Morley, David, 1949- .Media, modernity and technology : the geography of the new / David Morley. [0415333415 (hbk. : alk. paper) ] London ; New York : Routledge, 2007.
Call#: Van Pelt Library P94.6 .M673 2007

 

Part Five of David Morley’s book examines the idea of “Techno-anthropology,” or the symbolic meanings of objects in our contemporary world. Morley uses the television as a main example of a modern technology that has come to hold much cultural signification on our everyday lives, and thus devotes a section of his book to explaining how exactly it fits into the world today. He suggests that the television has become somewhat synonymous with home or comfort; though initially a foreign object, it has since redefined the private space and come to hold a more or less sacred place in home culture. Though much of Morley’s discussion here has to do with television in and of itself, he makes a number of points about television that can then be used to discuss its relationship with new media. Also, this chapter points out that the symbolism and meaning of television has changed over time. I’m not sure how to incorporate this into my paper, or if I even need to do so – but I feel that to overlook it might be a mistake. In any case, it should at least be mentioned somewhat, if only to show the evolution of television as compared to new media.

Morley then turns to examining newer media technologies, with the purpose of refuting the concept that with new media comes new social and cultural uses for that media. He argues that while technologies like cell phones and computers do bring with them new ways of consumption, their arrival does not signal the death of traditional social rituals. Living traditions tend to incorporate new technologies rather than become obsolete in the face of media development. This fits with Michele White’s ideas on spectatorship, thus providing a non-traditional viewpoint to help me balance my paper.

That this book focuses very little on a viewer’s actual engagement with the screen prevents this source from becoming a major on for my paper. However, I do think that some of the ideas present here and Morley’s background on the evolution of these technologies can give me some good basic background information, as a foundation for my arguments.
 

White, Michele. . Body and the screen : theories of Internet spectatorship / Michele White. [0262232499 (alk. paper) ] Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c2006.
Call#: Van Pelt Library TK5105.875.I57 W5275 2006

 

The Body and the Screen looks at theoretical models of Internet and computer spectatorship as a way of illustrating how these new technologies might not be as controllable as many think they are. Michele White views spectatorship as relatively similar between old and new media in certain ways. Just like in television and cinema, the images that appear before us on computer and phone screens hold a certain amount of cultural and social bias that cannot be removed. Consider the appearance of the “Ask Jeeves” butler – a Caucasian butler, and an image that has transferred exactly from old media to new. This idea is significant because it represents a departure from “traditional” ways of considering spectatorship in this age of digital screen interaction. I think her point-of-view provides a unique angle that I could perhaps use for my paper, especially since she outright disagrees with Anne Friedberg’s concept of an Internet/computer “user.”

The inclusion of several different types of theories and theorists in this book also appeals to me. I like that White chooses to back up her arguments with several different, at times competing, ideas from intellectuals of varying backgrounds. I’m not as interested in why she chooses whom she does; rather, her writing style here allows me to learn new bits of information quickly from authors I might not have known otherwise. In fact, overall, I learned a lot of little bits of information from other theorists in addition to studying her concept on new media spectatorship. The entire book is thus useful in this way.

Yet White’s examples and illustrative points may not be as helpful as her opinions and theories. She focuses a lot on the social implications of Internet content (how individuals consciously and subconsciously react to the white finger pointer or the black arrow pointer, for example), rather than examining the interaction between spectator and screen. Some discussion does exist on interfaces, especially in chapter 2’s discussion of “the gaze,” but ultimately return to reinforcing the social control that she believes pervades even this new media. My investigation really has nothing to do with examining gender, race, and sexuality issues in new media presentations, so much of this is not relevant for my paper.