Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
One of the most peculiar aspects of the ongoing technological progress, which ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution continues to affect the surrounding social reality to an ever-higher degree, is that this progress appears to have a number of the clearly phenomenological subtleties to it. In its turn, this has to do with the fact that, even though that are many reasons to refer to the process of humanity remaining on the path of a technological advancement, as being thoroughly objective, the scenario’s qualitative characteristics suggest that it cannot be discussed outside of what account for the dialectically predetermined qualities of the affiliated ‘human substratum’.
That is, the very notion of ‘technological progress’ is discursively ambivalent, in the sense of being simultaneously both: reflective of the actual mechanics of how the laws of evolution define the ways of humanity, and indicative of the fact that, in order to be able to act as the agent of socio-cultural/technological development, one must be capable of elevating itself above these laws. This, of course, implies that when it comes to trying to discover the actual ‘fuel’ of progress, researchers would be better off combining the ‘culturally determinist’ and ‘technologically determinist’ discursive paradigms – despite the fact that, methodologically speaking, they are quite inconsistent with each other. In this paper, I will explore the validity of the above-stated at length, in regards to the (1991) documentary Empire of the Air: The Men Who Made Radio.
Fuel of Progress: Technological’ and Cultural Determinism
Before I proceed with the intended undertaking, it will be in order to provide definitions to what the notions of the ‘technological’ and ‘cultural’ determinism (regarding the concept of technological progress) stand for. According to the proponents of the former, the process of new technologies being discovered is fully objective. This, in turn, suggests that it is the mentioned process, which defines the manner in which people perceive the surrounding reality, and not the other way around. As Williams pointed out: “New technologies are discovered by an essentially internal process of research and development, which then sets the conditions of social change and progress” (13).
Thus, in order for us to be able to understand the essence of socio-cultural dynamics within a particular society, we will need to define the overall measure of its ‘technological friendliness’. ‘Cultural determinists’, however, could not disagree more. According to them, there is a link between what happened to be the particulars of one’s socio-cultural affiliation, on one hand, and the concerned person’s technology-related attitudes, on the other. In its turn, this implies that the discussion of what can be deemed the technology’s actual significance, may never cease being observant of what can be identified as the affected individuals’ deep-seated and culturally extrapolated perceptual/cognitive predispositions: “It (is) necessary to examine the social context of the technology… A cultural determinist would need to look at the circumstances preceding the development of a technology” (Winston 8).
Thus, the ‘culturally determinist’ approach to making inquiries into the concerned subject matter, necessitates the analysis of what were the socio-cultural specifics of the affiliated ‘public sphere’, at the time when a particular scientific discovery took place.
The documentary Empire of the Air: The Men Who Made Radio appears to be largely supportive of the ‘culturally determinist’ outlook on what makes technological progress possible, in the first place. The validity of this suggestion can be illustrated, in regards to the fact that, as it can be seen in the documentary, in order for an individual to be able to come up with the groundbreaking scientific invention, he or she must be ‘touched by genius’ to an extent. For example, while expounding on his memories of Edwin Howard Armstrong (the inventor of regenerative circuit and frequency modulation), one of the featured interviewees said: “He (Armstrong) was an extraordinary person. He exuded integrity and sort of an aura of invention. He was a true genius and there are not very many in the world today” (Beenessreesingh 00.025.30).
As the main indication that Howard must indeed have been a genius, can be well mentioned the fact that he never gave much of a thought to the would-be practical implications of his discoveries, while tending to regard its scientific pursuits, as such that had a value of its own. This can be seen as the proof that, throughout the course of his life, Howard continued to be strongly affiliated with the so-called ‘Faustian’ existential values, which derive out of the assumption that: “Individual’s willpower must never cease combating obstacles… and that the conflict is the essence of existence” (Greenwood 53).
That is, Howard’s main motivation to continue investing time and money in his research, was concerned with the fact that he used to derive an acute emotional pleasure, out of being presented with the challenge of discovering new ways for the transmission of radio-signals to grow ever more technologically advanced. This, however, also contributed towards bringing about Howard’s eventual demise – having been a rather impractically minded individual, he did not have what it takes to be able to succeed in turning his discoveries into the tool of an ‘existential empowerment’.
The same, however, cannot be said about yet another ‘father of radio’, prominently featured in the documentary – David Sarnoff. Even though, in the formal sense of this word, Sarnoff did not accomplish even a single scientific discovery, he nerveless was able to change the very essence of the social realities in America and consequently – in the whole world. The reason for this is that, as compared to what it used to be the case with Howard; Sarnoff was a practically industrious individual, capable of turning just about any technological innovation into the instrument of generating a commercial profit.
This can be considered the main reason why it eventually occurred to Sarnoff that, instead of serving as merely the medium of a ‘point-to-point’ wireless communication, radio could well be deployed to channel the selected informational flows to many people at once. As it was noted in the documentary: “Sarnoff had the idea of taking communication from one point and transmitting it to many points, in other words – from point to mass” (Beenessreesingh 00.37.08).
Apparently, despite lacking a formal education, Sarnoff nevertheless was perfectly aware of how to take practical advantage of people’s unconscious desire to exist in the socially-integrated mode – even while remaining socially incapacitated de facto, due to a variety of different reasons. This alone allows us to assume that Sarnoff must have been endowed with the so-called ‘Apollonian’ mentality, the main characteristics of which are: the affiliated individual’s practical mindedness, inability to defy the conventions of ‘ordinariness’, highly sharpened ‘animalistic’ intuitiveness and strive towards domination (Spengler 82).
Given the fact that, as it is being implied in the documentary, if it was not up to the collaborated efforts, on the part of Howard and Sarnoff, the phenomenon of radio’s sheer popular (Crissell 22) would never become the integral part of the discourse of modernity, we can speculate the following:
The main prerequisite for the pace of technological progress to continue gaining a momentum in a particular society, is that within this society, there is a healthy balance between ‘Faustians’, on one hand, and ‘Apollonians’, on the other. Whereas, the former act as the progress’s actual agents (in the sense of enabling scientific discoveries to take place), the latter popularize the notion of a technologically advanced living among people – hence, supervening the social necessity of progress.
If there are too many ‘Faustians’ within the society, it creates certain obstacles on the way of this society’s technological advancement – being essentially ‘theoreticians’, they often prove incapable of understanding what makes their scientific discoveries societally useful. The overabundance of ‘Appolonians’, within the society, should not be regarded thoroughly beneficial, either – due to being solely concerned with advancing their largely ‘animalistic’ existential agenda (sex, money and domination), they cannot quite operate with the utterly abstract (scientific) categories, which prevents them from being able to make scientific discoveries.
This, of course, presupposes the legitimacy of the ‘culturally determinist’ outlook of what can be deemed the technology’s ‘driving force’. After all, in light of the above-stated, it appears that the continuation of technological progress is only possible under the specific set of the objectively existing social circumstances
Nevertheless, the paradigm of ‘technological determinism’, in respect to what causes humanity to continue evolving, in the cultural and technological senses of this word, can also be considered methodologically legitimate. The reason for this is that there are indeed a number of indications, as to the fact that people’s fascination with technology cannot be discussed outside of their genetically predetermined strive to prioritize seeking a social prominence, above everything else. For example, one of the reasons why radio became so popular, during the course of the thirties and forties, is that during the course of this historical period, people realized that their exposure to radio-programs was empowering them socially (Douglas 212).
This simply could not be otherwise – while listening to news-reports on the radio, one cannot help growing ever more capable of adopting a circumstantially justified stance in life. Therefore, there is nothing odd about the fact that, as it was mentioned in the documentary: “Americans would sooner sell their refrigerators, bathtubs, telephones and beds than part with the box that connected them to the world” (Beenessreesingh 01.14.47).
Moreover, the fact that it proved possible to radio broadcast live-music, as well, correlated with people’s yet another biologically defined tendency to preoccupy themselves with trying to experience as many sensual/emotional pleasures, as possible. In its turn, this explains why, even though radio used to be initially envisioned as solely the tool of an interpersonal communication, it did not take too long for the communicational medium in question to become closely associated with the notion of ‘entertainment’ and consequently – ‘consumerism’. The concerned transformation had to do with the fact that: “Advertisers and broadcasters both needed… to establish radio’s ability to produce the right audience- an audience of consumers rather than of listeners” (Meehan 67).
As the medium of channeling information, radio suited for this perfectly well: “Radio… had uniquely intrusive properties; its programs could enter all households and be heard by all members of the family” (Craig 37). Hence, a certain paradox – despite having been discovered by those individuals, who used to enjoy the sensation of being intellectually stimulated more than anything (such as de Forest and Howard), the technology of radio eventually ended up being closely related to the notion of ‘anti-intellectualism’.
What is particularly notable, in this respect, is that, as the realities of the 20th century’s living indicated, the exponential vector of technological progress is thoroughly consistent with the fact that, even though newly emerged technologies do benefit people in a number of different ways, they are simultaneously capable of undermining the extent of these people’s evolutionary fitness. In order to prove the validity of this statement, one does not have to go far – the fact that, as of today, at least 50% of Americans suffer from being overweight, is substantially aided by the availability of high-tech gadgets in this country (Oliver and Lee 926).
This, of course, suggests that there is indeed a single developmental pattern to how different scientific inventions come into being, and to what account for the spatially ‘unwrapped’ effects of these inventions’ practical application. Initially, scientific inventions do speed up the process of humanity growing ever more existentially empowered. As time goes on, however, this ‘empowerment’, on the affected individuals’ part, makes them increasingly less capable of addressing even the most basic challenges of life. This, of course, implies the validity of the ‘technologically determinist’ perspective on the subject matter. The reason for this is apparent – as it was illustrated above, there is indeed a certain rationale in referring to the notion of technological progress in terms of a ‘thing in itself’, quite independent of what happened to be the environmental peculiarities of its developmental phases.
Conclusion
Based upon what has been said earlier, we can come up with the following conclusion.
Even though, methodologically speaking, the ‘culturally determinist” and “technologically determinist’ approaches to media-history appear rather irreconcilable, this is far from being the actual case. Apparently, the presumed ‘irreconcilableness’ between these two approaches originates out of the lack of people’s awareness that there are multiple dimensions to the history of media. Whereas, it is being much more appropriate to discuss what drives media-progress within the conceptual framework of ‘cultural determinism’, this progress’ spatially prolonged social effects are much better tackled from the perspective of ‘technological determinism’.
We can say that both of the mentioned approaches interrelate with each other in the similar manner as what it happened to be the case with Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, on one hand, and the Theory of Quantum Physics, on the other – even though these theories are mutually contradictory, it does not undermine the extent of their practical applicability. What it means is that, when it comes to discussing the media-related subtleties of the ongoing technological progress, one should be so much better off taking advantage of both: ‘cultural determinism’ and ‘technological determinism’. This once again confirms the validity of the idea that there are no ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ social theories, but only those that do prove practically valuable and those that do not. I believe that this conclusion is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis.
Works Cited
Beenessreesingh, Deena. “Empire of the Air: The Men Who Made Radio.” Online video clip. YouTube. 2014. Web.
Craig, Douglas. Fireside Politics: Radio and Political Culture in the United States, 1920-1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Print.
Crissell, Andrew. “The Birth of Radio.” An Introductory History of British Broadcasting. London/New York: Routledge Place, 2002. 14-26. Print.
Douglas, Susan. “Early Radio.” Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. Eds. David Crowley and Paul Heyer. Boston: Pearson Allyn & Bacon. 2007. 210-217. Print.
Greenwood, Susan. Anthropology of Magic. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2009. Print.
Meehan, Eileen. “Why We Don’t Count: The Commodity Audience.” Ed. Michele Hilmes. Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2003. 63-82. Print.
Oliver, Eric and Taeku Lee. “Public Opinion and the Politics of Obesity in America.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law 30.5 (2005): 923-954. Print.
Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press, (1923) 1991. Print.
Williams, Raymond. Television: Technology and Cultural Form. New York: Schocken Books, 1975. Print.
Winston, Brian. “How are Media Born?” Connections: A Broadcast History Reader. Ed. Michele Hilmes. Belmont: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2003. 3-18. Print.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.