Breaking Out of the Programmed Society
TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 21 Mar 2011
Caroline Hargeaves – Generation C Magazine
Much has been written about the power of the media to affect the hearts and minds of people and civilizations. World Information Access estimates that over 90% of the world population now has access to mobile technology, which has ignited the flow of knowledge across the planet. The question of where this information is coming from is increasingly relevant and contributes to debate over a ‘war on our minds’. By raising awareness and questions about the underlying power dynamics of media hegemony, we can come closer to understanding this phenomenon and what consequences the control and management of information will have on humanity in the future.
We often hear about the effects of media in conflict. In the words of Ross Howard: “The media is a double-edged sword. It can be a frightful weapon of violence … [or] it can be an instrument of conflict resolution.” What is worth exploring alternatively is the less questioned impact of the media in non-conflict environments. There are the occasional debates about media freedom and transparency related to caricatures of holy men or the ethical dilemmas of WikiLeaks, but my concern lies more with what we read on a day-to-day basis, who is controlling it, and what their intentions are. We naïvely perceive our ‘democratic’ institutions as fully functional and progressive entities and it seems we have become accustomed to the state of affairs. What we see on TV and read in the electronic and printed press is likely to be produced by one of a few global media conglomerates. Human beings have the choice of simply being the final receivers of a mechanical information organism or to use our rationality consciously to counter the potentially ‘darker forces’ behind the spectacle.
Without dismissing the benefits of global flows of information, it is evident that our daily intake of information has reached incredible levels. Sometimes, I wish I could ‘empty the trashcan’ of my mind. It is not hard to list examples of all-embracing information through our Facebook pages, iPads, electronic commercial boards and television. These information systems enable 24-hour processes of surveillance, which are further linked to our smart phones and even mp3 players. The technology systems know your friends, your interests, where you live, countries you have visited and the places you dream about visiting. How? Because you told them. By tracing your online preferences and identity, searches and movements, the technology has access to your online preferences, and can in turn choose what information to feed you back. This makes me think about what actors are giving this information to us.
Now replace the word technology with system. The system knows you. It knows where you live. In accordance with the tenets of your particular belief systems, you are creating a matrix for yourself that in turn feeds into your everyday choices in the off-line community. The line between the virtual and real world is becoming less distinct, leading to a three-way interaction between the system, the people behind it and the people using it. When discussing this topic, one can refer to mind control in George Orwell’s 1984 and pro-active prosecution in Minority Report. Sociologist Alain Tourain described as early as 1981 the emergence of a ‘programmed society’, under the control of a technocratic elite in which information and knowledge superseded material production as the key source of social power. Taken to the extreme, I am imagining the hard-wired employees of the giant media conglomerates programming codes for how to “better” develop our conduct.
Further, the more we embrace the technology, the more power we allow it to have over us. Whether or not this is a problem is up to you to decide. I am not trying to promote a conspiracy theory, but to describe a reality. The media has become the main channel for political, cultural and technical power, making up equally important components of social power. Social power is key. As argued in an earlier GC article by Dominik Lehhnert, current mainstream media enables Western cultural imperialism and the destruction of cultural identities, added to this, “the deregulation of public airwaves, combined with the popularity of neo-liberalism and the consolidation of the giant media corporations has led to a global oligopoly of powerful distribution.” Recognizing the existence of this force is paramount to our critical assessment of information absorption.
Article 51 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights entitles you to the right to freedom of information, but there is no enforcing mechanism out there to protect us from imposed information. The debate is taking new forms as the danger of limited ‘discourse’ has entered academic circles. Scholars in particular are noticing how a grand narrative or story can assert power ‘over’, simply by stating facts about a topic, thus giving life and stamina to an idea. Following the argument made by both philosopher Michael Foucault and later, scholar Tony Evans, of how knowledge equals power, institutionalized channels of communication are gaining more prominence in facilitating, understanding and highlighting differences of global dimensions.
Although the state is important for the regulation of global information, any attempt to counter the problem must not located within national boundaries. Mass media outlets independent of state control are often the worst perpetrators of deliberately selected information. Media houses are supposed to be watchdogs of the government, but the dogs slowly being tranquilized by corporations and neo-liberal mechanisms that are promoting specific views and values. There is also a notable trend of Western governments investing in ‘system-security’, such as the U.S. National Security System operated by the federal government. Their reach includes protecting national monetary systems, withholding military information and responding to online threats, leaving the defense of human minds out of the equation. This obvious bias means that we cannot depend on the state to enact regulations concerned with protecting the mind from ‘information-inception’. Can we depend on you?
On the other side of the ‘power over’ we find the ‘power to’; they are opposite sides of the same coin. Individuals today hold so much more social power than before. I am not telling you to rush out and buy ‘Hacking for Dummies’; Twitter and Facebook can be utilized as tools for infiltrating the system from below. Activist and scholar Neil Stammers argues that social movements are the only way to achieve progress without the paradox of institutionalization. However, reforming the system is not enough; we need a revolution where the right to personal choice of information is a key demand. Brave individuals such as Julian Assange, Gene Sharp, Alex Jones and collectives like Anonymous have all launched forceful strategies against corporations and news agencies to restrain ’the war on our minds’.
In relevant debates, it’s important to add a solutions oriented dimension. In my earlier articles I have advocated the importance of having an open mind, thinking outside the box and providing constructive critique. Now I ask again to be selective, trust your intuition and don’t let other people choose what you read. Limit your intake of corporate news; follow actual people instead. Twitter is a possible source for voicing personal opinions, emancipated of pressure from editors and supervisors. As stated in the I Ching- “You can swim with the river’s current without dissolving into it.” We exist in an ocean of information with only a drop of wisdom, which means we have to protect our minds from being polluted by the system.
Go to Original – generation-c.org
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.