Summary
In the article, Mythinformation, Langdon Winner claims that the recent explosion in "the use of computers and advanced communications is producing a sweeping set of transformations in every corner of social life ( Langdon 589)." He argues that it is in fact a "revolution," but not in the usual way the term is used. He also argues that the benefits of this revolution are being over exaggerated and the potential problems and challenges are being glossed over.
It is frequently advertised that the new advancements in technology that, "Gradually, existing differences between rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged, will begin to evaporate (Langdon 590)." In additions there are claims that it will increase democracy. Langdon describes this as "mythinformation: the almost religious conviction that a widespread adoption of computers and communications systems along with easy access to electronic information will automatically produce a better world for human living (592)." This is a common belief in the public, however, it is an over exaggeration. The society will not necessarily become more egalitarian and the revolution will be more conservative than advertised. Finally, people may actually become more passive as when news is shared electronically. The current information revolution will subtly change the social structure of society, but not quite as drastically as it is often assumed to do.
In Mythinformation, Langdon is writing to society to give them a more realistic view of the current information revolution. This becomes apparent when he discusses the issue using plural first person pronouns such as we. For example, in the following sentence he describes what we, as a society should do to analyze this revolution: "We would want to begin by studying the fundamental goals of the revolution (Langdon 589)." Such a sentence also demonstrates that Langdon is the type of person who believes in thoroughly analyzing issues from every angle and believes in making informed decisions on where one stands on an item of significant debate. If Langover's argument is not taken into consideration people may not fully prepare themselves for the possible consequences linked to the information revolution such as decreasing privacy.
Inquiry
Personally I agree with Langdon's argument. The potential impacts of the new media are vastly over exaggerated and beautified. This new revolution is advertised as being the solution to a vast number of problems and creating an almost Utopian society which is not realistic. Such revolutions need to be critically analyzed from all angles to see the pros and cons.
1) What characteristics qualify the current advancement in communications technology as a revolution?
2) What are the potential dangers and challenges in rapid advancement in communications technology?
3) Would you actually label this current period of advancement a revolution? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that these advancements of new media are over exaggerated. One of my concerns about the rapid advancemnts in technology is the fact that I am hisitant to buy a new phone, because I know within the next few weeks there will be a newer better phone available. My dad has said that he will not buy us a new tv until he is sure that nothing better will come out right after, so we will probably be waiting a long time for a new tv. I would not label this current period of advancement a revolution. I think the revolution has already occured and all of these new aspects are just expansions of that revolution.
ReplyDeleteLangdon’s quote on page 592 that Brittney included was a passage I had highlighted in this reading and was one of the few that I could recall after reading the article. The media revolution occurred with the invention of the microprocessor and first super computer as far as I’m concerned, with the majority of what we think of as new technology as simply a refinement on what we had. Using the word “religious” when referencing the general blind conviction society has about the purely positive potential of increased information doesn’t take into consideration the unrest that may be created as many impoverished people become aware of their situation. They say ignorance is bliss, and reality has shown us many people are indignant over the standard of living enjoyed in many western countries in comparison to their own. Social structures may see some change but by in large I feel impoverished countries will stay impoverished regardless of their ability to access information and the concept of being in the middle of a revolution is simply a way of those in power making those under them feel as if their situation is improving when it is not.
ReplyDelete