Theories: Mediatization and Media Ecology (original) (raw)
Related papers
2002
What follows is a structural reading of two different theory architectures – Merleau-Ponty´s (from now on simply »MP«) and Media Ecology focused on McLuhan – with a view to revealing their convergences and congruencies as macro-descriptions. While a more detailed model of mediality/media in respect to MP is implicitly used, it is not elaborated in an exegetic or meticulous argumentation. Instead, »topographic« similarities between MP an Media Ecology are to be foregrounded in an attempt to reach a deepened as well as specified concept of »ecology« in the context of human actors and their uses of those material phenomena which have to be described as media (as in specific contrast to intentional objects in general or instruments in particular). Thereby both discourses are to be enriched – Media Ecology in terms of its affiliation to »indirect« or »lateral ontology« and Merleau-Ponty in terms of an incorporation with theories of technical media.
McLuhan's Philosophy of Media Ecology: An Introduction
This essay will serve as an introduction to the collection of essays in this Special Issue of MDPI Philosophies that will explore the philosophical roots of Marshall McLuhan's study of media and the field of media ecology that followed in its wake. Marshall McLuhan was a scholar of technology, media, and communications whose work gave rise to the field of media ecology. In this essay, we will describe McLuhan's practice of media ecology, which implicitly contains McLuhan's philosophy of media ecology. The reader might ask what the philosophy of media ecology is. The philosophy of media ecology parallels the plethora of specialized philosophies that go by the name of the Philosophy of X where X can be nature or science, for example, as in the philosophy of nature or the philosophy of science. Here is a list of Xs for which there exists a body of philosophy that goes by the name of the Philosophy of X, where, in alphabetical order, X can be
On the Roots of Media Ecology: A Micro-History and Philosophical Clarification
This paper provides a brief review of media ecology. It is partly a micro-history of the tradition, and partly a philosophical clarification of how and why " systems-theory orientations, " literacy studies, and the rapid spread of new media were all essential to its germination, growth, and proliferation. Finally, the paper offers concluding remarks regarding social constructionist thought and how it relates to the media ecology tradition.
Mediatropes, 2008
In a culture like ours … it is sometimes a bit of a shock to be reminded that, in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message. (1964/1994, p. 7) With this remark, McLuhan introduced into the language our current usage of the term media as well as the idiom, the medium is the message (Lapham, 1994, p. x). This study, a companion to my "Introduction" to this volume, considers McLuhan's contributions to media as an interdisciplinary approach to communication, culture, and technology. It also considers McLuhan's contributions in light of the arguments presented in the various essays in this issue of MediaTropes, each of which is concerned with the meaning and significance of the adage, "the medium is the message." It has now been several decades since McLuhan published his major works and inevitably, his writings are a product of their place and time. Even so, his insights continue to resonate. In an era when academic research seldom remains relevant for more than a few years, and changes wrought by technological innovation are radically reconfiguring social and cultural practices-and nowhere more so than in the study of media itself-much of McLuhan's scholarship has stood the test of time. Why is McLuhan essential reading for anyone attempting to understand media and their effects? Of McLuhan's many unique and significant achievements, I focus on three contributions to knowledge that I maintain have been central to his wide readership, enduring reputation, and continuing relevance. I propose that McLuhan remains indispensable reading because his writings encapsulate fundamental concerns that distinguish media as a framework for research across www.mediatropes.com
Advances in media, entertainment and the arts (AMEA) book series, 2017
In the network society and the age of media convergence, media production can no longer be isolated into channels, formats, technologies, and organizations. Media Studies is facing the challenge to reconceptualize its foundations. It could therefore be claimed that new media are the last media. In the case of digital versus analog, there is no continuity between new media and old media. A new and promising proposal has come from German scholars who attempt the precarious balance between media theory and a general theory of mediation based on Actor-Network Theory. Under the title of Actor-Media Theory (Akteur-Medien-Theorie) these thinkers attempt to reformulate the program of Media Studies beyond assumptions of social or technical determinism. Replacing Actor-Network Theory with Actor-Media Theory raises the question of whether exchanging the concept of "network" for the concept of "media" is methodologically and theoretically advantageous.
Media History and the Mediatization of Everyday Life
Media History, 2016
Mediatization became a central concept in media studies in the 2000s, and it has also attracted critical discussion among media scholars. One part of the criticism of the concept concerns its relevance in relation to the history of media. In this article, I discuss the concept of mediatization in media history studies, especially when it comes to everyday life. I am predominantly interested in its 'weak form'-particularly the idea that mediatization is a historical process that depends strongly on the historical context. The article suggests that mediatization should be located in specific historical situations and in the meanings of history. Firstly, the concept should be seen as a process that is realized inside the meta-processes of globalization, individualization and commercialization-not as its own meta-process. Secondly, when adapting the concept to the socio-cultural factors of media history, it should be placed in the creation of world views. The article suggests that mediatization as a concept is most useful in media history studies when it is applied in studying the role of media in the history of everyday life.
Mediatization: Theorizing the Interplay between Media, Culture and Society
In response to Deacon and Stanyer's article 'Mediatization: Key Concept or Conceptual Bandwagon?', we argue that they build their criticism on a simplified methodology. They mistake a media-centered approach for a media-centric one, and they do not capture how mediatization research engages with the complex relationship between changes in media and communication on the one hand and changes in various fields of culture and society on the other. We conclude that the emergence of the concept of mediatization is part of a paradigmatic shift within media and communication research.