Lum's Overview of Media Ecology & Clive Thompson on Ambient Intimacy

Media ecology is hardly something that can be summed up in an overview, yet Lum tackles the challenge with finesse. By combining the work of many scholars both directly and indirectly related to media ecology Lum is able to paint us a general picture of this realm. Our particular reading begins with Neil Postman's definition of media ecology introduced in 1968 as the study of media as environments; referring to media as complex message systems and media ecology as an attempt to unveil their implicit, intrinsic structures and impact on human perception, understanding, and feeling. The study of media ecology is grouped into two basic levels: media as sensorial environments and media as symbolic environments.

These groupings are important because they get at a key differentiation within the study of media ecology. Marshall Mcluhan gives us the first of two ideas, "the medium is the message", meaning that each medium engenders its own set of sensory characteristics (e.g. print lends itself to the visual, radio to the auditory, etc.) and therefore influences human perception in a certain way. Extremely relevant in our project considering we are looking at the development of identity/anonymity throughout time. The study of media ecology is a core concept that gives a foundation to base our work from. Identity is something that has been created and recreated many times over and it is from the view point of media ecology that we can better understand how the various media from different time periods have influenced the concept of identity/anonymity.

The other side of the coin includes media as symbolic environments. The previous idea gets at the physiological connection media has with its consumer and what this means for interpretation of "reality" while this idea addresses the specific codes and syntax, as Lum puts it, within the different forms of media. Media forms may cater to the physiological senses in order for us to sense our world but it is through symbolism that we perceive and begin to mentally process the world that surrounds us. This concepts underlines the fact that humans are not outside of the media they use to communicate but rather smack dab in the middle of it. Therefore, it is necessary to point out, which Lum does, that humans do not necessarily separate the physiological senses from the psychological symbolism encapsulated in media forms. He reinterates how it is more valuable to look at the interaction between these two key points (i.e. the sensory and symbolic) that begin to shape people's perception of their surroundings.

Once again Lum brings up a point that is especially relevant for a look back in history. With regards to identity/anonymity it is cruical that we try to grasp how people's symbolic frame of reference was similar/different than it is today in order to understand the need, or lack thereof, for a strong sense of identity/anonymity. Understanding that symbolism and sensory stimuli are intimately intertwined is a huge factor when interpreting what can only be found in the literature. There is no one to directly ask and we already have our own frames of reference that cloud our view of how things were regarded in the past.

The idea of single and multi-media environments is a path that can be seen as becoming wider throughout time. As we have moved into the present our options for different media both separately and in combination has grown immensely. This alone has a huge impact on how media forms influence human perception without even delving into the 2 levels mentioned previously. But before we can even get a firm grasp on all this we need to fully understand the broad definition of media.

It is common to think of media as means of communicating information, which is completely true, but what is often overlooked is the possibility for environments themselves to be media. Once the idea is presented it makes sense; Erving Goffman looks at this in his dramaturgical studies of how the symbolic structure of social settings define the parameter for human behavior and interaction (1959). It is possible to view this from the perspective of operating outside of the media and simply using it as a communication device or being engaged in it for the purpose of communication.

Lum goes on to introduce three of media ecology's underlying theoretical propositions, all of which build upon the previous one. Once again, the idea that "the structure of the media defines the nature of information", to quote Lum, reiterates the importance of context when looking back throughout time. Building upon that proposition we come to the idea that each medium will inherently contain a set of biases. These biases can be intellectual/emotional in nature or span across a wides variety of things including political/social biases, content biases or even metaphysical biases. Regardless these all must be considered if we are to even come close to a conclusion on how media affects human perception. Lastly, we have to look at the relationship between technology and culture, particularly how communication technology may impact upon culture (Lum 2006). More importantly we have to consider the possibility that human agency as well as technology play an equally important role in shaping culture, giving rise to the concept of "technology/culture symbiosis.

Lum brings this particular reading to a close with an epochal historiography of media. Focusing on the four major communication epochs: orality, literacy, typography and electronic media. Lum states that "based on the three general theoretical propositions we should begin to see one of the central, defining features of media ecology's paradigm content: the study of how changes in communication media can facilitate fundamental, large-scale, or ecological changes in culture. This is potentially one of the best guides we have when searching for the why's and how's that have brought us to the age of the crisis of significance.


Ambient Intimacy:

In September of 2008, the International Herald Tribune published an article by Clive Thompson entitled "Web ushers in age of ambient intimacy". Its whole focus is on the numerous possibilities of social connection via the endless applications found on the web. An underlying theme of this type of work is the idea of "strong" and "weak" ties and whether or not these web applications are capable of facilitating meaningful and lasting relationships between individuals.

The article begins with a look Facebook, particularly speaking the addition of the news feed back in September of 2006. Oddly enough I personally resisted the Facebook movement based on the fact that every time I went to the library to use a computer I found half of them tied up with people's eyes glazed over as the surfed through the endless supply of trashy pictures. Needless to say while teaching with Wesch for Intro to Cultural Anthropology I found a use for the Facebook (i.e. establishing a way for my students to collaborate for the World Simulation, a semester long group project that requires 20 students to be in sync with one another as they create a culture). It was within a week after I created a profile that the news feed came into being. The big deal was that it took away a HUGE amount of privacy...what was once only visible by surfing through individual's profile pages was now instantly updated for all your "friends" to see. What started out as a panic turned into a love affair, for most. This ability to be connected continuously has been coined as "ambient intimacy".

Facebook isn't the only application that allows this, though. Another site that is growing on the popularity charts is Twitter, a messaging service that allows users to post short updates on their every move, as they see fit. It is similar to the status posting function on Facebook so that all your people know what you are up to, how you are feeling and what you are thinking. Both of these communication methods demonstrate this idea of "an aggregate phenomenon...no message is the single most important message," explains Marc Davis, chief scientist at Yahoo and former professor of information science at the University of California at Berkeley. One Twitter user claimed he was, "beginning to sense the rhythms of his friends' lives in a way he never had before. "

Japanese sociologist Mizuko Ito discovered this "co-presence" between lovers using text messages via mobile phones to communicate "tiny messages that felt even more intimate than a phone call." This, along with Facebook's news feed and Twitter, represent a connection revolution in terms of how we understand the people we are connected too, regardless of the media. Ambient intimacy and its ability to provide another way to know people clear the path for major changes in the way humans relate to each other across time and space.

The "Dunbar Number", after anthropologist Robin Dunbar, indicates the average number that human grouping cease to grow in number. It is being questioned whether or not applications like Facebook and Twitter are able to increase this number. When you think about this you have to consider the "quality" of the relationship and what significance it has to the individual. This was previously mentioned as "strong" and "weak" relationships; smaller circles of individuals that are maintained on a more intimate level and those that are not known as well, respectively. Thompson found that as he interviewed the most aggressively social people online they maintained the same group of close-knit friends at relatively the same number while the connections also became deeper. Weak ties, on the other hand, increase immensely. The people usually consist of acquaintances that would otherwise fade away if it weren't for the internet. Thompson tells us that this can be a very good thing, though, one reason being that sociologsits have found that "weak ties" greatly expand your ability to solve problems.

There is always a downside, though, which brings me back to my current mode of thinking. I do have to say that despite the fact that possession of a tool that allows quick and easy communication to numerous people at a use-at-your-convenience disposal, I have to agree with Caterina Fake, a founder of Flickr photo-sharing site, when she says "that the sheer ease of following her friends' updates online has made her occasionally lazy about actually taking the time to visit them in person." This is a reality for many people. As is a tendency of users to spread their "emotional energy too thin" by engaging in "parasocial" relationships via the Internet, with people who usually don't even know they exist.

In light of my research I am still trying to make a more solid connection of how I can make this information applicable. I know its there I just have rethink my approach here. Any feedback is wonderful...here's what I've been thinking: If I take more of an approach towards the concept of identity, and then fit anonymity into all that, I could hypothetically use twitter as a starting point to move back from. I have a communication mutation going on right in front of my face, which will conjure up some deep thoughts about what in means to relate with other human beings and how, like Lum summed up, media ecology can assist me with getting to the roots of this question. I will especially be addressing the ideas of environments as a medium and the second theoretical proposition that accounts for multiple biases depending on the media at hand (even though the whole paradigm of media ecology lends itself nicely to my research ;). This is going to be fun kids!