Oh the irony. The idea of using mediated technology to construct a critique of technology, or at least, abet the critique, might come across as most contradictory, a foul and loathful idea that reeks of the stench that a hypocrite carries but cunningly tries to bury under his layers of hypocrisity. But while this contradictory position may be a problematic one, it is definitely not a unique one. It is a problematic that every and anybody would face. How can one critique new media technologies, when essentially, in today's day and age, any subject or individual, or the conflation of both, is produced within and via new media technologies. Think, perhaps of how immersive and pervasive technologies are, such that any critique, in order to stand a chance of being a critique, has to, in some way be produced, circulated, reproduced, simulated, re-critiqued, challenged, re-challenged, deployed, rejected, accepted, via some form of new media technology. Thus, I repeat, this fundamental problematic affects everyone.
Then comes the million dollar question. A fellow I imagine, dressed as a goblin and carries a small backpack, a green trucker cap with the phrase "Million Dollar Question" but in a font size so small that one has to squint his eyes to see the words, but the trick is, once squinting (or squinted), you lose sight of the question. The fellow grudgingly trudges around in your brain, and you only notice him (notice the subtle masculine usage of 'him', cue vehement feminine protests) when you are either, too steeped in academia thus wasting all your time on what conventions designate as useless questions, or you are in such a bored state of mind that you actually start thinking about useful things for a start. This guy ("thats much too phallocentric!") is a cunning bastard. Imagine trying to chase after him (okay would you give up already?), for you know the answer, or perhaps question, lies in his backpack. However, that slinky skunk is much too quick for you, and already had a headstart the minute you started squinting at the irrelevant words on his cap. Perhaps, if you were fast enough, you might have been able to catch a quick glimpse of his t-shirt, which bore the words: "Is there a space for authentic resistance within new media technologies?"
No, I'm not under the influence of any LSD or any of these sorts. But lets not be distracted by these mere bagattelles, and instead focus on the matter at hand. Okay, so I begin with the million dollar question: Can we locate a space for authentic resistance within new media technologies? Martin Heidegger already espoused his thoughts on a similar question, perhaps not concerning new media per se, but technologies in essence, in his ontological critique, The Question Concerning Technology. Well this might seem abit duh, since he already answered the question, whats the point in re-asking it again? But we should remember that 50 years ago is a long time, and the concerns then and now might be vastly different. So perhaps the question should instead be reframed to: "How can we understand Heidegger's concern in light of new media technologies today," a reframing or rethinking of Heidegger's thought in relation to technology, if you will.
Ah but dream/the unconscious calls (notice the already subtle negotiating of meaning technology plays with, calls? with a mobile phone? smart phone?), sleep beckons, and tis a never ending tale. So perhaps I should conclude. Heidegger's piece was very intriguing and influenced me in a great way, thereby laying bare my epistemological roots. I was also rather fascinated with Herbert Marcuse, whom my supervisor introduced, and when I read, or rather attempted to read One Dimensional Man, I found that it was much Heideggerian in nature, and it amused me to find out (through Google of course) that Marcuse was actually a student of Heidegger thus, they shared rather similar concerns, yet Marcuse's standpoint diverged rather significantly. Perhaps then, it would be important to trace how these concerns have changed across a different age. And perhaps, in the next post, I shall mention briefly on someone who wrote a nasty critique of technology even before Heidegger did, Walter Benjamin. This bugger was quite someone, for his thoughts went on to influence Adorno and Hockheimer and even spawned the entire Critical Theory era together with the Frankfurt School. Till then, au revoir.
