Reading your essay, however, I was also struck by how a program like Conveyor comes along every so often that–as you point out–becomes “red meat” for media critics who in their real or feigned outrage are trapped between two rhetorical strategies: 1) decrying the program as some new “excessive” transgression in the medium/culture (judged, of course, against some illusory “norm”); and 2). describing the program as a “true” distillation of the genre/medium as a whole (Jersey Shore would be another good example–a show that either takes The Real World formula “too far” and/or embodies some core truth about the state of TV, youth, American Culture, etc.). It is interesting here how certain programs find a way to capture this ambiguity with such clarity–to somehow embody a “literal” truth about the medium by pushing a figurative logic to its extreme.

As further proof of how these programs can both “cite and enact” literal metaphors, I can imagine approaching Conveyor’s boxes of meaning from the other side of the belt. Isn’t the show also--quite literally– about “moving units?” “Timed units,” in Williams’ sense of course, but also units of product: eyeballs to advertisers, commodities to consumers, and–to keep things at Channy’s level–”units” to “boxes” (in this case a literal metaphor for the equally “real” and “foundational” libidinal economy that underwrites the narrative/industrial economies of the genre as a whole–”Speedo Guy” certainly understood this to be the true purpose of the program!). In other words, the program’s ability to seemingly “demystify” and expose a more material truth behind both the production and consumption sides of commercial television only reaffirms how both are caught up in the same figurative logic of basic Fordism. Even as Fordism increasingly becomes a distant fiction, it still carries immense power to shape our literal understanding of material determination in the media.

I guess the question would be the same one leveled at many post-structuralist interventions–after a particular literal/figurative divide has been exposed, noted, collapsed, then what? And please don’t make me say De Man leaves us no opportunity to “think outside the box”–but, in truth, it would appear he doesn’t. I guess this would involve unpacking in a bit more detail your use of Laclau here–especially as his model of hegemony is so different (or at least is perceived as different) from the Gramsci/Hall/CCCS paradigm that has proven so much more dominant in media studies.

I’m also fascinated by the geography you lay out here–It might be interesting to a longitudinal study of the CES and see how many products at the extreme fringe of the space (both physically and conceptually) eventually make their way closer to the center over 5 to 10 years. Or is the bar for participating in meaningful CE innovation so high that only an occasional odd ancillary device has a one or two year chance to penetrate marketing consciousness?

I did like the ‘blue face’ comment in regard to Avatar as the Jazz Singer 2!

You are right, David Parry, “new” does not really refer to newness, it simply is an attempt to dodge past debts and future obligations. It refers to a lack of continuity, a general disruption in the chain of causality. New media, like the new economy, is not really new in any strict sense. Rather, these are phenomena that are to be understood as phenomena that exist outside of the long chain of history and progress that we associate with the humanist tradition.

Great article!

I am one of the “haves;” I’m in a coffee shop on a laptop computer connected to a wireless hotspot, and my Blackberry notifies me about any new message I receive. At the same time as “new” media can be exciting and engaging to an increasing larger audience and a generation of “haves” like me, I wonder whether the “have nots” will understand the impact, the benefits, and the caveats of emerging technology. Thus, I do appreciate Dr. Parry’s suggestion of “making it weird” and bringing technological advancement into perspective within a historical and technological context. The opportunities to capture the minds of the younger generation occur within the elementary and secondary educational systems, and by stripping away the “new” aspect of the technology I believe that educators will be better able to bridge the gap between themselves and the students who look at all of the new technology as shiny, fun toys.

When the dust settles, and when wireless connectivity and ubiquitous computing are not “new” anymore, the decisions being made now in the legal and political systems will have a long and enduring impact on how a new set of students encounter the technology. To that end, I agree that the power of the “new” should not overshadow the significance of the individuals, businesses, groups and cultures that both contribute to and use these technologies.

I am interested in hearing more about the alternatives as Brett suggested. David, thank you for posing an interesting argument in relation to the impact of nomenclature on discussions such as these. I look forward to additional comments!