read two articles and respond with three questions for each.
Cybernetics in History - Norbert Weiner 1954- From my opinion, the grouping of communication and control into one "classing" implies a large oversight in what is included in a simple act of communication (body language, shared history, lasting/first impressions). Did he consider these aspects before making the bold statement of "When I control the actions of another person, I communicate a message to him"?
- Is he aware that he began the previously quoted section in a gender impartial way by using "person" and finished off with a declaration that that person must be a him? I find it interesting when this is not edited out before publication, you find it everywhere.
- Fairly early on, he makes the statement "To me, personally, the fact that the signal in its intermediate stages has gone through a machine rather than through a person is irrelevant and does not in any case greatly change my relation through the signal." This really struck me as a very bold statement that continues his theme of an extremely literal definition of the methods of society. Would he still feel the same way if the signal happened to be some great declaration of love? There is an inherent difference in the fact that we know the human will have a conscious retrieval while the machine will have an impartial encoding. To me this is a very stark difference.
Some Tentative Axioms of Communication - Watzlawick, Beavin, Jackson 1967
- Was this piece written with a differing view of schizophrenia than what is commonly accepted now? As far as I know and as far as those with schizophrenia whom I know, the disorder simply eliminates a persons consistent ability to communicate effectively. The disorder does not eliminate a schizophrenics participation in the realm of communication as a human being.
- When he says, " it seems that the more spontaneous and 'healthy' a relationship, the more the relationship aspect of communication recedes into the background" why does he choose to group spontaneous with healthy as being of one type?
- Who was the intended audience of this piece?
#2 - Weiner's text is from 1954, and so many texts of that era and before (and especially coming from the engineering/science sector) left that gender issue essentially un-addressed. It's a cultural anachronism to say the least: and annoying in retrospect! And consider he is one of a small handful of people who's work is considered to be absolutely fundamental to computing and communications since then.
ReplyDeleteAnd regarding the schizophrenia issue, yes, definitely, the understanding of it was markedly different and related to the surficial manifestations regarding communications 'pathologies' that schizophrenics demonstrated. The audience for many of these older articles were 'fellow' systems engineers and scientists most likely! Definitely no consideration was made about us as readers ;-)
cheers,
jh