At 01:26 PM 9/11/2004, you wrote:
Yup, that's what a student in my first class (Tech & Society) told me. I forget if it was by John, Paul, Ringo or George.
The comment made me realize that I should include in the syllabus a potted article on the history of computing, from Einiac to Pentiums and wireless.
Picking up a parallel thread to exploring computer history - I have been incensed, if I might put it in those terms, at the lack of interest in most communications research programs on the general topic of communications history. Indeed, the lack of understanding on these issues by my students is so profound that I find it almost impossible, or at least improbable to move forward on others issues. I would generalize that the understanding of history in general is becoming erratic, a factor that plays into various know-nothing political stances these days. For instructors like myself who have very little say in what courses are taught in the departments with which I am affiliated, this great lack of understanding on both the faculty as well as the students I think presents a great theoretical hole in not only Internet Studies, but in communication research in general. (I am doing a little study on this right now, not that I know where such research might be welcome). I am teaching a course on 'computer mediated communication' right now, with over half the class consisting of graduate students in communication. Now I wanted to contextualize the development of the computer into the larger developments of comm history. Indeed, I like to think about the question as to whether the development of the Internet and CMC during the later 20th century was 'revolutionary' or 'evolutionary' or what. I want to make sure that we wouldn't be too quick to jump on techno-determinist or cultural-determinist ideological camps, and to see how the impact of new media can reflect, play into, and influence contemporary techno-communicational developments. Ok. Computers in 1968, Barry? I asked my students when Gutenberg developed his revolutionary iteration of the printing press - and not only could not a single student tell me within a 100 years, but the answers were simply astonishing (1700!). Dates of the larger developments in comm history, even from a Euro-centric perspective were not forthcoming. What little comm history they did know was related to mass media (there were some grunts of acknowledgement when I asked about the penny press, but not much understanding when I mentioned the telegraph as the beginning of the global, electronic, network society). The same was true as I talked about the history of the discipline itself: Paul Lazersfeld, who's he? Indeed, not one of my students had heard of Marshall McLuhan (and how could they in a traditional media course?). My course on CMC, which I had planned as only exploring the state of the field since 9/11 and the dot.com bust is now spending a lot more time setting up an understanding of the media world even before Turing, von Neuman, etc. Indeed more contemporary historical awareness - for example, the complete lack of awareness bout the existence or promise of the Whole Earth Catalog - can be so lacking that a question about the inter-relation of the WECatalog, the California Ideology, the Sharing economies, and the rise of the WEB invite confusion. However, I don't see resources out there to address this problem. Sigh. Willard Willard Uncapher, Ph.D. / Network Emergence / 8706 Kendall Court, Arvada, CO 80003 mailto:nwu1@columbia.edu / http://www.well.com/user/willard