Month: September 2020

Gianpiero Gamaleri wrote an article named Media Ecology, Neil Postman’s Legacy. This article focuses on the mapping of media ecology through the perspective of Dennis G. Cali. Although the main points of Media Ecology given by Marshall McLuhan are addressed, Cali had a different research method for this theory. Cali focused his research on “studying the balances that can make this change useful for the development of future humanity” (Gamaleri). Professor Cali breaks up media ecology into seven points. These points break up Media Ecology into different perspectives, such as looking at Media Ecology as a metaphor or as a theory of groups. By breaking up this theory you are able to gain different perspectives of the overall picture.

Media Ecology is a theory of mass communication that studies the “different personal and social environments created by the use of different communication technologies.”(310). In order to look into Media Ecology, the concepts of Symbolic Environment, Media, and Medium are explained. Although evaluating the different media ecologies can be challenging but are not impossible. You first must understand how the environments are created and how they affect the individuals using the technologies, or “human inventions that enhance communication”(311). These advancements in technology helped McLuhan assign historical eras based on the technology they used and their dominant sense receptors. Furthermore, Technology that further advances our communication abilities is known as media.  McLuhan wanted us to understand that the medium, or “a specific type of media, such as a book” is often overlooked; “for the content of a medium, is like the juicy piece of meat carried by a burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind”(310). This metaphor is important to understand because it shows how we focus so much on the content and tend to disregard the medium.

Right off the bat, we can draw similarities between Cali’s research and McLuhan’s. Cali Broke up media ecology with different concentrations. For example, when looking at Media Ecology as a study of environments there are tangents from McLuhan’s intuition of each medium, which inevitably would change the bigger picture of things. But when looking at Media Ecology as a Metaphor, it contributes to preserving and fixing the image of the world and how the image has been damaged. Overall the main definition of Media Ecology stays constant, how it is applied varies based on the interpretive lense that the other is wearing. Through both readings, the need for human interaction is evident. In addition to the advancements that were made, humanity was always the cause of the switch in historical eras. Although some scholars will argue that these technologies played major rules in history it can be concluded that the invention itself played a minor role but society itself influence the change. By understanding both the Media and the Medium people developed different perspectives and have the opportunity to reveal fallacies. By focusing on the content itself rather than the way it is communicated, part of the message is lost forever because the content means nothing outside of the medium or the way that the original message is delivered. This is seen in today’s society quite often. Living in the Digital age, we text and community though messages sent through technology. Yes, this is beneficial but it is easy t miss understand an individual because there are no emotions, nonverbals, or special delivery that can help shape the content. At the end of the day, “the content or message of any particular medium has about as much importance as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb.”

Media Ecology, Neil Postman’s legacy

In the text, A First Look at Communication Theory, written by Em Griffin looks at the different theories and different approaches to building a theory. In chapter 5, the theory of self, more importantly, the “Looking-glass self” was addressed. Essentially this theory explains how we act based upon how others think about us. In more general terms, we judge ourselves based upon what we think others think about us. Sometimes these predictions are true and others can lead us down a path of lies. Although I have only been on this earth for Twenty two years, I have learned a good amount, but more importantly, I have reflected on the past chapters in my life to see what I have done and how I can improve myself. One of the most awkward times in anyone’s life is middle school. For me, Middle school was attempting to look cool for other people. A major part of this was physical but a lot was mental. I had an image of cool based on what my friends deemed were cool and I tried to follow it. I wore hightop Nikes and T-shirts that were two sizes too big because I thought that my friends thought it made me cool. My assumption of what others thought about me changed how I acted and communicated with others on a daily basis. As a direct result, I was focused on the me and disregarded the I factor in my own story.

The term Looking-glass self is defined as “the mental self-image that results from taking the role of the other.”(57) In this context, the other just means the other people around you. The looking-glass self has three steps, the first is how you appear to others, the second is what others think of you, and lastly how we tend to revise how we think about ourselves. This theory brings up thoughts about the self. The self is divided up into two categories; the I and the Me. The I is “the subjective self [or] the spontaneous, driving force that fosters all that its novel.”(57) In plain English the I is how you act without any pressures. It is just you being unpredictable and acting out. The Me is defined as ” the objective self… the image of self seem in the looking glass of other people reactions,” or the image that its seen when you take on the role of the other (57).

The Looking-glass self is an important theory to understand when attempting to establish yourself into a leadership role. With so much going on and so many factors influencing one another, it is crucial the right message gets across and you are real and open with the people you are leading. The looking glass self is the image that one assigns him/herself based on what they think others think about them. Therefore, if you are super harsh on someone who is working for you, but you are harsh because you see their potential and want to help them reach it, they might think you are harsh cause you don’t like them. Another way they could decipher this is you are harsh because they are not good at their job, which will inevitably lead them to hate coming into work and eventually moving onto the next opportunity. The I is difficult to find because when you are looking for it is disappears. The I is the spontaneous self that has no filter, nothing in the way of you just being you. I believe that the ‘Me’ is more important to understand when leading than the I. The I is great to understand but the ‘me’ is going to help you influence and understand people on a deeper level. When you are leading it is important to understand how the other sees you and how they think of you. By understanding the me, you can see yourself and understand why people act a certain way when addressing you.

In the text, A First Look at Communication Theory, written by Em Griffin capitalized on the different approaches to analyzing data. Essentially, in the second chapter, Griffin breaks down a commercial in two separate ways and addresses the situation how depending on which interpretive lenses you are wearing depends on the meaning of the commercial as a whole. With the two different ways to approach the topic, there are a number of outcomes. One deals with numbers, only one truth, and is very logical, while the other is more based on theory and assigning meaning to communicative texts. Both will lead to you the answer you are looking for. But what answer are you looking for? Right now the answer that I have been searching for is how to be a leader and not a boss. As seen, the boss delegates and tells people how things should be done regardless of they have done it before. A leader steps in front of the pack and works alongside their followers and makes sure the job gets done effectively and up to expectations. If you act more as a boss and tell people what to do they might listen, but their perception is going to be clouded. On the other side of the spectrum, if you lead by example and live your life in the front of the pack the vision is going to be clear. And these people are going to follow you to the ends of the earth.

While Griffin was explaining the objective approach or the assumption that there is only a singular truth that is based on a cause-and-effect basis, Griffin acknowledges that Swartz had a good perspective regarding how to send a persuasive message. The best way to influence and persuade people is to “evoke past experiences that create resonance between the message content and the person’s thoughts or feelings.”(14) This is a lot of big words that can be broken down into one simple sentence, memories of personal experiences persuade other individuals more than any argument could. Once we consider the most effective way to influence others the next best step is to see what others see, or walk a mile in their own shoes so we know we are not asking too much of them. Humanistic scholars study this or “what it’s like to be another person in a specific time or place.”(15) Lastly, when attempting to lead individuals it is important to understand where you stand on the age of question of choice. This question has remained unanswered since the begging of intellectual humans, the question of free will or heredity. Either you believe “Pleasure stamps in, pain stamps out” or “I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.” (17)

Finally, our journey through life is full of first experiences then later memories. Some scholars have concluded that immortality can actually be achieved through these memories. I believe Schartz was on the right track when he was talking about persuading people is easier when you involve their past emotions. At the end of the day, I see how my mom is moved y anything that resembles growth and leaving because to her she only thinks of her little boys growing up and leaving for college. Furthermore, this same feeling is crucial when leading individuals because you need to figure out what inspires them to be better and what motivates them to get out of bed every morning and grind. For some, money is the biggest motivator, and others the goal of one day reaching happiness. But as a leader, I believe it is your responsibility to understand and work with the situation you are given so your followers can achieve everything they want to achieve in life. After you understand what motivated people you need to decide what if the appropriate amount of work to expect them to do. After all one individual can only do so much work, so you need to step into their own shoes so you can understand how much they can manage without affecting the quality. The final step is to understand how choice works. Scholars have concluded that people tend to lean to the free choice and free will side of the spectrum. This makes it crucial to make them happy as their leader. If you do not follow the steps above they will not be happy and leave you for someone who is going to get them to where they want to be going.