial systems. I found this section interesting as there seems to be an element of power relations involved in the development of television. The idea that the technology of television only developed to fulfil the needs of the decision-making groups, needs which are defined by the groups in power, thus highlight the political aspects of a computer. In fact, it can be inferred from the reading that the development of technology as a whole, not just of the television, has been tailored to suit the needs of those in powers. Since Williams stated that the masses are not involved in the shaping of the technology of television, I question if Williams’s argument of how society shapes technology should actually be interpreted as how those in power shapes and guide technology.
From the reading assignments that we had to do this week, I found Raymond Williams’ narrative pleasing, as it took on a more palatable view to the famous notion of McLuhan’s: where the invention of technology has altered our world.
In McLuhan’s view, the intrusion of technology would undeniably affect society. But Williams’ suggest that instead of a causative and deterministic view to technology and society, it is more viable to view the relations of technology and society in 2 main categorical ways:
(1) Technological Determinism (Technology is Accidental) – if television had not been invented, social and cultural changes in society would not have occurred
(2) Symptomatic Technology (Technology is Accidental, but lies in its Uses) –technology is being used by a particular group to manipulate others to fulfil their agenda; if television had not been invented, social and cultural changes would still be effected, albeit by another means
Williams argues that technology should be viewed as an intentional process of scientific research and development that serves to fulfil social needs, purposes and practices. This was explicated through the phenomenon of broadcasting, which brought about what Williams’ terms as a centralized transmission and privatized reception, which had allowed a change in family units and domestication.
In retrospect, perhaps the broadcasting model of ‘centralized transmission and privatized reception’ might not be entirely relevant today. With the rise of social media, seemingly ‘democratic’ viewpoints are aired across media platforms, diversifying the very notion of centralized transmission; people now are able to broadcast their views to a bigger platform. At the same time, the role of the audience in reception do have the autonomy of encoding and decoding media messages. Increasingly, with greater emphasis on the ideological manipulation in press media today, even what is seen on television goes through a process of encoding and decoding by the receiver. Maybe perhaps, television might still be controlled by power holders within the culture industry, where only certain information are being offered to be broadcasted, but one should still not neglect the autonomy of the audience to decide what is fact and what is fictitious.