Gonzaga Reflections: Week Three and Four

All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Lord Acton

Name me someone that’s not a parasite and I’ll go out and say a prayer for him.

Bob Dylan, from Visions of Johanna

As Noam Chomsky fights his battles with what he describes as the powerful, dominant elite, I have to wonder if Prof. Chomsky is deserving of our prayers, or even our praise. Whenever a social critic of Chomsky’s intellectual power makes his case we should listen and learn. We must also ask where is he coming from and where will it lead us? He presents his view that the dominant mass media, aided by corporate and government public relations, manufacture a narrative that perpetuates the power of the powerful. To follow his reasoning, much of society is complicit, from public officials to those working in the media, especially at the networks and the New York Times. He further explains that about 20 percent of the public, the intellectual class, influence the other 80 percent. If you are reading this you are probably in the 20 percent that takes the time and has the intelligence to fall into the group of influencers.

Fifty one years ago the head of General Motors told a Congressional Committee that “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country”. GM is no longer the power it was in the 1950s. In the era of globalization Toyota might be more powerful and, in my opinion, certainly makes better cars. Noam Chomsky would probably not have agreed with GM in 1955 and I’d bet he doesn’t today. The point, of course, of GM’s well known one liner was that if the company does well, its workers do well, its customers get a good car for a good price, and the economy chugs along in 1950s bliss; it is capitalism as it was meant to be! At the very least it’s the narrative that capitalists want us to believe. For the most part it’s a pretty compelling story. The world’s leading competing narrative at the time was Communism, with its utopian aspirations and Stalinist history and reality. In the middle of these two super powerful narratives were the social democracies of Europe, the “Great Society” of the 1960s US, and the other moderate streams of political economy, from Japan to Canada.

As societies evolve so do their media. That the media tend to reflect the values and realities of their communities and nations is the heart of the argument in opposition to Chomsky. As we evolve, Dr. Chomsky fails to present an alternate narrative and power structure superior to the one he deconstructs and criticizes. In the film, Manufacturing Consent, we hear the Dutch Defense Minister accuse Chomsky of having ideas that are contrary to the values of representative democracy, rather, he argues, Chomsky’s values are more in line with direct democracy. Later in the film Chomsky cites the early Kibbutzim in Israel, as an example of the social model that would allow for a media environment powered by the people. The other one that comes to mind is the small town meeting in Vermont, where individuals rule directly without intermediary elected legislators or executives. The problem is that the Israeli Kibbutz and the New England Town Meeting are extremely small scale enterprises and have not thrived except in very limited circumstances. So with those exceptions duly noted it seems there will always be “elites” in any society. And, in general these elites wield power, often responsibly but not always. Noam Chomsky does not like the people in power and what they stand for, and I doubt that he ever will. But their power is far from absolute and the news media have served to check that power, more effectively in some periods than in others.

So it comes down to who is in power. “Power to the people”, was a rallying cry in the 1960s and 70s, also a fairly popular John Lennon song. Since Manufacturing Consent was released, the World Wide Web has become a major platform for media. Much of the content on the web is produced by the same corporations that control the large newspapers and the evening news on the networks. But the web also serves as a platform for distribution of individual expression, unrivaled in history. Really Simple Syndication or RSS makes it possible for anyone with a computer and website to create content and distribute it easily and efficiently. Many high school students regularly post their work on iTunes. So the powerful still have power and our vigilance to guard against corruption is required now as it has been in the past. The web, however, has given more power to the people.

The powerful elite—as a class--have existed throughout history. The values of humility, good will, and the Golden Rule drive our religious, spiritual, and ethical traditions. But even among institutions dedicated to these values, there is an elite group. As members of the 20 percent that influences the other 80 percent, we should look at ourselves and the narratives we perpetuate. Our ability to read Chomsky, Hall, Herman, Marcuse, and many others gives us power, whether we agree with them or not. And who is to say the narratives of Chomsky and like minded theorists are any more compelling than the ideas of capitalism expounded by the so called dominant elites? When it comes to choosing which elites to follow, I’d favor a socially responsible capitalist to the intellectually engaging but wrong headed approach of Dr. Chomsky.

Perhaps adding the preceding line to the Dylan quote from above will make more sense now.

“The peddler now speaks to the countess who’s pretending to care for him,

Saying, name me someone that’s not a parasite and I’ll go out and say a prayer for him.”

In a societal sense, who is it that cares for us?

Reflections on Communication by Computer

This blog is an assignment for the Communication and Leadership Program at Gonzaga University.

Buying an airline ticket, ordering a book from Amazon, or registering for a class, all these transactions are easily and efficiently performed on-line. Telling a loved one that a family member is ill, that a pet died, or that you’re engaged, all these relational messages are handled with more sensitivity by phone or in person. When looking at communication from a relational versus a transactional perspective think of a spectrum, not absolutes. When you buy a book in person, you are relating to the salesperson and cashier. When you discuss a pet’s death, numerous transactions evolve. In exploring the richness of Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and comparing it to other forms of communication, including Face to Face (F2F), the lenses of transaction and relation can help us see more clearly.

The transactional part of CMC makes life easier and provides access to options not available F2F or by phone. Making an airline reservation is a good example. On websites like Expedia or Orbitz you can look at all the flights available and get the best prices. This is a significant advantage over going to a ticket office or phoning individual airlines. And it doesn’t end with the reservation. As our classmate Megan mentioned on the discussion board, you can use an automated kiosk at the airport to print your boarding pass. With some airlines, Southwest in particular, if you don’t check in by computer, you're at a disadvantage. You don't get the best seats if you wait till you get to the airport.

On the relational side of CMC, rapid growth is attracting advertisers and corporate owners. The examples of relational CMC mentioned at the start of this blog are fairly clear, but they are presented rhetorically, to make a point and explain a distinction. My Space, Facebook, and Friendster, represent leading examples of social networking sites (SNS). Their allure is how they connect people to each other and build on-line communities. Using graphics, photos, video and sounds, users have the tools to create rich environments, and their identity. How the users' homepages reflect particular identities influences the friends they make and the status they achieve, in the online world. Whether that identity reflects reality or fantasy, or lies somewhere in between, can be of more importance to the host of the page than those who read it, according to communication scholar Daniel Chandler.


Personal homepages may not always be of great importance to those who come across them, but they’re profound, creative opportunities for people to reflect on themselves and think about how they want to represent themselves to the world (Thurlow, 2004, p.99).

When my younger daughter got a letter with the name of her freshman roomate, they immediately connected on Facebook. This led to a phone call. When they met F2F, they were already acquainted. Apparently, their representations on Facebook were realistic constructions and neither was surprised.

Much like the off line world, the SNS world is filled with opportunities and threats. Take a look at my earlier blog below on Deadwood as a metaphor for the commercial side of the web. As for threats, a few weeks ago we all received a four-page article from Gonzaga’s Vice President for Student Life, explaining some of the dangers on SNS.


You also might want to take a moment and reflect on the physical safety of this tool when posting information about yourself. No expectation of privacy combined with the full range of humanity represented in these forums means that you may be exposing yourself to someone who may not have the same values or assumptions about appropriate behavior as you, or may even have a mental defect or disease which could put you at risk as a victim of criminal behavior. Very likely you would not place a placard in the front of your house or dorm describing intimate details of your personal life, private sexual
matters, detailed comings and goings or anything else that someone less careful and competent than you might construe as an invitation for communication or even harassment and stalking that could prove dangerous. Use physical space as your guide. What you wouldn't put on a poster on your dorm room door you might want to think two or three times about posting on-line (Gonzaga University, 2006, p. 3).

What we do in the public part of CMC is visible in ways that can be destructive and long lasting. The world can be a dangerous place and media, to paraphrase McLuhan, are extensions of ourselves (1964, Title Page).

When it comes to conducting business transactions online we find a rich environment filled with opportunity. Besides the simple examples previously cited, think about E-Bay and the web based marketplace it enables. You can find almost anything. Specialty sites for everything from wine to windsocks are available; all it takes are a Google search and a couple of clicks.

The relational side of CMC sizzles with excitement but only goes so far. From dating sites to SNS, people are using their computers to connect. My question, though, is where does it lead? Ultimately, if F2F is the end point, or the beginning of a new phase, the richness of what Martin Buber describes as the I-Thou relationship is possible, facilitated by CMC. But through CMC alone, we are left with the more routine and typical interactions characterized by I-It (1958). Most of our temporal life is lived in this realm; but the most intimate human relations require certain senses, which can only be imagined in the world of CMC. As for the spiritual dimensions of CMC, I invite you to consider its role and potential. I intend to do so in the weeks ahead.


References
Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou (Second Edition). New York: Charles Scribner Sons.

Gonzaga University, (2006). Thoughts on Facebook. based on: "Thoughts on Facebook," Tracy Mitrano, copyright, Cornell University, 2006.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media:The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Thurlow, C., Engel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer Mediated Communication, Social
Interaction and The Internet. London: Sage Publications Ltd.