Category Archives: Readings

CULTURE OBSESSED WITH EXPOSURE

Posted on by
Reply

Are technologies neutral in themselves, that is, does the way in which they are used determine their cultural impact? Or do technologies have intrinsic properties that shape the cultures into which they are introduced?

This weeks reading on Theoretical Frameworks was essentially about the interaction between culture and technology. Thorsten Veblen in the 1920’s coined the term technological determinsm which refers to the belief that technology is the agent for social change. Technological determinsim refers to progress.During the industrial era, speed of production, and how much was produced were benchmarks of progress. This progress related to the capabilities of the technology and so, technology determined progress.

Successful technological innovation is thought to generate a new type of society i.e. the age of electricity, the age of information etc. Technology has the capability to influence society in many different ways. An example is the technology of writing, and how it has developed from the printing press to the social media thus having the capability to influence religion, the economy, science etc. Thus technology creates new posibilities for human thought, activity and expression and thus has an immence cultural effect.

McLuhan’s most famous idea is the one of ‘the global village’ which relates to the age of the World Wide Web. McLuhan argues that the cultural significance of media lies in the way in which it changes our perception of the world i.e the way it effects us and our actions as humans. This ‘global village’ commenced in the 1960’s as sattelite broadcasting fascilitated the flow of information.

I think its really interesting how McLuhan believes the lack of harmony in Western societies in the 1960’s was due to a culture lag i.e. older generations holding on to tradition print technology, whilst the younger generations were more spontaneous with new electronic media. Joshua Meyrowitz examines the impact culturally of television and the way in which it conveys information. Books require the skill of reading and writing, whilst television only requires viewing and listening. For this reason television is more accessable to all ages. Therefore, this mediums cultural effect is in the way it conveys information. It has dulled modern society and has reduced our need for recieving information through reading and writing, and now, our culture is obsessed with exposure. I think this is a really fascinating idea, because I knew that itt was the case, but couldn’t really articulate what it was about our culture and television. Reality tv links to exposure, whilst televised news triggers emotions. Books contain secrets whilst tv is accessable and exposes. Its a really interesting concept that we will never really have a ‘Great Leader’ due to the way in which television reveals the lives of politicians.

 

YOU HAD ME AT TITANIC

Posted on by
Reply

I engaged a lot with this reading partly because it had me from the word Titanic. It was actually fascinating reading about how the story can always change in hypertext. It reminded me of the books that I have read which were able to always change the endings depending on the various different pathways we chose (i.e. the Goosbumps series). I liked how it talked about how the narrative will always change depending on our actions and what we choose, which is completely different to a book which will stay the same no matter how many times we pick it up and read it – we cannot influence or change the outcome.

I looked up the hypertext novel afternoon and I really want to read it. It seems fascinating that how one person reads it can be completely different to the next.

In a way this sort of reminded me of playing The Sims 3, where we completely influence the pathways of the characters. It isn’t so much a novel in which we pick the pathway through different links etc, but we establish it ourselves and can either make the sims teachers, ghosts, playboys, housewives, extremely rich, poverty ridden, fat or skinny or even socially deprived. But this is a game where we create the outcome from scratch. There are several influential factors, like the hours in the day and the aging of the sims, but they can even be influenced by the gamer. In hypertext, we simply chose a link and a pathway is decided for us.

BEING CYNICAL

Posted on by
Reply

This weeks readings were actually quite interesting, and I appreciated the use of multimedia to keep us engaged as well. I never really thought that there was a fictional element to design… apparently I was wrong. To create we have to use our imaginations, and what we produce, at the present time doesn’t exist until we make it.

My idea from this stemmed from movies I’ve seen.

When I try and imagine what the world will be like in the future, I always picture such dramatic technology changes. This makes me think back to when I was little and watched Back to the Future, and the main guy (Michael J Fox) was standing in front of multiple T.V’s, watching them all. I might just google that now so you can see what I’m visualizing.

Six Channels at once? Oh wait, we do that now.

Isn’t it funny how back in the 80’s our vision for the future was so hopeful, colorful and inspiring. It seems like now when we make movies set in the future, they are depressing commentaries of what society thinks we will become, and generally are of an apocalyptic nature. It’s as if technology will take over, or there will be world wars resulting in the extinction of the human race.

 

Contagion – a virus threatens the human race
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KoyvHCPKlW4/ToY0C_FpbxI/AAAAAAAAAyo/5aAG25-SLlU/s1600/Contagion-movies-wallpaper.jpg

World War Z – the war to end all wars
http://msmagazine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/WWZ.jpg

Terminator Salvation – technology vs man
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/still/terminator_salvation87.jpg

They don’t really paint a positive picture.

This isn’t saying that technology which will make our lives more efficient and easier (such as those developed by design students) will ruin us, but they are essentially predictions of what we will need in the future. In a way, predicted human behavior will influence what we design.

“We always design for a world that sits, sometimes just slightly, out of sight.”

So making reflective mirrors with the time built into them along with access to internet and emails … is that saying that we will eventually become workaholics, with a thirst to constantly be connected to the rest of the world? That could be good, that could be bad. The technology will only do as it is wired to do. We have the control to use it how we wish. It’s like having guns. Leave it in a cabinet and it won’t kill anyone. I could be getting into some political territory there, I might stop.

But basically, whatever we design now is thinking towards the future. And something I find really interesting, is this article on Back to the Future:

http://www.11points.com/Movies/11_Predictions_That_Back_to_the_Future_Part_II_Got_Right.

The film wasn’t designing for the future, however it was fictional – but the writers were highly accurate with a lot of what they predicted.

GETTING LOOPY

Posted on by
Reply

The reading on Chris Argyris’ theories of action, double-loop learning and organizational learning’ was a lot to take in, but still very interesting. Chris Argyris developed several models with Donald Schon, some of which I had no knowledge of before reading this reading. In his early research, Argyris explored the impact of formal organizational structures, control systems, and management on individuals. In his later years as a teacher, he employs his research and utilizes it in his classes, thus making the students pay more attention to what he is saying, and concentrate more on their own mental models. Argyris essentially practices what he engages with the students and displays the sorts of behaviors and beliefs which are necessary if organisations are to learn and develop.

Each individual has mental maps which tells them how to act in various situations, or so Argyris and Schon argue. These maps outline their approach and how they will execute their actions in regards to a given situation. Argyris and Schon believe that ‘it is these maps that guide people’s actions rather than the theories they explicitly espouse.’

So what does this mean?

There is a split between theory and action, and Argyris and Schon believe that two theories of action are involved. The distinction made between the two contrasting theories of action is between those theories that are implicit in what we do as practitioners and managers, and those on which we call to speak of our actions to others. This is the distinction:

Theories in use:  govern behavior; what we actually do in a situation. Espoused theory: words we use to convey what we do or what we would like others to think we do in a situation.

So how much does our behavior really stay true to the espoused theory? First thing that comes to mind: ‘I wont eat another slice of cake.’ *Eats cake*… relevant example? Wasn’t too sure, so I kept reading.

Argyris makes the point that the most desirable outcome comes from limited inconsistencies between the two theories. If there are differences, this is not a bad thing provided that the gap doesn’t grow too big. There are three elements which Argyris and Schon evaluated to fully appreciate theory-in-use:

  • governing variables
  • action strategies
  • consequences

Theory-in-use is confirmed to be used if the consequences of the strategy is what the user intended i.e. a close match between intention and outcome. If this match doesn’t exist and the consequences did not result as intended, then Argyris and Schon suggest two responses in this instance: single and double-loop learning.

http://www.selfleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/AL-2.jpg

I’m a visual learner –> the diagram is necessary. When I was reading the reading I had to look this up so I could visualize it in my head, coz all I had in there were hula hoops for some weird reason. But basically, to learn, we just direct and correct the errors we make. If, after making an error, all we do is correct it, then this is single-loop learning. If the error is corrected employing the use of modification of an ‘organization’s underlying norms, policies and objectives’ then this is double-loop learning. The emphasis with single-loop learning is on techniques and making them more efficient, however, double-loop learning takes into consideration the framework and questions it. Double-loop learning is more difficult than single-loop learning, for sure, and its all about how much effort we are willing to put in to go that extra mile.