No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In a world of pervasive media and ubiquitous computing, this article asks what happens as everything (objects, subjects, and actions) moves toward animation across a network. How do media and mediation affect our sense of agency? I argue that the contemporary subject, as described by real-world media practice and animated film, exists within a space of accelerated mediation that distorts selfperception. I use the example of A Scanner Darkly, the 2006 Richard Linklater film, to discuss the effects of pervasive media and how it affects the parameters of selfreflection and agency. The importance of A Scanner Darkly to my argument is that it provides a vision of pervasive mediation in which subjects and objects collide. In A Scanner Darkly, I focus on the use of rotoscoping animation as visual effect and conceptual filter. Effectively, as I argue, animation is used in this case to illustrate the loss of face-to-face engagement -the impossibility of the unmediated encounter. In the first section of the article, I conceptualize a networked subject in reference to the film's rendition of a subject adrift in a field of mediation. In the second section, I contrast this vision with a formulation of networked subjectivity that engages modalities of mediated presence to explore issues of agency in light of a technologically animated environment. The question I ask is: if as a society we are subjected to a pervasive mediation, how may we imagine modes of agency within an animated world?

Has technology grabbed the reins and galloped off with us under the saddle? Are entrepreneurs and research labs and marketers riding herd, spurring technological change with consequences for who we are and what we can become? Or is it all the rest of us, as users, driving what technology is developed and how it is incorporated into social and political life, for good or ill? Who deserves the credit and who the blame, for what effect? These are not new debates, but communication studies, known more for neglecting philosophy than embracing it, has not always been party to the discussions, despite a recent fascination with new technologies in journalism and mass communication. The early days of the Internet followed by ubiquitous and powerful digital machines produced a heady optimism by many about the potential of social media for bypassing traditional gatekeepers and enabling robust networks of people across the globe. But those days are now covered in the trail dust of claims of fake news, contagions of hate and violence, trolls and bots, election interference, hacking, and opinion silos. Technology, appearing now to ride roughshod over hopes for democracy and community, is viewed in much public discourse as a culprit behind a world gone rogue. Have media researchers been complicit in this swing of perceptions from utopian to dystopian? From savior to satan? From technological determinism to determined technology? Do we have enough grounding in the philosophy of technology to ask the right questions and steer a better conversation? Have we interrogated what technologies are and how and why they are developed, the uses to which they are put, and the claims made and consequences incurred? This forum asked experienced scholars in mass communication theory and research how we should think about technology, what part it plays in how, and what we know and who and what we become. What technologies should be developed, by whom, for what purposes? And on what grounds should we judge them? The contributions in this forum give us a quartet of different voices, experiences, and problematics, raising more questions than answering them. Jeremy Swartz and Janet Wasko start off by opening up considerations about what technology is and what it does, using examples of definitions from John Dewey to 841380J MQXXX10.1177/1077699019841380Journalism & Mass Communication QuarterlyInvited Forum research-article2019 352 Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 96(2) Marshall McLuhan and beyond and conceptions of technology from biology and the environment to complex systems. On what grounds can we judge technologies, if they are the product of the same system as our values? More opportunities are needed for mass communication scholars to reimagine disciplinary and material boundaries and share research and engagement if we want to influence systems, they conclude. Carolyn Marvin invites us to consider the long sweep of technological changes and the pattern of disruptions that come in their wake, from the printing press forward. These di...