Let's start off with Havelock's statement that, He [Homer] is at once a storyteller and also a tribal encyclopedist (page 83). Throughout his 4th chapter Havelock describes how the poet intermingled the use of sounds, rhythms, repetitions, and bodily movements with the content of the story itself in order to engage the audience. By doing so he ensured comprehension of the messages within the epic as well as their sustainability for future generations. In this case the poet understood the capabilities of his audience and used the necessary strategies to successfully transfer information and knowledge, as noted by Havelock: The Homeric poet controlled the culture in which he lived for the simple reason that his poetry became and remained the only authorised version of important utterance (page 145). So the Homeric poet was essentially the sole expert at creating these oral epics and as such controlled the creation of identities that defined the social and ethical boundaries of the time (e.g., honor).
If we then tie in Havelock's interpretation of Plato's criticism of poetry, we can begin to see an evolution of thought. Plato lived in a time where rational analysis was a burgeoning discourse that challenged the process of learning by 'imitation'. With the rise of new strategies and tools for communication (i.e., prose) a new system of relaying the broad messages of social and ethical conduct was on the rise. Individuals were encouraged to learn how to analyze their world and deduce on their own how to identify themselves within it.
I would compare this divide to the current divide between traditional mass media and interactive new media where the identities that define social and ethical rules are created not by a sole source but by multiple ones using new strategies.
The comparison you draw at the end of your post really caught my imagination. I wonder, though, if the idea - which seems to be widespread - that interactive media actually let users redefine social and ethical norms is really true. I seem the former "audience" in many cases getting the opportunity to voice opinions (sometimes about important matters and often not) and to create media products (some of great social value, others probably less so), but do these new producers actually have an effect on widespread norms and values?
ReplyDeleteFrankly I think it's a bit too early to call it, but I personally believe that future generations will obtain information (from news to entertainment) by interacting with it in a much more active way. I would even take the leap that the definition of "credible" sources of information is currently being redefined...one meager example is CNN's iReport.
ReplyDelete