This week’s readings elucidated the notion of media ecologies as a means to further examine the complex relationships and interactions between human life and media communications as well as associated technologies, techniques, processes and structures.
Theorists such as Neil Postman and Marshall McLuhan subscribe to the idea that the media ecology is akin to an environment that can aid in understanding human culture and nature (Fuller, 2004, pp.4)). Postman (1970) expands on this and notes that the media (as an environment) can determine human action through our internalisation of the logic of different media forms, social constructs and (though implicitly so), normalises expectations of our behaviour in certain media environments (e.g. radio, internet, television). For me, this is reminiscent of Moore’s principle of “doubling” or pluralisation of place whereby he claims that electronically mediated communications can alter the “situational geography of primary life” (Moores, 2004, pp. 21). However, the varying definitions share a unifying theme in that they note that media ecologies have a broad scope and are highly contextual in that they are interrelated and interdependent.
Conversely, Nystrom (1973) proposes that they key idea characterising this discipline is a shift away from positivist scientific approaches towards a convergence of physical and social sciences. She also notes that media ecology exists without a coherent framework and in a sense ‘transcends categorisation’ (Nystrom, 1973). I believe that this poses a significant issue for the discipline, as lacking a paradigm could mean it is too overarching and might potentially overestimate the power or reach of media, and thus must be reconciled with existing media theories and discourse. I propose that media ecologies should be further characterised as involving elements that are mutually-defining and based on dynamic relationships between media and human engagement. In other words, it should be seen as a means to explore the impacts of media technologies, without being obscured by positivist rhetoric.
Another aspect of the readings, which I found to be particularly interesting and relevant, was Rawling’s ideas on online games as a service and game feedback loops that fostered a collaborative culture in games development, as I hope to focus on Real Time Strategy games of Multiplayer Online Battle Arena games and related meta-gaming practices for the research project.
Bibliography:
Fuller, M.,‘Introduction: Media Ecologies’ in Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press, 2005, pp.1-12
Moores, S., “The Doubling of Place: Electronic media, Time-Space Arrangements and Social Relationships.” In Couldry, Nick. And McCarthey Anna., Eds. MediaSpace: Place. Scale and Culture in a Media Age. London: Routledge, 2004, pp.21-37.
Nystrom, C., Towards a Science of Media Ecology: The Formulation of Integrated Conceptual Paradigms for the Study of Human Communication Systems, Doctoral Dissertation, New York University,1973.
Postman, N., “The Reformed English Curriculum.” in A.C. Eurich, ed., High School 1980: The Shape of the Future in American Secondary Education, 1970.
Rawlings, T., ‘Games as a Happening, as a Service (Notes from my Talk at Goldsmiths)’, A Great Becoming, 2010 (http://agreatbecoming.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/games-as-a-happening-as-a-service-notes-from-my-talk-at-goldsmiths/)
(Accessed: 16/03/11)
Lesley ARTS3091 Blog 