Denied a political conduit?

Question

Hi everyoneDenied a political conduit, the electronic self is reactive only – often swaying between fear and anger:I could not find what political conduit means and it seemed tough to me to figure out who denied a political conduit? Does electronic self do it? if so why the author prefer stating it with gerund form of deny?

Clive · Accepted Answer

It's hard to make sense of this without more context. Can you provide some, please?

There is no gerund form of 'deny' here.The gerund is 'denying'.

Ahmet Faruk Cecen · Answer

So sorry for forgetting to add the source and quoted material. It is Communication Theory; Media, Technology and Society belonging to David Holmes.

After setting up this sentence author directs us a quote

Denied a political conduit, the electronic self is reactive only – often swaying
between fear and anger:

Frightened by the accelerating speed of technological change, distressed by
the loss of disposable income, worried about a future without jobs, and
angry at the government, the electronic self oscillates between fear and
rage. Rather than objectify its anger in a critical analysis of the public situation,
diagnosing, for example, the deep relationship between the rise of
the technological class and the loss of jobs, the electronic self is taught by
the media elite to turn the ‘self’ into a form of self-contempt. (76)

Clive · Answer

I really need the preceding text, including something that explains what 'the electronic self' means.

Clive

Ahmet Faruk Cecen · Answer

It is site the author quoted from http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?id=78

the rest is the whole section

Communication and mobile privatization

The role of communication in urban cultures cannot simply be reduced to
the multiplication of urban units but relates to the way the communicative
mediums which they make possible allow for ever greater mobilities
from within these units. This tendency is accentuated by the diffusion of
new media, as the virtual urban futures thesis maintains (see Chapter 3),
but in truth it is characteristic of all electronic media, not just those of a
second media age. As I have argued elsewhere (Holmes, 2001), electronic
media do not have to be portable to provide mobility, as it is possible to
‘travel’ with audio-visual and interface media, even when the body is in
stasis.
The products of information capitalism are themselves commodities,
but their most significant quality is that they commodify subjective and
intersubjective experience. In the context of urban cultures, the endgame
of such a process culminates in private bubbles of communication and
commuting.
The definition of ‘private’ is here extended from its typical use in
economics and politics. As Margaret Morse (1998) uses it in a spatial
sense, privatization refers to the way in which certain urban spaces, like
privately owned and controlled shopping malls and the home, become
refuges which de-realize their ‘outside’ environments. For example, the
historical separation of workplace and household becomes exaggerated
by broadcast media, where the shrinking public realm only has enough
room in it for work itself, whilst the pursuit of leisure is expected to take
place in the home. ‘The process of distancing the worker from the workplace
and the enclosure of domestic life in the home, separated from its
social surroundings, allowed a compensatory realm of fantasy to flourish’
(109). For Morse, the home physically disconnects itself from an
outside, virtualizing itself on scales that expand as the public realm
contracts.
Such privacy, described in the information technology industry as
‘personalization’, was advanced by Raymond Williams (1983) in his concept
of mobile privatization: ‘At most active social levels people are
increasingly living as private small-family units or, disrupting even that,
as private and deliberately self-enclosed individuals, while at the same
time there is an unprecedented mobility of such restricted privacies’ (188).
Williams argues that the private ‘shells’ of the motor car, office and home
unit gradually become extended by new media in ways in which it
becomes possible to travel without physical movement. The paradox of
MTV or the World Wide Web is that thousands of images can stream past
us every hour, where we can be transported around the world at lightning
speed, sampling countless other places, styles and impressions, whilst we
are stationed in absolute stasis, our only motion being with a mouse or
remote control. New media give us a mobility which exempts the consumer
from having to leave the comfort of his or her shell, even his or her
armchair. Such shells do not have to be physical; indeed, the space in front
of a computer screen is one that is intensely personalized, designed for a
single user with the right password, and with icons, characters and images
which demand a face-to-screen association.
Mobile privatization is not merely a trend in domestic and civic
life; it also mediates the modern workplace (see Greenfield, 1999) and
post-workplace trends evident in telework (see Morelli, 2001). The most
important feature of Williams’ concept for the present discussion is that
media-based mobility can be interactive or derived from broadcast. In
Television, Technology and Cultural Form (1974) Williams describes how the
increasingly private refuge of home and family generates the need for ‘new
kinds of contact’ and ‘news from “outside”, from otherwise inaccessible
sources’ (27). Such a need generated from the fact of urbanization may be
met just as much by letters and telephone as it is by Internet connections,
mobile telephones and texting. However, the more mobile and portable
such means of connection are, the more we can translate the private refuge
of the home into the electronically generated recluse of communication
bubbles which de-realize our relation to physical public space. The more
such bubbles are occupied, the less likely are face-to-face forms of recognition.
What face-to-face relations do exist in the public sphere are jeopardized,
or made more schizophrenic, by the always open possibility that
a mobile phone will ring or a message device will beep.
The endgame of mobile privatization is, according to Arthur and
Marilouise Kroker (1996), a radically divided self – a self which is at war
with itself – split between an embodied self and an electronic identity.
Because of this, there is a demand on each individual to find protective
shells in which to co-exist. The Walkman and the mobile phone are powerful
examples of the micro-personalization of the self in public life – what
the Krokers call the ‘electronic self’:
… the electronic self is torn between contradictory impulses towards
privacy and the public, the natural self and the social self, private imagination
and electronic fantasy. The price for reconciling the divided self by
sacrificing one side of the electronic personality is severe. If it abandons
private identity and actually becomes media (Cineplex mind, IMAX imagination,
MTV chat, CNN nerves), the electronic self will suffer terminal
repression. However, if it seals itself off from public life by retreating to an
electronic cell in the suburbs or a computer condo in the city, it quickly
falls into an irreal world of electronic MOO-room fun within the armoured
windows. (74)
The electronic self seeks to ‘immunize
that bunkering in is about something really simple: being sick of others and
trying to shelter the beleaguered self in a techno-bubble. (75)
According to the Krokers, such an electronic self becomes incapable of
negotiating a pre-virtual public world and becomes politically tuned out
and socially awkward:
Suffering electronic amnesia on the public and its multiple viewpoints,
going private means that the electronic self will not be in a position to maximize
its interests by struggling in an increasingly competitive economic
field. (74)

Clive · Answer

Denied a political conduit, the electronic self is reactive only – often swaying between fear and anger:

I could not find what political conduit means I think it means It means a way 'of
negotiating a pre-virtual public world' and becoming 'politically tuned' in 'and socially' adept.
The quotes are because I have tried to use the author's own words where possible.

and it seemed tough to me to figure out who denied a political conduit?
Does electronic self do it? Yes. 'It seals itself off from public life by retreating to an
electronic cell in the suburbs or a computer condo in the city'.

if so why the author prefer stating it with gerund form of deny? 'Denied' is not a gerund. It is a past participle used as an adjective to describe the electronic self.

Allow me to comment that this is a very difficult text that you are reading, even for a native speaker. Because of its length and complexity, I do not want to spend any more time on it. I hope you understand.

Clive

Ahmet Faruk Cecen · Answer

I really got it. Just cant explain how good you are. I appreciate your efforts on this.

CalifJim · Answer

Ahmet Faruk CecenDenied a political conduit

~ With no way of participating in politics
~ Not having a way of voting
~ Having no way of influencing political decisions
~ Cut off from political life

CJ

Rajaramzan56 · Answer

Hi sir,
I had a mode some any mistake while can you check my documents please?
Dear milosYou were go to take a driving test this weekend whatever if you taken a driving test don't be nervous or don't be streets. I believed you can do it and I hope we were meet on the next Monday. Do you like a dinner with me on the Monday. Would you like a pizza or Garlic bread but all so I don't like healthy food. I will look forward to seeing you then. See you my best friend.
From Wazir

CalifJim · Answer

Rajaramzan56: This is the second time you have appended your unrelated question to someone else's thread.

Please ask this as a new question. Don't add to threads which are already in progress.

CJ

Denied a political conduit?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions