Critics Between Raymond William and Marshall McLuhan - Essay Example

Critics between Raymond William and Marshall McLuhan Table of Content Introduction..........................................................................................................................3 Comparison of Raymond and McLuhan..............................................................................3 Basis of Comparison.............................................................................................................4 Literature Review..................................................................................................................5 Relationship electronic media and culture.............................................................................7 Relevance of television as an appropriate example..............................................................8 Distinction between Raymond and McLuhan views...........................................................8 Reflection.............................................................................................................................10 Conclusion............................................................................................................................11 Critics between Raymond William and Marshall McLuhan Introduction The relationship between Technology and culture has grown significantly through the increased development of technology. However, the increase in complexity nowadays has been due to impact of new technology innovations. Culture of society is the basis for innovation of a new technology, and hence it is through culture that we are able to know whether a technological innovation is worth or not. In that regard, I have taken consideration of both Raymond William and Marshall McLuhan view regarding the relationship between culture and technology so as to determine who between the two was correct. Comparison of Raymond William and Marshall McLuhan Critics They are different critics raised by Raymond William and Marshall McLuhan regarding relationship between culture and technology. For example, Raymond’s Williams’ viewed culture as not being a form of technology. This was a sociological critique of Marshall McLuhans view. Majority of this aspect of his materialism of culture is a critique of Marshall McLuhan. Raymond tries to develop and recover what he viewed as the lost early promise of McLuhan’s accomplishment. The article thus takes on the relationship between the two writers. This comparison of the two researchers will give us a conclusion of who was right in defining the relationship between culture and technology. For example, there have been works from different origins in criticism of English literary to Raymond’s rejection of McLuhan’s "proto-postmodern avant-gardism". William’s argued means of communication to be significant to contemporary research. The relationship between McLuhan and William’s work is also a main indicator of shifts within William’s own project. The immediate influence of the projects’ intelligence happened long ago, but the relevant works remain, and in media theory textbooks. This has figured widely in the recent, influential literatures. Raymond’s continues to be regarded as a foundation of many cultural study fields. A debate by media political economists about cultural studies was relevant in that both defenders, and critics of the cultural studies. The debate argued that William’s work as a major boost in departing their own projects (Garnham 1995). The main critique that William’s had on McLuhan was the cautious 1964 review on Television. The disputed attack of the three pages is famous, and linked by commentators to Raymond’s charge of determining technology (Spiegel 1992). The book, also refer to the well known critique of determinants of technology, and also the improvement of a social shaping that emphasizes on this. Thus, it could be concluded that Williams emphasized on 1964 reservations of McLuhan’s susceptibility to failing. Basis of Comparison Technological determinism arises as a point of discussion between McLuhan and William on the basis their common interests in identifying media as a means of enhancing communication. In addition to this, William’s main aim is to embrace a unique conceptualization of communication means, both in general, and cultural senses. Williams depicts this as a McLuhan inefficiency to develop such a distinction. Literature Review I therefore stand with William’s argument using television as a relevant example. He argued that general social institutions focus towards different nations within which the socially shaped technology enhances further. According to William the private and public capitalists are the institutions. According to William, the problem of incapable direct charging for each institution, it did not go in line with the technology character but was in line with the predominant and economic and political institution of the many societies involved. Social needs of the private mobilization are the contradictory point. The recasting of the definition is what allows Williams to term technology as a union the technological inventions, and the social institutions. As a cultural form, Williams refer to television as intermediate communicative substance. This is true because it earns the medium substance required to focus on the different issues. As a culture, television incorporates combination and development of various programs. These include, documentaries involving drama, education embraced by seeing and, discussions held (Freedman 2001). The television technological invention techniques include technological innovations such as, provision of news, giving priorities, offering various presentations, arguments and discussions, educating people and, as a source of entertainment through drama, films and sports. With reference to a television program known as the reality, the reality is a television program that talks about real issues in society. It aims at educating people on different issues that affect the people. It also embraces on helping people understand the different cultures in different parts of the world. The television, as a form of media in general are incapable of accounting for the world’s critical events, they regain everyday life. They refer existential banality as a fateful event, and as a dreadful piece of data. Reality television explains Baudrillard’s thesis that the obscene is with the fact that there is nothing to see, and the viewer desires a common issues with television subjects witnessed. Baudrillard notes it with communication ecstasy, and all that is the resemblance to be everywhere, and loyal to the formula. It is the world of the fractal subject, dreaming of a formula for ones reproduction to no end (Ecstasy of communication, 41). Reality television also emphasizes on desire for the likelihood and fascination with the obscenity. In the ecstasy of communication, Baudrillard reminds us that with the use of television, as in hyper reality, the subject-object differentiation does not succeed, and hence put in its reality. This means that the television becomes a control screen. He argues that television has a space of hyper reality that exceeds reality, and hence displays metaphysics. Television becomes an intrusive actor in the domestic space, overtaking lives from consumption, work, play, leisure, and social relations. Baudrillard explains further that the hyperreal removes the real, and renders it useless, thus changing the spectorship into one of simulation, as we become simulated according to the events of the television. Social relations within the home are inappropriate as both the interpersonal, and face to face communications diminishes. Television occupies the place of people relationships or ideals and renders organic and real bodies. Advertisement also emerges as a reality everywhere. Relationship between electronic media and Culture An alternative model is the description of any observable social state in a given duration in which an electronic media is dominant. The physical fact of the first transmission turns into a social fact, with no stopping to notice that virtually all such transmission when chosen or taken off by the social authorities existing. It is clear that McLuhan would do away with controls like those. However, the technical abstractions in the projections are unnoticeable. Social models have the effect of eliminating all attention to the existing and developing the communication institutions. If the medium effect is that we can forget the common political and cultural arguments, and hence let technology take care of itself (Hindman, 2009). The risk of ignoring the determining communication institutions and policies is apparent as there is familiarity of the implications of William‘s critique (Spiegal, 1992). McLuhan accrues to some of the earliest forms of communication advice to corporate management (McLuhan 1960). However, the ideological provision opens more detailed critique. It prefigures directly to Williams response a decade later to what he viewed as a postmodernist confirmation basis. Huyssen’s analysis also defines this (Hindman, 2009). Williams focuses within a sociological frame. This is remarked further with compatibility with his well known description of the Marxian determination as the setting of limits and pressures. The method used in establishing determinations by getting homologous responses between discrete social practices as applied in the critique of technological determinism. Relevance of Television as an appropriate example Television is a perfect example because it involves a well known breakdown of technology. Williams argued it as an immense and powerful view of social change. He also argues that there is the discovery of new technology, and eventually an essential internal process of internal process of research and development. The outcomes of these technologies should be relevant in the modern world. The broader implication of this critique is evident when William’s realizes revision of the determination category. This involves setting of limits and pressure exertion. It also includes an encouraging sensation determination, which is a basis of maximizing profits by communication companies (Witschge, 2009). Distinction between William and McLuhan views on use of televisual communication William’s provision for the television as a medium of messages, with no reference to McLuhan, and also in contradiction of his emphasis on the widespread orality of the televisual communication, Williams argues that the rituality of television can be recognized as a primary process of the technology (Williams, 1974). Television visuality can be seen both in technological and cultural forms, and hence restating McLuhan’s conflation. Williams disagree with McLuhan’s historical consequences of extension. It is a mere assumption that the best is the latest. The questions raised by McLuhan on the recovery of the direct word of the mouth within contemporary means of communication shows the McLuhan’s sense of participation, which Williams applies as a typologizing criterion. The role of Williams is to account the literacy specificity, and the social institutions of communication concepts (Freedman, 2001). A further distinction occurs within the instrumentally alternative group between those, with no bodily means of communication. The correspondence of the modal seems to take place between existent modes of communication rather than the sense ratios (Freedman, 2001). Reflection The approaches between culture and technology are further improved by an increase in reintroduction of the literacy criterion. A precondition of the effective, modern cultural compositions, receptions, and implications, minimal requirements for citizenships in participatory democracies are relevant in recasting McLuhan’s position and respects. This perception ratifies William’s established advocacy of skills in teaching critical analysis and extending compositional practices. This is of crucial relevance and is a necessary ground for an identified effective analysis. This embraces William’s continuance critique of the McLuhan’s view. There is an enhanced demonstration and discussion of pronounced transforming processes; these include televisions, and films. Naturalizing the production of communication requires analysis and emphasis. It is more evident that Williams had different interpretations of the context. William’s social shaping approach to technology provides a critique of technological determinism which opens the possibility of the social interventions. William distinguished a technical invention, and technology. He referred to this possibility as “subversive rationalism”. He saw this as a possible accomplishment required by the organized social movements, giving examples such as, Minitel computer network which is in France, and technical code challenges, which organized AIDS patients poses (Feenberg, 1995). This provides the basis for William’s evaluation of the form of culture (Couldry, 2001). Conclusion It is notably clear that Williams does not fully embrace McLuhan’s idea of viewing medium as a message (McLuhan, 1967). McLuhan use of medium and technology reveals to Williams that there is equal indebtedness to cultural and aesthetic legacies. The moves in level with his historic debates on the distinction between medium, and technology senses. He viewed a technique as a skill or how that skill is applicable. A technical intervention is the development of that skill or development of its devices (Williams, 1981). This leads to the reassertion of the determination model. References Feenberg, A. 1995. Alternative Modernity: The Technical Turn in Philosophy and Social Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press Castells, M. 2009. The Internet Galaxy. London: Oxford University Press. Couldry, N. and Curran, J. 2003. Contesting Media Power: Alternative Media in a Networked World. London: Oxford University Press Witschge, T. 2009. Liberal dreams and the internet: A case study. London: Sage Freedman, D. 2005. Internet transformations: ‘old’ media resilience in the ‘new media’. London: Routledge Curran, W. and Morley, D., 2007. Media and Cultural Theory. London: Routledge. Hindman, M. 2009. The Myth of Digital Democracy. London: Princeton Univ. Press Küng, L et al . 2008. The Internet and the Mass Media. London: Sage Read More