In 1882 Thoreau published Walden —a reflection upon simple living. Despite its age, Thoreau’s insights hold relevance today (Dolis, 2005). In reference to technological in- novations, Thoreau (1882, p. 31) proclaims that “they are an improved means to an unimproved end”. By this, he suggests that any new invention, ICTs for instance, should be viewed with skepticism. Commenting on this assertion Cafaro (2010, p. 92) explains that this entails considering the purpose of any technology, as well as the possibility of unintended side effects associated with its use. It does not preclude the recognition that media enable numerous positive, beneficial functions. Rather, the work of Thoreausug- gests that, to understand media, it is necessary to not only consider intended purposes, but also the unintended consequences of their use. On this basis, this sub-section presents a brief discussion of two theoretical accounts of media —those of Marshal McLuhan and Neil Postman. It is acknowledged that considering the views of only two theorists cre- ates a limited perspective. The purpose of this sub-section, however, is not to present a rigorous evaluation of all media theory. Rather, it serves to provide direction to the development of a pragmatic working definition for the term media.
In coining the phrase ‘the medium is the message’ McLuhan(1964) argues that, to un- derstand media, the study of mediated content holds little value in comparison with the analysis of the underlying technologies. For McLuhan (1964, p. 9), the characteristics of a medium determine how the “scale and form of human association and action” are influenced. Essentially,McLuhanargues that it is a medium’s properties, rather than the content it conveys, that have a capacity to impact perception and behaviour. Prior to this,McLuhan(1962) asserted that mediated experiences involve a perceptual interaction with the senses, shaping experiences of reality. Accordingly, he contends that different modes of communication, facilitated by different media, enable different experiences of reality —as a result of their selective biases (Vieta and Laureano,2013). This notion of selective bias can be related to the concept of affordances proposed byGibson(1979). In
design theory affordances describe the perceived and actual properties of an object de- termining how it can be used (Norman,1988, p. 9). For instance,Baron(2008) describes the capacity of paper to record the written word without the need for an electrical power source as an affordance of this medium. As another example, she describes the capacity of mobile phones to extend the physical locations within which communication can occur as an affordance of such media. Affordances describe the action possibilities a medium enables. Through the enactment of an affordance specific behaviours are facilitated. In describing media as “extensions of ourselves” McLuhan (1964, p. 22) highlights how different media and, therefore, different affordances, extend the senses in different ways, enabling certain patterns of behaviour and preventing others. Such patterns, however, are not only a function of the medium itself, but also the context in which it is used. McLuhan (1964, p. 26) explains that “no medium has its meaning or existence alone, but only in constant interplay with other media”, suggesting that individual media experiences are dependent on inter-media interactions. This interplay is particularly evident given the increasing convergence of new media. Jenkins (2006, p. 2) describes convergence as the “flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences”. Rather than viewing convergence as a technological process, Jenkins views it as a cultural shift, emphasising the information-seeking nature of media interactions. Consequently, any effects of media are contingent on subjective-situational factors as well as interactions with other media. In Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Post- man(1985) distinguishes between the Orwellian vision of the future depicted in Nineteen Eighty-Four and that offered by Huxley in Brave New World. Postman employs these fictional accounts as lenses through which to consider television’s effect on the nature of public discourse. While primarily concerned with television, the author offers a number of assertions pertinent to new media in general. The fundamental premise underlying his argument is that the “media of communication available to a culture are a dominant influ- ence on the formation of the culture’s intellectual and social preoccupations” (p. 10). By this, he suggests that media engender a particular view of reality. As such, this position corresponds with McLuhan (1964)’s assertion that the ‘medium is the message’. Post- man, however, contends thatMcLuhan’s maxim requires revision. Recasting McLuhan’s aphorism as ‘the medium is the metaphor’, Postmansuggests that the comparison with a ‘message’ is inappropriate, as messages denote specific statements about the world —something which, he argues, media do not. Rather, he likens media to ‘metaphors’, suggesting that they work through unobtrusive but powerful implication to enforce their
conceptions of reality on those who interact with them.
Postman(1985, p. 84) distinguishes between a ‘technology’ and a ‘medium’, describing a technology as “merely a machine” and a medium as the “use to which a physical appara- tus is put [...] the social and intellectual environment a machine creates”. A smartphone as a technology is an assemblage of components, whereas a smartphone as a medium is a ubiquitous means of communication, entertainment and, arguably, disruption. A medium is the social and cognitive environment dictated by the manner in which it is used. This definition builds on the notion that, through technological affordances, be- haviour is directed in particular ways. Postman (1985) argues that these biases enable media to impact the character of social and personal environments, to alter the nature of epistemology, and to direct attention. Written text as a medium favours linear, sys- tematic analysis, whereas television favours immediacy and entertainment. Computers, in contrast, favour information exchange. Summarising this,Postman(1998, p. 3) states that “every technology has a philosophy which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in what it makes us do with our bodies, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards”. It is important to note thatPostmanis careful not to claim that media produce changes in neural structures or cognitive capacities. Rather, he restricts his argument to the impact of media on the shape of social and political discourses. While Postman distinguishes between a medium and a technology, McLuhan does not. In providing electric lights, the wheel, or books as examples of media as ‘extensions of ourselves’, McLuhan draws attention to the physical nature of these media and how, as tools, these artefacts extend human capabilities. The characteristics or affordances of a medium, as physiological extensions, can come to alter “the whole psychic and social complex” (McLuhan, 1968, p. 11). McLuhan (1962), accordingly, asserts that media alter the ‘ratio’ between various human senses. In this way, specific affordances can come to shape an individual’s sensory relationship with the world (Lister et al., 2009). For Postman, a technology is merely the artefact of communication. Media, in contrast, are the use to which these artefacts are put, and the ensuing cognitive and social environments they engender. For both of these theorists then, media refer to more than simply the artefacts of communication. Media imply an association between a tool, the uses to which it can be put, and the behaviour and thought processes that it engenders. While McLuhan emphasises the physical or technological nature of media, Postman along with Williams(2003), however, contends that rather than referring to a specific technological artefact, a medium is a particular use for an artefact.
Since Postman and McLuhan view the technological biases inherent in media as key to the determination of related cognitions and behaviour, their views have been regarded as technologically determinist (Bolter, 2003). Technological determinism presumes that technology functions as an independent factor —shaping society, and changing behaviours (Hodkinson,2016). In proposing that media are the ‘message’ or the ‘metaphor’, they pre- sume that the biases inherent in media direct their use in predictable ways “regardless of who develops and controls them, who uses them and what socio-cultural context they are placed within” (Hodkinson, 2016, p. 24). McLuhan(1964) does, however, acknowledge the role of social contexts and inter-media interactions. As such, his work has been con- sidered to be softly determinist —both technological affordances and human agency drive behaviour (Logan,2013). This notion is captured in the complementary terms ‘Medium Theory’ and ‘Media Ecology’ conceptualised by McLuhan in 1964 and formalised by Postman (1970). Medium theory focuses on media as a form of technology, whereas its counterpart, media ecology, concerns the interaction between media-technologies and their environments (Van Loon,2008).
Williams (2003, p. 133) suggests that technological determinism ignores those responsi- ble for the development of media. Likewise, Hill(1988, p. 15) argues that technological innovation is a function of the “alignment between technological possibilities and the so- ciety and culture that exists”. Additionally, Kritt and Winegar(2007, p. 5) argue that technological progress is driven by a profit motive, implying that those responsible for the development of technologies hold vested interests in their adoption and continued use. Such notions are described as the Social Shaping of Technology (SST) and illustrate how the design and use of media, as technological artefacts, are influenced by multiple technical, social, and economic factors (Williams and Edge,1996). In contrast to the pas- sive interpretation of the technological determinists, such a perspective holds that human actors play a key role in determining the nature, use and effects of media. Of particular relevance is the manner in which those responsible for the design and development of media embed their world-views, motives, and practices into their products (Williams, 2003). This is exemplified by the increasing influence of persuasive design1 on the nature
of media (Lockton et al.,2008). A further aspect of the SST, central to this dissertation, is the notion that, while media may present specific affordances to their users, biasing behaviour in certain directions, such affordances can be enacted in numerous diverse and unexpected ways (Boudreau and Robey,2005;Leonardi,2011;le Roux,2013).
1Persuasive design focuses on designing products or services (typically software services), in such a
The medium, then, is not the only message. Rather, in addition to the affordances of media, use and effects are contingent on contextual, economic, normative, and personal factors. Moreover, Williams (2003, p. 132) proposes that media frequently become appropriated for unintended uses, often with unexpected consequences. For instance, text-messaging on mobile phones, now a popular feature, was never expected to be used outside of very specific use-cases (Deuze, 2012, p. 46). Both McLuhan and Postman emphasise the importance of understanding the role of media in shaping cognitive, social, and cultural experiences, reasoning that media’s inherent biases direct behaviour and, potentially, determine perceptual and cognitive experiences. In proposing that media are the ‘message’ or the ‘metaphor’ they recognise that the effects of media extend beyond simply their content. The affordances of media shape the characteristics of both the content and the manner in which interaction takes place. To further understand the relationship between media and cognition it is evident that, in addition to appreciating the nature of media, it is also necessary to examine the subjective and situational factors surrounding media use. The remainder of this section considers the characteristics of media, while Chapter3 concerns the latter factors.