Mathematics + Communication = ...?

The writers for this week obviously have a much different concern about communication. What is it that Shannon and Weaver share with Wiener in terms of their theoretical treatment of communication? What is a common "problem" that they seek to address, or, what are some shared assumptions that they share vis-a-vis communication, the modern world, or the human condition?

Let me just say, that without the help of my wonderful Math-and-Physics-major friend Tara, and Wikipedia, these two articles would not have made much sense. I think I have a general idea of the Weaver/Shannon piece, but a better understanding of the Weiner article. Anyway, here’s my best shot at answering this week’s question:

Common problems that both Shannon and Weaver and Weiner address within communication are what S&W term “the technical problem” (accuracy of transmission), “the semantic problem” (conveying meaning), and “the effectiveness problem” (affecting conduct in the desired way) (96). Weiner brings this up in his piece when speaking of interference in communication. He says that “a message can lose order spontaneously in the act of transmission, but cannot gain it” (Weiner 7). An example he uses includes a translated text, which we all know to have inherent faults because words/ideas absolutely lose meaning in this act, despite the translator’s desire for legitimacy. This website, http://funnytranslator.com/, shows just how jumbled a message can become when being passed back and forth between transmitter and receiver. Weiner gets it right when he states, “a message can lose order spontaneously in the act of transmission, but cannot gain it” (8). As this “funny translator” shows, order is lost repeatedly with each new translation to one language and then back to English.

S&W are concerned with not only the previously stated problems, but also the repetition and thus low entropy of the English language. They claim that half of the words we speak are free choice, and half are “controlled by the statistical structure of the language” (Shannon and Weaver 8). This is obvious, as prepositions, articles, conjunctions and phrases follow a set standard of order within speech. However, a message “acquires its meaning by being a selection from a number of possible patterns” and thus, “The amount of meaning can be measured” because “the less probable a message is, the more meaning it carries” (Weiner 8). S&W call this “information”, or the probability of speech that is the “measure of one’s freedom of choice” when selecting a message (100). I understand that there is a limited amount of freedom when choosing words to convey a message, and thus creativity can be measured in this way. Being an English Lit major, it’s obvious that the language can be manipulated in many ways, but there will always be commonalities in phrase and word choice; that’s what makes the language accessible to its speakers. I’m not sure what argument S&W are trying to make in pointing out these obvious repetitions, but I understand that Weiner is concerned with the possibility of machines replacing humans.

Anyway, I think I’ve rambled enough. Hopefully David and Sarah will be able to put these two articles in Layman’s terms for the class tomorrow and Wednesday.

Enzensberger and Habermas

Despite their Marxist orientation, both Enzensberger and Habermas are generally considered more optimistic about the emancipatory potential of modern culture. What is the reason for this optimism?

Enzensberger’s optimism about the freeing potential of modern culture is in his belief that “For the first time in history, the media are making possible mass participation in a social and socialized productive process, the practical means of which are in the hands of the masses themselves” (97). He is hopeful that a new system of interaction between media and the public will emerge, and advocates for media that allows the audience a chance to respond. He finds that “the new media are egalitarian in structure,” and therefore, “Anyone can take part in them” (Enzensberger 105). The media today focuses on present affairs, and influences what is deemed historical or influential in modern times by the stories that they choose to cover. New forms of media such as the website YouTube, allow practically anyone (given they have a computer and a camera) the opportunity to become their own kind of famous, and make their own kind of history. The internet has blossomed in contemporary times, and mass communication has expanded, reaching a new potential of influence by “mak[ing] everyone a manipulator” (Enzensberger 104). Although Enzensberger was writing before the internet was the power it is today, it is clear to see his optimism about the future that has come to be the present.

Habermas could also be seen as optimistic for his outlook on the importance of the public sphere in creating changes in society. As the class structures broke down to allow for conversation between the high and low cultures, a public was born that shared common interests in the welfare of themselves and their society. A kind of equality was born with the creation of the public sphere that had not been seen before. Coffeehouses encouraged talks concerning social, political and cultural issues between classes, and “The issues discussed became ‘general’ not merely in their significance, but also in their accessibility: everyone had to be able to participate” (Habermas 37). The development of the public sphere created an atmosphere of debate and critique in which everyone could participate. This interest in participation and sharing of opinions has only grown in the centuries after the emergence of the public sphere.

Works Cited

Enzensberger, Hans Magnus., and Michael Roloff. "Constituents of a Theory of the Media." The Consciousness Industry; on Literature, Politics and the Media. New York: Seabury, 1974. 95-128. Print.

Habermas, Jurgen. "Social Structures of the Public Sphere." The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: an Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1989. 27-43. Print.

"Society and Culture" by Arendt

I enjoyed reading this article by Arendt because of its views of mass society and mass culture. I am currently taking a class called Reading American Culture that is all about the impact Disney has had and continues to have on American culture and globalization. Arendt begins her essay by stating that the chief difference between society and mass society “is that society wanted culture, evaluated and devaluated cultural things into social commodities, used and abused them for its own selfish purposes, but did not ‘consume’ them” (281). Arendt makes the point that mass society wants to be entertained, and entertainment is something that is consumed. The products that a company such as Disney creates are marketed for a mass audience, that in turn readily and happily consumes what is placed before it with little question of its value. This is how cultural objects have experienced what Arendt terms “devaluation” (281). Now that the current state of the modern world allows for rich and poor alike to experience free time, the entertainment industry has increasingly influenced the masses, who biologically have always “engaged in consumption or in the passive reception of amusement” (282). Mass culture appears to have no value, and remains only as empty entertainment to be mindlessly consumed. As America becomes increasingly a country of consumption, Arendt rightfully fears that this kind of society “does not know how to take care of the world and the things which belong to it” (286). Instead of preserving or encouraging a culture of our own that has value, the society which we live in is “obsessed with consumption” and therefore “cannot at the same time be cultured or produce a culture” (286). This idea is wildly upsetting to me, as it appears that the further we move towards completely embracing mass culture/society, the further we move towards society stripped of individuality and originality. I am excited to see what the rest of the class thinks about this essay, and to learn more about mass culture in this class and Reading American Culture.

Work Cited

Arendt, Hannah. "Society and Culture." Daedalus 89.2 (1960): 278-87. JSTOR. Web. 17 Jan. 2011. .