Papers

On the ``acoustical properties of ether'' and radio, or: Paradoxes of neotechnics in communications research during the early-mid 1930s

On the "acoustical properties of ether" and radio, or: Paradoxes of neotechnics in communications research during the early-mid 1930s

Pedro Silva¹
psilva@sfsu.edu

28 September 2006

1 Introduction

It is generally agreed, in early-mid 1930s American communications research, that a number of technological "innovations of method in human communications" have broadened our innate speech possibilities [10,8,4]. Indeed, the flow of innovation can be followed from the most rudimentary symbolic-conceptual expressions to abstract phonetic alphabets; from manual copying of texts, painting and music to the printing press, the photograph and the phonograph. Thus human communications were extended beyond the constraints of time and space. Another effect was observed, however: analog to the widespread play field of communication possibilities, a time-lag-induced "arrest of action" [8,p. 103] persisted, not unlike what a perspective of transportation-as-communication would provide.

This state-of-the-science-and-art must be considered in order to understand what followed: the invention of the telegraph first; its subsequent replacement by the telephone; the coming of age of cinema and its sound revolution in 1927; and perhaps most importantly, the radio, enthusiastically seen at the time as "a powerful agent of democracy" [4,p. 110]. For some, emphasis was placed on the impact of new techniques and technologies on human ecology. [8,p. 103]; for others - of which those involved with the Payne Fund were an example - the true priority of the researcher was to understand this rapid change in terms of media effects on the individual [3]; still others were interested on society as a whole, and offered to quantify collective behavior.

I propose to briefly address some...inconsistencies in said literature. They are not necessarily paradoxes, but in some cases do defy common sense. My main focus, however, is on three different approaches to the study of neotechnics applied to human communication. As such, Blumer's Movies and conduct [3], Willey and Rice's Communication agencies and social life [10] and Mumford's Technics and civilization [8] provide an appropriate framework for discussion.

2 Neotechnics and communication

Neotechnics: adaptive use of new technologies for restoring the natural environment [1].

A parallel can be traced between the appearance of humanities in their present form in the 19th century [7,p. 15] and the emergence of the first inventions to "bridge the gap in time between communication and response" ([8,p. 103]). Likewise, there seems to be a correlation, although not necessarily a direct one, between the development of these inventions into their modern counterparts in the early-20th century and the incremental interest of humanists and sociologists by their effects on the individual and society.

Methodological conflicts Blumer's work on the influence of motion pictures [3] is representative of a qualitative approach to research in the field. "There is nothing in human behavior which prevents the natural scientific method to human behavior" (Blumer's 1928 doctoral dissertation, p.32, cited in [2,p. 5]. At the same time, he was troubled by interpretative understanding and, "in consequence, Blumer's first phase[, in which the 1933 work is included,] is constantly thwarted by a tensional treatment of science and interpretation", in Baugh's (ibid) words. This is visible in The integration of communication chapter, where he interprets findings based on inquiries into personal experiences always with a "touch of moralistic censure" [9,p. 91]. For example:

For the young movie-goer little discrimination is possible. He probably could not understand or even read a sophisticated book, but he can see the thing in the movies and be stirred and possibly misled. ([3,p. 93])

Insightful indeed, and possibly the truth. However, the assertion is appropriate in a speculative context, such as this one, not as a result of inquiry of personal experiences. Still, Blumer did seek methodological unity in the sciences. And Baugh, in his The methodology of Herbert Blumer, thinks the sociologist was, at the time, in the first stage of development of his inter-disciplinary method (p.5). There was, therefore, room for improvement. Other current authors, however, would disagree with Blumer's method: while [6,p. 295] attribute both intended and unintended effects to media, suiting Blumer's vision of motion pictures as "genuine educational institutions" (p.93), their more specific division of attitudes into cognitive, affective and conative or behavioral adds at least one dimension - the cognitive - to Blumer's media effects.

Local differences vs. international standards Had they asked the question, [10] would have found, through their quantitative research, that neotechnics in communication as it relates to early-20th century media was impossible. Radio, for instance, reinforced "community patterns (...)[, this meaning] the perpetuation and intensification of localism" (p.97), while at the same time undermining it by a pan-nationalized and internationalized standardization (ibid). Thus, they could have concluded, the paradox of neotechnics in communication related to "an increase in overt standardization (...) accompanied by retention of inward differences" (ibid). Cooley [5], on the other hand, would have found the exact opposite, that the process of change here described was "perhaps as natural as anything else" (p. 25). In fact, he called it natural selection, much in resonance with Mumford's neotechnics. By the same token, the latter also saw a paradox, or perhaps more correctly, a challenge: considering technological innovations capable of restoring one's natural environment - that is, reducing the communications time lag into something analogous to what made thought possible - he understood the need for a corresponding change in human behavior (p.105). The "widened range of intercourse (...) does not mean a less trivial or less parochial personality" (p. 103). Notice how what he considered truly important, an introspective psychology - cognition - contrasts with Blumer's perhaps over-simplistic behavioral psychology. Humanistic versus scientific at its most marked distance ².

On the "acoustical properties of ether" and their usefulness to radio technology

Ether: a hypothetical substance, thought to be the medium in which electromagnetic waves occurred, in 19th century physics.

Acoustics: the branch of physics which studies the generation, propagation and generation of sound.

Witty remarks aside, I believe a point can be made as to the importance of technical knowledge in discussing matters of non-technical significance, but relating to technology. To what extended is an author's credibility weakened by mistakes such as the one made by [4,p. 111]? Granted, the factuality of the ether was not disputed until the early-20th century. However, the confusion between acoustic and electro-magnetic waves is blatantly erroneous, and plants in my mind the question of whether the authors could really understand the implications of radio: the problem of constant reduction of the available electro-magnetic spectrum, a serious concern nowadays ans solved only by severe regulation, comes to mind. I merely wish to seed some discussion on this topic. This paragraph is included in the context of this paper in as much as it can also be constructed as a paradox in communications research in the 1930s.

3 Conclusion

This article has serious flaws, in a scientific perspective: it abuses the concept of paradox, making it perhaps too broad. It freely adapts Mumford's environmental neotechnics to other authors' own communications research. This I consider less serious, as that path was opened by Mumford himself. I intentionally draw a too rigid line between humanists and sociologists, when some place themselves in a not easily distinguishable gray area. I speculate on the opinions of some authors as to the works of others, when they possibly never did so. Nevertheless, I do all this for the sake of the argument.

I have shown how three different perspectives of research approach the topic of the adaptive use of new technology for the restoration of human communications to the interpersonal level. The qualitatively sociological method erred, in my opinion, in that it disregarded cognitive considerations. In other words, it put too little faith in the individual. Quantitative approaches to the issue seem to identify what Cooley would find a paradox of local, inward differences within a systemic standardization. Mumford's humanistic considerations seem to resonate with current research, which considers the cognitive to be an essential part of the study of attitudes. Lastly, I put to debate the issue of non-technical authorship on technical topics. I expect to stir some contrasting views to my own, necessarily biased one.

Ultimately, I hope you will find my argument believable to the extent that it somehow excuses its flaws. Machiavellian ethics indeed.

References

[1]: Book reviews: Review of the book Lewis Mumford and the Ecological Region: The Politics of Planning. The Professional Geographer, 49(1):141-164, 1997.
[2]: Kenneth Baugh. The Methodology of Herbert Blumer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, June 1990.
[3]: Herbert Blumer. Conclusion, from Movies and Conduct. In John Durham Peters and Peter Simonson, editors, Mass Communication and American Social Thought: Key Texts, 1919-1968, pages 91-95. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, 2004.
[4]: Hadley Cantril and Gordon W. Allport. The influence of radio upon mental and social life. In John Durham Peters and Peter Simonson, editors, Mass Communication and American Social Thought: Key Texts, 1919-1968, pages 110-115. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, 2004.
[5]: Charles Horton Cooley. The process of social change. In John Durham Peters and Peter Simonson, editors, Mass Communication and American Social Thought: Key Texts, 1919-1968, pages 21-25. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, 2004.
[6]: Lawrence Grossberg, Ellen Wartella, J MacGregor Wise, and D Charles Whitney. Mediamaking: Mass Media in a Popular Culture. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, 2nd edition, September 2005.
[7]: Klaus Bruhn Jensen. A Handbook of Media and Communication Research. Routledge, London, June 2002.
[8]: Lewis Mumford. From technics and civilization. In John Durham Peters and Peter Simonson, editors, Mass Communication and American Social Thought: Key Texts, 1919-1968, pages 102-105. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, 2004.
[9]: John Durham Peters and Peter Simonson, editors. Art and Mass Culture. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, 2004.
[10]: Malcolm Willey and Stuart Rice. The integration of communication. In John Durham Peters and Peter Simonson, editors, Mass Communication and American Social Thought: Key Texts, 1919-1968, pages 95-98. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, 2004.

Footnotes:

¹Broadcast and Electronic Arts Department, San Francisco State University

²I am indeed aware of the debate on the usefulness of such distinctions. I apologize to Thomas Khun and Richard Rorty.

File translated from T_EX by T_TH, version 3.77.
On 24 Apr 2007, 23:50.