Hello all,
Finally my post has gone up! It seems my computer illiteracy reached a new peak a few days back when I forgot what email pertained to what, and so on and so forth. Nevertheless, it seems after Mike Michael’s reading that perhaps the couch is a preferred domain, albeit with ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ connotations. I’ll give an opinion on both readings and compare my thoughts with Alyson’s, and most welcome debate!
In Roger Silverstone’s reading “Domesticating Domestication. Reflections on the Life of a Concept” I fully agree with Alyson’s core argument that technology has been integrated into our lives and that we now pursue these technologies as objects of value and desire. However I pose to question (both to myself and the reading), haven’t we always incorporated technology into our lives? Whether it be the nuances of new social media or the simplicity of the wheel; I feel that humans have continuously welcomed innovations that in Silverstone’s words: “attempt to address an empirical reality”.
Alyson’s synthesising and defining of appropriation, objectification and so forth have helped tremendously! It seemed just as I was grasping ‘domestication’ that a new term would require a different train of thought. However to continue on Silverstone’s core argument, he questions, as i have, the difference between new technology and old: “Wild animals then, wild technologies now: what’s the difference?” I feel that in the reading the main difference outlined is that today’s technologies require the same ‘domesticating’ as old, however this time they serve to bridge the gap between what we define as ‘public’ and ‘private’. Silverstone argues that todays household is one no longer defined by the solidity of ‘real’ brick walls, with the invention of the internet and instant messaging. He argues that socially, we are gravitating towards a ‘virtual’ household, whereby occupants rely their daily lives directly into the public. However in saying that he also concedes that whilst home is “no longer static”, he acknowledges that “to be homeless is to be beyond reach, and to be without identity”.
The first reading was one I found to be thouroughly researched and cautiously worded, and although I enjoyed it, it took a solid deal of time to fully understand the concepts. In the second reading I too recognised the scholarly nature of the chapter, yet through reading felt a burning question: why? Mike Michael’s piece “Disciplined and disciplining co(a)gents: The Remote Control and the Couch Potato” was a thorough analysis into what seemed liked why we lose the remote control and we sit on the couch for too long! Michael’s introduces us to the concept by at first stating his own ‘couch potato-ness’ and then detailing how it becomes a dis-embodiment from our otherwise ‘productive’ lives. He argues that there are several portrayals of couch potatoes, both positive and negative, and continues to explore the power discourses that rest in who controls, well, the control. I enjoyed the article immensely, and recognised a few points that seemed to me productive social commentary; however by the end of the reading i felt as if i was caught watching BBC’s annual ‘fake story’ on April Fool’s day. Nevertheless, he raised important points about how the television has adapted to become fully domesticised; and the fact he has researched the topic so thoroughly points out in itself that we too have become domesticised to television.
Overall both articles thoroughly explored how new technologies are bringing a social shift that starts in the home; however I repeatedly felt that the second reading, whilst scholarly, had little substance in analysisng how this domestication is affecting humanity outside the realm of the couch. However, like I said, it’s just my opinion and I most welcome disagreement! Hopefully I haven’t been too boring and look forward to hearing the rest of the cool teams opinions!
cheers,
Stuart.
ps awesome cartoons Alyson
Arts1090 - the cool team 