The conversation with Fuller began with praises to Kaunas' architecture – the cultural researcher was fascinated by the view of the city from the rooftop of the Resurrection Church on the hill. First-timer in Lithuania, Fuller was impressed by our country being small, yet very cosmopolitan.
Culture is becoming digital, Google is in charge of our memories, media shapes our perception of life, computer literacy today is essential – those are just a few topics the conversation with the cultural researcher, writer and academic covered. All of them in one way or another are connected to media and ecology, as they are key concepts penetrating all research and studies in all fields of science, humanities and social sciences.
While talking about interspiecies communication you emphasize that this is not about the "green" ascetic way of life, but about more comfortable, fulfilling existence, which would become accessible with the help of other species. What do you mean?
For example, there are several hundred species of plants in Earth, and 70 percent of them are edible. However, only 200 species humans grow as crops.
Our society has a lot of taboos regarding consumption of plants. For example, in the UK people are afraid of mushrooms, because they are convinced that all mushrooms are poisonous. They do not pick mushrooms, and even kick them when they come across them. In Lithuania you know more about mushrooms, therefore you have more possibilities to experience pleasure by taking forest walks, picking mushrooms, and eating them.
Your book Evil Media talks about yet different "species" – technical forms of life.
Today's world is partially created by software. If the 20th century was the age of bureaucracy, today we certainly live in times of cyber authority. After Edward Snowden's scandal it became clear that cyber war is a part of everyday life at large corporations.
Evil Media (MIT Press, 2012), which I co-authored with Andrew Goffey, is a Machiavellian interpretation of our times. Our main question was: how would Niccolò Machiavelli have written his Prince if he wrote about media culture of the 21st century? In our book we discuss the principles and strategies behind social media, search engines. Our goal is to find cultural resonances in the exceptionally technical part of reality.
What do you mean?
Technologies are often perceived as neutral, as if they were not a part of culture, which is not entirely true. Therefore we aim to give a definition to these cultural forms which arise from the supposedly "neutral" technical context.
For example, this conversation takes place in reality, but also in the microchip of the machine, which is recording it. Today's culture is being created on several layers and some of them are inevitably software-based, some – mechanical. This is connected to power and influence – if you are a company, which writes algorithms and creates data structures, you are in charge of contemporary cultural memory.
Do you have in mind a specific company?
Yes. If in 1980s and 1990s this company was Microsoft, today it is Google. I think that nor Google, nor people working in culture and art field are entirely aware of this.
What does it mean to write, when everything you write is being interpreted by the language editing software first? For example, when I am texting, computer in my smart phone is trying to guess what I want to say. So I am not only writing for a person in my contact list, but also creating a data base, which is, at the same time, being used to create algorithms for analysing language, which are, at the same moment, trying to guess what I'm saying and offering their suggestions.
You have a word "evil" in the title of your book. Is it not too strong?
"Don't be evil" is the formal corporate motto of Google. We are using the word in this context, and we're asking: what would Google do if they tried to be "evil"?
The understanding what is power has changed fundamentally today – power is becoming digital. Therefore, to become powerful you do not have to necessarily be "evil", you just need to turn up in the place where a cultural or social event is happening.
A while ago you mentioned language. Is it still the main means of communication?
In 1960s philosophers, such as Marshall McLuhan thought that language would disappear and we would all communicate in images. This assumption proved wrong, or, to be more precise, not entirely right. Yes, there is plenty of video media, but there is also a lot of text.
Language is becoming more and more written, but it is also more and more written by machines, not people. Alphabet, which has been created for the communication between people, is now being transformed into digital codes that machines use to talk to each other.
If language is being used more, and in more various ways, why humanities are in crisis?
Yes, the situation of humanities is difficult right now. For example, in the United Kingdom humanities does not get state funding, all the resources are going to so called STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). On the other hand, STEM subjects are those who need humanities most, so they could understand the today's challenges.
It is STEM sciences that are becoming part of culture, as our society becomes more and more digitally capable. Therefore, in my opinion, new opportunities for new forms of humanities, for so-called post-humanities are emerging.
What opportunities are you talking about?
Humanities today can't be separated from science or from environmental problems, such as, for example, climate change. The new fields are emerging which can be researched only when various science fields join their interests and resources. For example, the questions of morality are being raised both by neuroscience and psychology.
Humanities are changing in the same way they were during the onset of feminism – everything from theology to law was reformed. New studies of language geography and culture emerged. In some sense, some of the questions feminism raises today are the same, which are being raised by natural sciences: what is the purpose of gender? What is being determined by biological nature?
However, it is true that humanists like to complain. The same moment new media emerges, humanists begin to whine about the end of the "Golden Age". In the 20th century the new media was TV, in the 19th – novels, and so on. It is true on some extent, but also ridiculous.
In the book you mention that those wishing to have influence today need to know computer science. How well do they have to be computer literate?
We live in an age, where culture is becoming digital. Therefore, I think it would be wise to know a little about basic digital forms, to know main concepts. You do not need to become a computer scientist, but it is essential to know, for example, what is data base, what kind of data exists and what means to store data. If you are a teenager today, it means that you spend a large part of your life in social networks, therefore you need to learn to read them as they read you – not only people, but also machines.
When you live in a city you need to understand how traffic works, so, that's the same. It is just useful knowledge about today's world.
We are being read by machines. Sounds frightening.
Not necessarily. The machines may be good. They may like you. They may take interest in you. For example, in an intensive therapy room you are expecting machines to read your vital signals right.
On the other hand – machines were created by people. So, people are probably responsible for everything machines do?
I think somewhere in the middle of 1970s we crossed the line when one person knew what is happening inside a computer. Today microchips are being created by teams, they are being grown by algorithms. Machines are learning, they can make unimaginable things on so many levels. And a human does not necessarily participate in this.
It is interesting, because individual responsibility becomes collective, social responsibility. This means that computing is a shared process, reflected by the movements such as Open Source, which encourages usage and development of open access, free software.
Now I have an image of a human being imprisoned in the world of machines. Media is becoming a new religion, which creates new codes of conduct for us.
Maybe there is a good maternal computer who takes care of all of us. Media is being called a drug and many other things – people always try to define themselves through metaphors.
Often these metaphors are also technological: in psychoanalysis we have mechanisms, and some our bodily functions are defined as "biological clock" or "neural network".
You don't criticise new media, evil is not evil and you don't think that social media makes us communicate less. Why do you think it is important to talk about media at all?
Because there are so many changes going on – climate change, atmospheric changes. We need to talk about them. We need to redefine economical, industrial relationships between different forms of life. Media is a way to understand ourselves – it helps to recognise ourselves, to communicate with others, to inform. We need to understand the ways society is being formed through media systems.
In other words – we do not have any other choice. Ecology and media are the main driving forces of contemporary world.
