Introduction
The model of medium theory states that the most significant social and cultural effects of media originate from the essential assets of the media itself, has been historically viewed at with suspicion, especially on the critical Left. A drawing on political economy and critical sociology has criticised the technological passivity present in medium theory. In this essay I assess the strengths and weaknesses of medium theory as a model.Medium theory foregrounds media technology,I have also taken into account the possibility that the media, communication and entertainment industry require a theoretical model focussing more on intrinsic attributes of technology than is prevalent in critical theory analysis of digital culture and that the model was put into use in the 1960’s
Critique
A lot of the medium theory ignores motives because it takes no interest in shaping social technology, nor does it involve how and why various technologies came into being or began to exist. The sole aim of this model is to describe the social and cultural effects of media technologies. subsequently, the most related criticism put forth by the sociology of technology, links to the role played by new technology facilitated by social change.
Technologies don’t determine; rather, they operate, and are operated upon, in a complex social field. It is the way technologies are used, rather than any intrinsic properties of those technologies, that is crucial. The case studies collected in MacKenzie and Wajcman’s The Social Shaping of Technology demonstrate that technology and society are ‘inextricably’ connected, as the editors of this volume assert, and that the historical process is normally so complex that ‘no single dominant shaping force’ can be isolated as determining (1999: 12, 16).
A more polemical stand against technological determinism is taken by Leila Green in her book Technoculture (2002). Dismissing technological determinism as one of the ‘myths’ of technology and ‘the old way of looking at things’, she installs in its place a ‘social determinism’, arguing that ‘society is responsible for the development and deployment of particular technologies.’ Breaking the abstraction of ‘society’ into more specific components, she proposes that technocultures reflect ‘the choices of elites in our societies, the people who have most say in how we plan for the future and how we allocate our resources’ (2002: 2-3).
With specific reference to media technologies, Brian Winston in Media Technology and Society approaches media history from a cultural materialist perspective. Winston’s approach to media history runs counter to the medium theory model, in that his starting-point is the ‘social sphere…conditioning and determining technological developments’ that made various forms of media possible (1998: 2). Winston also focuses on the social necessities to which inventors – and other social agents – respond. Winston foregrounds government regulation and other ‘supervening social necessities’ (overlooked by most medium theorists) as crucial factors in the implementation and operation of media technologies.
In media and mass communication theory, Dennis McQuail’s influential book (first edition 1983, fifth edition 2005) is largely dismissive of medium theory because of its ‘idealism’ and its ‘media-centric’ perspective (omitting socio-economic factors) (2005: 79, 102). Noting that it is not possible to provide ‘proof’ for assertions regarding the cultural effects of television (130), McQuail also makes the general remark that ‘it is very difficult to pin down the “essential” characteristics of any given medium’ (142), and that medium theory is therefore of limited value for researchers.
How does medium theory respond to such criticism? Weak versions of medium theory argue for a concomitance of media change and cultural transformation, rather than a determining relation. Other versions treat the correlation of media and culture as a complex, rather than direct, engagement. Such approaches attempt to avoid the reductionism evident in medium theory at its most extreme; this reductionism has attracted much criticism (as sketched above), contributing to the critical view that media theory remains a one-sided theoretical model.
in certain key instances, new technologies of media do more than open a door. Perhaps the technology of writing, or the printing press, or electronic mass media, or digital networking, bring with them such profoundly new possibilities that they do determine, at least in some degree, cultural effects. To create a pre-condition for cultural change is, after all, to allow for something to emerge that could not otherwise have emerged.
The model of medium theory in the context of digital media and networking could be re-considered. On the level of popular discourse, it would seem that medium theory is everywhere, espoused daily. Every time it is claimed that digital media have altered knowledge, communication or social interaction – for the better or for the worse – some form of medium theory, including a degree of technological determinism – is (usually unwittingly) invoked. Examples of this invocation include the assertions that: sampling and downloading have re-shaped the making and consumption of music, that Powerpoint has ‘dumbed down’ presentations and lectures, that the Web has created new forms of knowledge and entertainment, that digital networking has forged new orders of community, that the mobile phone has changed social interaction.
Conclusion
In a world of networking and interactivity, finally, the typology of specific media with their specific effects begins to break down. The old mass media form – TV – is melding with the participatory digital medium – the Net-linked personal computer – to form a new hybrid technology; the mobile phone takes this hybridity a step further. As technology becomes more complex, more inclusive; the message will have all the more potential. In our attempts to theorise these developments within media technology and usage, an attention to the intrinsic characteristics of specific technologies will be needed. This does not call for a reductionist form of medium theory, as has been propounded in the past; rather, it calls for a theoretical model sensitive both to the social context of new media technologies and to the properties of those technologies themselves.