What do you think?
Rate this book
Media Ecology: An Approach to Understanding the Human Condition
Media An Approach to Understanding the Human Condition provides a long-awaited and much anticipated introduction to media ecology, a field of inquiry defined as the study of media as environments. Lance Strate presents a clear and concise explanation of an intellectual tradition concerned with much more than understanding media, but rather with understanding the conditions that shape us as human beings, drive human history, and determine the prospects for our survival as a species. Much more than a summary, this book represents a new synthesis that moves the field forward in a manner that is both unique and unprecedented, and simultaneously grounded in an unparalleled grasp of media ecology's intellectual foundations and its relation to other disciplines. Taking as its subject matter "life, the universe, and everything," Strate describes the field as interdisciplinary and communication-centered, provides a detailed explication of McLuhan's famous aphorism, "the medium is the message," and explains that the human condition can only be understood in the context of our biophysical, technological, and symbolic environments. Strate provides an in-depth examination of media ecology's four key medium , which is defined in much broader terms than in other fields; bias , which refers to tendencies inherent in materials and methods; effects , which are best understood via the Aristotelian notion of formal causality and contemporary systems theory; and environment , which includes the distinctions between the oral, chirographic, typographic, and electronic media environments. A chapter on tools serves as a guide to further media ecological research and scholarship. This book is well suited for graduate and undergraduate courses on communication theory and philosophy.
258 pages, Paperback
Published July 4, 2017
1 person is currently reading
43 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 9, 2021
Foundational Concepts for Further Field Work - Since having some familiarity with Strate’s work, I was interested to see this volume to get his view on the current status of the Medial Ecology field and its possible direction. Early on the author indicates his intent to provide an introduction for those new as well as those already involved with such learning for continuing work as scholars and practitioners. His aim is to offer a new synthesis of foundational concepts for this interdisciplinary and communication centered study of media as environments.
After recapping some of the pioneering work in the field by such luminaries as Marshall McLuhan (University of Toronto), Neil Postman (New York University) and Walter Ong (St. Louis University) in a Preface and Introduction, Strate goes on to convey the “Intersections” among related disciplines and his way of “Understanding Media Ecology.” In the following chapters, he sets forth various means of describing the “Human Condition,” a “Medium” (communication vehicle, technology or other human innovation), its “Bias” (or tendencies), its “Effects” (or social impacts), and the ways it shapes its “Environment.” Finally, the author brings together these ideas into some suggested “Tools” that can be used for media analysis and per his “Conclusion” possible advancement of our knowledge in this regard.
Given my management background, I particularly liked the Strate’s use of charts and diagrams which can also be viewed as summarizing the notions presented (not unlike Genosko’s "Remodelling Communication: From WWII to the WWW (Toronto Studies in Semiotics and Communication)"). More specifically, he represents Three Human Conditions/Media Environments (Figure 4.1, pg. 92), a Model of Communication Based on Formal Cause (Figure 7.1, pg. 180), and a Ziggurat Model of the Electronic Media Environment (Figure 8.4, pg. 224) that completes a build through oral, chirographic, typographic, as well as electronic media (in Mesopotamian stepped tower form). Lastly, the author illustrates his Pathways for Media Ecology Scholarship (Figure 9.1, pg. 230).
Among my favorite parts were Strate’s attention to McLuhan’s dissertation involving the classic Trivium and his identification of the media sage, himself and Media Ecologists as grammarians (e.g. see Coupland’s "Marshall McLuhan: You Know Nothing of My Work!") were pertinent for me. His allusions to Ong’s concerns with the orality to literacy transition, the impact of dialectician Ramus, and the advent of secondary orality through radio and other media since (see "An Ong Reader: Challanges for Further Inquiry (Hampton Press Communication Series Media Ecology)" ) also added to this context. Similarly, were his mention of Havelock’s focus on the emergence of writing’s influence on Plato and Aristotle and their efforts to counteract the rhetoricians (see McEwen’s "Eric Havelock and the Toronto School"). Then, there were nuggets such as his reference to Postman’s 1968 address to National Council of Teachers of English on “Media Ecology: The English of the Future,” the field’s interplay with other disciplines (e.g. see my review of Huber and Morreale’s "Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground" and the other titles above), and his reference to scholarship and intellectual work as a network of relationships.
While Strate does admit that “Media Ecology has a strong philosophical and theoretical bent . . . ,” he claims the field “ . . . has proven to be quite useful in informing practical concerns . . . or praxis, practice informed by scholarship . . .” However, there is little coverage of such matters here, and this appears to be one area where more effort is warranted. Also, further could be done to tie together and utilize the models State has posited. Hopefully, there will be progress along these lines as the field moves forward to build on what State has provided.
After recapping some of the pioneering work in the field by such luminaries as Marshall McLuhan (University of Toronto), Neil Postman (New York University) and Walter Ong (St. Louis University) in a Preface and Introduction, Strate goes on to convey the “Intersections” among related disciplines and his way of “Understanding Media Ecology.” In the following chapters, he sets forth various means of describing the “Human Condition,” a “Medium” (communication vehicle, technology or other human innovation), its “Bias” (or tendencies), its “Effects” (or social impacts), and the ways it shapes its “Environment.” Finally, the author brings together these ideas into some suggested “Tools” that can be used for media analysis and per his “Conclusion” possible advancement of our knowledge in this regard.
Given my management background, I particularly liked the Strate’s use of charts and diagrams which can also be viewed as summarizing the notions presented (not unlike Genosko’s "Remodelling Communication: From WWII to the WWW (Toronto Studies in Semiotics and Communication)"). More specifically, he represents Three Human Conditions/Media Environments (Figure 4.1, pg. 92), a Model of Communication Based on Formal Cause (Figure 7.1, pg. 180), and a Ziggurat Model of the Electronic Media Environment (Figure 8.4, pg. 224) that completes a build through oral, chirographic, typographic, as well as electronic media (in Mesopotamian stepped tower form). Lastly, the author illustrates his Pathways for Media Ecology Scholarship (Figure 9.1, pg. 230).
Among my favorite parts were Strate’s attention to McLuhan’s dissertation involving the classic Trivium and his identification of the media sage, himself and Media Ecologists as grammarians (e.g. see Coupland’s "Marshall McLuhan: You Know Nothing of My Work!") were pertinent for me. His allusions to Ong’s concerns with the orality to literacy transition, the impact of dialectician Ramus, and the advent of secondary orality through radio and other media since (see "An Ong Reader: Challanges for Further Inquiry (Hampton Press Communication Series Media Ecology)" ) also added to this context. Similarly, were his mention of Havelock’s focus on the emergence of writing’s influence on Plato and Aristotle and their efforts to counteract the rhetoricians (see McEwen’s "Eric Havelock and the Toronto School"). Then, there were nuggets such as his reference to Postman’s 1968 address to National Council of Teachers of English on “Media Ecology: The English of the Future,” the field’s interplay with other disciplines (e.g. see my review of Huber and Morreale’s "Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Exploring Common Ground" and the other titles above), and his reference to scholarship and intellectual work as a network of relationships.
While Strate does admit that “Media Ecology has a strong philosophical and theoretical bent . . . ,” he claims the field “ . . . has proven to be quite useful in informing practical concerns . . . or praxis, practice informed by scholarship . . .” However, there is little coverage of such matters here, and this appears to be one area where more effort is warranted. Also, further could be done to tie together and utilize the models State has posited. Hopefully, there will be progress along these lines as the field moves forward to build on what State has provided.
January 25, 2022
The views of media within the tradition associated with McLuhan and Postman are commonly attributed solely to them. They are undoubtedly the towering figures. But media ecology cannot be reduced to their legacy. In fact, the field has developed considerably since then. Many new names and concepts have flowed in.
Lance Strate is a leading expert in media ecology. He was a doctoral student of Neil Postman in the 1980s and one of the founders of the Media Ecology Association in 1998. While Strate assures the reader that his take on media ecology is only one of many possible, his expertise makes the book the most up-to-date inventory of media ecological trends and concepts.
Strate traces the origin of the term “media ecology” to the 58th annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English held in Milwaukee on November 29, 1968. Neil Postman delivered the address and introduced the concept. It was there that Postman defined media ecology as “the study of media as environments”.
Following Postman’s description of media ecology as a “field of inquiry”, Strate reviews all the important scholarly areas and concepts that inform media ecological exploration. Historically, the interest in media came from communication. Admitting to the “communication-centred” character of media ecology, Strate, however, refuses to see media ecology as a “subset of communication studies”. He charts the broad set of intersections – from grammar, semantics, and cybernetics to psychology, biology, science, and technology studies and from philosophy, history, and theology to futurism, media education, and activism. The inventory deserves a visualization, as it would make a good mind map of concepts and names contributing to media ecology in one way or another.
The multidisciplinary character and nearly universal scope of media ecology creates an epistemological challenge – how to seize the unseizable. Strate has found a solution. He singled out four central concepts of media ecology and grouped around them all other notions, concepts, theories, and names. This epistemological taxonomy is, perhaps, the most important and innovative finding of the book. The four central concepts are “Medium”, “Bias”, “Effect”, and “Environment”. Each of them gives the name to a chapter with the notion’s analysis and a review of the most important ideas and authors. As it turns out, the broad range of material, anthropological, historical, philosophical, environmental, symbolical and all other facets of media ecology, despite their heterogeneity, fit just fine into these four fundamental categories, thus providing a coherent view of the field.
This solution also helps to organize the inventory of media ecological methods. In the last chapter, called “Tools”, the methods are grouped around the same four central concepts. Additionally, the chapter contains a number of extensive lists of study questions that can be used as bearing structures in many syllabuses focused on studying media.
Lance Strate is a leading expert in media ecology. He was a doctoral student of Neil Postman in the 1980s and one of the founders of the Media Ecology Association in 1998. While Strate assures the reader that his take on media ecology is only one of many possible, his expertise makes the book the most up-to-date inventory of media ecological trends and concepts.
Strate traces the origin of the term “media ecology” to the 58th annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English held in Milwaukee on November 29, 1968. Neil Postman delivered the address and introduced the concept. It was there that Postman defined media ecology as “the study of media as environments”.
Following Postman’s description of media ecology as a “field of inquiry”, Strate reviews all the important scholarly areas and concepts that inform media ecological exploration. Historically, the interest in media came from communication. Admitting to the “communication-centred” character of media ecology, Strate, however, refuses to see media ecology as a “subset of communication studies”. He charts the broad set of intersections – from grammar, semantics, and cybernetics to psychology, biology, science, and technology studies and from philosophy, history, and theology to futurism, media education, and activism. The inventory deserves a visualization, as it would make a good mind map of concepts and names contributing to media ecology in one way or another.
The multidisciplinary character and nearly universal scope of media ecology creates an epistemological challenge – how to seize the unseizable. Strate has found a solution. He singled out four central concepts of media ecology and grouped around them all other notions, concepts, theories, and names. This epistemological taxonomy is, perhaps, the most important and innovative finding of the book. The four central concepts are “Medium”, “Bias”, “Effect”, and “Environment”. Each of them gives the name to a chapter with the notion’s analysis and a review of the most important ideas and authors. As it turns out, the broad range of material, anthropological, historical, philosophical, environmental, symbolical and all other facets of media ecology, despite their heterogeneity, fit just fine into these four fundamental categories, thus providing a coherent view of the field.
This solution also helps to organize the inventory of media ecological methods. In the last chapter, called “Tools”, the methods are grouped around the same four central concepts. Additionally, the chapter contains a number of extensive lists of study questions that can be used as bearing structures in many syllabuses focused on studying media.
December 20, 2022
Useful introduction to media ecology, which is a theoretical tradition that sees media as our environment, and as shaping us. The first few chapters do a good job of laying out the foundational scholars (Marshall McLuhan, Harold Innis, Neil Postman, Jacque Ellul etc, it’s a very male canon although Christine Nystrom is mentioned many times, and Camille Paglia and Hannah Arendt also feature. I found it interesting how close media ecology gets to posthumanism and feminist new materialism - but then it doesn’t. Relationships are key here, Luhmann’s systems theory is central but critiqued for maybe assuming that there is a clear boundary between “me” and “not me”. The ecological is so close to assemblages but media ecology, or at least strate, keep the human and even Arendt’s “human condition” firmly centred. Well-written book, worth reading at least the first chapters if you want an overview of the field. I think the first chapters would work well for students too.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews