In my previous blog, ‘Cyberspace Media’ I had associated Volker Clara’s reading with Spatiality (a miscalculated mistake), rather than Mobility, although there is a clear distinction between these two topics, I must state that they do both intertwine. They both deal with the idea of space and the way we use media and how it has changed our daily lives as compared to traditional forms of media. I will write another Blog on Volker’s article based on Mobility, but for now I will be focusing on Space and thus Shaun Moore’s article, ‘Doubling of Space,’ for week 4’s reading.
Shaun Moore has written his article in an interesting way. He begins to refer to old traditional broadcast mediums such as the television and the radio by analyzing Scannell’s concept of ‘doubling space.’ His argument deals with the media as a form that enables “simultaneity, liveliness and immediacy.” Although he agrees with Scannell, he also acknowledges that in the contemporary society the study of media reception is not what is was. Programming was essential part of the TV and Radio channels, it defined the ‘performer and ‘the audience,’ however now with the emergence of the internet and the telephone this concept has changed. Moore uses in Meyrowtiz, Josepeh, in his article to outline this transformation of how we use the media in the modern world. He refers to Meyrowtiz and Gidden’s Anthony to show that the media, particularly electronic and digitalized forms has changed our sense of place and timing. Moore refers to Meywrotiz to explain the sense of media transforming the world to a “relatively placeless” society. However, Moore also states Meyrowtiz has “overestimated the degree of change”, and that rather we live in a “pluralized place” (p.22-23).
The concept of a ‘pluralized place’ is coherently constructed throughout Shaun Moore’s article. Using the concept of temporal change in daily and domestic lives through broadcast media, he outlines the concept of ‘doubling space.’ ‘Doubling space’, is more about extending time, the interruption of routine exemplifies this; whereas I previously associated spatiality with constraining space using mobile technologies, in my article Cyberspace: Spatiality. Although for most routine based people whom which may be able to associate certain situations with Moore’s article, in his concept of doubling space. I shall pose an alternative question perhaps challenging the double, extension concept of space and experience; “Do you feel that Time and Space fly’s bye much faster when focusing on two things at once?” For example, during the Olympic Games, I found myself watching an event on the job, on the television screens in stores and cafes, and then running off to work. Furthermore, the English Premier League is an example, which may double space, but not necessarily interrupt routine and if so, time certainly fly’s bye without a notice. Manchester United played Aston Villa a couple of days ago, and although my space may be considered as an extension since I’m in two places at once, in my daily routine (also considered as an interruption to routine, referenced in Moore’s article), watching the match played overseas, I can certainly state that space had to be constraint into a smaller space on my tv screen positioned near my notebook where I can view my e-mails, within distance to the fridge, and in a reachable area to my drink so that I can be anywhere around the house listening to any ‘must see’ broadcast event.’ In fact, I may state, that this concept of doubling time really depends once again on social factors. Your social class, employment, age identify how your space is used up. Having said this, there is only one main medium that is universal, and this is the broadcast media, even so this universalism constraints space, as you daily routine is pushed back, or left behind to attend to the broadcast media.
Moore also argues this pluralizing place using the internet, and an ethnographic concept termed mudding. This idea of pluralizing place is dominant when exploring the concept that Moore looks at in Sherry Turkle of “creating multiple identities.” Moore also refernces Kendall’s work of 1996, and states that (p27) “Kendall’s description of her own mundane domestic practices could easily be an account of routine, distracted TV viewing in the home.” Rather than a ‘pluralization’ of place, and an extension to doubling space, I do believe that it is a form of communication once again, and pertains to your social circumstance at the time, so depending on your social class, age or even mood or situation, the internet is an aesthetic that pluralises a physical and emotional space but constraints it to yourself, rather than the concept of multiple identities. Even, the new technology, Second Life, displays this constraint in place. You may be physically in two separate worlds, but either way the place has become to be real, and set into the one place where you can loose or win ‘real’ money. There is only one world, and one identity, and pluralizing a place really just depends on your skills of multi-tasking, and other social factors pertaining to oneself.
Moore, uses one last example of mobile technology to outline his concept of pluralizing place. The use of ‘mobile electronics,’ in a “simulated co-presence in electronically mediated communication (pg 27)” outlines the experience of being in two separate worlds. In the preceding sections I have argued that like Moore, there are two plural places, but these places do not necessarily extend one’s experience of life, but rather decrease space and place making it smaller, and this experience depends on social factors based on the individual.
Moore Shaun, “The Doubling of Place:Electronic Media, Time Space Arrangements and social Relationships.” In Couldry Nick and McCarthey, Anna, Eds. MediaSpace: Place Scale and Culture in Media AgeLondon:Routledge 2004 21-37