Computers As Invocational Media
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Computers as invocational media Thesis submitted towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Christopher Bradford Chesher BA (Media and Communications) Mitchell College of Advanced Eduction MA (Interdisciplinary Studies) University of New South Wales Department of Media and Communications Division of Society, Culture, Media and Philosophy College of Humanities and Social Sciences Macquarie University March 2001 Table of contents Table of contents.............................................................................................iii Acknowledgments ......................................................................................... vii Introduction .......................................................................................................1 1. Computers and the Humanities ................................................................33 2. Invoking concepts .......................................................................................94 3. Ontology of the invocational interval .................................................... 135 4. Command, memory and decision machines.......................................... 172 5. User design................................................................................................. 215 6. Invocational aesthetics ............................................................................. 252 7. Hypertext, technology and invocationary acts ...................................... 289 Conclusions.................................................................................................... 322 References ...................................................................................................... 329 Summary This thesis argues that computers are invocational media. It shows how this technological lineage can be defined not only by the power of computation, but also by the power of invocation — storing, generating and recalling images, sounds and simulations. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari, a wide literature on computer, medium theory and actor-network theory, it argues that invocational media are based on the ‘genetic element’ of invocation. The cultural practice of invocation, which has an ancient heritage, mixes command and memory to produce decisions. Invocational media not only answer calculations; they also invoke any number of dynamic new media environments. Summoning concepts from cultural milieux, they have been called on to invoke (among other things) ‘intelligence’, ‘life’ and even ‘reality’. Invocational media are as significant as previous historical transitions in media technology. If television brought secondary orality (Ong), invocational media bring nth oralities: chat, queries, e-mails and ICQ. Although technology has displaced conventional magic, tropes of magic recur in technology’s cultural imaginary. Invocational magic is domesticated and commodified. Hobbled together from surveillance, spectacle, command and control technologies, its powers are conditional. Users must answer ‘avocations’: standards that condition everything that is invocable. Invocational aesthetics are distinctive. Disregarding the computational aesthetics of pure mathematical form, users appreciate the emergent qualities of the invocational aesthetic: playable games, responsive interfaces, and immersive experiences. Everywhere, invocations are polyvocal, calling to wider assemblages. Hyperlinks combine technological systems, textual conventions and mediations of social commitments in producing invocationary speech acts. Acknowledgments Anyone who has attempted a PhD thesis knows that is not like any other project. It is sometimes referred to as an apprenticeship as an academic, and it has functioned in that way for me. As such an extensive project, it’s pretty hard to thank everyone who has helped in this process. Thanks, first, to my supervisors McKenzie Wark, Andrew Murphie and Anne Cranny-Francis for their indispensable guidance and support in the various stages of this process, including reading late drafts and providing very helpful comments. Thanks to my colleagues in Media and Communications at UNSW, Philip Bell, Gillian Fuller, Scott Shaner, Ross Harley, Brigid Costello, Alyssa Rothwell and Julie Miller. I am lucky to work with people I also consider as friends. I also appreciate the semester of leave that the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences gave me to work on this project during 2000. Thanks to Sherman Young, Belinda Barnet, Mitchell Whitelaw, Jackie Cook, Maria Stukoff and Sophea Lerner for help, comments, conversation and inspiration. Thanks to my friends in the Deleuze and Guattari reading group: Scott Sharpe, Maria Hynes, Lone Bertelsen, and others who participated. I took a journey with this group that directly and indirectly enriched my writing and thinking on this project. Particular thanks go to David Sutton, whose close reading of a late draft spurred me to make some crucial changes. Thanks to Terry and Greg Chesher not only for being responsible for my existence, but also for their direct help in writing, including proof-reading a late draft. viii of 364 Introduction Thanks to all the dogs and their owners in my local park, and to Flash, who helped keep me relatively sane. Thanks especially to Cathy O’Callaghan for her constant support and companionship. Chris Chesher — March 2001 viii Computers as invocational media I hereby certify that this thesis has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other University or Institution. Christopher Bradford Chesher Introduction This thesis introduces and develops the concept that digital computers are invocational media. The invocational assemblage, with its inputs, outputs, processor and memory, is a distinctive meta-media form characterised by the capacity to call up numbers, texts, images, sounds and movements. The concept of invocation connects the technical features shared by the diverse range of digital computers developed during the second half of the twentieth century with the cultural practices that emerged around them. I will demonstrate that this concept captures the technocultural lineage of ‘digital computers’ better than other approaches. The generic term ‘interactive digital computer’ has outgrown its usefulness. All three words in the phrase are problematic. Each of the terms has a forgotten history, leaving not only redundant, but confusing meanings. First, virtually all computers built after the mid 1970s are ‘interactive’. Interactivity is where ‘the user is connected directly to a central computer in such a way that transactions are performed directly in response to the commands made by the user’ (Chandor 1987: 248–249). This distinction was meaningful when it distinguished interactive systems from batch processors. In non-interactive systems users had to prepare their jobs away from the computer using, for example, punch cards. The personal computer was never anything but interactive, so the inherited term went on to take on a number of more or less useful meanings (Schneiderman 1986, Carroll 1991, Monk 1984). Interactivity is a hidden anthropomorphism, suggesting that the machine is an ‘other’ with whom the user engages. It also suggests a turn-taking interaction typical of command line interactions. The range of ways users engage with computers is not usefully captured by the term ‘interaction’. 1 Invocational media The term ‘digital’ is based on an even older distinction. In the 1930s and 40s it distinguished between two quite different approaches to building a computing machine: analogue and digital. Analogue computers, such as the mechanical Differential Analyser built at MIT, had some early success. Analogue computers used continuous voltage or mechanical variations to perform calculations. At an early stage these were faster and cheaper than digital computers. In the longer term analogue computers proved more expensive and less versatile, so the basis of virtually all computers since the 1950s was digital (Kempf 2000, Ceruzzi 1983). When no longer in opposition to ‘analogue computers’, the term ‘digital computer’ becomes not only redundant but confusing. Computer discourse has been responsible for a lot of mystification about the distinction between analogue and digital systems of representation. Digitality is not exclusive to computers. It refers to systems of communication based on discrete values and pre-defined codes, rather than on continuous variations along continua. Digital codes include written language and mathematics — which existed long before computers. Digital elements (characters, phonemes) are always intermixed with analogue elements (gestures, facial expressions), and analogue variations are often described digitally (weight is expressed in kilograms or pounds). Hence, only part of the so-called digital computer operates with digital logic — the central processing unit (CPU) and memory devices. These components automatically reify principles and procedures developed in the Western tradition of mathematics and logic, all of which use discrete values. Even here, the computer’s operations are not actually digital, but rather digital readings of analogue variations of high and low voltages. What makes a digital computer different from a mathematician with a piece of paper is that its operations are automatic, very fast, and not directly observable. Sequential variations in 2 1. Computers and the Humanities voltage run through specialised components to perform logical and arithmetical transformations and hold these as electrical