To my understanding, the post-human "situation" described by Kittler diagnoses literature with a terminal illness, if it does not register a death which has already happened: "the dream of a real visible or audible world arising from words has come to an end"(14), and "under the conditions of high technology, literature has nothing more to say" (263). For Kittler, the differentiation of the Lacanian orders of the real/the imaginary/the symbolic respectively associated to the emergence of phonography, cinematography and of new writing techniques such as typewriting, "exploded Gutenberg's writing monopoly around 1880." (16) The Lacanian triumvirate used by Kittler works well for the argument of the book, but I am not sure it conveys the complexity of the question of "mediality" as raised by the translators in the introduction to his book.
I see the association of phonography with the order of the real, although I wonder about its validity when I think of how music, which preexisted recording and audio techniques, prevails over white noise or recording of daily life noises or of silence, in our usage of audio devices. I see the association of cinematography with the order of the optical imaginary, although I am convinced that cinema is linked with the real, even if, as argued by Kittler, "instead of recording physical waves, generally speaking it only stores their chemical effects on its negatives"(119). What I don't even see very clearly is that the symbolic order embodied by the typewriter "now encompasses linguistic signs in their materiality and technicity" (15). But this might simply be due to my dumbness.
To move on, Kittler argues, in a very Foucauldian move, that "understanding media remains an impossibility precisely because the dominant information technologies of the day control all understanding and its illusions" (XL) and that "what remains of people is what media can store and communicate" (XL), but even the mere fact that he is writing this book proves his perspective to be a little too schematic and assertive and that there are residuals of human resistance to the assumed reality for which "numbers and figures become the key to all creatures" (19). "Understanding" might not be the right word, but "studying" and even "sensing" media and even our own "understanding" as modified by them, remains a possibility.
As an open ending, I will share the questions that I kept asking myself after reading this book. Is the agency of writing really gone because of the discursive changes brought in by Kittler's triumvirate of technologies? Isn't writing (graphein in Ancient Greek) an indissoluble part of these inventions, as the words which define them (phonography; cinematography; typography) inscribed in them? Don't we still write literature, even in different ways, today? And is literature today either only meta-literature or a nostalgic, romantic embodiment of a human activity which cannot make any sense of the world in which it is created? Was the printed word really the hegemonic queen of human perception before the 1880s? And, last but not least: what do we mean by words, and what do we mean by literature?
I see the association of phonography with the order of the real, although I wonder about its validity when I think of how music, which preexisted recording and audio techniques, prevails over white noise or recording of daily life noises or of silence, in our usage of audio devices. I see the association of cinematography with the order of the optical imaginary, although I am convinced that cinema is linked with the real, even if, as argued by Kittler, "instead of recording physical waves, generally speaking it only stores their chemical effects on its negatives"(119). What I don't even see very clearly is that the symbolic order embodied by the typewriter "now encompasses linguistic signs in their materiality and technicity" (15). But this might simply be due to my dumbness.
To move on, Kittler argues, in a very Foucauldian move, that "understanding media remains an impossibility precisely because the dominant information technologies of the day control all understanding and its illusions" (XL) and that "what remains of people is what media can store and communicate" (XL), but even the mere fact that he is writing this book proves his perspective to be a little too schematic and assertive and that there are residuals of human resistance to the assumed reality for which "numbers and figures become the key to all creatures" (19). "Understanding" might not be the right word, but "studying" and even "sensing" media and even our own "understanding" as modified by them, remains a possibility.
As an open ending, I will share the questions that I kept asking myself after reading this book. Is the agency of writing really gone because of the discursive changes brought in by Kittler's triumvirate of technologies? Isn't writing (graphein in Ancient Greek) an indissoluble part of these inventions, as the words which define them (phonography; cinematography; typography) inscribed in them? Don't we still write literature, even in different ways, today? And is literature today either only meta-literature or a nostalgic, romantic embodiment of a human activity which cannot make any sense of the world in which it is created? Was the printed word really the hegemonic queen of human perception before the 1880s? And, last but not least: what do we mean by words, and what do we mean by literature?
Excellent post Caterina, it seems like as you say writing is an indissoluble part of these inventions. I was bothered by the sensual terms that Kittler used to describe human's relationship with technology. I thought that was as problematic as the issue with writing being augmented and "improved" or at the least altered by technology. Does writing change through technology? I suppose technology comes with a better understanding of the human person and they understand on a more physiological level how people hear. It seems that the only reason these technologies were considered important devices was because philosophers applied their beliefs to them. I have a difficult time grasping printed word as the "hegemonic queen," because I like to consider the importance of applying meaning to symbols and images. They are equally valid as words in expressing meaning. Words are a means to communicate the interiority of a person, they are a means of expressing our thoughts, feelings, desires. It's the medium for us to try to impact life and possibly the world. Literature is I believe is the collective of these thoughts, feelings, research, and passions into organized works.
ReplyDeleteWhat do we mean by mean?
ReplyDeleteYep, there you go! That is a crucial question for this book.
ReplyDelete