Tag Archive: media ecology

Thinking through media ecologies

On e²mc we’re thinking through the various meanings of “media ecology.”

The first, chronologically, is the medium theory of Harold Innis, Marshall McLuhan, Walter Ong, and others — sometimes called the Toronto School of communication theory. Neil Postman’s “New York school” can be considered a more critical and pessimistic adjunct to this tradition.

As a second tradition I’ve lumped together View full article »

Introducing e²mc

e2mc, short for “evolving ecological media cultures,” has gone online.

e2mc begins as the class blog for the University of Vermont course “Media Ecologies and Cultural Politics.” Its long-term goal is to become the online face of the UVM Ecomedia Studies Lab, which is still in development.

The blog is open to anyone interested in participating, provided that you share its goal of open and respectful discussion of issues related to the intersecting themes of media, ecology, culture, and politics.

The blog’s design is still in progress; at some point we intend to unveil a more interesting and interactive format. But for now, it looks like this.

View full article »

A few observations from the events of the last week or so:

(1) Tsunamis happen. When they do, in a globally media-connected world, they bring us all a little closer together. (Not all of us; those who don’t wish to be brought closer may drift further apart. But, to risk getting overly psychoanalytical, those who’ve had a reasonably loving upbringing, or those whose instincts and/or the influences they were exposed to helped them overcome a loveless upbringing, will drift closer together — because empathy works on, with, and through them, and the images and thoughts of tragedy resonate.) This is something new in human history, and it gives me cause for hope.

View full article »

Now that I’ve taken the time to read the growing list of responses to Lessig’s post, I have to say that I’m much more impressed with the collective hive mind — the network of respondents he’s grown around himself — than with the Queen Bee (Lessig himself) on this matter. (That metaphor is not very rhizomic, I know.) Several respondents play variations on the same themes I argued in my post yesterday, i.e. that Lessig’s use of the word “socialism” is inaccurate, somewhat irresponsible, a little alarmist, and very ethnocentric. Lessig writes in reply that

“We all need to recognize (speaking now to the cross cultural crowd) that different political systems internalize the concepts differently. So I am criticizing an American writing in an American publication about his use of a term — ‘socialism.’ I don’t pretend to understand how well the use fits other cultures, or traditions. I am speaking to one of my own about my own tradition.”

To which Kelly replies that he’s not writing as an American but is “at this point half Chinese, and, as much as possible, a citizen of the world.” He could have added that Wired magazine is read all over the world, especially on-line, and that Lessig is, too. To his credit, Kelly sticks to his guns.

An interesting side-discussion seems to be emerging from Kelly’s challenge to “Give me a better word to describe the type of governance that is emerging”, with the issue being whether what is emerging from Wikipedia, etc., qualifies as governance at all. Of course it isn’t, but it could be considered part of a larger, more diffuse network of governance mechanisms that are evolving in fits and starts at every scale from the local to the national to the global, from peer pressure and the institutionalization of accepted practice to enforceable regulations. These are neither purely capitalist nor purely socialist. They, ideally, should have something to do with nested systems of collective monitoring and adaptive governance, with mixtures of rights and obligations, checks and balances, individual and collective forms of behavior, etc. And if there isn’t an accepted word to describe them, Kevin Kelly’s attempt to test at least one of them (socialism) for its appropriateness seems laudable. At the very least, it’s nice to see this discussion happening in a public forum where political philosophers aren’t huddled together in their own, mutually exclusive camps.

See Lessig’s “On “socialism,” Round II” for continuing discussion of these issues.


“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

– Through the Looking Glass

Lawrence Lessig has written a lengthy retort to Kevin Kelly’s article, which I just wrote about, describing the open-source movement as a form of socialism. Lessig, leading theorist of the open-source movement and a respectable legal scholar (whom I’ve blogged about here), says no way, but his argument, which he admits is a “rant,” is as sloppy as he accuses Kelly of being.

Lessig’s argument is essentially that one cannot redefine a word at will:

“Words have meaning. We don’t get to choose their meaning. If you call something “X” people will hear the equation. They won’t read the fine-print which says (“By X, I mean really not-X).”

and that the word “socialism” has a clear meaning and Kelly’s redefinition of it plays into the wrong hands. Kelly’s “sloppiness” here, as he calls it,

“has serious political consequences. When a founder of the movement which we all now celebrate calls this movement ‘socialist,’ that plays right in the hand of those would attack everything this movement has built. [...] I do think that now is not the time to engage in a playful redefinition of a term that has such a distinctive and clear sense. Whatever ‘socialism’ could have become, had it not been hijacked by revolutions in the east, what it is in the minds of 95% of America is not what Wikipedia is.”

The irony here is that Lessig writes as if he hasn’t a clue of the historical meaning of the word “socialism” beyond its use as an epithet by American conservatives. He is, in effect, choosing the meaning of a word even as he diallows others from doing that. “At the core of socialism,” he writes, “is coercion”:

View full article »

Thanks to Mediacology for sharing this presentation on “Green Culture” by Lawrence Lessig from the recent Green Festival in Seattle. Lessig is the guru of the creative commons movement, and his talk, on what he calls “cultural environmentalism,” is really on media ecology, i.e. the “ecology” of cultural production and creativity, and especially on the differences between the “read-only culture” of contemporary copyright law and the “read-write” and “remix” cultures that an open and democratic public sphere should be making possible today. But since he’s talking to an audience of environmentalists, he makes some pointed references to global warming and the (non-existent) state of regulatory law surrounding it, as compared to the draconian regulations surrounding copyright. (Although he’s a bit grumpy about it, I love the clip of the “cheat offsetters” who, like carbon offsetters, are developing an emerging market in trading the right to cheat on one’s spouse.)

The lecture, if we can call it that, is a brilliant example of Lessig’s famous (infamous?) Power Point presentation style (which I’ve tried emulating occasionally, and which is a hell of a lot of work — we need better software for it), and is one of the most entertaining lectures I’ve ever sat through. Interestingly, Lessig posits Aldous Huxley (who I’ve discussed a couple of times here before) and John Philip Sousa, of all people, as predecessors of the cultural commons. But where Sousa had defended “young people” getting together “singing the songs of their day” against the consumerist media culture that was rising in his time, Lessig defends on-line remixers, Anime music video makers, and others — he shows us some excellent and entertaining examples of all of these — against the vested interests constraining cultural creativity today.

The increasing cross-breeding between environmentalism (of the old, new, and open varieties) and the free culture/open source movement is, to my mind, one of the points of light on the horizon — a harbinger, I hope, of the “liberation ecology” that would bring cultural, media, democracy, and ecology activists into sync in issues and struggles around the world.