Communication as Techne
Jonathan Sterne
(Taya )
Before communication is inter subjective connection, coordination, ritual, meaning, culture, or anything else, communication is something that people do. At its core, communication is a special form of action. To use an antiquated phrase, it is a practical art, or rather a set of practical arts. This holds true no matter what favorite example we use for that massive and ambiguous thing we call communication: it is true in conversation, in large-scale media systems, is human-animal interaction, and in the most subtle dimensions of encounters with others. Communication is, above all else, a technique. In this chapter, I will outline what I mean by techne and then offer brief historical, political, and philosophical arguments for its use as a defining metaphor for communication. Techne is a Greek word, and it is addressed in the writings of many of the ancient Greek thinkers. To be fair, the word’s connotation is somewhat ambiguous depending on whom you read a text you choose (see, e.g., Parry, 1993). Hence, I will offer my preferred reading of the term, which is not to be mistaken with the single, historically correct definition. I want to argue about communication, not my interpretation of the ancient Greek.
Aristotle most famously designated techne as practical art and practical knowledge. For him, techne meant both the process of producing things in the world (crafts, for instance) and the capacity of knowledge of contingency – practical knowledge – that allows and accounts for that production straight gaze; those who enact the dominant gaze are those who possess the most power in given culture. Framing communication as surveillance emphasizes the disparities between those who have the power to gaze and those who do not.
Beyond the gaze, surveillance can also be imagined more broadly as visual practices of control. We are subjects of surveillance in many aspects of our everyday lives, yet we often internalize these practices without a thought. Think about the video camera in the corner of the local convenience store, or the number of visual documents we are required to carry: driver’s license, passport, student ID card. In the communication theories of surveillance, vision and the technologies of vision exit to produce and reproduce institutional control.
Imagine a documentary photograph of hundred of poor, scruffy-looking men in an unemployment line—a common image from our collective memory of the Great Depression in the United States. They wait to enter an employment agency under the watchful gaze of a tight-lipped, stiff-looking officer of the law. An analysis of such an image from the perspective of surveillance would pay attention to the power dynamic enacted in the picture. It would encourage us to think about the “haves” and “have not”. We might remark upon how to the unemployed men are subjected to the gaze of both the officer and the photographer. We might argue that the police officer, as a representative of the state, embodies the institutional power that both provides and limits opportunities for these men. And we might consider how the photographer, and by extension the viewer, participate in the subjection of this group of unemployment men simple trough the act of viewing and photographing them. Thinking about communication in terms of surveillance encourages us to think about power the required us to pay attention to the technologies of that power, such as the camera. It reminds as that society is often organized to reinforce these power dynamic despite our individual attempts to transcend them.
But we lose much if we theorize communication of vision solely in terms of surveillance. Returning to the hypothetical photograph, might we not imagine the relationships among the photographer, the police officer, and the unemployed men differently it. Might it not be possible that the photographer and the unemployed men are in fact complicit in the act of photographing this scene, both interested in displaying the misplaced nature of the uptight police officer’s anxiety? Focusing solely on traditional definition of the gaze might impede our ability to imagine these relationships in different ways. And, treating the image itself as a product of state surveillance might blind us to other interpretations, such as the use of the camera to create conditions for social justice. If we overemphasize the culture of surveillance, we miss the opportunity to explore modes of communication apart from those dictated by the inevitable influence of institutional power. The metaphor of communication as surveillance is, then, ultimately icon phobic. It frame vision and the products of vision as a dangerous one-way street of domination and does little to account for the countless ways in which people may step outside the boundaries of (albeit very real) power dynamic to enact their agency creatively.
(Taya )
Before communication is inter subjective connection, coordination, ritual, meaning, culture, or anything else, communication is something that people do. At its core, communication is a special form of action. To use an antiquated phrase, it is a practical art, or rather a set of practical arts. This holds true no matter what favorite example we use for that massive and ambiguous thing we call communication: it is true in conversation, in large-scale media systems, is human-animal interaction, and in the most subtle dimensions of encounters with others. Communication is, above all else, a technique. In this chapter, I will outline what I mean by techne and then offer brief historical, political, and philosophical arguments for its use as a defining metaphor for communication. Techne is a Greek word, and it is addressed in the writings of many of the ancient Greek thinkers. To be fair, the word’s connotation is somewhat ambiguous depending on whom you read a text you choose (see, e.g., Parry, 1993). Hence, I will offer my preferred reading of the term, which is not to be mistaken with the single, historically correct definition. I want to argue about communication, not my interpretation of the ancient Greek.
Aristotle most famously designated techne as practical art and practical knowledge. For him, techne meant both the process of producing things in the world (crafts, for instance) and the capacity of knowledge of contingency – practical knowledge – that allows and accounts for that production straight gaze; those who enact the dominant gaze are those who possess the most power in given culture. Framing communication as surveillance emphasizes the disparities between those who have the power to gaze and those who do not.
Beyond the gaze, surveillance can also be imagined more broadly as visual practices of control. We are subjects of surveillance in many aspects of our everyday lives, yet we often internalize these practices without a thought. Think about the video camera in the corner of the local convenience store, or the number of visual documents we are required to carry: driver’s license, passport, student ID card. In the communication theories of surveillance, vision and the technologies of vision exit to produce and reproduce institutional control.
Imagine a documentary photograph of hundred of poor, scruffy-looking men in an unemployment line—a common image from our collective memory of the Great Depression in the United States. They wait to enter an employment agency under the watchful gaze of a tight-lipped, stiff-looking officer of the law. An analysis of such an image from the perspective of surveillance would pay attention to the power dynamic enacted in the picture. It would encourage us to think about the “haves” and “have not”. We might remark upon how to the unemployed men are subjected to the gaze of both the officer and the photographer. We might argue that the police officer, as a representative of the state, embodies the institutional power that both provides and limits opportunities for these men. And we might consider how the photographer, and by extension the viewer, participate in the subjection of this group of unemployment men simple trough the act of viewing and photographing them. Thinking about communication in terms of surveillance encourages us to think about power the required us to pay attention to the technologies of that power, such as the camera. It reminds as that society is often organized to reinforce these power dynamic despite our individual attempts to transcend them.
But we lose much if we theorize communication of vision solely in terms of surveillance. Returning to the hypothetical photograph, might we not imagine the relationships among the photographer, the police officer, and the unemployed men differently it. Might it not be possible that the photographer and the unemployed men are in fact complicit in the act of photographing this scene, both interested in displaying the misplaced nature of the uptight police officer’s anxiety? Focusing solely on traditional definition of the gaze might impede our ability to imagine these relationships in different ways. And, treating the image itself as a product of state surveillance might blind us to other interpretations, such as the use of the camera to create conditions for social justice. If we overemphasize the culture of surveillance, we miss the opportunity to explore modes of communication apart from those dictated by the inevitable influence of institutional power. The metaphor of communication as surveillance is, then, ultimately icon phobic. It frame vision and the products of vision as a dangerous one-way street of domination and does little to account for the countless ways in which people may step outside the boundaries of (albeit very real) power dynamic to enact their agency creatively.
Categories:
Communication as Techne
Postingan
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar