If Postmodernists view high-culture and low-culture in a similar vein then why does postmodern media thrust the audience on an 'elitist model' of communication and information?
With the launch of each new smartphone or an intriguing social networking website the so-called postmodernist consumer society or the popular consciousness is evermore overpowered by the influx of Information technology. An impulsive consumption of latest digital media overshadows the quest for the message these media may contain. In this scenario, the ‘informed’ consumer – whose ‘choice’ and ‘reality’ is often constructed by a flurry of branded images- is compelled to be bewitched by a high-tech device itself rather than the information it disseminates to the subject. Thus the acquisition of ultimate knowledge and supremacy of ‘truth’ are usually irrelevant for the communication experiences of an individual living in the age of compulsive virtual reaction and a simulated social interaction.
In fact, the pervasive cult of breaking news, live telecasts, reality TV and the narcissist snare of Twitter and Facebook have fragmented the postmodern cognitive experience while breaking up the ‘identity’ of individual into various categories of consumer, audience or netizen. This cultural maneuver of high-tech societies, engaged in a constant communication with the individual, has an aura of capitalist models where information or knowledge is a profitable commodity to trade power and control. The iGeneration is too busy updating, uploading, sharing and tweeting its own ‘subjective’ narratives that it is not very charmed with the interpretation of the grand narratives of ‘war’, ‘hegemony’, ’terrorism’, ‘economic recession’, ‘class structure’ or ‘digital divide’.
Knowledge of ‘reality’ for them is as long valid and desirable as it remains ‘trending’. The most recent and ‘trending’ narrative’ that depicted chaos of postmodern consciousness was the global urban class’s sudden crush on ‘Occupy Wall Street movement’ which took the world by surprise by taking virtual activism to the next level. For a while it appeared as the resurgence of the ‘modernist ideals of enlightenment and emancipation ’ as the ‘digital crowd’ went gaga over the ‘idea’ of collective political action in ‘real’ world. But sooner the architects of this ‘mass movement’ who successfully utilized the ‘digital and physical‘ realms of global communication fell prey to the nihilist postmodern psyche due to their ambiguous ideologies and anarchist objectives. So what initiated as an agitation of thousands of people, during September and October of 2011 across the world, reportedly ‘attracted’ only a few hundreds on May Day 2012. The movement is still on (so is the recession) but digital activists’ fatigue is quite visible if ‘reality’, constructed by the ‘trending’ social media or breaking news is anything to go by.
Though the advances in information technologies and global communication of modern times promise endless possibilities for equal cultural and social interactions, yet there are reasons to be skeptic about the role of postmodern digital and social media as an agent of empowerment. There's been a lot of hoopla lately regarding the 'growing role of broadcast media' or 'power of social media' and the latter has created too much euphoria amongst the 'digital revolutionist' be it Egypt, Tunisia, Oakland or Bahrain. But who controls this so-called flow of information between different social networks? Does a common Baloch activist on Twitter draw as much attention of the 'virtual community' as Julian Assange with his wikileaks? If a local musician can't have as many 'followers' or Facebook fans' as Justin Beieber then why should he be deceived by the 'pro-community' visage of the social media? How social media serves its 'communities' by instigating the 'Followers' to catch up with the vanity of a so-called elite 'twitterati'? If Postmodernists view high-culture and low-culture in a similar vein then why does postmodern media thrust the audience on an 'elitist model' of communication and information? It is interesting to note that in the information savvy world the consumer of information acts as its producers as well. Take the 'subject' of social media, who is enticed to 'Share', more and more info and links from the mainstream media, with all possible receivers and audiences thus becoming a micro-marketer of giant media corporations with the delusion of personal choice.
The ‘interaction’ and participation of the individual in the process of ‘information sharing’ has reduced to rapid response like an automated machine which has to produce a particular commodity once the digital code is entered. The new media-to set its own agenda- pressurizes the individuals to ‘be the first one’ to share, view or tweet a news-story or an event instead of first reading between the lines and then make a choice. The RIP fad on social media is an example how people- following their social mentors - turn a human subject into a popular textual nonsense.
A consciousness this fragmented, occupied and dictated by manipulative technologies is far from constructing absolute realities or metanarratives rather readily give in to the implicit messages of control and authoritarianism.
Perhaps Frederic Jameson is justified in terming Postmodernism as ‘late capitalism’- a cultural form which has developed in the wake of the socio-economical order of present day capitalism. We can’t describe Postmodernist communication as an all-encompassing reality, rather a cultural dominant that affects the consciousness of high-tech societies and social behaviors.
 |
Duriya Hashmi is a passive activist, blogger and aspiring film maker who writes to vent anguish and believes in art as a catalyst for change. Her cyber self can be followed at |
