SooOooOooO, I found all the chapters that we read to be interesting, however I found the chapter on Narcissism to be especially compelling. My major is Psychology and I work in a research lab that focuses on trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). McLuhan essentially describes the symptoms of PTSD in relation to amplifications of new technologies on the complex networks of society, which he refers to as the nervous system. McLuhan actually refers to this as “battle shock” or shell shock (p. 44), which was the term used for PTSD (hysteria in the case of female rape victims) before the DSM-III in the 1980’s termed the coin PTSD. In PTSD an individual is exposed to a sudden, unexpected trauma in which s/he experiences extreme sense of horror, helplessness, and/or violation to their physical integrity (e.g. rape, natural disaster, car wreck, etc.) In McLuhan’s example, the trauma is a new technology that amplifies the extent to which humans are capable of doing various tasks more easily (e.g. the wheel, telegraphy, etc.). However, with this new amplification of human capabilities, new unexpected complexities are added to human tasks brought on by our own narcissism. This hyperarousal is also characteristic in PTSD, in which the individual experiences physiological arousal in response to cues that remind him or her of the trauma, and experience repeated unwanted thoughts and imagery of the event. The body responds to this by dissociating from reality through a numbing process as a counter to the stress involved with the hyperarousal.
Similarly, McLuhan points out that “as a counter-irritant, the image produces a generalized numbness or shock that declines recognition” (p. 43). He then goes on to refer to the origin of communication from speech to computer. This of course had vast effects on society and the human network. Suddenly, communication is hyperaroused; America’s Chatty Kathy can suddenly contact India’s Knowledgeable Kaishwarya, which OF COURSE results in a workout revolution, called “YOGA,” in America for middle-class married women, gay men, and (oddly enough) attorneys. As time goes on, it no longer seems strange or revolutionary, Americans become numb to the concept. It transcends Indian culture, and becomes this new entity in America (e.g. Rock n’ Roll Yoga, Power Yoga, etc.).
This also brings up the point of the phenomenon called globalization. This is highlighted nicely in Ch. 9, and by that I mean Ch. 3 (Ch. 9 was something about language and the loss of community, but I don’t want to focus on that, nor do I want to focus on all that TV stuff in Ch. 31). On page 36, McLuhen mentions the melting away of national sovereignties due to the “conditions of electric speed.” He also says that electricity “decentralizes.” I have to agree with this seeing as how suddenly there is an emergence of transnational organizations in the world. Whether they are humanistic or terrorist. I mean dear Oprah! (and I mean that in the sense of Jesus! Or M-word! Or Buddha! Because lets face it, Oprah’s a deity). Organizations such as the Taliban can communicate via electronic technologies AND have a MEGA-Militaristic nation invade one of their hot spots and survive because they are transnational. They transcend borders. Afghanistan is not a Taliban state anymore, but who cares? There are enough Taliban in Germany and the USA trying to blow up CHRISTmas treesin Oregon.
This is not my post but Kerry McAuliffe's:
ReplyDeleteMr. Tomlins, firstly, I must point out that your observations are astute, and your examples are fabulous. Oh my Oprah, they made me happy.
The "Narcissus" chapter was actually one that I understood the least and couldn't quite buy into; however, your psychology background has made the ideas much more accessible, especially in the context of PTSD. Empirically, the idea of "shock" or "shell-shock" when it comes to technology I think is especially evident in older generations. I know my mom can only handle so much technology at once!
You wrote a little bit about hyperarousal and PTSD. Is this in relation to the idea of being "enamored" of one's own image? Or rather, of being fascinated or enthralled by the extension or reflection of ourselves in technology? (His ideas of autoamputation in relation to narcissism, etc.)
Of course, I love your globalization points, because of our shared Globalization class. But notice how the "melting away" of national sovereignties is not altogether clear anymore with the movement toward self-determination. There are more transnational organizations, more global integration, and the shrinking of space and time (very much because of this informational/electronic age, as McLuhan emphasizes); however, this implosion, or cultural-compactness that develops, results in drives to differentiate. Everyone's closer together, so there is a compulsion to maintain the sense of "same" and "other." Nationalism is still strong, and growing stronger (as we talked about, especially in the context of Islamic neo-fundamentalism).
There is trasnationalism, and traditional global boundaries seems to be dissipating, but perhaps more accurately, boundaries are dividing and re-forming. It's like we talked about in Globalization: it's no longer the same political, cultural, and economic map. The political and economic maps no longer align with the traditional geographic (or nationalist) map of the world (the economic map especially has some large economic "empires" on it, rather than lots of little nations if you think about it). What's more, traditional nationalism may be dissipating, but other cultural loyalties ("nationalisms," whether ethnic, religious, or cultural) are springing up to take the place of some larger nationalist tendencies. Islamic neo-fundamentalism isn't purely national, so to speak, but is religious-ethnic-national.
Okay, I'll get off the globalization soapbox. It's getting ridiculous. Thank you for your wonderful post. I always enjoy your entries, my fantastical friend!
-Kerry
Okay, now my comment both on the original post and on Ms. McAuliffe's response:
ReplyDeleteIt is I think still an open question whether the modern nation state can survive the Internet. The problem for the traditional nation state is the way that new media allow for attacks both from above and from below. An example of the latter is what happened to the Egyptian government over the past three weeks. Television networks over which it had no control--Al Jazeera, CNN, BBC--were broadcasting information and images transnationally that helped keep the protests alive. Blogs, facebook, and twitter allowed for coordination both within and across its borders. Governments can no longer control information in the way that they once did, which poses a dilemma: either drop out of the new media environment (assuming this is even possible) or give up on the notion of censorship. At the same time, the new media also allows smaller separatists groups within the nation-state--like the Scots, the Catalans, the Quebecois, the Basques--to create a media culture that owes nothing to the culture of the larger nation. Eventually, this could lead to the gradual fragmentation of the nation into the sort of smaller ethnic groupings that it once used to create itself.