Page 33 - Culture Technology Communication

18 Charles Ess

discussion of CMC technologies. As we saw in the opening para-
graphs, McLuhan’s global village and its attendant Manichean po-
larities further implicate what now appears to be an especially
American presumption that communication technologies are crucial
for the survival and expansion of democracy and individual freedom.
Moreover, especially from a philosophical approach, a range of addi-
tional presumptions can be seen to underlie the optimistic vision of
an electronic global village; presumptions, moreover, which are
quickly entangled in paradox and contradiction.
To begin with, such a vision is clearly cosmopolitan in its as-
sumptions and intentions. As traced back to as far as the Stoic
philosophers of the Greco-Roman world, this vision rests on an opti-
mistic conception of a shared (and essentially rational) humanity,
one capable of becoming the cosmo-politan—the citizen of the
world—not simply the citizen of a given country and culture. This
cosmopolitan trajectory is consciously developed to counter the eth-
nocentrism characteristic of prevailing cultures (i.e., the belief that
one’s own language/culture/worldview are the only “right” ones, and
those who adhere to differing languages/cultures/worldviews are
simply wrong, inferior, etc.).
In light of the role of culture in shaping fundamental assump-
tions, however, we can raise this question: Is this ostensibly cosmo-
politan image, as it intends to overcome the ethnocentrism of
particular cultures (as based on specific traditions, habits, prejudices,
etc.) with a universally-shared humanity, itself ethnocentric as it
rests upon culturally-limited assumptions, beginning with the char-
acteristically American belief in communication technology as central
to the spread of democratic polity? In other words, is this cosmopoli-
tan vision itself a form of “cyber-centrism,” an ethnocentrism in its
own right that runs in tension with its cosmopolitan intentions?
Similarly, the conception of an electronic global village seems to
presume that the tools of CMC—the computer codes, interfaces, etc.—
are culturally neutral, i.e., they allow perfectly transparent communi-
cation between members of all cultures, without giving preference to
the distinctive values and communication preferences of any single
culture. Philosophers denote this presumption as “technological in-
strumentalism.” At the same time, however, we have already seen
that the electronic global village also presumes a technological deter-
minism, the view that CMC technologies are not culturally neutral,
but in fact embed, convey, and reinforce specific values such as indi-
vidualism, free speech, etc. Thus, the McLuhanesque vision of an elec-
tronic global village appears to rest on two mutually contradictory