infosophy: Socio-technological Rendering of Information

How to smash a home computer

How to smash a home computer:

This is just funny! It is very revealing though, despite the problems with IT technology, it shows that human actions and social contexts are the main culprits for data loss.

presenting at ASIS&T 2004

Whoever is reading this, just to let you know that I will be presenting at the Annual ASIST&T Conference "ASIST 2004 Annual Meeting; "Managing and Enhancing Information: Cultures and Conflicts" (ASIST AM 04), " in Providence, RI, on November 16th, 2004, at 5:30p-7:00p.

As a part of a panel titled Diffusion of Knowledge in the Field of Digital Library Development: How is the Field Shaped by Visionaries, Engineers, and Pragmatists?, I’ll be “theorizing on the implication of open source software in the development of digital libraries”.

Will you be there?

Panel Abstract:
“Digital library development is a field moving from diversity and experimentation to isomorphism and homogenization. As yet characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and new entrants in the field, who serve as sources of innovation and variation, they are seeking to overcome the liability of newness by imitating established practices. The intention of this panel is to use this general framework, to comment on the channels for diffusion of knowledge, especially technology, in the area of digital library development. It will examine how different communities of practice are involved in shaping the process and networks for diffusion of knowledge within and among these communities, and aspects of digital library development in an emerging area of institutional operation in the existing library institutions and the specialty of digital librarianship. Within a general framework of the sociology of culture, the panelists will focus on the following broader issues including the engagement of scholarly networks and the cultures of computer science and library and information science fields in the development process and innovation in the field; involvement of the marketplace; institutional resistance and change; the emerging standards and standards work; the channels of transmission from theory to application; and, what 'commons' exist for the practitioners and those engaged with the theoretical and technology development field. The panelists will reflect on these processes through an empirical study of the diffusion of knowledge, theorizing on the implication of open source software in the development of digital libraries, and the standardization of institutional processes through the effect of metadata and Open Archive Initiative adoption.

The panel is sponsored by SIG/HFIS and SIG/DL”

technology doesn't make moral choices, humans do

From Judges leave technology's moral choices to humans:

Excerpt:
The court's decision doesn't condone the theft of copyrighted material. That is wrong and will always remain so. Peer-to- peer networks have other uses, however, particularly for the many lesser-known bands, artists and filmmakers that embrace file-sharing for its distribution power.

The court's ruling rightfully recognizes that technology doesn't make moral choices, humans do.

the impact of fewer students majoring in tech and information science

Fewer students major in tech reports on the declining number of students entering and graduating in IT related degrees, including here information science/studies.

"In the University of Pittsburgh's information science program, which combines the study of information technology and how people use it, the number of students majoring has dropped to 200 for this school year, said Bob Perkoski, IS undergraduate program director. Last year, 229 students were majoring in IS and the year before, 260, Mr. Perkoski said."

It is interesting to see the effect of the declining graduates in the field of information science/studies with the ever increasing utilization of information technology around us. This isn't to say that information science/studies professionals are the only graduates/experts that can elucidate the interplay of IT and IS and the social structures within which they are embedded. However, who else is better positioned to study and explicate these relations? Computers science/engineering graduates traditionally have concentrated more on the technology rather than its social significance and implications. On the other side, social sciences do not emphasize enough on the technology as an important determining actor in the complex web of socio-technological interconnections.

Nevertheless, the decline might not have any immediate effects in real life due to the fact that in practice it is rarely recognized that information science/studies graduates are the best positioned to deal with the interplay of IT/IS and the relevant social structures.

paper superior to digital technology for archiving

From "Digital Information Will Never Survive by Accident”:

"Beagrie: In the right conditions papyrus or paper can survive by accident or through benign neglect for centuries or in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls for thousands of years. It takes hundreds of years for languages and handwriting to evolve to the point where only a few specialists can read them.
...
In contrast, digital information will never survive and remain accessible by accident: it requires ongoing active management. The information and the ability to read it can be lost in a few years. Storage media such as paper tape, floppy disks, CD-ROM, DVD evolve and fall out of use rapidly. Digital storage media have relatively short archival life-spans compared to other media. As the volumes, heterogeneity, and complexity of digital information grows this requirement for active management becomes more challenging and more critical to a wider range of organisations."

I already have a problem reading/opening some papers/files that I wrote during my undergrad studies using WordStar (or something similar) in a school computer lab.

the social construction of Unix, C, and Linux

From Unix's founding fathers:

"It is that interplay between the technical and the social that gives both C and Unix their legendary status. Programmers love them because they are powerful, and they are powerful because programmers love them. David Gelernter, a computer scientist at Yale, perhaps put it best when he said, “Beauty is more important in computing than anywhere else in technology because software is so complicated. Beauty is the ultimate defence against complexity.” Dr Ritchie's creations are indeed beautiful examples of that most modern of art forms."

My emphasis in bold; couldn't have said it better. After all, we knew that coders and programmers are not "lone scientists". :)

Alan Kay's food for thought regarding personal computing

Alan Kay's food for thought as reported in A PC Pioneer Decries the State of Computing, regarding personal computing:

But I was struck most by how much he thinks we haven't yet done. "We're running on fumes technologically today," he says. "The sad truth is that 20 years or so of commercialization have almost completely missed the point of what personal computing is about."

But what about all those great things he invented? Aren't we getting any mileage from all that? Not nearly enough, Kay believes. For him, computers should be tools for creativity and learning, and they are falling short. At Xerox PARC the aim of much of Kay's research was to develop systems to aid in education. But business, instead, has been the primary user of personal computers since their invention. And business, he says, "is basically not interested in creative uses for computers."

Note the emphasis that computers could/should have been used more for creative process and learning. The potential is there, however, the social construction of the computing technologies has been mostly lead by commercial goals. Thus, the interplay of computing technology and social structures has mostly served commercial interest and less so with the potential of creativity, inventions and innovation.

The question arises then how to get to more creative use of technology for learning and novel ways of innovations? Open source computing perhaps, where computing tools geared more towards learning that act as stimuli for creative innovation. But then, anything creative that can make money is imprisoned within the commercial realm and looses it potential for learning and creativity. A way needs to be found such that creativity is left to bloom within its realm free from commercialization. Proprietary software (due to being in closed environment) is responsible for slowing down innovation and creativity. I would say: the way is towards open computing …

The Role of Children in the Design of New Technology

The Role of Children in the Design of New Technology

Abstract:
Children play games, chat with friends, tell stories, study history or math, and today this can all be done supported by new technologies. From the Internet to multimedia authoring tools, technology is changing the way children live and learn. As these new technologies become ever more critical to our children’s lives, we need to be sure these technologies support children in ways that make sense for them as young learners, explorers, and avid technology users. This may seem of obvious importance, because for almost 20 years the HCI community has pursued new ways to understand users of technology. However, with children as users, it has been difficult to bring them into the design process. Children go to school for most of their days; there are existing power structures, biases, and assumptions between adults and children to get beyond; and children, especially young ones have difficulty in verbalizing their thoughts. For all of these reasons, a child’s role in the design of new technology has historically been minimized. Based upon a survey of the literature and my own research experiences with children, this paper defines a framework for understanding the various roles children can have in the design process, and how these roles can impact technologies that are created.
(Full Paper in PDF)

E-voting: Nightmare or actual democracy?

The public domain discourse surrounding e-voting is very perplexing. Similarly to other articles, E-voting: Nightmare or nirvana? questions the security of e-voting systems and their viability for use in real elections.

"Once the province of a small group of election officials and equipment sellers, e-voting has exploded into the popular consciousness because of a spreading controversy over security and verifiability. Thanks to a concerted effort by opponents and to the missteps of voting machine vendor Diebold Election Systems, most of the news has been bad."

I have said this before in a previous entry (secure enough for consumerism, not good enough for voting?!) and here it is again: How is it that we can't trust e-voting security because voting would be done over the Internet, when the same Internet is used for millions of dollars in daily transactions between consumers and companies and business-to-business? The same Internet is secure enough for commerce and can be trusted with billions of dollars. Yet, it is not secure enough for voting?

Secondly, the missteps by Diebold Election Systems that produces e-voting machines are curable by the use of open source e-voting systems that are already in use in other places around the world.

Yes, there are potential problems with e-voting systems. These are the same issues that trouble all new technologies in the appropriation phase by the users. However, to claim that these issues are worse than those that troubled and still trouble e-commerce systems is absurd.

Social Issues Surround Social Software

From Social Issues Surround Social Software:

"While the answer may be elusive, panelists at the Supernova 2004 conference here agreed that the social dynamics around the use of burgeoning collaboration tools such as online social networking services, Weblogs and wikis are often as important as, if not more important than, the technologies themselves."

I would like to make one corrections to the above quote: it isn't that social dynamics (and social structures) are often as important, they are always as important if not more important. And this isn't true only for social software and collaboration tools, but it is true for all types of interactive information and communication systems, and technology in general. The technology meant to aid people's tasks is meant to be used by people in various contexts. As such, the technology by itself cannot deliver the sought after results. It is the interaction between the technology and the human factors in a given social structures and context, including the properties of the task, that hopefully results in the desired outcomes.

Once and for all we need to get over the irrational idea that social structures, human actions, and tasks can be bent to fit the technology. Yes, they can, but don't expect the desired results...

socio-technological definition of "digital library"

When discussing the subject of digital libraries (DLs), often the very definition and meaning of the phrase "digital library" is questioned. This is expected due to the historical, practical and theoretical development of digital libraries as technologies (computer and information systems) as well as social structures.

Below I provide two definitions by Borgman (1999) and Lesk (1997) that have been widely used by practitioners and researchers. Needles to say both definitions embody the technical and the social nature of digital libraries.

Borgman (1999) attempts to explicate the meaning and interpretation of the phrase "digital library" through the analysis of various definitions regarding "digital libraries" coined by various research and practice communities claming to be somehow related to digital libraries, and to assess and identify possible influences of those definitions in the relevant communities. Borgman identifies two distinct senses in which "digital library" has been used (p. 227). The technological definition stating that "digital libraries are a set of electronic resources and associated technical capabilities for creating, searching and using information" (p. 234), is contrasted by the social view stating that "digital libraries are constructed, collected and organized, by (and for) a community of users, and their functional capabilities support the information needs and uses of that community" (p. 234).

Another workable and widely used definition is provided by Lesk (1997): "Digital libraries are organized collections of digital information. They combine the structuring and gathering of information, which libraries and archives have always done, with the digital representation that computers have made possible" (p. XIX).

References :
Borgman, C. L. (1999). What are digital libraries? Competing visions. Information Processing & Management, 35 (3), 227-243.

Lesk, M. (1997). Practical digital libraries: Books, bytes and bucks. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann

information technology does not help by the way of 'magic'

At last, there is a realization that information and communication technologies do not necessarily help the 'disadvantaged and vulnerable groups' by the way of some magic. Given that the tools of the economical development in most cases reflect the social structures within which they function, thus 'favoring' the people in 'power', a concentrated effort is needed to ensure that people less likely to 'magically' benefit from such advances do indeed rip the benefit.

The 'Technologies of a Digital World' conference/Expo seems to be an effort in the right direction. At least they are emphasizing that something other than 'magic' needs to be done.

"Technology is an enabler as well as a catalyst to ensure companies operate profitably and governments operate more efficiently in the global environment. But technology should also be the medium for people from all walks of life to harness the new opportunities offered by ICT, and act as fundamental elements for creating new skills and shaping mindsets to churn the engine of the knowledge-economy."
...
The Expo and Seminar, first of its kind to be held in Brunei, carries the theme, 'Technologies of a Digital World' and is centred on the development of technologies suited to the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and the development of affordable technologies to facilitate people's access to ICT.

actor-network theory or ANT ?

One of the major issues with the actor-network methodology is that there is no ready to used steps/procedures on how to go about operationalizing the various actor-network related concepts. Many of the concepts are dispersed amongst the writings by Latour, Callon, Law, Bijker, Akrich, Hassard, and few other authors. One of the most informative sources is the book "Actor Network Theory and After" by Law & Hassard.

As actor-network theory and methodology got translated into ANT, interestingly enough we see here a theory and methodology a subject of its own theorization through the concept of translation and inscription, many researchers have tried their own particular attempts to operationalization of the concepts relevant for their line of inquiry.

The point I'm trying to make is that we have bits and pieces of attempts to operationalize various actor-network related concepts; however, we lack an overall framework. The answer to why is this is pretty much provided in the above-mentioned book in the chapter "On recalling ANT" (by Latour) stating that actor-network was only meant to be a way of doing ethnomethodology and not a theory (p. 19). So, when people talk of ANT it usually means the theorizing of actor-network in various forms and flavors, while actor-network is more of a way for doing ethnomethodology.

Latour makes the argument that the actual acronym ANT is not simply an acronym. BUT, it is a result of the process of translation by the way which actor-network theory and methodology became ANT (with various flavors). So, the process of translation produced multiple ANT-s, each ANT stressing on different concepts as related to the actor-network methodology/theory.

So, as a result it would seem that ANT has different meanings pertinent to the context and the line of inquiry it is used and applied to. The process of translation is given as the reason.

Latour explains this very clearly in the chapter "On recalling ANT".

SEs meaning mediation; suppressing controversy

The idea that search engines (SEs) suppress controversy is indeed real. As it is argued in Do Web search engines suppress controversy?, the suppression is not intentional, however, Google's bottom line means good results and quicker, not necessarily attempting to cover all the sides of the story/issue which an information seeker is trying to find information about.

I've tried to explain the sort of mediating power/role by SEs in earlier blog entry: search engines' meaning mediation power,

secure enough for consumerism, not good enough for voting?!

In the past year or so we have seen various attempts to online voting just to see them scrapped because they are not secure enough. Pentagon Drops Plan To Test Internet Voting is the latest report on such initiative stating that "The Pentagon (news - web sites) has decided to drop a $22 million pilot plan to test Internet voting for 100,000 American military personnel and civilians living overseas after lingering security concerns, officials said yesterday."

How is it that we can't trust security because voting would be done over the Internet, when the same Internet is used for millions of dollars in daily transactions between consumers and companies and business-to-business? The same Internet is secure enough for commerce and can be trusted with billions of dollars. Yet, it is not secure enough for voting?

Something is wrong … perhaps the following explains it (from the same article): "The American pullback is in direct contrast to Europe, where governments are pursuing online voting in an attempt to increase participation. The United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium have been testing Internet ballots."

Ref: Media Control: Open communication technologies as actors enabling a shift in the status quo

google's personalized 'jewel'

Google does it again. Like with many of the practical implementations in the search world, Google is first again. First in implementing it in real world, not necessarily in research. As far as research is concerned, personalized searches have been discussed plenty.

This new personalized web search by Google utilizes facet aided searches.

The entire search is dynamic. Once you setup the profile, very simple and menu/directory driven, the left side shows the built query. You can still type a search term. The FAQ shows a bit how things supposed to work.

In any case, the search is operational (beta) and once the relevant docs are returned, there is a small sliding bar that can be moved left-right in order to dynamically relax-restrict the personalization.

Interesting stuff! Just when you think you have learned how Google works! :)

Now, all other search engines would try to do the same. Why don't they start something before Google does it for a change?! What are they afraid off?

(thanks to unstruct.org for the link)

bad scientific/technology journalism or ...

In the Supercomputers Think Fast with New Software article there is no mention of the word 'think', even though it is in the title/subject of the article.

Is this just intentionally bad journalism intended to get people to read the article because they believe computers and thinking are interesting conjectures, or, the journalist really does not know that computers (even supercomputers) can really think but only process information/data.

Talking about social construction of concepts. What goes on in those people's minds who believe computers can think? Do they believe that computers are always right and/or should always be trusted as such?

strange world: Court stops DVD-copying software

From Court stops DVD-copying software:

"A US court has told software company 321 Studios to stop selling a program that lets people copy DVDs."

Hmmm... Where is the logic of this? Why not stop the selling of VCR recorders because they can be used to make illegal copies of movies on video tapes.

Technology isn't the real problem - BUT, it might be

From Technology isn't the real problem:

"A person trapped in the cold can use a cell phone to call a tow truck. Medical advances mean people once doomed are now up and moving. Information - as well as trash and useless drivel - is immediately available on the Internet."
...
"Technology isn't the issue. The problems and the answers are within our hearts, not in our factories."

But let us not forget that technology can be a problem. For example, if the potentials of the nuclear power were not known during the WWII, there would have been no nuclear device capable of indiscriminate mass destruction.

So, rather then claim that "Technology isn't the real problem" or that humans and the human behavior is not the real problem, we should embrace the reality that BOTH humans and technologies can be problems (together or separately from each other), dependent on the context and its immediate as well as distant environments both in time and space.
[see Social constructionism vs. technological determinism,
technology's performative function - limitations and restrictions,
Technology makes us unwitting slaves - BUT it does not have to be that way]

What we need is wisdom to balance the technological and social forces with the intention to improve the human conditions around the world. What we should be concerned is when technology is used to achieve materialistic goals with no concern for human life and human dignity.

The machine that invents ?!

From The machine that invents:

"His first patent was for a Device for the Autonomous Generation of Useful Information," the official name of the Creativity Machine, Miller said. "His second patent was for the Self-Training Neural Network Object. Patent Number Two was invented by Patent Number One. Think about that. Patent Number Two was invented by Patent Number One!"

Is it really possible for machines to 'invent'? Can the machines really discover anything more then what has been imbedded/inscribed into their design implicitly or explicitly by the human designers. Perhaps it would be wiser to say that machines can discover things quicker due to their enormous computing power. But, discoveries and inventions are two different activities.

is the UN's information society summit doomed to fail?

Why UN's information society summit is doomed to fail provides and interesting analysis about why the UN's information society summit might fail.

Here are the two reasons it provides:

• The first is the United States' position that profit -- or even the potential for profit -- is more important than the goals of the WSIS.
• The second reason is procedural. The United Nations prefers to operate by consensus. So as long as any one member of the WSIS objects to a portion of the plan, the plan cannot move forward.

I think that both of these arguments are valid. However, they might not be sustainable over longer period of time. If the Internet is to be one of the driving forces for the economical development of third world economies, it would mean that the corporate grip of the Internet may not be able to survive for to long. Simply said, those affected by the Internet would like to have some say about its operation. As the people effected are not western centric any more, there would be more noises such as those heard at the WSIS.

Whether the UN is the right organization for the worldwide manageability of the Internet only time will show. The WSIS attempt is perhaps just a start. Other ventures will be attempted in the near future. Few things must be ensured though: there should be no censorship on the Internet, its economic potentials should be equally available to all around the world. So, as it appears then, the main problem might not necessarily be with the Internet. Better economies in the third world countries will give them more leverage when the next 'WSIS' comes around.

socio-technological; actor-network theory, open source

I just came across some interesting pieces on the social aspects of open source software and actor-network theory as a tool to investigating the socio-technological attributes of information and information structures around us. Felix Stalder presents challenging thoughts in Open Source as a social principle and Theories of Socio-Technologies.

Caution over 'computerised world'

Caution over 'computerised world'

"The team in Switzerland looked at the health, social and environmental implications of what is called pervasive computing."
...
"The idea behind pervasive computing is that everything around us contains some sort of electronic device."
...
"I am not saying I am against technology," he insisted, "but we should be aware there is a price to pay."

Indeed. Technology is here to stay intermingling with humans and other social structures. We need to be cautions and careful not to implement technologies that are restrictive and controlling. Instead, a drive towards technologies of openness should be made.

making sense of information

In To much information Nathan Cochrane makes a good point that despite the multitude of tools at our disposal that manage and manipulate information we have not necessarily become more informed decision makers. Perhaps the evens and issues we need to make informed decision have become so complex that the current tools (based on the utilitarian theoretical foundations) do not help us much.

is access to information and communication tech. alone really a solution to poverty?

From World meet to end digital divide starts in Geneva Saturday:

"Leaders from nearly 200 countries including 60 heads of state and government will attend the first World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva Saturday aimed at bridging the digital divide between the rich and poor."

"The aim of the United Nations summit is to come up with a global plan to ensure everyone's access to information and communications technologies."

Hopefully the attendants at the summit do not forget that ensuring access to information and communication technologies for everyone does NOT necessarily mean a reduction in the digital divide between rich and poor nations, countries, and peoples.

If history is any indication, we should have already learned that technology alone does not solve social problems, not necessarily, and perhaps not unless it can be shown so. For example, it would be beneficial to hear how does information technology help developing countries escape poverty. It might, if the means of production in the developing countries are improved to build self-sustainable economy based on access to information and information technology in general.

However, considering the conditions around the world at this stage, I would rather expect that activities related to building sustainable local economies (independently if they are related to information technology or no) are more important in escaping poverty. People in the developing countries can have access to all information technology they want (even this process is questionable because to achieve success with information technology one needs to first create the necessary economic conditions in order to bring the access to information technology to majority of the people) and still might not be able to escape poverty unless some sort of sustainable local economy is established to a certain degree.

Computers 'hamper the workplace' - not really, but ...

From Computers 'hamper the workplace':

"Computer systems at work are not working as they should, despite costing millions, a report says.
The problem lies with people rather than the systems themselves, concludes the iSociety think-tank."

Really? The problem lies with people? Who needs research to figure this out! :)

Project Leopard: open source for eGovernment and schools

Open Source Software Institute Releases Components to eGovernment Web Services Platform; Initiates Working Group for Open Government Interoperability Standards

Great development in the open source activities for eGovernment and Education. OSSI has released Phase 1 of Leopard:

"Project Leopard is a web services application framework that provides fast, efficient access and implementation of LAMP technology for eGovernment programs. Phase 1 release of Project Leopard is now available for free download and evaluation at http://leopard.sourceforge.net"

The Semantic Web - hype or reality?

I've been puzzled for some time as to what is meant by the "semantic web" phrase and what does it mean in practice and research. I've come across the following article The Semantic Web, today that appears to be describing the semantic web concept(s) in a clear and presentable way.

The article makes the following distinction:

"The key point of the semantic web is the conversion of the current structure of the web as a data storage (interpretable only by human beings, that are able to put the data into context) into a structure of information storage."

I can understand the above intention and the attempt to make a distinction between data and information. However, the distinction between data and information that we make in our heads and understanding does not mean much to computer software.

Further, the article states:

"The Semantic Web is based on two fundamental concepts: 1) The description of the meaning of the content in the Web, and 2) The automatic manipulation of these meanings."

As far as 1) is concerned, the description itself is just another data (or information), i.e. metadata (or metainformation). In any case, the proper software tools have to be build to 'understand' the metadata/metainformation.

As far as 2) is concerned and the manipulation of meanings, this is a bit skeptical because to the machines, as I've tried to explain elsewhere here and here, those descriptions are just data it can manipulate and not meanings.

No, I don't believe that metadata and metainformation will not be able to provide a level of quality in the process of information seeking and access to information, I'm just a bit skeptical about the hype and high level of optimism that the semantic web will deliver us from the chaos of the web.

An interesting parallel are the natural languages. Each language is composed of words and phrases that have certain meaning(s) and/or concepts attached to them. To be able to navigate within the conceptual space of the language (i.e. understand the language) one needs to learn what each of the words represents: because each word or phrase is a metadata/metainformation for the actual concept in the particular language. So, it is good to be optimistic that eventually we'll come around to be able to represent the vast and chaotic multitude of information on the web with a set of metadata/metainformation and ontologies that all software will 'understand'.

Well... Esperanto hasn't yet become the world language it was meant to be... And it does not seem that it will became anytime soon... And even if it does, there still will be multiple meanings for various phrases...

social software - what's in the name?

I've come across few various sites and some articles (blog entries, etc.) talking about social software. The phrase does sound interesting and the name (i.e. social software) appears to promise much more than what actually happens to be.

For example, in iCan for the Public the folks over at Many2Many state:

"The BBC's iCan is in public pre-beta, a social software project to foster social capital and democratic participation. I posted on M2M about the project back in May. (Just a little before that we were having the same power-law inspired discussion of weblog modalities we are today)."

After reviewing the iCan site, it appears to be a collaborative tool/portal where people from the UK can share personal opinions and learn from each other. A clear statement is made at the site that iCan can't be used for commercial purposes.

The common denominator of the tools termed 'social software' seems to be the ability to facilitate open collaboration among the publics or users of such software with the 'publishers/moderators' playing a facilitating role. According to this I would contend that a wide range of software packages that support collaboration have the potential to be used in a way that makes them 'social software'. For example, any software such as mailing lists managers, CMS/portals, blogging software, etc., fit the pattern. However, it is their use that makes them 'social software’ or not. Needless to say, those collaborative software packages that do not support open communication and sharing of ideas and thoughts can't be considered 'social software'.

Critique of McLuhan’s Technological determinism viewpoint or lack of one thereof

Where did the technology come from?

Writing a critique on McLuhan’s work and ideas presents the challenge of where to start and exactly what to critique in light of the fact that McLuhan has written so widely and perhaps less coherently than the rest of his contemporaries.

In this paper I’m concentrating on few of his ideas and thoughts, namely McLuhan’s technological determinism viewpoint or lack of one thereof—considering his opinionated statement that “… all media, from the phonetic alphabet to the computer, are extensions of man that cause deep and lasting changes in him and transform his environment” (McLuhan interview, p.54, column 3), in conjunction with his statement that “the medium is also the message” (McLuhan interview, p.56, column 1), and his apparent misdiagnosis of the role of the media in the hegemonic process as described by Gitlin.

McLuhan has so much to say about various technologies and their intimate interplay with human and social senses, yet, he does not say anything about how various technologies are constructed. While McLuhan does not necessarily fit the profile of a technological determinist, he appears to be supporting the view that the human society is helpless and must, or eventually ought to succumb to the technologic