By Wayne Blair, z3290795
Text Based
Question 4 - “[C]ivilization has been dominated at different stages by various media of communication such as clay, papyrus, parchment, and paper produced first from rags and then from wood. Each medium has its significance for the type of monopoly of knowledge which will be built and which will destroy the conditions suited to creative thought and be displaced by a new medium with its peculiar type of monopoly of knowledge.” (Innis, H, 1949, The Press: A neglected factor in the economic history of the twentieth century, Oxford University Press, London; 5).
Do you agree with this statement? Provide examples from the history and current state of publishing to make your argument.
In a technologically deterministic society, the way in which we interact with the media, as a technological form of communication, is continuously shifting. Through time, technological advancements are integrated into our lives, allowing new media and communicative forms to be created. With each new media system, the way in which society functions is altered, and a new form of power is established. Political economist and social theorist Howard Innis is attentive of the way in which society can be constantly “displaced by a new medium” (1949; 5), and how a power originates in the exclusion of one group to another, creating centralizations and/or hierarchies of knowledge. This constant modification of the monopolies of knowledge, dictates a dislocation of culture, ideology and societal practice. Philosophy Theorist Ian Angus argues that the communication’s “characteristics are not given to the medium by its environment, though they are certainly used in a specific way in a given environment” (Angus, 1998). He highlights that the medium is highly subjective to the society using it, and thus monopolies of knowledge can differ in different cultures. Innis, in his argument centers on the western world, primarily the United States, as will this essay, but as technology has improved, particularly with the rise of the internet, the technological uses homogenize. In this blog I will explore the way in which the evolving communication technologies change the way monopolies of knowledge are structured and their effect on how societies function.
The communicative medium that is used in the transfer knowledge will affect the longevity, transferability and importance of its message both in time and spatially. These dual oppositions fabricate the Innis argument of ‘Bias of Communication’ (1951), where a “Time-biased media render the passage of time unimportant … [and] Space-biased media render the expanse of space unimportant” (Marvin 1983; 32). Innis argues that each form provides a differing construct of societal power, with space-biased media “favour[ing] decentralization and hierarchical types of institutions” while time-biased “favour [s] centralization” (Innis, 1972; 7). Through time society is continuously forced to move between the two biases, or into a state of increased bias, however, as Angus exposes, “When a society has been reasonably successful in extending itself in space… the explicit concern… becomes directed toward time” and vice versa. Innis argues that knowledge and communication must be subjugated and eradicated in some form, in accordance with the power shifts to allow a complete adoption of the technology into the current cultural setting.
“Institutions are based on a medium of communication that, within that institution, is the most significant and then monopolizes knowledge through monopolizing access to and use of that medium of communication” (Angus, 1998). When knowledge is altered, hidden or favourably exposed, due to power constructs in society, Monopolies of Power exist. Communication technologies allow an “explicit and/or implicit control over the social pool of information” (Comer, 2001; 280) and therefore what is known and communicated by society and the masses. “The limitations of culture, in point of duration, are in part a result of the inability to muster the intellectual resources of a people” (Innis, 1951; 203). Those who have the monopoly of knowledge gain the ability to alter what is remembered, the past, present and future. The archive becomes alterable and representative of those in power in the “death, aggression, and destruction drive” (Derrida, 1994; 94) “a forgetfulness which does not limit itself to repression” (Derrida, 1994; 19). Innis foregrounds how “Writings on culture can be divided into those attempting to weaken other cultures, and those attempting to strengthen their own” (1951; 202), highlighting the cyclical destructibility and destructive intentions of the monopolies of knowledge.
Communication technologies have always been a focus of social interaction between cultures, and therefore has been a form of preserving a culture. “Once a new medium has begun to spread in a civilization, the extent of its adoption is also shaped by factors arising from its own inherent characteristics” (Frost, 2003) of simplicity and innovation. The “Literacy probably constitutes the most significant monopoly of knowledge in human history” (Levinson, 1997; 12). It can be argued that all forms of communication media stem from a literature basis, whereby ‘literacy’ is not simply the act of reading and writing by hand as traditionally viewed, but a method of using media and communicating though a technological means. Therefore literacy constitutes a fluid knowledge in itself, throughout history.
When looking at the communication of the Ancient Greeks, whose “oral tradition … provided a basis for the epic and for literature designed to unite scattered groups” (Innis, 1951; 205), creating a space-biased community, focused on the Greek mythology passed through from those in power. A strong interpersonal relation existed in the passing of information between those in society. However, with the introduction and growth of a written medium, a new form of communication and publication, the monopolies of knowledge and power that previously existed in the oral traditions, were delegitimized of authority, and throughout the fifth century “Greek culture was destroyed” (Innis, 1951; 205). Monopolies of power, and therefore knowledge were shifted away from the people, to the elitist, those able to read the new media. Communication became more time-biased, where hierarchies in power decided legitimacy.
This destruction of the existing powers occurred again with the creation of the mass printing press in the fifteenth century. “The discovery of printing … implied the beginning of a return to a type of civilization dominated by the eye rather than the ear” (Innis, 1951; 207). When opened to the public, this technology began as a widespread mode of communication, with a circulation of personal notices and personal opinions throughout society. The space-biased communication increased, allowing a decentralization of ideas and knowledge to the people. However, questions of legitimacy and an abundance of information, along with the pre-existing influential ‘news press’ organizations in a city, saw a reduction of the public masses, allowing the pre-existing monopolies to of power to be re-established. But with the increase in public opinion and critique on the accountability of the press, the Fourth Estate came into existence, reducing, their overall power, but legitimizing their political influence on society (Schultz, 1998; 22-25).
The effect of the printing press permitted another immense change in the way monopolies of power interact, with the mass production of an English translation of the Catholic Bible. Previously in Latin, it was only able to be read by those in power within the church, and therefore, knowledge was kept time-biased and centralized by those “who could decide the nature of the information that they passed on to the rest of the community” (Levinson, 1997; 12). Society was only able to gain knowledge from those in power, communication was in disproportion and the public’s influence on the past and future was negligible. With the translation to English, power and monopolies of knowledge were decentralised, allowing the masses to gain a new power of choice and interpretation.
The transformation of communication back into the oral and aural, came with the invention of the radio throughout the early nineteenth century. Similar to the printing press before it, the space-biased radio saw widespread uptake as a means of communication, leading to the creation of 13,581 licensed amateur stations in the United States (Douglas, 1998; 293), once again decentralizing the monopolies of knowledge set up by the governance of the print media. But this mass adoption posed questions of authority and importance of information, leading to the corporatisation of the radio. The radio became “for the most part became yet another vehicle used by private-sector interests to attract consumers to advertising” (Comer, 2001; 281-282), a private commodity restrictive in its social interaction and schedules. The power was completely eradicated from the masses, returning to the elites, causing a centralized monopoly of knowledge to be created.
The most recent evolution of literacy was the creation of the internet. Joining the world in ways never experienced before, it changed the way in which communication is experienced today. A primarily space-biased medium, free from the boundaries of physical space, the internet allows communication and interaction with others around the world. Like most technologies, once literate, the boundaries of power became increasingly dispersed. With its primary interactions of social networking and sharing of information, the internet, unlike previous forms of literacy, has yet to be commoditised to a level of elitist only status, its monopolies of knowledge remaining with the masses. With its archive-ability, it also evokes a timeless quality, retaining the past, present and future, breaking into the time-biased medium, and creating a balance between the two. As Angus argues a “balance of biases can allow a viewpoint which, in a sense, neutralizes the conflicting biases of a plurality of media” (1998). This may attribute for its relatively long life thus far, yet to be replaced by a new form of communication. Instead it is being increasingly integrated into our lives, becoming the new communicative form of older technologies, like internet radio and online news reports. While still retaining some forms of power hierarchies in traditional media forms and internet reliability, the monopolies of knowledge in this stage of communications is the most dispersed it has been historically, with the masses gaining a cumulative power through the internet.
In a technologically deterministic society, the way in which we interact with the media, as a technological form of communication, is continuously shifting. Over time, as the technological form advances, so does the way in which society functions and interacts. Monopolies of Power, knowledge, communication and truth are displaced and refigured in effect of these technological changes (Innis, 1951). But, in our contemporary society, with the introduction of the internet, a balance and consistency of the monopolies may have been reached. Society has reached a new standardization of communication.
By Wayne Blair, z3290795
Tutor – Rowan
Tutorial time – Wed 9am
Bibliography
- Angus, 1998, ‘The materiality of expression: Harold Innis’ communication theory and the discursive turn in the human sciences’, Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 23, No 1, viewed 2/6/10 < http://cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/1020/926>
- Comor, E, 2001, ‘Harold Innis and the ‘Bias of communication’’, Information, Communication & Society, Vol 4, No 2, Routledge, United States; 274 – 294
- Derrida, J, 1998, Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, University Of Chicago Press, Chicago, edn 1; 19, 94, 202-203
- Douglas, S, 1998, Inventing American broadcasting, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore; 290-295
- Frost, C, 2003, ‘How Prometheus is bound: applying the Innis method of communications analysis to the internet’, Canadian Journal of Communication, Vol 28, No 1, viewed 4/6/10 <http://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/1338/1396>
- Innis, H, 1949, The Press: A neglected factor in the economic history of the twentieth century, Oxford University Press, London; 1-5
- Innis, H, 1951, The bias of communication, University of Toronto Press, Toronto; 200-210
- Innis, H, 1972, Empire and communications, University of Toronto Press, Toronto & Buffalo; 5-9
- Levinson, P, 1997, The soft edge: a natural history and future of the information revolution, Routledge, United States; 10-15
- Marvin 1983, ‘Space, time, and captive communications history’, Communications in Transition, Praeger, New York; 25–35.
- Schultz, J, 1998, Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media, Cambridge University Press; 22-25
June 9, 2010
Categories: Uncategorized . Tags: Arts 2090, Innis, Monopolies, Monopolies of Knowledge . Author: blair_arg . Comments: Leave a Comment
