What do you think?
Rate this book
The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context
When we make phone calls and use computers, electronic devices mediate how we communicate. In each instance, we exchange symbols and information just as we have since humans began speaking and writing. What, then—besides economy of space and time—differentiates electronic communications from ordinary speech and writing?
The difference, Mark Poster argues, is the profound effect electronic mediation exerts on the very way we perceive ourselves and reality. To help decode the linguistic dimensions of our multiple forms of social interaction, he plays upon Marx's theory of the mode of production—the shift to late capitalism has a parallel in the shift from the mode of production to that of information.
Enlisting poststructuralist theory, he links four modes of communication with four TV ads with Baudrillard, data bases with Foucault, electronic writing with Derrida, and computer science with Lyotard. Mode of Information points the way to a poststructuralist strategy for writing history, a framework well suited to unearthing structures of domination and the means to their disruption.
"An informed, insightful, provocative account of phenomena that have transformed virtually every area of public and private life on our time."—Robert Anchor, American Historical Review
"The importance of Poster's book is unmistakable for he skillfully negotiates between and juxtaposes two wide theoretical domains—electronically mediated communications and poststructuralist theory—about which much has been written, but hardly with the acumen that he brings to bear in a long-awaited critical rapprochement."—Charles J. Stivale, Criticism
The difference, Mark Poster argues, is the profound effect electronic mediation exerts on the very way we perceive ourselves and reality. To help decode the linguistic dimensions of our multiple forms of social interaction, he plays upon Marx's theory of the mode of production—the shift to late capitalism has a parallel in the shift from the mode of production to that of information.
Enlisting poststructuralist theory, he links four modes of communication with four TV ads with Baudrillard, data bases with Foucault, electronic writing with Derrida, and computer science with Lyotard. Mode of Information points the way to a poststructuralist strategy for writing history, a framework well suited to unearthing structures of domination and the means to their disruption.
"An informed, insightful, provocative account of phenomena that have transformed virtually every area of public and private life on our time."—Robert Anchor, American Historical Review
"The importance of Poster's book is unmistakable for he skillfully negotiates between and juxtaposes two wide theoretical domains—electronically mediated communications and poststructuralist theory—about which much has been written, but hardly with the acumen that he brings to bear in a long-awaited critical rapprochement."—Charles J. Stivale, Criticism
- GenresTechnology
188 pages, Paperback
Published August 15, 1990
2 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
July 10, 2017The copy of the edition in the possession of this review has 179 pages.
#aphids - p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p9, p10, p11, p12, p13, p15, p16, p17, p18, p19, p23, p24, p25, p28, p29, p31, p32, p34, p36, p37, p38, p39, p40, p41, p42, p44, p45, p52, p53, p54, p55, p56, p57, p58, p59, p60, p61, p63, p64, p65, p66, p67, p68, p70, p71, p73, p76, p77, p79, p81, p82, p83, p85, p86, p87, p88, p90, p91, p93, p94, p96, p98, p100, p101, p102, p103, p104, p105, p106, p107, p108, p109, p110, p112, p113, p114, p115, p116, p117, p118, p124, p125, p126, p127, p128, p129, p130, p131, p132, p133, p134, p135, p136, p137, p138, p139, p140, p141, p142, p143, p144, p145, p147, p148, p149, p150, p152, p153.
On page 5, to what extent could the availability of decent anchoring processes assist with 'In order to discern "new events" or new communications one must problematize the nature of communications in modern society by retheorizing the relation between action and language, behavio(u)r and belief, material reality and culture."? (also on p14 with 'A full study of the concept of the mode of information requires an assessment of the impact of the mass of self-referential information that confronts the individual.'?) How would the arguments on pp7-8 relate to those concerned with the balance of system architectures, resilience and trigger points? What else appears to be relevant in this context (the executive summary is offered on p140)?
On page 13, considering the paragraph beginning "The function of representation comes to grief when words lose their connection with things and come to stand in the place of things, in short, when language represents itself.", to what extent is it clear under which circumstances instances of we're-us-over-here-and-we-do-what-we-do-in-the-way-in-which-we-do-what-we-do-and-that's-all-that-there-is-ism arise and what decent modalities are available to handle, address and resolve the proximate and distal arguments?
Absent decent anchoring processes, or indeed with them, to what extent do especially significant problems arise on pvii with "The position I develop in this book evolved over a period of several years."? To what extent is it clear on p22 (or the subsequent pages) which normative considerations underpin the arguments presented?
What schizophrenia hazards are associated with the content on pp15-16 and how might they best be mitigated? What else appears to be relevant in this context?
On p28, what does "By treating information as an economic rather than a linguistic fact [etc]" assume, and which considerations of value are(/should be) significant in the arguments on pp27-9? On p33, "Science must be analysed as a set of discourses and practices that both works to eliminate toil and extend the powers of dominant social forces." appears to beg the odd question or two. As indeed does "I suggest that what is lacking in Weber is a theory of communicative action that is linguistically based, such as the theory I am developing here as the mode of information." on p37, subject presumably to any constraints imposed by "...Weberian social science is not set up to decipher a society that increasingly is characterized by electronically mediated forms of information exchange." on p38.
Chapter two begins, under the sub-heading The Media and the Mode of Information with "Historians and social theorists have not given much attention to the media, considering how much time is spent with them by individuals across class lines and income groups. So undeveloped is the discussion of the media that little agreement exists about their nature much less about how they are to be interpreted." which seems rather unique. How resolvable could Niklas Luhmann's position be might the we think? On page 49, to what extent is "One of the frustrations of social science and of market research in particular has been the inability to establish clear correlations between TV ads and consumber behavio(u)r." valid (taking into account the arguments on p75)?
Considering the argument at the end of p45 and onto p46, to the extent that every picture tells a thousand words, how much more and what kinds of information are conveyed by moving pictures with sound delivered from a distance to the magic lantern in the corner? What else appears to be relevant in this context (inc the arguments on p67)?
On p57, "Baudrillard synthesized the Barthes of Mythologies with a Lacanian Freud: commodities generate desire by merging fantasies with banalities, the erotic and the economic. The merger is accomplished semiotically, by transforming the structure of the language." should be de-convoluted, dis-aggregated and gone through carefully at,in an appropriate time, setting.
With respect to Prof Poster's argument to the contrary on p64, "We live everywhere already..." appears to relate to some contemporary lived experiences, and the related issues and arguments need to be addressed at,in an appropriate time, setting.
There's a certain poetry to the arguments on p65, and the conclusion, namely "One cannot have it both ways: either Baudrillard has got it wrong and the hyperreal does not correspond to the practices of self-constitution in contemporary society, or something is at play in Baudrillard's position that uncovers an important feature of society, one that cannot be accounted for from within the categories of the mode of production, one whose articulated complexity requires discursive strategies that are antithetical to Marxism." Could well be. Enter stage centre to tell us what's going on: the very serious people, and Prof K. for the rebuttal. How might the arguments on p80 be adjusted to take account of the social media environment?
On p84, the reader is offered "Language is a material thing in the world regardless of how one configures its characteristics." and on p85 "Speech is framed by space/time coordinates of dramatic action. Writing is framed by space/time coordinates of books and sheets of paper. Both are available to logics of representation. Electronic language, on the contrary, does not lend itself to being so framed. It is everywhere and nowhere, always and never. It is truly material/immaterial." To what extent is the argument about electronic language, understood in this context to mean that which is capable of being uploaded onto, stored in and retrieved from an electronic database, valid? What else appears to be relevant in this context?
On p88, the arguments around 'Weber's Kantian insistence on the distinction between scientific knowledge and social "reality," while perhaps defensible for certain epistemological purposes, obscures the connection between instrumentally rational bureaucracies and social science. In addition, it deflects his position away from the analysis of scientific discourse as a configuration of language. [etc.]" need to take place at,in an appropriate time, setting. As well as those around the boot-on-the-neck surveillance arrangements of Bentham's Panopticon on pp89-94 and pp97-8.
The argument about the loss of the tangible quality of cultural content stored digitally is well-made at the end of p95; the issues are developed further in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, and since these works have been published, the market for physical books and recordings in vinyl appears to be doing well.
To what extent would having the arguments around "I shall analyse how the introduction of electronic writing functions to destabilize the figure of the subject as it is drawn in the great traditions of Western thought, the Cartesian subject who stands outside the world of objects in a position that enables certain knowledge of an opposing world of objects, or the Kantian subject who is both outside the world [etc]. Electronic writing, I shall argue, disperses the subject so that it no longer functions as a centre in the way it did in pre-electronic writing." be sensible in the near future at,in an appropriate time, setting? To what extent might classicists be apt to suggest that doing so may risk locking the participants either in some equivalent of a Thucydides trap or otherwise have them playing the role of a narrator of a Greek tragedy?
The effects on third parties of the arguments on pp115-24 appear not to be elaborated.
On p128, to what extent, taking into account circumstances and context, is it valid to characterise electronic messages distributed across cyberspace as a monstrosity? What sort of anchoring arrangements to include suitable tree-structures backing the sender, recipient and delivery pathways may overcome such a monster? What else may be relevant in this context?
Considering the text on pp135-7, to what extent might it be possible to find a better description of the lived experience of schizophrenia?
#aphids - p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p9, p10, p11, p12, p13, p15, p16, p17, p18, p19, p23, p24, p25, p28, p29, p31, p32, p34, p36, p37, p38, p39, p40, p41, p42, p44, p45, p52, p53, p54, p55, p56, p57, p58, p59, p60, p61, p63, p64, p65, p66, p67, p68, p70, p71, p73, p76, p77, p79, p81, p82, p83, p85, p86, p87, p88, p90, p91, p93, p94, p96, p98, p100, p101, p102, p103, p104, p105, p106, p107, p108, p109, p110, p112, p113, p114, p115, p116, p117, p118, p124, p125, p126, p127, p128, p129, p130, p131, p132, p133, p134, p135, p136, p137, p138, p139, p140, p141, p142, p143, p144, p145, p147, p148, p149, p150, p152, p153.
On page 5, to what extent could the availability of decent anchoring processes assist with 'In order to discern "new events" or new communications one must problematize the nature of communications in modern society by retheorizing the relation between action and language, behavio(u)r and belief, material reality and culture."? (also on p14 with 'A full study of the concept of the mode of information requires an assessment of the impact of the mass of self-referential information that confronts the individual.'?) How would the arguments on pp7-8 relate to those concerned with the balance of system architectures, resilience and trigger points? What else appears to be relevant in this context (the executive summary is offered on p140)?
On page 13, considering the paragraph beginning "The function of representation comes to grief when words lose their connection with things and come to stand in the place of things, in short, when language represents itself.", to what extent is it clear under which circumstances instances of we're-us-over-here-and-we-do-what-we-do-in-the-way-in-which-we-do-what-we-do-and-that's-all-that-there-is-ism arise and what decent modalities are available to handle, address and resolve the proximate and distal arguments?
Absent decent anchoring processes, or indeed with them, to what extent do especially significant problems arise on pvii with "The position I develop in this book evolved over a period of several years."? To what extent is it clear on p22 (or the subsequent pages) which normative considerations underpin the arguments presented?
What schizophrenia hazards are associated with the content on pp15-16 and how might they best be mitigated? What else appears to be relevant in this context?
On p28, what does "By treating information as an economic rather than a linguistic fact [etc]" assume, and which considerations of value are(/should be) significant in the arguments on pp27-9? On p33, "Science must be analysed as a set of discourses and practices that both works to eliminate toil and extend the powers of dominant social forces." appears to beg the odd question or two. As indeed does "I suggest that what is lacking in Weber is a theory of communicative action that is linguistically based, such as the theory I am developing here as the mode of information." on p37, subject presumably to any constraints imposed by "...Weberian social science is not set up to decipher a society that increasingly is characterized by electronically mediated forms of information exchange." on p38.
Chapter two begins, under the sub-heading The Media and the Mode of Information with "Historians and social theorists have not given much attention to the media, considering how much time is spent with them by individuals across class lines and income groups. So undeveloped is the discussion of the media that little agreement exists about their nature much less about how they are to be interpreted." which seems rather unique. How resolvable could Niklas Luhmann's position be might the we think? On page 49, to what extent is "One of the frustrations of social science and of market research in particular has been the inability to establish clear correlations between TV ads and consumber behavio(u)r." valid (taking into account the arguments on p75)?
Considering the argument at the end of p45 and onto p46, to the extent that every picture tells a thousand words, how much more and what kinds of information are conveyed by moving pictures with sound delivered from a distance to the magic lantern in the corner? What else appears to be relevant in this context (inc the arguments on p67)?
On p57, "Baudrillard synthesized the Barthes of Mythologies with a Lacanian Freud: commodities generate desire by merging fantasies with banalities, the erotic and the economic. The merger is accomplished semiotically, by transforming the structure of the language." should be de-convoluted, dis-aggregated and gone through carefully at,in an appropriate time, setting.
With respect to Prof Poster's argument to the contrary on p64, "We live everywhere already..." appears to relate to some contemporary lived experiences, and the related issues and arguments need to be addressed at,in an appropriate time, setting.
There's a certain poetry to the arguments on p65, and the conclusion, namely "One cannot have it both ways: either Baudrillard has got it wrong and the hyperreal does not correspond to the practices of self-constitution in contemporary society, or something is at play in Baudrillard's position that uncovers an important feature of society, one that cannot be accounted for from within the categories of the mode of production, one whose articulated complexity requires discursive strategies that are antithetical to Marxism." Could well be. Enter stage centre to tell us what's going on: the very serious people, and Prof K. for the rebuttal. How might the arguments on p80 be adjusted to take account of the social media environment?
On p84, the reader is offered "Language is a material thing in the world regardless of how one configures its characteristics." and on p85 "Speech is framed by space/time coordinates of dramatic action. Writing is framed by space/time coordinates of books and sheets of paper. Both are available to logics of representation. Electronic language, on the contrary, does not lend itself to being so framed. It is everywhere and nowhere, always and never. It is truly material/immaterial." To what extent is the argument about electronic language, understood in this context to mean that which is capable of being uploaded onto, stored in and retrieved from an electronic database, valid? What else appears to be relevant in this context?
On p88, the arguments around 'Weber's Kantian insistence on the distinction between scientific knowledge and social "reality," while perhaps defensible for certain epistemological purposes, obscures the connection between instrumentally rational bureaucracies and social science. In addition, it deflects his position away from the analysis of scientific discourse as a configuration of language. [etc.]" need to take place at,in an appropriate time, setting. As well as those around the boot-on-the-neck surveillance arrangements of Bentham's Panopticon on pp89-94 and pp97-8.
The argument about the loss of the tangible quality of cultural content stored digitally is well-made at the end of p95; the issues are developed further in Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, and since these works have been published, the market for physical books and recordings in vinyl appears to be doing well.
To what extent would having the arguments around "I shall analyse how the introduction of electronic writing functions to destabilize the figure of the subject as it is drawn in the great traditions of Western thought, the Cartesian subject who stands outside the world of objects in a position that enables certain knowledge of an opposing world of objects, or the Kantian subject who is both outside the world [etc]. Electronic writing, I shall argue, disperses the subject so that it no longer functions as a centre in the way it did in pre-electronic writing." be sensible in the near future at,in an appropriate time, setting? To what extent might classicists be apt to suggest that doing so may risk locking the participants either in some equivalent of a Thucydides trap or otherwise have them playing the role of a narrator of a Greek tragedy?
The effects on third parties of the arguments on pp115-24 appear not to be elaborated.
On p128, to what extent, taking into account circumstances and context, is it valid to characterise electronic messages distributed across cyberspace as a monstrosity? What sort of anchoring arrangements to include suitable tree-structures backing the sender, recipient and delivery pathways may overcome such a monster? What else may be relevant in this context?
Considering the text on pp135-7, to what extent might it be possible to find a better description of the lived experience of schizophrenia?
January 1, 2009
The Mode of Information as posited by Mr. Poster is a post-structuralist paradigm we can employ to explain the rise of technology and its effect on the human psyche. Mr Poster takes the great philosophers of the latter portion of the 20th Century and applies their work to different technological advances of the period. The synthesis of these connections creates the paradigm that is the Mode of Information, a concept that explains why the human mind is so transformed by the very powers itself has created. Much of the work is limited by example that strays from the heart of the argument, but there should be little doubt in the usefulness of the perspective. Further investigations into this idea is desired by Mr. Poster.
September 10, 2016
Review published in Criticism 33.2 (1991): 268-271.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews